The URL can be used to link to this page

14. Main Street Final EIRmental Impart ReP°~~ Flnal Envlron for the . _ : --~- ' . _~ _, .. ~, ~~® Main Street Cupertino Project SCH# 20~Spg2058 pxepaxed by the Clty, ofCupereino ~o W PERTI December 2408 -~wr ..~---''~"""'"--~+++_` EIRE constitutes t e -~ A,'~~ act RePart (Draft CuPe~ino prO~ect in 1'~ • onmental ImP d ~a~n Street hnvir for the Propose ether With the Daft meat, tog t-~eport (F~nal EIR) after This docu A ency as required • 1 ~nvironn'ental ImPac the I.,ead g • c agencies havjng pxna Californ~a• CEQ~~~ ubl~ ublic with an uality Act cot~ments from the geneCal p ~upertino~ ental Q obtain t anal to provide ency~ is then env ironm with an ed ro~ec ~ . no? as the Lead p'g tion process, , finder the Califon raft LIR, to consul ~ ropos P iew and consulta D of Cupert~ th P completion °f law with respect to ~1R- The City the rev ' ion by n the Draft ental issues raised in ~UrlShcct to comment ~ environn' ~ 2pp$. oPP°~,unlty and to significant er than~ovember 2 to resp QA Section l ~ 132' b n° lat required ruing y as described in ~~ to be received in w on the Draft EIR were menu been prepared in Com "on 1.0 descr~bang the. F,IR and text revisions e ti rnal m is format of the F onses to com en In addition to CEQ.A Guidelines tl1e following Sect-ions: includes resp the ent~ .which 15~g8 of the 1R includes o Received This doc ce kith Section the pinal ~ ses~ and Individ~ais ~ accordan ublic review process, Draft'~IR P ~. A~izations~ Busines eceived copses of the Agencies, D ~ ass wl1O r tion 2.4 List ° EIR See Draft -nesses, and ~nd~v~ds Section• busy in th aniZat~on ailability~ are listed The agenc~es'a once of av Draft L1R °r ~ on the D~'oft EIR ive 'tten GOmments on the ist of Comments Rece who submi~ed ,,Nra .0 L ins a list of all parties section ~ ' on coma This sects _- Draft Ells. t SIR onses the D~ of the Draft ElR and resp onses to Comments on nts received on ReSP me section 4.0 ontains the written corn ` This section c to those com1~ents' can be made as a xt of the Dro ft LIR . s to the Te ft ElR• TeXt revises n~ocess, corrections .on S.0 Revision to the Dra ublic revs~re been made to the text revisions s that ha sects the Draft ElR P contains during odification ± _ . Section 5 • omments received r ect m - result of c o the text or tO efl or clarificatio ace impacts- PrQ~ect to red ~~2 .---~`` e aced with a ...~-----'` rep EiR ~ , E1Rs should b P enables the l EI.R .. of the Anal ~ 515 ~ anon v,,hich F find ,l,Ur Qse Section with inf°~ uences. the CEQA Guidelinesi ion-ma-keys t intended to reduce °r ental c°nsea e with the rovide dec ant environm to the PrOJec In c°nfOrmanc sis to P accO alternatives ect that takes into lent degree of analY easures and E1R has suf ~~c on a prOJ iti anon m lnal ake a decision eXamine n' g im acts. that the F case the m - re aired to ental p aired t° certi in body {in this also is a ni flcant environm ency is red mak g lnai EIR 1iminate sig the Lead Ag the decision fined in the F e used project' A Guidelines' rmation coma ent an the Pr°p • h the CEO ed the info , s Independent Judgm _ .. to apPr°ving compliance wit d and consider ead ~gencY revtewe prior feted in ects the L been coCnPCit C°uncil) hasd the Final EAR red 210$~;~ also ertino Y vala an CodeSection discretion C~ or to protect aPPrO esourceS encY~ s ultimate the F final P d the State Public R trot the ag al sis. 1 an es not con t effect identified e: an Y 1509 ~ do niftcan dings ar 5eCtjOn on in the FIna1 Et and to each sig A Guidelines ~ rmat t resP effects' Possible fin ' 1 ~`he CEQ. the inf° ency mus niftcant hick wil require that whiof a project the aor each ose sig the P ect w oval s f of th int4 ~ r°J on the apPr finding orated making written required In, or incorP ent. E1R by ' ons have been cts on the envlrOnm • on °f another Public or alterati si niftcant effe and ~urisdicti (1) Changes void the g onsibility er agency' mitigate °r a within the resp b that oth should be-adopted Y alterations are s including changes or workers hose ve been, or can an ei conslderat~°hly trained tat (2~ and ha ical or oth ' o f h g men agency technolog unities the environ ic, legal ~ s0cial> employment °Pp°~' identified in Specific ~cOn°m rovlsion of or alternatives (3~ s for the p measures consldeCation e mitigation e in the environmenta make infeasible th tial evidenc . m act reP°~• e Supported by substan i P must b the Lead Agency roject. $ made by cord for a proposed P Finch gnistrative re or a ®-°'- P~ ~4.~~~~5 TA~L~ °~ ..~ Text p~ZOCF,SS • • • ' ~ • ~c ~V~Ew ~~ ~~~ ~R-AFT EIR P~$L ..... ..2 ~~ARY QF l~~s B~S~~S~ , , . ~ •0 ~~ S ~RGA~IZAT ~E CRAFT ~~R _, , ,.3 SE~T~Q~ 5T of A~~-CIE O ~~.~~V~,g T ~~ L~ .~,~ D~~T SIR. ................ ~E~TIC~~ 2.0 I1~DIVIUVA 4 ~F,~VE'D ~~ T~~ FT EIR ............ C4~~~~TS R~ D ~.~ TKE -BRA 0 LIST ~F ~E~TS RE'CE'IVE • ..29 5~CT~p~ 3. o~s~s T~ ~ONL DRAFT EIR ...•.......- ••~ R~SI' T pF TKO 5ECT~Q~ 4.0 NS Ta TAE TEX REV IS~~ S~~T~p~ 5.0 end~ces . ApP 4 ~ ~T LETTERS ~p~1tNIE ApPE~D~X A I~ .g-L~~E,~ T EIS. p~BL .~CTjQ~ ~ ~~ .~.R~}~E,SS concluded on S OOg and eriod is 2 review p ced on (}ctober l Oday Draft EIR conlrnen erjQd- ~ 45 Draft E1~6_day revjew p er1od f °r the raft EIR. he public revie ~ ?which constitutes a o f the'~J T er 2~? 20 he of the availability .~ovemb the pub ect site area' . aired under CEQA bons t4 lnf orm ' to in the prOl ell as sent i eq off st as -~' the following ac and 2p0g~ °°k on Cit undert ElR>> was P°sted °u5e on pctober je5 that received the The y of Draft Clearrngh of agenc vailability to the State 2.0 for a list ° public ~ ``notice °l A,was delivered SeCtlox- Ka11 and Cuperttn ' Dra-fit, EfR enc1eS tsee The overr'~ental ag at the Cupertin° ~~~' to various g ade available draft ElR~the Draft p`1R were m ebsite C°pies of ilable °n the City s w . e Draft L1R was ava Library ~ o~ th copy ino.orglmarnstreet~. http:llww`T''`cupe~ a~ ~1R ,pecember 2~~$ 1 ~-_' ....r---""' _~r„ten SECTION 2.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS WHO RECEIVED THE DRAFT EIR Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to the following agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals: Agencies • Bay Area Air Quality Management District • California Department of Fish and Game, Region 3 • California Department of Housing and Community Development • California Department of Parks and Recreation • California Department of Toxic Substances Control • California Department of Transportation, District 4 • California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics • California Department of Water Resources • California Highway Patrol • California Resources Agency • City of San Jose, Planning Department • City of San Jose, Public Works Department • City of Santa Clara, Engineering Department • City of Sunnyvale, Planning Department • City of Sunnyvale, Public Works Department • County of Santa Clara, Planning Department • County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airport Department • Native American Heritage Commission • Office of Historic Preservation • Regional Water Quality Control Board. Region 2 • Santa Clara County Fire • Santa Clara County Water District • Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Organizations, Businesses, and Individuals • California Water Service Company • Cupertino Sanitary District • Cupertino Union School District • Fremont Union High School District • Los Alto Garbage Company • Morrison ~ Forester, LLP • Pacific Gas 8c Electric City of Cupertino 2 Final EIR Main Street Cupertino Project December 2008 VED Old T'~E Dg.~'~T'T EIR p~ COl~D~EI~TS RECEI SECTION 3•~ LIST 'na the public review period. A COpythe ents on the Draft EIR were receivedT~ellist of comments received, including Seven written comet end~x A. , h comment letter/email is contained mm pp begins, is shown below. eac s to the co page on which the response( ) Comment and Response RP~in on Pam .............5 ................. ............................. ...5 .... ................... C ............... ING .............. TE AGEN .,.... IT .......... ....6 4.1 FEDERAL AND 5TARINGHO~SE AND PLANK TATION .......................... STATE CLE RNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPO ......9 CALIFO AGENCIES .....................~.............. • T ....................................9 4.2 CO TY AND REGIONAL L A GEMENT DISTRIC ...........................1 l ~ IR UA ITY M NA BAS AREA A Q D15TRICT ........................... ..12 S ANT A CLARA VALLEY WATER Y TRANSPORTATION AUTHO~TY ......................... SANTA CLARA VALLE ..,.......16 ...................................... ..16 .................. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.. .• ............ 4.3 CITY OF SANTA CLARA ........................... .........19 INDIVIDUALS ...................................... ....19 AND ......... S BUSINESSES, ................... 4.4 ORGANIZATION ~ le Inc .................... ORRISON ~ FOERSTER on behalf of App M Final EIR December 2008 City of Cupertino _-_ c~,-APt c~~anertino Project SECTION 4.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this document includes written responses to _ comments received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR. This section includes all of the comments contained in the letters/emails received to date on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments. The comments are organized under headings containing the source of the letter and its date. The letters have been grouped into the following categories. • Federal and State Agencies • Regional and Local Agencies • Organizations, Businesses, and Individuals The specific comments have been copied from the letters and presented as "Comment" with its response directly following. Copies of the actual letters and emails received, and any attachments to those letters or emails, are found in their entirety in Appendix A of this Final EIR. City of Cupertino 4 Final EIR Main Street Cupertino Project December 2008 t EAR ~._~ ors the D~'~f ._- to Co~~zments Received section ~•~ _ ReSpo~ses ._----~--- CIEs __-,----- T ATE ADEN FEDE~L A1~'D S 4.1 E1~tT LET~E~ ~II`1G UN~~ . SES ~~ ~~~ VSE ADD ~~~ . ©~N O state RES TE ~-~,,EA~I~~`~ -~I,~ to selected house ~`T A ed I}raft Clem. Ong L 12~~08) Ve nam that the d on .l.,~ovember fitted the a Report please note {Letter dated L house subm eriod close ment e State Tearing ent'fletalls review p L.f this cp1~n locum ent• The cl°Sed. the o~-ment 1.1' T w Qn the enclose ewed your d°cu ~c (des) is {area e ~ 1 PLense refer t esp°nd ~ rev ~e that rev edla Y a envies for to ag°ncieS ondrng agen h°use i~nt~ that we n'ay g std the resp Clear g ondence so nd the comments frOrn the State corresp has Listed tae aSe notify er in future 24, 20~g~is not ~n orders Plc house numb package -di it State Tearing Code sues that' project' S ten g esourGes those public R ents regarding . promptly. ~ ~ of the California stantive cO1~nn~ envy or which mak at Section 211 0 (} e sub of the ag be supported ease note th. • c agency shall only an area of expe~~omments shall PL other publi yatth~n ose t~ onsible °r rojeCt Which aced b the agency Th A resp in a p or approve Y ctivities involved carried out ent• Should you a be ental docum ontact are required t° end that Y°u c un~.entatiOn` our fanal env ironm by specific d°c acing Y ze recomn' use in prep nclosed com~~entS' u forwarded f or of tl1e meat comments are he Cali for nia ~epa~' clarification se to Comment These ment fr om t ed mole informa encY directly • b a con' w (See R.espon ne an~ed Y ed bel° the coml"enting ag accomp roy~d Ve comment Nras onses are P abo omment letter and reS~ house 11' The Clearing Response • ' 'fate ental lied with the nvironm TranSportation• The c of ou have comp to the California an queStion~ #2~` ki~owledges that Y ents, pursuant have Y • s le~.er ac mend docum 91b} 445-0613 if y°u - omment 1.2; This for draft envjr©n Clearinghouse at ( house C . ew requirement e State tate Clearing revr contact th roCess• with the S onse ~s Act. Please complied no resp Quality nvironmental review p the City has ent is noted and regarding the e es that e comet mment acknowledg ocurnents• Th ~.2: This co ft envir°n~•nental d gesponse eats for dra uirem review req required ~~na1 EYR ~~Gember 2oa8 -Res oases to Corntnents Received on the Draft EIR Section 4.0 P ONSES TO COMMENT LETTER # 5PORTATION RESP CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF T {letter dated 10lOb/08) 31 • What is the basis for all of the Pass-by meat 2.1: Traffic Forecasting. Table 8, page Com Reduction Rates? ro'ect will likely attract trips that areoadway on ro osed p J se 2.1: The retail portions of the p were based on the relative volumes on the r Respon ,pass-by trip reductions ass-by trips contained within s stem information regarding p the roadway Y lied using ass-b reduction was also surrounding the project site and app iTE Trr ~.e~~J°ation. A p y information ' ute of Transportation Engineers ( e ~ This percentage was determined En gneers. This the Instlt TRC g lied to the proposed athletic club In eC aced for Lifetime Fitness Centers bof Cu ertino, app eneration report Pr p rovided in the trip g ix of the TIA, which is on file with the City p e a end urin normal business hours. A copy °f report is contained in t~h nt Department and can be reviewed d g Community Develop this appendix was sent to the commenter. Ve different trip generation rates a e 31. Why do the different sche ed S ou~d be the same. Comment 2.2: Table 8, p g ~ The rate apple if the are for the same location and land uses. 1Ce and hotel uses between Y in center, off > eneration equations. The The trip generation rates for the retaleJdso~ fpted curve trip g on the total Response 2.2. eneration rate based themes 1 and 2 differ because they are ~ e appropriate trip g project 5 cations determin fitted curve trip generation eq square footage of these uses. {letter dated 10/21/48) e ort', "Transportation Impact Analysis i hwa Operations. Refer to the `Final R p off- . H Y re 17, Study intersection #20: Stevens~Cree Comment 2.3 g ures 7 to Flgu 280 Northbound {I`I ) TiA)", dated September 5, 2048- Fig d Level of Service Tables. { esswa .Please include the "interstatelate Boulevard /Lawrence Expr Y it for our review and comment. oturrie Data, a1i scenarios of the TIA annd r ramp" in the Traffic V ate this information into the analysis and su anal Isis Please incorpor d in the Draft EIR and transportation on~ ramp ` once 2.3: The data and analysts lnclu nforrnation related to i-280 northbound Resp TIA repared for the prOlect include ed in Appendix C of the Draft EIR• { ) p of the TIA is lnclud . - . approach. A copy #20, and #21 queue back auto oaches to intersections #6, #7~ #18' acts need to be mitigated. Comment 2.4: The off-ramp aPPr and im act ~$ and Southbound 1-284• ~' ese lm the freeway mainline p . of the freeway ramp intersections and end x ~ © f nse 2.4: The EIR and TiA- include analysis refer to Section 2.1 and App Respo the VTA TIA guidelines { ' ' 'es as required by ft EIR, the project would not signific t tFrom a mainline factlrtt > ft EIR)• As discussed in Section 2•I o ~~~ e ra thr ' ersections referenced in the above co e h ld which the Dra there is a ueuing• However, affect intersection operations at th esholds Specific to q uld substantially increase ro ect wo atible uses CEQA standpoint, there are no t r s intersections) or income 'ect would have a significant impact anhe ou J states that the prof sharp curves or d g hazards due to a design feature {e.g•~ {e.g., farm equipment). ` 1 EiR 6 F~na December 2008 City of Cupertino . ~__~ c+,-pPr C'.unertino Project Section 4.0 -Responses to Comments Received on the Draft EIR In this case, the project does not include a design feature that would cause a hazard and would not create a new hazard. Field observations show that traffic on I-280 northbound off-ramp at Lawrence Expressway queues to the mainline intermittently during the PM peak hour under existing conditions. This queue extends periodically into the auxiliary travel lane that extends between Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue. The additional traffic from the proposed project will likely _ increase queues on this ramp, but would not likely result in a new hazard. For this reason, the additional queuing caused by the proposed project is considered an operational issue rather than an environmental issue. The City of Cupertino will work with Caltrans to improve traffic operations near the ramps under its jurisdiction. Improvements may include items from the immediate action list, such as signal timing and synchronization to improve traffic flow at ramp intersections. (letter dated 11 /24108) Comment 2.5: Traffic Forecasting. Transportation Impact Analysis, page 31, Table 8, Trip Generation Estimates: For the same location and the same kind of land use, the same trip generation should be applied. Response 2.5: Refer to Response 2.2 above. Comment 2.2: Community Planning. Significant impacts should be reduced even if they can not be fully mitigated. Given the fact that the proposed project will generate over 100 trips during AM and PM peak hours (622 inbound and outbound in the AM peak hour and I ,264 inbound aild outbound during PM peak hours for Scheme 1 and 583 inbound and outbound in the AM peak hour and 1,036 inbound and outbound during PM peak hours for Scheme 2) (p. 53-54), and segments of I-280 in the project area are already operating at an unacceptable level of service (p. 60-61), the Department recommends instituting a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program in which future employees at the project site can receive transit passes at a reduced rate in lieu of free parking to encourage alternate forms of transportation, providing bike lockers and showers for future employees that choose to bike to work, and reducing the parking requirements. Also, according to Impact TRAN-5 (p. 3). "Implementation of Scheme l would significantly impact seven segments on Interstate (I)-280 and implementation of Scheme 2 would significantly impact six segments on I-2,80 during one of the peak hours." This is considered a Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Response 2.2: The above comment suggests that significant traffic impacts, including those identified in the Draft EIR on I-280 freeway segments, should be mitigated via implementation of TDM program that promotes automobile-alternative modes of transportation such as transit and bicycle use, even if those mitigation measures would not reduce the impact to a less than significant impact. As stated in Section 2.1 Transportation in the Draft EIR (page 67), the project would be _ conditioned to implement mitigation measure MM TRAN - 5.1 which requires the project to include programs or facilities delineated in the "Immediate Implementation Action List" of the Draft Countywide Deficiency Plan (CDP} to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Measures from the list that are appropriate for this project may include providing pedestrian facility improvements; bus stop improvements, HOV parking preference program, bike facilities, and a pedestrian circulation system. These measures aim to reduce vehicle trips and promote automobile- alternative modes of transportation. As noted in the Draft EIR, implementation of these measures would reduce impacts on freeway segments but not to a less than significant level. - City of Cupertino 7 Final EIR Main Street Cupertino Project December 2008 to Con~J1?ents Received on tl~e Dt'a.~t EIR Responses Section 4.0 measures. include i~.uplementation of TDoMs not RAN - 5,1 has been revised to the site, the Ctty d and uses and tenants that would occult iti anon measure N1M T as su Bested by the above comment M g I-lowever, given the lnultipl and tracking of a TDM program lemen~tlon believe the imp ro ect• the motorized would be feasible for this p J arious measures f°r reducing feasible, ' of Cupertino should consld e arking requirements shouldbbC cle and transit Comment 2.3: The City' ro ect. Reducing th p such as the extstmg y ' cle trip generation from the P J ro ect site (see sufficient transportation and lael uses' or vehl o ment that will serve the p SScheme 1 and given that there will be s aces f lomote commercial, and residenttal dev P 658 arking P and top . The project proposes 1, p hway facilities, and of 4~0 'and 2.04 {p•42))' to reduce impacts on the state hag arking Figure 2.0-3 (p. ) In order for retail to 1.50-2.50 P s aces for Scheme 2. lease reduce parking er 1000 sf, ~rhich is the 1,963 parking p and public transit use, p arking spaces p Olin ,bicycling ort Smart Growth'' a Metropolitan cargo g et sf }and for office to 2.00-3 •°o Supp er 1000 square fe { parking Pol~C1eS spaces p er ``Reforming the Department. recommended a oon~ission study funded by tion C ere uirements to those outlined Transporta arking spac q ort Sn1ar•t gists reducing p P°i king pOri~~es to Supt gists that onse 2.3: The above comment Bugg Resp s ortation Commission Ref°t"Y":~ ~.t-280), The above comtn ublic g ansit use. hv''ay ( and bicycle and p in the Metropolitan Tran p acts on the state higromote carpooling, GiAowth study to reduce imp arking will p arking requirements reducing the amount of available p xceeds the minimum p ide for the the protect e arking prov N - 8.1 . a ter 1.9.100). If the amount of p d in Section 2.1 of the Draft hIR~ d adhere to MM Tom' As d~scusse unic~ al Code {C p arking requirements an . in the City's M p e City s p verfloW would not be antic~pahen outlined but still meet th arking o arking ~ roject were reduced, acts from p ro oSed amount of p . p the Draft EIR> environmental imp ' entified In the above comment to reduce the p p id The City Council will consider ro osed project. arking the p P romote • n a decision reg d b the proleCt that would p M make g lemente y TR~,~ _ b.l, M anon measures to bese pMNI T~'N - 5'1' ANA The Draft ElR identifies mitig and taking transit { ~,R - 2.2 through - 2.7). bic cling, carpooling walking, N - 7.1, M~ TI2.AN -- 9.1, M`M ertino . TRAM - G.1, MM,'TRA 7.2 ( . 3) state that the City of Cup of Vallco Parkway • - n mitigation measures-7-1 a The r posed narrowing o parkway and Comment 2.4: In addttio ~ act TRAM ~ • p bus stop at V allc artment for Imp act the existing artment, the commuter shall~work with the De on-street parking would imp rivate addition o ra e the City to work with the Dep and the na ement District, Caltrain and p >~ Although we encou g ualit Ma g Perimeter Rounded by the Bay Area Air Q y :~ es are f ltrain. Please make that correction. s of the -_ shuttl erated by Ca made. Please refer to the text rev~s~o - employers, and are op e above suggested revision has been . Response 2.4: Th ~:=- in Section 5.0 of this F final EIR• Draft EIR 8 Final ElR December 2008 ``-- ertino City of Cup ~„• --,.,.t:,,n Protect cei~Jed °" tl~f~ R es io CQnlia~enrs ge Sectia~~~ I~TY ~~ REGIS Cpt~ 4.2 E~~ L'E'TTER EI`lT DI~T-giCT sES `~~ ~~~ TY l~-A~AGEN~ RESpG~ ATR Q~ A~' the residential and I3A'~ ~,~A. from fireplaces the Pr°~ect 1l l24lO$~ otential impacts unless the v~,inter {leer dated d r°vide this anaandl fireplaces. In ply) in IR does not evalu R howl P iculate matter { ~, 3.1: The DE , ct The final El . d fuel burning devices of part help protect ., Con',m`en f the Pr°~e ion of soli e are malor source for the District t0 ent for el onions ° the installat smok ke pri°rlty on-attainm hot p ~'°od sm°ke is a y The Bay Area is inn ent f°r the roh~b; wpOd burning ono wood attainm after specifically p uality standards. designated non a~.iculate m months? residentta cing emissions air q wiU be istrict ea. Redo and federal at the region bout the amount °f p the D the'Say Ar and main state we anticipate th t is concerned a uses. This past luly,~p4 fuel°gs ealth d or rule public h The I) al to burn This pM standards' andvJell, istr~cfuture reS~dent~al~n it illeg h advisory. the state sal pNl standards a burning ~ 1Qn 6, Rule 3) mak ag the ~,ir healt or der rom ~'°od lot e s $ in new construc~nal new fe roduCed f u a wintert~m p device t could be p ing regulation {R~g during Woodburning impacts. The tha wood burn woodstov certified burning -EPAr otential w°°d has, at a m~n~muthe a adopted fireplaces an on tify p . n household and installation of n EIR Quan d smoke emissions suc rohibiting ~ e sale end that the final °ssibly p also bans th woo elation, °r p ls..~e recoanln in~mlZe burning reg areas. easures tO m outdoor rea~ode v`~O°d enior should also c°ntc~ vmith the,pistric es~n new buildings or ElR lean dev~c Ces or woodstoves ~n s raft ElR orting comp od-burning firepla to the D supp vJO burning text revis'.l°.xreplaCes andlOr of any w°od refer t° the installation ropose the EIRE burning he roject does noeep clarified in from wood T p This has b this reason' emissions ber Response 3' r the hotel . For im lenient a nom e o teal EIR• shall p residers ion 5.0 of this F the 'EIR. • t of Gupert~na ect, w ect al zed in ~~ y n;tude of file Prof ins that the Due to the mag construction odst0ves are not any ElR states wo in the D st emissions' that minimize Such ~,. Nt.:Ni AlR 5.2 Ce diesel exhau. e mitigation measures Carcinogen• t 3 . redo sibl after, a kn°wn Ines ~ miniln1z~ng the Can"~1en all fea ed ei1g eyed iti anon measure na E1R include l diesel particulate roperly tun of m $ the fi ifical y taming p using alternative add_on that sec to ~ main utes, using d fissions, p nvn rnen ui ment to two tractors t° recom st em of limited electric}~ all con meat exhau but are n biodiesel, airing struc re equip ld inclu-de' and q -tification standard ores Cou owered con lion reSSed natural g~late filters Cent cei , meal ° f diesel p hybrid, comp ~ most re 'dung time .anent {i.e-' Lion catalysts or part RB) i e uip oXida Boards {A such as diesel Air Resources construction ~ states that the Control devices hat meets California e Draft ElR Those 111en't t v duty diesel engines' 86 of th uipment• use equroad bea }' IR _ 5.Z on page construction eq fiVe minutes' for off A exhaust from ore than anon leSel measure ~~ • ' ting the staging °f Niitig es to control d at is standing idle f°~oh~bi onse 3.2 ent measur ment th and p Resp emissions • eCt shall implein ing off diesel equi ent for low enGeS. itional pr0~ clude turn equipn' reSid easures in maintaining eel of eXisting uses and adding a ~ uipn1ent. m tuning and min coon q ro erly ment within 200 f p more than two constru p e uip to no exhaust from c°nstruCtiOn q idling diesel est restricts ~ ft ElR to Control omment sugg • ri the D ~irLal E1R rl'he above c ose identified ~ .p~cember 2aa$ measures to th ~ °,,~PYt~Y10 t, __;ort onzn~ents Recei_v~°n t~ of EIR Section ~. D _ Responses to C ted into project (refer to the text • ace measures have been in IR ora ese mitigation and avoida section 5.0 of this Final E } ct on global climate Th revisions of the Draft EIR. in . ect's potential impa We recommend 'tial Study quantifies the Prot al advisory ' ct s lni re not addressed in the DEeclinic Comment 3.3: The Probe GHG} emissions a enhouse gas ( issions in accordance withamate Change: Adda^essing change hOVVever, gTe as (GKG) em CEQA and Cl In addition, the t the EIR analYZe greenhouse g and Researca a `CEQA Aet Reviev-r• tha Goyernor s Office of Planning b the •nia Environj?zental Qu COA} recently released a ocument, issued Y e Through Calafot The resource d ' .ate Chang of C}fficers Association (C e P to CEQA• r evaluating GHG Clam ro ects subl odels fo California Air pollution ~ f issions from p ~ o f available tools and m s from protects. The document addressing GH contains an overview G emission d in o ect should seek to minim,Ge its Climate Change, otentially significant GH GIIG CEQA an ies for mitigat g p The Pr J :i~v~ww•capcoa.org• le mitigation measures to redo °rtation emissions and down oaded at http eating all feasib e miles traveled, as transp report may be e b implem the Project's vehicl contribution to climate ch ~nmeasures targeting G emissions• es ecially thus Area s GH emissions, p ercent of the Bay sis for the project roximately ~0 p e analy represents app ests that the global climate esea ch CEQA and Climate eat sugg and R ualit~l Act (CEQA-~ es the Governor's Office of P} caning C Q onSe 3.3: The above comet Envir^oramental Q E A & Clip?.ate R P h Ca.tr~ fos CppCOA} be analyzed consistent w~~late Change Tha^oug . ct subject to the ^ ssi.n Cla ontrol Officers Associatio ~~ Pt^OJe ake a Change Adda e g o encies m • the California Air Pollution eenhouse Gas E~~issionsc minend that lead ag available Revaeu and anal Adda^essang ~ the project using n e; Evaluating li. ~ Act. These two docu ases g aerated by •ated greenhouse Cha g reenhouse ~, ro eCt_genei Cali~oa^nia Errvaa^onmentaliQt~e amount of g nificance of the p ~ • • ate global climate ood-faith effort to quant ~' determine the sig and mitig g the CAPCOA~ ests mitigation measures lin tools such as URBEIvIIS oaches outlined by e comment sugg mode. g The abov ases based on recomn`iend n sipp ificant level. le1ented. g e impacts to a less tha g e are Chang hicle miles traveled should be imp bal climate Chang aimed to reduce ve the roject's contributions t ego ed to focus the EIR. ~ ~ is p EIR) p p schem d on page 82 o f the Draft EAiR~ endix A of the Draft dix A of the Draft EIR), As state see pp see Appen would generate 'scussed in the Initial Stud ~ o f the initial Study ( a ear and Scheane Z missions Were di ases y .. discussed in Section 4.17000 tons of greenhouse g ear. Project_gr~enhouse $a~ e D of the Draft EIR). enerate 20, reenhouse gases a Y Ort in Appen the project estimated tog 000 tons of g uality rep ximately 17, model (refer to the air q endix A of the Draft ~ c'~e'trips and appro the U~ENIIS see App . timated using ~ s electricity demand and in isolves features es ~ 17.2.2 of the initial Stud ect ' ch AS discussed in Section certified (whi uality, ercent measures to reduce th~p e~t to be LEED indoor environmental q proposes to imps nii~ the p ~ improving reducing waste, n r°gram, and The measures include de fficiency, e sustainable desig p the nature of miles a landscap a e 107}. that promote water and energy e implementing es ° portiunity for ' e in design) 'scussed in the initial StudYv d g p and being innovativ rind ies• As di mixed use} pro een building p p c1e lanes, athways and connections ~- - implementing ~' roximate transit and bi w old provide pedestrian p osition that, based ro ect (infill site, p - ion the project 07_1 flg), it is the City's p the J addit ~ a e 1 in an established urban p reduced vehicle trips- In meat project, its location wit As stated in the Initial Study p g d the measures included in - throughout the site. ro osed redevelop reenfield site), an size of the p p her than a g de the state's ability to re ~5 on the nature and infrastructure (r used p t • d b existing o ro ect would nOt o~ a by Executive Order S 3 area service Y use, the pr p the State of Calif the project to reduce energy • on limitsistandards set forth by emission reducti and AB 32• Final EiR December 2408 l0 .. -.-_'.- ertina City of Cup 1_~„ ~rniect ~ain~-ents geceived o~ ~ ~t EIR . Sectiai3 4.0 - Resp©nses to ea CtJ1Vf~l~EN'T LETTER #gI.CT RESPQNSES T~'~ALLEY WATER DIST SANTA CLAR-A` 4108 rvious surfaces on the site ~~ m {letter dated 1112 } 10 acres. The In to ment would increase theampoximately ld increase nt 4.1: The proposed deve p Scheme 2}~ pp ar storm event woo 1 and 12.3 acres ( a }, 0-y ro ect Com-r-e 1.9 acres {Scheme } development during imately 23.6 cfs under p e the 2,4 acres to 1 eak runoff from conditions to approx is analysis to deteri~in Study sues that the P cfs under existing drolog ear flood event. roximately 13.2 _ ,ear but also fora 100 y a tai documents should inClO e y from pP conditions. The environmen event would be ws and volumes for not only ~ - r storm t impacts due to peak flo a 100 yea even eak runoff from from a1.00-year storm conditions, the p the peak runoff event would be es onse 4.1: Under existing Under Scheme 1, a 100-year storm The text of R P er second (cfs). eak runoff from ~ cubrc feet p Scheme ~, the p unications, December 2008). about 1 cfs, tinder ersonal comb flows. would be about 31 •~ .gKF Engineers, p ear storm ,2 cfs. (Source: include information of 100-y about 32 en revised to t must be mitigated such that the Draft E1R has be then f due to the proposed develop 4.2: Any increase in run Mood water surface elevation. that Comment ercent venue show is no increase in the 1-p existing culvert at Tantae ent, about 250 cfs there feted for the ear storm A analyses comp poring a 1Q-y The FEIN 'on are restricted. 0 cfs flows to the creek atase flow of Response ~•2 this locate ear event, 75 ti o ect site would result in3 n incr ov,~s to the creek from .on. poring a 100"y 2008). the fl December flows to the creek at this 10~ envious surfaces one o ,~tnunications, t The increase in p sneers, persona even } location• Source: BKF Eng ercent {100-year storm about five cfs. ( would not increase the 1-p old result in an increase one nests that the PrOleCt the project wo ment req on-site detention, - n. To avoid an increase iude on-site The above com V~ith n© ro oses to tncl ent flood water surface elevatioro onent p p ded to the project flood water surface elevatoin~wperc rt the project p p s been ad less than 0.05 feet to the This measure ha endix A in Section surface elevation of the Guar needed)• 'ions in App percent flood waterof eak stortn~'ater flow val• Refer to the text rents subsurface storage p _• hand 18- included as a condition of apprO 4 inC and will be h new 2 5•p of this Final EIR• is roposed to be directed throug acts to the e from the site P meet does not address they epoptnent• -"" omrnent 4.3: Storm drainag The docu C 'nto Calabazas Creek• he increased runoff due to the inch storm drain lineS~ i Creek culvert as a result o t raft EIR in Section 5.0 of receiving Calabazas bone and text revisions of the nse 4.2 a Response 4.3; Refer to esp he retail shops located at the this Final EIR• that ~ 1Vlore specific fans for both the schemes ~ e existing Culvert' ~; C©nceptual Site P close to 1-lowever, the District Comment 4• ce to the culvert itself. orthern end are located f n y st to avoid any f the n determine the is a southern end and ulverti A minimum distanu t on of are needed t0 cture be setback further t° ~ e ea stn detailed plans stru is requested to allow for recon mends that the retail building ' n •thin the easement or on to the ° recom ed e to the builds g encroachment of foundatot ~ he culvert g _ approximately 20 feet fr in the future. _~„__...._ ----`~~~~F final EIR the culvert should it be neCessa er 2008 pecemb 11 City o Upertino~,n~ Project ecerved on lase D~"af EIR to Com~ry2ents R '~ Section ~~~ -` Responses setback to av°id sed retail building be box Culvert. All and onto the Santa anent requests that the p ~ box Culvert encroach into the the The above CO1~ ent for onse 4.4~ •on within the easem 1f. The structural design ° es ati •n s shall be setback ash en0 he concrete It P foots g encroachment °f faua d related building or the culvert ~ re laceinent of t buildings ement far the culvert tore removal and P s Final'~'1`R}, proposed istrict eas m:odate fu 5.p of thi Valley'W'ater D ed to accom in section Clara s shall be design raft EIR footing revisions ©f the D n s care, fountain and the bualding refer to the text es show a tow q ox culvert { th the schem easement right of way for b activities nCe tual Site Plans fox bO feet wide Qrdinance- u~re • Co P 'n the District's 32 esources Protection act facilities req Comment 4.5• osed wltht ~ mater R D~str istrict s or affecting arking fOr the site are prop kith the ~ ht of way p as Creek. In accordance baz e District easement or fee rig activities Casa within th ent that or modifications above statem wire ermit• vised to incorporate the District facilities req a p has been xe or affecting ht of way 5.0 of this Final EIR• The text of the EIR ent or fee rig istrict easem I,R in Section Response 4.5 raft E odifications within the D isions of the D or m to the text a permit. Refer TIER #SATION A,~TR~R~Ty S Tp COMN~-ENT ~SPDRT RESp(}N L RA yA1,~,,Ey TRA sANTA C ix and site design osed land use m to osed orts the Pr°P The P ~ p. letter dated 11/24108) n VTA supp ant transit corridor orientation of { a sig1lific •i s Land t J Se and Site Deng B°ulevard, onent~ the pedeStr~an frontages are Comment 5 Creek of the building •n distance of Stevens si nificant residential along many CDT) Manual of Best within walks g of a g floor retail ortation ' of land uses, the inclusion ©f round- it Design & Transp mix and the inclusi ~tTA g Comrnun Y the development t 1 se • with the principles in osed by the pr©lect and sistent Transportation and Land use rop .es onse is con ating the mixed p no i P practices for Integx' inion regarding tai questions and therefore, ent states an °praise environmen onse 5.1: This comet ReSP d ed• The comment does no s _ Impact on Bicycle is acknowle g ~- easure r is and Mitigation M to mitigate the level of necessa y ~ _ 7 ,1) • easures could be use ,~M TRA ` ection Level of Service hree m tersection { _ n lane} inters arkway ~n ht tur Comment 5•2•raft EIR text states that °ne ° westbound rig Cit he D tl~e W olfe Road1V allco In a second est that the y - Safety • T ro ect at o tion 2 {add g Instead we Bugg ©n best design rvice impact of the P • st implementing p ess and safety. se ds again cle acC ,For more informatioefer Section 5.1.4 VTA recommen act bicy mitigation measure lease r use it would adversel tionp or 3 as a vehicles at intersectioe downloaded from ase beca tion °f °p bic Iles and ent may b axking~ Pie .--=- require the ad°p BTG) This docum cle systems and P at {408) 321- . avoid conflicts betwee Lines { on bicy 'ion, practices to cte Tec~+nicai Guide Fox more information ement Divas 's Bicy IB~ke Congestion N3anag ° f VTA ment and www,vta.or (news/vtacm' Develop P~ -1 option ichelle DeRobertis, T contact M easure M~ anon m ent is 5716 • arding xnitig This comet o inion reg tease. ninent states an p • R~ Guidelines be cons~s at the final design p onse 5.2~ Thi the VTA's &icycte Technic of Public wor Resp b the Director Final EIR ests to ~ will be considered Y 'pecemb~r 2008 2 and sugg - acknowledged 12 ived an the D~ a~t"`ir Rece _ Responses to Car~'r'zents Sectia}~ ~-Q asures. VTA supp & anon Me venu acts and ~.itig vements at Finch ~ page 6l of is cle Facility imp walk imp kway~ as discussed bic cle B y cross d Class II y to rov~de pedestrian ~allco Par Class ~ an S•3: pedestrian and p 'veway ~, rovide octant l~can licant to p as an unp for the Com,men the project app roject's eastern project app s bicycling is cle parking requiring and at the p siting wiring the p VTA supp°~' tl located b y an Vallco park~'ay orts req venien Y acing supply' .~ VT A also supp , s municipal !~°dn fusion of con ce for estim the Del s aces per the Cl y mends ~ rovide gutdan parking p mode and thus recd guidelines p fin parking per transportation ~ Bicycle Technical bicyc he'flraft ~IR~' s facilities. ort o f provid~n ge 69 of t prO~ect' uT ~ cle parking anion in supp _ 9.l on p er the VTA~ s design for b Y o -~ TRAM site p orate anent states an p the to incorp e above com measures ~ bicycle parkin a°been revised Th ation loca g h c conveniently .~~ Tp;A~ - 9 • ~.0 o f this F final Bl'R• -Response 5.3 i al Code (see mitig 1 City's ~tlun~ p ests raft 1R ection the ment also Bugg anon me e ~e in S sis in ~itig E act Analy com o f th The above ~.uideli.nes• Traffic imp being Bicycle ~'echnlcat the text revisions ~easures• The of the • i anon transit corridor ensure • Re fet t° d wit g a future in the b°dy this m acts an fans for TRAM _ ~ .l) be impact p of included M.M . Transit Fac~lttless d project may e is ~ lm acts m,met~t 5~4' at the pr°p° .however, this langat Facilities p Stevens Creek id Co otes th ~ou1evard, Fran along is plan for Bus g`ap Appendix C n Creek .DEIR discussion on transit services and it should armed for Stevens at the for enhanced a stra g p1 requests th about plans currently developt~reek ~°ulevardential transit station language is Steven ,p~IR- VT dude ote that vTA. identified a p°t changes modified to in DEIR should n ice U~ A have also that any include fan nd ,~T p, to ensure future vT A Boulevard. The which could with act With it (BRT service ~ General P coordinate of cond. Frans Cupert'n° s the C y Boulevard do n ote that the City ofwe request that n Stevens Creek ns for a n area- frontage ° in the ~allco ect's about p a . osed for tl~e prOJ cor orate a discussi will continue t° to the p1Op this corridor to In p The City Refer Tans along R has been revised idor p e F,l s Creek Boulevare Boulevard corn The text of th fQr Stev n the Stevens Cre espouse 5,4: being plane R it corridor uTA's plans alo g this Final ElR• Creek Boulevard VT future trans vTA, on Stevens - ate with the ElR in Section S.Q ° son service' s ° f the p}raft bus stop to transit coordtn two existing t access text revls~on There are rovide conyenien Service- order top improvements' ent 5.5~ Currenta velopment• In include the f °llo~'~ng Comm this buses ad• anent to located 1 m Tantau Avenue articulate ends that the pp°lect • taff renom rd west of d vTA standards f ed buses or BRT s Boulevar , Ci eek see attar e articular © on Stevens ne or bus duckout dement pad for future St curb Bus ~ A 22-foot 7 1~, pCC bus stop pavloading area A large l ~ X inter strips in the bus buses artinulated ~° trees or pia ch Avenue ETA standards for buses °r BRT west of Fi.n shed articulated Aeek Boulevard, r bus duckout {see a~ ad far future Stevens C7 22-foot curb lane o sto pavemen p A ~ PCC bus p to state that e l ~ ~. ~ 5' the bus loading area revised p, larg er strips rn draft F,1R has been Creek B°ulevard lant the Stevens with the ~° trees or p l~N~'~RA~ _ ~.1 in ure e bus stops located on shall coordinate ation meas e f°r th .the roJect proponent 5: Ming foot curb c~ Avenue, p Finaj EIR ,Response 5• a 22- all include ber 24p8 he project sh and west of Fin pecem t~reSt of Tantau Avenue t3 on the Dz af---~ ' " to Co~"me1its Received " _ Responses "" section ~~~ " the prOJect Site k $oulevard along yTA's n Stevens Cree shelters nal .SIR fans ° ~. to pr°v~de bus of this landscape p work with V EIR Section 5.4 on the final shall in comment} City and VTA e ro~ect prop°nenvisions of the Draft b the abOtTe at~ble e, and th p the text re outs, as suggested d will not be comp frontag duck "' ents• Refer to Creek-~ouleva reduce the " requirem ro~ect to provide on Stevens outs would will not the p outs duck City ill not condition duck it believes that bus addition, the it w ~ inion that bus The C y scan use- In ested by the City ads, Crete ~ The C Y S °p PCC} bus p as sug halt con e accesarking~ that customer ~ because it is tb- ng store frontag ad and asp street p Cement Concrete ( C bus p bus pad. with enCOUrag e {sidewalk) land coon of the PC e laced fOr the amount of fron~g rovide P~ y °ccur at the Jun halt concrete b p e ~ vTA , the prOJect top failure of asp ondition ecause ' cker section native (schem ~ i Selection above comment ~ the City will a the re feared alter on the fsna " a • Instea ~ of a p VTA staff contribution " U an selection Clara and share "" roadw y of Santa of fair- Cep Intersectiowi • nc he •th the C°unty lading identificati pEIR: easureS~ ~ identified ~n t Comment ds early cQnsultat ~ ligation m `" recommen osed ~ d CMp intersections as ~ and design °f the prop acre estead Rd• A.ve ities, for the imp enGe EXp ~ tom er Rd ~ Moorepar amp} ortun i,awr Coun app • CMP ID 5625 awrence EXp (Bol v ~ Drive {l-~g~ °n ' sdiction of the San a L s are within the Jury C°unty of CN1P ID 5633 ~ awrence EXp ~ Cal i p IfJ 56ab intersection it has contacted t ect' S impact at the CNl acted C y the prof ether to °ve identified imp e Draft SIR- the mitigate work tog ab of th would tinuingta identified rovem are c©n s once 5.6: The tared in Section 2.1 ents that Rep As S cts and imp .City and County ontribution towards t e Clara above tmpa The share c of Sarre arking the t level. a fair- nifican ect to pay uld be needed fox Clara g ors to a less than ism for the prOJ intersects echan wo arking of ~ a possible m t 1 ^b5g parking spoasea reduced p me 2. aden ~ errs. for Sche • ~ r©vem study lndicateSTA supports the pakp g spaces anagement a~ p atkmg Chem 2' of 1,79 par demand m 5.~ : parking- Th spaces for S su ply rates) f transp©rtation ment ark~r~g tion 1 ?~ arking p . o Com b3 p of Cupe~trno S p lementa Scheme 1 an d on City ek parking and imo f transportation. e amount of supplybase es shat odes ce th e ~ to trongly enCOUrag of alternate m ~ of the protect redo far seem- . VTA S encourage use arking Table ° rams that Su gests that Sche~~ ested reduction ~ ~ (as outlined sn it is pr g ens g This Bugg uirem therefore m raft SIR) ,~ • The above co o l ~~94 spaces- im arking tea he D and act. The Resp°= 5• from 1,9b3 he Clty s min um pndix C of • ant enrol imp en t °Sed TIA in App n~fic environrnarking ` arking prop aces would meet o f the a sag amount °f p p p arking sp and Table 15 ,would result rn °Sed 1 ~~ ~ p Draft SIR arking reduce the prop that this reductiob sn p the m 2.0-9 of the oVe comment to inimum not anticipated a ect. age bb of the TIAs cil will consider th the proposed prOJ ed an p fined City C°un ision regarding AS discuss .were determ in a dec ed arking SIR (Table 2•a- es from the City si . - mak g mends shat p the Draft arking rat nt reCOm TIA and in . n using p Land institute (~L The above comme outlined'n the shared parks g T~}~ and urban eats considers anagement rking requsrem nalysis that rtation ~ngsneers { ' on Demand ~' T1~,1~I pa ou h a parking a titute of Transp° o f a Transpoxtats anon treasure ~~ ltiple thr g C°de, ins ~itsg the ns municipal lementatton s ~Iawever' given ecommends ~n'p of transp°rtation- ent also r odes measure alternate m TT)~ The above comet enc~urageS im lementation of F;nal EIR TD~'l~ program that to include p ber ZoaB { revised Decem 5.1 has been l~ rved on the Dr~a~t~ Rece Respo~~ses to ~0~~~1~zeF~ts section ~.0 leinentation and the imp this project. does not belieye the City Quid be feasible f or occupy the the above c°mmcnt w s exceeding Quid gists tenants that w u g°Sted by acts o~ additiona ~~, A Bugg land uses and M r©gram as s g and I-g~~ f a TTY p analysis indicates e epsway tion measures and tracking ° -L,QS The f Cee et een Lav''renGe ~Xp a b ing p°tential n1 algc area• meet 5 •g ~ ~reew y menu °f 12$0 in identify ects in the pr J Com enCles e a acity along seg e appropriate ag on VTp 2030 pr°J ollcy directlon~ t Plan l~/a of c p with th o~unitieS based ~1TA p e~icienGY rl coordination tion opp IRS according to Countywide D iti anon of ea y contrlbu raft E the them g fair-share of the D articipation 1n theref°rele al auth°rity to sSed on page ~'~ ~ acts is p nal approval; have g t ro~ect - onSe 5.8: As disc cegiOnal freeway ha~n°t received fu ertino does not for a developme5 „ ©f the . Resp CDP City of C p ency ction'~-,i iti anon measure the VTA' The d since the p, the Lead A`g than in g aced by f the CD e lnlplementatlOri d to a less Cep be uarantee redo chiding ~CDP~ p acts cane°t g ding ad°ption ° the `t~r"mediat t cane°t be Bible f °r in freeway Imp impacts. Pen delineated in unpac be reSpon ~ ~~,1~ - . i ate freeway s or facilities freeze' ~ rop°nent shall see Ni m1t g ro$ram ct's approval rf the roJec p on Action List { acts to chide p art o f the prole royal, th p entati must in .. on of app 'ate lmplem si nificant traffic imp o f 1-2g0 CDP asp e ;~lmmedl on the segments graft As a conditi this evel. ted in th would not result 1ne g ~ al g tion from significant 1 dellnea The protect 034 ~ contribu ams or facilities in the VTP 2 share progr ~ of the Drab ElR)• a fair` a e 6 eats are identified f F or this reason' ro riate' • of a s that impr°yem a and 1_g$0) 230 is n bet 5.1 °n p g ~tTP of app p the nom roadw y Ex reSSw y the In order to reduce etween Lawrencemen s identified in t TDM)• to require easure. b rove gists the city anon m o• ect tO imp and NSanagemen ,v.TA requ royal or mitig pr J Dem ecas a of app • Transp°~ti°n the pr°J c°I1dit1On meet ~'~ ~ ' cle trips generated b~ program Com • n le occupant veha con~prehenslve T si g implementation ° rograms include: hf festive TDB p odes City-Carshare-Dot Alternate M Checks ' Cash Taking Commuter parking eats f as Eco P ass and . erect or indirect Paym D such are InCentiveS Transit F ar ool -matching in } fitness?banking Employee C p ated Carp°°t Parking dr clean g • asks day-care y- preferentially L°c Bicycle R to ee services ~ ockers and Bicycle L lk-AcceSSible Emp Y . # Qn-site or ~Wa • ce stored .Restaurants easures to be convene o balk Accessible On-site ome Pr°gram anon of appropriate m ~ teed Ride ~ T A in the identific • Guaran with ~ mate lenient a City coord~ gist to imp the prOJ anon measure request that the rehenslve TI~NI progra it require ve Ming r given ~e comp l~oweve t the y listed abo included in the gists tha TDB-measures. ove comment sugg e the measures he ab could includ entation of dpes not belllve toujd be T rain that City ment w Response 5.9.e TDNI pr°g the site, the ve com v ised t° include im ~ y he abo comprehend- 5.1 has been rev that w©uld oc p ested by t ~~,,I~I sand tenants r©gram as sugg 1~-~ le land use of a ADM p the multip tracking d Final SIR implementatio s a ro~ect. ber 2p48 for th p ~~cem feasible _ 1~ meets Received on the graft EIR Section 4.0 -Responses to Com OCAL GO~~~LNTS 4.3 L 5 TO COMMENT UTTER #6: gE5PON SE,~NTA CLARA CITY Off` this Final EIR for the tables, (letter dated 11~24~08) , ~ in Appendix A of r°oductian of Comment Letter Please refer to a rep ccompanY this c°»~»?ent letter. at a rtino/City of Santa Clara border on t e th o f Cupe ' ore 1.0-~ :Please identify the City Comment b.1: Fig aerial photograph it o f CupertinolCity of Santa Clara _3 has been revised to sh°W th t~ n 5.4 o f this Final EIR. onse 6.1: Figure 1.0 ReSP ext revisions of t11e Draft EIR' in Sec si nificant level of border, refer to the t k round conditions. and 26 have been identified toc ave g e 59: intersections 3, 21 ~ ated to ba g Comment 6.2. Pag ne Tier 1 C projects should contribute r these intersections should be aitig service impacts. The LOS fO with other laps and the east bound throCgara has been Working 1 facilities. Also, County expressway P Iona ' ct's "fair share" Contribution t0 reg ertino should o re Tonal facilities. The City of San a Cit of Cup their fair share t g ' sand the County to determine pQ°ieif that would be helpful- ' Tslde and outside of its jurisdiction to share our methad° gyacts to regional faciltt~es in We would ae sha e agreement to address imp institute a f 'urisdictional boundaries. ct make a ``fair-share" contribuTenCeo i est that the prole 21 (Law ressway), Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue es onse 6.2: The above comment sug 2 r Homestead Road and Lawren 6 xp . esult in R P and ( ect wool-d im roVe~nents to intersections and ramps-Calvert Drive), he Draft EIR, the proj tside the P and 1-280 S°uthbo Expressway ,p,.s discussed in Section 2.1 ° t of Santa Clara. swa) 1ons. These intersections are lo~ate ou and Lawrence Expres ~' . acts at these intersect the Coun y ressway, nt level of service ~mP dare controlled and maintained bor Lawrence ExP s~gn~fica ert~no an planning Study s 's im act.at intersections 3 and ~ 6 see 'urisdiction of the City °f Cup eve County Expressway ed the ~ in its Coinprehen ro ect P ertin° has coma The County, r,oVe1ents that would mitigate aft EIRE the City of Cup as identified imp p,s stated in the cts. The City ~s currently war ci g~ ° h ages 65-66 of this Draft EI din improvements for these ~ wpa ds improvements to County Trio and a P of Santa Clara regar g County for rojects to pay a contribution to ents is not 'sm P of the jurisdiction of the Clty oVerruipe establish a lnechanl the imp nt and unavoidable. lace, lementation of these impro re. Since these intersections are outsl e nifica in the futu ' -share mechanism is not currentthes pntersections are considered sig be fair acts to assured. Theref°re, the imp estbound through lane WOUId nee to a third w rehensive County e ro'ect's impact at intersection 3, to be designed °r 'ti ate th P ~ entl identified in the County' no 1 kely TO m~ g rovement is not curt y rovement is this mitigateon added. This imp ressway and this imp lementing in Study for Lawrence Exp efore, there is no mechanism for imp Plane g Ther zsidered significant and unavoidab e• implemented ~n the near-term. measure and this impact is col l.6 -Finaj EIR December 2008 City Cupertino _~....,, ArniBCt oj~ the p''af E~~ to ~am~~~ents Reeeiyed section ~.~ _ ReSP°nSes thbound ramps' a 11-28 sou Mara had EX ressw y o f Santa der the Lawrence p e County • nun Cu ertin° and th is intersection, andtions is The discussed e Cif' of p impacts to t on between jurlsdi e b5 ~ that thfor mitigating sis should comment 6.3: Pag act states The analy A lack of cp4rd~ m act. a1 .Drive Intersection ~o plate mechanis'~n ble i p e. Calvert avoida Ion • aced on an app p unavOidab known reg working wit nificant an ~ a significant and ~ toward been The City of n°t GQOrd~n act is slg are" contribut ~~ o f Santa Glara has the imp to dete o nor a fair sh The C y therefore amble reason Tonal f acilit1eS • inside and an accep m-itigat itigat1On~ tribution to reg 1-lacilit1es not ©tential roject TXi Iona at would serve as p ~ _~ fair share con acts t° reg either identify p , ne project s ements th ten~ni Bement to address imp imprOV de share agr other jurisdicti° ~ institute a fair Cu ertino sh°ul . sdictional b°undar1es• nation p of its lure outside 6.2 ab°ve' of transp° measures once lernentatiO oration demand se 6.3 , Refer to gesp that the imp trap 1? ReSpon 5 indiCatesdiCate what these • Im act TRA-~_ lease in e 6? ent 6.4' Page ?~' reduce impacts. P ore detail on pag eomm would m ati©n nd measures - ~ is discussed s to this mit1g dem:a they can be found• ~ of the e or where re for In~paCt T~ R for teXt revis the satisfaction ar s measu anal feted to The n1itigatiOn 5 0 °f this ~ shall be Comp once 6.4 to SeCt-on gesp ft ElR (also refer tion o f TDB measure roved by have been app of the Dra leirenta 29 ~ s latest The imp -Development• 28 and Mara .measure of Community evelopments of Santa . ending D table for the City I}irect©~- note that P refer this Comment left .5. Page 91 ~ Please to the follow g er in please ment These anta anying ~° City of S Cored pr©ject list• the table this prOj e t r din acc aij pis for eG~ ~t°n Colleg pending and App ro ects reference he Cumulative any parkway at M northern some p J ed in t erica located in the that 6.5: There axe of includ 43Q1..4401 great Am are mostly believes once that were n gesp Santa Clara development at oulevar ' area and f e entennial ~' it 's traffic console t study ent the City ° the offiC at 490 C The C y the pr°l velop ,~,lR including ding ~5 l Ol~ew trips t°wards airfield De projects, d the football stadiumsurroun ber o at the F s to the Draft .t of Santa Clara, tial nom please n°te th Boulevard tl~e Ci y end a substan 've analysis. ~ er to the text revision portion ° ~,©uld not s cuinulatl EIRE ref efts in the the Draft e these pr°1 sere not included ive analysis for inarized °n pag E1R• o f ~Ioinestea thexef °re' the cumula As sum cluded iri final B1R ~ raft I- was iri ~.o o f this P 4.0 of the ~ at the intersections . ction d in Section act s Creek Boulevard and in Se discusse ulative imp Steven Drive, esult in Cum `vay' acts are old r d .~ allco park ound ramps-Calvert Cumulative traffic ii ~ojects wo olfe R°ad an f_28p southb 98~ the Cumulative p reSS`''lay, ~N reSSway and awrence Bhp wrence EXp ce Expressway • ding pr°lects in the Road and L .Drive, La e and Lawren the pen s_Calvert p,Venu . • na1 trips from ange the significant 28~ ~amer Road:Nlo°rpark additio ,ould ch that tU~ulative analysis u ~golhng t does n°t believe consultan cluded in the c City's traffic at were n©t in EIR• to climate change. The Clara th the Drab' ~ 32 relating City of Santa identified in ompiieS with A • s or n1itigati°n lobal climate this project c Lions to g finding ~ s contribu re aced to focus the 6: please identi~' how the pr4~ect raft ElR) p p EIRE Comment 6• a e 82 of the Draft endix A °f the D FinatElR As stated on p g see ~'pp December 20~$ once 6.6 the Initial Study { ReSP discussed it1 ~~ change are _..,, ce%>>ed on the Dry e Responses t0 ~O~zr~~ents section ~~~ raft E,iR)~ °f the ~ ~ would d (see Appendix and S~~e~1e Stu y was emissions the initial eenhouse gases a year reenh°use ~ D of the draft 4.17.2 ~ °f r project g end~x Section app tons °f g aSes Year' report in App a iR.. As discussed an enerate 2~ o f greenhouse g the air qual~~ ~ is eStimateel o ~ ~~~~ ton refer to 5~~.~ta~e ~ 'BE~.iS model ( the project ate appr0ximat y e tJR raft EiR~' the D d genet using th p, of . stimated end~x and yehicle taps tuxes we1e e Ludy (See App • • demand e Initial S which inVOlveS t ~ duality, ~EIR~ • of th ect' s electricity .17.2.2 the pr°j ED certified ( environmen Section 4 to reduce ~` ind4°r n program, and iscussea ~n t measures the pr°Ject to b to improving As d lemen Wing was ~ °f ©tmp e deSig . acing tamable deSlg 1 ~~~?the nature top°ses t tea e p e measures includ efficiency' in a landscape s initial Study (Pag ° po~'un'ty f °r • ons miles. Th den gy cement g in the r°v~de p ectl `Hater an design' imp AS discussed use) p Sand corm that promote les. lied athway that based being inn°vat~ve ~n r~ncip cle lanes' osition and een building p d biCy ld r°vide pedestrian p City s p urban eating gr °ximate transit an ect woo p _i0g), it is the an established implem the prof e la7 within included in e roject (infill sit s~ p n addition initial Study fag roject its locatmn the measures th p hide trip the to reach . e ps stated in development p field site) ede the state's ability reduced v e re een rough°ut the S1t lZe ropos ~ e ( than a gwould ming Solutions A.ct. th d s of the p ct rather not lm~ ar infrastru osed pr°Je 32~ the Global ©n the natued by eXisting the pr°p a ~ the County has h sery~c energy use AB reSSw y and throng area ct to reduce tandards set forth by d an eastbo ad and ~awrenCe Exp ad the prOJe 111.nitsls . coon estead IZo eat to emission redo om improvem e intersection °f ~ .m rovem .Way plan a Tier 1 C eat' si nificant eat b•'1: At th wide Express to this i p result in a g Comm County fair share would tl~rrd in their contribute a the protect The addition °f a identified ect should EiR- , on to a less than e The PC°j ion 2.1 of the Dr w ence Expressway. fan Sect d Road and 1-'a , act at this lnterseCt~ 6.7 ; As dtscussed~iomeStea o. ect s imp the gesponse ate the pr J t at the intersection ° ming not mitigate comment? impaC ough lane c~°uld `~'0ula he third d thr eeted by the share to westb°ua t level. as sugg a fair ,ve County planning signific nd through lane be contributing ill n°t ~ Comprehens third eastbou the protect `v County s dition of a in the ~•2 above- MM gran 9.1 ;mp r°vement identl rl t to The ad act. For this reason, o ResljQnse ted to projects h lane imp Also refe bound throng x reSSway • ii bicycle parking as s east a.Wrence E p udy for '~ r0vide class i and 5t r°vide ,The Project should p ditioned to p mcnt 6•g• he roject sha11 be con Co gage b9. of the .Drab, EiR t,ci al Code, on age b9 the City s Man 8. p,s stated on p reduce Vehicle trips. es once 6. the requirements in R P arking per e roject shall be eat TDB measures to bicycle p ,,~.~~ _ 5.1), th p plan ro ect should implem N~. ide Deficiency 6.9 ; ~fhe P J raft EiR (M aft Count`f `'~' res .from. the list that -- Comment of the ~ the ~pr Measu e ~~ outlined'n cie trips• bus stop As stated on pag or facilities ce roject vehi eats, s stem• rovem. s on5e 6.4 de rograms ist" to redo p . an facility imp edestrian circula ~ ector of Re ~ to inCluimplementation L edestr~ and a p of the 1J conditione mediate r°viding p hike facilities satisfaction dude p feted to the (CDP~ «lm Could implement in reference pr°g a1 be comp roject arking p sh b•4 ab the .p eats? ~GV ~ the T'f)I~ measures espouse ove• Final EIR imprOV em Also refer t©~ The implementation meat. bet 2oa8 Develop Decem Comn~,unity 18 is Received on the ~?'.~.~t EjR Section 4.0 - ResPr~nses to Con~t~~en Np INDIVIDEAES - BESINESSES, A I ORGANIZATIONS 4.4 '~ ENT L,E'TTER # COI~E~ to inc• RESPONSES TO 'TER on behalf of ApP ~ORRISON ~ POERS 8 Assume Apple's proposal for .__ (letter dated 11 /24/0) uld properly Identify and ulative Impacts Analyses' The Main Street DFEI mS ° nd Comment 7.1 as part of its Cu L~ ast, present, a the -Nei'`' Campus Site, ents of Univ. of - ative impacts should encl ~ As p , v. Reg to hts lmprovemen a DE1R's discussion of cu Laurel He1g uidelines provide that an adequa G As you know, ro ects ( the CEQ-~'' resent, and probable abl anticipated future p 988)) Similarly, de a "list of past, p 5130, subd. reason y Cal.1 acts should Inclu 1. 47 Cal. 3d 376,394 ( ulative imp CEQA Gwdel~neS§ New Campus Site Ca ~ nificant cum acts ..., ( uarters on th discussion of sig cin related or cumulativ u eporporate headq 006, Apple announced to the . ro ects produ g Its fut On April 16~ 2 future p J A le, s proposal to develop ro ect. cumulative p 3 s Site and intended t° bu o ect• apple (b)(1~}(A e CEQA requirements fora ew Campu stages for thes pr t meets th ' l that it had purchased the n the early planning and it intends to Cupertino City Counce le currently es V allco Parkway headquarters ©n et• App 10400 ~N . T antau and 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ear or SO corpora~~ ntly occupies 10300 and vrithin the nex y . also cu ccu y 1.9333 Vallco Parkway' le's sizeable new IR, at the least, would list App I o ects. renovate and o P that the DFE on its list of 34 cumulative P t le expected ro ect" w of the ab°Ve' App aced future cumulative p 3 In vee `reasonably al~tecip campus as a It didn't- cain us °n the cumulative list. ex ressly list the new P include t that the FEIR P five analysis in the Draft ~~ CEQA . W e reques gists that the cumula et1t has state . ent sugg As the above comet Zed, The City is campus site. ro ects be analy Iles onse 7.1: The above oral for a new p 's rop t and probable future p as been submitted tO the City impacts from Apple P ast, preSen ~ no application h For these acts from P campus, however, used) is kn°wn• requires cumulative i la Wing a new ent roP acts. __ that Apple is p as the amount of develop us to analyze its imp aware such the new camp and no protect information detail regarding anew campus, le is currently Planning reasons, there is not enoug e that App there is not evised to acknowledg ent is unknown and theT ~° ~ analysis. of develop-n has been r us in the cumula Intensity The text of the E1R is of this proposed camp .nal EIR. 'ls such as the location and im ac f this Fi but detai Ze the P h information to analy the Draft ~1R in Section ~.~ ° s that the New en°Ug assume office Refer to the text revisions o i , s General Plan alreadyon sq ft of existing that the C ~' roximately 1 mull ent 7.2: Please also con~i~e st replace the aPP Comm Campus Site will be rebuilt to a ferenced new campus space. s ecifically address the above re a office space- General Plan dOeS P ude redevel°Pment °f existinb onse 7.2: The City recl ReSP c. The General Plan does not P for Apple In Final EIR ,pecember 2008 19 City of Cupertino „__~~„•tin(~ Proiect Section 4.0 -Responses to Comtnet~ts Received ot~ the Draft EIR Comment 7.3: Also, Apple is uniquely positioned to qualify for a substantial portion of the City's retained pool of 150,000 sq. ft. of Existing Major Company Expansion allocations. As a result, it makes sense to assume the New Campus will be built out at a reasonable amount in excess of the existing development on the New Campus Site. It well may be the case that these assumptions were already factored into the DFEIR analysis, and this request to list Apple's future campus as a _ cumulative project will not change the DFEIR's cumulative analysis. Response 7.3: Refer to Response 7.1 above. Comment 7.4: The Main Street DFEIR Does Not Adequately Address the Adverse Consequences Related to Transferring Office Development Allocations From the City's Employment Centers. As background, the Cupertino General Plan (2000-2020) established a Community Development _,_. framework directing various uses to particular Special Centers, such as Commercial Centers or Employment Centers. The General Plan further identifies "Development Allocations" for the City's commercial, office, hotel and residential build out. Apple's IL Campus is within the N. De Anza Boulevard Employment Center and the New Campus Site is within the Vallco Park North employment Center. The Main Street Project site is located within the Vallco Park South area, which is a designated "Commercial Center." The following are our primary concerns with the manner in which the DFEIR addresses this Office Development Allocation and redistribution issue: • First, the DFEIR correctly acknowledges that Cupertino's General Plan allocates no new office space for the Vallco Park South Commercial Center. (DFEIR at p. 113-114.) Nevertheless, the Main Street project Scheme 1 proposes 100,000 sq. ft. of gross Office Development Allocations, and Scheme 2 proposes to absorb 205,000 sq. ft. of gross Office Development Allocations. At the same time, the DFEIR affirms that the project proponent did not apply for a General Plan Amendment or any other legislative act to .add office space allocations to the Vallco Park South Commercial Center. Instead, in order to satisfy CEQA consistency requirements, the DFEIR attempts to reconcile this apparent general plan inconsistency by concluding that transferring an Office Development Allocation of 100,000-205,000 sq. ft. from an Employment Center to a Commercial Center is "insignificant". (DFEIR at p. 114.} To support this conclusion, the DFEIR cites Cupertino General Plan Policy 2-20, which allows some flexibility for assigning allocations to geographic areas "if necessary and if no significant environmental impacts, particularly traffic, are identified." The DFEIR then acknowledges that there are significant traffic impacts resulting from the project, but states that "These transportation impacts would not be unique to this location". DFEIR at page 114. .- = We respect that cities have latitude to construe their general plans. However, this particular explanation and approach cannot withstand minimal scrutiny, since numerous significant traffic and other project impacts are identified. In fact, the DFEIR Table 6.0-1 checklist undercuts this _ consistency conclusion by acknowledging that the project is only "somewhat" consistent with the City's General Plan Allocation policies. We believe that a transfer of Office Allocation in the size proposed is inconsistent with the General Plan. Response 7.4: In general, the above comment suggests that the project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan and would require an amendment to the City's General Plan to transfer office space allocations in the Vallco Park South Commercial Center. The commenter contends that the transfer of office allocations between the City's special centers is inconsistent with the General Plan. City of Cupertino 20 Final EIR Main Street Cupertino Project ~ December 2008 Section 4.0 -Responses to Comments Received o» the Draft EIR As stated in the Draft EIR, and as referenced in the above comment, the General Plan's Allocating Development Potential Strategy: Flexible Allocations allows flexibility among the allocations assigned to each geographic area (i.e., special center). Allocations may be redistributed form one geographic area to another if necessary and if no significant environmental impacts, particularly traffic, are identified. The City's General Plan allows for the reallocation of development _ allocations. For this reason, no General Plan amendment is required to redistribute development allocations. As discussed on page 114 of the Draft EIR, as well as in Section 4.9 of the Initial Study in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, the project is generally consistent with the City's General Plan allocation policy and strategies. The proposed office development (under either scheme) would require office allocation from other special centers in the City and the project {under either scheme) would result in significant transportation and air quality impacts. However, these impacts are not unique to the project site location. The traffic and air quality impacts from the project occur due to existing and background conditions. Development in a relatively wide area of Cupertino could result in traffic and air quality impacts at the same location. In other words, if the proposed project were located in a special center that had sufficient land use allocations, the same traffic and air quality impacts could occur. For this reason, it was concluded in the Draft EIR (as well as the Initial Study in Appendix A of the Draft EIR), that the project is generally consistent the City's Allocation policy and strategies. Comment 7.5: Further, the DFEIR does not identify from which Special Center the Office Development Allocations will be transferred. Response 7.5: If the proposed project is approved, it is anticipated that the office development allocations required for the project will be drawn from each special center {Monta Vista, North De Anza Boulevard, Vallco Park North, Heart of the City) proportionate to the amount available in each center. However, the City Council will make the decision as to how the allocations are distributed. No office allocations would be taken from the Major Employers. Comment 7.6: From a CEQA standpoint, without this basic information, Apple and the City's decision makers will not be able to ascertain the extent to which the proposed transfer will trigger environmental impacts. Response 7.6: The Draft EIR analyzes the environmental impacts of the project, which include the development of office uses on-site and require the transfer- of office allocations from other special centers in the City. The City does not anticipate additional environmental impacts to those disclosed in the Draft EIR from the transfer of office allocations for this project. Transferring allocations from other areas of the City would reduce the amount of development that could occur in these areas. This reduction of development potential could have economic effects for landowners in other areas, however, this would not be an environmental impacts. The City Council has the ability to increase allocations. Increasing allocations in the City would be independent of the proposed project. Comment 7.7: The clear intent of the General Plan was to support the growth of the Employment _ Centers by assigning the majority of the new Office Development Allocations to these centers. When Cupertino's General Plan update was adopted in 2005, 94% of the newly created Office Allocations were specifically assigned to the Employment Centers. In fact, the Commercial Centers, including Vallco Park South, actually had Office allocations decreased by 6,675 sq. ft. in the current General Plan. The DFEIR should highlight that, if Scheme 2 is adopted, only 53% of the Off ce Development Allocations designated in the General Plan would remain for the Emplo}~ment Centers. City of Cupertino 21 Flnal EIR Main Street Cupertino Project December 2008 t-,e Da'aft EIR ~o~aaalents Received on ection 4.Q -Responses to ~ ental shift away fundam would be a park South• sfer ppr0ach V a11co trap a ent within roposed allocati office develOpm es the C'tY ed that the p e 1 enGOUrag f face is concern t intent to discourag ro d it stro ~ ant sfers of Q Apple it , s apparen Street P JeCt' an n~f trap ing C Y ~.ain does not require tgCOnsider the follow .from the ortive of the is supp issue that ,fhe City Hugh 1e generally Allocaoi0~ent Centers• Again, -App to the Offlce llocat~ons tion Emp d a solo from l y velopment A to fin ent Allocations the Office ~e ~evelopm Employment Centers. hes : endment ~ncrea~ ng City approac ~ a General Pla ~~n the designate Vallco perhaps to office le would suppo Center, as wel within S°u~z d for the prop°se l~ App uth Vallc° oral Centers, and~Qr (b~ of this prop be ut~hm loyment within the So ~ allocations Gan ro xiate by applying a • d use characteristics bons from, E p of the ~'Xe llco s LLco'nmerciaffice AllOGa s would be app p 2) In v yew South V a sfers of O 1locataon a Gould find that ~ tiding to obtain traer than full Office Sche1e I s with°ut ne s rath olive of A11oGataon factor to this area` more supp fairly use ~ p fftce le is City fractional uivalenGy consideCs' App that the whether t traffic eq it ultimately A pie wants to ensure differe" -~e C Y so, p o f O f fice All°cationaouth tl 2. 1 nt within of wh~Gh approac r tl-~an Scheme A eats to the o ae Center, or IrreSpectiVe Bathe uiretn alth club uSed anal inatigation rea designated E'~'pl y {and its he arable exaGtiOn utilized within acknowledged` applies con'p w and whether rnent allocation is once is develop resp arding existing or ne e arding office and thexef ore' n Vallco • ~ inion r g ues in the EIR making a decision reg enter s op , 11ss ab©Ve comment when comet enV tron'~1enta geSpQnse ~'~ ' oes not raise new Sider the ~' allca ntent d will con ect es on The Con' The City C°una osed prOl Traffc Lan necessary . ons for the pr p ° osed ReduGt14nr posal office allocate with the PrAnalysis °f Th's p traffic lanes le is Concerned co parkway front ~ 55 •~ nt ~ •$: App at the EIR Clarify tts th of Vall tie ~FEIR § 2.0~ p- Comn~;e and Requests Th street. (on for the following _' ce the eXisti t~ ~ des of the park`~'aY oSes to redo odificat~ t Project prop n led parking on ed circulation m The amain Stree .and add a g this propos Sider re~ect the down to 2 traffic 1~~ the City rec°n GGUrately fU11 analysis a or assume Apple requests th he .~pEIR traffic . ns: used by t 9191 Vallco parkway reaso Mons ether the assun'p le staff ~uorkin~'rm• on1pleted fox clear vah of the App please con c It is un or user profile co Parkway. act analys's of the capaG'ty 1.9333 V all the transp°rtation'mpth the °GGUpar 2008)• occupancy of es uSed ~n es Gonststen '~3eCemb traffic VOlum volum munaGation~ The existing raft EIR) included erSOnal com reductions e ~,g, the U Peers p Parkway yes _ ReSpons ct {Append'x ~ ° s. is°urCe• Fehr & Vallco osed itli~n ert o e in of the pr°p the prop the pr J d build g -term suitability h w es within above ~1ent1One e long • ci ated future grO. on to narrow lan 'Vallco uest that th im acts and anti p term dec~s rOpert1eed with F ARs eut ~ .9 : w e req umulativ e p ~ shod' rs later • The Apple p ed that a redevelop Coffin' G ce d a few yea " on are being V a11co re fully Gons~der the Apple is con Verse odificati°ns to mo Park y' re ' Vallco wo will have tO be r ar roperties in tha t e prop°$ed m Final EIR abutt~ngp arkwaY by b6 f ° .39 - .40 ~ and sin1~er t ~ eXtent to wh .Vallco RS of ~ecetnber 2a08 wa have P A t the pEIR consid Park 0 ~ e request tha 22 _of.8 is Received on the .fit--~'~ tion 4.0 - ReSpanses to C©m~~~en Sec le roperties and threaten _ re expansion °f the A-pp p romise the reasonable futu .1 o f the Draft parkway could comp the area. Zed in Section ~ ro ect or infill developme1'ts'n was analY under p ~ future n Vallco Parkway d on Vallco parkway e impacts were ~dentifie The level of service ° g ReSponse'7.9 unavoidab ~o significant and uire its own °Se to ~~ SIR onditions- in the future, it would req ulative c parkway an future project that prop cum Vallco ware of y ossible °osed along Cit is not a or the City to analyze P is not rojeCt is Pr P sis. The Y eculative f location, intense y) In the event a P and traffic analY It is too sP ment ( . nmental review Vallco parkway develop enviro inept along anon about future . , intensify develop that specific inform -- acts given 'im.ately q,~g00 lineal fete ° future imp biped App ilable. acre site with aPPrOX com constraints, t e ava Project is ai? 18.7- 1 454 lineal he Main Street 280 and other fixed site roxi~nately t 7.10 ~ T FIi hway arkwaY share only aPP eet Pro3eGt street frons ge, Commen e Due to g V allco P o the Male S existing side of 2210 °f al sis public street frontag • on the north -anslates to only duction will exacerbate t e 1es ( acres) comprehensive an y propert 25.5 e which ti ore lic street frontag ~ cerned that this r°adwe FEIR provide m feet of Pub le is con W e request that th based on site area. o fipple, s Sites. o these properties. Vallco acts t oints on osed access constrain t~ site access imp existing off-site accals arking is prop as to the long ose to modify that no diagon P 5.0 of th's 1 0-8 in Section of be The Project does not prop .eS 1.0-4 and ~ would n ~ias been revised to clad Y a Response 7.14 the site plan 1 parka y way (refer to revised er~~ s along Vallco parkway 1n addition, sate prop orth side of V allco P sr access to off- on then arking along For these reason ect. d diagonal P Final p`IR)' 1 the P1O~ le lane traffic an articularly affected b} osed sing delays, P adversely ed that the prop de radation andde additional analysis A le is concern ificant level of service g incl arking lots. ent 7.11: PP cause a sign e requests that the FEIR adjoining P COm`m likely v'"ll of accessing co ParkwaY - le lane of traffic. APP and the viability V all a sing ithin affected intersections where there is orals w concerning delay Based on x,10 above. sis. r to Response e DFEIR~ s traffic analy the once 7 ~11' ref e rocess involving ReSp be fully addressed in th along p width of a public ould establish a decision m These concerns sh at the City . or roposal to reduce the Comi--ent '7.12 nest th ed analysis, we req • all j affected by this maJ P this expando erty owners P°tentl ~ Vallco Master multiple P P identified in the Sou involved a. number street. Vallco ParkwaY is V'allca Master Plan The South t of narrowing of the South le Inc. e '7.12: The conceP The preparation uth V allco, including APP ropriate, to 1R ReSpons Se tember 2p08}. wners within S4 rkway~ where safe and ap The Draft E Plan {adOpte forts to the property ° of Vallco pa traffic on the street. at nearby narrowing slowing down parkwa fet impacts} were of outreach e ent by of V allco aster Plan identifies t e~vironm ed narrowing chiding sa y V allco M s ortation impacts {in . to a pedestrian-friers dl ~ pacts o f the prop an facilita level of servlc unavoidable tr P analyzes the ~© significant and 111terSeCt1011S • . identified. Final EIR December 2048 23 ~;,- ~ Cupertino . __,. vr~-iect Sectzon 4.0 -Responses to Colr7ments Recei>>ed on the Draft EIR Comment 7.13: Apple Requests That the FEIR Provide Additional Aesthetic Analysis Concerning the Proposed 5-Story Parking Garage Facade Fronting on Vallco Parkway. The northeast facade of the Main Street Project's 5-story parking garage appears to be the dominant visual feature on Vallco Parkway between North Tantau Avenue and Finch Avenue. Moreover, directly in front of the proposed parking garage, Vallco Parkway angles northward, thereby resenting the full length of the parking garage facade into the field of vision for drivers and P - pedestrians approaching from the east. This visual dominance is further emphasized by the propose 5-stor garage height and by the minimal 25' setback of the garage facade from the street edge. We Y note that the other Main Street Project street setbacks are typically 35 . A le is concerned that the DFEIR does not adequately address the far-reaching visual an enderini s Pp impacts on the Vallco Parkway streetscape. We request that the FEIR Include elevations, r g or massing studies enabling Apple to assess whether or not the garage's massing or facade treatments are appropriate and will improve the visual environment, or detract from ~t. Res onse 7.13: The visual impacts of the proposed project are discussed in Section 4.1 of th~hle itial P Study prepared to focus the EIR (see Appendix A of the Draft EIR}. As stated on page 28 0 Initial Stud ,new landscaping, including trees, would be planted along Vallco Parkway for scree is g y and to soften views of the development (including the proposed parking garage) from pub is stre As stated on page 29 of the Initial Study, the final design of the project would be evaluated for consistency with the City's standards as part of Design Review {Architectural and Site Approval) rocess required for approval of the specific project design, if the project is approved. This review p considers the relationship of the proposed buildings with the surrounding land uses an streets, com liance with adapted height limits, setbacks, architecture, and landscaping design guidel undin nd P the overall quality and compatibility of the building materials and architecture with t e surlo g area. A conceptual elevation of the proposed parking garage on Vallco Parkway, showing its design, is roviding on the following page (see Conceptual Garage Elevation). Another figure is provided (see P Conceptual Garage Elevation with Landscaping) showing how the garage would look with t e ro osed landscaping. As shown on the conceptual landscaping plan (Figure 1.0-12 ofWia Draft p p EIR), a double row of trees are proposed along the project site frontage on Vallco Par y Comment 7.14: Apple is concerned that the garage design not contribute to Vallco Parkway o f ling like a lifeless `'back alley," conflicting with the City's streetscape goals and policies. By way example, the proposed parking garage appears inconsistent with Policy 2-14, Strategy 3 of the General Plan, as indicated on page 112 of the DFEIR: Building and Site Design Strategy 3: Park~eg Placement in New Development. Place parking out of sight, behind or underneath buildings two development schemes propose a total of either 1,520 or 1,830 parking spaces, with the vast majority, or 1,100 of those spaces, in the 5-story parking garage fully visible above grade. Res onse 7.14: As discussed in on page 112 of the Draft EIR, the parking for the project (under p either scheme) would be providing in surface parking lots, above and below ground parking garages, and on-street. In both schemes, the proposed surface parking lots are located in the interior of the site, shielded from view from Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Parkway by proposed buildings. Both ro'ect schemes include amulti-story parking garage above ground along Vallco Parkway. The P J ro osed above parking garages in either scheme would have existing and proposed landscaping an p p architectural details that would soften the views of the parking garage. For these reasons, the project is considered consistent with this strategy. See also Response 7.13 above. 24 Final EIR City of Cupertino December 2008 Main Street Cupertino Project nn rn n nn nn n n nn n n n n n nn n I 48'-0' . I D'-0' ~$ ~ I t' i I, J . ~ _ ' _'l ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ' ~ fIR t--' . _- . i '~~" a ~ I I ~ ~ ~ .- rt -. . J .I ~~ _ I .:I - I II i r a~ i .tl • ~ ~: -~' "' •i~ PARKING GARAGE ELEVATION -LOOKING SOUTH N a 10' za as aaar a-a• PARKING GARAGE ELEVATION -LOOKING WEST a 10' 2a as Q 4a-0' a-0' a toy za as ~ ' KEYNOTES PREG4STCONCRETEPANELS ~3 ARTWORK ~ ALlTOEMRANCElEKIT ^7 PEOESTRIANCIRIXILATIONTOWER ~ METAL CANOPY PT~~EPC~.OlNCRETEOR ~ ARCHRECTURALMETALFINS ~ O CHO~SCwI OWFRAMES a METALLATTICElSCREENWITHYINE9 10 PEDESTRIANENTAANCE Source: Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc., 9!5108. CONCEPTUAL GARAGE ELEVATION PARKING GARAGE ELEVATION -LOOKING NORTH N Source: Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc., 1215108. ~ CONCEPTUAL GARAGE ELEVATION WITH LANDSCAPING -- Sectio» ~_ 0 - ResRor7ses to Comments Received of~ the Draft EIR Comment 7.15: Apple requests that the FEIR analyze whether a greater portion of the parking can be sited below grade to make the project consistent with the City's General Plan Design Strategy 3. At a minimum, please consider whether two of the five stories of the parking garage could be located below grade. Below grade parking could extend beneath the retail component adjoining the garage, -- and parking could also be located beneath the health club, similar to the office parking in Scheme Z. _ It also may be possible to develop the northeast garage facade with a visually more attractive use to avoid a "blank garage facade syndrome." Response 7.15: This comment is acknowledged and will be considered by the City Council when making a decision regarding the proposed project. Comment 7.16: We request that the FEIR consider the Main Street Project parking garage facade in relation to the design treatment that was applied to the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Town Square _-_-~: facades. At a minimum, we request the FEIR provide the following additional information regarding the proposed 5 story garage (and an alternate garage that locates two of the garage's 5 levels below grade): • Massing Studies (as viewed from the street level); • Rendered Elevations (similar to the other elevations submitted); • Facade Concept Drawing (similar to the other facade concept drawings submitted); • Rendered perspective looking at the northeast garage facade, viewed as one approaches from the Vallco Parkway/Tantau intersection; • Cross-section through the proposed garage, perpendicular to its northeast facade, through Vallco Parkway to the face of the Apple office building on the nol•tl1 side of Vallco Parkway, showing the proposed street edge and streetscape design. Response 7.16: The above comment requests additional visual renderings of the proposed parking garage on Vallco Parkway in order to better assess the design of parking garage. Conceptual elevations of the proposed parking garage on Vallco Parku~a}~, showing its design and landscaping are provided on pages 25 and 26 of this Final EIR. Also, refer to Response 7.14 above. Comment 7.17: Apple Proposes That Areawide Landowners Join in a Vallco Parkway streetscape Design Process, if a Single Streetscape Design is Intended for all of Vallco Parkway The DFEIR indicates that the Main Street Project is consistent with the Design Guidelines proposed by the South Vallco Master Plan for the Vallco Parkway streetscape. (DFEIR, p. 113.) Apple notes that these Design Guidelines are very conceptual in nature and do not identify specific plantings, signage, materials, street furniture or lighting. If the City intends for there to be a single.streetscape design for all of Vallco Parkway established by the Main Street Project, then Apple requests that the City provide other Vallco Parkway landowners with the opportunity to provide input regarding streetscape design, including the landscaping, signage, street furniture or lighting elements. Response 7.17: The above comment suggests that the streetscape design for Vallco Parkway be decided upon with the input from Vallco Parkway landowners. In September 2008, the City adopted the South Vallco Master Plan, which outlines policies for landscaping, design, pedestrian circulation, vehicular circulation, land uses and services, and sustainability and energy efficiency. The planning of the South Vallco Master Plan involved a number of outreach efforts to the property owners within South Vallco, including.Apple Inc. As stated on page 29 of the Initial Study, the final design of the project would be evaluated for consistency with the City's standards (including those outlined in the South Vallco Master Plan) as City of Cupertino 27 Final EIR Main Street Cupertino Project Becember 2008 Section 4.0 - Respo~~ses to Corn~l~e+?ts Received are the Draft EIR tural and Site Approval) process required for approval of thoe pdecific part of Design Review (Architec ' the ro'ect is approved. This review considers the relationshdihe f ht limitsp, protect design, if P J ' in s with the surrounding streets and land uses, complianceover d1 puality a d compatibility of build g setbacks, architecture, and landscaping design guidelin alp nareae Through this Design Review the building materials and architecture `'t'ech a e licant and stakeholders/adjacent property owners to process, the City will work with the prot PP ermits for this protect, if develop a detailed streetscape design prior to issuance oSection 5.0 of this Final EIR). approved (refer to the text revisions to the Draft EIR in the Main Street Project proposes Comment 7.18: Sewer Capacity. For both developdmeen~pl,ep sand install two new~24-inch storm to connect to existing utility (water, stoi-im drain, an ) xistin Calabazas Creek culvert. Additionally, if a sanitary nwsewer Mines at or. drain lines to the e g rmines that the Main Street Project would exceed the capacrt p° sewer lines and connections dete downstream of the site, the Main Street Project would require arg from 1-280 to Pruneridge Avenue. The New Campus Sim per litnen downstream in Tantau Avenue ~veen I-280 and Pruneridge Avenue and likely would also be eer~oe obed Apple Campus, the area bets A le requests that the sanitary sewer flow test account f t exostinrovacan P pace. PP or at least treat the site as fully occupied rather than re ec g ent su ests that the future sanitary sewer flow test and as a~ciated Response 7.18: The above comm gg le s new campus, or tie im rovements for the project (if necessary) take into acc t nand thepCupertino Sanitary District does P Apple's existing vacant office space as occupca~ us (i e ,intensity of development proposed) not have information regarding Apple s new p o'ected sewer flows from it can not be evaluated. According ~oithflo ~pnrt~ pipe therefore, the pr t anitar District, the determination of pipe upsizing required iI bAasedeoWere to ubmit project plans S y and the increase in flaw caused by the project s to t e Main StreepProject completing its sewer flow to the City and Cupertino Sanitary District prior Cu ertino Sanitary District regarding required upsizing, it i~ip°and e test and coordination with the p 'ect ro onent can work together to fund and complete the required test g Apple and the prof p p improvements. Final EAR 28 December 2008 City of Cupertino Main Street Cupertino Project F TKE ~D~~T~ S T4 TKE TEXT ~ v~s~-Q~ ECT~~~ 5'~ ~~ erlined. Text ~ R• Text additions are and of the Draft Ei art of the text to be deleted. a ~; running through the p • on contains revisions to t h text This sects mal text wit deletions show the orig ore Nf~ TRAM _ J`'J` as Page ~ and 65 -MM. TRAM _ 1.1: Page ~ and b7 following text for m~tigatton meas Revised the follows: e shall imple11~ent one ~ tWolfe ro ect (under either schem .o osed p t uce impacts at Vallco parkway an The pt p ~ measures bel° , ficant level: oration, but install a goad to a less than setg fisting intersection co wgh this improvement, the 1 Maintain th hose. ore than 44.2 Seconds westbound right-turn overlap p with no m coon would operate at Los D interne der either protect scheme OR e delay un - .n lane. The additional to~~Iane of averag westbound right tut westbou Add a second, dated by re-striping the existingVitli this 2• h right turn lane. could be accomm° with no more through lane as a shared-tc ion would operate at L©s D veme11t, the tnterse la under either Sche1e;;-~ imp ~ 50.8 seconds of average de y tl • ~~~~~ ~p 1VINI TRAM - 5.1 .,~ asure MN~- TRAN 5-5 as follows: Revise the text in mitigation me 1 include programs or facil`raft e the project shat coon List' of the D At the final design stag ~ lernentation A ' n the :`immediate Imp of the Director o delineated ~ plan (CDP) to the satisfaction ro riate for wide Deficiency ~ sores from the list that are app p bus stop County meat. Nlea rovements, Community Develop raviding pedestrian facility imp include p ro tarn, bike facilities, m~ ement this protect may ~V arking preference p g lion Demand M asses a= improvements,l-l ion ystem and other Trans orb 1o ees. circular future em la ees with tra tut em pedestrian rov~du1 M measures such as is cle lockers and shove ~tso©n freeway - TD rovid~n b Teduced rate and these measures would red el ~t~pa Implementation of nificant lev meats but not to a less than sig seg acts is participation in the final freeway imp raval; therefore, the ~~ 6ation measure for reg has not received final app to mitigate olicy direction, t11e tniti~ The CDP aal authority ams ff to VTA p re ared by the VTA. According c Plan (CDP) p p nteed since Cupertino does not have e~ ro ect must includeo ~c°~ Quara for a development p I of the p t Countywide Deficien y ~ency CDP as part im acts cannot be ~ the bead A~ Pending m lernentation Action Lislfi of the Dra • - mitigation of freeway p adoption of the CDP nt level. freeway impacts ~:Immed~ate I P Final EIR or facilities delineated in th act cannot be reduced to a Tess than sag ember 2~©8 approval if the freeway soap 29 Dec City of Cupertino rAa;n Street Cupertino Project Section S.0 -- Revisions to the Text o~the Draft EIR ~= ~ Page 6 and 67-68 Revise the text in mitigation measure MM TR,A.N - 7.1 as follows: ~~~ r~~*r~~ to determine MM TRAN - 7.1: The applicant shall work with VTA; and the City, the appropriate location of the existing bus stops at Sa d/Tantau Avenue to Boulevard/Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulev _, ensure that existing bus service is not disrupted by the project (e.g., addition of on-street parking) along those areas. The project shall include a 22-foot curb lane for the existin bus sto sat Stevens Creek Boulevard/Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue. The ro'ect ro onent shall coordinate with the Cit and VTA on the final landsca e fans on Stevens Creek Boulevard alon the ro'ect site frontage; and coordinate with VTA to rovide bus shelters er VTA's re uirements. The bus stop at Vallco Parkway/Perimeter Road shall be incorporated into ~ _ _ any designs for the roadway. Page 6 and 68 Revise the text in avoidance measure AM TRAN - 7.2 as follows: AM TRAN - 7.2: The City and applicant shall coordinate with ~a1 r ; ,~ Bay Aremine Qe ality raitrain and ~ }Ulana~ement Distr~c~ ~~~~• ~rltrain clommuter shut le that currentl}~ appropriate change m route for the C_a____ uses Finch Avenue as a turn-back along its route. it should be noted that the route could easily be re-routed to Wolfe Road. Pa e 7 and 69 Add the following text after the last sentence in mitigation measure MM g IRAN - 9.1: The ro'ect ro onent shall consult the VTA's Bic cle ~'echnical Guidelines when determining appropriate bicycle parking sitin¢ and desl~n. Page 8 and 84 Delete the following mitigation measure: ~, Page 10 and 86 Revise the text in mitigation measure MM AIR - 5.2 as follows: MM AIR - 5.2: The proposed project shall implement the following diesel exhaust control measures during construction: Diesel equipment standing idle for more than ~e two minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running 30 Final EIR City of Cupertino December 2048 Main Street Cupertino Project ext of the D~ ioi~ ~•fl - Ke~'isians to the T scct located more than 200 s they were onsite and as long a continuousesidences. i anent for low e1niss•10Oo feet of existing feet from r d maintain eau p e staged within 2 pr©perly tune an • tion equipment sha11 not brad Construe meat i.e. h • construction e ui residences. owered sel electric as feasible. sts or use alternativetural as biodie d na has diesel oxidation rata com resse add-on control dev S bleu t meets Calif., ni~Airff ® Use as fea ent tha to use e ui m standard of articulatecontractors t recent Certification Re wire all B os • Boards AR ~ s page 12 C-AIR _ ~; The project -~m,pact ,Quid result under either Schein a ~ on regional in a cumulative imp lmple1ne11tation o 2,2 ect air quality • • ti ation measures in S 21 mi g M~ A1R fir Quality ~ would reduce the but not to a tilr0ugl12•~i l~ project' s emissions s than significant level. les d ~navoidabie Signi~-catlt an Cumulative Im act page 15 Page 1g page 19 Page 23 ~c = acres___ e _0-3 on the following p ge evised Figure 1 with R e 1.0-4 on the folio w, ~ gage. ,Rep ure 1 • ~ ~ kith Revised pigur 0 g on tl~e folio lace F ig ure l • " 1 • evised pig Replace ~ ~g ure 1.0-$ with R Replace g ~x~2 0 ~Qecem~ 3l Resources diesel en ine • road beau dut to of the page as follows text in the table at the P Revise the _ 2.1 through 2--x-01 ~ abOVe. See M~' plR ise Table 1.0-1 as follows Rev _-----~ ertino City of Cup r~„nertino pra~ect W N AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FIGURE 1.0-3 (REVISED) L -- pprr}}~ ,~+~yp---7 Ii MIXED USA 5 __ PROJEC'~ ~_ _+--~ Trrrrrrhr~~-r~_~_rr~r~~7-r:~ 6ENIORHOUSING - \ TABULATION ~sEVMWEM~ I STEVENSCREEKBOULEVARD _ _._ ~ RETAIL \ OFFICE 1\ ~ ® OENOlE6TRASHft00M HOTEL Y \ ~ ATHLETIC CLUB ~ SENIOR HOUSING r ~ ~ /~ / \\. ` ~~ ~~ ~ PARKING O"'~ / '~ ~OOp ~ srREET srsruts ~/ RETAIL ~ ~ qR~q ~\ SURFACE 235STALLS SHOPS ~ ~ GARAGE 1,488 STAU.6 ~= d~~~ 6,8786E ~\ ~' ~ I"~' ~, '\~ \ `\` \ \ TOTAL 1,828 STALL6 150,000 SF 670 STALLS 4.5 !1,000 SF 100,DOD SF 150 ROOMS ~ 790 STALLS SHARED PARKING 145,000 SF 160 UNITS 160 STALLS 1(UNIT 1,620 STALLS .-NEW ON STREET PARKIN[i RAb8~T0{ PARNINO BELDW _____.~ .I....,I W W W Z W Q d E- N 0' 25 57 100' 150' 200' Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC,1215/08. SCHEME 1 -CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 1.0-4 (REVISED) .. ~ -~ ~ \ ^ ~ ~ \` ~ TABULATION J _ RETAIL \ ~ ~ . \ RETAIL 146,500 SF 808 STALLS 5.511000 SF I _ sr1GPS \ 16,747 sF OFFICE 205,000 SF 707 STALLS 3.511000 SF MIXED USE ~ \ HOTEL 250 ROOMS 250 STALLS 11ROOM PROJEC~ ~ _ \ SENIOR HOUSING 180 UNITS 18D STALLS 1 KNIT I I 1111 ~ -- MAJOR / / \i` \ / -~ ~- RETAIL / \~ ` ~ \ PARKING 1,9255TALL5 p-}^ -{~-7 _7~~~7-T 40,0005E ~ / ~ stREET 62 sTAUs U I ~ I 1 d~ ~ V I I i I ~ I ~ / 111 ~ ~ / \ ~ ~CC~ \ \ St1RFACE 2355TALL5 BENIOR HOUSING _ / / //~ REf/~IL ~ ~ A'9R \ GARAGE 1,598 sTALL9 II I~ !~ DROP-0F - 1 // u ¢ ~ ~°,°9F \ \~ qY \ .~_L1.J1 ~Iyil..l..LJJ_LI..I~~_l.l, l.i ~ '~ \ TDTAL 1,9253TALL5 BOV.AHOS a 11 ~/ \+. ` \ ~ ~~. ~ ~ / \\ 'i--f"'~ ~1 ~ ~S k~ ~ i~~.1~~ ~y4 F 4L y ~ kr ~; ,~ g2 ~ ` NEW ON STREET PPAJQNG RAMP TO I R 'r FLV91 ~~S 1 I '-OCo ~ ~p~f ~ A ~ \` _~.. - _ - ~ PARKING a .~~ a '" ~ ~ i ~~ A1I ~~ ~'~,~ } I I I 15, ,P2 ~ i A'I ~ M 1111 X! C ~,f' u=i o I \~ 1 I , i ~ n7 '~.r}~.~ } ~ I I i ';,;~. ~ ~~i ~ 1 ~ ~( ~ I ij ~I i, F I a B ~ / \ ~ _ a ~~~, \ ~ , ~ ~k ~ ~'y ~~ ~ v 1 ~ ~' - - - - - - ale ~ y , .. J ( (188 STALL6 I SHOS f rl, f e '°yy3 r a __ __ ~l BELOW) I a~rl ~; , ~ ~ ~~: ~~ ~ ~ i 1 ,Af ~ - -- A~ ~ FUMP To 15 252 P 1 W ~P ~~ a f I I I v '~,.. `.__~~~____ G 'I ARK NO ,~.. EXISTI GII i N4~+ ~ f I r ~ . ~ ~ I BELOW ,i~ ~ I v I I / _ 4" c ~' (282 STA1L6 BFlOW) I HDUSI ~I I I i'?4 ` I,~` -I I ri f ' ~~I ~ ~~-I ~~ R ,128 S _ ~j PROJE 1'i1 i i a~ +t ~ ` PLAZA ~ I~ I Av^TORY I ''~y ~f ~i~ I i~° ~ i~,~ _ I I .1 pd~. ~I { IBENIORHOUBINGI ~'~ a u j ~ ~ { ~ t'iEM A~~E ~ '~ ~ +~Y ~ ~ I ~ ~ b ~ 1 W l I 1 1S0 UNITS I ~` ~f ~ ( r ( ~ 41r`B ~~S i I J1q~ ~tNjAIiDS \ -' ~ y a~ t a ^ -iF '? ~i*, -r"'I i ~ I Q 7'~~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ { h ~ i i L .____' II ? a I(a1Lbb TioN I ~-~ ~ ~ 17,+ I r xtG~r ~ ~ ~ li~ ~~~, I.~, . * . - e'~i I ~li~ 3•STORY ~ ~ o LII r~ ~ ~1 .a r ~ I IJ, i ., i,l ~ Q ~II ~6~~It 1 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ u~u ;rr ~.~ ~ ~~~°m ' 13 ~I L B OFFICE L 6 ~ -K v "~ {~ irk ~d d l t __ _ _ (~ ~'- --. L~~ : x ~ r' L w i ~ I "~~ R ' ' e ~ I'~°?M ,~,1 - : • I;~ - ~ ' ~ ~ ~~ ~s~~ ~ PROJECT (I ~d ., ~~ 9r~ I ~ ~ h I ~ ti l~l~l ~ i~,~., \~ .~ ~~~~~ 205,000 SF ~ I ~ -~ ~ ~ I~ PARK REraa ~ . ~I' ~ RerAa I ~ ll I' r ~I~~ ~raL bST RY OTEL -11I sHOas I I ~~ sHOVS ~i ~ 1 i4 ';~~ r SHOPS ~ ~ 250 RO MS ~' /,129 Sf ( 1 / I~ 5,782 SF 5,4365E 1'F-I ' I I I PLAZA PISA II`" aa~_SISI III 1S I W 1b~ ~1 I 'AIL Z ~ COURTYA.RD JJ ~li I ~ I RETAIL AETAIL ` ~ __- SHCPIS SHOPS SHOPS ,~ ' TREEITO , V ~ 1 11,584 SF ~ I z I Q0685F 8.64i 5F ~ REMAJN _ !_ - - _ - - - " _ ._ I~ _ _ _ _,.-.. ~" _ _ ~{III, LL It _ _._ _'°i" _ .~ ~ -. -"_ _` ~ _ 0 - _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _./ ~ J S.C.V.W.O. v_T EASEMENT I STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD N 0' 25' S8' 188' 150' 200' Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC,1215108. SCHEME 2 -CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 1.0-5 REVISED) - - Section ~.0 -Revisions to the Text of the Draft EIR Page 29 Insert the following text at the end of the paragraph under 1.3.7 Plazas and Landscaping in the Draft EIR: . In addition the~roject proposes to preserve the existing Aleppo pine (tree # 1 l 3 on the pr•o'ecl t site on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Page 29 Revise the text in 1.3.8.1 Public Street Improvements as follows: 1.3.8.1 Public Street Imp~~ovements The project (under both schemes) proposes to narrow Vallco Parkway along the project site frontage from six lanes (three lanes in each direction) to two lanes {one lane in each direction) and- add angled _= parking on the south side of Vallco Parkway along the project site frontage. , R~i~~°~~A t•lY n~~.~n 4'~° MNllt°!. ~' n~1'° tr~t~1'n n° ~n°° r.'~rn[r°n ~ n /~ nt~f~ ~ ~ Q~ LVU[V V{.l[U U[V7I~ Page 32 Revised the text under 1.3.10 Parking as follows: 1.3.10 Parking For Scheme 1, parking for the proposed uses (including the retail, office, hotel, athletic club, and senior housing) would be provided in surface parking lots, in a five-level parking garage, and in one two-level below ground parking garage. Under Scher~~e 1, a total of ~9-1,523 on-site parking spaces are proposed 09235 spaces in surface parking lots and -191,288 spaces in parking garages). Of the -1-X91,523 parking spaces, X790 would be shared between the office, hotel, and athletic club uses. A total of -1-397 on-sheet parking spaces are also proposed on ~*°~~°~~ ~'~°°'- hret~lewa~ Finch Avenue; and Vallco Parkway. Overall, Schejne 1 includes -1-~~1,620 on-site and on-street parking spaces. For Scheme 2, parking for the proposed uses would be provided in surface parking lots, in a four- level parking garage located at grade, in one two-level below ground parking garage, in one one-level below ground parking garage, and on C*°~~°~~ rr°°'-'~°~~'°•~~r~', Fincla Avenue; and Vallco Parkway. ` Under Scheme 2, a total of -l X5391,833 on-site parking spaces are proposed 09235 spaces in surface parking lots and -181.598 spaces in parking garages). A total of -1-3392 on-street parking spaces . are proposed on c+°~~°~~ ~r°°'- ~°•~'°.,~,,,a, Finch Avenue; and Vallco Parkway. Overall, Scheme 2 ` includes -1;961,925 on-site and on-street parking spaces. Page 32 Insert the following text before 1.3.13 Cut and Fill: As part of the project, the structural design of the buildin fg ootings shall be desi ng ed to - accommodate future removal and/or replacement of the concrete box culvert. City of Cupertino 35 Final EIR Main Street Cupertino Project December 2008 Sectio» ~.tl -Revisions to the Teat of the Di•aft EIR _ Page 34 Insert the following text in Section 1.5 Uses of the EIR after the last bullet point: Santa Clara Water District Permit for activities or modifications within the District easement or fee right of way or affecting the District facilities Page 62 Insert the following text before the impact statement for Impact TRAN -7: VTA is currently developing a strategic plan for a bus rapid transit (BRT) that would run along Stevens Creek Boulevard, i.e., the existing bus route 23/future route 523 line. The City of Cupertino's General Plan and VTA have also identified a potential transit station in the Vallco Aiea. This BRT project is currently bein analyzed and no plans have been approved. Page 62 Revise tl~e text under Parking Supply as follows: Vehicular° Pa~•king Parking Supply In Scheme 1, the project proposes -~~$1,523 on-site parking spaces, including X9235 surface lot spaces and -1-X91,288 garage parking spaces. Most of the on-site parking spaces (1,100) would be located «~ithin a five-story parking structure in the north-central area of the site. The senior housing building would include abelow-grade gat•age with ~-69188 spaces. The remaining spaces would be surface parking within the site. In addition, the project proposes angled parking on the south side of Vallco Parkway along the project site frontage 0497 spaces) . The total parking supply for Scheme 1 would be -1~5-81.620 parking spaces (on-site and on-street) for Scheme 1. In Scheme 2, the project proposes -X81,833 on-site parking spaces. Most of the on-site parking spaces (~ ; I-21,128) would be located withii3 a five-story parking structure situated in the north- central area of the site, similar to Scheme 1. A below-grade garage under the office complex on the easterly portion of the site would include X9282 spaces; a third structure under the senior housing building would have 4.69188 spaces. The remaining on-site parking spaces 0235 spaces) would be surface parking within the site, including the area surrounding the town square. In addition, the project proposes angled parking on the south side of Vallco Parkway along the project site frontage (~92 spaces) b ~f~{-4-4--s-p~c~s~. The total parking supply for Scheme 2 would be -1~6~1,925 parking spaces (on-site and on-street) for Scheme 2. City of Cupertino 36 Final EIR Main Street Cupertino Project December 2008 Sectio~7 ~.0 - Rei~isro»s to the Text of the Drab EIR Page 63 Revise Table 2.0-9 and the paragraph below as follows: Table 2.0-9 nT 1 (7. _~_. T.. L:w ~L.. aumm Ci Munici al Code a ~ or rarKU- au ~ ITE 1.~~.i.~a«~ U LI Proposed Project Scheme Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend 4n-Site parkin 1 1,457 1,435 1,326 1,266 1,450 1,312 '1,523 2 1,434 1,084 1,521 938 1,541 960 -1~5-391,833 Sources: City of Cupertino. City of Cupertino Municipal c:oge: t;napter ty. tuv rarrcrnb t~c~,wauv,-~, ~~~~. Parking Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 3rd Edition); Trip Generation and Parking Design Guidelines {TRC Engineers, 2007); Shared Parking (2nd Edition}, Urban Land Institute (ULI), 2005. . As discussed previously, Scheme 1 proposes X291,523 off-street parking spaces plus -~97 on- . street parking spaces (along Vallco Parkway -~ C~°"°~'~ ~'"°°'''~""~°"""`~) and Scheme 2 proposes 491.833 parking spaces plus -192 on-street spaces. Based on the methodologies presented in Table 2.0-9 above, both schemes provide sufficient parking when shared parking is considered. Page 85 insert the following text before the last paragraph: MM AIR 2 11 The project shall not include wood burning fireplaces or woodstoves in the proposed senior residences or the hotel. Page 8$ Insert the following footnote after the third sentence in the second paragraph: Currently 78 hotel room allocations are immediately available in the South Vallco Park area. The iemainin~ 686 hotel room allocations in the South Vallco Park area are earmarked for Cupertino Square through a development agreement that is to expire in August 2009. These allocations_ ma become available for the proposed Main Street Cupertino project after August 2009 To comply with the existing General Plan the number of proposed hotel rooms could be reduced to 78, the project a licant can ne otiate with Cu ei-tino S care to release some of their earmarked hotel room allocations or the City could convert commercial/retail square foot allocations to hotel room allocations this was recently done with the approval of a hotel at the Oaks Shoppul~ center . Page 89 Include the following text at the end of the last paragraph, before Table 4.0-1: A_ pple Inc has informed the City that it plans to have a new campus north of the project site at the southwest quadrant of Pruneridge Avenue and North Tantau Avenue. Apple Inc. is in the preliminary sta eg_s of,planning this new campus and no specific information has been provided to the City (i e ,land uses proposed, square footage/intensity of development) For this reason there is not enough information about this new cam us to include in the cumulative anal sis. City of Cupertino 37 rmar ~irc Main Street Cupertino Project December 2008 Section S.D -Revisions to the Tea of the Draft EIR ~-- Page 91 Insert the following text at the end of Table 4.0-1 as follows: 35. Fairfield 900 Kiely Boulevard 806 residential units Deveio ment Page 98 Revise the text in the table as follows: Intersections Peak Cumulative Cumulative Hour w/Scheme 1 w/Sc/zente 2 3. Homestead Road and Lawrence Expressway - City of Santa Clara/CMP intersection PM X X 8. Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway -City of Cupertino PM X X intersection 18. Stevens Creek Boulevard and I-280 ramps-Calvert Drive -City of Santa Clara intersection/E~'A4~ 1~'A M['.~/~~'t 11 ll P1VI X X 21. Lawrence Express~~~ay and 1-280 southbound ramps- AM X X Calvert Drive -City of San Jose/CMP intersection PM 26. Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue and Lawrence pM X Expressway -City of San Jose/CMP intersection Page 99 Revise the second paragraph as follows: The cumulative impact at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard/1-280 southbound ramps- Calvert Drive could be mitigated to a less than significant level with the addition of an eastbound right-turn overlap phase. This would consist of signal modifications, possibly including replacement of the existing traffic signal, pole, and arm mast. This intersection is located within the City of Santa Clara and ~-~C~RTP~1"ILGr~GCt~ controlled and maintained by the City of Santa ClaraC-etrnt~~-ems ~ The City has contacted the City of Santa Clara~~-r~t~ about this impact and mitigation. The City of Santa Clara does not require mitigation for cumulative impacts. For this reason, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact at Stevens Creek Boulevard/I-280 southbound ramps-Calvert Drive is significant and unavoidable. Page 102 Revise the text of Impact C-AIR as follows: Impact C-AIR -1: The project {under either scheme) would result in a cumulative impact on regional air quality. Implementation of mitigation measures in Section 2.2 Air Quality (MM AIR - 2.1 through 2.-1-011) would reduce the project's emissions but not to a less than significant level. {Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact) City of Cupertino 38 Final EIR Main Street Cupertino Project December 2008 Section ~.0 -Revisions to the Text ofthe Draft EIR Appendix A, page 8 Revise Table 3.0-1 as follows: Table 3.0-1 Summa of Develo ment Schemes Pro ose d Uses Retail Athletic Office Senior Hotel Open Space On-Site (s~ Club (s~ Housing (rooms) with a Public Parking (s~ (units) Easement (ac) (stalls Scheme 1 150,000 145,000 100,000 160 150 1.63 -1-~-21,523 Scl~erne 2 146,500 --- 205,000 160 250 1.63 '~ 1,833 Note: sf = s ware footage, ac =acres Appendix A, page 9 Replace Figure 3.0-1 with Revised Figure 3.0-1 on the following page. Appendix A, page 13 Replace Figure 3.0-5 with Revised Figure 3.0-5 on the following page. Appendix A, page 19 Insert the following text at the end of the paragraph under 3.2.7 Plazas and Landscaping in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft EIR): In addition, the project proposes to preserve the existing Aleppo pine (tree #1131 on the project site on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Appendix A, page 22 Revise the text under 3.2.10 Parking as follows: 3.2.10 Parking For Scher~7e 1, parking for the proposed uses (including the retail, office, hotel, athletic club, and senior housing] would be provided in suc•face parking lots, in a five-level parking garage, and in one two-level below ground parking garage. Under Scheme 1, a total of ~-;~9-1,523 on-site parking spaces are proposed (268235 spaces in surface parking lots and -X91,288 spaces in parking garages). Of the X281,523 parking spaces, ~-5-3790 would be shared between the office, hotel, and athletic club uses. A total of -13~8~97 on-street parking spaces are also proposed on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Finch Avenue, and Vallco Parkway. Overall, Schefr7e 1 includes -1-~g1,620 on-site and on-street parking spaces. For Scheme 2, parking for the proposed uses would be provided in surface parking lots, in a four- level parking garage located at grade, in one two-level below ground parking garage, in one one-level -, below ground parking garage, and on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Finch Avenue, and _Vallco Parkway. Under Scheme 2, a total of-1-;8281,833 on-site parking spaces are proposed (268235 spaces in surface parking lots and -181,598 spaces in parking garages). A total of 4-3-392 on-street parking spaces are proposed on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Finch Avenue, and Vallco Parkway. Overall, Scheme 2 includes ~~r31,833 on-site and on-street parking spaces. City of Cupertino 39 Final EAR Main Sheet Cupertino Project December 2D08 r ._ .. _ ~......__ F_..__ .... ,.. ~. .--m,.,.._. .....,.._ ~~rm~~~~~rrrrr~~~~ r~ rrrm SENIOR HCUSMG PAMPT01 PARIONO ; SELDW ..... ~ ~ O JL i =_ TABULATION \ RETAIL t50,00D SF B70 STALLS 4,511,000 SF OFFICE 100,OD0 SF ~ \ \ ®oENOTESTRasnaooH HOTEL 150 ROOMS ~ 790 STALLS SHARED PARKING ~ \ ATHLETIC CLUB 145,000 SF \ SENIOR HOUSING 160 UNITS 160 STAIIS 1(UNIT i / / \\ ~ ~\ PARKING 1,620 STALLS ff / OA \ STREET eTSrws RETAR ~` ~ ~~~ \ \ SURFACE 235 STALLS ~_ ~~rr~~~~~~~ 6A7~fi 5F \ \~ '9y ~\\\\ \ GARAGE 12665TALLS Jvv, / / \ \` \ C n\\ \ ~ TOTAI 1~6205TALL5 // ~~ ~ W Z W 1 d zH F N D' 25' S0' 160' 150' 266' Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC,1215108. SCHEME 1 -CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3,0-1 (REVISED) __.... A9~YE EM STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD -. - extofthcD~R _ Rcvisio}~s to the ~ Sectyor- ~-a e 1 the eak ~ eme 1 s Under Scheini 1 cfs under 5ch to 23 • 1,b cfs- . existing conditioQUld be about 3 e 2 2,4 acres to 13.2 cfs u p~eear storm event v`' Schein surfaces from from a l0 ervious ase of imp res. The lncreas the prOlect lucre ~ acres t0 b'4 ac off from ould result in afroln 16.3 e in stormwater run imately ''~ from appreak runoff ° anent of Schet~~e ~ surfaces increas ' of ervious onding would increase the site2 Under Sehcy~~e 2. The level p nd a decrease p a corresp th result In runoff from 9 12.3 acres a would eak cfs under Scheme ervious surfaces event p ilnp ear storm to 23.b 2 cfs- uring a l0_y ditions site. D uld be ab°ut 32. cfs under existing e°ent'N° ,~m,pacts 13.2 ear storm. Capacity ects to the from a 100~ Drain wb,ich cone drain Starm parkway lg-inch storm line in Vallco acity. The . drain either scheme' aQVer cap hand ns, a 30~inch storln ditions ~ would be ed 30-lnc ject con culvert e mention condltlo Under prO to the existing the abov storm drain Under existing ver pacity • ect arallel to he roposed 24~in~h In addition, . ca cone lines p culvel~ is o which also dram venu existing co Parkway 24-inch storm from those lines• ~ rt „p1 Finch P` namic in V all cal and hydrody line ro oses to construct of existing box swales, ~ ith the p to divert slte run r- e etated uality • there pr0~ect p drain lines ort1O basins, v g water q ctices~ l8~inch storm the northern p bioretentlon and prove e1.nent pry lQ The ect to im _ ' nes would cone incorporate from the site best manag roject. . 1, ropose tO t of run°~ drain lines and the prof'°sed p e one er eC rat flpod in t __ the both schemes p the amours inch storm odate se ln,. to reduce roposed 24 ~ capacity to accomm increase increa_ dude separators ©f the two p lste ire could result in the avoid an to in et or O.b inches orient ro oses incorporation t storm drai11 s} r°' ect s would be sufficien o11 the about 0.05 fe ro ect ro ervious Surf ace culvert b culvel~ the in im of t11e of e flows as needed increase elevation elevation water Su'ent fro°d water s~ o~c eak storm`''iat one el c story e ~ ~ ater QUai'~' . on-site subsurface tbefore 4.8.2• via buried i es t11e following tea on_site flood water surf, a age b0 Insert water ~1,lorks. ix A , p be desi ned to deta~he one ercent ublic Append ~.~_ ~. „rniect shall ~pirector of P a ~n increase ~~ _+;~n cif the A~ ~yU____..,,,._----~--" a necessaof t~h ulve~ t4 r'nG , aragraph• elevation entente in the third p ootnote after the firsts area. Th_ f V allco Park Q e the following South Cu err a e b3 Insert the arked f °r available In earm radix A- p g ilnnledlatel park area are These allocation~ma wi Appe allocations are oath ~' allco ust 2009. 009 To co otel room s 111 the S ire in A.u ust 2 78 the ro ect _~.+,.! ~8 h ~.~, allocation ,_+ +hat is to ex . _ .~,,~iect after Au a„~P.CI tO _N e a---~~bn ral istln ~an~ne °~ atio~ th,_.._ w. _,, rthis it'1(1' ua~l..nkAt " 43 rig ~ Decemb --~ ertin ect .. CixY of CuP r~„nertin° Pro3 the Text of the D-~.E,. ~- Revisioa~s to Seetia-~ ~~~ `~ of the last paragraph fter the second Sentence footnote a park area• The ~,,,ing South V aUco Cu ertin° S6 insert the folio in the arked fOr - ,umediatel availa ark area are eacm endix~ Page are n Go P 9, These allocations ma with APP the South V all ust ~fl4 To com 1 aUocat~ans ice in Au ust 2009 • r© ect ~ g hotel room to ex ino ro ect after Au to ~ 8 the ~ucrentl otel room allocations ~ ent that ~s be reduced 68b h t a teem ert could hotel room remainin u h a develo menosed N~ain Street Cu earmarked axe thro the ro of ro osed hotel roomy of their to hotel room S u u~~ber _...~-- allocations e available for the n_._---,_ to release in center bec°m General Plan care uare fp0t Gaks Sho "ate with Gu ert~n©S erciallreta~l ~ hotel at the the eXistin ot~ ert comet royal of ne Gould cony a a licant ca Qr the Ott done with the allocations- r+his was recentl .:_--- ~l EiR pecel~ber 20~~ 44 ,._----- rt ~ o City of CuP ~„nertin° Pra~ect ~Qm end, betters endix A CON!~'IF-NT LETTER 1 Hof P~~,/N yk~~G ~ti~~'~d t, e~.aFrF ~ .~~u'ri+ii sa 4.rr ~ '• ~.1 c: m u a o ~,,' ; r . ,~ °+~~iFO N ~'~10LD SCIiW~~i1EGGEit ~p~tfERI30R CAL1FORrTIA °,~ STATE OF A~~ ~~,5~!~ARCH '.~ ~,~~ ~~~{,}s QFFICE ~f Nr~~~t3Nx`r c,~,.r~$~~r ~~~~ DxRrcTOR ~ C~~NGxousE AND PLAN STA ~oveinber 25, 208 Gary Chao - City of Cupertino 103Q0 TorrCA 9501-3235 Cupertino, Subject: Main Street CLipertulo . SGI3#~ 2008482058 Chao: eiicies for review. On Dear Gaiy to selected state ag eiicies that house has listed tale stat ea g from the e submitted the above nan~-tliat the C~ ru1g gild the colruu ate The State ClearnighoL~s ort lease not 2008, oven1ber 24, Lease notify the St the enclosed Document Details Rep eriod closed on N ackage is not iii. order, p if tlvs canv~1e11t p di it State CleariiighoLise number in future - reV1ewed your dacun1eilt• The i enclosed. ro`ect's ten g a eney (ies) is (are) yespondiiag g • ~ ase refer to the p l Clearinglaause inv.1 ghat wey ley xespond proiuptly. _ iforiva Public Resources Code states lha • . correspondence so ~ those , c of the Cal aiding . Please liote.tliat Section 21104() 11x11 only or which are s make substant rose of ttb e agen y b enc Dyfed 9 .. - «A responsible or other public ag y Those conunents shall be supp • a roject which are witlul1ean Y ea of eXPe .. activities involved m p roved by the ag :equiled to be ca11ied aufi or app ocument. Should you heed specific documentation." ou contact the ' i repaying your final env con nand tidiat y These conurreuts are fox 1 rded for use u •' ication of t1Le enclosed cunu11ents, v+'e 1e mole iilforn1ation O1 auectly. uirei11ents far conunentuig agency house review req - comp - iuneiltal Quality Act• Please contact the ou have lied with the ~nv~ fearing llolu1rental zevieW es that y idia1g the env T1us letter aclciiowledg ursuant to the Cah arniuestions"r~ ~ . 916 ~.~~_Ob13 if you have any 4 draft enviromlrxouse at ( n ~tts, . State Clearingl process. Sincerely, .~`~' Tent' Ro ~ . - , .: •- State Clearinghouse . Director, . - - - -. - - Enclosures : _, - : - .. cc: Resources Agency - ~ Sacramenta, California 95x12-3044 - p.0. $ax 30 ,~yy~,.apr•ca.gav - 1400 10th Sty X45-0613 FAX (915 323-3018 . _ {g16~ Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base sCH# 2oosos2o~$ Project Title Main Street Cupertino Lead Agency Cupertino, City of Type EIR Draft EIR - Description The Maln Street Cupertino project proposes two development schemes fior the 18.7 acre project site. The approval of the project would allow for development under one of these schemes. Scheme 1 proposes up to 295,OOOsf. of retail uses (including 150,000 sf. of general commercial uses and a - - 145,000 sf. athletic club). 100,000 sf. of office uses, a hotel with 9 50 rooms, and 1 GO senior housing units. Scheme 2 proposes up to 14G,500 sf. of retail uses, 205,000 sf. of office uses, a hotel with 250 rooms, and 160 senior housing units. Lead Agency Contact Name Gary Chao _ Agency City of Cupertino , Phone 407-777-3247 Fax email Address 10300 Torre Avenue Cify Cupertino State CA Zip 95014-3255 ' Project Location . County San#a Clara Cify Cupertino Region Lat/Long Cross Streefs Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue Parcel No. 31 G-20-078, 316-20-079 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways I-280 Airporfs San Jose International Railways UPPR Waterways Calabazas Creek Schools Land Use Land Use: Undeveloped, GP: Commercial/Office/Residential, Zoning; I-Z-83; Mixed Planned Development {General Commercial, Office, Light Industrial, Hotel and Residential) Project Issues Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic Historic; Flood Plain/Flooding;. Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Public Services; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Wa#er Supply; Wildlife; Growth -: Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects; AestheticNisual; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Job Generation Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Office of Historic Preservation; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Ca[trans, District 4; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 10110/2008 Start of Review 10/10/2008 End of Review 1912412008 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. - 510 286 5560; ~TAANS 7AANSi'OH SAT 9~ 91632830E 8 , .. •, ~ ' $e~tgTAT~G EAAIN3NQU A ~ .: • ...... ... ...r AA~I.I1 •~ ~L ~~ r~ 1 ~1.~ ~~~ ~, q $,~g 23660 OA~'~~' CA 9423-fl8fi4 p1lt?N ~~~ ~8865~59 91 FAX tb .~ 711 l,,iovemher 24, Zfl08 ~~- c~a~y Chae City of Cupertino . . . ~ . ~I0304 T°~Te A.vcnue Cupertiraa, ~~ y'S014 ,,0~.~ ~~~~~~ i ii~~'1 Nov 2 ~ zoos `L~/ 1 S~~~E~~_EpA1NGH0USE _~. ~~~"~~`~ 4~ ~ S~I,28fl3 SC~'~~Q flg fl$~a5~ car Nic. Chao' . , , , :' . ~ •~ ct, ltepurt ~~~ - ~ ~ •. , m . ;~b4:~c~a~:'~,nvt~~~•e~~`I ~ . o~ntion Cpep~ment} in ' n ~,#,~ef ~~Fe~ ~,mcnt of ~~anSP R und.have ' udt;•tli 'C~Y•fari~ia ~'ep .` VVc have reviev~ed the ~~' ~to'i:~nc1 a .. r~ess for~~the p~posed projec. Th~~-You for cantinui'trg' ' : . the environmGntal~ rc~ntw b ~af fer., . ... ~ . ~c follo'~ing comma For t~ie saame . Estimaxes: g 'trip C,enerac9tin" d ~ applied. • ~irr a ~~ 3'1 ~ Tab1e• ~ , Traffrc ~Y"~r~ ,~ act' ~:na~yais,. P g ' '.t1~e~ sic ~F generation rate ~5hou . , Transp~gtaon P ' ' . ~ ci°n and the same ~,itid.of land use, - ven the fact 'that , . _.a a .. aced. 1 d . loc, ~ ~ . ~ fully m~tsg inbound an 'it . ~-lun~xng . - ' ~ ed' even i'f they can not d Ply P~~ h°utc ~b22 for Comm~'n Y . reduc an eak haws iftc~nt imp"cots' ~,.hauld be"' tri s during Sign. over 1:~. ~ utbound during PM P d outbound ` en~tat~'' and un ~e p~posed projc~t.Wi11.g ,~ inbpund and ° l;,tl3b info . ' ~~.e. A,~ :pealc':huux~ and' 1:,2b ' e~k hour and '. in tk~c protect area az{= aut'~ound in .and.segn~ent$ of ~ ~~ P ou,,rnends inbo+~-nd"and: oulbdund in ~ e r ' p e~ arCna~nt zec at Scl~emc ~ and Sfi3 6fl-dal); the ~ p ~ loyees eal:•hours for•~clieme Z)''~p-~ of serrrice ~P• ,~•sn:which future p ra e . . during 1'~ ~? , ~p fable--1~ asking crncut (T'~~ Pmgt" tv encau g alrecdl~ operating ~t ~ .un~~~Wti ~ to ees'that. Demand:'~.nnag ~ rate in lieu °f free P em Y • instituting 3Tras~;sport ~~°~ trdnsit'p~ses. ;at ~a ~e to keys and' chewers. #or .futu~ to ~~pac~t ~'~~! the protect site Gan jcL s ~~~to~t;:pxbyiding' bi ~. • -,~egUirements.: ~lsfl; 'acc~er mats an lnterst~ate . . ' ltema~ forms ai..tra~k ah~'.~dl~Gi'~g:'the~park g ficantly t'mp~'ct sever gents on•1_~8fl''d~xrt!~g chc+ase to bikG•to wa .~f: cl7cm`e.1•,wc~ul.d~ signi ffi ~tr#:~'sxx ~e~' <`Ym ~exne~tiatic~•~• S ~•~.waul.~.'~~~ificantly. p~o~able3~p~t. 5 tP 3~; '~ ..of ~ Sche~- d v ' ~ . • cansldd a St nificant an tlxta ~}_Zgt}.and.irnple~1en~~t~~i's is ~d g • ' t rizcd vehiei'~ trip one of the pe~c`ours- , • .. cures for rcdia~irt~:~e m ~° blc given that w~arious• ~iea ~ should be f asi ~no~sh©vld~cons~d~.• arking xequiternenta~' .. h;cycle and transit ~~ The•City of CnP~ ect ~~t:educing.fihe p such as ~,e.exi~tf~ng the raject.ci[e ~S eratior~ from'tl~c•~n't ~o.~.~d•ta~na:u~si' merit thafi.~uiil.se~'e p far "cherne 1 gcn ntial••develop • aradng spaeeg there will be spfficient tt.~nspflz'~ and'rasi~ ]. 65g':p' , and,:to i hies; end office; concun~~~'1' 42~~-, The p~ect Pro uce ~p~tc'nn :tYfc scare htg ~w~ ~i5fl-2.5fl Fi # e 2 A-3 (F- 40~ •~d ~~: Q~ ~ heme 2'~ .'In aster' t~ °aease reduce.~ar~ix~.g f or re ~~ng'sp~es. 2nd 1,963 p ; bicyc~ing `dnd publl~ transit u , P . mu4R m~itity across ~atifar'~~V oling :. ~~ Pe~$ 114 • Y, ~' ~ . ~~ , ,4~"leat your ~iuc.T! }3e PnerG'Y p~'u:s~ntt prOLIlU~ G&~° ~Guttrarts imP . ~ - " ' ..:-... . Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIQ PLANNING; 510 286 5560; Nov-24-08 3:24PM; Page 2/4 1Vtr. Gat~'Chat~ . ... , ' ' ' ' ~ . . November 24, 2flU~1~ ~ . . • . ~ . '; ~ ..:. .. . gage 2 ~ . • . ~ .. .. • ' • .. ~ . promote carpoo%iri~g, br~~~iiii~'ahd•,putii~a~c:•transit'uso;'please~ recioce•parlcitig f©r i~eiail to '1.50-2.50 parking 5paccs.per 1~{•10..square ~eet•;(s~f) and'Foir offi~c~ to 2.00•J.Otiparking.spaces pear 1dD0 sf, which is• the reco~~'tettded.air~ourlt'per.'"I~.efortrii~ng.P.arking ~'olicies ta'SvpporC Sznert Growth," a• ,. ~etroIx>ti tan Transportation Commissi~on• study funded by the Deparement. In aci.dition,, rni~tigeLio~t'measu~s-7.1 'an~.d.~7.2 (p. 3). state that the City of Cupertino sh,ul•1 v~ark with ' the•Depac~ment for Impact'gRi~l~T 7: "'I'bc propi3s~d narro~ving•of ~?'ai~~o parkway and.the• . .addition of.th~•on~stre~t fi~rki~ng•would~~impdct xhe'existin,g bus stop at Vallco Parkway and . • Perimeter Road:" ~4lthougti'~t~ie we~eireaurage.The City. to work. with'tli~. Department, the , • - commuter shuttles are'fund~d:by.tbe•,~~y:A~xe~ Ar~'Quality ManageT~ietlt District, Caltrain and private employers,' and 'are operated ~,jr'Caltrain~.. Please make that carrectian. • A.1so, attached for your~i~ferei-ce~•ar~.icopi~s.of comments provi'dei3.~s part'+of tli~~eariy consultation • • collaborative on the T~raft:Traffzc Itiicpact•~eport. ; • ' • Should,you liave~any'que~#i~o~'s'regai~di~g~~this•t~~ter,.~lease call Josd:L.'C~1'veda of my sta~'f at•(51~0) •' ~' 286-535. ~ . ~ .. Sincerely, .. • . ,. .... . , . ... • ~~ ., •District Branch•Cti•i:ef.• ,. ~':. , ~• .'.' ~.... .. ~ .. . ' ~~..oc;al Development - ~Iritex~overtirt~ent~.l ~evi~vci ,. , • ~ .. . Attachments: •. ' ~ ' ' • ~ . • ' " . ~~ • • ' ... c; : ~ fate C~I~at-i nghc~uye , .. .. . • .. .. .. • . ' ~' `Ca~ttrrxrim tniprov~s m,i~6itity across Catifara'ia~ • • • - Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATZD PLANNING; 510 28G 5560; Nov-24-OA 3:24PM; Page 3/4 f~,~,TE OF f,ALt~'O~iN1(~-•*R-Ht.1~SS,'~~i.A.t~T~'f~~t`!'~~'t~.~.~NFt't~fil')'S~[A'IG ,4C~i^t~1CY .. _ ARNiaLD 6CHW~R~;NE~J.~,+~R. Q~;~~~J.~ ~~~~~~1~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~. o. ~ox.~~ssa - . O.,A.KL8~II3ti GA 84528-066fl ~ . ' PHU~1~.~ (Fi10) K~~-6.4y1 Flriyotirpaw~.r! FAX {510) 286-559 ~ - ~ Be. en~r~,~y a f~ri~nt! `I°TY 711 ' ' .. ~ • Qctober 21, 2008 ~ • . ' ' •~ , ' • ~~~~~~~ Nnu ~ zooB SCL-28Q-8.3'7 SCL280343 SClI2UU80820~$ Mr. Gary Chao ~ " ' - `~~. City of Cupertino. ° • ~ ' . ' STATE OLEARIIVU HOUSE ~ s • I03tDQ TEm-e••~:~-em~i~~ . • • . , Cupertino, CAA: • ~S~}1~ • '' ' . ~ .. ~ . Dear I~r. Chao• .. ... ' . • ~ . . IVI~in Strect ~u~e~t~o~~.T~~~~po~'~~~tlo~~~~~pe~~.~A:~~ys#s (TYA,) .. ~ . Thank you for ooi~~iriuiz~.g:.xo..ir~clud~~flfe•Califoriii.~ Department of''Tr~azrsportatian (Depa~t°triict~tj in~ .. , the ~envircmrp~nt~ci r~vi~ew'.prgccs~s'far:ilie••proposcd•proj~cct. ~T+le have reviewed the TIC and~h•ave •the following additya~ial CoXl~Cil~tiC~s~'•Ct! •ti~~er. '. . ]E$~i~iway.'iC~pa~re~tfo~is ; ....:. ~ .. , ; .... ... L . ReFer to• tha• `l~ina~•:It~pott'•,:`°'~r~n~5portatii?zi •Impact .A.nalysis: (TIA)", dated Sept~ri~ber' S, ~ ' 2~Q8~. •'Pigur•~s.7• tci•~F?i~~iit~e~ ~1:7'Siudy'•~~ifiezs'~urm #20:• Stevens. Creek boulevard. / Lat~vrence . Bxpressuray.~~ltua~~e'.i.tic~Iiid~:.th~'".Interstate •(•Y~-280 l~orthbound {I~B~ off ramp" in the • . . • , Tz~a~ic• ~lolurrie Daba;'$•1~:•:~c~nar~s-~of• the• TIC and rcl~ated.:Level• cif' Sexvice Fables.: ,Plea'se . incor~arate••ths ItilTti~~:tic~ni•nt+b'~the~ttnalyss•'and subirut far our reviEw and comment. ~ • ". ~ • . 2_ 'I'he~.off=ra~n~i.appibacli~s:~o.•ii~t~i~~czi~c~~s.~#6,.#~`7, #1$, #~Cl; aiid.~#'~'t queue back anta the ~ , • • _fr~way mdi~niiine •and.•.~rrtp'a~ct~I~TB•'ar~d ~oc~thbound I-280. These impacts •rieed to be •. mitigated. . 'Should you have any.questic-n~•xe~ai~dinp tliis'Z:etter, please call rosy L.'Olveda of my sta~'f.3~G, {5'10)' .• • • 2g6-5S3S. . Sincerely, ~ . ' ~ ~ . • ~ •~. .. .. .. Distri~ctbt~ancli•~}iidf' . • •• • • • ~ • ' '. ' ' Local Developmcnt - ~ntez~;c~~vemi~eiii~t.~:l~ •I2evie~v' ' . . bc: LCarboni! JOlvedal Fall:. '~wy•{3~is~ . ile - Cron File . ~ ' • ... • ~ • . . ' • • , •°~'attiYisis' dmproattc.'~Y[n'6ility aarnas C~ltforni~" - ' . Sent 8y: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATTO PLANNING; 5i~ 286 5560; Nov-24-OS 3:25PM; Page 4J4 57' ' s 'C1Fi ~`lil:I~'CY.f2NCA;:~.I3~7~IN.~a`~.~iTs#~~~~`A'~j~~::C ;~IW :s ~S.x~~.r'.lY~::;~:-: .... _ . , . .. . •tQ ~. •.-. .. •. ... • .. ... ... . ..I?I-~(3~TE ~~i1Q1:E~y'2;-$%L9,:~:,' ........ .. .. .... .. .... , ... ...... ,. ..: :T+°lsxyv,,c{r';~otU~r.'~.. ., .. ' . •FA~' ~~~ ' •~8~-~5'fi6 ~ . ,. ~ . ' . .. :... : ;.?3e_en~r~y'~~el7~$+~nti • : ; :.. - r .,. .. ...~..:: ... f .... .. ..t •.~. . '• .. .«' .. ,, ~ , ... ... .. •~•. .. -~ .. '~ ,A ~~ ~, . . ~ .HOUSE ... .. •~~:'t~~~t~'Tan~~:~;v ~~'~ . ~~,• ~r Cti~ Ri'o''., ~'• ~;: • •• ..r. ...~ ... ••r: • .. ~ . .. .... .. .. • .~..:gj}g:•• ~: .... ... :,. . .: ':,;. .'~;. cri ;,'. :.~': .,~..u~~~...... '~ • ~~" ~:: • . ' • tlie~ ....... ..... :~~ •~~ • 'gin r ~ t~•~' :Tt~ri~::'ou~for:~~is~lu~:~:'• :~~~~.:al'r~~n~:~1;~'' •~z~z~i~., .~'~~: ... ,}rJ~ ~•' ... .,. . ,••.•.., , ..r;....1 . ,'.~ • . t~•'e~1'T~i:~~arid'•Yi~.~~i ~t ~.~c~ •e~.~r~'v.:~;~i~~ ~i . • . •:lP~:::::.: , . .. , .. . .. • . •• , . 4. ~' . ' • • •• •• . '. .. • .. .. •' ••... • • ~. . ~•. •Jy~ ~;. ~at ' S ~:~d. a .. ~b.~ ~ I~e~ucti~•~•» ~ss' U '~~ . .per. ,... ...._. ... . . '•;: .. .. ~'~• '~ii~` a~es~.~:~h :~ice~: ~~~' •~~~~z ei~erat~ r .. ..foT:tl~e ~::~.•..:G • ~;a' •:d;:'~~iiid`:is~s'~:~:~~••~~tie~~r~; ~.. .,l~~~~•~tos'1.'r~'~~:•r~ ~ .. . ~~ ~•~arn~'' .. ..... .. ~• .. • .. r.. ' .. .. ~;~ ~~r~:'t~x~:...:ar~• ~~ecei .~iriitr~~}~~ti:~'~s:'saQ~~ .. ..~1~tdYt~~ti~l:'~:L~~• '~~t~rt~~~~~1~~`~z~i:~iC~:.~i:t~~:,'~ y.~ .. . .. ..... .Y? ... .. .. .. , . : y.r• ~•, ... a ~, l m ::~~ii~r~fi~~: ~c~urha~~:aYi:• ~;~es i ~~~~'•~ari~i;t~'• `~~ti~::1:~~:r.',.~ .. .. .. Y: :~. .. .". '. • ;•28;x'=5~~~::, .. ... ..... .. .. '• :.. . • ......... ~ ::.: .. .. .. , .. . Y•~:: • .. ........ ... .. r... ,.. .. .. .. .. ' . • ~ .... ,~Y:;acal:~~ ~ ,~irrt z~~.g~owoir~ ~~ . r .. .. ......... .. .... _ :.. ... . .. • . ~ • .. • • • ... • • • . . . . 4 . .. .. . . _.. .. :. ........ .. r~ri~:iviipr~vr.'s.'rrigh ~~ f ... ........~ •, iW. -~ . r. .. r ... .~.. . .... COMMENT LETTER 2 AA ~~~~=r~ ~~~~~~'v ~~~ gyp, 946~~-O~Ei4 P'I'iU~~: t~lA) ~zZ-5~tf1 FAX {510) ~gg~hta9 _~~~ 7xi ~o~emUer 24, 2~3Q8 ~~ your powerF Be energy ~f~csentl SC~,..2$4-$~~~ SC~,~gQ3~-8 scxzooRO~zr~~~ ~. Gt~~ry CitaA City of Cupet~ino 1(}~QQ'~'orre ~~ve ~{~~~ Cupertin°, CA, ~-~ . Dear !~- ChaoL ~;) ~~ ~itgVlTDi1~~~~1 I~~act R~eP+~rt ~~ . . t C~i~ey`tln'n~ Dr~~t ~xent~ in 1Viain ~t~ ~~tjon ~DeP •~ ~ . e't[ae~CaliforniaTyepa~-rr'ent o~~~`r."ai~s~o .. : o~ in~clud ~ t. Vi~'e ha~te'revic•vv'ed. tt~e ~~~ anal: have thank +~a~r fox contimllrig r ro Qsed proaec - envirun~~eittal~ re~rte~ ~~izocess. for the p ~ ~-~ etas. to~t~~rCex- the following ~cd~nm . - g ~~ CserieratiQn ~:~stimates: Far the same Trat`fie Forecast~~n~ a ~ ~.~,, Table P a lied, tation Ixnp~t ~,;n,aEy~is,..p ~ the same trip generation r"ato-sl~°u]d be FF .. Transpox ~ ~i.s1d :cif ~.aucl~txse, location and the saw ~ liven the fact that . n~.t~ ~'Xennin:~ - ten if they can nQt be f~.lly mi-tigatec~. b22 ixxhQUnd ar~d Cvmrrtitx y • ~ a~~d p'~ Peak hours { i nii'icaut ixnp~~ets shoL~d~~~reduced ~ b during ak hours for S g ~~erate' cuter l 44 trig - Qsed p~a~~ct v~+ill~: g ~ . 2+~~ inbound and outbound du ~ ~ ~~~ nd and outbt~und the pri°P ~; hour and. 1, eak h©ur.and , outbound i-n tie ~,M F ro ect area are ,g~•anbc~i~rid~a-nd~r~~.itbQ~znd it~Ntl~e an segnnentS of~I-2.34 in th ~r~t i~econ~n~er~ds Scheme 1 axed S3 5 ), ~0 ~.3,3~.th~ DePartm ak hours fob' S.ch~t`~e-Z~ ~~~ to ees at during'QNT. Pe' table ~~,cve1 ~1 service {P• P~`ogram~iu w~ch .fu~re en~g Y~ alxead3' operattng.~t ari urraccep ~~ ement~(T~~~ arking to ea~c:c~nrage rtation~T~eri~id,~anag that a. `~'rans'po . la ees - instituCin~g . , ~. ; ansit • ~ aa~e~ rat a reduced rate ~ ls~,~wer fc~r~#'utuxe emP Y . '-~'~AN_ bike lockers an u t~3 Impact ~~ pxoject side can rec.e~~e ~_ . i-ti~vidi~-g ~ ~cardinb c~~atx~a~~'}~ ..~ fe. uire~ents: also,.. menu on #titer~'t~to alternate forma of tsansP t1~-~.. axT~at-g '~ act. se~~e~ ~~ ifieantly irnp ents c~r~ r~280 during vh©ase tc~ bike tc~~v-t©rlc,~~~;d.: Sc~~me.~f'w°til~i~-s~i~n i~ ~Ct six sow 5 {p- ~}~ 4`~mplementat~on:o~ attari of Sclte~e ~~ .would ,sxgnif~t and Uriav°idabie ~n'pact. (~)~280 and ~Ple~ruent pica ~ . . ~ eak sours:' ~u5 is cc~uside~d a Signs ~ : he tnotoxi7;ed vehicle trip one o~ th F Sven t1~at '~ .cansider,v~ri.ous measures for r~d~ shy dd be feasii'le, g . Qf Cu:~rtin,v should. the arkiflg ~clEi~xeme bic clc and trA~~s~t 'The City xo ect ged~t~cin~: ~ p such ds the~•exi~tin~g.. ~ y ro ect• site•{See generation rr©m the P ~ A ©~atiUn and lanr~ uses, ment ti}tat ~Vii~l So~.Ye th ~~ BUY Soheme } tlZere will be sufficient trartsg ses 1 ~~~$~ ~iarkax~~ spat anal to et~ciai; and xesiderrtyal .deve vF ~ e state hi.$h~+aY #acilities, and o~ftce~ ~ca~. 4~.}}• T`h° project •P~P° a~t~ •on t~h ~ 4p} acid z.{1-~~ {~.. oxder t© reduce imp . arkiM~ €ox xctail to 1.~Q-2.~~ figure z.~0-.. ~p~ aees:~~~at`~Scheine z. ~ ~ ' lease xeduce .I~ axkii~g •~? and _ t~'bli~ ~;ra~sit c~se,~p artd 1.,953 p bieyclin~g ~ P dr~~ta"' • ate c• ooling, ~ n,ues mobiti~y ~,r:rvue caa~ . ~TUI(1C1C +~ r~~~trans irnp . ....... Mr.. Gaty'Ch~p . . .... . . ... ....' - ...... . .. Novennber 24, 200$ ~ ~ ... ~ • ~ ...... ~ . ~ . ~ . Page 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. • .. ~ ~ . promote carpaolir~g; bicy~Iin~g :s~d:~ti~liC-tr~nsit.u~e, please redutce~p~tk~ng 1'or retail to l .'S0~~.5E~ par~n~g spaces per 1000 sq~.a~e fit (sf}.•gnd fvr v~ft'see to 2.00-x,00 parking, spaces per IOOO.sf, • which i~s the recom~,eti~~d.~riottnt per."P.efc-fng:Farl~ing PolieiES:to Support Smart Grovi~th~" a Metropolitan Transportati~ir~ ~Co~ssion stztcly ~ndecl by the Depa:~tme~t, In addition, rnitig~ati~tt rriea~ures-7:1~~ an~'7.~ (p. 3~ state that the City..o~f Cupertino shall work with the Dep~.rfirnent 1"or inlp~act. TRAIV?: '``'Tl~e :pre~~i~ssed narrov~i-ng ~of ~7.a]lct~ Parkway and the , addition of tli~~ on~4treet p~ar7cing wou3~d.ixnpact ~e existing hus •stop.•at ~`sllco Parkway and, Perixrze-ter Redd." Alt#iougti~:tlie wa•.eiiet~~t~age~.'The'City to rvorlc with~~he•Departrnent, the commuter shuttles are fu»ded~by~tl2e:~.i}y~~,rea .~:ix~Qttality It~anage~ment~l]istrict, Caltrain and: private employers, and are npertttetl ~y•Caltrain. Please make that corF'e<=tion. . Also, attached: for your ieferei~tce ~ue.co~ies ©f aoinrnents provided as :paxt~ ~il~ the early coz~sult~tion cql}aborative on the T~raft~~T~raf~e.Irrrpact~lZepc~rt: ~~ - S.hUnld yvu•have• a~•ty gitegtitii~~a ~~g~r.'dtl~-this-letter, •pleasc call Jos~~Y:-. ~Olveda of may szlf'f ~t •(~~10) 286-SS35. . • 'SITiCCrely, .. - ... ~ .. ...... . . _ .. ~ .. ,' LIrS~A.CARI3~UN.1. .. , :. ~ - ~iStriC'~ ~'r~IiCllChief - - .. .. LoGat. Development 4. Inte~gaveTii~enita.l~ ~2,eview - - -- .. ~ . Attachments: ~ • - • • - ~ - ~ ~ - •-- . ~.. ... - . c: State .C~learir~ghouse ... .. - - . . ~ .. • ... • '`CccZti~a-cx•~pra-veis•~rceLi~a~~ a~a-tiRa Garliforiaui° .. ~ . ~~~~~~ ~~~~ p, C?. ~~~' C~• 99~ti~a..~6~a o~.~~~ ~ia~ ~`~.Z-~4y~. pc;tuber ~~' 2fl0$ ~~ex ~'°. yci~~tj ~3e ei~er~x ~~` ~gfl_g.3~ S~~~ 5~~~$p34$ .. SC~Z~gB~$205$ Cha° ~ • ~~~ CrtxrY of Cn-~ert~ino pity e ,~~ven~~e ~,~'~00'~o~r ~A ~~~~~ ~upc~tint~, get Annly~f~ (,T~.1~~ artn~ent~ ~~ .flear fir. Charm ~ on ;~~ ~~t,atlon (~~f'. ~~s~' eci th I~ and have -r~~~,~~po~t~tl ert of '~ e ~ ex~Yxio4 We havo view ~ .~~ ~nc~;u~e fled p J con~n~t~ g •~ ~ ~ ~ ens f or ~e -~~'°~ Thank ~°ta f~r~ v~.e~'. ~'~~''` er. Se.P~i`nbe~ 5, ~ntdf - ~.ated enwl~'~m - ~nai c~,m'~`enfs ~ ofd ~c acid~tt sia ('~~~''~ ' La'W~e~Ge e f ollow~n~ pact P-,nal'~ ' ~ C;~ee~. Bo~~~e~aed ~n the th ~,~,~on Steven o~-r'~.mP $~ ~ ~~,era~Qns .. ~, ~ ~"-~.ransP'°~` ~~eL~.i:~r~ ~2~' bound ~.~ e~ `~a~b~.eg' plea ~~ghw ~ the `~i.~~f~~eF° ~ Sluay ~~~ ,~ 2$fl ~or~~ ice ~ gef~~ ~.~ es ~, tc~ g~i~,ure ~.'~ ~ k~e «~ntea~state (`}'mod ~~a~cd~yc~ ° eview and comr•~,cnt. ~pp$. qtr ~Ze~~ ~n~lr~d~ ~ ~i:os of ehc T1Aan~ s,ubn~t for o~ tie ~~presswa9=~.. . ~ ' :~,~,1 seen e~ana~'~s~,s ~ back onto ~olo~e ;paw, ation it~t`c~ tk~ ~-~ X21. queue eed to bE T~affie ~ irifor~ #~ ~ ~~l$ ° #2~ = acts n iric~rPUrate the `~'~.ese imp ap~roaGhe~ Fact and` SQ`~cn+~v~---- 51a? Tt~~'~~~-ra~t~, ~ imp jVeda a.~ ,~'~ stiaff at C . ftecwa~' 1eas~ call ~as~ ~• {~ m~ti~ated• this letter, P an g~ostic~ns Te~ardin~ 5~a~~ you have Y 26_5535 Sl~cere~.y r t - . ~ ;~3(J~- view ~S ~. ~',~'' C~ie~ ~e~~al ~e ~r' ~ Fc~'~~h ~~e~ kcal ~ .. ~...~~ ,~`lc ~hron Ft~e a ~~ ~C?1'~e~ •~. rt~a ~cstifar-u~-A- ~L - . ' KCa~~an~ zmP~,v~~ rr~~ihe~i~ ~crves ~~~a~a ~~'ATF, C}F {:AI,~FOR31tA.,,,,,.~ti~I.TV~SS_'I'ttA.~T,~',•~.~~`~.T1R~,.,~`;~~;~{~U!~,~,j~T~• =~1~tG•Y~. _._...~}3,~~~•Zt ~f.;HWAR7,FiVFC~ER.•~SS~~ r .. nR - I~EI~',.'~'IVI~~(T ~~' T~.A~}`~~'~1~~ATT-~i~ t~A.~~:,ANTJ, CA, ~Y4EiZR-t}hfiU _ - _ PHONE (G10) 622.,-~~491 ... - _ h'iex y+~~rr power! . FAX 4510) 28G-555fl . - 13e energy ~~}irie,tt! --. ri"~.'~ 71.7 .. - ~ SCL-280-8.37 •- • • - ~ • ~.. - SCL28U3~8 . , - . - ~ ~ - SC~2008~082058 ~ . . _ ~S.r. Gary. Chao ~ ~ . ~ - _ . ~C'it3r of •Cuperti~~ ~• ,. - .t0300 Torre ~vo~ue. •• ..• _ ~ • pear N.ir. Chao; - ~ ~ ~ . .. • . - .... - - ... .. .. iViain Street- C:~~-er~i~:o; -"~r~~t~~~~~€~.~~or~-Impg~t•~An~~fysi~ (T~A~ .. _ . Thank you for inclt~digag-the:-C~,l~i~t~m:ia•:~epaerif-df Transp©rtatio~-~~ep~urtrn~nt) i•r~ the .. • • . _ environmental r~vie~v:pt'p~.~~5~•ft~i'~th~.-~irespc~s~~ p~i~xje~t. i3Vc; have rc~it;we~d the CIA and•har~e the -- - . fc~114r~ving co~:rrter~rs to-c~€~~r..•-.• :.... • ~ .. 1. •Tabfe~ 8., ~ag~• 3.~., 'V~?=h~~zs~Y~i~•~fa~i~•~'~r•-~~li-o~~th~~~'ass-by R~dut;tc~n•Rates?- 2. Table• 8, page 3.1.:~~-•:i~o~:•~t~i~-.d%i~~re~~-SC;h~~i~S:have• dif~o~t~~:tti:~•g~ner~tti~n t'ates if t~~~~y are- - . for the earns location dnd ~~ri~-•uses? The rate.ap~lied should b~e•Lhe ~atne. - . . A.ciditlonal Uepa~.rner~tal•cUm~r,~;rits:~~~i~f •t~~ f~i~vva~d~d as sooa~- as th~~t are; recoived. - • Should y~lr have-at~y qu~s~iciriS regarding~`this Iettcr,,please call Jt~s+~•L:-t~lveda of my staff ~t (510 ~ . -~ 286-5.535. - _ ~ ~- ~, ~.. ~ r~ er. •e~~-xirit~rr ~ - ~ • - ~ ~ - • ~ • - bc: LC~r1SO~il 3t31~cda! ~i:lel•l~~ci~.• ~ •• - • .... _ JLC)J~lo• ... .. .: • . - ~- • 'T(,~ieZ~rQSns•kr~pTVVe~t n~vliilrtyt~Cr4BR CQli~,rrcfit" . ~~~<~.~ _ a4.c.~ -tiu.-i?.~3.q'-... Si3. ~.~; ~Si'~ .y ~~~~~: - _ r =~: - t~ '~ _ ~~` •t BAY AREA AI RQUALITY MANAGEMENT D I S T R I C T S tNCE 195S ALAMEDA COUNTY Tom Bates " - {Secretary} Scott Haggerty Janet Lockhart Nate Miley ' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY John Gioia - Mark Ross Michael Shimansky Gayle B. Uilkerna MARIN COUNTY Harold C. Brown, Jr. NAPA COUNTY Brad Wagenknecht (Vice-Chair) SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY Chris Daly - ~ Jake McGoldrick Gavin Newsom SAN MATED COUNTY Jerry Hill Carol Kraft =` SANTA CLARA COUNTY Erin Garner Yoriko Kishimoto Liz Kniss .. Ken Yeager SOLANO COUNTY John F. Silva SONOMA COUNTY Tim Smitli - Pamela Torliatt (Chair) - Jack P. Broadbent . _ EXECUTIVE OPFiCERlAPCO ~-_ `.^~ , ~`~~. ~ . ~~: 2,~., . 'rL'fCi:~t~ Ct`~~ COMMENT LETTER 3 Novelllber 24, 2008 Cary Cllao Depal-tment of Conlnlunity Development City of Cupeltillo 103 UU To1T e Avenue Cupel-ti11o, CA 95014-3255 SUbJeCt: Malll Street C.UpCrtI110 Pl'O~eCt Draft Ellvlrolllllelltal Illlpact Rep01`t Dear Mr. Cl1ao: Bay Area Air Quality Management District {District} staff reviewed your agency's Draft Ellvirolllllental I111pact Report (DEIR) for the Main Street Cupertino Project (Project). We Ullderstalld that t11e DEIR addresses the potelltlal e11VITOIlllle11ta1 impacts of two development schemes proposed for the site. Approval of the Project would allow the developlllent of a mixed itse center including up to 205,000 square feet of office space, 295,000 square feet of retail, a 250 room hotel, and 160 senior h.ousillg units on the approxi111ate1y 18 acre site. The DEIl2. does not evaluate potential impacts fiom fireplaces at the residential and hotel portions of the Project. The f11a1 EIR should provide this a11a1ysis unless the Project speci fically prohibits the installation of solid fuel burning devices and fireplaces. 111 the winter 111o11tI1S, residential ~~~ood burning and wood smoke are 111a~01' SOUrCeS Of partlCUlate platter (PM) 111 the Bay Area. Red11C111g e1111SS10115 Of wood smoke is a lcey priority for the District to help protect public llealtll and attain Sttl.te alld federal a11' gUallty stalldal'dS. The Bay Area 1S 111 lICi11-attallllllellt for the State's PM standards; and we anticipate that the region will be designated llon- attailllnellt for the new federal PNI standards as well. Tile District is concerned about the amount of pa1ticulate matter that could be produced from wood-blulling ill future residential uses. Tllis past ,ltlly, the District adopted a wood burning regLllat1011 ~RCgtllatl011 6, Rule 3} Illaicillg it illegal to burn wood or firelogs in household fireplaces and woodstoves during a wintertime Spare the Air health advisory. Tl1is rule also bans the sale and installation of Iron-EPA-certified wood- bi11'11111g deV1CeS 11111eV4' CO11Str11Ct1011 Or re-I110de1S. We 1'eCOllllllelld that the flllal EIR gLiantlfy pOtentlal WOOd b11171111g i111paCtS. The flllal EIR ShoU1d alSO COiltalll 111eaStll'eS t0 11111111111'Ge wOOd S11101{e e111ISS1011S St1CI1 aS, at a 1111111t11ll111, St111p01~111g CO111pI1a11Ce Wltll the D1strlCt's WOOd burlllllg reglllat1011, or possibly prohibiting the installation of any wood-bul'ning device in new buildings or outdoor areas. MM AIR 5.2 in the DETR states that the City of Cupertino shall implement a lllllllber Of lllitigat1011 Illeasllres t0 reduce dlesel exllatlst e1111SS1011S. Due to the lllagnitude of the Project, we reco1111nend that the fi11a1 EIlZ include all feasible Illltlgatl011 111eaSt11'eS that 11111ll1I11Ze COllStl'llCtlOi1 eCIlIlplll.ellt eX11aUSt e1111SSlol1S, specifically diesel particulate matter, a renown carcinogen. Such measures could include, but are not 1i111ited to: n1ail11ailli1lg properly tuned ellgitles; 11111111111ZIllg t11e %(" .. _:.lr ~'! 1!. i_~ ~C file."3 ,:{r /.1 :'f 939 EcLts STREET • SAN FRANCISCO CAI.tFORNtA 94109 415.771.6000 • T~TWW.BAAQMII.GOV ~ovembe~ ~'~~ 2,008 _._..-- -2- Ov,Tered uS111g alter uativ e add^011 ~~. G~~'y Chao 111111utes' llslilg ui 111ent to two electric= natural gas, bi°diesel, ulring all Ov,,ered c©1lstrllctioll e~ s d ate .~-ltels; a11d ~e~l diesel J? laid, co111~ al-~iclll .dy s BARB) most leCellt time of l.e., hyb sts ©x p 1(11111, e 111 a111e11t { es0urceSgoal ~111ctifl1l ~. 1 diesel oxidation caal ~ 1-~1ia ail R Ct}11st e11 llles cp1ltxol devices su e1 ~nlent that 111ee~ y duty dleSel g . to use ~l _ -Oad 11 on global c11111ate 111aend that c©ntractols otelltial iln~act .fie ~-eco11 - ' lcatioll sta1ldard f o'` ° 1 ~ a ect's 1~ dill t1~e ~~~' ical ad~'iso~y celtlf file P J ualltifies ~vitJ1 t11e tec1111 C1~tce~~zge~ 'tial Study ~ nissifllls axe 11flt ada~c{Jrdallce litazccte ect s 111 ~ el .A ~r~.ct C Apt ~evie~~r'. T11 Tl1e prof reel111fluse gas ~Gxas ~GK.~) e1111SSi011S 111 ~ CEQA) vel, g use g and Research, ~~~ u~,~it} ~ releaSed 11ow° nalyZe greel111a flee of pla1u111g n ~ApCt~A) xecelltly a - pf ~~~ic~ Eri~~r~~~o#~.rn~t~tc~ 1~ ~. Tl1e xesO`lxce file E~ the ~OVe1-11o1 s ~~ ~c~ta fay Assoclat ect to CEQ.A.. issued ~~' C1~.c~~~.ge ~'J2~,oa~.g pfficers ects s and nlOdels for control ubj Ctir32~te pollution oln l~roJ Actctressi.~l.g • forma ~ ~ e1111'Sip11S ~ Tel-V1eW 0~ aVa11aU~.e1Ga11t G~~ e1111SS1~~s file Gall 1~f ' ect shoo addition, ~.cir~.g~, col1tai11s all ~ i g potentially sign The pr°J GLi111e11t addxessill ~ a .O 11011 a1eSOlaYGe do ~ ~~,~~ C~g371.CftG' ies fflx 1111t1g W.ca coa el1t, CE~ 1s a11d StxSteg ded at ljtt ~:ihuw e11t111g all feasible l~ct, ~vehlcle dOC11111 e1111sS1p1 be dOw111oa 1111p1e111 file p1OJ ~ c11a11ge by etillg G evaluating ~~ Tl1e xepflrt 111ay tar p,.rea s ~`~ ' ects. c1i111c7'te file I3ay ro111 pxoJ s ~ecially tllo5e 111 ~ s 50 ~excelat of 11111Ze Its C011tr~ljlltlfl1l to 'aX1111ate tf seek t0 111111 ~ e1111SS1fl11s, e uCe ~~- leSe1lts apl~l nleasul-es t0 leddas trallsppl~ation xe~ ~ - i alle Nllcllaei} 1ililes travele ? lease contact 5 g C1111SS1411s- these GO11u11e11tS, L~estiolls 1egarding 46$3 - Otl Have ~d11y ~ 415) '749- l.f y iro11111c11tal p1a~11~e1~ at ~11v rely, ,,_~ j 1 ~.~ ~~,~=`~.` since _ _ ~ ..~ ~=--~=.~ - ~; , :, ~ ~ ~ ~ p~rv ~ ~ ~~' ~ I sue.. 4 Officer t~ ~~ e111~-amp ' S ea ~ ~° gg `io~k~ ~ntrol ~ = Aix pollut w ~'}ll 1R~s~- 1111 Ga11hex ~Q-~D 'Director B . ___- B ' -ector ~oxilco 1~-ts1u111oto - cc: .~~Q-~ Dli is ~~1iss .~~ Director ~' 1 ~cagcr 13 A.AQ. D Director '~,.el B A.p,,(~I~- -LE~~ ~ Y ~~u ~.xPw 50 A~~+`A 3b8b 5? GA951ia- SAN LOSE, ~o812b5-2b00 -tgt,EPH©NE A08~ 2b6-p271 CS1Mt~E L o r E~w,rf.vatleYwoter. g aK ~caura. o¢roa~rut~~rr er~etia~r~~ Re: November ~~` 2Ufl$ ~p774 Creek CatabaZas erttno or the Fain Street Cup pEtR f F'roiect Mr Gary Chae tanner 1o ment pepa~men't Senior '~ Community peve p City of Cuperfi-no Torre Avenue ~ ~~oa CA g501 ~ ertina Project Cupehtn°' (Main Street Cup t Report ~p~iR~ for the osed pear Nir• Cho°~ t tmpac document for th aurAvenue~ pro#t'En~rir°nmenta su~iect reviewed the and and west of Taut. Subject: ptstrict~ staff Creetc gaulev 1e W`a'ter District notch of Stevens ~ e roposed Clara ~ a1 y ,t ~ -~ acre stte es far th p Santa meot on an ent schem etween develop ctaber ~4~ 2008- o devetopm office uses b from the ~ of retatt and e of the two received °0 4 acts resutttng being the area ementatian of an the imp the difference e p~tR describes o Pr©jects imatety result in the imp Th Cu ett~ he project will ult ~ acres fain Street p ument site fr°m ~. T the doc °n the The initial Stud`I the two Schemes' envious surfaces 10 acres. e from schemes considered to e the imp approximately would increas Quid iocreasscheme 2~, event roject n,ent W Storm ro osed develop ~ and ~t2.s acres ~ a 10-year Ocfs under p ine the Thep p Scheme ~ merit during roxirr,atcly 23- sis to determ event. f ~ .g acres ~ ~ runoff f~orn develop drolagic a ~ ~`l~ Og^yeax {toad to e ea xisting conditions ld irtp ude by tso fo at there is no that th p cfs under e eats sh°u ear but a such th . states atety 13.2 't 0-y itigated appraxim e environmental docu es for not only ust be m volum development m conditions ~ e to peak flaws ao~he pr4pased inch storm - . impacts du t elevatwn. and 18~ in runoff due water surf ace h new 2q.:tnch receiving pny increas he ,t _percent flood directed throug ess the impacts to the increase tot ra osed to be riot addr the development. site is ~ the docun7en s~~ runo'~ due to . rm drainage from the at the southern ~~ Sto es iota Calabaza as ~ result of the increa s located etailed drain ltn retail Sh° ert. 1~oCe specific d abaZas Creek culvert henries sh©w that the cute istrict Dal sc to the existing ever the D ite Plans far both the fairly ct°Se itself. ~°`~ east to avoid any onGeptuat S rn end are located to the culvert er to the C oche d'tstanCe setback fut~h end and then etermine the e needed to d it building structure be plans mends that the reta v~tltershed recam County through net. nta Clara n,an o~ living ` d environmenfiattY Sensitive c~nd enhanced duality $°~e tactical, cost-e~edive an t5#ri~ }5 ~ hE?al#hYr tees 1(1 a ~ = . <L,. ~n#a Clara galley mana9 meet o~ vet~tet resov Mr. Gary Chao Page 2 November 24, 2008 encroachment of foundation within the easement or on to the box culvert. A minimum distance of approximately 20 feet from the culvert edge to the building is requested to allow for reconstruction of the culvert should it be necessary in the future. Conceptual Site Plans for both the schemes show a town square, fountain and the parking for the site are proposed within the District's 32 feet wide easemen# right of way for Calabazas Creek. In accordance with the District's V1later Resources Protection Grdinance, activities or modifications within the District easement or fee right of way or affecting District fiacilities require a permit. V1le look forward to the incorporation of these comments in the final EIR and the project plans. ! can be reached at (408) 265-2607, extension 2731 or by e-mail at uchatwani@valleywater.org. Sincerely, C.~~ i ~ , ,.~~-. Usha Chatwani, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer Community Projects Review Unit cc: B. Goldie, S. Tippets, J. Christie, U. Chatwani, File 30774 51300us11-24 COMN~ENT LETTER 5 November 24, 2008 City of Cupertino Planning Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Attention: Gary Chao Subject: City File No.: U-2008-1 /Main Street Cupertino Dear Mr. Chao: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff have reviewed the Draft EIR for two development scenarios for an 18.7-acre site at the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue involving a mix of retail, hotel, and housing uses. We have the following comments. Transit Planning and Site Design Land Use and Site Design VTA supports the proposed land use mix and site design within walking distance of Stevens Creek Boulevard, a significant transit corridor. The proposed mix of land uses, the inclusion of a significant residential component, the pedestrian orientation of the development, and the inclusion of ground-floor retail along many of the building frontages are consistent with the principles in VTA's Community Design & Transportation (CDT) Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use. Intersection Level of Service Impacts and Mitigation Measures -Impact on Bicycle Safety The Draft EIR text states that one of three measures could be used to mitigate the level of service impact of the project at the Wolfe Road/Valico Parkway intersection (MM IRAN - 7.1). VTA recommends against implementing option 2 (adding a second, westbound right-turn lane) because it would adversely impact bicycle access and safety. Instead, we suggest that the City require the adoption of option 1 or 3 as a mitigation measure. For more information on best design practices to avoid conflicts between bicycles and vehicles at intersections, please refer Section 5.1.4 of VTA's Bicycle Technical Guidelines {BTG). This document may be downloaded from www.vta.or~/news/vtacmp/Bikes. For more information on bicycle systems _ and parking, please contact Michelle DeRobertis, Development and Congestion Management Division, at (408) 321-5716. City of Cupertino November 24, 2008 Page 2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Impacts and Mitigation Measures VTA supports requiring the project applicant to provide pedestrian crosswalk improvements at Finch Avenue &Vallco Parkway and at the project's eastern driveway &Vallco Parkway, as discussed on page 61 of the DEIR. VTA also supports requiring the project applicant to provide Class I and Class II bicycle parking spaces per the City's Municipal Code. VTA supports bicycling as an important transportation mode and thus recommends inclusion of conveniently located bicycle parking for the project. VTA's Bicycle Technical Guidelines provide guidance for estimating supply, siting and design for bicycle parking facilities. Transit Facilities Impacts and Mitigation Measures The Traffic Impact Analysis in Appendix C notes that the proposed project may impact plans for a future transit corridor being planned for Stevens Creek Boulevard; however, this language is not included in the body of the DEIR. VTA requests that the DEIR discussion on Transit Facilities Impacts (MM TRAN - 7.1) be modified to include language about plans for enhanced transit services along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The DEIR should note that VTA is currently developing a strategic plan for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service which could include service along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and it should note that the City of Cupertino's General Plan and VTA have also identified a potential transit station in the Vallco area. We request that the City coordinate with VTA to ensure that any changes proposed for the project's frontage on Stevens Creek Boulevard do not conflict with future VTA plans along this corridor. Current Bus Service There are two existing bus stops on Stevens Creek Boulevard located adjacent to this development. In order to provide convenient access to transit service, VTA staff recommends that the project include the following improvements: Bus Stop on Stevens Creek Bouleva~ d, west of Tantau Avenzre • A 22-foot curb lane or bus duckout (see attached VTA standards for articulated buses) • A large 10' X 75' PCC bus stop pavement pad for future articulated buses or BRT • No trees or planter strips in the bus loading area Stevens Creek Boulevard, west of Finch Avenue • A 22-foot curb lane or bus duckout (see attached VTA standards for articulated buses) • A large 10' X 75' PCC bus stop pavement pad for future articulated buses or BRT • No trees or planter strips in the bus loading area Transportation Impact Analysis City of Cupertino November 24, 2008 Page 3 CMP Intersections Upon selection of a preferred alternative (scheme), VTA recommends early consultation with the County of Santa Clara and VTA staff on the final selection and design of the proposed mitigation measures, including identification of fair-share contribution opportunities, for the impacted CMP intersections as identified in the DEIR: • CMP ID 5625 Lawrence Exp /Homestead Rd. • CMP ID 5633 Lawrence Exp / Bollinger Rd / Moorepark Ave • CMP ID 563b Lawrence Exp / Calvert Drive (I-280 on-ramp) Parkin The parking study indicates that 1,658 parking spaces would be needed for Scheme 1 and 1,963 parking spaces for Scheme 2. VTA supports the proposed reduced parking supply (based on City of Cupertino's parking supply rates) of 1,790 parking spaces for Scheme 2. VTA strongly encourages shared parking and implementation of transportation demand management programs that encourage use of alternate modes of transportation. Freeway LOS The freeway analysis indicates impacts of additional trips exceeding 1 % of capacity along segments of I-280 between Lawrence Expressway and I-880. VTA suggests early coordination with the appropriate agencies in identifying potential mitigation measures and fair-share contribution opportunities based on VTP 2030 projects in the project area. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) In order to reduce the number of single occupant vehicle trips generated by the project, VTA requests the city to require implementation of a comprehensive TDM program as a condition of approval or mitigation measure. Effective TDM programs include: • City-Carshare • Parking Cash-Out • Direct or Indirect Payments for Taking Alternate Modes • Transit Fare Incentives such as Eco Pass and Commuter Checks • Employee Carpool Matching • Preferentially Located Carpool Parking ~. • Bicycle Lockers and Bicycle Racks • On-site or Waik-Accessible Employee Services (day-care, dry-cleaning, fitness, banking, convenience store) • On-site or Walk-Accessible Restaurants • Guaranteed Ride Home Program City of Cupertino November 24, 2008 Page 4 ro riate measures to be A ~ the identification of app p . the City coordinate u'~th r m- 1 me W e request that lease cal in the comprehensive TDB pTOg u have any questions p _ included ro ect. If yo e o por~nity to review this p J Thank you for th p at (408) 321-5784. Sincerely, Roy ~olseed Senior Environmental Planner R.I~/i :lcl~ cc: Samantha Swan, VTA cvosaa - - - . - -- -~ - -CONII~ENT LETTER. 6 - - ~ Santa Clara r.-: , ~ ' ~" s _ - Planning Division toot ~~~`~"`~=~_=--- ff ~ November 24, 2008 - s~ - _ '~~~ ~ ~ Mr. Gary Chao ` City Planner t City of Cupertino ?~~-w~_3~~" ~ 10300 Torre Avenue --"~?~~A~ Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Draft :Focused Environmental Impact Repol-t -Main Street Cupertino Project -~<_ -~ - Dear Mr. Chao, ~... 1 i E- '~"`~-~ Thant{ your for including the Cite of Santa Clara in tl~e public review process of the Draft -' "Focused Envirolunental Impact Report a;DEIR) for the Main Street Cupertino Project. The Planning Division and Traffic Engineering Division reviewed the document and- have the -_ -- . ,._ following comments: .- _ ~ _ a I, n' xyi Planning Division • Figure 1.0-3: Please identify the City of Cupertino/City of Santa Clara border on the Aerial Photograph. - Page 59: Intersectiolis 3, 21, and 26 have been identified to have significant level of seiwice "~in~pacts. ~ -The- Z;OS for -these -intersections should" be mitigated- to baC1Cg1'OUlld CO11d1t1011S. Also, County expressway plans and the east bound through lade "Tier l.C projects should contribute their fair share to regional facilities. The City of Santa Clara has been working with other jurisdictions and - - - ~Y3~ tl~e. County to determue project's "fair shale" contribution to regional facilities. _`: -- ~_~ ~ ~ We would be happy to share our methodology if that would be helpful. The City = - ~-~ of Cupertino should .institute a fair share agreement to address impacts to regional facilities inside and outside of its jurisdictional boundaries. e,~... Page 65: The discussion under the Lawrence Expressway/I-280 southbound ..~,-~_-.rz €~=~t_=-~T~ ~z_~:_;~ ran~lps=Calvert. Drive Intersection ilnpaci states that the City of Cupertino and the L ~ - - Count of Santa Clara had not coordinated on an a ro riate mechanism for ~-:_...: y pP P _ mitigating impacts to this intersection, and therefore the impact is significant and - unavoidable. A lack of coordination between jurisdictions is not an acceptable -----~°°--°°:=~_-- reason to determine a significant and unavoidable impact. The analysis should ~ .~ -n - ~`~s either identify potential mitigation or a "fair share" contribution toward known =~ ~~ ~z~. _`~'£__ _ _ __; regional improvements that would serve as project mitigation. The City of Santa - - _ ~>-- ~ - ~ ' Clara has been working with other jurisdictions to determine project's "fair share" contribution to regional facilities. Tlie City of Cupertino should institute a fair i share agreement to address impacts to regional facilities inside and outside of its .~~~~~-, ~`~ ~~, "~ ~ jurisdictional boundaries. v -°---"=~_ ~ ® Page 70: Impact TRAN-5 indicates That the implementation of transportation ~.._. demand measures would reduce impacts. Please indicate what these transportation demand measures are, or where they can be found. 1500 Warburton Avenue .~-.~~:-: ~ Santa Clara, CA 95050 - ~-~~ = 1408} 815-245CI ' ~ -{ FAX (408} 247-9857 - ~ € - ~~; wvuw.oi.santa•dara.ca.us - tr t~ . Pa a 91: Please note that Pending Developments 28 and 29 have be It aop Sa to g by the City of Santa Ciara. Please refer to the following table for the y Clara's latest Pending and Approved project list. A~nr~yed Proiects as of July 21, 2008 px~~eet. ;' LocatoM .d ~PI~I _ .. 2250 Mission College Blvd 10Q,000 sf of office land use 1nte15C-13 10439-021 3925, 3935 & 3965 Freedom 400,000 sf of office land use Informix Circle 104-40-034, 035 Existing industrial use redeveloped to 840,000 sf A plied P 3333 Scott Boulevard, Santa of research &develo ment Materials Clara 21b-31-080 5402 Great American Parkway @ .Existing office use redeveloped to 278,000 sf of 3-Eer~/Cognac Yerba Buena, Santa Clara officeJresearch & development Great America 21b-31-075 5351 Great American Parkway Vacant/undeveloped site developed to 911,000 sf Yerba @yerba Buena, Santa Clara of office use Buena/Irvine 104-01-057 2200 Lawson Lane, Santa Clara 516,000 sf of office use Sobrato 22444-015 Santa Clara SC- 535-555 Reed Street, Santa Clara 312,000 sf data center IV Data Center Intel 5C-12b 230- 03-080 2350 Mission College Boulevard, 100,000 sf of office Land use Re enc Santa Clara 104-13-097 Intel SC- 2200 Mission College Boulevard 000 sf of office land use 400 14/South Bay @ Freedom Circle, Santa Clara , Dev 104-40-036 klet~- 5301 Stevens Creek at Lawrence Existing industrial use redeveloped to 727,500 sf esearch & development d ~~/Agilent 316-17-018 r of office an Technologies 1655 Scott Boulevard at El Existing industrial use redeveloped to 132 SheaiUL site Camino Real, Santa Clara housing units reas to high-density residential i ng a Ten rezon development totaling 8,841 residential units, North San Jose North San Jose, CA 147,000 sf of commercial use, and 1,48$,b09 sf of Phase I industrial arkloffice develo anent 3800 Homestead Road 000 sf of medical offices 130 Kaiser Hospital (Westside of Calabazas Creek), , Santa Clara 90 Winchester Boulevard @ 165 apartment units and 110 sf BAREC Forest Avenue, Santa Clara 303-17-047 2855 Steven Creek Boulevard 67$000 sf expansion of existing shopping center Valley Fair 274...43-Q43,071, ETC Prometheus 502 Mansion Park Drive, Santa 124 apartment units Develo ment Clara 097-08-024 1331-1333 Lawrence Existing office use redeveloped to 277 mutti- Marina Playa Expressway, Santa Clara family units and 63 s'u~gle family units f . 1525 Comstock Street & 1500 Pelio Space Park, Santa Clara One story data center and enclosed equipment Investments 224-08-049,121 yard. Derno existing building Pending Projects as of July 21, 2008 _ _Pro~ec#' : '3~oeaEion' and.AP~ - _ ~e~crp~ion _ Regency Plaza 2350 Mission College Boulevard, 300,000 sf of office use and 6,000 sf of retail use Santa Clara 104-13-097 Augustine 2620-2727 Augusfine Drive Bowers (includes properties on Bowers Industrial Avenue and Scott Blvd), Santa 1,969,600 sf of office and 35,000 sf of retail Campus / Clara . E uit Office Lowe 3250 Scott Boulevard 216-29-117 Existing light industrial redeveloped to 215,000 Enter rises sf of office use San Tomas Business Park 2600, 2800 San Tomas 1,950,000 sf of office and high-tech lab buildings Campus / Expressway & 2400 Condensa replacing-approx. 690,000 sf of office space. Harvest Street, Santa Clara Pro erties 4301-4401 Great America @ Sobrato Mission College Blvd, Santa b00,000 sf of office use Clara Space Park 1525 Comstock Street & 1500 Space Park, Santa Clara 224- 350,000 sf data center Pac•tners LLC Og-049,121 San Francisco 4900 Centennial Bivd, Santa Proposed 68,500 seats, expandable ttp to 75,000 49er Stadium Clara seats Tasman/Patrick Nine parcels bounded by '1'as, Henry and Old PIi, Democracy Way. OI 3,000,000 sq. ft of office/R & D Ironsides 3300 Olcott Construction of new 5-story building with Menlo Equities associated site improvement in conjunction with 224-47-017 demo existin 2-stor buildin 200,000 SQ.FT. Kohl/Santa 3610-3700 El Camino Real, Santa Existing shopping center redeveloped to 490 Clara Square Clara housing units and 171,000 sf of retail use Fairfield 900 Kieiy Blvd 806 housing units, 45 SFD, 225 townhouses/ Development Kiely and Homestead 290-26-022 rowhouses and 535 apartments 2585 ECR 2585 El Camino Real, Santa Clara Mixed-use- 60 dwelling units, 3,300 sq. ft. retail Hotel Le 2875 Lakeside Drive, Santa Clara Existing hotel expanding to 170-room Grande hotel/condominium . North San Jose City of San Jose 1,500,000 sf of research & development/office Phase II space and 5,353 residential units Swim Center at Central Park 909 Kiely Boulevard, Santa Clara 2 Olympic-sized pools, special event venue Mission MC Blvd and Great America College Master Parkway 427,000 sq. ft. Plan Milpitas ~ axe Yahoo! ---•"-- ~,ilpitas barber Lane, 190 _...-----`~ ---~''J of xetaii ' s 840 q• ~ .--- 0multi faxnil}' units and 12, anent 13 G- 90 us develop ft office camp onbuildings ~Afla,ooa sq xn buildings and 3 2' story c°m prive story Change. 8010 pld Ixonsides 32 relating to climate • ct complies `k'ith AB identify how this prole please county • 1s-on Ge E,Xpressway ~ the to • eering q-v and Z,awren imprOVernent d a .plan a 'Tier 1C share to this traffic ~ngrn of ~omeStead R~Xpressw y a fair ountywide .Pct should contribute At the intexsec1ri tlieix C The prof ~~ Than has identified h lane. as stated in eastbound tlv otirg cle parking add an d 11 bicy in~pxovei~nent ld provide Class i an vel11cle txips• . duce ect shoo measures tole thank you ® The P r P age b9 • einent TDB` ain, Eiit fox 9,l on d impl ocused hiR.• Ag cased Protect shoal Final ~ the draft Fo ,~ The repaxing the ocess for lava with a copy of nlents when 1?n the reV1ew pr of Santa C the future. our com City v~ith you in consider anta clan lovide ~ o .working Please siding the city °f e project. Please p . fox incl ~e look forw`ai extino amain Stre view the Cup ocused F,IR f©x xe the Final sincexely~ ~ f ~ ~ ~/~^'~,U Wr / ,~ _ ~~~~~ t; u' painter Carol Am'e ~ ~ ~`. ~ City Pla~viex CC: planning rks~city .~nginee-- ,• z g';ley, ~lrectol oof Public w° ~e~ ii ~ircctor Ra~eev gatra, LE'~g 7 Ca~~ -.10BRiSON ~ FOEK~CEK i.i.{' NCtcGO, PONDTQ PLGAS~R~ iBr~ NLa' YORK, tin SPLO T4iO, GELES, p.G• LOS AN WAStt1NGTON. 8130 ST v K` W~~'EK g13D 59fr ~ ~ NOB?YiERNVIRGYT~4E11v6R, COUN-f cRE~K GE T - GP~~pRNIA94 .R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q R ~YR~~ WALNU ORAN SACRAMENY°' BEIItNG, ~~{ p ~'y a IOI YGI~AC~~~" 70KYQ, LO HONG KONG S S~~ Q5o Sx~G pP ORF., SRUSSfiL ~,EK. ~p~94596-~94 W ~ RN ~ .~.~pHCyI~: 925.29 5.3300 2 ~ FA~~~" 925846 891 ~MOpO.~pNi ~ DiLectContact ~t'riter s 295.3310 25 9 . DGold@~°f a.GOm 2008 24 , -November Gary Chao Community Development -Department of 2008-O1, of Cupertin~nue ~FE-fR (City File I`ios- V' City 10300 T44 CA 950I~-3255 ertino Project ain Street Cup SC.~#2008082058} Cupertln s omrnents to M TR~2008-08, fie; pipple hlc•~1 ~ ASA_2008-063 ut regarding the T~/i_20Q8- "APPIe}s~ to provide inP pctober 2008 le h~ • ect dated c ~ ertino Proj Cu ertino .Dear Mr, Chao' client, APP Strect ~Spignificant properties amp behalf of Q1u e ort for the Main the «New us Site } subrrutted on act R p «,D.~E~»~. APPIe °`~n uarters ( Site is This letter is entat Imp , orate headq The New Campus nvxronm of Cupertino Cthe its new Gore Campus"~ • on the south graft Focused F City tended for °`IL t highway 280 and Prepared by the 56 acres in Infinite Loop (the on the eas , ect site carters at 1 tau Avenue the Main Street Prof 1000 roximately T Q3p0 and including app orate headge on the north, N • he New Campus Srte and ernes at 1 and its existip~H~dge Ayenu Both t le also owns Pr°p Vallco Parkway. the'~est. venue• APP aired 19333 directly bordered by ton Apartmentso°us to N. Tantau A ropertles are contlg~` Apple rec tie V 1 ~ parkway P asld the 13`ampborders array' share eastern ue, and at 19191 Vallco P 280, and Tantau Aven near highway osal, and Apple N • tau properties are to S~ ~ t project. • n Street Protect Prop. APPIe ~"'JOUId The N • Tan the rilaln ects of the Mai meet scenarios 11 properties, to across the street from ositive uPl,(iain Street develop developer, Sandhi cognizes the substaonn o~ he vano and the pro~ec Apple r eneral directs the City supP°rts the g ortunity to work with e the opP manner. ~ osal f or the New ~,elcom onCerns in a timely e DFE~ are as follows ~ ie s Prop resolve its G s withth and Assume App se's prima' concern Properly Ident:.~3' sis. « .resent, and reasonably App Should AnalY ast, p 4? Cal. 3d he Main Street DF~a~its Cu~,utative Impacts iJniv. o f ~a1'' I• T as Par f ive impacts should ~cR ~enp Q f ussion of Campos Site' of Gumulat ent Assn. cote disc rojects s discussion hts Impt•avem adeq future P ou know, a DES ,~ Laurel Hcig A Guidehnes provide that as d probable {1~~A~ ~ Apple s As y uture projects. ~ the CEQ. "list of past, present, 0, subd• ~~ A anticipatedf Similarly, 1513 eets the CEQ 39~ (Cal• 1g88j ~ .m acts should include (CEQA Guides ~ Campus Site m Cupertino City 3~ ~' ° ulative 1 P acts • the ~ ced t© the ers sig~ficant Gum ulative rmP eadquarteTS on oun orate headquart related ar cum orate h 2006, APPIe ~' GO occupies producing to its future Gore 16, to build a new ~ ently osal to deve P ect. C?n April d Intended A le also curr 19333 prop ulative prof Campus Site an s roject. Pp occupy uirements for a cum used the NeV'' •n stages for thi P reel - ad ur lanni g and it intends to renovate an Co~.cil that it h P the early P .~ allco p ~I~`Nay' - le currently is ~' d 19191 on it• App 1000 N .Tantau an or so. - - 10300 and~~ayy within the neXt year 'Vallco p wc-1395b4 - _ --- ..-: .~,14RgIS4IS' F~,EgSTER Gary Chao .:.- November 24, 2005 ~ ble new ea siz es 1 st A o uld h PP It Page ~'~"~ e least, wo e ro ects. _. FED, at th cumulativ p J d that the D -ts list of 34 le expecte o ect on i ~ In view of the above, AP anticipated future cumulative pr J campus as a reasonably that ~ . ~ on the cumulative list. Please aeast ep~ the didn t. t that the FEIR expressly list the new caws us Site will be reed iltpQ$i~;oned to qualify '1 VJe reques eral Plan already assumes that the New Came leis uniqu Y 's Gen office space. Also, APP Major Company ', the City ft of existing ~. of Existing 1 million sq. 001 of 150,040 sq• us will be built out at a approximately 's retained p e the New Camp be the : , onion of the City us Site. It well may for a substantial P . ns. As a result, it makes sense to assum • s re uest to list • n allocated 'tin development on the New C sisP and thi q Expansio analy ~ sis_ reasonable amo~t in excess of the exis han were already factored into the DFe ~ DFE,Ig, s cumulative analy case that then ~aes~p Ptla p j Uences Related to tm. us as a cumulative ro ect will not c ss the Adverse Conseq Apple s ~ uutely Addre to ment Centers. 's Emp y . TJte Main Street ,p~'EIR DD meet All©cations From the Cih' unit Development 2 p ice l7evel p Transferring ff 2000-2020) established a Comm y . the Cupertino General Plan ( Commercial Centers or As background, articular Special Centers, such as 'ous uses top «Development Allocations" for eAr~a y's framework directing van le's TI., Campus is within the N•'D to ment Centers. The General Plan furtheflu ~ APP s Park North Emp y . Employment ated ercial, office, h°tel and residedn~~~ ~~w Campus Site is withink Sa h a°ea~ which is a design c°mm` ent Center an Boulevard Employn' eet Project site is located within the Vallco Center. The 1Viain St in which the DFEIR addresses this Office "CaxnmeTCial Center " in are our primary concerns with the manner The follow g ino's General Plan allocates no Sew office spa nnent Allocation and redistribution issue: the Main Develop es that Cupert NeVertheles , the DFEIl2 correctly acknowledg DFE~ at p, 113-114.} . First, oath Commercial Center ( ss pffice Development AllocationAst the swine fox the Vallco Park S ro oses 100,000 sq• fi• °f ~° t ro' ect Scheme 1 P P s • ~. of gross Office Development AllocationsAmendment or Stree p J 000 q 1 for a General Plan ercial Center. Scheme 2 Proposes to ab that the project proponent did not app Y e DFEIR affirm ace allocations to the Vallco Park Sh P s to~ oncile this time, th the DFEIlZ a any other legislative act to add office sp uirements, ment order to satisfy CEQA consistency req that transferring an pffice Develop Instead, in b concluding ercial Center is a anent general plan inconsistency frvm an EmploYn1ent Center to a Cornin ertino General PP the DFEIR cites Cup Allocation of 100,000-245,440 sq• To support this conclusion, hic areas ``if DFEIR at p. 114.} in allocations to geO~aP ,~ The "insignificant". ( articularly traffic, are identified. _20, which allows some flexibilit#moacts,ip g nom the protect, but Plan Policy 2 ificant environmental P acts resulting f at a e 114, necessary and if no sign ificant traffic imp DFEIR P g es that there are sign ue to this location DFEIR then acknowledg acts would not be uniq this particular states that "These transportation imp laps. However, ficant traffic and e their general p nd minimal scrutiny, since numerous signi 'We respect that cities have lati odwith~a stru ,0-1 checklist undercuts this the roach cane fact, the DFEIR Table 6 explanation and app are identified. In • ect is only "somewhat" consistenniri he size other pro} ect impacts acknowledging that the prof enc conclusion by • We believe that a transfer of Office '~11oCa io consist . y ohcles City's General Plan elnt w~ h h~ General plan, ffice Development Allocations proposed is inconsis ecial Center the O le and the City's from which Sp rth standpoint, without this basic inforrnation, pP er the DFE~ d°es n°t identify . Fu will be transferred. From. a CEQ wc-139564 MORRISON ~ FOERSTER Gary Chao November 24, 2008 Page Three _ I - decision makers will not be able to ascertain the extent to which the proposed transfer will trigger environmental impacts. - The clear intent of the General Pian was to support the growth of the Employment Centers by assigning the majority of the new Office Development Allocations to these centers. When Cupertino's General Pian update was adopted in 2005, 94% of the newly created Office Allocations were specifically assigned to the Employment Centers. In fact, the Commercial Centers, including Vallco Park South, actually had Office allocations decreased by 6,b75 sq. ft. in the current General Plan. The DFEIR should highlight that, if Scheme 2 is adopted, only 53% of the Office Development Allocations designated in the General Plan would remain for the Employment Centers. . Apple is concerned that the proposed allocation:transfer approach would be a fundamental shift away from the City's apparent intent to discourage office development within Vallco Park South. Again, Apple generally is supportive of the Main Street Project, and it strongly encourages the City to find a solution to the Office Allocation issue that does not require significant transfers of Office . Development Allocations from Employment Centers. The City might consider the following approaches: - 1) Apple would support a General Plan Amendment increasing the Office Development Allocations within the South Vallco Center, as well as in the designated Employment Centers. 2) In view of the Mixed Use characteristics of this proposal within South Vallco, perhaps the City could find that {a) South Vallco's "commercial" allocations can be utilized for the proposed office uses, without needing to obtain transfers of Office Allocations from Employment Centers, andlor (b) fractional Office Allocations, rather than full Office Allocations, would be appropriate by applying a different traffic equivalency factor to this area. Irrespective of which approach the City ultimately considers, Apple is mare supportive of Scheme 1 - {and its health club use) rather than Scheme 2. Also, Apple wants to ensure that the City fairly applies comparable exaction and mitigation requirements to the use of Office Allocations, whether existing or ~. new, and whether utilized within a designated Employment Center, or within South Vallco. 3. Apple is Concerned With the Proposed Reductions to Traffec Lanes oar Vallco Parkway and Requests That the EIR Clarify its Analysis of This Proposal. The Main Street Project proposes to reduce the existing width of Vallco Parkway from~6 traffic lanes down to 2 traffic lanes, and add angled parking on both sides of the street. (See DFE § 2.0, p. 55.) Apple requests that the City reconsider this proposed circulation modification for the following reasons: • It is unclear whether the assumptions used by the DFEIR traffic analysis accurately reflect the capacity or user profile of the Apple staff working at 19191 Vallco Parkway, or assume full occupancy of 19333 Vallco Parkway. Please confirm. . • We request that the long-term suitability of the proposed Vallco Parkway reductions more fully - consider the cumulative impacts and anticipated future growth within the properties abutting Vallco - Parkway. Apple is concerned that ashort-term decision to narrow lanes within Vallco Parkway by - 66°/a will have to be reversed a few years later. The Apple properties on Vallco Parkway have FARs of .39-.40, and similar properties in the region are being redeveloped with F.ARs of .80. We request that the FEIR consider the extent to which the proposed modifications to Vallco Parkway could - . compromise the reasonable future expansion of the Apple properties and threaten future infill developments in the area.. wc-139564 MORRISON ~ FOERSTER Gary Chao November 24, 2008 Page Four • The Main Street Project is an i 8.7-acre site with approximately 4,8001ineal feet of public street frontage. Due to Highway 280 and other f xed site constraints, the combined A Ie ro erties {2S.5 acres) on the north side of Vallco Parkway share only approximately 1,4501ineal feet of public street frontage, which translates to only 22% of the Main Street Project street frontage, based on site area. Apple is concerned that this roadway reduction will exacerbate the existing site access constraints of Apple's sites. We request that the FEIR provide more comprehensive analysis as to the long-term site access impacts to these properties. Apple is concerned that the proposed single Lane traffic and diagonal parking along'ValIco Parkway likely will cause a significant level of service degradation and delays, particularly where there is only a single lane of txa~c. Apple requests that the FEIR include additional analysis concerning delays within affected intersections and the viability of accessing adjoining parking lots. These concerns should be fully addressed in the DFEIR's traff c analysis. Based on this expanded analysis, we request that the City establish a decision making process involving the multiple property owners potentially affected by this major proposal to reduce the width of a public street. 4. Apple Requests That the FEIR Provide Additional Aesthetic Analysis Concerning the Proposed S-Story Parking Garage Facade Fronting on Vallco Parkway The northeast facade of the Main Street Project's S-story parking garage appears to be the dominant visual feature on Vallco Parkway between North Tantau Avenue and Finch Avenue. Moreover, directly in front of the proposed parking garage, Vallco Parkway angles northward, thereby presenting the full length of the parking garage facade into the field of vision for drivers and pedestrians approaching from the east. This visual dominance is further emphasized by the proposed S-sto garage height and by the minimal 25' setback of the garage facade from the street edge. We note that the other Main Street Froject street setbacks are typically 35'. . Apple is concerned that the DFEIR does not adequately address the far-reaching visual and aesthetic i impacts on the Vallco Parkway streetscape. We request that the FEIR include elevations, renderings or massing studies enabling Apple to assess whether or not the garage's massing or facade treatments are appropriate and will improve the visual environment, or detract from it. Apple is concerned that the garage design not contribute to Vallco Parkway feeling like a lifeless "back ~ alley," conflicting with the City's streetscape goals and policies. By way of example, the proposed I p 'ng garage appears inconsistent with Policy 2-14, Strategy 3 of the General Plan as indicated on ~ page 112 of the DFEIR: "Building and Site Design Strate 3• Parking Placement in~New Development. Place parking out of sight, behind or underneath buildings." The two development _ _ schemes propose a total of either 1,520 or 1,830 parking spaces, with the vast majorit , or 1 100 of those spaces, in the 5-story parking garage fully visible above grade. y Apple requests that the FEIR analyze whether a greater portion of the parking can be sited below grade to make the project consistent with the City's General Plan Design Strategy 3. At a minimum, please consider whether two of the fve stories of the arkin p g garage could be located below grade. $eiow ~ grade parking could extend beneath the retail component adjoining the garage, and parking could also be located beneath the health club, similar to the office parking in Scheme 2. It also may be possible to ~ I develop the northeast garage facade with a visually more attractive use to avoid a "blank garage facade syndrome." We request that the FEIR consider the Main Street Project parking garage facade in relation to the design treatment that was applied to the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Town Square facades. At a wc-139564 ~so~ ~°~gs~c~g gR M~ Gary Chao ro osed 5_ November 24, 2008 arding the P P additional inf°nnat~on reg adej page Five - e' S 5 levels below ~' t the FED provide the f atl~ ~''~wo of the garag we reques arage that loc . rninimum~ e and an alternate g story garag ~ the street level); fitted); tted}; Studies (as viewed from t drawings submi lvS.assing imilar to the other elevate ade con ep one approaches from . - g-endered Elevations ~S similes to the other f ~ viewed as arage facade, Facade Concept Drawing t at the north~st g through +~ east facade, pective looking • Rendered pets a e, perpendicular to ltsno b side of Vallca parlcwaY~ lco PaikWaylTantau int used gar' g on the the V al the prop face of the Apple office bullding Cross-section thr~fl h streetscape design- etscape pesign • Vallco parkway e and a Stre - ~ owing the Proposed street edg wners Jvin in a yatieo Pati a Parkway sh or air of V ' ro osed by rv oses That Areawede Landvn is Intended f Guidelines p P ~• Apple P P e Descg le notes that ss i a Single StYeetscap DFElR-, P• 113.) APP e , .f Fro• ect is consistent with the Deli s signage _ Proc ain Street l streetseape• t lantang indicates that the ~ Vallco parkway s ecrfic p e design for all `The DFE'~ aster Plan for the do not identify P le streetscap rovide South V alleo M every conceptual in nature and ' el e City intends far there to be a swig c the Ines ar le requests that the Cita ~ design, these Design Guid hting• if th ect, then APP streets P tore or lig the amain Street proj ut regarding materials, street ftum ortunitY to provide inp . co Parkway estabhshed~ T with the oPp li Ming elements. of Vall a Landow rniture or g other V allco p~ ~ c ping, signage, street fu Water, utility ~ including the ect to existing Calabazas lines to the existing Sewer Capacity- ain Street Project proposes to Conn ect would ~• the ~ drain ain Street pro} meet schemes, 24-inch storm roes that the NI or both develop fines and install two ne flow test determ ite the fain Street Project F and sewer)1 sewer of the s ~ 1 280 to storm drain, 1 i f a sanitary venue from - • pdditional y, Sewer lines at or downstrea n Tantau A ner~dge Avenue Creek culvert- acity of the existing ections downstream 2g0 and Pru test exe~d the cap sewer flow ar er sewer lines and Conn is that the sanitary u ied rather than ire l g us Site is within the a ~ u stween ' occ P W ould requ The dew Carne le r q . se s or at least treat the site as fu y neridge Avenue. Ned by this sewer line. App . Pro would also be le CamPu ~ _._-- and likely `,~, from the proposed ApP account for f to ents on the Main Street reflect existing vacant s~ace- ortunity to provide these comet alf of APPIe we appreciate the opP fln beh project DFE'~• Very truly Yours, . ----__ - David A. Gold ce: Steve Piasecki . Kelly Kline Steve Cook aim Fowler Mike Foulkes wc-13956