The URL can be used to link to this page

Draft EIR 2008 Draft Focused Environmental Im act Re ort p p for the . aln ree . . u er ino ro ec SCH# 2008082058 Prepared by the City of Cupertino CUPERTlNO October 2008 PREFACE This document has been prepared by the City of C:upertino as the Lead A�ency in conformance �� ith the California Enviro��mental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA GuidElines. The purpose of this Environmental (mpact Report (EIR) is to inform decision makers and the general public of the environmental effects of a proposed project. This document provides a project-(evel environmental revie�v appropriate for the Main Street Cupertino Project, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines ,��' 15121, l S 146, and l� 1� 1. The Cit� of Cupertino prepared an Initial Study that detennined that preparation of an Environmental [mpact Report (E[R) was needed for the proposed Main Street Cupertino Peoject. The Initial Study concluded that the EIR should focus on the subject areas of transportation and air quality. The issues of aesthetics, agricultural cesources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils. hazards and hazardous materials, hydcology and water quality, land use, mineral resources. noise. populatioil and housing, pub(ic services, recreation, and utilities and service systems were anal�zed in the Initial Study and the project's impacts in these subject areas were detecmined to be less than significant ��ith mitigation included in the project and required as conditions of approval. A copy of the lnitial Study and the Notice of Preparation for the EIR are in Appendices A and B of this EIR. respectively. The Notice of Preparation was circulated for public comment for a 30-day period firom August 13. 2008 d�rough September l 1, 2008. Copies of the responses to the Notice of Preparation received are also included in Appendix B of this EIR. In accordance with CEQA, an EIR provides objective information regarding the environmental consequences of the proposed project, both to the decision makers who will be considering and reviewing the proposed project, and to the general public. The following guidelines are included in CEQA to clarify the role of an EIR: §1�121(a). Informational Doeument. An EIR is generally an informational document, which will inform public agency decision makers and the public of the significant environmental effect of a project, identif}' possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information which may be present to the agency. §15146. Degree of Specificity. The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. (a) An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detai(ed in the specific effects of a project than will an EIR on the adoption of a local genera( plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater accuracy. (b) An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow. TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa��e EIR Te�t SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................4 SECT[ON I.0 PROJECT DESCRIPT[ON .................................................................................... I � l.l PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................15 1.2 OVERVfEW .................................................................................................1� 1.3 DEVELOPMENT SCHE;MES ......................................................................1� 1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................34 1.� USES OF THE EIR .......................................................................................34 SECTION 2.0 ENV(RONMENTAL SETTING. IMPACTS, AND M[T1GAT(ON .....................3� 2. l TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................36 2.2 AlR QUALITY .............................................................................................72 SECTfON 3.0 GROWTH-[NDUC�NG IMPACTS .......................................................................88 SECTION 4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................89 4.1 CUMULATIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS .....................................93 4.2 CUMULATIVE AfR QUALITY IMPACTS .............................................102 SECTION 5.0 S[GNI�'(CANT, UNAVOfDABLE [MPACTS ...................................................105 SECT[ON 6.0 CONSISTENCY WITH RELEVANT PLANS AND POL[CIES .......................106 6 .1 REGIONAL PLANS ...................................................................................106 6.2 LOCAL PLANS AND POLIC[ES ..............................................................108 SECTION 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT ...............................................................129 7.1 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT .........................................129 7.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ...........................................................................130 7.3 FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................130 7.4 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................130 7.5 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES .....................................................................131 SECTION 8.0 S[GN(EICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ................137 8.1 USE OF NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES .............................................137 8.2 COMMtTMENT OF FUTURE GENERATIONS TO SIM[LAR USE .....137 8.3 IRREVERS[BLE DAMAGE RESULTING FROM ENVIRONMENTAL ACCIDENTS ASSOCIA'I'ED W1TH THE PROJECT ............................... l37 SECTION 9.0 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................139 SECTION 10.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS ..........................................................140 City of Cupertino 1 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa<�e Figures Figure l.0-( Regioilal Map ...............................................................................................................16 Figure 1.0-2 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................17 Figure 1.0-3 Aerial Pl�otogcaph ........................................................................................................18 Figure I.0-4 Scheme 1 — Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................. l9 Figure 1.0-� Schc>>ne 1 — Conceptual Cross-Section .........................................................................20 Figure 1.0-6 Scheme 1 — Conceptual Cross-Section .........................................................................21 Figure 1.0-7 Schentc,� 1 — Conceptual Cross-Section .........................................................................22 Figure 1.0-8 Scheme 2— Conceptual Site Plan .................................................................................23 Figure l.0-9 Schenae ?— Conceptual Cross-Section .........................................................................24 Figure I.0-10 Scheme ?— Conceptual Cross-Section .........................................................................25 Figure 1.0-1 l Scheme 2— Conceptual Cross-Section .........................................................................26 Figure 1.0-12 Scheme 1 — Conceptual Landscape Plan ......................................................................30 Figure 1.0-13 Scheme ?— Conceptual Landscape Plan ......................................................................3 l Figure 1.0-14 Schen�e 1 — Site Access ................................................................................................33 Figure 2.0-1 Existing Roadway Network and Study Intersections ...................................................37 Figure 2.0-2 Existing Pedestrian Facilities .......................................................................................39 Figure 2.0-3 Existing Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................40 Figure 2.0-4 Existing Transit Facilities ............................................................................................42 Figure 4.0-1 Locations of Cumulative Projects ................................................................................92 Tables Tab(e 1.0-1 Summary of Development Schemes ............................................................................15 Table 2.0-1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Control Vehicular Delay .....................................................................43 Table 2.0-2 Unsignalized Intersection Leve( of Service Definitions Using Average Control Delay ...........................................•--........................................44 Table 2.0-3 Freeway Segment Level of Service Definitions ...........................................................45 Table 2.0-4 Existing and Background Intersection Levels of Service ............................................46 Table 2.0-5 E�:isting Freeway Segment Levels of Service ..............................................................48 Table 2.0-6 Trip Generation Rates and Estimates ...........................................................................53 Table 2.0-7 Project Intersection Levels of Service ..........................................................................56 Table 2.0-8 Project-Level Freeway Segment Levels of Service .....................................................60 Table 2.0-9 Summary of Parking Supply Estimates ........................................................................63 Table 2.0-10 Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................................................................................74 Table 2.0-1 1 Major Criteria Pollutants ..............................................................................................75 Table 2.0-12 Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations ..........................................................76 Table 2.0-13 Annual Number of Days Exceeding Ambient Air Quality Standards .........................77 Table 2.0-14 Daily Project Emissions in Pounds per Day .................................................................81 Table 2.0-15 Estimated Roadside 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ..................................82 City of Cupertino 2 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa��e Tables Table 3.0-1 Approximate Available Office Allocations as of June 2008 ........................................88 Table 4.0-1 List of Cumulative Projects ..........................................................................................89 Table 4.0-2 Background. Curnulative Plus Project (ntersection Levels of See�-ice .........................94 Table 4.0-3 Project Contribution To Significant Cumulative Impacts ............................................97 Table 4.0-4 Estimated Roadside 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentratio�IS ................................103 Table 6.0-1 Summary of Project Consistency� �vith Relevant Plans and Policies ..........................125 Table 7.0-1 Matrix Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts ...................................................136 Appendices Appendix A [nitial Study Appendix B Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Responses to the NOP Appendix C Transportation Impact Analysis Appendix D Air Quality Analysis Appendix E Traffic Sensitivity Analysis for Project Alternatives City of Cupertino 3 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 SUMMARY The Main Street Cupertino project proposes rivo development schemes for a 18.7-acre site at the nortllwest quadrant of Stevens Creek Boulevard and �Tantau Avenue in the City of Cupertino. The approvat of the project �� ould allo�� for development under one of these schemes. Scheme 1 proposes up to 29�.000 square feet of retail uses (including 1 �0,000 square feet of genera( commercial uses and a 14�,000 square foot athletic club), 100,000 square feet of office uses, a hotel with 150 rooms, and 160 senior housing units. Schen�e ? proposes up to 146,�00 square feet of retail uses, 205,000 square feet of office uses, a hotel with 250 rooms, and 160 senior housing units. The project requires a use permit. architectural and site approval, and tentative map approval. The following table summarizes tl�e significant environmental impacts identified and discussed within the text of the E[R, and identifies the mitigation measures proposed to avoid or reduce those impacts. The reader is referred ro the main body text of the ElR for detailed discussions for the existing setting, impacts, and mitigation measures. Alternatives to the proposed project are also summarized at the end of the table. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Trans ortation Impact TRAN — 1: The proposed MM TRAN — 1.1: The proposed project (under either project (under either scheme) scheme) shall implement one of the three measures below to would result in a significant reduce impacts at Vallco Parkway and Wolfe Road to a less impact at the intersection of Woife than significant level: Road and Vallco Parkway (PM l. Maintain the existing intersection configuration, but peak hour). install a westbound right-turn overlap phase. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at LOS D Less Than Significant Impact with no more than 44.2 seconds of average delay under with Mitigation Incorporated either project scheme; OR 2. Add a second, westbound right-turn lane. The additional turn lane could be accommodated by re-striping the existing westbound through lane as a shared-through-right turn lane. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at LOS D with no more than 50.8 seconds of average delay under either Scheme; OR 3. Implement permissive phasing on the eastbound and westbound approaches to reduce average vehicle delay and improve the operations to LOS D+ during the PM peak hour under both schemes (no greater than 38.1 seconds of average delay). Operations would improve sli htl in the AM eak hour. City of Cupertino 4 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Scnnntur�• ENVIRONMEIVTAL [MPACTS MITIGATION 1VIEASURES Impact TRA1�1— 2: The project This intersection is controlled and maintained by the Count} (under either scheme) would have of Santa Clara. Major i�nprovements at this intersection a significant impact at the were identified in the Comprehensive County E�pcess��ay intersection of Lawrence Planning Study for Lawrence Expressw�a�� completed in Expressway and t-280 southbound 2003, including a Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR) for ramps-Calvert Drive ducing the this interchange (Tier 1 C project). The Tier 1 C project AM and PM peak hours. included an additional northbound through lane, which would mitigate the project's impact (under either scheme) at Signifieant and Unavoidable this intersection to a less than significant level. The Cit�� of Impact Cupertino has contacted the County of Santa Clara. However, at the time this EIR was circulated, the Citv and County had not coordinated on an appropriate mechanism for this improvement to occur and implementation b�� the County of Santa Clara is not assured. For this reason, the impact at this intersection is significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAN — 3: Both project This intersection is located within the City of Santa C(ara schemes would result in a and is a CMP intersection. The addition of a third significant level of service impact westbound through lane would improve overali delay and at the intersection of Lawrence ceduce the impact to a less than significant level. This Expressway and Homestead Road improvement, however, is not an identified in the during the ANi and PM peak hour. Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway. Improvements to this intersection Significant and Unavoidable are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino, Impact therefore, the impact at this intersection is significant and unavoidable. Impaet TRAN — 4: Scheme 1 of The Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for the proposed project would result Lawrence Expressway completed in 2003 identified the in a significant level of service widening of Lawrence Expressway from six-lanes to eight- impact at Bol(inger Road- lanes between Moorpark/Bollinger and Calvert as a Tier 1 A Moorpark Avenue and Lawrence improvement. This improvement would reduce delay and Expressway in the PM peak hour. mitigate the project's impact to a less than significant level. The City has contacted the County of Santa Clara regarding Significant and Unavoidable this improvement. At this time, the City and County have Impaet not coordinated regarding a possib(e mechanism for the project to pay a fair-share contribution toward this Tier l A improvement. Improvements to this intersection are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and imp(ementation of this Tier lA improvement is not assured. Therefore, the impact at this intersection is significant and unavoidable. City of Cupertino 5 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Si�mmur� � ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATI�IY MEASURES Impact TRAN — �: MM TRAN — �.1: At the fina( design stage, the project Implementation of Scl�e»�e 1 shall include progcams or facilities delineated in the would significantly impact seven "l�nme�diate Implementation Action List" of tlle Draft segments on I-280 and Countywide Deficiency Pian (CDP) to the satisfaction of the implementation of Scheme ? Director of Community Development. Measures from the would significantly impact six list that are appropriate for this project may include segments on I-280 during one of providing pedestrian facility improvements, bus stop the peak hours. improvements, HOV parking preference program, bike Significant and Unavoidable facilities, and a pedestrian circulation system. Impact Imp(ementation of tllese measures w�ould reduce impacts on free�ti�ay segments but not to a less tllan significant level. Impact TRAN — 6: The proposed AM TRAN — 6.1: The project applicant shall provide project (under either scheme) pedestrian crosswalk improvements at Finch Avenue and at would result in the removal of the the project's eastern driveway located in front of the existing bike lane on Vallco proposed athletic club in Scheme 1 and adjacent to the Parkway along the site frontage. 205,000 square foot office building in Scheme 2. These crossing locations would provide additional pedestrian Less Than Significant Impact crossing for people traveling along Vallco Parkway. The with Mitigation Incorporated final crosswalk improvement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. MM TRAN — 6.1: The existing bike lane to be removed as part of the project shall be relocated between the new travel lane and the on-street parking. The new bike lane shall be located five feet from the end of the angled parking stalls. This relocation requires the striping of sharrows and signage alerting motorists to the presence of bicyclists. Impact TRAN — 7: The proposed MM TRAN — 7.1: The applicant shall work with VTA, the narrowing of Vallco Parkway and City, and Caltrans to determine the appropriate location of the addition of the on-street the existing bus stops at Stevens Creek Boulevard/Finch parking would impact the existing Avenue and Stevens Creek Bou(evard/Tantau Avenue to bus stop at Vallco Parkway and ensure that existing bus service is not disrupted by the Perimeter Road. project (e.g., addition of on-street parking) along those areas. The bus stop at Vallco Parkway/Perimeter Road shall be incorporated into any designs for the roadway. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated AM TRAN — 7.2: The City and applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans to determine the appropriate change in route for the Caltrans commuter shuttle that currently 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. City of Cupertino 6 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Si�mnlur�� ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Impact TRAN — 8: At this time, MM TRAN — 8.1: When a restaurant use is proposed on the the specitic type of and mix of project site, the proposed restaucant use's tenancy shall be commercial uses is unknown. lf reviewed by the City as follows: the restaurant to retail space • Up to 10 percent of the approved comrnercia( square exceeds 10 percent, the project footage shal( be permitted for restaurant use without City would result in inadequate parking planning staff review. capacity. • More tha�� 10 percent of the approved commercial square footage for restaurant use shall require City planning staff Less Than Signifieant lmpact review to verify that the pcoposed use meets the parking with Mitigation Incorporated requirements outlined b} the Institute of Transportation Engineers ([TE), Urban Land [nstitute (ULl), or developed as part of a parking analy�sis prepared by a qua(ified parking consultant to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. If the review process indicates that the proposed commercial uses exceed the minimum parking cequired bv the ITE, ULI, or parking analysis, a Parking Management Plan (PMP) shall be required. Components of the PMP ma�� include, but are not limited to, the fo(lowing: • Provision of valet packing (eithet� on- or off-site); • Provision of off-site employee parking with a shuttle; • Provision of off-site shared use with nearby property owners during peak parking periods: and/or • Provision of off-site land for parking if strategies to reduce total demand are ineffective. A condition of approval of the PMP may include conducting a parking study at some defined date (e.g., six months after full occupancy of the cominercial uses on the project site) during evening and weekend periods), which would include recording the number of parked vehicles during peak time periods. Results of the study may trigger additional conditions (e.g., a transportation demand management program) be met to continue the commercial uses [(i.e., restaurant use(s)] on-site. [mpact TRAN — 9: The proposed MM TRAN — 9.1: The project shall provide bicycle parking project (under either scheme) consistent with the City's requirements outlined in the wou(d have insufficient bicycle Municipal Code 19.100, which state that the required parking. number of Class I bicycle parking spaces should be 40 percent of the number of units and five percent of total Less Than Significant Impact automobile parking spaces for office uses; and the required with Mitigation Incorporated number of Class II bicycle parking spaces should be five percent of the total number of automobile parking spaces for commercial and hotel uses. City of Cupertino 7 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Szrmnt u� � ENV[RONMEIYTAL IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES Air Quality [mpact AIR — 2: Scheme 1 would MM AIR — 2.L• Improve existing or construct new bus result in si��nificant cegional aic pullouts and transit stops at com�enient locations with qualit�� impacts related to pedestrian access to the project site. Pullouts should be emissions of ROG, NO� . and designed so that normal traffic flow on arterial roadwa��s PM ScherTZe Z would result in would not be impeded when buses are pulled ovec to serve signiticant regional air quality riders. Bus stops sh��uld include shelters, benches, and impacts celated to emissions of postings of transit information. ROG and NO�. MM AIR — 2.2: The project shall be reviewed and Significant and Una��oidable appropriate bicycte amenities s(lall be included to the Impact satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Bicycle amenities shall include bike lane connections throughout the project site. In addition, off-site bicycle lane improvements shall be considered for roadways that serve the project site. MM AIR — 2.3: Pedestrian sidewalks and/or paths shal l be provided throughout the project site with convenient access to bus stops within ar adjacent to the site. MM AIR — 2.4: The incorporation of pedestrian signage and signalization shall be considered, including convenient pedestrian crossings at strategic areas with count-down signals that would enhance pedestrian use. ` MM AIR — 2.5: OfEce and large retail uses on the site shali provide amenities to encourage pedestrian and bicycle use such as showers, locker facilities, and bicycle parking for employees. Bicycle parking for retail customers shall be provided at strategic locations. MM AIR — 2.6: Project site employers shall be required to promote transit use t�y providing transit information and incentives to employees. MM AIR — 2.7: The project applicant shall work with the City to explore oppartunities for employers to implement measures that would reduce vehicle travel by reducing parking availability (such as an employee parking cashout program). MM AIR — 2.8: The project shall provide outdoor electrical outlets, encourage t�e use of electrical landscape maintenance equiprrxent, and provide 220 volt out(ets in each parking garage suitable for electrical auto recharging. City of Cupertino 8 Draft E1R Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Srun;nur�� ENVIRONMEIYTAL IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES MM AIR — 2.9: The project sha(I implement "green building' designs, such as a Leadership in Energ�� and Environmental Design (LEED). Burld it Greef� for residential units. or ai� a(ternative environinental and sustainable measurement system/checklist, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development to increase energy eff7ciency, which would reduce the futuce energy demand caused by the project, and therefore reduce air pollutant emissions indirectl��. MM AIR — 2.10: The project applicant shall create a landscape plan for the project that ensures new trees would shade buildings and walkways in the summer to reduce the cooling loads on buildings. Implementation of MM AIR — 2.1 through 2.10 would reduce project re�ional emissions, but not to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures listed above would achieve an additional two to three percent reduction. Under Scheme 1, emissions would still be above the BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NO�, and PM Under Sche»�e 2, emissions of ROG �vould be reduced to a less than significant level, however, the emissions of NO� would remain above the BAAQMD threshold of significance. Impact AIR — 5: The proposed Dust Control project (under either scheme) would result in temporary MM AIR — 5.1: The project shall implement the following construction dust and construction dust control measures recommended by BAAQMD: equipment exhaust. • Water al( active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods. Less Than Significant Impact • Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of with Mitigation Incorporated freeboard. • Pave, app(y water at least twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto the adjacent roads. • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabitizers to inactive construction areas (i.e., previously-graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more). • Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as ossible. City of Cupertino 9 Draft EiR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Srrnrntari' ENVIRONMEIVTAL IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES • Suspend construction activities that cause ��isible dust p(umes to extend beyond the construction site. Construction Equipment Exhaust MM AIR — 5.2: "I'he proposed project shall implement the following diesel exhaust control measures: � Consistent with state (aw, diesel equipment standing id(e for more than five minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other bu(k materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were onsite and located more than 200 feet from residences • Proper(y tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. • Construction equipment shall not be staged within 200 feet of existing residences. Cumulative Impact C-TRAN — 1: The project See MM TRAN — 1.1 above. (under either scheine), with the implementation of the mitigation measure MM TRAN — l.l, would not result in a significant impact at the intersection of Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway. Less Than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Impaet GTRAN — 2: The project The improvement identified to mitigate the project's impact (under either scheme) would result at this intersection (addition of a third westbound through in a cumulatively considerable lane) is not an identified improvement in the Comprehensive contribution to the significant County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence impact at the intersection of Expressway. Improvements to this intersection are not Lawrence Expressway/Homestead within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and the City Road. cannot implement the improvement. Therefore, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact at Lawrence Significant and Unavoidable Expressway/Homestead Road is signif cant and unavoidable. Cumu(ative Impact City of Cupertino 10 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Suminw� ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGAT[ON MEASURES Impact GTRAN — 3: The project This impact can be mitigated to a less than signiticant level (under either scheme) would result with the addition of an eastbound right-tucn overlap phase. in a cumulatively considerable This intersection is located within the City of Santa Clara contribution to the significant and is a CMP intersection controlled and maintained by the impact at the intersection of County of Santa Clara. The City has contacted the Count}' Stevens Creek Boulevard/I-280 about this impact and mitigation. At this time, tlle City� and southbound ramps-Calvert Drive. County have not coordinated regarding a possible mechanisin for implementin� this mitigation measure and Significant and Unavoidable therefore, the implementation of this mitigation can not be Cumulative Im�act assured. 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. Impact GTRAN — 4: The project The improvement identified to mitigate the project's impact (under either scheme) would result at this intersection (an additional northbound througll lane) is in a cumulatively considerable identified in the Comprehensive County Expressway contribution to the significant Planning Stud} for La�vrence Expressway (Tier l C project). impact at the intersection of Improvements to this intersection are not within the Lawrence Expressway and Ca(vert jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and the City has Drive/I-280 southbound ramps. contacted the County of Santa Clara. However, at the time this EIR was circulated, the City and County had not Signifieant and Unavoidable coordinated on an appropriate mechanism for this Cumulative Impact improvement to occur and the implementation by the County is not assured. For this reason, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact at Lawrence Expresswa�� and Calvert Drive/1-280 southbound ramps is significant and unavoidable. Impact C-TRAN — 5: The project The improvement identified to mitigate the project's impact (under either scheme) would result at this intersection (widening of Lawrence Expressway from in a cumulatively considerable six-lanes to eight-lanes between Moorpark/Boltinger and contribution to the impact at the Calvert) is identified in the Comprehensive County intersection of Bollinger Road- Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway (Tier Moorpark Avenue/Lawrence lA project). The Tier lA improvements to this intersection Expressway. are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and the City has contacted the County of Santa Clara. However, Signifieant and Unavoidabte at the time this EIR was circulated, the City and County had Cumulative Impaet not coordinated regarding a possible mechanism for the project to pay a fair-share contribution toward the Tier 1 A improvement (refer to Seetion 2.1 Transportation). For this reason, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact at Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue/Lawrence Expressway is significant and unavoidable. City of Cupertino I 1 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Strrmm�r� • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGAT[OIY MEASURES Impact C-AIR — l: The project See MM A1 R— 2. l throu��h ?.-10 above. (under either scheme) would result � in a cumulative impact on regiona( air quality. Implementation of mitigation measures in Section 2.2 Air Quality (MM AIR — 2.1 through 2.10) �vould reduce the project's emissions but not to a less than significant level. Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Im act SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts: • Intersection and Freeway Segment Level of Service (mpacts, • Regiona( Air Quality Impacts, • Cumulative Level of Service Impacts, and • Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts. All other impacts of the proposed project would be mitigated to a(ess than significant (evel with the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in this EIR and attached [nitial Study (see Appendix A). SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CEQA requires that an EIR identify alternatives to the project as proposed. The CEQA Guidelines specify that an EIR identify alternatives which "would feasibly attain the most basic objectives of the project but avoid or substantially lessen many of the significant environmental effects of the project," or would further reduce impacts that are considered less than significant with the incorporation of identified mitigation. The project applicant's objectives for the project are to: A. Develop the underutilized 18.7-acre property at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue into an economically viable infill, mixed-use project with retaii uses, office uses, senior housing units, a hotel, and possibly an athletic club; B. Develop high-quality shopping, dining, and commercial area that will be community serving while also holding regional appeal; C. Create a"Main Street" style experience that is pedestrian oriented; D. Implement Cupertino citywide goals as expressed in the General Plan encouraging commercial-oriented development in the South Va(ico Park area; � According to the applicant, a commercial development with "regional appeal" is one that has destination stores and/or restaurants. It is envisioned that the "major retail" building proposed at the northwest corner of the project site in either scheme (see Figures 1.0-4 and 1.0-8) could be occupied by a retail tenant with "regional appeal." City of Cupertino 12 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Summart• E. Connect well ��ith tl�e adjace�lt pcoperties; and F. [ntegrate useab(e open space into the project. L No Proiect Alternatives The CEQA Guidelines specificall� recluire consideration of a"No Project'' Alternative. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Under the No Project Alternative, the project site could continue to remain vacant and undeveloped or it could be developed ��ith uses consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning. Given the available development allocations in the Vallco Park South area and the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning on the site, the site could be developed with 200.000 square feet of commercial uses, a 7�0 room hotel, and 400 senior housin� units. For these reasons, there are two logical No Project alternatives: 1) a No Projeet/No Development Alternative and 2) a No Project/Development Alternative. No Project/No Development ��l�ernati��e The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that the project site would continue to remain vacant and undeveloped. The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid all of the project's impacts but would not meet any of the project objectives. No Project/Development Alternatiti•e The No Project/Development Alternative assumes that the project site would be developed with 200,000 square feet of commerciai uses (of which could include an athletic club), a 750 room hotel, and 400 senior housing units. The No Project/Development Aiternative assumes no office development on the project site. The No Project/Development Alternative would result in similar environmental impacts as the proposed project and could conceivably meet five of the six project objectives (objectives B— F), but would not meet project objective A. This alternative is not environmentally superior to the project. 2. Reduced Scale Alternatives Reduced Transportation Impacts Alte��native The Reduced Transportation [mpacts .4lternative assumes the development of 75,000 square feet of retail uses, 160 senior housing units, and a 250 room hotel. This represents a l00 percent reduction in proposed office and athletic club uses, and an approximately 50 percent reduction in proposed retail uses. The Reduced Transportation Impacts Alternative would avoid the project's impact to the intersections of Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road (which would occur under both project schemes in the AM peak hour) and Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue/Lawrence Expressway (which would only occur under Scheme 1 in the PM peak hour), freeway segments on I-280, regional air quality, and cumulative regional air quality impacts. However, this alternative would result in similar traffic impacts at the intersections of Wolfe Road/Va(lco Parkway and Lawrence Expressway/I-280 southbound ramps-Calvert Drive, as well as freewa�• segments on I-280, as the proposed project. This alternative would result in similar temporary construction-related air quality, ambient noise and construction-related noise, cultural resources, and geology and soils impacts as the proposed project. Since this alternative reduces the amount of development on the site, the area of City of Cupertino l3 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Strntmarl' impact may be reduced thereby impacting fewer nesting birds and trees than the� proposed project. In addition, if less of the project site is disturbed, this altecnative ma� result in lesser h��dcolo��v and �vater quality impacts than the proposed project. The Reduced Transportation Impacts Alternative co��ld conceivably meet five of the six project objectives (B-F), but would not meet project objective A. No Ti I�npacts Alterncrtive The Reduced Development/No Transportation Impacts Alternative assumes 5,000 square feet of commercial uses and 50 senior housing units are developed on the prvject site. The No Transportation (mpacts Alternative would avoid the project's significant traffiic impacls and significant regional air quality impact. This alternative would result in similar temporary construction-related air quality, cultural resources, and geology and soils impacts as the proposed pcoject. Since this alternative reduces the amount of development on the site, the area of impact �nay be reduced theceby impacting fewer nesting birds and trees than the proposed project. [n addition, if less of the project site is disturbed, this alternative may result in lesser hydrology and water quality impacts than the proposed project. Also, depending on the location of the uses in respect to the surrounding land uses (e.g., existing residences to the west and roadways), this alternative may result in lesser ambient noise and construction-related noise impacts. The No Transportation [mpacts Alternative wou(d not fu(ly meet four of the six project objectives (A — D) and meet the other two objectives (E and F). KNOWN VIEWS OF LOCAL GROUPS AND AREAS OF CONTROVERSY Issues raised by residents of Cupertino and owners of property near the project site during community outreach meetings include concerns related to pedestrian and bicycle amenities. facilities, and access; visual impacts to views of the hills; impacts to existing trees; parking capacity; open space; and green building elements. City of Cupertino 14 Draft EIR _ Main Street Cupertino October 2008 SECTION 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The I 8.7-acre project site is located at the north��est quadrant of Stevens Creek Boule�-ard and Tantau Avenue in the City of Cupertino. The project site is bounded by Stevens C��eek Boule��ard to the south. Tantau Avenue to the east, Vallco Parkw�a�� to the norCh. and a parkin� lot and residences to the west. Finch Avenue extends through the project site. Regional and vicinit� maps of the project site are shown in Figures I.0-I and 1.0-?. An aerial photo��raph showina surrounding land uses is shown on Figure I.0-3. y ` 1.2 OVERVIEW Two development schemes are evaluated in this EIR foc the I 8.7-acre project site. The approval of the Main Street Cupertino Project would allow for development under one of these schemes. Tlle proposed project requires a use permit, architectura( and site approval, and tentative map approval. The two development schemes are summarized in Table 1.0-1 and discussed belo�. If the project is approved, the project applicant anticipates project construction commencing in the second quarter of 2009 and ending in the third quarter of 2010. Table 1.0-1 Summary of Develo ment Schemes Pro osed Uses Retail Athletic Office Senior Hotel Open Space On-Site Club Housing with a Public Parking � (sfl � (units) (rooms) Easement (ac) (stalis) Scheme 1 150,000 145,000 100,000 160 150 1.63 1,520 Scheme 2 146,500 --- 205,000 160 250 1.63 1,830 Note: sf = s uare foota e, ac = acres 1.3 DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES Scheme 1 proposes up to 295,000 square feet of retail uses (including 150,000 square feet of general commercial uses and a 145,000 square foot athletic club), 100,000 square feet of office uses. 160 senior housing units, and a 150-room hotel. Scheme 1 also inc(udes L63 acres of private open space that would have an easement allowing public use and access. A conceptual site p(an of Scheme 1 is provided on Figure 1.0-4. Conceptual cross-sections of Scheme 1 are provided on Figures 1.0-5 and 1.0-7. While Scheme 1 would allow for up to 29�,000 square feet of retail uses, the conceptual site plan shows 292,000 square feet of retail uses (147,000 square feet of general commercial uses and a 145,000 square foot athletic club, see Figure 1.0-4). Scheme 2 proposes up to 146,500 square feet of retail uses, 205,000 square feet of office uses, 160 senior housing units, and a 250-room hoteL Schen�e 2 also inc(udes 1.63 acres of private open space that would have an easement allowing public use and access. A conceptual site pian of Scheme Z is provided on Figure 1.0-8. Conceptual cross-sections of the conceptual site plan are provided on Figures 1.0-9 and 1.0- I 1. City of Cupertino 1 � Draft ElR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 � o, LO� f REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 1.0-1 � � VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1.0-2 00 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FIGURE 1.0-3 RAMP Tp i�ARKING BEI OW �p METROPOUTAN� HOUSING i PROJECT i 6.CV.W.D.._...._.....I I E�15EMENT � , �.,; �. �' � ;y �- PARKING ON THIS �•�� j, � SiOE O� VRLLCO NOT � �. �. n+cwoeoir+cour+rs `; _ C �;. ..- � �,., �,, , � �� `,� ) � ,, �� ,. / �1 � f , �a `v! s � �� • �� . I '`' �► ;: t -� - � . ,� � � . STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD * Note: Diagonal parking on the north side of Vailco Parkway is not included in the proposed project. SCHEME 1- CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN TABULATION RETAIL 147,000 SF 647 STALLS 4.4I1,000 SF OFFICE 100,000 SF 1 HOTEL 150 ROOMS -}- 853 STALLS SHARED PARKING ATHLETIC ClUB 145,000 SF � SENIOR HOUSING 160 UNITS 160 STALLS 1 lUNIT � % < : S' � �d �d ��.: W ��;,;: r,`€,�.., . .. M 0' 26' 60' 1 W 160' t00' I I I � I I Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC, 7/1/08. FIGURE 1.0-4 �� \: . . Y � �i�.� N o i c ,c��, � ' � MATCH LINE D X X X I X ' w MATCH LINE ------ --- -- --- --- ------ V � Z � � � � -�-1 ^ Z � Z Z Z � Z t J m m G� G� � t � �L 2 c c c � c T � � � � � � � � � O � � � ` � � v � rn � -� � z � � � ° � D � � � � � wi m O � � m '' Z �' Z D o 0 0 � ' `J r � � V = m m m D m m ° � � � Z V � � _ � II 1 � � O C c � Z D" r n � z � � ° ; � p ; �� a v� N s � z � � � � � z � M � v � ', D D D � m T p � D 1'1 � � m ' � m m z i � ` , I � , O ; � � � o� o 0 o r � b. ^� � O bm b � r � �� Z r r � � � Z Z Z � � � � � ' m _ = x o m � m ° ° � z z c� c c o � � � D i N � N� /�+ r O � ^ _ u� o v � � A (� A � I o Q m � � _"� � � � l � +� �� $ N � m O y � Z V/ Y! V/ 1n Y/ � Z "'G r � r �i r � T� G D � � � � � � � N '� A � � m D y m m m m m � � O m „ z c� o m � G� _ D� � . t , D � " �' .� m � Z � � A t C Z O � �: m v � � z _ � c —� b"� +"� ° q"� �' t'' o � � o � � / ^ �� br b� b r �O rn \ � ' N • W A • � • � ` ♦ � � C 0 � O s � .� � ,. � � � t o T r � r + r � r +� T 111 b� b"� '�^� �,,� �,g � r .r °tr 2 3r r N 4/ A , i � 4 r' � _ � � A �, � O � n � m m � � m m m � D o O O � � � � n (� (� r � f� (� n m � � �� -m-� 0 m rn m D C C C n � r � � _ � � � () � V1 � r = C Q � � � C"� �' 70 - m �� MATCH LINE o r � r � r + A�� MATCH LINE • m 8 O ------ --- -- --- -- ------ O b � b� b b" b+ ' � � J . N • � . . � V ■ � D � c ' � � � _ MATCH LINE _ _ _ _ _ _ MATCH LINE _ � � X X X ; X ----- ----- m �^ m D � � � i � � V � Z � D c� c � c ' � ` / Z m r m � -i tn = _ _ , _ 2 2 v� � ai ai ai �� ai m � 0 0 � � � ; � � � � � m � `� � �. m t . � � /'y � . j 7 �� « q. 1 D � �� } � � bo � m � � � z �' � n 4 . t m � t� ; V ° 4 t L c � � r• C� C `� � D � � i� � r C� � O � � � � m n � -� � � D O r Z O o o O � m � � � m D � � o rn � m o z z � ° D ° D - � o ^ � ^ Om u� �� 0 0 m m . _: � � 4 f � O O b� �� z Z � .� � � � � �V T Z (� 2 � � m z m � m � �o m —� � X r b � D —�j . � � Z ` � � N^ N � yp �� < o � ^ t : = 1.1 J � om m b,� o;p � ' . W . � O � � _ �i � O � ,' � D � z ° v_ 0 � � � �� pp �� Z Z � �� b � No �� Z / � � • N � • T V' � � r � �` � O / = r r m � O D r � � S � v, � r C �D � bj No � � D � bo r ' � O � � ? ? ? m D � � -� -� r � u �I �I n (� C� (7 � n C) C� (� � I C C C C � � � W W W N � � � . . � � � _ MATCH LINE _ _ _ _ _ _ MATCH LINE _ - - ----- V / � m C � �v � D � T � � � _ N � � rn � j . �� o � ` � � � a� � � 0 c � c� V, � m � z z _ � o _ m o :� No � -N, � mv m � r � � A m D m �, D � � c � m n m . < t � � (/� 4 � "` ' m S� '� 4 : � 1 D ` o ` , Z j � O � F v Z � - ----- - f: MATCH LINE MATCH LINE - ----- � Z ----- or +1 c� § � $ � r b0 � � � � F � � C � r C� � � � O � � m m VJ m m D D � � r= D D = _ � r r � � � /'1 �n v� v+ m C� � — O z . .� 4 o rn � m z z o D � D O "_ N N � O � m m v v o � � � m / � rn � s, ` , D D � ,' � � � � � � � Z y � Z iJ ;, `J " D 1� i . � � !' f: � �` m D � y . � � r� � � or • + �� bo r m � � i 4 .=: � � '� � � � Z Z Z 0 0 � A � � m 0 "` � m D � 4 t : Z � � � _ � fJ o C � � � � � rn ._� F :� � � �. � r ..�—� . . , ,�' I � ' I � I � ('� � C7 =$' .' `� � - N D � �� X � � � � � C � O 4 i ,.� � t � � � � � m� � � � DO � � - ----- - m MATCH LINE r � MATCH LINE D ' ----- ----- � � � g _ 0 00 �ruvanv nv.iniv� � O R— U r � `H� x; ��- — � � w v�`i � °� � : : .. � 8 � GJ.. E � 0 o w � W ° o o O � Q / �' � �� Z rn �n �n � ? N � � 2,-::S R— � �J vi oi � � � � . . �,i: . ry_ Q � ' � _ � d � � � � � J J J J / dy� � a— � Q Q Q � .��" . �� N � � � � ( � � =� � � -� � � � N � �� > �': <,2 � � � N x'. f �:. ;'., . LL � J I � \ 0 fA (q � (A Q � ;� � �r _. ; + \ � O ~ ~ , 5 �-._. _ � 0 0 � Z rq . , � � , � � � L ---'.... � ' _ u�i o�� m i � i y m O N N f�0 � i ( J .. �; e a�� I�..O . W ((( � � � Z Z 7 J � r.j .. � ' ` ��, Y O O ^ � � � i �' , . J � i ,, �� , � , � � � i . _ �i m J J W � Z ^ � �I/, � �.1+ ' . �� 7 V � p F � f�� i ; O � Q W Y �j ( .t�„ O i � a w LL o w a �� j �° r�� F- � o i tn a��, �° G� ;,,,k'' '" i � i � � � � �, � , �� , � / r 's� /I �� .,. �' J � � �, -� � � O � / ~ � S �� t ; �� o:. �,� ' N � !. 5 J � - 3' � y � � = 3 �.; � = Oj ��`� �� t -�� i i & a` . � O z � �: � � M^-' �>. . aZ. � f 4 .. i x I � o � ��.�' ��' „ � j _ _ �� " � N� _ � � � i o " ��" � � �, .? � �. �� o� � �: " ,�P . ��$ � �� i �� °� �� s ��_ � � � � o _ � _ � � ��& � m � � -- - �� € � � r�� , � 3 �. , a � a t j, � �' �,� '3 ;. � .x � _ _ ��. - � , � j � _ Z V � � !i � �� , W : �S. � `�-- �_ v~i �- ` . ' � ;x j � -. ` I . , � .,, , � _ i : � . ,.'. ;. . � � T .� q � � , .»t �-�-r^ . . � ' `� � �" �i'ti �' , � U _ �:: � : � � � \., � � _� : - - �,, , � � � � � ��-�- ='"--- �' - � � ;• ,� � 3f1N37tl7 H�Ni� y W - ✓ "�' � _� - — - �--- � .= =`- - — O � � LJf � �' �- �_ ,� Q V� � � � :.� � �,. � � � J :` . '.` ` '- °w s � Q ,�� g �, , 3 � � � w ' � `" O C � ':i'.,�,�' �,� � ��• � ;, W � f— a ,; . � � - rt . � a� L � � � � W � � � .-. Z �� i Y � O w �� i � � o� C� :� � . �; �� . � a '� a ��' U � . - - � �, � � ' ��a2 �� n I; . o Y N mo�m" $$ m cv w NWOQ� _- � � .. � ¢� '�� 0 � ` � z¢� z c � I , � U W oz N Jj"' O (� _ �g w Z � U � -K � w � 23 EXISTING HOUSING i LANDSCAPI SENIOR HOUSING AND RETAIL SHOPS OVER GARAGE Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES 8� PARTNERS, INC, 5/13/08. SCHEME 2 - CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION TOWN SQUARE � GARAGE OVER RETAIL SHOPS � _� �� _, _ �� . , :. �....., �.., � � • ;, � r � ' � :_ ,_ _ . .,.. � i� �i _ �--�� - "�.. �°!-� , M'� � ; �. �,.:�,�;� �� .�:;�:; �� ,;�� . ■ L� i� �� z� FIGURE 1.0-9 24 ENLARGED SECTION A-A AT EXISTING HOUSING, SENIOR HOUSING, TOWN SQUARE, AND RETAIL J� U� H� 0' 10' 20' 40' � I 1 ?j GARAGE 1 � � OFFICE � PLAZA � OFFICE � � LIYL/"�I\VLV VLV 1 Iv�� /"�-/"� !�� v/��v` � r��v v� ��v� 0' 10' 20' 40' RETAIL SHOPS I ZI J I UI QI � � �. � TOP OF � +22�-0• � ` I �,., � RETAIL SHOPS LEVEL 1 � � ENLARGED SECTION B-B AT RETAIL SHOPS 0' 10' 20' 40' HOTEL ROOF + HOTEL LEVELS +48'-0' HOTEL LEVEL4 +3T� HOTEL LEVEL3 + HOTEL LEVEL2 +5 :r., HOTEL � �,�� , ROOF +q8'-0' LEVEL 3 +3r-0• LEVEL 2 +18'-0' :t., � LEVEL t 0'-0' W� Z, _� �� I OFFICE OVER GARAGE OFFICE � OFFICE � OFFICE OFFICE � OFFICE � OFFICE GARAGE G � ENLARGED SECTION B-B AT RETAIL SHOPS, HOTEL, AND OFFICE OVER GARAGE 0' 10' 20' 40' ar•. �� ; _ T �� - _ �. - _ , , - . � � . _ ..._.... � 1 °� _ , , . . : _ :� �' ■ �; �+�;;�_;; umm� ��uum � = � ��i�� 1` ■ - — �� —�� i��r Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES 8� PARTNERS, INC, 5/13/08. SCHEME 2 - CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION FIGURE 1.0-10 25 TOWN SQUARE I w� z J I U � Q� TOP OF WALL � ( +Zg•_p• t- .. ( ti � � LEVEL t ' s �' '� ( o�-o• I 3 � TOP OF WA�L MAJOR RETAIL RETAIL SHOPS RETAIL SHOPS :r... , —_ _ ` ?' ENLARGED SECTION C-C AT MAJOR RETAIL AND RETAIL SHOPS _� �� I 0' 10' 20' 40' I STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD RETAIL SHOPS � TOWN SQUARE C MAJOR RETAIL I zl x� v� <I II � �' T �� = �., � �' « � � � � . _ . � : . .. .. . � ..._.. I � .� , �� . , , . . r, �!�M/�� j IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII L�� _�_� `� Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES 8� PARTNERS, INC, 5/13/08. SCHEME 2 - CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION MAJOR RETAIL VALLCO PARKWAY EXISTING OFFICE BLDGS c FIGURE 1.0-11 26 - -- — ----- — _... ..__ --- _. __� _- �— . __ _ _ _ _---- --. _ __ _ � --_— �. _ .� wI zl EN�ARGED SECTION C-C AT RETAIL SHOPS AND TOWN SQUARE _' U� r �� 0' 10' 20' 40' I :Section 1.0 -� Prujec! Desrription The primar�� differences between the tw�o development schemes are the area of retail and office uses. and the n�unber of hotel rooms pcoposed_ Both development schemes propose l60 senior housing units and 1.63 acres of private open space that would have an easement allowin� public use and access. [n addition, both development schemes allo�v buildings of up to five stories in height (up to 60 feet tall). The project (wlder either scheme) proposes to include design features outlined in the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating s��ste�� to be [,EED certified. The landscape design and green building featuces the project proposes include the following: Landscape Sustainable Design Pro�ram • Landscape materials shall utilize a variet}' of recycled materials in the selection of pavement matecials, site furnishings, and landscape soil amendments. • Storm�ater management methods. including biofilitration areas and permeable pavements, shall be used to clean �vater before being released into the enviconment. • T'he planting design and irrigation system shall incorpocate drought tolerant plant materials and high efticiency irribation systems to minimize water use. • Landscape lighting shall utilize hi�h efficiency light fixtures which include dark sky technology to reduce glare, spillover of light onto adjacent properties, and up lighting of the atmosphere. Green Buildin� Principa(s • Buildings shall be designed to take advantage of renewable resources through features using passive and active solar and features such as green roofs. The buildings shall focus on passive solar design �naterials �vith high thermal mass that retains heat effectivel}�, and strong insulation that prevents heat escape. • The project is designed with "walkable'' city blocks with retail activity on the streets and conilections between the proposed project and the existing neighborhood (e.g., Metropolitan development). • The project shall incorporate a variety of recycled materials in the selections of concrete, insulation, gypsum board, certified wood, coofing pcoducts, paints, and finishes. • Low-emitting adhesives, sealants, carpets, and composite wood products shall be used. • Building lighting shal( be energy efficient and environmentally controlled. Utilities shall be designed in central structures promoting control of heating and cooling systems. • Exterior site lighting for buildings, streets, and site circulation areas shall utilize high efficiency light fixtures which include dark sky technology to reduce glare, spill light, and up lighting of tlle atmosphere. • The project shall promote recycling, green interior design and furnishing. The main components of each scheme, including retail, office, hotel, senior housing, and open space development, are discussed below. 1.3.1 Retail Development (Not Including Athletic Club) Schen�e 1 proposes up to 150,000 square feet of retail uses (not including the athletic club). Scheme 2 proposes up to 146,500 square feet of retail uses. As shown in the conceptual site plans for both schemes, the proposed retail uses would be grouped into several buildings ranging from 5,000 to 40,000 square feet in size (see retail shop and major tenant buildings on Figures 1.0-4 and 1.0-8). The retail uses in both schemes would be located in City of Cupertino 27 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 S�clioii 1.0 —� Prc�j��•! Dcscriptror� stand-alone, one-story buildings or on the ground floor of four-story buildings (�� ith housing. oftice uses, or parking on the upper three floors). In both schemes, the retail buildings would benerally front Stevens Creek Boule��acd. Finch Avenue, and Vallco Park�vay. The retail uses would be situated around landscaped plazas and a central gathering acea (town square) in both schemes. 1.3.2 Athietic Club (Scheme 1 only) Schenrc 1 includes a three-story, 145,000 square foot athletic club. The proposed athletic club would include an outdoor pool and activity area east of the club buildinb. As shown in Figure 1.0-4. the athletic club would be located on the eastern portion of the site with frontage on Vallco Parkwa}�. Tantau Avenue, and Stevens Creek Boulevai The project proposes to limit tlle nuinber of club membecships at this athletic club to 9,000 individual members. No athletic club is proposed in Sche�ne 2. 1.3.3 Office Develonment Schen�e 1 proposes up to I 00,000 square feet of office development o�� the project site. For Scheme 1, the oftice development would be located in a four-story building with retail uses on the ground floor and office uses on the upper three floors (see Figures I.0-4 and l.0-8). The office/retail building ��ould be located in the central area of the project site, generally fronting Finch Avenue. Scherne ? proposes up to 205,000 square feet of office development on the project site. [n Scheme ?, the office development would be located in two three-story buildings located above one level of below-ground parking (see Figures 1.0-7 and 1.0-8). The office buildings in Scheme 2 would be located in the eastern portion of the pcoject site fronting Vallco Parkway, Tantau Avenue, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. 1.3.4 Hotel Scheme 1 includes a three-story hotel with 150 rooms (see Figure 1.0-4). Scheme 2 includes a five- story hotel with 250 rooms (see Figure 1.0-8). In both schemes, the hotel would front Stevens Creek Boulevard. 1.3.5 Senior Housing Both schemes include 160 senior housing units. As shown on Figures 1.0-4 and 1.0-8, the senior housing units would be located in a four-story building located on top of a two-level, below-ground parking structure in the western portion of the site. The ground floor would consist of senior housing units, a(andscaped plaza, and retail uses. The upper three floors of the building would consist only of senior housing units. The senior housing would front a proposed central landscaped courtyard under both schemes. The units would average approximately 600 square feet each, with one or two bedrooms. City of Cupertino 28 Draft ElR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectioil 1.0 — Project De_rcrrptio�t 1.3.6 Onen Snace ��ith a Public Easement (Town Square and Parks) Scheme 1 and Sc�heme ? include I.63 acres of open space that would have an easement allo� in� public use and access. This open space would include a 0.88-acre area for a'`town square" at the end of Finch Avenue and a 0.75-acre park located at the southwest corner of the project site, fronting Stevens Cceek Boulevard. T�he town square would be an open area used for community �7atheriny7s w�ith a focal point such as a fountain. [n both schemes. the open space is intended to be loeal serving and utilized by the proposed project and surrounding neighborhood. The specific design and uses within the open space (to�tin square and park) are unknown at this time and will be reviewed and determined by the City Council prior to ftnal occupancy release of the project. For this reason, the open space design and uses are not analyzed in this EIR. It is anticipated that passive quasi-public uses �vould be proposed in the park and town square and would not require additional environmental review. In the event more intense or active uses are proposed, appropriate environmental review would be completed as applicable. 1.3.7 Plazas and Landscaping Both schemes also include landscaped plazas on the north side of the hotel and near the proposed retail uses. The proposed landscaping for both schemes includes trees and vines, as shown on the conceptual landscape plans (Figures 1.0-12 and 1.0-13). As shown on Figures 1.0-12 and 1.0-13, the project (under either scheme) proposes to plant two field grown oak trees on the project site at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue. 1.3.8 Roadwav Imnrovements 1.3.8.1 Public Sti•eet Improvements 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. In addition, the project (under both schemes) proposes to add parallel parking spaces on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard along the project site frontage (see Figures 1.0-4 and 1.0-8). In both schemes, the existing landscape median in the north segment of Finch Avenue would be removed and angled parking spaces would be added. 1.3.8.2 Public Street Abandonment and Private Street Improvements In both schemes, the middle segment of Finch Avenue would be abandoned as a public street and maintained as a part of the deve(opment. This segment would be replaced with a 0.88-acre town square bordered by driveways and parking (see Figures 1.0-4 and 1.0-8). As a result, vehicles traveling on Finch Avenue would be circulated around the proposed town square on a private driveway with public access. Both schemes also include a new private drive parallel to and west of Tantau Avenue. The private drive would connect Vallco Parkway and Stevens Creek Boulevard. ' A field grown trees refers to a tree that is fully mature. City of Cupertino 29 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 W O ;i ; , � ; , Fut>r,e tvtixed use : � ( � ( _ ; � _ ._ _.. ..__.; ! �� ! _ � , . i.��'. � _� , < � � 11:. ' i .;I 1 � o , , Y k 3 V Servtcc Walk with Bamboo Grove � $Tc'VENS CReEK '�sn �crce, �.ees �n uwn .,...�•. p . (` „s ,�: [ . �� ...... ... ..... ndivid�i.il Heta I'r daas......... . ........ ....,... ..... , ...,. ,,..._ . . .. .. ,,,,,,._...._.,_.__ .. ................_.. ,._.�_. ... . kx tt'.� 4:�il�i 41irEi �PMi.�t I etii� t . _.._...,,. SCHEME 1- CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ---- Pedestrian Cireulation to Town Syuare Outdoor Eetiny Plazas Ezisting Ash Street Trees to Remain Existiny AilS Treet ii5 Lawn , _.__ . ..._ . � � , � .__... _, � J VJ�nd:nvGur�7er.c..........: t:xncir.<;GirsS:n;�...:' w � Z W � '4 � Q L Z a � M V Y6' EO' 100' 770' ]OD' � I I I I I Source: KENNETH ROD RIGUES & PARTNERS, INC, 3/13/08. FIGURE 1.0-12 W i � .r =� i ,� t � � L 0 Fr�:t�'�n:� Gsh $rrtt�t Tr;•�s �:n I:�+:n .. . � SCHEME 2- CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ( � \..,� � �,.�.., --- ;-- Pedestrian Circulaciun to Town Square �1 � � V�nes on Buiiding Wall ; ,, , ,?' ^ ,` , , � > __. Outdoor Eating Plazas 'Fr�r _ ; r:.. a� .' . � ;- Existing Ash Street to Remain ,_.. Existir.y qsh 7rees in i.awn , � . . __..� , , .._. \ _.., .._ .._�. ' .., � _`.... M � I I I ' I ' I I Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES 8 PARTNERS, INC, 3/13/O8. FIGURE 1.0-13 Seclion 1.0 — Proj�ct De.sc��i/�tion 1.3.9 Site Access A site access map for Scheme 1 showing pedestrian and vehicular circulation is provided on Fi�Ture 1.0-14. The pci�nar�� site access points would be similar under Schei��e 2. [n both schemes. pedestrian access th�•ough the project site would be provided on sidewalks and paths. Vehicular access to the project site in both schemes would be provided from two driveways on Stevens Creek Boulevard, two drive�ti�ay�s on Finch Avenue, and two dri�e�ways on Vallco Parkway. The dri�ewa��s lead to surface parking lots, parking garages, and drop-off aceas. 1.3.10 Parkin� For Scheme 1, parking for the pi•oposed uses (including the cetail, offiice, l�otel, athletic club, and senior housing) would be provided in surface parking lots, in a five-level parking garage. and in one two-level belo��- ground parking garage. Under Scheme 1, a total of 1,520 on-site parking spaces are proposed (260 spaces in surtace parking lots and 1,260 spaces in parking garages). Of the I,�?0 parking spaces. 8�3 ��ould be shared between the office, hotel. and athletic club uses. A total of l38 on-street parking spaces are also proposed on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Finch Avenue, and Vallco Parkwa��. Overall. Sc '{1L'11Te 1 includes 1,658 on-site and on-street parking spaces. For Scheme ?, 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 Va(lco Parkway. Under Schenre 2. a total of 1,830 on-site parking spaces are proposed (260 spaces in surface packing lots and I,570 spaces in parking garages). A total of 133 on-street parking spaces are pcoposed on Stevens Creek Bouievard. Finch Avenue, and Vallco Parkway. Overall, Scheme 2 includes 1,963 on- site and on-street parking spaces. 1.3.11 Uti(itv Improvements For both schemes, the project proposes to connect to existing utility (e.g., water, storm drain, and sewer) lines and install t��o new 24-inch storm drain lines to the existing Calabazas Creek culvert. In addition, the project proposes to complete a sanitary sewer flow test prior to final recordation of the subdivision map. If it is determined that the project would exceed the capacity of the existing sewer lines at or downstream of the site, the project proposes to up-size the sewer lines and connections to provide capacity to serve the project in coordination with the City of Cupertino Department of Public Works and the Cupertino Sanitary District and sewer (ine improvements are anticipated to take place within existing street right-of-ways. 1.3.13 Cut and Fill Scheme 1 requires site grading that would include 27,000 cubic yards of cut and 1 1,000 cubic yards of fi1L Scheme 2 requires site grading that would include 69,000 cubic yards of cut and 11,000 cubic yards of fill. Schen�e 2 requires more cut because it includes more below ground parking. City of Cupertino 32 Draft E1R Main Street Cupertino October 2008 ------�"!�� COVERED—� TRUCKDOCK � RAMP TO PARKING � BELOW I � ( EXISTING I HOUSING PROJECT � I W � W � � , ' _ _ �� J��.. �! �� i r 1 I 1 � �- �y ��*��. P�K 1 1 ' � RETN ' SHOP 1 , 1 , ' SHOPS ,, � , —�� ____ � ,�\\. � u� �\ � \ � � \ � \ \ . � \ � 1 — , 1 w � Z W � Q 7 F a � M � a zs so� ioo� iso� zao• � � � � � � Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES 8� PARTNERS, INC, 7/1/08. LEGEND � � � � � PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION � PRIMARY VEHICULAR CIRCULATION SECONDARY VEHICULAR CIRCULATION � VERTICAL PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION � \ \ OA '�R \ \ � � \�� 1�\ \ ----------� � ` �� - — SCHEME 1- SITE ACCESS FIGURE 1.0-14 Section 1.0 — l'rojec°t Description 1.� PROJECT OB.TECTIVES The project applicant's objectives for the project are to: A. Develop the underutilized 18.7-acce property at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue into an economically viable infi(l, mi�:ed-use project �vith retail uses, office uses, senior housing units, a hotel, and possibly an athletic club; B. Develop high-quality shopping. dining, and commercial area that will be communit� serving while also holding regional appeal;' C. Create a"Main Street�' style experience that is pedestrian oriented; D. Implement Cupertino citywide goals as expressed in the General Plan encoura��ing commercial-oriented development in the South Vallco Park area; y E. Connect well with the adjacent properties; and F. Integrate useable open space into the project. 1.� USES OF THE EIR This E[R will provide decision makers in the City of Cupertino and the general public with relevant environmental information to use in considering the proposed project. lt is proposed that this EIR be used for appropriate project-specific discretionary approvals necessary to implement the project, as proposed. These discretionary actions include the following: City of Cupertino • Use permit • Architectural and site approval • Tentative map approval • Environmental review ' According to the applicant, a commercial development with "regional appeal" is one that has destination stores and/or restaurants. It is envisioned that the "major retail" building proposed at the northwest corner of the project site in either scheme (see Eigures I.0-4 and 1.0-8) could be occupied by a retail tenant with `'regional appeaL" City� of Cupertino 34 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 SECTION 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION Impact Numbering System Each impact is numbered using an alpha-numerical systein that identifies the environmental issue. The letter codes used to identify environmental issues are sho�vn below. For example, Impact TRAN — 1 denotes the first impact in the transportation section. Mitigation and avoidance measures and conc(usions are also numbered to correspond to the impacts they address. For example. MM AIR — 2.3 refers to the third mitigation measure for the second impact in the air quality section and AM AIR — 1.2 refers to the second avoidance measure foc the first impact in the air quality section. Letter Codes of Environmental Issues Letter Code Environmental Issue TRAN Trans ortation AIR Air Qualit GCC Global Climate Change GRO Growth-Inducin C Cumulative 4 For the purposes of this EIR, avoidance measures are measures that wou(d further reduce already less than significant impacts. City of Cupertino 35 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Seciivfl Z.0 — E�n•iror�me�nal Setting, Impncts, and �llrtigatiof� 2.1 TRANSPORTATION The followin� discussion is based on a transportation impact ana(ysis by Fehr & Peers Ti•ansportatioj� Consultants in September 200$. A copy of this report is included in Appendix C of � this EIR. 2.1.1 Se tting 2.1. L 1 Existing Conditions Roadway l�ietwork The project site location and surrounding roadway network are described below and shown in Figure 2.0-1. Regional Access Interstate 280 (I-280) is a north-south, six-lane freeway with an additional one lane in each direction designated as a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. HOV lanes, also known as carpool lanes, are restricted for use by vehicles occupied by two or more persons or motorcycles, as wel( as select a(ternative fuel vehicles, between 5:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 3:00 PM and 7:00 PM. The freeway extends from San Francisco in the north to San Jose in the south. In the vicinity of the site, I-280 runs in a northwest to southeast direction and is located north of the site. Lawrence ExpresswaX is a limited-access facility' operated by Santa Clara County. It is a six-lane facility south of I-280. North of I-280, Lawrence Expressway is an eight-lane facility with the right- most lane in each direction restricted to HOVs during the commute hours. Access to Lawrence Expressway from the site is provided by a grade-separated interchange at Stevens Creek Boulevard and by intersections with Pruneridge Avenue, Homestead Road, and Bollinger Road. Stevens Creek Boulevard is a six-lane, east-west divided arterial forming the southern boundary of the project site. lt extends from the western boundary of the City of Cupertino into the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara. Wolfe Road is a four-to-six-lane, north-south arteria( located west of the project site. It extends between the City of Sunnyvale in the north and the City of Saratoga in the south. South of Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road is designated Miller Avenue. Homestead Road is a four-(ane, east-west arterial north of the project site. It extends east from the City of Cupertino through the Cities of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. 5 A limited-access facility is a roadway with a limited number of access points. City of Cupertino 36 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 W J Source: Fehr & Peers, 9/2008. EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK AND STUDY INTERSECTIONS FIGURE 2.0-1 Sectia� ?.0 — Ern•ironmer�tal Settr��g, friapacts, n��d .1�rtigcrtioj�� Local Access Tantau Avenue is a four-lane, nocth-south collector roadwa�� located east of the project site. Tantau Avenue extends from Homestead Road in the north to Bollinger Road in the south. Southbound through movements are restcicted at the intersection of Tantau Avenue at Stevens Creek Boulevard. North of Homestead Road in the City of Sunnyvale, "Cantau Avenue is designated Quail Av enue. Vallco Parkwav is a six-lane, local roadway that connects V4'olfe Road in the west to Tantau Avenue in the east and forms the northern boundary of the project site. Finch Avenue is a tw�o-lane, north-south local roadway extending south from Vallco Park«�ay towards Phil Lane. Finch Avenue extends through the proposed pcoject site from Vallco Park�aay to Stevens Creek Boulevard. Northbound and southbound through movements are restricted at the intersection ofi Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Perimeter Road is a two-lane roadway connecting Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road, and Vallco Parkway. The roadway provides access to the Cupertino Square Mall parking lots on the w°est and north sides of the mall, as well as the office building located east and west of the intersection of Perimeter Road and Vallco Parkway. Perimeter Road runs beneath Wolfe Road and access between the two roadways is provided by right-turn only driveways on both the northbound and southbound sides of Wo(fe Road. Prunerid�e Avenue is a four-(ane, east-west minor collector roadway located north of the project site. Pruneridge Avenue extends east from Wolfe Road into the City of Santa Clara. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities In the project vicinity, pedestrian facilities include sidewalks and pedestrian signals at signa(ized intersections, as well as pedestrian right-of-ways. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site. Sidewalks are also present along the north side of Vallco Parkway and along the east side of Tantau Avenue. No sidewalks are present on Vallco Parkway and Tantau Avenue along the project site's frontage. All of the signalized intersections in the area are equipped with pedestrian signals. Eigure 2.0-2 shows the existing pedestrian facilities located in the project site area. Bicycle facilities in the site vicinity include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes (see Figure 2.0- 3).� Bike lanes are provided along Vallco Parkway, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road, and Tantau Avenue. 6 Bike paths (Class 1 facilities) are pathways, separate from roadways that are designated for use by bic�cles. Often, these pathways also allow pedestrian access. Bike lanes (Class 2 facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class 3) are existing right-of- ways that acco►nmodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes. Routes are typically designated only with signs. City of Cupertino 38 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 /,� ��1 � � � � � 0 � C Vallco Pkwy. � � �__ �. `m a� E .� a� a �, >_; ,_ C � .. �� r �:,� :: �, i ± �7 tJ � O � � � � Q � � U a � • = v Stevens Creek Blvd. � o � �-- � : ,__.,: ,. _ :.: � � _ .., � LEGEND: _ = Project Site 4.= �-..�-��-� = ,; = Sidewalk � = Crosswalk • • • • • • = Pedestrian Right of Way/Path � = Traffic Signal N NOT TO SCALE Source: Fehr & Peers, 6/2008. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES FIGURE 2.0-2 39 Source: Fehr 8� Peers, 6/2008. EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES FIGURE 2.0-3 Secti��n '.0 — Em�ironmental Se�ling. lmpacts. and A1i�igation Transit Scrvice The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates bus service in Santa Clara County. Figure 2.0-4 shows the existing transit facilities near the project site. Route 2� is a local bus route that provides service between East San Jose and the De Anza College ��ia Stevens Creek Boulevard near the site. The hours of operation are trom 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM �vith 12- to 30- minute head��a}�s on �Leekdays. On �-eekends, this route operates on I �- to 30- minute headways between 6:00 AM and I:00 AM. Route 26 is a local bus route that provides service between East San .lose a��d the Sunnyvale Lockheed Martin lightrail (LRT) Station. Weekday hours of operation are from �:00 AM to 1 1:00 PM with l�- to 30-minute headways. Weekend operations are pro��ided oil 30-�rinute headways between 6:30 AM and 10:00 PM. This route operates on Wolfe Road west of the site. Route 81 is a local bus route between San Jose State University and Cupertino Square. The hours of operation are 5:30 AM to 9:30 PM on weekdays with 30- to 60-minute headways. This route operates on 60-minute head��ays between 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM on Saturdays and Sunday�s. Route 81 operates on Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue, and Tantau Avenue near the project site. Route 101 is an express bus route bettiveen the Park-and-Ride lot at Camden Avenue/State Route 85 and Palo A(to. This route operates northbound between 6:00 AM and 7:30 AM, and southbound between 4:30 PM and 5:30 PM with 30-minute headways with two trips each direction daily. This route does not operate on weekends. Route 101 operates on Wolfe Road and I-280 near the project site. Route 182 is an express bus route between Palo Alto and the IBM facility on Bailey Avenue. This route operates two southbound buses between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM, and two northbound buses between 4:30 PM and 5:00 PM with 30- to 40-minute headways. This route does not operate on weekends. Route 182 operates on Vallco Parkway, Wolfe Road, and I-280 near the project site. Caltrans Vallco Area Shuttle is a limited service commuter shuttle operating between the Lawrence Caltrain station and the Vallco area offices during the peak commute hours. The shuttle serves primarily Agilent, Hewlett-Packard, and Kaiser Permanente employees; however, any Caltrain ticket- holder may ride this shuttle without additional cost. The bus stop and Park-and-Ride lot located on Vallco Parkway at Perimeter Road also serve as stops for several commuter shuttles operated by private companies.' Intersection Level of Service Methodology Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, as the best operating conditions, to LOS F, the worst operating conditions. LOS E represents "at-capacity'' operations. When volutnes exceed capacity, stop-and-go conditions result, and operations are designated as LOS F. ' No information was collected about the frequency or operators of these shuttles; however, they were noted during field observations. City of Cupertino 41 Drafr E[R Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Source: Fehr 8� Peers, 6/2008. EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES FIGURE 2.0-4 Sectio�� ?.Q — Environmental Settin�. lmpacts. und _11i�r�alioi7 Srgnalized Intersections The level of service methodology approved by the City of Cupertino and the VTA analyzes a signalized intersection's operation based on average control vehicular delay calcu(ated usin� the method described in Chapter I 6 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect conditions in Santa Clara County. Control dela}� includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay�. The avera�e control delay for signalized intersections is calculated using TRAFFIX analysis softwace and is � correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 2.0- l. Table 2.0-1 Signatized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Usin Avera e Control Vehicular Dela Level Average of Description Control Delay Service �er Vehicle seconds A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorab(e < 10.0 ro ression and/or short c cle len ths B+ Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or 10. I to 12.0 B short cycle lengths. 12.1 to 18.0 B- 18.1 to 20.0 C+ Operations with average delays resu(ting from fair progression 20.1 to 23.0 C and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to 23.1 to 32.0 C- a ear. 32.1 to 35.0 D+ Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable 35.1 to 39.0 D progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many 39.1 to 51.0 D- vehicles sto and individual c cle failures are noticeable. 51.1 to 5�.0 E+ Operations with high delay valued indicating poor progression, 55.1 to 60.0 E long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures 60.1 to 75.0 E- are fre uent occurrences. 75.1 to 80.0 F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due > 80.0 to over-saturation, oor ro ression, or ver lon c cle len hs. Source: VTA's CMP Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, June 2003, and Transportation Research Board, Hi hwa Ca acit Manual, 2000. The levei of service standard (i.e., minimum acceptable operations) for all of the signalized study intersections in the City of Cupertino is LOS D except at two locations. According to the City's General Plan, the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard and the De Anza Boulevard/ Bollinger Road intersections must maintain LOS E+ operations (with no more than 55 seconds weighted average control delay). The same operations methodology is used by the VTA to analyze traffic impacts for Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities. The level of service standard for CMP-designated intersections is LOS E. City of Cupertino 43 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectinn ?.0 — Emvronn�ental.Setti�rg. Intpaets, and .1-Iitigation The City of Santa Clara level of service standard is LOS D for (ocal signalized intersections and LOS E for designated CMP intersections. Four of the study intersections are located in the Cit�� of Santa Clara: Homestead Road and La��rence Expressway, Stevens Crzek Boulevard and 1-280 southbound ramps, Stevens Creek Boulevard and La�vrence Expressway (�vest), and Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lawrence Expresswa}- (east). The City� of San Jose has a level of service standard of LOS D for local signalized intersections. Three study intersections are located within the City of San .lose: Lawrence Expressway and Moorpark Avenue-Bollinger Road, Lawrence Expressway and Cal�-ert Drive-I-280 southbound ramps, and Bollinger Road and Blaney Road. These intersections are also designated CMP intersections. The CMP level of service standard is LOS E. Unsignalized Inter-section.s � Operations of the unsignalized study intersection of Val(co Parkway and Finch Avenue were eva(uated using the methodology contained in the 2000 HCM. LOS ratings for stop-sign controlled intersections are based on the average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. At two-way or side street controlled intersections (such as Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue), the control delay is calcu(ated for each movement, not for the intersection as a whole. Table 2.0-2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. LOS E is the minimum acceptable level of service for unsigna(ized intersections. Table 2.0-2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Usin Avera e Control Dela Level of Average Control Service Description Delay �er Vehicle Seconds A Little or no de(a < 10.0 B Short traffic delays LO.I to 15.0 C Avera e traffic dela s I5.1 to 25.0 D Lon traffic dela s 25.1 to 35.0 E Ver lon traffic defa s 35.1 to 50.0 � F Extreme traffic dela s with intersection ca acit exceeded >50.0 Source: Highwa Ca acit Manual, Trans ortation Research Board, 2000. Freeway Segments Freeway segments are evaluated using VTA's analysis procedure, which is based on the density of the traffic flow using methods described in the 2000 HCM. Density is expressed in passenger cars per mile per lane. The CMP range of densities for freeway segment level of service is shown in Table 2.0-3. The LOS standard for the freeway segments is LOS E. City of Cupertino 44 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section ?.0 — Enrrru��1enlal Setti��g, lmpucls, and �/itigcrtio�� Table 2.0-3 Freewa • Se ment Level of Service Definitions Level of Densitv Service ( assen rer cars er mile er lane) A <Il B I l.l to 18.0 C 18.1 to 26.0 D 26.1 to �6.0 E 46. l to 58.0 F >58.0 Source: Traffrc Level ofServrce.-lnaltsis Guidelrnes, VTA Congestion Management Program, June 2003; High��a�� Capacit}� tilam�al, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Existing Levels of Service Existing lane configurations and peak-hour turning movement volumes were used to calculate the existing levels of service for the key intersections during each peak hour. The results of the LOS analysis for Existing Conditions are presented in Table 2.0-4. The results of the LOS calculations indicate that al( study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. Existing Freeway Segment Levels of Service Freeway segment densities reported by VTA were used to calculate the LOS for the study freeway segments during the peak hours. The results of the LOS analysis show that the following freeway segments operate at unacceptable leve(s of service under existing conditions (see Table 2.0-5): • I-280 Eastbound, De Anza Boulevard to [-880 (five segments, PM peak hour); • I-280 Westbound, I-880 to Winchester (one segment, PM peak hour); • I-280 Westbound, I-880 to Wolfe Road (four segments, AM peak hour); • I-280 Westbound, De Anza Bou(evard to SR 85 (one segment, AM peak hour); and • I-280 Westbound HOV, I-880 to Winchester Boulevard (AM peak hour). City of Cupertino 45 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectior� 2.0 - Em•irof�meiNcxl Setting, h�tpacts, ar�d ��itigatroy� Table 2.0-�t Existin and Bac around Intersection Levels of Service Peak Existing Background Intersection Conditions Conditions Hour Delay� LOS Delay� LOS' ' 1. Wolfe Road and Homestead Road AM 27.4 C 27.5 C PM 31.5 C 35.1 D+ 2. Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue AM 23.2 C 229 C+ PM 26.1 C 26.4 C 3. Homestead Road and La�vrence AM 5�.1 E+ Ex resswa ' PM 70.7 E 4. Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue AM 21.2 C+ 20.6 B- PM 38.� D+ 38.8 D+ 5. Pruneridge Avenue and Tantau AM 22.3 C+ 22.3 C+ Avenue PM 21.9 C+ 21.9 C+ � 6. Wolfe Road and I-280 northbound AM 14.� B 15.2 B ram s PM 11.6 B+ 13.9 B 7. Wolfe Road and 1-280 southbound AM 14.0 B 14.0 B ram s' PM 8.8 A 9.4 A 8. Wolfe Road and Vatico Packway AM 14. l B 20.4 C+ PM 25.3 C 53.1 D- 9. Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue� AM 10.5 B 11.0 B PM 10.5 B 12.2 B 10. Vallco Parkway and Tantau Avenue AM 17.3 B 18.1 B- PM 1 �.7 B 20.2 B- 1 l. Stevens Creek Boulevard and De AM 309 C 31.7 C Anza Boulevard'' PM 41.2 D 44.9 D 12. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney AM 289 C 29.0 C Avenue PM 29.6 C 29.9 C 13. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal AM 14.8 B 14.3 B Avenue PM 14.2 B 13.2 B 14. Stevens Creek Boulevard and AM 9.6 A 10.0 A Perimeter Road PM 14.1 B 17.4 B- 15. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe AM 38.1 D+ 38.7 D Road-Mitlar Avenue' PM 37.1 D+ 40.1 D 16. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch AM 38.0 D+ 37.6 D Avenue PM 28.2 C 27.0 C 17. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau AM 22.8 C+ 23.0 C+ Avenue PM 23.5 C 25.0 C 18. Stevens Creek Boulevard and I-280 AM 25.8 C 28.5 C ramps PM 39.5 D 55.2 E+ 19. Stevens Creek Boulevard and AM 23.2 C 23.1 C+ Lawrence Ex resswa (west)' PM 30.6 C 32.4 C- 20. Stevens Creek Boulevard and AM 35.4 D+ 37.9 D+ Lawrence Ex resswa (east)' PM 32.4 C- 33.7 C- 21. Lawrence Expressway and Calvert AM 39.6 D 53.7 D- Drive and I-280 southbound ram s PM 37.6 D+ 54.2 D- City of Cupertino 46 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectio�l ?.0 — Em•ironnrental Setting. Impacls, and A-liugation Table 2.0-4 Existin and Back round Intersection Levels of Ser��ice Peak Existing Background Intersection Hour Conditions Conditions Delay� LOS'` Delav� LOS 22. Bollinger Road and De Anza AM 30.8 C 31.3 C Boulevard' PM 36.2 D+ ;6.9 D+ 23. Bollinger Road and E3lanev Avenue AM 19.9 B- ?0.0 B- PM 21.1 C+ 21.2 C+ 24. Bollinger Road and Millar Avenue AM 33.� C- 33.6 G PM 38.4 D+ ;g.4 p+ 25. Bollinger Road and Tantau Avenue AM 12.7 B 12.6 B PM 16.� B 16.4 B 26. Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue AM 50.4 D � I.S D- and Lawrence Ex ressway' PM �3.� D- �4.7 D- 27. Vallco Parkway and Perimeter Road AM 14.1 B 19.4 B- PM 16.4 B 20.0 B- Notes: All intersections are signalized unless other�vise noted. � Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop intersections usin� methodology described in the 2000 Hi�hway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturated flo�v rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. For two-way stop controlied unsignalized intersections, total control delay for the worst movement, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is presented. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX level of service analysis software package. ' LOS = Level of Service ' Designated CMP intersection 4 Side-Street Stop Control (unsignalized intersection) text indicates unacce tab(e levels of service. City of Cupertino 47 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectzon ?.0 — E��n�ironmenta! Sc�lting, lmpucts. ancl.�9itigution Table 2.0-� Existin Free��ati� Se ment Levels of Service Peak Mixed-Flow HOV Lanes Freeway From To Hour Lanes Densi �' LOS Densi � LOS SR 85 De Anza AM 27 D 10 A Bou(evard PM 32 D 32 D De Anza Wolfe AM 32 D 20 C Boulevard Road PM 32 D Wolfe Lawrence AM 22 C l2 B t-280 Road Expressway PM 33 D (eastbound) Lawrence Saratoga AM 38 D 19 C Expressway Avenue PM 39 D Saratoga Winchester AM 43 D 19 C Avenue Boulevard PM 40 D Winchester AM 27 D 23 C Boulevard � PM 49 E �_ Winchester AM Boulevard PM 20 C Winchester Saratoga AM 48 E Boulevard Avenue PM 55 E 18 B Saratoga Lawrence AM 49 E I-2g� Avenue Expressway PM 29 D 20 C (westbound) Lawrence Wolfe AM 42 D Expresswa}� Road PM 27 D 7 A Wolfe De Anza AM 50 E 43 D Road Boulevard PM 37 D 16 B De Anza SR 85 AM 24 C Boulevard PM 25 C 10 A Notes: �Measured in passenger cars per mile per lane. 'LOS = Level of Service. text identifies unacce table o erations. City of Cupertino 48 Draft E1R Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section ?.0 — En��ironmental Set�i�ig, lnrpucts. and Nfiligation 2.1.1.2 Back�; ��oc[nd Conditions The following discussion describes the background conditions in the project acea. Background conditions are detined as conditions that are reasonably assumed to exist prior to completion of the proposed development, include traffic from previously approved projects, and serve as the basis to identify project impacts. Roadway Improvements No future roadway or intersection improvements are planned; therefore, the roadway network is the same under background conditions as it is under existing conditions. Traffic Estimates Traffic volumes for background conditions were estimated by adding traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed and occupied developments in the project site area to the existing intersection peak-hour volumes. The list of approved projects was obtained from City of Cupertino planning staff and approved projects and trip estimates were also obtained for the cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, and Sunnyvale (refer to Appendix C). Intersection Levels of Service Table 2.0-4 summarizes the intecsection LOS calculations under background conditions. The results show that under background conditions, the following intersection would operate at unacceptable levels of service: • Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road (LOS F, AM and PM peak hours). The remaining study intersections are expected to operate acceptably under background conditions. 2.1.2 Transportation Impacts 21.2.1 Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this EIR, the proposed project wou(d result in a significant transportation impact if the project would: • Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio of roads, or congestion at intersections); • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; � Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment); • Result in inadequate emergency access; • Result in inadequate parking capacity; or • Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). City of Cupertino 49 Draft EiR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectio�� ?.0 — Enni��o��mental Setting, InrE�uct�, ��rn/ lliti;alion Regional Intersections T'he proposed project would result in significant impacts to CMP intersections if the additian of project traffic causes one of the following to occur: • Degradation of the (evel of service at a CMP-monitored intersection operating at (.OS E or better under background conditions to LOS F; or • An increase in the critical movement delay at a CMP-monitored intersection operatiilg at LOS F under background conditions by four (4) or more seconds and an increase in critical V/C ratio by 0.0 ( or more. � Local Signalized Intersections The proposed project would result in a significant impact at a City of Cupertino, City of San Jose, or City of Santa Clara signalized intersection if the addition of project traffic causes one of the fotlowing to occur: • The level of service at a local intersection operating at LOS D or better under back�Jround conditions, deteriorates to LOS E or F under project conditions (with the e�ception of Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard/Bollinger Road which as an LOS standard of E+); • An increase in the critical movement delay at a local intersection operating at LOS E or F under background conditions by four (4) or more seconds and an increase in the critical V/C ratio by O.O l or more; or - • Exacerbation of unacceptable (LOS E or F) at the De Anza Bou(evard/Stevens Creek Boulevard or De Anza Boulevard/Bollinger Road intersection by increasing the average critical delay by four (4) seconds or more and increasing the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more. Unsignalized Intersections The proposed project would result in a significant impact to an unsignalized intersection if the addition of project traffic causes one of the following to occur: • Intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level under background conditions (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS E or worse) and the Federal Highway Administration Manual orr Uniform Traffic Control Deviees (MUTCD) Peak Hour Volume Warrant for a traffic signal is met under project conditions; or • The exacerbation of operations at an unsignalized intersection already operating at an unacceptable level (LOS E or worse) under background conditions and the MUTCD Peak Hour Volume Warrant for a traffic signal is met under project conditions. City of Cupertino 50 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectio�i ?.0 — E�7vii•oivnenta! Setti»g, Impacts, and A9rtigatior� Freeway Segments The proposed project ��ould result in a significant impact to a freeway segment if the addition of project traffic causes one of the follo�� ing to occur: • A segment to drop below iCs acceptable CMP operatin� standard (LOS E); or, • T'he project traffic added to a seginent operating at LOS F is more than one (1) percent of its capacity. Pedestrian Facilities "rhe proposed project wou(d result in a significant impact to pedestrian facilities if the project or an element of the proiect would cause one of the follou ing to occur: � Create a hazardous condition that currently does not exist for pedestrians, or otherwise intecferes with pedestrian accessibility to the site and adjoining areas; • Create substantial increase in demand fior pedestrian facilities where none currently exist or create conditions that would lead to overerowding on existing facilities; • Conflict �vith an existing or planned pedestrian facility; or • Conflict with policies related to pedestrian activity adopted by the City of Cupertino for their respective facilities in the project area. Bicycle Facilities The proposed project would result in a significant impact to bicycle faci(ities if the project or an element of the project would cause one of the following to occur: • Create a hazardous condition that currently does �IOt exist for bicyclists, or otherwise interferes with pedestrian accessibility to the site and adjoining area; • Create substantial increase in demand for bicycle facilities where none currently exist or create conditions that would lead to overcrowding on existing facilities; • Conflict with an existing or planned bicycle facility; or • Conflict with policies related to bicycle activity adopted by the City of Cupertino for their respective facilities in the project area. Transit Facilities The proposed project would result in a significant impact to transit facilities if the project or an element of the project would cause one of the following to occur: • Create a substantial increase in transit demand that could not be accommodated by existing transit capacity, measured by comparing the expected transit capacity with the expected project demand for transit service; • Cause a substantial increase in delay or operating cost to a transit provider; or • Conflict with transit policies adopted by the City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, VTA, or Caltrans for their respective facilities in the project area. City of Cupertino 51 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section _'.0 — E�n•rro��nlentul Sctting. Impacls, ancl .11iti�cuic�n 2.1.2.2 Project Conditions T'his section evaluates traffic under pcoject conditions. Project conditions are detined as existing traffic volumes p(us trips from approved but not yet constructed developments (background conditions), plus traffic generated by the proposed project. Traffic Estimates The amount of traffic added to the roadway system b}� a proposed project is estimated using a tllree- step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. The first step estimates � the amount of added traffic to t11e road�vay network. The second step estimates the direction of travel to and from the project site. The trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements during the tllird step. Ti�ip Generation The amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadway system by the proposed retail, office, senior housing, and hotel were estimated by applying appropriate AM and PM peak hour trip generation rates publislled in Trip Generation (7`� Edition) by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Published trip generation rates for athletic clubs and similar facilities (i.e., �tness/health clubs) are based on a limited number of surveys and do not necessarily give an accurate estimate of traffic generated by facilities of the size of the proposed athletic club facility in project Scheme 1. In the absence of locally-collected data, Fehr & Peers compared various published athletic/health/fitness club trip generation rates with trip generation information provided by Lifetime Fitness Centers (the proposed tenant of the athletic club in Scheme 1). The trip generation rate for the proposed athletic club is based on total club membership of 9,000 individual members. The tcip generation estimates used in this analysis are included in Appendix C of this EIR. Where appropriate, trip reductions for mixed-use projects were applied according to VTA guidelines. The mixed-use reductions for retail/housing and hotel/retail mixed uses were included in these trip estimates. ln addition, a 25 percent reduction for passby trips was applied to the retail use to account for vehicles that are already traveling on the roadways adjacent to the project site. A 15 percent reduction and a 20 percent reduction for passby trips was applied to the trip generation estimates for the athletic club in the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, respectively. These trips are included in the analysis of traffic that enters and exits the project site, but are not considered "new" trips that are added to the street system by the project. Table 2.0-6 provides a summary of the trip generation for each project scheme. City of Cupertino 52 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Table 2.0-6 Trip Generation Rates and Estimates Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Rate Total Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total . Retail/Shopping Center l50 ksf 58.93 8,839 I.33 122 78 200 5.45 393 425 818 VTA Mixed-Use Reduction Hotel-Retail� -97 -3 -4 -7 -4 -5 -�) VTA Mixed-Use Reduction Housing-Retail � -72 -1 - I -2 - I -1 -2 Pass-by Reduction (25%) -2, l 7 I -25 -25 -50 -103 - I 02 -205 Net NeN� Retnil Trip.s 6, =�60 93 =�8 1=/1 2�Y� 317 <U2 Office 100 ksf l 3.34 1,334 1.88 165 23 188 1.91 32 159 I 9 I VTA Major Bus Stop Reduction (2%) -27 -4 0 -4 -1 -3 -4 Net New Office Ti°ips 1, 307 161 23 184 31 1 �6 1�Y7 Senior Housing 160 units 3.48 557 0.08 6 7 13 0. I 1 I 1 7 l 8 VTA Mixed-Use Reduction (13%) Housing-Retail � -72 -1 -1 -2 - l -1 -2 Net New Residenttal Trips• 485 S 6 11 10 6 16 Hotel 150 rooms 6.46 969 0.45 41 27 68 0.59 47 42 89 VTA Mixed-Use Reduction (10%) Hotel-Retail� -97 -4 -3 -7 -5 -4 -9 Net New Hotel Trips 872 37 24 61 �l2 3K <�0 Athletic Club/Lifetime Fitness 9,000 0.64269 5,784 31.21 154 126 281 52.78 27l 204 475 members Pass-by Reduction (20%) -1,157 -20% -28 -28 -56 -20% -48 -47 -95 Net New Athletic Clz�b Trips �, 627 126 98 2?5 � 23 1 � 7 3��'0 TOTAL NET NEW TRIPS FROM SCHEME 1 13,751 423 199 622 591 673 1,264 Table 2.0-6 Trip Generation Rates and Estimates Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Rate Total Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Retail/Shopping Center l46 ksf 59.49 8,685 1.34 120 76 196 5.51 386 4l 8 804 VTA Mixed-Use Reduction Hotel-Retail� -186 -5 -8 - l 3 -7 -8 -( 5 VTA Mixed-Use Reduction Housing-Retail � -72 -1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -2 Pass-by Reduction (25%) -2,171 -25% -25 -24 -49 -25% - l 0 I -100 -201 � Net New Retail Trips 6,256 89 �3 132 277 3119 �n< Office 205 ksf 11.31 2,319 1.62 293 40 333 I.5 52 256 308 VTA Major Bus Stop Reduction (2%) -46 -6 -1 -7 -1 -5 -6 Net New Office Trips 2,273 287 39 326 SI 251 302 Senior Housing 160 units 3.48 557 0.08 6 7 13 0.1 I I 1 7 18 VTA Mixed-Use Reduction (13%) Housing-Retail � -72 -1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -2 Net New Residential Trips 485 5 6 1 1 10 6 16 Hotel 250 rooms 7.46 1,864 0.51 77 50 127 0.5�) 7� 6�) 148 VTA Mixed-Use Reduction (10%) Hotel-Retail' - I 86 -8 -5 - I 3 -8 -7 - I � Net New Hotel Trips 1, 678 6> �l5 114 i U l2 133 TOTAL NET NEW TRIPS FROM SCHEME 2 10,692 450 132 583 408 628 1,036 Notes: ksf = thousand square feet � Trips generated by the larger trip generator may be reduced by the same number of trips reduced for the smaller trip generator (VTA, 1998). `' A major bus stop is defined by VTA as a stop at which six or more buses per hour from the same or different routes stop during the peak period. � Passby reduction taken per Lifetime Fitness Center Trip Generation Study. Section 2.0 — En►�u�onmental Setth�g. Int��ucts, u»cf .Llitigu[ion Ti•rj� Dislribirtion ancl Assignment The directions of approach and departure for proposed project vehicle trips from all other land uses except the athletic club were estimated using the relative locations of complementarv land uses and existing travel patterns in the area. Lifetime Fitness Center provided information about its membership at five existing clubs and supplemented their data with a membership demographic analysis for the expected members of the Cupertino facility. Lifetime Fitness Centers correlated this membership demographic profile with the major routes of approach and departure to the site to develop a trip distribution that is specific to their proposed athletic club. Fehr c� Peers reviewed this infon,nation. The major directions of approach and departure and the trip percenta�e distribution are pcovided in Appendix C of this EIR. The trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure. Project trips were added to background traffic volumes to establish intersection volumes for project conditions for each scheme (refer to Appendix C). Roadway Changes Under project conditio�ls, it is assumed tllat the proposed project would shared a drivewa}� with the adjacent site (tZosebowl) located immediately to the west of this project. [n addition, the project proposes to narrow Vallco Parkway from six-lanes to two-lanes with angled parking on the south side of Vallco Parkway. No on-street parking is proposed on the north side of Vallco Parkway as part of this project. This roadway change is analyzed qualitative(y in below. Site Access The proposed project (under both schemes) provides vehicular access to the site via driveways on Vallco Parkway, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Finch Avenue. [n addition to the access provided at Finch Avenue, the project includes two right-turn only driveways located on Stevens Creek Boulevard and one full-access and pone partial access (no left-turns out) driveways located on Vallco Parkway. Secondary access to the site (under both schemes) is provided by a driveway connecting the project site with adjacent development to the west (Rosebowl). Scheme 2 also has a third (right turn only) driveway (ocated on Vallco Parkway that would provide access to the parking garage located under the office building located on the eastern portion of the site. Additional access to the site is provided by a right-turn only driveway on Vallco Parkway that is shared with the adjacent Rosebowl site. Pedestrian and bicycle access in the project site vicinity are discussed below. Project Intersection Levels of Service Intersection levels of service were calculated with the net traffic added by each of the proposed project schemes to evaluate the operating conditions of the intersections and identify potential impacts to the local roadway system. The results of the intersection level of service calculations for background and project conditions for both schemes are presented in Table 2.0-7. g If this driveway is not open, then project trips assigned to those shared entrances will use other ways to enter the project site. 9 This driveway was assumed to be constructed regardless of construction status at the Rosebowl site. [f the driveway is not constructed prior to or in conjunction with this project, some traffic may redistribute itself to adjacent intersections; however, it will not result in new significant impacts. City of Cupertino 55 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Table 2.0-7 Project Intersection Levels of Service Background Project Scheme 1 Project Sclleme 2 Intersection Peak Change Change Change Change Hour Delay� LOS Delay� LOS in Crit. in Crit. Delay� LOS in Crit. in Crit. V/C Delay V/C Delay`' 1. Wolfe Road and Homestead Road AM 27.5 C 27.6 C 0.002 -0.1 2�.6 C 0.000 -0.1 PM 35.1 D+ 36.4 D+ 0.035 2.6 36.3 D+ 0.030 2.4 2. Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue AM 22.9 C+ 23.4 C 0.011 0.8 23.2 C 0.006 0.6 PM 26.4 C 28.0 C 0.024 1.7 27.6 C 0.017 1.2 3. Homestead Road and Lawrence AM 86.4 F Expressway PM lll.l F � � � 4. Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue AM 20.6 B- 20.4 C+ 0.006 0.0 20.5 C+ U.OU4 0.O PM 38.8 D+ 39.2 D �.021 I.0 39.2 D 0.026 1.2 5. Pruneridge Avenue and Tantau AM 22.3 C+ 22,5 C+ 0.019 0.2 22.5 C+ 0.012 0. I Avenue PM 21.9 C+ 22.5 C+ 0.062 0.6 22.3 C+ 0.055 0.5 6. Wolfe Road and I-280 northbound AM 15.2 B 15.3 B 0.001 0.0 15.3 B -0.001 O.0 ramps PM 13.9 B 14.3 B 0.028 0.6 14.2 B 0.020 0.4 7. Wolfe Road and I-280 southbound AM 14.0 B 14.1 B 0.017 0.2 14.1 B 0.01 1 0. I ramps5 PM 9.4 A 10.3 B+ 0.077 1.4 9.9 A 0.061 0.8 8. Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway AM 20.4 C+ 24.3 C 0.054 5.4 24.5 C 0.057 5.8 P1� 53.1 D- 9. Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue`' AM 1 1.0 B 13.5 B 13.6 B I'M 12.2 B 26.8 D 23.9 C 10. Vallco Parkway and Tantau Avenue AM 18.1 B- 19.6 B- 0.008 1.0 I 8.7 Q- 0.002 -0. I PM 20.2 B- 253 C 0.267 6.3 22.5 C+ 0.200 2.7 JV Table 2.0-7 Project Intersection Levels of Service Background Project Scheme 1 Projert Sc•heme 2 Intersection Pe Change Change Change Change Hour Delay� LOS Delay� LOS in Crit. in Crit. Delay� LOS in Crit. in Crit. V/C Delay� V/C llelay� 11. Stevens Creek Boulevard and De AM 31.7 C 32.2 C- 0.013 0.7 32.1 C- 0.01 1 0.6 Anza Boulevard PM 44.9 D 46.5 D 0.017 2.5 46.1 D 0.01 I 1.6 12. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney AM 29.0 C 29.0 C 0.010 0.2 29.1 C 0.007 0.4 Avenue PM 299 C 30.2 C 0.037 0.9 30.2 C- 0.024 U.7 13. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal AM 14.3 B 13.9 B 0.007 -0.2 14.0 B 0.004 -0.1 Avenue PM 13.2 B 12.8 B 0.025 -0.3 12.9 B 0.015 -0.1 14. Stevens Creek Boulevard and AM 10.0 A 9.8 A 0.003 0.0 9.8 A 0.000 0.0 Perimeter Road PM 17.4 B- 16.9 B 0.024 -0.4 17.0 B 0.015 -0. I 15. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe AM 38.7 D 38.5 D+ 0.009 0.1 38.6 D+ 0.005 0.1 Road-Millar Avenue PM 40.1 D 41.3 D 0.044 1.9 41.2 D 0.039 I.6 16. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch AM 37.6 D 38.4 D+ 0.020 0.1 37.9 D 0.019 -0.2 Avenue PM 27.0 C 38.0 D+ 0.076 7.0 36.0 D+ 0.067 6.� 17. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau AM 23.0 C+ 23.7 C 0.094 I.7 23.8 C+ 0.092 I.9 Avenue PM 25.0 C 29.8 C 0.091 5.5 28.5 C 0.080 �.5 l 8. Stevens Creek Boulevard and I-280 AM 28.5 C 27.� C U.U01 U.2 27.6 C -U.010 -U. ( ramPs PM 55.2 E+ 78.3 E- 0. I 08 �9.7 77.9 E- 0.1 U� 47.� 19. Stevens Creek Boulevard and AM 23.1 C+ 23.8 C 0.040 I.l 23.9 C 0.044 I.2 Lawrence Expressway (west)' pM 32.4 C- 33.5 C- 0.053 2.4 33. I C- 0.034 1.� 20. Stevens Creek Boulevard and AM 37.9 D+ 38.7 D+ 0.024 0.8 38.7 D+ 0.025 0.8 Lawrence Expressway (east) PM 33.7 C- 349 C- 0.043 1.0 34.5 C- 0.029 0.7 � Table 2.0-7 Project Intersection Levels of Service Background Project Sclieme 1 Project Scheme 2 Intersection Peak Change Change Change Change Hour Delay� LOS Delay� LOS in Crit. in Crit. Delay� LOS in Crit. in Crit. V/C Delay� V/C Delay� 21. Lawrence Expressway and Calvert AM 53.7 D- � Drive and I-280 southbound ramps PM 54.2 D- 22. Bollinger Road and De Anza AM 31.3 C 33.6 C- 0.05 I 3.2 33.6 C- 0.049 3.2 Boulevard PM 36.9 D+ 37.3 D+ 0.013 0.5 37.0 D+ 0.006 U.2 23. Bollinger Road and Blaney Avenue AM 20.0 B- 21.0 C+ 0.033 1.5 21.2 C+ 0.038 I.8 PM 21.2 C+ 21.6 C+ 0.016 0.9 21.5 C+ 0.014 0.9 24. Bollinger Road and Millar Avenue AM 33.6 C- 33.9 C- 0.013 0.5 33.9 C- 0.0 I 3 0.5 PM 38.4 D+ 39.3 D 0.019 0.7 38.9 D+ U.018 0.5 25. Bollinger Road and Tantau Avenue AM 12.6 B I 2.8 B O.U00 0.1 12.7 E3 O.OU I U.1 PM 16.4 B 17.2 B 0.004 0.8 17.1 B 0.003 0.6 26. Bol(inger Road-Moorpark Avenue AM 51.5 D- 53.5 D- 0.017 5.0 53.7 D- 0.014 5.9 and Lawrence Expressway PM 54.7 D- ` 54.9 D- 0.007 0.3 27. Vallco Parkway and Perimeter Road AM 19.4 B- 16.2 B -0.006 -2.7 I 6.0 B -0.004 -2.9 PM 20.0 Q- 21.0 C+ 0.003 1.2 20.3 C+ -0.014 0.0 Notes: NA = not applicable � Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop intersections using methodology described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturated flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. For nvo-way stop controlled unsignalized intersections, total control delay for the worst movement, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is presented. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX level of service analysis software package. '` LOS = Level of Service � Change in the critical volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) between background and project conditions. 4 Change in critical movement delay between background and project conditions. A decrease in the critical delay indicates project trips were added to movements with low delays thus causing a decrease in the overall critical delay. 5 Designated CMP intersection. � Unsi nalized intersection. �� Sec�tion '.0 - Em�iror�naenta! Setting. lmpacts. unc1:11itigutioi� The project would have significant level of service impacts at the followin� intersections: [ntersections Peak Hour Scheme 1 Sc•heme 2 3. Homestead Road and Lawrence Expressway — Cit�� of AM X X Santa Clara/CMP intersection PM 8. Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway — City of Cupertino �,M X X intersection 2l. Lawre�ice Expressway and 1-280 Southbound Ramps- AM X X Calvert Drive — Citv of San Jose/CMP intersection PM 26. Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue and La��rence PM X Ex ressway — Cit of San Jose/CMP intersection Note: X= significant project impact. Scheme 1 would have a(ess than significant impact at the other 23 study intersections. Schen�e ? would have a less than significant impact at the other 2=� studv intersections. The unsignalized intersection of Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue would operate acceptabl� under project conditions (either scheme) and therefore, wou(d not meet signal �varrants (refier to Appendix C). Impact TRAN — l: The proposed project (under either scheme) would resu(t in a significant impact at the intersection of Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (PM peak hour). (Significant Impact) Impaet TRAN — 2: The proposed project (under either scheme) would resu(t in a significant impact at the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and I-280 Southboimd Ramps-Calvert Drive (AM and PM peak hours). (Signifieant [mpact) Impact TRAN — 3: The proposed project (under either scheme) would result in a significant intersection level of service impact at Homestead Road and Lawrence Eapressway (AM and PM peak hour). (Significant Impact) Impact TRAN — 4: Scheme 1 of the proposed project wou(d resu(t in a significant intersection level of service impact at Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue and Lawrence Expressway in the PM peak hour. (Significant Impact) Freeway Segment Analysis Project-generated traffic volumes were added to existing 2007 traffic volumes for each freeway mainline segment. These volumes were then used to estimate density for each segment under project conditions. The resulting freeway segment operations are show in Table 2.0-8. Al( traffic associated with the two schemes was assumed to use the mixed-flow lanes on the freeway; therefore, HOV lanes were not analyzed under project conditions. City of Cupertino 59 Draft ElR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Table 2.0-8 Pro'ect-Level Freewa Se ment Levels of Service Peak Existin Pro'ect Scheme 1 Pro'ect Scheme 2 Freeway From To � 2 Added � 2 % Added i 2 `% Hour Density LOS Tri s3 Density LOS Im act Tri s3 Density LOS Im act SR 85 De Anza AM 27 D 59 27 D 0.86 61 27 D 0.88 Boulevard PM 32 D 75 32 D 1.09 45 32 U 0.65 De Anza Wolfe AM 32 D 52 32 D 0.75 55 32 D 0.80 Boulevard Road PM 67 F 66 68 F 0.96 41 68 F U.59 Wolfe Lawrence AM 22 C 3 22 C 0.04 3 22 C' 0.04 I-280 Road Ex resswa PM 76 F 14 76 F 0.20 14 76 }� 0.20 (eastbound) Lawrence Saratoga AM 38 D 30 38 D 0.43 26 38 U 0.38 Expressway Avenue PM 98 F Saratoga Winchester AM 43 D 30 43 D 0.43 22 43 D 0.32 Avenue Boulevard PM 86 F Winchester I _ gg � AM 27 D 26 27 D 0.38 19 27 D 0.28 � Boulevard PM 104 F I-880 Winchester AM 94 F 62 95 F 0.90 , ,., � _ . ,_ . . Boulevard PM 73 F 51 74 F 0.74 Winchester Saratoga AM 65 F ,,, . .t . _. , ,,, . .. . .. . Boulevard Avenue PM 55 E 87 56 E 1.26 60 56 E 0.87 Saratoga Lawrence AM 74 F , ,..... �."; I-280 Avenue Expressway PM 29 D 87 29 D 1.26 70 30 D 1.01 (westbound) Lawrence Wolfe AM 68 F 15 68 F 0.22 23 68 F 0.33 Ex resswa Road PM 27 D 11 27 D 0.16 11 27 D 0.16 Wolfe De Anza AM 50 E 21 50 E 0.35 15 50 E 0.22 Road Boulevard PM 37 D 77 37 D 1.12 74 37 D 1.07 De Anza SR 85 AM 60 F 27 60 F 0.39 16 60 F 0.23 Boulevard PM 25 C 83 25 C 1.20 77 25 C 1.12 Notes: text indicates significant impacts. � Measures in passenger cars per mile per lane. Density is calculated by using the travel speed from the adjacent segment, as well as the volume (tlow) trom the adjacent segment adjusted by the volume entering/exiting the freeway at the interchange. 2 LOS = Level of service; 3 Pro'ect tri s added durin the eak hour. Scc�tior� '.O — E�n•ira�mtr�tu! Settin�. /nr�crcts, and ;l/itrgution The project would significantly impact the following free��ay segments: I-280 Eastbound Se ments Peak Hour Sclreme 1 Sc%eme 2 • Lawrence Expressway/Saratoga Avenue PM X X • Saratoga Avenue/Winchester Boulevard PM X X • Winchester Boulevard/t-880 PM X X I-280 Westbound Se ments • I-880/Winchester Boulevard AM X • I-880/Winchester Boulevard PM X • Winchester Boulevard/Sacatoga Avenue AM X X • Saratoga Avenue/Lawrence Expressway AM X X Note: X= significant project impact. Impaet TRAN — 5: Implementation of Sche�ne 1 would significantly impact seven segments on I- 280 and implementation of Scheme Z would significantly impact six segments on I-280 during one of the peak hours. (Significant Impact) Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Impacts Currently, no sidewalks are present on Vallco Parkway or Tantau Avenue along the project site frontage. In addition, there are no sidewalks on the west side of Tantau Avenue north of Val(co Parkway including on the bridge over I-280. The project would likely create pedestrian demand on Tantau Avenue north of Va(Ico Parkway. As shown on the conceptual site plans for both schemes, the project proposes to provide sidewalks on Val(co Park«�ay and Tantau Avenue along the project site frontage. The project also includes sidewalks on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue along the site frontage, and along the proposed town square to facilitate pedestrian circulation (refer to Figure 1.0-15). Currently, crosswaiks between the two sides of Vallco Parkway are located at Wolfe Road, Perimeter Road, and Tantau Avenue. As part of this project, the City is requiring the project applicant to provide pedestrian crosswalk improvements at Finch Avenue and at the project's eastern driveway located in front of the proposed athletic club in Scheme 1 and adjacent to the 205,000 square foot office building in Scheme 2. These crossing locations would provide additional pedestrian crossing for people traveling along Vallco Parkway. The final crosswalk improvement plan will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. Bicycle lanes are provided on Valico Parkway, as well as on other roadways near the project site. The existing bicycle facilities can reasonably accommodate the increased demand; however, the applicant's proposed on-street parking along Vallco Parkway would result in the removal of the existing bike lane. The bike lane on Vallco Parkway provides connection between existing industrial and commercial uses located on Tantau Avenue, Vallco Parkway, and Wolfe Road. This is considered a significant impact of narrowing Vallco Parkway. Impact TRAN — 6: The proposed project (under either scheme) would result in the removal of the existing bike lane on Vallco Parkway along the site frontage. (Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 6 l Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectio�� ?.0 — Er�ti•n�onrne��tcrl Settin�. l�rrpacts, ar�d A�litigutio�� Transit [mpacts The local buses (routes 23. 81, 101. and l82) have capacity for 38 passengers on each bus and the average passenger load on these buses in the project vicinity is between three to 16 passengers. VTA ��uidelines allow up to a two percent reduction if vehicle trips generated by projects with eertain land uses that are located within 2.000 fieet of a major bus stops. Using this methodo(ogy, up to seven peak-hour otitice trips could be made on bus routes serving the area. Based on the average passenger loads of buses that serve the site, it is anticipated that the local buses can accommodate the project- �enerated transit trips (refer to Appendix C). Currently, the Caltrans commuter shuttle uses Finch Avenue as a turn-back along its route. The project (under both schemes) pi•oposes to reconfigure Finch Avenue. The Caltrans commuter shuttle may need to be re-routed as a result. The City and applicant should coocdinate with Caltrans to determine the appropriate change in route. lt should be noted that the route could easily be re-routed to Wo(fe Road or Tantau Avenue. This is not considered a significant impact. The project proposes to narrow Va(Ico Park«ay and add angled parking on the south side of the street. This could impact the e�:isting bust stop at Vallco Parkway and Perimeter Road. Impact TRAN — 7: The proposed narro�� ing of Vallco Parkway and the addition of the on-street parki�lg �ould impact the existing bus stop at Vallco Parkway and Perimeter Road. (Significant Im�act) Parking Suppty Uehica�lar Parking tn Scheme 1, the project propases 1,520 on-site parking spaces, including 260 surface lot spaces and 1,260 garage parking spaces. Most of the on-site parking spaces ((,( 00) would be located within a five-story parking structure in the north-central area of the site. The senior llousing building would include a below-grade garage with 160 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 a(ong the project site frontage (94 spaces) and parallel parking spaces on tlie north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard along the site frontage (44 spaces). The total parking supply for Scheme 1 would be 1,658 parking spaces (on-site and on-street) for Scheme 1. In Schenze 2, the project proposes 1,830 on-site parking spaces. Most of the on-site parking spaces (1,120) would be located within 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 290 spaces; a third structure under the senior housing building would have 160 spaces. The remaining on-site parking spaces (260 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 {89 spaces) and parallel parking spaces on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard along the site frontage (44 spaces). The total parking supply for Scheme 2 would be 1,963 parking spaces (on-site and on-street) for Scheme 2. To estimate future parking needs for the project, parking requirements outlined by the City's Municipal Code, ITE, and Urban Land Institute (ULI) were consulted (refer to Appendix C). A parking study completed by TRC Engineers specifically for Lifetime Fitness was also consulted. City of Cupertino 62 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectior� ?.0 — F.m�rrutime��tcr! S��ling. Impacls, and A�lriigaiio�� The parking supply ��as evaluated usin� a shaced-parking analysis since the proposed project contains a mix of uses. each �ti ith dififerent parking characteristics. The shared parking analysis estimates the number of parking spaces needed to accommodate the overall peak demand of all the uses on the site. Table 2.0-9 summarizes the parking supply estimates for the two project schemes based on the different sources and methodologies consu(ted. Table 2.0-9 Summarv of Parkin Su Iv Estimates Project City Munici al Code ITE ULI Proposed On-Site Scheme Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend parkin I 1,457 I,�3 5 1,326 1,266 1,450 1,312 1,520 2 1,434 1,08=� 1,521 938 1,541 960 1,830 Sources: City of Cupertino. Cit}� of Cupertino Municipal Code: Chapter 19.100 Parking Regulations, 2005. Parking Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 3rd Edition); Trip Genecation and Parking DesiQn Guidelines (TRC Engi��eers. 2007); Shared Parking (2nd Edition), Urban Land Institute (ULI), 2005. As discussed previously, Scheme 1 pcoposes 1,520 off-street parki�lg spaces plus 138 on-street parking spaces (along Vallco Parkway and Stevens Creek Boulevard) and Scheme 2 proposes 1,830 parking spaces plus 133 on-street spaces. Based on the methodo(ogies presented in Table 2.0-9 above, both schemes provide sufticient parking when shared parking is considered. The above parking analysis is based on parking demand for a general shopping center that would include some restaurant space. In general, restaurants have a higher parking demand than retail space. At this time, tlle specific type and mix of commercial uses (e.g., retail vs. restaurants) is unknown. For this reason, the proposed project (under either scheme) will be subject to the City's parking review process (whiclt is outlined in MM TRAN — 8.1) to ensure that adequate parking is provided for the commercial uses on-site. Impact TRAN — 8: At this time, the specific type of and mix of commeccial uses is unknown. If the restaurant to retail space exceeds 10 percent, the project would result in inadequate parking capacity. (Signifieant Impact) Bicycle Parking No bicycle parking facilities are proposed. The City's Municipal Code 19.100 states that the required number of Class I bicycle parking spaces should be 40 percent of the number of units and five percent of the total number of automobile parking spaces for office use; and the required number of Class II bicycle parking spaces should be five percent of the total number of automobile parking spaces for commercial and hotel uses. Per the City's Municipal Code, Scheme 1 should provide 82 Class I bicycle parking spaces and 38 Class I1 bicycle parking spaces. Scheme 2 should provide 100 Class I bicycle parking spaces and 42 Class II bicycle parking spaces. � Class I bicycle parking facilities.are long-term parking spaces that protect the entire bicycle and accessories from theft. These long-term facilities include bicycle lockers, restricted access rooms, and constantly monitored enclosed cages. Class II bicycle parking facilities are short-tenn parking spaces within constant view of adjacent buildings or located at street floor IeveL Class II facilities consist of a stationary object that users can secure the frame and both wheels with either U-shaped locks or padlocks. City of Cupertino 63 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 S�ciion ?.0 — E�7vli•onn�e��tal Setting, l�npacts, ui�d �L�iti�ation Impact TRAN — 9: The proposed project (under either scheme) �vould ha��e insufticient bicycle � parkin��. (Significant Impact) Neighborhood Traffic The main access routes to tlle project site are Stevens Creek Boulevard to Finch and Tantau Avenues, and Vl�'oltie Road to Vallco Packway. Most of the project traffic is expected to use these stceets to � access the site. Neighborhood streets to which the project could add traftic include Finch, Tantau, Jud��. Bret or Stern Avenues. Currently, southbound traftic on Finch and Tantau Avenues no► of Stevens Creek E3oulevard are restricted to turning left or right onto Stevens Creek Boulevard. It is estimated that project trips on these streets would be generated by residents traveling to retail portions of the site or the proposed open space/park. Based on the project trip distribution (i•efer to Appendi� C), up to 50 peak-hour trips could be distributed to all of these streets. With the addition of an average of 10 vehicles per street in the peak hour, the average increase would be an additional vehicle every six minutes. The City does not consider this a substantial change in neighborhood traftic. Impact TRAIV — 10: The proposed project would not result in a substantial change in neigllborhood traffic. (Less Than Significant Impact) Construction Traffic Construction vehicles, including construction employee vehicles and trucks carrying construction materials or hauling excavated soil from the site, would travel to and fro�n the site as a part of site development. Truck trips would be spread out over daylight hours. Construction traffic would be weil be(ow the daily (13,751 average daily trips for Scheme 1 and 10,692 average daily trips for Scheme ?) or peak hour traffic anticipated from build-out of the project. The constructio�l activities, therefore, are not anticipated to result in temporary impacts to intersection level of service greater � than those identified for the proposed project. Truck routes would be designated for construction trucks traveling to and from the project site. These trucks wou(d use [-280 and designated City streets including De Anza Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Tantau Avenue, Wolfe Road. Truck routes and delivery hours would be included in the project's Construction Management Plan submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. The Plan shall include, at minimum, a traffic management plan and designated truck routes and construction parking areas to ensure that the trucks use the shortest and most direct route to and from the project site and that construction traffic does not result in closure of major traffic- carrying street for an extended period of time (one month or more). The Plan would also include dust control measures and a noise and compiaint hotline. Impaet TRAN —11: The proposed project, with the implementation of the Construction Management Plan, would not result in significant construction-related traffic impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 64 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectio�� ?.0 — Envrro�in�ej�tnl Settrng. Ir�apac•ts. cnid :1 Gtigcrlion �.1�.3 Miti�ation and/or A��oidance Measures intersection Le��els of Service Im�acts Wolfe Road/Vallco Packwa�� Intersection Impact As conditions of approval, the project proponent shall be responsible for implementing the following measures to reduce the level of service i►npact at the Vb'olfe Road/Vallco Parkway intersection: MM TRAN — 1.1: The proposed project (under either scheme) shall implement one of the three measures below to reduce impacts at Vallco Parkway and Vl�olfie Road to a less than significant level: l. Maintain the existin� intersection configuration, but install a westbound right-turn overlap phase. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at LOS D with no more than 44.2 seconds of avecage delay under either project scheme; OR 2. Add a second, westbound right-turn lane. The additional turn lane could be accommodated by re-striping the existing westbound through lane as a shared-thcough-right turn lane. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at LOS D with no moce than 50.8 seconds of average delay under either Scheme; OR 3. [mplement permissive phasing on the eastbound and westbound approaches to reduce average vehicle delay and improve the operations to LOS D+ during the PM peak hour under both schemes (no greater than 38.1 seconds of average delay). Operations would improve slightly in the AM peak hour. Lawrence Expressway/I-280 southbound ramps-Calvert Drive Intersection Impact The project (under either scheme) would have a significant impact at the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and I-280 southbound ramps-Calvert Drive during the AM and PM peak hours. This intersection is located within the City of San Jose and is a CMP intersection controlled and maintained by the County of Santa Clara; therefore, improvements to this intersection need to be approved and implemented by the County. Major improvements at this intersection were identified in the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway completed in 2003, including a Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR) for this interchange (Tier 1C project). The Tier 1C project is currently unfunded and therefore not included in the background conditions. The Tier 1 C project included an additional northbound through lane, which would mitigate the project's impact (under either scheme) at this intersection to a less than significant level. Since this intersection is not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino, the City has contacted the County of Santa Clara. However, at the time this EIR was circulated, the City and County had not coordinated on an appropriate mechanism for this improvement to occur and implementation by the County of Santa Clara is not assured. For this reason, the impact at this intersection is significant and unavoidable. City of Cupertino 65 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section -'.0 — E�n•iro�7mental Selting. lmpucts, aric/ ;l�fiti;crtion Lawrence E�press��a��/Homestead Road Intersection [m�act Both project schemes ��vould result in a significant level of service impact at the intersection of Laweence Express��ay and Homestead Road during the AM and PM peak hour. This intersection is � (ocated �ti-ithin the City of Santa Clara and is a CMP intersection. The intersection is contro(led and maintained by the Gountv of Santa Clara, therefore, improvements to this intersection need to be app�•oved and implemented by the County. The addition of a third westbound through lane would improve overall de(ay and reduce the impact to a less than significant level.�� This mitigation would require substantial right-of-way (ROW) acquisition and the relocation of existing utilities at the intersection. It is estimated that this improvement would be require acquisition of 12 feet ROW on the north side of Homestead Road. The area immediatel} north of Homestead Road consists of a 10-foot wide sidewalk, landscaping. utilities, and some parking at a nearby shopping center, as well as eaisting porkchop islands at the intersection. This measure is not an identified i�nprovement in the Comprehensive Count} Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway. [mprovements to this intersection are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and the City cannot implement this mitigation. Therefore, the impact at this intersection is significant and unavoidable. Bol(in�er Road-Moorpark Avenue/Lawrence Ex�ressway Intersection Impact Scheme 1 of the proposed project would result in a significant level of service impact at Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue and Lawrence Expressway in the PM peak hour. This intersection is located within the City of San Jose and is a CMP intersection controlled and maintained by the County of Santa Clara; therefore, improvements to this intersection need to be approved and implemented by the County. The Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study foc Lawrence Expressway completed in 2003 identified the widening of Lawrence Expressway from six-lanes to eight-lanes between Moorpark/Bollinger and Calvert as a Tier 1 A improvement. This improvement is currently unfunded and therefore, not included in background conditions. However, this improvement would reduce delay and mitigate the project's impact to a less than significant leve(. The City has contacted the County of Santa Clara regarding this improvement. At this time, the City and County have not coordinated regarding a possible mechanism for the project to pay a fair-share contribution toward this Tier i A improvement. Improvements to this intersection are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and implementation of this Tier 1 A improvement is not assured. Therefore, the impact at this intersection is significant and unavoidable. " Intersection operations would return to LOS E in the AM peak hour under both schemes. During the PM peak hour overall delay �vould be reduced to less than background conditions in both schemes but the intersection would still operate at LOS F. City of Cupertino 66 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Seclion ?. �— Em�irortm�ntal Settrng, Inrpacts, arid Alrtr�atio�l Freewa�� Segment [mpacts As a condition of approval, the pcoject proponent shall be responsible for implementing the following measures to reduce impacts to free�vay se�ments: MM TRAN — �.1: At the final design stage, the project shall include programs or facilities delineated in the "Immediate Implementation Action List" of the Draft Countywide Deticiency Plan (CDP) to the satisfaction of tlle Director of Community Development.�� Measures from the list that are appropriate for this project may include providinb pedestrian facility improve�nents, bus stop improvements, HOV parking preference program, bike facilities, and a pedestrian circulation system. Implementation of these measures �vould reduce impacts on freeway segments but not to a less than significant leve(. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Im�acts As a condition of approval, the project proponent shali be responsible for implementing the following measures to reduce impacts to pedestrian and bicyc(e facilities: AM TRAN — 6.1: The project applicant shall provide pedestrian crosswalk improvements at Finch Avenue and at the project's eastern driveway located in front of the proposed athletic c(ub in Scheme 1 and adjacent to the 205,000 square foot office building in Scheme ?. These crossing locations would pcovide additional pedestrian crossing for people traveling along Vallco Parkway. The final crosswalk improvement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. MM TRAN — 6.1: The existing bike lane to be removed as part of the project shail be relocated between the new travel lane and the on-street parking. The new bike lane shall be located five feet from the end of the angled parking stalls. This relocation requires the striping of sharrows'' and signage alerting motorists to the presence of bicyc(ists. Transit Facilities Impacts As a condition of approval, the project proponent shall be responsible for implementing the following measures to reduce impacts to transit faci(ities: MM TRAN — 7.L• The applicant shall work with VTA, the City, and Caltrans to determine the appropriate (ocation of the existing bus stops at Stevens Creek Boulevard/Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue to " According to VTA policy direction, the mitigation measure for regional freeway impacts is participation in the Countywide Deficiency Plan (CDP) prepared by the VTA. The CDP has not received final approval; therefore, the mitigation of freeway impacts cannot be guaranteed since Cupertino does not have legal authority to mitigate freeway impacts. Pending adoption of the CDP, the Lead Agency for a development project must include programs ar facilities delineated in the "Immediate Implementation Action List" of the Draft CDP as part of the project's approval if the freeway impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. �' A sharrow is a pavement marking or pavement legend intended to help cyclist better position themselves on the roadway where bike lanes are recommended but might not be striped for some reason. Sharrows also indicate that cyclists are going to be in the lane of travel. City of Cupertino 67 Draft E1R Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectic�n ?.0 — E�n•irc�nmei�tal S�ttir�g, Impuc�(s, u��d :L/itiKc�tion ei�suce that existing bus service is not disrupted by the project (e.g., addition � of on-street parking) along those areas. The bus stop at Vallco Parkwa}�/Perimeter Road shall be incorporated into any designs for the roadway. � AM TRAI�T — 7.2: The City and ap�licant shall coordinate with Caitrans to deter�nine the appropriate change in route for the Caltrans commuter shuttle that current(y � uses Finch Avenue as a turn-back along its route. lt should be noted that the route could easily be re-routed to Wolfe Road. Vehicular Parking Impact MM TRAN — 8.1: When a restaurant use is proposed on the project site, the proposed restaurant use's tenancy shall be reviewed by the City as follows: � Up to 10 percent of the approved commercial square footage shall be permitted for restaurant use without City planning staff review. � More than 10 percent of the approved commercial square footage for cestaurant use shall require City planning staff review to verify that the proposed use meets the parking cequirements outlined by the Institirte of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Urban Land lnstitute (UL[), or developed as part of a parking analysis prepared by a qualified parkinb consultant to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. [f the review process indicates that the proposed commercial uses exceed the minimum parking required by the ITE, ULI, or parking analysis, a Parking Management Plan (PMP) shall be required. Components of the PMP may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Provision of valet parking (either on- or off-site); • Provision of off-site employee parking with a shuttle; • Provision of off-site shared use with nearby property owners during peak parking periods; and/or • Provision of off-site land for parking if strategies to reduce total demand are ineffective. A condition of approval of the PMP may include conducting a parking study at some defined date (e.g., six months after full occupancy of the commercial uses on the project site) during evening and weekend periods), which wouid include recording the number of parked vehicles during peak time periods. Results of the study may trigger additional conditions (e.g., a transportation demand management program) be met to continue the commercial uses [(i.e., restaurant use(s)] on-site. City of Cupertino 68 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectio�i ?.0 — Em�ironmer7la! Se��rng. I�npucts, cr�rct �t(itigation Bicycle Parking Impacts As a condition of approval, the project proponent shall be responsible for implementin� the follo�ving measures to provide sufficient parking facilities for bicyc(es: � MM TRA1�1— 9.1: The project shal( provide bicy�cle parking consistent with the City's requirements outlined in the Municipal Code 19.100, which state that the required number of Class [ bicycle parking spaces should be 40 percent of the number of units and five percent of tota( automobile parking spaces for office uses: and the required number of Class Il bicyc(e parking spaces should be tive percent ot the total number of automobile parking spaces for commercial and hotel uses. Construction Traffic Impact As a condition oti approval, tlle project proponent shall be responsible for implementing the following standard measure to reduce impacts related to construction traffic: AM TRAN — 1 l.l: Prior to issuance of building permits, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the Director of Pub(ic Works for review and approvaL The Plan shall include, at minimum, a traffic management plan and designated truck routes and construction parking areas. 4.1�.4 Conclusion Im�act TRAN — 1: The proposed project (under either scheme), with the implementation of the above mitigation measure, would not result in significant level of service impacts at Vallco Parkway and Wolfe Road. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Impact TRAN — 2: The project (under either scheme) would have a significant impact at the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and I-280 southbound ramps-Calvert Drive during the AM and PM peak hours. This intersection is controlled and maintained by the County of Santa Clara. Major improvements at this intersection were identified in the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway completed in 2003, including a Caltrans Project Study Report (PSR) for this interchange (Tier 1 C project). The Tier I C project included an additional northbound through lane, which would mitigate the project's impact (under either scheme) at this intersection to a less than significant level. The City of Cupertino has contacted the County of Santa Clara. However, at the time this EIR was circulated, the City and County had not coordinated on an appropriate mechanism for this improvement to occur and implementation by the County of Santa Clara is not assured. For this reason, the impact at this intersection is significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact) Impact TRAN — 3: Both project schemes would result in a significant level of secvice impact at the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road during the AM and PM peak hour. This intersection is located within the City of Santa Clara and is a CMP intersection. The addition of a third westbound through City of Cupertino 69 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section ?.0 — Em•i�•ofiarerual Settin�, Ir�rpacts, anc! :1 /rtigution lane would improve overall delay and ►�educe the impact to a less than significant level. This improvement, ho�vever, is not an identified in the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Stud�� for Lawrence Expcessway. Improvements to this intersection are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino, therefore, the impact at this intersection is significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact) Impact TRAN —�: Scheme 1 of the proposed project would result in a significant level of service impact at Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue and Lawrence Expressway in the PM peak hour. The Comprehensive County Expressway� Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway completed in 2003 identified the widening of Lawrence Expressway fi six-lanes to eight-(anes between Moorpark/Bollinger and Calvert as a Tier 1 A improvement. 1 improvement would reduce delay and mitigate the project's impact to a less than significant level. The City has contacted the County of Santa Clara regarding this improvement. At this time, the City and County have not coordinated regarding a possible mechanism for the project to pay a fair- share contribution toward this Tier l A improvement. [�nprovements to this intersection are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and implementation of this Tier I A improvement is not assured. Therefore, the impact at this intersection is significai�t and unavoidable. (SigniCeant and Unavoidabte Impact) Im�act TRAN — 5: The proposed project, with the implementation of transportation demand measures, would reduce impacts to significantly impacted freeways segments but not to a less than significant level. (Significant and Unavoidable Impact) Impact TRAN — 6: The proposed project (under either scheme), with the relocation of the existing bike lane on Vallco Parkway that would be impacted by the project, would not result in significant impacts to bicycle facilities. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Impact TRAN — 7: The proposed project, with the implementation of the measures that would ensure that the bus services and the Caltrans commuter shuttle operation are not disrupted by the project, would not result in significant transit impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) Impaet TRAN — 8: The proposed project (under either scheme), in conformance with parking requirements outlined by the ITE, ULI, or developed as part of a parking analysis prepared by a qualified parking consultant, would not result in significant vehicle parking impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Impact TRAN — 9: The proposed project (under either scheme), in conformance with the bicyc(e parking requirements in the City's Municipal Code, would not result in significant bicycle parking impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 70 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section Z.0 — E��vfronm�r�tal Setting, /mpacts, and �tlitigaticu7 Impact TRAN — 10: The proposed project, with the implementation of a Construction Management Plan. would not result in significant construction-related traffic impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 71 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectron ?.0 — Em�ironnrer�lal Setling. hn�uc�ts. ancl:Lliti��ution 2.2 AIR QUALITY The fol(o��ing discussion is based on an air qualit�� study prepared by Illin�rorth c� Roclkin in September 2008. The impact associated with the proposed project was evaluated in terms of operational and construction impacts to air quality. The primary focus of tlle air qualit} study ��as to evaluate future project-related emissions on regional air quality, as well as existing sources of air pollution near the project tl�at could affect the proposed residences. This analysis ��as completed following guidance provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management Distcict (BAAQMD). A copy of the report is included in Appendix D of this EIR. 2.2.1 Re�ulatorv Framework and Back�round Information 2.2.1.1 Overall Regulatory Fi�amework The federal Clean Air Act governs air quality in tlle United States. [n addition to being subject to tiederal requirements, air qua(ity in California is also governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act. At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) administers the federa( Clean Air Act. The California C(ean Air Act is adtninistered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the state level and by the Air Quality Management Districts at the regional and local levels. BAAQMD cegu(ates air quality at the regional level, which includes the nine-county Bay Area. United States Environmental Protection Agency The USEPA is responsible for enforcing the federal Clean Air Act and establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS are required under the 1977 C(ean Air Act and subsequent amendments. The USEPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain types of locomotives. The agency has jurisdiction over emission sources outside state waters (e.g., beyond the outer continental shel� and establishes various emission standards, including those for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in Ca(ifornia must meet the stricter emission standards established by CARB. California Air Resources Board In California, CARB which is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA), is responsible for meeting the state requirements of the federal Clean Air Act, administering the California Clean Air Act, and establishing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The California Clean Air Act requires all air districts in the state to endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS. CARB regulates mobile air pollution sources, such as motor vehicles. The agency is responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other emission sources, such as consumer products and certain off-road equipment. CARB has established passenger vehicle fuel specifications and oversees the functions of local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, which in turn administer air quality activities at the regional � and county level. CARB also conducts or supports research into the effects of air pollution on the public and develops innovative approaches to reducing air pollutant emissions. City of Cupertino 72 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2408 Sectio�� '.0 — E��cironmenial Setting. (m��ucts. uml ,Llitigation Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD is primarily responsible for assuring that the national and state ambient air quality standacds are attained and maintained in the Bay Area. BAAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air polltrtants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, a�vacding brants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, as well as manti� otiler activities. BAAQMD has jurisdiction over much of the nine Bay Area counties. Nationat and State Ambient Air Quality Standards As required by the federal Clean Air Act, NAAQS have been established for six major air pollutants: carbon mo�loxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO ozone (0 respirable particulate nlatter (PM fine particu(ate matter (PM� sulfur oxides, and lead. Pursuant to the California Clean Air Act, the State of Califocnia has also established ambient air quality standards. These standards are �enerally more stringent than the corresponding federal standards and incorporate additional standards for siilfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles. Both state and federal standards are summacized in Table 2.0-10. The "primary" standards have been established to protect the public health. The '`secondary'' standards are intended to protect the nation's welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation and other aspects of the general welfare. Since the CAAQS are more stringent than NAAQS, the CAAQS are used as the comparative standard in this analysis. 2.2.1.2 Criter�a Air Pollutants und Effect Air quality studies generally focus on five pollutants that are most commonly measuced and regulated: carbon monoxide (CO), ground level ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO�), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and suspended particulate matter (i.e., PM and PM� These ambient air quality standards represent safe levels of contaminants in order to avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what ace called "criteria" pollutants because the health effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Tab(e 2.0-1 1 identifies these major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects, and typical sources. [n the Santa Clara County, ozone and particulate matter are the pollutants of greatest concern since measured air pollutant levels exceed these concentrations at times. Air Monitoring Data Air quality in the region is controlled by the rate of pollutant emissions and meteorological conditions. Meteorological conditions such as wind speed, atmospheric stability, and mixing height may all affect the atmosphere's ability to mix and disperse pollutants. Long-term variations in air quality typically result from changes in air pollutant emissions, while frequent, short-term variations result from changes in atmospheric conditions. BAAQMD monitors air quality conditions at more than 30 locations throughout the Bay Area. The closest monitoring station to the project site is the San Jose Central station, about five miles from the project. Air pollutant concentrations measured at this station are shown in Tab(e 2.0-12. The two pollutants of most concern in the area are ozone and particulate matter. City of Cupertino 73 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section '.0 — Em•ironn7entul Setting, Irnpacts, anc! A9rtigation Table 2.0-10 Ambient Air Qualitv Standards Pollutant A��eraging Time California Natwnal Standards� hd Standards prima Secondary � Ozone g-hour 0.07 m 0.075 m --- 1-hour 0.09 m ---e Same as rimar � Carbon Mono�ide g-hour 9.0 m 9 m --- 1-hour ?0 m 35 m --- Nitrogen Dioxide Annuai 0.03 m 0.053 m Same as rimary l-hour 0. l 8 m 0.030 m --- Annual --- 0.03 m --- Sulfur Dioxide 24-hour 0.0� m 0.14 m --- 3-hour --- --- 0.� m 1-hour 0.25 m --- --- Annual 20 7/m' --- Same as rimar PM,o 24-hour 50 /m' 150 /m' Same as rimar Annual 12 µg/m' 1 � g/m --- PMz_; 24-hour --- 35 /m' --- Lead Calendar uarter --- 1.5 /m' Same as rimar 30-da avera e 1.5 µ/m' --- Notes: ppm = parts per million, µg/m3 = microarams per cubic meter. � Standards, other than for ozone and those based on annual averages, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. �' Concentrations are expressed first in units in which they were promulgated. ` Primary Standards the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. Each state mush attain the primary standards no later than three years after that state's implementation plan is approved by the EPA. d Secondary Standards: the levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. e The national l-hour ozone standard was revoked by USEPA on June l5, 2005. A ne�v 8-hour standards was established in May 2008. f The annual PM�� standard was revoked b}� USEPA on September 21, 2006 and a new PM,. hour standard was established. City of Cupertino 74 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectiof� '. U— Ern�iroramenlal S�ttnag. /��r��ucts. arrd ;llitigutinn Table 2.0-11 Ma'or Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Ma'or Sources Carbon Carbon mono�cide is an - Impairment of os��gen Automobile exhaust, Monoxide odor(ess, colorless gas that is transport in the combustion of fuels, highl}� tosic. [t is formed by bloodstream combustion of �vood the incomplete combustion of - Aggra�°ation of in �voodstoves and fuels. cardio�ascular disease tirep(aces. - Fatigue, headache, COl1fUS1011 dizziness - Can be fatal in the case of verv hi h concentrations Ozone A highly reactive - Eye irritation The n�ajor sources photochemical pollutant - Respirator�� function ozone precursors are created by the action of impairment combustion sources sunshine on ozone such as factories and precursors, primarily reactive automobiles, and hydrocarbons and oxides of evaporation of nitrogen. Often ca(led solvents and fuels. hotochemical smo . Nitrogen Reddish-brown gas that - Increased risk of acute Automobile and Dioxide discolors the air, formed aild chronic respiratory diesel truck eahaust, during combustion. disease industrial processes, fossil-fueled power (ants. Sulfuc Sulfur dioxide is a colorless - Aggravation of chronic Diesel vehicle Dioxide gas with a pungent, i� obstruction lung disease exhaust, oil-powered odor. - [ncreased risk of acute power p(ants, and chronic respiratory industrial processes. disease Particulate Solid and liquid particles of - Aggravation of chronic Combustion, Matter dust, soot, aerosols and other disease and heart/lung automobiles, field matter which are small disease symptoms burning, factories and enough to remain suspended unpaved roads. Also in the air for a long period of a result of time. photochemical rocesses. City of Cupertino 75 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectiun ?. 0- E��i�ir•onmenta! Setting. Im�acts. a�td ,ti9itigut�oi� Table 2.0-12 Hi hest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations Pollutant Average Measured Air Pollutant Levels Time 2003 2004 200� 2006 2007 San Jose 4� Street/Central re(ocated in 2002 Monitorin Station Ozone (O I-hour 0.12 m 0.09 m 0.11 m 0.12 m 0.08 m 8-hour 0.08 m 0.07 m 0.08 m 0.09 m 0.07 m Cacbon Monoxide (CO) 8-hour �4.0 m 2.9 m 3.1 m 2.9 m 2.7 m Nitrogen Dioxide (NO,) 1-hour 0.09 m 0.07 n� 0.07 �n 0.07 m 0.07 m Annual 0.021 m NA O.Ol9 m 0.018 m 0.016 m Respirable Particulate 24-hour 60 /m �8 /m �4 /m 73 /m 69 /m Matter (PM Annual 23 /m 23 /m 22 /m 21 /m 22 /m Fine Particulate Matter 24-hour 56 /m 52 /m' S5 /m� 64 /m 58 /m (PM� An►ival 12 /m 12 /m' l2 /m' I1 /m' 11 /m' Ba Area Basin Summar � Ozone (O I-hour 0.13 m 0.11 m 0.11 m 0.13 m 0.12 m 8-hour 0.10 m 0.08 m 0.08 m 0.10 m 0.09 m Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-hour 4.0 m 3.4 m 3.4 m 2.9 m 2.7 m Nitrogen Dioxide (NO�) 1-hour 0.09 m 0.07 m 0.07 m 0.11 m 0.1 1 m Annual 0.021 m 0.019 m 0.019 m 0.018 m OA 18 m Respirable Particulate 24-hour 60 /m 65 /m 81 /m 90 /m 70 /m Matter (PM Annual 25 /m 26 /m 24 /m 23 /m 22 /m Fine Particulate Matter 24-hour 56 /m 74 /m �5 /m 64 /m 58 /m (PM Annual 12 /m 12 /m 12 /m 11 lm 11 /m Notes: ppm = parts per million, µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter, NA = data not available. Values reported in bold exceed ambient air yuality standard. Source: BAAQMD Air Quality Summaries for 2003 - 2007. Prevailing summertime wind conditions tend to cause a buildup of ozone in the central and southern portions of Santa Clara Valley. Ozone levels measured in San Jose exceeded the state ozone standard from zero to five times in 2002-2006. In the last five years, the eight-hour national ozone standard was exceeded only once in 2006 during an extended heat wave. Measured exceedances of the state PM� standard have occurred between two and three measurement days each year in San Jose (estimated at 12 to 18 days). There have been no measured exceedances of the federal PM standard in San Jose. The federal PM standard for a 24-hour averaging period was exceeded on six days in 2006 and nine days in 2007. Measured exceedances of the state PM� standard have occurred between two and three measurement days each year in San Jose. The entire Bay Area, including San Jose, did not experience any exceedances of other air pollutants. Table 2.0-13 summarizes the number of days that federal (NAAQS) and state (CAAQS) ambient air quality standards were exceeded at the San Jose station near the project and in the entire Bay Area. City of Cupertino 76 Draft E1R Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section ?.0 — Envr��onme��tul Settir�g, 1��7pacts, nnd ;lliligcrtior� Table 2.0-13 Annual Number of Days Exceedin Ambient Air Quality Standards Po(lutant Standarcl Monitoring Da s Exceedin Standard Station 2003 2004 200� 2006 2007 Ozone (0 i�IAAQS San Jose 0 0 X X X 1-hour Ba � Area 1 0 X X X NAAQS San Jose 0 0 0 1 0 8-hour Ba � Area 7 0 l 12 1 CAAQS San Jose 4 0 l 5 0 1-hour Ba Area 19 7 9 18 4 CAAQS San Jose -- -- 1 5 5 8-hour Ba Area -- -- 9 22 9 Fine Particulate NAAQS San Jose 0 0 0 0 0 Matter (PM 24-hour Ba � Area 0 0 0 0 0 Fine Particulate CAAQS San Jose 2 3 2 2 3 Matter (PM 24-hour Ba Area 6 7 6 I S 4 NAAQS San Jose 0 0 0 6 9 24-hour* Ba � Area 0 l 0 10 l4 All Other (CO, A(l Other San Jose 0 0 0 0 0 NO�, Lead, S0 Ba Area 0 0 0 0 0 Notes: X= standard revoked in 2004; NA = data not available. * Based on standard of6� µg/m'that �vas in place until September 2l, ?006, then 3� µ�/m'standard in 2006. Attainment Status Areas that do not violate ambient air quality standards are considered to have attained the standard. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are judged for each air pollutant. The Bay Area as a whole does not meet state or federal ambient air quality standards for ground level ozone and state standards for PM and PM� Under the federal Ciean Air Act, the USEPA has classified the region as marginally nonattainment for the eight-hour ozone standard. EPA required the region to attain the standard by 2007. The Bay Area has met the carbon monoxide standards for over a decade and is classified attai�ment maintenance by the USEPA. The USEPA grades the region unclassifed for all other air pollutants, which include PM� and PM� At the state level, the region is considered se�°ious non-attainment for ground level ozone and non- attainment for PM and PM�. The region is required to adopt plans every three years that show progress towards meeting the state ozone standard. The area is considered attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants. Recent PM monitoring data for San Jose suggest that Santa Clara County exceeds the new national PM standards for 24-hour exposures. USEPA is expected to make rulings on area attainment designations in 2010 based on 2007 to 2009 monitoring data. Most nonattainment areas would have until 2015 to attain the standards with some extensions to 2020 possible. City of Cupertino 77 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section 2.0 — E��rironmenta! Set[rng, l��tpucts, ai�cl �l4iti�crtrora � Toxic Air Contaminants Besides the "criteria"' air pollutants, there is another group of substances found in ambient air referred to as Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). These contaminants tend to be localized and are found in relatively low concentrations in ambient air. However, they can result in adverse chronic health effects if exposure to (o�� concentrations occurs for long periods. TACs are found in ambient aic, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g.. dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and federal leveL � Particulate matter from diese) eYhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the ca��cer risk from TACs (based o�l the statewide average). According to CARB, diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors and fine particles. This complexity makes tlie evaluation of health effiects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by ARB, and are listed as caccinogens either under State Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Po(lutants programs. CARB reports that recent air pollution studies have shown an association that diesel exhaust and other cancer-causing toxic air contaminants emitted from vehicles are responsible for much of the overall cancer risk from TACs in California. Particulate matter emitted from diesel-fueled engines [diesel pacticulate matter (DPM)] was tiound to comprise much of that risk. In August 1998, CARB forma(ly identified DPM as a TAC. Diesel particulate matter is of particular concern since it can be distributed over large regio�ls, thus leading to widespread public exposure. The particles emitted by diesel engines are coated with chemicals, �nany of which have been identified as TACs. Diesel engines emit particulate matter at a rate about 20 times greater than comparable gasoline engines. The vast majority of diesel exhaust particles (over 90 percent) consist of PM2 5 , which are particles that can be inhaled deep into the lung. Like other particles of this size, a portion will eventually become trapped within the lung possibly leading to adverse health effects. While the gaseous portion of diesel exhaust also contains TACs, CARB's 1998 action was specific to DPM, which accounts for much of the cancer-causing potential from diesel exhaust. California has adopted a comprehensive diesel risk reduction program to reduce DPM emissions 85 percent by 2020. The USEPA and CARB adopted low sulfur diesel fuel standards in 2006 that reduce diesel particulate matter substantial(y. 2.2.1.3 Air Quality Planning Bay Area Clean Air Plan Air quality plans addressing the California Clean Air Act are developed about every three years. The plans are meant to demonstrate progress toward meeting the more stringent 1-hour ozone CAAQS. The latest plan, which was adopted in January 2006, is cal(ed the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strate�y. This plan includes a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources. The p(an objective is to indicate how the region would make progress toward attaining the stricter state air quality standards, as mandated by the Ca(ifornia Clean Air Act. The plan is designed to achieve a region-wide reduction of ozone precursor pollutants through the expeditious City of Cupertino 78 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectio�� ?.0 — Em�ii�onm�ntul Selting. Iinpacts•, and A9itigatiort implementation of all feasible measures. The plan proposes erpanded implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs) and probrams such as Spare the Ai�•. Spare the Ari� is a public outreach progcam designed to educate the public about air pollution in the Bay� Area and promote individual behavior changes that impro� e air quality. Some of these measures or programs rely on local gove� for imple�nentation. 2.2.2 Settin 2.2.2.1 Climute und Tono�ruphJ' The project site is located in Cupertino in the Santa Clara Valley of the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. The project site's proximity to both the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay has a moderating influence on the climate. This portion of the Santa Clara Valiey is bounded to the nortll by the San Francisco Bay and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest. The surrounding terrain greatly influences winds in the valley, resulting in a prevailing wind that follows along the valley's northwest-southwest axis. As discussed previously, the criteria pol(utants that exceed federal and/or state ambient aic standards in the area are ozone and particulate matter (PM and PM 2.2.2.2 Sensitive Recepto�•s BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acute(y ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses included residences, school playgrounds, child-care centers, retirement homes, conva(escent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. Existing sensitive receptors near the project site include the residential uses west and south of the project site. 2.2.3 Air Oualitv Impacts 2.2.3.1 Thresholds of Significance For the purpose of this EIR, an air quality impact is considered significant if the project would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality violation; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (1999) recommends that more detailed air quality analysis be completed for projects that could cause an adverse air quality impact form total project emissions. A project that generates more than 80 pounds per day of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NO or PM, is considered to have a potentially significant impact on regional air quality. BAAQMD generally does not recommend a detailed air quality analysis for projects generating less City of Cupertino 79 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section ?.0 — Em�ir��nn�ey�tal Setlir�n. Impucts. and A1itr;a�iorr than 2,000 vehicle trips per day, unless wacranted by the special nature of the project or project settin�. Currentl�, the project site is vacant and mostly undeveloped. The deve(opment of the project would add new traftic trips. would increase air poliutant emissions. The project would provide a mix of uses and ��ould ser��e trips that wouid already be on the roadway network (refer to transportation impact analysis included in Appendix C of this ElR). [n addition, the project is located in an urban environmenC that includes sidewalks, bicycle (anes, and transit service (refer to Section 2.1 Trans�ortation). 2.2.3.1 Consistency witl: the Cleun Air P[an A key element in air qua(ity planning is to make reasonably accurate projections of future human activities, particularly vehicle activities that are related to air pollutant emissions. BAAQMD uses population projections made by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG. P��ojections ?00?) and vellicle use trends made by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to for future air pollutant emission inventories. These projections are based on estimates fi•om cities and counties. In order to provide the best plan to reduce air pollution in the Bay Area, accurate projections from local governments are necessary�. W11en General Plans are not consistent with these projections, they cumulatively reduce the effectiveness of air quality planning in the region. The Cupertino General Plan is consistent with ABAG Projections 2002. Regional clean air planning efforts address both the federal and state ozone standards using the most recent population and vehicle travel projections. The most current Clean Air Plan (CAP), the ?005 Bay Area Ozone Strateg��, was adopted by BAAQMD in 2006. This plan is based on population projections through 2020 compiled by the association of ABAG. The project proposes uses and development consistent with Cupertino's Genera( Plan, which is consistent with the ABAG Projections 2002; therefore, consistent with the 200� Bay Area Ozorre Sh�ategy. The project does not conflict with clean air plannitlg efforts. Consistency with Transportation Control Measures Determining consistency with the Clean Air Plan also involves assessing whether transportation control measures (TCMs) contained in the 2005 BayArea Ozone Strategy are implemented. The 200� Ozone Strategy includes 20 TCMs, of which seven require participation at the local level. The latest set of adopted TCMs, which identify local governments as implementing agencies, are listed by BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. TCMs that would apply to projects are designed to reduce motor vehicle travel by encouraging use of other transportation modes. For projects, these would include amenities that would encourage transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes of transportation. The projects cannot individually implement the listed TCMs that require (ocal action; however, the City's General Plan policies include all those measures that are consistent with the City's responsibility. The project is located near transit and bicycle lanes, which would provide opportunities for non-motor vehicle access, and includes amenities (e.g., sidewalks, trees, and landscaping) that would facilitate other modes of transportation such as walking. The project would result in the removal of the existing bicycle lane on Vallco Parkway; however, as discussed in Section 2.1 Trans�ortation, the project shall be required to relocate the impacted bicycle lane as a condition of approval. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the implementation of Clean Air Plan TCMs. City of Cupertino 80 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectia� '.0 — Eyn�iror�me�7ta1 Setting, lmpacts, crnc� �/itrgcrtio�7 Based on the above discussion, the project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan. Impact A[R — 1: The project (��nder either scheme) is consistent with the ?O0� Ba�� Areu 0.-one Strcrte�•. (Less Than Significant Impact) 2.2.3.2 Regionc�l Air Qualit�� Impacts The Bay Acea is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level ozone under both the federal Clean Air Act and the California Ciean Air Act. The area is also considered non-attainment for PM and PM� unde�• the California Clean Air Act, but not the federal Clean Air Act. The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air pollutants. A project that generates more than 80 pounds per day of reactive organic gases (ROG). nitrogen oxides (NO�), or PM is considered to have a signiticant impact on regional air quality. according to the BAAQMD guidelines. The model used to calculate project emissions assumed trip reductions based on the number of daily schedule buses serving the area, potential for bicycle and pedestrian use, and a mix of uses. With these features, the model calculated an approximate 10 percent ceduction in emissions. TI1e project emissions are summarized in Table 2.0-14 (refer to Appendix D of this EIR for details regarding the emissions modeling completed for the project).�� Table 2.0-14 Dail � Pro'ect Emissions in Pounds er Da Modeled Daily Emissions in Pounds Per Da Ibs/da Reactive Nitrogen Respirable Organic Gases Oxides Particulates Project Scheme ROG NOx PM�o l 2 67 BAA MD Threshold.s 80 80 80 Note: text indicates a si nificant im act. As shown in Table 2.2-14, total emission of ROG, NO and PM� would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds under Scheme 1. The total emission of ROG and NO would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds under Scheme 2. ROG and NO emissions lead to ozone formation. Under Scheme 1, the project emissions wou(d be 20 percent above the threshold for ROG and 31 percent above the threshold for NO,�. PM under Scheme 1 would be six percent '' The use of stationary equipment that could emit air pollution has not been identified for the project. Residential projects do not usually include these sources. If stationary sources are included in the project, they may require permits from BAAQMD. Such sources could include combustion emissions from boilers used for heating and cooling or standb}' emergency generators (rated 50 horsepower or greater). These sources would normally result in minor emissions, compared to those from project-generated traffic. Sources of air pollutant emissions complying with all applicable BAAQMD regulations generally will not be considered to have a significant air quality impact. Stationary sources that are exempt from BAAQMD permit requirements due to low emission thresholds would not be considered to have a significant air quality impact. City of Cupertino 81 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section ?.0 — Em�iromne»tal Setting. /r�rpucts, u��c/ _blitigulio�� above the threshold. In comparison to Scheme 1 emissions, Schen�e ? is projected to have fe��er emissions; howe��er, the emissions under Schen�ae 2 would exceed the thresholds for ROG and NO, onl}�. Under Scher��c ?, the ROG and NO� emissions would be o��e and five percent above the thresholds, respectively. � The project, undec Schen�e 1, wou(d exceed BAAQMD's thresho(ds for ROG, NO�. and PM�„and therefore, result in significant regional air quality impacts. Scherne 2 would result in fe�ver � emissions, but would exceed BAAQMD's thresholds for ROG and NO,, therefore, resultin� in si�nificant regional air quality impacts. Impact AIR — 2: Scheme 1 w�ould result in significant regional air quality impacts related to emissions of ROG, NO, and PM Scheme 2 would result in signiticant regional air quality impacts related to emissions of ROG and NO�. (Significant Impact) 2Z.3.3 Locul Air Quality Impacts Carbon Monoxide Emissions Carbon monoxide emissions from traffic generated by the project would be the greatest pollutant concern at the local level. Congested intersections with a large volume of traffic have the greatest potential to cause high-localized concentrations of carbon monoxide. Measured carbon monoxide levels have been at healthy levels (i.e., below state and federal standards) in the Bay Area since the eacly 1990s. As a result, the region has been designated as attainment for carbon monoxide. There is an ambient air quality monitoring station in central San Jose that measures carbon monoxide concentrations. The contribution of project-generated traffic compared to existing (2008) and background concentrations (2010) was calculated. The results are shown in Table 2.0-1 �. Table 2.0-15 Estimated Roadside 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (in arts er million Description Existing Background Pro'ect 2010 2008 2010 Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Lawrence Expressway and � 4 7.0 7.0 6.9 Homestead Road Wolfe Road and Vallco 5.5 6.0 6.1 6.l Parkwa I-280 southbound ramps and 6.6 6.2 6.4 6.4 Stevens Creek Boulevard* Lawrence Expressway and � 1 6.6 6.7 6.7 I-280 southbound ram s* BAA MD Threshold 9.0 m(CAA S) Notes: If approved, it is anticipated that the project would be built in 2010. * Includes contribution of I-280 City of Cupertino 82 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section ?.0 — E�n�iromnental Settii�g, lmpacts, �rrlcl :llitr�u/i�>�� The highest eight-hour concentration with the project in p(ace is predicted to be 7.0 parts per million (ppm) o��er an eight-hour averaging period. This concentration would occur near the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road. This is based on the assumption that the project would not be built and occupied until 2010. Modeled concentrations are actually higher under existing conditions in 2008 because emission rates for vehicles ��ill continue to decrease in the future due to newer vehicles with better emission control systems and the replacement of older more pollutin� vehicles. Emission rates are expected to decrease b} over l5 percent between 2008 and 2010, and another 60 percent by ?020. Refer to Appendix D of this EIR for more information about the modeling, assumptions. and data inputs. As shown in Tab(e 2.2-1 �, the project carbon monoXide emissions fi•om traffic would be below the state ambient air quality standard of 9.0 ppm. For this reason, project traffic (under either scheme) vvould not generate significant levels of carbon monoxide emissions. Impact AIR — 3: The proposed project (under either scheme) component would not generate significant (evels of carbon monoxide emissions. (Less Than Significant [mpact) Toxic Air Contaminants The project is not anticipated to p(ace new sensitive receptors near sources of air pollution that could result in significant health eisks. Freeways, such as I-280, are a source of air po(lution. Diesel particulate matter, emitted mostly by large trucks, poses the greatest local heaith effect. CARB published the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook to provide local agencies guidance in developing land use plans. In this document, CARB recommended that local agencies attempt to avoid siting sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways. The project (under either scheme) includes senior housing, but it is proposed well over 500 feet from I-280. There are no other sources of air pollution near the project site that cou(d adversely affect the project. In addition, operation of the project is not expected to cause any localized emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to unhealthy air pollutant levels. Impacts related to construction activities are discussed below. Impact AIR — 4: The project would not result in significant impacts related to exposure to TACs. (Less Than Significant Impact) Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts Corrstruction Dust Dust would be generated during demo(ition, grading, and construction activities. Most of the dust would result during grading activities. The amount of dust generated would be highly variable and is dependent on the size of the area disturbed, amount of activity, soil conditions, and meteorological conditions. Typical winds during late spring through summer are from the north. Nearby land uses are mostly industrial or offices. The nearest sensitive land use are the residences located approximately 15 feet west (Metropolitan Project) and I50 feet south of the project site (south of Stevens Creek Boulevard). Nearby land uses could be adversely affected by dust generated during construction activities. In addition, construction dust emissions can contribute to regional PM� emissions. City of Cupertino 83 Draft EIR Main Street Gupertino October 2008 Sectlon ?.0 — F�n�ir�u��ucntnl Sclting, Impucts, cmd ;t�1ili�cxtic�n Although grading and construction activities would be temporar}�. they ��ould have the potential to � cause both nuisance and health air quality impacts. PNi is the pollutant ot greatest concern associated with dust. If uncontrolled, PM (eve(s down�vind of activei} disturbed areas could possibly exceed State standards. In addition, dust fall on adjacent properties cou(d be a nuisance. Cohstrt�ction Equipment Exh�rust Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust. which is a TAC. BAAQMD has not developed any procedures or guidelines for identifying these impacts from temporary construction activities where emissions are transient. The� are typicall}' evaluated for stationary sources (e.g., (arge compression ignition engines such as generators) in health risk assessments over the course of lifetime exposures (i.e., 24 hours per day over 70 years). Diesel exhaust poses both a health and nuisance impact to nearb}' receptors. These construction activities wou(d generally not be adjacent to sensitive receptors (e.g., residents) and are expected to occur during a relatively sllort time. Therefore, if reasonable available control ineasuces are applied, the impacts are considered to be less than significant. Im�aet AIR — 5: The proposed project (under either scheme) ��ould result in temporary construction dust and construction equipment exllaust. (Significant Impact) Odors During construction, the various diesel powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time much beyond the project site boundaries. Therefore, diesel odor impacts are considered less than significant. The proposed uses are not expected to produce any offensive odors. Im�act AIR — 6: The proposed project (under either scheme) would not result in significant odor impacts. (Less Than Significant Im�act) 2.2.4 Miti�ation and/or Avoidance Measures Regional Air Quality Impacts As a condition of approval, the project shall implement the following measures to reduce regional air quality impacts: MM AIR — 2.1: Improve existing or construct new bus pullouts and transit stops at convenient locations with pedestrian access to the project site. Pullouts should be designed so that normal traffic flow on arteriai roadways would not be impeded when buses are pulled over to serve riders. Bus stops should include shelters, benches, and postings of transit information. MM AIR — 2.2: The project shall be reviewed and appropriate bicycle amenities shall be included to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Bicycle amenities shall include bike lane connections throughout the project site. In addition, off-site bicycle lane improvements shall be considered for roadways that serve the project site. City of Cupertino 84 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section Z.0 — Em�i��onmenta/ Setti��g, lnrpucts. and :'llitigalior� MM AIR — 2.3: Pedestrian sidewalks and/or paths shall be provided throu�hout the project site with convenient access to bus stops �vithin or adjacent to the site. MM AIR — 2.�: The incorporation of pedestrian signage and signalization shall be considered, including convenient pedestrian crossings at strategic areas with count-dow�n signals that would enhance pedestrian use. MM AIR — 2.�: Office and large retai) uses on the site shall provide amenities to encourage pedestrian and bicyc(e use such as showers, locker facilities, and bicycle parking for employees. Bicycle parking for retail customers shall be provided at strategic locations. MM AIR — 2.6: Project site employers shall be required to promote transit use by providin� transit information and incentives to employees. MM AIR — 2.7: The project app(icant shall work with the City to explore opportunities for employers to implement measures that would reduce vehicle travel by reducing parking availability (such as an employee parking cashout pcogram). MM AIR — 2.8: The project shall provide outdoor electrical outlets, encourage the use ofi electrical (andscape maintenance equipment, and provide 220 volt outlets in each parking garage suitable for electrical auto recharging. MM AIR — 2.9: The project shall implement "green building ' designs, such as a Leadership in Energy and Environmenta( Design (LEED), Build it Green for residential units, or an alternative environmental and sustainable measurement system/checklist, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development to increase energy efficiency, which w�ould reduce the future energy demand caused by the project, and therefore reduce air pollutant emissions indirectly. MM AIR — 2.10: The project applicant shall create a landscape plan for the project that ensures new trees would shade buildings and walkways in the summer to reduce the cooling loads on buildings. Implementation of MM AfR — 2.1 through 2.10 would reduce project regional emissions, but not to a less than significant (evel. These mitigation measures combined with existing and project features (i.e., trip reductions based on the number of daily schedu(e buses serving the area, potential for bicyc(e and pedestrian use, and a mix of uses) would reduce emissions by about 10 to 13 percent. However, much of this reduction (about 10 percent) was included in the project modeling and reflected in the estimated project emissions in Table 2.0-14. The mitigation measures listed above would achieve an additional two to three percent reduction. Under Scheme 1, emissions would still be above the BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NO and PM� Under Scheme 2, emissions of ROG would be reduced to a tess than significant level, however, the emissions of NO, would remain above the BAAQMD threshold of significance. City of Cupertino 85 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectro�� ?.0 — En►�ii�oni��e��tc7l Se�tin�>, Impacts, and ,'LJitigation Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts As a condition of approval. the pcoject shall implement the follo�vin� measures to reduce construction-related impacts: Dust Control MM AIR —>.1: The project shall implement the following dust contro( measures recommended by BAAQMD: • Water al( active construction areas at least t��ice daily and more often during windy periods. • Cover all haulin� trucks or maintain at least t�vo feet of freeboard. • Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil � stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto the adjacent roads. • Hydt or apply (non-toxic) soil stabi(izers to inactive � construction areas (i.e., previous(y-graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more). • Enclose, cover, w�ater twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to � exposed stockpiles. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site. Construction Equipment Exhaust MM AIR — 5.2: The proposed project shall implement the following diesel exhaust control measures: • Consistent with state law, diesel equipment standing idle for more than five minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soi(, aggregate, or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were onsite and located more than 200 feet from residences • Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. • Construction equipment shall not be staged within 200 feet of existing residences. 2.2.5 Conclusion Impaet AIR —1: The project (under either scheme) is consistent with the 200� Bay Area Ozone Strategy. (Less Than Significant Impact) Impact AIR — 2: The implementation of the above mitigation measures (MM AlR — 2.1 to 2.10) would reduce project emissions by two to three percent. The project (under either scheme), with the implementation of the above mitigation City of Cupertino 86 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 S�ctro�� 2.0 — Envir•onm�ntul S��ttin��. lmpucts. uncl.tilitigutinrl measures. ��ould reduce emissions of reQional pollutants but not to a less than significant leveL�' (Significant and Unavoidable Impact) [m�act AIR — 3: The proposed project (under either sclleme) component �ti-ould not generate significant levels of carbon monoxide emissions. (Less Than Significant Impact) Impact AIR — 4: The project would not result in significant impacts related to eYposure to TACs. (Less Than Significant Impact) [mpact AIR — 5: The proposed project (under either scheme), �v ith the implementation of the above dust control and construction equipment exhaust control measures, would reduce temporary construction dust and construction equipment exhaust impacts to a less than significant leveL (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation [ncorporated) Impact AIR — 6: The proposed project (under either scheme) would not result in signiticant odor impacts. (Less Than Significant Im�act) 15 Note that with the implementation of the mitigation measures, Scheme 1 emissions would still be above the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for ROG, NO and PM, With the implementation of the mitigation measures, Schenle 2 ROG emissions would be reduced to a less than significant IeveL However, Scheme 2 emissions ofNO and PM� would still exceed BAAQMD thresholds. City of Cupertino 87 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 SECTION 3.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR identif�� the likelihood that a proposed project could "foster" or stimulate "...economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directl}� or indirectly, in tlle surrounding environ�nent [y 15126.2(d)]." This section of tlle E�R is intended to evaluate the impacts of such growth in the surroundin� environment. Growth impacts associated with the proposed project are also discussed throughout the E[R and [nitial Study (refer to Appendix A). The City's Generai Plan sets forth developinent allocations for co«imercial, office, hotel, and residential uses for different areas of the City. The project site is located within the Vallco Park South Area of the City. As of Apri( 2008, the remaining development allocations in the Vallco Park South are for approximately 250,000 square feet of commercial uses, approximately 76� hote( rooms, and 400 residential units. Currently there are no development allocations foc office use in the Val(co Park South area. Office development in the Vallco Park South area would require off ce allocation froin other areas of the City. A summary of the available office development allocations is provided in Table 3.0-1 below. Table 3.0-1 A roximate Available Office Allocations as of June 2008 Geographic Area/Special Center Office (square footage) Monta Vista 36,79� North De Anza Boulevard 175,18� Vallco Park North 95,�32 Heart of the Cit 1 1,456 Ma�or Em lo ers I 50,000 TOTAL 468,960 Scheme 1 proposes to develop 295,000 square feet of retail/commercial uses (including l �0,000 square feet of general commercial uses and a 145,000 square foot athletic club), 100,000 square feet of office uses, l60 senior units, and a 150 room hotel. Scheme 2 proposes to develop 146.�00 square feet of retail/commercial uses, 205,000 square feet of office uses, I 64 senior units, and a 250 room hotel. There are sufficient development allocations available in the Val(co Park South Area for the proposed commercial, hotel, and residential uses from either scheme. However, there are insufficient office allocations in the Vallco Park South area for the proposed amount of office development in both schemes. Per Genera( Plan Policy 2-20, Strategy 4, the Gity allows for flexibility among the allocations assigned to each geographic area. As shown in Table 3.0-1, there is approximately 468,960 square feet of available office development al(ocations in the City. The proposed office uses in either scheme could obtain sufficient development allocations from other parts of the City. The development and growth associated with either of the proposed project schemes is already accounted for in the City's General Plan (November 2005) and therefore, the project would not induce unplanned grovvth within the City. IMPACT GRO —1: Based on the above discussion, the proposed project would not result in significant growth-inducing impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 88 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 SECTION 4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts, as defined by CEQA, refer to two or i»ore individual effects. which when combined, are considerable or which compound or increase other envi�•onmental impacts. Cumulative impacts may result from individuallv minor, but coliectively signifiicant projects takin� place over a period of time. The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR should discuss cumulative impacts "when the project's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable (§ 1 � 130).'' The discussion does not need to be in as great detail as is necessary for project impacts. but is to be "guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness." The purpose ofthe cumulative ana(ysis is to allow decision makers to better understand the potential impacts which might result from approval of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, in conjunction with the proposed project addressed in this E[R. The Guidelines advise that a discussion of cumulative impacts should re�lect both their severity and the (ikelihood of their occurrence. To accomplish these two objectives. the analysis should include either a list ofpast, present, and probable future projects or a summary of projections from an adopted general plan or similar document. The discussion below address two aspects of cumulative impacts: I) would the effects ofi all of the pending deve(opment listed resu(t in a cumulatively significant impact on the resources in question? And, if that cumulative impact is likely to be significant, 2) wouid the contributions to that impact from the project which is the subject of this EIR, implementation of the proposed Main Street Cupertino Project, make a cumulatively considerable contribution to those cumulative impacts? Tabie 4.0-1 identifies all the pending, approved, and recently completed projects tllat are evaluated in this cumu(ative analysis. The locations of the cumulative projects are shown on Figuce 4.0-1. Table 4.0-1 List of Cumulative Pro'ects Project Name/ Location Description Develo er l. Vallco Expansion Wolfe Road and Vallco Occupancy of existing 200,000 square Parkway feet of retail space; 284,000 square feet of new retail uses; 200 room hotel with 12,000 s uare foot restaurant 2. Rosebowl Project Southeast quadrant of 204 condominium units; 105,000 square Wolfe Road and Vallco feet of retail uses Parkwa 3. Oak Park Village North De Anza Boulevard 46 condominium units and I-280 4. Adobe Terrace 20128 Stevens Creek 23 condominium units; 2,400 square feet Boulevard of retail uses 5. Marketplace 19770 Stevens Creek 34,300 gross square feet of retail uses Bui(din C Boulevard (19,000 net s uare feet) 6. De Anza College Stevens Creek Boulevard 7,000 students (including distance Expansion and Stelling Road learning and off-campus growth) between 2005 and 2010. City of Cupertino 89 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section -l.0 — C'tn�ttrlatii•e lmpucis Table 4.0-1 List of Cumulative Pro'ects Project Name/ Develo er Location Description 7. Any Mountain Mariani Avenue and North 60,000 gross square feet of office uses De Anza Boulevard 8. Public Stora e 20565 Valle Green Drive 101,360 net s uare feet of warehouse uses 9. Riorden & Reston 610 Alberta Avenue �� single-family� dwelling units Terraces (City of Sunn vale ) 10. Villa Serra 20800 Homestead 1 17 apartment units Road/10807 North Stelling Road 1 1. Las Palmas/Larry ( 0855 North Stelling Road 19 sin��le-family dwelling units Guy � 12. Tantau Retail t0100 North Tantau 10.582 square feet of retail uses Avenue 13. Trader Joe's (Gity of De Anza 19,000 square feet of retai! uses San Jose) Boulevard/Bollin er Road 14. Intel SG 12b ?250 Mission College 100,000 square feet of office uses Regency (City of Boulevard Santa Clara) 15. Intel SC-14 (City of Freedom Circle 400,000 square feet of office uses Santa Clara) 16. Applied Materials 3333 Scott Boulevard 840,000 square feet of research and (City of Santa Clara) develo ment (R&D) uses 17. Hewlett-Packard/ Stevens Creek at Lawrence 727,500 net square feet of office/R&D Agi lent Eapressway uses Technologies (City of Santa Clara) 18. 3Com Pa( /Cognac Great America Parkway 278,000 square feet of office/R&D uses Great America Site and Yerba Buena Way (Cit of Santa Clara) 19. Yerba Buena/Irvine Great America Parkway 911,000 square feet of office uses (Cit of Santa Clara) and Yerba Buena 20. UL site/Shea Homes Scott Boulevard at El 132 residential units (Cit of Santa Clara) Camino Real � 21. Kaiser (City of Homestead Road and 175,000 square feet of inedical office Santa Clara) Swallow buildin 22. North San Jose 4,987 acres located south 6.675 million square feet of industrial Phase I(City of San of State Route 237, east of uses; 425,000 square feet of commercial Jose) the Guadalupe River and uses; 8,000 residential units generally north and west of Interstate 880, but also including land along both sides of Murphy Avenue as far as Lundy Avenue City of Cupertino 90 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 � Sec•�ion -l.0 — Cumulatii•e lmpac•ts Table 4.0-1 List of Cumulati��e Pro'ects Project Name/ Develo er Location Description 23. BAREC (City Winchester Boulevard and 120 sin�le-family units; 16� senior of Santa Clara) Forest Avenue housin units 24. Valley Fair Stevens Creek and 552,615 square feet of retail uses Expansion (City of Winchester Boulevard San Jose) �� 25. Main Street Northwest quadrant of Either Scheme 1) i 50,000 square feet of Cupertino/Sand Hill Stevens Creek Boulevard retail uses, a 14�,000 square foot athletic Propecty Company and Tantau Avenue club, 100,000 square feet of oftice uses. xXProposed projeet l60 senior units, and a 150 room hotel OR analyzed in this Schej»e ?) 146,500 square feet of retail EIR** uses, 20�.000 square feet of office uses, 160 senior units, and a 250 room hotel 26. Oaks Shopping Stevens Creek/SR 85 121 room hotel; 18,200 square feet of Center retail uses; 18,300 square feet of office uses; 14.400 square feet of ineetin rooms 27. KohUSanta Clara E( Camino Real and 490 residential units; 171,000 square feet Square (City of Lawrence E�:pressway ofi retail uses Santa Clara) 28. Marina Playa/BRE 1331-1333 La��vrence 277 multi-family residential units and 63 (City of Santa Clara) Expressway single family units to replace existing office bui(din s 29. Sobrato (City of 2200 Lawson Lane 516,000 square feet of office uses Santa Clara) 30. Regency Plaza 2350 Mission College 300,000 square feet of office use and (City of Santa Clara) Bivd 6,000 square feet of retail use to replace existin industrial buildin s 31. EOP (City of Santa Augustine at Bowers 1,969,600 square feet of office Clara) uses +3�,000 s uare feet of retaii uses 32. Lowe Enterprises 3250 Scott Boulevard 215.000 square feet of office uses (Cit of Santa Clara) 33. Hotel LeGrande 2875 Lakeside Drive 170 room hotel-condominium (Cit of Santa Clara) 34. Harvest Properties 2600-2800 San Tomas 2,000,000 square feet of office uses (Cit of Santa Clara) Ex ressway City of Cupertino 91 Drafr EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 �„� .- : , , - n:., -� � - ..:.. .�: .. -�..- ,<K; _. . , �::�� .:�. .- :�. '�M • -...g. , ea,:: . �>�� CY'. < , � . ,. �3,.:... ... � , :.� . . �,. >�- �- .,; .. ��i. . �.`if.. •.- .�.<_.', �,�. n:�� =;,�:. .rt..'��.��,ea'��^�^s;Lwx �_.a.�da�11 �t:s�ex�,'b'.-�te:: .C:_d+�?IJ-. , .,, > i �e. ,r r � :a� <.: a �-Q.... � --� ��. .`-- , _ �� ' k; - � �'�y .'r;• :� � � g g� � . , �{' ♦w�.....�. •;g . ya . ., � ,. . i, .s �- � .,� :.s. � �:.o�� , .. ..,.:>':..�-. . »... ,:::,. .;. .."."' - :;:h, , H .. ,�,-".-. , r �'F y4 � # �, . .. ,°��, � , ... .:. > �. -,-� �. . .:�. . . ., .:. .,..... �� . � .. � °sn ,e w • y ` � 1� �� y � ^3 .�`.� �� L� wSi�. �� ;. � � j �� , ' .S , .i� � ..h .: .�, , . � �..� �. "... .. �:. ... N y ( ,,+�µ •'n�. � 8• �� 1� \'� �l. '} (� °y' � TII ' 4 �A> '. b % � . � 4 .•� ^ .'k.o F a � .9 '..:q �� i , x 4C„ ' �, "°f: . -,v., - E. 6„ �y� �..�p • � �._ ��J��. �".y�'K+ .�° o , y 3. ' . p... � -�......._� , v�'` ♦... . �' ..�"- /i% 3 �4�� , � .. � . ' iu... R': .' i'A�n"""' f�, ,? ~ � id °B«:, i . '7' %• ��. < i ... , ii a , � 1F,� 4' � � '� ` ",�' 't ,� .a�.n*a.✓, • t�. +t �' 9'O r% •tt b„� , � ' �`.'"' �� F T � � . t �S � �",✓' -;;.. .rF.li.. ,. +�" .Id'E'.• �'� ^ t " s� �. �.; .,.. �',: � �, , �`. , l �. , J� V % ' , a�,. " ' c . ' , .. • � . ��' ; �. : ., $ . . = . . :. l. �..� . ' .. .. � ,. .. .. ... _�'� �„' ,a`E`'`. �i, . 3 � � . : ��. :� �� h % � �..,. �.� . � ,...' b'4.� o � , , �� .,� . :.... �. . .� , � � � . � � :, s. �4��'�. Y(:� JT�`!f4*w ie�. i'� � *' .+ i i .,p <� � '�"'"� . . . � e ��c.� : p � .�- - � �.� • ...t�, , �.:.:;> �;- ,. ..> .,�. , .�. ., .�t ':.... �,.. "*' ��___ � . ._.,.__' "<. .. �; '''�'.� . .�i. ..,�� \ '�j4 .&�,. , �Yia� .,.�:. ��. � � ° 5, l.; .. e .3 .. . � ....j. '' d � " � - �.^ jR : �� 4 l� � ' .v . . ��$ -` °k• • �Y .. �n ,: �'p � y"a.'►^ .i?�� . ;1 �� ' g '��'�•;'. . P . .;9 '��s _'�' f'n ✓C. .b.� sc'.. !: 6 . Y3':24' , 'S3'.i� +A�;4 - � L ..3�. p... y z� ..�5+. ��j t.� .iR.?'� �, d, ..1' �, ,q� ,. ,. r � . ' � �., . � � .:. ��p � . y .. . ,g .. � . .... ,� . . . a�.- ^+'.'._,.. � �: t +�f • � i' � � ! 1 'k� ♦ ~ � � . 0 .� ` ��. ..�'<a- .«, . . . : . , �� . "�. 3 i�.-�° , �✓-' `,�. �" �?l .^3'� �� )-� 3 '2s: : '' t }" �� Y F;*.; 'v�. fw� ; A.s :. s,,:p� .+i �' . :�1. , 'i ✓ :'� � t �. ��7�.. � !. ,:r. . , {'� .�. ��^+ a < ,>� .�� , � � X� � a�;r,»; �., �:. y� e °., e .-. ,> s `�,. a� d.r.:S. s .. . �:_ ;" • ; , ; � ° � ,;. , , �< ; .: �y '>` � "° ,. . 4' �v 'x� �. k �� . 19 . �r �� : �._ � � �.�- �. � >�� .. / �, _ _ �- ' .s � �" ��, � � t t_r� ,�r � r � ,�,. - ��5• . �% K � � � z : � . k%�' 1► � #,' X � �' y '►' `�`. . � . , . � • .'� . � " � ,' , ` ,' : �_ it � � . < ,� .. -z / �i" s -` ,�, a,,,.., ,,..^�y, �, .� # •�a.� ! $' �^' �: �c.� q ��. . sr� ,N{'•. ��^"';'1jJ�', n�`�� x � . �:, A �x ..,�...k:, � � • � �a ,m� .�t . � : �e.i� �}. .�� .k. a . . i i � . $� `�'.�s-. �" y I � 4 3 . �It . � �� /.� �'�, � �k , � � � '7 .@ k � � .e �'�i-.. � � ► i„�Q ,� � � '� T . �f � ��° �.. , � :� a. ; :A� �. �� \ �h " �� ' ,r `"�"� � �3� � ` .� .:z�' .� � �. °$?�,° � 9F�' .�.� A �, ,;�. *ab. :�� , �� =� , � r i� ,� �� _ , , _ , ., ; _ : ,: r _ .� � . ... .ro , >.. , .. .� #v s �� .� R ,��` �, J �a �°+: ,:�, ms4 t �±�.� ,,'�..< ,r .+� � �,.^ �`� '+�:. � � ' � 4' 4� �� i \I �9c � ! .,F'�', ��'.� , � . �"� � �. L !f: , �:, F +..� . � L .>.; � �� v r. . �, .; :.. ,,: , ., .. � �. > g . � �. . :�i. 6 si ,:�/�� E. q.. : ��. � . 3� '-� �^� t :�:�3�, i$" N{t . � ..� � .�a� s � I �. . M `t. � A 1�' �p �11 . c. � . �'w� � �' I�-' � q� ` +y, j � � '"�`��.. f:. ..� �'. • �µ ... i �'�� . f " . ` � � � � �p� � � . � �� '£ ��.. a :�� .� �':^ ' #r �f � � . `a � �« .� • . . .. . , r<� ,,. � . � ..., . , , . .. V ;..: . . � 4 �. �r • '�. .. � . e� 'sf� '�' � \ �. T' ✓�s`,e, c�E+. � � .�'. s �. • ;,n`.. ; , .•�a,v , . :£. . ' . ,.. � .'w � ., ' . .iI'�t ' •. ' Y `�TA� �G'. T.. �µ �'� �.9�" " .�. A � �': r.i y :, �� ... i. . . „ .�,. ,a�: ��, . '� . . .�.� f .: `�cF. 7 t..�. : •.: � w.1. ,. . �+ � F t � .brT .. . '. � A! i/,7 � � �w ..d, . ,. , �°; . : e a;� • , 2 t s -.e R .� � �. , . .k � ,. _ _ �a� .! ��`- ��,�+�g �°r` d ' t,�{+� � � -j a �, +R��, . �'� 1 � > .f � � � � , � � a � , ,�+ .y, ♦ " I a� �� ` ,.� +I � �,,,. � ,� + _ e , f ��< <e�° 1r �r �' , ,r., ,>,,,, �- � � �, .•,�'' � � �e = lP^. . , a. , ��y �,�[� �ea . , , : � ��ao. � , • . a:. w, s - H� , t= � �r3� � � :. ;,* - e a .F.. . .1 . �+� Q . !' .w:'t,. ; g�? A�" ... ..�. �..; ' , . ; .. . .. � y � :*a g .�'~ ,a,.g ��;, ,r .� _:7�:�; ;! �.�.�r; �� ... �a�'° .�.., ��s .�;9' -4'` v r�+"`, "�1 :,�si:.s' �'' �1� `.5' ,��`` Y ��...� . . ;.�f .�:�- �'^e�� . .y9 •� .�� X � � . �'.. � �' i �, 3..'. ' i '1 �' � � . i 9 . e #` � y '£ � l� �, �' � ..'� . � �� • � �..f '� )tl .,w' � ^$� �+ �.� �. V. . "b �•� � 7.r' . .p�A•• '� K ' � .?F ��i, � r aw..i:�� a . °.� � nYd .. � � Y� i �"„ �i �P► c 3 a� � �`e' a , . �:s� ';t� _. ar`' . • r'`" �� 5 �'' `� �f` ` 1► � � n . �`� a !s '� y . � a� `;P � � � � M i�' Fa !•��: „�a�. � , � �i� '� 9 '�'r 3 �v ,+� �. S,, n`�iF �• . „�,, � _! � �� :k. ,� � +�� t . I 's° #' . a` � . i '� c ,t� 4 :. ° <; , ` <ry, ; � _ µ ' �a: � s i' < � . , . �_ � � � ?.n , .< ,��. °��-� � �:. � � �` � , . . _ < : � � .e►� '�3'.� � 1 �. � :.�,. �; � i' Y � ' �_ , _ ,�>> .� �, .. �, � .�' �: �' a, ��: ��. �`-` � ;�� ., * ; � ,�F .,�, �'� �! s� 7 s.� �R.: :.� � � �'�-^ - < 3. ,... ..� . . �.' .r,w. � . . �:.' ?� ,. - d}- :� �. _"� � � 6±' a-. > '�: V "�S ' " ! �:..,� P, : `�'s �i .�. ' ' . l. �,..'. o o,. �;.. .^ ... �. � .�.... ,^� 'l� ;� �, N. . . . .�! �5`�-. :s. s," . ,�i �, � -�az��. �� .s': ti . 9 ��?.11 � � � �� `.�{�:°c:�- °�-� '��.: ..v.:.t� �s :�.. ., � .. -... ;� . . . , , +.g �! .. �T?s.... -.S"� �:."° �www�. ..t.i�`��.� .� 4°TF:��"-' �� . . ` : �. , � , : . � � . , �. . � .. ,.. :� � . -.. .., .> ��:': ; �. , :�.� . �� .. » .. ;r ., �' ��.. __...�t zr.�s.:k-'q �f� s zk�� R. >�! f; <`k ��- ,fi� � �$ � �� '� � , c �a. f ...1� .� :�_ r. ��. ..� � ..�y, ,.�� '��. � �j,� „� q '`a :fi°';.� t �r ;a.�amsss�... ^'..�• n�i� ! �i*� .-�'� �or...'A �� .`�� _� ..r�� < ti> +�. . 1 :�:,-,, . , � � �` wA _t „ t P -. t� �'' ,�. s. � i ....°, . ¢� wl � R`3` � 4 ' �i ��.. ,�.�i. ::;£`.,. 0 A♦ ' s ,r.1A„ . �„^w � � y .+ . y -.� p � :�;i4�> rL .�yy • R'.��S:iC+� 3C.".S�i v � � .I -±S . �9 . � d`� ` .. n . .'. " % � � �} �� . , �� . � ,}� � � � , 2 .�,'"' -�: y� �.�..y� � , ��:� . . �. , '..�.� �:. . � ... . �•r � -... . , ' . . . , : . . .,` �.: � ;.:..:, X .. .,. �'. . ' 'M. .. ..:. .. r ' ' .: . . � . L . y �. r A . 6 3� , Fa . L . !� �`el � 'j'4 --;e¢'"';`" "�,'�:?➢�` �: � � p 1 � ..aaW . '•� nfa 0. � � � � . �4 -'•: �'+. � - �. .. � 1 ��.. >, :. ..... " �q.^ . ; ',^...'",: . .: . °M . .>! .,. ....'- : � , "f' � .�^; .")"' ..✓ . .1 d ��. } S'i 9 ./' 3 ',,. 3^ 1 �.k: � � ..- , � .. : , - � r . _., �F�:t � . , f ... � . ,-. ..:.. „ . �. �. . �.». rt @ �< `! !�. �;',�r' ��a:.:.�...�..,�,...... . "' � 4 � ! � J � �w � ., :� ,. i�e..^4.a �,. .. �,. t, �'..: . .' .f�� .,..�,�. ... {A, ..,`asr's.. .X».�c... „ .�, , �..:'s�... ..�� ,,.: .f.:. - '�3. `� .i ��'ef: M: e , ._'i . v �+. ._ ; .. �. .. �.. ,. , _ ,;. , __� .;.: � �l�f ,.; .-,. p' � , zr�un.c,� ?. .!'*' 0, .� �° 1 f',:► �.. `�'`& ��' ��, � • � • _ » � . ., _ . t� o e'$ > . ., � . . �'°°""' ,. , u , . o . , , ^^-..,,. s� , . "`.. , J'f+ ;, e,:.. � .-�. d /' � J,�>"t' - te �, , ; / ' ,g _ . ,� ,. . # _. . � . . . > .x .: s, , .7 g .r Y �za� ..a .: , o � . . ` . � '"• � 8! ,ri.eT �. �-r' J s� *;�.. ; . ..... I .,�:� ,,, • � �� ., .:GtG..., . , -.....� ,t.�; .. � . �. .,�.;. ti' � ..- a�' ,'=Y. ..:. � + �..a� '' �� .. �a.. �,. �. 1 �' ' �'�'�' - �1 f p rs�. iF. �.,{: ' i�, � . t as?.,. � � �,:�i P, . 5 ., a _s ��.f .�' � .YL- `4 ..: :K.o� �'a a `�,..� /1� ��, p Y� 4 ,,.E s �. -9 ��":. ..�' ' Se , � -� s� �m ..f - � - r, ..+<'`� ,� , -� . . . �� X � �I�. 'as ;:�,: �:.' �is. '.1 � , r '"' .. i6 � � ^i..`;'. °+.>4, � ., ..N�" . i ".,.. ,< .. t ° � '� y+� �, �° £ '3w a �� ,3►. , ,.. , . .. � a . . .. . � s .. ... , ,,.: .. . �. � a � • � p ' , e .. �. �'►�'� ' ,` � - ; � .. �. ��r - . . , �<,, .e , „� _ ,. .. ,;,, � ..,�.. :.: .. �..� �'i' �..,-. �� s� . x +� ,i � � ''��. �.. -a � � '$ i ` � � _ �,� ,.., .,,� . _.; . .. < . �, . , , �,r. m ; _. ., �. � � T� , t . "'�P^+ � 'S'� 4s. .I S •' �2` .i. i . r y . -.o � � .. , .. � . '^... , .,r. .� �, r.. . . ,,:.. }.,. .. .�w. .. _ , � , .. s� �.� � ,:.'. � :.. ...� x�' � .■ �" fl� '+Y.;. , , u ; � , .:�, ...;� �� . .. . w ...,<R►� . �. «d , .. � ` L .��_-- ...nv�a . �� K : ,....� . �. r �d.: ., .: �.. „ � ,. � e......., � � �, ..� �'b� ��:�:` a� i*'"' � +,�� . .. . � Q .., .. � � . . P � e ,. , �, a. . . .. .a� . , x r..s . � �, . .. .s� . �. ., d', �. , .. . .. . � . . ,: �:y � , "". X", � R . a'"!�e� � �1:;" �` + �•','��.w � �s . .'�N ♦. :1 ��. .�t �.- - �. 'Lk� ,w� .-+r, � .r� .t. Su { �. �•Yz:. ��y 4 .w ,.r''y �� ! , K .. z .. L, . <.. ...e..�i � � t S' a�. r �r •i . r�,. � ( . ox:�..WCa� - �'r . ,.'�.; � . . R' a� � �� a � �-w� � ..� ' . . . ..,,, . .. ....�,., ' . +. ...w ..-.. . . - q -� � ��. .n;_{ �� . ,- .y> '� i,,.. .. . ��. � �.. ... ...yM1. ..�.��; .. ,�. ^..'. Y ..R ,. �. �♦ . :+. �.'.. ., ,... .. . J+ :.Y • ..r�..w .i � �.. ,x - .,.�s..�" .. .._ '" . .. l�v,. .-� $ � � • <� . � �: � .. , , .> � ..'A ,b 3'. � :7 . ,t+ �. �.,..-...... :.. ,,, �, � t. r ..-:.y . .� .; - . � .. � :p.' �' ,�,:..s ':5�, .�.0 «l �� i � �� b�� ( ' . %i' � .r .. :.� �.. .. . �:.. . -, ,4s'. c H . : , .. t �:,.:..,.. .. ,Q' � �.. ..r . �� :: . . „ �„-. . ..�.,...�. ,.... w ,.�...,,. `!7n � -, ..z� . �w J' . � '� ��. .:. . ... , ae�'.•: '��.R, @h . .. ��' �.�- . �... �..a .� -,s. . . ,,.. .. > ....... .....<,+�- -_ s �.�� , .� , ..�-..:i. � ... .. ., . ..� ,; Y �`aY �. . �..� . . ..::,:� _ ... a� ��M? �> . . • . �. -,� �. Y��. 1e . +r ... �I .. ....-.r� �P.♦ � . . .. .,: . ._. ... �. �' .. .;{�. ... .F.., ... .. . 'v . .,. <. ,. . ,. , ...�.. a . �`Q t' , �..�.. , .. .. : r .. .. '+�Ti . : ; . "... .'a . C' . . . ,.. .. , . ... >.. .. . J . ♦� .. . Z ....... .) . _ Y'. .. ... .f � .;.. ..n.{� . � .. . ��'n� .. ; � 4& ��; . � 1:..�. . [ .' �..., .`�.. .. F ..'.. ,. .. �n .�. . < . ..... �. ..� �. . .:. :` �.: �.. i ,� �.� ��' ...?. .:� � 4� �� } . �.... , -. .�.., , ! 3 .. . � +�.9r�i , i...'^'�, .,._ . .. . .. �,,,..:3., s .M. ,. �, �,. . ��. t„s_, - t .. . � II.,. ��` A 4 t"°' y :. i.',� . , . -.. ,- , . . a . � Y �7.. � �..- � .-. �.x. :d. "� . . . .. ..... x. .., � . ,. .., �.:r � _ .: . . � , . .. , ... � ,: � . : �+ . .�.. ,. �. , a . . .�,� �� ..•,. . . �...:�� , .. , s$ : ,�. . ..i �t. _ d .� � _ ., _ , �. � . , . ,: ., r ; . �' e4 � � �• .�:�7 •3:,� � . . , �, .... .�i ,.. .�,. � : ,. . .. . �. .. :.�!'� . ,�. ,,. .. .:.. � �e . �.-,. F .w , �.� >� �� a.,.. . . $ . *3� �.:'�. s .'�.. .: :.�/i� .... ,. ..:.. "�� - .�.-� °u < . .,. >..� �>� . ,. .. :. : . .�ti/ �, d . . ; � ��: � .� � ? .+L� . ., a •,'� ...y.�.. ,r� ,... . ..:: ; . ,. .. � ,: - „., , . e .�, . . ... 1.�... , . , ti,�, .�.. . . , � � . s Y ':5 . � ,. �.- �1 : ..,.. .. ...-�.. ..� � ,.. l � . .��'A �� :, �r;. .., ...... , :� ,.., . ��;._. .s� . � . : �: .,..rw, .,a' -. . : .� • � 4.. F�.�' "�Iw�* . . ,, . .. . � . �^: . . . , .k ,� . . ,� a.� .�..�w. ;�" • �. , �'�: . � � ?� �� .� . 4'� . .� . sF� ,� .o...�� .a... ., t"' ., . . �_.�r. ., !�" .,�. .... ..-�...: .� �.r .,,c „�. �,..... ._w. .. . <. . ."�. s,... „ ,�q �. .,:.. . �� !�`• ".::�: �� 1 . n ,a. . � 3� �?� *� +� �+ n 4;' s 1: a $� ,r'e,.. S .r. P . z .f / r �� -< . �q �:�, :Fl . r � �:if. .♦ r.w�'. ��A°' 1. �� .> ,� «,.= • �� . .+� �„= t r^t.'° 'k� � �� , �'�l..,, � .�. .e�. /. . , . , . . , . , � . . ., ,. , :e.:--. .,r �� ga <,. i', ..� ,. . _. .. . L�r.. ....,»f ��a ..: :.... �.. �;,..--`:� .... .• �.<-... ...,..Y. ..a, J.y :,- .�' ''� �� ..';t,, . .� �. .. .. : L "� . �a �� . P 1 »� � . . M1 , , ,`� . ^M� . .� . �, < . :.<' . . 4 ` >`e.. _ ,. . . � :y, �. .,. : . 1 aQ': � a 'fiF' �,. �.$ � .� . . ..a'�!:� .. . �., � , : . �.�. .... *r .3�. . . . .. �..... . �. . . .� �:x.., . - , ✓'' . x . .. �. . . ,. , .+�� .� :.` � ��.�. �.a` ..,..+ "�a+�! :".Q.; . � , ,. ,. '� ��... , �� ., � .-�..} .y�9`". . �.s�` d�..x�t �.:��.- e�..-r �, 2 . r„ � �- ��.�. ��+A �..f .�.. � � ;. ...�� .��..� e :':� ,-. ., n . �7. .. ,_� :. ,::F . � 4� ,� we wl . „ -< . . 5 „ :;_� ....:, 8. �� ,:r . .€i�..�� .!. . . .� ..> l. ...... .. µ .X .4 t` .�. . �{y �� ".� ,?�, ; , � . ��. 3. ,s . .: �: . .,* .. ,a, ,'�... � q . a+. � . d . .,�. �,.. 4 oR • 4': w ' +1�'- ��i ., ..y � � ,� �, � �' :��: ,. �: _ '� , . . , .� _ , ., � � r , ....� , . � � s. � _ , . ._ � � _ . . � , � �- "�� .. : <.., ., , �. . : �< +i � , , _ � a� �, � , . . . . !!� � � . _� e . �.. . , fs e . �. . : . ro. F . � . � . �° . ,. ._ .. . �.� +► '��' . _ � . �a, , . • .. � �� P. , .�. .r..�. „.., .. .. . � � .S, ! .. . , , ...a 'K .. . � ... ..- . �� .�f .�. ... �...... �..,. If, , . ,.,t .. , . „� .� .,'3�11� a. ..�� . :�� .'F. ... r '. i.. KaY � ' &. Q. . �.r_ . . . . . "� . � . i. . ... . '.� . P . . _ .a't[ � d'-.. .ai -+. l ., a Y ' � � . I vv. , n . � o. .:�.e �� . � , � ..._ . . �c . ... 'fi�a��' . .... ,. �:T°" . . �X:';. i .. .•'.?� . � ; � :4" ' 'I' �... �,. � �•. .k'4 . b � ��f. .�-ti� :•' -�d"' A� � 3 '�' }�� e • . ..:_� . < . : , .., i . 'Y? � ... ,.... � . ��.�..2... :., . .♦ f. .f .... , ,. .s. .... .�. . , . .. � t'X:.>..a .. , .., � ... , n i ...'.�, � :. ,��. .a . ,-. . .. _..+�. ..:: .. -.,. .�� . , �.�.., _ .....,.. � .., . .S -::,_�. ,. �:'�� ..� .� .. :.,� .. . .... . -d►� ., - A��.. .�... -., . ! L , , , , �k . 1 � l $ �+s'� , eey . _ �., a : .a . ., x . � . � . Q . . � . � : �` x � �+li � s. . . , x . � .,. . , . .,-,: � ��` �� .. .,--. . � ... .�,-�..,.�... . . t�,. -'48.... ,.. ,s. .� � �� .. . - �.,�-� .. �., � , :,.. .�,... . . �� , .� .. .: �� ... .F'atr.� . ,� -:; . � . a ,�� r R �' w., '°� e � s � !� , �► � � T:�'� . � a ; ,. . , ,,... +4. 4 . < �r. . .__ _ . _, �. �.. �.. �. .� r � , .. . .. . �,.. �°"� .� . � .� x. .... . ,�n. :t ,. .�. :... �st._ .... ., a .� �" .. .. .>•. .�. .. �., . ,, o ,�-:i. .. ..,. .., .. .. . � ::r. �e � . �:, ��. .♦ ,�. e , , . . , i , s. �i.. !� �... 1 . .. �< , , .,:. �- � ,. -5 r � .., � .... .: <.,..`� c��.... ,�d .... �. . .,� :.k°;'_ s „ .. II ,� �. �` 'p �i . � � �, . .it f�; ♦- w . � �.... .. a... . ..�. ,. .. �y �+►. .:w- ,�.. �'.�`.,.�.' .^V.. _.,.. ... , ,-.�, t .� ?8S .!� .�� ,7 �4 �': _ . � � , „ ,w.�, . . ., .� . �„ �. ., . ... . . .. : � ?� _ . . �:. . � . ,. � . � � 1'�" .r� � .:; �,� .��a. ...�^. .. ...,.: �, .. . , .x . . .,. .. .., �:..> ,�. _ .<,. �� o. . > '� � . , � � � ' -i _ , s r �. <,. c ,. , , r� , ,,, � .. ,;. . « � . . :' � . ;,.,.- .: �" , , �! 1. . _ . . .. . �. 3 .. _: . .. - . . � . .. . .,. . !� r..c a x,.. � �. _ "� , . _ t . � • . ,l.. ,: ..: � j .. a ;; s1 . � t . , . . . , . ,w . _ , „ .. � , � � ✓ � , � s 4 .: 'Y . � " •,• .. , ;_ , � ., ., � . A M , _.... . , ..; �. . ,'�.<. f. . , _. ._.� _._� ... 8 . .-,.. .a . , ...... .. ., .A -. s�4 ;� � -.;. 6� : x.. i�qR �? . . . . . ..;. .. �.. -. ,. ..rr : . c F ...,.>, ��: � �... � . . . . ..,, .,s�� . �,;. .s� . �, :. _.. . , . . :�! ,I ! _ , ..:_��+ : r : . >, � _''t �: Ms�. . � .. . :: ., .. .. , o. s. ,. . 4. .. w'� . �... 4*. : , , z, , a , .. /� I S A`� ,� _ �' i . M s< 3 � � , .. � , . . .. . .�' , . . , x .. > , . .,�' . � <v.• �► +S". g�' :�� s." • s «tJx .., � k :, ar � *t �; . °4 , . , r .. . . ,» .. . _ , ,1 � . . � , . ,ii c s . , ,:4 , �� . m " ` � � ,. . � �.� ,.�, _ � . . ...��..., . r � o ........�... .. ..,. .,� . � a �� .. "�r.. . .. .;� �. ,. : ..,► .;s :: ,s�. �:�.#'� . illl - .. ..�. , �. �. i ,� , ..:�a.. ¢ . ...- :�� _. �.�:. ,...-,4.:. �.:�� <,,� . �p,.._, ,.... .... ,a...,ea�}` :�- .. . �. ., .. . �L . yp' ..,�w : � .tl W:. ,,5. � . .• ,.:�. .. .r. � ,( ..r. .+,�.' , :�.�:. .t ♦„I �s -:r� � � �S � �.;`�', . �� . � � � . � : . : : 4 . . .r. ., . � � �. .. F , � � ..: � _ ; . ,.,� .. .� t a � . � . �s,�� , � �, � „ M . �r � . . _� _ � . ,.,: • .;: ..:, t• � , �, � , �. . � . , � : � �� ,. . _ t .,,. . ,. .�° 7 �� ._ : � :�k -�� :�.. . . ,.� .� �; .�. . .a ,� �. � pJ� � .�. � .+e.�. .,. - ..,... . ,_.� . , .,:. �s� .. .. : . �. .3 .Ir�u ��,: i . F � � . �,..... ..�. �:_ .... . -.. '1_.?�r. .�. ,�. �' .,- .sP .. ie*� ,y. . ..� �r �: `� . �s �� ` �.._ �:�.:. .... .�• : ... h . .,,.,., t .�,.. .;... . �.. . ...., � , �.�r ,�. . . �� .. ....�. .. . ...��> ..� �-. - 4w. �� .� - r :. .� . ..' : � .� .. �. . L �� St..... ! , .. Y ...� , .. ��...� eF -..., .o.. �' �S .7i � .. ` ��,-�fa° � Y ..... , , .,A�- .. Y,. +�r �.b . �. .. . w , : . � � _ . . ,, . W ..�'� , x . .. �;... - . ... , r. � ... S.. .; . - . . F � . �. � � -. . , .. � '�R tN' �� .r' �� "�.: ,. � . �-� ",. , ' . �$ ��. . I . �� .,.. .:� .- r . , � � .. ...�.� ..,�iP'.. , ��.,:, � .. �. �_ ........ �.,i �, ......t �. . ., . .. .. .... ..,, �e... . �. .Ww. r° . s .. .. . ♦ � . .. . �'� a�. � / ,.. � :r: .._. n.. .. � . , �� . , . ... j i` _ .. . . .. . . �, � � ,H , ., a ,..., .^' . .... ... . ,".. , � � � „ . .. > , � . �fi . . ... . . ' � . �7t . .. ,/'' �.- � � �". $" � ;. ....: ..� 04.. ..� e � ... ,... . .. .t T. ��:.." .... :.Po� . .. :i: . F. ,. . � _.. . _ ...:�.b. . ,.} � N .a.l� .. ' �,�. ��-�� . ...... s .. .�, ` i. ...,...,..� 3s � .. �. .�>. .._ t, ...: . <. . _ ..�� . .��. ,. '4 .. _....,.,. �.� ..� , :a� 1;.: -.e.<.:. ..e �+��.. < 9a � ��;: .� ... .,.. , �M� .. .� ...,. . , , ...�. s� . � �.... .a.1..�-. ,. .._�.. „ .:.....� ,A .. ..., i, , e, ,.: t� r►� -�.F: �r-R,e � *�; � r ,�V.. �` � ,a '� ,� . ,�,.� ,.<, +a y: �°< s� �, +a� �i` x �� . � �^` °`��. . ,�C �, Y : ; . <, , . .� a ,. � . , ., , ... � : ,., , .. .. , ... . ; �.: ' i � ;&� r"� :� �.�.: .:� . , , . c,. �,��f' _., ��,..� . < . ....3x . . , _ . ... ,.�. :..SC: : .. . : �.. ,. � .��it . ,- � � . � . .:,.,. �r �i 1 �� b�w. . ��+'.. ,.� �: ''., . ��... 'v�. .d, `$� ♦ � \�o � • . •.�F �, , , x y r,.f Yo. w�@ .�k'. ., ,�� .. -" ., ':�.; .� .♦: �s . � � , i . . s ..�. a.w :�. ,�. ,. � -s �..� �.•., . ... ��;� +.� , I�� . , . , ..� ... .n« A ..,. �.. E , . . �.,� :'� . q �.y�� I/` . >, . .�.... �„ .. .,... .��o .... '. ,. ..� � .. . Y .. .. : �n ..c a:. ... .��,��„ . �.�v . :�.. . �..< «,. "� t . �a . r �.! � '�� ,. Y' .: � . ,.�� ,�. ;.i�e +,. � � . �' � � �i: � , > �-£ 2 � ti ��b FE �� y -:i .,�', �"' .��w .� �!r �:�� r �,�. ��:�� ♦ �-"4� �� ..�e � � .... .. �. .. . , �. : 3 .- �.. . . +, � � -.:.. :. .1.:.., ., .. ...:' ��.•'� .: � ..: : :� �. .. ,� . . ' �� '�' e�r.:��n �.,. "., ..w...,. .� . ,S:z., r #�.' . �a, . a� .� �+r' � 4 -a s Id � - � '9�' � �": . s s� �1 ',. � � r► s . �•° >+. '�,�r` �-� � i� ..��.. �'": � ' .. �,�, �, , <_ � ,. ,: . ,,, > .. .,<. . .�. ... <, , ,� � , :. . yq+�, � ,y. � �. ':� . . ; �, a► ._ � , ; . . � < , .. ;. ,.: . . .�:. ; . � . ,. „ a� -�;, . s ; ,': ..< .. <: ., , s! , � � q � ` � �� ,; , . . _ , .. . .. .. ,, �r .,. � _. ,: _ � � . . ; , ,. . . ,. , a _ � ,� , : , f . �.� � �, � � �' , r. � � 7 v y � x,� � r. i►� -`:e� w . F °� r �: . . �. � � ±► . �. -� ��v � . >� z, � �.. > �a n y ` A�: �; .� < \ ''� ,� � �, � .. • (; .,.;, �y� .� �.. �'. � .� , . , ;.. . z : � , _ y . _ _. � 1 : M,. , . : .. : . , . ,. . . ,.. ��, r . ,. . �. . � . r � t - � . � . � � _ p . , , _ . � .� . ,. . > ,.�- r .,.s �. x ,. r:: , : .;;.� .i s� �: �^ ., r �. � � �. <, � , �,.. � ;� � A � .. , ; . . . �F .., > . . . � . ., _ � . ,_. , . . �� . , � -> < �, � , � ,.. �.. , . , .➢•. i. ..,.�: T¢, .S `4.... L�.. �.� . ., �,� F ., . ._ _.. ..� ._�.. >�- . :.,. ,^'4� /�-.,: . .'1 '1�' . .I :�� ,., ';� �Rf �. ;_-,..a a. , A. . �� .. . ... �ri '�,.., , i v�. . .. �� .,�. , a ... ...f.w. . ?,�. ,. �a..� .:� . �' .#.. -� �a � .' �. �.� ;�: :f�` � Y .,1 :.,, .: .. �YP . . .. . .�. . .M1;t�. ,�, �� . :, .� . ....}- -�. , .,. �� .�.f.�. >...�.... .. c., �� .� �J� � ��-.�� ..?�� `x �Y I <�. _ . . � .. ,�,q . , '�"' � . . r . ��* . � _ � , I� 3 , . . r .. , � �' . .. . a .� ,,.. �' • j�+' ; '� . i � �t .. � .,9 �! � . ,. � . . � � . La : , . . - < -� . . .w. � , . . *$ , __ . s J ,♦ z '� a� .... � .., a.. �� ....,..,.. y��i� �,�. _'ty� : .,H... � . ;� ,. . �.r >.�_ .. �� .. :.. ._.. ., _ �... . � . �d ... :,. „::..,-: $ #::� � �+�� .?`� :�!:. ..�.' a •t^..Se :r� ., .. , � . ., . _� .. .. -,. t. ,. ...,t �.4 _ `S . , t � . K; + i t a..... ,. .. . ... .� .. �+� .<. ;, ��-� �.R. .. .., �.�•. ..,� - F.�.. :.�'. �� , a#:;.�� . .. �- -� . . .. , . . ... 4 %Y�>.i- r. �- � ��: .t+..._. ,. . .a�:. �..,i�. �-- �A✓ � : �` Ti+,~ .. . r ',�.e . , 6a� , . �:. ,...,,.. . . AI� - . . � � i . �.'F .. . .'"P .. . , r . . _1 ,� :�. - �- , ��.,. �; . d � . :.: - . . . .. � .r � .:s � ` y; .�, . ,� ., �, ,.�. �� ,� .!� . . ,� a.,:. . .... S. . ....�..,�..o-..._ .. ... ��.., .... .1�, :�. . •. a q .... ..,�'�' , 1 _ , " " � i r , : r . ,s z. .. �. � � 4 w � u. � <. � ! # ,.� 4 ..- . �. '4 .� ,i � '� r '� � .�- : . � i +�. %, # ^11► ., _ r� . � a. � ..c '�, _�` � . � .:. . _ _ _ y ,._ , r.-a � ♦ ,.i .. . A' ,. . ,, � ,. ,''p''�k , .<; , . ..,, . A , �yi,. . . _ _ „ 1 q d `l��. - ,�- ;4 -� �` ... .- +w i. -� !�t:: ,� �, � . �. '�..-., ;.. . �.. :�':��...��. �.o. ,��. .,: .....,� , s ��;r _ '�, x . .,. �. .t� e .,P � �►,-. �,.. ... �.� r.� .�..;«�' . . > , .: �e. . ......0 , ,._ . ,� r . ��t w ._ o- >f � . (,,... K�, ,. ca.<¢. . ,.�. ,..� .. .., > .. .,s. � /� .f°' ��/�� 1 ✓�� :+ �,yf � Y� , � . -.� � � �. . __ � 14 _�: � _ . . !�. , . � �► - , � � ,� . , ,� � : . _ _ � ;. � , � , � 4 � : . _ . , , . „ u .. � e , .t y ,�,�, 4, � . � ';!° 5,. z : 'kk' .,,.� .-� $. . . �. .:+��;�.�..�... .. .��- <.. , _-� ..<: _.. . ,r�. . . ..a_ '?t'. :� �.� �.r ,. > � .� � . .. . .,� ,.�- .�7R- � 7..� �� § .r.. ., ., "'k.� �<.. ,. :: ..._. ..<. �� 'A', �� .: .. .. , ..�Ar� ., .. ��i Y . � � , ... . ��2�_ ��.: ... . .., .. s� �F +f !&� � !t1� � ... :�`: ., ,. . 1�i.� .... �.: , , .§.' � . _.'.�'._.,.. ,� . .. _ ..6 , � .�,. .> _. -°,a . �� ...., .sl. aF' � �vr. �� : `�. �. �o . .�, t . . g, � � � e � :. ;y'a. ,, Br I .a . �. . J � � 3� � ��-.. . � as �i .�' � � A_. � ,w� '�, ..��, t .�,- �:'�� ,k �i. . +i(� .�� .a. . d ,� � � s �, . <"°°•,.� :�; > s � ,�. :�-. �. � � ��j,� �;, .�; �'� i• � -� .� ".�:: 1'' � �--V .. >. , � �'` "'�,t s W- i ��` �� '4 � � ; � �. � , ... .., .,. �,. . �.. .. , ... .. �. ,. . ., , w.,�. ., ,.. .' . �. ,� ..,, ,.,-�, ..: ��.� .. �.. �' <,>� ,. ��,.:��" u.e�� F/ �!�, , 15 �� : � � . s . ._ . - ,« .H� , _ a .- , , , . � . , � , �� ,-. ., , . �,, . . �. . . �r' '� . I # . z � , . � • • °' °..��',�,' � '�" �� a« . � . , �► _a� _ . <� y� �: : . a-u �_"�,t?'� �t , ,�r .,. :; � � ..: ,1: _ , �+ ♦ .� 'i:.. � � " d ( es .r�: a . ....�;�. ��.I �<.;. _ .._ ._ . ,,,...��. 'J�` ..:.,w . ,. �� . ,- .�,.. �� .;��.. ...'i� . �.�...',..., .,,,�. Y'1 A'._ .f! .,+. �� ..�,. "�" � r.: .r... , t . �. . �.n . � , . � . � .� � � '� .�; u � � . - ,�'' , . . . . x s . . . _ . , . ......_._ . �' � :o. . . _ ; . :a . � �, � � , �t, � _� � , ... � ..� &t,1. ... +A: �., fi.. �..P . ". . �i � ,..,�...�a: . .-a.. . .. ., ::- �..... ...; . .. � . "�.� ,_rf. .,'�1: .'. ..� .�d �� . , . .,� . �. ...., �� .. .�s;��'t`��..i.a�.,.,�°.;' ,q-�^._ ,� .. ; � .. �� ... � . .. �� . ,. . 30 s. . : �, . . .�� . � .< ,� �,�. �: , k � � :�. . � .. _ _ '� � . .. � r , ,. . < . , � v : « ,a� � � , .. �i. � �;: 3 � _� . , , , . � . �•,�� < . � , . . _ ..... . , '". �. ,..� „� ... ........ ',w. . ,-.. .. ,.. .:, ....a .�✓. f ...:� .:� �.-� . . � � y . ; ,a` �." , � _a-t��_ � e <_ _ . � . � � :� . , .. � � j.. � �. .�`�.. , .. .. , fi , �: , �.�. . ,. �,.: . .�.. F.�. s ,. : B.F , ,," *��,�•; 1�h .� .I�4 s m . \ ...�..C'F�,�rY A• \ �'� ...r.� .. , z�.o- . 4,r. e.......�. r . � � .� ..,-,� n. .,. 3 . .. 3., . .1C�:. ��:. . 3 ar �{ �� .,.. �. . �� ...Y. .+w .... . .; � _t f , .d�. .♦ .-� ♦ ':+.��, .iJ �,. s . � . . , . if _: : . . . .. .:.i... ,w . : . . . ._ e :, �,. � � � . �: ' Y . . ,.... �.:. ,. �, � 1 � � '...5 , ii `.. . �, . . ° �P �:� . , ..<.,- ..... , . �:�c.s . .�. ..... . : . � .... . . . ..*.,,,. r , :..#.. ,. :a :�-. .�Y�. ; ::.. � ,�:..,. . , .� � ,. ^, .,s ..,..a� :� .. , r ", �". . . .,. u ,,� . _ . � .: � . . ,,� . , , k' 9 < e , � , . . , ., t : �( r :!� . .,+ ,Y f ,� «4 �..� � � ,,�1 ; fi �" %. �. , .,. s:�.>. ..�.. , �„� x..s.. ..,c .,... �.. �O `��... .,. usror7r �:,� ..r �a}�+ ��{ ,.....:. . ,,. .,� },� �.. ..,. ..:� ::+R ..-:�, -� '.. . �:. �" .:;"�a . , ,. ..: �/ -��` �, .. ,..: . . t , s _,. .... . � x � � . , ..,...:. � ' .... .. .; .. ; � . . . � . ; aa . . .w � .. ,. ., , �: '� . � '�� .. g� ! �. ��':.�w ,i , �� . ..o. . r <s�. .,,.. ... � . ,. ,�..-. �.. � , � ..x�. .. . .,� , ... . . ,� ,.� . , .: .. . . ��.. ...�`. . .. . .. ,. '� �:> ..t�' �� .tl �� . >� �... , a� ..., ,,... ,. -.. .. �" .,,:. .... , ..� ... � . ,:. .. .». � ? a iP . ,. � � Y�. � .,�.... . �f;`�� ..iQ'V:...�.�° . y -. M � .,- �, i . .. 'd � � n�r � �-: ..<a':.v�.;e ,.;«: .. ... I. ...� ..:�.� ; . _.. �. ;... �.L :._., �.. .. � .....�:. .� . , �i..�.�,.. '.�, �k. ?g.".. +� . ��:,..� .-..... f i. �.�� A.< � .. ., : �. .. , . ... �. . . ,. .. ..a � . . ... .. ,. .. . 3a , . . � >. , � 1a ti., r k�... �. :� �.if' �� :, bi . .. � . ., ".: - F. ... _ . � : � :.. . u - ! :. '� � � • ' � � :� . � i' I. . 4` F ',t�. J ..'s§. . x ,��, ^+. z . _ . ... �j. . ,. D�e� . �.. .� . . � , �. , � h � `R^'" ;... � �.� ../k . � , ��... � �. v �.,, , r ., , ... >�"i.�'."', "`, � 4..�a �Iti , .,,,: .�.. , � ��. .. .-.., . :,.>��. n ,... , x..*.. � � l . . �6. , � �d �r �� .� - � : a? . �. .... � , ... a. -: � 9i. :R :�. .1 �. .�i� : , : <;:��. .. . .. ., ' . ^4 . �� n , ..; ...,x �. � ..r .. � .r . . ... ,..,,^�. .. .... .».�....... �e. ..�� , ,. ,. .a.. <,.� � .:., a � . / ti. :: .. .., ... ..1 />� ..�{.� . ., ,. .�.x .�pr. . �. .-.� , , .._ .� �.� � ..�, S.. . ;. ..A. ., . ...... � ..: ... Ed� � t_ :. ,. . �!. ; +R" �. • ...,.. �+i+ .,.i . . '�8� ' ' `::> .°�� .F'��..: A. ;..�. / r.,... ... .. ,, ,....*.I. , , �S. '+f, '�... ..'9 �:� ., ��a.'�1R , ..ai4 .,... .� : -�, ,,. ._..,.. �. i'rsr '�..,. , y � ^` , �c '/'r �. ,. .��.:.,.>,.,� ....: .. �� I .� , .aa� ;'3 . 1S � _ v ".. . .. .. , .. *w.� * �� . , .: � � , . • ' a� .. . '�'�s'..--. -c (,: , .y. �:. � � ?w �..., .. � �,,p�`� . ��,� '� . • . � . . . . ,: � . .� ;'1� '�`:.. � ' / . � , � . Y� .. & . y ::v ..r,�„ y ;•>. , ..� _F.: . ... .,. «.�"u �:r..�. .. .,.: .. �. � � -E. .. ..- . . �,,, ... �:,.... �:,.�. �.c , � .. . �,� .�� . `}� . �. . .. .., �'n "��';'',35� '.�':.�. ., . ,��a .��.. �....... .. _. .. ,...... �.., , . .„ .,ll. .irA:. :� i�� .....,.. ,:� ... 7�. ,. . 4 �, -� I'� � x ....4"".., .�.,,� �':� �'. ; ,a...`.$>.� .'s�' .�. ,.. . �;-.. �.. �..�fOR,.. ,r .. a�.�� .t .� � .. ,�.�: B��._�: �� ..� ;. ..,, � : .. �.�� . . vS f. �+ �sA.. .,. . �R ��;Ti,� .�^e.�: ...,_J. ��., .. . e ..- �., �- ,. . > «,.. .. :.. ` , .,. ... . ♦ , � .,� .. . � � ,. ,... �. ::. '�"" . a !� `4!: I .., . . .� A , � �. , � : i .♦ � .�s,> " ?. .'{ '"'$ 3 , . ,.. . n, .. �,. , _ . 7wtl.. . , �. � Y g� � f .� ''� ,k 'k.,..,,. ,,... ., ,� o � � x p � . a . �, �. � e � , � ��- , � � , _ � 33 . . , �: � �. � � �. . � . . y , � �� . .;: ��„� � _= � �. � � : as.. 6 v. /� 4 ,� �S• g # ,.y � � �'4 �.. y ..... ,'Tyt: . . ., y + n .t '�.�'tk �� ..�� .. � . ��.R� .Fa.. ' i.P-3 . .. ..��"� .. 1 � �. � .. .. t k � ,�, �.. .: ai ,:�..... � v: . ..:'. �: ..... � �°. . �. .� � .,-i � �� ie Z �^ 1 : .. f� ..s y 4J, +�`5� � , � ?�. -„� �-�c. . �,.. � ,� r ;� �3' �! � � S � � . aai_ � 3'� , i : E'" s� � �r p ,F'' , n.. � ..�.r. � � ' �w� - �F � ��t .I .� �s. ,'�c�., .b � y;. .. - ?l� . ;f�. .c ..f4 �..f „kr>� �, .4�."?. .,y. . - ;�.., , f'., A . `� ?*r "_. Y � �S 1 . �' �: > , t '�� s.. aS . ,9Y`�e �+'� �, , . w �.._:, ; ^ ...4.. .. � - . .. ., , , . .. ,,,..::: �?:�.. . ., �:•r � �. �..r AP. .,� �v4`�� . . a. �� .s.. Yi t�.�.:^" ..r.�. ..z�. � P«; ..6.. �.J : � 1�" ��i � .r� -.�s "4 � �'� �s .1 .:1 �� , �:�w�+' p. � r a ^•. s � , �.�k- c :. ..,. . me _ � : � 1� . ,. � � , ,� , � . � � ,, �4 .. � : ! +► � � ,rs - ,^ • ,., � ��,: ,.� .;...c; ,. ... ,.°�.� . .. .�.. . < ...'.�,......,,. .�.. � ..�: �. �� .�,�. . F' . w . V .,.. . � I�- �, � � .. . :�� ., « �-�� ♦ .., , d+. /. ,a. . .. ° b ° . � l'�'3�� r . ° y >b'. ., �. .:.. �... . ., .... S,. ..., .: ..: s� . ,� . ��+. 5Y r�� . e....... � ... . , . � ��:`-. .. d�: � ♦ � . . E /' ;, �. O' j ♦ :. �"�. .. �... : ... =, ,", . � ' �.�.''�'p� . e., .�. -... . .�,.�e�. ... �. . ...�s,e:3' -_. . ...... ..�p ��. ...:: .. �� .. :��. d ♦ .. ...�.. ., a�� • �, ..s ... st�i ,. . �I � ,., .,; , , � �,.,.d >�-3c'„v3'.'4 � :� r . . ., ,.,. . � . . , � .� .. � � : . /� g� ,y� ; � .�. .. .. . . � , . , p ._. .r:. ,. .:. ;- ac��r. . "�.� �r ,•:.<. E� . ;: , �� ..� ..�. ... , � .�� ., . ,'z :�;:- !? ` � ,l��► c: ;Ya�.,..�.5� . � :.r� '{� 7 � '� �^ A�.'6 *a , . � , , -.: a :.?a5 . .. .., . ,. � , b> . . ., . �,. � . � .�aw,.. . ., 1..: ! , � : . a T'� . � � ��: � . �� .� �i .. .� �...... .,. � �1� � .'' . �,.a .,: �. 'a , . . e � . . :...,.. � . . �� .. 5�t .a: �, .. . �.<.. ... � 6� . ...o.� �b. � .. . : . $ r� . •� � �..:. .. �. �£J�� k.� !.: r °.d � . . •� � � � ♦ � I � / aI ! � ��...�_ >;� ?+L`. � � �. . ...: ��-.. .,, s � .... . . �,,. 1 '�. - �; a s.,--. .. . .... . . _3��. . TMo�c.�.. �,. ....: : f! , . [�.. ��. . -. �.. :.i .�:w� . . � ,.... . a � , �. "�`� . ""t �i'.. .. w ., . , . . 7 ..- �.. :,.. . m ... ; ..< .. : ......x .a. 8 .�� .4A. � . .. _. .. .. .'.' "i� *ax� 5!1 . � � $ . �� ' .:,,..d�.,.....,�.d,.'i� � . h1 . � ..� . . .._ ,. . _, : � t �i � r -a .__ 1R; � _ ; yr . . ,,..�„ . ♦ 4 , .., , ,;�, �.� e� �: :: <�. `',�► , ',� �, .. .. ., �. , ., •:. ,v �: �, , � . �i ..,� �. � . . � � i a� _ , � � . . _ . � . ,. � , . , � .:.�,. a, : sJ► �' �. �'. . t : . ,.�< _ . - v .. <; ; �` ��. -"� � >., . .�,�... �.,> ,.�,? : ,t } t , �..'°�'.. . � . , A �. : �. � 3L � r s , . b�, �.. i, , s �` � � , , , xz . . . . :_ . .� .H , > ?.� x,. � . , ,. > : � : � i � � � , _ � I�.- ,f ,.,: , . :o, «�' � .,. , .. .., ,. .,.. . t. .,. -..� .. .. a�..>«._�. � , , . .� _ .. . � K �� , .a� �H. � .�► s' . �:; ! .... . '� fi. F � ./� c . . �+a%ti�x� . a� � s,. .:.6,.� .'�� . C . � . „6 .'�i i� . � ,.�,, . �. -. ,. .-.,. , �. � .. . � .. , .< .. .,� ...... . ..,�..- . .,. , �.,.� :,. ,. . « ..: .. '. � ..� . o � ' ^ ,... ,.� �. ♦ ,/ �-" :�- �* ... .:.... . . . ...... x . ., , �.�- a-� w ..... : <�. �.�....c � r . . . . �i.�� . ... �� N .:� .� ,. .,. �, . ,. � ■� +: . .� �P� � .:, ' � � � 9 � �'c:��.: '�:A;,. .. . �3" "wa.: _ _ . , ,.�` � .. ,� .. �.. . .. .. • , ,.� E�.9e .n . g a � 4� .t � �I R .4 ., . �. � �' �" �.i .� �� - � � '+� .{ ..=� ,, l' �r �: az ., _� . c�.& w � . : ��. � ' ; R>. . �`� ya� g R,.` � ; y ,, , r ,< :. �. .._<. , r, .. < .> , , . r wF. � fi� . 4 ...� , g� . . ....^. L t . �1 > t: � �' d ,�` � 1 e w � . ,. � , rT� � . �, ;.� .: ,, � � .. ..� � i .7� 1 . � s a aF . ,. , �`° ,,,., < F , ,y >< ,, g G. . . a �... . . �i:. . ..k5r ,.. . . . a..r,� .. .._....�D.i.-L: s ..r . .... . ' . . �...... �� . ,.. , � f . . � '�'.. /�� w � . .�l ..:..... � � �.. . )� �:�.iII',... ..,� -:. .' w.'`�'JP1�.... .�`y ��..�f�. .e...' . t 'S.d;. .. !. .�, .. �. ..J ��.. .T ., , . .. ,. , �kt'.�.� .'.. �: . ��.. . �k. � .. .. . !R � .'� '. �.... . �� . � �^ �o.. .,� . �. ..tG. ��.. .� I � ./ e�� ' d r� f'$Y�. d ,..,�� .Y� .., �.., :h . 4.. .. .. .. �... ,.�.a�..f. "ne� I _. .#� '..1� -�♦ e,. .�� . . �,.. ..N��:� , . .:., � � .q5, �..: �♦ 3. fi ��a . . _ , r , .. � � r . . �' _ v <�s �$ a . 4 . , ,. ..: . , , �! i , . ,.h ., � _ ..�.. � f 1 ,. ,�,. , i� , � � ; � . :: -. 6 <..: ,... . . �.:1 .. . ,f, , _. - �.. . . „ . � 4�3�:.. x .. -+'a `°�.a, � . � ^ . .. a" ..�.18%�?R ��,�' t.� '4» , . ��. . � ... . ,>.:-.. ._� � � , . �.r..� .:.. .. , .. , ��... r "�.. ...o ,.. . , . . •'� �;'9 1 I .: . ., . , . , ..:: , . �, '. '"<.�`r� �<^�°.. . . �.�� . � .,_.�,-#�-...., � ,��i,..,..:"'�.,.�t.s.. ?at,,;h, a:, T-.�. .i � » .,.,� '�:��, w +�. �.�. -� .... . , . �. . � � a"'� . �/�.� .�....- r . . �� _ . , . .,. ��. �_ °� .4 � , . . �1: .�. .. �<�.i � "aa�...� . _.;r, z . ..:, ;,a-. �^�' � �� .; , �,r , .�,a`.. F,. ., "•.: T•.�`a . ;,' .. +Y , �.,.. . � .:�; . � :,. Ar � :�� .�', . A,'. 7 I . ^ � ��I ti �' �� ■ y V � F �. .� � �r ,� .., � .., � � � '�P: ..-� '�.. � ;.-.d ,. . ... �. ., ..� .. � r.. � . �-w� . ..r.... , . �. .� . . fl 7 7. k�..... � ,�:.. �� :. .�... . �� ..�' ... �. . .,� �, 9" . . " li , �:;:� -,. ,�, adt..ac . �a'�b;: � .: ."�.. � -�. Y - � h� �.s�e" . .... , , ,.,..b..... ....�. ,.. ... , ...�. �-: ..�...�. .,.. -� .W � �.: . $ ,. ..,. ..�''' a� � �� ,.r . ;�., ��.,2- �,. `� o. .,. , ,.x ,: ,. .. �.: �' . .�.. . . . k . �. .s ..,. ..� � . .., ,p. �. . :.:�,x» F,.v ....,. ...,� �� :.......... . ........ . . . ..�. _. � '+� < ,�x .� ... "3�.. �1 . �.. . e. _. F ,: � ..�.. �.. t...,.. ...�`'� , a:.. . :a.. .:, ..,,.�.;>. , �.:�: ....� .,. ., . .. . , . : . <�� .,aS.^'� ,. . __ . � _ � . � . ,a c _ � :. ..., �: � ,� : s » . �f �! r .# . �l�. k �. �, , u , ?�. , �. ..: , s, . '�n., � . a1 ' ` g. �a > , ,� _.: g . . , ., . ,., , ?y . . � , .t� !1� +b, ., e A i r-- ;.�. . -:.. , . .�.4 '?�.s.. .. � . ,_.. a... .: �:. .,. . � r: ., , . �, �..,..,, .� , �:,*s.a'`�. �. * <1�..- , a . ' . t k� �. �' :.. ;v �,.s'a` _t �`?.' � t : . 's � .: Sr . ..;. , . F � �: , . : , _ �......... , . g , �B : �� ill�l f �- z�, . .. �. �. '�. � , ik:�� , .. . , ur :... <�/ . N ., . ,.... � . . . � - �.. � : .� .. � �. � � _. . � L'� ti be �.� . . �� ..., � . ., r y ,t 2!c.� �.. � ..._. . . �-. �: . ., ,. � � . . 36 6 G1. c ;[ , ly' . .`S�T., � �� . ' k't � .�1°' sPo. . � ^ � . s -, a, �: . , � � ,. �. ..+<� i , A . . . � ... . . �/'!' �.; �... ,. i . �' <. �``�"` . 4i' '.,�; rir. . <s. . t , �.. ;' ,i� t i , � , w . <... 4yt , tqp �.: < . . . , , ; .a! ..: 4' I�. �w ,.. -. a .. . < : , v. ...... ...�bi... ��.. . � :.. . '�.. .;� .N � ��# .. .,.. � � : ::- .� ..... . . c �,-" �.. q ,..,. , . �",+"�.. �; F '� . O� .. �9'. . . ,. . �. . _ Y . � �: , r � . . .. . . . . `.:: �. � .>. . , a . . : , . ..r ^.. : r . ., ..:.. , t � t , . � % a 7." . ' �:. . ...�: . .. � � - . �� . � , e.-: . �> ; 1�� .,d �. . :.. . � �i� �: �. p .. �1► . xF ' . . ,. _ ..s � . ..... .. - �,6 M ... ,.. ... . e►� , �; - �. $ _.�r_ . z�:'4 f' �� .i �{ -4:..' • �F'. �' a �s ,: , > , _ � ;. , s . i � . . . „ �r. ,.. s : - ;F / s ' ° "$e � 'r „�. �.,. . .�.� ��.� . . ., �.., t . . � .. �t�. � ::�.. � � '�.. !t , �::� . y .. ie „. , . , e +. : . . F. . . d :,. I .• �-"A� � ::� Y � • � �.,�: . y _ M ' �.:', .P � -.. � . v � � �aF �. ,.f �' .y... . . . ... � . -rr�. .. .. . .. _ I ,�..�. .. .. .� '�:�'� , ..� . �:t. s. :�� . � ....,. , .?�, ..�. •� �� ' _ . . J . _ .. r i , . Sa ✓ f <� , �. � . . . u�3 ♦ � � � .r a , . , d� > , , � °?�,: s-��,an. . , � �„ . . � ,. „ . � � . . _.. .� . . �: +w ,� '� _��.., .. � < � � , � . .. .> -.� ♦ <: , , : � � .� , . : A . �. *�, , - �_ ,� _,. , . ,_ �. �. �..�: � � _ .�"'S _ .,� � _� I � . , . r K ., a,.<�:� � ��'M . _.., .... .. . � ��...- .. ,. ., �x:<. .; •� _ .T°' ,�/t .� ��. ....� 1R�: .... � ��v�. . ..,. a ..,>:� .,, ..� .,. .:'5,... . ., ....�.. � � ..' . ,k-'� �'"� - ,r .rA. .. �... � � �� .... .. �. .., r . �.., -, . �> :a,: .. , e:.: ,r <.et,. . ♦ �: , „ >�. � :... t� .... . . .nF��. , . .✓�. ; �Y . . C i . i e �.9! . +i. � .� - :..�.'k a , . ` � e.. a ��,. - a� . '� �., �`.[. ,., . . .�. .. . Tw.. ,.. .., ,,;`. ,�..:::� • `� 4t. fF . :. �.�,.< , �.;�.: . � � ,.: e.-.: .�'. F , B.; L� . `., , ...;.5�, _. . o`- ��. .. .. . u, � �'....+s....�. ,9 ;..�.rf. _ e.. ..... �� -... >,� . . .� S. . � b..r ..:, .. �.. . ... a:� .� � �1�[.w. �. . :�.. ... �. �0 .a .Y..... .:,�':�'.. 14 �,.� �A . .�.SYP< .T.-�'3�. . a ; �«. '*� , , � �. ._, � � ti , , , x . . . . , x>> r ; ,. � « # _- , . � .. `' i w.,,, >. ..h� �.�:5.'^ �o dC �! �� Ysrv -.t. 71� _�4f. ��F. ,� ..a' � � Cz. ':� ...�;i` aw , . . .,...s., �. � ,. . ��,. . � . , k. � �M � �,. •.„ :� . . .., _ �< ..�. �.'....... ,. :�.. ..: ' ..s : r,r.� � , . .+i_ � . ..: c �. �. *��. .. . . .., �:�; ,..R . � , ro .. � .�.� :',.., , . x . .s� �: � r � '� i . .....�. � - �,_ ., . ,. , ,-�' r � . -..C. .E, . . , � ,�.. � , ..,.. � .. .., .- �.e�.s. :# . « 2 : .., S.. � ..,.. t e..,..- � . � .k� ' �'....H:..a . .:F ,s .. t < . ..'� . ""� , ..'..•. , �d.� �. �.�_ � _ � �: � ._ >: _ � � � �._. 9 _ � _ ... . ,. ,. � ,� s,a� � =_,�, a,N . . r�,. . .. � s � � , � �,,/� .. . .. . . .. �3�. - � 3. � . . A -' . ,.,, . . ... , ._.. � v �a < :.. .. ... . .,.. . 3� R � 3$ :,YS2' ... : � _, ... ,, . � .. .. .: � _ . . .. , �° � ,.!a D ..�.. . , '.�' . : . �r r � � ..� � , n .. Z � TM.:'R► sw � Ht ,t , aea�' �. , z. �,,.F A�wax;sr a: �,. : � . �° .. . 4., ;;�` � ,.� ,. .a�" aa.. -w.. ��: .... ,.. . :�.... .r `k.: .,.. :::� .�;.. ,� <::�.�.;#�;. ., . .� ,'� •:,� >.. , i.:. .. ...�. . .. .'Ns�l:a ..Y.:. .. .,.... . .e, .;, ,�.. .:- .. ... :..�. ....... .0 ..n. ....� �: . .. . k . �..,R�� - e . �.. �.. . e . ,, .: � . � . . .,...a .�M � ,�. s . .. .�.. : F' d� , ,... �4 � �; y , :; .. .., . .,. .. .,.� .� .... a . , .. s �. : .. ..,,.��. .. c�,. �' ,�� +ya+w. ��. ' ..>r .. ..., e .... �"_ ,:. .� .:, ... .. ��. .,,�.� ,.�% T s .. e �t; r� M . 5 . »,. . . �°`x°°� � , • a . < ,. �i . �C. . � .; . 0 ♦ . /" . `. sc � .. , 7a.,+F . . ��. . A. . ». � . �' �a , , , , s ; ,� s '� � . .. � ,:.. .,�. ' : ' x s ,�' ' ':°;�� , .. M. , -_ . 'i , ... � .�:rvc �� _ , . �_ � . �. . � _�. . ._. _ � �� - �_... i ; .. �+J> < , .. . �,.. .,� ,, < _ , c . ,, � ,. . . a , < , � . �« �, a �. > ,r .t, �. �.... _ , . , ..: . ♦ .. i. ♦ � ; ,,:. ,�* . �<, � > � � -. ; . . . . .. .. s ,.�. : . . ,. M � -x . , �. ,.. �r>. . _ .. > . ...: , � , ,�� r"� . ,, �t. �t � . ,. , . , k. . �, . . �. _ t. _ �� At ,. �,, � �a` . �r , . �. ; _ �' � ,_ > 9a . _ .c: .-�`°w , i a M . '+� � � , >. , ..; � . . ♦ E .. f . �.- .ita . _ . * . �.- � - �i° �e ., ...� . .. ,. .:.. : w. .._ ._ >�.�� A ., F! ., ....r ,<.,� ...s... � ti,.. ... a �. 7�. :... ::�. a.... �tse _.:b; ,�,. ♦ � 6,y .,. 6 � t' .37,. Sk t ,� �. , , ..,,. ... : .. 'r r , .. � . , � .. � � , . :> � g . � +� .> � � r , s � . :.. F.a � . �' ., , t� _ �t�. .` ..s. P., . . ..� ...« �: ... , . .: ..: .: . � .., a . �: . .:.. . ... �� , .... ,. :<. . ., q _3�.rx..._ ,� a .l� �� _.. .�. ,d�^. � . .. . -. ..� .�.. T3. �:. � .>_ ''�,��.. ., s. �.� :,. . :.�,* .; ��, �:nt�.� �: s ..�.. ; �..::;'.. ..� ,..�;�''':- .;:,,'.�,�.� n �� k r,. Y a, : v . . �� . . .... _ . . �° . . .I _ , _ .. ,.. � IR c d.. » � > _; w � , ,. S ,. � !L / i �` �' _. , : ,� ._ . � �� . « �st� : . �, . a � ;� � . ,. �> .� , :::.. �. � , . � :s 1v � �� , a� . ; �. . .,.>a . �. . t �., '�,, . � . _ , .�. » .. � ,,� �,,, . � � � �. '� � ti s . . . _ : � � . , :. �.. . �. _.. � _- , . : . _ , �, . ., �: � a, ✓, '^t�. t a� ��;, . . . .. �� . , ,. . : . _ >. , . >. ?br _< ; � „ A, <, ,., , ,I >4 3.�„ ,� �€'' a �=:$ ,e .. . ..... . .r: . ...�.;�. .. . � .. ;�.. . v ��M �. -,,::.s.:. 4. e::�... . .,,, ., .��. .'#lt�rnr w � �� ,.. , � ... � : .1r.. �: . - :. ti,�� .. a � - � ,.: �.,. .. � � . � � ,: P.�< � -ea•�� . .. ..i�. ., , . ':. ��...a e � .. . � .� .v �'. v ...._7.. ....�...,e. '» � � '1. A � . _�. a� p . .. .. .. , � . � x . ... .. . � ,. . . .. o.�. �. :e.. �. .. .e � _�...., .. .,.. . .. : . �.. .. .:�..�. ... � ..:.. ... � 9 . �'� l�. � , �.'. ��, ...> ,�- . ,�.:.� . ..�tR.CB� X...., .. �3+ ''�.�'. ..... J.... `ha....,'... . � ...r-w ..� � '.:... .. +� �..... ...,�. .; � .. �'e :".,' .�.. . . 4`. ��M'�. . . �t � .$�.:_� .'^:'. �..A. , . ,5�� ,w.. �!;... , . : ,. � . , a'°M� . ..'�. . ..; �'� ...., e .. ... ,. �^. � �� 34 � �� ..... .� . . . . > « ... , . _ .'�, .�.. � ✓' y sy,,e.- . .a . , , x ., � a x *&. 3 _ , _. +�"` ,. , ...». w , _: .. •.,, . '� �:. ,� . ,� . } _ ' � � � A .,� � ...±,� �F.�.�. � , . . ... � . . . . ,..,, . ��..�. .. ..... .... .. a?.. :... ..., ..,. :. � ... ... . . _ ., .... t -�.ar�� .h. � . . �. .. . : .. :::.. n r �{ �R*.;� ��;. •C - ....,: . , t�� . : e. a� m. ..>. .. . '�.�� ,.,.w. ..., � . "'�R'! Y �x1l6. �.� ..a .> � 3 ., ; ��,.. �..1N �:. .. � .'f" � ,. ��+.::'� : x'� 9. . ";�:. . _7 .x :; - . , f , . . 10- ,. z � Aen �! . . � .. �" : , . - . ... .< � a � . a, _ _ .,. . u -� , � ;� d 3 .r , ., r . _ �,s- . � , __, , .: , _ t. , � �s., i. � 'r�. .. s �' z. M �. , .-.< , a � .: 4,�.. . � .'�: :: ,.� . a� .� �'-.,. .'C�.. .�D'�, ; - .:n �=Y , : � ax� . . ,.a.� � .�n+cww.. �,e>�.. .....,.e.,-�z. . :. &� ;��r- :....� .r��..,,:. > � .�'. ; �T:� . �:, . , .. < . ... � � :.,E�. X"n� �r ,. _ 9 . ..,.. . :. .. � � � . , � g .. ��. � -,-x. ... ..:.. : .. . .... ... .. . _'kw. . �„ . . �:.:,�., � . � e� . � .. ,. .s-,;� , ��._ . . . _ v : , v "ge: ....... ., � illw .,��' ..e .: � .:�.....,.n,..�- -,. .A.�� - - !�� 8 .,,. s�..;.�. ��;. � ..� . :�.. . , .:. �.>� .s �.�. , .. � �: � f�. A .,�.'',�.. e � ,x, a. . , . , . .�.� .. , . . . ,. . ., . .? : . ..,� �. . . ;a. . .., �., p..�., , . ..,.�., _ � �i x � , a . 7 x �. �+y�. �� '%�`, . ... . � ,� ... �. � - � .. � . .;. � ,'��. �,. .- � .. . 1 n.. . , ,. �..�. , . �..�'.`. ,,. . � . ,�., .: ... . ro, t� . . � �. . .r ` •.��. '$� ...4� �,.9;�. � . , e x s � s � ,� �. . ... ��:. ..7`.. ..,. �..: ., .. .. �: . .'. .' ..�,.f - �< ,_. . _.'. ..... ��. .: . , a .. � 'At ,.. .. - ..,... . ��F x�.i ,- .�a " r� . c. r � �. ''�,id .. °�...; ``�v .�. . �i a.. $...c�... . !+�: � �' �. b � ' � °G < ;. � . .3�,- � . . �y.. .. . _ � . . .. �. , as. _�. .. • _. _ .•' u . , . .,-. , . , x,. ..: �.at!s. . _ ��..�- .,. �.:, :R� .. .:�..� ., , .. . ? � �.a� .�. . . �2� ..v . ' ,.�',.. � �� . , c .,.. ,. ..v ."�...2 z. Yr . , ... 's .f. rF:.. ,.,» 'a?�� .. �., imrsur: .�; , s... _. -; ..e -�. e. *<' ♦ f �'��"� �. �. ,-.� �� , � . .. . . � ... . .> .: � .. 4 e .. � .. . � .�. �- � �i ;.,. - .. � ,.. .. ?3�. .$'^' _ . , � . . � : ,�kk. "'S _' �: '�"` .. _ .. _.... -. .. -_ �� aw .� - . .k� . � . a. . . ,. ,_ . � .. . . 2�. +f' a � � � ✓ T� ��..� � �� ,�; ' ;,, �5=': , "�*. a:��..,; ",�';'. l�..�,��.�:s; . , . * ..a. . ..'A ., � ..; �:� ...� ; ,..'cY.S ... ...:� - ,. ..,4y...� i_. �......,.... .. , w.� p..r.- -,�.,.�� ► :�. /. �� E �k. .s �.�`- ; ��n ♦��. , r, . ,. .:. :a . �. �., +r:. � d, , v _ :r. . � .. �,s! ..,. &. .., . _�� , . .� . . °^a.� ... �;1 �e:.;... >, � �.. .�.. , . : � �' , .... . ,. .: . .: �: >.. '.. .... �� - ♦-. , - �......... . . � .a�. .. .�, �':r . . ,: ...,.. a� <.. ..... . . . . . :� . ... ,. .: .. ..:�- � . �.� ,,.. . . . „rm��,. .. -. ..., ..� .. .„.. . � ..c . �F �. Ar: •"E �. � af � � . .s, , ! i �..,. [� ,.. +.,c. .s� �.:- ., c . �. ,s t n �. �.: .. .. - ._ ,,. . � t• �- � .r a �.'�. �: �. � a� ia °r � � s� ,� � , .,. . .. � .. , 2' :: # . �.. c � .. � 4 . .. .�.. . _ ... ._.,..,,, . .. ... �.._ , . : ,..�,.. • �.�1. ....,. .� .S. zr«„ � < .. • . �.. �- � � . �'. .:,da, . , r� . .. �"�` � . . . : . ...: � "Y�^. :. .s . . ._. !i _ .11i . �'�.. s .� , _, �<.:M. . .� .,.�,•,, .... � �, , m.:�.:.. ._ � . y ,.; .� o� , ,.'P�o�;� � , { <>.. S . :"�'. , .... , .. .. �.� .�. . - :....... ,. :� ..: R .�f.. •:. ::�.. .3� a. - .�. .. � 4 - , ..., t..., e <.:. ., . :..:. j,� : . ,.. .. . ;:: .. ,q,� ..x .... . .. . � .�.... .f � s � . �.. . � �S . __..._.; ,. . ' ..,fb� �- . ,..!. �A. .'.. • "71 A.; -, `,?,. ,.3 � .. .: �:.^ �.�� ... . "+'aa .. ,�,� e,. . .. �,.,.:. ..,,.}. ,. �.r.....:.. � .,.. ._:. y.,� e. . ��...� -.,.. ....;:z.. � ,.. . .,..> ..i..�.� :.. �.y,X ..:. ,.: .,...- O aF �� .� �,. ,..,,�, a @ .� . �. � � . -..... ,� .,,.. � ,�. � , > ...: . . , ywn.s..s .. r:�:. . ,.. � . , . ��,; - , .. � , . ... '"t . . , . �.: 1�' � a �.,. �- .,�. � � , �,r - - k. ,. r �4 , � s � .�?` t � "�.:.-.,, . , +� t., .:• P d ,.. ,�ar ,, .. r ��. k e� , t � •... a ,. � 9�. _.. �„k J 5 _„ ,. - .➢F: � .. .<. �. ,.. . ...,. ._.- .. .,. ,. ��..;.,_ . .,. �.� �£s .,,.,. $�;�.,t�. ..... .. .,... _. .;•. ... L ,.,.. . , -;. ':: . 6 �. 'r. �. ;� �.'f .. . 810... �;"�!� z... -,: , .;G��"•� .� , .....�. . � �. t�s ..�. �. s ...'�.. ,... . .vta x� e�, #� . � : �.a� �. ..,..�:� »�' ._. .. � . , ��"' . ,e/��. .,�.. „a. eR� . �.i - ye � .S .)'.',Y . .. � <. ..�w� .�.�. � n..m .. P: 'S C . V'_Yv �.. e �.... .. � ,.. ... .. ... : �. ,r �. a . ., . .5.+.... , ��1 tl.�..: . ..:rt:..c. .. .. "..� _, , �t .� � • t � �,.H .. ..... � . �.. :.i. .. �.. �:'� ...... .w� . . . ... . �3' ' . ..,,<*.., ,.a� � ...�� ....,.: -'. . . . ... �..... •. , c . ,..KI: , .. . . . �n � ' , ... .. _ . .. <. .::�� S . . � ... �_.. ,.. ...�. .:.. . ..I.. .'�. .. ..�_ .. J . .. 1 ': .. ..�? �� 3 .�.. : . .., � . �`v � � ., .. ._ -. , .if o . ♦ .. _.�.. .�. . �' .'l6,1V�-& .od - �� +4, ....o ... ..::.. b'i�i ... . .,. . �i o.�.. �c � ., ..� ..:.4 ... ..... .. ��e .� I . �.,.: u�...�...... be . 'tl .,,. . ....&3't. .�.i'.%. ...� ..�""� .. .... .v .,' .. ... �. .. :..% .. .. 'I� i;. �r ,..�� `, 'Y�� 'A.� ; � � Y ' ..� . . ... w � � . , � . a .� e . . .... . ... ,.... .. ..... ... . ... ... . �. c.. ...�. � . o,� . d: : .:�:. ,dF t . :.,. v . ^:. .� ��::i� ..�. . � >Q," .x. ..eYf�. ... .�.,...:.. .�..�-.. . :' 3 ... ��> ...q .. ..... ......�..... �" _ .. ....... �..a. fi . . . ��'�.. �..: , :.., ',�a .. s��/b� ,. r .�e .,..J �I : '.Y. ,�,;.: �.. . . . -.,.. _. ...... ., .� '.. a t. � .. �. ., j,. ... :� r . .e ..,... . , ;:fiw . .. ..,. ..:, `�. . , ,. <,. 8. ,bP.;; ac� .....;. : � �� i _, . .. � ,°+� ,, � . � - � , , � �: � , .., "E. :f� :. e a�i s « . .. . ,�( .,.' , -,.. � a,�...: � .,..�.� KC ..a �. 3 ... �.� ,. , �..r� ka. '�� 'Exs .iz�.. �r4 Z ..... ...... _..,...,..: . � � .. , :�:�.� I ..-. `t..�,� �a ��I-� �> : r.:. ,♦ .,�. . . � �� .w � � . .. ,..., d. .,. .<�. . � ., �r�+ , �.. ...�.: .e.� .� . . F a . ._.. -.,.► ra..r..... ;.......... � >.:� :: . ..�,. . s��.�.wi "'i-wY� sJ�.�. ��:.,w'�,�'� .�".. i.. . . . ♦ :. . . t. „.. . *e � ..c..: � � . . ... .. . �.. . . . � , � . . i . ., � . . � . _ . _ .y . . .. �.. � . � . ..y. .. .�. � , .. . .,... .'A� ..> . w � . � .., � . *. i. :�., �'� C . ...: ... �.._ . . , ..�. .. 1 d . ., ..,�. .... ........�. .. . , . , . �. � '� :. + ..�.. . . -. ..' �-�:� .. .C� �. � ., .� .,r �. ....r. ��,. � � .. ... . . ._. .. ., r�..... .� } . �lr� . . W �., . r�. �:: :.. : .. �:. ' . :4. < .. .�,.. . r.�.: '�.. , M �'.C�'� �,.�i- ..�... C r. .. �.: .'.s .s F.. .�.,..�t�.,a: ..... �fi. ... �.bl �q.� a �....�: :. . ..�b._. .. �t� x �. S- .... :... 3..,.. 'l� . .,: :f ..... e`"LY'�;� -. �C. 3.�e. . � . .. �.1 . { . . . �q :�$!l��y.Q� ¢..�,... . �� .. �+ ...+ ,.. � ..,....tw?� .�.� ,.. .'2: .... .1!' .F. �h' .. ,.'� _ . > .�r.�. ..:; �;::: �. ..i"., � p - , ,. . � V.. . ..�. .. . , . aa ......... ..� ++ e.3 .... ....,. �-1.. b` �n:- �."... 2 . i ��': �.. ,.. .. . A .�, . �,., i �, .� . ' ' . fe s:. ,' ... . ... . ... .. :�. n ... .. ... ..,� ,.7 ..R.S. ,.. w.,��>�F _: , c. '.. ... 0S i�. .S : �'« .1�. xt . .. . .. . Yr A-. ..cA ��it. � Y+. ..�.. . , . ��. R � l . ..F�.> x. . . a.. . ..: � .:.. ,..+J�... . � ..'..n. .< . t.. Q ...,.. d . .. s. _. �. ,S: . �.. > �.1 ��.. .:'�� : C�. �' / f;� � : -... . , ..,.� . , @e . �.� .. �� .. �� . .!. � . .. :�� o �' ..,. . �. :�}°F. . ..:. , x .,.:�.. �� r.�. .: ..�!' . � ::✓9 .�s�'�: v; . . ' :T. �p 9'`. . t. .._� . 5:�:. , � . .. � ,�.. , waee. .: ... o.. � ... ...�^r: .. .., .r:� � �... a v�' s :. . . .. . ... .� .. : f,.� �. � �� y� ` +�� . �, . . . . ' ... V V ..... ise 52 . }�. .. . �,..< . �. . . . .,. � G kfo . .. e ., �', �.. . ��..¢ `a.� , . � . , :: ii . .. . <:.o. ... : �� ' �.. .,, y/ . . � . J . w � ,.:.� �.� . �, �.-. k�. C. . ,..::. . � -,. ..�.. . , . .� ..:.... ... ;::� . ..... . '�... , .i�....,..�... f..,. �. .J. . , . J . �..�.�.�. .:.�. ..,; .� .a.�.-.�. ��.��..:�d` ,� :S� .,�. ..�� .:.� .. ,�. »�.. . .. ., a,� .: _, .. .-... � .. ..n. �...�• `�..: '��,'�.,. ��`:� �� , . aN . _ _ ,� H..: . :'�. , �T w. , > . � : , . r .� . �es: .. > ,� < � P � �.. S'�, -s , � a ;.. . . ,, . .., � ,.. ,�. +,> .. : a .... ..n. .. ,«- .. I I �-;. ..�. � .. �.. + .. .z :: � � ..�:�-,. � �: �� p.,.:t. ��t' ��,'� .. ... ;.. <;:. ,.,I"' , , ,, : �; '�� i.t-__ ` � x� r :-r � , .. ,.�.�� . � .., ,_ � . �., . _ . ; , � .. _ti� .t._ , � r : ;, . . _ .� . .� . ) �' ,., , .' � - ,, � �,.,� ,• �� ,� .:;� t - . �.:'- '► � °�� • �;� .. . : : r,. . . _ r . _ >. � w�;,,� � ,� �. ,,: >, . „. � . a,. , ♦ �;�,':: �.,� �..� .:. -...,.... '�r . _. ,r..� ... .-..::,� .. , �.. � _ �. � .. ..,.„, -. [ , � . ....�,�.�;. .: . :::. .. , . � � �� iFs�:' .,� :+v. �cv ♦ :�.`'�., ..•c?:. -t..._r. _. I ..t. .. .. ... F.,t. .. ,. ,. . � �':i� . :. ... ., . �. . ..s ., . � .�. .r.a a,..,-. .��: �- _.,. :w �.. � •,. ;. .„, n:.�>,x. a:.� �� .1 � r � . . �.. .t., .,...... ... . . .. . ,. :..�: ��, ...... Y: , �. ��-. �. .. ��:.. � .. ..�.. ,�.. .. . . 'N . . . ��. .r�. . i „ ::q �. �i>'S � . . . < .:,�= . .. _ ... .�_ ._ � � -... .w. ,..>. :.. ,r...: .� ., , _. .. .... �W_ . ..�>.� .-„ �. ,.� :r�, �u '�� :•,"s r+.. .1y� .�!;.. , �y.• .., �>.. , �i.,. ,.�. .w a�.. , .. �b . ♦ .... :,. � : ..H& .,<.�:,.. .� . . ,. .°'*w.. . :. . ��.� ..,. t'�. ..,.:. � e.. ,.� � ��. .� ., . ,. ; .w _ � � � . .. . , , , . . a. . , ,. . � , ,.; t � . H N ... ,. � . � ..,. ._ � � ,. � ,.. , . . _ . ,�. �r. , �+ � v. .�>,.:� . , �. : , , . . �2 . . : - c �aw, : + < _ ..: � . , y. _ � . . . � „ ,.: r � 4� . :�;� � �` ! 'L�� . :.. ..:,. ... ; �-. i . „,. ,- .:- � s ..,. �.. .. .-r- ,... 'i �, � . R ��t^ .;� .,. �, .� : . ...�. �� , , . ._ . `x ,. +� � � E . �, . � . . a .�, . ,.. r�. .., r . . <. .� � .. , _ . . ., .. , �. _. , � :� . , � a `�'� a .. 'i, . . ,. ,w�, a . . � ,.. . . p .>. _ .. � . � . .- _ . � , , "!�! n, e� r '�I� ..- ..-. .. , v. ,��. � �.. �.:<i� . � ... �. . ... � , , . .,-_. , � .. ia� � .�. ,-_.. . � � . �� ... :, � �.a'�r2w..wo . : , y �� .. , .,, .s . , _�:�-.*,�C�... y ��'w ' , . .. N', �, x�> >. .. .. ., µ.: ..,�.. � �sz.... . . �# ..... � .:. .Y. .. �. .w : '. S � ,r , .�.... ... r� . � . i � A . '�r. . �J <. �I� �4 : r �: . : �� .,.s�f , ��... �, . ., ls'hk!°... ...�..ad..2. . ..�:. r.� . _� � � . . ., v ��_.. . � , .-x� . ..� .�... : - ».a� -� �/ + ,'�� >�:'� � �`� �. .. . . �. . . � .,:.. � �. .. � [_b^. . .... . ,... ..o . -. -��#!. _f , � -:: .s , . ,aw z. . d� . �,., ..�.. , .�� ,.,, . .� . .:. ., zw -..r�. ..�� ' R "{P:.. �. .. ,,... .. �. . . .. , . . �.: � .,. .. a. . . .::: - ., Na. ._. .,. _... .� �. < g � <... t° . ..._ ..... . . . . ��.. �..��.. �. , ..,. ,x� ,.,. ,. � {x , � � ` / ,p •��. •. '�'` .��b �J .. ., ilK Li; w ♦��.....:� o...<. , .... .�. ... �s�..�-. s.ASF' r�a'. ...'H��r �,.. ... � .:_ � , .:4pa ..... . � I � 'I > :: ��.;: � .`,...-. . . .,p.. � �.i ... ....'b , �� : 6 .:. . � .� �� I � R.. f .. �p ,y . . f , y, . . ... ., - . .k �.:<&..:. . . , . . .. . .. . , . .d' .x ._. a ,.., ,... , .. _ , .. _ .,;. . r^n ..:.... , . . . <.. .,�.'?� �..._. . ... :.:. ��` . .Fre a '�� . �..:= �� T� . o � Y '� . >. . .., �, .�. .... . F.. ... Z. .. �g . Q x f ��,... _�. . ..1a'{ .:'�i , ei .� ..,.�. .. ., . ...Y>b.-. .... .. .. . ..i `L.:�. "� ♦ w '�.�''. .0.. �-a...� . �. �i .,� :: � ., I . .: . . � . ......�' ., . ,. .s� 1. c. �. > . . ...f . -+Y i . fE .. �� 3s 4 . l "5 �... 5�.. ,t. . .... z..�.., e . .G '�.,.: ,RF . ,y 'b� . _.,- ..�R ;.. .., �"' ., . F�, , s j (. � ... � .. . ��°. .�s'�!" . , .. r _..r e . .. �., .��p .. .;�,; „ �...:�.�� > :4 ♦ .e?E :t... .sS� �� aw� o e. ;�i�� . o . Y . ..�i .G. _ ... -�. .�. � � ..., .: . .. .<. s. az . , .......... �..: . ...6.. :,.. ., . , .a. . .. t....� � >.��., .s.t. ',�� "l � R" . P. ,� '\' . . . .:. y�..� .v� _ �eN� .... i hi. � J..,`.? ; ._1,.a /.. .... �.. �. ....... ..s'� . ,�... �.�+.... ..��. .. ,�� 3�+ , i.. .,��' ._A�a"�� .Y�.,.� ,..¢: .�I'+ �� .'3•' �� " .. �r^ 3 e , aP 4 :.�\. � 'h..,.. -9 i . .�6^ , .�4'b`Y.N: . Y � . _.. . "�"i , i � . '�i-. . .,. -.. . . �. +. . • . .3 S' �." .. ... ., . J ��.�' +. . :�- e'� ... �... . ..� . . . , ... �, � . . � �. .. .., .....,. S`. , i .. .. .,. .�� : � .! �y�� j N;.�, "�. . � „'°'s. �7�� R �.� .4 � �� e. ..,. , ...f+a' �.�e x .�.. .i... > ._ . .. .e': �',. .:. ... �..: �P .Kr'.��' .°.K... ."4 ,.. . . .,1. .� � ., . �.. .<:,.: ... � ., .., �, „ �.� �:<. ...... . , :< ati?u . ,.r�. :.�.. .<r� .:<. , � .. '� , p, . :: . ; �, _: ^� _. � _ � ,.r.:. . _ . ,, _ `� �: '�', g '%� 8 �it ...4 t .�- .. � ...,._. . � t. . . -.., ✓ 4�� e �, .. .:... , , .°q . y�� , ,R � .. _.CL � _... ,+,f . . . .. . . . _ . �, . , x �C . �&. > _ .. - ,_ . , � . _- > . { .. w ,,,y.�dc �: , - . . , � � . > _ >.. .< , ,, . E. �. „ . � . ,..... � ... -: .�. ..,..: , :v-.. .. x.. r- �;, ...... -�` . ,. .:... �.� F.k '4- �t ..w.. ,� ... .. .,.. � ..� ... ., ...�. . ,.. ,�<. . ... � ... .... � :�r ��.. .. y . �.. .. . �., .. �. -.:. � ,. 3 .. . .- . . . .. .. . ...,. .. ....... ... . _. ..,. , .:�_ "v..., " .... �'.vr : , ...� t . �` : -, p � .. , .:_�� .... -: '�..� , w.< .,.. � +r. . �.�. :`T.._ � t.. -}� «� n.-. ,.. 4 , ..t>�..� y q ,�� , �` ,.x. �e,l� . . . ,. .. �, -., . � . .. �.. �.,,.... ,�.a . ,, n.. �... z. a� --,. , , ... �� . a. ��:�... ... .,?F.- � �g.� •�::�`;A <.. � 1 � v ✓,a R ,!!� � �.. . .. � . 1 .,.r � � . . , e , _ .. : r � .. �! : ... ..S � � � :- ..�. , �, a�R � m � � _ !►�.� ps. ,- :. ..�. .. - . .. . ..7.;. :� .. . ,.;. ... . , Y�� .� 7 � 5 .,�.:: 2. � fi � .., ,. �; �� .� .� � . a . �i.. . , ^ ✓I. j . .: -, ... .. .�, . . e . ..,5...�... . .A ..�.. . ....... . , . �.' � ,,. �:... :.r1 .,ct a.: g' � ... . . -'.�- ..°] �.r . . .. . :... w .. �k. �p . ... � , � � . .. -. . .: +F � „ . . p :.A. .1.. �} �11 Y .. 'F: �°�a�.1[ .oAl'� .: r'> ` .�w. .� S � ^`!�: �o , � >. 9:. �� ...'.�,.. . . ..ur . eA. �. �. . .L.. �t. .. ... '�r. �. , a7"�. ... � � � . V a � r � _q� b e . d . . e.. u .. . � . . �. R . : ..:N ... Y . u.: r . ....,.. ..,.... . . _..��^' s .. ; � . . ., � � . ..., �� . ...� y� ,c ; �� . � ... aa ��. �� : .. . _ . w. . .. .. , � � _ .: .. . .. � -,.,, � . -. 3. � � , r��..,�.. ,..� ,. . . _ .,:. . � . .. .+•.. . . , . . . . ... + . �+r.w . � � . .. . � _ � '. . �.v1 8 i � ,. ... . , �. ._ . <Y- � �.. ,. . �. , . � . 5 �. : : . �.. . �, s .. b .... • ��. . £ . � ' �y . »� .. , ! � .: .`:A. `�"N!:Y N� .._J:. a�. � .. ... '.. �. .: . '[.r�. �,'� Y ' ° S.... ro. Y, wi. • � . . . �M, ro.. .; : . u ... . . ..� .`. .:� .,t '"3,. ..�3� F... a. i ' f- .; . . . .'P� } .. � vx� ..fF. k'�Y' h., � a �.. �....� �� : � �r � 3a.. . �a. ' �R'' .. `. .,!. � . ... � . . � ,.� .�. . . .. .,.: . ..:.�� ... . � , ... . �.. . , .. ..'P.. .! 4 .. ,:: . .� � .. ,. ... � �. .F. . ... .. .. �:.4.. , �: � !', . .. . . .. .�.�. '., . z� .-�� : . a£ . : ,. . .... _ �. .. � .. � ., , .. .. �. v''v , n . ... � . . . 4 .,�. L .� < ' . �. . , � v .� -. � , . :.-.; . .. � �� . � A � ,.. . . . . � ... ... ........ �_ .. .. . �� ¢.�} . X_..._. ....,,.. ,. ..�� . _.. .. .... -.. �,.� �.�...ar • .., ., ... . , .. .. '�- �_ ,x. -, _� .r. ..Y . n�r... � �rt. .>.. . F .. ,.. ' . >�. I �� ... K �w..R ...-.. .. �. .� ::a, � . . �'�.. _ .� � �4: � , � ,. . . . . . ,l , . ., , .. ._ . . ' nr.� �.. .a...,.� � . ... � .,.. . . j .'�:: � x ,. . �. ��: .`�" ... „ . G ......�....,...... �_. P.. . 1 �,.._ . �. . ,. � .e� . � .,�.. < . �. � � . . . a- .r.� _ .. „ _... ,�., >. F . . ..w. �`�. <...., � ,.: ��: ., � .1�. r� .a ... .. .;.r^,�s .,.; . a _... �,y. -a. . .- .. � ..`�;.... ., ., ,.. �� . ��,.. ^t.. . . �. v�'.�. '.. :. _:�� -,�..- r� .w.. ¢�'� .., �:. ,�' � �ask!ea. s.,....... .. .'\ ,.. ..ts r. . . . �..,. ., ... :... ��.�e „< ,4' ��d . o ... _ .� . :�. . . � -x , ��qY e ..-�.. .+. .:.. a ... �. � . �.... . . ,. .., ..: «K ..f� , .. :.: S� .:..»�., . ....., . � .. s�.: .. . .: . . . .� ��ri. .� .... . ��.:. �.... . '�`�,. i.. •e�',^ �:w, .�'w^ �. . .... '�,.. ., .'&c �.s �D"^. ...� A. . . .. .. . ., .� �.... :.,. �: .+► .♦` �''�i� , ±., ! a.n., :.9`.. >��.�.. ,: �� .. r � ..�- :_ ��:, ... ,,§ ...� '4, ..��. -. ,. . �.: ?��'^t�� . ..� .. T. .- .� _ '. .., . ��' �^ .: .s , ,' ... . .,. . ,. ,:.. , . , y .�.. ...�$�'�R -.. � ^'tr. ! . , . :. '.... ; ;.. � , : .. . ... . �,..... .n'ff . � dT �. . k�9 � . .. .�,. ... �... , � ' . ';�r'o�_. < <... . . ,: .,.. �, .. -. � ., _ .., � `%' . ., ,� . r _ � ' t : i" _ : . _ ,. . , , :, �m _ ., , . >., . Y a , � � ..�,p ,� ��:. �� . .... . . .k ....�. . .. ,.. . ... �cw.!.P1 d � . �: �..�. :. .... t . ; ,....... .,;. .. .. �.. ., � � '. � ,� "' ,- � .Y"'. Y N - s. � �' :. .. .�. �.. , �. : �.. .._ �.. � .: . . ��n ... , .. ,. �w �s ...��: . �.. . �.!r: � , :.�:, �. .�� . � . °A' .. �3X ..`. �? :1� 'MS -� . . *:aa .k -_. . ,P��. .. ��, �. , .. k ...�1+ .$ �.. ,!'",,...... .,a... � .... �..,&.^° �. . . .,. ...a .�. ... -: ... , �..:.iF__. •.s`+'n�s '�4 •,�� , , �,.. .«„ �. ... t ,.ar.ro.. . }� .... �.. .�:.� .... -�. _ . _. , .1 _ , .�n,. ...4. ..�:. ,�. . -_..�-. .- . �,,. .: a'�. , e..`1 . �..� � b�'"". �° . . � . .. , � . a . .. : .... .. . .� ,,,. �k .. 2 ; `.� �_: 1 `- ;, � �. ,.a. .�. �-._.. ....,., . �. � f :..� . . �e � � <. � � .,,.. . , � . ..,. ... ..,...� . «. r �; .,. . �:,. :,. . ��. .. ;�.�. ._ . .. .._ .., �+ - h .. w � ,. y .x ��: 9 „ .. �� _� 5�� .. - ..... ., .,. .. ; _.. , .�: �:. . ... -.e„ . . ,�. �:... � Y�'..1 . �.♦,. .: :::: �...,....,� ,: „� .�� . �, , � . Ra n, t , � � . es` �s.. . a . . ,, :: � � �?� a _. �` . _... : �£ 4' � ":�� >t a. ..�.o .._�_. ,: �,.� .. .x� } ,. , ♦ ac� . � .1 _ .. . .. . . � a . .,.,. , _..� �. . ,7�` . �r.�.... � �r� � .� � ,� , - ��.;. , ,_.;, a.. ,� .:.°"C.... �`;, _ �. � , . , a .�.� . . T�.. ;. - --•.... _ _..,,�„ � } �+. t.�. .9' a' . .. . .: �, x.. T,� x � • . . . .st. ,FS k �. , . _ .�°'.. e . �Y.. , ir ...,..'�. . . .� .�' � , r...,y� F e. � � y� . � �,'.: ' :.� II �S. �e .,. h, �F` , . . � , .... .._;.. . , .� , is !0� , .. .. ..� , m. �.... .. . ...... . . � �v .,. ..�.. �< ... ....'t:.. ... . 3� '.� .... v �� : `� o . +. ' �. . r ,. . � .. II . .. ... ..... _: . .... . �. :3'' '!� .. � �4 , ,.. ..: . :. e -.. .. `_$, .�. . � ... "'.' - � :. �. � .. . . ;' 'a'r`,.,.. .. �''.. .. I , , .�.. ., ::., ��'�� ^�'.'� ' '.�.!4., �,...� ...� . ..... � . , ... �s. , .. � ,. �. ..,1 �,:,. ...c. .., . .....:�.�- ..:. .u� �.:.:_.�.. .i r , c�. a� Y �: t - �. a ....... � .. 1 . :.. .`?,4. . .. � � � �v . " � . �j � � �+� � }� �J':v <. ,M ... a`. . t a .:.�, ,.. . .�, . . .. �.. ....�.W6,$ �.. , i T. � . 3.� ee:. , ... ... ,�{' . � w :�:�./ .'Dw. ��, �.{ �... y �.. -'.� s, .t. . ..,. ��SfN�.�.. ... .�:.: . .. ... .. .-:. l.S'.: �.. ��♦ � „ �-� $, s �. ,.r•... �t . . «., . � .i. ��.w�' .+a : . .. • ..35. �.. _.. ...�.x .... r' 4- . . . ,. .. . - '. . ...: t.,. .... .. - YJ ,. ��.., r v s." #� �.-. -X. ..� .F' �.��- ;�.. ..:h- u ,.� .�. . . . s . ... �..:�P- ... ��,: ♦ }� a�` ..' ">." ' _ r �. ..... . . .:�, $f . . , .: . .... 4'_ ��.t.. . y. ..-. .,.. s., ,._.. +t 4. ... :... �.,.. . ... .. ... .��.� .. .. i. .�. �.. K r.. ... . 4 ., a _. �. .a..�...�:.. .,.. . -�.. . ,. � ... � . .�.. .::. . �� ,� '�Y 4i: e.� ��..... � . . ..d.. ..,. .. .ai •v.....'� , J. , . t. . �3 ., x .: . n . .< '8� � _t . . i . . � '.. . � . ... .: ) , e ,.. . .>.. . . . ... � . .. N � . 5 : •... � f k • » v„; .. ,. �. � : .: � � . � . . . ..r . . . �:... . . .rt . .. . . � ...s-. � �c ... . � . .. ..�. �. ?.4:: �. . � _ . � . .- .. �.� . ., ; ._: , � ` , . . +�. . 1 , . .� . ..�f i 'h .. .,. _ .. .' .. ... �F> a . �. .4 .. .�:s., , . . .� - � . Kk- : � ' �v � ., e .. �: .. i. . . . �r� _, a+'. � w . ". "-. � ♦ .. � .. �e : � 'V . :.. . ..� . . .b �t . . , f S .- � 1C. . . .......Y . :. + _ . . .., . �... . �.�t .N � a S. '�. . .: ]+ "S .�' , . . .. . .. .� �.. M f .. e * c,. . . . .. :; w , ... w . : .. .-a . s � , . _ � , 1 .. : , _ . . . � , �, � r � � �. �.. , . . ...: :...'t.�a;.�� . . , . .. . �.,. � ..i. . . .: . , .- -, . . . . �. ,.. ,. ..., i <'�P, � , . � .!de, . �. 'f� �:. .... � ... , . . .. � a\ . �, . ... �, :. .. ...:,: -. � � . , . . � .. 4 .�». � .. .. m �o r � �.�.. . .. w -,. ... � 4.,., �..t ._. .. d� � .. � n,rt� w.. . �.. + . �:.» ��.:3 , �,-, . ��. : ,. . .r-.. ,.. ,. ..... , . _ ,.�-. �...,,. � . .. �...._. w- . . .� � .5�. y... .. :� �. � , . . � . .� x .. -$ ... , .r � .F : .s .ad. . f. . � :�.., .,°� , � _ � _ �,. _ �',. . . - > ,.. _. _ - __ z� . . , . > ... ... � <_ _... . .,:... � �. . � A � . .. .. , ... .. .. .. . , . . �. � : . . `„- `�.:. � . .,. . . ..., .. .. �. .;, . . .�. � �r, . , ... .. ., -. . , �-.. :..�. . . .,;: v : . . ... �, . � _ :a. �.... , .. .....�.. .�...`1 . .. .,. ... ... ., .. +�, .,,.... r.@.. . !^.: x..- � ... ., t .. . �., , > '. �/ Ti „$ .. � s .. . �-,... . m .. �.. ..a t .. < . "{� .. w i.. v ✓� �.� � ..� . „ ., .:.:. , i � `�7 t � � �. y. `, r _ � +:' . a ' : . , ,. . � _ r, _ . . . . . .. .. . . ,. , _ �,..�. . , . . � � . ; �: . , d �.. _ • � � � . �.:. .�,. . r : � . � . . 4 .. �*.wb: <.,�' _ �� Q.. . .f. ..... »�.� . -.� ... .. .C�: :A.. . :.::... ... 'L :,.�a.,..` ,.� '�; �..-,A'.»..� .,� .�a R� � > A .v. ,- -�' � '.r,.. , . '. .+k•:. ., .. ', -, . . , arF .. .,,.. �. �, . .�� .: ... .. 'w.. ..«� . *x. .. 3: . �. ... , ... .:. .. . .,.. ,- .,..,.. .- � � ... . .. � . . .. � . .. ��.. . :: 34 � .: � ..� .:... ..... t . � e - , .. ..... � f , . , �... .. , ' � :� .. . � ;i . :..x,,. 0 ;�.. -v-�, c. . �ec� � .. �.x 1 ., ,. �' . . . a . :. ,M.`, tY r . . r . .. b. , � . � � � .. , , f � . �. � M .� . . . �: ., K _ . . : , . d , F ,. :,s,: . . �_ . . , � ., ,. � s � � r � . _ .: , . 9�a.� ��ai� r . , 1�c � , S� .. .. . . . .. . . . �, �,. _ . , ak - , . � �,�t� . .. .�/ �_ . . . � .y , . . � : . . R , � _ _ . . � , . _ .� t_ z , _ �., _ , � , . . , . ,-;,_ � .�h � - .r . .��._ _..,.. ... :�� w�..» _... ,. � . _ r . � r ...- ... � � -..c. r..., . , , . . . . , , � a. . . .. . �..,r� _� .,.. .._ ..� : �? . ... ... �r� a'� a . ��`� � � .e- �_i .:. � . , ... .kM°V .....:. .. . . ��:... . . ...,. ...... _ �: _..:... eA �. a� \ �,. .�� , . ..r ��-�x . �. .. .:: , �. . . . , .. .. "� . ,.� ._ � > .. , ...- � ..,. ,, , e' .:< .a, . ..• i : . : ._ ::.�., .,.:.. � .,a a�. ..-. .,� ..� � :`� e. .��- ,y :. .: k�� . .. � . 12Y �..� � �.. v Y_.. �s �,b� �..�' . , i.. � �: � �. k-.... r . .. e. .. .: : .. .. �� . ,: .. . . ._Y'.. .. '��.� ... � :.. . .. _ ..� .. a�. .,....j. .,,�J.. ... . .v .._. ,. .. '�. :-� ., �' .� :. . w. �. ,4e��: .. .... . . �..... . � ' �..�.. ....,,. . ..... �-.: f., .... . ,-. :c1"' ,.., .� .. -. ��:L�.. .. P .. R .:'Y.,.. . _;�..s.... a.. . . >,. t .�. .� . w� .�.:,. �.�> , ... _.�. � � . .,,, ..n .. ....eav► �y n<�4... 3.�� 3 .. �. �-n. . :.,... �.�. r .. ...:. .s�. .«,-� .... _. , , �>-_'� y, s � �.:�.. ... �..e . �.. s. «' ...... .�1 .. . r . .'S-> . . .�.. � . . .. f ...ro� � �... : . .. .. . .._. .: R . .. . �� .. �.. ..�.{. . �. �.. ^L. . ..< .,. ...- �.S j� �r ,. j . r �....... �v. � �. . .., u . .. . ..., ... ",. . . , .f. ... .- ..?,..: .. � ,.. �( ,. . ... ...:_.�.a �.`6. .. '�.. . �-•� � h ., hl <�, � . t. ... "�� .. � . ..�. -�. i .�. .. RL. �. w., g : ,... .�.. ..�w ......?� . .k ...�� . �. �.. �._. _ .< ,.�......._.��.:.........� ...�, �..-. ..<...��.. .._..... w��: ., .��:"� �":. �s�,. . g.. �.h.... �_ .. ...,. .... ,- '.:..• N..a:��. -,;:. �. ... .. 'S: .., �'...+�.�' �.R`.. .. : .. .-. ... .,.. _ .. ?t .. � �.. . -....�� 4.. . .�. ,. ... . ....R� .. .... -.. .. ,: ..: � � r .: _ . r t ..c.. �. -. .r�l_3. .«-.. . �:.�..: . � .. . :Y: m . , '°d*.�. �-. ........V- � .. ... . -:.. . ..a. ... .. �:' 6 . �,-. �^ t .. ;.: . �+.•L . :tC�� . :. s . '°yl -.?�..,. �� .. ..: , , .- . ..'. +� .r ,�... : a _..., t ..s ..,,` ., �.vf.. .... .. �:;��?n . . � �' E. y . :.. �f R � .ii, �Y. .. ,.1 0 .. ,... .,. t .�� F�, . ..... .. ..,. . .. . ,... ..,.. .. . _., .1. .�;.., ��.. . ��, A "'C. w,. ,.,..... \ b �'.�. ii M. ... i . . :... .., .. �.- .. .... . �.�;s:..1 ,..«a. �„ �.,.....� " :: .. '.'&.';. . . .: '. „ �:� '< .. a�.,�... .. .-.. .... .:. 3A:t� a..._._,.... C�:: �_ ..� ... �. a �' , ,. . , . . .... .: ,.�',.,,. o . , .,. - e . � -...... � ' S.. .� �.. . .5 . <. ..:�te �� . . : ..a�� .: 7�.:.��.v .. ° ..l^ ik t� . ��.. ��..A .. �ar..w.w . �. . "5..��< _.. .. .:. .... . ,. �. . a . il... ..c�:..) .A^'..+fi�.� .. .. .� -rve . .. �" ^.^[�'.�: . . . .. ......;�„ .. .�.: . `a� k..,e . �.� sx,. �r� �: .�,. �.: :. ...:, �.:. .,.?7?'...... .� ; ..� :a .,:tic .. i ._� ;, � . .�.. ��:. } . , r ..,. . � ... ,. . �: _ ,... � .. :' ...t �,.. �ee �. a ..w�. .�_,. ....�� ..a��. .. �r�� ` _ ., ..� �:... .?e.< ��`c:F �.� �-:. -.....z�.<.� . :� � � � � .�. r .., ..;.... .. .t .. ,.. -. . . . .,:.:� ., .� .. �..... .. .:a-. ..,.. . �. ..�.. k ... : f�.:, � . , . . . � x c o ,.. a; � ��j, . .,- �• ,...�, - .:� . �h'.` a . . Mf�.a. . .. -,. , .: � � . ... .. . � ��. ... , .. . �... ,. � pY '� � . F "c ;� . ., ...,. :�. ,.yy ..., ,� ... ., . �-a��c,....wGc: .�' .... s�ia��. ,.��'.�,'�� .. � :`T ��' ��.. ��.. �..... ��,. .. ., y s. `a 'i� .<<. � . :.��4 5 ..... .�� :.... ... , �.. . ,. �. �..aoc. .:. .. , ...... .... . � .... _. � 1 .... ..r ... .:,. .. . , � i� •�, � •,'0+.. ^f�'; � � ... , �. , . ^ . F�, . �. , ,. .2. , .. :., ,... �.. .. .. ..... ., . .� ,.' ., . �. �.�4. . .w,�� . ��. '. :.: . k y� :.� .�' ��t; � �,. . " Y. C � w� , . - � i rff..:. .Ei� ' . -, '. .. ._: �� .: n.:. �. ,. � � . .. ♦ � .... '�.. � �' . :: ..'� . @. . �3� w. `� p ��, a h . �.. �., w . . i� ., � ., � �. '� ` �:" �"'.. o . :.� ... E:si � y .;... �..,�� ,. ... ..: .I. .>�.�t .�s+fe.�.' �,.: ..� �.ssAS. ... .. .. ... .�' .. ...�t ..q �> . ..�' .r..E�� :... ...i� z�' _. ... , . ��:.... ..., ' . .�. � e�: t .f4 >�' .._� .....,.. ..... ... ... .. ...... ' . ':� . �.,;... .�.. .. t � .... . „� . $� . . ..... � �.; gK .... .�o � � � v. . ..a. ¢ �:V . ..: .n..c . .. . . - ... . ... ��.. . a � . ,.,... ...� "l. ..�' .. I £ CYS . r � �,� y . � , �.� 1 . < .p.. . �:. �n. ... . ��. ... :. _- .- .. .� q t �,�� O 1+ a� ..�, .... .P ..< <.�. ^ .;!,i, �.,":.. -;�'...:� .. ..� - t`.Q � ; . i ....: . � . S . :� . . < ♦. ,. . � . Y '�. . , .'.t ..� R t ..�Y � � .i. �aa� . . - . .... l� `� �� ... t ., . . � .... . �. � �.. : � . �� . .�.xi . . M" .;.q '. .....•.. i d .� � . "_i- .. � >:. ..... >3. . .:rv. .. ..,. � J.:. � . Y. .... a�� . �.,. .. .. . .. : ., . s� ,...: .. - o. .'9 E � s � . :. . ��: .. l ,,� ��`��:.. . . �..-. .. . t� . E�� e '°'k �. ...- , .�. . ...�. > .t t« . . d FC. � . . . �� Y. � '..# . ,. ,. . •. Y . . .- �'!GY?a' , r .... .. . � �. �_..._ �... R - ,. .. . '. .. ..'� ' . . .. ,..., a .,. ,. .. p . .... , � �., �+1. I,.. �� . T : . . � . . t56 S : . ��. ..v L.. . . .,� � ..-,. . , . . . ... F�° ... .. Y �... .. � '. �.. �.. .. . .-+ .. �. _ -.Y^' .. 9� � _ .. ^ �a...�: .+'c'� y , a'S. �3, .S_•`{ y Y � �f � � { � �,. .. ... .: ..-�: .. .P �. .,t:,;,r ... 4�.ffi�....f...a :. .��r.�� : . . -A, .s -. +4� :. . ., „ . �� :� .. >. ., .� o.��. ��i� .yyt� ."'�. 'l."£ �.e.. _�.''�'.+�.. � "� i. "•' �-, ; :. , _ r . .. _. , . , . . � , _. _ ..,. , � _ . � <. ..:.,,. , . K .. , ... . , 3. o � . a�.. . .- s . . . : a. � e , . .. _ r , . .p.. . .- � � , s _. k ', �. . �r. ..i. �.. ... .. .. . , ... ... .. e+W�. e.. ,... �._.,.... �f .. �'a . .. .. _ � .. �.� .. .... ,.... Y r 9 '.'.". _a�. . .�,.... :. , .�. . ..: . ..� } �.. . ...� .Y. :..� .. . ..� n .. .... , i �'�.. .,. ..:: . ... ... , .. . , ' . :. , .. 9 �-... ..3.. . . . .. ��Y3 r .. .. x� .5 . :,. .,� .,-. �o..... . .. :''-T� ... r:. . . ..>.� . . 4 . .5 ,.... _...... .�.,. �.�_ .. �_ . xt.--'F ... .� . . '.ts. �^, b � � . . .�^.. .� , -., . ... . , ... t .. -t. . . �..i'.: .�I �y.. .,. .:. .... .{ . < ., �. �_.., ? a.,.... '.� w �i. .. �.'-� , .. 'Fe-'f,. ...� �Y`.^.;". ...+� .� .ee:7 �. �,. �, �': T�,� ..e., .,«: , . .. -.�. st.......�..r ,.. ...i .....: . . . � ., r �� r , . � .. � . x . �. awP, . . ,,. _ �b. . .,. �. . , . 7 ..,.. x �: , �.. „ � ... .r. .� � . ,� �6s�.. - � � , �;.. .. :�, � • ,.. . .. :... ... .,.rx .: �,.. . ... - a... - - . . , .. .. � .. . . , e.. . � , r .. .,. ;..v.: . . ., e . _ .,. , .. . <.: , . . : # c :5" .<�._;�� . . ... . .. ... ; �� . .. .. _. ...,... ,.. . . A. 7 . . � . -:�,� . , , .._.. .. � , . . , . .. . �.:. , . .. . :.. n. � - ... . .. ._ N - ._:wa , ... ., �'. ,.. ... ... .. . . ... ... -o«,..,..; .., . .,-� .�. : w.. .i- ..,. ,W:. ,.. .��.-;:-...,. . a>�. .� � �`.. , a �. :# , . ._. . .�i _., tcs... ;,. .. ".. �:s ... . r�: ��. ��. 3-..7 ... , .,,. .c. .n k-' .c. . ..r.... ✓:.. ��.: a ,..�. r Ie k . ■ ..'�5� . � � R`,YA. �: .r....,+.. .�� ...� . ..,xY�-+�v.:.�.:-:: s .,. ... .. ..... �.... ......i.... .:. r. ,:. x >t a........ -.,- -:... .,. '�;. y 'L,�'�' � ..� :. F�: . ''�"w�q.. �� .. �.:.�.. .n� ,.. .e .. �.. ,. � ... .,. ......, .. ,.:,> ...- �-. R ...... .n. . �. .,. �. T� . .�. ... .:,'e. .. ... .;.,.. .< '3 �s w r,re. � � . .. _ : ��. .5'dti. : �.o. � , . . r1 . �� , .�.v � � ... . . . �.. ,r �. ... . . . ... . . �. ..:,. .,.. . ,� . , ; ,: , ., . ,�Y ,.�E . .,a. ww ,; , z } . . .. . ,... � , _ i , � w . ,, .. , ..,r . . s� . :, ,•r.n►;, _ . .. ..a- _ .... .. . . ,: ... �«. .. . ,� . .. ,.. _.. M � .... , q .�. �:: ,. ... .,... ;., ..� .. .�� ; . .....:, . , � .. . ..;.. .,... �1 �.. � $ �;,� , . , a�. ; ..,.; . .. ... �, o �x e .<:, ..� ��. ... .. �" ... .>. ..».. ,� _. . , , �, ; _ . ,...:,. «,. �: ,. se,� �.., �.: ..�+ .., ♦ ��, 9. ..� i :� r �. ..�F^ s. .�'. ., . �. , �, .,. .>., '. #, � . � �, r » � �,+c� . . .,��,. . . ,.- �. � � . . �e .... a�� , o .'� ,. �;:. ,:� �i��. � s- �,.� L' _ .':ry ., .,. ,,. ..k . , . �w .. � V �.� ..h... . � n.r:. ..i . , .. ...: .�. ...:�r... .. .$ � . . . �. � .. . ....... ... .� .;. .. �; �-..F .'c....a, � ; c a �. . .... �.., ,.... ,w.. . .., �'?'. � .. . .. . ... . �, -. ..� � -�. .. .... � ..... w,.., . -�. ..k.�t. .. .. . �.. ,.. a .,�+- / . ,... , :. . � .. �. .... .. i. , . - ',s �. ..�,. y ;� -� .. ��;...� ... . .. .-.. . w �. ...>: a�. .. . .. . .. .. . .... r . F� .: :n ,. . 7�.. ......: �.X.. .. . '�J: . .' 2 . ` . . ��., ,-. ... ..-J' .w . < � ,_. :.d .,-�-.. ... ,��. ��. ,� ,� .b... `�.�..k .:. .:w .. "tfi �..,.. �� w;, ..�.::. ...s. .. .,.� ., .... .. ...�. .. .. .. i3Y. . �., . ......x� .'�. -�. ., ., .v . , -� . ... :. �,. . .. . .. .� P _ ,. -.. , iu: �. ,. c: , ,,:' r . � � k �b: , .'�n. . .. � �� .. �,. . .,.,-� .,�._;., ,. �::� . s � ... �:��-.. .p. .�.. :._� .,�'.w..... �.,� .. _ a r �..., ;��, �w.3� : ��e .:.»+e..s: ..e...�K.... - �, , :b r�s� . . . . , ' ':. £<.. : �� .. . .$ . .�_.�'- , . F. : � , � . .. ..S°.��. ' . ...�. - ,-i ��.� , , ..: ., , , ,. . : . +R+' .. :., :. .v �� , .:. '��.W. , �. . F. �Q, Y.;_" ,"�;.' � . �`� . . �. .� _ ��.1 . .. .. ... . 3. J'.. "�,. • • .i4�. '........:. � ..'#.� ..> ..e . �:'.t ... .,: .. s. ..: -.�..,.. .. .n, .i ». .�;. .- � ,..' 6+'&..... . . il).. � � . .... .. �.. � . ,._ . ,. . . ,, .n. � ?� 'e. . e .. .:. ,..� . .. �. "�, .. ... . . .. .e .. � d�:'.....�.. : �.. �. a � . ,..: A5� . , . . ��' e�.:. . .� �,: . . . . . .e4i. .. .� . .. . .:P�, . ,.... . . S �. .[:. ,.r ....J . ... ,,g . .. .� , ab' .� .. A' . . .. <::..t . ..T ..,-. �d6 �,- ,.: �,..... � .... .� �.... � , -d'a.. .. , . �.:. .......�� .. d� . .. . ...... .... .�e. , „ :<.n.. .' , � .. �: �..w... � . 2 i5.. . . �. ..a a .� .� a . >... . � ..r . Y . , � . .. . � � . ...., i . .�.. . .i .. A�.: �.. . . .. '�s . . �. . .. _ Q' ,. . .�. .... .� .. r .. . �,.:. . ,.�h.: �. o t . . . . , . . � . ..: . � . , . , .. �,. . ,. .9 . .,n. .r�. T+° r.'» iw..,.. .. . ... n . - .. , . , ... Y �. . .... ��+ .' ,.. :: '� �k .,... . , o ;'l . .3�..� . �.� �..,. .:. .�. ...: . .. E . .� . � .. . . .� ,..... r. .. .,, _. .-. 't'�m:. � .... .. .,� S . �_B .. 4. �_ .e. �e;. . ...<.... .. ,.. .x.�.. .: �_ � ��_� . .d- y� �..�.s..« ..> .?C ..3�� ... ...� �.,.;�, ., �...,W . .....,.:..3, ., r ' � . � . � ,. � � ,. ;. .. . . , . �. . , �' � , t � a _ � r. , x, a�. .. ... _ , � �-,. � : . � , d.. -:� � . �. . _ . A . � �> , _. . . . x . , . _ � .� ,, _ . � _ . L b . ,r.. . . � .... i . -� q^� . . . : SH 2. . .. . .. .:... . Y .. . , X'f�. . . . .� �. . � � , A�; . ..,, . .... ..,.., . . .. .. ., . ._ . , .�+ � . . , , _ - �:.. ...- ..... .. ... .... . . .. . ...<: , :r�'. .. � . � .., vr d � C� s : ,�-.,. .. , .. .s�-�... . ;; .. ��. i.:; , ..... • • 1 . .�. .:.. . .?e.-... ; «t,.�. ��.; - �.:. �.�: , ... .. ,..,� _.....lr .. . } . ,., ,,. . . � . ��, - s .. .. - . �d:. ,."'� y . . . � , o. . . . Y. _ . . x q .. � : � ... ., . �r. : . . . � . . . . .,. �d , . � . . . ,...� ,. . . ^ �. .R�a .. '` �� . � y . _.. ..,., e � v� .., a.. ..� . ..�.�. ,. _ -�. .. .,^^�o. �:��: .,.;. _�.s.. :.;. .Y .: :t:.. °Y. aama �k... ..,. 1}�.�., i E' .: .., .. .. . . , . � y . 2 �, � . � .. ... . - :. . . . d1Ra . .c � . .. �; .. p 4. � . .. , . .. .. ..:0.' , � �. x . q� . ... R ,. � ., .. ... .G� .., mN : ,. ..., ..x, .'�� 7�,.� .. :£se,b8ait0 � . , t� . . , ... . - .. . ; . � .:.... .. , .. . . ¢ �' _ .� :. n �. �. .. . y - �{.,� . . g>eY .. . ` .�. �`� � X;� ". �75. �.. .>. .:. . �W ^)� J .. .. .....W. �t P.�.. . , .,. .-.... . .... � �..'... .. .. ', ��.:. �.; ' .�>. "..�. .......... ...L:' 'A:..;> !� ...... .. .' ..n.�..�w . .� �,.. . :.. � �... �L:.. ... ..«.. .. .. . ...,...'�� . � .k>.r. .._ .. ,.. �e.�.. . .. �.. .._.. , .iY�. .� ��. .F , . F..<�' a a..., c. . . � �: ,� , r b... . ,. .:'. y��.�.r�3•�.': � ...e�....t. ...,.� ,e :.,� . 'v �'�.�. .... .. . . .: ... �rk..d. ../^�' . �. .. .... �: . �:. ... � ... .� . .�..�, ...... . Y . ?� . f t �.,. :.: .:.�....... . . �i ... . r . .. . �. , .'$:� ;�;'� :.Y . .n S. . .. . ,. .3�. .. � �. 3... S: ...Y ,. .�., .. .. d ... .1�. .... ��,., . ;� ��: .. . ...»� i. «. � .�� i.. . -:�. , r � i �. Y ... �' �y OQ ,:� � '. . . 1 ��'. '.f . , d�.. ..e... .. . .... . � .. . . . . . ..< s.. .,. ...'.�� >� . a, .. t� �., �. .... 4�:. " . . ... .. �t[ .._ ... �.>�. �. . .. : s a �: �.:. . '. "�, �::�. . : T -.�.. ' . - . . . . S:L < �y. ', d r i .� .+3 ..... . .� .. .� . �s.. .. . ,... ., :lt �� £s�: ., r-�:.: . �N _ .. ....... , ��.�:� � :.. �.' .J�.. . .. . b"f ��, , �w. �sT.. .i: -1 . .. ..�.. ,�... >,. �F'> } .�. _.: :. �. �.. „� . 8.�... 7 6 � s .: ::... �� .. � . �. �'... . . �'aP. �.6 � �� a '.. .... .. t� .,:.-..�.. . , :$ . ,. �. ,�y . :...�. �.. ...�.. .. �. � ,t- . . ; .:..,'10 F Y �. �5...,..v� �`.� . .._. �; .. ., . ..�... ..,. .p ....: � . :.a ,... �..�e�-cr� �,i�.� �,µ .4. .;. :.raF. , e ....dw� . .. ,. :., . ��:✓x ... <., d.,,.. . .:.s ... ..�, .aA.. �ts. ....,. �-,,, e.�.,k.. 5�....._.x . ., .:. . ,., . .�a .35.. ....,v �' t� ��Y�... n4r�.J�.ro .:�� .. ..q ;.:�. , o. . . . rv .. . e dR . . . , e o �� . . � P: �.. .. .. : . ..,, ..... .:. . . .. . � . ., �,... -. ,. ,. ,.-:�� 1' .. " i : '. .�, '�, ...: .,.,. �`.8. . �;-� . .�� ,' .. . . >. �:� �� ..� �......e ,�.� .. a.. , ... �.... ., .+w.. -. .. ��'. ... , ..�.�� d a '�._. � c ef'... C.. y �. , ;s.. .. �, .. I ,... .> .�t.. .... �.. ., .. ..$ ..... .�,:� ., :°`. .,.,+ ..: �.. .. .. ..� , r. t ... ,_n :. ._. ... . ... .< r,��: .�. '.�.. <_: ...sE3 'l: r4' $ d .�;. .. .f .A f G� .a. .. , c_ �..,,.,�....�_ . -.. ...., ... ... .�� . y... . � e .0 .,, , ,. r. . . , .� � , . . , _„ _ . . . _ ,� �., ; .�'� z � �< �i > . , � ., . � '�r � _ _ . , . ..�- . . .. _. � . _, y+$ :� K � ,� , � . , � . . . d < �. _ � �>. -.:. ,..... .,. � .. .. , _ . . ,w.. � .... . �...: ....�. _ . , ..: - . � , . .. :. ._ . , ;. : , .. . a F ... r� � .. . ?. . _. . `'.'�r. . �:r., . .. . c . . ��- � . . ;�c. ^`a-'Y.;=_� .t� :� , ,.P, _ � .. �.�. . -.:.. . .. .... '°�:..i �., x �,. -. _�e.::�� ...� ��. �.. ,..'3-�.�F. ..��.�. , ..e n..i .kE .. .., . . --d �i�. ,7�. �.. .. ,. . ... .+.�... . �.�a... �l� ._....i ��.t" ... .. , n.,,�', ... i�� .:;�.-.� m� ��;�s . _ .� .. �. .. .. . , �.. .> ...�. .> .��.� �.. :.{ r�. �„� ... ,. .;r+,.� � . .. , . ._,... .- , a �. ., .. ) . ,., .�� ._. .. .. . �_ ... '?� ..... a� , .�., ...� ,... :< . . � .4 �°�w >a-• y� . �. rt I. . Y .. . . . .. ��,. .... :� . . .dR.tR e.., .. ... ...:,. .<. ,...- , c�..��.%� , .kr . ..,n. . �,., ......., , �� g F °!"' e . ... ...2 y ��. .. , . _. i B<. ...r. , . �.. , 'S '�u . .�.� .. .t :'.:...c�'� . ..... •�.,'. .F��. .4.. �.�. , ,,,�{.. . .y:�. .... .. . . o . ..: � . .ar'. t�t£R" � . r , . .. � `" .e ..I i '�.��.,.. ... a. .. . M,. :.. .."5,.. .. . ::... . :'- .,:. ,.x: � e '... .J R � �. . �. �.� ,. ,. i4a m. .: ..e �x: . �$'JF o. ,. ,.' ,. .. .tr.:�- , . ��`v , � .,. .. ...:�. �„A : . ... .,. .,.. .r . �. . .. '$. �.... �.r �.. �� . . .. �. . � �,.. �,} ! .. - �.. .:��.. . .. {'. , .� y+. . �.. � .'��_: . :. .� � .. �t � .. . , ,. ,. : �.� :: � ... �. ,... � .. : � A �}; .�� .. . ...-�:�o ..�... ... � R .. -a. .� 9 �. �.. M... ...r.. � � . �h� :`t �'3 .�. �.� ��,• . ,. ... _ ... !�. .. a � _ii". ,>?r',>.. .;: . �. F,.�� ., p'OS %'�R;^A: . : . . ., r,,. . � .�, . .. .. . . .: � . � ...:� ... . ,. . . `+�. F: ,. . -.. �.+, r � . i ,..._ . .� ... �. R �:;,� .n>,. _ ._ !rw., +4' :a3. . ♦ . '.�3'... � .. � ,. ... � . �,::� � . ,:.. ,. . .. _�..: .,.... _F ... ..�e ,. .�� n...Y. ... ��.... Y � _:. .,. . , . ..... ,.... ,.� .,. ... ., .._...... .:.. ... .`tA .:...:... ., . .��..�.;` � .w.. ,..,.rF ... .. ?�: .�.. ,. ��°'. M ��i. .., ..> ..... Y. .; `. _ , ..., b .� .. �!► .. .. .... :..Y .. .:-,., �> �., , ... . . :�.:�... > ,'.' � -..��s Y' -u.+. s, ..,. . .. � , . . �C��. �. �' .. �. a .. . . . F. .�.. .�.: E/:. . � . : -..,� . , s� . ��. .. �- . . , : -...:. .. .. .i -c ...�' • . :. .. ��•� - � : ... . .., ... . � �.. ,> .. .;.�.. ., .... .. � . ., . , .. ..<.. � ; ..s ;'. ... . � N 4 . x.ea �.e . . a.: �� ....,ba . �. .. �.. i2 . »+.-arex: .. , . .. .. . .., ... . � . .. .�.., : ,.. , . . . ..r ... � �.., ..�... .. .;� . :.,; .o. . . . . < g x . � ; :.& rt . ,. �, � . . . t nws;_ .. . . � , e . n , . . � � . < . �-�' . . i ..: ... ... .,: F"..: "l.. . .. ...t .- . ��........ _� '+"'f�... .'..: _ ,.., ... _`.:a .,.... . ,....,»:.� � �... ,. .., .nr .A.,..iV' :� .. ,.. ...� .. � x., ..,�. �.._ . ......�.. ... ..,,,. „<.� ..::�.�.:. .. ..�.. ..,R . a <. , _�... .�. ..r.., � _ � �t� , . � � �.,. .... � _.. ,..,, r.ti < ,�, s.s, , � , � _. . .. � a� m ��+ ....... .a. � ., .,. . , :.,..... •'. � . .... � . . . ..� . r ..._ .: . .. , f ..-[ . ... .<< . ,...,...-�. .-, �. ... �. . .� . . �,..., ��s', � ... ..., . "�-, �,�w . ...2 ,�-r _ ,,�'':.. ..,.�'.,� . � . , . . . ..... - Y�:: ...lW.f. � . ,. ...... . . .. . ,.. . +v:Y. . .. . � �: . .. ♦ . . �..ro.a... .*. ':r ..x. � . , � '�St .�3 4 .......�. . ,.. .. . � �.+ . .. �. : � ., .. . .. . . .... � ..a: .. .. . ». . '�i �` .. �. - .... ... �.�� ...: �,e ,. .�n . . .. . ..�. � .:'t � ��-: . � � ;"� �w?.. • 'C ��: ' `�';& �,..:�. : - . , � �. .,j �.. .,. .s. P < . .. .. .'G . ,;...J�. $k: � ' a �...:�.�...�.._. , ,.... �J4..... , .. . . ..�. ., . �.z , :�.��:..... ..,.. : � a� Y , �i, tt ' 1 �"�'" $' .n, > , . _, : � .. . _ . • , o . < ,. . •. � ,. t , "� .3 . .`�,:-: ,� s v _ . � _ R . . .. , �„ . . . . , , . _ �. , a . . : � � w ... . ,. < .: a v , r "1�: , .., _ , ,. .:b -£ r, ds > . � � > �x .s,:. ;.. � .. s 9 ,` " m 3"; , � .� ., . .� , ... :, . . , _ <-�. >: ,. .. , , , . , ,- - r .�, ,.. '� � �. � .+�». . �` .e,,:., � �, : :,.s .., ... . .a.-� .. .r. , .a �.. , x . ..,. , y.�.._:.,., �� . .., ..�> . s .,'� �... . .. e �s . .. a _ x � y� _ . r . . � .a .:..:: . . . _ .< . - � -:e�.. . . < e, 3: .. ��.> ..:�� , � > . .. ... . �. � -�, . �!"�'r4^,�T .r . . . ,. . � .. , .. . , , ; t � , .. . . . . � ale-. : . Y , . :.. .. . . . , , . �. , e .. ... . ,. . , .. r. .... _ b . _.,..... . w. ,�.: . . . , . :�.... . . . � �.i...s. , ., , : �. �, . 4 5.- , � s + : ti: � � . ?.` .:..,. k.....�:1 ..� . ,:. . �e., _ ..�. _. ..... ., � .:r_ .. . ....,...s... ... . ,.. . . .,.... .e s .�, .,.. .. . ,.� -.w� �a � 9 : y{ s .�Q�� 3� _ � � r, . �b. � . . .. � . . ... . :� � ., ,Y . - :. ��-:. . , _ . , . . , . . � � . �. . � . E. . �. , . �. �. .ar�.. . s ,z` y�y . q�y ; .. �, , , , . . . . . .. .. g � g � a � i. . � '� � ,, ?k. , H �` � . _ �. , ��^ z` � � R ,.� . . .. . . ,. ,. . , � , . �� >, -. .�., ,�� r. �k .� �-.- .. - , . _ . .- :'�' . � . ��".. ... �.. . '3' ,+^x.. J -: �sr. .. . � ..., + . .. .. r ,,..E Y. .. x... �a�. .�- �.. . >.. . � .. � ,. ...,... � . . �.� .. ..... ..... . .. .. .. ., .. . �.f� '� � .:,.. � .. r. ,.. . .� .� .�.�� .. . . �>.. r ... . �..�,,..� - �.., � ,�. .�.� -��y �. .ti. < � .. . . ;�.,- ,.,� � .. « ,..> ..�.�_. . . .. „ ..;. .. , . ..� �ir� ,. .s. ,., . ... x. ,�.. 'ti� . �. .. _ .v.� ..: s ..i:�x�� ..�. :-S' . .b 5. . . -. 0. .... .,. �} . ] l . . ... J.. � .•.. �Yk .. �R+M�.:."S1Y . ,p . .. u_ . �, 7 . .,fl. � . . , .. �-.': r � y � ,S a, _ � . . . p x , . . � .r. .. . . .... � ... . , >_. .. . , 9. . . � ,�, "�'�� . .i. ..'�. a � :.. .�. �+ .., < < .�.yR �.� � '� . �. . ; .. . A. x �-.�.- . .�.. �;: .. Y. ,.. . �C �a� *1 �. - , .. r' ..,.,P. ..e . .. � ....... �. .. � ��. .� ..$.. ... . .. . ,. t ..� >�4�. -s .iw ... �Y .. W.. .;�FI.w. . �..�. .'�.«. ., , D" ,. 1 .. . . a �.. ..} . �. Ki..a.t0::. .... :. r ,- ., r: � .e , ;: .' x � ✓ '9 .. .�!. . ..,, M .,..�<�., .... . �, s. ,. �. .R ��. I :.. ..: -,�e . �G"4 %�.s� .. . .:. � ; �, Y�.i ..� e� . ��... ... .. .,: °l." , ^ P::2 �� . � t�. .... . . �e o� , ,�� . � ,..S��i' . �. .. ..-� .�,.. .., .,. .. , � ,d.: ..W' �,. .... :.. �, a .. .. �N. �.[-. �..��...,. ��. . . .. .. , �l` ... . .�. .. a. _ �1 . . a...s. . '(A. � a .� �nq. t+. .. `Y < .<1 .�.. .sd . X.� . Y �: ... . .. l� b' -.... .. . . .. .:,.... . .. ..... -:.d... ...... .a...., � . + .A�. .• ,..<. .,. .......: .. ..'{� ....,. v�:. ..R� .�.A� .... .,' ea' �4 .. � .. . ... .... �� .. .- ,. .. �... . �-.. . .�-� ..�.. ..� f ...,, . ... ..z. , .�. ....... • � . . ... . �ir..�. .t��..�. .. .. ... � ��'. � ?� :�.-.. ��...a y � . . �a ��ae . s a � . , n ..... Y , i K. .. ::.. .� , zM' .,.. . : � . . - �> .. .. . .. , . .. .�:�'�a.,. ,��. -„C5t . a . , ��':,� �. . , ., � ., . , . : . . ,. .. . sz� .. . ..3 � ��'c.av7. Sx . v �. . ,. . .w.:. i � ., .� : .. .. .. �. ... , .. ... ,... ., . �... . r� . � ,.. ... .. �,.. .�. b ....�� .. � �. ? , e.� a� .„�. .. .'�, ,e4�, ��. �.:.. 't a . .._..,,. .E,�F.....>.. ... .:. , �:'. .�. 'x . .k . ..�.: ... .:_.:- 7 .., o .. �.. _ _... .�. . .. .i �..:. ... �,-. .,,: ,z'�':.� ..°i4x., � t: r. «. �. : ' � , � ?� > _. , . � $ .. 3� . •.: y(.r.. .. . n^:; +. . ,� '??: � 5 w . . . � , � _ K . � ... , �. < . �a �}.v� . . r .,, � _: , . _ , : . . , _ s . # +� �* .`k�' 4: ; y . r. ... � ( � , r�. , . a.:. 4 � � �� ' - . � . .. .. � . .. ..:, .<: . :3� '. ,. . . . t ... -, , .... ,... ..r._. s- � ..�� ... ... ,:. ..�.r .i. . � 2 '� r " F* �s.,� 4. � `R : �� > : .. , ..�. .... , . .. ., ..., . �._ �. .. .. ., ... :e.:,�:� ..:, ., ,.�. � :�... i, .. � , . . y ._ . ., ; . . .. `s,�,�._ .. .. . � . ,.. �. .� _... . . .. .. . . �� -> �»: .. .a� :� �. . . . ., .. .: � - .� �� . . . . .. � t �� ...r � .. �: 4 �^ ,<.; •=� ..� �� ... .� ., ...:� �,.� .. .�ict> .� .. _ ..,, ..,. .,� ... .. . �, .., �« } .:� :�f�� :< . . ,. ..,.. .. ,...��. ...v �.:.�.. :. .,.,. .�:�;.. �:>. r .t:y �F. ._. ... .� ., ., s. . nh . ..� �s��t. .,'Sa. � - � Q„ �p .a. ¢� �', ^�-, .�� { s`o �. . ... ... ... _. ... s.. _ -� ,.. a. .;a� rr, - , ..: �°`� ., �. -.. .,.�, �, . .. , � ..r.. .� , , ,. , :..ti.. �:� '•x.Y . �.5 . � �•M` � :r.i. :.-.. ..Q . � ._� .. .� ° , M.. �' lii ."s 4� '..:_. .. '. ..�'t�.. .. .:, ., � .-.. . ` ..:..., ....a � ,..�..' �k . . . . . . , ..:,:. .. .. _� .: > . �:.: . �'- . • ; ..a ..: � ' �,a� , +r:^. .::�.��. .��. ., c -�.> � . �e :,.. y ., . . . ,�.. N .r.. +.,. .:_.. .�->. �. .. �..,. ..., .. . : -.�. & r , .: :w- . ...:..c.. . .. �. e �� , _., .. r. , �-� .....:. �.. ;�. . ....:..�. .. .; �. Y�, �. 3`H� '. .� ..< P . � . . 3 oMac. ,.. ,. . �. , �e wA.e ..4 �!5 ..s . . . 1' .A� , � � . ... .. . . . . : e t ��: .�, �. . `.. ., ��. . N;, w ;.. .�.P� L., �� ' 4 w4. r '. �. i �e.f . ... . . �-�...._ ..._ ...�' .'. ...� ir .� � .. � ..,>. 'YF. .. .. .. �. e ,. :� .if r - °:�•.r.. Yi. �'S p e.� � W ..:♦: t':,: � ��. `�t ....: . . ..: L . .. . v . ... . ..... .. , . ' � . e �. , . ,�..w3.. -. . .-�. �'.,..-..:'.: . .�... .�. -... . . ...�� . . .. ... ..e, <�..�. ..� �'.k J f � f enc t �" ^ � 1 .� � s: ' ,. - . � ,3. ...� , �>. a ,, y . ,L>: . �"'° _ T , .a :. .�.- � � . .. .: _ : � .. . .. . , ,. : ., ,. � � <x. , �,'% e,. , ..�_ ., . . ..,: s g .,: H. . .,�� .. .:s s �. �,. .. ._�:..� �.. _. . , � ... .�• .�s: .,�� ... -��< . .3 � .., . ,.:.. y w �.:s�. �.-+-K�. '.�� ,. . 3..�. �� o ._ -��. � _. �, a a, . . � o : �'._ : . .r . , w a . _ . , . , x� . , . �,, :..�. , .. . . �,, . "„ ,�""' . � :, ... �� z. .� ... .� .._3 x. � . � � �:. . . . .'�,. . .. : . . ....>� ..d .. .�a�-�t: .... .: . .. . ,.. „ ...:.� � .�� . �.<. . . .. .. ��r.., ..� .. _ _. , „ . n�..� ... � � � �.._� �. . -. � : � ��. :.., �,;o. .. . �.. . �' ... N° s . $ .'.q' , v�.': c.�,.a�- § y . ..,,... �� ,.. b. . �. .. , r ,... .. . .,.., . "�i . . s I ...��wr .. .. .. ... . �a �� : . � . . . . ,� . S .. , . r. , ..; �.. : .r ,r , ,. _ ,{ �.. . , ��` ,�:� . . a��. .; .. ai ., .. . ,�.. R. .. ,.. ,. .-. -.�.. ...e � . _ t�� M ...b .. , t�� .e�.+- „ ., ..� .. . �i � �� . > . . . .. �,�g' :. .. v. 'S' .�., �.�... .�. ..... .. � ,,.. m .t.... . ��,r... . o...: z� . � o .� . � . ,. S � ,�j � '- ..c � � _. ;a ,.... .. . . �'�:. e . ..,. : � . -... . � ... .. . . ; g.;,. � .w. ,. r +. . .' :. . . . .. r ,. . „✓' .-:',. S ".:.r_ ' [-n. fi '4 ..e��' ... ...�. . . '�t .... ... n �: -ir� '2� ,{, '. .�,....,,.. _.., 8... . �.. .: .. .w. .t°. .:. ,;.. . .:. 14" . .' �r. �.... �. :. , k, ..i �� .�. �. . . �E .:�. �. �.- �C.A ._.e ,: , .. . . ... - .s...... ,<. �... .,� ..�;: e. Y ... . �e ...� . .. a�� . .. .... ... , �?<. .��..., .,.. �, r , "'sb•. � s�. ..�.. .�. hy,. . ..'i'. �A � . ..r . , . Y . �� •. .. .. ... � . ... � 's . . .: � ..., � i � ea :.. L�l � .� .,y , _ e - . . r:.. . .. r . : . a:.. .�... { .. i�T` . . ..t ....... �� 3 .. ;"rif: .:_. 'F .f� ..... . . : '... �.[fr.' . E. i. �..' .h. . .. �'. . . ZE a .t �'; .... .... . � M ... ..r?" .. X`9�".' . ...' ..� . '.'$so ' f.� .. . . . o ... ,. .. �x;R . . . F ...�. ' � �.. . �A . -.: � . � w.. .. . .. . . ♦, .� .l . ,. ....o' . �.:: .. e . :.i;� . , �.:� . �, . �.. �._.. ...,. .. .... .. ..1`. .e,:. } . ,...., . .� . ... �.._�. �.. .9t .�....... .��1 � 4. �:Y': ao. .,.. §. ;. . y� . i .w Y . . .. . .: w � ;�-.J �.a N' i . . f v.... . ' . . :. � . � • �',..0 � . . » � . . .. . . . .. �' -i .. � , �:..YA .'�k �. � .._'��,. � 't �i �. �.: ,�.. ... .k.� , ,.. .aa! . . ..3T' .... .. ,. � .:. �. < " .... -��..o �,�.�t"r ra":!: `F. , , i.;.; .�.. . ... ..,-� F.�.. .,�. .-,.. _ �..,... � x�� g .. ... � �_. k,. wa � .. �� -.-� . : .r- .� ... �. ,. .: � w . .. .. .. : .. _. .A�� ..�� .,--� . . ..... ., .. ; ,.� . , .. .<_ .. .�� . -. .8!, ,- � -�.«. ...� �.. .,,,�... �.,,. . , ..; »�.: ... �-:�: ,,:-�. �., ..�, ,�. , , . e , a,, ;,. ,� .. .. , , �, . � .. ,_ � .. , _� . r, ; _ , ..� .._ . , _ y � � ..� , s . 1 . _ ea. . .,.. ,. . . , , < .. n . _ . . . � , , . . . . a , k- » < � � � a c .r � 1 a , k , t _ . a d�' _ _ �'" °�: , •,. ., _ . < �..�` r _ -.�:. .•�. r : t . .. , a . .,, e, ..u�.?� z . `s�• . .sa�'. �. . . , . . . . `7 e _ i .. s � F=� � . . . _� � . . - .�� " > . &. ..., ., � , � .. . :., �a < <?� _ : , ,q,. : .a ,_,; . , -: .:. r ._�... M.«. ,.... ,_ .:, . ..,.,.�...:: �..- �� ,.,�»�a�. :. , gq'�' .. . .'.. �:. ;..... �><..�;z ..v s �. . .: s. .. -� .. �.. .. . � :Ya. �s-.�.�a- « ;� .. �� ,.. ._ . ��- . �:..... '... e �: ,.,. .�. '., �:dK�. ..�� .. .�cy:,.., '.,�' .�, .' . _ ... _ .. �. . , . .�...w.,� . . ... �';� ., .....,.' ,� . , , .... .: :. ��;�. . .. ..._.. , ,' .. .4 ...�, x. .�'. �... . ..�. f.. ., . ...P3.; �a m.� .� �a ..Y.� .. < : a. . �y ._ . .-� .. o .� .� ,�, �.. .�« .. �.. .. ... .., .� �..,. ...,. e; �-�.� : d� R �K." .n . ., x . w.+.. �.., t ....., w' . `2` .... .. �� r�. . �'.. �'T..... . . r1 :". ... . . . 3 �� :`.. . . : , a .:.< .,-.: . ..... ,: �1i . .� ._� P .�t ..,:. .. .3 y �' . ., ., ��; . .. , .e ... . .. ., ...../�.�. ..�.�e .P. �.. �...]. .� . .. ..a.. 5. ..rj.ao. .� -� ., ✓...... ... .a .� -:�... �. .: ''l:'.. `1:r . � . .. . . ..� . , ., � ...v � : e � '.... . . , . ... 1 n ` rc r . . . �� .. � '... . ti' �. .. . � � ti .. . ., i . � . .��. .. v. �. . .. - . .. . �.. ::4 � :�ls �. .� . �i .S' :� .o, ... ,�. ..��. . ... 3 . . . t..i :.) �.' '�.�� .a\.' .}f� s` �i � A 1. .. �.� C. . "�: i � '+h� i ..`� . : �:{.. . �:�..'x.', ... ., . i ::_ -. .�ti :�� . ..3.. ....'(. M -,. ';. .... :� .. y � { . ., .b .�:... ...,. .... . <� .� .. ..m� .d <.. ...az. .,. .. .�... .��<.. ,...... �� ...,. ., .-�a.. , �.. ., .� t,....:_ �� J .�.. � . � �; ; :. .:. ..:. . ..�. _.. �. �.. .. .., �.. ��a ... .. .. , . . ., ��, :. :.�. �. . �.��.. .. ��.� s t _ .. .._. . ,,. . .. :... , ' �� ;, ;v" ;:� � . .„.: .. . . . . ... . . .,. . �_� �: �.vm ,�a.. Y.. ,. - �. . � �.:�<.:� : .: �� .. c. ..... �. ... �. _ : . ,e. . �1. .,. ., .., ..�.. .. �. .. . ,. �� .. N . .,� ...i... . -.., . . {' . ., ..... ... .�....,.: 2�s.. . >. .. o ,,.i''s. a. ..� , .._., ._. S� ,5. ..;. ..,.. .. . .... . .t_.,.: k�. . .... �' . . _�. :.�.a ,,. ..a ... .,.., ��. .t . �. x �..t.: :: � �.. ��+ '. .F... :... :. ,.. .�:�' ., ar... .... .. .'. .�.� �.. .f �^ �:.'�" a . � � �� ♦, i»4 .. . , ,. ....,. "A a . �'...e E�. ... . .... , ��✓�� . ::�. �X. . .. ..o_ .. rr �7- �A;" �x'� �� .� 3� s .�.<.. . ..�� : : .. ��: �.. . , . .: . , � . ::. . . �. . ,... s. � �'„ . t ... .. tC .;' �;.. . ..y . �� : �. ,., . .. .y�� . ..i .., . a .. , �v,� r�'....'..�. �'�:5;.1�3�: . ...... ... . .... . ;..� .. .. ... ... .... .. . ,� .,... � �,.... ' ... .,. .. .. �( �:. � .�, .. ..,.� , ... .,., 'k�f:' ,�' . .. ..:� .. �. , .�,. ..._ .: �..�« ,.. .. �. . .�. .�- .F �.<. ..�.. , ,. ..� . ��_.. �. ... ,'t�.. � . o:. �n..��4�` r ..:r�:�' ..-.. : _ . �9� .. �'.�. .. .. . . �3 e.. . ' ' . . . . ,.. , . �. . . .:..., : .._. a- � ...�.. - . ..-.�� . ., -,�. ... .;., � - . _ ;,. �..... . . > a. : -. , :. �. .�i . .�.��... � .. ... :.�.�e� ' ��' � : � . � -� l ��a . ., . : �. , . ... . 4 ,..I-„ n ..� ..... �. � . . $ .a s#. ..+.: ' � > .. r+. , � 'K �.<:...,, ?' ..,. . . .., .. : , . � .. , � . .�, ....�.:. ,. . , .. ... ... ...�.a�� .,. ..�� ,..r� .� ... .. . . , � r:�.. .. . �.�� ..�-.. �. Ei.. -..t -.�s*: E oet- ... ..: . '.� ��-a,> .� .�s. .. , ,s.�, d' �ea....�� _ ..> n , � t.. ...� �., �q. ..,.... . ,.;... . �.. .., ; v . .:<. .. ,,., . E ,..:.:`. '. i.. .,��' �`.t ; . . .. .. . � ., _ .. �' .. . � z '� . y ..�' l T�:. . �' .. ....... ... .:�, . .S�_, .. .. .b. .:.i..>t �.Sf,l <. ....::.Y... .. . )..': r' ... ��...A. .. ., ..^ . � ,;..' ., i ` . :�� '. e _ "�$. '� ��. � ��ww� , r oa,.��a � .> .��. . ... . o .:.. - -v.. .. .Zd . ��A. .. .w... . . �e. -�.. _ ;��- ,.. ... ,- :�: : � . ,�... '."1.��. .�. .t ..'�!r a�7c�; . � � Y�M r I , . . �.� § .,.,.. � � fs � , s . , . ,. �. ,,. . ...: . .�., � � � .. � I _.-�> x ,"� . :. _� . •.� ;. . . , . . . . .: .. > _ . . < .,. ., . � �x� _ _. . .�_;. � �.. . . .. � � . . _. : _. , < �. .� , � ;. � . . T ., �:, � , ,� � �,'� � � �. . , �,:� ... .. .... . . �a- .,. h. �.,.. .t �•w9!�.. .. .., i� .Y ., . .'; � ,.. �'� ...,. . , . ,� .. r a � < �., Y 'a . 3A ;: .. �,� , ... .. M. . ,. ,.....,,. , .., .,.. ,. ,,.. �: .:. ,t ..:,� _ .i ' a� r , , '5��.,, {;,:..��x i, �"'�„` /�` , ..:. � �< .. .� '. .r. . � . ��v..,... . @. .: . .... , �9.- .,.n .. ..a 6... ... -�....�:�- .. .. .. �� .. . . � "'as .�, b- : <... -. � .. :, , . z � Y � . �._ .. ..... .. � � .._. P" . . -..�?cf ..'�.i�!av _ .. � . .. 'X . ,. . ..�!' <. � .. �. . . : , .,. �. -..K. : '.% . `�., ��. � , .... ,..,. ,�k- ... .. , .. � ... .. . �a....p-e. .-. ., �.. . . «.,:<$. ;...,� .� .�i. � ti. , .�. � �» ��. ... d...a� ,.. .4 � � � � . ,. � .> , r . �.. . . �: . :�` � _ , .. �. �. . < . � :. . � � ; . . _ .. , .�r.. i. :.�. . .... . F �> .,�,. .. �. . ... .,2`. G . . �.-:,. . .... .� . .N' -�.,. . ,.-'�. ', -� :.�. ..:i.f . �F � �. � -e� �4 � , ��-4.�,. : ....,.., �� ,: . �. � ,,..< .,, .. .., , ., �. .:.,�.. �..:. ... .�, ,. .,. ,.. .,. :� <. ��.� 9 . yN t.,� s r ....:: �-^m.. .��. .- �. .s5�. :,r�:.. ,. .. �.,;�;..... :.a� _ r ...... .... �� reov. ��...... ,..-,. . �. : ... ....,.:,, �..;.,.,. C . : - :_:� . ..�. � �: z .> �+Y �. . . . :;a . ..... . ... . .F. . a! .'*s , �� t � .... > .ic . :- '�t �......: � . w . _ c . � > , ,. . .. �, ,.. .�. .. �� :- , <,x. � � - ., a. . . . �� . 2 . a . .. .: ��. . . ... ? } . ... . y .v _ sC �, , r. .. .. u�. _. . . ..' . . . � . .. . .. ,. . . � - .. . � �.: , F r. ' " . . � .: • ; .,� . � r. .. , ..,. ,_ :.�., 7 �. �S . , .,... .z. a<... .,.. � ��:. .. .....,. � _ : � .§...,� x , . ...5 s . ..: . w . ..., .. _-x.- .'� ....., �.... � '91..�� . ,... .a..._� .<4c. .. ."o.� a: �� .. --k.. . ,�' ... ., f . ',.. _- ... . s�.�.... a _Y. ,< ..�.,,...-.�.. �. . . , 4 k. �F.. -�� , €. ;.� . .::. r. �, .�. .�. �.�.��Rt� a�� ,� r...... . . . .�,,r :. .s. .. .�....... ..,.-. ,z..,. � ,...o : ' =.s,�* •'� � . �'' ,- j �' r ... ,� .. .., . .. -. ,.._ 1 . �� ,� . _ � , s�y , ,.. . . �, _. . : �... . z�-�, > ..... . ._ "� .. . .. «, ... . �. . ,... . . . . : �. ,. . <�f i , a� �.;�+ 1F ..� -. ., J. +4 �. .:.. '.^... .. ..: ....�. .:, , . ,... ,. ...,�, .+'. .9 ..c. �.. ., . �� ... .... "i.. :H -.! ..�..,k. . �.- .:, 2 ,' ,. .:. �F� �.. ..... .�.r ,� ,f .. .. .. .0 . �� ,. ..�5 .. ..>.. . �. -;�� R-�. Y .:/.. r ..�.. . r - b.. �-�. � . .aF . . �. .. . . . ?�. . .. . �d � <. �i::.y,^ ..., ..... . _ , . . .L: � . R ..> . ';e : ♦ , .a . :.$. 6. ...�. ��a .':'f� �f� . �j � e� �y�� . , b . � , ! N Ar ^t . � . � : , .. . . � ...: ^ , > ..� '� � , .. . .. . , w s, . , . , , , 'AI�!� _ • - z� . ;: � , , m , � .,. . . , a ..«a �. . x . �. - ., _. g � . .,, ,. .� � , • . . :. .�� .,1 . .,.�. .. . ,, .. �,: ,,,... .. �,. ,... �, a.> , ... � ..as.. �... s'. ._ ..� e. / �� .c� � � - � ... � `�s.. a "s�.N. z � 0 ..... _ .,. z. ... . ��'�. q .. ,..�� . _ .�... .<<. >. . „-.. -� .,.s. � .� . ..., . .. �, ...,..�.. ...;r.,� 'S. ... . > . .. � . ,. . . .. .:,. .. .Ga M �, -.. , . �i� .��. . ._ �n'h.. ..,. . � . n �.:.� ..Y .. .�.-. . .i S. ..vv`., �. � v.n. b . �. ... ..._ ... ' � .. :��a3 , .�..��..: ..: . .4e�. �. .�. ...:,.. _, .� . �..,_..... ;: _.,.�_,. � ="�y.� ae.,.+A �./� ?. �`, :..., .k .. ... .. .. ..,.. be.Y� �n ,.. .. .. .♦ . . .. 1 .. .:. .< a �:�: ...: �,.:..... �� ..... -.f .... x �,. ... � ".•...r. �':M"�. �� >. .:� x .f. .,. ,X ... 3 :. .. ♦,. �, ; ._.�. w- � # . � -( � t �. �..... J .... � :.. e +�c '°�.s .. �'"F �. � . .�. .,. . ., i � ... . a� . . �.x . �3 ' .. . . ��:, ....... . �. . . . . . .. v . , �a , . . �-� . � .. .. @? � � � .. ," .€, ¢ i _ .. �.:y� r. . .: .:.: � . �..,:.. .-.. o... s.4 . ..°qb� .* � l.. . ,..� .. . . �. , �< ., c . �.: e .� ., �, .+,- ." J Q . .s .., d � ._� s�. -... <.;. < �._ _ . t ,: ._ � ._, . _ ., � . , .�.. � . _ �t' . . .� . �- > � "� . , . _ � � A } � 21 �.� � _ � � � � , - - � �t.� �. �� c .. . .�.. �.-�� R ��. �Y._.._ . .. . .:,...�' ,: � .. �m �.._; i-: .)r ..� x .x.. .} ao. .°��;. ��s.... . ,.... ., ,�., , .-.; �, ... . _.c..... ., „_ ,. .t , . � �:,, ,.��,� .��♦ ,A ��"- �•�t �`, .. ,. . b ., x .. ..-..... ....'!t -s '.u. -,.:�� : :::: , ...... ... . x,.+.c&. .�. .., .. �Y .. ..� . � ,. ��,-� -.. �, b... ;��, � ��:. . c......: �h. S ..?,.• ..- . . . .. .� g � , , ..a.�� .. ., .. ,.� ...s. :-.: :_ . �. �. , . . . � ,. . ,.. , ,�. ,.,.. .:4� �.�.. ... . .-;. �.i�.:a �;. �f.: '�Y'; ,�. �'e a ti. s:� ..... i :.. ..p, S�a , ,. �., t ,: �" .. ,.. . � .:,.,., ., t'... , ..� . k,. .3...n. . o ._�. � � . ., .. b.� � ��. . w. .. ��. ::� . �. ... .:.� .:r. . . �. _ . �. :.,- ...� .:.. � :�- �. .. ; ,,., .., _,.:� .e. ": r.-�.. � ..,.. ' ; ��" - v,.� �i�. ,�� "�' .%' .. � a `��`' '3.. . . . _ �!t �' < ..,.;. . . �«, , . . , ,. . .< ::� ,- , , .. a , d� -u �, t, ,t "�a: � ,F, L ,� :, .c. $ . fr ,.$� .. ,°I . .. . .. ., � .. :... �... . f:. °3-•: . ♦ �_, , �, .... t3. . �. �.. 'J �„ . �. .: :. . . ..., : .'> ....,. :.. . !g"�, �� . �+A .! eaS"$. 'D� _ , . � .. r. . ,a, f r �: �. �: K 4 r�r� � �� A �^ �, . � �; �' �- � � , � ^ . ., �. M .. � �,�, . �, , , ,.�>. � > �` t , , .'• .. .3.� ,.... .w .<� .; �- ,. ... . ..,� . .. � .�., ,,�' , .:.. ;:�c; �. .:. .-.� .... .. .a . I . .�: �r ai . �, ,v � r .. . ' . � .. .. .c� ,? . ... : � .., ... S�f: _ ._�.� .. �.zt'.cs v q " <r , " �� .. ..�� a.: 'n. .� ... .. .. . <�:: . .. . �.... ..� -. .:�R E .. ,. .� , ,: . -�.,., �..:. ,' � i x `V � r. . o.��. � _ 2+E . +o.�e,i .�. . ., �'�Y-. . � : ��. .>- 'r. . . .,.. '. 9r.� x :�'S o .♦. ,�. .� ..� `°,' .. '�,. �..� f T . S�'. .�.L , '�.. .-�: .. . .��: a. ��:� ;�... , .. .-.. - o�. �>- e ., n�� x . .. , , . . +... ....,.�.-.�.. _ -.. P: ..i...1�6` r .'ti� �y�" �5.. • :'� , a ..A a.. . ..�. ' � .�� A.a . .. . R •a�'` .. ,. -�r , ,:�.-.: x.... -:; . . a,. ,..,.. ,, ....,��;. �: .�-�u ..: �� ., f ,,.b � ��.... 1>�«.,, � . s� .,,as'�., -,.as�. .i' i � 'i ;y.� . ,.,._ r ; � . . � ,_ _ ... � , _ . � _ . . � � .... . . .:. .,. �' : .: . �� , ,,� _r .�, :� �.e �� , .,.�.� ,» ,, 'o . . � , . , . ., . . � d: . , � ,.. _ • WG � . w . .,. . . .. . , .. ,. . �. . �, o: .. . .'T .� ... <ee{ ..Q: �. e � . . . .. �� :..,� � d. .... ' ,��_. �. "t ��«� .i.� i R � .�. "�. <' .aa � ��a .a _. .;. . .p.;. ... ♦ : .. . ,. . .. ...� .,. �.. . ::��, .... .. .. .. .:, �. .. .. . . . , . '�. : .... .R �.� . :� , . � , e �. . . , o .. r� �: . �. _. � . � ,.. , .� _� , x , ,�:� , _ < � � . �> . . _ , . , . . � A ., ..,. � < �. � . . � � � . , : ��.i�4R� . . .. » :�" .. . ,. �. > �. . ., . , r <. :,.> r , > �" � � }s , ;`� �. . < _ _ � .� . 4 .. : _ � . . . . _ . . , ; ; _„ : � . _ . . . , . i. , :;..; � .� r-': . �.. . ., .,, :�:,�. -.,��.� s� , . , .. .�. . .��>: .,. . -�.,.. �.r . . . . 1. �. ..> , ..,.o�� ... . .. .c > ,: .:.. ... ... � '�"� �^t. ��`�- � .. . . .'4.. .. . , . .�f% ..r. . a . . � .. . . ( r �; _ +�,� ` " s _ _ . s.. r . .. -r � , . . .. ... � �., _ . , � r ,r , � y, ...., ., • y ,,, :< � .Y , . ,. � .. .a . . . >. ..,. � ; ,a'�``�� : . 4 v , � ....��,e< .. v? 's�° � s �"� ,y , �s : � ,. �. �f � . _ �', <?�"' :�: � __- � � , , _ _. .... _ , .' , . . � . ,.�. F s . . �.. ^s p. 4 . _ . .. . q� . .. . . , ,. � . . . . � . . � .. � �{ � a�_.. . . . . . .. . ,>, . �:, � . . . , . . _. , ..e.. , o „ . • . . , „� - ; . �p � ,�� . . s . : .. .... ,,. �, . -, .: � . . �.:. . �:.. .. . i, ,- . ,. ., . . .,.. .. .-. . . . .: ..l'` .- .. ..:. . ,. -.. , � .,. _ ...,: " � . +�� <+ ,: ��µt �. � "�.. � � '�. � �_t' .: �.ke�. . + .... ., � , - ., ,., - �,s.� �t ..::.�. �� r..,.�1: . ,: ... . . . ,. .: ... .5. . . . � �. , .: .:i > � AA.. ;.. . . . �O ' w Si ..�`...�. ... ...�f...,�.' .. , f i$ ..� . ... �. � � ...:.) �._.E ,...,. .. .�. � u .,. �,... .. � �. ., . A . - .. �r �.. x� ,-�,, � Y s«� ��s ,.+! fi . . . .. o �:-:... �-. . { . ... ... �.. .,.. . �. �.:. ..:.. - �n4waRn.�ur. - . .'.. � . . � < '.� , � > w ; . _.t... ...• ... . � � �: ..'. � -:� N. 3�;., .�A� '�.� �.. ; o� �.�. ..wr - 1!^"..: -F ...,... .... .� ., ...... .t°.. , ., ",.. . �J ♦._:.....: ., t.. � .� .. ..., .� ... / ., � �'�. ,. . . .'r . �..- ..! �. ,.. .e �-.'�� A 1'. . . s, w ... .... �.. � . . i f. .. ..�: �. Tla) ,.:. : ., .. > . -. ,- �. :a , y. . � . .`�: �.�.: , ,�.. �'. ti�� 1�'"W . i � .. . . � � . . �t �- n-..� . , �� n... . , e � . .. � �.. � . . . :. . . -'. . .�.. . : .t .w .. '.. �.A . � . � -�. Y . , . - S .Y -A. . E MF rl � K. �. ;4 �i �'.�.6 e 'C� 'Y'E'y ?C $ .� , 3 . � . � .v... . . .. ��. �. .. .. a. . . . > .. . , :.. '..� ...�.. �-._ . ..'.. ! �... , -.. ..n,. , : �� y , #, .�.... r, ...- �x. ... . �..�:��.4."k`�..��. ."F`�_�. �., s . .....,... ;:� . .. �. ..'. ... .. .t b.. ...... :�;- . . . ...� s ..,. ...� 'i� ,��. sb� �°�a.�.. : .. � . ... . . �.. . ,.. � .a �. � � . . . ,.. ... , 4 . : i ..:. �.r.. . : �� . . ... . .. ..: � �. .... . . �� .... �.. � � � . . � . '&�' . ,. w . .. s ., �. � . � , .-�.� c . ..a, �,,. . � ., �4 � � . .. .. .:,.. . ,. . "Y3'F ,. �. - ..,. ... . ,a i� � . . ,d�`�. . x....:. -. '-e. . . . :. .�. .. w.. .. � 4 t f.»`" , .. . ,... ,�. , ....�� . ;$ -. �: �. : . � ,.;- .. - �� 6 � �.: ..� • .. .. ..�. . : , , , . , .. . .,�za�< �,i.., . ♦ ,. ,... . , ":..:.. .. � _ , ' Ao°�. _ _ �... .. .. - # ...,� m�. � '+e.a ,.� 8 . . .. ax y. .... _ d A. ,. . . �i -, ,. ...;. .. � .,.:..,., 2 . . : .... ; . RF '-:.� : .._ .;.. �.,- '.,,. .-� .. , . �. , n.t3' :�% �. �-\,$' +.��'3 � , _. _ . •4 . . �d: , e . �.. _.r : i..&... .:i"`. ... �p�t�y � �, � , . �:.:. . � r . , � . ... �. �Y°°t . . . . . � :�. . .,.. _ � , . , , . . � y . . .. , :. _ ... � . . x , ' . .�..�. " �. � w? . >.. �". .. . � ,.. ,. .p ...�.. . :. - a:�;� � � �. ., .� .... �`. o.. . � . � :.. . ��,: �L . � .. :.. �'i?7 , ,. � ..:'� ..� .-.. �I . .. .. .r. . �Y4'� • �.7 ,s^ . i . . . . . �• , ._ ...,.. ,: .,. . 3 . �.. . z _., : :; » �, � , r�. �- t; '� �-� i .s ��k h. -;' V� a R .... §�� - �� . .. . �. ..a F , . �. � �,_ .o _ . Y . s e � ...5�-<w. ... . , . :� . . � .. . .� .:. ��, t<.` ."'V G i . ..�. . .. . ., .�4.. . .. �. �� , . n... ..i..1f..�F' L�� .. � .,�' :.s:: .. .:. �� ,. ,�� .r.. �'..+. ��." ': . , .�:�. ., t , �. :.�. . ..' . .{. .:... � �{ Z� . .��' .-,. i� ... ... t . . � ,...... ��.w�+•<�...,;. �� . . . ., ' .. . >� � , . r �.. � . . e� �. .�S' Z+.., .�� -.� .... .:.. .. ..,.a, � �, ..:, ..>. :. :�:� . ,:. , � '� .'�,. :.. ,. .:�°. . ..:, .�: C'.v. . �+ .,.y . . W.. ..._ . ,,) ....a . �+oA� '4 "C. .,.. ..., ,-. ,s.� .x:,, i.. . .. .. .,_ � i .._,_. , ... .�: ..i.t.,. ... :. r., . �., .r. .�:..,. :� "'1' � ��'E..��w�l ., . .x� ..,. 4�'�� y ♦. V f�. ,{� , « :.,.... �. . '�.:w . .... ... _.. � ��. . .: ..... � ; .+t- - ....>.. ,.�.. �� , .?4 . . . �... �..: .... . �.�. . . i°"�; � , .� r.� ... :� .T ... ,� .. ... ... .,.. �. ...'� ,a a. ..a .�. . ... .. .t .,:. . >,b;.M ,� ,�.; .,.� „�.n. i ... ? ��f , . a .:';�. �,�> 1� . . ., � .�� . .. "3� .. S. �. '. �"�` ... �i. � . . � - . ,. . � ►: _ �: .. . - . �� ., .. . :. . . . . ...' ., . .. - . 'S 1 -. ; . .�. :k:� .::, .. �..g� . - z4` . � ... � .. . ... .:.. «, � . .. �.,a ♦ ...�w4.>,.. ..>v ..�:� . _ ,:,>.. �.,., ..,.. . .,, .. . ..,. ,..�� a? o� ,.t �.> .�r a �'"`.�,'. , .. #..... .. -. {.: '^y ��F ....� .. .�.�, , . �,: � �.. . �.. n.+:,..+., _. ...:,�� ..:t: _ .�..: .e ,., �-'.� ,\,. , y -....` .. . ... ,� .. ..e. �. v � �e,..� . � -.....3 .:,. -: .�'>r.'�. ... i�. �.:. '-. .. wa�o�...,. .. .. , .... �e ... .ia ,�' , � ., ^.�� 't^',. ��. � . ,f .3� �.� ��. q �r. , �r... . ., �a � -� F a. � � .. . � . $. e , : 'L, . .. . ....-. �� . , �..x �� . . . ._,... ..� , � .�, : -. . . . .,. � :,. . . � . � �.e - a„g'� '�,...�' . - �. �... . . , � -., .,. . ` , � �. ��T,��c.. .P ��. �:�.a+e. ,. �k_. °�w. ..a,. .,.. :s'�:�.u� ,� �. . .:�� :. �.:.,.., �'F<..x.: . . .. - :r� .»r,.� «..:�.:�._. -. , ^sr ��.( m s. ��- . �-� „ . �. . s � - 'in' f . . .; . . ,y '.�.. "+Z�.. . . . ... ,.. :�+..�5; . . . �+k� �. ...v� ,,... ' ., .?_G./ 3w�3 .A .. .... . .,.. :;. �.d . ._ ..-...�.�._. .. . ... ��.... '_. �A.. .... ..r:�.�.,f�.... "' ` ._ .. �. �... ..... �...-.: .�a r�� . . � �:� .�_„�. ��. , .. C�,ka.,�., y ,.r ...�..�:i j., ..- :.. ..: .- -.�..., .s .,� £�, ... ..., � H � R.R �7, ��.s� + , p , • ,. � ; .�.,.. *�� `•.�'� � yy.o �. �:- �. . .� ,.'� 3'� y .:.- ., . � �« � .., � .... .. , .,. .,� ....... �.i ro» �� .�,: ., . �4_ .. .... ....: ..: .. .. ;�� >�.^c . � ,- f ....: . . . � . ,. ... , $ . < � . „ . . -:�a� .., i .. � . . �.,. � . , . . o. 5. .- �.. .:.� .... �r� . . a �i .'� �. =': >...,?. .. .# � . . � :'�.. . ....., . � ,.' :.:-, , r .� . _. , . . �. . . , . .. . . ,.. .... E�. . , r, , ;;: �` �: , , b ., �j :'�..�-. ,:; .s. :� a-:r : �..Y. . : -.�� '.: F., �.� £.b _ . �:_�. .. �:....¢.. ..«3>�.� 3 >s' ...� .. ��.... ..8 ., �� :: _. '�l'!� :� �f-�, :.�, ., . . , ., ., k ' ..,. .t�. ,�.u'i��.31" '� � ; k� . . . � .6 . . "X .. : : . . ...,. �... . .. . �. ... ,� , ... ., . . �.,: , ,: � . . . ... n w . , ro:. , ,�'4 . . �:Li� �. � `,. �. � b� .,'� ., .. .. g ,.. ��.� 7 .. � .,r :_ > ,,, :: , .. �.r . -aFna. a. .,. . ...,r! s• o . ,. $' > . 2 , . ��. .. .,�.... ,�� . . r. ,�� .,-, � r > �-��.. .�" ,s� . y . , � Y �.P..w . � ., . . Y z � . . .,.. . . , g�.u�' ��. � � , ... . ,w.,r.. �g�.. , ..,, ... 9 . .., t . �. �, .... ��,,., a. �.i %� . . .. ... a, �. ; , . .. �..' .,,.�:a.� � . >'.:.. ^ Lwt.�.. .x �� ti g�+ . , , �� .. . � . ��x�� , �, � . ,. � k .. � .. s. � .. .. .... �.:�.� , ...,.,, i�r.�.,. .� � - , . . .. . �. .�:: : �. ,..},, �. �. .... . � .,�, � . �5�. ��;�s' ,r': ,7,"';4F �;s .,.. . � �. ; s k , ,y . . � � � ■ . . . .. .� - . �.. .: 3^, ., ..�.� , t � . . .. ., r k. r . . w.. - ,. . .. .. � b . .. . . . �, j . ,- :. "� � :. ti:y .':'�i ' kq . n �° � � � �Y, , ,�., . �. ., .. .. .�. � � ' . . � .... .. ,wa... .,. .... .4� . �. . ..� .a._ . �; �, � k. � � . ... .�.s $�. ��,.. .�. . .... ,.. , .... , . .., ... .. . . . ? . ,.. . .. �. _., � �:, .. � � s. . v � . �vx e p 'G.. .. . .: . .� , i .. ._. .ax, ..� .5��: �. , .... .,. ,. . ... . � ...w�.. n' ..n « >„ ��A .. . �.,. . �...;. ,.., . ,... s. :,� il'i � 0 a�. &. �, l � .o � ' _ . .,, ... > '��r ....,yW^ .. . �e. S. .�.., .... ..F.:.... ...« . �. 5 .:,, . ::�e.� '� .. .a.... ��. � ' , e �4 �Y +t6�SR.,, .. 1 :.�tR'; a. . °t �. :1�': ..s,.... . �.. :1 .. .... .. ; s. :... , r. �. �:..:, -,. .. �.. . ..�.�. . � '�. ,��. � t .. .: ,. -.a :°" :%�� .,4 �.'��' <� "�. �� . ::>� ._ .. �.� , .��. r:. ,...,.. �,. -,� , .,..Y�..._, _. ..� . .. ,. ..�•.... ,.� . ., .4.. �� f � j - 7, � : '_ nR . . .,_: �.o-.. ��..� . � , . .� a r.:r�, �s . . . ., ... .. , -!� . » .: Q ,.: „. ��-, .. , .. j - _ ..-. - : ,:. <.. . ._._...,. .. ,� : �.�:,. .,,;. .�; . ti ,g �::.; , -,. 4. ..�.. .. ,s .:.:;�. , 7..�aS.. .. ... � .:.. .A:.,:. ��E .,. .. . . t1 , �.� .� c �... _ ��w ... .. .-, , .,,.. : �.+i. � � a �' � . , +.. . , s+ .a,r+_ . . y 3 , . . ,:�. . . : �p : .,,. . Y { . � , . ; , �h ' . -'=Y- °f �E� a° � a�' ,,- . . •< , , <,., ._,.. ,-. I� 'a� . .� , . , .>. � �.,,, ,� � . . � , , ;; : F ., . °� , <' ��':. , . . : � . . ,. .. . .. r . � . �... > � �. ,. . , . .... a p. �. . . ... a �. ...e,� e.� - :ax�,w � :. .._ , ._ �, . -.: .. : <.. . � r . .. �-. ... . . ., ; . � ,,. . �'%„;. � s � a. . . � �. (� . ,... , ° . �' vz ...� , sx" .s�� .., rw. .,f , ...-. w,. t � . es. ». . _. ..: . , a . _. :.� . <: � .. . ��,,. :�; '_ �:a � �s�,Y^ w i� . ... ..:.< ... 1 .. .., �... . s . 0. .. ...�. �.� �. -�� . �+ � t ,... .., ..�^ o.. ,...� ..��. � ?D � i , -. 5 .-�, .34 .s �.; .... .�� .: �i �.,, ,. �3.�.:� D. .- ....i.. �,,.. �.. .�+�+ . �. .. �... ".....tl. '.:..... Q . „ o. . �oA .� � .. . . , , � , a ..: ,.,., u s� . �. . , . 'A L � .., , . . . .. .a+>?, 6 � ,�: ;'�•t : �. �. _ �. <�.f 'k . � . . '; : ., . _ . . < .,.. . _ ... � . �. � . �; , ,� ��€- , . �s ... .. .: .c�, ... .. ,� ., rsYA.:f`, _ . .. . �; 3�`�1�.. ,�'s.�. _ :. .,t�� :z.�.<... �f...� ♦ 3 . .... .�:...+.. .. �. ,.��:... ��.'L :.-.�. .k: � .. . .+ . r' , oi. : a.. ..;. � b . ... . ."9 � . :.� ,.� ..�r... •1`.e- ,.'.� s . ...:., ... . �,,.:. 2� ... ,.� .�. �f, . . ...... . � , . ...�. . ...: ., . ..� ae.. .<:,.«.. _ ..a. ,. � � ....,.:, '. ,i. � . �.�...� ... �� ... ... .., . � T . x . 1/ M ... E.. ... .. .�:' - �em� ��. �� :R � t� ..t �ta.. � : � ;e ... :..,.-. . _ . ., . � . , � ... � . . .t � .. � �.,..s f �A,: ....: > . i .. .^� � �� ... ��, .. , , x _ s a . �''` . � . 1 , �. �. .. s, �. � �. «,. , ... . .> . .. .: .� <.:. ... .�'� rr ..� .� � r . . ,�, . < ,_,. .�..._ � ., . � _ , _ _ .� �: _ ..- � . �'` 3 :. , q . � _ . , o � . ..._. _ _e , _ ,. .� ._ �� . , � . , r , � v x ,� � .� : , r� - . , ,�: � �.� <_ ... ,.�., . ' ., . 2 , _ a . .: ; w _ s. . a �- . . . _ . � . . � w . t : �. , ;,. , . '�'''. � �.� , . . . �, u _ e . ., . , , � , > . r � . . ,. . � : s F� ♦ ... � . . , , r � , e � _�. . . t � � Y �.,:..,� . � , s . _ ... � «._ . � �^°° � ._. . �� ,r��. ,. . ....�� , � �� .� . ,� : . . � ..., a , .. : � � .a_t e , $ � �` �` .� . , x. 'k . . � +x � . :� e, I'.H .. t . . . . � J r�. .,,. r .�. . .,r _ � : y . ... �. ..r.._ , ,F4 - �a, ..... . ,.. ,. ... i .. .... � � ; �. r . , �. F b .'«� � . } :.. +. . .^:;. ......,, . � . , 4.; e 1, p y� e, « ; ,. M_<. � . � r � :,, _ ,.. � , ,. �. ._ � � � � .� ,. , . . r., � , . •�.��,.. .. . . .._ . �. w,.� , . :_ . -,,. .__ , <. �. - 9„ � : �. �. ,� ... {d° .... ��: -.,. Jp. �t �r . �Q�..�'. .r + ...,. � � , �+,... .� 9 ..;. ,. ..�. .�'t j r �.. 1� �� . .., . �.....� k� .. � . �.. : 0..,. !3.9 ;� 1.. � q '�i� .< a:a.. R�� . "�v .:, : �n- .. . .� .,. ,L.. �Y [ ,� d.� ♦ .��: .x. .,. . � : ��. J', . � � '..i s . .�.'.. "�. '� wN. �- t, � . .. ".'.. f. . . ,>: . �}+ . . �.. , . �., F2.� � :, . .. ,,.. � ,•E .. 3�: .. .' . µ - 't�... • , � .>: .- . �F., e x ...,. .� �i�. ... �. .,.. .., , ... ... . .. �4..9� - -:.� .u,. . . . . . -;+}`� ...,� ., .:.. �4ei�t�. . „y�� _. , .. '�- z .. -, e.. � ., ..., i :�,. . �.. ��-� �,...�.�. .�,, ., , ..a�'. .w -.:.. �. �F .:�: ,.. , , .s�:.9� g P . 3 ,.,.�3 :.• > w. . y�.;r,. .,.,. �.��.,,, �. �.'y ' Y .+� Y � .,� �5 , . , .'. . s. . . . � . t _ Fx ;� . .. .. 4 ... l _ , . ,. �V .� . < _ . .4 _ , ,�s. a . '�v':: ... . ...-.. ..,d' .'.L - c� - <..:. �'�,.L� �.... . d� � . _ �_: �.. . .. . �..,. ..�.::,. . .�....,. . .. ,. !�+ �js. �. �q .. �, . � , ,r'` ,: . �� . . { _ � 17 .. � �.. :� ��. � ,�. ,� , � � .. . � .. �.� ��.t ; ..f. �D3 .�. � k. .µ. { .6�.'.S •',.. Y.- ...6. ,!� ��.. _ , .�� ... :� �,_-�a...�., . �.:�... .,-. " � ;.. ' �` :: �. �.:�„�,.., .:�r- -i � Y � . _ ._ � . �. w �, Y. z� 24 �� : v�� r� , � :.��. , ,_ ... ...;�, _ .... �_.,, . `� . �.:. __.. � . � : , , � s,. � _ _ �'- ,.:��s, . ti,a-w. .,. : :.. ,.. . < : , .... ,, ,, .��, , ;�. _, _ a. _ _ _ ...�. . :;.r- �? � � . : � .. `}-��- .�` �,1� <x . .� M_. _. .� _, .�. �, r .. . . ,:.. , "�:�tr ..:.. .� �. � . . � :, . .ek. . ..t .:. ,.. ��; .:. �r ,s • � � sY �- .��rt.r,;� ,L -�za „_ .. . ... .. ..,� .„,.. :_r �...�.. .,�� :� � 4 , �. .� :,,,3�.� �, ��.��w.. .: �. -.:_��: .} s..�. ,M1 ...%:� r.. - -;>�..!!`_r "� �`d .tl' , ; * _,.. : s .� s . . 3 . � . .ea �� , � ; _ �,-'"�, �., � . �. Y .` � ,'�, � � a+ .. - r � / s S•,� ¢ "� ..,�; .... :: . , . : .c. „ . � .1 ., ? ,a .:, �. . ,.. � � �g.: ... .: , �� s' . , ., ;.,.,. r .. �... �. , ,. . �,..; .�� ,x.,, 'i�.. ":-a✓r . �f .�' . . . . ,. . , - �, �� . .. '�. .. v... . ..�' M.•.� . . ��, f... .w%`-0� i'e SC, : .:; . , .:. .. � t . .. - c . . C, ,' _'. .y� . n - :: i,�... .:. . 3-�� 3 �k + s ;: ..,.. .. � a} ♦ �. t .... ��'aa: ��. �..'�., � �`o ?► „ ' 6 , t = : +� a ' . ,-.. , � _ - , < �� ., � a . -: . ,. - a , . � ... .-.- •,�. :.'�3 . . ,.� ... ..w,... >, aa: <,�._ ..L. � ' � ,. �., . ,. . :l� . .. .. .9 , ,� : J` , a ..,. :., ...�..(:. . .� :,. +s.. . ..�: . . . .... .. , a6� . ... .:� � r.� '..... ..' ...... . ... . N`. "¢ ^ rK � : . �: ,3. �. C. -w. � .. .. �. .'1 1 . : � t . . . __. "'M . �.. . .. ..�:.. . ,�� . . .. , . .a .� <l ., , !.: �: SOR .. . � .. �� . .,.� . .... . . .. � , ..: ' ...?a: � ...� 3 �� ., ...' . ��.. ��./ .'�.'.. : � e . . . � _ , .,U . ,.. � 'b , .,, t . ,. . � _ ,: '� �. _ .. _ �f � ��..wa- a z s �"„ :. . . � . ; � � .. ... � ,. x _ . , ,.' 3' . r � ,. , a , yL � �C. . g ; .., . �,,. . . . . ; . , � � 12 , .� � . . �.�,z :� � . � . ,� � � �� . � , . :a - . y� .�: } �i -�.. <»� ,:..,..�•_ 4 �� _�'�. �:� .. ,�....:. x; �.. :. �. l. . ..� .:. ,...��, .., Y @ n . �: .. . ,.... , � a,... ... P'�. , 3,.vJ.:�� ,. k ... ...:...� ,; ... , . i'9 ',.�� .... ... S� . ., .. s.� o. .,..:...:. ,..i �. . . .. . .. . ...,.:�: .-_ . ... .s .� _ ��+. .. . ... .,. .I '.. 's. . .� ..e ., t 3� .f Y' .- �. �,$` . .. ��. x� �5�. .. .t �.. �i�_ . .,� ... ,. r.,.._..� _..c r.o.;.� ' .r �. -`+N,. . . . k' r� & t.. y � x . i ., o �t . . � �. ..t k . > '�, s, x. b_ �«+. ,:. 3 . ��`,... �,, . • .: . i.. , . .. ,� .:. . �,.,€ .� , . _, > �. .. s !,. ,. . �s � ��-. . . . . � � _ , . � _ , . . . , 1 � . , y EY -� _ .: �:: f � . : <. .. . �. � 6 . . .. . , ,__ . � . � �.,. ._ . ,� .. ,; � � : s: 4,. < . # w s � �. _ ,,a- , � ; � . . _ts ., . � �r _ �.�. �, . . »Y � , . -. , , ¢ ....... . , � '.. ., . . , _e...'T? . , . . b . ..� .:'. �. �811' d o. , . r „-� ., .� ✓tC'. Y.¢ � � , , . f.: -.< . . ., i� 8 . <_ .,. :. ��t -, � .,... f.� w �� .. y , _.._ .,. � � 2 -.. > ... -;. ... . �. .. .,. '".�.` � ... ._ .... .. . , ..?k..'_ , , _ �;: � - -� ,, .. .. . _. . ,.. . : }4'" .. . -o .:� .. :- .. . . e.- ,. ,. ��..�� .� ; ,_ ... .. .. ,..�,-�K� >�.' .... s...�::. . �_ � ..,.. �t� . .,. ... .?t. -. :.� '�':. ._ ti:f .; _ .... . � . ... . .. �.. . � �+r . �. , w .�.i . , . � .. n rt�: �a�w . rs. .:,, . ., r "K. , ,.( . ��.. . �� . ,. 0`,_,.. , .. ,. � � "E . '�. .:. '•� ' . t x . , � .. .... , . .., . �. . v ,. . ,� .. . . > : y , � ,, . ' i �. � q -.'� . . . $ � s . ,�` �.d. . . � _ ,{ �.� � , . . . , � � , , . o .. . . :._ k . ,..,. _ � � , .. .. ..,. ..s . �°_..- � ._, � <� s/ , � ... . -�_.. . � .��,�'a s .� : >. ., �� -.�z ,� p ��s. . .e�i_ . . �.. �. �., .. ��. ..... .. ... .� :.. ..,... ", ... .. ,3• `:�t� � ..: a. .�,,$. � , 7gu+-qa» � � . � . E . . _ . .. . , - ,. �..y a . ,. .. �,byw � .:� .. 1 . ...E « .. .t .� . - ., � ,..,. �. . ......�t . ?C n'�. � '. '"¢' j � .a- . ., �� . . . . � p � - �,°.g" ' �� .. . ..� ,.� . .� ..� ., �:3 _� ,.,s >. e ,. ..}:.;,:� - -� ,�:.. .. � .. .. .:Z [f -:�:.� . <.� _..:�..?Sw^*_�:�.- ,�. s.. ' <:.:, �..r.�. , : .:� ..,. .. , � . ;..,. ,..._...� . .a- f ., .. ,..+„b#. a �. �i' �- �... ,a.. ..�+ ��,.�... .. � ,:.- ., .. ... � ,�x �3a;: y.�� ..�.. , . S� � F .. d. P �.. <: l' , . .., . . 3�^ < .:. . .. .., la . , . .. �". F S . . � 11 . .�. �'. . . . � r -. .:.k . . .,.; �_.. : a- .. � '.. „$, . '�1'.. .r � . ._,.,.. . ., � f „�Yv ,�- ..... � F ��s. ... ..:,... ., .,'�. .. ... .... .. �� ,g �, . ��... ..Y .. , ��. ., a � :Y �'` a> ,;�� ...': .. �� ; � � . . . �•. -',�. � , a6 ^�.� w4 . . a� . : :� m �. '...'. ._.. . -o t... . . . . �: .. . ..' ,.. 2, �.. .. ... ... . .� .s�'�, ^'T �' �y` �:�!�. .,. .7i�. e .�. .,d.< .. � . , . . b� ... �` > . . . .�,. ,. 1�.. � �M :. . �: Y .,. f , �'. �:.: �. ,. z , . .. . �� ,� '-::. , . , ,,, _ . ,>. ;Ti >��.,. ,.,. . K�.... � .> � �. - . . . .3�� t. � .!'..-. . . .. _ . � , s �.. ..,'...-- 1 '�� '�.. �i .s . . .... .. .i ..v.. ._, "� . , . , . . .- '., , � . .,.,.,$ ..s � .- . , + .Q�� .'. � ,..,. � ... �......:d . !�� :�.�.�: . �i.. �.& . . v.,d' :�. ....r� . �� .2a . .� ?�fi-*t".� . .�. �:� ... ,. . .a � .� .. - ?e .. ,:.. > ,i . � ,. _ s K'.... ,._ ..., -.;�. .�.. . � �,r: _.- . .. .e. , �^. � . � ,.,e. ,. : ; ... u ,�r': o . ., � , _ . , .�...,. "�. � �., s .1' � � a.,� :� � <�-,.. u . , , : . ,. � ..� r , �. ,., _..._ >; -.. e. � , ar- x �ie; ,. , > . _ , �g :: � � { � � ..:�� , x ,. .: . :.,-�. ,.. .�� . .. _ , . . �.�r..�. ..s -': ::r.,_. _. .. . �,, , .� .� �?,' •:i:- �� :.d,. r"�.,, N � .f' 9. _ ..y, •�< . } � �. �. '� _°7� , , . . -.. . -:�.,-:, ,�, ;� �.� .,: .. :. . ..-. ,.. .�. . ": y,�... .�,_, . .;. ; ,- -.... .y,.. a �y � W x � • . tY . k' , i - . ,, , � z .. ._ , :, - ... < � „ ° . ,_ �<'° 'y., .� "_{ � : . ;>' . , < , . . . :.r , , s; A!' F_t o�u a r r x « �.. .. . .,, . . r., , - 8 .• �>� s. -.:�; . ..•.. t ... �r. ,. .:. _ s .' .. :.f. ��. . .. :s.-� . .&. .. ,;.i} .. .:�. i +� .'. , . '�t • �-:y.. ,F � . .. . e � . !. ,;.d .cF . ��3 �{ .�� . �s � .:� . .� ...... � ; .��i� � - - . . .. �;�. .. � .::..: ,._. ,2.t� .. � �.,. � . .{�� . � ,,..- . � --. � . . -. ... � -. . .. . �. i ,<. a: � �.f� . � , :!' ,� �.t � " ,�F ? � � � .�.. .. , 9- �, � � ,... I I ' �...�,�`�..,,1 ,..:;: t�..6�:. ��. ,. �. ., ...... , .....�. ..., .�5�� . -+�. l ��h,- 5:,.,�r �.��,� ?& �--- ..�.. y . a { .�". {�. . ,r �.,....:�?.,...., .a . 1� ,o , � �* �p ,, o. . �, . : .., , • . _ ^a , .. . , .,.a .• a , x ":✓' '� R.. -... �..;.:. . . .9 F _. ... .:-... \.,�.�.: «� ,, a fm w ..� S. .� _ .:� �.7�.-. ..i�.R'.. ` � ..,, :� b.M > t't.. ��/�.�',� ��<_� :: .. . � . �� . r . ��}.:, n : ; � b,. zw a . �.� ... , .r r. .s. ..,x .{. .. , :.. ,., r , .., . "'T .`7_ ..-,,. :«s. .... . :' . � ,'�,-- '� � ffi :. ..s. ..,$ .< ��... �� ..c ... ,. , P ..� ,. �. �,� �, . . _ ...... :�.� . , .. ,. 9.. .. , °'+... .,, ��:3. . ,::. ',.,; - f ° ��,. �� b � „ . , ��3 ��e . A_..� . { . .._ . ...� .da..;. : �:. . ...as." . .. ..>, .< , .�. t.. ♦�. ., e ao � <: .� ... .. �:'c.;� �,� �..;�- ..J �ro . : ..w-xe : �.. .� . ... s� � . � ,' �. �-.e � � ., _ .: . . .. :..r .. ..,t . . . t .. � . ,. ,..., ,. .. s �:; .e. . -'( s . - s �,"�..: . R°'` t .. s'A ' . ::�. :� �-- , .. ., «.X_ -� . � a.aai ....�� .. .,..� .. ,,. ..,,f-...�� '�- ..: ..: , •' �� . . . � � v . . ,., ,, : . . .;�.. ,, ... , , s R . � / .. �" �,. , , ° u � .'.� f± . -.�-� �.: �. ..�.. . 4 .. ..y.;�;. ..:;. . . .� .... , _�.._�. . a .. - ... .�,. >. _j^ ... , �::-,.� .. .,. � - ,��`' s '�,: ' w- � .l t. _ . .. , �. .. , ,. _ <, n _ . _. .. �. .��x. , .. _ .,w;. , > � � • '\ , , ; . � „�. . . ,,�, _ �,. � ., -.. �. , ...s�:,." �..�{!� ,: .,. .s 4� . .'� �.. r ._..� ,,,.�. �� , . .,.... ..� .. .. .. <.;.,_. �. ,.... � .. "�a.. a, �;^�., �� .s � �'t �.e �i . � .. k ...� .. ..m. . : �. s�.. .. . .. � �.�� e. .;r.. . .... ; s . '.:.� . :, i . � .. .: s �w�::�s° rf }, # :� . ... . ,<. � . .; - _ .M .. _ �, ., J " ^' _ ....r,. :..r. .., < , .�k.r .� 'f�;a.,, ... �. e . .. �... ... ,. ..w�-��...,�.. ..�� .. 6� . .5 ,_. _ y -0 ...� .� ,� . .e,:,. w <... ;. �.e,� , . �--., �', .�. . ,,. „ .: . .. , , ... .. <, r. .� �; f �. .. , ; . .+.�. �:a•.,- �`�', '�� . .,.. �;�. .. >. , roa:; . , . .. _. �_.. . . ., '�, �-x � .s�e . "� „ _; F .�._a._�... :J �" �'w'3+ :�. ,>.... ... .v u �� . ,� ,: � x . . « , : x ., _. , . ., a N ... . . .. . . ,_ , < : � ;. -. .1 � : S . 4 '� .''�� _... �.� . �, . ,. ; . .� , ..� .� , s., w, �: i ,. <, ,: . � _ u « .. <�._ , ,>.. . ., � . �., � .a�, � ��s, � �.-.. .� , �&. . .. , , .2. .,., i - ,..» <. . � e e r � � , : . € ; ., ..> n , .. _ . ,;as , , a , :� .. ,., „� , r � � �r. � f � , .a� ... , . ... ..� � . , . . , , � ....., .-... � . 1� .e, .... � v ..,.. 4 .. .a�,,.... : � ,r ,� ., .� ,:z,r. , . . ,.. � �. . .... .' .� ,� . ... .1 . ...� , .�.. ... . .., . �. ... ... .,. r ..,: . , , ..� ,�aa;«.. 1 _... ':,.. �,.. _��.� ... ,,-. ��`�.. ,> ... ... ..e �. .+M, � a . .5�, ., ., . ,r.`�.. � � . . �jy �` `-� L � e . . SP�., ..-� S� , � . . � - x.. .a ., . -:. .. .,e,. ., ...... �._. ..,.,.. , .x ; . . ,:. A.,,:... .�<:� �... - 4 a . ,. a ! .�`�� ..� .� ., . .�,��u. .,. ... ;.. .,„ .._.. .:,, .,�._ �.... .. ... ._...� .. . ....... �,. ,� ..�.:.,.,._. .�,.,..,�,. .�.m: ... ��.. .e ��... .M.f. �o .� .�. .�w.�F�.,� . 1 .n _�. .,. ... ... . .,.,.. (. . . ., .,. .. .�. . .._... ..1N" m .. .. . , ':�r Y. s.° 'Z ,:.; . �;�.. �&.. .. t '�'. .. '��' �. .. x,4. .... ..: .. . .. .. , . ... . ..✓ .n.{ .� s .- , 1 ::,,.....,.;-:� ,. ..> . .;« ...; , a .. ;�, k' £'.;�w..le � .. sexn��S+-. . ,� ..�.8 - � � F.�y . �? �.o, c! .� . .,_ ._� ... .� :, � . ., -.:. 3 .. ,:. �� .r.n . v. d , ... ..*. ..,. : .., . . s� . . ,..;� :., 6 «:., c: . . ,. -s, t'. , ,�. : x...,.� ...,,..r- 4`.'�:.t+:�¢ w.A'�,.e;v.:. .� ..sk .,.: ..... :,,.. . ....[ . �, , � � � �,. ,. �+. . . �. , ..,, .....A� .,a. �. � �• 3 .� . ,: ...... .. ,. ��.. „� .. `�. . .1�. . 4 . . : r . , � �.+I ✓.. � Y 1 . _..Y ; n � � . . ,, . ..... � ,.. ,. . . .... . ,..: . �.. ,. .,..i � . ..... .. .� �t. < .,.., t .. . . . . � . . � . �, r . ,.. z � � �lr'-�,'< -� J ,. ...��. . . , . .. :.. .. . �.r . . � . ., `� �... '... i- . .'.� . �� . . . ._... . ,. . _ i. , ... ,,: . .. ,..� .00. : 5� ... H � i' �4._ � F � � �S r . . .. 4. ..6. . �: � � ��..ff.�s . 4r- y ., . : � . ,_ . :i _.. A� ..» . , ..; 5 .� . . :�r . � �t .o . .� � . . , ..... . l. . Mb' . .. : .. .G �3 � .. , ,. , . «. .a { ... ... .. � . r. �.�. . � "� ..�.. n .�.a. "4�y,c�. �� , ... � .: . /. . � °� �: . . � .. v _.,,. . �F . .�: .i a 7.� _.. - .., ., .,, � ,..,.... . �, .. ..� .: �'�� <w.:,. „ �='4 ( . 1 .. > . . .�.: f �y _r. .. ��. ,.:� ... , .. <. . . , . ..,-,. .. :._� .. �.. ,. ..'�'�:� . ,:.p. .� -... �:. , . , . ..:�. :. �.F 0 p : . j +v � i � �& , , t s C ,... � ,K . r �$ H _Y .� w . ,'.: �,:. , _ :;� ' ��.��..e.! ., ,. .* ...,�. .. .. ..:�. .,�... >. . � �-� . ^r�,... . ,.__.�... -�,� , .. �a�... ...,.: �.. ;.... �., ..5. � .b�' ac .4 , . �.: , �� .-:: . . , :R.� .e:: :-a: . �i� �.. , . �.., , t. � , ..,a . . ,. . .. ;. ..�. . :,,. .... �.:- , _1 .. ., av � �<: ��4 r � . .�. �� . .2 `. .. » . .. �. .a ,.,:�... . .� .. .s.. ... <.. . x� . .. ., . . . i�.,...� ..,.-. .. ... ..�. �, r• ":b .� .. �� .-a;. i�. `t' , o . O.. .., .. , .� . .. .. M . �,- D , � - , t7 . .. .�. . ,..� . � ;.. w t��. .� �.. i. .. ., .. . � .�,�.� �.�'V. �.. ^:. ' .'>' � �°�.:.:.'. .>.:., �.1 3- . � A �' '�r� 0 > .. . . .-..:'� . � a a . . .. . e ..a.. •.: �.r.. ..:,-�a Y"•L,_ . >. T�'fY ! . . � . a .. ! �... ��. ..: >. . �.. � . . ... , • , . Wn � � .�.A. 'P . �i.'�' i . .. . . � :'. , �.� , a. ,. . ,.....<.. ,s.w. ,... .. . ..,:. _. . .. . >�: . ...:,. . .<. .9 �. Z e-.� ..: � - _ :. �vW 4 ' . ,E� . �.� .;. � �f .v' . , .� .. .. E: ...j 9 ., .«.� . . .: �.. np� .. a .�_ ... .A' . :':-: F .. w� � ...rY . o .._: ,.�. K. ;: -.., . : a,�.. _ ,._ ya a. y�" r §, . .8 �, ,� . r ,a . , .;. . .. . � x q 3 �i' . a, , �g . . , .¢ .� ,. .� �. -,. . >,;:� -�. ��, � � , :�. , . . . r . <_. . � . 9. . � r �y,., . . . , , . . m � »i. 4 � _ _ . � . , _ . , . . . . � . . . x t . �.. . � _.,. _ �: :- .. �` � <. � . � � . F�#. � � . , o � � . . _ , _ . . � F . , _ ,,z _ 7 .� _ . , x . �, . _ ,� . < _. � g, � �.o r , � �., . .. . . � � . � x � , : _ �*� � : , . . . _ . f:. .�. .. -:'tt* .... . __ . _. ,... . . .. ^g . Y y� ..t , ., . -.� �. .. . '�, .. ... . ["�f'� . . . .a. .w�. . �. a e �. < .,. . . .:, o...., 6 .:�'' �e...z'� - b,.. . . . � r . . : ., . X" f :. �, 'a . _. ,. � � .. . .... .. ' 6., .. -.. � � s- :t� ,. . : � . a ro . ., , . b ., .c � � a . �, � .. q . � ..�. : ,. _ •w. � ; . . , ..».: -.s,1�6.,.�. _. , ,.' :. �>.' > . �,.�:: ..5.. . . 'i_ac . : .,�.� _.; . .s . ,. :, � ._ .. ... . f�� .a �. �. ... �; ... .- .e �'3� . ,. _� ..: �St... -.. '�:'�': xi� 'S � e . .. .. . ,a,. ,. . .. . . , . ,. . - � .. .. .. �. e � . � .. ... f 's'.. .. . ... . .. f'� :�, � ,� .� .� . �s, .,. ,�,w .. �.:. .. D .. .�§.: a. , .>. s - c ...YZ �. , . , �. ... � . �`'�` '.'� .. .. , .,:,.: .... ♦�� ,.. ._, • „ �.f�� . .. .�.s.. ..�f.� ..,. . :: :: - .,. �e :�°"�- .. ,�_ .t�� - _,. ...,.. .... x .. ,� �... u.. . , . .. � .: . �a;7 �. ,>,ck.. �r .: ,b... . ... . .,� 8. . ,... .7.Z os � � ' rn, .. „ , ..�,. .x ..� F „,. , . , . . . . . Aaevv . � . � . . Y `�&.. . : „ . , e ..... . . : .. . . . . � ��r . �. , • at'w � -.. . . � . . , � ,: , . , : R . �..� .r�. - I . ,... . -, t. .,¢,.. .. �. ,�,. i ! ..,.; . . . . .. ,.. �3' . � . , .. ...> .. ..r- ><� � �. ... ,. .. � � ... .. :. s t �r � '!'+ ,. „ ...r:y �r .� � �:. ..� ...�.q.�� .. ,,.,: . ....3..- --:��.:� � . . , .. 'v.r� , w .. ..Ws .et .. .... , <. � aC �. . �' . u�� . . , , . . . ., t � . � . . . . �. . ., �k ., : -.sa. .. �{ <"� ... . As : „ . . . . _ _�a �f.. �. . . . . : +s . .. . �"' � "�. `�, ,�. . '� � � . s,�� . .. .. . x . c . . ,.... �.e � ,. .... , .... » �;�.� . . ,,,,- ..A"�,;;:. .�:a�' �?v.: "r. . �� . • .; :. . .��. f , . .,� 1 . _. � . �� .. .£ > .. .,. .r:.... � . . y .� v z. . ,.,.. ,a . . , ;. _ .r � . . � . . �.» - . � , � , . . ,-. . '. > _ .;.. �. :3x° �,.., ._ .&F ,.. . .. . . . < . , . � . s, _ .. _� . 1 ... . .�' ,.. :. � :. �.,.. . �.� ., �-: �',. . . ,. , >. �:. ,. . :..; _ . . .; ,z� �9�.. . . .,. .,.,... .. �v. �. � ..:. . „ 4 � , .Y.fwa ., � # � �,. I �. a �'< s � z.,= x Y�� .':.. �4+ . . � . .. ..w�T;. �P. , � � ��, ...2.. . ._.>.,..de'. . � e..x-a....., .. ..... ��;(,A. , o.. ;r�:. .. . .,. .,. �,^ �� <� cJ ..+J,y-: . , w . � , r �. �` s. . .. S . . _ , s� - c. :_ �'kx� , .m .,.. !. ... .,. , .. :� F -. .a . .rsc". .' , ., .: <.....��.w.�� L� s d �O_. � � ..: �� . m �..r . > ..��..' e �� '£'. � ,�,..; �`� ;i+ .,�, �. .., , ... .. , .v..��.4 ,. .. . �.. �.: . �'�. � : ,.. .�. .,. .�� < _ .... � �... . , < ,. .�� "a.. �... a. ..� � .,� ., , . � .: -.. } , ;r .�'� � �-� , w s , Y � , : _ . ..�. � $ . 7 . > . , � . . . ,., , .:, _�. : .. . ,' '� , ,: s. ,�y v � � , a . � _. 7. � , ; � . . . _ �{ � . � . �. � e _. � N a ': x � . . � � . �. � .. _ , � �.� . . , ..ti � ... . .. . . � , � -- . . . , :. . , ,M , .s � :�..,� : , � , . , � a� �. i v , : . - r �s �e,-. : < --�° � . ,. ,� r , . � _ �. .. , ,< s.� . � . � . . .., . _ . . .. �s � � � _ . ��r� ,: .. _ : ., �� , n., � . _ . .. ��_ . _. � ; � ' ......ry � b� :' - ... � ., w�a ert.!'� ..3w... . , �. • , < � ... +Y ,-. ... . .. ,... , t� . ' . ... � , ;..,.. ...H rX ;i: ... . , � � .. +a .q,+e $.: > . �.,..�. , . A . � . 3. ^! . ,.�R�. �� . y.�� .a ... .au .. a � �.�. ..: .. .. ...... t' . f. ...�..,.n � - ..a. ., , ; . . � � , ...�R. . . . . : a... .�.. ..� .. , . . �: r o . ,,, .'4'.. ..v T�x . �1�'''�i• . ., e. 8<, ,. � . , t »24R . . ._ ..: L T+> . � ` . >.r � . ,. . � , a�, . . . . .,.. .. � ��,..+. . . � ,. �.. '�+.?A.. . [ ,.. . �4 �. ..-, o.� ... ..�., �.. „� assA,. ,. ' ., . .�....:,._.-. ._. �. � � > . .. .. �. , . . , ., . ...:. �,. .. . a.. ... � ..,,. . . 8 . ,. . 1°'+� ., ., . ,. ., � .n . ,. .f .,..,��. . �.:.. �. :, , .,:...{., �:'.,,. .bi,:. s ... �. . ..� ,..... �.�.� .. ,_ �� ._.�.s... P,...s .. ,.., , . .,� .. , _ .,�,.,.. s . ..._, ... ..... . . -.L. r. .. .,. � �� .,y ; �9� .. [.� ♦ �.� ... , rw .� �,.:-� . _.. .. . .,. �.. .. , ,<� ,......, .�a +:Y . ..4� ,,,.� .. . . a:�.� ...... .:... .. : , f. ,, ..yaiv' ..,A'� .r:h' :�A".. L < ., lro. �.. .. : . . �.5.. .. � . _ , .. .�. .....s � .. � �.. , .i.,....n . .a8, (' .,.�a . 'm.. . . . , �. . ..+✓.7 �.^+f � ,.V � . ..EfS�. .. 1 .._ ... �' . '..t . .. . . .. . . % . :. � , . ' �. .., � . �.. . � ,... � , 1y ,. ,,. i � c . :. '^ w��'. . ... <. -'.� � i ^� 1�. �l � . . .» . . . � . � : : � �..r., aS� � v . . � Sd' ,,�^ , . . x � _ , � i . ,r >. . .- i {. .1�e� . , .# :�, ,._ . q. 'f .., ,. .. . . .. . . .. , �;..: �„ . 9 ,.,�. .. ��. ,,., . ... s. _ ,: . . :�', x.. " . .r �..,., .-,. . §� . �,m,v. . .: .,_.. !€ . . . . ._: �� Wy ..�. . �_. �. ^�� ,. ,. ,.'a9`w'. .; ,. . �,- .,.,>::., E ..N. ,.:;.-,� , ,,.,... a f r��..� e . A7.�' .� . .�. �o ., ,. a.. .. .. ,,.. �.,: �._ �r . �.- . �o,. ,...... .,.. .. ,. .ea- ..: ..a�� .,��. �:.. � i". : . , ..� , ¢ . � 7�� i` .: a+ y . ,., .. .... . � .... ., ..a4�.. . <.. . 0, ... , i :��..s<. , � t' s. ;:�. : ..� ..,. :.. ..,<« � �a �.. .�:...� . . v ;:. x .:. . . ... , .�t..,. .aa ....,n., .,,1� � ...�. ..� � . �S' . :. .. . . ....... . .,. .. ..»�a �.�.�. : � w�� . . , 3 : �c , ... �� .� �� .a,.� . : 3. ..3 , .... . .,. . .r' �- _ .. � . ,� . , ,. ..,.. h :-.,. <. o., : �.. . e. z ;� .^-.o:, ,� ...� . .. �� A' n. � � / wa a . .; �. �., . .:� .aa�.. .? .� .. : ,. .. . �;- :.�. .: ., t�' .. . . , .. A< �. .�"_� . f�" . . . � . ♦. � a �� . . F k .. °Jt . ,... . S '$ � �. o �... , '.. . . . � 9, - , -8i �:: . ' � .. o ' , i .,, �. . ,.. . ,,,� •. ..F �. ::� .: � v , , v. . , ��.: ( '�v. Y . r.. -. .. _._., T �, e , #,. s -., r .. . .. , , �� , , �.,-. , .,.... �.. . b.w ... -... - -.. �. .. . � �� ,. . � :..,.. ,. ,.�� . ; �-. . . n, �> 17 ,.. .... . . r.Fa3. ..,.k..,5. .,7 ,.R' �, y �!!s .. . b• . ..... .. . -�. �.; . . < . .... 4 S..�i.. ... .. r ....�>. i .. ... � . .._,,.. .... ...- ?L� '�S. _ .�w ., . , .. . _ _ . � .: , _ .�.. < , _ . � . > . c�' x �" � ., ' : � .t�: �a-�. �a� .._ .�, � .,., ... ., . ,.� „r < r _...,.,� m. �«•..�. .... .;. t:., . .:� ... ... ,. 3.. � .... .,,. ,� .�. .,�-r�• ;.e .e .. ,e�, �.. .�� ..,.. . � �� .r .: ., .. . . s<.. .a ,.> .,. ,. .... . .... �-�S . x ��s< . . : .. . y .... .... ....� - . .. � sr . � :�. � � � r � � . . .. . . .,.t� , e . < ,, ... E, �; � , ,�., . s „ ,_ � .., a.�sa�.,�,�.. ,, s .�, s aH. 'a� .�. . ._. . , . . _ ... .�Y,o. ,.....�,.. ,. .�.. .,. .. .. .. ,. ,. r. . �.- ., � 4 �:., a ,�. . 1 I . p� <_.. �. . ...,'� -:t:«. -.� g :Yi:- . , � ... �� 3' ,. Y ... .. � . ...� ... . . . . , , ...., . � , ., ... '� . ,_. .,. . �. ,. .3 s ti. :.. � g� , f ;. . ��.. +�- ' %�. .�.� .. F . �F�.r . . 1 , ,, �s �a+s . � � . � . ,: . � a. sN , d. _, _, , ...._ aS .a' . , . :.., . , ... a > . . � �. s- � >� . _ , , . , .. . _ , , , o . p ,. < . . . _ . . � , 3 - �"'' r � « o e� : . . . .. .. � ,t ,., , ; , z . , . _ �t�:., ._ . , . ; � . , . _ � « � x . . �.�., r , < ra. . , , . > �. , , ;. . � k. , �,. r� s� s: s�r>:-3.: ,� . � r , �_ o �. . �a : � t . v _ > . M :'�, :, r , ,,.., : . :�e .'�. .. � .. }�. �,. .�t"� �rm.,.. ..e ....r.: . ,., e�. . .- .� ��i-�, ..... ., _.. ...., ,. .:, .�.. ,;:�... .. .. ...;3. wai ..,. .9... .... ��. Yt.. � �R � ..sY,:: ., �'�.s . . ,4.. �, �..4 . .,.. . .k. ., ,,.. ..,� <.: . .. -..>,. .. . .'3°.asl"'... .... ....4`. , . . . ;�x, ., ., ��;x. '.�..�P.�� s � ��' - .��w... , ,... .�,.. �....,.. , .«� ...f � ..r �.:»,�..: ,�. :..e .. .. .�. .s K� ;�� . : -m. � .r`.. .r_- zw.��':� .a. �3� ^`w+� �..� ... � �. . . ..:: , ..,. .. ., �.��.... . . . .: , .,.. , ., �. .. 1� .�.._.,. . �r.,. , o . .. . -t� . . .�� s��' �K�.< �i � '�i �«.,n. r;. :l , ir � , '� l�++ .F �. �. .�:, . � � ...� 3��. � z , ,.o; �at.. : :� „ . _ >,. .r _.,.,... . ., .. <. ;.. . , � . , ., ..,.. g . � .'+.�r . . .� ... � .�e". .,-,. .- ,:, ..,.. _..�. , ,. .. ;�r ..Fa. -.'.! , 'N?". ..... : �...- ....5rt�b?oe. ,._ .... , w;.�� . .. f�w � . _ �:..r.,. ._...k�.. ,.- <^ �..i.< +�-:R':�:'�+ ,,. 4 :a.,. � d . - •a .'E�:.. . . . {t.. � , $. ... �F .�. _+._.e . r�+'. Y � .. Y . .. �, . ��.i. 1Y.:. ,♦ ..,.. ,.. .. . y,.. .., �� . ... ..... t . t "S�.A � . . .w ..i� ,t.o.�,Y. � <,' w.. l y. C� . 'V'.� '? �� v 7 : . . �. �. . � _ , . v- �r .. x�. � . .. , .. �... J. � + ,. . ��. �. �. . , . - �.t`r?' � . a, . .,.... : _. . .. ... . � . ... . . .. .,.-. . �.:.. ., . � .... . . . •::: ^ w..� . a°4 x . . . . � _ ., . r, 2 d. n r �. , y a�,. ..- .'�, y ?�,�+ + ,w a .. ; ..v, , .�y - Y arK; �,y�i "� ;, -.�:�. r �,. ��., .»... .. . .. aa„� �.��.,. .� .,� .. _� y . .... a�� -. �. .�r. ^�...-... � , „ _ ... _ e: .�:.� .�s.. .r. . ,� ..� y . <, , e.... �.�, i. _ . . . ,. �°: _ , s . � ,: . , ., . , _: :> �:�i>� � ",�,`_ � '� , , _ . : .. . . ,u.. , . . . a< _ : , . � , .. , . : � . � �� <. �` •. .:''�` � Y ,. �. > ,. _ .. ,, a._: .. c_.,.. ._ �.°v .'�h...-: .... ... .. . , . ... , ..e^ ....,n'� a . � �, .. ... , , ,.. .,.. .�.; . . .�P. .. �.�. w _. �,^ �.; ' F....�.�.. ..... ;yAv� A. _ . � i �:. . �r�� ..,<. ..� . : ..... ... .. ..� .,..w . . � �� ^�*+�.n� �` k �� f..� w, -: :.�. ..-Ai..�.. .... . : �...,.. r. ---• . ...�'.. , �:":i�'. ..,.,.�� ;�,,�Mb` � � �.. � _.� 5.. . ., .. :.' . . .. ., . . +. b . c. .s . . . . . .,, . ..°?".� . , � . ., . .:.. ..... .. . . .:. .. ��' �, ....�. t . �, ... ... � , .. �<..... �,f'_ �f. . ^5, � ~��r" .,.� i1 . :». � ..�; x.�..4�`�a�..��-�'3"T�l...... ._ �,.-,�� ...e.,..-..,�..��1«� �::z.2F.,��.:,rs.,..es.�_}�.9t_...,. .,..� ._.__`t.l-..xG...��A.. �..�....z.�3`.��i ,..�a��'.._. _�c�".�;, ......_.....,_�..v_ ..r&>,..,..._.._Aw....». __ �v.._ �Pr3 I� __...�.__�..e.._�tl�.t_�c.T�z��.F .,..,a.. �<_a;r_. �_..:3.� . ,�._,.�• .. c_ ..--- '--- ��' .a.�'!� �-`' �.a.....:� �ZN_��C�7�E.Y�7��11�[�l�_��/�:�:1��11��. �Ce��:�� Sec�tiu�� -1.0 — �'trmtrlutii�e ln��cr��ts The following sections discuss the cumulative transportatioi� and air quality� impacts of the cumulative projects (i��cluding the proposed pcoject). Cu�nulative noise impacts and contributions to Global Climate Change are discussed in the fnitial Study prepared to focus the EIR (see Section =�.17 of the Initial Study in Appendi� A). 4.1 CUMULATIVE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Cuinulative Project conditions include e�isting tratitic volumes plus Craffic generated by appro��ed but not ��et constructed deve(opments in the project acea, plus traffic genecated by pending developments, plus trattic generated fcom the proposed pcoject. Cumulative No Project conditions are cumulative traffic conditions without traffic generated by the proposed project. � 4.1.2 Thresholds of Significance Consistent with the thresholds used by the Cit}� in evaluating project-specific transportation impacts. this analysis examines whethec development of the cumu(ative projects would result in the following impacts: • Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the ��olume to capacity ratio of roads, or congestion at intersections); • Exceed, either individual(v or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency foc designated roads or highways; oc • Conflict with adopted policies, p(ans. or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.. bus turnouts, bicycie racks). 4.1.3 Discussion of Impacts A list of pending pcojects was obtained from the cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and San Jose. Trip estimates were developed using available data and standard traffic engineering practice. These trips were assigned to the roadway network based on tlie locations of complimentary land uses and anticipated directions of approach and departure. Intersection operations were eva(uated with level of service calculations under cumulative p(us project conditions and the results are summarized in Table 4.0-2. Background conditions serve as the baseline condition for detennining cumulative impacts. City of Cupertino 93 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Table 4.0-2 Background, Cumulative Plus Project lntersection Levels of Service Background Cumulative with Scheme 1 Cumulative with Sclieme 2 Intersection Peak Change Change Change Change Hour Delay� LOS Delay� LOS in Crit. in Crit. Delay� LOS in Crit. in Crit. V/C Delay`� V/C Delay`' 1. Wolfe Road and Homestead Road AM 27.5 C 27.7 C 0.017 0.3 27.8 C 0.016 0.3 PM 35.1 D+ 37.2 D+ 0.041 3.1 37.0 D+ 0.037 2.8 2. Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue AM 22.9 C+ 23.5 C 0.020 I.0 23.3 C' 0.016 0.7 PM 26.4 C 28.6 C 0.041 2.5 28.1 C: 0.035 2.1 3. Homestead Road and Lawrence AM 86.4 F 92.9 F 0.056 3.2 92.4 F 0.055 2.2 Expressway PM 1 1 I. l F '' }�� ;� �� 9��,��' 4. Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue AM 20.6 B- 20.9 C+ O.O l7 0.8 21.0 C+ 0.015 0.8 PM 38.8 D+ 40.3 D 0.040 2.6 40.2 D 0.038 2.5 5. Pruneridge Avenue and Tantau AM 22.3 C+ 22.6 C+ 0.028 0.3 22.6 C+ 0.021 0.2 Avenue PM 21.9 C+ 23.0 C+ 0.083 1.5 22.8 C+ 0.076 l.3 6. Wolfe Road and I-280 northbound AM 15.2 B 15.3 B 0.002 0.0 15.4 B 0.003 0.1 ramps PM 13.9 B 14.4 B 0.039 09 14.3 B 0.033 0.7 7. Wolfe Road and I-280 southbound AM 14.0 B 14.1 F3 0.017 0.2 14.1 B 0.013 0. I ramps PM 9.4 A 10.1 B+ 0.077 I.l 9.9 A 0.067 0.8 8. Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway AM 2U.4 C+ 24.9 C 0.074 6.2 2�.3 C' 0.065 5.6 PM 53.1 D- � ��;�. �� ,�. ,� � �� `��° 9. Valico Parkway and Finch Avenue`' AM 1 1.0 B 13.5 B 13.6 B PM 12.2 B 26.8 D 26.4 D 10. Vallco Parkway and Tantau Avenue AM 18.1 B- 19.5 B- 0.008 0.9 l 8.7 B- 0.002 -0. l PM 20.2 B- 25.3 C 0.266 6.2 23.4 C 0.227 3.9 Table 4.0-2 Background, Cumulative Pius Project Intersection Levels of Service Background Cumulative with Sclremc� 1 Cumulative with Scheme 2 Intersection Peak Change Change Change Ch�nge Hour Delay� LOS Delay� LOS in Crit. in Crit. Delay� LOS in Crit. in Crit. v/e Delay� v/c Delay`� 11. Stevens Creek Boulevard and De AM 31.7 C 32.6 C- O.U27 1.2 �2.6 C- 0.025 I. I Anza Boulevard PM 44.9 D S 1.1 D- 0.057 9.0 50.4 D 0.051 7.8 12. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney AM 29.0 C: 28.9 C 0.026 0.1 29.0 C 0.023 0.3 Avenue PM 299 C 30.4 C 0.068 1.6 30.3 C 0.057 1.4 13. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal AM 14.3 B 13.6 B 0.020 -0.� 13.6 B 0.016 -0.4 Avenue PM 13.2 B 12.4 B 0.048 -0.5 12.5 B 0.039 -0.� 14. Stevens Creek Boulevard and AM 10.0 A 9.7 A 0.015 0.0 9.7 A 0.012 U.0 Perimeter Road PM 17.� B- 16.� B 0.047 -0.7 16.� B 0.039 -0.G I5. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe AM 38.7 D 38.7 D+ 0.031 0.5 38.7 D+ 0.027 0.5 Road-Millar Avenue PM 40.1 D 42.3 D 0.071 1.2 42.0 D 0.067 I.0 16. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch AM 37.6 D 37.7 D+ 0.034 -0.4 37.3 D+ 0.033 -0.7 Avenue PM 27.0 C 40.0 D 0.117 16.2 39.5 D O.I06 8.7 17. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau AM 23.0 C+ 23.8 C 0.106 1.8 23.9 C 0.109 2.0 Avenue PM 25.0 C 31.0 C U.119 7.5 30.4 C 0.115 7.3 18. Stevens Creek Boulevard and 1-280 AM 28.5 �; 27.7 C 0.007 U.4 27.4 C' 0.022 -3.8 ramps PM 55.2 E+ � , ;� '.� �� :�� ° ;� �� : �� .. _ �'� � �,�, �, M �`�'�� 19. Stevens Creek Boulevard and AM 23.1 C+ 24.3 C 0.059 1.7 24.4 C 0.063 1.8 Lawrence Expressway (west) PM 32.4 C- 34.7 C- 0.086 4.5 34. l C- U.069 3. � 20. Stevens Creek Boulevard and AM 37.9 D+ 39. l D 0.039 1.6 �9.1 D 0.041 1.G Lawrence Expressway (east) PM 33.7 C- 35.9 D+ 0.081 2.8 35.4 U+ 0.068 2.4 Table 4.0-2 Background, Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Levets of Service Background Cumulative with Scl7emc� 1 Cumulative with Scheme 2 Intersection Peak Change Change Change Change Hour Delay� LOS Delay� LOS in Crit. in Crit. Delay� LOS in Crit. in Crit. V�C Delay� V�C Delay`` 21. Lawrence Expressway and Calvert AM 53.7 D- � k �� Drive and I-280 southbound ramps PM 54.2 D- �� . � ,� , . . :�_ . � ,. � . - , . ,,., t; . , , -: �. ,��, � w� 22. Bollinger Road and De Anza AM 31.3 C 33.7 C- 0.063 3.8 33.7 C- 0.061 3.8 Boulevard5 PM 36.9 D+ 37.7 D+ 0.045 2.1 37.5 D+ 0.038 1.8 23. Bollinger Road and Blaney Avenue AM 20.0 B- 21.2 C+ 0.044 1.9 21.2 C+ 0.042 l.8 PM 21.2 C+ 22.0 C+ 0.026 1.2 21.9 C+ 0.024 1.2 24. Bollin�er Road and Millar Avenue AM 33.6 C- 33.9 C- 0.017 0.5 33.9 C- 0.018 U.5 PM 38.4 D+ 39.4 D 0.028 1.0 39.3 D 0.027 0.9 25. Bollinger Road and Tantau Avenue AM 12.6 B 12.7 B 0.001 0. I 12.6 B O.OU2 U.0 PM 16.4 B 17.1 B 0.007 0.7 17.0 B 0.005 U.6 26. Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue AM 51.5 D- 53.8 D- 0.038 (.6 53.9 D- 0.036 2.4 and Lawrence Expressways PM 54.7 D- �� ,� ' 27. Vallco Parkway and Perimeter Road AM 19.4 B- 16.2 B -0.006 -2.6 16.0 B -0.004 -2.9 PM 20.0 B- 21.0 C+ 0.001 1.2 20.2 C+ -0.012 0.0 Notes: , text indicates a significant impact. � Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop intersections using methodolo�;y described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturated flow rates to retlect Santa Gara County Conditions. For two-way stop contrulled unsignalized intersections, total control delay for the worst movement, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is presented. I.OS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX level of service analysis sott�vare package. Z LOS = Level of Service ' Change in the critical volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) between background and project conditions. � Change in critica( movement delay between background and project conditions. A decrease in the critical delay indicates project trips were added to movements with low delays thus causing a decrease in the overall critical delay. s Designated CMP intersection. ° Unsi =nalized intersection. Seclic�r� �.0 — C'unnrlutirt� /mpc�cls Table =�.0-3 compares lhe cumulative no project and cumulative conditions (for each scheme). E3ased on Cit�� standards, if the critieal V/C is increased by more than one percent and the avera�Te critical delay is inereased b} more than 4.0 seconds of delay between cumulative no project and cuil�ul�tive plus project conditions oc the project individuall�� exceeds the level of service standard, the proiect is considered to have a cuir�ulatively considerable cantribution to that cumulative impact. Table -t.0-3 Pro'ect Contribution To Si nificant Cumulative Im acts Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project Peak �o Pro'ect Intersection Change Change Hour Delay� LOS'" Delay� LOS'' in Crit. in Crit. V/C Delav�' SCHEME 1 3. Ho�nestead Road and � La�vrence E� wv 8. Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkwa � 18. Ste�ens Cceek Boulevard and 1-280 SB ram s 2l . La�vreilce Exp�vy and Calvert Drive and [-280 SB ram s 26. Bollinger Road-Moorpark Ave. and La«�rence Ex �t�v SCHEME 2 3. Homestead Road and Lawre��ce E� resswa � 8. Wolfe Road and Val(co Parkwa • 18. Stevens Creek Boulevard and [-280 ram s 21. Lawrence Eapwy and Calvert Drive and I-280 SB cam s 26. Bollinger Road-Moorpark Ave. PM 55.6 E+ 56.0 E+ 0.008 0.7 and Lawrence Ex Notes: te�:t indicates a significant contribution by the project. � Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-�vay stop intersections using methodology described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturated flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. For two-way stop controlled unsignalized intersections, total control delay for the worst movement, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is presented. LOS calculations conducted usin� the TRAFFIX level of service analysis software package. z LOS = Level of Service ' Change in the critical volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) between Cumulative No Project conditions and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. � Change in critical movement delay between Cumulative No Project conditions and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. City of Cupertino 97 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Secli�u� �.O — Ct�mulcrtir� l�npucts As shown in Table �.0-3. the project �vould have a cumulativelv considerable co►�tribution to cumulative impacts at the Follo�� ing intersections: Intersections Peak Cumulative Cumulative Hour w/Scheme 1 �ti �lScheme 2 3. Homestead Road and La�vrence Expressway - pM X X City of Santa Clara/CMP intersection 8. Wolfe Road and Vallco Park��ay — City of Cupertino PM X X intersection 18. Stevens Creek Boulevard and 1-280 ramps-Calvert PM X X Drive — Cit � of Santa C(ara/CMP intersection 21. Lawrence Expressway and 1-280 southbound ramps- AM X X Calvert Drive — Cit � of San Jose/CMP intersection PM 26. Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue and Lawrence pM X Ex cesswav — Cit�� of San Jose/CMP intersection Note: X= si;nificant project impact. While the critical V/C is not increased by more than one percent and the average critical delay is not increased by more than 4.0 seconds of delay between cumulative no project and cumulative plus project conditions at Lawrence Expressway and Bollingec Road-Moorpark Avenue, Sche»ae 1 would result in a project impact at this intersection (refer to Section 2.1 Transportation) therefore, Sc•hen2e 1 would result in a cumulatively considerable impact at this intersection. The mitigation measures identified in Section 2.1 Transportation would mitigate the project's contributions to the cumulative impact at the intersection of Wolfe Road/Va(Ico Parkway. Section 2.1 Transportation identifies improvements to the intersections of Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road, Lawrence Expressway and Calve�•t Drive/1-280 southbound ramps, and Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue/Lawrence Expressway that could mitigate the project's impact. These three intersections are controlled and maintained by the County of Santa Clara; therefore, improvements to this intersection need to be approved and implemented by the County. As discussed in Section 2.1 Transportation, the improvement identified to mitigate the project's impact at the intersection of Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road is not an identified improvement in the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway. Improvements to this intersection are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and the City cannot implement the improvement. Therefore, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact at Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road is significant and unavoidable. The improvement identified in Section 2.1 Transportation to mitigate the project's impact at the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Calvert Drive/I-280 southbound ramps is identified in the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway (Tier 1 C project). Improvements to this intersection are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and the City has contacted the County of Santa C(ara. However, at the time this EIR was circulated, the City and County had not coordinated on an appropriate mechanism for this improvement to occur and the implementation by the County is not assured (refer to Section 2.1 Transportation). For this reason, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact at Lawrence Expressway and Calvert Drive/I-280 southbound ramps is significant and unavoidable. City of Cupertino 98 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sc ction -F.0 — Ctnntrlcrtirc� lnrpuct.,� The improvement identified in Section 2.1 Transportation to miti�ate the project"s impact at the intecsection of Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue/La�vicence Express��a�� is identitied in the Coinprehensive County Express�ay Planning Study for Lawcence E�pressway (T'ier 1A project). The Tier l A improvements to this intersection are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino ai�d the City has contacted the County of Santa Clara. However, at the time this EIR was circulated. the City and County had not coordinated regarding a possible mechanism for tlie project to pa� a fair- share contribution toward the T'ier 1 A improvement (refer to Section 2.1 Transportation). For this reason. the project's contribution to the cumulative impact at Bollin�Ter Road-Moorpark Avenue/Lawrence Expressway is significant and unavoidable. � T'he cumulative impact at the intersection of Stevens Creek t3oulevard/t-280 southbound ramps- Calvert Drive cou(d be mitigated to a less than significant level w�ith the addition of an eastbound right-turn overlap phase. This would consist of signal modifications, possibl�� including replacement of the existing traffic signal, pole, and ann mast. This intersection is located �vithin tlle Citv of Santa Clara and is a CMP intersection controlled and maintained by the County of Santa Clara. The City has contacted the County� about this impact and mitigation. At this time, the City and County have not coordinated regardin� a possible mechanism tor implementing this �t�itigation measure and therefore, the implementation of this mitigation can not be assured. For this reason, the project's contcibution to the cumulative impact at Stevens Creek Boulevard/1-280 southbound ramps-Calvert Drive is significant and w�avoidable. Impact C-TRAN — 1: The pcoject (under either scheme), with the implementation of the mitigation measure MM TRAN — 1.1 in Section 2.1 Transportation, would not result in a significant impact at the intecsection of Wolfe Road/Vallco Pack�vay. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Impact C-TRAN — 2: The project (under either scheme) would result in a ewr�ulatively considerable contribution to the significant impact at the intersection of Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road. As discussed in Section 2.1 Transportation, the improvement identified to mitigate the project's impact at this intersection is not an identified improvement in the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway. Improvements to this intersection are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and the City cannot implement the improvement. Therefore, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact at Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road is significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Im�act) Impact GTRAN — 3: The project (under either scheme) would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant impact at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard/I-280 southbound ramps-Calvert Drive. This impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level with the addition of an eastbound right-turn overlap phase. This intersection is located within the City of Santa Clara and is a CMP intersection controlled and maintained by the County of Santa Clara. The City has contacted the County about this impact and mitigation. At this time, the City and County have not coordinated regarding a possible mechanism for implementing this mitigation measure and therefore, the implementation of this mitigation can not be assured. For this reason, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact City of Cupertino 99 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectiori -J. U — Czn»nlalii�e /nrpi�cts at Stevens Creek Boulevard/f-280 southbound ramps-Calvert Drive is significant and unavoidable. (Signifcant and Unavoidable Impact) Impact C-TRAN — 4: The project (under either scheme) �ould result in a cumulatively considerab(e contribution to the significa��t impact at the intersection of Lawre�lce EYpressway and Calvert Drive/[-?80 southbound rainps. Tl�e improti�ement identitied in Section 2.1 Transportation to mitigate the project's impact at this intersection is identified in the Comprehensive Count�� Express��ay Planning Study foc Lawrence Expressway (Tier 1 C project). improvements to tllis intersection are not �vithin the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and the City has contacted the County of Santa Clara. However, at the time this EIR was circulated, the City and County had not coordinated on an appropriate mechanism for this improvement to occur and the implementation by the County is not assured. For this reason, the pcoject's contribution to the cumulative impact at Lawrence Expressway and Calvert Drive/I-280 southbound ramps is signiticant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Im�act) Impact GTRAN —_5: The project (under either scheme) would resu(t in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the impact at the intersection of Bollinger Road- Moocpark Avenue/Lawrence Expressway. The improvement identified in Section 2.1 Transportation to mitigate the p� impact at this intersection is identified in the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for La��vrence Expressway (Tier l A project). The Tier 1 A improvements to this intersection are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and the City has contacted the County of Santa Clara. However, at the time this E[R was circulated, the City and County had not coordinated regarding a possible mechanism for the project to pay a fair-shace contribution toward the Tier 1 A improvement (refer to Section 2.1 Transportation). For this reason, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact at Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue/Lawrence Expressway is significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact) 4.1.4 Conclusion Impact GTRAN — 1: The project (under either scheme), with the implementation of the mitigation measure MM TRAN — I.1 in Section 2.1 Transportation, would not result in a significant impact at the intersection of Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Impact GTRAN — 2: The project (under either scheme) would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant impact at the intersection of Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road. As discussed in Seetion 2.1 Transportation, the improvement identified to mitigate the project's impact at this intersection is not an identified improvement in the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway. Improvements to this intersection are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and the City cannot implement the improvement. Therefore, the City of Cupertino 100 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sec�tiu�r �.0 — Cunrul�rlii•e lmpercts project's contribution to the cumulative impact at La�arence Express�ti�ay/Homestead Road is sibnificant and �mavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact) [mpact GTRAN — 3: The project (under either scheme) would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the signiticant impact at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard/[-280 southbound ramps-Calvert Dri��e. This impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level � ith the addition of an eastbound right-turn overlap phase. This intersection is located within the City of Santa Clara and is a CMP intersection contcolled and maintained by the Co�mty of Santa Clara. The City has contacted the County about this � impact and mitigation. At this time, the City and County have not coordinated cegarding a possible mechanism for implementing this mitigation measure and therefore, the implementation of this mitigation can not be assured. For this reason, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact at Stevens Creek Boulevacd/I-280 southbound ramps-Calvert Drive is signiticant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact) Impaet GTRAN — 4: The project (under either scheme) would resu(t in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant impact at the intersection of Lawrence Eapressway and Calvert Drive/1-280 southbound ramps. Tl1e improvement identified in Section 2.1 Transportation to mitigate the project's impact at this intersection is identified in the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway (Tier 1 C project). Improvements to this intersection are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and the City has contacted the County of Santa Clara. However, at the time this EIR was circulated, the City and County had not coordinated on an appropriate mechanism for this improvement to occur and the implementation by the County is not assured. For this reason, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact at Lawrence Expressway and Calvert Drive/I-280 southbound ramps is significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact) Impact GTRAN — 5: The project (under either scheme) would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the impact at the intersection of Bollinger Road- Moorpark Avenue/Lawrence Expressway. The improvement identified in Section 2.1 Transportation to mitigate the project's impact at this intersection is identified in the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway (Tier 1 A project). The Tier 1 A improvements to this intersection are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and the City has contacted the County of Santa Clara. However, at the time this E[R was circulated, the City and County had not coordinated regarding a possible mechanism for the project to pay a fair-share contribution toward the Tier 1 A improvement (refer to Section 2.1 Transportation). For this reason, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact at Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue/Lawrence Expressway is significant and unavoidable. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact) City of Cupertino l01 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section -!.0 — Ctu�n�latire lm��act.s -�.2 CUMULATIVE AIR QUAL[TY IMPACTS 4.2.1 Thresholds of Significance Consistent «ith the thresholds used by the Cit�� in evaluating project-specific air quality iinpacts. this anal��sis e�amines whether development of the cumulative projects would: • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantialiy to an e�:isting or project air quality violation: oc • E�pose sensitive ceceptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 4.2.2 Discussion of Im�acts �.2.2.1 Regiona! Air Quality Impacts As discussed in Section 2.2 Air Quality, the project's daily emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen o�.ide (NO�), and respirable particulates (PM��) exceed BAAQMD's thresholds of significance and therefoce would result in significant regional air qua(ity impacts. The implementation of the identified mitigation measures in Section 2.2 Air Quality (MM AIR — 2.1 through 2.10) would reduce the project's emissions by two to three percent, but not to a less than significant level. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air qua(ity impact. For this ceason, the project would result in a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Impact C-AIR — 1: The project (under either scheme) would result in a cumulative impact on regional air quality. Imp(ementation of mitigation measures in Section 2.2 Air Quality (MM AIR — 2. l through 2.10) would reduce the project's emissions but not to a(ess than significant level. (Significant and Unavoidable Cumu(ative Impact) Carbon Monoxide Emissions Carbon monoaide emissions from traffic generated by the cumulative projects (including the project analyzed in this EIR) would be the greatest pollutant concern at the local level. Congested intersections with a large volume of traffic have the greatest potential to cause high-localized concentrations of carbon monoxide. The predicted carbon monoxide concentrations under existing, 2010 background, 2010 project, and 2010 cumulative conditions were calculated. The results are shown in Table 4.0-4. City of Cupertino t 02 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 S�ction -�.0 — Ct�n7zrlutire ln7E�ac•ts• Table 4.0-4 Estimated Roadside 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (in arts er million) Descri�tion Existing Bacicground Sc/rente 1 - 2010 Schente 2— 2010 2008 2010 Pro'ect Cumulative Pro'ect Cumulative Lawrence Etipress�vay and 7.� 7.0 7.0 �.9 6.9 4.9 Homestead Road Wolfe Road and 5.� 6.0 6. I �3.5 6.1 4.� Vallco Park�vay 1-280 southbotu�d ramps and Stevens 6.6 6.? 6.� �.6 6.4 �.6 Creek Boulevard* Law rence Express��ay and 1- � I 6.6 6.7 4.7 6.7 4.7 280 southbound ram s* BAAQMD Threshold 9.0 ppm (CAAQS) Notes: If a proved, it is antici ated that the roject �i�ould be built in 2010. * lncludes contribution of [-280 As shown in Table 2.2-1�, the estimated carbon monoxide emissions from the cumulative project traffic (including traffic from the proposed project under eitller scheme) would be below the state ambient air quality standard of 9.0 ppm. For this reason, the traffic from cumulative projects (including the proposed project under either scheme) would not generate significant levels of carbon monoxide emissions. Impaet C-AIR — 2: The cwnulative projects (including the proposed project under either scheme) would not generate significant levels of carbon monoxide emissions. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impact) 4.2.2.2 Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts Construction activities associated with all the cumulative projects (i�lcluding the proposed project and the approved adjacent Rosebowl Project) woutd temporarily affect local air quality. Construction activities such as demolition, earthmoving, construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local and regional air quality. However, most of the cumulative projects are scattered throughout the City (refer to Figure 4.0-1) and their schedules for construction are dif�erent and are likely to occur over the next several years. In addition, construction mitigation measures are typically inc(uded as part of each project, especial(y large development projects. As discussed in Section 2.2 Air Quality, the proposed project would implement mitigation measures to reduce construction-related air quality impacts to a less than significant level. Given the fact that all construction projects are temporary and the projects (including the adjacent Rosebowl Project) would implement mitigation measures to reduce their construction-related impacts, the cumulative short- term air quality impacts associated with the cumulative projects a�•e not anticipated to be significant. Ciry of Cupertino 103 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectiorr -1.0 — Cu�nulatire l�upercts Impaet C-AIR — 3: The cumulative projects, including the proposed project under either scheme. �tould not result in significant cumulative short-term, construction-related aii qualit}� impacts. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impact) 4.2.3 Conclusion Impact C-AIR — 1: The project (under eitl�er scheme) w�ould result in a cumulative impact on � regioi�al air quality. Implementation of mitigation measures in Seetion 2.2 Air Quality (MM AIR — 2. t through 2.10) would reduce the project's emissions but not to a less than significant IeveL (Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact) Impact C-A[R — 2: The cumulative projects (including the proposed project under either scheme) would not generate significant levels of carbon monoxide emissions. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Im�act) Impact C-AIR — 3: The cumulative projects, including the proposed project under either scheme. would not result in significant cumulative short-term, construction-celated air quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Cumulative Impact) City of Cupertino 104 - Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 SECTION 5.0 SIGNIFICANT, UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed project would result in the follo��ing significant and unavoidable impacts: • Intersection and Freewa}' Se�ment Level of Service Impacts, • Re�ional Air Quality [mpacts. • Cumulative Level of Service Impacts, and • Cumulative ReQional Air Quality Impacts. All other i�npacts of the proposed project would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the incorporation of the mitigation measuces identified in this EfR (see also measures listed in Appendix A ). City of Cupertino 105 Draft ElR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 SECTION 6.0 CONSISTENCY WITH RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES ln conformance with Section 1 � 12�(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section of the EIR discusses how the project compiies ��ith existing, relevant regional plans and policies, the City's General Plan. and applicable plans and policies. A summary of the project's consistency with these local a��d regional plans and policies is pro� ided at the end of this section in Table 6.0- I. 6.1 REGIONAL PLANS 6.1.1 Ba� Area 200� Ozone Strategl The Bay Area Air Qualit}' Management District (BAAQMD), in cooperation with the Metcopolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Stra�e�7• which serves as a roadmap showing how the San Francisco Bay Area wil( acl�ieve compliance with the state one-hour air quality standard for ozone as expeditiously as practicab(e and ho�- the ceaion �vill reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to neighboring air basins. The Ba�� Area 2005 O�one Sti•ate�� updates Vehicle Mi(es Traveled (VMT) and other assumptions in the 2000 Clean Aic Plan (CAP) related to the reduction of ozone in the atmosphere and serves as the current CAP for the Bay Area. The consistency of the proposed project with this regional plan is primarily a question of the consistency with the population/employment assumptions utilized in developing the O�one Strate�y�, which were based on ABAG Projections 2002. Consistency: As discussed in Section 2.2 Air Quality, the proposed project (under either scheme) is consistent with the City's General Plan and does not conflict with clean ai►• planning efforts. Also, the pcoject shall be required to implement transportation control measures (TCMs) such as providing bicycle parking and pedestrian paths throughout the project site (refer to MM AIR — 2.1 through 2.10) to promote automobile-alternative modes of transportation and reduce vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. 6.1.2 San Francisco Bav Region Water Qualitv Control Plan The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has developed and adopted a Water Quality Control Plan (the Plan) for the San Francisco Bay region. The Plan is a master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of water quality regulations in the San Francisco Bay region. The Regional Board first adopted a water yuality control plan in 1975 and the last major revision was adopted in 1995. The Plan provides a program of actions designed to preserve and enhance water quality and to protect beneficial uses based upon the reyuirements of the Porter-Cologne Act. It meets the requirements of the US Environmenta( Protection Agency (USEPA) and establishes conditions related to discharges that must be met at all times. Consisterrcy: As discussed in Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality of the Initial Study (refer to Appendix A), the proposed project shall comply with the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit administered by the RWQCB and Provision C.3 of the NPDES Permit Number CAS0299718. The project shall implement best management practices (BMPs) to improve the quality of the storm water runoff during and post-construction. For these reasons, the proposed project is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Region Water Quality Control Plan. City of Cupertino 106 Dcaft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section 6.0 — Corl.cistenc•�� irrtd� Keler�mt P1ur7s a�icl Pnlrc•i�.�� fi.1.3 Santa Clara Vallev Urban Runoff Pollution Pre��ention Pro�ram and National Pollution Discharge Elimination Svstem The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP). pre��iously called the Santa Clara Va(ley Nonpoint Source Program, was deve(oped in acco�•dance «ith the requirements of the 1986 San Francisco Bay Basin Water Qualit� Contml Plan_ for the purpose of reducing water pollution associated with urban stonn water runoff. This program ��as also designed to fiiltill the requirements of Section 304 (1) of the Federal Clean Water Act. � hich mandated that the USEPA develop National Pollution Dischacge Elimination S�stem (NPDES) Permit application requirements for various storm ��ater discharges, including those from municipa( storm drain sy�stems and construction sites. C'onsiste�cy�: As discussed in Sectioi� 4.8 Hydro(ogy and Water Qualitv of the Initial Study (refer to � Appendix A), the project shall comply with Provision C.3 of the NPUES Pe�•mit Number CAS0299718 and incorporate best n�anagement practices (BMPs) to reduce. control, and improve the quality of the storm water cunoff from the site. The project is consistent with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program and National Pollution Discharge Elimination S��stem. 6.1.4 Santa Clara Counh Congestion Management Program The Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VT'A) oversees the Santa Clara Count�- Congestion Management Program (CMP). The relevant state legislation cequires that all ucbanized counties in California prepare a CMP in order to obtain each counry's share of the increased gas ta�: revenues. The CMP legislation requires that each CMP contain five mandator� ele�nents: I) a system definition and traffic level of service standard element; 2) a transit service and standards element; 3) a trip reduction and transportation demand management element; 4) a land use impact analysis element; and 5) a capital improvement element. The Santa Clara County CMP includes the tive mandated elements and three additional elements, including a count}�-� ide transportation model and database element, and annual monitoring and conformance element, and a deficiency p(an element. Consistency: The traffic analysis completed for the project was prepared in accordance with the standards of the CMP. As discussed in Section 2.1 Transportation, the proposed project would result in significant level of service impacts on three CMP intersections and six or seven freeway segments during of the peak hours. These impacts are significant and unavoidable because improvements to these intersections are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and would need to be approved and implemented by the County. Pending the adoption of a Countywide Deficiency P(an, if a project causes a transportation impact that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level, the lead agency and/or project applicant must implement '`[mmediate Actions'" listed in the CMP TIA Guidelines. As discussed in Section 2.1 Transportation, the project shall include programs or facilities delineated in the "Immediate Implementation Action List" such as providing pedestrian improvements and bicycle facilities. For this reason, the project is consistent with the provisions of the CMP. City of Cupertino 107 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Seclion 6.0 — Consiste�lc�' �rith RE:lei•ant Plans u��cl !'c�liriE�.�� 6.2 LOCAL PLANS AIYD POLICIES 6.2.1 General Plan The Cit�' of CuE�ertrrro Generul Pla�� ZU00 -?020 is a roadmap to the future that encompasses the hopes, aspirations, �-alues. and dreams of the community. It provides a vision of the Cit��'s future i��to a comprehensive strateg}- for auidii�g future development and managing change. The General Plan describes the long-term goals for the City's future. 1 General Plan contains the City's official policies on land use and communit� design, transportation, housing, environmental resources, and public health and safet��. The follo��-ing text describes those Genecal Plan policies and strategies that are applicable to this project, as w�eil as any inconsistencies between the h�v�o. 6.2. L 1 South Val/co Master Plun ln September 2008, the City adopted the South Vallco Master Plan. The Master Plan sets forth policies and recoinmendations for streetscape design, crosswalk enhancements, landscaping, lightin�7. way finding, signage, and street furniture to improve the overall character and identity of the Valico Park South Area. ConsistencJ�: The pcoject is consistent with the South Vallco Master Plan policies that promote automobile-alternative modes of transportation, use of drought-tolerant plants, orientation of retail uses to the street, modification of existing streets to be more pedestrian-friendly (i.e., the narrowing ofi Vallco Parkway), and (and uses consistent with the General Plan. However, Policy 6.3 of the Master Plan states that development shall incorporate renewable energy principles witll the goal of attaining at least LEED Silver certification or alternative environmental and sustainable measurement system/checklist. The project proposes to be LEED certified. For this reason, the project is not wholly consistent with the South Vallco Master Plan. 6.2.1.2 Lund U.se and Trunsportution Diagram The Land Use/Transportation Diagram is essentially a large map that depicts all of the planned land use throughout Cupertino, p(us the primary transportation network that is proposed to support the land uses. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Commef�cial/Office/ Residential, which applies to mixed-use areas that are predominantly commercial and office uses. Supporting residential uses may be allowed to offset job growth and to better balance the cit}nvide jobs to housing ratio. Also, supporting residential uses are allowed when they are compatible with the primarily non-residential character of the area. Consistency: The project proposes a mix of retail (including an athletic club in Scheme 2), office, hote(, and residential uses on the project site. The proposed uses are consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Commercial/Office/Residential on-site. The project proposes changes to the City's transportation system. The project proposes to abandon the portion of Finch Avenue that passes through the project site and to narrow Vallco Parkway along the project site's frontage from six lanes to two lanes. As discussed in Section 2.1 Transportation, these proposed modifications do not result in significant transportation impacts. For these reasons, the project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Transportation Diagram. City of Cupertino ]08 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 S��ctiu» 6.0 — C'c�jzsrslcnc�• irrth Rc lt��uni Pl��s aricf f��licres 6.2.1.3 Land Use/Communit�� Design � Urban Centers Policv 2-l: Concentrated Development in Urban Centers. Concentcate development in ucban nodes and selectively include housing 4vith oftice and commercia( uses ��vhere appropriate in designated centers. Consiste��c��: The project site is an infill site located within the South Vallco Park Area. which is � desi�nated as a commercial center in the City�'s General Plan. The project (under both schemes) proposes a mix of retail/commercial, office, hotel, and residential uses. The proposed uses are consistent with the uses allowed in the South Val(co Park area. For this reason, the project is consistent with Urban Centers Policy 2-l. Urban Centers Strate�v: Mixed Use. Consider mixed-use development in the selectively designated urban centers. Cos�sistencv: The project site is located within the Vallco Park South Area, which is identified as a commercia( center in the City's General Plan. The project (under both schemes) proposes a mix of uses consistent with those allowed in the Vallco Park South Area and the land use desi��nation on the site. For this reason, the pi•oject is consistent with this strategy. � Urban Centers Po(icy 2-2: Connections Between Centers and the Community. Provide strong connections between the emp(oyment and co�nmercial centers to the surrounding community. C onsistency : As discussed in Section 1.0 Project Description, the project (under both schemes) provides pedestrian sidewalks and paths throughout the project site that allow connectivity within the site as well as between the site and adjacent properties. For this reason. the project is consistent with this policy. Urban Centers Strategy: Neighborhood Connections. Enhance pedestrian and bicyc(e connections to surrounding neighborhoods in new development. C'onsislency: As discussed in Section 1.0 Project Description, the project (under both schemes) provides pedestrian sidewalks and paths throughout the project site that allow connectivity within the site as well as between the site and the adjacent properties. [n addition, as discussed in Section 2.1 Transportation, the project will include programs or facilities delineated in the '`Immediate Implementation Action List" of the Draft Countywide Deficiency Plan such as providing pedestrian improvements and bicycle facilities. For these reasons, the project is consistent with this strategy. Urban Centers Strategv: Public Access. Provide pedestrian and bicycle paths through new projects to enhance public access to and through the development. Consistency: As discussed in Section 1.0 Project Description, the project (under both schemes) provides pedestrian side�walks and paths throughout the project site that allow connectivity within the site as well as between the site and the adjacent properties. The project would impact an existing bicycle lane on Vallco Parkway, however, the project will relocate the bicycle lane (refer to Section 2.1 Transportation). In addition, the project shall include programs or facilities delineated in the '`Immediate Implementation Action List" of the Draft Countywide Deficiency Plan such as providing pedestrian improvements and bicycle facilities. For these reasons, the project is consistent with this strategy. City of Cupertino 109 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 3008 Sectiun G.0 — Consisley�c�r irrtl� Relercrni Plaii� �rncl Policres Urban C.enters Polic�� 2-4: Active Spaces. Encourage acti�-e, publicl�� oriented land usts to locate in the urban centers. � Co»srstenci•: The pcoject (under either scheme) proposes private open spaces in the torm of a park along Ste��ens Creek Boulevard and a town square for public gatherings where Finch Avenue is currentiv located. The project proposes that these private open spaces have easements that allow foc public access and use. For this reason, the project is consistent with this po(icy. Urban Centers Strate�y: Sense of Place. I�� order to create a sense of place, require development plans to incoeporate elements that are oriented toward pedestrian-scale outdoor uses alon� major boulevards, including parks, plazas, seating areas. outdoor dining and public art. Co��sis�encv: �rhe project (under both schemes) proposes to narrow Vallco Parkway fi•om sir lanes to tw�o lanes and include on-street parking on the south side of Vallco Parkway. The Cit� and the applicant envisions that the reduction in road size and addition of on-street packing along with the proposed uses will create a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use corridor. ln addition, the project (under both schemes) includes a 0.75-acre park, town square, plazas, and public art. Outdoor dining ma}� also be included at some retail locations. For theses reasons, the project is consistent �vith this strateg��. Urban Centers StrateAv: Public Areas. Ensure that public areas are attractive and desi��ned to meet the open space and recreational needs of surrounding areas. Consrsvenc��: As discussed in Section 1.0 Project Descri�tion, the specitic design and uses within the proposed open space (i.e., park and town square) is unknown at this time and will be reviewed and determined by the City Council prior to final occupancy release of the project. The park design planning process shall consider design features and the needs of the communit�-. Neighborhoods Policv 2-5: Distinct Neighborhoods. Plan for neighborhoods that have distinctive edges, an identifiable center and safe pedestrian and bicycle access to surrounding uses. Consisterrcy: The residential uses on the site are li�nited to senior apartments although there are existing and planned residential uses to the west. It is intended tllat the proposed town square be a focal point of the proposed project. The project (under both schemes) provides pedestrian sidewalks and paths throughout the project site that aliow connectivity within the site as well as between the site and the adjacent properties. Bicycle access would be provided on existing, relocated, or ne�� bicycle la�ies on adjacent roadways. For these reasons, the project is consistent with this policy. Urban Service Area Policv 2-10: Urban Areas. Focus City resources in urbanized areas where the City has previously agreed to provide services. Consistency: The project site is an infill site located within and urbanized area. The site is planned for urban development in the City's Genera( Plan. The site is consistent with this policy. Buildin� Form PolicY 2-13: Urban Buildin F�ms. Concentrate urban building forms in Vallco Park, City Center and Crossroads/Heart of the City planning areas. Consistency: The project proposes a multiple-story urban development within the South Vallco Park Area with a layout, form, density, and setbacks that are urban in character. The project, therefore, is consistent with this policy. City of Cupertino 110 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino � October 2008 S�ctiun 6.0 --C<»lsist�ric�• irith Re/erunt Plcrn.c urtcf Policies Buildin� Form Strate��v: Maximum Building Hei<,hts and Setback Ratios. The ma�:imum hei�ht and setback ratios for new buildings in various plannin�� areas are specified in Figure 2-D ofthe General Plan. T'he maximu�n building height on the project sitc is 60 feet if there is a retail component. For the Vallco area. maintain the primar�� building bulk be(o�� a I.�:1 (i.e.. 1.5 feet of setback foc• every one foot of bui(ding height) slope line drawn from the Stevens Creek Boulevard. Homestead Road. and Tantau Avenue curb lines and belo�ti I: I slope line dra�-vn From Wolfe Road curb line. Consistency: As discussed in Section 1.0 Project Description, the project pcoposes a mix of uses (including retail/commercial uses) and bui(dings of up to 60 feet talL The project buildin�7 slope line from Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau A��enue meets the criteria outlined in the above strategy. � For these reasons, the project is consistent ��-ith this strategy. Buildin� Form Strate�v: Multiple-Storv Buildin��s and Residential Districts. Allow construction of mu(tiple-story buildings in Vallco Park, North De Anza Qoulevard, City Center, Crossroads, and the Heart of the City if it is found that nearby i•esidential districts «�ill not suffer fi•om pri� ac} intrusion or by overwhelmed by the scale of a building or group of buildings. Consistency: The project proposes multi-story buildin�s of up to 60 feet tall on the project site. As discussed in Section 4.9 Land Use ofthe Initial Study (see Appendix A), the project ��ould not result in land use compatibility impacts with adjacent uses related to visual intrusion and buildings would be similar in scale to the adjacent residential use to the west. For these reasons, the project is consistent with this strategy. Buildin� Form Strategv: Cohesiveness of Buildin�s. Ensure that the scale and interrelationships of new and old development complement each other. If the project has many buildings, they shou(d be grouped to create a feeling of spatial unity. Consistency: As shown on the conceptual site plans and cross-sections, the propose retail buildings (in either scheme) along Stevens Creek Boulevard are grouped together and buildin� heights and scale are similar to development to the west. In addition, the project includes pedestrian sidewalks and paths that facilitate connectivity through the site as well as with the adjacent land uses. For these reasons, the project is consistent with this strategy. Buildin� Form Strate�y: Chan�es in Buildin�Scale. Avoid abrupt changes in building scale. A gradual transition between low-rise to mid-rise buildings shou(d be achieved by using the low-rise buildings at the edge of the project site. Consider the relationship of building scale on both sides of a street. Consistency: The proposed project considers the mass and scale of the adjacent development and does a reasonable job in transitioning from the existing Metropolitan and the approved Rosebowl developments to the west. The project is consistent with this strategy. Buildin� and Site Desi n P�ol'icv 2-14: Attractive Buildin� and Site Design. Emphasize attractive building and site design during the development review process by giving careful attention to building scale, mass and placement, architecture, materia(s, landscaping, screening of equipment and loading areas, and related design considerations. Consistency: The project is subject to tlle City's Design Review (Architectural and Site Approval) process required for approval of the specific project design, if the project is approved. This review considers the relationship of the proposed buildings with the surrounding land uses and the streets, City of Cupertino 11 1 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section 6.0 —('�,�isi.l�te�ici� u�rth R�leran� Pluns �rr�cl P��lic�ies compliance ��ith adopted height limits, setbacks, architectural, and landscaping design �uidelines. and the overall qualit}' and compatibility of the buildina materials and architecture with the surrounding area. T'hrough implementation of the City's Design Re��ie�� process, the project ��ould be consistent with this policy. Buildin�and Site Desi�in Strate�v 3: Parkin� Placeme�lt in New Development. Place parking out of sight, behind or underneath buildings. Consistency: As described in Section 1.0 Project Description, the parking for the project (under either scheme) ��ould be providing in surface parking lots. above and belo�v ground parkin� garages. and on-street. In both schemes, the proposed surface parking lots ace located in d�e intecior of the site, shielded from view from Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Park�ti�a� by proposed buildings. Both project schemes include a multi-story parking garage above ground along Vallco Park��ay. The proposed above parking garages in either scheme would have existiny� and proposed landscapin<� that would soften the views of the parking garage. For these reasons. the project is consistent �� ith this strategy. Buildin� and Site Desi�n Strategv 5: Design Guidetines. Utilize existin�7 design guidelines. such as Heart of the City and Monta Vista, in reviewing development projects. Corrsistencv: The project is subject to the City's Design Review (Architectural and Site Approval) process required for appcoval of the specific project design, if the project is appcoved. This review considers the project's compliance with adopted design guidelines. Through implementation of the City's Design Review process, the project would be consistent with this strategy. Buildin� and Site Desi n�Po(icv 2-15: Multi-Family Residential Desi�n. Maintain a superior living environment for multi-family dwellings. Consistencv: The relationship of the proposed buildings (including the senior housing building) tivith the surrounding land uses and the streets, compliance with adopted architectural and (andscaping design guideli��es, and the overall quality and compatibility of the buildings with the surrounding area will be formal(y undertaken as a part of the City's Design Review process. Through implementation of the City's Design Review process, the project would be consistent with this po 1 icy. Building and Site Design Strateg,v: Provision of Outdoor Areas. Provide outdoor areas, both passive and active, and generous landscaping to enhance the surroundings for multifamily residents. Allow public access to the common outdoor areas whenever possible. Consiste�cy: The project proposes that open spaces, while private, will have an easement which allows public access and use. As discussed in Section 1.0 Project Description, tlle specific design and uses (passive and/or active) within the proposed open space (i.e., park and town square) ace unknown at this time and will be reviewed and determined by the City Council at a later date. The conceptual landscaping plans shown in Figures 1.0-12 and 1.0-13 include trees and vines and the project is subject to the City's Design Review which evaluates the project's compliance with the City's adopted landscaping design guidelines. For these reasons, the project is consistent with this strategy. Streetsca�e and Transitions Strateg�y: Street-oriented Buildin��Desi�n. Orient commercial buildings to the street by placing them toward the front of properties. City of Cupertino 112 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 S�ctior� 6.0 — Crnzs�islenci• �ritl� Rtl��ant !'Icuts ancl Pc�/ic•ic�s. Consistenc�%: As sho��n on the conceptual site plans for the project schemes (Figures I.0-4 and 1.0- 8), most of the proposed commercial buildin�s fi•ont either Ste��ens Creek Boulevard or Vallco Parkwav. � Streetscape and Transitions Strate�v: Street ��rees. Maximize tree landscaping along arterial street frontages between buildin✓7s and/or parking lots and their adjacent street curb lines consistent with land use visibility requirements. Consistency: As shown on the conceptual landscape plans for both project schemes (Figures I.0-12 and 1.0-13), landscapin� (including trees) are proposed along buildin� perimeters and streets. For tllis reason, the project is consistent �� ith this strateg}�. Balancing Land Uses Policy 2-19: .tobs/Housin� Balance. Strive for a more balanced catio of jobs and housing units. Consistenc��: The proposed project includes a mix of housing and _jobs. [t is consistent with the anticipated jobs/housin�� ratio by proposing uses consistent with the Cit��'s General Plan land use designations and pre-approved development allocations. Although the project is requesting oftice square footage to be transferred fi•om another planning area within the Cit�, the ofitice square footage is accounted for in the Citv's Gei�eral Plan. Balancing Land Uses Strate�,v: Housing and Mixed Use. Allocate housing or mixed-use development on certain commercial, office, and industrial sites, consistent with the long-term City revenue projections. Consistency: The proposed mi�:ed-use project is loca( serving and benefits the adjacent existing developments and regiona( shopping district. ln addition, the proposed project would create a synergy between the different uses (commercial, senior housing, athletic club, hotel, oftice, and open space). The project is consistent with this strategy. Balancin� Land Uses Strategv: Housin (�mpact. Since the quality of Cupertino schools is a primaiy asset of the City, care shall be taken to ensure any new housing will not adverse(y impact these systems. Consistency: The project proposes senior housing in both schemes. Senior housing would not generate new students and therefore, the project would not advecsely impacts local schools. The project is consistent with this strategy. Allocatin� Development Potential Policv 2-20: Diversitv of Land Use. Maintain a city structure of neighborhoods, commercial areas, employment areas, and education/cu(tural areas. Consistency: The project site is located within the Vallco Park South Area, which is designated as a commercial center. The project proposes a mix of retail, office, hotel, and housing uses that are consistent with the area. For this reason, the project is consistent with this policy. Allocating Development Potential Strate�v: Citvwide Development Al(ocation. Allocate new development citywide in accordance with Table 2-A in the General Plan. Consrstency.• As discussed in Section 4.9 Land Use of the lnitial Study (see Appendix A), there are sufficient allocations for the proposed commercial, hotel, and housing uses proposed in either project scheme. However, there are no available development allocations in Vallco Park South for office City of Cupertino 113 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sec•/i<�r� 6.0 — Cunsistenci� iritlr Relet�crnt Plut�.s u�rcl Pnlicie.s uses. Pe� the General Plan. the Cit} allows tlexibiliry among the allocations assigned to each geographic area and allocations inay� be redistributed froin one �eog�°aphic area to another if necessary and if no significant environmental impacts are identitied. Even though the pcoject «ould result in sibnificant transportation and air quality impacts (as discussed in Section 2.1 Transportation and Section 2.2 Air Qualitt� of this E[R), these impacts �vould not be unique to this location. Traffic impact would occur due to existin� and background conditions. Development in a relatively ��ide area of Cupertino could result in traftic impacts at the same location. Therefore, the project is generally consistent ��ith this strategy. Allocatin� Development Potential Strate�v: Ma��c Companies. Prioritize expansion of office space for existing major companies in Cupertino. Retain a pool of 1 �0,000 square feet to be drawn do�� n b}' companies with Cupertino sales offices and corporate headquarters. New office development must demonstrate that the development positively contributes to the fiscal �vell being of the City. Consistency: Develop�nent under Schen�e 1 or Scheme 2�vould not reduce the citywide oftice pool to 150,000 square feet or less. However, the total pcoposed office square footage (Scheme 1: 100,000 square feet; Schefr�e 2: 205,000 square feet) should be reduced to no more than 60,000 square feet to preserve square footage for future major companies in the area. lf the proposed office develop�nent (under either scheme) would be reduced to 60,000 square feet. the project would be consistent �� ith this stcategy. A(locating Development Potentia( Strateg Flexible Allocations. Allow tlexibility among the a(locations assigned to each geographical area. Allocations may be redistributed from one geographical area to another if necessary and if no significant environmental impacts, particulacly traffic, are identified. Consistency: As discussed above, there are sufficient allocations in Vallco Park South for the proposed commercia(, hotel, and housing uses proposed in either project scheme but there are no available development allocations for office uses in either project scheme. As discussed in Section 2.1 Transportation of this EIR, the project would result in signiticant transportation impacts. Tllese transportation impacts would not be unique to this location. TIZe traffic impacts occur due to existing and background conditions. Development in a re(atively wide area of Cupertino could result in traffic impacts at the same location. Therefore, the project is generally consistent with this strategy. Commercial Center Policv 2-30: Vallco Park South. Retain and enhance Vallco Park South as a large-scale commercial area that is a regiona( commercial (including hotel), office, and entertainment center with supporting residential development. Consrstency: The project (under either scheme) proposes commercial, office, hotel, and residential uses. The project is consistent with this policy. Commercial Center Strategv: Vallco Parkwa� Continue the Vallco Parkway streetscape, which was approved as part of the Vallco Rosebowl mixed-use development, along the entire Parkway. Consistency: Both the Rosebowl mixed-use development and the proposed project are consistent with the South Vallco Master Plan, which stipulates design guide(ines for the Vallco Parkway streetscape and design. The project is consistent with this strategy. City of Cupertino 114 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sec�ic�n 6.0 — Curtsislenc�' iritl� Re[era��! Plc�ns ancl Polic•ies Oftice/Industcia( Developinent Polic�� 2-=�2: Re��enue Analvsis of Oftice Developments. ln revie�vin� office development proposals. encou► office uses and activities that generate significant revenues to the City, such as local sales ottices, capturing point of sale internet transactions and business to business ta� revenues. Ne�� office development exceeding �0,000 square feet shall be approved only if one of these or similar benetits are provided. Consister�c>>: The office component of the project (wlder either scheme) would either be reduced in � size to 50,000 square feet or less or be cequired as a condition of approval to satisfy this strategy. Through these measures, the project ��ould be consistent �vith this policy. Office/Industria( Development Policy 2-=�4: Maintainin�7 Cohesive Commercial Centers and Office Parks. Cohesive commercial centers and office parks are necessaiy to maintain a healthy sales taa base for the city and to retain opportunities for existing businesses to expand in response to changing business trends. Consistenc��°: The project (under eithec scheme) includes coinmercial and office uses. Therefore. the project supports this policy. Historic Resources Policy ?-63: Archaeo(os�icallv Sensitive Areas. Protect archaeologically sensitive areas. Consistency: As discussed in Section 4.� Cultural Resources of the [nitial Study (see Appendix A), the project shall implement mitigation measures to avoid and/or reduce impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. Therefore. the project is consistent with this policy. Historic Resources Strategv: Development Investi at� ion• Require an investigation for development proposed in areas (ikel�� to be archaeologicall}- sensitive, such as along stream courses and in oak groves, to determine if significant archaeological resources may be affected by the project. Also require appropriate mitigation measures in the project design. Consistencv: Historically, Calabazas Creek flowed across the site. Around 1978, the creek was realigned to flow in an underground, double-box culver that genera(ly runs parallel to Finch Avenue between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Parkway. An archaeological literature review and field investigation was completed for the site. The discussion in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources of the Initial Study (see Appendix A) is based on this investigation and the project shall implement mitigation measures to avoid and/or reduce impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant leveL The project is consistent with this strategy. Historic Resources Policy 2-64: Native American Burials. Protect Native American burial sites. Consistency: As discussed in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources of the Initia( Study (see Appendix A), � the project shall implement a mitigation measure to reduce impacts to buried human remains if encountered. The project is consistent with this policy. Historic Resources Strate�v. Upon discovery of such buria(s during construction, take action prescribed by State law, including stoppage of work in surrounding area, notification of appropriate authorities and reburial of remains in an appropriate manner. Consistency.• As discussed in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources of the Initial Study (see Appendix A), the project sha(1 implement a mitigation measure MM CUL — 1.3 which includes stopping all work City of Cupertino 115 Draft E1R Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Scze[io�i 6.0 — Consrstenc�� iri�lr Relerunt Pluns crfrcl Pnlicies within a �0-foot radius of the tind, having a qualified archaeolo�ist examine the tind, notifyin� the Santa Claca County Coroner and Native .A►neeican Hecitage Commission (if �Iecessary), and complying with the Health and Safet} Code and Yublic Resources C:ode of the State of California. The project is consistent with this policy. Private Open Space Resources Policv 2-72: Public Use of Private Open Space. Seek cooperation from private landowners for public use of private open space. Consistenc}': 1 project proposes private open space in the form of a pack and town square with easements to allow for public use and access. For this reason, the pcoject is consistent with this policy. Trails Policy 2-73: Open Space and Tcail Linka�es. Dedicate or acquire open space lands and trail linkages to connect areas and provide for a more walkable community. Consistency: The City's General Plan (see Figure 2-f Trail Linkages) identifies a pcoposed trail linkage to the Calabazas Creek Trail which includes a segment that passes through the project site on top of the underground boh-culvert a(ignment. The trail linkage along Calabazas Creek would connect the Vallco planning area to Cupertino High School and Creekside Park. The pcoject (under either scheme) proposes a town square, parkin��. and pedestrian paths in the general area identifiied as a possible trail linkage. While the project is not planning to dedicate land for public open space, the project includes private open space (e.g.. to�vn square) that ��ould have an easement allowing public use and access. In addition, the project includes new pathways to link pedestrians from Stevens Creek Boulevard to the future trail l�ead north of Vallco Parkway. For this reason, the project is consistent with this policy. Trails Strateg_y: Trail Pro'el cts• Implement the trail projects described in this element. Consistency: The project does not propose to create a trail linkage to the Calabazas Creek through the project site as identified by the General Plan. However, the project includes new pathways to link pedestrians from Stevens Creek Boulevard to the future trail head north of� Vallco Parkway. Therefore, the project is generally consistent with this strategy. Trails Strategy: Dedicated Trails or Easements. Require dedication or easements fior trails, as well as their imp(ementation, as part of the development process, where appropriate. Consistency: As discussed above, the project is providing the necessary pedestrian path network to connect future pedestrians from Stevens Creek Boulevard to the future tail head north of Vallco Parkway. The project is consistent with this strategy. Nei�hborhood and Communitv Parks Policv 2-74: Park Acrea� Provide parkland equal to a minimum of three acres for each 1,000 residents. Consistency: As discussed in Section 4.13 Pub(ic Services of the Initia( Study (see Appendix A), the project (under either scheme) would be required to provide 0.48 acres of parkland per the City's Parks policy. The project will be required to comply with the Municipal Code requirements for parkland dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees. In addition, both schemes propose 1.63 acres of private open space including an 0.88-acre town square and 0.75-acre park. Both the town square and park would have easements to altow for public use and access. For these reasons, the project is generally consistent with this policy. City of Cupertino I 16 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sec•liart h.0 — Co�7siste�ic►• rrith Rele�� u�1t Plcuts crirc� Po/icies Nei<� I1hOCIlOOC� dI1CI COIllIllUllity Parks Polic� ?-7�: Park Walkin� Distance. Ensure that each household is within a half-mile walk of a neighborhood park, or community pack �� ith neighborhood facilities, and that the eoute is reasonablv free of physical barriecs, including streets �a�ith heavy traffic. V1-'herever possible, provide pedestcian links between parks. Cnrzsistencr: As discussed in Section 4.13 Public Services and Figure 4.0-4 of the Initial Study (see Appendis A), there are currently no parks within a half-mile ofthe project site. The project includes a 0.7�-acre pri��ately ii�aintained park and 0.88-acre privately maintained towi� square ��-ith public easements. Through this measure, the project is Qenerall�� consistent with this policy. Nei�hborhood and Communitv Parks Policr 2-78: Park Minimum Acceave. Plan parks to be at least 3.� acres for flexibilit}' of use. The acquisition and development of parks less than 3.� acres may be considered accordin� to the following priorities: a) High Priority — desi�nated neighborhoods that have no park or recreational aceas; b) Moderate Priority — designated neighborhoods that have school grounds and no parkland; c) Loti Priorit� — designated neighborhoods that have park or recreation areas less than three acres per 1.000 residents. Consrslerrc�•: There are currently no parks within a half-mile of the project site. The project (undec either scheme) proposes a 0.75-acre park and 0.88-acre privately maintained town square. Based on the above policy, the project site area is considered `'high priority,'' and therefore a park of less than 3.� acres is acceptable. The proposed park acreage is consistent with the City's Park Ordinance. Nei�hborhood and Communitv Parks Strate�y_ Native Plants. Maximize the use of native plants and minimize water use. Consistenc}�: �['he project does not specifically propose to landscape the project site with native plants. However, as discussed in Sectioi14.17 of the lnitial Study (refer to Appendix A), tlle project proposes to include drought to(erant plant materials and high efficiency irrigation systems to minimize water use. For this reason, the p�•oject is generally consistent with the intent of this strategy. Nei�hborhood and Community Parks Strate��v. Where possible, open and restore covered creeks and riparian habitat. Consrstency: Calabazas Creek runs underneath the project site in a double box cu(vert east of Finch Avenue. The box culvert is maintained by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Currently, the District has no plan to replace or remove the existing culvert it the District's capital plans. Also, the design of the creek, if it were to be opened, would need to be deepened and lined with harden material to accommodate design flood flows and prevent erosion. Habitat restoration would not be possible due to the required design. Neighborhood and Community Parks Policy 2-80: Park Access and Visibilitv. Parks shall be designed to enhance public safety by providing visibility to the street and access by public safety responders. Consistency: The park is proposed along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The specific design of the park, including safety features, are unknown at this time but shall be reviewed and determined by the City Council at a later date. 16 Tibbits, Sue. Santa Clara Valley Water District. Communications. 4 May 2005. City of Cupertino 117 Draft EIR , Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectro�� h.0 — Co�asistenc�� i��ith Releram f'luns arrd Po/ici�s Implementation Polic� ?-8�: Ne�� Residential Development in Urban Core Areas. Provide paek and recreational space a��d facitities for ne�ti� cesidential developme��t in the urban core. Consistenci�: The project includes private open space. including a town square and park, �tihich will be accessible to the proposed residents as �ti�ell as the public. Specific recreational uses are not proposed at this time. The project is generally consistent with this policy. 6.2.1.3 Housinn Housin� Units and T�es Policv 3-3: Ran7e of Housin�Tvpes. Encourage the development of diverse housing stock that provides a range of housing types and atifordable levels. Consrstene��: The pcoject (under both schemes) proposed senioc housing. The proposed senior housing would be consistent with the Citv's Belo�v Market Rate (BMR) Ordinance, ��vhich requires 1 � percent of the units be affordable. 6.21.4 Cii•culution Regional Transportation Plannin�,� Stcategv: Traffic Impact Ana(ysis (T[AZ Require TIA reports that meet the requirements of the VTA for all developments p��ojected to generate more than 100 trips in the morning oc afternoon peak hour: Consistency: The TIA completed for the Deaft ElR (refer to Appendix A) was completed in accordance with the VTA Congestion Management Program Transportation Impact Anal Guidelines. The project is consistent with this strategy. Regional Transportation Plannin _ Sg trateg_v: Multi-modat Transportation. Ensure that connections are provided to enable travelers to transition from one mode of transportation to another, e.g., bicycle to bus. Consistency: As discussed in Section 2.1 Transportation of this E[R, thece are existing pedestrian, bicycle, roadway, and transit facilities in the project site vicinity. The project proposes pedestrian paths, bicycle parking, and vehicular parking through the pcoject site, which would allow travelers to transition between travel modes. The project is consistent with this strategy. Encoura�n� Alternatives to the Automobile Policy 4-2: Reduced Reliance on the Use of Sing(e- Occupant Vehicles. Promote a general decrease in reliance on private, mostly single-occupant vehicles by encouraging attractive alternatives. Corrsistency: The project proposes pedestrian paths through the project site and will implement measures to promote automobile-alternative modes of transportation (see mitigation and avoidance measures in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this EIR). The project is consistent with this policy. Encoura��Alternatives to the Automobile Strateg •��n ofNew Developments. Encourage new commercial developments to provide shared office facilities, cafeterias, day-care facilities, lunch rooms, showers, bicycle parking, home offices, shuttle buses to transit facilities, and other amenities that encourage the use of transit, bicycling, walking, or telecommuting as commute modes to work. Provide pedestrian pathways and orient buildings to the street to encourage pedestrian activity. City of Cupertino 118 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section h. O — Cunsiste��c)' iriih Relera��t Pl�r��s uiu! !'olicies ('os�sislc�»e��: The pcoject proposes pedestrian paths through the project site and will implement measures to pro►I�ote automobile-alternative modes of transportation (see mitigation and avoidance i»easures in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this EIR). ln addition, the project incliides pedestrian path«a��s through t11e site and pcoposes to orient buildin�s to along the perimeter of the site to the streets. Therefore. the project is consistent w°ith this strategy. Encoura�ina Alternatives to the Automobi(e Strate�y: Street Space for Alternative Transportation. � Pro��ide space on appropriate streets for bus turnouts, or safe and accessible bike lanes or pedestrian paths. Consrstencl�: The project shail be responsible for improving existing bus stops or constructing new bus pullouts and transit stops at convenient locations ��ith pedestrian access to the project site (see MM A(R — 2.1 in Section 2.2 Air Qualit}� of this EIR). ln addition, the project proposes pedestrian paths through the project site and shall implement measures to promote automobile-alternative modes of transportation (see mitigation and avoidance measures in Sections 2.l and 2.2 of this ElR). The project is consistent with this strategy. Public Transit Strate�v: Transit Facilities in New Developments. Ensure all new development projects include amenities to support public transit such as: bus stop shelters, space for transit vehicles to stop and maneu��er as needed, transit maps and schedu(es. Encourage commeccial and institutional developments to support bus passes for employees. Consrstency: The project will implement measures to facilitate automobile-alternative modes of t� including transit (refer to Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this EIR). For this ceason. the project is consistent with this strategy. Roadwavs Policy 4-6: Traffic Service and Land Use Development. Maintain a minimum LOS D for major intersections during the morning and afte� peak hours except the intecsection of Stevens Creek Boulevard with De Anza Boulevacd and Stelling Road which has an LOS standard of E+. Con.ristency: The proposed project would adversely impact the intersection of Vallco Parkway and Wolfe Road; however, the project will implement improvements at the intersection to maintain an acceptable level of� service (refer to Section 2.1 Transportation). As discussed in Section 2.1 Transportation, the project would result in significant and unavoidable (evel of service impacts at three intersections outside the City of Cupertino. Because the intersections are controlled and maintained by the County of Santa Clara, improvements to these intersections are not within the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino and would need to be approved and implemented by the County. The project is consistent with the City's roadways LOS policy for intersections within the City of Cupertino. Roadwavs Policv 4-8: Roadwav Plans that Complement the Needs of Adiacent Land Use. Design roadways based on efficient alignments, appropriate number and widths of traffic lanes, inclusion of medians, parking and bicycle lanes and the suitable width and (ocation of sidewalks as needed to support the adjacent properties. Consistency: The project proposes to narrow Vallco Parkway from six lanes to two lanes and add angled parking on the south side of Vallco Parkway, as well as relocate the existing bike lane that would be removed as a result of the on-street parking. The City and project applicant envisions that the reduction in road size together with the proposed land uses would help create a pedestrian- City of Cupertino 119 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Se��io�t 6.0 — C'onsi.s�tenc•�' iritl7 Rc:le��ant Pla��s ��j�c! Pulicies fciendly miYed corridor in this area. The project �vould also install ne�� side�� on Tantau A��enue and Valico Park��a��. The project is consistent with this policy. Roadwa��s Policv 4-10: Stceet Im�rovement Plannin�. Plan street improvements such as curb cuts. sidewalks, bus stop turnouts. bus shelters, light poles, benches and trash containers as an integral part of a project to ensure an er�hanced streetscape and the safe movement of peop(e and vehicles with the least possible disruption to the streetscape. Cor�sistenc}�: As discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the EIR, the project will provide appropriate pedestrian, transit, and bicvcle improvements and curb cuts for drive��ays for vehicle access. For this reason, the project is consistent with this policy. 6.2.1.5 Eni�ironmentul Resources/Sustuinubility� Energv Conservati�n/Efficiencv Policy 5-2: Conservation and Efficient Use of Ener�y Resources. Encourage the ma�imum feasible conservation and eft7cient use of electrical power and natural gas resources for new and existing residences, businesses, industrial, and public uses. Consistencv: As discussed in Section 1.0 Project DescriE�tion in this EIR, the project proposes (under either scheme) to include desibn features. ��hich promote energy efficieney, outlined i�� the United States Green Building Council's Leadecship in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system to be LEED certitied. The project includes design features such as incorporating passive and active solar features and installing energy efficient and environmentally contro(led lighting. For these reasons, the project is consistent with this policy. Green Bui(dings Strate�y: "Green Building Pro<�ram. Prepare and implement "green building'' standards for all majoc private and public projects that ensure reduction in energy consumption fo� new development through site and bui(ding desi�n. Consistenc>>: As discussed in Section 1.0 Project Descri�tion in this EIR, the project proposes (under eithec scheme) to include design features, inc(uding ones that promote energy efficiency. outlined in the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system to be LEED certified. The project includes design features such as incorporating passive and active solar features and installing energy efficient and environmentally controlled Iigllting. For these reasons, the project is consistent with this strategy. Air Qualit�Policy �-4: Air Pollution Effects of New Development. Minimize the air quality impacts of new development project and the impacts affecting new development. Consistency: As discussed in Section 2.2 of this E[R, the project will implement measures to reduce air quality impacts (from project vehicle trips and construction-related activities). In addition, the project is located at an infill location and proposes a mix of uses, denser development, and pedestrian and bicycle amenities, all of which could improve air qua(ity by reducing vehicle miles traveled and promoting automobile-alternative modes of transportation. For these reasons, the project is consistent with this policy. Air ualit SY trate�y: Dust Control. Require water application to non-polluting dust control measures during demolition and the duration of the construction period. City of Cupertino 120 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 S�ction 6.0 — Consrste»c•i• �ritl� Relercn�t Plixr�s a�1cl Pulici�.s Consistene�': As discussed in Section 2.2 of this EIR, the pcoject shafl implement dust control � measures t� reduce construction-related air quality impacts. The project is consistent with this stcategy. Air Qualit S tcate Plannin� Decisions. Assess the potential for air pollution effects of future land use and tcansportation planning. and ensure that planning decisions support regional goals of improvin� air quality. � Consistencv: An anal}'sis of aic quality impacts of the proposed project, including regional air quality impacts. is included in Section 2.2 of this EIR. The project is consistent with this strateQv. Air Quality Strate�;v: Em-iconmental Review. Evaluate the relationship of sensitive receptors. such as convalescent hospitals and cesidential uses, to pollution sources through the environmental � assessinent of new development. Corrsistenc��: The air quality� a�lalysis completed for this E[R (see Section 2.2 and Appendia .A) evaluates impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. The pt is consistent with this strategy. Air Qualitv Policv �-6: Walkin�. Jo�7��, and Bicvclin�. Encourage �valking, jogging. and bicyclin� instead of driving in the City. Consistency: The project includes pedestrian paths and mitigation measures to promote automobile- alternative modes of transportation (see Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this EIR). For this reason, the project is consistent �vith this policy. Water Resources Polic,y 5-20: Reduction of Impervious Surfaces. Minimize stormwater flo� and erosion impacts resulting from development. Consistency: As discussed in Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality oti the lnitial Study (see Appendix A of this E[R), the project shall imp(ement measures to minimize stormwater runoff and erosion impacts. Water Resources Policy 5-21: Pollution and Flow Impacts. Prior to making land use decisions, estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from projected future development to avoid surface and groundwater quality impacts. Consrstency: An analysis of hydrology and water quality impacts of the project are included in Section 4.8 of the Initial Study (refer to Appendix A). Water Resources Policv 5-31: Water Use EfficiencX. Promote efficient use of water throughout the City. Consisterrcy: The project proposes to incorporate drought tolerant plants and high efficiency irrigation systems to minimize water use. The project is consistent with this policy. Water Resources Policv 5-32: Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. Support and participate in the Santa Clara Val(ey Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program to improve the quality of stormwater runoff discharge into San Francisco Bay. City of Cupertino 121 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sc�ction 6.0 — Cot�sistencr irit/� Rele�•cr»t Pluns a�7d Policies Cor�sistehc�•: As discussed in Section �.8 Hydrology and Water Quality of the (nitial Study (refer to Appendix A), the project shall inco�porate best management practices (BMPs) to improve the qu�lity of stormwater runoff from the site that are consistent with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Pro�ram (SCVURPPP) "Guidance for [mplementing Storm ��ater Regulations for Ne�ti� aiid Redevelopment Projects.�� The project is consistent w•ith this policy. V1�'ater Resources Policv �-3=�: Storm�tiater Runoff. Encourage the reduction of impervious surface areas and investigate opportunities to retain or detain storm runoff on new development. Consrstenct•: As discussed ii� Section =�.8 Hydrology ai�d Water Quality of the Initial Study (refer to Appendix A). the project shall comply � ith the NPDES C.3 permit and incorporate BMPs and incocporate biocetention areas, bios��ales, porous concrete, and infiltration planters to reduce the amount of runoff from the site. Foc this ceason. the project is consistent with this po(icy. Water Resources Po(icy �-36: Miti<^ation for Potentia) Stormwater lmpacts. Require mitigation measures for potential stor�m�ater pollutant impacts for projects subject to environmental review. Consistenc��: As discussed in Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Qua(ity of the Initial Study (refer to Appendix A), the pcoject shall be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce water quality impacts. The project is coi�sistent �vith this policy. Water Resources Policy 5-37: Pest-Resistant Landscapin� and Desig Features. The City will encourage the consideration of pest-resistant landscaping and design features, and the incorporation of storm water detention and retention techniques in the design and landscaping of proposed development projects. Consistencl�: As discussed in Section 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality of the [nitial Study (refer to Appendix A), tlle project sha(I incorporate bioretention areas, bioswales, pocous concrete and infiltration planters to reduce the amount of runoff fi•om the site. In addition, the project applicant (including project arborist and (andscape architect) shall work with the City and SCVURPPP to select pest resistant plants to minimize pesticide use. The project is consistent with this policy. Solid Waste Policy �-40: On-site Garbage Area Dedication. Modify existing, and require foc new developments, on-site waste facility requirements for all multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial land uses to have 50 percent of their garbage area dedicated to recycling and no more than 50 percent garbage. Consrstency: The project shall be required to have 50 percent of the garbage areas dedicated to recycling and no more than 50 percent to garbage. The project would be consistent with this policy. Wastewater Policv 5-47: Vallco ParkwaX. Recognize that new high discharge users in the Val(co area and the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney� Avenue area will require private developers to pay for the upgrading of tributary lines. Consistency: The project applicant shall be responsible for utility improvements necessary to adequately serve the project. As part of the project, sanitary sewer flow testing shall be completed to determine if the project would exceed the capacity of the existing sewer lines at or downstream of the site. If the results of the testing show that the project would exceed the capacity of the existing sewer lines, the project proposes to up-size the sewer lines and connections to provide adequate capacity to serve the project. The project is consistent with this policy. City of Cupertino 122 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section 6.0 — Consisl�nc�� u� ith Rclercrn� Pla�rs and Policies 6.2.1.6 Kealth und Sc fet�� Geolo�ic and Seismic Hazards Policti� 6-l: Seismic/Geolo�ic Review Process. Evaluate new development proposals within mapped potential hazard zones using a formal seismic/geologic revie�� pcocess. Cu��sis�e�cl�: A geotechnical investigation was completed for the project and is included in the Initial � Studv (refer to Appendix A). The project shall implement mitigation measures to reduce seismic/geologic impacts to a less than signifiicant level. The project is consistent with this policy. Fire Hazard Policv 6-10: Multi-Story Buildin�s Fire Risks. Recognize that multi-story buildings of any (and use type inccease risks of fire. Ensure that adequate fire protection is built into the design and require on-site fire suppression materials and equipment to ensure the safety of the community. Consistenc}�: The proposed project will be constructed in conformance with applicable building codes, fire codes, and other regulations to reduce fire risks. The project is consistent with this po(icy. Fire Hazard Policv 6-14: Roadwati� Desi�n. Involve the Fire Department in the design of public coad�v�ays for review and coinments. Attempt to ensure that roadways 11ave frequent median breaks for timely access to properties. C'onsrstency: The City and the Santa Clara County Fire Department will review and approve the tinal site design of the project to ensure emergency vehicle access is not impeded. Crime and Police Services Policy 6-25: Crime Prevention in Buildin��. Consider the relationship between building design and crime prevention in reviewing all developments. Consislency: The City and the Santa Clara County Sherift�s Office wil( review and approve the final site design of the project, including measures to maintain visibility fi•om the street and other crime prevention measures. Disaster Plannin�, Flood Plain Strategy: Finished Floor Level. Install the first tloor finish level of all habitable space of new construction above the inundation level of a projected 100-year flood. Consistency: The project shall elevate the finished floor of the residential building above the 100- year flood level. The commercial area of the project site shall be graded and designed to accommodate flood waters in the parking lot and/or streets. Refer to Section 4.8 of the Initial Study for more detail (see Appendix A). The project is consistent with this strategy. Noise Pollution Policy 6-50: Land Use Decision Evaluation. Use the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments chart and the City Municipal Code to evaluate (and use decisions. Consistency: As discussed in Section 4.11 of the Initial Study (refer to Appendix A), the project with the implementation of identified mitigation measures, would be consistent with the General P(an Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments chart and the City Municipal Code. Noise Pollution Policv 6-58: Commercial Delivery Areas. Be sure new commercial or industrial developments plan their delivery areas so they are away form existing or planned homes. City of Cupertino 123 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectinn <_0 —Con,crstencl• i�•ith Rtl��l•cutt Pla�u• uircl Pulicie.c Cor�siste��c��. "[l�e project includes a loadin�� area near existing and �roposed residential uses. While the proposed loadin� area is in proximit�� to residential units, commerciai deliveries or pickups «ill be prohibited bet�een the hours of 8:00 PNi and 8:00 AM weekdays (Monday throu�h Friday) and 6:00 PNl and 9:00 AM on «�eekends (Saturday and Sunday) and holidays per the City's Municipal Code (10.=�8.062). The project �tias fiound not to have significant land use compatibility or noise impacts (refec to the [nitial Study in Appendix A). The project is generally consistent with this polic�. Noise Pollution Polic� 6-�9: Delivec�- Hours. Actively enfot Section 10.48 of the Municipal Code limitin� commercial and industrial delivery hou► adjoiniug residential uses. Cor�si.ti�terrcl': As a condition of approval, future users of the site will be responsible for compliance w�ith Municipal Code Section I0.�8. Noise Pollution Po(icy 6-61: Hours of Construction Work. Restrict non-emergency building construction work near Ilomes during evening, early morning, and weekends bv enforcing the noise rebulations i�1 the Municipal Code. Consistencv: As a condition of approval, the project shall comply with Municipal Code Section 10.48.053 that cestricts noise-generating activities at the construction site to daytime hours only. Construction within 7�0 feet ofresidences shall be prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. The project is consistent �vith this policy. Noise Pollution Polic�,6-62: Constcuction and Maintenance Activities. Re��ulate construction and maintenance activities. Establish and enforce reasonable allowable periods of the day, for weekdays. weekends, and holidays for construction activities. Require construction contractors to use only construction equipment incorporating the best available noise control technology. Consistenc��: The project shall be required to comply witll the City's Municipal Code regarding construction hours and '`quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources sha(I be used by contractors where technology exists (refer to Section 4.11 of the Initia( Study in Appendix A). The project is consistent with this policy. 6.2.2 Zoning Ordinance The project site is part of larger 41-acre area zoned Mixed-Use Planned Development (1-Z-83). The 41-acre area is generally bound by Val(co Parkway and I-280 to the north, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south, and Wolfe Road to the west. The I-Z-83 zoning allows commercial, office, hotel, and residential uses. The following design standards are incorporated into the existing zoning on the site: 1. In general, abrupt changes in building scale shall be avoided. A gradual stepped transition shall occur between the street and the center of the property. An abrupt pedestrian exposure to tall building facades shall be avoided in order to maintain a comfortable human scale at ground level. 2. As a general rule, building heights in the Vallco Park Planning Area shou(d not exceed eight stories with the exception of the hotel which is unspecified. The final approved height of buildings in Vallco Park, including the hotel, will be determined in conjunction with subsequent development applications. 3. The building facades on Stevens Creek Boulevard shall be periodically punctuated witll open space corridors to prevent a continuous wall effect. City of Cupertino 124 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 S�clio�� <.0 — Co�tsisiefic'��' �ri[!t Rt/ercu�l /'lc��is crnc! Polic•res Co�asistenci�: T'he proposed commeccial, oFfice, hotel, and residential uses under both Schenae 1 and Scheiz�e ? are consistent with the e�:isting zonin�� designation of 1-Z-83. The existin� zoning designation stipulates that the maxiinum permitted flooc area ratio (FAR) for the -�1-acre acea zoned 1-"1.-83, which includes the project site, is 0.?� for commercial uses, 0.37 for oftice uses. and 0.33 foc industrial uses. For Sche»�e 1, the FAR on the project site is 0.39 for commercial uses and 0.13 for office uses. While the commercial FAR on the project site is �reater than 0.25, as required by the zoning designation, the overall commercial FAR for the 41-acre area is 0.25 or below. For Scheme 2, the FAR on the project site is 0.19 for commercial uses and 0.27 for office uses. With the proposed project (under either scheme), the FAR for the 41-acre area is about 0. I � for commeccial uses, 0.17 for office uses, and 0.05 for industrial uses.�' In addition, the zoning designation has desibn standards, which were listed above. V1-'hile the project does not have a stepped transition between the streets and the center of the site, as outlined in design standard l, the project inc(udes setback areas and landscaping. ln addition, the proposed buildings are of similac Ileight to the adjacent Metropolitan development west of the site. For this reason, the project is generally consistent with desigi� standard I. The proposed project would be consistent witll design standards 2 and 3 because the proposed buildings would not ehceed eight stories tall and the building facades proposed on Stevens Creek Boulevard would include landscaping and open space to prevent a continuous wall effect. Based on the above discussion, the project is generally consistent with Zoning Ordinance, including the design standards. Table 6.0-1 Summa of Pro'ect Consistencv with Relevant Plans and Policies Pro'ect Consistent? Plan/Policy Yes Somewhat No Re ional Plans and Policies Bav Area 2005 Ozone Strate � ✓ San Francisco Ba Re ion Water Qualitv Contcol Plan ✓ Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Progcam and � National Pollution Discllar e Elimination S stem Santa Claca Count Con estion M.ana ement Pro cam ✓ Local Plans and Policies General Plan South vallco Master Plan ✓ Land Use arrd Ti•ans ortatiorx Dia ram ✓ Land Use/Conznzunity Desi rt Urban Centers Policy 2-1: Concentrated Development in Urban � Centers Urban Centers Strate : Mixed Use ✓ Urban Centecs Policy 2-2: Connections Between Centers and the � Communi Urban Centers Strate y: Nei hborhood Connections ✓ Urban Centers Strate y: Pub(ic Access ✓ " Chao, Gary. Personal Communications. 8 October 2008. City of Cupertino 125 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 S� c�tion 6.0 — Caisrslertc•�• �rith Relerunt Plcrrzc u�rd Policres Table 6.0-1 Summa � of Pro'ect Consistencv� �vith Relevant Plans and Policies Plan/Policy Pro'ect Consistent:' ` Yes Somewhat No Urban Centecs Polic 2-4: Active S aces ✓ Urban Centers Strate y: Sense of P(ace ✓ Urban Centers Strate v: Public Areas ✓ Nei� hborhoods Polic � 2-�: Distinct Neighborhoods ✓ Urban Secvice Area Policv ?-10: Urban Areas ✓ Building Form Policv 2-13: Urban Building Forms ✓ Bui(ding Form Strategy: Maximum Building Heights and Setback � Ratios Quilding Form Strategy: Multiple-Story Buildings and Residential � Districts Buildin� Form Strate : Cohesiveness of Buildin s ✓ E3uilding Form Strate >y: Chan es in Building Sca(e ✓ Building and Site Design Policy 2-14: Attractive Building and Site � Desi 7n Building and Site Design Strategy: Parking Placement in Ne�v � Develo ment Building and Site Desi n Strate y: Desi n Guidelines ✓ E3uilding and Site Design Policy 2-15: Multi-Family Residential � Desi n Buildin and Site Desi n Strate v: Provision of Outdoor Areas ✓ Streetscape and Transitions Strategy: Stceet-oriented Building � Desi n Streetsca e and Transitions Strate �: Street Trees ✓ Balancin Land Uses Polic 2-19: Jobs/Housin Balance ✓ Balancing Land Uses Strate y: Housin and Mixed Use ✓ Balancin Land Uses Strate : Housin Im act ✓ Allocating Development Potential Policy 2-20: Diversity of Land � Use Allocating Development Potential Strategy: Citywide Development � Allocation Allocatin Develo ment Potential Strate : Ma'or Com anies ✓ Allocatin Develo ment Potential Strate �: Flexible Allocations ✓ Commeccial Center Polic 2-30: Vallco Park South ✓ Commercial Center Strate y: Val(co Park�va ✓ Office/Industrial Development Policy 2-42: Revenue Analysis of � Office Develo ments Office/Industrial Development Policy 2-44: Maintaining Cohesive � Commercial Centers and Office Parks Historic Resources Polic 2-63: Archaeolo icall Sensitive Areas ✓ Historic Resources Strate : Develo ment Investi ation ✓ Historic Resources Polic 2-64: Native American Burials ✓ Historic Resources Strate ✓ Private Open Space Resources Policy 2-72: Public Use of Private � O en S ace Trails Polic 2-73: O en S ace and Trail Linka es ✓ Trails Strategy: Trail Pro�ects ✓ City of Cupertino 126 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 St e•�ion 6.0 — C'onsister�c�� irith Relercrflt Pluns und Polrcies Table 6.0-1 Summarv of Pro'ect Consistencv with Rele��ant Plans and Policies Plan/Policv Pro'ect Consistent? ` Yes Somewhat 1�io Trails Strate 7v: Dedicated Trails or Easements ✓ Neighborhood and Communitv Parks Polic�� 2-7�1: Park Acrea �e ✓ Neighborhood and Community Parks Policv 2-7�: Park Walking � � Distai�ce Neighborhood and Community Parks Polic�� 2-78: Park Minimum � Acrea e Nei�=hborhood and Comm�mitv Parks Strate 7�: Native Plants ✓ Nei liborhood and Comi��unit}• Parks Stratea � ✓ Neighborhood and Community Parks Polic�� 2-80: Park Access and � Visibilitv Imp(ementation Polic�� 2-85: New Residential Development in ✓ Urban Core Area Housi�� Housin T Units and Tv es Policv 3-3: Ran�e of Housin T'vpes ✓ Circulation Regional T'ranspoctation Planning Strateg��: T� [mpact Analysis � (TIA) Regional Transportation Planning Strategy: Multi-modal � Trans ortation Encouraging Alternatives to the Automobile Polic} 4-2: Reduced � Reliance on the Use of Sin le-Occu ant Vehicle Encouraging Alternatives to the Automobile Strategy: Design of � Ne�v Develo ments Encouraging Alternatives to the Automobile Strategy: Street Space � for Alternative Trans ortation Public Transit Strate : Transit Facilities in New Develo ments ✓ Roadwa s Polic 4-6: Traffic Service and Land Use Develo ment ✓ Roadways Policy 4-8: Roadway Plans that Complement the Needs � of Ad�acent Land Use • Roadwa s Polic 4-10: Street Im rovement Plannin ✓ Em�ironr�lental Resources/Sustaifaabili Plannin for Sustainabili Polic 5-L• Princi les of Sustainabili ✓ Energy Conservation/Efficiency Policy 5-2: Conservation and � Efficient Use of Ener Resources Green Buildin s Strate :"Green Buildin '' Pco ram ✓ Air Quali Polic 5-4: Air Pollution Effects of New Develo ment ✓ Air Qualit Strate : Dust Control ✓ Air Quali Strate : P(annin Decisions ✓ Air Quality Strate : Environmental Review ✓ Air Quality Polic 5-6: Walkin , Jo in , and Bic clin ✓ Water Resources Polic 5-20: Reduction of Im ervious Surfaces ✓ Water Resources Po(ic 5-21: Pollution and Flow Im acts ✓ Water Resources Polic 5-31: Water Use Efficienc ✓ Water Resources Policy 5-32: Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention � Pro ram Water Resources Policy 5-34: Stormwater Runoff ✓ City of Cupertino l27 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Scctiun h.0 — Consistenc�• irilh Rcle�•�rnt Pluns cmc! Pvlic�iEs Table 6.0-1 Summar�� of Pro'ect Consistencv with Relevant Plans and Policies Plan/Polic�' Pro'ect Consistent? ` Yes Somewhat No Water Resources Polic�� -36: Mitigatioi� for Fotential Storm��ater � [m acts Water Resow�ces Policy� 5-37: Pest-Resistant Landscaping and � Desi n Features Solid Waste Polic�� -40: On-site Garbage Area Dedication ✓ Waste�i�ater Policv 5-46: Sunnyvale Treatment Plant ✓ Waste��-ater Polic�� 5-47: Vallco Parh«av ✓ Healtlt artd Safetl' Geologic and Seismic Hazards Policy� 6-l: Seismic/Geologic � Revie�v Process Fire Hazard Polic � 6-10: Multi-Sto� � Buildin is Fire Risks ✓ Fire Hazard Policv 6-14: Roadwav Desi n ✓ Crime and Police Services Policy 6-25: Crime Prevention in � Building Desi n Disastec Planiiin T, Flood Plain Strate �: Finished Floor Le�e( ✓ Noise Pollution Polic 6-50: Land Use Decision Evaluation ✓ Noise Pollution Policv 6-58: Commercial Deliver}' Areas ✓ Noise Pollution Policv 6-59: Delive� Hours ✓ Noise Pollution Policy 6-61: Hours of Construction Work ✓ Noise Pollution Polic}' 6-62: Construction and Maintenance � Activities Zonin Ocdinance ✓ City of Cupertino l28 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 SECTION 7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR identif� alternatives to a project as it is pcoposed. The CEQA Guidelines specify that the E[R should identify alternatives which "��ould feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project." The purpose of this section is to determine whether there are alternatives of design, scope, or location which would substantiall� lessen the significant impacts, even if those alternatives "impede to some degree the attainment of the p�•oject objectives" or are more expensive (� 1 � 126.6). In ocder to comply with the pucposes of CEQA, it is important to identify� altecnatives that redtice the significant impacts �ahich ace anticipated to occur if the project is implemented, but to try to meet as many of the project's objectives as possible. The CEQA Guidelines emphasize a common sense approach — the alternatives should be reasonable, "foster informed decision making and public participation,'° a��d focus on a(ternatives that avoid or substantially lessen the signiticant impacts. The range of alternatives selected for analysis is governed by the '`rule of reason" which requires the ElR to discuss only those alternatives necessaiy to permit a reasoned choice. T'he three critical factors to consider in selecting and evaluating alternatives are, therefore: I) the significant impacts from the proposed pcoject which could be reduced or avoided by an alternative, 2) the project's objectives, and 3) the feasibility of the alternatives available. Each of these factors is discussed below. 7.1 SIGNIFICA1vT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT As mentioned above, the CEQA Guidelines advise that the alternatives analysis in an ElR should be limited to alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and would achieve most of the project objectives. As discussed previously in this EIR, the project has significant and unavoidable transportation, cumulative transportation, regional air quality, and cumulative regional air quality impacts. Other significant impacts of the project, as identified in this E[R and lnitial Study (Appendix A), include: • construction impacts to nesting birds and trees; • impacts to buried cultural resources; • air quality impacts related to construction activities (dust and equipment exhaust); • ambient noise and construction-related noise impacts; � geology and soils impacts; and • hydrology and water Quality impacts. These impacts woutd be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation measures included in the project. CEQA encourages consideration of an alternative site when impacts of the project might be avoided or substantially lessened. However, there is not an available alternative location within the City of similar size to the project site. In addition, the significant traffic and air qua(ity impacts of the proposed project would not be avoided or substantially lessened by locating the project elsewhere in the City. For this reason, an alternative location is not evaluated. City of Cupertino 129 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Se�tiun �. 0 — .-1 /te��nalires !o the Projec! 7.2 PROJECT OBJECT[VES While CEQA does not require that alternatives must be capable of ineeting all of the project objectives, their ability to meet most of the objectives is considered relevant to their consideration. � The applicant has indicated that the objectives of the project are: A. Develop the underutilized 18.7-acee pcoperty at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Fii�ch Avenue � into an economically viable infill. mixed-use project ��°ith retail uses, office uses, senior housing units, a hotel, and possibly an athletic club; B. Develop high-qualitti' shoppin;�, dini�tg. and commercial area that will be community servin� while a(so holding regional appeaL•� C. Create a"Main Street ' st}�le e�.perience that is pedestrian oriented; D. lmplement Cupertino citv��ide �oals as expressed in the General Plan encouraging commercial-oriented developinent in the South Vallco Park area; E. Connect well with the adjacent properties; and F. (ntegrate useable open space into the project. 7.3 FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines. and the case (aw on the subject have found that feasibility can be based on a wide range of factors and influences. The Guidelines advise that such factors can include (but are not necessarily limited to) tl�e suitability of an alternate site, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, consistency with a general plan or with other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whethec the project proponent can "reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site [� 15126.6(�(1)]." 7.4 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES In addition to 'No Project," the Guidelines advise that the range of alternatives discussed in the EIR should be limited to those that "would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project [§ 15126.6(�].'' The proposed project (under either scheme) would result in significant level of service impacts at intersections and freeway segments on [-280, as well as significant cumulative intersection impacts. [n addition, the project (under either scheme) would result in significant regional air qua(ity impacts and significant cumulative regional air quality impacts; as well as temporary construction-related air quality impacts. Other significant impacts of the project as identified in the Initial Study (Appendix A), which would be reduced to a less than significant level with identified mitigation measures, include impacts to nesting birds and trees, buried cultural resources, ambient noise levels, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality. The discussion below addresses several alternatives which could reduce these project impacts. The components of these alternatives are described below, followed by a discussion of their impacts and how they would differ from those of the proposed project. A summary of the environmental impacts of the proposed project and the project a(ternatives is provided in Table 7.0-1 at the end of this section. ' According to the applicant, a com�nercial development with "regional appeal" is one that has destination stores and/or restaurants. It is envisioned that the "major retail" building proposed at the northwest corner of the project site in either scheme (see Figures 1.0-4 and 1.0-8) could be occupied by a retail tenant with "regional appeal." City of Cupertino 130 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Secti�»7 - .0 —.-1/ternutives to the Projtc;l 7.S PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 7.�.1 No Proiect Alternatives The CEQA Guidelines speciticall} requice considecation of a"No Project'� Alternative. The purpose in including a No Project Altecnative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with tlle impacts of not approving the project. The Guidelines specifically advise that the No Project alternative is "«�hat ��ould be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeab(e future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and communit}� services." The Guidelines emphasize that an E[R should take a practical approach, and not "...create and analyze a set of artiticial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environ�nent [�l� 126.6(e)(3)(B)]." The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Under the No Project Altenlative, the project site could continue to remain vacant and undeveloped or it could be developed with uses consistent with the Citys General Plan and zoning. Given the available development allocations in the Vallco Park South area and the existing Genera) Plan land use designation and zonin, on the site, the site could be developed with 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, a 750 room hotel, and 400 senior housing units. For these reasons, thece are two logical No Project alternatives: I) a No Project/No Development Alternative and 2) a No Project/Development Alternative. 7.5.1.1 No Project/No Development Alternative The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that the project site would continue to remain vacant and undeveloped. Comparison of Environmental Impacts The No Project/No Development A(ternative would avoid all environmental impacts of the project. Relationship to Project Objectives The No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. Conclusion The No Project/No Development Alternative wou(d avoid all of the project's impacts but would not meet any of the project objectives. 7.5.1.2 No Project/Development Alternative It should be noted that if the proposed project is not approved, another development proposal, in conformance with the General Plan (and use designation and zoning, could be developed on the site. The No Project/Development Alternative assumes that the project site would be developed with 200,000 square feet of commercial uses (of which could include an athletic club), a 750 room hotel, and 400 senior housing units. While the City's General Plan does allow flexibility among the allocations assigned to each geographic area, the No Project/Development Alternative assumes no office deve(opment on the project site. City of Cupertino 131 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Seclron -.0 — _-�1lernatirES !�� tlt� Pi�c�ject Comparison of Environmental Impacts The development under the No Project/Development Alternative would generate similac teaffic trips as the proposed project (approkimately 16.700 average daily trips); therefore, the No � Project/Development Alternative would result in similar traffic, cumulative traffiic, regional aic qualitti�, and cumulative re�ional air quality impacts as the proposed project. ln addition, the No Project/Development Alternative would result in similar impacts to nesting birds, trees, cultural resources, ai�• quality (re��ardin� construction dust and construction equipment exhaust). noise (regarding ambient noise levels and construction-related noise). geology and soils. and hydrology and water quality. Relationship to Project Objectives The No Project/Development Alternative would generally meet project objective A by developing on the 18.7-acre project site with a mia of retail, senior housing, and hotel uses. However, this alternative does not include tl�e development of office uses which is part of objective A. The No Project/Development Atternative could conceivablv meet project objectives B— F, which include developing a high-quality shopping, dining, and commercial area with community and cegional appeal, creating a pedestrian-ociented development, providing connectivity between the project site and the adjacent properties, and providing usable open space. Conclusion The No Project/Development Alternative wouid resu(t in similar environmental impacts as the proposed project and could conceivably meet five of the six project objectives (objectives B— F), but would not meet project objective A. This alternative is not environmentally superior to the project. 7.5.2 Reduced Scale Alternatives A traffic sensitivity analysis was completed by Fehi° & Peers in August 2008 to determine what amount of development could be allowed to avoid some or all of the traffic impacts of the proposed project. The analysis is included in Appendix E of this EIR. The scale of the project was reduced twice to determine: 1) the amount of development that would avoid all transportation impacts except those to two intersections and 2) all traffic impacts. Therefore, two reduced sca(e alternatives are analyzed: 1) Reduced Transportation Impacts Alternative and 2) No Transportation Impacts A (ternative. 7.�.2.1 Reduced Transportation Impacts Alternative Under the Reduced Transportation Impacts Alternative, the amount of project development was reduced until only two intersections (Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway and Lawrence Expressway/I-280 southbound ramps-Calvert Drive) were impacted. This level of reduction was chosen because these intersections are either a) located in the immediate vicinity of the project site and project traffic represents a substantial percentage of total traffic volume at the location or b) because they are operating close to unacceptable levels of service under background conditions and even slight increases in traffic trigger project-level impacts. The Reduced Transportation lmpacts Alternative assumes the development of 75,000 square feet of retail uses, 160 senior housing units, and a 250 room hotel. This represents a 100 percent reduction in proposed office and athletic club uses, and an approximately 50 percent reduction in proposed retail uses. City of Cupertino 132 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Section - .0 —_ Ilternatires to the Proj�ct Com�arison of Environmental Impacts The Reduced Transportation (il�pacts Altecnative reduces the amount of development on the project site in comparison to the proposed project, therefore reducing the pcoject's average daily trips. This alter��ative reduces the pcoject's avecage daily teips to approximately 6,130. Since this alternative would result in less traffic trips than the proposed project, this alternative would result in lesser traffic and air quality impacts than the proposed project. Based on the traffic sensitivity ana(ysis, the Reduced Transportation Impacts Alternative would avoid the project's significant impact at the intersections of La��rence E�pressway/Homestead Road (which ��ould occuc under both project schemes in the AM peak hour) and Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue/Lawrence Expresswa�� (�vhich ��ould only occuc under Scl�en�e 1 in the PM peak hour), as ��ell as the project's significant impacts to freeway segments on I-280. However, this alternative would result in similar impacts to the intersections of Wolfe Road/Va(Ico Yarkway and Lawrence Expressway/1-280 southbound ramps-Calvert Drive. The Reduced Transportation [mpacts Alternative �vould avoid the project's significant regional air quality impacts, as well as the project's significant cumulative regional air quality impacts. As shown in Table 2.2-14, project emissions under Scheme 2(which generates 10,692 average daily trips) would exceed the thresholds by one and five percent foc ROG and NO�, respective(}�. The amount of project vehicle trips, along with othec factors, affects the amount of emissions aenerated by the project. Given tllat this a(ternative ��-ould have less than 60 percent of the project's daily trips under Scheme ?, it can be assumed that the emissions under Scheme 2 would be reduced by at (east 10 to 20 percent.�`' Therefore, this alternative would not result in significant emissions of ROG, NO�, or PM,�,. This alternative would result in similar temporary construction-related air qua(ity, ambient noise and construction-►•elated noise, cu(tural resources, and geology and soils impacts as the proposed project. Since this alten�ative reduces the amount of development on the site, the area of impact may be reduced thereby impacting fewer nesting birds and trees than the proposed project. ln addition, if less of the project site is disturbed, this alternative may resu(t in lesser hydrology and water quality impacts than the proposed project. Relationship to Project Objectives The Reduced Transportation fmpacts Alternative wou(d not meet project objective A of fully developing the 18.7-acre project site with a mix of retail uses, ofifice uses, senior housing, a hotel, and possibly aii athletic club. This alternative would result in a 100 percent reduction in proposed office and athletic club uses, and an approximately 50 percent reduction in proposed retail uses. This alternative could conceivably meet project objectives B— F, which include developing a high-quality shopping, dining, and commercial area with community and regional appeal, creating a pedestrian- oriented development, providing connectivity between the project site and the adjacent properties, and providing usable open space. �� Reyff, James. Illingworth & Rodkin, Project Manager. Personal Communications. 22 September 2008. City of Cupertino l33 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectio» �.0 —.-�her�lulires to the: Prc�jec•� Conclusion The Reduced Transportation Impacts Alternative would avoid the project's impact to the intersections of La��rence Expi•essway/Homestead Road (which would occur under both project schemes ii� the AM peak hour) and Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue/Lawrence E�:p� («�hich would only occur under Scheme 1 in the PM peak hour), freeway segments on I-280, re`7ional air quality, and cumulative regional air quality impacts. However, this alternative would result in similar traffic impacts at the intersections of Wolfe RoadNalico Parkway and La�� Expressway/1-?80 southbound ramps-Calvert Drive, as well as freeway segments on I-?80, as the proposed project. This alternative would result in similar temporary construction-related air qualit�. ambient noise and construction-related noise, cultural resources, and geology and soils impacts as the proposed project. Since this alternative reduces the amount of development on the site, the area of impact may be reduced thereby impacting fewer nesting birds and trees than the proposed project. In addition, if less ot the project site is disturbed, this alternative may result in lesser hydrology a��d water quality impacts than the proposed project. The Reduced Transportation [mpacts Alternative could conceivably meet five of the si� project objectives (B-F), but would not meet project objective A. 7.5.2.2 No Ti•ui�sportution Impucts Alternative As discussed above, a traffic sensitivity analysis was completed by Feh�• & Pee��s in August 2008 to deten�ine what amount of development could be allowed to avoid traffic impacts of the proposed project. The analysis is included in Appendix E of this EIR. In the sensitivity a��alysis. the project development was reduced until all significant traffic impacts resulting from the project were avoided. The analysis found that the development of up to 5,000 square feet of commerciai uses and 50 senioc housing units would avoid significant traffic impacts. Therefore, the Reduced Development/No Transportation [mpacts Alternative assumes 5,000 square feet of commercial uses and �0 senior housing units are developed on the project site. Comparison of Environmental Impacts The No Transportation Impacts Alternative reduces the amount of development on the project site in comparison to the proposed project, therefore reducing the project's average daily trips. The No Transportation Impacts Alternative would reduce the project's average daily trips to about 430 trips average dai(y trips. Since this alternative would result in less traffic trips, this alternative would result in (esser traffic and air quality impacts than the proposed project. Based on the traffic sensitivity analysis, the No Transportation Impacts Alternative would avoid all of the project's significant impacts to intersections and freeway segments. In addition, this alternative would avoid the project's significant regional air quality impacts and cumulative regional air quality impacts. As discussed previously under the Reduced Transportation Impacts Alternative, an alternative that generates 6,130 average daily trips is not anticipated to result in significant emissions of ROG, NO or PMi� The No Transportation Impacts Alternative would reduce the project's average daily trips to 430, which is less than 6,130 average daily trips; therefore, this alternative would not result in significant emissions of ROG, NO�, or PM�o. This alternative would result in similar temporary construction-related air quality, cultural resources, and geology and soiis impacts as the proposed project. Since this alternative reduces the amount of City of Cupertino 134 Draft E1R Main Street Cupertino October 2008 S�c•tron -.0 —.�lltei•i�atirE:s to the Projert development on the site, the area of impact ina}� be reduced thei•eby impacting fewer nestin�� birds and trees than the proposed project. In addition, if less of the project site is disturbed. this alternative may result in lesser hydro(ogy and water quality impacts than the pcoposed project. Also, depending on the location of the uses in respect ro the surrounding land uses (e.g., existing residences to the ��est and roadways), this alternative may result in lesser ambient noise and construction-related noise impacts. 7.5.3.2 Relationship to Project Objectives The No Transportation tmpacts Alternative would not meet project objective A of fully developing the 18.7-acre project site ��ith a mih of retail uses, oftice uses, senioc housing, a hotel, and possibly an athletic club. This No Transportation Impacts Alternative would substantially reduce the amount of retail and senior housing on tlle site and would eliminate the proposed athletic club, hotel, and office uses. This alternative would not fully meet project objectives B— D, which include developing a high-quality shopping, dining, and commercial area with cominunity and reaional appeal, and a pedestrian-oriented development with a"Main Street'" style. Pedestrian connectivity and open space would be provided under tllis alternative. 7.5.3.3 Conclusion The No Transportation lmpacts Alternative would avoid the project's significant traffic impacts and significant regional air quality impact. This alternative would result in similar temporary construction-related air quality, cultural resources, and geo(ogy and soils impacts as the proposed project. Since this alternative reduces the amount of development on the site, the area of impact may be reduced thereby impacting fewer nesting birds and trees than the proposed project. In addition, if less of the project site is disturbed, this alternative may result in lesser hydrology and water quality impacts than the proposed project. Also, depending on the location of the uses in respect to the surrounding land uses (e.g., existing residences to the west and roadways), this alternative may result in (esser ambient noise and construction-related noise impacts. The No Transportation [mpacts Alternative would not fully meet four of the sia project objectives (A — D) and meet the other two objectives (E and F). 7.5.4 Environmentallv Sunerior Alternative The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative. Based on the above discussion, the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project/No Development because all of the project's significant environmental impacts would be avoided. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that '`if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." For this EIR, other than the No Project/No Development, the No Transportation Impacts Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative to the project. City of Cupertino l 35 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Table 7.0-1 Matrix Com arison of Pro'ect Alternative Im acts No Pro'ect Alternatives Reduced Scale Atternative Impacts Proposed No Project/No No Project/ Reduced No Transportation Project Transportation Im�acts Development Develo�ment Im acts Alternative Alternative Intersections • Vallco Parkwa and Wolf'e Road SM NI SM SM LTS • Lawrence Expressway and 1-280 SU NI SU SU LTS southbound ram s-Calvert Drive � Lawrence Expressway and Homestead SU NI SU LTS LTS Road • Bollinger Road/Moorpark Avenue and SU NI SU LTS LTS Lawrence Ex resswa Scheme 1 onl ) Freewa Se ments on I-280 SU NI SU SU LTS Cumulative Traffic SU NI SU SU LTS Re ional air ualit SU NI SU LTS LTS Tem orar construction-related SM NI SM SM SM Cumulative Re ional Air Qualit SU NI SU LTS LTS Construction im acts to nestin birds SM NI SM SM SM Construction im acts to trees SM NI SM SM SM Buried cultural resources SM NI SM SM SM Ambient noise SM NI SM SM SM Construction-related noise SM NI SM SM SM Geolo and Soils SM Nl SM SM SM H drolo and Water Qualit SM Nl SM SM SM Meets Pro'ect Ob'ectives Yes No Partiall Partiall Partiallv Notes: Boid teYt indicates environmentally superior to the proposed project. SM = Significant impact, but can be mitigated to a less than significant level SU = significant and unavoidable impact LTS = less than si nificant im act NI = no im act SECTION 8.0 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES This section was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c), which requires a discussion of the si�nificant irreversible changes that would result from the implementation of a proposed project. Si�nificant icceversible changes include the use of nonrenewable resources. the commitment of future generations to similar use, irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents associated with the project, and ircetrievable commitments of resources. Applicable enviconmental changes are described in more detail below. 8.1 USE OF NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES The proposed project, during construction and operation, will require the use and consumption of nonrene�vable resources. Renewable resources, sueh as lwnber and other wood byproducts, �vill also be used. Unlike renewable resources, nonrene��able resources cannot be regenerated over time. Nonrenewable resources include fossi! fuels and metals. Energy will be consumed during both the construction and operational phases of the project (unde�• either scheme). The construction phase will requice the use of nonrenewable construction material. such as concrete, metals, and plastics. Nonrenewable resources and energy would also be consumed during the manufacturing and transportation of buildings materials, preparation of the site, and construction of the buildings. The operational phase will consume energy for multiple purposes including, building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy, in the form of fossil fuels, will be used to fuel vehicles traveling to and from the project site. The project would result in substantial increase in demand upon nonrenewable resources. Ho��ever, tl�e project �vill be developed in conformance with the City's strategies and policies regarding energ� use, which foster development that reduces the use of nonrenewable energy resources in transportation, buildings, and urban services (utilities). In addition, the project proposes to be LEED certified, which can include incorporating green building principles and practices into the planning, design, construction, management, and operations of buildings. Specific green building principals and sustainable landscape design features the project proposes are outlined in Section 1.0 Project Description. 8.2 COMMITMENT OF FUTURE GENERATIONS TO SIMILAR USE The project proposes a mix of retail, office, senior housing, and hotel uses. The development of the proposed project would commit a substantial amount of resources to grade the site, construct the buildings, and operate them. 8.3 IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE RESULTING FROM ENVIRONMENTAL ACCIDENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT The project does not propose any new or uniquely hazardous uses, and its operation would not be expected to cause environmental accidents that would impact other areas. As discussed in Section 4.7 Hazardous Materials in the Initial Study (see Appendix A), there are no significant on-site or off- site sources of contamination (such as on-site soil or groundwater contamination) that would substantially affect the proposed future uses on the project site. City of Cupertino 137 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Sectio�� 5.0 — SiKnifrcan� ��I Iri•err�� Einvroi�mcntUl C'haf�ges The project site is (ocated within a seismically active region and the proposed project ��ould be subject to soil hazards related to undocumented fill and expansive soils on-site. Conformance with the standard engineering p► in the Uniform Building Code tor Seismic Zone 4 construction standards and implementation of the recommendations in the projeet-specific �eotechnical report to � be prepared for the project would not result i�� significant geologica( iil�pacts (refer to Section �.6 Geolo�y and Soils in the Initia) Study, Appendix A). fn addition, the project would not be placing sensitive receptors (i.e.. senior housing) near sources of air pollution that could result in sig��ificant health risks in the event of envieonmental accidents. The project, with the imp(ementation of the proposed mitigation measures to reduce �eology and soils impacts (refer to Section 4.6 Geology and Soils in the lnitial Study). ��ould not likely result in irreversible damage that may result from environmental accidents. City of Cupertino 138 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 SECTION 9.0 REFERENCES Ba} Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Guidelines. December ( 999. City of Cupertino. Genera( Plan. November 2005. Gity� of Cupertino. Main Stceet Cupertino [nitial Stud� October 2008. City of Cupertino. Municipal Code. City of Cupertino. South Va(Ico Master Plan. September 2008. Fellr & Peers. Reduced Scale Alternative for the "Main Street'" Cupertino" Mixed-Use Develo�pment. 5 August 2008. Fehr & Peers. Transportation Impact Anal September 2008. fllingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Air Qualitti� Assessment. September 2008. City of Cupertino 139 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 SECTION 10.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS Lead A�encv City of Cupertino Community Development Department Steve Piasecki. Director Gary Chao, Senior Planner Consultants David J. Powers & Associates Environmental Consu(tants and Planners Michelle Yesney, Principal Nora Monette, Principal Project Manager Kristy Le, Project Manager Stephanie Francis, Graphic Artist Illingworth & Rodkin Acousticai and Air Quality Consultants James Reyff, Project Manager City of Cupertino 140 Draft EIR Main Street Cupertino October 2008 Appendix A Initial Study Initial Study for the . aln ree . . u er ino ro ec Prepared by the City of Cupertino CUP�RtINO October 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS P age Text SECTION i.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURI'OSE ........................................................................3 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT [NFORMATfON .....................................................................................4 2.1 PROJECT TITLE ...........................................................................................4 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................4 2.3 LEAD AGENCY CON"�ACT ........................................................................4 2.4 PROPERTY OWNER/PROJECT PROPONENT ........................................:4 2.5 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS ............................................................4 2.6 GENERAL PLAN DES(GNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT .................� SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCR[PTION .......................................................................................8 3.1 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................8 3.2 DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES .......................................................................8 SECTION �.0 ENV[RONMENTAL SETTING. CHECKLIST. AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ...............................................................................................................24 4.1 AESTHETICS ..............................................................................................24 4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ...............................................................30 4.3 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................31 4.� BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .....................................................................33 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................44 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............................................................................47 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................52 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................56 4.9 LAND USE ..................................................................................................63 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES ...........................................................................72 4.I1 NOISE ..........................................................................................................73 4.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................86 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................88 4.14 RECREATION ............................................................................................92 4.1 � TRANSPORTATION ..................................................................................94 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERV[CE SYSTEMS .....................................................98 4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...................................103 SECTION 5.0 . REFERENCES .....................................................................................................1 10 SECTION 6A I.EAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS ...........................................................1 l2 City of Cupertino 1 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae Photos Photos 1-4 Vie�ts ofthe Project Site .......................... _ ............................................................... _� Figures Figuce 2.0-I Re�ional Map ............................................................................................................� Figure ?.0-2 Vicinitv Map .............................................................................................................6 Fiaure 2.0-3 Aerial Photograph ............................................:...... ............................................... ... 7 Figure 3.0-1 Schc�rne 1— Conceptual Site Plan ..............................................................................9 Figure 3.0-2 Scheme 1 — Conceptual Cross-Section ....................................................................10 Figure 3.0-3 Scheme 1 — Conceptual Cross-Section ....................................................................1 1 Figure 3.0-4 Sche�ne 1 — Conceptual Cross-Section .................................................................... I 2 Figure 3.0-� Scheme 2— Conceptual Site Plan ............................................................................ l� Figure 3.0-6 Scheme 2— Conceptual Cross-Section ....................................................................14 Figure 3.0-7 Scheme 2— Conceptua( Cross-Section ....................................................................1 � Figure 3.0-8 Scheme 2— Conceptual Cross-Section ....................................................................16 Figure 3.0-9 Scheme 1 —Conceptual Landscape Plan .................................................................20 Figure 3.0- l0 Scheyne 2— Conceptual Landscape Plan .................................................................21 Figure 3.0-1 1 Scheme 1 — Site Access ...........................................................................................23 Fi�ure 4.0-1 Special Centers ........................................................................................................64 Figure 4.0-2 [nterface Between the Proposed Project and Adjacent Rosebowl site ....................70 Figure 4.0-3 Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................77 Figure 4.0-4 Existing Parks .........................................................................................................90 Tables Table 3.0-1 Summary of Development Schemes .........................................................................8 Table 4.0-1 Summary of Tree Species and Size .........................................................................36 Table 4.0-2 Tree Replacement Ratios ........................................................................................41 Table 4.0-3 Approximate Available Office Allocations as of June 2008 ..................................63 Table 4.0-4 Land Uses and Acceptable Noise Levels ................................................................75 Table 4.0-5 Examples of Acceptable Brief Daytime Incidents ..................................................76 Table 4.0-6 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data ...............................................78 Appendices Appendix A Reconnaissance-Level Surveys Appendix B Tree Survey Appendix C Geotechnical Investigation Appendix D Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix E Environmental Noise Assessment Appendix F Water Supply Assessment City of Cupertino 2 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE This Initial Study of en�-ironmental impacts Ilas been prepared to conform to the require�nents of the California Environmental Qualit� Act (CEQA). the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 1 �000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the Cit}� of Cupertino. The Git}� of Cupertino is the Lead Agency� under CEQA and has p� this [nitia) Study to address the impacts of implemei�tin� the proposed Main Street Cupertino Project on an 18.7-acre site no� of Stevens Creek Boulevacd and tivest of l�ailtau Avenue. Finch Avenue e�:tends through the project site. The implementation of the proposed Main Street Cupertino Project ��v�ould allow for the development of eithe►• of the two schemes listed below: Scheme 1 — 295.000 square feet of retail uses (including I 50,000 square feet of general commercial uses and a l�5,000 square foot athletic club), 100,000 square feet of oftice uses, a 150 room hotel, and 160 senior housing units. Sclreme 2— 146,500 squace feet of retail uses, 205,000 square feet of ofifice uses, a 250 room hotel, and 160 senior housing units. � The pcimary differences between the two development schemes are the ainount of retail and office proposed, and tlle numbe►• of hotel rooms proposed. Botll schemes propose 160 senior housing units. The proposed project cequires a use permit, architectural and site approval, and parcel and tentative map approval. Tiering of Environmental Review CEQA Section 21093 (b) states that environmental i�npact reports shall be tiered whenever feasible, as determined by the lead agency. "Tiering" refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) in subsequent E[Rs or Initial Studies/negative declarations on narrower projects; and concentrating the later environmental review on the issues specific to the later project [CEQA Guidelines 15152 (a)]. Tiering is appropriate when it helps a public agency to focus on issues at each level of environmental review and to avoid or eliminate duplicative analysis of environmental effects examined in previous environmental impact reports [CEQA Guideline 21093 (a)]. In accordance with CEQA Sections 21093(a) and 21093(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(a), this [nitial Study tiers off the City of Cupertino General Plan Final EIR (State Clearinghouse #2002122061) certified by the City Council on November 15, 2005. The land use designations on project site were changed to Commercial/Office/Residential as a part of the City of Cupertino General Plan Update in November 2005. In addition, the amount of residential and commercial development allowed within the Vallco Park South subarea of the City (which includes the project site) was changed and analyzed in the City's General Plan Final EIR. In sevecal areas, such as land use and population and housing this [nitial Study tiers off the analysis of planned growth and development in the 2005 City of Cupertino General Plan Final EIR. This Initial Study evaluates the project specific environmental impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan Final EIR and those that might reasonably be anticipated to result from tlle implementation of the proposed Main Street Cupertino Project. City of Cupertino 3 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 PROJECT TITLE Main Stceet Cupertino Project 2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The 18.7-acre project site is located at the north��est quadrant of Stevens Creek Boulevacd and Tantau Avenue in the City of Cupertino. The pro,ject site is bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south. Tantau Avenue ro the east, Val(co Parkway to the noi and a parking lot and residences to the �vest. Finch Avenue eYtends through the pi•oject site. Regional and vicinit�� naps of the pcoject site are shown in Figures 2.0-1 and 2.0-2. An ae� photograph showing su► land uses is shown on Figure 2.0-3. 2.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT City of Cupertino Communit} Development Department Gary Chao, Senior Planner 10300 Tocce Avenue Cupertino. CA 95014 (408) 894-0640 2.4 PROPERTY OWNER/PROJECT PROPONENT Sand Hill Property Company Kevin Dare, Project Manager 489 South El Camino Real San Mateo. CA 94402 (650) 344-1�00 2.5 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 316-20-078 and 316-20-079 2.6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT General Plan Desi ng ation: Commercial/Office/Residentral Zoning District: Mixed Use Planned Development (General Commercial, Office, Light [ndustrial, Hotel, and Residential) City of Cupertino 4 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 LOS H � f�\VVI..V 1 V� � v REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 2.0-1 Q _ U � W � Z W > Q W � Z W � Q VALLCp �� : � ' w H w �. � � � w �' � � � } w �' I a � � ;' --` - 1 �i �Pg?':.. ¢ _ c.� J Q � � � _ U Z � � � Project Boundary Scale: 1 " = t 704' W :.. C � `. ♦ �� STEVENS � a i \ � 1 1 PR �NERlDG �1�` E : �� ,...:�;�PN o p D R, � > Q SU LL�v PN z Q w 0 p w � N � � 2 � � O J O � _ HANCOCK DRIVE JENNY ` STRAND PARK CREEK \ \\ BLVD. w w w Q Q � Q >' w � � � m � � � � � � � w > J Q U A� E AVENUE r D �7 m Z C� m h1 x � � m � � D � VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2,0-2 � �� ' ' � �'� � �� 4 ,,;� � �� _� ��' �, , �� . ��a,�� . , � _� � � . � �� ,��,�, , < " 4..,�3` r t x . �� • � �. '� � .,� � � � ^ �� _�� , � �� g ° � "" .Z � � a 63 i -1 . { ° ^ ... �• � °� -a �� °°r� , ;� � . . . "\ * �r k � c �' � 3r � q .. �4�� •si .E.� _. ... � . _ �c� 'a..e . x. � �., �:,, . , �,�a�,_ ...�. :�......�.� .,.._w„r....�.. -., ,�. _ �'�* '.�' . 5. . ,. . � �3...:, t � �. �- �� Mixed Commercial .. � � �' � �` and Residential ` ��A� �` �Office ;,; �1 ,� `— ,�' �'"� � Ap roved, but not yet P <v ,� �� 9 "�� "� �z l P � 1 � J � � " ' constructed) ` �,;: �� :�� . -��'�:�, � � � ��►?;: � � .. , � "" �,� � � � �.�. �. � � y� m* �'zk� �� .�.: � a J r � k i �� § � � �.., � � , � ?"'� i+� �� `. Q� , t �..dt: r � ` � , ..�_ '. �,w f� � f �.� �" ��r �` '��, ' �'�'��tlPe�'� � '�": +~ �� t� '� � ��`t , '� � � � ��`'� ': �t r i a �� y °, �$��:� � .. ;:' �� _ �' � �� , & , Z U -� 'z4;�� Mixed Commercial � � �`�� ` � � �� `�`` °�� ,� � � � � � � �� and Residential `` ..�,` �� '�� ° ��- ��r � � Y� r� �. �� :,� � ,� . t � �� k �.u�# � fi; �&y �' § � L ��1 �T � y , �,:, � � e � �� Y � �� + � t I �� , "! .' ,� � ,�� ",� m �;'� � ,a,T ;:_.a� � ,& � �x "o-�J�i�� , 7�' '�; �"i � � �� . ��,.�� '�';��'�iu,� 2.».«; . ��l�� i"�''� �� '�� '� � � ��; ��STEV°E N�S � � "C RE E�K�, �BLU ��,� �`� • • �,N�"" �, � �� K� �� .�� '� �� ,s ��, � �� F � ��. �x�' � � �a, �;�� ,�'.' �:> .� � � � "� � � �_`:'� �z � C�ommercial °x' � �� a: t.�::;� r a` Residential � �� 3 ♦� �� ' Y � ' 4 ��'� � t �. f � � � , ,� , . , . ,� . �., � , �.,. t l,� �n�� '�! �.l �(�t?> I� . +� � � Project Boundary F � ..� Residential �� a�� ',� �,, ` � � �, �W � . �� . Scale; 1' = t 335' '� �' ` �� V,�,,�'�� , � �, �� 3� `�fi� i�l��, Photo Date: Dec. 2005 ;' � � �� .+'��: �w�: !�� ,�a. !� � AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES �''f 6`$ *�;p�g' , �`�. �� . � , .; � . «, � � � ,�:- .� � � §� a ' , � � �: � �� - �� ^� {�. '* �. 1 �',. 4y . t !� t 4 � - g � � . � „ �,' , �< - '�'�:° L.,, .,� r �� , �� , r � .�� ., ��' �. ° � � - �, f � § �:>�_ _�� e� � � - . . �_: `°� . ��.� . _ _ .. r� ��°' r� � J. . S �^, �*° P �� . � � �� c� ' � �.�'� y�� ! �, a �^,� �� a C� �'�;. q9 : + �''��'. ' ' /t' ' �, "" ,�' a ;At,rr .� ' �� a �'� � ��'? � .�µ Y �°�� - .�� :� , � �� . R �� .P �.� ¢ �� a � _� �' � ��. �� s r � g � o � � rf a .:�' '°'��, �� . � � .� s. � � �� ° � ��° .._�"W : m ` � • � � a . � � ��.� , �,� �� ^S� �� ;� � r � � � �-- � � �ti" � � e ..� a^ � ' �� _$ x � � � ..,� '� � Qs�� '�. � Y . �. � ..\<+�A+r,�f;� � . . �� ,,.,,,,_, ,� , �. . E � o C• • . � . � g, � � � .� �� iar . � x �� P � t . � � �� ' i t. t � c � � . � r9 �,�.a �' �` . °'rl" � �°j�� '` , ` .x„ � ' 71 "� s � !'� - �� _� � � � ,< ,' ��. . . . �°�'�w _ � . . .::'":��" FIGURE 2.0-3 SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 OVERVIEW T��o deve(opment schemes are evaluated in this Initial Study for the 18.7-acce project site. The approval of the Main Street Cupertino Pcoject would allow for development under one of these scllemes. The proposed project requires a use permit, architectural and site approval, and tentative map approval. The t�vo development schemes are suinmarized in Table 3.0- l and discussed belo�v. If the pcoject is approved. the project applicant anticipates project construction commencing in the second quarter of 2009 and ending in the third quarter of 2010. Table 3.0-1 Summary of Develo ment Schemes Pro osed Uses Retail Athietic Office Senior Hotel Open Space On-Site Club Housing with a Public Parking � (s� � (units) �rooms) Easement (ac) (stalls) Scheme 1 150,000 145.000 100,000 160 150 1.63 1,�20 Scheme ? 146,500 --- 205,000 160 250 1.63 l,830 Note: sf = s uare footage, ac = acres 3.2 DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES Scheme 1 proposes up to 295,000 square feet of retail uses (including 150,000 squace feet of general commercial uses and a 145,000 square foot athletic club), 100,000 square feet of office uses, 160 senior housing units, and a 150-room hotel. Schenze 1 also includes 1.63 acces of private open space that would have an easement allowing public use and access. A conceptual site plan ofScheme 1 is provided on Figure 3.0-1. Conceptual cross-sections ofScheme 1 are provided on Figures 3.0-2 and 3.0-4. While Schen�e 1 wou(d allow for up to 295,000 square feet of retail uses, the conceptual site plan shows 292,000 square feet of retail uses ( I47,000 square feet of general commercial uses and a 145,000 square foot athletic club, see Figure 3.0-1). Scheme 2 proposes up to 146,500 squace feet of retail uses, 205,000 square feet of office uses, 160 senior housing units, and a 250-room hotel. Scheme 2 also includes 1.63 acres of private open space that would have an easement allowing pub(ic use and access. A conceptual site plan of Scheme 2 is provided on Figure 3.0-5. Conceptual cross-sections of the conceptual site plan are provided on Figures 3.0-6 and 3.0-8. City of Cupertino 8 Initial Stud�� Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 COVERED—t TRUCKDOCR ROSEBOWL MIXED USE PROJECT (Approved, but not yet constructed) WVAP TO � PARWNG BELOw ` � � � � � 6 4= .. . . � . � � �� ? � .� € , t �..F� �` •.�A� 'f � � � � ,� '�.�" .�. �'\ �. � �# � �' 3-STOf2Y OFFICE 100:Q00 SF � s,� OYER RBTAII, SHOPS 33,OQ0 SF METROPOLITAN HOUSING PROJECT �� -,� � ��'��.F ��a� � � ,�� ` aa I � ,a+ �'�a � � \ � ' i tk > � ;��°tl6} _ � �5�.�`? a.. . ° 0� �' � �� . � �, TABULATION `�, ��. j �` �° � RETAIL 147,000 SF 647 STALLS 4.4/1,000 SF P�RKING ON TMIS -�, � �— sioEOFVnuconor OFFICE 100,000 SF - � mauoEO iN couNrs HOTEL 150 ROOMS � 853 STALLS SHARED PARKING ��'� � ATHLETIC CLUB 145,000 SF ��" ' SENIOR HOUSING 160 UNITS 160 STALLS 1/UNIT '4 R ' �. � ' Y � ;� 3 ` � .}: . � �� ,� ,$,,<� � q�� -� ' � PARKING 7,660 STALLS ! �(r, ::. ��' ..�a � C � � STREEr 1405tALL5 : (" �,a>,u ' � '9/Q/�� SuFFACE 360STALL5 � , �� • YY,9 y \�� ' \ CARAGE... 12W STALLS �� 7 � �� ,�, ! � �� ., TO7Al iB805TP1�5 �" &°a� � f '� i(c 9� .... . � � • .�,. � �• ��a : 'f ,��. � \ �..� , — NEVfON STREET GARKING � r .I ��'� � � � � �d:� —•"'�-' T ,,s-�_ . —� � ✓ .. � � .1 ��. %� � i ��v : � / ;3i� 5 � 2 - A `" ��t y ,�, T �k```'4i;� � .� 4,.�:,. �' � �� " � •,�g n. � y � k / .r � � �4. r ��+�,�f ,�+- ta . . . ., y, �� F� / � ,. � ,"""".. .."� ' 3�„� f i 1� _ � .�� ! ro�. . @ . � �� . .. . ' �f' Y . I �� . h T ��.� .r ; y ;?i .. �. % ° �� s ..F ��: �� j � �,� `'s� � .;, � / '�'�� .. - r �� r �',� _ ., .^+"^.^'' , __ � . t . .- ... , _. . , ,...�:. : �`2*. � . ._�. ,A � �.A . . . -A . ��. �� r c � 5 '^ ��`��r�� . � � � < '' � .S `�,��` M�'� � t + � ' �a ' C� �,,,��x k '� ' � M R` t A '"� ' ��g` � �,'� �3 �� `�� .�s�lr� 1 � � : r `� t i .. 1 I �� M�' . ` �Y,��. � a i `' € { �.� -ao �r°� �� ilt y� �;,� � . i .: , �.� �' ¢ � . a , .eLs ��I � Y 7 I ��Y �.' "� \ �.'� . ' � i � -.., .. ; ,� ' L.� � � , �, r 0 • .:.— .., � ., J . . � ` u � r�t • � n �`.. _. .� � � � 1 . ''fYat y � �e ., � . _r $.,.: T x � �` ; i. > �:; �4� � ,, � � .._.. �"- '.� .. �„• . ... �; � * Note: Diagonal parking on the north side of Vailco Parkway is not included in the proposed project. SCHEME 1- CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 1 r000al vooi AHD ACi1VtiYJ PREA I C,� w � 2 � a a � � �' a 7 '� '� .. .. .-� (�� NEw On STREEt PnwciNG —'" L" I , � — � � � � �„ ��: � � ,, ,.� . •, �3^��_ STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD M J' 1:' S0' tJ�' 150' 200' I I I I I I So KENN RODRIGUES 8� PARTNERS, INC, 7/1/08. FIGURE 3.0-1 EXISTING HOUSING � LANDSCAPE w� z� x� �� ) I � � � � � � I i � I I � I � i w� Z, J SI �1 �� I OFFICE OVER RETAIL SHOPS TOP OF +60'-0' OFFICE OVER RETAII SHOPS OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE RETAIL SHOPS ENLARGED SECTI4N A-A AT OFFICE, GARAGE 1, AND ATH LETIC CLUB 0' 10' 20' 40' .e._� � ... zl s� UI �I � ATHLETIC CLUB TOP OF WALL M8'�' ROOF +as'-o� ATHLETIC CLUB LEVEI 3 +3p•-0' ATHLETIC CIUB LEVEL 2 r�S-0' ATHLETIC CLUB �� a-o� � �� - � � - � �' . .. � ..� , , .... _' _ :-_- ... � � � 1 � � - � � . . � , r�ii �==--,�,±�� - Lt , r ;�;� .:E N � � • �--�+ Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES 8� PARTNERS,INC, 7/1/08. SCHEME 1 - CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION GARAGE 1 I � TOP OF WALL � GARAGE �' +a3��- IEVEL 5 � � GARAGE �� e �t a +30'-0" � � GARAGE ' � � LEVEL 3 1 1 '�.-0• i GARAGE �' L.EVEL 2 +� 0'-0' I � GARAGE rr+—� _ t�ve� � FIGURE 3.0-2 ENLARGED SECTION A-A AT SENIOR HOUSING, TOWN SQUARE, AND OF �ICE J� _� U �� 0� 2�� 40� �� PUBLIC PARK RETAIL SHOPS FINCH AVENUE RETAIL SHOPS EXISTING HOUSING � RETAIL SHOPS HOTEL OINING PATIO TOP OF W A1 1 +48'-6' ATHIETIC CLUB j '� - �: : _ �� ' �� ', � �' .� �, I! � � -- • I1�11 ; 1 1'l l� f�� !'#' � 1�� tl�—��.��r� - � Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES 8� PARTNERS, INC, 7h/08. SCHEME 1 - CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTI4N FIGURE 3.0-3 �� ENLARGED SECTiON B-B AT EXISTING HOUSING AND RETAIL SHOPS =� �� 0' 10' 20' 40' � � I "'' ENLARGED SECTION S-B AT RETAIL SHOPS, HOTEL, AND ATHLETIC CLUB Z, J _� <� U� 1U� 20' 4U� �� 1 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD TOWN SQUARE RETAIL SHOPS MAJOR RETAIL RETAIL SHOPS VALLCO PARKWAY MAJOR RETAIL I zl =1 �� a� EXISTING OFFICE BLDGS I w� z _, � U� 6� TOP OF WALL � � �Zg�-0. . . TOP OF WALL � � 2'- � � MA,IOR RETAIL •' :b., ;' 1 o ,�� RETAIL SHOPS ,� � I w� _; ENLARGED SECTION C-C AT MAJOR RETAIL AND RETAIL SHOPS �� , o� ,o� 20� ao� � Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES 8� PARTNERS, INC, 7/1108. SCHEME 1 - CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION TOWN SQUARE C � �; �,,,� � �_� :; ---, ��_� c �� , j _ _ ..� I ;�,, � -_ . .� ,��, } � _ _� �� :: . ��_ -� FIGURE 3.0-4 � � w zl ENLARGED SECTION C-C AT RETAIL SHOPS AND TOWN SQUARE _' U) H Q� 0' 10' 20' 40' � I G(?VEWED—� TRUCNDOCN ROSEBOWL MIXED USE PROJECT (Approved, but not yet constructed) I I �'. �.i �' I �� I . � � � :� ��: � . az RqU[`TO � f vARKING .. . � . . 4 ?��",f ... f I flFIOW , .� .� , � ' F METROPOLITAN ` r HOUSING � � i,�'�, PROJECT I �" < � I � � � �; PARI( ,�•�•: � � � �� _ �:., � -ia F9UNi,(JN. . y �� . �. , � , -� _. 4 � TABULATION •}„ �, `�; ;•. RETAII 146.500 SF 832 STALLS 5.5/1000 SF . � • ��. /-- PAAKING ON 1Mi5 ' SiOE OF VALLCO NOT OFFICE 205,000 SF 718 STALLS 3.5 /1000 SF / iNC WDED IN COUNTS s� t Y HOTEL 250 ROOMS 250 STALLS 7 lROOM ; r, : , � °�,.,� � SENIOR HOUSING 160 UNITS 160 STALLS t/UNIT ��; '' � ��. � � ' � \ _ � � �, PARKWG 1,960 STALLS r � , � L, � �� STREET iaosTnus �� C � 9URFACE 2803TALLS ¢ ! / r f � " { � O A,9 A `3,y � GpRA(3E t.5'lOST�LLS �� .�/ � bt � a� �p��?��X �� w � �ly qY � TOTAL tveosrw�s � ?: � �� ,�� •, . �� , * �4� � t; ,� �.`�� '� ��`+�., � Y � NEWON$T0.EETPARKING k:: by�'�e.. . . � � . _. 1 .. t 1 .� u a� v . � � ^`��„� ' — — _ _ . � � q ".�.tik 4�t �,.. �.. s,E" � , `NS �'�"�- �` f ` ` � , � , r �.,,, � x .. �.��'""'�'— ,,` � �' �� Y . ' ! �� : � y k � .. _ �� . . , aw n $ M . < �..'. � r ia �'. aW �� .�'� �1 .. . � ;. o- i ... ��h .w��. .��. . Gt . { '..) . . . . ,��. . . ' , . . . +� �� ` � 3 yPA �QUAF't� } '�' � 3 .�,'� ,.�, �..,—___"—�_"�.�-- � 1. � � � ��. .,.,� . < �.�_ _.'re. , _ .. .T � . . _ .., � . . ��'.. � ��' � �'r+.� ..� , .«�w : �mY..> � : . � , � �� V� `�?�'�� . � r � �.,;;�':�},,f�$''�.: � � , �,. � � , �+'� J t � 0 '�'are+ec �� a. � �o . . ..FM... �� ', tt� ' t 't ,�; 't w � � �, a \ , � ' � a �� k' ;ti �� V � Z ,� � � S C.v.w D � EASEMEN7 ............ .. _...._ * Note: Diagonal parking on the north side of Valico Parkway is not included in the proposed project. SCHEME 2- CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN �_P � / �� r .. ,wr,riu '� ti'az .. ' PARK7Nf3 . � � � BELOW��. ' � �. . STALLSBELOWl � . � p , � . , � .�� x ��, ,� ' � k.j �a§ � � - ��_ � , � wRer � �oaer wq � A . �`�p . .. , � . :�!`Y:; � .::: . �� s � .�. I � � a a Q F- ' - � ' 7 ' � ' " -�'�:+V v'Y�.`:7- '. —' _ STEVENSCREEKBOUIEVARD \ �—NEWONSTREEfGPRNING � __. �.... M �� Z5� 50� ,�� ,50� Z�O� � ( I I I I Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC, 7/1/08. FIGURE 3.0-5 EXISTING HOUSING 1 LANDSCAPING rn�ur.i eni�woc GARAGE OVER RETAIL SHOPS I � GARAGEI OFFICE � PLAZA � OFFICE � � ' ', �� - _ . . � � _ �� ... .� . � { � �= �� •, � � � ..� ` �� - _ �`" �--'_� ��!■ ■ _ �. .� ��,�� ,��. �„� ��,, .�� `�� ` � �� --� Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES 8� PARTNERS, INC, 5/13/08. SCHEME 2- CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION FlGURE 3.0-6 ENLARGED SECTION A-A AT EXISTING HOUSING, SENIOR HOUSING, TOWN SQUARE, AND RETAIL ' J� =i U 0' 10' 20' 40' � 1 � {� 1�I L/"�I \ V L L V L V 1 1 v�� / l� � v/ v 1v v � n� � v v� �� v�. 0' 10' 2{l' 40' RETAIL SHOPS I W' z J � U� al �� I I I I � RETAIL SHOPS I � � HOTEL � ROOF +59'-0' HOTEI ��s +48'-0' HOTEL �� a « r� �„ : ROOF +46'-0' LEVEL 3 +3r-0• �z +ta•-0• OFFICE OVER GARAGE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE -- �ur►cn irvc� � GARAGE -�a-a �owea � z GARAGE -zna ENLARGED SECTION B-B AT RETAIL SHOPS, HOTEL, AND OFFICE OVER GARAGE 0' 10' 20' 40' OFf ICE OFFICE OFFICE ��_ _1 "� _ �� ., .. , . _ � ,... � _ � _ • � � : � � _ �� .� ' ' _ = - :� r'F ■ • _ " «. : imiuui mmur� ` � � tl�/��(�� ' � t � � � _ —�:� i..�+�� Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES 8� PARTNERS, lNC, 5/13108. HOTEL HOTEL H ��. SCHEME 2- CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION FIGURE 3.0-7 ENLARGED SECTION B-B AT RETAIL SHOPS W � Z, _� �� o� ,o� z� �� RETAIL SHOPS VALLCO PARtCWAY EXISTING OFFICE BLDGS TOWN SQUARE watt � � �� I f w� z .J' U� Q� �' -•1� i 1 1 1 1 I � MAJOR RETAi� MAJOR RETAlL RETAII SHOPS �,,,. '� ��t t a • -o • w� J' =f Q �� 1 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARO f2ETAIL SHOPS ENLARGED SECTION C-C AT MAJOR RETAIL AND RETAIL SHOPS 0' 10' 20' 40' TOWN SQUARE ENl_ARGED SECTIOP�1 G-C AT RETAIL SHOPS AND TOUVN SQUARE 0' 10' 20' 40' C -----------i _� ,�,�.,.:.,� I - 1 1 - ,1 � 1 C 1 Source: KENNETH RODRlGUES 8� PARTNERS, INC, 5/13/08. SCHEME 2 - CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION C MAJOR RETAtL i Z� _� °� a� w� zl x� �, z �� F I G U RE 3.0-8 Sec•tio�� 3.0 — Pi•oj� c•t D�sc•i•i��tio�r The primary differences bet�a�een the two development schemes are the area of retail and office uses. aild the number ofi llotel rooms proposed. Both development schemes propose l60 senior housin<� units and (.63 acres ofprivate open space that ��ould have an easement allowing public use and � access. [n addition, both development schemes allow buildings of up to five stories in height (up to 60 feet tall). The pcoject (under either scheme) proposes to include design features outlined in the United States Green Buildin�� Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmenta( Design (LEED) rating system to be LEED certitied. The landscape design and green bui(ding features the pro_ject proposes include the following: Landscape Sustainable Desi ig 1 Pro.�ram • Landscape materials shall utilize a variety of recycled materials in the selection of pavement materials, site furnishings, and landscape soil amendments. • Stormwater mana�ement methods, including biofilitration areas and permeable pavements, shal( be used to clean water before being released into the environment. • The planting design and irrigation system shall incorporate drought tolerant plant materials and high efficiency irrigation systems to minimize water use. • Landscape lighting shal( utilize high efficiency light fixtures which include dark sk}� technology to reduce glare, spillover of light onto adjacent properties, and up lighting of the atmosphere. Green Building Principals • Buildings shall be designed to take advantage of renewab(e resources through features using passive and active solar and features such as green roofs. The buildings shall focus on passive solar design materials with high thermal mass that retains heat effectively, and strong insulation that prevents heat escape. • The project is designed with "walkable" city blocks with retail activity on the streets and connections between the proposed project and the existing neighborhood (e.g., Metropolitan development). • The project shal( incorporate a variety of recycled materials in the selections of conerete, insulation, gypsum board, certified wood, roofing products, paints, and finishes. � Low-emitting adhesives, sealants, carpets, and composite wood products shall be used. • Building lighting shall be energy efficient and environmental(y controlled. Utilities shall be designed in centra( structures promoting control of heating and coo(ing systems. • Exterior site lighting for buildings, streets, and site circulation areas shall utilize high efficiency light fixtures which include dark sky technology to reduce glare, spill light, and up lighting of the atmosphere. • The project shall promote recycling, green interior design and furnishing. The main components of each scheme, including retail, office, hotel, senior housing, and public parkland deve(opment, are discussed below. 3.2.1 Retail Development (Not [ncluding Athletic Club) Scheme 1 proposes up to 150,000 square feet of retail uses (not including the athletic club). Scheme 2 proposes up to 146,500 square feet of retail uses. As shown in the conceptual site plans for both schemes, the proposed retail uses would be grouped into several buildings ranging from 5,000 to 40,000 square feet in size (see retail shop and major tenant bui(dings on Figures 3.0-1 and 3.0-5). The retail uses in both schemes would be located in City of Cupertino 17 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectio» .3.0 �- Projec! U�sc•ripliu�i stand-a(one. one-story buildings or on the ground floor of foue-stor�- buildings (�tiith housing, oFfice uses, or parking on the upper three floors). In both schemes, the retail buildings would generally front Stevens Creek Boulevard. Finch Avenue, and Valico Parkway. The retail uses would be situated around landscaped plazas and a central gathering area (town square) in both schemes. 3.2.2 Athletic Club (Scher�xe 1 only) Scherne 1 includes a three-story, 145,000 square foot athletic club. The proposed athletic club �vould include an outdoor pool and activity area east ofthe club building. As shown i�1 Figure 3.0-1, the athletic club would be located on the eastern portion of the site �vith frontage on Vallco Park�vay, Tantau Avenue, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The project proposes to limit the number of club memberships at this athletic club to 9,000 individual meinbers. No athletic club is proposed in Scheme 2. 3.2.3 Office Development Schenze 1 proposes up to 100,000 square feet of office development on the project site. For Scheme 1, the office development would be located in a four-story building with retail uses on the ground floor and office uses on the upper three floors (see Figures 3.0-1 and 3.0-5). The office/retail building w�ould be located in the central area of the project site. generaily fronting Finch Avenue. Scheme 2 proposes up to 205,000 square feet of office development on the project site. [n .Scheme 2. the office development would be located in two three-story buildings located above one level ofi below-ground parking (see Figures 3.0-4 and 3.0-5). The office buildings in Sche�ne ? would be located in the eastern portion of the project site fronting Vallco Parkway, Tantau Avenue, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. 3ZA Hotel Scheme 1 includes a three-story hotel with 150 rooms (see Figure 3.0-1). Scheme 2 includes a five- story hotel with 250 rooms (see Figure 3.0-5). In both schemes, the hotel would front Stevens Creek Boulevard. 3.2.5 Senior Housing Both schemes include 160 senior housing units. As shown on Figures 3.0-1 and 3.0-5, the senior housing units would be located in a four-story building tocated on top of a two-level, below-ground parking structure in the western portion of the site. The ground floor would consist of senior housing units, a landscaped plaza, and retail uses. The upper three floors of the building would consist only of senior housing units. The senior housing would front a proposed central landscaped courtyard under both schemes. The units would average approximately 600 square feet each, with one or two bedrooms. City of Cupertino 18 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 .Sectioir 3.0 — Project Description 3.2.6 Open Space n�ith a Public Easeme�rt (To�vn Square and Parks) Scheme 1 and Sche�ne ? include l.63 acres of open space that would have an easement allowing public use and access. This open space ��ould include a 0.88-aci•e area for a"to�n square'' at the end of Finch Avenue and a 0.7�-acre park (ocated at the southwest corner of the project site, fronting Stevens Creek Boulevard. The tov�n square would be an open area used for community gathecings with a focal point such as a fountain. In both schemes. the open space is intended to be local serving and utilized b� the proposed project and surro�mding neighborhood. The specific design ai�d uses �vithin the open space (town square and park) are unknown at this ti�ne and �tiill be revie�ed and detennined b� the City� Council prior to fiinal occupancy release of the project. For this reason, the open space design and uses are not analy�zed in this EIR. It is anticipated that passive quasi-public uses would be proposed in the park and town square and wou(d not require additional environmental review. In the event more intense oc active uses are proposed, appropriate environmental review would be completed as app(icable. 3.2.7 Plazas and Landscapin� Both schemes also include landscaped plazas on the north side of the hotel and near the proposed retail uses. The proposed landscapin�,� for both schemes includes trees and vines, as shown on tlle conceptual landscape plans (Figures 3.0-9 and 3.0- l0). As shown on Figures 3.0-9 and 3.0-10, the project (under either scheme) proposes to plant two field grown oak trees� on the project site at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue. 3.2.8 Roadwav Imnrovements 3.2.8.1 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 tanes (one lane in each direction) and add angled parking on the south side of Vallco Parkway along the project site frontage. In addition, the project (under both schemes) proposes to add parallel parking spaces on the nortll side of Stevens Creek Boulevard along the project site frontage (see Figures 3.0-1 and 3.0-5). In both schemes, the existing landscape median in the north segment of Finch Avenue would be removed and angled parking spaces would be added. 3.2.8.2 Public Street Abundonment und Private Street Improvements In both schemes, the middle segment of Finch Avenue would be abandoned as a public street and maintained as a part of the development. This segment would be replaced with a 0.88-acre town square bordered by driveways and parking (see Figures 3.0-1 and 3.0-5). As a result, vehicles traveling on Finch Avenue would be circulated around the proposed town square on a private driveway with public access. Both schemes also include a new private drive parallel to and west of Tantau Avenue. The private drive would connect Val(co Parkway and Stevens Creek Boulevard. � A field grown trees refers to a tree that is fully mature. City of Cupertino 19 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 i.�:��,V��. �l.+dkf �'.:nt�{ ., ._. . .......... .. . ............,. .... . , .... ...... : � , -.:.. .:';...,oq": � �:� ��.u: xe r.:��,:;i .... ._ , i �iv��.r,r*..� ..�.. ....._..... ._. M o' 15' S0' 100' t 50' 200' I I ( I I I Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC, 3/13/08. SCHEME 1- CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FIGURE 3.0-9 � � � `s � m �: X � �YIIY� M 0' 25' S0' 1W' ISfI' 200' I I I I I I Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC, 3/13/08. SCHEME 2- CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FIGURE 3.0-10 . � il . �'��.' ...KrtK ...... .......... .., a r....... '�. . ,.! y x . . . ...... . ..... ... � ��.i�U ��,�a; R.".:: �a:.i• ..... _... .......-� ...._........ .. ....._ .. ...... ... ........ . .. . ...... . .. _...... . . . .... .. .._ .. ...____....._.,,...w... . ...._...._...._. . _.......... . ._........�.. ... . .._._._ � _ �., f �..�. .i...��t.v:,�. - � ..�.. . .e . �...r.,<ir,.. Sec•tiun 3.0 — Project Description 3.2.9 Site Access A site access map for Schen�c 1 sho��in� pedestrian and vehicular circulation is provided on Figure 3.0-I l. The primary site access points ��ould be simi(ar under Scheme 2. ln both schemes, pedestcian access through the project site w•ould be provided on sidewalks and paths. Vehicular access to the pcoject site in both schemes �vouid be provided from t�vo drive�avs on Stevens Creek Boulevard, t�vo drive��ays on Finch Avenue. and two drive��ays on Vallco Park�vay. The drive�vays lead to surface parking lots, parkin`� �a�•ages, and drop-off areas. 3.2.10 Parking For Scheme 1, parking for the pcoposed 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 t�vo-level below ground parking garage. Under Scheme 1, a total of 1,�20 on-site parking spaces are proposed (260 spaces in surface parking lots and 1,260 spaces in parking garages). Of the 1,520 parking spaces, 8�3 would be shared between the office, hotel. and athletic club uses. A total of 138 on-street parking spaces are also proposed on Ste��ens Creek Boulevard, Finch Avenue, and Vallco Parkway. Overall. Schen�e 1 includes 1,658 on-site and on-street parking spaces. For .Schetne ?, packing for the proposed uses wou(d be provided in surface parking lots, in a four- level parking garage located at grade, in one t��o-level below ground packing garage, in one one-level below ground parking garage, and on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Finch Avenue, and Val(co Parkway. Under Schei�ze Z, a total of 1,830 on-site parking spaces are proposed (260 spaces in surface parking lots and 1,570 spaces in parking garages). A total of 133 on-street parking spaces are proposed on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Finch Avenue, and Vallco Parkway. OveralL Scheme 2 includes 1,963 on- site and on-street parking spaces. 3.2.11 Utilitv Improvements For both schemes, the project proposes to connect to existing utility (e.g., water, storm drain, and sewer) lines and install two new 24-inch storm drain lines to the existing Calabazas Creek culvert. In addition, the project proposes to complete a sanitary sewer flow test prior to final recordation of the subdivision map. If it is determined that the project would exceed the capacity of the existing sewer lines at or downstream of the site, the project proposes to up-size the sewer lines and connections to provide capacity to serve the project in coordination with the City of Cupertino Department of Public Works and the Cupertino Sanitary District and sewer line improvements are anticipated to take place within existing street right-of-ways. 3.2.13 Cut and Fil( Scheme 1 requires site grading that would include 27,000 cubic yards of cut and 11,000 cubic yards of fill. Scheme ? requires site grading that would include 69,000 cubic yards of cut and 11,000 cubic yards of fill. Scheme 2 requires more cut because it includes more below ground parking. City of Cupertino 22 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 ,_�_�_._ ess�a coveREo--� TRU(:K DOCK � w4rnF ro— PARqNG 6ELOW EXISTIN( H�USIN( PRQJEC' .�;�Y •., � � � �� C'��\ � �..--- � � :sJ ��y + c � �- :1 �' e: \ �A ti �► � �� RETfuI �' SF1CP9 H � �_'� ..- ...� �,� \ � � \ � , \\\ \ � \ �sY � , � w � Z w > ¢ � ¢ � z � N �r z� w iar i,�;� 200 I i I f I f Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES 8� PARTNERS, INC, 7/1/08. LEGEND �� --_ PEDESTRIAN CiRCULATION � PRIMARY VEH�CUtAR CiRCULATION SECONDARY VEHtCULAR CIRCULATION ❑ VERTICAL PEOESTRIAN CIRCULATtON \ � \ o,�,�� \ ` q� � ` `U`� ` -------------� � ` �� — •�;�:_ -- SCHEME 1- SlTE ACCESS FIGURE 3.0-11 SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST, AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS In accordance with CEQA Section 21093(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 1 �1 �2(a), this (nitial Study tiers off of the City of Cupertino General P(an Final E[R (approved November 1 �. 200�). The amount of development this project proposes �v�as included and analyzed in the City's General Plan Fii�al E(R. This Initial Study, therefore, evaluates the project specific environmental impacts that were not addressed in the General Plan Final EIR. This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the project site, as ��ell as environmental impacts associated �vith the proposed project. The proposed project includes t�vo schemes. Schen�e 1 and Scheme ?. Ultimately, if the project is approved, one scheme �vill be chosen by the City of Cupertino and developed on the project site. Genecall��, the iinpacts of implementing Scl�eme 1 or Schen7e Z are similar. When the impacts of the proposed schemes differ, they are addressed and discussed separate(y. The environmental checklist, as recommended in the CEQA Guidelines, was used to identity environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of this document. Mitigation or avoidance measures are identified For all significant i►npacts. 4.1 AESTHETICS 4.1.1 Setting 4.1.1.1 Pi�oject Site The 18.7-acre project site is bounded by S�evens Creek Boulevard to the south, Tantau Avenue to the east, Vallco Parkway to the north, and residential and mixed-use development to the west. Finch Avenue extends through the project site (refer to Figure 2.0-3). Views of the project site are provided in Photos 1-4. The portion of the project site east of Finch Avenue is undeveloped and mainly consists of bare ground and low growing vegetation. Trees and minimal landscaping are present along the perimeter (Photos 1 and 2). One visually prominent feature is a large, dead valley oak tree at the northeast corner of Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard (Photo 2). The portion of the project site west of Finch Avenue includes bare ground, dry vegetation, and a paved parking lot (Photos 3 and 4). The site is flat and is not visually prominent. Views of the foothill areas to the south and west from the project vicinity are generally obscured by existing and new development and landscape trees. Motorists on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue have limited.views ofthe foothil(s where there is a break in the mass of buildings and large trees along the floor of the Santa Clara Valley. The project site is not a scenic resource and is not located within a scenic corridor. City of Cupertino 24 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project �ctober 2008 _l.'.�l!'��i - � _:tll'�i'uili7i��,1?i/�.1. /(U1'�. i %7�'C;�J/11, _r:h�l)/i�'ll.>>li�i7!>> � i^-:�_�1� _ _ r `} � a[ �r � � I C� �- � � � P �� F � ,� I , �, � f , �r Y�� c ' , . x ,• r � �- y. ��r � � ��, , .:'` r�" � ° �' °' ' ?` � ,� i�� ,.ae.:� ' T 1 *Ytr . . 9�� , �. Photo 1— Vie�� of project sit� ��ith V�Ilco Park��av in the back��round frum Fiilcfi Avenue looking east. �` i . � � -�: , � " - , � - =k �. ; ,# , ;�;;� : _ _. � g ,, a . �� ;. � � k�� fi.� � "'� .!��. X ..� �� ' � "°m r - -:.�' `�- ;-�' �� .� , y -. , � ., . �r ?�'� > t �'��-` y:�i.� "-A�� 4 y �v � R►$�` �'i`' � � "' � � t�'�� .:: � �aa>� i �'� ,_�,� '�S"'� . _. ��Y_ � � g'fi:'f ✓ ��ty. _ � �. .�� _ _s.... � �a'.'_�. .. Photo 2— Vie�� of pcoject site fi•om Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard lookin� east-no� Cit�� ofCupe►rtino ?� lnitial Stud�� Main Street Cu��ertino Project October ?008 5��•trr�ir �.0 — G��rirninnt>�r1��/ S��![in��. Cl�� c•kli.sl. �a�c/ Di.S�cu.c��iun c�f /mpucls �:- � � � _� r � �. ,�f� � _ „,°��: � �_� .;� � � � -� a. .?� r,- - �'� F x;:� � .� � .. �` . ., :: ` . .. sx��'` R � t � ` £ �� -�- ��' � �s-�� a ,� •: �s�� ,, r . '��.�� I �� i ��Fs � �� , - �a�,. �� i � i I r E �� I, i �-' � �*�.;.. , �' �, ��`�* � - � � � x � �� s � ;,. -��:: ,�� - �` � -��` .. > �. P ' �� , ..k� ;� � -�° �:- , �: � � . ��'� � �� , �� y �� { �� 'i ; ��' � �+' '" -� � � �'� '� x" � ��•-- � r!� I ! � � , ��,� �� - � � � ' > �,. . . . c� .g,e.ei`A a-� tk"'`a;� '� �" � ; 'b Yy{ n� � �'��`'P' � � ,r'YV�S�� , '..F �� t �. 3 r + F ,, 'F` _ � -- y � � ,�-' _ � �. ,. `.�. ' � i „ a ,� � � �� Y " . � � .y} �. ,' � :� �� 5 �� L � �, �� ., w y ' .. "�i '�� {,� ? �y:� e� �� aY21 'y ;� E" -3� � � � � .. � . .. . . rt.� � �� 3 ja � ,�' �'_ y .�y x t4.�u� :. . . �ti'� � +. . ert �. Photo 3— View of Finch Avenue from Stevens Creek�Boulevard looking north. ' �; {� A �� , � r � ,,. � � �� . ,.�,, � � ,��€� ��"'�� : �� .� ,a� t .� , � �, � � �,,,�,.d;�' "��y �� -a�';t � � t ='z�� ,�� : �" �� k�`�� .��, �� -.• � - , c .:.N' ' '� ..,,,s � . r,y.. `i� ik �4. �' • y ��_..' �' j h��.sYy,•. " �: y`-k'' � . ._ �', � .. . � ,. A• s. ..... . �� Photo 4— View of the project site and adjacent residential uses west of the project site from Stevens Creek Boulevard looking northwest. City of Cupertino 26 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Secvio�l �.0 — Ein�rrnnntc-ftic�l Seiting. Checklist, c�i�e! Discti.csi��r oj�lmpacts �1.1.1.2 Su�•roufiding Visuul Cl7aractei• The project site is surrounded by e�isting urban development. road��ays, and an urbanized creek (Calabazas Creek). T��o-stocy industrial office buildings set back firom the street in a campus-like setting are pcesent north of the project site. Cominercial buildings, �enerally one to t�to stories in height. front Stevens Creek Boulevard. A t�vo-story apartment comple� is also located along Stevens Creek Boulevard, south of the project site. The major streets in this commercial area are heavil}� traveled by personal vehicles, trucks, and buses. Landscape trees and shrubs soften hardscape areas in some parking lots along Stevens Cceek Boulevard. A three-storv mixed residential and cominercial development is immediately west of the project site (Metropolitan Project). A lar��e, two-story retail mall stcucture (Cupertino Square) is located farther west of the project site. �.1.1.3 Scenic Views The project site is flat and does not provide prominei�t viewpoints. Views of the foothill areas to the south and west are partially obscured by existin, development and (andscape trees. �.1.2 En��ironmental Checklist and Discussion of Imnacts AESTHET(CS Less Than Potentialh� Si�niticant I,ess Than Signiticant w�i[h Sioniticant No Impact �t��icial InFunnation Impact Mitiaation hnpact Impact Source(sl Incorporated Would the project: 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ 1,2 a scenic vista? 2) Substantially damage scenic ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ 1,2 resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic bui(dings within a state scenic highway? 3) Substantially degrade tlle existing ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ 1 visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 4) Create a new source of substantial ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ 1 light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Aesthetic values are, by their nature, very subjective. Opinions as to what constitutes a degradation of visual character will differ among individuals. One of the best available means for assessing what constitutes a visually acceptable standard for new buildings are the City's design standards and implementation of those standards through the City's design process. The following discussion addresses the proposed changes to the visual setting of the project area and factocs that are part of the community's assessment of the aesthetic values of a project's design. City of Cupertino 27 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 S�clion -/.0 — En�•i�•oy�nrc�7�u1 Setti��g, Cl�ecklist. u�id Disc�us.sion o� /nr��urt.c �.L2.1 Chnnne in Visuul Chui�acte�• The proposed project ��ould replace the open, urban �acant (ots on both sides of Finch Avenue �� itll multiple one- to fi�e-stor� structures up to 60 feet tall, surface parking areas, plazas, and urban Iandscapi�Ig. Most of the ash tcees aloi�g the nocthern boundary of the site, alon� w�ith a large, dead valley oak tcee, and other tcees in poor health and/or tivithin the footprint of with the proposed development ��ould be removed (refer to Section �.4 Biological Resources). Replacement trees and additionai landscapin�� is propc�sed (refer to Section 4.� Biological Resources).` Finai buildin�� and landscapin� design and site la��out for the project has not been comp(eted. The following discussion desci the proposed standards of the project in terms of buildin� hei�ht, setbacks. and otl�er features. Future Streetscape on Valico Parkw�ay� and Tantau Avenue As shown on Figure 3.0-1 to 3.0-4. Schen�e 1 �vould have one-story retail buildings (up to appro�imately ?8 feet tall), a five-level parking gacage (approxiinately 40 feet tall), and a thcee-story athletic club building (45 feet tall) fronting Val(co Parkway. The athletic club, specifically the associated outdoor pool and activity area, would front Tantau Avenue. New landscaping, including trees, �vould be planted along Vallco Parkway� and Tantau Avenue for screening and to soften vie��s of the development from public streets. The retail buildings would be set back a minimum of 20 feet from Vailco Parkway and the proposed parking structure would be set back 25 feet froil� Vallco Parkway. The proposed athletic club building would be set back 35 feet from Vallco Packway and 50 feet from Tantau Avenue. The future streetscape on Vallco Parkway and Tantau would be similar for Scheme 2 as Schen�e 1 except the three-story athletic club would be replaced with a three-story office building (48 feet tall) and the parking gacage on Vallco Parkway w�ould be four levels (up to 30 feet tall). The oftice building �vould be set back 35 feet from Vallco Park�vay and 30 feet from Tantau Avenue (refer to Figures 3.0-1 to 3.0-4). In both schemes, landscaping and trees are proposed along the northern boundary of the project site. Future Streetscape on Stevens Creek Boulevard The portion of the project site along Stevens Creek Boulevard is located within a busy commercial corridor. As shown in Figure 3.0-1, Scheme 1 includes open space (park), one-story retail buildings (22 feet tall). a three-story hotel (59 feet tall), and a three-story athletic club building (45 feet tall) � fronting Stevens Creek Bou(evard. The retail and hotel buildings would be set back 35 feet from Stevens Creek Boulevard and the athletic club would be set back 40 feet from Stevens Creek Boulevard. The future streetscape on Stevens Creek Bou(evard under Scheme 2 would be similar to that of Scheme 1 except the athletic club would be replaced with a three-story office building (48 feet tall). The office building would be set back 35 feet from Stevens Creek Boulevard (refer to Figure 3.0-4). ' The ash trees to be removed are dead or are considered to be in poor condition and beyond recovery. Source: Arbor Resources. A Tree Inventorv and Review of the Proposed Development at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue. 30 April 2008. City of Cupertino 28 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 SE ctic» ��.0 — E'rn•ironmentul Se�tin;. C'l�ecklist, n��cl Discussioi� oJ�lmpuc�.c The buildings in both schemes along Stevens Cceek Boulevard would be broken up by landscaping. and �rivate drives. Landscapin� and trees ai pcoposed alon� the southern boundary of the project site. In addition, parallel parking is proposed on Stevens Creek Boule�-ard alon� the pr ti•ontage. Euture Streetscape on Finch Avenue The proposed project, under both schemes. ��ould abandon the middle portion of the segment of Finch Avenue that passes tht•ou�11 the project site and replace it �a ith a 0.88-acre open space area (town squace) that would have ai� easement for public use and access. In both schemes, a private drive with on-street parking wouid be constructed around the proposed open space/town square. Vehicles traveling on Finch Avenue would enter this private drive and be circulated around the town square (refer to Figures 3.0-1 and 3.0-4). [n addition, in both sche�l�es. diagonal parking is proposed on the northecn segment of Finch Avenue, north of the proposed to��n square and south of Vallco Parkway. The final design of the pcoposed project would be evaluated for consistency with the City's standards as a part of Design Review (Architectural and Site Approval) process required for approval of the specific project design, if the proposed project is approved. This �•eview considers the relationship of the proposed buildings with the surrounding land uses and the streets, comp(iance with adopted height limits, setbacks, architectural, and landscaping design guidelines (including those in the South Vallco Park Master Plan), and the overal! quality� and compatibility of the building materials and architecture with the surrounding area. Although the proposed development on the project site would be visually different from what is existing on the site, if consistent with the City's design review as detecmined through t11e design review process, it would not result in a degradation of the visual character of the built environment in the site area, including the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor. 4.1.2.2 Impaet to Scenie Views As discussed previously, scenic views from the project vicinity are limited. [n addition, views of the site are limited to the immediate area. The foothills west and south of the site are genera�ly obscured by existing development and landscape trees. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantial(y block scenic views or is not anticipated to have a substantial effect on a scenic vista. 41.2.3 Light and Glure The proposed project (under both schemes) would not include substantial reflective glass surfaces that could result in glare impacts. The project would have securit�� lighting around buildings and surface parking areas similar to existing and approved lighting on other properties along Stevens Creek Boulevard. At the time of final design review, a lighting plan will be reviewed by the Director of Community Development to assure that lighting is directed downward and will not spill over onto adjacent properties. 4.1.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in significant visual or aesthetic impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 29 [nitial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sec7ioi� -1.0 — E»vironnte�ita! Settirtg. Cherklist, and Disci�ssinn o��lntpucts -t.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES -t.2.1 Se tting Accoi to the Santa Clara County lmportant Facm(and 2006 map, the project site is desi�nated as Urbcm und Bzull-L'p Lund. Ur�ban and Bt�il1-Up Lart�! is defined as residential land with a density of at least six units per 10-acre parcel, as �vell as land used foc industrial and commercial pucposes, golf� courses, landfills, airports. se��e treatinent, and wate�r contcol structures. Current(y, the project site is not used for agcicultural purposes and is not the subject of a Williamson Act contract. The site is located within an urban area of Cupertino and there is no property used for a�cicultural purposes adjacent to the proiect site. 4.2.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Imnacts AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Significant t.ess Than geneticial Intiirmation Si�niticant VVith Sisnitican[ No Impact �mpact Source(s) Impact Mitioation Impact Inco orated Would the project: 1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ ; Farmland, or Farmland of State�vide [mportance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to �1on-agricultural use? 2) Conflict �uith existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ 2 agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contracT? 3) Involve other changes in the ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ 1,2,; existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-a ricultural use? As discussed above, the project site is not designated as farmland or used for agricultura) purposes. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts ro farmland. 4.2.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to farmland. (No Impaet) CityofCupertino 30 Initial Study� Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Stctio» -1.0 — Ern•iro�ime�itcrl Settink=. Chcck/ist. und Disrussiort o��lmpucis =1.3 aIR QUALITY 4.3.1 Settin 4.3.1.1 Baekground h�formcrtion Climate and Topography The project site is located in Cupertino. �vhich is located in the Santa Clara Valley in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin. The project site's proximity to both the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay has a moderating influence on the c(imate. Tflis portion of the Santa Clara Valley is bounded to the north by the San Francisco Bay and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the south��est. The surrounding terrain great(y influences winds in the valley, cesulting in a pcevailing wind that fol(ows along the valley�s northwest-southwest axis. Pollutants in the air can cause health prob(ems, especially for children, the elderly, and peop(e with heart or lung problems. Healthy adults may experience symptoms ducing periods of intense exercise. Pollutants can also cause damaQe to vegetation, animals, and propecty. Regulatory Setting The City of Cupertino is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standacds are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air quality standards are set by the federal government (the 1970 Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments) and the state (California Clean Air Act oti 1988 and its subsequent amendments). Regional air qua(ity management districts such as the BAAQMD must prepare air quality plans specifying how state standards would be met. The BAAQMD's most recently adopted Clean Air Plan (CAP) is the Bay A�°eu 200� Ozone St�°ategy. This p(an inc(udes a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources. The plan objective is to indicate how the region would make progress toward attaining the stricter state air quality standards, as mandated by the California Clean Air Act. The plan is designed to achieve a region-wide reduction of ozone precursor pollutants through the expeditious implementation of all feasible measures. The plan proposes expanded implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs) and programs such as Spare the Air. Spare the Air is a public outreach program designed to educate the public about air pollution in the Bay Area and promote individual behavior changes that improve air quality. Some of these measures or programs rely on local governments for implementation. Regional and Local Criteria Pollutants Major criteria pollutants, listed in '`criteria" documents by the U.S. Environmental Projection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, su(fur dioxide, and suspended particulate matter (PM). These pollutants can have health effects such as cespiratory impairment and heart/lung disease symptoms. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are judged for each air pollutant. The Bay Area as a whole does not meet state or federal ambient air quality standards for ground level ozone and state standards for PM and PM City of Cupertino 31 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 S�cti�»t �.0 — Ern�rronmental Setting. Cl�eck/ist. a�tc/ Discu.ssion oJ Intpac[s -1.3.1.2 Se�zsitive Receptors � BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities �vhere sensitive receptoe population �roups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically iil) are likel}� to be located. These land uses � included residences, school playgcounds, child-care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medica( clii�ics. Existing sensitive receptors near the project site include the residential uses �est and south of the project site (cefer to Figure 2.0-3). 4.3.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion AIR QUALITY Less Than Potentiall}� Signiticant Less Than gzt1zticial Infonnation � Si�niticant With Sianificant No fmpact �i��act Source(s) lmpact h1iti��ation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Conflict witl� or obstruct ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 implementation of the applicable air quality plan`? 2) Violate any air quality standard or � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 contribute substantial�lv to an existing or projected air quality violation? 3) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ 4 considerable net increase of anv criteria pollutant for ��Ilich the project region is classified as non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? 4) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 substantial pollutant concentrations? �) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ 4 a substantial number of eo le? An air quality assessment was completed for the project by Illing►a�or•th & Roc�kin in August 2008. The analysis indicated that the project would result in significant air quality impacts. For this reason, preparation of an Environmental [mpact Report (EIR) is required. The air quality impacts of the project will be discussed in the EIR. City of Cupertino 32 Initia( Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sc ction -/.0 — E�n•iro»rite��tal Settrng, Checklis�, c7r�cl Di.s�ctr�:siola of Impucts �.-� BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Follo�� ing discussion is based on a biotic survey pcepared by Li►�e Oak Associate.��, l��c. in April 2008 and a tree survey completed by .=�rbo�� Resoan•ces in July 2008. Copies of the biotic survey and tree sur�e} are included in Appendices A and E3. respectively. 4.-�.1 Se tting �.�.1.1 On-Site Hc�bitut unci Over��iew The 18.7-acre project site is genecally flat and is approximately I 80 feet above mean sea leveL The site consists of ruderal. non-native �rassland w�ith ornamental trees and shrubs scattered throughout. The plant species on the site include slender wild oats, Italian ryegrass, bristly ox tongue, and wild radish. Large mature trees occur on the site, including ash, elm, and coast redwood trees (cefer to Appendix B). Historically, Calabazas Creek, flowing from south to north, meandered across the site. Around 1978, the creek �as realigned to flow in an underground, double-box culvert that generally runs parallel to Finch Avenue bet�veen Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Parkway. Reptiles observed on the site include the western fence lizard. Avian species observed include red- tail ha��k, killdeer, rock dove, black phoebe, and northern mockingbird. Also, great horned owl re;�ur�itation pellets were observed, and several species of birds including turkey vulture, barn swallow, and cliff swallo�v were observed flying over the site. Mammal species observed include California ground squirrels and evidence of tlle Botta's pocket gopher. Regutatory Setting Threatened and Endan er�pecies State and federal `'endangered species" legislation has provided the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Permits may be required from both the CDFG and USFWS if activities associated with a proposed project wi(I resu(t in the take of a species listed as threatened or endangered. To '`take" a listed species, as defined by the state of California, is "to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill" said species (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). "Take" is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include "harm" of a listed species (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). Mi r� Birds State and federal laws also protect most bird species. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., scc. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. City of Cupertino 33 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sec�tion -1.0 - Ein�n�o�tm�ntal SE:tjing. Checklist. �i��d Discus.ci��n c�f�IntE�ac•t.� Birds of Pre� Birds of pre�. such as o��ls and hawks, are protected in California under provisions ot�the State Fish and Game Code. Section 3503.5. (1992), which states that it is '`unla��-ful to take, possess, or destroy � anr birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or desh the nest or e�gs of am such bird except as otherwise provided by this code oc any re�ulation adopted pursuant thereto." Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental � loss of fertile e��s or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of repcoductive effort is considered "taking" by the CDFG. 4.4.1.2 Speeiu!-Status Plunt and Animal Species A number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under state and federal endangered species legislation. These ace species that have lo�v populations, limited distributions, or both. Others have been desi�nated as "candidates" for such listin`7. Still others have been designated as "species of special concern" by the CDFG. The CNPS has also de��eloped a set of lists of native plants considered rare, threatened or endangered (CNPS 2005). Co(lectively, these plants a��d animals are referred to as "special-status species." Special-Status P(ant Species A search of relevant databases was completed to identify specia(-status plant species that occur, or once occurred in the vicinity of the project area. A total of 25 special-status plant species ��-ere identified in the databases that could occur in the vicinity of the project area. Many of the plant species identified occur on serpentine or a(kali soils, which do not occur on-site. None of the identified 2� special-status plant species occur on the site (refer to Appendix A). This is mainly due to the site being surrounded by ucban development and has been isolated from habitat that supports the various special-status plant species that have occurred in the region. Special-Status Animal Species A search of relevant databases was completed to identify special-status animal species that may occur in the project vicinity. A total of 14 species-status animal species occur, or once occurred. in the project vicinity. Of these, 13 would be absent from or unlikely to occur on the site. The one remaining special-status animal species that may occuc more frequently as a regulac forager or may be resident to the site is the loggerhead shrike. A reconnaissance survey for special-status species, such as loggerhead shrikes and burrowing owls, tree-nesting raptors, and other nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was completed in April 2008. No loggerhead shrikes or nests were observed during the reconnaissance survey. Live OakAssociates, Inc. determined that burrowing owls were absent from the site due to the tack of direct and indirect burrowing owl evidence. However, great horned owl regurgitation pe(lets were observed, and several species of birds including turkey vu(ture, barn swallow, and cliff swallow were observed flying over the site. 4.4.1.2 Species Protected Under tlle Migrutory Bird Aet A house finch nest was observed in a date palm in the southern portion of the site, approximately 150 feet east of Finch Avenue and approximately 15 feet north of Stevens Creek Boulevard. This species, along with all migratory birds, is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Whi(e the City of Cupertino 34 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Stctio» �.0 — Er7��irc�rnuey�tul Sctling. Chc�c•klist. ar�d Discussron o/�lm��ucts inside of the nest was not observable, the cegular pceseilce of a female house finch and the absence of hatchlin� activity indicated that the nest held eggs during the time of the survey. The incubation period for the eggs of a house finch is 13-14 da}'s. Atter hatchii�g, tl�e chicks fledge from the nest after 16 da��s. No other nesting birds or roosting or fora�rin� bats ��ere observed durin� the July ?008 surve�. =1.4.1.3 Wetla��ds und ONzer "Jurisdictional Waters" Jurisdictional �vaters include rivers. creeks, and draina�es with a defined bed and bank that ma�� carry ephemeral flo��s. lakes. ponds. resecvoirs, and wetlands. Such waters may be subject to the re�ulator�� authorit�� of tlte USACE. CDFG, and RWQCB. Calabazas Creek flows under the site iit an under��round coi�crete box culvert. The site does not support at�y natural water features, and tllerefoce. does not support jurisdictional waters. 4.�3.1.� Ti•ees Regulatory� Setting The City of Cupertino recognizes the substantial economic, environmental, and aesthetic impoctance of its t►•ee population. The City tinds that the preservation of specimen and heritage trees on private and ptiblic property, and the protection of all trees during consti•uction, is necessary for the best interests of the City and of the citizens and public (Municipal Code Chapter 14. l8). The City's Municipal Code calls for protection of "specimen" and '`heritage" trees and requires a permit prior to their removal. Specimen Trees include the following species that ha�-e a minimum single-trunk diameter of 10-inches (31-inches in circumference) or minimum multi-truck diameter of 20-inches (63-inches in circumference) measured at 4.5 feet from natural grade: oak (including coast live oak, valley oak. black oak, blue oak, and interior live oak), California buckeye, big leaf maple, deodar cedar, blue atlas cedar, bay laurel or California bay, and western sycamore (Municipal Code Chapter 14.18.03�). Heritage Trees ace any tree or grove of trees whicli, because of factors including, but not limited to, its historic value, unique quality, girth, height, or species, has been found by the Architectucal and Site Approval Committee to have a special signiticance to the community. The removal of specimen trees, heritage trees, street trees, and any tree required to be planted or retained as part of an approved development application, building pennit, tree removal permit or code enforcement action shall not be removed without first obtaining a tree removal permit (Municipal Code Chapter 14.18.035). Tree Survey Trees on the project site (73 trees), trees within the public ROW near the project site (71 trees), and trees overhanging the site from neighboring properties (two trees) were surveyed by Arbor Resources and a tree report was completed in July 2008. An inventory of al( 146 trees surveyed, including their location, species, size, health, and suitability for preservation, are included in Appendix B of tliis Initial Study. A summary of the trees on-site is provided in Table 4.0-1. The most common tree species noted in the survey were shamel ash (92 trees), elm (14 trees), and coast redwood (13 trees). The shame( ash trees are located around the perimeter of the site a(ong Va(Ico Parkway, Tantau Avenue, and a portion of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Other tree species City of Cupertino 35 [nitial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sc�ction �.0 — Em�iro�m�E�r�tul Setti�a�;, ChE=c•klist. us�d Discussion uf �lmperr�s � surve�'ed included Aleppo pine, black��ood acacia. California peppec, canary island date palm. En�lish walnut, ocange. ��attle, eucalyptus, and valley oak. Most of the trees sur��eyed have a moderate to low suitability� for preservation based on their health. structural int�egrih�, and species. One tcee on-site is considered a specimen tree based on site and species. Tree # I 26 is val(e�� oak tree that is 57-inches ii1 diaineter. Ho�t°ever, this vallev oak has been dead for several veacs. Table 4.0-1 Summar�� of Tree S ecies and Size Species Diameter in inches TOTAL U to 12 13-18 19-36 Over 36 Shamel Ash 14 �t7 31 0 92 Elm 6 6 2 0 14 Coast Redwood 0 9 � 0 13 Cana�y Island Date Palm 0 0 7 0 7 En lish Walnut 1 1 4 0 6 Blackwood Acacia 1 1 2 I � California Pe ec 0 0 1 2 3 Oran e 0 0 2 0 2 Valle Oak 0 0 0 1 1 Silver pollar Gum 0 0 0 1 1 Ale o Pine 0 0 0 1 1 Silver Wattle 1 0 0 0 I 4.4.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion BIOI,OG[CAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Si�niticant Less Than g�i�elicial Information Significant With Signiticant No Impact ��pa�t Source(s) Impact Miti�ation Impact Incorporafed Wou(d the project: I) Have a substantial adverse effect, � � � � � > either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on � � � � � 5 any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? City of Cupertino 36 [nitial Stud}� Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Section =J.O — E�n�ironme��lul Settii��. C'hecklist, and Disci�ssic�� o/�Im��nc I3fOLOG1CAL RESOURCES Le,s l han Putentiall�� Si�niticant Less Ch<in Signiticanl With Si«nilicant No Intpact ��ticial Inti�rmation Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Suurce(sl Incorporated Would the project: 3) Have a substantiat adverse effect on � � � � � � federallv� protected �cetlands as defined bv Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not � limited to. marsh, vernal pooL coasta(, etc.) through direct � removal, fiilling, h�drolo<�ical interruption, or other means`? �) lnterfere substantial(v �� ith the � � � � � i movement of anv native resident or migrator�� tish or wildlife species oc �vith established native resident or migrator�� vildlife corridors, impede the use of native �vildlife nurserv sites? 5) Conflict �vitl� any local policies or � � � � � �,6.7 ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 6) Conflict �vith the provisions of an � � � � � � adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Coi�servation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation (an? 4.4.2.1 Impacts to Habitat (Non-Native Ruderal Grasstand) Loss of Habitat for Native Wildlife Development of the proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 18.7 acres of non- native/ruderal grasslands within a developed urban area. This habitat possesses minimal biotic va(ue and provides only low-quality habitat for most species. Nonetheless, the site comprises a portion of certain wildlife's entire home range or territory. As such, some species may use the site, but most wildlife presently using the site do so as part of their normal movements for foraging, mating, and caring for young. [ndividuals of the various vertebrate species presently occupying the site would be displaced or lost from the development area. However, impacts due to the loss of low yuality ruderal habitat within an urban setting are not anticipated to affect the persistence and presence of local wildlife. The development of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to ruderal grassland habitat. City of Cupertino 37 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectio» -1.0 — Er7i�u�aun�n[al S��ttin�. C17� cklist. �rrrcl Discussiat c f Impa��ts � Interference �rith the Movement of Native Wildlife The movements of va�°ious species on- and off-site vary depending on the species in question. Wildlife movements generall_y are divided into three major behavioral categories: 1) movements �vithin a home range or territorv, 2) movements durin� migration, and 3) moveme��ts during dispersal. y While no detailed study of animai movements has been conducted for the pcoject area. knowledge of the site, its habitats. and the ecolog�� of the species occucrin� on-site permits sufficient predictions about the types of movements occurring in the region and ��-hether or not proposed development �vould constitute a significant i�npact to animal movements. The only habitat impacted b}� the proposed project is non-native ruderal y�rassland. While nati��e ��ildlife may move through this habitat. it does not represent a significant movement corridor foc native wildlife, as the site is surrounded by urban development. Thecetiore. the loss of this habitat would result in a less than signiticant impact on the movements of native wildlife. 4.4.2.2 Inzpacts to Spec�a/-Stutus P/unt �nd Arlimal Species und Snecies P�•otected Unde�• tlTe Migrator�� Bird Ti•eatl� Act Special-Status Plant Species As discussed above, 25 special-status plant species occur, or once occurred, in the vicinity of the project area. None of the 25 special-status plant species, however. occurs on the site. Development of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to special-status plant species. Special-Status Animal S�ecies and Species Protected Under the Migratory Bird Treat�� Act Reconnaissance site sucveys did not detect recent historic evidence of loggerhead shrikes, burrowing owls, or nesting raptors on the site. While this lack of evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the absence of loggerhead shrikes and burrowing owls and lack of recent nesting activity by raptors, the lack of evidence does not mean that loggerhead shrikes, burrowing owls, or raptors would not be present or nest on the site in the near future. The trees on the site support potential habitat for tree nesting raptors. In addition, it is possible that loggerhead shrikes and burrowing owls could locate on the site at any time. Nesting house finches are currently present on the project site. This species, along with all migratory birds, is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and disturbance to nests which results in nest abandonment or death would be in violation of state and federal law. Im�act BIO —1: The development of the proposed project would result in direct impacts to nesting birds, loggerhead shrikes, burrowing owls, or nesting raptors, if present on the site at the time of construction. (Significant Impact) City of Cupertino ;8 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 St��tinri �. (l — E�ariro�7nre�7tal Setti��R. Cl�ecklisl. cmd Disci�ssio�� o>'lmpuc�ts Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measures: As a condition of appro�•al, the proposed project shall implement the follo�ving measures to avoid impacts to nesting birds: Tree Nesting Birds MM B10-1.1: Removal of trees on the pcoject site could be scheduled bet�veen September and December (inclusive) to avoid the nesting season for bicds and no additional su► would be required. MM BIO-1.2: lf removal of the trees on-site is planned to take place bet�veen .lanuar�� and August (inclusive), a pre-construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualitied ornithologist to identif� active nestin�7 raptor or other bird nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. Between January and April (inclusive) pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than l4 days prior to the initiation of construction activities or tree relocation or removal. Between May and August (inclusive). pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than tl�irty (30) days prior to the initiation of these activities. The surveying ornithologist shall inspect all trees in and immediately adjacent to the construction area for nests. If an active raptor nest is found in or close enough to the constcuction area to be disturbed b}� these activities, the ornitho(ogist shall, in consultation with the State of California, Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), designate a construction-fi buffer zone (typicaliy 250 feet) around the nest until the end of the nesting activity. Buffers for other birds shall be detecmined by the ornithologist. MM BIO-1.3: A repoi summarizing the results of the pre-construction surve}' and any designated buffer zones or protection measures for tree nesting birds shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to the start of grading or tree removal. Burro�ving Owls MM BIO-1.4: Pre-construction surveys for burrowing owis shall be conducted in conformance with CDFG protocols, no more than 30 days prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity such as clearing and grubbing, excavation, or grading. If no burrowing owls are located during these surveys, no additional action wou(d be warranted. I-lowever, if burrowing owls are located on or immediately adjacent to the site, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. • Buffer Zones. If burrowing owls are present during the nonbreeding season (generally September 1 to January 31), a 150-foot buffer zone, within which no new project-related activity will be permissible, shall be maintained around the occupied burrow(s). During the breeding season (generally February 1 to August 31), a 250-foot buffer, within which no new project-related activity will be permissible, will be maintained between project activities and occupied burrows. Owls present at burrows on the site after February 1 will be assumed to be nesting on or adjacent to the site unless evidence indicates otherwise. City of Cupertino 39 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Seclroi� -1.0 — E'm•ironmenla! Setti��„ Chec:klist. unc/ Disc•ussiun of ln�E�ucls This protected area �vill remain in effect until August 31, or at the disccetion of the CDFG and based upon monitoring evidence, until the ��ou�1� o��ls are foraging independentl��. • lf ground-disturbing activities will dicectl� impact occupied burrows, eviction outside the nesting season may be permitted pending evaluation of eviction plans b}�, and receipt of formal �vritten approval � of the relocation from the CDFG. No burro�ving o��ls shall be evicted from burro«s during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) unless evidence indicates Chat nesting is not actively occurring � (e.g., because the owls have not yet begun nestin� early in the season, or because young have already fledged late in the season). A report on the results of the pre-construction surve}�(s) for burrowing owls, ii�cluding any required buffer zones or protection measures shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to the start of grading or othei ground dist��rbance. 4.4.2.3 Calabazas Creek Direct Impacts to Riparian Habitat The project includes the installation of two new 24-inch storm drain lines that would discharge direct(y to the Calabazas Creek culvert that crosses the site. These two stocm water outlets ��ould not require modification to existing open channel areas. The project, therefore, would not result in direct impacts to ripacian habitat along Calabazas Creek. Water Quality Impacts Eventual site development, including grading, would leave the soi( of construction zones barren of vegetation and, therefore, vulnerab(e to sheet, rill, or gully erosion. Eroded soil is generally carried as sediment in surface runoff to be deposited in natural creek beds, canals, and adjacent wetlands. Furthermore, urban runoff is often pol(uted with grease, oil, pesticide and herbicide residues, and heavy metals. These pollutants may eventually be carried to sensitive wetland habitats used by a diversity of native wildlife species. The depositioi� of pollutants and sediinents in sensitive riparian and wetland habitats would be considered a significant impact. As discussed in Seetion 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project shall implement mitigation measures as conditions of approva( to reduce water quality impacts to Calabazas Creek to a less than significant level. 4.4.2.4 Trees The 2008 tree survey evaluated impacts to trees based on tree health and the site design. Trees in building or parking structure or lot footprints were assumed to be removed. Trees in poor condition also are recommended for removal, even if they would not be impacted by site development. Under Scheme 1, it is anticipated that a total of 93 trees would be removed and 13 trees could be relocated elsewhere on-site based on their high suitability for preservation. Under Schenae 2, it is anticipated that a total of 94 trees would be removed and 13 trees could be relocated elsewhere on-site based on their high suitability for preservation. Additional details regarding tree disposition are included in Appendix B of this Initial Study. Under both schemes, the dead specimen tree (#126) would be removed. However, as shown on Figures 1.0-10 and 1.0-1 l, the project (under either scheme) City of Cupertino 40 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectro�7 -1.0 — Em•irnnme��tul Settirt� r. ('I�eckli.ct. imcl Discrrssion oflmE�act.r proposes to plant two tie(d gro��n oak tcees' on the project site at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue to ceplace the existing dead specimen oak tcee that �vould be removed as part of the project. Impact BIO — 2: Development of eithec Schen�e 1 or Schen�e ? would resuit in removal of a substantial �IUmber of trees fro�n the site. (Significant (mpact) Miti�ation and/or Avoidance Measures: As conditions of appro��aL the proposed project shall implement the following measures to reduce impacts to trees to a less than si�nificant IeveL• MM BIO — 2.1: The project shall implement the recoininendatio�IS outlined in the t�•ee report prepared by �rbo�- Resoin�ces in July 2008 including the follov� ing measures: • Site plans sha(1 be reviewed by the City arborist to ensuce tree protection and to minimize tree impacts in conformance with the recommendatioi�s in the tcee report by Arbor� Resozn-ce.s� in July 2008. • Trees to be removed shall be replaced at the follo� ing ratios per City Municipal Code Scction 14.18.185: Table 4.0-2 Tree Re lacement Ratios Trunk Size of Removed Tree Re lacement Trees (measured at 4.5 feet above rade) � U to 12 inches One 24-inch box tree Over 12 inches and u to 18 inches Two 24-inch box trees Over 18 inches and u to 36 inches Two 24-inch box trees or one 36-inch box tree Over 36 inches One 36-inch box tree • An ISA certified arborist and/or a member of ASCA (American Society of Consulting Arborists) - to be named the "project arborist'' - shall be retained by the applicant or owner to assist in implementin� and achieving compliance with all tree protection measures. • Prior to any demolition or site clearing work, a pre-construction meeting shall be held on-site with the project arborist and contractor to discuss work procedures, protection fencing locations, limits of grading, tree removals, staging areas, routes of access, removal of existing hardscape, supplemental watering, mulching, locations for equipment washing pits, relocation oftrees, and any other applicable tree protection measures. • For trees to be preserved, a minimum tree protection zone (TPZ) shall be established. The TPZ shall be seven times the diameter of the tree to be preserved. • Tree protective fencing shall be installed around the TPZ prior to any demolition, grading, surface scraping or heavy equipment arriving on site, and its precise (ocation and placement approved by the project • arborist (in the fonn of a letter submitted to the City Director of Community Development) prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading or construction pennit. The protective fencing shall be ' A field grown trees refers to a tree that is fully mature. City of Cupertino 41 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectio�r -1.0 — E��rirc�nnren�c�! Setling. Checklist, ancl Disc��ssro�� of Im�mc•ts � comprised of six-foot high c{�ain link mounted o�� eight-foot tall, t�vo- � inch diameter steel posts that are driven 24 inches into the gcound and spaced no more than l0 feet apart. Once established, tlie fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout construction until � final inspection. • Unless other�� ise approved, al l development activities must be performed outside the designated fenced areas and off unpaved areas beneath the e�:isting tree canopies. These activities include, but are not limited to, the follo��in�: demolition, grading, stripping of topsoil, trenching. equipment cleaninQ, stockpiling/dumping of materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. � TI1e follo��ing shall be displayed on 8.�- by 1 l-inch signs (minimum) and attached to the tree protective fencing every �0 feet on the side � facing construction activities: `'Warning — Tree Protection Zone - tllis fence shall not be removed. Violators are subject to a penalty according to Cupe► Municipal Code." These signs shall be posted prior to construction. • Removal of existing pavement beneath canopies must be carefully performed so no soil cuts and root/trunk damage occur ducing the process. In doing so, the hardscape surfaces shall, with a jackhammer or pick, be broken up into manageable sections that can be manually lifted and loaded by 11and into the bucket of a small tractor (e.g. a Bobcat). Any tractor or heavy equipment used during the process must remain on pavement at all times and off unpaved areas or exposed soil, base rock and roots. • Throughout construction during the months of May thru October, supplemental water shall be supplied to retained trees. The specific trees, methodology, frequency, and amounts shall be prescribed by the project arborist. • All equipment sha(1 be positioned to avoid the trunks and branches of trees. Where a conflict arises, the project arborist must be contacted to help address the situation. • The relocation of trees shall be performed according to the standards set forth in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 6)-2005 Transplanting, and also by a company that has an ISA certified arborist in a supervisory role, holds a current California state- licensed contractor's license, carries General Liability and Worker's Compensation insurance, and abides by ANSI Z133.1-2006 (Safety Operations). • All tree pruning shall be performed in accordance with the most recent ANSI standards, and by a California state-licensed tree service company that has an ISA certified arborist in a supervisory role. • The disposal of harmfut products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anyv��here on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees' canopies; where used on site, they shall be labeled for safe use near trees. City of Cupertino 42 (nitial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectio» -1.(1— E�n�irunnrer7lal Settin�. Checklisl, crnd Disct�ssiu�r of lntpercts �.-1.3 Conclusion Impact BIO — 1: The development of the proposed project, with the imple�nentation of the above mitigation and avoidance measures, would not cesult in significailt impacts to nesting migratocy birds, loggerhead shrikes, burro��in� owls, oc raptors. (Less Than Significant Im�act with Mitigation Incorporated) Impact BIO — 2: The proposed project, �vith the implementation of the above i��itigation �neasure. wou(d ceduce impacts to trees to a less than si�nificant IeveL (Less Than Significant Impact �ti-ith Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 43 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectioh -l.0 — E�ri•rronme��lu/ Stl�in�. Checklist, u��d DLscussion uf7n��urt.�� •t., CULTURaL RESOURCES The following discussion is based upon an archaeological literature review and field inspecCion completed b`� Holman �. Associates in April ?001. A copy of this report is available for revie« at the City of Cupertino Coi��munih� Deveiopment Department during regular business hours. �.5.1 Se tting �.5.1.1 P�•eltistorir und Historic Resources There are no recorded prehistoric and/or historic sites located within or within 0.25 miles of the project site. There has been no formally recocded archaeological stud�� of the project site in its entirety, although there ��-as a survey of the original aligninent of Calabazas Greek in I 97-� with negative findings. This surve}' ��'as limited to the immediate banks of the creek before it �vas undergrounded and did not su►•vey adiacent lands. During the 2001 survey, it was unclear ��here the realigned and buried Calabazas Creek was located. and if archaeological materials were discoveced during its excavation at some point over the past 20 years. Historically. Calabazas Creek, flowing from south to north, meandered across the site. Around 1978, the creek was realigned to flow in an undergcound, double-bo� culvert that generally runs parallel to Finch Avenue between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Park«av. A field inspection of the project site was completed by Holman & Associates in 2001. No structures are located on-site. At approxiinately midpoint between Tantau and Finch Road, two palm trees mark the entrance to what �vas likely a historic settlement north of Stevens Creek Road in the middle of the open field. Ducing the 2001 field inspection, remnants of a walnut orchard (cut stumps barely protruding from the ground) were found which marked the possible location of a histocic residence. Episodes of historic dumping was evident on the surface, and there were several small piles of historic debris probably associated �vith the demolition of small buildings/shacks located near the center of the site where a concentration of trees mark the location of what may have been the above mentioned residence. No evidence of prehistoric acchaeological deposits or historical deposits 50 years or more were present during the 2001 survey. 4.5.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Si�nitican[ Less Than geneficial Information Significant Wid� Sianificant No hnpact ��npact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: 1) Cause a substantial adverse change � � � � � 8 in the significance of an historical resource as defined in � 15064.5? 2) Cause a substantial adverse change � � � � � 8 in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in § 15064.5? 3) Dicect(y or indirectly destroy a � � � � � 8 unique paleontological resource or site, or uni ue eolo ic feature? City of Cupertino 44 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 S�clion �.0 — E��ri� S�ttii��. C.'hec�klist, cnac! Discirssio�� of l�n��ac�ts CULTURAL RESOURCES Lr;s Than Putentialh� Si�_niticant Les; Than geneticial Informatiun Sioniticant �t'ith Si��niticant No Impact ��ac[ Sourcz(s) Impact i�titisation Impact Incorporatcd Would the project: � � � � � 8 �) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries'? The proposed project includes the construction of retail and office uses, an athletic club, senior housing units, and a hoteL Construction of the proposed project ��ould require grading and excavation of up to ( 2 feet belo�v grade.� 4.5.2.1 Pi•ehista•ic and Historic• Resources Development throughout the Santa Clara Valley adjacent to established water courses, has uncove�•ed numerous buried archaeological sites. While no prehistoric or historic archaeological materials were discovered during the field inspection, peehistoric materials associated with aboriginal settlements along Calabazas Creek could be encountered during site grading and/or excavation. As mentioned above, there are no historic structures located on the site. However, there is a potential for the buried Ilistorical archaeological resources on the east bank of Calabazas Creek, north of Stevens Creek Boulevard. While the limited archival reseacch done to date has not established the type of construction existing at this location since the late 1800s, the landscaping remnants suggest that there was both a residential complex and some sort of farming support facility. Both these resources could contain buried archaeological deposits (dumps, fi(led in wells, privy pits, and cellars) which cou(d provide invaluable in filling out the histor�� of this site, its inhabitants, and the role it played in the development of the City. Impact CUL — l: Development of the proposed project would result in significant impacts to buried cultural resources, if e�lcountered. (Significant Impact) Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measures: As a condition of approval, the proposed project shall implement the following mitigation measures to reduce impacts to cultura( resources to a less than significant leveL MM CUL — l.l: A program of archaeological monitoring shall be adopted for portions of the project site that require deep excavation for foundations and/or underground parking facilities. Monitoring shall be done at the discretion of a qualified archaeologist until it is evident that additional earthmoving will not affect eitller prehistoric or historic deposits. MM CUL —1.2: In the event of the discovery of either prehistoric or historic arcl�aeo(ogical deposits, work shall be halted within 50 feet of the discovery and a qualified professional archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate `' Dare, Kevin. Email from Sand Hill Property Company, Project Manager. "Re: Initial Study." 19 September 2008. City of Cupertino 45 � [nitial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 S�etion -l.0 — Em•rro�tmental Setti��g, C/T�c•klist. a��el Discrrssinrt oj'Im/�uc�t.c � miti��ation. The recommendatio�� shall be impiemented and could include � collection, recordation, and anal}�sis of any siQnificant cultucal materials. MM CUL — 1.3: ln the e��ent that human remains and/or cultural materials are found. all project-related construction shall cease within a �0-foot radius of the tind in order to proceed with the testing and mitigation measures required. Pursuant to Sectian 7050.� of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.94 of tlle Public Resources Code of the State of California: • (n the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearb�� a�•ea reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. lf the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. [f no satisfactoc}' agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the land owner shall re-i��ter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on tlle property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. � A final report summarizing the discovery of cultucal materials shall be submitted to the Director of Planning prior to issuance of building permits. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation program that was implemented and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing program, a list of the resources found, a summary of the resources analysis methodology� and conclusion, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 4.5.3 Conclusion Impact CUL — 1: The proposed project, with the implementation of the above mitigation measures, would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 46 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sc��rion -�.0 — Ern�iro�imentcr/ Settin�. Chec:klisl. cincf Discussiorz oj�lm��c�cts �.6 GEOLOGY AND SO[LS The to(lowing discussion is based on a preliminar�� geotechnical investigation and supplemental geotechnical reco��nmendations report prepared b�� TRC in November and December 2007. cespectivel}�. Copies of tllese reports are included in Appendi� C of this lnitial Study. -t.6.1 Se tting -1.6. L 1 Regionul Geologl• The City of Cupertino is located on the San Francisco Peninsula. Most of Cupertino is on level �row�d that cises gently to the ��est. The incline increases at the channel of Stevens Creek, forming a short plateau near Footllill Boulevard. The plateau ends at the foot of the steep Montebello system of ridges, which extends along the ��est and south edges of Cupertino. creating a backdrop to the val(ey floor. 4.6.1.2 On-Site Geologic Conditio�rs Historically, Calabazas Creek. tlo�� ing from south to nort11, meandered across the site. Historic topographic inaps indicate that the creek channe�l ba�lks ranged from approximately 15 to 25 feet deep. Around 1978, the creek ��as cealigned to flow in an underground, double-box culvert that generally runs parallel to Finch Avenue between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Parkway. The creek continues north as an open channel. Soils and Groundwater At least three areas of the project site east of Finch Avenue (two near the fonner Calabazas Creek channel) consist of filL The undocumented fill co��sists of inedium dense clayey sand, hard silt with sand, and hard lean clay. In genecal, below the undocumented fill and at the surface of other areas of the project site, interbedded layers of stiff to hard lean clays and sandy lean clays, and medium dense to very dense sands with varying a�nounts of clay, silt, and gravel to a depth of 45 feet (the maximum depth explored) were encountered. The near surface soi( on site has high eapansion potential. Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes. These changes can cause heaving and cracking of slab-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. Free grou��dwater was not encountered during the subsurface exploration, which extended to a depth of 45 feet. According to the California Geologic Survey, historical high groundwater levels in the vicinity are estimated to be greater than 50 feet. There could be localized perched groundwater conditions at the site associated with Calabazas Creek. Fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, underground drainage patters, and other factors. Seismicity and Seismic Hazards The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. The significant earthquakes that occur in the Bay Area are generally associated with the crustal movements along well-defined active fault zones of the San Andreas Fault system, which regionally trend in the northwesteriy direction. C ity of Cupertino 47 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 S�ctio�r -!.0 — Ei7vi�•onmerrta! Set/irr�, Chc�cklis[. an�l Discussion uf'ImE�ncrs � The site is not located ��ithin a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a Santa Clara Count�� Fault Hazard "Lone. [n addition, no kno�Ln surface expression ofacti�e faults are belie��ed to cross tlle site. Nearb� active or potentially active fautts include the Monte Vista-Shannon fault located approximately 3.7 miles southwest of the site, the San Andreas (Peninsula se�ment) fault located approximatel�� 6.� miles southwest of the site, and the Hayward fault (southeast e�tension) (ocated � approximatel}' 10.8 miles northeast of the site. Because of the proximity of the project site to these faults, ground shaking, ground failure, or liquefaction due to an earthquake could cause damage to structures. Liquefaction Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loosely �ater-saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state after ground shaking. There are many variables that contcibute to liquefaction, including the age of the soil, soil type, soil cohesion, soil densit}�, and groundwater level. The project site is not located within an area zoned by the State of California as havin<� potential for seismica(ly induced liquefaction hazards although the former Calabazas Creek channe( ��as mapped as a liquefaction hazard. Because the creek has been realigned and the former creek channel has been backfilled, liquefaction in the area of the former creek channel is low. Based on the type of soils on-site and the fact that groundwater was not encountered at 45 feet below gcound surface, liquefaction potential on the site is low. Seismicallv-lnduced Differential Settlements If near-surface soils vary in composition both vertically and laterally, strong earthquake shaking can cause non-uniform settlement of soil layers. This results in movement of the near-surface soits. Because the subsurface soils encountered at the site are generally stiff to hard clays and medium dense to very dense sands and do not appear to change in thickness or consistency abruptly over short distances, the probability of seismically-induced differential settlement at the site is low. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying alluvial material toward an open or "free" face such as an open body of water, channel, or exca��ation. There are no open channels on the project site. City of Cupertino 48 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectioit -J.0 - Er�riroi�mentcal Settii�g. Checklist, u�u� Disrus.sio» o% Imj�uc°ts =�.6.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion GEOLOGY AND SOILS �_z„ Ti,��, Potentialh� Si�niticant Less Than (3�nrticial Int��rmation Si�,niticant ��ith Si�nificant No Impact Impact Sourcelsl Impact Niti�ation Impact Incor orated Would the project: 1) E�pose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, IIIC�Udlll the risk of loss, injury, or death involviiig: a) Rupture of a kno�vn earthquake ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ 9 fault, as described on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refei• to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) b) Stro��g seismic ground shaking? ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 c) Seismic-related ground failure, ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ 9 including liquefaction? d) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ 9 2) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ 9 the loss of topsoil? 3) Be located on a geologic unit or ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially cesult in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ 9 supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 4.6.2.1 Soils and Groundwater No buildings are proposed to be (ocated over the existing Calabazas Creek box culvert. Landscaping and parking spaces are proposed on top of the culvert in each development scheme (see Figures 3.0-7 and 3.0-8). City of Cupertino 49 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Section �.D— Ern�ironm�ntc�l Se�tir�g, C/�crklist. �rncl Dis��u.��sic�n oJ'Inif�ucts The project site contains undoeumented tili. The ui�documeiited fills are anticipated to be bet��een � 1 � and 2� feet in depth within the former Calabazas Cceek channel. Because undocumented fill can be highly variable, fill materials could affect foundations. ln addition, the project site includes highly expailsive soils, �vhich mav expand and co►Ztract as a result of seasonal or man-made soil moisture conditions. Ekpansive soil conditions could dama��e future buildings on the site, which would represent a signitica�lt i�npact u��less substantial damage is � avoided by incorporating appropriate engineering into gradin� and foundation design. The proposed project wou(d not be exposed to substantial slope instability or landslide-related hazards due to the flat topography of the site. Impaet GEO — 1: The buildings and pavement constructed as a part of the project (undec either scheme) would be subject to soil hazards celated to the und�cumented till and expansive soils on-site. (SigniCcant Impact) Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measures: In conformance with standard practices in the City of Cupertino, the proposed project shall imple�nent the following measure to reduce adverse effects associated with soi( conditions to a less than significant level: MM GEO — 1.1: Buildings sha(I be designed and constructed in accocdance �vith a tinal design-level geotechnical investigation to be completed for the project by a qua(ified professional. The final design-level geotechnical investigation shall identify the specific design features that will be required for the project including measures addressing clearing and site preparation, removal. replacement, and/or compaction of existing fill, abandoned utilities. subgrade preparation, material for fill, trench backfill, temporary slopes and trench excavations, surface drainage, foundation design, and pavements. Seismicity and Seismic Hazards As previously discussed, the project site is located in a seismically active region and, therefore, strong ground sllaking would be expected during the lifetime of the proposed project. While no active faults are known to cross the project site, ground shaking on the site could damage buildings and other proposed structures. The liquefaction and seismically-induced differential settlements potential on the site are low. In addition, the site has potential for lateral spreading. Impact GEO — 2: The proposed project (under either scheme) would be subject to significant seismicity and seismic hazards. (Significant Impact) Miti�ation and/or Avoidance Measures: In conformance with standard practices in the City of Cupertino, the proposed project shall implement the following measures to reduce seismic and seismic-related hazards to a less than significant level: MM GEO — 2.1: The project shall be designed and constructed in conformance with the Uniform Building Code guidelines for Seismic Zone 4 to avoid or minimize potential damage from seismic shaking and seismic-related hazards on the site. City of Cupertino 50 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectioit -l.0 — Ent•if•oi�me�ttul Setiing, Cla�cklist, urtcl Drscussic��t of�l�n��uc•t.c 4.6.3 Conclusion Impact GEO — 1: The proposed project. �ti ith the implementation of the above standard mitigation measure, would not result in significant soil iinpacts celated to the undocut��ented fill and expansive soils on-site. (Less Than Significa��t Im�act v��ith Mitigation Incor�orated) Impact GEO — 2: The proposed project, with the implementation of the abo��e standard mitigation measure, would be not result in significant seismicity or seismic hazard impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino � 1 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 SE�ction -!.O — E��rironnterttu/ Scuing. C7�ec•klist. cand Di.s�t�ssio�l oj�lnrpa�t, -�.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS l�'IATERIALS The following discussion is based on a Phase I environmental site assessment completed by ,SE�'(�R in January 2008. The purpose of the environmental site assessment ��as to identifj potential soucces of hazardous materials contamination at the site and to assess their potential to impact the project. A copy of this repo► is included in Appendix D of this [nitial Stud�.. 4.7.1 Settin� 4J.1.1 Background Inf'ormation � Hazardous materials are co�nmonly used by large institutions and commercial and industrial businesses. Hazardous matecials include a broad range of common substances such as motor oil and fuel, pesticides, detergents, paint, and solverlts. A substance may be considered hazardous if due to its chemical and/or physical properties, it poses a substantial hazard ��hen it is improperly treated. stored, transported, disposed of. oi• released into the atmosphere in the event of an accident. 4.71.2 Site Conditions The 18.7-acre project site consists of low-lying grasses. a paved parking lot, bare gcound, and trees. Sensitive receptors located near the site include residents approximately 3� feet �vest and 170 feet south of the project site, and Cupertino High School appcoximate(y 0.2 miles south of the project site. On-Site Obser��ations A site reconnaissance survey was completed for the project site in January 2008 for evidence of hazardous and/or petroleum substances, debris, surficia( staining or discoloration, above gcound storage tanks (ASTs), underground storage tanks (UST's), distressed vegetation, or other conditions which may be indicative of potential sources of soil and groundwater contamination. No hazardous or petroleum substances, ASTs. USTs. odors indicative of hazardous materials or petroleum material impacts, pits/ponds/lagoons, transformers, PCB-suspect hydraulic s}�stems, stained soil or pavement, distressed vegetation, or leach fields/septic tanks/cesspools were observed on the site. Evidence of one destroyed groundwater monitoring well was observed on the middle portion of the site, east of Finch Avenue. The well was installed in 1986 at a total depth of 69.2 feet below ground surface (bgs). ln 2006, the well was destroyed under permit and in accordance with the requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Historic Site Conditions Based on historical records and aerial photos, the project site was used for agricultural and/or residential uses prior to 1899 and was used this way until between 1965 and 1974 in the western portion of the site and untit between 1982 and 1993 in the eastern portion of the site. �n 1978 Calabazas Creek was re-routed from above ground in the central portion of the project site into an .underground concrete culvert east of Finch Avenue. The top of the culvert is reportedly about six feet bgs at the site and extends 11 feet deep and 24 feet wide. The culvert ends on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard at a rock-lined channel. Information regarding the origin or ty�pe of fill used to backfill the former creek location was not found. City of Cupertino 52 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Seelioj� -1.0 — Em•irunmentul SEtting. C'hec•k/ist. u��c/ Discussron c�J�hnp��cts �.7.1.3 Poterrtiul On-Site Sources of Coiitamii�ation Agricultural Use Impacts Due to the past agricultural use of project site, soil samples w�ere collected and tested for cesidual pesticides and metals in the near-surface soiL Concentrations of lead. arsenic, and mercury, DDT, DDE, and DDD �vere detected in the on-site soils. Althouah detected. the analysis results sho�ved no concentrations of organochlorine pesticides above the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Preliminarv Remediation Goals (PRG) or the San Francisco Bay Regional W'ater Quality Control Board (RWQCB) direct e�posure screening scenarios for residential uses. Reported concentrations of lead, arsenic. and mercucy are consistent with background soil concentrations for the State of California (refer to Appendix D). Based on the soil analyses completed, residual pesticides and metals in soils on the site ace below levels considered to pose health risks for people or haza► to the environment. Regulatory Database Search A database search was completed for the project site in January 2008 for the purpose of identifying all sites within the project area where there are known or suspected sources of contamination, as well as sites that handle or store hazardous materials. Federal, state, local, historical, and bro��nfield databases were searched. The databases searched and the results are in Appendix D of tllis Initial Study. The project site was not listed on any of the databases searched. 4.7.1.�1 Poteiltial Off-Site Sources of Contamination Based on the information obtained from the database search, various facilities in the vicinity of the site were reported as hazardous materials users and/or have reported accidental releases. The reported off-site releases included three leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) sites located adjacent and upgradient of the site on Stevens Creek Boulevard, south of the project site. These three LUST sites are closed and would not impact the site. Details regarding these facilities and others listed are included in Appendix D of this Initia( Study. Based on the type of release, current case status, direction of groundwater flow, and/or distance from the project site, past or future accidental releases from these facilities are not expected to adversely effect soil or groundwater on the project site, or impair its suitability for sensitive uses such as residences. 4.7.1.5 Other Hazards The project site is not located within two miles of an airport or within the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) jurisdiction safety zone. The project site is also not located within an area subject to wildfires.' ' Sources: 1) Association of Bay Area Governments. ABAG Wildfire Hazard Maps and [nformation. 24 October 2007. Available at: http://w�vw.abag.ca.gov/bayareaJeqmaps/wildfire/. Accessed 15 April 2008. and 2) California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Fire Resource Assessment Program. Draft Eire Hazard Severity Zones, Santa Clara County. 4 October 2007. City of Cupertino 53 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 S�ctrnit -l_0 — E1n�iru�7men�al Setli��. C7��c•klis[, ancl Discus:sio�r of lntpucts -1.7.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Im�acts HAZARDS AND HA7ARDOUS MATER(ALS lxss Than Potentialh� Si�nificant Ixss �I�han Significant bl�ith Significant No hn j�� eticial lnforma[ion lmpact h1iti�a[ion Impact �` Impact Source(s) liicorporated Would the project: 1) Create a significant hazard to the � � � � � 10 public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 2) Create a significant hazard to the � � � � � 10 � public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle � � � � � 10 hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4) Be located on a site which is � � � � � 10 included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.� and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 5) For a project located within an � � � � � 1 airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 6) For a project within the vicinity of a � � � � � I private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 7) Impair implementation of, or � � � � � ] physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emer enc evacuation lan? City of Cupertino 54 lnitial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectio�� -/.0 - E�n•ironnte��ta1 Settin�. Ch�eklis�. cu�c� Disetr.csia� oJ�lmpuc�ts H.AZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS i.�5; rn�,�, Potentialh Si;niticant Less Than Signiticant Vl�ith Si�niticant Nu Imract ��neticial Iniom�atiou � Impact �1iti��ation Impact lmpact Soin�cel;i Incorporatcd Would the project: 8) Erpose people or structures to a � � � � � 1 significant risk of loss, injur}� or death involving wildland fires, including wl�ere wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed ��ith wildlands? The proposed project includes a range of uses including senior residences and private open space (town square and park). Based on the discussion above, there are no significant on-site or off-site sources of contamination, such as on-site soil or groundwater contamination, that would substantialfy effect the proposed future uses on the project site. Tlierefore, the proposed project would not result in signiticant hazards and hazardous materials impacts. 4.7.3 Conclusion The proposed project would not result in significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact) City of Cupertino 55 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Seciinn -l.0 — Efai�iraamey�tal Se�!liy��g. Checkli.cl. cntd Disct�ssio�i of /»r/�crcts �.8 HYDROLOGY AIYD WATER QUALITY 4.8.1 Se tting 4.8.1.1 H��drolog�� und Wute�• Qcrulitl. The project site is located w�ithin an area described as the West Valley Watersheds by the Santa Clara � Valle} Water District. The West Valley Watershed consists of an 8�-square-mile area of multiple small-creek watersheds inciuding the Calabazas Creek watershed. Surtiace cunoff from the pcoject site is conveved to Calabazas Creek and ultimatelv the San Francisco Bav. Calabazas Creek runs underneath the project site in a double box culvert east of Finch Avenue (refec to Figures 3.0-1 and 3.0-4). Most of the project site (16.3 acres) is undeveloped and consists of pervious surfaces. The remaining 2.4 acres of the site is paved and impervious. Runoff firom the site is currently conveyed to three storm drain systems, which consist of storm drain lines located in Valico Parkway. Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Finch Avenue. T'he storm drain lines ran�e from 10-inches to 30-inches in size. Currently, a 30-inch storm drain line in Vallco Parkway at Finch Avenue that connects to the existing box culvert is over capacity. Under existing conditions, ducing peak runoffi fi•om a l0-year storm event, the project site would generate approximately l 3.2 cubic feet per second (cts) of cunoff. 4.8.1.2 Flooding According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood insurance Rate Map, the site is located within Zone B. which is defined as an area between limits of the 100-year flood and 500-year flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year �looding with average depths less than one (1) foot or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile; or areas peotected by levees from the base flood.' The Calabazas Creek channel is identified as being located within Zone A4, which is detuled as an area of ( 00-year flood. For the po� of Calabazas Creek located adjacent to and underneath the project site, a 100-year flood would be contained in the existing culverts. However, the Calabazas Creek channel upstream of Miller Avenue is inadequately sized to convey 100-year flood flows. Spills from the creek upstream of Miller Avenue wou(d cause shallow flooding of the site during a 100-year flood event to a depth of less than a foot. The project site is not located within a dam failure inundation area. 4.8.1.3 Water Qualin� The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as "non-point" source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Surface runoff from roads are collected by stonn drains and discharged into Calabazas Creek. The runoffoften contains contaminants such as oil and grease, 6 Dare, Kevin. Email from Sand Hill Property Company, project manager. "Re: Main Street." 31 July 2008. ' Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Panel 060339-0004C. i May 1990. City of Cupertino 56 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sec�tion -1.0 — Enrironfi�erttc�/ Setting. C{7ecklist. crncl Di.cc�zrssiur� of lmpacts p(ant and animal debris (e.g., leaves. dust, and animal feces). pesticides_ (itter, and hea��}�' metals. ln suflicient concentration, these pollutants have been lound to adversel�� affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain. Regulato�� Over��ie�� The major federal legislation governing w�ater qualit�� is the Clean Water Act, as amended b}� the Water Quality Act of 1987. The USEPA is the federal agency responsible for w�ater quality� management nationwide. The State of California's Porter-Cologne Water Qualitv Control Act provides the basis for water quality regulation �vithin Califocnia; the Act assi�,�ns primary responsibility for the protection and enhancement of water qua(ity to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). and the nine regional water quality control boards. The SV1-'RCB pro��ides state-level coordination of the water quality conri pcogram by establishing state-�� ide policies and plans for the implementation of state and federal laws and regulations. The Cit}� of Cupertino is ��ithin tlle jurisdiction of San Francisco Bay Regionai Water Quality Control Board (Rw'QCB). The State Water Resources Controi Board has implemented a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general construction permit for the Santa Clara Valley. For projects disturbing 10,000 square feet or more of soil, a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared pcior to commencement of constructioi�. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, �rading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation. Subsequent to imple�nentation of the general constructioil permit, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB issued a Municipal Storn� Water NPDES Permit to the municipalities in Santa Clara Valley, the County of Santa Claca, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) as co-permittees. The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) assists the co-permittees in implementing the provisions of this permit. In October 2001 and subsequently in July 200�, the RWQCB approved amendments to the NPDES Permit Number CAS 029718, Provision C.3. The amendments to Provision C.3 include new storm water discharge requirements for new development and redevelopment within the boundaries of the 15 jurisdictions/co-permittees that constitute SCVURPPP, including the City of Cupertino, that create, add, or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area. These projects are subject to implementation of appropriate source controls and site design measures to reduce the discharge of storm water pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Under the Hydromodification Report approved by the RWQCB in July 2005, the project site is located within a subwatershed with 65-70 percent impervious surfaces and greater than or equal to 90 percent buildout. Therefore, further urban infil( or redevelopment projects in this area are not subject to hydromodification controls to meet operation and maintenance requirements of Provision C.3. City of Cupertino 57 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectior� -l.O — Erli�ironm��lu1 Sctting, Cl�ec•klist. ar7d Discussic�r� o/�InaE�crcts -t.8.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussiou of Imnacts HYDROLOGY AND VVATER QUALITY �.�,� Ti,��„ Potentialh� Sianiticant Le�s Than geneticial Information Sianificant �Lith Sisnificant No Impact hnpact Sourcelsl lmpact A1itisation Impact Incor orated Wou(d the project: 1) Violate any ��ater quality standards ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ l,2 or �vaste discharge requirements? 2) Substantiall� deplete ground��ater ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ 1 supplies or interfere substantially with ground�aater recharge such that there �rould be a net deficit in � aquifer volume or a lo�vering of the local �rouild��-ater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearbv wells would drop to a level �vhich ��ould not support ezisting land uses or plai�ned uses for �vhicl� permits have been granted)? 3) Substantially alter the eristing ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ I drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which ��ould result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 4) Substantiallv alter the eYisting ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantiallv increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? 5) Create or contribute runoff water ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ 1,2 which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6) Otherwise substantially degrade ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ 1 water quality? 7) Place housing within a] 00-year ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 1 flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 8) Place within a 100-year flood ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ t 1 hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? City of Cupertino 58 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 S�c�ror� -1.0— E�7rii•�>rn�ttntc�lSE:ttri�,�. Checklist, a��d Disctr.s�sion uf�lm��a�•ts }-{yDROLOGY .AND Vl-'ATER QUALITY �_z„ �ri,�� Putentiall�� Si�niticant Le;: Than Si�niticant �U�ith Sianiticant Nu hnpact �3cneticial Int�xmatiun Impac[ ti1itiQation Impact Impact Sourccls) Ina�rporat�d Would the project: 9) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ 1? signiticant risk of loss, injur�, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam'� 10) Be subject to inundatioi� by seiche, ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ 1,2 tsunami. or mudflo��? 4.8.2.1 H��drolo�� und D�•ainuge Scheme 1 The development of Scheme 1 �vould result in an increase of impervious sucfaces from 2.4 acres to 1 I.9 acres, and a decrease of pecvious surfaces froin 16.3 acres to 6.8 acres. The increase in impervious surfaces �vould result in a corresponding increase in stormwater runoffi fro�n the project site. During a 10-year storm event, peak runoff from the site would inccease from approximately 13.2 cfs under existing conditions to 23.1 cfs under Schente 1.� Scheme 2 The deve(opment of Scheme 2 would result in an increase of impervious surfaces from 2.4 acres to 12.3 acres, and a decrease of pecvious surfaces from 16.3 acres to 6.4 acres. The increase in impervious surfaces would result in a corresponding increase in stormwater runoff from the project site. During a 10-year storm event, peak runoff from the site would increase from approximately 13.2 cfs under existing conditions to 23.6 cfs under Scheme 2.`' Storm Drain Capacity Impacts Under existing conditions, a 30-inch storm drain line in Vallco Parkway which connects to the existing culvert is over capacity. Under project conditions (either scheme), an 18-inch storm drain line in Vatico Parkway which also connects to the existing culvert would be over capacity. The project proposes to construct 24-inch stonn drain lines parallel to the above mentioned 30-inch and 18-inch storm drain lines to divert site runoff from those lines. The proposed 24-inch storm drain lines would connect to the northern portion of existing box culvert in Finch Avenue. in addition, both schemes propose to incorporate bioretention basins, vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve water quality. With the incorporation of the two proposed 24-inch storm drain lines and best management practices, there would be sufficient storm drain system capacity to accommodate the proposed project. g Dare, Kevin. Email from Sand Hill Property Company, project manager. "Re: Main Street." 31 July 2008. 9 Dare, Kevin. Email from Sand Hill Property Company, project manager. '`Re: Main Street." 31 July 2008. 10 BKF Engineers. HP Site, Cupertino, Stonn Drain Capacity StudX. 7 April 2008. City of Cupertino 59 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Seclic�n -1.0 — En��iro�imental Scttirtg. Chc:cklisl. ancl Disc�trssion of lnt��uc�ls -1.8.2.2 F/oodi�lg As discussed previousl�. shallo�� tlooding (less than one foot) �vould occur at the entire pcoject site in the event of a 100-year tlood due to spill over froin Calabazas Creek at Mil(er Aveilue. � Impact HYD — l: The project siCe would be subject to shallow floodin�. (Significant Impact) Miti�ation and/or A��oidance Measures: As a condition of appro��al, the project shall implement the follo�ving mitigation measures to reduce flooding impacts to a less than significant level: MM HYD — 1.1: The project shall incorporate measuces, such as berms. modified gara�e ramps. and placin� residential floor elevations above flood level. in the final desi�=n of the residential area. MM HYD — 1.2: The commercial area of the pcoject site shall be graded and designed to accommodate the flood waters in the packing lot and/or streets. MM HYD — 1.3: The final design of the project site shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits. �.8.2.3 Watei• Qualit�� Construction Related [mpacts Construction of the proposed project, as well as grading and excavation activities, may result in temporary impacts to surface water quality. Project grading and construction activities would affect the water quality of storm water surface runoff. Construction of the proposed buildings and paving of streets, pathwa}'s, and parkin�� lots would also result in a disturbance to the undeclying soils, thereby incceasing the potential for sedimentation and erosion. When disturbance to underlying soils occurs, the surface runoff that flows across the site may contain sediments that are ultimately discharged into the storm drainage system. Post-Construction Impacts The amount of impervious surfaces on tlle site, such as buildings and paved areas, would increase by 10.2 acres undec Scheme 1 and I 0.7 acres under Scheme 2. The amount of pollution carried by runoff from buildings and pavement, therefore, would also increase accordingly. The project would increase traffic and human activity on and around the site, generating more pollutants and increasi�lg dust, litter, and other contaminants that could be washed into the storm drain system. The project would therefore, generate increases in water contaminants which could be carried downstream in storm water runoff from paved surfaces on the site. Stormwater from urban uses (including building rooftops) contains metals, pesticides, herbicides, and other contaminants such as oil, grease, lead, and animal waste. Runoff from the proposed project may contain increased oil and grease from parked vehicles, as well as sediment and chemicals (i.e., fertilizers and pesticides) from the landscaped areas. Impact HYD — 2: The proposed project would increase the amount of impecvious surfaces, thereby increasing the amount of urban runoff from the site that would City of Cupertino 60 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Section -1.0 - Enrironmentul Setti�t�. Ch�cklist. cnac� Disctrs.sinn of lmpe�cts convev pollutants to Calabazas Cceek and San Francisco E3a}�. (Significant Impact) MitiEation and/or Avoidance Measures: As a condition of approval, the project shall implement the following standard mitigation measures to reduce ��ater quality impacts to a less than significant level: Construction Measures MM HYD — 2.1: The pcoject shall comply with the NPDES General Construction Activit}� Storm Vb'ater Permit administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Boacd. Prioc to construction grading the applicant shall file a Notice of (ntent (NO[) to comply with the General Permit and prepare a Stonn Water Management Plan that ineludes storm water quality best management pcactices (BMPs). The Storm Water Management Plan shall detail how runoff and associated water quality impacts resulting fi•om the proposed project will be controlled and/or managed. The Plan shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. Post Construction Measures MM HYD — 2.2: The project shall comply with Provision C.3 of NPDES Permit Numbec CAS0299718, which provides enhanced performance standards for the management of storm �vater for ne�v developil�ent. Prior to issuance of building and grading permits, each phase of development shall include provision for post-construction structural controls in tlle pcoject design in compliance with the NPDES C.3 permit provisions, and shall include BMPs for reducing contamination in storm water runoff as permanent features of the project. The project includes the incorporation of bioretention areas, bioswales, porous concrete, and infi(tration planters to reduce the amount of runoff from the site. The stormwater management plan shall be consistent with the landscaping plan and trees to be preserved. The specific BMPs to be used in each phase of development shall be determined based on design and site-specific considerations and will be determined prior to issuance of building and grading permits. MM HYD — 2.3: To protect groundwater from pollutant loading of urban runoff, BMPs which are primarily infiltration devices (such as infiltration trenches and infiltration basins) must meet, at a minimum, the following conditions: • Pollution prevention and source control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater; � Use of infiltration BMPs cannot cause or contribute to degradation of groundwater; • Infiitration BMPs must be adequately maintained; • Vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to tlie seasonal high groundwater mark must be at least 10 feet. In areas of highly porous soils and/or high groundwater table, BMPs shall be City of Cupertino 61 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectton -1.0 — Ej�rirat��erNal Settin�. Cht>cklist. and Discus.sioii of�InaE�eret.c subject to a hi�her level of analysis (considerin� potential for � pollutants such as on-site chemical use, level of pretreahnei�t. similac factocs): • Unless storm water is first treated by non-intiltration means, infi(tration devices shall not be recommended for areas of industrial or light industrial activity; areas subject to high vehicular traftic (25,000 oc �ceater average daily traffic trips on main roadwati or 1�,000 or more average daily traffic trips o�� any iiltersecting roadway); automotive repair shops; car washes; fleet storage aceas (bus, truck. etc): nurseries; and other land uses and activities considered by the Cit�� as high tllreats to water quality; and • Infiltration devices shall be located a minimum of 100 feet horizontally from any water supply �-ells. MM HYD — 2.4: F3est Management Practices (BMPs) shall be selected and designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works in accordance �vith the requirements contained in the most recent versions of the following documents: • Cit}� of Cupertino Post-Construction BMP Section Matrix; • SCVURPPP '`Guidance for Implementing Storm water Regulations foc Ne�v and Redevelopment Projects;" • NPDES Municipal Storm water Discharge Permit issued to the City of Cupertino by the California Regiona( Water Quality Control Board. San Francisco Bay Region; • California BMP Handbooks; • Ba�� Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) '`Start at the Source" Design Guidance Manual; • BASMAA `'Using Site Design Standards to Meet Development Standards for Storm water Qua(ity — A Companion Document to Start at the Source:'' and • Cit}� of Cupertino Planning Procedures Performance Standard. MM HYD — 2.�: To maintain effectiveness, ail storm water treatment facilities shall inc(ude long-term maintenance programs. MM HYD — 2.6: The applicant, the project arborist and landscape architect, shall work with the City and the SCVURPPP to select pest resistant plants to minimize pesticide use, as appropriate, and the plant selection will be reflected in the landscape plans. 4.8.3 Conclusion Impact HYD — 2: The proposed project, with the implementation of the above mitigation measures, would not be subject to significant flooding or drainage impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Impact HYD — 2: The proposed project, with the implementation of the above mitigation measures, would not result in significant water quality impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) City of Cupertino 62 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectic��r �.0 — E��i�ironr»e�rtal Settin��. Checklis�. ancl Diseii.csion oflnrE�z�cts -�.9 LA1�1D USE �.9.1 Settin� The 18.7-acre project site is mostly unde� eloped land �ti ith bare ground and low gcowing vegetation. Trees and minimal landscaping are present along the perimeter of the site. T'he western portion of the site is developed w�ith a paved parking (ot. 4.9.1.1 Ge�zeral P/an u�1d Zoninn Designatioizs General Plan Valico Park South Area 1'he project site is within the Valico Park South Area of the City of Cupertino in the Genecal Plan (see Fi�ure 4.0-I). Vallco Park South is an identified special commercial center in the City. The Cit�'s General Plan sets forth development allocations for commeccial, office, hotel, and residential uses for different areas of the City, including the Vallco Park South area. On a case-by-case basis, the City� i�ay allocate development potential to private developments based on the community benefits the project ��ould pcovide. The remaining development allocations in the Vallco Park South area are approximately 250,000 square feet of commercial uses, approaimately 764 hote) rooms, and 400 residential units. Currently there are no development allocations available for office use in the Vallco Park South acea. Office development in the Vallco Park South area ��ould require office allocation from other areas of the Cit��. Per the General Plan, the Cit} al(ows fleaibility among the allocations assigned to each geo�raphic area. Allocations may be redistributed fi one geographic area to another if necessary and if no significant environmental impacts, particularly traffic are identified (Policy 2-20, Strategy 4). A summary of the office development allocations available in the different geographic areas (also referred to as Specia! Centers) is provided in Table 4.0-3 below. Table 4.0-3 Approaimate Available Office Allocations as of June 2008 Geographic Area/ Office S ecial Center (s uare foota e) Monta Vista 36,795 North De Anza Boulevard 175,185 Va(lco Park North 95,532 Heart of the Cit 11,456 Major Em loyers 150,000 City of Cupertino 63 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Oak �falley �� 1 i J 1 � — --� / } � � � NktLEtLAN RC �� ,� RAM&� C�RIVE a � 1 , , � �� Project Site .r � v.. v � T W � � � q m ° h � '�i\,1�L�1'��J.lh nL� � . `.:a! It�cC Fairgrove City Center Heart a# the City South De Anza Boufevard � �; � L E G E �V D------- -- ----- -------- � FR:�Si'E<T k0 � —�' � �� fd�if�fab�nc��c�c� �Pr�ter � i � � C�ornr��erriai Center I City Qoundaty � � Employrr�erlt C_enter { ! t.lrt�an S�rvic� Area Bo�tndary � �! �;�=�= EducatiorUCultural Cent�r � Spher� c�f lntlu�c�c;e .:;-�'.�..:.--:� v U.i 1 Agde i Boilndary AyreerT�er�t Lin� �, „�;,., �,0 3��OFeet � U (j��C,Q�RQCdtE.'� fi�f?dS 0 S�YJ liavi tv5e!di; � 1 1 --- --- - _ ---- -- _ _ --- --- -- - _ _ _ -- _.--- — - --- - - -- -- - --- _ i� I Bubb Road Monta Vista [Varth De Anza Boulevard � De Anza Coltege Valtco Park North �_.�.__.__., Road Va!!co Park South �x nn^xi� �kAC� R:ja.[� �._....,.. ...... ,,,,,. # ' 1 ._• � f.. .ti ,.+� , � ��. ��x� �`'` JK � �� .- � . �;^ � � �, - , � w `.. � � ?.y,;s��'� s ' ` i, .,'t�ip� �.. --� �.�^� _ ��_ �'Tltt,L'.��i.T1J. SPECIAL CEfVTERS FIGURE 4.0-1 Section -1.0 — Enrironme�7t�rl Set�rn��, C'liecklist, a��d Discussion o/�/m��arts South Vallco Master Plan On Septembec 16_ 2008. the City approved a°focused'� Master Plan for the Vallco Pa� South Area. TIIe intent of the Niaster Plan is to coordinate the interfaces and connections bet��een properties to improve the overall character and identity of the Vallco Park South Area. The Mastec Plan includes recommendations to promote creation of streetscape, cross�v�alk enhancements, landscapin��, lightin�. way findin�r, signage, and stceet furniture. � Land Use Desi�nation The project sice curcently has a Genera) Plan land use designation of CornmerciaUOffice; Resicfentral. The Comn�ei land use designation applies to mixed-use areas that are predomi�lantly commercia( and oftice uses. Supporting residential uses may be allowed to oftset job growth and to better balance the citywide jobs to housing ratio. Also, supporting residential uses are allowed when the�� are compatible with the primarily non-residential character of the area. Zoning Ordinance The project site is part of larger 41-acre area zoned Mixecl-Use Planrred Developnzent (t-Z-83). The 4l-acre area is genera(ly bound by Vallco Parkway and 1-280 to the north, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south, and Vb'olfe Road to the west. The [-Z-83 zoning allows commercia(, office. hotel, and residential uses. Per the zoning designation, a hotel with a maximum of 1,000 rooms and a maximum of 970,000 square feet of office uses are allowed within the 41-acre area. The maximu�n permitted floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.25 for commercial uses, 0.37 for office uses, and 0.33 for industrial uses. The fol(owing design standards are incorporated into the existing zoning on the site: l. (n genecal, abrupt changes in building scale shall be avoided. A gradual stepped tcansition shal( occur between the street and the center of the pcoperty. An abrupt pedestriai� exposure to tall building facades shall be avoided in order to maintain a comfiortable human scale at ground (evel. 2. As a general rule, building heights in the Vallco Park Planning Area should not exceed eight stories with the exception of the hotel which is unspecified. The final approved height of buitdings in Vallco Park, including the hotel, will be determined in conjunction with subsequent development applications. 3. The building facades on Stevens Creek Boulevard shall be periodically punctuated with open space corridors to prevent a continuous wall effect. 4.9.1.2 Existing and Surrounding Uses The project site is mostly undeveloped and unpaved. The western portion of the site consists of an unused paved parking (ot. The surrounding land uses inc(ude office uses north and east of the site, commercial and residential uses south of the site, and mixed residential and commercial uses west of the site (refer to Figure 2.0- 3). City of Cupertino 65 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectio�a -J.O — E�n�iro�tmeivtal .Setling. Checklist. u��d Disctrs•s•ioi� o11m��7cts �.9.2 En��ironmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts LAND USE Le;s '�han Potential(�� Sianihcant Less Than Signit7ca��t 11�ith Si�niticant No fmpact �eneticial Intunnation lmpact Mitioation Impact Impact Suurcelsl Incorporated Would the project: I) Physically divide an established � � � � � 1.2 communit� ? 2) Conf7ict �vith any applicable land � � � � � ' use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency ��ith jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to � the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the pwpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 3) Contlict with any applicable I�abitat � � � � � 1.� conseivation plan or natural communitv conservation lan? �.8.2.1 Consistency with Gene�•al Plan and Zoning O��dinance General Plan Vallco Park South Area As discussed above, the project site is within the Vallco Park South Area, whicl� currently has available development allocations for commercia(, hotel, and residential uses. The proposed project, in Scheme 1, proposes up to 295,000 square feet of commercial uses (including 150,000 square feet of general commercial uses and a 145,000 square foot athletic club), 100,000 square feet of ofifice uses, a hotel with 150 rooms, and 160 senior housing units. Scherrae 2 proposes 146,500 square feet of commercial uses, 205,000 square feet of office uses, a hotel with 250 rooms, and 160 senior housing units. There are sufficient allocations for the commercial, hotel, and housing uses proposed. However, there are no available development allocations in Vallco Park South for office uses. Per General Plan Policy 2-20, Strategy 4, the City allows flexibility among the allocations assigned to each geographic area and allocations may be redistributed from one geographic area to another if necessary and if no significant environmental impacts, particularly traffic are identified. The proposed office development would require office allocation from other areas of the City identified in Table 4.0-3. However, the project (under both schemes) would result in significant transportation and air quality impacts (see Sections 4.3 Air Quality and 4.15 Transportation), these impacts would not be unique to this location. Traffic impact would occur due to existing and background conditions. Development in a relatively wide area of Cupertino could result in traffic impacts at the same location. Therefore, the project is generally consistent with General Plan Policy 2-20, Strategy 4. City of Cupertino 66 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Seclion -/.0 �- Em•ironr�tental Settin�. Checklist, ancl Disctrssiot� of �Inr��ac�s South Vallco Park Master Plan The Master Plan sets forth recommendations for streetscape design, cross��alk enhancements, landscaping, lighting. way finding. sig►�age, and street furniture to improve the overall character and identity of the Valico Park South Area. The project is consistent with the South Vallco Master Plan and its policies that promote automobile- alter�lative modes of transportation, use of drought-tolerant plants. orientation of retail uses to the street, modification of existing streets to be more pedestria�i-friendly (i.e., the narcowing of Vallco Parkway), and land uses consistent with the General Plan. Howeve�•, Policy 63 of the Master Plan states that development shall incorporate renewable energy principles with the goal of attaini��g at least LEED Silver certification or alternative environmental and sustainable measurement system/checklist. The project proposes to be LEED certified. For this reason, the project is not wholly consistent with the South Vallco Master Plan. Land Use Desianation The proposed retail (including the athletic club), office, hotel, and senior housing uses are consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation which allows for a mix of uses including commercial, office, and residential uses. Overall, the proposed project (both schemes) is generally consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation. Zoning Ordinance The proposed commeccial, office, hotel, and residential uses under both Schen�e 1 and Schen�e 2 are consistent with the eXisting zoning designation of I-Z-83. The existing zoning designation stipulates that the maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR) for the 41-acre area zoned I-Z-83, which inc(udes the project site, is 0.25 for commercial uses, 0.37 for office uses, and 0.33 for industrial uses. Foc Schen�e 1, the FAR on the project site is 0.39 for commercial uses and 0.13 for office uses. While the commercial FAR on the project site is greater than 0.25, as required by the zoning designation, the overal I commercial FAR for the 41-acre area is 0.25 or below. For Scheme 2, the FAR on the project site is 0.19 for commercial uses and 0.27 for office uses. With the proposed project (under either scheme), the FAR for the 41-acre area is about 0.15 for commercial uses, 0.17 for office uses, and 0.05 for industrial uses.� � [n addition, the zoning designation has design standards, which were listed above. While the project does not have a stepped transition between the streets and the center of the site, as outlined in design standard l, the project includes setback areas and landscaping. [n addition, the proposed buildings are of similar height to the adjacent Metropolitan development west of the site. For this reason, the project is generally consistent with design standard 1. The proposed project would be consistent with design standards 2 and 3 because the proposed buildings would not exceed eight stories tall and the building facades proposed on Stevens Creek Boulevard would include landscaping and open space to prevent a continuous wall effect. �� Chao, Gary. Personal Communications. 8 October 2008. City of Cupertino 67 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectioi7 -1.0 — Et�riro��menta! Setti��,. (.'hecklist. cand Disctrssion of �hnpucts Based on the above discussion. the project is ��enerally consistent ��ith 7_oning Ordinance, including the desi�n standards. 4.8.2.2 Land U.se Compatihilitl' Land use conflicts can arise trom t��o basic causes: l) conditions on or near the project site may have impacts on the persons oc development introduced onto the site b}' the new project. Both of these circumstanees are aspects of land use compatibilit}�; or 2) a new deve(opment or land use may cause impacts to persons or the physical environment in the vicinity of the pcoject site or elsewhere. Potential incompatibility ma_y arise trom placing a particulai development or land use at an inappropriate location, or from some aspect of the project's design or scope. The discussion below distinguishes between potential impacts fi•om the proposed project upon people and the physical environment, and potential iinpacts fi•om the pcoject's surroundings upon the project itself. Im�acts From the Project The surrounding land uses include office, commercial, and residential uses. The project site is separated from the office, commercia(, and residential uses north, east, and south of the site by Vallco Parkway (which is proposed to be reduced from six to three lanes), Tantau Avenue (a four- lane roadway), and Stevens Creek Boulevard (a six-lane roadway). The project is adjacent to the west to an existing mixed residential and commercial development (Metropolitan Project) and an existing surface parking lot cu►•rently used for stockpiling pipes and dirt. The existing surface parking lot west of the site and nort}i of the Metropolitan Site has been approved for the de��elopment of a mixed residential and commercial uses (Rosebowl Project). The Metropolitan and Rosebowl sites are shown on Figure 1.0-3. The project (under either scheme) proposes land uses that are similar to the existing, surrounding land uses and faci(itates pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular access between the site and surrounding (and uses (see Figure 3.0-9); therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. Interface with the Metropolitan Project The Metropolitan project is a mixed residential and commercial project. There are three-story residential buildings on the Metropolitan site that abuts the project site. The proposed senior housing and open space located on the west side of the project site would be adjacent to the Metropolitan three-story residential buildings (refer to Figures 3.0-2 and 3.0-5). The Metropolitan residences would be tocated at (east 35 feet from the proposed senior housing units on the project site. Due to the proposed setback, and the fact that the interface between the adjacent Metropolitan site and the project site would be between like residential uses and buffered by landscaping, implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial (and use compatibility impacts at this location. Interface with the Rosebowl Project (Approved But Not Yet Constructed) The approved, but not yet constructed Rosebowl project is a mixed residential and commercia( development. The Rosebowl development consists of buildings of up to six stories tall. The development on the Rosebowl site adjacent to the project site will consist of retail uses and parking on the ground floor and residential uses on the upper five floors. The residentia( uses would include balconies and windows facing the project site. The residentiaVretail building on the Rosebowl site would be setback from the property line with the project site by approximately 72 feet. City of Cupertino 68 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Secti�>n -l. D— E��i•iromnentul Se/ti�t�. C/��ck/ist. uncl Disct�ssion of h�ipuc•ts In both pcoject schemes, retail uses (includin;r a coveced truek loading doek) ��ould be located on the ��est side of the project site, adjacent to the Rosebo«�l site. In both schemes. the retail buildings (and loading dock) would be setback from the property by 10 feet. As sho��n on the conceptual landscape plans (see Figures 3.0-7 and 3.0-8), the project proposes to plant trees and landscapinb � ithii� the 10 foot setback a�°ea. The total distance between the buildings oi1 the Rosebowl site and the project site would be approximately 82 feet (refer to Figure 4.0-2). The proposed loading dock ��ould be enclosed and covered. In addition, no windows are proposed on the west facade of the retail buildings facing the Rosebo��l site.�� These design elements (building setback, landscaping butifer, enclosed loading dock, no windows on the west facade of the retail buildings facing the Rosebowl site) reduce noise and visual intrusion impacts bet��een the Rosebo�vl developmer�t and the proposed project. A discussion of noise impacts is provided in Section -�.11 Noise of this fnitial Study. Im�acts to the Project Road�-ati�s Vallco Parkway is north of the site, T'antau is east of the site, Stevens Creek �Boulevard is south of the site, and Finch Avenue extends through the site. The compatibility of the existing roadways and the proposed project is primarily a function of impacts from air emissions and noise from vehicular traffic. Air quality, noise, and transportation impacts are discussed in Sections 4.3, 4.11, and 4.1�, respectively, in this Initial Study. Impacts Within the Project It is not anticipated that land use compatibility issues would arise between the proposed retail/commercial, office, and hotel uses because they are similar in natuce and not considered sensitive land uses. However, in both sehemes, the project proposes residential uses near retail uses and open space/park. Residential Uses and Retail Uses An at-grade loading area is proposed at the northwest corner of the proposed senior housing/retail building in both schemes. The loading area is intended for daytime package and mail delivery trucks (UPS/FedEx) and not for heavy or early morning (oading. Deliveries to the retail uses would be through the front doors, which would be located on the east side of the retail building, facing the pcoposed town square. Garbage and recycling for the residential and retail uses would be located in an enclosed area at the northwest corner of the building. The enclosure of the garbage and recycling collection area and requirement that deliveries to the retail uses thcough the front door located on the east side of the building, away from the residential uses would avoid and reduce possible land use compatibility impacts between the proposed residential and retail uses. '' Dare, Kevin. Email from Sand Hill Property Company, project manager. "Re: Main Street — retail on west side." 27 June 2008. City of Cupertino 69 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 COVERED PROJECT SITE TRUCK ROSE BOWL 517E g 10' 1 DOCK 1 ._ _ RETAtL SHOPS GARAGE VALLCO PARKWAY SITE SECTION AT ROSE BOWL SITE, TRUCK DOCK, AND RETAIL SHOPS o� ,o� zo� <o� �� , -. ___ ;� , �� Li�'�.� ; � �"�,,�; �`\��.. .� I 1 1 I 1 � � �.....i • __.........__ , _.......� Source: KENNETH RODRIGUES 8 PARTNERS, INC, 5/31/08. INTERFACE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ADJACENT ROSEBOWL SITE FIGURE 4.0-2 S�c•ti��n -{.0 — Enciron�t�entu! S�ttir��r. Checklist, anc! Discussi��n of lmpurtc Residential Uses and Open Space/Park Use Both project schemes include a pcivate open space area south of the pcoposed senior units that would have an easement foc public use and access and be utilized as a pa� The park is intended to be local serving and utilized b� the proposed project and the surrounding neighbochood. The specific design and uses of the pa� ace unknown at this time and �vill be � and detecmined by the City Council at a later date. For this reaso�i, the park design and uses ai•e not analyzed in this Initial Stud}� and requice subsequent environmental review if other than passive uses are pcoposed. in general. park uses are compatible with residential uses. The normal sounds of people inte► and/or playing in parks are a part of expected activities �tiithin residential areas. Exampies of design and operational features of parks that can result in land use conflicts with adjacent residential uses include nighttime lighting of playiilg fields, amplified sound systems, extended hours of activities allowed by nighttime lighting, localized traffiic congestion or operational issues associated witll traffic generated by or�anized sports practices or �ames, and security or (a�v enforcement issues. Environmental and site design review of the City of Cupertino Parks and Recreational Commission, Environmental Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council will be required at the time specific uses and design are pcoposed. Any potential conflicts or impacts associated wit11 lighting, parking and access, hours of operation, site visibi(ity and security will need to be addressed through the City's environmental and architectural revie�v process at that time. Parks are compatible with residential land uses as reflected in the City's General P(an. The City's design cevie�v process will further ensure that the specific park design will not result in significant land use impacts to adjacent futuce residential uses or the adjacent Metropolitan mixed use project. 4.8.3 Conclusion The proposed project (under either scheme) would not result in significant land use impacts. (Less Than Significant Im�act) City of Cupertino 71 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Stctioi� -1.0 — Encironmej�tal S��ir�g, Checklist, and Discussio�r ��f hn��crcrs =1.10 MIIYERAL RESOURCES 4.10.1 Settin The project site is not located in an area containing known mineral resources. 4.10.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts MINERAL RESOURCES Less Than Potentially Si�nificant Less Than Beneficial Infonnatiun Si?niticant With Si�niticani No lmpact Impact Source(sj Impact hlitigation Impact Incorporated � Would the project: 1) Result in the loss of�availability of a kno�vn mineral resource that would ❑ ❑ ❑ � ❑ 1 be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 2) Result in the loss of availabilitv of a � � � � � 1 � locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specifiic plan or other land use plan? The project site is not located within an identified mineral resources area and, therefore, development of the proposed project �vould not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. 4.10.3 Conclusion The project would not result in a significant impact from the loss of availability of known mineral resources. (No Impact) City of Cupertino 72 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Section -/.0 — E'�n�ironmeruu/ Seltii��r. Cl7�c�list. cu�d Discussior7 of lmpacts �3.11 1�10I S E The follo�� discussion is based on a noise assessmenC completed by� Illirrg c� Rodkirr in July 2008. A copy of this report is included in .4ppendix E of this Initial Study. 4.11.1 Se tting 4.1 l. l.1 Baek�round In formation Several factot•s influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, including the actua) level of sound, the period of exposure to the sound, the frequencies involved, and fluctuation in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a"decibel" scale which serves as an index of loudness. Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the "A-weighted" decibel or dBA. Although the A-weighted noise level ma�� adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuousl}. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of noise fi•om distant sources that create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise. the statistical noise descriptors, L L��, L,�,, and L� are commonly used. They are the A- weighted noise levels equaled oc exceeded during one, 10, 50, and 90 percent of a stated time period. A single number descriptor called the L is also widely used. The L is the average A-weighted noise level during a stated period of time. An A-�veighted maximum noise level is L,,, [n determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytitne and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. Most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise (evels, a descriptor, DNL (day/night average sound level), was developed. The DNL divides the 24-hour day into the daytime of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and the nighttime of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The nighttime noise level is weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise level. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another 24-hou� average that includes both an evening and nighttime weighting. 4.11.1.2 Applicable Noise Standards and Policies 2007 California Buildin` Code Multi-family housing in the State of California is subject to the environmental noise limits set forth in the 2007 California Building Code (Chapter 12, Appendix Section 1207.11.2). The noise limit is a maximum interior noise level of 45 dBA DNL. Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA DNL, a report must be submitted with the building plans describing the noise control measures that have been incorporated into the design of the project to meet the noise limit. City of Cupertino 73 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Seciio�� -1.0 — Em�iroj�nte��ta! Se�ting. C77cck/is1. u��cl Disctts.��iun of�lm�ncts Citv of Cupertino Gene�•al Plan — Heulth unc� Safet}• Element The Health and Safety Element establishes goals and policies designed to minimize noise e�posure at noise sensitive land uses. Applicable goais and policies of the City of Cupertino are described belo�ti�. • Goal :'V: Residential areas protected as much as possible from intrusive non-traffic noise • Polici� 6-�8: Commercial Delivery Areas. Be sure new commercial or industrial developments plan their delivecy areas so they are away from existing or planned homes. � Policy 6-�9: Delivery Houcs. Actively enforce Section 10.48 of the Municipai Code limitina commercial and industrial delivery hours adjoining residential uses. � • Policv 6-60: Noise Control Techniques. Require analysis and implementation of techniques to control the effects of noise from industrial equipment and processes for projects neae homes. • Policy 6-61: Hours of Construction Work. Restrict non-emecgency building construction work near homes during evening, early morning, and weekends by enforcing the noise regulations in the Municipal Code. • Policy 6-62: Construction and Maintenance Activities. Regulate construction and maintenance activities. Establish and enforce reasonable aliowable periods of the day, for weekdays, weekends and holidays for construction activities. Require construction contractors to use only construction equipment incorporating the best available noise contcol technology. • Policy 6-63: Sound Wall Requirements. Exercise discretion in requiring sound walls to be sure that all other measures of noise control have been explored and that the sound wall blends with the neighborhood. Sound walls shouid be landscaped. • Goal O: Buildings designed to diminish noise • Policy 6-6�1: Building Gode Sections on Exterioc Noise Intrusion. Require the City Building Department to enforce all sections of the California Building Code for exterior sound transmission controL The General Plan also establishes noise and land use compatibility guidelines to evaluate the suitability of the proposed land use with respect to the existing or future noise environment (see Tab(e 4.0-4). Office buildings and commercial centers are considered "normally acceptable" in noise environments up to 70 dBA DNL. In a noise environment between 67 and 77 dBA DNL, however, these land uses are considered "conditionally acceptable." Above 75 dBA DNL, noise levels are considered "normally unacceptable" for office and commercial land uses. Multi-family residential uses are considered "normally acceptable" in noise environments up to 65 dBA DNL and "conditionally acceptable" in environments up to 70 dBA DNL. In a noise environment between 70 and 75 dBA DNL, multi-family residential land uses are considered "normally unacceptable." Above 7� dBA DNL, this land use is considered "clearly unacceptable." Transient lodging (motels and hotels) is considered "normally acceptable" in noise environments up to 65 dBA DNL and "conditionally acceptable" in environments up to 70 dBA DNL. In a noise environment between 70 and 80 dBA DNL, transient lodging is considered "normally unacceptable." City of Cupertino 74 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Stction -!.0 — E��ri� SettinR, Checkli.s�t. and Discrrssiun <f Im��ucl.c Above 80 dBA DNL. this land use is considered "cleacly unacceptable.'� Pla��rounds and neighbochood parks are considered "normal(y acceptable" in noise environments up to 70 dBA DNL. Table 4.0-4 Land Uses and Acce table Noise Levels Community Noise Exposure Land Use (DNL or CNEL, dB) �� b0 65 70 75 80 Oftice Buildings, -':.��" "�`�.��;� Commercial and P� Centers Residential — - Multi-family (including p� outdoor use areas) Transient Lodging �� (Motels. Hotels) Notes: � �� inc�icates Norrnally• .Acceptable noise levels � indicates Conditionally Acceptable noise levels indreate.c :'�'o�mally Unacceptable noise levels � inclrcates Clea�•lv Unacceptable noise levels Municipal Code The City of Cupertino Noise Ordinance establishes regulations and standards regarding noise. Applicable regulations and standards are outiined below: • Daytime and Nighttime Maxi�num Noise Levels (Secteon 10.48.40). Individual noise sources, or the combination of a group of noise sources located on the same property, shall not produce a noise level exceeding 60 dBA during the daytime or 50 dBA during the nighttime at residential property lines or 65 dBA during the daytime and 55 dBA during the nighttime at non-residential property lines. • Brref Daytime Incidents (Section 10.=18.050). During the daytime period only, brief noise incidents exceeding the above noise standards are allowed providing that the sum of the noise duration in minutes plus the excess noise level does not exceed 20 in a two-hour period (see Table 4.0-5). City of Cupertino 75 � Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Se�tion =1.0 — E��i•i�•onmenlal Selrii��. CI7ec�klist. cn�d Disc�trssion oJ�/ntpucts Table 4.0-� Exam les of Acce table Brief Daytime Incidents 1�loise Increment Above Noise Duration in Normal Standard Two-Hour Period � dBA 1 � Minutes 10 dBA l0 Minutes I S dBA 5 Minutes 19 dBA 1 Minutes • Grac�ing, Covrst�°uction, and Den�olition (Section 10.�8.0�3). Grading, construction, and demolition activities shail be allowed to exceed the daytime noise limits provided that the equipment utilized has high-quality noise muffler and abatement devices instal(ed and in good condition, and the activities meets one of the two follo��ing criteria: 1) no individual device produces a noise level more than 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet, or 2) noise level on any nearby property does not exceed 80 dBA. It is a violation to engage in any grading, street construction, demolition, or underground utility work within 750 feet of a residential • area on Saturday, Sundays, and holidays, and during the nighttime period, except as provided in Section 10.48.030. Construction, other than stceet construction, is prohibited during nighttime periods unless it meets the nighttime standards of Section 10.48.040. • tLlotor vehicle Idling (Section 10.48.0��). Motor vehicles, including automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, motor scooters, and trailers or other equipment towed b} a motor vehicle. shall not be allowed to remain in one location with the engine or auxiliary motors running for more than tllree minutes in any hour, in an area other than on a public right-of-way unless a) the regular noise limits of Section 10.48.040 are met while the engine and/or auxiliary motors are running, or b) the vehicle is in use for provision of police, fire, medical, or other emergency services. • Nighttin�e Deliveries and Prckups (Section 10.48.062). It is unlawful and a nuisance for any person to make or allow vehicular deliveries or pickups to or from commercial establishments (defined as any store, factory, manufacturing, or industcial plant used for the sale, manufacturing, fabrication, assembly or storage of goods, wares and merchandise) b}' the use of private roads, alleys or other ways located on either side or the back of any building l�ousing the commercial establishment where such private road, alley or other way lies between the building and any adjacent parcel of land zoned for residential purposes, between the hours of 8 PM and 8 AM weekdays (Monday through Friday) and 6 PM and 9 AM on weekends (Saturday and Sunday) and holidays except as may be permitted under Section 10.48.029. 4.11.1.3 Existing Noise Conditions Noise sources affecting the project site and surrounding area include vehicular traffic on I-280, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Tantau Avenue, Vallco Parkway, and Finch Avenue which crosses the site. Long- and short-term noise measurements were taken at the project site. The (ocations of the noise measurements are shown on Figure 4.0-3. Two long-term (24-hour) noise measurements were completed to characterize the noise environment resulting from local roadways. Location LT-1 was City of Cupertino 76 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 ,� � `'i� � �•" �. � ,� .: ��a � .� � . , � ♦♦ .. . � ,i,. � � � � 1 �..� � ' ,� � : �: ST 1 � Y°'� ' �ti_�.. ��E��it ,' � . ."i . ��.' �� NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS �' � ti�� • � �w �� e i � � �. . _� � g t ,�� .��. ��'�� .. , � - : �� ..�: ...r;�'�-* ST•3 ST-4 � LT-1 .;,, . �.� . ., ��."�'' � � „ ��r , . ,,,.�M�Y'14" w ,`:+F,.� ;. :�� ..... KEY �?, r �°�` �T.X Long-term Noise Measurement " � $T•X Short-term Noise Measurement , .. � }. . ' � � Project Boundary �. ;_ � _ ;�,� * , a� > �-_, '� � Scale: 1" = t 335' i� � " • Photo Date: Dec. 2005 FIGURE 4.0-3 Sectio�7 -1.0 — Em�h�nnme»tal Settin�. Ch�cklis�. uncl Discrrssicm n/�lmpuc•ts approtimately l 10 feet fi�om the center of Stevens Creek Boulevard. T'he measured DNL ��as 60 dBA. Typical hourl�� average noise levels ranged from about �7 to 60 dBA L and ni��httime hourl�� average noise levels dcopped to as low as 4� dBA L Location LT-2 ��as alon`� Vallco Pack��a� about 32� feet from the 1-280 right-of-way (ROW). The measured DNL was 61 dI3A. Tvpical L1our1�� daytime noise levels were fairly constant at about 59 to 6l dBA L Short-term spot it�easurements wece completed at four locations. The short-tenn noise measurements at these locations ran�e from �2 to 60 dBA L are summarized in Table 4.0-6 belo�. Table 4.0-6 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data Noise Measurement Location L L�, L i � L�.,,� L, L�� ST-1: approximately 330 feet form the center of Stevens 56 5� �3 52 �0 �2 Creek Boulevard near residential uses west of the site ST-2: approximatel�� 115 feet from the center of Vallco 65 63 �8 53 � 1 55 Parkwa near Finch Avenue ST- �: approximately� 150 feet form the center of Vallco 64 62 59 56 �3 57 Parkwa�� near Tantau Avenue ST-4: approximatel} 100 feet from the center of Stevens 68 67 64 �7 55 60 Creek Boulevard The project site is not located within two miles of an airport or private airstrip. or within an airport land use plan. 4.11.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Impacts NOISE Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant No Impact az11eticial lnt�xmatiun Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Souroe(s) Incorporated Would the project result in: 1) Exposure of persons to or generation � � � � � 1 of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 2) Exposure of persons to, or generation � � � � � 1 of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3) A substantial permanent increase in � � � � ❑ 1 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ro'ect? City of Cupertino 78 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectior� -l.0 — Erarironme�7tal Selli�i�. Cherkli.rl. crnd Disctr.�•sion of l�upc�c��s NOISE Less l han Potentiallc Sisniticant Less Than Si�niticant ��lidi SiQniYicant No hnpact E3eneticial Information Impact �1iti«ation Imp�ct Impact Sourcclsl Incurporated Would the pcoject result in: �) A substantial temporary or periodic � � � � � I increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels eristing without tlie project? � �) For a project located �vithin an � � � � � 1 airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, �vithin two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would ttle project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 6) For a project within the vicinitv of a � � � � � I private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to ehcessive noise levels? Overview Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project would nonnally be considered to result in significant noise impacts if noise leve(s conflict with adopted environmental standards or plans or if noise generated by the project would substantially increase existing noise levels at sensitive receivers on a permanent or te�nporary basis. Based on the applicable noise standards and policies for the site, a significant noise impact would result if exterior noise levels at pcoposed multi-family land uses would exceed 65 dBA DNL or if interior day-night average noise levels would exceed 45 dBA DNL. Noise-producing components of the project that would expose sensitive receivers to levels exceeding Municipal Code noise level standards could also result in a significant noise impact. A substantial permanent noise increase would occur if the noise level increase resuiting from the project is three dBA DNL or greater at noise-sensitive receptors, with a future noise level of 60 dBA DNL or greater. A substantial temporary noise level increase would occur where noise from construction activities exceeds 60 dBA L and the ambient noise environment by at least five dBA L� at noise-sensitive uses in the project vicinity for a period of one year or more. A substantial pennanent cumu(ative noise increase would occur if the project contributed a minimum noise increase of one dBA DNL where cumulative noise levels are anticipated to increase by tl�ree dBA DNL or more at noise- sensitive receptors. 4.11.2.1 Noise Irr�pacts to the Project � Exterior Noise Impacts The project could expose people to noise levels in excess of the acceptable noise levels identified in the City's General Plan and State Building Code. Noise sensitive uses proposed include the hotel and senior housing buildings. Noise measurements completed at the site indicate that the DNL at the City of Cupertino 79 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 S��tion -�.0 — Eyn•ironmen�al Scltin�. Chcc�klis�. a�rd Disctrssio» of Impurts setback of the hotel (appcoximately 80 feet from the center of Stevens Creek Boule��ard in both schemes) currently reaches 62 dBA at the tirst floor ievel and 6� dBA for upper floors. Noise (evels at the senior housing building are cucrently less than 60 dBA DNL at the tirst and upper tloocs. Future noise levels are calculated to be 63 dBA DNL at the tirst floor leve( and 6� dBA DNL at tlle upper floors of the hotel. Future noise levels at the senioc housin� facades are calculated to be less than 60 dBA DNL. y The proposed hotel and senior housing building would be exposed to noise levels of 6� dBA DNL or less which is considered by the City of Cupertino to be the normall� acceptable noise level for transient lodging and �nulti-family residei�tial environments. The senior housin� bui(ding in both schemes includes a courtyard in the center ofi the building. Noise levels ��ithin this couctyai (in both schemes) would be less than 60 dBA DNL, which is considered a normally acceptable noise level by the City. The proposed private open space (park) on Stevens Creek Bou(evard in both schemes would be exposed to DNL of up to 62 to 63 dBA, which is considered normally acceptable noise levels by the City. The commercial and office development on the project site would be esposed to noise levels ofi up to 65 dBA, which would also be considered normally acceptable for these uses by the City. Interior Noise Impacts Extei•ior noise levels at the facade of the hotel building would exceed 60 dBA DNL. [n exterior noise environments ranging from 60 dBA DNL to 65 dBA DNL, interior noise levels can typically be maintained below City and State standards with the incorporation oti an adequate forced air mechanical ventilation system in each room. Interior noise levels �� ithin the hotel could exceed an DNL of 45 dBA without this measure. Exterior noise levels at the facade of the senior housing building would be less than 60 dBA DNL. [nterior noise levels at senior housing building would be less than 4� dBA DNL assuming standard residential construction methods. Impact NOI — 1: Exterior noise levels are above 60 dBA DNL at the proposed hotel location in both schemes. The proposed hotel (under either scheme) would have interior noise (evels in exceedance of City and State standards. (Significant Impact) Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measures: As a condition of approval, the project applicant shall be responsib(e for implementing the following mitigation measures to reduce interior noise impacts: MM NOI — l.l : Specific determination of noise insulation treatments necessary shall be completed on a unit-by-unit basis during detailed project design of the hotel. A design-level noise assessment of the final site plan shall be completed for the project by a qualified acoustical consultant. Results of the design-level noise assessment, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. City of Cupertino 80 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 S�clioi� =1.0 - F.m�ir�o�7me�ual Settin�r. C/�ecklisi. und Disc•tr.rsior� o/�[ntpuc•is MM NOI — 1.2: Building sou►Id insulation requirements shall include the provision of forced- air mechanical � enti lation for tlle hotel so that �� indo�� s could be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control noise. MM NOI —1.3: Special buildina techniques (e.�7., sound-rated windows) may be required to maintain inte�•ior noise levels at or below acceptable levels. T�hese treatments shall include, but are not limited to. sound rated �vindows and doors, so�md rated ��vall constructions, aco�istical caulking. protected ventilation openings, etc. Preliminar� calculations indicate tllat hotel rooms nearest Stevens Creek Boulevard ��ould cequire sound rated windows and doors with ratings ranging from STC 26-28 to achieve the 4� dBA DNL indoor standard. 4.11.2.2 Noise I�npaets Fi�om the Project Construction-Related lYoise Construction activities for the project, if approved, ace anticipated to begin in March 2009 and end in August 2010. Site preparation and construction of project infrastcucture would be completed in approximately five months. After the completion of the site preparation phase, the retail buildings and parking garage would be constructed during an approximately si� month timeframe. The construction of the office buildings, hotel, and ath(etic club (Sche��e 1 only) would require an additional l 0 to 12 months after the site preparation phase of the project. Noise resulting from project construction activities wou(d be highest during the site preparation and infrastructure phases of construction when earth-moving equipment such as graders, loaders, and excavators operate over extended peciods of time in a�•eas adjoining the existing multi-family residences approximately 16 to 20 feet west of the project site (Metropolitan Project). Construction of the open space/park on Stevens Creek Boulevard and senior housing building would also result in high construction noise levels at nearby existing residences. Typical hourly average construction generated noise levels would range from about 81 to 88 dBA L measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the construction site, during busy construction periods. Construction-related noise levels are normally less during building framing, finishing, and landscaping pllases when less heavy equipment is present on site or when activities move indoors. There would be variations in construction noise levels on a day-to-day basis depending on the actual activities occurring at the site. Construction generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about six dBA per doubling of distance between the noise source and receptor. Construction-related noise levels could exceed 60 dBA L and ambient daytime noise conditions at the nearest receivers by five dBA L or more when busy construction occurs within approximately 1,250 feet of the nearest receivers. The ambient noise environment would be substantially increased over a temporary basis. Construction noise levels could exceed one or both of the exemption criteria of 1) no individual device produces a noise level more than 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet or 2) noise (evel on any nearby property does not exceed 80 dBA (Municipal Code Section 10.48.053). Average noise levels during busy periods of construction-related activities could reach 87 to 94 dBA L at a distance of 25 feet. In addition, a wide variety of construction equipment can generate noise levels in excess of 87 dBA L,,, at a distance of 25 feet. If pile driving were a required construction technique, construction noise levels would exceed 80 dBA L and 87 dBA L,,, within about 280 feet of the existing residential uses. City of Cupertino 81 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectiui� �.0 — F_rr�•irc»mt�nte�l Settii�g, Chc cklist. anc! Disrirssion o/�Inrpc�c°t�� [mpaet NO[ — 2: Construction of the proposed project (under either scheme) would result in temporary constcuction-celated noise impacts. (Signi�eant [mpaet) Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measures: As a condition of appro��al, the project applicant shall be t for implementing the following mitigation measures to � construction-celated noise impacts: MM NOI — 2.1: Pursuant to the Municipal Code (Section 10.48.0�3), noise-generating activities shall be restricted at the crn�struction site to da}'time hours only. Construction within 7�0 feet of cesidences shali be prohibited on Saturdays. Sundays, holidays. MM NOI — 2.2: All construction equipment shai ( conform to the follo�� ing standards: l) no individual device produces a noise level more than 87 dBA at a distance of 25 feet; or 2) the noise level on an}� nearb} pcoperty does not exceed eighty dBA (Cupertino Municipal Code Section 10.48.053). MM NOI — 2.3: Equip a(I internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. MM NOI — 2.4: Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited_ MM NOI — 2.5: Stationary noise generating equipment such as aic compcessors or portable power generators shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Temporary noise barriers shall be constructed to screen stationary noise generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses. Temporary noise barriers could reduce construction noise levels by five dBA. MM 1�10I — 2.6: "Quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources shall be utilized by contractors where technology exists. MM NOI — 2.7: Route all construction traffic to and from the project site via designated truck routes where possible. Prohibit construction re(ated heavy truck traffic in residential areas where feasible. MM NOI — 2.8: Noise from construction workers' radios shall be controtled to a point that it is not audib(e at existing residences bordering the project site. MM NOI — 2.9: The contractor shall prepare and submit to the City for approval a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. MM NOI — 2.10: Notify all adjacent businesses, residences, and other noise-sensitive land uses of the construction schedule in writing. City ofCupertino 82 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 S�ctrc�it -l.0 — E�li•irunmenta/ Setti��g. Check/isl. uiid Disct�s.sioi7 of'lmpacts � MM NOI — 2.11: A"disturbance coordinator' �vho would be i•esponsible for cesponding to any local complaints aboirt construction noise shall be desi�nated by the project applicant. The disturbance coordinator wi(I determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that � reasonable measures �varranted to correct the prob(em be implemented. The telephone numbec for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site and included in notices sent to neighbocs regarding the construction schedule. MM NO( — 2.12: If pile drivin�� is required, multiple-pile dcivers shall be considered to expedite construction. Although noise levels �enerated b}� multiple pile drivers would be hi�her than the noise generated by a single pile driver, the total duration ol�pile drivin� activities would be reduced. MM NOI — 2.13: If pile driving is required. foundation pile ho(es shall be pre-drilled to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile. Pre-drilling foundation pile holes ai•e a standard constcuction noise control technique. Pre-drilling reduces the number of blows required to seat the pile. MM NOI — 2.14: [f pile drivin� is i shroud tlte impact hammec with noise control blanket barriers. Vibration Impacts The construction of the project (under either scheme) may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g. jackhammers, pile drivers) are used in the vicinity of sensitive land uses (e.g., existing residential uses approximately 16 to 20 feet west of the project site). Distinctly perceptible groundborne vibration cou(d be generated by heavy tracked vellicles (e.g., bulldozers or excavators) when these equipinent operate ��ithin approximately 25 feet of sensitive land uses. Impact pile drivers can generate distinctl}� perceptible groundborne vibration at distances up to about 100 feet. Residential and commercial land uses bordering the site would not likely be subject to excessive vibration levels over extended periods of time given the limited work anticipated in these areas. Groundborne vibration generated by construction activities would not be expected to result in cosmetic or structural damage due to the distance between construction equipment and existing buildings. For these reasons, the vibration generated by construction activities would be iess than significant impact. Project-Generated Traffic Noise Noise levels in the project vicinity are projected to increase assuming the construction and operation of already approved projects in the area. The review of the tra�c data indicates that the project would not substantially increase noise levels above background noise levels (noise levels generated by existing traffic and traffic generated by approved but not yet developed projects) without the project. Scheme 1 would result in traffic noise level increases on area roadways ranging from zero to two dBA DNL. Traffic noise level increases attributable to Scheme 2 would be slightly (ess. As discussed previously, a noise increase of three dBA or greater is considered a significant impact. For this reason, the up to two dBA DNL increase in ambient noise leve(s from project-generated traffic is a less than significant impact. City of Cupertino 83 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Section -1.0 - Enrirc»lmentul Setting. Checklisl. �ri1d Disct�.r.tiio�r oj�lmpurts 4.11.2.3 Noise I�ipacts Within tl�e Prnject CommerciaVResidential Interface Tl�e City of Cupertino's Municipal Code restricts noise generated by non-transportation soui to a maximum leve( of 60 dBA L durin� the daytime and �0 dBA L� at night �t�hen measured in a residential area. The Municipal Code also re��ulates noise from idling vehicles and commeccial deliveries. The proposed hotel would be located �� ithin about 70 to l00 feet of adjacent proposed retaii shops, a parking garage, and the athletic club (Scheme 1) or office building (Scherr7e Z). The proposed senior housing building would be located about 80 feet from pcoposed retail uses. Adjacent residential uses (existing and proposed) would also be in proximit}' to sources of noise. Noise levels in the vicinity of noise-generatinb uses (retail, parking garages, athletic club, and office uses) �vould elceed 60 dBA L� during the day�time or 50 dBA L� at night. Impact 1�10I —3: The proposed retail, parking �arages, athletic club, and office uses �vould generate day�time and/or nighttime noise levels above the City's maximum noise standards of 60 dBA L during the daytime and �0 dQA L� at the proposed senior housing uses. (Significant Impact) Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measures: As a condition of approval, the project applicant shall be responsible for implementing the followinQ mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts between the proposed coinmercial and residential uses on-site: MM NOI — 3.1: Project-level acoustical analyses shall be completed �vhece stationary noise sources are located adjacent to existing or proposed noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residential uses). F,xterior noise levels at cesidential (and uses in the vicinity shall be maintained in accordance with the standards presented in the City's Municipal Code. MM NOI — 3.2: Cleaning activities in parking lots/garages shall be limited to daytime hours onty (8 AM to 8 PM on weekdays and 9 AM to 6 PM on weekends) consistent with the City's Community Noise Ordinance I 0.48. MM NOI — 3.3: Trash compactors and dumpsters shall be located away from adjacent residential receivers or shielded with noise barriers or other enclosures. MM NOI — 3.4: Commercial deliveries or pickups shall be prohibited between the hours of 8:00 PM and 8:00 AM weekdays (Monday through Friday) and 6:00 PM and 9:00 AM on weekends (Saturday and Sunday) and holidays (Cupertino Municipal Code 10.48.062). 4.11.3 Conclusion Impact NOI — 1: The proposed project, with the implementation of the above mitigation measures, would not result in significant interior noise impacts to the hotel use. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incor�orated) City of Cupertino 84 lnitial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectiorr -l.O — Er�i•iroizirrc��tc�l Selti��g. Checklist. c�jacf Discarssion o�'hnpac[s Impact NOI — 2: Construction of the proposed project (under either scheme), ��ith tlle implementation of the above mitiQation measures, �vould i�ot result in signiticant short-term construction-related noise impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact �vith Mitigation Incorporated) Impact l�iOI — 3: The proposed project. with the implementation of the above mitigation measures, would not result in significant noise impacts between the proposed uses on the site. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incor�orated) City of Cupertino 85 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sec�io�� -�.0 — Em•iroiuner�tul S�uin��. Chc�ck/ist. and Disctrssion n/�/m��c�c�[s 4.12 POPULAT[01�1 AIYD HOUSING 4.12.1 Se ttin� According to the Association of E3ay Acea Governments (ABAG) Projections 2007, within the City� of Cupectino's Sphece of Influence. the househo(d population for 2005 was 53.800 �ti-ith 19,�30 households. [n 2020. the projected household popu(ation is 58.�00 �� ith 21,120 households. The average number of persons pec household in Cupertino in 200� was ?.7� an average which is projected to slightly increase to 2.77 by 2020. Appcoximately 31.260 jobs ��ece provided within the Cit} of Cupertino's Sphere of Influence in 2005, and pcojections sho�� an increase to 3�,390 by the ti�ear 2020. The number of employed residents in Cupertino in 200� was 21,310. The numbec of employed residents is expected to increase to 28,390 bv the vear 2020.'' To meet the current and pcojected housing needs in the Cit��, the General Plan has an objective for 71 1 new housing units at up to 35 units per acre in the Vallco Park South planning district. 4.12.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion POPULAT[ON AND HOUSING Less Than Potentiall�� Sianiticant l.ess �Chan geneticial Information Signiticant �l ith Sisnificant No Impact Impact Sourcc(s) liupact N1i�i�ation Impact Incorporated Would the project: l) Induce substantial population gro�vth � � � � � 1 in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing ne�v homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure):' 2) Displace substantial numbers of � � � � � 1 existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3) Displace substantial numbers of � � � � � 1 people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? As discussed in Seetion 49 Land Use, the General Plan also sets forth development allocations for commercial, office, hotel, and residential uses for different areas of the City including Vallco Park South. As of April 2008, the remaining development allocations in the Vallco Park South are for approximately 250,000 square feet of commercial uses, approximately 764 hotel rooms, and 400 residential units. Currently there are no development allocations for office use in the Vallco Park South area. Office development in the Vallco Park South area would require office a((ocation from 13 Association of Bay Area Governments. Projections 2007 Forecasts for the San Francisco Bav Area to the Year 2035. ABAG: Oakland, December 2006. City of Cupertino 86 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Section �.0 — Em•iror�nte��tu! Setti+rg, Chec•klist, anc! Disct�ssion c�j�hnE�crc•t.�� othec areas of the Citti�. A summacy of the available office development allocations is pcovided in Table �.0-3 of this [nitial Studv. The development and gro�Lth associated with either of the proposed project schemes is already accounted for in the Citv's General Plan (November 2005) and therefore, the project would not induce unplanned growth in jobs or housing within the City. Thece are no structures on tl�e site and the pcoject would not displace people or housing. 4.12.3 Conclusion The proposed project �vould not result in substantial population growth impacts to housing. (Less Than Significant Im�act) City of Cupertino 87 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sec•tion -l.0 — E��rironmentc7/ Sc:llin,��. Cl��cklrst, ar�cl Disctrs.cio�� of�lm��ncts -�.13 YUBLIC SERV[CES 4.13.1 Se tting 4.13.1.1 Fii•e Service F ice safety and protection is pro� ided by the Santa Clara Count� Fice Division. which also serves unincorporated Santa Clara Count}� and tlle communities of CampbelL Los Altos, Los Altos Hi�ls. Los Gatos, Monte Sereno. Morgan Hill and Saratoga. The Santa Clara County Fire Department secves a total area of approximately I 00 square miles and a population of over 210,000 persons. Tlle Santa Clara County Fire Department has 16 fiee stations, an administrative headquartecs. a maintenance facility. five other suppo� facilities, and more than 100 vehicles. The Department employs over 26� fire prevention, suppression, investigation, administration. and maintenance personnel and has 40 volunteer firefighters. There are three tire stations located in the City of Cupertino: I) Cupertino Fire Station No. t is located at 2021 � Stevens Creek Boulevard, 2) Monta Vista Fire Station No. 7 is iocated at 22620 Stevens Creek Boulevard, and 3) Seven Springs Fire Station No. 2 is locafed at 21000 Seven Springs Parkway. Cupertino Fire Station is within I.5 miles of the project site and would be the first to respond. 4.13.1.2 Police Sei•viee Public safety services are provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriff s Office. The Santa Claca County Sheriff s Office serves the communities of Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, Saratoga, and the unincorporated areas of the Santa Clara Count}'. The Sheriff s Office serves a popu(ation of approximately I97,700 pecsons and has 635 sworn personnel. The Santa Clara County Sherift s West Valley Uivision, which is located at 1601 South De Anza Boulevard, provides law enforcement services to the residents of Cupertino. 4.13.1.3 Schools The project site is located within the Cupertino Union Elementary School District and the Fremont Union High School District. Students in the project area attend Eisenhower Elementary School, Hyde Middle School, and Cupertino High School. 4.13.1.4 Pui•ks The City of Cupertino's neighborhood parks system serves the active and passive recreational needs of its residents. The City of Cupertino owns 150.8 acres of park(and comprised of 10 neighborhood parks and four special purpose parks (Memorial Park, McClellan Ranch Park, Blackberry Farm and Creekside Park). The City's Park Acreage Policy (Policy 2-74) states that the City should provide parkland equal to a minimum of three acres for every 1,000 residents. In addition, Policy 2-75 states that the each househo(d should be within a 0.5-mile walk of a neighborhood park or community park with neighborhood facilities, and that the route is reasonably free of physical barriers, including streets with heavy traffic. City of Cupertino 88 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectioi� =1.0 — E��ironrnei��nl Sc�trng. Ch�eklis�. uizc/ Dise�irssion of �lrnpacts C��rrently. tl�ere are no parks ��ithin 0.�-miles of the project site. The nearest packs to tlle project site include Prunecid<�e Park north of the site. Portal Park ��est of the site. VVilson Park south��est of the site. and Creekside Park south-southw�est of the site (refer to Figure �.0-=t). -�.13.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion PUBLIC SERV[CES Less �han Potentialh� Si�niticant Less Than geneticial (nformation Signiticant Vl� ith Si�niticant No Impact lmpact Source(s) Impact h1iti�ation Impact hicorporated Would tile project: 1) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated �vith the provision of ne�� or physically altered governmeiltal facilities, the need for new° or physically altered � governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? � � � � � 1 Police Protection? � � � � � 1 Schools? � � � � � 1 Parks? � � � � � 1 Other Public Facilities? � � � � � I 4.13.2.1 Fire und Po/ice Services The project site is located within an urbanized area of Cupertino that is served by the Santa Clara County Fire Departinent and the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Office. Proposed buildings would be constructed in conformance with the appropriate Fire and Bui(ding Codes to reduce fire risk. The City requires automatic sprinkler and fire detection systems in commercial areas and smoke alarms in new residential development to further reduce fire risk. Development of the proposed project would intensify the use of the project site in comparison to existing conditions, which would likely incrementally increase the number of calls for fire and police services including medical calls. Additional service demands generated by the proposed project, however, would not require construction of additional fire or police facilities. 4.13.2.2 Schools The project proposes commercial, office, hotel, and senior housing uses that would not generate new students. For this reason, the proposed project would not require the construction of new school facilities or have a substantial, adverse impact on schools. City of Cupertino 89 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Littie Rancficr Park Sc�t��n» set ; � � � �c�un�ary Agteerrlef�t Line ' i ; � �lr�incorp�r�it�d �reas J� � ; f� 4 G,5 1 R�iile i o ,�xx, 2c,oe ��:�v F�ct � � �) 5Gn � c�r� R'�ter> i i — �--------- �,_ �_ — — --- _ � EXISTING PARKS FIGURE 4.0-4 Sec7io�� .0 — E�n�irn�imental Sc�tti�r�. C'hecklist. cr»cf Di.sc•us.siun o/�Ir�t��ct.c 4.13.2.3 Parks According to the City's parkland dedication requicements, the development of senio�• housing is required to provide 0.003 acres of park(and pec unit (Municipal Code Section ( 8.24.060). Schemes 1 and 2 propose 160 senior units and per the City's packland dedication requirements, both schemes ��ould be required to provide 0.�8 acres of park(and. Both scl�emes propose 1.63 acres ofi private open space, including an 0.88-acre town square foc public gatherings and 0.75-acre park. The proposed private open space is intended to be local serving by tlle proposed project and surrounding neighborhood. The private open space ��ould have an easement that would allow public use and access. Because tlle project would provide open space for (ocal uses, including public gathecings, it is not anticipated that the project would substantially increase use of existing park facilities, result in the physical deterioration (or degradation) of park facilities, or require the construction of new facilities other than that proposed by the project and evaluated in this Initial Study. The proposed project shall be cequired to comply with the Cit�'s Municipal Code regacdin<y parkland dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees to further reduce park impacts. Mitigation and/or Avoidance Measure: ln conformance with standard practices in the City� of Cupertino, the proposed project shall implement the follow ing standard measure to reduce park impacts: • T'he project shall comply with the Municipal Code requirements for packland dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees (Section 18.24.060). 4.13.3 Conclusion The proposed project, with the implementation ofthe above a�oidance measure, would not result in significant impacts to public services. (Less Than Significant Im�act) City of Cupertino 91 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Se�c��iun -l.0 — E�arironiuentul Setlin�. C`h�eklist, crr�c/ Disrtrs:sioi� o�7m��ac°ts �.14 RECREATION �.14.1 Se tting The Cit}� of Cupertino is served b� approximately 162 acres of parkland, including neighborhood parks. community parks. and school pla��in�,� fie(ds. The Department manages leisui•e services faciliCies includin� Quinlan Community� Center, Cupertii�o Sports Center, Monta Vista Recreation Center, Cupertino Senior Center, ai�d Blackberiy Fa�1». The Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for park planning and deve(opment, and a comprehensive leisure progcam for the City. The City's Polic� 2-74, states that the City should provide parkland equal to a minimum of three acres for every 1,000 residents. Policy� 2-75 states that the each househo(d should be �� ithin a 0.5-mile walk ofi a neighbochood park or community park with neighborhood facilities, and that the route is reasonably free of physical barriers, including ste•eets with heavy traffic. As discussed in Section �.13 Public Services. there are no parks within 0.5-miles of the project site. The nearest parks to the pmject site include Pruneridge Park. Portal Park, Wilson Park, and Creekside Park (refer to Figure =�.0-4). 4.14.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion RECREATION Less Than Potentialh Significant L�s; Than Si�nificant With Signiticant No Impact �eneficial Information hnpact Mitiga[ion Impact tinpact Source(s) Incorporated Would the project: 1) [ncrease the use of e�isting � � � � � 1 neighborhood and regional parhs or other recreational facilities such that substantial ph}�sical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2) Does the project include recreational � � � � � 1 facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities �vhich might have an adverse h sical effect on the environment? There are no pub(ic parks located within the project site area. Both project schemes propose 1.63 acres of private open space, with an easement that would allow public use and access. The private open space on the project site is intended to be local serving and utilized by the proposed project and the surrounding neighborhood. The two components of tlie proposed private open space are a town square and park (refer to Figures 3.0-1 and 3.0-4). It is envisioned that the town square would be used for public gatherings and events and the park on Stevens Creek Boulevard would be open to the public. The impacts of construction if the town square portion of the private open space are addressed in this Initial Study. The uses of the proposed open space on Stevens Creek Boulevard are City of Cupertino 92 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sec/ic>n �.0 — E�n•ir��nnren�ul S�ttin�. C7recklist. ca»cf Discussic��i of �In�pucts not known at this time. Environmental i��pacts of park uses at this location �vill be determined at a later date and will require subsequent environmental re� iew if othec than passive uses ace proposed. The proposed open space in each scheme �vould reduce and avoid physical impacts to e�:istin� public gatllering places in neighborhood parks. The proposed open space and the pcoject's co�npliance with the City's park(and dedication/paymenC of in-lieu fees (refer to Section �.12 Public Services) would off-set substantial recreational impacts. �.14.3 Conctusion The proposed project would not result in significant recreation impacts. (Less Than SigniCcant Impact) City of Cupertino 93 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 S�ction -l.0 — E�n•ironmerltcr/ Sc�tti��g, Chc,�ck/ist, u�tc� Disc•ussior� o��lmpucts -�.1� TRANSPORTAT[ON =1.1 �.1 Se tting 4.1>. L 1 E_xisting Condifions Road��av l�ietwork The surroundin� road��av net��oi is described below. Regionnl .-�cce.rs Intecstate 280 (1-280) is a north-south, six-lane free��vay with an additional one lane� in each direction designated as a high occupanc�� vehicle (HOV) lane. HOV lanes, also known as carpool lanes, are restricted for use by vehicles occupied by two or moce persons oc motoi•cycles, as well as select alternative fuel vehic(es, between �:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 3:00 PM and 7:00 PM. The freeway extends from San Erancisco in the north to San Jose in the south. ln the vicinity of the site, I-280 runs in a northwest to southeast direction and is located north of the site. Lawre��ce Exp� is a limited-access facility'� operated by Santa Clara County. It is a six-lane facility south of I-280. North of [-280, Lawrence Expressway is an eight-lane facility with the right- most lane in each direction restricted to HOVs during the commute hours. Access to Lawrence Expressway from the site is provided by a grade-separated interchange at Stevens Creek Boulevard and by intersections with Pruneridge Avenue. Homestead Road, and Bollinger Road. Stevens Creek Boulevard is a six-lane, east-west divided arterial forming the southern boundary of the project site. [t extends from the western boundary of the City of Cupertino into the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara. Wolfe Road is a four-to-six-lane, north-south arteriai located west of the project site. lt extends between the City of Sunnyvale in tlle north and tlle City of Saratoga in the south. South of Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road is designated Miller Avenue. Homestead Road is a four-(ane, east-west arterial north of the project site. It extends east from the City of Cupertino through the Cities of Sunnyvale and Santa C(ara. Local Access Tantau Avenue is a four-lane, north-south col(ector roadway located east of the project site. Tantau Avenue extends from Homestead Road in the north to Bollinger Road in the south. Southbound through movements are restricted at the intersection of Tantau Avenue at Stevens Creek Boulevard. North of Homestead Road in the City of Sunnyvale, Tantau Avenue is designated Quail Avenue. Vallco Parkwav is a six-lane, local roadway that connects Wolfe Road in the west to Tantau Avenue in the east and forms the northern boundary of the project site. Finch Avenue is a two-lane, north-south local roadway extending south from Vallco Parkway towards Phil Lane. Finch Avenue extends through the proposed project site from Vallco Parkway to 14 A limited-access facility is a roadway with a limited number of access points. City of Cupertino 94 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sec•tiun -t.0 — L�rrironn�ental SeIling. C'/�ec•klrs�. <<ml Drsc�rr.csioit o1�lmE�ac•ts Stevens Creek Boulevacd. Northbound a��d southbound through movemei�ts are resh at the intersection of Finc11 Avenue and Ste� ens Creek Boulevard. Periineter Road is a tw�o-lane coadwa}� connectin�� Stevens Creek Boulevacd, Wolfe Road, and Vallco Parkway. The roadway provides access to the Cupertino Square Mall parking lots on the west and north sides ofthe mall, as �vell as the ottice buildin� located east and west ofthe intersection of Perimeter Road and Vallco Park��ay. Perimeter Road runs beneath Wolfe Road and access between the two road�vays is provided by cight-turn onl�� driveways on both the northhound and southbound sides of Woltie Road. Prunerid�e Avenue is a four-lane, east-��est minor coilector road��ay located north of the project site. Pruneridge Avenue extei�ds east from Wolfe Road into the City of Santa Clara. Yedestrian and Bicyde Facilities In the project vicinity. pedestcian facilities include sidewalks and pedestrian si�nals at si�nalized intersections, as well as multi-purpose trails and pedestcian right-of-ways. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site. Sidewalks are also present along the north side of Vallco Packway and along the east side of Tantau Avenue. No sidewalks are pcesent on Vallco Park��-ay and Tantau Avenue along tlle p�•oject site's fi•ontage. All of tlle signalized intersections in the area are equipped with pedestrian signals. Bicycle facilities in the site vicinit}� include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes.�' Bike lanes are provided along Vallco Parkwa}'. Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road. and Tantau Avenue. Transit Service The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates bus service in Santa Clara County. Local bus routes that serve the project site and area are described below. Route 23 is a local bus route that provides service between East San Jose and the De Anza College via Stevens Creek Boulevard near the site. The hours of operation are from 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM with 12- to 30- minute headway�s on weekdays. On weekends, this route operates on 15- to 30- minute headways between 6:00 AM and l:00 AM. Route 26 is a local bus route that provides service between East San Jose and the Sunnyvale Lockheed Martin lightrail (LRT) Station. Weekday hours of operation are from 5:00 AM to l 1:00 PM with 15- to 30-minute headways. Weekend operations are provided on 30-minute headways between 6:30 AM and 10:00 PM. This route operates on Wolfe Road west of the site. Route 81 is a local bus route between San Jose State University and Cupertino Square. The hours of operation are 5:30 AM to 9:30 PM on weekdays with 30- to 60-minute headways. This route operates on 60-minute headways between 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM on Saturdays and Sundays. Route 81 operates on Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue. and Tantau Avenue near the project site. 15 Bike paths (Class 1 facilities) are pathways, separate From roadways that are designated for use by bicycles. Often, these pathways also allow pedestrian access. Bike lanes (Class 2 facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markin;s, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class 3) are existing right-of- ways that accommodate bicycles but are not separate from the existing travel lanes. Routes are typically designated only with signs. City of Cupertino 95 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sec/ior� -1.0 — Em�ironn�c�nlcrl S��ttrng. C'Itec•klisl. und Disctrs.srcn� of Imj��ret.c Route 101 is an e�pcess bus route bet«-een the Park-n-Ride lot at Camden Avenue/State Route 8� and Palo Alto. This route operates no► between 6:00 AM and 7:30 AM. and southbound bet«een 4:30 PM and �:30 PM �vith 30-minute headways with two trips each direction dail}. This route does not operate on ��eekends. Route 101 operates on Wolfe Road and [-280 neai the project site. Route i 82 is an e��ress bus ro��te beh�een Palo Alto and the [BM facility on Baile�� Avenue. This � route operates t�vo southbound buses between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM, and two northbound buses bet��eei� 4:30 PM and �:00 PM ��ith 30- to 40-minute 1leadways. This ro�ite does not opecate on �veekends. Route 182 operates on Vallco Parkway, Wolfe Road, and t-280 near the project site. � Caltrans Vallco Area Shuttle is a limited service commuter shuttle opecating between the La��rence Caltrain station and the Vallco area offices during the peak commute hours. The shuttle serves pri�narily Agilent, Hewlett-Packard, and Kaiser Permanente e�nployees; however, any Caltrain ticket- Ilolder i��av ride this shuttle ��ithout additioilal cost. The bus stop and park-and-ride lot located on Vallco Parkway at Perimeter Road also serve as stops for several commuter shutt(es operated by private companies. 4.1ti.2 En�-ironmental Checklist and Discussion of Imnacts TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Less ll�an Potentiall� Si�nifieant Less Than genelicial Inti�nnatiun Sianificant With Si�niticant No Impact ��ract Source(sl Impact Miti�a[ion Impact Incorporated Would the project: t) Cause an increase in traffic which is � � � � � 13 substantial in relation to the eYisting traffic load and capacity of the street svstem (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio of roads, or congestion at intersections)? 2) E�:ceed, either individual(y or � � � � � �; cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3) Result in a change in air traffic � � � � � �; patterns, including either an increase in traffic (evels or a change in location that results in substantial safet risks? ' No information was collected about the frequency or operators of these shuttles; however, they were noted during field observations. City of Cupertino 96 [nitial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 S��ctiuf� -1.0 — Em•ir��r�nten�u! Seiting. Cherklist. a��d Disrtrssi�,n o/'Im/�a�ls TRANSPORTATfON/TRAF FIC �_�,� �n,��, potentialh Si�nitic�int Less �Chan [;�i�eticial Inli�nnation Si�niticaill 11�ith SiUnihcant No Impact Impact Sourcels) Impact �1iti«ation Impact Incorporat�d Would the project: �1) Substantiall� increase hazards due to � � � ❑ ❑ 13 a design feature (e.�., sharp curves or danyerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.��., farm equipmeilt)`' 5) Result in inadequate emergency � � � ❑ ❑ 13 access:' 6) Result in inadequate parking � � � ❑ ❑ 13 capacity? 7) Conflict with adopted policies. � � � ❑ ❑ 13 plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicvcle racks)? A transportation impact ai�alysis was completed for the project by Fehr & Peers in luly 2008. The analysis indicated that the project would result in significant transportation impacts for which no mitigation has been identified that would reduce the impacts to a tess than signiticant level. For d�is reason, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. The transportation impacts of the project will be discussed in the EIR. City of Cupertino 97 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Secti�� -l.0 — Enriro�aiuental Settin,, Cl�ecklist, crn�l Disczrs.s�ion o1 �ln�puc•ts �.16 UT[LIT[ES AIVD SERVICE SYSTEMS 4.16.1 SettinQ �.I6.1.1 Water Water service to the project site is supplied by the California Water Service Company (Cal Water), � which also maintains the �vater system. Cal Water Los Altos Suburban (LAS) District serves most of the incorporated cin� of Los A(so and some sections within the cities of Cupertino (including the project site), Los Altos Hills. Mountain View. Sunnyvale, and adjacent unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. The LAS District water suppty is a combination of pumped groundwater and treated surface watec that is purchased from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). For the five- ��ear period from 2002 to 2006. 32 percent of the supply was from groundwater and 68 percent ��as from purcllased water. Annual groundwater production depends on the availability of purchased watec from SCVW'D. The groundwater supply is currently 18.437 acre-feet a year (based on current active well capacities). Surface water supplies from SCVWD come from local runoff and ��ater imports fro�n both the Federa( Central Valley Project and the California State Water Pcoject. More details about the current and planned water supplies for the LAS District are in Appendix F of this Initia( Studv. For the five years ti 2002 to 2006, the LAS District's growth rate in total services has been 0.20 percent per yeac — a decrease from the growth rate in total water services for I 0 years from 1997 to 2006 which a��eraged 0.32 percent a year. The LAS District used a total of 15, I 04 acre-fieet in ?002, 14,745 acre-feet of water in 2003, l 5,152 acre-feet of water ii� 2004, 14,758 acre-feet of ��atec in 2005, and 14,518 acre-feet of water in 2006. Land within the LAS District available for deve(opment is limited; therefore, Cal Water anticipates a growth rate between 0.20 and 0.30 percent per year for futw�e years. It is estimated that LAS District water use in 2007 was 14,275 acre-feet. Projected LAS District water use in 2008 is 14,316 acre-feet. The forecasted increase in average day ��ater demai�d fi 2007 to 2012 (a five-year period) is 204 acre-feet a year or 182,000 gallons a day (refer to Appendix F of this [nitial Study). The project site is served by an existing 12- and 14-inch water line in Vallco Parkway, a 12-inch water line in Stevens Creek Boulevard, and a 10-inch water line in Finch Avenue. The project site is currently vacant and no water service is currently provided. 4.16.1.2 Storm Drainuge The City's storm drain system is made up of underground pipelines. These pipes carry surface runoff from streets to prevent flooding. Runoff (stormwater and runoff from landscape irrigation and other urban sources) enters the system at the grated catch basins found along the curb near street intersections. Water from these pipes is discharged, untreated, directly into City creeks. The project site is served by 18- and 21-inch storm drain lines in Vallco Parkway and a 24-inch storm drain line in Stevens Creek Boulevard. These storm drain lines discharge to Calabazas Creek, and ultimately, the San Francisco Bay. 4.16.1.3 Wastewatei/Sanitary Sewer System The Cupertino Sanitary District provides sewer service to the project site. The Cupertino Sanitary District collects and transports wastewater to the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) located in north San Jose. The District purchases water treatment capacity from the plant City of Cupertino 98 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Section -l.0 — Em•ironrnentul Setti�r�. Che�cklist, ancl Discussio of I»ipu and has purchased 8.6 million `�allons per da� of capacity. Curcentl��, an average of appcoximatelti �4.� million gallons of �vaste��ater a day is generated within the Cupertino Sanitar}� Distcict and conve}�ed to the WPCP. The City is well below their allotted capaciry at the WPCP. The project site is ser��ed bti� an eight-inch se��er line in Vallco Parkway, an eight-inch sewec line in Tantau Avenue, an eight- and 12-inch se�tier line in Stevens Creek Boulevard, and a 10-inch sew line in Finch Avenue. Currentl��, the site does not generate sanitary sewage. 4.16.1.� Solid [�'uste Commeccial and cesidential �arbage and recycling services ii� the project area are provided by the Los Altos Garbage Compan�. Solid waste collected from the City is delivered to Newby lsland Sanitary LandfilL Many types of recyclable materials are also delivered to the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery Station (SMART Station) for recycling. As of 2000 (which is the most recent data available), the re�nainii�� estii��ated capacity at the Newby Island landfill is approximately 18.3 million cubic yards.�� The City has a contract with Newby Island Landfill until the year 2023, or until the cumulative tonnage deliveced equals 2.0� million tons. Since the City's contract �vith Newby Island, the City has delivered a total of appcoximately l.3 million tons of �vaste to tl�e landfill. The City generates approaimately 38.000 tons of solid waste a year.� Currently, the pcoject site does not generate solid waste. 4.16.2 Environmental Checklist and Imnacts UT[L[T[ES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Less Than Notentially Si�nifican[ Less �Than F3eneficial h�formation Signiticant With Si�nificant No Impac[ ��pact Source(s) Impact Mitigatiun fmpact Incor orated Would t11e project: 1) Exceed waste��ater treatment � ❑ � ❑ ❑ � requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2) Require or result in the construction � � � ❑ ❑ � of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of e�isting faciiities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? " Source: California [ntegrated Waste Management Board. "Active Landfills Profile for Newby Island Sanitary Landfill (43-AN-0003)." N.d. Available at: httpJ/w�vw.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles!Facility/LandfiIULFProfilel.asp?CO[D=1&FACID=43-AN-0003. Accessed t 1 August 2008. Note that an application is currently on file at the City of San Jose (SCH# 2007122011) for the vertical expansion of the landfill which would increase the landfill's capacity by approximately 15 million cubic yards. � Cheso, Gil. Email from Allied Waste. "Re: FW: City of Cupertino — waste information needed." 5 August 2008. City of Cupertino 99 [nitial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectior� �.0 — Eni•i��onme�atal Seuii��. Checklrst, ancl Diset�ssioia of �l�rr/�actc UT[L[T[ES AND SERVtCE SYSTEMS �_�;, ri,�,�, Potentially� Si<�niticant Less l�han Significant 1�"ith Si�niticant No Impact �eneticial Inforni�tion Impact �1iti�ation Impact lmpact Source(sl Inco urated VVould the project: 3) Require or result in the construction � � � � � � of new storm �vater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signiticant environmental effects`? =l) Have sufficient water supplies � . � � � � � available to serve the project from esisting entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? �) Result in a determination bv the � � � � � � �vastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing coinmitments? 6) Be served by a landtill �vith sufficient � � � � � � permitted capacit� to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 7) Comply with federal, state, and (ocal � � � � � � statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 4.16.2.1 Water Service and Supply In accordance with state law (SB 610) and CEQA, `'a project tllat would deinand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project (Watec Code � 10912(a)(7)" must provide an analysis of whether there is adequate water supply available to serve the proposed development. A water supply assessment was completed by Cal Water in accordance with SB 610 for the proposed project in August 2008. A copy of this assessment is included in Appendix F of this Initial Study. [t is estimated that Scheme 1 would use approximately 265,400 ga(lons (or 298 acre-feet) of water a day and Scheme 2 would use approximately 204,010 gallons (or 229 acre-feet) of water a day (refer to Appendix F). Witl1 respect to the LAS District five-year and 20-year water demand forecasts, the proposed project (under either scheme) would represent approximately five percent of the District's projected water demand leaving approximately 95 percent for other projects and general growth within the District. The water supply assessment completed by Cal Water for the project concludes that based on the adequacy of groundwater supplies, purchased treated surface water supplies from SCVWD, plans for future groundwater wells, historic and projected water supply and demand during single and multip(e dry years, and success of on-going water conservation programs and best management practices for City ofCupertino ]00 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Serliur� �.0 — Enrirunm�nJUl Set[i��g. �'hec�klist. �ind Disct�s.siat o/'Imj�ac�t.�� reducin<� ��ater demand_ Cal VVater LAS Distcict will have more than adequate �vate� supplies to meet the ��atec demands of the project (under eithec scheme) tor the next 20 ��ears in addition to those of all existing customers and ail other anticipated future users foi• nocmal. single drv ��ear. and multiple dr�� y�ear conditions (�•efer to Appendix F). �.16.2.2 Sto�•m Drainage As discussed in Section �3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project (undec both schemes) ��ould increase the amount of impervious surfaces on-site. Under existing conditions, a 30- incl� storm di line in Vailco Park�tiay ��hich connects to the existing culvert is over capacity. Under project conditions, an 18-iilch storm drain (ine in Vallco Parkwa} ��hich also connects to the existing culvert v��ould be over capacit}�. The project proposes to construct ?4-inch stonn drain lines parallel to the above ir�entioned 30-inch and I 8-inch storm drain lines to di��e► site runofif from those lines. The proposed 24-inch stor�l� drain lines would connect to the existing on-site Calabazas Creek culvert. V4'ith installation of the two proposed 2�-inch storm drain lines, there would be sufticient stocm drain system capacity� to accommodate the proposed project.�`' �.16.2.3 Wnstewate�/Sanitarl� Sewer S��stem The wastewater generation for both schemes is similar to each othec. Sche»�e 1 would generate appeoximately 157,500 gallons of se�age a day, and Scherne 2 would genecate approxiil�ately l 56,600 gallons of sewage a day.' The proposed project would connect to existing sewer lines in Vallco Parkwav and Finch Avenue. Based on information from the Cupe► Sanitary Sewer Distcict, most of the existing sanitary sewer system has capacity to accommodate the proposed project (under either scheme). As described pceviousl}�, the City is well belotiv its allotment for wastewater treatment at the WPCP. The Cupertino Sanitary Distcict, therefore, has adequate �vastewater treatment capacit}� for the proposed project. It is unknown at this time if the sewer line downstream of the site in Tantau Avenue between 1-280 and Pruneridge Avenue has capacity to serve the proposed project. For this reason, it may be necessary to up-size a 3,000 foot long segment of the existing sanitary sewer line in Tantau Avenue from [-280 to Pruneridge Avenue from a 10-inch line to a l2-inch line to accommodate sewage flows from the proposed project. As discussed in Section 3.0 Project Description, the project proposes to complete sanitary sewer flow testing before recordation of the subdivision map to determine if the project would exceed the capacity of the existing sewer lines at or downstream of the site. If the results of the testing show ttiat tlie project would exceed the capacity of the existing sewer lines, in coordination with the City of Cupertino Department of Public Works and the Cupertino Sanitary District, the project proposes to up-size the sewer lines and connections to provide adequate capacity to serve the project. Improvements would be installed within existing street right-of-way and are not anticipated to result in substantial environmental effects. For these reasons, the proposed project (under either scheme) would not result in significant impacts to the wastewater collection system. 19 BKF Engineers. HP Site Cu�ertino Stonn Drain Ca�acity Studv. 7 April 2008. ' Peterson, Doug. Email fi BKF Engineers, project engineer. "Re: Main St — sewage generation." 1 1 June 2008. City of Cupertino 101 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 S�c•�ioi7 �.0 — Eni�irof�mental Setlrn�, Checklist. a�id Drsc�trssron nj lnrpercts =�.16.2.-1 Solid Waste [t is esti�l�ated that Sche��re 1 �vould generate approxi�nately I.60� tons of solid ��aste a vear and Scl�er»e Z ��ould generate appro�:imatel}� 1,485 tons of solid ��aste a year.�� Based on tlle project's � estimated annual waste generation, the Citv's annual waste generation, and the Cit} �s remainin� allocation at Newby Is(and Ia�Idtill. there is sufficient capacity within the City's contr•act �t�ith Ne�ti�b�- [sland and at the landfiill to se�ve the proposed project (under either scheme). � �.16.3 Conclusion The proposed pcojeet (under either scheme) would not result in significant impacts to existing utilities and service systems. (Less Than Significant Impact) '� Waste generation estimates were based on the following general waste generation rates confirmed with Los Altos Garbage Company: retail — 0.046 pounds per day; office — 6 pounds per 1,000 square feet per day; residential uses — 30 pounds per unit per week; and hotel — 2 pounds per day (Source: Candau, John. Los Altos Garbage Company Operations Manager. Email "Re: Waste generation rate request." 8 September 2008). A waste generation rate of 2.5 pounds per 1,000 square feet per day for the athletic club use was used in the above calculation and was provided by Lifetime Fitness (2008). City of Cupertino 10? Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sertion -!.0 — Enriroi�m�nta/ Seltin��, C'hc�cklist. cinc! Disc•t�ssion o��lmjnre•t.c �.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF S[G1�IIFICANCE Less Than Potentiall� Signiticant Less Than t3eneticial Intixmation �i��nihcant w'ith Signihicant No Impact lmpact Sourcr(s) Impact ntitigation Impact Incorporated t) Does the project have the potential to degrade ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ p�'``� the quality of the environment, substantially �� reduce the habitat of a fish or wildiife species. cause a tish or ��ildlife population to drop belo�v selt=sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a piant or animal community, reduce the number or rest►�ict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important exa�7�ples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 2) Does the project have impacts that are � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ P��`� individually limited, but cumulatively ��g considerable? ("Cumulativel_y considerable" meails that the incremental effects of a project are considerable �vhen vie�ved in connection �tiith the effects of past projects, tlle effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 3) Does the project have environmental effects � � ❑ ❑ ❑ P• which �vill cause substantial adverse effects on � �g human bein s, eithec directl or indirectly? 4.17.1 Proiect Impacts The project would not result in significant aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resoucces, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use. mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service system impacts with the implementation of the mitigation and/or avoidance measures included in this Initial Study� (refer to Section 4.0 Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Diseussion of Impacts). However, the project may result in significant and unavoidable transportation, cumulative transportation, air quality, and cumulative air quality impacts. These impacts will be addressed in a focused EIR. 4.17Z Cumulative Imnacts 4.17.2.1 Curr�ulative Noise Impacts The following discussion of cwnulative noise impacts is based in part on a list of cumulative projects in the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, San Jose, and Sunnyvale provided in the transportation impact analysis, specifically Appendix D of the report, prepared by Fehr & Peers in September 2008. City of Cupertino l03 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Seclion -J.0 — E��n•ir�»tn��nlcrl Setiing. Checklist. cmd Disctrssrun of /mp��•ts Cumulative Construction-Related lYoise [mpacts � The construction of the cumulative projects would result in short-term noise and disturbance at various locations tllrou�hout the City. The cumulative project sites are scattered throu��hout the City � and adjacent cities (Refer to Figure 4.0-1), their schedules for construction are diffecent, and theic construction is likely to oceur over the neat several yeacs. fn addition, projects (i��c(uding the proposed project and the adjacent Rosebowl project) are requiced to implement City standard requirements such as limiting hours of construction to reduce co��struction noise impacts. Given these factors, the cumulative constcuction noise associated ��ith the pending projects �vould ��ot result in a significant iil�pact. Cumulative E.r Noise Based on the transportation impact analysis completed for the project by Feh�• c� Pce��s in August 2008, cumulative traffic (existing traftic plus traftic generated by approved but not yet constructed developments in the project area, traffic generated by pending developments, and traftic generated b}� the proposed project) would increase existing noise levels along Stevens Creek Boulevard by one dBA. Therefore, future noise levels are estimated to be 63 dBA at the first-floor level and 65 dBA at the upper floors of the hotel in either scheme. The senior housing building would be located approximately 280 feet from the center of the Stevens Creek Boulevard under both schemes. Exterior noise levels at the facades of the senior housing building under each development scheme are estimated to be less than 60 dBA DNL. The proposed hotel and senior housing building would be exposed to future noise le��els of 65 dBA DNL or less which is considered by the City of Cupertino to be the normally acceptable noise level for transient lodging and multi-family residential environments. The senior housing building in both schemes includes a courtyard in the cei�ter of the building. Noise levels within this courtyard (in both schemes) would be less than 60 dBA DNL. which is considered a normally acceptable noise level by the City. Cumulative Traffic Noise Impacts Cumulative traffic conditions are expected to increase traftic noise (evels by approximately one dBA DNL along Stevens Creek Boulevard and by up to two dBA DNL along Tantau Avenue north of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The project would contribute less than one dBA DNL to the overall noise level increases expected on these roadways and along the majority of other roadway segments further fi•om the site. Noise levels along Vallco Parkway between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue are expected to increase by up to four dBA DNI. under cumulative traffic conditions. The traffic generated by the cumulative projects, including the proposed project, would result in a significant cumulative noise increase on Vallco Parkway between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue. Development planned under Scheme 1 or Scheme 2 would contribute one dBA toward this overall noise increase. Typically, in high noise environments, if the DNL due to the project would increase by more than three dBA at noise- sensitive receptors, the impact is considered significant. Where the existing noise level is lower, a somewhat higher increase (i.e., five dBA) can be tolerated before the impact is considered significant. There are current(y no sensitive receivers along this segment of Vallco Road that would be subject to the estimated four dBA DNL traffic noise increase. For these reasons, the project would result in a less than significant cumulative tcaffic noise impact. City of Cupertino 104 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Sectio» -1.0 — Enriro��rnentul S�ttii��,. C'{��cklist. c»ad Discussiou c�J�lm/�crcv.c �.17.2.2 Globa/ Climate Chunge Imp«cts The Governor's Otfice of Planning and Research (OPR) is currently developing amendi��ents to the CEQA Guidelines that ��ill provide regulatory �uidance on the analysis and mitigation for Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) in CEQA documents. Under Senate Bill 97, these amendments are to be adopted on or befoce January l, 2010. In the interim. OPR has prepared a technical <�uidance document regacding the steps lead agencies should take to addcess climate change i�� theic CEQA documents.�� The following discussion of the project's contribution to cumulati��e emissions of greenhouse gases considers this interim guidance and the City's developing approach on climate change analysis. based upon best avai(able info�•mation. Global climate change is the alteration of the Earth's weathec including its temperature. pcecipitation. and wind patterns. Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring a��d anthropogenic- generated atmospheric gases. such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases allow sunlight into the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping into outer space, which is known as the "greenhouse" effect. The world's leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway and is very likely caused by humans.�' Agencies at the ii�ternational, national, state, and local levels are considering st� to control ei��issions of �ases that contribute to global warming. There is no comprehensive strategy that is being implemented on a global scale that addresses climate change; however, in Califocnia a multi- agency "Climate Action Team," has identified a range of strategies and the Air Resources Board. under Assembly Bill (AB) 32, has been designated to adopt the main plan for reducing California's GHG emissions by Januacy l, 2009, and regulations and other initiatives for reducing GHG emissions by January l, 201 1. AB 32 requires achievement by 2020 of a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and reguiations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. By 2050. the state plans to reduce einissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The City of Cupertino has a number of General Plan policies in place to reduce its impact on global climate change including the following: • Polic�� =l-1: Ciry Par•ticipatiorr irr Regiorral Ti°ans�ortatrorr Plannivrg • Policti� 4-2: Redarce Reliance on the U.se of Single-Occupnnt vehicles • Policy 4-3: Cupe��tirto Pedestriara Ti�ansportation Gurdelines and the Cupertino Bicycle Transpo�°tation Plan • Polic}' �-�: Increased U.se of Public Ti�ansit • Policy �-1: Princzpals of Sustainabiliry • Policy �-2: Conse�•vation and Efficient Use of Ene�� Resour�ces • Policy� �-3: Green Building Desigrr • Policy �-20: Reduction of Impervious Su��faces • Policy �-26: Indust�°ial Water Recycling "Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2008. Technical Advisory; CEQA AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June l9, 2008. ' [PCC, 200�: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate ChanQe 2007• The Phvsical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Gro� I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter�overnmental Panel on Climate Chan�e [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambr�dge University Press, Cambrid�e, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/. City of Cupertino 105 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Section -J.0 — E�n•iroamenta/.Setti��. Checklisi. nt�d DLccirssion nf7m��a��ls • Policl' �-?9: Coorc�in�rtio» of Loc•n/ (.'onserration Policies i��rth Regruf�-iride C'on,cerrnliort � Policies • Policl� 5-39: Con7�i�ercial�I�c�t�strial Rect�cling • Polici� �-39: Re.sicfential Recycling • Policy S-�2: Citt� Rec�•cling • Polrcy �-�3: Re-c�rsti°ibufion of Reusable �llaterials � Policl� �--l;l Rea�se of Building R1ate�°ials Currently there is no established guidance, from the state or in published CEQA case law, for the determination of what constitutes a signiticant �lobal climate change impact oc what measures are necessary to off-set ne�� greenhouse gas emissions. The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) recently published a technical guidance document that offiecs OPR's perspective on addressing climate change under CEQA. The advisory reviews the regulatory setting and outlines a framework for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and lists a range of sources for modeling and assessment. It recommends that the Lead Agency identify individual or cumulative impacts of a project and mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse �as emissions associated with transportation, electricity generation and use, and other sources. It also notes that a lead agency is not responsible for wholly eliminating all GHG emissions from a project; the CEQA standard is to mitigate to a level that is '`less than signiticant." Given the global scope of global climate change, the challenge under CEQA is fior a Lead Agency to translate the issue down to the leve( of a CEQA document for a specific project in a way that is meaningful to the decision making process. Under CEQA, the essential questions are w�hether a project creates or contributes to an environmental impact or is subject to impacts from the environment in which it would occur, and what mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts. The project would generate g� gases primarily through electricity generation/use and generation of vehicle trips. It is estimated that Scheme 1 ��ould generate approximately 20,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year and Schejr7e 2 would generate approximately 17,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year.�' Efforts to reduce the project greenhouse gas emissions by reducing electricity demand and reducing vehicle trips and miles, therefore, should be implemented. To reduce electricity� use and/or promote energy efficiency, the project proposes to include design features outlined in the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system to be LEED certified. LEED certified projects require selecting a sustainab(e project site, including features that promote water and energy efficiency, reducing waste (e.g., promoting recycling, reusing building and materials, and using rapid(y renewable materials), improving indoor environmental quality (e.g., use of low emitting materials), and being innovative in design. ' Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisorv - CEOA AND CLIMATE CHANGE• Addressin� Climate Chanee Throu�h California Environmental Oualitv Act (CEOA) Review. June 19, 2008. 25 Greenhouse gas emissions are estimated in the air quality study in Appendix D. City of Cupertino 106 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Scction �.0 — F�n•ironmc�ntul Seltin,. Checklisl. ur�cl Diset�.csion ��f�/nr��uct, The landscape design and gceen building features the project proposes include the follo��ing: Landsca„pe Sustainable Desi�n Pro�cam • Landscape materials shall utilize a variety of recycled materials in the selection of pavement materials. site furnishings, and (andscape soil amendments. • Stormwater management methods, including biofilitration areas and pecmeable pavements. shall be used to clean «�ater before being released into the em iconment. • TIIe planting design and irrigation system sl�all incorporate drought tolecant plant matecials and high efticienc�� ircigation systems to minimize «ater use. • Landscape lighting shall utilize high efficiency light ti�tures w�hicli inciude dark skti� technology to reduce glare, spillover of light onto adjacent p� and up lighting of the atmosphere. Green Buildin� Principals • Buildings shall be designed to take advantage of renewable resources throu�h features using passive and active solar and features such as gceen roofs. The buildiny�s shall focus on passive solar design materials with high thermal mass that retains heat effectively, and strong insulation that prevents heat escape. • The project is designed with "walkable'' city blocks with retail activity on the streets and connections between the pcoposed project and the existing neighborhood (e.g., Metropolitan development). • The project shall incorporate a variety of recycled materials in the selections of concrete, insulatio�l, gypsuin board, certitied �vood, roofing products. paints, and finishes. • Low-emitting adhesives, sealants, carpets, and composite wood products shall be used. • Building lighting shall be energy efficient and environmentally controlled. Utilities shall be designed in centcal structures promoting control of heating and cooling systems. • Exterior site lighting for buildings, streets, and site circulation areas shall utitize higll efficiency light fixtures which include dark sk} technology to reduce glare, spil( ligllt, and up lighting of the atmosphere. • The project shall promote recycling, green interior design and furnishing. The nature of the project (infill site, proximate transit and bicycle lanes, mixed use) provides opportunity for reduced vehicle trips. In addition, the project would provide pedestrian pathways and connections throughout the site. Given the overwhelming scope of global climate change, it is not anticipated that a single development project would have an individually discernable effect on global climate change (e.g., that any increase in global temperature or rise in sea (evel could be attributed to the emissions resulting from one single development project). Rather, it is more appropriate to conclude that the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the proposed project would combine with emissions across the state, nation, and globe to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. Declaring an impact significant or not implies some knowledge of incremental effects that is several years away, at best. To determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on globai climate change is speculative, particularly given the fact that there are no existing numerical thresholds to determine an impact. However, in an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to conform with the CEQA Guidelines [§ 16064(b)], it is the City's position that, based on the nature and size of this redevelopment project, its location within an established urban area served by existing infi•astructure (rather than a greenfield site), and the City of Cupertino 107 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Scrtion �_� — Em•iron�uental Settrr�g, C'I�ecklist, anc/ Discussrn�� of lmE�ucls measures ineluded in the project to reduce energy use, the proposed project �vould not impede the state's abilit� to reach the emission reduction liil�its/ standards set forth by the State of California b}� EYecutive Order S-3-0� and AB 32. For these reasons. this pcoject �ould not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change. City of Cupertino 108 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Se�tiu�1 �.0 — F_i�i•ironmer�Icil Selling. Chtcklrs�. crncl Disczrssion of h»puc•ts CHECKLIST [NFORMAT[ON SOURCES 1. Profiessional judgment and eapertise of the environmental specialist preparing this assessment, based upon a revie�v ot�the site and surcoundin� conditions, as well as a revie�v of the project ptans. 2. City of Cupertino. General Plan. November 200�. 3. California Depactment of Consecvation. Santa Clara Count_�finportant Farmland 2006. Map. 4. Illingworth & Rodkin, inc. Air Qualitv Assessment. � Au<�ust 2008. �. Live Oak Associates. Inc. E3iological Evaluation/Reconnaissance-level Surveys. 21 Apri( 2008. 6. City of Cupertino. Municipal Code. 7. Arbor Resources. A Tree Inventorv and Review of the Proposed Development at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue Cupertino. California. 1 July 2008. 8. Holman & Associates. Cultural Resources Report. 25 April 2001. 9. TRC. Preliminarv-Level Geotechnica( Investi ag tion. 27 November 2007. 10. SECOR. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update. 30 .(anuary 2008. 1 l. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood lnsurance Rate Map. Community� Panel 060339-0004C. 1 Mav 1990. 12. Illingworth & Rodkin, (nc. Main Street Cupertino Environmental Noise Assessment. 17 July 2008. 13. Fehr & Peers. Transportation Impact Analysis Main Street Cupertino. 1 July 2008. City of Cupertino 109 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES Acbor Resources. A Tree Inventor�� and Review of the Proposed Deve(opment at Ste��ens Geek Boulevard and Finch Avenue Cupertino. California. 1 July 2008. Association of Ba�� Area Governments. AE3AG ��'ildfire Hazard Maps and Information. 24 October 2007. Available at: http://ww��.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eq►naps/��ildfire/. Accessed I� Apri( 2008. Association of Bay Area Governmei�ts. Pcojections 2007 Forecasts for tl�e San Francisco Qav Acea to tlle Year 203� ABAG: Oakland. December 2006. BKF Engineers. HP Site, Cupertino. Storm Drain Capacit}� Stud��. 7 April 2008. BKF Engineers. Memo regarding stocm�ater treatment BMPs pervious/impervious surfaces and runoft; cut and fill amounts, and summarv of flood conditions. 1 1 March 2008. California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara Countv Important Farmland 2006. Map. City of Cupertino. General Plan. November 2005. City oFGupertino. Municipal Code. Dare, Kevin. Email from Sand Hill Property Company, project manager. "Re: Main Street — retail on west side." 27 June 2008. Dare, Kevin. Email from Sand Hill Property Company, project manager. "Re: Main Street." 31 July 2008. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood lnsurance Rate Map. Community Panel 060339- 0004C. 1 May 1990. Fehr & Peers. Transportation Impact Anal September 2008. Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2008. Technical Advisory; CEQA AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Juile 19, 2008. Holman & Associates. Cultural Resources Report. 25 April 2001. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Air Qualitv Assessment. September 2008. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Main Street Cupertino Environmental Noise Assessment. 17 July 2008. Live Oak Associates, Inc. Biolo�ical Evaluation/Reconnaissance-level Sucvevs. 21 April 2008. SECOR. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Update. 30 January 2008. TRC. Preliminary-Level Geotechnical Investi a� tion. 27 November 2007. City of Cupertino I l0 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 SE�ciion �.0-R�Jri�c�irc•c�s � Persons Contacted: — Chao. Gary. C'it} of Cupertino. Principai Plannec. — Dare. Ke��in_ Sand Hill Propert}' Company. Project Manager. — Marello. Jerem�•. BKF Engineers, Project Engineer. — Peterson. Dou�. BKF Engineers, Project Engineer. City of Cupertino 111 Initial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS Lead A�enc�� City of Cupertino Community Development Department Steve Piasecki. Dicector Gary Cllao, Senioc Planner Consultants David J. Po�i�ers & Associates Environmental Consultants and P(anners Michel(e Yesney, Principal Nora Monette, Principal Pcoject Manager Kcisty Le. Project Mailager Stephanie Francis. Graphic Artist Holman & Associates Archaeological Consultants Miley Holman, Principal Illingworth & Rodkin Acoustical and Air Quality Consultants Michael Thill, Project Manager James Reyff, Project Manager Live Oak Associates, Inc. Ecological Consultants Michele Korpos, Project Manager City of Cupertino 1 12 lnitial Study Main Street Cupertino Project October 2008 Appendix B . Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Responses to NOP � ��/� City ot C'upertino � Department of Conmiunih� Developmeiit ��ii�'i ] 0 �00 Torre Avenue CUPERTINO Cupertino, CA 95014-3232 1\TOTICE OF PREPARATION TO: Responsible, Trustee and other FR: Ciiy of Cupertino Interested Public Agencies Department of Communiry De��elopi�ient 10300 Ton Avenue Cupertir�o, CA 95014-3232 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a llraft En��ironmenta] Impact Report 7'he City of Cupertino will be the Lead Agency and ��ill pi an emriroiiinental impact report (EIR) for the project identified belo«�. ��Je need to know the vie«�s of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental inforn�ation �a�hieh is gei�»ane ta y our agency stattrtory responsibiliries in coiuiection with the proposed project. Your agency ��ill need to use the F,iFZ prepared by our agenc}� when considering your perntit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and brief summary of possible en�zronmental effects which will be analyzed in the EIR are attached. A copy of the Initial Study is not attached. Due to the tiine limits mandated by State la�v, yoiu� response must be seilt at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of tlus notice. Please send your response to Garv Chao at ti�e address sho�u�1 above. We will need the name for a contact Uerson in your agenc}�. Project Title: Main Street Cupertino Yroject Applicant: Sandhill Pronerty Coinpany, Ke�rin Dare, (650) 344-1500 � � Date: � � L ^ l , �� Signature: �� :��(.C� `'" �-�%�?--� �_-� Title: Se�uor Planner Telephone: (408) 777-3247 E-Mail: GaryC@cupertulo.org 1 �c��rlcF or �uErar�Tro�� oF a DR.aFT E1 VIR01�;1'IENTAL IA'IPACT REPORT FOR THE FROPOSED MAIN S"T12EET CUPERTINO PROJECT Introduction The pur�oce of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to inform decision makers and the general puUlic of the eilviranmental effects of a proposed pr The EIR process is intended to pro�-ide public agencies ��ith the environmental infoi�nation required tu evaluate a proposed project, establish methods for reducing adverse environmental impacts, and consider alternatives to a project prior to the appi of the project. The EIR for tl�e �i�oposed miaed use de��elopment of a 18.7-acre site in Cupertino will be prepared and processed in accordance ��ith the California Enviromnental Quality Act (GEQA) of 1970, as a�i�ended. In accordance with the requirements of CEQi1, the EIlZ will includc: • A summary of the EIIZ • A project descnption � A description of the existing environmental setting, possible environmental impacts, and mitigation measures • Alternatives to the project as proposed • Environmental consequences, including: (a) any significant environmental effects ��vhich cannot'be avoided if the project is implemented; (b) the grov��th-inducing impacts of the proposed project, (c) effects found not to be significant, and (d) cumulative impacts. Proiect Location The 18.7-acre projeci site is located at the northwest quadrant of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue in the City of Cupeitino. The project site is bounded by' Steve;zs Creek Boulevard to the south, Tantau Avenue to the east, Vallco Parkway to the north, and an existing mixed-use development to the «rest. Finch Avenue extends tlu the project site. Regional and vicinity maps of the project site are shoivn on Figures 1 and 2. An aeria] photograph with surrounding land uses is shov�m on Figure 3. Description of the Proiect _ The project proposes a mixed use development under one of t��o development schemes. Scheme 1 prflposes up to 195,000 square feet of retail uses (including a 145,000 square foot athletic club), 100,000 square feet of office uses, a hotel with 150 roflms, and 160 senior housing units. Scheme 2 proposes up to 146,500 square feet of retail uses, 205,000 square feet of office uses, a hote] with 250 rooms, and 160 senior housing units. Both project schemes include public street improvements including narrowing Vallco Parkway along the project site frontage from six lanes (three in each direction) to tlu lanes (one eastbound lane and two.westbound lanes) and adding diagonal parking on the south side of Vallco Park�a�ay. The project (under both schemes) also proposes to abandon the segmenf of Finch Avenue that passes t1u the site. The project requires a use pernut architectural ai�d site approval, and parcel and tentative ma}� approval. � En�°ironmental E1�fects of thc F'roject to be :Addressed in the EIR In aecordanee ��ith Section 1�063(c) of the CEQA Gtiidelines, an I�iitial Study ilas been prepared to focus the EIR on the effects detennined to be sigtlificant The EIR ��ill ideiitify the si�iificant eiivir effects anticipated to result fi develop�neni of the project as proposed and address the follo��ing specific environmental issues related to the proposed de�-elopment: Tra�asportati.o» The t� analysis pi�epared for the EIR «�ill compare the t� generatioii of the proposed project ��ith the trips from tl�e e�;isting uses a�Id wil! evaluate the pc�tential foi the j�roject to result ii� intersection and free«�a�� level of service impacts. Tlie riR will analyze the long-tenn and near-term impacts on the nearby road��vays. Traffic impacts from nairo��ing of Vallco Parku�ay fron� six to three lanes will also be analyzed. The adequacy of the site's proposed access and circulation «-i11 also be evaluated. Project- specific mitigation measures ��rill be identified to reduce significant transportation impacts, as appropriate. Air Ouality� The EIR «�ill describe the regional air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area, and v��ill address air quality impacts expected to result fi�oin the proposed project, in confornlance with the criteria identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Managerrient District. Impacts from construction-related activities, such as construction vehicle exhaust a�id fugitive dust, «�ill also Ue discussed. The EIR «�ill estimate the haffic to be �enerated as a result of the project and the potential air quality impacts resulting from project-generated traffic. Project-specific mitigation measures necessary to reduce significant air quality impacts ��i(I be identified, as appropriate. Alternatives The EIR will e��aluate possible alternatives to the proposed project, based on the results of the environmental analysis. The alternative discussion will focus on those alternatives that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant en��ironmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). Cumulative The EIR ��viil address the potentially significant cumulative iinpacts of the project ��vhen considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area. Tlus section will cover all subject areas, iucluding h discussed in the EIR and «�ill specify which of the areas are anticipated to experience significant cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts will be discussed qualitatively, unless specific quantitative information on other pending projects is available prioi to publication of the Draft EIR. Other CEQA Sections The EIR will include other sections required by CEQA, iilcluding Significant Unavoidable Impacts, Growth Inducing Impacts, Sigrtificant Irreversible Environ�nental changes, Lead Agency and Consultants, and References. Relevant tec}ulical reports and a copy of the Initial Study used to focus the EIR will be provided in tecl appendices. The issues of aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral resources, noise population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and setvice systems are atialyzed in the I��itial Study. � , � J LOS I-I � 1 �1VV4.V � V� REGIONAL MAP FIGUf�E 1 Z V W � Z W � Q w � G W � Q H � � w O ~ � w 5_ . w � J a � � � � � Project Eoundary Scale: 1" = t 70�1' VICINITY MAP . w ,. ��: V (� I; VAL�C r �.�� afr � .;: ;'� 1 `��;'' � ,� ♦ r �--- � � ' ' � � I �.�.� ��-�� 5 ; -� r STEVENS - P��P , � ¢ � ��, ,. �+ _ U z � � ��` �NERrb •� G L -J f�j`2�� - ��t�� csp � r�. � � SU�UV � � w Q w � J � � � p w W � Q � z � � ? O J F-- O J � Q I-I/1NCOC1< DRIVE. � JENNY STRAND P/IRK C(�LLK > > w Q Q > Q } w � ° � w � m I— � N � ❑ r � w J ¢ U / /�V L BLVD. nvcn►�� r D � m � n rn I7� Y, V �T7 m v� � � D � Fi�ur�� z • -� f r .' .� �� +•y�.X+-.';�.. . • .,�� ,� AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FIGURE 3 �`�� S AN I Tq�p DISTRICT MANAGER•ENGINEER �Q fj� BOARD OF OIRECTORS P MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC. w � WILLIAM A. BOSWORTH RICHARO K. TANAKA JOHN M. GATTO DISTRICT COUNSEL CURTIS B. HARRtSON ATKINSON � FARASYN. LLP. � � S H ED ,�� CHRISTOPHER C LEE HAROLD S. TOPPEL 20833 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, SUITE t 04 CUPERTINO. CALIFORNIA 950 1 421 54 (408) 253-7071 PHONE • (408) 2535173 FAX ::��.� �:��pr�!ino�anitar��,dislrici.�om August 19, 2008 File: CSD — MOPO Planning Department-Cupertino Gary Chao Community Development Department - Planning City of Cupertino 10300 Ton Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Subject: Use Permit and Architectural and Site approval for a construction of a mixed use development consisting of approximately 147,000 square feet of retail cominercial, 100,000 square feet of office, a 150 room hotel, a 160 unit senior (age restricted) housing facility, 145,000 square foot athletic club, a four level parking garage and a t.6 acre park/town square. (A project alternative consists of approximately 205,000 square fect of office and a 250 room hotel in place of the athletic club); and a Tree Removal request to removc approximately 93 trees during the construction of the mixed use project. Name: Kevin Dare (500 Forbes, LLC) Address: 19333 & 19191 Vallco Parkway APN: 316-20-074 & 316-20-076 Planning Application No: U-2008-01, ASA-2008-06 (EA-2008-07), TR-2008-08 Dear Mr. Chao: The Cupertino Sanitary District has reviewed the plans for the proposed improvements and has the following comments: • Sanitary sewer service is being provided to the existing parcels via Vallco Parkway and Tantau Avenue. A flow study will be required to determine the impact of the proposed improvements on the existing sanitary sewer system and to identify off —site improvements necessary to mitigate the additional sewer flow. SUPPLYING SANITARY SEWERAGE SERVICES FOR: CITY OF CUPERTINO, PORTIONS OF THE CITIES OF SARATOGA, SUNNYVALE, LOS ALTOS AND SURROUNDING UNINCORPORATED AREAS Page 2 Subject: Use Pernlit and Architectural and Site approval for a construction of a mixed use decelopment consisting of approximatcly 147,000 square feet of retail commercial, 100,000 square fcet of office, a 150 rooin hotel, a 160 unit senior (age restricted) housing facility, 145,000 square foot athletic club, a four level parking garage and a 1.6 acre park/town square. (A project alternative consists of approximately 205,000 square feet of office and a 250 room hotel in place of the athletic club); and a Tree Removal request to remove approximately 93 trees during thc construction of the mixed use project. Name: Kevin Dare (500 Eorbes, LLC) � Address: 19333 & 19191 Vallco Parkway APN: 316-20-074 & 316-20-076 Planning Application No: U-2008-01, ASA-2008-06 (EA-2008-07), TR-2008-08 • It is atlticipated additional Cupertino Sanitary District Fees and/or Permits shall be required for the proposed improvetnents. • Improvement plans for the subject project shall be reviewed by the District. A District Plan Checking and Inspection Deposit may be required. Please arrange a meeting with your architect, civil engineer, and the District at your earliest convenience. Please feel free to contact Carl Beckham or Nichol Bowersox at (408) 253-7071 if you have any questions or concerns. Yours very truly, MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC. District Manager-Engineer �; ��,� �iL��.�;��..r��; ; 1 for Richard K. Tanaka �_ A1�i)RI>tii�'till l.F.� ftJt> i'1 ;A`V'1V`t� ilt I' 1P.1 _ I_) I�II-R� ?(IUti 3 �uei. V-�U0�-01.:AS 1-�U0�-UG�1_.a-'-00��- �; � I�R-'_00,<-U� 1').;: A�� q191 A al!:o P:iYl.��a� K��in DarCl�lb;l H�rnc�.. 1_LC ) ir,:-ly-`UOS.doC - SUPPLYING SANITARY SEWERAGE SERVICES FOR: CITY OF CUPERTINO, PORTIONS OF THE CITIES OF SARATOGA, SUNNYVALE, LOS ALTOS AND SURROUNDING UNINCORPORATED AREAS em smn nF � A 1 I FORMA Arnotd Schwarveng�Aer. Gpv�rnor _ � NATIVE AiVIERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION � �'"a fl3 CAri'fOL MALL, ROOM 364 � SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 �\ (9i6) f53-4082 �` Nax (fl� 6575390 August 25, 2008 Gary Chao City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: SCH# 2008082058 - Main Street Cupertino, Santa Clara County Dear Mr. Chao: The Native American Heritage Commission has reviewed the above mentioned NOP. To adequately assess and mitigate project-related impacts on archaeological resources, the Commission �ecommends the following actions be required: 1. Contact the appropriate Informatlon Center for a record search. The record search will determine: • If a part or all of the area of project effect (APE) has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. � If any known cultural resources have afready been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. • If the probability is Iow, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. ■ If a survey is required to determine whethe� previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. 2. If an archaeologicat inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. • The final �eport containing site fo�ms, site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediateiy to the plan�ing department. All information regarding site locations, Nat+ve American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure. • The flnal written report shoutd be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate reg(onal archaeolog9cal Information Center. 3. Contact the Native American Heritage Commission for: ■ A Sacred Lands Fiie Check. Requests must be made in writi�g wifih the County, Quad map name, townshlp, range and section. • A list of approprfate Native American Contacts for cansultation concerning the project sifie and to assist in the mitigation measures. 4. Lack of surFace evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. ■ Lead agencies should include in their mitigatian plan p�ovisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15064.5 (f). In areas of identified archaeotogicai sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a cutturally affiliated Native American, with knowledge in �ultural resources, should monitor all ground-disturbing activities. ■ Lead agencies shouid include in their mitigatfon plan provisions for the disposit+on of recovered artifacts, in consultation with culturally affrliated Ndtive Americans. • Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains in their mitigation plan. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, CEQA §15064.5 (e), and Public Resources Code §5097.98 mandates the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 653-4038. t. .ti s`: Sin erelY, «.-... h 1 .,�,�;,..,-� �` � `�: � l. �- � �� ,:.. � �_.S 4 ��'�-� Debi�ie Pilas-Treadway Environmental Specialist III s �•` CC: State Clearinghouse _�' ST �TE OH C�L.IFORNIA BUSINESS,'PKANSPORT�TION AND HOUSING AGENCl ARtiOLD SCFI�'V.AR7.ENEGGER, GOVERNOR DEPAH.TMENT OF TR.ANSPORTATION A P. O. B4X 23660 % OAKLANll, CA 94G23-OG�O PHONE (5101 622-5491 Flex yotcr powerr FAX (510) 286 Be eru:rgy e%ficiertt! T`I`Y 711 September 2, 2�08 SCL-280-8.37 SCL280348 SCH2O08082058 Mr. Gary Chao City of Cupertino 10300 Ton'e Avenue Cupertino CA 95014 Dear Mr. Chao: Main Street Cupertino, Notice of Yreparation (NOP) Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environme��tal review process for the proposed project. We have reviewed the NOP for a master plan for a mixed-use development consistii�g of approximately 147,000 square feet of retail coinmercial, 1QO ,Q00 square feet of office, a 150 room hotel, a 160 unit senior age restricted housing facility, 145,000 square feet of athietic club, a four level parking garage and a 1.6 acre parkl town square and have the following comments to offer. As lead agency, the City of Cupertino is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to state highways. The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, impiementation responsibilities and lead agency inonitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. The project's traffic mitigation fees should be specifically identified in the environmental document. Any required roadway improvements should be completed prior to issuance af project occupancy pernuts. While an encroachment permit is only required when the project involves work in the State Right of Way (ROW}, the Department will not issue an encroachment permit until our eoncerns are adequately addressed. Therefore, we strongly recammend that the lead agency ensure resolution of the Depa�tn�ent's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA} concen�s prior to submiltal of the eneroachment permit application. Further comments will be provided during the encroachment permit process if required; see the end of this letter for more information regarding the encroachment permit process. While the City of Cupertino conducts its traffic studies in:accordance with guidelines, which confoi:m to the local Congestion Management Program managed by the Santa C1ara County Valiey Transportation Authority, the Department°s thresholds are primarily concerned with�potential impacts to the State Highway System. We encourage Lhe City of Cupertino to coordinate preparation of the study with our office to help sharpen the focus of your scope of work and answer any questions you may have. Please see the Caltrans' "Guide for the Preparation of'Tra�c Impact Studies" at the following website for more information: "Caltrans improves mobitity across California" Mr. Gary Chao September 2, 2008 Pa�e 2 )ittP://w�ww�.dot.ca.gov/hq/ti velopserv/operational sy;temslreports/ti s�uit�e.pdf Specifically, a detailed'i'raffic Impact Analysis (TIA) sl�ould identify irnpacts to all affected state facilities with and without the proposed pz�oject. The TIA shouid include, but not be limited to the following: L Infot�nation on the project's traffic impacts in terms of trip generation, distribution, and assignment. The assunlptions and methodo(o�ies used in compiling this info�mation shoutd Ue addressed. 2. Average Daily Traffic (ADT), AM and PM peak hour volumes on al1 significantly affected streets and highways, including crossroads and controlling intersections. 3. Schematic illustration of the traffic conditions for: 1) existing, 2) existing plus project, and 3) cumulative for the intersections in the project area. 4. Calculation of cumulative traffic volumes should consider all traffic-generatin� developments, both existing and future, that would affect the State Highway facilities being evaluated. 5. Mitigation ineastues should consider highway and non-highway improvements and services. Specia] attention should be given to the development of alternate solutions to circulation problems that do not rely on increased highway construction. 6. All mitigation measures proposed should be fully discussed, including financing, scheduling, imp}ementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitortng. - We look forward to reviewing the TIA, inciuding Technical Appendices and the environmental document for this project. Please send two copies to: Jose L. Olveda - Office of Transit and Community Planning Department of Transportation, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 - Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Encroachment Permit Work that encroaches anto the State ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the - Department. To apply, a completed encroachment permit ap�lication, environmental -- documentation, and five (5) sets of plans clearly indicating State ROV�I must be submitted to the address below. Traffic-related mitigation measures should be incorporated into the construction -- plans during the encroachment permit process. Office of Permits California D�T, District 4 - P.�. Box 23660 -- Oakland, CA 94623-OG60 "Caltrans improves mobility across Califorrii¢" Iv1r. Gary Chao Se�tember 2 2008 Yage 3 See the website li�Zk belo�v for more i��foi htt��•//«��ti�w ctoT ca �Tov/hq/p'affo�sldev� lopserv/perinits/ Should yo�t have any questions regarding this letter, please call Jose L. Olveda of my staff at {5IU) 286-5535. Sincerel pr LISA CARBONI Disti Branch Chief Local Development - Intergovernmental Review "Caltraras improue.s mobility across Calif'ornia" Appendix C Transportation Impact Analysis � 4' . ' 5 �� hL*� k� .. � � Y �jf��P'�.�'��`� C � �� '� �° � �$ i ?"�'�'�^ . �T ; � �.� & � ��' q .y � �• � �:,�,��=� � t�� y ' :iL 3,��a'ya43= j� ' �' �.r � � . . ; ..; � �� ,.... �a F` 9� 2` b':�C �`� ' v'� ; .tr�_ E�' .i � S ? 2 1 Y V b � � : . ! 1 �. � , �Z `'�' y �y�•� } .2 r�'7 �C , . `i �(1.q#- �` �'��' � -� L_ `t 'K } . Y �� '� ' - �.- 4 < �3 � ,f � a 3 . ,,. r a �' "v.z, :;, # - { : ��;.'' A � . � � P � � - . '.'��" '� a �? �t 3 �S } _ yT �.�� 1a`Sgyy� �Fi��"�'::� �:�� . . , � � � �� p � . �. � s.. �� . � "� ,�� _ rb� py, .- �� A �� =��R � ��`V,�F� I_:�� 6 V �li'3 Y.'�: 1 A fl ! 3 ��; � � s..' � J �J=i'� ' � " �.�:.�� _ . y - .�!s ' : i , � _ � I � _G _ t s� � k 4� ;! �I G i j �" � � ��.,��.e�� ; ` � , � 3- , � ��` . �`= �(� 9 � � �� 7�t rp 1 rl�� t, a ="'�t �1 �� _ I� � :a1 rs��f c .<� - =a I ��_ :w, �'�! � ,, . i:a. ., -.. � .;, _, _ .. . . � c r. -- � . . .. . .. ,. � ti " � . y � ' ±. 1�l.} ! yt !. �� f Z... f A °� . . c. ; L' .. . -i � T . �' r 1�. ,JG .. � ♦ .. e � �� - � '� � � . �'4 � �; � .x � ' � � : " � ' ^ �w ';. `� _ � . � r3' '�F��al� . � v � ' � e f.�;, �+# :�. � � � ;' � 7 � � { "" -+ _ 't' llRi1C.�R'�`I�` a �: -- �:7� ..�;� R � ,� '.. rn.� .� �s°� �. � � ��. �� 7#��` �" . { � 3. A • k' , .'a�� `� 'S �a i ��. � _��?i� � *•�� `��.'�:Q.r °i. ��?. "t .. ► r . . � � �' - R� • s09tY � � ,'C��? f ; r a ~� ^:tt •' �, � r r T'�� TM , �„�a � 1 ',��, _ s` • • ' • ,. _ .: �� „ � ; i m _�'. t-�.:'�� ;, � ;�:v � �o�� s�� .�,.$� � � � • � � . . . . . . �w ;�.._�� *�T .t :vx: _. �;. e � , � / ' • Final Report Main Street Cupertino Prepared for: the City of Cupertino Prepared by: Fehr & Peers SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 Cover graphics used with the permission of San Hill Properties/500 Forbes, LLC. i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY ...........................................................................................................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................•--............................---.......................---................................. 4 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................................10 RoadwayNetwork .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ......................................................................................................... 11 ExistingTransit Service ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Existing Intersection Volumes and Lane Configurations ................................................................................... 15 Levelof Service Methods .................................................................................................................................. 16 Existing Intersection Levels of Service .............................................................................................................. 20 Existing Freeway Segment Levels of Service ................................................................................................... 23 FieldObservations ...........................................�---.............................................................................................. 24 3. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 26 BackgroundTraffic Estimates ............................................................................................................................ 26 Background Roadway Improvements ............................................................................................................... 26 Background Intersection Levels of Service ....................................................................................................... 26 4. PROJECT CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 30 Project Traffic Estimates .................................................................................................................................... 30 Project Roadway Changes ................................................................................................................................32 Project Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................................................... 38 IntersectionImpact Criteria ................................................................................................................................40 IntersectionImpacts .......................................................................................................................................... 41 SignalWarrants ................................................................................................................................................. 41 Intersection Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................................41 Project Freeway Segment Levels of Service ..................................................................................................... 42 5. SITE ACCESS AND LOCAL CIRCULATION .................................................................................................. 45 SiteAccess ........................................................................................................................................................ 45 PedestrianFacilities ..........................................................................................................................................45 BicycleFacilities ................................................................................................................................................ 49 TransitFacilities ................................................................................................................................................. 50 KeyRoadway Operations .................................................................................................................................. 51 On-Site Circulation ............................................................................................................................................. 55 NeighborhoodTra�c Analysis .............................................�----.....................................................................---. 56 6. CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 57 CumulativeTraffic Estimates ............................................................................................................................. 57 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................................................ 57 Cumulative Intersection Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 57 Cumulative Intersection Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................61 7. PARKING ...........................................................•-............................................................................................. 64 ProposedParking Supplies ............................................................................................................................... 64 Parking Demand And Supply Rate Sources and Estimates ............................................................................. 64 Parking SupplyAnalysis ....................................................................................................................................66 Parking Supply Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 68 ii APPENDICES Appendix A: intersection Turning Movement Counts and Roadway Volume Data .................................... 71 Appendix B: Levei of Service Calculations ................................................................................................. 72 Appendix C: Signal Warrant Worksheets ....................................................................................................73 Appendix D: Approved and Pending Developments ...................................................................................74 Appendix E: Lifetime Fitness Center Studies .............................................................................................. 75 Appendix F: Immediate Action List ............................................................................................................. 77 Appendix G: Shared Parking Analysis Tables ............................................................................................ 78 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Project Location and Study Area ............................................................................................. 5 Figure Site Plan — Scheme 1 .............................................................................................................. 6 Figure Site Plan — Scheme 2 .............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 4 Existing Pedestrian Facilities .................................................................................................12 Figure 5 Existing Bicycle Facilities ......................................................................................................13 Figure Existing T�ansit Service .........................................................................................................14 Figure 7 Existing Peak Hour Volumes .................................................................................................17 Figure 8 Existing Lane Configurations and Signal Controls ................................................................18 Figure 9 Background Peak Hou� Traffic Volumes ............................................................................... 29 Figure 10 Project Trip Distribution ......................................................................................................... 33 Figure11 Scheme 1 Trip Assignment ................................................................................................... 34 Figure Scheme 2 Trip Assignment ................................................................................................... 35 Figure 13 Scheme 1 Project Peak Hour Volumes .................................................................................36 Figure 14 Scheme 2 Project Peak Hour Volumes .................................................................................37 Figure 15 Site Plan Recommendations .......................................•--�--....................................................48 Figure 16 Cumulative Plus Scheme 1 Peak-Hour Volumes ..................................................................58 Figure 17 Cumulative Plus Scheme 2 Peak-Hour Volumes .................................................................. 59 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Existing Transit Service to South Vallco ........................................................................................15 Table 2 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ......................................................................16 Table 3 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ..................................................................19 Table 4 Freeway Segment Level of Service Definitions ............................................................................. 20 Table 5 Existing Conditions: Intersection Levels of Service ....................................................................... 20 Table 6 Existing Freeway Segment Levels of Service ................................................................................ 23 Table 7 Background Conditions : Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................26 Table 8 Trip Generation Estimates ............................................................................................................. 31 Table 9 Project Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................................38 Table 10 Project-Level Freeway Segment Levels of Service ..................................................................... 43 Table 11 Average Passenger Load Values of Bus Routes Serving South Vallco ......................................50 Table 12 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................................................60 Table 13 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ...................................................................................62 Table 14 ITE and ULI Parking Supply Rates .............................................................................................. 66 Table 15 Suggested Parking Supply ........................................................................................................... 67 v _ _ ..__ , ,�� -� .- F � A � � ;� �s� . �� i Main Street Cupertino r = � ��" September 2008 �`' �'�� _`'� � _ , _ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed Main Street Cupertino project. The developer is proposing finro potential site plans for the development. The first proposed scheme includes construction of 150,000 square feet of retail space, 160 senior housing units, a 145,0o0 square-foot athletic club, a 150-room hotel, and 100,000 square feet of office space. The second scheme includes 205,000 square feet of office space, 146,000 square feet of retail space, 160 senior housing units, and a 250-room hotel_ The project site is located in the South Vallco Master Plan area and is generally bounded by Vallco Parkway, Tantau Avenue, and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Finch Avenue bisects the site; however, the proposed development would realign Finch Avenue to c�eate a town square green surrounded by on- street parking. The project is estimated to generate between 10,692 (Scheme 2) and 13,751 (Scheme 1) new daily trips. Between 583 and 622 of these new trips would occur during the AM peak travel hour a�d between 1,036 and 1,264 during the PM peak travel hour. These project trip estimates include reductions taken per VTA guidelines for the mixed-uses on the site. ROADWAY OPERATIONS, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Intersections Both proposed site plans (Scheme 1 and Scheme 2) are expected to have project-level impacts at the intersections of Homestead Road/Lawrence Expressway; Vallco Parkway/Wolfe Road; Lawrence Expressway/I-280 SB Ramps. Scheme 1 would also impact the intersection of Lawrence ExpresswaylBollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue. These intersections would also be impacted under cumulative conditions, as well as the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard /I-280 SB-Calvert Drive. The remaining intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours under both schemes. The following mitigation measures were identified to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level: Lawrence Expressway / Homestead Road — The addition of a third westbound through lane. Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway — Pe�missive phasing on the eastbound and westbound approaches; or, a westbound right-turn overlap phase; or, restriping the westbound approach with two (2) left turn lanes, one (1) shared through-right turn lane, and one (1) right turn lane. Stevens Creek Boulevard / 1-280 SB Ramps-Calvert Drive — An eastbound right-turn overlap phase. Lawrence Expressway / I-280 SB Ramps-Calvert Drive — Widening Lawrence Expressway to accommodate and additional lane in each direction. Lawrence Expressway / Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue — Widening Lawrence Expressway to accommodate and additional lane in each direction. Although mitigation was identified for all intersections, the impacts at intersections not controlled by the City of Cupertino (Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road; Stevens Creek Boulevard/I-280 Ramps; Lawrence Expressway/I-280 Ramps; Lawrence Expressway/Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue) are considered significant-and-unavoidable because the City has no authority to implement any improvements at these locations. The applicant will need to coordinate with the appropriate agency (City - � :.,,:r . 4L .• �',� . 's r �`F�� "'`k�^� r ;: � � N,r :. _ . S& � u `�� i a'�� . r '��, FEHR St PEEF�S �� r ,�'�`�-�� iRANSPORTATION CONSULiANTS � � � n � _. x �� ,� � � �: . `-`� j -as, i .,k ��' i �:: �� : Main Street Cupertino = � � �' September 2008 Y �" � �<� � }, �� *�" ��. , k m.: �.'�» >a. a'� _., �; of San Jose, Caltrans, or Santa Clara County) for these facilities to determine acceptable mitigation measures at these locations. Freewavs Based on the VTA's Congestion Management Program guidelines, Scheme 1 will have a potentially significant impact on following six (6) segments of I-280: • Westbound between Winchester Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway (AM peak hour) [2 Segments] • Eastbound between Lawrence Expressway and I-880 (PM peak hour) [3 Segments] ■ Westbound between I-880 and Winchester Boulevard (PM peak hour) [1 Segment] Scheme 2 will have a potentially significant impact on the following segments of I-280: ■ Westbound between I-880 and Lawrence Expressway (AM peak hour) [3 Segments] • Eastbound between Lawrence Expressway and I-880 (PM peak hour) [3 Segments] The mitigation of freeway impacts is considered beyond the scope of a single development. The Lead Agency for a development project must include programs or facilities delineated in the "Immediate Implementation Action List" as part of the projecYs approval if the freeway impact cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. While implementation of these measures would incrementally reduce traffic, they would not reduce the identified impact to a less-than-significant level. Thus the addition of project traffic results in a significant and unavoidable impact to the freeway segments identified above. Roadwavs Stevens Creek Boulevard — The project is not expected to significantly affect operations along Stevens Creek Boulevard, except for the intersection-level impact at the I-280 SB Ramps. The project also proposes adding 44 on-street parallel parking spaces along the projecYs frontage. The additional parking would be provided by dedication of right-of-way on the project site. The parking movements should not significantly affect roadway operations along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The existing sidewalk should be replaced as part of this project. Vallco Parkway — Given the relatively low traffic volumes on this street, the proposed project includes reducing Vallco Parkway from 6 to 2 lanes, and installing diagonal on-street parking. With the proposed configuration, intersections at Finch Avenue, Perimeter Road, and the Rose Bowl driveway are projected to operate acceptably. Also under Project Conditions, traffic volumes at the unsignalized Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue intersection would not meet the minimum warrant criteria for signalization during either the AM or PM peak hours. Queuing is expected to occur on the westbound right tu�n approach at Wolfe Road and extend past the entrance to the parking structure north of Vallco. A"Keep Clear" zone would eliminate conflicts between traffic exiting and entering the garage and traffic along Vallco Parkway. Sidewalks should be installed along the project frontage along Vallco Parkway, and the existing bike lane on Vallco Parkway should be maintained in the new design for this roadway. The reconfiguration of Vallco Parkway would not result in any substantive operational problems beyond at the local set of intersection; however, it may increase queuing along the roadway. SITE ACCESS AND ON CIRCULATION Access to the project site will be provided by driveways on Vallco Parkway, Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue. These driveways provide adequate capacity for vehicles to enter and exit the project site. �� ` :F � � ,� � { . _ .,� ` � � n��r � FEHR �z PEERS s � � ,� � _ � ,� .� � <�� iRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ' � �- �� .. . ..� _ ��.fi � _ � v;�� _. � ._�� I I � II � I Main Street Cupertino ' TM .r -.- � � � � September 2008 = � � �.- �-'�� _. � Access to the western half of the site is provided by a right-turn only driveway on Vallco Parkway. The narrowed street width on Vallco Parkway would prohibit eastbound U-turns at Finch Avenue. It is recommended that a"No U-turn" sign be installed at this intersection. The site plan fo� both Schemes indicate the realignment of Finch Avenue to create a town square surrounded with on-street angled parking. This is expected to operate acceptable as planned; however, the developer should work with the City engineer to ensure proper roadway width is provided for both vehicles and emergency vehicles. PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRANSIT IMPACTS A sidewalk should be provided on the west side of Tantau Avenue and the north side of Vallco Parkway. Pedestrian crosswalks improvements are recommended on Vallco Parkway at both the intersection of Vallco Parkway/Finch Avenue and the project intersection just west of Tantau Avenue. Improvements to pedestrian crosswalks at Stevens Creek Boulevard/Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue are also recommended. Modification to the existing bicycle lane striping on Vallco Parkway is recommended so that both onstreet parking and bicycle lane are accommodated on the roadway. With these changes, the project is estimated to have a less-than significant impact to the pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The project would not have a significant impact to the transit facilities to existing transit service; however, the existing bus stops at Vallco Parkway/Perimeter Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard/Finch Avenue, and Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue should be incorporated into the new street designs that include on-street parking. Existing shuttle service through Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue may need to be rerouted to Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. PARKING Scheme 1 provides 1,520 off-street spaces and Scheme 2 provides 1,830 off-street spaces. The na�rowing of Vallco Parkway would add angled parking spaces along Vallco Parkway; new parallel spaces would also be provided along Stevens Creek Boulevard. These supplies meet the projecYs anticipated parking demand. -�� , � . �" �� "' �� ,� � ,. x '�� `��' '� FEHR S� PEERS � � � =� - . �„� �� TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS `� � ��r��-t. s� ' �� . � ��'�� , Y� � ��,. F , f ¢ ` �,�'' . f . � v . . . . � T �"s a# �' Y •• � �. Main Street Cupertino � � � �� '� September 2008 � �.-�� $` � * `� �i �, � , � _ . .-. �.. . � . . . .. .. . > kae. �S"a.; � _ . . 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the transportation impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed Main Street Cupertino mixed-use development. The proposed project is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Tantau Avenue and Finch Avenue in the City of Cupertino on a parcel that is currently vacant. This new development is part of the South Vallco Master Plan and includes the following two different schemes that will be analyzed: ■ Scheme 1 includes 150,000 sf of retail space; 100,000 sf of office space; 160 senior housing units; a 150-room hotel; and a 145,000 sf athletic club (Lifetime Fitness Center). • Scheme 2 inc�udes 146,500 sf of retail space; 205,000 sf of office space; 160 senior housing units; and a 250-room hotel. The South Vallco Master Planning area and the proposed project site location are presented on Figure 1. Figure 2 and Figure 3 present the conceptual site plans for Scheme 1 and Scheme 2, respectivety. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the potential impacts of the two proposed project schemes on the transportation system in the vicinity of the site and to identify improvements required to mitigate any significant impacts. Potential impacts were evaluated using methods approved by the Cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The following intersections (shown on Figure 1) were evaluated for potentially significant impacts: 1. Homestead Road and Wolfe Road (Cupertino) 2. Homestead Road and Tantau Avenue (Cupertino) 3. Homestead Road and Lawrence Expressway (CMP/City of Santa Clara) 4. Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue (Cupertino) 5. Pruneridge Avenue and Tantau Avenue (Cupertino) 6. Wolfe Road and I-280 No�thbound Ramps (CMP/Cupertino) 7. Wolfe Road and I-280 Southbound Ramps (CMP/Cupertino) 8. Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway (Cupertino) 9. Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue' (Cupertino) 10. Vallco Parkway and Tantau Avenue (Cupertino) 11. Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard (CMP/Cupertino) 12. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue (Cupertino) 13. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue (Cupertino) 14. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Perimeter Road (Cupertino) 15. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue (CMP/Cupertino) 16. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue (Cupertino) 17. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue (Cupertino) 18. Stevens Creek Boulevard and I-280 Ramps (CMP/City of Santa Clara) ¢� YJS'� N �p J : 1 �3��$ � � �X . ; k SS " ' • ,�, . s�. � _ . . ._ ... . .�� , �": � = � � = FEHR & PEERS � 4 � � � , � �� + a � k g � � �.i `z TRAMSPORTATION CONSULTANTS : # �� . . .. ... . _.. .. . _._�. ,�__..E.,.cS�,.�..�� NOT TO SCALE � Main Street Cupertino F E H I� � P E E RS STUDY AREA AND PROJECT LOCATION iRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS sePtzooa FIGURE 1 SJ08-1041 _� -��. ,. �w .. �. . .. . .. ... . , � � �` �� ` `. GQ'61ED— -_ �'�. lll�ql0pd( ` r , FUTURE M1XEU USE PROJECT ,,,, , i I4YPlo A41(IIIC IkION — —,. — V �d , i.� �� NOUSING PRaecr � PYUc 1 �plE � I �� ' i c� tf .,�� 1 ,3 ;y � ��' 4�,..�w � � /� 1 � � �' 'f �` `�� r,: � � �� * .,p :�1_,-� ; � a `+�� -'' �' j ��.,. ;``�i� { � ,, , ;1 � ., t. � +��, . 1 �� Q ^� "� XL�J�'.�?�T � � �� / 34�wD e�eaEnr MAIN STREET CUPERTINO MASTER SITE PLAN SAND HILL PROPERTY COMPANY CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA ?ABULATION � RETAII 146,OOU SF 642 STALIS 4<l1,D00 SF � . sioca��v. UFFICE tp�.D005f . �, . ; � �vr.wr.rowcw�,i: HOTEI 150ROOM5 � 85857ALLSSHAREDPARKING AiMLE71C ClUB 145.000 SF .`�,_ _ SENIOR HOUSING 180 UNITS 16U STALLS 1/UNIT ��:- � GARK 1 1 ACRE \;� \. ,+,"': �.. �. �'.q�, ��..,�\� PARKING 7 66U S7ALL5 `�� .crA!!� Srµ: i . A .q�� . s,a�..., .� �; - ` t W, yY . •�.� wu�.�� ar,a.a ``� � , mie�. �e.as��.�e . ti ' i r� ., r ' g' ` .� . ..� ., \. ,eH�HnAer�.�w..u.o ' ,` , (w� __ ,. ,� ; `� _ — ^-- - --- : 'r � r� l��l�'�. . . ... `^ ` ' � �+. , t. r .. y --�.. . . 'J-7 �:{ .`}.M_ f _._ ___._._'_ r.. ,'� ++v� w ':� � . � ' . .. ._�_ ... + 4 :'�; . �I .�` ,�� ;�'�*��l�'i,.S ...,� �. .:r�� ,..r..> °'�f /( rv Ir . ��' -�� . � �—�c-.�.^ -�c-t :. .—":„ z-�I ��-- STEVENS CREEK BOUIEVARD OVERALL SITE PLAN A r �� o + .\ ' � i �'. ; � 4 M� �- tn�t+ I ¢ u� r -_;�� . _ ..........•,- ..~.� ,e. KENNETH RODRIGUES 6 PARTNERS, INC ��"--� 445 N. Whi9men RoBd, Suife YO(1 Moun�ainV�ew. CA 9<013 - Poone 650.965.0100 .... . Fex 650. 960. 0707 .._ _ _._ _�_. ;1� A2 � o n �x �� ra � Main Street Cupertino F E H R� P E E F�S SITE PLAN: SCHEME 1 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Sept 2008 s�oe-,oa, FIGURE 2 ORYOFFICE 700,0009f �. �� f �� ran sHOPS �s,oao aF ' �"�� : � :. � ,, `�;a�� .. �ert. _ � � � M1 i , . �� PpNfNN { si�.i�' �'�'' � � , � .� .r. �. . ,. .� � e � , i �.''� /'�� t.> �� _� � . �` �, ` ,..i. �.....�..:..... . n.uw ro - rwu�.¢ xnan E1(iSTINO HOUSINQ PROJEC7 ��:uw :,.;.��: �: �° v. ''>� � • � � °��' � — � � � ' :c'rwn ,.._.l I uateoit MAIN STREET CUPERTIN� MASTER SITE PLAN SAND HILL PROPERTY COMPANY CUPERTINO, CALIFQRNIA STEVENS CREfK BOULEVARLI TABULAiION _.. _. _.... ...._.. .. ... ... .... _ __ .. . .. . RETAIL ta6.5o0 SF tlJ2 SfALLS 5 5!�D00 Sf OFFICE 205,000 SF 71B S74LLS 3 5 i1C00 $f HOTEI 254 ROQMS 250 STAl15 I iR00A1 SENIOR HOUSING 16p UNITS �ti0 SiAL�S I'UNIf `�. �� :�� ' \`..,. � �� . _ . ��w.r�.�wui�,�.n� , � �,..._ , . � , �::`'>-. ._. ,.. �4 . [. - i �'�'�r'��., �... -... . .....__ . _ ____ ..._... � . � .�::.. - . _ ..... �� , 4 ... n- _.,i . .. k � _ � _ .,.,: �..___. .�„� ; , __..._ ... -*--, 1 .E 'r' � . `�.� S:L ._. � _:� OVERALL SITE PLAN 8 � z 4 � rZ 4 K � -. �•.� un.. . A3 Main Street Cupertino __ �.- _-' -. .. _. nE'!, W 6IttR vMNIII -._.... - L�.. KENNETH RODRlGUES 6 PARiNERS, iNC 445 M. Whlsmen RoaQ, Su1re 2tl0 Mountain View. CA 3tfNJ ..___..... Apo�re ti50 985.07W Fax 650.980.OT07 • , ._ a ,�- :� � FEHE� & PEEE�S TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Sep! 2008 SJ08-1041 SITE PLAN: SCHEME 2 FIGURE 3 : .,.:.y:.. . � .� �� . re = � t � �t;u _ x � r � Main Street Cupertino �� .� ��'+ ` �� y ` September 2008 �s . ,�,�' ��. ��• �. � � _ _ _ °�•` . , � 19. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway (W) (CMP/City of Santa Clara) 20. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lawrence Expressway (E) (CMP/City of Santa Clara) 21. Lawrence Expressway and Calvert Drive/I-280 SB Ramps (CMP/San Jose) 22. Bollinger Road and De Anza Boulevard (CMP/Cupertino) 23. Bollinger Road and Blaney Avenue (San Jose) 24. Bollinger Road and Mitler Avenue (Cupertino/San Jose) 25. Bollinger Road and Tantau Avenue (Cupertino/San Jose) 26. Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue and Lawrence Expressway (CMP/San Jose) 27. Vallco Parkway and Perimeter Road (Cupertino) `Unsignalized intersection The following freeway segments' east- and westbound lanes were also evaluated: 1. I-280 between SR 85 and De Anza Road 2. I-280 between De Anza Road and Wolfe Road 3. I-280 between Wolfe Road and Lawrence Expressway 4. I-280 between Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Road 5. I-280 between Saratoga Road and Winchester Boulevard The operations of the study intersections were analyzed during the weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours under the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions — Existing roadway conditions and peak-hour volumes obtained from site visits and counts. Scenario 2: Background Conditions — Existing peak-hour traffic volumes plus traffic from approved but not yet constructed or occupied developments in the area. There are no planned and funded roadway improvements in the area so the background roadway system is the same as the existing roadway system. This scenario is the basis from which project impacts are determined. Scenario 3: Project Condition: Scheme 1— Background Condition peak-hour traffic volumes plus traffic generated by the development proposed in Scheme 1. Site access, on-site circulation, and parking conditions specific to this scheme are also analyzed in this scenario. Project Condition: Scheme 2— Background Condition peak-hour traffic volumes plus traffic generated by the development proposed in Scheme 2. Site access, on-site circulation, and parking conditions specific to this scheme are also analyzed in this scenario. Scenario 4: Cumulative Conditions — Existing peak-hour traffic volumes plus traffic from approved but not yet constructed or occupied developments in the area plus traffic from any pending developments in the area form Cumulative No Project Conditions. Traffic � �,� �m� �� t a . �� br . ..a'^� ° 'a 4 L h��, . . . :. �.�.� . F E H R Sz P E E RS `�� `� �'y�� = �� .: TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS �, �� a� �� . . _ . . � . �_>�..e>-_....;.��ci ."�„3 �' .. _ .� � : � s � P�- �_ �� . � �; Main Street Cupertino �; �� ' Sepfember 2008 �� '� � ,-="� ��'� : .�.z � � A� associated with each scheme are added to Cumulative No Project peak hour volumes to develop Cumulative Plus Scheme 1 volumes and Cumulative Plus Scheme 2 volumes. Potential impacts to existing and planned, non-vehicular modes of transportation, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as mass transit systems, are also included in this analysis. All of the aforementioned intersections, freeway segments, and non-vehicular transportation systems were evaluated using methods approved by the City of Cupertino and the Valley Transpottation Authority (VTA), the Congestion Management Agency for Santa Clara County, and/or other governing jurisdiction. Where no such significance criteria have been established by the appropriate governing body, potential impacts were evaluated and recommendations made using approved planning and development documents and by applying standard transportation engineering practices_ In addition, a qualitative analysis of the roadways surrounding the project site was conducted to address concerns about on-street parking and transportation operations in the area. A parking analysis was also performed to determine the adequate supply needed to accommodate project-generated parking demand. The remainder of this report is divided into six chapters. The existing transportation system in the study area and the current conditions of the key intersections and freeway segments are described in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 evaluates traffic operations under Background Conditions for approved but not yet constructed local developments. Chapter 4 describes the method used to estimate the amount of traffic added to the surrounding roadways by each proposed project scheme and their individual impacts on the transportation system under Project Conditions. Chapter 5 discusses the two project schemes' site access and on-site circulation and includes a discussion of potential impacts to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transit systems. The chapter also includes discussion on the general projecYs impact on the local roadways serving the project site. Cumulative traffic conditions are discussed in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 presents parking demands and recommendations for each of the two projects. rt.;�� 4 . �� v '� �,�� " �. -= � �': ,.�: � �c � � �, ` : ; � � � FEHR & PEERS - ' � �� > iRANSPORTATION CONSUITANiS < �'�3 _ `.$, ° .�'�` , >.�� . .. ;r T.F'�� .. ' . Main Street Cupertino '' �� September 2008 � � �� y � ? . '� � � ��. ,� _,._�`�� . �. ::�.�' ,. 2. EXISTlNG CONDITlONS This chapter describes the existing conditions of the roadway facilities, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, transit service, plus existing traffic volumes, intersection operations, and freeway operations. This chapter also includes a discussion of the methods used to evaluate the transportation system and the corresponding results. ROADWAY NETWORK The project site location and the surrounding roadway network are presented on Figure 1. Interstate 280, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Lawrence Expressway, Wolfe Road, and Homestead Road provide regional access while Vallco Parkway, Perimeter Road, Finch Avenue, and Tantau Avenue provide local access. I-280 is a north-south, six-lane freeway with an additional one lane in each direction designated as a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane. HOV lanes, also known as carpool lanes, are restricted for use by vehicles occupied by two or more persons or motorcycles, as well as select alternative fuel vehicles, between 5:00 am and 9:00 am and between 3:00 pm and 7:00 pm. The freeway extends from San Francisco in the north to San Jose, in the south. In the vicinity of the site, I-280 runs in a northwest to southeast direction and is located north of the site. Lawrence Expressway is a limited-access facility operated by Santa Clara County. It is a six-lane facility south of I-280. North of I-280, Lawrence Expressway is an eight-lane facility with the right-most lane in each direction restricted to HOVs during the commute hours. Access to Lawrence Expressway from the site is provided by a grade-separated interchange at Stevens Creek Boulevard and by intersections with Pruneridge Avenue, Homestead Road, and Bollinger Road. Stevens Creek Boulevard is a six-lane, east-west divided arterial forming the southern boundary of the project site. It extends from the western boundary of the City of Cupertino into the City of San Jose to the east. Stevens Creek Boulevard is primarily fronted by commercial land uses, including retail, restaurant, and office uses in the vicinity of the site. Wolfe Road is a four-to-six-lane, north-south arterial located west of the project site. It extends between the City of Sunnyvale in the north and the City of Saratoga in the south. South of Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road is designated Miller Avenue. Tantau Avenue is a four-lane, north-south collector roadway located east of the project site. Tantau Avenue extends from Homestead Road in the north to Bollinger Road in the south. Southbound through movements are restricted at the intersection of Tantau Avenue at Stevens Creek Boulevard. North of Homestead Road in the City of Santa Clara, Tantau Avenue is designated Quail Avenue. Vallco Parkway is a six-lane, local roadway that connects Wolfe Road in the west to Tantau Avenue in the east and forms the no�thern boundary of the project site. Finch Avenue is a two-lane, north-south local roadway extending south from Vallco Parkway towards Phil Lane. Finch Avenue bisects the proposed project site. Northbound and southbound through movements are �estricted at the intersection of Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Perimeter Road is a two-lane roadway connecting Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road, and Vallco Parkway. The roadway provides access to the Cupertino Square Mall parking lots on the west and no�th sides of the mall, as well as the office building located north and west of the intersection of Perimeter Road and Vallco Parkway. Perimeter Road runs beneath Wolfe Road and access between the two roadways is provided by right-turn only driveways on both the northbound and southbound sides of Wolfe Road. < �§��.� � �� ., � r -�� +� o- �;�!,��.��.� � ��a_ �� , ,: �� r �� . �� +�� FEHR � PEERS �`�� - TRANSPORTATION CONSUITANTS F �� :„ � � ° ��:e . . _ . .�. .._. _ . ._,.s. _<.. x.�.3m,� .. _e. - ��. ��^'. :� Main Street Cupertino � �� September 2008 �'� �� - . . ... � � .. i�`+.:F�#:F�� Homestead Road is a four-lane, east-west arterial north of the project site. It extends east from the City of Cupertino through the Cities of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. Pruneridge Avenue is a four-lane, east-west minor collector roadway located north of the project site_ Pruneridge Avenue exte�ds east from Wolfe Road into the City of San Jose. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections, as well as multi- purpose trails and pedestrian right-of-ways Figure 4 shows the existing pedestrian facilities located within the South Vallco Master Plan Area and near the project site. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site. Sidewalks have been constructed along the north side of Vallco Parkway and along the east side of Tantau Avenue. No sidewalks are currently provided along the project site's frontage on Vallco Parkway and Tantau Avenue. All of the signalized intersections in the area are equipped with pedestrian signals. Within the South Vallco Master Plan area, the Metropolitan Condominium development, located on Stevens Creek Boulevard between Wolfe Road and the proposed project, provides a pedestrian pathway that extends towards Wolfe Road. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes. Bike paths (Class 1 facitities) are pathways, separate from roadways that are designated for use by bicycles. Often, these pathways also allow pedestrian access. Bike lanes (Class 2 facilities) are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes (Class 3) are existing right-of-ways that accommodate bicycles but are not separate f�om the existing travel lanes. Routes are typically designated only with signs. Bike lanes (Class 2) providing direct access to the project site exist along Vallco Parkway, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road, and Tantau Avenue. Existing bicycle facilities within the study area are shown on Figure 5. EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) ope�ates bus service in Santa Clara County. Figure 6 shows the existing transit facilities near the project site. Routes with stops within the South Vallco Master Plan study area are summarized in Table 1. Route 23 is a local bus route that provides service between East San Jose and the De Anza College via Stevens Creek Boulevard near the site. The hours of operation are from 5:00 am to 1:00 am with 12- to 30- minute headways on weekdays. On weekends, this route operates on 15- to 30-minute headways between 6:00 am and 1:00 am. Route 26 is a local bus route that provides service between East San Jose and the Sunnyvale Lockheed Martin LRT Station. Weekday hours of operation are from 5:00 am to 11:00 pm with 15- to 30-minute headways. Weekend operations are provided on 30- minute headways between 6:30 am and 10:00 pm. This route operates on Wolfe Road west of the site. r�� _�� : � � �� .b�._K FEHR & PEERS Y TRANSPORTATION CONSULiANTS �� 3 � � + III F� � ��.�� R, . _��.� . � � • ,� : � � a� � � . � � _ va�lco Plc+�!�c - � d � ` E c � � � . ' ` ' � , . . a .�,: _ . � ��'i S�� `: � �+� � � � i . . � ' . �. � -.: E � ffi V , .. � . . � � � � . .. . - :...�� , �. ��.- S�Yel19.Ctg@�( �Yd . � � ' LEG END: � = Project Site = South Vallco Master Plan Focus Area =`° � = Sidewa�k � = Crosswalk +�r ��c = Pedestrian Right of Way/Path N � = Traffic Signal NOT TO SCALE � Main Street Cupertino FEHIZ & PEEf�S TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Sept 2008 s�os-ioa� FIGURE 4 FEHE� � PEEf�S TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES sePtzooa FIGURE 5 SJOS-1041 7�1 Main Street Cupertino � r� FEHR �z PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANiS EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES Sept 2008 s�oe-,oa, FIGURE 6 � Main Street Cupertino � � �� ,�. � � � �� Main Slreet Cupertino ' � September 2008 � � � ' _��',�� ,��' � � � s , , x T _ �d .,_,.. , .'- Route 81 is a local bus route between San Jose State University and Cupertino Square. The hours of operation are 5:30 am to 9:30 pm on weekdays with 30- to 60-minute headways. This route operates on 60-minute headways between 8_00 am and 9:00 pm on Saturdays and Sundays. Route 81 operates on Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue, and Tantau Avenue near the project site. Route 101 is an express bus route between the Park-n-Ride lot at Camden Avenue / State Route 85 and Palo Alto. This route operates northbound between 6:00 am and 7:30 am, and southbound between 4:30 pm and 5:30 pm with 30-minute headways with two t�ips each direction daily. This route does not operate on weekends. Route 101 operates on Wolfe Road and I-280 near the project site. Route 182 is an express bus route between Palo Alto and the IBM facility on Bailey Avenue. This route operates two southbound buses between 7:00 am and 8:00 am, and two northbound buses between 4:30 pm and 5:00 pm with 30- to 40-minute headways. This route does not operate on weekends. Route 182 operates on Vallco Parkway, Wolfe Road, and I-280 near the project site. Caltrain Vallco Area Shuttle is a limited service commuter shuttle operating between the Lawrence Caltrain station and the Vallco area offices during the peak commute hours. The shuttle serves primarily Agilent, Hewlett-Packard, and Kaiser Permanente employees; however, any Caltrain ticket-holder may ride this shuttle without additional cost. The bus stop and park-and-ride lot located on Vallco Parkway at Perimeter Road also serve as stops for several commuter shuttles operated by private companies. No information was collected about the frequency or operators of these shuttles; however, they were noted during field observations. TABLE 1 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE TO SOUTH VALLCO Commute Route From To Weekday Operating Hours Headway 23 Alum Rock Transit Center De Anza College 5:00 AM — 1:00 AM 12 min. 26 Eastridge Transit Center Sunnyvale/Lockheed 5:00 AM — 11:00 PM 15-30 min. Ma�tin 81 San Jose State University Cupertino Square 5:30 AM — 9:30 PM 30 min. 101 Camden & Hwy 85 Palo Alto 6:00 AM — 7:30 AM / 4:30 PM — 5:30 2 Trips Each PM Direction Daily 182 Palo Alto IBM Bailey Ave 7:00 AM — 8:00 AM / 5:00 PM — 6:00 2 Trips Each PM Direction Daily Caltrain Vallco Parkway and 6:10 AM — 9:45 AM / 3:15 PM — 6:30 30 min. Shuttle Lawrence Station Finch Avenue PM Source: VTA, January 2008. EXISTING INTERSECTION VOLUMES AND LANE CONFIGURATIONS New traffic counts were conducted in April and June 2008 during the AM and PM peak periods at most of the study intersections. Peak period turning movement counts are included in Appendix A. The operations of the key intersections were evaluated during weekday morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak- peak-hour conditions. Per city guidelines, the AM and PM peak periods occur from 7:00 am to 9:00 am and 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm, respectively. Intersection operations were evaluated for the highest one-hour � �° �„� �.:�'� �.� � � °:.� � ��= � _;='' .�� `��" FEHR & FEERS � �� 4�� .�� , , �� f�r � � � iRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ' ��;`'��:�a: � i �,�-�>��, y _ ,�'��-:: � �K;_.. � ... _ . w �;%" a 3 7 . . .. . .. �� i�� Main Street Cupertino �� ' � �. � � �s � �.. _ September 2008 �.�. ��s�. ��• '� �d� '�� i - . . � _ .,.. .,.y. ..� �.<' . _ ., %s ,..-.. - r volume counted during each period. Per City staff direction, non-Cupertino-controlled intersections were also analyzed during the 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm peak period. Figure 7 presents the existing AM and PM peak-hour turning movement volumes at the study intersections. Existing intersection lane configurations and traffic control devices are shown on Figure 8. LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODS The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term level of service. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levets are defined from LOS A, representing congestion-free conditions, to LOS F, when volumes exceed capacity and stop-and-go conditions occur. LOS E represents "at-capacity" operations. Signalized Intersections The level of service calculation method for signalized intersections approved by the City of Cupertino and the VTA bases intersection operations on average control vehicular delay calculated as described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manua! (HCM) with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect conditions in Santa Clara County. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The average control delay for signalized intersections was calculated using TRAFFIX 7.9 analysis software and was correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Average Control Delay Per Level of Service Description Vehicle (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression <_ 10.0 and/or short cycle lengths. B+ Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or 10.1 to 12.0 g short cycle lengths. 12.1 to 18.0 B- 18.1 to 20.0 C+ Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or 20.1 to 23.0 C longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 23.1 to 32.0 C- 32.1 to 35.0 D+ Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable 35.1 to 39.0 p progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles 39.1 to 51.0 p_ stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. 51.1 to 55.0 E+ Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long 55.1 to 60.0 E cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are 60.1 to 75.0 E _ frequent occurrences. 75.1 to 80.0 F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to > 80.0 over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Source: Tra�c Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, VTA Congestion Management Program, June 2003; Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. � `� �� . <.:• `� ;?s a . . �� F E H R& P E E RS "`' �� '°- >.�:� �� TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS � " � _ �.. �, ,�, �� ' ��"� v _°o � __ L —�— _. - _ K y t�s �so ' ` � — _ — _ m=� i �� - za�isi - � �`-z2��zi� _�� w �ei�e�� ''�iai�si� � �sa��su�� 3 451 (I33) ,� � Q 7[t (1.042) °? `� m 802 (454) �, z -21 (60) � c O �, r i751251� _ tO"� 193 (365) �127 (199) � � r �r (628) � �93 (43) S r �SU3) >�%, �� Homeslead R4. � n � Homeslead RC. `�� Homesl6ad Rt1. � �� Prunentl e Ave. �� Prunentl e Ave. �� -ZB N8 Narn v - 123 (158)--� � 1 � 33 (371-� . � r � 298 (436)-� � i � 4G (�4)-� � i � 131 (7;�- � f r I - - _ 433(589) 769(607�-►� 36A(641)-► 31�18)-► ' 195(971---. '- �� 188(297)� c 80(71�� m'?� 113(260)-y _ 90(881 �a=� BilJ31 _�- _ � N v m S� - .- °�m ��o°' � ...7 N .- r - - ,� � a ;, _� �_,..,,., �..,,. I ;� - _ : � "u:� k � - � � LEGEND: � _ m � a R--JB (155) � a �-3y �B) - � �2 �a� � � � m R� 212 (275) 4�,�;� = Pro�ec:t S! � _ \ � �`� rne�n rn -� a a �t(13) == 80(193) M� t(28) ,;,°�'W a`�-769(6121 -� _ �181103) I ° r331131 �' �ol�a) o �'21Hi372; ��-.� -SOUthVallCo � m t 1 I Master Pieii � -280 SB Ran � � � 3 Vailro Pkw . � • � Valim Pkw�. � � � Dnvaw� � t � �e�w�s ��_��, Bi�n ,I Vallco Pkw } r FOCUS AfeiJ �� 732 (327)� 1� 5(78)-� � 1 I 2� (S)� � r � 30 (B4�-} � I I teti (217�.� � 1�� O - Slutly � � 0(1B)-► n � 79 (94)-+ v "' 16 1--► 312 (832)�-+ ' i ) - IntersecUOns 1)0 (247)� $ n 0(i6)� - 5(9)�y ¢' m n � 101791'� ' 192 (313)� _" _ _ N .� XX (YY� =AM �PM) N a - m NOT TO SCALE � � � b�ilii�.le:'i � � � � . ti _ a = m �68166) � a �75 (97) a ,""'n � �-7 (36) _r � w L 147 (91) - r L 5"s l5) _ ^ ' �- 158 �7ii; � �-1,080 (1,027) � � � 1.268 (1.213) �v °- c 1,291 (1.0901 ` M ; 758 (687) s iO - - �-805 (8281 �, �- - � (7707 N�o] � `Q f � m r851207) u' `P � °' �21 (56) � � � a �84 (t2�) '� � i �66 (1811 � `� " `1731118) � I � ir (199) I 1 l l � � n Geek v •1 � �eek iv ' I 4 � , lev i� retk :v7 � $Itr �:s C�r '�vtl � 1 v�.�. 1Q6�98)� � � 48(88)� � 17(�4)-� ��ns^r BOt�52fi�� r 10(24)� � � IQO(1&l�-� � t� G23(1.3881 "� 727(1.5871--► - y40(1,707)-► r 576(9fi01-�► � m�u: 583f1.3101-�► - 5�91�.2721-i ��,r 48(831� - 18f31)-ti '-�- ° 6151 --_ 691228)� � ° - 18t(101)-ti 21�tli� � -' c ° ., 01 � � = m�� o - � s � , � y �" ti f � �', � t�. AB. .� 1 2LU �t.'i7a�-� ' � N 3 m a i ,� t m � L249�256) -- == � L395(300) ^ m�136(it0l y L2U21yt) a �'IS/17a; . R_[51I871 K -` �` a�.s�s� � � v N � n m � � �---1 243 (1.072) `" m c � � N a .--78 1106) �, � m _ 54A (ti7J) :� - F 493 1628. . - �--�7J �J'�� i� aldi � . i� �, � � � v o�151(248) � ` r92f175) j i i `� i `�' � � i s� IOt).1�d1 • i�[ J� n Cr ek Ivd. �� - 18(1 58 Ran� . �� Bulli�l er fttl. �♦� Bollii� er HO �� a Boll i Fr Hil. � �` Boll i� cr K�I. �� I I�ur i�rk Ava. � 1 i.illc� Fl.�r� } Boniiicar Hrl (� 517 (412)-� � r � Bt (77)--� � � 122 (1191� � i � 231J21- � I � 1521102)� � t � ya (y51� 5)A �339�-� w � - ! iy i2Jl-'� � � 732(1.424)� " 307(2961�' S5(80) 3801�21)--► 44�I68:f1 - �'l� 2u�_� 55/ �1Jid'��-� � 202 (080)� 12 13B)--ti ' 331n2)-ti ' -' ;i4 (B'LI� 9J 1'�t0) - - - 'tU (7 �-� „ , . � t�0 N .r > � � `T _ ` � Main Street Cupertino F E H R�t P E E EtS EXISTING PEAK•HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES iRAN5PO0.iAiI0N CONSULiANIS sEa� 2ooa FIGURE 7 s�ue-iaat — �� 11yy 3 r Homesleetl —► I I � � I � 111 S I-28( � � � � � a' f _ c ~— �1� m r � �I� � � z �' �' � � �- even� C� i � 1�� —y � FeHk �t PEERS iRAq5i0A7AtI0N CONSULtANTS Say�200tl SJUB 1041 < .� � � a es,E � y � � —► Q � m 1 � �� .'Lb�Sb � II�� 0 ;� �llll��ry '� Homes�ead R � ��I�11� � 0 � 1 � �111L� 8��,�E � ��1� � - � � �11� 3 � Pruneritl e i JI I I I I� � a �- �1� m � Bol � � � �� Pruneri � � � � _ � ,� ; j - ,� . I-LBfi I 1 I LEGEND: � - —. �?;:�_�.�:,'��. = Prujec� Site � = Suulh Vallco �� - I I � s Masler Pla�� j l I \L � � FGC�SAfG�f �e:.F�.�� o -5��dy = �' 11 i ? i l' ��`a y XX (YY) =AM (PM) � = Traffic S�gnai ' Y J_ = S�oU Si��i m R. a �-- t � �� r 'ie e s ��.��c y � � � 7 c. � r + ,�� = i b�llii� : �?i� � �; � a '` < •— 1 ��,5. '� ievenscre �. �a � � �' _ � � � �- � ;11 '�.�. - . . 6�,uiii �i h� f.t„c,�l�.�rh nv� 6�i��r�cer Ni: �' � '�`i?iTl' _� _, �- � ra NUT TU S(:NLE I .' � - __ Main Street Cupertino EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS AND SIGNAL CONTROLS FIGURE 8 1 �I ' 1 1 1 il _, ._ � ,.n, -�- ;�_ � �� > x= H� ; : Main Street Cupertino � , � , a�� .�. ��' : _ September 2008 � � � � � �. � � � -� . � ' �'_>�� _ �. The level of service standard (i.e., minimum acceptable operations) for all of the signalized study intersections in the City of Cupertino is LOS D except at certain locations. According to the City's General Plan, the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard and the De Anza BoulevardJBollinger Road intersections must maintain LOS E+ operations (with no more than 60 seconds weighted average control delay). The same operations method is used by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to analyze traffic impacts for Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersections. The level of service standard for CMP-designated intersections is LOS E. The City of Santa Clara level of service standard is LOS D for local signalized intersections and LOS E for CMP-designated intersections. The following study intersections are located in the City of Santa Clara: Homestead Road/Lawrence Expressway, Stevens Creek Boulevard/I-280 Southbound Ramp, Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Expressway (West) and Stevens Creek Boulevard/ Lawrence Expressway (East). The City of San Jose has a level of service standard of LOS D fo� local signalized intersections. Three study intersections are located within the City of San Jose: Lawrence Expressway/Moorpark Avenue- Bollinger Road; Lawrence Expressway/Calvert Drive-I-280 Southbound Ramps; and Bollinger Road/Blaney Road. These intersections are designated CMP intersections; however the City maintains a LOS D standard at these locations. Unsignalized Intersections Operations of the unsignalized study intersection of Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue were evaluated using the method contained in Chapter 17 of the 2000 HCM. Level of service ratings for stop-sign controlled intersections are based on the average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. At two- way or side street-controlled intersections, the control delay is calculated for each movement, not for the intersection as a whole. For approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. For all-way stop-controlled locations, a weighted average delay for the entire intersection is presented. Table 3 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. LOS E is the minimum acceptable level of service for unsignalized intersections in the City of Cupertino. TABLE 3 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION �EVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of Average Control Delay per Vehicle Service Description (Seconds) A Little or no delay <_ 10.0 B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Lo�g traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. _. 3 S� � .�-�ca' �f _ i . x. . \ ;;'4 �+ {. .. -.. � F ,�` �, ,S FEHR & PEERS �� ' TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS � � �� - � . ' ,. .._ � n T � �M � � �� , Main Street Cupertino � � „ �� - September 2008 � �° ��,�� , ; � ..,� _t y . w. � � _ '� Freeway Segments Freeway segments are evaluated using VTA's analysis procedure, which is based on the density of the traffic flow using methods described in the 2000 HCM. Density is expressed in passenger cars per mile per lane. The Congestion Management Program range of densities for freeway segment level of service is shown in Table 4. The LOS standard for the freeway segments is LOS E. TABLE 4 FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of Service Density (passenger cars per mile per lane) A <11 B 11.1 to 18.0 C 18.1 to 26.0 D 26.1 to 46.0 E 46.1 to 58.0 F > 58.0 Sources: Tra(fic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, VTA Congestion Management Program, June 2003; Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing lane configurations and peak-hour turning movement volumes were used to calculate the existing levels of service for the key intersections during each peak hour. The results of the LOS analysis for Existing Conditions are presented in Table 5. The corresponding calculation sheets are contained in Appendix B. The results of the LOS calculations indicate that all study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service. TABLE 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Count Intersection Intersection Peak Hour� Date Control Delay lOS 1. Wolfe Road / Homestead Road AM 07/2007 27.4 C PM 06/2008 Signal 31.5 C 2. Homestead Road / Tantau Avenue AM 04/2008 232 C PM 04/2008 Signal 26.1 C 3. Homestead Road / Lawrence Expressway AM 10/2007 55.1 E+ [CMP] PM 04/2008 Signal 70.7 E 4. Wolfe Road / Pruneridge Avenue AM 07/2007 21 C+ PM 06/2008 Signal 38.5 D+ 5. Pruneridge Avenue / Tantau Avenue AM 04/2008 22 C+ PM 04/2008 Signal 21 9 C+ 6. Wolfe Road / I-280 Northbound Ramps AM 04/2008 14.5 B [CMP] PM 04/2008 Signal � � 6 B+ .� �, �.:� � � � � Fy � � � FEHR � PEERS �"�� TRANSPORTATION CONSUL7ANT5 `�`` ��" �2t �'. a.�� s�. _ � _.. ��:�.,.` E.�� _ _ .�.. .. � �' ; � � .. 4 ._ -}` ��3-'�. -� U <� o %,� �� V Main Street Cupertino � `'��` '� � September 2008 ° ' `�'�`� ,� : � z<R . � � . . .,. . � _ . ... �` F`:..... .. . ._ TABLE 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Count Intersection Intersection Peak Hour' Date Control Delay' LOS 7. Wolfe Road / I-280 Southbound Ramps AM 04/2008 14.0 B [CMP] PM 04/2008 Signal 8$ A 8. Wolfe Road / Valico Parkway AM 04/2008 Signal 14 �� B PM 04/2008 25.3 C 9. Vallco Parkway / Finch Avenue AM 04/2008 Side-Street Stop 10.5 B PM 04/2008 Control 10.5 B 10. Vailco Parkway / Tantau Avenue AM 04/2008 � 7,3 g PM 04/2008 Signal 15 � B 11. Stevens Creek Boulevard / De Anza AM 04/2008 30.9 C Boulevard [CMP] PM 04/2008 Signal 41.2 D 12. Stevens Creek Boulevard / Blaney Avenue AM 04/2008 28.9 C PM 04/2008 Signal 29 6 C 13. Stevens Creek Boulevard / Portal Avenue AM 04/2008 14.8 B PM 04/2008 Signal 14 2 B 14. Stevens Creek Boulevard / Perimeter Road AM 04/2008 g.6 A PM 04/2008 Signal �4.1 B 15. Stevens Creek Boulevard / Wolfe Road- AM 04/2008 38.1 D+ Milier Avenue [CMP] PM 04/2008 Signal 37 � p+ 16. Stevens Creek Boulevard / Finch Avenue AM 04/2008 38.0 D+ PM 04/2008 Signal 28 2 C 17. Stevens Creek Boulevard / Tantau Avenue AM 04/2008 Signal 22.$ C+ PM 04/2008 23.5 C 18. Stevens Creek Boulevard / I-280 Ramps AM 04/2008 Signal 25.$ C [CMP] PM 04/2008 39.5 D 19. Stevens Creek Boulevard / Lawrence AM 04/2008 23.2 C Expressway (W) [CMP] PM 04/2008 Signal 30.6 C 20. Stevens Creek Boulevard / Lawrence AM 04/2008 35.4 D+ Expressway (E) [CMP] PM 04/2008 Signal 32.4 C- 21. Lawrence Expressway and Calvert Drive/I- AM 06/2008 39.6 D 280 SB Ramps [CMP] PM 06/2008 Signal 37.6 D+ 22. Bollinger Road / De Anza Boulevard [CMP] AM 06/2008 30.8 C PM 06/2008 Signal 36.2 D+ 23. Bollinger Road / Blaney Avenue AM 06/2008 �g.g B- PM 06/2008 Signal 21.1 C+ 24. Bollinger Road / Miller Avenue AM 06/2008 33.5 C- PM 06/2008 Signal 38.4 D+ 25. Bollinger Road / Tantau Avenue AM 04/2008 12.7 B PM 04/2008 Si9nal 16.5 B �. .,,- �� _f , -,-' -� �,�� - . x� } �' � TM > , "� _ .`: r e t � . i• ... . .. , _: "� r x ;~�. �. FEHR & PEERS " `'_ �� iRANSPORTATtON CONSULiANTS �� . . . .. .� . . �-- :�� . ' �'� .. . ._ . _ : __ ... .. . ��; &,1.� .�# I'7��i �� . l�lr � :a . .. �"'�'* . � . Main Street Cupertino A "� � ` �-� ' - ' ' � _ .... September 2008 � ��,� . �:� � �k� �+ � 3 � � �� -�� ;.�,�.�,.,�.:�.,,�.�..:. .�.��: �, z TABLE 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Count Intersection Intersection eak Hour� Date Control Delay LOS 26. Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue / AM 06/2008 50.4 D Lawrence Expressway [CMP] PM 06/2008 Signal 53.5 D- 27. Vallco Parkway / Perimeter Road AM 06/2008 14.1 B PM 06/2008 Signal �6.4 B Notes: 1 AM = morning peak-hour, PM = evening peak-hour. 2 LOS = level of service 3 Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections using methods described in the 2000 Nighway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. For two-way stop controlled unsignalized intersections, total control delay for the worst movement, expressed in seconds per vehicie, is presented. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX 7.9 level of service analysis software package. Source: Fehr 8� Peers, 2008. Signal Warrant Analysis — Finch Avenue and Vallco Parkway A signal warrant analysis was conducted for the unsignalized Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue study intersection. This analysis applied the traffic signal warrants recommended in the Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2003) and associated State guidelines. None of these warrants were met. The worksheets for Warrants 1, 2 and 3, and crash data are included in Appendix C. The warrant analysis is summarized below. Warrant 1— Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume. The hourly machine counts were used to analyze this warrant. This warrant was not met because there was not a large volume of intersecting traffic for any eight-hours of an average day. Neither the 80% nor 100°/a minimum vehicular volume warrants were met. Warrant 2— Four-Hour Vehicular Volume. This warrant was not met because there was not a large volume of intersecting traffic for any four-hours of an average day. Warrant 3— Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume. This warrant was not met because the minor street traffic did not suffer from undue delay during the peak hour when crossing or entering the major street. Warrant 4— Pedestrian Volume. This warrant was not met because a minimum of 190 pedestrians did not cross the major street during the peak-hour. Pedestrian counts were conducted during the AM and PM peak periods. The results of these counts show that 12 pedestrians crossed this intersection during the AM peak hour and 9 pedestrians crossed this intersection in the PM peak hour. This warrant needs to satisfy two criteria; therefore, the remaining criteria were not considered. Warrant 5— School Crossing. This warrant was not applicable because the Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue intersection is not near a school. Warrant 6— Coordinated Signal System. This warrant is not met because the adjacent signalized intersections — Stevens Creek Boulevard/Finch Avenue approximately 710 ft to the south, Vallco Parkway/Wolfe Road approximately 1,200 ft to the west, and Vallco Parkway/Tantau Avenue approximately 1,000 ft to the east — are close enough to provide sufficient progression. � � �� E �� ... j � ' i -.� } ' ': � � ' -: a° _ ::� ..i� ��'� , i � .k3+_. `� _t � � � FEHR SL PEERS �� °� ` , .� � � �: �. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ' � -� � 1 . _ _ .... � . ..��s.�..`� - . . . . . _ .. . . . . _ . . _ _ �'y� ��.,�. �x.� ' § � � �� Main Street Cupertino � �� ' September 2008 fi_� �{�� : $� , . ,_ � � � . .. . Warrant 7— Crash Experience. No accidents occurred at the intersection in the past twelve (12) months.' This warrant is not met because the frequency of crashes correctable by a traffic signal at this location is less than the minimum of five accidents within a 12-month period. This warrant needs to satisfy three criteria; therefore, the remaining criteria were not considered. Warrant 8— Roadway Network. This warrant is not met because neither street is considered a major route. For this warrant to be satisfied, a minimum of 1,000 vehicles per hour must be entering the intersection of two or more major routes. This intersection does not meet any of the MUTCD warrants for traffic signal installation under existing conditions. EXISTING FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Freeway segment densities reported in VTA's 2007 Monitoring and Conformance Report were used to calculate the LOS for the key freeway segments during the AM and PM peak hours. The results of the LOS analysis for Existing Conditions are presented in Table 6. The following freeway segments are operating at unacceptable levels (LOS F): • I-280 Eastbound, De Anza Boulevard to I-880 (5 segments, PM peak hour) • I-280 Westbound, I-880 to Winchester (1 segment, PM peak hour) • I-280 Westbound, I-880 to Wolfe Road (4 segments, AM peak hour) • I-280 Westbound, De Anza Boulevard to SR 85 (1 segment, AM peak hour) • I-280 Westbound HOV, I-880 to Winchester Boulevard (AM peak hour) TABLE 6 EXISTING FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Peak Mixed-Flow Lanes HOV Lanes Freeway Direction From To Hour Density� LOS Speed Density' LOS Speed / Eastbound SR 85 De Anza AM 27 D 66 10 A 67 PM 32 D 64 32 D 64 AM 32 D 64 20 C 66 De Anza Wolfe PM 67 F 28 32 D 64 AM 22 C 66 12 B 67 Wolfe Lawrence PM 76 F 23 33 D 64 AM 38 D 58 19 C 66 Lawrence Saratoga PM 98 F 15 39 D 57 ' City of Cupertino Public Works Department, 2008. ��:;��"�. �" � � - � �'�' � � �s � h �.T� . FEHR St PEERS ' �� .� � �� . TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS r -� .� � � ��"� � �� `'�'; ,, . _ � . - �` ��'� = r � �,�, - Main Street Cupertino � � �:, a'J w September 2008 ,�� .z,�.,. z��:��.�.� .. .� ._-�._ � TABLE 6 EXISTING FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Peak Mixed-Flow Lanes HOV La�es Freeway Direction From To Hour Density� LOS Speed Density� LOS Speed AM 43 D 51 19 C 66 Saratoga Winchester PM 86 F 19 40 D 55 Winchester �_ggp AM 27 D 66 23 C 66 PM 104 F 13 49 E 43 1-280 AM 94 F 16 67 F 28 I-880 Winchester PM 73 F 25 20 C 66 Winchester Saratoga AM 65 F 29 48 E 45 PM 5� E 37 18 B 67 Saratoga Lawrence AM 74 F 24 49 E 43 PM 29 D 65 20 C 66 estbound Lawrence Wolfe AM 68 F 27 42 D 52 PM 27 D 66 7 A 67 Wolfe De Anza AM 50 E 42 43 D 51 PM 37 D 59 16 B 67 De Anza SR 85 AM 60 F 33 24 C 66 PM 25 C 66 10 A 67 Notes: ' Measured in passenger cars per mile per lane. Z LOS = level of service. ' Density is calculated by using the travel speed from the adjacent segment, as well as the volume (flow) from the adjacent segment adjusted by the volume entering/exiting the freeway at the interchange. Unacceptable operations are shown in bold typeface. Source: VTA, April 2008. FIELD OBSERVATIONS Field observations of the study intersections were conducted during the morning and evening peak periods in April, May, and June 2008. The intersections were generally observed to operate at the calculated levels of service for each peak period shown in Table 5. During the PM peak hour, the general travel pattern is eastbound on Stevens Creek Boulevard and I-280, and southbound on Wolfe Road and Lawrence Expressway. Substantial field observations are included in this section. Wolfe Road / Pruneridge Avenue — During the PM peak hour, traffic queues formed between the Wolfe Road / I-280 Northbound Ramps and this intersection. Signal operations at Pruneridge Avenue were not substantially affected by this queue. Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway — In general, the eastbound and westbound approaches were given the minimum green time due to low traffic volumes. Approximately 50 percent of vehicles on the southbound, left-turn approach made u-turns to enter the parking areas within Cupertino Square Mall or to merge onto I-280 southbound during the PM peak period. The pedestrian push button on the northeast corner of the intersection was not functional during observations. '� << � �:° � _ � `� : '"��, �. -�,�; � ' � �'� � * �? �t �� h �a x �� . FEHR � PEERS ��=� ��,. TRANSPORiATION CQNSULTANTS � ,��. �; , - . :.._ . _._. _ . ,� .�'_ .. � ,... �I' � � • � �r. . d> � . V y ': . k4� �:' ' � f� Main Street Cuperfino ' � � September 2008 1 � .� � � � �� . ; ` �� - � �.��. � Stevens Creek Boulevard / Finch Avenue — During the AM peak period, traffic was observed to be most congested between 7:20 am and 7:30 am. This peak in traffic was attributed to Cupertino High School, located on Finch Avenue south of Stevens Creek Boulevard. During this period, the vehicles queued beyond the westbound left turn pocket length into the through lanes toward Tantau Avenue. Between 10 and 15 cars queued at the northbound approach. Stevens Creek Boulevard / 1-280 Ramps / Lawrence Expressway Ramps — During the PM peak hour, the on-�amps to southbound I-280 backed up with substantial queues caused by heavy traffic volumes. There was also extensive queuing along Stevens Creek Boulevard befinreen the Lawrence Expressway and I- 280 ramp intersections. Slow moving traffic, caused by weaving, was observed along westbound Stevens Creek Boulevard between the southbound Lawrence Expressway off-ramp and the northbound I-280 on- ramp. Other study intersections were observed to operate without any substantial operational deficiencies and operated at or near their calculated levels of service. . - �'�� 1n� ....��.� °`.�'+'�{ � . 5^ "Sr � £ �� FEHR � PEERS � � 4 �,� ; - ' TRANSPORTATION CONSUITANTS I � * �� ''„ �� ro� - ,�, s� . . . . . � . . . .. . . . . .. .. .�� 3�.'�::_ . . .:F .. . .. ., .. . .. . : � ; . ,. _ _. , ��$ � �.;� _� M � ��S . .� i . Main Street Cupertino �� ..�. � September 2008 �' � :� � � � .�� .� � �; , � � � �� f � � .� _, . ,.��.�:, ,.x� � ��: a�� 3. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS This chapter discusses the operations of the key intersections with existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated from surrounding development projects that have been approved but are not yet constructed or occupied. Background Conditions serve as the basis for identifying project impacts. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC ESTIMATES Traffic volumes for Background Conditions were estimated by adding traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed and occupied developments in the study area to the existing intersection peak-hour volumes. The list of approved projects, presented in Appendix D, was obtained from City of Cupertino planning staff. Approved projects and trip estimates were also obtained for the Cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, and Sunnyvale. Trip assignments for the approved developments were obtained from traffic impact reports or estimated with ITE trip generation rates and standard engineering practice. If no trip assignment was available, the trips associated with each development were assigned to the roadway network based on the relative locations of complementary land uses and existing and estimated future travel patterns. Figure 9 shows the peak-hour traffic volumes at the study intersections under Background Conditions. BACKGROUND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS No future roadway or intersection improvements were identified by City of Cupertino staff; existing intersection lane configurations were used for the Background Conditions analysis. BACKGROUND INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Table 7 presents the intersection LOS calculation results under Background Conditions. Appendix B contains the corresponding calculation sheets. Under Background Conditions, the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road is expected to degrade to LOS F during both peak hours. The remaining study intersections are expected to operate acceptably under Background Conditions. At the Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue stop-sign controlted intersection, peak hour warrants were evaluated to determine if the minimum volume threshold for the MUTCD peak-hour signal warrant would be met under Background Conditions. A review of the peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection shows that the minimum volume threshold for the MUTCD peak hour signal warrant would not be met during either the AM or PM peak hour. The signal warrant worksheets are included in Appendix C. TABLE 7 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS : INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection Peak Hour' Delay LOS 1. Wolfe Road / Homestead Road AM 27.5 C PM 35.1 D+ 2. Homestead Road / Tantau Avenue AM 22.g C+ PM 26.4 C ,� �� -� �� ,� � ,.� ;.< , r � :A �s, F ... - ,�� .� FEHR & PEERS �� :�� 3[ TRANSPORTATION tONSULTANTS ` ��"�� ' � x � � � -�... � � � � � � � � F_.�.�_c � � .u:. . . - . - _, �� .,._.�. .; � _ , .. e�� z " Main Street Cupertino � : �� September 2008 .� � ,� � �� i °° � � � _ �� - �. _ - �� x__ ,_ _ 4 TABLE 7 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS : INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE I�tersectio� Peak Hour' Delay LOS 3. Homestead Road / Lawrence Expressway (CMP] AM 86.4 F PM 111.1 F 4. Wolfe Road / Pruneridge Avenue AM 20.6 B- PM 38.8 D+ 5. Pruneridge Avenue / Tantau Avenue AM 22.3 C+ PM 21.9 C+ 6. Wolfe Road / I-280 Northbound Ramps [CMP] AM 15.2 B PM 13.9 B 7. Woife Road / I-280 Southbound Ramps [CMP] AM 14.0 B PM 9•4 A 8. Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway AM 20.4 C+ PM 53.1 D- 9. Valico Parkway / Finch Avenue AM 11.0 B PM 122 B 10. Vallco Parkway / Tantau Avenue AM 18.1 B- PM 202 B- 11. Stevens Creek Boulevard ! De Anza Boulevard [CMP] AM 31.7 C PM 44.9 D 12. Stevens Creek Boulevard ! Bianey Avenue AM 29.0 C PM 29.9 C 13. Stevens Creek Boulevard / Portal Avenue AM 14.3 B PM 13.2 B 14. Stevens Creek Boulevard / Perimeter Road AM 10.0 A PM 17.4 B- 15. Stevens Creek Boulevard / Wolfe Road-Miller Avenue (CMP] AM 38.7 D PM 40.1 D 16. Stevens Creek Boulevard / Finch Avenue AM 37.6 D pM 27.0 C 17. Stevens Creek Boulevard / Tantau Avenue AM 23.0 C+ PM 25.0 C 18. Stevens Creek Boulevard / I-280 Ramps (CMPJ AM 28.5 C PM 552 E+ 19. Stevens Creek Boulevard / Lawrence Expressway (W) [CMP] AM 23.1 C+ pM 32.4 C- 20. Stevens Creek Boulevard / Lawrence Expressway (E) [CMP] AM 37.9 D+ PM 33.7 C- 21. Lawrence Expressway and Calvert Drive/I-280 SB Ramps AM 53.7 D- [CMP] PM 54.2 D- � �� ..�� ` -.� �„ � t:� �� ,. � � � .� �� ' FEHR �t PEERS �� IRANSPOR7ATION CONSULiANTS �� - , , ,, � � ' � ��'t t j �-+.� +m � , _ � �;�, � . �� . Main Street Cupertino .�� ,�� September 2008 ��'��,� '� : ,., : , , .. �. . � _ TABLE 7 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS : INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection Peak Hour� Delay LOS 22. Bollinger Road / De Anza Boulevard [CMP] AM 31.3 C PM 36.9 D+ 23. Bollinger Road / Blaney Avenue AM 20.0 B- PM 21.2 C+ 24. Bollinger Road / Miller Avenue AM 33.6 C- PM 38.4 D+ 25. Bollinger Road / Tantau Avenue AM 12.6 B PM 16.4 B 26. Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue / Lawrence Expressway AM 51.5 D- [CMP] PM 54.7 D- 27. Vallco Parkway / Perimeter Road AM 19.4 B- PM 20.0 B- Notes: 1 AM = morning peak-hour, PM = evening peak-hour. 2 Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections using methodology described in the 2000 Highway Capacrty Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. For two-way stop controlled unsignalized intersections, total control delay for the worst movement, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is presented. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX 7.9 level of service analysis software package. 3 LOS = level of service Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008. ; � � �` �� a�� `,� � � �� ; �" � . � .. x �.: !� �� FEHR � PEERS �"�� .� TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS �.-��'�� i _. � H ��.._ �,��.'8. � � � ��y. ; � �iH� m � � � ' _ `: m R-80 (86) �' a �-24 (15) -� � g � (12J) m �Q �' R-81 (87) _ ' L 131 IS/) _ ° �.-SSii 1517i � a 369 (7ti4) ,� �� ]65 (1.20ti) m' �'i d BS2154y) o` r-L1 1ti0� � -�--- I7S IG�1i '; � � �220(482) � � i � r133(212) "" � � r'3221371) ^ �'� � � iW �6281 i I � � �r 'j � ' � - (�t i7:is� 'L' Y j � � Home6leod Rd. � l � Pfunarid e Flre. �, ♦ Pruner�<f •a Ave � Homesleatl Rd Homeiteetl Rtl. R I�CHJ Nd Noiii'is 1231159�1 I r I 33 (38) . � I � 364 (ti3ti)� I 1 � aJ [ � � 75I �lal-.'i � I � ! ♦ _. _ I � 4621809) '"' 875(711)---► � - 399(746)-► ' 31 f18)-+ " 135197i - � - '.1 i \ 198 (357)-� ,.� rn BO (71)� a m __ 144 (358)� 'JO (861� - ti1 (.7�.fi- _ - ;� =': � t. \ N _ _ ' _ ' _ ron ' � ,n , � � Nrnn � s p� ' �'�' _ - � _ '� _ .� .�, ., _' �_. ,,:. _..., ' . ;� � �.. �c , ' ' � � a LEGEND: ^, m � _ � e � ; °� � -' w m o � t � t. �+�'. = Pro ecl Site N � m `^ � 128 (281) u 0.._.3g (g� 3 (5) _ _ . GJO 1295) .��,a,� 1 _ . � � • m u' m,. � = g'� 3 t(i6) =�° p�--98(310I fcv� c� rn�m a�-8a51d13) •--� _ `�, � '? f � �49 (162) � � � �33113) �' j � = So��th Vallc� _ _ � � � � 23 (20) � I � o � 235 (399) �- - �+ � 1 � � onvewu + i.r,� CreakBi��i Nlaster Plan •'280 SB Ram �� VaIICO Pkw . Vallcu Pkw . }} Vailco Pkw . } Fo�us Arcd 732 (330)--� 1 � 32 (d521� � I � Z� (5)� � I � 'i4 (93).- � I � 189 (227)� � 1 �� O = Stutly I 0(20)--► 119 (203)-► v ZZ �g�- sti5 �i.OZ6i-► -- Iritersectioris � 2171453) M�, 12(191)� m� 26(461-� ¢' =,� 41f175) __ 196(31I1� ___ = N � --- � XX (YY) = AM (PM� ;. a m�� ' m NOT TO SCA�E ^ � �. . . � o o ,_ " - �u ° mo ¢ � a � M _ � �ma m L155 2141 ^ a �ti3139 - N a �79� Iy0 rn � � �77 (72) v"'i _.° - 75197) � �' 11 (52) _ ( � r � ) � v_ l I yyy ` � p ,5 1 18911.271) � � 7 395 (i,JO91 ° -N � 1.37311.2391 "' m " � 787 (718) m o, _.-ebt (9951 ,�, 921 iyu31 � � � '�' r121 (233) I Q' a r23 (58) � � n �84 (121) �" i � (1Bfi) I � �` � 171 (118) I I � �BS 1t997 � 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 e r I �•` I v Ivu l n I� ``, � r Iv� �` » e'�'r B�.A ♦ ♦ . 123 (169)-� � t (� 48 (09)-� � ? � 34 (167) � 1 � 420 (635)� � s � ert 11 (31)� � � 73011)4�� 1 Y. 6921�.619) ' Bt4(1.851)-y 981(1.842)-�► 593(1,011)-► � m 612(1.465) 55511.448)--► 4B (84)� ° � 42 (50)-ti -'v a g (5�� ` _ 72 (231�� 'r',� N 10� (101)- _ 21 (841� -- _ ° ' �o � � nm � rv f .- �.it s 1�.�[9� 1 �� 5� �;,� �.339 (1.77[1�-� I E ., a a _ v " _ M s � �2921265) g - d � �' �395 (300) r v � 1361110) _ - y L208 (114) m ^ ' � 157 (74) -`� > v �253 (BB� _ '-' � 13 f� Nmm � c mv_m m ° � = ��--1.338 (1,237) `D d � �� (106) n ry 552 (681) m � o ��-4901628) m - t-6/8 (95ti1 m m m ,` - �51 (4i51 �- o - 5� 13u21 'u`� �r�`i m m '� � `� °"' 10U 11591 i� i� � �� a �156(256) I � �92(175) j j f j r65(t6�) `Q � � � I � � j ' � a � 1 I � t v s reek Ivd I-280 SB Ram 0ollin er Rd. � 8oil�m er R�. f �� Boiiin er Ra. � Bouin � er Na. � hIGOr a/k A�a. 1 vaum Pkn . 590 (428)-� � 1 � 81 (77)-} i � 122 (119)-� � � � 25 (55)� � 1 � 152 (101)-� � 1 � 94 (95)-1 Boli�n �er Ha � _� 792 (1.644)-► 349 (432) 55 (80) m o,n 381 (628)---► � r� 441 (6831 T� m 700 (980)---� Sy0 l'340)--� � '.W l52)-'� � � °;�,:� 2031881)-y 12(38)- __ 3J(91J_ '__ s�(821__� 208(SG51� __ 71y1105�--+ f a _ `ni(Lt�/i-� sV�/� �� o� � �� a� � � Main Streat Cupertino F E H R Sz P E E RS BACKGROUND PEAK•HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES iRANSPO0.i�t70N CONSULiANIi ssp� zuue FIGURE 9 SJOB-1041 r� , s��, rt : , _ � Main Street Cupertino � �' ' , �. �, September 2008 : '°` � `� � � - ,� � � t � `�� p � ; `� � '� } �.�r . _. . .��:: � 4. PROJECT CONDITIONS The impacts of the two proposed project schemes (Scheme 1 and Scheme 2) on surrounding intersections and freeway segments are discussed in this chapter. Project Conditions are defined as existing traffic volumes, plus trips from approved but not yet constructed developments (Background Conditions), plus traffic generated by each of the proposed schemes. A comparison of intersection operations under Background and Project Conditions for each scheme is presented and the impacts of the project on the study intersections are discussed. The resulting intersection operations for the two schemes are also compared and differences, if any, are noted. Other circulation issues, such as non-automobile travel modes, site access from local roadways, and on- site circulation, are discussed in Chapter 5. PROJECT TRAFFIC ESTIMATES The amount of traffic added to the roadway system by the proposed project is estimated using a three- step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. The first step estimates the amount of traffic added to the roadway network. The second step estimates the direction of travel to and from the project site. The trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements in the third step. The results of the process for the proposed project are described in the following section. Trip Generation The amount of traffic generated by the two proposed schemes was estimated using �ates published in Trip Generation, 7` Edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2002) for Shopping Center (820), General Office (710), Senior Housing (252), and Hotel (310) land uses. Published trip generation rates for athletic clubs and similar facilities (i.e. fitness/health clubs) are based on a limited number of surveys and do not necessarily give an accurate estimate of traffic generated by facilities of the size of the proposed athletic club. Additionally, the data presented by ITE includes general fitness clubs, such as 24-hour Fitness, that offer fewer amenities then what is proposed at the Lifetime Fitness. In the absence of locally-collected data, Fehr & Peers compared various published athletic/health/fitness club trip generation rates (ITE and SanDAG) with trip generation information provided by Lifetime Fitness Centers and documented in a trip generation and parking design characteristics report prepared by TRC Engineers in 2007. This repo�t is included as Appendix E. Ultimately, the trip generation estimates used in this analysis were developed using trip rates and other ancillary data from the TRC Engineers repo�t. Lifetime Fitness has proposed capping the membership of the Cupertino club location at 9,000 members. Accordingly, this analysis uses a trip rate based on total club membership under the assumption that total membership has more influence over travel to and from the club than total building square footage, (i.e. finro clubs with memberships of 9,000 members would have the same trip generation even if one club was twice the size of the other club). This is generally substantiated by the trip generation report prepared by TRC Engineers. Where appropriate, trip reductions for mixed-use projects were applied according to VTA guidelines (VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, May 1998). The mixed-use reductions for retail/housing and hotel/retail mixed-uses were included in these trip estimates. These trips are considered internal to the site, so the reductions were taken off of the origin land use and reciprocal land use (i.e. those vehicle trips no longer exiting one land use would no longer enter the reciprocal land use). In addition, a 25 percent reduction for pass-by trips was applied to the retail use to account for vehicles that are already traveting on the roadways adjacent to the project site. A 20 percent reduction for pass-by 1 �§�:: �_�� ,� � _ .. A � �.= g= .�.� �. � ;,. FEHR & PEERS � ��'c�"� TRANSPORTATION tONSULTANTS �� '�: � � �� . . Y �rs �'�:.,;,:. . . . _. _ ,_ . . .� � �a _, u:s�.. ` �, .�.x°�� ;� � �� : � �:� Main Street Cupertino `��'� `� �£ � { �:-� �� ' September 2008 h � � � ��' .- ., _ TABLE 8 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour �and Use (ITE Code) Size Rate Total Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Scheme 1 — Reta�/Sho�pin9 Cerfter {820f 150 ksf 58:93 8,839 i;33 ;122 : 78 200 5.45 393 425 818 VTA Mixed-Use Reduction Hotel-Retail' (97) (3) (4) (7) (4) (5) (9) VT'AMixed-ilseReductlon Huusing-Reta�', . {72j :� (1� (�) .(2} (�) (1j {2) Pass-by Reduction 25% (2,210) (25) (25) (50) (103) (102) (205) Ne;.NewRefait.T[fps(;4 w 8,48ETr=° ,�93 48 `14f.; 285 317 .802. Office (710) 100 ksf 13.34 1,334 1.88 165 23 188 1.91 32 159 191 . ' VTA Ma�Bus Stop Reducfion, _ � {?� k : `; {4) : ..� f4) _+�4� . z` .: (� ) (3) (4? : (2°�)2 , � . � � . . � Net New O�ce Trips (8 1,307 161 23 184 31 156 187 SeniiuHousing-l�ttadted 25�� ..> >60urrits ,,3d$' . �; 55�' � .:t�;E)$ -8: , ��,7 ;`.1�, Qi,i, : _ 1#,: T 18' VTA Mixed Reduction (13%) Housing (72) (1) (1) (2) (1) (1) (2) lY�t New Resfdenbal �rips(C .��5� -<;' '` S' j'8< :,11 ': ' fU 6 16 Hotel (310) 150 rms 6.46 969 0.45 41 27 68 0.59 47 42 89 `� VTA Mlxed-Us+e Rerlucfiotr (lb'Yj' ° Hat�i=Ff�il' " :" ;F -�� r` ;��:(4) , {�) . {7)`��; (5), (4) �9) Net New Hotel Trips (D 872 37 24 61 42 38 80 'Ait►letl� Cluti"�frotn Lifietime fffnes�) ;0 " ' ` �:�'G3'7 =�v;7&i �1`�2't ':16�` „ `�130 ` �9t3 5�:�8` : 206 501 Pass-by Reduction 20% (1,157) (20%) (28) (28) (56) (20%) (48) (47) (95) �' - � 'Ne! ]V�w��4fli�tfc.d'i16 rri�`` �� ,:. �tlb �'� ��` ��23 157 380 ° Total Net New T�ips [A+g+�+p+E] 13,751 423 199 622 591 673 1,264 Scheme 2 — .�tetBilySfiti�sping Cente� (820);; :146 ksf :, 59.49 8;685 . � � , .1�Q ��8'; ��(98 5: '� ; :r386 418 : 804 , VTA Mixed-Use Reduction Hotel-Retail' (186) (5) (8) (13) (7) (8) (15) ��.. , :vr� �zed-use<�ed�ii�n. �aus�r��a'A� ;��' ��a�� =,��} z��" ;:��> - �r �2�: Pass-ayReauctia, 2s°io (z,�� zs> �2a� (49) (�o�� oi� �202> � �_ ;� ��: �et�f?" � _ � �'�k{ �,: ;3� �588; . �... ,._ . _ ��... <� . Office (710) 205 ksf 11.31 2,319 1.62 293 40 333 1.50 52 256 308 r�`�"A l�au�.�e�,s stoa t�educ�:►f?�3. '' � . , . y ', � a��:: -k ��3 . _ :�i�: -�� `;¢� � �� f : � t �� Net New Office Trips (8 2,273 287 39 326 51 251 302 � ��i-E�18iinrg-�l��ed �253•� ' ' _� �._� � -. _ , �;�{ � ` # �.- � - 7 % `;-�$ � ii�wi� . �, � ...: � ':a „ `- : VTAMixed-UseReduction(13%) Housing-Retail' (72) (1) (1) (2) (1) (1) (2) ��'' �� g ��erJ�wR�si�i5��+��s'� �": �-`�," � �,_��; ��i�1 - G .° �,� . v �- . �-�, e . ._. � , ._.. . . , � .. . Hotel (310) 250 rms 7.46 1,864 0.51 77 50 127 0.59 78 69 147 �, �� Miz�d=�se R�c�'��o��4Y _: � �c�f��_,. � � � �� : ,�gf.�� 1 �� -�� tf5�`, Net New Hotel Trips (D 1, 678 69 45 114 70 62 132 , ="k '�'t�°��'�fer*it�"Y"�ipli:[J`�B� `��;. �� :'"�33 � ,. :. ,�; �'�" �6�8' '�,636 Note: 1 Trips generated by the larger trip generator may be reduced by the same number of trips reduced for the smaller trip generator (VTA, 1998). 2 A major bus stop is defined by VTA as a stop at which six or more buses per hour from the same or different routes stop during the peak period (VTA, 1998). 3 Pass-by reduction taken per Lifetime Fitness Center Trip Generation Study (TRC Engineers, 2007). Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008 '-', : �° ,. .'� ' � *�� ., .�� $� FEHR Sz PEERS �� ` r � iRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ?�� < ; :�, r � �sn�. �=� _ - _ . �� .s s k .. � �:: - �� j �'.:t a ,�`C. � ., y __ - .� „ � :� � , .�� i I� � y � �w �� Main Street Cupertino �� .� { �� September 2008 � �=' � � +„� �. - , � 4 �y^ i iE.a�.� 5 1.. � .,. . a a . � ..v _ e s-. . � r^, . . . .. trips was applied to the trip generation estimates for the athletic club in the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. These trips are included in the analysis of traffic that enters and exits the project site, but are not considered "new° trips that are added to the street system by the project. For example, a passby trip might occur when someone who lives in Santa Clara and commutes to Cupertino to wo�k via Stevens Creek Boulevard visits the club on his/her way to work in the morning. Table 8 summarizes the trip generation estimates for the two schemes. Trip Distribution The directions of approach and departure for proposed project vehicle trips from all other land uses except the athletic club were estimated using the relative locations of complementary land uses and existing travel patterns in the area. Lifetime Fitness Center provided information about its membership at five (5) existing clubs and supplemented their data with a membership demographic analysis for the expected members of the Cupertino facility (Appendix E). Lifetime Fitness Centers cor�elated this membership demographic profile with the major routes of approach and departure to the site to develop a trip distribution that is specific to their proposed athletic club. Fehr & Peers reviewed this information. The major directions of approach and departure and the trip percentage distribution are illustrated on Figure 10. Trip Assignment The trips generated by the project were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure. Project trips were added to background tra�c volumes to establish intersection volumes for Project Conditions for each scheme. Our assignment assumes that the shared access driveway on the proposed Rose Bowl site is open at occupancy of this project. If it is not, then those trips would be assigned to other project entrances. Figure 11 shows the project-level traffic volumes for Scheme 1; Figure 12 shows the project-level traffic volumes for Scheme 2. PROJECT ROADWAY CHANGES The project proposes to narrow Vallco Parkway from six lanes (three in each direction) to two lanes (one in each direction). Levels of service under project conditions with the existing lane configuration are presented in this chapter. The next chapter presents an analysis of Vallco Parkway under the proposed narrowing configuration. The project conditions analysis inc�udes a shared driveway with the adjacent site (Rose Bowl) located immediately to the west of this project. If this driveway is not open, then project trips assigned to those shared entrances will use other ways to enter the project site. �� _ '�T..-� �� ^ . �''S: 3 y `Y"� q � .�. u�. .. x ? �.� � ��'� �3� 'R? FEHR � PEERS r��`�" ��' `� � : TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS �x�"� . . , � ..�' � ,"�� z�� .. _ . � ...... �s.�..� ,.......z....��u.e.,.�,az��$ 2 (3) [3] {1? 13 (4) [4] {1} 1 (2) [3] {1} ~� � Homestead Rd. v 10 (15) [10] {14} H 0 (0) [2] {3} � D > � m rn C N - C � Q � Q 4 (5) [4] {7} 2 (1) (2] {0} H � N NOT TO SCALE � Q N N m 2 (0) [1] {0} I 6 (3) [4] {10} I,5�4>�,°,{�°} I Io�,,�2,{,} � �� — � � � � ` N � � , � Q � a' N � � � 'p d �� Vallco Pkwy. �� E� �,� al �� Phil Ln. > > Q Q y � � � C /� 2 (2) [2] {1} Bollinger Rd, r 2�� 2� t� } j� c4, �6, c4} Ave x 3 a w � U C Qi 3 m �� I6��,�3,{6} � (3) [5] {4} ��3 (3) [2] {2} � (8) [10] {4} �y (25) [15j {10} I 2 (1) [2] {1} �I �2 (2) [2] {1} I 5 (6) [6] {18� � Main Street Cupertino F E H I� & P E E RS PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS sePCZOOa FIGURE 10 SJ08-1041 P a �2t5) o � f—p (2 � t � Homesi � I 2 �3� •� 15 (22)� N� 51 (63l-� I �_ m �2(t0) ` �-33(104) � m r-s�,or ns� P 68 (103) N ' � �-31 (44) 31t2)� � V �I 13154)-+ � o � FEHR �t PEERS iRANSYORiAiION [ONSULTANI3 Sept 2W8 s�os ioai 1 a r,s�zs> Homeslea ti �� 2 ( < � 26199)-�I � 25 (66)� - S 16 (26) 1 � Momestea 8(21)� r 8 (28) ' �c 1 p �4 (tl) bUlliili 1 I _ _ a �-8 ��9� � 3 F 3 tl (124 ) 1 6� r is�aoi e e � �°.�� « 7511t0)-+ a - ¢ _ _ - �l&1 b�llii 417) N 1 � ��ot�s� Prunentl r � r I I � - � < _ �-27 f80) _ t- 4b (134) � �. LL r ' �3i s�e.r,� c, P 38 1100)� 59 (54i�-+ I ♦ 6�. 11116i� f LEGEND: �y�.",z, = Prqect S�,te � = Suutn Va��l�u �.�� Master Ptai�. Fuc��Hre� _� O = Study If��b�bCL{iUll� XX �YY� = AM (PM) • P - ' �-�Ily� � t- 15L(iy41 r' � ~ 59 1541-'� � i c 221J5J—s ' 4��51-y w�-, N; � R- 5 1111 y f �— � ' nl ' � � �i � a � '1 i`.�1 •`-.. - i, 1.7 � �1 � 3 1.1�� rr Rn � r I f1J—� 714)-, � _ T y N NC)i TV �;(:f�lE ♦� J• ,r .� i�;i:�- y Main Streel Cupe�tino SCHEME 1 PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT FIGURE 11 � a �-1 (3) 0 3 t lz) 1 � Homasl II 2 (2) 19 (19)—� N m 55�4t)�I N _ ., o, �-2 (�i) ,`e t-76 (83) j m �2 ( � n � 60 (60) � �37 (37) ' (9) �ev n l;rpe� 11 (55�---► � FEHR �t PEERS fRAHSPORiAiION (ONSUIiAYiS Sep11U0tl SJ08-1U41 1 � �15117j Homeslea v � I 1 3 (4 � Q �n 23 (108)—►I ry 9 (45)� — � 15 (1�� 1 � Haneste� 5(21)—� r 4 (25)—i — _ Q p �1(41 Ballin I� _'� m t-di31� = � zo (io4� 1 "' r'7134) 1, 318— �i�re 6B (64)� �� 1 F � 1219' Pru eri�i 'r i � + e< • �i �io�-� — 1 � �r 13�it� I-tntl N8 F � LEGEND: �,,`�r;,;� = Project S�ite � = Soutn Vallcu 1 � � J Master Plan FocusArea " O = SWdy Intersectwns XX (YY) =AM (PM) � + � R.._. I'. in, ', � -J I ^I _ � � i �� \ . N NOT TO SCALE � c f i;i �'esi i�L Id�)__� R —U�_fl � 1121� ��1 i'.��tir �I M�in Street Cupertlna SCHEME 2 PROJECT TRIP ASS�GNMENT fIGURE 12 ' ' d ' ; . a� _ '. �� _' ' p � _ G K ° �=C L82(91) �m� ° �-24(�5) °��=' v �227�124) ° _ �-Bt(87) ' �131�57) - m �557�St[) �$,M ��--469(766) ` �� , d 8481575) rr `� � ry�t75(251� ^ 6 _ �r '�"^° �t491238) � �r �1641F,28) " r10315t;� �� I � � �r � � � Momesiead Rd. � � Homesteatl R0. � � � Hombs�ead Ro. � � � Pr�ner�a e n�a_ � � � Prunenac e �ve. � � i :HU ��B k, � 3721657)� � t � 44144)-f 131 174) r 123 (159)-� � 1 � 33 (38) � i � —'� � 464(612) 8751717) 4071774)-� ' 31(te) � I � 135197) � I � I 213(379)� 82175)-� a° 1441358)� 90188�-� G1f4�i� - -a r' o t - v y o'�" �°i R--163 (415) " a �-35 �B) - ,o �-:i 15) � j „o� 3f--i�is) ==°- p�-130(408) �,� �e(32) J r -s2 (��e) �ra, w3� '° �23 t2e� I � -280 SB Ram 5 � � � Vellco Pkw , � � � Vallto Pkw . � � � Drivewa 1 � vailco Pkw . 742 (337)-� � 32 (452)- � � � 2� (5) � 1 � 64 (187�- � � 0(20) n m o' 218 (314) d 22 �81—+ - 270(531)� 12�191)� 41(106)-� ¢ ° - 991"s49) -� - LEGEND: ,�+ �� = Pru�ect J�.le _ � _ $UU�h VBIICb 1 � � J MaSier Plan Focus Area O = Study intereecuuns XX (YY7 =AM lPM) � � _ ' _ � < _ �+; ¢ ' . � K � < � �' � v 1� � �` t °-L'-°_ � ti-1G1 L43 ? �. y� i'.3GI .. - 791821 ,"r� ,° y 75 (58) r' 11 f5'LJ 1` ) �---122211.3)5) �°- �,433 (1,593 Q E �--1 411 f1.363 � �� 83.i 1860) ,n - dyb �i.i�h) `$, � � m r124(243) `^" � ° �23(58) `� i N a �641121) i "� � r84(22G) � � c �r i� �� 1 �� + �� r � i t e�� C 'i ire Sleve��C�zer6�.�c 123 (169)-} � 1 r 48 (89)-� 1 1 (� 34 1167)� � t (� 415 (633)- � t � 05 (181)-� � � 760 (1,122) 891 (1.968) 9,05911,960) - 674 (1,133)--+ a - E59 (t 466�—� - 461tl4)-� °°' 4'L(501 �`�- t,�5�- -_ 72l'1;541 a � 1H1�t(iii�-� - = �,mN � _ -- - - � � � 3 o w � �-29212fi5) -- �--1.369 (1.281) � N ` A � m iev n Cree &.d. � -1tl0 56 593 (44�,--� � t I 0, ��-� i I BOS (1,698)—+ rv 375 (531)—s - m m c`�-, 228 (947)-� �� m�N � � FEHR St PEERS iRANSPOR1AilON CONSlI Sep12U08 SJOB-�041 m Q ; ►._[Ua1LI1'�; " '� 11i;1i � �� r e i i � y r 189 �L9G)-} R � � � 5�31�,53:�)—► _ ��iyyi- -== Iaf 7\ `8 � _ � i N NOT TU SCAL[ tr: ¢ ♦ 4 �,7U5�i ' 1 t' � .._ �� 11 5(i�� ,� 1 �. ` .� � ,�� EiSy 11 0&%I--� I t:f5` (1 hJl,l--� sai iar�z�- ♦ - - � m � _ � p G _ d _ _ Y r < � < -- � �-396(J00) c R -�:16(1101 --- y �-208C114j � �-iB0(881 -- w �'-255(5'11 -- �. L1415;f) ,' � a �--76 (108) --- `n �556 (685) ° �4501628) - - - �678 f956) - �--457 �444i ' _ o E �— 111 laU7� p�iFiO(264) n i� 1D �r � � � �r 1 � � W � ��Di1551 `�' i� 4 � 4;1I107�, �ti � � ballinun� NU. � � � Bt�lliii 5r HU. � � � Bullin er F2a. " y ~ 9�illrti vi Ha. � + � N1i,ar;,irhHre � + � Vell�o Phrv . 1221t19) � i (� 25155�-� 1 � 1U3 t118)1 � 1� 9a 195).-1 eoll��i e R�. �, � } � � 55 (80) 385 (635� " 441 16931 ' - 700 �y801-+ 'y� I� 1 I� �.�4 ��;-- 12138) 34 (91)-� -="-^ 34 (821� !Oy {6E,71—� 7471`[b2)—+ _ _ 11 n' mn� --! 5/�77�;�._� _ _ :fGl`.li-�1 _ � �c .- .- n o, _ `� . . Main Street Cupertino SCHEME 1 PROJECT PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 13 3 �— � � d L�6 (69) n � t24 (15) o � � d �227 (124) � � d � (87) _ _ ' � 131 (57� �' t-547 (507) � � 3 �--4631740) � � N Q � (1.106) N 815 (611) o ° � � � (601 � n � � (251) N � _ � �; � r207 (427) �148 (229) I I � �328 (373) I � 16a (62B) i � � (521 ° �b1917i4) ; L' N�� l � � 1 � � � � 1 1 1� � + � � t ` Pruner�a a nve. �� _ ♦ Ho es�eatl RQ Homeslead ft0. R Home5tea0 Rtl. Prunena e Ave. I-1tl0 NB Ham 4 123 ( I I� 33 (38�J� .� I� 335 (492)� I I� �( I I� 131 ( � I� I I 1 r�.,:�,.,�.r 438 (602) o, o� 786 (674) v ,* 404 (815)� 31 (18) - 135197) ��y � 217 (376)� ^ ° 83175�-� a �°,� ^ � 130 (270)-y _ _ 90 (88)� _ _ 61 (43)� _ _ _m in - ' � N�N F m �� _ � ' 3 � � `� � ':� rx m.a � � \ • � m �^� _ G � � ° m R-156 (398) 3 R-39 (8) - ' �31 � � rnm(°o^ �� --1(tfi) "'°°- S�-it6(394) ��`-° � ---8 ( 32 ) N � �52 (176) j 11 i r42 (43) I ��23 (28) � -280 SB Ram s �� Vallco Pkw . �• L Vallco Pkw . 1 � Dnvewa } Vallm Pkw . 732 (327)� r � 321452) � r � 2� (5)� � I � 51 (175)- � � � 0 (201 233 (257) ,� ' 22 (6�-+ '� 272 (494)--� v � 12 (191)� 481105)� a' °-' - 72 (312)� � _- m � $�m � ° _ ,.� LEGEND: • � \ �� = Project Site o �� = SoWh Vanco � _ � Master Plan - focus Area O = SWdy I� Intersecuons _ � XX (YYI =AM �PM) _ ' N NUT TU S(:ALE is., d� i<. -- T °�� ¢' <i ¢' � m N m � vma m �.i5y12J31 i a �-95(115� �2USllu'[� "� T � =.= w �-791831 � ° � 75 (98) � _ � it (52) v �, - � _ �- . i � t ;�f:f � �f�,J �:� � :�. w�--1.205(1,754) �°-` ��t,415(1.57[ y tt-1393(1.3�3, amc°•� sw w o' 8 �l 1��1 � N5 t�l�i�_r � � ` � m �123(242) '"^O � �23(58) `i + i' a �ti4(111) I � � � BILZ`7� i �r 17J11 i� � � � f d 11i4i _ � i5 �t i � .� j L •� � 1 tek '� ` s�z.� ��,� � .� j �. � .� . �.. 7� 1 Sfi 172-�I ,� 19011v11 �} I�rn R 123 (t 9)1 � t I 4B (89)� �. }� �r ek � 34 �1ti71--'� � r � i20 (fi38� � �1 � l 7 � ' I `: ,r 752 1,679 "" 884 (1,9221-► I 1,052 (1,914)--� 66411,080)-+ � ' 66611 AdS�-. 5�911,538�-� u55 i.ue�;i-+ i�.3��t �, ti:f�;;-+ 46 84 � � 42150) �' a 6�5�-� -_ 72 (23u)-� � iO - 181 (1011-y 2� 157i- y - :S[H (aJUI --� l 1 "� " � _'- v ' � __ r � � 1 `- �; _ _° " _eo y � " z mo x m m ti< i R-292(285) __ -mC �395(300) nN m L1361110) Ri m�-2�8(1i4) __� R -1dtlItl11 i�-155�v�) �-� -�- t�l�`+[� � f-1 375 (1.27�) c` m N i?,`� � f �c a n-, `v a--5531685) , � o ' J9016 ft} P m � 195�;1 � 4 ti 14dei � y� f.i�iUi � �o � � � p �157(2fi�1 � L m `91f175� ;' j i s�tl5(iG1� J �� - IVU�� ) 1I �r al,(�Oii Iaven �eehBl� . -280 SB Ham . � Boll�n erfta. � Bcll�in er Hn. �� `� B.II n er Ha. I �~ 8aiin H�I ��~ hi .. >> �•�� v..i�o Pkw�� R } 1 � � 6�I,iii er HJ. !� .i 591 (J371� � 1 r B1 (77�� 1� 722 (119)- � 25155)-1 I I I tti3 (1121-'� I 1 � 94195�-• �U i�aU� ._ �� _! �a iSLr� '� � I • 803 (1.699)�-► 372 (540)� 55 �B(1) :1tlV (ti30)�-+ ' J47 �i�tlsl • /uV iyHO�--� - 12 38 :t4 (91) - ' ' 3J 1821- :Iri i tih) � ('L2J�-�� 212f926)� - ( ) - ♦ ♦ _ _ Jl'�,7��-- - f�il�ai��-� mr� - f ' ' �,..c, -ti � Main Street Cupertino SCHEME 2 F E H R S� P E E RS PROJECT PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES fAAxSPOR�AiION CON511�tANIS FIGURE 14 Sepl 2WB SJ08 1U41 � .� A ` � �i� , ,�, �� I ° � ��v � � Main Street Cupertino .� � ` ' September 2008 �� \ ��, �`d f �+z �� . . � � �� 2 �� . . .. , w.a �" ss..vr.e ,. . a PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection levels of service were calculated with the net traffic added by each of the proposed project schemes to evaluate the operating conditions of the intersections and identify potential impacts to the locat roadway system. The results of the LOS calculations for Background and Project Conditions for both schemes are presented in Table 9. The calculation worksheets are included in Appendix B. TABLE 9 PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Background Scheme 1(S1) Scheme 2(S2) Peak � in Crit � in Crit � in Crit � in Crit Intersection Hour� Delay LOS' Delay LOS V/C Delay Delay LOS' VlC Delay 1. Wolfe Road / AM 27.5 C 27.6 C 0.002 -0.1 27.6 C 0.000 -0.1 Homestead Road pM 35.1 D+ 36.4 D+ 0.035 2.6 36.3 D+ 0.030 2.4 2. Homestead Road / AM 22.g C+ 23.4 C 0.011 0.8 23.2 C 0.006 0.6 Tantau Avenue pM 26.4 C 2g.1 C 0.024 1.7 27.6 C 0.017 1.2 3. Homestead Road / AM 86.4 F 89.8 F 0.011 6.3 89.1 F 0.011 5.2 Lawrence Expy PM 111.1 F 118.6 F 0.019 9.8 117.5 F 0.015 8.6 4. Wolfe Road ! AM 20.6 B- 20.4 C+ 0.006 0.0 20.5 C+ 0.004 0.0 Pruneridge Avenue PM 38.8 D+ 39.2 D 0.021 1.0 39.2 D 0.026 1.2 5. Pruneridge Avenue AM 22.3 C+ 22.5 C+ 0.019 0.2 22.5 C+ 0.012 0.1 / Tantau Avenue pM 21.9 C+ 22_5 C+ 0.062 0.6 22.3 C+ 0.055 0.5 6. Wolfe Road / 1-280 AM 15.2 B 15.3 B 0.001 0.0 15.3 B -0.001 0.0 Northbound Rampss PM 13.9 B 14.3 B 0.028 0.6 14.2 B 0.020 0.4 7. Wolfe Road / I-280 AM 14.0 B 14.1 B 0.017 0.2 14.1 B 0.011 0.1 SB Ramps PM 9.4 A 10.3 B+ 0.077 1.4 9.9 A 0.061 0.8 8. Wotfe Road / Vallco AM 20.4 C+ 24.3 C 0.054 5.4 24.5 C 0.057 5.8 Parkway PM 53.1 D- 68.4 E 0.082 30.2 65.6 E 0.073 27.5 9. Vallco Parkway / AM 11.0 B 13.5 B 13.6 g T• .�... • Finch Avenue pM 12.2 B 26.8 D z" ""'`� 23.9 C � '�'� '"`' s�" t�'�'? � €� 10. Vallco Parkway / AM 18.1 B- 19.6 B- 0.008 1.0 18.7 B- 0.002 -0.1 Tantau Avenue PM 202 B- 25.3 C 0267 6.3 22.5 C+ 0.200 2.7 11. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 31.7 C 32.2 C- 0.013 0.7 32.1 C- 0.011 0.6 / De Anza Blvd PM 44.9 D 46.5 D 0.017 2.5 46.1 D 0.011 1.6 12. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 2g.0 C 29.0 C 0.010 0.2 29.1 C 0.007 0.4 / Blaney Avenue PM 29.9 C 30.2 C 0.037 0.9 302 C- 0.024 0.7 13. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 14.3 B 13.9 B 0.007 -0.2 14.0 B 0.004 -0.1 / Portal Avenue pM 132 B 12.8 B 0.025 -0.3 12.9 B 0.015 -0.1 14. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 10.0 A g.g A 0.003 0.0 9.8 A 0.000 0.0 / Perimeter Road PM 17.4 B- 16.9 B 0.024 -0.4 17.0 B 0.015 -0.1 15. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 38.7 D 38.5 D+ 0.009 0.1 38.6 D+ 0.005 0.1 / Wolfe Rd-Millers PM 40.1 D 41.3 D 0.044 1.9 41.2 D 0.039 1.6 w� � "-a. . .� c �°'` �'�°- � ., r.< � N � � � �� , FEHR & PEERS � � y= � ;� �=. TRANSPORTAiION CONSULTANiS ;�'��:.� �� .. �� . ;.. _ . _ _ ., �._� .�.. :�� - -�c '�� . .. _ � R � � .. � �� Main Street Cupertino �� >�� ,� ` September 2008 ��.��' � � - ;�� ;�: �� , _. .. .. TABLE 9 PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Background Scheme 1(S1) Scheme 2(S2) Peak � in C�it � in Crit -� in Crit � in C�it Intersection Hour� Delay LOS Delay LOS' V/C` Delay Delay LOS V/C Delay 16. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 37.6 D 38.4 D+ 0.020 0.1 37.9 D 0.019 -0.2 / Finch Avenue PM 27.0 C 38.0 D+ 0.076 7.0 36.0 D+ 0.067 6.5 17. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 23.0 C+ 23.7 C 0.094 1.7 23.8 C+ 0.092 1.9 / Tantau Avenue PM 25.0 C 29.8 C 0.091 5.5 28.5 C 0.080 4.5 18. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 28.5 C 27.4 C 0.001 0.2 27.6 C -0.010 -0.1 / 1-280 Ramps 6 PM 552 E+ 78.3 E- 0.108 49.7 77.9 E- 0.104 47.4 19. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 23.1 C+ 23.8 C 0.040 1.1 23.9 C 0.044 1.2 /LawrenceExpy(W) PM 32.4 C- 33.5 C- 0.053 2.4 33.1 C- 0.034 1.4 20. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 37.9 O+ 38.7 D+ 0.024 0.8 38.7 D+ 0.025 0.8 /Lawrence Expy(E) 6 pM 33.7 C- 34.9 C- 0.043 1.0 34.5 C- 0.029 0.7 21. Lawrence Expy / I- AM 53.7 D- 61.4 E 0.032 8.9 60.5 E 0.028 7.9 280 SB Ramps 6 PM 54.2 D- 69.6 E 0.069 21.0 69.6 E 0.067 20.7 22. Bollinger Road / De AM 31.3 C 33.6 C- 0.051 3.2 33.6 C- 0.049 3.2 Anza Boulevard 6 PM 36.9 D+ 37.3 D+ 0.013 0.5 37.0 D+ 0.006 0.2 23. Bollinger Road / AM 20.0 B- 21.0 C+ 0.033 1.5 21.2 C+ 0.038 1.8 Blaney Avenue pM 21.2 C+ 21.6 C+ 0.016 0.9 21.5 C+ 0.014 0.9 24. Bollinger Road / AM 33.6 C- 33.9 C- 0.013 0.5 33.9 C- 0.013 0.5 Miller Avenue pM 38.4 D+ 39.3 D 0.019 0.7 38.9 D+ 0.018 0.5 25. Bollinger Road / AM 12.6 B 12.8 B 0.000 0.1 12.7 B 0.001 0.1 Tantau Avenue PM 16.4 B 172 B 0.004 0.8 17.1 B 0.003 0.6 26. Boltinger Road / AM 51.5 D- 53.5 D- 0.017 5.0 53.7 D- 0.014 5.9 Lawrence Expy 6 PM 54.7 D- 55.3 E+ 0.014 1.6 54.9 D- 0.007 0.3 27. Vallco Parkway / AM 19,4 B- 162 B -0.006 -2.7 16.0 B -0.004 -2.9 Perimeter Road PM 20.0 B- 21.0 C+ 0.003 12 20.3 C+ -0.014 0.0 Notes: 1 AM = morning peak-hour, PM = evening peak-hour. 2 Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized intersections using method described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. For two-way stop controlled unsignalized intersections, total control delay for the worst movement, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is presented. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX 7.9 level of service analysis software package. 3 LOS = Level of service 4 Change in the critical volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) between Background and Project Conditions. 5 Change in critical movement delay between Background and Project Conditions. A decrease in the critical delay indicates project trips were added to movements with low delays thus causing a decrease in the overall critical delay. 6 Designated CMP intersection. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008. ; rs � ��,�: �� , � �: �,��a .. � � � -� � � �� FEHR & PEERS �`� ��` �' �� a �� r TRANSPORTATION CONSUITANTS - `� ��§� � , .. . ' ' '�� ,.r�'�;�;-. s;� .. � � � -.:� � _ v ,r�� ,�,., . �` ` �`,�,. A� I� Main Streef Cupertino �� ` September 2008 '� � �x � �.; � � : �� w.��...�� .�' . �� INTERSECTION IMPACT CRITERIA The impacts of the project were evaluated by comparing the results of the level of service calculations under Project Conditions to the results under Background Conditions. City of Cupertino, City of San Jose, and City of Santa Clara A significant project impact to a City of Cupertino, City of San Jose, City of Santa Clara, or County of Santa Clara signalized intersection occurs if the project results in one of the following: • Operations at a signalized intersection deteriorate from LOS D or better under Background Conditions to LOS E or F under Project Conditions; or ■ Exacerbation of unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) at a signalized intersection by increasing the average critical delay by four (4) seconds or more and increasing the volume- to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more. • Operations at the De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard or De Anza Boulevard/Bollinger Road intersection to be LOS E or worse with more than 60 seconds of average vehicle weighted delay; or • Exacerbation of unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) at the De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard or De Anza Boulevard/Bollinger Road intersection by increasing the average critical delay by four (4) seconds or more and increasing the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more. For this analysis, traffic impacts at unsignalized intersections occur when the addition of project traffic causes: • Intersection operations to deteriorate from an acceptable level unde� Background Conditions (LOS E or better) to an unacceptable level (LOS F or worse) and the MUTCD Peak Hour Warrant is met under Project Conditions; or • The exacerbation of operations at an unsignalized intersection already operating at an unacceptable level (LOS F or worse) under Background Conditions and the MUTCD Peak Hour Warrant is met under Project Conditions. Valley Transportation Authority (CMP) Significant impacts at CMP intersections located within the City of Santa Clara occur when the addition of project traffic causes one of the following: • Operations degrade from an acceptable level (LOS E or better) under Background Conditions to an unacceptable level (LOS F) under Project Conditions. ■ Unacceptable operations are exacerbated by increasing the critical delay by more than 4 seconds and increasing the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more. ■ The V/C ratio increases by 0.01 or more at an intersection with unacceptable operations (LOS E or F) when the change in critical delay is negative (i.e., decreases). This can occur if the critical movements change. The Cities of Cupe�tino and San Jose follow their respective impact criteria for CMP intersections. >,u, r , �� s z LL > ��3s .�� ,.�� Y FEHR & PEERS � �t'� � ; �� TRANSPORtATIOM CONSULTANTS � ?�^�� ...� � , r� ��?� � } �� Main Sfreet Cupertino ' , � �" September 2008 ' ; -�- - ; , - _ . _ _ �� ' . K�� =��v � _ . . .. . INTERSECTION IMPACTS Impacts under each scheme were identified using the significance criteria identified in the previous section. Scheme 1 The addition of traffic associated with Scheme 1 will cause a significant impact to occur at the following intersections: • Lawrence Expressway / Homestead Road (AM and PM peak hours) • Vallco Parkway / Wolfe Road (PM peak hour) • Lawrence Expressway / I-280 Southbound Ramps-Calvert Drive (AM and PM peak hours) • Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue / Lawrence Expressway (PM peak hour) Scheme 1 will have a less-than-significant impact at the other 23 study intersections. Scheme 2 The addition of traffic associated with Scheme 2 will cause a significant impact to occur at the following intersections: ■ Lawrence Expressway / Homestead Road (AM and PM peak hours) ■• Vallco Parkway / Wolfe Road (PM peak hour) ■ Lawrence Expressway / 1-280 Southbound Ramps-Calvert Drive (AM and PM peak hours) Scheme 2 will have a less-than-significant impact at the other 24 study intersections. SIGNAL WARRANTS Peak hour signal warrants at the intersection of Vallco Parkway/Finch Avenue were conducted to determine if traffic volumes under either scheme would warrant the signalization of the intersection. Signal warrants were not met under either scheme; therefore, the proposed project does not significantly impact this intersection. Warrant sheets are included in Appendix C. INTERSECTION MITIGATION MEASURES Improvements were identified at the impacted intersections to mitigate any impacts back to a less-than- significant level. Lawrence Expressway / Homestead Road — Both project schemes increase the AM and PM peak-hour delays by more than four seconds to this intersection operating at unacceptable LOS F under Background Conditions. The addition of a third westbound through lane would improve overall delay and reduce the impact to a non-significant Ieve1. Intersection operations would return to LOS E in the AM peak hour Z The addition of a third eastbound lane on Homestead Road was identified as a Tier 1 C improvement in the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway completed in 2003. The report footnoted that the improvement would not improve projected 2025 LOS from F to LOS E or better. �°� � "` ��..�:�� m � .'.�-� �` c � - .Yu..r FEHR SZ. PEERS � `� ' s� .� , � ' TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS �� , � ;� �°� �� ,. ' .� � ,.:. '`a�..., . �� ii'�'I -. , ., � x � � Main Street Cupertino µ� �� " _ ! � September 2008 �� ._�.��'.'�' .. �.: a under both Schemes. During the PM peak hour overall delay would be reduced to less than Background Conditions in both Schemes but the intersection would still operate at LOS F. This mitigation would require significant right-of-way acquisition and the relocation of existing utilities at the intersection. This intersection is controlled and maintained by the County of Santa Clara and any improvements need to be approved and implemented by the County. Therefore, the impact at this intersection is considered significan t-and-una voidable. Vallco Parkway / Wolfe Road — Both project schemes degrade the level of service at the intersection to LOS E during the PM peak hour. The following three (3) mitigation measures were identified as potential improvements to return intersection operations to acceptable levels of service. Mitiqation Option #1 — Maintaining the existing intersection configuration, but installing a westbound right- turn overlap phase would mitigate the project-level impact under both schemes to a less-than-significant level. The intersection would operate at LOS D with no more than 44.2 seconds of average delay under either Scheme. Mitiqation Option #2 — The addition of a second, westbound right-turn lane would improve project-level intersection operations to an acceptable level of service and mitigate the project-level impact to a/ess- than-significant level. The additional turn lane could be accommodated by re-striping the existing westbound through lane as a shared-through-right turn lane. The intersection would operate at LOS D with no more than 50.8 seconds of average delay under either Scheme. Mitiqation Option #3 — Permissive phasing on the eastbound and westbound approaches would reduce average vehicle delay and improve the operations to LOS D+ during the PM peak hour under both schemes (no greater than 38.1 seconds of average delay). Operations would improve slightly in the AM peak hour. This change mitigates the project-level impact under both schemes to less-than-significant levels. Lawrence Expressway / l-280 Southbound Ramps-Calverf Drive — Major improvements at this intersection were identified in the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway completed in 2003, including a Caltrans PSR for this interchange (Tier 1 C project). The PSR is currently unfunded; however, an additional northbound through lane would mitigate the project impact to a less-than-significant level and was identified as a Tier 1A project. This intersection is controlled by the County and the applicant will need to coordinate with the lead agency to determine the appropriate mitigation at this location. Therefore, this impact would be considered significant-and-unavoidable because the City of Cupertino has no authority to implement any improvements at this location. Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue/Lawrence Expressway — The Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study for Lawrence Expressway completed in 2003 identified the widening of Lawrence Expressway from six-lanes to eight-lanes between Moorpark/Bollinger and Calvert as a Tier 1 A improvement. This improvement would mitigate the projecYs impact to a less-than-significant level of service. However, this intersection is controlled by the County of Santa Clara and the applicant will need to coordinate with the lead agency to determine the appropriate mitigation at this location. Therefore, this impact would be considered significant-and-unavoidable because the City of Cupertino has no authority to implement any improvements at this location. PROJECT FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Project-generated traffic volumes were added to existing 2007 traffic volumes for each freeway mainline segment. These volumes were then used to estimate density for each segment under Project Conditions. The resulting freeway segment operations are presented in Table 10. All traffic associated with the two schemes was assumed to use the mixed-flow lanes on the freeway; therefore, HOV lanes were not analyzed under Project Conditions. '; ;,:; §��;�� - , a� �: . `'�" �� ; � �. � �� . FEHR � PEERS � �� 7 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS s � '�'��` � �� , __._.. _��.�� - � ," �` �� '�� Main Streef Cuperfino , ,,� ��`�>ri Sepfember 2008 '��' *' � �. � _ �. `.` . �'�� TABLE 10 PROJECT-LEVEL FREEWAY SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Peak Added % Added °/a F�om To Hou� Density� LOS Trips' Density' LOS Impact Trips Density� LOS Impact Eastbound 1-280 SR 85 De Anza AM 27 D 59 27 D 0.86 61 27 D 0.88 PM 32 D 75 32 D 1.09 45 32 D 0.65 De Anza Wolfe AM 32 D 52 32 D 0.75 55 32 D 0.80 PM 67 F 66 68 F 0.96 41 68 F 0.59 AM 22 C 3 22 C 0.04 3 22 C 0.04 Wolfe Lawrence PM 76 �F 14 76 F 0.20 14 76 F 0.20 AM 38 D 30 38 D 0.43 26 38 D 0.38 Lawrence Saratoga PM 98 F 113 101 F 1.64 122 101 F 1.77 Saratoga Winchester AM 43 D 30 43 D 0.43 22 43 D 0.32 PM 86 F 113 88 F 1.64 104 88 F 1.51 AM 27 D 26 27 D 0.38 19 27 D 028 Winchester I-880 PM 104 F 90 106 F 1.30 88 106 F 1.28 Westbound 1-280 I-880 Winchester AM 94 F 62 95 F 0.90 71 95 F 1.03 PM 73 F 74 74 F 1.07 51 74 F 0.74 AM 65 F 78 66 F 1.13 84 66 F 1.22 Winchester Saratoga PM 55 E 87 56 E 126 60 56 E 0.87 Saratoga Lawrence AM 74 F 78 75 F 1.13 99 75 F 1.43 PM 29 D 87 29 D 1.26 70 30 D 1.01 Lawrence Wolfe AM 68 F 15 68 F 0.22 23 68 F 0.33 PM 27 D 11 27 D 0.16 11 27 D 0.16 AM 50 E 24 50 E 0.35 15 50 E 022 Wolfe De Anza PM 37 D 77 37 D 1.12 74 37 D 1.07 De Anza SR 85 AM 60 F 27 60 F 0.39 16 60 F 0.23 PM 25 C 83 25 C 120 77 25 C 1.12 Notes: ' Measured in passenger cars per mile per lane. Density is calculated by using the travel speed from the adjacent segment, as well as the volume (flow) from the adjacent segment adjusted by the volume entering/exiting the freeway at the interchange. 2 LOS = level of service. 3 Project trips added during the peak hour. Significant impacts are shown in bold typeface. Source: VTA, April 2008; and Fehr 8 Peers, 2008. Project Freeway Impacts and Mitigation Measures The impacts of the two project schemes were evaluated by comparing the results of the level of service calculations under Projects Conditions to the results under Existing Conditions. Significant impacts to � -.. �� - � t �� -� � � � „_�'„� � . : � _ "� ��. ,;� �� . � �' � � FEHR � PEERS t�� . � TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS #�,-'� �� _ � � �� _ . . . . S,, � � - ..,I��iP ��R, � � ' �e1 � � � — � � 49° Main Street Cupertino �E y � �� September 2008 � � } ?� - � �� .:.' �° �r'� � _. __-,n' ,� ,.... _, � � freeway segments are defined to occur when the addition of project-related traffic causes one of the following: ■ A segment to drop below its acceptable CMP operating standard (LOS E); or, • The project traffic added to a segment operating at LOS F is more than one (1) percent of its capacity. Based on the significance criteria, the proposed schemes will have significant impacts on the following freeway segments: Scheme 1 Scheme 1 will have a significant impact on the following six (6) segments of I-280: ■ Eastbound between Lawrence Expressway and I-880 (3 Segments; PM peak hour) • Westbound between Winchester Boulevard and Lawrence Expwy (2 Segments; AM peak hour) • Westbound between I-880 and Winchester Bouleva�d (1 Segment; PM peak hour) Scheme 2 Scheme 2 will have a significant impact on the following six (6) segments of I-280: ■ Eastbound between Lawrence Expressway and I-880 (3 Segments; PM peak hour) • Westbound between I-880 and Lawrence Expressway (3 Segments; AM peak hour) According to VTA policy direction, the mitigation measure for regional freeway impacts is participation in the Countywide Deficiency Plan (CDP) prepared by the VTA. The CDP has not received final approval; therefore, the mitigation of freeway impacts cannot be guaranteed since Cupertino does not have legal authority to mitigate freeway impacts. Pending adoption of the CDP, the Lead Agency for a development project must include programs or facilities delineated in the "Immediate Implementation Action LisY' (Appendix D to the Draft CDP) as part of the projecYs approval if the freeway impact cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Measures from the list (see Appendix F for the full list) that are appropriate for this project include: • Improve Pedestrian Facilities (A-4) • HOV parking preference program (G-1) • Shuttle (6-3) • Bike facilities at development projects (G-2) • Bus Stop Improvements (B-8) • Pedestrian circulation system (G-4) • Traffic signal timing and synchronization program (F-3) While implementation of these measures would incrementally reduce traffic, they would not reduce the identified impact to a less-than-significant level. Full mitigation of freeway impacts is considered beyond the scope of an individual project; thus, the addition of project traffic results in a significant-and- unavoidable impact to the all of the freeway segments listed above. �� ` �'� _ f �� j :� <: � .,. � .,� � ,�, ,, ; _ _ , .,', _.� # � � �� r , �� FEHR � PEERS i` ;a�� ,: TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS k, �� . r ._ a _.� � _.v,�.�:,`'.+.'.� , �` - ��.� �° � '�� .*� �{ ' A � � V` . Main Street Cupertino ' � ��'�- September 2008 s� � �� , _ �� -� �� . , 5. SITE ACCESS AND LQCAL CIRCULATION The Main Street Cupe�tino project is different in character when compared other retail developments along Stevens Creek Boulevard. As shown in the previous chapter, the project will generate a substantial number of new vehicular trips; however, the projecYs design is incorporating a number of elements that facilitate pedestrian and bicycle activity in the area. As such, these elements will likely affect vehicular travel on the surrounding roadways. This chapter discusses the project's site plan, as well as the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities in the area, and potential impacts to roadway operations along the key travel corridors near the project site — Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road, and Vallco Parkway. The projecYs impact to operations along Tantau Avenue will be localized at its intersections with Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Parkway; therefore, it was not analyzed separately. SITE ACCESS The site plans showing the location of the project driveways and the internal circulation system are presented on Figures 2 and 3 for Schemes 1 and 2, respectively. The site has good vehicular access with driveways on Vallco Parkway, Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue. In addition to the access provided at Finch Avenue, the project has two right-turn only driveways located on Stevens Creek Boulevard and one full-access and one pa�tial access (no left-turns out) driveway located on Vallco Parkway. Secondary access to the site is provided by a driveway connecting the project site with adjacent development to the west (Rose Bowl). Scheme 2 also has a third (right turn only) driveway located on Vallco Parkway that would provide access to the parking garage located under the office building located on the eastern portion of the site. These driveways provide adequate capacity for vehicles to enter and exit the project site. Additional access to the site is provided by a right-turn only driveway on Vallco Parkway that is shared with the adjacent Rose Bowl site. Drivers exiting this driveway and planning to head west would have to make a U-turn at Finch Avenue. If U-turns are allowed, the width of the eastbound travel lanes plus any median, shoulder, or bike lane should be at least 30 feet wide to accommodate a full-size passenger vehicle. Drivers leaving this driveway to head west will not be able to make an eastbound U-turn at the Vallco Parkway/Finch Avenue intersection if the roadway is narrowed to two lanes because adequate width would not be provided. We recommend that a"No U-turn" sign be installed at this intersection. Exiting vehicles destined for Wolfe Road will have to use Finch Avenue, Stevens Creek Boulevard, or the Rose Bowl access that provides direct access to Wolfe Road and westbound Vallco Parkway through the Rose Bowl site. (Note: This driveway was assumed to be constructed regardless of construction status at the Rose Bowl site. If the driveway is not constructed prior to or in conjunction with this project, some traffic may redistribute itself to adjacent intersections; however, it will not significantly change the findings of this repo�t.) PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES As discussed in the Existing Conditions chapter, sidewalks currently exist along Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Sidewalks are provided along the north side of Vallco Parkway, as well as on the east side of Tantau Avenue. The project is proposing to construct sidewalks along Vallco Parkway and the west side of Tantau Avenue. On-site pedestrian facilities are discussed later in the text under on-site circulation. ��,� �� ; , � •�; � • � .�_ { � , z � �� ,e,� FEHR �t PEERS �';�� TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS -. >� �� s 3 r�, � .. .�,F�` _. -: � ��..4,. t v�w « �9 ,; _t_.._ �� ... . . ��:� d �' ; � � ` °?,��' = t � i � -�"`� �>� 'i �# � i Main Street Cupertino ; ��^ � ..' � �� September 2008 �:�� - . ' �� . � .... � k �pe� 3 : � � - .a�_� � . ., ��,~ _ . ... . _.. �. - Pedestrian Impact Criteria The General Plan for the City of Cupertino identifies existing pedestrian networks and identifies any improvements and/or related policies necessary to ensure that these facilities are safe and effective for City residents. Using the General Plan as a guide, significant impacts to pedestrian facilities would occur when a project or an element of the project: ■ creates a hazardous condition that currently does not exist for pedestrians, or otherwise interferes with pedestrian accessibility to the site and adjoining areas; or • creates substantial increase in demand for pedestrian facilities where none currently exist or creates conditions that would lead to overcrowding on existing facilities; or • conflicts with an existing or planned pedestrian facility; or • conflicts with policies related to pedestrian activity adopted by the City of Cupertino for their respective facilities in the study area. Potential Impacts to Pedestrians Potential Impact #1 — Increased Demand: The proposed p�oject will potentially create additional demand for pedestrian facilities where none currently exist. No sidewalks exist along the project site's frontage on Vallco Parkway or Tantau Avenue. To accommodate pedestrians in these locations, the project should provide sidewalks in along its frontage on Vallco Parkway and Tantau Avenue to provide safe pedestrian access to the project site from the surrounding areas. We recommend extending the sidewalk along the west side of Tantau Avenue towards north across I- 280. To encourage walk trips to the project site, we recommend that a sidewalk be provided along the west side of Tantau Avenue between Vallco Parkway and P�uneridge Avenue. This will require construction of a raised sidewalk on the existing bridge, where the existing cross-section includes 60 feet of pavement with the following configuration: two southbound travel lanes, a two-way center left-turn lane, one northbound lane and bike lanes in both directions. The bridge section could be modified to accommodate the following: • 8-foot new sidewalk (on west side of bridge) • 6-foot bike lane • 12-foot vehic�e lane • 16-foot painted median • 12-foot vehicle lane • 6-foot bike lane Left-turn lanes at the ends of the bridge could be provided within the painted median. Since the lane configurations at the Pruneridge Avenue/Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway/Tantau Avenue intersections are expected to operate acceptably, the removal of the second southbound vehicle lane will not cause any capacity problems. The project will create demand for pedestrian facilities at the intersection of Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue. A suggested gateway pedestrian treatment at this location is a raised intersection. This treatment would cover the entire intersection, with an incline on all approaches. This type of intersection �'�� r � s � � �� `� . �, :s '� x � . � �' 4 hfi '''S,}'�'� . FEHR & PEERS �� . TRANSPORTATION CONSULTAN7S ` �;.y`� � � `_.� ` , ,-� . � � . .T''- Y4 �4 _ ��t� � Main Sfreet Cuperfino s � � b �� °�' � Se tember 2008 � �� '�� p � �� , �. � . . 1 � t;�' .... � . . .. ,. _ .. _? . . �n i . '�?� . is typically treated with a textured pattern of stamped asphalt or concrete. The inclined approaches usually rise to sidewalk level, or slightly below to provide a lip for the visually impaired. By modifying this intersection, the crosswalks are more readily perceived by motorists to be a pedestrian area. A raised intersection has traffic calming benefits but can create a challenge for bicyclists and can be more difficult to maintain. Additional pedestrian treatments and/or traffic controls may be desired to slow traffic along Vallco Parkway and accommodate the additional pedestrian demand. The intersection of Finch Avenue and Vallco Parkway was analyzed as an all-way stop control intersection and is projected to operate at LOS B or better during both peak hours under either Scheme. This intersection would also operate at LOS C or better with two-way stop control. With either traffic control device, a highly visible pedestrian crosswalk on Vallco Parkway should be provided to give pedestrians a designated pathway. On-street parking along Vallco Parkway will create demand for crosswalks between the north and south sides of Vallco Parkway. Currently, the only crosswalks between the two sides of the roadway are located at Wolfe Road, Perimeter Road, and Tantau Avenue. These crossing areas and any additional crossing locations should be highly visible to both pedestrians and vehicles. Having designated crossing areas will eliminate the potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles along Vallco Parkway. These improvements will eliminate potential impacts to pedestrians in the project area on and near Vallco Parkway. Potential Impact #2 — Existinq Facilities: The proposed project (Scheme 1 and Scheme 2) modifies the location of existing sidewalks and crosswalks along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue. The applicant should relocate the existing pedestrian facilities along these streets to provide pedestrians access to and within the project site. Relocating the existing facilities on these two streets will eliminate this potentially significant impact to pedestrians in these areas. In addition, the project will likely increase the number of pedestrians crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road. The City could consider improving the pedestrian crossings at these locations. Some improvements that could be made to the intersections near the project site include: • Re-timing signals to include a leading pedestrian call in the north- and southbound directions. ■ Install pedestrian call buttons and crosswalks on the east leg of the intersections of Stevens Creek Boulevard at Finch Avenue and Tantau Avenue. • Install countdown pedestrian heads on all crosswalks. ■ Repave intersections adjacent and/or near to the project site with textured pavement to highlight pedestrian crossings and to act as a traffic-calming device. Please note that these measures would impact vehicle progression, levels of service, and signal coordination along the travel corridors. Improvements and enhancements to pedestrian facilities will improve general pedestrian safety in and around the project site. Improvements identified above are illustrated on Figure 15. � �`�; � a : _� _�. � �.�� < �� : : � -�� -�k � - FEHR �t PEERS � � � �` � ��.� TRAMSPORTATION CONSUITANTS � ` , . Y ,: . , � ��:� � _ �. � � �, .. . �- . I , I �---------- • New sidewalk along north side ` �' � .." s,� � � of Valico Parkway along project ,:_ � �f. .,'. , ��. , ,� Loading Dock Recommendations� - - ,�i, ,+ ; � frontage. r �'' * , c�� ' «,~ • Provide a painted or textured � ��"`', �� % ��' �.'� �' � • �. Q � � ' 1'(. �� `£ �.,,1,:-` �� ` —f pavement area through the ��a ,�;; I � � � � �:,,' .°, , ;`'" p � driveway to extend the sidewalk �� ±wR ->- through the loading area and j . . -� ��`"� t � Convert parking stalls along ek � delineating the pedesMan l �� .` �;,. Vallco Parkway to back-in S��M�, `� — � p „ pn „ n�^ { �� angled parking spaces. r� �1 �� :• , �n � space; k k� � • � � . �,. . � � ,� ; ► Continuous solid line bike lanes ��'� t Bike lane on eastbound • Require back-in parking along ';s ;'� �� ;�' � along Vallco Parkway with 5 '�' � approach at the Vallco ; <. Vallco Parkway if feasible; y `,'� • • � . ,� ; " a.��. � �� foot minimum behind angled = 1 Parkway / Tantau Ave ��,`. , • ,�g, .',, ; , � .� , � <� ;/. stalls. k` � intersection. • Restrict delivery hours to , ; � . . . . ry '� o � y , � * ,. . � off-peak periods and/or periods :�,., . . . �" � • � "�� i x w {� , " . � :. when fewer pedestrians are 'ia .° ; � � .'� � � , �°�' °' � `= , .�"� � � ,�.� �'�'� � r�' _ �� '�- present; ,;��, � ��. / � ` � ,1 1 � �� + � I . I � �:,� 1� ,�, .�� . , .. 4�� • Ensure that the driveway curb �; � � does not create a cross-slope ` �'' ♦ / t � problem for pedestrians (i.e. � 1 / t 1 ensure that the grade of the � � �rt' �� j � � ` ' ��'�� , � curb cut is meets ADA ' ' ` , � + [ � guidelines for sidewalk design); � � `' �' ! Raised and/or te�ured intersections � � ,,.i,� ,;,.+� -'�,, ✓� � • ' ❑ or sidewalks at projed entrances. � — � � ' � � ; �. ` • Require trucks entering the a _ ...- _[� 3S loading dock to back-in to the �- -- • � F; - ;"� dock; � Raised and/or textured intersections , : or sidewalks at project entrances. ,,�; . • Ensure that the driveway is long � enough that a typical truck will r /"""' Continuous sidewalk along *y � . Stevens Creek Blvd. along �z � • New sidewalk alon not block the sidewalk during a *5 � � ro ect fronta e. '' 9 M r ' delivery; �,� p� 9 west side of Tantau ° N r Avenue (North and • Connect sidewalk with �� South of Vallco ,* • Ensure clear sight lines exist so � on-site edestrian facilities. parkwa ,' that trucks exiting the loading p ?"� �' �' y dock do not need to block the ,.� . -�-�' < � � , � , _ sidewalk while waiting to exit; " ' ' _ _.., .____..._._ ___ LL � < , . , , � � - r and/or , >� � � � � � ,;. , �� , � .. ; Y` "�;� . * ./ * ' , k ,. .- , . ,. , . � �,...� ' � i' . . Y�a_ �' .. �� , . �' . , � �"!�l�:�:� �� , • Consider flashing 'truck I � ----T-�-----�,--^-------------a � coming" signage at the ,,«.,,.,.,�,........ ..� . , ,, �;,. • �,,:; � . , ', _ ,. driveway if there will be � � «` �` . � ' '`` � � � I frequent deliveries and the sight . Inco orate � � " a � � dfstances at the drivewa are ': * • � �:_ �F:;; ��' �.� ,r- •-+ ,�," , �;. New crosswalks on east le9 , ♦ �� Y existing bus � - � - ,6� - a F � challenging. � sto s into site , "� �- � ' ' ` • `.":" approaches. ,:�;.�_� � P � f � � ��..' . � . , . . _ . .,. �, .� plan / Stevens � _ • Highly-visible and/or textured Creek Blvd. crosswalks on all legs. streetscape � plan • Texture intersection as potential Main Street Cupertino traffic calming measure. FEHR �t PEERS ,a�xsroar�nox coxsuireH.s SITE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS w m ' � � Flgure 15 wVnlwe�Wca.�aiaww.a�w..a.r�or�. rrq.i-awoa�w __. �. _ y:?x - �F''�' � � �.� � 1pl��. . . " E4 " '�# � ,�!ri, . .,.. 'iL �� I Main Street Cupertino y" `�`��- September 2008 ; � �� ` , , , : �� _ BICYCLE FACILITIES The site has bicycle access via the bike lanes on Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue. A bike lane also runs along Vallco Parkway in both directions. Bicycle Impact Criteria The General Plan for the City of Cupertino identifies existing and ptanned bicycle networks and identifies any improvements and/or related policies necessary to ensure that these facilities are safe and effective for City residents. Using the General Plan as a guide, significant impacts to bicycle facilities would occur when a project or an element of the project: • c�eates a hazardous condition that currently does not exist fo� bicyclists, or otherwise interferes with pedestrian accessibility to the site and adjoining areas; or • creates substantial increase in demand for bicycle facilities where none currently exist or creates conditions that would lead to overcrowding on existing facilities; or • conflicts with an existing or planned bicycle facility; or ■ conflicts with policies related to bicycle activity adopted by the City of Cupertino for their respective facilities in the study area. Potentia! Impacts to Bicyclists Bicycle lanes are provided on Vallco Parkway, as well as on other roadways near the project site. The existing bicycle facilities in the area can reasonabiy accommodate the increased demand from the proposed project; however, the applicanYs proposed on-street parking along Vallco Parkway would require the removal or relocation of the existing bike lane. This bike lane can be reasonably relocated between the new travel lane and the on-street parking. The bicycle lanes on Vallco Parkway should be maintained and be continuous across the project's driveways. The eastbound bicycle lane on Vallco Parkway at Finch Avenue should transition from the curb to its own lane between the through and right-turn lane. The intersection of Tantau Avenue and Vallco Parkway should include a bike lane befinreen the left-turn lane and through lane that is exclusively for bicyclists turning left. This lane should include a bicycle detector. Bicyclists continuing through the intersection or turning right sill use the curb lane. The new bike lane should be located five feet from the end of the angled parking stalls. This relocation would require the striping of a five-foot bike lane and signage alerting motorists to the presence of bicyclists. The current recommended design for streets with on-street angled parking and bike lanes is to configure parking spaces as back-in/head-out angled spaces. As with parallel parking, the driver enters the stall by stopping and backing in, and leaves the stall by simply pulling out. This gives the driver a better view of oncoming traffic and creates a safer environment for bicyclists. City of Cupertino staff and industry design standards will determine the final design of Vallco Parkway. Thes improvements would mitigate the impact to bicycle facilities to a less-than-significant level. In addition to the existing bicycling facilities, the project should provide Class I and Class II bike parking facilities (per Municipal Code Chapter 19.100) on-site and in highly visible locations to encourage biking and discourage theft. ,. �� _ . '�` � �, "`",�� : '�? ;�,� }� z �� :.. < � :�.�. �, � FEHR St PEER.S � ` TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ` '' � ��. '� ' '- � x= `' � �'a, , . F_ � � � " °'�1 � � � _ �' •° :�. _.- � r..ES� r Main Street Cupertino � �, � � ' � �; �� Septem6er 2008 �: �� 4 �� . - .. -, Y...a F_ m�R.fi . �.Wr..+�Y . . � M �� '�.. . I,� TRANSIT FACILITIES The proposed project is not proposing any changes to existing transit service to the project site. However, the project will likely create new demand for transit service in the area, as well make changes to facilities used by the existing transit providers (i.e. VTA, Caltrain, and private employer shuttles) in the area. Transit lmpact Criteria Significant impacts to transit service would occur if the project or any part of the project: • creates a substantial increase in transit demand that could not be accommodated by existing adjacent transit capacity, measured by comparing the expected transit capacity with the expected project demand for transit service; or • causes a substantial increase in delay or operating cost to a transit provider; or • conflicts with transit policies adopted by the City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, VTA, or Caltrans for their respective facilities in the study area. Potential Transit Impacts Potential Impact #1 — Existinq Demand: To determine potential impacts to transit service in the project area, average load factors were obtained from VTA. These numbers reflect the average passenger load of bus routes at specific stops. Fixed-route bus service operates adjacent to the site with stops located at Vallco Parkway/Perimeter Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue, and Wolfe RoadNallco Parkway. Table 11 summarizes the average load factors for VTA bus routes servicing South Vallco Master Plan area. The actual load factors along other portions of the lines may be higher or lower. TABLE 11 AVERAGE PASSENGER LOAD VA�UES OF BUS ROUTES SERVING SOUTH VALLCO Average Average Load / VTA Route Current Route Performance Route Direction Passenger Load Capacity Standard2 Performance3,a 23 EB 0.29 11/38 2� 31 WB 0.32 12/38 81' EB 0.08 3/38 27 26 101 NB 0.41 16/38 60% 31°/a SB 0.23 9/38 182 NB 0.36 14/38 60% 54% SB 0.39 15/38 Notes: 1 Route 81 does not operate in the westbound direction at the project site. 2 Performance fo� core network routes (23/81) is measured in boardings per revenue hour; this standard measures how well service is utilized given the hours of service provided. Performance for express routes (101/182) is measured as average peak load factor. Average peak load factor is a measure of the supply of seats available on a bus versus the average peak number of on-board passengers at any given time during the peak period. 3 For core network routes: Boardings per Revenue Hour; for express routes: average peak load factor. 4 BOLD text indicates standards that are not being met. Source: VTA, January 2008; VTA Short Range Transporfation Plan, January 2008. �� ,3, „ :�7 "� �. ,Y qk+��a`- � � Y i,: � .F �� k ..a FEHR & PEERS ��,�, ` TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ��,`,��.` '*: . �. . . s,-°�+'.,u,�� .. „ � � . . . .. . . _ _.._.._.z ��a� #��;"� _ . _. _ _ . �� r �� Main Street Cupertino x ��'� '�� ,A September 2008 :�� '-; � > w �.; �� VTA evaluates bus routes using standards for average weekday boardings. These values are reported in the VTA Short Range Transit Plan (2007) and are used to make recommendations for service changes, new lines, and capital projects. For existing routes, recommendations for improvement are identified for under-performing lines. The standard fo� core network routes (23 and 81) is 27 boardings per revenue hour. The standard for express routes (101 and 182) is a average peak load factor of 60 percent. Based on these values, bus routes should be able to accommodate the additional demand created by the project. VTA guidelines allow up to a two (2) percent reduction if vehicle trips generated by projects with certain land uses that are located within 2,000 feet of a major bus stops. Using this methodology, up to seven (7) peak-hour office trips could be made on bus routes serving the area. The average loads of buses near the project site indicate that the existing transit service can readily accommodate the increase in demand. The proposed project will likely increase transit use on the routes serving the project site. Only Route 23 is operating above ts current standard(i.e. with strong ridership) i; therefore, any increase in transit use would improve route performance closer to the designated standard for operation. Therefore, impacts to existing transit service are expected to be less-than-significant. Potential Impact #2 — Existinq Bus Stops: The project may disrupt bus service if existing bus stops at the project site are not incorporated into the street design along the project frontage. The applicant should work with VTA, the City, and Caltrain to determine the appropriate location of the existing bus stops at Stevens Creek Boulevard/Finch Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue to ensure that bus service is not disrupted by the addition of on-street parking along those areas. These bus stops should be incorporated into the site's streetscape plan as 22 foot curb lanes or bus duckouts to minimize disruption to traffic flow along Stevens Creek Boulevard and should provide a bus stop pavement pad per VTA standards. In addition, the site plan should include passenger waiting areas to replace those removed during construction of the proposed on-street parking, as well as a minimum 8-foot side sidewalk adjacent to the bus stop per ADA requirements. If the City wishes to narrow Vallco Parkway at Perimeter Road, the bus stop at Vallco Parkway/Perimeter Road would need to be incorporated into the final roadway design. Potential Impact #3 — Existinq Bus Routes: The project will disrupt service of the Caltrain commuter shuttle that currently uses Finch Avenue as a turn-back along its route. This route will need to be re- routed because of the proposed reconfiguration of Finch Avenue. The City and applicant should coordinate with Caltrain to determine the appropriate route change; however, the route could easily be re- routed to Wolfe Road. This would mitigate this potential impact to transit operations. Potential Impact #4 — Future Bus Routes: The proposed project may impact plans for a future transit corridor being planned for Stevens Creek Boulevard. VTA is currently developing a strategic plan for a bus rapid transit (BRT) that would run along Stevens Creek Boulevard, i.e. the existing 23 line/future 523 line. The City of Cupertino's General Plan and VTA have also identified a potential transit station in the Vallco area. This BRT project is currently being analyzed and no plans have been approved. The City should coordinate with VTA to ensure that any changes proposed for the projecYs frontage on Stevens Creek Bouleva�d does not conflict with future VTA plans along this corridor. KEY ROADWAY OPERATIONS City staff requested that the corridors on Vallco Parkway, Stevens Creek Boulevard (between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue), and Wolfe Road (between I-280 and Stevens Creek Boulevard), be assessed to determine if operational improvements wilt be needed, and to specifically evaluate the effect of on-street parlcing on Vallco Parkway and Stevens Creek Boulevard. This qualitative analysis: 1) identifies improvements that could be made based on field obsenrations and existing data and 2) notes operational issues that may occur with the addition of traffic from the two project schemes. � :� � � �� -� � � �t _, i,';;Y y � . �5' �'� ..� � Pw � . �� FEHR �t PEERS ��"' 1 � TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ' � � ��""s� 3; � ,� � �� 7 '� <. _. ,.� 'i�>. _ _ _ . . f � � "3� �'i;. � . �' a �� `��' .4�. ��:� G �,�. . Main Street Cuperfino : �^ � �'' � ' September 2008 �� g � � �y �� ` `�'�� f � '�� , , � .. �. .._��. < ��:_ � . _��s� � Va!!co Parkway Operations The proposed project consists of narrowing of Vallco Parkway from a six-lane facility to a two-lane roadway with left-turn lanes and angled parking between Perimeter Road and Tantau Avenue. The reduction in road width together with the proposed land uses would help create a pedestrian-friendly mixed-use corridor in this area. Increasing parking maneuvers and reducing the roadway width typically reduce travel speeds and can help accomplish this goal. The results of intersection operations with the reduced number of lanes are presented below together with a qualitative description of operations on Vallco Parkway. The City is also considering the narrowing of the segment west of Perimeter Road and east of Wolfe Road. No complete designs of the new facility have been completed; however, merge points and other design considerations will need to be identified to acceptably transition the roadway from six to two lanes. Backqround Conditions The existing daily roadway volume along Vallco Parkway is approximately 3,100 vehicles, based on 72- hour roadway volume counts collected in 2008. The traffic from approved projects in the area would increase the volume by approximately 2,500 vehicles per day (vpd), increasing the total background roadway volume to 5,600 vpd. A two-lane roadway with angled parking can accommodate approximately 10,000 to 12,000 vpd before traffic flow is substantially affected. However, the operations of the roadway are typically controlled at the local intersections. Therefore, the LOS of a given segment is generally similar to that of the nearby intersections. The levels of service at the intersections of Perimeter Road, Finch Avenue, and Tantau Avenue on Vallco Parkway are acceptable, and it is projected that the operations of the roadway would also be acceptable (LOS D or better) with angled parking and the proposed lane reductions. Proiect Conditions The estimated daily volume on Vallco Parkway under Scheme 1 and Scheme 2 conditions will be approximately 16,000 and 12,000 vehicles per day, respectively. Drivers experiencing delays along Vallco Parkway would likely enter and exit the project site using driveways along Stevens Creek Boulevard and at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard/Finch Avenue. The redistribution of traffic was not studied quantitatively; however, the surrounding intersections operate at acceptable levels of service and can reasonably accommodate any traffic diversion that might occur. The effect of the narrowing on individual intersections is discussed below. Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue The intersection of Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue would operate at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS D during the PM peak hour under Project Conditions with the proposed lane reductions in place with Scheme 1 or 2. Traffic volumes at this unsignalized intersection would not meet the minimum warrant criteria for signalization during either peak hour. The signal warrant worksheets are included in Appendix C. The all-way stop control at the Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue intersection would provide drivers with a transition in the streeYs character from a thoroughfare to a two-lane street with angled parking. Wolfe Road / Vallco Parkway The intersection of Vallco Parkway/Wolfe Road would fatl below the City's acceptable level of service criteria. However, this impact can be mitigated with improvements. Queues at the intersection would spillback towards the entrance to the parking garage north of Vallco Parkway, potentially blocking the entrance to both the garage and Rose Bowl project site. The existing westbound approach has four lanes — two (2) left-turn lanes, one (1) through lane, and one (1) right-turn lane. The intersection's operations ;_�.'� .r�;�� .�;� .�� < �° � x s ,, � e �� x� - FEHR & PEERS ��R � � TRANSPORTATION CONSULiAMTS r� �`�� ,��'� a � . - ;� -��'�;. _ :. ,� ._y � ,_�� ,�, . . . . .. . . � �� Y � .�v �$ ��s Main Streef Cupertino � � �" �Y September 2008 '�� : � � �� ° � ._. ._ �:�� _;.� . _ would degrade from LOS D under background conditions to LOS E under project-level conditions for both schemes. Mitigation recommendations for the intersection were discussed earlier in this report. These measures mitigate the impact to less-than-significant levels as required by CEQA. If Vallco Parkway is reduced to one (1) westbound lane, the intersection approach could be narrowed to two (2) lanes — one left turn lane and one through-right turn lane — without significantly affecting intersection operations. The intersection would operate at LOS D+ with 38.2 seconds of average vehicle delay in the worst-case studied scenario (Scheme 1 in the PM peak hour). AM peak hour operations would still be acceptable. Two southbound left-turn lanes are proposed at this intersection. Both are necessary to accommodate the anticipated turning volume. Therefore, two receiving lanes on the east leg of the intersection are necessary. A merge point after the entrance to the parking garage and proposed Rose Bowl development would allow the westbound roadway to taper to one lane. Vallco Parkway / Perimeter Road This intersection currently operates at acceptable levels of service, and is expected to continue to operate as such under background and project-level conditions with the proposed narrowing. In 2007, Fehr & Peers produced a technical memorandum on futu�e Vallco Parkway operations based on expected growth in the Vallco area at that time. The analysis assumed trips from the Rose Bowl project site, as well as trips from the 2005 Calabazas Place proposal. That study found that signal warrants are met at this intersection. Based on current expected volumes (2008 Existing plus Background plus the Main Street Cupertino project), the intersection should operate at LOS E or better with the proposed roadway changes (one lane in each direction and dedicated left turn lanes to Rose Bowl and the Parking Garage) on Vallco Parkway. This intersection would also provide acceptable levels of service with the removal of the existing signal. Ultimately, signal removal should only be done after more technical engineering review is completed under the direction of City staff. The City wilf determine the ultimate design of and tra�c control at this intersection. Vallco Parkway / Tantau Avenue The existing eastbound approach has three (3) lanes — one (1) left tu�n lane, one (1) through lane, and one (1) right turn lane. There is also a bike lane that has been striped between the through lane and left turn lane. The proposed addition of on-street parking would eliminate the dedicated right turn lane. A shared through/right-turn lane and dedicated left turn lane would still allow the intersection to operate at acceptable levels of service under project-level conditions. Wolfe Road In general, vehicle progression on this segment of Wolfe Road was good during both peak hour observations. Some southbound queuing occurred between the I-280 Northbound Ramps and Pruneridge Avenue intersections; however, the queued traffic cleared within one cycle and operations at Wolfe Road and Pruneridge Avenue were not substantially affected. Based on a survey of vehicles making southbound left-turns at the intersection of Wotfe Road and Vallco Parkway during the PM peak hour, approximately 50 percent made U-turns, of which several accessed the parking areas at the Cupertino Square shopping center. Any signal modifications that would require a restriction on this u-turn movement (i.e. the westbound right turn overlap phase recommended as project- level impact migration at this intersection) should consider the impact this restriction would have on how vehicles enter the parking garage on the east side of Wolfe Road. Vehicles would likely choose to either use the right-in/right-out only driveway to Perimeter Road or chose to make a left turn onto Vallco Parkway and enter the garage on that roadway. This segment of Wolfe Road generally operates with no major congestion or queuing that substantially affects vehicle operations. The corridor has capacity to accommodate added traffic assuming that .Z ? �� r'ae � �� '� � .�, ;` =,::. �� . � -� e . �� . - r �- � � � �� FEHR & PEERS k�=�� TRANSPORTATION CONSUIiANTS � , . � i ,.: .- . �� " �,,".:�'E '�i _... �-'.. � ` .... . _..... . � ¢ ��.,- � � ' � I ��ki f �� I I �k I " ' - .'9 v � 3 I h �� Main Street Cupertino �� ' ` � 'I September 2008 � `� ` „" � ;�� .. , . �._.� � improvements are implemented at the intersection of Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway. The signal timings at the intersections along this corridor are adequate for the existing volumes. The intersections are also expected to operate acceptably with additional traffic under Background and Project Conditions. City staff should continue monitor the intersections on this corridor and modify the timings to maximize traffic progression. Stevens Creek Boulevard Traffic moves generally well along this segment of Stevens Creek Boulevard. Eastbound left-turns at Wolfe Road are heavy during the PM peak hour; however, this movement usuatly clears in one signal cycle and no significant delay or queuing was observed on this approach. The existing LOS for this movement during the PM peak hour is LOS D. Out-of-pocket queuing was observed at the westbound left-turn approach at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue. This peak queue occurred during the 15-minute period before school began at Cupertino High School. This delay is brief; therefore, the only improvement identified is to lengthen the left turn pocket to accommodate this demand volume. Furthermore, this queuing occurs prior to when most traffic associated with the project is expected to occur. Therefore, no conflict is expected. The intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better under project conditions for either scheme. There are left-turn pockets between Wolfe Road and Finch Road that provide access to existing residential and commercial developments. No vehicle queuing was observed at these locations, and they appeared to operate acceptably. The proposed project has two unsignalized driveways along Stevens Creek Boulevard that only allow right-turns. These driveways are expected to operate with minimal delay. Vehicles entering these driveways will be traveling westbound. An unsignalized left-turn pocket could be accommodated along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Finch Avenue and Tantau Avenue; this would reduce the number of vehicles making left turns at Tantau Avenue and reduce overall delay at the intersection. The project schemes are not expected to have a significant impact to the other intersection facilities on this section of Stevens Creek Boulevard based on the level of service calculations conducted for the individual schemes. On-Streef Parking The developer has proposed adding 44 on-street parking spaces along the projecYs frontage on Stevens Creek Boulevard. On-street parking currently exists along Stevens Creek Boulevard east of Lawrence Expressway (City of San Jose). The proposed on-street parking would not remove a lane from the westbound side of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The addition of on-street parking along the project's frontage will require the relocation of the existing sidewalk and bike lane to accommodate the parking lane. This recommendation was illustrated on Figure 15. While on-street parking maneuvers may occasionally disrupt traffic flow in the adjacent travel lane, typically vehicles accessing these spaces maneuver into and out of the space with little or no delay to the overall adjacent street tra�c. In 2007 the average daily volume on this westbound segment of Stevens Creek Boulevard was approximately 13,338 vehicles. The frequency of parking turnover for on-street parking spaces will have the greatest effect on the operations of the roadway. 3 City of Cupertino ADT Map, February 2007. w�� u s�,�.��.� ° � � `�� .�. . �� , � �� , � FEHR & PEERS x � � � �� #� �� TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS � ` . . i�� .. � . .. _ ... ., _`a..� ' _ .. .. �:� av "` � �� i ,. i� � x I a� .'y�� - - Main Street Cuperfino .` �--- ' September 2008 t = �� ;� �� -� � ��.., �� w ��° The proposed on-street parking maintains three lanes of travel along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Generally, as the number of lanes on a facility increases, the overall impact of parking maneuvers on vehicle flow is diminished_ The lane most affected by the parking maneuvers would be the outer-most lane of travel. Capacity on Stevens Creek could reasonably accommodate through vehicles in the other travel lanes while parking maneuvers occur. Stevens Creek Boulevard currently operates at acceptable levels of service and is not projected to degrade below LOS D after construction of the project. During the most congested conditions, the on- street parking in this area may affect ope�ations more than on a typical travel day because Stevens Creek Boulevard would be operating closer to its capacity and vehicles would have less room to maneuver around parking cars. City of Cupertino staff should utilize the City's design guidelines and industry design standards to determine the final striping and design for these on-street parking spaces to ensure that they give drivers adequate access, accommodate the existing sidewalks and bike lane, and do not affect a substantial affect on operations along Stevens Creek Boulevard. ON CIRCULATION Town Square Circulation Both project schemes include a realignment of Finch Avenue to create a"town square" surrounded by on- street angled parking. The existing volumes along Finch Avenue are low (less than 100 vehicles during the peak hours); therefore, the town square is not expected to significantly impact existing traffic patterns in the area. Existing intersection operations at the intersections adjacent to Finch Avenue (Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue; Stevens Creek Boulevard/Wolfe Road; Tantau AvenueNallco Parkway; Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway) currently operate at acceptable levels of service and can reasonably accommodate any additional traffic that might occur as drivers re-route trips that previously used Finch Avenue. Based on the current site plan, vehicles would be able to circulate in both directions around the square. The developer should work with the City Public Works department to ensure that proper drive aisle width is provided and that trucks (including fire vehicles) can maneuver through the site. As an alternative to a two-way drive foop around the square, the site plan could be modified to reflect a one-way loop. A one-way loop would evenly distribute traffic around the square. The current site plans show approximately 70 percent of retail space adjacent to the square is located on the norkhern and eastern sides. A one-way loop would limit vehicle conflicts in this area. Also, a one-way loop would allow the inner drive aisle to be narrower and allow for larger pedestrian bulb-outs at the interior intersections in the parking lot. This would increase pedestrian visibly, decrease pedestrian crossing distances, and make the site more pedestrian-friendly. The site plan should include well-defined pedestrian pathways within the site. The current landscape plan for the project includes textured crosswalks on the site, as well as textured pavement at the on-site intersections. These treatments should be highly visible between the various quadrants on the site. The plan also includes sidewalks along all interior roadways, as well as a sidewalk connecting the site to an adjacent condominium development. Based on this plan, the pedestrian circulation on the site should provide adequate and safe facilities for the proposed site uses. Loadinq Dock on Vallco Parkwav Site plans for both project schemes indicate a loading dock located on Vallco Parkway adjacent to the shared Rose Bowl project driveway. The placement of the loading dock in its sited location creates a point of conflict between delivery trucks and pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists on Vallco Parkway. To �� :� � �t �>„ � � € ,€ � r ��<; . x �-� FEHR St PEERS � �'%� =. � � , TRANSPORTA7ION CONSULTANiS �'� : r �;. , �� . . _ _,_ .._ . . � � �1. . a .; . . .,� � - � �. � ,>,�� .. Marn Street Cupertino � : x � . � September 2008 � � �� r� �k� �� i 1.� 9 �3::{+.L. �sZL1G . . . .. . . �� , ati- n Z...:-..:E-..�.«`o-�i .... . ._ .. ....,. _ _ �.y minimize these conflicts, the following measures could be implemented to ensure that there is a clear delineation between the pedestrian realm and the loading dock: • Provide a painted or textured pavement area through the driveway to extend the sidewalk through the loading area and delineating the pedestrian space; • Restrict delivery hours to off-peak periods and/or periods when fewer pedestrians are present; • Ensure that the driveway curb does not create a cross-slope problem for pedestrians (i.e. ensure that the grade of the curb cut is meets ADA guidelines for sidewalk design); ■ Require trucks entering the loading dock to back-in to the dock; • Ensure that the driveway is long enough that a typical truck will not btock the sidewalk during a delivery; ■ Ensure clear sight lines exist so that trucks exiting the loading dock do not need to block the sidewalk while waiting to exit; • Consider flashing "truck coming" signage at the driveway if there will be frequent deliveries and the sight distances at the driveway are challenging; and/or • Require back-in parking along Vallco Parkway if feasible; When a final site plan is provided, turning templates should be applied to ensure that trucks using the loading dock will have sufficient space to make the turn without affecting the median or surrounding curbs. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The main access routes to the project site are Stevens Creek Boulevard to Finch and Tantau Avenues, and Wolfe Road to Vallco Parkway. Most of the project traffic is expected to use these streets to access the project site. Neighborhood streets to which the project could add traffic include Finch, Tantau, Judy, Bret or Stern Avenues. Currently, southbound traffic on Finch and Tantau Avenues north of Stevens Creek Boulevard are restricted to turning left or right onto Stevens Creek Boulevard. It is estimated that project trips on these streets would be generated by residents traveling to retail portion of the site or the park. Based on the project trip distribution, up to 50 peak-hour trips could be distributed to all of these streets. With the addition of an average of 10 vehicles per street in the peak hour, the average increase would be an additional vehicle every 6 minutes. Therefore, the project is not expected to substantially affect traffic on neighborhood streets. The City of Cupertino has a neighborhood traffic management program (NTMP); however, the program is currently unfunded. The objective of these programs is to address vehicle speed, increase pedestrian safety, reduce the need for police enforcement, enhance the street environment, increase access for all modes of transportation, and reduce cut-through motor vehicte traffic. Typically, the NTMP includes the installation of traffic calming and roadway design features that address vehicle speed and traffic volume. If the City decides to fund the program in the future, neighborhood residents would have the opportunity to petition the City to conduct a neighborhood traffic calming study to determine if traffic management issues need to be addressed. To implement a NTMP, two-thirds of residents (by petition) must be in favor of the study. � � � �'� �`�_ a � � ;� . . ". . € � `� -��` � FEHR Sz PEERS ' i ��; :� TRANSPORiATION YONSULTANTS � �'��" S ' � 'F� . � �`� �, _ ,�.�:; _ � i, � �- �'.� Main Street Cupertino � � ; � g � ;� September 2008 ��` �"� � �� :� �, � �� . .��. _ _ �. ��:-. •. 6. CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS This chapter presents an analysis of Cumulative Conditions with the proposed schemes. Cumulative No Project Conditions are defined as existing volumes plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed developments in the project study area, plus traffic generated by pending developments. Trips from the proposed project are added to the Cumulative No Project Conditions to obtain Cumulative plus Project Conditions. This chapter describes the procedure used to determine the cumulative traffic volumes and the results of the level of service analysis for Cumulative Conditions. CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC ESTIMATES A list of pending projects was obtained from the Cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and San Jose. Trip estimates were then developed using available data and standard engineering practice. These trips were then assigned to the roadway network based on the locations of complimentary land uses and anticipated directions of approach and depa�ture. Cumulative No Project volumes which are defined as existing traffic volumes plus traffic from approved and pending developments. The trips generated by the proposed schemes we�e added to the Cumulative No Project Condition volumes and are shown on Figure 16 and 17. CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection operations were evaluated with level of service calculations under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, and the results are summarized with Background Conditions in Table 12. Background Conditions serve as the baseline condition for determining cumulative impacts. The intersection of Homestead Road and Lawrence Expressway is projected to operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. The Stevens Creek Boulevard/I-280 Ramp-Calvert Drive and Lawrence Expressway/I-280 Southbound Ramps-Calvert Drive intersections are projected to degrade to LOS E during the PM peak hour. The intersection of Bollinger Road and Lawrence Expressway is expected to operate at LOS E+ during the PM peak hour. The remaining intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service. CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION IMPACTS Using the same significance criteria as Project Conditions, the cumulative projects would have an impact at the following intersections: ■ Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road (Scheme 1 and 2: PM peak hour) • Vallco Parkway and Wolfe Road (Scheme 1 and 2: PM peak hour) ■ Stevens Creek Boulevard and I-280 Southbound Ramps-Calvert Drive (Scheme 1 and 2: PM peak hour) ■ Lawrence Expressway and I-280 Southbound Ramps-Calvert Drive (Scheme 1 and 2: AM and PM peak hour) ■ Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue and Lawrence Expressway (Scheme 1 and 2: PM peak hour) - �,� � � � � �:_ �a�__ � � 3.' .e �`�+° 3 r . .,?ga �#'n-Y, h FEHR � PEERS � �� TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ' �� . r..;t� .,. _ . . . ' � N K < — — _ 7 ° �-8411011 � �� 26(18) °'� � L2361145) °�° � R-51(112) �-�o ' ~ -I;73f�+�) �� i0 �-55&IStt� � ° m � �-487 (789) `� �--794 (1.235J n �^ <`�+, � 869 (590) c, � � - �-21 1t;0) � ° �--1�5130Gi ;�, �� ? 3 �r2231A88) m � � �r150(239) � �353(412) � ` �174165[) � � i r - 1Utl(t�3� r-t[1i74.i� � t� Homes�eaa Rtl. �� Mumesiead Na. �� nomustead Ro. �� arunanA e nve. �� prunenaud A�e. �� 1-Lau NB Ha�i�>s 1251164)-� �i � 33 (39)-1 � I I 374 (Bfi3)1 1 t� 44 (44)--f 1 1 r 131 (74)-� �? r � r 1l, 478(630) 8941735) v � m m 413(79fi) a 3�(18j ' 149(107) 213 (379)� n o rv 82 (75)� �° IG2 fst7l ° a 9018H)---� t;1 14�1 m - - - ac ' ' 1 _ °, LEGEND: ^` m v �1781438) " " d t3918� ,'� �3�5� � m �`-252(�;f7i =Pro�ectSi�e � � ��: � � o m 3 �� (18) == °- p 138 (413) m �o �-° c � (32) o m �' i �---9�2 (949) "" � = South Vallco � � � I �52 (17fi) � � rG3 (50) I � " �r23 (28) � I � p r2481432) �� -280 S6 Ram s � L VallCO Pkw . � Vallm PkW . �/ � Dnvawa t 1e�ens Creek 6�:�c Mesler Pldn vaimn Pkw } Focus Area 1431335)-� r� 321452)-� � i r 2� ls)1 � r � 64 (190)-� � I� 195 (248�-� � r� O = Slutly 0(20) 0 224 (316) d 11 ( 435 (1.182) - . 268 (516) 12 (191) m 46 (119) Q' °-' ��' = 2(16 !4G In�erseclions �1 �1 _ _ � 99(3491-� _ l 1� __ N _ ^, � m � � XX (VY) = AM IPM) _ e�� m �81 (85) '^. o A 1,280 (1.482 'Q � � m r-130(251) �� 123(189)� � � � 802 (1,840) 46 (BS)� =° c � R--297 (29� � �-1,416 (1 � r � 599 (463)- � V t n � 865 (1.797)-+ O� 1` N � FEHR Sz PEERS iAANSPOR [ONSUIt�MTS Sept2008 s�oe-�oai m o ¢' ,"'n � �75(98) ,`� �6 �-1.495 (1.705 v' ^ ° a r23 (58) J�S. n I 48 (891-� � � 935 (2,091) � 42 (50)� `-" a oaH 13�1 � �I �i ' T � N NUT l �(:ALE i ^ � LL `� � ma W < e� � �' v R-it (52) e m v_ L763 (244) � .c L961156) _ _' R_2041203i v m n N _ ' ` `� �" n r ` c 1,47311,475 """� 3 891 (978) - _ 967 (1.208) ^ " - 1.142 (1.289) � ^ �---1.61[ (t.tl35) ,'�,- �",j : -2.6�9 f[, N �' � �i a �r (121) ° � i� �r (236) y � �` �17611241 � I " �r'87 (203� � ^' °� � �r f5B61 � I 1 1 � I l � L � ♦ � r k I ♦ ` s S1 ve.�sCre x..: � � Slev ��.s i h iu 34 (187)� � i 420 (833)� � 1 � 65 (219)� 1 � 189 (231)J � i n•� � n � �� 1.103 (2,083) 720 (1.240)-► a 717 (1,551)� 633 (1,657) - 715 11.184)-� - �,41� (1.9331 6(5)� P M '=' 73 (238)� � r' ° a � 181 (101�� 25199)� - 3541878)� ", 3 ' 3 �°�' "'., �, m r Q o � � v _ _ ' — � �403(309) v �-1361�10) `"°-= � �-10611151 ,' ~-1U61dbJ a �`-"157�y7) � � ° �-14i5'.1) � n � `m �� a �76 (106) �, Q Q `m �566 (707) ° n o � 49B [630) - o = �---tiBL 15651 ' _ _ -459 (J53� � = E �--1�[ (4U91 �`3 m$ o I�184�2I7) °� �r � � �r � 'A " . m` m � ' I �? ♦ -- 4UItu/; �� - 2tl0 SB Ram � �� Bollin er R4. �� Bollin er Htl, � � y Bolon er Ra. � �� Boii�ii er Ra. �•� Mour �ark Are_ �� 1 vel:w Pnw�- 87 (79)� � I I 122 �1�9)� 1 I(� 26 (SI�-� � 1 � �i,3 (�1tl�� 1� Sa i55�-} b�,u�nuni I1a � I � �, � 3791547)--► y ^�,^ p 55 (80) 391 (653) 443 (689)---� n� a. 70:� �:lA7l-+ 5 `�t t:14��-� _ "sa �,[�--�• � �o �N ��r.ov, - "ti�� /.. -s :�i/��Hai - 23fi (982) - 1[ 1 - 3515[I - - }` 1�151 - � 1 1 � �1 $mn � ___ <l7�[t� -� - +�f5a1� i QN � .-u,:. _ � i, Main Street Cuyertino CUMULATIVE PLUS SCHEME 1 PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE t6 � ti 3 - ^ _ _ _ ` ` .. � - a' _ _ _a ri �- - � �niS��y � � i'ss lo"sl � „ R'-`, � �rv �BB l � _ � �� -26 (18) m m `c' L 8681 589 ) N m � � ---21 (ti01 � m v «195 (J00� "' � �o;° ��--487(789) �& �'�---79411.239) n"m d `" � � . 1 °' � �223 (4B8) i r I �r (230) `�' � � � �3931412) � � i } � 17316521 "' `Y' " �' 1081591 �, v o � j7aa� � �� y �, HomeSiead Rd. `� Prunenel e Ave. � � 1 � Prui'.r.riJ B Ave. � I�[dU "IH H.in ♦ Home5tea0 HG. HomeSteatl R0. } } 125 764 -� � 1 � 33 f397-� .� 1 � 371 Ib83)- � i� LA �4a1 -� � I� 13t (7.1)-� � 1 � I � 478 """ 894(735)---►m 409(793)� "' 41f�81-+ IA9(107) '- `" o 217 (3761� �i o � 83175)-ti a' ° o _ 162 (367)� _ $ 90 (881 � e _ 81 (451-,, _ _ _ _ - ' °�ti ,n � ' � �� R� "' � LEGEND: �i o � - y -°- °' � m ° s o_ rn ° z a 'O °,' Q u"'i �� m►__- . � ., C,,; ,. - Pro e�t Site 01 �15ti(430) in>o , �39(8) `r m �-3(5) -- [47f:33t1 �,..,� 1 �� a �o� °.—�� m=°- o �is�aosl �� =,� 8m� a.-9oe�ea�� •--� - � � 3 �' � �' � �521176) ° f ° � � � � �23 (28) � � o �25t (A23) �� - South Vallc� _ j , , , � � Mas Plan � - zeo se rt3�n s • ` Vailco Pkw . � � Vallco Pkw . � Dnvnwa � �,u Cre Bnc FoCUS Ared } VaIICV Pkw . } ,I 742 (335)-� I � 321452)-a � ? � 27 (51� � t � 51 (182)� � I I 195 (248)� � r � O = Stutly - 0(20)-► 2�.i3(274)-�� y 22f�)-• J:iJ1�.��d1 I!ilerS'e�tiu�» 272 494 121191) a61118)-� ¢' O 7213401 � m�� li)d 134U1� __ _ ( )� � � --- � � XXIYYI =AM(PM) =° � �m ° � � - °' ^ � c �p �.- y �Bt (86) � a �75(98) � � � �-11 (52) _� �- �-iti7 1245) _ � = R -95 (15a) ? �-20J 1157 y ^� �t--1.263(1461 �=- ��-1477(1.684 N E�-1455(1,455 c�vma 3 86B(956) �� LL 9Y1(�.1B3i �-1.152(1. m �°i a 23 58 I `�' a 64 121 °`�' I �83 (130) `;' � 176 (12�1 I �"' �r - �17 (203) w ` � �129 (250) � f I l� ( ) i Ir ( ) � � . � �1 .' . �� , � `� . � k m '� � � .. � � ` i e , `� ' s�e.ti��s :,eex i�a '� } 123 (169)� � 1 � 48 (89)� � t � 34 (167)-� � 1� A23 (6331� � I� a611941-� � r 1901�y51� � I r 794 1,797 928 2.045) 7,09612.037) o`,� 710 (1.202)-+ � v 724 (1.516)-► � 62511.646)-� � ) A2 50 73 (238) � ' m � 1B1 (101) 231971� ' - - 46 (BS)� _ ( 17 _ 6 1 - � • - - _ � _ _ � � R-297 (29C � �---1,422 (� � n 597 (460)-} � t � ' 883 (1,798�-► a � m mn i � FEHR & PEER� i0.� CONSULTANti seu�zuaa SJOB-tU41 � � t l � � i _ � � N - NOT TO SCALG _ - p n �' r - r �' I I I,7(i�31 �' t' 2 1t'i 1'2 143 � � L - � G � �� L � �i .r U '� �if i 71111.1tll1 � ' I,JU/�I.�s2)� 335�86ti1__, V ` n 3 ,-. � v .-.,-, y y �Y � � , ¢ � m R-403(308) ^O1 m �136(110) ° oam � L209(115) m 'a � ° -�v �' L2S7197) _ _ '� �--13(52) �� m °nir �� rv. = mo � ,�f�n m �o m �" � a �76110G) „ . �--S6:f (703) � O1 0 - 4981ti361 <v ,v � (965) � y f 1��21 � -.� _ � fa01� � ^ `O�" p i r -- 161(2731 ` m r"92(1751 ° � L �r'651ifi1) `s � 10311ti�,il j"I a� a�(107) �� 1 � `� � n � -280 SB Ram � �� Bollni er Rtl. � Bollii� er R0. � • BoILn er Htl. � �~ Boilin nr HJ. � �� M1luori»rk A�n. 1 valli:o Pk-nv. 87 (79J� � 1 � 122 (119)-� ��, � 26 (57)-� � 1 � to3 112 � � i r yq �5 -J eoii�n er Ra. ♦ ( 1 �� yt (3J�.f). � � 1J IS[i-I � � 378(556)-� >$�n 55(BO) 3901648) N g� �i3(689)--► - 703fy87)---► 211157s) 25 ILJ1� _ 12(38 � 35(921� -' 35(85)-ti '_ 97i[/r,i-� - i�i;41 220(9Fi1)-ti _ 1� __ � - � ♦ , n �� .r,�v - , Main Street Cupertino CUMULATIVE PLUS SCHEME 2 PEAK•HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 17 �}�� 2 X ..� . } .r t.°St � Main Street Cupertino Y :, ,,�� ' September 2008 �"��„,� _�� ; �;:-� TABLE 12 CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Cumulative + Scheme 1 Cumulative + Scheme 2 Background (S1) (S2) Peak � in Crit � in Crit , in Crit � in Crit Intersection Hour� Delay LOS Delay LOS V/C Detay' Delay LOS V/C Delay 1. Wolfe Road ! AM 27.5 C 27.7 C 0.017 0.3 27.8 C 0.016 0.3 Homestead Road PM 35.1 D+ 37.2 D+ 0.041 3.1 37.0 D+ 0.037 2.8 2. Homestead Road / AM 22.g C+ 23.5 C 0.020 1.0 23.3 C 0.016 0.7 Tantau Avenue PM 26.4 C 28.6 C 0.041 2.5 28.1 C 0.035 2.1 3. Homestead Road / AM 86.4 F 92.9 F 0.056 3.2 92.4 F 0.055 22 Lawrence Expy PM 111.1 F 122.8 F 0.081 10.6 121.9 F 0.078 9.3 4. Wolfe Road / AM 20.6 B- 20.9 C+ 0.017 0.8 21.0 C+ 0.015 0.8 Pruneridge Avenue PM 38.8 D+ 40.3 D 0.040 2.6 402 D 0.038 2.5 5. Pruneridge Avenue AM 22.3 C+ 22.6 C+ 0.028 0.3 22.6 C+ 0.021 0.2 / Tantau Avenue PM 21.9 C+ 23A C+ 0.083 1.5 22.8 C+ 0.076 1.3 6. Wolfe Road / I-280 AM 15.2 B 15.3 B 0.002 0.0 15.4 B 0.003 0.1 Northbound Ramps PM 13.9 B 14.4 B 0.039 0.9 14.3 B 0.033 0.7 7. Wolfe Road / 1-280 AM 14.0 B 14.1 B 0.017 0.2 14.1 B 0.013 0.1 SB Rampss PM 9.4 A 10.1 B+ 0.077 1.1 9.9 A 0.067 0.8 8. Wolfe Road / Vallco AM 20.4 C+ 24.9 C 0.074 6.2 24.3 C 0.065 5.6 Parkway PM 53.1 D- 73.4 E 0.110 25.7 71.3 E 0.106 24.4 9. Vallco Parkwa�r / AM 11.0 B 13.5 B 13.6 B Finch Avenue pM 12.2 B 26.8 D 26.4 D 10. Vallco Parkway / AM 1 g.1 B- 19.5 B- 0.008 0.9 18.7 B- 0.002 -0.1 Tantau Avenue PM 20.2 B- 25.3 C 0.266 62 23.4 C 0227 3.9 11. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 31.7 C 32.6 C- 0.027 12 32.6 C- 0.025 1.1 / De Anza Blvds PM 44.9 D 51.1 D- 0.057 9.0 50.4 D 0.051 7.8 12. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 2g.0 C 28.9 C 0.026 0.1 29.0 C 0.023 0.3 / Blaney Avenue PM 29-9 C 30.4 C 0.068 1.6 30.3 C 0.057 1.4 13. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 14.3 B 13.6 B 0.020 -0.5 13.6 B 0.016 -0.4 / Portal Avenue pM 132 B 12.4 B 0.048 -0.5 12.5 B 0.039 -0.4 14. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 10.0 A 9.7 A 0.015 0.0 9.7 A 0.012 0 / Perimeter Road PM 17.4 B- 16.4 B 0.047 -0.7 16.5 B 0.039 -0.6 15. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 38.7 D 38.7 D+ 0.031 0.5 38.7 D+ 0.027 0.5 / Wolfe Rd-Miller PM 40.1 D 42.3 D 0.071 12 42.0 D 0.067 1.0 16. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 37.6 D 37.7 D+ 0.034 -0.4 37.3 D+ 0.033 -0.7 / Finch Avenue PM 27.0 C 40.0 D 0.117 16.2 39.5 D 0.106 8.7 17. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 23.0 C+ 23.8 C 0.106 1.8 23.9 C 0.109 2.0 / Tantau Avenue pM 25.0 C 31.0 C 0.119 7.5 30.4 C 0.115 7.3 18. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 2g.5 C 27.7 C 0.007 0.4 27.4 C 0.022 -3.8 / I-280 Ramps PM 55.2 E+ 83.3 F 0.135 62.8 82.7 F 0.130 60.2 � � � - � � '� � � �,. , �, �, � FEHR & PEERS � �� x � TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS � ��. ,� .. , .,y. _ �_ .�� _�. �� _ . : � � � ;� � �. x �� .� Main Sfreet Cupertino �� 't `� � ��;�" September 2008 �� - � ��` � _ 4_ � � - �� _ F r �� TABLE 12 CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Cumulative + Scheme 1 Cumulative + Scheme 2 Background (S1) �S2) Peak � in Crit � in Crit � in Crit � in Crit Intersection Nour' Delay LOS Delay LOS V/C Delay Delay LOS V/C Delay 19. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 23.1 C+ 24.3 C 0.059 1.7 24.4 C 0.063 1.8 /LawrenceExpy(W) PM 32.4 C- 34.7 C- 0.086 4.5 34.1 C- 0.069 3.3 20. Stevens Creek Blvd AM 37.9 D+ 39.1 D 0.039 1.6 39.1 D 0.041 1.6 lLawrence Expy(E) 6 pM 33.7 C- 35.9 D+ 0.081 2.8 35.4 D+ 0.068 2.4 21. Lawrence Expy ! i- AM 53.7 D- 60.2 E 0.040 8.5 59.5 E+ 0.037 7.7 280 SB Ramps 6 PM 54.2 D- 124.2 F 0.281 102.4 124.5 F 0.281 102.3 22. Bollinger Road / De AM 31.3 C 33.7 C- 0.063 3.8 33.7 C- 0.061 3.8 Anza Boulevard 6 PM 36.9 D+ 37.7 D+ 0.045 2.1 37.5 D+ 0.038 1.8 23. Bollinger Road / AM 20.0 B- 21.2 C+ 0.044 1.9 21.2 C+ 0.042 1.8 Blaney Avenue pM 212 C+ 22.0 C+ 0.026 1.2 21.9 C+ 0.024 1.2 24. Bollinger Road / AM 33.6 C- 33.9 C- 0.017 0.5 33.9 C- 0.018 0.5 Miller Avenue PM 38.4 D+ 39.4 D 0.028 1.0 39.3 D 0.027 0.9 25. Bollinger Road / AM 12.6 B 12.7 B 0.001 0.1 12.6 B 0.002 0.0 Tantau Avenue pM 16.4 B 17.1 B 0.007 0.7 17 B 0.005 0.6 26. Bollinger Rd / AM 51.5 D- 53.8 D- 0.038 1.6 53.9 D- 0.036 2.4 Lawrence Expy 6 PM 54.7 D- 56.0 E+ 0.070 2.4 56.0 E+ 0.065 2.1 27. Vallco Parkway / AM 19.4 B- 16.2 B -0.006 -2.6 16.0 B -0.004 -2.9 Perimeter Road pM 20.0 B- 21.0 C+ 0.001 1.2 20.2 C+ -0.012 0.0 Notes: 1 AM = morning peak-hour, PM = evening peak-hour. 2 Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop intersections using methodology described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. For two-way stop controlled unsignalized intersections, total control delay for the worst movement, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is presented. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX level of service analysis software package. 3 LOS = �evel of service 4 Change in critical movement delay between Cumulative No Project and Background Conditions. A decrease in the critical delay indicates project trips were added to movements with low delays thus causing a decrease in the overall critical delay. 5 Change in the critical volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) between Cumulative No Project and Background Conditions. 6 Designated CMP intersection. 7 Side-st�eet stop control under Background Conditions and Project Conditions. CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table 13 presents the Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Scheme 1 and Cumulative Plus Scheme 2 Conditions. If an impact was identified between Background and Cumulative Plus Project Scenario, this comparison determines whether the impact of the project is considered cumulatively significant at the intersection. �` � �� ;-�-��' �� x �. . - u� �� . ��Y:� � +� FEHR & PEERS ' �� iRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS F `" �� G �� , g , �. _�> , , t : _ K�-�+ ,. ..> ., � � � �_ � �� , . � ��J �� t- ��€� �' � � � Main Street Cupertino �� ;�� September 2008 �,�`�'`�� ' , ,� �� ., ..:�,�.�w3",..,.�.� _ . .. x T TABLE 13 CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE No Project Plus Project Peak � in Crit �� in Crit Intersection Hour Delay' LOS Delay LOS V/C Delay Scheme 1 3. Lawrence Expy / AM 89.9 F 92 F 0.011 6.1 Homestead Road PM 116.2 F 122.8 F 0.019 9.6 8. Wolfe Road / Vallco AM 20.3 C+ 24.9 C 0.072 6.2 Parkway PM 54.0 �- 73.4 E 0.096 23.7 18. Stevens Creek AM 28.8 C 27 C -0.008 -0.2 Bivd /Calvert Drive PM 602 E 83.3 F 0.109 51.3 21. Lawrence Expy / I- AM 52.9 D- 60.2 E 0.030 8.6 280-Calvert Drive PM 60.1 E 124.2 F 0.256 95.6 26. Bollinger Road / AM 51.7 D- 53.8 D- 0.017 4.9 Lawrence Expy 6 PM 55.6 E+ 56.0 E+ 0.013 0.9 Scheme 2 3. Lawrence Expy / AM 89.9 F 92.4 F 0.011 5.1 Homestead Road PM 1162 F 121.9 F 0.015 8.4 8. Wolfe Road / Vallco AM 20.3 C+ 24.3 C 0.064 5.6 Parkway PM 54.0 D- 71.3 E 0.091 22.4 18. Stevens Creek AM 28.8 C 27.4 C 0.008 -4.4 Bivd /Calvert Drive PM 60.2 E $2.7 F 0.104 48.7 21. Lawrence Expy / I- AM 52.9 D- 59.5 E+ 0.027 7.8 280-Calvert Drive PM 60.1 E 124.5 F 0.256 95.5 26. Bollinger Road / AM 51.7 D- 53.9 D- 0.014 5.7 Lawrence Expy 6 PM 55.6 E+ 56.0 E+ 0.008 0.7 Notes: 1 AM = morning peak-hour, PM = evening peak-hour. 2 Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle for signalized and all-way stop intersections using methodology described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation fiow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions. For two-way stop controlled unsignalized intersections, total control delay for the worst movement, expressed in seconds per vehicle, is presented. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX level of service analysis software package. 3 LOS = Level of service 4 Change in critical movement delay between Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. A decrease in the critical delay indicates project trips were added to movements with low delays thus causing a decrease in the overall critical delay. 5 Change in the critical volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) between Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. 6 Designated CMP intersection. Significant impacts are shown in bold typeface. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008 �; �� = � � � _ , .. � � <`�� :� fi FEHR � PEERS ` � °� �� TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS � 4 � � � t�'�'�,��' F� �. � , :s _ . _. . . e�. .., _�_=y��=�,�:. . � n � � ��•� � `" , �,4 . �� ' t Main Street Cupertino � -� �� September 2008 �� '�� - '�, k _,_� . The project schemes will have a cumulatively significant impact at the following intersections: • Lawrence Expressway and Homestead Road (Scheme 1 and 2: PM peak hour) • Vallco Parkway and Wolfe Road (Scheme 1 and 2: PM peak hour) • Stevens Creek Boulevard and I-280 Southbound Ramps-Calve�t Drive (Scheme 1 and 2: PM peak hourj ■ Lawrence Expressway and I-280 Southbound Ramps-Calvert Drive (Scheme 1 and 2: AM and PM peak hours) The individual schemes do not increase critical v/c by more than 1 percent or increase average critical delay by more than 4.0 seconds of delay between Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions at Lawrence Expressway and Bollinger Road-Moorpark Avenue; therefore, the cumulative impact at this location is not considered significant. Mitigation Measures Improvements were identified at the impacted intersections to mitigate cumulative plus project impacts back to less-than-significant levels of service. The following mitigation measures identified under project conditions mitigate the cumulative impact to less-than-significant levels: Lawrence Expressway/Homestead Road — The addition of a third westbound or a third eastbound through lane would improve cumulative plus project intersection levels of service to acceptable LOS E; however, this improvement would require significant right-of-way acquisition. This intersection is controlled and maintained by the County of Santa Clara and any improvements need to be approved and implemented by the County. Therefore, the impact at this intersection is considered significant-and- unavoidable. Vallco Parkway / Wolfe Road — The mitigation measures identified under project conditions (a westbound right overlap phase; a second westbound right-turn lane; or permitted phasing on the eastbound and westbound approaches) also mitigate the potential cumulative plus project impact to less-than- significant Stevens Creek Boulevard / I-280 Southbound Ramps-Calvert Drive — Addition of an eastbound right-turn overlap phase mitigates the impact the less-than-significant. This intersection is not located within the City of Cupertino; therefore, the applicant will need to coordinate with the lead agency to determine the appropriate mitigation at this location. Therefore, this impact would be conside�ed significant-and- unavoidable because the City of Cupertino has no authority to implement any improvements at this location. Lawrence Expressway/1-280 Southbound Ramps-Calvert Drive — An additional northbound and southbound through lane would improve overall delay; however, the intersection would still operate unacceptably. Therefore the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. This intersection is not controlled by the City of Cupe�tion and the applicant will need to coordinate with the lead agency to determine the appropriate mitigation at this location. Therefore, this impact would be considered signi�cant-and-unavoidable because the City of Cupertino has no authority to implement any improvements at this location. . ... �. "°'gF"x3.''�'4eyr;� �.,. �� .�",�„ Z'°f' a, �iC ; � . T . .� , . � .'"`. e�6,-_ ^� - • � i � x � �� S . j � ;^ xd � � '� FEHR & PEER.S sk � � � � 4 3 i ��F`.� "+ C TRANSPORTATION CONSUITANTS `� r .�"`rm , � -° , = � - , , .. ':_ �, ,_ '.: . �_'.�'.:-` ,, , - ,,�'.�. -. . . �. F . q �.._ .. .. _ . _ - . . _ b � �'' �y' f1 � ' � � ��^'�"�l ' . W ��`� � �_ Main Street Cupertino � F �' September 2008 � � . e < ' t�� r- `«c3.� ,� �"� �., I . 7. PARKING This chapter presents the results of the parking analysis performed for the proposed project schemes. This analysis includes a comparison of the proposed parking supply to City Code and to the supply needed to accommodate the estimated future parking demand. PROPOSED PARKING SUPPLIES In both Scheme 1 and 2 the project proposes to narrow Vallco Parkway from six to two lanes and provide angled parking spaces on both sides of Vallco Parkway between Tantau Avenue and Finch Avenue. For the purposes of this analysis only the angled parking spaces on the south side of Vallco Parkway were included in the supply for the site. In Scheme 1, the project includes 1,520 on-site parking spaces, including 260 surface lot spaces and 1,260 garage parking spaces. The majority of these spaces (1,100 spaces) would be located within a five- story parking structure situated in the north-central area of the site. The senio� housing building would include a befow-grade garage with 160 spaces. The remaining spaces would be surface parking along the interior of the site. This site plan also shows on-street parking along Vallco Parkway (94 angled spaces) and Stevens Creek Boulevard (44 paratlel spaces) for a totai of 138 on-street spaces. Total parking supply would be 1,658 parking spaces. In Scheme 2, the project developer is proposing 1,830 on-site parking spaces and 133 on-street parking spaces. The majority of these spaces (1,120 spaces) would be located within a four-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 290 spaces; a third structure under the senior housing building would have 160 spaces. The remaining on-site parking spaces (260 spaces) would be surface parking along the interior of the site, including the area surrounding the town square. Scheme 2 would also provide additional parking along Vallco Parkway (89 spaces) and Stevens Creek Boulevard (44 parallel spaces). The total parking supply under this Scheme would be 1,963 spaces. PARKING DEMAND AND SUPPLY RATE SOURCES AND ESTIMATES To estimate future parking needs for the two schemes, the foliowing sources were reviewed: • City of Cupertino Municipal Code (including the City's shared parking code); ■ Parking Generation (3 Edition) by the Institute of Transportation Engineers; ■ Shared Parking published by Urban Land Institute (ULI); and • Lifetime Fitness Center Parking Design Rate Study by TRC Engineers (Scheme 1 only). Parking demands and recommended supplies for Scheme 1 and Scheme 2 are presented in the following sections. City of Cupertino Parking Code Requirements City of Cupertino code rates for the project land uses are as follows: • General Commercial/Retail space requires 1 parking space/250 s.f. of gross retail space • Office space requires 1 parking space/285 s.f. of gross office space " °��' �.� � . e. : ,, , : � , ..:r .� � .�. , `� ,� ._� .'�. �� '- � a< FEHR & PEERS ��' �� ¢ TRAMSPORTATION CONSULTAMTS ��.� � . .,,. .,_.w� �.�� ,.�;�, _ -�� i :��,R' ;<,� �- � _ � �; �� -:'; . Main Sfreet Cuperfino � September 2008 ��. � � � �`��.�-� � 3 _ r`� ` '. ,�,_�, . • Hotel space requires 1 parking space/room and 1 parking space/employee (0.33 employees per room) • Athletic club does not have a designated rate in the code, so a general retail rate of 1 parking space/250 s.f. was used The City of Cupertino does not have parking requirements for senior housing within its city code. A requirement of one (1) parking space per dwelling unit was used in this analysis. This requirement was based on ITE parking generation rates for senior housing and city staff recommendations. Using the City of Cupertino rates would result in a total required supply of 1,891 parking spaces needed for Scheme 1 and 1,790 spaces needed for Scheme 2. Industry Standard Rates and Estimates ITE Demand Rates and Estimates Parking demands for the two schemes were estimated using information pubtished in ITE's Parking Generation 3 Edition. The parking demand for the proposed Lifetime Fitness Center was estimated using information provided by Lifetime Fitness and included in its Trip Generation and Parking Design study conducted by TRC Engineers. ITE land use codes for Shopping Center (820), Senior Housing (252), Hotel (310), and Office (701) were used to identify the parking demand rates for the land uses included in the project. The 85 percentile parking demand rates during a weekday and weekend day were applied to provide a conservative and reasonable estimate for the demand that is projected to occur on the site. The Lifetime Fitness Center parking design report includes the parking demand characteristics for the five (5) sites surveyed in the study. Peak peaking demand for weekdays ranges from 2.33 spaces per 1,000 square feet to 3.38 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Peak parking demand for weekends ranges from 2.04 spaces per 1,000 square feet to 5.12 spaces per 1,000 square feet; however, the high demand rate (5.12) occurred at only one site (Warrington, Illinois) — the next highest rate was observed at 3.23 spaces per square foot. To estimate demand at the proposed facility, the average for the peak weekday and weekend demand rates for the surveyed facilities were calculated to determine an average demand rate. Based on ITE 85� percentile demand rates and the average demand observed at Lifetime Fitness Centers, the estimated parking demand for Scheme 1 is 1,497 spaces during the week and 1,410 spaces during the weekend. The estimated parking demand for Scheme 2 is 1,561 spaces during the week and 1,085 spaces during the weekend. These demand estimates a�e the sums of the peak parking rates for the individual uses and do not account for variations in when the peaks occur or any sharing of parking facilities. ULI Supplv Rates and Estimates ULI determines its recommended supply rates using ITE land use categories. The appropriate rates were applied to the land uses in the two Schemes to determine an estimated demand for the site. ULI provide parking supply rates and not demand rates as published by ITE. Using rates published by ULI, the estimated parking supply for Scheme 1 is 1,555 spaces during the week and 1,418 spaces during the weekend. The estimated parking supply for Scheme 2 is 1,538 spaces during the week and 1,931 spaces during the weekend. These supply estimates are the sums of the peak parking rates for the individual uses and do not account for variations in when the peaks occur or any sharing of parking facilities. ::- �� _�� '� k; ��. A � 4 �R' .. 3 �.:� "C . �^ �L"'* � FEHR & PEERS ��.�;� TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS t ` �� ' - ; � `. ' �,: ?�� ;.�,, . � � `� - ��l�a r:� v � ri " �'i I I �µ�`� . { � G�� ,.� . I Main Street Cupertino . �� 4 r September 2008 '�� . � � � � ��.�°� ��,' ��'" � � < .. ..� .� � . � ,�;. �' _,., '< ITE and ULl Supply Rates Inherent to any parking lot are certain inefficiencies, such as imbalanced usage, designation of certain lots for certain groups (i.e. senior housing), duration of visits, circulation of vehicles, and walking distances, which reduce the effective supply. The "effective parking supply" typically ranges from 85 to 95 percent of the total supply depending on the type of use. Higher percentages are used in cases such as office complexes, where parkers are regular users of the lots and tend to park for longer periods. Lower percentages are used for places with high levels of parking turnover such as retail centers. When parking demand reaches or exceeds the effective parking supply, motorists have to search extensively to find available parking and often have to walk longer distances. To account for these parking issues, the demand rates provided by ITE and Lifetime Fitness were factored up by 10 percent. The rates presented in Table 14 represent recommended parking supply rates for uses on the site. TABLE 14 ITE AND ULI PARKING SUPPLY RATES ITE' ULI Use Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Retail 3.69 per k.s.f. 4.80 per k.s.f. 3.60 per k.s.f 4.0 per k.s.f. Office 3.78 per k_s.f. 0.38 per k.s.f. 2.88 per k.s.f. 0.38 per k.s.f. Hote1 125 per room 1.08 per room 1.25 per k.s.f. 1.08 per k.s.f. Senior Housing 0.5 per d.u. 0.5 per d.u. 1.85 per k.s.f. 1.85 per k.s.f. Athletic CIub 3.02 per k_s.f 3.52 per k.s.f. 3.02 per k.s.f 3.52 per k.s.f. Notes: 1 The 85'" percentile is defined as the point at which 85 percent of the values fall at or below and 15 percent of the values are above it. It is intended to provide decision makers with a guide to make parking supply decisio�s. 2 Weekend parking supply rates for hotel and o�ce land uses were taken from ULI because ITE does not provide rates for these land uses during the weekend. 3 Lifetime Fitness Center provided information about parking characteristics at facilities surveyed in the Tnp Generation and Parking Design Characteristics (TRC Engineers, 2007). This data was used in place of the standard ITE and ULI parking supply rates for athletic clubs. Source: Parking Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 3` Edition). Shared Parking (2nd Edition), Urban Land Institute, 2005;Trip Generation and Parking Design (TRC Engineers, 2007) SHARED PARKING SUPPLY ANALYSIS The parking supply was evaluated using a shared-parking analysis since the proposed project contains a mix of uses, each with different parking characteristics. The shared parking analysis estimates the number of parking spaces needed to accommodate the overall peak demand of all the uses on the site. Since the shared parking analysis takes into account the unique time distribution and peaking characteristics of each use on the site, the resulting peak shared parking demand typically differs from the parking supp�y calculated using the parking rates required by the City Code for the individual land uses. A shared parking analysis using ULI methodology (temporal distributions, non-captive ratios) was completed using parking rates included in the City Code, ITE Parking Generation, ULI, and the Lifetime Fitness Center Study. The City's shared parking methodology is also presented. �:r�� `�� ' � �- �> ,; j ,�� , F E H R� P E E RS �� TRANSPORTATION CONSUItANTS _�� ;�,� . . . �. ... ��Z�� .�u �r z� -- �� .� �� y � ` _�,�:;, � � Main Street Cupertino � a'� � �i,a �� ;� -a x Sepfember 2008 � � : _ F . _ Urban Land lnstitute (ULI) — The Urban Land Institute (ULI) provides parking information for an assortment of land uses to help determine the appropriate number of parking spaces needed to adequately serve mixed-use projects, as well as single use projects with common parking facilities. Shared parking analyses illustrate the temporal distribution of parking demand by hour, day, and month. The parking demand for the land uses within the Main Street Cupertino Development peak at different times during the day; therefore, combinations of these land uses on a common site require a smaller total parking supply than the supply for each individual land use added together. The shared parking analysis for the proposed project uses the base parking ratios identified by ULI in Shared Parking. These rates include a factor that accounts for circulating vehicles, as parking facilities are considered "full" even though maximum capacity is not reached. The base ratios are adjusted by month and hour. The ULI shared parking analysis accounts for mode split and factors in a non-captive ratio. The mode split reduces the parking demand proportionate to the number of customers and employees accessing the project by public transit, bicycle, and foot. A 100% automobile mode split was used for this analysis to provide a conservative estimate of the number of needed parking spaces. The non-captive ratio reduces the parking demand proportionate to the number of customers and employees visiting land uses within the project from other uses within the project and adjacent properties where no new car trips are added. The non-captive ratio does not necessarily correspond to the pass-by and diverted-link trip generation reductions sometimes taken for projects. A 95°/a non-captive ratio was used applied to the retail components of the project to account for the internal trips between the office, hotel, residential, and retail uses. Table 15 presents the various parking supply estimates for the two project Schemes based on the different rates and methodologies discussed above. TABLE 15 ESTIMATED SHAREO PARKING SUPPLY City ITE ULI Land Use yyeekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Scheme 1 1,457 1,435 1,326 1,266 1,450 1,312 Scheme 2 1,434 1,084 1,521 938 1,541 960 Notes: 1 Peak parking demand based on the identified supply rates (City Code, ITE, or ULI) and temporal parking distributions. The City Code provides this distribution; ULI methodology was applied to ULI and ITE 85'" percentile parking rates. Source: City of Cupertino. City of Cupertino Municipal Code: Chapter 19.100 Parking Regulations, 2005. Parking Generation (Institute of Transpo�tation Engineers, 3` Edition); Trip Generation and Parking Design Guidelines (TRC Engineers, 2007); Shared Parking (2nd Edition), Urban Land Institute, 2005. Scheme 1 provides 1,520 off-street parking spaces plus 138 on-street parking spaces (along Vallco Parkway and Stevens Creek Boulevard). Scheme 2 provides 1,830 parking spaces plus 133 on-street spaces. Based on the methodologies presented in Table 15, both schemes provide sufficient parking when shared parking is considered. . �� \ 'tl ,"`�'�,� ��2p�' w j , §- � +� . " 1 �:er. ,� �"5•. � � . " FEHR �t. PEERS ` �; �� ,, � -� ��. � TRANSPORTA�ION CONSULTANTS — � " � i �: � � �'-" . . �?'� "��:° . s . , _ , ,.. . _, . _ . ;� �' ��" a-�� Main Street Cupertino �_ ��'��' ' September 2008 �`� � }" - `�� p � �, . .�#.��. � , ..., .. PARKING SUPPLY RECOMMENDATIONS Scheme 1 The project proposes 1,520 parking spaces (including 160 dedicated residential spaces). If the project is approved with the addition of on-street parking spaces along Vallco Parkway and Stevens Creek Boulevard, the total number of spaces would be 1,658 spaces for the entire site. The proposed Scheme provides sufficient parking for the proposed site uses. Based on the shared parking analysis, the proposed project p�ovides sufficient parking for the proposed land uses according to the rates used for City Code, ITE and ULI. The City Code rates and ULI rates provide similar recommendations for the site. However, these estimates assume that the project is only required to provide one space per senior dwelling unit. If the developer was required by City Code to provide two parking spaces per unit (one dedicated space plus one shared space), each of these parking space recommendations would increase by 160 spaces. Using City Code, this would result in a recommendation of 1,617 spaces. � Furthermore, the ITE recommendation incorporates a design factor of 10 percent, which is the minimum recommended rate to apply to parking areas serving areas with typically high parking turn-over rates, such as retail areas. This design rate accounts for inefficiencies in the lot, such as imbalanced usage, duration of parking in certain areas, and vehicles circulating looking for parking. If a higher design rate was used, the total recommended parking supply would be approximately 1,392 stalls. These additional spaces give drivers more parking opportunities during peak parking periods. The proposed supply of 1,520 on-site parking spaces is sufficient to accommodate the projected parking demand for Scheme 1. The shared parking results indicate that approximately 1,450 parking spaces are required to accommodate the projected parking demand. This provides approximately 70 surplus spaces not including the on-street spaces. We recommend that the on-site parking supply provide 1,450 parking spaces for Scheme 1. The surplus that will be created with the addition of the on-street spaces should account for peak parking demands that may occur. This analysis was performed for a generic shopping center that would include some restaurant space because specific tenants have not been identified. The City of Cupertino should monitor the percentage of restaurant to retail space because restaurants generate a much higher parking demand than retail space. We recommend that if the restaurant to retail space exceeds ten (10) percent, that the City re-evatuate parking at the site to verify that the projected parking demand will not exceed the parking supply. The developer in coordination with the City should develop a contingency plan if the actual demand for parking is higher than the supply, especially at peak time such as the Christmas shopping season. This plan could include measures that reduce the parking impact and potentially balance the parking deficiency. Measures could include: ■ Providing valet parking either on-site or at an off-site location; • Providing off-site employee parking with a shuttle; ■ Entering into a shared-use agreement with surrounding land owners to use their parking lots during peak parking periods; or • Bank land at another off-site location if strategies to reduce total demand are ineffective. On-site parking could be monitored while elements of the total project open. The purpose of this monitoring would be to survey the actual parking demand. If adequate parking supply is available, then the remainder of the project could be developed without changes being made to the parking plan. ,` , �_ � Y . *z' N'�§. k � ��a��. »�Y.s - � . . . . ��.�� '"'�4 � ��?' Z s . � `i"'�'�. �'a� fr c� �. ' FEHR & PEERS �� .g � � TRANSP-0RTATION CONSULTANTS �� r , ,-- . �,.�: ��. - � �� a ��, '� ' �'" ��r� p�� Main Streef Cupertino '; '�� a I'' i4 ' September 2008 :; ��°��-� , .� � � ,.� ; F=' _ � _�,� � � } ;� .a� � Other Parking Requirements: The site plan does not indicate bicycle-parking facilities. The project sponsor should provide 82 Class I bicycle parking spaces for residents (0.4 Class I bicycle spaces per dwelling unit; 0.05 Class I bicycle spaces per auto office spaces), and 38 Class II bicycle parking spaces for retail and hotel customers (0.05 Class II bicycle spaces pe� auto retail space and auto hotel spaces). The City does not have a bicycle-parking requirement for the athletic club. The City might consider asking the developer to provide bicycle parking spaces at the athletic club to accommodate anyone wishing to bike to the gym. To accommodate demand and encourage non-motorized transportation use, bicycle parking should be conveniently located near on-site bicycle and pedestrian routes. Class I facilities are long-term parking spaces that protect the entire bicycle and accessories from theft. These long-term facilities include bicycle lockers, restricted access rooms, and constantty monitored enclosed cages. Class II facilities are short- term parking spaces within constant view of adjacent buildings or located at street floor level. The Class II facilities consist of a stationary object that users can secure the frame and both wheels with either U- shaped locks or padlocks. The final determination of the necessary parking supply will be made by City staff. Scheme 2 The proposed site plan provides sufficient parking based on the site plan shown on Figure 3. Based on the highest recommended supply (1,541 spaces) from the shared parking analysis, the project would provide an excess of approximately 290 spaces. This does not include the on-street parking spaces. If the project would like to reduce the numbe� of provided spaces, we recommend: ■ Eliminate the below-grade parking garage under the office building; • Reduce the size of the 4-story parking garage; ■ Eliminate the parallel parking spaces along the driveways on the interior of the site; • Eliminate on-street parking along Stevens Creek Boulevard and/or.Vallco Parkway. The proposed garage under the office building does not p�ovide sufficient parking for the office building. To reduce conflicts between office parkers and others on-site, we recommend the following: • Dedicate parking in the garage under the o�ce building and in the larger parking structure to office workers; and/or • Install electronic signage directing patrons to available garage spaces and/or the number of vacant spaces; These reductions allow the project to accommodate the anticipated parking demand while not providing excess parking. It should be noted that the City Code estimate assumes that only one space is required per senior dwelling unit. If the City wishes to require 2 spaces per unit, the total recommendation for parking under the City Code would be 1,594 stalts. Parking on the site could be reduced to at least this level without a foreseeable parking shortage occurring. Alternatively, on-site parking could be monitored while elements of the total project open. The purpose of this monitoring would be to survey the actual parking demand. If adequate parking supply is available, then the remainder of the project could be developed without changes being made to the parking plan. We recommend that 1,540 on-site spaces be provided to accommodate the parking demand for Scheme 2. The surplus that will be created with the addition of the on-street spaces should account for peak «� , ,. � . ,, �_��.�'°�� 4 �.�" .__ �� -=r - � �' - � � . _� � �� FEHR St PEERS � y � �`�� #� �� .� TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS �:?� , ,F :� { �:' � i P� � .. . t �'.x . 2'�t� • Main Street Cupertino ��`,�'� -. _ September 2008 �� ,�� - � - � , �� ,<. °� _'� � . .,.��`�, . .. . ._. ,.r�,�� _.. parking demands that can occur. If Scheme 2 is accepted, the City of Cupertino should monitor the percentage of restaurant to retail space as described above. Other Parking Requirements: The site plan for Scheme 2 does not indicate bicycle-parking facilities. The project sponsor should provide 100 Class I bicycle parking spaces for residents (0.4 Class I bicycle spaces per dwelling unit; 0.05 Class I bicycle spaces per auto office spaces), and 42 Class II bicycle parking spaces for retail and hotel customers (0.05 Class II bicycle spaces per auto retail space and auto hotel spaces). To accommodate demand and encourage non-motorized transportation use, bicycle parking should be conveniently located near on-site bicycle and pedestrian routes. Class I facilities are long-term parking spaces that protect the entire bicycle and accessories from theft. These long-term facilities include bicycle lockers, restricted access rooms, and constantly monitored enclosed cages. Class II facilities are short- term parking spaces within constant view of adjacent buildings or located at street floor level. The Class II facilities consist of a stationary object that users can secure the frame and both wheels with either U- shaped locks or padlocks. The final determination of the necessary parking supply will be made by City staff. �'�� &�; ��"�� . �_ �. .-� � a . � •;fi'Ir A�, ,�„� �� .r. FEHR S� PEERS �� . k �� TRANSPORTATION CONSUITANTS ,� � h_� �..�:._ f..� �a��, : �. NOTE: T'he appendices to this technical report are on tile ��ith the City of Cupertino, Community� Development Depai and can be reviewed during nornial business hours. Appendix D Air Quality Analysis MAIN S'TREET CUPER TINO DRAFT AIR QUALIT�'S'�'UDY CUPER TINO, CALIFORNIA September 15, 2008 ♦ ♦ ♦ Pre�ared for: Kristy Ge David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. 1885 The Alameda, Suite 204 San Jose, CA 95126 Prepared by: James A. Reyff /LL/MGW�O�RTH�r�0iD1C/N,/M� !//l/ Acoustics • Air Quality //I/! 505 Petaluma Boulevard South Petaluma, CA 94952 (707)766-7700 Job No.: 08-042 Introduction This report assesses potential air quality impacts resulting from the Main Street project proposed in Cupertino, Califoi•nia. The project proposes to develop a mix of commercial retail and senior llousing on a 17.4-acre site located north of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The existing land uses located on tlle north side of Stevens Creek are of similar types and mostly residential t}�pe uses, along �ti�ith a school are located on the south side. Two development schemes are evaluated in this analvsis. Scheme 1 proposes 150,000 square feet of retail uses, 100,000 square feet of oftice uses, a 14�,000 square foot athletic c(ub, 160 senior housing units, and a 1 �0-rooin hotel. Scheine 1 also includes the dedication of 1.98 acres of the project site to the City for public parkland. Scheme 2 proposes 146,500 square feet of retail uses, 205,000 square feet of ottice uses, 160 senior housing units, and a 2�0-room hotel. Scheme 2�v�ould also include the dedication of 1.63 acres of the project site to the City for public parkland. The 17.4-acre project site is mostly undeveloped land with bare ground and low gr�owing vegetation. The project site is within the Vallco Park South Area of the City of Cupertino. The � site is currently designated as Commercial/Office/Residential in the City of Cupertino's General Plan land use diagrarn. The existing Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation applies to the miled-use areas that are predominantly commercial and office uses. This analysis evaluates the air quality impacts of the proposed project. The impact associated with the proposed development was evaluated in terms of operational and construction impacts to air quality. The primary focus of the air quality study was to evaluate future project-related emissions on regional air quality as well as existing sources of air pollution near the project that could affect the new sensitive receptors. The project would include new residences, which are considered sensitive receptors. This analysis was conducted following guidance provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)�. Overall Regulatory Setting The Federal C(ean Air Act governs air quality in the United States. In addition to being subject to Federal requirements, air quality in California is also governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act. At the Federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) administers the Federal Clean Air Act. The California Clean Air Act is administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the State level and by the Air Quality Management Districts at the regional and local levels. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulates air quality at the regional level, which includes the nine-county Bay Area. United States Environmental Protection Agency The US EPA is responsible for enforcing the Federal CAA. The US EPA is also responsible for establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS are required under the 1977 Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments. The US EPA regulates emission sources ' BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines for Assessing Air Quality Impacts from Projects and Plans, 1996, revised 1999. 1 that are under the e�clusive authorit�� of the federal government, such as aircratt, ships, and certain t�-pes of locomotives. The agency has jurisdiction over emission sources outside state waters (e.g., bevond tlle outer continental shelt) and establishes various emission standards. including those for ��ehicies sold in states other than California. Autonlobiles sold in Califocnia must meet the stricter emissiou standards established by CARB. California Air Resources Board In California. CARB �vhich is part of tlle Galifornia Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible foc nleeting the state requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act, administering the California Clean Air Act, and establishing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The California Clean Air Act requires all air districts in the State to endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS. CARB regulates mobile air pollution sources, such as motor vehicles. The agency is responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other emission sources, such as consumer products and certain off-road equipment. CARB has established passenger vehicle fuel specifications and oversees the functions ot local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, which in turn administer air quality activities at the regional and county level. CARB also conducts or supports research into the effects of air pollution on the public and develops innovative approaches to reducing air pollutant emissions. Bav Area Air Qualitv Management District BAAQMD is pritnarily responsible for assuring that the National and State ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area. BAAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, as well as many other activities. BAAQMD has jurisdiction over much of the nine-county Bay Area counties. National and State Ambient Air Qualitv Standards As required by the Federal Clean Air Act, NAAQS have been established for six major air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO ozone (03), respirable particulate matter (PM fine particulate matter (PM�.;), sulfur oxides, and lead. Pursuant to the California Clean Air Act, the State of California has also established ambient air quality standards. These standards are generally more stringent than the corresponding federal standards and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles. Both State and Federal standards are summarized in Table l. The "primary" standards have been established to protect the public health. The "secondary" standards are intended to protect the nation's welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation and other aspects of the general welfare. CAAQS are more stringent than NAAQS. Thus, CAAQS are used as the comparative standard in this analysis. 2 Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards National Standards � Averaging California Pollutant Time Standards Primar�� Secondar�� '`�� 8-hour 0.07 ppm 0.075 ppm — Ozone 1-hour 0.09 ppm — Same as primar�� Carbon 8-hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm — monohide 1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm — Annual 0.03 ppm 0.053 ppm Same as primary Nitrogen dioxide 1-hour 0.18 ppm 0.030 ppm — Annual — 0.03 ppm — 24-hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm — Sulfur dioxide 0.5 ppm 3-hour — — 1-hour 0.25 ppm — — Annual 20 µg�111? __'� Same as primary PM,� 24-hour 50 µg/m� 150 µg/m' Same as primary Annual 12 µg/m� 15 µg/m' PM� ; 24-hour — 35 µg/m' Calendar _ �.5 µg/m' Same as primary Lead uarter 30-day average 1.5 µg/m — — Notes: (a) Standards, other than for ozone and those based on annual averages, are not to be exceeded more than once a yeac. The ozone standard is attained when the expected numbec of days per calendar y�ear with marimum hourly average concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. (b) Concentrations are ehpressed first in units in which they were promulgated. Equivalent units �iven in parenthesis. (c) Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. Each state must attain the primary standards no later than 3 years after that state's implementation plan is approved by the EPA. (d) Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any kno�vn or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. (e) The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked by U.S. EPA on June 1 �, 2005. A new 8-hour standard was established in May 2008. (� The annual PM standard was revoked by U.S. EPA on September 21, 2006 and a new PM� 24-hour standard was established. 3 C� Air Pollutants and Effect Air quality st�idies generally focus on five pollutants that are most cominon(y measured and regulated: carbon mono�:ide (CO), ground level ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO�), sulfur dio�ide (SO�), and suspended particulate matter, i.e., PM PM� In the Santa Clara Count�, ozone and pai matter are the pollutants of greatest concern since measured air pollutant le��els eYCeed these concentrations at times. Carbon Monoxide CO. a colorless and odorless bas, interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the brain. [t can cause dizziness and fatigue, and can iinpair central nervous system functions. CO is emitted almost exclusively from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Automobile exhausts release approximately 70 percent of the CO ii1 the Bay Area. A substantial ainount also coines froin burning ��ood in fireplaces and wood stoves. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively Quickly, so ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributious of vehicular traffic. The highest CO concentrations measured in the Bay Area are typically recorded during the winter. Ozone While O; serves a beneficial purpose in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) by reducing ultraviolet radiation potentially harmful to humans, when it reaches elevated concentrations in the lower atmosphere it can be harmful to the human respiratory system and to sensitive species of plants. O� concentrations build to peak levels during periods of light winds, bright sunshine, and high temperatures. Short-term 03 exposure can reduce lung function in children, make persons susceptible to respiratory infection, and produce symptoms that cause people to seek medical treatment for respiratory distress. Long-terin exposure can impair lung defense mechanisms and lead to emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Sensitivity to O; varies among individuals, but about 20 percent of the population is sensitive to 03, with exercising children being particularly vulnerable. 03 is formed in the atmosphere by a complex series of photochemical reactions that im�olve "ozone precursors" that are two families of pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG). NO and ROG are emitted from a variety of stationary and mobile sources. While NO2, an oxide of nitrogen, is another criteria pollutant itself, ROGs are not in that category, but are included in this discussion as O; precursors. U.S. EPA recently established a new more stringent standard of 0.75 ppm for 8-hour exposures, based on a review of the latest new scientific evidence. Nitrogen Dioxide NO2, a reddish-brown gas, irritates the lungs. It can cause breathing difficulties at high concentrations. Like ozone, NO2 is not directly emitted, but is formed through a reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. NO and NO2 are collectively referred to as nitrogen oxides (NO and are major contributors to ozone formation. NO2 also contributes to the formation of PM (see discussion of PM,� below). Monitored levels in the Bay Area are well below ambient air quality standards. 4 Sulfur Oxides � Sulfur oxides, primarily SO�, are a product of high-sulfur fuel combustion. T'he main sources oi� SO� are coal and oil used in power statioils, in industries, and tior domestic heating. SO� is an irritant gas that attacks tlle throat and lungs. It can cause acute respiratory symptoms and � diminished ventilator function in childreii. SO� concentrations have been reduced to levels well belo�� the state and national standards, but further ceductions in emissions are needed to attain compliance with standards for PM��, of which SO� is a contributor. � Suspended Particulate Matter Particulate matter pollution consists of very small particles suspended in the air. ��hich can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter also forms w industry and gaseous pollutant undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Respirable particulate inatter (PM�o) and fine particulate matter (PM�.;) represent fi of particulate nlattel PM � refers to particulate matter less tl�an 10 microns in diameter and PM�.; refers to particulate matter that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter. Major sources of PM�.; results priinarily from diese( fuel combustion (from motor vehicles, power generation, industrial facilities), cesidential fireplaces. and wood stoves. PMio include all PMz; sources as well as emissions from dust generated by construction, landtills, and agriculture; wildtires and brlish/��aste burning. industrial sources, windblown dust from open lands, and atmospheric chemical and photocheinical reactions. PM and PM�.; pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles because these tiny particles can penetrate the human respiratory system's natural defenses and damage the respirator�� tract, increasing the number and severity of asthina attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body's ability to fight infections. Whereas larger particles tend to collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, PM�,; are so ininiscule and can penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage (ung tissues. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle, as well as produce haze and reduce regional visibility. The U.S. EPA recently adopted a new more stringent standard of 3� µg/m for 24-hour exposures based on a review of the latest new scientific evidence. At the same time, U.S. EPA revoked the annual PMi� standard due to a lack of scientific evidence correlating long-tei exposures of ambient PMi� with adverse health effects. Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC� Besides the "criteria" air pollutants, there is another group of substances found in ambient air referred to as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under the Federal Clean Air Act and Toaic Air Contaminants (TACs) under the Califonlia Clean Air Act. These contaminants tend to be localized and are found in relatively low concentrations in ambient air. However, they can result in adverse chronic health effects if exposure to low concentrations occurs for long periods. They are regulated at the local, State, and Federal level. HAPs are the air contaminants identified by US EPA as known or suspected to cause cancer, serious illness, birth defects, or death. Many of these contaminants originate from human activities, such as fuel combustion and solvent use. Mobile source air toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 HAPS. Of the 21 HAPs identified by EPA as MSATs, a priority list of six HAPs were identified that include: diesel exhaust, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 1,3-butadiene. While vehicle miles traveled in the United States is expected to 5 increase by 6� percent over the period 2000 to 2020, emissions ot� MSATs are anticipated to decrease substantially as a result of efforts to control mobile source emissions (by �7 percent to 67 percent depending on the contaminant)`. California developed a program under the Tanner Toxics Act (AB 1807) to identif��, cliaracterize and control to�ic air contaminants (TACs). Subsequently, AB 2728 incorporated al( 188 HAPs into the AB 1807 process. TACs include all HAPs plus otller containments identified by CARB. These are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or �nortalitti' (cancer risk). TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused bv industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically fouild in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a free«ay). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and federal level. Particulate matter from diesel e�haust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about two-thirds of the cancer risk fronl TACs (based on the statevvide average). According to CARB, diesel exhaust is a coinplex mixture of gases, vapors and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientitic issue. Some chetnicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by ARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under State Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. CARB reports that recent air pollution studies have shown an association that diesel exhaust and other cancer-causing toxic air contaminants emitted from vehicles are responsible for much of the overall cancer risk ti TACs in California. Particulate matter emitted from diesel-fueled engines (diesel particulate matter [DPM]) was found to comprise much of that risk. In August 1998, CARB formally identified DPM as a TAC. Diesel particulate matter is of particular concern since it can be distributed over large regions, thus leading to widespcead public exposure. The particles emitted by diesel engines are coated with ehemicals, many of which have been identified by EPA as HAPs, and by CARB as TACs. Diesel engines emit particulate matter at a rate about 20 times greater than comparable gasoline engines. The vast majority of diesel exhaust particles (over 90 percent) consist of PM2.;, which are particles that can be inhaled deep into the lung. Like other particles of this size, a portion will eventually become trapped within the lung possibly leading to adverse health effects. While the gaseous portion of diesel exhaust also contains TACs, CARB's 1998 action was specific to DPM, which accounts for much of the cancer-causing potential from diesel exhaust. California has adopted a comprehensive diesel risk reduction program to reduce DPM emissions 85 percent by 2020. The U.S. EPA and CARB adopted low sulfur diesel fuel standards in 2006 that reduce diesel particulate matter substantially. Smoke from residential wood combustion can be a source of TACs. Wood smoke is typically emitted during wintertime when dispersion conditions are poor. Localized high TAC concentrations can result when cold stagnant air traps smoke near the ground and, with no wind; the pollution can persist for many hours, especially in sheltered valleys during winter. Wood smoke also contains a significant amount of PM�o and PM2 Wood smoke is an irritant and is ' Federal Highway Administration, 2006. Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. 6 implicated in v�orsening asthma and other chronic lung prablems. Air Qualit3� Planning Bav Area Clean Air Plan f3AAQMD along with the other regional agencies (i.e., ABAG and MTC) has prepared an Ozone Attainment Plan to address the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone. Although U.S. EPA revoked the 1- hour NAAQS, commitments made in that plan a(ong �vith emissions budgets remain valid until the region develops an attainment demonstration/maintenance plan for the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. The region will be required to submit a maintenance plan and demonstration of attainment with a request for redesignation to EPA in when the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is met. A Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan was approved in 1998 by EPA. ��hich demonstrated ho�� NAAQS for carbon monoxide standard would be maintained. Air quality plans addressing the California Clean Air Act are developed about every three years. The plans are meant to demonstrate progress toward meeting the more stringent 1-hour ozone CAAQS. The tatest plan, which was adopted in January 2006, is called the Bay .Area Z00� � Ozone Strategy. This plan includes a comprehensive strategy to reduce e�nissions froin stationary, area, and mobile sources. The plan objective is to indicate how the region would inake progress toward attaining the stricter state air quality standards, as nlandated b}� the � California Clean Air Act. The plan is designed to achieve a region-wide reduction of ozone precursor pollutants through the expeditious implementation of all feasible measures. The plan proposes expanded implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs) and programs such as Spare the Air. Spare the Air is a public outreach program designed to educate the public about air pollution in the Bay Area and promote individual beha��ior changes that improve air quality. Some of these measures or programs rely on local governments for implementation. The clean air planning efforts for ozone will also reduce PM and PM�_;, since a substantial amount of this air pollutant comes from cotnbustion einissions such as vehicle exhaust. In addition, BAAQMD adopts and enforces rules to reduce particulate matter emissions and develops public outreach programs to educate the public to reduce PM�o and PM2.; emissions (e.g., Spare the Night Program). SB 656 requires further action by CARB and air districts to reduce public exposure to PM�o and PM� 5. Efforts identified by BAAQMD in response to SB656 are primarily targeting reductions in wood smoke einissions and adoption of new rules to further reduce NOx and particulate matter from internal combustion engines and reduce particulate matter from commercial charbroiling activities. Currently, BAAQMD is proposing a rule addressing residential wood burning. The rule would restrict operation of any indoor or outdoor fireplace, fire pit, wood or pellet stove, masonry heater or fireplace insert on specific days during the winter when air quality conditions are forecasted to exceed the NAAQS for PM2 The proposed rule would also limit excess visible emissions from wood burning devices and require clean burning technology for wood burning devices sold (or resold) or installed in the Bay Area. NOx emissions contribute to ammonium nitrate fonnation that resides in the atmosphere as particulate matter, so a reduction in NOx emissions would reduce wintertime 7 PN1� ; levels. The Bay Area experiences the highest PM�� and PM�.; in �t�inter ��-hen �tiood smoke and amnlonium nitrate coiltributions to particulate matter are highest. Physical Setting Climate and Top�phv The project is located in Cupertino, ��vhich is adjacent to Santa Clara and San Jose at tlle northwest end of the Santa Clara Valley. The project lies near the boundaries of t��o climatological subregions: (1) the Peninsula, which is affected by close proximity to the San Francisco Bay and the northern portion of the Santa Cruz Mountains and (2) the Santa Clara Valley, which tends to cham�el air north and south as it is bounded by� the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Diablo Range. The proximity of this location to both the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay has a moderating influence on the climate. This portion of the Santa Clara Valley is bounded to the nortli by tlle San Francisco Bay and the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest. Much of the Santa Clara Valley lies to the southeast. The surrounding terrain greatly intluences winds in the valley, resulting in a prevailing wind that follows along the vallev's northwest-southeast axis. During the afternoon and early evening, a northerly sea breeze otten tlows from the Bay through Cupertino, and a light south-southeasterly drainage flow often occurs during the late evening and early morning hours. Wind data collected at Mineta San Jose International Airport characterizes the general wind flow in the area. Winds are mostly from the northwest (off the Bay), occurring about 50 percent of the tiine. Wind �low from the southeast occurs about 25 pereent of the time, with light and variable winds occurring the other 25 percent of the titne. Wind speed on average is about 5 miles per hour. T}�pical summer maximum temperatures for the region are in the high 70's to low 80's, while winter ma�:imum temperatures are in the high 50's or low 60's. Minimum temperatures usually range from the high 50's in the summer to the upper 30's and low 40's in the winter. Rainfall in this part of the valley is approximately 15 inches per year, occurring mostly in the months of November through March. Air quality standards for ozone traditionally are exceeded in portion of the Santa Clara Valley when relatively stagnant conditions occur for periods of several days during the warmer months of the year. Highest ozone levels occur in portions of the valley downwind from the urban areas. Weak wind flow patterns, combined with strong inversions, substantially reduces normal atmospheric mixing. Key components of ground-level ozone formation are sunlight and heat; therefore, significant ozone formation only occurs during the months trom late spring through early fall. Prevailing winds during the summer and fall can transport and trap ozone precursors from the more urbanized portions of the Bay Area. Meteorological factors make air pollution potential in the Santa Clara Valley quite high. The clear skies with relatively warm conditions that are typical in summer combine with transported and localized air pollutant emissions to elevate ozone levels. The surrounding mountains upslope and down slope flows may also recirculate pollutants already present, contributing to the buildup of air pollution. 8 Particulate inatter standards are also e�ceeded in the area. Elevated particulate matter levels are � the combination of regional and (ocal emissions. Light �� and stab(e conditions during the late fall and winter contribute to the buildup of particulate matter tcom i��otor � iiidustry, and wood-burning ticeplaces. The hi�hest particulate mattec levels tend to be in the urban portions of San Jose. Air Moiiitorin�ata Air quality in the region is controlled by the rate of pollutant emissions and ineteorological conditions. Meteorological conditions such as wind speed, atn�ospheric stability, and mixing height may all affect the atmosphere's ability to mix and disperse po(lutants. Long-term variations in air quality typica(1�- result ti•om changes in air pollutant emissions, while frequent, short-term ��ariations result from changes in atmospheric conditions. The San Francisco Bay Area is considered to be one of the cleanest metropolitan areas in the country �vith respect to air quality. BAAQMD monitors air quality conditions at more than �0 locations throughout the Bay Area. The closest ulonitoring station to the project is the San Jose Centra( station, about 5 miles � from the project. Summarized air pollutant data for this station is shown in Table 2. This table shows the highest air pollutant concentrations �neasured at the stations. The two pollutants of most concern in the area are ozone and particulate matter. Prevailing summertime wind conditions tend ro cause a buildup of ozone in the central and southern portions of Santa Clara Val(ey. Air quality conditions are described in terms of how often an area exceeds an ambient air quality standard (i.e., the NAAQS or CAAQS). The NAAQS for ozone is now based on an 8-hour average concentration of ozone. The San Jose station has only exceeded the 1997 ozone standard' on one day over the last 5 years. California has two ozone standards; 0.09 ppm for a 1-hour average and 0.070 for an 8-hour average. San Jose has exceed the 1-hour CAAQS on 0 to � days per year. Statistics for the 8-hour CAAQS, which began in 2006, shows San Jose exceed that standard on tive days in 2006 and no days in 2007. These were mostly associated with an extended heat wave in July of 2006. There have been no measured exceedances of the NAAQS PM standard or the 1997 NAAQS PM2 standard in San Jose. The new 2006 NAAQS for PM of 35 LrgJtn' for a 24-hour averaging period was exceeded on 6 days in 2006 and 9 days in 2007. Measured exceedances of the state PMio standard of 50 ug/m have occurred between two and three measurement days each year in San Jose (estimated at 12 to 18 days). PMio and PM2.; are measured every sixth day. The entire Bay Area, including San Jose, did not experience any exceedances of other air pollutants. Table 3 reports the number of days that an ambient air quality standard was exceeded in San Jose near the project and in the entire Bay Area. ; In May 2008, the NAAQS for ozone was changed from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm for an 8-hour period. 9 Table 2 Highest Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations Average Measured Air Pollutant Levels Pollutant Time 2003 2004 200� 2006 2006 San Jose 4�" Street/Central (relocated in 2002) 1-Hour 0.12 ppm 0.09 ppm 0.11 ppm 0.12 ppm 0.08 ppm Ozone (O 8-Hour 0.08 ppm 0.07 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.09 ppm 0.07 ppm Carbor� Monoaide (CO) 8-Hout �1.0 ppm ?.9 ppm 3.1 ppm ?.9 ppm ?.7 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO�) 1-Hour 0.09 ppm 0.07 ppm 0.07 ppm 0.07 ppm 0.07 ppm - Annual 0.0? 1 ppm NA 0.019ppm 0.018ppm 0.016ppm Respirable Particulate 24-Hour 60 ug/m' S8 ug/m 54 ug/m 73 ug/m 69 ug/m' Mattec (PM Annual 23 u�/m' 23 ug/m' 22 ug/m' 21 ug/m 22 ug/m Fine Particulate Matter 24-Hour �6 u� �lll ' �2 ug/m' �� u�im' 64 ug/m 58 ug/m (PM� Annual 12 ug/m' l2 ug/m' 12 ug/m' 11 ug/m' I 1 ug/m' Bay Area Basin Summary) 1-Hour 0.13 ppm 0.11 ppm 0.11 ppm 0.13 ppm 0.12 ppm Ozotte (O;) 8-Hour 0.10 ppm 0.08 ppin 0.08 ppm 0.10 ppm 0.09 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Houc 4.0 pp�n 3.� pp�� 3.4 ppm 2.9 ppm 2.7 ppm Nitrogen Dio�:ide (NO�) �-Hour 0.09 ppm 0.07 ppm 0.07 ppm 0.07 ppm 0.1 1 ppm Annual 0.0? 1 ppm 0.019ppm OA 19ppm O.O l 8ppm 0.018ppm Respirable Particulate 1-Hour 60 µg/m' 65 µg/►n' 81 ug/m' 90 ug/m'' 70 ug/m' Matter (PMio) Annual 25 ug/m' 26 ug/m' 24 ug/m 23 ug/m' 22 ug/m Fine Particulate Matter 24-Hour �6 µg/m' 74 µg/m 5� µg/m' 74 µghn' S8 µg/m' (PM�_;) Annual 12 ug/m' l2 ug/m 12 ug/m' 1 1 ug/m' 1 1 ug/m Source: BAAQMD Air Quality Summaries for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Note: ppm = parts per million and ug/m' = micrograms per cubic meter Values reported in bold exceed ambient air quality standard NA = data not available. 10 Table 3 Annual Number of Days E�ceeding Ambient Air Quality Standards Monitoring Davs Exceedin� Standard Poliutant Standard Station 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 NAAQS 1-hc San Jose 0 0 X X X BAY AREA 1 0 X X X NAAQS 8-hr San Jose 0 0 0 1 0 BAY AREA 7 0 l l2 1 Ozone (O San Jose '� 0 ] CAAQS 1-hr gAY AREA 19 7 q 5 0 18 =1 CAAQS 8-1u- San Jose __ __ 1 S � BAY AREA 9 22 9 NAAQS 24-hr San Jose 0 0 0 0 0 Fine Particulate BAY AREA 0 0 0 0 0 Matter (PMio) San Jose ? 3 2 2 3 CAAQS 24-hr gAY AREA 6 7 6 15 4 Fine Particulate NAAQS 24-hr* San Jose 0 0 0 6 9 Matter (PM,.;) BAY AREA 0 I 0 10 14 All Other (CO, All Other San Jose 0 0 0 0 0 NO�, [,ead, SO�) BAY AREA 0 0 0 0 0 * Based on standard of 6� µg/m' that was in place until September 2 I, 2006, then 35 µg/m standard in 2006. X= Standard revoked in 2004. NA = data not available. Attainment Status Areas that do not violate ambient air quality standards are considered to have attained the standard. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are judged for each air pollutant. The Bay Area as a whole does not meet State or Federal ambient air quality standards for ground level 03 and State standards for PM» and PM2_5. Under the Federal Clean Air Act, the US EPA has classified the region as marginally nonattainment for the 8-hour 03 standard. EPA reQuires the region to attain the standard by 2007. The Bay Area has met the CO standards for over a decade and is classified attainment maintenance by the US EPA. The US EPA grades the region unclassified for all other air pollutants, which include PM�o and PM2 At the State level, the region is considered ser°ious non-attainment for ground level 03 and non- attainment for PM10 and PM2 California ambient air quality standards are more stringent than the national ambient air quality standards. The region is required to adopt plans on a triennial 11 basis that show progress to��ards meeti�lg the State O; standard. The area is coilsidered attainnlent or unclassitied tor all other pollutailts. Recent PM�., monitoring data for San Jose suggest that Santa Clara County exceeds the ne�� national PMZ.; standards for 24-hour eYposures. U.S. EPA is expected to make rulings on area attainment designations in 2010 based on ?007 to 2009 moilitoring data. Most nonattainn�ent areas would have until 201 � to attain the standards with some extensions to 2020 possible. Sensitive Receptors There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identitied the following who are iilost likelv to be affected bv air pollution: children under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people �vith cardiovascular and chronic respirator}� diseases. These gcoups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas. hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, eletnentary schools, and parks. Air Quality Impacts and Mitigations Thresholds of Significance CEQA Guidelines prepared by BAAQMD are used to establish the signiticance criteria to judge the impacts caused by the project. The following are the significance criteria that are used to judge project impacts: • A cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant or a precursor to that pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). This is judged by comparing direct and indirect project emissions to BAAQMD significance thresholds of 80 pounds per day for ROG, NOx, or PM�o. • A substantial contribution to an existing or project violation of an ambient air quality standard would result if the project would cause an exceedance of the California Ambient Air Quality Standard for carbon monoxide of 9.0 parts per million over an S-hour averaging period: • Expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Create or expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors. • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. 12 [mnact 1: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for ��hich the project region is non-attainment under an a��licable Federal or State ambient air qualit�� standard (including releasing emissions ��hich exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)`.' Significant anc� Unal�oidahle The F3ay Acea is co�isidered a non-attainment area for ground-level ozone under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered non-attainment foc respicable particulates or particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 microineters (PM��), � and particulate mattec with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (PM�,;) under the California C(ean Air Act, but not the Federal Act. The area llas attained both State and Federal ambient air qualit�� standards for carbon monoxide. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM BAAQMD has estab(ished thresholds of signiticance for air pollutants. T11ese thresholds are for ozone precursor pollutants (reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides) and PM The Bay Area has attained carboi� mono�ide standards. � Currently, the site is vacant and mostly undeveloped. The project would add new traffic trips, which would lead to increased einissions of air pollutants. Emissions of air pollutants associated � with the project were predicted usinb the URBEMIS2007 nlodel (Version 9.2.4), distributed by the Riinpo Associates (i�•»��,•.i.�rbemis.com) and recommended for use by BAAQMD. This model predicts daily emissions associated with land use developments. The model combines predicted daily traffic activity, associated with the different land use types, with emission factors fi the State's mobile emission factor model (i.e., EMFAC2007). Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants pro�-ided trip generation rates in the traffic report for tlle project. The model also predicts area source emissions associated with the proposed projects, which are minor compared to emissions associated �-ith traffic. URBEMIS2007 Modei output files are included as Attachment 1. Dailv emissions predicted with full build out of the two project schemes are � reported in Table 4 and compared against BAAQMD thresholds. The project would provide a mix of uses and would serve trips that would already be on the roadway network. These effects were included in the trip generation calculations provided by Fehr & Peers. In addition, the project is located in a mostly built out environment that includes sidewalks and bicycle lanes and is served by transit. The area is served by the Caltrain shutt(e that provides a link to regional transit. The effect of pedestrian and bicycle access along with transit service was accounted in the URBEMIS2007 modeling. Vehicle emission rates for ROG and NOx are currently decreasing with each year and are predicted to decrease substantially between 2010 and 2020. For instance, NOx emission rates will decrease by 56% during that period, due to improvements in vehicle emissions and retirement of older, more polluting, vehicles from the roadways. PM� emissions are comprised of running exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other PM emission processes. Gasoline powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions compared with diesel-powered vehicles. Since much of the project traffic fleet is made up of light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles, a large 13 portion of the PM enlissions is ti entrain�nent of coad��a�� dust from vehic�le traveL T'11e URBEMIS2007 default silt loading ��alues were changed to retlect ��alues that CARB uses for calculating paved road��-ay dust emissions for a��erage vehicle traveling on arterial and collector roadways�. For air qualit}' modeling purposes, the project �vas assumed to be full�� constructed and operational in 2010. For air quality modeling purposes, the project was assumed to be fully constructed and operational in ?010. Table 4 Daily Project Emissions for the Main Street Cupertino Project in Pounds Per Da�� Modeled Daily Emissions in Pounds Per Day Ibs/day Reactive Organic Nitrogen Respirable Fine Gases Oxides Particulates Particulates Scenario (ROG NOx PM��, PM Scheme 1 Area Sources 12 5 <1 <1 Scheme 1 Mobile Sources 84 100 85 18 Scheme 1 Total 96 105 85 18 Scheme 2 Ai Sources 12 5 <1 <l Scheme 2 Mobile Soucces 69 79 67 14 Scheme 2 Total 81 84 67 14 BAA MD Thr�esholc�s 80 80 80 -- Stationary equipment that could emit air pollution has not been identified for either of the projects. Residential or mixed use projects do not usually include these sources. If stationaty sources are included in the project, they may require permits from BAAQMD. Such sources could include combustion emissions from boilers used for heating and cooling or standby emergency generators (rated 50 horsepower or greater). These sources would normally result in minor emissions, compared to those from traffic generation reported above. Sources of air pollutant emissions complying with all applicable BAAQMD regulations generally will not be considered to have a signiticant air quality impact. Stationary sources that are exempt from BAAQMD permit requirements due to low emission thresholds would not be considered to have a significant air quality impact. As shown in Table 4, total emissions of ROG, NOx and PMio would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for Scheme l. ROG and NOx emission lead to ozone formation. These emissions would be 20% to 31% above the thresholds. PM�o emissions would be 6% above the thresholds. Under Scheme 2, einissions would less; however, ROG and NOx emissions would still exceed the thresholds. Etnissions of ROG and NOx would be about 1% to 5% above the � A factor of 0.035 grams silt per square meter was used based on data developed in 2006 for calculating area source emissions in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (http:��i,•wiv.ar-b.ca.gov%ei��areasre!PD7SJf "PavedRoad.ti�ethod2003.pdJ} 14 threshold. Under eitller project scheme, direct and indirect emissions are predicted to be above � the significance thresholds established b}' BAAQMD, and therefore, �LOUId be considered .s�i��ificcm�. Scheme 2�ti�ouid ha� a lesser impact. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Include measures in the Main Street project to reduce air �ollutant emissions. The Proposed Project is ��-e11 served by transit and includes a mi� of uses. The p►�oject could also be served bv the Caltrain sliuttle, which provides access to regional transit. T'he URBEMIS2007 niodeling assumed trip reductions based on the number of daily schedule buses serving the area, � potential for bicycle and pedestrian use and a mix of uses. The proposed project should incotporate the following measures, which would reduce traffic trips and thus air pollutant e1111SS10t1S. 1. [mprove existing or construct new bus pullouts and transit stops at convenient locations ��ith pedestrian access to the project sites. Pullouts should be designed so that normal traffic tlow on arterial roadways would not be impeded when buses are pulled over to serve riders. Bus stops should include shelters, benches and posting of transit inforrnation; 2. The project should be re��ie��ed and appropriate bicycle amenities should be included. This would include bike lane connections throughout the project site. Offsite bicycle lane improvements should be considered for roadways that would serve the project; 3. Provide pedestrian sidewalks or paths throughout the project site with convenient access to bus stops within or adjacent to the site; 4. Consider providing pedestrian signage and signalization. Iuclude convenient pedestrian crossings at strategic areas with count-down signals that would enhance pedestrian use; 5. Offices and large retail sites should provide amenities to encourage pedestrian and bicycle uses. These would include shower and locker facilities and bicycle parking for employees. Bicycle parking for retail customers should be provided at strategic locations. 6. Project site employers should be required to promote transit use by providing transit information and incentives to employees. 7. The applicant and City shall explore opportunities for employers to implement measures that would reduce vehicle travel by reducing parking availability (such as an employee parking cashout program). 8. Provide outdoor electrical outlets and encourage the use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment. Provide 220 V outlets in each residential garage/parking facilities suitable for electrical auto recharging; 15 9. Implement "Green Buildin��" designs, such a Leadership in Energy atld Environmental Desi�,�n (LEED) or ha�•e hornes rated through Build it Green to increase energy efficiency, «�hicli �� reduce the luture enei demand caused by the project, and therefore. reduce air pollutant einissions indirect(��: aild 10. Re��ie�v landscape plans to ensure that they provide ne�� trees that ��ould shade buildinbs and ��alk�� 111 SUI11111eP i0 PeCIUCe II1C; COOIIIl� loads on buildings. Conclusion After Mitigation: The Illlh gation measures listed abo��e are expected to reduce emissions trom build out of the proposed project, but not to a level of less than significant. These mitigation measures combi�ied «ith project features and eYisting transit, bicycle and pedestrian features would reduce emissions by about 10 to 12%. However, much of this reduction was included in the project modeling. These nlitigation measures would achieve an additional ? to 3% reduction. Under Scheine l, emissions would still be above the BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx and barely above thc threshold for PM Under Scheme 2, emissions of ROG would be reduced below signiticance level; however, the emissions of NOx would remain slightly abo�re the signiticance thresliolds. Impact 2: Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Les.S Ihai� significant Carbon moiloxide emissions from traffic generated by the project would be the greatest pollutant concern at the local leveL Congested intersections with a large volume of traftic liave the greatest potential to cause high-localized concentrations of carbon monoxide. Measured carbon inonoxide levels have been at healthy levels (i.e., below State and Federal standards) in the Bay Area since the early 1990s. As a result, the region has been designated as attainment for the standard. There is an ainbient air qualit� monitoring station in central San Jose that measures carbon monoxide concentrations. The highest ineasured level over any 8-hour averaging period during the last tlu•ee years is 3.1 parts per million (ppm). The contribution of project-generated traffic to these levels was predicted following the screening guidance recominended by BAAQMD. Carbon monoxide levels were predicted near these intersections for existing conditions, near-term (2010) background, and with the project in place using traftic projections provided by Fehr & Peers. Project conditions included Scheme 1 and 2 for near-term and cumulative conditions. Emission factors were calculated using the EMFAC2007 model developed by the California Air Resources }3oard, with default assumptions for Santa Clara County during winter that include a temperature of 40 deg. F. A slow speed of 5 miles per hour was used that results in higher emission rates. This screening analysis included the number of through lanes in the intersection configuration with a receptor located at edge of roadway. Results of this assessment are shown in Table 5. Screening calculations are also provided in Attachment 2. Refined modeling using wider roadways that account for turn lanes would be expected to result in lower concentrations due to the increased mixing zone. 16 Table � Predicted Roadside 8-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations — Main Street Cupertino (in ppm) Back- Existing ground Scheme 1 Scheme 2 Cumulati��e Cumulative Descri tion 2008 2010 2010 2010 Scheme 1 Scheme 2 La�vrence E�press�t-a}� and 7.4 7.0 7.0 6.9 4.9 =49 Homestead Road Wolfe Road and Valco Park�cav �� 6.0 6.1 6.1 4.5 4.5 I-280 SB Ramp and Stevens Creek Blvd* 6.6 62 6.4 6.4 =�.6 -�.6 La��rence Express�vay and I- 7.1 6.6 6.7 6.7 4.7 4.7 280 SB Ram s* BAAQMD 9.0 pp�� (CAAQS) Thresholds * [ncludes contribution of f-280 The highest 8-houi• concentration with the project in place is predicted to be 7.0 ppm over an 8- hour averaging period. This concentration would occur near the intersection of Lawrence Expressway and Honlestead Road. Modeled concentrations are actuall}� higher under existing � conditiotis ii� 2008, because emission rates for vehicles will coutinue to decrease in the future. This is due to newer vehicles with better emission control systems, replacing older, more polluting, vehicles. Emission rates will decrease by over 15% between 2008 and 2010 and another 60% by 2020. The results of this screening analysis indicate that project levels would be below the California ambient air quality standard (used to judge the significance of the impact) of 9.0 ppm; therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Had leve(s been above the ambient air quality standards. a more retined analysis would have been conducted using the CALINE4 dispersion model and actual lane-receiver geometry. Impact 3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (during project operation)? Less tlaan significant Operation of the project is not expected to cause any localized emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to unhealthy air pollutant levels. The project is also not expected to place new sensitive receptors near sources of air pollution that could result in significant health risks. Grading and construction activities would result in temporary emissions of dust and diesel exhaust that could result in impacts to adjacent land uses. Construction Dust Dust would be generated during demolition, grading and construction activities. Most of the dust would result during grading activities. The amount of dust generated would be highly variable 17 and is dependent on the size of the area disturbed, amount of activit��, soil cot�ditions and meteoro(o��ical conditions. Typical winds during late spring through summer are trom the nor Nearb� land uses are mostl�� co�nmerciai or retail. There are some residences located south of Ste�-ens Cceek Boulevacd. Nearby active land uses could be adversely affected by� dust generated during const� activities. In addition, construction dust emissions can contribute to regional PM emissions. Altllough grading and coustruction activities w�ould be temporary, Chey would have the potential to cause both nuisance and health air quality impacts. PM�� is the pollutant of gceatest concern associated ��ith dust_ If uncontrolled, PM,,, levels downvvind of acti�-ely disturbed areas could possibl�� exceed State standards. In addition, dust fall on adjacent properties could be a nuisance. If uncontrolled, dust generated by grading and construction activities represents a significant impact. Construction EcLuipment Exhaust Construction equipment and associated hea�-y-duty truck traftic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known Toxic Air Contaminant. BAAQMD has not developed any procedures or guidelines for identifying these impacts from temporary construction activities where emissions are transient. They are typically evaluated for stationary sources (e.g., lacge compression ignition engines such as generators) in health risk assessments over the course of lifetime exposures (i.e., 24 hours per day over 70 years). Diesel exhaust poses both a health aild nuisance itnpact to nearby receptors. These construction activities would not be near sensitive receptors and are expected to occur during a relatively short time. Therefore, the impacts are considered to be less than si��nificant if reasonable available control measures are applied. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Include measures to control construction dust emissions. Implementation of the measures recotnmended by BAAQMD and listed below �vould reduce the air quality inlpacts associated v�rith grading and new construction to a less- than-sig�ificant level. Measures to reduce diesel particulate matter and PM2.5 from construction are recommended to ensure that short-term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided. Dust (PMio) Control Measures: l. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods. Active areas adjacent to residences should be kept damp at all times. 2. Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 3. Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. 4. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto the adjacent roads. 18 �. Hvdroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to iilactive construction areas (i.e., � previousl}�-graded areas that are inactive for 10 davs or more). 6. Enclose, co��er_ water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles. � 7. Liinit traftic speeds on any unpa��ed roads to 1 � mph. 8. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickl�� as possible. 9. Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to eatend be��ond the � construction site. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Include measures to control construction diesel exhaust emissions. 1. Enforce State law idling restriction of 5 minutes. Diesel equipment standing idle for more than five minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other bulk inaterials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running continuously as long as they were onsite and located more than 200 feet from residences. 2. Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. 3. Avoid staging equipment within 200 feet of residences Potential Impact 4: Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than significant During construction, the various diesel powered vehicles and equipment in use onsite would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time much beyond the project's site boundaries. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore less tharr signifrcant. The proposed uses that would be constructed are not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints; therefore this would be a less-lhan-significant impact. Potential Im�act 5: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Consistencv with Population and VMT A key element in air quality planning is to make reasonably accurate projections of future human activities, particularly vehicle activities that are related to air pollutant emissions. BAAQMD uses population projections made by the Association of Bay Area Governments and vehicle use trends made by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to formulate future air pollutant 19 emission in�-entories. T'hese projectio�IS at based on estimates fi cities and cotulties. [n order to provide the best plai� to reduce air pollution in the Bay Area. accurate projections from local governments are necessarv. When General Plans are not consistent �vith these projections. they cumulativel�� reduce the effectiveness ofi air quality planning in the region. Regional clean air planning efforts address both the federal and State ozone standards using the most recent population and �-ehicle tra�-el projections. The most current Clean Air Plan (CAP), the Z00� Bu�� Area O.:o��e Strate�}�. was adopted b� BAAQMD in 2006. This plan is based on population projections through 2020 coil�piled b�� the association of Bay�Acea Governments (ABAG). The site is currently designated as Conlmercial/Oftice/Residential in the City of Cupertiilo"s General Plan land use diagram. The existing Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation applies to the mi�ed-use areas that are predominantly comuiercial and oftice uses. Under the General Plan, supporting residential uses may be allowed to offset job grovvth, bettec balance the cit}-wide jobs to housing ratio, and when tl�ey are compatible with the primaril� non- residential character of the area. The project site is zoned Planned Development (I-Z-83), �vhich allow commercial, office. light industrial, hotel, and residential uses. As a result, the project would not require a General Plan Amendment, and therefore, would not conflict with clean air planning efforts. This �� apply to both Scheme 1 and Schenle 2. As a result, the project would have a les.s-than-sig�ificant impact with respect to consistency with regional clean air planning. Consistenc�� vith TCMs Determining consistency with the Clean Air Plan also involves assessing whether Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) contained in the 200� Bay� Af°ea Ozone St��ategy are implemented. The 2005 Ozone Strategy (i.e., BAAQMD's most recent Clean Air Plan) includes 20 transportation control measures, of which seven require participation at the local level. The latest set of adopted TCMs, which identify local governments as implementing agencies, are listed by BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. TCMs that would apply to projects are designed to reduce motor vehicle travel by encouraging use of other transportation modes. For projects, these would include amenities that would encourage transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes of transportation. The projects cannot individually implement the listed TCMs that require local action; however, the City's General Plan policies should include all those measures that are consistent with the City's responsibility. There are measures that the project could implement to make TCMs more effective. The proposed project would put retail and office uses in an area near I-280 and transit that would provide opportunities for non-motor vehicle access. The plan description includes amenities that would facilitate other modes of transportation such as biking and walking. These measures are consistent with Clean Air Plan TCMs. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would further implement TCMs. The proposed project would not conflict with implementation of Clean Air Plan TCMs, so that the impact would be less than significant. 20 Page: 1 9/512008 11:27:27 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: Z:\08-042 Stevens Creek @ FinchlAQ\Scheme 1 9.5.urb924 Project Name: Cupertino - Stevens Finch - Scheme 1 Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Page: 2 915/2008 11:27:27 AM Surnmary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) TOTALS (Ibs/day, mitigated) Percent Reduction ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 12.73 6.07 0.04 0.04 12.14 4.86 0.03 0.03 4.63 19.93 25.00 25.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) TOTALS (Ibs/day, mitigated) Percent Reduction ROG NOx PM10 92.74 111.97 94.54 83.95 100.38 84.75 9.48 10.35 10.36 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 105.47 TOTALS (Ibs/day, mitigated) 96.09 Percent Reduction 8.89 NOx PM10 118.04 94.58 105.24 84.78 10.84 10.36 PM2.5 19.84 17.81 10.23 PM2.5 19.88 17.84 10.26 Page: 3 9!5/2008 11:27:27 AM Area Source Unmitigated Detail RepoR: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated o rce ROG NOx PM10 Natural Gas 0.44 5.97 0.01 Hearth Landscape Consumer Products Architectural Coatings TOTALS (IbsJday, unmitigated) Operationat Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX Apartments high rise 5.22 4.45 Racquetball/health 29.81 37.22 Hotel 6.96 7.01 Strip mall 40.58 51.54 Office park 10.17 11.75 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 92.74 111.97 0.61 0.10 0.03 7.83 3.85 12.73 6.07 0.04 Area Source Chanaes to Defaults PM10 3.78 31.40 5.92 43.46 9.98 94.54 PM2.5 0.01 0.03 0.04 PM25 0.79 6.59 1.24 9.12 2.10 19.84 Operational Settings: Page: 4 9/5I2008 11:27:27 AM Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Land Use Type Apartments high rise Racquetball/health Hotel Strip mall Office park Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus �ummary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type 2.58 3.03 dwelling units 30.84 1000 sq ft 5.81 rooms 43.06 1000 sq ft 13.07 1000 sq ft Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type 55.2 11.8 20.5 6.2 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.1 Non-Catalyst 1.1 2.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No. Units 160.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 100 00 Total Trips 484 80 4,626.00 871.50 6,459.00 1, 307.00 13,748.30 Catalyst 98.5 95.0 99.5 100.0 71.4 66.7 25.0 0.0 0.0 Total VMT 4,144.89 34,498.39 6,499.21 47,751.39 10,955.27 103,849.15 Diesel 0.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 28.6 33.3 75.0 100.0 100.0 Page: 5 9/5/2008 11:27:27 AM Vehicle Type Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Racquetball/health Hotel Strip mall Office park Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type 0.0 2.9 0.1 0.7 Non-Catalyst 0.0 69.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Conditions Residential Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other 10.8 7.3 7.5 16.8 7.1 7.9 35.0 35.0 35.0 32.9 18.0 49.1 Commute 9.5 14.7 35.� 5.0 5.0 2.0 48.0 Catalyst 0.0 31.0 0.0 85.7 Commercial Non-Work 7.4 6.6 35.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 24.0 Diesel 0.0 0.0 100.0 14.3 Customer 7.4 6.6 35.0 92.5 92.5 97.0 28.0 Page: 1 9/5/2408 11:29:27 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: Z:\08-042 Stevens Creek @ Finch�AQ\Scheme 1 9.5.urb924 Project Name: Cupertino - Stevens Finch - Scheme 1 Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicte Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Page: 2 9/5l2008 11:29:27 AM Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated) Percent Reduction OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated) Percent Reduction ROG 2.27 2.16 4.85 ROG 17.88 16.13 9.79 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 20.15 TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated) 18.29 Percent Reduction 9.23 NOx 1.10 0.88 20.00 NOx 23.91 21.43 10.37 NOx 25.01 22.31 10.80 CO 1.52 1.22 19.74 S02 0 00 0.00 NaN CO S02 222.00 0.18 199.00 0.15 10.36 16.67 CO S02 223.52 0.18 200.22 0.15 10.42 16.67 PM 10 0.00 0.00 NaN PM10 17.25 15.48 10.26 PM10 17.25 15.48 10.26 PM2.5 0 00 0.00 NaN PM2.5 3.62 3.26 9.94 PM2.5 3.62 3.26 9.94 CO2 1,326.29 1,061.28 19.98 CO2 17,258.24 15,473.25 10.34 C 02 18,584.53 16,534.53 11.03 Page: 1 915/2008 11:30:39 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: Z:\08-042 Stevens Creek @ FinchWQ\Scheme 2 9.5.urb924 Project Name: Cupertino - Stevens Finch - Scheme 2 Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Page: 2 9/5/2008 11:30:39 AM Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) TOTALS (ibs/day, mitigated) Percent Reduction ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 12.62 6.07 0.03 0.03 12.05 4.86 0.03 0.03 4.52 19.93 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) TOTALS (Ibs/day, mitigated) Percent Reduction ROG NOx PM10 75.63 88.42 74.71 68.52 79.09 66.81 9.40 10.55 10.57 PM2.5 15.69 14.03 10.58 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES R�C � V x PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 88.25 94.49 74.74 15.72 TOTALS (Ibs/day, mitigated) 80.57 83.95 66.84 14,06 Percent Reduction 8.70 11.15 10.57 10.56 Page: 3 91512008 11:30:39 AM Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated gource ROG N x Natural Gas 0.44 5.99 Hearth Landscape 0.49 0.08 Consumer Products 7•83 Architectural Coatings 3.86 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 12.62 6.07 Area Source Mitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated ource ROG dOx Natural Gas 0.35 4.79 Hearth Landscape 0.39 0.07 Consumer Products 7.83 Architecturai Coatings 3.48 TOTALS (Ibs/day, mitigated) 12.05 4.86 PM10 PM2.5 0.01 0.01 o.oa o.oz 0.03 0.03 PM10 PM2.5 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 Area Source Chanqes to Defaults Page: 4 9/5/2008 11:30:39 AM Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX Apartments high rise 5.22 4.45 Hotel 12.98 13.50 Strip mall 39.40 50.03 Office park 18.o3 20.44 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 75.63 88.42 Operational Mitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated Source ROG NOX Apartments high rise 4.18 3.11 Hotel 12.01 12.21 Strip mall 35.80 45.27 O�ce park 16.53 18.50 TOTALS (Ibs/day, mitigated) 68.52 79.09 Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 PM 10 3.78 11.39 42.19 17.35 74.71 PM10 2.64 10.30 38.17 15.70 66.81 PM25 0.79 2.39 8.86 3.65 15.69 PM25 0.56 2.16 8.01 3.30 14.03 Page: 5 9/512008 11:30:39 AM Land Use Type Apartments high rise Hotel Strip mall Office park Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14,000 Ibs Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Summarv of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type 2.58 3.03 dwelling units 6.71 rooms 42.80 1000 sq ft 11.09 1000 sq ft Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type 55.2 11.8 20.5 6.2 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 2.9 0.1 0.7 Non-Catalyst 11 2.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.0 0.0 0.0 No. Units 160.00 250.00 146.50 205.00 Total Trips 484.80 1,677.50 6,270.20 2,273.45 10.705.95 Catalyst 98.5 95.0 99.5 100.0 71.4 66.7 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 0.0 85.7 Total VMT 4,144.89 12, 509.96 46,355.59 19, 056.06 82,066.50 Diesel 0.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 28.6 33.3 75.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 14.3 Page: 6 9/512008 11:30:39 AM Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Hotel Strip mall Office park Travel Conditions Residential Home-Work Home-Shop Home-Other 10.8 7.3 7.5 16.8 7.1 7.9 35.0 35.0 35.0 32.9 18.0 49.1 Commercial Commute Non-Work Customer 9.5 7.4 7.4 14.7 6.6 6.6 35.0 35.0 35.0 5.0 2.5 2.0 1.0 48.0 24.0 92.5 97.0 28.0 Page: 1 9/5/2008 11:31:05 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: Z:\08-042 Stevens Creek @ Finch\AQ\Scheme 2 9.5.urb924 Project Name: Cupertino - Stevens Finch - Scheme 2 Project Location: Santa Clara County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Page; 2 9/512008 11:31:05 AM Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated) Percent Reduction OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) TOTALS (tonslyear, mitigated) Percent Reduction ROG 2.26 2.16 4.42 ROG 14.40 12.99 9.79 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG TOTALS (tons/year, unmitigated) 16.66 TOTALS (tons/year, mitigated) 15.15 Percent Reduction 9.06 NOx 1.10 0 88 20.0a NOx 18.88 16.88 10.59 NOx 19.98 17.76 11.11 CO 1.39 1.11 20.14 S02 0.00 0.00 NaN CO S02 175.99 0.14 157.38 0.12 10.57 14.29 CO S02 177.38 0.14 158.49 0.12 10.65 14.29 PM10 0.00 0.00 NaN PM10 13.64 12.20 10.56 PM10 13.64 12.20 10.56 PM2,5 0.00 0.00 NaN PM2.5 2.88 2.55 11.46 PM2.5 2.88 2.55 11.46 CO2 1,329.58 1,063.86 19.99 CO2 13,652.82 12,210.90 10.56 CO2 14,982.40 13,274,76 11.40 Scheme 1 Usinq CAPCOA/CCAR method Commercial Usage Emissions Sq. Feet Rate (tpy) Metric tpy �-3�5000 16750 2760 2504 SF Residential 0 8117 0 0 MF Residential ; � -,160 3451 264 239 Estimated Hotel , .'150 3451 247 224 3007 Area Sources (Urbemis) = 1326 Mobile Sources (URBEMIS2007) = 15473 Scheme 2 Usinq CAPCOA/CCAR method Commercial Usage Emissions Sq. Feet Rate (tpy) Metric tpy 351500 16750 2812 2551 SF Residential 0 8117 0 0 MF Residential 160 3451 264 239 Estimated Hotei 250 3451 412 374 3224 1064 12211 Total 19,806 tons/Year 16,499 tons/Year ��i co Stevem Creek (n� Ffnch f.ARB(1NMON(1CIDF.,\\ALYAI% PMPenkH��ur Aaswn�� xnnl caac o( all inlcfueliurn hunN un luul rulwn.�. I.OS �nJ �rujca I Valli. <nuuibulinn infi.V��lui �fr,iila�'��liii ,. lai.ii�M ��c �.i. i.mr.am�n nme� aa u�.�a � o �, a� m� ��mxK � v a . ii �. � � � � � �. � �.o� �_� Link: 6i�l� I.awrence fx�ro.��ray ondNronesiewl AwW . I.owRi��.�fx�re.,war�v-I.��v� .. :':l919 �� 6fH� H4l� � 631� '703f � - MW + � v i• Homeuciwl RuutiJ.l.ancel .�. .229A -�. 3909 : 29R9 2'I�t )061 3031 Si.t u, n. u. �� i i� i I.1nM: Im tl: Wid/e RneJ un� Vnllco Pnrk��uy Wolfe RnaJ fJ.l.a�nl :��2A.! �, 1Q7S �. 1115 ., �� 109! 131'I .�IM7 _. i.1 J i� I S I+ I � Vallrol!ertwnyl+.t,mMrl .��:l16��'� .13b0 � 1380� ..'I7H0 IfBO 1380 i�_ �i� ii. ui ui i�l l.ink: Lil 18: 1•1Y0 SA Roinp iuW Seven� ('recY Alwl Sleve��('rcekl�lv�(M1-I.xiie•1 " .. )t�0 �119�� 016 lJl1 ��701 , ') ., . . I I 1.2YOS13Ru�npwiad.ane.l ,.. �.1e19� ' 1%5�� ]1�0� IIOB ]177. 3161 ��.5 ut i.� ii5 i�. �. I.?eofA.l.n�.•el '.. I7100'��'� �. HI00 ISI00 ISI00 -UI00 � IS�00 I.I �� v u.� ii+ �!+ i.��k�. e��ii�.i.��w«n.�r.��...,��r.��,n I.u�vm��ec Rx�renau�:ry IR.I.mieal � :. . /211 ' � �67A �1/S �6P3 .� 3079 �971 1 n t.! � � ; � I i I � I.tall YN Rum�. ia-l.a:irel � IEE7 ' � 19�! .� 3071 . 10m 3016 101! �, .. �.2xoin.�.uncnl :��llao�� :..1llao. � Ittao lltoo Ifioo le�0o i i u, n� u� ��+ �i Ii�Jicnier �rin�a �.��I��a� Ju.��il�i�li.rvi�lun�cl P.�n1��Lin Fuwrr IEMFAC30�11 - 4ni�l�) ni,rv�..�i�� t.�-i��„ x��uwu,me, tuwua � ?31a `� Lo�f-.�nFiSinlmi 2tlU1 (Smp6J D.Y4)E�nii fi�! '�I ]f9. �� ,:�7.010' (lmpA) 7.46H�n�u '61n.:'. .. .� � �.9.5 � '�� .(SWE) 4.740d�ii'i �.10b1 (2! �W � 1.707 p�� y�u� m�o (uwel ao�1��, iti:e " 0,1 '" � aswm ieetw�m ��s � d� r.o:.; B+ekprvund fU Le��N� - . 1 Huu 1.3. �)A DI.��vrrL�nta.�t� I- �J U . �. , v ,.,.. „�. LJE. ��,# 1;6� 1'�i�+Il.Nnur('1�t'� nlr+Mii� � uvi � 1 ,� i_u.� I�u.o .i 11.2 IU.6 IU.7 IU.J 7.6 7.6 7.i 'I��alX.tl�iui l Ill'u 7.J 7.0 '/.11 b.Y J.4 �.Y l Appendix E Transportation Sensihvity Analysis for Project Alternatives � FrF�r � PE.ERS iRANSPORTATION CONSUITANTS August 5, 2008 Gary Chao City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Reduced Scale A/ternative for the "Main Street Cupertino" Mixed-Use Development Dear Mr. Chao: Fehr & Peers conducted a sensitivity analysis for the Main Street Cupertino mixed-use development located at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue. The purpose of this sensitivity test was to determine the intensity at which the project could be constructed without its associated traffic triggering significant impacts to the surrounding roadway network (i.e. study intersections and freeway segments). Per your request, we reduced the size of the project schemes by first reducing and/or removing the office and athletic club land uses from the project description and then incrementally reducing the scale of the other land uses. The trip generation rates developed in the transportation impact analysis (dated July 1, 2008) were used to calculate the reduced-scale projecYs trip generation estimate. Table 1 shows the trip generation table and trip estimates for the proposed project, taken from the July transportation impact study. Trip Reductions Results The proposed project uses were reduced twice during the sensitivity analysis to determine the development level that could be constructed without resulting in any significant traffic impacts. Initially, the scale of the project was reduced until only two intersections — Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway and Lawrence Expressway/I-280 Southbound Ramps-Calvert Drive — were impacted. This level was chosen because these intersections are either (1) located in the immediate vicinity of the project site and project traffic represents a substantial percentage of total traffic volume at this location or (2) because they are operating close to unacceptable levels of service under background conditions and even slight increases traffic trigger project-level impacts. Under this scenario, project development could occur up to the following level: • 75,000 square feet of shopping center retail; ■ 160 senior housing units; and ■ 250 hotel rooms Both of these intersections, as well as the intersection of �awrence Expressway/Bollinger Road, operate near unacceptable levels of service under background conditions; therefore, even a slight increase in traffic from the project would cause more than a four (4) second increase in average vehicle delay at the intersection and would result in a significant impact. 160 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose CA 95113 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 www.fehrand pee rs.com Gary Chao {;� August 5, 2008 � �� Page2of3 FEHR & PEERS IkAN$V0�2'A110H lJV5lIL1AN15 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use (ITE Code) Size Rate Totai Rate In Out Total Rate In Out otal Scheme 1 — AetaillS ing Center (820 - � 50 �csf : " 58.93 ♦8,&'39" r � �,. " i 22 - �8 �. 2U0 : .'�„_ � �S,d3 � :�; 8i 8:' VTA Mixed-Use Reduction Hotel-Retaii' (97) (3) (4) (7) (4) (5) (9) trr�a . ,Myr�d-z�se �edvai;on Hous� �eta�i' �? . F; �� . ` y a ; ' � . �.�� ? , Pass-by Reduction 25% (2,171) (25) (25) (50) (103) (102) (205) � � f � ?�: `�t��li�f3`�.��` `,tA �3; �8 J 7'�9i� "��fl5i� ��f7 Office (710) 100 ksf 13.34 1,334 1.88 165 23 188 1.91 32 159 191 , :i/�A $w �t(��9�'�W►!� . :�: : - , `., �� " �'��. ., . ` �) � -�:��'r��' :-��z ��)� x ''�3`�; Net New Oflice Trips (8 1,307 161 23 184 31 156 187 � .;� � � � , .S�iaic�r H _ �aic�ed �(�?3 . � �:?�t�:1�r : � � =� �� ;. b,�� _ } { :� �; � �,2 ::•� � �,�,�; VTA Mixed-Use Reduction (13%) Housing-Retail' (72) (1) (1) (2) (1) (1) (2) r� rv"--� w~ � .�. , ''� '' ,' ,�r�.��l�f',� °} �t�� ?� . 4 ��,�� {� � i� � �-. `�'`�;� �` . :� ; .�.,,� a : Hotel (310) 150 rms 6.46 969 0.45 41 27 68 0.59 47 42 89 •'�T,A �1lrx8d-�se ��°. =�Q��.�� .� 4' '��'�.�, z �:=�,�., '{�� .1�) �4.�:= �� Net New Hotel Trips [D 872 37 24 61 42 38 80 3q � k � a' �' ' ` ' °.'x� . '� ' �' %sm �� ;�, �� x �" �� x , ��. � Pass-by Reduction 2% (172) (15%) (27) (27) (54) (20%) (63) (63) (126) �� :� �� a - _ �� ;,� �� Total Net New Trips (A+B+C+D+E 17,559 469 231 700 677 713 1,390 Scheme 2 — �,�"' µ � ,�` , �fi ��a �,� ��l��s �1 � ;��3 VTA Mixed-Use Reduction � Hotel-Retail' (186) (5) (8) (13) (7) (8) (15) �,_ - � . ,. .... .4, . � . £ .., 'R¢, - L ��., �"��s` � ` � . , ,. -� �. �� ; . : .� « �� : � „� � ,. . . . � � , �_� . �a 'P;, .¢. . . -� - . -� 4 .. � . . � Y � : . . . .. . s�.... . . .. Pass-by Reduction 25% (2,182) (25) (24) (49) (101) (101) (202) . ��. :. . � . < . ., ; ,,, : Office(710) 205 ksf 11.31 2,319 1.62 293 40 333 1.50 52 256 308 Net New Office Trips (B 2,273 287 39 326 51 251 302 _ . . .�., �_ �. , _ _ -. VTA Mixed-Use Reduction (13%) Housing-Retail' (72) (1) (1) (2) (1) (1) (2) :�� _�s ��_- .` _ Hotel (310) 250 rms 7.46 1,864 0.51 77 50 127 0.59 78 69 147 `�` r :��' Net New Hotel Tiips (D 1,678 69 45 114 70 62 132 Note: 1 Trips generated by the larger trip generator may be reduced by the same number of trips reduced for the smaller trip generator (VTA, 1998). 2 A major bus stop is defined by VTA as a stop at which six or more buses per hour from the same or different routes stop during the peak period (VTA, 1998). 3 Pass-by reduction taken per Lifetime Fitness Center Trip Generation Study (TRC Engineers, 2007). Source: Fehr & Peers, 2008 Gary Chao � August 5, 2008 Page3of3 FEH�. & Pf=ERS IV.PNSr'U2 +Ii70N (OVSULTpNiS After this initial reduction, the project was reduced until no significant traffic impacts were identified. The result of this sensitivity test showed that the project site could be developed with 5,000 square feet of shopping center retail space and 50 senior housing units before a significant impact to a roadway facility woutd occur. The resulting total net trip generation for the reduced- scale project would be 429 new daily trips, 19 morning peak hour trips (12 inbound and 7 outbound), and 65 evening peak hour trips (34 inbound and 3loutbound). The reason for this substantial reduction in project size is that the intersections significantly impacted by the project operate near unacceptable levels of service under background conditions. For example, the intersection of Lawrence Expressway/I-280 Southbound Ramps- Calvert Drive operates at LOS D- under Background Conditions; the addition of 10 trips to the eastbound-through movement triggers a significant impact at this location. This intersection is a CMP intersection and typically has an acceptable threshold of LOS E-; however the City of San Jose maintains a policy that CMP intersections in the City should operate at LOS D- or better. The reduced-scale project described in the previous paragraph adds seven (7) trips to this movement. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, FEHR & PEERS ( --�� Todd Henry Jason Nesdahl, P.E. Transportation Planner Senior Transportation Engineer CC: Kristy Le, DJP SJ08-1041