The URL can be used to link to this page

Final Response to Comments DocumentFINAL APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2011082055 September 2013 THIS EIR IS SUBJECT TO, AND THE APPLICANT HAS ELECTED TO PROCEED UNDER, CHAPTER 6.5 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 21178) OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, WHICH PROVIDES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT ANY JUDICIAL ACTION CHALLENGING THE CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR OR THE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT DESCRIBED IN THE EIR IS SUBJECT TO THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN SECTION 21185* TO 21186, INCLUSIVE, OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE.** A COPY OF CHAPTER 6.5 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 21178) OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE WAS INCLUDED AS APPENDIX I TO THE DRAFT EIR. * THIS LANGUAGE IS PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 21187 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE. PLEASE NOTE THAT, AS OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2013, SECTION 21187 REFERS TO "THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN SECTION 21178.2 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE." HOWEVER, THERE IS NO SECTION 21178.2. INSTEAD, THE RELEVANT PROCEDURES ARE SET FORTH IN SECTION 21185 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE. ** PLEASE NOTE THAT, AS OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2013, PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21185 STATES IN PART THAT "THE ACTION OR PROCEEDING SHALL BE FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL WITH GEOGRAPHIC JURISDICTION OVER THE PROJECT." THAT CODE SECTION WAS THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION COMMENCED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY (PLANNING & CONSERVATION LEAGUE V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. RG12626904). ON JUNE 3, 2013, THE COURT ISSUED ITS JUDGMENT THAT PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21185, SUBDIVISION (a)(1) IS FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID BECAUSE IT RESTRICTS THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT AND SUPERIOR COURTS, AS CONFERRED BY ARTICLE VI, SECTION 10 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. AT THE TIME OF PUBLICATION OF THIS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT, SENATE BILL 743 (PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 6.5 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE) HAD BEEN APPROVED BY BOTH THE STATE SENATE AND THE STATE ASSEMBLY. THE DEADLINE FOR THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA TO APPROVE THE BILL IS OCTOBER 13, 2013. FOR THE MOST CURRENT VERSION OF CHAPTER 6.5, PLEASE REFER TO http://Ieginfo.legislature.ca.gov/. THE STATUS OF SECTION 21185(a)(1) MAY OR MAY NOT CHANGE AFTER THE PRINTING OF THIS DOCUMENT. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES THE STATUS OF SECTION 21185(a)(1) WHEN CONTEMPLATING ANY ACTION INVOLVING CHAPTER 6.5 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE. THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE EFFECT OF THIS LITIGATION ON THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 6.5 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE. FINAL APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2011082055 Submitted to: City of Cupertino Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. 2215 Fifth Street Berkeley, California 94710 510.540.7331 September 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1 A. PURPOSE OF THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT..................................1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS....................................................................... 1 C. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION...................................................................................... 2 IL LIST OF COMMENTING AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS ............. 3 A. ORGANIZATION OF COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES ................................ 3 B. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR........................................................................................................ 3 III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES............................................................................................ 11 A. STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL AGENCIES.......................................................... 23 B. ORGANIZATIONS.......................................................................................................... 60 C. INDIVIDUALS................................................................................................................ 78 D. PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS................................................................................ 127 E. COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS ON THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT ........... 132 IV. TEXT REVISIONS................................................................................................................. 135 APPENDICES Appendix A: Comment Letters P:\COC 1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTCTinal\00-Cover-TOC.doc (09/23/13) FINAL 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure III -4 (Revised): Conceptual Site Plan — August 2013.......................................................... 25 Figure RTC -1: Visual Simulation: Looking South between Nightingale Avenue and Peacock Avenue on East Homestead Road ......................................... 27 Figure V.I-3 (Revised): Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities ................................................... 32 Figure III -4 (Revised): Conceptual Site Plan — August 2013 ........................................................136 Figure III -17a (Revised): Off -Site Street Changes...........................................................................145 Figure IV -2 (Revised): Zoning Designations................................................................................ 148 Figure IV -3 (Revised): Mitigation Measure PLAN-3................................................................... 149 Figure V.I-3 (Revised): Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities.................................................151 TABLES Table RTC -1: Trips Generated by Select Residences North of East Homestead Road .................19 Table RTC -2: Distribution of Trips on Pruneridge Avenue........................................................... 20 Table RTC -3: Levels of Service for Requested Intersections........................................................ 29 Table RTC -4: Background AM Off -Ramp Queuing (in feet)........................................................40 Table RTC -5: Caltrain AM Peak Hour Capacity........................................................................... 48 Table V.1- 10: Existing Plus Project Freeway Segment Levels of Service .................................... 51 Table RTC -6: Pruneridge Avenue Peak Hour Roadway Volumes ................................................ 96 Table II -1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR .............................. 137 Table V.1- 10: Existing Plus Project Freeway Segment Levels of Service .................................. 152 P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\00-Cover-TOC.doc (09/23/13) FINAL ii I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE OF THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT This document has been prepared to respond to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Apple Campus 2 Project (project). The project is proposed for an approximately 176 -acre site in the City of Cupertino (City). The Draft EIR identifies the potential environmental consequences associated with implementation of the project. This Response to Comments (RTC) Document provides responses to comments on the Draft EIR and makes revisions to the Draft EIR in response to those comments or to clarify, amplify, or make insignificant modifica- tions to the Draft EIR. This document, together with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR for the proposed project. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. The City of Cupertino circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on August 19, 2011, notifying responsible agencies and interested parties that an EIR would be prepared for the project and indicat- ing the environmental topics anticipated to be addressed. The scoping period, initially planned to end on September 19, 2011, was extended to October 5, 2011 to allow for further public comment. In addition, a public scoping session was held 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 NOP and scoping session notice on the City's website. Notices were also sent to households in Santa Clara and Sunnyvale that are within 1,000 feet of the project site. Comments received by the City on the NOP and at the public scoping meeting were taken into account during the preparation of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was made available for public review on June 6, 2013, and distributed to applicable local, regional, State, and federal agencies. Paper and CD copies of the Draft EIR were available at the City of Cupertino Community Development Department and a digital version of the document was available on the City's website for the project (http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1107). Notice of availability of the Draft EIR was made in several ways. The City sent postcards announcing the availability of the Draft EIR to all mailing addresses within Cupertino, and to mailing addresses within 1,000 feet of the project site outside of Cupertino. In addition, in accordance with CEQA, the City mailed the Notice of Availability 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. The Notice of Availability was also posted on the City's main website and the project website. The City also sent emails announc- ing the availability of the Draft EIR to all persons who had indicated an interest in the project. A press release was also sent out at the same time. RTOC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTCTinal\1-Inn'odu tion.doc (09/23/13) FINAL LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR I. INTRODUCTION The CEQA-mandated 45 -day public comment period ended on July 22, 2013. Comments on the Draft EIR could be submitted in writing to the Community Development Department or posted on the City's website for the project. The City also held a public meeting during the comment period, on June 26, 2013, at which the public was encouraged to make comments. At the meeting, the City provided: cards for hand-written comments; access to computers, laptops, or other devices for comments to be posted directly to the City -sponsored website for public comments; and facilities for oral comments. The City made available more than 200 digital versions of the Draft EIR to attendees on USB storage devices. The City also handed out, and made available at City Hall, public comment cards with a "QR" (Quick Response) Code directing interested parties to the City -sponsored website for public comments. Written comments received on the Draft EIR during the 45 -day public comment period are contained in this RTC Document. C. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This RTC Document consists of the following chapters: • Chapter L- Introduction. This chapter discusses the purpose and organization of this RTC Document and how the RTC Document fits into the Final EIR, and summarizes the environmental review process for the project. • Chapter IL- List of Commenting Agencies, Organizations and Individuals. This chapter contains a list of agencies, organizations, and individuals who submitted written comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period. • Chapter III.- Comments and Responses. This chapter contains a written response for each comment on environmental issues received during the public review period. Each response is keyed to the associated comment letter and comment number. Reproductions of all comment letters received on the Draft EIR are provided in Appendix A. • Chapter IV.- Draft EIR Revisions. This chapter contains text revisions to the Draft EIR in response to comments received and responses provided, or in order to clarify, amplify or make insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR. Underlined text represents language that has been added to the Draft EIR; text with stfikeettt has been deleted from the Draft EIR. Revisions to figures are also provided, where appropriate. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTCTinal\1-Inn'odu tion.doc (09/23/13) FINAL II. LIST OF COMMENTING AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS This chapter presents a list of comment letters received during the public review period and describes the organization of the letters and comments that are provided in Chapter III, Comments and Responses, of this document. A. ORGANIZATION OF COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES Comment letters received on the Draft EIR are grouped and coded by the affiliation of the commenter, as follows: State, regional, and local agencies (A); organizations (B); individuals (C); public meeting comments (D); and comments from individuals solely on the merits of the project that do not raise environmental issues (E). Appendix A includes a reproduction of each comment letter received on the Draft EIR. The comment letters are numbered consecutively following the A, B, C, D and E designations. The letters are annotated according to the following code: A#-# State, Regional, and Local Agencies B#-# Organizations C#-# Individuals D#-# Public Meeting Comments E#-# Comments from Individuals on the Merits of the Project The letters are numbered and comments within each letter are numbered consecutively after the hyphen. For instance, comment Al -3 is the third discrete comment in the first letter submitted by a State, Regional, or Local Agency. Chapter III includes a written response for each comment on environmental issues received during the public review period. B. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR Comments submitted to the City during the public review period are listed on the following pages. 1 "Letters" include paper letters submitted by mail, fax, or email attachment; emails; discrete postings about the Draft EIR or project on the City's website; and comment cards submitted during the public meeting on the Draft EIR. RTOC 1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTCTinal\2-Lis[ofConmienters.doc(0923/13)FINAL LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR II. LIST OF COMMENTING AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS Letter Number Date Commenter Agency/Organization AGENCIES Al July 22, 2013 Kent Steffans, Director of Public Works City of Sunnyvale A2 July 9, 2013 Kenneth R. Schreiber, Interim Executive Officer Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency A3 July 22, 2013 Michael Murdter, Director County of Santa Clara A4 July 22, 2013 Erik Alm, District Branch Chief Caltrans A5 July 22, 2013 Andrew Crabtree, Division Manager City of San Jose, Department of Community Development, Planning Division A6 July 19, 2013 Kevin Riley, Director of Planning City of Santa Clara A7 July 22, 2013 1 Hilda Lafebre, Manager, Capital Project & Environmental Planning Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) A8 July 22, 2013 Roy Molseed, Senior Environmental Planner Michael T. Burns, General Manager Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ORGANIZATIONS Bl July 22, 2013 Corinne Winter Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition B2 July 19, 2013 Anonymous SEIU-United Service Workers West B3 July 17, 2013 Anonymous Concerned Citizens of Cupertino B4 July 10, 2013 Mark Matsumoto, Government Affairs Specialist Cupertino Chamber of Commerce B5 July 8, 2013 Sam Ashknaz, Owner Erik's DeliCafe B6 June 24, 2013 Maria Streeby, Director of Operations Cypress Hotel and Park Place Restaurant B7 June 7, 2013 Neil Struthers, CEO Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building & Construction Trades Council B8 June 20, 2013 Dianne Anderson, President Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors B9 June 19, 2013 Donna Austin, President Cupertino Historical Society B10 June 12, 2013 Sam Ashknaz, Owner Erik's DeliCaf6 Bll June 12, 2013 Barry Jones, CEO VJONES Salon B12 June 12, 2013 Anonymous Cupertino Chamber of Commerce B13 June 11, 2013 Carl Guardino, President & CEO Silicon Valley Leadership Group B14 June 26, 2013 Orrin Mahoney, Mayor City of Cupertino B15 May 16, 2013 David Jamieson, Vice President Asset Management Kimco Realty B16 June 7, 2013 Janice Chua, Owner Bitter + Sweet B17 June 6, 2013 L.A. Chung, Editor Los Altos Patch B18 May 31, 2013 Matthew R. Mahood, CEO and President San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce B19 May 29, 2013 Peter Pau Sand Hill Property Company B20 June 26, 2013 Shiloh Ballard Silicon Valley Leadership Group B21 June 26, 2013 Steve Van Dorn Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce B22 July 22, 2013 1 Megan Fluke Medeiros, Conservation and Development Manager I Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter B23 July 22, 2013 James C. Fowler, Associate General Counsel -Real Estate Dan Whisenhunt, Senior Director Apple Inc. PftCOCn m Apple 2 CamuosTROOUCTSvRTCv ii,al�2-ListofComi»ei,eers.doe (09/23/13) FINAL LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR II. LIST OF COMMENTING AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS Letter Number Date Commenter Letter Number Date Commenter INDIVIDUALS Cl June 21, 2013 Tappan (Tap) Merrick C31 June 6, 2013 Eno Schmidt C2 July 21, 2013 Ronald Joseph Moore, Sr. C32 June 5, 2013 Margaret Reilly C3 July 18, 2013 Keithdd1527 cr aolxom C33 June 6, 2013 Chandramohan Mathu C4 July 15, 2013 Gary Beau re C34 June 6, 2013 Best/Yash(Full name not provided) C5 July 11, 2013 Stan (Last name notprovided) C35 July 22, 2013 Geoff Paulsen C6 July 8, 2013 Sandra and Don Boren C36 July 22, 2013 Neighbor C7 July 8, 2013 Russ Robinson C37 July 22, 2013 Dean Fujiwara C8 July 2, 2013 Ann(Last name not provided) C38 July 22, 2013 Ken Nishimura C9 July 1, 2013 Rich Altmaier C39 July 22, 2013 Patricia Melcic C10 July 1, 2013 Rick Haffner C40 July 22, 2013 Jennifer Hodor Cll June 30, 2013 William F. Bailey, Tap Merrick C41 July 21, 2013 Martin Landszaat C12 June 28, 2013 Keith Murphy C42 July 21, 2013 Ronald Moore C13 June 26, 2013 Yolanda Reynolds C43 July 21, 2013 Patrick Robbins C14 June 21, 2013 Jia and Linda C44 July 21, 2013 Mary Brunkhorst C15 June 20, 2013 Gina Wang C45 July 21, 2013 Nancy Wagner C16 June 19, 2013 Donna Austin C46 July 21, 2013 Sally Everett-Beaupre C17 June 18, 2013 Bernard Wood C47 July 21, 2013 Patrick Waddell C18 June 17, 2013 Earl Sharkey C48 July 21, 2013 Dale Porter C19 June 17, 2013 Judy Gaffney C49 July 21, 2013 Anonymous C20 June 15, 2013 Shaunak C50 July 20, 2013 A Local C21 June 14, 2013 Dolly Sandoval C51 July 20, 2013 Ruth Moore C22 June 13, 2013 Henry and Sally Zoellner C52 July 19, 2013 Harvey Checkman C23 June 13, 2013 Vanya Matzek C53 July 19, 2013 Ann (Last name not provided) C24 June 12, 2013 Darcy Paul C54 July 19, 2013 Ann(Last name not provided) C25 June 12, 2013 Keith Warner, Managing Partner C55 July 19, 2013 Pin,gang and Wen Wan C26 June 11, 2013 James Forsythe C56 July 19, 2013 Jeremy Hubble C27 June 10, 2013 1 Glenn Grigg C57 July 17, 2013 Vincent Grande C28 June 8, 2013 Yaeko Hirotsuka C58 July 17, 2013 anonymous C29 June 8, 2013 Yaeko Hirotsuka C59 July 14, 2013 David Mooso C30 June 6, 2013 Eddie Kuo C60 July 14, 2013 Art Cohen PftCOCn m Apple 2 CamuosTROOUCTSvRTCv ii,al�2-ListofComi»ei,eers.doe (09/23/13) FINAL LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR II. LIST OF COMMENTING AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS Letter Number Date Commenter Letter Number Date Commenter C61 July 12, 2013 Denia Phillips C89 June 17, 2013 Linda Vanderhule C62 July 12, 2013 James(Last name not provided) C90 June 15, 2013 Gary Jones C63 July 11, 2013 John Kilmer C91 June 14, 2013 Jun Xu C64 July 11, 2013 Elaine Manley C92 June 14, 2013 Sue and Joel Rosado C65 July 10, 2013 A. Frazer, C. Absalom, K. Klenk, Y. Bamiv, P. Wang C93 June 14, 2013 Frank Bryan C66 July 4, 2013 Indranil Das C94 June 14, 2013 Sharon(Last name not provided) C67 July 10, 2013 Michelle Philips C95 June 12, 2013 Ying Xia C68 July 3, 2013 Ann (Last name notprovided) C96 June 12, 2013 Richard Altmaier C69 June 30, 2013 David Mooso C97 June 7, 2013 David Cookson C70 June 30, 2013 U P C98 June 7, 2013 Kevin Klenk C71 June 30, 2013 David Moos o C99 June 6, 2013 Willie LU C72 June 30, 2013 Loran Stringer C100 June 6, 2013 Giselle Ballou C73 June 30, 2013 Michelle Connelly C101 June 6, 2013 Cynthia Smyth C74 June 29, 2013 Sally Everett -Beau re C102 June 6, 2013 Milt Kostner C75 June 26, 2013 Jon Ramos C103 June 6, 2013 Heidi Johnson C76 June 26, 2013 Ann Peterson C104 July 18, 2013 Richard and Beverly Olsen C77 June 26, 2013 Jeff Greef C105 June 30, 2013 Todd Beirdo C78 June 26, 2013 Mahesh Nihalani C106 July 22, 2013 Keith Murphy C79 June 26, 2013 Anonymous C107 July 22, 2013 Stephen Rohde C80 June 26, 2013 John Nelson C108 July 22, 2013 Ria Lo C81 June 25, 2013 Charles Hanson C109 July 22, 2013 Mette Christensen C82 June 25, 2013 Anonymous C110 July 22, 2013 Ria Lo C83 June 25, 2013 Walter Li Clll July 22, 2013 Sylvia Gallegos C84 June 21, 2013 Marc Aronson C112 July 22, 2013 Wahila Wilkie C85 June 18, 2013 Jennifer Martin C113 July 22, 2013 Marialis Seehorn C86 June 17, 2013 Mike Hammes C114 July 22, 2013 Robert Neff C87 June 17, 2013 Aleksandr Movshovich C115 July 22, 2013 Tammy Mon elli C88 June 17, 2013 Edward Hirshfield C116 July 22, 2013 Ray Crump PftCOCn m Apple 2 CamuosTROOUCTSvRTCv ii,al�2-ListofComi»ei,eers.doe (09/23/13) FINAL LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR II. LIST OF COMMENTING AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS Letter Number Date Commenter Letter Number Date Commenter PUBLIC HEARING Dl June 26, 2013 Randy Smith Dll June 26, 2013 Mark Van Den Huevel D2 June 26, 2013 Dennis Garringon D12 June 26, 2013 Josue Garcia D3 June 26, 2013 Arturo Sainz D13 June 26, 2013 Jose Espinosa D4 June 26, 2013 David Jamieson D14 June 26, 2013 Larry Watson D5 June 26, 2013 Al Sousa D15 June 26, 2013 Anonymous D6 June 26, 2013 R. T. Parmley D16 June 26, 2013 Anonymous D7 June 26, 2013 1 D. Radisic D17 June 26, 2013 1 Thorisa Yap D8 June 26, 2013 Tappan (Tap) Merrick D18 June 26, 2013 Jim Rile D9 June 26, 2013 E. Castro D19 June 26, 2013 Lidia Blair D10 June 26, 2013 Jim Reed COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS ON THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT El Shankar T and Kumar, Sath a and Parthiv E26 Debbie Ber antz E2 Rick Robledo E27 Jason Tsai and Mei-Li Kao E3 Stanley Lee E28 Betty Howard E4 Wayne Lee E29 Carlos McEvilly E5 Reilly Vince E30 bigez7 crcomcast.net E6 Victoria and Al Melinauskas E31 Edwin Kan E7 Valerie Kiadeh E32 Betty Eskeldson E8 Robert Adzich E33 Fan Jiao E9 Robin Anderson E34 Earl G. Sharkey E10 Rebecca and Thomas Schapp E35 Matthew Barr Ell Phyllis Pei E36 Valerie Szymanski E12 Dennis Houlsby E37 Robert Adzich E13 Sandra L. James E38 Rekha Puthalath E14 Phil Schasker E39 Samuel Ashknaz E15 Nina Daruwalla E40 Jeffrey Wurtz E16 Matthew and Kathy Matulewicz E41 Alice Jacob E17 Jayne Ham E42 I Neil Struthers E18 Agnes Smith E43 Ramchander Gopalswamy E19 Michael Picchetti E44 Desimir Radisic E20 Marilyn Wendler E45 Jack Kang E21 Jim Remedios E46 Debbie Jen E22 I Ken Huang E47 C. Olson E23 Matthew and Kathy Matulewicz E48 Helen White E24 Elisa Hickey I E49 I Caryl Gorska E25 Amar Gupta I E50 I Vena Tambellini PftCOCn m Apple 2 CamuosTROOUCTSvRTCv ii,al�2-ListofComi»ei,eers.doe (09/23/13) FINAL LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR II. LIST OF COMMENTING AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS Letter Number Date Commenter Letter Number Date Commenter E51 Bud e In E81 Don and Linda Pickering E52 Yo esh Petkar E82 Lily Wilson E53 Jane Tso + family E83 Long Nguyen E54 Robert Hoose E84 Lever, Nina, Stephanie, Samantha Wang E55 Alan Tan E85 Frank Vavak E56 Tomas Lam o E86 David M. Russell E57 Steve Leu E87 Jun Nishimura E58 Sara Grafton E88 Karlye Adair E59 Suzanne and Ninad Dabadghav E89 V. Dean Skeels E60 steven campbell E90 Larry Dean E61 Stefan Ben tsson E91 Mark Vernon, President, COO E62 Steven Hicks E92 John Bruzus E63 Sheela Sreekanth. E93 Humphrey Chow E64 rooshabh varaiya E94 Jane Tso E65 Roger Carl E95 Janet Verson E66 Mary T. Hawkes, RDH E96 Ted Jones E67 Mukesh Garg E97 Betty Eskeldson E68 Paul E98 Elena Seremeta E69 Raaj Prasad E99 Diana Loredo E70 Richard Whittington E100 Jerry McLeod E71 Philip Cheng E101 Joseph and Elizabeth Eppel E72 Rajiv Marwah E102 Svetlana Kokoshvili E73 Naeem Zafar E103 Bahram Vazindel E74 Mary Reilly E104 Doug Warmke E75 Pat and Charlene Allen E105 Chirag Patel E76 Pam Milam E106 Anand D'Souza E77 Carmichael Paul E107 Alex Pashintsev E78 migdat E108 David and Loreta Eberhardt E79 Michael Picchetti E109 Bob and Donna S E80 Andrew Park E110 Gary E Jones PftCOCn m Apple 2 CamuosTROOUCTSvRTCv ii,al�2-ListofComi»ei,eers.doe (09/23/13) FINAL LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR II. LIST OF COMMENTING AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS Letter Number Date Commenter Letter Number Date Commenter E111 David Ko els E126 John Zirelli E112 Diane Beaudet E127 Maxim Zaika E113 Akash Agarwal E128 GA Salinas E114 Gopakumar Pillai E129 Andrew Park E115 Diana Carbone E130 MAJED AS E116 Balakrishnan Th a ara'an. E131 Carol Won E117 Gino Gu lielmelli. E132 Jane Tan E118 Dipesh Maini E133 Lever, Nina, Stephanie, Samantha Wang E119 Grace Nadolny MD and Greg Hilbrich E134 Stella Qu E120 Ed and Linda Rosiak E135 Paulette Altmaier E121 Cynthia Kollerer E136 Robert Stern E122 Aykut Yararbas E137 Myke and Diane Luu E123 George Crosby E138 Diane A. Nguyen E124 Robert Hoose E139 Guna Suriya E125 I Anonymous PftCOCn m Apple 2 CamuosTROOUCTSvRTCv ii,al�2-ListofComi»ei,eers.doe (09/23/13) FINAL LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR II. LIST OF COMMENTING AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS This page intentionally left blank. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\2-Lis[ofConmienters.doc (0923/13) FINAL 10 III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Written responses to each comment letter received on the Draft EIR are provided in this chapter. Letters received during and after the public review period on the Draft EIR are provided in their entirety. Each letter is immediately followed by responses keyed to the specific comments. The letters are grouped by the affiliation of the commenter as follows: State, regional, and local agencies (A); organizations (B); individuals (C); public meeting comments (D); and comments from individuals solely on the merits of the project that do not raise environmental issues (E). Please note that some text within the comment letters has not been numbered because it does not raise environmental issues or relate to the adequacy of the information or analysis within the Draft EIR, and therefore no response is required. Text revisions to the Draft EIR made in response to comments received and responses provided, or to clarify, amplify or make insignificant modifications to the Draft EIR, are included in the responses. Underlined text represents language that has been added to the Draft EIR; text with str-ikeaia has been deleted from the Draft EIR. All text revisions are listed in the order in which they would appear in the Draft EIR (by page number) in Chapter IV, Text Revisions, of this RTC Document. Many of the comments received on the Draft EIR involve variations of several key issues. In order to consolidate responses to questions and comments related to these topics, and to address concerns comprehensively, master responses have been prepared. Master Responses are included for the following topics and are referenced in subsequent responses, as appropriate. 1. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts 2. Project Merits 3. Mitigation Nexus 4. Nitrogen Deposition 5. Public Access Through Project Site 6. Project Trip Distribution 7. Cut -Through Traffic 8. Adequacy of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Penalties 9. Monitoring TDM Program 10. Median on East Homestead Road 11. Diverted Trips Due to Pruneridge Avenue Closure 12. Trip Cap 13. Calabazas Creek Trail 14. New Freeway Ramps 15. School Busing Program RTOC 1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL I I LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Master Response 91: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Certain traffic -related impacts are identified in the Draft EIR as significant and unavoidable even though feasible mitigation measures are identified that would reduce the impacts to a less -than - significant level. Several commenters suggest that these significant and unavoidable findings are not appropriate. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2), the significant and unavoidable conclusion is appropriate in these cases because implementation of the identified mitigation measures is not within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the CEQA lead agency, which is the City of Cupertino. For instance, implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 (construction of an additional westbound lane at the intersection of Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound Ramps) would reduce Impact TRANS -1 (unacceptable operations at the intersection of Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound Ramps resulting from project traffic) to a less -than -significant level. Because the I-280 Northbound Ramps are a State transportation facility under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), neither the project sponsor nor the City of Cupertino can ensure implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1. Thus, lacking any assurance that Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 can and will be implemented by Caltrans, the Draft EIR concludes that Impact TRANS -1 is significant and unavoidable notwithstanding the City's and Apple's commitment to continue to work with the agencies that have jurisdiction over implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 and other, similar measures outside the City's control. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, "[m]itigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally -binding instruments." (See also CEQA Section 21081.6(b).) Because the City lacks such legally -binding instruments to ensure that Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 and other mitigation measures outside its responsibility and jurisdiction are fully enforceable, the City cannot guarantee implementation of such mitigation measures. Therefore, identifying Impact TRANS -1 (and other impacts for which the identified mitigation measures outside the jurisdiction of Cupertino) as significant and unavoidable is appropriate. The identification of these impacts requiring extra -jurisdictional mitigation as significant and unavoid- able is also consistent with the findings required to be made by lead agencies for each of the signifi- cant environmental effects identified in an EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and Public Resources Code Section 21081(a). One of these findings ("Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.") would be made by the City for each of the significant unavoidable impacts for which a mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level, but the mitigation measure is not under the control of the City. The mitigation measures outside the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City require that Apple fund, help fund, or construct the physical improvements, if and when the responsible jurisdictions grant necessary approvals for the mitigations. This requirement is incorpo- rated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. Some commenters have stated that because certain traffic impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable, the City would have no obligation to mitigate these impacts. Such statements are incorrect. Lead agencies must identify feasible mitigation measures for all significant impacts per CEQA Sections 21002, 21002.1(a), 21081(a); and CEQA Sections 15091(a), 15021(a)(2), 15126.4(a). As required by CEQA Sections 21080(a) and (a)(1), "with respect to each significant effect," the lead agency must identify "[c]hanges or alterations [that] have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate or avoid" the impact. The lead agency may then explain, if applicable, that P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 12 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES implementation of the measures is not within its responsibility and jurisdiction and the measures "have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency" (CEQA Section 21081(a)(2)) and/or that the measures are infeasible (CEQA Section 20181(a)(3)). The lead agency may find that certain impacts remain significant despite mitigation, but conclude that overriding benefits outweigh these effects (CEQA Section 20181(b)); however, this finding does not relieve the lead agency of its obligations to identify feasible mitigation measures under CEQA Section 20181(a). If the proposed project is approved, the City will require that Apple: (i) work in good faith with the applicable jurisdictions to permit the identified physical improvements and (ii) fund the estimated cost identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for each of the extra -jurisdic- tional mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. These funds will be submitted to the agency with jurisdiction over each improvement for use in constructing the improvement or an alternate improvement in the project vicinity that can be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino Director of Public Works, to reduce the identified traffic -related impacts. In addition, Apple has agreed to collaborate and coordinate with these other jurisdictions to construct and/or fund the identified mitigations when the jurisdictions approve the measures. Where physical mitigation measures are feasible but outside of the City's jurisdiction, the City will continue to monitor the progress of implementing the mitigation measures and will continue to work with Apple and the other agencies. In this way, the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR are designed to comply with the requirement of CEQA to mitigate significant impacts to the extent feasible. Master Response 92: Project Merits Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, a lead agency is required to evaluate "comments on environmental issues" received on a Draft EIR. Similarly, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, a Final EIR must provide responses only to "significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process." Accordingly, detailed responses are provided only for comments received on the Draft EIR that raise issues concerning the "environment." As defined in CEQA Section 21060.5, "environment means the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by aproposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, objects of historic or aesthetic significance." Economic costs and benefits are outside the scope of environmental issues as defined by CEQA and need not be evaluated in an EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15131 states: "Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in turn by the economic or social changes. The intermediate economic or social changes need not be analyzed in any detail greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause and effect. The focus of the analysis shall be on the physical changes." Pursuant to CEQA, the Draft EIR is a disclosure document that identifies the significant impacts of the project, but does not contain conclusions about the merits of the project, including whether the project is "too big," whether the project is right for the community, or whether the project should be approved. Those decisions are made by the City of Cupertino City Council, following consideration of the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Rather, the Draft EIR evaluates the size of the project in the context of applicable significance thresholds identified by the City. This evaluation P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 13 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES includes an assessment of whether the size of the project would create a significant adverse effect on the physical environment. For instance, if a project building is sufficiently tall that it would block a public view of a scenic vista, that would be considered a significant impact pursuant to the City's significance thresholds, as explained on pages 207 to 211 of the Draft EIR. Comments conveying support of or opposition to the project, or comments pertaining solely to economic or social effects of the project, without reference to environmental issues, are included in this Response to Comments Document, but detailed responses are not provided. However, decision - makers will take these comments into account when considering project approval even if they do not relate to environmental issues or the adequacy of the EIR. Master Response 93: Mitigation Nexus Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, a mitigation measure must be "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the project, which means that the proposed project is required to pay its fair share of the cost to mitigate an impact that is caused by other projects in addition to the proposed project. Several comments suggest mitigation measures that are not directly related to and would not mitigate a significant project impact. For example, a homeless transition facility would not be warranted as a mitigation measure because the project would not result in impacts that would be reduced by the homeless transition facility. Similarly, mitigation targeting a specific population (e.g., students and seniors) that is not significantly adversely affected by project impacts is not warranted. Master Response 94: Nitrogen Deposition According to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, atmospheric nitrogen, including atmospheric nitrogen generated by motor vehicle emissions, is thought to function as an effective fertilizer in nutrient -poor soils, such as serpentine soils in the Bay Area. The buildup of nitrogen over time is thought to facilitate the invasion and persistence of non-native species that may out -compete native species in nutrient -poor plant communities. Several comments suggest that the vehicle trips generated by the proposed project would make a significant contribution to the cumulative impact of nitrogen deposition in the Bay Area on nutrient -poor soil communities, including serpentine soil communities (which harbor protected species such as the Bay checkerspot butterfly). In addition, several comments suggest that Apple should be required to pay a Nitrogen Deposition Fee, as required by member agencies of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. No Significant Impact Due to Nitrogen Deposition. The project would not make a significant contribution to the cumulative impact of nitrogen deposition on serpentine habitat or the Bay checkerspot butterfly for two key reasons. Although the project would increase the number of regional vehicle trips, these trips would occur at a distance far removed from the locations of serpentine soils. The project site is located in the midst of an urbanized area, far from established clusters of serpentine grasslands (e.g., in the Coast Range or habitat south of San Jose). In Appendix E of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (Estimation of Contributions to Deposition of Nitrogen in Santa Clara County for the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan), the simulations for nitrogen deposition in serpentine habitats for the Bay checkerspot butterfly indicate that almost one-third (30 percent) of the nitrogen deposition derives from mobile emission sources in the vicinity of the habitat areas, 13 percent of the nitrogen deposition comes from other P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 14 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES sources within about 12 miles of the habitat areas, and 17 percent of the deposition comes from the remainder of Santa Clara County. The complete breakdown of simulated nitrogen deposition sources is shown in Figure E-27 of Appendix E of the Habitat Plan. The project site is located over 20 miles from the center of serpentine and Bay checkerspot habitat areas in the Bay Area. In addition, as shown in Table V.0-5, Projected Housing Demand by City Based on Residential Location of Current Apple Employees, on page 227 of the Draft EIR, the vast majority of Apple employees would live in places at a distance from serpentine habitat. Therefore, the project would not make a significant contribution to the cumulative impact of nitrogen deposition in serpentine areas, including those within the Habitat Plan boundaries. In addition, as explained on page 134 of the Draft EIR, as part of the project Apple would voluntarily pay $126,381, an amount equivalent to the Nitrogen Deposition Fee that a project generating 35,106 net new daily trips would pay if it would result in significant impacts related to nitrogen deposition. In that case, the payment would constitute full mitigation of the impact. However, because the proposed project is not located within the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, which established such a fee for its member agencies, and would not create a significant impact due to nitrogen deposition, the payment by Apple would be voluntary. This amount would be paid to the Implementing Entity of the Habitat Plan, and is expected to be used to protect and enhance sensitive habitat in the region that is subject to degradation due to nitrogen deposition. Thus, even if the contribution of nitrogen from project vehicle trips were considered cumulatively considerable, the payment of this amount would ensure that such an impact would be less than significant. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Applicability. As stated in the Habitat Plan, "The purpose of this Plan is to protect and enhance ecological diversity and function in the greater portion of Santa Clara County, while allowing appropriate and compatible growth and development in accordance with applicable laws." The Habitat Plan, therefore, is designed not only to protect and enhance sensitive habitats and species within the Habitat Plan area, but also to facilitate development (roads, urban growth, and other infrastructure) identified by the Habitat Plan participants. The City of Cupertino is not a Habitat Plan participant and does not receive any of the benefits that come with participation, including take authorization for listed species associated with covered activities and projects, or streamlining of permitting processes. Because the project site is located outside the Habitat Plan boundaries and is not covered by the Habitat Plan, as described above, the project applicant is not required to pay Habitat Plan development fees, including the Nitrogen Deposition Fee. However, as discussed above, Apple has voluntarily agreed to pay, in full, an amount equivalent to the Nitrogen Deposition Fee that the project would have had to pay had there been significant impacts due to nitrogen deposition. Master Response 95: Public Access Through Project Site Retaining Pruneridge Avenue as a public right-of-way was incorporated into a project alternative (the Pruneridge Avenue alternative), which is analyzed on pages 605 to 612 of the Draft EIR. As discussed on page 626 of the Draft EIR, two additional alternatives allowing for public access across the site (a Pruneridge Avenue Tunnel alternative and a Mobility and Park alternative) were rejected for detailed analysis because they would interfere with major utility lines, would infringe on private property, result in adverse visual impacts, incur significant costs and/or would still pose significant security concerns to Apple (thus conflicting with a key project objective). P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 15 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Apple maintains that any public access provided within the project site would compromise its privacy and security objectives. One of Apple's fundamental project objectives in developing the project is to consolidate Apple employees in a single secure location to ensure privacy and to promote shared creativity and collaboration and spur invention. The project's landscaped area, ancillary spaces, and buildings would also serve to promote interaction among colleagues. The only way that the outside and ancillary spaces can play this role is if they are as secure as the main building. Providing building -by -building security in place of maintaining a secured perimeter would not provide the level of security Apple desires and thus would conflict with a primary project objective. Master Response 96: Project Trip Distribution Some commenters suggested that the anticipated distribution of project trips on the roadway network should have been determined using alternative methods, including methods that would have distributed more trips in the immediate vicinity of the project site and on surrounding local and County roadway facilities. The trip distribution pattern for the new vehicle trips added to the roadway system by the project is based on the residence locations of current Apple employees at other Cupertino sites. The assumption is that employees at the project site would have similar characteristics and therefore similar residence location preferences. This is a reasonable assumption because: (i) many of the employees at the project site would be current Apple employees and (ii) the close proximity of the project to current Apple facilities in Cupertino makes it reasonable to assume that new employees would make similar choices about where they live. This method of using more localized and specific data (i.e., employee addresses) to evaluate trip distribution provides a more precise means of analysis than is typical in transportation impact analyses, which typically rely on general land use/travel patterns. Relying on general land use/travel patterns and models may be the approach more conventionally taken in transportation analyses because it is unusual to have fine-grained employee location data of the kind provided by Apple. However, the use of such data for existing and likely future employees allows for a more precise transportation analysis that better accounts for the expected commute trips of employees. This employee location data allows for a more precise analysis, because unlike the general land use/travel pattern data produced by organizations such as the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the employee location data in this case is derived from actual Apple employees who are likely to have travel habits similar to future Apple employees working on the project site. The impact analysis in the Draft EIR employs a cautious approach in other ways. The transportation analysis in the Draft EIR assumes that all project traffic would be new traffic added to the roadway system. However, some of the traffic generated by the project would originate from existing homes in the area. It is also likely that some future employees currently reside in the area but work elsewhere and therefore — as part of the project — would modify a portion of their commute trips and would not generate completely new trips on the roadway system. In addition, employees may purchase or rent existing homes in the area, in which case they would replace trips generated by current residents of those homes. Traffic from approved and pending residential developments were added to the Background and Cumulative scenario traffic projections. Traffic generated by employees residing in those developments is therefore accounted for twice in the analysis. This approach of using actual P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 16 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES employee location data ensures that the traffic analysis is as accurate as possible, while not under- estimating potential impacts on the roadway network. Master Response 97: Cut -Through Traffic Several residential streets in the cities of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale are situated near the project site. The Draft EIR evaluates potential impacts on some of the most direct cut -through streets in the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the project site, including Quail Avenue, Marion Way, and Inverness Way in Sunnyvale and Hillsdale Avenue and De Soto Avenue in Santa Clara. Several comments submitted on the Draft EIR expressed concern about the use of additional residential streets as cut -through routes. Streets cited in the comments are Dunford Way (known as Marion Way west of Oriole Avenue), Lochinvar Avenue, Swallow Drive, Peacock Avenue, Nightingale Avenue, Teal Drive, Lillick Drive, Halford Avenue, Henderson Avenue, and Norman Drive, all of which are within the City of Sunnyvale. The cut -through analysis conducted for the Draft EIR focuses on potential cut -through traffic during the AM peak hour, when the volume of project trips would be the highest. The analysis concluded that (i) given the small number of project trips coming from El Camino Real (drivers most likely to use cut -through routes in Sunnyvale would come from El Camino Real) and (ii) the inferiority of many potential cut -through routes to the main arterials and collectors (in terms of speed of travel or convenience), the impact due to project -related cut -through traffic would be less than significant. This finding would apply to all residential streets in the vicinity of the project site, not just the most likely cut -through routes considered in the Draft EIR analysis. Please refer to pages 430 to 432 of the Draft EIR for additional discussion. The cut -through traffic evaluation in the Draft EIR focuses on the addition of potential cut -through traffic from the project and not the diversion of non -project related traffic in the area due to increased congestion. However, the intersection level of service analysis indicates that the intersections around the project site would operate at acceptable standards and therefore it is not anticipated that traffic would divert into the neighborhood to bypass congestion. See page 431 of the Draft EIR for further details. Although the analysis in the Draft EIR shows that there will not be a significant impact due to cut - through traffic, the City acknowledges that cut -through traffic is of concern to local residents. Therefore, as a Condition of Approval, the City would require Apple to set aside funds ($500,000 for the City of Sunnyvale and $250,000 for the City of Santa Clara) to monitor cut -through traffic and potentially install traffic calming measures should cut -through traffic -related problems arise due to implementation of the proposed project. The City of Cupertino would work with the appropriate jurisdictions to determine the extent of the neighborhood cut -through traffic and to ensure that neighborhood concerns are addressed. Therefore, impacts related to cut -through traffic (including on the additional residential streets identified in comments on the Draft EIR) would be less -than - significant. Master Response 98: Adequacy of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Penalties The City has established TDM penalties that would be assessed if the project exceeds the trip count of 4,270 AM peak -hour vehicle trips and 4,400 PM peak -hour vehicle trips. The TDM penalties are discussed on pages 445 to 446 of the Draft EIR. The penalties would be assessed every day until trip count conformance is achieved, and are intended to ensure compliance with Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b. The fee would be $5/day/trip if Apple does not implement additional TDM measures determined in consultation with City staff (see page 443 of the Draft EIR for these additional P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 17 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES measures) and $3/day/trip if additional TDM measures are implemented. (These penalties would be adjusted based on the Consumer Price Index.) As an example, if the trip counts are exceeded by 200 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 200 vehicles in the PM peak hour, and Apple does not agree to implement City -approved TDM measures, the penalty would be $2,000 per day. Due to the monitoring schedule described on pages 444 to 447 of the Draft EIR, it would likely take 6 months before conformance could be measured and confirmed. Therefore, the total penalty would be $260,000 (26 weeks x 5 working days a week x $2,000 a day) for 6 months of this hypothetical exceedance scenario. Such penalties are robust compared to other similar TDM -related penalties assessed throughout the Bay Area and are considered sufficient to ensure compliance with the peak trip counts goal established in Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b. Master Response 99: Monitoring TDM Program Ultimate authority for monitoring Apple's TDM Program would reside with the City. As discussed on pages 444 through 447 of the Draft EIR, Apple would be responsible for the collection of initial TDM -related data (identification and description of the specific TDM measures being implemented, and estimates of AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips and vehicle trips per employee) in accordance with measurement guidance and monitoring guidelines created by Apple and the City. However, the effectiveness of Apple's TDM Program would ultimately be verified with the collection of additional data (including daily, hourly, and 15 -minute traffic counts taken at project driveways and/or parking facilities over specified 2 -week periods) to be undertaken by an independent City -approved planning/ engineering firm. This firm, under the direction of the City, could request additional data from Apple, or reject the initial data collected by Apple (and substitute a different data set). Therefore, primary responsibility for monitoring the efficacy of Apple's TDM program would reside with the City. No conflict would exist between the TDM Monitoring Report (prepared by an independent firm) and the initial data collected by Apple because the Apple -collected data could be used at the discretion of the independent firm preparing the TDM Monitoring Report. Apple would pay for the cost to conduct monitoring and City staff time to review the annual monitoring reports. The appropriate entity for the oversight of the monitoring program and making findings of compli- ance or non-compliance is the City of Cupertino. Because the City is the CEQA lead agency and has jurisdiction over land use decisions within its borders, it is the correct entity to administer this program and to ensure that this mitigation measure is implemented and made enforceable. Oversight by another entity, such as the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), is not appropriate or required. Master Response 910: Median on East Homestead Road As described on page 102 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project includes the option of a landscaped median on East Homestead Road between North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue. The purpose of the median is to provide additional landscaping along the northern edge of the project site as both a beautification measure and to act as a visual buffer to adjacent residences. The median is not a requirement nor is it a mitigation measure for the project. Both the cities of Cupertino and Sunnyvale share jurisdiction of this segment of East Homestead Road. Given the shared jurisdiction, both agencies would need to approve the final design of the median; therefore Apple would continue to work with both cities to finalize the design of the median. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 18 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The final design would continue to provide local access (ingress and/or egress) to Nightingale Avenue and Peacock Avenue. However, if the landscaped median is approved, direct eastbound access to/from homes on the north side of East Homestead Road would be limited and residents of the area would be required to make U-turns at designated gaps within the median (at Nightingale Avenue, Peacock Avenue, and other streets if provided). The limitations on eastbound access would primarily affect the 22 homes between Nightingale Avenue and Peacock Avenue, and six homes between Peacock Avenue and Quail Avenue. These homes would generate the following AM and PM peak hour trips: Table RTC -1: Trips Generated by Select Residences North of East Homestead Road Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013. Thus the greatest number of U-turns that would occur at a given median gap is 19 vehicles for the AM peak hour for outbound trips west of Peacock Avenue, which would not substantially degrade the operations of East Homestead Road. In Sunnyvale's and Cupertino's review of the proposed median, design considerations such as the ability to make U-turns, provision of eastbound left -turn pockets, eastbound refuge lanes, and other design elements would be evaluated to minimize the accessibility impacts to residents on the north side of East Homestead Road. As noted above, ultimately both local agencies would need to approve the final design of the median project. Master Response 911: Diverted Trips Due to Pruneridge Avenue Closure With the closure of Pruneridge Avenue, vehicles currently traveling on this roadway between North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue would detour around the project site. The maximum detour path along North Wolfe Road, East Homestead Road and North Tantau Avenue is approximately 1.1 miles in length and represents a 0.6 -mile detour (1.1 mile new path minus 0.5 mile existing path). There are generally three types of trips that would be affected by the proposed closure: Through trips with no destination on Pruneridge Avenue between North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue that would be diverted around the project site; 2. Vehicles currently accessing the project site that would be diverted to the new driveways on North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue; and 3. Trips associated with The Hamptons apartment community. As discussed on page 430 of the Draft EIR, travelers to/from The Hamptons that would be significantly affected by the project are only those that currently travel to/from the east on Pruneridge Avenue. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 19 Between Nightingale Avenue and Peacock Avenue Between Peacock Avenue and Quail Avenue Number of homes 22 6 AM peak hour trips (total) 26 14 Inbound (AM peak hour trips) 7 4 Outbound (AM peak hour trips) 19 (highest) 10 PM peak hour trips (total) 27 9 Inbound (PM peak hour trips) 17 6 Outbound (PM peak hour trips) 10 3 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013. Thus the greatest number of U-turns that would occur at a given median gap is 19 vehicles for the AM peak hour for outbound trips west of Peacock Avenue, which would not substantially degrade the operations of East Homestead Road. In Sunnyvale's and Cupertino's review of the proposed median, design considerations such as the ability to make U-turns, provision of eastbound left -turn pockets, eastbound refuge lanes, and other design elements would be evaluated to minimize the accessibility impacts to residents on the north side of East Homestead Road. As noted above, ultimately both local agencies would need to approve the final design of the median project. Master Response 911: Diverted Trips Due to Pruneridge Avenue Closure With the closure of Pruneridge Avenue, vehicles currently traveling on this roadway between North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue would detour around the project site. The maximum detour path along North Wolfe Road, East Homestead Road and North Tantau Avenue is approximately 1.1 miles in length and represents a 0.6 -mile detour (1.1 mile new path minus 0.5 mile existing path). There are generally three types of trips that would be affected by the proposed closure: Through trips with no destination on Pruneridge Avenue between North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue that would be diverted around the project site; 2. Vehicles currently accessing the project site that would be diverted to the new driveways on North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue; and 3. Trips associated with The Hamptons apartment community. As discussed on page 430 of the Draft EIR, travelers to/from The Hamptons that would be significantly affected by the project are only those that currently travel to/from the east on Pruneridge Avenue. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 19 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES For the second type —vehicles currently accessing the project site —it is assumed that their destination would remain the same and, therefore, they are not considered "diverted" trips. To estimate the number of affected vehicles for each of the three trip types, Fehr & Peers conducted origin and destination (OD) surveys in August 2011 at the intersections of North Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue and North Tantau Avenue/Pruneridge Avenue. Fehr & Peers also collected trip counts at The Hamptons driveway in November 2011 to determine the trip generation and distribution characteris- tics of the apartment complex so that the number of apartment trips to/from the east could be measured. The OD survey results (see RTC Table 2) were used to determine the percentage of vehicles that travel on Pruneridge Avenue as through traffic versus those that access the existing office uses on Pruneridge Avenue, and therefore would not be diverted. Table RTC -2: Distribution of Trips on Pruneridge Avenue Destination AM Peak Period % (Number of Vehicles) PM Peak Period % (Number of Vehicles) Pruneridge Through Traffic 65% (1,050) 50% (700) Project Site 27% (425) 43% (600) The Hamptons 8% (140) 7% (100) Total 100% (1,615) 100% (1,400) Source: Fehr & Peers, 2013. The through trips on Pruneridge Avenue were assumed to divert to both East Homestead Road and Vallco Parkway to/from North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue to travel to their ultimate destination. Existing intersection turning movement distributions (i.e., the percent of vehicles that turn left/right or travel straight) were used to make assumptions about the number of vehicles diverted to East Homestead Road or Vallco Parkway and their ultimate path of travel to/from North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue. The Hamptons trips coming from/traveling to the east were assumed to divert to East Homestead Road and North Wolfe Road via the Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection. Based on the numbers of vehicle trips expected to be diverted due to the closure of Pruneridge Avenue and the relatively short diversion distance (0.6 mile), the closure of Pruneridge Avenue would not result in significant effects on vehicular travel behavior (although significant impacts would occur to bicyclists and pedestrians, as discussed in the Draft EIR). Master Response 912: Trip Cap As described on page 441 of the Draft EIR, the City evaluated the feasibility of a mitigation measure requiring a "trip cap." Under a trip cap, once development of the project site generates trip volumes that exceed AM and PM peak -hour values for triggering impacts to the transportation system, continued development and growth at the project site would be halted. A trip cap was rejected as infeasible because it would conflict with a key project objective of consolidating Apple's engineering and support personnel in one location. In addition, such a trip cap would limit employment growth on the site, which would be undesirable to Apple and the City for economic reasons and would conflict with a key project objective of developing a campus that can accommodate 14,200 employees. ' Origin -Destination surveys can be used to estimate the amount of through traffic in a particular area. They involve recording the license plates of vehicles at the entrances and exits and matching the plates to determine the number and percentage of vehicles traversing the area. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 20 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Instead, "peak trip counts" are established as goals for full implementation of the TDM measures for the project (used to reduce physical impacts on the transportation system), as such counts would reduce project traffic while also allowing for planned growth within the site. "Peak trip counts" avoid the negative consequences of "trip caps," such as limiting the ability of Apple to achieve its objectives of consolidating research and development teams into one location at the site, while also providing an effective mechanism for ensuring that Apple effectively implements the TDM Program. Master Response #13: Calabazas Creek Trail Several comments suggest that a trail should be developed through the project site, along Calabazas Creek. Such a trail is shown in General Plan Figure 2-I and would promote walkability and the use of alternative modes of transport in the vicinity of the project site. As discussed on pages 152 to 155 of the Draft EIR, the project would not fully implement this proposed trail segment and Strategies 2 and 3 of Policy 2-73 of the Land Use/Community Design Element, which encourage the implementation of trail projects (and require dedications or easements for trails, where appropriate). However, as discussed on page 152 of the Draft EIR, the General Plan allows flexibility in the implementation of trail projects, including the balancing of safety, privacy, and security concerns in identifying a specific trail alignment. Requiring Apple to construct a Calabazas Creek trail through the project site as mitigation for Impact PLAN -2 was determined to be infeasible because Apple has indicated that the fundamental objective of a secure campus would be compromised with the provision of apublic trail immediately adjacent to or through the project site. Even with security and design measures such as fencing, Apple maintains that such a trail through a portion of the site would pose security risks because Apple has been the target of intense scrutiny regarding its future projects. Given that Apple's research and development facility is to be located at this site, perimeter security that will afford privacy is a fundamental objective. Please refer to Master Response 95: Public Access Through Project Site for additional discussion of these security considerations, including the relationship of these security concerns with key project objectives. In addition, development of a trail along Calabazas Creek through the project site would be physically constrained. The riparian corridor within the site terminates at a culvert under I-280. If a trail through the site were provided, it would either terminate at the I-280 culvert or would require a crossing over or under I-280. A connection under I-280 would be a potentially costly engineering solution or would only be operable during the dry season. The cost of a connection over I-280 would be significantly higher and would be disproportionate to the impact of the project on planned trail facilities, making it an infeasible measure. Because a public trail through the project site would be infeasible due to security reasons and physical planning constraints, the Draft EIR identifies an alternate, feasible mitigation measure to further the implementation of the City's trail -related planning policies. Mitigation Measure PLAN -3, described on pages 154 to 155 of the Draft EIR, would require aesthetic and functional improvements along an alternate creek trail, part of which would be adjacent to the boundaries of the project site. This alternate creek trail would extend from the intersection of North Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue, south to the intersection of Vallco Parkway and the creek. The required improvements would include signage, plantings that reference Calabazas Creek, pedestrian -scaled lighting, rest areas or P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 21 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES picnic tables, pavement features that reference the creek and/or water, and decorative fencing and guard rails. In addition, Mitigation Measure PLAN -3 would require that Apple fund a study of a Class I trail along the drainage channel and Calabazas Creek channel south of the project site. The City could then pursue development of that trail, based on the findings of the study. While Mitigation Measure PLAN -3 would partially mitigate the loss of the segment of the planned Calabazas Creek trail, the measure would provide substitute trail facilities and alignments that would be less desirable to trail users. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed in the Draft EIR. A project alternative, the Mobility and Park alternative, was initially considered as part of the project alternatives analysis, as discussed on page 626 of the Draft EIR. This alternative would include a trail that would extend along Calabazas Creek through the project site, and would ultimately connect North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue. However, this alternative was rejected because it would pose significant security concerns to Apple and would conflict with a key project objective. Master Response #14: New Freeway Ramps Several comments suggest that the project include the creation of new I-280 ramps that would allow direct access to and exit from the project site. The creation of new I-280 ramps serving the project site was not proposed as part of the project and was rejected as a mitigation measure because: 1) new ramps on the freeway would not significantly reduce the impacts of the project; 2) such a change is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino; 3) new ramps could exacerbate congestion on I- 280 and compromise the key security objective of the project; 4) new ramps would violate Caltrans regulations related to the proximity of freeway interchanges (including Highway Design Manual, Chapter 500, Section 501.3, which requires interchanges to be at least I mile apart in urban areas) and 5) a new ramp directly to the site would violate Caltrans regulations prohibiting direct access to private property from freeways (Highway Design Manual Topic 104.1). Master Response #15: School Busing Program Several comments suggest that the City require Apple to implement a new school busing program to reduce traffic impacts associated with the project. Requiring Apple to bus children to school as mitigation for project -related traffic impacts was rejected from detailed consideration in the Draft EIR for the following reasons: • School trips in the area are generally understood to have a distribution pattern that differs from those associated with the project. Thus the reduction of school trips may not substantially reduce the impacts of the project on the roadway network. • The implementation of a school busing program would not only be difficult and costly to develop and administer, but there also would not be a nexus between the project's impact on the roadway network and the benefit that would be achieved by implementing a school busing system. See also Master Response 93: Mitigation Nexus. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 22 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 A. STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL AGENCIES RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 23 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER Al City of Sunnyvale Kent Steffens, Director of Public Works July 22, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response Al -1: This comment comprises the transmittal conveying the comment letter from the City of Sunnyvale, along with an introduction to the content of the letter. This comment is noted. Response Al -2: This comment introduces the subsequent comments and notes previous collaboration with the City of Cupertino on project -related planning issues. Response Al -3: The information in Table III -2, including the identified building heights of the Phase 2 development, is correct. Figure III -4 on page 67 of the Draft EIR is revised as shown on the following page. Response Al -4: As described on page 125 of the Draft EIR, the Corporate Fitness Center would be adjacent to a 25 -space parking lot. Parking in this lot would not be restricted to Corporate Fitness Center employees or service vehicles. On a daily basis, Apple employees would be directed to park in the Main Building Parking Garage, Main Parking Structure, North Tantau Parking Structure, and Phase 2 parking areas. Therefore, no change to the text of the Draft EIR is warranted. Response Al -5: As described on page 59 of the Draft EIR, under existing conditions, the perimeter of the project site is patrolled by Apple personnel on a 24-hour basis. Security personnel also monitor other parts of the project site. This security protocol would continue with implementation of the proposed project and would ensure that the landscaping along the perimeter of the site would not harbor criminal activity. In addition, as part of the project, Apple would utilize camera surveillance along the perimeter fence that would be monitored at a centrally -located campus operations center. Response Al -6: The Corporate Fitness Center would primarily be used by employees within the project site, and other, off-site fitness centers would remain available to employees at off-site Apple facilities. Because the Corporate Fitness Center would be an easy walk (approximately 5 minutes, via internal pathways) from the Main Building, the vast majority of employees would not be expected to use transit to access the facility. However, transit access to the Corporate Fitness Center would be available on an on -demand basis for those employees who prefer not to walk to the facility. The shuttles serving the Corporate Fitness Center would be the 15 -seat Sprinter vans that Apple currently uses to shuttle employees between buildings at existing Apple facilities. These vans would pick-up and drop-off passengers at the parking lot adjacent to the P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 24 U 0 O IN o J � C C C o 0 M El W .7 W o J o W � LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Corporate Fitness Center. Because the on -demand vans would not offer a significant travel time savings (and in many cases would be less convenient than walking), the use of these vans to access the Corporate Fitness Center is expected to be negligible, and the vans would not add a substantial amount of traffic to East Homestead Road. Response Al -7: Please see Response to Comment Al -4. Response Al -8: As described on page 208 of the Draft EIR, the viewpoint locations selected for preparation of project visual simulations "were selected based on project site visibility and the locations that provide the most representative views of the project site." These viewpoint locations are not intended to be exhaustive of all the views surrounding the project site that could be altered with implementation of the proposed project. Rather, the locations are intended to illustrate the ways in which viewsheds may change due to the project. Similarly, the preparation of a visual simulation for every viewpoint that may be subject to change with implementation of the proposed project is not required to evaluate the impacts of the project on views. Viewpoints 4, 5, and 6, as shown on Figure V.13-1, are representative of viewpoints to the north of the project site. The corresponding visual simulations on Figures V.13-5 through V.13-7 show that the buildings on the project site would be largely obscured by proposed perimeter landscaping. Although the visual simulations in the Draft EIR are adequate to meet CEQA's information disclosure requirement, an additional simulation (from the intersection of East Homestead Road and Peacock Avenue) has been prepared in response to this comment, as shown in Figure RTC -1. Similar to the existing visual simulations, this additional simulation indicates that the buildings on the project site would be largely obscured by proposed perimeter landscaping. Response Al -9: The Lighting Technical Report was prepared for the project and was used to evaluate project impacts on light and glare in the Draft EIR. The model used in the Lighting Technical Report to evaluate project -related light and glare did not include trees or other landscape features that could obscure light, in order to analyze a worst-case light/glare scenario. As described on page 215 of the Draft EIR, even using this worst-case modeling scenario, the project would not exceed the light spillover thresholds established by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. At three of the eight identified 1 Arup, 2012. fipple Campus 2 Project Environmental Impact Report Lighting Technical Report. October 29. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 26 Existing view of the project site Visual simulation of the proposed project L S A FIGURE RTC -1 Apple Campus 2 Project EIR Visual Simulation: Looking South between Nightingale Avenue and SOURCE:APPLE,2013. Peacock Avenue on East Homestead Road I:ACOC1101 Apple Campus 21,RTC\Figures\Fig_RTC-l.mdd (9/10/13) LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES receptor locations light spillover would be reduced with implementation of the project (due to the substitution of widely -dispersed lighting in surface parking lots with updated, focused lighting, and other factors). The lighting values reported for the project on Table V.B-1 on page 215 of the Draft EIR would likely be reduced further if proposed vegetation and landscape features are taken into account. Therefore, additional measures to reduce light spillover, including the planting of larger trees, would not be warranted. Response Al -10: This comment requests potential transportation improvements that exceed those required by project impacts. The transportation analysis in the Draft EIR does not identify project impacts on the Homestead Road corridor nor at the De Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road/I-280 interchange complex. Because the project would result in less -than -significant impacts at the locations identified above, the improvements identified in the comment are not required. TRAFFIX is the approved LOS transportation software adopted by all local jurisdictions within Santa Clara County, including Cupertino and Sunnyvale. TRAFFIX was used to identify impacts to local streets. Response Al -11: As part of the project, bike lanes would be extended/enhanced on North Wolfe Road from East Homestead Road to Vallco Parkway. There is an existing bike lane gap on North Wolfe Road for approximately 350 feet north of East Homestead Road. This is an existing condition in the City of Sunnyvale and the City of Sunnyvale is best positioned to implement improvements to its bicycle facility network. Response Al -12: A significant impact related to project effects on the bicycle network bicycle was not identified at this location, so mitigation is not required. The defi- ciency in bike facilities described in the comment is an existing condition in the City of Sunnyvale and the City of Sunnyvale is best positioned to implement improvements to its bicycle facility network. The City of Cupertino would support such improvements. Response Al -13: The transportation impact analysis used to prepare Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR was conducted in conformance with CEQA requirements by using the appropriate analysis scenarios, locations, and methods and by applying appropriate significance criteria to identify impacts and mitigation measures. The study was conducted according to the requirements of the City of Cupertino, the Santa Clara VTA, and CEQA. Response Al -14: VTA's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (March 2009) indicate that intersections where the project adds more than 10 trips per lane should be considered for evaluation; however, it is ultimately the decision of the lead agency to select intersections for evaluation. The five suggested intersections were not originally selected for evaluation, since they: 1) marginally meet the 10 trip per lane rule and 2) are signalized minor street intersections that provide local access/circulation, located along a corridor that does not have existing operational deficiencies. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 28 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Intersection turning movement counts are not available for all five intersections for which additional studies were requested. Data were available for the the Sunnyvale -Saratoga Avenue intersections at Cheyenne Drive -Connemara Way and Alberta Avenue-Harwick Way (both City of Sunnyvale intersections) and the Lawrence Expressway/Benton Avenue intersection (County of Santa Clara). Analysis has been completed for these intersections and is presented below. The latest available intersection turning movement volume data for the two City of Sunnyvale intersections are from October 2012. The City of Santa Clara provided counts for the Lawrence Expressway/ Benton Avenue intersection from May 2012, which were used to analyze operations. The LOS results for the two additional City of Sunnyvale intersections and one additional City/County of Santa Clara intersection using TRAFFIX analysis software under the Existing, Background, and Cumulative plus Project scenarios are summarized in Table RTC -3. The results show that all three intersections would operate at acceptable service levels and no mitigation measures are required. Table RTC -3: Levels of Service for Requested Intersections Notes: 1 AM = morning peak hour, PM = afternoon peak hour. Delay = Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. LOS = Level of Service Bold indicates unacceptable intersection operations. Bold and ihighlightM indicates significant impacts Source: Fehr & Peers, August 2013. Intersection turning movement volume counts were not available for the intersections of East Homestead Road/Blue Jay Drive and East Homestead Road/Heron Avenue. These intersections are within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and are signalized minor intersections that intersect with local streets that have a limited amount of neighborhood traffic. In response to this comment, Fehr & Peers conducted physical observations of these two intersections on September 10, 2013, since intersection turning movement volumes were not available, and determined that in their professional judgment the intersections currently operate at acceptable levels. Further, the addition of through traffic on East Homestead Road due to the project is not anticipated to substantially deteriorate operations. In addition, the level of service analysis at the intersections of East Homestead Road/North Wolfe Road, East Homestead Road/Blaney Avenue and East Homestead Road/ P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 29 Plus Project Conditions Peak Existing Back round Cumulative Intersection Hour' Jurisdiction Dela L LOS Dela L LOS Delay LOS Sunnyvale -Saratoga Ave/Cheyenne Dr- AM Sunnyvale 9.5 A 9.7 A 10.2 B Connemara Wy PM 7.6 A 8.1 A 8.4 A Sunnyvale -Saratoga Ave/Alberta Ave- AM Sunnyvale 16.5 B 17.5 B 18.4 13- Harwick W PM 17.6 B 19.2 B- 20.3 C+ Lawrence Expressway/1 AM Countyof 40.9 D 53.8 D- 56.1 E+ Benton Ave PM Santa Clara 35.9 D+ 43.8 D 46.0 D Notes: 1 AM = morning peak hour, PM = afternoon peak hour. Delay = Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. LOS = Level of Service Bold indicates unacceptable intersection operations. Bold and ihighlightM indicates significant impacts Source: Fehr & Peers, August 2013. Intersection turning movement volume counts were not available for the intersections of East Homestead Road/Blue Jay Drive and East Homestead Road/Heron Avenue. These intersections are within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and are signalized minor intersections that intersect with local streets that have a limited amount of neighborhood traffic. In response to this comment, Fehr & Peers conducted physical observations of these two intersections on September 10, 2013, since intersection turning movement volumes were not available, and determined that in their professional judgment the intersections currently operate at acceptable levels. Further, the addition of through traffic on East Homestead Road due to the project is not anticipated to substantially deteriorate operations. In addition, the level of service analysis at the intersections of East Homestead Road/North Wolfe Road, East Homestead Road/Blaney Avenue and East Homestead Road/ P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 29 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Sunnyvale -Saratoga Road do not show any impacts in the east -west direction, further indicating that the level of service for the minor intersections at Blue Jay Drive and Heron Avenue along this corridor would not degrade to unacceptable levels. For these reasons, the City of Cupertino determined that a more detailed study would not yield meaningful information or different conclusions, and thus it elected not to further evaluate these intersections. Therefore, the project's impacts to the East Homestead Road/Blue Jay Drive and East Homestead Road/Heron Avenue intersections would be less than significant. Response Al -15: Please see Master Response 96: Project Trip Distribution. As shown on Figure C-2 in the Appendix to the Transportation Impact Analysis, the analysis included project traffic added to Wolfe Road north of Fremont Avenue. It was assumed that employees living in the City of Sunnyvale at closer proximity to the site would either move into existing homes and replace trips generated by the current residents (and not add new traffic) or move into new homes included in Background and Cumulative projections. Response Al -16: VTA's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (March 2009) includes guidance on the appropriate data sources for existing conditions, but does not require that existing conditions represent conditions present at the time of the most recent CMP monitoring. Existing conditions were established in May 2011 when the majority of the data collection and intersection counts were conducted for the analysis. These May 2011 data approximate conditions that existed when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR was published in August 2011. This approach is also consistent with recent CEQA case law, which has confirmed that the baseline normally constitutes physical conditions as they exist on the date the Notice of Preparation is published. Response Al -17: The intersections of Sunnyvale -Saratoga Road/Homestead Road and Sunnyvale -Saratoga Road/Homestead Avenue were correctly evaluated as having six through lanes on Sunnyvale -Saratoga Road. Response Al -18: The impact to pedestrian access at the I-280/Wolfe Road interchange is identified as Impact TRANS -29. Mitigation Measure TRANS -29 requires the provision of enhanced crosswalks at that location. Additional pedestrian traffic generated by the project would not create aproject impact that would require mitigation at other freeway ramps in the area. Response Al -19: Page 359 of the Draft EIR is modified as follows: Near the project site, bicycle lanes (Class II) are provided on Pruneridge Avenue, Homestead Road, Wolfe Road, Tantau Avenue, Vallco Parkway, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. There is a disconti- nuity in the Class II facility along Wolfe Road at the I-280 over - crossing. A Class III bike route exists on Tantau Avenue south of Stevens Creek Boulevard to Barnhart Avenue. There is a discontinu- P:\COC 1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 30 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ity in the Miller Avenue bike lane between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Calle De Barcelona. Additionally, bicycle facilities do not exist on Stevens Creek Boulevard east of Cronin Drive. Furthermore, the bike lanes on Homestead Road are shared with parking lanes at the following locations: 1) westbound between Nightingale Avenue and Nighthawk Terrace and 2) westbound from the intersection with Tantau Avenue for approximately 350 feet. At these locations, parking is prohibited Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., during which time the lanes are used for bikes and right -turn vehicles. The remainder of the time the lanes primarily function as parking lanes, although bicyclists can continue to use them when cars are not parked in them. Bicycle facilities comprising bicycle lanes (Class II) and bicycle routes (Class III) connect the Apple Campus 2 site to the Lawrence Caltrain station. Continuous bicycle lanes connect the Apple Campus 2 site to Apple's Infinite Loop campus via Homestead Road and De Anza Boulevard, both of which have high traffic volumes and speeds, which generally discourage bicyclists. Response Al -20: Figure V.I-3 on page 361 of the Draft EIR is updated as shown on the following page. Response Al -21: This comment is noted. Each intersection is numbered and correlated back to the index map included on the same figure. No change is proposed as adding intersection locations would add clutter to an already busy graphic. Response Al -22: Per VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, transit facilities, including bus stops, within approximately 2,500 feet of the project site are shown in Figure V.I-5 of the Draft EIR. The intersection of El Camino Real/Wolfe Road, while a major transfer point, is outside of this zone and therefore is not shown on the figure. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 31 LSA NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, AUGUST 2013. I:ACOC1101 Apple Campus 21RTC\Figures'Fig_VI3 [Revised].ai (8/15/2013) FIGURE V.I-3 [Revised] Apple Campus 2 Project EIR Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response Al -23: Page 368 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: Most commuting bicyclists travel at a rate of about nine to 10 miles per hour, meaning the Lawrence, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara Caltrain stations are located about an 18, 23, and 28 -minute bicycle ride away from Apple Campus 2, respectively. Only the Lawrence Caltrain station has continuous bicycle infrastructure that connects it to Apple Campus 2 in the form of Class II lanes along Wolfe Road (on all segments except between old San Francisco Road and Fremont Avenue), Reed Avenue, and Aster Avenue. Response Al -24: The City of Cupertino does not have a City-wide traffic -forecasting model. Discussions were held with VTA staff when the analysis for the Draft EIR was initiated to determine whether the VTA model was the appropriate tool to develop traffic projections for Cumulative Conditions. VTA staff noted that the project is relatively small when compared to overall employment in the region, and would fall under the category of "short-term" development as defined within the VTA Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines because the project would be built and occupied within 5 years. The use of a transportation model is not typically recommended by VTA for projects of this scale. Therefore, in consultation with VTA, the City confirmed that adding traffic projections from approved and pending development would be the recommended approach to developing cumulative traffic projections. Response Al -25: Please see Response to Comment Al -24. The City of Cupertino is essentially built out according to its adopted General Plan (2005-2020). While the City is currently contemplating updates to its General Plan, that process is in the earliest stages and it would be speculative to estimate the amount of growth that could occur prior to adoption of the updated plan. As a result, the cumulative scenario used in the Draft EIR is appropriate and no revisions are necessary. Additionally, it is anticipated that the project would be constructed within a 48 -month time period starting early 2014. Therefore, construction is expected to be complete well before the cumulative horizon year (2020) studied in the Draft EIR. As explained on page 376 of the Draft EIR, the cumulative analysis was based on a list of projects anticipated to be constructed in the neighboring jurisdictions by the cumulative horizon year (2020). Furthermore, the project falls under the category of "short-term" development as defined within the VTA Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines because the project would be built and occupied within 5 years. Pursuant to the Guidelines the appropriate projection methods for cumulative conditions have been applied. Response Al -26: The comment indicates that the project conflicts with Sunnyvale's Bike Capital Improvement Program regarding bike lanes at North Wolfe Road/East Homestead Road. The comment does not specify the conflict, although it is noted that the Bike Capital Improvement Program sets forth a final layout for each arterial and collector street in Sunnyvale and identifies improvements needed to implement the desired layout. Because the project P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 33 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES would not preclude the construction of bike lanes at the intersection of North Wolfe Road and East Homestead Road, the project would not conflict with this element of the City of Sunnyvale Bike Capital Improvement Program. Response Al -27: The City agrees that policies and plans in adjacent cities should be taken into consideration in developing pedestrian and bicycle impact criteria. However, CEQA does not require an analysis of aproject's consistency with all studies conducted by neighboring jurisdictions, as is suggested by the comment. To the contrary, CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d) requires an analysis of inconsistencies with "applicable" plans, including, among others, the air quality attainment or maintenance plan or State Implementation Plan, area - wide waste treatment and water quality control plans, regional transportation plans, regional housing allocation plans, and habitat conservation plans. For that reason, it is not necessary to assess whether the project is inconsistent with the City of Sunnyvale's Pedestrian Safety and Opportunities Study and the Comprehensive School Traffic Study. Nonetheless, the noted studies and plans were reviewed and it is noted that the project would construct and enhance pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site and would not preclude construction of any planned facilities in adjacent cities, including those identified in the studies. Therefore, the project would not conflict with specific pedestrian and bicycle projects in adjacent cities and further evaluation is not warranted. Response Al -28: Please see Response to Comment Al -27. Response Al -29: The transit impact criteria used in the Draft EIR were reviewed by VTA. The consistency of the project with VTA's Comprehensive Operations Analysis Criteria is addressed on pages 426 and 427 of the Draft EIR; see in particular Impact TRANS -30 and its associated mitigation measure. The project would provide enhancements and amenities to transit stops on roadways in the project site vicinity and would be generally consistent with the Comprehen- sive Operations Analysis Criteria. Response Al -30: Traffic turning left into the project site from the north on North Wolfe Road comprises traffic approaching the site from the north on North Wolfe Road and from the east and west on East Homestead Road. The projected left -turn volume during the AM peak hour is greater than 350 vehicles, thus requiring two left -turn lanes. Response Al -31: The northbound right -turn volume is projected to be over 1,100 vehicles during the AM peak hour, thus requiring two right -turn lanes. A bike lane would be provided for cyclists. The impact of the dual right -turn lanes on pedestrian conditions was identified as Impact TRANS -28 in the Draft EIR. The mitigation measure includes installation of a "Yield to Peds" sign that is activated by a pedestrian push button and a high visibility crosswalk (i.e., with ladder striping) at the east leg of the Wolfe Road/Project Access intersection to help make the crosswalk more prominent. It is also recom- mended in the Draft EIR that the City consider the provision of a leading P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 34 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES bicycle and pedestrian interval (although this is not part of a mitigation measure). Response Al -32: Please see Master Response 910: Median on East Homestead Road. Response Al -33: The public bus stops to be enhanced by the project sponsor would be designed to the appropriate VTA standards, as directed by the VTA. Response Al -34: The list on page 386 of the Draft EIR includes the transportation infrastructure improvements that are proposed as part of the project. This is an existing condition in the City of Sunnyvale and the City of Sunnyvale is best positioned to implement improvements to its bicycle facility network. The project applicant is not proposing to provide colored bike lanes on Wolfe Road at the parking transitions between El Camino Real, Homestead Road, or complete the bike lane gap on Wolfe Road/Homestead Road, so these items are appropriately not included on the list of proposed transportation improvements. All enhanced bike lanes within the City of Cupertino's jurisdiction will be maintained by the City. Response Al -35: Please see Master Response 910: Median on East Homestead Road. Response Al -36: Please see Master Response #11: Diverted Trips Due to Pruneridge Avenue Closure. Response Al -37: This comment requests potential transportation improvements that exceed those required by project impacts. The transportation analysis in the Draft EIR does not identify project impacts at the De Anza Boulevard/I-280 interchange complex. Because the project would result in less -than - significant impacts at the locations identified above, the improvements identified in the comment are not required. Please also see Master Response 93: Mitigation Nexus. Response Al -38: Table V.1- 14 in the Draft EIR shows that travel time for vehicles traveling south on North Wolfe Road would be 97 hours of total vehicle delay with a two left -turn lane project exit configuration, compared to 141 hours for a three left -turn lane configuration. This translates into 101 seconds of delay per vehicle with a two-lane project exit and 146 seconds of delay per vehicle for a three -lane project exit, a difference of 45 seconds of delay per vehicle. These results are based on a VISSIM analysis conducted for the North Wolfe Road corridor, which reflects the movement of individual vehicles on the roadway system and the effects of vehicles weaving, merging, and queuing between intersections. The City is confident this analysis reflects the best available means of understanding the impacts of the various project entrance/exit configurations on traffic along the North Wolfe Road corridor. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 35 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response Al -39: The discussion for Impact TRANS -34 refers to the closure of Pruneridge Avenue and impacts on residents at The Hamptons; however, the comment refers to the evaluation of potential traffic added to neighborhood streets. The general assessment in the Draft EIR is that the neighborhood cut -through routes are inferior to the main travel routes because they are less direct, have multiple stop signs, and lower posted speed limits. Please see Master Response: Neighborhood cut -through traffic for additional discussion on this topic. Response Al -40: Development of the project would occur in accordance with all elements of the project description as defined in Chapter III of the Draft EIR (Project Description). As described on pages 128 to 129 on the Draft EIR, Apple anticipates that three to four special events would held per year, with a maximum of approximately 1,000 guests (including approximately 350 non - Apple employee guests). The event management plan described is sufficient to evaluate associated impacts, and City staff retains the ability to monitor activities, as needed, subject to cost recovery. The Conditional Use Permit for the auditorium use would restrict events for invited guests, but would not restrict events for current Apple employees. Response Al -41: As discussed on pages 432 to 437 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would provide adequate on-site parking (with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -35), thus limiting the demand for off-site parking. The measures to address any spillover parking include implementation of additional TDM measures and, if required, the provision of additional parking. As part of the conditions of approval (and as specified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program), the project sponsor would fund monitoring to assess whether spillover parking occurs. The implementa- tion of permit parking is one of the possible measures listed on pages 435 to 436 of the Draft EIR that could be pursued if spillover parking occurs. This measure would be subject to the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Sunnyvale, but Apple has agreed to coordinate and collaborate with Sunnyvale and to contribute funding that could be used to implement the measure. Response Al -42: Please see Master Response 910: Median on East Homestead Road. The City of Cupertino would work with the City of Sunnyvale to determine the ultimate design of the median, including the length and design of the westbound left -turn lane from East Homestead Road to southbound North Wolfe Road. The final design would seek to extend the left -turn lanes as far as possible, without eliminating parking on the north side of East Homestead Road. Therefore, care would be taken to ensure that parking would not be eliminated along this section of East Homestead Road. Response Al -43: Please see Master Response 99: Monitoring TDM Program. Response Al -44: Noise from all on-site mechanical equipment, including that associated with the air intake equipment proposed in the northern quadrant of the project site P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 36 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES (and other heating -ventilation -cooling -and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment), has been analyzed and discussed on pages 465 and 466 of the Draft EIR. As described in that analysis, due to the distance of the proposed facilities from off-site sensitive receptors, noise from the operation of air intake mechanical equipment that would be located in the northern quadrant of the project site would attenuate to below background ambient noise levels (which are dominated, in the location of the air intake equipment referenced in the comment, by traffic noise on East Homestead Road) as measured at receiving sensitive land uses. Therefore, as project -related mechanical equipment stationary noise sources would not exceed existing ambient noise levels at receiving sensitive land uses (66.5 A -weighted decibels (dBA) CNEL associated with existing traffic on East Homestead Road, as measured at 50 feet from the outermost travel lane), impacts of mechanical equipment on the noise environment would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Response Al -45: This concluding comment is noted. Please see the previous responses on the analyses requested by the City of Sunnyvale. COMMENTER A2 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Kenneth R. Schreiber, Interim Executive Officer July 9, 2013 Response A2-1: This introductory comment is noted. Response A2-2: The City agrees with the statement that "even relatively small amounts of nitrogen could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact by diminishing the population sizes of serpentine species and possibly the chances of survival of the threatened [Bay checkerspot] butterfly and the serpentine - specific plant species." This concept is described more extensively in the attachment to Letter A2 (California Department of Fish and Game, 2012. Streamlining Mitigation for Impacts to Biological Resources. November 13.). However, as described in Master Response 44: Nitrogen Deposition, the contribution of the vehicle trips generated by the project to this cumulative impact would not be considerable. Furthermore, Apple would voluntarily pay 5126,381, an amount equivalent to the Nitrogen Deposition Fee, had nitrogen deposition been identified as a significant impact in the Draft EIR (no such impact was identified). Thus, even if the contribution of nitrogen from project vehicle trips were considered cumulatively considerable, the payment of this amount would ensure that such an impact would be less -than - significant. Refer to Master Response 94: Nitrogen Deposition for additional detail. Response A2-3: This comment, which indicates that payment of an amount equivalent to the Nitrogen Deposition Fee by Apple to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency would be appreciated, is noted. However, the City rejects the request that the P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 37 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES payment of this amount be identified as mitigation for a "cumulatively significant environmental impact." As described in Master Response 94: Nitrogen Deposition, the project would not make a significant contribution to the cumulative impact because: 1) the project location and most project trips would be located at a distance from nutrient -poor soils most affected by nitrogen deposition and 2) Apple, as part of the project, would voluntarily pay an amount, equivalent to the Nitrogen Deposition Fee adopted in the Habitat Plan, expected to be used to protect and enhance sensitive habitat in the region that is subject to degradation due to nitrogen deposition. However, the City agrees that if a significant impact were identified, payment of the Nitrogen Deposition Fee would be appropriate mitigation. Response A24: This comment, which does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. The City will consider the need to evaluate the effects of nitrogen deposition due to development projects within its jurisdiction based on the size, location, trip distribution, and other pertinent characteristics of proposed projects in Cupertino. Response A2-5: This concluding comment is noted. COMMENTER A3 County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department Michael Murdter, Director July 22, 2013 Response A3-1: This comment, which conveys an attached letter, is noted. Response A3-2: This introductory comment is noted. Response A3-3: Please see Master Response 91: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. Response A34: The left -turn queue on the northbound approach of the intersection of Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway currently extends the length of the left -turn pocket during the AM peak hour under existing conditions. Because the project would add traffic to this movement, Santa Clara County requests that the project add a second left -turn lane or extend the left -turn pocket. Significant project impacts were not identified at this intersection because it is projected to operate at acceptable LOS E+ under Background plus Project conditions during the AM peak period. However, Apple and Cupertino have agreed to coordinate and collaborate with Santa Clara County on operational issues, where feasible. Although the addition of project traffic to the left -turn queue would not be considered a physical environmental impact, the City of Cupertino would require a fair share contribution to this existing operational issue as a Condition of Approval, in order to improve existing operations. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 38 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER A4 State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Erik Alm, District Branch Chief July 22, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response A4-1: This comment, which conveys an attached letter, is noted. Response A4-2: This introductory comment is noted. Response A4-3: Please see Master Response 96: Project Trip Distribution. Project traffic using SR 85 north of I-280 would come from/go to areas along SR 85 and along US 101 north of the US 101/SR 85 interchange, such as Mountain View and Palo Alto. The route comprising Lawrence Expressway and US 101 is not a faster alternative for those destinations and would not be attractive to project traffic. Therefore, the trip distribution pattern and trip assignment is correct and no change is warranted. Response A4-4: Queuing is generally not considered a physical environmental impact in and of itself, based on the City's criteria of significance. The one exception to this is when excessive off -ramp queuing extends onto the freeway mainline and causes a hazardous condition. Such conditions would not occur with implementation of the project at the northbound I-280/Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek off -ramp or at the southbound I-280/Stevens Creek Boulevard off -ramp. Nevertheless, at the request of the commenter, additional analysis was conducted to respond to the comment and evaluate considerations related to queuing at the two off -ramps. The proposed project would add the greatest amount of traffic to the ramps during the AM peak hour. Therefore, supplemental operational analysis of the off -ramps was conducted and focuses on the Background Plus Project AM peak hour scenario. Table RTC -4 summarizes the results, which are discussed in detail below. The northbound I-280/Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek off -ramp has a storage capacity of approximately 430 feet on three lanes between the Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection and the junction with the northbound off -ramp, with an additional 1,300 feet of storage on the off -ramp itself. This results in a total storage capacity of 2,590 feet (430 feet x 3 lanes + 1,300 feet). Based on TRAFFIX, the average queue for the northbound approach at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/I-280-Lawrence Expressway intersection is 30 vehicles under Background No Project Conditions, which would increase to 55 vehicles under the plus project scenario. The northbound approach is assumed to have three lanes and TRAFFIX calculates the queue per lane; thus under the Background No Project scenario the queue would be 2,250 feet (30 vehicles x 25 feet/vehicle x 3 lanes) and 4,125 feet (55 vehicles x 25 feet/vehicle x 3 lanes) under the plus project scenario. The project is expected to increase the queue by 1,875 feet. With Mitigation Measure TRANS -10, which would add an additional northbound lane (increasing P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 39 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES storage to 3,020 feet (2,590 feet + 430 feet lane)), intersection operation would improve and reduce queuing to 31 vehicles per lane or 3,100 feet (31 vehicles/lane x 25 feet/vehicles x 4 lanes). While queuing would slightly exceed the 3,020 feet of available storage, the ramp is fed from an auxiliary lane, meaning that the small amount of queuing beyond storage capacity (80 feet) would occur in the auxiliary lane. This amount of queuing that only minimally exceeds storage capacity would not directly block mainline lanes and would not create a hazardous condition. The expected AM peak hour queue length can be accommodated at the southbound I-280 off ramp at Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard and no further evaluation was conducted. The southbound I-280/Stevens Creek Boulevard off -ramp has a storage capacity of approximately 400 feet in three lanes, plus 280 feet over two lanes, and 350 feet in a single lane. This results in a total storage capacity of 2,110 feet (400 feet x 3 lanes + 280 feet x 2 lanes + 350 feet x 1 lane). Based on TRAFFIX, the average queue for the southbound approach at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/I-280 Southbound Ramps is 13 vehicles under Background No Project Conditions, which would increase to 16 vehicles under the plus project scenario. TRAFFIX calculates the queue per lane; thus under the No Project scenario the queue would be 975 feet (13 vehicles x 25 feet/vehicle x 3 lanes) and 1,200 feet (16 vehicles x 25 feet/vehicle x 3 lanes) under the plus project scenario. The project is expected to increase the queue by 275 feet. The expected AM peak hour queue length can be accommodated at the southbound I-280 off ramp at Stevens Creek Boulevard and no further evaluation was conducted. Table RTC -4: Background AM Off -Ramp Queuing (in feet) Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2013. Response A4-5: The list of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures referenced in this comment and found in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) were adapted for inclusion in the Draft EIR (see pages 121 to 122). The comment that electric vehicle charging spaces would not reduce vehicle trips is noted, but no additional clarification is needed. The Draft EIR notes at the bottom of page 122 that, although "electrical vehicles would not necessarily reduce project vehicle trips, they would achieve other environmental benefits related to air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions." To the extent that bike sharing within the project site could facilitate travel to the employee amenities on-site (including dining facilities and the Corporate P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 40 Available No Plus Off -Ramp Storage Project Project Northbound I-280/Lawrence Expressway/ Stevens Creek (without Mitigation Measure 2,590 2,250 4,125 TRANS -10 Northbound I-280/Lawrence Expressway/Stevens 3,020 2,200 3,100 Creek with Mitigation Measure TRANS -10 Southbound I-280/Stevens Creek Boulevard 2,110 975 1 1,200 Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2013. Response A4-5: The list of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures referenced in this comment and found in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) were adapted for inclusion in the Draft EIR (see pages 121 to 122). The comment that electric vehicle charging spaces would not reduce vehicle trips is noted, but no additional clarification is needed. The Draft EIR notes at the bottom of page 122 that, although "electrical vehicles would not necessarily reduce project vehicle trips, they would achieve other environmental benefits related to air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions." To the extent that bike sharing within the project site could facilitate travel to the employee amenities on-site (including dining facilities and the Corporate P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 40 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Fitness Center), and reduce travel to similar facilities off-site, bike sharing could benefit off-site traffic levels. The bike sharing program would be complementary to the shuttle program, allowing Apple employees to travel to and from work without a car, while retaining the ability to travel short distances during the day, such as to other nearby Apple facilities or neighbor- ing retail establishments. Expanding the bike sharing program would promote alternative means of commuting and is appropriately described as a TDM measure. As noted in the "Campus Walking/Cycling Commutes" on page 121 of the Draft EIR, this measure includes: 1) provision of more convenient bicycle and pedestrian access to the Main Building; 2) provision of bike lockers near the entrance to the Main Building; and 3) increasing the distance between work space and parking areas, to make parking less convenient. These features would encourage the use of alternate modes of transportation. As discussed on pages 440 through 447 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b would require Apple to achieve a 34 percent alternative mode participation rate, as verified with peak trip counts at the buildout capacity of 14,200 employees. The mitigation measure does not prescribe the use of the "Additional TDM Measures" described on page 443 of the Draft EIR unless the peak trip count goal is not met. At that point, Apple would be required to implement some or all of the "Additional TDM Measures" until the peak trip count goal is met. The mitigation measure is thus structured to ensure Apple meets its peak trip count goal with the most efficient configuration of TDM measures (and is not contingent on the City selecting specific TDM measures for Apple to implement). Reducing the project parking supply may cause parking in adjacent neighborhoods (a significant concern expressed by residents who live near the project site) and therefore is not being considered for this project. Response A4-6: Ramp meters are used to manage freeway operations, by controlling the traffic demand at freeway entry ramps. The freeway operations analysis conducted as part of the Draft EIR is based on freeway density and assumes that the project on-ramp demand would be accommodated on the freeway system. The resulting freeway impacts and mitigation measure are discussed in TRANS - 22. In addition, most of the ramp intersections requested for additional analysis were evaluated in the Draft EIR. The ramp intersections at Wolfe Road/I-280 northbound ramps, Wolfe Road/I-280 southbound ramps, Lawrence Expressway/Southbound I-280 Ramps, De Anza Boulevard/SR 85 northbound ramps, and De Anza Boulevard/SR 85 southbound ramps were included in the analysis. Most of these intersections were projected to operate at acceptable service levels or appropriate intersection LOS mitigation measures were identified. Queuing is generally not considered a physical environmental impact per the City's criteria of significance, but rather an operational consideration. The one exception is when queuing at off -ramps extends onto the freeway P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 41 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES mainline and causes a hazardous condition. The comment references on - ramps, and so only relates to operational issues and not environmental impacts. However, the requested six metered freeway on -ramps were reviewed to determine if further operational analysis should be conducted. The proposed project would add the greatest amount of traffic to the on - ramps during the PM peak hour, when project traffic leaves the site to access the surrounding freeway network. The review focused on the on -ramps for the Background plus Project PM peak hour. Apple and the City would continue to work with Caltrans to determine the operational queuing considerations for the southbound I-280 on -ramps at Wolfe Road (loop) and Lawrence Expressway. In the PM peak hour, the existing queues due to ramp -metering at the southbound Lawrence Expressway on-ramp extend the length of the on-ramp. Because the project would add a considerable amount of traffic to this movement, Caltrans requests that the applicant provide additional storage for this freeway on- ramp by adding an HOV preferential lane. Although not a physical environmental impact, the City of Cupertino would require a fair share contribution to this existing operational issue as a Condition of Approval, since the addition of project traffic would increase ramp queues. Neither the northbound I-280 on -ramps at Wolfe Road (diagonal) nor De Anza Boulevard (diagonal) have ramp -metering during the PM peak hour, when the project would add the greatest amount of traffic; therefore, no additional operational analysis was considered for these two locations. The project would add 22 and 45 PM peak hour trips to the northbound SR 85/ Homestead Road loop on-ramp and southbound SR 85/De Anza Boulevard on-ramp, respectively. This is not considered a substantial amount of traffic, and therefore these two on -ramps on SR 85 were not considered for further evaluation. Response A4-7: Any construction within the Caltrans right-of-way associated with the project would be conducted with the appropriate Caltrans permits and oversight. All Traffic Operations Systems and ramp metering equipment would be main- tained and would remain operational, as required by Caltrans or other agencies. Response A4-8: Apple would continue to work with Caltrans and the City of Cupertino to develop the final design of the two off -ramps at the I-280/Wolfe Road interchange, with the goal of extending the off -ramps to contain the expected queues. The final design could include the suggestions identified in the comment. However, there are right-of-way constraints (especially in the southbound direction) that limit the length of the off -ramps. Because of these constraints, and due to jurisdictional issues, the impacts to the northbound and southbound ramps (TRANS -25 and TRANS -26) were identified as significant and unavoidable. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 42 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response A4-9: Identified freeway impacts and mitigation measures are addressed under Impact TRANS -22, and discussed in Response A8-8. Proposed mitigation measures to freeway impacts include fair share contributions to: (1) the State Route 85 Express Lane Project (converting the existing HOV lane to a toll lane to allow single occupant vehicles to drive in the HOV lane for a fee); (2) improvements identified by Caltrans to eliminate an existing bottleneck on southbound I-280 between El Monte Road and Magdalena Avenue; and (3) either the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations proposed within Cupertino, or an alternate improvement or study towards the improvement of the I-280 corridor. The fair share contribution amount was calculated in consultation with VTA staff based on the project's contribution to project growth on the affected freeway segment. Improvements on southbound I-280 between El Monte Road and Magdalena Avenue were developed by the City in collaboration with VTA and Caltrans. Response A4-10: City of Cupertino staff have discussed the fair -share formula with Caltrans and have provided Caltrans with the corresponding calculations. Caltrans has expressed that they are satisfied with the fair -share contributions and the projects identified to receive the funding. Response A4 -I1: Please see Master Response 91: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. The City would ensure that Apple pay the estimated cost of all mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, including those associated with impacts that remain significant and unavoidable. As described in the Master Response, Apple would be required to pursue the mitigation measures requiring action by other jurisdictions to the maximum extent feasible. The significant and unavoidable finding does not allow the lead agency to avoid identifying feasible mitigation, but recognizes that Caltrans and other agencies have not yet granted the necessary approvals to implement these measures and the City of Cupertino cannot, at this time, guarantee that such approvals would be granted. Apple has agreed to coordinate and collaborate with the extra - jurisdictional agencies to construct each mitigation measure, or to provide funding to the agencies to design and construct either: (1) the identified mitigation measure or (2) an alternate improvement which mitigates the impact to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino. Therefore, the City fully expects that the physical improvements identified in the noted mitigation measures would be successfully constructed and implemented and would require that Apple pursue these physical improvements or fund the estimated cost of the identified improvements, as noted in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The only circumstance in which the mitigation would not be implemented would be if Caltrans, or another responsible agency, does not approve the improvements. Response A4-12: Please refer to Section V.B, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR, for a complete disclosure of the aesthetics impacts of the proposed project, including visual simulations of the project from eight representative viewpoints in the vicinity of the project site. As described in detail in Section V.B, the project would result in no significant aesthetics impacts. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 43 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response A4-13: All sound walls proposed as part of the project, as described on page 136 of the Draft EIR, would be built along — but within — the boundaries of the project site. However, in the unlikely event that sound walls would need to be built within a State right-of-way, an environmental assessment would be prepared. Response A4-14: This comment, which pertains to the disposition of right-of-way for the construction of mitigation measures, does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR and is noted. Response A4-15: This comment, which pertains to the protocols governing work within a State right-of-way, does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR and is noted. COMMENTER A5 City of San Jose, Department of Community Development Andrew Crabtree, Division Manager, Planning Division July 22, 2013 Response A5-1: This introductory comment is noted. Response A5-2: According to the VTA Congestion Management Program Requirements for Deficiency Plans, adopted November 18, 1992, a Deficiency Plan is needed when a Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection exceeds its CMP threshold (LOS E) during CMP monitoring, or when the intersection is projected to exceed its threshold as the result of a land use impact analysis, and there are no feasible improvements or mitigation measures that would allow it to operate at or better than its threshold. The comment letter identifies five CMP intersections with significant and unavoidable impacts (four under Background plus Project conditions and one under Cumulative plus Project conditions) and concludes that a Deficiency Plan is needed. Physical improvements have been identified for the four CMP intersections with impacts under Background Plus Project Conditions that would mitigate the impacts to a less -than -significant level. Since these intersections are in neighboring jurisdictions and the City of Cupertino cannot guarantee that those jurisdictions would implement the mitigation measures, the impacts are correctly identified as significant and unavoidable. However, the project applicant would be required to provide funding to those jurisdictions of amounts that would allow for the design and construction of the improve- ments so that those jurisdictions can implement them and mitigate the project impacts. Furthermore, Apple has agreed to coordinate and collaborate with the extra -jurisdictional agencies to construct each mitigation measure, or to provide funding to the agencies to design and construct either: (1) the identified mitigation measure or (2) an alternate improvement which mitigates the impact to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino. Since these are feasible improvements, a deficiency plan is not warranted for these P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 44 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES locations. See also Master Response 91: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. The intersection of De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard is projected to operate at LOS E under Cumulative plus Project Conditions. The City of Cupertino's LOS threshold for this intersection is LOS E+, so a significant impact was identified. The CMP LOS threshold for this intersec- tion is LOS E. Therefore it would not exceed the CMP LOS threshold and a Deficiency Plan is not warranted. However, Apple would be required to pay a fair -share contribution towards implementation of an adaptive traffic signal system along De Anza Boulevard, to partially mitigate the impact that was identified in the Cumulative scenario. The City of Cupertino is committed to working collaboratively with the City of San Jose and other adjacent jurisdictions to address regional transportation improvements. Pages 411 and 412 of the Draft EIR are revised as follows: Impact TRANS -13: Under 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 LOS E) during the PM peak hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds. (S) Mitigation Measure TRANS -13a: At intersection 98 De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard, the provision of an exclusive southbound right -turn lane (for a total of two left -turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right -turn lane) and adjusting the signal timings to accommodate the added turn lane would improve intersection operations to acceptable levels at LOS E+ with 58.9 seconds of average delay. However, this improvement is physically not feasible, since the widening of the roadway to accommodate the southbound right -turn lane would impact an underground garage belonging to the office development on the northwest corner of the De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection; therefore the impact at the De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection is considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure TRANS -13b: The project sponsor shall expand the TDM program to reduce the severity of the impact. Increasing the TDM participation and associated alternative mode share from 28 percent to 34 percent would improve operations to LOS E (62.1 seconds); however the increase in TDM participation would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 45 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Mitigation Measure TRANS -13c: The project sponsor shall provide a $50,000 fair -share contribution towards the implementation of an adaptive traffic signal system along De Anza Boulevard between Homestead Road and Rainbow Drive. Implementation of an adaptive traffic signal system would improve intersection operations; however it would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. (SU) Response A5-3: Please see Master Response 99: Monitoring TDM Program and Master Response 98: Adequacy of TDM Penalties. The shuttles referenced in the comment are private shuttles for use only by Apple employees. The shuttle routes and stops are designed based on locations with concentrations of employee residences and major transit hubs. Apple would continue to modify its routes and stops in response to its employee needs. Maintaining shuttle planning as an in-house activity allows Apple to be more responsive than if it were conducted in collaboration with VTA. Response A54: Please see Master Response 99: Monitoring TDM Program and Master Response 98: Adequacy of TDM Penalties. Response A5-5: The existing sidewalk on the south side of Steven Creek Boulevard west of Calvert Drive is currently 5 feet wide. The proposed mitigation would reduce the buffer between the vehicle travel lane and the sidewalk from approxi- mately 5 feet to 1 foot and maintain the existing 5 -foot sidewalk. Because the width of the sidewalk would not diminish, no significant impact would result and no mitigation would be required. Response A5-6: Please see Master Response 94: Nitrogen Deposition. As noted in that response, Apple would voluntarily pay 5126,381, an amount equivalent to the Nitrogen Deposition Fee that would be assessed had there been a significant impact from the development of the project, based on the assumption that the project would generate 35,106 net new daily trips. The payment would be voluntary because the proposed project is not located within the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, which established such a fee for its member agencies. This payment does not constitute "mitigation" for a significant impact related to nitrogen deposition because: 1) the project's contribution to such an impact is not cumulatively considerable and 2) the payment of this amount is part of the project and thus does not constitute mitigation. Response A5-7: The themes of reducing dependency on single -occupancy vehicles and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions run through numerous City documents, including those related to land use planning. The most prominent of these is the City of Cupertino General Plan, which encourages compact, transit - oriented growth, multi -modal transportation infrastructure, and the provision of housing for a range of income groups. Please refer to the discussions, in particular, of the Land Use/Community Design Element, which promotes walkable neighborhoods (see page 142 of the Draft EIR); Housing Element, which promotes housing production in a job -rich area to reduce commutes P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 46 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 Response A5-8 COMMENTER A6 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES (see pages 146 to 147 of the Draft EIR); Circulation Element, which promotes connectivity and mobility in Cupertino with an emphasis on non -automotive transportation (see page 147 of the Draft EIR); and Environmental Resources/ Sustainability Element (see pages 147 to 148 of the Draft EIR). In addition, as discussed on page 134 of the Draft EIR, the City's Green Building Ordinance (Section 16.58 of the Municipal Code), which took effect on July 1, 2013, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the City through its support of the use of healthy building materials and construction methods and the promotion of resource efficiency and conservation through the design, construction, retrofit, operation and demolition of new buildings and existing buildings undergoing renovations. A complete copy of the General Plan may be accessed at: hllp://www.caertino.org/index.aspx?12age=709. The Green Building Ordinance may be accessed at: http://www.cupertino.org index.aspx?page=1007. This concluding comment is noted. City of Santa Clara Kevin Riley, Director of Planning July 19, 2013 Response A6-1: This introductory comment, which notes the efforts by City of Cupertino staff to meet with City of Santa Clara staff to discuss the Draft EIR, is noted. Response A6-2: This comment, which references the City of Santa Clara's support of Condition of Approval CA -TRANS -3 described on pages 435 to 436 of the Draft EIR, is noted. This Condition of Approval is designed to reduce the less -than -significant effects of the project on parking supply outside the boundaries of the project site. Response A6-3: The mitigation funds referenced in this comment would be submitted to the VTA. If the Stevens Creek BRT project does not move forward, the VTA would be able to use the funds for an alternative improvement or study towards the improvement of Stevens Creek Boulevard or the impacted I-280 corridor. Response A64: Please see Master Response 91: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. Response A6-5: Please see Master Response 911: Diverted Trips Due to Pruneridge Avenue Closure. Response A6-6: Project construction vehicles would be required to adhere to all roadway weight limit prohibitions (as well as other local, State, and federal require- ments). Response A6-7: This concluding comment is noted. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 47 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES COMMENTER A7 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) Hilda Lafebre, Manager, Capital Project & Environmental Planning July 22, 2013 Response A7-1: This comment, which conveys an attached letter, is noted. Response A7-2: Apple's existing Infinite Loop site has approximately 100 Caltrain riders, which represents approximately 2.4 percent of the 4,200 employees at that facility. Assuming a similar level of Caltrain ridership, the proposed project would result in 340 new Caltrain riders. Assuming that 40 percent of these would ride the trains during the peak hour, the proposed project would increase Caltrain peak -hour ridership by approximately 140 riders (340 x 40 percent). Based on Apple's trip distribution assumptions shown in Figure V.I-7 and accessibility to Caltrain stations, approximately 70 percent of these riders would travel southbound and 30 percent would travel northbound in the AM peak hour (98 southbound and 42 northbound riders). Table RTC -5 lists the AM peak hour Caltrain train capacities and expected Apple demand by service type and direction of travel. Table RTC -5: Caltrain AM Peak Hour Capacity Notes: 1. Assuming total capacity of 650 seats per train. 2. Number of trains serving Sunnyvale and Lawrence stations based on August 2013 train schedule. Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2013. In the southbound direction, the Limited Trains have an available capacity of 325 seats (650 seats x (1-0.5 load factor)) and the Express Trains have an available capacity of approximately 150 seats (650 seats x (1-0.77 load factor)). Between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. two Limited Trains serve the Sunnyvale and/or Lawrence stations (no Express Train service is provided to the two stations in Sunnyvale in the southbound direction in the AM peak hour); thus in the AM peak hour Caltrain has a total capacity of 650 seats (325 Limited Train capacity x 2 trains) in the southbound direction, which would be sufficient to meet the expected demand of 98 new southbound Caltrain riders from the proposed project. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 48 Seats Seats Estimated Available Number of Available Apple Load per Trains Per Per Peak Caltrain Service Type Factor Train' Peak Hour Hour Riders Southbound Limited Trains 0.50 325 2 650 98 Express Trains (Baby Bullet) 0.77 150 0 0 Northbound Limited Trains 0.68 208 4 832 Express Trains (Baby Bullet) 0.93 45 1 45 42 Notes: 1. Assuming total capacity of 650 seats per train. 2. Number of trains serving Sunnyvale and Lawrence stations based on August 2013 train schedule. Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2013. In the southbound direction, the Limited Trains have an available capacity of 325 seats (650 seats x (1-0.5 load factor)) and the Express Trains have an available capacity of approximately 150 seats (650 seats x (1-0.77 load factor)). Between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. two Limited Trains serve the Sunnyvale and/or Lawrence stations (no Express Train service is provided to the two stations in Sunnyvale in the southbound direction in the AM peak hour); thus in the AM peak hour Caltrain has a total capacity of 650 seats (325 Limited Train capacity x 2 trains) in the southbound direction, which would be sufficient to meet the expected demand of 98 new southbound Caltrain riders from the proposed project. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 48 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Similarly, in the northbound direction, the Limited Trains have an available capacity of 208 seats (650 x (1-0.68 load factor)) and the Express Trains have an available capacity of approximately 45 seats (650 seats x (1-0.93 load factor)). Between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. four Limited Trains and one Express Train service the Sunnyvale and/or Lawrence stations; thus in the AM peak hour Caltrain has a total capacity of 877 seats (208 Limited Train capacity x 4 trains plus 45 Express Train capacity x 1 train) in the north- bound direction, which is sufficient to meet the expected demand of 42 southbound Caltrain riders. The difference in travel times between the Limited and Express northbound trains is minimal; thus project employees would be expected to ride either service equally. COMMENTER A8 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Roy Molseed, Senior Environmental Planner Michael T. Burns, General Manager July 22, 2013 Response A8-1: This introductory comment, which states that many of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA's) preliminary concerns about the project were addressed in the Draft EIR and Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), is noted. Response A8-2: This comment, which requests that bus stops proposed adjacent to the project site be designed such that VTA buses are unimpeded by Apple -related buses and shuttles, is noted. The new VTA bus stops that would be developed as part of the project on North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue, as described on page 111 of the Draft EIR, would be exclusively for VTA vehicles. Response A8-3: The proposed intersection modifications generally include minor widening such as the addition of one lane on an approach. Due to the combination of the modifications requiring only minor widening and the low transit, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes in the vicinity of the affected intersections, secondary impacts to non -auto modes would be less than significant and thus would not require mitigation. It should be noted, however, that the designs for the modifications would incorporate pedestrian -friendly treatments such as narrow lane widths and tight corner radii, where appropriate. For example, at the Homestead Road/Tantau Avenue (927) and Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue (932) intersections, the proposed mitigation measures, which involve adding right -turn lanes, also include eliminating existing "pork -chop" islands to improve the pedestrian environment. In addition, mitigation measures that include roadway widening would generally only occur at locations where the project is anticipated to add a substantial amount of vehicle traffic, thus resulting in poor LOS. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 49 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response A84: This comment encourages the City to consider alternatives to widening intersections when Level of Service (LOS) thresholds are exceeded. The Draft EIR utilizes the significance criteria currently used by the City. Response A8-5: As discussed on pages 111 to 120 of the Draft EIR, the project would include enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the streets surrounding the project site. In addition, Mitigation Measure PLAN -2 and Mitigation Measure PLAN -3 would require Apple to implement additional bike and pedestrian facility improvements, including a coordinated wayfinding scheme around the project site perimeter, enhanced bike lanes and pedestrian paths along the North Wolfe Road bridge over I-280, other bicycle and pedestrian amenities, ADA improvements, and an alternate Calabazas Creek pathway. Also, Mitigation Measures TRANS -23, TRANS -28, TRANS - 29 would require enhancements to the pedestrian environment at the North Wolfe Road/Project Access intersection and at the I-280 ramps with Wolfe Road. The City has identified all feasible mitigation to reduce the impacts of roadway widening on the pedestrian and bike environment in the vicinity of the project site. Response A8-6: The apparent discrepancy identified in the TIA is that Intersection 921, Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound Ramps is indicated as having a significant project impact in Table ES -1 under Background plus Project and Cumulative plus Project Conditions but is not included in Tables 15 and 16. The infor- mation in Table ES -1 of the TIA is correct. The intersection LOS for Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound Ramp intersection (921) was inadvertently omitted from Tables 15 and 16; although impacts were correctly identified in Impacts TRANS -5 and TRANS -14 in the Draft EIR for Background and Cumulative plus Project conditions, respectively. Response A8-7: This comment, which concurs with Mitigation Measure TRANS -22, is noted. Response A8-8: An expanded freeway segment analysis was conducted to provide more information regarding Impact TRANS -22. This expanded analysis conducted in response to this comment identifies impacts to additional freeway segments. Page 398 of the Draft EIR will be revised to reflect this analysis (see Chapter IV, Text Revisions, and discussion below). These changes are not considered "significant new information" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 because they do not represent a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an impact. The newly identified segments include segments that are more distant from the project site than the ones initially identified in the Draft EIR. In addition, the amount of project traffic that would be contributed to the newly identified segments would be less than the amount of project traffic identified in the previously identified segments. While the number of affected segments has increased, the intensity of the impact has not increased, since the volume of project traffic diminishes as distance from the project site increases. Therefore, the changes to this impact represent refinements to the impact statement in the Draft EIR and do P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 50 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES not represent a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of the impact. Table V.1- 10 (Existing Plus Project Freeway Levels of Service) and page 398 of the Draft EIR are revised as follows. The changes to Table V.1- 10 are not shown using underline and strikeout text to enhance readability. Table V.I-10: Existing Plus Project Freeway Segment Levels of Service P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 51 Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Conditions Peak Capacity % Freeway Se ment Direction' Hour v h 3 Densi ,4 LOSS Tri s6 Density LOS Im act7 Mixed -Flow Lanes AM 88 F 29 89 F 0.66% SR 17 - Summit Road NB PM 4400 24 C 11 24 C 0.25% to Bear Creek Road AM 19 C 5 19 C 0.11% SB 4400 PM 45 D 10 45 D 0.23% SR 17 -Bear Creek NB AM 4400 92 F 39 93 F 0.89% PM 20 C 15 20 C 0.34% Road to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road SB AM 4400 17 B 7 17 B 0.16% PM 36 D 15 36 D 0.34% AM 54 E 110 56 E 2.50% SR 17 -Saratoga-Los NB 4400 PM 28 D 30 28 D 0.68% Gatos Road to Lark Avenue SB AM 4400 29 D 13 29 D 0.30% PM 70 F 40 71 F 0.91% AM 35 D 147 36 D 3.34% NB 4400 SR 17 - Lark Avenue PM 23 C 40 23 C 0.91% to SR 85 AM 14 B 17 14 B 0.39% SB 4400 PM 50 E 100 51 E 2.27% AM 53 E 20 53 E 0.29% SR 17 - SR 85 to San NB 6900 PM 19 C 8 19 C 0.12% Tomas Expressway/ Camden Avenue SB AM 6900 13 B 3 13 B 0.04% PM 21 C 20 21 C 0.29% SR 17 - San Tomas AM 72 F 39 73 F 0.57% Expressway/Camden NB PM 6900 20 C 16 20 C 0.23% Avenue to Hamilton AM 18 B 6 18 B 0.08% Avenue SB PM 7820 27 D 39 27 D 0.50% AM 71 F 77 64 F 0.98% SR 17 - Hamilton NB PM 7820 36 D 31 32 D 0.40% Avenue to I-280 AM 26 C 12 26 C 0.17% SB 6900 PM 41 D 77 42 D 1.12% SR 85 - SR 87 to NB AM 4600 119 F 23 121 F 0.50% PM 25 C 6 25 C 0.13% Almaden Expressway SB AM 4600 22 C 3 22 C 0.070 0 PM 27 D 19 27 D 0.41% AM 85 F 45 86 F 0.98% SR 85 -Almaden NB 4600 PM 36 D 12 36 D 0.26% Expressway Camden Avenue SB AM 4600 24 C 5 24 C 0.11% PM 41 D 37 41 D 0.80% AM 70 F 60 71 1.30% SR 85 -Camden NB 4600 PM 27 D 16 27 D 0.35% Avenue to Union Avenue SB AM 4600 31 D 7 31 D 0.15% PM 52 E 48 53 E 1.04% AM 60 F 81 61 F 1476% SR 85 -Union NB 4600 PM 27 D 21 27 D 0.46% Avenue to S. Bascom Avenue SB AM 4600 20 C 10 20 C 0.22% PM 81 F 65 $3 F 1.41°l P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 51 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Table V.I-10: Existing Plus Proiect Freewav Segment Levels of Service P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 52 Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Conditions % Peak Capacity Freeway Segment Direction' Hour v h 3 Densi ,4 LOSS Tri s6 Density LOS Im act7 AM 105 F 108 109 F 2.35% NB 4600 SR 85 - S. Bascom PM 14 B 28 14 B 0.61% Avenue to SR 17 AM 16 B 12 16 B 0.26% SB PM 4600 68 F 86 70 F 1.87% AM 85 F Z16 91 F 4.70% NB 4600 SR 85 - SR 17 to PM 18 B 55 18 B 1.20% Winchester Blvd AM 14 B 24 14 B 0.52% SB 4600 PM 27 D 171 28 D 3.72% AM 69 F 240 74 F 5.22% SR 85 -Winchester NB 4600 PM 27 D 62 27 D 1.35% Blvd to Saratoga Avenue SB AM 4600 30 D 29 30 D 0.63% PM 54 E 190 57 E 4.13% SR 85 -Saratoga NB AM 4600 32 D 48 32 D 1.04% PM 21 C 12 21 C 0.26% Avenue to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road SB AM 4600 23 C 5 23 C 0.11% PM 65 F 38 66 F 0.83% AM 54 E 0 47 E 0.00% SR 85 -Saratoga- NB 5290 PM 21 C 0 18 B 0.00% Sunnyvale Road to Stevens Creek Blvd SB AM 4600 19 C 0 19 C 0.00% PM 94 F 0 94 F 0.00% AM 109 F 28 110 F 0.61% NB 4600 SR 85 - Stevens PM 19 C 7 19 C 0.15% Creek Blvd to I-280 AM 15 B 3 12 B 0.04% SB 6900 PM 85 F 22 68 F 0.32% AM 94 F 31 114 F 0.67% NB 4600 SR 85 -1-280 to W. PM 15 B 223 20 C 4.85% Homestead Road AM 14 B 282 16 B 6.13% SB 4600 PM 25 C 72 26 C 1.57% AM 89 F 26 90 F 0.57% SR 85 - W. NB 4600 PM 26 C 202 28 D 4.39% Homestead Road to W. Fremont Avenue SB AM 4600 25 C 240 27 D 5.22% PM 53 E 61 54 E 1.33% AM 65 F 20 65 F 0.43% SR 85 - W. Fremont NB 4600 PM 28 D 143 29 D 3.11% Avenue to El Camino Real SB AM 4600 25 C 186 26 C 4.04% PM 72 F 45 73 F 0.98% NB AM 4600 52 E 12 52 E 0.26% SR 85 - El Camino PM 28 D 88 29 D 1.91% Real to SR 237 AM 25 C 111 32 D 2.41% SB PM 4600 106 F 27 134 F 0.59% AM 26 C 6 26 C 0.13% NB 4600 SR 85 - SR 237 to PM 20 C 44 20 C 0.96% Central Expressway AM 12 B 54 12 B 1.17% SB 4600 PM 90 F 14 90 F 0.30% AM 36 D 6 36 D 0.13% SR 85 - Central NB 4600 PM 14 B 42 14 B 0.91/0 Expressway to US 101 SB AM 4600 16 B 57 16 B 1.24% PM 28 D 14 28 D 0.30% AM 95 F 88 96 F 0.96% NB 9200 I-280 - US 101 to PM 21 C 31 21 C 0.34% McLaughlin Avenue AM 18 B 7 18 B 0.08% SB 9200 PM 31 D 47 31 D 0.51% P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 52 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Table V.I-10: Existing Plus Proiect Freewav Segment Levels of Service P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 53 Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Conditions % Peak Capacity Freeway Segment Direction' Hour v h 3 Densi ,4 LOSS Tri s6 Density LOS Im act7 AM 75 F 117 76 1427% I-280 -McLaughlin NB 9200 Avenue 10th PM 34 D 39 34 D 0.42% to Street SB AM 9200 22 C 14 22 C 0.15% PM 52 E 94 53 E 1.02% AM 76 F 130 78 F 14410/6 NB 9200 I-280 - 10th Street to PM 29 D 43 29 D 0.47% SR 87 AM 20 C 16 20 C 0.17% SB9200 PM 66 F 104 67 F 1.13% AM 88 F 260 92 F 2.83% I-280 - SR 87 to Bird NB PM 9200 72 F 85 73 F 0.92% Avenue AM 19 C 32 19 C 0.35% SB PM 9200 67 F 207 69 F 2.25% AM 88 F 289 92 F 3;14% NB 9200 I-280 - Bird Avenue PM 44 D 94 44 D 1.02% to Meridian Avenue AM 30 D 35 30 D 0.38% SB PM 9200 60 F 236 62 F 2.50% AM 113 F 3227 112 F 3;84% NB 8510 I-280 - Meridian PM 25 C 116 23 C 1.36% Avenue to I-880 AM 25 C 40 19 C 0.43% SB PM 9200 85 F 260 67 F 2,836/o AM 84 F 654 96 F 9.48% NB 6900 I-280 -1-880 to PM 34 D 212 35 D 3.07% Winchester Blvd AM 23 C 80 23 C 1.16% SB6900 PM 103 F 520 116 F 7.54% AM 76 F 728 V F 10.55% I-280 -Winchester NB 6900 PM 34 D 247 35 D 3.58% Blvd to Saratoga Avenue SB AM 6900 36 D 94 37 D 1.36% PM 51 E 578 56 E 8.38% AM 67 F 785 76 F 11.38% I-280 -Saratoga NB PM 6900 29 D 225 30 D 3.26% Avenue to Lawrence Expressway SB AM 6900 28 D 100 29 D 1.45% PM 77 F 623 86 F 9.03% AM 62 F 382 66 F 5.54% I-280 -Lawrence NB 6900 PM 32 D 106 33 D 1.54% Expresway to Wolfe Road SB AM 6900 25 C 67 25 C 0.97% PM 63 F 411 67 F 5.96% NB AM 6900 57 E 135 58 E 1.96% I-280 - Wolfe Road to PM 31 D 705 35 D 10.22% De Anza Blvd AM 29 D 850 33 D 12.32% SB PM 6900 97 F 269 103 F 3.90% AM 57 E 136 58 E 1.97% NB 6900 I-280 - De Anza Blvd PM 29 D 672 32 D 9.74% to SR 85 AM 24 C 831 28 D 12.04% SB PM 6900 81 F 245 85 F 3.55% AM 62 F 107 63 F 1.55% NB 6900 I-280 - SR 85 to PM 24 C 439 26 C 6.36% Foothill Expressway AM 26 C 534 29 D 7.74% SB PM 6900 70 F 178 72 F 2.58"% AM 41 D 86 42 D 1.25% I - Foothill NB 6900 PM 23 C 368 25 C 5.33% Expressway to Magdalena Avenue SB AM 6900 30 D 436 32 D 6.32% PM 51 E 146 52 E 2.12% P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 53 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Table V.I-10: Existing Plus Proiect Freewav Segment Levels of Service P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 54 Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Conditions % Peak Capacity Freeway Segment Direction' Hour v h 3 Densi ,4 LOSS Tri s6 Density LOS Im act7 AM 36 D 81 42 D 1.01/0 I-280 - Magdalena NB 8050 Avenue El Monte PM 22 C 326 27 D 4.05% to Road SB AM 9200 27 D 402 29 D 4.37% PM 70 F 134 71 F 1.46% AM 31 D 65 31 D 0.71% I-280 - El Monte NB 9200 PM 21 C 261 22 C 2.84% Road Road to La Barranca SB AM 9200 20 C 322 21 C 3.50% PM 63 F 87 64 F 0.95% AM 29 D 65 30 D 0.72% I-280 - La Barranca NB 8970 PM 24 C 261 26 C 2.91% Road to Page Mill Road SB AM 9200 20 C 322 21 C 3.50% PM 58 E 87 59 F 0.95% NB AM 9200 23 C 39 23 C 0.42% I-280 - Page Mill PM 45 D 1 157 46 D 1.71% Road to Alpine Road AM 24 C 193 25 C 2.10% SB PM 9200 23 C 52 23 C 0.57% AM 84 F 35 85 F 0.51% I-880 -1-280 to NB 6900 PM 18 B 229 19 C 3.32% Stevens Creek Boulevard SB AM 6900 20 C 308 22 C 4.46% PM 29 D 93 30 D 1.35% AM 81 F 32 82 F 0.46% I-880 - Stevens Creek NB 6900 PM 25 C 206 26 C 2.99% Boulevard to N. AM 61 F 277 64 4.01% Bascom Avenue SB 6900 PM 52 E 84 53 E 1.22% AM 76 F 24 76 F 0.35% I-880 - N. Bascom NB 6900 PM 29 D 155 30 D 2.25% Avenue to The Alameda SB AM 6900 26 C 208 27 D 3.01% PM 56 E 63 57 E 0.91% NB AM 6900 84 F 18 84 F 0.26% I-880 - The Alameda PM 29 D 116 30 D 1.68% to Coleman Avenue AM 31 D 156 32 D 2.26% SB 6900 PM 74 F 47 75 F 0.68% AM 54 E 14 54 E 0.20% I-880 - Coleman NB PM 6900 33 D 87 33 D 1.26% Avenue to SR 87 AM 31 D 117 32 D 1.70% SB 6900 PM 64 F 35 64 F 0.51% NB AM 6900 55 E 14 55 E 0.20% I-880 - SR 87 to N. PM 40 D 87 41 D 1.26% 1st Street AM 35 D 117 36 D 1.70% SB PM 6900 73 F 35 74 F 0.51% AM 72 F 13 72 F 0.19% NB 6900 1-880-N. 1st Street PM 44 D 78 45 D 1.13% to US 101 AM 25 C 105 26 C 1.52% SB 6900 PM 85 F 32 86 F 0.46% AM 55 E 10 55 E 0.14% EB 6900 I-880 - US 101 to E. PM 60 F 62 61 F 0.90% Brokaw Road AM 24 C 84 24 C 1.22% WB 6900 PM 67 F 26 67 F 0.38% AM 30 D 6 30 D 0.09% Brokaw EB 6900 PM 36 D 37 36 D 0.54% to Montague Exad p�3 WB AM 6900 30 D 50 30 D 0.72% PM 79 F 16 79 F 0.23% P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 54 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Table V.I-10: Existing Plus Proiect Freewav Segment Levels of Service P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 55 Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Conditions % Peak Capacity Freeway Segment Direction' Hour v h 3 Densi ,4 LOSS Tri s6 Density LOS Im act7 AM 27 D 3 27 D 0.04°% I-880 - Montague EB 6900 Expwy Great Mall PM 65 F 19 65 F 0.28% to Pkwy WB AM 6900 41 D 25 41 D 0.36% PM 75 F 8 75 F 0.12% EB AM 4400 82 F 7 82 F 0.16% SR 237 - SR 85 to PM 23 C 50 23 C 1.14% Central Expressway AM 24 C 63 24 C 1.43% WB 4400 PM 56 E 16 56 E 0.36% AM 31 D 4 31 D 0.09% SR 237 - Central EB 4400 PM 13 B 25 13 B 0.57/0 Expressway to Maude Avenue WB AM 4400 13 B 32 13 B 0.73 /o PM 62 F 8 62 F 0.18% EB AM 4400 60 F 2 60 F 0.05% SR 237 - Maude PM 25 C 13 25 C 0.30% Avenue to US 101 AM 31 D 24 31 D 0.55% WB PM 4400 60 F 6 60 F 0.14% High -Occupancy Vehicle HOV Lanes AM 61 F 4 61 F 0.24% NB 1650 SR 85 - SR 87 to PM 12 B 1 12 B 0.06% Almaden Expressway AM 4 A 0 4 A 0.00% SB 1650 PM 20 C 3 20 C 0.18% AM 45 D 8 45 D 0.48% SR 85 -Almaden NB 1650 PM 9 A 2 9 A 0.12% Expressway Camden Avenue SB AM 1650 10 A 1 10 A 0.06% PM 24 C 6 24 C 0.36% AM 42 D 11 42 D 0.67% SR 85 -Camden NB PM 1650 10 A 3 10 A 0.18% Avenue to Union Avenue SB AM 1650 8 A 1 8 A 0.06% PM 30 D 9 30 D 0.55% SR 85 - Union NB AM 1650 37 D 14 37 D 0.85% PM 11 A 4 11 A 0.24% Avenue to S. Bascom Avenue SB AM 1650 5 A 1 5 A 0.06% PM 37 D 11 37 D 0.67% AM 77 F 19 78 F 1415% NB 1650 SR 85 - S. Bascom PM 18 B 5 18 B 0.30% Avenue to SR 17 AM 14 B 2 14 B 0.12% SB 1650 PM 25 C 15 25 C 0.91% AM 90 F 38 92 F 2.30% NB 1650 SR 85 - SR 17 to PM 8 A 10 8 A 0.61% Winchester Blvd AM 6 A 4 6 A 0.24% SB 1650 PM 24 C 30 24 C 1.82% AM 46 D 42 47 E 2.55% SR 85 -Winchester NB 1650 PM 8 A 10 8 A 0.61% Blvd to Saratoga Avenue SB AM 1650 4 A 2 4 A 0.12% PM 29 D 33 29 D 2.00% AM 31 D 8 31 D 0.48/0 SR 85 - Saratoga NB 1650 PM 7 A 2 7 A 0.12% Avenue to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road SB AM 1650 6 A 1 6 A 0.06% PM 26 C 7 26 C 0.42% AM 21 C 0 21 C 0.00/0 SR 85 - Saratoga- NB PM 1650 8 A 0 8 A 0.00 o Sunnyvale Road to Stevens Creek Blvd SB AM 1650 6 A 0 6 A 0.00% PM 31 D 0 31 D 0.00% P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 55 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Table V.I-10: Existing Plus Proiect Freewav Segment Levels of Service P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 56 Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Conditions % Peak Capacity Freeway Segment Direction' Hour v h 3 Densi ,4 LOSS Tri s6 Density LOS Im act7 AM 21 C 0 21 C 0.00% NB 1650 SR 85 - Stevens PM 8 A 0 8 A 0.00% Creek Blvd to I-280 AM 9 A 0 9 A 0.00% SB 1650 PM 29 D 0 29 D 0.00% NB AM 1650 60 F 0 60 F 0.00% SR 85 -1-280 to W. PM 9 A 0 9 A 0.00% Homestead Road AM 7 A 0 7 A 0.00% SB 1650 PM 29 D 0 29 D 0.00% AM 41 D 5 41 D 0.30% SR 85 - W. NB 1650 PM 5 A 21 5 A 1.27% Homestead Road to W. Fremont Avenue SB AM 1650 9 A 42 10 A 2.55% PM 21 C 11 21 C 0.67% SR 85 - W. Fremont NB AM 1650 47 E 3 47 E 0.18% PM 9 A 24 9 A 1.45% Avenue to El Camino Real SB AM 1650 7 A 26 7 A 1.58% PM 25 C 8 25 C 0.48% AM 39 D 2 39 D 0.12% NB 1650 SR 85 - El Camino PM 7 A 12 7 A 0.73% Real to SR 237 AM 9 A 16 9 A 0.97% SB 1650 PM 29 D 5 29 D 0.30% AM 24 C 1 24 C 0.06% NB 1650 SR 85 - SR 237 to PM 5 A 6 5 A 0.36% Central Expressway AM 7 A 10 7 A 0.61% SB 1650 PM 18 B 2 18 B 0.12% AM 15 B 1 15 B 0.06% SR 85 -Central NB 1650 PM 7 A 8 7 A 0.48% to US 1Opressway SB AM 1650 4 A 7 4 A 0.42% PM 7 A 2 7 A 0.12% NB AM 1650 32 D 58 33 D 3.52% I-280 - Meridian PM 6 A 9 6 A 0.55% Avenue to I-880 AM 13 B 7 13 B 0.42% SB PM 1650 82 F 46 84 F 2.79% AM 50 E 116 53 E 7.03% I-280 -1-880 to NB PM 1650 18 B 37 19 C 2.24% Winchester Blvd AM 12 B 14 12 B 0.85% SB PM 1650 92 F 92 97 F 5.58"% AM 43 D 128 46 D 7.76% I-280 -Winchester NB 1650 PM 11 A 30 11 A 1.82% Blvd to Saratoga Avenue SB AM 1650 10 A 10 10 A 0.61% PM 29 D 102 30 D 6.18% AM 58 E 139 62 8.42% I-280 -Saratoga NB 1650 PM 7 A 20 7 A 1.21% Avenue to Lawrence Expressway SB AM 1650 9 A 11 9 A 0.67% PM 32 D 110 34 D 6.67% AM 56 E 0 56 E 0.00% -Lawrence NB 1650 PM 10 A 0 10 A 0.00% ExpreI-280 sway to Wolfe Road SB AM 1650 12 B 0 12 B 0.00% PM 39 D 0 39 D 0.00% AM 50 E 0 50 E 0.00% NB 1650 I-280 - Wolfe Road to PM 9 A 0 9 A 0.00% De Anza Blvd AM 18 B 0 18 B 0.00% SB 1650 PM 33 D 0 33 D 0.00% P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 56 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Table V.I-10: Existing Plus Project Freeway Segment Levels of Service Notes: Bold font indicates unacceptable operations based on VTA's LOS E Standard. Bold and highlighted indicates significant impacts. ' NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound. 2 AM = morning peak hour, PM = afternoon peak hour. 3 vph = vehicles per hour 4 Measured in passenger cars per mile per lane. 5 LOS = level of service. 6 Project trips added to individual freeway segments 7 Percent Contribution determined by dividing the number of project trips by the freeway segment's capacity. Source: 2011 Monitoring and Conformance Report, VTA, May 2012. Impact TRANS -22: Completion of the proposed project would add substantial amounts of traffic to the following ten mixed flow segments and one HOV freeway segments operating at LOS F: I-280, Southbound, El Monte Road to Magdalena Avenue I-280, Northbound, SR 85 to Foothill Expressway I-280, Southbound, Foothill Expressway to SR 85 I-280, Southbound, SR 85 to De Anza Boulevard I-280, Southbound, De Anza Boulevard to Wolfe Road I-280, Northbound, Lawrence Expressway to Wolfe Road • I-280, Southbound, Wolfe Road to Lawrence Expressway/ Stevens Creek Boulevard • I-280, Northbound, Saratoga Avenue to Lawrence Expressway/ Stevens Creek Boulevard • I-280, Southbound, Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard to Saratoga Avenue I-280, Northbound, Winchester Boulevard to Saratoga Avenue I-280, Northbound, Winchester Boulevard to I-880 I-280, Southbound, Winchester Boulevard to I-880 P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 57 Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Conditions % Peak Capacity FreewaySegment Direction' Hour v h s Densi ,4 LOSS Tri s6 Density LOS Im acts AM 32 D 24 32 D 1.45% NB 1650 I-280 - De Anza Blvd PM 10 A 83 11 A 5.03% to SR 85 AM 9 A 106 11 A 6.42% SB 1650 PM 25 C 43 26 C 2.61% NB AM 1650 42 D 19 42 D 1.15% I-280 - SR 85 to PM 11 A 71 12 B 4.30% Foothill Expressway AM 15 B 94 16 B 5.70% SB 1650 PM 18 B 31 18 B 1.88% AM 40 D 15 40 D 0.91% I-280 -Foothill NB 1650 PM 7 A 40 8 A 2.42% Expressway to Magdalena Avenue SB AM 1650 13 B 66 14 B 4.00% PM 13 B 21 13 B 1.27% Notes: Bold font indicates unacceptable operations based on VTA's LOS E Standard. Bold and highlighted indicates significant impacts. ' NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound. 2 AM = morning peak hour, PM = afternoon peak hour. 3 vph = vehicles per hour 4 Measured in passenger cars per mile per lane. 5 LOS = level of service. 6 Project trips added to individual freeway segments 7 Percent Contribution determined by dividing the number of project trips by the freeway segment's capacity. Source: 2011 Monitoring and Conformance Report, VTA, May 2012. Impact TRANS -22: Completion of the proposed project would add substantial amounts of traffic to the following ten mixed flow segments and one HOV freeway segments operating at LOS F: I-280, Southbound, El Monte Road to Magdalena Avenue I-280, Northbound, SR 85 to Foothill Expressway I-280, Southbound, Foothill Expressway to SR 85 I-280, Southbound, SR 85 to De Anza Boulevard I-280, Southbound, De Anza Boulevard to Wolfe Road I-280, Northbound, Lawrence Expressway to Wolfe Road • I-280, Southbound, Wolfe Road to Lawrence Expressway/ Stevens Creek Boulevard • I-280, Northbound, Saratoga Avenue to Lawrence Expressway/ Stevens Creek Boulevard • I-280, Southbound, Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard to Saratoga Avenue I-280, Northbound, Winchester Boulevard to Saratoga Avenue I-280, Northbound, Winchester Boulevard to I-880 I-280, Southbound, Winchester Boulevard to I-880 P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 57 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES • I-280, Northbound, I-880 to Meridian Avenue • I-280, Southbound, I-880 to Meridian Avenue • I-280, Northbound, Meridian Avenue to Bird Avenue • I-280, Southbound, Meridian Avenue to Bird Avenue I-280, Northbound, Bird Avenue to SR 87 • I-280, Southbound, Bird Avenue to SR 87 I-280, Northbound, SR 87 to loth Street I-280, Southbound, SR 87 to loth Street • I-280, Northbound, loth Street to McLaughlin Avenue I-280, HOV, Northbound, Saratoga Avenue to Lawrence Expressway I-280, HOV, Southbound, Winchester Boulevard to I-880 • I-280, HOV, Southbound, I-880 to Meridian Avenue • SR 85, Northbound, Winchester Boulevard to SR 17 + HOVfa • SR 85, Northbound, Saratoga Avenue to Winchester Boulevard • SR 85, Southbound, SR 17 to Bascom Avenue • SR 85, Northbound, SR 17 to Bascom Avenue + HOV • SR 85, Southbound, Bascom Avenue to Union Avenue • SR 85, Northbound, Bascom Avenue to Union Avenue • SR 85, Northbound, Union Avenue to Camden Avenue I-880, Southbound, Bascom Avenue to Stevens Creek Boulevard These freeway segments would be impacted under the Existing Plus Project Conditions based on CMP guidelines. (S) Mitigation Measure TRANS -22: The project sponsor shall pay a $5Fr,0001,292,215 fair share contribution towards4w-e planned transportation projects identified in VT -A's V-aIL- 4 ,,,tat; p'an 20�5�r��-that would improve traffic operations of the impacted freeway segments and provide added transportation 2 The Valley Transpot4ation Plan is a long range, vision —fiff fira-asportation in Santa Clara County. The NITA i .,...f.,f:,.,, P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 58 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES capacity on parallel facilities: (1) SR 85 Express Lane project (converting the existing HOV lane to a toll lane to allow single occupant vehicles to drive in the HOV lane for a fee) between Mountain View and San Jose, (2) eliminating the existing bottleneck on southbound I-280 between El Monte Road and Magdalen Avenue; and (23) either the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations proposed within Cupertino an Stevens Greek Baialevafd at Wolf Read and De Anz Baia ov^ra or an alternative improvement or study towards the improvement of the impacted I-280 corridor or a parallel corridor that would provide capacity. The fair share contribution amount was calculated in consultation with VTA staff based on the project's contribution to project growth on the impacted freeway segment. It is unlikely that the Express Lane or BRT project would be imple- mented prior to project completion and that these improvements would reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. In addition, the City has no control over the implementation of these mitigation measures; therefore the impact to the freeway segments would remain significant and unavoidable. (SU) Response A8-9: This comment references Mitigation Measures TRANS -1, TRANS -5, TRANS -14, TRANS -25, TRANS -26, and TRANS -29, which relate to changes to the I-280/Wolfe Road freeway ramps. As explained in the Draft EIR, these changes would be under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. The comment that these changes remain within the Caltrans right-of-way is noted. Response A8-10: Please see Response to Comment A44. Response A8 -I 1: This concluding comment is noted. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 59 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 B. ORGANIZATIONS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 60 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER BI Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Corinne Winter July 22, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response B1-1: This introductory comment, which states that "Apple has done an exemplary job of incorporating [the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition's] suggestions to make this part of Cupertino more bike -friendly," is noted. Response B1-2: This comment, which discusses the improvements to bike infrastructure and facilities around the project site that Apple would implement as part of the project, is noted. These improvements are discussed on pages 111 to 112 of the Draft EIR and are graphically depicted in Figures III -20a through III -20f of the Draft EIR. The TDM measures proposed as part of the project and referenced in the comment are described on pages 121 to 122 of the Draft EIR. Response B1-3: The operations of southbound North Tantau Avenue were comprehensively evaluated from a multi -modal perspective. Evaluation of the VISSIM model results during the PM peak hour showed that the vehicular volumes traveling south from the project site and turning right onto Vallco Parkway would warrant the provision of a second southbound through lane at the I-280 overcrossing. The provision of a single through lane on the I-280 overcross- ing would result in a bottleneck with significant queues on southbound North Tantau Avenue. It should be noted that excessive queuing can lead to impa- tient driving behavior, which could adversely affect bicycle and pedestrian travel on southbound North Tantau Avenue. Response B 1-4: Reverse angle parking is safer for bicyclists. However, it is currently not being proposed for Vallco Parkway as it is not yet an established vehicle parking configuration and therefore is not familiar to most motorists. Although the provision of 6 -foot bike lanes would further improve the bicycling environment, the provision of 5 -foot bike lanes is adequate and meets Caltrans engineering standards. Response B 1-5: This concluding comment is noted. COMMENTER B2 SEIU-United Service Workers West July 19, 2013 Response 132-1: This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR and is noted. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 61 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER B3 Concerned Citizens of Cupertino July 17, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response 133-1: This comment, which conveys a table of contents for the remainder of the letter, is noted. Response 133-2: This comment provides information from the City of Menlo Park on the Facebook Campus Project and a quote from the Cupertino Courier on the Apple Campus 2 project, and is noted. Response 133-3: This comment provides suggestions for the City to consider in addressing traffic congestion and parking. See also Master Response: Traffic Congestion. In response to the comment, "What is the baseline number of peak hour trips," as noted on page 388 of the Draft EIR, the baseline number of daily trips in the AM Peak Hour is 1,270 and the number of PM Peak Hour trips is 1,587. Response 133-4: As described in Chapter III, Project Description, a total of 14,200 employees are proposed to be located at the Apple Campus 2 project at build -out. The terms of Apple leases at other locations is not part of the project evaluated in the Draft EIR. Response 133-5: Please see Chapter V., Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, page 182 in the Draft EIR for a discussion of the baseline environmental setting used in the Draft EIR. The estimated amount of vehicle traffic to be added by the project is as stated in the Transportation Impact Analysis page iii, Appendix B of the Draft EIR and on pages 387 and 388 of the Draft EIR. Response 133-6: This comment provides information on parking ratios and spaces, and states that the number of parking spaces provided is less than the number of spaces required by the City's Parking Ordinance. See the evaluation of parking in the Draft EIR on pages 432-437, which explains that in Planned Development zones, in which the project is located, the parking ratios set out in the City's Parking Ordinance may be used as a guideline and that it is appropriate to consider site- and project -specific parking needs. The Draft EIR analyzes the anticipated parking needs and concludes that the amount of parking provided would be adequate for the project with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -35. The City has balanced the need to provide adequate parking to ensure that neighboring areas are not impacted and the concept of using limited parking as a tool to manage the number of people that drive to the project site, and has concluded that the provision of 10,980 parking spaces is adequate, based in part on the parking study conducted at the Infinite Loop and Marian Avenue campuses. The Draft EIR confirms that the proposed parking would be adequate to meet on-site demand, while also recommending Condition of Approval CA -TRANS -3 to ensure the ongoing management of parking issues, if any arise. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 62 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response 133-7: The existing level of service at the intersection of Blaney Avenue/Homestead Road (Intersection 913) and Wolfe Road/Stevens Creek Boulevard (Intersec- tion 924) is shown in Figure V.I-6 on page 371 of the Draft EIR. The level of service at these intersections with the project is shown on Figure V.I-8 on page 392 of the Draft EIR. The intersections of Blaney Avenue/Stevens Creek Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard/Perimeter Road were not included as study intersections, and thus associated level of service is not reported in the Draft EIR. The side streets at these intersections have comparatively low traffic volumes and they operate at good levels of service. The project would add traffic to the Stevens Creek Boulevard approaches at these intersections, which have excess capacity. Therefore it was determined that the project would not have an impact at these locations and no further analysis was required. Wolfe Road and Perimeter Road do not intersect. The comment is likely referring to the right -turn -only ramp connectors between Wolfe Road and Perimeter Road. These connectors are right -turn -only locations to and from the Vallco Shopping Mall, with few conflicting movements and, therefore, were not analyzed. Perimeter Road was designed to accommodate traffic with full occupancy of the shopping center. Any traffic added by the project to Perimeter Road would comprise people shopping at the center and would not exceed the capacity of the roadway. Therefore no analysis of project impacts along Perimeter Road was conducted. Response 133-8: The project sponsor would be required to work with the City of Cupertino, VTA, and Caltrans to construct interchange improvements, including ramp widening, at the Wolfe Road/I-280 interchange, to mitigate project impacts. The sponsor would also be required to pay a fair share contribution to the planned Express Lanes on SR 85 and make either a contribution to the BRT planned on Stevens Creek Boulevard or an alternative improvement or study towards the improvement of the I-280 corridor to offset freeway impacts. While the Express Lane project does not add lanes, it allows single occupant vehicles (SOVs) to use the carpool lane, thus allowing more SOVs to use the other lanes, therefore improving freeway operations. Both the VTA and Caltrans support this approach. Response 133-9: Unused traffic mitigation funds would be returned to Apple. Response 133-10: This comment provides information from a City Council report on the Clyde Avenue (Samsung) project and is noted. Response 133-11: Please see Master Response 912: Trip Cap and Master Response: Adequacy of TDM Penalties. Response 133-12: Trip count monitoring would commence within 6 months of project occupancy, even partial occupancy of Phase 1. If AM or PM peak hour trip P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 63 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES counts are not met, then Apple would be required to meet with the City within 60 days of not meeting the trip count to develop a plan and identify new TDM measures. Please see Master Response: Adequacy of TDM Penalties. Response 133-13: This comment provides information from a City Council report on the Clyde Avenue (Samsung) project and is noted. Similar to the agreement between Samsung and the City of Mountain View, the TDM monitoring program, as described on pages 443 to 448 of the Draft EIR, would institute substantial penalties if Apple does not meet the established peak trip counts goal. Furthermore, such penalties would be assessed for every day during the established monitoring period that the peak trip counts exceed the goal. Please see Master Response 912: Trip Cap and Master Response: Adequacy of TDM Penalties. As discussed in Master Response: Adequacy of TDM Penalties, even a modest exceedance of 200 trips during the AM peak period and 200 trips during the PM peak period (approximately 4.7 percent of the AM peak trip counts goal and 4.5 percent of the PM peak trip counts goal) would incur a penalty of $260,000 over a 6 -month monitoring period. These penalties are comparable to those established by the City of Mountain View for Samsung. Response 133-14: This comment provides information on establishing a transportation management association and TDMs from the City of Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Emeryville, and is noted. Response 133-15: This comment provides information on measures required of employment uses associated with the provision of housing and is noted. Response 133-16: This comment provides recommendations and suggestions for the provision of park space in reference to Mitigation Measure PLAN -1 and support for Apple's participation in the design of the Calabazas Creek Trail. See also Master Response 913: Calabazas Creek Trail. Response 133-17: This comment suggests that an independent fiscal impact analysis be prepared and considered in the Draft EIR and additional information on tax revenues and the Development Agreement be provided. In response, please see Master Response 92: Project Merits, clarifying that detailed responses to comments that raise only economic or social issues, rather than environ- mental issues, are not required. In regards to a discussion of school service boundaries and project effects on schools, see pages 563-567 and 581-584 in the Draft EIR. This comment also provides information on local sales tax revenue, tax sharing, construction taxes and fees, and fees and required funding of transportation improvements as stated in Mitigation Measures contained in the Draft EIR. These comments are noted, but to the extent that they focus on fiscal and economic considerations, no further response is required. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 64 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response B3-18: This comment provides additional information to support comment B3-17 and is noted. Response B3-19: This comment provides additional information to support comment B3-17 and is noted. Response B3-20: This comment provides information and suggestions regarding public access to the Apple property, design and construction of the Calabazas Creek Trail, and the closure of Pruneridge Avenue (per Mitigation Measures PLAN -1, PLAN -2, PLAN -3 and TRANS -31). The comment provides information from other projects and planning documents, and support for construction of the Calabazas Creek Trail and a public park on Tantau Avenue. Please see Master Response 913: Calabazas Creek Trail, Master Response 95: Public Access Through Project Site. Response B3-21: This comment provides additional information to support comment B3-20 and is noted. Response B3-22: This comment supports an alternative that would retain Pruneridge Avenue, and have the Apple Campus project extended and built over the road. As stated on page 597 of the Draft EIR, CEQA requires the analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the proposed project, which would feasibly attain most of the proposed project's basic objectives and avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternative suggested in this comment is similar to three alternatives considered in the Draft EIR. The retention of Pruneridge Avenue as a public right-of-way was incorporated into a project alternative (the Pruneridge Avenue alternative), which is discussed on pages 605 to 612 of the Draft EIR. As discussed on page 626 of the Draft EIR, two additional alternatives allowing for public access across the site (a Pruneridge Avenue Tunnel alternative and a Mobility and Park alternative) were rejected from detailed analysis because they would interfere with major utility lines, would infringe on private property, result in adverse visual impacts, would incur significant costs, and/or would still pose significant security concerns. The alternative proposed in this comment would have similar effects to those alternatives already evaluated in the Draft EIR. This comment also repeats comments made in B3-16 and B3-20 in regards to support for constructing the Calabazas Creek Trail as publically accessible open space. See Master Response 913: Calabazas Creek Trail. As discussed on page 626 of the Draft EIR, a Pruneridge Avenue Tunnel alternative was preliminarily evaluated. Such an alternative would maintain the current east/west thoroughfare through the project site. However, the evaluation concluded that construction of the tunnel would interfere with a major sanitary sewer line, infringe on private property, result in adverse P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 65 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES visual impacts, and incur significant costs. The increased excavation would also require additional off -haul of soil and would increase greenhouse gas emissions at the project site. Similarly, the construction of a "land bridge" over Pruneridge Avenue could require the import of more material (and associated air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions). The development of a bridge across the project site, connecting North Wolfe Road to North Tantau Avenue, would result in significant visual and other environmental impacts, such as noise impacts, to the adjacent neighbors, especially sensitive receptors at The Hamptons. The foundation for such a large structure would interfere with utility and road systems serving both the project and The Hamptons and could require the acquisition of right-of-way to accommodate the structural system. A bridge would also conflict with a key project objective related to the provision of a single, secure campus, as (depending on its design) the bridge could allow for views directly into campus buildings. Response B3-23: This comment provides additional information to support comment B3-22 and is noted. Response B3-24: The comment provides information on development agreements and community benefits related to other projects, and states that "mitigation measures should not be considered direct community benefits." The mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR are required to lessen or avoid the significant environmental effects of the project, as required by CEQA. Response B3-25: See Response B3-22. Response B3-26: This comment provides additional information to support comment B3-25 and is noted. COMMENTER 134 Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Mark Matsumoto, Government Affairs Specialist July 10, 2013 Response B4-1: This comment, which conveys an attached letter, is noted. Response B4-2: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 66 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER B5 Erik's Deli Cafe Sam Ashknaz, Owner July 8, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response B5-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER B6 Cypress Hotel and Park Place Restaurant Maria Streeby, Director of Operations June 24, 2013 Response B6-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER B7 Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building & Construction Trades Council Neil Struthers, CEO June 7, 2013 Response B7-1: This comment, which conveys an attached letter, is noted. Response B7-2: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER B8 Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce Dianne Anderson, President June 20, 2013 Response B8-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. The comment about the project's "environmental and sustainable ideas" is noted. The environmental implications of these sustainability features are explored throughout the Draft EIR, but specifically in Section V.K, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sustainability. COMMENTER B9 Cupertino Historical Society Donna Austin, President June 19, 2013 Response B9-1: This comment, which expresses support for the relocation of Glendenning Barn, is noted. The proposed relocation of the barn is described on pages 133 to 134 of the Draft EIR. The environmental implications of this proposed relocation are described on pages 279 to 283 of the Draft EIR. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 67 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER B10 Erik's Deli Cafe Sam Ashknaz, Owner June 12, 2013 Response B10-1 COMMENTER B11 VJONES Salon Barry Jones, CEO June 12, 2013 Response B11-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER B12 Cupertino Chamber of Commerce June 12, 2013 Response B12-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER B13 Silicon Valley Leadership Group Carl Guardino, President/CEO June 11, 2013 Response B13-1: This comment, which conveys an attached letter, is noted. Response B13-2: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. This comment references some of the sustainability features which are incorporated into the project and are discussed in the Draft EIR, including the TDM Program, the provision of open space, and the use of alternative forms of energy. No further response is required. COMMENTER B14 City of Cupertino Orrin Mahoney, Mayor June 26, 2013 Response B14-1: This comment comprises a transcribed interview with City of Cupertino Mayor Orrin Mahoney on KMTV Community Television, which serves Cupertino, Los Altos, and Mountain View. This transcript contains no comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The City generally agrees with the characterization of an EIR that is conveyed in the comment — specifically, P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 68 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES that the EIR is a disclosure document that identifies the significant environmental impacts of the project, but does not prescribe a specific outcome regarding project approval. COMMENTER B15 Kimco Realty David Jamieson, Vice President Asset Management May 16, 2013 Response B15-1: This comment, which conveys an attached letter, is noted. Response B15-2: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. The roadway changes proposed as part of the project, including those in the vicinity of Cupertino Village, are discussed on pages 100 to 120 of the Draft EIR. COMMENTER B16 Bitter + Sweet Janice Chua, Owner June 7, 2013 Response B16-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER B17 Los Altos Patch L.A. Chung, Editor June 6, 2013 Response B17-1: This comment comprises an email exchange between a Patch.com editor and City of Cupertino Mayor, in which the editor asks for the Mayor's thoughts on the Draft EIR. The specific environmental topics listed in the comment are all discussed in detail in the Draft EIR, as follows: • Closure of Pruneridge Avenue: discussed throughout Draft EIR, but see in particular pages 150-152; 156-159; and 427-430. • Hazardous materials from building demolition: see pages 344-345 of Draft EIR. • Relocation of Glendenning Barn: see pages 279-283 of Draft EIR. • Protection of trees along North Wolfe Road and East Homestead Avenue: see Figure III -3 (Existing and Proposed Trees) on page 57 of Draft EIR. • Noise abatement: discussed throughout Section V.J, Noise, but see in particular pages 464-480. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 69 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES • Jobs, housing availability, and schools: see pages 225-233 for a discussion of the interrelationship between jobs and housing demand; see pages 581-584 for a discussion of the project's anticipated less -than - significant impacts on schools. COMMENTER B18 San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Matthew R. Mahood, CEO and President May 31, 2013 Response B18-1: This comment, which conveys an attached letter, is noted. Response B18-2: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER B19 Sand Hill Property Company Peter Pau May 29, 2013 Response B19-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER B20 Silicon Valley Leadership Group Shiloh Ballard June 26, 2013 Response B20-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER B21 Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce Steve Van Dorn June 26, 2013 Response B21-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER B22 Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Megan Fluke Medeiros, Conservation and Development Manager July 22, 2013 Response B22-1: This comment, which conveys an attached letter, is noted. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 70 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response B22-2: This introductory comment, which summarizes the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter's guidelines for evaluating development projects, is noted. Response B22-3: This comment lists components of the project that the commenter supports. Please see Master Response 94: Nitrogen Deposition for an explanation of the finding in the Draft EIR that the project would not make a significant contribution to cumulative impacts associated with nitrogen deposition. Response B22-4: This comment introduces the next several comments, which focus on the transportation impacts of the project. Response B22-5: The mode -share split target of 34 percent identified for the project in Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b is reasonable given the project's suburban location and distance from rail stations, which pose an impediment to a large scale adoption of mass transit services. Some Caltrain stations are reasonably close (i.e., Lawrence and Sunnyvale), but lack the express service offered at the Mountain View station, for example. Apple would addresses the relative scarcity of public transit services by adding TDM strategies. Apple's current TDM Program includes a variety of measures to reduce travel by single occupancy vehicles, including the use of commuter coach bus services, mass transit shuttle links, ride share matching, bike facilities, transit initiatives, shared bicycles, short-term car rentals, among others. Refer to pages 59 to 60 of the Draft EIR for a complete list of current TDM measures. While a higher non -single occupant vehicle (SOV) mode share would be supported by the City of Cupertino, the measures needed to achieve such a higher mode share could yield unacceptable consequences (including increased parking demand in residential neighborhoods adjacent to the project site). Thus the diversion rate achieved at Facebook or Stanford may not be desirable at the project site, when weighing competing interests. The City weighed these competing concerns in requiring achievement of the 34 percent goal. As part of the project, Apple would continue to implement, and further expand, its TDM Program, with a mandatory target to increase the alternative mode share from 28 percent to 34 percent (i.e., a reduction in peak hour trips of 6 percentage points). Counting the total number of "peak hour vehicle trip counts" at each of the project driveways would help determine whether Apple is meeting the required 34 percent target mode share set by the City. Apple would provide supplemental information about the TDM Program being implemented and rate of use of the TDM measures. The project's TDM goal of 34 percent at full buildout has been identified as a reasonable target because it is considered relatively aggressive but achievable for office developments in suburban locations greater than 1/z mile from a rail station. To ensure that Apple achieves and maintains its targeted TDM participation rate, the City would require implementation of the monitoring program, described in the TDM Program Expansion subsection of the Draft EIR (see pages 441-444) and in Master Response 99: Monitoring TDM Program. Any failure to achieve 34 percent participation would result in P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 71 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES financial fines and penalties. The City would continue to work with Apple to identify opportunities to minimize commutes by single occupancy vehicles, but believes the mitigation requirement is appropriate as a minimum threshold. Response B22-6: The City of Cupertino supports using TDM measures to reduce vehicle traffic in lieu of constructing intersection vehicle capacity improvements, in accordance with a TDM First strategy. To this end, the City has worked closely with Apple to identify a relatively aggressive but achievable TDM participation rate of 34 percent. However, a TDM First strategy may be impractical or undesirable. For example, the comment suggests expanding parking capacity only once all TDM measures have been exhausted. Because all parking would be provided either underground or in structures, it would be infeasible to retrofit the site design to add parking if TDM measures prove to be insufficient. For that reason, the City has analyzed the parking proposed by Apple to ensure that it accommodates demand without incentivizing the use of single occupancy motor vehicles. As discussed on pages 434 to 436 of the Draft EIR, the parking proposed for the site is based on a 34 percent TDM participation rate. Further, once the project is built and if the TDM measures do not achieve the needed vehicle trip reduction, it may be infeasible for the City to require the project sponsor to construct the intersection improvements to reduce the impacts associated with lower-than- expected TDM participation. In this case, the significant roadway impacts would remain unmitigated. For several significantly affected intersections, the level of TDM participation needed to achieve an acceptable level of operation was determined to be infeasible — in most circumstances, requiring participation far in excess of 65 percent. The City has balanced the need to ensure acceptable transportation conditions against identifying an aggressive but achievable TDM participation rate. The TDM program does not preclude the ability of Apple to increase its implementation to higher levels in the future if deemed feasible. Response B22-7: This comment suggests that the trees proposed for removal as part of the project be relocated. As discussed on page 95 of the Draft EIR, of the 4,506 existing trees on the site at least 90 trees would be transplanted. In addition, 3,620 trees would be removed. The identification of trees appropriate for transplantation was the result of several arborist studies conducted on the project site, culminating in A Review of the Consolidated Arborist Report for the Apple Campus 2 Project! That document indicated general agreement on the trees proposed for transplant versus removal. Trees were rejected as candidates for transplant due to several reasons, including 1) poor health; 2) diminished potential to survive a transplant; 3) conflicts with existing utilities; or 4) constraints associated with steep slopes and other existing site conditions. Furthermore, of the existing trees on the site, approximately 75 Bench, Michael L., 2013. f1 Review of the Consolidated Arborist Report for the fipple Campus 2 Project. May 29. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 72 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES percent are non-native species. Of these non-native species, many individual trees are not suited to the climate or location of the area, and have water needs that exceed those desired in the area. Therefore, the transplantation of additional trees would not reduce the environmental impacts that would result from the project and would not be desirable from an environmental perspective. Response 1322-8: As discussed on pages 130 to 133 of the Draft EIR, while the use of recycled water is not required as part of the project, Apple has designed into the project the ability to use recycled water in the cooling systems and for limited indoor uses. Apple is also evaluating the use of recycled water for irrigation. The likelihood of extending a recycled water line to the project site was speculative when the Draft EIR was being prepared, but such an extension is supported by Apple and the City. In addition, the extension of a recycled water line into the project site would require approval of other jurisdictions in addition to the City of Cupertino. Response 1322-9: As discussed on page 257, impacts related to the encroachment of develop- ment into the Calabazas Creek corridor would be less than significant, as the buffer around the creek that would be provided as part of the project would adequately protect the creek and its adjacent banks. In addition, as described on page 196 of the Draft EIR, the 50 -foot buffer would comply with the basic creek setback requirement established in the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative's Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. In the absence of City of Cupertino regulations for creek buffers on private land, the expansion of the buffer around the creek to 100 feet would not reduce any of the significant effects of the project, including those less -than -significant impacts on jurisdictional waters and wildlife corridors, because the creek surroundings are currently highly urbanized. Furthermore, the project would increase the amount of pervious surfaces on- site, from approximately 43 acres to 102 acres, which may provide stormwater quality benefits, including to Calabazas Creek. Response 1322-10: This comment, which suggests that Apple add a store or museum to the project, is noted. This comment does not pertain to environmental issues surrounding the project and no further response is required. Response B22-11: The types of public amenities identified in this comment (fencing, pedestrian seating, and public art) are already incorporated into three mitigation measures in the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure PLAN -2 would require the installation of "publicly accessible amenities (e.g., bicycle racks, benches, 2 On August 13, 2013 the Sunnyvale City Council approved the extension of a recycled water line that would reach the project site. This extension is described on pages 130 to 133 of the Draft EIR. The approval of this recycled water line, which underwent independent environmental review, does not change the impact findings in the Draft EIR related to water supply and demand. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 73 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES attractive pedestrian -oriented lighting, and landscaping) along the project site perimeter," in addition to a coordinated wayfinding scheme and landscaping along the North Wolfe Road bridge over I-280 that could enhance the aesthetic character of the project site perimeter. Mitigation Measure PLAN -3 would require aesthetic and functional improvements along an alternate creek trail, part of which would be adjacent to the boundaries of the project site. These improvements would include signage, plantings that reference Calabazas Creek, pedestrian -scaled lighting, rest areas or picnic tables, pavement features that reference the creek and/or water, and decorative fencing and guard rails. Response B22-12: This comment, which does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. Response B22-13: The comment suggests that the City ask or require that Apple not increase vehicle trips over existing or "baseline" conditions. This suggestion would be inconsistent with the objective of accommodating 14,200 employees. While the actual employee capacity of the site today is 9,800, for CEQA baseline purposes, the number of employees was assumed to be 4,844, which was the estimated number of employees working at the project site in August 2011, the date the Notice of Preparation was issued (existing employment on the site has diminished further since August 2011). At that point, Hewlett- Packard was departing the site, and Apple was occupying only a portion of the site, in preparation for the project. In addition, most of those 4,844 employees are existing Apple employees, meaning that they already have a comparatively low trip generation due to the existing TDM Program. Achieving an increase of 9,356 employees without increasing vehicle trips would not be feasible and would constrain employment growth at the project site. Please also refer to Master Response 912: Trip Cap. Response B22-14: The City does not have a traffic impact fee. In lieu of imposing such a fee, the City requires major development projects to undergo CEQA review, and requires development project sponsors to fund improvements identified as mitigation measures in CEQA review documents. In this way, the City ensures that there is a nexus between project impacts and transportation improvement measures. Response B22-15: As discussed on page 156 of the Draft EIR, the City imposes a Housing Mitigation Fee on office, industrial, hotel, retail, and research and develop- ment uses that funds the development of affordable housing throughout the City. As part of the project, Apple would pay double the rate applicable to office and research and development projects in Planned Industrial, (P(MP), zoned areas. Response B22-16: This concluding comment is noted. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 74 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER B23 Apple Inc. James C. Fowler, Associate General Counsel -Real Estate Dan Whisenhunt, Senior Director July 22, 2013 Response 1323-1: This introductory comment is noted. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response 1323-2: This comment introduces a mitigation measure that is suggested to substitute for Mitigation Measure TRANS -23, which would require Apple to reduce the number of left -turn lanes at the Main Project Driveway on North Wolfe Road from three to two. Response 1323-3: This comment states that the Apple's proposal for three left -turn lanes exiting the project site on to North Wolfe Road can be implemented without creating the weaving impact identified in Impact TRANS -23, and without implement- ing Mitigation Measure TRANS -23, which would require reducing the number of left -turn lanes from three to two. The Draft EIR fully analyzes the impacts of three left -turn lanes exiting the project site on to North Wolf Road (see pages 414 to 418 of the Draft EIR), and concludes that the impacts on traffic operations would be less than significant but that a three -lane driveway exit design would have a significant impact on safety due to "weaving." Mitigation Measure TRANS -23, which requires the number of driveway left -turn lanes to be reduced from three to two, would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level (see pages 416 to 418 of the Draft EIR). The commenter states that the weaving impact is unlikely to occur for the reasons stated in the comment, and that the following measures also would reduce the weaving impact to a less -than -significant level without requiring a reduction to two lanes: (i) installing clear signage at the exit approach, including overhead signs, painted directions on lanes and appropriate lane striping; (ii) internal employee education; and (iii) traffic monitors. The commenter proposes that these measures 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 in the Draft EIR is observed, the third lane would be closed. In response to this comment, City staff and City consultants evaluated the commenter's proposal, and the City has concluded that the following alternative mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less -than - significant level in lieu of reducing the proposed driveway exit to two lanes. In order to fully evaluate the effectiveness of the measure and to consider any additional design refinements that might be warranted, the measure would be implemented on a nine-month trial basis. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 75 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Page 418 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: Impact TRANS -23: Based on City of Cupertino standards, the design of the project with three left -turn lanes on the Wolfe Road driveway approach would cause a substantial increase in conflicts due to vehicles weaving on Wolfe Road between the driveway and the I-280 ramps in order to merge and align into the correct lanes to enter the freeway upon exiting the campus. (S) Implementation of one of the following two mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level: Mitigation Measure TRANS -23: At the main project driveway on Wolfe Road, the project sponsor shall reduce the number of left turn lanes from three to two. This would reduce the weaving on southbound Wolfe Road between the driveway and the I-280 northbound on-ramp since there would be, at most, a one -lane lane change in order for drivers to align themselves to the correct lane. (LTS) •' Mitigation Measure TRANS -23 (Alternate): The project sponsor shall 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 limited to overhead signs, shall be installed to indicate the destination of each of the three exit lanes in order to discourage unsafe lane chance • Each lane on Wolfe Road, between the driveway and Pruneridge Avenue, shall be clearly marked by painted stripes, directional arrows, and destination legends to indicate the destination of each lane and to indicate by double lines or other appropriate markings that changing lanes is a violation of law. • The project sponsor shall fund the following measures for a trial period of nine months from issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Main Building and shall install closed-circuit video cameras linked to the City's Traffic Operations Center to continuously record vehicle movements at the project driveway and along southbound Wolfe Road. Trained personnel, who are independent from the project sponsor, shall periodically review the video footage at the direction of the Ci1y, and provide a report at the end of each month to the Public Works Department. This report shall document any unsafe or illegal lane changes (violations) observed, noting accidents caused by violations and P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 76 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES noting whether, in the professional judgment of the independent observer, the observed violations constitute a safely problem that should be addressed and, if so, recommending measures to address them. • If, at any time following the nine-month trial period implementation of the measures listed above do not substantially prevent violations, in the professional opinion of the independent observer and the City, the City shall determine whether additional measures are required, or whether the number of lanes must be reduced to two exit lanes. Monitoring shall continue until nine months following full occupancy of the project. • A penalty of $500 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 activi , during 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. (LTS) Response B23-4: This comment, which states support for the finding in the Draft EIR that the provision of three left -turn lanes would not result in significant vehicle delays on North Wolfe Road, is noted. See Response B23-3. Response B23-5: This concluding comment is noted. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc(09/16/13)FINAL 77 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 C. INDIVIDUALS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 78 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C1 Tappan (Tap) Merrick June 21, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C1-1: This comment does not pertain to the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. It has been forwarded to the City of Cupertino planner assigned to the Cupertino Village project. COMMENTER C2 Ronald Joseph Moore, Sr. July 21, 2013 Response C2-1: This comment generally pertains to the merits of the project. Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. The commenter notes that "It is reasonable to assume that Apple will consolidate the scattered employees into the new Campus, and some Traffic will only change places and not increase." This concept is discussed in Chapter III, Project Description, and throughout the Draft EIR. As discussed on page 92 of the Draft EIR, "The net increase of new employees assumed for the purpose of this EIR (9,356) may over-estimate the number of net new employees in the project area because it is not certain how many new employees would be existing Apple employees currently working outside the project site or new employees that do not currently work for Apple in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project is intended to consolidate current and new Apple employees. Therefore, it is likely that the net increase of employees that would result from the project would be less than 9,356. However, the full potential net increase is used in this EIR to allow for a cautious environmen- tal analysis that does not under -estimate potential impacts of the project." COMMENTER C3 Keithddl527@aol.com July 18, 2013 Response C3-1: This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR for the proposed project and is noted. The comment pertains to the approval of a temporary structure, aproject distinct from the proposed Apple Campus 2 Project, which was approved administratively with a Temporary Use Permit, as allowed by the City's Municipal Code. No special exceptions were granted. The Santa Clara Valley Water District contact for the temporary structure was Usha Chatwani and the Temporary Use Permit application number is TUP-2013-03. Response C3-2: This comment consists of photographs of the temporary structure approved on the site, is not related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and is noted. As P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 79 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C4 Gary Beaupre July 15, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES noted above, the project is being undertaken in accordance with the City of Cupertino Municipal Code. Response C4-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits regarding the size of the project, and its evaluation in the context of significance criteria established by the City. As described in Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, the project would result in significant unavoidable impacts to the operations of the intersection of I-280/Wolfe Road. Please refer to Impacts TRANS -1, TRANS -5, TRANS -14, TRANS -25, TRANS -26, and TRANS -29 in Section V.I of the Draft EIR. Response C4-2: The specific freeway ramps identified in this comment were evaluated to determine if they would be substantially affected by project traffic. Please refer to Figure V.I-8, Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Results, on page 392 of the Draft EIR, which indicates the amount of delay expected on these freeway ramps due to the introduction of traffic associated with the proposed project. Response C4-3: Please see Response to Comments C4-1 and C4-2. Response C4-4: Please see Response to Comments C4-1. As discussed on pages 211 to 212 of the Draft EIR, the project is not expected to result in significant adverse effects on community character (including the community character of Sunnyvale) due to the amount of open space on the project site; the clustering of most buildings away from the periphery of the site; the preservation of trees and the extension of berms along the site perimeter; and the provision of an inconspicuous and visually permeable fence along the edge of the site. As shown in Figures V.13-5 and V.13-7 of the Draft EIR, visual simulations from locations north of East Homestead Road indicate that project buildings would be almost wholly obscured by vegetation and landscape features. Response C4-5: Please see the previous responses to this letter, above. COMMENTER C5 Stan (Last name not provided) July 11, 2013 Response C5-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits regarding the size of the project, and its evaluation in the context of significance criteria established by the City. As discussed on pages 440 to 441 of the Draft EIR, project construction traffic would use only designated truck routes within the P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 80 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES vicinity of the project site, and most construction truck traffic would occur during off-peak hours. With the exception of the segment of Pruneridge Avenue between The Hamptons and North Tantau Avenue (which would be closed as part of the project) no road closures would occur during the construction period. However, temporary traffic diversion may be needed to facilitate relocation of utilities on North Wolfe Road and East Homestead Road, and street widening on North Wolfe Road during construction of the project. Response C5-2: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits regarding the size of the project, and its evaluation in the context of significance criteria established by the City. Response C5-3: This comment about preserving and reusing the existing buildings on the site does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR and is noted. That option was explored as part of the No Project alternative, discussed on pages 599 to 605 of the Draft EIR. Response C5-4: Impacts related to tree removal are discussed on pages 210 to 211 of the Draft EIR (Aesthetics section) and 261 of the Draft EIR (Biological Resources section). Although the removal of the former HP Campus redwood grove would change the visual character of the site, this change would not be considered significant and adverse because: those trees are located within the interior of the site and are not very visible from public viewpoints; tree coverage around the perimeter of the project site would be largely maintained; and trees removed from the site would be replaced with at least 6,200 trees intended to reference the site's native vegetation and agricultural past (a net increase of 2,494 trees). These new trees would enhance the visual quality of the site. Response C5-5: The only road that would be closed during the project would be the segment of Pruneridge Avenue between The Hamptons and North Tantau Avenue. However, temporary traffic diversion may be needed to facilitate relocation of utilities on North Wolfe Road and East Homestead Road, and street widening on North Wolfe Road during construction of the project. Response C5-6: The closure of Pruneridge Avenue is discussed throughout the Draft EIR, but see in particular pages 150 to 152; 156 to 159; and 427 to 430. Response C5-7: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits regarding the size of the project, and its evaluation in the context of significance criteria established by the City. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 81 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C6 Sandra and Don Boren July 8, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C6-1: This comment, which discusses the merits of potential additional bicyclists in the area and the use of shuttles for transit, but does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C7 Russ Robinson July 8, 2013 Response C7-1: This comment, which pertains to the merits of the project and not the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C8 Ann (Last name not provided) July 2, 2013 Response C8-1: This comment notes generally that the project would increase traffic in the area and increase occupancy of the site beyond existing levels. This comment is consistent with the analysis in Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR. Response C8-2: Please note that the retention of Pruneridge Avenue as a public right-of-way was analyzed as aproject alternative (the Pruneridge Avenue alternative), which is discussed on pages 605 to 612 of the Draft EIR. The closure of Pruneridge Avenue is discussed throughout the Draft EIR, but see in particular pages 150 to 152; 156 to 159; and 427 to 430. Response C8-3: As discussed on pages 552 to 559 of the Draft EIR, site-specific construction and operational health risk modeling was performed for the project and results indicate that a significant risk would not occur to nearby residents or other sensitive receptors around the project site (including students at local schools). Wind patterns indicate that dispersion of emissions would occur to the east and southeast of the project site, away from Cupertino High School and Lawson Middle School. Response C84: See Master Response 915: School Busing Program. As a clarification, oral comments on the Draft EIR were accepted at the public meeting for the project on June 26, 2013. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 82 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C8-5: This comment, which states that the City of Sunnyvale will hold a study session on the Draft EIR, is noted. Response C8-6: This comment on the merits of the project is noted. As discussed on pages 581 to 584 of the Draft EIR, the project would result in less -than -significant impacts related to school enrollment (and the need for new capital school facilities). Therefore, no mitigation would be required to reduce impacts on schools. COMMENTER C9 Rich Altmaier July 1, 2013 Response C9-1: This comment, which generally pertains to the merits of the project, and not the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. The Draft EIR identifies extensive mitigation measures for the transportation -related effects of the project, including a robust TDM Program, which would require the diversion of 34 percent of project trips into non -single -occupant vehicles. Existing and proposed TDM measures, as discussed on pages 441 to 443 of the Draft EIR, would incentivize and encourage the use of public transit and bicycles by Apple employees. COMMENTER C10 Rick Haffner July 1, 2013 Response C10-1: The Draft EIR identifies several freeway/expressway access expansions or changes that would be required as mitigation measures. See in particular Mitigation Measures TRANS -1, TRANS -3, TRANS -5, TRANS -9a, TRANS - 10, TRANS -11, TRANS -14, TRANS -19a, TRANS -20, TRANS -21, TRANS -22, TRANS -25, and TRANS -26. The transportation analysis is a major component of the Draft EIR, and careful consideration was given to all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the project on the roadway system. Please refer to Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation for a discussion of the impacts of the project on all modes of transportation, and recommended mitigation measures. As part of the environmental documentation prepared for the Main Street Project, mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts were identified. In addition, the Main Street Project was incorporated into the Background scenario for the Apple Campus 2 Project, which was analyzed in Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 83 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C11 William F. Bailey Tap Merrick June 30, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C11-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. Response C11-2: This comment, which expresses support for the closure of Pruneridge Avenue within the project site, is noted. The retention of Pruneridge Avenue as a public right-of-way was analyzed as a project alternative (the Pruneridge Avenue alternative), which is discussed on pages 605 to 612 of the Draft EIR. Response C11-3: This comment provides the commenter's summary of the public meeting held on the Draft EIR on June 26, 2013 and identified the ways in which comments on the Draft EIR could be submitted for consideration. Please also see Master Response 92: Project Merits. Response C11-4: This comment is noted. While the Draft EIR used background information provided by Apple (e.g., site plans and technical reports, which were peer reviewed by the EIR consultant), the City is the lead agency for this EIR and has reviewed and exercised its independent judgment over all materials submitted to the City in preparing the EIR. See CEQA Section 21082.1(b). The fiscal impact analysis prepared for the project primarily focuses on revenue that would be generated by the project, and costs to the City associated with the project. The Draft EIR is the correct document to review for information on the potential physical impacts of the project, including impacts to neighborhoods around the project site. Response C11-5: Please see Master Response 97: Cut -Through Traffic. Response C11-6: Surrounding local jurisdictions were contacted for an updated list of approved and pending projects to be included in the transportation analysis. Several of the projects noted in the comment were not included in the lists provided by the respective agencies and therefore were not included in the analysis. The transportation evaluation is required to include reasonably foreseeable projects as known at the time of publication of the Notice or Preparation (August 2011). It is assumed that these projects were not reasonably foreseeable at that time. The projects identified in the comment that were not included in the analysis in the Draft EIR are located further away from the project study area and would add a negligible amount of traffic to the study intersections. Response C11-7: This comment, which encourages project site neighbors to submit comments on the Draft EIR, is noted. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 84 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C12 Keith Murphy June 28, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C12-1: This comment requests information on how data on major development projects in the City are made available to the public. The City establishes stand-alone webpages for larger development projects, including the Main Street Project and the Apple Campus 2 Project. While the City uses its discretion in determining which projects warrant an independent webpage, it strives to make the planning process transparent to the public. All approval documents on smaller projects are placed online within two days of approval at: www.caertino.org/records in the Planning Department folder. Information regarding the Apple Campus 2 Project is made available online at: www.cupertino.org/gpplecampus2. In addition, because the Apple Campus 2 Project has been designated an Environmental Leadership Development Project pursuant to AB 900 under Section 21178 et. seq. of the Public Resources Code, the City has made the administrative record for the project available at the website noted above. The rest of the comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR and a response is not required. COMMENTER C13 Yolanda Reynolds June 26, 2013 Response C13-1: This comment states that the project would exacerbate traffic congestion and air pollution in the area. These issues are discussed in detail in Sections V.I, Transportation and Circulation, and V.L, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. Response C13-2: East Homestead Road, which is located immediately to the north of the project site, would remain open with implementation of the proposed project. As indicated on page 400 of the Draft EIR, two study intersections along Homestead Road would be substantially adversely affected with implementa- tion of the proposed project: Intersection 95 (De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road) and Intersection 927 (Tantau Avenue and Homestead Road). These intersections would also be substantially adversely affected under cumulative plus project conditions, as indicated on page 410 of the Draft EIR. Under cumulative conditions, the average increase in delay caused by the project at these two intersections would range from 4 seconds at Intersection 95 to approximately 38 seconds at Intersection 927. Even though delay would increase at these intersections, Homestead Road would continue to be accessible to drivers, and a potential alternate route for certain segments of I-280. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 85 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C13-3: Please refer to Response 13-2 and Master Response 92: Project Merits. In addition, the closure of Pruneridge Avenue is discussed throughout the Draft EIR, but see in particular pages 150 to 152; 156 to 159; and 427 to 430. COMMENTER C14 Jia and Linda June 21, 2013 Response C14-1: Implementation of the project would result in the removal of a maximum of 3,620 trees from the project site. As discussed on page 95 of the Draft EIR, with implementation of the project, a minimum of 800 trees would be retained in place on the project site (including the majority of the site perimeter trees and trees along the Calabazas Creek riparian corridor), and a minimum of 90 mature trees would be transplanted from the interior of the site to either the perimeter or to specific locations in the interior of the site. In order to mitigate the tree removals in accordance with the City's Protected Tree Ordinance and to increase vegetation at the site, Apple proposes to plant a minimum of 6,200 new trees on the project site, resulting in a net increase of 2,494 trees. COMMENTER C15 Gina Wang June 20, 2013 Response C15-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. Response C15-2: This comment, which references historic levels of congestion on I-280 and states support for Apple's "plans to improve local roadways and alternative options for employee transit," is noted. Response C15-3: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C16 Donna Austin June 19, 2013 Response C16-1: This comment generally pertains to the merits of the project and is noted. Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. The statement about the commenter's confidence that Apple will mitigate the traffic impacts of the project is also noted. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 86 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C17 Bernard Wood June 18, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C17-1: The retention of Pruneridge Avenue as a public right-of-way was analyzed as a project alternative (the Pruneridge Avenue alternative), which is discussed on pages 605 to 612 of the Draft EIR. As discussed on page 626 of the Draft EIR, two additional alternatives allowing for public access across the site (a Pruneridge Avenue Tunnel alternative and a Mobility and Park alternative) were rejected from detailed analysis because they would interfere with major utility lines, would infringe on private property, result in adverse visual impacts, would incur significant costs, and/or would still pose significant security concerns. See also Response to Comment B3-22. COMMENTER C18 Earl Sharkey June 17, 2013 Response C18-1: This comment references Apple's existing TDM program, which is discussed on pages 59 to 60 of the Draft EIR. Response C18-2: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C19 Judy Gaffney June 17, 2013 Response C19-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. The comment regarding environmental issues associated with the use of the project site for the former HP campus is noted. COMMENTER C20 Shaunak June 15, 2013 Response C20-1: This comment generally pertains to the merits of the project. Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. The water feature suggested in the comment is noted. As part of the project, a water feature would be developed in the courtyard of the Main Building that would also serve as a rain water capture device. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 87 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C21 Dolly Sandoval June 14, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C21-1: This comment, which expresses general support for the project, is noted. Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. Response C21-2: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits for a discussion of the treatment of project socioeconomic effects under CEQA. The comment expressing support for the design of the project and the project's environmental features is noted. Response C21-3: Traffic impacts associated with the project, and identified mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, are discussed in Section V.I, Transporta- tion and Circulation, of the Draft EIR. Response C21-4: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C22 Henry and Sally Zoellner June 13, 2013 Response C22-1: The retention of Pruneridge Avenue as a public right-of-way was analyzed as a project alternative (the Pruneridge Avenue alternative), which is discussed on pages 605 to 612 of the Draft EIR. As discussed on page 626 of the Draft EIR, two additional alternatives allowing for public access across the site (a Pruneridge Avenue Tunnel alternative and a Mobility and Park alternative) were rejected from detailed analysis because they would interfere with major utility lines, would infringe on private property, result in adverse visual impacts, would incur significant costs, and/or would still pose significant security concerns. See also Response to Comment B3-22. Response C22-2: The request to annex the Westwood Oaks neighborhood into Cupertino is noted. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is required. COMMENTER C23 Vanya Matzek June 13, 2013 Response C23-1: The project would not include access through the project site connecting North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue. However, as discussed on pages 111 to 120 of the Draft EIR, the project includes extensive changes to the bike and pedestrian environment surrounding the project site (including along Vallco Parkway) that would allow continuous bike and pedestrian P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 88 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C24 Darcy Paul June 12, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES access (via sidewalks and bike lanes) along East Homestead Road, North Tantau Avenue, Vallco Parkway, and North Wolfe Road in the vicinity of the project site. These facilities would complete the "loop" referenced in the comment, but over a greater length compared to the "loop" under existing conditions. In addition, mitigation measures in the Draft EIR would also enhance bike and pedestrian facilities in the area. Mitigation Measure PLAN - 2 and Mitigation Measure PLAN -3 would require Apple to implement additional bike and pedestrian facility improvements, including a coordinated wayfinding scheme around the project site perimeter, enhanced bike lanes and pedestrian paths along the North Wolfe Road bridge over I-280, other bicycle and pedestrian amenities, ADA improvements, and an alternate Calabazas Creek trail segment. Also, Mitigation Measures TRANS -23, TRANS -28, TRANS -29 would require enhancements to the pedestrian environment at the North Wolfe Road/Project Access intersection and at the I-280 ramps with Wolfe Road. Response C24-1: This comment generally focuses on the "many positive impacts" of the project, but also supports "appropriate measures taken to ensure that congestion and the impacts of traffic are minimized and even eliminated." Careful consideration was given to all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the project on the roadway system. Please refer to Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation for a discussion of the impacts of the project on all modes of transportation, and recommended mitigation measures. COMMENTER C25 Keith Warner June 12, 2013 Response C25-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits, including the discussion of the treatment of socioeconomic effects in CEQA documents. COMMENTER C26 James Forsythe June 11, 2013 Response C26-1: This comment generally pertains to the merits of the project. Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. The comment also notes that shifting the work hours of Apple employees away from peak periods could reduce project traffic impacts. This concept is employed in the list of "Additional TDM Measures" discussed on page 443. These measures, which include the P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 89 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C27 Glenn Grigg June 10, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES implementation of a flexible work schedule and the encouragement of telecommuting, would be implemented if the TDM measures identified as part of the project fail to meet the peak hour counts goal established in Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b. Response C27-1: This comment notes that the intersection of North Tantau Avenue/Pruneridge Avenue would be a good candidate for a roundabout. However, it is not part of the project, is not included in any City plans, and is not required to reduce the significant effects of the project. Therefore, a roundabout is not being considered at this location. Response C27-2: The Main Parking Structure adjacent to I-280 is designed to have direct access to both North Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue. COMMENTER C28 Yaeko Hirotsuka June 8, 2013 Response C28-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. Response C28-2: This comment, which does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. Please see Master Response 911: Diverted Trips Due to Pruneridge Avenue Closure for additional information about the effect of the Pruneridge Avenue closure on local roadway traffic volumes. Response C28-3: As discussed on page 626 of the Draft EIR, two alternatives allowing for public access across the site (a Pruneridge Avenue Tunnel alternative and a Mobility and Park alternative) were rejected from detailed analysis because they would interfere with major utility lines, would infringe on private property, result in adverse visual impacts, would incur significant costs, and/or would still pose significant security concerns. However, the No Project alternative and the Pruneridge Avenue alternative, discussed in Chapter VI, Alternatives, would retain public access across the project site. See also Response to Comment B3-22. Response C28-4: This comment, which pertains to the merits of the project and not the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 90 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C29 Yaeko Hirotsuka June 8, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C29-1: Please see Responses to Comments C28-1 through C28-4. COMMENTER C30 Eddie Kuo June 6, 2013 Response C30-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. The environmental implications of the sustainability features referenced in the comment are explored throughout the Draft EIR, but specifically in Section V.K, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sustainability. COMMENTER C31 Eno Schmidt June 6, 2013 Response C31-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. The comment about the 11advance consideration" of issues "involving congestion and concentrations of such large number of employees in one location" is noted, but no additional response is required. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. COMMENTER C32 Margaret Reilly June 5, 2013 Response C32-1: This comment, which pertains to the provision of City-wide WiFi as part of the project and not to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. COMMENTER C33 Chandramohan Mathu June 6, 2013 Response C33-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 91 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C34 Best/Yash (Full name not provided) June 6, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C34-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C35 Geoff Paulsen July 22, 2013 Response C35-1: The analysis in the Draft EIR evaluates environmental conditions far into the future, where applicable (in the case of the demographic analysis in Section V.G, Population, Employment, and Housing, housing and employment growth in the City and County are evaluated out to 2035). In addition, although the focus of the analysis is on the environs of the project, impacts are examined for areas outside the boundaries of Cupertino, including regional roadways. The comment regarding the desire for a taller project is noted. Such a design was not considered as part of a project alternative because it would not reduce the impacts of the project, as required by CEQA, and could exacerbate the potential impacts of the project if a taller building would degrade viewsheds in the area. Response C35-2: This comment, which suggests that Apple add a store, museum, or visitor center to the project, is noted. This comment does not pertain to environmen- tal issues surrounding the project or the adequacy of the Draft EIR and no further response is required. Response C35-3: Mitigation Measure PLAN -3 includes a requirement that Apple fund a study of a Class I trail along the drainage channel and Calabazas Creek channel south of the project site (instead of constructing such a trail). The high cost of developing such a trail would make it infeasible for a single project to support. In addition, no trail exists today, so the project would not have a significant impact on the existing environment with respect to trails. Please see Master Response 913: Calabazas Creek Trail. Response C35-4: This comment is noted and will be considered in the implementation of Mitigation Measure 13I0-3. Response C35-5: The stormwater control methods mentioned in the comment would be required as part of the project, pursuant to the provisions of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, as described on pages 307 to 308 of the Draft EIR. It should also be noted that the project would benefit stormwater quality because the amount of pervious surfaces on the site would increase from approximately 43 acres to 102 acres. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 92 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C35-6: This comment, which generally expresses an opposition to road widening, is noted. As a general response, the Draft EIR includes mitigation measures that seek to reduce the transportation impacts of the project without widening roads. For instance, Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b would require Apple to divert 34 percent of its peak hour trips using a range of TDM measures, including increased transit usage and incentivizing biking and walking commutes. Response C35-7: Occupied project buildings would average approximately 240 square feet per employee, which is a fairly typical employee density for technology -related office uses. Response C35-8: As described on page 626 of the Draft EIR, a Mobility and Park alternative (which would include a 1.1 -acre on-site park) was rejected from detailed analysis in the Draft EIR because it would pose significant security concerns to Apple and would conflict with a key project objective. COMMENTER C36 Neighbor July 22, 2013 Response C36-1: Please see Master Response: Diverted Trips Due to Pruneridge Closure. The segment of Pruneridge Avenue east of North Tantau Avenue is not expected to experience high traffic volumes such that closure of the street would be warranted. COMMENTER C37 Dean Fujiwara July 22, 2013 Response C37-1: Please refer to Response to Comment Al -14. The intersection at Homestead Road/Heron Avenue is a signalized intersection that provides protected left - turn access to and from the Serra Gardens neighborhood (thus facilitating access onto Homestead Road after project implementation). The Homestead Road/Linnet Lane intersection is a side -street stop controlled intersection, where traffic to/from Linnet Lane needs to yield to traffic on Homestead Road (thus increased traffic on Homestead Road could increase the difficulty of turns from Linnet Lane). The proposed development projects, including the Apple Campus 2 Project as well as the shopping centers at Cupertino Village and Homestead Square, would increase traffic volumes on Homestead Road. However, as discussed in Response to Comment Al -14, the intersections would continue to operate acceptably. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 93 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C38 Ken Nishimura July 22, 2013 Response C38-1: This introductory comment is noted. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C38-2: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. Response C38-3: The comment is correct that the closure of Pruneridge Avenue would have significant effects on bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure in the area and that the project would generate significant traffic congestion. These impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable in the Draft EIR. See the summary of significant and unavoidable project impacts on pages 6 to 7 of the Draft EIR. Response C38-4: The shuttle service suggested by the commenter was not identified as a mitigation measure due to: 1) the relatively low numbers of pedestrians and cyclists that use the segment of Pruneridge Avenue within the project site that would be vacated; 2) the relatively short length of the pedestrian detour that would be required due to the closure of Pruneridge Avenue; 3) the relatively high cost of running such a shuttle service at a frequency that would be convenient to pedestrians; and 4) the adverse effects on air pollution and traffic congestion associated with such a shuttle service. Response C38-5: The project would include substantial transportation improvements, as described on pages 381 to 384 of the Draft EIR, which would add roadway capacity to reduce the amount of traffic congestion that could occur. In addition, Apple would expand its TDM Program (including its dedicated shuttle bus service) and (per Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b) increase the percentage of employees who use transit, walking, bicycling, and shared ride modes of transport to and from work from 28 percent to 34 percent to reduce the amount of added traffic congestion. The transportation impact analysis evaluated project impacts to freeway interchanges. Specifically I-280/Wolfe Road freeway ramp operations were evaluated and off -ramp widenings were identified as mitigation measures. Mitigation measures were also identified for the intersection of the I-280 northbound off -ramp at Stevens Creek Boulevard. Response C38-6: Please see Master Response 91: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. Response C38-7: The exit intersection of the campus transit station would be signalized to facilitate effective operations at this location, and to ensure safety of bicyclists. With signalization this intersection is projected to operate at LOS A and LOS B during the AM and PM peak periods, respectively. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 94 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C38-8: The existing alternative mode use of 28 percent was measured on days with good weather. Therefore the goal of 34 percent should also be measured on days with good weather to provide a consistent comparison. On days with inclement weather some employees who typically use alternative modes may elect to drive to work. This would not represent "normal" travel patterns and would potentially skew the results. Response C38-9: Please see Master Response: Adequacy of TDM Penalties. Response C38-10: Please see Master Response #12: Trip Cap. Response C38-11: The project driveways would be controlled with traffic signals that are operated by the City of Cupertino Public Works Department. The signals would be operated in conjunction with other traffic signals on North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue so that traffic flows on the arterials are maintained. This would require longer wait times for vehicles on the side streets, including the project driveways. Therefore traffic exiting the site would effectively be metered. Response C38-12: Apple shuttles are owned and operated by third party operators who fuel all vehicles off-site. Response C38-13: This comment, which expresses support for the Reduced Density alternative evaluated in Chapter VI, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR is noted. COMMENTER C39 Patricia Melcic July 22, 2013 Response C39-1: This comment references Impacts AIR -1 and AIR -2, which relate to the violation of air quality standards. These impacts pertain to exceedances of established thresholds of air pollutants in the air basin and would not disproportionately affect persons within 1 mile of the project site. As calculated in the air quality technical study prepared for the Draft EIR, emissions of toxic air contaminants from construction would be less than significant for nearby residents. Response C39-2: Although level of service delays in the Draft EIR are calculated in seconds of delay (and not miles), this comment likely overstates the project's contribu- tion to freeway congestion. Under cumulative conditions, the project would add approximately 1 minute and 23 seconds of delay to operations at the Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound Ramps and 1 minute and 8 seconds of delay to the Lawrence Expressway/I-280 Southbound Ramps. Response C39-3: The intersection of Pruneridge Avenue/North Tantau Avenue was analyzed in Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR. This P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 95 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES intersection is not listed in Table II -1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, from the EIR, because its operations would not be substantially adversely affected by the project. Response C39-4: The Main Parking Structure entrance would have direct access both to North Tantau Avenue and North Wolfe Road, and associated traffic would be distributed to the two streets. Response C39-5: Table RTC -6 summarizes the peak hour roadway volumes for Pruneridge Avenue between Lawrence Expressway and Tantau Avenue for Existing, Background No Project, and Background Plus Project conditions and their corresponding levels of service. Pruneridge Avenue is classified as a minor arterial per the City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan. Based on the General Plan, an arterial can accommodate up to 885 vehicles per lane and maintain LOS D operations. Pruneridge Avenue has two lanes between Lawrence Expressway and Tantau Avenue and a total capacity of 1,770 peak hour vehicles (885 x 2 lanes). Based on the data presented in Table RTC -6, Pruneridge Avenue has sufficient capacity to accommodate the expected growth in traffic on the roadway. Table RTC -6: Pruneridge Avenue Peak Hour Roadway Volumes Notes: 1 AM = morning peak hour, PM = afternoon peak hour. 2 Based on Roadway Segment Daily LOS Definitions presented in Santa Clara's General Plan. Peak hour capacities were assumed to be ten percent of the daily capacity. Source: Fehr & Peers, August 2013. Response C39-6: The modest additional traffic volumes for the project that would occur on Pruneridge Avenue, as shown in Response to Comment C39-5, would not be expected to create hazardous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. COMMENTER C40 Jennifer Hodor July 22, 2013 Response C40-1: This introductory comment stating objections to the proposed project is noted. As discussed in Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, of the P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 96 Two -Way Scenario Peak Hour' Roadway Volume LOS2 AM 707 C Existing PM 883 C AM 733 C Background No Project PM 931 C Background Plus Project AM 939 C PM 1,135 D Notes: 1 AM = morning peak hour, PM = afternoon peak hour. 2 Based on Roadway Segment Daily LOS Definitions presented in Santa Clara's General Plan. Peak hour capacities were assumed to be ten percent of the daily capacity. Source: Fehr & Peers, August 2013. Response C39-6: The modest additional traffic volumes for the project that would occur on Pruneridge Avenue, as shown in Response to Comment C39-5, would not be expected to create hazardous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. COMMENTER C40 Jennifer Hodor July 22, 2013 Response C40-1: This introductory comment stating objections to the proposed project is noted. As discussed in Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, of the P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 96 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Draft EIR, operations at the intersection of North Wolfe Road and East Homestead Road would not be significantly affected by the project. Response C40-2: Employees who use the Corporate Fitness Center would be directed to park in the parking facilities elsewhere within the project site. As part of Condi- tion of Approval CA -TRANS -3, if parking spillover is identified as a problem as part of annual parking monitoring, a detailed parking manage- ment plan would be provided and additional measures would be taken (including the provision of additional parking on the project site). A crosswalk has not been proposed at the intersection of Nightingale Avenue and East Homestead Road. Response C40-3: As proposed, the project would provide a shuttle stop pullout on the south side of East Homestead Road just east of the North Wolfe Road intersection. The stop would only be used by Apple's 15 -seat employee Sprinter vans. Use of the Sprinter vans that would use the stop on East Homestead Road would be limited to employees who are traveling to or leaving the Corporate Fitness Center. The relatively small number of vans accessing the Corporate Fitness Center would not substantially increase traffic on East Homestead Road. Most project employees would use the Transit Center on North Tantau Avenue. Response C40-4: As discussed on pages 432 to 437 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would provide adequate parking on-site (with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -35), thus limiting the demand for off-site parking. As part of the conditions of approval, the project sponsor would fund monitoring to assess whether intrusion occurs and measures to ameliorate parking intru- sion. The measure would be subject to City of Sunnyvale approval. Response C40-5: Please see Master Response 97: Cut -Through Traffic and Master Response 911: Diverted Trips Due to Pruneridge Avenue Closure. Response C40-6: Please refer to Master Response 914: New Freeway Ramps. Response C40-7: This concluding comment is noted. COMMENTER C41 Martin Landszaat July 21, 2013 Response C41-1: Please refer to the discussion of Mitigation Measure TRANS -1 on page 394 of the Draft EIR and Mitigation Measure TRANS -25 on page 420 of the Draft EIR. If agreement is reached with Caltrans to construct these mitigation measures (which are outside the control of the City of Cupertino), project impacts at I-280/Wolfe Road would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 97 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C42 Ronald Moore July 21, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C42-1: This comment is similar to and from the same commenter as Comment C2. Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. The comment about the consolidation of Apple employees on the site is noted and is reflected in the discussion of proposed project employment on pages 91 to 92 of the Draft EIR. Response C42-2 Response C42-3 Response C42-4 COMMENTER C43 Patrick Robbins July 21, 2013 Please see Response to Comment C44-1. Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. This comment, which suggests that Apple open a store in Cupertino, is noted. This comment does not pertain to environmental issues surrounding the project and no further response is required. Response C43-1: As discussed on page 215, project effects due to light and glare would be less -than -significant at all locations, including near Receptor 4, which is near the location described by the commenter. As shown in Table V.13-1, Illuminance Assessment of Receptor Locations, the illuminance value at Receptor 4 would increase by only 0.130 footcandle with implementation of the proposed project (far below the threshold of 0.8 footcandle). Response C43-2: This intersection was not included in the analysis because, as the comment notes, it is a minor all -way stop controlled intersection (and thus would not be subject to substantial project traffic). Fehr & Peers conducted follow-up observations at this intersection in September 2013. The observations indicate that the intersection operates at approximately LOS C in both the AM and PM peak periods, which is an acceptable level of service. Although queuing of up to six cars was observed on Pruneridge Avenue, no excessive queuing or unsafe driving behavior was observed. Response C43-3: As shown in Figure V.I-7, Project Trip Distribution, the intersection of Pruneridge Avenue and North Tantau Avenue is not projected to experience substantial increases in vehicle trips. Thus the relatively minor change in operation at this intersection is not surprising. Response C43-4: Please refer to pages 128 to 129 and pages 434 to 435 of the Draft EIR for a discussion of special event parking. As discussed on page 128, on special event days employees who typically park in the Auditorium and Valet Parking P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 98 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES facility would be directed to park elsewhere (including at off-site locations requiring shuttle transport, if necessary). These employees would be given advance notice of the parking restrictions, and provision would be made for parking at other locations within the project site or other Apple facilities in the area. Special events would occur approximately three to four times a year, and on these occasions — due to the parking protocols established by Apple — no significant spillover parking is expected to occur off-site. Response C43-5: As shown on page 453 of Section V.J, Noise, of the Draft EIR, the purpose of the short-term noise monitoring was to establish the existing ambient noise environment at sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project site. These noise measurements were not used in the analysis of significant impacts. Modeled traffic noise levels that would be experienced under project condi- tions were compared to modeled traffic noise levels under conditions without the project and were not compared to existing measured noise levels. Using modeled noise levels, rather than measured noise levels, is standard practice and is considered to produce more accurate results since measured noise during a single day or a small number of days may not be representative of project conditions. In regard to potential project -related noise increases for residences on Pruneridge Avenue, based on the anticipated trip distribution pattern of the proposed project, the segment of Pruneridge Avenue between North Tantau Avenue and Lawrence Expressway would experience less than 1 percent of total project trips. Therefore, similar to all other roadway segments with higher project trip volumes that were modeled and analyzed in the noise analysis, project -related traffic noise impacts along Pruneridge Avenue would be less than significant. COMMENTER C44 Mary Brunkhorst July 21, 2013 Response C44-1: This comment, which summarizes some of the key conclusions of the Draft EIR regarding traffic impacts, is noted. Response C44-2: This comment, which describes existing traffic conditions observed by the commenter, is noted. Response C44-3: As discussed in Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR, operations at the intersection of North Wolfe Road and East Homestead Road would not be significantly affected by the project. Response C444: Please see Master Response 97: Cut -Through Traffic. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 99 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The City and Caltrans anticipate having the improvements within Caltrans' Response C44-5: Pedestrian crossings were considered when conducting the traffic analysis. The existing traffic signal timing, with slight modifications, could accommodate added pedestrians without increasing the delays to vehicles. Response C44-6: Please see Master Response #11: Diverted Trips Due to Pruneridge Avenue Closure. Response C44-7: As discussed on page 35 of the Draft EIR, the cumulative analysis of traffic in the Draft EIR takes into account traffic from pending developments in the area, along with reasonably foreseeable roadway improvements. In general, mitigation occurs on aproject-by-project basis, and individual project applicants would be required to mitigate the effects of their projects on the transportation system to a less -than -significant level, where feasible. Response C44-8: Please see Master Response 91: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. Apple COMMENTER C45 Nancy Wagner July 21, 2013 Response C45-1: This introductory comment is noted. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 100 would work with the City of Cupertino, the VTA, and Caltrans to obtain the necessary permits to construct improvements in the Caltrans right-of-way. The City and Caltrans anticipate having the improvements within Caltrans' right-of-way completed prior to final occupancy of the project. Secondary impacts associated with the mitigation measures have been considered in the Draft EIR. Response C44-9: Apple would be required to implement all mitigation measures that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino. Regarding mitigation measures that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other agencies, Apple has agreed to coordinate and collaborate with the extra -jurisdictional agencies to construct each mitigation measure, or to provide funding to the agencies to design and construct either: (1) the identified mitigation measure or (2) an alternate improvement which mitigates the impact to the satisfaction of the City of Cupertino. Please see Master Response 91: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. Response C44-10: This comment, which expresses support for the closure ofPruneridge Avenue within the project site and does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. Response C44-11: This comment, which summarizes previous comments, is noted. Response C44-12: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C45 Nancy Wagner July 21, 2013 Response C45-1: This introductory comment is noted. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 100 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C45-2: Both the type and number of project -related vehicles using roadways in the vicinity of the site were taken into account as part of the noise analysis for the project described in Section V.J, Noise, of the Draft EIR. The number of vehicles using Pruneridge Avenue east of the project site is not expected to increase substantially with implementation of the proposed project. Less than I percent of project trips would use the segment of Pruneridge Avenue between North Tantau Avenue and Lawrence Expressway, resulting in a negligible increase in traffic -related noise. The impacts of the project on noise levels along Pruneridge Avenue east of the project site would thus be less than significant. Response C45-3: This general comment about expected increases in traffic along North Tantau Avenue is noted. Response C45-4: Please see Response to Comment C45-2. Response C45-5: This comment about building height preference is noted. As shown in Figure V.B-4, Visual Simulations, Viewpoint 3, East Pruneridge Avenue, project buildings from this location would be completely obscured by vegetation. Response C45-6: This general concluding comment is noted. COMMENTER C46 Sally Everett-Beaupre July 21, 2013 Response C46-1: This introductory comment is noted. Response C46-2: Please refer to pages 212 to 215 of the Draft EIR, which discuss the less - than -significant impacts of the project on light and glare. Response C46-3: Please refer to the visual simulations of the project on page 194 to 204 of the Draft EIR. COMMENTER C47 Patrick Waddell July 21, 2013 Response C47-1: Santa Clara residents could continue to access the I-280/Wolfe Road interchange via Homestead Road or Vallco Parkway. The detour is estimated to be just over 0.5 mile, which would add a negligible amount of travel time. Access to I-280 northbound would not be restricted to the interchange at Stevens Creek Boulevard. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 101 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C47-2: Please see Master Response #11: Diverted Trips Due to Pruneridge Avenue Closure, as well as Master Response 95: Public Access Through Project Site. Response C47-3: This comment, which does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. Response C47-4: Chapter VI, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, includes analysis of four project alternatives, including the No Project alternative, Pruneridge Avenue alternative, Reduced Construction alternative, and Reduced Density alterna- tive. These alternatives are analyzed for each of the topics evaluated in detail in the Draft EIR. In addition, as described on pages 625 and 626 of the Draft EIR, seven additional alternatives were considered but rejected for further analysis because they would conflict with project objectives or would not substantially reduce the environmental impacts of the project. Response C47-5: As discussed on page 626, the Pruneridge Avenue Tunnel alternative was not rejected from analysis solely due to conflicts with the existing sanitary sewer line. It was also rejected because it would infringe on private property and could result in adverse visual impacts and incur significant costs. Response C47-6: Apple considers any public access on the site to compromise its primary security objective. Please refer to Master Response 95: Public Access Through Project Site. Response C47-7: Please refer to Response to Comment 133-22 and Master Response 95: Public Access Through Project Site. COMMENTER C48 Dale Porter July 21, 2013 Response C48-1: This comment, which does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. See Master Response 93: Mitigation Nexus. Also, the retention of Pruneridge Avenue in its existing condition is evaluated as part of the No Project alternative discussed in Chapter VI, Alternatives. COMMENTER C49 Anonymous July 21, 2013 Response C49-1: This comment, which expresses opposition to the closure of Pruneridge Avenue as part of the project, is noted. The evaluation of impacts of the closure on the transportation patterns of The Hamptons residents is discussed on pages 429 to 430 of the Draft EIR. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 102 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C49-2: The proposed Apple Campus would not be open to the public. COMMENTER C50 A Local July 20, 2013 Response C50-1: As noted on page 134 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be required to meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver certification or an equivalent, as identified in the City of Cupertino Green Building Ordinance. Apple has committed to incorporating into the project the sustainability features discussed on pages 134 to 136 of the Draft EIR. Response C50-2: This comment, which does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. COMMENTER C51 Ruth Moore July 20, 2013 Response C51-1: Please refer to Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C52 Harvey Checkman July 19, 2013 Response C52-1: The segment of Pruneridge Avenue within the site that would be closed as part of the project is not a designated emergency access route. With the addition of project traffic, there would be added delays on Homestead Road during the peak commute periods; however, the delays would not be severe. For example, in the evening when commute congestion is greater, the delay on eastbound Homestead Road (towards Kaiser Hospital) at Wolfe Road is estimated to increase by 10 seconds. Similarly, the delay on southbound Wolfe Road towards Kaiser Hospital is estimated to increase by 15 seconds. Emergency vehicles would continue to be able to navigate the corridors with emergency signal pre-emption that give priority signals to emergency response vehicles (as required by Mitigation Measure PSU-1). Response C52-2: This proposal for the rerouting of Pruneridge Avenue resembles that described for the Mobility and Park alternative described on page 626 of the Draft EIR. That alternative was rejected because it would pose significant security concerns to Apple, thus compromising one of Apple's key objectives for the project. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 103 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C52-3: Please see Master Response 912: Trip Cap. Response C52-4: Please see Master Response 93: Mitigation Nexus. Response C52-5: Please see Master Response 93: Mitigation Nexus. Such a local hiring program would be difficult to administer/enforce and may do little to reduce the effects of the project on the local and regional roadway system (if, for instance, local residents drive to work). Since Apple has historically found success in reducing vehicle traffic through its TDM Program, the City has determined that a more robust TDM Program (as required by Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b) would be the most effective way to further reduce traffic generated by the proposed project. Response C52-6: Please see response to comment C52-2. COMMENTER C53 Ann (Last name not provided) July 19, 2013 Response C53-1: Impact AIR -1 and Impact AIR -2 identify impacts to regional air quality attainment standards from exceedances in criteria pollutant thresholds (see Table V.L-5 and Table V.L-7 of the Draft EIR). As shown in Table V.L-5, construction emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) threshold for average daily construction emissions. As shown in Table V.L-7, operational analysis results indicate the net new project emissions would exceed the BAAQMD's threshold for ROG, NO, PM2.5 and PM10. The primary source of construction emission exceedances is construction truck trips, while the primary source of project operation emissions is mobile source emissions generated by employee, visitor, and vendor vehicle trips to and from the project site. These emissions associated with the project are regional in nature, meaning that air pollutants are rapidly dispersed or, in the case of vehicle emissions associated with the project, emissions are released in other areas of the air basin. Because the resulting emissions are dispersed rapidly and contribute only a small fraction of the region's air pollution, air quality in the immediate vicinity of the project site (including the Kaiser Hospital) would not substantially change compared to existing conditions as the air quality monitoring data reported in Table V.L-2. Site-specific construction and operational health risk modeling was per- formed (see pages 552 to 559 of the Draft EIR), taking into account predomi- nant winds, and results indicate that the project air emissions would not create a significant risk would not occur to nearby residents or other sensitive receptors (including the hospital). P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 104 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C53-2: With the addition of project traffic, there would be added delays on Homestead Road during the peak commute periods; however, the delays would not be severe. For example, in the evening when commute congestion is greater, the delay on eastbound Homestead Road (towards Kaiser Hospital) at Wolfe Road is estimated to increase by 10 seconds. Similarly, the delay on southbound Wolfe Road towards Kaiser Hospital is estimated to increase by 15 seconds. Emergency vehicles would continue to be able to navigate the corridors with emergency signal pre-emption that give priority signals to emergency response vehicles (as required by Mitigation Measure PSU-1). Response C53-3: Please see Master Response #11: Diverted Trips Due to Pruneridge Avenue Closure. COMMENTER C54 Ann (Last name not provided) July 19, 2013 Response C54-1: This comment is noted. The inconsistency of the proposed closure of Pruneridge Avenue with General Plan policies is discussed under Impacts PLAN -2, PLAN -5, and PLAN -6 in the Draft EIR. Response C54-2: Impacts related to the closure of Pruneridge Avenue would be significant and unavoidable because the provision of public access through the project site would conflict with the primary security objective identified by Apple for the project, thus compromising the viability of the project. The term 11unmitigable" is not used to describe these impacts. Response C54-3: Similar to the Pruneridge Avenue Tunnel alternative discussed on page 626 of the Draft EIR, a pedestrian/bicycle bridge crossing the project site would require acquisition of right-of-way, result in adverse visual impacts, would incur significant costs, and may still pose significant security concerns. Therefore, such an alternative would not be environmentally superior to other project alternatives evaluated in detail in the Draft EIR (including the Pruneridge Avenue alternative, which would preserve Pruneridge Avenue in place) and will not be analyzed further. COMMENTER C55 Pingang and Wen Wang July 19, 2013 Response C55-1: As discussed in Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, the project would not result in a significant impact on Intersection 935 (Lawrence Expressway/Pruneridge Avenue). Therefore, no improvement measures are identified in the Draft EIR at this intersection. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 105 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C56 Jeremy Hubble July 19, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C56-1: Please see Master Response 910: Median on East Homestead Road and Response to Comment Al -18. The roadway/bike facility constraints referenced in the comment represent an existing condition in the City of Sunnyvale for which the City of Sunnyvale has the responsibility for and jurisdiction over the implementation of the improvements. Response C56-2: Increases in traffic on East Homestead Road would not result in bike/ pedestrian conflicts because as part of the project adequate bike/pedestrian facilities would be provided along East Homestead Road. Please refer to page 112 of the Draft EIR for a description of these facilities. Response C56-3: Please refer to Master Response 95: Public Access Through Project Site. COMMENTER C57 Vincent Grande July 17, 2013 Response C57-1: This comment, which does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. Response C57-2: Please refer to Master Response 914: New Freeway Ramps. COMMENTER C58 Anonymous July 17, 2013 Response C58-1: Refer to Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, which analyzes the effect of the project on the operation of North Wolfe Road and East Homestead Road. COMMENTER C59 David Mooso July 14, 2013 Response C59-1: In regard to potential project -related noise increases for residences on Pruneridge Avenue, based on the anticipated trip distribution pattern of the proposed project, the segment of Pruneridge Avenue between North Tantau Avenue and Lawrence Expressway would experience less than 1 percent of total project trips. Therefore, project -related traffic noise impacts along Pruneridge Avenue would be less than significant. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 106 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C60 Art Cohen July 14, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C60-1: Please see Master Response 93: Mitigation Nexus. Security concerns surrounding the project have not been identified as a significant impact that would require mitigation. COMMENTER C61 Denia Phillips July 12, 2013 Response C61-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C62 James (Last name not provided) July 12, 2013 Response C62-1: Impacts to migratory birds are discussed on pages 258 to 260 of the Draft EIR. It is unclear why the commenter believes the circular design of the Main Building would appear as a water body from the perspective of flying migratory birds. Apart from its circular design in plan view, the Main Building would have no other characteristics of a water body (see Figure III - 4 and III -5a for representative plan views of the Main Building). The interior courtyard of the Main Building would be landscaped and would contain numerous built features, including a central garden, food stations, mainte- nance access, dining terrace, and pathways, none of which are characteristic of the aquatic portion of a lake or pond. The interior courtyard would have no major elements with reflective qualities, other than a small water feature. Therefore, it is unlikely the circular layout of the Main Building would be 11extremely confusing to migratory flying animals." COMMENTER C63 John Kilmer July 11, 2013 Response C63-1: The comment appears to be referring to the closure ofPruneridge Avenue (not North Tantau Avenue) within the project site. Please see Master Response: Diverted Trips Due to Pruneridge Closure and the discussion on pages 427 to 428 of the Draft EIR. Please refer to pages 590 to 592 of the Draft EIR for a discussion of the project's potential effects on emergency response times. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 107 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C64 Elaine Manley July 11, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C64-1: This introductory comment is noted. Response C64-2: Additional parking on the site is not desirable from an environmental perspective because: 1) as explained on pages 432 to 437 of the Draft EIR, the parking proposed for the site would be adequate to meet demand with implementation of a TDM Program; 2) too much parking on the site could reduce the desirability of alternate transportation modes and generate additional traffic; and 3) the construction of new or larger buildings on the site to accommodate parking would result in adverse impacts related to air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the project site would not be open to the public. Thus, long-term parking demand for visitors is expected to be modest and could be accommodated within proposed visitor parking facilities. However, as part of Condition of Approval CA -TRANS -3, if parking spillover is identified as a problem as part of annual parking monitoring, a detailed parking management plan would be provided and additional measures would be taken (including the provision of additional parking on the project site). Response C64-3: Please see Master Response 910: Median on East Homestead Road. Response C644: This comment about the merits of the project design is noted. Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. Response C64-5: This concluding comment is noted. COMMENTER C65 Andy Frazer Carol Absalom Kevin Klenk Yair Barniv Pearl Wang July 10, 2013 Response C65-1: Please see Master Response 97: Cut -Through Traffic. Response C65-2: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. Response C65-3: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. Response C654: Please see Master Response 97: Cut -Through Traffic. The 34 percent diversion rate would be achieved through enforcement and regular P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 108 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES monitoring of the TDM Program required as part of Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b. Response C65-5: It is not anticipated that the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR to reduce impacts at the I-280/Wolfe Road and Lawrence Expressway/I-280 interchanges would be inadequate, based on the transportation analysis conducted as part of the project. Response C65-6: Please see Master Response 97: Cut -Through Traffic. The Condition of Approval that would require Apple to set aside $500,000 for the City of Sunnyvale and $250,000 for the City of Santa Clara is intended to allow for the monitoring of cut -through traffic and the potential installation of traffic calming measures should cut -through traffic -related problems arise due to implementation of the proposed project. These funds are not intended to be used for "helping traffic to/from/through the main arteries of 280, Wolfe, and Lawrence." Response C65-7: Please see Response to Comment C65-5. COMMENTER C66 Indranil Das July 4, 2013 Response C66-1: This introductory comment is noted. Response C66-2: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. Also, refer to Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, which analyzes the effect of the project on the operation of North Wolfe Road and East Homestead Road. Response C66-3: Please see Master Response 97: Cut -Through Traffic. As discussed on pages 432 to 437 of the Draft EIR, adequate parking would be provided within the project site (and parking off-site would not be convenient). Therefore, spillover parking off-site is not expected. Response C66-4: Please refer to the mitigation measures identified in Sections V.I, Transportation and Circulation; V.J, Noise; and V.L, Air Quality. These measures would be required to be implemented by the City. Response C66-5: The entrance on East Homestead Road would primarily be for bicyclists and pedestrians. Please refer to Response to Comment C66-3 regarding the expectation that spillover parking outside the site is not expected. Response C66-6: Although the I-280/Wolfe Road interchange would be busy at peak hours, there would be capacity for additional vehicles generated by the project. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 109 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C66-7: Such a parking control measure could be implemented if, as a result of implementation of Condition of Approval CA -TRANS -3 (see pages 435 to 437 of the Draft EIR), spillover parking occurs in adjacent neighborhoods. Response C66-8: This concluding comment is noted. COMMENTER C67 Michelle Philips July 10, 2013 Response C67-1: Please see Master Response 97: Cut -Through Traffic. COMMENTER C68 Ann (Last name not provided) July 3, 2013 Response C68-1: This introductory comment is noted. Response C68-2: See Master Response 915: School Busing Program. COMMENTER C69 David Mooso June 30, 2013 Response C69-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. Mitigation Measure PLAN -2 would include the construction of an alternate creek trail, and partial funding of a trail study for the drainage channel and segment of Calabazas Creek south of the project site. See also Master Response 913: Calabazas Creek Trail. COMMENTER C70 UP June 30, 2013 Response C70-1: Please see Master Response 91: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts and Master Response 92: Project Merits. Please also refer to Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR, which analyzes the effects of the project on the transportation links listed in the comment. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 110 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C71 David Mooso June 30, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C71-1: The provision of a northbound right -turn overlap phase with the westbound left -turn vehicle phase is a feasible signal control measure. The traffic phasings/timings for the North Tantau Avenue/Pruneridge Avenue intersec- tion would be refined during the project entitlement process. This suggestion will be considered at that time. COMMENTER C72 Loran Stringer June 30, 2013 Response C72-1 COMMENTER C73 Michelle Connelly June 30, 2013 Please see Master Response 912: Trip Cap. Response C73-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. Please also refer to the discussion of the Reduced Density alternative, on pages 619 to 625 of the Draft EIR. That alternative would reduce the size of the project to reduce traffic impacts and other related impacts. See also Master Response 95: Public Access Through Project Site. Response C73-2: The potential intermittent use of outdoor areas around the perimeter of the project site by smokers would not result in a significant health risk as public exposure to such smoke would be sporadic. Response C73-3: This concluding comment is noted. COMMENTER C74 Sally Everett-Beaupre June 29, 2013 Response C74-1: This introductory comment is noted. Response C74-2: The analysis of the environmental effects of the project in the Draft EIR was not confined to the geographic confines of Cupertino and extends to all bordering jurisdictions. Response C74-3: Please refer to Master Response 914: New Freeway Ramps. Also, it should be noted that Apple's existing TDM program has been successful in diverting P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL I I I LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES approximately 28 percent of Apple employees from the use of single -occupant vehicles. Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b would increase this diversion rate to 34 percent, with stringent monitoring requirements to ensure compliance. Response C744: This concluding comment is noted. COMMENTER C75 Jon Ramos June 26, 2013 Response C75-1: The Draft EIR is most easily accessible via the City's website for the project: http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1107. The existing buildings on the site would be demolished as part of the project. Refer to page 61 of the Draft EIR for a description of the zoning designations on the project site. COMMENTER C76 Ann Peterson June 26, 2013 Response C76-1: Due to the robust market for office space in Cupertino and in surrounding communities, any buildings vacated by Apple are expected to be occupied by different tenants. Long-term building vacancies due to the project (and associated adverse environmental impacts such as urban blight) are not anticipated. COMMENTER C77 Jeff Greef June 26, 2013 Response C77-1: The greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated by the proposed project have been quantified and are shown in the Draft EIR in Table V.K-2 (Project Construction Emissions) on page 504 and Table V.K-3 on page 510. This comment also requests the quantification of carbon emissions from the off-site production of construction materials. The term "total carbon footprint" is subject to a wide variety of interpretations. The Draft EIR contains an extensive analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions expected to result from construction and operation of the project. For the construction analysis, transportation of construction materials to the site and onsite construction activities have been estimated and evaluated. To the extent the commenter is inquiring about manufacturing processes off-site, there is extensive publicly available information on the estimated emissions associated with processes such as cement production, steel production, and glass manufacturing. At this stage in the planning process, due to variations in construction suppliers and vendors, it is not possible to develop an accurate estimate of construction P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 112 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES lifecycle emissions. Off-site production of greenhouse gas emissions is typically monitored and inventoried for compliance with State greenhouse gas reduction goals independently from the end product user. Additionally, an analysis of total construction lifecycle emissions is not required by the California Air Resources Board or the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for CEQA documents, and specific methodologies for calculating such emissions have not been mandated. The attribution of such emissions is also typically assigned in the first instance to the producer, not the end product user. For example, the World Resources Institute has observed that "[t]he significant quantities of energy and GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions that are embodied in these products are, under prevailing GHG accounting systems, attributed to the country of production, not consumption."' As for the consideration of emissions that would not have occurred had the project not occurred, the Draft EIR has analyzed and considered the greenhouse gas emissions for this project, as compared to the baseline conditions (as required by CEQA), to determine the emissions attributable to the project. Please refer to the extensive sustainability features that would be designed into the project, described on pages 134 to 136 of the Draft EIR, which were taken into account in conducting this analysis. Response C77-2: Please see Response to Comment C77-1. COMMENTER C78 Mahesh Nihalani June 26, 2013 Response C78-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C79 Anonymous June 25, 2013 Response C79-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. 1 World Resources Institute, 205. Navigating the Numbers: Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy, Executive Summary. Website: http://pdf.wri.ore/navieatin�z numbers.pdf. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 113 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C80 John Nelson June 26, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C80-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. Please also refer to the discussion of the Reduced Density alternative, on pages 619 to 625 of the Draft EIR. That alternative would reduce the size of the project to reduce traffic impacts and other related impacts. COMMENTER C81 Charles Hanson June 25, 2013 Response C81-1: As discussed on page 137 of the Draft EIR, as part of the project, a minimum of 75 percent of construction and demolition waste would be diverted from landfills and recycled or reused. COMMENTER C82 Anonymous June 25, 2013 Response C82-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C83 Walter Li June 25, 2013 Response C83-1: As discussed on page 182 of the Draft EIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 requires an EIR to evaluate the impacts of the project compared to "baseline conditions" that are defined as the conditions that "exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective." Accordingly, the baseline condition used to evaluate the impacts of the project includes a site occupancy of approximately 4,844 employees (the number of employees that occupied the project site in August 2011, when the Notice of Preparation was released). However, Chapter VI, Alternatives, includes an analysis of the impacts of a project that would allow for full occupancy (i.e., 9,800 employees) of the existing buildings on the project site. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 114 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C84 Marc Aronson June 21, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C84-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C85 Jennifer Martin June 18, 2013 Response C85-1: Please see Master Response: Analysis of Neighborhood Cut -Through Traffic. Response C85-2: Mitigation Measure N0I-1 in the Draft EIR would ensure that construction activities are in compliance with the Municipal Code and all applicable noise regulations. COMMENTER C86 Mike Hammes June 17, 2013 Response C86-1: In the transportation analysis conducted as part of the Draft EIR, a small percentage of project traffic was assumed to access the project site via the I- 280/De Anza Boulevard interchange; thus the analysis captures the scenario identified in this comment. Response C86-2: As part of Condition of Approval CA -TRANS -3, if parking spillover is identified as a problem as part of annual parking monitoring (which could include monitoring of the nearby Kaiser facilities), a detailed parking management plan would be provided and additional measures would be taken (including the provision of additional parking on the project site). COMMENTER C87 Aleksandr Movshovich June 17, 2013 Response C87-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits and Master Response 95: Public Access Through Project Site. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 115 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C88 Edward Hirshfield June 17, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C88-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. The comment also notes that shifting the work hours of Apple employees away from peak periods could reduce project traffic impacts. This concept is employed in the list of "Additional TDM Measures" discussed on page 443 of the Draft EIR. These measures, which include the implementation of a flexible work schedule and the encouragement of telecommuting, would be implemented if the TDM measures identified as part of the project fail to meet the peak hour counts goal established in Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b. COMMENTER C89 Linda Vanderhule June 17, 2013 Response C89-1: This comment, which does not pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. COMMENTER C90 Gary Jones June 15, 2013 Response C90-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C91 Jun Xu June 14, 2013 Response C91-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C92 Sue and Joel Rosado June 14, 2013 Response C92-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits and Responses to Comments Al -13 and C1-1. Response C92-2: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 116 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C93 Frank Bryan June 14, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C93-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits and Master Response 911: Diverted Trips Due to Pruneridge Avenue Closure. COMMENTER C94 Sharon (Last name not provided) June 14, 2013 Response C94-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits and Master Response 911: Diverted Trips Due to Pruneridge Avenue Closure.. COMMENTER C95 Ying Xia June 12, 2013 Response C95-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C96 Richard Altmaier June 12, 2013 Response C96-1: This comment, which generally pertains to the merits of the project, and supports the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, is noted. COMMENTER C97 David Cookson June 7, 2013 Response C97-1: As discussed on pages 344 to 345 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 would require the project sponsor to conduct hazardous materials surveys of all buildings on the site that have not been previously inspected or abated. Buildings identified as containing hazardous building materials would be abated in accordance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations. Hazardous building materials would thus be monitored on the site until abated, thus reducing the potential for emissions of hazardous building materials in the air to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures HAZ-2a and HAZ-2b, discussed on page 344 of the Draft EIR, would require the preparation of an Environmental Site Management Plan (which could itself require ongoing monitoring) and a vapor intrusion assessment to ensure that residual hazardous materials in groundwater and P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 117 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C98 Kevin Klenk June 7, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES soil on the project site are not released into the air such that they would result in a significant health risk to the public. Response C98-1: This comment generally pertains to the impacts of the project on freeway interchanges. Please refer to Mitigation Measures TRANS -1, TRANS -3, TRANS -5, TRANS -9a, TRANS -10, TRANS -11, TRANS -14, TRANS -19a, TRANS -20, TRANS -21, TRANS -22, TRANS -25, and TRANS -26 in the Draft EIR. These measures represent feasible improvements to freeways to reduce the impacts of the project on congestion levels. In addition, Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b would require that 34 percent of project trips be diverted from single -occupancy vehicles, thus reducing the project's impact on the roadway system, including freeways. COMMENTER C99 Willie LU June 6, 2013 Response C99-1: The traffic data referenced in the comment is noted, but it is unclear how this relates to the impact analysis in the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Master Response 92: Project Merits. While there may be merits to locating a corporate campus at a distance from population centers, the benefits of this approach include: proximity between jobs/housing (and the potential for reduced commutes) and proximity to transit services (which can benefit levels of traffic congestion, air pollutant emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions). Response C99-2: Please note that while attorneys were involved in the preparation of the Draft EIR, the report was primarily authored by a team of technical experts under the direction and supervision of City of Cupertino Department of Community Development staff (See Draft EIR Chapter VIII, Report Preparation). The mitigation measures in the report would be enforced and monitored by means of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that would be made available to the public. Please also refer to Master Response 91: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. Response C99-3: This comment is noted, although it does not pertain to specific environmental issues related to the project and no further response is required. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 118 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C100 Giselle Ballou June 6, 2013 Response C100-1 COMMENTER C101 Cynthia Smyth June 6, 2013 Response C101-1 COMMENTER C102 Milt Kostner June 6, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. This comment also suggests that the project would increase traffic in the area. This comment is consistent with the analysis in Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR. Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. Response C102-1: Please refer to Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, for a discussion of questions relating to impacts associated with the removal of Pruneridge Avenue on arterials and freeway interchanges in the vicinity of the project site and associated with bus traffic. Response C102-2: Please refer to Mitigation Measure N01- 1, which addresses the hours during which construction activities could occur. Exterior project noise -generating construction activities within 750 feet of residentially zoned property would be permitted only between the weekday hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Response C102-3: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. The open space within the site, while not physically accessible to the public, would be visible through a metal, powder -coated, picket -style fence surrounding most of the site. COMMENTER C103 Heidi Johnson June 6, 2013 Response C103-1: While it is often suggested that Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) will not grow in the Santa Clara Valley and other areas adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, in fact, Douglas Fir have been shown to thrive in the area around the project site. For instance, a healthy Douglas Fir can be found growing on the southbound I-280 off -ramp at De Anza Boulevard, adjacent to Apple's current Infinite Loop Campus. Additionally, a prominent Douglas Fir in the P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 119 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES area has grown immediately adjacent to Stanford's northernmost entrance arch at Palm Drive for at least 125 years. COMMENTER C104 Richard and Beverly Olsen July 18, 2013 Response C104-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. To sign up for notifications about the proposed project, please use the City's eNotification Signup form: hllp://www.c-Lipertino.org/index.aspx?page=480. COMMENTER C105 Todd Beirdo June 30, 2013 Response C105-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER C106 Keith Murphy July 22, 2013 Response C106-1: This introductory comment is noted. Response C106-2: It is unclear why the commenter believes the project has been "fast -tracked," as the environmental review process for the project was initiated over 2 years ago (summer of 2011). As discussed on page 494 of the Draft EIR, the project was certified as an Environmental Leadership Project pursuant to State Assembly Bill 900 in April 2013. Under this certification, the project was required to undergo normal environmental review required under CEQA, including all requirements regarding the mitigation of significant impacts. Apple's AB 900, Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 Application is available here: http://www.opr.ca.gov/s californiajobs.php. This link was also placed on the City's website for the project. Response C106-3: This comment is noted. As described in pages 225 to 230 of the Draft EIR, the project would not result in significant impacts related to housing and thus no mitigation would be required. Response C1064: Please see Responses to Comments C106-2 and C106-3. Response C106-5: Impacts associated with the closure of Pruneridge Avenue are discussed throughout Draft EIR, but see in particular pages 150-152; 156-159; and 427- 430. Please also refer to Master Response 95: Public Access Through Project Site. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 120 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT SEPTEMBER 2013 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C106-6: Please refer to Impacts PLAN -1, PLAN -3, PLAN -5, and PLAN -6 in the Draft EIR, which relate to General Plan provisions concerning the provision of trails and park space within the project site. Please refer to Response to Comment C3-1 regarding the referenced construction project on the site. This temporary structure would not infringe on the riparian buffer around Calabazas Creek or Santa Clara Valley Water District access to the creek. Response C106-7: Please refer to Response to Comment C106-2 regarding the project's certifica- tion as an Environmental Leadership Project. Please refer to Response to Comment C3-1 regarding the referenced construction project on the site. Relevant information about the project is consolidated on one web page: Apple Campus 2 Project: hllp://www.caertino.org/index.aspx?page=1107. Response C106-8: Please refer to Response to Comment C3-1. The accompanying photographs depict the site of the RC -IA Mockup. Response C106-9: This concluding comment is noted. COMMENTER C107 Stephen Rohde July 22, 2013 Response C107-1: This comment, which expresses support for the project, is noted. Response C107-2: Please see Master Response 910: Median on East Homestead Road. Response C107-3: If designed in accordance with City standards, using appropriate trees species, long-term maintenance of the East Homestead Road median would be manageable. Response C107-4: Please refer to Master Response 914: New Freeway Ramps. Response C1074: This concluding comment, which pertains to the merits of the proposed median along East Homestead Road, is noted. COMMENTER C108 Ria Lo July 22, 2013 Response C108-1: Please see Master Response 95: Public Access Through Project Site. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 121 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C109 Mette Christensen July 22, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response C109-1: The City coordinates transportation improvements among major develop- ment projects in the City, along with requiring each project sponsor to fund transportation improvements needed to reduce the impacts of the project. Additionally, the City works directly with the residents, businesses, and schools in the Rancho Rinconada area to address traffic and parking concerns on an on-going basis, and will continue to do so as projects in the area move forward. Response C109-2: Please refer to: Muffly, Dave, 2011. Apple Arborist. Apple Campus 2, Consolidated Arborist Report. August 1 (and all arborist reports referenced therein). These reports are available for review as part of the Administrative Record for the project (accessible at: hitt://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx ?page=1107). These reports are also available for review at the City of Cupertino Community Development Department. Response C109-3: The City provides a convenient way to send questions, requests, comments and complaints directly to City staff through the "Access Cupertino" link on its home page. The link can be accessed on the top bar of the City's home page. The website is: www.cupertino.org/access/. Response C109-4: This comment introduces excerpts from the Draft EIR that relate to the previous comments. No further response is required. Response C109-5: This comment comprises excerpts from the Draft EIR. No further response is required. COMMENTER C110 Ria Lo July 22, 2013 Response C110-1: This introductory comment is noted. Response C110-2: This comment, which is noted, pertains generally to the merits of the project design and not the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The analysis in Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, takes into account expected visitors to the project site. With the exception of special events, visitation to the site is expected to be modest. Furthermore, most visitors would arrive at and depart the campus during the midday, when traffic volumes on the surrounding roadway network are lower. Response C110-3: Please see Response to Comment C110-2. The "superblock" layout of the campus is discussed in regard to pedestrian and bicyclist accessibility, and P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 122 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES land use patterns in general, on pages 149 to 152 and 188 to 190 of the Draft EIR. Response C110-4: This comment is noted. In establishing the parking supply for the project (and crafting related mitigation), the key objective was to balance the probable demand for parking at the site with the understanding that too much parking may incentivize driving. As discussed in pages 432 to 437 of the Draft EIR, the parking supply takes into account visitor parking spaces, and carpooling, and thus does not correlate directly with the desired 34 percent single occupancy vehicle diversion rate required as part of Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b. Response C110-5: The 34 percent trip diversion requirement in Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b is appropriate given Apple's location in a suburban setting. This requirement does not suggest that Apple cannot achieve a higher alternative mode share. The two examples cited in the comment are not completely analogous to Apple. Stanford has faculty housing near campus which supports higher bicycle use. Unlike the project site, both Stanford and Genentech are adjacent to high -frequency Caltrain stations and located closer to regional transportation hubs. Response C110-6: The proposed roadway modifications generally include minor widening such as the addition of one lane on an approach. Due to the combination of the modifications requiring only minor widening and the low transit, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes in the vicinity of the affected intersections, secondary impacts to non -auto modes would be less than significant. It should be noted, however, that the designs for the modifications would incorporate pedestrian - friendly treatments such as narrow lane widths and tight corner radii, where appropriate. In addition, mitigation measures that include roadway widening would generally only occur at locations where the project is anticipated to add a substantial amount of vehicle traffic. In general, the preference of the City is to avoid roadway widening where possible. Therefore, a fundamental mitigation measure in the Draft EIR is Mitigation Measure TRANS -34, which would require a 34 percent trip diversion rate (through implementation of a TDM Program) that is robust considering the relatively suburban setting of the project. Response C110-7: The comment about the City's minimum parking requirements is noted. As discussed on page 443 of the Draft EIR, if Apple is unsuccessful at meeting the trip diversion goal required in Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b, it would be required to implement additional TDM measures. One such measure could include a parking cash -out program, or similar incentive to reduce parking demand. Response C110-8: The closure of the Cupertino Village south entrance represents the closure of one of three driveways on North Wolfe Road. In addition, Cupertino Village is accessible via the North Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue intersection. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 123 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Given the multiple alternative access points onto North Wolfe Road, the closure of the southern Cupertino Village driveway is expected to result in a negligible increase in traffic on East Homestead Road and would not compromise the viability of businesses in the shopping center. Response C110-9: The closure of Pruneridge Avenue is identified as significant and unavoidable for several impact areas in the Draft EIR (see Impacts PLAN -2, PLAN -5, PLAN -6, TRANS -31, TRANS -32, TRANS -33, and TRANS -34. Response C110-10: These reference materials, used to support the previous comments, are noted. COMMENTER C111 Sylvia Gallegos July 22, 2013 Response C111-1: CEQA requires the lead agency make all adopted mitigation measures enforceable and to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program that meets the requirements of CEQA Sections 21081.6(a)(1) and (b), which requires the City, as lead agency, to be responsible for monitoring implementation of all adopted mitigation measures that are within its responsibility and jurisdiction. The comment suggesting formation of a citizen committee to oversee mitigation monitoring is noted. Response C111-2: The transportation analysis of the Reduced Density alternative in Chapter VI, Alternatives, was conducted at a lesser level of detail than the proposed project, consistent with Section 15126.6(d) of the CEQA Guidelines. However, the analysis was sufficiently detailed to compare the specific impacts of the project on the transportation system to those that would result from the Reduced Density alternative — to "allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project." Response C111-3: This comment, which relates to existing bicycle facility conditions that would not be affected by the project, is noted. No further response is required. Response C111-4: As discussed on page 443 of the Draft EIR, if Apple is unsuccessful at meeting the trip diversion goal required in Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b, it would be required to implement additional TDM measures. One such measure could include a parking cash -out program, which is included in the list of TDM measures for future consideration. Response C111-5: One of the additional TDM measures identified on page 443 of the Draft EIR (which could be employed if Apple does not meet its required trip diversion goal) is an expansion of the campus car -sharing fleet, which, as suggested, makes use of the Apple shuttle more attractive. As for the acquisition or use of park-and-ride lots, as described in the Draft EIR, if 34 percent TDM P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 124 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES participation is not achieved, the City would work with Apple to identify additional measures. One option that may be considered by the City and Apple as another potentially viable TDM measure is the acquisition or use of park-and-ride lots, although the need, location, and approval of such off-site facilities is speculative and may require additional environmental and discretionary review. At this point, it is not anticipated that park-and-ride lots would be needed to achieve the 34 percent TDM participation because other measures are expected to be successful in diverting trips, so they are not included as a specific measure in the Draft EIR. Response C111-6: As discussed on pages 148 to 149 of the Draft EIR, the 1.1 -acre requirement for Mitigation Measure PLAN -1 is based on the 1.1 -acre portion of the project site that would be re -designated from Parks and Open Space to Industrial/Residential as part of the project. Replacement park space need not be developed in close proximity to the project site (because the park designation was part of a residential project that was never built, and the park was never constructed). However, the City would consider local allocations of park space as a factor in pursuing development of the park space elsewhere in the City. COMMENTER C112 Wahila Wilkie July 22, 2013 Response C112-1: Regarding the comment about the closure of Pruneridge Avenue, this issue is discussed throughout the Draft EIR, and in particular pages 150 to 152; 156 to 159; and 427 to 430. Traffic in the vicinity of the project site is discussed throughout Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR. Requiring Apple to bus children to school as mitigation for project -related traffic impacts was rejected from detailed consideration in the Draft EIR for the reasons discussed in Master Response 915: School Busing Program. Mitigation Measure PLAN -1 would require Apple to provide sufficient funds for the acquisition of 1.1 acres of property for the future development of a park, or agree to purchase, designate, and dedicate to the City 1.1 acres of the land elsewhere in the City as Parks and Open Space. COMMENTER C113 Marialis Seehorn July 22, 2013 Response C113-1: As discussed in Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, although the project would worsen congestion at certain locations, all intersections and roadway networks (with the exception of the segment of Pruneridge Avenue P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 125 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER C114 Robert Neff July 22, 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES within the project site) would remain functional and usable by the public, including residents of Sunnyvale. Response C114-1: This general comment about bicycling conditions is noted. No further response is required. Response C114-2: The project includes numerous transportation network modifications/ improvements around the project site, including continuous bike lanes on North Tantau Avenue between East Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard, as discussed on pages 111 to 112 of the Draft EIR. Response C114-3: As part of Mitigation Measure TRANS -6, Apple would be required to modify the East Homestead Road/North Tantau Avenue intersection to provide an exclusive eastbound right -turn lane. With this modification, as shown in Appendix H of the Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix B of the Draft EIR), the pork -chop island on the south-west corner would be removed. COMMENTER C115 Tammy Mongelli July 22, 2013 Response C115-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits and Master Response 93: Mitigation Nexus. COMMENTER C116 Ray Crump July 22, 2013 Response C116-1: This comment, which generally pertains to the merits of the project, is noted. Please also refer to Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, of the Draft EIR, which identifies measures to reduce the traffic generated by the project. See Master Response 91: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts regarding the City's commitment to implementing mitigation measures that are outside the jurisdiction of Cupertino. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 126 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 D. PUBLIC MEETING COMMENTS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 127 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 PUBLIC MEETING June 26, 2013 COMMENTER D1 Randy Smith RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response D1-1: This comment, which references the beneficial impacts of the project and does not discuss the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. COMMENTER D2 Dennis Garringon Response D2-1: This comment, which does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. COMMENTER D3 Arturo Sainz Response D3-1: This comment, which references beneficial socioeconomic impacts of the project and not the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. COMMENTER D4 David Jamieson Response D4-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER D5 Al Sousa Response D5-1: This comment, which references beneficial socioeconomic impacts of the project and not the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. COMMENTER D6 R. T. Parmley Response D6-1: Please see Master Response 95: Public Access Through Project Site. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 128 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER D7 D. Radisic RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response D7-1: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Infinite Loop campus that included a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). That TIA followed methodologies in developing trip generation estimates and evaluating the effects of the traffic on the surrounding roadway system that are similar to those used in the Draft EIR. Analyses using microsimulation were not typically conducted when the Infinite Loop campus was being planned. Therefore the Apple Campus 2 TIA includes elements of a more technically sophisticated analysis to better understand the impacts of the project on the roadway network. COMMENTER D8 Tappan (Tap) Merrick Response D8-1: This comment, which references a meeting that the commenter had with an Apple representative, is noted. Response D8-2: Please see Master Response 97: Cut -Through Traffic. COMMENTER D9 E. Castro Response D9-1: This comment, which references beneficial socioeconomic impacts of the project and not the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. COMMENTER D10 Jim Reed Response D10-1: This comment, which references beneficial socioeconomic and environmental impacts of the project and not the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. COMMENTER D11 Mark Van Den Huevel Response D11-1: This comment, which also addresses the adequacy of the Draft EIR and not the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 129 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER D12 Josue Garcia RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Response D12-1: This comment, which references beneficial socioeconomic impacts of the project and not the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. COMMENTER D13 Jose Espinosa Response D13-1: Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. COMMENTER D14 Larry Watson Response D14-1: This comment, which references beneficial socioeconomic impacts of the project and not the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. COMMENTER D15 Anonymous Response D15-1: This comment expresses concern about the impacts of the project (identified in the Draft EIR) on the I-280/Wolfe Road interchange. Mitigation Measures TRANS -1, TRANS -5, TRANS -14, TRANS -25, TRANS -26, and TRANS -29 would reduce impacts to this interchange. COMMENTER D16 Anonymous Response D16-1: This comment references the closure of Pruneridge Avenue and the impacts on travel times to nearby services. The closure of Pruneridge Avenue is discussed throughout the Draft EIR, but refer particularly to pages 150-152; 156-159; and 427-430. With the addition of project traffic, there would be added delays on Homestead Road during the peak commute periods; however, the delays would not be severe. For example, in the evening when commute congestion is greater, the delay on eastbound Homestead Road (towards Kaiser Hospital) at Wolfe Road is estimated to increase by 10 seconds. Similarly, the delay on southbound Wolfe Road towards Kaiser Hospital is estimated to increase by 15 seconds. Emergency vehicles would continue to be able to navigate the corridors with emergency signal pre- emption that give priority signals to emergency response vehicles (as required by Mitigation Measure PSU-1). P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 130 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 COMMENTER D17 Thorisa Yap Response D17-1 COMMENTER D18 Jim Riley Response D18-1 COMMENTER D19 Lidia Blair Response D19-1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Please see Master Response 92: Project Merits. This comment, which references beneficial socioeconomic impacts of the project and not the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. This comment, which references beneficial socioeconomic impacts of the project and not the adequacy of the Draft EIR, is noted. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 131 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES E. COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS ON THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 132 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The letters with a prefix `B" are letters received from individuals via the mail, email, or City's website in support of the project that pertain solely to the merits of the project and do not raise questions or concerns about project environmental issues or the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, pursuant to Sections 15088 and 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, no formal response is required. However, these comments will be considered by the City decision -makers when project approval is contemplated. See also Master Response 92: Project Merits. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 133 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 This page intentionally left blank. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\3-Responses.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 134 IV. TEXT REVISIONS Chapter IV presents specific changes to the text of the Draft EIR that are being made to clarify materials in the Draft EIR, in response to comments received during the public review period or at the request of City staff. In no case do these revisions introduce "significant new information" as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, including new or more severe environmental impacts, new mitigation measures or alternatives, or information indicating that the Draft EIR is fundamentally or basically inadequate. All revisions contained herein are minor in nature. Where revisions to the main text are called for, the page and paragraph are set forth, followed by the appropriate revision. Added text is indicated with underlined text. Text deleted is shown in 1. Page numbers correspond to the page numbers of the Draft EIR. Page 2 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: The City of Cupertino circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project, which notified responsible agencies and interested parties that an EIR would be prepared for the project and indicated the environmental topics anticipated to be addressed in the EIR. The NOP was published on August 19, 2011, and was mailed to public agencies, organizations, and individuals likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the project. The scoping period, initially planned to end on September 19, 2011, was extended to October 5, 2011 to allow for further public comment. Comments on the NOP were received by the City and considered during preparation of the EIR. A scoping session for the EIR was held as a public meeting on September 8, 2011. Public notices for the scoping session were mailed to approximately 20,000 households in the City, advertisements were placed in local newspapers, and the City posted the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and hearing notice on the City's website. Notices were also sent to households in Santa Clara and Sunnyvale within 1,0005 feet of the project site. A copy of the NOP and comments submitted during the EIR scoping period are included in Appendix A of this EIR. Table II -1, starting on page 9 of the Draft EIR, is revised as shown starting on page 137 of this chapter. Page 61 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: The Park and Recreation P„ lie n. ,. l eer-e 4a (PR) zone corresponds to the approximately 1.1 - acre portion of the site designated Parks and Open Space in the General Plan. This area currently contains a parking lot. The PR zone allows for the development of parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities, including agricultural uses such as crop and tree farming. As with the General Plan Parks and Open Space designation described above, the site was zoned PR at the time a development project was proposed for a portion of the Ridgeview Campus area. Figure III -4 on page 67 of the Draft EIR is revised as shown on the following page. RTOC 1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 135 U 0 O IN o J � C C C o 0 M El W .7 W o J o W � CW N U ct O Y O Cd O cF, cC '� U ,—, � � � Es > dq O U '� x "r• O 'O -a O O 0 cg Ncd 0.r U -2 > N +�' vi 's=: O b-0CW .s=: +� cd '� cd .s:: O U O O cd N �" �: ,x CWDI) o � O� U iv ai O a on y �' IJ E t. 'O 'O U �y O O Vl SNi .2 � FOr N -O cyi .'_'i Y- 'd_IJ > '� � o op o'� I Vl m cd t t ' 4N C�� y �r S.; O '� N "O O N N N G' N ^O FE Ect OU y O N ON cd O. ..�'- O 2 O ct IP cut U Eu r0 �..! y o m a ai O m o y o uy .a ID ' - - s y �--� N N 3"i N ry� rQ N ^� a; U . -- N O, G' u= �.� cd OD. > O N O Ev^i ,� Y M O �•d U � N N 4 y Vl ..fir U O Vl �--� � � ,ry'fi' O O U > c U5 'O Qr.' 'O O CG U 0.r O ��•yd E' U .Er O CW � 2 .0 O � Y.r � F� I� �..! .�. Q'' 'S:: Com., .fir .moi � .. ,.yam th th v 'O Vl 2 N >C y,r N `� rfl CQ yr pct r -a 73 > o -0 aQ� th O '� m> N � Y. ct �, �, O �t � .� .2 3r � z' Q ¢-�� E �� OU �E�o Q. A. CO VOi SNr H F^ VlkOU =s Q Es t � � 06 Q � Q O � 9 /�� •� � .0�-� O rU� C15 Q4Oy o CC15 i� Em, N y k V1 Vl y—r C15 U Cd u U Y -i N .5-: "r• .yam. "r. Ct5"i '� '� C� N E U V1 y0 '�--� ' � r--� ' � O .ri � Q" �, , � 'O c� Q . � 'O '� y Vl �' N � Q � I—I ^ i� ",-•. Q" /�� , =$ '� C� Lam' .O� Q Y" .��• th N O O vi '� U O C� Y. '� N b-0 , ��F' V , O N U ct N N '� %� 00 U N N y O �—'' w CYJ O s.. Cd VI �"� f.' U y 1-.' Q F'+ C''.' .�. �U F'+ 00 O O F��r y/yam C15 Q O ,y Q Ct N O "r. ,�-�++, N 3 o Q o o .Q. Q N 'O i ID w th N U th N v' O b-0 fy. N N N N yv', >Ei O E `� EQ �vj� 4-.. �' a� %-i a, CQ O. > Ct —a Y '75 CW Y th O Q C rC, U U CW Q Y y p"Iz t U OC 0 o Uo 41- o M O O > w CW Al E U Ic Y .y > Q O E cd E aC9 i E U y In IJ U O .2 E u > N it O it 00 U y O > O E y , ..i O C� Fy O 4-.. r� O E y0 E Vi :5 .moi ~ U Q U Y U U —2 E rr�� Q. U 5� N O O Ct � y U U O O U E N Y0 •� U s., � N IJ > O O N t O N O O CW O U p ct W O �' � O 00 c� N ct N yOr N b-0 cd C, " � .O ' : N O Yr r--� .�. OY. .�-: .�-: > 0 y~ ct -i !/l •~i cz U V] V .� c{� � N '.'O w N ,�. N y p U v y cd Q.% O2 y m Y' > u oo� N+ H N r� O N O _ O �r C.) Ar v E th U O 2 W > 0 m u u w u O °J .m -0' o °;^ 2. m O E � c� OU E O Cd .0 an th� Ct C "O U 00 O v �--� f" R 00 N 00 N > N > yr 00 00 th W u O u cz cz O u O O u u U5 2 U5 �y ON N O 5 Cd CQ CQ CQ >> N N �•'i N yO C{� ,, ,r' O .�_ N vl .' i th .' i th N N O O N yO y U ti-. y0 00 00 WE�� ct J5 J5 J Z J5 ZJ5CQ Z N Z Z Z Z Z U 000 U 000 000 000 000 000 m 000 Q, 000 ¢r 000 U 000 U 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 O Y 6 CW O � N O N � Y w O i.4 ^O O O y > Q w cl y y 00 U N N � o U i O u o a) ct >> > > ISI O y ,r' oc W W > N A. U .�. 00 m th c� coco�cz v v U 5 •ii Y° O O N° ct >� �' 0 0 s"'' O O O O O O O ct N Vi 00 . � 00 00 00 00 00 N c� N O0 N CG FOF��rr CG ryMO� CG CG CG CG CG 00 0 ryM0� N N N � � • • • • • • • • • • • • • [� f� [� -O CW •� U >' cz Es O N G' �, cl N Y. v' �' = O '� G' 'O N .--i O �--i u N -a m m NE � O =s > > �, Yui .y -- -O Cd U -a �, 44: % 2 ct i'q ✓ ? 4-.. Yui .ri Vi U C� ..-- moi, N "O > ✓ G' O N E O y ..--� O > s., �"'� .� O N O <i-. O O G' �0 o N Oso y -- s., N .� +�-' cz .s=: O "' a'�-� `+. O U y"°�' U > N N '" O .ri ^� '�, y U. "'= O O N ii ,O r Vl N O N N CdN 4 L U '�- O N O N +�-' N Ca '3 d -O Vl N Cd Cd '� O ° •� N .��' .�. ct 0 tjt, Cl O ° N N 'O N 'O O U E ct5: y O d .rUi N .N tj O "O O cl OO Cl 72 N Cd Cd 2 W V o [� r CO F > N v o Q :61s 0 U N z Uf. fir". O y E ct 7 Fy W y Q Q cz c.. rA U f. O rA O O .2 y 00 Q Q Q 1�1 O O "O U o w clt H E ^^'' Q w Y Q� 75thQ FSI �� O N O E y U ISI F� y LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 The numbering of one subheading on page 102 is revised as follows: J�LNorth Tantau Avenue. Apple also proposes ... RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS Figure III -17a on page 105 of the Draft EIR is revised as shown on page 145 of this chapter. Page 111 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: Currently, Route 81 accesses Pruneridge Avenue only in the eastbound direction from northbound North Wolfe Road, where it then turns left onto North Tantau Avenue, and then right onto East Homestead Road towards the City of Santa Clara. With the closure of Pruneridge Avenue, Route 81 would continue to travel north on North Wolfe Road, turn right onto Vallco Parkway, and left onto North Tantau Avenue, where it would connect with its current route. Figure III -18 shows the existing and proposed route of Route 81. As part of the proposed project, a new bus stop would be established at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of North Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Other adjustments to bus stops and signage ma, be required to accommodate the rerouting. Page 136 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: 14. Construction and Phasing The project would be developed in two phases. Phase 1 would involve the demolition of all buildings on the site and construction of the approximately 2,820,000 -square -foot Main Building, and an additional 245,000 square feet of auditorium, fitness center, and Valet Parking Reception uses. In addition, the Main Parking Structure, North Tantau Parking Structure, Central Plant, Security Receptions, Landscape Maintenance Buildings, and associated transportation and utility infrastructure would also be developed as part of Phase 1. As part of Phase 1, the median of North Wolfe Road south of East Homestead Road would be temporarily removed, along with its trees, while utility infrastructure is beim installed. Some or all of the trees from the median may be stored off-site while the utility lines are installed. Following completion of the utility project, the median would be reconstructed according to its current configuration and some or all of the trees would be transplanted back to the median in their original location or replaced with equivalent trees (as some of the trees are not suitable for transplant). Also Aas part of Phase 1, an approximately 15 -foot temporary sound wall would be installed around the Phase 1 portion of the project site (except along the southern boundary of the project site, adjacent to I-280) to reduce construction -related noise levels in the vicinity of adjacent residential uses. Phase 1 sound walls would be placed 30 feet from the sidewalk (where site boundaries face a public right-of-way) or at the property line. Sound walls would be installed along the west bank of Calabazas Creek. In addition, an 8- to 12- foot g fence/sound wall composed of concrete with structural steel .. 4 afi . y -reroor would be located along the southern boundary of the project site, adjacent to I-280. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 144 1= I - a E C U O - � N � N N O XOa 3 W a N N 11.1 _ 1.1.1 O O _ O O O Z Z _ Z _ Z N m m m _ a1 a1 - a1 a1 N �W NI — I m k- — a id 0.....11 ......... e � r 4` i — y g UA�lj�AI 3 X _ � F - N a_ s m a a` 0 0 a vu ....................... a= . �� ....... ...... - aV o_ wLLaaap U) M i w bL W � cl v W � 0 In LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS Phase 2 would involve the development of 600,000 square feet of office, research, and development space east and west of North Tantau Avenue, along with the Satellite Plant North and South, parking, and associated transportation and utility infrastructure. As part of Phase 2, temporary sound walls would be placed 20 feet west of the shared property line with the residential uses and Jenny Strand Park to the east of the project site. No roads in the vicinity of the site would be closed for the duration of the project construction period. However, temporary traffic diversion may occur to facilitate relocation of utilities on North Wolfe Road and East Homestead Road, and street widening on North Wolfe Road. In addition, detours may occur around Pruneridge Avenue early in the construction period (before physical vacation of the street segment occurs) to allow for utility relocation. A temporary concrete batch plant would be located in the northwestern portion of the project site, with entries on the north and west sides of the plant. The plant would be used to formulate concrete for use in the construction of the proposed project, and would reduce the need for the transport of mixed concrete to the project site by truck. Page 139 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: o Other General Plan figures would be adjusted to reflect the removal of Pruneridge Avenue, the removal of the Parks and Open Space designation from the site, and the relocation of Glendenning Barn. o Amendments related to a change in the setback ratio for North Tantau Avenue from 1.5:1 to 1:1 due to a required mitigation measure to add a southbound right -turn lane on North Tantau Avenue to Stevens Creek Boulevard. • Zoning Map Amendment. The PR zone, which corresponds to the approximately 1.1 -acre portion of the site designated Parks and Open Space in the General Plan, would be rezoned to P(MP). • Development Agreement. If parties mutually agree, a Development Agreement that would cover the entire project site would vest the project approvals. • Subdivision Maps. Re -subdivision of the existing parcelization by a vesting tentative subdivision map from 19 parcels to five parcels. The conforming Final Map would— _, includes the recordation of appropriate Covenants, Codes and Restrictions that would govern the use of the five parcels. • Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit would allow certain uses and facilities to be permitted on the site (including auditorium uses and wireless antennae) if Apple meets certain conditions established by the City. 1 Skansa and DPR, 2012. fipple Campus 2 Construction Equipment Summary. December 11. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 146 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS • Development Permit. The Development Permit would be granted concurrent with approval of a conceptual development plan that includes a general description of proposed uses and the circulation system, a topographical map of the site and neighboring properties, a landscape plan, and other information required by the City. Phase 2 development would require an independent Development Permit. Page 154 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: Mitigation Measure PLAN -3: The project sponsor shall implement the following measures to the satisfaction of the City, as illustrated in Figure IV -3: a. Fund and construct to the satisfaction of the City a pedestrian/bike alternate creek trail extending from the intersection of North Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenuer` Creek, south to Vallco Parkway, on both sides of North Tantau Avenue, and then west along the north side of Vallco Parkway to the intersection of Calabazas Creek. This funding shall account for planning, design, collaboration with other agencies, and construction and maintenance of the alternate trail route. The trail shall include a combination of the following features that reference Calabazas Creek: Figure IV -2 on page 161 of the Draft EIR is updated as shown on page 148 of this chapter. Figure IV -3 on page 162 of the Draft EIR is updated as shown on page 149 of this chapter. Page 163 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: The Park and RecreationP41ie n.fk,'Reer-e.,tia (PR) zone corresponds to the portion of the site designated Parks and Open Space in the General Plan. The PR zone allows for the development of parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities, including agricultural uses such as crop and tree farming. According to Section 19.92 of the Zoning Ordinance, "The purpose of the park and recreation zone is to regulate the land uses and recreational activity permitted within publicly owned parks within the City, to ensure the safety and enjoyment of the persons utilizing the park facilities, as well as to protect the rights of adjoining property owners." Footnote 24 on page 229 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: 24 Prior to 2005, this portion of the site was zoned Planned Industrial (P(MP)). In November 2005, the area was approved for a townhouse development consisting of 130 townhomes and a 1.1 -acre public park. At that time, the area was rezoned as Planned Residential (P(Res)) and Park and RecreationP44 ,-Ae � (PR). Apple purchased the area in 2006 and in 2009 Apple applied for a rezoning of the P(Res) zoned parcels to allow for the development of planned industrial uses in addition to residential uses. The City granted the rezoning to P(MP, Res). As part of the Apple Campus 2 Project, Apple does not propose to remove the residential zoning designation on the site. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 147 L S A City of Cupertino ME BQ-Quasi-Public IN CG -General Commercial on MP -Planned Industrial R1-61- Single Family Res. P -Mixed Use Plan Development OS/PR-Open Space/ VIII„ ,,,, ,,,, ,,,,III Park and Recreation B-Public/Quasi Public R1 -Single Family Res. ME R3 -Multiple Family Res. IN City of Santa Clara on R1-61- Single Family Res. PD -Planned Dev. Combining VIII„ ,,,, ,,,, ,,,,III B-Public/Quasi Public 111' 1111' 11111111, City of Sunnvale "N RO-Low Density Res. SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH, LSAASSOCIATES, INC., JUNE 2011. I:'COC1101 Apple Campus 21,figures\RTC\Figures\Fig_IV2_[Revised].ai (9/20/13) R3 -Medium Density Res. FIGURE IV -2 O-Admin/Professional Office [Revised] C1 -Neighborhood Business Project Site Boundaries City Limits Boundary Apple Campus 2 Project EIR Zoning Designations I��JJJJJJJJf�%„ DeAnza Blaney 0 v N J 46 4D a Tantau 0 v Wolfe v c' c�4 c) u C acs V 0 v J c Y v v 0 0 Y v J 1 C In _ C aT+ Y N �— Y— 7 f6 — m II NIM !Wreonnnlll I��JJJJJJJJf�%„ DeAnza Blaney 0 v N J 46 4D a Tantau 0 v Wolfe v c' c�4 c) u C acs V 0 v J c LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 Page 358 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS Vallco Parkway is a short (less than 0.5 mile) six -lane, east -west roadway that provides a connection between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue. Vallco Parkway has an approximate ADT of 4,000 vehicles. Entitled development projects, including JC Penney, Rose Bowl, and Main Street, are located along Vallco Parkway. The lane configuration of Vallco Parkway will be modified in conjunction with these development projects '.,res with some a street pafking. The road currently has one signalized intersection at Perimeter Road. Between Perimeter Road and Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway is currently under construction to provide two lanes in each direction as a result of approvals associated with the JC Penny and Rose Bowl projects. Between Perimeter Road and Tantau Avenue, the Main Street Project has been approved to construct one lane plus angled parking in the eastbound direction, while the westbound direction will remain three lanes. Additionally, w -With the Main Streeter development projects, 'we add t e anew -traffic light will be added mat Finch Avenue (Mai Street` ara the at -her- at the r r*,.a*ee to the Main Street gar -age i eo o r Fine a* T -a+4 ,, A v o . Parallel on -street parking is currently under construction appfeved along the frontage of the Rose Bowl Project �n�� and the JC Penney parking garage between Wolfe Road and Perimeter Road. Angled parking has a4a been approved along the frontage of the Main Street project between Perimeter Road and Tantau Avenue on the south side of Vallco Parkway. However, no on -street parking exists along the north side of Vallco Parkway between Tantau Avenue and Perimeter Road. Page 359 of the Draft EIR is modified as follows: Near the project site, bicycle lanes (Class II) are provided on Pruneridge Avenue, Homestead Road, Wolfe Road, Tantau Avenue, Vallco Parkway, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. There is a discontinuity in the Class II facility along Wolfe Road at the I-280 overcrossing. A Class III bike route exists on Tantau Avenue south of Stevens Creek Boulevard to Barnhart Avenue. There is a discontinuity in the Miller Avenue bike lane between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Calle De Barcelona. Additionally, bicycle facilities do not exist on Stevens Creek Boulevard east of Cronin Drive. Furthermore, the bike lanes on Homestead Road are shared with parking lanes at the following locations: 1) westbound between Nightingale Avenue and Nighthawk Terrace and 2) westbound from the intersection with Tantau Avenue for approximately 350 feet. At these locations, parking is prohibited Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., during which time the lanes are used for bikes and right -turn vehicles. The remainder of the time the lanes primarily function as parking lanes, although bicyclists can continue to use them when cars are not parked in them. Figure V.I-3 on page 361 of the Draft EIR is updated as shown on the following page. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 150 LSA NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, AUGUST 2013. I:ACOC1101 Apple Campus 21RTC\Figures'Fig_VI3 [Revised].ai (8/15/2013) FIGURE V.I-3 [Revised] Apple Campus 2 Project EIR Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 Page 368 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS Most commuting bicyclists travel at a rate of about nine to 10 miles per hour, meaning the Lawrence, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara Caltrain stations are located about an 18, 23, and 28 - minute bicycle ride away from Apple Campus 2, respectively. Only the Lawrence Caltrain station has continuous bicycle infrastructure that connects it to Apple Campus 2 in the form of Class II lanes along Wolfe Road (on all segments except between old San Francisco Road and Fremont Avenue), Reed Avenue, and Aster Avenue. Page 394 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: Impact TRANS -1: Under Existing 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 LOS E) during the AM peak hour based on City of Cupertino LOS standards. (S) Mitigation Measure TRANS -1: As part of the project, the project sponsor shallwe� construct an additional westbound lane at intersection 921 Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound Ramps to provide for dual left -turn and dual right -turn lanes. With the additional lane, the intersection would operate at acceptable LOS B (17.1 seconds) during the AM peak hour. However, the off -ramp intersection is under Caltrans jurisdiction. Therefore, neither the project sponsor nor the City of Cupertino can ensure the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure; thus the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. (SU) Pages 396 through 398 of the Draft EIR, including the addition of Table V.I-10 (Existing Plus Project Freeway Levels of Service), are revised as follows. The changes to Table V.1- 10 are not shown using underline and strikeout text to enhance readability. Table V.I-10: Existing Plus Project Freeway Segment Levels of Service P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 152 Existing Conditionsl Existing plus Project Conditions Peak Capacity Freeway Segment Direction' Hour v h 3 Densi ,4 LOSS Tri s6 Density LOS Im act7 Mixed -Flow Lanes NB AM 4400 88 F 29 89 F 0.66% SR 17 - Summit Road PM 24 C 11 24 C 0.25% to Bear Creek Road AM 19 C 5 19 C 0.11% SB 4400 PM 45 D 10 45 D 0.23% AM 92 F 39 93 F 0.89% SR 17 -Bear Creek NB 4400 PM 20 C 15 20 C 0.34% Road to Saratoga -Los Gatos Road SB AM 4400 17 B 7 17 B 0.16% PM 36 D 15 36 D 0.34% AM 54 E 110 56 E 2.50% SR 17 -Saratoga-Los NB 4400 PM 28 D 30 28 D 0.68% Gatos Road to Lark Avenue SB AM 4400 29 D 13 29 D 0.30% PM 70 F 40 71 F 0.91% AM 35 D 147 36 D 3.34% NB 4400 SR 17 - Lark Avenue PM 23 C 40 23 C 0.91% to SR 85 14 B 17 14 B 0.39% SBAM 4400 PM 50 E 100 51 E 2.27% P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 152 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS Table V.I-10: Existing Plus Proiect Freewav Segment Levels of Service P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 153 Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Conditions % Peak Capacity Freeway Segment Direction' Hour v h 3 Densi ,4 LOSS Tri s6 Density LOS Im act7 AM 53 E 20 53 E 0.29% SR 17 - SR 85 to San NB 6900 Tomas Expressway/ PM 19 C 8 19 C 0.12% Camden Avenue SB AM 6900 13 B 3 13 B 0.04% PM 21 C 20 21 C 0.29% SR 17 - San Tomas NB AM 6900 72 F 39 73 F 0.57% Expressway/Camden PM 20 C 16 20 C 0.23% Avenue to Hamilton AM 18 B 6 18 B 0.08% Avenue SB PM 7820 27 D 39 27 D 0.50% AM 71 F 77 64 F 0.98% SR 17 - Hamilton NB PM 7820 36 D 31 32 D 0.40% Avenue to I-280 AM 26 C 12 26 C 0.17% SB 6900 PM 41 D 77 42 D 1.12% SR 85 - SR 87 to NB AM 4600 119 F 23 121 F 0.50% PM 25 C 6 25 C 0.13% Almaden Expressway SB AM 4600 22 C 3 22 C 0.07/0 PM 27 D 19 27 D 0.41% AM 85 F 45 86 F 0.98% SR 85 -Almaden NB 4600 PM 36 D 12 36 D 0.26% Expressway Camden Avenue SB AM 4600 24 C 5 24 C 0.11% PM 41 D 37 41 D 0.80% AM 70 F 60 71 F 1.30% SR 85 -Camden NB 4600 PM 27 D 16 27 D 0.35% Avenue to Union Avenue SB AM 4600 31 D 7 31 D 0.15% PM 52 E 48 53 E 1.04% AM 60 F 91 61 F 1476% SR 85 -Union NB 4600 PM 27 D 21 27 D 0.46% Avenue to S. Bascom Avenue SB AM 4600 20 C 10 20 C 0.22% PM 81 F 65 $3 F 1.41% AM 105 F 108 109 F 2.35% NB 4600 SR 85 - S. Bascom PM 14 B 28 14 B 0.61% Avenue to SR 17 AM 16 B 12 16 B 0.26% SB PM 4600 68 F 86 70 F 1.87% AM 85 F 116 91 F 4.70% SR 85 - SR 17 to NB PM 4600 18 B 55 18 B 1.20% Winchester Blvd AM 14 B 24 14 B 0.52% SB 4600 PM 27 D 171 28 D 3.72% AM 69 F 240 74 F 5.22% SR 85 -Winchester NB 4600 PM 27 D 62 27 D 1.35% Blvd to Saratoga Avenue SB AM 4600 30 D 29 30 D 0.63% PM 54 E 190 57 E 4.13% AM 32 D 48 32 D 1.04% SR 85 -Saratoga NB 4600 PM 21 C 12 21 C 0.26% Avenue to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road SB AM 4600 23 C 5 23 C 0.11% PM 65 F 38 66 F 0.83% AM 54 E 0 47 E 0.00% SR 85 -Saratoga- NB 5290 PM 21 C 0 18 B 0.00% Sunnyvale Road to Stevens Creek Blvd SB AM 4600 19 C 0 19 C 0.00% PM 94 F 0 94 F 0.00% AM 109 F 28 110 F 0.61% NB 4600 SR 85 - Stevens PM 19 C 7 19 C 0.15% Creek Blvd to I-280 AM 15 B 3 12 B 0.04% SB 6900 PM 85 F 22 68 F 0.32% P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 153 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS Table V.I-10: Existing Plus Proiect Freewav Segment Levels of Service P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 154 Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Conditions % Peak Capacity Freeway Segment Direction' Hour v h 3 Densi ,4 LOSS Tri s6 Density LOS Im act7 AM 94 F 31 114 F 0.67% NB 4600 SR 85 -1-280 to W. PM 15 B 223 20 C 4.85% Homestead Road AM 14 B 282 16 B 6.13% SB 4600 PM 25 C 72 26 C 1.57% AM 89 F 26 90 F 0.57% SR 85 - W. NB 4600 PM 26 C 202 28 D 4.39% Homestead Road to W. Fremont Avenue SB AM 4600 25 C 240 27 D 5.22% PM 53 E 61 54 E 1.33% AM 65 F 20 65 F 0.43% SR 85 - W. Fremont NB 4600 PM 28 D 143 29 D 3.11% Avenue to El Camino Real SB AM 4600 25 C 186 26 C 4.04% PM 72 F 45 73 F 0.98% NB AM 4600 52 E 12 52 E 0.26% SR 85 - El Camino PM 28 D 88 29 D 1.91% Real to SR 237 AM 25 C 111 32 D 2.41% SB PM 4600 106 F 27 134 F 0.59% AM 26 C 6 26 C 0.13% NB 4600 SR 85 - SR 237 to PM 20 C 44 20 C 0.96% Central Expressway AM 12 B 54 12 B 1.17% SB 4600 PM 90 F 14 90 F 0.30% AM 36 D 6 36 D 0.13% SR 85 - Central NB 4600 PM 14 B 42 14 B 0.91/0 Expressway to US 101 SB AM 4600 16 B 57 16 B 1.24% PM 28 D 14 28 D 0.30% AM 95 F 88 96 F 0.96% NB 9200 I-280 - US 101 to PM 21 C 31 21 C 0.34% McLaughlin Avenue AM 18 B 7 18 B 0.08% SB 9200 PM 31 D 47 31 D 0.51% AM 75 F 117 76 F 1427% I-280 -McLaughlin NB PM 9200 34 D 39 34 D 0.42% Avenue to 10th Street SB AM 9200 22 C 14 22 C 0.15% PM 52 E 94 53 E 1.02% AM 76 F 134 78 F 14410/6 I-280 - 10th Street to NB PM 9200 29 D 43 29 D 0.47% SR 87 AM 20 C 16 20 C 0.17% SB PM 9200 66 F 104 67 F 1AA0 AM 88 F 264 92 F 2.83% NB 9200 I-280 - SR 87 to Bird PM 72 F 85 73 F 0.92% Avenue AM 19 C 32 19 C 0.35% SB PM 9200 67 F 207 69 F 2.25% AM 88 F 289 92 F 3;14% NB 9200 I-280 - Bird Avenue PM 44 D 94 44 D 1.02% to Meridian Avenue AM 30 D 35 30 D 0.38% SB PM 9200 60 F 230 62 F 2.50% AM 113 F 327 112 F 3;84% NB 8510 I-280 - Meridian PM 25 C 116 23 C 1.36% Avenue to I-880 AM 25 C 40 19 C 0.43% SB PM 9200 85 F 260 67 F 2,836/Q AM 84 F 654 96 F 9.48% NB 6900 I-280 - I-880 to PM 34 D 212 35 D 3.07% Winchester Blvd AM 23 C 80 23 C 1.16% SB PM 6900 103 F 520 I15 F 7.54% P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 154 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS Table V.I-10: Existing Plus Proiect Freewav Segment Levels of Service P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 155 Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Conditions % Peak Capacity Freeway Segment Direction' Hour v h 3 Densi ,4 LOSS Tri s6 Density LOS Im act7 AM 76 F 728 V F 10.55% I-280 -Winchester NB 6900 Blvd Saratoga PM 34 D 247 35 D 3.58% to Avenue SB AM 6900 36 D 94 37 D 1.36% PM 51 E 578 56 E 8.38% AM 67 F 785 76 F 11.38% I-280 -Saratoga NB PM 6900 29 D 225 30 D 3.26% Avenue to Lawrence Expressway SB AM 6900 28 D 100 29 D 1.45% PM 77 F 623 86 F 9.03% AM 62 F 382 66 F 5.54% I-280 -Lawrence NB 6900 PM 32 D 106 33 D 1.54% Expressway to Wolfe Road SB6900 AM 25 C 67 25 C 0.97% PM 63 F 411 67 F 5.96% NB AM 6900 57 E 135 58 E 1.96% I-280 - Wolfe Road to PM 31 D 705 35 D 10.22% De Anza Blvd AM 29 D 850 33 D 12.32% SB PM 6900 97 F 269 103 F 3;906/. AM 57 E 136 58 E 1.97% NB 6900 I-280 - De Anza Blvd PM 29 D 672 32 D 9.74% to SR 85 AM 24 C 831 28 D 12.04% SB PM 6900 81 F 245 85 F 3.55% AM 62 F 107 63 F 1.55% NB 6900 I-280 - SR 85 to PM 24 C 439 26 C 6.36% Foothill Expressway AM 26 C 534 29 D 7.74% SB6900 PM 70 F 178 72 F 2.58"°/ AM 41 D 86 42 D 1.25% I - Foothill NB 6900 PM 23 C 368 25 C 5.33% Expressway to Magdalena Avenue SB AM 6900 30 D 436 32 D 6.32% PM 51 E 146 52 E 2.12% AM 36 D 81 42 D 1.01/0 I-280 - Magdalena NB 8050 PM 22 C 326 27 D 4.05% Avenue to El Monte Road SB AM 9200 27 D 402 29 D 4.37% PM 70 F 134 71 F 1.46% AM 31 D 65 31 D 0.71% I-280 - El Monte NB 9200 PM 21 C 261 22 C 2.84% Road Road to La Barranca SB AM 9200 20 C 322 21 C 3.50% PM 63 F 87 64 F 0.95% AM 29 D 65 30 D 0.72% I-280 - La Barranca NB 8970 PM 24 C 261 26 C 2.91% Road to Page Mill Road SB AM 9200 20 C 322 21 C 3.50% PM 58 E 87 59 F 0.95% AM 23 C 39 23 C 0.42% NB 9200 I-280 - Page Mill PM 45 D 157 46 D 1.71% Road to Alpine Road AM 24 C 193 25 C 2.10% SB 9200 PM 23 C 52 23 C 0.57% AM 84 F 35 85 F 0.51% I-880 -1-280 to NB 6900 PM 18 B 229 19 C 3.32% Stevens Creek Boulevard SB AM 6900 20 C 308 22 C 4.46% PM 29 D 93 30 D 1.35% AM 81 F 32 82 F 0.46% I-880 -Stevens Creek NB 6900 PM 25 C 206 26 C 2.99% Boulevard to N. AM 61 F 277 64 F 4.01% Bascom Avenue SB 6900 PM 52 E 84 53 E 1.22% P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 155 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS Table V.I-10: Existing Plus Proiect Freewav Segment Levels of Service P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 156 Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Conditions % Peak Capacity Freeway Segment Direction' Hour v h 3 Densi ,4 LOSS Tri s6 Density LOS Im act7 AM 76 F 24 76 F 0.35% I-880 - N. Bascom NB 6900 Avenue The PM 29 D 155 30 D 2.25% to Alameda SB AM 6900 26 C 208 27 D 3.01% PM 56 E 63 57 E 0.91% NB AM 6900 84 F 18 84 F 0.26% I-880 - The Alameda PM 29 D 116 30 D 1.68% to Coleman Avenue AM 31 D 156 32 D 2.26% SB 6900 PM 74 F 47 75 F 0.68% AM 54 E 14 54 E 0.20% I-880 - Coleman NB PM 6900 33 D 87 33 D 1.26% Avenue to SR 87 AM 31 D 117 32 D 1.70% SB 6900 PM 64 F 35 64 F 0.51% NB AM 6900 55 E 14 55 E 0.20% I-880 - SR 87 to N. PM 40 D 87 41 D 1.26% 1st Street AM 35 D 117 36 D 1.70% SB PM 6900 73 F 35 74 F 0.51% AM 72 F 13 72 F 0.19% NB 6900 I-880 - N. 1st Street PM 44 D 78 45 D 1.13% to US 101 AM 25 C 105 26 C 1.52% SB 6900 PM 85 F 32 86 F 0.46% AM 55 E 10 55 E 0.14% EB 6900 I-880 - US 101 to E. PM 60 F 62 61 F 0.90% Brokaw Road AM 24 C 84 24 C 1.22% WB 6900 PM 67 F 26 67 F 0.38% AM 30 D 6 30 D 0.09% I-880 - E. Brokaw EB 6900 PM 36 D 37 36 D 0.54% Montague Exadp�y WB AM 6900 30 D 50 30 D 0.72% PM 79 F 16 79 F 0.23% AM 27 D 3 27 D 0.04°% I-880 - Montague EB 6900 PM 65 F 19 65 F 0.28% Expwy to Great Mall Pkwy WB AM 6900 41 D 25 41 D 0.36% PM 75 F 8 75 F 0.12% AM 82 F 7 82 F 0.16% SR 237 - SR 85 to EB PM 4400 23 C 50 23 C 1.14% Central Expressway AM 24 C 63 24 C 1.43% WB 4400 PM 56 E 16 56 E 0.36% AM 31 D 4 31 D 0.09% SR 237 - Central EB 4400 PM 13 B 25 13 B 0.57/0 Expressway to Maude Avenue WB AM 4400 13 B 32 13 B 0.73 /o PM 62 F 8 62 F 0.18% AM 60 F 2 60 F 0.05% EB 4400 SR 237 - Maude PM 25 C 13 25 C 0.30% Avenue to US 101 AM 31 D 24 31 D 0.55% WB 4400 PM 60 F 6 60 F 0.14% High -Occupancy Vehicle HOV Lanes AM 61 F 4 61 F 0.24% NB 1650 SR 85 - SR 87 to PM 12 B 1 12 B 0.06% Almaden Expressway AM 4 A 0 4 A 0.00% SB 1650 PM 20 C 3 20 C 0.18% AM 45 D 8 45 D 0.48% SR 85 -Almaden NB PM 1650 9 A 2 9 A 0.12% Expressway Camden Avenue SB AM 1650 10 A 1 10 A 0.06% PM 24 C 6 24 C 0.36% P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 156 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS Table V.I-10: Existing Plus Proiect Freewav Segment Levels of Service P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc(09/16/13) FINAL 157 Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Conditions % Peak Capacity Freeway Segment Direction' Hour v h 3 Densi ,4 LOSS Tri s6 Density LOS Im act7 AM 42 D 11 42 D 0.67% SR 85 -Camden NB 1650 Avenue Union PM 10 A 3 10 A 0.18% to Avenue SB AM 1650 8 A 1 8 A 0.06% PM 30 D 9 30 D 0.55% AM 37 D 14 37 D 0.85% SR 85 - Union NB 1650 PM 11 A 4 11 A 0.24% Avenue to S. Bascom Avenue SB AM 1650 5 A 1 5 A 0.06% PM 37 D 11 37 D 0.67% AM 77 F 19 78 F 1415% SR 85 - S. Bascom NB PM 1650 18 B 5 18 B 0.30% Avenue to SR 17 AM 14 B 2 14 B 0.12% SB 1650 PM 25 C 15 25 C 0.91% AM 90 F 38 92 F 2.30% NB 1650 SR 85 - SR 17 to PM 8 A 10 8 A 0.61% Winchester Blvd AM 6 A 4 6 A 0.24% SB PM 1650 24 C 30 24 C 1.82% AM 46 D 42 47 E 2.55% SR 85 -Winchester NB 1650 PM 8 A 10 8 A 0.61% Blvd to Saratoga Avenue SB AM 1650 4 A 2 4 A 0.12% PM 29 D 33 29 D 2.00% AM 31 D 8 31 D 0.48/0 SR 85 - Saratoga NB 1650 PM 7 A 2 7 A 0.12% Avenue to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road SB AM 1650 6 A 1 6 A 0.06% PM 26 C 7 26 C 0.42% AM 21 C 0 21 C 0.00/0 SR 85 - Saratoga- NB 1650 PM 8 A 0 8 A 0.00 o Sunnyvale Road to Stevens Creek Blvd SB AM 1650 6 A 0 6 A 0.00% PM 31 D 0 31 D 0.00% NB AM 1650 21 C 0 21 C 0.00% SR 85 - Stevens PM 8 A 0 8 A 0.00% Creek Blvd to I-280 AM 9 A 0 9 A 0.00% SB 1650 PM 29 D 0 29 D 0.00% AM 60 F 0 60 F 0.00% SR 85 -1-280 to W. NB PM 1650 9 A 0 9 A 0.00% Homestead Road AM 7 A 0 7 A 0.00% SB 1650 PM 29 D 0 29 D 0.00% AM 41 D 5 41 D 0.30% SR 85 - W. NB 1650 PM 5 A 21 5 A 1.27% Homestead Road to W. Fremont Avenue SB AM 1650 9 A 42 10 A 2.55% PM 21 C 11 21 C 0.67% AM 47 E 3 47 E 0.18% SR 85 - W. Fremont NB 1650 PM 9 A 24 9 A 1.45% Avenue to El Camino Real SB AM 1650 7 A 26 7 A 1.58% PM 25 C 8 25 C 0.48% AM 39 D 2 39 D 0.12% NB 1650 SR 85 - El Camino PM 7 A 12 7 A 0.73% Real to SR 237 AM 9 A 16 9 A 0.97% SB 1650 PM 29 D 5 29 D 0.30% AM 24 C 1 24 C 0.06% NB 1650 SR 85 - SR 237 to PM 5 A 6 5 A 0.36% Central Expressway AM 7 A 10 7 A 0.61% SB r 1650 LLL PM 18 B 2 18 B 0.12% P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc(09/16/13) FINAL 157 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS Table V.I-10: Existing Plus Project Freeway Segment Levels of Service Notes: Bold font indicates unacceptable operations based on VTA's LOS E Standard. Bold and highlighted indicates significant impacts. ' NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound. 2 AM = morning peak hour, PM = afternoon peak hour. 3 vph = vehicles per hour 4 Measured in passenger cars per mile per lane. 5 LOS = level of service. 6 Project trips added to individual freeway segments 7 Percent Contribution determined by dividing the number of project trips by the freeway segment's capacity. Source: 2011 Monitoring and Conformance Report, VTA, May 2012. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 158 Existing Conditions Existing plus Project Conditions % Peak Capacity Freeway Segment Direction' Hour v h 3 Densi ,4 LOSS Tri s6 Density LOS Im act7 AM 15 B 1 15 B 0.06% SR 85 -Central NB 1650 US PM 7 A 8 7 A 0.48% to 1Opressway SB AM 1650 4 A 7 4 A 0.42% PM 7 A 2 7 A 0.12% NB AM 1650 32 D 58 33 D 3.52% I-280 - Meridian PM 6 A 9 6 A 0.55% Avenue to I-880 AM 13 B 7 13 B 0.42% SB PM 1650 82 F 46 84 F 2,79% AM 50 E 116 53 E 7.03% I-280 -1-880 to NB PM 1650 18 B 37 19 C 2.24% Winchester Blvd AM 12 B 14 12 B 0.85% SB PM 1650 92 F 92 97 F 5.58% I-280 -Winchester NB AM 1650 43 D 128 46 D 7.76% PM 11 A 30 11 A 1.82% Blvd to Saratoga Avenue SB AM 1650 10 A 10 10 A 0.61% PM 29 D 102 30 D 6.18% AM 58 E 139 62 F 8,42°/u I-280 -Saratoga NB 1650 PM 7 A 20 7 A 1.21% Avenue to Lawrence Expressway SB AM 1650 9 A 11 9 A 0.67% PM 32 D 110 34 D 6.67% AM 56 E 0 56 E 0.00% -Lawrence NB 1650 PM 10 A 0 10 A 0.00% ExpreI-280 sway to Wolfe Road SB AM 1650 12 B 0 12 B 0.00% PM 39 D 0 39 D 0.00% AM 50 E 0 50 E 0.00% NB 1650 I-280 - Wolfe Road to PM 9 A 0 9 A 0.00% De Anza Blvd AM 18 B 0 18 B 0.00% SB 1650 PM 33 D 0 33 D 0.00% NB AM 1650 32 D 24 32 D 1.45% I-280 - De Anza Blvd PM 10 A 83 11 A 5.03% to SR 85 AM 9 A 106 11 A 6.42% SB 1650 PM 25 C 43 26 C 2.61% AM 42 D 19 42 D 1.15% I-280 - SR 85 to NB PM 1650 11 A 71 12 B 4.30% Foothill Expressway AM 15 B 94 16 B 5.70% SB 1650 PM 18 B 31 18 B 1.88% AM 40 D 15 40 D 0.91% I-280 -Foothill NB 1650 PM 7 A 40 8 A 2.42% Expressway to Magdalena Avenue SB AM 1650 13 B 66 14 B 4.00% PM 13 B 21 13 B 1.27% Notes: Bold font indicates unacceptable operations based on VTA's LOS E Standard. Bold and highlighted indicates significant impacts. ' NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound. 2 AM = morning peak hour, PM = afternoon peak hour. 3 vph = vehicles per hour 4 Measured in passenger cars per mile per lane. 5 LOS = level of service. 6 Project trips added to individual freeway segments 7 Percent Contribution determined by dividing the number of project trips by the freeway segment's capacity. Source: 2011 Monitoring and Conformance Report, VTA, May 2012. P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 158 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS Impact TRANS -22: Completion of the proposed project would add substantial amounts of traffic to the following ten mixed flow segments and one HOV freeway segments operating at LOS F: • I-280, Southbound, El Monte Road to Magdalena Avenue • I-280, Northbound, SR 85 to Foothill Expressway • I-280, Southbound, Foothill Expressway to SR 85 • I-280, Southbound, SR 85 to De Anza Boulevard • I-280, Southbound, De Anza Boulevard to Wolfe Road • I-280, Northbound, Lawrence Expressway to Wolfe Road • I-280, Southbound, Wolfe Road to Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard • I-280, Northbound, Saratoga Avenue to Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard • I-280, Southbound, Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard to Saratoga Avenue • I-280, Northbound, Winchester Boulevard to Saratoga Avenue • I-280, Northbound, Winchester Boulevard to I-880 • I-280, Southbound, Winchester Boulevard to I-880 • I-280, Northbound, I-880 to Meridian Avenue • I-280, Southbound, I-880 to Meridian Avenue • I-280, Northbound, Meridian Avenue to Bird Avenue • I-280, Southbound, Meridian Avenue to Bird Avenue • I-280, Northbound, Bird Avenue to SR 87 • I-280, Southbound, Bird Avenue to SR 87 • I-280, Northbound, SR 87 to 10`b Street • I-280, Southbound, SR 87 to 10`h Street • I-280, Northbound, loth Street to MCLauehlin Avenue • I-280, HOV, Northbound, Saratoga Avenue to Lawrence Expressway • I-280, HOV, Southbound, Winchester Boulevard to I-880 • I-280, HOV, Southbound, I-880 to Meridian Avenue • SR 85, Northbound, Winchester Boulevard to SR 17 + HOtoCamden "-� • SR 85, Northbound, Saratoga Avenue to Winchester Boulevard • SR 85, Southbound, SR 17 to Bascom Avenue • SR 85, Northbound, SR 17 to Bascom Avenue + HOV • SR 85, Southbound, Bascom Avenue to Union Avenue P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 159 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 • SR 85, Northbound, Bascom Avenue to Union Avenue • SR 85, Northbound, Union Avenue to Camden Avenue RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS I-880, Southbound, Bascom Avenue to Stevens Creek Boulevard These freeway segments would be impacted under the Existing Plus Project Conditions based on CMP guidelines. (S) Mitigation Measure TRANS -22: The project sponsor shall pay a $536,0001 ,292,215 fair share contribution towards4-,v-e planned transportation projects identified in 3" ^'s vw' �5V-TP 0��2 that would improve traffic operations of the impacted freeway segments and provide added transportation capacity on parallel facilities: (1) SR 85 Express Lane project (converting the existing HOV lane to a toll lane to allow single occupant vehicles to drive in the HOV lane for a fee) between Mountain View and San Jose, (2) eliminating the existing bottleneck on southbound I-280 between El Monte Road and Magdalena Avenue, and (�L3) either the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations proposed within Cupertino e+i Sten s G,.eek Beet ev ra a+ Wolfe Reda cRid De Anz Battlevafd, or an alternative improvement or study towards the improvement of the impacted I-280 corridor or a parallel corridor that would provide capacity. The fair share contribution amount was calculated in consultation with VTA staff based on the project's contribution to project growth on the impacted freeway segment. It is unlikely that the Express Lane or BRT project would be implemented prior to project completion and that these improvements would reduce the impact to a less -than - significant level. In addition, the City has no control over the implementation of these mitigation measures; therefore the impact to the freeway segments would remain significant and unavoidable. (SU) Page 405 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: 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/I-280 Ramps (west) during the PM peak hour based on CMP guidelines. (S) Mitigation Measure TRANS -9a: At intersection 936 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/I-280 Ramps (west), the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS -3 (add exclusive eastbound right -turn 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 160 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS Providing a seeand channelized free right -turn lane with a third eastbound receiving lane on the connector link between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway, distance of approximately 1,250 feet, includingaa pedestrian -activated traffic signal to allow for protected pedestrian crossings to the pedestrian refuge island, would improve intersection operations to LOS E D+ with 43-.4 38.6 seconds of delay. L7ow or toe -e aro right 4 way eanstr-aints t4at r -ender- a seeand right t --am la*e infeasible, sinee there we -aid feet 4 right 4 way are- fl-PePed-Pedd t -Re a el -A -m- --- MnAeddat-pe a seeeild right t --am la*e. This improvement would reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. However, this intersection is a CMP intersection and is located within the City of Santa Clara. It is also under Caltrans jurisdiction. The project sponsor would be required to coordinate with the City of Santa Clara and Caltrans to construct the identified physical improvement at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/I-280 Ramp (west) intersection. Since this intersection is outside of the Cit o�pertino's jurisdiction, the City cannot guarantee that the improvement would be constructed. For this reason the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure TRANS -9b: The project sponsor shall expand the TDM program to reduce the severity of the impact. Increasing the TDM participation and associated alternative mode share from 28 percent to 34 percent would improve operations to LOS F (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 would be required to ensure that this TDM program mitigation measure is implemented and that the required trip reduction is achieved. Details of the TDM program are discussed under the Evaluation of TDM Program Expansion section. (SU) Pages 411 and 412 of the Draft EIR are revised as follows: Impact TRANS -13: Under 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 LOS E) during the PM peak hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds. (S) Mitigation Measure TRANS -13a: At intersection 98 De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard, the provision of an exclusive southbound right -turn lane (for a total of two left - turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right -turn lane) and adjusting the signal timings to accommodate the added turn lane would improve intersection operations to acceptable levels at LOS E+ with 58.9 seconds of average delay. However, this improvement is physically not feasible, since the widening of the roadway to accommodate the south- bound right -turn lane would impact an underground garage belonging to the office development on the northwest corner of the De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection; therefore the impact at the De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection is considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure TRANS -13b: The project sponsor shall expand the TDM program to reduce the severity of the impact. Increasing the TDM participation and associated P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 161 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS alternative mode share from 28 percent to 34 percent would improve operations to LOS E (62.1 seconds); however the increase in TDM 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 an adaptive traffic signal system along De Anza Boulevard between Homestead Road and Rainbow Drive. Implementation of an adaptive traffic signal system would improve intersection operations, however it would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. (SU) Page 413 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: Impact TRANS -19: Under Cumulative plus Project Conditions, completion of the proposed project would exacerbate unacceptable operations of intersection #36 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/I-280 Ramps (west) during the PM peak hour based on CMP guidelines. (S) Mitiaation Measure TRANS -19a: eansider-edni fiea+4 an�ma-,�aida The project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS -9a (add free eastbound right -turn lane), which would improve intersection operations to LOS D (41.5 seconds). This improvement would reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. However, because this intersection is under Citof Santa Clara and Caltrans jurisdiction, the City cannot guarantee that the improvement would be constructed. For this reason, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure TRANS -19b: The project sponsor shall expand the TDM program to reduce the severity of the impact. Increasing the TDM participation and associated alternative mode share from 28 percent to 34 percent would improve operations to LOS F (145.8 seconds) without implementation of mitigation measure TRANS -9; however the increase in TDM participation would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. (SU) Page 418 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: Impact TRANS -23: Based on City of Cupertino standards, the design of the project with three left -turn lanes on the Wolfe Road driveway approach would cause a substantial increase in conflicts due to vehicles weaving on Wolfe Road between the driveway and the I-280 ramps in order to merge and align into the correct lanes to enter the freeway upon exiting the campus. (S) Implementation of one of the following two mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level: P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 162 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS Mitigation Measure TRANS -23: At the main project driveway on Wolfe Road, the project sponsor shall reduce the number of left turn lanes from three to two. This would reduce the weaving on southbound Wolfe Road between the driveway and the I-280 northbound on-ramp since there would be, at most, a one -lane lane change in order for drivers to align themselves to the correct lane. (LTS) No Mitigation Measure TRANS -23 (Alternate): The project sponsor shall 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 limited to overhead signs, shall be installed to indicate the destination of each of the three exit lanes in order to discourage unsafe lane chance • Each lane on Wolfe Road, between the driveway and Pruneridge Avenue, shall be clearly marked by painted stripes, directional arrows, and destination legends to indicate the destination of each lane and to indicate by double lines or other appropriate markings that changing lanes is a violation of law. • The project sponsor shall fund the following measures for a trial period of nine months from issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Main Building and shall install closed-circuit video cameras linked to the City's Traffic Operations Center to continuously record vehicle movements at the project driveway and along southbound Wolfe Road. Trained personnel, who are independent from the project sponsor, shall periodically review the video footage at the direction of the Ci and provide a report at the end of each month to the Public Works Department. This report shall document any unsafe or illegal lane changes (violations) observed, noting accidents caused by violations and noting whether, in the professional judgment of the independent observer, the observed violations constitute a safety problem that should be addressed and, if so, recommending measures to address them. • If, at any time following the nine-month trial period implementation of the measures listed above do not substantially prevent violations, in the professional opinion of the independent observer and the City, the City shall determine whether additional measures are required, or whether the number of lanes must be reduced to two exit lanes. Monitoring shall continue until nine months following full occupancy of the project. • A penalty of $500 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 during 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. (LTS) P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 163 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 Page 420 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS Condition of Approval CA -TRANS -1: Apple shall extend the northbound right -turn pocket at 928 Tantau Avenue/Pruneridge Avenue to the 929 Tantau Avenue/Project Access intersection (approximately 600 feet) to provide for improved operations along the Tantau Avenue corridor. Vallco Parkway Evaluation. With proposed development projects (JC Penney, Rose Bowl, and Main Street), Vallco Parkway would be reconfigured to have two lanes in each direction between Wolfe Road and Perimeter Road (currently under construction), and one eastbound lane and three westbound lanes between Perimeter Road and Tantau Avenue. During the AM and PM peak hours, the model shows that with one eastbound through lane there would be excessive queuing in the eastbound direction during the peak hours. As a condition of approval it is recommended that Vallco Parkway between Perimeter Road and Tantau Avenue be reconfigured to have two lanes in each direction (ultimately providing for two through lanes in each direction along the entire length of Vallco Parkway). With the added traffic volumes from the proposed project and the provision of a second eastbound through lane, it is recommended that a new signal be provided at the Main Street parking age driveway between Finch Road and Tantau Avenue to provide for controlled access at the parking garage. Testing of the model with the two-lane configuration in both directions of travel showed that the westbound direction would operate without excessive queuing, even though the travel lanes would be reduced from three to two lanes. Condition of Approval CA -TRANS 2: Apple shall reconfigure Vallco Parkway between Perimeter Road and Tantau Avenue to two vehicle lanes and one bike lane in each direction, plus diagonal parking on the south side, including any associated improvements such as, but not limited to, median relocation. In addition, Apple shall design and install a traffic signal at the Main Street Project garage entrance onto Vallco Parkway. (Please note that subsequent references to Conditions of Approval in Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, would be renumbered accordingly.) Evaluation of Freeway Ramps. The VISSIM simulation analysis was also conducted to evaluate impacts of the project on the operations of I-280/Wolfe Road on and off -ramps. The addition of project traffic would cause excessive queuing on the Wolfe Road/I-280 off -ramps that would extend onto the freeway mainline. Page 421 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows. This minor change is made to allow the City Council to adopt the measure that would have the least impact on the operation of Cupertino Village. Evaluation of Adjacent Driveway Conditions. The Cupertino Village has a driveway on Wolfe Road that is directly north of/adjacent to the new project driveway intersection. Vehicles exiting the driveway might try to maneuver across the three southbound through lanes to access the left -turn lanes to turn into the project site or make a U-turn, resulting in hazardous conditions for vehicles. Additionally, during the peak commute periods, the southbound traffic volumes are high and may create queues that effectively block driveway access, which could potentially lead to impatient drivers merging into traffic when there are insufficient gaps. This P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 164 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS driveway should be restricted to right turns in only or closed due to its proximity to the new signalized intersection. Impact TRANS -27: The proposed location of the project driveway intersection on Wolfe Road and the associated congestion would result in hazards for vehicles exiting the southernmost Wolfe Road driveway to the Cupertino Village shopping center (City of Cupertino and CEQA). (S) Implementation of one of the following two mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level: Mitigation Measure TRANS -27: The southernmost driveway to the Cupertino Village shall shed be closed^r -esthete' to right t --ams i „r'., With this mitigation the impact would be less -than -significant. (LTS) •' Mitigation Measure TRANS -27 (Alternate): The southernmost driveway to the Cupertino Village shall be restricted to right -turns in only. With this mitigation the impact would be less -than -significant. LTS Page 427 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows: 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). (S) Mitigation Measure TRANS -30: The project sponsor shall upgrade transit stops along Wolfe Road between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Homestead Road, on Vallco Parkway between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue, and on Tantau Avenue between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Homestead Road, a+i e+ 14efA,,.t,,a Dead be�wee+ Tait ,. Aye+l to ft+1' Axle (LTS) P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 165 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SEPTEMBER 2013 This page intentionally left blank. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR IV. TEXT REVISIONS P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\RTC\Screen\4Te tRevisions.doc (09/16/13) FINAL 166 APPENDIX A COMMENT LETTERS Letter Al From: Christina Uribe [(gjoii Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 11:16 AM TO: Piu Ghosh; Aarti Shrivastava Cc: Hanson Hom; Joan Borger; Trudi Ryan; lack Witthaus; Andrew Miner; Kent Steffens Subject: City of Sunnyvale Comments on the DraftBIR for the Apple 2 Campus Dear Aarli Shrivastava and Piu Ghosh, Please find attached City of'Sunnyvale's comments on (he Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Apple 2 Campus. Please reply confinning receipt of Sunnyvale's cornments. Thank you, Christina Uribe Department of Public Work's F SUN J�F�R�G m July 22, 2013 Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development City of Cupertino Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Letter Al cont. Transmitted by electronic mail and sent regular U.S. mail. Re: Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Apple 2 Campus Dear Aarti: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Apple campus along Homestead Road in Cupertino. This letter includes all City of Sunnyvale comments to the DEIR We appreciate the cooperative approach you and the City team have taken with the project, and look forward to continuing to work with you going forward. The 2 new campus provides many exciting opportunities for the area, and the City of Sunnyvale generally supports the success of local companies. But the City of Sunnyvale also has an obligation to its community members to ensure any new project is mitigated to a degree that the positive way of life expected is not disrupted. Here are our comments: A. Proiect Description: 1. Page 66, Proposed Building Summary- Table III -2 shows Phase 2 building heights to be 60 feet in height, but the table imbedded in Figure III -4 3 shows building heights of 35 feet. Please clarify. 2. Page 75, Corporate Fitness Center- Please include in the description of this facility that the parking provided adjacent to that building will be for fitness center employees and service vehicles only, and not for use by 4 employees of the main building. Also, on Page 99, please add that parking at the Fitness Center would be for fitness center employees and service vehicles only. 3. Page 96, Landscaping- The EIR stated a seven foot perimeter fence will be added approximately 30-50 feet from the public sidewalk, with I 5 ADDRESS ALL MAIL TO: P.O. BOX 3707 SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94088-3707 TDD (408) 730-7501 C. -Printed on Recycled Paper Letter Al cont. Aarti Shrivastava July 22, 2013 Page 2 landscaping between the sidewalk and fence. This 30-50 foot landscaped 5 area could provide safe refuge for people intent on mischief. Will security cont. cameras be added along the fence to ensure that area is safe? 4. Page 102, East Homestead Circulation- The DEIR states that a shuttle bus pull-out for the Fitness Center is proposed along Homestead Road. 6 What types of buses are these expected to be, and how often will they run down Homestead Road? 5. Page 125, Parking- Please clarify that the parking for the Fitness Center is for fitness center employees and service vehicles only. 1 7 B. Aesthetics: 1. Page 195, Photosimulations- The DEIR includes several photosimulations from different locations around the property. Vantage point 6 shows the 8 view from Peacock Avenue. Another simulation is warranted from the homes at the point the building comes closest to Homestead Road. 2. Page 212, Light and Glare- Please clarify that light and glare calculations were done without assuming landscaping will be in a mature state and of significant growth. Upon initial occupancy of the main building, only the large existing trees along the sidewalk on Homestead Road will be in place, and all landscaping behind that will be new growth. A condition of approval for the project could be added to require newly -planted trees along the Homestead Road section of the main building at the point it is closest to the road be large 36 -inch box trees to ensure lighting and glare is controlled. C. Traffic and Transportation: Recommended Improvements The project is clearly going to have significant effects on the local transportation system. The EIR concludes that many impacts are unavoidable or marginally acceptable, and others are not analyzed in sufficient detail to identify issues. While the document appears substantially compliant with VTA and local standards in terms of the scope of the traffic analysis, the project and the City of Cupertino need to make a considerable investment in local transportation infrastructure to offset the impacts of this project that are not captured by generalized impact analysis methodologies such as overall intersection LOS. Particular areas for consideration of investment are Sunnyvale -Saratoga Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Homestead Road. Based on recent traffic counts and observations, the existing condition features long queues for southbound PM traffic that are not captured by the TRAFFIX analysis. 41 10 Aarti Shrivastava July 22, 2013 Page 3 Sunnyvale recommends consideration of the following operational improvements to address intersection queuing issues that will be exacerbated by project traffic: a. Provide adaptive traffic signal control or another operational improvement in the Homestead Road corridor to address existing and project condition queuing and delays in peak north -south directions and Homestead Road side street delays due to poor platooning of vehicles. b. Fund a study of optimizing traffic signal operations at the De Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road/Route 280 complex and provide hardware and software upgrades including adaptive traffic signal control or other advanced, applicable traffic signal control, so as to reduce metering/congestion inducing effects of signal operations at this location. The project intends to rely heavily on alternative transportation use and transportation demand management, but there are bike facility deficiencies in the immediate vicinity of the project. There is a discontinuity in the Class II facility along Wolfe Road at the 1-280 overcrossing and at Wolfe and Homestead immediately adjacent to the project site. The bike lane gap at Wolfe and Homestead should be addressed, given its proximity to the project and the assumption that TDM measures will be required including bicycle support facilities and encouragement of bicycling. Sunnyvale recommends fixing the alignment of southbound Homestead Road and eliminating the bike lane gap by: Either eliminate the short # 3 lane southbound which allows bike lane striping southbound and provides enough of a shift to address the intersection offset and provide a northbound bike lane; or by widening on the west side to keep the existing lane configuration, fix the alignment, and provide space for bikes. There are also areas of conflict between automobiles and bicyclists on Wolfe Road between Homestead Road and Fremont Avenue. The bicycle lanes in both directions taper away from the curb in certain sections to allow for pockets of on -street parking. Motor vehicles traveling on Homestead frequently will cut across the bike lanes at these tapers. These areas are prime areas for the installation of ,colored bike lanes. Sunnyvale recommends installation of colored. asphalt at these taper areas as a means to further support bicycling by Apple employees. Letter Al cont. 10 cont. 11 12 AartiShrivastav July 22.2U13 Page echnical Comments 2 �� -��ehou�bed�� -�- ' -'--' —^ | �� conform toCE{�Ar9quinernento. | 3. Page 349. Figure \(1-1- The intersections of Homestead/Blue Joy, HoDlesteed/Heron, Sunnyvale-Saratoga/Cheyenne-Connemara, Sunnyvale-S3rato0a/A|barta-Honwoh. and Lawrence/Benton appear to meet the 10 trips per approach lane criteria as upstream intersections were included in the analysis. These intersections should be analyzed as vve||, or at least the |OC@tiUnS in Sunnyvale as this is Sunnyvale's standard analysis procedure. 14 The traffic analysis assumes that there isnoSunnyvale trip distribution north of Fremont Avenue. Should some assumption have been made to more broadly distribute trips in the immediate project vicinity rather than 15 relying solely On Zip code data? Isn't it |iha|y that employees of the new project location will live in Sunnyvale closer to the site? 4. PoQa 351. Footnote-yTA has given guidance that assumptions on the number of employees should be related to the conditions present at the 16 time of the most Pamani CMP monitoring. Please confirm with VTA that the scenario used inthe study ieconsistent with T|Apreparation guidance. | 5. Page 358' EXSbDg Roadway Network (continued from page 354). Oe Anzm Boulevard- P|noma note that the extension of De Anza Boulevard in Sunnyvale, Sunnyvale -Saratoga F|omd, has only six |anee, including the 17 intersection ofGuOnyva|e'Sanatoga/Do Anza and Homestead Rood. Was this included iDthe study, and would itaffect LOS calculations? | 0. Page 358, Pedestrian Facilities- The lack of pedestrian crossings and the difficulty of crossing freeway on -ramps may constitute on environmental impact given that the project is likely �� add additional pedestrian traffic. . 18 Sunnyvale recommends that improvements that make ramp crossings friendlier for pedestrians be included in the project or considered as environmental mitigation. | 7. Page 360eighth paragraph- Please mention that are part-time bike ' | 19 lanes on Homestead and identify those locations. 8. Page 301` Figure V.1-3- Old San Francisco Road. from Fair Oaks Avenue to Sunnyvale Avenue is m C|oma || bikeway. M@Det Drive and Michelangelo Drive are Class || bikeways. E| Camino Flea|. from Fair (]8hS to Sunnyvale Avenue is afunded. planned Class || bikeway. There are existing bike lanes on Sunnyvale Avenue from Sunnyvale -Saratoga Road to Evelyn Avenue, and on Cezanne. from B Camino Real to {J|d 20 Letter Al cont. Aarti Shrivastava July 22, 2013 Page 5 San Francisco Road. Wolfe Road, south of Fremont is not officially 20 designated as a Class III bike route. Hollenbeck Avenue from EI Camino cont. Real to Danforth is a Class II bikeway. 9. Page 362, Figure V.I-4- Intersection locations should be labeled for ease I 21 of reference. 10. Page 363, Figure V.I-S- The bus stop map is generally incomplete. EI Camino Real and Wolfe Road stops are major transfer points, but are not 22 shown. 11. Page 368, Apple Shuttle Service and Bicycle Access to Rail Stations (continued from page 367)- The second paragraph states that Class II lanes along Wolfe Road connect the Lawrence Caltrain Station to Apple 23 Campus 2. However, the Wolfe bikeway is incomplete between Old San Francisco Road and Fremont Avenue. Please note. 12. Page 376, Cumulative No Project Conditions — It is more appropriate to use a longer term, model based analysis due to the scale of the project, and to be able to better understand the project's relationship to long range 24 land use plans and corresponding traffic growth. 13. Page 376, Cumulative No Project Approved Projects and Traffic Volumes - In the final paragraph, a nine year cumulative scenario is inappropriate as it does not correspond to area land use plans. Sunnyvale recommends a 25 cumulative analysis that aligns with General Plan build -out assumptions of area General Plans. 14. Page 377, Criteria of Significance, the last bullet point on page 377 - Stating that the project does not conflict with agency plans is inaccurate. The project conflicts with Sunnyvale's Bike Capital Improvement Program, 26 specifically regarding the bike lanes at Wolfe/Homestead. 15. Page 379, Pedestrian Impact Criteria- The evaluation should take into account adjacent cities policies and plans, such as the City of Sunnyvale's 27 Pedestrian Safety and Opportunities Study and the Comprehensive School Traffic Study. 16. Page 380, Bicycle Impact Criteria- The analysis should take into account nearby cities policies and plans such as the Sunnyvale Bicycle Capital 28 Improvement Program and the Neighborhood Guided Bike Routes plan. 17. Page 380, Transit Impact Criteria- The final bullet point should assess the I 29 project relative to VTA's Comprehensive Operations Analysis Criteria. Aarti3hhvastava July 22.2O13 Page 18. Page 381. R0Gdvvox Modifications, Honn8s18ed Road to Wolfe Road /\uoeaa Point- It appears only 106 of project traffic will be 30 southbound. Why are two southbound left turn lanes needed? 19. Page 391. Roadway Modifications, Wolfe Road /\noeen Point to PnunehdgeAvenue- Dual rightturn|aneecremteaoninnpacttonorthbound cyclists and pedeothanm, i.e. creation of safety hazard. Mitigation in the 31 form of enhanced bicycle and pedestrian roadway treatments and traffic | | controls should be identified, ' 20. Page 382. Roadway Modifications, 1-280OverCroaa|ng. Homestead Road - How will possible impacts of a median to access of property on 32 Homestead Road be assessed? Are U-turns feasible? What are the | | parking impacts? ' 21 P�A� 385 Transit Infrastructure Modifications- Will bus stops conform to | � ' ' | 33 \/TA'aarticulated bus standards? ' 32.Page 386. Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Modifications, Wolfe Road- Phaams add to the list on page 386 colored bike lanes Wolfe Rood at the parking transitions between E| Camino Real, Homestead, and 34 c0[Dp|8tiOO of the VVO|fe/HDrDeSt82d bike |8Oe gap. Also, in the fourth bullet point, are there provisions for ongoing maintenance? | 23. Page 386.Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure Modifications, Homestead Road- For the provision of planted nedian, e study of impacts 35 to property ocC9Ss, and feasibility 0fU-turns and potential parking impacts | is needed. / 24. Page 389, Diverted Trips Due to Closure of PruNeridgeAveDue (continued from page 388)- Regarding the first paragraph, what are the numbers of 36 diverted trips? / 25.Page 4U3, Mitigation Measure TR/\NG-4-Signal teohnokzovupQradeato De Anzo/Route 280 interchange and the Oe Anza Boulevard corridor 37 should b8considered. I 2O.Page 418.Impact TR/\N8-23-Sunnyvale strongly endorses this measure. The E|R does not fully account for delays to southbound Wolfe traffic, 38 which would beseverely impacted bvthe triple left exit configuration. | 27.Poge 431. (rnpao1 TRANS -34, Evaluation of Potential Neighborhood Intrusion, Summary- The first sentence is not a true 8Lehernent if traffic | 39 | delay iaconsidered. / Letter Al cont. Aarti Shrivastava July 22, 2013 Page 7 28. Page 434, Special Event Parking- The project includes the provision for special events, and Sunnyvale recommends consideration of the inclusion 40 of a condition of approval limiting the number of event participants and/or number of events per year. 29. Page 434, Evaluation of Potential Neighborhood Parking Intrusion, Nightingale Avenue, Meadowlark Lane, Leighton Way- The potential areas for employee parking may cause jaywalking to reach the proposed pedestrian gate to the site. Provision of a mid -block crosswalk is not an alternative as it would cause a safety impact. Consideration of off-site parking in Sunnyvale needs to account for and reference Sunnyvale's Residential Preferential Parking Code. Should preferential parking be instituted per the Code, then the analysis of available off-site parking becomes an infeasible project component and should be identified as such. The report should be modified accordingly. Also, regarding the Forge Drive bullet point, this is a private street which is not available for general parking. 41 30. Page 439, Table V.I-18: Left -Turn Vehicle Evaluation, Homestead at Wolfe - The report indicates that parking be removed at Homestead Road and Wolfe Road. Parking demand should be studied in the area proposed 42 for parking elimination. Removal of parking may constitute a potentially significant impact. 31. Page 444, Monitoring Program- Sunnyvale recommends that TDM monitoring and compliance should be independent of the applicant. The description of the Monitoring Program and the TDM Monitoring report 43 appear to conflict, with both the applicant and an independent City approved firm cited as having responsibility for data collection. D. Noise: 1. Page 465, Noise- There is an air intake close to Homestead Road, but it's not clear if that equipment will result in noise. If so, what are the expected 44 levels, and would any mitigation be required to ensure it meets the noise standards for Cupertino? Aarti Shrivastava July 22, 2013 Page 8 The City of Sunnyvale appreciates your consideration of the requested study scope elements described above. Should the City of Cupertino elect not to do any of these analyses, or take a different approach to an analysis that will provide similar results and information, we would appreciate your notification to the City of Sunnyvale. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please contact Andrew Miner, Principal Planner, at (408) 730-7707, if you have any questions or concerns about items discussed in this letter. Sincerely, 6�10j �*-w Kent Steffens Director of Public Works cc: Gary Luebbers, City Manager Joan Borger, City Attorney Hanson Hom, Director of Community Development Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer Jack Witthaus, Transportation and Traffic Manager Andrew Miner, Principal Planner Letter Al cont. 45 ty Sanka Clara Volleyi Water Dbtfict SANJOSE CAMW 04 X30, �" %AMY CITY OF MORGAN HILL Santa Clara Valley Habiitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation, Plan ....................... July 9', 2013 City of Cupertino Department of Community Development Re: Apple Campus 2, DEIR Comment 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 A p p 2 E I R Date Received JUL 12 2M' This letter is submitted on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency (Agency). Jhc new Agency is a Joint Powers Authority formed by the Cities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill and San Jose, the County of Santa Clara, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Tbc responsibility of the Agency is to implement the Santa Clara Valley flabitat Plan. The Plan addresses State and -federal permitting of impacts to listed and likely to be listed endangered species. The Plan is a Habitat Conservation Plan wider federal regulations and a Natural Community Conservation Plan under State regulations. One species incorporated in the Plan is the Bay checkerspot Butterfly, a federal listed endangered species, The attached November 13, 2012 letter to the City of Cupertino from the State Department of Fish and Game (now, Fish and Wildlife) and the U.S, Fish and Wildfille Service notes on, page 3 that: All major remaining populations of the butterfly and many of the sensitive serpentine plant populations occur in areas subject to air pollution from vehicle exhaust and other sources in your Jurisdiction and the Bay area. Therefore, even relatively small arnounts of nitrogen could contribute to a cumulatively significantly impact by diminishing the population sizes of serpentine species and possibly the chances of survival of the threatened butterfly and, the serpentine -specific plant species. 'llic deposition of nitrogen is addressed on pagc 257 of the Apple Campus 2 Draft 1318. The DEIR notes that in m -sponse to the environmental concerns raised by the Habitat Plan, Apple has voluntarily agreed to pay the Nitrogen Deposition Fee, which, assuming the pro�iect generates 35,106 net new daily trips, would amount to afiec of $126,38l." The fee would be paid on issuance of the grading permit for the project, payment of the fee to the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency will be appreciated. Identifying the fee as mitigation for a cumulatively Significant environmental impact is requested. Letter A2 1 2 It is also requested that in future environmental reviews the City of Cupertino address the impact of nitrogen deposition, as studied in the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, as a cumulatively significant envirom-nental impact on a federally listed endangered species. This request is consistent with the 4 attached guidance provided to the City by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter A2 cont. If I can be of assistance, please contact me at 408-299-5789 or 650-269-2341 or. ken-schreiber&co.sccgoy.or Sincerely, Kenneth R, Schreiber, Interim Executive Officer Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Attachment: November 13, 2012 Exact Cc: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Dave Johnston, Craig Weightman, Scott Wilson) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Mike Thomas, Cay Goude) Santa Clara, Valley Habitat Agency Implementation and Governing Roards DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME BAY DELTA REG ION 7329,SILVERADO TRAIL NAPA, CA 94558 (707) 944-5500 In reply refer tar; 08ESMI'00-2013-TA-0068 November 13, 2012 Mr, John Doughty, City of East Palo Alto Mr.'Ferrence: Grindall, City of Newark Mr, Hanson I-loni, City of Sunnyvale Mr. Steven McHarris, City of Milpitas Mr. Kevin Riley, City of Santa Clara Mr. Jeff Schwob, City of Fremont Ms, Arti Shrivastava, City of Cupertino Mr. Randy Tsuda, City of Mountain View Mr. Curtis Williams, City of Ialo Alto Dear planning Directors: U.S. FISH AND WI1,DIAFE SERVICE SACRAMENTO FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE 2800 COTTAGF WAY, ROOM W-260,5 SACRAMENTO, CA 95,825 (916) 4 14-6 600 Subject: Streamlining Mitigation for Impacts, to Biological Resources, Letter A2 Attach. The California Department of Fish and.Garne (CDFG) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (F S) (Wildlific Agencies) are writing jointty, to draw your attention to progress in your region to streamline compliance with the environmental laws applicable to development projects approved or carried out by participating jurisdictions. Overview of the Santa Clara Valtey liabitat Plau/Natural Communities Conservation plan (SCVHU, The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural COT111111111itieS Conservation Plan (SC."V111)) establishes a, ftarnework by which future developinent projects, within I)aj-ticipatiilgjtii•isclictio)ls may coniply with several state and fcderkil reg ulatoi*y processes that apply to those developirient projects regardless, of the jurisdiction's participation in the SCV1-1P, Speci really, the 5CV11P standardizes avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and compensation requirements set forth in the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA):, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP), the California Environmental Quality Act (CE A), the National EInvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) as well as in other applicable laws and regulations relating to biological and natural resources within the planning area, m that public and private actions will be governed equally and consistently, thus reducing delays, expenses, and regulatory duplication. Letter A2 Attach. Planning Directors November 13, 2012 Page 2 The foundation for that consistency and efficiency is the SCVI-IP's analysis of environmental impacts and development of as long-term strategy for the mitigation and conservation of 18 endangered, threatened, and rare: species within Santa Clara County. Mitigation ineasures set forth within the, SCVl-lP include: the acquisition of land and the creation of a reserve system of protected lands; long-term management, including enhancement and restoration of the natural communities on those lands; a compreliensive set of policies to protect riparian corridors and other aquatic resources; and specific avoidance and minimization measures to be applied to new development projects. Through the SCVI1P, fees will be collected from new development projects to fund these measures, incloding fees for loss of habitat. The SC V'I1P was developed and will be implemented locally by the County of Santa Clara, cities of San Jose, Morgan Ili] I and Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and oil Implementing Entity established by these local agencies, Most of those local agencies have already adopted the SCV11P and the Wildlife Agencies anticipate the City of San Jose and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority will adopt the SCVH,P in December 2012. 11, The SCVHP Establishes Consistency to Streamline Participating Jurisdictions' CotnDliance with CEOA for Bleveigpirient Pr Lgieyts, CEQA is among the environmental regulations for which the SCVI-IP facilitates compliance. By way of background, CEQA requires that any public agencyapproving or carrying out a project for which there is substantial evidence of a potentially significant impact must identify measures necessary to: mitigate impacts to a less -than -significant level. Pub. Res, Code § 2108 1. Mitigation measures must be feasible and enforceable, Pub, Res, Code § 2.1081.6. Adequate mitigation measures can be particularly difficult to identify for cumulatively significant impacts, The absence offeasible and enforceable measures to mitigate impacts to a less -than -significant level (individually or cumulatively) results in increased planning time and project costs by removing the option of complying; with CEQA v ia a Mitigated Negative Declarati on, Evenit'a project would otherwise trigger an Environmental Impact Report, the absence of feasible measures to mitigate to a less -than -significant level will necessitate the lead agency's consideration of whether it is appropriate to adopt a statement of overriding considerations. Cal, Pub, Res. Code § ; 1081.{b). T'he SCVI-IP' and other similar regional planning efforts establish standardized, equitable, feasible and enforceable measures by which participating jurisdictions can mitigate impacts to 41 fess-tIlan-significant level, The impact and mitigation analyses in the SCVHP are based on extensive analysis and the best available science and have resulted in the identification and design of feasible mitigation that nlay not have been identified in prior environmental documents. Letter A2 Attach. Planning Directors November 13, 2012 Page j For example, the SCVI`IP establishes standards for mitigation of impacts to several species that depend on serpentine soils, such as the Bay checkerspot butterfly. Potentially significant impacts to such species include direct impacts resulting frorn ground disturbing activities as well as indirect, CUMt1latiVC, and highly dispersed impacts such as nitrogen deposition, In the past, the effects of nitrogen deposition on special -status plants and wildlife have been underestimated or were not understood; however, this is no longer true and nitrogen impacts are articulated in detail in the SCVIIP. Nitrogen deposition is known to have deleterious effects on many of the serpentine plants in the SCVHI1 area, is well as the host plants that support [tic Bay cbeckerspot butterfly. Industrial point sources and nonpoint sources such as automobiles emit nitrogen compounds into the air, Because serpentine soils tend to be nutrient poor, and nitrogen deposition artificially fertilizes serpentine soils, nitrogen deposition facilitates the spread of invasive plant species, Non-native annual grasses grow rapidly, enabling thQui to out-conripete serpentine species. The displacement of these species,, and subsequent decline of the several federally -listed species, including the butterfly and its larval host plants, has been documented on Coyote Ridge in central Santa Clara County (the last remaining core population of batterflies), Nitrogen tends to be tightly recycled by the plants and tnicrobes in infertile soils like those derived from gerpentines, so fertilization impacts could persist there for years and result in cumulative habitat degrodation. The invasion of native grasslands by invasive and/or non-native species is now recognized as one of the major causes of the decline of this listed animal. All inajor remaining populations of the butterfly and many of the, sensitive serpentine ph,1111 populations occur in areas subjcct to air pollution from vehicle exhaust and other sources in your jurisdiction and the Bay area. Therefore, even relatively small amounts of nitrogen could contribute to a cumulatively significantly impact by diminishing the population sizes of serpentine species and possibly the chances of survival of the threatened butterfly and the serpentinc-specific, plant species. The SCVIIP"s conservation strategy is designed not only to mitigate impacts to and further tile recovery of Bay checkerspot butterfly but incorporates specific measures to minimize and mitigate nitrogen deposition. &e Final Santa Clara Valley habitat Conservation Plant, Chapter 5 Conservation Strategy, Table 5. le (identifying SCVHP 11.1 to consist of protection of 4,554 acres of modeled Bay checkerspot butterfly habitat, including 4,000 acres of serpentine grasslands in core populations of Bay checkerspot butterfly, to protect a range of slopes, aspects, and microbabitats as part of the Reserve System within the study area). S'ee also,'Yable 5-b (identifying mitigation measures to address nitrogen deposition including GRASS -1, GRASS -2, GRASS -3, GRASS -4, GRASS -7, LM- 8, and LM- I 1). The SCVIIP also provides an up-to-date and comprehensive conservation and mitigation strategy for burrowing owl, which species is likely to occur in your jurisdiction. For many years, the Wildlife Agencies have recognized the need for a comprehensive conservation and rnifigation Letter A2 Attach. Planning Directors November 13, 2012 Page 4 strategy for burrowing owls in the south bay area and other portions of California, In 1995, DDG prepared the "`1995 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation," which contained recommended burrowing owl mitigation measures and burrow survey techniques intended to offset the loss of habitat and slow or reverse further decline of this species, Notwithstanding these measures, burrowing owls have continued to decline in portions of their range. DFC; determined that reversing declining population and range trends for burrowing owls required implementation of more effective conservation actions. In 2012, after oval uating the efficacy of the 1995 Staff Report, CDFG produced an updated "Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation" (2012 Staff Report). The 2012 Staff Report provides an updated summary of the best avai I able sciences analyses of avoidance, minimization and mitigation approaches for burrowing owls. The SCVHP provides both a mitigation and conservation frarnework for burrowing owls consistent with the goals of the 2012 StaffReport. As an example, the SCVHP establishes standards for the protection of the western burrowing owl, including a prohibition on disturbance or relocation of owl nests throughout (lie breeding season, requirement of a 250 -foot buffer around occupied borrows for all construction activity, and a developer fee Funded system to mitigate the loss of owl habitat caused by a development projcet by permanent preservation of oft' -setting suitable burrowing owl habitat lands and management and enhancement of lands that support owls. These two examples (nitrogen deposition and burrowing owl) illustrate the Manner in which the SCVFIP developed measures to mitigate impacts and demonstrate the feasibility of'such 111011811re& Since CEQA requires implementation of all feasible mitigation measures even for impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level and the mitigation program developed for the SCHVP includes feasible mitigation measures, other jurisdictions should develop and implement similar feasible mitigation for significant impacts. The Wildlife Agencies recommend your jurisdiction develop and incorporate comparable mitigation measures for projects that result in significant impacts. We believe given the development of feasible mitigation measures under the SCVHP, it would be difficult for other local lead agencies to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations absent incorporation of similar feasible mitigation measures and any such override would be subject to, greater public scrutiny, It would be particularly difficult for a CEQA lead agency to establish the adequacy of any Statement of Overriding Considerations based on economic liardship now that the SCV1-l1` has demonstrated that as feasible mitigation program and fee structure can be implemented without such hardship (see 15conotnic Impact Analysi8 of the Santa Clara Vrilley IMbital Conser;wtlon Plan; Willdan Financial Services, 2171 1) and thus we: believe should not be cited in any future Statements of Overriding Considerations, Letter A2 Attach. Planning Directors November 13, 2012 Page 5 ,111. SCV11P Standardizes Avoidance .-Minfinization, Mitigation, and Compensation Reguirements Under Qther 1jLv& In addition to mitigation requirements of CEQA, development projects may be subject to environmental regulation under other lawsa included but not limited to ESA and CESA. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of any federally -listed aniannal species by any person, "Take" is defined broadly as meaning ".,.to harass, harm, Pursue, hunt, Shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct... ".Harm" has been further deftned to include significant habitat modification or destruction that results in death or inJury to a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding, foraging, or testing. ",Harass" is defined as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3), Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized under. ESA by one of two procedures. If a rederal agency is involved with the: permitting, funding, or carrying out of the activity and a federally -listed species is going to be adversely affected or its designated critical habitat then initiation Of formal consultation between that agency and FWS pursuant to section 7 of M*SA is required. If a federal agency is not involved and federally -listed species may be taken ons part of the project, then an Incidental Take Permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) or ESA should be obtained in order to avoid violating federal law. Without the ' ,CVIIP,, there would be unmitigated impacts of vehicle exhaust that would need to be addressed by future public and private sector development, Failure to address and consult with FWS, through one of the two methods described above, regarding the impacts of vehicle: exhaust (and other sources of nitrogen deposition) on federally -listed species would constitute an unmitigated significant environmental impact and would constitute a violation of HSA, Cf SA prohibits take of wildlife and plants listed as thr mitened or endangered by the California Fish and Game Commission, Take is defined under the California Fish and Garne Code as any action or attempt to "hunt, pursue, catch,, capture, or kill." Uke LSA, CESA allows exceptions to the prohibition fortake that occurs during otherwise lawful activities. The requirements of an application for incidental take under CESAarc described in Section 2081 of the California Fish and Garne Code. Incidental take of state -listed species may be authorized 1 r an applicant submits an approved plan that minirnizes and "fully rnifigates" the inipacts of this take. Alftugb the SCVFIP is designed primarily to comply with dic, ESA, CLSA, and the NCICP Act� the 5CM1 V is also consistent with other federal and state wildlife and related laws and regulations including: (1) Migratory Bird 'I'mity Act, (2) Bald Cagle and Golden Hagic Protwtion Act; (3) Cali rorma Fist) and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 551. S (fully prowcted species); (4) California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 (bird nests); (5) California Fish and (same Code Section 3.503.5 (birds ofpivy), (6) National Environmernat Policy Act of 1969; (7) Clean Water Act of 1972 Sections 401 and 404, (8) Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act; and (9) Calitbrnia Fish and Came Code Sections 160,0-1616 (Lake or Streambed). Letter A2 Attach. Planning Directors November 13, 2012 Page 6 ,IV. Coordination with (lie, SCVIIP I,ocal.Agyncies and Wildlife Agencies. The SCVFIP is an important step forward in protecting endangered, threatened, and rare species and their habitats in Santa Clara County. We expect tha(jurisdictions not directly participating in the SCV11P will follow requirements in both state and federal law to implement comparable mitigation measures and obtain permits when necessary .for proJects under their authority to achieve this important goal. As part of the CEQA review process and through Wildlife Agency authorizations, the Wildlife Agencies will provide information addressing the adequacy of proposed mitigation nwasures forsignificant pi-qject impacts, In addition, following final adoption ofthe SCVHP, the Wildlife Agencies and the local agencies participating in the SCVI-IP, will arrange a workshop and invite yovi-jurisdiction to participate to describe SCVHP implementation and how yourjurisdiction may develop comparable mitigation approaches for CEQA and State and Federal Endangered Species Act compliance. The Wildlife Agencies are available to discuss species impact, feasible mitigation, and permitting needs with your jurisdiction, If you have questions, please contact Mr. Craig Weightman, CDFG Acting Environmental Program Manager, at (707) 944-5577'; or Mr. Mike Thomas, FWS Conservation Planning Division Chief, at (916) 414-66K Cay C. G'oudc Assistant Field Supervisor Endangered Species Program Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Scott Wilson Acting Regional Manager Bay Delta Re ,ion California Departivent of Fish and Game cc: Mr. David Bischoff, Director of Planning and Environmental Services, City of Gilroy Ms. Debbie Catible, Santa Clara County Office 01:*the County Executive Mr. Joe Horwedel, Planning Director, City of San Jose Mr, Ignacio Gonzalez, Director of Planning and Development, Santa Clara County Mr. Mitch Oshinsky, Conirnunity and Economic Development Director, City of Morgan Hill Mr. Ken Schreiber, Program Manager, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Letter A3 From. Dawn Cameron y Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 5:14 PM To. applecampus2; Timm Borden; Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh Cc: Michael Murdter; Dan Mallen; 5yjy@�.aftggg5@ .go,.KLA' .cAgy r g Subject. County of Santa Clara Comments on Apple Campus 2 DER Attached are the comments from the County of Santa Clara on the Apple Campus 2 DER. A hard copy will follow by mail. Please confirm receipt of this e-mail. Thank you, Dawn Canieron County Fransportaflon Manner Plarini,ng, Land Developnient & Survey Unit County of Sania Clara R(Nads & Airports Department 101 Skyport Drivt San jow, CA 95110 chli",R,i,lcla,li,,a,)e,lr(P,rli,i,r,,i'c,ttc,M.gt;y,�,AtS V: 408-573-2465 P: 4W441-0276 NOTICE: This email inessag,c and/or iis attachments may contain information that is confidential or restricted. It is intended only for the individuals named as recipients in the message. Ifyou, art NOT an authorized mcipient, You are prohibited from using, delivering, distributing, printing, copying, or disclosing (lie message or content to others and niust delete (lie message frorn your computer. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email. Letter A3 cont. County of Santa Clara Roads iind Airtmrt.li DOI)MInent W1 Skyporl I)Hvc Sm iJos'(1, Cnfilcxn fla 95 t 10. � 302 1-408-573-2404) July 22, 2013 Pitt Ghosh Senior Plamier Department of Coniniunity Development City of Cupertino 10300Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 SUBJECT: Apple Campus 2 Project Draft Environmental Impact Report — State Clearinghouse ff. 2011082055 Dear Ms, Ghosh: Thaak for the opportunity to conament ori the Draft F"rivironmerital hripact, Report ("DEIR") for the proposed Apple CarnpUs 2 ProJect (""Project'"). 'rhis letter conveys Santa (.1lara County's ("C,ounty") comments germane to the County's statutory respr,misibility. As diSCUssed with the City of Cupertino ("City"), the County's concerns are two -fold. First, the DFIR incorrectly concludes environmental impacts to the COLRItyS expressways would remain "signifiewit and unavoidable" because the proposed mitigation is outside the City's j urisdiction, Second, the DEJR does not identify nor propose mitigation measures Ibr the Project"s imptict, on the intersection ofLawrence and Saratoga Avenue ---a critical element of the road system serving the Proe jcct area. Please find below the County's specific comments and recommendations. Exlia- ji,wisclictional linjuicts "Si� gnificctnl and Unavoiclable. " The I EIR identifies significaM enviromnental impacts to (lie COLUIty'S expressways and various city streets and, proposes mitigation nicaSUres, irlClUding DEIRTrans-10, 11, 20, 21, and 22. 'rhe DEIR, however, Concludes than impacts are significant and unavoidable because such impaets are extra - .jurisdictional and the City cannot guarantee the completion oa mitigation measure, The County obJects to, this conclusion as premature and based on i naccu rate assumptions. The City has a duty to mitigate the cavironmental impact ofpro.jects it approves, iffeasible, The mitigation ot'significant envirortmental impacts Outside a lead agency'sjUrisdiction and control is not jm- se infeasible. 1 Nor are mitigation measures made infeasible because implementation cannot be guaranteed with complete certainly, The DEZIR is silent on what will � Oy of'Marina v. Board OfTrustees offfic California State UniverNity, 39 01,10' 34t, 373 (2006), Boord of Supervi.soisi e Wass'ennan, N5100 2 VIUIIIL FMW COM(,W— K(IYeager. S, Joscph ShIlIfian Com II Y I --' XCxAIfl\I(": k"'I frey V SnIM I Letter A3 cont. compel the proJect sponsor to purSUe the mitigations, or contribute ftinding toward alternate 3 mitigations, given the document preSUPPOSCS the impacts are Linavoidable. The DEAR should cont. explain the mechanism to be used to e nsure follow through on the sponsor's part, e. developil-cent agreement, conditions ol"approval, etc. Intersection cad ctivrence ExpresswaY anclSaratogu Avenue. The fails to identify the ProJect's significant impact to the intersection of Lawrence lixpressway and Saratoga Avenue. County and City staff have met and agreed that the Project will result in as 6(D% increase in the AM peak hOU1- vehicles turning left turn from eastbound Saratoga Aventie, to northbound Lawrence Expressway compared to "existing + background" VOlUrnes. Therefore, once added, Project traffic will equal approxinmately 37% of the total (existing + backgromid -,f- project) AM peak hour vehicles making this turning movement. This is significant becatise the total AM peak traffic will exceed the queuing capacity of the existing single left turn larte. The DFIR Should identify this impact and recommeiid appropriate mitigations. For example, please ref'er to the Comprehensive County Expressway Study, Which suggests lengthening the existing left turn lane and adding a second left, turn laric. The Study can be found at hyjj-.ZLNv a fov.org/i°da/exj)t-es. s2/defaultlitni, If you have any clUCStions abOUt these comments, please contact Dawn Cameroji at 408-573-2465 or dawn.camcron( rda.sccgov,org, Sincerely, MicVel'Murdter Director cc: Sylvia Gallegos, Deputy County 1�xemitive Dan Collen, Deputy Director, Roacis & Airports Dept. T Letter A4 From, Robertson, Jesse G@D'OT 6esse.robeason@dot.ca.gov] Sent; Monday, July 22, 2013 4:59 PM To -. Molseed, Roy; Aarti Shrivastava; applecampus2 Cc: Timm Borden; David Stillman; Gary Chao; Alm, Efik@DOT; Cameron, Dawn; john.flstow@vta.org; Augienstein, Chris; Emoto, Casey; Swierk, Robert; state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov Subject: Caltrans comments for the Apple Campus 2 Draft EIR Attachments: Apple Campus 2'DEIR Letter 22JUL2013,,pdf Attached are Caltrans' comments for the Apple Campus 2 DEIR, Jesse Robertson, Associate Transportation Planner Local Deve lopmentill ntergovern mental Review Office olf Transit & Community Planning Caltrans District 4 111 Grand Ave. (MS- -I 0 D) Oakland, CA 94612-3717 Ph, 5,10-286-5535 From: Motseed, Roy Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 3:40 PM To; laartls@cupertino.org; 'applecampus2@cupertino.orgi' Cc: 'timmb@cuPertjno.org'; 'davids@cupertino.org'; 'garyc@cuipertino.org'; Alm, Erik DOT; Cameron, Dawn; jpj2n, ; Augenstein, Chris; Ernoto, Casey; Mdlseed, Roy; Swierk, Robert Subject: Apple Campus 2 Draft EIR Aarti, Attached are VTA comments on the Apple Campus 2 Draft EIR and TIA. Please continue to forward notices of availability regarding documents for this project to Rob Swierk and myself. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me if any questions. Roy Molseed Senior Environmental Planner VTA (408) 321-5784 RQY-M-CLI Led-@.Y—ta jag 1 Letter A4 cont. From: Robertson, jesse G@DOT LMa=JQ5,5..QrQ.bertSQ ._ E_C Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 4-591 PM To: Moilseed, Roy; Aairti Shrivastava; applecampus2 Cc.. Timm Bordew David Stilliman, Gary Chao; Alm, Erik@DCT; Cameron, Dawn; jQhin,idstQ.D@Y1a,=; I Auigienstein, Chris; Emoto, Casey; Swierk, Robert; sUtecl'Uiri�lg�IOLIS-Q(�-hODr.oZg—v Subject: CaltranIs comments for the Apple Campus 2 Draft EIR 11 1 i I:iI III III I'll !!III III 2 Local Deveilopment/tntergovernmental Review Office of Transit & Community Plann�ng Caltrans �Dist�rict 4 111 Grand Ave. (MS,- I 01D) Oakland, CA 94612-3717 Ph. 510-286-5535 From: Molseed, Roy [miailto:Rov.IMQIUeedP-YTAQJKG] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 3.40 PM To: 'aartjs@cupertinoorg; 'aipplecampus2@cupertino.org' Cc: 'timimb@cupertino.org; 'davlds@cupertino.org'; 'garyc@cupertino.org'; Alm, Enik@DOT, Camero Dawn; j.Qhn,ii51.Qw@vta,,-Qra; AugensteiChris; Emoto, Casey; Molseed, Roy; Swierk, Robert Subject: Apple Campus 2 Draft EIR I M Attached are VTA comments on the Apple Campus 2 Draft PIR and TIA. Please continue to forward notices of availability regarding documents for this project to Rob Swieirk and myself. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me if any questions. Roy Molseed Senior Environmental Planner VTA (408 84 a, � �Mjgj 5� Pe Letter A4 cont. S]:6JA,QEJ;&ULQAM=CAtJ E-0 RN TAT T 'ZPDXL&UQN_AQEKA____ I pelwN 1, r!- .— I I I GRAND AVENUE K0. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 PHONE (110) 286-59(11) FAX (510) 286-5903 TTY 711 www,dot.ca,gov July 22, 2013 P Ms. P'iu Ghosh Planning Division City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Ms. Ghosh, Apple Campus 2 — Draft Environmental Impact Report "der your power! He energy efficient! Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the project referenced above. We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and the appended Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and have the following comments to offer, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Figure 8 of the TIA assigns 1% of the project -generated trips to the Lawrence Expressway. We think that this value may have been derived in error, potentially due to an assumption that the existing travel patterns will be maintained for employees traveling to the Infinite Loop Campus or other Apple office locations further to the west. We anticipate a higher number of trips will use Lawrence Expressway to access US Highway 101 as an alternate to State Route 85 (SR 85) as a north/south connector. We would therefore expect to see a corresponding worsening of the Level of Service (LOS) along this corridor. The TIA did not treat all study sections equally in the way some locations were studied or represented and some significantly impacted intersections do not include the same level of detail. For the Northbound (NB) Interstate 280 (1-280)/Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek off -ramp and at the Southbound (SB) 1-280/Stevens Creek Blvd off -ramp, it appears that the ramp intersection was analyzed but ramp queuing was not. We request to receive an off -ramp queuing analysis at the NB 1-280/Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek off -ramp and at the SB I- 280/Stevens Creek Blvd, off -ramp to thoroughly assess the impacts from the proposed development and any warranted mitigation measures. "Callrans improves enobility acrass California " 2 cont. 2 Vehicle Trip Reduction We support the applicant's proposal to implement Travel Demand Management (TDM) policies to reduce traffic impacts to the State Highway System and encourage usage of nearby public transit lines. With that in mind, among the new or expanded "Project TDM Measures" that are listed on page 75 and 76 of the TLA are a number of ineffective Measures. For example., • Electric vehicle charging spaces will not, in and of itself, limit the number of vehicular trips to and from the site. • The expanded bike -sharing program appears to facilitate travel within the project site and have little or no benefit to the traveling public. • The measure titled "Campus walking/cycling commutes" does not list any service, improvement, or incentive to "prioritize" walking and cycling to the site. The section immediately following the "Project TDM Measures" lists additional measures that may be implemented if the single -occupancy vehicle mode share target is not met. The additional or alternate measures appear to have: a higher likelihood of reducing the number of single occupancy vehicle commute trips. We recommend that the City refer to "Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth," an MTC study funded by Caltrans for sample parking ratios and strategies that support smart growth and Transit Oriented Development" (TOD). Although the project already proposes a reduction in parking from the City of Cupertino's Municipal Code, reducing parking even further will encourage alternate modes of transportation, reduce vehicle miles traveled and alleviate future traffic impacts on the State highways. Traffic Impact Mitigation The projected trip generation and the resulting traffic conditions from the proposed project are expected to increase queues at six freeway on -ramps during ramp metering hours and result in potentially significant impacts. The additional traffic demand is, expected to impede traffic flow on local streets and exceed available storage at or on the following freeway ramps., • NB 1-280 (1-280Road diagonal on-ramp • NB 1-280 De Anza Boulevard (Blvd) diagonal ori -ramp • SB 1-280 Wolfe Road loop on-ramp • SB 1-280 Lawrence Expressway diagonal on-ramp • NB SR 85 Homestead Road loop on-ramp eSiB SR 85 De Anza Blvd diagonal on-ramp We request that the applicant provide additional storage for the freeway on -ramps, local streets, or both to avoid creating significant impacts to transportation. We also request that the applicant provide High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) preferential lanes at the on ramps as part of the project irutigation. Please condition the approval of the project upon the satisfactory completion of the constructed mitigation. Letter A4 cont. 2 Caltrans has existing Traffic Operations Systems (TOS) and ramp metering equipment along I- 280 and SR 85 and we have plans to install additional TOS and ramp metering equipment along these routes in the near future. This equipment must be maintained and remain operational 7 "Caltrans improves mbiliry across California " Letter A4 cont. during all phases of the project. If project mitigation construction will impact the operation of 7 , p these systems, the improvement plans must specify how the impacts) will be remedied as, art of cont. the encroachment permit or other Caltrans approval. The proposed mitigation to widen the SB 1-280/Wolfe Road off -ramp to two -lanes does not fully mitigate this development's impacts as queuing from this off -ramp intersection is still expected to exceed capacity and have significant remaining impacts to the freeway mainline. Additional storage will need to be added to this ramp to contain the queuing on the off -ramp. If it is not possible to provide additional storage due to right of way constraints, we request that other measures be implemented. One such possibility would be to provide off -ramp queue detection at the off -ramp gore and a coordinated traffic signal preemption, which would give ramp intersection signal priority to exiting freeway traffic. The proposed project is expected to have significant impacts to nine segments (analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis) and one HOV lane on 1-280, however, no mitigation has been proposed to directly mitigate these impacts. We request that the City work with Caltrans, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and any other responsible agencies, outside the purview of this project approval and environmental assessment process, to initiate a project extending the HOV lane on SB 1-280 from Magdalena Avenue to El Monte Road, Extending the HOV lane would eliminate a "bottleneck" at this location and improve travel time for high -occupancy vehicles. Mitigation Measure TRANS -22 identifies a sum of $ 6,000 as a fair share contribution for (1) the SR 85 Express Lane Project to convert the existing HOV lane to a toll lane for single - occupant vehicles between Mountain View and San Jose, and (2) the Bus Rapid Transit Station on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Wolfe Road and De Anza Boulevard. These mitigation measures are not expected to reduce project -generated traffic impacts, to the State Highway System to less - than -significant levels, however, improved travel options within these corridors are expected to result in marginally better conditions. To ensure that the fair share formula provides funds for SR 85 and 1-280 proportional to the project's impacts, we would like to review the fair share calculation, including the traffic volumes and cost estimate inputs. Several Transportation and Circulation impacts described in the TLA and the Draft EIR (TRANS -1, T'RANS-3, TRANS -5, etc) declare that, because the mitigation is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino, neither the City nor the project sponsor could ensure the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure, thus the impact would be significant and unavoidable. We do not concur with this finding. The State actively participates as a responsible agency under CEQA and endeavors to maintain the State Highway System in accordance with operational standards and in a state of good repair. Presupposing that project mitigations involving other transportation jurisdictions would not be allowed or could not be implemented is unfounded and should not be used as a justification to avoid mitigating project impacts. 10 11 Aesthetics While the project description isAciudes, ample information about the redevelopment of existing business parks (including the relocation of an historic barn) and the extent of the proposed landscaping for the project, the DEIR does not disclose any aesthetic impacts. We are concerned 12 that the lack of discussion for aesthetic impacts may be problematic for implementation of 'Taluuou ipnprove,5 mobilax acroo Californ ia Letter A4 cont. certain project features. Please ensure that the DEIR has, fully disclosed any potential for12 aesthetic impacts to occur as a result of the proposed project. I cont. Noise Any proposal to construct a sound wall within the State ROW will need to be accompanied with an evaluation in an environmental assessment. We highly recommend that any sound walls 13 constructed for this, project be placed outside of the State right of way, on the applicant's property. Right of Way Apple will need to transfer any ROW acquired for mitigation construction on the State Highway System to the State at the completion of the project. Caltrans will not accept any new facilities 14 until they have been certified to be in accordance with State requirements. Apple will remain responsible until the project is completely closed. Encroachment Permit Any work within the State right of way, including ramp widening and metering light modifications, will be, subject to Caltrans, approval and must be consistent with State standards. The approval process, will be determined by the cost and complexity of the work proposed within the State right of way. Generally, for construction costs less than one million dollars ($1 million), the standard encroachment permit process can be used. Work with costs between $1 million and $3 million typically require a Permit Engineer's Evaluation Report (PEER), Construction costs over $3 million will require the preparation of a Project Initiation Document (PID) in order to obtain Caltrans approval. Both the PEER and the PID processes have longer time frames than the standard encroachment permit process. In order to construct project mitigation on State Routes by opening day in 2016, a PID approval would need to be expedited. To initiate a PID, please contact Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and request that your project be placed on the PID Priority list, To apply for an encroachment permit, a completed application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROW must be submitted to the following address: David Salladay, District Office Chief, Office of Permits, California Department of Transportation, District 4, P.O. Box 23660, Oakland, CA 94623-0660, See the website linked below for more information: <http-://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffop,%/developserv/permits>. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Jesse Robertson of my staff at 510-286-5535 or <jesse—rob,ertson@dot.ca.gov>. Sincerely, ERIK ALM, AICD District Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse Timm Borden, City of Cupertino David Stillman, City of Cupertino Rob Swierk, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Roy Molseed,VTA Eugene Maeda, VTA Dawn Cameron, Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department 15 Letter A5 Letter ID 500154 Name Andrew Crabtree Address 200 Fast Santa Clara St, 3rd Floor Tower City', State Zip San Jose, GA 951113 Email) andrew,crabtreeisanjoseca,gov Subject Apple Campus 2 DER Comment July 22, 2413 Department of Community Development Planning Division 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 SUBJECT: Apple Campus 2 DEAR (City of San Jose File OA13-005) The City of San Josh appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed project. Please consider the following in relation to the project review including CEQA analysis:. Transportation and Circulation The project DER identifies four significant unavoidable impacts at CMP intersectiones (Wolfe/1-259, Stevens/Calvert, Stevens Creek1awrence, Lawrence/1-280) for background plus project and cumulative conditions. In addition, the DER identifies a significant unavoidable cumulative impact at De Anza/Stevens Creek. These five unmitigated impacts will result in non-conformance to the CMPstandard and will require preparation of a Deficiency Plan according to the CMP statue and guidelines prior to approval of the proposed project. Both San Jose and Sunnyvale have prepared Deficiency Plans according to CMP statue for non-conformance in their jurisdictions that include impact fee provisions. As a member agency of the CMP' project, the City of Cupertino should prepare a regional Deficiency Plan in coordination with adjacent member agencies. The Deficiency Plan should address how projects within the City of Cupertino will participate in regional transportation improvements on a fair -share basis. The project proposes to significantly reduce traffic impacts through an "aggressive" transportation demand management plan (a. 34% reduction in peak hour vehicle trips) of which San Jose is very supportive. San Jose has an adopted goat of reducing vehicle miles travelled by 40% in our Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan. Due to the multi - jurisdictional l nature of the 1-280/Stevens Creek corridor, review and approval of the TDM program for the Apple If Campus should involve adjacent jurisdictions, including the City of San ,Vose. Preferably„ the TDM should Ibe included in the Deficiency Plan monitored and enforced by the CMP'. Compliance with the TDM plan should also be subject to annual monitoring by Valley' Transportation Authority (VTA) and subject to an appropriately set financial penalty for non-compliance with any fine revenues applied to regional transportation improvements. The TDM plan includes a network of employee shuttles. The shuttle plan should be coordinated with the VTA and with neighboring jurisdictions and include shuttle stops at population centers (e.g., (Downtown, North San Jose„ Evergreen and Almaden Valley) and at regional transit hubs like the Diridon Station and the Berryessa BART station (opening in 2017).. The proposed penalty of$5/trip/day for not achieving TDM goals is too low to be effective in enforcing the TDM goals in relationship' to the size of the project (e.g., if the project exceeds the target by 200 trips„ the proposed penalty amount of $1 000/daily will not function as an effective measure to enforce TDM targets for an office of the project size). The project should be conditioned to have a penalty of $150/day or higher to effectively Letter A5 cont. deter overage of trips or over intensification of employees. Because the traffic impacts identified in the DEIR are largely on regional facilities for facilities within neighboring 4 Jurisdictions, revenues collected from TDM penalties should apply toward regional Cont. improvements identifiedin the regional' Deficiency Plan or Corridor Management Plan. The proposed' mitigation of adding an exclusive eastbound night -turn lane at Stevens Creek/Calvert will reduce the sidewalk width to 5 feet, which is does not meet City of San Jose standards (City of San Jose's Level of Service Policy„ Council Policy 5-3) and could 5 create a secondary impacts to pedestrians. The design of the proposed mitigation should maintain a minimum sidewalk width of at least 10 feet.. Biological' Resources: Bay Checkerspot Butterfly / Nitrogen Deposition The City of San ,lose has recently adopted the Santa Clara. Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (SCVHP) developed in partnership with the County of Santa Clara„ the City of Morgan Hill„ the City of Gilroy, the Valley Transportation Agency and the Santa Clara 'Valley Water District. The SCVHP establishes a framework for development projects to comply with several state and 'federal regulatory processes and standardized avoidance, minimization, mitigation and compensation requirements set. forth in federal and state lags, including the California. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).. CEQA requires that any public agency approving or carrying out a (project for which there is substantial evidence of a potentially significant impact (must identify measures necessary to mitigate impacts to a less -than -significant level (Pub. fees. Code 21081). The SCVHP establishes standardized, equitable„ feasible and enforceable measures by which participating jurisdictions can mitigate impacts upon species covered by the SCVHP to a less -than -significant level. The impact and mitigation analyses in the SCVHP are based on extensive analysis and the best available science and have resulted in the identification and design of feasible mitigation that may not have been identified in prior environmental documents. The SCVHP establishes standards for mitigation of impacts to several species that depend on serpentine soils, such as the Bay Checkerspot butterfly. Potentially significant impacts to such species include indirect, cumulative, and highly dispersed impacts such as nitrogen deposition. In the past, the effects of nitrogen deposition on special -status plants and wildlife have been underestimated or were not understood; however, this is no longer true, and/ nitrogen impacts are articulated in detail in the SCVHP. Nitrogen deposition is known to have deleterious effects on many of the serpentine plants in the SCVHP area, as well as the host plants that support the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly. Nonpoint sources such as automobiles emit nitrogen compounds into the air. Because serpentine soils tend to be nultrient poor, and nitrogen deposition artificiallly fertilizes serpentine soils, nitrogen deposition facilitates the spread of invasive plant species. Non- native annual grasses grow rapidly, enabling them to out -compete serpentine species. The displacement of these species, and subsequent decline of the several federally -listed species, including the butterfly and its larval host plants, has been documented on Coyote Ridge in central Santa Clara County (the last relmaining population of butterflies). Nitrogen tends to be efficiently recycled by the plants and microbes in infertile soils such as those derived from serpentines, so that fertilization impacts could persist for years and result in cumulative habitat degradation. The invasion of native grasslands by invasive and/or non-native species is now recognized as one of the major causes of the decline of the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly.. All major remaining/ populations of the butterfly and many of the sensitive serpentine plant populations occur in areas subject to air pollution from vehicle exhaust and other sources throughout the Bay Area including from within your jurisdiction. Therefore, even relatively small amounts of increased nitrogen deposition resulting from new development ' could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact by diminishing the population sizes of serpentine species and possibly the chances of survival of the threatened butterfly and the serpentine -specific plant species within Santa Clara County. Because CEQA requires implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, even for impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level, including cumulatively M significant impacts, and the mitigation program developed for the SCVH P includes feasible mitigation measures for the impacts of nitrogen deposition upon serpentine habitat and the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, similar feasible mitigation should be developed and included for the subject project, correlated to, the amount of new vehicle trips that the project is expected to generate. Given the development of feasible mitigation measures for the SCVHP, it will likely be difficult for a lead agency to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations if no similar mitigation measures are incorporated in the project. City of San Jose staff understands that the project includes a contribution toward measures intended to provide long-term protection for the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly and requests clarification that this contribution is intended to provide mitigation for an identified significant impact. Population, Employment and Housing & Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sustainability The DER indicates that the proposed project would exacerbate Cupertino's existing jobs/housing balance by further concentrating jobs at locations not proximate to housing, services or major transit facilities. Please provide more detail on how the City of Cupertino is planning land uses to minimize future auto -dependency and greenhouse gas emissions. Thank you for providing the City of San Jose with the opportunity to comment on the Apple Campus 2 DEIR. If you have questions, please contact me at (408) 535-7893 or by email at andrew.crabtree@sanjoseca.gov or John Davidson at (408) 535-7895 or by email at john.davidson@sanjoseca-gov. Sincerely, QMM= I NJ IVA M L01 In kyl K [a r, p 1z] I Letter A5 cont. cont. Letter A6 Letter ID 500148 Name Payal Bhagat Address 1500 Warburton Ave City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA 95050 Email Pbhagat@santaci,araca.gov Subject City of Santa Clara's Comments on Apple Campus 2 Project DEIR Comment Juiy 19, 2013 Ms. Piu Gosh Project Planner Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Comments an the Apple Campus 2 Project DraftEnvironmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Gosh: Thank you for including the City of Santa Clara (C ii) in the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Apple Campus 2 Project. We appreciate you responding to the comments the City had providled during the DEIR Scoping Session, for the above Project. Further we appreciate the opportunity to meet with Cupertino Staff and the consultant on two occasions to discuss the DEIR. Regarding the DEIR, we have the following comments: The City would like thank the Project applicant for the commitment of providing five years of annual traffic monitoring following the occupancy of the project for a five year period, as well as $,250,000 to the City of Santa Clara for mitigating any future parking intrusion or neighborhood cut -through traffic in the Westwood Oaks neighborhood; While the Project will contribute $536,000 towards two planned transportation projects identified in VTA's Valtey Transportation Plan 2035, that would improve traffic operations on two parallel facilities 1) SR 85 Express Lane Project, and 2) Bus Rapid Transit Station (BRT) on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Wolfe Road and De Ana Boulevard, at this time the City of Santa Clara has not committed to the implementation of BRT on our portion of Stevens Creek Boulevard; The City would like to thank the Project applicant for committing to fully mitigate alt impacts found) in the DEIR analysis. However, since some mitigation measures identified in the DEIR also contain Statements of Overriding Considerations. Santa Clara is requesting assurance that the mitigation measures identified wiIII be implemented and the impacts will be made to be less than significant. This may be achieved througih adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, inclusion of the mitigation measures in the Project's Conditions of Approval, or a financial commitment to construction of the improvements; The DEIR language should be amended to clearly identify diverted trips due to the closure of Pruneridge Avenue west of Tantau Way. Those trips should be accounted for in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) showing how traffic that currently uses westbound Pruneridge to access Interstate 280 at Wolfe Road will be diverted and the same for the reverse. The TIA should also show how traffic entering and leaving the residential neighborhood in Santa Clara adjacent to the Project site will circulate; and Letter A6 cont. There is an existing three -ton vehicular weight limit prohibition on Pruneridge Avenue between Lawrence Expressway and City of Santa Clara boundary. Please ensure that traffic associated with the proposed Project is not routed in a way that violates this restriction. Again, thank you for including City of Santa Clara in the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (D IR) for the Apple Campus 2 Project, Should you have any questions regarding the comments provided above, please contact Payal Bhagat, at 40th -6115-245 IV or PBhagat@santaclaraca.gov. We look forward to working with the Project applicant in conjunction with the City of Cupertino in the future. Sincerely, Kevin Riley Director of Planning cc: Julio Fuentes, City IManger Rajeev Batra, Director of Pubilic Works/City Engineer Dennis Ng, Traffic Engineer Letter A7 Fro= Lafebre, Hilda [mailto-.Iafebreh@samtrains.,com] Sent: Monday' luty 22, 2013 3:37 PM To- City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: Lee, Marian, Petty, Sebastian, Fisher, Steven (Steven. Fisher@VTA,,ORG) Subject- Apple Campus 2-DEIR _)PB Comments Please find attached the Penini,sul'a Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) comments to the Apple 1 importaint project. Regards, Hilda, MWEMM Manager, Capitail Project & Environmental Planning Caltrain I SamTrans I Transportation Authority Phone: 650-622-78421 Cell; 650-208-4376 Aplose consider tfic berbire p6niing pIlis' e-mail July 22, 2013 NIS, Pitt Ghosh Planning Deparonent City or Cupertino 1(x350'1orre Avenue C,uperflno, CA 95014 Letter A7 cont. Re: Apple Campus 2 -Draft Id RI -I J I)B Coninients Dear Ms. Ghosh, B0ARDV'OIRCCTCR5;,'013 KEN YEAC4R, CrMR Tom NOt AN, VICE, CHAIR JOSt C4"um4EROG MAUA COHEN JERRYOrAL Asd 4 Km -PA ARTHURL LLOIrB ADRIEM4 ,E U&'E.R P r�rR RYMMWARD MICHAELJ SANL CNP. EXMXTIM, DREC'CII ' I 1 - Board (.)PB) is pleased to subniit coninients to the Draft lie Peninsula Corridor,loint Powers Environmental finpact Rep om (11 -IR) fim- the proposed Apple Campus 2 development. The JPB applauds flie goal of reducing vehicular trips In the Apple Cainpus 2 site and looks 1"orward to mi,orking xvil h boffi Apple and 1he City of Cupertino to ensure iliac the Caltrain system can play a role in supporting Apple's ongoing and Nluru 'TDM efforts. 31411 staff is concerned, however, that transit mialysis, included in the Draft EIR does not sufficioitly document existing capacityconstraints faced by Caltrain, nor (hws it quantity either the Current or potential fulure use rif Caltrain services by Apple employees. Given both the abserice orquantified analysis and the references to Caltrain smicesand fiacilifics in Mitigation Measure] 'ncinsW Caltrain ca snarl verify the accuracy oftlic following statement: 7 he 1))I(?je,c1 is not anficij)ueel to have usiAwyicanl inqmicl on olht^r arul ser views" such as Cultrain, since Ihe oneiciluiletl would he lmv anel the clistance between Me pr(?ject sile amilhose ownsiefiwifilies is relafive4y high, " (11.42 6,) While the above concitision may indeed be correct, (lie JPB believes that the DEIR does not present sufficiew analysis to Support such a staterneril . In, reviewing the Apple Canipus 2 Dr,,,,01 EIR, Caltrain notes that Mitigatiori Measure,rrans9B (I'D Program E'xpansion) includes both the expansion of'Apple Shuttle SCI-ViCCS to Caltnain stations and Ilie possible purchase ofuniversal transit passes (potentially including Caltrain Go Passes) for Apple employees. Because ofthe identification of Caltrain services and facilities in Mitigation Measure Trans,913 and the overall stated goal of lite expanded'I'DIVI prograrn to increase transit usage among Apple's eniployces, Caltrain believes further analysis is warranted and should be reflected in the Finzd HR. 1250 San Carlos Ave, — RO. Box 3006 San Cartos, CA 94070-1306 650.50&6269 The iriforniation included below, provides data on Calitrain services and further documents Caltrain's specific concerns. Caltrain Capacity Constraints Although [lie DEIR identifies Callrain as part of tiie,rDM and as a transit provider potentially serving the proposed developnient site, it onifts Caltrain from the peak load calculations on page 365 and does not otherwise evaluate Callrain's capacity to absorb new trips. Caltrain is currently experiencing increased ridership atjid, has limited available capacity on many peak hour trains. Caltrain calculates capacity constraints by analyzing the maxinium load point of each train relative to the average 650 total seats available on each train. Data collected during annual passenger counts (conducted in February of 2013) indicated the following peak capacities for trains departing their origin during the &00ani to 9�00ani peak (separated by service type and direcfion) AM Peak Load Factor lav Service Tvt)e: 6:00am to 9:00am Umited Trains 0.5q 0.68 ss Trains i (p.77 0,93 (,7altrain believes the above load tactors should be documented on page 365 along witIll the calculations presented for VTA's transit services, Use of Caltrain 1)), Apple Employees At various points, the DEI�R describes Apple transit Shuttle services, 'VTA routes, and bicycle facilities as connecting both Apple's existing facility and the Canipus 2 site with Caltrain stations in Mounwin Vim, Sunnyvale, Santa Oara and San Jose. However, the analysis does not quanlif�, the share ofApple cluplovecs currently Using Caltrain. Similarly, the DEIR identifies sluittle service and bicycle network mitigations that will lead to an improved connection between the Campus 2 site and Caftrain's stations, but again does not quantif�� the anticipated, change in Caltrain ridership (or analyze the impact of this change on Caltrain's capacity), To assess the effectiveness and feasibility of these mitigations, Caltrain believes that the following should be quantified and documented in the EIW 0 Current daily Caltrain trips by Apple employees * Current daily AppleTransit Shuttle trips serving Caltrain Stations (trips, seats, frequency) I'uture daily Caltrain trips by Apple employees (after project opening and assuming implementation of Mitigation Measure Trans')B). Analysis ofCaltrain capacity and use of Caltrain services by Apple employees should be used to evaluate and justify the DEIR's conclusion that [lie proposed development will "have no significant impact" to Caltrain and to verify the feasibility of the Caltrain related components of Mitigation Measure Trans9B. 19 Letter A7 cont. 2 cont. Letter A7 cont. Again, the JPB appreciates the opportunity to conintent on this dral't document and looks Ibnvard to 2 workingwith the City of Cuperfinoand Apply to saupport the reduction oNehicle trips to tile proposed cont. Apple Campus 2 site. Sincerely, Hilda I,afebre, DBIA Manager, Capital project & Environmental Plantling C C: Marian 1,,ee, 1"Ixecutive Officer Caltrain Modernization Sebastian Petty', Senior Planner Letter A8 From: Molseed, Roy [Roy. Mol seed@ VTA.ORGI Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 340 PM To; Aarti Shfivastava; applecarnpus2 Cc: Timmi Borden; David $Omw Gary Chao, erk al m@dot, ca.gov'; Cameron, Dawn; RWow, John; Augenslein, Chris; Emolo, Casey; Molseed, Roy; S*erk, Robert Subject. Apple CaMpUs 2 Draft ElR Attachments: GU11102—apple2DEIR 7-22-13,pdf Aairti, Attached are VTA comments on the Apple Campus 2 Draft EIR and TIA. Please continue to forward notices of availlabilfty regarding documents for this project to Rob Swierk and myself. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me if any questions. Roy Miolseed Senior Environmental Planner VTA (408) 321-5784 Rq LngjLe.L,'@ 1 00_0..0W01r 04rA, July 22, 2013 S A N Y A C I A R A Valley Transportation Authority City of Cupertino Department of Community Development 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, Califbmia 95014 Attention: AWi Shrivastava, Community Development Director Subject: Draft PIR and TIA for Apple Campus 2 Dear Ms. Shrivastava. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Apple Campus 2 Project. We have a number of comments on these documents, which are included below. However, I would like to highlight here several key themes from out review. First, we would like to commend the City and the project sponsor for maintaining open lines of communication with VTA throughout this process, with the result that many of VTA's concerns regarding the closure of Pruneridge Avenue, the rerouting oftransit service and impacts to bus stops, the treatment of the bicycle and pedestrian network surrounding the site, and the approach to, impacts to regional facilities, were already addressed by the time the DEIR and TIA were released. Second, we would like to commend the City and the project sponsor for thoroughly analyzing of all modes of transportation in the DEIR and TIA and including meaningful mitigation measures to improve pedestrian, bicycle and transit conditions surrounding the site. In addition, the project builds on Apple's already extensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program with a commitment to achieving a 34% non -Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) mode share, including a monitoring program with enforcement. This level of commitment to improving conditions for alternative modes of transportation and reducing automobile trips is consistent with the goals of the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP) managed by VTA. Based on our review of the (DEI R and TIA, we have the following comments on the transportation analysis: Letter A8 cont. 1 cont. Bus Sf.,rvice VTA is encouraged to see that Apple will be providing improved, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible bus stops for VTA service on Tant an Avenue and Wolfe Road, The bus 2 Stop IlMeDitiCS provided will improve the customer experience for the passengers that use these stops. We would like to note that VTA has recently adjusted the Une 81 which serves the bus 3331 North First Street - Son Jose, (A 95134.1927 - Administration 4083213555 - Ustomer Service 408.321.2300 City of Cupertino July 22, 2013, Page 2 of 4 stops along Tantau to also serve the Santa Clara C altrain Station & Transit Center, which will provide connections with Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) Rail, Caltrain, and other VTA bus service at that location. If any of the proposed vTA bus stop locations are intended to be shared with other services,, the bus stop should be designed to accommodate the additional vehicles and not interfere with VFA's buses serving the stop. in addition, it is our understanding that Apple will maintain the bus stop arnenities, as part of their other routine maintenance of the area around the new campus. VTA looks forward to executing an agreement between the City of Cupertino, Apple, and VTA addressing this issue. Secondary Im cts to Bic cle pedestrian and Transit Modes The TIA identifies significant impacts to, eight intersections in the Background Plus Project scenario, and in these instances, additional turn lanes are proposed as physical mitigation measures for the impacts. The TIA also notes that "In some cases, mitigating a motor vehicle traffic impact at a study intersection would result in secondary impacts to other modes of travel (such as a street widening that would result in longer pedestrian distances)" (pg. iv). VTA notes that intersection widening can also potentially degrade transit access since the quality of the pedestrian environment is a key component of transit access. In the TIA and DEIR, considerable attention is paid to conditions for bicycles and pedestrians around the project frontage. However, the TIA and DEIR do not explicitly include analysis of seconclary impacts to non -auto modes for the off-site intersections, that are proposed for modifications. VTA notes, that there are alternatives to widening intersections when automobile traffic increases. For example, the City of San Josd has a "Protected Intersection" policy allowing certain intersections to exceed the established Level of Service (LOS) threshold when they are near substantial transit improvements and/or adjacent private development, or have reached their planned maximum capacity. For CM P Intersections, the Mini Deficiency Plan process is designed to allow local agencies to identify offsetting measures, such as multimodal improvements, in cases where it is found infeasible to add capacity to an intersection that falls below the established CMP' LOS threshold of E. We encourage the City of Cupertino to consider these or other alternative approaches to addressing intersection impacts in lieu of adding lanes to the intersections. In cases where the City pursues widening intersections as mitigation for auto LOS impacts, VTA would like to see the City play close attention to potential measures to preserve pedestrian, bicycle and transit conditions, There are a number of simple, low-cost measures that could be implemented, such as reducing auto lane widths, utilizing shoulder right-of-way, and tightening curb radii where feasible; providing safety features such as high -visibility crosswalks, pedestrian refuges, signage, and/or bicycle pavement markings; and others. VTA would be happy to provide assistance to the City and the project sponsor in this area as the project progresses. Letter A8 cont. 2 cont. Letter A8 cont. City of Cupertino July 22, 2013 Page 3 of 4 Number of Significant Intersection Impact There is a discrepancy in the TIA between the number of significant impacts in Background plus Project Conditions shown in Table ES -1 (pg. vi) and Table 15 (pg. 85) and similarly, between 6 the number of significant impacts in Cumulative plus Project Conditions shown in Table ES -1 and Table 16 (pg. 89). VTA understands that the City is aware of this discrepancy and plans to issue a correction in the FEIR. Freeway Semment Analysis, and Impacts The TIA indicates that the project would result in significant impacts to nine mixed -flow segments of 1-280, one NCV segment of 1-280, and one mixed -flow segment of SR 85. As a mitigation measure, the City has proposed that the project sponsor shall pay a $536,000 fair share contribution towards the SR 85 Express Lanes project and the Bus Rapid 'Transit (BR,r) station on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Wolfe Road and De Anza Boulevard. The TIA and DEER note that these projects are included in VTP 2035 and "improve traffic operations of the impacted freeway segments and provide added transportation capacity on parallel facilities." VTA agrees that a contribution to these projects constitutes an appropriate mitigation measure for the freeway impacts for the reasons cited in the TIA and DEIR. VTA recommends including analysis of the freeway segments on 1-280 south of Winchester Boulevard to determine if project trips exceed one percent of the freeway capacity in the AM and PM peak periods for both the northbound and southbound directions. In addition, the TIA should include an assessment of other fteeway segments to determine whether additional freeway segments meet the one percent threshold. This recommendation is based on .Section 2.2.2 FreewaySeginents of the VTA CMP TIA Guidelines. F-11 Freeway Ram ri Im rovements The TIA identifies improvements to the 1-280/Wolfe Road off -ramps. VTA appreciates the City 9 taking the lead in coordinating this widening project with VTA and Caltrans. VTA recommends that the improvements remain within the existing Caltrans Right -Of -Way if possible. Queuing Analysis at. Freeway_On-Ramp Locations VTA on the behalf of 15 Santa Clara County local agencies has a Memorandum of Understanding (MCU) with Caltrans on how ramp meters are maintained and operated in Santa Clara County. This MOU has specific language that requires queues from ramp metering operations shall not impede the flow of traffic on local arterials. Due to this MO language, VTA requests that the City conduct an analysis of the ramp metering queues at the 1-280/Wolfe Road and 1-280ILawrence Expressway interchanges to clearly demonstrate that the queues will not impact local street operations. If these queues do impede the flow of traffic on the local arterial, it may be necessary to provide mitigations such as providing additional storage lanes or NOV bypass lanes on these impacted ramps, where these are feasible. 10 Letter A8 cont. City of Cupertino July 22, 2013 Page 4 of4 VTA looks forward to working with the City of Cupertino and the project sponsor to help advance this important project. Please do not hesitate to contact John Ristow, Chief CMA 11 Officer, at (40,8) 321-5713 if you have any questions or to discuss how we can work together with you in this process. Sincerely, �IMichael T, Bums General Manager cc: Timm Borden, City of Cupertino John Ristow, VTA David Stillman, City of Cupertino Chris Augenstein, VTA Gary Chao, City of Cupertino Casey Ernoto, v'rA Erik Alm, Caltrans District 4 Roy Molseed, VTA Diawn Cameron, Santa Clara County Roads & Airports Letter ID 00i 141 Name Corinne Winter Address Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, 1922 The Alameda Suite 420 City, State Zip San Jose, CA 95126 Email corinne@bikesiliconvalley.org Subject Apple Campus 2 Draft BIR comments Comment To Whom It May Concern: W -T-111 1r 11r r 9 •S. promoting bicycling in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Well over a year ago, Apple kindly invited SVBC to work with them in their planning process for their new research and development campus in Cupertino. During this process, we have collaborated with Apple, Alta Planning & Design, and other stakeholders to provide input on how to make the development bike and pedestrian friendly—both for those working at Apple and for those traveling through the area. This collaboration was particularly important to us due to the perceived inconvenience of closing Pruneridge Avenue to bicycle and pedestrian traffic (although in fact bicycle traffic volume counts turned out to be fairly low on Pruneridge). We held a series of meetings with Apple and Alta Planning & Design at various points during their planning process to give feedback on their plans. We advertised one of these meetings to our membership to encourage greater engagement from the bicycling community. As a whole, we believe that Apple has done an exemplary job of incorporating our suggestions to make this part of Cupertino more bike -friendly. In this letter, we will first mention the many improvements that Apple has committed to make both on -campus and off, and then we will identify a few areas for improvement where we feel that the City has an opportunity. Bicycle Access Improvements The f6 lowing is an overview of the recommended bicycle facilities on streets adjacent to the campus proposed by Apple that we strongly support the implementation of. We understand that Apple plans to invest $1 O,M in bike and pedestrian improvements on public streets around the campus and nearby, for which we applaud the company. Bike Lanes Bike lanes are defined as a portion of the roadway that has been designated by striping, signiage, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. Bike lanes are recommended on North Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue, and Homestead Road. This section of the corridor includes conventional bike lanes where there is not enough right-of-way to include enhanced treatments such as buffered bikeways. Buffered Bike Lanes A buffered bike lane, also called an enhanced bike lane, is a bike lane that is buffered by a striped "shy zone" between the bike lane and the moving vehicle lane. With the shy zone, the buffered lane offers a more comfortable riding environment for bicyclists who prefer not to ride adjacent to traffic. This design has a number of benefits including: • Provides greater shy distance between cars and bicyclists, allowing for more comfort for people on bikes. • Provides space for bicyclists to pass each other, • Provides greater space for the bicycle travel lane without making the lane appear so wide Letter Bi 1 2 that it may Ibe mistaken for car use. - Appeals to not just experienced bicyclists, but people who bicycle on occasion and those new to bicycling. Buffered bike lanes are recommended on North Tantau Avenue and Vallco, Parkway. The recommended buffered bike lane design, is the same design as a recently implemented Caltrans buffered bikeway on Sloat Boulevard in, San Francisco and is a modified version of the design guidance presented in the NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) Urban Bikeway Design Guide. Bike Boxes A bike box is generally a right angle extension to a bike lane at the head of a signalized intersection, The bike box allows bicyclists to get to the front of the traffic queue on a red light and proceed first when that signal turns green. The bike box can also act as a storage area if heavy bicycle traffic exists. The bike box can also facilitate left turning movements for bicyclists who use the 'two stage turn.' Motor vehicles must stop behind the white stop line at the rear of the bike box. Bike boxes should be located at signalized intersections only. Bike boxes can be combined with intersection crossing markings (see below) for green light situations to remind vehicles to be aware of bicyclists. This treatment is not a Caltrans approved traffic control device, however the City can apply to Caltrans for approval to experiment—SVBC's Executive Director sits on the Caltrans statewide Bicycle Advisory Committee (CAC) as well as the Caltrans, District 4 Bicycle Advisory Committee (D4BAC) and we would be delighted to assist the City in securing Cupertino the approval to experiment with this treatment. A- "M &IN111,111000011110 I I * 6ATIVR11 916191 Sig 0 idtll Ma LopME1. . . Two–Stage Turn, Boxes Two-stage turn boxes assist bicyclists with making left turns at multi-iane intersections. This treatment is typically applied on multi -lane streets with high traffic speeds and/or volumes. It provides a number of benefits including: • limproves, bicyclist comfort. • Provides formal waiting area for bicyclists making left turns outside of the crosswalk, Intersection Crossing Markings Intersection crossing markings are an extension of the bicycle lane through an intersection. This bike lane extension has a, number of benefits, including: - Enables bicyclists to correctly position themselves to the left of right turn lanes or to the right of left turn lanes. • Reduces conflict between turning motorists and bicycle through traffic. • Provides bicyclists with guidance to follow the preferred travel path. • Alerts motorists to expect and yield to merging bicycle traffic. Intersection crossing markings are recommended at: • Northbound N Wolfe Ave at Pruneridge Ave. • Northbound N Wolfe Ave at Campus Entrance. • Westbound Homestead Rd at N Tantau Ave. • Westbound Pruneridge Ave at N Tantau Ave. Green Bike Lanes Through Conflict Areas Green bike lanes through conflict areas is the application of green coloring applied to pavement in conflict zones. Benefits of this treatment include" - Alerts roadway users to expect bicyclists. Letter Bi cont. 2 cont. • Assigns the right of way to bicyclists. • The FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) has provided blanket approval for green colored pavement and Caltrans has also approved this treatment. Green bike lanes through conflict areas are recommended at: N Wolfe Ave at all 280 ramps. • Northbound N Tantau Ave at parking lot entrances and approach to dedicated right turn lane at IHomestead Rd. - N Tantau Ave at the Transit Center entrance/exit, loading area and parking lot entrances. Campus Bicycle Improvements Apple already leads a very successful bike share program in Cupertino and will expanding the program with Apple Campus 2. They have committed to a comprehensive, integrated, and multimodal Transportation Demand Management Program, of which biking is an integral part. Apple currently implements an aggressive TDM program with 28% employee participation. Apple has committed to increase the TDM program to 34% as part of Apple Campus 2. In addition to creating linkages and connections to the public bike network, Apple has incorporated on -campus biking as a key feature of the plans. In addition to more than 1,000 bikes on campus for employees, this also includes convenient bike access points to the campus along with accessible bike parking and storage, lockers and shower facilities, and integrated on campus bike path network and other bike friendly amenities, EE= The Tantau 280 overcrossing Bicyclists struggle to find comfortable and convenient highway crossings throughout our region. The improvements planned for Wolfe Road will be helpful, but will still not provide the optimum in bicyclist and pedestrian comfort because of the on and off ramps and the number of conflict points a bicyclist has to navigate. This is an existing condition that will be improved by Apple. Due to the lack of conflict areas, Tantau over Highway 280 provides an excellent alternative that can be made comfortable for bike riders of alll ages and skill levels. On North Tantau, the current plans have one through vehicle lane and a nice buffered bike lane in either direction. Traveling south across 280, however, the riding experience becomes more limited, as the buffer to the bike lane disappears and a second vehicle through lane is added. We do not think that the expected: motor vehicle traffic volumes justify this configuration. On the most recent set of biicycle plans submitted by Apple, we would like to see Cross Section F on page 6 altered to look more like Cross Section E on page 5. Vallco Parkway We also believe some improvements can be made to Vallco Parkway. First, we would strongly advise the use of reverse angle parking—this treatment is now considered best practice for promoting the safety of people on bikes, as bicyclists are much more visible to motorists attempting to pull out of their parking spot. Second, the 5 -foot, non -buffered bike lane is not up to the same level as most of the suggested infrastructure in the plan, and, given the diagonal parking and two traffic lanes in either direction:, we would prefer to see a minimum 6 foot bike lane, potentially with a buffer. With 12 and 12.5 -foot lanes, we believe that there is ample road space to give cyclists more room. If the lanes have been specified to be this wide because of frequent bus traffic, that's an even, better reason to give bicyclists more room to maneuver when caught between buses and motorists trying to exit their diagonal parking spot. It appears feasible to remove one or two feet from the inner through lanes to provide this extra width to the bike lanes. Letter Ell cont. 2 cont. T In conclusion, we feel that Apple has done an excellent job in incorporating our thoughts 1 5 and concerns Into their design of the bicycle facilities surrounding their Campus 2 project, and we have just a couple of remaining suggestions for the City to consider. We would dike to recognize both Apple and the City of Cupertino for understanding the Importance of encouraging travel by bicycle. Please feel free to call me at; 408-806-858Z,@ with any questions. I would be happy to sit down with Cupertino City staff to discuss our position on the project at any time. Letter 81 cont. cont. Letter 82 United Service Workers West July 19, 2013 T PP,M0W0Z2Z,l Mayor 011.in Mahoney & The Cupertino City Council Cupertino City Hall SEIU 103001 Torre Avenue Cupertino, C A 95014 Comments re: Apple Campus 2 Development Southern California Headquarteis Dear Mayor Mahoney and Councilmembers, 828 W, WashirVon Blvd. Los Angeles. CA 90,015 12131284-7705 The Service Employees International Union— United Service Workers 1213128'1-7725 fax West (SERJ-0SWW) appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. USWW represents over 40,000 property service workers across OrarVe County office 1200 N. Main Street the state of California, including approximately 8,500 security officers. Suite 900 Currently we are party to a master collective bargaining agreement with Santa Ara CA 92701 several local and national signatory employers. The union standard 17141 245-9700 1714124"7 10 fax includes provisions on living wages, access to healthcare, paid sick days, training, and dispute resolution procedures that have resulted in better San Diego office retention and labor peace among signatories and a better life for officers 4265 Fakmount Ave. Suite 260 and their families. Sari Diego, CA 92) 05 (6191641-30-50 Rising inequality remains a threat to Silicon Valley's prosperity. While (619) 641-3055 fax news headlines tell of a second "tech boom" lifting all boats, the reality is Nwhern California more complicated: 30% of jobs in the region pay less than a living wage-' Headquarters We at LJSWW are working to stem this rising tide of inequality, and to 3411 East 12th street Suite 200 make Silicon Valley a place of opportunity for all. In (his vein, we are Oakland, CA 94601 moving to raise standards for security officers throughout the South Bay, (M) 772-3326 and to educate businesses about irresponsible security contractors,. Apple 15101261.2039 fax has contracted with one such employer, Security Industry Specialists San Francisco oftice (SIS), for its campus security needs, We believe that Apple can and 45 fOk street should do better, San Framisco, CA 94102 1415) 552-1301 141515,52-1307 tax SIS continues to be a roadblock to the lifting of standards in the security San Jose office industry. In the past three years, StS has reached out-of-court settlements 1018RtiftDrIve on sorne troubling lawsuits: in 2010, the company agreed to pay $775,1000 San Juse, CA 95110 in a class action lawsuit brought by employees involving claims of a1isSd 1411812811-77711 l408) 280-7&9 fax meal and rest breaks." Ewen rniore disturbingly, SIS settled in 2011 with an underage San Francisco gi, �] who alleged to have been sexuallyassaulted saaamemo offire by an on -duty SIS officer.""' llere are other cases of SIS being stied by 140121siStfect Suite 3 10 erriployees, on grounds of gender discri ini nation, racial and religious Sacramento, CA 95611 i discrimination, and discrimi nation based on sexual orientation, 1916)498-9505 The problems extend beyond the blatant acts of wrongdoing, however. 1916) 497-006 fax Many of SIS' officers are clamified as "flex -time" workers, unable by company design to work more than part-time hours, and therefore denied access to benefits or sick days. SIS has also fought workers' attempts to form a ti nion as a means of raising their working conditions, with SPS going so far as to send spies to worker rneetings. For this behavior, they were warned by the National Labor Relations Board in 2012, We are pleased to hear of Apple's commitment to living wage, union jobs in the construction of Campus 2, as evidenced by the company's agreement with the Santa Clara and Sall Benito Counties Building and Construction Trades Council. We are also excited to bear of Apple's pledge of monies towards various community benefits, such as now affordable housing, the creation of park lands, bike and pedestrian lands, and so forth. Taken together, it is clear that Apple is embracing its role as a "responsible corporate citizen," as guardian and steward of a progressive vision for Cupertino and the region as a whole. Apple has the opportunity, and the power, to ensure livable wages and "good jobs" for all its subcontracted employees, including tile security officers responsible for protecting Apple's property and employees, We ask that Apple do right by its security officers and choose a responsible security contractor that is committed to raising standards for its workers. Make a 1001 % commitment to a progressive Cupertino and Silicon Valley. "Life in the Valley Economy," Working Partnerships USA. 2012. rr Grootboom v, Security Industry Specialists, Alameda County Superior Court of CA., RG -09435440 HN Olga K. v, Security Industry Specialists and Apple, Inc., San Francisco County Superior Court of CA, CGC-11-510624 IV Smith v. Apple, Inc, Security Industry Specialists, et al, SF County Superior Court, CGC-10-50035; Massaquoi v. Security Industry Specialists, Google, Inc., et al, Santa Clara County Superior Court, 1 -12 -CV -233187; Ortega, et al v. Security Industry Specialists, et al, Santa Clara superior Court, 11 -CV -203664 Letter 82 cont. 1 cont. Letter 83 . 2 eaR vw JUL 17 2013 LU �1 I..N:sssssssry ...wwr rpn. L .. �., � �� ... � � L � .. '. _. N1. � .�_l. M .:. � ��._ L. _... � �..... � I.NA.. ■ � .� ��' �'.,.. AL1 � .._. Submitted by CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CUPERTINO on July 17, 2013 TABLE o F CaNTENTS PUBLIC INPUT CITY OF CUPERTIIv CIAPPI-K +MTI'" OF MENLO PARK,/rF°ACEBo,OK I N'VIN oNMF�NTAL IMPACT REPORT T MITIGATION: TRAFFIC MITIGATION: HOUII INO M'IT"iC« ATI N: PARK PISCA,LIli+L AcTANALysiS APPLE FlaCALIMPACT ANALY sIS CiTyFrscAi,IMPAr-T ANALYSIS: NONE PUBLIC ACcEss APPLE CAMPUS 2: NONE CALABAZAS CRF.L C TRAIL, SECURIITY COMMUNITY LAITY 1 E,NEFITS AS CONDITION OF APPROVAL Nor As CokSIIG?Iriom OF"APPROVAL ATMs 2 t7R Datu ReMved L 17 2013 Pfftmled by . PIN UNERICIGE AVENUE SALE OF P'I, U1E,T l" IL" GE AVENUE PFZUNF- IIC)G,K Ayolr;NI„ E ALTmRNA"I iv'N : No I LO UR.E/ SALI.; C;IF PRU ERIIDGE AvEI UE: APPE oix FjiouRjr.s FROM DRAFT rNVIRCINMENTAL INYMPA+ T 'RMORT Letter 83 cont. 1 PUBE.IC INPUT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ,ScC3F'wo 9JKSSlO /$WPC M.;R 8, 201 1 PUBLIC INPUT MEFTING(S):NICIW SrE CITY oF MENI-0 AfRK/FACIEE30OK STArr REPoERm iFroR Cm COUNCIL, Mgfi= rNNGS PLANNING COMMISSION ItdlF,ETINGS HOUSING COMMISSION MEr:71ING Cc3MIy+ uNI"TY MEETINGS COMMUNITY (:)LLJ`tR'-,C" MEETING PUI LJC OUTREAI.C)4 MN::1::""I"INC DRAFT JENIVi.RON,MENT IMPACT REPORT/JUNE 26, N l "'BECAUSE T"K PROJECT IS' AT SUCH AN EARLY STAGE, ONLY WWTI"KN COMMENTS ARE BEING ACCE'P"I F -I), AS DICTATE[) 19Y Tib"E` CALIFORNIA E:NVVNRONl" F4XT QUAUTY AcT.i9 S01URCE: RESIDENTS SUBMIT" WHITTEN COMMENTS FOR d4RpLA CAMPUS 2 AT JUNE. 26 M+ ErmTING/C'ITY' OFFICIALS UNABLE TO HOLD PUl3LICT FIEARIN `AT" ,rm i'E 9Talc ' BY ALIA WILSON CUI°Niti*FwpTINO couRrER JULY 5,u 2013 PAGE I CGAI^rImm"m' LIMITED Letter 83 cont. 2 Wnrm (U.y Codes 1 0 ty H I uonuvt ue., "Ill PIT "i" f1 .f F acebook Campus Pr 'ect DEV) I 9APMf'T"'!: 0j k6? il EN, T Th Fmmapk 0a1'lpwlo.0jug' in,111do's two pre act &RP; indutye ofthe hast ij n pp for Facehook C arm;4is CE6 npu s a nd VA3t CallP u & '-M :propkl 6 ix t ir p,'j Fw;np,,Red in phe sag, w1lr� ihe *reject eliall Ll_-da'.'es ema camput, e.-ifitaincritsappulv0d by the 0,Y C006 8:110411 a Ii JL 1146 0' 2012, Tw E6,9 icee E�o.st Campus is lotatoi so, i-t�.sr vvay ald A:m%1w*Y by Ora:A�('mminfly site is, Tilre building%, V*Ui =11heir qpprnx I qjqro rwK. As part wths pmlect jopravale �11 Mov WdJuva, Faoeboo� has to Q.I.-Loy tw East Cairrtm. Council aml mctol or Campw� EnvIronimoritmil Impact Rep ort (EIRp mtitle.wnm it; canipluk, wid 5ubseqwant 0rojeu mom V;W k-cus orl dho acrd pp ma a psw cwp Is ro)qL i -*I -draws, vftFa r«;amj)-J'j oemp onch i %f Me rill ce lj0s on the oi wi wi r w iNa iw.- I fame' 000(Csmpus 1"IyGo* aasxiai orl with ibe proposal ill IcLidl 19 tha NOP In"i 2F_SoC1.r1%d This approximaely 22-isum Worv- Campus is 1=10d at Vie inteisomen 01 cm"wen', leavr.0, 'M cm Road irlid Say'rwt apreaawaj "rhP s fr. in mjrlearly aJCms*wrA 312 q,,jj 313 Cl-whMotmi Drives, will't.',G arfiopa-lor. th3t Me adde-am" w 11 be UpdMW in Projact Plans tha nwi fultit� to b_W"' MMIC', thD01MMIM or** pro:eot si-.o. I hit soop-ld PlOstj Qf the f'ro*t pro:xisas dFiriol tion 4i we "'AS611D 1'r'* bvildii9s aam aeF,cc,iutt:d sac fSubse-quontly, theaiWliolv teEka Lo v:m1ahlill'a Soloct pfujec` pl Ans fur the propos%l a.iar¢Ssq JK Irick bui'OYPq w top ef surfaw, PwNnq,,lvst w1odd incluiae apploxhimlidy 1"430 v;lrkiro sant a, 1'he pRipwed pM-ol&,,l� ,z conoiatc�it %ith ;IF, fcleheal ln,,wstiaj zon-3 e.-pivirmAT 4%TwCnP4 n aj,,� P1cl the orf tine otlurluisi Pnl the pTopc%od 0 =Aq.sQj" VAIh I.- L wo '16 ex -. d %�x Jr i i.iir - Y, rf, PftmMsl tc holgMt a nd lot o3wrage in the M-2 zoj /w;,susnh, 4 mzme to'el- P'Goneral im^ i istria , r.om-fdor a l ne-jelopf-)cni),: p, us aches[ GA!5m Man, 4mo�;'P le Ph n rmi ejvrov"M of n Cord itlon 01 Qe.'Yepnpme,v Parmi t 'Cr)P) wo m d be mw n, id io E-rrmil; r.,nqTownan0_.,ncrlaparU.oeg ew.,slnf Uie twk.'hl imir. Phon sx 660- 330- 6737 - Nv Or, i vivt I ; ofRe jiott -Apr' '12, On t~ H1 2", the; CRV Councl approved 90 ftquiastoo Bard Live entitteirtmis and aejreqjjlvntq f.)r the Fac*bmk Q�wm Garnpas Projam, and imrodpAcod fie Ord rimcm RczaniN I* p,oxnj and apptuving fliA Nvvlaprrmw Aoreerxltt. On ApIj 2, 2(11 a, M6 C tV (,'Qklrri 3do*. d'he ReZQhlrU and Th a laed Lee enIftfront Fst"uarV 7r. 201 a Plenlihe to radevelop t9e site- rwrvore 2'.1, 2D v W-10: nwow'q roschooW.J ftyr 2,,bli! a C -Ly C:m:l; I St u "! Report � JaE " uarl _V147tv PZ 2)113 . 'Cid, CoL ndl S-aff ria port - GubDbar "11(9 foil :.wlno 01 opirc"ra S app 1w, U JMO for Me two "i a,. M 2,312 PwiminG Commissicr Staff krpa,t - ERS1 C WYOU4 lap-,11COM 00106Aed apr.(tVn1.'e 9eolewtei'24 kG12 Letter 83 cont. cont. 4 (AIT CDanc I Staff le part - tauplombcr : Mrie nCIW Sn 0 KQ$taWc1 i, Qr4l rUjul 1a41 U&jia cpw#,nt vsro t 11.2]'1.2 -Ie"ib . G' ity Cou 1114cil Staff Rtew I I - J. Ir, & 5 �ed-.aga Tree Removal 2ni? 2nvircinmerta Ribylow a afty Ccuincit Uton Roport , 'Way 26, ok A Campus (oppli-int has appiled f& pe Wks) 20,12 # PlArning Camrnission Staff Report - Rozar inip from FA -2 to WA r4ay ?, 2012 Co ic Ilonall Develuprr%eF it Ppil I - . CItvrcNn,�ilAmRapoft-APtli;l„ W fvmorrvnt Agreentervt 2012 or Let Ung At jjWdMatl a Cal ruun�.A Staf Repod- rmbuary 0 HeAiagaTree Retrava i"wmitF. 14 2012 a Be.'nw ?wlark,4t Rate Noising Agrointrwt QtV C ound I 'Stal' Repolt - Ja n IMTY e twronme)tal Risvievo 3,-1,20,12 C,tf cowicil Staff Ragoiq - January e Ubscribe to FAQ015,00 C Ga mpus Irol ect '0. Z-012 & Pirwring Commissiun Staff Re-pno - F�j-,CEtj j-mpaKAAxj%1YA.1S JA,tuvy9 2112 City Coinci start l t)on, Nommttef 5. 21"111A FN has been prepare;, p7 e-�4kvot-",» the hnfwfaftl-e. prxivoa6d Ptojea'. on tl(� City (;0,1111C.11 qt0i f Regarl - octLtor cji(Irt-wenur-, ftv tho City Cyt merle Perk. and: othcf g7vAstrimiodal antbeA 111.20 rte ftt,",,toz tft,* pojec9rtp, i-IctudIng the kle,0 Plark Fire P,otollon Di,.trid, * G� «;aujpinil S�aff Repot. - " UW, Z3, PACrilo Pcirk t4ur)1d,,al VWtw C1 skirt, %Nest BAy Son t*Pj D[,;,tjr0, rlrnren;�Qfy Nap Priesentetion - Wy 41?r1+ I ao Hgh Schcv DO"dr,:ASKri tolatea C -011 1Y Cif Icy of 15"bucaNin �;peciml 21'111 city f-furcil 8ialf hepar: - Ju in iA, Disi-id , Sen IVIFtso Gwrtty communiw Coilego Djobicr., arict li-io Nldpenilsk�s 7.,l r�ogitria Open Spx*DsIrA, Pla nnii -iG Comm Issicrt $to ff F?,(. voli I - Publii, Hlearng NojIc,-, - Apili 20, 2011 May le, 20'11 0 Fnall Fiscal impaq, Andys 6 rJBI * C4 C*L Victl Staff Rep.`Wt - (-A V 10, 0 Rewppnsa tr Covrriei* Qr) 0a, Dral FIA 20- 1 . C Ity il�L. IjcR Sta, Rnpoi I - Apn I 5 0 Drart Fiwi impact Analysts (FIA)i [12 NIRJ 2011 Pri! %L, Tx * city Gound I , M zird, 2 6 , 221 20, 1. .�la City held a ooinmuoit� mcictjr,,U of J!)r-, Fs4gbook * Pign niiq Corr ml sdon, FabruarV n. Qa mws !Mad I n ardor wltratrvirm a prrjedi ix-nme,y aiYJ ri kv waiion M H "$eniur 7 11 Draft LIN and FIA, T'h'e, 'Aacilro looR 1*4Lr+ iii; Menlo�sik Qrater n -4 C''� Cou i voil - ja rR e. ry 77, 2013 1he W-lim WNwi o&-giborho*d • Pu,111c Otjtjema-h Nleeting - Qc,:tint 2-e I$ �012 • PlaiinrN CommIssiop - 5* :tevr icar IABj M 7'1112 * CityCowlej Prirrory,, M4Y21j,2ulz r FIA PresginIU--tion * Citv Gou jci, (Trar stwaft-m), - Wq 29', it) I -, * Planning CorwrA36w -May' '17, ZQ';! . City Uourd, ApirIl "17,,.2012, p City C*.irdl - FeLxURrV 14, 2O12 . 0111y Com cil - Antis 'Y al, 2012 . P a nni -iq Comm ledor (Prim a ry' , - e Ubscribe to FAQ015,00 C Ga mpus Irol ect janua, Y 9, 10" 2 * planAigg COMMISM.0 (Flay - Jainusiry 9. 2012 6, La61MWUA ty Kle&tjng (PTInarit1 DIGt"eM,l,er 12011 & Cop rir 111.111 ly M06619 (F Aj .'. Dererjbsr N t'csi c4.4vallabi lky of Dian El i and B. 2,011 P.IbI c 146arhn - E)Fmi-mter I ;x011 Nap Priesentetion - Wy 41?r1+ I - 1`40 IP '-rcw)tatjon ki av 16 . ' ?011 * Noflpe w Fraparawin �NZIP) to rho FIR -Ap-jl 221 2011 Publii, Hlearng NojIc,-, - Apili 20, 2011 went campus Postati rd Nwiw 0:t0te'l ?D, 7 ,, East Pit a A tc ric Jet nl Affo"dability Befle HaverV114111criv 01.15inern Afoo AnilyDis Datont--rdr2l, 201' pwifl"I Gha,lvu. - I'day '6. 2011 * cownur ity ()Wp�,w.h m6aflng Agr-nda - r1acembe, a, 2DI I ■ C tide POSURAT Notice - DscarnW 2$;1"l I." - URI Letter 83 cont. 2 cont. 131 Mitigation: Traffic Traffic Is Residents' Primary Concern About New Apple Campus Soume: Headlirte Cupertino Cogler September 16, 2011 suggestions; Predetermine acceptable traffic level Evrablish 'Trip CaplTrip Cap Penalty Estabh6h Transportation Man agente-nt Associa tion Determine Environment linpuct of Impacted Streets, Intersections annd Fr4VWOYSP,grn ent with regard to Pollution and Economic Loss Hewlett PE.ckard Apple 04/1.3/1.1 APPIC 11/211/ ph;lse 1 2,392,000 2,13�20,000 (Main Bui)ding) 2.820,000 Sq�mre Fcot 120,000 (AUditorjium) 1.20,0W '100,000 (Fitniess Centei-) 100,0010 26S,O(),O 300,000 (Resear& F,3cififies) 300,000 46,000 (Central Pi)1t; 2,000 (Security Rcccption) the (Mair remince) P)as-� 2 T) /A �001 0010 300.1100 Squ,,ire Fect H Letter 83 cont. 3 T4 i tal Sq u afe Feet 2,65 7,000 3,64C1,000 qp.'1000 Ncrease in Squarc Feet 983,04)0+ 983,000+ Employces 9,300 13,000 (phiuse 1) 13,000 L412 . ')()A fpha a I ''� I 9,8()0 14,200 14,200 hicr.-ase ill # 4,400- 4,4-00 OfErn PI oycu�.' Park!r: g 19,220 10,500 10,500 (9,000 114ai n ,site) (91,000) [1,50n Tantau Site) (1,500) # Employee5 - # Parking < 580> < 3,`70 it <3',700> "Apple kvill expand ft,;; rurrent Tran5portatioll Derrand Management (TDMI program, which achieves a 28% reductiott iD peak hoer trips,—" Sutirce- Application for Envi-Onmental Leadersbl-,i J)r,,v�t)prtierpt PrDjCCt dated April 18, 2 012 Comment: Wbat is! baseline number of peak hour trip's? ',^ pple Campus 2 would ac(ximilodate approximately 14,200 Pniplr)ycos atfa''. occunan,.y, This LOrl-e-SPO-ICIS to Ar. e rnploce derm ity of 4,15 employee's per 1,0010 sS.—the PmjiloYee d einsity propc)sed aL Lhe prGjc-ct site is higher than industry standards (3.3 em-floyees per 1,000 s.f. and Applo's exis-drig campus at the 10bifte Loop campus and office south of Mariani Avellue:11 Cupertino (16 employees per 1,000 s.Q" Source. Draft Ti�,aa))$Portationlinpact-tlnaly7,is 2 Letter 83 cont. 3 cont. E By Fehr & Peze r,-; May 31, 2013 Pa ,ge I # EInVIGyees (14,200) - # Paricing (10,500) = 3,700 DefIclt/4 Employees (14,200) 2 61yo, empluyee% w/o can "Over 4,000 of the emp,oyees iArorking at Apple Campus 2 wif'co-nmute by w,Nelklng, biking, public transportation, aind Skuttles prov(ded by Apple, Source: Apple Carnpu.,;2 Brochure April 2013 "Oneof the hipings Applo is leasing outside Of CUPQTd� 0 Will he que!itions is whec",er (lie build. tea" ipo7ai-yworkplaces fur employees displaced while the companyconshucts, (Apple C3nipus 2)." "Apple hopes Lo lacate 14,000 enip,loyevs at tbat site (Apple Carnpus 2), up from estimatos of 12,UOO workers fi) June uf last Year." "Apple had insisted on qhart-terni leases in the Uir" to Ave mar range a-� WN variou5 cxpansjon sites fn Sunny ale, but now is stgning �tvoa-to ten leasos,' Comment: As the: )eases end, will the numbev (if employees Increase at Apple Camplus 2? ApjAc Camptis 2: Added 7iip Estimates "The jino unt ufvLfiicle traffic that wou'd be added by Carnpim 2 was estimated by mul Liplyj ng thia number of empltyeus, hyr thin Amouvt of traffic expewtx,,d to be per eyr.ployce. The trip rate per oniployee, is based on da W. L011CLtUld at Apple's Infinity Locp and Marian i camptis all De Anza 13Ljilcvdrd in t17.e City Of CLIpeirtino, Accounting for traffic aircady heftiggencrated by Litt, us- . imated 4,84.1 employees at tlhepracct site. in AugLLst2011,&.eiiew 735,106 daily vchicletri .ns, 3,274 AM peak hour trips (2,8990 filbound and 384outbbund ), and 3099 PPI peak hour trips (796 bi hmrd x1d 2,30.3 outbour.d).' Source, Dm;ft Transportixtion Trnpact AnaLysis by Fehr & Peers May 81., 01 Letter 83 cont. 4 cont. Palga ii; Comments - Study is based on 291.1 Hewlett-Packard vacated Lhe property in 201.7 Total amounts of tra ffic woul d more accurately re flect the traffic impact of the prnject. Restate the sentence, The proposed Apple Campus 2 will generate 50,978 daily vehicle trips,, 4,544 AM peak hour trips (3,953 inbound and 591 outbound), and 4,686 PM peak hour trips (1,031 ij)bnu:,nd and 3,,655 Gutbound). Sompee: Draft Transportation ItIlpact Analysis by Fehr & Peers Table 8 Trip Generation -Apple Campus 2 Page 40 "UrriNig Parkin- supply is another TT)M straLtgy j,eferencc(i in the 2030 Gcneral vian (Ifor thic City OfMoulitain View")., Samsung sitc in Mountain V,.'mv. 10%b reducOun, from Part(ing orinawp; I parking space for every 33:xsquare feet ofgross floor arca/1 parking SpdLe for every 300 sqt;,are feet of gross -Inor a rea. Sourcc: City of Mountain View 010i C.'ouncil M,--Ph'rg March 19, 2013 Staff Report #6.1 Page 10 AppleSite in CLpertino/20401) Mariani &10500 NDrtb T)e AR2 Boulevard "Based n -i the Parking ratio for oL`ice buildiags in Table 19.10C.044) (A): of the Cupertino Cope, each building requires one park! ng space per 285 square feet of building area," Letter 83 cont. 5 cont. .1 Source: Plan ningCram m issi on Meeting Novornhipr 25, 2008 Plannirg Connnissiun S-.aff Report Arlenda Item. ff 0-" AppJication # M-20013-05 Apple CTnpus 2 Site in Cuperhrc 11hasel 3,120,000 5quarefee/285 s,us reteet =10,947 parking spaces per Parking 2012 Ordinance Proposedparking: 9,.000parking spaces 10.947 vs 9,000 = 1,947 reprement5 170% reduction froom Parking Ordincnce Phjsv2 1,053 paTkL'ng spaces per Parking 2'012 Ordinance Proposed parking: 1,100 parld.ig spares 1 0;'3 vs 1,500 = 147,+ -centsrepre42 -Yo j ac rease from Parld rkg Or d j nance, Pivase 1 2,820,000 square rect/285 squurc fept = 91,1393 parking spacus, per Parking April Ordinance 201"1 Proposed prl<ing: 9,1000 parkingqpace 9,139.5 vs 9,0UO =1195 reprcsents 9116 reduction from llarldng Ordinance Phase 2 600,000 sqwre feet/285 sq ,ave feet = 2,105 paricing spaces per. Parking 11pr11 Ordjnatice 2013 Prupused parfdng� 1,500 parking sparw; r.,� t� ",105W,500 = 6115- ovircsents 29%, docs as from Parki rig Ordinarce Phase 1 /2 3,4 2 0,0 DO square fee qqi we feet = 1.2,000 parking space per Porkfng R Letter 83 cont. 6 cont. April Ordinitace 2013 Proposer! par,drg: 10,500 12,000 v5 1-0,500 = 1,500 represents 12.8% reduction from Parking Ordinance Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Vehicle traffc c:Ircularion., transit use, bicycle OML�atiOfl, Afld prdc:ntrian drculatiou Mitigatlun oileasurcs to redimc or eliminate po=tiaky sIgnificarkt impauLs of �.-hepriuj(-C,'A1'F.1 Identified City of Cupertino Level of Service (T,OS) 1) fo:r all City cu ntrolled slginaltzc� inteniect.'uits except ir. the Steven; Crcch Bonlevard/De AnZa UUUleVa;-d.,Steven,;; Creck Snulevard Strilling Roid, and De Anza i annlc> and iirrili n er Road tntersection. S,mrce: Draft TrarLsportaLiuiiliiipactAnal ysi-i by Fehr & Poor y 31, ZU13 Tablo.". Intersection LOS Standards Page 6 LOS F = Operat ons with delays unacceptabic to mou dr"Ie:�-q OCCU'ring dere: to over saturatio-1, poor progrossion. or very IGng cycle lengths. Total delay (seconds per NV,.jcle-) -gurca'.ur than 80.0 �uuuce: TrmsjorCation Research Board Z1000 Highway Caparfty Makvtja Sienasi zcd InterEection Level of Service Definitioi%�. on Cantel T)c-.av Page 10- 16 The PtOje& WOUld exacerbare unacceptable conflitio))s or rause urarrentable, operating conditlims at the followiDg intersections, and these chingles would be Gunsidered a significant impact. Letter 83 cont. 6 cont. 7 Int. 21 Wolfe Road/1-280 Northbound Ramps, (Cuper-Jno) Int 31. Tang:lu Avenue/'Vallco Parkway f(-jpertirio.j int 36 StcvoiisCi,eekB'oulevard/C.alverti)riv.v/1-Pl(,'Rimp.q(waAt)((."VTP) source: Page 393 Impacted Intersections and Freeway Segments Impacted Intersections/ Freew4y Ramps Peak Hour Delay/Lovolif Spmirp. Main.5tree� .5 DAnna llotilevand lllnrne.ste.,-tdRoad cup/cmp 21 Wolfe Road/1-280 Ramps (north) AM CUP P.M 23 Wolfe Roadflallco vark�vay Pm cull U 27 TantauAventio/Homesteald cu P 31 'FantaL.Aveltie/VallcoPir.tival, AM CUT, PIA Clip '32 Ta nta u Avenue/Stevens Creels Boulevard CUP 34. Fntnesteiid Road/Lawrence Expre-ssway AM CMP/EX F PILI F 3 6 Stevens (,-eek. Houlevard/l.'aivert Dirive t AM CMP 1-290 Rimps (Weso PK 31) Scevem Creek Roulovardi"Lawrence Expressmray Ramps (easQ cmil/Ex Apple Campus 2 Vii: D F Letter 83 cont. 7 cont. 11 lowrence Expregsway/1.280 Ramp (south) AM CMP/F.X E PM E 43 PM CMPIEX E —Z S tewns Creck Rmilevard/SaIlTomas API C14P D- > D- P NII l > F Comment; Traffic level at inWisection of Wolfe Road/Stevens Creek Boulevard should be indicated, piv acrd post project, in EER Traffic at intersection of Money Avenue/ Stcvcns Creek Boulevard should be indicated, pre and post Project, in EIR Traffic at intersection of Blanicy Avenue/Horaostead Road should be indicated', pre and post project, in EIR Traffic at6intersiecton of Stevens Creek/Vallco Perimeter Road, Wolfe Road/Perimeter Road and: Perimeter Road itself, although a private road Prov ildingaccess to Vallco Shopping Center, should be considered in UIR Impacted PreewayScgmeots Wc,4tbound (NorthboL;nd)1-2180 SR 85 to Footh" I Expressway AM F DeAnza Boulcvard to SR85 Wolle Road to De Lanza bzoulevard Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Crock ANI F BQulieva.-d t,,s Wolfe Road Saratoga Avenue co La-,,vrence Fxprcssway/ AM P Stevens, Creek 11 DUIevard DI Letter 83 cont. 7 cont. D -I ViLuliester SmIevard, to Saratop Avenue AM 1-880 tr, Winchester goulewird ATVI PM Eastbound (Sou-1bourid)1-280 Foothill lExpressway to SR .a PNI SR 85 ti) De Anna Boulevard Crim Dip ARza Boulevard to WolfRoad Pm Wolfe Rood to La iTence Expressway/ Pm StPim Tis C leck 13 a ulevard Lawromm Rxpressway/Stevcn,; Creek I'M Boulevjr6 to Saratnga Avenue Saratup Averitie to Wirichoster Boulevard PM Wnchr-.0e,r 110(devardto 1-880 p im SR R.5 (Nortlibund) Whichoster Boulevard Lf) Saratoga Ave-ouc ANI Sa ratoga AvenD e to Df� A n 7.1 l'i o (devard De Aiiza Buulevar(i to Stevens C.reek soulew-d S,.eveiis Creek noulevai,d to 1-280 AM 1-280 to Homestead Road AIVI West Tiontestead Road to Fremont Amnue ANI w r p F Letter 83 cont. F F 8 cont. lis SR86 (Southbound) 1-280 to Stevens Crecy Boulevard lel F Stevewi Creep Boulevard to De Ai)7.a Boulevard De Anza Bou levard to Saratoga Avenue PNf F Source-, City of cupertfnn sourcc: City of Culperdno Main Street Cupur-Ano Apple Campus 2 Environ.-nental Impact Repuft Addetidtim Draft Envir-onment;[ Imparr Report .lardy 22, 21)12 June 201.'1 Comment";: Impact to freew-ay segment is lace capacity Mitigation measures, such as ramp mitigadons, do vot Increase freeWay lane capacity Ranipulitigatkons; not under jurisdictinn (of City of Cupertino Nitigation measures should address impact on freeway ramps and streets from and M fteeway ramps to minimize queuin& espceially Wolfe Road -'—pliysical improvements that increase the capacity of the study- freeway segirwas could potent!Ay witigote the impacts." '...Express 1aane pro g,raims consist oif converting the exi,Liiig High Occupancy Vuhide (I-10VJ lanes to bight-perfoi-mance express Lmoq." "However, the prograws do not increase freeway capacity because no additional lanes are added. Thus, the F.xpress Lane programs will not charge Oe nesuks of lite freewa.y analysis Ur serve as direct mitigation of the project imports." Source: City of kloun-.airi Vilow Phial Envirott.wilral Imp-,xt Report Clyde Avenue Office Project Memorandum Response to 625-685 ClydeAvenuc- Office Project Draft EIRWritten iff Letter 83 cont. 8 cont. Comments Fehr & Pet rs Jar,aary 25"20D Page 2 "Ar,cording to OMP guidelines, firtmovay Segni-srits to"w1ch a proposed development ic-z projected to add trips equal to or greater than orae pururort cf the freeway segrient s napad7/ must be eVuated! 2,3-10 vehicles per hour par lam ',vphipl) for freewaysegmann s oith six of more Iares and 2,200 vphp,l for freeway $iii09FT1IU-It5 With four panes wars used ni the freeway ana"is." 4"'Table 8 presents the capacities Lf ea nh f reff.way ze9m ent and the eSI.lrttated i iurn be, or trios add &d to each seg meni by the Prole sed pro. ec L 7he rnNgaJon cf freeway ifirri is considered Iheyonic the gip` r# an individii.191 d0vefoproeril project, due to the inability of any nch;idual Prfjja(,I or City to acquire rilgh: of way for freeway wideArg, Freeway imiprovernenwuWQ would requirs approval by CaltranG, which neither the pleject applicant no - the CItY Oan OU3ranteE. Thereforo. tho addition o- project traff t, rii in a significant an'd osivoidable mpact to Me identifield freeway segnenlei." 8u,k,r(;07 City of Mointali Mew Draft Trainaporation Impact Ain aly.tiiq, Olyce Avenue Offfce Project January 215 , 2013 Pagic 30 `It Callrais; 01006 not approve iriprovernonis witIn 5 years, from...Developmo-it Agreement effective date, and alae AppJ can' clamonst,ates -het is has wor�ed N pntly to pursue Caltrans appruvml to the siallstaction of the Public ftrks Directcr, in Nwher ,ale diwrotion, then the Appoli is -all oe relieved of respor"s.bility to constrW the improim-cent and the bond shall be el.OaSod by the GO/ after the Applicant, submits 4unds PqLIFII to the updated eat Mated constru.-,ton Goal to t)e GityThe City may use the funds for other transpor-.0011 1111p(OvermontE,...' Sousse: Gt_mditional [)eve opment Parm f for Facebook West Campus Citta of N. or llo Park March 20,, 2018 Unused traffic mitilgation lifts ds should be useci by Uke City of Cupertino for other ib"a ii sporta. Lion imlipirrivements, II Letter 83 cont. 8 cont. Environmental Review "Wlien a project adds 1 percent more traffic durin.gthe peak hour Loa freeiAnLyseg.,nclfiL(jpetaLiilg at LO, S F, it is a significant impi:ct U'oder the California hiwironrientq I Qua I �,ty Act (CEQA).` "The City CUUnc`1 aeopteb a Statcmen,C Of Overriding; (,onsldera.-lours, IFinding that thu ecoilonlic viLalily ul Lite City madc thL-office grnwth necesia y, there wier,e no rc4sonabto midgations aNrailable to avoid freeway impacts." Source: City ofMounta�jn Vie*iAy City cuuncil Meeting March 19, 2013 Oty Council Report 6.1,/625-685 Clyde.Weitue (5a=aing) Agenda Item 4#G Establish Trip Cap/Trip Cap Peiialty "The C4 (Of Cupertino) eValoated Lhe feasIbLity ora mitigation measure requiring a "trip cap.0 Urdpr a trip cap, once ducloPmc.11 of Ale projecw si,Wes gec.eraLes Uip volurnes that exceed AM and pN1 pealt-ho-.1r values for triggering impacts to the transportation system, con rinued development ar d growth a t the project site ,would be halted. So urce.: AppJ e Peropus 2 Draft Envirown c Mal [in pac t Re po rt June 2013 Pafye 441 0 contillent.. Apple Campus 2, Phase IL would already be completed before Trip Cap Monitoring; it is not recommended th.,;it Apple Campus 2, ]Phase 2 lie halted if TL-ip Cap exceeded Instead of halting continued development and growth of the project, establish trig cap peawty M Letter 83 cont. 10 11 Development Agreement for Fac book Cam pus & City of Menlo Park: Parameter,, Trip Cap penalty; Pursue a trip cap penalry that is severe enough to Pnqllre co:npliartce with the profiect descriptjo,.% ..., the Lyip cap penalty needs to be iiegoUaLetl. The penalty needs to be severe enough to ensure Compliance with the project description. lc is important tn. keep in mind that the penalty is -lot intended to be a rov,-nue generator. L� Source: City of Menlo Park City Council mceting F-Chruary I'A' 201? Staff Repo --t #12-029 Agenda Item #Fl (ppl `skit) beliuves the proposed PellalW (for nut achieving the 201A. triip reduction by the end of thesix-nioah grace period) is to high. Staff believes the pen,91ty level is appropriate because if the PenOltyls too low,, it Would be mom affordable to pay the penalty than to retain costly TDM meamires, such as Uie shuttle �ervice," SutArue: City of Vouatain Vew City Counril Tyle.e.ting March 19, 2013 tatf Report 46-1/625-685 Clyde Avenue (Sanisung) Agenda [tem #6 Development Agreement for lea! cebook.1 EAST Campas & City of Menlo Park Thu proposed Lr.p cap includes a maximum of 2,600 trips duritig the AM peak period frorn 7-00 a.m. Lo 9:00a -m -p 2,600 trips during the IN 0,L'alc perind from 4,,00 p.m. to ,,OCI p.m., and IS,000 daffy trips. —the Project Sponsor has agreed to dollar arriounts associated Mth violations of tne trip cap. The penalLy amount. would be $50 per trip per day for violations hi the AM pea.' peliud, PhJ peals �,,Prind, or daily trips. The penalty would double if Lhe threshold %ras cxcucdcd in wo Consecutive month t; or for foui- inu:)ths within any sIx raonth per'od. The penalty would double again if the 01rushold wa,, exceeded for six consecutive months. Vehicles over Tier' I Tier 2 Tier 3 Letter 83 cont. 11 cont. Trip Cap 550/Lrp SIOU/trip S200/trip 100 $!-),MO S10,000 S20,000 300 T"OrZ, $60,000 so 0 $100,00() Source: City of Menlo Park City ULY COUDO MCCtir-'Dy April 17, ZIO 12 Staty Report #1? -063 Comment: Proposed Apple Camptis 2 Vehicles over Tier I T"OrZ, TAP Capi S'S/trl Peak Trip CO Lint 1 O $500 $300 3H $1,500 �$900 500 $2,500 $1,5010 Development Agr-cernent for Facebook/WEST Campus & City of Menlo Park 'rhe Ttip Cup specifies the, fall win requirernwiLS: * Maximum of '1,100 gips during the ATvl Peak Period from 7:00 a -In. to 91:00.3,m.; 4 Maximum of 1,1 i wips dwini the PM Peak Period trom 4:00 to 6:N p.m.; *maximum of 6.3W, daily trips. So --- rcet Citta of M unlD Fla rk Planring Commission Meeting FebrtuFry 25, 201: 14 Letter 83 cont. 11 cont. Staff Report PC/02-25-13 EIR Proposed Action if Traffir, Demand Management Program is Not Achteved "The City (o"CupeitinD) %voluld nc�t1.'-,YApp'e iro ac -or both of the AM and PM -3cali hour vehicle trip tou n-.s—.Apple would be required tea neetwfth the City to develop ai ratan and ideatify riew TDIVt measures to be added to achieve the peak trip coLmts." co"Xinent: No thne, requirement for initial meeting Scenedo 44 "If Apple does not agree to Implement the City -approved TDM measures,, then Apple wou I tj be assessed a $5 per dad pier trip penalty., AlVithin 60 days App'X wmld be I-eqUired Lu meet Ad.di the Ci - ,y to retwaluatic and ideiid.'y G.y-approved anew TDM measures to be ir-plemented at the projectsite , This cycle would confinue ur. til Apple agreas to! mpillemen t City -approved TOM measuri Comment: "Within 60 days" of `'until Apple agretill to impliement City-approveid TDD nielasta-les"' ? Sart orio #2 "Once Apple Barad the City agme on ii PW'I'L)M measures, Apple would ImP110111elit these iiillhlrr60 daysntthr-TiOtifl(ltiOnd-tC. -.60 days after Lite i1cw meavures are impemonred—eviluate the uEuctivene&s of the new TDNI plan." "if the Peak truss counts are still exceleded, Apple would pay, a fee or$3 pur iday per extra whili trip shown iii the peak U%'o "Aftet, three monfm, Apple wnuld he reqdred to meet with the City LU identify City addidowl approved new TDtV measares mo be adee(U' "'It Apple still is Tiol rnecting the grail dIii ring the next aiinual anon 'tori ng period, penalties Would be continued to be llevied until the peak trips counts goal is inet." Source; Apple Campw " Project Draft Enviromiiciita I Impact: litport 15 Letter 83 cont. 12 June 2012 Page 44.5 Comment: Long process allowing continued tniffic Congestion No Incentive to address traffic: congestion Insignificant penalty of$5 or $3 per day vehicle day PILHILY 5U8gestions; Establish 60 day grace period monitoring after occnpancy of significant % of project Set tivnie lirnit for initial City of Cup ertino:/Appie ma tin to actually occur; as well as subsequent ineetings Institutc significant penalty after 16O-dzy grace perjud Increase penalty if goals ol' traffic demand mansgernenot is not achieved Development Agreement for Samsting Site & City of Mountain View ""7he a n plicarA has agreed to reduce pe,*"iour trips by 20 percent,,..," "A six-morth gracporlod is propoNed that allows the a pplicatit Lo adi ust the 7DM'! rne,-itsures to weet the 20 percent rermircment." "If the" percQnt trip reduction is not achieved b ' v the end of the SiX-'.'nODth grace period, the xpr,Jicant sha' ' I be Ned a pvnalty of $100,0�00 fQr the first I percent belov%, the 20 perceD� threshuld, them W,DDO for each additional pereent below tho 20 PUCOnt thTeShOW." "(The appticant) believes the I)rciposed penalty N too high, SWY believes :he penalty level is a p pro priate because if the peralty N ton low, it would be :none a ffoirdab le to pay the penal Ly than to retain cc 5tlyTDM ineasu res,, such as tb e shuttl e service.". 16 Letter 83 cont. 12 cont. 13 Source: ON nf Iiiin V-'fnv Cit cot�11d] Meeting March 19, 2M City Council Report 6.1/625-685 Clyde Avenue (Sansung) Page 9 Agenda iter -r #6 Peak Viour Trip Reduction 20% 190/1 16 UM: 15% I IYA Penalty Amuunt 0 $100,uoo $150,000 SZO0,000 S251],001) S300,0101) 7he 7DM penalty shall he paid to the 7MA jnd -sed to promotealternative,,; to! Single -Occupancy vuhic'c usic in dic Cfty(FROJECT-SPECIFIC COND174 ION - Sources CIS of Moll 11talk"'I View Fin J i ngs Report/'Zon Ing Perm it for A pipticaion I I I - 1 2-R (Sam.sangj April 26,201-3 Page 6 Comments. Apple Campus 2 Peak Hour Trip Reduction 9% 8% 7% 6% 1, Penalty Amount 0 not specified exceptfor pier veh icl e day Insignificant penalty, S'ee previous comment Letter 83 cont. 13 cont. EstablItsb Transportation Management As!suciation IN Still, Mountab;] 'lm's cRy council has soundcd a tOLIgher, line on severat new office projects of late, iilcludlng proposals from IfIG—, LiLing LnARC COACeMS.' Soarce; Nexto: by Nathan Donato-WeijisLcin Silicon va'Icy Business journal March 8, 2013 Page 17 'The (14011:113ill Vielk) COU1161 Seemed suppor:ive nf nbher strategies cont;_.jne6 in a recently completed transportation sLu4 for the area (North Hayshore), Those- ideas include a LTa,nsportatinflmart ,ag,ciiientasociationtc)spearh,c,adadeve,lop.nen-.UfMU]ti-elTip:UYUI'tl'U,E'lSiL system, boosting bike com-nutitig i -,n improving madivay c.-T.cicncy, aniong others." Sourm Con gle'sTransit Bridge Caught in Guafhu by Nathan, Do na tn- Weinstein Stlicor. Valley BLIsiriess journal M*! -ch 2 9, 2'013 111a e 1 "The appheanthasagreed to reduce peak hourtripi by 20 perucriL aad has subulitted a TDA�4 pi-ogram....T'he notable addition to the TDJA is a shu-Me service For eMplOyeeS and the public CTMA)....The esCmated arnua' cost of the shUtfie, IS $100;000 tc $2410,000"', "Cl'heapphmnq estimates, that the set-up cost for theTMA viould be $250,ODO_..AINU, ally penalties related to enforcement of the 20 percent trip reduc�inn rcquirem-cat would be payable to the TNIA, which the TMA call them use Lo further promote alternatives to single -occupancy vehicle use in the area>' Sourue: City of Mcuntain View 18 Letter 83 cont. 14 City (,condiMeating March P),2011 City Council Report/625-685 Clyde Avenue (Samsung) Page 9 & 12 Agcnda Iturn #6 Noiliproft Tra-,sport-,,t,"on ManagemencAssociation for Sara ung (conditior of approw I), Goggle (proposed) and San Antonio Stiopping MaJI (proposed). Source: City of Mountz. -n View City Coulic 11 M Peti, 1) 00 March 19, 2013 CityCouncil Deport 6J./625-685 Clyde Avenue (Samsung)i �.ttachment 7: Traffic Demand Maria e.netit (TI)IM)'Surnmary 201216/11 and Update 3/16/13 ALWchinenL 8: Muuntain View Transportation Management Associarioni &�rnwry Proposal Menda Item #6 Stanford Marguerite sl^iuttleis a free shuzOn-servicie 5tanhird University offers to its stuCcnts, faculty, , ,-t:o- f, and thi. gencrat public. All rGuLes oil the system are ry and open tn the. public, CUrrently, 14 lines run thYOUgh the campus and provide free UanspuftaLiun to Lluu twin Pa"o Alto CalTrair, ,qWjwls, SU)rford Linear kxt]urawr (SLAC.), Stanford Shopp-ng Center, al id the San jintonjo Slur pping Center. Source. Wikipedia EmeryVIlle Emery Go -Round Shuttle as a fiVe private b-zqiisport;.,tjon stxviuc, opun to all Fnier.yville residents, shorpers' NrjsNors and tanployees of Ernerwille businesses, prow iced'oy Er,.,cryvi"le huMne�'ses. 19 Letter 83 cont. 14 cont. Emery too --1 ootid is a srrvicQ of 6c Emcryv'llc Tr-.nspartation ManagenientAssociation, a 11011-tITAt organization whose primary porpose, is to, incrip.mo access and mobility to, from ane. witb InE.,veryvIle whille alleNdating congestion thi�oujgh ope-ration of the shuttle prograin. TMG IKHA Novartis Flixar Ani rmition Studios frau rco, Emery Go-Rotnid WiehOte.- wwvv.eaierygorx)und-com Letter 83 cont. 14 cont. Mitigation; Housing City of Cupertino General Plan 13=- m7mmummy Program 10: Jobs/Housing Balance Frogram Require, r-injor new offfce/`ndasi:r0l development to hiflId hmising as pa'.'t of new development projects. As part of tile developmeja rvvicw prate s, the City will evaluate the impact ol'any application that will, produce additional jobs in the community. The rvrpQ, e of the evaluation is to 6,cscribc the imparts of the new jcbs on the Citys housing stack, cspecia I ly in reladon to the jobs/housing ratio in tite CiLy I FJPJJ]J- ; 111 rZ= 01141111113901 Marley Brothers JIC/Sobrato Davelopmumt-Companies The project Ts comprised of h%,o parcels totaling RS aures. In 2005, the City Council approvod a Goneral Plan Amendment and Zoning Change to afflow residential dcvclopncntat a de.risity of tip to 25 Cwclling unitq per acre at this site., Fiscal Im pact Analysi s. Net fiscal surplus of 832.245 per anillim, On Novenribcr'l 5, 2005 City Couried approved Pri.,iei,idge,Re.sicleiiL!iil.lith DO toi-tmhojyIes �ji(l a 1 (U.937) acre park, July 28, 2006 Apple buys prop ertics Apri 128, 2009: Apple IVqUCSWCl rezon I ng the residenc,"al projec7site frorn Planned Residcntial to Planned Indus -131a I end Resident"al. roUlinj ng the existing panned residential 7nning. Th P approxinia,.clyacne acre portion of the propei ties ain the northeast carrier of the s`tc that was zoned for public park —will retain its (Public ParkfitecreaCuji) PR zon(in). 20109� Si Le niovc6 to T[cr I Sites Inventory List for 2007-20 14, lloii.iing 11"Iernent/Sitt 10 Sourcc: Housing Elemext(21007-2014 Letter 83 cont. 15 City Council nnucting on June "1 Fig 20u,9,/Agenda item #10 10300 & 10400 North Tantau Avenue Pacific Resources Devolopineat 9.14 acres Proposed :125 www homes and 1,286 acre park February 16, 2007 Apple, buys properties 2009: Situ removed from MtP Inven-O.y list for 2007-2014 Ilousing Element Since, 10300 & 10400, North 'Tanfxtu Avenne are owned and fully occupied by Apple and :-Nave significant tenant improvern ents valued at over $5,00 0,0GO, Tne value of the tenant .rnprovcrncnts along with the value of tho building make it in.Aely that Departmem or HnOng and Commun:ty Developnien[ (H D) would consider this property likely to rcdevelop in the next live years. Source: Housing Element 2007 -20',,1 - City (:OLI'd I nleeUng va junu 16, 2009 Agenda Item 418 10590 North Tantau Avenue N oven) hor 1 ?, 2 0 10 Sri I d Tantau Rufl�ing Associates 2005: 'We would plan to bring these housing units to the Tnarket as soon as poss'ble anti thereby cimtribute, to Cuperdr.o's progress at stahi"izing the jobs /nousing imbalaince.' 3.6 acre Iq Letter 83 cont. 15 cont. Proposed 877 units 2,009: Sites may Potentially meet the I I CD requirements for being iistedas an available housing SiLe Dincernber I w, 20110 Sbld Acuivrdiiigtri the 2`009 proposed iGolieral P`anArnendmentafl of the above North Tanti�u Avenue sj;eswere considered as Potential conversiGn area for residential use OP 25 units,/acre for the Nord Tantau area. City of Palo Alto Stanford Hospital & Clinics/Lucille Packard Childrens Hospita Stanford proposal includes 4 $231. million contribution to Palo At-mi's affordable ho -using plim Smnford's Vice president for 'Specini Projects saidthe. a wnuntiq P.quiva I ent to what a for-profit deve, I operwatild have to pay—.1he.-hospital is exon -pt from -,he hous'ngfec, but is willing, to pily it anyway to lie] p mitigate the projecCs I uffering Lo build the houses becauso they don't o%,m dicland where -I'l eschouses would have to stand." Source: Stardord Offers S125 M-"Jlion in Tornmitu-07 Rpnel'Its,"or hasp"' -al Expillisjuj By Gernady Sheyner Palo Alto Onfinic )une. 16,2009 In exchange for approving the project, halo Alto =gotiatcd a development agreement Lhat 0 iactud as nearly $17.5 million in "community benefits" to be provided by SIt2nf0fd,...2baut S232 Million for the city to use on housing projCCM. Source: Council OKs Stanford Hospital Txpawioit By Diana Samuels Sqn jnqL3 Mpricury Witin; ILUIC 8, 2011 3 Letter 83 cont. 15 cont. City of Menlo Park/Facebook West Campus Tire com.pany is scoicing a drve I f)pmc-.nt agreen,enfthO would SP Ell Out its I Ong -term development Ights in e_xU_'-Iangc for public ben ePI -9. Facebook would aJso pay approximaLdy $4.5 million to the City's below-market rate housIng fund. SOUrce: Nlore Dctails Ernergc on t7acebook's lVest Campus Design By Nathan DunaLu-iNeiristein Silicon Volley Business journal septcmhur 28, 2012 Page 1 G City of Cupertino/Apple "..'a $2.5 million , contribition to affordable housing, the report said.' Source: Apple Plans to Add Thousands of jobs by rotor Burrows o!f Blotimberg San Francisco Chronicle June 6, 2013 ('..,payment of a $2.5 mill -'on 13plow Market Rare ClilkIR) affordabic housing tee, App[ewill be tjjal6i��Ig 'tji ildditiQual vulunLaiy $2.5 million conutbu Jon to the Cicy's MR program as part of fts investment in public improvements and bcnjefit:,' Sou rce: Ecn nomic an d F i scal Im pacts Genera te d by Apple jzk ClIpel' Lilto by Keyser Mar:ton Associaces Prepared for Apple May 2013 Page 18 Foocnow 20 N Letter 83 cont. 15 cont. Environmental Impact: The proposed project would change the designHtiQFI of a 1.1 -acre portlan of the site designed Park and Open Space, and would reduce theacreage of land de,,dgnated fni-future parks in tte City. MiLigaLiVA MeASUMS: The prujec-t sponsor sball implement one of the following options: a. Not applicable to this discussion b. Agree to purchase (unless other property currently owned by Apple is proposed), designate, dedicate to the Cityl(.1 acres elsewhere to the Ck as Parks and Open Space, subject to the satisfaction of the City, provided the land would be publicly accessible. Source; Ora ft Environmental linpact Report Apple Campus 2 Project City of Cupertino June 2013 Page 9 Table 11-1., Summary Df Impacts and Mitigation Measures from EIR I 1rTTJ1r17-= We were going to prupoNe that 1.1, acre of parcel APN 316-Q -0 3, the part which is vacant (parking lot), meet the above PLAN -1 b Mitigation Measure. It would also unite with the Calabazas Creek Trail, See Aw.sqor Parcel APN 316-1061-03 and Photo Zoning Amendme RES; Rezone cxisting park site PR to P(.MP' Rezone exislAng vacant land (parldng lot)appficable! part of parcel APIN 316-06.03 9 from (P)MP to suitable zoning for park PR However, it is a inoot point asApple has preempted this mitigation ineasure by already sl.ardng to construct Building 13 offautau Developmimt Phase 2, Sec Photo Provi rburdy, "...Apple has raised cofteerns that the fundamental obijective of'a secure canipm would be comprromised with the provision of a public trail immediately adjacent to or dirough the prDfect site. Because such a txail, depending on its design and assaciated Letter 83 cont. 16 Letter 83 cont. Jandscaping, may not be completely v1sible from the street, t'he possibility of unauthorl2e-d access into the project site may be heighten-„" 16 it would certainly be desirable tbatApple participates in the design of the Calabazas cont. Creek Trail to address its concerns by an open park design. :,CAI PIA 40, Q 91 2 14 M� -NOW Letter 83 cont. 16 cont. Ma Ig 2 14 M� -NOW Letter 83 cont. 16 cont. Letter 83 cont. Fiscal Impact Analysis. AN INDEPENDENT FISCAL IIMPAcrr ANALYSIS :SHOULD BE OI'w SIDE ED IN THIS ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT, BECAUSE WE AIwIriciPATF. "*4A r `I'H> CITY VA'Y1L.L. ADOPT A. STATEMENT OF'OVERERE.I ING C ONSIDERATI[ON , FINDING THAT THE ECHO NC IMIC VALUE OF THE I"ROJE CT, AS IPRESENTED IN I T'HE REPORT "EcoN+OMIi" AND FISCAL IMPACTS GENERATED BY APPLE IN CUPIERTINO CURRENT F"A.'CwiI.,rnES AND APPLE CAMPUS PUS " BY THE KEYSR, MARSTC±IN As,socIATES PREPARED FOR APPLE, OUTWEIGHS SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS IN THF' i^ RA T" ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT REPORT. A INDEPENDENT FiSCAL, IMPACT ANALYSIS (Mea) WILL PRO)nI E INFORMATION THAT WII,wI,9 INFORM THE COUNCIL, NC IL, ALONG WITH T'HE ENVIROI~+IMEN'TAL IMPACT REPO T (EII , PUBLIC COMMENT AND OTHER INFORMATIONAL SOURCE'S, SUCH As APPLE'S FIA.. 17 THERE IS NO IND4PIEN01rNT" FISCAL IMPACT ANA„L"i SM OF APP'LI CAMPUS 2 IN CUPERTINO. THE. TONE OF ,APPLE'S 'Eco C . ir- ANIS FISCAL IMPACrT9 GENERATED BY APPLE' IN C CPE RTINO REPORT ey KEYSER MAE' STO N I.S VZRY OPTIMISTIC; HOWEVER, TI -IE REPORT MENTIONS REGI,.,IRRING ANNUAL, PROPERTY TAX RI^"VfP NL F -S TC3 "L,OCAL, SC14L" OLS "« IT I C ES NOT MENTION THAT THE ANNUAL PR'QPIIP T'Y TAX REVENUE FROM PAIRC.F`L fiF"N 316-07 044, THE Site OF APPLE' CAMPUS 2 MAIN BUILDING, is NOT Ai„I,r + ATEn C%,iPZRTINrIIO SCHOOL ]DISTRICTS, C UPERTINO UNION ELEMENTARY, FREMONIT UNION HIGH SCHOOL, I~OOTHILL. DEQ ANZA c'C'I`m'mL.IM LAITY COLLEGE, THIS WOULD FW OF INTEREST TO THI REsir)ENTs OF CUPERTI'NO UNDER THE TERMS OF A TAX SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN Ti -III:, CITY CSF CUPERTINO AI+ED A.pI LE, APPLE RECEIVES APPROXIMATELY 50% OF THEA CHIT IS ANNUAL SHARE OFEAL,E S TAX REVENUES DIRECTLY GENERAT.EIJ I Y THE, COMPANY, ACTUALLY RECC91VF-D JS-� THE CITY ov CuPNS;RTINO: WHICH H IS 10/o OF THE 8.65% SALES TAX. THE SAI—KS TAX AGREEMENT IN THE FORM OF THE C QNSUL.eTING .AGREEMENT SCHEDU'LE'D TO EXPIRE IN MARCH ZO 14; THt ANIALY siS jkSqUM9S IT IS II XTILNDED 114 CONSIDERATION OFA DEVEL, P"MENT AGREEMENT BFlr ifEEEN PP"L.F; AIVD TIRE CITY OF C UPERTINO. TI4E CONTINUATION C' FTHIS REVENUE SOURCIE MAT I®'E CO�1' TI GENT ON APPLE AND TIME CITY. CSFC UP9R"THN0 NEGOTIATING A MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE- DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. APP"L:F. MAY ELECT" T ITS SOL& DISCRETION) TO DESIGNATE THE, CITY OF C UPERTINO AS THE POINT OF SALE FOR AP"PL I '' w PLM C14ASE OF ITS OWN PRODUCTS FOR ITS OWN USE, ANIS FOR P'URCHASE'S FROMuM UT-OF-SALEE Y :NII +C Rs. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS FISCAL IMPACT ANAI-YSIS� IT HAS BEEN ,ASSUM ED THAT A'`PL EI ELECTS TO DESIGNATE THE, CITY 0I0 C UIIP CRTINMo A'I:.3 THIN' POINT OF :S.A.L.,;V II"" R TI -HESE USIr TAX 'REVEI' VES, IN CON'S[ILII RAT] ?N OF A, I EVF'I-OPMENT AGREEMENT 01CTWW;rF.N APPLE AICA] THE CITY OF C UPI RTINO. THE:REFC I E IT IS ASSUMEDTHAT THE CITY OF C uPEHi'IIrI'I o ifil''ILL RETAIN 00% OF TI-IESIC USE' TAS, REVENUES. FOR THIS FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS, APPLE CONSIDERS TI• SS 1S1E TAX R VENIU'ESI AS "'OLD REVENUES" IN TI -HE, CONTEXT OF THIS DEFINITION OF NEW IT REVENU'I S IN ITS CONSULTING AGREEMENT wiTH THE CITY CIF CUPE'RTIIr o.. ONF+ TIME' CONSTRUCTION—RELATED REVENUE IS CONTINGENT UI 014 APPL.E AND THE CITY OF C L]I E"NO NEGOTIATI1' Q A PAUTUALLY A+C C E,'P'T'ABLA DEVIELOPMENTAGRVEMIZNT. `4 A, FISCAL, IMPACT ANALYSIS IS AN EXAMINATION OF THE RH?'"Sd'ENI. ES, COSTS, AND FISCAL. BALANCE (REVENUES I1+IIIN US COSTS) +ASSOc iATw WITH PUIBL.IC: AGENCY ACTIVITIES. IT PROVIDES A REASONABLE P'L.ANNING-LEV'"EL. ESTIMATE OF FIfSCAL. IMPACTS, U'S'9F'UL FOR ANTICIPATING WHETHER A PROJECT WILL PAY ITS OWN WAY G9149FCATE PA Letter 83 cont. 17 cont. SURPLUS REVENUES THAT gA.-SQ2 BY A rtilY M I—MP—RQXS SERVICES, OR GENERAT & OEOICITS THAT WILL R.E2UIRE A CITY TO R5DUCV S8RVJCES OR FIND OFFSETTING SOURCES Of FUNIDS.'p SOURCE, MUNDIE ASSOCIATES PROPOSALT01 PREPARE IFIljCAE, IMPACT ANALYSIS Or FACEELOOK CAMPUS IN MENLO PARK FOR THE CITY Or MENLO PARK JUNE 201 1 SAC IFAS EXTKNSIVE EXPERIENCE A$$%SSINGTF4F- FISCAL IMPACTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PROPOSED NEW DEWELOPMENT, A$ WELL AS ASSISTING LOCAL. GOWRKWEN"I'S TO N9GOTIATE, PORCOMMLINITY BENEFITS PROM PROPOSED NEW Its yr&6__QF MgN_jr. T14E ANAjYSIS, WILL ALSO INCLUDE INFORMATION ON THE VAWE OF CPTH gEg PMN-2:[ALEUBLIC BF-HErlYS TO BE PERFORMED... SOURCE: BAY AREA ECONOMICS PROPOSAL TO PREPAME FISCAII IMPACT ANAT.YSIS OF FACrROOK CA&IIPUS IN MENLO PARK KOR THE CTTY Of MENLO PARK JUNE 8�, 2011 Property Tax cuperumu Uniall Fremont Union Foothill Bay Arca Central Fire Mid-Penirisula Regional Cupertino San tart' Library S'anta Cl,-.rz Valley Comment: Pat -Lel APN316-07-04�4, the location of Apple Campus 2 3 Letter 83 cont. 17 cont. Main, Building and Fibiiess Center in NOTA" Cupierthin Union, Fremont Union, and F'oothUl Scbool Dist HU. As such, Lhese school,districts receive no property tax from this part of Apple Campus 2. Utility User Tax: 2.400% FY 2011-12 Actual FY 2012-13 ArnendW FY 2012-13 Estimate 3,143�,000 FY 201 3-1 4 prapas' d 3,253,000 "'Apple paid approxilriately';466,000 in utility usc..,r taxes tothe CJtyJn 24D1 Z,..Me, (Istilrated future utility taxes based on the ;issurnption that Apple Canipus 2 will incorporate sLaU- ufthe art energy tffidency design and equipment. Given this, A is expectod that the average energy cons,�mption per ernployee will deeffite, Fo, Purposes of this anal sis, it is issinned that the avorage cu nsumption for employees housed at Apple Canipu s 2 NvIll be 20% less than. the averrigge consumption for cin pluyoos at cvrren; -Cupertlno facilitiie-&" Sounce; ELOI1Or-.IiC i -111d FLSCal hupadzj Genera0e�. by Apple in Cupertino by Keyser M a rston As soic ate s prepared for Appl e May 2013 Page 27 Apple Campus 2 bruchure/April 2013 1010%) Renewahle Energy The buflr_'ings will be powereci entirely by renewable en-ergy. Wril of this onergy wi'.'. be provided by onsite fuel cells and phoLovultaics. Apple Canipu5 Z Project Description April 2013 Page 15 The projeci's overall energy needs will be proArlded )y renewable ever,' y. Me waJority w!U be gonerated on-site through the use of photiovoltaics and fuel cells with directed 0 Letter 83 cont. 17 cont. Letter 83 cont. blogas, Tese will be supplemented. by gripur6a.wd rowntrahle Pnprgy if needed during periods of peakdrmand. Will this aftect the amount of utility tax? Sales Tax ",..the loss of two of our tol) three sales tax pruduuers in FY 13-14 is projected to result in an 8D/O j,edtj(;LiU,, in SaIL-S tax C(jMpared to F:Y 2012/18 yc.u-end projection. 7his loss will o-.,Ily make the city snore reliant on one single majnr tax prnflucer, and make us more vulnerable to it:; business volatillity." "The Board of Equaft2ation (80E ) -s challenging the way sales tax had previnusiy hpen reported by erne of orir top sales to generators, ll the ROR. determines that the sales tax was repos-tod improperly, it could result in Lhu City being req,u ired to Pay back $10,6 million In prioryears sales taxer ir addition to any subsequent rcvcnu(--s rcccivcd from this cnmpany." SOLLrcc: 2013-2014 Btidget CiLy of Cupertino Page 2,3 & 24 17 cont. 'Apple -generated City sales tax revomics aside from cafeteria snles are experted tn remain Onsuint", 50urce: Economic and Fiscal Impacu Gerterated by Apple in Cupert'no by Kcyser,Marston associates Prepar vid for Apple Nlay 201:3 Table 18 Footnote 4 "Our largest tech compainies boomiTI)g, hiring Lhumsands of new workers, and hoarding ever larger piles of cash." "At HI e'&Mle tiMt, OUr local communities and governments are fighting tio keup their heeds above .9 scol waters, cutting back on services, slashing employees, clwsing libraries." 0 "'But part of WIhe ecu noinic promise of ;'iese big companius is that Lhu Lhuusands of eniployees they bringvAll move through their to-wns, spcvdng money or. coffee, meals and clothes,, which in wrn generates inore sales taxes for local towns," "Yet the cainipuses occupied by moony of the larges: companies can also becorne islands that cater to on! employ cc's ev-ry riteed, Source: Face book Lau nt:hes'Fzjcebuclis'tuGuLEttiplt)yyes t Tj, 14 ar cr - ia Je eno ] P k M d at by Chrig 013riail San j osc Mej:curvN;, evis November 17, 2012 "'Apple Inic, is Wilding another place to feed its legion of employees," tbr Apple workers." 'Apple's plan is to build two-story, cOeteria-style facility to accommody.e eniployees Shu work otit of the company's various satellite Wilding,,; aInng Randlcy Drive on the west side of N. T)e Anzj Bouluvard,' 'Apple already has Live emplf)yee-dediCaLed cafes, plus roughly a dozen Smaller cafes that offer &nab-aac'-go breakfast and iiincb opt(n-ns, In addition, the company ji worldrg F)n adding another cafeteria it the Result Way campus ofrof Rubb Road,--` Source: Apples Eyes Now 21,468 -Square -Foot Cafri by IMAL Wilson Cupertino Cowier V3 av 4, 2 0 121 Comments Some of the Apple employees probably patronized restaurants in the Crossroad area. See, Diagram ,See Newspaper Article Source: Eateries Can't compete with Goggle's Free Food Letter 83 cont. 17 cont. by Daniel LieBolt "voice of Mio in View March 1 , 2012' AeGTREEi EL14TICOR CONSULTATION I SEMnCES JULY 1, 200770 J V PIE 30.2012 3 MONTH EXTENSION .DULY 1, 20712 TO SEPTEMBER 18. 201' 2 F moNTm ExTENSI N 3EPTEMSPER 19, 2012 TO FE'15RUARY 19, 2013 I YEAR EXTENSION FEBRUARY 20.3013 To FEBRUARY 19, 2014 EXTENSION `C"'EN IONV UNI N:R DEVELOPMENT AGnREmENT F NwdFP' mzY l .`0, 2014 T'O ?' JULY 31,, 2012 FOR SEPTET 5ER 18,20 12 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: WE HAVE, A CONCERN AiFrmFI Dill VTEWING TIME APPLE CONSULTATION AeREEK4"T & THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE, CITY ag PALO ALTO AND STANFORD HOSPi%AL AND CI~„IIIVICS AND THE T%RM SHEET BETWEEN THE CfTTY OF MENLO PARK AND FA E13OO : 'Ttl POSSIBILITY THAT TI -1E SAlL E,S/USR, GENERATED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF APPLE CAMPLis try MAY SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE TO THE CITY F'N; om AMPLE SALES TAx nuiiE TO YHL' DEFINITION OF NEW LOCAL SALESTAX REVENUE. FEBRUARY 4, 201.3 FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2013 CITY COUNCIL MEETING' WE HAVE A Co NIC' RN! AFTER REVWWING THE, APPLE CONSU LTATiON AGREEMENT & INSIGHT CONSULTATION AGREEMENT DUE T4 "I•'HE DIFFERENCE IN TIME DEFINITION Or N "rJ14' LOCAL SALKS TAIL REVENUE IN THEM:. AGREEMENTS. S. 'I)F-FINITI NS "NEW LOCAL SALES TAX RIEVEIM1 UW' MFANS TOTAL STALES AND USE TA!( PAID BY APPLE, WHICH 15 ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY CITY, AS CALCULATED FOR. ;EACH FISCAL OIJAV,RVER. MINIUS THE SALES TAX I=RI:I'i4F APPLE's COMPANY ST'Ir XF. LOGAlrm AS 4F THE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT' ON APPLE'S RaD CAMPUS IN THE CITY OF C'U "14 TINO AN rD MINUS USE ISH PURCHASES BY APPLr,, IN EACH CASE CALCVL,ATJ, D 1' OR "I"I•flE QUARTER IN QU eST"P01+1 " Letter 83 cont. 17 cont. COMMENT: JULY 1, 2013 FOR CONSIDERATION OF PROIPbSED SALT -S TAx/DEvELOPmF-N AGRE -mr-ll T NoT"E THAT "TOTAL"'5AI.%S AND USE TAIL PAID BY ,APPLE WHICH 19 ACTUALLY RVCEIVVD BY CITY'S 15 AT RATTY OF 1 %.' USE ' TAX ON PUJIRCHASCS BY APPLE CAN BE AT RATE 0IF 81625%. r "�A "PLE oEL,IvFI Eo $9.2 M1I..LIQN IN TALC REVENUE TiC7 THE CT", IN 2012,WHICH COULD INCREASE TO $ C3 MILI.,ION'f1Wd7TK APPLE CAMPUS 2 IF THE CITY AND APPLE EXTEND CURRENT SALES TAX AGREEMENTS ` UNDTER'I"H E TERMS OF A TABS SHARING A+I"- REEMENT' BETWEEN TFN ! CI"T"Y Or CUPERTINO AND APPLE, APPLE RECEIVES APPROXIMATELY C'°N'c OF THE CrTY S ANNUAL SHARE OF SALES TAX REVENUES DjRFc:TLY GENERATED BY"THE ' COPA PATTY. THE CITY SALES TAX FIGURES PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT ARE MET OF THE, PAYIwIENT9 To APPL.I^',. ALTHOUGH THE AGREEMENT IS SCHE;E)U"ED SCHEDULED TO ExPiRu IN 2014 THE ANALYSIS ASSUMES IT IS EXTFNDM INTO THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, IN CONSIDERATION OF A ULVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ' EIETweEm AI-PLE'. AND CUPE"FtTI!NO." SOURCE: ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS GENERATED BY ,I PP1-E IN CUPERTINO BY KEYSIER MARSTON ASSOCIATES PRIE'PARRO F«R A,PPI I - MAY 20 1 FOOTNOTE 15 PAGE 15 1'11T IS APPLIE`'S INTERPRETATION THAT THE USE TAX REVENUES ARE CONSIDERED "01-13 ilevENUE" L ND EP THE PROVISIONS of THE SALms, ' Ax SHARING AGREEMENT, AND ,TARE "T HUJIS NOT SUBJECT TO SHARING wiTTH APPLE."' "FOR PU91^Iposms OF THIS DRAFT ATTALY SI9. IT HAS BEEN A"SS11.IM CWTHAT APPLE ELECTS TO DESIC.NATIE CUPERTINO AS THE POINT OF SALE AND THAT 10 OF THESE CURRENTAND FUTURE SPECIFIC USE TAX REVENUES AR RETAINED BY THE CI"ry. T1-IIS'REVENU,IE SOURCE IS CONTINGENT m Letter 83 cont. 17 cont. ON APPLE AND CUPER`TIN0 NEGOTIATING A MUTUALLY ACCEP1"ABL4K DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT," SOURCE: ECONOMIC ANI) FISCAL IMPACTS GENERATKO By APPLE IN Cupawrimo By KEysen, MARSTON ASSOCIATES PREPARED FOR APPLc MAY2013 PAGE '2 "APPLE IS CONSIDERING (AT ITS SOLE DISCRETION) TO 014SIG(NATE CUPERTINO AS TKE POINT OF SALX FOR THESE USE TAX REVENUES. " "IT is APPLE's INTERPRETATION...!" THF PHRASE "CONSI 1) CRED o Lo REvvNuE,, 119 De BATA WX REFERENC8 IS TO SALES TAX SHARING AGREEMENT. IT is NOT "SALES TAX SHARING AGRE'EMLN'T": IT HATa BEEN AN "AGREEmEwr Ngo R CONSULTATION SgRVICES." THERE MAY 15JF SMVKRAL POTENTIAL. AREAS rop. CONFLICTING INTERPRETtON OF TERMS. SOURCE, eCONOMIC ANo FISCAL IMPACTS GENERATED BY APPLE IN CUPE:RTJNO KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES PREPARED FOR APPLE, INC, MAY 2013 "IT IS EATIMATED THAT MATERIALS PURCHASED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OVAppi-A CAMPUS 2 WILL YIELD $13-9 MILLION OP SALES/USR TAX REVENUE TO CUPEJRTINO�S, GENERAL FUND.,THIS REVIKWU� SOUNCE IS CONTINGENT UPON AFFLE AND CUPERTINo NEeQTIATING A MEJ7UALL-Y ACCEPTABLE. DEVELOPMENT Ac4RE:F-mr-,NT uINDICIR WHICkj APPLE)AFOULE) DIRECT ITS 9 Letter 83 cont. 17 cont. CONTRACTORS CTORS TO DESIGNATE CUPERTINO AS THE POINT OF SALE IzOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS." a." Coxa mEN'T: THE STANFORD M9131CAL CKN`i WR EXPANSION PROJECT/CITY OF PAEN..O AL,"Iro AND THE FAC.EB+oOF, PROJECT "AVE AGREED TO T HI I IBRO SJOI' . "ADDITIONALLY, APPLE WILL PAY APPROXIMATELY $10.6 MILLION OF "'CONSTRUCTION, TA"X" TO THE CITY PURSUANT TOCH APTEMR 3.,32" OF TIMES +C;IT"W's EV[Ia1NIcIIPAt. com." "'FOR CC Nslr'RLICTION OF APPLE CAMPUS 2" APPLE 'VW'IL,U� ALSO PAY APPIRo,M:imA rN»L Y MILLION IN CONST RUCTION FEES TO FUND BUILDING PERMIT PROCESSING COISTS."' COMMENT. CONSTRUCMION FEES ARE COST' IRmo'vERY'. THE APPLICANT IS REQUI tD'To PAY PLANNING PEEIMIT FEES TO FULLY COVER, THE COST OF 5TAIFF T"IM E SPENT ,ON THE REVIEW OF THE PROJECT. ""11"EI E CITY WI'I..I. R E,CRUrr AN ASSOCIATE PLANN R AND ASSOCIATE ENGINEER TO WORK ON THE PROJECT. "1 H9 JOBS WILL BE ADVERTI$'E.„' AS TW YF..AR. POSITIONS." `THE BUDGET ADJUSTMENT IS FOR $296,845 TOTAL, BOTH PQ IT1ChNS WILL BE SALARIED AND INCLUDO ,BENEF"IT"S. IN ADDITION, A MINOR ST,AFFIING INC ".EAGE WAS GADDED TO -rmr= CITY ATTORNEY'S OF VICE„ FOP. THE TIIMI(>YEAR FE,IRIOD."' ■, w ;i Ir �� Ms W "WHEREAS, IA PORTION OF THE 'COIuII'L VNrTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT' EIIJII71~;ET ICOR FISCAL YEAR ZO 13*ZO 114 BUDGET INVOLVES "PASS*T"FAOUIGH" REVENUES PAID °i O "" HE. CITY To COVER THE COST'S FOR VARIOUS cC>I+[3I.IILTAIaS Neenim ON `rHr APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT, WHICH HAVE BEEN, INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET TO PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY ANDACCOUNTABILITY." 10 Letter 83 cont. 17 cont. SECTION 1: THAT PORTION OP TRE PLAWNIING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Q EPAJRTMENT BUDGE I FOR FISCAL, YcAn 2013-20 14 REFLECTING PASS-THROUGH REVENUES PAID TO THE CITY TO CcVEa CONSULTANT AND EXPERT COSTS T' AS',1SCDCIATm w" THE APPLE CAMPUS PROJECT,—" SOURCE: RESOLUTION #1051 CITY 010 CLbPER7114 7 CITY CCD u NCL MEETING G/ 1' '1 / 13 MITIGATION "HOWEVER, THE (ONRAMP) CIP RAMIP IKlE RI^SECµTION IS UNDER ICALTRANS JURISDICTION. THEREFORE", NEIT'H'ER THE, PROTECT 3PlCNS-0R I'+IIOR THE CITY OF I UPIM;WINO CAN IIaNsSC1RZ THt IMPLI ME1NTATiON OF TliE PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES THUS THE IMPACT IS CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE. (SIJ)' '..r�' C►UI'i cE. APPLE, CAMPUS 2 PRt Jmc:T DRAFT F,NVTRONMKNTAL IMPACT REPORT JUNS X112 "IF CALTF ANS DOES NOT APPROVE OVIE IMPRCDVE'MENTS WITHIN 5 YEARS FROM ... 0rVFuoPMIENT AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE DATE, AND THE APPLICANT DEMQI ST 4.TIES THAT IT HAS WORKED CIILi 1E'NTL"Y TO PURSUE CALTRANS APPROVAL To THE SA71SFACTION OF THE PUBLIC WORK:S, DIRECTOR, IN HIS/HER SOLE DISc RETION.. THEN THE AiPPLIC.ANT SHALL UE t,ELII"VED Or R L'SPONSIBILITI' TO CONSTRUCT ' THE IMPROVEMENT AND THE BOND SHALL HE RKIi CASED BY THE CITY AF"T"aR THIE J'�F'PIACANT (SUBMITS FUNDS a EQUAL TO THE UPDATED ESTI MATED C ONSTRUCTIC CC,SR" TO THE. CITY". THE CITY MAY II,TSE'THE FUNDS FC R'OTHF- "C 'ANSrORTATION IM I?RCDV EM E:ITS,....'"' SOURCE: CONDITIONAL DEVELCDF"IM pwr RERwir FOR FAuCF;II300I4 WEST CAMPUS CITY OF MENLO PARK IMARCH 20,20 13 commove: OST OF PROPOSED MITIGATION MgAwSiURES SHOULD LICIT BE C iN IM5RE D INET INCOME TO THE CITY. 11. Letter 83 cont. 17 cont. "—$66 MILLION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO BE BUILT AROUND THK CAMPUS AND IN THE Crry OFCuPF-RTimo....TmF-sF- INCLUDE $50.2 MILLION OF ROADWAY . -I-RAPFIC, iNTERSEC"Io N,, LANDSCAPE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, S 10 MILLION OF OtCYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES, $3.7 MILLION IN PARK LAND.—IN AoDmONTO THESF- ONOrl MIR CAPITAL INVasTMENTs, APPLE WILL ANNUALLY SPEND $35 MILLION ON A TRANSPORTATior4i ]DEMAND MANAGZMENT PROGRAM,... SOUIRCc EcomOMIC AND FISCAL ImpAcYs GENE RATED By APPLE tiN CupwrlNO uY Ki�.YSER MARSTON ArarsocmrriI PREPARED FOR APPLE MAY 2013 AlizAT: JAESE FlADS ARE COST Or MITIGATIOR TO ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC tMPACT Or APPLE CAMPUS 2 AND THE LOSS OF PARK LAND Letter 83 cont. 17 cont. U17 - n MI'MJT7,114E E, '11 -.11 � �: , ;r;y sower, tam , 1 r X ar Cb rraVar L 1r r 1 u x1 s�� — Vaut tmx rat? Lo �4[#tJeLW.1i is �a.� �� a � ;'� �+ �. I.� t-� � ��a" a:lftaa��r�q. "1'it�te�vv,�r��,•,"r parr rrrrn� 1raiAppa�'� uiv�.�cs°<x"�e RIM 1 ^alf:1?P vnA awl Y ^ wr - �Ct1�'i"�".�� u� 1a.e� �.gkr�frariyt�p;rg tea �1ra�a � i-,rr :fiertaxes� � 1`C1kt"q�er�Lti �" �s.� xraoaa^� �ri.11,L fo Teo a�r�rl� ill Pt4x N'R'ily kp. G!b't'ln. . ius ��?4':arra f Uttrrra7 ae'Vutc)x ,v� lA v qyw qr I crow a %� 1SCa '1 N rrr Timm, me, , 0w 1411 er p pal M Ad pi Lt welA ea . ^err A !G'suafsrvrara rr roc 4Irrf aue vol-ev of �*16arlira, l4a bd t e. CoMigo, J, ecdmtu 13s :tun 1m pmph,y^ �ff a aur u a Ca tN'u I r i :W; a jcY a�n is stile n rlrlle & nll N;crrrsw,ms,,'m6r+eLivo1vral ;brrrrT � M�.�r s"iwzu�°� hrx 1�a�a- urr pa�a'pL:�� lra [1.;at ��n�eaU hti �° e hrr.cr ccdd x,8e y lie+ e- fhr 13r' . uGr"ojc; , nfryufrqn iFr "rgrdirrnakir of New^ Lie?' r'°rder�tarr t :stat s�a�YY ti�ri in fia r• A, n 1p"rrnluw q), -rate s oar &.-t o r f pu 9 "v L exlu atrrr k "r `e 'Ovefedyuvr"a•nrrr mf t° ir,i T u t �a�rra M 10,1K to -L oar ar~ t, at a.orrxmraunil: v raa drin v :9 c alba v t'<a9 uy 1 raawa. " h, r'r t f lz 1 dry rrra'rr auralrl"e Grp eu.,:pu �r: c^ r1a r Eve ae taunt N r r j:r rF a.rrl 1S rrrr v " ate t.asi c,'. �7� ae€�umar.dura J''lgl �r"iIIF 'T"hw,kide TI -It Oil re Wag ,r-nw-, ia•ri'a;T u -pan r Un our q � t u:.nm �U::tr fua 1ry'Ae that ��r�1 1°lrrr"r,r°nrr^r�r ti l�s,e cdu.�xk. t�rap�arieelil:�k� eO �P1��[1� hcr" Tr )ey^ L rive zmt itc " ry tl ag7TYdR �I YB ", rr a"dd"F : . lie K rd .1e�!r.they do m, -p,: ytHi;) u a Dsu a ar: r a eai. 11 W ll�rrr t; t^r V,tt - a a ft AN Peva AMS rU o oxn 'Onocyrt:t .. 1�1u:rpa�yl�rre�:° fr�� cu*�ti �p��• rrr�ri,�r�: Im rg r rz,t tb pilitrrrw of t rra s'r,'yhsr sir. C1eTritr�3, umrl ar MinVcrrel�spg a emiira rriatt, �.. r.NRr Jircu ^ r, au 4r,:asup" rsrrarrr9re^°teo r1�r"1irt1¢iutr' kK,* ror ,raf " � �� "�� errr,u aci'. � � rrra,�:aaaata ca��lrrhi:r,rl;g'1rr Lu fi-�a�1 r r � r�ra�rMr�l• rr �%l"'. lr'v.-srt s tYnn-ri.� ril�^�r.laeu�4t r r•arUclrr- luxarlsl'.y."�Umatzt11;r;alayr. dw, sta'c r ' r ro1� u� a ttr c.crsr�,�uDaa rsl F,ar M".11 rma rA1 od, wra rtrrlrh 60wer m4 IdAwn(lo v); I Jih, v rhtro- rsaaL lllr yhel r g..ae w Murphy v trrr rr:euuu a!" {e r:i it lau a• n the -,.U.,. 9 ,arm ` � rami"fur Bragg llratAp .rhuOyrxxxredrurru.LJ.. Plii,';rra; th 6 hs hGaa ar u: Harr prAt jutti4, a:aat,g;ra r-1 fm�rr vco r irk i ar~ —314 kv n-rm,bArdly : 7r1� arc a� rr ar ype�palr?. fur xe ell rw lr f, clrr u, , r VW,-- Ck V VAUk; Ij- r Phry "TIr r' ;rn avrrnn"i r rr r ,r ;"hs. h rr 7 aen. Wtu c, 1r r.d uN .x.% vjh Y-�h�,,jl U die 1Mr�r fur x&ht�pir.rl b w1rtle. rrr rl.y' rtrrr&: alnr tV%.rafgMr"g. Casrs�rnm c �f varfrar` al�rrvrt a1"pal�•rsr rrAr«"�arv•rrrt'1��ra;°r1- Letter 83 cont. W O'Brien.* Facebook l,aunches'Facebucks'to get employees to like Menlo Park merchantl By Chris O'Brien Mercury News Columnlist Uipdal;wd: 11/17JI70111 04:12:37 PH PS7 You see it all across Si licon Valley. Our' largest tech corn pail ies booming, h firing thousa ndu of new workers, and hoarding ever larger piles of cash, At the arra: tiM0, Our focal commUnifles, and governments are fighting to keep their heads. above fiscal waters, cutting back on services, slashing ernployee% closing libraries, With this disconnect UrcAving, it's been heartening to see the way Eacebook has embraced its role in its new hornetown of Menlo Park, The Wast example of Facebook's laudable efforts to increase its local econamic impact, arrives after Thanksgiving with a now program the company is launching rallied "Faoebucks," Facebook plans to distribute Facebucks, essentially $25 gift cards, to employees to use at designated local merchants in downtown Menlo Park. While it's still uncertain just how much financial Impai,1 Facebucks will have, the symbolic importance is huge, It's a good ildleai, and I applaud them doing it," said Menlo Park Mayor Kirsten Keith. "This kind of commitment is also unusual. We're very fortunate to have thern here."' The Facebucks prograrn was written into a Iargqr development agreement the. company signed with the city of Menlo Park earlier this year in exchange for being allowed to employ more people at its campus than the previous occupant, Sun Microsystems, Fac*biook agreed to pay millions of dollars to make up the differenoe between the sales taxes Sun gienerd, and the lower am ourtt of taxes Facebook is projected to create. This is a Gcmmon trisperception: thatjust by landing a big emplulyrar like Facebook, a town's coffers will fill with now tax revenues, If that were true, Silicon Valley's local governments would be the most prosperous on the planet. Instead, too often, they go begging. Part of the issue is that the state of California only levies sales taxes on Iphyslcal goods sold, not virtual ones. As our lives have become more digital, and as bookstores and records stores Letter 83 cont. 18 cont. have shuttered, local governments have taken hits. Sun, because it sold seirvers, generated big sales tax revenue, part of which went to Menlo Park. By comparison, companies like Fac*book generate little or no sales taxes on the ads they sell. Rather than trying to duck respons ibil illy, or squeeze, Menlo Park for other incentives, Facebook offered to pay millions over the next decade to make up the difference in sales tay. ciollectiolw, But part of the econernic prornise of these big companies is That the thousands of employees they bring will move through their towns, spending money on rnfta, meals and clothes, which it turn generate more sale ls taxes for local towns. Yet the car npuses occupued by many of the largest companies can also become islands that cater to an employee's every need. Mapy employees who take the train to Menlo Park then hop aboard a shuttle that takes them to Facebook's headquarters, Why journey three miles to downtown Menlo Park when there's free coffee on carnpus? "When we Moved to Nlenlo Park, our employees had been very familiar with downtown Palo Alto," said Lauren Swe7ey, FacebGok's sustainabtlity and community outreach manager. "we wanted them to connect with downtown Menlo Park, We want them to get to know their new horretown." Swezey said part of the goal is to get employees tamNiar with the shops in town. That same shuttle is available to whisk them back to downtown Merl lo Park to shop or eat. Facebucks, are an extra incentive for employees to make that trek. And the company plans, to encourage teams of eiriployeas to hold meetings off campus, using Facebucks for rnea:ls. Facebook has partnered with 15 local restaurants and shops who will accept the I:anebucks cards. One of them is Menlo Veto Bicycles, owned by Rainer Zaachelein, He said he's been pleased vvith Facebook's commitment to local merchants. Even before Facebucks launches, Zaechelein said the company has made his shop one of the primary vendom for providing parts, and services to the feet of bikes it keeps, on campus, He's also been involved %vith efforts by Facebook to encourage employees to bike to work, and planning for upgrading bike trai8s, As a result of those, efforts, he's already seen an increase in customers who are Facebook employees. In addition to accepting Facebucks, mercharts will offer additional discounts or deals, In the bike store's case, employees using Fac-6bucks. can get an extra 10 percent off bike accessories. Letter 83 cont. 18 cont. 1 think it's a great thing for a company like that to give back to the community," he said, 1 can say that even in the short amount of time FacebuDk has been there. I've Seen More of an impact from them than lever smv from Sun," Faceti,oO also agreed to invest in a number of ph*cal improvements to local tralls, and in efforts lo reduce traffic impact. Held up against those much larger investments, the actual dollars (Faceback is still working out the final details of how many cards will be distributed, and how quickly) that flow from Facebucks are likely to be smaller. fn the coming months, Swezey said the company will be mcnitoring the program closely, see how it is -- and isn't -- being being useid. "We want to see this rnoney spent," she said. Nkie d(in't want these to sit in someone's drawer where they're forgotten." Whatever the ultimate numbers enol direct impact cf Facabucks, the program is reinforcing an important message, that just can't be amplified loud enough: We neodour biggest companies to take seriously their obiigations to snip ort IccaJ economies and governments. 'Mey must understand that over [lie lung run, the future of Silicon Valley depends on having both strony employers and healthy, thriving communities, Vie can'[ have one, without the othe(, I also wanted to share scrine personal news. This is my last column, for the Mercury News. In my 13 years covering Silicon Valley, I've lived through the dot -conn bubble, energy deregulation, the housing meltdown, and the rise of Steve Jobs and 1e (Lk&RQ. I've also V - PL seen an endless parade of faschiating characters and innovative technologies. it"s been my honar to be one of the Mercury News' columnists the lost four years and sincerely appreciate the many readers, who have followed along, screamed at me an many occasions. and sometimes offered a Pat OD the ba& Al I can say is: "Thanks."' Letter 83 cont. 18 cont. ML - 1 -1— 1/4 IP qr 0 t -K 41, kF I No r5 M 4 —MO.,FM W Ap lie TF��.n 61 Ln z am N13 ? 4. Aooli�ofii-e Bjiklrq� SprxI �y Catcla n APO-. ca-,etel.'a a NE. C 1 1 s 02 a 2 �4d t-FHR PFF S Project Site& Service Area l. AwC pw41--14,tAlk, i-i-Ps%li . Figure I Letter 83 cont. 18 cont. teer ML - 1 -1— 1/4 IP qr 0 t -K 41, kF I No r5 M 4 —MO.,FM W Ap lie TF��.n 61 Ln z am N13 ? 4. Aooli�ofii-e Bjiklrq� SprxI �y Catcla n APO-. ca-,etel.'a a NE. C 1 1 s 02 a 2 �4d t-FHR PFF S Project Site& Service Area l. AwC pw41--14,tAlk, i-i-Ps%li . Figure I Letter 83 cont. 18 cont. Letter 83 cont. 18 cont. a te-ries Can't Complete with Google's Frec Food By Daniel DeBalt Friday, March 16, 2012 Since tie started his Uorth Bayshore sandwich shop, with his brother 21 years ago, Victor JadWlah saw the neighborhood double in size, Sun Microsystems and Sili;xn Graphics rise and fall and the dot -corn boom become the dot -corn bust. But nothing really prepared him for Google. Over the las' five years the flow of customers to Country 0911 has steadily declined by 10 percent a year, which Jadallah attributes to the displacement of his customers as Google comes to dominate the North Bay hone neighborhood, "'They feed their employees," Jadallah said of Google and its growing number of workplace cafes. "It's hard to compete vAth free." From the car traffic, Jadlallah estimates there are at least as many eirnployees, in the neighborhood as there were during the late 1990s dol-com boorn, but he's only seeing a third of the business he saw then. Illustrating the problem, the Gouintr/ bell had hoop osilering regularly to the former Microsoft nampus on Villa Street and Shoreline Boulevard, but that stopped last year when Google bought that" campus too. And GQoglu has not plaosd any orders to replace the lost catering business, Jadallah said. He says, he regularly hears from his ciastorner that Google Ihas bought their employer's building and they'll be leaving soon, such as the woman employed by Neuropace who gave hir some bad news lost week. The medical devce company is on $horebird'Way where Google has bought most of the land for redevelopment into new Google armcies. "As you drive up and down the street these are all Google buildings now," Jaidallat. said, "All the businesses that used to be here, a slew of biotech cornpa:nies, tech companies — sorne have moved out on their own but Google is basically inhabiting all these buildings," Jadallah had some hopes that things would turn around until the "nail in the coffin" happened early last year. Google bought the building housing the Country DO at 1674 North Letter B3 cont. 18 cont. 8horetine Blvd, He said he 11vas told by Google to relocate ---- his lease will not be renewed when it expires in four years. Jadallah said he asked a Google rep,esentative, his contact for the lease, if the Country Deli could serve as an official Google cafe. Jadallah said the reply was, "Not on my watch," from a Google real estate vela. City records have since indicated Google's intent to build a cafe for employees directly beh Ind the Country Deli at "01 Joaquin Road. "We've put our heart and soul into this, my brotheiranid I " Jadallah said. "It's disheartening." Moving Out Jadallah said he asked Google to "help us relocate in some way," perhaps by towering the rent, but received "no cooperation "atsoever." Because of this story, Google has resumed Wks with Jadallah and he hopes to be able to get out of his (lease before it expires in 2016. as it would be "a miracle" if he stayed in business until then, he said. A Google spokesperson told the Voice that on more than one occasion Google has offeredl relocation assistance in the past for businesses in "similar situations," "Ifs an expensive proposition to move and very difficult to find a location," Jadallahi said. He has five employees, all of mohom have families to support. "'This neighborhood was good to us fur rnany, many years," Jadallah said. ":It doesn't seem right that a landlord can just empty out all your customers and collect your rent" It's not just the Country Deli that's not a decrease in business. 11(3*o,gle is really killing us," said Dervis Yulksel, Gwner of Falafel and Kebab on Plymouth Avenue, which he says has seen a decline in business over the last three years as Google le)(pands. He said he's spoken with nearby eateries Hon Sushi and Sunny Bowl, and "all of us want to move out." BU-. Yuksel has 10 years left on hls, lease, The situation illustrates the challenges of planning a second downtown on North Shoreline Boulevard vyith outdoor cafes among t,,ie inviting spaces, as proposed by Google representatives and others during the city's general plan update. If the area continues to be dominated by Google, Jadallah said he doesn't see how restaurants, arguably the heart of any such cornmullity, could stay in business without a lunch crowd. Even if another 1,500 homes were built in the area, as Google has advocaled, Jadallah notes that those residents woUtd be mostly Google employees, who now number over 10,DOC in North Bayshore. Letter 83 cont. 18 cont. A Google spckespersan said Googte continues to he interested such a redevelopment plan for housing on North Bayshaire with: relail cn the bottom floor. "More, than 2,0100 Ocioglers and their families I11ve and work in Mountain View, participating in, the community and supporting tocai businesses and schools,"° said a statement from Google, "In, addition to supporting the community through a variety of grants and sponsorships, we regularly engage wffi local vendors and contractors that are essential to helping the busil ness fun smoothly. As we continue to hire in Mountain View, we are committed to working closely with the city and the community through our growth," The Google spokesperson added that Google ox*as mostly servebreakfast and ILI nch, though dinner is also avaHabte at some of Google"s cafes. Jadallah, ryas skeptical that North Bayshore restaurants, could sunfive on dinner business alone, "How would I survive on a, customer base that would, not come in my store?" Jadallah said, Letter 83 cont. 18 cont. Construction Sailers & Use Tax Sugge'stions; Development Agreement for 5tantord Medical & City of Palo Alto 'Tbe S(INIC Parties shall use their bot eff-arts to maxi)A7,e the CILy's allocaLion of sales and u -.m UX aSSQCII�ited With P70jeCU, construction and operation cis folows: (,4) Desigwhotl of Project Site for Construction Period Sales and Use Tax Purposes the SO MC Parties shall u,se their best efforLs. to :l°c extem. allawcd hy law to. (1) obtain all permits and Jcenses necessary to rnaximize the City's allocation of cons Lrucduri use taxeg de-4,ed frorr. the Project; (ji) designate, and require, its conte actors and subcon tractors to designate, ffie Property as the o I a cc of sale of all "rixtures' fw-nlshed acd/urinstalled as part of the Project-, (iii) designatc, and require all rails cantroctors and 5tibcontractors to designate,. the Propertyas the plaice of useof a I I "ma.er'ials` used in the cunstruuLien of the Project; OV) r04ujrcr:Ill conwactors and subconLl'aCLOVII tOLHOLatc die I ora I sales and usp tares derived from their contracts directly to the City. Development Agreement for Facebook/West Campus & City of Menlo Park "A commitincia to wurkwith the City so that eligUeportions of flic sales taxL-s paid by certaia qualifying contractors, subcontractors 2nd rnatoria" st. ppliprs wth respect to the cunstrcction of the Wcst Campus prnjpct areallocated to the City;" "A coinniitDimt to work wil:11 the City to maximize the City's capture of use tax arising fn)m the pUrchase of furnjsh-."Tig�i, equipment and personid property farthe in-L'Jal occupancy of ffie neer building, on the West Campus;" Soirce: Facebook West. Canpus Project — Development Agreenirnt Term Sheer Letter 83 cont. 19 john Ten anes, D'i rector Global Re al T st-il te/Faceb o ok jawiary 16, 121013 A dUUSill -."'W LOinstruLtion cuntr�ct ffir the West Campus to reqLdre qualifying subconwactors (Le, subcontractors for S5 millionor larger With SUbcantractors that have rcsOci-sales -ax pprmiits) to gpr a .5iib-jnr-nit to designate Menlo lllivkas point of sale so tha sales/use tax oil materials is allocated tio the City." "Cooperatro-n with Menlo :.'ark to seek to have use taxes for large purchase orders (i.e. orders over 5500,000) tor init-'al occupE-ncy nf West Campus to have use taxes allocated to the il-y° Source: City of Menlo Park City Council Meeting January 22, 20 13 Staff Report #13-013 Letter 83 cont. 19 cont. Letter 83 cont. PublicAccess Calabazas Creek Linkage versus Calabazas Creek Trail Calahazas Creek Linkage Proposed by Apple The Pedestrian s*o Lite a I ongNorffi Tantml Averl tie associated with Calabazas Creek (beLween Pruneddge Avenue and Valluo Parkway) will be an improved experieticu. Tho walkway itself �vjll provide mare comfort and safety, lmiroved materials, planting,acid marked biq ,/cic lanes. Row interpretative signage wE! be located adjacent tip Crook viniv sheds at the. North TartaLl Avenue crossing, the 1-280 overpast, and at the Vallco Parl"way crossing. Within the 5 0 -foot zone adjacent to,,nc Cala? azaps Creek right -cat -way, ptan ting follows guidebries and standards for larpid use near strearns frmm both the California, Natlve Plana Society and Uiv Santa iOdra Valley. WaW7 District's Qualifyin-ff Plant Ust. The prciect includes only lucacultivars of nadve spccles along the Creek, Planswil.' be reviewed with the Sana Clam Valley Watcr District fnr Final approval. Source. Aj)pIeC,,jnjpjjs2 Praj-cct Description April 2013 Page 14 20 Site Connectivil-ty, Linkages and Public Improvements Exhibit A-6 Site C orulectivity, Lim„ ges an d Pifth I ic IRwea lm Improve nients Scurre.: AppIPCa)TtPUSZ Project Description April 21) 13 TIA8e 17-1.9 Page 24 Comment., There is NO pubfic a cceii to lands pe 01 part of Apple p ro peL-ty Suggestions: Adher to City of Cupertino General Plan, North VaHco Master Plan and South Vallcop .Master Plan for Calabazas Creek Trail. 11 Collaborate w Santa Clara CounLy Valley Water District. Apple Security Plan allos security of this area. Facebook (West Campus) con nectq via an undergcound tuvirel with Facebo&s Hiist,Calllpus oil Ulefather' side orthe expressway, Source: Facebook Chooses Gehry by Bonnie Eslinger Sjul joss ?Aercury News August 2.5, 2012 PubliL Access to West Campus landscaped areas adjacent -m the Bayfront Expressivzy undercrossIng easement. Souj-ce; Faicebook Wcst Campus Project - T)Pvelnpnient Agreement Term. Sheet john samara s, Djj*ect.or G'obal Real Estite/&�'LebWk Ian uary 16, 7 0 13 Public Access to the lurid8caped area in the vicinity oNne widercrussing nuar W.'11*,%v Road. Soui,ce: City of Menlo Park City Colticil 1vjet!tjngj4,jnj�ary 22,201 Staff Report # 13-013 "The campus will :n&jdc a parklike erararce off WAlow road open to the public. A uuinel beneath Hayfror.: Expressway will c!oinne(7. Faucbuok's Lwo campuses. Suumer Facebook Gets OK to Bijid Second Campws by Bonnie Eslijiger San Jose Mercury Ncws Jvlzrch 29,2-313 i� Letter 83 cont. 20 cont. 'As parL ofthe Past. Campus component of the project, Facebook is upgrading the exstfixg undercroming by making improvements to allow Facebook employees and members of fne public to utilize the undercrossing via bicycle or footto bypass the at -grade, crossing of Bayfront Expressway, As part of the West Campus compoientofthe project, the undercrossing would be further improved to allow use by the Facebook people inaver system, in addition to bicycle and pedestrian usp. To onsu ru bicycl jst*s a n d pcdcstrian safuty in the u inde rcroi-Ong, traffic con real devices would be installed on both sides of the undorcrossing for controlling ingress// ress of the people inuvur bybLein h1LQ Lhe tart ,ea°aWra slag '" Source: C" of Menlo Park Planning Commission meeting September 24 12 Plannin,E Cu.minission SUM ReporL Page 6 Agpndq Item 4T7.2 City of Menlo Park City Council meeting October 30, 2012 Staff Report #12-161 Page 218 .UlelLdd Ueil' 44-1 Samsuiig PUBUCLYACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE: The pr;'va-lely owited open space within the project that Is lorated along pkjhlicrjg1hts=of-'%vav and padp.sWan sidewalks, walkwaysaild plains shall be publicly accessible. The applicant shall have the right to establish and enforce reasonable ruies and regu.'atloit for the use of the open space. (?ROJECT-SPECIFIC CONDITION) Source: City of Mountain'Vievo Fiadir.-gs ReporL/Zoning Pv.,'iruiL for ApplicaLion 4.13.1 '-R April 26, 20.13 1 'age 7 - General Plan 2000-2020 Secdol) Z Lall<l Ose/Communily De6igll Open Space, Park and Trails 2,) Calabazois Creek There Ns In opportunfty for a trail aluiig Cala'jazas Creck that would the Vallco Letter 83 cont. 20 cont. planning area to Cupertino high School and Creekside Park. The.Sonw Clara VaJeyWater District's Cleaii..Sale Ci-eeks,,ziidNatural FlioodPi-otecftii Plain"' calls rur idwilify'ng recreatiou upportunities along the Cireekas part of the ffiwd protection project. North Vallco Master Man -Phase t The segment of Cqlaba7w; Creek that run-; through the Study Area is intended to be improved as part of the Calabazas Crer-kfrail. , 5. Walkabfflty/ConnecxivlcyConsistent with company security requirements, plan new new devElopniont patterns and amenities to tacilitate walkability anc, convenient corer miun in Lhe study area acrd LU adiatwit areas. .5.2 ...Hricourage the provision of facilities that provide connectivity between Apple CaMpuses. and between North Vallco and City C enter/Crossro Lids arid De An'la College, 5.3 Creek trail access. Work ivith Apple and Water District staff to expinre the possibility of trail access along 'Calab4zas Creek, while evaluating flood proteection, .wL:urity and liability issue& south Valico Master Plan/2008 Chapter 5: Circulation There are opportunities to develop bike paths withn the plan area and they may be !;tudiud includiag cunLaciing the Santa Clara Valley Water Dis.rict Lo discuss putential opportunities, cdlabaza!i Creek is aa inipurLaIlL vleluenL Lot.ae plan area in idtatiLy and connectivity, There may be opportunities within the Alar; area for new developments to connectto and suppflrtthe implementation of pcdcsitrian and bicycicconncctj on a Io ngthic Calabazas Creek trail. ;abject to "nput froirvarious comnitinity stakeholders. and surrolundlinglandowner,, znd eva'va'dng flood protection, security, and I iiabil ity 8sues, the trail mplcmcntatjon may prolvi d c 8ccc5s to Vollco Pa Highwny 280 underpass andTiintutt Avenue. Santa Clain Valley Watter Di4triet Thu Serrata Clara Valley lVa-.-er District (SCVWDJ owns and maintains the Ca"ahazas Creek right- o f-vk.-ay (Including the segment within the pruj et.L site) T1:ruughLire Clua:i,Sufv 4 Letter 83 cont. 20 cont. Creeks and Natural Flood Protection Plan, SCVWD parmorsvAth elties and counties to incorporate trails, pi-vi-kand recreation opportunities along creeks into exu sting or now flood control projects. Apple Campus 2 Project ELivironmental Impact Report/june 201.3 The impact of ithe Pruneridge Avcnuc closure: "Pedestrians from the neighborhood %r:SantaCiara to U)e VaSL of the prujecl site who have a destination to the West ofW066 Road (such as the Cupertino K"lage Sliiopping Center) would have to detour around the site using'J'antau Avenuc.�, I InTnestead Raad and Wolfe. Road to reach their destination.' "Although the impact cannot be di r -=0y and fully mitigated with the project, Appie, could jnnprovc tne conditton resulting from the roate closure by contribLting funds to study pul.ojtLial off-sAc podestrian and bicycle improvements that would partially mitigate the impact. There are currently twfi op�.ortunities for trial connections in the vicinity: (1) Ca laha7sq Creek trail and (2) along the drainage channel south of 1-260 behdreen the existing Apple Infinity Loop carnpus area and'Vallov Parkway." 'Thc first opportanity includes a publicly acce.ssibIc niij It--nsp, pnth Alinng ;he Galabazils a'eek, to this, north and south of ApliiJe Campus 2 Cahliuugh iluL through the Apple Campus u me o securlLy cw,curtis). 'rhe southern wament would connect -.o the sidewalks ai rid bicycle bin es oil Valico Parkwayand to th c p -o posed 1-280 trail! (disrn %spd bellow). The llorhern segment would connipa to theside walks anti bicycic lanes on Hnniestead! Road. These collnecLions wok,."d bri Apple employees both for commuting and recreation, as wel'as the pub"lic. The connection of a bicycle/pc0cstrian entTance, for ernplogees on'y Lit the sauthcrn leg oft,r, Calahaz3s Creek trail under lw2 GO, could be adced, if deterrifted to be feasible." Tie second opportunity is an east -west multi -use path alon p- T-28ff Th P. route %vo,I)d 4n extend from. Tunt-du Avenue to De Ar za Boulevard and would run along the exisdna ji-1-19ati oil ti,1#1L-Uf-Way alung ln284) and along existing surface streets near tine Vallco Shol)ping-Mall, If possible, d Pathway shOUld be built on the. M& Of hhe, SOUndwall opposite t'.1c freeway...."' Impact TRANS -31; The proposed closure a(Pruncridge Avenue between Wolfe Road and Tattitau Aven uo would have signiftant impacts on, pedestrian access because it would reduce accessibility for pedestrians and 0inlinate pedestrian facilities (City of Cuper0no). (5) R Letter 83 cont. 20 cont. MidgaUon Measure TRS NS-31� Ivoplerneiit Mitigatd�--)u Measures Plav-2 and Plan -3. The mul-.i-use paths and the pedestrLan 'fnpruvemeir.s proposed as part of Lhe projecL would leSSCIft thO irap(-'CL but would not raffigate the impact to less -than -significant levet as the etiminazion of exiNting pedeKtrian farflitles would Still OCCUr. (.SU) Comment: Mitigation Measures PLAN -2 and PLAN -3 do mot address the impact, 'Tu inifigaite tbi,,3 signifir-ant impacit the, project would necd to providu a pedmitrion connection acrost; the project site that is appruximately the same lengh as Cie connection via Prunerid0OAVOWC. Such a pedestrian coftnection has been determined to be infeasib'edue to Apple's privacy and security roquirc!mc-its,' This pedestrian connection Is the Cal,abazas Creek Trail. Apple's second'"opportunity'" ofan east -west multi -use path alontg 1-2.80 on the side of the som)d wall oppnsit.r the freeway, from the Apple Cat pus 2 to *the Infnity Loop Campus, would hr.PHLt the~ privaq aild SeWdqr of the Cupertino reside ntis] neighboritood throLgh whlch,:',Iis padrway passesa Main Strieet Cupertino, GellerA Plan Trail Policy 2-73. Opon Space and Trail Linkage, Dec,ic-#e or acqwire open Space lands and trail linkages to connect areas and providc fo- a more rxallwblc community, TrailStrateg : Trail PrujULLS. 11111)" eme nt Lite Lrail pii-ojec-.s describes* in this clew vont. V Trail Strategy: Dedicated'i'rails i)r iEasements, Require dedication or easements for trails, as well as tIxir implenwatation, as part olf tne c.eve I opn, eftrocess,ivhcre P. appropriate. Consistency: —the project is providiDFg, the neressary pMestrian pathway fr-.,in Steven: Creek Boulevard to the -Future trail head iturth of Vallci Parkway. Sources Main Street Cupertino Project 111)raft Fr,)47.v.;P.d Environmental Impart'Report Octobur 2008 Cit .y of CuCupertillo B'cyvie Pecestjan Transportation Plan R Letter 83 cont. 20 cont. 9ikeway 12: Alves Diiv: - Bandley Drive- Lazaneo D.ftvc - Forest Avenve -ArnherstDrivc Construct hikes path between Portal ! rho alFnd Porta Park to Conned LO PurLal DriNee Work wit. Vallco Shopping Ceaer tD pro%qde access through wall to Valfro Shopping f C n tpr AttraCLUrs ui'Liriks. Valivo Shopping Center, Apple,. Possible extension: Ainherst Dr ivo to Vaillco Shiopp[nti g Center Bikmvayl3: Cireenleaft)rive-Mariaii-Avei-.ue- MerriLl Drive- PUrLRIDriV-U Attracrors or Links; -,.AppIe—,VMlco Shopping Center Poss"'Ne extension, MurrAL DrIve ti) Vallco Shopping Ceniwr Source: Bicycle Transportation Plan City of cuperthio BiLVC1C Ptidestrian Cornmission Adup-.ed May 3, 201.1 Agenda Item #7.- 13icycle/Pe-destrian CozinectiviLy Bctwvcjl Pr(-,;cnt Pnd Pliture Apple Campu3es Minutes for his meeting unavallablc So'jrce: [3icycliPod'lv�-.;t:,jqnCo-niliLqsioin CiLy Urcupel-Lino Novernber 15, 2008 "Apple uvould improve existing security and maintain a hi h level of security on the proposed INIMPUS through operation of -9 prlvote security divisiun and uw of securiq, measures. Security nleilsOres jjIdudv,-Lhv ijwtallatlol (if metal, pidet- SLYIC fencing aroitnd the entre site."'' Saurec, Appl(i Page 580 IN Letter 83 cont. 20 cont. ,'Because access tothointerior of rhe sicowould be restricted (t -e %ite,1,-,,ouId be surrivurdedlry a securi�t yFencie), de.'wrelopyne.nr.ref fhpprojf-rtwfiild prucludic 1:.^. 0 Batu r u development of a trail along Calabazas Creek ill this location. 'I'liet-cforic, the project iivoulid preclude, Cie construct nn of a contiguous trail along tit, Calabazas Creek riparian corridor, which has the potential iw scrive is a 5 recreaJonal amenity in the CitY.N Comments: Ealabazas Creek is not part of the Apple property,; Calabazas Creek is Santa Clara County Witter Diswict prnperty, public property. The existing fence by Santa Clara County Water District resitiricts acuessi to Santa Clara County Water District property. The Security fence isolates the Santa Clara Counky Water District property frojith Lhe Apple Campus 2, Tile Apple project does NOT preclude the construction of the Calabazas Creek Trail,. Calahazas Creek cui-rently functions as a flood channel and is fenced, by the SCVWD in parL LU address safety and security concerns.—fn additinndeve',oping, the crecktrail within the site would comproir. is ° thiv pf'o.jectr,.Jplicanesked- secui,iqrobjcctive by permittingv'.ae publicm traverse,, the silt. Source: Apple Campus 2 Project Draft Envirionrinental. Impact Iteport Page 593 Comment: The public is avicessing public property. There is NO public acc'ess to land"apied portions of Apple property. ...the City considers the absence of a public trail thrutigh Lhe site along Calabazas Creek to be a %i8nificant impact in the context of General Pilau policies that promote the development of a trail segment along the creek (and the potential function of this trail as a recreation and conanuting amenity. SULLrce: Apple Caunpus 2 Pmject Draft EwAronmental Impact Report Page 5,94 11 Letter 83 cont. 20 cont. Impact PLAN -3: The, proposed project would not fully imptement policies In the Land Use/ Cornimuni(y Design Elements of the General Plan related to tht provision of a proposed trail segment .hong Calabazas Creek, and this conflict would result in an environmental impact. (S) 'The proposed project wo-ild nct imp] enient the proposed trail seg meat along Calabazas Creek shown in Ccrieral Plar Figarc 2-1. Becaaso access to the interior of t.e site would be restricted by a perimeter security fence, deviplopment of the project may prerl r de the MW re develnpment of as tr&il a'.ong ti,.le creek se anent witbin -,he project sit )e .. .... "...Calabazas Creek currently functionias as flood cbanriel and is fenced by the SCITWD in part to address safStyr and securi'.y concerns.' ".-Apple has rai%cd conCorns tMt the fundamenwi objcctive of a secure campus would be compromised with the provision of a public trail iia mediateiv.adjarprt. to or through -lie projprt. site. Because sucli a traill,depending on its design a nd associated landscaping, may not be completely visible from the, street, the pos8ibility of UnSlUthorized access into the project site may be heighten....' 'In addition, the riparian co rrldor %,vithtn tli e project site terminates at a culvurL uader 1-280, If a tra il at Cala baa Creek were provided, it wotild either tertninaw aL the 1-280 culvert or would require a crossing tinder or over 1-280- A connection .ander 1-290 would be a potentially costly engineetIng, solution or would only oi perable d u rhi the d ry seaw n (i.e., unavaila'ile during -.he wintcr months when Calabazas Crvek experiences high kvater levels)..,.,. Source; Ap,,,))e Campus 2 Project Draft Environmental In ipact Report April 2013 Nge 1�2 Itwould certainly the des�irable thatApple participates in the design of the Calabazas Creek Trail to address its concerns. lir Tis assurned that, Apiplie vrill con."ic.1 its own fenc.e on its own property adjacent to the SCVWD1 property of Calab:azas Creek resulting in dual fencing. Apple may elect tG provide a socarity buffer zone on its property bet "n the two fences. 9 Letter 83 cont. 20 cont. Apple is Wready planning to assist with the landscaping of the riparjain corridor of Calab:Rzas Creek and would be able to provide assistanice with its design and associated landscaping to meet its security concerns. One reason the trail soinetimes closes duriug the winter months is for potential or acatal flooding at places where the trail passes through a Eunnei next to the creek like at Higbway 101 During ulmiure of the trail due to seasonal concerns, direct the public to Apple's alternate Calahazas, Creek Trail Route. Freeway 280 should not be considered a obstacle. There is an existing culvert for Calabazas Creek under 280. The Stevens Creek Trail has utilized exiAing culverts and bridges as underpasses under Middlefield Road, Highway 85 and Highway 101. Facebook has proposed it tunnel unider State Higlhway 84, to connect its East and West. Campuses San Francisco Bay Trail "Trall advocates ixaint Cheviron tic) let the (San 17rancisco, flay Trail) path traverse its refinery, chi ally]lin kingPoint Ric mond and PuintMolaLe. reasons,"" "..in a adden'jm to the engineoring firin's rcpoa ran Lhe ruatter. Tfieiupoi'Lstates ,Cli-.vi,oii's smurity concerns could"oe addressed easily." to ... -r a fenced trail would ii 'prove SeWrity. ItwoLL'dlie closers itsLindowli,-IlidChevron coljldinstmi�I v1doo carneras." Source: Dustup Over Miissing Link of Bay Trail by Chuck SquaLriglia San Francisco Chronicle April 2, 2007 Chevran vitill.—give Richmond an casement to help complete the Hay'Vriail, a path that will en.-en-ually enciriclu, the bays," Source. Chevron, Richmond Settle Tax Dsputo 10 Letter 83 cont. 20 cont. by David R. Bakeir &:in Frar.cisco Chronicle May 13, Z010 Agilmit Set Agilent Security Feixe Photo The Proposed Project: kwould change the designation of a 1.1 acre portion of the site designed Park and Open Space, would reduce the acreage of land designated for future parks in the City," Suiume: Apple Campus 2 Project Draft Environment Impact Report June 2013 Comment; We would recommend thatthe Calabazas Creek Trail be located on maintenance road on the cast side of the Creek; thata parkbe placed in Tantau Development Phase 2/13uildilng 13 site to replace the 1.1 acre park, Letter 83 cont. 20 cont. rgi" r4 t Xc;, ,0 61 rgi" r4 t rgi" Letter 83 cont. 21 cont. Letter 83 cont. 21 cont. sm Letter 83 cont. 21 cont. NN 14 lu Cl I. s- sm Letter 83 cont. 21 cont. NN 14 lu Cl sm Letter 83 cont. 21 cont. NN 14 Cl sm Letter 83 cont. 21 cont. I -•„ ck—mar gun �.ax�c All �. ,.- i� k � � Ni ^Ya"R �f ^r" 1 �^"^•� ��x Letter 83 cont. 21 cont. -•„ ck—mar gun �.ax�c All �. Letter 83 cont. 21 cont. V Letter 83 cont. 21 cont. I I Letter 83 cont. 21 cont. crF E Hca as jm �a M -1 ELT ,D'RE -OdlAb 2T— .......... . I Letter 83 cont. 21 cont. Letter 83 cont. se-curity Draft ErIvirionmunt-al Impaut Report c siders only separate project alternatives., Pili s�asAld consider the benefits o"conibinftthe proposcd Pruicict with no rfaqure of I IrUneridge Avenue by r eta ining Prunar"dge Avenup at its pure sentgrade and extendingtea Apple Campas 2 over Pruneridge Avenue. SUCUTity for.ce would lie the same. S00 attoclied Scptcm [lie r 2011 1 etter in ^Psponsp to Envirionrient Impact Report Scrping I Comments. 22 Calabazas Creekis not part of the Apple property; Calabazas Creekis Santa. Clara County WaLer0ii.swicl property, PILLblic property. The existing fence by Santa Cliara County Water District restricts access to Santa Clara Co u wy Water fill strict property, The security fence isolates tiro Santa Clara County Water nistrict property from the Apple Campus 2. It is assumed that Apple will const.: elect its own f�ncc on its own property adjacalftt Ut tile SCVWD property of iCat,atraizas Creek and its fence, resulting in dual tencin& Apple May elect to provide a security buffer zone on its property between the two fences. On both sides of the Santa Clara; County Water District Calabazas Creek property there is a 5 , ol) feet setback. See Site Plan - South Figure III - Sh Draft Environment Impact Report To the northwestof Calabazas Creek the 64ane drivewaywitk, a security cheokpoinitto the parking, structure creates am open buffer zoLle and there is elevated topography, the Corporate Auditorium and appraxintatety 600+ feet -of opea space to the Main Building. See Site Plan - South "..An an adidwidurn to the Ongince rfrig firm's ruport on t� o mattor, The report states Chevron's securi ty co nee rns c ouid be a did ress ed easily.' %.a fenced trail would improve s8curity. It would be clme,4 atsundown, and Chevron coul� install video cairkeras,' Suiuruiv: VusLup Over MissingUrtkof Bay Tr�dl by thud qu atrig] ia San FrPne.1w.of.hrion'de April 2, 20(17 Chew mi will.. give Richm in nd a n eas enien -, to help com p I ete the Ray Tra], a pa th it haL will ovenw-ally enc"rck, the bay," Source. Chevron, Richmond Settle T ax Dispute by David R, Sana Francisco Chrordicle IALy13, 20101 M= PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE 0 P EN SPA C13; TP�e Pi-iV;Ately OWned Opts la NPULe WA1111111 dw pru,'uctthat is, lxatcd Jong public rights=3f-way and pcdestHn 5jdtA1,*a-'v% Walkways and Olaza s shall be Pau b1ich,scrPq.qih1,-.. 7he—applicxitt shall have the rightto establis"i and enforce roasonable rules and regulation tbr the use noise open space. (PRQjFC7-5PFCJFJC CONDITION) Source: CAy of Mountain View Findings Report/Zoring Permit forAppliCatiOT1 113-12-R April 26, 2013 Page 7 Letter 83 cont. 22 cont. 'R ✓�,i rj� ui T'r i "T m l""' �^'.li'� r"l �TEE riM 45 +wy"dw F A "ir y ij v 4 _• �, w CYC ,i, x iT,yL, U; � � 'a: Y �� al 4* v �I ` fid• y. Y' �''x 1�'' �d�4,:'fi M+J��r."�%�• ,Y �y"t a�. Y',�� IM1'.A,f.M�, y y,� l�M1i�. n��'YI�9'��r •, µ A " 4 ��a � ." p � ,fir r � t /"9c".�re �'ri c i'"', I a♦ �Ya.u�"e �, i �y' . ._ ^"r," ve re, J' ,.� ,�,, irr a � J ,��, ��i °roe'' a� �" �r � � re`�w,�•x�.�• Me spa�, r �wr' ow u 6 ,g M 'i� �Im�/�k�,�C�ry "Y�.' ym�^•��www HL ryr rr;i Letter 83 cont. 23 cont. Letter 83 cont. 23 cont. Letter 83 cont. 23 cont. #� { 7013 a�' 7j gTV � Letter 83 cont. 23 cont. S20 Glu 1 k �a a l a� ,. µ c —,—rem.....-:..5:.�.. m • . ! .Y � II 6 J 4 w rp � #� { 7013 a�' 7j gTV � Letter 83 cont. 23 cont. Letter 83 cont. 23 cont. lir YAN larkspurSan Rafact. e , '�d!l,?jm ca'b:"YcSii bt i9Pn"3 kt lk+Ss ate° ,,,+5-o ;„moi sgr-ae- 3La, W,kll f A.I:'3:. But 1r,rrd_-aa1 � `:a2ar�ll ar'LruTa ,1tbf, "'�s.w?;;peks�.tayYtiesYr;at#¢_'a1' N'Y.�,r+..l'aJ�M^�,9,'ACij�+Fn4A.,iMsk: ')_r4uasl- *Tt ttie?WA"Ps"r... m".^a.. �'„"�d I•'�;�a� fIwLY '"rarfiwrv,�A. much q r_, t%1:40^ T o a a I(;wha At swl T,' url m;L.:rien':wsrY wI W Is f•U„''•ran ".. �ttrf fw-C 4: rry lrr , _~s,.r wL"%rc-:s F, 1Ci' r 4 ..eaaw+w _L anZ''.vlxE'. In an 3kuis,p mss'.-, K;kwo rasa Old yam” @min �Y;nWN,wa e.;wr,'r4 awl ASmfPLT*Dg, wwSka Do "�a st �dsa.�r"ry 'Ilmrrl.l 3e r.> v*w w PU-,KTW. 5waM'7150 ;7 'T=. to °rte iD-4 rcr tr'"r N -H -R a0=Jac.tLl w-3c(waslugm, IfilwizE6 rar .* fr. lsfi w c -T, I I u! a • :, ,a.• tf'�:�', :kart=r c'. ;.rryasr- Trcra "I,:>�e'aa^�rtWv.a�,'ar: pr,Y^,wc na I-4,X!W9} 7aI$W313 C .=tb0LzIdm6 %, Q1 rcm,7 CM: lu tat; Ire do °ii"nti n Ik`r""3 wig aP Fp rye Lie E',^r*riMG'vs:�r'w",kxa^r s,waer d t 4ILe�iCl'';u�iy "J�x""+•ilNi i'�rrawo 'qfX : t`Mr EMS SX Fran- 84uM»:Qu.s*... SU'te b I ¢ aev:�.','iut l�Ir`7t4. (nilr1fe e. r'«+17wl ' .�u s:yr�, x vway� Cwasvaa,.e} a.wvr+aww�.+l,'c.°�,.,,Z�ama Fta'�'+a•i'.urev''� :i.+w�ID'�.yv��r's:* c�4°h'"_':�r_"aka>n3 �xHah�. ,:tuod 1dlbR.''w. sa. R,^Ks egLnS><m1'dboArt "a <" rs'xra aex'we End pYer"uaf.%dv,. gar a y a ': ti yidie^; c*,O 1.M;.tt—D,;J;d.'r a'`r"t ems, CIA.u� zea a� �_??Vr.^t� �c of A.F_metc: ii,l.m,:j�°rc&1- tr,w, el, Q.Iv-F.Kwsrd f'F?LL :�-nom �2 pw 2L ^ ill t < w.ee,Z:g t,Ie t 1 "Avc r1 r;:Sy a ate: raw; `-,--mtr:lf"c"i fit I`...,Y,.yyrcl. VY 2"!"7»veAVAll, I ca 0 f? n %V vedesua -u lwia p ou^ : -t=x the- k :vg urs kyr Pray w c{�sar. talIu� emoo,44y a 3Ider.J,Y-wa Rc pLo roi flip ��t'�r a"', AIly"a.a d:+sa• wig: Waa'µ3 LIC fin".1Ai y", Letter 83 cont. 23 cont. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN�T/COMMUNITY BENE�FITS "Under State law (CzthFarr.' a Government Code Section 6,584�-65869.5),(levelopitiL-IlLagrb!eineilts enable the Cit�y to grznt a longer -to rmapproval in exchatigef(irdei-non,.;tra'31eiiiblicbencftts." "Staffrecummcnds that the CitvCaunci. provide direcdo-n for negotiating tht Development, Agreement. -based un Lhe fulluwing paramewrs: 1. Provide a source til" nn-gnin:g revenue.... Z. Provide one-time items in the form of public irrprovementN or studicis that wuuW benefit thi2 surround ing arc----, 3. Provide a rnechanisn, for ft1r)ding programs and somces that moet oi-goirg community reeds. 4. I Pursue a tr,p cap penalryarnowit that i% sever p onnugh to ensuril complinuce with the prDicct description," "The framework.., are generally ab ove and beyond mitigati (in rn easu re 5 associated with the EIR.� "The framevvorl(, ou--Jued abuve ivilccLs the staff recommendation based on all of the'varlovs jjlpu-.,, received W date, Tbe Council has the option ofsupporing thu frarncworla, modityinc, the franici-vorlt, or pruposing an alternative frarnework. Uegardina of which option the Council chooses, it should provide direction to the agotiating teani in order for negocWioas Lo bogins" "'At the conclusion of negiotiation,, the negotiating. to cry will present a term sheet for consideration lad" thpCounrA. Afte.v Coline.11 acceptor ncvoftho term sleet, sta-f-wi.. prepare ttiecomplete DevelopmientAgrye ei-neiitAgreetirteiitii,t)ibli(;rovicw"jy Ic PI -d [InIn g Corn MISS WTI .9 lid the City Council at respectivo public hearings.... Su u rce: C ity of M on I o Park Cou n ci I Meeting Febl'L,al'y 14, 2012 Staff Report i,12-029 Agcnda Ttom #F1 Letter 83 cont. 24 "Under State law (California Government Code Section 6S84-65869.5)1, development agrees enable -Jie City to grant ; longer-enn approval in excliange fordenionstrable public benefit,;." " IDoyclopmontAgreementis not something that ffiaC`ry can require aniapplicatirtoapply for, but is siometbing that the app is maychaose to apply for if they areser.kinC -vsted erights in approvals and /Qra project element thi-I is non-standard or diverges f:%3niZunJng Ordinance or Gencrall Plan .'—pu b licbeneeits that are defined through tke DevelopmentAgreement do not have to he directly cio °-rel ated. .o a proji ocu's impacts or follow a s tarkdard formula For the purposes of this discussion, public benefit is typical, 4, viewed as a distinct topic than those iuherent attributes of the piviect that may be considered positive, such l as the projected sales tax revenue, Smirre.: City of Menlo Park Planning Cornmi RqioTni September'Z4, 2012 Scaff Repor: Agenda leer i#F2 "Uncerthe tcrmsof ata x sharing agrieemer-. between the City of Cupertino and Apple, Apple receives approxialat-ely 300/0 a 1'"' ("Ie city's annual share ofsales tax revenues directly genera Led by the conipally. Tile City sales tax figire& presented 'n this rept) -t ars not of thea payntents to Apple. Altboogb the alireement Is scheduled sched uled to expire in 2014 the analysis assumes it is extended :nto time foreseeable future, in consideration of a development agreenier t between Apple anc Cuper-ino." SOLrCC: Econornic and Fiscal Impacts Generated byApp'e it, Cupertino by Keyser klarsMn Assroda-es Prepared fur Apple May 2 0 13 Pontnotp, IF) Pagc IS CQNIM�W.' MirrIGA-NION WASURFS SKOUt-n No'r MR CONSIDEr RM niRzr-'r COMMUNITY BrNVFrITS Letter 83 cont. 24 cont. ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . As condition of approval to project 'While Stanford estimates its benefits package to total about S173 million, the CiLyvoluo thL, prc,poscd bcnefits at about $40 million, T)e ri a in diiffprerre is Sta7ford"sasseWaii that the UO Passes constitutes public benefits, while the City inaintains than they are Mitigations required by state kaw." Soarce: Stanford hospAW Expansion Sails "1 Finish Line By Gennady Sheyner Palo Alto Wcckly May 2 0, 011 11 "While Stanfordvalues the`"co-nniunjty ben efi-.s" pEckdge atabout S179 milhon, the f-tysaes it's closer to S43 million. Palo Altoofficials argue that many of thLe benefits in the Stanford proposil, including, Lite Cult:-aln passus, are mitigations thAthospitals are required to provide to get ,environmental clearance for the project. Sourm Stanford Hospital L-cpansfon, Up for Final Vote By Gennady Sheyner Pali) Alto Times j Une Z x011. Comments* ata die mitigations required by state law for Apple to provide to get env irare niental clearance for the project. Letter 83 cont. 24 cont. cx�y. ox -, 1vtorkrorce Paabock 'd2kmd vi," 0. ywx vnpv by xh,walm, ;.0 w , el, Daat. 119L, ARD v;Xl a �rn,(,a of M00,000 :,I �vvts, woar,'Un? to cwnrar4*f,, The pE rc o-.* a 6c 9,1 tho v - magma dna igmadig Am.'k 'AO1 CaC' ' of Mm�llu ptl?k km. vro" it), fo, 6ks,q`rin to iloqb �V, LAe �.ax.mLu� uf Oqlrpv, imp.maim of -layfrou.; Lfy.,aujvxy and P.4,m& T"w"obwl. p r i iqi d tr; fcwda- Gloni ('*mwvlA he,16 of corr. it &icke�," al a r. -qxtv, $ 10.0 V 0 .or° t 0 - 'a, +X�fjvtuuilv du.latkun w.,4 oc �.177E m -r& I-Aeamedby ',he reapcmpe." �IJ, me --L, Una.,: 1po COVAIWAV"Y' _.'Jl0flp?s pp •tr�tt fw a c�.jnllng, 'IA'f, cl-., o f (.R G d (Al r on a flIJ UMtErAPP'Ll�jal W -?`6 Ad , %006 m,w-1p M'Q:-.r7-t t." f, launch, of Be kyld.` lvfl)11:0 P&r' Colina.", "sir o i& rnq V�-o TTA&Ain,k Tmzaa: _�-`wkd botml aa�l piq-cl�ateed hi O!F�- CuRrim..". a Oro %vkk 04Rt s bev � ad Fewx,al eea, w"if) ., o be a.Dla tc ghe. ou", the MY '.1011A x to $, 5001 -.0 vill hetp qupp:rt evej��tfAag ,L`k. 03_KlWllVn ICU f "ll KOATIOM )WIT A iraf A V or Vll"; flll)V10�11 10:42 IN AIR ct terve.11Y C, F� -1; .flu= r>, bayvshov C', I S11p, I I M Pphtrk-5 B; Is Haver ruu,M�Jvl 21, ela O>Ll 3s 0-�� t, RO r Wl 3 L I a U'l Is 9 -_W IF Qcrvn.niiLrpa� lim., :la 3kic. C,;mrr t lrm r Ovarce -n^ag "Wa: J"Awllp AD.w ast i `c: i A'A* p°°' j '3 -A 3 st F F;o A tol ai- 4r, & L -.r, r - T., lo,-MTaIc bo"I A; rp FF. '11A Fra. rfin Fwnd: a Crjle�;�� r- c Ju c 3 t, C. r 1`;'ec- 'it :err t al" S to vm v I k%.-) Tra Jc , 5-quTc trip; d%eota-, Aar 'llilf-17 00 Abr Fen ir s � I o Faft 1%, vi:;c. P,a 14, n. I iA VrA ur I w rN 13��b jj I I(I i :l g d, 54 Re,na s sama C r4 rop-e -, e - r, Rek.-, 5 Cant ar fyj� rVnr "'ll'a-, 0 17 u M, 0, �lcvlc Peridu hcL�2 E- Adul- `�ey S,vnt -rnno s C:nlcl-w.,g 0 Sciarn'.o t Fw� Acjdap.,j UtO. 11 C A�. Teen -fa k3wt ality Hdi,�A. JC1 E Y ' -;h C,,n n i 7� 1, 1, 1 i tyY,, c r v 5;3. ham w;ufllpa ro'aas : ��'v Ad alm�ier lt&kr', fo � I ch ir, t LY 3a e! I =v,�. amaourcad kic twj�xlopff ;,,ia r.-, wl-,nol arra twig Aa,rD D rr.]Ron 4 iv_.7 fl ea '.dla. v.othe, Dv ill 9,;IDck 10 t�. 8., `a (>gr,W,mt`n).R vmn nOV- LVy Poouha.. f.0s] A aut th!s gra nta last Con. u.,, �vmoyt iketill-n w.rxj NJW�e, '.Vatthawx o�` A Roith Q.AIj L.Lyk,o FaA( Yw'.A' FOLLIJaOW1 Is �U.-,Ullt(Ud :(l Ave PWIv- said le book, .-I 100o-ZA. aD6 gott will raR74c -. dont no Olx'm clJT�xbnw 6,& thTrp, Jt ' tl,:ae mint';,cm K wil: be "lap, y to cnte hil hKT-2ChVOl :cv. LvActund-Li. #mAnAlki 6 :1,2 a n'. O,dd. 'ThiF3 #vrb vx, sr. apper ?v addidoma i,,*nnsxdon yy Soc Ofto r�hmlt rhl7,lace'�,Qok L -ma'. �,R.d, ij o i :u -': u `4 Pund a9d Lie Letter 83 cont. 24 cont. Community Benefits NO, 'J'associated with any pe ad ingprojecitor as a condition of approval In any project ' Ink �iguo 2006 Qwalo. provide free tidrliessint ern et (IMR) network in M a untain View. Goggle ,w, IAN Flu t-mork is away for its to give baick to and eat gagewraith the com ill unity where Our headquarteris.—it has bcontronxictidously r:Nvari;iing to partnter with the loc2ligoverninent, the schools, thollbraa,/, the ritti;;b1bodwi�t] jj.%.,giLi4LiuFtq ... Lei int`odilee the powev of free, wircless Internet to the City." In iddition tin prolAcling no cost WO service in thii City, the agreentent w Goggle calls for Goggle to pay the City an annual fee for use of t`:e Gjy'suvOig`ik rwilvs dnd equip the City's mobile library services with mobilowireless eclutprient, SOLrce: City of Ploantz-A View J111 ]acne 2011 og,& gives $ 1 million to the local c1cmcritary and middle, schools. the Momitzlin Vie,,v WiLsman School District, ' Noverniber1l, 2011 -Coggle invests in affordable housing in Miami mi nView, the $ 23, 5 Intl I ion Frarildin Street Fcxdly Arzirtinerils, o 5' -unit rental developiment, Snurcv- Gaggle Invest in I Torric Projcct a By Mike Swift San Jose Mercury News Decembe- 7, 2011 ,1 On Jana 14, 2012 Goggle annourced that it will dona:e $1 Million to tau :Mountain Vi, -,w Whisman School District It's the second such Grant tl.at Gag,& has;to the distrJc,.,, Asked vwhiattoi Gu to .,xpacted anything J)i return. for, its he-m�i investment in the district, the M n lana gerof Uomwji)f L37 Affairs rOT Ci0i staled that the "comparky is''pin g to hire talentiud inr ividual,; ft-orn, its ovm backyard in years to conte, and that investing in local edoc�-.tion is a surefire wi-ty of ensii ring thip. ii"I Mim ny cin d o j IiAt man i. to rorit.l."micsurporting our hametown sch nols ;and enslire all studen,,',, in Mmin taiD View Fire gicitting astmng education," Letter 83 cont. 24 cont. Source. Goggle, Poxmteq $1 Million to Local Scfiools By Nick Veronln Voice of Nloiantzdn Vim )line 15, 01. 2 - Chan )utle4,21013 CFac1el3ookjm has pledged asmuch as $215,000 to overhaul a storefront to Bell,e Haven, Center M 11ami I to.) Avenue and Willow Road ---. nd to cover 7 5 pence of the rent June 7016, according t4) a copy of an agr�cinunt prebe%ted o the Coundl," Soarce: Facehlook tr) T ho.lp Fund New Po lice S-.ihstation By Bonnia Eslingur San Jose Nlorcury News Ivne 7, 01,E City of Menlo Park OVrCounil Meetirgrune, 4, 2013 Agenda Itern #F-3 City managur Repult #1 �-091 * A slcw of upgradeskiround town for bicyclist and pedestrians are in the nclvlyap�rmvod city budgv4(J)anks-.o1 the eJ'(oT-Lsotzctfv1sLsand a little funding trom6ogglc. T.'ric C, ity'.q 2013-14 budget, apip rovca last inorith, includes sx long list of v pgrades arou n d tow n for those, on ""boLan(I olyi hikim, lvid in pprt: with $4,35,000 From Goggle.... In a lmor about the offer, Goggle real estate chief David Radc'iffe raid he Nva" is "dulk ihe jted" t rat y had madeloch thin, g a f.np priority this year and offurctl ho city 500,00 towards the caul e., The Google projem irkcludc$.�0,000 forwILly needcd dOW11tDwn'Jjkr-- raclu, Slso,000 to help extend the Permanente Creek'frnfl to 14iddlefieldhood and $160,0001tnwards creating a now bjup.lv, t--anKportaUion plan :br the Cmgglc also ane ,reed to donate $75,000 to add flashing lights to three crosswalkson Sborelfric BOL.le-Vilf`(d lle-31' dOWD tOWJ1,- ' &re proud to eall Mountain View home and are thrilled to work vdtli tlecjty-.o prornote a more wallcable and hike.-h1pndly r.6ni,,niitiit3r,"'Rad,7]littc-. cmid in an email. Letter 83 cont. 24 cont. —and ther&s still $65,000 in Goggle inoney tnat has yet to be spent on hike and podestriar Improvements. SourceMountain View Voice by Djaitl Deboft )uly S,, 2013 Pagel Letter 83 cont. 24 cont. Fm,ha6k >t helpfun p *pPliGe sub�4tio 1 10 rt 1t, B L16 H d tau ]°sr thanhp.d 1Aada4 lar &, kir r ,t,"tom.�t1 to mu6hl ar: $ .M 290 � .. thf.Pid�4t( r (rlI V at f-larlitulAw-Alue cmct 7,q ppme-jt of tac r omn-untr.' unp. tlu S�T'r.�ralc a. T'�ar1z °,�• iri�riaa ga r' t 614ip, on .I; a ref' qr"� jt. c fi a ,rvh aia•o:. ;; 'i*Ksr raid 1)L.?:rbc.rb ?U�] H%uxx• °ork o-tt jxf n t 0 r 4i ar, rr-PRrr'iw °�1c7��J to t�lta� �t:�rllr'W .r st��i1�;��tc "r.•rin 41".1�� ;ernn nen. FRIDAY-' J aiI E'l 201.E Letter 83 cont. 24 cont. N1 msr$%T 1=0 f9UMM Draff Environ me rial Impact Report considered in My ;eparatc-project ailt.-rnat-ives: El R should constdcr the benefits of combining the proposed Project with Nu Closure Uff Pruneridge Avenue Alternative by retaining IPruneridge Avenue ait its present grade and extunding the Apple Campus 2 over Pruneridge Avenue by means of placing Pru neridge Avenue in a tunnel -like structure, i.e., Prunerldgo Avenue Alternative #2 See, aLLaulled SepteaOer 2011 leuer.')l FIR Sr.()Pjl)g VeSPOIISC: PUMerifte AvenueAlternattve #� Pruneridge Avenue Alternative The init(a) Proneridge Avenuv afternaLivv us LhalL "Prxieridge Avenue would rernair. a public road."' 1, Owould reclum. the arnnont of oppn.Tace on the campus" COMMOM., The proposed alternative #2 would not affect the arnounit oif open space. wound' require the lm plementadim (if selarate sic -curtly mechanisms on the portions of the campus north wid souath of-Pi'lufteridge Avenue," Comment! The proposed alternative 02 does tort result in a divided north and south campus. See sectlun on Security would "reqijirie the, reconfiguraflon otbuildings an the site, cbarges ro the size and shxx of some buildings, modified Access points and otherchwiges to reflerti divided ramp,.,s.` Comment; 'The proposed alternative #2 does not resultin, a divided campU4.q. Would "change.,5tri #te projett grading and excavation plan_, rosulcing in a greater volume of off-ilaulcid materiak uornpjred to the proposed prDjeciL` Source; A[-Xrnatives I Letter 83 cont. 25 Draft Environmental Report secdonvl Page 597 Comments: Pruxteiidge Avenue Alternative #2 Would not require the implementatJon, of separate security mechanisms Would not require the reconfiguration Would require changes to the project grading and excavation plan but not liec�essarily a greater volume of off -hauled mnaterials Off -haul requirerricaL= 9010,000 cubicyards Source: Conreptual Plan 1)r Pruneridge Avenue Alternative Figury VJ-2 Proposed Phase t Project: Nfain Si --e and Aud'-Zoritun Purloin g indicateappmvintatp cut of 1,530,0100 rihic yards Rnd a fill of 1,610,000 cubic yards, TM3 would result in a bank VOILLMle (cornpuring existing grade to final sub -grade) of approxiriately 80,000 ixbic yards ofimport. Excavated :qnill is Pxpnctod tau evpand (:gait hulking) l;Iy approx:inarely 5% (80,U0 urn NE: yards), y1eldirig balanced Phaso I project. Proposed Phase 2 Project: Tantau Development indicate approximate cut of 169,000 vu hic yards and a fill of 10,000 cubic yards. WOUld resul r in a ban k vo lu me (com parhige.1st ng grad.e to filial sub- rad) (Jlr approxinwWy 150,000 cubic yards fur` expott, S0111 -re: Proposed Grading, Plano North April 15', 2013 Comment! 900,01)(1 cabic yards of off -haul forproplosed Prunorldge Avenue Alternative seeins high compared to ptvposed project (Phase I > 0 and Phase 2 > 15D,000 cubic Yards. Prii neri dge Avenue A] ternative #2 requires recalculation of any off fraud. Letter 83 cont. 25 cont. Comment: California Aeademy of Sciences in Colde,n Gate Park has a green roof, landscaping on its roof Faceblook West CainTius'has landscaping on its roof Apple's Corporate Auditorium is underground. See Figure U[ - I'Ib Corporate Auditorium - Representative Section, Draft Envivonment Impact Report The negatiVO Lonseqaences as presented in Section VI Alternatives in the Draft Environme impact Report of the separate Pruncildge Avenue Alternative are not applicable to the suggested Pruneridge Avenue Alternative 4:1 in which Pruiteridge Avenue is retainud and continues to be a public riglitof way and Apple Campus 2 is extended airer Proneridge Avenu by means of placing Prutteridge Avenue in a tunnel -type structure and Apple Campus 2 extends on the top of the tunnel. Letter 83 cont. 25 cont. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Apple Campus 2 Consideration of an alternative plan; Retain, Pruneridge Avenue as a minor traffic connector and bike route as in the General Plan. Retention would allow the continuation of the recent change in the City of Santa Clara portion of Pruneridq , e Avenue, consisting of the conversion of 4 traffic lanes to 2 traffic lanes, a center turn lane and bike lanes. It would ,continue to be, an east/west traffic connector, reducing traffic Oil Homestead Avenue. Retention of Pruneridge Avenue would be accomplished by connecting, the North and South sections of Apple Campus 2 by the construction of either a tunnel or a bridge. The bridge would be the best alternative since Apple plans to construct below, grade parking; the excavated dirt would be used a base for the bridge approaches. The bridgE could be as wide as necessary to provide an extension of the campus, a parkway, a pedestrian walkway, and /or transportation corridor. Since security is a concern, the elevated surface area would not be accessfbile to, Letter 83 cont. 25 cont. the pubk; security perimeter along Pruneridge Avenue would be a continuation of the security perimeter around the rest of the Apple it would satisfy the project objectives of "creat(ing) a physically unified campus community that respects Apple's security � needs in part ' through perimeter protection." The, design could "provide an expanse of open and green space for Apple em-ployees' enjoyment," another projiect objective. The retained location of PrUneridge Avenue does not affect the Apple building. The City and Apple would negotiate for the necessary air rights for the bridge; similar to the air rights regarding the Wolfe Avenue bridge between the west and east side of the Vallco, Shopping Mall. Submitted by Darrel Lum on September '1,9,, 2011 Letter 83 cont. 25 cont. L S A APjpq',2 f,'(vY.q?vs »_.P:v - iik !:t ".3rd? Col nceptLkal Plan fox FxL,iikridge Averoxa Letter 83 cont. 26 Q's sf .2p APjpq',2 f,'(vY.q?vs »_.P:v - iik !:t ".3rd? Col nceptLkal Plan fox FxL,iikridge Averoxa Letter 83 cont. 26 plameridge Avottua, ARE in�tjvg L S A FTG",'ltL- VI -2 Apyo ivl)�,I:o VP S��':PCR A' -1 Croriceplua' Fiall f0t- PllltOTi�--e AVel-tae AILO?rmidiv(: Letter 83 cont. 26 cont. �27 plameridge Avottua, ARE in�tjvg L S A FTG",'ltL- VI -2 Apyo ivl)�,I:o VP S��':PCR A' -1 Croriceplua' Fiall f0t- PllltOTi�--e AVel-tae AILO?rmidiv(: Letter 83 cont. 26 cont. ri Letter 83 cont. 26 cont. Figures from Draft Environmental Impact Report Figure III - 4 Site Plan 11.4 Figure[11-3h SitePL;n-Sooth Figure III -6b Reps: a Sco (ims Figure III -11b: Cpoi,aw Auditorium - Represcntative Section Figuirc TTI - 12b Phase 2 Drvelopy'vient- Plan and seicLion Figure III - 15b one T andscupc Plan - South Figt-,re V1- Z Conceptual Plan fOT' PT'"U [let'! Ugv AvenueAluernative Figuru V1 - 2 Modincif Cppcc-ptual plan for Prun erid gp Avenue Aiterjiadvu #21 Plan 114-11 Proposed (;r-ading Plan as of 4/1!)/l 3 Letter 83 cont. 26 cont. From: Mark Matsumoto [ni lto',markmLchcung--chamb 1gl�,0 --pqftL - --rg Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:32 PM To: City Council Subject: Support for Apple Campus 2 Dear Mayor Orrin Mahoney and City Councilmembers, The Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors would like to submit their officiall letter of support for Apple Campus 2. We are excited about the benefits this project will generate not only for our local businesses and community, but for the entire Silicon Valley region. Thank you in advance for taking the time to, consider our comments. Best Regards, Mark Matsumoto Mark Matsumoto, Government Affairs Specialist Cupertino Chamber of Commerce markvyiCCDCUIDerfino-chamber,or,q (408) 252-7054 x14 20455 SHverado Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 Please consider the environment before printing this email!. Letter 84 1 Letter 84 cont. July 10, 2013 CWW-- - - Mayor Orrin Mahoney and Cupertino City Council Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Cupertino City Hall Your Partner in Sudcon Vaney 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA95014 Cupertino Chamber of Commerce 20456 %verado Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Support for Apple Campus 2 Tel (408) 252-7054 Fax (406) 252-0638 www.cuped1no-diamber.ofq Dear Mayor Mahoney and City Council Members, 2013 Board of Directors The Cupertino Chamber of ' 'orrinierce Board of Directors strongly support the Apple Campus Board Officers Kevin McClelland, Prewdent 2 project. The timely and successful completion of this Project is of critical importance to Leeward Financial 8 Insorance Cupertino and the SiliconVafley region from both an innovation -based and econornic- Servk,,es lrrc. development perspective. Johfl Zirel,11, Past President Apple Inc. is a world leader in producing environmentallyn conscious, innovative and RecoJoqy South Say beautifully designed consumer electronics, software and personal computers'. Their proposed Darcy Paul, President Elleck 176 -acre campus continues Apple's trend of taking a leadership role in every endeavor they Paul Law Group, A Professional undertake. Apple Campg Campus 2 will feature rOUndbreaking design and kin unprecedented Corp. commitment to environmentally sustainable principles, In addition, the campus will be a 21st- Mike Rohole, VP Special Events century workplace that will foster and shape the future of technology. Vallco Shopping Mall Rachet Yadegah, VP Membership With approval of Apple Campus 2, Cupertino arid the region will be the beneficiary of Apple's Development significant financial investment in our city. The new campus and Apple's continued presence West Valley Community Serwoes In Cupertino are expected to gene raW Mail Wheeler, VP Finance I MCA W Pijblic Acl000nfarnis . 24,000 jobs in Cupertino. Richard Abdalah, VP LAO 0 $100 Million funded by Apple for roadway, traffic aind landscape improvernents, Abdalah Law Oftes community benefits and one tj nie fees to the City of Cupertino. Barbara Perzigian, VP Communily * $150 Million each year in sales for Cupertino small businesses including our hotels, Relallons restaurants and retailers from Apple employees and suppliers, Cupertino Inn . $8.6 Billion annually in sales from goods and services purchased by Apple from more Sandy James, VP HR & Staffing than 700 companies in Cupertino,, Sunnyvale arid Santa Clara. Lehigh Cement Company . $57 Million in tax revenue each year to local governments in Santa Clara County to fund essential neighborhood and community services. Board Members Janice Chua Apple Inc, has consistently and significantly supported the Cupertino community. Having the Bitter + Sweet world's Most iconic C011SUlner-technology cornpany build their centerpiece R&D campus in Yogi Chugh our town will greatly benefit the businesses and residents of Cupertino. This campus will State Farm Insurawe make the city an even more attractive draw for future residents and these looking to make investments in our community. Art Cohen BlawLight Cinemas 6 We look forward to, the future success of this project and we hope to work with you tca help it Mike Foulkes become a reality. Apple Inc, ScottJeng HSSC Bank USA, N.A. Sincerely, Mahesh MhalaN ✓ Jewels in ilyle Tamon Norimolo PG&E Kevin McClelland Maria Streeby 2013 President The Cypress Hotel Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Keith Warner Pacific, &)s tress centers Kefichiro Yoshida Bay Club Silicon Valley From Sam Ashknaz[M@ftto,;5atIL @LQCCupgr i p&on Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10:53 AM To: City Council Subject: Campus 2 Dear sir, 11 sincerely support this project, This will bring lots of jobs and it will be good for local businesses too. I this this is the best thing even happen for city of Cupertino. All the best! Sam Ash z Owner/Operator Erik's DefiCa& �19652 Steivens Creiek Bl�vd Cupertino, CA. 95,014 Ph: 4018-973-9898 lFx-. 408-973-0753 Letter 85 1 Letter 86 From: Maria Streeby [!n3 �iliQLMA�il@.Streebv@)thiecvores ,slhote.comi] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 4:02 PM To* City Council Subject: Support Apple Campus 2 The Cypress Hotel and Park Place Restaurant support the Apple 2 campus and continued growth in Cupertino. Thank you, Maria Streeby Maria X. Stireeby Director of Operations -San Francisco/Arizona ,"An 11'11' n ", HuOd", General Manager (I / r') "I' o r �" I &ect� 408-342-4805 ru [ a i, ,'i, n [ycrP t h (' C Y f""' Vto r� C �,I n I Came experience o u r specta cu la r re n ova fion i CYPRESS, 0u03WIMWIVOVX From: Norene [mailtomorene0sclb �-or ]l Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:11 AM To: City Council Cc: 'Neil Struthers' Subject: Letter from Neil Struthers Importance: High Good! morning, Attached please find a letter of support for the Apple Campus 2 project and EIR from, Neill Struthers for distribution to Mayor Mahoney and the Council Members. Thanks so much, Norene Norene Sakazaki Santa Clara & San Benito Counfies Building & ConstrUiCtion Trades Councill 2'102 Almaden Road, Suite 101 San Jose, CA 95125 Phon408,265,7643 1 Fax: 408.265 tett nore Lie@scbtc o rjc Letter 87 1 BuildinCrades Santa Clara & San Benito Counties The outstanding orkforce Building & Construction Trades Council 2102 Almaden Road Suftc 101, San Jose, CA 95125-2190 • Phone 408,265,7643 - Fax 408.265.2080 N'�0 M. Suruthm Chid'Execufive Offic- June 7, 2013 J os U 6 Garcia Delimy Execudirc OWccr Robert Bakfini Pres Id"" The Honorable Mayor Orrin Mahoney Asbcsrus Wurkeri 16 City of Cupertino Bodermakers 549 103010 Torre Avenue Brick & Tite ' 3 NOMIern c1lifornia Cupertino, CA 95014 Cirlicniers '105' Re: Comments In Support of Apple Campus 2 EIR and Project Caep" & Linoleum 12 conent Masons 400 Drnvall Lathers 91/NA Dear Mr, Mayor Mahoney and Council Members: Mcctiiciau.5 332 Ekvawr Constructors 8 On behalf of the Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building & Construction Trades Council and its Glaziers 1621 25,000+ members who live and work in California, I am writing in support of the Apple Campus 2 Iroo Workers 377 Laborers .170 application submitted by Apple Inc, Laborers 67 Nfillmcn 262 One reason for our support is that we are satisfied the Apple Campus 2 Project will create high- MiNwrighis to! wage, highly skilled jobs that pay prevailing wages, Health Care and training which is consistent Op raring Engineer's 3 with the quality and standards of the Building Trades. The project implements the total redesign, Nimers Disuict Council t6 replacement and reconstruction of a 176 -acre infill site in Cupertino, California, incl!udling the 1'ainzcrs 507 Phmerers 300 construction of over 3 million square feet of state-of-th:e art building space incorporating the latest in Phunli,n's & Sicamfikiers 393 green building technology, A project of this scope, quality and sophistication demands highly skilled 1loofcrs & Wimrproofus 95 labor that our California workforce is ready to provide. Sheet Metal Workers 04 Sign, Misplay 510 Specifically, the construction of Apple Campus 2 is expected to generate hundreds of millions of Spinkler Fatm 483 Teamsters 287 dollars in construction wages and thousands of fulltime construction jobs over the projected 30 to 36 month construction period. Apple and the Building Trades have collaborated and Apple has Affilined whir confirmed these will be the highest quality union jobs paying prevailing wages, ensuriing that all State Budding and workers receive a level of compensation that promotes economy -wide sustainable economic Conscrucaon Trades growth. Additionally due to the indirect benefits of this construction -related economic activity, it Is Council u9alifortfla likely that Calif6mia Labor over 9,000 new jobs are expected to be generated In Santa Clara County during the construction Federation, AFL-CIO period. ("ahilornCO rata Labor TE - South Day AFL-CIO Apple will create one of,, if not the best office buildings in world and our members look forward to Labor fulfilling the vision and legacy. In short, because the Apple Campus 2 Project will create a large number of highly skilled union jobs that pay prevailing wages, all while creating a facility that is unprecedented in terms of its environmentally sustainable design, the Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building & Construction Trades Council and its 250000+ members encourage the City of Cupertino to expeditiously approve the project as proposed so we can continue our regional and natjpn,all economic recovery. OPEW 119 Neil Sputhe CEO www,scbtc.org Letter 87 cont. 2 LOS GATOS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 10 Station Way Los Gatos, CA 95030 PH 408.354.9300 Fax 408.399.1594 www.losgatoschiamber.com Board of uirectors 2012.2013 Dianne Anderson President Discover Los Gatos Pat Wolfram PresldenI Elect EI Camino Hospital -Los Gatos Gina Ads ms Gina Adams Creative Communications Cleve Dayton The Painting Pros Peggy Gibbs Camp BizSmart & BizSmart Global, Inc. Butch Harris PG&E David Hernandez Los Gatos Auto Service, Inc. Rita Marcolohn We've Got Your Back Janice McCabe Janice McCabe Interior Design & Build Patti Rice The Spa -Los Gatos Trevor Schwartz UBS Financial Susan Stevens Elegant Voyages Joseph Sweeney Sweeny, Mason, Wilson & Bosomworth Marie Tallman C I R C L E it 0 El Camino Hospital Los Gatos Sweeney, Mason, Wilson & Aasomworth a roiess�o�m i.,comoraro� *iW xoTNI.1O.aaATafi AR RANYA Discover Los Gatos The Spa -Los Gatos Toll House Hotel Los Gatos Auto Service, Inc. Oak Meadow Dental Center Alain Pinel Real Estate Sereno Group Campo di Bocce Los Gatos Business Park, LLC June 20, 2013 Mayor Orrin Mahoney City Council Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mavor and Council Members, Apple 2 EiR Date Received JUN 2 4 2013 pencessed W vto The Hoard of Directors of the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the Apple 2 campus project in Cupertino. Apple has proven itself as a global leader in technology and innovation, and with this campus will take a leading position for its environmental and sustainable ideas and spectacular design. Apple has committed to substantial investments to your community and it is our opinion that the economic benefits of this project will spill over to other cities in our region. It will firmly support Silicon Valley's status as the center of the technology industry, while creating jobs and economic growth. Our Board believes in the future success of this project and we look forward to working with you to help it become a reality, one that will help us all. Sincerely, 5 Dianne Anderson, President Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce 10 Station way, Los Gatos, CA 95030 408.354.9300 www.losgatoschamber.com Letter 88 1 Letter 89 -----original (Message -4W_- From: essage----- From; Donna Austin [m2 ' i ' It ' 0 primadonal.@comcast, net] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1.01 PM To: City Council Subject: Glendenning Barn Mayor Orrin Mahoney, Vice -Mayor Gilbert Wong, City Council Members: Mark Santoro, Barry Chang, Rod Sinks The Cupertino Historical Society and Apple collaborated on two options for the Glendenning Barn, which was preservation and relocation off site (city land) or preservation, and relocation on site for use on the campus. It could be a working barn, among the orchards on the campus or it can be part of a city project. We believe Apple is committed to the historic preservation of the barn and we support either option. Donna Austin President of the Cupertino Historical Society Letter 810 From: Sam Ashknaz [maLilto,,sama EDCCupertino.com] CL---- - Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:34 PM To: City Council Subject: Support Apple Campus 2 We strongly support Campus 2, it is good for the region and locai (businesses, 1 ,S,am Ashkiiaz OAN, i ter/Ope ra to) r M— LOWS A Erlik's Deli Ca.. 196i52 Stevens, Creek Blvd Cupertino,, CA. 95014 Pih: 408-973-9898 FY; 4018 90753 Letter Bil -----Original Message ----- From: barry Jones [mallto:lba S 1 11 nny_�1512j�_e rn ] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:54 AM To: City Council Subject: Support Apple Campus 2 - VIONES Salon VJONES Salon totally supports the new Apple Campus. We are enormously impressed with the design aspects and the tremendous attention to improving the environment that the design has encompassed. The scheme is truly world class and is a phenomenal example to all other corporate entities on how to work with Local Government to handle commercial growthand benefit the community in addition to creating extremely positive impact on the environment. Barry Jones CEO Letter 812 From: Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Q On Behalf Of Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Sent, Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:14 AM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Apple Campus 2 Update 1 Dear Chamber Member: We we writinig to update you on Apple Canripus 2 and ask that you register ,your support today. Both ale econornic and environmental impact reports were released last week for Apple Carnpus, 2 arid the City is now accepting public comments, Tl'ie Cuper6no Charnbei of Commerce has endorsed arid strongly suppods Apple Campus 2 given the c6fical importance of Apple and AppW Carnpus 2 to Cupertino and Gine Silicon Valley rpgkm frorn both an innovation, and esonomk, deveflopinent perspective. We ask that you ernai0 the City ot Cupertino today to mipport, Appie Campus 2, qI6, herg -, We also encourage YOU to attend the EIR Meeting on June 26, 2!013 at 6:301 p�.m. at Community, Hall in support of Apple Carripus 2, With approval of Apple Carnpus 2, Cupertino and the rogion will be the beneficiary of Apple's significant firiancial investment in ourcity. The new campus and Apple's continued presence in Cupertino are expected to generate: M, 24,000 jobs in Cupeirtino. 0 $100 Million funded by Apple for roadway, traffic and landscape improvements, community benefits and one time fees to the City of Cupertino. 0 $150 Million each year in sales tor Cupertino small businesses including our hotels, restaurants and retailers from Apple employees and suppliers. $8.6 Billion annually in sales from goods and services purchased by Apple from more than. 700 companies in Cupertino, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. $57 M:illion in lax revenue each yew to local gaverninnents in Santa Clara County tc fund essenball neighborhood and coirnmiunity services. To read Apple's Econoniric Impact on Cupertino, ofick hero, To revow, the Apple Cwnpus 2, environmental inipacl report chlok, o hrn,Ubera' ce, AU 6 N s Y,,rs k,,vo ncr,dvhrfq f h[s ornall if oQ � arv, t rnon ihr of @ho bi io GJ rarnbvn (q GcnwriaIf You vVik"ih u,r s srl�t ii'm or chango phua:-ra mfoi to auu itnkj b&kwu Ow rnafflng addirpss w of CA DS() M uu.-i ljAGkI3 p�pf2E2!]L_ Letter 812 cont. 1 cont. Letter 813 Attached is a letter of support for the Apple 2 Campus. Can you please include it in the public comment section for the Elly and project? Thank you -- Shiloh Ballard Vice President, Housing & Community Development Silicon Valley Leadership Group 408-501-7859 Celebrate 20 years of the Housing Action Coalition Thursday, June l3th, 5-30pin at Madera Apartments in Mountain View Details are, here: litti)://I,iag�Icc.().rg/,yoti-�ire-iiivii.ed I Silicon Valley Leadership Group 2001 Gateway Place, Suite IOIE San Jo!se,CA 95110 408-501-7864 Main Number 408-501-7861 Fax Carl Guardino President & CEO Letter B13 SILICON VALLEY,�, LEADERSHIP GROUP cont. 2M Mvni S�Aip 101t June 11, 2013 (408jbO I �1864 fam (4081501,786 1 Pmw 5a) W4 CARR. GUARDINO Mayor and Council I wwdm? & ct 0 Boardotficers,, City of Cupertino UK[ KtAYM), Clksk 10300 Torre Avenue &x&A., HM GUI R RN, Vka Cfkv Cupertino, CA 94014 Wxidn M"Y'k,"d 1.9',wns /(W WERWR, 11ast0yur .%nNIO.Y Dear Mayor Mahoney and Councilmembers, AART Of GFUS Avd C1W Symv�,p M16,11AIt S111 (NUR, RM 6'),Yff on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, I am writing to express our support for the AAMWA(ak'n.ds, hv.� ROB W�Wrl,N1,R development proposal for the new Apple campus on North Wolfe Road. Board mmubm. : The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, founded in 1978 by David Packard of Hewlett-Packard, ANNALMAIS represents more than 375 of Silicon Valley's most respected employers on issues, programs myh, ("FYYflJ1A SH17 Y( ARCIMM81 Ab and campaigns that affect the economic health and quality of life !in Silicon Valley, including Akfic9rewn, fix -r ANnYRAII energy, transportation, education, housing, health care, tax policies, economic vitality and IWAxy RuAkrs the environment. Leadership Group members collectively provide nearly one of every three 60.G 8FCK(.'P svg (;gAip private sector jobs in Silicon Valley and have more than $3 trillion in annual revenue. DAW Btlt ta*Yw SIF14 flfk�j(aj) The Leadership Group believes that creating a climate that helps bring more high quality jobs to Silicon Valley and Cupertino is important and Apple's proposal is one way to further GrORM_ NUMUN Phyovvyvly a � "'Alffne, Saida ruff that goal. This is a special project for an icoinic company that will ultimately create a unique, (OUB011001 Palk: Cas & thwaL 'brant workplace for 10,000 employees in the heart of Silicon Valley. Appie is a homegrown V1 CHRIS BOYD company which has been headquartered in Cupertino for over thirty six years. It is KaiscrPOwumv*� f(Nyjp�)No wonderful that they want to continue to grow here in a significant way and contribute to the economic and cultural vitality of Cupertino. 1MVID6716111 Zfyffy Aniefica S Ff PHFN 01, N) I I Silicon Valley Leadership Group endorses projects which promote transportation (Awyoq i.,w(w, s j, alternatives, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and create jobs, Apple's proposal to build a Swou Cbw 0wityMy new campus incorporates a Transportation Demand Management program that will lower 10M (Y(WGINS mi4p, #Yc the number of trips employees take. By using this program, which features shuttle buses, RAM11 I GONIA1 U &vk carpool matching services, and transit subsidies for employees biking or riding public transit ofAnwvr,,j HN WdWx,, to work, the proposal promises to reduce the rate of single -occupancy vehicle trips at their RrulqebA RAM3Af�A N(A 1A, , pFf,", headquarters by over ten percent. SAII KfNKANNAPRAN gxwmn In addition to its transportation program Apple is including environmentally sustainable (3ARYIN114? features on-site to minimize greenhouse gas emissions, reduce natural resource v8vigh 1AMK4NbWN1.R consumption, and improve the quality of the site. The proposal calls for an increase in green Wyw� ky1mbyy AIREWOMAS space from 36 acres to 112 acres, which will be landscaped with native grasses and 6,000 130 fb trees. The campus is designed to meet LEE D silver certification and wilt include features such M R MUM Iffit C0qWwsVfl as 300 vehicle charging stations, a reduction of energy use by thirty percent when compared Kt. N MV, t.'L Y to typical commercial developments, plus 650,000 square feet of solar panels and fuel cells AW 1. 1., 1v pI., ��),eA " which will provide 100% renewable energy to, power the entire campus. MYTOW)cSyv�mns KIM NN 1 IV Apple's new campus will prove to be one of the largest private developments ever built in NANSAINAN Silicon Valley and will create a wealth of new jobs for the local economy. Construction on 6"qw,"o ftlmys RoNsirci the new campus will create 9,000 jobs directly and coulld generate up to 4,000 additional f clw km C(qvrw&x1 jobs in Sainta Clara County. After the campus is compieted, expenditures by Apple aind the MAC IM I Y Sm, Jmd, awivy Npw�, 10,000 high -wage, highly skilled employees housed on campus will generate between RIC"K WA I I A CT RIA fewu 15,000 to 25,0010 additional jobs in the local economy. )IT YORK Smi hxxmv 4�kys ,r�,r,bkqw i,, 1978 by Apple's proposal is an innovative plan that promotes alternative transportation, creates an DA V10 PACKARD environmentally sustainable workplace, and generates thousands of jobs in the local economy. We support this proposal and thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Carl Guardino President & CEO KMVT Interview with Cupertino Mayor Orrin Mahoney regarding Apple Campus 2 Project Environmental Impact Report Interviewer: Will the Environmental Impact Report on traffic affect apple projects? I read in the newspaper this week that the proposed new headquarters will generate significant unavoidable impacts including excessive congestion along Interstate 280 and unacceptable traffic problems. Does unacceptable mean that they can't have an Apple campus or will you accept it? Mahoney: The first thing I'm going to say is that I can't comment on the Environmental Impact Report except for what I'm going to say which is its big. Because we're in the comment period and anything I say would have to be read into the record it's an official thing. The Environmental Impact Report did come out - it's about 660 pages. I have not read it yet and I've got about 45 days to read it like everybody else. I took it took it to a lunch group that I had the other day just to show them this thing and a guy said there's a CD in the back and I said oh that must be it - an electronic version of this - and no it's the technical appendices which is another 3,000 pages so this is 4,000 pages. Interviewer: And you're going to read every word, right? Mahoney: I will read a lot of it and we'll get it all presented to us and the Planning Commission will read it as well and our staff. Our staff has been working on this for several years ever since Steve announced it. Interviewer: When I first heard of Environmental Impact Reports, I thought in my mind it was about whether wood ducks would be displaced or whether more rain Would happen like the environment, but what kinds of things do they look at? Mahoney: They do took at everything, I mean, literally will there be dust that's created when they tear down the old buildings and build it - traffic is certainly one of the things they look at. The project itself has a number of - well a lot of trees that are there that are going to be taken out and will be replaced with three times as many trees and it will be a much greener project overall, but everything in there gets studied. I'll just talk about environmental impact reports in general. You look at all the Environmental impacts and then you see which impacts can be mitigated, in other words, how can you do something to mitigate that and there are some that may end up being where you can't mitigate them and then you can have a statement of overriding concern that says in spite of this it's overall a good thing. It may have some really positive environmental impacts in a project just from a pure environmental point of view, forget about an Letter 814 1 economic point of view, from a pure environmental point of view a project might have so many benefits that it might override some specific unmitigatable thing. That's how it works. Interviewer: Is the new Apple UFO carnpus going to happen or is it just real soon now? So how long, ball park figure, will it be when can they start knocking down old buildings and putting up new ones? Mahoney: On our agenda now, 1. just heard this today, Oct I we will have a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council to review the Environmental Impact Report and all the comments. Then it'll go through the Planning Commission and then through City Council. The earliest we could make a decision would be late November or December of this year. It stretched out a little bit from Apple's original plan as they went and did some tuning on the project itself, but they're obviously eager to see it happen and we'll see what happens in the process. Interviewer: Very famous video was the one of Steve Jobs coming to council and presenting the idea of the new campus. When I watched it, the impression I got was he was, coming to the council and saying nice city you have here it'd be a, real shame if Apple didn't build a campus in it. Is that the feeling you guys got? Mahoney: It's really interesting. I took a couple of things out of that and since then - I got interviewed after that meeting on a couple of things and people asked how I thought lie looked and I thought he looked frail I think was the term I used and since then if you read his biography that was his last public appearance and he was really, really ill. A couple of things that are interesting - in the day when people can work from anywhere and they don't have to be all together - it's amazing that company's still think it's important for people to be together. Apple thinks it's important, Facebook thinks it's important - they're all building these big new campuses. And for Apple to do it in Cupertino where it's an expensive place, the land they bought was expensive and whatever says first of all something about the people they want to attract and retain like to live there and like to be there and also I think it is the fact that they started here I think there's a personal connection. Letter 814 cont. 1 cont. Letter 815 From: Jamieson, David [17Jamieson(a)kimcpEeaLtiL.=1 Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 4:17 PM To: Rick Kitson Subject: Letter in Support of Apple II Campus - Cupertino Village LLC Rick, Attached is Cupertino Village LLC's (letter in support of the Apple H Campus. I would like to kindly request that the letter be posted in the public comment section for the EIIR anal project for the 45 day comment period. 1 1 Lqw Dave David Jamieson Vice President Leasing & Asset Managernent Q Western Region 75 Southgate Avenue Daly City, CA 940115 o; 654 -746-75012 1 m 617-970-8805 Broker License #: 01904048 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 R.Auir-r-r-ramm On behalf of Cupertino Village LLC, a sulbsidof Kimco Realty, I am writing to express our support for the Apple Campus 2 �pla,n. The redevelopment of the former HIP campiu,s into a state-of-the-art research: community, Cupertino Village LLC is the owner/managier of the Cupertino Village Shopping Center located directly across Wolfe Road from the new Apple Campus 2 property, We strongly believe that the investment Ap�le is makingim-Cup-p-mlinn-s*'� �n . �La�" live and work for generations to come. The plan itself will einhance the immiedilate neighborhood with extensive roadway improvements incl,"g,ving safe, ol'ArAol Njlke art westrian w-alkyvay rtr'ite"* Cuixierl vill'q;e a")v Nsh"a xlirq districts south of I 280i. Local businesses will flourish with employees patronizing restaurants and retailers which will d,irectly benefit many of our resident business owners. Apple's investment in Apple Campus 2 and the neiglhbolrhood is a great complimient to our plannied re-ireinvestment and redevelopment at Cupertino Village which will benefit Cupertino res�idents, employees and the City as well. We and our retail tenai took forward to the, Council's approval of the new campus and start of construction as soon as poissibile. Ili IMPIRITITIM! IT N.I Sincerely, DaL aZso Vice President Asset Management Authorized Agent 75 Southgate Avenue I Daly City, CA 94015 6,50-746-750,2 1 mi: 617-970-8805 Letter 815 cont. 2 BITTER+SWEET 20560 Town Center Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 June 7, 2013 Mayor Orrin Mahoney City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mayor Mahoney: Apple Z ETR Date Received JUN 10 2013 Processed by As a small business owner in the City of Cupertino, I wanted to express my complete support for Apple's request for a new campus. I own and operate Bitter + Sweet, a coffee and desert bar in Cupertino. As the home and headquarters city to Apple, residents in Cupertino feel a great sense of pride. The Apple Campus 2 plan is exceptional and will provide another point of distinction for the City. Allowing Apple to continue to prosper in Cupertino through the development of the Apple Campus 2 supports all businesses, small and large. To have Apple requesting to grow in Cupertino demonstrates what a wonderful place our City is for business. I believe Apple contributes substantially to all small business owners in Cupertino through their employees, contractors and partners. With thousands of workers purchasing meals and services, small business, like mine, thrive. Many Apple employees frequent my coffee and dessert bar every week. They are wonderful customers - incredibly loyal and a pleasure to host in my cafe. My employees and I truly enjoy our frequent interactions with them, Cupertino is synonymous with Apple. Resident and local business owners want to see this project built to keep Apple growing in the city where it was founded. I thank you for your support of the project. Sincerely, L J ice 7hua wne , er + Sweet Letter B16 1 From: Orrin Mahoney [Mg�Lljq; Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 10:02 AM To: 'L.A. Chung' Subject: RE: Reacdon to the Apple 2 Campus draft EIR? LA, My only reaction w far is WOW, what a tome, In fact, we are not supposed to comment on it until after the, officiall comment period closes, Best, O,rrin From: L.A. Chung (f)l g_ U),&tg ,_Qf D) Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 3:56 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Reaction to the Apple 2 Campus draft EIR? Hi, Orrin: I've been juggling a couple of things and see that the draft EIR for the Apple2 campus came out this afternoon. I was wondering whether you had a reaction to it? I may be heavily relying on an old story on Cupertino Patch from all EIR scoping meeting. I see the following had been issues, and am plowing my way through the draft now. Am wondering if there are any iterns that caught your attention? Flere are s(�)nuof the Nghkghts of ussues residents sald ttaey want included hi the EIR repoft (beslides traffic)� 0 Closwe of Prunerudge Avenue, 0 Hazardous waste frorn demohtmn of U-ip. okl I lewlett Packard buddingst residents said thE!Y waint to make SUre there wren no 'dust CIOUds" that rrdght ex1pose n6ghbiorhood s to tox�c 1�mrUcuhates, and they want to know how waste vvffl be 6SPOSEKf Of. 0 Protection of nearby CA�abasas Creek, 0 PossiWe r0oicaUon of the Gendenning Barn, considerecl an histor�caI laindn-iark, a I)rotecbon of the arge street ti ees aVong Woff r=, and Homestead roads, 0 Niwse abaternent dUirmc'� construction and c3nce thc,new carnpus as in use. 0 Balance between the MM)ber of jobs, housng availabihty, and hi-rpacrs on QocaV schoo' s, RMUM L.A. Chung Editor, covering Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Cupertino 1oSal1crSJ?A1K1]K2fl! 650-201-1477(n,ol, Iwtuer.corn/losaltosp itch Letter 817 1 Letter 818 From: Ryan Carrigain [aIaJkQ-M@.aL.ftch@,mLvf,=] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 2:'.18 PIVI To: Rick Kitson Subject: SJSV Support Apple Campus, Project Hi Rick, Can we have our letter of support, previously sent to council, included in the public commentary for the Appie PIR? Please let me know if this is a problem. Thank you, Ryan Ryan Carrigan Manager, Public Policy & External Relations, San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce 101 W. Santa Clara St. San Jose, CA 95113 p: 408-291-5275 wam—c @—sLchAmLeL&q1Lu 5k!IqI1aL@I& r Letter 818 cont. May 31, 2013 CHAMUR Or, CONIMER(I Executive Com,miittee 2013 No"I Chafd Mayor Orrin Mahoney Gfface Davis City Council tntel Cwporation Cupertino City HaU vu,avl,Chi&r kh,cheille Peacock 10300 Torre Avenue voatylnc. Cupertino, CA 95014 Vict, Chia ('0mmoN10 N"o(opmem Sondra 'Wheatley iDear Mayor Mahoney and Councilmembers, 0sco systents The San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce strongly supports AppWs 176 -acre site vcrc a h,w i,,Onum,c Devakpww'm Seen cotfle proposal for its Apple 2 Campus in Cupertino. Holec menton Jones a Appel V,r, Publx Policy v Silicon Valley is a, global leader in job growth, number of patents issuedi, entrepreneurship and Mary Uen Meer pactfic Gas & fltectm company virtually every aspect of high tech innovation. But there's nothing permanent about our region's status as a global leader; others are working feverishly to supplant Silicon Va Hey's Preeminent V,,Iv Chao 5rn,W 0,,wme Joe Schurnaker position in order to attain the prosperity and superior quality of life so many of our residents take Caiirnopofikan Cake6ng for granted. V,P CI P & (m) Y Uue r e E Kh rn,o ju r, ktene Chavej Karsew Permaoe"te The Apple 2 campus has garnered worldwide attention for its environmentally -sustainable principles and breathtaking design. Not least, it is also an indelible affirmation by one of the MkhaO Bangs O(Ade world's most transformative companies that Silicon Valley is where they want to be for hin Cover generations to come. CJ Conros HoslpRM Douglas Gra ha m Apple has committed to extensive investments in roadways, intersection improvements, LockheedMarfln sidewalks, bike lanes and thousands of trees as part of this project. The campus` economic Jonathan Noble benefits, direct and indirect, are incalculably important for the entire region. it has been milivosoft thoroughly studied and well thought out. We believe it is worthy of your support. Janis schneideo RWJe'avekny&Loani Our organization, is heavily committed to this project's success, and we look forward to working mant Paikinswi collaboratively with you in the months ahead to help it, become a reality. Porblavich, Pugh & co", LLP Clham4e�PAC (h,w Sincerely, Suzanne salata Garden City Construction tegal (0: un%el Eugene Ashley, Vul, Hopkini & Caioley, A Law carpopa"on 7,'eqwjre Matthew R, Mahood Jim Lynch President and CEO san Jose Wet& Company hm"old"M"', Pos� 04�, Rslansaew DeloMe Matthew Mahood San Jose SHIcon Valley Chamber of, C.Mmevce 101:1 W, Santa Clara SL [ San Jose 95113 P: 408-291.5250 � F. 408-286-51011,9 1 sjchamber.corn From; Qara(Lm� L"Pogny To, applecan')QuQ Letter Subject: FW: Appe Date: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:12:06 AM 819 Attachments. SKMBT C15413051112Kpdf From: Peter Pau [mailto:ppau@shpco.com] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 12:26 PM To: omahoney@cupertino,.org Subject: Apple SAND HILL PROPERTY COMPANY Honorable Orrin Mahoney Mayor City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RE. Sand Hill Property Company's Support of Apple Campus 2 Dear Mayor Mahoney: As you know, Sand Hill Property Company and its affiliates own and have developed many projects in Cupertino, and we have been a long term stakeholder in the community. I am sending you this letter in strong support of the Apple Campus 2 project. We have collaborated with the Apple Campus 2 team to ensure that our plans for the Main Street development integrate with the new campus and surrounding neighborhood. Apple has produced a plan that links Main Street to their campus, which creates a walkable environment for the residents and visitors of Cupertino. The investment Apple is making in the City of Cupertino is unparalleled by any company in the region or State of California. Apples investment and commitment in our community also strengthens our ability to promote Main Street and full rill the City's vision for this vibrant mixed use area. It is essential that the Apple Campus 2 project move forward as soon as possible as it supports the overall economy, services for Cupertino residents and virtually every business in the city in some way. Sand Hill Property Company is very supportive of Apples plan and the positive effect it will have on Cupertino. I urge the City Council to approve the project &% expeditiously as possible as proposed. jkl Reg, ids, cter P u 203 REDWOOD SHORES P'ARKWAY, SUITE 20O * REIDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 - (650) 344-1500 - FAX (650) 344-0652 1 Letter 820 Letter ID 500078 Name Shiloh Ballard Address 2001 Gateway P1 City, State Zip San Jose, CA San Jose Email Subject Apple Comment On behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, we wholeheartedly support the project. It's a very exciting economic development opportunity. Thanksl Letter 821 Letter ID 500075 Name Steve Van Dorn Address 1850 Warburton Ave City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA 95050 Email Steve.vandorniCa-)santaclara.org Subject Apple Campus 2 Comment The Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the Apple Campus 2 project, This project will enable Apple to remain in Cupertino and Silicon Valley. It will also enable Apple to add 7,400 new high quality jobs. Increase revenues of local businesses and support additional job growth throughout Silicon Valley. And enhance tax revenues to the City of Cupertino and other cities and public agencies. We urge and request the unanimous support of the Cupertino City Council. Regards, Steve Van Dorn President and CEO Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce Letter 822 From: Megan Fluke Medeiros [mAiKo--=gM.f!gke i OD5 Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 3:29 PM To. Rick Kitson; City Council Cc: Gary Latshaw; Kat a Irvin; Gladwyn d'Souza; Gita Dev; Lola Turney; Eric Morley; Heyward Robinson Subject: Sierra Club Comments on Apple Campus 2 Dear Mr. Kitson, Honorable Mayor, and City Council - Please find the attached cominent letter from the Sierra Club Lorna Prieta Chapter on tile Apple Campus 2 Project proposal, We would lx.,, happy to discuss our recommendations over the phone or in person if it would be helpful for You. Thank you, Megan Meg ,an Fluke Medeiros Conservation and Development Manager Sierra Club torna Prieta Chapter 3921 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 204 Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 390.8497 fax (65: l) 390.9604 office ggi b(gi .—Ul. "'QE Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Celebrating 80 years cif protecting the planet SIERM, 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303 1 loma.prieta.chapter@sierraclub.org CLUB TELEPHONE: 1(650) 390-8411 1 FAX: (650) 390-8497 July 22, 2013 Rick Kitson Department of Public and (Environmental Affairs Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Re: Comments on Apple Campus 2 Project The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter has been reviewing the Apple Campus 2 project since 2012 and understands that this proposal is a significant one for the region. The new campus will redesign several existing roadways within the City of Cupertino, generate more trips, and act as a new model for technology campuses everywhere. For these reasons and more, we have prepared this comment letter for the City of Cupertino to review and respond to. The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter has developed guidelines for evaluating projects like the Apple Campus 2 Project which focus on five key issues: 1. Compact Development to use valuable land more efficiently at a major transit hub Z Community and Economic (Benefits to assure a vibrant neighborhood with a sense of identity 3, Pedestrian Priority as the primary mode of transportation within the campus 4. Transportation Alternatives to provide realistic options for people aind decrease automobile usage 5. Energy / Resource Efficiency targets for buildings and streets to meet high sustainability goals Apple Campus 2 is using an exemplary community outreach process and we applaud the responsiveness of the project proponents. Additionally, there are many features of the Apple Campus 2 proposal that we are very supportive of including: 1. The pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit user benefits including bicycle and transit access improvements, shuttles for employees, daycare facility, bicycle share, car share, and other traffic demand management program features. 2. The 2,500 new trees planted on campus - This is important because trees are known to have many benefits to a community including filtering the air and soil, reduce the "heat island effect," muffle loud noises, and provide food.' We further appreciate Apple's plan to include fruit trees on site which will be used in the cafeteria. Savatree, http�_www. J./ cor JwhyVern hn bL r�,wivafle unn _ _ Letter 822 cont. 2 3. Renewable Energy -By investing, in one of the largest solar powered campuses in the world, Apple is a forerunner in "green' technologies that we hope will be replicated. Furthermore, by ensuring energy production and storage remains on site, the transportation and linkage to an offsite source reduces the amount of construction necessary, thus reducing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. Nitrogen Deposition Fee - We are so happy that Apple has elected to pay the Nitrogen Deposition Fee (page 2S7 of the DEIR). We request that Apple identifies the fee as mitigation for a cumulatively significant environmental impact. We also request that the fee be paid to Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency. The Agency studies nitrogen deposition as a cumulatively significant environmental impact on endangered species, which the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter supports. Letter 822 cont. 3 cont. We have divided this letter into issues Apple can address and issues Cupertino can address. Transportation accounts for approximately 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in the Bay Area and reducing transportation demand is the most significant opportunity for our cities to meet California's climate change goals, specifically AB32 and 513375, 4 Therefore, our primary recommendations focus on reducing the transportation impacts of the project. We offer the following recommendations for Apple's, consideratiow 1. increase mode -share split target to 45% - The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter recognizes Apple's stated mode -share split target of 35% which is a solid goal but will likely be exceeded within the first year, and therefore is an underwhelming, goal to strive for. As Silicon Valley leader, it is surprising that Apple is not striving to meet or exceed comparable sites like Facebook in Menlo Park (originally stated 40% but has seen increases due to measures) and Stanford (53% but has also seen increases). Rather than easily exceeding a low target, we encourage Apple to do what Apple does best and push, the limit and set a high mode -share split target to work toward. By asserting a mode -share split of 45% or even higher, Apple will stand out as an aggressively "green" company serving ais a role model for other companies and organizations. 1 Adopt a "TDM First" Strategy - Existing traffic demand management strategies, in general, considers TDM as a secondary mitigation measure after vehicle capacity enhancements have been exhausted. Development of a "TDM first" strategy would reverse this practice by requiring application of TDIVI actions and performance measures before considering capacity enhancements including additional parking and lane expansion. Furthermore, this approach would minimize the overall cost of the project substantially, an obvious benefit to Apple. TDIVI measures to be implemented before expanding road capacity can include, but is not be limited to: o Transit commuter benefits though a pre-tax payroll deduction. (_,� Free transit passes through VTA and Calitrain. * Charge for parking on site especially on non -rainy days where there should be very little excuse to drive. The money generated can be used for free transit passes for employees. * Real time parking cash out system, If the commuters are offered subsidized parking, offer a cash - equivalent for those who opt to use alternative travel modes,' * Bicycle/pedestrian improvements from neighborhoods with clusters of Apple employee clusters (within walkable or bikeable distance) to campus. * Organize car or vanpooll options including offering preferred parking for those who participate in the car/vanpool, 2 Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, h �fljqmAphr,,ta.Me �achib 2 ... . ..... ml_l rr o� Jgjagtt 6 ra��PtPajlkin Wh,lite% OPa e%pfJf. . . — I _q 5LS_ . . ... . ...... 2 * Encourage driving and parking on alternate days. * Improve or at least maintain existing level of safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. In particular, N. Tantau Ave. is, a well-established bicycle -friendly street for north -south bicycle travel, 'This should be preserved. Some ideas to consider include the use of safety lights, painted bicycle lanes, and undergrouind or over ground passageways,, * Do not paint pre -fixed directional lanes for any entrance/exit that is more than 2 lanes nor exceed, more than 3 -lanes per entrance/exit and adjust the middle land to account for changes in flow at certain times of the day. For example, use a center lane as an entrance !in the morning and as an exult in the evening. * Only expand parking space and automobile capacity once all TOM measures have been exhausted. The number of parking spaces is set to increase on Apple Campus 2 from, an existing 9,200 to close to 11,000 (page 433 of DEIR). This will encourage employees to drive to work when Apple should first encourage employees to use commute alternatives. Having free, plentiful automobile parking does the exact opposite. 1 Relocate existing "protected" trees on Campus 2 instead of eliminating them - As stated on page 261 of the DEIR, the total number of trees on campus is set to increase by 2,494. However, the plan calls for 4,506 mature protected trees to be cut down due to road widening and the building of the campus. Mature trees have been found to remove more pollutants from the air than younger treeS.3 Although potentially more work to relocate, the aesthetic and climate benefits are worth the investment. A core value listed in the Apple Campus 2 brochure sent out by Peter Oppenheimer mentions increasing the number of new and mature trees. By cutting down mature trees, All actions would be in opposition with that goat. Letter 822 cont. 6 cont. 4. Extend the recycled water delivery system or consider onsite grey -water re -use - Given that water insecurity is likely to be a major issue in the future we urge Apple, the Cities of Cupertino and Sunnyvale, and other involved parties to extend the recycled water delivery system to serve this project. This project should 8 serve as an example for major commercial development not yet served by alternative water supplies. We also recommend the consideration of onsite grey -water re -use. 5. Expand riparian setback to 100 feet - A 50 foot riparian setback is not sufficient. Although the established 50 -foot buffer is considered adequate (from page 257 of the DEIR), many locall cities within Santa Clara County have set a 100 -foot riparian setback pol iCY.4 5 There is room on the campus site to provide this setback and enhance the riparian corridor. Apple can change the design to accommodate the same building footprint without encroaching on this recommended setback. Apple, as a major local corporate icon should set an example for stream stewardship and riparian ecosystem protection. 6. Add an Apple store and/or an Apple Museum for the community - One idea we know the community would love is to include a way to generate sales tax for the city by adding a store to the new campus. Even if it is a "mini -store", by designing it in such a way that looks iconic, it will attract tourists and locals alike which will establish a new form of revenue for Apple and for the City of Cupertino. This can help the City and Apple to continue investing in great infrastructure and "green" technologies. Moreover, as part of the project, Apple Indiana Urban Forest Council, hqj2�UwwwJr1.j?,qvL nL -UF Airdtaners,gmdf. 4 City of San lose Envision 2040 General Plan, http:JJwww.san oseca.gov/DocurruentCenter/Horyie/Vifuw/47 City of San Jose Habitat Plan, "Review of Setback Policies for Selected Santa Clara County Jurisdictions," 10 Letter 822 cont. could work with the City of Cupertino to have a museum dedicated to some of the breakthrough products 10 that Apple has produced. Such a museUrni Could be located away from this research facility which should cont. remove concerns over security at the new campus. Make the exterior more interesting for the public - The exterior of the facility is essentially planned to be unimproved. While employees and visitors can benefit from several interior "parks" and paths, there are no such facilities on the exterior for residents to enjoy. While it is understandable that Apple, Inc. does not want 11 the facility to become an "attraction" for residents and visitors to our region, they could make the exterior more presentable to the public. For example, undulate the fence, add park benches, add public art, etc. We offer the following recommendations for the City of Cupertino's consideration: 1. Use taxes generated by Apple for additional bicycle and pedestrian improvements between the campus I 12 and public transportation, 2, Ask Apple for a no net trip increase. I 13 3. Implement traffic impact fees to be used toward future transportation improvements and updates in the vicinity of Campus 2. Impact fees are charges that Ilocall governments may assess on new development projects. The fees reimburse at least a portion of the costs incurred by local government to provide the public facilities needed to serve the new development. Impact fees may only be used to fund public facilities 14 needs that are reasonably related to the new development. They may be used to pay the development's proportionate share of the cost of public facilities that benefit the new development; however, impact fees cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies in public facilities. 4. Implement housing impact fees - Housing impact fees are when developers pay a fee to offset the demand for affordable housing created as a result of their development. This action is becoming more prevalent throughout the Bay Area, For example, Mountain View has a $10 per square foot of new development to go 15 toward new rental projeCtS.6'By asking Apple and other companies to pay a housing impact fee, it allows more funding for affordable housing to be built !in the area. Thank you for taking the time to review and consider our recommendations. Please contact us if you have any follow 16 up questions about this comment letter. I Respectfully submitted, Megan Fluke Medeiros, Conservation and Development Manager Gary Latshaw, Cupertino Cool Cities Leader Katj:a Irvin, Water Committee Chair G11adwyn d'Souza,, Sustainable Land Use Committee Chair Luta i Dev, Sustainable Land Use Committee Member Lola Torney, Sustainable Land Use Committee Member 6 Nathan Donato -Weinstein, "San Jose Explores Housing Impact Fee, Other Options for Affordable Housing," Silicon Valley Business Journal, March 11, 2013, http://www.bizjournials.com/sanj,ose/news/2013/03/11/is-san-jose-eyeing-a-housing-impact-fee.htmi. Letter 823 Fraim: James Fowler JwierI?leC. Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 2:04 PM T : Aarti Shrivastava; Piu Ghosh Cc: David Brandt; Dan Whisenhunt; Foulkes Mike; Eric Morley; David A. Gold; Miles H. Imwalle; Jennifer R, Jeffers Subject: Apple Comment Letter Aarti and Piu - Per my plione Aarti, here is Apple's cc rnment letter on the number ol'exit I anes frk)m AC2 to Wolfe. Jim 1 1 James C. Fowler Associate General Counsel - Real Estate Apple Inc, I Infinite Loop, M/S 4-DLAW Cupertino, California 95014 Telephonc- (408) 862-6012 Cell Phone; (408) 332-788,5 Enviii: jjh�v�l l roan THISTRANSMISSION MAY BE PRIVILEGED AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSON(S) NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE OR RETURN EMAIL, AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE (AND ANY ATTACHMENTS OR ENCLOSURES) FROM YOUR SYSTEM, 11 MONOM City of Cupertino 6r 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Attn.: Aarti Shrivastava Apple greatly appreciates the tremendous time, effort, energy, expertise and good judgment City Staff has put toward the Project, including in preparing the �DEIR. The Staffs efforts have resulted in a much -improved Project. The DEIR is clearly written, thorough and will assist the public in understanding the Project. We are very grateful for the City's efforts during this process. the environment and our surrounding neighbors. We believe the community wiI benefit not only from the short and long-term jobs generated by Apple's ability to rema!in in Cupertino, but also from the Project itself. Wei look forward to Apple's next phase of growing our operations at Apple Campus 2, and are delighted that we will be able to continue to call Cupertino our home. While we support the analysis in the DEIR, one issue that is very important to operation of the campus is that the Wolfe Road exit includes three left turn lanes. Unfortunately, the DER concludes that providing three left turn (lanes would potentially create a significant impact due to "weaving conflicts' and therefore recommends reducing the exit to two left turn lanes, We recognize the City's concerns, but we believe the issues can be appropriately managed. We request the City to consider a "trial period" mitigation measure, as described below, Letter 823 cont. 1 cont. City of Cupertino July 22, 2013 Page Two I'm". Niles r L III FTWICTesu na 6,711 is one oi Ine 7zalvi orl e "Il 012". ramps. That would require a merge across two lanes, potential�ly within a short distance. Impact TRANS -23 identifies this "weaving conflic�t' as a po ntially significant impact on Wolfe Road and recommends reducing the original piroposal from three lanes to two. We believe this type of conflict is unlikely to occur in the first instance and, in any event, can be managed. Unlike a general'public street, exiting the campus will be part of a daily commute pattern correct 1-280 on-ramp, As a result, most employees will queue correctly. We also note thait, unlike a public street, everyone leaving will be co-workers, which we beliieve will moderate aggressive driving behavior. In addition, the issue can be further min:imized by the following measures: • Installing clear signage throughout the exit approach, including overhead signs, painted directions on lanes and appropriate lane striping Internal employee education Traffic monitors yruff 1191 U Idt dII-411b 15 1* 4.e1FT1'14I!,Erd1e TVCd14Wj-1YJ"* SC 0 f1f: U I C I 11. ft�lVe Id I C City has a remedy. This both mitigates the impact and accommodates Apple's operation?" need�s. City of Cupertino July 22, 2013 page Three Letter 823 cont. significant impact. We appreciate that Impact TRANS -23 only identified "weaving" impacts and did not identify a delay -related impact on Wolfei Road. • The exit configuration is something that will'affect employees on a daily biasis for many years, so it is important we get this issue right. As always, we apprecialte your coderation of our concerns and anticipate that we can work to final resolution on this issue. Sincerely, Dan Whisenhunt Senior Director Apple Inc. From. Tappan Merrick AI� CQ-Rj Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 9:05 PM To: City Council Cc: Raynor Neighbors Subject: Cupertino Village parking lot exits Dear Mayor and Honorable Council, One of our Sunnyvale neighbors approached nie this evening in regards to traffic flow in and out of Cupertino Village (southwest comer ol'Wolfe and Homestead). fie lives directly west of this shopping center, on Linnet Drive in Sunnyvale. He contacted me because he is aware that I arn running for Sunnyvale's City Council, seat 3, in our Noveniber, 2013 elections and have been a long time neighborhood and city activist. As we discussed this expansion of this shopping center, I began to understand many oi' his, and this small neighborhood's problems, because I too, sometimes shop there. As was explained to me, the 1200 car two story parking lot to be built along the west side of the property, and also along Linnet, will dump, traffic directly out onto Homestead Road, only. This is a non -metered exit which already has problems with exiting cars, partly because there is inadequate lane markings to accominodate both left and right hand turns. Running all of these extra cars out this one exit will create all sorts of ongoing problems, especially once the Apple 11 campus is built and occupied. A better choice would be to funnel all these parked cars out the metered Pruneridge exit instead, making it much easier to go ewa, north and south, as, well as traveling tip to Wolfe and heading west on the left turn lights designed for such action. Another problem exists at Heron, whose stop light is now managed by Cupertino, instead olSunnyvale. West bond Homestead traffic will need a longer right turn lane. North an(] west bound traffic coming Lip along Heron may need additional timing and turn lane options for homeowners to be able to quickly get to work in the mornings. With all of the extra traffic along Homestead as a result of both the Apple and Cupertino Village cars, exiting with a left turn out of Linnet will probably be impossible. He also advised me that these Sunnyvale neighbors, many within 300 feet of the parking structure to be built, were never notified of any of the meetings and neighbor outreach programs that are typical, and usually required of such evetlK I would encourage Cupertino to begin a neighborhood outreach program regarding this project, and in conjunction with the Apple 11 Campus, reach a better solution that) the one approved, apparently, in 2008. Your attention to this matter is deeply appreciated by us Sunnyvale residents Respectfully submitted, Tap MerTick Tap Merrick for Council 2013 Seat 3 jg 1091 Firth Court, Sunnyvale, CA 940,87 FPPC# 1355565 408-249-2900 Letter C1 1 Letter C2 From. Ronald Moore [maifto:ronaldm124@aoLcom1 Sent. Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:42 PM To: City Council Subject: APPLE CAMPUS 2 COMMENTS I SUPPORT THE APPLE CAMPUS 2 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I heartily support the approval of Apple's Application to build Apple Campus 2 in Cupertino. I think it will be beneficial, and will help Cupertino to be more prosperous. When Steve Jobs appeared at the Cupertino City Council meeting on June 7, 2011, to announce his proposal, a woman in the audience made some negative remarks about it, and Mr. Jobs responded: "Do you want me to move my headquarters to another City?(Mountain View)" Any City would gladly welcome Apple to vacate Cupertino and locale in their City. For example Sunnyvale, especially, is licking it's chops. Please don't let that happen. Keep Apple here, in the City where it all began. There will always be Naysayers, Philistines, (philistine -a person who is hostile or indifferent to culture and the ails, or who has no understanding of them: a definition from a dictionary), and People who simply make up statistics, or project unfounded facts about traffic, etc. Don't let them drive Apple out of Cupertino. Itis likely that consolidating many of Apple's buildings scattered in Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, etc. into one area with an on-site parking lot will help alleviate some traffic problems in nearby Cities. CUPERTINO HAS SOME UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES First of all, Cupertino has the documented right to claim to be the "Birthplace of the Personal Computer Industry." Apple Computer was started on April 1,1976, by Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, and incorporated by them on January 3,1977 in Cupertino Cafiforniia. Apple's "Apple 2" computer was the first truly "Personal Computer," Also it was not a "kit", as many various previous attempts were (including Apple's innovative""Applethat had to be assembled! and programmed, etc. The "Apple 2" was the first personal computer, complete out-of-the-box and ready to go, It was also the first to come in a plastic case and to include color graphics. The 'Apple 2" was (and still is) an impressive machine. I still have mine. I have at least 14 Apple Computers and many other Apple peripherals and products, like my Apple Graphic Tablet, on which I did three drawings (illustrations" at home for SRI. I was told by the Editors, they were the "first" -computer filu ver Published and they were strafions e in a report by SRI's 'Long Range Planning Service." Second, Apple is famous world-wide because of the Steves we adore, who are regularly known as "The Boys from Cupertino" in the news, books, and other references. So, Our "Little Cupertino" is also becoming known world-wide as a Landmark. ltjrd, Apple is Cupertino's largest source of retail tax revenue for Cupertino. Let's hope Apple, Inc. remains here. Besides hoping, let's do all that we can to encourage Apple to continue to keep it's Headquarters here in Cupertino, it's original Homeland. Now, about Traffic. Apple already occupies Most of the buildings in Cupertino and is spilling over into nearby cities. It is reasonable to assume that Apple will consolidate the scattered employees into the new Campus, and some Traffic will only change places and will not increase. However Cupertino, like all cities nggg!gi Traffic (both types) to support the other businesses that it hosts in Cupertino, to keep them profitable viable, and staying open, for additional city retail tax revenue. New employees will likely join the patronizers of Cupertino's other businesses, on lunch hours and after work. We Cupertino's residents all need to support all of Cupertino's businesses. We also want other people to come and shop in Cupertino. It would be foolhardy to discourage the traffic of people coming to Cupertino to shop! Speaking about supporting Cupertino's businesses, I hope for a new Store. As a shareholder, at a shareholder's meeting, I once asked Mir, Jobs: "Why don't we have an Apple Store in Cupertino?" He replied : 1 get a lot of requests for stores. I don't think one here would get much Traffic" (However, in this case, what he was referring to is a marketing term 'Traffic"meaningi customers who go into stores, and not to road traffic, He thought that not many people would actually visit an Apple store in Cupertino.) Besides my Apple 11, as I have said I have fourteen Macintoshes. I know there is a company store on Apple Campus 1, but you can't buy Apple Hardware there" in fact you can't buy Apple hardware anywhere in Cupertino. We need Apple's Real "Flagship Store" to be here in Cupertino. I am happy to live in Cupertino and I would enjoy shoppiing at an Apple store here. It is annoying to have to go to Apple stores in other cities. I'm sure I'm not the only person in Cupertino who would go into an Apple store here. When Mr. Jobs announced his plans for Apple Campus 2 at the Cupertino City Council, he said: "Many people will come from all over the world to, look at this new building, especially Architects and Architectural students and Tourists`" That is gotentiali the 'Good" Traffic that Mr. Jobs said was needed that could be filling a Glorious New Apple Store in Cupertino: either in the Spectacular New Apple Campus 2, or in an A le "Lo o" She ed Store, as viewed from the air, with classes and other events in the in the right leaning "Leaf." That store could be located In the proposed Main Street Project nearby, and could allay any Apple concerns for privacy. But if our many wishes are denied and there is no hope ever for an Apple store here, and! Cupertino remains as Apple's Orphan, then imagine those hundreds, or maybe thousands of visitor's dismay, disappointment and then bewildered looks wondering "Why is it that there is no Apple Store here, or even nearby?", and for them to learn that they would have to travel about six miles away to the dinky Apple store at Valley Fair shopping mail on the border between Santa Clara and San Jose, California. Isn't that incredibly ironic and dumb? Come on! Apple, Let us buy Apples here in your Apple Orchard. OK, your Apricot Orchard, if you say so. We need your truly "Flagship Store' here in Cupertino, not in some other City. I worked at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in Menlo Park for thirty seven years (1955-1992) as a Creative Artist, In the late 1960's, (In my own late Thirties), 11 was Creating a Graphic, for one SRI Computer Scientist, that was showing a Bubble Chart illustrating how much memory would be needed by mainframe computers in the future. I remarked that: "I could hardly wait to have one" He asked; Have what?" I replied: "A Computer!" He looked at me and said: ""'fou want a Computer on your Desk?' I said: 'Yes" He said: "Not in, your Lifetime!" That Computer Scientist was also named Steve. So. I Thank you, Steve Wozniak and! Steve Jobs, for bringing to me what I wished for in my thirties, your excellent "Computers on my Desk" in mom, since 197711 will continue to buy more Apple products, now in my early Eighties and more, God willing! CUPERTINO, DON'T MAKE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE. ALLOW APPLE CAMPUS 2. Cupertino, don't miss the opportunity to capitalize on your illustrious history as "The Birthplace of The Personal Computer Industry, and the Horne of Apple, Inc." We also need Statues of the two Stoves: Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak ("The Woz") by the excellent sculptor who did the wonderful statues of the two Navy Seals in Memorial Park. Those New Statues should be located in the "Main Street" project and located near a new Apple Museum, and a new Cupertino History Museum (also housing the Chamber of Commerce, my suggestion made at the Sandhill series), both to be housed In a Wooden Building, as opposed to other material. We wanted a warm, feeling. as we citizens specifically asked for in the three Sandhill "Main Street" meetings by groups of volunteer citizens several years ago. (Please look at the entire specifications on the charts and: notations of those meetings.) Isn't there a Cupertino, Chamber of Commerce here? I thought so! I never hear anyllning about them. What do they do? there is one I hope that they support Apple Campus 2. AN' I saw in the comments that the COG dgqg support Apple Campos 2 Good for you! To all of those involved: Please, don't delay APPLE'S CAMPUS 2 project any longer. The costs of labor, Materials, and many other elements continue to rise daily. Again, Don't delay! Let the good times roll on! Sincerely Submitted, for the Good of Cupertino Mr. Ronald Joseph Moore, Sr. Cupertino, CA 95014-2318 1-408-253-1197 LqrnLjtdrn 1 24fd)aglcqn1 Letter C2 cont. cont. Letter 0 From: Kej 0,11,5 ,,, ,U,( �J)ipgj&ll 2 gffl, [Mailt9 K -6111 i5 do. -2,flta OL c gin I Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:�23 PM To: City Council Ct: Aard Shrivastaiva; City Clerk; Subject: New construction in rear of Apple parking lot, adjacent to Calabazas Creek July 18, 2013 Dear City Council and Community Development Director, Can you please supply the following Apple project application No,., describe the public hearings that were scheduled regarding that applications review and then the permit number that allowed the construction shown at 10435 North Tantau Ave., in Cupertino? Was this perhaps a Community Development Director's special administrative approval? Was this new construction approved as part of a new development agreement with Apple? Please direct me to the documentation covering the approval process documents for this project and could you also direct me to any Santa Clara Vailley Water District permits or approvals - which clearly show both City of Cupertino -and- SCVWD's set backs and easements were followed. Were special exceptions granted to Apple to disregard any of these easements and set backs? Who is the Santa Clara Valley Water district permitting contact for this specific project, it is Sue Tippets perhaps, or? As the old office structure at this address, 10435 North Tantau Ave, is slated for demolffion as part of the new Apple Campus 2 project, currently that application is at the EIR stage, why wasn't this new construction seen as requiding adequate public noticing, public hearings, to allow EIR mitigation impacts for the future development of a new city park andlor a creek riparian trial andJor a seasonal park in the SCVWD, corridor where Catabazas Creek lies adjacent to this new construction? Google maps shows that in early part of 2013: no development or construction was seen in Apple's rear parking; tot, adjacent to Calabazas Creek and Tantau over pass: Letter C3 cont. From: Gary Beaupre [mailto:garybeaiuprei@comcast.net-, Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 632 P,M To: City Council Subject: Apple 2 Campus Dear Cupertino City Council Members, I attended the July 9t" Sunnyvale Council Chamber meeting to hear the report on the Apple 2 Carnpus DEIR. I was very disappointed that there was no explicit discussion of what I consider to be the most basic of questions about the Apple 2 Campus project, which is: Is the project simply too big for the target location? The draft EIR talks about some impacts that are "significant"',, "unavoidable" and "that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level with feasible mitigation measures". That statement clearly indicates that there will be a negative impact and there is every reason to believe that certain Sunnyvale residents (mostly Birdland residents) will have to live with those negative impacts for as long as they live in Sunnyvale. As a 2,4 -year resident of Birdland in Sunnyvale, one of the things I have come to value tremendously about where I live is the character of my neighborhood, and specifically illy ability to quickly access the carpool lane on Highway 280 and be at San Jose airport or parked in San Jose downtown to attend a play at the Rep or to go to the Opera. Presently, those trips typically take me no longer than 15 to 25 minutes,, even at busy commute times. I can only imagine how adding several thousand cars from the Apple 2 Campus to the Wolff/280 and Lawrence/280 on and off -ramps will make those trips into San Jose feel like a traffic congestion nightmare. Appendix B, Traffic Impact Analysis of the draft EIR has an assessment of the current commute time traffic situations as various locations. For example, it states: "In the PM peak period, the queue from the ramp meter extended back six to seven cars onto Wolfe Road." If a traffic analysis suggests that that queuing is not going to become absolutely horrendous with the addition of several thousands more cars from Apple 2 trying to access Highway 280 at Wolff Road, then that suggests to me the traffic analysis is fundamentally flawed. In my opinion,, the Apple 2 Campus building is too tall of a building (How many Birdland residents know that the top of the building will be 77 ft higher than Homestead?; i.e,, a 57 ft tall building on top of a 20 ft tall earthen plateau), too large of a building (a 1500 ft diameter giant donut that may look outdated and ugly all too soon), too great a density of employees, resulting in too much additional commute time traffic, and it will lead to a fundamental change in the quality of life for many Birdland residents, I predict it will also lead to an unimaginable increase in traffic -related frustration, especially at Lawrence/280 and Wolff/280 at commute times. If the Apple 2 Campus project is approved as it, it will be impossible for those problems to ever be undone. This project will forever change the neighborhood character of southwest Sunnyvale and that change will be almost exclusively negative. Back to my first question: How big is too big? Answer: The Apple 2 Campus is too big. It's time that people acknowledge that a project can simply be too big for a given location, and it's time for us to do something about it before it's too late. Sincerely, Gary Beaupre 1662 Grosbeak Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94087 b te, nre� (408) 733-2845 Letter C4 1 C. Letter C5 From. Stan TheMan [stanthemanOOOO@ hotm ail com Senit, Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:01 PM To: applec,ampus2 Subject: Apple Campus 2 size & road closure This is in regards to the proposed Apple Campus 2 that replaces the old HP campus. As a resident of Cupertino and a neighbor of this "Mothership" project, I'm concerned about the immense size of this project and the road closures both during construction and the permanent closures after completion. The project is too big. Does Apple need that much space? The building alone will be bigger than the new 49ers stadium in Santa Clara. As proposed, all of the existing buiildinigs will be torn down, However nearly all the buildings are in excel�lent condition and most are currently occupied. Several buildings were built in the 1970s and 1980s, so there's little that they need to be brought up-to-clate, Maniy trees on the old HP Campus including its famed Redwood Grove are proposed to be removed. These trees should be preserved. As a local resident, I'd like to know which road will be closed during the project. Is this information available yet? After completion, Prunieridge Ave between Wolfe Rd & Tantau Ave is slated for compllete closure due to the immense size of the "Mothership" project. I use this road & feel it will be much harder to get around because the alternatives are not as easy to travel. To the south, there the 280 freeway and Vallco nail, making access via Vallco Parkway not easy. To the north, there's Homestead Rd, which is already a busy road with Ranch 99 on the corner. to in 17 -year Cupertino resident Letter C6 From; Sandra and Don [mai9to:aindtralidonCa)colt-nc,as:t.tiet] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 11:23 AM To: City Council Subject: We support the new Apple Campus Sandra and Don Boren support the new Apple Campus. We love to see more cyclists around and sensible shuttle -bussing of employees. 1I Letter C7 From: Russ Robinson Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 11:13 AM To,. City Council Subject: Apple 2 campus Good morning, I wish to register my support for the crew Apple campus. Il have reviewed the executive summary and agree with the approach and execution proposed. As a historian I am pleased the an effort is being made to relocate and preserve the historic Gtennclennling barn. I retired from Lockheed as real estate executive. While at Lockheed: I was the project manager for the interior of a very large, state of the art building called Building 150. In todays parlance it could be called a green building. Many elements of the building were designed to be energy efficient and this new Apple campus incorporates many of the same features. I am very pleased to see such a well thought out proposall. Russ Robinson 10825 W. Estates Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 408-253-2529 [g2§!Q!121ix,netcorn,1qom From: Thorisa Yap [mailto:ryladie99@Vahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 11:59 AM To: Aart! Shrivastava Subject: Fare: [McBB] Apple 2 fortress - comment period Dear Aarti Here is the post that I need to share it with you.. Thank you, Thorisa ( Mrs. Yap ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Mama -saurus To; mcbb <mac > Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 203 9:36 AM Subject: [McBB,l Apple 2 fortress - comment period Looks like it is goings to become even more difficult for Santa Clara and east Sunnyvale students to make it to McAuliffe on time due to an big increase in traffic from the new Apple campus. The draft Environmental Impact Report is out on the Apple 2 campus tel be built at the old HP campus - and which will hold 50% more employees then HP did at its peak. It is here: It appears to indicate that traffic, among other issues, will become even worse up/down Wolfe and along Homestead and Tantau, and/or trying to get on/off 280. Apple intends to shut down a portion of Pruineridge drive to all (incl. bicycles and pedestrians) traffic -- apparently Apple need more security than most of the military contractors that are here in the valley so they will fence off the property and close roads to provide a big boundary. I haven't read through all the impact areas, but am concerned about air quality right along 280 at Wolfe from the on-site power generation that is planned combined with increase in stalled traffic. Given wind patterns off the bay, it would seem that localize pollution will flow over to Cupertino High School and/or Lawson Middle. Only written comments are being accepted at this time, as dictated by the California Environmental Quality Act. There is a form to submit electronic written comments on the same City of Cupertino website or send an email. I would focus on mitigation ideas as it appears the Cupertino Council will approve anything that Apple puts forward. One mitigation idea that I am going to suggest is busing the school kids from Sunnyvale and Santa Clara to the district -wide schools (at Apple's minimal expense), thus taking many single family vehicles off the most impacted iinte,rsections. Added benefit is reducing the congestion at McAuliffe, Murdock - Portal, and CLIP sites. The city of Sunnyvale will also hold a study session to discuss the draft EIR on July 9 at 6 p.m. in the council chamber at city hall, 456 W. Olive Ave. Both Facebook and the 49ers made big donations to the communities/schools that they impacted, but I don't see any similar suggestions being made by Apple. If anyone knows otherwise, please share. thanks Ann, Letter C8 1 T 11 From: Rich Altmaier [mailto:richalt2@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 8:22 PM To., City Council Cc: Rich Altmaier Subject: Apple Campus 2 As a long time resident of Cupertino, I feel Apple has brought a strong value to our city in terms of high tech jobs, attraction to other businesses, and notice as a place to, be in technology, I think the proposed Campus 2 at the former HIP site was be a world class facility and we should extend every effort to build it. It will bring notice to our community in a very positive sense. Although there may be slight increases in congestion, such as going from the HP site 8000 odd parking spaces to some 14000, let's expect and ask for good mitigation efforts, Lets also not forget the strong green sensibility of typical Apple employees to work to reduce congestion by using public transit and bicycles! Thank you, Rich Altmaier 22605 Salem Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 408 973-1809 Letter C9 1 __-__Original Message_____ From. essage----- From: Rick Haffner[niLaL11SL1Lq±f,jc1�@grnaL1.M] Sent- Monday, July 01, 2013 11:25 AM To: City Council Subject: Increased Traffic and Freeway Access Improvements related to Apple 2 and Main Street??? Dear Valued Council Representatives: I would like to know what plans there are to enlarge and improve freeway access as the Apple 2 Campuls and the Main Street projects are developed? Currently I already find it nearly impossible to enter and exit my apartment community located adjacent to The Roasted Coffee Bean on Stevens Creek and Tantau during rush hours. This has occurred since Kaiser was built and Apple has rented most of the office buildings along Tantau Ave, I'm sure the legions of silver Apple buses and vans cruising around the area have helped to minimize traffic - as opposed to single driver vehicles - but it was irresponsible planning for virtually no improvement in freeway access when the large hospital was built. I trust that with such HUGE plans for development in this areae that some SERIOUS consideration for the increased traffic is being considered. Otherwise I foresee major problems being created, (as like what occurred along 280 when Santana Row was developed with no increase in freeway access), in what is already a very congested section of the freeway and its on/off ramps dluring rush hours. Please take a moment to drive personally in this area during rush hours yourselves. Stevens Creek and Lawrence Expwy. are already extremely congested. Thank you for your service and dedication to representing all Cupertino residents. Rick Haffner 19140 Stevens Creek Blvd. #8103 Cupertino CA 95014 Letter C10 1 From: William F. Bailey [mail:williamfbailey@yahoo.comI Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013,1:45 AM To: Santa-Clara�_Neighbors_for�_Responsible_Developm,ent@yahoDgroups.com; council@ci.sunnyvale.ca.us; City Council Cc: BirdlandNeughbors@yahoogroups.com; Raynor Neighbors; Sunnyvale Politics; Neight*rsfirst Sunnyvale Subject: Re: [Santa-Cl,:ara-Neighbors_for_Responsib,le-Devefolpment] Apple 11 Campus meeting last night Tap, I do appreciate your sending us the links to the Apple 2 campus development. In what follows, I'd like to speak as a resident of Santa Clara, and not as the Treasurer of San [a ClaiaLllgy!~-LaJE. At some 5000 pages, Apple's giving us more info for their 176 acres than the 440O pages that the San Francisco 49ers gave us Santa Clarans for the 17 (yes, seventeen) acres they're developing in our city. Very briefly, when one looks at the potential "economic activity," the Apple campus is going to contribute far more to Cupertino - and to surrounding cities - than the 49ers will ever contribute to Santa Clara. The Apple DEIR notes that the Apple2 Campus will employ about 14,200 people at capacity. If those -15K knowledge workers are grossing a median of $500/year, then that's over $700,000,000 a year in payroll alone. Those technical professionals will be doing far more of their own business - home improvement, household, groceries, leisure, major purchases - in the local area than stadium workers earning $7,000 a year in Santa Clara can possibly do. That's the major reason why the Apple campus is, to me, a clear winner for Cupertino and for its neighbors. (The 49ers' Stadium payroll amounts or a miserable 2.4% of the payroll of the Apple Campus at full capacity.) Nonetheless, I had a lot of reservations originally. For me, the sticking point was the request that the City of Cupertino abandon Pruneridge Avenue at Wolfe Road. It's true: The taxpayers of Santa Clara Nei lbors for Responsible Development paid for that thoroughfare - just as we all waited over a decade and paid millions of dollars to have Tasman Drive link Milpitas with Sunnyvale. Yet, Tasman Drive, a major technology business corridor, will be cordoned off to thoroughfare east of Great America Parkway before the 49ers' game days. That's an essential a loss to taxpayers - and it's being done for afibotball game, if you can imagine anything so blindingly stupid. But at least we Santa Clarans are, going to sell a mess of cheeseburgers for the $1.2 billion dollars that the 49ers' stadium will cost (Right). Anyway, I was not sympathetic to Apple originally, after the issue of blocking off Tasman Drive was dismissed offhand in our own 49ers' DEIR. However, the one graphic that changed my mind may be found on page IO -of -1,407 1,407 of Apliend ix Fi oft h(,,, Uole DILI R. Letter C11 1 2 Note that the land mass of the Apple Campus 2 is almost evenly divided north and south of the current Pruneridge Avenue. If the southern parcel were a lot smaller than it is, then I'd demand of Apple Computer that Pruneridge stay put, and that they put guard shacks both north and south of Pruncridge. But that's not the case, and I say that in spite of the fact that the absence of ingress/egress on an abandoned Pruneridge Avenue segment means more pressure on 280 and on Homestead Road. Also, I must add: The abandonment of Pruneridge at Apple 2 will cause "traffic calming" to the benefit of our neighbors in the southeastern corner of the City of Santa Clara. Personally, I like the slow drive to Vallco by way of Pruneridge Avenue. But as a resident of Santa Clara, I'd be willing to give that up because of what I saw in the DEIR link above. Letter C11 cont. 2 cont. Many thanks, Tap, for the Apple DEIR links. Compared to the peanuts that we Santa Clarans settled for out of the San Francisco 49ers, Cupertino is clearly getting the better deal here. 3 At the end of the day, the only similarity between Apple 2 and the 49ers's subsidized stadium is their shape. William F. "'Bill" Bailey 1009 Las Palmas Drive, Santa Clara, From: Tappan Merrick <apsuMeraltioo,oom> To: "pggnqjV _s�unn Kalpgams" <ggmqflQrL,§q[Lnyr e.ca.q§j>� Cupertino Council <qi uggLing or &— — gpp9&:— -----q> Cc: "BirdlandNei <qjrd1qndNe1 >; Raynor Neighbors 'le W r u s orn ; NeighborsFirst .gS )1>; Sunnyvale Politics <S n I I s . M Y.K0 Sunnyvale <PaitINeigtiboi,hoodsFii-stlaiS,karij,�yvale@yahoOg�'OLAPS.COlI >; "Santa, Clara Neigh ogfQ( qq i E p P_ ME" <Santa Clara Neighbors for Responsible DevelopnicntpyAtioogroLapscom> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:54 PM Subject: [Santa—Clara_Neighbors—for—Responsible—IDevetopmentI Apple 11 Campus meeting last night Dear Mayor Spitaleri, Honorable Council Members and neighbors, The City Of Cupertino hosted a meeting last night to discuss the proposed Apple It Campus and it's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). No questions were allowed. No corrinients were allowed to be given. No answers were given except that about 650 pages of the DEIR were available on line, and the rest apparently won't be available until September? Likewise, questions that were previously asked, or were being submitted as a result of last night's meeting, or might be asked in the future, won't be answered until the final EIR in September. The meeting ended after some 15 minutes. They had CD's and flash drives (one Per person) for you to take. Public comments must be in to the City of Cupertino by July 22, at 5:30 PM. Contact them as indicated below: Any interested person(s) may provide comments in one of the following ways: You are encouraged to use the on] i ne comment form at: ww w.x qv 1 0--.111.— . ........ . ..... . ai i c.)1 You may also send comments to: Department Of COMMUnity Development, Re: Apple Carnpus, 2, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 For more information oil this project, visit w Being a visual, paper oriented person I actually printed off all 5,000 or so pages of the DEIR, If you are, so tempted, skip the air quality report of nearly 1400 pages of numbers. The Keyser Marston "Economic and Fiscal Impacts Report—" dated May 2013, focuses in on how much money everyone's going to make working for Apple and how much revenue each of the, Cities will earn. In short, it's a lot of money. no problems are addressed or answered. I only did a brief review of the DEIR, looking for answers to the 20 some odd questions the neighborhood had asked as well as my own questions while meeting with Apple consultant representative Mr. Worley on April 23, 2013, and found no answers, though to be fair to Apple, they might have been hidden within each of the 5,000 pages, but if so, only one at a time. Letter C11 cont. 4 cont. I also reviewed the material to see what streets the DEIR reviewed in their traffic study. It did cover the "usual suspects" including Wolfe, Lawrence, Homestead and Tantau, provided limited studies of Quail, Inverness and Marion, and as best as I could see, totally ignored the following, streets that might well be used as cut -through 5 streets to avoid the main streets during rush hour: Dunford, Teal, L,ochinvar, Swallow, Peacock, Nightingale, Lillick, Lorne, Halford, Henderson, and Non-nan to Bryant and out. While I am only speculating (until I get through the DEIR), Illy guess is that the new 475 living unit Gateway complex at Lawrence and El Carnino, and the, in the works Stratford School, at the now disappearing Raynor Activity Center are not included. Nor will a high density housing complex we can assume will be built to 6 replace a 21 acre existing mobile home park oil Henderson be included. The planned development of 420 acres at Lawrence and the train tracks, called Lawrence Station, is probably also not included. It is Illy Understanding, that the City of Sunnyvale will review this DEIR at it's regularly scheduled Jilly 9th meeting and public input is welcome (OK, maybe not welcome, but allomwed) at that time. The meeting starts at 7 PM in the Sunnyvale City Council Chambers. I would also encourage the neighbors to write into the Sunnyvale and Cupertino councils with their opinions. Their e-mail addresses are provided in the address section of this note. I will try and provide notable updates as I work my way through the DEIR. At least Apple didn't use Hexagon Traffic Consultants. Thanks for caring, 'rap Merrick Candidate for Sunnyvale Council Seat 3 Tap Merrick for Council 2013 lmd;t;p ffw1y wt mm alicklIc,),i.s,ki,ii,ii,3r,, J,e o FPPC9 1355565 1091 Firth Court Sunnyvale, CA 94087 408-249-2900 From: Kejthdd1527(,a)aolcom limailto.,Keithdldt527@aot.clom] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 10:30 AM To: Aarti Shrivastava Cc: City Council; City Clerk Subject: Where is the city's web site link for development projects? Dear Community Development Director Where exactly is/are the city's proposed new web site link(s) for all important community building projects; be they completed and approved, well along in the public review process, or brand new? I speculate "new" development is posted under the "City News" heading link, but I wondered if any action was taken by our city staff to make special stand alone links on the city's web site where all development projects could be accessed found in one EASY TO FIND spot, perhaps by project name showing assigned city staff who are over seeing that project, with email links posted for easy dialog between reside nWstaff/developers? Exactly what happened to that initiative to update the city's web site which was promised to the public, by the city council and city staff, now discussed over a year ago, as part of new investment in computer system upgrades in the building department for stream lining project applications submissions over the Internet? I speculate that our public's "easy" access to review of all project applications was long forgotten as part of the huge investment of our public dollars in computer and software upgrades benefiting both city staff and developers with large project applications, but not for our residents wishing to perform requiired due diligence of those large projects with out searching through a disorganized city web site maze for long periods of time and simply giving up - the city's poorly designed web site is obfuscating the public's desire for transparency of all building applications from being easily reviewed. Can you please review the city's public policy regarding timely posting and tracking of projects on the city's web site, in example the timely updating and tracking of large projects like Apple Campus, while they are navigating the public hearing process being posted in one easy to find place - or are you, our city staff and city council members, against public transparency? Surely the biggest project in Cupertino's history, the Apple office project, is an adequate trigger to reconsider our public's ability to review all applications, including Apples, and that must be done by updating and adding new links on the city's web site to track each significant project application from start to finish - keep each project as a separate link, keep alit posted dated available in a simple time fine, do not delete prior postings, please "think" about designing in ease of access for the public to both find and then review that data over time. Who exactly is in charge of the city's web site and can that person be the point person to take charge for getting this link update under way, administrated in a way that is truly helpful and respectful to our residents desire to be well informed and become participating citizens in our city's future? W�- � ZMME=. Letter C12 1 Re: Apple Campus 2 Comments - Draft EPR 26,2013 To whom it may concern, June Letter C13 The pro"d environmental impacts of the, plan submitted for this new campus is totally unrealistic for today's reality. Already traffic and pollution are at alarming levels, this plan will only further exacerbate a very serious situation for many with far reaching consequences, i I feel strongly that Homestead, a readway, that is a relief from the already severely Impacted Interstate 280, will not be readily available. I 2 1 am not a resident of Cupertino however Homestead offers an alternative to the very congested hours long commute along Interstate M that Is already almost stop and go, Though I am not a fan of high rises everywhere, the amount of land that will be required for this design constitutes an unreasonable and wasteful demand of land and space currently beneFrWngi thousands of residents of the Valley. The demand for spare and the existence and need of the current relief roadway will only 3 Increase as time goes on. Do not approve this unrealistic and "regal" removal of a publicly owned roadway to appease the, dream of a corporation. I Sincerely, Yolanda Reynolds (408)286-6310 0"PP1111 2 IE11L 0aw From: Daiyun Chen [dai!YUn76@yahoo,corn] Sent: FrWay, June 211, 2013 8:30 PM To. applecarnpus2 SubjecC Environment in mind B We are concerned about the fate of the trees in and around the new Apple Campus. A couple of months ago, we met a man who claimed he was art arborist hired by Apple and that he planned to chop down 6000 trees on the Campus and around the streets with replacements of new trees. We don't know it has been confirmed by the Apple Campus 2 or not These trees have been living in our neighborhood for more than 40 years(?) - when we moved into this area in 1989, they were already quite big. And we enjoy so much of these beautiful trees - they give us shade in summer and they make our streets much enjoyable while walking along. Especially they improve our environment and give us clean air. Please let these trees happily live in our neighborhood with Lis and our children and children's children. Many thanks. We can be reached either by e-mail or by phone- 408-739-5061 Letter C14 1 Letter C15 IFrom: Uling Wang [!I ., _��j ] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 4.05 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 Dear Cupertino C ouncil, I am a Cupertino residents for 30 years and happy to see the city grew gradually from as farm city to one of the high technology centers of the world. We should thank Apple for their loyalty and determination to continue grow in Cupertino. L� Per Environmental report, Apple Carnput 2 will bring congestion to 1-280. But did you remember that 1-280 had always had congestion since 20 years ago. I was impressed that Apple has made many plans to improve local 2 roadways and alternative options for employee transit. Dear Councilmen, I SO-011gly Support Apple campus 2 project developed in Cupertino. If Apple leave Cupertino, the city will lose 3 a lot of businesses and become a city like Stockton. We can not afford to see Apple leave Cupertino. Please vote yes and keep Apple in Cupertino A loyal resident, Gina Wang -----Original Message --- From. Donna Austin Dd_cQmLa5JImt] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:52 PM To. City Council Subject., Apple Campus 2 Mayor Orrin Mahoney, Vice -Mayor Gilbert Wong, City Council Members. Mark Santoro, Barry Chang, Rod Sinks As a private citizen of Cupertino, a parent, homeowner, and community activist, I want to go on record as totally supporting the Apple 2 Campus. The economic impact of the Campus 2 headquarters wild create thousands of jobs, and provide a windfall of tax revenue for Cupertino. When I see the silver buses and shuttles and bikes all around Cupertino, I have great faith that Apple will mitigate the traffic issues facing this project This is, a great opportunity for Cupertino. Apple is a wonderful company that produces, superior products, Donna Austin Letter C16 1 From: Bao:coun)cilbarry@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:14 AM To: Nancy Wood Cc: Karen B. Guerin Subject: Re: FYI Re: Apple Carnpuis 2 Dear Bemard & Nancy, Thank you very much for your input, EM On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Nancy Wood <bupard291 dodbal.ne..t> wrote: Dear Council Members: For your information, 'I attach copies of e-rnail exchanged between Dan Whissenhunt, of Apple Computer and myself, concerning the proposed Apple Campus 2. Dear Dan, Thanks for keeping your communication/comment channel open regarding Apple Campus 2. My major concern remains the closure of Pruneridge Ave. between Tantau and Wolfe. This street is our major access to northbound 1-280. Your campus 2 maps suggest there is arnple room to, accommodate a through link of Prunerldge Ave, on your property, if not at surface level, then perhaps over an overpass or through a tunnel that would preserve your privacy, yet enable vehicle and pedestrian communication between south- and north -parts of your campus. Please keep me informed if such an alternative would be considered. The architect's drawing that accompanied your e-mail message suggests you would have ample space to include such a routing of Pruneridge Ave, through your campus. Regards, 1104 = 6 11 1 0 0 , I 111 8 tow, Letter C17 1 Letter C18 From:[M _g:LIgh4rk2goMczLst.rItt a LItp gL l�harkLbg iQL M -el] Sent: Monday, 3une 17, 2013 1:45 PM To: City Council CC: aDDI'le'CaMP�UappLe-,-�om Subject: Apple 2 Campus I have lived in the Cupertino, Sunnyvale area over 30 years. I hear there may be some concerns on whether the City Council should approve the Apple 2 project. Often times at various times of the day, in the area of existing Apple Cupertino facilities, I have not experienced any unacceptable traffic conditions, Apples employee busing program now and committed for Apple 2�'s, future will continue, to keep individual cars off Cupertino streets. Apple has continued to keep me and I suppose, other Cupertino residents with their plans for the Apple 2 complex, Details for supporting the local economy with jobs, supportingi local businesses, supporting Illocai governments and neighborhoods services as well as supporting the local community such as I have never seen provided by any businesses in the past. No doubt that Apple has also provided complete commitments for the above to the City Council. Jobs for those who build the new complex, revenue for local businesses who serve Apple and it's employees and property taxes alone are valid reasons to support what in imy opinion will become the highlight point for Cupertino. The image that one of the worlds top corporations has it's headquarters located in Cupertino will surely invite other companies to consider Cupertino as well, For the above, I hope the Cupertino City Council will strongly support and go ahead with the Apple 2 project. There by answering the question, "how can we NOT support the approval"? Earl G. Sharkey 20800 Homestead Rd. Apt 14A Cupertino, CA 950,14 Phone: (408)1221-0222 email: q ilshark&comcast. net Letter C19 From: Judy Gaffney [mpIto,,Iudrn ne a ail.corn] S-_qaff --yDqm- Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 12:13 PIVI To: City Council Subject: Apple Headquarters (MV 19, I would like to send my support for the approval of the Apple 2 headquarter building, I believe this is important to the city of Cupertino and also believe that since the Hewlett Packard Corporation existed on this site which is close to the same size of the Apple buildings had no major problems to the environment or traffic situation in the Cupertino area - there should be no problem approving Apple 2. We're crazy not to give Apple our full and complete cooperation. Thank you Judy Gaffney 10553 John Way Cupertino, CA 95014 Letter C20 From* Shaiunak ( [shauniakrutes@gmaii.com] Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 110:56 AM To: applecarnpus2 Subject: Apple campus comments, The apple campus looks great. I may suggest a massive man made lake at the centre of the oval shaped building. Apart from that, you have my compliments. -shaunak, Kennedy Middle School, mage 13. -----Original Message ----- From: Dolly Sandoval [mailto:dolly@dolI.ysandaval.com] Sent: Friday, 'June 14, 2013 7:26 AM To: Rick Kitson Subject: Apple 2 campus letter Good morning I would like you to add my letter to the public common section of the FIR for the Apple 2 campus. It is really nice that this project is coming along! Thanks much, Dolly Dolly Sandoval Letter C21 1 Dolly Sandoval 10720 Alderbrook Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 June 14, 2013 Dear City Councilmernbers: II am writing you today in regards to the Apple 2 campus. I was pleased to receive a recent campus update in the mail from Apple with details of the new campus. As you know, when I served on the city council Steve Jobs came and announced his intention to keep Apple here, in Cupertino, replacing the current buildings on the HP site. His announcement was met with enthusiasm and excitement even though (at that time) we didn't know what the campus would look like. Steve implied the design would be both environmentally sensitive and a beautiful one - of -a -kind buiilding. Looking at the current design that is definitely true. As a Mayor and councilme,mber, I was particularly pleased that Apple decided to expand in, our city. As you are no doubt well aware of, many cities court companies like Apple in order to reap financial rewards. It is nice to know the substantial revenue generated by Apple helps to fund city programs and the jobs they create in our town will continue for many years into the future. The financial investment Apple is willingly making is tremendous, creating a shared benefit of a public/private partnership. The indirect dollars spent in our town will be equally beneficial to the city's coffers as well. The long term fiscal stability brought about by Appde's current presence and expansion is key to our city's future. II am also thrilled at the greening of the former HP site. To flip the percentage of buildings to open space is awesome — showing that environmental sustainability is compatible with new construction — and can also look good. Jobs' vision of the Apple 2 campus complementing the greater surroundings comes through in the designs shown the public thus far. The example of putting nearly all the parking underground and in structures is smart — again, reinforcing the point that open space is important and should become business -as -usual. I live on the side of town that will be most impacted by the Apple 2 campus. Traffic issues certainly need to be addressed. Having said that, though, myself and many of my neighbors are convinced that Apple's expansion in our city is both welcomed and needed. Lastly, the 'buzz' Apple creates for Cupertino is priceless. When I was travelling in Barcelona a couple of weeks ago, a local asked where I lived and I answered "Cupertino". He stated he didn't know that town but definitely lit up when I replied 'home of the Phone and Apple Computer'; Apple puts Cupertino on the world- wide map ! Thanks for your hard work on this and other pressing issues before the city, Sincerely, Dolly Sandoval Former Mayor, Councilmember, City of Cupertino Letter C21 cont. 2 From: henry zoellner [Mi g, gdh &_Q (AayQQ _M] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:59 AM To: City Council Subject: AAPL 11 June 13, 2013 Sirs/Tim/Apple Execs - We are in favor of your plans to build a new campus on the HP land. We have been homeowners for 50 years in the Westwood Oaks tract west of Lawrence Expressway and we are upset re the closing of Pruneridge Dr. for your new construction. Pruneridge Drive has been a convenient access to 1280, and points north and south for the last 50 years. We can see on your enclosure that there is ample room for your campus to allow for Pruneridge Dr. to remain with minimal modifications to your plans. That would relieve to some extent the traffic issues. It appears that it would be easy to provide access to the south section of the property by several attractive bridges or tunnel — that area having no structures shown on WaLfim- ti Sent to: Cupertino City Council Members The environmental report is correct ("root all rosy") re the traffic problems at 1280 and Wolfe Rd. Living in Westwood Oaks tract in Santa Clara east of Tantau, we rely primarily on Pruneridlge Rdl. for access in and out of the tract to the West. We object to the closing of Prune ridge. An easy solution would be to leave Pruneridge Rd, intact and use bridges or underpasses for the benefit of AAPL employees, since the plans seem to show no structures crossing the current roadway. We could withdraw our objections if AAPL would prevail on the City to annex the area east of Lawrence to include the Westwood Oaks tract into the City of Cupertino. We want to secede from Santa Clara. The city of Santa Clara boundaries should not include property west of Lawrence Expressway anyway; an appendage to the city; bad planning 50-8,0 years ago. Santa Clara does not know we are here. The city has ignored our protests re the hated stadium, now up to $1.3 BiUlion in taxpayer cost, while the 49ers coast on our money. Westwood Oaks would add much to the Cupertino tax base, and Kaiser and Agilent would add to Cupertino industrial assets tax base. Please consider our plea to be rid of the misplaced policies of the city of Santa Clara,, A Cupertino address would add to local property values. Respectfully Henry and Sally Zoellner 3837 Hancock Drive Santa Clara Ph:408 515 6669 Letter C22 1 From: Vanya (Matzek) [vanyaLmatzek@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 5:30 PM To: apptecampu$2 Subject: bike lanelsidewalk on perimeter of Apple Campus 2 I note that the creation of Apple Campus 2 will eliminate the segment of: Pruneridge I Avenue between Tantau Avenue & Wolfe Road. Currently there is a cN nvenient sidewalk & bike lane forming a loop firom the intersection of Wolfe Road & I Homestead Road clockwise along H�omestead, south on Tantau, west on Pru, n'eridg'e & north on Wolfe. It is unclear whether that loop will be maintained if Apple Campus 2 is built. If Apple Campus 2 will include a public sidewalk & bike lane completing the loop from Tantau to Wolfe I support it; otherwise, not, Vanya (Matzek) (408) 255-0108 A friend is someone who thinks you're a good egg, even tho you're slightly cracked. Letter C23 1 From. Barry Chang [maliltocounicilbarrya g roa il,corn] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:51 PM To. Darcy Paull Cc: Karen B. Guerin Subject: Re: Support Apple Campus 2 Hi Darcy, Thank you, Barry On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Darcy Paul <d LY —1 YL1KQI I> wrote: Dear Council, As a resident in the general vicinity of the future Apple campus, I would like to express my support for the upcoming campus. This is a very important element of our future economic vibrancy as a community. Obviously, a lot of time and effort has already gone into analyzing the various impacts of this project, and this of course is a good and necessary process to identify and mitigate potentia) issues. Thus far, it would seem that traffic congestion is going to be a major issue. Speaking as someone whose daily commute, will be directly affected by the build and the subsequent usage of the campus, I'd very much like to see appropriate measures taken to ensure that congestion and the impacts of traffic are minimized and even eliminated. Still, this is not an issue that should preclude the project from happening, and it is in fact an opportunity to think about how best to design and implement structural elements which, will shape our future community. From investments into our public -transit infrastructure, to design of local access routes which will minimize congestion, to utility and placement of a more local workforce, we certainly have the wherewithal and many tools at our disposal to address this and other issues that arise. Perhaps we'll see a fleet of electric shuttles commissioned. Still, regardless of specific manifestations, there is no doubt that this project will have many positive impacts. It's taking many good efforts to reap all the rewards of the hard work of a lot of people thus far, and I exhort you to continue these efforts with patience and clear thinking. Thank you for your continued efforts in, ensuring that this project is successful. Regards, Darcy Paul Law Group, A Professional Corp. 3235 Kifer Road, Suite 360 Santa Clara, CA 95051 T: (ARM&!, Q .... . .... 9 E: 0110 PAU -1 &Q—m Letter C24 1 From: Keith Warner [ma—iLto—kitb@p-boot fLces.c—oni] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:20 AM To: City Council Subject: Support Apple Campus 2 Dear Cupertino City Council, As a Cupertino resident and business owner, I whole heartedly support Apple's Campus 2. The economic impact on our city and community will be hugel And the economic impact of non-approvat would be detrimental to business and residences alike. Please support the Apple Campus 2! Thank you in advance! Keith Keith Warner Managing Partner Pacific Business Centers 19925 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 100 Cupertino, CA 95014-2358 Letter C25 1 From. James Forsythe [mailto.jdforsythe767@sbcgloba1.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013,11:45 AM To: City Council Subject: I totally support the construction and Benificial Returns of the Apple Two campus. 1 Apple was and is the greatest event that ever happened to Cupertino. 2 The proposed new Apple Campus will provide more jobs, More income to the city and those fortunate enough to obtain employment at the new site than all other opportunities of the entire City. 3 Apple Computer is proposing to build a campus "at home"' that will be The greatest boost to the City of Cupertino and its residents that any and every City in the U S would roll out the "Red Carpet Treatment" to entice this great opportunity to their City. 4 Cupertino is ideally in the hub of moderin Freeways 101,85,and 280 easily handle the additional traffic created by work force of the Campus. 5 The City of Cupertino will enjoy the tax base created by the Campus without a great demand on housing, due to the being located in the hub of freeways 101,85 and 280. A majoirity of the work will choose to Commute from other cheaper residential areas within a reasonable commute distance. 6 Industrious people are totally capable of adjusting to fit necessary Circumstances. The thought of a work shift being from: 8i to 4:30 is a "The Trojan Horse" not law, sensible or convenient for moderin society. A work shift standard for Apple Computer based on 10 to 6:30 or other possible hours would Alleviate the anticipated Commute Impact Problem. Apple Computer has proved to be first and foremost in solving any and all problems, usually before the probeims occur. Apple Computer is weU known for complying and promoting tocal convince. James D "'Jim" Forsythe FP,E Retired 218913 McClellan Road Cupertino Ca 950 4 Letter C26 1 From: g7m5grigg@juno.com [mailtog7m5grigg@juno.com] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 10:47 PM To: City Council Subject: The New APPLE Campus2 I sipporl, the new APPLE campus and its location and have a couple cif suggC 'stions to make it even more hency1cial to Cupertino and the connnunitias aroutid it. Remove the lrqfficsignal at the intersection qf'Tantau Aventie and Pruneridge Avenue and replace it with a roundabout. I designed this signal arid there was no needlbr it other than to try to interrupt trq1ficf7owingfirom our industrial area into the residential area in the City (Y*Santa (7ara. I can't evensqy that it ivassaicces,sfill in doing that. A roundabout would be more efficient than a Irqffic's-ignal. L'sthetically, it fits the theme qfyour heodquarters building as well. 2. There appeary to be a parking simclure adjacent to the 1-0 28P),t?ewqy, allhough it isn't labeled. However, there is, no direct accas%s, to WoCl� Road. Primmy access J's ftoin 71intau Avenue. Therelbre, access, -oln 1-280 would be circuilous,fi -om WOf1ia Road to Homestead Road to 117ntau A ventie or, Who 1 , Road to Vallco Parkway to 70nlaziAvenue. Another set r.�fi-otitcswould be exiting 1-280 at Lawrence Lxpraysway and zvsing Stevens Creek Boulevard to Tantau Avenue or using Lawrence Expressway to Pruneridge Avenue and culling through the residential neighborhood I can say from experience that the residents here are very .sensitive to traffic issues. The extra vehicle rnileas of travel are also a negative impact. Glenn Grigg Former CUPertino D-qffic Engineer (retired). Letter C27 1 2 Letter C28 From: Jane'Yano [m iltq,1'aM aha) ma61;��c-q] Sera: Saturday, June 08, 2013 8.52 Aft To: Mark Santora; Orrin Mahoney; Gibert Ware; Barry Chang Cc: `ya;eko hirotsuka" Subject. HP in Cupertino To the Cupertino City Council: I understand the revenue benefit the City of Cupertino willl receive as a result of the new HP expansion. HP is probably the only large semi -conductor industry in the city,but that shouldn't give them "their way." 1 Is the City willing to sacrifice it's citizens' and others° commuting needs to relent to large industry's Blocking Pruneridge, a major thoroughfare for many who access Highway 280 from Wolfe Road, is not acceptable for those of us who live in the Westwood Oaks neighborhood. We, as well as many commuters, would have to turn left can Tantau to Stevens Creek and then onto 280. Currently, most (people access 280 from 2 Wolfe Road to 280 and Stevens Creek to 280 is the secondaccess. Eliminating the Pruneridge/Wollfe Road access would create tremendous congestion on the Stevens Creek access. HP should redesign the (building so it allows Pruneridge to continue to Wolfe Rd, by including in its design an underpass as part of the building... a badge type building. The entire building can still be where it's planned but include the underpass. 3 A solution for bath commuters and HP. I'm not one to protest a city's decision on most of its actions, but in this particular case, I'm forced to state my displeasure. I 4 You'll see that r. Sinks is not listed among the "To" lust. I sent hint a separate email. Yaeko IHirotsuka Westwood Oaks resident Cupertino union School District From: Jane Yano LMailLol. a-)grrL&I.&grn] ,Anq(_ Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 8:37 AM To: Rod Sinks Cc: 'Vaeko Ihirotsuka'; 'Jane Yana` Subject: New HP Dear Mr. Sinks: I understand the benefit of the revenue that the City of Cupertino will receive as a result of the new HP expansion. HP is probably the only large semi -conductor industry in the city, but that shouldn't give them "their way." However, blocking Pruneridge, a major thoroughfare for many who access Highway 280 from Wolfe Road, is not acceptable for those of us who live in the Westwood Oaks neighborhood. We, as well as many commuters, would have to turn left on Tantau to Stevens Creek and then on to 280. Currently, most people access 280 from Wolfe Road to 280 and Stevens Creek to 280 is the second access. Eliminating the Pruneridge/Wo,lfe Road access would create tremendous congestion on the Stevens Creek access, HP should redesign the building so it allows Pruineridge to continue to Wolfe Rd. by including in its design an underpass as part of the building. - . a bridge type building. The entire building can still be where it's planned but include the underpass, A solution for both commuters and HP. Yaeko Hirotsuka Westwood Oaks resident Letter C29 1 Letter C30 -----Original Message ----- From: Eddie Kuo [Mg.i.it.o.:..s.t.e.a.k.f.r.i.gs,gk@ 'Tar.:..:. om .. ...... ... . .. ... .. ... .. ... .. .. _ _ LY a Sent. Thursday, June 06, 2013 1:20 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 Hello City Council, I would like to say that I fully give in my support to making Apple Campus 2 exist. It is such an environmental and energy efficient building that once it"s build, other companies will be looking at it as an inspiration to make similar building with energy efficient aindl environmental safety qualities. Thank you. From: lEno Schmidt [mad &ng Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 2:27 PM To: My Council Subject: Support for the Apple Campus 2 project Dear Cupertino City Council and Staff of Cupertino, I want to take this opportunity to formally register my support foi- the Apple Campus 2 project. From tile reports I have seen, Apple's staff has been working diligently to cooperate with the rules and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and at (he same tune the City Council and staff are working with Apple to hell) make the project a SUCUSS for the citizens, City and Apple. Since I live in the Rancho Rinconado area of Cupertino and consequently very close to the planned Apple Campus 2 project, you will appreciate that I have been following the project with close interest. In my view the anticipated issues involving congestion, and concentrations of SLIC11 large number,,, of employees in one location all can be resolved through proper advance consideration all of which appears to be well underway. With Apple already being the largest taxpayer and employer in the City, I would took forward to continued close cooperation between both parties. It is a real advantage to Cupertino to be able to retain and approve such as major project by an already good corporate citizen. Following the City Council's due deliberation and efficient approval, I look forward to the prompt start of construction and ultimately to the completion and use of one ofthe new "iconographic" architectural buildings in the Valley, L, Thank You for your consideration. Eno Schmidt 10558 Culbertson Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Letter C31 1 From: Gary Baum Letter Sent. Thursday, June 067,--2013 9:24 AM To: Piu Ghosh C32 Cc: Aarb Shrivastava Subject: Fwd: Apple Campus & city-wide wifi Fitt, For the record. Qtry ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Fmm: Carol Korade <(`aro1K0rCu Date: Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:33 PM Subject: Fwd: Apple Campus & city-wide wilt ToGary Baum [ ;r•y1a uuunlra_wwt ornafl,,.c.oni>, Cheryl Mannix-South <(.,'I,l ",rW( ifuor r�.g>, Louis _1M1 �cqlj Sarmienlo<LmuisS�c W H (0 Uq:tL�1�!,gTg>, "Ellen J. Garber" <Qarber0 sip I w yl >, " s 1! a tiql1p, < S 1,1 R 1pk�sawl I InN W. U s> Begin forwarded message: From: Gilbert Wang 'i,riaj 11.coni<mai Ito: he sw >> � = - - — - --------- ----------- — ---- Date: June 5, 2013, 11:18::08 PM PDT 'To: David Brandt <David B no i1,»,C urcyl Korade <c r I k (0 c runkmn up 4��r,<nlailto:caro k0tc cLr Rick Kitson <Rickl< c ilto:Ric K(0c 1p . . .... cqJn(,q >> Subject: Fwd: Apple Campus & city-wide wifi [am ---------- Forwrarded message ---------- From: Margaret Reilly <mai Ito: baro ggi ered qlpi Lconl>> Date: Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10-35 PM Subject: Apple Campus & city-wide wil'i To: c o n 1)(I'L ailto:��.Lqncil 0,> _LY— _.Sqp�� Eg<rn, - J t1 o. �--U Dear City Council Members, I am as Cupertino resident and I remember watching the video of the City Council mtg. where Steve Jobs attended. During that meeting a council member asked Steve if Apple Could provide city-wide wily like Google does in Mountain View. Fle responded to that question a bit condescendingly... that Apple pays taxes and that's what taxes are for. Well, we now know that Apple doesn't pay it's federal taxes --or at least uses very creative ways [c) skirt them. I think the topic of Apple providing city-wide wild should be brought up again. If nothing else, it would be interesting to, see how they respond this time an(] maybe we might get this service --which would be great for everyone! om Law Offices of Gary M. Baum 19925 Stevens Creek Boulevard„ S Lute I (X) Cupertino, CA 95014-2358 408-833-62246 1 From: Chandramohan hi.mp ha@yg Sent: Thursday, Jiune 06, 2013 4:12 PM To: CO Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 To City Council, Cupertino. I am a resident Cupertino and own a home at 10240, Sterling Blvd, Cupertino. As a longtime resident I have seen the leaving of HIP from our town and how it hurts our City finiance,s. In view of the dwindling revenue due to such departures, coupled with the economic downturn, it has become imperative that we allow Apple to complete their Campus 2. . Apple's new Campus will bring jobs, badly needed revenue to support our schools and of course the growing requirement for infrastructure updates. It is true that an increased flow of traffic and increase in population density will bring some discomfort to the residence. This calls for sacrifice of certain luxuries that a small town offers but the alternatives such as increase in taxes to the already high house taxes is frightening. I would like to hereby register my whole hearted endorsement of the Apple 2 Campus project. Thanks, Chandramiohan Mathu 10240, Sterling Blvd, Cupertino, CA Letter C33 1 ......_..,pr' ginal Message ----- From: Aditya GMAIL Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:45 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 Dear Council., Apple is expanding a big way in Cupertino, which to me looks like Monopoly situation. Cupertino real estate is on high peak, just because of Apple employ as they buy the property after selling Apple stock and take benefit of taxes. It's hard for common person to buy property in Cupertino. I am against Apple Campus 2 construction. Hope my thoughts will be considered. Best/Yash Sent from my iPhone Letter C34 1 Letter C35 Letter ID 500140 Name Geoff Paulsen Address 10557 Rndy Ln City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email geofipaulsen@yahoo.com Subject General and specific Comment Apple comments July 2013 1 am, very excited about this project and what it will do for Cupertino. In general, the EIR is well thought out. However, it does not look far enough chronologically into the future, nor does it look far enough, geographically into the Cupertino community. This will be Cupertino's landmark for a lifetime — probably several lifetimes, I would suggest that the building be taller — "padded up"' to provide more parking underneath, and more stories (probably two) added to provide room for future growth - but especially to provide a prominent visible landmark for our community. I'm afraid the new building will get lost in the forest. The trees are wonderful, and the building as planned will look great from the air, but it needs, to be seen between and above the trees as well. Also, Apple also needs to open its doors to the community. There was a suggestion ata recent General Plan Amendment meeting that we have an Apple museum. What we really need is an Apple visitor Center, with a store, museum, and interpretive talks. This could be 2 a destination for the world in so many ways — why limit ourselves when we have this great opportunity? Specifically Regarding: "PLAN 3b" (north -south trail Parallel to 280). 1 would recommend going beyond just a study I to include public comment, design, and construction. This would be a great recreational and 3 alternative transportation asset to Apple and well as to the Cupertino community. I 13 0-3 It recommend a mix of old and young (I gallon) trees, since smallest trees grow faster in the tong run, and will out -grow a large transplanted tree over time. i know that Apple has bought every 60" boxed oak that's available, but we do not need complete instant results, but rather an urban forest that will best endure in the long run. HYD -1; Every effort should be made to reduce urban runoff through state -or -the art method incluidling swales, rainwater storage cisterns, and permeable surfaces. 1 5 Trans- (all) " Widening roads to solve traffic congestion is tike loosening your belt to cure obesity," says Walter Kulash, a traffic engineer from Orlando, Florida. I agree. We have to took at long-range solutions, such as higher density housing (and accompanying better night life) near Apple, as well as alternatives such as high-speed dedicated bus-onty lanes — not just on Stevens Creek, but even on 280 and 85. As a founding member of the Cupertino Bicycle/Pedestrian Commission, I am convinced that such road "Improvements" will would make our roads much more difficult and dangerous for serious cyclists. Table 111-1 (Development Summary) A 5,6% reduction in square feet per employee. Just wondering —will it be a crowded work environment? The need for a park: "Most of the site would be surrounded by a security fence..." Apple's "fundamental objective for privacy, security, and the protection, of intellectual property" (project description) is understandable, but it is contrary to the City's need for parks and open space. There is no reason why the fence line could not be modified to allow public access — much as urban buildings allow public access to their plazas. As a Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commissioner, I believe that not all parks have to be big — they can include smaller spaces for intimate conversation as well as solitude. Letter C36 Letter ID 500139 Name Neighbor Address City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA Santa Clara Email Subject Traffic Concern Comment I'm a resident of Santa Clara in the neighborhood of Westwood Oaks which is directly east of the proposed campus. I'm concerned with traffic on Pruneridge Ave. The current HP campus hasn't been fully occupied for probably over 10 years. But when it was fully occupied, Pruneridge traffic was very heavy. During evening hours, If you were going westbound on Pruneridge and wanted to turn left onto Wolfe, you had to wait through at least one red/green/red traffic light cycle and sometimes two cycles before you could get onto Wolfe - adding many frustrating minutes to what in the past had been a very quick drive. Similarly, going eastbound on Pruneridge to turn left onto or cross Lawrence, you had to wait through at least one traffic light cycle. That was the worst Pruneridge traffic has ever been. Now, Apple wants to add 40% more employees over current max occupancy. The traffic in the late 90s, early 2000s is the only data point we have (besides traffic models) to foresee what traffic will look like. Adding this many more commuters will undoubtedly have a very negative effect on nearby residential traffic, lowering our quality of life. This doesn't even include the fact that forever in the future after the proposed campus is built, each and every time we want to access 280 northbound, regardless of traffic, minutes will be added to our drive because of the closure of the segment of Pruneridge, Nearby Santa Clara residents have little say in this process though we will be impacted the most - as will the nearby Sunnyvale residents. In the case that our traffic concerns are not mitigated, Santa Clara residents do have an option. That option would be to close Pruneridge at the Santa Clara/Cupertino border east of Tantau - maybe keeping it open to foot/bike traffic. How would closing Pruneridge at the Santa Clara/Cupertino border affect surrounding traffic and affect this project? Thank you for your time. Letter ID 500138 Name Dean Fujiwara Address 1725 Linnet Ln City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Email d.fujiwara@oomcast.net Subject Traffic impact at Homestead and Linnet Lane and Heron Ave Comment The community of 150 plus homes in the Serra Gardens neighborhood:, has only Heron Ave and Linnet Lane to get into and out of the community. No, one has addressed the issue to make sure the citizens can leave and get back into their homes during rush hour and normal times. Please note that 3 commercial project along Homestead Road in the immediate area {Cupertino Village Shopping Center, Apple 2 Campus and Homestead Square Shopping Center) all will put additional traffic on Homestead Road. We at this time are already having a difficult time tiring to get into and out during rush hour. When these 3 projects gets completed it will be very difficult or impossible. The community does not support any of these developments if the traffic problem is not solved. We would like detailed plans to solve the problem before the Apple 2 project starts. Letter C37 1 Letter C38 Name Ken Nishimura Address City, State Zip , CA Email nishimura.ken(gmaii.com Subject General Comments Apple Campus 2 IDER Comment I haw read the DER in connection with the proposed Campus 2 project ("Project') lot Apple Computer, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Applicant." This is a huge project with tremendous implications for the quality of life for those within Cupertino, as well as surrounding communities. Most of the comments are related in some way to transportation, as nearly all aspects of the project will have substantial impacts to the local transportation infrastructure. The comments are arranged in no particular order of importance or priority. 1) Although Applicant has stressed the amount of green space the proposed Project will encompass, none of this will be publicly accessible and thus generates no public benefit. In fact, Applicant wishes to create a fort with security fencing encompassing the entire site. 2 Nowhere in the City is there such a large block of land where the public will be enjoined from traversing. The size of this 'fortress" will impede pedestrian access along the eastern edge of Cupertino. 2) The closure of Pruneridge Avenue is troubling. Applicant states this is necessary for security. Removal of Pruneridge will remove a major bicycling and pedestrian thoroughfare in that region. Given the tremendous increase in vehicle traffic expected on Stevens Creek 3 Blvd., Tantau Ave., and Homestead Ave. due to the Project, cyclists wiR be forced to negotiate congested roads made worse by the Project for east -west access. Applicant has not provided a meaningful mitigation for loss of this public right-of-way and benefit. Applicant should be required to provide a free and publicly accessible shuttle service from the intersection of Wolfe and Pruneridge to the intersection of Pruneridge and Tantau on a frequent basis. Such shuttle should be compatible with bicycles and! be operated to provide 4 a time -equivalent alternative to the walking path which will be removed with the closure of Pruneridge. 3) Applicant has not proposed a meaningfull solution to the impending traffic congestion should the Project go forth as proposed. The existing infrastructure will be overwhelmed by the traffic entering and exiting the site. Specifically, facilities to access 1-280 from the campus are woefully undersized for the size of the Project. Applicant should consider rebuilding the 1-280 interchange with Wolfe to include access to and from Tantau to provide for direct access to and from the proposed Project. As it is, the interchange at Wolfe, will quickly saturate, causing spillover to the De Anza and Lawrence Expressway interchanges. The interchange at Lawrence is particularly troublesome as it is already at capacity and its design does not allow for easy expansion. Traffic will spill over onto Stevens Creek, Tantau, De Anza and Homestead roads leading: to gridlock. 4) Applicant proposes a number of various mitigations for Project impacts, but due to the multi -jurisdictional nature of the site, most mitigations are outside the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and hence, within the scope of this C1E1►R, cannot be assured of completion. Applicant therefore does not ensure that many of these critical mitigations will be put into place. Applicant must secure approval for each planned mitigation and the proposed impact of the Project and effectiveness of all proposed mitigations be taken as a whole. Applicant should not be granted credit for a mitigation for which they have not been granted approval, nor should the Project be approved based upon mitigations which, have not been approved. At the very least, an occupancy permit should not be granted until all proposed mitigations which are included in the acceptance of the finial EIR are in place. Letter C38 cont. 5) Applicant's proposal for a pullout on Tantau increases the risk for bicyclists as vehicles vM1 be attempting to pull off or onto the roadway in the path of cyclists continuing straight on Tantau. The plan does not indicate any stop or yield signs. Vehicles exi,tiing the transit loop should have a stop sign,. The left turn from NB Tantau into the transit loop poses a 7 potential hazard to cyclists proceeding SB on, Tantau, especially in thevicinity of large buses. A stop sign is required. The DER contains written description of a protected left turn out of the transit loop, but the drawings published earlier in connection with this Project (Perimeter Bicycle Strategy, dates 4/12/13), does not show this signal. Which is correct? 6) Applicant's proposal that TOM verification activities not be performed during periods of inclement weather is inappropriate. To the degree that compliance with TOM goalls, requires modes of transportation substantially impacted by weather (e.g. waiking, cycling), Applicant needs to provide a meaningful and measureable TOM mitigation for days of inclement weather. Although the City has generally good weather, inclement weather is not unusual, 8 nor should a transportation plan be designed based on 100% good weather. Unless an alternative inclement weather mitigation is included, the Project will generate unacceptable traffic during days of inclement weather. Applicant cleverly asks that this violation not be measured, but this request should be denied. Only through measurement of TOM effectiveness during periods of inclement weather will the City understand the true impact of the Project. 7) The proposed penalties for not achieving TOM goals are woefufly inadequate. Given that a reasonable estimate for the cost of providing an Apple Shuttle seat is $35/employee/day, the proposed penalty of $5 is only 14% of the cost of correction. When the cost of the penalty is only a small fraction of the cost of the desired corrective actioni, the penalty 9 becomes the default action and the desired objective is not met. The penalty should be increased tenfold to $50/overage/day such that the Applicant has the economic incentive to meet the stated Project goals. 8) The stated incompatibility between a 'trip cap" and employment growth is not true. A trip cap would require a concomitant improvement in TOM metrics commensurate with employment growth. While the Applicant can certainly desire unmitigated growth in trip 10 ,volume, such growth is incompatible with the infrastructure and must be regulated. A trip cap meets these objectives. 9) Consideration should be given to metering; traffic out of the Project. Metering lights, though initialfy derided, are now understood to improve efficiency and improve traffic 11 capacity. Metering may be required to regulate the flux of vehicles out of the Project to prevent gridlock. Gridlock also is extremely inietficient with respect to GHG emissions as GHGs are emitted with no net useful activity. 10) Applicant does not indicate where parkingi for the Apple Shuttle buses would be located. Given the large number of buses involved, off-site parking and shuttling of buses to the Project could result in a significant traffic impact and GHG emissions, Where would be 12 buses be fueled? Will large quantities of diesel fuel be stored on the Project site? How much diesel fuel will be stored on site for the emergency generators, and are adequate measures put into place to detect and contain leaks and spills? 11) Serious consideration should be given to the reduced density option as the Applicant has not shown means by which the desired Project can peacefully co -exist within the 13 proposed infrastructure. Letter C39 Letter ID 500135 Name Patricia Melcic Adldress 3824 Pruneridge Ave City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA 95051 Email patt.melcic@intel,com Subject NO — too large — need to bring down to 1/4 size Comment Violates air quality standards -during construction and traffic afterwards- within one mile surrounding site 280 Woffe and Lawrence exits would be jammed- backed up onto 280 for miles — I 2 Lawrence already overloaded w/Kaiser traffic Concerned that the intersection of Pruneridge Ave. and Tantau was not included in the 3 Transportation section (Table 11-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR). Also, the Parking Structure entrance and Transit center are located on Tantau. This 4 implies that almost all of the daily traffic associated with the proposal will be using and its associated tributary streets. Furthermore, there is no mention of what promises, to be a, significant traffic iincrease on Pruneridge Ave., itself, as commuters will likely use this 5 route as an alternative to reach the proposed site and the aforementioned Parking Structure. Pruneridge (Tantau-Lawrence) — is residential calming street — single lane only - 6 safety concern for bicycles/pedestdans prohibits more traffic Letter C40 Letter ID 500134 Name Jennifer Hodor Address 1625 Nightingale Ave City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA Sunnyvale Email jen—hodor@yahoo.com Subject Apple Campus 2 DER concerns Comment I'm writing to voice grave concerns about the future Apple Campus that will soon be down the street from my Sunnyvale home. I have livedi in my Nightingale home for over 30 years and have suffered from increasing traffic issues in the area around Wolfe and Homestead and I foresee that it will be made substantially worse by the new Apple traffic. I would like to inform Cupertino and Apple that AppWs current plans are —not— acceptable to the adjacent Sunnyvale neighborhood, Specifically; 1) As detailed in the environmental l impact report, the entrance to the proposed corporate exercise facility will pose significant problems for residents on my street. The plan needs to be modified to increase the parking that will be made available on the campus to prevent from negatively affecting our neighborhood. Additionally, there is no need to provide pedestrian access at Nightingale to their facility as there is a crosswalk at the intersection approximately 100ft from the proposed entrance. The addition of a crosswalk at Nightingale will only encourage people to circumvent the traffic generated by the new facility, take s1hort- cuts through my neighborhood and cause parking issues on my street. Since Apple has so much land on campus, it would be easy to ensure that access to the exercise facility is made internally to the campus rather than affecting adjacent communities. 2) Adding a corporate bus drop off on Homestead is going to, increase traffic problems at an intersection that is already overburdened by the traffic from the Vallco shopping complex at that corner and the Kaiser facility down the road. Please keep any bus stops you create off 3 of streets with residences and move them to either Wolfe or Tantau where they currently reside. A bus stop there will only further impede traffic, create additional noise for the nearby residences and likely cause traffic accidents. 2) Providing .77 parking; spaces per employee is inadequate and not planning to accommodate for the majority of the employees is just plain foolish. Apple has the land on the campus, they should use it. And if it means Apple can't achieve 'acceptable' traffic 4 levels surrounding the campus with the added commuter numbers, then the plan needs to be revised to have Apple pay for additional street development to mitigate the traffic problems, 3) Do not close Pruneridge road. Although the numbers of cars currently using the street are small, a lot of the traffic going through there will be diverted onto Homestead as people regularly exit 280 on Wolfe to get to their homes on the other side of the campus, The WolfelHomestead intersection traffic was already rated poorly per the EIB „ and these individuals will now be utilizing Homestead, thereby increasing both the traffic and noise for people in my neighborhood. Increasing traffic by just a couple of percent, which this will do, will create nightmarish traffic patterns at this intersection. Already, cars cut through our neighborhood during commute hours to avoid waiting for 2-3 light cycles at the Homestead/Wolfe intersection. The traffic is, already backing up at this intersection and their proposed plans are going to make it unbearable. Keeping it open would also minimize the number of commuters travelling down Homestead. The primary entrance for the former HP Letter C40 cont. campus was put onto Pruneridge in order to minimize traffic concerns to our Sunnyvale 5 neighborhood and did very well when, the site was fully staffed. I cont. 4) Since the Apple campus now extends to 280, ideally, I would like to see an entirely separate entrance on 280 that leads directly onto the Apple campus so that employee traffic is removed from current routes. Apple should be creating easy access to their facility 6 by creating multiple access points and moving as much of it as possible onto their own campus. In summary, please compel Apple to move employee transportation plans onto their campus rather than the adjacent roads and increase the amount of parking they make available to employees. Apple has a corporate responsibillity to address the needs of their 7 commuting employees as well as the surrounding community and the current plans fail to adequately address these issues. Regards, Jennifer IHodor Letter ID 500133 Name Martin Landzaat Address 562 Carlisle Way City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Email martin—landzaat@hotmaii.com Subject Access to CUSD alternative schools Comment Many Sunnyvale residents that reside within the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) have children that attend one of the alternative CUSD schools (McAuliffe, Murdock -Portal, and Faria). II have a child that currently attends McAuliffe and travel along Wolfe Rd. for school drop-off and pick-up. The Apple 2 campus will make it more difficult for Sunnyvale residents to, travel to/from the CUSD alternative schools, especially McAuliffe and Murdock Portal. Please mitigate the impact of the Apple 2 project so traffic at Wolfe Rd. and 1280 does not become burden for Sunnyvale resident that use CUSD alternative schools. Letter C41 1 Letter C42 Letter ID 500132 Name Ronald Moore Address 19967 Pear Tree Ct City, State Zip Cupertino, CA Cupertino Email ronal'dm124@aol.com Subject APPLE CAMPUS 2 COMMENTS Comment I SUPPORT THE APPLE CAMPUS 2 FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I heartily support the approval of Apple's Appfication to build Apple Campus 2 in Cupertino. I think it will be beneficial, and will help Cupertino to be more prosperous. When Steve Jobs appeared at the Cupertino City Council meeting on June 7, 2011, to announce his proposal, a woman in the audience made some negative remarks about it, and Mr. Jobs responded: "Do you want me to move my headquarters to another City? (Mountain View)" Any City would gladly welcome Apple to vacate Cupertino and locate in their City. For example Sunnyvale, especially, is licking it's chops. Please don't let that happen. Keep Apple here, in the City where it all began. There will always be Naysayers, Philistines, (philistine -a person who is hostile or indifferent to culture and the arts, or who has no understanding of them: a definition from a, dictionary), and People who simply make up statistics, or project unfounded facts about traffic, etc. Don't let them drive Apple out of Cupertino. It is likely that Gonsolidatingi many of Apple's buildings scattered in Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, etc. into one area with an on-site parking lot will help alleviate some traffic problems in nearby Cities. CUPERTINO HAS SOME UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES First of all,. Cupertino has the documented right to, claim to be the "Birthplace of the Personal Computer Industry." Apple Computer was started on April 1, 1976, by Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, and incorporated by them on January 3,1977 in Cupertino, California. Apple's "Apple 2" computer was the first truly "Personal Computer." Also it was not a "kit", as many various previous attempts were (including Apple's innovative "Apple 1"), that had to be assembled and programmed, etc. The "Apple 2' was the first personal computer, complete out-of-the-box and ready to go. It was also the first to come in a plastic case and to include color graphics. The "Apple 2" was (and still is) an impressive machine. 11 still have mine. I have at least 14 Apple Computers and many other Apple peripherals and products, like my Apple Graphic Tablet, on which I did three drawings (Illustrations") at home for SRI. I was told by the Editors, they were the "first" computer Illustrations ever published, and they were in a report by SRI's "Long Range Planning Service." Second, Apple is famous world-wide because of the Steves we adore, who are regularly known as "The Boys from Cupertino" in the news, books, and other references. So, Our "Little Cupertino" is also becoming known worlid-wide as a Landmark. Third, Apple is Cupertino's largest source of retail tax revenue for Cupertino. Let's hope Apple, Inc. remains here. Besides hoping, let's do all that we can to encourage Apple to continue to keep it's Headquarters here in Cupertino, it's original Homeland. Now, about Traffic. Apple already occupies most of the buildings in Cupertino and is spilling over into nearby cities. It is reasonable to assume that Apple will consolidate the scattered employees into the new Campus, and some Traffic will only change places and will not increase. However Cupertino, like afl cities needs Traffic (both, types) to support the other businesses that it hosts in Cupertino, to keep them profitable viable, and staying open, for additional city retail tax revenue. New employees will likely join the patronizers of Cupertino's other businesses, on lunch hours and after work. We Cupertino's residents all need to support all of Cupertino's businesses. We also want other people to come and shop in Cupertino. It would be foolhardy to discourage the traffic of people coming to Cupertino to shop! Speaking about supporting Cupertino' s businesses, I hope for a new Store. As a shareholder, at a shareholder's meeting, I once asked Mr. Jobs: "Why don't we have an Apple Store in Cupertino?" He replied : 1 get a lot of requests for stores. I don't think one here would get much Traffic" (However, in this case, what he was referring to is a marketing term: "Traffic" meaning customers who, go into stores, and not to road traffic, He thought that not many people would actually visit an Apple store in Cupertino,) Besides my Apple II, as I have said I have fourteen Macintoshes. I know there is a company store on Apple Campus 1, but you can't buy Apple Hardware there, in fact you can't buy Apple hardware anywhere in Cupertino. We need Apple's Real "Flagship Store" to be here in Cupertino. I am happy to live in Cupertino and I would enjoy shopping at an Apple store here. It is annoying to have to go to Apple stores in other cities. I'm sure I'm not the only person in Cupertino who would go into an Apple store here, When Mr. Jobs announced his plans for Apple Campus 2 at the Cupertino City Council, he said: "Many people will come from all over the world to look at this new building, especially Architects and Architectural students and Tourists" That is potentially the "Good" Traffic that Mr. Jobs said was needed that could be filling a Glorious New Apple Store in Cupertino: either in the Spectacular New Apple Campus 2, or in an Apple "Logo" Shaped Store, as viewed from the air, with classes and other events in the in the right leaning "Leaf." That store could be located in the proposed Main Street Project nearby, and could allay any Apple concerns for privacy. But if our many wishes are denied and there is no hope ever for an Apple store here, and Cupertino remains as Apple's Orphan, then imagine those hundreds, or maybe thousands of visitors dismay, disappointment and then bewildered looks wondering "Why is it that there is no Apple Store here, or even nearby?", and for them to learn that they would have to travel about six miles away to the dinky Apple store at Valley Fair shopping mall on the border between Santa Clara and San Jose, California, Isn't that incredibly ironic and dumb? Come on! Apple. Let us buy Apples here in your Apple Orchard. OK, your Apricot Orchard, if you say so. We need your truly "Flagship Store" here in Cupertino, not in some other City. I worked at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) in Menlo Park for thirty seven years (1955- 1992) as a Creative Artist. In the late 1960's, (in my own late Thirties), I was Creating a Graphic, for one SRI Computer Scientist, that was showing a Bubble Chart illustrating how much memory would be needed by mainframe computers in the future. I remarked that: 1 could hardly wait to have one" He asked; Have what?" I replied: "A Computer!"' He looked at me and said: " You want a Computer on your Desk?' I said: 'Yes" He said: "Not in your Lifetime!"' That Computer Scientist was also roamed Steve, So. I Thank you, Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, for bringing to me what I wished for in my thirties, your excellent "Computers on my Desk" in my lifetime, since 1977! 1 will continue to buy more Apple products, now in my early Eighties and more, God willing! Letter C42 cont. T CUPERTlNC, DON'T MAKE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE. ALLOW APPLE CAMPUS 2. Cupertino, don't miss the opportunity to capitalize on your illustrious history as "The Birthplace of The Personal Computer Industry, and the (Home of Apple, Inc." We also need Statues of the two Steves: Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak ("The Woz") by the excellent. sculptor who did the wonderful statues of the two Navy Seals in Memorial Park. Those New Statues should be located in the "Main Street"' project and located near a new Apple Museum, and a new Cupertino History Museum (also housing the Chamber of Commerce, my suggestion made at the Sandhill! series)„ both to be housed in a Wooden Building, as opposed to other material. We wanted a warm feeling, as we citizens specifically asked for in the three Sandhill "Main Street" meetings by groups of volunteer citizens several years ago. (Please look at the entire specifications on the charts and notations of those meetings.) Isn't there a. Cupertino Chamber of Commence here? I thought so! I, never hear anything about them. What do they do? If there is one I hope that they support Apple Campus 2, AM saw in the comments that the CCC does support Apple Campus 2. Good for you! To all of those involved: Please, don't delav APPLE'S CAMPUS 2 oroiect anv longer. The costs of labor,. Materials, and many other elements continue to rise daily. Again, Don't delay! Let the good times roll on! Sincerely Submitted, for the Good of Cupertino Mr. Ronald Joseph Moore, Sr. Cupertino, CA 95014-2318 1-408-253-1197(Q, ronaldml4@aol.com. Letter C42 cont. 4 cont. Letter C43 Letter ID 500131 Name Patrick Robbins Address 3895 Pruneridge Ave City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA 95051 Email p.robbins@comcast.net Subject Comments on Apple Campus 2 DEIR Comment In reference to the DEIR: Page 212 - (4) Light and Clare Ref page 212-215. No assessment made of impact positive or negative on Santa Clara residences behind Plot 4. Page 347. Roadway Intersections Studied: One intersection not assessed is the stop sign at Pruneridge Ave. and Gianniini Drive. Though a minor intersection, it has seen increasing congestion. Back-ups have reached upwards Meadow Ave. to the west. This has also precipitated into driver frustration. I have witnessed at least three occasions where a 2 frustrated motorist aggressively moves to the front of the congestion by movingi into the center turning lane and racing forward. Though a minor intersection, it is not conceivable that there will be no impact to that intersection. Page 401. Intersection 35, Moving from a C to a C- for both LOS AM and PM seems low I 3 when compared to current occupancy versus projected occupancy. Page 437- Evaluation of Parking Garage Access. The North Tantau Parking Structure was minimally addressed. Focus was on Special Event Traffic. No discussion of daily usage and management of the of the 350 non -special event parking spaces. Mitigation of spillover 4 parking into nearby neighborhoods could potentially open up the entire structure to employee parking. Needs to be addressed. Page 454 - Noise for ST -5 Property line between, Meadow Avenue and 10700 North Tantaul Avenue 4. The measurement location, on the 4' berm, setback from both Tantau and Pruneridge not a representative location to assess the noise increase that the Santa Clara 5 residences on Pruneridge will experience Letter IID 500130 Name Mary Brunkhorst Address 849 Humewick. Way City, State Zip Sunnyvale„ CA 94087 Email brunkhorst@aol.com Subject Traffic/Consequences Comment I am greatly concerned about the traffic impact of the proposed .Apple campus. The roads around the new campus simply cannot support any more traffic. The city streets and freeways near the campus were not designed to handle the level of traffic that is proposed. The Environmental Impact Report clearly indicates the negative impact the Apple Campus would have. Severalproposals are outlined in the EIR.. Even if all of the proposals to fix the roads were completed before the Apple campus opens, certain intersections will still operate at an unacceptable level. If the proposals are not implemented, the consequences to users of the road's will be severe. Current/Projected Traffic: Near the current Apple campus on De Anza Boulevard, traffic backs up onto 1-280 and at. the De Anza Boulevard/Infinite Loop intersection at the entrance to the Apple Headquarters. 1-280 has multiple exit lanes that lead to De Anza Boulevard and help accommodate the Apple traffic. De Anza Boulevard can barely handle the traffic enteriing onto Infinite (Loop. At the new campus, 1-280 does not have the bandwidth to handle multiple exits onto Wolfe Road. The exit lane is also too short to allow a backup onto the freeway. Wolfe Road is simply too narrow to handle more traffic. Traffic currently backs up on Wolfe Road during commute hours, which is at capacity. Letter C44 1 2 Sunnyvale Impact: Sunnyvale, which shares the Wolfe Road/Homestead Road intersection with Cupertino, will be greatly affected. Wolfe Road and Homestead Road will see significant increases in 3 traffic. Traffic along Wolfe Road is already heavy during commute hours as drivers head to or from 1-280. Neighborhood Intrusion: The EIIR mentions that commuters might use neighborhood streets to access the project site. The EIR does not mention that commuters will use neighborhood streets to avoid the traffic caused by the project site. Commuters trying to avoid the Wolfe Road/Homestead 4 Road! or Wolfe IRoadfl-2'80 traffic could turn onto Dartshire Way, or Inverness Way in Sunnyvale as they travel south on Wolfe Road. They could then access 1-280 via Be Anza Boulevard„ but would do so on neighborhood streets. Pedestrian Impact: Adding Manes and light interchanges will increase the delay times at lights. Pedestrian crossings can greatly increase delay time at an intersection. Has the EIR considered the 5 impact pedestrian traffic will have on the light timing? Pruneridge Avenue: Closure of Pruneridge Avenue is also a concern. This road is used regularly to access Tantau, Lawrence Expressway, and the shopping areas of Vall'co and Cupertino Village. It; 6 is also provides access to housing. Closure of this road will simply increase traffic on the surrounding roads, and may affect local businesses. Other Development Projects in Cupertino: There are too many projects under development in the Cupertino are near the proposed 7 Apple Campus. All of these will affect the traffic„ with much of the burden placed on nearby Letter C44 cont. cities. Has the Apple E I R fulty considered the impact that each of these other projects is 7 contributing to the traffic in the area? Have some of these other projects proposed the same fixes that Apple proposes to reduce their traffic impact? If so, the Apple proposals will cont. not have the desired effect. Changes to Roads Unlikely: The "proposedl" actions to address the increased traffic congestion do not seem feasible. These proposals require that several transportation agencies be involved. Does Apple have the authority to modify freeway ramps? Even if Apple pays for the changes, how long will 8 the EIR and required safety studies take before construction starts? When wouild the reports and the construction be completed? And have the traffic impacts of the actual construction process for these road changes been considered in the EIlR? Consequences? It seems unlikely that the proposals would actually be implemented, given the complexity and backlog of roadway projects in the state. What is the recourse if this project is approved based on the hypothetical completion of 9 proposals that may never actually be implemented? What happens to Apple and Cupertino if this project moves forward without completing the changes needed to address the traffic issues? Alternatives: Of the Alternatives presented, the "Pruneridge Avenue Alternative" would be preferred, as it 10 would keep IPruneridge Avenue open. Summary, It seems that even if all of the "proposals" to fix the roads were fully completed before the Apple campus opens, certain intersections will still operate at an unacceptable level. I 11 The inconvenience to the community, to neighboring cities, to other commuters, to local residents, and to local businesses cannot be justified. It is simply irresponsible to continue12 to develop areas that are at or beyond capacity. I Thank you. Letter C45 Letter ID 500129 Name Nancy Wagner Address 3894 Pruneridge Ave City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA 95051 Email naincymba99@yahoo.com Subject Public comments on Apple Campus Comment We are original owners of the home at the end of Pruneridge in Santa Clara. Our backyard borders Cupertino and Apple's property east of Tantau. Our family has lived in this house for 54 years. We have welcomed Apple as good neighbors, and have been working with Eric Morley from Apple on our concerns. So far, Eric has worked very hard: to create a beautiful landscaping vision and a sound barrier wall at our border with the Apple property. Our concerns at this point are the following: 1. Traffic. Since Apple has moved in, traffic has increased not only in volume and speed of vehicles, but also in size of vehicles, which includes very large buses and trucks. The new bus traffic is especially bothersome because they are loud. With the proposed increase in number of Apple employees projected to use the new campus, we really don't know how we are going to pull out of our driveway to get to work every day. We feel like Pruneridge is turning into Lawrence Expwy. 2. The Observation Circle at Tantaul Pruneridge is the designated point where the rest of the world will be able to take a look at the Apple campus. This will further increase3 1 unwanted traffic. 3. Parking in, front of our home. We currently (between passing cars) look out at our friends homes across the street - beautiful flower's and big trees. We donl want to look at parked cars. We fear this will only get worse. Although minor at this point, folks are using the sign 4 in front of our home as a waiting point for being picked up. We now pick up little pieces of trash daily. 4. Proposed height of the buildings east of Tantau. The proposed buildings are approximately 50% higher than the current buildings. We took at these buildings daily as 5 they border our property. We prefer to look at sky rather than buildings, The height of these buildings should not be allowed to be higher than they are currently. We love and welcome progress. It's what this country is all about, and we feel honored to have Apple as our neighbor. Really, we are on the same page. However, this is a residential neighborhood, and its all about quality of life for my 93 year old mom, my 6 daughter and myself, We will remain involved with this project with quality of life as our primary mission and feel confident Apple will too. People first. Letter C46 Letter ID 50012.8 Name Sally Everett-Beaupre Address 1662 Grosbeak Ave City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Email s.e.beaupre@comcast.net Subject Apple 2 campus concerns Comnment l attended an informatioaln meeting of the Sunnyvale Duty Council chambers two weeks ago, and would Bike to add two more concerns to those l expressed in my previous 1 comment form. (Those concerns were about the traffic impact on Sunnyvale residents and the change to the character of our residential area.). Two more issues brought up at the I 2 meeting were: 1) that the building's lighting may create a large amount of glare. (I would) be very upset if there is a constant glow, making the night skies even less dark than they are now, that would be major pollution!). 2) 1 also wondered just how high a 4 story building that 13 is on a 20 -foot high earthen rise will appear to us.. Letter C47 Letter [D 500127 Name Patrick Waddell Address 3079 Arthur Ct. City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA Santa Clara Email pat.waddell@smythwad.best.vwh.net Subject Apple's planned closure of Pruneridge Avenue Comment Apple's planned closure of Pruneridge Avenue will have major negative impact on Southwest Santa Clara If the proposed closure of Pruneridge Avenue is permitted, it will force Santa Clara residents, who currently can access Interstate 280 Northbound at Wolfe Road to use the already overcrowded onramp at Stevens Creek Blvd. The level of congestion during commute hours is already on the verge of gridlock, Closing Pruneridge is likely to push it into gridlock. The DEIR glibly expects residents to take a non -intuitive detour via Vallco Parkway, which also feeds into congestion on Northbound Wolfe. Neither afterinative is actually realistic for residents. Further, for bicyclists, the Tantau Avenue overpass over Interstate 280 is quite steep and a formidable challenge to casual bike riders. Pruneridge is, and has been, a surprisingly congestion -free route for the over 30 years we have lived in our residence in Santa Clara. 1 3 Suggested alternatives: The DEIR provides two alternative plans and dismisses each without much thought. Both should be reconsidered, along with a third which I would suggest. 1 4 The "Pruneridge Avenue Tunnel alternative" is dismissed due to the need to relocate the 27 inch sewer line, yet the proposed plan must do that as well. So that should not 5 deciding factor. I The "Pruneridge Avenue alternative" could be built without impact to the planned buildings by simply curving Pruneridge to the South, once the existing buildings have 6 been removed. The employee entrances currently planned on, Wolfe could also be maintained, leaving less of a security issue along Pruneridge. I would suggest a third possible alternative -- a variant on the "Pruneridge Avenue alternative" buit with Pruneridge being placed in a shallow cut (15 to 20 feet deep at maximum), with wide terraces on either side, permitting fencing to be placed embedded 7 in the landscaping (and imight be two sets of fences for extra security). Apple employees would be able to pass overhead at almost grade level. Apple infrastructure would also be able to pass overhead. Apple employee entrances should remain as planned in the DEIR. Letter C48 Letter ID 500126 Name Dale Porter Address 5069 Rio Vista Ave City, State Zip San Jose, CA San Jose Email pegretl @comcast.net Subject State of the Art Homeless Transition Center Comment In conjunction with this elegant, massive project, Apple, in conjunction with the City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County and the State of California, should be required to construct and imaintain a state of the art Homeless Transition Center that can serve as a working model for a center that will provide the following for homeless people in the United States. This project will include irestrooms to include bathing facilities, fresh water sources throughout the project, a vegetable garden capable of providing fresh, organic vegetables for the residents as well as a sales outlet or the public, recreation area for children, a forum for public presentations on homeless and homeless transition issues, a library and a career development and job skills training facility. The skills training component will focus on preparing participants for employment at Apple as well as the computer and other high technology industry in general. This project is only to be a microcosm of future projects to address the rapidly growing phenomena of homelessness in this country and wilt provide for a living space for five -hundred persons. A scale model exhibit will be located on the Apple Campus 2 and the actual site will, be constructed in Santa Clara County. Also, please leave Pruneridge as it is. Letter C49 Letter ID 500125 Name Address City, State Zip CA Email Subject pruneridge ave and campus access Comment 1, i feel that taking away most of prune ridge ave, is not a good decision because many people who live ate the Hamptons apartments use it to go to work and school. the rear entrance to the hamptons is used a lot instead of the front way because it is closer to the elementary and middle schools. kids who bike to school will not be able to go onto tantau to go to school. instead! they will have to go through the high traffic of wolfe, which for many children is dangerous. 2. will apple leave its campus open to visitors? -from what i have seen, the new campus will have a lot of plants and trees, like a park. will people be allowed to visit? Letter C50 Letter ID 500124 Name A Local Address City, State Zip Silicon Valley, DA Email Subject Green means LEER certified Comment There are many suggestions that this project is going to be "green", but these appear to be assumptions on many peoples' part rather than any full commitment. l did not see anywhere where Apple has commited to build a LEER certified (preferable Platinum) 1 building. LEER is the only standard to judge whether a building is "green". So will Apple publically commit to making this building LEER certified at the highest level" Also, remind the many residents who comment about the open spaces, trees, and such that these environmental attributes are for Apple employees ONLY. The public will not be allowed to enjoy these features behind the perimeter security fencing. Leaving Pruneri'dge 2 Avenue open for the public is apparently too dangerous for security, thus enjoying the park- like setting will be unavailable to the average Cupertino resident also (except elected officials perhaps). Letter ID 500123 Name Ruth Moore Address Ciity, State Zip Cupertino, CA Cupertino Email ruthiemo@aol.com Subject Apple Campus 2 Comment The Apple Campus 2 concept was conceived in Cupertino, California and born in the United States, of America by brilliant, inventive, futuristic, talented engineers and creative artists. Steve Jobs was, a man of deep thought and action. I find it hard to believe that the plans that he made for this fantastic corporate building, his, dream, are lacking in the necessary detail, which presently seems to be placing a hold on the procedure to build. All surrounding Silicon Valley cities will prosper from this extremely valuable idea. Apple is the corporation with the ability to introduce the forward ways for all to succeed. It was proven many years ago when Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs pushed to force the then high ranking technical corporations to think about the personal computer. Many of theme laughed and said "Not in your lifetime." Look what happenedl. And look at how many followed Apple's lead. Some even "borrowed" Apple's inventions. Most people who are agreeable to the plans usually do not say much; however, the protesters will and are voicing their opposition. The balance comes in the importance and need of all comments and feelings suggested to be analyzed. For example: Traffic - Yes, as, Vallco Shopping Center will also function, as Valley Fair has. Environment - This plan has trees, blossoms, parks, walkways, open spaces, etc. People - Jobs and great economy, shopping and living areas. Many future plans bring traffic, environmental questions, and people, such as Shopping Malls, Theaters, Stadiums, Tourist Sights, Museums, Flea Markets, Farmers Markets, and many other things bring people to an area. I am proud to think that many would come to Cupertino for the newest, most beautiful and interesting Tech Company in this amazing valley. This is the future. I remember being amazed at Disney Land's General Electric Theatre which showed aIle the future plans. No one could believe it. Could it be possible for us to posses such innovative ideas, from homes with ultra modern appliances to 6 lane freeways ribboning the landscape? In 1962 Stevens Creek was a three lane road with blossoms all around. We welcomed schools, roads, stores, banks, churches, businesses, and the population grew. This Apple Campus 2, a beautiful future structure, is the Icing on Cuperbi no's Cake. Let us all light the candles of celebration as this is a very special honor for the whole valley. Thank you, Ruth Moore Cupertino resident since 1962 Letter C51 1 Letter C52 Letter ID 500122 Name Harvey Checkman Adldress City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email hcheckiman@lieee.org Subject Public Comments on AppleCampus 2DEIR Comment My interpretation of the transportation, issues from the EIR seems to be limited in solutions and mitigation, However, one solution that would definitely aid both Apple and the Cupertino area in adding 10,000 plus employees to the area is not vacating Pruneridge Avenue, While the new Apple Campus is not in direct conflict with current route. In a major emergebet Pruneridge is a critical route from West Cupertino/Sunnyvale to the Kaiser Medical Center where major disaster plans are implemented for major emergencies. Eliminating an important throughfare with 5 lanes of auto traffic(a center lane) plus wide bike lanes, plus adding the 10,000 additional employees will only contribute to gridlock to the entire area. One alternative proposal to reroute Pruneiridge to the south adjacent to 280. Envision going East to West and reroute the public route to the left route to the Ridge View Court and around to the Hampton Apartments on the West to Wolfe Road. Not only would the city not lose a major artery , but it could enhance the quality of life for both Apple employees and the residents, mitigate auto traffic, bike lanes , and pedestrians . Since the area of near 280, is envisioned for a park like setting this area could be shared by everyone. North of 2 Pruneridge would be the Apple Secure Campus with fencing and all the security. Such a solution, resolves a list of problems inclujding not vacating right of way by city, maintain a protective perimeter for Apple, protecting wild life and access to the creek, not eliminating traffic lanes, etc. The TDM and Shuttle and bus programs need to be expanded as traffic increases. Mitigation should include stifling Apple employee growth if problems are not solved. While trip cap is desired a peak trip cap might be quantified and enforced until solutions are 3 implemented. After the fact problem solving wifl be much more limiting. Sett mile stones with required action. Transportation for Seniors . Since the growing senior population has greater transportation needs including medical visits. A door to door shuttle should be implemented to help senior 4 get to the Kaiser facilities. I Another mitigation suggestion for both transporation demands and quality of life is to hire locally. Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara are ian incredibly educated and, talent population . By promoting very local hiring, , the traffic demands could lessen with Apple door-to-cloor shuttles. For each position filled by a resident , Apple would receive a credit. 5 The new residences on VaUco Parkway is a case in point. Hiring current local residents reduces commute times for the entire area. A qualify of life issue for Sunnyvale and Cupertino residents is the current proposals simply degrades, the qualify of life with all the EINE factors to consider. Schools, parks, law enforcement, and ease of life are impacted by the new Apple Campus. Propose using a 6 ribbon of land south of 280 for public access. See my Pruneridge rerouiting proposal. Letter C53 Letter ID 500121 Name Ann, Address City, State Zip CA Email Subject Hospital Impact / Cupertino HS Impact Comment The draft EIR indicates that during operational and construction periods the facility could violate air quality standards. What does that impact look to the vulnerable population that would be at Kaiser Hospital. Which way would prevailing winds blow that excess emission, i.e. toward the Hospital or towards Cupertino High School or towards Birdland or Portal neighborhoods? How frequently during operation would this occur? Another question that needs to be answered is what is the additional time delay for a vehicle traveling to the Kaiser Hospital Emergency Room at peak travel hours? Already Homestead frequently experiences gridlock. What would be the extra time, required to arrive 2 at Kaiser starting from the intersection of Homestead/Hollenbeck? What would be the extra time required starting from Wolfe/Iris? These inquiries should be modeled explicitly. As Santa Clara residents are forced to travel up Tantau (due to the planned closure of Pruneridge) in order to get to 280 and other areas of Cupertino, how will this increase traffic 3 near the Cupertino High School at the critical morning peak hours/start of school? Letter ID 5100 120 Letter Name Ann C54 Address City, State Zip CA Email Subject Closure of Pruneridge Comment The plan proposes removal of a section of Pruneridge Avenue. This is proposed despite the fact that it directly contradicts elements of Cupertino's General Plan by eliminating bike and pedestrian access along Pruneridge. Instead bicyclist and pedestrians will be forced! on to the busier Homestead Road and possible even to the Sunnyvale side of Homestead, adding to the congestion. The text suggest that Apples' security requirements are SO great that bicyclist and pedestrians cannot be allowed on the grounds — though the only facilities south of the former road will be parking and power generation facilities. (And even though current Apple facilities in Cupertino do not have this type of perimeter.) And the dEIR calls it unmitigatible, but why? Mitigation idea: I see a failure of creative thinking for which Apple is in theory known for. A tunnel cannot be built due to a sewer line, but why not a fly -over bicycle/pedesthan bridge be built reconnecting one end of Pruneridge to the other? Such a passage way could be fenced and secured to meet the security paranoi. The bridge could also be a public piece of artwork with the right design firm. The new Apple building is to be grand enough to attract architectural tourist and such a pedestrian bridge would provide a secure viewing area for students of architecture. Apple could work with BAAQMD's bicycle facility program to develop appropriate designs and since the bridge would traverse open land instead of a roadway, its construction should be simpler. This would greatly improve non -car accessibility in the area and improve alignment with Cupertino's General Plan. Letter C55 Letter ID 500118 Name Pingang Wang Address 481 Norwood Cir City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA 95051 Email pingang__Wang@yahoo.com Subject Traffic at Pruneddge/Lawrence intersection Comment Hello, We are residents of Enclave at Santa Clara. Our community is located on Pruneridge Ave near Lawrence Expy. This intersection is already crowded during traffic hours. We are concerned about extra traffic that the new Apple campus will bring in. Is there a plan to ease potential traffic congestion at that (Pruneridge/Lawrence) intersection ? We didn't see such a proposal in the materials submitted by Apple. LetterlD 500117 Name Jeremy Hubble Letter Address 869 Helena C56 City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA Sunnyvale Email jghubble@gmaiLcom Subject Homestead and Pruneridge Comment 1) Homestead. Some sections of Homestead currently have part time bike lanes. With the completion, of the new campus, both car and bike traffi,c will likely increase on Homestead. This will pose a safety hazard for bicyclists, especially since some portions of the bike lanes allow parking during evening rush hour. Cupertino should work with the city of Sunnyvale to make sure that the bike lanes are full time (with no parking allowed) before the project is complete. 2) Pruneridge. Pruneridge currently provides direct access to the Cupertino Village shopping center. With the closure of pruneridge, much of the traffic from Pruneridge will likely be diverted to Homestead. This will create additional b,icyclelautomobile comifli:cts, especially on weekends when the shopping center is very busy and many cyclists are riding on Homestead. Some actions should be made to mitigate this. 3) Pruneridge bicycle access. Currently Pruneridge provides bicycle access connecting Cuperino Village and the nearby residential neighborhood to many points east (including a nice bike route to downtown San Jose.) The current Apple campus plans could easily accomodate a (bike path connecting Cupertino Village and Pruneridge through the Apple campus. This would mesh well with the green nature of the Campus. It would also would maintain the existing connectivity. The current Infinite Loop campus has a public trail that connects the campus to the residential neighborhood and Lawson Middle school. It is important that the new campus maintain the bicycle connectivity. Done right, this could enhance the campus for both Apple and the community. Letter C57 Letter ID 500114 Name Vincent Grande Address 11127 Lochinvar Ave City, State Zip, Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Email vinniegrande@sbcgillobal.niet Subject New On and Off Ramp at Tantau Comment As a Sunnyvale Birdland Resident, I have mixed feelings on this project. Obviously, the increased traffic oongestion will and should be a priority of Apple to address. My suggestion is to create the Steve Jobs Rd Exit at Hwy 280, Where Tantau overpass is, build create an on ramp and off ramp that will feed nicely into Apple HQ and the other subsidiary building on Tantua. 2 Has this idea been addressed? I think Apple and the City of Cupertino owes it to the residents who will be most impacted. Regards, Vincent Grande Letter C58 Letter ID 5010113 Name Address City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Email Subject Traffic? Comment I think this location is going to cause a significant amount of traffic congestion. Wolf already gets pretty backed up aroundi commuting times and with this campus I can just see t getting much much worse. For those of us that actually live by this location and use Wolf/Homestead for daily commuting around town, I think it will be a headache. Letter C59 Letter ID 500108 Name David Mooso Address 528 Hubbard Ave City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA Email Subject Noise levels along Prunieridge Ave Comment I looked at the noise level study. It appears Pruneridge Ave between, Tantau and Lawrence Expressway has been left out of the study. I admit I may have missed it, but if I am correct then it seems that that should be part of the study because there most likely will be an impact on traffic and noise when the campus is built. Letter C60 Letter ID 500107 Name Art Cohen Address 21275 Stevens Creek Blvd City, State Zip, Cupertino, CA Cupertino Email alouis7@gmaii.com Subject Apple Campus 2 Comment Given the national prominence and spotlight of the development of the new Apple Campus 2, what new security enhancements are being recommended for the City of Cupertino? My Interest is that of a business owner in Cupertino (Bluelight Cinemas) and resident of Cupertino, living just 2-3 miles from the new Apple Campus. I believe that the new Apple campus will thrust Cupertino City with new international fame that it may be an attractive national target Pike New York, etc. ). Has there been any allocation of funds by the City of Cupertino or Apple to Install a City-wiide public security camera system (similar to what they have in London or was in Boston), Overall I support the building of the new Apple Campus 2 and believe it to be a positive asset for the City of Cupertino and the Bay Area. The City of Cupertino is one of the safest and secure cities in the Bay . Promoting the City of Cupertino having an essential city-wide security system will be an asset to the City of Cupertino and to that of Apple , Inc. Since Apple is in -part bringing the international attention, to the City of Cupertino J hope that in the building of the new Apple Campus, there could be allocation of funds to work with the City to build a camera security system for all of Cupertino, Letter ID 500106 Name Denia Phillips Address Corporate Inn! Sunnyvale, 805 E Bl Camino Real City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA Sunnyvale Email denia@coirpinn.com Subject Project support - Birdland Traffic Concerns Comment As the General Manager of a Sunnyvale Hotel, Corporate Inn Sunnyvale, I attended a public meeting at the Sunnyvale Council Chambers on Tuesday, July 10, 2013. The area of concern was traffic in the Birdland residential area and Wolfe Road. After reading the information provided and listening to the overview of traffic mitigation plans, it appears that Apple is more than adequately addressing the areas of concern. Our community stands to gain so much from this project; increased revenue to businesses and local government, increased home values and Improved schools. Ideally, Sunnyvale would receive the same benefits that Cupertino has enjoyed by having Apple in their community. This is an exciting opportunity for Sunnyvale to support its businesses and residents. Letter ID 500105 Name JAMES Address City, State Zip CA Email XCELLERANT10@GMAIL,COM Subject Impact Study Incomplete Comment The issue of how a circular design, while may be pleasing on land, may The extremely confusing to migratory flying animals. The circular design would be confusing these species because from the sky it would appear as a body of water. This would disrupt the flying pattern which could have a negative downstream effect on their feeding, mating, and! overall survival. Circular designs are typically not a problem for migratoryfflying animals but one of this scale is unprecedented and under studied. This could also, be a nuisance to the town as there could be a surplus of full time birds that home near this area causing excessive bird feces, noise, and disruption of local ecosystem. It is also noteworthy that airports avoid circular design like this. Why? Because of its effect on flying/migratory animals. Although the environmental study does mention this, it is Inot at all conclusive. I would suggest looking at the impact in regards to of species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It would be a shame if the story of the California Condor be repeated when it can be completely prevented. hftp:l/www.fws.gov/migratorybirds,/regulationspolicies/mbta/compare.pdf Letter C61 Letter C62 Letter C63 Letter ID 500104 Name John Kilmer Address 380 pruneridge ave City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA 95051 Email Jkilmer@gmaii.com Subject Closure of Tantau Comment I think that Apple is very short sighted in planning to chose tantau to the hamptons to gain security? The traffic impact to the area will be quite significant. I for one will add a good 15 - 20 mins onto my commute to go around this inane roadblock. This makes a absolutely no sense and will result in very angry ineigbors to a new spaceship in the community. I have not seen one EIR traffic impact study around this and this will also hamper police/fire and ambulance response times. Speaking for my neighbors this is an aweful idea to secure only one side of the proposed castle and I'm completely against it. John Letter Letter ID 500103 C64 Name Elaine Manley Address 1075 Hamshire Ct City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Email elaine.manley@comeast.net Subject 3 suggestions Comment I am very excited about the new campus that is being built near our home. t've listened to several presentations and I think you've done a tremendous job. I ask that you please 1 consider three things: 1. More parking on your site: Please increase your parking by another 700 to 1,000 spaces. While it's good to incentivize the employees to take public transit, it's also important to have enough facilities to make it convenient for them. It is much cheaper to build more parking now than to try to add to it later. Parking for visitors are included in this figure. You are creating one of the coolest buildings on the planet. People will want to come and see it. If you plan for enough parking for the visitors, then it's not a headache for anyone. 2. Homestead: Please do NOT put a median alongi Homestead. We can paint the street and make it look better but it's much better to have easier access to turin into the homes and streets along Homestead. Please don't create more times a person has to u -turn. 3 Function is much more important than a small median for aesthetics. Paving and painting the clear lines on the street will be much more valuable and safer. 3. Height of your berms: In the Sunnyvale City Council pre -session, it sounded like your berms would be so high we couldn't see your building. You are creating something people want to see so please don't hide it. I know there is concern about glare but that can be handled with the type of material you put on the building. The design looks, 4 spectacular. Share it with those of us driving by it. I love beautiful buildings. It brings the entire area up. So please don't make the berms too high nor the trees so thick that we cant see your gorgeous building. Please make sure it's visible. Thank you for considering these suggestions. I took forward to having you as a neighbor. I 5 Sincerely, Elaine Manley Letter C65 Letter ID 500102 Name Andy Frazer Address 1624 Nightingale Ave City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Email andyfrazerforcouncll@gorillasites.com Subject Parking intrusion in Sunnyvale Comment I am concerned about the possible parking intrusion from the Apple Campus into the Birdland neighborhood of Sunnyvale. Page 434 of the DEIR specifically mentions There are several areas in the immediate vicinity of the project site where employees could attempt to park if proposed on-site parking facilities do not fully meet project -related parking demand or prove to be too inconvenient. These areas include: Nightingale Avenue, Meadowlark Lane, and Leighton Way north of Homestead Road. 1 This is where I live. I collected responses from six residents of these three streets, which I have included below, Apple needs to do everything possible to reduce traffic congestion in the area of Wolfe and Homestead, and to discourage employee parking outside the campus. If it turns out Sunnyvale needs to implement either residential permit parking or traffic or parking mitigation in Birdland, Apple needs to, absorb the entire cost of it, ff M -ON on Andy Frazer 1624 Nightingale Ave andyfrazerforcounciil@gmaii.com (I of 6) Yair Barniv July 4, 2013 Dear Andy Frazer and the Sunnyvale Council, WRO I NJ Riki mill-, I I can only guess that the City of Sunnyvale will be making some money out of that "deal", but I don't foresee ANY reduction in my own Sunnyvale's outrageous bills (water, garbage, sewer, etc.). I MUCH prefer that the City cuts its expenses and retirement benefits instead. My neighborhood does NOT require any additional "development"; it's getting worse all on its own already. Truly yours, Yair Barniv, 1526 Meadowlark Ln, Sunnyvale Letter C65 cont. (2 of 6) Carol Absalom July 3, 2013 Hi Andy ... I five, on Nightingale and received your flyer. I am VERY much against this pedestrian access across Homestead to Nightingale and would like to know what I can do about it Thanks Carol (3 of 6) Wang, Pearl July 3, 2013 Andy — Thanks for handing out the Apple Campus 2 environment impact reports. I'm your neighbor at 908 Inverness. It's very much a concern that some Apple employees may attempt to park around the neighborhood. Is there anything Apple is doing to assure they will achieve the 34% TDM participation rate? During rush hours, traffic is already very bad on Wolf around Homestead & Inverness, the Apple project will certainly make it worse. We shouldn't need to put up with the parking problems too. Pearl Wang Inverness Ave (4 of 6) Kevin Klank, June 31 Overall, 11 support the Apple project, but I have serious concerns/reservations w.r.t. the traffic impact. I had previously submitted a comment on-line (hittp://ac2eir.comimentmanagement.com/list/view.cfm?t=2&w=l&1=500029) in this light. Subsequently, I spent several hours looking througih the Environmental Impact Report (http://www.cupertino-org/index-aspx?page=l 178) which imostly addresses my concerns. I say mostly, because nowhere was I able to see a plan to further correct/adjust: the 280/Wolfe and 280/Lawrence interchanges if (or when) the documented measures prove inadequate. I seem to recall a recent Birdland alias post stating that $500K will be set aside to do post -project traffic assessments and control measures on the Sunnyvale side of Homestead. While this is certainly encouraging, I clon't have any way to judge how much is achievable with this amount of money, nor does it address the bigger concern of helping traff ing to/from/through the main traffic arteries of 280, Wolfe, and Lawrence. So in summary, my question to present to the Sunnyvale City Council and pass on to Cupertino/Apple is: To what extent is Apple willing to support post -project road improvements to the, main traffic arteries of 280, Wolfe, and Lawrence if/when the proposed plan proves inadequate? Respectfully submitted, Kevin Klenk 7 -year Birdland resident Letter C66 From: lndranil Das Sent: Monday, ,July4, 2013 Subject: Apple Campus - Birdland neighborhood Hello Council members: I am a resident of the Birdland Neighborhood & although 1 am happy about the new I 1 iconic campus that Apple is bldg, l am concerned about a few things: 1. increased traffic on Wolfe and Homestead. 12 2. Residential neighborhood parking spots in front of our home will be more freq used... which will be not only inconvenient but environmentally unsafe for us. - prime spots in front of our houses 3 - unknown vehicles parked blind spots while backing up creating hazards, accidents, -- speeding issues specialty on Nightinagle & Meadowlark Lanes. 3. Noise and Air pollution etc. -- I know Apple encourages Public Transport, Carpools, Buses, Bikes... we hope with I 4 12000+ employees they take adequate measures to overcome the traffic/air/noise problem. Here are suggestions: 1. Apple should NOT open a People/Bike/Automobile entrance on Homestead Road. This will deter Apple workforce to park in Birdland neighborhood and avoid congestion on 5 Homestead. Apple may only have an emergency exit on Homestead. 2. Similar suggestion on Wolfe road too because there would literally be no room forI 6 traffic to enter/exit 230 NfS during peak hrs. 3. Some kind of Approved & Controlled parking stickers issued for Birdland residents only to park in our neighborhood spots during peak hrs. between M -F. 7 everyone else can park for maximum 1 hr or so without a sticker, traffic patrolling carts will be regd in that case. We need to strike the right balance between the two. 1 8 Help appreciated. Thanks, Birdland Neighbor Letter ID 500101 Name Michelle Philips Address 1578 Oriole Ave City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA 9408,7 Email michelle—philips@yahoo-com Subject Comments on DER (I live in Sunnyvale) Comment Cupertino City Council, My name is Michelle Philips and I live on Oriole Avenue in Sunnyvale, a few blocks from the proposed Apple Campus. Although my street is not named in the DEIR, the ones that are represent routes that my family drives each and every day. Our neighborhood already has experience in this area with the Kaiser left turn situation, and I have definitely encountered an increase in traffic from that one, although we were told it would not affect Birdland. Thus I am very concerned about the potential for what Apple's plans will bring to us, as I have read in the DEIR about parking on our streets if proposed onsite facilities are deemed inconvenient to employees, and they choose to use Birdiand as a workaround. The projected pedestrian access point is also, worrisome, as it would certainly encourage this behavior. Hewlett- Packard's presence in our neighborhood was minimal to none. It is my hope that the Apple project can attain the same impact, and that our Birdiand neighborhood will not suffer from its presence. Michelle Philips 1578 Oriole Avenue Sunnyvale S 1578 Oriole Avenue Letter C67 1 Letter Letter ID 500097 C68 Name Ann Address City, State Zip CA Email Subject Mitigation of traffic - suggestion Comment The employee population will be 200% of the current usage of the site and 40% higher than HIP housedon the site at its peak (before all the other surrounding developments occurred). Currently, traffic at Homestead and Wolfe is terrible at peak hours; it becomes difficult to get to Kaiser Hospital via Homestead. The dUR indicates there will be "unacceptable" conditions at five intersections, but lacks creative thought on methods to mitigate some of the impact. MITIGATION: The Apple 2 campus and those intersections most impacted by traffic divide Sunnyvale and Santa Clara homes in the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) from the district -wide (lottery) elementary schools and from middle schools in the CUSD. By providing school busing of students in these areas to the appropriate schools, it is likely that 100 to 200 family vehicles could be removed from Wolfe and Tantau at the peak AM traffic hour. Less traffic, less emissions, less gridlock. Parents who don't have to drive their children to school may be more inclined to get themselves to work via other means then a single -occupancy vehicle. Also a potential benefit for Apple employees and their children in the area. At a collection point away from the neighborhood school (with each have their own traffic congestion), such as Panama Park in Sunnyvale, school buses could take children from the Ortega and Nimitz attendance areas to the Murdock -Portal, Christa McAuliffe K-6, and CLIP@Meyerhoftz schools. Thus many vehicles would! avoid the Wolfe/Homestead intersection. In Santa Clara, school buses could take children to Christa McAuliffe, CLIP, and Hyde Middle School, and thus avoid using Tantau to Stevens Creek (and reduce possibility of Tantau backing up to Homestead), Since CUSD already owns buses and employs drivers, the incremental cost to Apple to enable this activity would be small, estimate less than $15,000 per bus per year if you look at rental rates. A very reasonable cost on the, scale, of this project. Apple should immediately start working with CUSD to see how to implement this and other traffic mitigation solutions, Letter C69 Letter ID 500095 Name David Mooso Address 528 Hubbard Ave City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA 950511, Email Subject Creek Trail Comment If a creek trail was installed along Casabas creek as described in the DRAT I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, as an alternative to a closing off Pruneridge to pedestrian traffic we would be more inclined to support the proposed Apple 11 campus. We like walking and running, along Pruneyard. Letter ID 500094 Name U P Address 528 Hubbard Ave City, State Zip, San Jose, CA San Jose Email Subject Unacceptable Traffic Comment No company should be allowed to build such a big campus which is surrounded by residential area. Apple campus which will host up to - 13,000 employees in one location will cause a Traffic Nightmare for everyone using Wolf road, Homestead road, Lawrence expressway. Both Wolf and Lawrence 280 exits are single lane exits to, reach 280 freeway. I can just foresee longi lines at these exits getting in and getting out. Apple cannot guarantee that these exits will be expanded to meet such traffic capacity. City representatives from Cupertino, San Jose, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara should think about their residents and oppose this new Apple campus in entirety. Letter ID 500093 Name David IMooso Address 528 Hubbard Ave City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA Santa Clara Email Subject Traffic signal operations at Tantau/Pruneridge Comment I see an opportunity to improve traffic flows at the Tanta ulPruneri d g e. My recommendation is that when West Bound Pruneridge Left Turn (WB LT) has a green arrow that a North Bound Tantau Right Turn (NB RT) arrow should also come on. Do to an anticipated high volume of traffic coming & going frorrYto Lawrence Expy during commute hours and in general day to day operation of the campus. Letter C70 1 Letter C71 1 Letter ID 500092 Name Loran Stringer Address City, State Zip CA Email Subject Traffic Comment Perhaps youshoutd be required to limit the number of cars entering and exiting the campus. One lane, no backup allowed at the entrance, or a toll for each car after say, 1000 each hour. Larry Letter ID 500091 Name Michelle Connelly Address 291 Lowell Dr City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA 95051 Email slpmichell@aol.com Subject apple campus 2 project Comment I have two primary concerns about this project. The first one is related to the obvious impact this project has on traffic congestion throughout the day. This project will make an already congested area worse all day, not just during commute. This has not be adequately addressed in the project. They can conduct their business as it is now with the buildings they already have and build something smaller on the old HP site they purchased without needing to close down a major access point! to 280, (reterring to Pruneridge Ave,) The second, which is not mentioned in the impact report is regarding the second hand smoke we will alll be exposed to when we are walking, biking or driving our cars in the area. Apple has a very strict anti-smoking policy for their employees. They require their employees to walk onto public property where they stand in "'smoking clutches" and pollute the air. They also snuff out their cigarettes onto the sidewalk and leave them there to be washed into the gutters and eventually into the Bay. I have pictures of the employees smoking and littering. I have reported this problem to the City and it still continues. This is what is going on right now in the temporary building locations within the proposed construction zone. I am very concerned about the public health risk now and in the future. The second-hand smoke problem is bad enough with the number of apple employees already here. If this project is approved, the number of smokers will surely increase. It is already a smoke-filled toxic zone on Perimeter Rd. just about any time of day. It will only get worse around the whole site, Tantau Rd, is used as a bike access route for two schools (Cupertino HIS and Hyde Middle School). School children are riding their bikes past these multiple smoking sites all along Tantau and 'Valeo Parkway. This project is anything but environmentally friendly. Letter C72 1 Letter C73 1 13 Letter IID 500089 Name SaIlly Everett-Beaupre Address 1662 Grosbeak Ave City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Email Subject Concerned about impact of Apple 2 campus on Sunnyvale Comment I live in Sunnyvale very near the corner of Homestead and Wolfe. I appreciate having received a card asking for feedback. I welcome a dynamic company in my area, I think it will bring economic health, but I love even more the quiet and relative safety of the area. My questions are: 1) The Apple plans mention over and over that Apple is concerned to be a good citizen of Cupertino. It seems to me that Cupertino will receive all the benefits of your presence and few of the problems... the new Apple Campus is on the Sunnyvale side of 280 and that means the traffic, congestion,, noise will afl affect residents of Sunnyvale every day. It risks to, totally change the character of our neighborhoods. Additionally, there is a lot of higher rise construction occurring on the other side of 280 at Wolfe; that is going to also going to impact Wolfe road. Therefore, I would like Apple to address its impact on Sunnyvale as well. 2) 1 cannot but dread the amount of traffic that will enter and leave Wolfe road all day long; there is enough already... we cannot handle 7000 people there, despite your efforts to encourage busses and bicycles... (Your employees lives are too busy for that to be viable for a significant enough number.) Is there a way to add an exit off the 280 freeway between Lawrence and Wolfe that directs your employees directly to your parking!? and back onto the freeway afterwards? Still, t think Wolfe and Lawrence will be a nightmare coming from the other side of the peninsula too... I'd appreciate any information that can assuage my fear of your impending (looming?) presence, I am also going to send these concerns to the Sunnyvale City Council, Thank you, Sally Everett-Beaupre 1662 Grosbeak Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Letter ID 500080 Name Jon Ramos Address City, State Zip CA Email Subject Comments on Apple's new and old campus Comment I attended the presentation tonight on the new Apple Campus 2 EIR (June 26th). The only comment that concerns me is where is the EIR report for the existing campus? What is Apple planning to do with the existing building? Is the property zoned for residential or business usage? When Cupertino has a meeting regarding the Apple campus, I expect the consultant to be on time. When the public attends a meeting you should have the EIR consultant on time (6:30pm), he should not show up at 6:55pm. Letter C74 Letter C75 Letter C76 Letter ID 500077 Name Ann Peterson Address, 7573 Orange Blossom Dr City, State Zip Cupertino, CA Email jg@effgreetwoodworking.com Subject Total carbon footprint of Apple 2 campus Comment As a resident of Cupertino, I am particularly concerned about the many including; Apple buildings around town and which of these will be left empty, 1- Carbon from the off site production of Portland cement for onsite concrete 1 think this will also have an impact on our city and the environment Letter IID 500067 Name Jeff Greet Address 10235 Nile Dr City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email jg@effgreetwoodworking.com Subject Total carbon footprint of Apple 2 campus Comment What will be the total carbon footprint for the development of the Apple 2 campus, including; 1- Carbon from the off site production of Portland cement for onsite concrete 2- Carbon from the offsite production of structural steel for onsite assembly 3- Carbon from the offsite production of architectural glass, including bending! (process, for onsite installation 4- Ali other release of carbon into the atmosphere that otherwise would not have occurred had the project not occurred Secondly- how many years will it take before the renewable energy systems iinstalled onsite will offset the total carbon footprint for development of the Apple 2 campus, when all releases of carbon are considered which would not have occurred had the project not occurred? Letter C77 1 Letter ID 500066 Name Mahesh Nihalani Address 7938 Mcclelan Rd # 2 City, State Zip Cupertino, CA Cupertino Email nihalanis@comcast, net Subject Apple Campus2 Comment I and my family have hived in Cupertino for the past 13 years and love this city and its people Me strongly support the construction of the new Apple Campus Cupertino is known Internationally only because of Apple being! here. The building of Apple Campus 2 is vital to our city of Cupertino and the region as a whole since the economic impact for the community will be extremely positive. It will make Apple,which I am sure would be welcome with open arms by every City , State and Country, to continue to remain in Cupertino and also add an estimated 7,400 new high- quality jobs. Their being here will increase revenues of local businesses and support additional job growth throughout the region and also enhance tax revenues to the City of Cupertino and other cities and public agencies. I am also sure that Apple will work in good faith with the Community to mitigate,to the extent possible,any adverse environmental) impacts. Letter C78 1 Letter C79 Letter ID 500064 Name Address City, Slate Zip Sunnyvale, CA Email Subject Do not support this project. Comment This area need more affordable housing instead of more office buildings. There are plenty of empty office buildings Apple can purchase and re -purpose for their needs. Letter ID 500063 Name John! Nelson Address 7617 Elderwood ct City, State Zip CA Email cehanson@yahoo.com Subject Demolition Comment The roads in the area will not be able to handle the traffic. Especially the intersection of Wolfe and Homestead. This project needs to, be down sized or divided up into small projects spread through out Cupertino, Letter ID 50,0060 Name Charles Hanson Address 7617 Elderwood ct City, State Zip Cupertino, CA Cupertino Email cehanson@yahoo.com Subject Demolition Comment The EIR shoul'dl also address the demolition of the, 26 HP buildilings to ensure that the concrete is recycled on site, the glass, copper, conduit and other imaterials that can be reused are recycled. Letter C80 1 Letter C81 1 Letter C82 Letter IIt7 5000,59 Name Address City, State Zip CA Email Subject Comment. It is clear that the City is in Apple's back pocket and is doing everything to ensure this campus is built! this is not a form for public comment as the City Council has already made their mind up about the project and will be voting for it, While I support a new campus, this one is horrible and doesn't tit within the structure of the city. Cupertino is 1 already looked down upon by surrounding cities with it's lack of appropriate city planning, this new structure, white bring in revenues to the city, will continue to make Cupertino look unplanned and unstructured. Letter C83 Letter I'D 500058 Name Walter Li Address 2.1470 Millard Ln City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email waiter.li@gmaii.com Subject Significant Impact? Comment The EIR states that the project plans to support 9,800 employees and has historically operated near this capacity, even though since about Aug 2011, when background data for this EIR were collected„ only about 4844 employees worked there. From this information, it seems logical to assume that since this site has historically been approved for 9800 employees, why will the same site with the new proposal from Apple be assessed with "significant impact" in this EIR report? If HP°s business conditions as well as 1 the economy situation continue to improve to the point that ('assuming) HP will again have 9800 employees at this site, will the City of Cupertino not allow it to happen? It seems to me that if Apple plans to have similar number of employees at the site as it has historically supported„ what significant changes has this Apple project indicates that warrants a "significant impact" rating in the EIR? Letter C84 Letter ID 500054 Name Marc Aronson Address 10120 Westminster Ct City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email marc@mlaronson.com Subject Apple Campus Comment I support the construction of the new Apple campus. I believe that Apple will work in good faith with the community to mitigate, to the degree possible, adverse environmental impacts. The economic impact for the community will! be very positive. 1 do not nor ever have worked for Apple. Most of my high-tech electronics is non -Apple equipment. 11 have no investment in, Apple stock. I simply see this as a tremendous opportunity for the community in which I have lived for 20+ years. Marc Aronson Letter C85 Letter ID 500048 Name Jennifer Martin Address 1028 Lochness Ct. City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA Suinnyvaie Email Subject Traffic and Construction Concerns Comment It is clear that Wolfe Road/Homestead and the neighboring streets will be severely impacted by traffic. It is of great concern that the Sunnyvale, neighborhood will be used as "drive around" options for both current commuters and Apple employees who wish to bi- pass the increased levels of congestion on Wolfe, Homestead, etc. The main Sunnyvale "Thru" street, Quail, is highly used by kids going to Peterson and Laurelwood schools, attending soccer practice @ Raynor and Sunnyvale Alliance Field, etc. I would think for the sanity and relations between Apple, City of Cupertino and its neighboring cities as well as the employees themselves, a serious and concerted traffic plan be drafted and implemented to address the known "unacceptable" traffic levets that the City of Cupertino is fully aware of. In addition, it is a concern that Apple, City of Cupertino, and constniction crew be respectful of its neighbors and not allow construction to begin earlier/later than the city ordinance. Letter ID 500045 Name Mike Hammes Address 10910 Northsky Sq City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email mikel5.hammies@sbcglobal.net Subject Feedback for Apple 2 Campus Comment Two Comments - What would the impact be on East bound Homestead if Apple employees decide to exit at De Anza Blvd and go down Homestead to the Wolfe/Tantau entrances. If the exit backup is too much on South bound 280 exit to Wolfe, you might see that occur - Currently there is a Kaiser site at the corner of Tantau and Homestead. Will steps be taken to make sure that Apple employees don't park there? Thanks.... Mike Hammes Letter IID 500044 Name Aleksandr Movshovich Address 363 MacKenzie Or City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA 95051 Email alek—mov@yahoo.ccm, Subject Pruneridge street closing Comment I don't think that Apple has the right to close the public street which I and my wife use daily, There are multiple ways for the company to achieve its goals without changing existing roads i.e. building underpasses or overpasses. It is also possible to allow local residents to cross the company property. Letter C86 1 Letter C87 1 IRM- M-1 .111#101, 91 Name Edward Hirshfield Address 734 Stendhal Ln City, State Zip Cupertino, CA CUPERTINO Email ciairelouise@earthlink.net Subject Apple Campus2 Comment I strongly favor approval of the building permit for the Apple Campus2, I have lived in my Comment current house since 1963. My home is located 1.1 miles from the proposed location. It is reasonable for the city to do what can be done to improve streets and other forms of transportation in the area. If there is still a perceived traffic problem, Apple can stagger working hours to relieve traffic density. t recommend that the building commission, and city council approve the buy;din:g permit as soon as possible to make the process as easy as possible for Apple. We need to encourage this process. Edward Hirshfield Letter C88 1 Letter C89 Letter ID 500042 Name Linda Vanderhule Address 8143 Park Villa Cir City, State Zip Cupertino, CA Cupertino Email lindavanderhule@gmail.com Subject Cell reception Comment I live on the comer of Bubb and McClellan. AT&T is my cell provider, t had no cetil coverage at my home for seven years. There is now an AT&T cell Tower on, the, Apple Campus. When that tower went on line Jan. 2012 1 had very good cell service for until April 2013. The Apple people moved into the big building on the corner of Bubb and McClellan, Results Way. I now have NO CELL service at my home. Apparently Apple employees take priority on Cell coverage in Cupertino???????????? Letter C90 Letter ID 500039 Name Gary Jones Address 905 New Haven Ct City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email C91 Subject Apple Campus 2 _Vote for Approval Comment Mine is only one single voice; but, here goes IMHO. I believe the Apple 2 Campus is an awe-inspiring tribute to success and growth for Silicon Valley and Cupertino. All local governments should embrace this progress and be nothing less than determined to make it a reality. As to Cupertino; it is my sincere hope that our City government approves this ambitious undertaking with judicious fervor. Once approved the City's monetary gain be primarily focused on creating a forward! looking citywide human ignobility plan of award winning quality while paying particular attention to using modern transportation systems and other forms of moving people around using environmentally sound planning such as safer bike paths, sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, and etcetera. Clearly we are no longer a community of farmers. Cupertino is a complex community of diverse interests with a momentum equal only to other emerging areas of modern society. Let's face the truth; the ship has sailed as to preserving the old. I say let's approve this project and step-up, our game to match the inevitable.. Letter ID 500038 Name Jun Xu Address 905 New Haven Ct City, State Zip Cupertino, CA Cupertino Letter Bmaill C91 Subject Support the Apple Campus2 Comment Dear committee, I read the report and felt the consideration should look what bring in by the new Campus. The new campus is NOT using old technology or OLD mindset. This will not be the many over 10 -year old cars on the local highway, even in California today than what the report cited° there are less family burning the woods in Cupertino than 10 years ago than what the report stated; there are better noise control on 280 and 85 than what was 10/20 years ago. As a tong -term Cupertino resident, I believe the new campus will significantly improve the energy use efficiency„ better traffic planning and local services than just spreading the office building around the cities or in Cupertino. For example such as the traffic, the google campus will only one major access of the freeway 101 to accommodate over I OK employees without much issue. The apple campus 2 has 3 major freeway accesses on highway280 (Lawrence, Wolfe, and DeAnza), it should be much easy to accommodate the changes (may not even increase, just changes from DeAnza exit to 3 major exits), Similarly for public service, it will help to better plan for the major site than spreading all around the city and let the employee to commute via shuttle or personal vehicles around the sites. Again, there are many positive impacts from the sites than even 11 can imagine if putting on the new thoughts and new technology mindsets. (Free feel to contact with me if there are any concerns. Best regards, Jun Letter C92 Letter ID 500037 Name Mary Sue Rosado, Address 1725 Kinglet Ct City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA Sunnyvale Email sysujo@,comcast.net Subject Apple Campus 2 impact on residential neighbors Comment As a 42 year resident of Sunnyvale living near Homestead and Wolfe (and more specifically near to Linnet and Homestead) I am concerned about all the traffic that will be flowing up and down: Homestead NOT JUST AROUND THE NEW Apple Campus. You must realize that you are surrounded by Santa Clara and Sunnyvale neighborhoods which will also be affected by everything that goes into the new Apple. At Linnet and: at Heron we will need better turn lanes. In: addition to all the revenue that Cupertino will be bringing in with their new venture, you need to take into consideration that, yes, property values will Surely go up, but that means property taxes, too, for those of us who have loved living here for so many years, but are now on fixed incomes. Thanks for your attention, Sue and Joel Rosado, LEMEM3= Letter ID 500036 Name Frank Bryan Address 3655 Pruneridge Ave, Apt 9 City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA 95051 Email bryanfh@gmaiI.corn Subject Pruneddge Closure Comment I use Pruneridge Ave between Tantau and: Wolf roads everyday for commuting. Closing this section of road as Apple suggests is not acceptable. Letter C93 1 Letter C94 Letter ID 590034 Name Sharon Address City, State Zip , CA Email Subject Comment Please do not allow the closing of the section of Pruneridge Avenue that passes through the planned Apple Campus. People in my neighborhood near Pruneridge and Tantau use it 1 regularly when coming home on 280 Southbound. Apple expects that we will all happily go aroundtheir campus, which I consider the height of arrogance.. Letter C95 Name Ying Xia. Address 3859 melody In City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA 95051 Email rockccakyahoo.com Subject I really hate the idea of Apple's new campus Comment As you can tell from my home address, I live very close to the proposed Apple new campus. I do not understand the crazy idea of 'Steve Jobs at all. Why put so many people all together in a huge building? What is the purpose of building such a giant in a high density residential area? Just try to build the hard -to -ignore monument for himself? If you choose building one like that in Utah„ Alaska or maybe Siberia, you are free to do so. Right now, every time I pass by the proposed campus, the trees and tranquility there 1 always make me smile. I could not image as soon as the constructions start, everything will be changed. Trees will be out down. The noise and pollution to the environment. With thousands of Apple employees come from all around and gather at one spot to work„ what about the worse -and -worse bay area traffic?' For this reason, I will prey for Apple's business shrinks every second', its stock price drops a lot more, so it won"t waste its money on this totally meaningless project! Letter C96 Letter ID 500032 Name Richard Altmaieir Address 22605 Salem Ave City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email richalt2@yahoo.com Subject traffic conditions with Apple Campus 2 Comment I am very satisfied the traffic mitigations proposed will make Campus 2 work very well for the community. I believe this Apple site will bring excellent jobs and civic pride to Cupertino. We have no reason to fear a few more cars than the current site. Plus Apple employees tend to be environmentally minded and will likely use bikes, buses and other traffic reducing methods. Let's get this site construction under way! Letter Letter ID 500030 C97 Name David Cookson Address 919 E Homesteaed Rd City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Email plkc@att.net Subject Hazmat Comment During removal of the current structures on the Apple project, Will continued air/ ground sampling take place to ensure that toxic dust, etc. is not released into the air? Letter Letter ID 500029 C98 Name Kevin Kienk Address City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Email Subject Reservations about Apple Campus 2 Comment While I support Apple's efforts to make a green campus, I have concerns about the effects of the very large campus on surrounding roads and neighborhoods. The Wolfe and Lawrence interchanges to 280 are already congested, and appropriate steps must be taken to handle/alleviate this congestion. Respectfully submitted, --Kevin, Sunnyvale Resident near Homestead and Wolfe Letter IIS 500028 Name Willie LU Address 1218 Bubb Rd City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Emad willieJeee@gmaiLcom Subject Notice of Opposition Comment [Notice of Opposition] 0 , a 6- Ground 1: Huge amount traffics will damage the community and citizen's quality of life Currently Apple has about 15 offices on Bubb Road. I took a research survey on traffics from 9:00am�-10!00am from/to Kennedy Middle School to/from the Steven Creek Blvd on Bubb Rd, and showed that, five years ago, the average time is 3 minutes. Now, the time is increased to 9 minutes. If in the timeframe of 5:00pm - 6:30pm of weekday, the average time is increased to 13 minutes. If the traffic model is moved from Bubb to Wolf or Tantau, the situation will be much worse as lots of traffics will happen in both peak times and lunch time. These rapidly increased traffics will definitely damage the life quality of the, Cupertino citizens and the fellow community, because we need to spend more time on the road, breathe more polluted airs and live in a more noised environment Research also shows that such large corporation should not be located in the area of highly populated residents, wherein Cupertino was well renowned for its world-class quality of living, residing and schooling. For example, Google is far from the resident areas, and Intel is totally away from resident zones. Ground 2: Apple's credibility is shaky and citizens risk being fooled or misled on environment protections Apple's Environmental Impact Report is mostly prepared by lawyers and other legal professionals, but general public is mostly not a lawyer. While Apple can commit on each detailed clause and/or term on paper, its credibility is shaky based on my personal research, experience, observation and dealings with Apple for long time. Apple has been infringing my patents for long time, though responded my letters several times, however Apple is fully knowledgeable and experienced on how to play the legal games with fellow citizens by taking advantages that Apple is a hundreds of billion dollars' company while general! public of Cupertino Resident is only an individual person or family body. If we approve this project of Apple Campus 2, our citizens may most probably be fooled and misled on the protection of our environments, because once the environment is damaged, is almost impossible to recover it and Apple can always play the legal games with us by its hundreds of billion dollars' reserve and its large group of legal teams. 1510 �2�0 k When I moved to this city in around 2000, Cupertino was among the best areas of quality living, same standard as Saratoga or Los Altos. But now, Cupertino is quickly transitioning to a commercial -purpose city with too much traffics, pollutions, noises, strangers and constructions. A city's prosperity should not rely on specific company's commitment. Instead, it should rely on its fellow citizens and its quality environments. I urge the city to remember this Law of Nature. Respectfully submitted, /wwlu/ Willie W. LU, Professor and PhD A Cupertino Citizen since 2000 e-mail. office@willie.lu This opposition is my personal view without representing any company or organization. The provision of this opposition shall not constitute a waiver of any right, privilege or defense. Letter C99 Letter Letter ID 500,025 C100 Name Giselle Ballou Address 1638 Grosbeak Ave City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 94087 Email Subject Comment I'm excited and looking forward to a thriving company in our area and the jobs it will create , but a little concerned of the traffic it will create at the same time. Giselle Balloui Birdland homeowner Letter ID Name Address City, State Zip Email Subject Comment 500024 Cynthia Smyth 10455 Heney Creek PI Cupertino, CA 95014 cynsmyth@comcast.net 11 am not only in favor of this tremendous development, but applaud it, This is an astounding environmentally sound effort that should set the example and the bar for all other future developments. Letter C101 Letter ID 50,0023 Letter Name Milt Kostner C102 Address 530 Meadow Ave City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA Santa Clara Email Miltko@comast.net Subject Environmental study Comment I have backed up for thirteen years to the property to be modified by Apple and I have two concerns: 1. Traffic. Pruneridge will be eliminated from Tantau to Wolff. We will have to go around Apple for 1280 access which north. Apples plans call for 14,000 employees plus additional visitors and commercial trucks, Can Homestead, Stevens Creek, Pruneridge (now two laned), Wolff and Tantau outside of the Apple boundary roads handle that load? Can the single lane 1280 entrances and exits handle that load? It's easy for Apple to expand their boundary streets but what about Santa Clara, San Jose and Sunnyvale? Those huge buses might carry many Apple employees but they slow traffic and make wide turns. 2. Construction noise. We don't need Apples contractors to start work before 7 am and that includes backing up trucks with their OSHA required loud beeping. Nor loud after working a er 2 Bpm. I don't watch much TV in the evenings but my neighbors do. While not a major concern to me, having all that greenery behind tall berms without access 3 does not do a thing for us Apple neighbors. Milt K Kostner Letter Letter ID 500022 C103 Name Heidi Johnson Address 1153 Scotia nd Dr City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email HKJohnson@aol.com Subject Apple Campus 2 Landscaping Comment My apologies as I have not had a chance to review the landscape plans. I did however take a quick glance and noticed almost right away that there was an error. [Douglas Fir is a tree that does not thrive in the valley. It prefers higher elevations e.g. The Santa Cruz Mountains, It should be replaced. it makes me concerned about the rest of the landscape plants, Has the landscape plan been reviewed for local conditions/micorclimates? I would be happy to help, but I am not available until after June. I am an adjunct faculty member in the Environmental Horticulture Department of Foothill College. At 6:30 PM on June 26th I will be administering a final exam so I can not come to the public meeting. FYI t have been working as a landscape designer in this area since the mid 80's, am a Certified Green Gardener, and serve as a volunteer Master Gardener. Thank-you. Letter C104 Letter ID 500116 Name Richard and Beverly Olsen Address 611 Hubbard Ave City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA 95051 Email olsenric@sbcglobai.inet Subject in favor of campus Comment We are generally in favor of this project and live two blocks away. We have heard speakers from Apple and we like their plan for a visitor's center. We would like to be informed about landscaping, noise and traffic issues, and access to 1-280. We also want to be notified about the EIR and upcoming meetings. Thank you. Letter C105 Letter ID 500090 Name Todd Beirdo Address 11529 Murano Cir City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email nospam@piease.com Subject I will move. Comment If this development happens, i will move. Too many years of complete destruction to end up with a campus that engineers products made overseas. Letter C106 From: Keithddl527@aol.com [maito.Keith,ddl527@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 4:30 PM To: Karen B. Guerin Cc: City Clerk Subject: Re: Apple Campus 2 draft EIR - my public comments for inclusion July 22, 2013, finne: 4:21 PM Karen Please include my entire comment, which includes the forwarded email which was originally attached to my email and which you replied to, this is my complete comment regarding the Apple 2 Campus. Thank you, Keith Murphy 10159 East Estates Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 In a message dated 7/22/2013 4:11:00 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, KaLellgino.p L _M writes: Thank you for your coninient to the city of Cupertino on the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environmental Impact Repor(A have forwarded your comment to be part of the official record. During the public comment period that ends on Monday, July 22, 2013 at 5:3,OPM, please submit your comments directly to ww%Afc erting, econinlellis. From: Seat-. Noonday, July 22, 2013 2: f3 111NI `rw Gary Chao Cc. City Clerk; City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 draft EI R - my public comments for inclusion Apple Campus 2 draft IUR - "public comments' Developer: Apple Inc. Architecl: Foster and Partners Project Manager Gary Chao / flu Gbosh July 22, 2013 Dear City Council, Mr. Chao and Mr. Cil osh I have forwar(lod along with this cruail my prior conurients which I would like to be included with niy current coniments as part ol'the public conimew for the dral't EIR liver the Apple Campus 2. Many of our residents are curious why fast tracking of Apples EIR was not transparently mentioned at many prior public )Hearings, nor was the si ation lay a California l-,cadership Dovelopinew project was no(tra rns,parently ,giiificance of Apple avoiding key EIR milig, explaiiied to your consfituents, Ict alone flee inipacts of fast tracking the EIR would have ou the conimunity at large, based on Apples owu, 2 lightly limed application schedule? I Letter C106 cont. Where is oar city's web site link to the State's Environmental Exadership Act til' 2011 legislation, foryour corn nionity to easily find and then review this key legislation which Apple is evoking and applying for EIR/CEQA relief under"? 2 Tile City of Cupertino should be proactive in posting any EIR/CPQA application documents to allow Onlely transparency & review by your cont. constituents, precisely because Apple has applied for EIR relief under' the Environmental Leadership Act of`201 I and I believe the lead agency is mandated by tile "Act" to do this. It is sad to read that the scheduling of Apples application coincides with a marked lack ofABAG/R"NA 1101,18illg mitigalion being in place, in tile City of Cupertino, for Apple to mitigate themselves, as described on page 50 of` Apple's own docurneill, "Application for Environmental Leadership Development Project, April 18,2012." 3 plea, loflow link: It pO,uqpj f It is troubling to read that Linder future provisions of the Environmental Leadership Act of 2011, with Apple riling its application precisely at the time it did, Apple will also avoid future environmental inifigation, mitigation that is in our community's and surrounding cities perhaps higher interests, most importantly regarding housing of all types, which is triggered by office space developirrent, making Apple the largest contributor to a local housing disparity that our city has ever seen, Apple is just one neighbor, a very big one, but their new office campus which they propose will have impacts on our comniunily for many decades to come, like traffic, so why would our city officials want this one applicant to avoid key environmental, housing and traffic miligation as proposed by various State agencies, due to CA's I(mp holes'! T I have dire, coricerris of the- desired vacancy, requested by Apple, of public right of way called Pruncridge Ave, which currently bisects Apple's two amalgamated parcels hoping lo be one, Pruncridge Ave. provides or locy transportation artery which will be offar grealer importance to, commuters when the Apple CaMpLIN is fully developed, but I fear that with Apple's gcneral fear of the public as being a security problem, that 5 Pruncridge Ave. will be vacated without showing real ineril for doing so, despite vikable options to retain the public road, if in all alerted stale, beini, reworked into a tunnel or as a bridge. The carne general security fears which Apple loudly cry's wolf for any EIR mitigation it shows displeasure with, also impacts mitigation ["or both park and trail amenities in and around the proJect area, specifically for the Calabasas Creek and riparian corridor I property which is Linder the control of the Santa Clara Valley Water district, who support both trail and park developments by creeks when ever feasible, but Apple has 6 other ideas (as shown in my forwarded entail) by implementing new construction in a parking lot, which is not sanctioned until Phas-c 2, bill preemptively built today to kill CEQA EIR mitigation which is in the public's best and higher interest. I might understand fast tracking required Linder the current Act's requirements I'or Apple to be illegible for state economic benefits, but for Apple to predalorily schedule there application to avoid or suppress environmental, housiril and traffic mitigation which (lie state of, CA wishes to impose oil the rest of our residents, and not made transparent by Racal officials, is disingenuous of both the City of Cupertino as the lead agency and Apple as the applicant, is bordering on malfeasance, I am discouraged by our current City of Cupertino offichlis appearing to be in violation of the Environmental Leadership Act of 2011, by suppressing this applicant's El R/CI-QA docurnents of any kind, their suppressing the impacts intposed by the Environmental Leadership Act ol'2011 itself at all prior public hearings, for example during the Housing Element Update and many General Plan arriendments for approving more office footage allotments for corporations, then for the predatory timing of Apples Campus 2 application to suppress Stale environmental mii igai ion which will impad every resident's quality of I i fe for many decades to come. fit my prior enriai Is, I have tried to describe to our City ofCapertino's elected and appointed representatives that the city's web site is not user friendly, as the mandated access to key protect application data, like the scherhile of` key public commentary periods and then for what issues they must comment on by a specific date, is very complicated to find, but more likely impossible to find, if one has to rely on the City of Cupertino's web site as it exists today. I am dismayed that I still have not official response to my prior elm, ifs toadequalely explain the new consiruclion which itiMly resident's discovered taking place in an Apple's back parking lot located by Calabasas Creek & Tantau Ave and Freeway 280 - its this type of predatory preempting of'public oversight and fair EIR nlifiOaflOn Only supports the public's worst fears that MR mitigation will not be adhered to by both the lead agency, the City of'Cupertino, nor by the Applicant who desire economic stimulus support form out state with the added benefit of "fast tracking" of EIR for the Apple Campus 2 project, but who demonstrate an arrogant lack of willingness to follow the rule of law and who show contempt of their fellow neighbors. Our City council,. I suggrest, have advocated there elected and then mandated duties to do the peoples work in a transparent fashion, as they legislatively found as way to avoid taking responsibility for controversial actions, and decisions by creating the "administrotive approval process", a privilege which [lie Community Development Director could abuse, setting a future, course of perpetrated ntalfeasances by our public officials, obstructing any public transparency regarding project approvals - that's triMirection by the city council (ofthe public) by using the Community Development Director as their hypocrisy shield - the bucks stops in the powerful applicants pocket with no checks and balances to be seen for the public tit .seek relief frons ... while our resident's elected representative government, once beholden to voters, is legislated out of existence, at the exact moment when - you - our city council, are needed to protect the public and community you sLrye. Your resident's desire to ask you, our "elected" city council, exactly what are the breaddiand scope of the new powers of`' administrative approvals" which "the apl-winted" Community Development Director can do "hi the name of the cily council" and why can't those special approvak be posted for the public to review, ort Me cilys web sited, to solicit public comments regarding those administrative approvals in a timely manner More that proJect'sapproval is allowed to cornnience? Surely there is no more important development project then the Apple Campus 2, one. which cries out for changes to be made to the city's web site, if just to show the ethical transparency ofthe actions of all of our elected and appointed city officials, you who your constituency deeply invests all of their trust in, I would respectfully request for our public official's to denionsmoc, a more ethical handling Cif hath informing the public about development projects and for out public inquiries submitted to your agency in good faith, regarding project applications, specifically the Apple Campus 2, where the lead agency is the City at'Cuperfino, if you truly respect and desire to foster quality HR mitigation lbrall Cupertino residents and stakeholders who you areappointed and then mandated to -serve fairly. Thank you, Keith Murphy Resident ol'Cuportino ---Original Message ----- From: KefthddI527 a aol.com Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2C 1 16:22:32. -0400 (EDT) Subject: New construction in rear of Apple parking lot, adjacent to Calabazas Creek To: C4yQouncjI@cuperthno.ptg CC: gartisCcdc t s �va 11, e w�jt e �ro Lg Mg±ngz�g1g, !2U aLipML July 18, 2013 Dear City Council and Community Development Director, Can you please supply the following Apple project application No., describe the public hearings that were scheduled regarding that applications review and then the, permit number that allowed the construction shown at 1043,5 North Tantau Ave., in Cupertino? Was this perhaps a Community Development Director's special administrative approval? Was this new construction approved as part of a new development agreement with Apple? Please direct the to the documentation covering the approval process documents for this project and could you also direct me to any Santa Clara Valley Water District permits or approvals - which clearly show both City of Cupertino -and- SCVWD's set backs and easements were followed. Were special exceptions granted to Apple to disregard any of these easements and set backs? Who is the Santa Clara Valley Water district permitting contact for this specific project, it is Sue Tippets perhaps, or? As the old office structure at this address, 10435 North Tantau Ave, is slated for demolition as part of the new Apple Campus 2 project, currently that application is at the EIR stage, why wasn't this new construction seen as requiring adequate public noticing, public hearings, to allow ENR mitigation impacts, for the future development of a anew city park and/or a creek riparian trial and/or a seasonal park in the SCVWD corridor where Calabazas Creek lies adjacent to this new construction? Google maps shows that in early part of 2013: no development or construction was seen in Apple's rear parking lot, adjacent to Calabazas Greek and Tantau over pass: Letter C106 cont. cont. ,q, n+a mruwws�,,,�,� Ib�urrra &,�v'¢��I�.w�a,s As seen team North side aQ Tan au �rmdgew lbokingi west, larged concrete rmugi story SWuctrure can be ,�, « Letter C106 cont. 8 cont. M —, I—, Wm N.".1 Z&O 4—y .1 ApPO pllapdfl� arld lm* COMI-16n Letter C106 cont. 8 cont. Letter C106 cont. Very disheartening to once again see that a titan size corporation will arrogantly over ride the EIR process, selfishly short circuiting the public hearing process required to obtain fair mitigation for all EIR impacts which the Apple Campus 2 will impose on our entire community and surrounding cities. Upon the receipt of application and permit approvals for the City of Cupertino - where both legal review and then approvals had been granted - from both the City of Cupertino and the SCVWD, I would like to file a complaint with the State of California overseeing the draft EIR for the ,Apple 2 Campus, now being completed this month by the City of Cupertino, please consider this as one of my written submission, my public comment, as part of that EIR draft review process. Thank you. Keith Murphy Cupertino Resident Letter ID Name Address City, State Zip Email Subject Comment 500150 Stephen Rohde 927 E Homestead Rd Sunnyvale, CA Sunnyvale e68sm@yahoo.com Let me first state that my wife and I are not opposed to the new Apple Campus 2 across the street, or the closure of Pruneridge Avenue, which will significantly increase the traffic on E. Homestead Road from Lawrence Expressway to Wolfe Road. However, the last Apple brochure shows a planted median running down Homestead Road. Since gates 5-6-7 of the old HIP complex will be eliminated, someone in their great wisdom thinks that a turn lane is no longer necessary. Now, a tree line median, may look nice, but did anyone consider the inconvenience to the Sunnyvale homeowners being able to get in or out of their own dlriveways? It you want to head east toward Lawrence Expressway you would have to go up to Wolfe to make the U turn. And each time to turn into your driveway you would have to go down to Tantau to make the U tum, This is absurd, and I am totally opposed to removing the turn lanes. If I have to go to all my neighbors to get a petition to stop this I will do it. Letter C107 1 Also, it is bad enough that a median is planned, but the brochure shows trees planted in i t A tree planted in a small median in 10 years will have raised the pavement, and will 1a v ei o be removed. Then there is the maintenance of pruning and watering etc. This is not a 3 practical idea. The best possible solution to the traffic problem would have been a direct off ramp from 280 Into the Apple campus. With the closure of Pruneridge the traffic will dramatically increase on Homestead between Tantau and Wolfe with those people who want to access 280. So, 4 put the money that would be spent on the planted median down Homestead towards a better solution to the traffic problem that will be created on Homestead. Please reconsider the planned median on E. Homestead Road. It is not a good idea or worth the cost. Letter 1D 500153 Name Ria Lo Address City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA Email Subject one more comment Comment Public easements along the four sides of the campus One more comment: Given the very bad traffic impacts, 11 would suggest that Apple provide public easements to facilitate pedestrians and cyclists travel along the landscaped portions of its campus rather than on the busy streets. This means that the security fences will be moved further away from the road and closer to the spaceship so that the public can enjoy new pathways and get some payback for the terrible traffic. Letter C108 1 Letter C109 Letter ID 500152 Name Me'tte Christensen Address 10095 Judy Ave City, Mate Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email silikonen@gmaii.com Subject Apple ElR depart Comments and Concerns Comment Regarding the ElR report and comments/concerns about the Apple project. As a close neighbor on Judy Avenue, my biggest interest and concern is the impact on the local area with the new Apple Campus, (Main Street Cupertino and the current Loree businesses. how is the city making sure that all the traffic (bicycles, pedestrians and vehicles) will be managed and best served with different parties that have to work together for the local area to notend up as a traffic nightmare. With several buildings already occupied the local area has already seen, an immense increase in traffic that has impact on day to day activities. This before the Main Street has even started to be implemented and the Apple Campus not close to even have the future number of employees. With local businesses and residents so really close, I sincerely hope that the city will make sure to project manage and require developers to provide adequate infrastructure improvements to off set the immense impact to the local area around Tantau/Stevens Creek. Additionally, l would like to make sure that the city has a master plan that involves not only Apple and Main Street projects but take into account the Loree business and parking issues, highlmidldle and elementary school traffic issues in the Tantau/Stevens. Creek area and impact to residents. This will have to work with pedestrian crossings„ bicycle lane improvements, sidewalk implementation on the south side of Stevens Creek between Tantau and Judy Avenue, bus stops, red light flow etc. With the Santa Clara office building construction on the corner of Stevens Creek and 280 off ramp, impact will be immense and would be really appreciated if the city will make sure to update residents to overall plans for this area and not just count on developers making it happen. Will the city provide traffic measures on surface streets outside of the Apple Campus impact area so that Judy and Bret will be provided with speed bumps to slow down the increased through traffic? Even Calvert would benefit from speed reducing measures for through traffic. Will the city leverage their impact on state and county traffic jurisdictions so that the on ramp on Calvert Avenue to south bound 260 can be changed according to the EIR and suggested measures to help improve tra'f'fic flow? There are several sections where tree removal are listed as a potential impact. I have not been able to find 'further information about impact of tree removal and what trees located exactly where is listed. Could already be listed but as mentioned this doesn't appear to be easy to locate. Either please point to location or explain what trees could be removed on Tantau due to widening of road close to Wallco Parkway intersection as well as on Tantau close to the homestead intersection. I would Puke to make sure that there is an easy way to contact the city with concerns„ questions etc from now and throughout the construction in order for residents to get info, submit complaints and get clarification on issues that might arise. Currently, the Apple outreach neighborhood group has been responding to questions etc - however, going forward the city ,should have an easy access point so that its residents can reach a city office to get updates„ submit complaints etc. Letter C109 cont. Please find below sections from the EIR Report linked to questions and concerns addressed above. some of the images that 11 wanted to include cannot be pasted into this form Please make sure to contact me with any questions Mette Christensen 10095 Judy Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 408 348 3637 Int. 21. Wolfe Road!/1-280 Northbound Ramps (Cupertino) Int. 31. Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway (Cupertino) Int. 36. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/1-280 Ramps (west) (CMP) Impact TRANS -2: Under Existing plus Project Conditions, completion of the proposed project would cause intersection #31 Tantau Avenue/Valico Parkway to operate at an unacceptable level (change from LOS C to LOS E+) during the AM peak hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds. (S) Mitigation Measure TRANS -2: At intersection #31 Tantau AvenuefVallco 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 intersection operations to acceptable LOS C (26.1 seconds). The proposed mitigation measure could have secondary impacts to the trees along the east side of Tantau Avenue. The roadway would need to be widened to the east, to provide for a bike lane to the right of the travel lane and the sidewalk adjacent to the bike lane. Secondary impacts associated with the removal of trees that are protected under the City of Cupertino's Tree Protection Ordinance could! occur with the identified mitigation measure. Impacts BIO -1 and B10-3 in Section V.D, Biological Resources in DEIR addresses these potential secondary impacts. (LTS) Impact TRANS -3: Under Existing plus Project Conditions, completion of the proposed project would cause intersection #316 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drivell-280 Ramps (west) to operate at an unacceptable level (change from LOS D to LOS F) during the PM peak hour based on CMP guideline. (S) Mitigation Measure TRANS -3: At intersection #36 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/1- 280 Ramps (west), the project sponsor shall construct an exclusive eastbound right -turn lane (for a total of three through lanes and one right -turn 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 mitigation measure 'would also require relocationof an existing streetlight„ fire hydrant,and utility pole. This intersection is a CMP intersection and is located within the City of Santa Clara. It is also under Caltrans jurisdiction. The project sponsor would be required to coordinate with, the City of Santa. Clara and Calltrans to construct the identified physical improvement at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/11-280 Ramp (west)' intersection. Since this intersection is outside of the City of Cupertiino"s jurisdiction, the City cannot guarantee that the improvement would Ibe constructed. For this reason the impact would remain signiif'icant and unavoidable. (;U) Int.. 31. Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway (Cupertino); the addition of project traffic would degrade intersection operations from acceptable LOS C to unacceptable LOS E+ during the AIM peak hour. Int. 32, Tantau Avenue/Stevens Creek Boulevard (Cupertino): the addition of project traffic would degrade intersection operations from acceptable LCIS D to unacceptable LOS E- during the PMI peak hour. Int. 36. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Driven -280 Ramps (west) (Santa. Clara): the addition of project traffic 'would exacerbate unacceptable LOS F operations during the PM peak hour. The project would exacerbate unacceptable conditions or cause unacceptable operating conditions at the following intersections„ and these changes would be considered a significant impact. Int. 6. De Anna Boulevard/Homestead Road (Cupertino) Int. 21, Wolfe Roadl1-280 Northbound Ramps (Cupertino) Int. 27. Tantau Avenue/Homestead Road (Cupertino) Int. 31, Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway (Cupertino) Int. 32. Tantau Avenue/Stevens Creek Boulevard (Cupertino) Int. 36, Stevens Creeks Boulevard/Calvert Driven -281 Ramps (west) (CMP) Int. 40. Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway Ramps (east) (CMP) Int. 41. Lawrence Expressway/1-286 Southbound Ramps (CMP) Impact TRANS-: Under Background plus Project Conditions, completion of the proposed project would cause intersection #27 Tantau Avenue/Homestead Road to operate at an unacceptable level (change from LOS D+ to LCIS E) during the AM peak hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds. (S) Mitigation Measure TIRANS-6. At intersection #27 Tantaui Avenue/Homestead Road the project sponsor shall construct an exclusive right -turn lane from eastbound Homestead! Road to southbound Tantau Avenue (for a total of one eastbound left -turn lane, two eastbound through lanes, and one eastbound right -turn lane), which would improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS D- (62.6 seconds). With the mitigation measure identified above, secondary impacts associated with the removal of trees could occur. Trees are protected under the City of Cupertino's Tree Protection Ordinance. Impacts BIO -1 and BIO -3 in Section V.D„ Biological Resources addresses these proposed Letter C109 cont. cont. project would cause intersection #31 Tantau AvenueNallco Parkway to operate at an unacceptable level (change from LOS C to LOS E+) during the AM peak hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds. (S) Mitigation Measure TRANS -7: At intersection #31 Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway, the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS -2 (add exclusive northbound through lane), which would improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS C (28,7 seconds). (LTS) Impact TRANS -8: Under Background plus Project Conditions, completion of the proposed project would cause intersection #32 Tantau Avenue/Stevens Creek Boulevard to operate at an unacceptable level (change from LOS D to LOS E-) during the PM peak hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds. (S) Mitigation MeasureTRANS-8- At intersection #32 Tantau Avenue/Stevens Creek Boulevard, the project sponsor shall construct a 100 -foot exclusive southbound right -turn lane (for a total of two southbound left -turn lanes and one southbound right -turn lane), with associated improvements in the right-of-way, which would improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS D (46.8 seconds). (LTS) 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 (west) during the PM peak hour based on CMP guidelines. (S) Mitigation Measure TRANS -9a: At intersection #36 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/1- 280 Ramps (west), the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS -3 (add exclusive eastbound) right -turn lane), which would improve intersection operations to 1122 seconds (LOS F), However, the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/1-280 Ramps (west) intersection would continue to operate unacceptably. Providing a second right -turn lane would improve intersection operations to LOS E with 63.0 seconds of delay. However, there are rightof- way constraints that render a second right -turn lane infeasible, since there would be less than 7 feet of right-of-way available between the fence and curb on the south side of Steven Creek after implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS -3. At minimum, 11 feet of right-of-way are needed to accommodate a second right -turn lane. 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. Increasing the TDM participation and associated alternative mode share from 28 percent to 34 percent would improve operations to LOS F (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 has been identified in the TDM Program Expansion subsection and shall be required to ensure that this TDM program mitigation measure is implemented and that the required trip reduction Letter C109 cont. 5 cont. is achieved. IDetails of the TDM program are discussed in the TDM Program Expansion subsection. (SUI) Impact TRAINS -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. (S) 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/through lane, one through lane, and one right -turn lane), which would improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS E+ (56.9 seconds). The mitigation measure would require the construction of a new retaining wall along 1-280, since Calvert Road would need to be curved to properly align with two receiving lanes at the on-ramp. There is existing right-of-way to accommodate this mitigation measure. However, the measure would require widening the existingi bridge that crosses the creek running parallel to the west side of Lawrence Expressway. Any widening of the bridge shall be designed to avoid impacts to the creek channel and riparian vegetation. This intersection is a CMP intersection on a County expressway and portions are likely within Caltrans right-of-way. 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. Since this intersection is outside of the City of Cupertino's jurisdiction, the City cannot guarantee that it would be Tantau Avenue Evaluation. The project would construct two new signalized intersections on Tantau Avenue, The primary new signal would be the second major project driveway (#29), located approximately 700 feet south of the existing #28 Tantau Avenue/Pruneridgie Avenue intersection. Additionally, a signal is proposed at the egress point to the Transit Center north of the Pruneridge Avenue intersection (#28). The VISSW analysis was used to evaluate two questions related to the Tantau Avenue corridor: ,,h How would the addition of the new signalized intersections on Tantau Avenue affect operations of the corridor? ,,h How would the changes in lane-drops/additions affect corridor operations? The VISSIM microsimulation results to these two items are discussed below. Added Signalized Intersections. The results of the VISSIM analysis show that Tantau Avenue would operate acceptably with the added intersections. Tantau i Avenue/Vallco Parkway Intersection. A significant amount of queuing would occur in the southbound direction with the existing geometries at the #31 Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway intersection, Adding a right -turn lane on southbound Tantau Avenue at Valloo Parkway would reduce vehicle congestion and queuing on southbound Tantau Avenue. Table V-1-1 5 Letter C109 cont. 5 cont. summarizes the travel time results without and with the recommended Improvement for southbound vehicles from the Tantau Avenue main campus driveway to Vallco Parkway. Table V.1-15: PM Peak Hour Travel Times on Southbound Tantau Avenue Southbound Tantau Avenue Geometries at Vallco Parkway (#31) Shared Through/Rigiht-Turn Lane Dedicated Right -Turn Lane 8:24 4:21 Notes: a Travel time from Tantau Avenue main campus driveway to west of Tantau Aveinue/Vaillco Parkway intersection. Source: Fehr & Peers, May 2013. There would be a substantial increase in travel time and delays without the addition of a dedicated southbound right -turn lane at the #31 Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway intersection. Evaluation of Bicycle Facilities. Similar to the pedestrian enhancements, the project would provide several new facilities around and in the immediate vicinity of the project site to improve bicycle access. The main bicycle improvements would be located along Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue between Homestead Road and Vallco Parkway as well as the north side of Vallco Parkway between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue. The bicycle improvements include: ,,h Adding or providing buffered bike lanes; ,,h Instalfing intersection crossing markings through major intersections along Wolfe Road - ,h lnstalfing striped green bike lanes through critical areas of potential vehicular conflict; and ,h Mstalfing bike boxes and/or two-stage turn queue boxes for: Southbound left -turns from Wolfe Road onto eastbound Pruneridge Avenue; Westbound left -turns from Pruneridge Avenue onto southbound Tantau Avenue, and Northbound left -turns from Tantau Avenue into the Tantau Security Reception opposite Pruneridge Avenue. In addition, the project would modify the Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue 1-280 overcrossings to enhance bicycle crossings at the freeway interchange. The proposed project would maintain allexisting bicycle facilities in the study area, with the exception of the bike lanes on Pruneridge Avenue. Bicycle access impacts due to the closure of Pruneridge Avenue are discussed in a later section. The proposed bicycle enhancements are considered adequate; no other mitigation measures are required. Condition of Approval CA -TRANS -2. Apple shall fund neighborhood cut -through traffic monitoring studies and provide fees to implement needed traffic calming improvements to minimize neighborhood cut -through, traffic, The City of Santa Clara and City of Sunnyvale Traffic Calming Programs should be considered when evaluating traffic calming measures. Based on conversations with the two cities, Apple shall provide up to $250,000 for the City of Santa Clara and up to $500,000 for the City of Sunnyvale for neighborhood cut -through improvements and parking intrusion measures (see CA -TRANS -3). Emacsf Emacs! Letter C109 cont. cont. The City of Cupertino has established that a significant impact would occur if the project would permanently increase ambient exterior noise levels by more than 3 dBA over levels existing without the project as measured at noise sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. The greatest increase in noise under existing conditions would be a 2.5 dBA increase in traffic noise levels along Tantau Avenue from Tandem Drive to Vallco Parkway under Existing Plus Project conditions. This increase would not be perceptible in an outdoor environment and is below the significance threshold of a greater than 3 dBA increase. Based on these results, project -related traffic noise levels would not result in a permanent significant increase in ambient noise levels compared to those existing without the project. Thus, project -related traffic noise impacts on off-site sensitive land uses would not exceed the City's significance criteria and would therefore be less than significant. Stationary Noise, As discussed in the impact analysis discussion for the first significance criterion, above, noise levels from delivery loading and unloading activities at the proposed Phase 2 Buildings east of North Tantau Avenue would be similar to what is currently experienced at these land uses from existing delivery activity operations on the project site. All other project delivery loading and unloading areas would occur in the project's underground parking structures, and would therefore not affect sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. Therefore, project -related delivery loading and unloading activities would not result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels and this impact would be less than significant. Similarly, noise from new mechanical noise sources, including the proposed Central Plant as well as HVAC systems would be reduced to below the existing ambient background noise levels (due primarily to distance attenuation and design features, such as walls, insulated doors, and noise attenuated ventilation shafts). Therefore, as project -related mechanical equipment stationary noise sources would not exceed existing ambient noise levels at receiving sensitive land uses, this impact would be considered less than significant. Emacs! Letter C109 cont. 5 cont. Letter Clio Letter ID 500151 Name Ria Lo Address City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Email Subject Comment Thank you for the opportuinity to comment on the Apple 2 DEIIR. I am a resident of Sunnyvale's Chateau West neighborhood, which is two blocks away from the Apple 2 campus. 11 am also a professional planner with a PhD from the University of California, Berkeley in transportation planning, My main professional and research interests are sustainable transportation, walkability planning and multimodalism. I have seven basic comments outlined below, followed by some references for the numbers that I quote. 1. Spaceship design is interesting I appreciate the interesting spaceship design of Apple 2 and believe that an iconic design is appropriate for Apple's Headquarters. it will also tend to provide a focal point for tourist traffic to the Silicon Valley area. This tourist interest and travel should be considered in both the transportation impact analysis as well as area -wide planning. In particular, there Is a need to consider how to activate the street by creating a more visually interesting, engaging and human -scaled experience; and by reducing traffic and street widths. (The plans for expanding Cupertino Village, which is currently designed as a dowdy retail block inside a sea of parking, should also take this into account.) At present, the DER is focused on commuter trips and overlooks effects on ambient traffic in terms of both toiu rist trips and more circuitous travel patterns created by the I 3 superblock campus. The DER indicates that 10,934 parking spaces wilil be provided. For a campus population of 14,2010 employees, this represents an expectation that 23% of employees will use alternative modes (i.e. everything other than driving alone). This rate of parking provision is a lot lower than the status quo rate of 28% alternative mode share and much lower than the DIOR goal of 34% alternative mode share. What this discrepancy means is that the proposal has too much parking. If the developer is provides this much parking, it will encourage more people to drive alone to work. 3. Mode splits are woefully unambitious Authors of the DEIR suggest that the reader compare Apple's projected alternative mode share to that of the wider county. Much of Santa Clara County is lower density than this neighborhood and is completely inaccessible by public transit or walking. This comparison is therefore a ridiculously low bar to use! Please instead compare Apple's goal of 34% alternative mode share to a couple of other corporate or research campuses in the vicinity: - Stanford University achieves a 46% alternative mode share for faculty, staff and administrators, and an impressive 88% alternative mode share for students! - Genentech achieves a 44% alternative mode share for its commuters, 2 4. Traffic and related impacts are completely unacceptable 1 6 A failure of the city and company to aim for anything close to these levels will cause Apple, great expense in terms of excessive parking costs. It will also produce unacceptable environmental impacts on the local community in terms of increased traffic volumes, increased traffic delay, air pollution emissions, loss of street life, community severance, loss of pedestrian amenity, and potential loss of life and limb from traffic safety impacts. Consider sending a small child across Wolfe Road. Even at pedestrian signals, the road is already excessively wide to the point that it produces community severance effects and serious safety concerns for more vulnerable road users. Widening this road even further is not an, acceptable solution. The mitigations are therefore simultaneously unrealistic and unambitious. It is NOT acceptable to widen roads that are allready excessively wide, and to close roads that are used by the local community and business customers, 5. Current incentive to drive and the need for parking -cash -out One mitigation that is currently inadequate is excessive free parking that gives Apple employees an incentive to drive to work. This problem is partly created by the City of Cupertino which provides minimum parking standards for most developments and parking guidelines for Planned Developments that are based on the status quo parking ratio. As a result of high minimum parking standards and status quo guidelines, employers like Apple are discouraged from striving toward more ambitious mode shares since they have to construct parking at the status quo rate anyway. Also, employees are encouraged to drive alone to work,- VTA transit ridership is undermined, and residents of both Cupertino and Sunnyvale suffer the consequences of poor regional access, poor air quality and pervasive traffic congestion. In any case, Apple's current pricing structure for parking and alternative transportation is too inflexible and too low. For example, those who commute to Apple by bicycle receive a $20 subsidy per month. By comparison, Genentech's parking -cash -out (program provides $4 per day (in 2006) to all employees who commute to work by alternative modes of any sort. 6. Cupertino Village south entrance should remain open The mitigation strategy of closing the west entry to Cupertino Village will result in more extreme traffic on the north sidle of this shopping center along Homestead Road. Both entrances are extensively used by customers to Cupertino Village (particularly on weekends and evenings when Apple employees will not even be around). It is important that the campus complements rather than undermines the success of local businesses. This entrance to Cupertino Village should remain open. Furthermore, Apple could allow Cupertino Village to share its parking lot (for a fee) on the west side of the campus on weekends. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that Cupertino Village is also planning to undergo expansion. Has this cumulative effect has not been taken into account? 7. Pruneridge should remain open Part of the existing traffic problem in this area is caused by superblock style which tends to siphon all traffic onto wide main roads, thereby reducing pedestrian amenity and safety. Apple 2 proposes to exacerbate this problem by closing Pruneridge Road and creating an even larger superblock. This road closure is unacceptable because it reduces Letter Clio cont. cont. Letter Clio cont. pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular connectivity in the neighborhood. It also increases the -1 need for local residents to use cars in order to reach shops or services, thereby cont. increasing ambient traffic conditions. I References: ' Stanford University mode shares are from Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Ratings System https./Jstars.aashe.org/institutionsfstanford-university-ca/report/2012-06- 29/0P/transportation/OP-M and https://stars.aashe.orgi/instituitions/stanford-univers4- ca/reporV2012-06-29/OP/transportation/OP-1 5/ * Genentech mode shares are from the Genentech Annual Report 2013 http://ci-ssf- ca.granucus.com/MetaViewer.php?view — id=4&cIip_id=660&meta — id=4,8906 * Evidence to support the argument about too much free parking comes from Donald Shoup's book on The High Cost of Free Parking * Information on the Genentech Parking Cash -Out program comes from the website of Nelson Nygaard, where I used to work (disclosure) http://www.inelsonnygaard-com/Documents/0uals-Project-Profiles/NNproj-GENENTECH- Parking-and-Trans,pdf 10 Letter C111 Letter ID 5,00149 IN!ame Sylvia Gallegos Address City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email Subject DEIR Comments/Questions RE: Apple Headquarters Comment Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Cupertino Administration should recommend to the City Council that it establish a Citizen Oversight Committee for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Committee members could be appointed by the City Council. The purpose of the Citizen Oversight Committee would be review (quarterly) the status of the implementation of the mitigation measures and monitor compliance with the conditions of approval. For example, the EIIR proposes that "peak trip counts' trigger implementation of TDM measures. The Citizen Oversight Committee should review this data and status of the TDM measures, Reduced Density Project Alternative Did the City direct the EIR consultant to undertake the same Transportation Impact Analysis of the transportation impacts resulting from a Reduced Density Project Alternative so that residents and policymakers can dlirectly compare the transportation impacts from the proposed project to the project alliternative? IF not, why not? Many of the proposed mitigation measures for the transportation impacts are outside of the authority of the City and, thus, the impacts remain significant and unavoidable. Bicycle Transportation Facilities If the City desires to encourage alternative commute options for Apple (and other employers), has the City or will:: the City consider installing No Parking along Miller Avenue south of Stevens Creek Blvd, to Calle de Barcelona in order to install Class 11 bike lanes in both directions? You will not encourage Apple employees to commute by bicycle from the south of campus without dedicated bicycle transportation facilities there. It is currently dangerous to bicycle on Miller on that stretch. Will the City propose a condition of approval requiring Apple to charge for parking to provide an incentive for employees to bicycle or use a shuttle? The proposed bicycling commute target from 2% to 5% will not make an appreciable difference in reducing LOS impacts at the inearby intersections, TDM Measures Google has a fleet of vehicles (electric and hybrid) available on campus for those employees who use transit/shuttle to commute to work so that if these employees have to use a vehicle during the day for an emergency or other need (doctor visit), they still are not required to drive to work. Wilt the City Administration consider a TDM measure that involves Apple procuring park-and-ride lots away from the campus and using shuttles between the campus and these lots? (There appear to be shuttles for transit users, but not for drivers.) Open Space/Public Park How did! the City determine that a 1.1 acre public park was adequate mitigation for the loss of open space resulting from the project? Is it a formula that is applied) per acreage lost? Any public park established to mitigate the loss of open space from the project should be located in the vicinity of the project, (The mitigation measure should be relevant to the environmental impact, proportionate to the urnpact, and be in the vicinity.) The mitigation measure option to "agree to purchase, designate, and dedicate to the City 11.1 acres elsewhere in the City as Parks and Open Space provided the land would be publicly accessible" should not be an option. Cupertino residents along Foothill Expressway, for example, should not benefit from a neighborhood park due to the impacts residents in east Cupertino are experiencing. Letter ID 500147 Name Wahila Wilkie Address 6295 Sh!adygrove Ct City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email wahilaw@gmaii.com Subject Traffic associated with new apple campus Comment 11 am very concerned about the, increase in traffic in the area around the proposed Apple 2 campus and the closing of a section of Pruneridge Ave. As mitigation for the traffic issue I suggest having Apple pay for electric school buses to serve all schools in the affected areas to reduce the number of cars on Wolfe and Tantau and compensate for the increased air poltution from addition Apple commuters. 11 allso suggest that the closure of Pruneridge Ave. be denied and that Apple be required to purchase a piece of land in the area, pay for it to be converted to a park and donate that to the citizens of Cupertino. Letter ID 500145 Name Marialis Seehom Address 1063 Kildare City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Email mseehom@juno.com Subject Apple Campus Population Comment Access routes (NIS #280. Wolfe and Homestead Rds. cannot support access to some 14000 employees on a daily basis during commute hours without severe conseqiuences. Even assuming 80% will use mass transitIbicycles, will require more than 1000 buses daily and 3000 additional cars resulting in traffic gridlock on #280, Wolfe and Homestead Rds. Birdland/Sunnyvale residents will be denied access to these conduits. Can't someone do the math????. Limit the Apple headquarter employee population to 4,000. Cupertino can still receive its tax revenue, but Sunnyvale residents will be able to get in and!, out of their neighborhoods. Letter C112 1 Letter C113 1 Letter ID 5t10144 Name Robert Neff Address 3150 Emerson St City, State Zip Palo Alto, CA Palo Alto Email robert@neffs.net Subject Bicycle facilities on Tantau in Apple Campus 2 DEIR Comment In regard to the Apple Campus 2 EIR. In general I am concerned with bicycling issues on Tantau and Pruneridge. I bicycle on I these roads daily to commute to work, and to get around Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara. First of all, Tantau is an important connecting street in the bicycle network going from Sunnyvale and Santa Clara into Cupertino. It is a relatively quiet street, but it makes the connection across highway 280 without a freeway interchange, so it is very suitable for bicycling. Beyond the Apple Campus 2 site it continues as Tantau (in Cupertino) and Quail (in Sunnyvale), connecting onto low volume neighborhood streets which are ideal for bicycling. It is important to maintain Tantau as a low -stress street for bicycling. Currently there are bike lanes on Tantau from Homestead to Stevens Creek. The plan suggests removing bike lanes where Tantau crosses Calabazas Creek, replacing them with a shared biike/ped facility at that point. This is a bad idea, and a definite downgrade for the bike facility. I think it would be better to either narrow or reduce lanes, widen the bridge, or add a pedestrian bridge on one side so that bike lanes could be maintained the full length of Tantau, and not abruptly introduce a shared bike/ped lane in the middle of that section. Evan a minimum, 5 foot bike lane and 5 foot sidewalk would be better than the proposed 10 foot shared space. This proposal is illustrated in: Figure 111-17c, page 57 in the Plain Description document. A second comment is that at the corner of Homestead and Tantau, going south on Tantau, the lane is constricted by the poirk-chop island at that point. This is illustrated in Fig 111-20c, Any cyclists going through that, either from Quail onto Tantau, or turning left from Homestead must share the lane all the way through the intersection. it would be better to remove or reduce the width of the pork -chop island on SW comer, so that both a traffic lane and a bike lane could fit at that point. This would make the intersection safer for bicyclists heading south on Tantau from that point. This would be a beneficial improvement for bicyclists using the site, and for other cyclists as well. It is worth considering modernizing that intersection by completely removing the right turn pork -chop island from Homestead onto Tantau. This generally makes intersections safer for both pedestrians and cyclists, and the pork -chop does, not add much efficiency in heavy traffic situations. Letter C114 2 Letter ID 500143 Name Tammy Mongelli Address 686 Grand Coulee Ave #4 City, State Zip Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Email Notaro1214@aol.com Subject Apple Campus Comment We do not want any more traffic where the Apple Campus is going to be located. It is already congested as it is!! Apple needs to bus in their people and provide busing for our schools!! Where are all of these people going to go?? Otherwise, go to another city on the east side. Letter ID 500142 Name Ray Crump Address 21701 Stevens Creek Blvd #634 City, State Zip Cupertino, CA Cupertino Email raaaaaydon@aol.com Subject Comment As a person involved with the development of Cupertino starting back in 1958 1 am seriously concerned that we do our best when we make major changes/additions to the community. I know we've prized the creation our 2 local school boys started and would hope that this major project will be a positive creation. Traffic/Circulation...that is my concern. I'm not an expert on traffic so I'll leave the solutions needed to the experts and the cities of Cupertino and Sunnyvale to solve the dilemma. Obviously highways outside the jurisdiction of the cities will need to be considered and may require cooperation. I do remember when Vallco was proposed that one requirement involved an overpass being created to accommodate anticipated traffic. It appears there will need to be some creative solutions and I look forward to their implementation. I trust Apple would not want to create a situation that is not in the best interest of the entire community. Letter C115 1 Letter C116 1 COMMENT CARD The information you provide is a public record and will be shared. Name K� Address City Email Comment subject(s) Gu. Zip- TZT�27! CUPERTINO To view the DEIR please visit Cupertino.orgl AppleCampus2 have the following comments about 'the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): Apple--EI.R---- Date v4d z �-W printed on 50% recycled content COMMENT CARD 1101 MSp n the back The information you provide is a public record and will be shared. Name t-U&Ajfc3a Address F�3.&*:) S`" City v' filo &4, 9,; t7MS Zip J Email 1)�/ lzw4i 6. 110; 3_.>R-4 Comment subject(s) CUPERTINO To view the DEIR please visit Cupertino.oV AppleCampus2 have the following comments about the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): q; 7, printed on 50% recycled content more space on the back , te a ,,ris -Ir3 co,4y V95 -/-Z% App 16� RI%0 9 ■ Letter D1 Letter D2 1 Letter D3 COMMENT CARD f Vw The information you provide is a public record and will be shared Name _AI' V fU1-1 , CUPERTINO Address�rAjQ city Zip To view the DER Email A 2s�'v�i�� Gds please visit Cupertino.oral Comment subject(s) AooleCampus2 I have the following comments about the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): i.k printed on 50% recycled content COMMENT CARD The information you provide is a public Name v' i taut Address l ' City c,( Email V",q o2 Comment subject(s) more space on the back and will be shared. CUPERTINO Zip ~rCi ( J To view the DER 0.m please visit Cupertina.orgl AppleCampus2 ple < 1- - mam — Api ed 2 6-2013 �*o printed on 50% redycled content Letter D4 1 COMMENT CARD The information you provide is a public record and will be shared. Name �� 60" W.� CUPERTINO Address '0 L A ,-6, ( h,< qj City lko Email oL,y\,ac, Comment subject(s) Zip —'-5-b 3-7 To view the DEIR please visit Cupertino.org/ AppleCampus2 Lhave the following comments about the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): Affil '4 V 9013 �-W printed on 50% regycled content COMMENT CARD [The information you provide is a public record and will be share Name Address City Email Comment subject(s) Aq Passaooad eco? s z Nnr 2, CUPERTINO Zip �� n1a Z aid To view the DEIR please visit Cupertino.orgl AppleCampus2 I have the following comments about the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): ��r� [jM]W.: � fprinted on 50% recycled content MW more space on the back Letter D5 1 Letter D6 1 COMMENT CARD The information you provide is a public record and will be shared. Name ID • 12 ATS 15 ! C Address l0 3 GL1L.8 ' 1Z2'117 Sinl-[ CUPERTINO City G UQ Email c ies Comment subject(s) Zip 95 01 - To view the DER please visit Cupertino.oral AopleCampus2 I have th.e following comments about the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): 1,6VIjwd7� � PPi 2 �QAG`S 11+-ZGAM$u11+-ZL L�CAVGbMMUN1t" 'y W%T%A CrQ\?c6RAL pU"TS'TA,NZITRE5 MAIN bt-flW BhCK. lsTN-E C.� TA•11�1 F' ccz b%L u , ti VroUitL T+R.AFFIG • A0W WE,L e'rk65SZ CONCGQ sTllD srA 44b ArbDP_63S4�b tNTHJ5 B 41[bM4 OF "&-e cq-+ PW.S? co�lGD r7*6 S"Er M077"AS .90R R1 Date Received' VE. ■2 6 2013 printed on 50% recycled content more space on the back COMMENT CARD The information you provide is a public record and will be shared. Namec�� Address \� City y Email 1' Comment subject(s) Zip ,\LA c have the following comments about the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environ CUPERTINO To view the DER please visit Cupertino.oral AppleCampus2 mental Impact R port (pEIR): v \ t ,1 o < Akyl V03. q, printed on 50% recycled content more space on the back Letter D7 1 Letter D8 N COMMENT CARD Apple 2 EIR Date Received The information you provide is a public record and will be shared �tln� 2. R 204 QMI Name Z-7, W ILII Address 2. S Processed by CUPERTINO City � 40c( _ h`� To view the DEIR Email please visit Cupertino.org/ Comment subject(s) AppleCampus2 have the following comments about the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): -- 4 c` /l/%r /r ��✓ -L-,IJ 6 s TALL -e d -z -ed 09 printed on 50% recycled content more space on the back 040 COMMENT CARD The information you provide is a public record and will be shared. �e— Name lct CUPERTINO Address l®i Gfl.�~�,��— �j f/ L City v_v Zip To view the DEIR Email cc,, please visit lnd `� Cupertino.org/ Commesubject(s) AppleCampus2 I have the following comments about the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): d on 50% recycled content more space on the back e Letter D9 1 Letter D10 COMMENT CARD Apple 2. EIR Ddko Received The information you provide is a public record and will be shared�'� ; Name I)e.rs. NXiA e,(– -- - Address o " City �n Zip - Email 1r�nw Comment subject(s) CUPERTINO To view the DEIR please visit Cupertino.orgl AppleCampus2 have the following comments about the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): `�-G e.�nV tro✓�w.ww�ea.1 imp �� wQ�c'�a11 _av,:Q ars_ -tb��s o�Q ► � �n..� kw.e. C -o rnrnLA"Nn: r 1 al 0 printed on 50% rec);4d content~ more space on the back COMMENT CARD The information you provide is a public record and will be shared. Name Address r CUPERTINO City /-�c -,4 A. q A, zip 9 cJ $ U To view the DEIR please visit Email S -t C ��_ Cupertino.orgi Comment subject(s)�AppleCampus2 I have the following comments about the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): �'-'-4/ i /l ,�C} oL %1 moi' f printed on 50% recycled content so Letter D11 1 Letter D12 Apple 2 tIR Date Received COMMENT CARD -JJUN 2 6 X013 The information you provide is a public record and will be shared. Name ��5� PS it t A CISrA Processed by Addressl D S City -(�au\s Email o5 Comment subject(s) Zip V"l CUPERTINO To view the DEIR please visit Cupertino.oral AppleCampus2 I have the following comments �about the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): ik P ♦ s A r 1 PC°'1` A.7 .. o .r� dF C P A A A 1 .O c' I.. '�t'1 n P l, fit\ fA.� v� -i o. a _ 1. 1 / i4M, printed on 50% recycled content COMMENT CARD more space on the back The information you provide is a public record and wil! be shared. Name Address _3 77a&-� C Ity Email Comment subject(s) CUPERTINO zip 4�u 7 To view the DEIR please visit Cupertino.org/ -- AppleCampus2 I have the following comments about the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environmental Imlpact Report (DEIR)-. bate�:Rece#yedt ANI M w ,3 1WWVW I'Mcessed 1* printed on 50% recycled content more space on the back [MR] I Letter D13 1 Letter D14 1 COMMENT CARD The information you provide is a public record and will be shared. Name Address City Email Comment subject(s) Zip CUPERTINO To view the DEIR please visit Cupertino.orccl AppleCampus2 I have the following comments about the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEI/R): lz— ��-lr�.fif; Y�r Ljolk- 3UY�YIa C0Mk'gj+e, kouvs is aad + Q -V r i 1, I Q 'Orc ' tJ a 0 0 V&—Al—fn i 5 o�i l u A l C- I, h ,p ce +1-.'L- w> 11 b e (� r)y.UccR,.4rA -,4/, Je VQ IS,,, Now +W s b4P- printed on 50% recycled content COMMENT CARD more space on the back D 'ved The information you provide is a public record and will be shared. 2013 Name Address CUPERTINO City To view the DER Email please visit - Cupertina.orcil Comment subject(S) u av-eu� e� e sti cCe. c �s AppleCampus2 have the following commehts about tie Apple Campus 2 Draft?nvironmenial Impact Report (DE[R): �rNr �'wvi 4r+•en'.�ah �r �.�,�as�h�4�s 6VBirV`i )1 av,kio,,cA }a�V 4v.rti,n 1!oc.dS C]1n.pv �r)Y Irl" Vikk . )�l Ci 11 Ifs ��a�1Sr/v �- a� �- 4 �,. � v.� r', u1 f§ A d lit l/ 2 1 Yr u p (!./ut LJ "\ Dty t v�— --0 GV A.1 , waw I U 'I1 b-2- w j •o � rr �h � u rppwi �n Gt t c. ��[✓'S� � v.%.ei� � 1- �o�A _. _ _ ��Oh 1� �C.2�• •�� CYv�.vrQ, �� c� �^ Q�eV1 � U lr r� 01-5 G". A �},1n� cv e� e c 1 0 h� i`wwa a nw 1240.printed on 50% recycled content more space on the back Letter D15 1 Letter D16 1 COMMENT CARD The information you provide is a public record and will be shared. Name AddressY !!W _ �k City 0- C= Zip Email 1,P— Comment subject(s) _ have the followin comments about the Apple Campus 2 Draft 6 ? � -i /)w, T �printed on 50% recycled content COMMENT CARD CUPERTINO f To view the DEIR please visit Cupertino.orall AppleCampus2 nmental Impact Report (DEIR): more space on the back EWE The information you provide is a public record and will be shared. Name I� N Address lam CUPERTINO City1 _ Zip � — C% To view the DEIR please visit Email Cupertino.ora/ Comment subject(4 AppleCampus2 1: have the following comments about the Apple Campus 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): LIM 2 M �* printed on 50% recycled content more space on the back PM"ed by Lt/ Letter D17 1 Letter D18 1 TIETIMEKWARIC The information you provide is a public record and will be shared. Name .................. . ......................... ... .............. Address iV, City Emaill .. .. .. ............ . ........................ Commentsubject(s) w ........... .................................................................................................... I hn ve the following comments about the Apple Camp M P't W. ILO 0 printed on 50% recycled content 10IF1241vill7kne Zip --------------------------- To view the DEIR please visa 'f ......................................................................................................................................................................... Culpergnio,orq/ .................................................................................................................. App[eCampus2 0 M more space on the back M Apple ZEW . . . . ........... . . . . . . . ................................................................................................................................................................ . . . ..................................................................................................... 080te PAW"d ......... . ''I ........................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Pro tit ..................................................................................................... ................................................................. I. ........ . ........................................ The City of Cupertino welcomes your comments about the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) forlhe proposed Apple Campus 2. Please be aware that alll comments and information provided through this process will be viewable by the public, accessible on our website and part of the public record. Comment cards may be turned in at the Cupertino Senior Center, Quinlan Community Center and City Hall. Letter D19 1 Letter D20 1 From: Shankair T [mail] to:sankart0d vahoo-com] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 3:05 AM Letter To: City Council Subject: Support for Apple campus 2 El Folks, My address is 3876 Baldwin Drive, Santa Clara,CA. With the promise of Apple landscaping development and plan, myself and my family is supporting this proposal, Thanks Kurnar, Satbya and Parthiv Message From: Rick Robledo [ma i,,1to:rick .ro1b1ec _Q@ Alm ail..._com] Letter Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 7:13 PM E2 To: City Council Subject: Apple campuS I'm in support for the new apple campus. I believe it will bring new opportunity for many in addition to revenue to the city of cupertino. Yes go forward in making the city of Cupertino a landmark. From: stanley lee [M.00 gje )ya m h.Q y Q_ Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 5:08 PM Letter To: City Council Subject, Apple Campus 2 E3 Dear City Councils, I strongly support present version of the Apple Campus 2. 1 am a Cupertino Resident and the owner of (lie corner building , 1698 S. Wo,lfe Rd, Sunnyvale, CA, located at the corner of Homestead and S. Wolfe Rd, directly across from Apple Campus 2. thanks Stanley Lee D.D& 7/17/13 PO box 2449 Cupertino, CA. 95014 11 1 11 10,ig! nzO rlllat„,, Froiii: W,lrynl,., [q!LiiIto, waynejIlee.Enia gm I Letter L.!L Sei,od luesday, July 1b, 2013 10�°24 PM Tu. cif, -y cf,un(A,1 E4 App�.P 2 A; and pm,,ilud �A' (:Lq,;iertino foir 23 yearls, I ,,;upg.wrt the (:on;.,LrucUon oF ihc.G Pppk, Campus 21Apl)hn has clel put CUrXlr,rk,m On Hin, rnzq) flieworLd" Last yeall" 1: compk'torl the ("Irland 1.`�twn oV (IUS ()Ipen, hr,t,inchOp4,n, WiiM'dr,ldon air�d Austra'Uan Olpleo) as a '),mr, a G yezir per,`wd, never, expected u) so iP any or" thf,,n young, w,'Oking irluund 1111''Ol'idty f1as8iLng, iNvume and ripo,Kl,O,ly iPlad, And SLlPf`1%Lng1y �;cinw cd kne�,li Cup�rt:irlo l N't-ause c')� Apple. Ct rl ti)e, a sf,rairw ip Apple woulrl ever knzwe Cup("I"tinn airid tl w Stlilo, oF CaLtlFomiia. Appk, £,xlong,s in Si[icrm Vallcy and thr4 arty cf: Th (,� N, [i,a n , i a 1 i uqrll, a r, t gi!) i o g, ful,war-d (,,m a,Pn 1y,, be K,r iraa jor pli.s for, L l,� (I i t, y FromRlIly V1nce i�q [mailto:v i 1I LIyL re S!@ -Y lo .1ol- 1) Seflll� h.wsday, Auly 16, 2013 7:44 PM TO: City COLIFIC.AA Subjee,,t: aplo,"-, 1 zar a resjdeirut ci,f (1qpertirc� for, the past- 22 years au rd have •folk-med the history of oi.rir city c1osi!. J U"I'A Apple hw building l ol u r c r (: Y u, s V e r Y g(",) aad f Orr ,) 11, cal` rl s n :[ mr) u 1 d like to sof,u rriorco :l0ormation o�i, how they plan to "iavld1eIt, seems tiv be the mnbor one top i�," Fro m: Adolfas Melinauskas, [ 'ift _adalUtas I r uoocom Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 3:01 PM To: City Council[ Subject: supporting Apple Campus We totally support Apple Campus. It will be a big revenue producing project. Plus Apple will employ many technical people which is good for Cupertino and other communities. Let's keep the project going full speed ahead and not be influenced by negative neighbors. Victoria & Al Melinauskas -----Original Message --- From: Valerie Kiadeh Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 6:07 PM1 To': City Council Subject: Apple Dear Council Members Apple 'us one of the best things happening in, Cupertino right now. Please support the construction of Apple Campus 2. 1 think it will bring value to our properties and prestige to our community. Hoping for smooth sailing, Valerie Kiadeh Cupertino resident ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Adzich [rfliail-to:r-°olbert,a,d,z,i,ch6)Ul�e com] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:38 PM To: City Council Cc., A5conia �o aalq_�aM_2@_L_p p Lq,_ Subject: Apple Campus 2 Letter E5 Letter E6 Letter E7 Letter E8 As a lifetime resident of Cupertino, I would like to formally express my utmost support for the new Apple campus. I strongly feel that the new campus design is not only aesthetically beautiful, but will be a landmark building for generations to come. I can think of no other iconic building proposed or built in the last century that rivals this new Apple building. Please proceed with the approvals as soon as possible to get this fabulous anew city landmark started as soon as possible. Thank you, Robert Adzich 10164 Carmen Rd Cupertino, CA 95014 Letter __...._Original Message---- - From: Robin Anderson [nlqbi ilto�:ironcla�Lnit.._Egal] E9 Sent: Monday, July 08, 2.013 10:56 AM To: City Council Subject: Support for Apple Campus 2 I just want to share my full support for Apple's Campus 2. I think it is great they have taken great pain and effort in planning to build a green campuis and remain in Cupertino. We, as a city, have benefited greatly from their presence and will continue to do so in the future. Robin Anderson -----Original Message ----- From: Rebecca Schapp [niail.to.rmsctiyU,2y,5ihoo.com] Letter Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2013, 8:52 AM To: City Council E10 Cc: Thomas Schapp Subject: Apple Campus 2 support Dear City Council members, My husband and I reside in the City of Cupertino and we support the arrival of the Apple Campus 2. We have lived in the City for 33 years and raised our family here. Apple has always been an important part of our community. We are very excited about the landscaping, bicycle, pedestrian facilities, and the parkland improvements which Apple, will be making. Our City needs more of this especially as we move towards a more just and: sustainable world in the future. Apple has and will make it's mark. It will be good for the City of Cupertino to join forces and begin the development of it's newly planned City center at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue. Thanks so much for working hard to make our City a better place to live and work. Sincerely, Rebecca and Thomas Schapp From: Phyllis Pei [mailto:�ppeirn@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 9:06 PM Letter To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 Ell Hi, I arra a Sunnyvale resident living directly across from Apple Campus 2 right off of I lornestead. I welcome Apple's presence, and feel that more businesses will thrive because of the jobs and dollars Apple will pump into the local economy. I believe Apple has taken care to address the environmental issues and the naysayers are Just wasting everyone's time. We can't build a perfectly fail-safe, no risk environmental Ilan, Yes, I understand the tradeoffs of ecorionly vs risks, and Apple has addressed both with a balanced approach. I have lived and worked in "dying- towns and that blight does not enhance the environment in any way. I hope the C'Upertino C01,11161 members will be rational enough to not pander to the extremists. Sincerely, Phyllis Pei, RN SUnnyvale, CA 9408 p4xeffnU=aL= 1_ From. Dennis Houtsby [mAiijl Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 10:44 AM To. City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 Dear Sir/Madam, We, the Houlsby Family, at 10255 IMiira Vista in Cupertino, fully support the Apple 2 campus. It will be a great addition to our community and will be a state of the art structure that we can be proud of. I believe that Apple will be a good community partner and will actively work with the city to mitigate any negative effects of the increased traffic expected near the Campus during rush hour. Regards, The Hloulsby's Sent- Monday, July 01, 2013, 1:09 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple 2 Campus I am definitely in favor of the Apple Canopus 2; please approve without delay. The benefits this important development will bring to Cupertino and the SUITOUnding area are enormous, Sandra L,. James Former Mayor City of Cupertino From. pwschasker@comcast,net [mai1tDVwschasker@corncast, net] Sent�. Monday, July 01, 2013 1:24 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple 2 Project of Expansion As a long time resident and horneowner in Cupertino, I heartily support the significant building plans and economic growth that Apple stands ready to irnplernent. Cordially, Phil Schasker Letter E12 Letter E13 Letter E14 From: Daruwalla, Nina [mail %N mQajnBR0 Q9, M1 Letter -1, _111111111111i, Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:22 AM E15 To: City Council Subject: APPLE CAMPUS 2 SUPPORTER Dear City Council Members, 11 am in support of the Apple Campus 2, and available to work on any task force required – Safety IIssuues – Traffic Mitigation ideas -projects etc, to make sure its done with great thoughtfulness for the good of the City of Cupertino! Thank you, Nina Nina Daruwalla, Realtor, 10 105 S De Anza. Blvd, Cupertino, CA 95014. Eirnaik Mna.daruwallg_@L�!n�qqlgL Ln2 hitpHwwwnuwa inadarl9a,com iuti��armovescorn /nlna. daruwa Ila IDRE # 01712223 Digital Marketing Specialist A P,ubllc Safety Commissioner with The Cily of Cupertino Letter E16 On Wed, Jun 26,,2O13 at 70) PM, K,ittilyMatulewicz<,ktt,12,yIIL,Itz((�)iiisii.cor,-n,i:> wrote: We are long time residents of Cupertino. We currently live 2 blocks from Apple Campus 1 and have found Apple to be a good neighbor. We have reviewed the plans and reports concerning the new campus and give Apple our whole hearted support. Apple has consistently been, a good neighbor and is concerned about the community. Please vote yes to pass their plan. Matthew and Kathy Matuilewicz 10574 Orange Tree Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 On Wed, Juin 26, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Jayne Ham <ki�uLhayn@�Lynai )rn> wrote: Lop— City of Cupertino: I am, a long tirne resident and business owner urn the City of Cupertino (35+ years). I arn very excited with the prospect of the new Apple campus,. I am certain thatit will increase our overall revenue base and improve our city, overall. It Will definitely put LIS "On the Map" and move our city in the right direction, I have reviewed Apple's project proposal and feel that any inegative impaCtS Would be irninimall. I hope YOU Will support the success of this project for our city. Thank you for your consideration. Jayne! Harm 11713 Dorothy Anne Way Cupertino, CA 950,14 JouAlam, wilX(m, Letter E17 Letter From: Agnes Smith [mai to -,m n3 d i . onfl 1--anag—NOgmal Co— E18 Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:49 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus Please note this this haushold totally supports construction of the Apple Campus. We will read tile environmental report and plan to comment oil it as appropriate, Thank You Letter On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:50 AM, wrote: E19 Dear council members, I support the Apple construction 1project as is without modification— Thank Your ---Michael Picchetti 0n Wed, J Lin 26, 2013 at 7:40, PM, Marilyn W e n (I I er <In a r l y n w e n d I e r Ola () I . con> wrote: Letter I would like to express my support for the new Apple campus. We are fortunate to have a major employer bringing jobs and assets to Our C01111111.1nity, and I see nothing but benefit for Cupertino. E20 C" 1� Regards, Marilyn Wendler 20113 Northcrest Square, Cupeilino From: Jim Remedios (mailto.jremedios@gimail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9.54 AM Letter To. City Council Subject: Support for Apple Campus 2 E21 Dear City Council, My name is Jim Remedios and I have been a resident of the Cupertino since 1998 and have grown up on the Peninsula and in the Silicon Valley. This e-mail is to let you know of my support for the Apple Campus 2, 1 feel that it will be essential to keep the economy robust of not only Cupertino, but of the Silicon Valley as a whole. Please allow Apple Computer to move forward with its plans to develop the Apple Campus 2 site. I worked for Hewlett-Packard at that site for almost 18 years. It is a terrific location. I was very disappointed when I first heard about HP leaving that site. I am grateful to Steve Jobs and Apple for wanting to save that site and not only keep, but also grow jobs in CLIpertino. Please let there do so. We will all benefit. Yours very truly, Jim Remedios -----Original Message--- Letter From: Ken Huang [maflto.'vQvo ko E22 Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 10:47 PM To: City Council Subject: Formal support for Apple Campus 2 Hi, We are one of the many families of Cupertino who love this city for everything it has to offer. We are here to show our 200% support for Apple Campus 2. This will be good combination with the Main Street project to take this city to a whole new level, Please approve this project. Ken Huang From. Kathy Matuiewicz [kathymatz@msn.com] Letter Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 6:30 PM To: applecampus2 E23 Subject: Approval of AppVe Campus 2 We are long term residents of Cupertino and live on Orange Tree Lane, about a 5 minute walk to Apple Campus 1. Apple has been a, good neighbor. We have reviewed the plans for Apple Campus 2 and fully support the plans they have submitted and request your approval. Matthew and Kathy Matulewicz From: Elisa Hickey Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:39 AM To: City Council Subject: Re: Apple Campus 2 Registering support for Apple Campus! From: Anliu_EW& To: MPLESAMM2 subjed. Apple Campus 2 Date: Monday, June 17, 2013 7:2158 PM We are fortunate to have Apple consider building a mega complex in Cupertino. Please make whatever concession they need to make this happen. Apple is a great company. Let us not drag them into lengthy discussions on seemingly minor issues., but welcome the overall benefits they bring to this area and help make Apple Camipus2 happen in a tinn6ly manner. 22MM Letter E24 Letter E25 -----Original Message ----- From; Debbie Bergantz [!LiAi1to.,d!1t2rgpLqL4 q1g, t� @& L Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:31 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 Dear City Council Members, I have been a Cupertino resident for the past 20 years. I would like to give my full support for the new Apple Campus 2. 1 believe this new building will add new jobs and more tax base for Cupertino. Thank you and again I hope you vote in favor of the new Apple Campus. Sincerely, Debbie Bergantz Letter E26 From: Jason Tsai [112,OJItpJ. �A ca rn p g �11,1) 9 Letter Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 7:56 PM To: City Council E27 Subject; Apple Campus 2 Dear City Council Members, My wife and I would like to fully support Apple Campus 2 construction in Cupertino. Apple is a great company that we can proudly say to friends and families. We are proud to live in this city for more than 10 years. The construction, and new jobs inside the new ring building will provide plenty of opportunities for future growth. These jobs are highly skilled workers with advanced degrees. This new opportunity will help the business inside VaIllco Mall and its surrounding area. As part of the proposed pian, the new Campus will have lots of open space and trees surrounding the ring structure. It's going to be a beautiful campus. We urge you to be supportive of this great opportunity. Sincerely, MROTINOT11FIN Pf Eff Tk- no Effim, Letter -----original Message----- E28 From: Betty Howard Mail Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 10:47 AM To: City Council Subject: Apple2 I can't imagine anyone being against the campus, look at all the revenue and jobs it will bring to the city of Cupertino. Letter E29 From: Carlos McEvilly [mailto:carlos.mcevilIlyCq)qmiail.comJ Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 10:10 PM To. City Council Subject: Support the Apple Campus 2 project Fli, Please add me to your list of supporters of the Apple Campus 2 protect. As a Cupertino homeowner and parent I am glad that we have Such a great company in Our rnidst doing wonders for the world and for our local economy. Carlos McEvilly Letter E30 From: If jgez7@cornca.,;tj1et[ai i1to:bjgez70conica t — 2a� .net] st— Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 1:47 PM To: City Council Subject: APPLE CAMPUS 2 I STRONGLY SUPPORT APPLE IN THEIR PLAN TO BUILD APPLE 2 IN CUPERTINO. APPLE HAS BEEN A RESPONSIBLE NEIGHBOR UP TO NOW AND I SEE NO REASON THAT THEY SHOULD NOT CONTINUE TO DO SO IN THE FUTURE. IN ADDITION, THEY WILL ADD MILLIONS TO THE CITY'S TREASURY AND MORE THAN MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS OF HP. Letter E31 From: Edwin Kang [mafto:edw�in kaj1g@-)hqLmaJ1&om] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 7:35 PM To: City Council Subject: Please support Apple Campus 2 Dear Cupertino City Council, I am a Cupertino city resident @ Arata Way. i am writing to urge you to pass the Apple Campus 2 project plan. This project will increase Cupertino property values as a whole, increase city revenue and increase employment opportunities. It is good for small businesses, home owners and city of Cupertino a win-win for surrounding communities and Apple I Thanks, Edwin Letter E32 -----Original Message-_..__ From essage----- From, bets yeskeldsonftmail,corm [mailtogmail,coi,,:betsyeskeldspn@ n _ Sent: Thursday, lure 06, 2013 10:10 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 I would like to express my approval of the proposed campus that Apple has planned in Cupertino. I feel very proud to have Apple remain in Cupertino with: such, a magnificent building. I hope you will be approving this addition to our city. Betty Eskeldson, 23500 Cristo Rey Dr.,211C Cupertino, CA 95014 From: fan jiao Sent: Thursday, Ju . ne 06, 2013 1:0 PM To: City Council! Subject: Support Apple Campus 2 Dear City Council, As a Cupertino resident of all years, I support Apple Campus 2 for its environmentally sound design, and Apple continuing to contribute the city in terms of employment and tax $$. Fan Jiao 21438 Kr7ich Place Cupertino 95014 Letter E33 Letter E34 From:ngtj Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 1:45 PM TO: City Council Cc, Subject: Apple 2 Campus I have lived in the Cupertino, Sunnyvale area over 30 years. I hear there may be some concerns on whether the City Council should approve the Apple 2 project. Often times at various times of the day, in the area of existing Apple Cupertino facilities, I have not experienced any unacceptable traffic conditions. Apples employee busing program now and committed for Apple 2's future will continue to, keep individual cars off Cupertino streets. Apple has continued to keep me and I suppose, other Cupertino residents with their plans for the Apple 2 complex. Details for supporting the local economy with jobs, supporting local businesses, supporting local governments and neighborhoods services as well as supporting the local community such as I have never seen provided by any businesses in the past. No doubt that Apple has also provided complete commitments for the above to the City Council. I fear -771 I TA7e7A-,-1 TIT fURT1.0"T'r7TIM71,7711 OR Te 7- 1 17:171507Uel 7 and property taxes alone are valid reasons to support what in my opon will become the highlight point for Cupertino. The image that one of the worlds top corporations has it's headquarters located in, Cupertino will surely invite other companies to consider Cupertino as well. For the above, I hope the Cupertino City Council will strongly support and go ahead with the Apple 2 project. There by answering the question, "how can we NOT support the approval"? Earl G. Sharkey 20800 Homestead Rd. Apt 14A Cupertino, CA 95014 email: g0shark@comcast.net Letter E35 Letter ID 50,0115 Name Matthew Barr Address 107 Lisa Dr City, State Zip Brandenburg, KY 40108 Email 15barr@insightbb.com Subject Apple Campus 2 Project Comment Hello, I am in full support if this project, it will allow so many jobs to be opened up. Apple will be able to grow and! prosper with this new facility therefore, getting the city of Cupertino even more tourism. This facility is very very energy efficient and truly beautiful in design. Like everything else apple creates. It will be a shining beacon for all state of the art technological facitlities. I urge you to go forward in this project and allow apple to build this beautiful facility, Letter ll] 500109 Name Valerie Szymanski Address 10921 Lucky Oak St City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email vjszymanski@a gmail.com Subject New Apple Campus Environmental Imact Report Comment I support Apple's plan to remove raze existing buildings to move forward with their plan for the new Apple campus. This building project will bring additional jobs and revenue to Cupertino. Letter ID 500099 Name Robert Adzich Address 10164 Carmen Rd City, State Zip Cupertino, CA Cupertino Email robert@adztch.com Subject Apple, 2 Campus Comment As a lifetime resident of Cupertino, 11 would like to formally express my utmost support for the new Apple campus. I strongly feel that the new campus design is not only aesthetically beautiful, but will be a landmark building for generations to come. 11 can think of no other iconic building proposed or built in the last century that rivals this new Apple building. Please proceed with the approvals as soon as possible to got this fabulous new city landmark started as soon as possible. Thank you, Robert Adzich 101164 Carmen Rd Cupertino, CA 95014 Name Rekhia Puthalath Address City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email rputhalath@hotmail.com Subject Support for Apple Campus 2 Comment I would like to give my whole hearted support for the Apple campus 2 as it means the advent of a better economy locally and otherwise, new job creations - not just the technical fields(which Cupertino can provide amply), but many others including the city of Cupertino; putting Cupertino on the map as "A happening City"; and as an example for housing an Environment friendly yet futuristic Campus of a Visionary Company. I am sure that a partnership between a great city and company will benefit both, and the world! Letter E36 Letter E37 Letter E38 Letter ID 500088 Letter Name Samuel Ashknaz E39 Address 19652 Stevens Creek Blvd City, State Zip, Cupertino, CA 95014 Email samC&edccupertino-com Subject Apple Campus 2 Comment Apple Campus two is the best thing will ever happen for Cuppertino. It will create lots ofjobs, and will be good for local bussiines. Letter IID 500086 Letter Name Jeffrey Wurtz E40 Address 1135 Derbyshire Dr City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email jdwurtz@aol,com Subject Comments on Apple Campus 2 Comment I've (lived in Cupertino for 38 years and think it's a great community. I wholeheartedly support the new Apple Campus 2 as a welcome addition to the city. It will provide many new jobs for the area, and it will increase the tax revenues for the city. Letter ID 500082 Name Alice Jacob Letter E41 Address 1095 Queen Anne Dr City, State Zip San Jose, CA 95129 Email elizabath70Co)hotmail.com Subject I support the construction of a new Apple campus Comment I would like the new Apple campus to be a landmark and a magnet for job creation not only for Cupertino, but for the greater Bay Area as well. I hope that our current crop of graduates can land jobs as a result of Apple's expansion and small businesses around the city will benefit from its construction. The campus will also be a boon to both city and state tax revenues, and will be instrumental in keeping them stable. I hope the city council will approve the construction of the campus so it can become a beacon for innovation and and a magnet for creativity in the Silicon Valley, Letter ID 500079 Name neil struthers Letter Address 2102 almaden rd E42 City, State Zip San Jose, CA 95125 Email neil@scbtc-org Subject apple project Comment my family supports this project...this this is an unprecedented investment in our community (in the Billions). the jobs that this project will create for the construction industry is what will put thousands of construction workers back to work after the worst economic cycle the construction industry has ever seen. Letter ID 500047 Letter Name Ramchander Gopalswamy E43 Address 902 September Dr City, State Zip Cupertino, CA Cupertino Email ram.gopaI01 01@gmail.com Subject Apple Campus 2 DEIR Comment Dear Council Members, As residents of Cupertino, we are honored to, have among st us the great world famous innovative company called "Apple"'. I would like to register my support for the new upcoming Apple Campus 2 given its importance to our city & the surrounding cities from both an innovation and economic development perspective. Regards, Ram Gopal Letter ID 500041 Name Desimir Radisic Letter Address 10673 Culbertson Dr E44 City, State Zip Cupertino, CA Cupertino Email deskoOB@gmail.com Subject Apple Campus #2 Comment Dear Sir/Madame, as a long resident of the City of Cupertino I am very pleased to have an opportunity to express my opinion about such reputable company as Apple Computer is, I sincerely think the City should do everything in their power to make Apple feel at home by providing guidance with, minimum disturbance. I am very sure, should our neighboring cities such as Mt. View (home of Google), City of Sunnyvale (Lockheed Martin and many more) or City of Palo Alto (home of HP) Thad the same opportunity they would gladly offer substantial assistance to reduce bureaucracy to a minimum. The Apple Campus #2 will give our City new value. It will place The City of Cupertino with other outstanding places on Earth. The City of Cupertino will have one of the most remarkable masterpiece of architectural creativity that our children will enjoy for generation to come. Our vote is: YES, speed it up as much as you can, One of the Spanish proverb says: "Three things never return". 1. spent arrow; 2. Spoken word 31ost opportunity, The opportunity is here. Don't procrastinate, Thank you. Sincerely yours, Family D. Radisic, (email. deskoOB@gmail.com) Letter 10 500027 Letter Name Jack Kang E45 Address 18760 Arata Way City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email Subject Apple Campus 2 Comment Dear Cupertino City Council, I am a resident of Cupertino city, I am writing to urge you to pass the Apple Campus'2 project plan. This project will increase Cupertino property values as a whole, increase city revenue and increase employment opportunities. It is good for small businesses, home owners and city of Cuperfinol Thanks, Jack Letter ID 500026 Name Debbie Jen Address 18760 Arata Way City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email jen.debbie@,gmaii.com Subject Apple Campus 2 - Please support Comment Dear Cupertino City Council, I am a resident of Cupertino city. I am writing to urge you to pass the, Apple Campus 2 project plan. This project will increase Cupertino property values as a whole, increase city revenue and increase employment opportunities. It is good for small businesses, home owners and city of Cupertino a win-win for surrounding communities and Apple! Thanks, Debbie From: Olsonteddy :olsonted Cq)k ,CqM] Sent: Monday, July 22, 261.3 11:36 AM To: City Council Subject: Letter E46 Letter E47 I have been a resident and home owner in Cupertino since 1970 and have been an Apple user at work and home. I fully support the new facility for what it can bring to the city. Thank you. C. Olson From: Helen White gjgnyV11jtp,± hi Sent: Monday, July 22,"iOj 1035 AM Letter To: City Council E48 Subject: Apple Campus 11 I am in favor of Cupertino accepting the plans for the Apple II. -----Original Message ----- From, orska0gorskacom [mailto. orskaftorska.com] Letter Sent, Monday, July 22, 2013 10:22 AM AQ To: City Council E49 Subject: I support Apple Campus 21 I support Apple Campus 21 Sincerely, Caryl Gorska 10103 Senate Way Cupertino, CA 95914 From: Vena Tambellini [mafltQ:yQ _t'j 1) �Qfli rl iogyg "!1QQ Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 8:47 AM To,: City Council Subject- I support the New Apple Campus Dear City Council, Letter E50 I totally support the new Appie campus! It is a beautifully designed building and Apple has always been a valued company and neighbor to Cupertino. Best Regards, Vena Tambellinii vena.tairTibel:llinj@yahioo.co,rTi From: Ln-q-bPAgc1kao-Lgom Letter Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 9:36 AM To: City Council E51 Subject: Apple I support Apple to expand in Cupertino. Budge Ing 801 September Drive Cupertino From. Yogesh Petkar [maiilto:i)letkarv,Ca)y,ahoo-coniI Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 1:39 PM Letter To: City Council Subject: Support for Apple Campus 2 E52 Hello Cupertino City Council Members, I am a resident of Cupertino city for past 3 years and I support Apple Campus 2. Following are, my details Yogesh Petkar 10633 Mine Cit, Cupertino, CA 95014 I lope Apple can break ground of their new campus soon. Thanks Yogi ----Original Message ----- From- lane Tso [mafllmkkitso a.QLrDm1 Letter Sent. Monday, July 15, 2013 8,:02 PM E53 To: City Council Subject: Support Apple Campus 2 project Our family support Apple campus 2 project to be build in Cupertino. We live in 19942 Portal Plaza, Cupertino. Jane Tso From: Robert Hoose Miall-,neft] Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 123 PM To: City Council Subject: apple 2 this campus is a good thing for cupertino . Letter EI;A From: Alan Tan Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 2:18 PM Letter To: City Council E55 Subject: !support Apple campus 2 To whom it may concern: This email is to register my personal support for Apple Campus 2 project. Alan Tan From: Tomas La pa [!nAflto.'tlampg@gpplg&gn1] Letter Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 1:52 PM To. City Council E56 Subject: Support for Apple Campus 2 Hello, I live in Cupertino, and would like to formally register my support for Apple Campus 2, Please let me know if I need to provide additional information. Wann regards, Tomas Laimpo flamooPeloole.com From: Steve Leu [Mailt _ ,Q Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 9:39 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple Compos 2 To City Council, My family supports the construction of Apple Campus 2 in Cupertino, and hope it willl start construction ASAP. Thanks. Steve Leu 19991 Merritt Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 Letter E57 ----- Originail Message----_ prom: essage----- From: Sara grafton [nAillpl_s Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 7:00 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple 2 Campus I am emailing to share my support of the Apple 2 campus. Best Regards, Sara Grafton Cupertino resident From: :ni a a _ gi [mgft- On Behalf Of Suzanne D badgh v Sent: Thursday, July 11, 26113 8:40 AM To: City Council Subject: supporting the project. To Whom it May Concern, My husband and I both are, in support of the Apple Campus 2 and look forward to progress updates, Suzanne and Ninad Dabadghav Cupertino Residents Suzanne babacighav From: Steven campblell [mrIIgLkQ,czL q)p J 1 I.. o 12] _gZZZ2ga@�&_ Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 12:52 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 I am in full support of campus 2. 1 support therm being in Cupertino. Letter E58 Letter E59 Letter E60 Firom: Stefan Beng-tsson [irnai]Jto.,stefan@nafets.nu] Letter Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:30 AM To: City Council E61 Subject: Apple Campus 2 Hi, We're renting a house oil Bret Avenue since a few years, in close proximity to where the new Apple campus is planned. We are very much supporting the new aulipus and hope to get Apple as neighbors soon! Best regards, /Stefan Letter FrcpmSteve IHicks imail-to:�shicksvine(,@,aoll.coirn,] E62 Scirrt: Wednirsday, lu].y 10, 201�� AM Apple CdWqpus D(!F�r Counc U , I stIpport the new Apr.. !.e complex, It needs to done, Fbw cot,O.d you not SUPPOT"t it- J�'K,p have it go so�replact,; else! Steven Hicks 101) 33 Canyon Vista Dr Cpkertino, Cl 95014 From: Shee,la Sreekanth [matgi512ctL2t@g—mafl-cm1 Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:53 AM Letter To: City Council Subject: Support Apple Campus 2 E63 Formally registering my support for Apple Campus 2. Thanks & Regards, Sheela Sreekantb, ---__Original Message- --- Letter From: rooshabh varaiya [mailto, varaj�a@comcast, net] E64 Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 4:50 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple campus I support the Apple campus project in Cupertino; it is the same site where I began my career with HIIP 40 years ago; it would be great for Apple and Cupertino residents and businesses. You can reach me at 408-219-2513 (cell or email), Thanx/Rooshabh Varaiya -----Original Message_.._.... From: rogercarl@att,net Imail.to-rolgercarl,@att.net] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 10.49 AM To: City Council Subject: Apple new campus Letter E65 Apple new campus My name is Roger Carl I am 58 years old I have lived in Cupertino for 53 years and have always thought of Apple as a great and loyal neighbor! I support all they are doing and the matter in which they are doing it! Apple is the best thing ever to happen to MY town 0 Letter E66 ----- Original Message ----- From- Mary [uiiailto�:rnarashpole pLjibilishing.coiiij Sent. Thursday, July 04, 2013 11:.22 AM To: City Council Subject: Re:Apple project I as a Cupertino resident and homeowner support the upcoming Apple building project.Mary T.Hawkes,IR.D.H. Fror": Mukesh Garg [maiIto:thegargs@gmail,com] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2013 1.35 PM Letter To: City Council Cc: Mukesh Garg E67 Subject: Apple Campus 2 I an) Cupertino resident and a home owner. I recently reviewed Apple Campus 2 plan. I think this is very good for Cupertino City and its residents in all respect. We should approve this. Thanks, --InUkesh Mukesh Garg 1I omega rg.sQgLn.ad&Q-m- --oirigina.1 mtnssagr"-' -11-1 Letter Frirwi� poyangti(-m, l mai Ito: pqyangtien@yahoo. com, I E68 SentTuesday, 'July 02, 2013 9 58 P114 To: City counc[l Su b -' S �eclt -': . upport aplple 2 cDmpu%,,, Plpase registor me as a suppifarter for apple 2 caii'qpi,is project in 0qm:,rtino. I am a residenck-� in Cupertino, address is 2(3 std Bk:jssom Lane, Cupertim�). I, ha n 11, S Paul -,- ut° igi.M'A, Message— Frc)rq: Raaj Ver :wad rruail yahooMcom Letter Sent: luescfay, I hl]y 02, 2013 8 54 PM lo: City ( u u n c �,[] E69 Sul',lject: Appk,-, Campuc; 2 11 Nauru a Cul!reirt'Ano resident and s�qqaorl: law Apli,)Ie Campus )- par oj(-ct Letter E70 From: richard whittington [mailto:rwhitt6313@att.net] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 2:44 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 Just to register my name, Richard Whittington (Cupertino Citizen) as a supporter for this possible up -coming project. I � Thank you, Richard D. Whittington -----Original Message----- From: pcheng4567@yahoo.00m Letter Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 2:25 PM E71 To: City Council Subject: Support Apple Campus 2 I strongly support Apple Campus 2 construction in Cupertino. Philip Cheng 7654 peach bloom drive Cupertino, Ca95014 From: Rajiv Marwah [MaJlLo.r@jYi a!)6@f1d)yiLh L M_ C_ _ _qo.Lop)] Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 10:16 AM Letter To: City Council E72 Subject: we support the new Apple campus Rajiv iMarwah 10744 Deep Cliffe Dr Cupertino CA 95014 From: Naeem Zafar [mailto:naieem@bitzermobile.coiai] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 12:18 AM Letter To: City Council E73 Subject: apple campus Please accelerate the OK fear this beautiful project 0 it will support Baur city and is good for Cupertino Nz 18416 Chelmsford drive Cupertino CA .. . ....... ................... ...... ...... Neem War l President & CEO 1408-218-1920 Twitter @naeern I skype nz202O i AAA:, itzeriViabilexam Letter ----- Original Message ----- E74 From: Mary Reilly ll [Liiij �ltq�naCyT iyl&L ItL_ _ q,4Sgqj] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 12:11 AM, To: City Council Subject: I support Apple Campus 2 I'm a Cupertino resident and I support Apple Campus 2. Please allow construction to start soon! Thank you for your consideration, Mary Reilly Pruneridge Ave, Cupertino CA Message ----- Letter From: Patrick Allen Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:59 AM E75 To. City Council Subject; Support Apple My dear elected officials , I'm i writing you in support of the new Apple, inc. campus. Please help them in anyway you can to speed their planed! new offices. Best regards, Pat and! Charlene Allen 10191 Vista Drive Cupertino, , CA Sent from my iPad Best regards Pat Allen Patallenip,mac. coin Letter E76 From: Pam Milam rn.nn [maiLoM aflann@ ------- m] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:54 AM To: City Council Subject: We support the new applle campus and their desire to remain in Cupertino. Cupertino is Apple!!? Pam and Bill Milam From: Carmichael Paul [rn i o"51,ne"t) Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:10 AM To: City Council Subject: Support Apple Campus Il Letter E77 From: migdat iod�,a Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 8:22 AM To: City Council Subject: apple campus support apple campus support Letter E78 From: m.p.a.c.chett!Calqqglg�L5.(.ElgI [ qJ!to.:LU..i.cghettJ.@ Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013,11:51 AM Letter To: City Council E79 Subject: Apple Construction -yes Dear council members, I support the Apple construction project as is without modification--- Thank You--- Michael Picchetti From: Andrew Park [rnafto:Ntokirikensan 0) mail.com) Letter Sent; Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:04 AM E80 To: City Council Subject: Support for Apple Campus 2 I would like to register my support for Apple campus 2 ----- original Message ----- From: Linda Pickering [maj.1-to:Pj.cksnom,oss(,@aol.c�orn) Sent, Thursday, Jiune 20, 2013 8:56 PM To: City Council Subject; Regarding Apple campus Letter E81 We have been in the Cupertino area for over 50 years we will be living right across the street from the Apple campus our opinion is that They will make great neighbors, Don and Linda Pickering __.._..original Message----- From: essage----- From: Liliana Wilson. f [mailto:lew'12.@Ryl�.. , L Letter _" _ Sent: Thursday, June 20,, 2013 5:28 PM To: City Council E82 Subject: I support the Apple 2 Campus Thank you so much, Lily Wilson Cupertino, CA Letter ____-original message----- E83 From: Long Nguyen [pa�iltq:l�qnny ,uyen95014@� qom] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 3:07 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 Dear Sir/Madame; I aim supporting this project and can not wait to see the completion. Long Nguyen 10685 tarry way Cupertino, ca 95014 From: Lever Wang [ma_J-lIgJginga). _ft,c _Q Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2.413 2:59 PIVI To: City Council Subject: We support Apple Campus 2! We support Apple Campus 2. Please register me and my family of'4 as the strong supporters of Apple Campus 2. We have lived in Cupertino for more than 30 years. 'rhanks, Lever, Nina, Stephanie, Samantha Wang I On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM, frankvavak <EaaLy.ai" 1Lad> wrote: Dear City Council II support the Apple 2 Campus project Frank Vavak On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:55 AM, Dave Russell <dayerussell] Unlacxonji> wrote: Dear Cupertino City Council, I have been a home owner -resident of Cupertino since the year 2000, and worked in tile city since 1988. 1 support the Apple Campus 2 project, and prefer that you approve Apple's plans to begin construction with all due energy. Sincerely, David M. Russell 22790 Mercedes Road Cupertino, CA 95014 Letter E84 Letter E85 Letter E86 -----Original Message ----- From; Jun Nishimura [uta: ii uu01�mtiieav� Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 3:45 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 To the Cupertino City Council I feel it is our privilege to keep Apple Inc. in the city. Please try to keep the company in our neighbor. Jun Nishimura Cupertino, CA From: Karlye Adair [mailto:adaitfooLgpeciaFistCaahoo-com Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 7:21 PM To: City Council Subject: Support Apple Campus 2 Letter E87 Letter E88 We are so excited to have Apple carnpus in Cupertino. The many jobs and benefits brought to our comrntinity. We welcome thern with open arms. Karlye Adair Adair Foot Specialist adairfootspecialist.com On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:08 PM, V. Clean Skeels <dss-]<g cot icast.net> wrote: I support the Apple 2 campus V. Dean Skeels From: Larry Dean [U2aJ.l...to,:L.Qeanq1Q ,14 .. @ ga§�,Refl Sent. Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:46 PM To: City Council Subject: Support Apple Campus 2 Dear Council Members — I heartily support the new Apple Campus project. Best regards, Larry Dean Letter E89 Letter E90 From: Mark Vernon [MLItQ- mr odd Wi ng&ggl] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:19 AM To: City Council Subject: Support Apple Campus 2 I have been worRing in Cupertino since 198,7 and I love the city. I strongly support the Apple Campus 2 project. Mark Vernon I President & C00' RIDGE V! N E Y'A R D S r3lff,. ntroaciwwr@a.:u.al4ewwinexoni 0 r hO X i IS II0 Culwrkno(''A 95015 From: John bruzus [M@@(%J_gyp @ Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 11:26 AM To: City Council Subject: Support Apple Campus 2 I support the acw Apple Campus 2 John Bruzus From: Humphrey Chow [rnaulltg:hwchgyyCa),gMail,CgMIJ Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:32 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 To Whom It May Concern: I support Apple Campus 2 Sincerely, HU111phrey Chow ----- Original (Message ----- From: lane Tso [ 1 aa: I Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:56 AM To: City Council Subject: Apple campus 2 Letter E91 Letter E92 Letter E93 Letter E94 From: Janet Verson [mailto,]verson@gmaii.com] Letter Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:09 AM To: City Council E95 Subject* New Campus for Apple Dear City Council: I am a resident of Cupertino and would like to fornially endorse the new campus for Apple. Sincerely, Janet Verson -----Original Message ----- From From, Edward M Jones Dd irdQud.cun Letter Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:07 PM To-, City Council E96 Subject: Apple Campus 2 1 support Apple Campus 2. Ted ]ones 23500 Cristo Rey Dr. Unit 327E Cupertino, CA 95014 -----Original Message----- Letter From: Betty Eskeldson [madlto.betsveskej Ason@ gTail.com] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 4:28 PM E97 To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 I am excited about the new Campus that Apple wants to build in Cupertino. I think it will be, a wonderful addition to out city to continue making Cupertino a draw for the world. I hope it will be supported by our City council. Betsy Eskeldson, 16 year Cupertino resident From: Elena Seremeta [mailto:eseu'emeta_@�gmqil.com] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 11:32 AM To: City Council Subject: Apple Headquarter Letter E98 My name is Elena Sererneta, I live in Cupertino, 10691 Hale Place and I want to register for my family support for Apple Carnpus 2. Best Regards, Elena Seremeta -----Original Message----- Letter From: Diana Laredo [mai l-to:1oredodg(@,ao1,co Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 1:07 PM E99 To: City Council Subject: I support new apple campus Make it happen. Resident Amelia ct cupertin,o. Diana Letter From: Jerry McLeod [mauftsle J[.n od 1@yaho m] E100 -q —9 c -Q Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 6:56 AM To: City Council Subject: I wish to pledge my support of the new Apple campus Regards Jerry McLeod From: Joseph appal [112NJJg".e �ppgj.Cd) Ugb�dLid] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 2:54 PM Letter To: City Councill Subject: Apple Campus2 E101 06/08/2013 As residents of Cupertino, we fully approve of the plan for the new Apple Campus in our city and urge City Council to approve the project without further delay. Apple has been a good corporate citizen and deserves our appreciation and speedy approval of their latest submission to the Council so they may move forward with the construction of their new campus. Joseph and Elizabeth Eppel -----Original Message ----- From: Svetlana Kokoshvili [mailto-..,S ' veL@j2!Lvitka.com1 .................. Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 1:12 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus I love the idea of the apple campus and! I think it would be veiry beneficiary to the city of Cupertino as a whole. Just my two cents. From: Bahram Vazindel [MadtoIre abar !In _ d hg g.g qfn] yA— Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 2:!06 PM To: City Council Cc: Subject: Apple Campus 2 To Whom It May Concerned, I fully support Apple Campus 2 project. Thanks, Bahram Vazindel 18861 Barnhart Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 --original message ----.- From: Warmke, Doug [mint lto:d U wamrmrrnl ep Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 12:53 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 Hi City Council, I strongly support Apple Campus 2 in Cupertino. Thank you, Doug Warmke 10066 Spanish Oak Court Cupertino, CA 95014 Letter E102 Letter E103 Letter E104 From: chirag paitel [mafllto:cc atelll vahoocoml Letter Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 12:52 PM E105 To: City Coundl Subject: I support Apple 2 Campus. From: Anand D'Souza Letter Sent; Thursday, June 06, 2013 12-51 PIM To: City Council E106 Subject: Re: Apple Campus 2 Hi: I formally support the creation of Apple CarnpUs 2 in Cupertino. Anand From: Alex Pashintsev [rnailtg; Qm] Sent: Thursday, June, 06, 2013 12:42 PM Letter To: City Council Subject. RE: Apple Campus 2 E107 I do cast my sup�p�ort Allex Pashintsev 226,901 San JUan rd, Cupertino, CA -----Original Message ----- From: David Eberhardt [mailtol:s,awdLustdiaveL&comicast,net] Letter Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 12:19 PM E108 To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 Please cooperate and assist Apple to build a world class campus. David and Loreta Eberhardt 10320 Las Onclas Way, Cupertino From: Bob / Donna S Sent: Thursday, June 016, 2013 12:35 PM Letter To. City Council E109 Subject: Apple headquarters My family is in favor of allowing the building of` the new Headquarters here in Cupertino. The city would have to be stupid not to want to maintain the relationship it has with Apple. -----original Message ----- From: Gary Jones Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 12:21 PM Letter To. City Council Subject. Apple Campus 2 E110 I support the building of Apple Campus II. Gary E ]ones Cupertino, CA -----(original Message ----- From: David Kopels [M�ilto.sl�eok@m�ecqLml Letter Sent: Thursdlay, June 06, 2013 12:19 PM To: City Council E111 Cc: Kopels Barbara Subject: Apple Support My name is David Kopels and my family has lived in Cupertino for the past 35 years. We strongly support the Apple Campus 2 project. David Kopels 10161 Bilich Place 95014 -----(original Message ----- From: DIANE BEAUDET [r'iai1tq:beaUdet Letter Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 12:16 PM To: City Council E112 Subject: Go Apple.... Can't wait to see the new building completed. Apple is a great business to have in our community. Diane Beaudet Fromaka,5,f1L m) On Behalf Of Akash Agarwal Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 1:48 PM Letter To: City Council E113 Subject: Register Support for Apple Campus 2 As a life-long resident of C'upertino, I'd like to register my support for Apple campus 2 Thanks, Akash Agarwal VP of Marketing, StudyCloud Inc. From:: Gopakumar Pillai [[nat,%,, _p LM cg,2 Sent: Thursday, June, 06, 2013 2:37 PM Letter To: City Council Subject: Support for Apple Campus 2 E114 Hi, I am a resident of Cupertino and would like to support Apple Campus 2 in Cupertino. Disclaimer: I am not an employee of Apple --Gopakumar Mai ---- From:-Original cair,boine.cuiperatino@gmail.coni [mailtol:carbloiniecLiilpertinop Letter Lgmail,co Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 2:33 PM, E115 To: City Council Subject: Apple campus 2 To whom it concerns: Please approve Apple campus 2. We've been waiting for the construction which is way over due. I believe we as residents all want it to happen. Many thanks for your concern. Cheers, -Diana From: Bailakrishnan Thyagiairajan [rnajfto.b,athyagaLd)gffma_iLcorn] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 3:27 PM To: City Council Subject: Support Apple Carnus 2 Letter E116 Hi, I live in Cupertino and my name is Balakrishnan Thyagarajan. I would like to register by support for Apple Campus 2 Thanks Bala From: Gino Gugheirnelli Q!12] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 4:!40 PM Letter To: City Council Subject: apple carnpus-2 E117 I support the construction of the new Apple campus on Homestead Rd. in Cupertino -Sunnyvale. Gino Guglielmelli. 1621 Waxwing Ave Sunnyvale. 'gii 5�gg Ci �y ..) g 11- _____Original Message_____ From: Dipesh Maini [Lmji �l t o., di aLs hma J n.iLfby_a hoo conn] Letter Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 8:12 PM To: City Council E118 c c . u.p..h.Eg @2PP-1 Le, cam Subject: Support for Apple Campus 2 I support Apple Campus 2 in Cupertino THanks Dipesh Maind ----original Message -.--- From: gcn and [M.jIto.7E.gce.nqdoIy@ n mail.coml _L _ _ g_ Letter Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 9:01 PM To: City Council E119 Subject: We wholeheartedly support the apple campus project as outlined. Sincerely Grace Nadolny MD and Greg Hilbrich 10547 Manzanita Road Cupertino CA 95014 Letter -----Original Message----- E120 From: eros ialkCocapacast. net [mail-to:erosiak@comcast. net] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 9:35 PM To: City Council Subject: New Apple Campus I am sending this in support of Apple Computer and the new campus they are proposing. Apple has been an: excellent corporate neighbor and deserves approval of their plans. It is good for Cupertino and we urge you to approve Apple's plans. Sincerely, Ed & Linda Rosiak Cupertino, CA -----Original Message ----- From: Cynthia Kollerer [Milt2jcp lengrgMgi Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:43 PM To: City Council Subject: Apple Campus 2 I have been a Cupertino resident for 35 years and fully support the proposed new Apple Campus. Letter E121 -----Original Message ----- From: Aykut [m,a,j,l-to-aykutyararbas(oyahioo.corfw] Letter Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:45 PM To: City Council.E122 Subject: Apple campus 2 support I willingly support Apple 2 campus. Aykut Yarairbas 20030 Rodrigues ave apt k Cupertino ca 95014 _-__-Original Message ----- From: George Crosby Letter Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 1:21 P,M To: City Council E123 Subject: Apple Campus I'm 100% for building the Apple Campus. Regards George Crosby 23500 Cristo Rey Drive Cpertino City, State Zip CA Email Subject Hlome Town Support - Apple Campus 2 Comment I am in full support fot Apple Campus 21 Looks great and will be a great asset for Cupertino, Letter ID 500,085 Letter Letter ID 500110 E124 Name Robert Hoose Address 10394 Bret Ave City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email hoose22@aft.net Subject Apple 2 Comment The last thing we need is Apple moving out of Cupertino. new corporate headquarters will benefit ail of the residents ands businesses. Letter ID 500100 Letter Name 500084 E125 Address Letter City, State Zip CA Email Subject Hlome Town Support - Apple Campus 2 Comment I am in full support fot Apple Campus 21 Looks great and will be a great asset for Cupertino, Letter ID 500,085 Letter Name John Zirelli E126 Address 650 Martin Ave City, State Zip Santa Clara, CA 95050 Email jzirelli@recology.com Subject Support of Apple 11 Campus Comment I support the Apple 11 campus in the City of Cupertino. As the General Manager of Recology Cupertino and past President of teh Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, their new corporate headquarters will benefit ail of the residents ands businesses. Apple is a great corporate partner in teh community, scholls and local organizations. Letter ID 500084 Letter Name Maxim Zaika E127 Address sdf,sdfgh City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95015 Email mak.zaika2013@gmail.com Subject Comment 3TO KriacCHOHM Translation: 'This is cool!!!!!' Letter Ili? 500053 Letter ND 500081 Letter Name GA Salinas E128 Address Andrew Nark City, State Zip Laredo, TX. Email carol@statemicro.coom Subject Cupertino, CA 95014 Comment The Apple project has the world watching. New opportunity to showcase new hitokirikensan@gmail.com technologies! Letter Ili? 500053 Letter ID 500082 Letter Name Andrew Nark E129 Address 20488 Stevens Creek Blvd, #1515 carol@statemicro.coom City, Mate Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Comment Email hitokirikensan@gmail.com Subject i support Apple Campus 2 Comment Subject says it all. Have a good day! Letter ID 500058 Letter Name MAJ D AS E130 Address saudi, makkah City, State Zip makkah, CA 12845 Email majed.mashotmail.com Subject ma Comment I love you so much„ Apple and always keep together forever Letter Ili? 500053 Letter Name carol vwong E131 Address 10925; n wol',fe Rdl City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email carol@statemicro.coom Subject Comment We support Apple Campus 2 Letter ID 500051 Name Lever Wang Letter E133 Address 1165 Candlelight Way City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email llever.wang@gmail.com Subject We support Apple Campus 2 Comment Hello, We support Apple Campus 2. Please register me and my family of 4 as the strong supporters of Apple Campus 2. We have lived in Cupertino for more than 30 years. Thanks, Lever, Nina, Stephanie, Samantha Wang Letter ID 500040 Name Stella Ou Address City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email Subject Comment Apple is the glory of America today. And the Silicon Valley here at California. Even more so, Cupertino, where technology flourishes day and night. Being a resident of Cupertino is a true honor, especially because we are able to witness the growth of Apple. Through the rapid growth of Apple, we all benefit from the great causes, that affect us greatly here and now. And 11 really Ihave to say, I am so proud of Apple, proud of being part of the Apple community, and proud of being able to live so close to it. I have high hopes for you to rise to the next level. Apple Campus 2, agreed. Thank You. Stella Cu Letter E134 Letter 1113 500052 Letter Name Jane Tan E132 Address 11790 Ridge Creek Ct City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email jtan888@gmail.com Subject Comment I'm fully supporting the new Apple Campus 2 project in Cupertino. It's great to have such a great company located in our city Letter ID 500051 Name Lever Wang Letter E133 Address 1165 Candlelight Way City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email llever.wang@gmail.com Subject We support Apple Campus 2 Comment Hello, We support Apple Campus 2. Please register me and my family of 4 as the strong supporters of Apple Campus 2. We have lived in Cupertino for more than 30 years. Thanks, Lever, Nina, Stephanie, Samantha Wang Letter ID 500040 Name Stella Ou Address City, State Zip Cupertino, CA 95014 Email Subject Comment Apple is the glory of America today. And the Silicon Valley here at California. Even more so, Cupertino, where technology flourishes day and night. Being a resident of Cupertino is a true honor, especially because we are able to witness the growth of Apple. Through the rapid growth of Apple, we all benefit from the great causes, that affect us greatly here and now. And 11 really Ihave to say, I am so proud of Apple, proud of being part of the Apple community, and proud of being able to live so close to it. I have high hopes for you to rise to the next level. Apple Campus 2, agreed. Thank You. Stella Cu Letter E134 From: Diane A Nguyen [MgLILgdianeanhdao,nlgfflpil,com] Letter Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 1:34 PM E138 To: City Council Subject: I support APPLE Campus 2 I support APPLE Carnpus 2. Please speed Lip the approval and constniction process so that APPLE call stay in our city, Cupertino. Sincerely, Diane Nguyen 10428 GLENCOE DR CLJPERTINO CA 95014 408-718-3,057 From. tuna suriya [Ina ftpn4-5ujiyand yahoo, com] Sent: Monday, July 22, 20 12:16 PM Letter 13 To: City Council E139 Subject: I support for Apple Campus 2 Letter ID 500035 Letter Name paulette Altmaier E135 Address City, State Zip Cupertino, CA cuportino Email paltmaie@yahoo.com Subject Apple Campus - let's be a can -do city! Comment I am strongly supportive of this project, and I am NOT an Apple employee. We need to support visionary projects, and be a can -do city! This project will make us proud, let's go for it! Letter IID 500031 Letter Name Robert Stern E136 Address 11000 Via Sorrento City, State Zip Cupertno, CA 95014 Email sternrc@mac.coim Subject Approval of Apple Campus 2 Development Comment I wholly endorse Apple's proposed development of a second campus in Cupertino. .yo)..,co From. Myke and Diane Luu [mailto:rnl..u-uf..ani-i-qgmi�i m --- 4— Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 1:40 PM Letter To: City Council Subject: I SUPPORT APPLE 2 E137 Please speed up approval ol"APPLE Campus 2 in Cupertino. Put Cupertino on the map! DO, NOT LETAPPLE MOVE TO ANOTHER crry, PLEASE. THANK YOIL% LU U FA M ILY From: Diane A Nguyen [MgLILgdianeanhdao,nlgfflpil,com] Letter Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 1:34 PM E138 To: City Council Subject: I support APPLE Campus 2 I support APPLE Carnpus 2. Please speed Lip the approval and constniction process so that APPLE call stay in our city, Cupertino. Sincerely, Diane Nguyen 10428 GLENCOE DR CLJPERTINO CA 95014 408-718-3,057 From. tuna suriya [Ina ftpn4-5ujiyand yahoo, com] Sent: Monday, July 22, 20 12:16 PM Letter 13 To: City Council E139 Subject: I support for Apple Campus 2