COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA TELEPHONE: (408)

Transcription

1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA TELEPHONE: (408) JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 1, 2013 Subject Study Session for the Environmental Impact Report for the development of a new office, research and development campus Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission review and receive comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The Final EIR consists of the Response to Comments Document (which includes minor text revisions to the Draft EIR) published in September 2013 (Attachment SS 1) and the Draft EIR published in June 2013 (Attachment SS 2). Description Demolition of approximately 2.66 million square feet of existing office, research and development buildings and the construction of 3.42 million square feet of office, research, and development buildings; 245,000 square feet of auditorium (1,000 seat), fitness center, and Valet Parking Reception uses; 92,000 square feet of utility plants; and associated parking facilities and ancillary buildings (such as security reception areas and landscape maintenance buildings Discussion Background The proposed project is located in the North Vallco Specific Plan Area and encompasses approximately 176 acres. The project is bounded by East Homestead Road, North Tantau Avenue, I 280 and North Wolfe Road. The project excludes the Hamptons Apartments (Hamptons) located at the north east intersection of I 280 and North Wolfe Road. In addition, properties on the east side of North Tantau Avenue, both north and south of Pruneridge Avenue are part of the project site. See figure on the right. The project site includes approximately 4.6 acres that is currently occupied by Pruneridge Avenue, which Apple is proposing that the City vacate.

2 The surrounding land uses include: To the north: Primarily single family residential uses in the City of Sunnyvale Page 2 To the east: Office, research and development facilities are located along the north east end of the project site. Single family residential uses in the City of Santa Clara are located directly to the east of the project site. Jenny Strand park, also in the City of Santa Clara is located south east of the project site, abutting the I 280 freeway. To the south: I 280 freeway with the Hamptons Apartments located to the south west of and adjacent to the project site. Vallco Shopping Mall, residential condominiums and additional office, research and development buildings are located south of the freeway. Many of these office, research and development buildings are currently occupied by Apple. To the west: The Cupertino Village shopping center is located across from North Wolfe Road in addition to two hotels and one apartment complex. Single family homes, predominantly in the City of Sunnyvale, are located further west. Proposed Project The project applicant proposes to construct the project in two phases. The first phase of construction will include the development of the properties bounded by Homestead Road, N. Tantau Avenue, Calabazas Creek, I 280, and N. Wolfe Road and the property located on the northeast corner of Pruneridge Avenue and N. Tantau Avenue. This will include the construction of: 2.82 million square foot ring shaped main building with basement parking, 100,000 square foot fitness center, 120,000 square foot auditorium, Approximately 5,870 parking space main parking structure, Approximately 765 space auditorium parking structure with 25,000 square foot valet reception area, 50,000 square foot central plant, 2,000 square foot visitor center/security reception structures, 5,000 square foot of landscaping maintenance buildings

3 Page 3 The second phase of construction will include the development of the property between Calabazas Creek and N. Tantau Avenue on the west side of N. Tantau Avenue and the properties between Pruneridge Avenue and I 280 on the east side of N. Tantau Avenue. This will include the construction of 600,000 square feet of office and research and development buildings with 1,740 parking stalls and two satellite plants for energy generation. Proposed Off site Improvements Apple is proposing to make a number of off site improvements. Key improvements are discussed below. Some will involve acquisition of property. A detailed discussion is provided in the EIR. N. Wolfe Road between East Homestead Road and I 280 off ramps: o Widen the street to add travel lanes to increase capacity. This widening would occur on the east side of the roadway. o Add buffered bike lanes to improve bicyclist experience (where feasible), and o Provide detached sidewalks where feasible to improve pedestrian experience. N. Wolfe Road between I 280 Overcrossing and Stevens Creek Boulevard: o Restripe the existing right of way at the overcrossing to allow for bike lanes by modifying the existing shoulder stripes, o Provide enhanced paving, guardrails, pedestrian scale lighting and decorative fencing at the overcrossing, and o Provide a bus layover stop on northbound N. Wolfe Road north of Stevens Creek Boulevard for Route 81 (the bus line is being rerouted due to the closure of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue) East Homestead Road: o Installation of a landscaped central median North Tantau Avenue between Homestead Road and I 280 Overcrossing: o Widen street and/or restripe existing right of way in some street segments to add travel lanes to accommodate project traffic, o Provide buffered bike lanes, o Provide detached sidewalks, and o Provide landscaped median North Tantau Avenue between I 280 Overcrossing and Vallco Parkway: o Restripe existing right of way to allow two travel lanes in each direction, o Provide buffered bike lanes, and o Provide enhanced paving, guardrails, pedestrian scale lighting, and decorative fencing at the I 280 overcrossing (alternate creek trail route) Vallco Parkway: o Restripe the existing right of way to allow two lanes of travel in each direction and left turn lanes at intersections, to accommodate project traffic, o Provide bike lanes,

4 o o Provide detached sidewalks, and Provide a landscaped median. Page 4 Freeway Off ramps: o Widen the Northbound and Southbound I 280 freeway off ramps at North Wolfe Road from the freeway mainline to the street to reduce the impact of the increased traffic volumes exiting at this interchange. Calabazas Creek Trail: o Provide a creek trail along Vallco Parkway and N. Tantau Avenue with enhanced paving, trail improvements, landscaping, lighting and signage. Terminus of Pruneridge at Tantau Avenue: o Provide a distinctive project entry at the terminus of Pruneridge Avenue at N. Tantau Avenue with architectural elements and landscaping. Pruneridge Avenue from N Wolfe to Hamptons Apartment complex driveway: o Reduce width to one lane in each direction o Separated sidewalks along the Apple project site frontage Development Agreement Apple is proposing a 20 year Development Agreement with the City of Cupertino. A Development Agreement ensures development rights for the applicant for a set period of time and establishes an understanding between the applicant and the City of Cupertino regarding financing and construction of infrastructure, scope of development, the applicable development standards and regulations, and other issues relating to the proposed project. Jobs and Economic Improvement through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (AB900) In June 2012, the proposed Apple Campus 2 Project was certified as the state s first Environmental Leadership Development Project (Leadership Project) by the Governorʹs Office pursuant to the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2011 (AB 900). A key requirement of AB 900 is that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) verifies that the project does not result in any net additional emission of greenhouse gases, including greenhouse gas emissions from employee transportation. On June 14, 2012, CARB verified that the project will not result in any net additional greenhouse gases prior to certification by the Governor. In 2013, Apple updated the project with some changes to the plans. CARB and the Governor s Office reviewed the changes and found that the project still meets the requirements to qualify as a Leadership Project for purposes of AB 900. In order to be certified as a Leadership Project, the project must meet the requirements of Public Resources Code Sections 21180(b) and 21183, including but not limited to being certified LEED silver or better, located on an infill site, resulting in a minimum investment of $1,000,000 upon completion of construction, creating high wage/highly skilled jobs that pay prevailing wages and living wages, providing construction and permanent jobs that help reduce unemployment, does not result in any net

5 Page 5 additional greenhouse gas emissions, and the applicant enters into a binding and enforceable agreement that all mitigation measures required to be certified as a Leadership Project shall be conditions of project approval. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all State and local governments consider the consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority. The EIR created as a result of review under CEQA must disclose the significant environmental impacts of the project and, in addition, identify the following: Significant cumulative impacts of the project in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce these effects; Significant impacts that cannot be avoided; Growth inducing impacts; and Effects found not to be significant. CEQA provides for one agency to be the Lead Agency charged with the responsibility of preparing the EIR. In this case, because the City of Cupertino will have the greatest responsibility for approving the project as a whole, the City is the Lead Agency. A Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the EIR is not to recommend approval or denial of a project but to provide information to be used in the planning and decision making process. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against the environmental effects, along with other factors. Prior to approving the project elements, the Planning Commission must decide whether to recommend that the City Council certify that the Final EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and whether to recommend that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Agreement, Vesting Tentative Map and associated permits required to allow development of the project. The Commission s recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for action. The City Council will review the Final EIR for adequacy and will exercise its independent judgment regarding certification. If the Council certifies the Final EIR, it will then consider whether to approve the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning, Development Agreement, Vesting Tentative Map, Development Permit, Use Permit, Architectural and Site Approval for Phase 1 of the project (except for the N. Tantau parking structure), a Tree Removal Permit, and street and easement vacations. As part of this approval, findings on the feasibility of reducing or avoiding significant environmental effects will be made, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of the project against is unavoidable environmental risks.

6 EIR Process and Public Outreach Page 6 The EIR process started with the issuance of the Notice of Preparation for the EIR on August 19, A scoping session was held on September 8, 2011 to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the topics that should be studied in the Draft EIR. Public comments were collected through October 5, 2011 when the scoping period for the EIR ended. The City also established a website for the project in August 2011 where all project related documents including plans, the Draft EIR and comments on the project and the EIR were posted for public review. The Draft EIR was made available for a 46 day public comment period between June 6, 2013 and July 22, The Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Governor s Office of Planning and Research on June 6, The Notice of Availability (NOA) was filed with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder on the same day. The NOA was also: 1. Sent to other potentially affected agencies, 2. Mailed to adjacent property owners, and 3. Posted at the project site and at City Hall Postcards were mailed to all postal customers in the City of Cupertino and to property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site. A half page notice was also published in the Cupertino Courier. In addition, notification regarding the availability of the Draft EIR was made available online at the project website ( About 2,000 interested parties who had indicated that they would like to receive electronic updates about the project received an update. The public was encouraged to provide input regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR electronically. In addition, a public meeting was held on June 26, 2013 to allow the public additional opportunity to provide input. Over 300 comments were received during the public review period of the Draft EIR. Responses to the written comments received during that period regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR have been prepared and compiled in a Response to Comments Document (which includes minor text revisions to the Draft EIR). This document together with the Draft EIR is considered to be the Final EIR. The Final EIR was posted on September 23, Notice of Availability of the Final EIR was sent to the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder s Office, posted at City Hall and the project site, and sent to 10 local libraries and property owners, business owners and residents within 1,000 feet of the project site. A courtesy notice regarding the availability of the Final EIR was also published in the Mercury News. Comments collected after the close of the EIR public review period will continue to be provided to the Planning Commission and Council.

7 Page 7 Additional Project Outreach A brief summary of additional outreach on the project is presented in the table below: Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice & Legal Ad Site Signage (14 days prior to the hearing) Legal ad placed in the Mercury News (at least 10 days prior to the hearing) 750 notices mailed to property owners within 1000 feet of the project site (10 days prior to the hearing) All interested parties ( ed/noticed) (at least 10 days prior to the hearing) Agenda Posted on the Cityʹs official notice bulletin board (one week prior to the hearing) Posted on the City of Cupertino s Website Advertised on the City Channel The City also conducted further additional community outreach by: Sending three courtesy postcards to approximately 21,000 mailing addresses (generally, all postal customers in the City of Cupertino and those persons who reside or have a business within 1000 feet of the project site.) These postcards were sent to: o Inform the recipients about a date for the scoping meeting in anticipation of the preparation of the EIR; o Notify the public about the availability of the Draft EIR and the public review period; and o Announce the availability of the Final EIR, this joint Study Session of the Council and Planning Commission, the Planning Commission meeting held on October 2, 2013, and the two City Council meetings to be tentatively held on October 15, 2013 and November 19, Facilitating community meetings: o A Scoping Meeting was held on September 8, 2011 to collect comments on identifying the scope of study of the EIR. o A public meeting was held on June 26, 2013 to inform the public about the EIR and allow an opportunity for interested persons to provide comments electronically or on a comment card. Over 125 Universal Serial Bus (USB) thumb drives with digital copies of the Draft EIR were handed out to attendees at this meeting. Handing out several hundred business cards with Quick Response (QR) codes which, when scanned, links directly to the project website and the URL directing people to the Apple Campus 2 website over the course of the public review period of the Draft EIR. Making comment cards and repositories for such cards available at City facilities, such as City Hall, Quinlan Community Center, Sports Center, Senior Center and Blackberry Farm. A legal advertisement for the notification of the intent to vacate the portion of Pruneridge Avenue through the proposed campus, along with various easements will be placed in the

8 Page 8 Cupertino Courier in late September 2013 and early October A notice will also be posted in the project area a minimum of 14 days prior to the vacation hearing. Apple has communicated that it has conducted the following additional neighborhood outreach regarding the project: Provided regular updates to residents in Cupertino and neighboring residents in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara (approximately 20,000 addresses.) Apple provided prepaid response cards and ed contact information with these campus information packages. Convened over 140 stakeholder outreach meetings ranging from one on one to large groups. Met with over 20 neighborhood groups and organizations and over 2,000 stakeholders, including Cupertino, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara residents, businesses and other community groups. Sent updates on the project to more than 2,000 interested persons and entities. Key Significance Findings and Mitigations Revised Table II 1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from the EIR, in the Response to Comments Document, along with Table II 1 of the Draft EIR summarize all significant project impacts and mitigation measures. This staff report highlights key findings only. The list of mitigation measures does not include requirements (such as compliance with the International Building Code) that are routinely applied to new development. The EIR has identified mitigation measures for all significant impacts. However, even with mitigations, some significant impacts would remain significant and have been determined to be significant and unavoidable. In some cases, the significant impacts have been determined to be significant and unavoidable because the mitigation measures require approval from a governmental agency other than the City of Cupertino (e.g., the City of Santa Clara, Caltrans, etc.) and are not within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City. If approval is not granted by that agency for implementation of the mitigation measure, the significant impact would remain and would, therefore, be considered significant and unavoidable. In other cases, a significant impact is unavoidable because the significant impact would not be fully mitigated by the mitigation measure identified. This section highlights key findings. Details are provided in the Final EIR. Following is a summary of issues: 1. Land Use a. Rezoning The proposed project also includes the rezoning of a 1.1 acre portion of the site from Parks and Recreation (PR) to Planned Development (Planned Industrial) P (MP). With this change

9 Page 9 in designation, the acreage of land designated for future parks in the City will be reduced. As a mitigation measure, the applicant shall either provide enough funds for the acquisition of 1.1 acres of property by the City for future park development or agree to purchase (unless other property currently owned by the applicant is proposed), designate, dedicate to the City and make publicly accessible 1.1 acres elsewhere in the City as Parks and Recreation (PR). This mitigation measure would reduce the significant impact due to the rezoning of the property to a less than significant level. The rezoning of the park has been identified as a significant impact in the Land Use, Planning Policy and Public Services and Utilities sections of the EIR. b. Calabazas Creek Trail The City s General Plan indicates that a trail should be provided along Calabazas Creek when property in that area develops. The project applicant has significant security concerns with a trail along Calabazas Creek, which runs through the project site, due to the attributes of the project and its uses. Therefore, as a mitigation measure, the applicant would build an alternate creek trail sharing the public sidewalk between the intersection of Pruneridge Avenue and North Tantau Avenue and Calabazas Creek at Vallco Parkway. The trail will include appropriate landscaping, signage, pavement treatment that references the creek and/or water and decorative fencing at the Tantau Avenue overcrossing at I 280. The mitigation measure also includes the payment of $250,000 to study the feasibility of a trail along an existing drainage channel that runs parallel to southbound I 280 between N. De Anza Boulevard and Calabazas Creek and then south along the western bank of the Calabazas Creek to Vallco Parkway. However, even with these mitigations, the proposed project does not fully implement the 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, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. 2. Biological Resources The applicant is proposing the removal of a maximum of 3,620 trees and relocation of at least 90 trees with the proposed project. The trees removed will be replaced with at least 6,200 Protected Trees in accordance with the City s Protected Tree Ordinance (for a net increase of 2,494 trees). Trees planted on site will be considered protected per the City s definition of Protected Trees. Trees relocated include a Memorial tree dedicated to a former HP employee, a 33 inch diameter Oak tree and several large redwood trees (19 inches 25 inches in diameter) that are planted in a grove around the current Glendenning Barn location. The consulting arborist has confirmed that the tree replacement plan proposed by the applicant is consistent with the City s Protected Tree Ordinance requirements. 3. Cultural Resources The General Plan identifies the Glendenning Barn, which is located on the project site, as a historic resource in the City. The project proposes to relocate the barn either on or off site. The

10 Page 10 Draft EIR concludes that with implementation of mitigation measures identified this would be a less than significant impact. Mitigation measures related to the possibility of affecting archaeological resources are typical for new development, requiring the retention of a qualified archaeologist to monitor the ground breaking activities and the preparation of a monitoring plan for the project. The mitigation measure provides direction with regard to reporting the discovery of archaeological resources on the site, including when the archaeological monitor is not present at the site. Mitigation measures have also been identified related to the possibility of affecting paleontological resources or Native American remains. 4. Transportation As required by CEQA, the impacts of the project on traffic are compared to the impacts of existing conditions at the project site on traffic. These existing conditions are the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as of the date of publication of the EIR Notice of Preparation. At the time the Notice of Publication was published, the occupancy of the site was less than full occupancy of the project site buildings because many HP and Apple employees had already been relocated away from the site. Thus, the severity of impacts identified in the EIR is magnified compared to an analysis that evaluates the project against full occupancy of existing buildings. The analysis uses the following data regarding net employee impacts, trip distribution and trip generation for Apple Campus 2: While the employee capacity of the existing buildings is 9,800, the EIR uses an employee count of 4,844 (the number of employees working at the project site at the time of issuance of the Notice of Preparation) as the baseline for the impact analysis. The analysis is more conservative than Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) guidelines, which allow for existing conditions to include maximum occupancy of the existing buildings on a project site. However, this full occupancy was addressed as part of the Background scenario in the EIR. Trip distribution for the project has been based on the current employee distribution provided by the applicant. When this information is available, it provides for a much higher level of accuracy with regards to expected travel patterns to and from the site. Apple currently has a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program participation level of 28% non single occupancy vehicles, meaning that 28% of their existing employees use alternative modes of transportation such as buses, bikes, carpools, walking and public transportation. Apple is proposing to increase their TDM program to a 34% participation level for the proposed project. The 34% TDM level will be a condition of approval for the project and will reduce the severity of identified traffic impacts. Trip generation has been based on the actual trip generation data collected at Apple s Infinite Loop campus and additional buildings leased/controlled by Apple located south of Mariani Avenue.

11 The traffic study analyzes the project under three scenarios: Page 11 The Existing plus project scenario analyzes the impacts of the project traffic combined with existing traffic volumes at the study intersections; The Background plus project scenario analyzes the impacts of the project traffic combined with existing traffic volumes plus projected traffic volumes from projects approved but not built and projects for which applications are under review; The Cumulative plus project scenario studies the impacts of the project traffic combined with existing traffic volumes, plus background traffic volumes, plus traffic volumes from reasonably foreseeable future development projects. For this EIR, the cumulative scenario studied is the year 2020, since the City of Cupertino s General Plan currently covers this time frame and the applicant has indicated that all phases of the project are expected to be completed before the year a. Intersection Impacts: There are ten intersections where impacts have been identified to be significant. Six of these are within Cupertino: De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road Background plus Project Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard Cumulative plus Project Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue Background plus Project Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway Cumulative plus Project Vallco Parkway and N. Tantau Avenue Existing plus Project Homestead Road and N. Tantau Avenue Background plus Project Mitigation measures have been identified at five of six intersections within the City s jurisdiction, which would mitigate the impacts to a less than significant level. The sixth intersection at De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard will continue to have significant unavoidable impacts at the Cumulative plus Project scenario. This is because the identified mitigation measure of funding a fair share toward the installation of advanced traffic signal equipment along the De Anza Boulevard corridor will help lessen the severity of the impact. However, it will not reduce the impact at this intersection to a less thansignificant level. The provision of an exclusive southbound right turn lane from southbound De Anza Boulevard to westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard, which would reduce the impact, would not be feasible due to physical constraints of an existing building at the intersection. Four of the intersections with significant impacts are outside the City s jurisdiction: Wolfe I 280 Northbound ramps (Caltrans) Existing plus Project Stevens Calvert Drive & I 280 ramps (west) (City of Santa Clara) Existing plus Project

12 Page 12 Stevens Creek Lawrence Expressway Ramps (east) (County of Santa Clara) Background plus Project Lawrence I 280 Southbound ramps (County of Santa Clara/Caltrans) Background plus Project Mitigation measures have also been identified for the four intersections outside the City s jurisdiction. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures cannot be guaranteed at these intersections. The agencies responsible for approving improvements at these intersections have the ultimate discretion to approve the improvements which would mitigate the impact to a less than significant level at these intersections. b. Freeway Segment Impacts: The EIR also notes a significant impact at 29 mixed flow freeway segments and 3 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) freeway segments. The identified mitigation measure requires the project applicant to pay $1,292,215 as a fair share contribution toward planned transportation projects that would improve traffic operations of the impacted freeway segments and provide added transportation capacity on parallel facilities: (1) SR 85 Express Lane project (converting the existing HOV lane to a toll lane to allow single occupant vehicles to drive in the HOV lane for a fee) between Mountain View and San Jose, (2) eliminating the existing bottleneck on southbound I 280 between El Monte Avenue and Magdelena Avenue; and (3) either the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations proposed within Cupertino, or an alternative improvement or study towards the improvement of the impacted I 280 corridor or a parallel corridor that would provide capacity. c. Corridor Operations: Wolfe Road The EIR also identifies an impact due to the proposed project design at the project access driveway on Wolfe Road. The project proposes three left turns turning on to southbound Wolfe Road. The traffic consultant prepared a traffic progression model for the Wolfe Road corridor between Homestead Road and Vallco Parkway. The three left turns would create potential safety impacts due to weaving that is anticipated as vehicles turning left from the project driveway onto southbound Wolfe Road attempt to merge within a short distance to access the I 280 freeway ramps. The Final EIR includes the following mitigations: The recommended mitigation would require the project sponsor to redesign the driveway to include only two left turn lanes. The alternate mitigation would allow for the construction of three left turn lanes, but would require the implementation of a program to monitor the operation of the lanes up to 9 months after full occupancy of the project, with penalties for the occurrence of unsafe weaving. If, after monitoring, the City determines that the three left turn lanes pose long term safety problems, the project sponsor would be required to reduce the number of left turn lanes from three to two.

13 Page 13 The model indicated that there would be delays to non Apple traffic traveling in the southbound direction during the PM peak hour due to the large volume of Apple vehicles that would exit the campus during this time. However, these delays are not identified as impacts under CEQA since there are currently no thresholds of significance for operational delay, as there are for intersection Level of Service (LOS). Vallco Parkway The traffic consultant also prepared a traffic progression model for Vallco Parkway between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue. The model showed that the currently approved improvements on Vallco Parkway result in excessive delays in the eastbound direction. This is not a CEQA impact but is an operational issue due to increased project traffic. As a result, the traffic consultant recommends a reconfiguration of Vallco Parkway, between Perimeter Road and N. Tantau Avenue to provide two eastbound travel lanes, two westbound travel lanes, bike lanes in each direction, and an additional traffic light at the Main Street parking garage entrance. This configuration would preserve the street parking improvements approved for adjacent projects along Vallco Parkway. d. Impacts to Pedestrians: In addition to traffic impacts, the EIR also identifies significant and unavoidable impacts to pedestrians. Due to the need to provide two right turn lanes into the project site, a significant impact has been identified for pedestrians even with the implementation of a feasible mitigation measure. Additionally, a significant and unavoidable impact is identified at the six off /on ramps for I 280 on N. Wolfe Road due to the increased traffic volumes. The closure of Pruneridge Avenue (discussed later) would also result in significant impacts to pedestrian facilities. However, the project will be improving pedestrian conditions at many locations, including the provision of detached sidewalks in various locations, as well as the removal of pork chop islands at the Homestead Road/Tantau Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue intersections. A pork chop island allows free right turns by vehicles without stopping at the traffic light and makes it difficult for pedestrians to cross. Removing the pork chop islands will require cars to stop at the traffic light before turning right and make it safer for pedestrians. e. Cut Through Traffic The potential cut through routes for the neighborhood to the north of Homestead Road in Sunnyvale and to the east of Tantau Avenue in Santa Clara do not represent routes that are superior to routes on the main arterials and collectors. Therefore, the potential for cutthrough traffic would not rise to the level of a significant impact. While not required as mitigation for the project, the a condition of approval will require the applicant to fund a neighborhood cut through traffic study and provide funds to implement traffic calming improvements and neighborhood permit parking programs in the amount of $250,000 to the City of Santa Clara and $500,000 to the City of Sunnyvale.

14 f. Parking Page 14 While parking availability is not considered to an environmental impact under CEQA, the secondary environmental impacts from the lack of parking or excess parking are considered environmental impacts. Therefore, the EIR discusses parking for informational purposes and to evaluate secondary environmental impacts. Apple proposes to provide 10,980 parking spaces on its campus to meet the parking demand for its use. Anticipated parking demand was determined by conducting a parking study of Apple s current campus at Infinite Loop and properties at Mariani Avenue. The parking ratio assumes a TDM rate of 34% as proposed by the project. Of these spaces, 9,240 spaces will be provided with the development of Phase 1 in two structured parking facilities, the basement of the main building and two surface parking lots. The balance, 1,740 parking spaces to serve the 600,000 square feet of development located on the properties east and west of N. Tantau Avenue, will be provided in Phase 2 of the project. The Parking ordinance requires the provision of bicycle parking at 5% of the number of required vehicular parking. Apple would be required to provide 600 spaces for both phases. Apple plans to locate bicycle parking spaces in convenient areas around the entire campus. A total of at least 2,000 bicycle parking spaces will be provided as part of the project. A parking management plan is required to allow the proper management of parking during special events at the Auditorium. Neighborhood Parking The EIR discusses the issue of neighborhood parking and evaluates secondary environmental impacts to neighborhoods surrounding the project site. The EIR concludes that adequate parking is being provided for the project based on actual parking data collected for the same use at Apple s Infinite Loop and Mariani Avenue campus. Therefore, no significant environmental impacts are expected and there is no significant indication that neighborhood parking will be an environmental impact issue. While not required as mitigation for the project, the funds provided by the applicant in the amount of $250,000 to the City of Santa Clara and $500,000 to the City of Sunnyvale (discussed above in the cutthrough traffic section) can be used to pay for permit parking programs, if deemed necessary by the respective cities. In addition, a condition of the project requires the applicant to identify and construct additional on site parking, subject to further environmental review, if parking monitoring studies subsequently identify a persistent shortage of project parking. g. Pruneridge Avenue Vacation and Closure The project applicant is proposing the vacation and closure of a segment of Pruneridge Avenue, between N. Tantau Avenue and N. Wolfe Road. While the applicant is proposing to make upgrades to the existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure around the project site and along Vallco Parkway, no equivalent east west connector is being provided. The

15 Page 15 removal of this segment of Pruneridge would restrict east west pedestrian and bicycle access between N. Tantau Avenue and N. Wolfe Road. The proposed project would not fully implement provisions related to circulation in the General Plan due to the proposed closure of Pruneridge Avenue. Therefore, the Draft EIR concludes that the closure of Pruneridge Avenue is a significant and unavoidable impact of the project. A significant impact is also identified due to the rerouting of bus Route 81, because of the closure of this segment of Pruneridge Avenue. The bus line has been proposed to be rerouted to travel along Vallco Parkway instead of along Pruneridge Avenue. There are no feasible mitigation measures to restore this transit access; therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable. 5. Noise The EIR evaluates noise impacts and identifies and discusses mitigation measures to ensure that noise levels remain below the thresholds identified in the City s Community Noise Control Ordinance (Chapter of the Municipal Code) and the General Plan. Construction noise will be mitigated by the implementation of a robust construction management plan and the installation of a 15 foot temporary sound wall around the perimeter of the site. The sound wall will be set back as much as feasible to allow line of sight separation between the adjacent property and the project site. The project would make a significant contribution to cumulative noise levels along two roadway segments around the project site, based on thresholds identified in the City s General Plan. These roadway segments would experience increases of 1.0 dba or greater in traffic noise levels under cumulative plus project conditions and would exceed the more stringent standard used in the EIR. This will be mitigated to a less than significant level by resurfacing these road segments with Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt, or similar quiet pavement. With the implementation of this measure the project s contribution to the cumulative impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. 6. Air Quality The EIR identifies mitigation measures to mitigate the significant air quality impacts during the construction of the project, including ensuring that all exposed surfaces are watered twice a day, limiting the vehicle speeds on site to 15 miles per hour, either shutting all equipment not in use or limiting idling time on site to 2 minutes, suspending all excavation, grading and/or demolition activity when the wind speeds exceed 20 miles per hour and ensuring that all trucks and equipment are washed prior to leaving the site. However, even with these mitigation measures, the impact to Air Quality during construction will remain significant and unavoidable. The impact to air quality during operation of the project has also been identified as a significant impact. While a mitigation measure has been identified to increase the non single occupant

16 Page 16 vehicle mode share from 28% to 34% (with an associated reduction in vehicle emissions), the impact will remain significant and unavoidable. 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) and Sustainability Greenhouse gas emissions are attributed to global climate change and increases in the average temperature of the Earth s atmosphere and oceans in the recent decades. This is primarily attributed to increased amounts of carbon dioxide and other GHGs as a result of human activities. GHGs are released by the burning of fossils fuels, land clearing, agriculture and other activities leading to an increase in the greenhouse effect. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of CO2 equivalents or CO2e. The project is anticipated to produce 47,883 metric tons of CO2e during the four year construction time period. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the regional agency that regulates sources of air pollution within the nine Bay Area counties, does not have an adopted quantitative threshold for construction GHG emission but recommends the incorporation of construction practices that would reduce emissions. The construction management plan, which is part of the project and would be enforced through the City s conditions of approval, would ensure that specific construction measures are implemented to reduce construction related GHG emissions to a less than significant level. It is also anticipated that the proposed project will produce 8,745 metric tons of CO2e per year net new emissions above the August 2011 baseline. The primary sources of emissions associated with the project are vehicles. This amounts to about 2.7 metric tons of CO2e per employee per year, which is well below the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per employee per year. Therefore, these emissions would not be considered significant. As mentioned earlier, a key requirement of AB 900 is that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) verifies that the project does not result in any net additional emission of greenhouse gases, including greenhouse gas emissions from employee transportation. The determination of significance for the purposes of CEQA utilizes occupancy conditions at the time of the publication of the Notice of Preparation of the EIR in August At that time, employment on the site (4,844 employees) was well below the employee capacity of the site (9,800 employees). The site has historically operated at near or near full capacity; however, the existing condition reflects Apple s relocation of its employees in preparation for the project and Hewlett Packard s consolidation of its employees in Palo Alto. As part of CARB s Executive Order, which confirms that the project does not result in any net additional emissions of GHGs, including GHGs from employee transportation. Due to the sustainable features and renewable energy portfolio proposed by the project, the build out of the proposed project would result in a net reduction of 16,224 metric tons of CO2e when compared with the full occupancy baseline of 9,800 employees.

17 8. Public Services and Utilities Page 17 The EIR identifies a significant impact to the Santa Clara County Fire Department s ability to respond in a timely manner in case of an emergency. However, a mitigation measure requiring the implementation of signal preemption for emergency vehicles would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. No other impacts related to the project s public services and utilities have been identified to be significant. Project Alternatives The Draft EIR evaluated four project alternatives including the CEQA mandated No Project alternative. The alternatives 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 No Project alternative existing buildings on site to be fully occupied to accommodate about 9,800 employees. Pruneridge Avenue would remain a public road. The Pruneridge Avenue alternative develop a new campus on the site with same square footage and configuration while allowing Pruneridge Avenue to remain a public road. The Reduced Construction alternative develop a new campus on the site with same square footage with a configuration similar to that of a traditional office campus with multiple buildings, surface parking lots, above grade parking garages, and reduced open space. Pruneridge Avenue within the site would be vacated. The project site would have more access points at the perimeter of the site than currently proposed. The Reduced Density alternative develop a smaller campus on the site consisting of approximately 2.2 million square feet of office, research, and development space to accommodate 8,000 employees, for a total headcount lower than the No Project alternative. Ancillary and utility development square footage would remain the same. Pruneridge Avenue within the site would be vacated. The EIR identifies the Reduced Density alternative as being environmentally superior to the Pruneridge Avenue and Reduced Construction alternatives because it would avoid or reduce significant traffic, noise, and air quality impacts due to lower levels of construction and employment on site compared to the project. The reduction in operational traffic impacts is particularly important, because increased traffic affects most members of the community and was one of the key concerns identified by the community during the EIR scoping session. Response to Comments and Text Revisions Over 300 comments were received during the 46 day public review period of the Draft EIR. Over half of the comments were in support of the project and not regarding the adequacy of the EIR. Many of the remaining comments were in support of the project. Some had concerns about the impacts from the increased traffic around the project site. All comments received during the public review period and that pertain to the EIR have been addressed in the Responses to Comments Document. Text revisions to clarify text in the Draft

18 Page 18 EIR and updates to reflect additional analysis or discussion have also been made. The Responses to Comments document together with the Draft EIR and Text Revisions to the Draft EIR are considered to be the Final EIR. Because no new or substantially more severe significant impacts, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives that would clearly lessen the significant impacts of the project that the project sponsor declines to adopt, were identified after circulation of the Draft EIR, recirculation of the EIR is not required. Comments were also collected after the close of the EIR public review period. As of September 19, 2013, 32 comments were received. Of the 32 comments received after the close of the comment period, about half supported the project. None of the comments received raised issues that would require the identification of new impacts, mitigation measures, or project alternatives, or change the findings of the Draft EIR. While CEQA does not require that the City respond to the comments received after the close of the public review period, staff will provide these comments with the agenda packets for the public hearings for the project at Planning Commission and City Council. Next Steps Staff will present the Final EIR to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) for review and recommendation on September 26, A report of the ERC s recommendation will be provided to the Planning Commission and City Council at the Study Session. The Final EIR, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Agreement, Vesting Tentative Map and associated permits for the project will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation on October 2, The City Council s review and decision on the General Plan Amendment, first reading of the ordinances for the Rezoning (of 1.1. acres from Parks and Recreation (PR) to Planned Development (Planned Industrial Park) (P(MP)) and Development Agreement, Vesting Tentative Map, associated permits, and street easements and vacations is scheduled for October 15, The second reading for the ordinances is scheduled for November 19, Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A SS 1 Apple Campus 2 Project EIR Response to Comments Document, September 2013 B SS 2 Public Review Draft Apple Campus 2 Project Environmental Impact Report, June 2013