Docstoc

appledeir

Document Sample
appledeir Powered By Docstoc
					             PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT


      APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT
E N V I R O N M E N TA L I M PAC T R E P O RT




      STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2011082055




                    June 2013
                              OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

                              CITY HALL
                              10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
                              (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333




                     NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A
        DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PUBLIC HEARING
                   FOR THE APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT
                               State Clearinghouse #: 2011082055


NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Cupertino, as Lead Agency, has completed a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Apple Campus 2 Project (project). The proposed project is the
development of a new corporate campus on an approximately 176-acre site in the City of Cupertino.

PUBLIC MEETING: A public meeting to receive comments on the Draft EIR will be held on June 26,
2013, at 6:30 p.m. at Community Hall, located at 10350 Torre Avenue (next to the Cupertino Library).

Please check the project website at: www.cupertino.org/applecampus2 or call (408) 777-3308 prior to the
meeting for updated information in the event of changes. You may also sign up at the website to receive
project updates.

PUBLIC REVIEW TIMELINE: The public review period for the Draft EIR begins June 6, 2013 and ends
July 22, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. PST. Responses to all written comments regarding the adequacy of the Draft
EIR received during the public review period will be provided in the Final EIR expected to be published
later in 2013.

SUBMITTING COMMENTS: Written comments may be submitted in one of the following ways:
    1. Electronically: You are encouraged to use the online comment form at
         www.cupertino.org/applecampus2.
    2. In-person or by mail: 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014
    3. Email: applecampus2@cupertino.org
    4. Fax: (408) 777-3333.
Direct all comments to the attention of: The Department of Community Development, Re: Apple Campus
2.

DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: The Draft EIR is available at: www.cupertino.org/applecampus2.
Copies of the Draft EIR are also available for review Monday through Thursday, between the hours of
7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. and Friday, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., at the City of
Cupertino City Hall, Main Lobby and the downstairs Lobby, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California
95014, except on specified holidays. Copies of the Draft EIR in paper or electronic format may be
purchased at the Cupertino City Hall. The Draft EIR is also available for review at:
    •    Cupertino Library, 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
    •    Sunnyvale Library, 665 W. Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    •    Central Park Library, 2635 Homestead Road, Santa Clara, CA 95051
    •    Mission Library, 1098 Lexington Street in Santa Clara, CA 95050
     •   Saratoga Library, 13650 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
     •   Los Altos Library, 13 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, CA 94024
     •   Woodland Library, 1975 Grant Road, Los Altos, CA 94024
     •   Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library, 150 E. San Fernando Street, San Jose, CA 95112
     •   San Jose Public Library West Valley Branch, 1243 San Tomas Aquino Road, San Jose, CA
         95117
     •   San Jose Public Library Calabazas Branch, 1230 S. Blaney Avenue, San Jose CA 95129

PROJECT LOCATION: The approximately 176-acre project site is located in the City of Cupertino and
consists of an area generally bordered by East Homestead Road on the north; adjacent properties to the
east of North Tantau Avenue on the east; Interstate 280 (I-280) and The Hamptons apartment community
on the south; and North Wolfe Road on the west. Pruneridge Avenue extends through the site on a
roughly east/west alignment. The project site currently contains approximately 2,657,000 feet of office
and research and development buildings, some of which are occupied by Apple and formerly used by
Hewlett-Packard. Calabazas Creek crosses the southeastern portion of the site. (The project site consists
of the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 316-07-044, 316-07-045, 316-07-046, 316-06-045,
316-06-046, 316-06-053, 316-06-052, 316-06-048, 316-06-033, 316-06-051, 316-06-050, 316-06-049,
316-09-028, 316-09-019, 316-09-027, 316-18-035, 316-18-012, 316-18-025, 316-18-027, 316-18-026,
316-06-039, 316-06-038). Please refer to Figure 1 for a local and regional map showing the location of
the project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is development of the Apple 2 Campus. The project
would result in the demolition of all existing structures within the project site (consisting of approximately
2,657,000 square feet of building space) and the ultimate construction of 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. In addition, Apple
is requesting that a segment of Pruneridge Avenue be vacated by the City to allow for the development of
a secure and unified campus. Development of the proposed project would require amendments to the
City of Cupertino General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, a Vacation and Land Purchase Agreement, Utility
Relocation and Easement Agreements, architectural and site approval, and various other City approvals,
possibly including a Development Agreement. The proposed project could require additional discretionary
permits or approvals from other non-City governmental entities.

SIGNIFICANT ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: The Draft EIR provides an evaluation of
the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to
reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. The project would result in significant environmental
impacts 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.

While most identified impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of
identified mitigation measures, impacts in the following topical areas would remain significant and
unavoidable, even after the implementation of feasible mitigation measures: Planning Policy; Land Use;
Transportation and Circulation; Air Quality; and Public Services and Utilities. A portion of the project site is
on lists of hazardous materials sites enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

QUESTIONS: If you have any questions about this project, please contact the Department of Community
Development at (408) 777-3308 or email applecampus2@cupertino.org.
                                                                                                                 Marin
                                                                                                                County                       24

                                                                                                                                          BERKELEY

                                                                                                  SAN FRANCISCO                                              680
                                                                                                                                                                             580
                                                                                                                                                       HAYWARD
                                                                                                                                                                       PROJECT
                                                                                                                                                      880             LOCATION
                                                                                                                         SAN MATEO




                                                                                               PA
                                                                                                                                    280




                                                                                                  C
                                                                                                 IF
                                                                                                      IC
                                                                                                                               PALO ALTO
                                                                                                                                                                     SAN JOSE




                                                                                                           OC
                                                                                                                                     CUPERTINO




                                                                                                            EA
                                                                                                                N
                                                                                                                                                       9

                                                                                                                                                                 LOS GATOS
                                                                                                                                1
                                                                                                                                                                              101


                                                                                              REGIONAL LOCATION
                                                                                                                                                  9
                                                                                                                                                            17




                                                                                                                                     Kaiser Santa
                                                                                                                                     Clara Medical
                                                                                                                                        Center




                                                                 Pr
                                                                      un
                                                                           eri
                                                                                 d g e Av e




                                                                                                                                                                 FIGURE 1


                                                      Project Site Boundary

0         500        1000
feet                                                                                                                        Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCES: GOOGLE MAPS; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2011.                                                                            Project Location Map
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\NOA\Fig_1.ai (6/3/13)
THIS EIR IS SUBJECT TO 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* OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE AND MUST BE FILED
WITH THE COURT OF APPEAL.** A COPY OF CHAPTER 6.5 OF THE
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE IS INCLUDED AS AN APPENDIX TO THIS EIR.




     *   THIS LANGUAGE IS PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
         SECTION 21187 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE. PLEASE
         NOTE THAT 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 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 IS
        THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION COMMENCED IN THE SUPERIOR
        COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY (PLANNING & CONSERVATION
        LEAGUE V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. RG12626904). ON
        APRIL 9, 2013, THE COURT ISSUED A STATEMENT OF DECISION
        DETERMINING THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL RESTRICTION IN
        PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21185(a)(1) IS
        UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AS OF MAY 23, 2013, THAT LITIGATION
        WAS STILL PENDING. 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.
             PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT


      APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT
E N V I R O N M E N TA L I M PAC T R E P O RT


      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




                        June 2013
                                                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.         INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 
           A.  PURPOSE OF THIS DRAFT EIR .................................................................................... 1 
           B.  PROPOSED PROJECT ..................................................................................................... 1 
           C.  EIR SCOPE ....................................................................................................................... 2 
           D.  REPORT ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................ 3 

II.        SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 5 
           A.  PROJECT UNDER REVIEW ........................................................................................... 5 
           B.  SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..................................... 5 
           C.  SUMMARY TABLE......................................................................................................... 8 

III.       PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 51 
           A.  PROJECT SITE ............................................................................................................... 51 
           B.  PROJECT SITE HISTORY............................................................................................. 62 
           C.  PROJECT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ 62 
           D.  PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................................................................... 64 
           E.  DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS ..................................................................................... 138 
           F.  USES OF THIS EIR ...................................................................................................... 140 

IV.        PLANNING POLICY .............................................................................................................. 141 
           A.  CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN ................................................................. 141 
           B.  CITY OF CUPERTINO ZONING ORDINANCE........................................................ 160 
           C.  NORTH VALLCO MASTER PLAN............................................................................ 165 
           D.  GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAMS ................ 167 

V.         SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..................................................... 181 
           A.  LAND USE ................................................................................................................... 185 
           B.  AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................... 193 
           C.  POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING ................................................... 217 
           D.  BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 235 
           E.   CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 263 
           F.   GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS ..................................................................... 289 
           G.  HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................................. 303 
           H.  HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................................... 321 
           I.   TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................................. 347 
           J.   NOISE ........................................................................................................................... 449 
           K.  GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SUSTAINABILITY .................................. 481 
           L.   AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................. 519 
           M.  PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES........................................................................ 561 




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\00-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                            i
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                        APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS




VI.        ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................................................... 597 
           A.  NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................... 599 
           B.  PRUNERIDGE AVENUE ALTERNATIVE ................................................................ 605 
           C.  REDUCED CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVE ........................................................ 612 
           D.  REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE...................................................................... 619 
           E.  ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED ................................................. 625 
           F.  ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE .............................................. 627 

VII.  OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 629 
      A.  EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ........................................................ 629 
      B.  GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS .............................................................................. 629 
      C.  SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................... 630 
      D.  SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES ............................................................. 631 

VIII.  REPORT PREPARATION ...................................................................................................... 635 
       A.  REPORT PREPARERS ................................................................................................ 635 
       B.  REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 636 
       C.  COMMUNICATION .................................................................................................... 650 



APPENDICES (Provided on CD located inside the back cover of the Draft EIR)

Appendix A:                 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Letters
Appendix B:                 Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix C:                 Noise Data
Appendix D:                 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data
Appendix E:                 Air Quality Data
Appendix F:                 Cumulative Projects
Appendix G:                 SB610 Water Supply Assessment
Appendix H:                 Student Generation/Enrollment Reports
Appendix I:                 Public Resources Code Chapter 6.5




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\00-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                    ii
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                     APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS




                                                                              FIGURES
Figure III-1:                   Project Location Map .............................................................................................. 52 
Figure III-2:                   Project Site .............................................................................................................. 53 
Figure III-3:                   Existing and Proposed Trees ................................................................................... 57 
Figure III-4:                   Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 67 
Figure III-5a:                  Site Plan – North ..................................................................................................... 69 
Figure III-5b:                  Site Plan – South ..................................................................................................... 70 
Figure III-6a:                  Representative Sections .......................................................................................... 71 
Figure III-6b:                  Representative Sections .......................................................................................... 72 
Figure III-7a:                  Rendering ................................................................................................................ 73 
Figure III-7b:                  Rendering ................................................................................................................ 74 
Figure III-8:                   Main Building – Representative Plan ..................................................................... 76 
Figure III-9a:                  Main Building – Representative Section (Restaurant) ............................................ 77 
Figure III-9b:                  Main Building – Representative Section (Office) ................................................... 78 
Figure III-10a:                 Fitness Center – Representative Plan ...................................................................... 79 
Figure III-10b:                 Fitness Center – Representative Sections ............................................................... 80 
Figure III-11a:                 Corporate Auditorium – Representative Plan ......................................................... 82 
Figure III-11b:                 Corporate Auditorium – Representative Section .................................................... 83 
Figure III-12a:                 Phase 2 Development –Plan and Section ................................................................ 84 
Figure III-12b:                 Phase 2 Development –Plan and Section ................................................................ 85 
Figure III-13:                  Central Plant – Representative Plan and Section .................................................... 87 
Figure III-14:                  Security Receptions – Representative Plan and Section ......................................... 89 
Figure III-15a:                 Conceptual Landscape Plan – North ....................................................................... 93 
Figure III-15b:                 Conceptual Landscape Plan – South ....................................................................... 94 
Figure III-16:                  Circulation Plan ...................................................................................................... 97 
Figure III-17a:                 Off-Site Street Changes ........................................................................................ 105 
Figure III-17b:                 Off-Site Street Changes ........................................................................................ 106 
Figure III-17c:                 Off-Site Street Changes ........................................................................................ 107 
Figure III-17d:                 Off-Site Street Changes ........................................................................................ 108 
Figure III-17e:                 Off-Site Street Changes ........................................................................................ 109 
Figure III-17f:                 Off-Site Street Changes ........................................................................................ 110 
Figure III-18:                  Existing and Proposed Transit Routes .................................................................. 113 
Figure III-19:                  Existing and Proposed Bike and Pedestrian Systems ........................................... 114 
Figure III-20a:                 Perimeter Bike Facilities ....................................................................................... 115 
Figure III-20b:                 Perimeter Bike Facilities ....................................................................................... 116 
Figure III-20c:                 Perimeter Bike Facilities ....................................................................................... 117 
Figure III-20d:                 Perimeter Bike Facilities ....................................................................................... 118 
Figure III-20e:                 Perimeter Bike Facilities ....................................................................................... 119 
Figure III-20f:                 Perimeter Bike Facilities ....................................................................................... 120 
Figure III-21a:                 Main Parking Structure Representative Plan – Levels B1 and 1 ......................... 123 
Figure III-21b:                 Main Parking Structure Representative Section .................................................. 124 
Figure III-22a:                 North Tantau Parking Structure North ................................................................. 126 
Figure III-22b:                 North Tantau Parking Structure South ................................................................. 127 
Figure III-23:                  Potential Recycled Water Infrastructure ............................................................... 131 
Figure IV-1:                    General Plan Land Use Designations.................................................................... 143 
Figure IV-2:                    Zoning Designations ............................................................................................. 161 
Figure IV-3:                    Mitigation Measure PLAN-3 ................................................................................ 162 
Figure V.B-1:                   Photo Viewpoint Map ........................................................................................... 195 

P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\00-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                  iii
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS




Figure V.B-2:                   Visual Simulations, Viewpoint 1, Wolfe Road Entrance ...................................... 196 
Figure V.B-3:                   Visual Simulations, Viewpoint 2, I-280 Westbound ............................................ 197 
Figure V.B-4:                   Visual Simulations, Viewpoint 3, East Pruneridge Avenue ................................. 198 
Figure V.B-5:                   Visual Simulations, Viewpoint 4, East Homestead Road and North
                                Tantau Avenue ...................................................................................................... 199 
Figure V.B-6:                   Visual Simulations, Viewpoint 5, East Homestead Road and North
                                Wolfe Road ........................................................................................................... 200 
Figure V.B-7:                   Visual Simulations, Viewpoint 6, Peacock Avenue.............................................. 201 
Figure V.B-8:                   Visual Simulations, Viewpoint 7, Tantau Avenue Overpass ................................ 202 
Figure V.B-9:                   Visual Simulations, Viewpoint 8, I-280 Eastbound .............................................. 203 
Figure V.B-10:                  Illuminance Calculations for Receptor Locations ................................................. 213 
Figure V.C-1:                   City of Cupertino Population Growth Trend, 1970-2030 ..................................... 218 
Figure V.C-2:                   Residential Location of Current Employees on the Project Site ........................... 226 
Figure V.D-1:                   Representative Biological Resource Photographs ................................................ 245 
Figure V.E-1:                   Glendenning Barn Photographs ............................................................................ 277 
Figure V.F-1:                   Regional Faults ..................................................................................................... 291 
Figure V.G-1:                   Flood Zone ............................................................................................................ 305 
Figure V.H-1:                   Properties on Regulatory Databases of Hazardous Materials Releases
                                Within 1/4-Mile .................................................................................................... 325 
Figure V.H-2:                   Properties Within Project Site With Phase I and II Environmental Site
                                Assessments .......................................................................................................... 326 
Figure V.I-1:                   Campus Location and Study Locations ................................................................ 349 
Figure V.I-2:                   Intersection LOS Standards .................................................................................. 355 
Figure V.I-3:                   Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities .............................................................. 361 
Figure V.I-4:                   Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Turning Movement Volumes in
                                Project Vicinity ..................................................................................................... 362 
Figure V.I-5:                   Existing Transit Facilities ..................................................................................... 363 
Figure V.I-6:                   Existing Intersection LOS Results ........................................................................ 371 
Figure V.I-7:                   Project Trip Distribution ....................................................................................... 391 
Figure V.I-8:                   Existing Plus Project Intersection LOS Results .................................................... 392 
Figure V.I-9:                   Background No Project and Background Plus Project Intersection
                                LOS Results .......................................................................................................... 401 
Figure V.I-10:                  Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project Intersection
                                LOS Results .......................................................................................................... 407 
Figure V.I-11:                  Apple TDM Monitoring Process........................................................................... 447 
Figure V.J-1:                   Noise Monitoring Locations ................................................................................. 455 
Figure V.J-2:                   Traffic Noise Level Changes from Existing to Existing Plus Project ................... 469 
Figure V.J-3:                   Traffic Noise Level Changes from Cumulative to Cumulative Plus Project ........ 470 
Figure V.K-1:                   California GHG Emissions by Sector (2000-2009 Average) ................................ 488 
Figure V.K-2:                   Bay Area GHG Emissions by Sector (2007) ........................................................ 489 
Figure VI-1:                    Conceptual Plan for No Project Alternative ......................................................... 601 
Figure VI-2:                    Conceptual Plan for Pruneridge Avenue Alternative ............................................ 607 
Figure VI-3:                    Conceptual Plan for Reduced Construction Alternative ....................................... 613 
Figure VI-4:                    Conceptual Plan for Reduced Density Alternative ............................................... 621 




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\00-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                               iv
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS




                                                                               TABLES
Table II-1:                     Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR .................................. 9 
Table III-1:                    Development Summary .......................................................................................... 65 
Table III-2:                    Proposed Building Summary .................................................................................. 66 
Table III-3:                    Required Permits and Approvals .......................................................................... 140 
Table IV-1:                     Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs ...................................... 170 
Table V.B-1:                    Illuminance Assessment of Receptor Locations ................................................... 215 
Table V.C-1:                    City of Cupertino Historical Population Growth .................................................. 217 
Table V.C-2:                    ABAG Population and Household Projections for Cupertino and Santa
                                Clara County 2010-2030, ...................................................................................... 218 
Table V.C-3:                    City of Cupertino and Santa Clara County Regional Housing Needs
                                Allocation, 2007-2014 .......................................................................................... 220 
Table V.C-4:                    Housing and Employment Data – Cupertino and Santa Clara County ................. 223 
Table V.C-5:                    Projected Housing Demand by City Based on Residential Location of
                                Current Apple Employees ..................................................................................... 227 
Table V.C-6:                    Project Housing Demand Compared To RHNA ................................................... 229 
Table V.C-7:                    Housing and Employment Data – Without and With Project ............................... 230 
Table V.D-1:                    Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the
                                Vicinity of the Project Site .................................................................................... 250 
Table V.F-1:                    Modified Mercalli Scale ....................................................................................... 293 
Table V.H-1:                    Properties on Regulatory Databases of Hazardous Materials Releases Within
                                ¼-Mile of the Project Site ..................................................................................... 323 
Table V.I-1:                    Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Control
                                Vehicular Delay .................................................................................................... 353 
Table V.I-2:                    Intersection LOS Standards .................................................................................. 353 
Table V.I-3:                    Freeway Segment Level of Service Definitions.................................................... 354 
Table V.I-4:                    Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Counts on Pruneridge Avenue .......................... 360 
Table V.I-5:                    Existing Transit Service Summary ....................................................................... 365 
Table V.I-6:                    Apple’s Existing TDM Strategies ......................................................................... 369 
Table V.I-7:                    Existing Freeway Segment Levels of Service....................................................... 374 
Table V.I-8:                    Trip Generation ..................................................................................................... 388 
Table V.I-9:                    Levels of Service for Intersections Operating Unacceptably under Existing
                                Plus Project Conditions ......................................................................................... 393 
Table V.I-10:                   Existing Plus Project Freeway Segment Levels of Service .................................. 396 
Table V.I-11:                   Levels of Service for Intersections Operating Unacceptably under
                                Background Plus Project Conditions .................................................................... 400 
Table V.I-12:                   Levels of Service for Intersections Operating Unacceptably under
                                Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ..................................................................... 410 
Table V.I-13:                   Wolfe Road VISSIM Approach Delays and Levels of Service ............................ 415 
Table V.I-14:                   Travel Metric Comparisons of Two Versus Three Left-Turn Lanes on Wolfe
                                Road Driveway During the PM Peak Hour .......................................................... 417 
Table V.I-15:                   PM Peak Hour Travel Times on Southbound Tantau Avenue .............................. 419 
Table V.I-16:                   Proposed Vehicle Parking Supply......................................................................... 433 
Table V.I-17:                   Transit Center Driveway Level of Service ........................................................... 438 
Table V.I-18:                   Left-Turn Vehicle Evaluation ............................................................................... 439 
Table V.J-1:                    Definitions of Acoustical Terms ........................................................................... 451 
Table V.J-2:                    Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels ....................................................................... 452 
Table V.J-3:                    Typical Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment............................. 453 

P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\00-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                              v
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                        APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS




Table V.J-4:    Short-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results, dBA, October 25, 2011 ........... 454 
Table V.J-5:    Meteorological Conditions During Ambient Noise Monitoring ........................... 454 
Table V.J-6:    Existing Traffic Noise Levels ............................................................................... 457 
Table V.J-7:    Summary of EPA Noise Levels ............................................................................ 458 
Table V.J-8:    Summary of Human Effects in Areas Exposed to 55 dBA Ldn ........................... 458 
Table V.J-9:    City of Cupertino Noise and Land Use Compatibility Standards ......................... 461 
Table V.J-10:   City of Cupertino Example Maximum Permissible Noise Levels ........................ 462 
Table V.J-11:   Existing and Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, dBA CNEL ................. 467 
Table V.J-12:   Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels, dBA CNEL ...... 468 
Table V.J-13:   Existing and Existing Plus Construction Traffic Noise Levels at 50 feet
                from Centerline of Outermost Travel Lane, dBA ................................................. 474 
Table V.J-14:   Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax .......................... 476 
Table V.K-1:    Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases ................................................. 482 
Table V.K-2:    Project Construction Emissions (Metric Tons) ..................................................... 504 
Table V.K-3:    GHG Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) .............................................................. 510 
Table V.K-4:    Project Compliance with Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies ......... 513 
Table V.L-1:    Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants........................................................ 520 
Table V.L-2:    Ambient Air Quality at the 22601 Voss Ave, Cupertino, Monitoring Station...... 526 
Table V.L-3:    State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................ 531 
Table V.L-4:    Bay Area Attainment Status.................................................................................. 535 
Table V.L-5:    Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day ............................................. 546 
Table V.L-6:    Regional Emissions from Existing On-Site Uses ................................................. 548 
Table V.L-7:    Project Regional Emissions .................................................................................. 549 
Table V.L-8:    Construction Equipment TACs ............................................................................. 554 
Table V.L-9:    Inhalation Health Risks from Project Construction to Off-Site Receptors ........... 557 
Table V.L-10:   Cumulative Construction Health Risk Impacts ..................................................... 559 
Table V.L-11:  Cumulative Operational Health Risk Impacts ...................................................... 560 
Table V.M-1:   Cupertino Union School District Capacity and Enrollment Data ......................... 564 
Table V.M-2:   Fremont Union High School District Capacity and Enrollment Data................... 565 
Table V.M-3:   Santa Clara Unified School District Capacity and Enrollment Data .................... 566 
Table V.M-4:   City of Cupertino Existing Park and Recreation Areas ........................................ 567 
Table V.M-5:    Cal Water Planned Water Supply and Demand (af) ............................................. 570 
Table V.M-6:   Projected Cal Water Supply for Single and Multiple Dry-Years (afy) ................. 571 
Table V.M-7:    WSA Potable & Non-Potable Water Demand Forecast for Proposed
                Project (afy) .......................................................................................................... 586 
Table V.M-8:    Water Demand Projections for Cal Water and Typical Commercial
                Development Scenario (af) ................................................................................... 586 
Table VI-1: Summary of Principal Characteristics of Alternatives.................................................... 598 




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\00-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                vi
                                                               I.         INTRODUCTION




A.         PURPOSE OF THIS DRAFT EIR
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this report describes the
environmental consequences of the Apple Campus 2 Project (project) proposed for an approximately
176-acre site in the City of Cupertino (City). This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is designed to
fully inform City decision-makers, responsible agencies, and the general public of the proposed
project and the potential physical consequences of project approval. This EIR also examines alterna-
tives to the project and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant
physical impacts.

The City of Cupertino is the lead agency for environmental review of the proposed project. This EIR
will be used by the City and the public in their review of the proposed project and associated
approvals, including those described in Chapter III, Project Description.


B.         PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project is the redevelopment of the approximately 176-acre project site into a new
campus for Apple, Inc. (Apple). Apple is a corporation, established in Cupertino in 1976, that designs
and markets consumer electronics, consumer software, and personal computers.

The project site currently comprises buildings with office and research and development uses1 which
would be replaced as part of the proposed project. The campus would be self-contained and would
include office, research and development space, parking, employee amenities, and a central utility
plant. In addition, a segment of Pruneridge Avenue would be vacated by the City to allow for the
development of a unified and secure campus. The Glendenning Barn, currently located north of
Pruneridge Avenue, would be relocated to an on- or off-site location. As part of the project, Apple
would also undertake changes to local roadways in the vicinity of the site. The project designer is the
architectural and planning firm Foster + Partners, headed by Norman Foster. The landscape designer
is OLIN, a landscape architecture and planning firm, headed by Laurie Olin.

The project would result in the demolition of all structures within the project site (consisting of
approximately 2,657,000 square feet of building space) and the ultimate construction of 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 (such as security receptions and landscape maintenance buildings). Proposed
buildings are designed to be energy efficient and to use renewable energy, much of which would be
produced on-site (via photovoltaic infrastructure and fuel cells). Please refer to Chapter III, Project
Description, for additional detail.

           1
        Research and development uses are those characterized by the creation of new products and manufacturing
processes.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-Introduction.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                1
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                      I. INTRODUCTION




C.         EIR SCOPE
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. 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 500 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.

As a result of an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the project, consultation with
City staff and other agencies, and review of comments received as part of the scoping process, the
following environmental topics are addressed as separate sections in this EIR:
                 Planning Policy
                 Land Use
                 Aesthetics
                 Population, Employment, and Housing
                 Biological Resources
                 Cultural Resources
                 Geology, Seismicity, and Soils
                 Hydrology and Water Quality
                 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
                 Transportation and Circulation
                 Noise
                 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sustainability
                 Air Quality
                 Public Services and Utilities

The following topics are not evaluated in detail in this EIR: agriculture and forestry resources. These
topics are briefly discussed in the Effects Found Not to Be Significant section of Chapter VII, Other
CEQA Considerations.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-Introduction.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                           2
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                      I. INTRODUCTION




D.         REPORT ORGANIZATION
This EIR is organized into the following chapters:
                 Chapter I – Introduction: Discusses the overall EIR purpose, provides a summary of the
                  proposed project, and summarizes the organization of the EIR.
                 Chapter II – Summary: Provides a summary of the proposed project and of the impacts that
                  would result from implementation of the proposed project, and describes mitigation
                  measures recommended to reduce or avoid significant impacts. A discussion of alternatives
                  to the proposed project is also provided.
                 Chapter III – Project Description: Provides a description of the project site, site develop-
                  ment history, project objectives, required approval process, and details of the project itself.
                 Chapter IV – Planning Policy: Discusses the relationship of the proposed Apple Campus 2
                  Project with planning-related land use policies.
                 Chapter V – Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures: Describes the following for each
                  environmental technical topic: existing conditions (setting); potential environmental
                  impacts and their level of significance; and measures to mitigate identified impacts. Po-
                  tential adverse impacts are identified by level of significance as follows: less-than-
                  significant impact (LTS), significant impact (S), and significant and unavoidable impact
                  (SU). The significance of each impact is categorized before and after implementation of
                  any recommended mitigation measures.
                 Chapter VI – Alternatives: Provides an evaluation of three alternatives to the proposed
                  project in addition to the No Project alternative.
                 Chapter VII – Other CEQA Considerations: Provides additional specifically-required
                  analyses of the proposed project’s growth-inducing effects, significant irreversible changes,
                  and effects found not to be significant.
                 Chapter VIII – Report Preparation: Identifies preparers of the EIR, references used, and
                  persons and organizations contacted.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-Introduction.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                           3
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                      I. INTRODUCTION




This page intentionally left blank.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-Introduction.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                           4
                                                                    II. SUMMARY




A.        PROJECT UNDER REVIEW
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Draft EIR describes the
environmental consequences of the Apple Campus 2 Project (project). This Draft EIR is designed to
fully inform decision-makers in the City of Cupertino, other responsible and trustee agencies, and the
general public of the potential environmental consequences of the proposed project. The project
sponsor is Apple Inc.

The City of Cupertino (City) is the lead agency for environmental review of the Apple Campus 2
Project. This EIR will be used by City staff, responsible agencies, and the public in their review of the
proposed project.

The proposed project would replace and redevelop an approximately 176-acre project site, consisting
of an area generally bordered by East Homestead Road on the north; adjacent properties to the east of
North Tantau Avenue on the east; Interstate 280 (I-280) and The Hamptons apartment community on
the south; and North Wolfe Road on the west. Pruneridge Avenue extends through the site on a
roughly east/west alignment. The project site currently contains approximately 2,657,000 feet of
office and research and development buildings, some of which are occupied by Apple and formerly
used by Hewlett-Packard. Calabazas Creek crosses the southeastern portion of the site.

The project would result in the demolition of all structures within the project site (consisting of
approximately 2,657,000 square feet of building space) and the ultimate construction of 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 (such as security receptions and landscape maintenance buildings). In addition,
Apple is requesting that a segment of Pruneridge Avenue be vacated by the City to allow for the
development of a secure and unified campus. Development of the proposed project would require
amendments to the City of Cupertino General Plan, and Zoning Ordinance, Vacation and Land
Purchase Agreement, Utility Relocation and Easement Agreements, architectural and site approval,
and various other City entitlements, possibly including a Development Agreement. The proposed
project could require additional discretionary permits or approvals from other non-City governmental
entities. A detailed description of the proposed project is provided in Chapter III, Project Description.


B.        SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This summary provides an overview of the analysis contained in Chapter V, Setting, Impacts, and
Mitigation Measures. CEQA requires a summary to include a discussion of: (1) potential areas of
controversy; (2) significant project-level impacts; (3) cumulative impacts; (4) significant irreversible
and unavoidable impacts; and (5) alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce or avoid the
environmental impacts of the project. A summary is also required to discuss issues to be resolved,
including the choice among alternatives, and whether or how to mitigate significant environmental



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT              5
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                            APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                      II. SUMMARY




effects. However, a summary is not a substitute for reviewing the full EIR in order to understand a
particular topic. The reader is referred to the main body text of the EIR for detailed discussions about
the existing environmental setting of the project, project impacts, and project mitigation measures.

1.        Potential Areas of Controversy
Letters and verbal testimony (from the September 9, 2011, scoping session) received as comments on
the Notice of Preparation (NOP) raised a number of potential areas of controversy, including impacts
related to public space and access, the Glendenning Barn, schools, utilities and public services
(schools, police, fire protection, and emergency response services), trees, construction activities,
hazardous materials, visual quality, traffic congestion, the removal of Pruneridge Avenue, bike and
pedestrian access, air quality, and noise. In addition, several of the NOP comment letters address the
merits of the project itself and not the potential adverse environmental impacts that are the subject of
this EIR. The NOP and written comments are included in Appendix A of this EIR.

2.        Significant Impacts
Under CEQA, a significant effect on the environment (significant impact) is defined as, “…a
substantial , or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the
area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and
objects of historic or aesthetic significance.”1 Implementation of the proposed project has the
potential to result in adverse environmental impacts in several environmental areas. Impacts in the
following areas would be significant:
                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
                public services and utilities

3.        Significant Unavoidable Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would result in significant unavoidable impacts in the
following topical areas. Significant unavoidable impacts are those that cannot be mitigated to a less-
than-significant level with feasible mitigation measures.

          1
        Remy, Thomas, Moose, and Manley, 2007. Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act, p. 184; Public
Resources Code 15382; Public Resources Code 21068.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          6
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                            APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                      II. SUMMARY




                Would not fully implement some provisions of the Land Use/Community Design, Circula-
                 tion, and Environmental Resources/Sustainability Elements of the General Plan related to
                 bike and pedestrian access due to the proposed vacation of a segment of Pruneridge
                 Avenue, and lack of provision of a trail segment along Calabazas Creek, and these
                 inconsistencies would result in an environmental impact.
                Generate air pollutant emissions during the construction and operational periods that could
                 violate air quality standards at the project and cumulative levels.
                Under Existing plus Project conditions, Background plus Project conditions, and/or
                 Cumulative plus Project conditions, cause unacceptable conditions at five intersections, ten
                 mixed flow freeway segments, one High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) segment of a freeway,
                 and cause excessive queuing on I-280 off ramps at Wolfe Road.
                Create new challenging conditions for pedestrians and interfere with pedestrian and
                 bicyclist accessibility to the site and surrounding areas due to proposed modifications to the
                 roadway network and high project-related traffic volumes.
                Impact residents of The Hamptons due to the closure of Pruneridge Avenue by reducing
                 transit access due to the reroute of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
                 Route 81, affecting access to areas east of North Tantau Avenue.
          All other impacts of the proposed project would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
          with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in this EIR.

4.        Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The four alternatives to the proposed project analyzed in Chapter VI of this EIR are summarized
below. These alternatives (with the exception of the CEQA-mandated No Project alternative) were
intended to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or lessening any
of the significant effects of the project. The following four alternatives, representing a reasonable
range of alternatives, were developed based on input from the City of Cupertino Community
Development Department, project applicant, and the consultant team.
                The No Project alternative assumes that the existing buildings on the site would be
                 maintained in approximately their current condition and would be fully occupied such that
                 the site would contain approximately 9,800 employees. Pruneridge Avenue would remain a
                 public road.
                The Pruneridge Avenue alternative assumes that, similar to the proposed project, Apple
                 would develop a new campus on the site comprising 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 (such as security receptions and landscape maintenance buildings). However,
                 Pruneridge Avenue would remain a public road, which would reduce the amount of open
                 space on the campus and require the implementation of separate security mechanisms on
                 the portions of the campus north and south of Pruneridge Avenue. The Pruneridge Avenue
                 alternative would also require the reconfiguration of buildings on the site, changes to the
                 size and shape of some buildings, modified access points and other changes to reflect a
                 divided campus. Changes to the project grading and excavation plan would also be




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          7
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                            APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                      II. SUMMARY




                 required, resulting in a greater volume of off-hauled materials compared to the proposed
                 project.
                The Reduced Construction alternative assumes that the same amount of developed
                 square footage would be constructed on the project site but with a different campus
                 configuration and design that would resemble a traditional office complex with multiple
                 office buildings. The Reduced Construction alternative would require substantially less
                 excavation and grading activities during project construction, as well as a shortened
                 construction timeline. Under this alternative, a new campus would be developed consisting
                 of four- to five-story buildings, surface parking lots, two four- to six-level above-grade
                 parking garages, and a reduced open space area. Similar to the project, the segment of
                 Pruneridge Avenue within the site would be vacated for site security reasons. The project
                 site also would have multiple access points along North Wolfe Road, East Homestead
                 Road, and North Tantau Avenue.
                The Reduced Density alternative assumes development of a smaller campus on the site
                 comprising approximately 2.2 million square feet of office, research, and development
                 space. This space, in addition to utility and ancillary space, would accommodate 8,000
                 Apple employees, for a total headcount lower than the No Project alternative. Similar to the
                 project, the segment of Pruneridge Avenue within the site would be vacated, allowing for
                 the development of a unified campus.

When the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative other than
the No Project alternative. The No Project alternative is considered the environmentally superior
alternative (even though it would fail to achieve any of the project’s objectives) because many of the
environmental impacts associated with implementation of the other alternatives would be avoided.
Therefore, a different alternative must be identified as environmentally superior. The Reduced
Density alternative would be environmentally superior to the Pruneridge Avenue alternative and
Reduced Construction alternative because it would avoid or reduce significant traffic, noise, and air
quality impacts due to lower levels of employment on-site compared to the project. The reduction in
operational traffic impacts is particularly important, since increased traffic affects most members of
the community and was one of the key concerns identified by the community during the EIR scoping
session.


C.        SUMMARY TABLE
The information shown in Table II-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, has been
organized to correspond with environmental issues discussed in Chapter V. The table is arranged in
four columns: (1) impacts; (2) level of significance prior to mitigation; (3) mitigation measures; and
(4) level of significance after mitigation. Levels of significance are categorized as follows: SU =
Significant and Unavoidable, S = Significant; and LTS = Less Than Significant. For a complete
description of potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, please refer to the specific
topical discussions in Chapter V.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          8
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                           II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                 Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                             Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                   With
               Environmental Impacts                                                      Mitigation                            Mitigation Measures                                Mitigation
 IV. PLANNING POLICY
 PLAN-1: The proposed project would change the                                                  S       PLAN-1: The project sponsor shall implement one of the following             LTS
 designation of a 1.1-acre portion of the site designed                                                 options:
 Parks and Open Space, and would reduce the acreage                                                     a. Provide sufficient funds for the acquisition of 1.1 acres of
 of land designated for future parks in the City.                                                           property by the City for future park development; or
                                                                                                        b. Agree to purchase (unless other property currently owned by
                                                                                                            Apple is proposed), designate, and dedicate to the City 1.1 acres
                                                                                                            elsewhere in the City as Parks and Open Space, subject to the
                                                                                                            satisfaction of the City, provided the land would be publicly
                                                                                                            accessible.
 PLAN-2: The proposed project would not fully                                                   S       PLAN-2: The project sponsor shall implement the following                     SU
 implement some policies in the Land Use/Community                                                      measures to the satisfaction of the City:
 Design Element of the General Plan related to the                                                      a. Fund, construct, and, where necessary, provide dedications of real
 provision of bike and pedestrian access due to the                                                         property (including costs for planning, design, construction and
 vacation of Pruneridge Avenue, resulting in an                                                             maintenance), all bike, pedestrian, landscaping, and sidewalk
 environmental impact.                                                                                      improvements in the public right-of-way along all properties
                                                                                                            bounded by East Homestead Road, North Tantau Avenue, Vallco
                                                                                                            Parkway, and North Wolfe Road. In locations where the improve-
                                                                                                            ments are adjacent to property with past project approvals, the
                                                                                                            design details shall be consistent with all other improvements
                                                                                                            approved by the City.
                                                                                                        b. A coordinated wayfinding scheme shall be introduced along the
                                                                                                            entire alternate east-west loop (North Wolfe Road, East Home-
                                                                                                            stead Road, Vallco Parkway, and North Tantau Avenue). Way-
                                                                                                            finding signage shall be designed to orient visitors and residents,
                                                                                                            pointing them to area attractions, retail areas, pedestrian and
                                                                                                            bicycle access routes, and other important destinations. Signs
                                                                                                            shall also be designed to direct those on foot or on bike to the
                                                                                                            safest bicycle and pedestrian routes, as well as other bicycle and
                                                                                                            pedestrian amenities.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                    9
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                           II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                 Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                             Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                   With
             Environmental Impacts                                                        Mitigation                            Mitigation Measures                                Mitigation
 PLAN-2 Continued                                                                                       c. Enhanced bike lanes, pedestrian paths, fencing, guard rails (if
                                                                                                           feasible), and pedestrian- scaled lighting shall be installed along
                                                                                                           the North Wolfe Road bridge over I-280.
                                                                                                        d. Other bicycle and pedestrian amenities, such as high visibility
                                                                                                           crosswalks, “yield to pedestrians” signage, leading pedestrian
                                                                                                           intervals at signalized intersections, and other publically accessi-
                                                                                                           ble amenities (e.g., bicycle racks, benches, attractive pedestrian-
                                                                                                           oriented lighting, and landscaping) along the project site perimeter
                                                                                                           shall be installed. These amenities shall be designed to improve
                                                                                                           the safety and attractiveness of alternative modes of travel within
                                                                                                           the vicinity of the project site.
                                                                                                        e. Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-23 and TRANS-28 (to
                                                                                                           improve pedestrian safety at the North Wolfe Road/Project
                                                                                                           Access intersection); TRANS-29 (to enhance the pedestrian
                                                                                                           environment at the I-280 ramps with Wolfe Road); and PLAN-3
                                                                                                           (to construct an alternate Calabazas Creek pedestrian/bike trail).
                                                                                                        f. Update American with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps at the
                                                                                                           following locations: Vallco Mall overpass on North Wolfe Road;
                                                                                                           northbound North Wolfe Road at I-280 south on-ramp, with
                                                                                                           updated crosswalk striping; northbound North Wolfe Road at I-
                                                                                                           280 north on-ramp, with updated crosswalk striping; west side of
                                                                                                           North Wolfe Road at Pruneridge Avenue; and southbound North
                                                                                                           Wolfe Road at I-280 south off-ramp, with updated crosswalk
                                                                                                           striping.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                10
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                            II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                  Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                              Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                    With
                Environmental Impacts                                                     Mitigation                              Mitigation Measures                               Mitigation
 PLAN-3: The proposed project would not fully                                                 S         PLAN-3: The project sponsor shall implement the following                      SU
 implement policies in the Land Use/Community                                                           measures to the satisfaction of the City, as illustrated in Figure IV-3:
 Design Element of the General Plan related to the                                                      a. Fund and construct to the satisfaction of the City a pedestrian/bike
 provision of a proposed trail segment along Calabazas                                                     alternate creek trail extending from the intersection of North
 Creek, and this conflict would result in an environ-                                                      Tantau Avenue and Calabazas Creek, south to Vallco Parkway, on
 mental impact.                                                                                            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:
                                                                                                               Signage along the route including both wayfinding/maps and
                                                                                                                information on creek habitat and ecology;
                                                                                                               Appropriate plantings that mimic creek-side habitats and
                                                                                                                provide a linear reference point between the creek-side
                                                                                                                portions of the trail and the trail detour (wherever possible);
                                                                                                               Special pedestrian scaled lighting;
                                                                                                               Rest areas or picnic tables at trail intersections along North
                                                                                                                Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway, as feasible, to highlight
                                                                                                                the route’s recreational nature while also not diminishing its
                                                                                                                role as a transportation route;
                                                                                                               Additional recreational amenities such as water fountains and
                                                                                                                trash receptacles;
                                                                                                               Appropriate pavement treatments that reference the creek
                                                                                                                and/or water; and
                                                                                                               Decorative fencing and/or guard rails on North Tantau
                                                                                                                Avenue along the bridge over Calabazas Creek and the bridge
                                                                                                                over I-280 and where the creek meets Vallco Parkway, that
                                                                                                                reference the creek and strengthen the linear connection
                                                                                                                between the creek and the trail detour.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                 11
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                          II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                            Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                  With
             Environmental Impacts                                                        Mitigation                              Mitigation Measures                             Mitigation
 PLAN-3 Continued                                                                                       b. Partially fund, in the sum of $250,000, a study of a full Class I
                                                                                                           separated trail, where rights-of-way are adequate, along the
                                                                                                           drainage channel that runs parallel to southbound I-280 between
                                                                                                           North De Anza Boulevard and Calabazas Creek, and then south
                                                                                                           along the western bank of Calabazas Creek to Vallco Parkway.
                                                                                                           The study would only assess the feasibility of such a trail in the
                                                                                                           general area. If the City determines such a trail is feasible and
                                                                                                           determines to carry out the project, the trail would be subject to
                                                                                                           further environmental review and subsequent approvals. The
                                                                                                           potential future trail would connect to the project-related bicycle
                                                                                                           lane improvements on North Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway.
                                                                                                           The east-west connection would be publicly-accessible and would
                                                                                                           be used for commuting and recreation.
 PLAN-4: The proposed project would not be                                                      S       PLAN-4: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1.                                LTS
 consistent with the identification of the Glen-denning
 Barn as a Historic Site in the General Plan.
 PLAN-5: The proposed project would not fully                                                   S       PLAN-5: Implement Mitigation Measures PLAN-2 and PLAN-3.                     SU
 implement several provisions of the Circulation
 Element of the General Plan related to the provision
 of trails, and the provision of bike and pedestrian
 access, and these conflicts would result in an
 environmental impact.
 PLAN-6: The proposed project would not fully                                                   S       PLAN-6: Implement Mitigation Measures PLAN-2 and PLAN-3.                     SU
 implement provisions of the Environmental
 Resources/Sustainability Element of the General Plan
 related to the provision of trails and the provision of
 bike and pedestrian access, and these conflicts would
 result in an environ-mental impact.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                               12
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                           II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                  Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                              Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                    With
                Environmental Impacts                                                     Mitigation                            Mitigation Measures                                 Mitigation
 A. LAND USE
 LU-1: The proposed project would not be fully               S                                          LU-1: Implement Mitigation Measures PLAN-1, PLAN-2, PLAN-3,                    SU
 consistent with applicable land use plans and policies                                                 and CULT-1.
 adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
 environmental effect.
 B. AESTHETICS
 There are no significant Aesthetics impacts.
 C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
 There are no significant Population, Employment, or Housing impacts.
 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
 BIO-1: The proposed project may result in the               S                                          BIO-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys prior to tree              LTS
 destruction or abandonment of nests occupied by                                                        pruning, tree removal, transplantation, ground disturbing activities, or
 special-status or non-special-status bird species that                                                 construction activities on the site to locate active nests containing
 are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and                                                  either viable eggs or young birds. Preconstruction surveys are not
 Fish and Game Code.                                                                                    required for tree removal, tree pruning, or construction activities
                                                                                                        outside the nesting period. If construction would occur during the
                                                                                                        nesting season (February 1 to August 31), preconstruction surveys
                                                                                                        shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of pruning,
                                                                                                        construction, or ground disturbing activities. Preconstruction surveys
                                                                                                        shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been
                                                                                                        initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped. Locations of
                                                                                                        active nests containing viable eggs or young birds shall be described
                                                                                                        and protective measures implemented until the nests no longer contain
                                                                                                        eggs or young birds. Protective measures shall include establishment
                                                                                                        of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by uniquely
                                                                                                        identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equiva-
                                                                                                        lent) around each nest site as determined by a qualified wildlife
                                                                                                        biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting on-site and
                                                                                                        their tolerance for disturbance. In general, exclusion zones shall be a
                                                                                                        minimum of 300 feet from the drip line of the nest tree or nest for
                                                                                                        raptors and 50 feet for passerines and other species. The active nest
                                                                                                        sites within an exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis
                                                                                                        throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance or to
                                                                                                        determine if each nest no longer contains eggs or young birds.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                 13
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                   APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                             II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                  Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                              Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                    With
              Environmental Impacts                                                       Mitigation                              Mitigation Measures                               Mitigation
 BIO-1 Continued                                                                                        The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the project
                                                                                                        biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting
                                                                                                        the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the project
                                                                                                        biologist only in consultation with CDFW. The protection measures
                                                                                                        shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are
                                                                                                        foraging independently or the nest is no longer active. For any
                                                                                                        project-related activities involving the removal of trees during the
                                                                                                        nesting season, a report shall be submitted to the City of Cupertino
                                                                                                        and CDFW once per year documenting the observations and actions
                                                                                                        implemented to comply with this mitigation measure.
 BIO-2: New buildings that would be developed as                                                S       BIO-2: The project sponsor shall incorporate the following design              LTS
 part of the project could result in bird collisions.                                                   features (developed through a review of bird-safe design guidelines )
                                                                                                        into the project to reduce bird collisions:

                                                                                                        Main Building and North Tantau Structures
                                                                                                              From outside most buildings, glass often appears highly
                                                                                                               reflective, reproducing habitat and appearing attractive to
                                                                                                               some birds. To limit reflectivity and prevent exterior glass
                                                                                                               from attracting birds, the project shall utilize low-reflectivity
                                                                                                               glass (7 percent reflectivity, 0 percent ultra-violet transmit-
                                                                                                               tance). This low-reflectivity glass shall be used for the
                                                                                                               entirety of the building’s glass surface (not just the lower
                                                                                                               levels nearest trees where bird collisions may be the most
                                                                                                               common) to provide additional avian safety.
                                                                                                              The Main Building shall include 10-foot-wide awnings at
                                                                                                               each story (or a similar feature) to create “visual noise” by
                                                                                                               covering windows and muting image reflections.
                                                                                                           All indoor potted plants shall be placed away from the glass
                                                                                                              perimeter so that birds do not attempt to fly into the vegeta-
                                                                                                              tion.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                 14
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                   APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                             II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                   Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                               Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                     With
              Environmental Impacts                                                       Mitigation                             Mitigation Measures                                 Mitigation
 BIO-2 Continued                                                                                               All roof mechanical equipment shall be covered by low-
                                                                                                                profile angled roofing so that obstacles to bird flight are
                                                                                                                minimized.
                                                                                                               Interior light “pollution” shall be reduced during evening
                                                                                                                hours through the use of a lighting control system.

                                                                                                        Main Parking Structure and North Tantau Parking Structures
                                                                                                              The above-grade parking structures shall be designed with
                                                                                                               open-air façades. No glass shall be utilized so birds can
                                                                                                               access open through-passages.

                                                                                                        Corporate Auditorium/Corporate Fitness Center
                                                                                                              To limit reflectivity and prevent exterior glass from attracting
                                                                                                               birds, the project shall utilize low-reflectivity glass (7 percent
                                                                                                               reflectivity, 0 percent ultra-violet transmittance).
                                                                                                              Interior light “pollution” shall be reduced during evening
                                                                                                               hours through the use of a lighting control system.
                                                                                                              The Corporate Fitness Center shall include 5-foot-wide
                                                                                                               awnings (or a similar feature) to create “visual noise” by
                                                                                                               covering windows and muting image reflections.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                  15
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                            II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                  Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                              Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                    With
                Environmental Impacts                                                     Mitigation                              Mitigation Measures                               Mitigation
 BIO-3: The proposed project would result in the                                              S         BIO-3: Replacement/compensation of all protected trees shall be                LTS
 removal of trees that are protected under the City of                                                  undertaken in accordance with the Review of the Consolidated
 Cupertino’s Tree Protection Ordinance, and could                                                       Arborist Report for the Apple Campus 2 Project and City Municipal
 thus conflict with a local policy or ordinance                                                         Code requirements, prior to the initiation of construction. Recommen-
 protecting biological resources.                                                                       dations noted within the Review of the Consolidated Arborist Report
                                                                                                        for the Apple Campus 2 Project, as modified by the Adjustments to
                                                                                                        Response to the Review of the Consolidated Arborist Report per EIR
                                                                                                        Plan Revision and A Review of the Trees Recommended for Trans-
                                                                                                        plant at the Apple Campus 2 Project shall be implemented to the
                                                                                                        satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Protected trees
                                                                                                        that are damaged or removed during construction or roadway
                                                                                                        improvements shall be subject to replacement/compensation accord-
                                                                                                        ing to the City’s tree protection ordinance. However, replacement for
                                                                                                        removed trees subject to the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance shall be
                                                                                                        consistent with the requirements of Chapter 14.18 of the Protected
                                                                                                        Tree Ordinance. Trees that have been identified as being suitable for
                                                                                                        transplantation shall be relocated in accordance with the Tree
                                                                                                        Transplant Schedule approved by the Community Development
                                                                                                        Director.
 E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
 CULT-1: The project would relocate the Glendenning                                             S       CULT-1a (On-site Relocation): The Glendenning Barn shall be                   LTS
 Barn, a designated Historic Site under the City of                                                     relocated to one of the following two sites within the Apple Campus
 Cupertino General Plan and a historical resource                                                       2 project site, subject to the approval of the City: 1) to the northeast
 under CEQA.                                                                                            of the Corporate Fitness Center, south of East Homestead Road or 2)
                                                                                                        at the proposed eastern termination of Pruneridge Avenue, near The
                                                                                                        Hamptons. The barn shall not be relocated to the second potential
                                                                                                        relocation site identified by Apple, to the west of the Central Plant,
                                                                                                        near the southwestern property line of the project site. This site is
                                                                                                        unacceptable to the City because it would be difficult to allow for the
                                                                                                        barn to be visible from a public right-of-way. The lead agency shall
                                                                                                        ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant
                                                                                                        adverse changes to the resource are fully enforceable through permit
                                                                                                        conditions, agreements, or other measures. The following stipulations
                                                                                                        shall apply to the barn’s on-site relocation:


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                 16
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                              APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                        II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                              Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                          Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                With
             Environmental Impacts                                                        Mitigation                           Mitigation Measures                              Mitigation
 CULT-1 Continued                                                                                          The following character-defining architectural elements of
                                                                                                            the barn shall be substantially visible from a public right-of-
                                                                                                            way, per the discretion of City staff: 1) size/scale of barn; 2)
                                                                                                            board and batten siding (including windows, if possible); and
                                                                                                            3) roofline.
                                                                                                           The new site for the Glendenning Barn shall include open
                                                                                                            space and/or land that can be converted to such use. The
                                                                                                            amount of open space shall be sufficient to reference the
                                                                                                            area’s historic agricultural roots.
                                                                                                           The Glendenning Barn shall be relocated by a qualified
                                                                                                            structure-moving company with experience moving historic
                                                                                                            buildings.
                                                                                                           Relocation of the Glendenning Barn shall be overseen by a
                                                                                                            qualified historical architect. The architect shall ensure that
                                                                                                            the barn retains its significant character-defining features at
                                                                                                            its new location, including its form, proportion, structure,
                                                                                                            plan, style, and materials. The historian shall be responsible
                                                                                                            for documenting relocation of the barn from its current,
                                                                                                            historic site to its new site. Documentation shall include
                                                                                                            production of a report that includes photographic documenta-
                                                                                                            tion of the move and a historical context for the barn that
                                                                                                            describes the resource’s significance in local history. Copies
                                                                                                            of this documentation shall be offered to local libraries and
                                                                                                            local historical societies, and submitted to the Northwest
                                                                                                            Information Center at Sonoma State University.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                             17
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                    APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                              II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                    Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                                Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                      With
             Environmental Impacts                                                        Mitigation                              Mitigation Measures                                 Mitigation
 CULT-1 Continued                                                                                               The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
                                                                                                                 Historic Properties (Standards) shall be applied to the barn at
                                                                                                                 its new location. The Standards consist of four possible
                                                                                                                 treatments for historic properties: preservation, rehabilitation,
                                                                                                                 restoration, and reconstruction. Depending on the nature of
                                                                                                                 the barn’s use at its new location and its current condition,
                                                                                                                 one or more of these treatments shall apply.
                                                                                                                The applicant shall provide a plaque, reader board and/or
                                                                                                                 other educational tools to explain the historic significance of
                                                                                                                 the barn on the project site. The plaque shall include the City
                                                                                                                 seal, name of the resource, date it was built, a written
                                                                                                                 description, and photograph, and shall be placed in a location
                                                                                                                 where the public can view the information, not necessarily on
                                                                                                                 the barn.
                                                                                                        OR
                                                                                                        CULT-1b (Off-site Relocation): The Glendenning Barn shall be
                                                                                                        relocated off the project site to a new site within Cupertino, subject to
                                                                                                        the approval of the City. The lead agency shall ensure that any
                                                                                                        adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes to
                                                                                                        the resource are fully enforceable through permit conditions,
                                                                                                        agreements, or other measures. The following stipulations shall apply
                                                                                                        to the barn’s relocation:
                                                                                                                The new site for the Glendenning Barn shall include open
                                                                                                                 space and/or land that can be converted to such use. The
                                                                                                                 amount of open space shall be sufficient to reference the
                                                                                                                 area’s historic agricultural roots. Appropriate uses of the new
                                                                                                                 site could include educational uses determined by the City.
                                                                                                                 Public access could be permitted and is encouraged, but is not
                                                                                                                 required to reduce impacts to the resource.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                   18
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                               APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                         II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                               Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                           Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                 With
             Environmental Impacts                                                        Mitigation                        Mitigation Measures                                  Mitigation
 CULT-1 Continued                                                                                          If located on private property, the following character-
                                                                                                            defining architectural elements of the barn shall be substan-
                                                                                                            tially visible from a public right-of-way or (if the barn and/or
                                                                                                            its surroundings are publicly-accessible) a public viewpoint,
                                                                                                            per the discretion of City staff: 1) size/scale of barn; 2) board
                                                                                                            and batten siding (including windows, if possible); and 3)
                                                                                                            roofline.
                                                                                                           The Glendenning Barn shall be relocated by a qualified
                                                                                                            structure-moving company with experience moving historic
                                                                                                            buildings.
                                                                                                           Relocation of the Glendenning Barn shall be overseen by a
                                                                                                            qualified historical architect. The architect shall ensure that
                                                                                                            the barn retains its significant character-defining features at
                                                                                                            its new location, including its form, proportion, structure,
                                                                                                            plan, style, and materials. The historian shall be responsible
                                                                                                            for documenting relocation of the barn from its current,
                                                                                                            historic site to its new site. Documentation shall include
                                                                                                            production of a report that includes photographic documenta-
                                                                                                            tion of the move and a historical context for the barn that
                                                                                                            describes the resource’s significance in local history. Copies
                                                                                                            of this documentation shall be offered to local libraries and
                                                                                                            local historical societies, and submitted to the Northwest
                                                                                                            Information Center at Sonoma State University.
                                                                                                           The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
                                                                                                            Historic Properties (Standards) shall be applied to the barn at
                                                                                                            its new location. The Standards consist of four possible
                                                                                                            treatments for historic properties: preservation, rehabilitation,
                                                                                                            restoration, and reconstruction. Depending on the nature of
                                                                                                            the barn’s use at its new location and its current condition,
                                                                                                            one or more of these treatments shall apply.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                              19
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                   APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                             II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                   Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                               Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                     With
             Environmental Impacts                                                        Mitigation                              Mitigation Measures                                Mitigation
 CULT-1 Continued                                                                                               The applicant shall provide a plaque, reader board and/or
                                                                                                                 other educational tools to explain the historic significance of
                                                                                                                 the barn, both on the off-site location and on the project site.
                                                                                                                 The plaques shall include the City seal, name of the resource,
                                                                                                                 date it was built, a written description, and photograph, and
                                                                                                                 shall be placed in a location where the public can view the
                                                                                                                 information, not necessarily on the barn.
 CULT-2: Ground-disturbing activities associated with                                           S       CULT-2a: The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist          LTS
 site preparation and the construction of building                                                      to monitor project ground-disturbing activities. Prior to project
 foundations and underground utilities could adversely                                                  ground-disturbing activities, the archaeologist shall prepare a
 affect archaeological resources.                                                                       Monitoring Plan for the project. The Monitoring Plan shall include:
                                                                                                        (1) a review of historical maps, photographs, soil inventories, and
                                                                                                        geotechnical reports to identify those locations where subsurface
                                                                                                        historical features may occur and areas of prehistoric sensitivity; and
                                                                                                        (2) a Discovery Plan that describes the specific methods and
                                                                                                        procedures that will be used in the event that archaeological deposits
                                                                                                        are identified.

                                                                                                        Archaeological monitors shall be empowered to halt construction
                                                                                                        activities at the location of a discovery to review possible archae-
                                                                                                        ological material and to protect the resource while the finds are being
                                                                                                        evaluated. Monitoring shall continue until, in the archaeologist’s
                                                                                                        judgment, cultural resources are not likely to be encountered.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                  20
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                   APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                             II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                   Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                               Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                     With
             Environmental Impacts                                                        Mitigation                              Mitigation Measures                                Mitigation
 CULT-2 Continued                                                                                       If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are
                                                                                                        encountered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the
                                                                                                        discovery shall be redirected until the archaeologist assesses the
                                                                                                        finds, consults with agencies as appropriate, and makes recommenda-
                                                                                                        tions for the treatment of the discovery. If avoidance of the archae-
                                                                                                        ological deposit is not feasible, the archaeological deposits shall be
                                                                                                        evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of
                                                                                                        Historical Resources. If the deposits are not eligible, mitigation is not
                                                                                                        necessary. If the deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the deposits
                                                                                                        shall be mitigated. Mitigation may include excavation of the archae-
                                                                                                        ological deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA
                                                                                                        Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological
                                                                                                        field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of
                                                                                                        recovered archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing
                                                                                                        the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and
                                                                                                        associated materials; and accessioning of archaeological materials
                                                                                                        and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility.

                                                                                                        Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a
                                                                                                        report to document the methods and results of the assessment. The
                                                                                                        report shall be submitted to the City of Cupertino and the Northwest
                                                                                                        Information Center at Sonoma State University upon completion of
                                                                                                        the resource assessment.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                  21
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                            II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                 Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                             Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                   With
             Environmental Impacts                                                        Mitigation                             Mitigation Measures                               Mitigation
 CULT-2 Continued                                                                                       CULT-2b: If archaeological deposits are encountered during project
                                                                                                        subsurface construction when an archaeological monitor is not
                                                                                                        present, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be
                                                                                                        redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the
                                                                                                        situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommen-
                                                                                                        dations for the treatment of the discovery. The project applicant shall
                                                                                                        inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for
                                                                                                        archaeological deposits. The City shall verify that the following
                                                                                                        directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents:

                                                                                                           “If prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered
                                                                                                           during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery
                                                                                                           shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to
                                                                                                           assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and
                                                                                                           make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery.
                                                                                                           Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological
                                                                                                           materials or human remains and associated materials. Archae-
                                                                                                           ological resources can include flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile
                                                                                                           points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite
                                                                                                           toolmaking debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil (i.e.,
                                                                                                           midden soil often containing heat-affected rock, ash and charcoal,
                                                                                                           shellfish remains, faunal bones, and cultural materials); and stone-
                                                                                                           milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones). Prehistoric
                                                                                                           archaeological sites often contain human remains.”

                                                                                                        Adverse effects to archaeological deposits shall be treated in accord-
                                                                                                        ance with Mitigation Measure CULT-2a.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                22
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                    APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                              II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                    Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                                Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                      With
                Environmental Impacts                                                     Mitigation                              Mitigation Measures                                 Mitigation
 CULT-3: Ground-disturbing activities associated with                                         S         CULT-3: Should paleontological resources be encountered during                   LTS
 site preparation and the construction of building                                                      project subsurface construction activities, all ground-disturbing
 foundations and underground utilities could adversely                                                  activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleon-
 affect paleontological resources.                                                                      tologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as
                                                                                                        appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the
                                                                                                        discovery. If found to be significant, and project activities cannot
                                                                                                        avoid the paleontological resources, adverse effects to paleontological
                                                                                                        resources shall be mitigated. Mitigation may include monitoring,
                                                                                                        recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, a final report,
                                                                                                        and accessioning the fossil material and technical report to a paleon-
                                                                                                        tological repository. Public educational outreach may also be appro-
                                                                                                        priate. Upon completion of the assessment, a report documenting
                                                                                                        methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and
                                                                                                        submitted to the City of Cupertino for review, and (if paleontological
                                                                                                        materials are recovered) a paleontological repository, such as the
                                                                                                        University of California Museum of Paleontology.

                                                                                                        The project applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity
                                                                                                        of the project area for paleontological resources. The City shall verify
                                                                                                        that the following directive has been included in the appropriate
                                                                                                        contract documents:

                                                                                                           “The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for
                                                                                                           paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are
                                                                                                           encountered during project subsurface construction and a paleon-
                                                                                                           tologist is not on-site, all ground-disturbing activities within 25
                                                                                                           feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to
                                                                                                           assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and
                                                                                                           make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project
                                                                                                           personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                   23
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                   APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                             II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                   Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                               Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                     With
             Environmental Impacts                                                        Mitigation                             Mitigation Measures                                 Mitigation
 CULT-3 Continued                                                                                          Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and
                                                                                                           such trace fossil evidence of past life as tracks. Ancient marine
                                                                                                           sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam
                                                                                                           and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils
                                                                                                           such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Vertebrate land mammals
                                                                                                           may include bones of mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse,
                                                                                                           and bison. Paleontological resources also include plant imprints,
                                                                                                           petrified wood, and animal tracks.”
 CULT-4: Ground-disturbing activities associated with                                           S       CULT-4: If human remains are encountered during construction, the              LTS
 site preparation and the construction of building                                                      project shall implement Mitigation Measure CULT-2a (archae-
 foundations and underground utilities could adversely                                                  ological monitoring) to identify and treat any human remains that
 affect Native American skeletal or cremated remains.                                                   may be present.

                                                                                                        In addition, any human remains encountered during project ground-
                                                                                                        disturbing activities shall be treated in accordance with California
                                                                                                        Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The project applicant shall
                                                                                                        inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project site for human
                                                                                                        remains. The City shall verify that the following directive has been
                                                                                                        included in the appropriate contract documents:

                                                                                                           “If human remains are uncovered, work within 25 feet of the
                                                                                                           discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified
                                                                                                           immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be con-
                                                                                                           tacted – if one is not already on site – to assess the situation and
                                                                                                           consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel shall not
                                                                                                           collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the
                                                                                                           human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must
                                                                                                           notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours
                                                                                                           of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission
                                                                                                           will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant to
                                                                                                           inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper
                                                                                                           treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.”




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                  24
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                           II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                 Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                             Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                   With
                Environmental Impacts                                                     Mitigation                            Mitigation Measures                                Mitigation
 F. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
 GEO-1: Occupants of the development proposed as                                                S       GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or building        LTS
 part of the project would be subject to seismic                                                        permits, a design-level geotechnical report shall be prepared and
 hazards.                                                                                               submitted to the City of Cupertino Building Department for review
                                                                                                        and approval and in accordance with adopted City standards. The
                                                                                                        structural designs shall adhere to the 2010 California Building Code
                                                                                                        (CBC) or the appropriate building code, as adopted by the City of
                                                                                                        Cupertino. Examples of the kinds of measures that would typically be
                                                                                                        used to meet these requirements include pile-supported foundations,
                                                                                                        use of pre-stressed concrete materials, slab reinforcement, compac-
                                                                                                        tion specifications, drainage requirements, use of control joints, and
                                                                                                        appropriate safety factors. The report shall identify specific building
                                                                                                        techniques appropriate for minimizing damage from seismic events,
                                                                                                        including liquefaction and lateral spreading. In addition, the
                                                                                                        following requirement for the geotechnical and soils report shall be
                                                                                                        met:
                                                                                                               The seismic hazard analysis presented in the geotechnical
                                                                                                                report shall include an evaluation of liquefaction hazards in
                                                                                                                the Calabazas Creek area, and shall conform to the California
                                                                                                                Division of Mines and Geology recommendations presented
                                                                                                                in the Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
                                                                                                                Hazards in California.
                                                                                                               Design review for the project shall include evaluation of
                                                                                                                fixtures, furnishings, and fasteners with the intent of
                                                                                                                minimizing collateral injuries to building occupants from
                                                                                                                falling fixtures or furnishings during the course of a violent
                                                                                                                seismic event.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                25
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                   APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                             II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                   Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                               Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                     With
             Environmental Impacts                                                        Mitigation                              Mitigation Measures                                Mitigation
 GEO-1 Continued                                                                                               All design criteria and specifications set forth in the design-
                                                                                                                level geotechnical report shall be implemented as a condition
                                                                                                                of project approval. This report shall address the final
                                                                                                                specifications for design and construction intended to limit
                                                                                                                the effects of seismic hazards to structures and utilities,
                                                                                                                including but not limited to: foundation design, driven piles,
                                                                                                                utility corridor design, excavation subgrade preparation, fill
                                                                                                                materials and compaction specifications, retaining walls and
                                                                                                                concrete pavement specifications, and drainage and
                                                                                                                dewatering design. This report shall be completed as a
                                                                                                                condition of approval of the vesting tentative map or adoption
                                                                                                                of the development agreement.
 GEO-2: Damage to structures or property could result                                           S       GEO-2: The design-level geotechnical report shall include                      LTS
 from expansive or corrosive soils.                                                                     recommendations for foundations and improvements, including
                                                                                                        sidewalks, parking lots, and subsurface utilities, that take into
                                                                                                        consideration the potential effects of expansive and corrosive soils.
                                                                                                        The report shall be submitted to the City of Cupertino Building
                                                                                                        Department for review and approval. All design criteria and
                                                                                                        specifications set forth in the design-level geotechnical report shall be
                                                                                                        implemented as a condition of project approval.
 G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
 HYD-1: Development of the project could result in                                              S       HYD-1: As a condition of approval for construction permits, the City           LTS
 localized flooding impacts due to inadequate storm                                                     Engineer shall review storm drainage plans and calculations for the
 drainage infrastructure.                                                                               project, and verify whether existing storm drain infrastructure
                                                                                                        affected by the project will meet current City requirements, including
                                                                                                        the ability to convey a 10-year storm event, as storm events are
                                                                                                        calculated per standards set forth in the Santa Clara County Drainage
                                                                                                        Manual (2007). Should the City Engineer determine that the existing
                                                                                                        storm drain facilities are inadequate to convey a 10-year storm event,
                                                                                                        the project applicant shall be responsible for the design and
                                                                                                        construction of the necessary modifications. Upon completion the
                                                                                                        improvements will be dedicated to the City and the City will be
                                                                                                        responsible for ongoing maintenance, repair, and other liabilities
                                                                                                        associated with the improvements.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                  26
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                           II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                 Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                             Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                   With
                Environmental Impacts                                                     Mitigation                            Mitigation Measures                                Mitigation
 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
 HAZ-1: Upset and accidents involving hazardous                                                 S       HAZ-1a: The contractor(s) shall designate storage areas suitable for         LTS
 materials releases and transport and use during                                                        material delivery, storage, and waste collection. These locations must
 construction activities could result in adverse effects                                                be as far away from catch basins, gutters, drainage courses, and
 to public health or the environ-ment.                                                                  Calabazas Creek as feasible. All hazardous materials and wastes used
                                                                                                        or generated during project site development activities shall be
                                                                                                        labeled and stored in accordance with applicable local, State, and
                                                                                                        federal regulations. In addition, an accurate up-to-date inventory,
                                                                                                        including Material Safety Data Sheets, shall be maintained on-site to
                                                                                                        assist emergency response personnel in the event of a hazardous
                                                                                                        materials incident.

                                                                                                        All maintenance and fueling of vehicles and equipment shall be
                                                                                                        performed in a designated, bermed area, or over a drip pan that will
                                                                                                        not allow runoff of spills. Vehicles and equipment shall be regularly
                                                                                                        checked and leaks shall be repaired promptly at an off-site location.
                                                                                                        Secondary containment shall be used to catch leaks or spills any time
                                                                                                        that vehicle or equipment fluids are dispensed, changed, or poured.

                                                                                                        Mitigation Measure HAZ-1b: Emergency preparedness and response
                                                                                                        procedures shall be developed by the contractor(s) for emergency
                                                                                                        notification in the event of an accidental spill or other hazardous
                                                                                                        materials emergency during project site preparation and development
                                                                                                        activities. These procedures shall include evacuation procedures, spill
                                                                                                        containment procedures, and required personal protective equipment,
                                                                                                        as appropriate, in responding to the emergency. The contractor(s)
                                                                                                        shall submit these procedures to the City of Cupertino for approval
                                                                                                        prior to demolition, site preparation, or development activities.

                                                                                                        Compliance with these mitigation measures may occur in coordina-
                                                                                                        tion with compliance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
                                                                                                        and Best Management Practices required for the proposed project (see
                                                                                                        Section V.G, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional detail).



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                27
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                            II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                  Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                              Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                    With
                 Environmental Impacts                                                    Mitigation                             Mitigation Measures                                Mitigation
 HAZ-2: Exposure of construction workers and the                                              S         HAZ-2a: Construction at the project site shall be conducted under a            LTS
 public to existing or previously unknown                                                               project-specific Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) that is
 contamination in soil and/or groundwater, other safety                                                 prepared in consultation with the RWQCB. The purpose of the ESMP
 hazards encountered during site grading and                                                            is to protect construction workers, the general public, the environ-
 excavation activities, or exposure to hazardous                                                        ment, and future site occupants from subsurface hazardous materials
 materials following project development could result                                                   previously identified at the project site and to address the possibility
 in adverse health effects.                                                                             of encountering unknown contamination or hazards in the subsurface.
                                                                                                        The ESMP shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical data
                                                                                                        collected on the project site during past investigations; identify
                                                                                                        management options for excavated soil and groundwater, if contam-
                                                                                                        inated media are encountered during deep excavations; and identify
                                                                                                        monitoring, irrigation, or other wells requiring proper abandonment in
                                                                                                        compliance with local, State, and federal statutes and regulations.

                                                                                                        The ESMP shall include measures for identifying, testing, and
                                                                                                        managing soil and groundwater suspected of or known to contain
                                                                                                        hazardous materials. The ESMP shall: 1) provide procedures for
                                                                                                        evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and
                                                                                                        groundwater during project excavation and dewatering activities,
                                                                                                        respectively; 2) describe required worker health and safety provisions
                                                                                                        for all workers potentially exposed to hazardous materials in
                                                                                                        accordance with State and federal worker safety regulations; and 3)
                                                                                                        designate personnel responsible for implementation of the ESMP.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                 28
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                            II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                  Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                              Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                    With
             Environmental Impacts                                                        Mitigation                              Mitigation Measures                               Mitigation
 HAZ-2 Continued                                                                                        HAZ-2b: For areas at the project site with potential residual VOCs in
                                                                                                        soil, soil gas, or groundwater that are planned for redevelopment with
                                                                                                        an overlying occupied building, a vapor intrusion assessment shall be
                                                                                                        performed by a licensed environmental professional. These areas
                                                                                                        include the northwestern corner of the site at the Hewlett-Packard
                                                                                                        Building 42 area and the 10400 North Tantau Avenue property. If the
                                                                                                        results of the vapor intrusion assessment indicate the potential for
                                                                                                        significant vapor intrusion into an occupied building, project design
                                                                                                        shall include vapor controls or source removal, as appropriate, in
                                                                                                        accordance with regulatory agency requirements. Soil vapor
                                                                                                        mitigations or controls could include passive venting and/or active
                                                                                                        venting. The vapor intrusion assessment and associated vapor
                                                                                                        controls or source removal can be incorporated into the ESMP
                                                                                                        (Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a).
 HAZ-3: Demolition activities at the project site could                                         S       HAZ-3: Hazardous building materials surveys shall be conducted by             LTS
 result in exposure to hazardous building materials.                                                    a qualified and licensed professional for all structures, not previously
                                                                                                        inspected or abated, proposed for demolition or renovation at the
                                                                                                        project site. ACM shall be included in the hazardous materials
                                                                                                        building surveys for buildings constructed prior to 1981. Lead-based
                                                                                                        paint shall be included in all hazardous material surveys. All loose
                                                                                                        and peeling lead-based paint and ACM shall be abated by certified
                                                                                                        contractor(s) in accordance with local, State, and federal
                                                                                                        requirements. All other hazardous materials, such as “universal
                                                                                                        wastes,” shall be removed from buildings prior to demolition in
                                                                                                        accordance with DOSH regulations. The completion of the abatement
                                                                                                        activities shall be documented by a qualified environmental
                                                                                                        professional(s) and submitted to the City of Cupertino prior to the
                                                                                                        issuance of construction and demolition permits.
 HAZ-4: The proposed project involves hazardous or                                              S       HAZ-4: Implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2.                         LTS
 acutely hazardous materials within ¼-mile of a
 school.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                 29
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                            II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                 Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                             Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                   With
                Environmental Impacts                                                     Mitigation                            Mitigation Measures                                Mitigation
 I. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
 TRANS-1: Under Existing plus Project Conditions,                                               S       TRANS-1: As part of the project, the project sponsor would construct          SU
 completion of the proposed project would cause                                                         an additional westbound lane at intersection #21 Wolfe Road/I-280
 intersection #21 Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound                                                           Northbound Ramps to provide for dual left-turn and dual right-turn
 Ramps to operate at an unacceptable level (change                                                      lanes. With the additional lane, the intersection would operate at
 from LOS B to LOS E) during the AM peak hour                                                           acceptable LOS B (17.1 seconds) during the AM peak hour.
 based on City of Cupertino LOS standards.                                                              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.
 TRANS-2: Under Existing plus Project Conditions,                                               S       TRANS-2: At intersection #31 Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway, the                LTS
 completion of the proposed project would cause                                                         project sponsor shall construct an exclusive northbound through lane
 intersection #31 Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway to                                                       (for a total of one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared
 operate at an unacceptable level (change from LOS C                                                    through/right-turn lane), and a receiving lane on the north side of the
 to LOS E+) during the AM peak hour based on City                                                       intersection which would improve intersection operations to
 of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.                                                                    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. Second-
                                                                                                        ary 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 BIO-3 in
                                                                                                        Section V.D, Biological Resources in DEIR addresses these potential
                                                                                                        secondary impacts.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                30
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                           II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                 Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                             Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                   With
                Environmental Impacts                                                     Mitigation                               Mitigation Measures                             Mitigation
 TRANS-3: Under Existing plus Project Conditions,                                             S         TRANS-3: At intersection #36 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert                  SU
 completion of the proposed project would cause                                                         Drive/I-280 Ramps (west), the project sponsor shall construct an
 intersection #36 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert                                                       exclusive eastbound right-turn lane (for a total of three through lanes
 Drive/I-280 Ramps (west) to operate at an                                                              and one right-turn lane) and provide an eastbound right-turn overlap
 unacceptable level (change from LOS D to LOS F)                                                        phase. This would improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS
 during the PM peak hour based on CMP guideline.                                                        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 relocation of
                                                                                                        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 Caltrans to construct the identified physical improvement at the
                                                                                                        Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/I-280 Ramp (west) intersec-
                                                                                                        tion. Since this intersection is outside of the City of Cupertino’s
                                                                                                        jurisdiction, the City cannot guarantee that the improvement would be
                                                                                                        constructed. For this reason the impact would remain significant and
                                                                                                        unavoidable.
 TRANS-4: Under Background Plus Project                                                         S       TRANS-4: At intersection #5 De Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road                 LTS
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   the project sponsor shall construct an exclusive southbound right-turn
 exacerbate unacceptable operations of intersection #5                                                  lane (for a total of two left-turn lanes, three through lanes, and one
 De Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road during the PM                                                         right-turn lane) which would improve intersection operations to LOS
 peak hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact                                                        E+. Although still considered an unacceptable LOS based on
 thresholds.                                                                                            Cupertino’s standards, this mitigation measure would improve
                                                                                                        operations over Background No Project Conditions.

                                                                                                        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 potential secondary impacts related to potential tree removal.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                31
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                            II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                  Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                              Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                    With
                Environmental Impacts                                                     Mitigation                             Mitigation Measures                                Mitigation
 TRANS-5: Under Background plus Project                                                       S         TRANS-5: At intersection #21 Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound                       SU
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   Ramps, the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure
 cause intersection #21 Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound                                                     TRANS-1 (provide dual left- and right-turn lanes on the off-ramp),
 Ramps to operate at an unacceptable level (change                                                      which would improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS B
 from LOS B to LOS E) during the AM peak hour                                                           (18.0 seconds). However, the off-ramp intersection is under Caltrans
 based on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.                                                      jurisdiction. Therefore, neither the applicant nor the City of Cupertino
                                                                                                        can ensure the implementation of the proposed mitigation measure;
                                                                                                        thus the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
 TRANS-6: Under Background plus Project                                                         S       TRANS-6: At intersection #27 Tantau Avenue/Homestead Road the                 LTS
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   project sponsor shall construct an exclusive right-turn lane from
 cause intersection #27 Tantau Avenue/Homestead                                                         eastbound Homestead Road to southbound Tantau Avenue (for a total
 Road to operate at an unacceptable level (change from                                                  of one eastbound left-turn lane, two eastbound through lanes, and one
 LOS D+ to LOS E) during the AM peak hour based                                                         eastbound right-turn lane), which would improve intersection
 on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.                                                            operations to acceptable LOS D- (52.6 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 potential secondary impacts related to potential tree removal.
 TRANS-7: Under Background plus Project                                                         S       TRANS-7: At intersection #31 Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway, the                LTS
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-2 (add
 cause intersection #31 Tantau Avenue/Vallco                                                            exclusive northbound through lane), which would improve
 Parkway to operate at an unacceptable level (change                                                    intersection operations to acceptable LOS C (28.7 seconds).
 from LOS C to LOS E+) during the AM peak hour
 based on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                 32
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                          II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                               Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                           Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                 With
                Environmental Impacts                                                     Mitigation                             Mitigation Measures                             Mitigation
 TRANS-8: Under Background plus Project                                                       S         TRANS-8: At intersection #32 Tantau Avenue/Stevens Creek                    LTS
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   Boulevard, the project sponsor shall construct a 100-foot exclusive
 cause intersection #32 Tantau Avenue/Stevens Creek                                                     southbound right-turn lane (for a total of two southbound left-turn
 Boulevard to operate at an unacceptable level (change                                                  lanes and one southbound right-turn lane), with associated
 from LOS D to LOS E-) during the PM peak hour                                                          improvements in the right-of-way, which would improve intersection
 based on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.                                                      operations to acceptable LOS D (46.8 seconds).
 TRANS-9: Under Background plus Project                                                         S       TRANS-9a: At intersection #36 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert               SU
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   Drive/I-280 Ramps (west), the project sponsor shall implement
 exacerbate unacceptable operations of intersection                                                     Mitigation Measure TRANS-3 (add exclusive eastbound right-turn
 #36 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/I-280                                                        lane), which would improve intersection operations to 112.2 seconds
 Ramps (west) during the PM peak hour based on                                                          (LOS F). However, the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/I-280
 CMP guidelines.                                                                                        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
                                                                                                        right-of-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.
                                                                                                        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 is achieved. Details of the TDM
                                                                                                        program are discussed in the TDM Program Expansion subsection.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                              33
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                   APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                             II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                   Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                               Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                     With
                Environmental Impacts                                                     Mitigation                               Mitigation Measures                               Mitigation
 TRANS-10: Under Background plus Project                                                      S         TRANS-10: At intersection #40 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence                  SU
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   Expressway (east) the project sponsor shall construct a northbound
 cause operations of intersection #40 Stevens Creek                                                     left-turn lane (for a total of two exclusive left-turn lanes, one shared
 Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway Ramps (east) to                                                          left-turn/through lane, and shared through/right-turn lane) from
 operate at an unacceptable level (change from LOS D                                                    northbound Lawrence Expressway to westbound Stevens Creek
 to LOS F) during the AM peak hour based on CMP                                                         Boulevard. This mitigation would improve intersection operations to
 guidelines.                                                                                            LOS D (49.7 seconds). This improvement is physically feasible;
                                                                                                        however, it would require the construction of a retaining wall and
                                                                                                        modifications to the eastbound approach to accommodate the
                                                                                                        additional left-turn lane.

                                                                                                        This intersection is a CMP intersection located within the City of
                                                                                                        Santa Clara. The project sponsor would be required to coordinate
                                                                                                        with VTA, City of Santa Clara, and other responsible agencies to
                                                                                                        construct the identified physical improvement at the Stevens Creek
                                                                                                        Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway Ramps (east) intersection. Since
                                                                                                        this intersection is outside of the City of Cupertino’s jurisdiction, the
                                                                                                        City cannot guarantee that the improvement would be constructed.
                                                                                                        For this reason the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
 TRANS-11: Under Background plus Project                                                        S       TRANS-11: At intersection #41 Lawrence Expressway/I-280                         SU
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   Southbound Ramps, the project sponsor shall construct an exclusive
 cause operations of intersection #41 Lawrence                                                          eastbound through lane (for a total of one shared left-turn/through
 Expressway/I-280 Southbound Ramps to operate at an                                                     lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane), which would
 unacceptable level (change from LOS E to LOS F)                                                        improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS E+ (56.9 seconds).
 during the PM peak hour based on CMP guidelines.                                                       The mitigation measure would require the construction of a new
                                                                                                        retaining wall along I-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 existing
                                                                                                        bridge that crosses the creek running parallel to the west side of
                                                                                                        Lawrence Expressway. The widening would cause secondary impacts
                                                                                                        to the creek. Potential secondary impacts to the creek associated with
                                                                                                        widening the existing bridge as a traffic mitigation measure are
                                                                                                        addressed in Section V.D, Biological Resources.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                  34
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                            II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                 Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                             Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                   With
            Environmental Impacts                                                         Mitigation                               Mitigation Measures                             Mitigation
 TRANS-11 Continued                                                                                     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/I-280 Ramps
                                                                                                        intersection. Since this intersection is outside of the City of
                                                                                                        Cupertino’s jurisdiction, the City cannot guarantee that it would be
                                                                                                        constructed. For this reason the impact would remain significant and
                                                                                                        unavoidable.
 TRANS-12: Under Cumulative plus Project                                                        S       TRANS-12: At intersection #5 De Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road                 LTS
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   intersection, the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure
 exacerbate unacceptable operations of intersection #5                                                  TRANS-4 (add exclusive southbound right-turn lane), which would
 De Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road during the PM                                                         improve intersection operations to LOS E+ (58.9 seconds). Though
 peak hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact                                                        LOS E+ is not considered acceptable at the #5 De Anza Boulevard/
 thresholds.                                                                                            Homestead Road intersection, the LOS would improve to better
                                                                                                        operating conditions than under the Cumulative No Project scenario
                                                                                                        and the impact would be considered less than significant.
 TRANS-13: Under Cumulative plus Project                                                        S       TRANS-13a: At intersection #8 De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek                 SU
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   Boulevard, the provision of an exclusive southbound right-turn lane
 cause intersection #8 De Anza Boulevard/Stevens                                                        (for a total of two left-turn lanes, four through lanes, and one right-
 Creek Boulevard to operate at an unacceptable level                                                    turn lane) and adjusting the signal timings to accommodate the added
 (change from LOS E+ to LOS E) during the PM peak                                                       turn lane would improve intersection operations to acceptable levels
 hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact                                                             at LOS E+ with 58.9 seconds of average delay. However, this
 thresholds.                                                                                            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.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                35
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                               APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                         II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                              Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                          Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                With
            Environmental Impacts                                                         Mitigation                             Mitigation Measures                            Mitigation
 TRANS-13 Continued                                                                                     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.
 TRANS-14: Under Cumulative plus Project                                                        S       TRANS-14: At intersection ##21 Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound                 SU
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   Ramps, the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure
 cause intersection #21 Wolfe Road/I-280 Northbound                                                     TRANS-1 (provide dual left- and right-turn lanes), which would
 Ramps to operate at an unacceptable level (change                                                      improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS B (18.1 seconds).
 from LOS B to LOS E) during the AM peak hour
 based on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.
 TRANS-15: Under Cumulative plus Project                                                        S       TRANS-15: The project sponsor shall contribute a pro rata share to         LTS
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   modify the traffic signal operations to provide an overlap phase for
 exacerbate unacceptable operations of intersection                                                     the westbound right-turn movement, which would provide for a green
 #23 Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway during the PM peak                                                       right-turn arrow while the southbound left-turn movement has its
 hour based on City of Cupertino LOS impact                                                             green time. Southbound U-turns shall also be prohibited. To accom-
 thresholds.                                                                                            modate the overlap phase the geometries at the westbound approach
                                                                                                        would be modified to provide one left-turn lane, one shared left-
                                                                                                        turn/through lane, and two right-turn lanes.

                                                                                                        Providing a westbound overlap phase could have secondary impacts,
                                                                                                        since southbound vehicles wanting to travel northbound would have
                                                                                                        to travel to the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Wolfe Road intersection to
                                                                                                        access northbound Wolfe Road. Field observations were conducted to
                                                                                                        determine the existing percentage of vehicles making U-turns at the
                                                                                                        intersections. The field data was used to estimate the impact of
                                                                                                        diverting U-turns from Vallco Parkway to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
                                                                                                        The LOS results show that both the Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway
                                                                                                        (42.4 seconds and LOS D) and Stevens Creek Boulevard/Wolfe Road
                                                                                                        intersections (49.9 seconds and LOS D) would operate acceptably
                                                                                                        with the proposed southbound U-turn restrictions at the Wolfe
                                                                                                        Road/Vallco Parkway intersection. The project impact would be
                                                                                                        reduced to a less-than-significant level.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                             36
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                           II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                 Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                             Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                   With
                Environmental Impacts                                                     Mitigation                            Mitigation Measures                                Mitigation
 TRANS-16: Under Cumulative plus Project                                                      S         TRANS-16: At intersection #27 Tantau Avenue/Homestead Road, the               LTS
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-6 (add
 cause intersection #27 Tantau Avenue/Homestead                                                         exclusive eastbound right-turn lane), which would improve intersec-
 Road to operate at an unacceptable level (change from                                                  tion operations to acceptable LOS D- (52.6 seconds).
 LOS D+ to LOS E) during the AM peak hour based
 on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.
 TRANS-17: Under Cumulative plus Project                                                        S       TRANS-17: At intersection #31 Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway, the              LTS
 Conditions, the project would cause intersection #31                                                   project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-2 (add
 Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway to operate at an                                                          exclusive northbound through lane), which would improve
 unacceptable level (change from LOS C to LOS E+)                                                       intersection operations to LOS C (28.7 seconds).
 during the AM peak hour based on City of Cupertino
 LOS impact thresholds.
 TRANS-18: Under Cumulative plus Project                                                        S       TRANS-18: At intersection #32 Tantau Avenue/Stevens Creek                    LTS
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   Boulevard, the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure
 cause intersection #32 Tantau Avenue/Stevens Creek                                                     TRANS-8 (add exclusive southbound right-turn lane), which would
 Boulevard to operate at an unacceptable level (change                                                  improve intersection operations to LOS D (49.4 seconds).
 from LOS D- to LOS F) during the PM peak hour
 based on City of Cupertino LOS impact thresholds.
 TRANS-19: Under Cumulative plus Project                                                        S       TRANS-19a: Potential physical improvements as mitigation                      SU
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   measures for intersection #36 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert
 exacerbate unacceptable operations of intersection                                                     Drive/I-280 Ramps are discussed under Mitigation Measure TRANS-
 #36 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Calvert Drive/I-280                                                        9a (add two exclusive eastbound right-turn lanes). However, there are
 Ramps (west) during the PM peak hour based on                                                          right-of-way constraints that render this mitigation measure
 CMP guidelines.                                                                                        infeasible. Additionally, this intersection is within the City of Santa
                                                                                                        Clara, and the City has no control over the implementation of the
                                                                                                        mitigation measure; therefore the impact is considered significant and
                                                                                                        unavoidable.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                37
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                           II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                 Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                             Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                   With
            Environmental Impacts                                                         Mitigation                              Mitigation Measures                              Mitigation
 TRANS-19 Continued                                                                                     TRANS-19b: The project sponsor shall expand the TDM program to
                                                                                                        reduce the severity of the impact (Mitigation Measure TRANS-9a).
                                                                                                        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-9a; however the increase in TDM participation
                                                                                                        would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
 TRANS-20: Under Cumulative plus Project                                                        S       TRANS-20: For intersection #40 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence               SU
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   Expressway Ramps (east), the project sponsor shall implement
 cause operations of intersection #40 Stevens Creek                                                     Mitigation Measure TRANS-10 (add exclusive northbound left-turn
 Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway Ramps (east) to                                                          lane), which would improve intersection operations to LOS D- (52.3
 operate at an unacceptable level (change from LOS D                                                    seconds). Since this intersection is outside of the City of Cupertino’s
 to LOS F) during the AM peak hour based on CMP                                                         jurisdiction, the City cannot guarantee that the improvement would be
 guidelines.                                                                                            constructed. For this reason the impact would remain significant and
                                                                                                        unavoidable.
 TRANS-21: Under Cumulative plus Project                                                        S       TRANS-21: For intersection #41 Lawrence Expressway/I-280                      SU
 Conditions, completion of the proposed project would                                                   Ramps, the project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure
 cause operations of intersection #41 Lawrence                                                          TRANS-11 (add exclusive eastbound through lane), which would
 Expressway/I-280 Southbound Ramps to operate at an                                                     improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS E+ (58.3 seconds).
 unacceptable level (change from LOS E to LOS F)                                                        Since this intersection is outside of the City of Cupertino’s
 during the PM peak hour based on CMP guidelines.                                                       jurisdiction, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                38
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                            II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                 Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                             Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                   With
               Environmental Impacts                                                      Mitigation                            Mitigation Measures                                Mitigation
 TRANS-22: Completion of the proposed project                                                 S         TRANS-22: The project sponsor shall pay a $536,000 fair share                 SU
 would add substantial amounts of traffic to the                                                        contribution towards two planned transportation projects identified in
 following ten mixed flow segments and one HOV                                                          VTA’s Valley Transportation Plan 2035 (VTP 2035) that would
 freeway segment operating at LOS F:                                                                    improve traffic operations of the impacted freeway segments and
    I-280, Northbound, SR 85 to Foothill                                                               provide added transportation capacity on parallel facilities: (1) SR 85
      Expressway                                                                                        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)
    I-280, Southbound, Foothill Expressway to SR
                                                                                                        between Mountain View and San Jose and (2) the Bus Rapid Transit
      85
                                                                                                        (BRT) station on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Wolfe Road and De
    I-280, Southbound, SR 85 to De Anza Boulevard                                                      Anza Boulevard. The fair share contribution amount was calculated
    I-280, Southbound, De Anza Boulevard to Wolfe                                                      in consultation with VTA staff based on the project’s contribution to
      Road                                                                                              project growth on the impacted freeway segment.
    I-280, Northbound, Lawrence Expressway/
      Stevens Creek Boulevard to Wolfe Road                                                             It is unlikely that the Express Lane or BRT project would be imple-
                                                                                                        mented prior to project completion and that these improvements
    I-280, Southbound, Wolfe Road to Lawrence
                                                                                                        would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. In addition,
      Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard
                                                                                                        the City has no control over the implementation of these mitigation
    I-280, Northbound, Saratoga Avenue to                                                              measures; therefore the impact to the freeway segments would remain
      Lawrence Expressway/Stevens Creek Boulevard                                                       significant and unavoidable.
    I-280, Southbound, Lawrence Expressway/
      Stevens Creek Boulevard to Saratoga Avenue
    I-280, Northbound, Winchester Boulevard to
      Saratoga Avenue
    SR 85, Northbound, Winchester Boulevard to
      Saratoga Avenue
    I-280, HOV Northbound, Lawrence Expressway/
      Stevens Creek Boulevard to Saratoga Avenue
 These freeway segments would be impacted under the
 Existing Plus Project Conditions based on CMP
 guidelines.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                39
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                           II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                            Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                  With
                Environmental Impacts                                                     Mitigation                            Mitigation Measures                               Mitigation
 TRANS-23: Based on City of Cupertino standards,                                             SU         TRANS-23: At the main project driveway on Wolfe Road, the project            LTS
 the design of the project with three left-turn lanes on                                                sponsor shall reduce the number of left turn lanes from three to two.
 the Wolfe Road driveway approach would cause a                                                         This would reduce the weaving on southbound Wolfe Road between
 substantial increase in conflicts due to vehicles                                                      the driveway and the I-280 northbound on-ramp since there would be,
 weaving on Wolfe Road between the driveway and                                                         at most, a one-lane lane change in order for drivers to align
 the I-280 ramps in order to merge and align into the                                                   themselves to the correct lane.
 correct lanes to enter the freeway upon exiting the
 campus.
 TRANS-24: Completion of the proposed project                                                   S       TRANS-24: The project sponsor shall provide a dedicated south-               LTS
 would cause excessive vehicle queues on the                                                            bound right-turn lane at the Tantau Avenue/Vallco Parkway
 southbound Tantau Avenue at Vallco Parkway based                                                       intersection.
 on City of Cupertino standards.
 TRANS-25: As part of the project, the project sponsor                                          S       TRANS-25: The project sponsor shall widen the northbound I-280               SU
 would widen the northbound I-280 off-ramp at Wolfe                                                     off-ramp at Wolfe Road to accommodate two lanes. The project
 Road to accommodate two lanes and reduce excessive                                                     sponsor would need to work with City staff, VTA, and Caltrans to
 queue spillback onto the freeway. If Caltrans does not                                                 plan, design and construct the widening with all funding provided by
 approve this improvement, excessive queue spillback                                                    the project sponsor. The off-ramp is under Caltrans jurisdiction.
 would occur (City of Cupertino).                                                                       Therefore, the City of Cupertino cannot ensure the implementation of
                                                                                                        the proposed mitigation measure; thus the impact is considered
                                                                                                        significant and unavoidable.
 TRANS-26: As part of the project, the project sponsor                                          S       TRANS-26: The project sponsor shall widen the southbound I-280               SU
 would widen the southbound I-280 off-ramp at Wolfe                                                     off-ramp at Wolfe Road to accommodate two lanes. The project
 Road to accommodate two lanes and reduce excessive                                                     sponsor would need to work with City staff, VTA, and Caltrans to
 queue spillback onto the freeway. If Caltrans does not                                                 plan, design, and construct the widening with all funding provided by
 approve this improvement, excessive queue spillback                                                    the project sponsor. Widening of the freeway off-ramp to
 would occur (City of Cupertino).                                                                       accommodate a second off-ramp lane and shoulder would likely
                                                                                                        require the removal of existing landscaping in front of the soundwall.
                                                                                                        The feasibility of this mitigation measure cannot be assured and the
                                                                                                        off-ramp is under Caltrans jurisdiction. Therefore, the City of
                                                                                                        Cupertino cannot ensure the implementation of the proposed
                                                                                                        mitigation measure and the impact is considered significant and
                                                                                                        unavoidable.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                               40
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                   APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                             II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                    Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                                Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                      With
                Environmental Impacts                                                     Mitigation                            Mitigation Measures                                   Mitigation
 TRANS-27: The proposed location of the project                                               S         TRANS-27: The southernmost driveway to the Cupertino Village                     LTS
 driveway intersection on Wolfe Road and the                                                            should be closed or restricted to right-turns in only. With this
 associated congestion would result in hazards for                                                      mitigation the impact would be less-than-significant.
 vehicles exiting the southernmost Wolfe Road
 driveway to the Cupertino Village shopping center
 (City of Cupertino and CEQA).
 TRANS-28: The provision of two northbound                                                      S       TRANS-28: To lessen the impact the project sponsor shall install a               SU
 inbound right-turn lanes and six lanes on the east leg                                                 “Yield to Peds” sign that is activated by a pedestrian push button.
 of the Wolfe Road/Project Access intersection with                                                     Additionally, the project shall install a high visibility crosswalk (i.e.,
 the associated high traffic volumes would interfere                                                    with ladder striping) at the east leg of the Wolfe Road/Project Access
 with pedestrian accessibility to the site and adjoining                                                intersection to help make the crosswalk more prominent. These
 areas (City of Cupertino).                                                                             treatments would lessen the impact, but would not mitigate the impact
                                                                                                        to a less-than-significant level as pedestrian access would still be
                                                                                                        impeded.
 TRANS-29: The increased traffic volume at the I-280                                            S       TRANS-29: To enhance the pedestrian environment and lessen the                   SU
 ramps with Wolfe Road would create a challenging                                                       pedestrian impact at the six I-280 ramps with Wolfe Road, the project
 condition for pedestrians that currently does not exist                                                sponsor shall provide enhanced crosswalks at all ramp crosswalks.
 (City of Cupertino).                                                                                   Additionally, for the I-280 southbound loop on-ramp, the project
                                                                                                        sponsor shall design, construct, and fund the following to improve the
                                                                                                        sight distance to an industry standard of 250 feet for a 35 mph
                                                                                                        roadway include:
                                                                                                                Replacing existing fence on overcrossing with one that has
                                                                                                                 better transparency;
                                                                                                                Trimming and maintaining vegetation on northwest corner of
                                                                                                                 the Wolfe Road/I-280 southbound loop on-ramp;
                                                                                                                Redesigning the ramp to move the crosswalk further north;
                                                                                                                 and
                                                                                                                Adding a pavement legend to indicate pedestrian crossing.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                   41
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                   APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                             II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                 Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                             Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                   With
            Environmental Impacts                                                         Mitigation                             Mitigation Measures                               Mitigation
 TRANS-29 Continued                                                                                     The treatments would lessen the impact, but would not mitigate the
                                                                                                        impact to a less-than-significant level, as the increased vehicular
                                                                                                        volumes would still exist. Further, the feasibility of this mitigation
                                                                                                        measure cannot be assured as the on-ramp is under Caltrans
                                                                                                        jurisdiction. Therefore, the City of Cupertino cannot ensure the
                                                                                                        implementation of the mitigation measure.
 TRANS-30: The added traffic on Wolfe Road and                                                  S       TRANS-30: The project sponsor shall upgrade transit stops along                LTS
 around the project site would result in increased                                                      Wolfe Road between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Homestead Road,
 congestion and could induce transit demand and                                                         on Vallco Parkway between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue, on
 increase transit ridership in the area, which currently                                                Tantau Avenue between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Homestead
 has minimal transit stop amenities (VTA).                                                              Road, and on Homestead Road between Tantau Avenue and Wolfe
                                                                                                        Road.
 TRANS-31: The proposed closure of Pruneridge                                                   S       TRANS-31: Implement Mitigation Measures PLAN-2 and PLAN-3.                     SU
 Avenue between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue                                                            The multi-use paths and the pedestrian improvements proposed as
 would have significant impacts on pedestrian access                                                    part of the project would lessen the impact, but would not mitigate the
 because it would reduce accessibility for pedestrians                                                  impact to a less-than-significant level as the elimination of existing
 and eliminate existing pedestrian facilities (City of                                                  pedestrian facilities would still occur.
 Cupertino).
 TRANS-32: The proposed closure of Pruneridge                                                   S       TRANS-32: Implement Mitigation Measure PLAN-2 and PLAN-3.                      SU
 Avenue between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue                                                            The multi-use paths and bicycle improvements proposed as part of
 would have significant impacts on bicycle access                                                       the project would lessen the impact, but would not mitigate the
 because it would reduce accessibility for bicyclists                                                   impact to a less-than-significant level as the elimination of existing
 and eliminates existing bicycle facilities (City of                                                    bicycle facilities would still occur.
 Cupertino).
 TRANS-33: The proposed closure of Pruneridge                                                   S       TRANS-33: There are no feasible mitigation measures to restore                 SU
 Avenue and associated reroute of Route 81 to Vallco                                                    transit access to Route 81 for The Hamptons residents, therefore the
 Parkway would significantly reduce transit access for                                                  impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
 The Hamptons residents (City of Cupertino).




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                 42
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                     APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                               II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                     Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                                 Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                       With
                 Environmental Impacts                                                    Mitigation                              Mitigation Measures                                  Mitigation
 TRANS-34: The proposed closure of Pruneridge                                                 S         TRANS-34: There are no mitigation measures to reduce the impact to                SU
 Avenue between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue                                                            a less-than-significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
 would have significant impacts on access to The                                                        TRANS-32 would lessen the impact, but not to a less-than-significant
 Hamptons for those with destinations east of Tantau                                                    level.
 Avenue (City of Cupertino).
 TRANS-35: The project may result in a parking                                                  S       TRANS-35: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-9b.                                 LTS
 shortfall if Apple does not achieve a 34 percent TDM
 participation rate.
 J. NOISE
 NOI-1: Project-related construction activities would                                           S       NOI-1: The project applicant shall implement the following measures              LTS
 create a clearly noticeable temporary change in the                                                    at the project site during all demolition and construction activities,
 noise environment and create noise levels that would                                                   subject to the approval of the City:
 exceed the noise level standards in the City of                                                                The project applicant shall ensure the construction of a 15-
 Cupertino Municipal Code.                                                                                       foot high temporary sound wall along the project’s property
                                                                                                                 line adjacent to sensitive land uses.
                                                                                                                 o A temporary sound wall shall be constructed along the
                                                                                                                     eastern project property line to block the line-of-sight
                                                                                                                     from the single-family residential land uses on Howard
                                                                                                                     Drive and Meadow Avenue to project construction areas
                                                                                                                     on the east side of North Tantau Avenue. This sound wall
                                                                                                                     shall be set back from the property line as much as
                                                                                                                     feasible to still allow for project construction activities to
                                                                                                                     occur.
                                                                                                                 o A temporary sound wall shall be constructed along the
                                                                                                                     southern project property line to block the line-of-sight
                                                                                                                     from The Hamptons to project construction areas in the
                                                                                                                     southwest portion of the project site. This sound wall shall
                                                                                                                     be set back from the property line as much as feasible to
                                                                                                                     still allow for project construction activities to occur.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                    43
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                              APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                        II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                              Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                          Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                With
             Environmental Impacts                                                        Mitigation                        Mitigation Measures                                 Mitigation
 NOI-1 Continued                                                                                            o A temporary sound wall shall be constructed along the
                                                                                                                northern project property line to block the line-of-sight
                                                                                                                from the single-family residential properties north of East
                                                                                                                Homestead Road to project construction areas in the
                                                                                                                northern portion of the project site. This sound wall shall
                                                                                                                be set back from the property line as much as feasible to
                                                                                                                still allow for project construction activities to occur.
                                                                                                           The project contractor shall designate a construction liaison
                                                                                                            that shall be responsible for responding to any local com-
                                                                                                            plaints about construction noise. The liaison shall determine
                                                                                                            the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad
                                                                                                            muffler) and institute reasonable measures to correct the
                                                                                                            problem. A telephone number for the liaison shall be conspic-
                                                                                                            uously posted at the perimeter of the construction site and
                                                                                                            provided to all adjacent property owners prior to commence-
                                                                                                            ment of construction.
                                                                                                           The project contractor shall ensure that all construction
                                                                                                            equipment has appropriate high-quality noise muffling and
                                                                                                            abatement devices, which would be properly maintained and
                                                                                                            used at all times such equipment is in operation.
                                                                                                           The project contractor shall, to the extent feasible, place all
                                                                                                            stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is
                                                                                                            directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project
                                                                                                            site.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                             44
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                            II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                  Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                              Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                    With
             Environmental Impacts                                                        Mitigation                            Mitigation Measures                                 Mitigation
 NOI-1 Continued                                                                                              Exterior project noise-generating construction activities (i.e.,
                                                                                                               grading, construction and demolition) shall be permitted
                                                                                                               within 750 feet of any residentially zoned property only
                                                                                                               between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays,
                                                                                                               and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on
                                                                                                               weekends. No such work shall be permitted on holidays (i.e.,
                                                                                                               New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor
                                                                                                               Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day), except as approved
                                                                                                               by the Community Development Director. A Noise Variance
                                                                                                               may be obtained from the Noise Control Officer for each
                                                                                                               occurrence of specific temporary construction activities.
                                                                                                              Construction activities, other than street construction, shall be
                                                                                                               prohibited on holidays, unless they meet the City of
                                                                                                               Cupertino’s nighttime maximum permissible noise level
                                                                                                               standards.
 NOI-2: Implementation of the project would result in                                           S       NOI-2: The project sponsor shall resurface the following roadway              LTS
 a significant contribution to cumulative traffic noise                                                 segments with RHMA-O or similar quiet pavement:
 levels experienced in the project vicinity.                                                                  East Homestead Road, from North Wolfe Road to North
                                                                                                               Tantau Avenue; and
                                                                                                              North Wolfe Road, from Pruneridge Avenue to the I-280
                                                                                                               northbound ramps.
 K. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SUSTAINABILITY
 There are no significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions or Sustainability impacts.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                 45
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                            II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                  Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                              Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                    With
                Environmental Impacts                                                     Mitigation                            Mitigation Measures                                 Mitigation
 L. AIR QUALITY
 AIR-1: Construction of the proposed project would                                              S       AIR-1: Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following                 SU
 generate air pollutant emissions that could violate air                                                actions shall be required in relevant construction contracts and
 quality standards.                                                                                     specifications for the project:
                                                                                                               All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil
                                                                                                                piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be
                                                                                                                watered two times per day.
                                                                                                               All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material
                                                                                                                off-site shall be covered.
                                                                                                               All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads
                                                                                                                shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at
                                                                                                                least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
                                                                                                                prohibited.
                                                                                                               All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15
                                                                                                                miles per hour (mph).
                                                                                                               All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be
                                                                                                                completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as
                                                                                                                soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders
                                                                                                                are used.
                                                                                                               Construction equipment idling times shall be minimized
                                                                                                                either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing
                                                                                                                the maximum idling time to 2 minutes (as required by the
                                                                                                                California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section
                                                                                                                2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear
                                                                                                                signage shall be provided for construction workers at all
                                                                                                                access points.
                                                                                                               All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly
                                                                                                                tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
                                                                                                                All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
                                                                                                                determined to be running in proper condition prior to
                                                                                                                operation.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                 46
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                               APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                         II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                               Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                           Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                 With
              Environmental Impacts                                                       Mitigation                        Mitigation Measures                                  Mitigation
 AIR-1 Continued                                                                                           The project applicant shall post a publicly visible sign with
                                                                                                            the telephone number and person to contact at the City of
                                                                                                            Cupertino regarding dust complaints. This person shall
                                                                                                            respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48
                                                                                                            hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to
                                                                                                            ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
                                                                                                           All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate
                                                                                                            to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture
                                                                                                            content can be verified by lab samples or a moisture probe.
                                                                                                           All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be
                                                                                                            suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
                                                                                                           Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass
                                                                                                            seed) or other plants that offer dust mitigation measures shall
                                                                                                            be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered
                                                                                                            appropriately until vegetation is established.
                                                                                                           The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and
                                                                                                            ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at
                                                                                                            any one time shall be limited. To the extent feasible, activities
                                                                                                            shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at
                                                                                                            any one time.
                                                                                                           All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be
                                                                                                            washed off prior to leaving the site.
                                                                                                           Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed
                                                                                                            to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a
                                                                                                            slope greater than 1 percent.
                                                                                                           Use low volatile organic compound (i.e., ROG) coatings
                                                                                                            beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3:
                                                                                                            Architectural Coatings).
                                                                                                           To the maximum extent feasible, all construction equipment,
                                                                                                            diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best
                                                                                                            Available Control Technology for emission reductions of
                                                                                                            NOx and PM.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                              47
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                   APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                             II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                                   Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                               Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                                     With
              Environmental Impacts                                                       Mitigation                             Mitigation Measures                                 Mitigation
 AIR-1 Continued                                                                                                To the maximum extent feasible, all contractors shall use
                                                                                                                 equipment that meets ARB’s most recent certification
                                                                                                                 standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines.
                                                                                                                Excluding the following equipment, ensure that all diesel-
                                                                                                                 powered off-road equipment used on-site meets U.S. EPA
                                                                                                                 “Tier 2” exhaust emission standards, and that engines are
                                                                                                                 equipped with California ARB “Level 3 Verified Diesel
                                                                                                                 Emission Control Strategies” (which include diesel particu-
                                                                                                                 late filters) or are certified to meet the U.S. EPA “Tier 4
                                                                                                                 Interim” standard for particulate matter emissions. Equipment
                                                                                                                 that will meet U.S. EPA “Tier 2” exhaust emission standards
                                                                                                                 but will not be equipped with California “Level 3 Verified
                                                                                                                 Diesel Emission Control Strategy” shall be limited to:
                                                                                                                 o Scrapers 623G
                                                                                                                 o Scrapers 633B
                                                                                                                 o Four of the six proposed Scrapers 657G
                                                                                                                Ensure that trucks used at the site to haul material and/or soil
                                                                                                                 are model year 2007 or newer (or meet equivalent U.S. EPA
                                                                                                                 emission standards).
                                                                                                                Require all aerial and personnel lifts less than 50 horsepower
                                                                                                                 to be fueled with natural gas or propane.
 AIR-2: Operation of the proposed project would                                                 S       AIR-2: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-9b (which requires                    SU
 generate air pollutant emissions that would exceed the                                                 Apple to expand its TDM Program and increase the reduction in peak
 BAAQMD criteria and could substantially contribute                                                     hour trips from 28 percent to 34 percent).
 to a violation of air quality standards.
 AIR-3: Construction and operation of the proposed                                              S       AIR-3: Implement Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2.                           SU
 project would result in a significant cumulative net
 increase in criteria pollutant emissions.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                  48
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                              APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                                        II. SUMMARY




Table II-1:               Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR
                                                                                           Level of                                                                             Level of
                                                                                         Significance                                                                         Significance
                                                                                           Without                                                                               With
                 Environmental Impacts                                                    Mitigation                           Mitigation Measures                             Mitigation
 AIR-4: Without the construction practices identified                                         S         AIR-4: The project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure             LTS
 in the Apple Campus Construction Equipment                                                             AIR-1 and the following additional measure:
 Summary, construction of the proposed project would                                                          To the maximum extent feasible, material staging roads shall
 expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant                                                           be set back from the curb by at least 65 feet.
 concentrations.
 M. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
 PSU-1: The proposed project could adversely affect                                             S       PSU-1: The project sponsor shall implement signal preemption              LTS
 the ability of the SCCFD to meet response time                                                         signals at the following intersections (identified by the City and
 objectives.                                                                                            SCCFD as the ones most likely to be used by emergency vehicles
                                                                                                        accessing the project site). The signal preemption signals would
                                                                                                        allow emergency vehicles to pass through approximately 30 seconds
                                                                                                        before arrival.
                                                                                                               North Blaney Avenue and East Homestead Road
                                                                                                               North Tantau Avenue and East Homestead Road
                                                                                                               North Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue
                                                                                                               North Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway
                                                                                                               North Tantau Avenue and Project Entrance
                                                                                                               North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue
                                                                                                               North Wolfe Road and Project Entrance
                                                                                                               North Wolfe Road and East Homestead Road
                                                                                                               North Wolfe Road and I-280 (two interchanges)
                                                                                                               North Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway
                                                                                                               Stevens Creek Boulevard and Perimeter Road
                                                                                                               Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue
                                                                                                               Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue
                                                                                                               Heron Avenue and East Homestead Road
 PSU-2: The proposed project would contribute to a                                              S       PSU-2: Implement Mitigation Measures PLAN-1 and PLAN-3.                   SU
 shortage of park facilities for City residents and
 would preclude the development of an open space
 trail through the project site.
 Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2013.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                            49
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                            APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                      II. SUMMARY




This page intentionally left blank.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-Summary.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          50
                                                   III.           PROJECT DESCRIPTION




This chapter describes the proposed Apple Campus 2 Project (project) that is evaluated in this
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). An overview of the project site, project background, and project
objectives is followed by a description of the proposed development and a summary of requested
approvals and entitlements.

The sponsor of the project is Apple Inc., a corporation that designs and markets consumer electronics,
consumer software, and personal computers. Apple was established in 1976 in the City of Cupertino
(City).

A.         PROJECT SITE
The following section describes the project site’s location, surrounding land uses, site characteristics,
and land use designations.

1.         Location
The approximately 176-acre project site consists mainly of corporate campus buildings (some dating
from the 1960s) currently used by Apple and formerly used by Hewlett-Packard (an information
technology corporation based out of the City of Palo Alto) and is located entirely within the City of
Cupertino. The City, which is located approximately 36 miles southeast of downtown San Francisco
and 8 miles southwest of downtown San Jose, is located in Santa Clara County. The City is bordered
by the cities of Sunnyvale and Los Altos to the north, the cities of Santa Clara and San Jose to the
east, the City of Saratoga to the south, and unincorporated Santa Clara County to the west.

The project site is located in an area of the City referred to as North Vallco. The project site is bor-
dered by East Homestead Road on the north; adjacent properties to the east of North Tantau Avenue
on the east; Interstate 280 (I-280) and The Hamptons apartment community (The Hamptons) on the
south; and North Wolfe Road on the west. Pruneridge Avenue extends through the site on a roughly
east/west alignment. Figure III-1 shows the regional and local context of the project site. The City of
Sunnyvale jurisdictional boundary is located to the north of the site and the City of Santa Clara
jurisdictional boundary is located to the east of the site.

Regional vehicular access to the project site is provided via the North Wolfe Road exit of I-280,
located approximately 2,000 feet south of the project site. Access to the interior of the site is primarily
via Pruneridge Avenue, although driveways extending from East Homestead Road, North Tantau
Avenue, and North Wolfe Road also provide access to the site.

2.         Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is located in one of the City’s mixed use areas, which are generally clustered around
Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard, and Wolfe Road. Beyond these commercial areas are
neighborhoods of primarily residential uses. Apple is a major building occupant and employer within
and in the vicinity of the project site. The uses that surround the project site are summarized below.
Figure III-2 is an aerial photograph of the project site and its immediate surroundings.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT   51
                                                                                                                   Marin
                                                                                                                  County                       24

                                                                                                                                            BERKELEY

                                                                                                    SAN FRANCISCO                                              680
                                                                                                                                                                               580
                                                                                                                                                         HAYWARD
                                                                                                                                                                         PROJECT
                                                                                                                                                        880             LOCATION
                                                                                                                           SAN MATEO




                                                                                                 PA
                                                                                                                                      280




                                                                                                    C
                                                                                                   IF
                                                                                                        IC
                                                                                                                                 PALO ALTO
                                                                                                                                                                       SAN JOSE




                                                                                                             OC
                                                                                                                                       CUPERTINO




                                                                                                              EA
                                                                                                                  N
                                                                                                                                                         9

                                                                                                                                                                   LOS GATOS
                                                                                                                                  1
                                                                                                                                                                                101


                                                                                                REGIONAL LOCATION
                                                                                                                                                    9
                                                                                                                                                              17




                                                                                                                                       Kaiser Santa
                                                                                                                                       Clara Medical
                                                                                                                                          Center




                                                                   Pr
                                                                        un
                                                                             eri
                                                                                   d g e Av e




                                                                                                                                                    FIGURE III-1


                                                        Project Site Boundary

0         500         1000
feet                                                                                                                          Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCES: GOOGLE MAPS; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2011.                                                                              Project Location Map
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\EIR\Fig_III1.ai (1/3/13)
                                                                                                       East Homestead Road




                                                              N. Wolfe Rd



                                                                                                               Glendenning Barn                N. Tantau Avenue




                                                                                                ru




                                                                                                P
                                                                                                   n   er
                                                                                                          id
                                                                                                               ge
                                                                                                                  Av
                                                                                                                    enu
                                                                                                                        e




                                                                                                                                                                ek
                                                                                                                                                  abaz   as Cre
                                                                                                                                              Cal




                                                              Interstate-280




                                                                                                                                          k
                                                                                                                                      Cree
                                                                                                                                  Calabazas




                                                                                                                                                                              FIGURE III-2


                                                                  Apple Campus 2 Project Site
0      300      600
feet                                                                                                                                                                 Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                                                                                                                       Project Site
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\EIR\Fig_III2.ai (4/16/12)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




This page intentionally left blank.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          54
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




                 North. Beyond East Homestead Road to the north of the site is the Birdland Neighbors
                  neighborhood in the City of Sunnyvale, which consists of primarily single-family
                  residential land uses.
                 East. Office and research and development facilities are located to the east of the site, on
                  both sides of Forge Drive and on the south side of East Homestead Road. Predominantly
                  single-family residential uses in the City of Santa Clara are located east of the project site,
                  north and south of Pruneridge Avenue. Jenny Strand Park, a City of Santa Clara park, is
                  also located east of the site.
                 South. I-280 is a major land use feature south of the site. The Hamptons borders the site on
                  the southwest, just north of I-280. The Vallco Shopping Mall and adjacent retail, office,
                  and research and development uses are located south of I-280. The area to the south of I-
                  280 includes Apple facilities.
                 West. The North Wolfe Road commercial district extends along the North Wolfe Road
                  corridor east of the project site and consists of hotels, apartments and retail uses, including
                  restaurants, neighborhood-serving retail uses, and a grocery store.

3.         Site Characteristics
a.    Major Land Uses. The approximately 176-acre project site consists of corporate campus
buildings and associated parking lots currently used by Apple and formerly used by Hewlett-Packard,
additional office buildings located east of North Tantau Avenue primarily used by Apple, and a
segment of Pruneridge Avenue that crosses the site along an approximately east/west transect. These
components of the project site are discussed in more detail below.
                 Ridgeview Court. Ridgeview Court, which is considered part of Apple’s Ridgeview
                  Campus, comprises 56.1 acres and is bordered by Pruneridge Avenue on the north; North
                  Tantau Avenue on the east; I-280 on the south; and The Hamptons on the west. Ridgeview
                  Court contains nine buildings comprising approximately 1 million square feet of office
                  space and approximately 35 acres of surface parking. The southeastern portion of
                  Ridgeview Court is traversed by Calabazas Creek.
                 Pruneridge Campus. Pruneridge Campus, which is also known as the Hewlett-Packard
                  Campus, comprises 98.2 acres and is bordered by East Homestead Road on the north;
                  North Tantau Avenue on the east; Pruneridge Avenue on the south; and North Wolfe Road
                  on the west. This portion of the project site contains nine buildings comprising approxi-
                  mately 1.3 million square feet of office space and research and development space, and
                  approximately 40 acres of surface parking. Hewlett-Packard built Pruneridge Campus over
                  several decades, starting in the 1960s.1 The Glendenning Barn, which is a City of Cuper-
                  tino-designated historic site, is also located within the Pruneridge Campus, near Pruneridge
                  Avenue.
                 North Tantau Avenue Buildings. The project site also includes six office buildings,
                  occupied by Apple, located east of North Tantau Avenue on a 17.2-acre site. This portion
                  of the site is bisected by Pruneridge Avenue and is bordered by office buildings to the
                  north; single-family residential uses and Jenny Strand Park to the east; I-280 to the south;

       1
         Pruneridge Campus was subject to a Development Agreement, which allowed for development of up to approxi-
mately 1.43 million square feet of building space.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          55
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




                  and North Tantau Avenue to the west. The buildings located to the east of North Tantau
                  Avenue comprise approximately 260,000 square feet of office space and are currently
                  occupied by Apple employees.
                 Pruneridge Avenue. A segment of Pruneridge Avenue, comprising approximately 4.75
                  acres, extends through the project site on an east/west alignment. The street currently
                  provides motor vehicle (including public transit), bike, and pedestrian access along an
                  east/west alignment. In addition, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure are located
                  under the City-owned right-of-way. This segment of roadway currently connects North
                  Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue.

Several accessory buildings are also located throughout the project site. The existing buildings within
the project site comprise approximately 2,657,000 square feet of building space.

b.     Employment. While the project site has a total capacity of 9,800 employees2 and has histori-
cally operated near this capacity, as of August 2011, when background data for this EIR were gath-
ered, approximately 4,844 Apple and Hewlett-Packard employees worked on the project site.3 Due to
the evolving business needs of Apple and Hewlett-Packard, and the need for many employees to work
off-site on a given day, the number of employees on the site fluctuated over time. Historically, the
Pruneridge Campus portion of the project site housed a significant portion of Hewlett-Packard
employees (up to approximately 4,700 employees during the early 2000s). Hewlett-Packard started
vacating the Pruneridge Campus in August 2011, and completed this process by October 2012.
Currently, in anticipation of the proposed project, Apple has been transitioning employees from the
Ridgeview Court portion of the project site to other sites in Sunnyvale and Mountain View.

The August 2011 employee estimate provides a reasonable estimate of the number of employees that
currently occupy the site. Of the 4,844 employees on the site, approximately 3,070 are located on the
Pruneridge Campus. The remaining 1,774 employees are located at Ridgeview Court and the
buildings east of North Tantau Avenue.

c.     Open Space and Landscaping. The project site is typical of a corporate campus developed in
the 1960s and later years in that it is largely covered by buildings surrounded by surface parking lots.
Private open space and landscaped areas are primarily located on the periphery of the site, and in the
vicinity of the Glendenning Barn. Of the 176 acres that make up the project site, approximately 130
acres are paved or are occupied by structures. Approximately 43 acres are covered by landscaping.
The remaining 3 acres consist of unclassified surfaces, which are considered to be primarily paved for
the purpose of the analysis in this EIR.

There are 4,506 trees within the project site, the vast majority of which are species that are not native
to the area. Representative tree genera in the site include: gum (Liquidambar); ash (Fraxinus); red-
wood (Sequoia), pine (Pinus), plane (Platanu), maple (Acer), oak (Quercus), and elm (Ulmus). Figure
III-3 shows existing trees on the project site (in addition to trees that would exist on the site after
implementation of the proposed project).


           2
        The Pruneridge Campus has a capacity of approximately 4,700 employees; Ridgeview Court has a capacity of
approximately 4,800 employees. Other parts of the site have a capacity of approximately 300 employees.
           3
               Apple Inc., 2011. Terry Reagan, former Project Manager. Personal communication with City of Cupertino. October
27.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          56
                                                                                                                                  Tree #1034
                                                        East Homestead Road                                                                                                                 East Homestead Road




                                                                                                         North Tantau Avenue




                                                                                                                                                  North Wolfe Road
                   North Wolfe Road




                                                                   Pr
                                                                     un
                                                                       er
                                                                          idg
                                                                              e   Av
                                                                                    enu
                                                                                        e




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  North Tantau Avenue
                                             Int
                                                   er                                                                                                                           Int
                                                        sta
                                                              te                                                                                                                      er
                                                                   28                                                                                                                      sta
                                                                        0                                                                                                                        te
                                                                                                                                                                                                      28
                                                                                                                                                                                                           0




                   Existing Trees                                                                                                                Proposed Trees
         Total Existing Trees:            4,506                                                                                         Proposed Trees:                     6,200
         Existing Standard Trees:         4,438                                                                                         Trees to Remain:                      800
         Existing Heritage Trees:         0                                                                                             Total Trees:                        7,000
         Existing Specimen Trees:         68                                                                                            Trees to Transplant:                   90


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 FIGURE III-3
                                                    Proposed locations for Transplanted Trees                                  All existing specimen trees to be removed will be replaced at a
                                                                                                                               minimum rate of 1 to 1 with new specimen trees.
not to scale                                        Tree #1034 Valley Oak will be transplanted. If it does                     Existing Trees to Remain
                                                    not survive it will be replaced by another specimen oak.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, MAY 2013.                                                                                                                                                                                          Existing and Proposed Trees
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III3.ai (5/31/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




This page intentionally left blank.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          58
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




d.    Circulation and Parking. As noted above, direct access to the project site is via driveways
extending from North Wolfe Road, East Homestead Road, North Tantau Avenue, and Pruneridge
Avenue. Pruneridge Avenue bisects the site along an east/west alignment. Access to the project site is
characterized by dispersed driveways that connect the public streets around the site to the various
surface parking lots within the site. There are four existing vehicle entry/exit points along East Home-
stead Road serving the Pruneridge Campus; fourteen entry/exit points along North Tantau Avenue
(including four serving Ridgeview Court, two serving the Pruneridge Campus, five serving the
buildings east of North Tantau Avenue and south of Pruneridge Avenue, and three serving the
buildings east of North Tantau Avenue and north of Pruneridge Avenue); nine entry/exit points along
Pruneridge Avenue (including five serving Ridgeview Court and four serving the Pruneridge
Campus); and one entry/exit point on North Wolfe Road serving the Pruneridge Campus.

Class II bike lanes (i.e., lanes set aside in streets exclusively for bikes) are located on all public streets
around the project site, including East Homestead Road, North Tantau Avenue, North Wolfe Road,
and Pruneridge Avenue. With the exception of an approximately 1,200-foot segment on the south side
of Pruneridge Avenue between North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue and an approximately
200-foot segment on the west side of North Tantau Avenue between Pruneridge Avenue and I-280,
pedestrian access is provided on these streets via sidewalks.

There are 9,220 parking spaces on over 100 acres of the project site. These parking spaces are located
within the interconnected surface parking lots that extend throughout the site.

The Pruneridge Campus is surrounded by perimeter security fencing. The security kiosks at the gates
are currently occupied, but were unoccupied when Hewlett-Packard occupied the site. The Ridgeview
Campus is not fenced along its northern (Pruneridge Avenue) and eastern (North Tantau Avenue)
boundaries, but is fenced along its southern (I-280) and western (The Hamptons) boundaries.
Properties located east of North Tantau Avenue are not fenced off from North Tantau Avenue but have
perimeter fencing along I-280, Calabazas Creek, and, for the most part, the shared property line with
the City of Santa Clara (the portion of the site east of North Tantau Avenue and north of Pruneridge
Avenue is completely unfenced, although a wood fence borders the residential properties to the east).
The non-fenced properties along North Tantau Avenue and south of Pruneridge Avenue are patrolled
by Apple security personnel on a 24-hour basis. Security personnel also monitor other parts of the
project site.

e.     Transportation Demand Management. Apple offers its employees a comprehensive Trans-
portation Demand Management (TDM) Program, which is designed to reduce the use of single-
occupancy motor vehicles traveling to and from work, reduce commuting during periods of peak
congestion, and reduce demand for parking. Existing TDM measures that are offered to Apple
employees are summarized below. Please refer to Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, for a
more complete list of current TDM measures. No TDM Program is in place at the unoccupied
Hewlett-Packard Campus. Approximately 28 percent of Apple employees currently use alternate
modes of transportation (i.e., modes other than single-occupancy vehicles) to travel to and from work.4
                 Apple Transit. Apple operates 50- to 75-seat buses and 19-seat shuttles that provide over
                  200 service runs per day between communities in the Bay Area and Apple offices in
                  Cupertino. There are 55 pick-up and drop-off locations in the Bay Area. Morning service

           4
               Ibid.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          59
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




                  runs from 6:00 a.m. to approximately 10:15 a.m. Evening service runs from 3:30 p.m. to
                  approximately 9:00 p.m.
                 Ride Share. Apple offers an online tool that matches riders with drivers originating in
                  similar locations.
                 Bicycling. Apple encourages commuting by bicycle in a variety of ways, including through
                  a shared online mapping tool (a program that matches experienced and novice bicyclists),
                  and the provision of over 400 bike lockers, over 500 short-term bike parking spaces,
                  shower facilities, and on-site bike maintenance. Apple also supports inter-campus move-
                  ment with a bike-share program, which currently provides 300 bicycles and free helmets.
                  Other bicycle services provided by Apple include cycling subsidies (i.e., direct monthly
                  payments to employees that bike); a campus bike share program; and provision of bike
                  safety training, equipment, and product discounts.5
                 Walking. Apple provides lighted and landscaped walkways to promote pedestrian activity
                  on-site.
                 Public Transit. The Apple transit system (described above) offers connections to area
                  transit services, including Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), San
                  Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority (MUNI), Caltrain, and Bay Area Rapid
                  Transit (BART) services.
                 Marketing and Communications. Apple disseminates information about alternative
                  transportation options in a variety of ways, including through internal web pages, mobile
                  smart phone applications, new employee orientation materials, monthly events (hosted by
                  Apple), and at an Apple dispatch center.
                 TDM Support Services. Apple provides additional services and incentives to encourage the
                  use of alternative transportation, including: transit subsidies (i.e., direct monthly payments
                  to employees that use transit); intercampus shuttles; lunch shuttles (providing transportation
                  between Apple office buildings and on-campus cafes); email updates about commute
                  programs; the provision of commute mentors to assist persons seeking to change their
                  commute patterns; vouchers for emergency taxi rides; on-campus car shares; and on-site
                  amenities (such as cafeterias, cafes, fitness centers, dry cleaners, ATMs, and postal service
                  kiosks).
                 Parking. Apple offers preferred parking for carpoolers and electric vehicle owners.

4.         Land Use Designations
The following section provides a brief overview of the land use designations within the project site.
Chapter IV, Planning Policy, provides additional discussion of applicable land use regulations and the
consistency of the proposed project with adopted planning policies.

a.     City of Cupertino General Plan. Most of the project site is designated Industrial/Residential
in the City’s General Plan, which is a comprehensive plan for land uses in Cupertino. The Indus-
trial/Residential land use designation allows primarily industrial uses and secondarily residential uses
or a compatible combination of the two. Industrial use refers to manufacturing, assembly and research
and development. Administrative offices that support manufacturing and wholesaling are included.

           5
               Fehr & Peers, 2013. Apple Campus 2 Transportation Impact Analysis.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          60
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




In 2005, as part of an approval for a 130-unit townhouse development project, an area of approxi-
mately 1.1 acres located south of Pruneridge Avenue and east of The Hamptons within the project site
was zoned and included in the General Plan as Parks and Open Space. The Parks and Open Space
land use designation “is applied to land owned by the public and used for recreation. It is also applied
to private open space and recreational lands.” As this proposed townhouse project was not
constructed, the site currently consists primarily of a parking lot and has not been developed with
park uses.

In addition, the corridor around Calabazas Creek within the project site is designated Riparian Corri-
dor, which is “applied to creek corridors if they are not part of a larger park or residential property.”
The Santa Clara Valley Water District owns the portion designated as Riparian Corridor and also has
maintenance access easements over portions of the project site. The area designated Riparian Corridor
is fenced and public access is not currently available.

b.     City of Cupertino Zoning Ordinance. The project site contains three zoning designations.
The Planned Development (Planned Industrial) (P(MP)) zone covers most of the project site. The P
zoning district is “intended to provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment of the
City that is uniquely suited for planned coordination of land uses and to provide for a greater flexibil-
ity of land use intensity and design because of accessibility, ownership patterns, topographical consid-
erations, and community design objectives.” The MP zone allows for the planned development of
light industrial (and related) uses, including administrative, executive, and professional offices;
medical and allied laboratories; research and development space; light manufacturing space; process-
ing space; and assembling and storage of products and materials. The MP zone also allows for uses
permitted in the general commercial (CG) zone, provided these uses are auxiliary or subsidiary to, or
are an essential part of, an established operation or use, located on the same lot as the principal use,
and that they exist solely for the convenience of the employees or customers of the principal use.

The Planned Development (Planned Industrial, Residential) (P(MP, Res)) zone is located immediately
east of The Hamptons. The site was rezoned from P(MP) to P(Res) in 2005 to accommodate a
proposal for a residential development project that was not constructed. More recently, the City
rezoned the property from P(Res) to P(MP, Res), upon an application from Apple, in order to
facilitate future development of the site with office and research and development uses. This zone
allows for the planned development of uses allowed in the P(MP) zone as well as residential uses.

The Public Park/Recreation (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 residential development project was
proposed for a portion of the Ridgeview Campus area.

c.     North Vallco Master Plan. The North Vallco Master Plan, which encompasses the entire
project site, with the exception of the North Tantau Avenue Buildings, does not assign specific land
use designations to the site. Instead, the Master Plan contains guidelines for the future development of
the area. The North Vallco Master Plan has not been formally adopted by the City Council and
therefore is not legally binding. The plan is discussed in this EIR for informational purposes only.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          61
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




B.         PROJECT SITE HISTORY
The project site is part of a 160-acre property originally owned by the Glendenning family. The land
was farmed for grain, hay, and fruit between approximately 1851 and the 1970s. In 1964, Varian
Associates purchased the Glendenning property and other properties in the area owned by the Lester,
Craft, and Orlando families. These lands were consolidated into the VALLCO Land Corporation,
which was named acronymically for the principal parties involved in the sale. Farming operations
continued into the 1970s.

The VALLCO Land Corporation sold 46 acres of the area to Hewlett-Packard in 1968, and then
another 50 acres in 1971, and Hewlett-Packard obtained approvals, including a Development Agree-
ment, and developed its 1.3 million square foot campus on the site. At its peak, approximately 5,000
employees worked at the Hewlett-Packard campus. In 2010, Hewlett-Packard announced plans to
consolidate its operations at its campus in Palo Alto and closed its Cupertino campus. In November
2010, Apple purchased the Hewlett-Packard property. Apple leased the property back to Hewlett-
Packard through October 2012, at which time Hewlett-Packard vacated the site.

Apple purchased 50 acres to the south of Pruneridge Avenue in 2006. The Ridgeview Campus
consists of parcels acquired at different times from different owners, including Hewlett-Packard, and
as a result was not designed as an integrated campus. Most of the buildings on this portion of the site
were constructed during the 1960s and 1970s and served as office, research and development, and
light manufacturing uses.

The six buildings east of North Tantau Avenue comprise approximately 265,000 square feet on 17
acres of land. These buildings were constructed during the 1970s and 1980s, and have been owned
and/or occupied by various technology companies, most recently Apple. At peak capacity, these
buildings had approximately 1,000 occupants.6 Apple purchased the two southernmost buildings in
2007 and the four buildings surrounding the North Tantau Avenue/Pruneridge Avenue intersection in
2011. The buildings were renovated for research and development uses and in 2011 approximately
800 Apple employees occupied these buildings.


C.         PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The main objective of the project is to redevelop the project site with a new, unified, and secure
Apple campus. This section lists discrete City objectives and project sponsor objectives for develop-
ment of the project site.

The objectives of the City for the project are as follows:
                 Encourage the retention of Apple’s corporate headquarters in Cupertino within a world
                  class corporate campus.
                 Allow for the expansion of Apple’s operations while enhancing the physical environment
                  of the project area and being sensitive to community needs.
                 Allow for the location and design of Phase 2 of the project in a way that is sensitive to
                  surrounding neighborhoods.

           6
               Ibid.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          62
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




                 Preserve the City’s existing and planned park space.
                 Preserve and enhance the historic integrity of Glendenning Barn and provide for its
                  adaptive reuse and relocation.
                 Protect the riparian zone around Calabazas Creek.
                 Enhance environmental features within the project area, including storm water quality
                  within the City storm drain system and receiving water bodies.
                 Maintain consistency with Cupertino’s 2000-2020 General Plan and further General Plan
                  goals and strategies for economic development, neighborhood connectivity, and urban
                  conservation.
                 Provide connections and enhance walkability/bikeability between the project site and
                  surrounding areas, while promoting the mobility of Apple employees and the public
                  throughout the Vallco Industrial Park and the greater region.
                 Improve traffic circulation, traffic volumes and level of service (LOS) through a combina-
                  tion of consolidation of office locations and additional TDM measures.
                 Increase the use of landscaping compared to paved parking and thereby enhance the urban
                  environment, reduce impervious surfaces, and reduce storm water runoff.
                 Retain and improve bike and pedestrian connectivity between the project site and surround-
                  ing areas.
                 Avoid additional fiscal impacts to the City from the project by cost reimbursement and the
                  collection of fees covering the City’s actual costs.
                 Encourage public art placed in locations visible to the public.
                 Increase City revenues from the project in order to enhance the City’s general fund.

The specific objectives of the project sponsor are as follows:

Primary Objectives:
                 Create an innovative and beautiful campus near Apple’s Infinite Loop facility that consoli-
                  dates many of Apple’s engineers and support personnel in a single distinctive office,
                  research and development building, and supporting facilities. The purpose of consolidation
                  is to promote shared creativity and collaboration and spur invention of the next several
                  generations of Apple products.
                 Achieve the security and privacy required for the invention of new products by eliminating
                  any public access through the site, and protecting the perimeters against unauthorized
                  persons.

Secondary Objectives:
                 Maximize green space, and design this space in accordance with the climate and history of
                  the area.
                 Provide on-site amenities for Apple’s employees in order to promote employees’ health and
                  well-being and reduce off-campus travel.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          63
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




                 Provide an on-site venue for the introduction of Apple’s new products that will generate
                  surprise and delight, and enable the products to be introduced at Apple’s corporate home.
                 Create a physically unified campus community that improves internal circulation and
                  eliminates unnecessary access points by consolidating the existing properties within one
                  campus.
                 Create a campus plan that incorporates flexibility to respond to Apple’s future business
                  needs.
                 Achieve a net zero energy development by constructing energy-efficient buildings and
                  generating a significant amount of the campus’ energy from on-site renewable sources, and
                  developing partnerships with renewable energy providers for grid-purchased renewable
                  energy.
                 Minimize use of potable water through the use of drought-tolerant landscaping, water-
                  efficient fixtures, and recycled water, if available as a result of projects now under
                  consideration, and improve runoff quality by increasing permeable surfaces.
                 Enable a commuting culture where thoughtful site planning and regional connectivity
                  coupled with a robust TDM Program prioritize transit and active commute modes.
                 Improve traffic circulation while avoiding measures that would unduly restrict employment
                  growth within the project site.
                 Exceed economic, social, and environmental sustainability goals through integrated design
                  and development.
                 Enhance the City’s tax base.
                 Create a campus that reflects Apple’s business and design practices, and allows for a long-
                  term presence in Cupertino.


D.         PROPOSED PROJECT
This section provides a description of the proposed project based on information provided to LSA by
Apple in the fall and winter of 2012 and spring of 2013.7 The proposed project involves the consoli-
dation of various parcels, demolition of existing buildings, and development of the project site into a
new Apple campus. The campus would be secure and self-contained and would include office,
research and development space, parking, employee amenities, a Corporate Auditorium, and a Central
Plant. In addition, Apple is requesting that a segment of Pruneridge Avenue be vacated by the City to
allow for the development of a secure and unified campus. The City would need to make certain
findings prior to approving the street vacation, including that the street segment is not necessary for
vehicle traffic and that the vacation is in the public interest. Apple would pay the City fair market
value for the land underlying the street segment. In addition, the Glendenning Barn, currently located
north of Pruneridge Avenue, is proposed to be relocated to an on- or off-site location. Two potential
on-site locations have been identified. As part of the project, Apple would also undertake changes to
local roadways in the vicinity of the site. The project designer is the architectural and planning firm
Foster + Partners, headed by Norman Foster. The landscape designer is OLIN, a landscape architec-
ture and planning firm, headed by Laurie Olin.
       7
         Primary documents include: Apple Inc., 2012. Apple Campus 2 Project Description. November; and Apple Inc.,
2013. Apple Campus 2 Planned Development Permit. April.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          64
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                     APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                  III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




The project would result in the demolition of all structures within the project site (consisting of
approximately 2,657,000 square feet of building space) and the ultimate construction of 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 (such as security receptions and landscape maintenance buildings), as described in
more detail below. Proposed buildings are designed to be energy efficient and to use renewable
energy, much of which would be produced on-site (via photovoltaics and fuel cells8). The transporta-
tion and related technical analyses in this EIR are primarily based on anticipated employment on the
site (as opposed to building square footage), as employment is the primary inducer of potential
vehicle trip-related impacts.

Table III-1 presents a summary of existing and proposed development at the project site. The net
change between existing and proposed development is a key component of the project analyzed in
this EIR.

Table III-1: Development Summary
  Feature                                                                          Existing                Proposed               Net Change
  Employees a                                                                          4,844                  14,200                   9,356
  Occupied Building Space (square feet) b                                          2,657,000               3,420,000                 763,000
  Parking Spaces                                                                       9,220                  10,980 c                 1,760
  Building Coverage (acres)                                                             32                      23                       -9
  Pervious Landscaping (acres)                                                          43                     102                      59
  Trees d                                                                              4,506                   7,000 e                 2,494 e
  a
      The existing capacity of the project site is 9,800 employees.
  b
      Occupied building space does not include the Corporate Auditorium, Corporate Fitness Center, Central Plant, or
      parking facilities.
  c
      Including all on-site spaces to be used by employees and visitors. See text description for additional detail.
  d
      As final designs are completed the number of existing trees to be transplanted on-site or added to the site may change
      slightly as the Apple and City arborists continue to confer and evaluate the health of the trees.
  e
      Minimum numbers.
  Source: Apple Inc., 2013.



The specific components of the project are discussed below. The site plan for the project is shown in
Figure III-4. Figure III-5a shows the northern portion of the more detailed site plan; Figure III-5b
shows the southern portion of the site plan. Figures III-6a and III-6b show representative sections of
the proposed site plan. Figures III-7a and III-7b are representative renderings of the project, prepared
by the project architect, Foster + Partners.

1.         Office, Research and Development, Auditorium, and Fitness Center Buildings
The project includes the construction of several buildings that would be used by Apple employees,
including the main, ring-shaped office/research and development building, the Corporate Fitness
Center, and Corporate Auditorium. These buildings are described below and are summarized in Table
III-2. In addition, the project includes 600,000 square feet of future building space (Phase 2). All
parking garages and utility facilities are discussed in subsequent sections. While commercially-
           8
          A fuel cell is a device which generates electricity and useful heat by reforming natural gas using a phosphoric acid-
based chemical reaction. Fuel cells are different from batteries in that they require a constant source of fuel and oxygen to
run, but they can produce electricity continually for as long as these inputs are supplied.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                         65
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




available hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, solvents, paints, and some consumer electronics) would be
used on the site and may generate small amounts of hazardous waste similar to Apple's existing
facilities in Cupertino, they would be handled in accordance with the law. As a general matter, the
project would not include manufacturing or research processes that generate substantial quantities of
hazardous materials.


 Table III-2: Proposed Building Summary
                                                                           Square                                        Height
 Buildinga                         Primary Use                            Footage                                        (feet)
 Office, Research and Development, Auditorium, and Fitness Center Buildings
 Main Building                     Office/Research and Development        2,820,000                                         57
 Corporate Fitness Center          Employee Amenity                         100,000                                         35
 Corporate Auditorium              Meetings                                 120,000                                         30
 Phase 2 Buildings                 Office/Research and Development          600,000                                         60
 Parking Buildings
 Main Parking Structure            Parking                                2,000,000                                         36
 North Tantau Parking              Parking/Parking and Transit              200,000                                         15-35
 Structure/Valet Parking Reception Management
 Utility and Ancillary Buildings
 Central Plant                     Utilities                                 50,000                                         48
 Satellite Plant North             Utilities                                 12,000                                         15
 Satellite Plant South             Utilities                                 30,000                                         15
 Security Receptions               Security                                   2,000                                         15
 Landscape Maintenance Buildings   Maintenance                                5,000                                         15
 TOTAL                             –                                      5,939,000                                          –
 a
     The proposed project also includes minor support buildings, such as transit facilities, maintenance sheds, and other
     facilities.
 Source: Apple Inc., 2013.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                            66
                                                          Potential




                                                                                                            k
                                                                                                       Cree
                                                                                                    Calabasas




                                                                                                                         FIGURE III-4

0             600             1200
                                                                      Apple Campus 2 Project Site
feet
                                                                                                                Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, MAY 2013.                                                                                                       Site Plan
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III4.ai (5/31/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




This page intentionally left blank.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          68
                                                                                       FIGURE III-5a
                                                           Boundary
0            300            600
                                                           Site Fence
feet                                                       Site Setback Line   Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, MAY 2013.                                                             Site Plan - North
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III5a.ai (5/31/13)
                                                                                       FIGURE III-5b
                                                           Boundary
0            300            600                            Site Fence
                                                           Site Setback Line
feet                                                                           Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                           Site Plan - South
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III5b.ai (4/29/13)
                                                            0             300             600
        Section West-East
                                                            feet




                                                            0             300             600
        Section Southwest-Northeast (Restaurant/Entrance)
                                                            feet




                                                                   0             300      600
        Section Southwest-Northeast (Offices)
                                                                   feet




                                                                   0             300      600
        Section South-North
                                                                   feet

                                                                                FIGURE III-6a


                                                                   Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                         Representative Sections
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III6a.ai (4/30/13)
                                                               0             300             600
     Section East-West
                                                               feet




                                                           0                 300             600
     Section East-West (North of Parking Structure)
                                                           feet




                                                                      0             300      600
     Section South-North
                                                                      feet


                                                                                   FIGURE III-6b




                                                                      Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                            Representative Sections
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III6b.ai (4/30/13)
                                                                   FIGURE III-7a




not to scale
                                                           Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                              Rendering
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III7a.ai (4/30/13)
                                                                  FIGURE III-7b




                                                          Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                             Rendering
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III7b.ai (5/1/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




a.    Main Building. The Main Building would be a ring-shaped four-story above-grade office and
research and development facility surrounding a central garden, with two levels of below-grade
parking. The structure would be located in the north-central portion of the campus. The Main
Building, which would contain approximately 2,820,000 square feet of above-grade office and
research and development space, would also include employee services and meeting space, as
summarized below. In addition, approximately 15 percent of the Main Building would consist of
technical support space (primarily for engineering and testing). Figure III-8 is a plan of the Main
Building. Figure III-9a shows a representative section of the portion of the building containing the
employee dining facilities. Figure III-9b shows a representative section of the portion of the building
containing office space. The roof of the Main Building would be covered with photovoltaics.
                 Employee Restaurant and Dining Facilities. A major employee facility in the Main
                  Building would be a 60,000 square-foot employee restaurant and dining area. This facility
                  would contain movable seating at ground level for 2,100 persons and a mezzanine area that
                  could seat an additional 600 persons. In addition, there would be 1,750 seats on outdoor
                  terraces. A kitchen and loading dock comprising 130,000 square feet of additional building
                  space would serve the restaurant and dining facilities. Fume hoods for the kitchen may be
                  required (although fume hoods are not anticipated for other project buildings). The kitchen
                  would be located under the restaurant on the lower basement level, and a loading dock
                  would be located on the lower basement level adjacent to the kitchen. Two free-standing
                  outdoor food stations with roofs, each 15 feet in height and containing 500 feet of gross
                  floor area, would be located in the Main Building courtyard to supplement the indoor
                  restaurant and dining area.
                 Meeting Rooms. The Main Building would contain approximately 83,000 square feet of
                  space containing meeting rooms and breakout spaces.
                 Plant Rooms. The Plant Rooms would be used for the mechanical operation of the Main
                  Building and would comprise approximately 260,000 square feet of space. The Plant
                  Rooms would be located below-grade and on the roof, above the fourth floor of the Main
                  Building.
                 Corporate Transit Center. An approximately 5,000-square-foot Transit Center would be
                  incorporated into the Main Building at street level facing North Tantau Avenue. The
                  Transit Center would be used to coordinate commute activities at the project site.

b.     Corporate Fitness Center. A Corporate Fitness Center comprising two levels (including one
level above-grade and one level partially below-grade) would be located to the northwest of the Main
Building. The Corporate Fitness Center would include approximately 100,000 square feet of building
space and is designed to be rectangle-shaped in plan view. The building would include changing
rooms, showers, laundry facilities, gym equipment, multi-purpose rooms for group classes, and
related facilities, and would be accessible only to Apple employees. Figures III-10a and III-10b show
a representative plan and section of the Corporate Fitness Center.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          75
                                                                                FIGURE III-8

0             200              400
feet
                                                                     Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                               Main Building - Representative Plan
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III8.ai (5/1/13)
                                                                                                FIGURE III-9a


0             25             50
feet
                                                                                       Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                Main Building - Representative Section (Restaurant)
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III9a.ai (5/1/13)
                                                                                           FIGURE III-9b


0                  25                  50
feet
                                                                                  Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                Main Building - Representative Section (Office)
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III9b.ai (5/1/13)
                                                           Fitness Center
                                                           Zoning                   P(MP)
                                                           Area of Level 1          50,000 sf
                                                           Area of Level 2          50,000 sf

                                                           Total Number of floors   2
                                                           Gross Area               100,000 sf



                                                                                                                      FIGURE III-10a


not to scale

                                                                                                              Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                                       Fitness Center - Representative Plan
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III10a.ai (5/1/13)
               Section A-A




               Section B-B


                                                                                    FIGURE III-10b

0                 50                 100
feet
                                                                            Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                 Fitness Center - Representative Sections
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III10b.ai (5/1/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




c.    Corporate Auditorium. The Corporate Auditorium, which would be located southeast of the
Main Building, would comprise one above-grade level and two below-grade levels. The building
would comprise approximately 120,000 square feet. The building would contain an auditorium (with
fixed seating for 1,000 persons), lobby and exhibit space, meeting rooms, restrooms, and back-of-
house facilities (including a catering area). 350 parking spaces for the Corporate Auditorium would
be provided in a 750-space (not including 60 valet parking spaces) North Tantau Parking Structure
located on the east side of North Tantau Avenue (the 350 parking spaces reserved for Corporate
Auditorium visitors on event days would be available for use by employees visiting the project site
from other Apple sites when events are not being held at the Corporate Auditorium). Figures III-11a
and III-11b show a representative plan and section of the Corporate Auditorium.

d.      Phase 2 Development. As part of Phase 2 – a future development phase – 600,000 square feet
of office and research and development space would be developed east and west of North Tantau
Avenue, along with associated underground and surface parking, as described further below. The
maximum amount of office and of research and development space that would be developed as part
of Phase 2 would be specified in City approvals and permits. Conceptual building footprints, sections,
and massing for the Phase 2 buildings have been provided and are included as Figures III-12a and III-
12b. However, final location, square footage, and design of the Phase 2 buildings and all associated
facilities would be in accordance with Municipal Code requirements under separate permits approved
by the City prior to issuance of building permits for Phase 2.

       (1) East of Tantau Development. As part of Phase 2, approximately 300,000 square feet of
office and research and development space would be developed within the project site, east of North
Tantau Avenue, both north and south of Calabazas Creek. Nine buildings would be developed in this
location , as discussed in the following bullet points:
                 North of Creek. Buildings 1 through 3 would be located north of Calabazas Creek. Each of
                  these three buildings would contain approximately 25,000 square feet of gross floor area on
                  two levels above grade (with one sub-grade level containing parking). Office, Research,
                  and Development Buildings 1 through 3 would contain a total of approximately 75,000
                  square feet of gross floor area.
                 South of Creek. Buildings 4 through 9 would be located south of Calabazas Creek, also on
                  the east side of North Tantau Avenue. Each of these buildings would be contain approxi-
                  mately 45,300 square feet of gross floor area on two levels above grade (with one sub-
                  grade level containing parking). Office, Research, and Development Buildings 4 through 9
                  would contain a total of approximately 225,000 square feet gross floor area.

       (2) West of Tantau Development. Also as part of Phase 2, approximately 300,000 square
feet of additional office and research and development space would be developed within the project
site west of North Tantau Avenue and south of Calabazas Creek. Four buildings, Buildings 10
through 14, would front North Tantau Avenue. Each of these buildings would contain approximately
65,000 to 85,000 square feet of gross floor area in three above-grade levels (with one sub-grade level
containing parking).




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          81
                                                                                        FIGURE III-11a

0              50             100
feet
                                                                               Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                 Corporate Auditorium - Representative Plan
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III11a.ai (5/1/13)
                                                                                          FIGURE III-11b

0                 50                 100
feet
                                                                                  Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                 Corporate Auditorium - Representative Section
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III11b.ai (5/1/13)
                                                           not to scale




                                                           not to scale




                                                                                                  FIGURE III-12a

0                50               100
feet                                                                                      Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                Phase 2 Development - Plan and Section
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III12a.ai (5/1/13)
                                                           not to scale




                                                           not to scale




                                                                                                  FIGURE III-12b

0                50               100
feet                                                                                      Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                Phase 2 Development - Plan and Section
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III12b.ai (5/1/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




2.         Utility and Ancillary Buildings
The project includes the construction of a Central Plant and two Satellite Plants that have been
designed to generate and distribute energy and other utilities to the project site. In addition, security
buildings would be located around the site to regulate entry and exit into the campus. Landscape
maintenance buildings would also be located within the site. These buildings are described below and
are summarized in Table III-2.

a.     Central Plant. A Central Plant, consisting of two above-grade levels, would be located
adjacent to the western edge of the southern-most Main Parking Structure. The Central Plant would
consist of 50,000 square feet of gross floor area and would house, in one location, the mechanical and
electrical equipment that would serve the project site (not including the office, research, and develop-
ment facilities east and west of North Tantau Avenue, which would be served by the two Satellite
Plants). This equipment would include chillers, condenser water storage and hot water storage
equipment, an electrical substation, and water and fire pumps; fuel cells and back-up generators
would be located south of the Central Plant, adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. The
Central Plant would distribute energy to the proposed buildings developed as part of the project via a
below-ground piping and conduit network. Figure III-13 shows a representative plan and section of
the Central Plant.

The following energy equipment would be included at the Central Plant:
                 Cooling Towers (evaporative cooling devices used to reject heat from electric chillers to
                  the atmosphere)
                 Electric Chillers (which generate chilled water for air conditioning)
                 Gas Fired Boilers (which generate hot water for space and domestic water heating)
                 Diesel Generators (for backup power during utility outages only)

The following energy equipment would be located south of the Central Plant, adjacent to the southern
boundary of the project site (closest to I-280):
                 Fuel Cells (which generate electricity and useful heat by reforming natural gas using a
                  phosphoric acid-based chemical reaction)
                 Diesel Generators (for backup power during utility outages only)

The Central Plant and associated equipment would be designed with sufficient insulation to meet the
noise requirements of the City of Cupertino Municipal Code (i.e., daytime maximum noise levels of
65 A-weighted decibels (dBA) and nighttime maximum noise levels of 55 dBA at the project site
boundary). Noise insulation features that would be integrated into the design of the Central Plant
include walls of sufficient thickness to reduce the transmission of interior noise, acoustically-rated
access doors, noise attenuation of ductwork, and acoustic louvers. The cooling towers would be
surrounded by a solid wall on all sides and operation would be adjusted at night to reduce noise levels
during that period.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          86
                                                                                            FIGURE III-13

not to scale
                                                                                   Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                Central Plant - Representation Plan and Section
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III13.ai (5/1/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




The fuel cells and emergency generator would be located outside the Central Plant. The fuel cells
would be located to the south of the Main Parking Structure and Central Plant, such that the parking
structure would shield residents from associated noise. The emergency generator would be located
south of the Main Parking Structure and would be enclosed in a sound-attenuating, weather-proof
enclosure. The generator would be used only during emergencies and for periodic testing. Such
testing would be coordinated with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and
performed by Apple’s commissioning team and operations engineers during the middle of the day,
when ambient noise levels are generally at their highest levels (to avoid the generation of high noise
levels during the sensitive nighttime and early morning periods).9

b.     Satellite Plants. Two Satellite Plants east of North Tantau Avenue would be developed as part
of the Phase 2 development. Specific footprints for the Satellite Plants have not yet been identified, but
for purposes of this analysis, Satellite Plant North would be approximately 12,000 square feet and 15
feet in height and would be located north of Calabazas Creek; Satellite Plant South would be approx-
imately 30,000 square feet and 15 feet in height and would be located at the southeastern boundary of
the project site. Satellite Plant North would distribute energy and other utilities to the office, research,
and development facilities located east of North Tantau Avenue and north of Calabazas Creek.
Satellite Plant South would distribute energy and other utilities to the office, research, and develop-
ment facilities located east and west of North Tantau Avenue and south of Calabazas Creek. Both
Satellite Plants would house mechanical and electrical equipment that is similar to that housed by the
Central Plant (including generators), but the equipment would be on a smaller scale.

c.     Security Receptions. Two security receptions, each containing one level and 1,000 square feet
of gross floor area, would be located at the key visitor entries into the site at North Wolfe Road and the
Corporate Auditorium entrance on North Tantau Avenue. These facilities would be staffed and would
regulate and monitor access into and out of the project site. In addition, security check points would be
located elsewhere in the project site, including adjacent to the Corporate Fitness Center near East
Homestead Road and the North Tantau Avenue employee entrances. Secured access at the North
Tantau Parking Garage and Phase 2 facilities would be via digital badge readers located at the exterior
doors of individual buildings. Plans and cross sections of the security receptions are shown in Figure
III-14.

d.     Landscape Maintenance Buildings. Two small Landscape Maintenance Buildings would be
located within the project site. The first building would be located near the southern boundary of the
site between the Central Plant and The Hamptons, and the second would be located east of the
Corporate Fitness Center. The Landscape Maintenance Buildings would be used to store landscaping
and building maintenance equipment. Each building would contain approximately 2,500 square feet
of gross floor area, and would be one story and 15 feet in height.




        9
          Arup, 2012. Apple Campus 2 Project Environmental Impact Report, Applicable Noise Requirements. November 9
(also, personal communication with Apple Inc., April 19, 2013).


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          88
         Wolfe Security Reception Plan                    Tantau Security Reception Plan




         Wolfe Security Reception - Section 01            Tantau Security Reception - Section 02

                                                                                                                 FIGURE III-14

not to scale
                                                                                                        Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                Security Receptions - Representative Plan and Section
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III14.ai (5/1/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




3.         Parking Buildings
Project buildings also include the Main Parking Structure (approximately 2,000,000 square feet of gross
floor area and 5,870 parking spaces) in the southern-most portion of the site and the North Tantau
Parking Structure (175,000 square feet of gross floor area and approximately 810 parking spaces,
including 750 standard spaces and 60 parking spaces) east of North Tantau Avenue. These structured
parking facilities are described in more detail under “Parking,” below. The footprint, sections, and
massing for the North Tantau Parking Structure, which would be developed as part of Phase 1, have
been identified. The North Tantau Parking Structure also includes a 25,000-square-foot space, half of
which would be used for parking and transit management and half of which would be used for valet
reception. The Valet Parking Reception would coordinate valet parking and parking assistance services
for invited guests. Apple attendants would also assist guests with directions and would assist security
personnel.

4.    Energy Use. Energy would be supplied to the Central Plant and Satellite Plants via on-site
energy generation (through the use of photovoltaics and fuel cells), with standard connections to the
energy grid to supplement energy generated on-site, to meet Apple’s electricity requirements. The
approximately 50,000-square-foot Central Plant, which would be located adjacent to the Main
Parking Structure, would house the major electrical and mechanical (heating and cooling) equipment
that would serve the main site. Satellite Plant North and Satellite Plant South, which would contain
similar equipment, are part of Phase 2.

Based on the current energy model (which includes Phase 1 and Phase 2 development), it is expected
that the annual energy consumption of the project would vary depending on Apple’s needs, but the
expected future maximum power consumption when the project reaches peak demand would be
nearly 142,000,000 kilowatt hours (kWh). This estimated power consumption represents maximum
project demand and it is expected that normal operations would require less energy. Of this energy
demand, approximately 15,000,000 kWh (approximately 11 percent) would derive from photovoltaics
installed on the project site; approximately 71,000,000 kWh (approximately 50 percent) would derive
from the fuel cells; and approximately 56,000,000 kWh (39 percent) would derive from “Direct
Access” sources (i.e., renewable energy sources from third-party providers). The Direct Access
Program in California allows commercial and industrial customers to purchase electricity from a
competitive Energy Service Provider, rather than from their local utility (in Apple’s case, Pacific Gas
and Electric Company (PG&E)).10 Although customers purchase their electricity from an Energy
Service Provider under Direct Access, the power travels over the local utility’s transmission and
distribution systems. In conjunction with the project’s efficiency and conservation measures, and on-
site renewable energy generation, Apple plans to meet any remaining energy needs through grid-
purchased renewable energy. There are two pathways by which Apple would acquire grid-purchased
renewable energy:
                 Participation in California’s regulated Direct Access program; and
                 Market purchase of renewable energy credits from new sources that are certified Green-e
                  Energy providers (the Green-e Energy National Standard establishes eligibility criteria for
                  renewable energy products).



         10
            A list of CPUC “Registered Energy Service Providers” authorized to service PG&E customers can be found at:
https://ia.cpuc.ca.gov/esp_lists/esp_udc.htm.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          90
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




The Direct Access program would be the preferred pathway for meeting remaining energy needs, and,
if needed, followed by the purchase of renewable energy credits. All Direct Access renewable energy
for the project would be limited to renewable resources as defined in the California Public Utilities
Code Section 383.5 (as it is amended over time), which provides the standard definition for renewable
energy resources in California that are eligible to count towards the Renewable Portfolio Standards
(RPS) goals. This statute currently identifies the following as renewable energy sources:
                 biomass;
                 digester gas;
                 fuel cells using renewable fuels;
                 geothermal;
                 landfill gas;
                 municipal solid waste conversion;
                 ocean wave, ocean thermal or tidal current;
                 photovoltaic;
                 small hydroelectric;
                 solar thermal electric; and
                 wind.

The specific Energy Service Provider(s) used to secure renewable energy for the project and the
specific renewable energy sources would be determined by a competitive selection process conducted
at a time near the project’s completion. As discussed above, Apple may also choose to purchase
renewable energy credits to offset a portion of its energy use. The renewable energy credits represent
the technology and environmental attributes of electricity generated from the renewable energy
sources.

5.         Employment
A fundamental objective of the proposed project is to consolidate many of Apple’s existing
employees and to accommodate future Apple growth on one secure and unified campus. Apple
employees are currently located in some existing buildings within the project site, in addition to the
Infinite Loop Campus west of the site, and other locations in the region. Employment within the
project site would first increase to a total of 12,000 employees with occupation of the Main Building
and surrounding amenity and accessory buildings. The 600,000 square feet of Phase 2 development
space would increase on-site employment by an additional 2,200 employees (based on a standard
employee generation rate of one employee per approximately 275 square feet of building space).
Therefore, the project would result in a total of 14,200 employees at full buildout.

While the employee capacity of the project site is currently approximately 9,800 employees, 4,844
employees worked on the project site in August 2011, when the EIR Notice of Preparation was




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          91
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




filed.11 The analysis in this EIR is based on the occupancy of the project site, at 4,844 employees,
when the EIR Notice of Preparation was filed.

Therefore, the project would result in a net increase of 9,356 employees over the current number of
employees on the project site. For purposes of this analysis, the future Apple employees that would
work within the project site would be considered net new employees in the area. That is, for the
purpose of the analysis in this EIR, they would not be consolidated from off-site locations.

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 employ-
ees 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 environmental analysis that does not under-
estimate potential impacts of the project.

6.         Open Space and Landscaping
The provision of extensive, secure, private open space for 14,200 employees within the project site is a
key design theme of the project. As noted previously, approximately 130 acres of the existing project
site are paved or occupied by structures and approximately 43 acres are landscaped (the remaining 3
acres of the site consist of unclassified surfaces, which are considered to be primarily paved for the
purpose of the analysis in this EIR). Under the project, much of the site would be converted to
pervious surfaces. With implementation of the project, approximately 70 acres would be paved or
occupied by structures, and 102 acres would be landscaped and function as private open space (the
remaining 4 acres would be unclassified, and are assumed to be paved). The increase in open space
that would occur as part of the project would be accomplished primarily through the provision of a
substantial amount of underground and structured parking, and the consolidation of building space.
Figures III-15a and III-15b show the conceptual landscape plan for the northern and southern portions
of the site, respectively.

The landscape design of the site, designed to evoke the oak savanna and agricultural land that histori-
cally covered Cupertino, would be characterized by groups of trees interspersed with meadows and
orchards. Orchards would be located in the vicinity of the Main Building. The design also incor-
porates more formal linear tree plantings along streets surrounding the project site, and along the
access driveways connecting these streets to the interior of the site. The fruit from the orchards would
be used on-site in the employee dining facilities. Orchard maintenance would include organic
techniques and integrated pest management. The orchard trees would be inter-planted with species
known to attract pollinators year round. Specific management plans for the site landscape would be
developed when the landscape plan is refined.




           11
           The existing occupancy of the site (4,844 employees) is well below the capacity of the site (9,800 employees)
because Hewlett-Packard has transferred employees to its Palo Alto Campus and Apple has been transferring its employees
off-site in expectation of future campus redevelopment.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          92
                                                            Homestead Road
        Visitor Entry

        Recreation Zone




                                                                                                North Tantau Avenue
        Interior Garden

        Fountain

        Amphitheater

        Dining Terraces

        The Glade

        Apple Transit Center

        Visitor and Auditorium Parking

        Auditorium

        Entry Meadow
                                         North Wolfe Road




        Service Area

        Parking Structure

        Central Plant

        Research and Development




        Existing Trees


        Perimeter Transplants


        Conifers


        Evergreen Oak Trees


        Deciduous Oak Trees


        Canopy Trees


        Cherries and Flowering Trees

        Plums


        Apricots


        Olives


        Apples


        Persimmons                                                                         MATCHLINE, SEE P-7.11




                                                                                                                      FIGURE III-15a



not to scale
                                                                                         Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                   Conceptual Landscape Plan - North
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III15a.ai (5/1/13)
                                                                                                            MATCHLINE, SEE P7.10




           Visitor Entry

           Recreation Zone

           Interior Garden

           Fountain

           Amphitheater

           Dining Terraces

           The Glade

           Apple Transit Center

           Visitor & Auditorium Parking

           Auditorium

           Entry Meadow




                                                                                      North Tantau Avenue
           Service Area

           Parking Structure

           Central Plant

           Research and Development

                                                           Inte
                                                               rsta
                                                                   te
                                                                        28
                                                                          0



           Existing Trees

           Perimeter Transplants


           Conifers


           Evergreen Oak Trees


           Deciduous Oak Trees

           Understory Trees


           Cherry and Flowering Trees


           Plum Trees


            Apricot Trees


           Olive Transplants


            Apple Trees

           Persimmon Trees




                                                                                                                            FIGURE III-15b




not to scale
                                                                                          Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                    Conceptual Landscape Plan - South
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III15b.ai (5/1/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




The landscape design for the site would include the following thematic elements:
                 Oak savanna between the Main Building and Main Parking Structure that would allow for
                  passive recreation (i.e., picnicking, frisbee, reading).
                 Sports fields and active recreational facilities in the northwest corner of the site in the
                  vicinity of the Corporate Fitness Center that would include a play lawn, and volleyball and
                  basketball courts.
                 Landscaping in the vicinity of the outdoor dining area adjacent to the Main Building that
                  would allow for passive recreation and outdoor dining.
                 A more intensely used and developed central garden/courtyard of the Main Building would
                  be planted with orchard trees. In addition, this area would contain a 1,000-seat amphithea-
                  ter that would be used approximately six to eight times per year for internal communica-
                  tions meetings, group events, and occasional musical concerts. In addition, the central
                  garden would contain outdoor food stations, maintenance access, and outdoor dining areas.
                 Riparian plantings within the 50-foot zone adjacent to Calabazas Creek that conform to
                  California Native Plant Society guidance and the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s
                  Qualifying Plant List.12 No buildings or utility infrastructure would be located within this
                  riparian zone.

The project site currently contains 4,506 trees, of which 1,116 (25 percent) are native species and
3,390 (75 percent) are non-native species.13 With implementation of the project, a minimum of 800
trees would be retained in-place on the project site, a minimum of 90 trees would be transplanted, and
a maximum of 3,620 trees would be removed. The trees that would be preserved are primarily located
on the periphery of the site and along the Calabazas Creek riparian corridor. Transplanted trees
include a Valley oak tree dedicated as a memorial to a former Hewlett-Packard employee (which is
currently located near Glendenning Barn and would be transplanted to a publicly-visible location near
the intersection of North Wolfe Road and East Homestead Road). In addition, at least 6,200 trees
would be planted on the site (see Figure III-3), resulting in a net increase of at least 2,494 trees (to a
total of at least 7,000 trees).

Primary trees that would be planted on the site include Valley oak (Quercus lobata); Coast Live oak
(Quercus agrifolia); Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii); Cork oak (Quercus suber); and Southern
Live oak (Quervus virginiana). Secondary trees would include: California black oak (Quercus
kelloggii); California buckeye (Aesculus californica); California sycamore (Platanus racemosa);
Torrey pine (Pinus torreyana); northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii); cedars (Cedrus
spp.); and olive (Olea europea). Fruit trees that would be planted on the site include apple (Malus
domestica); apricot (Prunus armeniaca); plum (Prunus sp.); and persimmon (Diospyros kaki). Of the
at least 6,200 trees planted on the site, 2,140 trees (35 percent) would be native to the Bay Area, 704
trees (11 percent) would be native to California but not to the Bay Area, 2,756 trees (44 percent)
would be non-native and non-fruiting, and 600 trees (10 percent) would be fruit trees. The selected
tree species are intended to reference the site’s native vegetation and agricultural past.



           12
                OLIN, 2012. EIR Landscape Narrative. October 31.
           13
        Since collection of data on existing conditions in 2011, a small number of trees on the project site have been
removed due to poor health.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          95
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




Most of the site would be surrounded by a security fence to assist in meeting Apple’s fundamental
objective for privacy, security, and the protection of intellectual property. According to preliminary
design details, the proposed security fence would be 7 feet high and would be a metal, powder-coated
picket-style fence with vertical elements that would be visually permeable. (The existing security
fencing around the site ranges from 5 to 8 feet in height and comprises chain-link, wood, iron, and
masonry fencing). The fencing would be located approximately 30 to 50 feet from the public
sidewalk; landscaping would be planted (or preserved) between the fence and public right-of-way.

In addition, Apple would provide at least $100,000 worth of public artwork at to-be-determined
locations, in accordance with Chapter 19.148 of the City of Cupertino Zoning Ordinance. The public
artwork that would be provided has not yet been selected.

7.         On-Site Circulation
Circulation within the site would be assisted by an integrated system linking motor vehicle, bike, and
pedestrian access. This section first describes key project site access points, and then discusses the
internal transportation system. Figure III-16 contains the proposed circulation and emergency access
plans. The project site would be closed to the public, and access would be restricted via a perimeter
fence and security gates/kiosks.

a.     Site Access. Primary motor vehicle access to the site would be via a new intersection located
approximately 277 feet north of the intersection of North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue, allow-
ing for separation of campus traffic and traffic associated with The Hamptons. The new intersection
would have a three-leg (“T”) configuration, with three left-turn lanes provided from the project site
into North Wolfe Road. The eastern leg of the intersection would serve as a new private service road
inside the main campus site. This private road would provide access to the visitor parking area,
below-grade parking garage, and Main Parking Structure located near the southern boundary of the
site, and would connect to the secondary employee entrance on North Tantau Avenue.

The existing intersection of North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue would be retained as access to
The Hamptons and would provide an exit from the visitor parking lot for unauthorized vehicles that
may inadvertently enter the Campus’s main driveway. This intersection would be reduced in scale and
coordinated to function with one synchronized traffic signal. Specifically, this segment of Pruneridge
Avenue would be reduced to two travel lanes and two bike lanes, and traffic formerly using Pruneridge
Avenue as a through street (i.e., to connect North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue) would be
routed to roadways in the vicinity, including Homestead Road, Vallco Parkway, and Stevens Creek
Boulevard. East of The Hamptons entrance, it is anticipated that Pruneridge Avenue would be vacated
by the City.

A second vehicle access point to the project site would be established at North Tantau Avenue,
immediately north of the intersection with Calabazas Creek. This point, intersecting with North
Tantau Avenue, would provide access to the Main Parking Structure and Central Plant near the
southern boundary of the site, secondary access to the below-grade parking garage under the Main
Building, secondary fire access to The Hamptons, and access to the Corporate Auditorium service
entrance. In addition, this intersection would provide entry into the research and development
facilities located east of North Tantau Avenue and north of Calabazas Creek. A four-way signalized
intersection would be developed at this location, which would replace an existing traffic signal that
currently controls access to the southernmost driveway in the project site.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          96
                Proposed Site Vehicle Access                                                                      Proposed Pedestrian Circulation

                                                                                                                                                                                     not to scale

                                                                                                                                                                              FIGURE III-16
                   Proposed Site Vehicle Access         Underground   At Grade                                    Proposed Pedestrian Circulation
                          Visitor Access                                    Employee Access                              Public Sidewalks (Detached where possible)
                          Apple Transit Center Access                       Emergency Service Access                     Private Walks
                                                                            Service Access                               Private Jogging Path
                                                                             Auditorium Visitors Parking Access
                                                                                                                                                                      Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                                                                                                                   Circulation Plan
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III16.ai (5/2/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




This page intentionally left blank.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          98
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




A third vehicle access point to the project site would be established at North Tantau Avenue south of
East Homestead Road. This signalized intersection would provide access to the main campus for
Apple transit vehicles. Access to the Transit Center would be security-controlled. A separate delivery
vehicle access point would be located north of the Transit Center access.

A fourth vehicle access point to the project site would be established on East Homestead Road,
located approximately 25 feet east of an existing curb cut, for employee, service and fire access to the
Corporate Fitness Center. This access point would be security-controlled.

One signalized driveway entrance on North Tantau Avenue south of Calabazas Creek would be
established to access Phase 2 office, research, and development buildings and to provide maintenance
access to Calabazas Creek. This signalized driveway entrance would replace an existing traffic signal
currently located approximately 30 feet north of the proposed intersection.

In addition, three additional driveways would be established east of North Tantau Avenue to access
the North Tantau Parking Structure, and the Phase 2 office, research and development facilities east
of North Tantau Avenue (and associated parking facilities) as follows:
                 One valet parking driveway north of the Pruneridge Avenue intersection to access the
                  North Tantau Parking Structure.
                 One driveway immediately north of the creek to access the Phase 2 office, research, and
                  development buildings north of Calabazas Creek, east of North Tantau Avenue.
                 A secondary driveway access for the Phase 2 office, research, and development buildings
                  located south of Calabazas Creek east of North Tantau Avenue.

Emergency responders would access the Phase 1 portion of the project site from the primary access
point for the Main Building via North Wolfe Road; the primary access point for the Corporate
Auditorium via North Tantau Avenue, which serves also as a secondary vehicular access point for the
Main Building; and the primary access point for the Corporate Fitness Center at East Homestead
Road. The Hamptons primary emergency vehicle access from North Wolfe Road would remain
unchanged, and the existing secondary emergency access to the apartments would remain via the
service road (described immediately below) along the southern boundary of the site, accessed via the
North Tantau Avenue entrance to the Main Building.

Non-motorized (i.e., bike and pedestrian) access to the main campus site would occur through
security points at the following locations:
                 North Wolfe Road at the west entrance;
                 East Homestead Road at the Corporate Fitness Center;
                 North Tantau Avenue, 20 feet north of the Transit Center; and
                 North Tantau Avenue at the intersection of North Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue.

Non-motorized access to the Phase 2 buildings would be shared with vehicular traffic at the following
locations: signalized driveway entrance on North Tantau Avenue south of Calabazas Creek; and three
driveways east of North Tantau Avenue.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          99
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




Pedestrian access to the site would be provided via sidewalks located along North Wolfe Road, East
Homestead Road, North Tantau Avenue, and Pruneridge Avenue, similar to existing conditions. A
new sidewalk would be constructed on the west side of North Tantau Avenue between the terminus of
Pruneridge Avenue and Vallco Parkway, including over the North Tantau Avenue bridge over I-280.

As part of the project, eight driveways along North Tantau Avenue and three driveways along East
Homestead Road would be closed. All driveways along Pruneridge Avenue within the project site
would be closed as part of the vacation of the street segment. These driveways currently provide
access into the project site.

b.     Internal Circulation. As noted previously, a new driveway would be located on North Wolfe
Road, approximately 277 feet north of the North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue intersection.
The proposed driveway contains six motor vehicle travel lanes, including two inbound lanes, one
outbound right-turn lane, and three outbound left-turn lanes. A security check point would be built
prior to the entrance to the underground garage and visitor parking lot, beyond which only employees
or credentialed visitors would be granted access. Beyond the security check point, the road would
extend via a ramp below grade, branch to provide access to both the below-grade parking garage and
the above-grade Main Parking Structure and connect to the vehicle access point at North Tantau
Avenue north of Calabazas Creek. The internal road, which would extend between the two connected
structures of the Main Parking Structure and Central Plant, would also provide vehicle and truck
access to the Central Plant.

The driveway at the secondary employee entry from North Tantau Avenue north of Calabazas Creek
would consist of five motor vehicle travel lanes (including two westbound lanes and three eastbound
lanes). The driveway would widen on-site to three travel lanes in each direction. Employee entry from
North Tantau Avenue would be monitored via a secondary security check point.

The entrance protocol at the main driveways on North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue would
require an employee to wave a badge in front of a sensor for clearance through the security plaza.
According to Apple, this system can accommodate 600 vehicles per hour, per lane. Apple is also
investigating new technologies to allow for faster/easier security clearance.

Pedestrian and bicycle circulation on the project site would be provided through a network of internal
pathways. Pathways would connect the Main Building to the periphery of the project site, the Corpo-
rate Auditorium, Corporate Fitness Center, and the Main Parking Structure. Paths would also be
provided within the courtyard of the Main Building. Pedestrian circulation for the Phase 2 office,
research, and development facilities along North Tantau Avenue would primarily be via pathways
connecting to sidewalks along North Tantau Avenue.

8.         Off-Site Circulation
a.    Roadway Changes. Apple proposes to widen North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue to
accommodate the increased traffic that would be generated by the project, and to narrow Pruneridge
Avenue east of North Tantau Avenue to match recent modifications made to Pruneridge Avenue in
the City of Santa Clara. In addition, Apple proposes to widen the northbound and southbound I-280
off-ramps at North Wolfe Road. These proposed roadway changes are described below.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         100
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




       (1) North Wolfe Road. Apple proposes to make several changes to the roadway configura-
tion of North Wolfe Road. The proposed configuration of North Wolfe Road between East
Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard is discussed below.

      East Homestead Road to North Wolfe Road Access Point. North of the proposed North
Wolfe Road access point into the project site, North Wolfe Road consists of a southbound bike lane
and three southbound through lanes, a median, three northbound through lanes, and a northbound bike
lane. With implementation of the project, this segment of North Wolfe Road would be widened to
consist of a southbound bike lane and three southbound through lanes, two southbound left-turn lanes
turning into the main project entrance, a median, and three northbound through lanes and a north-
bound bike lane. This proposed widening would occur entirely on the east side of the roadway, within
the City-owned right-of-way, and on property owned by Apple within the project site.

       North Wolfe Road Access Point to Pruneridge Avenue. South of the proposed North Wolfe
Road access point and north of Pruneridge Avenue, North Wolfe Road consists of a southbound bike
lane, three southbound through lanes, one southbound left-turn lane turning onto Pruneridge Avenue,
three northbound through lanes and a northbound bike lane. With implementation of the project, this
segment of North Wolfe Road would be widened to consist of a southbound bike lane, three
southbound through lanes, a southbound left-turn lane turning onto Pruneridge Avenue, a 15-foot-
wide median, three northbound through lanes, a northbound bike lane, and two northbound right-turn
lanes turning onto the main access point. This proposed widening would occur entirely on the east
side of the roadway, within the City-owned right-of-way, and on property owned by Apple within the
project site.

       Pruneridge Avenue to I-280 Northbound Ramps. South of Pruneridge Avenue to the I-280
ramps, North Wolfe Road consists of a southbound bike lane and three southbound through lanes, a
median, two northbound left-turn lanes turning onto Pruneridge Avenue, two northbound through
lanes, a northbound bike lane, and a northbound right-turn lane turning onto Pruneridge Avenue. With
implementation of the project, this segment of North Wolfe Road would be widened to consist of a
southbound bike lane, three southbound through lanes, a median, two northbound left-turn lanes
turning onto Pruneridge Avenue, three northbound through lanes, a northbound bike lane, a fourth
northbound through lane, and a shared northbound through/right-turn lane turning onto Pruneridge
Avenue. This proposed widening would occur entirely on the east side of the roadway, within the
City-owned right-of-way, on property owned by The Hamptons, and on property owned by Caltrans.

The proposed widening of North Wolfe Road would include the removal of the triangular channeliz-
ing islands on the east side of the intersection with Pruneridge Avenue, as well as the relocation of the
existing signal poles and replacement of the signal mast arms to accommodate lane realignment. The
northbound bike lane would be marked on the pavement between the three northbound through lanes
and the fourth northbound through lane approaching Pruneridge Avenue. A new combined
sidewalk/off street bike path and landscaping would be installed to the east of the curb on the east
side of North Wolfe Road. The widening of North Wolfe Road would require a land exchange with
the owner of The Hamptons. Under the exchange agreement, the owner of The Hamptons would
convey to the City approximately 11,500 square feet of land adjacent to the North Wolfe Road
frontage in exchange for a similar amount of land that Apple owns adjacent to The Hamptons in
Ridgeview Court, and/or other compensation. A future lot line adjustment application would be filed
with the City to complete the transfer of land, if the land exchange is agreed to under the exchange
agreement.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         101
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




       I-280 Overcrossing. On the I-280 overcrossing, North Wolfe Road consists of a southbound
shoulder stripe, two southbound through lanes, a median, two northbound through lanes, and a
northbound shoulder stripe. With the implementation of the project, the southbound and northbound
shoulder stripes would be modified to standard bike lanes. The vehicular travel lanes in each direction
of travel and the median would remain the same. Apple proposes to add a northbound through lane
starting north of the I-280 northbound loop-on ramp; however this would not require widening of the
overcrossing.

The project would include no roadway changes between I-280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard along
North Wolfe Road. Other changes that would be required by the widening of North Wolfe Road
include the closure of the existing project site driveway and northbound bus turnout located on the
east side of North Wolfe Road along the project site, north of the Pruneridge Avenue intersection, and
the construction of a new bus turnout near the main project entrance. In addition, utilities would be
relocated.

       (2) East Homestead Road. East Homestead Road, mid-way between North Wolfe Road and
North Tantau Avenue, generally consists of one bike lane and two through lanes in each direction
with a continuous two-way left-turn lane. With implementation of the project, the continuous two-
way left-turn lane would be replaced with a 10-foot-wide median, but the bike lane and two through
lanes in each direction would be retained. In addition, a shuttle bus pull-out for Corporate Fitness
Center drop-offs is proposed to the east of the Corporate Fitness Center driveway.North Tantau
Avenue. Apple also proposes to make several changes to the roadway configuration of North Tantau
Avenue adjacent to the project site. In addition, a pull-out for private passenger vehicles and a
separate pull-out for public transit buses would be added in each direction (one set would be located
between East Homestead Road and Pruneridge Avenue and one set would be located between
Calabazas Creek and I-280) along North Tantau Avenue. These pull-outs are not intended for use by
Apple’s shuttle buses.

      North of Pruneridge Avenue. North Tantau Avenue between Pruneridge Avenue and East
Homestead Road consists of one bike lane and one through lane in each direction, with a continuous
two-way left-turn lane to provide left-turn access into and from the adjacent properties. With imple-
mentation of the project, this segment of North Tantau Avenue (which would be near the proposed
Transit Center) would be modified to include a southbound bike lane, a southbound through lane, a
14-foot-wide median, a northbound through lane, and a northbound bike lane. The median would
have cuts to allow left turn movements into and out of the Transit Center and to provide access to the
driveways located on the east side of North Tantau Avenue. No additional right-of-way would be
required, as the shared turn lane would be removed and the southbound and northbound through lanes
would be reduced from 14 feet in width to 12.5 feet in width.

       South of Pruneridge Avenue. North Tantau Avenue immediately south of Pruneridge Avenue
consists of one bike lane and one through lane in each direction, with a continuous two-way left-turn
lane to provide left-turn access into and from the adjacent properties. With implementation of the
project, this segment of North Tantau Avenue would be modified to include a southbound bike lane, a
southbound through lane, an 11-foot-wide median, a northbound through lane, a northbound bike
lane, and a northbound right-turn lane onto Pruneridge Avenue.

      North of the Proposed Secondary Employee Access. North Tantau Avenue immediately
north of the proposed secondary employee access consists of one bike lane and one through lane in


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         102
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




each direction, with a shared center turn lane to provide left-turn access into and from the adjacent
properties. With implementation of the project, this segment of North Tantau Avenue would be
widened to include a southbound bike lane, two southbound through lanes, a southbound left-turn
lane (to the Phase 2 buildings north of Calabazas Creek), one northbound through lane, and one
northbound bike lane.

       Over Calabazas Creek. North Tantau Avenue between the secondary employee entrance to
the main campus and the employee entrance to the Phase 2 buildings east of North Tantau Avenue
and south of Calabazas Creek, consists of one bike lane and one through lane in each direction, with a
shared center turn lane to provide left-turn access into and from the adjacent properties. With imple-
mentation of the project, this segment of North Tantau Avenue would be modified to include an off-
street pedestrian/bike path in each direction, two southbound through lanes, two northbound left-turn
lanes into the main campus, and one northbound shared through/right-turn lane (to the Phase 2
buildings north of Calabazas Creek).

       North of the Signalized Phase 2 Entrance, South of Calabazas Creek. The segment of
North Tantau Avenue, between the employee entrance to the Phase 2 buildings east of North Tantau
Avenue, south of Calabazas Creek, and the signalized Phase 2 entrance south of the creek, consists of
one bike lane and one through lane in each direction, with a shared center turn lane to provide left-
turn access into and from the adjacent properties. With implementation of the project, this segment of
North Tantau Avenue would be widened to consist of one southbound bike lane, one southbound
shared through/right-turn lane, one southbound through lane, one southbound left-turn lane (to the
Phase 2 buildings south of Calabazas Creek), two northbound through lanes ,and one northbound
bike lane.

      South of the Signalized Phase 2 Entrance, South of Calabazas Creek. The segment of North
Tantau Avenue, immediately south of the signalized Phase 2 entrance south of Calabazas Creek,
consists of one bike lane and one through lane in each direction, and a northbound left-turn lane. With
implementation of the project, this segment of North Tantau Avenue would be widened to consist of a
southbound bike lane, two southbound through lanes, one northbound left-turn lane (to the Phase 2
buildings south of Calabazas Creek), one northbound through lane, a northbound shared
through/right-turn lane to the Phase 2 buildings south of Calabazas Creek, and a northbound bike
lane.

       Over I-280. The North Tantau Avenue bridge over I-280 consists of one bike lane, two through
lanes in each direction, and a sidewalk on the east side of the street. With implementation of the
project, this segment of North Tantau Avenue would be modified to include a bike lane, two through
lanes, and sidewalks on both sides of the bridge.

     (4) Pruneridge Avenue. Apple also proposes to make the following changes to Pruneridge
Avenue as part of the project.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         103
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




      Between North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue. Pruneridge Avenue would terminate
approximately 700 feet east of North Wolfe Road. The remaining segment of Pruneridge Avenue
within the project site, up to the intersection with North Tantau Avenue, would be vacated. The
segment that would provide access to The Hamptons currently consists of one eastbound bike lane,
two eastbound through lanes, and a continuous two-way left-turn lane, two westbound through lanes,
and one westbound bike lane. With implementation of the project, this section of Pruneridge Avenue
would be reduced to one through lane and a bike lane in each direction.

At the intersection of North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue, there is currently an eastbound bike
lane, two eastbound through lanes, two westbound left turn lanes, one westbound bike lane, one
westbound through lane, and one westbound right turn lane. This configuration would be modified to
one eastbound bike lane, one eastbound through lane, a westbound left turn lane, a westbound bike
lane and a westbound shared through/right-turn lane.

       East of North Tantau Avenue. As noted above, Apple proposes to remove the west leg of
Pruneridge Avenue at its intersection with North Tantau Avenue. The removal would require
modifications to signal poles, mast arms, and signal heads, and reconfiguration of the east leg of
Pruneridge Avenue at the intersection. The east leg of Pruneridge Avenue consists of a westbound
bike lane, two westbound through lanes, a westbound left-turn lane onto North Tantau Avenue, two
eastbound through lanes, and one eastbound bike lane. The east leg of Pruneridge Avenue would be
narrowed to include a westbound right-turn lane, a westbound bike lane, a westbound left-turn lane, a
13-foot-wide median, an eastbound through lane, and an eastbound bike lane. These changes would
be made to connect to the roadway modifications made by the City of Santa Clara to the east of the
City of Cupertino boundary along Pruneridge Avenue.

       (5) Freeway Ramps. To reduce the impact of increased traffic volumes exiting I-280, Apple
proposes to widen both the northbound and southbound I-280 off-ramps at North Wolfe Road to
accommodate two lanes on the ramps, starting from the freeway main line. Further, Apple proposes to
add a lane on the northbound I-280 off ramp approach to North Wolfe Road. This proposed widening
would require approval by Caltrans. Because Caltrans approval of the proposed widening cannot be
guaranteed by the City of Cupertino (the lead agency), the widening is not assumed as part of the
traffic analysis in this section.

Figures III-17a through III-17f show the proposed changes to roads around the site.

b.     Transit Facility Changes. Currently, VTA local Bus Route 81 travels in the eastbound
direction on Pruneridge Avenue between North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue. Route 81 has
two stops on this segment of Pruneridge Avenue: 1) one near the intersection with North Wolfe Road,
and 2) one at the current main entrance to the Pruneridge Campus (i.e., the former Hewlett-Packard
Campus). Route 81 is the only transit service that is provided on the section of Pruneridge Avenue
that is proposed to be closed to public access. Therefore, the proposed project would necessitate a
rerouting of Route 81’s path along Pruneridge Avenue.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         104
                                                                       Wolfe Road South of Pruneridge - Existing




                                                                       Wolfe Road South of Pruneridge - Proposed Reconfiguration




    Street Improvements Key Map




                                                                       Wolfe Road North of AC2 Entrance- Existing


           Wolfe Road North of Pruneridge - Existing




                                                                       Wolfe Road North of AC2 Entrance - Proposed Reconfiguration
           Wolfe Road North of Pruneridge - Proposed Reconfiguration


                                                                                                                                             FIGURE III-17a

not to scale
                                                                                                                                      Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                                                                           Off-Site Street Changes
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III17a.ai (5/1/13)
                                                                 Tantau Avenue - Existing




                                                                 Tantau Avenue - Proposed Reconfiguration




                      Street Improvements Key Map




                                                                                Tantau Avenue Over I-280 - Existing
                      Tantau Avenue - Existing




                      Tantau Avenue - Proposed Reconfiguration                  Tantau Avenue Over I-280 - Proposed Reconfiguration as Public Benefit


                                                                                                                                  FIGURE III-17b

not to scale
                                                                                                                       Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                                                            Off-Site Street Changes
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III17b.ai (5/2/13)
                                                                                   Tantau Avenue South of Bridge Over Creek - Existing




                                                                                   Tantau Avenue South of Bridge Over Creek - Proposed Reconfiguration




                      Street Improvements Key Map




                                                                                                  Tantau Avenue - Existing


                      Tantau Avenue Bridge Over Creek - Existing




                      Tantau Avenue Bridge Over Creek - Proposed Reconfiguration                  Tantau Avenue - Proposed Reconfiguration


                                                                                                                                                   FIGURE III-17c

not to scale
                                                                                                                                          Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                                                                               Off-Site Street Changes
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III17c.ai (5/2/13)
                                                                                        Tantau Avenue South of Pruneridge - Existing




                                                                                        Tantau Avenue South of Pruneridge - Proposed Reconfiguration




               Street Improvements Key Map




                                                                                        Tantau Avenue North of Tantau Entrance- Existing


                         Tantau Avenue near Transit Center - Existing




                         Tantau Avenue near Transit Center - Proposed Reconfiguration   Tantau Avenue North of Tantau Entrance - Proposed Reconfiguration


                                                                                                                                                        FIGURE III-17d

not to scale
                                                                                                                                             Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                                                                                  Off-Site Street Changes
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III17d.ai (5/2/13)
                                                           Pruneridge Avenue - Existing




                                                           Pruneridge Avenue - Proposed




                  Street Improvements Key Map




                                                           Pruneridge Avenue - Existing



                         Homestead Road - Existing




                                                           Pruneridge Avenue - Proposed
                         Homestead Road - Proposed

                                                                                                  FIGURE III-17e

not to scale
                                                                                           Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                                Off-Site Street Changes
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III17e.ai (5/2/13)
                                                           Tantau Entrance Road - Proposed




                                                           Wolfe Entrance Road - Proposed
                Street Improvements Key Map




                                                           Main Building Basement Parking Access Tunnel




                                                                                                                  FIGURE III-17f

not to scale
                                                                                                           Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                                                Off-Site Street Changes
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III17f.ai (5/2/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




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.

In addition, as noted above, other changes to transit facilities that would result from the project
include the closure of the existing driveway and bus turnout located on the east side of North Wolfe
Road, north of the Pruneridge Avenue intersection, and the construction of a new bus turnout north of
the main project entrance. On the west side of North Wolfe Road, there are currently two bus stops
between Pruneridge Avenue and East Homestead Road. With implementation of the project, these bus
stops would be consolidated into one location, north of Pruneridge Avenue, between the two existing
bus stops. In addition, new bus turnouts would be provided on North Tantau Avenue between East
Homestead Road and Vallco Parkway. Specifically, new bus turnouts would be provided on North
Tantau Avenue in the southbound direction just south of East Homestead Road and in both directions
of travel just south of Pruneridge Avenue. In addition, two pull-outs for private and transit passenger
vehicles would be added in each direction along North Tantau Avenue (one set would be located
between East Homestead Road and Pruneridge Avenue and one set would be located between
Calabazas Creek and I-280).

c.    Bike and Pedestrian Facility Changes. The project would include the changes to the bike and
pedestrian environment on roadways surrounding the project site listed below. These changes would
be implemented adjacent to property owned by Apple, in coordination with other adjacent property
owners, consistent with existing development, financial, and other public improvement obligations,
and in accordance with approved plans. Figure III-19 shows the existing and proposed bike and
pedestrian environment in the vicinity of the site. Figures III-20a through III-20f provide detailed
plans of bike facilities along the roadways surrounding the project site.

North Tantau Avenue
                 Provide a fully landscaped median from north of Calabazas Creek to East Homestead Road
                  (where space permits).
                 Provide fully detached sidewalks on both sides of North Tantau Avenue between I-280 and
                  East Homestead Road, except where determined to be infeasible by the City (due to
                  property owner objections or other issues).
                 Provide fully detached sidewalks on both sides of North Tantau Avenue between the I-280
                  bridge and Vallco Parkway.
                 Provide sidewalks and bicycle lanes on both sides of the North Tantau Avenue bridge
                  across I-280 (currently there is a sidewalk only on one side).
                 Restripe and/or provide enhanced colored bike lanes on both sides of the street.
                 Link sidewalks along North Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway, from Calabazas Creek at
                  North Tantau Avenue to Calabazas Creek at Vallco Parkway, using specialty paving,
                  signage, and/or other way-finding features. This change would provide an alternate to a
                  planned route along Calabazas Creek.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         111
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




                 Reduce the number of curb cuts and left-turn lanes.
                 Create a distinctive entry to the project site from North Tantau Avenue, with architectural
                  elements and landscaping.
                 Provide enhanced paving, pedestrian-scale lighting, and enhanced fencing on the 1-280
                  overpass on North Tantau Avenue, subject to City and Caltrans approval.

North Wolfe Road
                 Replace existing fully detached sidewalks where they currently exist and provide fully
                  detached sidewalks where such sidewalks are missing, from I-280 to East Homestead Road
                  (where permitted by existing trees and topography).
                 Establish a northbound off-street bike path, in addition to an on-street bike lane from
                  approximately 250 feet south of the Pruneridge Avenue/North Wolfe Road intersection to
                  the main employee entrance.
                 Enhance the landscape buffer along the street.
                 Restripe and/or provide colored bike lanes on both sides of the street.
                 Provide enhancements at the North Wolfe Road overpass over I-280, including: enhanced
                  paving, guardrails, pedestrian-scale lighting, and decorative fencing, subject to City and
                  Caltrans approval.

East Homestead Road
                 Reduce the number of curb cuts and left-turn lanes.
                 Provide entry/exit points for employee bike and pedestrian access to the project site.
                 Restripe and/or provide colored bike lanes on both sides of the street.
                 Provide intersection markings to facilitate bicycle left turns from westbound East
                  Homestead Road to southbound North Tantau Avenue.
                 Provide a planted median.

Vallco Parkway:
                 Provide fully detached sidewalks between North Tantau Avenue and North Wolfe Road
                  along the northern side of the street.
                 Restripe and/or provide enhanced bike lanes on both sides of the street.
                 Coordinate with the City and existing landowners on road markings, signage, crosswalk
                  enhancements, and median relocation.
                 Continue the alternate creek trail route to Calabazas Creek, with special planting, signage,
                  and fencing where the creek intersects Vallco Parkway.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         112
                                                   E. Homestead Rd.                                                                   E. Homestead Rd.




                                                                        N. Tantau Ave.




                                                                                                                                                                          N. Tantau Ave.
                                                                                                        Prune
                                                                                                             rid
                                                                                                                ge
                            Pr                                                                                     Av
     N. Wolfe Rd.




                              un                                                                                     e.
                                 er
                                   id
                                      ge
                                           Av
                                              e.




                                                                                         N. Wolfe Rd.
                                                                                                                                      In
                                                                                                                                        te
                                                                                                                                           rs
                                                   In                                                                                        ta
                                                     te                                                                                         te
                                                        rs                                                                                           28
                                                          ta                                                                                           0
                                                             te
                                                                  28
                                                                    0




                                                                                                                Vallco Parkway
                    Vallco Parkway




                                                                                                                Stevens Creek Blvd.
                                           Stevens Creek Blvd.

                                                                                                                                                                                           FIGURE III-18

not to scale
                                                                                                                                                                          Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                                                                                                 Existing and Proposed Transit Routes
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III18.ai (5/21/13)
   Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Perimeter Condition
                                                          Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Experience



                                                                                                                   FIGURE III-19


not to scale


                                                                                                          Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                     Existing and Proposed Bike and Pedestrian Systems
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III19.ai (5/2/13)
                                                                    FIGURE III-20a

0       50       100
feet                                                         Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                 Perimeter Bike Facilities
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III20a.ai (5/2/13)
                                                                    FIGURE III-20b

0       50       100
feet
                                                              Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                  Perimeter Bike Facilities
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III20b.ai (1/10/13)
                                                                    FIGURE III-20c

0            60            120
feet                                                         Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                 Perimeter Bike Facilities
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III20c.ai (5/2/13)
                                                                   FIGURE III-20d

0      60   120
feet                                                         Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                 Perimeter Bike Facilities
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III20d.ai (5/2/13)
                                                                    FIGURE III-20e

0         50        100
feet                                                         Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                 Perimeter Bike Facilities
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III20e.ai (5/2/13)
                                                                    FIGURE III-20f

0        80       160
feet                                                         Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                 Perimeter Bike Facilities
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III20f.ai (5/2/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




d.    Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. As part of the project, Apple would
continue to implement its TDM Program, which is described above, and expand the program under
Apple’s current TDM Program implementation schedule. Data collected at Apple’s Infinite Loop
Campus indicate that under the existing TDM Program, 28 percent of peak hour trips are by transit,
carpool, biking, and walking. The use of alternative transportation at Apple is higher than that of
other employment locations in Cupertino, where (according to U.S. Census data), 17 percent of peak
hour trips are by alternative transportation.14 Implementation measures of the expanded TDM
Program would build off Apple’s existing measures, but have not been formalized. Key elements of
the enhanced TDM measures include the following:
                 Apple Transit. Apple would increase coach service areas and frequency, and provide
                  priority drop off locations for transit users at its transit center.
                 Mass Transit Shuttle Links. Apple shuttle services would be expanded to include
                  connections to future high-capacity corridors such as VTA BRT lines, electrified Caltrain
                  lines, and Santa Clara BART extensions.
                 Off Campus Bicycle Infrastructure. Off-campus bicycle infrastructure would be improved,
                  including: bike lanes, bike paths, high-visibility striping, bike boxes at key intersections
                  and other features to encourage safe cycling to and from the site.
                 Campus Walking/Cycling Commutes. Apple would prioritize walking and cycling to the
                  site for those employees who live closest to the campus by providing more convenient
                  pedestrian and bicyclist access to the Main Building, providing bike lockers closest to the
                  entrances of the Main Building, and increasing the distance between on-site parking and
                  work space (i.e., accommodating much of the project parking underground or in structures,
                  at a distance from work space).
                 Transit Center. Apple would provide a transit center with an information desk for
                  employees to retrieve maps and information on alternative commute options. The
                  information desk would be easily accessible from the Main Building.
                 Parking Monitoring System. Apple would develop a parking monitoring system that would
                  measure individual parking space utilization and collect data to optimize other TDM
                  programs. For example, arrival time information would help guide new shuttle schedules
                  throughout the Apple transit system. The system would complement other TDM programs
                  by identifying open parking spaces in various zones and directing employees to the closest
                  zone with an open space, which could help reduce on-site congestion. Some of the data
                  collected would be included in an annual parking utilization report submitted as part of
                  TDM reporting.
                 Expanded Bike-sharing Program. Apple would provide at least 1,000 bikes within the
                  project site to enhance mobility and promote cycling as a viable commute option.
                 Electric Vehicle Charging. Apple would provide at least 300 charging spaces for electrical
                  vehicles.15 While electrical vehicles would not necessarily reduce project vehicle trips, they
                  would achieve other environmental benefits related to air quality, noise, and greenhouse
                  gas emissions.


           14
                Fehr & Peers, 2013. Apple Campus 2 Transportation Impact Analysis.
           15
                Ibid.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         121
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




For the purpose of this EIR, and to ensure that the project’s potential effects on the local and regional
transportation system are fully and cautiously evaluated (and in recognition that specific TDM
expansion measures are being refined by Apple), an expanded TDM Program (beyond the measures
that are currently being provided) is not assumed as part of the quantitative analysis for the project
(i.e., the analysis of transportation./circulation, noise, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions).
Please refer to Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, for a discussion of assumptions regarding
employee commute patterns that are assumed for the purpose of this analysis.

9.         Parking
The project would consolidate the existing surface parking currently on the site into a compact
parking design to: provide for increased private open space, increase pervious surfaces, and meet
sustainability objectives. The project includes 10,980 parking spaces, or a net increase of 1,760
parking spaces from the 9,220 spaces currently provided on the project site. Of these 10,980 spaces,
300 spaces (located at the Wolfe Visitor Parking and North Tantau Parking Structure, described
below) would be available exclusively for registered visitors on a daily basis. Of the 750 spaces in the
North Tantau Parking Structure, 350 spaces would be made available for the up to 350 invited non-
Apple employee guests during special events. In addition, 60 valet parking spaces would be provided
at the North Tantau Parking Structure on a daily basis. 9,240 spaces would be provided as part of
Phase 1 and 1,740 spaces would be provided as part of Phase 2.

Parking areas on the site would have the capacity for up to 1,000 electric vehicle charging stations
(combined), with 300 charging stations provided immediately as part of the project. The additional
700 charging stations would be provided if needed to meet demand. Specific assumptions for the use
of these charging stations are identified in Section V.K, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sustainabil-
ity. Apple plans to use technology to inform employees of available parking options, which could
involve a smart phone application, on-site smart signage, or other means. The parking facilities that
would be developed on the site as part of the project are described below:
                 Main Building (Parking Garage). A two-level sub-grade parking garage below the Main
                  Building would contain 2,385 employee parking spaces, or approximately 1,193 spaces per
                  level. These parking spaces would be accessed via the main internal road through the project
                  site. Ramps would connect the two levels.
                 Main Parking Structure. A four-level above-grade parking structure consisting of two
                  connected sub-structures would be developed near the southern boundary of the project site.
                  The Main Parking Structure would contain 5,870 employee parking spaces, or approxi-
                  mately 1,468 spaces per level, and would be accessed via the main internal road through the
                  project site. Bridges would connect the two sub-structures at each level. Pedestrian paths
                  would connect the parking structure to the Main Building and most employees would be
                  expected to walk or bike to and from their parked vehicles. However, a shuttle service
                  between the Main Building and Main Parking Structure would be provided. The Parking
                  Structure shuttle would run on average every 5 minutes throughout the day. During peak
                  commute hours, frequency would double to roughly two shuttles every 5 minutes.
                  Photovoltaics would be installed on the rooftop of the Main Parking Structure. Figure III-
                  21a shows the first and second floors of the parking structure. Figure III-21b shows a repre-
                  sentative section of the parking structure.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         122
                                                                                                           FIGURE III-21a
            0          100          200        30
             feet                                                                                 Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                 Main Parking Structure - Representative Plan - Levels B1 and 1
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III21a.ai (5/2/13)
                                                                                            FIGURE III-21b

0                 50                 100
feet
                                                                                    Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                 Main Parking Structure - Representative Section
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III21b.ai (5/2/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




                 North Tantau Parking Structure and Valet Parking Reception. A parking structure, with
                  one level above grade and two levels below grade, containing 750 parking stalls and an
                  additional 60 valet parking spaces (provided on a daily basis), with an overall capacity of
                  810 parking spaces, would be developed north of Pruneridge Avenue and east of North
                  Tantau Avenue. Approximately 150 parking spaces would be designated for registered
                  visitor use. During events at the Corporate Auditorium, a total of 350 spaces would serve
                  non-Apple employee guests to the Corporate Auditorium. At other times, 600 spaces and
                  60 valet parking spaces would be available for employees visiting from other Apple
                  locations off-site and visitors, in addition to the 150 registered visitor spaces. Figures III-
                  22a and III-22b show plans of the North Tantau Parking Structure and representative
                  sections. Adjacent to the North Tantau Parking Structure would be the 25,000-square-foot
                  Tantau Valet Parking Reception, half of which would be used for parking and transit
                  management and half of which would be used for valet reception. The Valet Parking
                  Reception would coordinate valet parking and parking assistance services for invited
                  guests. Apple attendants would also assist guests with directions and would assist security
                  personnel.
                 Corporate Fitness Center Parking. A total of 25 surface parking spaces would be provided
                  in a lot immediately north of the Corporate Fitness Center.
                 Wolfe Visitor Parking. The Wolfe Visitor Parking facility would consist of 150 spaces in a
                  surface parking lot, located immediately south of the Main North Wolfe Road entry into the
                  project site.
                 Phase 2 Parking. A conceptual plan for 1,740 parking spaces has been prepared for Phase 2
                  of the project, including a likely configuration of 1,400 basement and 340 surface parking
                  spaces. In addition, 45 spaces in the Phase 2 Parking area would be reserved for media truck
                  parking on special event days, which ordinarily would be available for employee parking on
                  all other days.

As part of the project, Apple would provide at least 2,000 bicycle parking spaces, including 600
spaces for bicycle commuters and 1,400 spaces for Apple’s bike share program. The bike share
program would enable employees to use bicycles to travel between the project site, the Infinite Loop
campus and other off-site locations.

Please refer to Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, for a discussion of parking space
dimensions.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         125
                                                                                   FIGURE III-22a

0               50              100
feet
                                                                           Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                 North Tantau Parking Structure - North
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III22a.ai (5/2/13)
                                                                                   FIGURE III-22b

0              50             100
feet
                                                                           Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                 North Tantau Parking Structure - South
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III22b.ai (5/2/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




10.        Special Events
Apple anticipates that special events at the Corporate Auditorium, which could include the presenta-
tion of new consumer products, would occur on average three to four times per year. Smaller events
would continue to be held at Apple facilities outside the project site. Attendance at special events in
the Corporate Auditorium would range up to 1,000 persons and would occur between 9:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., not including event set-up and clean-up. Attendance would be by invitation only. Some
attendees would be Apple employees, who would walk to each event at the Corporate Auditorium
from other locations in the project site. It is expected that no more than 350 visitors (not including
media staff) who are not Apple staff would attend special events at the Corporate Auditorium. The
remaining attendees are expected to come primarily from other campus facilities, and would walk to
the Corporate Auditorium, or would arrive from other Apple facilities in the area using the Apple
shuttle system. It is expected that off-site visitors (including Apple employees and non-Apple guests)
would create demand for approximately 350 parking spaces during special events.

The approximately 350 invited non-Apple employee guests would be directed to park in the 810-space
North Tantau Parking Structure. The site would be staffed with Apple security personnel to direct
guests to the appropriate parking facilities, assist the Police Department with traffic control, and
shepherd guests to the Corporate Auditorium. Media outlets that desire parking (for broadcast or other
reasons) would be directed by Apple personnel to surface parking spaces on the east side of North
Tantau Avenue, as described below.

On special event days, employees who would typically park in the Auditorium and Visitor Parking
facility would be directed to park elsewhere (including at off-site locations, subject to City review if
located within City limits, requiring shuttle transport, if necessary). Employees would be given
advance notice of the restriction on the parking facility. A week prior to the event day, Apple would
notify all Santa Clara Valley employees via Apple’s internal website that the Auditorium and Visitor
Parking facility would be off-limits to Apple employee use on the day of the special event. Apple
employees would park and work at their normally-assigned buildings on special event days, or at off-
site facilities, and would be instructed to not invite visitors to the Main Building (and, if necessary, to
hold meetings at other Apple buildings outside the project site).

On event days, the North Tantau Parking Structure would be managed such that the 350 parking
spaces needed for guests arriving from off-site are reserved. If additional parking is required for
Apple employees on special event days, Apple would deploy its valet parking services to increase
parking capacity in the Main Building, Main Parking Garage, or other open parking areas within the
project site. The use of a valet service would allow for the provision of an additional 150 parking
spaces within the project site.16

In addition, Apple expects that it would need space equating to 45 parking spaces for use by media
trucks to provide coverage on event days. Media parking would be provided in the parking lot
immediately south of the intersection of Pruneridge Avenue and North Tantau Avenue. The media
parking area would be accommodated within the Phase 2 parking facilities.




           16
                Apple Inc., 2013. Re: AC2 Event Parking. February 13.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         128
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




In addition, Apple would designate an area near the intersection of Pruneridge Avenue and North
Tantau Avenue where uninvited visitors could gather who desire to visit the site on special event
days. These visitors would be monitored by Apple security staff. The timing of the special events
would allow for preparation and dismantling of equipment to occur outside of peak activity hours on
the streets surrounding the campus.17

11.        Utilities
The Pruneridge Avenue street vacation would require the relocation or abandonment of existing
sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, water lines, and gas and electric lines within the street right-of-
way. Preliminary studies and discussions with utility providers indicate that the following improve-
ments may be required in the adjacent public rights-of-way:
                 Sanitary Sewer. The existing sanitary sewer lines along North Wolfe Road (between
                  Pruneridge Avenue and East Homestead Road) and along East Homestead Road (between
                  North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue) would be upsized and deepened, upon
                  approval by the Cupertino Sanitary District.
                 Storm Drain. A new storm drain pipe parallel to the existing storm drain, or an upgraded
                  single line along North Wolfe Road (between Pruneridge Avenue and East Homestead
                  Road) would be installed. The design of this new storm drain pipe is pending hydraulic
                  analysis and consultation with the City. However, the storm drain infrastructure installed as
                  part of the project would be required by the City to accommodate the 10-year storm and
                  increased runoff associated with any proposed roadway widening and rerouting of storm
                  drain facilities (and to ensure adequate capture of stormwater runoff from The Hamptons).
                  Additional upgrades along East Homestead Road may be needed pending review and
                  approval of the project hydraulic analysis by the City.
                 Water. The existing water line along East Homestead Road (between North Wolfe Road
                  and North Tantau Avenue) would be upsized, per coordination with the California Water
                  Company (CalWater). In addition, Apple is discussing with South Bay Water Recycling,
                  the Santa Clara Valley Water District, Calwater, and the cities of San Jose, Sunnyvale, and
                  Santa Clara the possibility of bringing a supply of recycled water into the site (see
                  discussion below).
                 Electricity and Telecommunications. New conduits for electric and telecommunications
                  lines would be installed from the intersection of North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue
                  to the intersection of North Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue via North Wolfe Road,
                  East Homestead Road, and North Tantau Avenue. New conduits with feeder circuits would
                  be installed from the intersection of North Wolfe Road and East Homestead Road to the
                  Central Plant via North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue. New feeder circuits may be
                  required to connect the PG&E distribution network (at the intersection of North Wolfe
                  Road and East Homestead Road), PG&E’s Blaney Substation, the Central Plant, and the
                  north and south Satellite Plants.
                 Gas. A gas pipeline would be installed on North Tantau Avenue between East Homestead
                  Road and Pruneridge Avenue to maintain connectivity within PG&E’s gas network.



           17
                Apple Inc., 2012. Re: AC2 Event Management & Parking. December 14.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         129
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




New connections for sanitary sewer, storm drain, and water lines would be required to serve The
Hamptons as part of the project. These connections are likely to require utility improvements in the
surrounding streets and would be coordinated with the utility and storm drainage work associated
with the Pruneridge Avenue street vacation.

The above relocations and connection strategies are preliminary and subject to confirmation with the
utility providers during design coordination and review. The existing PG&E facilities along Prune-
ridge Avenue between North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue would be removed or abandoned
with the closure of Pruneridge Avenue. No utility crossings over Calabazas Creek would be required
(except on existing utility alignments along North Tantau Avenue).
                 Recycled Water. While recycled water is not required for the project, to potentially minimize
                  the project’s demand for potable water, Apple is exploring the possibility of voluntarily
                  participating in an effort to extend a recycled water line to the project site. The intended use
                  of the recycled water would be for irrigation, but Apple is also designing into the project the
                  ability to use recycled water in the cooling towers and installing infrastructure in the Main
                  Building to allow the use of recycled water for limited indoor uses, such as flushing of
                  toilets and equipment processes. While Apple is exploring ways to support the extension of
                  recycled water to the project site and is assessing whether water quality would meet irriga-
                  tion needs and cooling tower needs, any such extension to the area would be an independent
                  utility improvement, is not dependent on the project, and is not required by the project.

                  At this point, the likelihood of extending a recycled water line to the site is speculative due
                  to funding and other technical and practical issues. Project specifics are also tentative,
                  including the location and capacity of the line, although the City of Sunnyvale has indicated
                  North Wolfe Road in the vicinity of the project site as a potential expansion area for
                  recycled water infrastructure and circulated a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for this
                  infrastructure project from October 19, 2012 to November 7, 2012.18 As a result, the analysis
                  in the EIR of the water demand expected to result from the project assumes that the project
                  would not use recycled water. Despite this uncertainty, in order to provide a full discussion
                  of potential impacts of the project as a whole, this EIR briefly discusses the possible
                  connection to, and extension of, existing recycled water lines as a reasonably foreseeable
                  consequence of the project. However, such an extension would require independent
                  environmental review when the design of the extension is finalized.

                  As described in the City of Sunnyvale’s draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, one possible
                  route for recycled water infrastructure would extend the recycled water line from the
                  existing City of Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant along Wolfe Road, terminating at
                  the project site at North Wolfe Road and East Homestead Road (see Figure III-23). This
                  route would utilize upgrades to the system that Sunnyvale is currently and independently
                  initiating and would require approximately 13,500 feet of pipeline to serve the project.




      18
         Sunnyvale, City of, 2008. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. December 16; CH2M Hill for the City of
Sunnyvale, 2012. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study for Wolfe Road Recycled Water Project. October 19.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         130
                                                                                                                    San Jose




                           237

                                                                           101




                                     Sunnyvale
                                                                                 Santa Clara




                                                                      1

            85                                                  Wolfe Rd




                                                          280




                                  Cupertino
                                                                                                         San Jose




                 Apple Campus 2                                                                                         1
                 Existing South Bay Water Recycling System
                                                                                                 Route                 Wolfe
                 Reservoir and Pump Station                                                      Distance To Site    5.3 Miles
                 Public Parks

                 Commercial

                 Expansion Potential for Community




                                                                                                             FIGURE III-23




not to scale
                                                                                              Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                                   Potential Recycled Water Infrastructure
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_III23.ai (5/2/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




This page intentionally left blank.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         132
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




           It is anticipated that the recycled water line would be constructed in public rights-of-way to the
           maximum extent practical. Construction may require roadway lane closures, trenching in
           rights-of-way, utility relocations, installation of the recycled water pipe, and the necessary
           supporting infrastructure (e.g., pumps, valves, and controls). The estimated timeline for
           construction is approximately 5 months. The specifics of the recycled water line would be
           evaluated based on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, feasibility of construction,
           impact on the public, adequate water pressure, cost, water quality, and other considerations.
           The City of Sunnyvale has lead agency authority over approval of this potential recycled water
           line, although approvals may be required from other jurisdictions.

12.        Glendenning Barn
As part of the project, the project sponsor, at its expense, is proposing to relocate the Glendenning
Barn to an off-site location accessible to the public, or to one of two on-site locations, where the barn
would be inaccessible to the public and likely not visible from a public street (depending on its final
foundation elevation and surrounding vegetation). No specific off-site relocation sites have been
selected. Apple is currently proposing two potential on-site relocation sites: 1) to the northeast of the
Corporate Fitness Center, south of East Homestead Road or 2) to the west of the Central Plant, near
the southwestern property line of the project site. The off-site relocation of the barn (which is
identified as a Historic Site in the General Plan and is considered a historic resource by the City, as
discussed in more detail in Section V.E, Cultural Resources) is evaluated at a programmatic level in
this EIR, and thus may be subject to supplemental environmental review when relocation details
(including the specific relocation site) and future programming are finalized. However, relocation of
the barn on-site is evaluated at a project-specific level. The impetus behind the proposed relocation of
the barn is to allow for the redevelopment of the project site and to relocate the barn to a location that
more effectively references the barn’s historic agricultural context. The barn is currently situated in a
grove of trees on private property on the former Hewlett Packard Campus, and is surrounded by
surface parking lots and office buildings.

The relocation of the barn would be undertaken in accordance with the following general principles
and performance standards:
                 The preferred relocation site would include open space to allow for restoration of the barn’s
                  integrity of setting and feeling.
                 Relocation of the barn would be conducted by a structure-moving firm that has experience
                  with moving historic buildings, and would be overseen by a qualified preservation
                  architect.
                 The character-defining features of the barn would be retained at its new location. These
                  features include: (1) its one-story-with-loft massing and rectangular floor plan; (2) board
                  and batten siding; (3) board and batten hatches; (4) tripartite plan; (5) post and beam
                  construction; (6) steel track sliding doors; (7) hay loft; and (8) front-gable roof.
                 The relocation would attempt to enhance the barn’s physical setting.
                 The relocation would be undertaken substantially in accordance with the Secretary of the
                  Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards). The Standards
                  include guidelines for four treatments of historic buildings: preservation, rehabilitation,
                  restoration, and reconstruction. The applicable standards would apply.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         133
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




                 If relocated off-site, the barn would be accessible to the public. If relocated on-site, the barn
                  would not be accessible to the public, but should be substantially visible to the public.

The potential impacts of these conceptual relocation protocols are evaluated in detail in Section V.E,
Cultural Resources.

13.        Environmental Sustainability Features
Besides the TDM Program described above, the project includes numerous sustainability features,
which are designed to reduce the consumption of natural resources, such as energy and water;
minimize water quality impacts; reduce air emissions, including greenhouse gases; and improve the
environment for Apple employees. In addition, the project would be subject to the City of Cupertino
Green Building Ordinance (Section 16.58 of the Municipal Code), which takes effect on July 1, 2013.
The Green Building Ordinance is intended to: “support the use of healthy building materials and
construction methods and promote resource efficiency and conservation through the design, construc-
tion, retrofit, operation and demolition of new buildings and existing buildings undergoing renova-
tions.” To that effect, the Green Building Ordinance imposes mandatory green building measures for
new development in the City. Under the Green Building Ordinance, the proposed project would be
required to meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)19 Silver certification or an
equivalent, as identified in the Ordinance.

Further, as noted in Section V.D, Biological Resources, although the project site is not within the
boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, in response to the environmental concerns raised
by the Habitat Plan, Apple has agreed to pay a Nitrogen Deposition Fee, which is expected to be used
to protect and enhance sensitive habitat throughout the region that is subject to degradation due to
nitrogen deposition (related primarily to vehicle emissions). The fee, based on the assumption that the
project would generate 35,106 net new daily trips, would amount to $126,381.60. This amount would
be paid to the Implementing Entity of the Habitat Conservation Plan, which is expected to be a Joint
Powers Authority made up of the cities of San Jose, Gilroy and Morgan Hill; Santa Clara Valley
Water District; Valley Transportation Authority; and Santa Clara County. Apple would pay the
Nitrogen Deposition Fee upon issuance of the grading permit for the project, unless the Joint Powers
Authority has not yet been formed. In that case, Apple would pay the fee upon formation of the Joint
Powers Authority. Apple would also pay twice the required Housing Mitigation fee (Office and
Industrial Mitigation Program fee) rate for the North Vallco Area. Through this voluntary payment,
Apple would pay approximately $5 million in Housing Mitigation fees that would fund the
development of affordable housing in the City.

Sustainable strategies that would be incorporated into the project are described below by theme:

Site Design
                 Services and facilities would be concentrated on one campus, reducing vehicle trips among
                  dispersed Apple facilities.
                 The Central Plant would function as the primary consolidation point for heating, cooling,
                  and electricity, resulting in economies of scale efficiencies for the Phase 1 development.



           19
                LEED is a rating system for the design, construction, and operation of green buildings.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         134
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




                 Approximately 10,500 of the 10,980 proposed parking spaces would be provided in sub-
                  grade levels or within a parking structure, allowing for the provision of additional open
                  space.
                 At least 800 trees would be preserved on the site, at least 90 trees would be transplanted,
                  and at least 6,200 new trees would be planted.

Water
                 Pervious area on the site would increase from approximately 43 acres to approximately 102
                  acres.
                 Trees would be primarily native and/or drought-resistant species, and trees of diverse ages
                  would be planted.
                 Low-flow fixtures would be incorporated into buildings.
                 Recycled water would be used, if available.
                 Overall water use would be 30 percent below that of a typical Silicon Valley corporate
                  campus of similar size.

Energy Efficiency
                 Energy-efficient building systems would be incorporated into the design, such as: high-
                  efficiency radiant conditioning systems; light-emitting diode (LED) electric lighting;
                  natural ventilation; and user-responsive energy management systems.
                 Buildings would be designed for passive heating and cooling.

Renewable Energy Generation
                 100 percent of the project’s overall energy needs would be provided by renewable energy,
                  through the use of photovoltaic systems and fuel cells, and participation in the State of
                  California Direct Access Program, followed by, if needed, market purchase of renewable
                  energy credits from new sources that are Green e-certified.
                 Photovoltaic cells capable of generating 15,000,000 kilowatt hours/year would be installed
                  on the roof of the Main Building, the roof of the Main Parking Structure, and as part of
                  Phase 2 development.20
                 300 electrical vehicle charging stations would be provided on-site (with built-in expansion
                  potential for 1,000 charging stations).

Noise
                 Mechanical equipment on the project site would be designed such that the operation of such
                  equipment would not generate noise levels exceeding 65 dBA (daytime) and 55 dBA
                  (nighttime) at the nearest residential uses. Design features could include barriers and noise
                  insulation.



           20
                Arup, 2012. MEP – Central Plants, Energy and Equipment Summary.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         135
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




Green Building Standards
                 The project would exceed the sustainability requirements established by the California
                  Green Buildings Standard Code (CalGreen, Title 24, Part 11) and the California Energy
                  Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Chapter 6).

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, 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-foot galvanized fence with a
privacy screen would be located along the southern boundary of the project site, adjacent to I-280.

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.21

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.

The project grading plan is intended to: locate buildings away from potential floods generated by
Calabazas Creek; channel stormwater away from buildings; avoid abrupt changes in grade; integrate
stormwater management features; allow for the import of topsoil for planted areas; and balance cut
and fill on-site.

The project would require approximately 1,690,000 cubic yards of excavation (net) and 1,620,000
cubic yards of fill (net) for Phase 1 and Phase 2 combined.22 Phase 1 would result in a balanced site
and Phase 2 would require approximately 150,000 cubic yards of soil to be exported from the site.
Phase 1 would require approximately 45,000 cubic yards of top soil import and Phase 2 would require
an import of 5,000 cubic yards, for a total top soil import of 50,000 cubic yards. Thus trucks would
export/import a total of 200,000 cubic yards of soil during the duration of the project. The grading
balance calculations may change slightly during design, as soil expansion characteristics are to be


           21
                Skansa and DPR, 2012. Apple Campus 2 Construction Equipment Summary. December 11.
           22
                “Net” indicates the final change in proposed excavation and fill after all excavation and fill has been accounted
for.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         136
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




confirmed, and landscape and building elevations may be adjusted slightly. The excavation, fill, and
soil import volumes identified above would not be exceeded, in total.

Construction activities would be undertaken in accordance with the City of Cupertino Municipal
Code, within prohibits construction activity within 750 feet of a residential area on Saturdays,
Sundays, and holidays, and during the nighttime period which unless these activities meet the City’s
nighttime maximum permissible noise level standards (see Section V.J, Noise, for additional detail).
All construction work would conform to the Community Noise Control Requirements in the City of
Cupertino Municipal Code.

As described in more detail in Section V.H, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, portions of the site
have been investigated and remediated for hazardous materials. Based on the extent of remediation
that has occurred, Apple does not anticipate the need for vapor intrusion mechanisms or features to be
designed into project buildings (to prevent the emission of hazardous gases into project buildings). In
the unexpected event that vapor intrusion risks are identified, in-ground active or passive soil vapor
features would be integrated into the design of the project.

Construction of Phase 1 would be completed in approximately 32 months. The construction duration
of Phase 2 has not yet been determined, however, construction of the entire campus is expected to be
complete in 48 months.

As part of the project, a minimum of 75 percent of construction and demolition waste would be
diverted from landfills. Waste would be diverted through recycling, re-use at the project site, or re-use
at off-site locations. The waste diversion plan prepared by Apple would identify, source, and re-
use/recycle materials by category. Concrete, steel, and wood would be sorted separately for re-use
and recycling. Drywall, carpet and other finish materials would be evaluated for appropriate diversion
streams. Delivery packaging and crating would be planned for intended reuse and diversion, and
integrated into the project-wide waste diversion program. Apple indicates a target waste diversion
rate of at least 85 percent once individual waste streams are identified and sourced.

In addition, Apple would implement the following construction protocols to promote the use of
cleaner-burning fuels, increase efficiency, and reduce construction-related emissions:
                 To the maximum extent feasible, all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators
                  would be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of
                  nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.
                 To the maximum extent feasible, all contractors would use equipment that meets the State
                  of California Air Resources Board (ARB) most recent certification standard for off-road
                  heavy duty diesel engines.
                 Excluding the following equipment, all diesel-powered off-road equipment used on-site
                  would meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “Tier 2” exhaust emission
                  standards, and engines would be equipped with California ARB “Level 3 Verified Diesel
                  Emission Control Strategies” (which include diesel particulate filters) or would be certified
                  to meet the U.S. EPA “Tier 4 Interim” standard for particulate matter emissions. Equipment
                  that would meet U.S. EPA “Tier 2” exhaust emission standards but would not be equipped
                  with California “Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy” would be limited to:



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         137
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




                  ○       Scrapers 623G
                  ○       Scrapers 633B
                  ○       Four of the six proposed Scrapers 657G
                 Trucks used at the site to haul material and/or soil would be model year 2007 or newer (or
                  meet equivalent U.S. EPA emission standards).
                 Require all aerial and personnel lifts less than 50 horsepower to be fueled with natural gas
                  or propane.
                 Idling time would be minimized by either shutting equipment off when not in use or by
                  reducing the maximum idling time to 2 minutes. Clear signage would be provided for
                  construction workers stating these limits at all access points.
                 Construction equipment would be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
                  manufacturers’ specifications.
                 When feasible, the project would use locally produced and/or manufactured building
                  materials for construction of the project.
                 A minimum of 75 percent of construction and demolition waste would be diverted from
                  landfills, to the satisfaction of the City.
                 The project would use “Green Building Materials,” such as those materials that are
                  resource efficient, and recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way,
                  including low volatile organic compound (VOC) materials.


E.         DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The proposed project would require the City to take the discretionary actions listed below and
summarized in Table III-3:
                 General Plan Amendments. The project would require the General Plan amendments listed
                  below:
                  ○       The land use designation of the portion of the project site located south of Pruneridge
                          Avenue and east of The Hamptons would be changed from Parks and Open Space to
                          Industrial/Residential.
                  ○       Figure 2-K, Cupertino Park Areas, would be amended to reflect the removal of the
                          potential park space delineated by the Parks and Open Space designation.
                  ○       Figure 2-G, Cupertino’s Historic Resources, may be amended if the Glendenning Barn
                          is removed from the project site, but the site’s Historical Site Designation would still be
                          retained.
                  ○       Figure 4-B, Bikeways, would be amended to remove the Pruneridge Avenue bicycle
                          lane. The graphic would be adjusted to show proposed bike facilities on East Homestead
                          Road, North Tantau Avenue, Vallco Parkway, and North Wolfe Road.
                  ○       Figure 4-C, Circulation Plan, would be amended to remove the “Minor Collector”
                          designation from Pruneridge Avenue and eliminate the street segment between North
                          Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         138
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                    III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




                  ○       Table 2-A, Development Allocation, would be amended to reflect the future anticipated
                          commercial square footage in Vallco Park North, which encompasses the project site.
                          Similar adjustments would be made to the discussion of Vallco Park North on pages 2-
                          30 and 2-31 of the Land Use/Community Design Element.
                  ○       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
                  ○       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, including 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.
                 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.
                 Pruneridge Avenue Vacation and Land Purchase Agreement. The project includes a
                  proposal for the City to vacate the segment of Pruneridge Avenue within the project site
                  and sell it to Apple. Other associated agreements would also be required, such as a
                  Purchase and Sale Agreement and an Escrow Agreement.
                 Utility Relocation and Easement Agreements. Apple would seek to relocate certain utilities
                  and associated easements to allow for vacation of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue and
                  development of the project.
                 Tree Removal Permit. A Tree Removal Permit would be required for the removal of at
                  most 3,600 protected trees from the project site.
                 Encroachment Permit. An Encroachment Permit would be required for the removal of trees
                  within a public right-of-way.
                 Streamside Modification Permit. This permit would be required for all parcels designated
                  as “streamside properties” under Section 9.19.20(J) of the Cupertino Municipal Code.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         139
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                              III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION




                 Architectural and Site Approval. Approval would be required of the architectural and site
                  design of the project. Buildings yet to be designed would be subject to subsequent
                  architectural and site design approvals. Phase 2 development would require independent
                  approval of architecture and site design.
                 Architectural and Site Approval for Public Art. Approval by the Fine Arts Commission
                  would be required for any artwork on or around the site (per Cupertino Municipal Code
                  Section 19.148).
                 Environmental Review. Review of the project pursuant to CEQA is the subject of this EIR.

The proposed project could require additional discretionary permits or approvals from other non-City
governmental entities, including the Santa Clara Valley Water District (for modifications to North
Tantau Avenue over Calabazas Creek).


F.         USES OF THIS EIR
A number of permits and approvals, including the discretionary actions listed above, would be
required before development of the Apple Campus 2 Project is able to proceed. As lead agency for
the proposed project, the City of Cupertino would be responsible for the majority of approvals
required for development. Other agencies may also have some authority related to the project and its
approvals. A list of the permits and approvals that may be required by the City and other agencies is
provided in Table III-3. This EIR is intended to be used by the City and other agencies when delib-
erating on required permits and approvals.

Table III-3: Required Permits and Approvals
  Lead Agency                                                             Permit/Approval
  City of Cupertino                                                       • General Plan Amendments
                                                                          • Zoning Amendments
                                                                          • Development Agreement
                                                                          • Vesting Tentative Map
                                                                          • Conditional Use Permit
                                                                          • Development Permit
                                                                          • Pruneridge Avenue Vacation and Associated Agreements
                                                                          • Land Transfer Agreement
                                                                          • Utility Relocation and Easement Agreements
                                                                          • Tree Removal Permit
                                                                          • Streamside Modification Permit
                                                                          • Architectural Site Approval
                                                                          • Environmental Review
  Responsible Agencies
  California Department of Transportation                                 •     Encroachment permits for improvements within State right-of-
  (Caltrans)                                                                    way, as necessary
  San Francisco Bay Regional Water                                        •     National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
  Quality Control Board (RWQCB)                                                 permit for storm water discharge
  Bay Area Air Quality Management                                         •     Permits for internal combustion engines, as necessary
  District (BAAQMD)
  Santa Clara Valley Water District                                       •     Encroachment permits, as necessary
  (SCVWD)
  Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2013.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-ProjectDescription.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                   140
                                                          IV. PLANNING POLICY




This chapter discusses the relationship of the proposed Apple Campus 2 Project with planning-related
policies. A project’s inconsistency with a policy is only considered significant if that policy was
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and the inconsistency itself
would result in a physical environmental effect. Policies are described in select topical sections of the
EIR where they relate to the physical environment and are intended to avoid or mitigate physical
environmental effects.

In reviewing this chapter, it is important to understand that the determination of whether a project is
consistent with a specific policy can be subjective, and that consistency determinations are best made
with a broad understanding of the often-competing policy objectives in a planning document. As a
result, policy consistency determinations are ultimately made by the City’s local decision-making
body (e.g., Planning Commission and City Council). The analysis in this chapter is intended to
provide decision-makers with a list of the policies that are pertinent to the project and site, and a
preliminary conclusion regarding whether the project is generally consistent with these identified
policies. These preliminary conclusions are intended to supplement decision-makers’ own under-
standing of the various policy considerations.

The main guiding documents regulating land use within and around the project site are the City of
Cupertino General Plan; the City of Cupertino Zoning Ordinance; and the Santa Clara Valley Water
Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. The North
Vallco Master Plan, which was never formally adopted by the City Council, provides planning guid-
ance for the vicinity of the project site, and is discussed in this section for informational purposes
only. In addition, because the site is bordered by the City of Sunnyvale to the north and the City of
Santa Clara to the east, land use designations in those cities are briefly discussed.

The consistency of the proposed project with other non-planning-related policies is addressed in the
appropriate topical sections of the EIR (e.g., Air Quality and the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District policies and guidelines). Applicable planning policies from each of the documents listed
above are described below.


A.        CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
This section describes relevant information from the City of Cupertino General Plan1 and discusses
the consistency of the proposed project with the goals, policies, and programs outlined therein. Appli-
cable planning-related policies in the General Plan, and the general consistency of these policies with
the proposed project, are summarized in Table IV-1.




           1
               Cupertino, City of, 2005. City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020. November.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT         141
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




1.         Description
The City of Cupertino General Plan (General Plan) is a comprehensive plan for the growth and devel-
opment of the City between 2000 and 2020. The General Plan “provides a vision of the City’s future
by integrating the aspirations of residents, businesses and officials into a comprehensive strategy for
guiding future development.” The key objective of the General Plan is to create a community that is
safe, vibrant, and diverse, that offers multiple ways to move around, and that accommodates change
in a way that also protects key community values. As noted in the Introduction, “The underlying
purpose of the General Plan is to build a great community that serves the needs of its residents,
maximizes the sense of connection between neighborhoods and enhances Cupertino as a great place
to live, work and play.”

The General Plan includes policies related to: land use/community design; housing; circulation; envi-
ronmental resources/sustainability; and health and safety. These topics are addressed within individ-
ual elements, or sections, of the General Plan. The Land Use/Community Design; Housing; Circula-
tion; and Environmental Resources/Sustainability elements of the General Plan are relevant to project
planning issues and are discussed below.

a.     Land Use/Community Design Element. The Land Use/Community Design Element estab-
lishes the configuration of land uses and the overall look and feel of the City. It also functions as the
overall policy guide for future development in Cupertino and “deals with the central issues of growth
and the quality of the community, and helps define the desired balance among the social, environ-
mental and economic costs and benefits associated with growth.” The policies in the element are
intended to “help Cupertino evolve into a more integrated, walkable, cohesive community with an
identifiable center and well-defined edges.” The design policies in the element are specifically
intended to: “promote buildings and spaces that invite people into the public realm, stitch different
parts of the community together and instill a sense of civic identity.” The Land Use/Community
Design Element identifies several factors to be included in achieving the desired community character
in the City, including: “the preservation of its natural setting, maintenance and improvement of its
attractive residential neighborhoods, the creation of lively public places, the provision of quality
public services and facilities, the integration and connection of different land uses, the vitality of
business and manufacturing, and the maintenance of a strong tax base for government and school
operations.”

      (1) Land Use Designations. The City’s Land Use Map shows the planned distribution of
land uses across the City. Every parcel in the City is assigned a land use designation, which dictates
the type of land uses that may be developed in that area. The majority of the project site (over 99
percent of the site) is designated Industrial/Residential (P)MP (see Figure IV-1). The
Industrial/Residential land use designation:

           Allows primarily industrial uses and secondarily residential uses or a compatible combination of the two.
           Industrial use refers to manufacturing, assembly and research and development. Administrative offices
           that support manufacturing and wholesaling are included.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         142
                                                                         Sunnyvale


                                                                                Homestead Rd




                                                                                                                                           N Tantau Ave
               Linnet Ln




                                          N Wolfe Rd




                                                                                       P ru
                                                                                              neri
                                                                                                  dg   e Dr                                                   Santa
                                                                                                                                                              Clara




                                                                                                                                                          FIGURE IV-1
                   City of Cupertino                                                                          City of Sunnvale
                           Very Low Density Residential            Quasi-Public/Institutional                       Low Density Residential
                           Low Density Residential                 Riparian Corridor                                Neighborhood Commercial
                           High Density Residential          City of Santa Clara
                                                                                                                    Project Site Boundaries
                           Commercial/Office/Residential           Very Low Density Residential
                                                                                                                    City Limits Boundary
                           Commercial/Residential                  Parks/Open Space                                 Creeks
                           Industrial/Residential                  Regional Commercial
                                                                                                                           Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCES: GOOGLE EARTH; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., JUNE 2011.                                                       General Plan Land Use Designations
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\EIR\Fig_IV1.ai (5/31/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




This page intentionally left blank.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         144
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                               APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                 IV. PLANNING POLICY




The remaining portion of the project site, approximately 1.1 acre (less than 1 percent of the site),
located south of Pruneridge Avenue and east of The Hamptons, is designated Parks and Open Space.
This designation was made in 2005, as part of an approval for a 130-unit townhouse development
project. The Parks and Open Space land use designation “is applied to land owned by the public and
used for recreation.” The General Plan also allows for the designation to be applied to publicly-
accessible private open space and recreational lands, in recognition of the desire expressed in the
General Plan for private open space and recreational lands to also function as public amenities (see
Land Use/Community Design Element Policy 2-72). As the 130-unit townhouse development project
did not move forward, this site currently consists primarily of a parking lot, and has not been
developed with park uses.

In addition, the corridor around Calabazas Creek within the project site (which is owned by the Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)) is designated Riparian Corridor, which is “applied to creek
corridors if they are not part of a larger park or residential property.” The General Plan does not
specify any development standards or restrictions for areas designated Riparian Corridor, although the
General Plan contains several policies which seek to integrate creeks as design features, use creeks as
trail corridors, and restore native vegetation in riparian zones.

The land use designations to the north and east of the project site (in the cities of Sunnyvale and Santa
Clara, respectively) are provided for informational purposes. The land use designations to the north of
the site (in the City of Sunnyvale) are Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential.2 The
land use designations to the east of the site (in the City of Santa Clara) are Very Low Density Resi-
dential and Parks/Open Space. The City of Santa Clara General Plan identifies Pruneridge Avenue to
the east of the site as a Proposed Trail.3 The land designations to the south of the site, beyond I-280
are Commercial/Office/Residential and Commercial/Residential. The Hamptons apartment commu-
nity is designated High Density Residential (20-35 dwelling units per gross acre). The area to the west
of the site, across North Wolfe Road, is designated Commercial/Residential.

      (2) Community Designations. The project site is identified in the City of Cupertino General
Plan as an activity/employment center labeled “Vallco Light Industrial R&D” on Figure 2-B,
Community Form, of the Land Use/Community Design Element. The site is also identified as the
Vallco Park North employment center in Figure 2-E, Special Centers, which is the largest of four
designated employment centers. The General Plan recognizes the importance of retaining Vallco Park
North as “an employment area of predominantly office and light industrial activities, with neighbor-
hood commercial uses.” On Figure 2-G, Cupertino’s Historic Resources, the Glendenning Barn
(located north of Pruneridge Avenue within the project site) is identified as a Historic Site. Vallco
Industrial Park, which is coterminous with the project site, is identified as a Community Landmark in
Figure 2-G. In addition, the approximately 1.1-acre portion of the site south of Pruneridge Avenue
and east of The Hamptons apartment community that is designated Parks and Recreation in the
General Plan is identified as a Community Park on Figure 2-K, Cupertino Park Areas. This park has
not been developed and currently consists of a parking lot.

      (3) Development Allocation. The Land Use/Community Design Element also contains the
City’s development allocation policies, which are designed to allow the City to allocate development

           2
               Sunnyvale, City of, 2011. City of Sunnyvale General Plan. July.
           3
               Santa Clara, City of, 2010. City of Santa Clara 2010-2035 General Plan. November.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                             145
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




potential to private development projects based on the community benefits the project would provide.
Strategy 3 of Policy 2-20 encourages the City to “[p]rioritize expansion of office space for existing
major companies in Cupertino.” That policy further directs the City to “[r]etain a pool of 150,000
square feet to be drawn down by companies with Cupertino sales offices and corporate headquarters.”
In order to qualify for this allocation reserved for “major companies,” “[n]ew office development
must demonstrate that the development positively contributes to the fiscal well being of the City.”
Development is allocated throughout the City in accordance with Table 2-A, Development Alloca-
tion. Per Table 2-A, the Vallco Park North area (which contains the project site) is estimated to have
2,981,930 square feet of office space in 2010, with a buildout potential of 3,069,676 square feet. In
addition, 483,053 square feet of City-wide office space is allocated to “Major Employers.”

The Land Use/Community Design Element notes that the portion of the project site located north of
Pruneridge Avenue is governed by a Development Agreement with Hewlett-Packard that expires in
2015. That Development Agreement “commits the City to the development policies of the 1993
adopted General Plan, excluding the policies on additional mitigated development that were later
rescinded.” The intensity of future development on that site (proposed after expiration of the Devel-
opment Agreement) would be “determined in conjunction with specific development review.”

       (4) Trails. Land Use/Community Design Element Policy 2-73 envisions the dedication or
acquisition of trail linkages to connect areas and provide for a more walkable community. Figure 2-I,
Trail Linkages, identifies the Calabazas Creek Trail extending through the project site along the creek
as an “Existing or Proposed Trail Linkage.” This trail linkage would need to traverse a culvert under
I-280 in order to link with a future segment to the south. Accompanying text in the Land Use/Com-
munity Design Element states: “There is an opportunity for a trail along Calabazas Creek that would
connect the Vallco planning area to Cupertino High School and Creekside Park. The SCVWD’s
‘Clean, Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection Plan’ calls for identifying recreation opportunities
along the Creek as part of the flood protection project.” Thus the General Plan envisions that a trail
established along Calabazas Creek would connect to adjoining neighborhoods, employment centers,
and open spaces (see Policy 2-73, Strategy 1). No trail currently exists within the project site or along
the boundaries of the site.

Policy 2-73, Strategy 2 directs the City to “[i]mplement the trail projects described in this element,”
and “[e]valuate any safety, security and privacy impacts and mitigations associated with trail develop-
ment.” It also notes that the City should “[w]ork with affected neighbors in locating trails.”

Policy 2-73, Strategy 3 directs the City to: “Require dedication or easements for trails, as well as their
implementation, as part of the development process, where appropriate.” While the General Plan
encourages trails along creeks – particularly in conjunction with development activity – it does not
mandate the dedication of property for the purposes of a trail under all circumstances.

b.    Housing Element. The Housing Element provides “a vision for guiding future residential
development, as well as for preserving and enhancing existing residential areas.” Per the requirements
of State law, the Housing Element outlines Cupertino’s objectives for housing production; lists
policies and programs to achieve local housing goals; examines the need for housing resources in
Cupertino, with a focus on special needs populations; identifies adequate sites for new housing;
evaluates constraints in the production of housing; and evaluates the consistency of the Housing
Element with the rest of the General Plan.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         146
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




The Housing Element acknowledges that: “Job growth is expected to continue to outpace population
and household growth in Cupertino, increasing the ‘jobs rich’ nature of the city.” Vallco Park North,
which includes the project site and The Hamptons, is identified in Figure 4.1, Potential Units by
Planning Area, as having the potential for the development of 179 residential units.

c.    Circulation Element. The Circulation Element promotes connectivity and mobility throughout
Cupertino, with a focus on non-automotive transportation. A major objective of the Element is to
reduce the use of single-occupancy motor vehicles to move around Cupertino, with an intent “to
balance the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists with the requirements of drivers.” The Circulation
Element also acknowledges that in certain cases, the policies identified in the Element may promote
bike and pedestrian access while reducing the level of service of roadways for motor vehicles. From a
land use and planning perspective, the Circulation Element seeks to encourage alternative forms of
transportation by better coordinating land use and transportation planning, including through the
construction of transit-oriented projects with additional transportation choices.

Figure 4-B, Bikeways, identifies several bike facilities in the vicinity of the project site. Adjacent to
the project site, East Homestead Road is identified as an Existing Bicycle Lane; North Tantau Avenue
is identified as a Proposed Bicycle Lane; Pruneridge Avenue is identified as an Existing Bicycle
Lane; and North Wolfe Road is identified as a Proposed Class 3a Facility (where bikes would share
the roadway with motor vehicles).4 Class II bike lanes are located on all streets surrounding the
project site and Pruneridge Avenue.

Figure 4-C contains the Circulation Plan, which identifies Pruneridge Avenue as a minor collector.
Other relevant policies in the Circulation Element include maintaining a minimum of level of service
(LOS) D for major intersections during the morning and afternoon peak traffic hours and minimizing
the number of driveways and curb cuts. However, the Circulation Element supports the maintenance
of lower LOS where necessary to support alternative modes of transportation. For instance, Policy 4-7
states: “Balance the needs of pedestrians with desired traffic service. Where necessary and appropri-
ate, allow a lowered LOS standard to better accommodate pedestrians on major streets and at specific
intersections.”

d.     Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element. The Environmental Resources/Sustain-
ability Element seeks to balance the long-term use of resources in the City with economic and com-
munity development. One focus of the Element is the creation of land use patterns that encourage
walking, biking, and transit use; the development of higher-density residential uses; and the preserva-
tion of Cupertino’s natural resources. Specific policies seek to protect riparian zones, restore areas
around creeks with native vegetation, and provide trail and open space linkages for recreation and
wildlife use. Another major initiative of the Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element focuses
on energy conservation and efficiency, and the use of green building techniques and renewable
energy, improving water quality through limiting impervious surfaces, and conserving water, includ-
ing through the potential use of recycled water. Policy 5-2 states: “Encourage the maximum feasible
conservation and efficient use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new and existing
residences, businesses, industrial and public uses.”

       4
         The General Plan incorporates bike and pedestrian routes identified in the San Tomas Aquino/Saratoga Creek Trail
Master Plan. In the vicinity of the project site, the Master Plan identifies Pruneridge Avenue (east of the site) and North
Tantau Avenue (east of the site) as main trail alignments. Pruneridge Avenue east of the site is also designated as a bike
route.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                           147
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




2.         Consistency
Applicable planning-related policies in the General Plan, and the general consistency of these policies
with the proposed project, are summarized in Table IV-1. This analysis discusses any inconsistencies
with applicable plans in order to provide a policy context to the project’s anticipated environmental
impacts. One of the purposes of this discussion in the EIR is to provide decision-makers with the
information needed for them to make findings regarding the project’s overall consistency with the
City’s General Plan. Such a decision requires balancing competing interests and does not require a
finding of strict consistency. Furthermore, the failure of the project to fully implement any single
General Plan policy may not itself be an environmental impact, but rather that fact may be considered
as a factor when determining whether the project may cause significant environmental effects.

a.     Land Use/Community Design Element. As described above, the project site (with the
exception of an approximately 1.1-acre site located south of Pruneridge Avenue, which is designated
for Parks and Open Space uses, and the Calabazas Creek vicinity, which is designated Riparian Corri-
dor) is designated Industrial/Residential on the City’s Land Use Map. The proposed office, research
and development space, and accessory uses that would be developed as part of the proposed project
would be consistent with the Industrial/Residential designation. The lack of proposed residential uses
would not conflict with the designation, as such uses are not mandated to be developed within the
designation, and are considered secondary to industrial-type uses.

Similarly, the proposed project would not conflict with the Riparian Corridor designation in the
General Plan, as Calabazas Creek and its banks would be preserved in their existing state, and
riparian vegetation would be planted within a 50-foot zone adjacent to the creek.

In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the enhancement of North Vallco as an
activity/employment center – a policy initiative promoted in the General Plan – as the project would
increase employment on the site from 4,844 persons (the current employee count, which is less than
the current employee capacity of 9,800 persons) to 14,200 persons and would intensify development
on the site. The project would also be consistent with specific policies in the Land Use/Community
Design Element that seek to concentrate development in urban nodes and retain Vallco Park North as
an office and light industry-focused employment area (Policies 2-1, 2-13, and 2-35). In addition, the
conceptual design of the project would not conflict with adjacent residential uses, primarily because
most of the campus is separated from surrounding residential uses by major roadways and an
extensive perimeter landscaped buffer (and this buffer would be maintained as part of the project).
Likewise, proposed buildings would comply with appropriate setback requirements east of North
Tantau Avenue (Policy 2-6).

The project would also promote several other policy objectives in the Land Use/Community Design
Element related to economic issues, including maintaining: the vitality of business and manufacturing
(Policy 2-40), existing major companies within Cupertino (Policy 2-40), a strong tax base (Policy 2-
44), and the City’s fiscal well being (Policy 2-20, Strategy 3). Apple, the City’s largest employer, is
the largest taxpayer in the City and generates revenues for the City in property, sales, and other taxes
and fees on an annual basis. The proposed project would allow Apple to keep its company headquar-
ters in Cupertino and further expand its operations in the City. The proposed project would also
generate significant one-time public benefits expected to amount to at least several million dollars.
There would likely be other indirect fiscal and economic benefits to the City such as increased
spending/sales taxes in the City due to the proposed increase in employees on the project site.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         148
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




However, the proposed project would re-designate a portion of the site currently designated for Parks
and Open Space, and would not fully implement certain policy initiatives of the General Plan related
to the provision of trails and bike and pedestrian access, which would result in physical
environmental effects, as discussed below.

Impact PLAN-1: The proposed project would change the designation of a 1.1-acre portion of
the site designed Parks and Open Space, and would reduce the acreage of land designated for
future parks in the City. (S)

The proposed project would change the land use designation of the approximately 1.1-acre portion of
the site designated Parks and Open Space to Industrial/Residential. This proposed re-designation
would reduce the acreage of land designated for future parks in the City available for public use.
Although the Parks and Open Space designation was made in 2005 in conjunction with the approval
of a 130-unit townhouse development east of The Hamptons – a project that was never implemented
– the designation is now part of Cupertino’s overall supply of future park space (i.e., a supply that
could ostensibly serve all residents of the City and local employees). The City-wide importance of the
future park is evidenced in its identification on Figure 2-K (Cupertino Park Areas) of the Land
Use/Community Design Element.

The removal of the Parks and Open Space designation would preclude the development of a
Community Park on the site per Figure 2-K and would diminish the City’s overall supply of future
neighborhood park space. None of the private open space proposed as part of the project would be
accessible to the public. Therefore, the re-designation of Parks and Open Space land on the site
without a comparable replacement elsewhere would be a significant impact. Implementation of the
following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level:

           Mitigation Measure PLAN-1: The project sponsor shall implement one of the following
           options:
           a. Provide sufficient funds for the acquisition of 1.1 acres of property by the City for future
              park development; or
           b. Agree to purchase (unless other property currently owned by Apple is proposed), designate,
              and dedicate to the City 1.1 acres elsewhere in the City as Parks and Open Space, subject to
              the satisfaction of the City, provided the land would be publicly accessible. (LTS)

Any one of the two options listed in Mitigation Measure PLAN-1 would allow for the future
development of 1.1 acres of park space (i.e., the size of the area currently designated Parks and Open
Space on the project site) by the City and would allow the City to retain the existing acreage of land
designated for future public parks in the City. This mitigation measure would thus ensure that the
project would not result in a net loss of future park space in the City. A possible Development
Agreement may also address improvements to the future park space.

Impact PLAN-2: The proposed project would not fully implement some policies in the Land
Use/Community Design Element of the General Plan related to the provision of bike and
pedestrian access due to the vacation of Pruneridge Avenue, resulting in an environmental
impact. (S)




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         149
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




The proposed vacation of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue and the accompanying loss of pedestrian
and bicycle facilities was evaluated for consistency with the following policies in the Land
Use/Community Design Element, all of which are intended to promote pedestrian and bike usage:
Policy 2-2 (which requires the enhancement of pedestrian and bike connections to surrounding
neighborhoods and the provision of pedestrian and bike paths in new developments); Policy 2-7
(which requires a balancing of the roadway system between automobile and pedestrian/bike needs);
and Policy 2-22 (which requires the elimination of pedestrian barriers, and evaluation of planned
public facilities, such as schools and parks, to improve pedestrian access, street tree planting, and
neighborhood entries, and to consider special sidewalk and lighting requirements).

The proposed project would result in the development of extensive private bike and pedestrian
facilities within the project site, including walking paths connecting all buildings, extensive open
space, and bike parking facilities, in conformance with Policy 2-2. However, these facilities would
not be accessible to the public. The project would improve pedestrian and bike facilities on the streets
surrounding the project site, thus enhancing some pedestrian and bike connections to surrounding
neighborhoods, in partial conformance with Policy 2-2. Replacement pedestrian/bike access that
would extend through the project site (to mitigate the removal of Pruneridge Avenue) has been
rejected by the project sponsor due to security and privacy concerns. For that reason, providing bike
and pedestrian access through the site is considered unacceptable to Apple.

As discussed in Chapter III, Project Description, and Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation,
Apple has proposed supplementing the nearly continuous existing bike paths and sidewalks on North
Wolfe Road, East Homestead Road, North Tantau Avenue, and Vallco Parkway to improve the bike
and pedestrian experience on these streets, since they would serve to replace the connections lost due
to the removal of Pruneridge Avenue. While those improvements would enhance the bike and
pedestrian environment, and provide alternative routes to the segment of Pruneridge Avenue within
the project site, they are not complete substitutes for the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities
along Pruneridge Avenue that would be vacated.

Based on data collected by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants at a location on Pruneridge
Avenue halfway between North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue, approximately 28 bicyclists
and 308 pedestrians would be expected to use the segment on a weekday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. and six bicyclists and 91 pedestrians would be expected to use the segment on a weekend day
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.5

While the bicycle and pedestrian counts show relatively low rates of non-motorized travel along
Pruneridge Avenue, the vacation of the street would adversely affect the general connectivity of the
area, causing some bicyclists and pedestrians to use streets with more vehicular traffic and higher
average speeds, and potentially discouraging use of non-motorized travel modes. The removal of
Pruneridge Avenue would create a longer, less-direct, and sometimes less-comfortable experience for
bikers and pedestrians traveling west to east (or in the opposite direction).




           5
               Fehr & Peers, 2013. Apple Campus 2 Transportation Impact Analysis.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         150
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




Currently, while the project site is relatively well connected to the bicycle networks of Cupertino and
Sunnyvale, most nearby facilities are Class II bicycle lanes along wide, high-traffic roadways. No
major Class I facilities exist within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The pedestrian experi-
ence is also generally poor, particularly along the campus perimeter. Very long blocks, limited
crossings, and high traffic speeds and peak volumes discourage pedestrian travel. Furthermore, I-280
is a significant bicycle and pedestrian barrier in the area. The vacation of Pruneridge Avenue would
exacerbate current connectivity constraints.

Although the proposed improvements on the streets surrounding the project site would substantively
meet the intent of Land Use/Community Design Element Policies 2-2, 2-7, and 2-22, which focus on
the public realm, the removal of Pruneridge Avenue as a public right-of-way and elimination of
associated pedestrian and bicycle facilities would not fully implement these policies. This partial
policy conflict would be considered significant because it would eliminate existing public access
through the project site; eliminate an existing east/west bike and pedestrian connection between North
Tantau Avenue and North Wolfe Road, requiring a detour along roads with high traffic volumes;6 and
reduce bike and pedestrian access in the North Vallco area, further reinforcing the superblock and
car-centric land use pattern of the area. The adverse impacts to pedestrian and bike facilities would
occur even in the context of relatively modest existing pedestrian and bike usage along the segment of
Pruneridge Avenue within the project site.

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-
significant level, as the elimination of existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities would still occur.
Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

           Mitigation Measure PLAN-2: The project sponsor shall implement the following measures to
           the satisfaction of the City:
           a. Fund, construct, and, where necessary, provide dedications of real property (including costs
              for planning, design, construction and maintenance), all bike, pedestrian, landscaping, and
              sidewalk improvements in the public right-of-way along all properties bounded by East
              Homestead Road, North Tantau Avenue, Vallco Parkway, and North Wolfe Road. In
              locations where the improvements are adjacent to property with past project approvals, the
              design details shall be consistent with all other improvements approved by the City.
           b. A coordinated wayfinding scheme shall be introduced along the entire alternate east-west
              loop (North Wolfe Road, East Homestead Road, Vallco Parkway, and North Tantau
              Avenue). Wayfinding signage shall be designed to orient visitors and residents, pointing
              them to area attractions, retail areas, pedestrian and bicycle access routes, and other
              important destinations. Signs shall also be designed to direct those on foot or on bike to the
              safest bicycle and pedestrian routes, as well as other bicycle and pedestrian amenities.
           c. Enhanced bike lanes, pedestrian paths, fencing, guard rails (if feasible), and pedestrian-
              scaled lighting shall be installed along the North Wolfe Road bridge over I-280.


           6
         For instance, with removal of Pruneridge Avenue, a bike trip from the intersection of North Tantau Avenue/
Pruneridge Avenue to the intersection of North Wolfe Road/Pruneridge Avenue would be doubled in length (from approxi-
mately 0.5 mile to 1.1 miles) and would require two signalized left-turn movements along high-volume roadways (one at
North Tantau Avenue/East Homestead Road and one at East Homestead Road/North Wolfe Road). The pedestrian trip
would also be approximately doubled in length.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         151
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




           d. Other bicycle and pedestrian amenities, such as high visibility crosswalks, “yield to
              pedestrians” signage, leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections, and other
              publically accessible amenities (e.g., bicycle racks, benches, attractive pedestrian-oriented
              lighting, and landscaping) along the project site perimeter shall be installed. These
              amenities shall be designed to improve the safety and attractiveness of alternative modes of
              travel within the vicinity of the project site.
           e. Implement Mitigation Measures: TRANS-23 and TRANS-28 (to improve pedestrian safety
              at the North Wolfe Road/Project Access intersection); TRANS-29 (to enhance the
              pedestrian environment at the I-280 ramps with Wolfe Road); and PLAN-3 (to construct an
              alternate Calabazas Creek pedestrian/bike trail).
           f.     Update American with Disabilities Act (ADA) ramps at the following locations: Vallco
                  Mall overpass on North Wolfe Road; northbound North Wolfe Road at I-280 south on-
                  ramp, with updated crosswalk striping; northbound North Wolfe Road at I-280 north on-
                  ramp, with updated crosswalk striping; west side of North Wolfe Road at Pruneridge
                  Avenue; and southbound North Wolfe Road at I-280 south off-ramp, with updated
                  crosswalk striping. (SU)

Impact PLAN-3: The proposed project would not fully implement policies in the Land Use/
Community Design Element of the General Plan related to the provision of a proposed trail
segment along Calabazas Creek, and this conflict would result in an environmental impact. (S)

The proposed project would not implement the proposed trail segment along Calabazas Creek shown
in General Plan Figure 2-I. Because access to the interior of the site would be restricted by a
perimeter security fence, development of the project may preclude the future development of a trail
along the creek segment within the project site. Therefore, the project would not fully implement
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, Strategy 2 and Strategy 3 of Policy 2-73 allow flexibility in the implementation of trails.
Strategy 2 requires the City to evaluate safety, privacy, and security impacts and mitigations associated
with trail development, and to work with affected neighborhoods in locating trails. Calabazas Creek
currently functions as a flood channel and is fenced by the SCVWD in part to address safety and
security concerns.

While in the case of a typical residential, retail, or office project, security concerns could be addressed
with fencing between the project site and the trail, Apple has raised concerns that the fundamental
objective of a secure campus would be compromised with the provision of a public trail immediately
adjacent to or through the project site. Because such a trail, depending on its design and associated
landscaping, may not be completely visible from the street, the possibility of unauthorized access into
the project site may be heightened. Even with security and design measures such as fencing, a trail
would pose security concerns, according to Apple, because Apple has been the target of intense
scrutiny regarding its future products. Fostering innovation and collaboration among Apple employ-
ees is a key project objective, requiring absolute security and privacy to prevent the possible loss of
intellectual property. A public trail immediately adjacent to or through the project site would conflict
with this objective.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         152
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




The research and development buildings that would be developed as part of Phase 2 would not be
separated from the street by a fence, and therefore would be programmed in a manner that would
accommodate a more public interface, even though the buildings would be secure and access to the
property controlled. Therefore, the Main Building and its surrounding campus, developed as part of
Phase 1, would be reserved for the more confidential functions that require greater security, requiring
security fencing along the property boundary (including at the creek).

In addition, the riparian corridor within the project site terminates at a culvert under I-280. If a trail at
Calabazas Creek were provided, it would either terminate at the I-280 culvert or would require a
crossing under or over I-280. A connection under I-280 would be a potentially costly engineering
solution or would only be operable during the dry season (i.e., unavailable during the winter months
when Calabazas Creek experiences high water levels). The cost of a connection over I-280 would be
significantly higher and would be disproportional to the impact of the project on planned trail
facilities, making it an infeasible mitigation measure.

The General Plan allows that when considering the location of trails, the City consider safety,
security, and privacy impact. Thus the focus of the General Plan is on determining the optimal
complete trail alignment based on the totality of circumstances related to the implementation of a trail
segment.

In lieu of developing a trail segment adjacent to Calabazas Creek within the project site or along
Calabazas Creek, Apple has proposed an “alternate Calabazas Creek Trail Route” from the creek
intersection across and along North Tantau Avenue, continuing west along Vallco Parkway to where
the roadway meets Calabazas Creek. The improvements that are part of the project and related to the
alternate Calabazas Creek Trail Route include the following:

North Tantau Avenue
                 Detached sidewalks between Pruneridge Avenue and Vallco Parkway.
                 Restriped and/or enhanced bike lanes on both sides of North Tantau Avenue between
                  Vallco Parkway and Pruneridge Avenue.
                 Intersection markings at unsignalized intersections on North Tantau Avenue between
                  Pruneridge Avenue and Vallco Parkway.
                 Bike boxes as necessary at intersections to reduce conflicts between motorists going
                  straight and cyclists turning left at signalized intersections along the alternate creek trail.
                 Reconfiguring the North Tantau Avenue bridge over I-280 by providing bike lanes and
                  sidewalks in both directions.

Vallco Parkway
                 Detached sidewalks between North Tantau Avenue and Calabazas Creek.
                 Restriped and/or enhanced bike lanes on both sides of the street.
                 Connecting bike lanes to those on North Tantau Avenue.
                 Bike boxes as necessary at intersections to reduce conflicts between motorists going
                  straight and cyclists turning left at signalized intersections along the alternate trail route.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         153
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




Please refer to Chapter III, Project Description, for complete details about bike and pedestrian
improvements that would be implemented as part of the project in addition to those identified above.

However, even with the roadway improvements identified above, the project would not fully imple-
ment the trail route identified in General Plan Figure 2-I (showing a future trail along Calabazas
Creek within the project site) and related policies in the Land Use/Community Design Element
related to the provision of trails. These conflicts would be considered a significant and unavoidable
environmental impact because the project would preclude the development of a creek-side trail within
the project site (as long as Apple controls the site), which could provide a higher-quality pedestrian
and bicyclist experience compared to on-street routes. Traffic modeling for the project indicates that
four travel lanes (two in each direction) are required to meet the traffic demand at the bridge over I-
280 on North Tantau Avenue. With four travel lanes, a bike lane, and sidewalk in each direction, the
limited right-of-way at the bridge over I-280 might preclude the planting of vegetation or the
provision of enhanced bike lanes/pedestrian paths.

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the severity of this impact but not
to a less-than-significant level, and it would remain significant and unavoidable:

           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 Calabazas 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:
                        Signage along the route including both wayfinding/maps and information on creek
                         habitat and ecology;
                        Appropriate plantings that mimic creek-side habitats and provide a linear reference
                         point between the creek-side portions of the trail and the trail detour (wherever
                         possible);
                        Special pedestrian scaled lighting;
                        Rest areas or picnic tables at trail intersections along North Tantau Avenue and Vallco
                         Parkway, as feasible, to highlight the route’s recreational nature while also not
                         diminishing its role as a transportation route;
                        Additional recreational amenities such as water fountains and trash receptacles;
                        Appropriate pavement treatments that reference the creek and/or water; and
                        Decorative fencing and/or guard rails on North Tantau Avenue along the bridge over
                         Calabazas Creek and the bridge over I-280 and where the creek meets Vallco Parkway,
                         that reference the creek and strengthen the linear connection between the creek and the
                         trail detour.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         154
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




           b. Partially fund, in the sum of $250,000, a study of a full Class I separated trail, where rights-
              of-way are adequate, along the drainage channel that runs parallel to southbound I-280
              between North De Anza Boulevard and Calabazas Creek, and then south along the western
              bank of Calabazas Creek to Vallco Parkway. The study would only assess the feasibility of
              such a trail in the general area. If the City determines such a trail is feasible and determines
              to carry out the project, the trail would be subject to further environmental review and
              subsequent approvals. The potential future trail would connect to the project-related bicycle
              lane improvements on North Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway. The east-west connec-
              tion would be publicly-accessible and would be used for commuting and recreation. (SU)

While the mitigation measure set forth above would partially mitigate the loss of the segment of the
planned Calabazas Creek trail identified in the General Plan, this measure would provide substitute
trail facilities and alignments that would be less desirable to trail users. Furthermore, the measure
would achieve the objectives of the General Plan relating to the Calabazas Creek trail to a lesser
extent than implementation of the segment identified in the General Plan. Therefore, the mitigation
measure would reduce the severity of the impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. Thus the
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

In addition, the proposed project would result in the relocation of Glendenning Barn (listed as a
Historic Site in the Land Use/Community Design Element) to an on- or off-site location. As discussed
in detail in Section V.E, Cultural Resources, of this EIR, the Glendenning Barn is considered a
historic resource pursuant to CEQA. Relocation of the barn could adversely affect the historic integ-
rity of the barn and could conflict with the identification of the barn as a Historic Site. However, the
legislative history of the City’s Historic Resource Policy (see Section V.E, Cultural Resources, for a
more detailed discussion) recognizes that in certain circumstances relocation may mitigate an impact
to an historic resource to a less-than-significant level.7

Impact PLAN-4: The proposed project would not be consistent with the identification of the
Glendenning Barn as a Historic Site in the General Plan. (S)

Implementation of the following mitigation measure (which would require certain protocols to be
followed when the barn is relocated) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level:

           Mitigation Measure PLAN-4: Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1. (LTS)

b.    Housing Element. The proposed project would not conflict with the general policy thrust of
the Housing Element, which is intended to guide the development and protection of residential uses in
the City. Implementation of the project would result in the development of office and research and
development uses on a site on which office and research and development uses currently exist and
where housing units could otherwise be developed as a secondary use. Although the project would
reduce the amount of land in the City available for the development of housing, this reduction would
not result in significant adverse environmental effects, as the project would not constrain the supply
of land available for the development of residential uses such that the City’s future supply of housing
would be compromised. The project would not fully comply with Program 10 of the Housing
Element, which requires major new office and industrial projects to build housing. However, this

           7
       Cupertino, City of, 2010. Staff Report. Website: cupertino.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view id=l4&clip
id=929&meta id =45028. April 20.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         155
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




inconsistency would not result in a significant impact, as the project sponsor has agreed to pay twice
the Office/Industrial/Hotel/Retail/R&D Housing Mitigation fee applicable to P(MP) districts for the
development of affordable housing elsewhere in the City.8 Please refer to Section V.C, Population,
Employment, and Housing, for additional detail.

c.      Circulation Element. As discussed in Chapter III, Project Description, Apple currently
operates a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program that is designed to
reduce the use of single-occupancy motor vehicles and encourage the use of transit, biking, and
walking for work-related trips. The current program includes comprehensive privately-operated
transit services throughout the Bay Area, on-site bike facilities, transit subsidies, and on-site
amenities (to reduce the need for employees to make off-site trips during the day). This program
would be expanded as part of the project. In addition, the project includes extensive on-site pedestrian
facilities, which would make it easy and pleasant for employees to move around the site by foot.
These measures and the site plan would reduce vehicle trips generated by the project and would be
consistent with Policy 4-2 of the Circulation Element (which promotes reduced reliance on private
motor vehicles, in part through project design). The robust TDM Program that would continue to be
implemented as part of the project (and would be expanded) would also encourage the use of public
transit by employees, in accordance with Policy 4-5. In addition, by reducing the number of driveway
access points and curb cuts, the project would comply with Policy 4-9 (which seeks to minimize the
number of driveway openings in development projects).

However, the proposed removal of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue would not be fully consistent
with key goals of the Circulation Element – to reduce the use of single-occupancy motor vehicles,
promote biking and walking as viable means of transport within the City, and balance the needs of
cyclists and pedestrians with the needs of drivers (although policies and project components that
would be implemented by Apple as part of the project – including a robust TDM Program – would
reduce the use of single occupancy motor vehicles).

Impact PLAN-5: The proposed project would not fully implement several provisions of the
Circulation Element of the General Plan related to the provision of trails, and the provision of
bike and pedestrian access, and these conflicts would result in an environmental impact. (S)

Pruneridge Avenue currently functions as a motor vehicle, transit, bike, and pedestrian route between
North Tantau Avenue and North Wolfe Road (both of which contain bike facilities). It functions as
the western segment of a longer-distance bike route that starts in the City of Santa Clara and allows
cyclists to bypass busier, higher-volume roadways. The removal of the segment of Pruneridge
Avenue within the project site would require cyclists and pedestrians (traveling from the vicinity of
North Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue to points west of the project site) to either proceed
along North Tantau Avenue, East Homestead Road, and North Wolfe Road, the latter two of which
are high-volume, multi-lane roadways, or proceed on North Tantau Avenue to the south, connecting
to Vallco Parkway and North Wolfe Road. For a bicyclist or pedestrian wishing to reach the intersec-
tion of North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue from points to the east of the project site, this
detour would increase travel distance by approximately 0.6 mile over current conditions.


           8
         In June 2007, in order to encourage the expansion of the corporate headquarters of industry leaders, the City
Council adopted a policy to assess a reduced Housing Mitigation Fee in P(MP) districts (which are located only in north
Vallco and a portion of south Vallco) at 50% of the fee applicable to all other districts.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                              156
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




However, the removal of Pruneridge Avenue would affect bicyclists and pedestrians differently,
depending on their ultimate destination. For instance, bicyclists and pedestrians traveling to Vallco
Mall from the vicinity of North Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue would experience minimal
disruptions in travel time or distance due to the removal of Pruneridge Avenue. However, persons
traveling by bicycle or foot from The Hamptons to the Pruneridge Avenue bike lane east of North
Tantau Avenue (in order to access the two parks in the vicinity – Westwood Oaks Park and Jenny
Strand Park) would experience longer travel times and routes that are more difficult to navigate
without a motor vehicle.

Therefore, the removal of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue would cause inconvenience to some
bicyclists and pedestrians and thus may be seen as not promoting the City’s initiatives to reduce
driving and increase the use of alternate means of transportation. Similarly, the project may not fully
support all elements in Policy 4-3 in the Circulation Element (which seeks to implement the programs
and projects recommended in the Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines and in the Cuper-
tino Bicycle Plan). Policy 4-3 also seeks to enhance the pedestrian grid in the City, and establish and
preserve a ¼-mile grid of sidewalks and paths, so removal of Pruneridge Avenue would be in conflict
with that portion of the policy. With implementation of the project, there would be no publicly-acces-
sible east/west sidewalks and paths along an approximately 0.9-mile stretch of North Tantau Avenue
between East Homestead Road and Vallco Parkway. These policy conflicts would be considered
significant.

The impacts associated with the removal of Pruneridge Avenue should be understood in the context
of the project components that would enhance the transportation system. The project contains numer-
ous features that would promote policies in the Circulation Element, including:
                 Expansion of Apple’s existing TDM program;
                 Extensive internal bicycle and pedestrian facilities for Apple employees;
                 Underground parking and extensive private open space on the project site; and
                 A largely self-contained campus that would reduce trips between dispersed facilities.

Additionally the project would provide the following transportation improvement enhancements
along North Tantau Avenue, North Wolfe Road, East Homestead Road, and Vallco Parkway that
would supplement existing nearly-contiguous bike and pedestrian facilities to enhance the bike and
pedestrian environment, as described below:

North Tantau Avenue
                 Providing a landscaped median along North Tantau Avenue from the I-280 bridge to
                  Homestead Road (where space permits);
                 Supplementing the existing detached sidewalk facilities where existing trees and
                  topography allow;
                 Improving the bicycle and pedestrian links along North Tantau Avenue across the I-280
                  bridge by providing sidewalks on both sides and a bicycle lane, which is separated from
                  vehicular traffic by a landscaped barrier;
                 Restriping and/or providing colored bike lanes on both sides of North Tantau Avenue;




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         157
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




                 Establishing a link from the Calabazas Creek crossing of Tantau Avenue to its junction
                  with Vallco Parkway to the south across I-280 through special paving, signage, way-
                  finding, lighting, landscaping and decorative fencing; and
                 Reducing the number of curb cuts and left-turn lanes on North Tantau Avenue.

North Wolfe Road
                 Supplementing existing detached sidewalks along North Wolfe Road from Vallco Parkway
                  to Homestead Road in all locations where existing trees and topography allow;
                 Increasing vehicular capacity of North Wolfe Road to allow for increased traffic demand
                  resulting from the proposed project;
                 Restriping and/or providing colored bike lanes on both sides of North Wolfe Road; and
                 Improving the pedestrian and bicycle connections on the I-280 bridge along North Wolfe
                  Road by providing specialty paving for the pedestrian paths, colored bicycle lanes, signage,
                  way-finding, lighting and decorative fencing.

East Homestead Road
                 Reducing the number of curb cuts and left-turn lanes to improve pedestrian and bicycle
                  safety; and
                 Restriping and providing colored bike lanes on both sides of the street.

Vallco Parkway
                 Providing detached sidewalks along the entire length of the north side of Vallco Parkway
                  where existing trees and topography allow; and
                 Restriping and/or providing colored bike lanes on both sides of the street.

In addition, it should be noted that the pedestrian and bike volumes along Pruneridge Avenue within
the project site are currently modest. As stated previously, data collected by Fehr & Peers identified
approximately 28 bicyclists and 308 pedestrians who would be expected to use this segment on a
weekday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and six bicyclists and 91 pedestrians would be expected to
use the segment on a weekend day between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.9

However, in the context of policies in the General Plan that seek to improve the bike and pedestrian
environment in the City, including those that aim for reduced reliance on motor vehicles in the future,
the removal of Pruneridge Avenue within the project site would be significant. It would eliminate a
key east-west connector, would route some travelers onto higher-traffic streets, and would incremen-
tally discourage non-motorized travel. Although existing pedestrian and bike volumes in the area are
modest, future expected redevelopment efforts along North Wolfe Road and areas to the west may
increase bike and pedestrian activity in the area (which could increase the future use of a bike and
pedestrian connection through the project site).




           9
               Fehr & Peers, 2012. Apple Campus 2 Transportation Impact Analysis.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         158
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-
significant level:

           Mitigation Measure PLAN-5: Implement Mitigation Measures PLAN-2 and PLAN-3. (SU)

d.     Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element. Many components of the project promote
the principles of sustainability embodied in the Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element of
the General Plan. For instance, the project would include photovoltaic energy production, sub-grade
parking areas, energy-efficient buildings, and other green design elements. The project would
increase the coverage of open space on the site through the consolidation of building space and
parking areas (and thus reduce impervious surfaces), replace predominantly non-native trees species
with predominantly native species, and result in the planting of orchards on-site. In addition, the
project would include an enhanced TDM Program designed to reduce the use of single-occupancy
vehicles, and promote green and energy-efficient construction techniques. The project would increase
employment in an already-developed area that is well-served by transit. These features of the project
would represent the sound use of resources while promoting economic development in the area.

The project would also supplement existing bike and pedestrian facilities on East Homestead Road,
North Tantau Avenue, Vallco Parkway, and North Wolfe Road to increase pedestrian crosswalks,
allow for contiguous sidewalks (detached sidewalks, where feasible), increase landscaping, and
improve the overall bike and pedestrian environment.

In addition, as described in Chapter III, Project Description, the project would be subject to the City
of Cupertino Green Building Ordinance (Section 16.58 of the Municipal Code), which takes effect on
July 1, 2013. Under the Green Building Ordinance, the proposed project would be required to meet
LEED Silver certification or an equivalent, as identified in the Ordinance.

Although the project would promote many of the sustainability principles in the Environmental
Resources/Sustainability Element of the General Plan, it would conflict with provisions of the
Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element that promote walking and biking.

Impact PLAN-6: The proposed project would not fully implement provisions of the Environ-
mental Resources/Sustainability Element of the General Plan related to the provision of trails
and the provision of bike and pedestrian access, and these conflicts would result in an environ-
mental impact. (S)

In particular, the project would result in the removal of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue that func-
tions as a key link between the bike facilities on North Tantau Avenue and North Wolfe Road, and
would thus reduce the effectiveness of the area’s bike network. Although the proposed project would
include minimum 50-foot setbacks adjacent to Calabazas Creek and would not substantially change
the landform of the site (and thus would be consistent with Policies 5-9 and 5-19), it would not
provide a trail (or easement) along the creek. In addition, the construction of a security fence around
the project site could preclude the future development of such a trail. Because these policy conflicts
would result in significant adverse environmental effects related to the diminishment of public bike
and pedestrian access along Calabazas Creek, they would be considered significant. Implementation
of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level:

           Mitigation Measure PLAN-6: Implement Mitigation Measures PLAN-2 and PLAN-3. (SU)


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         159
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                            APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                              IV. PLANNING POLICY




B.         CITY OF CUPERTINO ZONING ORDINANCE
This section describes the City of Cupertino Zoning Ordinance10 and the consistency of the proposed
project with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

1.         Description
The City of Cupertino Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance) implements the policies of the General
Plan and other City plans, policies, and ordinances that relate to the built environment. The Zoning
Ordinance consists of a map (which divides the City into land use zones) and associated regulations
(which govern the use of land and the placement of buildings and improvements within the various
land use zones). The Zoning Ordinance governs the use of land; the height, bulk, and placement of
buildings; the provision of parking, open space, and amenities; and the relationships of buildings to
uses on adjacent sites.

The project site comprises three zoning designations. The Planned Development (Planned Industrial)
(P(MP)) zone covers most of the project site (see Figure IV-2). The P zoning district is “intended to
provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment of the City that is uniquely suited for
planned coordination of land uses and to provide for a greater flexibility of land use intensity and
design because of accessibility, ownership patterns, topographical considerations, and community
design objectives.”

At the time an application is made for development within a P zone, the sponsor must provide a
conceptual plan for the development of property within the zone that includes: a general description
of proposed land uses; a transportation and circulation plan; a topographical map of the site and
surrounding properties; a landscape plan; and any other information deemed necessary by the City.
When an ordinance for development in the P zone is approved, the City must make the following
findings:
           1. The conceptual development plan is consistent with the General Plan and underlying
              zoning regulations.
           2. The conceptual development plan provides for “an organized and unified system of land
              uses and land use intensities which would be compatible with the surrounding
              neighborhood.”
           3. The conceptual development plan provides adequate landscaping and will enhance the
              project site and community as a whole.
           4. The conceptual development plan would not create “undue and unreasonable” traffic
              congestion in the area.
           5. The conceptual development plan makes provisions for adequate parking, waste disposal,
              and undergrounding of utilities.




           10
                Cupertino, City of, 2011. Title 19: Zoning, City of Cupertino Municipal Code.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          160
                                                                    R3/
                                                                                                                 R0                 Lorne Way
                                                                    PD           Sunnyvale
                             O/PD           C1/PD
                                                                                         Homestead Rd




                                                                                                                                             N Tantau Ave
    R0
                 Linnet Ln




                                                                                                                                                              Forge Dr

                                    P
                             (Comm, Res)



                                                                                                                                                                PD

                                                                                                             P(MP)

                                                                            Pr
                                                              P                un
                                                                                  er
                                                            (Res)                   id
                                                                                       ge
                                                                                          Av
                               P (Hotel)                                                    e
                                             N Wolfe Rd




                                                                                                                                                                R1-6L
                                                                                  PR

                                                                           P
                                                                          (MP,                                                                                 Santa
                                                                                    Ri
                                                                          Res)           dg
                                                                                              ev                                                               Clara
                                                                                                   ie
                                                                                                        w
                                                                                                            Ct

                                                                                                                                                              PD


     R1




                                   P (CG)

                                                               P
                                                          (CG, ML, O,
                                                          Hotel, Regional
                                                          Shopping, Rest)                                                                                          B
                                                                                                            P(MP)

0          30
           300               600
                                                                                                                                       P
feet                                                                                                                              (CG, O, ML)

                 City of Cupertino                                         R3-Multiple Family Res.                    R3-Medium Density Res.                FIGURE IV-2
                              BQ-Quasi-Public                       City of Santa Clara                               O-Admin/Professional Office
                              CG-General Commercial                        R1-6L Single Family Res.                   C1-Neighborhood Business
                              MP-Planned Industrial                        PD-Planned Dev. Combining
                                                                                                                      Project Site Boundaries
                              P-Mixed Use Plan Development                 B-Public/Quasi Public
                              OS/PR-Open Space/Public                                                                 City Limits Boundary
                              Park/Recreational Zone                City of Sunnvale
                              R1-Single Family Res.                        R0-Low Density Res.                                       Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., JUNE 2011.                                                                                 Zoning Designations
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\EIR\Fig_IV2.ai (5/31/13)
                                                                                                                                                                                                   e Loop

                                                                                                                                                                                           Project Site

                                                                                                                                                                                           City Limits
                                                                                                                           Inverness

                                                                                                                                                                                           Parks

                                                                                                                                                                                           Creeks

                                                                                                                                                                                           Class I Creek
                                           Sunnyvale
                                                                                                                                                                                           Trail
                                                                              Homestead
                                           Cupertino                                                                                                                                       Alternate Creek
                                                                                                                                                                                           Trail




                                                                                                                                                   Santa Clara
                                                                                                                                                    Cupertino
                                                                                                                                                                                           Future
                                                                                                                         Apple Campus 2                                                    Calabazas
                                                                                                                                                                                           Trail Segments
                                                                                                  Pr
                                                                                                     u   ne
                                                                                                              rid
                                                                                                                    ge


                           Loop
                 DeAnza




                                                          Blaney




                                                                                                                                                                     Lawrence Expressway
                          Lazaneo


                                                                                                  Vallco
                                                                                          Wolfe




                                                                                                                                                       280
                                                         Stevens Creek




                                                                                                                                          Tantau




           0                              2,000                          4,000
                                                                             Feet
                                                                                                                                                                                                   FIGURE IV-3
            0             1000               30
                                          2000
            feet                                                                                                                                                      Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCES: CITIES OF CUPERTINO, SUNNYVALE, AND SANTA CLARA , MTC, SCVWD, ESRI, APPLE, NELSON/NYGAARD, 2013.                                                        Mitigation Measure PLAN-3
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_IV3.ai (5/31/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




On the City’s Zoning Map, the P designation is followed by a secondary designation which indicates
the types of land uses that are generally permitted within that designation. The permitted and condi-
tionally permitted land uses are those associated with the secondary designation (in this case, the MP
zone). The MP zone allows for the development of professional, executive and administrative offices;
medical and allied laboratories; research and development uses; light manufacturing; processing; and
assembling and storage of projects and materials.

The P designation allows the specific development regulations of the site to be established in accor-
dance with the conceptual and final development plans for a project. However, the development
regulations in the MP zone are briefly discussed here for informational purposes. Maximum building
coverage in the MP zone is 40 percent, and maximum building height is 40 feet (although taller
buildings are permitted if so designated in the development plan and allowed by the General Plan). In
addition, no structure in excess of 35 feet in height is permitted closer to a residential zone than a
distance equal to four times the height of the structure. In other words, a 50-foot-tall building would
need to be located at least 200 feet away from the nearest residential zone. The minimum distance
between a building in an MP zone and a Residential zone is 100 feet.

Zoning regulations in the portion of the project site east of North Tantau Avenue and within 150 feet
of the City of Santa Clara boundary are also subject to the Inter-City Agreement for Planned
Development of Property Adjacent to Common Boundary (Inter-City Agreement). The Inter-City
Agreement, which was enacted on March 4, 1963 between the cities of Cupertino and Santa Clara,
was intended to ensure that planned light industrial development of lands annexed by the City of
Cupertino along the western boundary of the City of Santa Clara would be “compatible with and
enhance the value of” of existing single-family residential uses in the City of Santa Clara. To that
effect, the Inter-City Agreement stipulates that property within 150 feet of the inter-jurisdictional
boundary in the City of Cupertino be developed in accordance with the existing zoning regulations
(the Planned Community District was the zone for the area at the time), and that development in that
area not exceed one story and 16 feet in height. In addition, the agreement states that traffic associated
with development in the inter-jurisdictional area not be routed through the single-family residential
area of the City of Santa Clara.

The Planned Development (Planned Industrial, Residential) (P(MP, Res)) zone is located immediately
east of The Hamptons. This zone allows for the planned development of light industrial and residen-
tial uses. Permitted uses are those listed above for the MP zone and residential uses. The density and
design of residential uses would be determined in conjunction with Community Development
Department staff when an application for the Planned Development is prepared.

The Public Park/Recreation (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.”

The zones to the north and east of the project site (in the cities of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara, respec-
tively) are provided for informational purposes. The zoning districts to the north of the site (in the
City of Sunnyvale) are Planned Development – Neighborhood Business (C1); Planned Development


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         163
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




– Medium Density Residential (R3); and Low Density Residential (R0).11 The zoning districts to the
east of the site (in the City of Santa Clara) are Single Family Residential (R1-GL) and B (Public or
Quasi-public Open Spaces).12 The zone to the south of the site, beyond I-280, is P(MP). The zones to
the west of the site, beyond North Wolfe Road, are P(Hotel) and P(Comm, Res).

2.         Consistency
The proposed project would be generally consistent with the intent of the P zoning district, which
encourages flexible design in order to coordinate land uses across a large or complex development
site. The design concepts that are apparent in the project site plans – namely increasing building
intensity in specific locations and providing structured and underground parking – are intended to
maximize the provision of open space on the site while accommodating substantial employment.

The P zoning district allows for deviations from the minimum setbacks for buildings established in
the Zoning Ordinance. The setbacks outlined in the Zoning Ordinance are meant as guidelines for
development and the setbacks for each project are determined in the development approval process.
Setbacks are typically established to ensure that development is compatible with adjacent land uses
by allowing for adequate landscaping and sound buffers.

The proposed office and research and development uses that would be developed as part of the
project would be consistent with the portions of the site zoned P(MP) and P(MP, Res). These
proposed land uses are ones that are primarily permitted in the two zoning districts. As noted above,
flexible design standards would be applied to development in the P(MP) and P(MP, Res) zones, and
such standards would be identified when specific development plans are submitted by the project
sponsor. At a conceptual level of design, the project would not appear to violate the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance (as maximum height, setbacks, and other standards that are designed to protect the
physical environment would be dictated by the project development plan).

Development proposed within the project site east of North Tantau Avenue would also be consistent
with the Inter-City Agreement. All proposed buildings on the east side of North Tantau Avenue
would be set back at least 150 feet from the inter-jurisdictional boundary. In addition, access to and
from these areas would be primarily via North Tantau Avenue, and not the minor residential streets to
the east of the site.

As part of the project, the portion of the site zoned PR would be rezoned to P(MP). After rezoning,
development of non-park uses in this portion of the site would not conflict with the Zoning Ordi-
nance. While this change in land use would be inconsistent with parks-related policies in the General
Plan such that an environmental impact would result (see Impact PLAN-1, above), the proposed
rezoning in and of itself would not conflict with the Zoning Ordinance in a way that would result in
an environmental impact.




           11
                Sunnyvale, City of, 2008. City of Sunnyvale Zoning Map. March.
           12
                Santa Clara, City of, 2007. City of Santa Clara, CA Zoning Map. December.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         164
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




C.         NORTH VALLCO MASTER PLAN
This section, which is provided for informational purposes only, describes the North Vallco Master
Plan (Master Plan)13 and the general consistency of the proposed project with the guidelines in the
plan. The Master Plan has not been formally adopted by the City Council and has no legal force or
effect.

1.         Description
The Master Plan contains development guidelines encompassing an approximately 240-acre district
bordered by East Homestead Road on the north; North Tantau Avenue on the east; I-280 on the south;
and the primarily single-family residential neighborhood to the west of North Wolfe Road. The
Master Plan, which encompasses the project site, derived from a series of community workshops and
North Vallco Study Committee working sessions that were intended to help shape future development
in the area. The plan is intended to allow the industries within the Master Plan area to grow while
better integrating the area into the surrounding community.

The Master Plan identifies the following principles for future development in the area:
           1. “Win-Win” Partnership Planning. Partner with Apple and HP in the planning and develop-
              ment of the North Vallco District.
           2. Workplace Core. Protect and Enhance North Vallco’s Existing Industrial Base.
           3. Convenient Services. Encourage the provision and access to needed services convenient to
              Apple and HP executives, employees, and guests – and to potential future occupants of the
              core of this workplace district – including lunch places, fine dining, hotels, local-serving
              retail and services, and child care.
           4. Settings for Interaction. Attract “Knowledge Workers”14 by incentivizing the provision of
              an engaging and vital working environment. Attract knowledge workers who work in North
              Vallco by clustering the business and personal services mentioned above within walking
              distance “that stimulate interaction among people, including places to eat and drink, confer-
              ence and meeting facilities, recreation space and facilities, parks and plazas, business
              service centers.”
           5. Walkability/Connectivity. Consistent with company security requirements, plan new
              development patterns and amenities to facilitate walkability and convenient connections in
              the study area and to adjacent areas.
           6. District Identity and Visibility. Work with Apple, HP, Cupertino Village and other North
              Vallco stakeholders to create a distinctive identity for the district.
           7. Sustainability. New development should be encouraged to comprehensively utilize the
              knowledge and technology available throughout the planning, design, and construction
              process to help achieve sustainability through energy efficiency and resource conservation.
           8. Efficient Land Utilization. Developable land is a rapidly diminishing resource in Silicon
              Valley and new development in the study area should use the land efficiently and wisely.

           13
                Cupertino, City of, 2007. North Vallco Master Plan – Phase I.
           14
          The Master Plan does not include a definition of “Knowledge Workers,” although this term is expected to refer to
white collar professionals in high-technology industries.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                          165
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




           9. Protection of Adjacent Neighborhoods. Planning for new development should respect the
              interests of adjacent residential neighborhoods.
           10. Minimization of Traffic Impacts. As change occurs, organize new development to minimize
               congestion in this part of the City. Plan short-term development in a forward-looking
               manner, e.g., in a way that improves the integration of land use, development form and
               transportation infrastructure.
           11. Consideration of Residential Uses. Residential development is an important community
               issue on which individuals within the community have differing views. As development of
               the study area proceeds, the issue of residential development should be addressed in a
               constructive manner that seeks to come to community consensus on the appropriateness of
               additional residential development in the area.

2.         Consistency
The proposed project would be consistent with 9 of the 11 major planning principles that are identi-
fied in the Master Plan. The proposed project would intensify the area’s industrial/research and
development base, would locate numerous employee services on-site, and the design of the project
would help create a distinct identity for the area (Principles 2 and 6). The proposed design for the
campus (including the Main Building) is potentially iconic and reflects sustainable design concepts
(Principle 7). These concepts include the provision of open space, the use of renewable energy, and
the design of buildings to allow for passive cooling and heating. Land within the campus would be
utilized efficiently (Principle 8), as the Main Building would house the bulk of employees on the site
in one large structure, allowing for the provision of substantial open space throughout the site. The
provision of a large amount of open space would also be achieved through the provision of under-
ground and structured parking. Proposed building setbacks and massing would be in keeping with the
existing zoning standards and would not infringe on adjacent residential uses (Principle 9). Although
the project would not include on-site residential uses, it would not compromise the vision of North
Vallco as a mixed commercial, industrial, and residential neighborhood (as residential uses are
already located at The Hamptons and elsewhere in the vicinity) (Principle 11).

While the project may not comply with all development principles that seek to increase the walk-
ability and connectivity of the area and minimize the traffic impacts of development projects, these
inconsistencies would not be considered significant because the Master Plan has not been formally
adopted and does not have any legal force or effect.

The project would include an enhanced TDM Program designed to reduce the use of single-occu-
pancy vehicles and would increase employment in an already-developed area that is well-served by
transit. In addition, the project would enhance existing bike and pedestrian facilities along East
Homestead Road, North Tantau Avenue, Vallco Parkway, and North Wolfe Road. These measures
would reduce the impacts of traffic generated by the project.

However, the project would also remove a segment of Pruneridge Avenue that currently functions as
a motor vehicle, transit, bike, and pedestrian route between North Tantau Avenue and North Wolfe
Road (both of which contain bike facilities). It functions as the western segment of a longer-distance
bike route that starts in the City of Santa Clara that allows cyclists to bypass busier, higher-volume
roadways. The removal of the segment of Pruneridge Avenue would increase trip length for some



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         166
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




pedestrians and cyclists (depending on their destination) and could require the use of roadways that
are more difficult to navigate by bike or foot.

The removal of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue would thus be inconsistent with Principle 5 (Walk-
ability/Connectivity) and Principle 10 (Minimization of Traffic Impacts) in the Master Plan. The
removal of the segment of Pruneridge Avenue would reduce public connections between the project
site and adjacent areas, and would be inconsistent with the Master Plan’s objective of integrating land
uses to reduce traffic generated by development projects. As noted above, these inconsistencies would
not be considered significant because the Master Plan has not been adopted by the City. In addition,
the project includes improvements to the existing pedestrian and bike infrastructure around the project
site that would enhance walkability and connectivity around the perimeter of the site.


D.         GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAMS
This section describes the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (Guidelines)15 and
the consistency of the proposed project with the Guidelines.

1.         Description
The Guidelines are designed to provide guidance on development projects located near streams in
Santa Clara County, and to assist local agencies in permitting such development and designing miti-
gation, as warranted. They were developed by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection
Collaborative, which comprises the County, all cities within the County (including the City of
Cupertino), the SCVWD, and citizens, business, and agriculture groups. The specific development
guidelines identified in the document are based on those used by the SCVWD to review development
proposals near streams and are intended to be applied in conjunction with other development guide-
lines and regulations designed to reduce impacts to water resources (such as the stormwater manage-
ment regulations of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and stream protection regulations of
the California Department of Fish and Game). The City of Cupertino uses the Guidelines in its review
of applications for development near streams, in accordance with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
policies and regulations intended to protect water quality. Because a segment of Calabazas Creek is
located within the project site, the City would apply the Guidelines to review of the proposed project.

The Guidelines do not contain specific requirements for the provision of setbacks around streams, but
suggest that jurisdictions “develop a riparian buffer of at least 40 – 150 feet from top of bank or
outward dripline of riparian area (whichever is greater).” These guidelines are found in the Model
Enhanced Practices section of the Guidelines. The City has no adopted ordinance or guidelines
regarding development setbacks from creeks.

Some of the specific policies in the Guidelines that pertain to general land planning considerations
within the project site are listed below (please note that policies related to the ecological health of
riparian zones are discussed in more detail in Section V.D, Biological Resources):



           15
         Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative, 2006. Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near
Streams: A Manual of Tools, Standards and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa Clara
County. July.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         167
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




                 Guideline I.A.1 Protection of the Riparian Zone. Enforce existing City/County/SCVWD
                  general plans, policies, or ordinances related to riparian areas, water quality and source
                  water protection.
                 Guideline I.G. Land Uses Next to Riparian Corridors/Streams. Avoid locating loading
                  docks, trash enclosures, chemical storage areas and stationary noise producing mechanical
                  equipment next to streams and riparian corridors. Refrain from locating new paved areas,
                  active recreational areas, agricultural growing areas and grazing activities within riparian
                  corridors.
                 Guideline III.B4. Design/Construction Related to Encroachments between the Top of Bank.
                  Structures must not reduce the active channel or active floodplains’ conveyance area or
                  redirect flow to the detriment of another bank or the river bed. Designs in SCVWD
                  jurisdictional areas must be capable of conveying 100-year design flow and meet
                  SCVWD’s freeboard requirements explained in Design Guides.
                 Guideline IX.A. Design/Construction Related to Trail Construction. Joint Use Pedestrian/
                  Bicycle Paths are encouraged along creeks. Trails must be located so as to avoid impacts to
                  the stream and riparian areas. Paved multi use trails should be placed so as to maximize
                  distance from stream and riparian areas. Construction must not require deep excavation
                  within tree root zones.
                 Guideline VIII.B. Utilities Crossings. 1. Utility pipes or conduits must go under the stream
                  or be in or attached to the downstream face of a bridge and must go under any levees.
                  Provide locations for future utility crossings in design of new or replacement bridges. 2.
                  Any utilities under the stream must be concrete encased or placed in sleeves.
                 Guideline XIV.A. Flooding Protection. 1. For development within special flood hazard
                  zones A, AE, AH, AO, the project must comply with FEMA requirements as implemented
                  by the City or County. 2. Consider when and how to recommend increased levels of
                  protection as described in Dept. of Water Resources Model Floodplain Ordinance,
                  recommendations of California Floodplain Management Task Force (Dec 2002), and
                  FEMA’s Community Rating System Program.
                 Guideline XIV.A3. Flooding Protection. If a proposed project will result in a significant
                  increase in land use density (i.e. an agricultural area changes to residential or industrial),
                  the local jurisdiction should work cooperatively with SCVWD to determine (1) what
                  information is needed on a project specific basis to evaluate potential increases in flood
                  flows and (2) what mitigation measures can be implemented to mitigate for impacts to
                  flood conveyance capacity and/or flood protection. Detention basins may be used to
                  mitigate the impact, but they must be properly designed and maintained. Design should be
                  in concert with hydromodification facilities and consider regional solutions.
                 Guideline XIV.A4. Flood Protection. For major developments near streams subject to
                  CEQA review that are compatible with the General Plan utilized for developing District
                  hydrology and FEMA floodmaps, development must not increase site runoff so as to
                  increase depth (0.1 foot increase in water surface) or lateral extent of flooding or increase
                  discharge in local streams as outlined in the storm water permit for the SCVURPPP. A
                  hydraulic analysis prepared by registered civil engineer demonstrating that any flood
                  impacts will not be created is required.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         168
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




2.         Consistency
The site plans for the proposed project indicate that the building nearest Calabazas Creek would be set
back at least 50 feet from the top of the bank of the creek, and thus would comply with the basic
setback requirement established in the Guidelines. No buildings or accessory uses would be estab-
lished within the Calabazas Creek riparian zone within the project site. By avoiding construction in the
riparian zone, the project would be substantially consistent with the Guidelines, including Guideline
I.G. Therefore, the project would be consistent with Guideline III.B4. Development on the site would
not substantially affect flood patterns, as discussed in more detail in Section V.G, Hydrology and
Water Quality. Therefore, the project would be consistent with Guidelines XIV.A, XIV.A3, and
XIV.A4. Utilities would be installed under Calabazas Creek and would thus be consistent with
Guideline VIII.B.

The project would not provide a path or a trail easement along Calabazas Creek, which would not
fulfill the vision of Guideline IX.A, Design/Construction Related to Trail Construction. However, this
guideline encourages the provision of paths (but does not require such paths). In addition, the encour-
agement to provide paths does not appear to be a policy adopted for environmental protection (as
opposed to other protocols in the Guidelines, which define how paths should be designed to protect
the ecological integrity of riparian zones). Therefore, this policy conflict would not be considered
significant and no mitigation would be required.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         169
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                               APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                 IV. PLANNING POLICY




  Table IV-1:                  Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
  Goal or Policy
  Number         Goal or Policy Text                                                               Project’s Relationship to Goal or Policy
  Land Use/Community Design Element
  Policy 2-1:    Concentrate development in urban nodes and selectively                            Generally Consistent. Although the proposed project would not include
  Concentrated   include housing with office and commercial uses where                             housing, it would concentrate office and research and development uses in
  Development    appropriate in designated centers.                                                the Vallco Light Industrial R&D activity/employment center identified in
  in Urban                                                                                         the Land Use/Community Design Element and the project sponsor would
  Centers                                                                                          pay 100 percent of the in-lieu fee required in the North Vallco area for
                                                                                                   the construction of new housing.
  Policy 2-2:                   Provide strong connections between the employment and              Partially Inconsistent. The project would improve bike and pedestrian
  Connections                   commercial centers to the surrounding community.                   conditions along the roads around the project site through landscaping,
  Between                                                                                          new pedestrian crosswalks, continuous sidewalks, and colored bike lanes.
                                Strategy 1. Neighborhood connections. Enhance pedestrian
  Centers and                                                                                      However, the project would also remove a segment of Pruneridge Avenue,
                                and bicycle connections to surrounding neighborhoods in new
  the Community                                                                                    which is identified as a Minor Collector and Existing Bicycle Lane in the
                                development.
                                                                                                   Circulation Element of the General Plan. The removal of Pruneridge
                                Strategy 2. Public access. Provide pedestrian and bicycle paths    Avenue would restrict east/west bicycle and pedestrian access between
                                through new projects to enhance public access to and through       North Tantau Avenue and North Wolfe Road.
                                the development.
  Policy 2-6:                   Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and   Consistent. The proposed project would result in the provision of
  Neighborhood                  visually intrusive effects from more intense developments with     approximately 102 acres of private open space on the site and would
  Protection                    adequate buffering setbacks, landscaping, walls, activity,         comply with all applicable setback requirements in areas adjacent to
                                limitations, site design and other appropriate measures.           residential uses east of North Tantau Avenue.
  Policy 2-7:                   Define the circulation system as a hierarchy of street widths      Partially Inconsistent. The project would improve bike and pedestrian
  Defined and                   from urban to rural areas. Balance the roadway system              conditions along the roads around the project site through landscaping,
  Balanced                      between automobile and pedestrian/bicycle needs.                   new pedestrian crosswalks, continuous sidewalks, and colored bike lanes.
  Circulation                                                                                      In addition, extensive bike and pedestrian facilities would be provided
  System                                                                                           within the project site. However, a segment of Pruneridge Avenue, which
                                                                                                   functions as an east/west bike and pedestrian route in the area, would be
                                                                                                   removed as part of the project and would not be replaced with an
                                                                                                   equivalent route.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                              170
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                  IV. PLANNING POLICY




  Table IV-1:                  Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
  Goal or Policy
  Number                        Goal or Policy Text                                               Project’s Relationship to Goal or Policy
  Policy 2-13:                  Concentrate urban building forms in Vallco Park, City Center      Consistent. The project includes the development of urban building forms
  Urban                         and Crossroads/Heart of the City planning areas.                  (including the four-story above-grade Main Building, a sub-grade parking
  Building                                                                                        lot, and a four-story above-grade parking garage near the southern
  Forms                                                                                           boundary of the site).
  Policy 2-14:                  Emphasize attractive building and site design during the          Consistent. The project is designed with considerable attention to building
  Attractive                    development review process by giving careful attention to         scale, placement, mass, and other aspects of attractive campus design.
  Building and                  building scale, mass and placement, architecture, materials,      Substantial landscaping and open space are integrated into the overall
  Site Design                   landscaping, screening of equipment and loading areas, and        design.
                                related design considerations.
  Policy 2-18:                  In public and private landscaping projects subject to City        Consistent. The landscape design, which includes native and drought-
  Context of                    review, select landscaping designs that reflect the development   resistant plant species, and would reference the historic agricultural
  Streetscape                   context.                                                          context of the site, reflects the site’s development context.
  Landscaping
  Policy 2-20:                  Maintain a city structure of Neighborhoods, Commercial            Consistent. The City has an adequate development allocation for the
  Diversity of                  areas, Employment areas and Education/ Cultural areas.            project, including development allocation for existing major companies.
  Land Use                      Provide sufficient development opportunities for these areas in   The effects of the project on traffic levels are discussed in Section V.I,
                                order to enhance their distinct character and functions, while    Transportation and Circulation.
                                maintaining the desired transportation levels of service.
                                Strategy 1. Citywide Development Allocation. Allocate new
                                development citywide in accordance with Table 2-A
                                Development Allocation.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                               171
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                              APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                IV. PLANNING POLICY




  Table IV-1:                  Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
  Goal or Policy
  Number                        Goal or Policy Text                                              Project’s Relationship to Goal or Policy
  Policy 2-22:                  Develop pedestrian-friendly street environments in each          Partially Inconsistent. The project would implement a uniform street tree
  Neighborhood                  neighborhood that help create neighborhood identity, improve     plan, landscaped perimeter, and internal circulation network (in addition to
  Street Planning               safety, increase opportunities for social interaction and        improvements to external bike and pedestrian infrastructure) but would
                                connections to shopping, schools, recreation and other           include gates to respond to Apple’s security and privacy objectives. The
                                destinations.                                                    project would remove a segment of Pruneridge Avenue, which would
                                                                                                 hinder east/west pedestrian movement for some.
                                Strategy 1. Circulation Patterns. Evaluate neighborhood
                                circulation patterns and eliminate pedestrian barriers.
                                Strategy 3. Street Trees. Develop uniform street tree planting
                                plans for each neighborhood.
                                Strategy 4. Neighborhood Entries. Define neighborhood
                                entries through architecture, landscaping or land forms
                                appropriate to the formal or rural character of the
                                neighborhood. Vehicular electronic gates should generally be
                                discouraged, because they isolate developments from the
                                community.
                                Strategy 5. Street Requirements. Determine if special street
                                widths, sidewalk requirements or light fixtures are desirable
                                for any neighborhoods.
  Policy 2-35:                  Retain Vallco Park North as an employment area of                Consistent. The project would increase employment densities in Vallco
  Vallco Park                   predominately office and light industrial activities, with       Park North and would result in the construction of primarily office and
  North                         neighborhood commercial uses.                                    research and development land uses.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                               172
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                  IV. PLANNING POLICY




  Table IV-1:                  Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
  Goal or Policy
  Number                        Goal or Policy Text                                               Project’s Relationship to Goal or Policy
  Policy 2-40:                  Encourage new businesses and retain existing businesses that      Consistent. Apple is an existing business that provides significant
  New Businesses                provide needed local services and municipal revenues,             municipal revenues and contributes to the City’s economic vitality.
  and Business                  contribute to economic vitality and enhance the City’s            Based on information provided by Apple and reviewed by the City,
  Retention                     physical environment.                                             Apple’s current operations result in millions of dollars in sales tax
                                                                                                  revenues to the City each year. The proposed project would enable Apple
                                                                                                  to keep its company headquarters in Cupertino and further expand its
                                                                                                  operations in the City, allowing the City to maintain millions of dollars per
                                                                                                  year in sales tax revenues and increase Apple’s contribution to property,
                                                                                                  sales, and other taxes. Expanded tax revenue to the City as a result of the
                                                                                                  project is anticipated to be a few million of additional dollars each
                                                                                                  year. Further, the proposed project would generate significant one-time
                                                                                                  fees and/or taxes and public benefits, expected to amount to at least
                                                                                                  several million dollars.
  Policy 2-42:                  In reviewing office development proposals, encourage office       Consistent. Apple generates significant revenues for the City. The project
  Revenue                       uses and activities that generate significant revenues to the     would allow Apple to remain and expand in the City and would result in
  Analysis of                   City, such as local sales offices, capturing point of sale        one-time fees and continuing tax revenues. See Policy 2-40.
  Office                        internet transactions and business to business tax revenues.
  Developments                  New office development exceeding 50,000 square feet shall be
                                approved only if one of these or similar benefits are provided.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                173
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                   APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                     IV. PLANNING POLICY




  Table IV-1:                  Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
  Goal or Policy
  Number                        Goal or Policy Text                                                   Project’s Relationship to Goal or Policy
  Policy 2-62A:                 •     Projects on Historic Sites shall meet the Secretary of the      Consistent. The project would relocate the Glendenning Barn to an off-site
  Historic Sites                      Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties       location that may allow for public access or an on-site location without
                                      and provide a plaque, reader board and/or other educa-          public access. However, the relocation site (in accordance with Mitigation
                                      tional tools on the site to explain the historic significance   Measure CULT-1) would better reflect the historic agricultural landscape
                                      of the resource(s). The plaque shall include the city seal,     context of the barn, and that would preserve the historic integrity of the
                                      name of resource, date it was built, a written description      structure.
                                      and photograph and shall be placed in a location where the
                                      public can view the information.
                                •     For public and quasi-public sites, coordinate with property
                                      owner to allow public access of the historical site to foster
                                      public awareness and provide educational opportunities.
                                      For privately-owned sites, property owners would be
                                      encouraged, but in no way required, to provide access to
                                      the public.

                                Concurrent with identifying Historic Sites in its General Plan,
                                the City adopted a Historic Preservation Policy which informs
                                the General Plan policies and implementation of CEQA. The
                                policy provides that mitigation under CEQA includes
                                redesigning the project to meet Secretary of Interior Standards
                                and relocation of the historic resource, provided that relocation
                                does not constitute an adverse impact.
  Policy 2-66:                  Stimulate opportunities for the arts through cooperative              Consistent. The project would include public art valued at a minimum
  Public Arts                   relations between local business and the City.                        of $100,000, consistent with Section 19.148 of the Zoning Ordinance.
  Policy 2-72:                  Seek cooperation from private landowners for public use of            Partially Inconsistent. Per Mitigation Measure PLAN-1, Apple would be
  Public Use of                 private open space.                                                   required to provide sufficient funds for the acquisition of 1.1 acres of
  Private Open                                                                                        future park space, or would be required to purchase, designate, and
  Space                                                                                               dedicate 1.1 acres designated for Parks and Open Space. However, none of
                                                                                                      the private open space that would be developed as part of the project
                                                                                                      would be accessible to the public, although streetscape and bike/pedestrian
                                                                                                      improvements developed around the periphery of the site would be
                                                                                                      accessible to the public.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                  174
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                  IV. PLANNING POLICY




  Table IV-1:                  Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
  Goal or Policy
  Number                        Goal or Policy Text                                                 Project’s Relationship to Goal or Policy
  Policy 2-73:                  Dedicate or acquire open space lands and trail linkages to          Partially Inconsistent. The project would improve bike and pedestrian
  Open Space                    connect areas and provide for a more walkable community.            conditions along the roads around the project site through landscaping,
  and Trail                                                                                         new pedestrian crosswalks, continuous sidewalks, and colored bike lanes.
                                Strategy 2. Trail Projects. Implement the trail projects
  Linkages                                                                                          However, no trail would be provided along Calabazas Creek within the
                                described in this element. Evaluate any safety, security and
                                                                                                    project site, due to the security concerns of Apple. In addition, the
                                privacy impacts and mitigations associated with trail
                                                                                                    proposed removal of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue as part of the
                                development. Work with affected neighborhoods in locating
                                                                                                    project would reduce the walkability of the North Vallco area.
                                trails.
                                Strategy 3. Dedicated Trails or Easements. Require dedication
                                or easements for trails, as well as their implementation, as part
                                of the development process, where appropriate.
  Policy 2-74:                  Provide parkland equal to a minimum of three acres for each         Partially Inconsistent. The project would not directly increase the local
  Park Acreage                  l,000 residents.                                                    population, as it would not include the construction of housing. However,
                                                                                                    the proposed change in land use designation of the 1.1-acre Parks and
                                                                                                    Open Space portion of the site to Industrial/Residential would diminish the
                                                                                                    City’s ability to provide sufficient park space for future residents.
                                                                                                    Implementation of Mitigation Measure PLAN-1 would reduce the
                                                                                                    associated impact resulting from the inconsistency with Policy 2-74 to a
                                                                                                    less-than-significant level.
  Housing Element
  Program 4:      The City will continue to implement the “Office and Industrial                    Consistent. The project would participate in the housing mitigation
  Housing         Mitigation” fee program. This program requires that                               program and pay twice the fee required in the North Vallco area.
  Mitigation      developers of office, commercial, and industrial space pay a
  Program –       fee, which will then be used to support affordable housing for
  Office and      families who work in Cupertino but live elsewhere. These fees
  Industrial      are collected and deposited in the City’s Affordable Housing
  Mitigation.     Fund.
  Program 10:     Require major new office/industrial development to build                          Generally Consistent. The project does not include new housing, although
  Jobs/Housing    housing as part of new development projects. As part of the                       the project sponsor would pay twice the fee required in the North Vallco
  Balance         development review process, the City will evaluate the impact                     area for the construction of new housing.
  Program.        of any application that will produce additional jobs in the
                  community. The purpose of the evaluation is to describe the
                  impacts of the new jobs on the City’s housing stock, especially
                  in relation to the jobs/housing ratio in the City.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                175
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                             APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                               IV. PLANNING POLICY




  Table IV-1:                  Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
  Goal or Policy
  Number          Goal or Policy Text                                                           Project’s Relationship to Goal or Policy
  Circulation Element
  Policy 4-2:     Promote a general decrease in reliance on private, mostly                     Consistent. The design of the project includes connecting internal
  Reduced         single-occupant vehicles (SOV) by encouraging attractive                      pathways and on-site amenities that are designed to reduce vehicle trips
  Reliance on the alternatives.                                                                 during the workday. In addition, the project includes a TDM Program
  Use of Single-                                                                                intended to further reduce daily employee trips. The project also includes a
                  Strategy 4. Design of New Developments. Encourage new
  Occupant                                                                                      shared cafeteria, showers, bicycle parking, and other amenities that would
                  commercial developments to provide shared office facilities,
  Vehicles                                                                                      tend to reduce reliance on private, single-occupant vehicles.
                  cafeterias, day-care facilities, lunchrooms, showers, bicycle
                  parking, home offices, shuttle buses to transit facilities and
                  other amenities that encourage the use of transit, bicycling,
                  walking or telecommuting as commute modes to work.
                  Provide pedestrian pathways and orient buildings to the street
                  to encourage pedestrian activity.
  Policy 4-3:     Implement the programs and projects recommended in the                        Partially Inconsistent. The project would provide continuous sidewalks
  Cupertino       Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines and in the                     along North Tantau Avenue and otherwise improve the pedestrian
  Pedestrian      Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan, as well as other                       environment on streets surrounding the site. In addition, the project would
  Transportation programs that promote this goal.                                               implement various incentives recommended in the Cupertino Bicycle
  Guidelines and                                                                                Transportation Plan to encourage employees to commute by bicycle
                  Strategy 1. The Pedestrian Guidelines. Implement the projects
  the Cupertino                                                                                 (including on-site bicycle amenities, such as showers, bike parking spaces,
                  recommended in the Pedestrian Guidelines including:
  Bicycle                                                                                       and repair services). Although the project would not conflict with existing
  Transportation • After engineering review, and where found to be feasible,                    pedestrian and bike projects identified in the Cupertino Pedestrian
  Plan.               improve safety at selected intersections by one or more of                Transportation Plan and Bicycle Transportation Plan, the removal of a
                      the following: prohibit right turn-on-red, add time to the                segment of Pruneridge Avenue would eliminate an important link in the
                      pedestrian signal phase, construct a median and/or reduce                 City’s bike and pedestrian network, and would not implement the policy
                      corner radii.                                                             initiative of providing a ¼-mile grid of walkable streets in the North
                  • Where feasible provide missing sidewalks on arterial and                    Vallco area.
                      collector streets and on neighborhood streets as desired by
                      residents.
                  • Identify a citywide pedestrian circulation grid including
                      shortcuts, pathways and bridges, where needed, to close
                      gaps in the pedestrian circulation system.
                                Strategy 2. Pedestrian Grid. Consider developing a quarter-
                                mile grid of safe, walk-able sidewalks and paths to provide
                                pedestrian access among residential, shopping, recreation and
                                business locations.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                             176
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                   IV. PLANNING POLICY




  Table IV-1:                  Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
  Goal or Policy
  Number                        Goal or Policy Text                                               Project’s Relationship to Goal or Policy
  Policy 4-4:                   Continue to plan and provide for a comprehensive system of        Partially Inconsistent. The project would improve bike and pedestrian
  Regional Trail                trails and pathways consistent with regional systems, including   conditions along the roads around the project site through landscaping,
  Development                   the Bay Trail, Stevens Creek Corridor and Ridge Trail. The        new pedestrian crosswalks, continuous sidewalks, and colored bike lanes.
                                General Alignment of the Bay Trail, as shown in the               However, the project would not include publicly-accessible trails
                                Association of Bay Area Governments’ Bay Trail planning           (including along Calabazas Creek, which is identified as a trail route that
                                document, is incorporated in the General Plan by reference.       links to regional routes in the Land Use/Community Design Element of
                                                                                                  the General Plan) due to Apple’s fundamental objectives of providing for
                                                                                                  safety, privacy, and security.
  Policy 4-5:    Support and encourage the increased use of public transit.                       Consistent. The project would establish a transit center and continue
  Increased Use                                                                                   an extensive shuttle/transit service for employees.
  of Public
  Transit
  Policy 4-9:    Minimize the number of driveway openings in each                                 Consistent. The project would remove several driveways and curb
  Curb Cuts      development.                                                                     cuts around the perimeter of the site.
  Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element
  Policy 5-1:    Incorporate the principles of sustainability into Cupertino’s                    Consistent. The project includes numerous sustainable elements, including
  Principles of  planning and development system.                                                 solar arrays, increased pervious surface to improve water quality, the
  Sustainability                                                                                  possible use of recycled water, and capacity for 1,000 electric vehicle
                                                                                                  charging stations (300 charging stations would be provided as part of the
                                                                                                  project).
  Policy 5-2:                   Encourage the maximum feasible conservation and efficient         Consistent. The proposed project would produce a substantial portion of
  Conservation                  use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new and     its energy needs using on-site renewable sources. In addition, buildings
  and Efficient                 existing residences, businesses, industrial and public uses.      would include green design features, such as green roofs, water-efficient
  Use of Energy                                                                                   appliances, and other elements designed to be energy-efficient.
  Resources
  Policy 5-3:                   Set standards for the design and construction of energy and       Consistent. The project would exceed these standards and would be
  Green Building                resource conserving/ efficient building (Green Building           required to meet the applicable provisions of the City of Cupertino Green
  Design                        Design).                                                          Building Ordinance, which is effective July 1, 2013.
  Policy 5-4:                   Minimize the air quality impacts of new development projects      Consistent. The project is undergoing a review (in this EIR) intended to
  Air Pollution                 and the impacts affecting new development.                        identify and mitigate effects on air quality. Please refer to Section V.L, Air
  Effects of New                                                                                  Quality.
  Development




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                 177
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                  IV. PLANNING POLICY




  Table IV-1:                  Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
  Goal or Policy
  Number                        Goal or Policy Text                                                Project’s Relationship to Goal or Policy
  Policy 5-9:                   Encourage the clustering of new development away from              Consistent. The nearest structure to Calabazas Creek would be set back
  Development                   sensitive areas such as riparian corridors, wildlife habitat and   approximately 50 feet from the top of the creek bank. A landscape plan
  Near Sensitive                corridors, public open space preserves and ridgelines. New         has been prepared for the project that would be reviewed along with other
  Areas                         developments in these areas must have a harmonious                 components of the project.
                                landscaping plans approved prior to development.
  Policy 5-14:                  Provide open space linkages within and between properties for      Consistent. Although no trail would be provided along Calabazas Creek as
  Recreation and                both recreational and wildlife activities, most specifically for   part of the project, the riparian zone around the creek would be effectively
  Wildlife Trails               the benefit of wildlife that is threatened, endangered or          preserved. Therefore, the corridor would continue to function as an open
                                designated as species of special concern.                          space linkage.
                                Strategy. Require identification of creeks and water courses on
                                site plans and require that they be protected from adjacent
                                development. State that trail easements for trail linkages may
                                be required if analysis determines that they are needed.
  Policy 5-19:                  Require that site design respect the natural topography and        Generally Consistent. Although the project would require substantial
  Natural Water                 drainages to the extent practicable to reduce the amount of        grading, the topography of the site would remain generally flat, and
  Bodies                        grading necessary and limit disturbance to natural water           buildings would be set back at least 50 feet from the top of the bank of
  and Drainage                  bodies and natural drainage systems caused by development          Calabazas Creek. The reduction in impervious surface coverage on the site
  Systems                       including roads, highways, and bridges.                            would reduce storm water discharges and improve water quality.
  Policy 5-20:                  Minimize storm water flow and erosion impacts resulting from       Consistent. The increased permeability of the site would reduce storm
  Reduction of                  development.                                                       water discharges and improve water quality, and could reduce downstream
  Impervious                                                                                       erosion in Calabazas Creek.
  Surfaces
  Policy 5-24:                  Support the Santa Clara Valley Water District to find and          Consistent. By reducing impervious surfaces and expanding the coverage
  Ground Water                  develop groundwater recharge sites within Cupertino’s              of open space on the site, the project would promote groundwater
  Recharge Sites                planning area and provide for public recreation at the sites       recharge.
                                where possible.
  Policy 5-25:                  Encourage the research of other water sources, including water     Consistent. As part of the project, Apple is seeking to bring a recycled
  Other Water                   reclamation.                                                       water line to the project site, if feasible.
  Sources




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                  178
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                 APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                   IV. PLANNING POLICY




  Table IV-1:                  Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs
  Goal or Policy
  Number                        Goal or Policy Text                                                Project’s Relationship to Goal or Policy
  Policy 5-27:                  Retain and restore creek beds, riparian corridors, watercourses    Generally Consistent. Calabazas Creek would be retained as part of the
  Natural Water                 and associated vegetation in their natural state to protect        project, and buildings would be set back at least 50 feet from the creek,
  Courses                       wildlife habitat and recreation potential and assist groundwater   allowing for existing riparian vegetation in the corridor to develop.
                                percolation. Encourage land acquisition or dedication of such
                                areas.
                                Strategy. Santa Clara Valley Water District. Work with the
                                Santa Clara Valley Water District and other relevant regional
                                agencies to enhance riparian corridors and provide adequate
                                flood control by use of flow increase mitigation measures.
  Policy 5-34:                  Encourage the reduction of impervious surface areas and            Consistent. The project would substantially increase the coverage of
  Storm Water                   investigate opportunities to retain or detain storm runoff on      pervious surfaces on the site, including open space, compared to existing
  Runoff                        new development.                                                   conditions.
  Policy 5-44:                  Encourage the recycling and reuse of building materials,           Consistent. A minimum of 75 percent of construction and demolition
  Reuse of                      including recycling materials generated by the demolition and      waste would be diverted from landfills.
  Building                      remodeling of buildings.
  Materials
Source: City of Cupertino General Plan, 2000; LSA Associates, Inc., 2013.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                   179
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             IV. PLANNING POLICY




This page intentionally left blank.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-Policy.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                         180
                V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES




This chapter contains an analysis of each topic that has been identified through preliminary environ-
mental evaluation of the Apple Campus 2 Project and as such, constitutes the major portion of this
EIR. Sections A through M of this chapter describe the environmental setting of the proposed project
as it relates to each specific environmental topic. The impacts resulting from the project, and mitiga-
tion measures that would reduce significant impacts of the project, are also presented in each section.


A.        DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
Under CEQA, a significant effect is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change
in the environment.1 The CEQA Guidelines direct that this determination be based on scientific and
factual data. Each impact evaluation in this chapter is prefaced by criteria of significance, which are
the thresholds for determining whether an impact is significant. These criteria of significance are
based the CEQA Guidelines and applicable City policies, such as the City of Cupertino General Plan.


B.        ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THE EIR
The following environmental issues are addressed in this chapter:

          A.         Land Use
          B.         Aesthetics
          C.         Population, Employment, and Housing
          D.         Biological Resources
          E.         Cultural Resources
          F.         Geology, Seismicity, and Soils
          G.         Hydrology and Water Quality
          H          Hazards and Hazardous Materials
          I.         Transportation and Circulation
          J.         Noise
          K.         Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sustainability
          L.         Air Quality
          M.         Public Services and Utilities

Preliminary analysis has determined that the project would not result in significant impacts to
agriculture, forestry, and mineral resources. Consequently, these issues are not examined in this
chapter of the EIR but are discussed briefly in Chapter VII, Other CEQA Considerations.




          1
              CEQA Section 21068.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-SettingImpactsMM.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT   181
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                   APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                            V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES




C.        ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This chapter has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, which states:
“An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the
project, as they 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 perspec-
tive. The environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a
Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant. The description of the environmental
setting shall be no longer than is necessary to an understanding of the physical effects of the proposed
project and its alternatives.”

The NOP for the proposed Apple Campus 2 Project was published on August 19, 2011. Thus every
one of the environmental topical sections in this chapter includes a discussion of physical conditions
in the vicinity of the site on or around August 2011. In certain cases (e.g., Section V.I, Transportation
and Circulation), existing conditions data reflect the best available data gathered in the months before
and after publication of the NOP. For instance, existing traffic conditions data were gathered in May
2011. However, no substantial changes in existing conditions occurred in those months preceding
publication of the NOP.

In addition, to more comprehensively evaluate the potential impacts of the project, other topical
sections and chapters of the EIR include an analysis of the effects of the project on baseline scenarios
other than existing conditions. In Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, one of these other
scenarios is the “background” scenario, which encompasses traffic associated with approved but not
yet built or occupied developments. The purpose of this background scenario is to better understand
the impacts of the project in the context of development that is expected to occur in the near-term.


D.        FORMAT OF ISSUE SECTIONS
Each environmental topic considered in this chapter comprises two primary sections: (1) Setting and
(2) Impacts and Mitigation Measures. An overview of the general organization and the information
provided in the two sections is provided below:
                 Setting. The Setting section for each environmental topic generally provides a description
                  of the applicable physical setting for the project site and its surroundings at the beginning
                  of the environmental review process (e.g., existing land uses, existing soil conditions,
                  existing traffic conditions). An overview of regulatory considerations that are applicable to
                  each specific environmental topic is also provided.
                 Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The Impacts and Mitigation Measures section for each
                  environmental topic presents a discussion of the impacts that could result from implementa-
                  tion of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which are
                  the thresholds used to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this
                  section presents the impacts from the proposed project and mitigation measures, as
                  appropriate. The impacts of the proposed project are organized into less-than-significant
                  impacts (which do not require mitigation measures) and significant impacts (which do
                  require mitigation measures).




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-SettingImpactsMM.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                       182
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                   APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                            V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES




Impacts are numbered and shown in bold type, and the corresponding mitigation measures are num-
bered and indented. Impacts and mitigation measures are numbered consecutively within each topical
analysis and begin with an acronymic or abbreviated reference to the impact section (e.g., LU). The
following symbols are used for individual topics:

          LU:                   Land Use
          AES:                  Aesthetics
          POP:                  Population, Employment, and Housing
          BIO:                  Biological Resources
          CUL:                  Cultural Resources
          GEO:                  Geology, Seismicity, and Soils
          HYD:                  Hydrology and Water Quality
          HAZ:                  Hazards and Hazardous Materials
          TRANS:                Transportation and Circulation
          NOISE:                Noise
          GHG:                  Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sustainability
          AQ:                   Air Quality
          PSU:                  Public Services and Utilities

Impacts are also categorized by type of impact, as follows: Less Than Significant, Significant, and
Significant and Unavoidable. The following notations are provided after each identified significant
impact and after identification of mitigation measures:

          LTS:                  Less Than Significant
          S:                    Significant
          SU:                   Significant and Unavoidable




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-SettingImpactsMM.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                       183
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                   APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                            V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES




This page intentionally left blank.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-SettingImpactsMM.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                       184
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                               APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                        V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                  A. LAND USE




A.        LAND USE
This section describes existing land uses within and adjacent to the Apple Campus 2 Project site and
evaluates potential land use impacts that could result from the proposed project. The analysis is based
on a field reconnaissance, evaluation of aerial photographs, conversations with City staff, and a
review of planning policy documents that are applicable to the area.

The consistency of the project with planning-related policies adopted for the purpose of environ-
mental protection is discussed in Chapter IV, Planning Policy. That chapter also summarizes relevant
land use-related plans and policies.

1.        Setting
The following setting information provides an overview of the land uses within the project site and
surrounding areas. The section begins with a discussion of the regional and local land use setting, and
then provides more specific information about the project site and its vicinity. Land uses around the
project site are shown in the aerial photograph provided in Figure III-2 in Chapter III, Project
Description.

a.    Regional Setting. The project site is located in the northeast portion of the City of Cupertino,
as shown in Figure III-1. Cupertino is located in an area known as the Silicon Valley, which has a
high density of technology-related firms, and is loosely considered to include the Santa Clara Valley
and the southern ends of the San Francisco Peninsula and East Bay. The City is located approximately
36 miles southeast of downtown San Francisco and 8 miles southwest of downtown San Jose.
Cupertino is located in Santa Clara County and is bordered by the City of Sunnyvale and a small
portion of the City of Los Altos to the north, the cities of Santa Clara and San Jose to the east, the
City of Saratoga to the south, and unincorporated Santa Clara County to the west. Major transporta-
tion corridors in the area include Interstate 280 (I-280) and State Route 85 (SR 85).

b.     Local Setting. Cupertino is a suburban community characterized by predominantly single-
family residential subdivisions with distinct commercial and employment centers. The land use
patterns within the City are influenced by the area’s agricultural origins (orchards were widespread in
Cupertino through World War II and up through the 1960s), the hilly terrain on the City’s western
margins, and the major roadways that extend through and around the City. In general, land use
patterns are more urban in character as one travels northeast through the City, with predominantly
larger-lot residential uses in the City’s western foothills transitioning to smaller-lot residential uses
interspersed with small commercial and industrial centers, schools, and other non-residential uses.
East of SR 85, the land use pattern is even more urbanized, with hotels and major commercial uses
along major highways, and large corporate campus facilities, including those within the project site.
These corporate campuses are characterized by individual low-rise buildings surrounded by landscap-
ing and surface parking lots.

The Land Use/Community Design Element of the City’s General Plan suggests that the City’s
suburban land use pattern “forces most residents and workers to rely on their automobiles for their
daily activities” and that “Cupertino has responded by creating an automobile-based land use and
transportation system.”1 The City is seeking to modify this land use pattern to provide additional

          1
              Cupertino, City of, 2005. City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020. November.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5a-LandUse.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           185
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                               APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                        V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                  A. LAND USE




transportation choices by integrating land uses and building higher-density, transit-oriented urban
centers in certain locations.

The project site is located in the North Vallco area of the Vallco Industrial Park. The Vallco Industrial
Park is a major commercial and employment center in the City. Land uses in the industrial park south
of I-280 are primarily retail, with office and residential land use designations; north of I-280, land
uses are primarily office and research and development. The North Vallco area, which contains the
project site, is an approximately 240-acre district bordered by East Homestead Road on the north;
North Tantau Avenue on the east; I-280 on the south; and the primarily single-family residential
neighborhood to the west of North Wolfe Road, which also contains retail, hotel, and apartment uses.

c.     Land Uses on the Project Site. The approximately 176-acre project site consists of corporate
campus buildings currently used by Apple and formerly by Hewlett-Packard, additional office
buildings located east of Tantau Avenue, and a segment of Pruneridge Avenue that crosses the site
along an approximately east/west transect. Key project site land uses are discussed by area in more
detail below.
                 Ridgeview Court. Ridgeview Court, which is considered part of Apple’s Ridgeview
                  Campus, comprises 56.1 acres and is bordered by Pruneridge Avenue on the north, North
                  Tantau Avenue on the east, I-280 on the south, and The Hamptons apartment community
                  on the west. Ridgeview Court contains nine buildings comprising approximately 1 million
                  square feet of office space. These buildings are spaced throughout the site; each is
                  surrounded by surface parking lots. In general, landscaped areas are small in size and are
                  clustered around buildings.
                 Pruneridge Campus. Pruneridge Campus, which is also known as the Hewlett-Packard
                  Campus, comprises 98.2 acres and is bordered by East Homestead Road on the north,
                  North Tantau Avenue on the east, Pruneridge Avenue on the south, and North Wolfe Road
                  on the west. This portion of the project site contains nine buildings comprising approxi-
                  mately 1.3 million square feet of office space. Buildings are generally clustered in the
                  center of the Pruneridge Campus area along an east/west transect, resulting in bands of
                  surface parking on the north and south sides of this area. Landscaping is located adjacent to
                  these buildings and within internal courtyards. The Glendenning Barn, which is a City of
                  Cupertino-designated historic site, is also located within the Pruneridge Campus, just north
                  of Pruneridge Avenue. A grassy area, patio, and parking lot are located adjacent to the
                  barn.
                 Tantau Avenue Buildings. The project site also includes six office buildings located east of
                  North Tantau Avenue on a 17.2-acre site. This portion of the site is bisected by Pruneridge
                  Avenue and is bordered by office buildings to the north, single-family residential uses and
                  Jenny Strand Park to the east, I-280 to the south, and North Tantau Avenue to the west. The
                  east of North Tantau Avenue buildings comprise approximately 260,000 square feet of
                  office space and are currently occupied by Apple employees.
                 Pruneridge Avenue. A segment of Pruneridge Avenue, a public right-of-way comprising
                  approximately 4.6 acres, extends through the project site on an east/west alignment. The
                  street currently provides motor vehicle (including public transit), bike, and pedestrian
                  access along an east/west alignment. This segment of roadway currently connects North
                  Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5a-LandUse.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           186
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                               APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                        V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                  A. LAND USE




Several accessory buildings are also located throughout the project site. The existing buildings within
the project site comprise approximately 2,657,000 square feet of office and research and development
space. Calabazas Creek extends through the southeast corner of the project site. Within the project
site, the creek (which has been designed to provide flood control) is fenced and contains planted
riparian vegetation.

d.     Land Uses in the Vicinity of the Project Site. The uses that surround the project site are
summarized below. Refer to Figure III-2 (in Chapter III, Project Description) for an aerial photograph
of the project site and its immediate surroundings.
                 North: Beyond East Homestead Road to the north of the site is the Birdland Neighbors
                  neighborhood in the City of Sunnyvale, which comprises primarily single-family
                  residential land uses.
                 East. Office and research and development facilities are located adjacent to the northeast
                  portion of the site, across North Tantau Avenue (within the City of Cupertino). Predomi-
                  nantly single-family residential uses are located east of the office and research and develop-
                  ment uses located immediately north and south of the intersection of North Tantau Avenue
                  and Pruneridge Avenue (in the City of Santa Clara). Jenny Strand Park, a City of Santa
                  Clara park, is also located east of the site. Further to the east, also in the City of Santa
                  Clara, is the Kaiser Permanente Santa Clara Medical Center, a major regional health care
                  facility.
                 South. The Hamptons (a multi-family residential use) borders the site on the southwest. I-
                  280 is a major land use feature south of the site. Beyond I-280 is the Vallco Shopping Mall
                  and adjacent retail, office, and research and development uses.
                 West. A commercial district extends along the North Wolfe Road corridor east of the
                  project site and consists primarily of retail uses, including restaurants and a grocery store.
                  Hotels and apartments are also located in this area. This commercial area is also known as
                  Cupertino Village. Beyond this commercial district is a predominantly single-family
                  residential neighborhood (the southern portion of which is in the City of Cupertino and the
                  northern portion of which is in the City of Sunnyvale).

2.        Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to land use that could result from
implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which
establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section
presents the land use impacts that would result from the proposed project. Impacts are organized into
separate categories based on their significance according to the criteria listed below: less-than-signifi-
cant impacts, which do not require mitigation, and significant impacts, which do require mitigation.

a.        Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact if it would:
                 Physically divide an established community;
                 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdic-
                  tion over the project (including, but not limited to the General Plan, Specific Plan, local
                  coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
                  environmental effect; or


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5a-LandUse.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           187
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                               APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                        V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                  A. LAND USE




                 Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
                  plan.

b.    Less-Than-Significant Impacts. The following discussion describes the less-than-significant
land use impacts associated with implementation the proposed project.

       (1) Divide an Established Community. The physical division of an established community
typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as a wall, interstate highway, or railroad
tracks) or the removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility
within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For example, the con-
struction of an interstate highway through an existing community could constrain travel from one side
of the community to another. Similarly, such construction could also impair travel to areas outside of
the community.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in the demolition and removal of the existing
buildings within the project site, which comprise approximately 2,657,000 square feet of office and
research and development space. These existing buildings would be replaced with a new consolidated
campus that would ultimately contain 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 (such as security receptions and
landscape maintenance buildings). Other physical aspects of the project include the development of
10,980 parking spaces (as compared to the current total of 9,220 parking spaces), and a total of
approximately 102 acres of private open space on the site. Ridgeview Court and the Pruneridge
Campus, which are both corporate facilities, are divided by Pruneridge Avenue. The project would
result in the vacation of approximately 4.6 acres of Pruneridge Avenue, so the two sites can be joined
in one unified campus. Existing traffic that would otherwise use Pruneridge Avenue would be routed
to East Homestead Road, Vallco Parkway, and Stevens Creek Boulevard, while access to The
Hamptons via North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue would be maintained.

Besides the vacation of a portion of Pruneridge Avenue, the project would also result in the following
changes to the transportation network within and in the vicinity of the project site (please refer to
Chapter III, Project Description, for additional detail):
                 The segment of Pruneridge Avenue providing access to The Hamptons would be reduced to
                  two lanes. This Pruneridge Avenue segment would function as the main public access to
                  The Hamptons. An emergency access route would extend from North Tantau Avenue to
                  The Hamptons along the southern boundary of the project site.
                 New vehicle lanes would be added to North Wolfe Road (including replacement bike
                  facilities) by acquiring land from The Hamptons to the south of Pruneridge Avenue and by
                  dedicating land from the project site to the north of Pruneridge Avenue.
                 North Tantau Avenue would be widened between I-280 and Calabazas Creek, and the
                  travel lanes on the existing bridges over Calabazas Creek and I-280 would be reconfigured.
                 Existing driveways/access points within the site would be consolidated, and three new main
                  vehicle entry points within the site would be established (not including transit or emer-
                  gency access points, or access to Phase 2 facilities) along with several pedestrian access
                  points.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5a-LandUse.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           188
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                               APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                        V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                  A. LAND USE




                 The pedestrian and bike environment on the streets surrounding the project site would be
                  enhanced in order to supplement existing bike and pedestrian facilities. These changes
                  would include: providing additional landscaping and separated bike lanes and sidewalks;
                  restriping and providing colored bike lanes; the use of specialty paving, signage, and other
                  way-finding features; the provision of an off-street bike trail near the main project entrance;
                  and reducing curb cuts and driveways.

In addition, mitigation measures identified in Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, would
change the transportation network around the project site. Please refer to that section for additional
detail about these mitigation measures.

The vacation of a portion of Pruneridge Avenue, the establishment of a new emergency access route
to The Hamptons, the closure of existing driveways along the perimeter of the site, and the widening
of segments of North Wolfe Road and North Tantau Avenue, and improvements to existing bike and
pedestrian facilities along the streets surrounding the project site would change travel patterns in the
community.

Pruneridge Avenue currently functions as a motor vehicle, transit, bike, and pedestrian route between
North Tantau Avenue and North Wolfe Road (both of which contain bike facilities). Although it is
used by modest volumes of bicyclists and pedestrians (some of which are current employees on the
project site), it functions as the western segment of a longer-distance bike route that starts in the City
of Santa Clara and allows cyclists to bypass busier, higher-volume roadways. The removal of the
segment of Pruneridge Avenue within the project site would require cyclists and pedestrians
(traveling from the vicinity of North Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue to points west of the
project site) to either proceed along North Tantau Avenue, East Homestead Road, and North Wolfe
Road, the latter two of which are higher-volume, multi-lane roadways, or proceed on North Tantau
Avenue to the south, connecting to Vallco Parkway and North Wolfe Road. For a bicyclist or
pedestrian wishing to reach the intersection of North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue from points
to the east of the project site, this detour would increase travel distance by approximately 0.6 mile
over current conditions. (Drivers would also be re-routed, but the detour and increase in travel time
would not be as significant for drivers in a motor vehicle.)

The removal of Pruneridge Avenue would affect bicyclists and pedestrians differently, depending on
the ultimate destination. For instance, bicyclists and pedestrians traveling to Vallco Mall from the
vicinity of North Tantau Avenue and Pruneridge Avenue may experience no increase in travel time or
distance due to the removal of Pruneridge Avenue (and certain segments of the new route could be
more comfortable or safer). However, persons traveling by bicycle or foot from The Hamptons to the
Pruneridge Avenue bike lane east of North Tantau Avenue (in order to access the two parks in the
vicinity – Westwood Oaks Park and Jenny Strand Park) would experience longer travel times and
routes that are more difficult to navigate without a motor vehicle. On certain routes along North
Tantau Avenue, Vallco Parkway, and North Wolfe Road, the bike and pedestrian improvements that
would be built as part of the project would improve the travel experience on those roads for cyclists
and pedestrians compared to existing conditions. In addition, the closure of a segment of Pruneridge
Avenue would allow for the development of a secure campus and the establishment of an extensive
internal bike and pedestrian network (and open space) within the site for Apple employees.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5a-LandUse.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           189
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                               APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                        V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                  A. LAND USE




While the closure of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue would reinforce the existing superblock land
use pattern in the North Vallco area, existing roads in the vicinity of the site (the conditions of which
would be improved as part of the project for pedestrian and bike travel) would allow for adequate
travel around the project site. Therefore, the removal of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue as part of
the project would not create a significant barrier to travel such that an established community would
be divided. Access between the neighborhoods to the east and west of the project site would be
constrained in certain cases, but a barrier would not be created. However, as discussed in Chapter IV,
Planning Policy, and Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation, the removal of a segment of
Pruneridge Avenue would be considered a significant environmental effect for reasons of failure to
fully implement certain applicable policies related to mobility, inconsistency with some of the City’s
transportation objectives, and the loss of existing bike and pedestrian facilities. Although the closure
of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue would reduce bike and pedestrian mobility in the area, as
described in Chapter IV, Planning Policy, and other sections, in more detail, this closure would not
divide an established community.

In addition, the widening of North Wolfe Road would require a land exchange with the owner of The
Hamptons. Under the exchange agreement, the owner of The Hamptons would convey to the City
approximately 11,500 square feet of land adjacent to the North Wolfe Road frontage in exchange for
a similar amount of land that Apple owns adjacent to The Hamptons in Ridgeview Court, and/or other
compensation. This land exchange would not substantially alter circulation patterns or access in the
vicinity of The Hamptons (although it would increase the capacity of North Wolfe Road) and would
not divide an established community.

      (2) Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan. The project site
(and the entirety of the City of Cupertino) is located outside the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley
Habitat Plan. The only cities within the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan area are the cities of San
Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy. The project site is not located within any other habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan and would not conflict with any such plan.

Although the project site is not within the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, in
response to the environmental concerns raised by the Habitat Plan, Apple has voluntarily agreed to
pay a Nitrogen Deposition Fee, which is expected to be used to protect and enhance sensitive habitat
throughout the region that is subject to degradation due to nitrogen deposition (related primarily to
vehicle emissions). The fee, based on the assumption that the project would generate 35,106 net new
daily trips, would amount to $126,381.60. This amount would be paid to the Implementing Entity of
the Habitat Conservation Plan, which is expected to be a Joint Powers Authority made up of the cities
of San Jose, Gilroy and Morgan Hill; Santa Clara Valley Water District; Valley Transportation
Authority; and Santa Clara County. Apple would pay the Nitrogen Deposition Fee upon issuance of
the grading permit for the project, unless the Joint Powers Authority has not yet been formed. In that
case, Apple would pay the fee upon formation of the Joint Powers Authority.

c.    Significant Impacts. The following discussion describes the significant land use impacts
associated with implementation of the proposed project.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5a-LandUse.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           190
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                               APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                        V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                  A. LAND USE




      Conflict With Applicable Land Use Policies. As discussed in Chapter IV, the proposed
project would not be fully consistent with several General Plan land use policies adopted for
environmental protection. Conflicts with policies in the General Plan would result in significant
environmental impacts.

Impact LU-1: The proposed project would not be fully consistent with applicable land use plans
and policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (S)

As discussed in Chapter IV, the proposed project would not be fully consistent with policies in the
General Plan related to the development of parks and open space, the provision of trails, the provision
of bike and pedestrian access, and the protection of a historic resource (if not appropriately relocated
and preserved). These policies were adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects, including
traffic congestion, air pollution, the absence of sufficient open space, and the destruction of historic
resources. The conflicts that would result from the project would be primarily associated with the
closure of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue within the project site, the lack of provision of a future
segment of the Calabazas Creek trail identified in the General Plan, the change in designation of an
approximately 1.1-acre portion of the site designated Parks and Open Space to Industrial/Residential,
and the relocation of Glendenning Barn.

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts related to loss of the Parks
and Open Space designation within the site and relocation of Glendenning Barn to a less-than-
significant level. However, impacts related to the closure of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue within
the project site and the lack of provision of a segment of the Calabazas Creek trail (as identified in the
General Plan) would remain significant and unavoidable, primarily because no feasible mitigation has
been identified to replace both the segment of Pruneridge Avenue that is proposed for closure and
development of the segment of the potential future Calabazas Creek trail that would be precluded by
implementation of the project.

Apple has raised concerns that the fundamental objective of a secure campus would be compromised
with the provision of public access through the project site, or a public trail through or adjacent to the
project site. A creek-side trail for instance, depending on its design and associated landscaping, may
not be completely visible from the street, heightening the possibility of unauthorized access into the
project site. Even with security and design measures such as fencing, a trail would pose security
concerns, according to Apple, because Apple has been the target of intense scrutiny regarding its
future products. Public access through the site would thus conflict with the key project objective of
fostering innovation and collaboration among Apple employees, according to Apple.

          Mitigation Measure LU-1: Implement Mitigation Measures PLAN-1, PLAN-2, PLAN-3, and
          CULT-1. (SU)

d.     Cumulative Impacts. CEQA defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects,
which, when considered together, are considerable, or which can compound or increase other envi-
ronmental impacts.” Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential
environmental impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively significant. These impacts can
result from the proposed project alone, or together with other projects. Section 15355 of the CEQA
Guidelines states: “The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment
which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past,



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5a-LandUse.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           191
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                               APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                        V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                  A. LAND USE




present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.” Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

When evaluating cumulative impacts, CEQA allows the use of either a list of past, present, and prob-
able future projects, including projects outside the control of the lead agency, or a summary of projec-
tions in an adopted planning document. This cumulative analysis (and the cumulative analyses in
other topical sections in this chapter) uses primarily the first approach: a list of past, present, and
probable future projects. This list is included in Appendix F and includes a mix of infill projects in the
City, including residential, commercial, and institutional projects ranging from new hotels to senior
residential developments. None of these projects is as large (in terms of the size of the project site or
the volume of new interior square footage) as the proposed Apple Campus 2 Project. In addition,
anticipated projects would generally result in fine-grained land use changes in the City, such as an
increase in land use intensities along major transportation corridors. Therefore, in general, these
smaller-scale projects would not result in significant land use impacts, but would instead incremen-
tally increase land use intensities in the City in appropriate locations. No substantial changes to
roadway configuration would result from these projects.

As discussed above, the proposed project would not be fully consistent with policies adopted for the
purpose of environmental protection, and – primarily due to the lack of a feasible measure to mitigate
impacts associated with the removal of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue and lack of provision of a
trail as shown in the General Plan – this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.

Although this impact would be significant in and of itself, it would not make a significant contribution
to cumulative land use impacts because the project-related impacts would be specific to the location of
the project site and the type of resources on the project site. For instance, although the removal of a
segment of Pruneridge Avenue within the site, and the loss of a potential future trail segment along
Calabazas Creek would impede mobility in the vicinity of the site, the effects would be cumulatively
limited because access would remain approximately the same or be potentially enhanced in other
neighborhoods of the City due to the continued implementation of mobility policies in the General
Plan and other planning documents. Similarly, the project would reduce the local availability of
parkland, and would result in the relocation of Glendenning Barn (a historic resource identified in the
General Plan), although the barn may be relocated to a location allowing for enhanced public access
and/or restored in an appropriate setting. These impacts would be place-specific and similar impacts
are not expected to occur with development of other probable projects in the City. The City’s existing
historic resource protection and park development policies (refer to Chapter IV, Planning Policy)
would ensure that area development would not result in a significant cumulative impact to historic
resources or parks. In addition, the proposed project would not make a significant contribution to such
impacts.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5a-LandUse.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           192
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                   B. AESTHETICS




B.         AESTHETICS
This section evaluates the effects of the proposed project on the aesthetics of the project site and its
surroundings. This analysis also considers the consistency of the proposed project with applicable
visual resources-related policies. Photographs are included to illustrate the site’s visual qualities.
Visual simulations that show “before” and “after” representations of views around the site have been
prepared for six representative viewpoints. The visual simulations and analysis in this section are
based on the project plans and diagrams prepared by Apple in November 2012 and April 2013.

1.         Setting
The following section describes the visual character of the project site and its surroundings, as well as
views in the vicinity of the site. Views of the project site are provided in Figures V.B-2 through V.B-
9. These photographs correspond to the viewpoint locations (1 through 8) identified on Figure V.B-1.
For a detailed description of the physical characteristics of the project site, refer to Section V.A, Land
Use.

a.     Existing Visual Character of the Project Site. The approximately 176-acre project site is
generally flat1 and consists of 26 buildings ranging in height from one to four stories, surface parking
lots, and associated landscaping. Pruneridge Avenue divides the northern and southern portions of the
site (Pruneridge Campus and Ridgeview Court, respectively). Buildings on the site were developed
starting in the late-1960s (with most development being completed by the early 1980s) and feature
architecture that is characteristic of suburban office parks and corporate campuses of the era. Build-
ings are characterized by box-shaped masses with minimal architectural detail, large windows, and
flat rooflines. Fencing, where it exists, is generally visually unobtrusive and is integrated with
landscaping.

The visual quality of the site is influenced by expansive surface parking lots; dense landscaping
around buildings, parking lots, interior roadways, and the perimeter of the site; and substantial
setbacks between buildings and streets (averaging 150 to 200 feet throughout the site). Landscaped
berms are located along the north, east, and west boundaries of the site. However, there are distinc-
tions between the visual character of the northern (Pruneridge Campus) and southern (Ridgeview
Court) portions of the site, as described below.

       (1) Pruneridge Campus. The Pruneridge Campus in the portion of the site north of Prune-
ridge Avenue has design features that are more characteristic of larger-scale corporate campuses. The
design of this portion of the site is characterized by a cluster of buildings within the central portion of
the site. Because individual buildings are not as widely spaced as in the southern portion of the site,
the Pruneridge Campus contains interior courtyards, tree-lined walkways, and small pocket parks,
conveying a park-like visual quality to the built environment. The large surface parking lots to the
north and south of the collection of buildings in the Pruneridge Campus are distinct from the cluster
of buildings.

Glendenning Barn, which is visible from Pruneridge Avenue (although obscured by multiple rows of
trees), is a notable feature within the interior of the site and is located along the southern margin of

           1
          There is an approximately 20-foot decrease in elevation from the intersection of Pruneridge Avenue and North
Wolfe Road to the intersection of East Homestead Road and North Tantau Avenue, but the gradual loss of elevation over the
project site is not highly visible.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5b-Aesthetics.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           193
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                   B. AESTHETICS




the Pruneridge Campus, north of Pruneridge Avenue. The Barn, which contains one story and a loft,
features a rectangular plan that is capped by a front-gable roof with overhanging eaves and wood
shingles. The structure is clad with brown-painted vertical wood board and batten siding, and contains
board and batten hatches (windows) on the east and west facades. The building contains sliding doors
and pedestrian entrances. A grassy area, patio, and parking lot are located adjacent to the barn.
According to the Historic Resource Evaluation of the Barn prepared by Page & Turnbull, the
“Glendenning Barn features an English barn design, which was typical at the turn of the twentieth
century. English barns feature a tripartite plan, with central doors that open onto a threshing floor
flanked by two mows (hay storage areas) or stock aisles parallel to the gable ends. English barns
typically contained post and beam construction and were clad with weatherboard or board and batten
siding.”2 However, because the Glendenning Barn is set back approximately 300 feet north of
Pruneridge Avenue and is mostly obscured by multiple rows of mature trees, most of the character-
defining features described in this paragraph are not visible from Pruneridge Avenue.

       (2) Ridgeview Court. Unlike the Pruneridge Campus, where the buildings are clustered in
the interior of the site, Ridgeview Court, which is south of Pruneridge Avenue, is characterized by
more of an office park design aesthetic, in that structures are widely spaced across the site and
surrounded by expansive surface parking lots. No fencing extends along the street fronts of Ridge-
view Court and Pruneridge Avenue, allowing for a close visual relationship between the campus and
adjacent roads. Landscaping is generally located along the exteriors of buildings, around parking lots,
and along the periphery of the site and roadways. A landscaped berm along the street fronts physi-
cally and visually separates the campus from the adjacent roads. Fewer courtyards or pocket parks are
located in this area compared to the Pruneridge Campus. Ridgeview Court thus has a less unified
visual appearance than the Pruneridge Campus and has fewer private open spaces of usable size.

The portion of the project site located east of North Tantau Avenue, while distinct from the Pruneridge
Campus and Ridgeview Court, exhibits design characteristics that are similar to Ridgeview Court
(including a lack of fencing adjacent to North Tantau Avenue). Buildings are generally one to three
stories in height and are individually spaced within surface parking lots. These parking lots are land-
scaped, as is the eastern boundary of the area, adjacent to the predominantly single-family residential
neighborhoods to the east.

Calabazas Creek, which extends through the southeastern corner of the project site, is a notable visual
feature of Ridgeview Court. As the site’s only natural water feature, the creek is distinct from the rest
of the suburban-style corporate campus in visual appearance. However, the visual quality of the creek
is diminished due to adjacent chain-link fencing, and vegetation and a creek channel that have been
much altered from their natural state. As part of the Calabazas Creek Capacity Improvement Project,
which was completed in 2007,3 the creek banks within the project site were reconstructed with brick-
filled gabions (wirework containers) to accommodate flood flows and allow vegetation growth.




           2
               Page & Turnbull, Inc., 2011. Draft Historic Resource Evaluation, Glendenning Barn. July 15.
           3
       Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2011. Calabazas Creek Capacity Improvement Project. Website:
www.valleywater.org/CalabazasCreekCapacityImprovement.aspx (accessed December 9).


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5b-Aesthetics.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           194
                                                                                       Lorne Way

                                                                                                          6
                       5                                                                                                                     4
                                                            Homestead Rd




                                                                                                                                                 Forge Dr




                      1
                           N Wolfe Rd




                                                                  Pr
                                                                     un
                                                                       er
                                                                         id
                                                                            g   eA
                                                                                  ve                                                                     3



                                                                                                                                                                               k
                                                                                                                                                                        s Cree
                                                                                                                                                                  labasa
                                                                                                                                                                Ca
                                                                                  8
                                                                                                                                                                       nini Dr
                                                                                                                                                                     an
                                                                                                                             N Tantau Ave                       Gi
                                        8
                                                                                                                ek
                                                                                                              re
                                                                                                          as C




                                                                                                                                                    Howard Dr
                                                                                                   Calabas




                                                                                                                     2

                                                                                                                         7

                                                        Va l l c o P k w
                                                                         y

                                                                                                                                                         FIGURE V.B-1

                                                4         Photo Viewpoint

                                                          Apple Campus 2 Project Site
0         300        600
feet                                                                                                                                        Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCES: GOOGLE EARTH, 2011; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2012.                                                                                     Photo Viewpoint Map
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_VB1.ai (6/3/13)
                              Existing view of the project site




                              Visual simulation of the proposed project with lines




                              Visual simulation of the proposed project

                                                                                                    F IG U R E V. B -2
                                                       Main Building

                                                       Top of Grade
                                                                                            Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
                                                                                     Visual Simulations, View point 1
SOURCE: APPLE, MAY 2013.                                                                       Wolfe Road Entrance
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Figs_VB2-VB9.indd (5/21/13)
                         Existing view of the project site




                         Visual simulation of the proposed project with lines




                         Visual simulation of the proposed project

                                                                                                                        F IG U R E V. B -3
                                                   Parking Building, Phase 2 Building, Central Plant
                                                                                                                Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
                                                   Top of Grade
                                                                                                       Visual Simulations, View point 2
SOURCE: APPLE, MAY 2013.                                                                                               I-280 Westbound
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Figs_VB2-VB9.indd (5/21/13)
                             Existing view of the project site




                             Visual simulation of the proposed project with lines




                             Visual simulation of the proposed project

                                                                                                     F IG U R E V. B - 4
                                                        Main Building

                                                        Top of Grade
                                                                                             Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
                                                                                    Visual Simulations, View point 3
SOURCE: APPLE, MAY 2013.                                                                    East Pruneridge Avenue
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Figs_VB2-VB9.indd (5/21/13)
                              Existing view of the project site




                              Visual simulation of the proposed project with lines




                              Visual simulation of the proposed project

                                                                                                                F IG U R E V. B -5
                                                  Main Building

                                                  Top of Grade
                                                                                                       Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
                                                                                              Visual Simulations, View point 4
SOURCE: APPLE, MAY 2013.                                                        East Homestead Road and North Tantau Avenue
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Figs_VB2-VB9.indd (5/21/13)
                            Existing view of the project site




                            Visual simulation of the proposed project with lines




                            Visual simulation of the proposed project

                                                                                                               F IG U R E V. B - 6
                                                 Main Building

                                                 Corporate Fitness Center                              Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
                                                 Top of Grade
                                                                                              Visual Simulations, View point 5
SOURCE: APPLE, MAY 2013.                                                           East Homestead Road and North Wolfe Road
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Figs_VB2-VB9.indd (5/21/13)
                             Existing view of the project site




                             Visual simulation of the proposed project with lines




                              Visual simulation of the proposed project

                                                                                                     F IG U R E V. B -7
                                                   Main Building
                                                                                             Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
                                                   Top of Grade
                                                                                    Visual Simulations, View point 6
SOURCE: APPLE, MAY 2013.                                                                             Peacock Avenue
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Figs_VB2-VB9.indd (5/21/13)
                               Existing view of the project site




                               Visual simulation of the proposed project with lines




                               Visual simulation of the proposed project
                                                                                                             F IG U R E V. B - 8
                                                       Main Building

                                                       Parking Building and Central Plant            Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
                                                       Top of Grade                         Visual Simulations, View point 7
SOURCE: APPLE, MAY 2013.                                                                            Tantau Avenue Overpass
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Figs_VB2-VB9.indd (5/21/13)
                         Existing view of the project site




                         Visual simulation of the proposed project with lines




                         Visual simulation of the proposed project

                                                                                                                          F IG U R E V. B -9
                                                 Parking Building, Phase 2 Building, and Central Plant

                                                 Top of Grade
                                                                                                                  Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
                                                                                                         Visual Simulations, View point 8
SOURCE: APPLE, MAY 2013.                                                                                                 I-280 Eastbound
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Figs_VB2-VB9.indd (5/21/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                   B. AESTHETICS




This page intentionally left blank.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5b-Aesthetics.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           204
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                   B. AESTHETICS




b.      View From the Project Site. Views from the project site to adjacent neighborhoods are
generally limited due to existing development (both on- and off-site) and the large number of trees on
the site, particularly along the site perimeter. Slight topographical changes, including berms along
portions of the site perimeter, also obstruct views out of the site. In addition, I-280 functions as a
visual barrier to the south of the site. Even though the site contains numerous features that block or
partially obstruct outside views, views to the north, east, and west are available in portions of the
project site occupied by surface parking lots. Where larger, open areas exist within the project site,
limited views are available of the Santa Cruz Mountains, to the west and south of Cupertino. Such
mountain views are also available from East Homestead Road, North Tantau Avenue, I-280, and
North Wolfe Road, adjacent to the project site. In general, Pruneridge Avenue contains limited long-
range views because of the roadway’s curvilinear design and adjacent vegetation (including mature
trees).

c.    Views of the Project Site. Although the project site comprises a distinctive land use in the
North Vallco area of the City (in that it is surrounded by primarily single-family residential neighbor-
hoods to the north, east, and west), its lack of landmarks or tall buildings and its heavily-landscaped
perimeter diminish the visual perception of the site as a distinct place in the City. The mature trees
along the perimeter of the site and the topographical variation along the site edge work to reduce
views into the interior of the site. Following is a description of views into the site from key public
viewpoints in the vicinity of the site. Figure V.B-1 shows the location of these existing views. Figures
V.B-2 through Figure V.B-9 illustrates these existing views (along with visual simulations of the
proposed project).

       (1) Views from North Wolfe Road (Viewpoint 1; Figure V.B-2). Views from North Wolfe
Road (north of the North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue intersection, at the proposed main entry
to the project) are characterized by a small open landscaped berm area, which contains ornamental
trees, shrubs, and a sign in the center, surrounded by larger trees. Beyond the larger trees, views into
the site are generally limited with glimpses of fencing and a parking lot to the south.

      (2) Views from I-280 Westbound (Viewpoint 2; Figure V.B-3). Views westbound along I-
280 southeast of the project site are characterized by vehicles traveling on both the eastbound and
westbound freeway travel lanes, freeway dividers, and dense tree plantings to the north (along the
southern perimeter of the site). The segment of I-280 south of the project site is not an officially
designated State Scenic Highway, but is considered to be part of an eligible State Scenic Highway.
This eligible State Scenic Highway extends from the Santa Clara County line on the west to I-880 on
the east. 4

       (3) Views from East Pruneridge Avenue (Viewpoint 3; Figure V.B-4). Views from this
location are characterized by dense tree plantings along the north and south sides of Pruneridge
Avenue. Because Pruneridge Avenue is curvilinear, views into the site along the roadway are
generally limited to a few hundred feet. Beyond the trees and landscaped berm, glimpses of office
buildings and surface parking lots are available. A limited view of the Santa Cruz Mountains is also
apparent in the background.



           4
       California Department of Transportation, 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Website:
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5b-Aesthetics.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           205
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                   B. AESTHETICS




      (4) Views from East Homestead Road and North Tantau Avenue (Viewpoint 4; Figure
V.B-5). Views from the intersection of North Tantau Avenue and East Homestead Road are similar to
views of the site along East Homestead Road. These views are characterized by dense tree plantings
adjacent to the roadway and a landscaped berm. The surface parking lot is only partially visible
through the trees, which include evergreen conifers (almost completely blocking interior views).
Views into the site are similarly limited further south on North Tantau Avenue, except where
driveways provide western-facing views into the site.

       (5) Views from East Homestead Road and North Wolfe Road (Viewpoint 5; Figure V.B-6).
Views from the intersection of East Homestead Road and North Wolfe Road are typical of near-
perimeter views into the site. These views are characterized by dense tree plantings, including
evergreen conifers along the perimeter and landscaped berms. Tree plantings partially obstruct the
buildings in the Pruneridge Campus. A small pocket park/landscaped area within the northwest corner
of the project site adds to the park-like visual quality of this view.

       (6) Views from Peacock Avenue (Viewpoint 6; Figure V.B-7). From the intersection of
East Homestead Road and Peacock Avenue (in the City of Sunnyvale), the northeastern-most
building in the project site (located at 10955 North Tantau Avenue) is visible in the background. In
the foreground, the heavily-landscaped buffer south of East Homestead Road is visible, including
mature trees on the planting strip. These trees, and others planted around the parking lot in the
northern portion of the site, indicate the site is a heavily-landscaped corporate campus.

      (7) Views from the Tantau Avenue Overpass of I-280 (Viewpoint 7; Figure V.B-8).
Views into the site from the I-280 overpass are obstructed by dense tree planting along the southern
perimeter of the project site. Surface parking lots and lower-rise buildings that are spaced throughout
the southern portion of the site are barely visible from the viewpoint. Calabazas Creek is not a distinct
visual element from this vantage point, namely because vegetation located within the creek area
blends with the dense tree plantings along the southern perimeter of the site.

       (8) Views from I-280 Eastbound (Viewpoint 8; Figure V.B-9). Views from the eastbound
direction of I-280 are similar to the views from the westbound direction, which are characterized by
vehicles traveling on both the east and westbound freeway travel lanes, freeway dividers, and dense
tree plantings along the southern perimeter of the project site. As previously described, the segment of
I-280 south of the project site is not an officially designated State Scenic Highway, but is considered
to be an eligible State Scenic Highway.

d.    Regulatory Framework. The Land Use/Community Design Element of the City of Cupertino
General Plan and the North Vallco Master Plan (which was never formally adopted by the City
Council), are the planning documents that are most applicable to aesthetics issues associated with the
proposed project and are discussed below. Please refer to Chapter IV, Planning Policy, for a discus-
sion of the land use planning policies of these documents.

       (1) City of Cupertino General Plan. The Land Use/Community Design Element of the
General Plan is intended to shape the aesthetic character of the City by promoting the development of
a “cohesive community with an identifiable center with well-defined edges.” Because the project site
is located adjacent to the City’s jurisdictional boundaries with the cities of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale,
policies related to gateways are particularly applicable to the proposed project. The General Plan
includes policies intended to create gateways into the City that are distinct, and incorporate formal


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5b-Aesthetics.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           206
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                   B. AESTHETICS




elements (where appropriate), such as buildings, arches, special lighting, and public art. The General
Plan also requires buildings to be designed with sensitivity to surrounding neighborhoods (while
emphasizing urban character, where appropriate), and for parking lots to be hidden from view.
Applicable aesthetics policies in the General Plan, and the consistency of the proposed project with
these policies, are summarized in Table IV.1.

        (2) North Vallco Master Plan. The North Vallco Master Plan has not been formally adopted
by the City Council and thus the proposed project is not bound by its objectives and policies. The
North Vallco Master Plan is discussed here for informational purposes only. One of the key objec-
tives of the North Vallco Master Plan is to enhance the urban design of the North Vallco area such
that it is more cohesive and recognizable. Similar to the General Plan, the Master Plan seeks to
develop distinctive gateways around the edges of the Master Plan area while preserving the mature
trees that are located along the major roads in the area. Sustainable landscaping and public art are also
promoted as means to enhance the aesthetic character of the area. Applicable aesthetics policies from
the Master Plan, and the general consistency of the proposed project with these policies, are summa-
rized in Table V.B-1 for informational purposes.

2.         Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section includes an analysis of impacts related to visual quality that could result from the
proposed project. The subsection begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresh-
olds for determining whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the
impacts associated with the proposed project.

a.         Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact if it would:
                 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
                 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
                  outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway;
                 Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
                  surroundings; or
                 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
                  nighttime views in the area.

b.    Less-Than-Significant Impacts. The following discussion describes the less-than-significant
aesthetics impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project.

       (1) Scenic Vistas. Scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project site are primarily limited to
views of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Such views are primarily limited to roadways in the vicinity of
the site. As discussed above, views of the mountains from Pruneridge Avenue are limited due to the
curvilinear alignment of the road and adjacent vegetation. In addition, no west-facing scenic views of
the mountains are available from Jenny Strand Park (to the east of the site) due to the existence of
mature trees along the park’s western boundary.

The proposed project would not block views of the Santa Cruz Mountains along East Homestead
Road and I-280. As shown in Figure V.B-4, the removal of Pruneridge Road (and associated campus
development) would block already limited views of the Santa Cruz Mountains from North Tantau


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5b-Aesthetics.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           207
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                   B. AESTHETICS




Avenue. However, this obstruction would not be significant, as the view is constrained in the existing
condition, and other similar views are available along east/west streets in the area. The 57-foot-tall
Main Building would be set back at least 240 feet from East Homestead Road and thus would not
substantially change the viewshed available along that road. Similarly, the 48-foot-tall Central Plant
and Main Parking Structure would be set back at least 100 feet from I-280 (similar to existing
buildings on the site) and thus would not interfere with scenic views available from the freeway.
Earthen berms would be built around the perimeter of the project site, and would be most pronounced
adjacent to East Homestead Road and I-280. In close proximity, these berms may block more of the
sky than under existing conditions, but would not substantially obstruct scenic views (which are
limited in the vicinity of these two roads due to existing landscaping).

In consultation with City staff, eight viewpoint locations were chosen for visual simulations of the
proposed project. These viewpoint locations were selected based on project site visibility and the
locations that provide the most representative views of the project site. The analysis of impacts to
existing views of the project site focuses on site views from public locations such as roadways. Figure
V.B-1 shows the viewpoint locations. Figures V.B-2 through V.B-9 show existing views of the
project site (upper photographs), visual simulations of the proposed project with lines representing
project buildings (middle photographs), and visual simulations of the proposed project (lower
photographs) from each of the selected viewpoints.

       Views from North Wolfe Road (Viewpoint 1). Figure V.B-2 depicts the view from the
proposed North Wolfe Road entrance to the project, located approximately 277 feet north of the
intersection of North Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue. The existing view from this location
includes mature trees and landscaping, and portions of a parking lot with fencing. The visual simula-
tion of the proposed project shows a multi-lane roadway leading into the project site, a pedestrian
crosswalk on North Wolfe Road and one on Pruneridge Avenue, and sidewalks, associated
landscaping, berms and fencing on both sides of the new multi-lane roadway proposed as part of the
project. The middle photograph shows the location of the proposed Main Building, which would not
be visible from this vantage point. No scenic views are available from this location. Therefore, the
proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas from North Wolfe Road
facing east.

       Views from I-280 Westbound (Viewpoint 2). Figure V.B-3 depicts the view from the
westbound travel lanes of the I-280 freeway, looking northwest. The existing view from this location
includes cars traveling on the eastbound and westbound freeway travel lanes, a freeway divider and
dense tree plantings along the southern perimeter of the project site. The visual simulation of the
proposed project shows that the project would not change the existing view. The middle photograph
shows the location of the proposed above-grade parking structure, which would not be visible from
this vantage point. No scenic views are available from this location. Therefore, the proposed project
would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas from the south side of I-280.

       Views from East Pruneridge Avenue (Viewpoint 3). Figure V.B-4 depicts the view from
Pruneridge Avenue, at the intersection of North Tantau Avenue, looking west. The existing fore-
ground view from this location includes the roadway intersection of Pruneridge Avenue and North
Tantau Road. The existing view contains a view of travel lanes on Pruneridge Avenue with mature
trees and a landscaped berm partially obstructing views of office building and parking lots, on both
sides of the road. The Santa Cruz Mountains are visible in the background of the view due to the open
expanse of the Pruneridge Avenue right-of-way. The visual simulation of the proposed project shows


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5b-Aesthetics.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           208
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                   B. AESTHETICS




a pedestrian and bicycle entrance to the Corporate Auditorium and security reception. The proposed
entrance includes an entry opening in the center, ornamental trees, lighting poles, and associated
landscaping. Views to the west of the Santa Cruz Mountains from East Pruneridge Avenue would be
obstructed by the ornamental trees at the gateway. In the foreground of the proposed project views, a
conceptual design for a planted median and narrowed roadway is shown. The middle photograph
shows the outline of the proposed security reception and the southeastern portion of the Main
Building. While the proposed landscaping and berms would obstruct existing views of the mountains,
they would not result in a significant impact to scenic resources as views of the Santa Cruz Mountains
are already partially obstructed from this viewpoint by existing trees (and similar views would
continue to be available along other east/west streets in the area). Therefore, the proposed project
would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas from Pruneridge Avenue facing west.

      Views from East Homestead Road and North Tantau Avenue (Viewpoint 4). Figure V.B-5
depicts the view from the intersection of North Tantau Avenue and East Homestead Road, looking
southwest. The existing view from this location includes mature trees, a landscaping berm, a small
portion of a parking lot, and the roadway intersection. This view would remain virtually unchanged
with implementation of the proposed project. The visual simulation of the proposed project shows the
same mature trees, landscaping berm, the roadway intersection, and additional vegetation and
fencing. The middle photograph shows the location of the proposed Main Building, which would not
be visible from this vantage point (due primarily to the berm and landscaping). No scenic views are
available from this location. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant
impact on scenic vistas from this viewpoint.

       Views from East Homestead Road and North Wolfe Road (Viewpoint 5). Figure V.B-6
depicts the view from the intersection of East Homestead Road and North Wolfe Road, looking
southeast. The existing view from this location includes mature trees, a landscaped berm, a small
pocket park/landscaped area, and the roadway intersection. The visual simulation of the proposed
project shows the same mature trees, landscaped berm, pocket park/landscaped area, the roadway
intersection, and additional vegetation and fencing. Additionally, a valley oak tree planted as a
memorial to a former Hewlett-Packard employee will be transplanted to this publically visible
location. The middle photograph shows the location of the proposed Corporate Fitness Center, which
would not be highly visible from this vantage point (it would be blocked by the berm and vegetation).
No scenic views are available from this location. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-
than-significant impact on scenic vistas from the East Homestead Road and North Wolfe Road
intersection, looking southeast.

       Views from Peacock Avenue (Viewpoint 6). Figure V.B-7 depicts the view from the
intersection of East Homestead Road and Peacock Avenue, looking south. The existing view from
this location includes a very small portion of the northeastern-most building and its associated
parking lot on the project site, heavily landscaped buffer consisting of shrubs and trees of varying
sizes, and the roadway intersection. The visual simulation of the proposed project shows green open
space behind perimeter fencing that includes associated landscaping. The middle photograph shows
the location of the proposed Main Building, which would not be visible from this vantage point. No
scenic views are available from this location. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-
significant impact on scenic vistas from the intersection of East Homestead Road and Peacock
Avenue, looking south.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5b-Aesthetics.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           209
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                   B. AESTHETICS




       Views from the Tantau Avenue Overpass of I-280 (Viewpoint 7). Figure V.B-8 depicts the
view from the Tantau Avenue overpass of I-280, looking northeast. The existing view from this
location includes cars traveling on the eastbound and westbound freeway travel lanes, a freeway
divider and dense tree plantings along the southern perimeter of the project site. This view would be
virtually unchanged with implementation of the project, as the parking garage near the southern
boundary of the site would be obscured by trees. No scenic views are available from this location.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas from the
Tantau Avenue overpass, looking northeast.

      Views from I-280 Eastbound (Viewpoint 8). Figure V.B-9 depicts the view from the
eastbound travel lanes of the I-280 freeway, looking northeast. The existing view from this location
includes cars traveling on the westbound freeway travel lanes, portions of cars traveling on the
eastbound freeway travel lanes, a freeway divider and dense tree plantings along the southern
perimeter of the project site. The visual simulation of the proposed project shows the existing view
would be generally unchanged. No scenic views are available from this location. Therefore, the
proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on scenic vistas from I-280 facing
northeast.

       (2) Scenic Resources. As discussed above, the segment of I-280 south of the project site is
not an officially designated State Scenic Highway but is considered to be eligible for such a designa-
tion. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to affect two scenic resources that are
visible from I-280 (although only fleetingly): trees and Calabazas Creek (and its existing riparian
area). The Glendenning Barn is not visible from I-280; therefore, views of the barn would not be
affected by implementation of the proposed project.
                 Trees. The project site currently contains 4,506 trees, of which 1,116 (25 percent) are
                  native species and 3,390 (75 percent) are non-native species.5 With implementation of the
                  project, a minimum of 800 trees would be retained in-place on the project site, a minimum
                  of 90 trees would be transplanted, and a maximum of 3,620 trees would be removed. The
                  trees that would be preserved are primarily located on the periphery of the site and along
                  the Calabazas Creek riparian corridor. Transplanted trees include a Valley oak tree
                  dedicated as a memorial to a former Hewlett-Packard employee (which is currently located
                  near Glendenning Barn and would be transplanted to a publicly-visible location near the
                  intersection of North Wolfe Road and East Homestead Road. In addition, at least 6,200
                  trees would be planted on the site (see Figure III-3), resulting in a net increase of at least
                  2,494 trees (to a total of at least 7,000 trees). Of the at least 6,200 trees planted on the site,
                  2,140 trees (35 percent) would be native to the Bay Area, 704 trees (11 percent) would be
                  native to California but not to the Bay Area, 2,756 trees (44 percent) would be non-native
                  and non-fruiting, and 600 trees (10 percent) would be fruit trees. The selected tree species
                  are intended to reference the site’s native vegetation and agricultural past. The selected tree
                  species are intended to reference the site’s native vegetation and agricultural past. The
                  selected tree species are intended to reference the site’s native vegetation and agricultural
                  past. The replacement trees that would be planted on the site would restore a park-like
                  quality to the site, and along with other landscaping would enhance the visual quality of the
                  site compared to its current condition. Therefore, the removal of trees within the viewshed
                  of I-280 would not be considered a significant impact.
           5
       Since collection of data on existing conditions in 2011, a small number of trees on the project site have been
removed due to poor health.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5b-Aesthetics.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           210
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                   B. AESTHETICS




                 Calabazas Creek. As part of the project, Calabazas Creek would be preserved in its current
                  condition and the existing planted riparian corridor would be enhanced with native riparian
                  plantings. Proposed buildings would be set back at least 50 feet from the creek and would
                  not obstruct the visibility of the creek and adjacent riparian area from I-280 or other
                  locations (including North Tantau Avenue). It should be noted that the riparian zone
                  immediately adjacent to Calabazas Creek is only fleetingly visible from I-280. Therefore,
                  the project would not substantially damage Calabazas Creek and its adjacent riparian area
                  within the viewshed of I-280.
                 Glendenning Barn. The Glendenning Barn is considered a scenic resource by nature of its
                  historic significance (it is identified as a Historic Site in the General Plan and is considered
                  a historic resource pursuant to CEQA), but it is not located within the viewshed of I-280. In
                  addition, as discussed in detail in Section V.E, Cultural Resources, the historic integrity of
                  the Glendenning Barn has been substantially compromised due to its urbanized setting,
                  which does not evoke the historic agricultural association of the barn. Although the project
                  would remove the barn from its current site and relocate it elsewhere on-site or to a to-be-
                  determined off-site location, this removal of a scenic resource from its current site would
                  not be considered significant because the structure is not visible from I-280.

       (3) Visual Character. Implementation of the proposed project would change the visual
character and public views of the site by demolishing all existing buildings on the site, vacating
Pruneridge Avenue east of the entrance to The Hamptons, and developing a new fenced and secure
corporate campus with dedicated access points, primarily via new intersections along North Wolfe
Road and North Tantau Avenue. Compared to existing conditions, building space would be highly
consolidated, with approximately two-thirds of the proposed occupied building space (taking into
account Phase 2 of the project) located in the Main Building, and other occupied building space
located primarily around the periphery of the site. This consolidation of building space would allow
for approximately 102 acres of the site to be converted to landscaped area (currently approximately
43 acres of the site consist of landscaped areas, most of which is located along the edges of parking
lots and buildings).

The landscape plan for the project suggests a naturalistic design characterized by open meadows,
native plantings, and clusters of fruit trees. Compared to the existing landscape setting of the site,
which is characterized by expansive parking lots and highly divided open spaces, the landscape plan
proposed as part of the project would benefit the visual character of the area within the campus and
views through the security fence of the campus. Security fencing is currently installed along the
periphery of the Pruneridge Campus but not along other portions of the site.

With the exception of the southern portion of the site (where the site is only fleetingly visible from I-
280), the gateway along North Tantau Avenue to the Corporate Auditorium, and the east of North
Tantau Avenue portion of the site, buildings would be clustered away from the periphery of the site.
In addition, the perimeter of the site would incorporate design techniques intended to preserve and
enhance the existing public views of the landscaped character of the site. For example, a vast majority
of existing trees along the periphery of the site would be preserved as part of the project, and would
help obscure the proposed buildings. In addition, berms would be extended around the periphery of
the site and would be extensively planted.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5b-Aesthetics.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           211
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                   B. AESTHETICS




According to preliminary design details, the proposed security fence around the project site would be
7 feet high and would be a metal, powder-coated picket-style fence that would be visually permeable.
The fencing would be located approximately 30 to 50 feet from the public sidewalk; landscaping
would be planted (or preserved) between the fence and public right-of-way. As a result, the fence
would be inconspicuous and proposed buildings would be largely obscured by trees (when mature).

As noted above, Calabazas Creek is an important visual element of the southeastern portion of the
project site, specifically Ridgeview Court (although it is primarily visible from North Tantau
Avenue). As part of the project, the creek would be preserved in its current state, with enhancements
to the existing riparian plantings along a 50-foot swath of Apple property on either side of the Santa
Clara Valley Water District’s right-of-way. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially
adversely affect the existing visual character of Calabazas Creek.

As summarized in Table IV.1, the project would be generally consistent with the aesthetics policies in
the General Plan and North Vallco Master Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not substan-
tially degrade the existing visual quality of the site and its surroundings.

       (4) Light and Glare. Currently, the exterior lighting at the project site consists primarily of
street lighting and parking lot lighting fixtures. Vehicle headlights are also visible from streets and
parking lots in the area. Because the perimeter of the project site is lined with trees with dense
foliage, spillover light from the project site is limited.6

The proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare to the project site. New interior
and exterior lighting would be installed throughout the project site to highlight architectural elements
of the project, and provide for employee comfort and safety. New anticipated light sources would
include the following: 1) architectural and façade lighting; 2) parking garage lighting; 3) entryway
lighting; 4) landscape lighting; 5) roadway lighting within the project site; and 6) illuminated signage.

The proposed project would include design features that would control light trespass at the project site
boundary and at residential property lines.7 These features would include limitations to building
façade and other outdoor lighting, and the application of exterior screening to the proposed parking
structure in order to minimize views and potential glare of vehicle headlights.




        6
          Arup, 2012. Apple Campus 2 Project Environmental Impact Report Lighting Technical Report. October 29.
Spillover light is light emitted from a lighting source that falls outside the boundaries of the property on which the lighting
source is located. The conceptual design of Phase 2 development has changed slightly since preparation of the Lighting
Technical Report, but the slight changes in design would not alter the key results of the lighting analysis.
           7
               Light trespass is light that strays from the intended purpose onto an adjacent property.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5b-Aesthetics.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           212
         Fc         0.005                0.01               0.04          0.10        0.20        0.54       0.80




                                                                                                          FIGURE V.B-10


                                                8   Receptor Locations


Not to Scale
                                                                                                  Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
SOURCE: APPLE, APRIL 2013.                                               Illuminance Calculations for Receptor Locations
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\Fig_VB10.ai (5/3/13)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                   B. AESTHETICS




This page intentionally left blank.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5b-Aesthetics.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           214
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                    APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                             V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                     B. AESTHETICS




The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) provides classification for outdoor
lighting zones and establishes limitations of light trespass from exterior architectural lighting with a
recommendation for maximum illuminance. According to measurement procedures outlined by the
IESNA, spillover light beyond a measurement of 0.8 footcandle (fc) from architectural lighting
components would be considered significant.8 As shown in Table V.B-1 and Figure V.B-10, under
the proposed project, all illuminance values at eight identified receptor locations would not exceed the
0.8 fc threshold. In three of the locations, illuminance values would be reduced with implementation
of the proposed project; in other tested locations, illuminance values would increase, but by modest
values well below the 0.8 fc threshold. Therefore, new lighting introduced to the site would not
compromise nighttime views, and would result in a less-than-significant impact.

The proposed Main Building would include extensive glazing. However, the building would be
buffered from off-site areas by at least 240 feet of open space. Therefore, the building would be
unlikely to generate off-site glare. The design of other proposed buildings and adjacent landscaping
would be such that these buildings would not generate substantial amounts of off-site glare. Such
glare would be reduced by the heavily-planted site perimeter.

 Table V.B-1: Illuminance Assessment of Receptor Locations
     Receptor                                                                                                  Illuminance Value (fc)
      Label             Address for Receptor Location                                               Existing         Proposed       Net Increase
                        The Hamptons
         1                                                                                           0.033             0.232           0.199
                        19500 Pruneridge Avenue
                        California Hospital Medical Center
         2              southwest corner of N. Wolfe Road and                                        0.294             0.055          -0.239
                        Pruneridge Avenue
                        Private residence
         3                                                                                           0.089             0.150           0.061
                        909 E. Homestead Road
                        Private residence
         4                                                                                           0.076             0.206           0.130
                        947 E. Homestead Road
                        Private residence
         5                                                                                           0.200             0.169          -0.031
                        995 E. Homestead Road
                        Private residence
         6                                                                                           0.106             0.086          -0.020
                        1023 E. Homestead Road
                        Sidewalk
         7                                                                                           0.027             0.198           0.171
                        10900 N. Tantau Avenue
                        Sidewalk
         8                                                                                           0.063             0.192           0.129
                        10500 N. Tantau Avenue
 a
      The significance thresholds for light trespass from the project site is 0.8 fc at the property line. The predicted
      illuminance value as calculated in the analysis model is checked against this threshold.
 Source: Arup, 2013. Project Design Feature Update for Parking Structures East of Tantau and Updated Calculations.
         April 5.

c.    Significant Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any signifi-
cant aesthetics impacts.



           8
         Arup, 2012. op. cit. A footcandle (fc) is a common unit of measurement used to calculate adequate lighting levels
of workspace in buildings or outdoor space. It is used to describe the light level that a lamp is expected to provide over the
long-term.


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5b-Aesthetics.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                              215
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                   B. AESTHETICS




d.     Cumulative Impacts. As discussed above, the project would not obstruct scenic views, and by
expanding the amount of cohesive open space on the site, would enhance the visual quality of the site.
In addition, the visual integrity of Calabazas Creek would be preserved. Significant impacts to visual
resources (including those associated with increased nighttime lighting) would be site-specific and
would generally not contribute to cumulative impacts after implementation of the mitigation measure
identified above. Other foreseeable projects in Cupertino would be designed or conditioned, in
accordance with City policies, to avoid significant adverse effects on visual quality or other elements
of the aesthetic environment. Therefore, past, present, and future projects in the area are not expected
to result in a significant cumulative impact to aesthetic resources, and the project would not make a
significant contribution to such an impact.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5b-Aesthetics.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           216
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




C.        POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
This section describes population, employment, and housing statistics in the City of Cupertino and
Santa Clara County, and evaluates the potential impacts associated with population, housing, and
employment that could result from development of the proposed project.

1.        Setting
The following section utilizes data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the California Department of
Finance, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG),1 and the City of Cupertino Housing
Element Update.2

a.     Population. Incorporated as a city in 1955, Cupertino grew from an agricultural community
into a suburban community during Silicon Valley’s expansion. As shown in Table V.C-1, Cupertino’s
population grew rapidly over a 30-year period, increasing by approximately 177 percent from 1970 to
2000.3 As shown in Figure V.C-1, between 1970 and 1980, Cupertino experienced a significant
population increase due to the development of large housing tracts and the City’s annexation of land
developed with residential uses from the City of San Jose. Between 1980 and 1990, population
growth was mostly a result of the City’s annexation of large areas in Santa Clara County such as the
Rancho Rinconada area, east of the City, and the Inspiration Heights area, west of the City. Accord-
ing to ABAG projection data, a small and steady population increase is expected to occur through the
year 2030.

Table V.C-1:                   City of Cupertino Historical Population Growth
                         Year                                                    Population                      10-Year Percent Increase
                         1970                                                        18,216                                  –
                         1980                                                        34,015                                 86.7%
                         1990                                                        40,263                                 18.4%
                         2000                                                        50,546                                 25.5%
                         2010                                                        58,302                                 15.3%
  Source: U.S. Census, 2011.

ABAG provides an estimate of the amount of growth that may occur within Cupertino and Santa
Clara County over the next 20 year period. As shown in Table V.C-2, between 2010 and 2020, the
City’s population is estimated to increase by 2 percent, and between 2020 and 2030, the City’s
population is expected to increase by 1.4 percent. Overall, ABAG estimates the City’s population will
increase by 3.4 percent in 20 years.4 Average annual growth rates under such projections would be
approximately 0.17 percent.

          1
          Some ABAG data is for the City’s “subregional study area,” or its sphere of influence, and not its jurisdictional
boundaries. Subregional data are only used when no City-level data is available. When subregional data are used, they are
explicitly noted.
          2
              Bay Area Economics, 2010. City of Cupertino Housing Element Update, 2007-2014. April.
          3
        Association of Bay Area Governments, 2013. Bay Area Census. Website: www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/
Cupertino.htm (accessed April 29).
      4
        Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009. Building Momentum, San Francisco Bay Area Population,
Household, and Job Forecasts.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           217
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




Figure V.C-1: City of Cupertino Population Growth Trend, 1970-2030
                 65,000


                 55,000
   Population




                 45,000


                 35,000


                 25,000


                 15,000
                              1970           1980           1990             2000          2010         2020      2030
                                                                             Year

Source: U.S. Census, 2011; ABAG, 2009. Projections 2009.

The population of Santa Clara County is expected to increase at a faster rate than in the City. Between
2010 and 2020, the County’s population is estimated to increase by approximately 13.2 percent, and
between 2020 and 2030, the County’s population is expected to increase by 12 percent. Overall, the
County’s population is expected to increase by 26.8 percent in 20 years.5 Average annual growth rates
under such projections would be approximately 1.34 percent, or approximately seven times the
projected annual growth rate for Cupertino.

Table V.C-2: ABAG Population and Household Projections for Cupertino and Santa
Clara County 2010-20306,7
                                               2010                                            2020                           2030
                                  City                  County                        City             County         City            County
  Population                     55,200                1,822,000                     56,300           2,063,100      57,100          2,310,800
  Households                     19,830                  614,000                     20,360             696,530      21,100            785,090
  a
                For the purposes of this analysis, population is based on ABAG data only. Discrepancies in current population data are
                due to recent annexations of formerly unincorporated County land undertaken by the City.
  Source: ABAG, 2009. Projections 2009.




                  5
                      Ibid.
                  6
         California, State of, 2011a. Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State
with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2010 and 2011. May. According to California Department of Finance data, as of
                                         –




January 2011, Cupertino’s residential population is approximately 58,747, and Santa Clara County’s residential population
is 1,797,375.
       7
         California, State of, 2011b. Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties,
and the State, 2010-2011, with 2010 Benchmark. May. As of January 2011, there are 20,194 households in Cupertino and
605,274 households in Santa Clara County.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                            218
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




b.    Housing. The following section describes the housing characteristics of Cupertino and Santa
Clara County. There are no existing housing units or residential population on the project site.

       (1) Households. The City’s Housing Element Update uses the U.S. Census Bureau’s
definition of a “household” as a person or group of persons living in a housing unit, as opposed to
persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories, convalescent homes, or prisons. According to
ABAG, in 2010, Cupertino had 19,830 households,8 comprising approximately 3.2 percent of Santa
Clara County households. By 2030, ABAG estimates the number of Cupertino households will
increase by 6.4 percent to 21,100 households and represent 2.7 percent of Santa Clara County house-
holds. In 2010, Santa Clara County had 614,000 households, and by 2030, ABAG estimates the
number of Santa Clara County households will increase by 27.9 percent to 785,090 households.

In 2000, the average household size in Cupertino was 2.75 and the average household size in Santa
Clara County was 2.92.9 According to the 2010 Census, the average household size in Cupertino was
2.87 persons per household, which was slightly less than the Santa Clara County average of 2.90
persons per household.10

       (2) Existing Housing Stock. According to the California Department of Finance, as of
January 2011, Cupertino’s housing stock included a total of 21,041 units. Of the 21,041 units, 847
units are vacant, resulting in a vacancy rate of approximately 4 percent. According to the City’s
Housing Element Update, Cupertino’s 2008 housing stock was characterized by a majority of single-
family homes (approximately 71 percent of total), and a smaller percentage of multi-family homes
(approximately 28 percent of total), with few mobile homes (less than 1 percent of total).11 According
to the City’s demographics profile, the average sales price of an existing single-family home in
Cupertino is $1.06 million, and the average sales price for a condo/townhouse is $620,000.12

       (3) Regional Housing Needs Allocation. As required by State law, the Housing Element of
the Cupertino General Plan discusses the City’s “fair share allocation” of regional housing need by
income group as projected by ABAG. ABAG’s determination of the local share of regional housing
takes into consideration the following factors: market demand for housing; employment opportuni-
ties; availability of suitable sites and public facilities; commuting patterns; type and tenure of housing
need; and conversion of affordable units to market-rate units. The Housing Element Update was
adopted by the City Council on April 9, 2010 and certified by the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) on June 24, 2010.




          8
         The 2010 U.S. Census data shows there are currently approximately 20,000 households in the City. This analysis
primarily relies on ABAG data for household numbers in order to retain source consistency for existing data and data
projections.
          9
              Bay Area Economics, 2010, op. cit.
          10
         U.S. Census, 2010. 2010 Demographic Profile Data (DP-1), Profile of General Population and Housing
Characteristics. Website: factfinder2.census.gov (accessed January 27, 2012).
          11
               Single-family homes include both attached and detached single-family homes.
          12
          Cupertino, City of, 2011. City of Cupertino Demographics. Website: www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=113
(accessed October 3).




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           219
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




In May 2008, ABAG adopted the Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the period
of 2007 to 2014, which allocates housing needs for different income levels among the jurisdictions
within the nine-County Bay Area.13 Cities and counties are required to account for the RHNA in the
housing elements of their General Plans. Under State law, all housing elements must be reviewed by
the HCD; housing elements are certified if they comply with State law and meet certain planning
objectives. According to ABAG, some public agencies and private foundations will not provide
funding for housing and redevelopment projects to jurisdictions that do not have a certified housing
element. In addition, jurisdictions without certified housing elements have faced lawsuits from
housing advocacy organizations. While HCD requires cities and counties to show through their
housing elements that they can accommodate the projected housing need, the presence of adequate
amounts of land designated for residential uses does not necessarily result in the actual construction
of adequate housing supplies.

Table V.C-3: City of Cupertino and Santa Clara County Regional Housing Needs
Allocation, 2007-2014
                                                                                          Housing Units Allocation
                                                                                         Percent         Santa Clara              Percent
                                                      Cupertino                            (%)              County                  (%)
  Very Low Income                                         341                               29.1            13,878                  23.0
  Low Income                                              229                              19.6              9,567                  16.0
  Moderate Income                                         243                               20.8            11,007                  18.0
  Above Moderate Income                                   357                              30.5             25,886                  43.0
  Total                                                 1,170                             100.0             60,338                 100.0
  Source: ABAG, 2008. San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan 2007-2014.



Table V.C-3 shows the RHNA for Cupertino and Santa Clara County for the period of 2007-2014.
Between 2007 and 2009, 547 units have been constructed or approved in the City.14 The City
exceeded its RHNA for above-moderate-income units, but has a remaining total allocation of 717
very low-, low-, and moderate-income units.15 Of the remaining 717 units, 319 are very low-income
units, 213 are low-income units, and 185 are moderate-income units. In order to meet the allocation
during the remaining 2 years of the current planning period, the City proposed to adopt policies and
programs to allow for residential development at appropriate densities on sites with no infrastructure
constraints (see Policies 1 and 2 under the Housing Element Update in the “Regulatory Framework”
subsection below). The City’s Housing Element Update identifies several sites located within the City
that are zoned for housing and that would accommodate Cupertino’s fair share of housing obligations
per the RHNA.16 In addition, other potential housing sites in the City (along Stevens Creek Boulevard




          13
               Association of Bay Area Governments, 2008. San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan 2007-2014. June.
          14
         The 547 units include 22 very low-income units, 16 low-income units, 58 moderate-income units, and 451 above-
moderate income units.
          15
               Bay Area Economics, 2010, op. cit.
          16
               Cupertino, City of, 2010. Housing Element Technical Report Update 2007-2014. April.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           220
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




and De Anza Boulevard) that are not specifically identified in the Housing Element Update are zoned
for mixed uses, including residential uses.17

c.    Employment. Cupertino contains and is in close proximity to regional employment centers and
major transportation thoroughfares. Two types of employment data are described below: 1) total jobs
within the community; and 2) employed residents: the number of residents of working age who
actively participate in the civilian labor force. A comparison of this data can provide an indication of
commute patterns in a community (i.e., whether significant out-commuting or in-commuting occurs).

The civilian labor force includes: 1) those who are employed (except in the armed forces); and 2)
those who are unemployed but actively seeking employment. Those who have never held a job, who
have stopped looking for work, or who have been unemployed for a long period of time are not
considered to be in the labor force. According to the California Employment Development Depart-
ment, as of September 2011, an estimated 24,500 persons in Cupertino were in the labor force.18

       (1) Total Jobs. According to ABAG’s subregional study data, in 2010 Cupertino had 32,010
jobs, comprising approximately 3.5 percent of all jobs in Santa Clara County. Jobs in Cupertino’s
subregional study area are expected to increase by 16 percent between 2015 and 2035, from 32,790 to
37,890 jobs (see Table V.C-4).

Total jobs in Santa Clara County are projected to increase by 44 percent between 2015 and 2035,
from 981,230 jobs to 1,412,620 jobs.19 Jobs in Cupertino are expected to remain at approximately 3
percent of the County total and the City is expected to contribute to 1.2 percent of the total increase in
County jobs through the year 2035.

       (2) Employed Residents. ABAG defines employed residents as employed people who “live
in the identified community or county but do not necessarily work there.” Unemployed residents are
not counted as employed residents, even if they are actively seeing employment. According to
ABAG, the City’s subregional study area contained 23,950 employed residents in 2010. Employed
residents in Cupertino’s subregional study area are expected to increase by 12 percent between 2015
and 2035, from 24,440 to 27,390 employed residents (see Table V.C-4).

According to ABAG, the County’s subregional study area contained 815,800 employed residents in
2010. Residents employed in Cupertino represent approximately 3 percent of the County’s total.
Employed residents in Santa Clara County’s subregional study area are expected to increase by 39
percent between 2015 and 2035, from 899,900 employed residents to 1,252,500 employed residents.
The City is projected to contribute less than 1 percent of the total increase in County-employed
residents through the year 2035.




          17
       Ghosh, Piu, 2012. Associate Planner, City of Cupertino Community Development Department. Personal
communication with LSA Associates, Inc. January 24.
       18
          California, State of, 2011. Employment Development Department. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and
Census Designated Places, September 2011-Preliminary. Website: www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov (accessed November 9).
          19
               Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009, op. cit.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           221
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




d.    Jobs-to-Housing Balance. The jobs-to-housing-units ratio is used to evaluate whether a
community has an adequate number of jobs available to provide employment for residents within the
community seeking employment. The jobs-to-housing-units ratio can be useful in understanding the
interconnections among housing affordability, traffic flows, congestion, and air quality within a city
and a larger region. However, the jobs-to-housing-units ratio is best analyzed at the sub-regional or
regional level due to the tendency of people to commute to jobs outside of their community.

       (1) Methodology. Typically, the term “jobs-to-housing balance” is used to refer to a
relationship between jobs and housing units within a community. A jobs-to-housing-units ratio of 1.5
takes into account residents who do not participate in the labor force (e.g., those who are retired,
disabled, or students). A 1.5 jobs-to-housing-units ratio indicates a community has an adequate
number of jobs to meet the demand for employment by its residents, and therefore is in balance.

A more helpful indicator of balance, however, is the relationship between the number of jobs provided
to the number of employed residents. An ideal jobs-to-employed-residents ratio is 1.0, which indicates
that there is a job in the community for every employable resident.

A jobs-to-employed-residents ratio that is greater than 1.0 indicates that the community provides
more jobs than it has residents with jobs. In this situation the community is likely to experience traffic
congestion associated with people coming to jobs from outside the area, as well as intensified
pressure for additional residential development to house the labor force. Conversely, a jobs-to-
employed-residents ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that a community has fewer jobs than employable
residents, indicating many residents would need to commute outside of the community (i.e., out-
commute) for employment. The resulting commuting patterns can lead to traffic congestion and
adverse effects on both local and regional air quality.

However, the jobs-to-housing-units ratio does not account for regional in- or out-commuting due to
job/labor mismatches or housing affordability. Even if a community has a numerical balance between
jobs and housing/employed residents, sizeable levels of in- and out-commuting are possible and even
likely, especially where employment opportunities do not match local skills and/or the educational
characteristics of the local labor force. In such instances, regional commuting tends to occur. For
example, a numerically balanced community may have high housing costs and low-wage jobs, thus
encouraging its residents to out-commute to their high wage jobs elsewhere, and its workers to in-
commute from outside the community where housing costs are affordable in relation to their low
wage incomes. This condition is often referred to as a jobs-to-housing mismatch. A jobs-to-housing
match occurs when the types of jobs provided in a community “match” the income needs of the
employed workers within the community.

       (2) Jobs-to-Employed Residents in Cupertino and Santa Clara County. According to
ABAG, Cupertino’s jobs-to-employed-residents ratios in 2005 and 2010 of 1.47 and 1.34, respec-
tively, indicate that the community had moved slightly toward a balance over the 5-year period. The
reduction in employees on the project site (as Hewlett-Packard has consolidated operations at its Palo
Alto campus and Apple has transitioned employees from Ridgeview Court to other sites in anticipa-
tion of campus redevelopment activities) may have contributed to the downward-trending jobs-to-
employed-residents ratios. By 2035, ABAG projects that Cupertino’s jobs-to-employed-residents
ratio will slightly increase to 1.38, indicating that in the future, the City’s job growth is expected to
outpace the City’s growth in employed residents (see Table V.C-4). In Santa Clara County, the jobs-
to-employed-residents ratio will remain relatively constant through 2035 at 1.13, with slightly more


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           222
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




jobs than workers Countywide. Table V.C-4 provides housing and employment data for Cupertino
and Santa Clara County. This table also provides data indicating projected jobs-to-housing units and
jobs-to-employed-residents ratios.

 Table V.C-4: Housing and Employment Data – Cupertino and Santa Clara Countya
                                             2005                                    2015                      2025                     2035
                                    City         County                  City            County        City        County       City        County
 Total Jobs                        31,260        872,860                32,790           981,230      34,520       1,177,520   37,890       1,412,620
 Employed
                      21,310      734,000      24,440                                    899,900     25,840        1,074,500   27,390      1,252,500
 Residents
 Housing Units        19,530      595,700      20,350                                    653,810      21,040        739,820    21,800        827,330
 Jobs-to-Housing-
 Units Ratio           1.60        1.47          1.61                                      1.50       1.64           1.59      1.74           1.71
 (Ideal is 1.5)
 Jobs-to-Employed-
 Residents Ratio       1.47        1.19          1.34                                      1.09       1.34           1.10      1.38           1.13
 (Ideal is 1.0)
 a
   ABAG data are from the subregional study area.
 Source: ABAG, 2009. Projections 2009.



e.   Regulatory Framework. The following describes the regulatory framework associated with
population, employment and housing.

      (1) The Office and Industrial Mitigation Program. This City program, which is part of the
City’s Housing Mitigation Program, requires payment of fees from project developers to support the
development of affordable housing for families and individuals who work in Cupertino but live
elsewhere.20 The mitigation fee is determined by the City Council and deposited into the Affordable
Housing Fund. The Affordable Housing Fund provides financial assistance to affordable housing
developments in Cupertino. The options for uses of the fee include, but are not limited to, the follow-
ing: development of new affordable units; conversion of existing market rate units to affordable units;
down payment assistance programs; and second mortgage programs.

       (2) Jobs/Housing Program. This City program requires the sponsors of major new office/
industrial development to build housing as part of new development projects. Under this program, the
City evaluates the impact of any application that would produce additional jobs in Cupertino and
identifies housing that would need to be built to accommodate increased demand and maintain the
desired jobs/housing balance.

      (3) City of Cupertino General Plan. The City’s General Plan also contains policies related
to population, housing, and employment that are applicable to the proposed project. Applicable
population, housing, and employment policies from the General Plan Housing Element Update and
Land Use/Community Design Element are listed below.



       20
          The Office and Industrial Mitigation Program was adopted by the City Council in 2007. The City adopted a
Housing Mitigation fee of $2.38 per square foot for office and research development projects in Planned Industrial, P(MP)
zoned areas, which includes the project site. All fees are adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                    223
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




Housing Element Update
Policy 1: Sufficiently Residentially Zoned Land for New Construction Need
Designate sufficient residentially-zoned land at appropriate densities to provide adequate sites that will meet
ABAG’s estimate of Cupertino’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 1,170 units for 2007-2014.

Policy 2: Housing Mitigation Program
The Housing Mitigation Program is based on a nexus study prepared by the City that demonstrated that all new
developments, including market-rate residential developments, create a need for affordable housing.

Program 4: Housing Mitigation Program – Office and Industrial Mitigation
The City will continue to implement the “Office and Industrial Mitigation” fee program. This program requires
that developers of office, commercial, and industrial space pay a fee, which will then be used to support
affordable housing for families who work in Cupertino but live elsewhere. These fees are collected and
deposited in the City’s Affordable Housing Fund.

Program 10: Jobs/Housing Balance Program
Require major new office/industrial development to build housing as part of new development projects. As part
of the development review process, the City will evaluate the impact of any application that will produce
additional jobs in the community. The purpose of the evaluation is to describe the impacts of the new jobs on
the City’s housing stock, especially in relation to the jobs/housing ratio in the City.

Program 15: Residential and Mixed Use Opportunities in or Near Employment Centers
The City will encourage mixed use development and the use of shared parking facilities in or near employment
centers. In addition to the development opportunities available through the “Heart of the City” Specific Plan, the
City will evaluate the possibility of allowing residential development above existing parking areas except where
mixed use is herein excluded. In specific, these areas would be near or adjacent to employment centers and
could provide additional opportunities for housing.

Land Use/Community Design Element
Policy 2-19: Jobs/Housing Balance
Strive for a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing units.

Policy 2-44: Maintaining Cohesive Commercial Centers and Office Parks
Cohesive commercial centers and office parks are necessary to maintain a healthy sales tax base for the city and
to retain opportunities for existing businesses to expand in response to changing business trends. Cupertino’s
major retail commercial centers are located at Vallco Fashion Park, The Marketplace and Portal Plaza centers,
Cupertino Village, the Oaks and the Crossroads Commercial District; the office parks are located at Vallco
(North of Highway 280), North De Anza Boulevard and Bubb Road.

2.        Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section includes an analysis of impacts related to population, housing, and employment that
could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of
significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter
part of this section presents the impacts associated with the proposed project and identifies mitigation
measures, as appropriate.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           224
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




a.    Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact on population,
housing, and employment if it would:
                 Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
                  new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
                  infrastructure);
                 Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of
                  replacement housing elsewhere; or
                 Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
                  housing elsewhere.

b.     Less-Than-Significant Impacts. The following discussion examines potential less-than-
significant impacts of the proposed project.

      (1) Directly Induce Substantial Population Growth. While the project site has a total
capacity of 9,800 employees and has historically operated near this capacity, as of August 2011
(when the Notice of Preparation for this EIR was filed) approximately 4,844 Apple and Hewlett-
Packard employees work on the project site. Historically, the project site accommodated a significant
portion of Hewlett-Packard employees, with up to approximately 5,000 employees during the early
2000s. Because Hewlett-Packard had been consolidating its operations at its Palo Alto campus, the
number of Hewlett-Packard employees on the project site in August 2011 had substantially decreased
from its peak. Similarly, Apple’s Ridgeview Court campus, located in the southern portion of the
project site, has capacity to accommodate 4,800 employees. In anticipation of campus redevelopment,
Apple is in the process of transitioning employees from Ridgeview Court to other sites in Sunnyvale
and Mountain View. Due to the evolving business needs of Apple and Hewlett-Packard and the need
for employees to frequently work off-site, the number of employees on the project site fluctuates over
time. The August 2011 employee estimate provides a conservative estimate of the number of
employees on the project site.

The proposed project would replace 2,657,000 square feet of building space with 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
(such as security receptions and landscape maintenance buildings). The project would result in a net
increase of approximately 9,356 employees over the number of current employees on the site (and an
increase of approximately 4,400 employees over the total capacity of the project site). The employee
growth associated with the project would occur incrementally, as Apple employees at off-site
locations are transferred to the site and Apple’s demand for new employees grows.

The proposed project would not include any new residential units, and therefore would not directly
generate housing-related population growth. However, theoretically, population growth could be
induced by the development of land uses that generate new employment since developers generally
see the opportunity to provide housing for new employees. The location of approximately 9,356 new
employees on the site could cause people to move to Cupertino or surrounding communities, which
could generate additional housing demand in the region. To estimate how many employees would
likely move to Cupertino as a result of the project, the following analysis assumes that new employ-
ees would have the same geographic distribution (in terms of primary residence) as existing Apple
employees currently on the project site (see Figure V.C-2 and Table V.C-5).


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           225
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




Figure V.C-2: Residential Location of Current Employees on the Project Site
                                                           All Other Locations
                                                           Outside of California
                                                                   2%


                    All Other California                                                               San Jose
                           Cities                                                                        24%
                           19%




       Saratoga
         2%
     Los Altos
        2%
       Fremont
         2%
      Palo Alto
        2%                                                                                                        San Francisco
                                                                                                                      13%
         Campbell
           3%
            Los Gatos
               3%
               Mountain View
                   4%
                                   Santa Clara                                                 Cupertino
                                       6%                                                        10%
                                                                Sunnyvale
                                                                   8%

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.



As of 2011, of the 4,844 employees on the project site, approximately 10 percent live in Cupertino,
while a large percentage live in San Jose (24 percent) and San Francisco (13 percent).21 For the
analysis shown in Table V.C-5, the following assumptions were made: 1) new employees would have
the same geographic distribution (in terms of primary residence) as existing employees; 2) every new
project-generated employee would move to the area from elsewhere; 3) none of the new project-
generated employees would be existing Cupertino residents; and 4) none of the new project-generated
employees would share households. Under these assumptions, the analysis concludes that approxi-
mately 936 employees would be residents of Cupertino as a result of project implementation.

The “Projected Project-Related Housing Demand” numbers in Table V.C-5 were calculated by
multiplying, for each city, the “Residential Location of Current Apple Employees (percent of total)”
by the total number of net new employees that would be generated by the proposed project (9,356).
The “Projected Housing Demand as Percent of Household Growth” numbers were calculated by
dividing, for each city, the “Projected Project-Related Housing Demand” by “Projected Household


          21
        For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that Hewlett-Packard employees in the area have approximately the
same geographic distribution of Apple employees.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           226
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




Growth (2015-2020).” The resulting numbers represent a cautious estimate of project-related housing
demand generated by full buildout of the project. Prior to project buildout and full occupancy of the
project site, project-related housing demand would be lower than shown in Table V.C-5 (both in total
and as a percentage of projected household growth).

Table V.C-5: Projected Housing Demand by City Based on Residential Location of
Current Apple Employees
                                 Residential                                                                                Projected
                                 Location of                                             Projected                       Housing Demand
                                Current Apple                                           Household           Projected     as Percent of
                                 Employees                                                Growth         Project-Related   Household
  City                        (percent of total) a                                     (2015-2020) b     Housing Demand      Growth
  Cupertino                          10%                                                     330                936           284%c
  San Jose                           24%                                                  26,080              2,245             9%
  San Francisco                      13%                                                  13,580              1,216             9%
  Sunnyvale                           8%                                                   2,590                748            29%
  Santa Clara                         6%                                                   3,430                561            16%
  Mountain View                       4%                                                   2,000                374            19%
  Los Gatos                           3%                                                     130                281           216%c
  Campbell                            3%                                                     770                281            36%
  Palo Alto                           2%                                                   1,470                187            13%
  Fremont                             2%                                                   3,130                187             6%
  Los Altos                           2%                                                     210                187            89%
  Saratoga                            2%                                                       30               187           624%c
  Top 12 Cities Total                79%                                                  53,750              7,391             –
  All Other California Cities        19%                                                     –                1,778             –
  All Other Locations
                                      2%                                                     –                   187                 –
  Outside of California
  Total                             100%                                                     –                 9,356                 --
  a
      Employee data provided by Apple. Percentages have been rounded up for this analysis.
  b
      The year 2020 was chosen because it would be the approximate time of full occupancy of the proposed project.
      Projections obtained from: ABAG, 2009. Building Momentum: San Francisco Bay Area Population, Household, and
      Job Forecast.
  c
      The housing production in each community would rely in part on local zoning and community goals, which would be
      unlikely to undergo substantial change as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the large growth rates associated
      with the project, as shown above, are unlikely to occur.
  Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.



Because this analysis is based on the conservative assumptions described in the preceding paragraph,
it is likely that at least a portion of “new” Cupertino-dwelling employees would already be Cupertino
residents and/or would share households; therefore, it is important to note that this analysis likely
over-estimates the number of new residents in Cupertino and other cities in the region that would be
associated with the proposed project. Since no housing is proposed as part of the proposed project, it
is expected that over time, future Apple employees would move into existing housing units in the
City that have been sold, or new homes that have been built. The potential for new housing develop-
ments in Cupertino and neighboring communities is low due to the lack of available land that is
appropriate for substantial residential development. As a result, vacancies of existing housing units in
this area would be absorbed quickly. The presence of new employees may result in additional housing
demand in the City, as shown in Table V.C-5 and described in the following paragraphs. However,


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           227
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




this increase in demand would occur over many years (as the project is developed in phases and
employees move to the area from elsewhere) and associated effects would not be acute. Housing
supply (in the United States in general, and in the Bay Area in particular) is generally inelastic,
meaning that it typically takes a long time for housing supply to meet growing demand, due to the
length of time needed to secure financing, acquire land, secure the necessary permits, and complete
construction. In addition, any new housing development in Cupertino would be subject to independ-
ent environmental analysis, which also contributes to the inelasticity of the housing supply, and
would ensure that the physical effects of new housing development would be identified and mitigated,
where necessary.

According to this analysis (Table V.C-5), induced housing demand in Cupertino associated with the
project would be 284 percent of the household growth expected by ABAG between 2015 and 2020.
Expected housing demand would also substantially exceed expected household growth over the 5-
year period in the smaller communities of Los Gatos and Saratoga. It should be noted that the large
growth rates associated with the project in these cities would largely be a function of the relatively
small size of these places, and low expected growth rates under no-project conditions. However, in
jurisdictions other than these, the housing demand that could be induced by the proposed project
would not exceed ABAG projections for household growth.

While the indirect population growth associated with project-related housing demand may exceed
ABAG projections in Cupertino, Los Gatos, and Saratoga, based on the assumption that the geo-
graphic distribution of future Apple employees would remain the same as existing employees, it
should be noted that each of these communities has specific housing production goals, which would
not likely be changed as a result of the proposed project. Since no housing is proposed as part of the
proposed project, it is expected that over time (approximately 10 to 15 years), if future Apple
employees move into these communities, they would likely move into existing homes that have been
sold or new homes that have been built. Additionally, it is more likely that new future Apple employ-
ees would move to locations in the region where housing is available and affordable.

Overall indirect population growth associated with the project would not be considered significant
when evaluated on a regional or sub-regional level. The total population growth associated with the
project (9,356) would be a relatively small percentage (approximately 7.9 percent) of the population
growth expected in Santa Clara County between 2015 and 2020 (117,800).22 Because much of the
growth induced by the project would occur outside the County, the growth associated with the project
would be an even smaller percentage of region-wide growth, and would be considered less than
significant. The total population growth associated with the project would comprise 2.7 percent of the
population growth expected in the Bay Area region between 2015 and 2020 (340,500).23

In addition, the project site – which is designated in the General Plan as an employment center – is an
appropriate location for employment growth. The City’s General Plan policies also support retaining
and intensifying employment at this location (Policies 2-1, 2-13, 2-35 and 2-44, and Strategy 3 of
Policy 2-20). For these reasons, employment growth at the site would be considered desirable and less
than significant.

          22
               Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009, op. cit.
          23
               Ibid.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           228
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




      (2) Displacement of Housing. There are no existing housing units on the project site, and as
a result, development of the proposed project would not result in the displacement of housing, and
therefore, would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Table V.C-6
shows that the required RHNA housing units expected to be constructed in the near-term would more
than satisfy the demand for housing associated with the proposed project. As discussed in the Setting
section, RHNA units comprise housing units affordable to a range of households, from very low-
income households to above moderate-income households.

Table V.C-6:                  Project Housing Demand Compared To RHNA
                                                                                                                       Proposed Project
                                                                                                                      Housing Demand as
                                             ABAG RHNA                                 Projected Demand               Percent of Required
 City                                        (2007-2014) a                           from Proposed Project            RHNA Development
 Cupertino                                       1,170                                        936                           80.0 %
 San Jose                                       34,721                                      2,245                             6.5 %
 San Francisco                                  31,193                                      1,216                             3.9 %
 Sunnyvale                                       4,426                                        748                           16.9 %
 Santa Clara                                     5,873                                        561                             9.6 %
 Mountain View                                   2,599                                        374                           14.4 %
 Los Gatos                                         562                                        281                           50.0 %
 Campbell                                          892                                        281                           31.5 %
 Palo Alto                                       2,860                                        187                             6.5 %
 Fremont                                         4,380                                        187                             4.3 %
 Los Altos                                         317                                        187                           59.0 %
 Saratoga                                          292                                        187                           64.0%
 a
   Association of Bay Area Governments, 2008. San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan 2007-2014. June.
 ABAG RHNA = Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
 Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2011.



As described in Chapter IV, Planning Policy, the project would involve the development of office and
research and development uses on the 7.78-acre portion of the site zoned Planned Development
(Planned Industrial, Residential) (P(MP, Res)). This zone allows for the planned development of light
industrial and residential uses.24 The development of non-residential uses on land zoned – at least in
part – for residential uses could slightly constrain the City’s future housing supply. Although the
proposed project would reduce the amount of land in the City available for the development of
housing, this reduction would not result in significant adverse environmental effects, as the project
would not constrain the supply of land available for the development of residential uses such that the
City’s future supply of housing or the availability of potential housing sites to meet the City’s fair
share of housing obligations would be substantially compromised. Additionally, although the City
Council adopted a lower Housing Mitigation fee (Office and Industrial Mitigation Program fee) rate


          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 Public Park/Recreation (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\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           229
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




for the North Vallco Area at 50 percent of the rate for commercial, office, and hotel development in
the rest of the City, Apple would pay 100 percent of the fee. This amounts to twice the amount that a
project in the North Vallco Area would be required to pay as Housing Mitigation fees (Program 4
under Policy 2 of the City’s Housing Element Update). Through this voluntary payment, Apple would
pay approximately $5 million in Housing Mitigation fees that would fund the development of
affordable housing in the City, and would further reduce the less-than-significant impact on housing
supplies associated with the project.

      (3) Displacement of People. As previously described, there are no existing housing units on
the project site and the project site does not contain residential units. Therefore, the proposed project
would not displace residents, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

      (4) Jobs/Housing/Employed Residents Ratios. The following discussion of the jobs-to-
housing-unit and jobs-to-employed-residents ratios that would result from the proposed project is
provided for informational purposes; changes in the ratios on the local or County levels are not
expected to result in substantial physical environmental impacts.

      Jobs-to-Housing Units Ratio. The proposed project would result in the creation of 9,356 net
new jobs in Cupertino, based on existing employment conditions on the project site. (As noted above,
while the project site has a total capacity of 9,800 employees and has historically operated near this
capacity, as of August 2011 approximately 4,844 Apple and Hewlett-Packard employees work on the
project site.) Table V.C-7 provides 2010 (existing) and 2035 (projected) housing and employment
data for the City and Santa Clara County, with and without the proposed project. As described above,
a small percentage of Apple employees may move to Cupertino after development of the proposed
project (and could increase demand for housing). The jobs/housing balance could improve if future
Apple employees already live in Cupertino but do not currently work in the City. Table V.C-7 was
thus developed to illustrate the “worst case” effects of the proposed project on the City’s jobs/housing
balance.

 Table V.C-7: Housing and Employment Data – Without and With Project a
                                            2010                                 2010                       2035                  2035
                                      (without project)                     (with project)b           (without project)      (with project)
                                       City     County                      City     County            City     County       City    County
Total Jobs                 32,010     906,270     41,366       915,626     37,890    1,412,620   47,246       1,421,976
Employed Residents         23,950     815,800     23,950       815,800     27,390    1,252,500   27,390       1,252,500
Housing Units              20,120     614,000     20,120       614,000     21,800      827,330   21,800         827,330
Jobs-to-Housing-
Units Ratio                 1.59        1.48       2.06         1.49         1.74       1.71       2.17          1.72
(Ideal is 1.5)
Jobs-to-Employed-
Residents Ratio             1.34        1.11       1.73         1.12         1.38       1.13       1.72          1.14
(Ideal is 1.0)
a
   Data are from the subregional study area. The ABAG demographic data used here represent the best available
   baseline/projections data.
b
   Under existing conditions, employment on the project site could expand to 9,500 employees.
Source: ABAG, 2009. Projections 2009.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           230
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




As previously stated, 1.5 is the most desirable jobs-to-housing units ratio. As shown in Table V.C-7,
the addition of 9,356 jobs with no net change in housing units could cause the City’s estimated 2010
jobs-to-housing-units ratio to increase from 1.59 to 2.06, and would slightly increase the County’s
ratio from 1.48 to 1.49. This slight increase in the jobs-to-housing units ratio would not be considered
a significant impact on a regional level. On the City level, in both the short-term and long-term, the
addition of 9,356 jobs on the project site would make the ratio marginally more unbalanced. In other
words, the proposed project could contribute to an increase in the City’s jobs-to-housing units ratio.
However, as noted above, Apple has agreed to pay 100 percent, or twice the base fee, of the City’s
Housing Mitigation fee, as required in the North Vallco Area. This fee would ensure the future
development of additional affordable housing in Cupertino and would moderate the local jobs/
housing unit imbalance to which the project would make a less-than-significant contribution.

In addition, the jobs/housing balance in Cupertino is addressed in the City’s General Plan (see Policy
2-19). In conjunction with the City’s Housing Element Update, the City identified housing develop-
ments and sites that would ultimately accommodate a total of 1,170 residential units, in conformance
with the City’s RHNA allocation.25 Furthermore, the City has the ability to construct additional resi-
dential units in conformance with the Housing Element Update to balance its jobs-to-housing units
ratio. Thus project-related employment growth (and indirect population growth) would not conflict
with the General Plan.

On the County level, the proposed project would incrementally affect the jobs-to-housing units ratio
in the short- and long-term, but the effect would be minor and would not substantially change patterns
of commuting or housing demand.

      Jobs-to-Employed Residents Ratio. As noted above, 1.0 is the most desirable jobs-to-
employed residents ratio. Assuming no future Apple employees move to Cupertino, the jobs generated
by the proposed project would increase the City’s 2010 estimated jobs-to-employed residents ratios
from 1.34 to 1.73 and would increase the City’s 2035 ratio from 1.38 to 1.72. The proposed project
would cause the City to have a more unbalanced jobs-to-employed residents ratio in the short- and
long-term, indicating that with the addition of the jobs created by the proposed project, the City would
provide more jobs than it has employed residents.

However, the increase in jobs from the proposed project would only incrementally increase the
County’s projected ratios (by less than 1 percent) in the short- and long-term, indicating that on a
regional level, the proposed project would not substantially adversely affect the jobs-to-employed
residents ratio.

As discussed above, in conjunction with the City’s Housing Element Update, the City identified
housing developments and sites that would ultimately accommodate a total of 1,170 residential units,
in conformance with the City’s RHNA allocation. Thus project-related employment growth (and
indirect population growth) would not conflict with the General Plan, and Apple’s payment of twice



        25
           179 of these units would be in the North Vallco Area and would likely not be developed with implementation of
the project. Nevertheless, the City’s other identified housing developments and sites have substantial capacity for the
development of additional residential housing.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           231
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




the required Housing Mitigation fee would further reduce the less-than-significant impacts of the
project on the local jobs-to-employed residents ratio.

In addition, while Table V.C-7 assumes an increase in jobs in the City, it does not take into account the
increase in employed residents that would likely be associated with the proposed project because it is
not known exactly how many employees would become residents of Cupertino. It is likely that if these
additional employed residents were taken into account, the ratio would be slightly more balanced.

c.     Significant Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any
significant population, employment, or housing impacts.

d.    Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project is not expected to cumulatively cause a substantial
amount of population growth in the City and Santa Clara County. According to ABAG, Cupertino’s
Citywide population is expected to increase by 5,020 residents between 2015 and 2035. Countywide
population is expected to increase by 431,390 residents during the same 20-year period. Based on
conservative assumptions that would likely over-estimate the number of new residents generated by
the project, the project could result in approximately 936 new residents in Cupertino and 9,356 total
new residents in the region, based on existing Apple employee housing trends. The addition of 936
new residents would represent approximately 19 percent of Citywide growth during the 2015-2035
period. The addition of 9,356 new residents would represent approximately 1.9 percent of County-
wide growth during the same time period (the region-wide percentage would be even lower).26
Approved and foreseeable development in the area would also increase the population of Cupertino
and Santa Clara County. However, because the project would account for such a small percentage of
the anticipated regional population growth during the 20-year period, and would not cumulatively
exceed 2035 growth projections for population, it would not make a significant contribution to
cumulative population growth.

The proposed project, in conjunction with other projects, would increase employment in the City. The
9,356 net new jobs created by the proposed project (based on existing employment conditions on the
site, which reflect a low rate of utilization of existing commercial space) would exceed Citywide job
growth (5,070 jobs) projected by ABAG between 2015 and 2035 by 4,286 jobs. However, the
proposed project would represent only 2 percent of Countywide job growth projected by ABAG
between 2015 and 2035. The jobs that would be created by the proposed project and other proposed
developments would be within ABAG’s projected growth for the County. Therefore, the proposed
project would not substantially contribute to a cumulative impact related to employment growth. In
addition, as previously described, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan policies
that seek to retain and intensify employment on the project site. Therefore, the project’s contribution
to regional employment would be beneficial.

Based on housing patterns of existing Apple employees, approximately 936 project employees would
be expected to live in Cupertino, which could increase demand for housing. In conjunction with other
office and commercial development projects, housing demand is generally expected to increase in the
area. However, as illustrated in Table V.C-6, the RHNA housing units expected to be constructed in
the City and region in the near-term would more than satisfy the demand for housing associated with


          26
               Ibid.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           232
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




the proposed project. In addition, Apple has agreed to pay 100 percent of the City’s Housing
Mitigation fee, or twice the base rate, which is designed to increase the local supply of affordable
housing. As a result, the proposed project would not make a significant contribution to cumulative
impacts related to the shortage of housing. Lastly, as noted above, the project would not displace
people or housing from the site and thus would not contribute to cumulative impacts in those areas.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           233
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                  APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                           V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                        C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING




This page intentionally left blank.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5c-PopHousing.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           234
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




D.        BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes the existing biological resources on and in the vicinity of the project site.
Sensitive habitats, including a riparian zone, and potentially occurring special-status species are
identified. Potential impacts to biological resources associated with implementation of the proposed
project are described, and mitigation measures are identified, where required.

1.        Setting
This section discusses the biological setting of the project site. Included in this section are the
methods used to analyze biological resources, applicable regulations, and the existing site conditions.

a.        Methods. The methods used to evaluate the site and project are described below.

      (1) Records Search and Literature Review. Available reports of biological resources on
and in the vicinity of the project site and special-status species databases were reviewed to identify
habitat types and species potentially occurring on the project site. In addition to the project plans
submitted in November 2012, reports that were reviewed for this analysis include:
                 Biological Resources Assessment: Apple Campus 2 Study Area;1
                 Arborist Report: Apple Campus 2 Consolidated Arborist Report;2
                 A Review of the Consolidated Arborist Report for the Apple Campus 2 Project;3
                 Adjustments to Response to the Review of the Consolidated Arborist Report per EIR Plan
                  Revisions;4
                 A Review of the Trees Recommended for Transplant at the Apple Campus 2 Project,
                  Cupertino, California;5
                 EIR Landscape Narrative;6
                 Calabazas Creek Flood Protection Project: Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
                  Declaration;7 and
                 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan8

          1
         WRA, Inc. 2012. Biological Resources Assessment: Apple Campus 2 Study Area, Cupertino, Santa Clara County,
California. November.
          2
              Muffly, Dave, 2011. Apple Arborist. Apple Campus 2, Consolidated Arborist Report. August 1.
          3
              Bench, Michael L., 2013. A Review of the Consolidated Arborist Report for the Apple Campus 2 Project. May 29.
          4
         OLIN, 2012. Memorandum to City of Cupertino, Adjustments to Response to the Review of the Consolidated
Arborist Report per EIR Plan Revisions. November 6.
       5
         Bench, Michael L., 2013. A Review of the Trees Recommended for Transplant at the Apple Campus 2 Project,
Cupertino, California. January 23.
          6
              OLIN, 2012. Memorandum to Peter Sokoloff, Foster + Partners. EIR Landscape Narrative. October 31.
          7
        Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). 2009. Calabazas Creek Flood Protection Project: Final Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Project Number 26104001. Website: www.valleywater.org/uploadedFiles/Services/
FloodProtection/Projects/CalabazasCreekFloodProtectionProject/Reports_and_Documents/MND%20Final%20Calabazas(4)
.pdf?n=7769 (accessed October 2011).
          8
              Santa Clara County, 2012. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. August.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           235
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




These reports provided the basic description of the habitat types present within the project site and
were used to identify areas of interest for site visits.

The following inventories and databases were searched to identify special-status species that
potentially occur on or in the vicinity of the site:
                 The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).9 The CNDDB database search
                  covered special-status species occurrences within approximately 5 miles of the project site.
                 The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) On-line Inventory of Rare and Endangered
                  Plants.10 The CNPS database search covered native plant occurrences within the Cupertino
                  U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle, in which the site is located, as well
                  as nine surrounding quadrangles.
                 Sacramento U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office On-line Federal Endangered and
                  Threatened Species Database.11 The Sacramento U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office
                  database records covered occurrences of endangered and threatened wildlife species within
                  the Cupertino USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle.

       (2) Field Surveys. On June 23 and July 19, 2011, WRA, Inc. visited the project site to
conduct an assessment of biological resources within the project site, including the segment of
Calabazas Creek within the site and its associated vegetation. The purpose of site visit was to assess
the study area for: (1) the potential to support special-status plant and animal species; and (2) the
presence of other sensitive biological resources protected by local, State, and federal laws and
regulations.12

In September 2008, April 2011, and June 2011, arborists David Babby, Deborah Ellis, and Walter
Levinson, respectively, conducted various tree surveys at the project site. The purpose of the tree
surveys was to map, identify, and/or evaluate the existing trees at the site. The three arborist reports
were consolidated into one arborist report, which was then reviewed by Michael L. Bench, a
consulting arborist to the City.13

LSA wildlife biologist Dan Sidle and botanist/arborist Tim Milliken conducted a reconnaissance-level
survey of the project site on October 19, 2011. The purpose of this visit was to confirm that habitats
and habitat conditions described in the available biological resources and arborist reports were
accurate and to assess the potential for on-site habitats to support special-status plant and animal
species. No focused rare plant or special-status animal surveys, or formal jurisdictional delineation of

       9
         California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2011. California Natural Diversity Data Base Computer Printout for
Species Occurrences within a 5-mile Radius of the Project Site. Sacramento, CA.
          10
           California Native Plant Society, 2011. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California
[computer program]. Version v 8-01a 10-14-11. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website:
cnps.site.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi.
          11
         United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2011. Endangered Species Program, Sacramento. Federal Endangered
and Threatened Species On-line Database. Species list for Cupertino 7.5 minute quadrangle and Santa Clara County.
Website: www.fws.gov/sacramento/y_old_site/es/spp_lists/auto_list.cfm (accessed October 17, 2011).
          12
               WRA, Inc. 2012, op. cit.
          13
          Muffly, Dave, 2011. Apple Arborist. Apple Campus 2, Consolidated Arborist Report. August 1; Bench, Michael
L., 2013. A Review of the Consolidated Arborist Report for the Apple Campus 2 Project. May 29.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           236
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




waters of the United States were conducted as part of this analysis (as none were deemed necessary
because of the urbanized character of the project site).

b.    Regulatory Framework. The federal, State, and local regulatory context for the project is
described below.

       (1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). USFWS has jurisdiction over species that are
formally listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. The Endan-
gered Species Act protects listed wildlife species from harm or “take.” The term “take” is broadly
defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to
engage in any such conduct.” An activity is defined as a “take” even if it is unintentional or acci-
dental. An endangered plant or wildlife species is one that is considered in danger of becoming
extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future. In addition to endangered and threatened species,
which are legally protected under the federal Endangered Species Act, the USFWS has a list of
proposed and candidate species. Proposed species are those for which a proposed rule to list them as
endangered or threatened has been published in the Federal Register. A candidate species is one for
which the USFWS currently has enough information to support a proposal to list it as a threatened or
endangered species but in most cases it has not been formally proposed for listing.14 These latter
species are not afforded legal protection under the federal Endangered Species Act. However, project-
related impacts to federally listed, proposed, and candidate species or their habitats are considered
“significant” under the CEQA Guidelines (discussed below).15

If a listed species or critical habitat is present on a project site, the project sponsor would be required
to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act in order to avoid take of the listed species and to
avoid adverse modification of designated critical habitat that has been determined by the USFWS to
be essential to the survival and recovery of listed species.

The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, and
purchasing of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, or their eggs and nests. As used in the
MBTA, the term “take” is defined by the USFWS as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, kill, or
attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect, or kill, unless the context otherwise requires.” Most
bird species native to the United States are covered by this act.

      (2) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). CDFW has jurisdiction over
threatened or endangered species that are formally listed by the State under the California Endangered
Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act is similar to the federal Endangered Species Act
both in process and substance; it is intended to provide protection to threatened and endangered
species in California. The California Endangered Species Act prohibits the “take” of any plant or
animal listed or proposed as threatened, endangered, or rare (the “rare” designation applies only to
plants). The California Endangered Species Act does not supersede the federal Endangered Species


          14
         Some candidate species have been proposed for listing but upon review listing was found to not be warranted or
was warranted but precluded.
        15
           The exact wording in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines is: “Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           237
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




Act, but operates in conjunction with it. Species may be listed as threatened or endangered under both
acts (in which case the provisions of both State and federal laws would apply) or under only one act.

CDFW also maintains informal lists of “species of special concern.” These species are broadly
defined as plants and wildlife that are of concern to CDFW because of population declines and
restricted distributions, and/or they are associated with habitats that are declining in California.
Project-related impacts to species on the State endangered or threatened lists and lists of species of
special concern are considered “significant” under the CEQA Guidelines (discussed below).

CDFW also has jurisdiction over the beds and banks of watercourses according to the provisions of
Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC). CDFW requires a Streambed Alteration
Agreement for any disturbance to any watercourse or waterbody with a defined bed and bank (swales
without a defined bed and bank are not typically jurisdictional under CDFW regulations, but if a
swale is a wetland, it would be jurisdictional under U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regula-
tions). The jurisdiction of CDFW extends to the top of the bank and often includes the outer edge of
riparian vegetation canopy cover.

Section 3503 of the FGC prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of
any bird. Subsection 3503.5 specifically prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of any birds in
the orders Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls) and their nests. These provisions,
along with the federal MBTA, which serve to protect nesting native birds, have been interpreted by
the resource agencies to prohibit take or killing of nesting native birds. Non-native species, including
European starling, house sparrow, and rock pigeon, are not afforded any protection under the MBTA
or FGC.

      (3) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps is
responsible for regulating the discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S. and their lateral limits.
Their jurisdiction is defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3(a) and includes
streams that are tributary to navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands. Wetlands that are not
adjacent to waters of the U.S. are termed “isolated wetlands” and are not subject to Corps jurisdiction.

In general, a Corps permit must be obtained before placing fill in wetlands or other waters of the U.S.
The type of permit required depends on the amount of acreage and the purpose of the proposed fill,
and is subject to discretion by the Corps. There are two categories of Corps permits: nationwide
(general) permits and individual permits. To qualify for a nationwide permit, a project must demon-
strate that it has no more than a minimal adverse effect on an aquatic ecosystem. The Corps typically
interprets this condition to mean that there will be no net loss of either habitat acreage or habitat
value.

An individual permit is required where a nationwide permit is not applicable. The consideration of an
individual permit includes, but is not limited to, factors such as fill of a significant acreage of wet-
lands or waters of the U.S., areas of high biological or unique value, or length of the watercourse.
Individual permits require review of the project by the public, evidence that wetland impacts have
been avoided or minimized to the extent practicable, and provision of appropriate compensatory
mitigation for unavoidable impacts.

      (4) CEQA Guidelines Section 15380. Although threatened and endangered species are
protected by specific federal and State statutes, CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b) provides that a


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           238
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




species not listed on the federal or State list of protected species may be considered rare or endan-
gered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled
after the definition in the federal Endangered Species Act and the section of the FGC dealing with
rare or endangered species. Section 15380(b) was included in the CEQA Guidelines primarily to
address situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect
on a species that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFW. Therefore, CEQA provides a
lead agency with the ability to protect a species from a project’s potential impacts until the respective
governmental agencies have an opportunity to formally protect the species.

       (5) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Pursuant to Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act, projects that require a Corps permit for discharge of dredged or fill material into
wetlands or other waters of the U.S. and the State of California must also obtain a water quality certi-
fication from the RWQCB. This certification ensures that the project will uphold State water quality
standards. Alternatively, the RWQCB may elect to notify a project sponsor that the State may issue
Waste Discharge Requirements in lieu of a Section 401 certification for a project. Wetlands and
waters determined to be isolated and not subject to Corps jurisdiction may be regulated by the
RWQCB under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act as waters of the State. Fill of waters of
the State requires issuance of waste discharge requirements. It is the policy of the State to have no net
loss of wetlands.

       (6) California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Although not a regulatory agency, CNPS, a
non-governmental conservation organization, has developed lists of plants of special concern in
California. This information is utilized by the CDFW, in collaboration with CNPS and input from
botanical experts from government, academia, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector
to develop the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR). The CRPR represents a name change from the
CNPS listed special-status plants to signify a greater consensus in determining rarity for California’s
special-status plants. A List 1A plant is a species, subspecies, or variety that is considered to be
extinct. A List 1B plant is considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. A
List 2 plant is considered rare, threatened, or endangered in California but is more common else-
where. A List 3 plant is a species for which there is a lack of necessary information to determine if it
should be assigned to a list or not. A List 4 plant has a limited distribution in California.

The CEQA Guidelines provide guidance on how special-status species should be evaluated for
significant impacts. All of the plant species on List 1 and List 2 meet the requirements of Section
1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered
Species Act) of the FGC, and are eligible for State listing. Therefore, plants appearing on Lists 1 or 2
are considered to meet the CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 criteria and potentially significant
impacts to these species are analyzed in this EIR.

      (7) Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The SCVWD owns property along, and
including, Calabazas Creek where it crosses through the project site, as well as certain access ease-
ments or licenses. The SCVWD requires that a Water District Protection Ordinance encroachment
permit be obtained for any construction work proposed within the SCVWD fee title right of way.16
The Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative, whose members included the
SCVWD and City of Cupertino, developed Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near Streams: A

          16
          Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2011. Water Resources Protection Ordinance. As Amended by Ordinance 08-1.
San Jose, California.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           239
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




Manual of Tools, Standards and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa
Clara County.17 Among other items, these guidelines address issues associated with development near
streams, strategies for the permitting process, and recommended project design and construction
guidelines. For a more detailed discussion of the guidelines, please refer to Chapter IV, Planning
Policy.

      (8) Santa Clara County. The County of Santa Clara has prepared the Santa Clara Valley
Habitat Plan (Habitat Plan or Plan) that is intended to provide an effective framework to protect,
enhance, and restore natural resources in specific areas of Santa Clara County, while improving and
streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts on threatened and endangered species.
The entities listed below have prepared the Plan:18
                 County of Santa Clara (County)
                 City of San José
                 City of Morgan Hill
                 City of Gilroy
                 Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
                 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)

These entities are collectively referred to as the Local Partners and are also known as the Permittees.
The Local Partners intend the Plan to allow for reasonable development, growth, and needed infra-
structure construction and maintenance while accommodating the Plan’s conservation goals and
complying with State and federal regulatory requirements.

The Local Partners have defined a study area and permit area for the Habitat Plan within portions of
Santa Clara County (see Figure 1-2 in Chapter 1 of the Habitat Plan). The northern edge of the study
area is defined by the boundary of Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, excluding the Milpitas City
Limits. As of March 2013, although located adjacent to the Plan study area, the Apple Campus 2
project site is not within the Habitat Plan study area, permit area, or plan area, and therefore, the
proposed project is not covered by the Plan and is not required to pay Plan development fees.19

      (9) City of Cupertino. The City of Cupertino has several policies and/or ordinances within
the General Plan and Municipal Code that are related to biological resources.

     General Plan Policies. The following discussion lists relevant policies of the City of Cupertino
General Plan20 that relate to biological resources:



      17
          Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative, 2006. Guidelines & Standards for Land Use Near
Streams: A Manual of Tools, Standards and Procedures to Protect Streams and Streamside Resources in Santa Clara
County. July.
       18
          Santa Clara County. 2012. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. August.
          19
         Willdan Financial Services with Urban Economics, 2012. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Development Fee
Nexus Study. June 30.
          20
               Cupertino, City of, 2005. City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020. November 15.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           240
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




Environmental Resources/Sustainability
Policy 5-9: Development near Sensitive Areas
Encourage the clustering of new development away from sensitive areas such as riparian corridors, wildlife
habitat and corridors, public open space preserves, and ridgelines. New developments in these areas must have a
harmonious landscaping plan approved prior to development.

Strategy: Development Plans. Review development plans for opportunities for use of native plants and drought
tolerant, non-invasive, non-native plants.

Policy 5-10: Landscaping Near Natural Vegetation
Emphasize drought tolerant and pest resistant native and non-invasive, nonnative, drought tolerant plants and
ground covers when landscaping properties near natural vegetation, particularly for control of erosion from
disturbance to the natural terrain.

Strategy: Riparian Corridor Protection. Require riparian corridor protection through a riparian corridor
ordinance and through the development approval process.

Policy 5-11: Natural Area Protection
Preserve and enhance the existing natural vegetation, landscape features and open space when new development
is proposed.

Strategy: Native Plants. Encourage drought tolerant native and drought tolerant, noninvasive, non-native plants
and trees, and minimize lawn area in the hillsides.

Policy 5-14: Recreation and Wildlife Trails
Provide open space linkages within and between properties for both recreational and wildlife activities, most
specifically for the benefit of wildlife that is threatened, endangered, or designated as species of special
concern.

Strategy: Require identification of creeks and water courses on site plans and require that they be protected
from adjacent development. State that trail easements for trail linkages may be required if analysis determines
that they are needed.

Policy 5-19: Natural Water Bodies and Drainage Systems
Require that site design respects the natural topography and drainages to the extent practicable to reduce the
amount of grading necessary and limit disturbance to natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused
by development including roads, highways, and bridges.

Policy 5-22: Compact Development Away from Sensitive Areas
Where such measures do not conflict with other municipal purposes or goals, encourage, via zoning ordinances,
compact development located away from creeks, wetlands, and other sensitive areas.

Policy 5-27: Natural Water Courses
Retain and restore creek beds, riparian corridors, watercourses and associated vegetation in their natural state to
protect wildlife habitat and recreation potential and assist groundwater percolation. Encourage land acquisition
dedication of such areas.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           241
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




Strategy: Santa Clara Valley Water District. Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other
relevant regional agencies to enhance riparian corridors and provide adequate flood control by use of flow
increase mitigation measures.

       City of Cupertino Protected Tree Ordinance. The City of Cupertino’s Protected Tree
Ordinance includes regulations for the protection, preservation, and maintenance of trees of certain
species and sizes (referred to as “Specimen” trees in the project plans), as described in Chapter 14.12
of the Cupertino Municipal Code.21 Removal of a protected tree requires a permit from the City.
Pursuant to Section 14.18.050 of the Municipal Code, “Protected” trees include trees of a certain
species and size in all zoning districts; heritage trees in all zoning districts; any tree required to be
planted or retained as part of an approved development application, building permit, tree removal
permit, or code enforcement action in all zoning districts; and approved privacy protection planting in
R-1 zoning districts.

Protected trees include trees of the following species that have a minimum single trunk diameter of 10
inches (31-inch circumference) or minimum multi-trunk diameter of 20 inches (63-inch circumfer-
ence) measured 4.5 feet from the natural grade: native oak tree species (Quercus), including coast live
oak (Q. agrifolia), valley oak (Q. lobata), black oak (Q. kelloggii), blue oak (Q. douglasii), and
interior live oak (Q. wislizeni); California buckeye (Aesculus californica); big leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum); deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara); blue atlas cedar (Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca’); bay
laurel or California bay (Umbellularia californica); and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa).

c.     Site Conditions. The project site comprises approximately 176 acres in an urban part of the
City of Cupertino. The project site is occupied by office and research and development land uses with
extensive parking lots and landscaping. Calabazas Creek, which originates in the Santa Cruz Moun-
tains and flows north to Guadalupe Slough and the San Francisco Bay, is located in the southeast
corner of the project site. Calabazas Creek has been extensively altered for flood control purposes and
segments of the creek have been reconstructed and lined with concrete. The creek corridor within the
site supports immature riparian vegetation, most of which was planted within the last 5 years as part
of a flood control project undertaken by the SCVWD.

The existing conditions on the project site are described below for the following biological resources:
1) vegetation and wildlife habitats; 2) sensitive plant communities, and 3) special-status species.

       (1) Vegetation and Wildlife Habitats. The project site supports developed, riparian vegeta-
tion and creek habitats (see Figure V.D-1 for representative photographs of biological resources on
the site). Botanical nomenclature conforms to The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California.22
Nomenclature for special-status plant and animal species conforms to the CNDDB.23 The plant
communities and habitats present on the project site are described below.



          21
         Cupertino, City of. Chapter 14.18: Protected Trees. Ordinance No. 07-2003. Website: www.cupertino.org/
index.aspx?page=506.
       22
          Hickman, J.C. (Ed.), 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.
          23
         California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2011. California Natural Diversity Data Base Computer Printout for
Species Occurrences Within a 5-mile Radius of the Project Site. Sacramento, CA.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           242
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




      Developed. Developed habitats of the project site include commercial and industrial buildings;
roads; and associated landscaping consisting of lawns, ornamental trees, and ornamental shrubs.
Some ruderal vegetation with non-native grasses and forbs is also located within the developed
portion of the project site. Many of the buildings within the site have extensive manicured lawns and
ornamental landscaping (see Figure V.D-1, photographs 3, 5, and 6).

A total of 4,506 ornamental trees consisting of 47 different species are located within the developed
portions of the project site and were identified in the project arborist report.24 This report was
reviewed by the City’s consulting arborist. Most of these trees are non-native, but some native species
are present. The most abundant species of trees on-site include: ash (Fraxinus spp.), coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens), American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), silver-dollar gum (Eucalyp-
tus polyanthemos), and Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia).

Non-native trees and shrubs observed in the developed portions of the site include: London plane tree
(Platanus acerifolia), Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia), fern pine (Podocarpus gracilior), flowering
pear (Pyrus calleryana), evergreen pear (Pyrus kawakamii), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia),
Japanese flowering cherry (Prunus serrulata), raywood ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa “Raywood”),
European white birch (Betula pendula), strawberry tree (Arbutus unedo), swamp myrtle (Tristaniopsis
laurina), crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), flowering plum (Prunus cerasifera), Italian alder
(Alnus cordata), Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis), American sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), carob tree (Ceratonia siliqua), yew pine (Podocarpus macrophyllus), camphor tree
(Cinnamomum camphora), oleander (Nerium oleander), ash (Fraxinus sp.), sweet bay (Laurus
nobilis), weeping willow (Salix babylonica), red oak (Quercus rubra), tulip tree (Liriodendron
tulipifera), olive tree (Olea europaea), Australian willow (Geijera parviflora), shamel ash (Fraxinus
uhdei), Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), maidenhair
tree (Ginkgo biloba), Japanese maple (Acer palmatum), privet (Ligustrum japonicum), mimosa
(Albizia julibrissin), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), xylosma (Xylosma congestum), red
ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon), persimmon (Diospyros kaki), myoporum (Myoporum laetum),
deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), bottlebrush (Callistemon sp.), and mayten (Maytenus boaria), among
others.

Native but non-local trees in developed areas of the project site include coast redwood, Monterey pine
(Pinus radiata), and black walnut (Juglans nigra). Coast live oak and valley oak are local native
species that were observed in developed areas of the project site. Understory vegetation includes
ornamental shrubs and forbs, such as English ivy (Hedera helix), pittosporum (Pittosporum eugen-
ioides), pyracantha (Pyracantha sp.), oleander (Nerium oleander), star jasmine (Trachelospermum
jasminoides), bristly Matilija poppy (Romneya trichocalyx), and deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens).

A gravel lot in the north-central portion of the site supports sparse vegetation, including California
poppy (Eschscholzia californica), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), sweet william flower (Dianthus
barbatus), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), African daisy (Osteospermum sp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon
dactylon), and passion flower (Passiflora sp.). The gravel lot has a large mound that is covered with a
ground cover membrane (Figure V.D-1, photograph 4).




          24
               Muffly, Dave, 2011, op. cit.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           243
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




The Glendenning Barn is currently unused but maintained by Apple; however, in the more recent
past, it has been used to store equipment and appears to have been maintained by Hewlett Packard
maintenance staff. Although holes large enough for swallows and bats were observed below the eaves
of the barn’s roof, all of the holes appear to have been covered with wire mesh. No bird droppings or
bat guano were observed near the holes. Active bat roosts often omit a foul odor, which was also not
present at the barn. The barn was also frequented on a regular basis by Hewlett Packard staff, which
would likely discourage nesting of birds and roosting of bats.

Most wildlife species that use developed habitats are generalists that have adapted to human-modified
environments, although the species present vary depending on the type and diversity of vegetation in
an area. Species that inhabit industrial and commercial areas are able to use ornamental landscaping
as foraging habitat and/or escape cover, and some are able to exploit building crevices, rooftops,
and/or ledges on buildings for nesting and/or roosting. Bird species observed during LSA’s reconnais-
sance-level survey within this developed portion of the project site consist of red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), black phoebe (Sayornis nigra), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), chestnut-backed
chickadee (Poecile rufescens), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), Anna’s hummingbird
(Calypte anna), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos). Other bird species expected to occur
include rock pigeon (Columba livia), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house finch (Carpodacus
mexicanus), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus).

Mammal species expected to occur in developed habitats include Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae),
house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), house rat (Rattus rattus), northern
raccoon (Procyon lotor), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). The eastern gray squirrel was the
only mammal observed in the developed areas of the project site during LSA’s reconnaissance-level
survey.

       Riparian Vegetation. Riparian vegetation is dominated by species that are adapted to wet
stream banks, floodplains, and creek terraces that are seasonally flooded or permanently saturated by
freshwater. As part of the SCVWD Calabazas Creek Capacity Improvement Project (Phase 4), the
reach of Calabazas Creek within the project site was reconstructed with rock-filled gabions and wide
box culverts, partially lined with concrete (approximately 50-80 feet upstream and 180-250 feet
downstream of the culverts), and planted with native riparian plantings (Figure V.D-1, photographs 1
and 2).25 Trees observed along Calabazas Creek during LSA’s reconnaissance-level survey include
coast live oak, valley oak, California buckeye (Aescelus californica), and willow (Salix sp.).
Observed shrubs include coyote brush, California wild rose (Rosa californica), California blackberry
(Rubus ursinus), snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), and blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana). Most
of these plants are relatively small in size and were planted as part of the creek improvement project,
which was completed in 2007.26 Several mature trees and shrubs are present near the chain-link fence
along the southern end of the creek segment. Understory vegetation includes annual non-native grass
species and native and non-native shrubs and forbs, such as sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) and
smilo grass (Piptatherum miliaceum).




          25
               WRA, Inc. 2012, op. cit.
          26
               Ibid.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           244
      1. View of Calabazas Creek taken from eastern boundary of project   2. View of Calabazas Creek taken from southern boundary of
         site.                                                               project site.




       3. Typical view of the developed portion of project site and       4. View of gravel lot in north-central portion of project site.
          associated landscaping.




       5. View of landscaping near the Glendenning Barn.                  6. View of planted coast redwood trees.

                                                                                                                                   FIGURE V.D-1




                                                                                                     Apple Campus 2 Project EIR
PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON OCTOBER 19, 2011                                       Representative Biological Resource Photographs
I:\COC1101 Apple Campus 2\figures\EIR\Fig_VD-1.ai (12/8/11)
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




This page intentionally left blank.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           246
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




Many of the same wildlife species that occur in the developed habitats of the site likely also use
riparian vegetation, since the Calabazas Creek riparian vegetation consists of a relatively narrow
corridor within an otherwise urbanized landscape. Nevertheless, the somewhat higher structural
diversity of the riparian vegetation along portions of Calabazas Creek provides habitat for additional
understory species.

Bird species that may inhabit the riparian vegetation include Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii),
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna’s hummingbird, downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens),
black phoebe, western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglot-
tos), chestnut-backed chickadee, bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), California towhee (Melozone
crissalis), and American goldfinch (Carduelis tristas). During the winter, the resident bird commu-
nity may be supplemented by species that breed farther north or at higher elevations, such as cedar
waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), yellow-rumped warbler, and golden-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia
atricapilla). Bird species observed along the riparian corridor during LSA’s reconnaissance-level
survey consisted of black phoebe, American goldfinch, mourning dove, Anna’s hummingbird, and
bushtit. In addition to the bird species observed by LSA, WRA observed red-tailed hawk, American
crow, house finch, house sparrow, California towhee, American robin (Turdus migratorius), bushtit,
house wren (Troglodytes aedon), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and spotted towhee (Pipilo
maculatus) during the June 2011 survey of the Calabazas Creek riparian corridor.27

The increased leaf litter, moisture content, and, in some areas, understory vegetation, of woodland
habitats provides increased foraging opportunities and cover for amphibians and reptiles, such as
western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra), arboreal sala-
mander (Aneides lugubris), and California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus). WRA
observed western fence lizard during the survey of the Calabazas Creek riparian corridor.28

Mammal species expected to occur within the on-site riparian habitat include Virginia opossum,
Botta’s pocket gopher, house mouse, northern raccoon, and striped skunk. The linear nature of the
riparian vegetation within the project site facilitates some movement and dispersal for these species
through the urban environment, although the presence of a fence along both sides of the creek
restricts movement into the project site. Bat species, such as big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), hoary
bat (Lasiurus cinereus) (winter and migration only), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus town-
sendii), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), and Yuma
myotis (Myotis yumanensis) may also forage along the riparian corridor, although the overall urban
nature of the site and lack of suitable roosts makes it unlikely that the isolated corridor is used by bats
on a regular basis.

      Creek. Approximately 1,550 linear feet (approximately 0.3 mile) of Calabazas Creek occurs in
the project site.29 This creek originates in the Santa Cruz Mountains and discharges into San Francisco
Bay through Guadalupe Slough. The portion of the creek within the project site includes concrete box
culverts at the upstream and downstream ends of the creek where it passes under I-280 and North
Tantau Avenue, respectively, and comprises approximately 1,000 feet of shallow intermittent stream
channel with rocks, sandy substrate, and herbaceous vegetation. Plant species observed along the

          27
               Ibid.
          28
               Ibid.
          29
               Ibid.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           247
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




channel consist of fringed willowherb (Epilobium ciliatum), watercress (Nasturtium officinale),
rabbits-foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), curly dock (Rumex
crispus), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), sweet fennel, and wild oats (Avena fatua).

Calabazas Creek is known to support both native and introduced fish species. Fish species known to
occur in the Calabazas Creek watershed include the native threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus
aculeatus) and the introduced goldfish (Carassius auratus) and western mosquitofish (Gambusia
affinis).30

Many of the same amphibian species that occur in developed habitats may use Calabazas Creek for
breeding, foraging, and dispersal. A Sierran treefrog was heard calling from the creek channel during
LSA’s reconnaissance-level survey.

Within the urban environment, birds such as mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), great egret (Ardea alba),
snowy egret (Egretta thula), and great blue heron (Ardea herodias) are most likely to be found along
creeks. Creeks also provide ideal foraging habitat for tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor), cliff
swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonata), barn swallows (Hirundo rustica), and black phoebes. A
mallard was observed in the Calabazas Creek channel during LSA’s reconnaissance-level survey.

Mammals that may inhabit the riparian vegetation may also forage or drink from Calabazas Creek.
Fresh northern raccoon tracks were observed along the lower bank of the creek channel during LSA’s
reconnaissance-level survey.

      (2) Special-Status Species. This section outlines special-status species and sensitive habitats
within the project site.

For the purposes of this report, special-status species are defined as follows:
                 Species that are listed, formally proposed, or designated as candidates for listing as threat-
                  ened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act;
                 Species that are listed, or designated as candidates for listing, as rare, threatened, or endan-
                  gered under the California Endangered Species Act;
                 Plant species on Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants;
                 Animal species designated as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected by CDFW;
                 Species that meet the definition of rare, threatened, or endangered under Section 15380 of
                  the CEQA Guidelines; and
                 Species that are considered a taxa of special concern by the relevant local agencies.

       Special-Status Plants. Table V.D-1 lists seven special-status vascular plant species that were
evaluated for their potential to occur on the project site: Santa Cruz manzanita (Arctostaphylos
andersonii), Schreiber's manzanita (A. glutinosa), Ohlone manzanita (A. ohloneana), Pajaro manza-
nita (A. pajaroensis), Kings Mountain manzanita (A. regismontana), Bonny Doon manzanita (A.

       30
          Leidy, R. A, 2007. Ecology, Assemblage Structure, Distribution, and Status of Fishes in Streams Tributary to the
San Francisco Estuary, California. San Francisco Estuary Institute Contribution No. 530. San Francisco Estuary Institute,
Oakland, California.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           248
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




silvicola), and western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis). None of these seven plant species were
observed during WRA’s survey of the study area conducted on June 23 and July 19, 2011,31 or during
LSA’s reconnaissance-level survey on October 19, 2011, which is expected since these species are
generally found only in natural areas, whereas the study area is mostly landscaped and developed.
Several other special-status plant species, many of which were evaluated within the Biological
Resources Assessment 32 for the project, were removed from further consideration due to the lack of
suitable habitat or soil substrates (i.e., chaparral, salt marsh, vernal pools, serpentine soils) at the
project site.

Plants removed from consideration in the EIR due to the lack of suitable habitat on the project site
include: San Mateo thorn-mint (Acanthomintha duttonii), San Francisco onion (Allium peninsulare
var. franciscanum), alkali milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa),
San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana), lesser saltscale (Atriplex minuscula), Santa Cruz
Mountains pussypaws (Calyptridium parryi var. Hesseae), Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi
ssp. congdonii), robust spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta), Ben Lomond spineflower
(Chorizanthe pungens var. Hartwegiana), Mt. Hamilton thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. campylon),
fountain thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale), lost thistle (Cirsium praeteriens), San Francisco
collinsia (Collinsia multicolor), Point Reyes bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris),
Santa Clara Valley dudleya (Dudleya abramsii ssp. setchellii), Ben Lomond buckwheat (Eriogonum
nudum var. decurrens), San Mateo woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum latilobum), Hoover's button-celery
(Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri), Santa Cruz wallflower (Erysimum teretifolium), fragrant
fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea), short-leaved evax (Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia), Santa Cruz
cypress (Hesperocyparis abramsianavar. abramsiana), Marin western flax (Hesperolinon conges-
tum), Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina), Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens), legenere
(Legenerelimosa), smooth lessingia (Lessingia micradenia var.glabrata), arcuate bush mallow
(Malcothamnus arcuatus), Davidson's bush-mallow (Malacothamnus davidsonii), Hall’s bush mallow
(Malacothamnus hallii), robust monardella (Monardella villosa ssp. globosa), woodland wooly-
threads (Monolopia gracilens), prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrate), Kellman's
bristle moss (Orthotrichum kellmanii), Dudley's lousewort (Pedicularis dudleyi), Santa Cruz
Mountains beardtongue (Penstemon rattanii var. kleei), white-rayed pentachaeta (Pentachaeta
bellidiflora), white-flowered rein orchid (Piperia candida), hairless popcorn-flower (Plagiobothrys
glaber), San Francisco campion (Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda), Santa Cruz microseris (Stebbin-
soseris decipiens), Metcalf Canyon jewelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp.albidus), most beautiful
jewelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp.peramoenus), California seablite (Suaeda claifornica), and
caperfruit tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum capparideum).




          31
               WRA, Inc. 2012, op. cit.
          32
               Ibid.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           249
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                                                             D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




 Table V.D-1: Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Project Site
 Species                                           Statusa                       Habitat                                                         Potential for Occurrence within Project Site
 Plants
 Santa Cruz manzanita                              1B                            Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, openings and edges        Not present. The vegetative form of this shrub species
 Arctostaphylos andersonii                                                       of north coast coniferous forest; 60-730 meters (elevation);    was not observed during WRA’s survey of the Calabazas
                                                                                 blooms November-April.                                          Creek study area. No suitable habitat present within the
                                                                                                                                                 landscaped portions of the project site.
 Schreiber's manzanita                             1B                            Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, on diatomaceous       Not present. The vegetative form of this shrub species
 Arctostaphylos glutinosa                                                        shale soils; 170-685 meters; blooms March-April.                was not observed during WRA’s survey of the Calabazas
                                                                                                                                                 Creek study area. No suitable habitat present within the
                                                                                                                                                 landscaped portions of the project site.
 Ohlone manzanita                                  1B                            Closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal scrub on siliceous       Not present. The vegetative form of this shrub species
 Arctostaphylos ohloneana                                                        shale soils; 450 - 530 meters; blooms February-March.           was not observed during WRA’s survey of the Calabazas
                                                                                                                                                 Creek study area. No suitable habitat present within the
                                                                                                                                                 landscaped portions of the project site.
 Pajaro manzanita                                  1B                            Chaparral on sandy soils; 30-760 meters; blooms                 Not present. The vegetative form of this shrub species
 Arctostaphylos pajaroensis                                                      December-March.                                                 was not observed during WRA’s survey of the Calabazas
                                                                                                                                                 Creek study area. No suitable habitat present within the
                                                                                                                                                 landscaped portions of the project site.
 Kings Mountain manzanita                          1B                            Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, north coast               Not present. The vegetative form of this shrub species
 Arctostaphylos regismontana                                                     coniferous forest, on granitic or sandstone substrate; 305-     was not observed during WRA’s survey of the Calabazas
                                                                                 730 meters; blooms January-April.                               Creek study area. No suitable habitat present within the
                                                                                                                                                 landscaped portions of the project site.
 Bonny Doon manzanita                              1B                            Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest, lower montane         Not present. The vegetative form of this shrub species
 Arctostaphylos silvicola                                                        coniferous forest; restricted to inland marine sands; 120-390   was not observed during WRA’s survey of the Calabazas
                                                                                 meters; blooms February-March.                                  Creek study area. No suitable habitat present within the
                                                                                                                                                 landscaped portions of the project site.
 Western leatherwood                               1B                            Brushy slopes, mesic sites, mostly in mixed evergreen and       Not present. The vegetative form of this shrub species
 Dirca occidentalis                                                              foothill woodland communities in broadleafed upland             was not observed during WRA’s survey of the Calabazas
                                                                                 forest, chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane    Creek study area. No suitable habitat present within the
                                                                                 woodland, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forest,       landscaped portions of the project site.
                                                                                 riparian woodland; 30-550 meters; blooms January-March.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                             250
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                                                             D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




 Table V.D-1: Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Project Site
 Species                                           Statusa                       Habitat                                                        Potential for Occurrence within Project Site
 Fish
 Coho salmon (Central                              FE, SE                        Coastal streams from Punta Gorda in northern California        Does not occur. Not known to occur in Calabazas
 California Coast ESUb)                                                          down to and including the San Lorenzo River in central         Creek.33
 Oncorhynchus kisutch                                                            California, as well as some tributaries to San Francisco Bay
 Steelhead (Central California                     FT                            Coastal streams from Russian River south to Aptos Creek        Does not occur. Although known to occur in the early
 Coast ESU)                                                                      (Santa Cruz Co.), including streams tributary to San           1970s, due to barriers to migration, steelhead are
 Oncorhynchus mykiss                                                             Francisco and San Pablo Bays.                                  considered extinct in Calabazas Creek.34,35
 Amphibians
 California red-legged frog                        FT, SSC                       Ponds, streams, drainages and associated uplands; requires     Does not occur. Does not occur in the segment of
 Rana draytonii                                                                  areas of deep, still, and/or slow-moving water for breeding.   Calabazas Creek on the site due to lack of deep pools and
                                                                                                                                                vegetation cover. Not known to occur in the channelized
                                                                                                                                                portions of Calabazas Creek.36 Not observed during
                                                                                                                                                SCVWD surveys of Calabazas Creek conducted in 2005.
                                                                                                                                                Study for Calabazas Creek upstream of the project site
                                                                                                                                                determined red-legged frogs to be absent due to the lack
                                                                                                                                                of suitable habitat and negative results of protocol-level
                                                                                                                                                surveys conducted in 2007.37
 Reptiles
 Western pond turtle                               SSC                           Ponds, streams with deep pools, drainages and associated       Unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable pools and
 Actinemys marmorata                                                             uplands for egg laying.                                        basking sites.




          33
               Leidy, R. A., 2007, op. cit.
          34
         Leidy, R. A., G. S. Becker, and B. N. Harvey, 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San
Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem and Restoration, Oakland, California.
          35
               Ibid.
          36
          California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2011. California Natural Diversity Data Base Computer Printout for Species Occurrences Within a 5-mile Radius of the
Project Site. Sacramento, CA.
          37
         Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2009. Calabazas Creek Flood Protection Project: Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Project Number 26104001.
Website: www.valleywater.org/uploadedFiles/Services/FloodProtection/Projects/CalabazasCreekFloodProtectionProject/Reports_and_Documents/MND%20Final%20Calabazas
(4).pdf?n=7769 (accessed October 2011).


P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                              251
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                                                                       APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                                                                                V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                                                                             D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




 Table V.D-1: Special-Status Species Known to Occur or Potentially Occurring in the Vicinity of the Project Site
 Species                                           Statusa                       Habitat                                                        Potential for Occurrence within Project Site
 Birds
 White-tailed kite                                 CFP                           Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes; requires dense-          Unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable foraging habitat
 Elanus leucurus                                                                 topped trees or shrubs for nesting and perching.               in the vicinity.
 Northern harrier                                  SSC                           Nests in wet meadows and marshes, forages over open            May occasionally fly or forage over the project site, but
 Circus cyaneus                                                                  grasslands and agricultural fields.                            not expected to remain for long periods or breed within
                                                                                                                                                project site.
 American peregrine falcon                         SE, CFP                       A variety of open habitats, including coastlines, mountains,   May fly or forage over the project site, but not expected
 Falco peregrinus                                                                marshes, bay shorelines, and urban areas. Nests on cliffs,     to remain for long periods or breed within the project site.
                                                                                 bridges, and tall buildings.
 Long-eared owl                                    SSC                           Conifer, oak, riparian, pinyon-juniper, and desert             Does not occur due to lack of high quality suitable
 Asio otus                                                                       woodlands adjacent to grasslands, meadows, or shrublands.      habitat, such as dense woodlands; confirmed nesting in
                                                                                                                                                Santa Cruz Mountains in 1990s.
 Mammals
 Townsend’s big-eared bat                          SSC                           Riparian woodlands, wetlands, forest edges, and open           May occasionally forage over Calabazas Creek, but not
 Corynorhinus townsendii                                                         woodlands; roosts in caves, mines, and old buildings.          expected to roost on the project site due to the lack
                                                                                                                                                suitable roost sites. No known active roost sites in
                                                                                                                                                vicinity.
 Pallid bat                                        SSC                           A variety of open arid habitats (e.g., chaparral, open         May occasionally forage over Calabazas Creek, but not
 Antrozous pallidus                                                              woodland, deserts); primary roost sites include bridges, old   expected to roost on the project site due to the lack
                                                                                 buildings, and in tree hollows and/or bark; sometimes roosts   suitable roost sites. No known active roost sites in
                                                                                 in caves and rock crevices.                                    vicinity.
  San Francisco dusky-footed        SSC                                          Forest habitats of moderate canopy and moderate to dense       Does not occur due to lack of suitable mature woodland
  woodrat                                                                        understory.                                                    habitat and project site’s isolation from larger tracts of
  Neotoma fuscipes annectens                                                                                                                    woodland habitat.
a
    Status:
    FE = Federally Endangered
    FT = Federally Threatened
    ST = State endangered
    SSC = California Species of Special Concern
    CFP = California Fully Protected Species
    1B = California Rare Plant Rank 2: Rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere
b
    ESU = Evolutionarily Significant Unit




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                                                                                               252
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




       Special-Status Animals. Table V.D-1 lists 11 special-status animals that have the potential to
occur in the general vicinity of the project site. Several other special-status animal species, some of
which were evaluated within the Biological Resources Assessment 38 for the project, were removed
from further consideration due to the lack of suitable habitat (i.e., chaparral, salt marsh, vernal pools)
at the project site. The species removed from further consideration include vernal pool fairy shrimp
(Lepidurus packardi), Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), Zayante band-winged
grasshopper (Trimerotropis infantilis), green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), California tiger
salamander (Ambystoma californiense), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), San Francisco
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), redhead (Aythya americana), American white pelican
(Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), marbled murrelet (Brachyram-
phus marmoratus), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), California clapper rail
(Rallus longirostris obsoletus), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), California
least tern (Sternula antillarum browni), black skimmer (Rynchops niger), burrowing owl (Athene
cunicularia), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), San Fran-
cisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), Bryant’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus
sandwichensis alaudinus), Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula), tricolored blackbird
(Agelaius tricolor), salt marsh wandering shrew (Sorex vagrans halicoetes), salt marsh harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys raviventris), western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), American badger (Taxidea
taxus), and ringtail (Bassariscus astutus). Table V.D-1 also does not include wildlife species, such as
hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), that were evaluated in the
Biological Resources Assessment,39 but not considered to be special-status species under CEQA.

Due to the lack of high quality suitable habitat and prior disturbance at the project site, no special-
status animal species are expected to occur at the site. Calabazas Creek is not known to support
steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) due to the absence of
high quality habitat, such as pools, cover, and adequate stream flows, and barriers to passage along
the lower portions of the creek.40,41 San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes
annectens) is unlikely to occur on the site due to lack of suitable mature woodland habitat and the
site’s isolation from larger tracts of woodland habitat. Some special-status bats could forage on or
over the project site, but these bats are not expected to roost in the trees on the site due to the small
size of the trees and lack of suitable cavities. The following special-status animal species may
occasionally pass through or forage within the project site, but are not expected to breed on the
project site or remain on the site for prolonged periods of time: white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus),
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), long-eared
owl (Asio otus), pallid bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bat. The California red-legged frog (Rana
draytonii) and western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) are not expected to inhabit the segment of
Calabazas Creek on the project site due to the lack of suitable habitat conditions, such as deeper pools
and vegetative cover.42 Additional information on these two species and their habitat requirements is
discussed in further detail below.

          38
               WRA, Inc. 2012, op. cit.
          39
               Ibid.
          40
               Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, and B.N. Harvey. 2005, op. cit.
          41
               Leidy, R. A, 2007, op. cit.
          42
               WRA, Inc. 2012, op. cit.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           253
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




       California Red-Legged Frog (Federally Threatened). The California red-legged frog has
been extirpated or nearly extirpated from 70 percent of its former range. Population declines of this
species have been attributed to a variety of factors, with habitat loss and predation by non-native
aquatic predators (e.g., bullfrogs, crayfish, other non-native fishes) typically implicated as the primary
threats. California red-legged frog occurs in and along freshwater marshes, streams, ponds, and other
semi-permanent water sources. Optimal habitat contains dense emergent or shoreline riparian vegeta-
tion closely associated with deep (i.e., greater than 2.3 feet), still, or slow-moving water.43 Cattails
(Typha spp.), bulrushes (Scripus spp.), and arroyo willows (Salix lasiolepis) provide the habitat
structure that seems to be most suitable for California red-legged frog.44 Although the species can
occur in intermittent streams and ponds, it is unlikely to persist in streams in which all surface water
disappears.45 Suitable breeding ponds and pools usually have a minimum depth of 20 inches, but
California red-legged frog sometimes breeds successfully in pools as shallow as 10 inches.46 Regard-
less of water depth, suitable breeding habitat must contain water during the entire development period
for eggs and tadpoles.

California red-legged frog has been observed in the upper reaches of Calabazas Creek near Mt. Eden
Road in Saratoga, approximately 4.9 miles from the site,47 but is not expected to occur in the channel-
ized portion of the creek that occurs on the project site due to reduced water quality from urban
stormwater, lack of suitable breeding pools, and lack of natural streamside vegetation.48 The on-site
reach of the creek is surrounded by dense urban development, isolating it from natural habitat that
could support native species such as California red-legged frog. Significant portions of the creek have
been placed in culverts (approximately 700- to 1,000-foot sections) upstream of the project site,
further reducing the likelihood that native species from natural areas upstream would occur on the on-
site section of the creek. SCVWD did not observe red-legged frog in Calabazas Creek during surveys
conducted in 2005,49 and results from a protocol-level habitat assessment conducted in 2007 deter-
mined that no suitable habitat was present along Calabazas Creek in a channelized portion upstream
from the project site.50 Because habitat conditions are similar or of lower quality than the portions of
the creek surveyed in 2005 and 2007, it is not likely that California red-legged frogs inhabit the on-



          43
        Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes, 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California.
          44
               Ibid.
          45
               Ibid.
          46
          Fellers, G. M., 2005. California red-legged frog. M. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian Declines: The Conservation
Status of Unites States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley.
       47
          California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2011. California Natural Diversity Data Base Computer Printout for
Species Occurrences Within a 5-mile Radius of the Project Site. Sacramento, CA.
          48
         Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2009. Calabazas Creek Flood Protection Project: Final Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Project Number 26104001. Website: www.valleywater.org/uploadedFiles/Services/
FloodProtection/Projects/CalabazasCreekFloodProtectionProject/Reports_and_Documents/MND%20Final%20Calabazas(4)
.pdf?n=776 (accessed October 2011).
          49
               WRA, Inc. 2012, op. cit.
          50
         Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2009. Calabazas Creek Flood Protection Project: Final Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration, Project Number 26104001. Website: www.valleywater.org/uploadedFiles/Services/
FloodProtection/Projects/CalabazasCreekFloodProtectionProject/Reports_and_Documents/MND%20Final%20Calabazas(4)
.pdf?n=7769 (accessed October 2011).



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           254
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




site portion of Calabazas Creek. Further, the 2012 study conducted by WRA did not identify any
California red-legged frogs or suitable on-site breeding habitat.51

       Western Pond Turtle (California Species of Special Concern). Western pond turtle occurs in
a wide variety of aquatic habitats, including ponds, lakes, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation
ditches that typically have a rocky or muddy bottom and contain stands of aquatic vegetation.52 The
presence or absence of pond turtle at a given aquatic site is largely dependent on the availability of
suitable basking sites and adjacent upland habitat for egg-laying (e.g., sandy banks or grassy open
fields) and over-wintering. Nests are typically dug in dry substrate with a high clay or silt fraction
since the female moistens the site where she will excavate the nest prior to egg-laying.53 Hatchlings
require shallow water habitat with relatively dense submergent or short emergent vegetation in which
to forage.54

The project site’s portion of Calabazas Creek provides limited habitat for pond turtle, due to the lack
of suitable basking sites (sandy banks and/or rocks), vegetative cover, and deep pools. The surround-
ing development has also likely resulted in the elimination of suitable upland habitat for egg-laying,
reducing the likelihood that the species is present in the urbanized portion of the creek. The closest
CNDDB occurrence of the species is approximately 4.7 miles from the project site in the Guadalupe
River in San Jose.55

     (3)             Sensitive Habitats. Special plant communities and jurisdictional waters are described
below.

       Special Plant Communities. The CDFW tracks the occurrences of “special” plant communi-
ties that are either known or believed to be of high priority for inventory in the CNDDB. These plant
communities are listed in the CDFW publication List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities
Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database.56 These communities are sometimes
addressed by lead or trustee agencies in CEQA documents, but generally are not afforded the same
protection as CNPS List 1B and 2 plant species. Many special plant communities support special-
status plants and animals and are addressed under CEQA as habitat for those species. No such special
plant communities occur on the site.



          51
               WRA Inc. 2012, op. cit.
          52
       Stebbins, R. C., 2003. A field guide to western amphibians and reptiles. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
          53
          Holland, D. C., 1991. Status and reproductive dynamics of a population of western pond turtles (Clemmys
marmorata) in Klickitat County, Washington, in 1991. Unpublished report prepared for the Washington Department of
Wildlife, Olympia. Cited in Jennings and Hayes 1994.
          54
          Holland, D., 1994. Personal communication, cited in Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. Amphibian and reptiles
species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho
Cordova, California.
          55
         California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2011. California Natural Diversity Data Base Computer Printout for
Species Occurrences Within a 5-mile Radius of the Project Site. Sacramento, CA.
        56
           California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2003. List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized
by the California Natural Diversity Data Base. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Vegetation Classification and
Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           255
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




       Jurisdictional Waters. Although a formal jurisdictional delineation of wetlands and other
waters of the U.S. and waters of the State was not conducted for this study, the portions of Calabazas
Creek below the Ordinary High Water Mark would fall under Corps and RWQCB jurisdiction
pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act. Modifications to the bed, bank, or riparian vegetation along Calabazas Creek are
also expected to be regulated by CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of the FGC. However, unlike Corps
jurisdiction, which is limited to the Ordinary High Water Mark, CDFW requires activities which
occur within the top of the bank, or the outer drip line of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, to
be authorized under a Streambed Alteration Agreement.

2.        Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following section describes potential impacts to biological resources that could result from imple-
mentation of the proposed project. This section begins with the criteria of significance, which
establish thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section
identifies biological resource impacts that could result from the proposed project. Mitigation
measures are identified to reduce such impacts, as appropriate.

a.   Significance Criteria. The project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it
would:
                 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
                  species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
                  plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS;
                 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
                  community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or
                  USFWS;
                 Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
                  of the Clean Water Act or State protected wetlands as defined by the Porter-Cologne Water
                  Quality Control Act.57 Such wetlands include but are not limited to, marsh, vernal, pool,
                  coastal etc. Such adverse effects include but are not limited to direct removal, filling,
                  hydrological interruption, excavation, or other means;
                 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
                  wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
                  impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
                 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including the
                  City of Cupertino’s Protected Tree Ordinance; or
                 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
                  Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

b.    Less-Than-Significant Impacts. The developed nature of the site reduces the potential of the
project to adversely affect threatened, endangered, or otherwise protected plant and animal species.
Rare plants that grow in the region of the project site are associated with the following habitat types:

          57
          Substantial effects could occur to isolated wetlands not jurisdictional under the federal CWA; however, such
isolated wetlands would be subject to State jurisdiction under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           256
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




broadleaved and coniferous forests, chaparral, vernal pools, wetlands, marshes, gravelly alluvium,
sandy terraces, brushy slopes, and habitats with serpentine and alkaline substrates. None of these
habitat types occur on the project site due to its prior development as a business park and landscaping
with ornamental plants. Because suitable native habitats for rare plants do not occur on the project
site, special-status plants known from the region would not occur on this site and no impacts to these
species would occur. No wetlands or waters of the U.S. would be filled as a result of the project.

The project does not include encroachment into the Calabazas Creek corridor. The gated existing
concrete maintenance access pathways (one north of I-280 and one adjacent to North Tantau Avenue)
would be maintained, as well as a 50-foot buffer from the top of the bank. To the extent that planting
occurs within the buffer, the applicant would follow guidelines and standards for land use near
streams from both the California Native Plant Society and the SCVWD’s Qualifying Plant List. The
project only includes cultivars of native species along the creek. Planting is designed to support creek
access for maintenance. All plans for any planting would be reviewed with the SCVWD and require a
permit prior to final approval.

In addition, the proposed project would not affect any existing wildlife movement corridors, most
notably the Calabazas Creek stream channel, because the project would maintain all current fencing,
planting and setbacks from the creek.

As noted previously, the project site (and the entirety of the City of Cupertino) are located adjacent to
but outside the boundaries of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan.58 The only cities within the Santa
Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan area are the cities of
San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy. Therefore, the Apple Campus 2 Project is not covered by the Plan
and would not be required to pay Plan development fees, including the Nitrogen Deposition Fee.59
However, in response to the environmental concerns raised by the Habitat Plan, Apple has voluntarily
agreed to pay the Nitrogen Deposition Fee, which, assuming the project generates 35,106 net new
daily trips, would amount to a fee of $126,381.60. This amount would be paid to the Implementing
Entity of the Habitat Conservation Plan, which is expected to be a Joint Powers Authority made up of
the cities of San Jose, Gilroy and Morgan Hill; Santa Clara Valley Water District; Valley Transporta-
tion Authority; and Santa Clara County. Apple would pay the Nitrogen Deposition Fee upon issuance
of the grading permit for the project, unless the Joint Powers Authority has not yet been formed. In
that case, Apple would pay the fee upon formation of the Joint Powers Authority. The project site is
not located within any other habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and
would not conflict with any such plan.

c.     Significant Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project could affect special-status
animals, nursery sites, and protected trees. The following discussion describes and evaluates potential
significant impacts to biological resources and identifies measures that would mitigate these impacts
to a less-than-significant level.




          58
               Santa Clara County, 2012. Ibid.
          59
         Willdan Financial Services with Urban Economics, 2012. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Development Fee
Nexus Study. June 30.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           257
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




       (1) Special-Status Animals and Nursery Sites. Table V.D-1 lists 11 special-status wildlife
species and evaluates their potential to occur on or in the vicinity of the site. Six of these species
(western pond turtle, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, American peregrine falcon, pallid bat, and
Townsend’s big-eared bat) could occasionally occur on the site in marginally suitable habitat. San
Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is not expected to occur on the site due to the lack of mature
woodland habitat on the site and isolation of the reach of Calabazas Creek on the site from other
natural areas. Long-eared owl is not expected to occur on the site due to the lack of high quality
suitable habitat, such as dense woodlands. Likewise, California red-legged frog is not expected to
occur on the site due to the lack of suitable cover, deep pools within the creek for breeding and larval
development, and isolation of the site from natural areas that support red-legged frog. The two
remaining species evaluated in Table V.D-1, coho salmon and steelhead, are not known to occur on
the site due to barriers to migration along Calabazas Creek downstream of the site.60,61

Although western pond turtle could disperse through this reach of Calabazas Creek, this species is not
expected to occur on the site with any regularity. Bat species are not expected to roost in the
Calabazas Creek channel box culverts, riparian vegetation, or landscaped trees on the site due to the
lack of quality foraging habitat, the small tree size within the riparian corridor, and the proximity of
human disturbance to the landscaped trees on the site. Although not every tree was inspected, no
suitable cavities were observed in the trees during LSA’s reconnaissance-level survey. Impacts are
discussed below for protected bird species.

Impact BIO-1: The proposed project may result in the destruction or abandonment of nests
occupied by special-status or non-special-status bird species that are protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code. (S)

The riparian vegetation and developed habitat on the project site provide nesting habitat for native
bird species, including eggs and young birds in active nests. Intentional actions which kill or take
these birds are regulated under the MBTA and/or FGC. Although no active or inactive nests were
observed during LSA’s reconnaissance-level survey, several protected bird species were observed
foraging on the project site and have the potential to nest in the existing landscaping and riparian
vegetation on the site. As of March 2013, there are currently 4,506 trees at the site.62 The proposed
project would retain in-place a minimum of 800 trees and would transplant a minimum of 90 trees on
the project site. A maximum of 3,620 trees would be removed from the site. The trees that would be
preserved are primarily located along the periphery of the site and along the Calabazas Creek riparian
corridor. At least 6,200 trees would be planted on the site, resulting in a net increase of at least 2,494
trees on the site. In addition, trees along street rights-of-way may be removed or impacted due to road
widening associated with the project or improvements required by mitigation measures identified in
Section V.I, Transportation and Circulation. Grading and construction activities near nests during the
nesting season could cause nest abandonment and/or loss of eggs or young during the breeding season
and would represent a significant impact.

          60
               Leidy, R. A., G. S. Becker, and B. N. Harvey, 2005, op. cit.
          61
               Leidy, R. A., 2007, op. cit.
          62
          As noted in Chapter III, Project Description, since collection of data on existing conditions and a tree census
conducted in 2011, the number of trees on the project site may have changed as some have been removed due to poor health.
Additionally, as project design and plans progress, the number of trees being removed and/or transplanted on site may
change slightly.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           258
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to nesting common and
special-status bird species to a less-than-significant level:

          Mitigation Measure BIO-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys prior to tree pruning,
          tree removal, transplantation, ground disturbing activities, or construction activities on the site
          to locate active nests containing either viable eggs or young birds. Preconstruction surveys are
          not required for tree removal, tree pruning, or construction activities outside the nesting period.
          If construction would occur during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), preconstruc-
          tion surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of pruning, construction,
          or ground disturbing activities. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14-day intervals
          until construction has been initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped. Locations
          of active nests containing viable eggs or young birds shall be described and protective measures
          implemented until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds. Protective measures shall
          include establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by uniquely
          identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest site as
          determined by a qualified wildlife biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting on-
          site and their tolerance for disturbance. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300
          feet from the drip line of the nest tree or nest for raptors and 50 feet for passerines and other
          species. The active nest sites within an exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis
          throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance or to determine if each nest no
          longer contains eggs or young birds. The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the
          project biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds.
          Exclusion zones may be reduced by the project biologist only in consultation with CDFW. The
          protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging
          independently or the nest is no longer active. For any project-related activities involving the
          removal of trees during the nesting season, a report shall be submitted to the City of Cupertino
          and CDFW once per year documenting the observations and actions implemented to comply
          with this mitigation measure. (LTS)

Impact BIO-2: New buildings that would be developed as part of the project could result in bird
collisions. (S)

Avian injury and mortality resulting from collisions with buildings is a common occurrence in city
and suburban settings. Some birds are unable to detect and avoid glass and have difficulty distin-
guishing between actual objects and their reflected images. In addition, buildings’ artificial lighting
can interfere with some night-migrating birds. The frequency of bird collisions in any particular area
depends on many factors, including local and migratory avian populations; densities and species
composition; migration characteristics; resting and feeding patterns; habitat preferences; time of year;
prevailing winds; and weather conditions.

The proposed project could result in bird collisions and mortalities due to the large percentage of
glass proposed for use in campus buildings, the wide expanse of windows along the perimeter of the
Main Building and some of the ancillary buildings, and the extensive landscaping proposed for the
on-site open space. The project site is not located in a migratory bird flight path (thereby lessening the
risk of interference with avian behavior and migration patterns) and any collisions that do result
should not have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive species identified in Table V.D-1. Imple-




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           259
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




mentation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with bird strikes to a
less-than-significant level.

          Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The project sponsor shall incorporate the following design features
          (developed through a review of bird-safe design guidelines63) into the project to reduce bird
          collisions:

          Main Building and North Tantau Structures
                 From outside most buildings, glass often appears highly reflective, reproducing habitat and
                  appearing attractive to some birds. To limit reflectivity and prevent exterior glass from
                  attracting birds, the project shall utilize low-reflectivity glass (7 percent reflectivity, 0
                  percent ultra-violet transmittance). This low-reflectivity glass shall be used for the entirety
                  of the building’s glass surface (not just the lower levels nearest trees where bird collisions
                  may be the most common) to provide additional avian safety.
                 The Main Building shall include 10-foot-wide awnings at each story (or a similar feature)
                  to create “visual noise” by covering windows and muting image reflections.
                 All indoor potted plants shall be placed away from the glass perimeter so that birds do not
                  attempt to fly into the vegetation.
                 All roof mechanical equipment shall be covered by low-profile angled roofing so that
                  obstacles to bird flight are minimized.
                 Interior light “pollution” shall be reduced during evening hours through the use of a
                  lighting control system.

          Main Parking Structure and North Tantau Parking Structures
                 The above-grade parking structures shall be designed with open-air façades. No glass shall
                  be utilized so birds can access open through-passages.

          Corporate Auditorium/Corporate Fitness Center
                 To limit reflectivity and prevent exterior glass from attracting birds, the project shall utilize
                  low-reflectivity glass (7 percent reflectivity, 0 percent ultra-violet transmittance).
                 Interior light “pollution” shall be reduced during evening hours through the use of a
                  lighting control system.
                 The Corporate Fitness Center shall include 5-foot wide awnings (or a similar feature) to
                  create “visual noise” by covering windows and muting image reflections. (LTS)


          63
               San Francisco Planning Department, 2011. Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings, San Francisco, California. Adopted
July 14;
          Doeker, R., 2005. Bird-safe Design Practices. Website: www.birdsandbuildings.org/docs/birdsafedesign.pdf;
       Toronto, City of, 2007. Bird-Friendly Development Guidelines. Green Development Standard, City Planning,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada;
     New York City Audubon Society, 2007. Bird Safe Building Guidelines. New York, NY. Website:
www.birdsandbuildings.org/docs/BirdSafeBuildingGuidelines.pdf.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           260
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




      (2) Protected Trees. The following impact and associated mitigation measure address
protected trees.

Impact BIO-3: The proposed project would result in the removal of trees that are protected
under the City of Cupertino’s Tree Protection Ordinance, and could thus conflict with a local
policy or ordinance protecting biological resources. (S)

The arborist reports identify 4,506 trees that meet the definition of protected trees under Chapter
14.18.035 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (all trees on the site are considered protected because
they were “required to be planted or retained as part of an approved development application,
building permit, tree removal permit, or code enforcement action”). According to the project plans, a
maximum of 3,620 trees would be removed from the site, and other trees would be removed due to
road widening at other locations in the City associated with the project or improvements required by
mitigation measures identified in Section V.I, Transportation, Circulation and Parking. A minimum of
90 trees would be transplanted on-site. In a memorandum prepared by OLIN (the project’s lead
landscape architect),64 Table 1 – Tree Transplant Schedule identifies all of the existing tagged trees to
be transplanted and their status and future location. At least 6,200 new trees would be planted on the
site, resulting in a net increase of at least 2,494 trees on-site (see Figure III-3, Existing and Proposed
Trees in Chapter III, Project Description).

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with removal
of protected trees to a less-than-significant level.

          Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Replacement/compensation of all protected trees shall be under-
          taken in accordance with the Review of the Consolidated Arborist Report for the Apple Campus
          2 Project65 and City Municipal Code requirements, prior to the initiation of construction.
          Recommendations noted within the Review of the Consolidated Arborist Report for the Apple
          Campus 2 Project, as modified by the Adjustments to Response to the Review of the
          Consolidated Arborist Report per EIR Plan Revision66 and A Review of the Trees
          Recommended for Transplant at the Apple Campus 2 Project67 shall be implemented to the
          satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Protected trees that are damaged or
          removed during construction or roadway improvements shall be subject to replace-
          ment/compensation according to the City’s tree protection ordinance. However, replacement
          for removed trees subject to the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance shall be consistent with the
          requirements of Chapter 14.18 of the Protected Tree Ordinance. Trees that have been identified
          as being suitable for transplantation shall be relocated in accordance with the Tree Transplant
          Schedule approved by the Community Development Director. (LTS)




          64
          OLIN, 2012. Memorandum to City of Cupertino, Adjustments to Response to the Review of the Consolidated
Arborist Report per EIR Plan Revisions. November 6.
          65
               Bench, Michael L., 2013, op. cit.
          66
               OLIN, 2012, op. cit.
          67
         Bench, Michael L., 2013. A Review of the Trees Recommended for Transplant at the Apple Campus 2 Project,
Cupertino, California. January 23.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           261
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                           APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                    V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES




d.     Cumulative Impacts. Development of the proposed project would not contribute to the cumu-
lative regional loss of open lands/habitat which may support special-status species and sensitive
communities. Due to prior disturbance and lack of suitable habitat at the project site, the proposed
project is not likely to affect special-status species and sensitive habitats. The proposed project
(including mitigation measures recommended in this EIR) would also not adversely affect the
Calabazas Creek channel, other creek channels, and associated riparian vegetation. Existing wildlife
movement corridors within the Calabazas Creek corridor and project site would not be affected by the
proposed project. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, the project would
not make a significant contribution to cumulative impacts to biological resources. In general, the
impacts to biological resources that would result from the project would be confined to the project
site.




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5d-Bio.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           262
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                         V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                        E. CULTURAL RESOURCES




E.         CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section describes existing cultural resources baseline conditions in the project site and vicinity,
identifies potentially significant impacts to cultural resources that may result from project implemen-
tation, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce the severity of significant impacts.

Cultural resources are sites, buildings, structures, objects, and districts that may have traditional or
cultural value for their historical significance. Cultural resources include a broad range of resources,
examples of which include archaeological sites, historic roadways and railroad tracks, and buildings
of architectural significance. For a cultural resource to be considered a historical resource (i.e.,
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources), it generally must be 50 years or
older and qualify for at least one of four categories listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a):
                 A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commis-
                  sion, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code
                  SS5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 4850 et seq.).
                 A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section
                  5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource
                  survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code. Public
                  agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence
                  demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
                 Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency
                  determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering,
                  scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of
                  California, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in
                  light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be
                  “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California
                  Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section
                  4852).
                 The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the
                  California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical
                  resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in a
                  historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources
                  Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be a
                  historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Under CEQA, paleontological resources are a subset of cultural resources and include fossil plants
and animals, and evidence of past life such as trace fossils and tracks. Ancient marine sediments may
contain invertebrate fossils representing snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and
vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Terrestrial sediments may contain fossils
that represent such vertebrate land mammals as mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse, and bison.

1.         Setting
This section: (1) describes the methods used to establish the baseline conditions for cultural resources
in and around the project site; (2) provides a brief historical overview of the project area; (3) includes




P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5e-Cultural.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           263
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                         V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                        E. CULTURAL RESOURCES




the State and local legislative regulatory context for cultural resources; and (4) describes the cultural
resources identified in the project site and their significance under CEQA.

a.     Methods. This cultural resources analysis is based on archival records searches, a literature
review, correspondence with local historical societies, and a field survey. This work was done to
establish the baseline conditions for cultural resources in the project site and vicinity.

      (1) Records Searches. Records searches were conducted to identify cultural resources
within and adjacent to the project site. Records searches were conducted at the Northwest Information
Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University,
Rohnert Park; the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Sacramento; and the
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), Berkeley. The NWIC, an affiliate of the
State of California Office of Historic Preservation, is the official State repository of cultural resources
records and reports for Santa Clara County. The NAHC maintains the Sacred Lands File, which
includes the locations of sites with cultural significance to Native American groups. The UCMP’s
database includes information on locations where fossils have been identified, the taxa of fossils
found at a particular location, and the geological formations associated with a fossil locality.

As part of the records search, LSA reviewed the following State and local inventories for cultural
resources in and immediately adjacent to the project site:
                 California Inventory of Historic Resources;1
                 California Historical Landmarks;2
                 California Points of Historical Interest;3
                 Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California;4
                 Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File.5 The directory includes the
                  listings of the National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmarks, the
                  California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and
                  California Points of Historical Interest; and
                 City of Cupertino General Plan.

       (2) Literature Review. Publications, maps, historical aerial photographs, and internet sites
were reviewed for archaeological, ethnographic, and historical information about the project site and
its vicinity. The purpose of this review was to identify cultural resources in the project site and
identify the potential for the project site to contain such resources.

           1
       California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources. California
Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
           2
        California Office of Historic Preservation, 1996. California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks
and Recreation, Sacramento.
       3
         California Office of Historic Preservation, 1992. California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of
Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
           4
               California Office of Historic Preservation, 1988. Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California.
           5
        California Office of Historic Preservation, 2011. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
August 15.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5e-Cultural.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           264
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                         V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                        E. CULTURAL RESOURCES




The literature review indicates that the project site was occupied by Robert and Margaret Glen-
denning beginning in the 1850s. The site was owned and farmed by various members of the
Glendenning family until 1964, when Varian Associates purchased the land for development. By
1968, the agricultural setting of the property had been substantially changed with the development of
offices and roads (and residences in surrounding areas). The transition from farmland to office park
continued until approximately 1987, by which time an aerial photograph indicates the remaining
orchards east of the Glendenning Barn at 10955 Tantau Avenue were replaced with office buildings
and parking lots.

LSA also reviewed paleontological and geological literature relevant to the project site and its
vicinity. This review identified the development site as being underlain by Quaternary period (2.8
million years ago to present) deposits, some of which may contain fossils.6

No prehistoric archaeological or ethnographic sites were definitively identified within or immediately
adjacent to the project site by the literature review. However, prehistoric sites in Santa Clara Valley
are frequently buried under alluvium (sediments deposited by flowing water) and the absence of
typical surface indicators of an archaeological site (e.g., midden soils; flaked chert, basalt, and
obsidian; and subsistence-related detritus, such as burned bone and marine shell) do not necessarily
indicate an absence of an archaeological deposits.7 Nevertheless, the likelihood that such deposits
occur on the site is reduced due to the intense development of the site with urban uses starting in the
mid-1960s.

       (3) Consultation. For the purpose of gathering information, on November 9, 2011 LSA sent
a letter describing the project and a map depicting the project area to the Cupertino Historical Society
and Santa Clara County Historical Society, requesting information or concerns regarding historical
resources in the project site.8 Both organizations are not affiliated with government agencies and have
no regulatory authority. The outcomes of this consultation are summarized below.
                 Cupertino Historical Society. On November 12, 2011, the Cupertino Historical Society
                  (CHS) responded in a letter to LSA expressing concern about the project’s potential impact
                  on the Glendenning Barn.9 CHS notes that the historical significance of the barn lies not
                  only with its architectural significance but with its association with the Glendenning
                  family. (As described in this section, the barn is considered a historic resource under CEQA
                  because it was identified by the City as such in a local register of historic resources.) CHS
                  also states that it “would like to know what steps are going to be taken to honor this site
                  and mitigate the loss of the barn and the property.”



           6
        Hertlein, Leo G., 1951:187. Invertebrate Fossils and Fossil Localities. In Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco
Bay Counties: History, Landscape, Geology, Fossils, Minerals, Industry, and Routes to Travel, prepared by Olaf P. Jenkins,
pp. 187–192. Bulletin 154. State of California Division of Mines, San Francisco.
           7
          Meyer, Jack, and Jeffrey Rosenthal, 2007. Geoarchaeological Overview of the Nine Bay Area Counties in Caltrans
District 4. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.
        8
          Jones, E. Timothy, 2011. Archaeologist/Cultural Resources Manager, LSA Associates, Inc. Written communication
to the Cupertino Historical Society and Santa Clara County Historical Society, November 9.
           9
        McKenna, Mark, 2011. Acting Board Chair, Cupertino Historical Society. Written communication to LSA
Associates, Inc. November 12.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5e-Cultural.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           265
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                         V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                        E. CULTURAL RESOURCES




                 Santa Clara County Historical Society. No response to LSA’s November 9, 2011 letter
                  was received from the Santa Clara County Historical Society (SCCHS), and a follow-up
                  email was sent to the organization on November 21, 2011, requesting that it contact LSA
                  with any information or concerns regarding cultural resources in the project site. No
                  response has been received to-date.

       (4) Field Survey. On November 28, 2011, an LSA cultural resources manager with expertise
in historic resources and archaeology conducted a field survey of the project site. The project site is
mostly developed with buildings, asphalt parking lots, and landscaping, which precluded an intensive
review of the native ground surface. Areas of exposed soils, however, were inspected for archaeologi-
cal deposits. No surface archaeological deposits were identified during the survey.

        (5) Historic Architectural Evaluation. Page & Turnbull, Inc. prepared a Historic Resource
Evaluation for the Glendenning Barn. Page & Turnbull’s study included background research, a field
inventory of the Glendenning Barn by an architectural historian, and an evaluation of the barn as a
historic resource as defined by CEQA. Page & Turnbull concluded that the Glendenning Barn lacked
sufficient integrity to qualify for the California Register of Historical Resources. However, because it
is listed as a Historic Site in the City’s General Plan, the barn is presumed to be a historic resource for
the purpose of CEQA due to its inclusion in an officially-designated local register of historic
resources.

b.     Cultural Resources Overview. This subsection briefly describes the prehistory and ethnogra-
phy, history, and paleontology of the project site vicinity as determined by the records searches and
literature review described above.

       (1) Prehistory and Ethnography. The Paleo-Archaic-Emergent cultural sequence devel-
oped by Fredrickson10 is commonly used to interpret the prehistoric occupation of Central California.
The sequence is broken into three broad periods: the Paleoindian Period (12,000–8,000 years before
the present (B.P.)); the three-staged Archaic Period, consisting of the Lower Archaic (8,000–5,000
B.P.), Middle Archaic (5,000–3,000 B.P.), and Upper Archaic (3,000–1,500 B.P.); and the Emergent
Period (1500–200 B.P.).

The Paleoindian Period began with the first entry of people into California. These people probably
subsisted mainly on big game, minimally processed plant foods, and had no known trade networks.
The Archaic Period is characterized by increased use of plant foods, elaboration of burial and grave
goods, and increasingly complex trade networks.11 The Emergent Period is marked by an increase in
cultural complexity as demonstrated through finely wrought materials, such as new Olivella bead
types and an array of multi-perforated and bar-scored Haliotis ornaments. The first arrow-sized
projectile points in the Bay Area did not appear until after A.D. 1250. An increase in the complexity



       10
          Fredrickson, David A., 1974. Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges.
Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):41–53.
           11
          Bennyhoff, James A., and David A. Fredrickson, 1994. A Proposed Integrative Taxonomic Systems for Central
California Archaeology. In Toward A New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A.
Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 15–24. Contributions of the University of California
Archaeological Research Facility 52, Berkeley.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5e-Cultural.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           266
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                         V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                        E. CULTURAL RESOURCES




of social stratification is demonstrated through a change in mortuary practices.12 These changes in
mortuary practices reflect a new regional ceremonial system that was the precursor of the ethno-
graphic Kuksu cult, a ceremonial system that unified the many language groups around San Francisco
Bay.

The prehistoric hunters and gatherers who lived in Santa Clara Valley used a variety of microhabitats
for food, resources, and shelter, including the marshes and sloughs of southern San Francisco Bay,
riparian and associated freshwater marshes, alluvial plans, foothills, and mountains. Evidence of
prehistoric occupation is found throughout Santa Clara Valley – often buried under several feet of
alluvium – and includes human remains, shell ornaments, subsistence debris (e.g., shell and bone),
and flaked and ground stone artifacts.

The Tamyen group of Ohlone inhabited what is now Cupertino at the time of Spanish contact. The
Tamyen tribe probably consisted of three principal villages at the time of Spanish contact, all of
which were abandoned by 1795, their inhabitants conscripted to Bay Area missions.13

      (2) General History.14 The village of Cupertino sprang up at the crossroads of Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road (now De Anza Boulevard) and Stevens Creek Road. It was first known as West Side,
but by 1898, the post office at the Crossroads needed a new name to distinguish it from other
similarly named towns. John T. Doyle, a San Francisco lawyer and historian, had given the name
Cupertino to his winery, in recognition of the name bestowed on the nearby creek. In 1904, the name
was applied to the Crossroads and to the post office when the Home Union Store incorporated under
the name (The Cupertino Store) and moved to the northeast corner of the Crossroads.

Many of Cupertino’s pioneer settlers planted grapes and fruit trees in the late 1800s. As these
orchards flourished the valley became known for a profusion of blossoms in spring. Many more
people passed through the Cupertino area first by electric railway and later by car to view all the
blossoms in the “Valley of Heart’s Delight.” The Monta Vista area of Cupertino developed in
response to the extension of the electric railway. Monta Vista was the name of its first housing tract.

In the late 1940s, Cupertino was swept up in Santa Clara Valley’s postwar population explosion.
Concerned by unplanned development, higher taxes, and piecemeal annexation to adjacent cities,
Cupertino’s community leaders began a drive in 1954 for incorporation. Incorporation was approved
in a September 27, 1955 election. Today, Cupertino is part of a world-renowned high technology
center known as “Silicon Valley” and is home to several companies producing computers and
software, including Apple (the project sponsor).

     (3) Project Site History.15 The project site was occupied by Robert and Margaret Howie
Glendenning beginning in the 1850s. The Glendennings, originally from Scotland, were one of the
       12
          Milliken, Randall, et al., 2007:116-117. Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California
Prehistory, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A Klar, pp 99–124. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Lanham,
Maryland.
       13
          Milliken, Randall, 1995:256. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco
Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California.
           14
                This section adapted from Cupertino, City of, 2005. City of Cupertino General Plan 2000-2020. November.
           15
         This section adapted from Page & Turnbull, Inc., 2011. Historic Resource Evaluation, Glendenning Barn, 10955
Tantau Avenue, Cupertino, CA.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5e-Cultural.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           267
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                         V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                        E. CULTURAL RESOURCES




first European-Americans to homestead in Cupertino. In 1851, the couple began farming 160 acres of
land, living initially in a tent on the land. After building a house and planting crops, the owners of the
Alviso Land Grant laid claim to the property, and the Glendennings were compelled to purchase the
land at $30 an acre. Margaret Glendenning finished the land payments upon the death of her husband
in 1868.

By 1884, when Robert and Margaret’s children had come of legal age, the Glendenning property was
divided among the family. Margaret Howie lived on the southern half of the property and the northern
half was divided amongst the six Glendenning children: Mary, Margaret C. (Caroline), Ellen (Ella),
Joe, Jim, and George. In 1888, approximately 60 acres of the property contained orchards and the
remaining portion was utilized for grain and hay production. Margaret Howie had a house built on her
property in 1889, where she lived with her daughters, Margaret C. Burrell and Ellen Glendenning.

In 1914, Margaret Burrell obtained her mother’s parcel and her daughter and son-in-law, Grace and
John Leonard, purchased the land. Leonard converted 48 acres of the property from dry-farming (hay
and grain production) to irrigated orchards. It is thought that John Leonard built the Glendenning
Barn around this time. The Leonards established a dehydrating and packing business on the property.

In 1964, Varian Associates purchased the Glendenning property from John Leonard and his son,
Burrel. The Glendenning parcel was one of several family properties, including the Lester, Craft, and
Orlando families, to be purchased by Varian. The Varian lands were pooled into the VALLCO land
corporation, the name of which was derived from the first names of the principal parties involved in
the sale. The Glendenning-Leonard acreages were the key parcels to be incorporated into VALLCO
Park and became the site of the Varian building, the first constructed in the park. VALLCO continued
minimal farming operations into the 1970s, but a master plan and associated development phased out
farming.

VALLCO sold 46 acres to Hewlett-Packard in 1968, followed by another 50 acres in 1971. Aerial
photographs from the 1980s show the barn, pump house, and windmill tower, but the Glendenning
house built for Margaret Howie Glendenning, Margaret Burrell, and Ellen Glendenning was demol-
ished in the early 1970s.16 The Hewlett-Packard and Ridgeview campuses were constructed in phases
from the mid-1960s to late 1980s. Hewlett-Packard sold the 98-acre office park in November 2010 to
Apple as part of its plan to consolidate employees at its Palo Alto campus. The property is just north
of a 50-acre site Apple bought in 2006 and east of the main Apple campus. The properties purchased
by Apple in 2006 and 2010 are part of the project site.

      (4) Paleontology. The project site is underlain by artificial fill and stream-related Quaternary
period deposits.17 The southeast portion of the project site includes Holocene (10,000 years ago to
present) deposits from Calabazas Creek. The Holocene deposits are too recent to contain fossils. The
remainder of the project site includes Pleistocene (10,000 to 2.8 million years ago) deposits. Fossils




           16
          Although no longer extant, the Glendenning house is listed in the California Inventory of Historic Resources
(California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1976) for its architectural importance.
           17
                Arup, 2013. Apple Campus 2 Geotechnical Interpretative Report. Issue 3. April 30.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5e-Cultural.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           268
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                         V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                        E. CULTURAL RESOURCES




found in Pleistocene deposits include bison, mammoth, ground sloths, saber-toothed cats, dire
wolves, horses, cave bears, rodents, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.18,19

c.    Regulatory Framework. The following describes CEQA and City regulatory and policy
requirements for cultural resources.

       (1) CEQA Requirements. CEQA defines a “historical resource” as a resource that is:
1) listed in, or determined eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources (Cali-
fornia Register); 2) listed in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k);20 3) identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting
the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or 4) determined to be a historical resource by a project’s
lead agency (PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). A historical resource
consists of:

           “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency
           determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering,
           scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of
           California … Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically
           significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical
           Resources” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)).

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b), a substantial adverse change in the signifi-
cance of a historical resource is a significant effect on the environment. Significant impacts under
CEQA require that specific, feasible mitigation measures be developed to reduce adverse environ-
mental conditions.

Thresholds for substantial adverse change are established in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) as
the “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate sur-
roundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” Material
impairment occurs when a project results in demolition, or materially alters in an adverse manner the
physical characteristics that convey a property’s historic significance, or is the reason for that
property’s inclusion in an official register of historic resources. Generally, a project that follows the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties is considered to have a
less-than-significant impact on the resource.

If a proposed project could be expected to cause a substantial adverse change to a historical resource,
CEQA requires the identification of mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts. CEQA also
requires analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,


           18
          Helley, E.J., K.R. La Joie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair, 1979. Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay
Region - their geology and engineering properties, and their importance to comprehensive planning. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 943. U.S. Geological Survey and Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.
           19
          Stirton, R.A., 1951. Prehistoric Land Mammals of the San Francisco Bay Region, pp. 177–186 in Olaf Jenkins
(ed) Geology Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties: History, Landscape, Geology, Fossils, Minerals, Industry, and
Routes to Travel. Bulletin 154. State Division of Mines, San Francisco.
           20
          Locally listed resources are presumed to be historical resources for purposes of CEQA, unless a preponderance of
the evidence demonstrates that a resource is not significant.



P:\COC1101 Apple 2 Campus\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5e-Cultural.doc (06/03/13) PUBLIC   REVIEW DRAFT                                           269
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.                                                                                                APPLE CAMPUS 2 PROJECT EIR
JUNE 2013                                                                                         V. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
                                                                                                                        E. CULTURAL RESOURCES




which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and avoid or substantially
lessen any significant effects on the historical resource.

CEQA requires a lead agency to determine if an archaeological cultural resource meets the definition
of a historical resource, a unique archaeological resource, or neither (CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(c)). Prior to considering potential impacts, the lead agency must determine whether an archa-
eological cultural resource meets the definition of a historical resource in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(c)(1). If the archaeological cultural resource meets the definition of a historical resource,
then it is treated like any other type of historical resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sec-
tion 15126.4. If the archaeological cultural resource does not meet the definition of a historical
resource, then the lead agency must determine if it meets the definition of a unique archaeological re-
source as defined at CEQA Guidelines Section 21083.2(g). In practice, however, most archaeological
sites that meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource will also meet the definition of a
historical resource.21 Should the archaeological cultural resource meet the definition of a unique
archaeological resource, then it must be treated in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
21083.2. If the archaeological cultural resource does not meet the definition of a historical resource or
an archaeological resource, then effects to the resource are not considered significant effects on the
environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)).

       (2) Public Resources Code: California Register of Historical Resources. The California
Register is established at PRC Section 5024.1. The California Register is a guide to cultural resources
that must be considered when a government agency undertakes a discretionary action subject to
CEQA. The California Register helps government agencies identify and evaluate California’s histori-
cal resources and indicates which properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible,
from a substantial adverse change (PRC Section 5024.1(a)). Any resource listed in, or eligible for
listing in, the California Register must be considered during the CEQA process.22

A cultural resource is evaluated under four California Register criteria to determine its historical
significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3); PRC 5024.1(c)). To be eligible for listing on
the California Register, a resource must be significant at the local, State, or national level in accor-
dance with one or more of the following criteria:
           1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of
              California’s history and cultural heritage;
           2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
           3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construc-
              tion, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic
              values; or
           4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition, California Register eligibility is based on other considerations, as summarized below.

      21
         Bass, Ronald E., Albert I. Herson, and Kenneth M. Bogdan, 1999. CEQA Deskbook: A Step-by-Step Guide on how
to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Solano Press Books, Point Arena, Califor