0003_3_2 - Eighth Addendum to AC 2 EIR.pdfL CAR ESNO
FRESNO
RVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 20, 2018
To: Piu Ghosh, AICP, and Catarina Kidd, City of Cupertino
FROM: Judith Malamut, AICP, Principal, LSA
SUBJECT: Eighth Addendum to the Apple Campus 2 Project Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), State Clearinghouse # 2011082055
This memorandum, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is an
Eighth Addendum to the certified Apple Campus 2 Project Final EIR.' For a description of previous
addendums, please see the Previous Addendums section below.
This Eighth Addendum to the Final EIR evaluates proposed changes (minor modifications) in the
design of a previously approved office building and supporting parking in Phase 2 Site B of the Apple
Campus 2 (now called Apple Park) project. The proposed changes are described more fully, below, in
Minor Modification to the Project. The revised land uses for Phase 2 Site B would involve the
construction of a two-story office building supported by a ground -level lot and three -stories of
underground parking, as described more fully below. Figure 1, provided by the applicant in the
Apple Campus 2 — Phase 2, North Tantau Ave — Site B, Site & Architectural Review application dated
February 2018, provides information concerning the location of Phase 2 Site B, shown on the left
side of the figure. On the right side of Figure 1, information is provided regarding the previously
approved project (column labeled Development Permit October 2013), the 2016 approvals for Sites
C and D (approved under the Third Addendum to the Final EIR), and the proposed minor
modifications to Site B (column labeled Architecture/Site Review January 2018 (Site B)) the subject
of this Addendum. Figure 2 shows the previously approved Phase 1 and 2 development on Site B,
the site plan, and elevations showing the approved two-story office building, and the one -level of
underground parking, and the above ground two-level parking garage on the eastern portion of the
site. Figure 3 shows the conceptual Phase 2 Site B site plan being proposed (i.e., a two-story office
building with a ground level parking lot and three levels of underground parking).
The Final EIR, which was certified on October 15, 2013, analyzed the environmental impacts of
development of a new campus for Apple on a 176 -acre site bordered generally by East Homestead
Road on the north, North Tantau Avenue on the east, Interstate 280 (1-280) and The Hamptons
apartments on the south, and North Wolfe Road on the west. The approved Apple Campus 2 project
involves demolition of all existing structures within the project site and the construction of
1 LSA Associates, Inc., 2013. Apple Campus 2 Project Final Environmental Impact Report. September.
157 Park Place, Pt. Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810 www.Isa.net
LSA
3,420,000 square feet of office, research, and development uses; 245,000 square feet of auditorium,
fitness center, and valet parking reception uses; 92,000 square feet of utility plants; and parking and
ancillary buildings. Significant environmental impacts were identified in the following topical areas:
Planning Policy; Land Use; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity;
Hydrology and Water Quality; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Transportation and Circulation;
Noise; Air Quality; and Public Services and Utilities.
This Eighth Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 which states:
"The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if
some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162
calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Section 15162 specifies that "no
subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines ... one or more
of the following":
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the
previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is under-
taken which would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;
(B) Significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in
the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environ-
ment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e), the following discussion describes the final designs
and any minor modifications and briefly explains that no impacts would be associated with the
proposed changes identified in the design applications for the ancillary buildings, and the reasons
for the City's conclusion that changes to the proposed project (and associated environmental
effects) do not meet the conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15163 calling for preparation of
a Subsequent EIR or a Supplement to an EIR.
7/20/18 (P:\COC1802 8 Addendum Apple\PROD UCTS\Eighth Addend um\7-20-18 Draft Apple Eighth Addendum.docx)
LSA
MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT
The following describes the proposed minor changes to the approved development program for
Phase 2 Site B that was analyzed in the Final EIR, as amended by the First through Seventh Addenda,
and approved by the City. This section also identifies the reasons why the proposed design and
construction of these ancillary buildings would not result in new or substantially more severe
significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the Final EIR.
The project applicant is requesting site approval for the following:
• Phase 2 Site B Office Building. As shown in the Apple Campus 2 — Phase 2 North Tantau Ave —
Site B Site & Architectural Review document submitted by the applicant in February 2018,2 the
applicant is proposing to construct a two-story (36 feet in height) office building, that would
include 69,386 square feet of office space and 15,861 square feet of amenity space for a total
gross area of 85,247 square feet. Figures 4 and 5 provide conceptual development sections for
the proposed modifications. Figure 6 provides a conceptual Phase 2 Site B rendered elevation.
Phase 2 Site B Parking. The Phase 2 Site B office building would be supported by the
development of 165 spaces of surface parking and three levels of underground parking that
would provide 435 spaces for a total of 600 spaces.
The proposed project provides minor modifications to the Phase 2 Site B development evaluated in
the Final EIR, the changes in regards to building area, parking spaces, site area and excavation are
identified in Table 1, below.
Table 1: Phase 2 Site B Approved and Proposed Modifications
Parameters
Approved
2013 Final EIR
Proposed
2018 Application
Net Difference
Primary Use
Office/R&D
Office/R&Da
Gross Building Area
87,000 sf
85,247a sf
1,755 sf
Number of Employees
800
500
300
Surface Parking Spaces
200
165
35
Parking Structure Spaces
200
0
200
Underground Parking Spaces
200
435
235
Total Parking Spaces
600
600
0
Office Building Height
35 feet (2 stories)
36 feet (2 stories)
1 foot
Parking Structure Height
15 feet (I level above
ground level)
0
15 feet
Excavation of Material
20,000 cy
88,000 cy
68,000 cy
Source: Foster + Partners, 2018. Apple Campus 2 North Tantau Ave —Site 8 Site & Architectural Review. February.
a The proposed gross square feet of building area also includes 15,861 of amenity space.
b The excavation of material was identified by Ramboll Environ as the remaining amounts after construction of Phase 2 Sites C and D.
See their June 2018 memorandum attached to this Addendum.
2 Foster + Partners, 2018. Apple Campus 2 North Tantau Ave — Site B Site & Architectural Review. February.
7/20/18 (P:\COC1802 8 Addendum Apple\PROD UCTS\Eighth Addend um\7-20-18 Draft Apple Eighth Addendum.docx)
LSA
While there would be an addition of 15,861 square feet of amenity space, the primary office/R&D
use would not change, and the gross square footage that was approved would slightly decrease by
1,753 square feet (approved 87,000 square feet — 85,247 square feet). The number of employees
would also be reduced (approved 800 employees — proposed 500 employees). The Final EIR also
evaluated the effects of construction of 200 surface parking spaces, 200 spaces in an above ground
parking structure, and 200 underground spaces (see Figure 2) for a total of 600 spaces. While the
same number of parking spaces would be provided (600) for the approved and proposed Phase 2
Site B, the number of surface parking spaces would be reduced (approved 200 — proposed 165), and
the majority of spaces would be underground (435) rather than in an aboveground parking
structure, resulting in beneficial reductions in operational parking noise effects on neighboring uses
to the east of the site. The excavation needed to construct the proposed larger underground parking
area and off -haul of the additional material would increase from the approved and remaining
20,000 cubic yards (CY) to 88,000 CY, and off -haul would increase by the same amount. The
environmental effects of this change in the amount of excavation and associated construction and
truck trips were evaluated and are discussed below.
COMPARISON TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15162 AND
15163
The following discussion summarizes the reasons that a Subsequent EIR or Supplement to the EIR,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, is not required to evaluate the
environmental effects of the currently -proposed minor design and construction modifications to the
project evaluated in the Final EIR.
Substantial Changes to the Project
As discussed above, the major change associated with the Phase 2 Site B proposal to construct an
office building and three -stories of underground parking is the resulting additional excavation and
off -hauling (an additional 68,000 cubic yards) and associated truck trips than was originally analyzed
in the Final EIR as amended and approved by the City. The off -hauling would require approximately
6,800 additional truck trips that were not accounted for in the Final EIR. The duration of Phase 4 of
the Apple Park project (within which the Phase 2 development was included) was anticipated to
occur over 12 months in the Final EIR, and with the modifications to Phase 2 Site B of the project, the
duration of Phase 4 would be approximately 17 months. Because the proposed design and
construction of the office building and three levels of underground parking would result in more
excavation and off -hauling than was originally analyzed in the Final EIR as amended and approved by
the City, the only environmental issues related to this change would be potential changes in air
quality, noise, and traffic impacts associated with the additional excavation.
Air Quality
To address air quality issues, Ramboll Environ prepared a technical memorandum analyzing the air
quality impacts of the proposed modifications titled Construction Emission Evaluation Impacts of
Revised Phase 4 (May 17, 2017, updated June 2018), attached to this memorandum. The Ramboll
Environ analysis concluded the following:
7/20/18 (P:\COC1802 8 Addendum Apple\PROD UCTS\Eighth Addend um\7-20-18 Draft Apple Eighth Addendum.docx) 4
• The modifications to Phase 2 Site B would not result in an increase in average daily
construction related criteria pollutant emissions.
The modifications to Phase 2 Site B would not result in a change to the cancer risk
significance findings included in the Final EIR.
Traffic
LSA
As noted above, the proposed Phase 2 Site B modifications to the project would require additional
haul truck trips to transport off -haul associated with the construction of underground parking. As
identified in the Final EIR, truck access to the site would be restricted during the peak commute times
(7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) to minimize potential impacts to the surrounding
roadway network operations. As described above, the timeframe for project construction would
increase from 12 months to 17 months to allow for construction activities associated with Phase 2
Site B. As identified in the Final EIR, all truck access on Homestead Road would be restricted and
trucks would access the project site via the 1-280/Wolfe Road interchange. All truck travel would be
consistent with the City's Municipal Code (Section 11.32.010). Only construction workers would
access the project from the north from Wolfe Road and/or Homestead Road. With the extended
duration of the construction period, construction truck traffic would not exceed the peak truck
activity evaluated in the Final EIR. No significant impacts related to construction traffic would occur
and no additional mitigation measures are required.
Noise
The closest noise -sensitive receptors to the proposed Phase 2 Site B project component are single-
family residential land uses east of the site fronting on Meadow Avenue, whose rear property lines
would be located adjacent to the proposed construction areas. Noise levels during construction of
the modified project would be similar to those anticipated for the approved project as identified in
the Final EIR. The 35 -foot landscaped setback would remain under the proposed Phase 2 Site B
modifications. As identified in the Final EIR, noise levels would range up to 90 dBA Lmaxat receptor
locations. However, as with the approved project, construction of the proposed Phase 2 Site B
modifications would incorporate a 15 -foot -high temporary sound wall along the project border
adjacent to off-site noise -sensitive land uses for the duration of project construction. As with the
approved project, noise levels associated with the modified project would be approximately 76 dBA
Lmax, and would be below the City's threshold of 80 dBA Lmax• The construction duration would be
extended with the modified project, however all noise -generating construction activities would be
limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between the hours of
9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekends. All other measures specified in Mitigation Measure NOI-1
would also be applicable. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 as outlined in the Final EIR
would reduce construction related noise impacts, including those of the modified project, to a less -
than significant level. Additionally, the modified Phase 2 Site B would not include a two-level parking
garage adjacent to the single-family uses to the east, and there would be a beneficial reduction in
noise associated with parking (e.g., conversations, car alarms, slamming doors)
7/20/18 (P:\COC1802 8 Addendum Apple\PROD UCTS\Eighth Addend um\7-20-18 Draft Apple Eighth Addendum.docx)
LSA
Summary
Therefore the minor modifications to the project would not result in new significant environmental
impacts beyond those identified in the Final EIR, would not substantially increase the severity of
impacts identified in the Final EIR, and thus would not require major revisions to the Final EIR.
Therefore, the proposed changes to the project would be minor refinements to design of the two-
story office building and parking garage within Phase 2 Site B, not substantial changes, and an
Addendum is the appropriate document to address these minor modifications rather than a
Subsequent EIR or a Supplement to the Final EIR.
Substantial Changes in Circumstances
Construction of the Apple Campus 2 Project has been substantially completed, and Phase 2 Site B is
the final site to be designed and implemented. Environmental conditions in and around the project
site have not changed such that implementation of the proposed minor modifications to the project
would result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
environmental effects identified in the Final EIR, and thus major revisions to the Final EIR are not
required due to substantial changes in circumstances.
New Information
No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known when the Final EIR was certified, has been identified to show that the proposed minor design
modifications to the project would be expected to result in: 1) new significant environmental effects
not identified in the Final EIR; 2) substantially more severe environmental effects than shown in the
Final EIR; 3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible would in fact
be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the
project sponsor declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or 4) mitigation measures
or alternatives that are considerably different from those identified in the Final EIR would substan-
tially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project sponsor declines to adopt
the mitigation measure or alternative. In addition, the proposed minor design modifications to the
project would require no new mitigation measures because no new or substantially more severe
impacts are expected beyond those identified in the Final EIR.
Existing regulations (including City of Cupertino General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance
regulations) and mitigation measures adopted and made conditions of project approval would
continue to apply.
7/20/18 (P:\COC1802 8 Addendum Apple\PROD UCTS\Eighth Addend um\7-20-18 Draft Apple Eighth Addendum.docx)
LSA
CONCLUSION
The proposed designs for the Phase 2 Site B two-story office building and three stories of
underground parking for the Apple Campus 2 Project described in this Eighth Addendum would not
require major revisions to the Final EIR, as amended by the First through Seventh Addenda, due to
new or substantially increased significant environmental effects. There have been no substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which these minor modifications would be
undertaken that would require major revisions of the Final EIR due to new or substantially increased
significant environmental effects, and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial
importance that would trigger or require major revisions to the Final EIR due to new or substantially
increased significant environmental effects. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is
required prior to approval of the Phase 2 Site B office building and underground garage component
of the Apple Campus 2 Project, as described in this Eighth Addendum.
PREVIOUS ADDENDUMS
A previous First Addendum to the Final EIR was adopted by the City on April 9, 2014, in connection
with the City's approval of minor modifications to the dimensions, geometry and footprint of several
site buildings, a reduction of parking spaces, and the addition of a Security Operations Center.3 A
Second Addendum to the Final EIR was adopted by the City in September 2014 in connection with
the City's approval of minor modifications to the Corporate Auditorium, Corporate Fitness Center,
and Central Plant Equipment Yard .4 A Third Addendum to the Final EIR was adopted by the City in
November 2014 in connection with the City's approval of minor modifications to the Phase 2 North
Tantau Avenue Sites C and D portion of the project and included revisions to the configuration of
buildings, the placement of parking, and tree removal and landscaping.' A Fourth Addendum to the
Final EIR was adopted by the City in July 2015 in connection with the City's approval of minor
modifications to North Tantau Avenue Phase 1 Site A, including the replacement of valet reception
and parking uses with a visitor center/store and parking, and increasing the number of parking
spaces and moving most of the parking from a structured building to a garage below the visitor
center.6
3 LSA Associates, Inc., 2014. Addendum to the Apple Campus 2 Project Final Environmental Impact Report.
April 4.
4 LSA Associates, Inc., 2014. Second Addendum to the Apple Campus 2 Project Final Environmental Impact
Report. September 15.
' LSA Associates, Inc., 2014. Third Addendum to the Apple Campus 2 Project Final Environmental Impact
Report. November 4.
6 LSA Associates, Inc., 2015. Fourth Addendum to the Apple Campus 2 Project Final Environmental Impact
Report. July 2.
7/20/18 (P:\COC1802 8 Addendum Apple\PROD UCTS\Eighth Addend um\7-20-18 Draft Apple Eighth Addendum.docx)
LSA
A Fifth Addendum to the Final EIR was adopted by the City in August 2015 and addressed
modifications to Phase 2 office buildings, a parking structure and a satellite plant.' A Sixth
Addendum to the Final EIR was adopted by the City in April 2016 in connection with the City's
approval of additional proposed modifications to the Apple Campus 2 Phase 2 North Tantau Avenue
Sites C and D portion of the project .$ A Seventh Addendum to the Final EIR was adopted by the City
in April 2016 and evaluated final designs for ancillary buildings including a small maintenance shed,
two security/reception buildings, and two outdoor food stations associated with the Apple Campus
2 project.9
Chao, Gary, Assistant Director of Community Development and Ghosh, Piu, Senior Planner, City of
Cupertino. 2015. Staff Report: Director's Minor Modification (DIR-2015-15) to allow modifications to a
previously approved office building, parking structure and satellite plant as part of Phase 2 of an office,
Research and Development Campus located at 10300 and 10435 N. Tantau Avenue. August 4.
LSA Associates, Inc., 2016. Sixth Addendum to the Apple Campus 2 Project Final Environmental Impact
Report. March 16. As revised per Community Development Department Edits on April 7, 2016.
LSA Associates, 2016. Seventh Addendum to the Apple Campus 2 Project Final Environmental Impact
Report. April 7.
7/20/18 (P:\COC1802 8 Addendum Apple\PROD UCTS\Eighth Addend um\7-20-18 Draft Apple Eighth Addendum.docx)
PROJECT DATA TABLE -SITEB
Development Permit D[,--[. 1. M.. Mud 14chilectwe 1 Sit. review
■ n _ •�- +"": �L S , Sfle Inlarmatlon UcWm, 2013 October 2016 (SMC+D) January 2018 (Site 8)
�.. rS c4 y�S
SITEAREA - SITE D 4,60 acres Na 933 acres
y • ` - _ _ - 3f PE NET AREA - SITEB 4.50 ayes rJe 1,32 areae
`.I �•��- -- _ �fr_"7y
U-1
SITECOVERAGE-SBEB 53% Na 2a4A,FhTOTALHARDSCAFE AREA - SITEB 2.66 ares Ne 2.69 70TATSOFTSCAPE AREA-SITEB 1 .66 acres Ma 1,63 GENERAL PIANO51GNATIDN INDUSTRIALMFFICE INDU571?14./0FFICE INDUSTRIAI,'OFFICE
TONING DESIGNATION PIMP) PWII) P(IMP)
1 f GENERAL PLAN PLANNING AREA NORTHVALLC9 NORTHVALLCO NORrHVALLCO
PROPOSED u5E5 j Ofli- R&D Glllre/R&D OIIIcc/RAA HOURS OF OPERATION 7 --?p. 7-7p. 7nm-7pm
NUMBER OFEMPLOYEES-SITEB 800 BUD 500
NUMREROFEM 4,0,,fES-SITE C+D- 1,400 1400 1400
SURFACE PAWING: SITE B 704 2(10 165
I it - jl 4' 77 STRUCTURESITEB 2110 200 Na
EASEMENT. SITE IS 200 200 435
'•� SURFACE PARKING -SITE C- D' NO 220
220{seDAR-2015-15&CSI
BASEMENT (WEST OFTANTAUI' 350 276ueOR-2015, 5&CB04) 217
EASMEA51 OF TANTAUI' 490 0 0
TLC -6n NREAST OFTANTAU2
tlfi
n/s 646 (see DlR-2015 dC604) 610
+ 4 r • - 1' �' TOTAL PARKING SPACES -SITEB 600 800 600
TOTAL PARKING5PACE5-SOE5C+0' 1,140 1,140 1,149
'npl,Wlr,a tae eaaalrra
GRAVE LEVELS (POOIOM)
,_ yT T _ �• �.1� OFFICE BUILDING• SITE E +160 n/a +16M1
EXCAVATION,SITES 25,000 CY (esa mom-) 88,ODID CV
/ e r°:• L T'"'I OFT-HAUL-SITEB 20900 CY(see memo) 88,000 CY
PRWERbrJE AVE TOTAL EY,CAVATION-PMA5E2 IGOOWCY(SITESBfCF01 145,080 CY (SITES B+C+D) 206,5100 Cy(MmS B+CtC)
- �' f. , z• � 1ptLA.SE7 TOTAL OF FAIAUL- PHASE 2 ll4OMCY(WESB+C+OI 120.000CY(SITESB+I 188,0)0CY {SITESIS C -D)
Deaebpmenl PermB Dlraclor's Minor Mod ArshBacima / Ske rorfaw
Eu801nR Inlvllna82n O�(alrar 2018 October 2016 (811e C+.) Janvary 2018
c,"�I p} ,' yi I OCCUPIED BUILDING AREA
p,pLDY�5 OFFICE -$REB 75=0 aq 11 B4,)00aq (I 693E6wll
A,i'J' n fL f �F'�' �"<=$ TESTING FACILI FES - SITE C' "51 2191 1i' T20,560 sgfl
' OFFICE - SITE P' 790900 sq Iq 294.185 n^ 9111 an fl
RESTAURANT- SRE O' 2D.OlO w t, 14096 sq It 14,13SO s fl
AMENfFY AREA
AMENITY SPACE-SITEB 0sgK DAq Ate 15, 651 Atl
eF -,_ ry - I•.- -' - SATELLITF PLANT SITE B 12,000 eq fl 1247 eq fl Ma
-
�� `- �•. �r �y - AMENITY SPACE -SITE c' 30 Osq N" 1)8B80wN
'�� • yZz -
SATELITE PLANT - SITE C' 38000 uq8 I,6W S9 SIt ODIFR-2 5-16) 1,600 sq 11
ROOM
-BASEMENT-SITE C' Osq tt 28.534 sq k(aee DRi -'1015-161 2&539 rqX
AMENITY SPACE -SITED' O:q TI Oaglle 4,229 sq It
SITED rwrww, r,'n,y9.wrTe�
GROSS AREA.
' 67A009q I! 65217 sq 1! 85207 ,f1
n■■■ ` =.� t 11 G1—Area-Site C' 265900 it 297,67n rq It 207,679 aq It
■ ' I Gress Aruu - SllT O- 3.0,000 sq 1! 309,079 sq E 909,072 aq H
. yy y■■ �_ I i I l TOTAL e42.f100 sq R 642.000 sq k 8.42,000 aq N
OTHER
PARKING STRUCTURE SIIE B -'W=9 sq O(2 STORIES) 2OU,QlW sq R(7 STORIES) O sq fl
11 PARXIA39MENr-SITE5 LOM 5Q 10 LEVET.) 51,000 sq kEVE491
lI I-ZvF0 1R9.0ws H(7 L
�--y NG BB PARKING STRUCTURE - SITE C' ""R 268.G0Isq B(saa DlR-2015.16) 2(16,.01 sq t116STORES)
` 1 - PARKINGBASEMENT-SITED, 33G000agBp IfVEL51 IIO.M.it 110.0003 it LEYEL)
�jfL'fj, r,�r•. r I - ` f BUILDING HEIGHT
OFFICEBUILDING SREB 35.0'(2 STORIES} Na 31 (2 STORIES)
J,i PARKINGSTRUCTUPE-SITEB 16'-0'(I LEVCU n/a Ma
_ artEc1D
Gi,,WREFLEC.VITY 7% IS -2086 15.7095
�s Norr PNYgN68PACE5
RWERERCE W4li)IQ1� 7��
mwni�w
LSA
NOT TO SCALE N
SOURCE: APPLE 2018.
I:\COC1802 Apple Addendum 8\figures\Fig_1.ai (7/10/18)
FIGURE 1
Apple Campus 2 Project EIR Eighth Addendum
Phase 2 Site B - Location
,� q \'/ ) e•a ', + 000 0 ...
.ice �' al e• O • ' C (0 ° w0 •_
c °w � • • 1 It O OYO R•�
Nww.-�' `O • e C ie/IIIIIIIniO°
�/ 00 'Lee • 1■. 0� 10 I _
a a, al
�D oe Ile � Oii'•ej,0 400= — _;°
a ME
deo ASO / Oe . ° i��0oa O r I
0 we 1 I C C iV
ej�:_♦ffs0 Off`' epi I� ? _ I_�"at
S°o0O o ;� clvi O`I� �" �Ilnlllhl��
�O OOOe ��� � ��OS��, ioioisio><aiO101Vioiv �•ivi
4ee e• •� u► r_ _ ••
OO O • ,��ii�o� �,■� Ir � ��ulllllll, •
NIQD , • �� �Ih � I l0 � .0 O_
�Poeo ,a`' .A4�0 eil,� 'iso = �•
�� moo° °°°e'oo°e e�� � �, - ����� _ •
O
��■ `R j°
�°I A ��eQe��• II
LSA
0 50 100
N
FEET
SOURCE: APPLE 2018.
I:\COC1802 Apple Addendum 8\figures\Fig_2.ai (7/10/18)
Latpro
onry Sound Wall
perly LineIn
Potential Development Zone ord do W th
roperty Owners
1.5: 1 Setbackack150'-ll"3EL+18804
Phase 1 Development o
Typical Section
FIGURE 2
Apple Campus 2 Project EIR Eighth Addendum
as
Potential Development Zone,
Masonry Sound Wall
at Property Line In
Coordination With
Property Owners
1.5: 1 Setback
4: 1 Setback
150'-0" I�
3
EL -168.00
V
Phase 2 Development q
"
®ev.ica
Typical Section
LLJ
Site B
Tantau Development
Zoning
(MP)
Phase 01
Valet Reception
(162ft x 90ft) x 2 Levels
25,000 sf
Parking Structure
(540ft x 120ft) x 2 Levels
130,000sf
Phase 02
Office, Research and Development 01 - 13
(150ft x 150ft) x 2-3 Levels
600,000 sf
Parking
600
FIGURE 2
Apple Campus 2 Project EIR Eighth Addendum
ffj € si
Ali gj
gl �i �i
�i �i
mxfartse.aecrcL�
I
- _________ evxsertssmecx
II
i
I
r�,�,• I i�� _
eex
mvt x,n / ...... ..... ..:�
ff ,x 2
f.o.w.s rn.f.a .owsaua
I // fo.w. ertnf.a.
X
vc�eov coRE ..'.
rxoz-co
aaaxwc aamr
su-m-,r .,.
s
.•':::
.
...
sswsmx-rnwaxssmwnu ........ ......... .._ .,,t
Cross Section at Building Core
Typical Cross Section
�i i
I �I
sl
of
I 61
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
rx�rx
bw
o1-
aff �E
Lr
Longitudinal Section
LSA
NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: APPLE 2018.
I:\COC1802 Apple Addendum 8\figures\Fig_4.ai (7/11/18)
FIGURE 4
Apple Campus 2 Project EIR Eighth Addendum
Conceptual Phase 2 Site B Section A
Cross Site Section
uREE� ,
..................................................................................
LOU—
ME<...El
Mechanical Screen - Tvnical Detail
Mechanical Screen - Typical Detail
�II ala
a
"Ig
i Am
Longitudinal Site Section
LSA
NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: APPLE 2018.
I:\COC1802 Apple Addendum 8\figures\Fig_S.ai (7/11/18)
FIGURE 5
Apple Campus 2 Project EIR Eighth Addendum
Conceptual Phase 2 Site B Section B
LSA
NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: APPLE 2018.
I:\COC1802 Apple Addendum 8\figures\Fig_6.ai (7/11/18)
FIGURE 6
Apple Campus 2 Project EIR Eighth Addendum
Conceptual Phase 2 Site B Rendered Elevation
oil
- - t
OF
7W
6 W 4'-0'
{
$d'-0-
.q' 2M-0'6.0'
Cl1.Z C1A5$
iR�L�Hm
L--
�
�k•
H �� �f
T r:•.f.r
Elevation - Typical North & South Bay
LSA
NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: APPLE 2018.
I:\COC1802 Apple Addendum 8\figures\Fig_6.ai (7/11/18)
FIGURE 6
Apple Campus 2 Project EIR Eighth Addendum
Conceptual Phase 2 Site B Rendered Elevation
LSA
APPENDIX A
PEER REVIEW OF THE RAMBOLL ENVIRON APPLE CAMPUS 2
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS EVALUATION
7/17/18 (C:\Users\JMalamut\Desktop\projects\apple\7-16-18 Draft Apple Eighth Addendum.docx) 15
L CAR ESNO
FRESNO
RVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 17, 2018
To: Judith Malamut, Principal
FROM: Amy Fischer, Principal
SUBJECT: Peer Review of the Ramboll Environ Apple Campus 2 Construction Emissions
Evaluation
Per the City of Cupertino's (City's) request, LSA has reviewed the updated and attached Ramboll
Environ memorandum' that reviewed construction emissions associated with the minor
modifications to the proposed Phase 2 Site B component of the Apple Campus 2 Project evaluated in
the Apple Campus 2 Final EIR (Final EIR) .Z In summary, LSA has reviewed the Ramboll Environ
evaluation and has determined that the calculations are accurate and their analysis method
presents the estimated updated cumulative risk based on the modeling assumptions and
methodologies used in the Final EIR analysis. LSA agrees with these findings and has determined
that the minor modifications proposed for the Phase 2 Site B component of the project evaluated in
the Final EIR would not result in new or substantially more adverse impacts related to the exposure
of sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations associated with the excavation and off -haul
associated with the proposed Phase 2 Site B modifications.
Construction of the office building and three -stories of underground parking would result in more
excavation (an additional 63,000 cubic yards) and off -hauling (an additional 68,000 cubic yards) and
associated truck trips than was originally analyzed in the Final EIR as amended and approved by the
City. Therefore, Ramboll Environ prepared an analysis of the change in criteria pollutant emissions
and health risk that would occur with implementation of the modified project.
CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
The construction of the Phase 2 Site B component is included in the Phase 4 construction schedule.
Ramboll Environ approached the analysis of criteria air pollutant emissions by substituting the
revised Phase 4 emissions associated with the proposed, revised project for the Phase 4 emissions
previously identified in the Final EIR in its air quality modeling. Ramboll Environ averaged the
emissions over the length of the updated construction schedule, which is consistent with Bay Area
Ramboll Environ, 2017. Construction Emission Evaluation Impacts of Revised Phase 4 Memorandum.
Updated June 2018.
LSA Associates, Inc., 2013. Apple Campus 2 Project Final Environmental Impact Report. September.
7086 North Maple Avenue, Suite 104, Fresno, California 93720 559.490.1210 www.Isa.net
LSA
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guidance.' LSA concurs with this approach and finds
that the modified project would not result in a new impact related to the release of criteria
pollutant emissions during construction.
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
To determine the construction health risk assessment associated with the Phase 2 Site B component
of the project, Ramboll Environ shifted the emissions by year to be consistent with construction -to -
date. The Phase 4 emissions previously assumed in the Final EIR were removed for certain years
then added back in under the 2+ year age bin. The Office of Environmental Health and Hazard
Assessment developed exposure factors (e.g., daily breathing rates) for certain age groups including
the last trimester age 2, age 2 to 16, and age 16 to age 70. Age bins allow for more refined exposure
information to be used when estimating exposure and the potential for developing cancer over a
lifetime .2
Based on the Ramboll Environ memorandum, construction of the project started at the end of 2013
and continued through mid -2017. Construction has since stopped and would be resuming at the
Phase 4 location under the proposed Phase 2 Site B planning application. The proposed Phase 4
construction activity would result in higher emissions than previously assumed, and the site is
located adjacent to residential receptors. Given the close proximity of sensitive receptors and the
extended duration of the construction timeline, there could be new receptors including infants and
children that would fall under the 3rd trimester t to age 2 age bin. The 2+ year age bin does not have
the age sensitivity risk factors and higher breathing rates that are included under the 3rd trimester to
age 2 age bin assumed in the Final EIR cumulative analysis prepared for the project.
Ramboll Environ's June 2018 memorandum accounts for the age sensitivity risk factors by providing
a standalone analysis of Phase 4 beginning at the onset of the phase. The analysis was performed
consistent with BAAQMD guidance, using methodology from the Final EIR. LSA has reviewed the
updated emission rates, exposure parameters, toxicity values, and Phase 4 risk summary. The
analysis results conclude the Maximum Exposed Individual (MEI) would be exposed to a
construction cancer risk of 2.8 in one million, which is well below the threshold of 10 in one million.
The MEI for chronic health impact (HI) would be 0.006, which is well below the threshold of 1.0. The
MEI for acute HI would be 0.14, which is also well below the threshold of 1.0.
LSA agrees with the findings in the Ramboll Environ memorandum and has determined that no
additional impacts would occur with implementation of the modifications to the project. The minor
modifications would not result in new significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in
the Final EIR, would not substantially increase the severity of impacts identified in the Final EIR, and
thus would not require major revisions to the Final EIR. Therefore, the proposed changes to the
project would be minor refinements to design of the office building and underground parking and
would not require substantial changes to the Final EIR.
' Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. Air Quality CEQA Guidelines. May.
2 California Air Resources Board, 2015. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. May.
7/20/18 (P:\COC1802 8 Addendum Apple\PROD UCTS\Eighth Addend um\7-20-18 LSA AQ Memo.docx) 2
LSA
Attachment A: Ramboll Environ Apple Campus 2 Construction Emissions Evaluation Impacts of
Revised Phase 4
1019228.2
7/20/18 (P:\COC1802 8 Addendum Apple\PROD UCTS\Eighth Addend um\7-20-18 LSA AQ Memo.docx)
ENVIRON
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 17, 2017
[Updated March, 2018]
[Updated June, 2018]
To: Chris Grimmer
From: Michael Keinath
Taylor Vencill
Subject: Apple Campus 2 Construction Emissions Evaluation
Impacts of Revised Phase 4
1. Summary of Prior Analysis and Purpose of Current Evaluation
The Apple Campus 2 Project was approved by the Cupertino City Council on
October 15, 2013. Consistent with requirements under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
was prepared for the Apple Campus 2 Project. Potential air quality impacts
from all phases of construction (Phases 1-4) were specifically evaluated
under Impacts AIR -1 (Construction of the proposed project would generate
air pollutant emissions that could violate air quality standards), AIR -3
(Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in a
significant cumulative net increase in criteria pollutant emissions), and AIR -4
(Without the construction practices identified in the Apple Campus
Construction Equipment Summary, construction of the proposed project
would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations).
While Impacts AIR -1 and AIR -3 were determined to be significant and
unavoidable with mitigation, Impact AIR -4 was determined to be less than
significant with mitigation.
The proposed modification is consolidated within "Phase 4" of construction,
which includes 82,000 square feet of offices and research and development
buildings. While the overall changes to building footprints and quantity of
parking are not significantly changing between original and updated designs,
and in fact are often reduced (see Table 1 below), the new proposed
parking will be located underground. The construction of the underground
parking structure will require additional excavation and trucking haul trips.
As such, Ramboll Environ has prepared the following analysis to evaluate
such potential air quality impacts from the revised Phase 4 construction.
1/5
ENVIRONMENT
& HEALTH
Ramboll Environ
201 California Street
Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94111
USA
T +1 415 796 1950
F +1 415 398 5812
www.ramboll-environ.com
ENVIRON
Table 1. Phase 4 Site Parameters
Parameter
Original Phase 4
Updated Phase 4
Building Area (square feet)
84,000
82,000
Parking Structure (spaces)
600
600
Other Asphalt Surfaces (square feet)
129,979
111,074
Site Area (square feet)
197,319
189,271
Excavation Volume (cubic yards)
20,000
88,000
2. Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
To evaluate the potential change to conclusions reached under Impacts AIR -1 and AIR -3, criteria
air pollutant (CAP) emissions were quantified from the updated Phase 4 construction design.
Off-road Emissions
Phase 4 off-road emissions were calculated using an updated equipment list that outlined
equipment usage, equipment specifications (e.g., horsepower), and equipment controls (e.g.
Tier 2 or Tier 3 equipped with diesel particulate filters (DPFs)), as shown in Table 2. When
project -specific data was not available, default equipment parameters were applied (e.g.
CalEEMod load factors). Emission factors applied were consistent with U.S. EPA off-road
engine Tier Standards (CFR 40 1039.102). All off-road equipment in Phase 4 will be equipped
with Level 3 DPFs, therefore all emissions were assumed to have 85% particulate matter (PM)
and 90% reactive organic gas (ROG) abatement. All off-road calculation methods were
consistent with the methods used in the Apple Campus 2 EIR.
On -road Emissions
On -road hauling and vendor emissions were based on trip data provided to Ramboll Environ,
shown in Table 2. Consistent with the Apple Campus 2 EIR, emissions were calculated using
ARB's EMFAC2011 mobile emissions model. The EMFAC calendar year was updated from 2013
to 2017 to reflect the beginning date of Phase 4 construction. Trucks were limited to model
years 2007 or newer and running emissions assumed a speed limit of 15 mph, consistent with
Mitigation Measure AIR -1. Each one-way haul trip was assumed to be 20 miles in length based
on CalEEMod default assumptions and the EIR. On a daily basis, each round-trip was
attributed to a new truck, and each truck's daily idling emissions were ascribed to the Project.
Original Project CAP emissions were provided in Table V.L-5 of the Apple Campus 2 EIR. As shown
in Table 3 original daily emissions were converted to total Project emissions assuming 4 years of
construction. Emissions from architectural coating and paving activities were assumed to be the
same between the original and updated Project designs, since the building area, parking structure,
and other asphalt surface areas within Phase 4 are either less than or equal to the original Phase 4
design. In all cases, PM2.s exhaust emissions were conservatively assumed to be equal to PMlo
emissions. Fugitive PM emissions were not considered for this analysis as they are not held to the
same construction thresholds as exhaust emissions, and are instead addressed through Best
Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs are implemented through Mitigation Measure AIR -1, as
discussed in the Apple Campus 2 EIR.
2/5
ENVIRON
To account for the updated Phase 4 design and construction, original Phase 4 emissions were then
substituted with the new Phase 4 emissions, and total emissions were averaged over the full
length of the updated construction schedule (see Table 3).
Updated Phase 4 emissions increase compared to original emissions, with changes ranging from
48% to 153% across different CAPS. This was largely due to an increase in trip rates to account
for the increase in excavation volumes. While Phase 4 increases were notable, the changes
represent at most 0.50% of the overall Project emissions. Furthermore, the average daily
emissions decrease by 17% due to the longer construction schedule. Overall, updates to Phase 4
emissions do not change the original EIR's significance findings.
3. Construction Health Risk Assessment
To evaluate the potential change to conclusions reached under Impact AIR -4, diesel particulate
matter (DPM) emissions were quantified from the updated Phase 4 construction design.
Additionally, changes to the construction schedule were evaluated as they relate to potential
health impacts. Finally, a new analysis was performed to evaluate impacts if Phase 4 was
considered a standalone project with exposure of nearby sensitive receptors beginning at the
onset of the Phase.
DPM Emissions
Original and updated Project DPM emissions were quantified following the same methodology
as that outlined for CAP emissions above, where all PMlo emissions were conservatively
assumed to be DPM. The only difference in methodology was the trip length assumed for haul
routes. Since the health risk evaluation focuses on onsite impacts from construction, the trip
lengths considered were as follows:
Original DPM emissions for the full Project used an average trip length (0.67 miles) of the
four Project hauling routes (Staging Road, Material Staging Road, Heavy Equipment
Staging Road, and Temporary Road).
• Updated DPM emissions for Phase 4 used 0.5 miles for each one-way trip and
conservatively modeled these as on-site emissions since the original Project hauling routes
would no longer be applicable to Phase 4 construction.
Original and updated Project DPM emissions are shown in Table 4. The proposed changes in
construction increase Phase 4 DPM emissions by a total of 23%. Phase 4 on -road emissions
increase by more than 100% due to the increase in excavation and associated material
hauling, but they represent a small portion of overall Project emissions. While the changes in
Phase 4 emissions were proportionally large when compared to the original Phase 4 alone,
they represent a small change of total Project DPM emissions (0.13%).
Construction Schedule
As risk estimates incorporate exposure parameters that vary by age, the timing and duration
of construction activity and emissions can affect estimated risk at nearby sensitive receptors.
As such, Ramboll Environ not only evaluated the potential impact of the updated Phase 4
design and construction, but also considered how the actual Phase 1-3 activity differed from
the original EIR assumptions. The original construction schedule was compared to an updated
schedule provided by Apple. The updated schedule included the actual dates of construction
activity for Phases 1-3 and an updated plan for Phase 4. Overall, the actual Project
construction activity occurred later and was spread out over a longer time period than
3/5
ENVIRON
originally modeled. Specifically, Phase 1 construction began 10 months after it was originally
planned, and Phase 4 is now moved back by more than a year. Phase 4 now only overlaps
with Phase 2 by one month, rather than for the entire duration as was originally evaluated. A
summary comparison of the original and updated schedules is shown in Figure 1.1
To evaluate the potential change in potential cancer risk, DPM emissions for the original and
updated Project were grouped by age bin and were compared across the original and updated
schedule. Consistent with the maximally exposed individual (MEI) evaluated in the EIR, exposure
parameters assumed for this evaluation reflect a potential nearby child resident. Accordingly, the
two age bins evaluated were 3rd trimester to 2 years old and 2+ years old since the age sensitivity
factor (ASF) changes at the 2 year mark. Emissions were considered based on construction
subphases and were averaged in cases where a subphase fell within both bins. Table 5 shows a
comparison of DPM emissions by age bin for the original and updated construction schedules, as
well as the resulting impact on estimated cancer risk. Since there is a negligible increase in overall
DPM emissions and the updated construction schedule shifts more emissions to the 2+ age bin,
there is a net reduction in estimated potential cancer risk. The new estimated MEI is 9.16 in a
million, which remains below the threshold of 10 in a million.
For purposes of this analysis, given the sources of emissions are diesel construction equipment
engines and diesel on -road truck engines, if cancer risk from DPM remains below the threshold,
then non -cancer chronic and acute HI, as well as fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations will
also remain below thresholds. For this reason, only the change in excess lifetime cancer risk is
evaluated here.
Phase 4 Standalone Project
An additional analysis was performed to evaluate excess lifetime cancer risks for Phase 4
construction as though Phase 4 was a standalone project. As described above, the revised
construction schedule causes most Phase 4 DPM emissions to occur after age 2 for an exposure
analysis that begins with the start of Phase 1 construction. Since the ASF is highest before age 2,
health risks from Phase 4 construction are low when evaluating Phases 1 through 4 as a whole.
This analysis evaluates the potential health risks from Phase 4 if instead the most sensitive age
groups were exposed to Phase 4 construction.
The same emissions were calculated for Phase 4 as described above for the updated Project. The
emissions are conservative (slightly overestimated), because the on -road emission factors would
be lower if updated to reflect the later calendar years of construction due to the revised schedule.
Table 6 shows the annual average and maximum hourly emissions used for the health risk
assessment.
Overall methodology utilized in this analysis remains consistent with the EIR, but dispersion
patterns from Phase 4 construction activies were remodeled to use the latest versions (18081) of
the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model
(AERMOD) and its meteorological preprocessor AERMET. The source parameters were consistent
with the EIR, but only the Phase 4 construction volume sources were included in the model (both
offroad and onroad emissions were allocated to this area). The same receptors modeled in the EIR
1 [Updated March, 20181. The new proposed schedule now pushes Phase 4 back by two years relative to the
original schedule and does not overlap with any other phases. Figure 1 has been updated to show the new
proposed schedule of Q2 2018 through Q3 2019. As described further in the table footnotes, this update does not
change the conclusions presented in this memorandum.
4/5
ENVIRON
were evaluated here at heights of zero feet, six feet, and 20 feet. Figure 2 shows the source and
receptor setup.
The risk assessment methodology is consistent with and described in more detail in the EIR.
Consistent with the MEI evaluated in the EIR, this evaluation evaluates a nearby child resident,
assuming exposure starting from the Yd trimester at the start of Phase 4 construction.
Accordingly, the age bin evaluated is 3rd trimester to 2 years old. Emissions were averaged across
the Phase 4 construction sub -phases. Table 7 shows the exposure parameters used to calculate
the inhalation factor. Table 8 shows toxicity values used to evaluate risk.
As shown in Table 9, the estimated MEI from Phase 4 construction for cancer risk is 2.8 in a
million, which is well below the threshold of 10 in a million. The MEI for chronic health impact (HI)
is 0.006, which is well below the threshold of 1.0. The MEI for acute HI is 0.14, which is well below
the threshold of 1.0.
4. Conclusion
The proposed updates to the design and construction of Phase 4 do not change the significance
findings of the original Apple Campus 2 EIR.
5/5
TABLES
Ramboll Environ
Table 2
Updated Phase 4 Equipment and Trip Data
Apple Campus 2 Phase 4 Updates
Cupertino, CA
Notes:
1 [Updated March, 2018]. The previously proposed schedule for Phase 4 (8/2017 - 8/2018) is now scheduled to occur from Q2 2018 through Q3 2019. However, total off-
road equipment activity and on -road hauling and vendor trips will remain the same as evaluated here.
I All engines are diesel -fueled with Diesel Particulate Filters.
3 Trips reflect both hauling and vendor trips. Trips assumed to have a default trip length of 20 miles per one-way trip.
Abbreviations:
hp - horsepower
Equipment Usage Data'
Engine Data
On -
Phase Type
Phase Detail
OFFROAD Equipment Type
Year
Quantity
Operating
Hours per
Day
Total Work
Days
HP
Load
Factor
Engine
Tier
Daily
Round
Trips
Total
One -Way
Trips
Demolition
Structure & Site
Demolition
Excavators
2017
2
8
65
300
0.38
2
15
1,950
Crawler Tractors
2017 1 8 44 220 0.43 2
Grading
Rough Grade Site
Other Construction Equipment
2017
1
4
44
380
0.42
2
--
--
Graders
2017 1 8 44 260 0.41 2
Rollers
2017 1 4 21 100 0.38 2
Base Rock Work -
St & Plot
Graders
2017
1
4
22
260
0.41
2
0.50
22
Rollers
2017 1 4 22 100 0.38 3
Scrapers
2017 1 4 22 275 0.48 2
Rubber Tired Loaders
2017 1 4 22 78 0.36 2
Paving
PCC Flatwork
Cushion
Rubber Tired Loaders
2017
1
4
22
78
0.36
2
0.50
22
Rollers
2017 1 4 22 78 0.38 2
Graders
2017 1 4 22 260 0.41 2
Scrapers
2017 1 4 22 275 0.48 2
Asphalt Concrete
Paving
Paving Equipment
2018
1
4
22
200
0.36
3
0.50
22
Rollers
2018 1 4 22 100 0.38 2
Rubber Tired Loaders
2018 1 4 22 78 0.36 3
Other Construction Equipment
2018 1 4 22 325 0.42 2
Other
Concrete Pumping
Other Construction Equipment
2018
1
4
43
430
0.42
2
--
--
Building
Construction
Steel Erection
Cranes
2018
1
6
21
284
0.29
2
0.65
27
Forklifts
2018 1 6 21 125 0.20 2
Exterior Skin
Graders
2018
1
4
66
124
0.41
3
0.20
26
Notes:
1 [Updated March, 2018]. The previously proposed schedule for Phase 4 (8/2017 - 8/2018) is now scheduled to occur from Q2 2018 through Q3 2019. However, total off-
road equipment activity and on -road hauling and vendor trips will remain the same as evaluated here.
I All engines are diesel -fueled with Diesel Particulate Filters.
3 Trips reflect both hauling and vendor trips. Trips assumed to have a default trip length of 20 miles per one-way trip.
Abbreviations:
hp - horsepower
Table 3
Daily CAP Emissions, Updated Phase 4 & Overall Schedule
Apple Campus 2 Phase 4 Updates
Cupertino, CA
Emissions
Units
NOx
ROG
PMlo
I PM,.s
Original EIR
Average Daily Exhaust Emissions
lbs/day
181.2
6.1
1.8
1.8
Average Daily Architectural Coating Emissions
lbs/day
0
179.9
0
0
Average Daily Emissions
lbs/day
181.2
186.0
1.8
1.8
Original Phases 1 through 4 Total Emissions'
tons
132
136
1.30
1.30
Phase 4, Updated Project Totals
(-) Original Phase 4 Exhaust Emissions
tons
1.37
0.04
0.01
0.01
(+) Updated Phase 4 Exhaust Emission S2
tons
2.03
0.11
0.01
0.01
Updated Phases 1 through 4 Total Emission S3,4
tons
133
136
1.30
1.30
Updated Daily Averages
Total Construction Days (Updated Schedule)51
days 1
1764
Average Daily Emissions
lbs/day 1
151
154 1
1.5
1.5
Changes in Emissions
Change in Phase 4 Emissions
%
48%
154%
49%
49%
Change in Total Emissions
%
1
0.50%
0.05%
0.32%
0.32%
Change in Average Daily Emissions
%
-17%
-17%
-17%
-17%
Notes:
' Original Phase 1-4 Total Emissions were calculated as follows: Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day) * (365*4) days /
2000 (lbs/ton).
2 [Updated March, 2018]. Phase 4 exhaust emissions were calculated for off-road equipment and on -road vehicles
using the previously proposed schedule which spanned 2017 and 2018. While off-road emissions are defined by Tier
level and are not dependent on year, on -road emissions incorporated here are conservative for the new proposed
schedule of Q2 2018 through Q3 2019 as on -road fleets continue to improve each year.
3 Updated Phase 1-4 Total Emissions were calculated as follows: Original Phases 1 through 4 Total Emissions (-)
Original Phase 4 Exhaust Emissions (+) Updated Phase 4 Exhaust Emissions.
4 Emissions from architectural coating and paving activities were assumed to be the same between the original and
updated Project designs, since the building area, parking structure, and other asphalt surface areas within Phase 4
are either less than or equal to the original Phase 4 design.
5 Total Construction Days will increase with the new proposed schedule (Q2 2018 through Q2 2019) to 2,159 days.
Therefore, Phase 4 average daily emissions decrease by 18% in comparison to Updated Schedule emissions shown
above and 32% in comparison to original Phase 4 emissions.
Abbreviations:
lbs/day - pounds per day
NOX - nitrogen oxides
ROG - reactive organic gases
PMIO - particulate matter <10 microns
PM2.5 - particulate matter <2.5 microns
Table 4
DPM Emissions Scenarios for Health Risk Analyses
Apple Campus 2 Phase 4 Updates
Cupertino, CA
Construction Phase
Original DPM Emissions (lb)
Off -Road
Hauling On -Road 1,2 Concrete
Delivery
Running Idling Trucks
Idling3
Total
Phase 1 - Main Campus
2,551
23
134
8
2,716
Phase 2 - 200K sf E. of Tantau
16
0.1
0.6
0
16
Phase 3 - 300K sf Island Parcel
16
0.1
0.5
0
16
Phase 4 - 100K sf E. of Tantau
15
0.06
0.3
0
16
Total
2,598
1 23
1 135.4 1
8
1 2,764
Updated Phase 4
Phase 4 - 100K sf E. of Tanta U3
19
0.16
0.6
0
19
Total
2,601
24
135.7
8
2,768
Percent Change (Phase 4)
21%
196%
95%
--
23%
Percent Change (Phases 1 through 4)
0.12%
0.46%
0.22%
0%
0.13%
Notes:
1 For Updated Phase 4 emissions, on -road running emissions include 0.5 miles from each one-way haul trip.
Z On -road idling emissions conservatively include the daily idling emissions from each truck, assuming each round trip
is a new truck.
3 [Updated March, 2018]. On -road hauling and idling emissions for the Updated Phase 4 are calculated assuming
years 2017 and 2018 in EMFAC2011. As the new proposed schedule spans Q2 2018 through Q3 2019, on -road
emission factors will be lower over these years and the emissions presented here are therefore conservative.
Abbreviations:
DPM - diesel particulate matter
Ib - pound
Table 5
Comparison of Original and Updated DPM Emissions and Resulting Risk
Apple Campus 2 Phase 4 Updates
Cupertino, CA
Analysis
Item
Age Bins
3rd Trimester- Total
2 2+
Originals
JTotal DPM Off -Road & On -road Emissions (lb)
2,558 206 2,764
Updated'
JTotal DPM Off -Road & On -road Emissions (lb)
2,446 322 2,768
Change from Original to Proposed Emissions (%)
-4% 56% 0.13%
Residential IFinh (Original)2
0.179 0.054
Residential IFinh (Updated )2,3,4
0.179 0.062
Original
Emissions * IFinh
2.9E-03 7.1E-05 3.0E-03
Updated
JErnissions * IFinh
2.8E-03 1.1E-04 2.9E-03
Change from Original to Updated Risks
-4% 56% -3%
Original MEI (Cancer Risk in one million) 9.44
Proposed MEI (Cancer Risk in one million) 9.16
BAAQMD Threshold of Significance (Cancer Risk in one million) 10.0
Proposed Design Above Threshold? No
Risk Calculation 3:
IFinh (Intake Factor, Inhalation) = DBR * EF * ED * CF * MAF * ASF / AT
DBR = Daily Breathing Rate [L/kg-day]
EF = Exposure Frequency [days/year]
ED = Exposure Duration [years]
CF = Conversion Factor [0.001 (M3 /L)
MAF = Model Adjustment Factor [unitless]
ASF = Age Sensitivity Factor [unitless]
AT = Averaging Time [days]
Notes:
I When allocating emissions to age bins, total emissions by phase (Demolition, Site Preparation, etc.) were assumed
to be split evenly across the days within each proposed phase.
Z Consistent with the maximally exposed individual evaluated in the EIR, exposure parameters assumed for this
evaluation reflect a potential nearby child resident.
3 The updated construction schedule's longer project length increased the 2+ year age bin exposure duration for the
updated Ifinh. No other Ifinh input variables changed between the original and updated scenarios.
4 [Updated March, 2018] The updated IF;nh reflects the previously proposed construction schedule with an end date in
August, 2018. While the IFinh shown is lower than that for the new proposed schedule (Q2 2018 through Q3 2019),
the increase is negated by a proportional decrease in the emission rate. This is because emissions will occur over a
longer time period without any cumulative increase. Therefore, the change in Phase 4 construction schedule has no
impact on the cancer risk at the Proposed MEI.
5 The change from original to updated risk can be evaluated by looking at the change in [Emissions * IFinh] since
dispersion factors would not change from the EIR analysis. The change in source allocation at the MEI due to the
change in Phase 4 emissions is assumed to be insignificant as the overall change in DPM emissions is only 0.13%.
Abbreviations:
BAAQMD - Bay Area Air Quality Management District
DPM - Diesel Particulate Matter
MEI - Maximum Exposed Individual
Ib - pound
L - liter
kg - kilogram
m3 - cubic meter
mg - milligram
Table 6
Phase 4 Modeled Emission Rates
Apple Campus 2 Phase 4 Updates
Cupertino, CA
[Updated June, 2018]
Phase Type
Phase Detail
Start End
Date Date'
Mass Emissions
DPM TOG
Units
Demolition
Structure & Site Demolition
8/1/2017 9/30/2017
8.3
63
lbs
Grading
Rough Grade Site
8/1/2017 10/30/2017
3.5
9.4
lbs
January -18
Base Rock Work - St & Plot
10/1/2017 10/31/2017
1.5
4.2
lbs
Paving
PCC Flatwork Cushion
10/1/2017 10/31/2017
1.6
4.2
lbs
May -18
Asphalt Concrete Paving
7/1/2018 7/31/2018
1.3
3.4
lbs
Other
Concrete Pumping
1/1/2018 2/28/2018
1.5
4.2
lbs
Building Construction
Steel Erection
4/1/2018 4/30/2018
0.75
2.4
lbs
Exterior Skin
1 6/1/2018 1 8/31/2018
1 1.0 1
2.4
1 lbs
Total Emissions
19
93
lbs
Annual Emission Rate 4.8E-04 --
g/s
Monthly Emission Rate
August -17
4.93E-02
g/s
September -17
4.93E-02
g/s
October -17
1.66E-02
g/s
November -17
0.00E+00
g/s
December -17
0.00E+00
g/s
January -18
3.10E-03
g/s
February -18
3.10E-03
g/s
March -18
0.00E+00
g/s
April -18
3.66E-03
g/s
May -18
0.00E+00
g/s
June -18
1.15E-03
g/s
July -18
6.06E-03
g/s
August -18
1.15E-03
g/s
Maximum Monthly Emission Rate
4.93E-02
g/s
Table 6
Phase 4 Modeled Emission Rates
Apple Campus 2 Phase 4 Updates
Cupertino, CA
[Updated June, 2018]
Notes:
1' Start and end dates reflect equipment usage dates during each respective phase and may not directly correspond to the overall Phase 4 schedule. This either has no
impact on chronic results or is a conservative estimate for acute results, as discussed in footnotes 2 and 3 below.
2. The annual DPM emission rate was determined assuming 13 hours per day over the span of Phase 4, consistent with the original EIR. Note that this analysis does
not reflect the schedule updates introduced in March, 2018. The emissions will occur over a longer time period than is shown above without any cumulative
increase. Therefore, any increase in exposure period with the new proposed Phase 4 schedule would be offset by a decrease in average emission rate and would
have no impact on estimated cancer risk.
3' The acute TOG emission rate was determined assuming 4 hours per day over the span of a given subphase. The maximum emission rate was modeled to determine
estimated acute impacts. Since the proposed schedule updates in March 2018 would extend the overall Phase 4 construction period with no change in equipment
and vehicle use, these maximum monthly emissions rates likely represent a conservative estimate.
Abbreviations:
DPM - Diesel Particulate Matter
g/s - grams per second
lbs - pounds
TOG - total organic gases
Table 7
Exposure Parameters'
Apple Campus 2 Phase 4 Updates
Cupertino, CA
[Updated June, 2018]
Parameter
Value
Units
Daily Breathing Rate
DBR
581
[L/kg-day]
Exposure Frequency
EF
350
[days/year]
Exposure Duration
ED
1.1
[years]
Conversion Factor
CF
0.0010
[M3 /L]
Age Sensitivity Factor
ASF
10
[unitless]
Model Adjustment Factor
MAF
1
[unitless]
Averaging Time
AT
25,550
[years]
Intake Factor, Inhalation
IFInh
0.086
Risk Calculation 3:
IFinh (Intake Factor, Inhalation) = DBR * EF * ED * CF * MAF * ASF / AT
DBR = Daily Breathing Rate [L/kg-day]
EF = Exposure Frequency [days/year]
ED = Exposure Duration [years]
CF = Conversion Factor [0.001 (M3 /L)]
MAF = Model Adjustment Factor [unitless]
ASF = Age Sensitivity Factor [unitless]
AT = Averaging Time [days]
Notes•
1' Consistent with the maximally exposed individual evaluated in the EIR, exposure parameters assumed for this evaluation
reflect a potential nearby child resident.
z This exposure duration does not reflect the increase in Phase 4 project length introduced in March, 2018. While this
schedule change would increase the IFinh, it would be equally offset by a decrease in the modeled emission rate. As such,
updating the exposure duration would have no impact on the analysis.
Abbreviations:
BAAQMD - Bay Area Air Quality Management District
L/kg-day - liters per kilogram per day
m3/L - cubic meters per liter
NSR - new source review
Sources:
BAAQMD. 2010. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines. January.
Table 8
Toxicity Values
Apple Campus 2 Phase 4 Updates
Cupertino, CA
[Updated June, 2018]
Notes:
1. Chemicals presented in this table reflect air toxic contaminants in the proposed fuel types that are expected from off-road
equipment and on -road trips.
2. TOG Acute REL is a composite value that incorporated TOG speciation data and the relevant RELs into a single value. This
value is consistent with the orginal analysis, as presented in DEIR Table V.L-8.
Abbreviations:
-- not available or not applicable
Ng/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter
ARB - Air Resources Board
Cal/EPA - California Environmental Protection Agency
(mg/kg -day) -1 - per milligram per kilogram -day
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
PM - particulate matter
REL - reference exposure level
TOG - total organic gas
References:
Cal/EPA. 2015. OEHHA/ARB Consolidated Table of Approved Risk Assessment Health Values. May 13.
LSA. 2013. Apple Campus 2 Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). June.
Cancer Potency
Chemical"
CAS
Factor
Chronic REL (Ng/m3)
Acute REL
s
(N9/m )
(mg/kg -day)-"
Diesel PM
9901
1.1
5
--
TOGZ
9999
--
--
351
Notes:
1. Chemicals presented in this table reflect air toxic contaminants in the proposed fuel types that are expected from off-road
equipment and on -road trips.
2. TOG Acute REL is a composite value that incorporated TOG speciation data and the relevant RELs into a single value. This
value is consistent with the orginal analysis, as presented in DEIR Table V.L-8.
Abbreviations:
-- not available or not applicable
Ng/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter
ARB - Air Resources Board
Cal/EPA - California Environmental Protection Agency
(mg/kg -day) -1 - per milligram per kilogram -day
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
PM - particulate matter
REL - reference exposure level
TOG - total organic gas
References:
Cal/EPA. 2015. OEHHA/ARB Consolidated Table of Approved Risk Assessment Health Values. May 13.
LSA. 2013. Apple Campus 2 Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). June.
Table 9
Phase 4 MEI Risk Summary
Apple Campus 2 Phase 4 Updates
Cupertino, CA
[Updated June, 2018]
Description
Receptor
UTMx UTMy
Value
BAAQMD CEQA
Threshold
m m
Cancer Risk
R19307
588,176 4,132,047
2.8 in a million
10 in a million
Chronic HI
R19307
588,176 4,132,047
0.0059
1.0
Acute HI
R18761
588,172 4,131,990
0.14
1.0
Abbreviations
BAAQMD - Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act
HI - Hazard Index
m - meters
MEI - Maximally Exposed Individual
UTM - Universal Transverse Mercator
Sources:
BAAQMD. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May.
FIGURES
Ramboll Environ
Figure 1
Original and Updated Construction Schedule
Apple Campus II Phase 4 Updates
Cupertino, CA
[Updated March, 2018]
Kev:
X Original Schedule
Updated Schedule
Notes:
1' The Original Schedule reflects the construction schedule as evaluated in the Apple Campus II EIR.
2' The Updated Schedule reflects the actual scheduled followed for Phases 1-3 and the planned schedule for the updated Phase 4 design and construction.
2013
Q2 Q3 Q4
FJF1MA M J J A S O N D
2014
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2015
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
J F M A M J J A S 0 N JI
2016
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2017
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
J F M A M J J A S O N JJ
2018
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
F M A M J J A S 0 N D
2019
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Phase 1
X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
Main Campus
Phase 2
X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X
200K sf E. of Tantau
Phase
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
300K sf Island Parcel
Phase 4
XXXXXXXXXIXXX
100K sf E. of Tantau
Kev:
X Original Schedule
Updated Schedule
Notes:
1' The Original Schedule reflects the construction schedule as evaluated in the Apple Campus II EIR.
2' The Updated Schedule reflects the actual scheduled followed for Phases 1-3 and the planned schedule for the updated Phase 4 design and construction.