Santa Clara de Asis Project

Final Environmental Impact Report for the:

Santa Clara de Asis Project

File No. PLN2009-078-40/07866/077868/CEQ2009-01091 SCH# 2009112081

City of Santa Clara

April 2010

PREFACE This document, together with the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR), constitutes the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Santa Clara de Asis project. The Draft SEIR was circulated to affected public agencies and interested parties for a 45-day review period from February 8, 2010 to March 25, 2010. This document consists of comments received by the City of Santa Clara (the Lead Agency) on the Draft SEIR during the public review period, responses to those comments, and revisions to the text of the Draft SEIR. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR provides objective information regarding the environmental consequences of the proposed project. The Final EIR also examines mitigation measures and alternatives to the project intended to reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. The Final EIR is used by the City and other Responsible Agencies in making decisions regarding the project. The CEQA Guidelines advise that, while the information in the Final EIR does not control the agency’s ultimate discretion on the project, the agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the Draft SEIR by making written findings for each of those significant effects. According to the California Public Resources Code Section 21081, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur: (a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each

significant effect: 1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will

mitigate or avoid the significant effect on the environment. 2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another

public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including

considerations for the provision of employment opportunities of highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of

subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.

In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR will be made available prior to certification of the EIR. All documents referenced in this Final EIR are available for public review in the office of the Department of Planning and Inspection located at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, on weekdays during normal business hours.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

City of Santa Clara i Final EIR Santa Clara de Asis Project April 2010

Page

SECTION 1.0 SUMMARY OF DRAFT EIR PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS .................................1 SECTION 2.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, BUSINESSES, AND INDIVIDUALS

WHO RECEIVED THE DRAFT SEIR OR NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY ...........2 SECTION 3.0 LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SEIR .................................4 SECTION 4.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SEIR ...................6

MASTER RESPONSES ............................................................................................7 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.................................................................................13 A. Responses to Comment Letter A from the California Department of

Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (dated 3/15/10) ..............................13 B. Response to Comment Letter B from the County of Santa Clara, Roads and

Airports Department (dated 2/25/10) .............................................................16 C. Response to Comment Letter C from the Santa Clara County Airport Land

Use Commission (dated 2/26/10)...................................................................17 D. Response to Comment Letter D from the State Clearinghouse and Planning

Unit (dated 3/25/10) .......................................................................................18 INDIVIDUALS........................................................................................................19 E. Response to Comment Letter F from Banerjee, Niloy (dated 3/21/10) .........19 F. Response to Comment Letter G from Horne, Brian (dated 3/22/10).............22 G. Response To Comment Letter H from Nguyen, Tuan and Cecilia (dated

3/22/10) ..........................................................................................................24 H. Response to Comment Letter I from Tawade, Reshma (No date) .................26 I. Response to Comment Letter J from Yee, Jerry (No date) ............................28

SECTION 5.0 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT SEIR............................................30 SECTION 6.0 COPIES OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SEIR ..........................33

City of Santa Clara 1 Final EIR Santa Clara de Asis Project April 2010

SECTION 1.0 SUMMARY OF DRAFT EIR PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS

The public review period for the Draft SEIR commenced on February 8, 2010 and concluded on March 25, 2010, which constitutes a 45-day review period. A 45-day Draft EIR review period is required under CEQA. The City undertook the following actions to inform the public of the availability of the Draft SEIR: • A “Notice of Availability of Draft SEIR” was posted on the project site; • The Draft SEIR was delivered to the State Clearinghouse on February 4, 1010, as well as sent

to various governmental agencies (see Section 2.0 for a list of agencies that received the Draft SEIR);

• Copies of the Draft SEIR were made available at the Santa Clara City Hall and Santa Clara Central Park Library.


SECTION 2.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, BUSINESSES, AND INDIVIDUALS WHO RECEIVED THE DRAFT SEIR OR NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

Copies of the Draft SEIR and/or Notice of Availability for the Draft SEIR were sent to the following governmental agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals: Governmental Agencies California Department of Fish and Game, Region 3 California Department of Parks and Recreation California Department of Toxic Substances Control California Department of Transportation, District 4 California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics California Department of Water Resources California Highway Patrol California Natural Resources Agency California Office of Historic Preservation California Public Utilities Commission, Consumer Protection and Safety Division California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2 City of San José, Airport Department City of San José, Planning Department City of Sunnyvale, Planning Department County of Santa Clara, Airport Land Use Commission County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, Altamont Commuter Express Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Congestion Management Agency Santa Clara Valley Water District Union Pacific Railroad United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration United States Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Region #7 School District Santa Clara Unified School District Organizations and Businesses 1st American Title Ins. Co. California Native American Heritage Commission Emergency Housing Consortium First American Title Co. First American Title Insurance Northside Residents Association Sun Microsystems Inc.

Section 2.0 – List of Agencies, Organizations, Businesses, and Individuals Who Received the Draft SEIR or Notice of Availability


Individuals − Ahmad, Masood and Humaira − Ahmad, Saiyed T − Aruva, Srinivas R and Vasanti − Atwood, Sherilyn A − Belvel, Kathryn E − Bhatnagar, Anupam − Birlangi, Sudhakar and Sanapala Sravani − Buriel, Jose L P and Arlen B − Carlisle, Duane W and Shereese W − Chavez, James − Chen, Stacie L − Chua, Andrheena T and J − Dangeti, Srinivas and Kotha Swapna − Devaraju, Shashi − Divi, Satyasayee B − Freeman, Benjamin − Gangadharan, Shibu and Talreja Priya − Garud, Shantanu S − Gaung, Sandy − Gin, Kenneth − Goklani, Pavan and Sadarangani Pooja − Gonzales, Dinna − Gupta, Manisha − Gurrola, Joshua H − Horne, Brian − Iyer, Ram − Jackson, Anthony C and Tammie T − Jegatheesan, Mathan B − Kang, Seunghoon − Kankanala, Penchala − Kelkar, Kuldee and Snehal − Khawaja, Rafi K and Asma Kamran − Kolli, Murali and Gutta Manjusha − Kulkarni, Sudhir S and Ujjwala S − Kumaran, Mukundu and Vinitha T − Lee, Kevin M − Lemye, Gerald − Li, Chen − Litton, John − Louie, Edward T and Zhang Weiming − Mabilin, Isagani A and Angelita T − Maganti, Syamala P − Manapragada, Hari K − Montesa, Nicandro M

− Murthy, Dayanand and Hanumanthapura Sushma

− Ng, Johnny − Nguyen, Johnny T − Nguyen, Tran Ngoc − Nguyen, Tuan A and Cecilia T − Nukala, Shyam P − Ossentjuk, Robert W and Anne F − Palukuri, Srinivas − Polasani, Raghuram R and Sheresha − Raghupathy, Mohan and Ganeshan

Subashini − Rahut, Anirban − Raman, Ramani Usha − Rodriguez, Joaquin A Delg − Sachdeva, Sandeep − Sharma, Anil − Sharma, Vikas and Agarwal Shw − Singh, Archana and Vakhariya Paresh − Singh, Kuldeep − Subbian, Padmanaabhan and Ganesan Anu − Sugali, Gane N and Kumbavath Aswini − Tawade, Vikrant P and Reshma V − Vargas, Urso − Venkata, Surendranath R M − Verma, Manish − Wong, Dennis K − Wongsonegoro, Tjahjadi and Fanny Ferrah − Yalamanchili, Kavitha and Inampudi

Sumanth − Yin, Wei − Zahid, Ishrat N and Kausar Shawana − Zhu, Jing


SECTION 3.0 LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SEIR

Copies of written comments on the Draft SEIR that were received during the public review period are provided in Section 6.0 Copies of Comments Received on the Draft SEIR. A list of agencies and individuals commenting on the Draft SEIR is provided below. Government Agencies (Federal, State, Regional, and Local) California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Individuals − Adusumalli, Ravi Krishna − Ahlaneat, Meenakshi − Ahmad, Masood − Aruva, Srinivas − Banerjee, Niloy − Banerjee, Shivani Bayala − Rohini, BV, Rohini Batchu and Pavan

Batchu − Bettapur, Shruti − Bhatt, Chirag − Birlangi, Sudhakar − Chandana − Chilukuri, Satya − Ching, Henry − Chittharanjan, Ganesan − Chordia, Arthi − Dandu, Jyothi − Dangeti, Srinivas − Deshpande, Priya − Dixit, Vishvajit − Doshi, SK − Dukka, Parthasarathi − Dukka, Parthasarathi and P Pal

Chowdhury − Endurthy, Rekha − G.,Rakesh − Garud, Shantanu S − Gonzales, Dinna − Gopalan, Badri − Han, Byung − Hemwani, Deepti

− Horne, Brian − Jackson, Tammie − Jagannathan, Ramji − Kelkar, Kuldeep − Kennedy, Ryan − Khan, Rokeye S − Kolli, Murali − Korpolu, Venkat − Kothale, Anuradha − Krishna, Arun − Kulkarni, Sudhir − Kumar, Sandeep − Lodha, Rakesh − Mani, Mahesh − Mathew, Jose and Anu Alex − Murthy, Prashant − Muthuswamy, Kaushik − Nair, Pradeep − Nguyen, Tuan and Cecilia − Pallerla, Rajithapriya − Pallerla, Sudhakar − Pandravada, Phanishankar − Patel, Jayesh − Peddireddy, Purushotham and Manjula − Podja, T and Padmaja Tummala − Polasani, Raghu and Sheresha − Ponnuswamy, Kavitha − Prabhu, Vinay − Rachanak − Ramamurthy, Vivin and Mona

Section 3.0 – List of Comments Received on the Draft SEIR


− Resident at 1550 Avina Court #7, Santa Clara, CA 95054

− Resident at 1894 Garzoni Place, Santa Clara, CA 95054

− Resident at 1945 Silva Place, Santa Clara, CA 95054



− Resident at 4446 Moulin Place, Santa Clara, CA 95054

− Resident at 4473 Lafayette Street, Santa Clara, CA 95054

− Resident at 4474 Moulin Place, Santa Clara CA 95054

− Residents at 1886 Garzoni Place, Santa Clara, CA 95054

− Residents at 4513 Lafayette Street, Santa Clara, CA 95054

− Saggese, Delhy − Sathyamurthy, Anita and Mahesh Mani − Sesani, Adithya − Sharma, Vikas (Vic)

− Singh, Kuldeep − Sugali, Gane Naik − Sundaram, Shriram and Uma Nadhavan − Sundersingh, David − Tawade, Reshma − Tenneti, Venkata − Thomas, Jasmine − Thomas, Jose − Vangara, Ravi − Vanikayalapaii, Prasada − Verma, Manish − VS, resident of Santa Clara, CA 95054 − Vu, Jasmine − Vu, Toan − Vuppala, Kiran K − Wong, Dennis − Yadav, Anjali − Yadav, Rishi − Yee, Jerry − Yoshida, Fred − Zaroo, Puneet


SECTION 4.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SEIR

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this document includes written responses to comments received from persons who reviewed the Draft SEIR. This section includes all of the comments contained in the letters/emails received during the public review period for the Draft SEIR, and responses to those comments. The comments are organized under headings containing the source of the letter and its date. The letters have been grouped into the following categories. • Government Agencies (Federal, State, Regional, and Local) • Individuals The specific comments have been copied from the letters and presented as “Comment” with its response directly following. Copies of the actual letters and emails received, and any attachments to those letters or emails, are found in their entirety in Section 6.0 Comments Received on the Draft SEIR. The CEQA Guidelines, in Section 15086, require that a local lead agency consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR prepared for a project of this type from responsible agencies (government agencies that must approve or permit some aspect of the project), trustee agencies for resources affected by the project, any other state, federal and local agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project or which exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project, water agencies which serve or would serve the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15083.5(b)), adjacent cities and counties, and transportation planning agencies. Section 2.0 of this document lists all of the recipients of the EIR. A comment letter was received from one public agency that may be a Responsible Agency for the proposed project. The CEQA Guidelines require that:

A responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in the project that are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the responsible agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation (§15086(c)).

Regarding mitigation measures identified by commenting public agencies, the CEQA Guidelines state:

Prior to the close of the public review period, a responsible agency or trustee agency which has identified what the agency considers to be significant environmental effects shall advise the lead agency of those effects. As to those effects relevant to its decision, if any, on the project, the responsible or trustee agency shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures addressing those effects or refer the lead agency to appropriate readily available guidelines or reference documents concerning mitigation measures. If the responsible agency or trustee agency is not aware of mitigation measures that address identified effects, the responsible or trustee agency shall so state (§15086(d)).

Section 4.0 – Responses to Comments Received on the Draft SEIR


MASTER RESPONSES A number of individuals signed and submitted a letter that raised questions and concerns regarding construction-related issues (including dust and debris, waste and materials, equipment staging, traffic, and noise), rodents in the adjacent residential development, parking capacity, and school capacity. Eighty-nine copies of this letter were signed and individually submitted by: − Adusumalli, Ravi

Krishna − Ahlaneat, Meenakshi − Ahmad, Masood − Aruva, Srinivas − Banerjee, Shivani Bayala − Rohini, BV, Rohini,

Batchu and Pavan Batchu − Bettapur, Shruti − Bhatt, Chirag − Birlangi, Sudhakar − Chandana − Chilukuri, Satya − Ching, Henry − Chittharanjan, Ganesan − Chordia, Arthi − Dandu, Jyothi − Dangeti, Srinivas − Deshpande, Priya − Dixit, Vishvajit − Doshi, SK − Dukka, Parthasarathi − Dukka, Parthasarathi and

P Pal Chowdhury − Endurthy, Rekha − G.,Rakesh − Garud, Shantanu S − Gonzales, Dinna − Gopalan, Badri − Han, Byung − Hemwani, Deepti − Jackson, Tammie − Jagannathan, Ramji − Kelkar, Kuldeep − Kennedy, Ryan − Khan, Rokeye S − Kolli, Murali − Korpolu, Venkat − Kothale, Anuradha − Krishna, Arun − Kulkarni, Sudhir

− Kumar, Sandeep − Lodha, Rakesh − Mani, Mahesh − Mathew, Jose and Anu

Alex − Murthy, Prashant − Muthuswamy, Kaushik − Nair, Pradeep − Pallerla, Rajithapriya − Pallerla, Sudhakar − Pandravada,

Phanishankar − Patel, Jayesh − Peddireddy, Purushotham

and Manjula − Podja, T and Padmaja

Tummala − Polasani, Raghu and

Sheresha − Ponnuswamy, Kavitha − Prabhu, Vinay − Rachanak − Ramamurthy, Vivin and

Mona − Resident at 1550 Avina

Court #7, Santa Clara, CA 95054

− Resident at 1894 Garzoni Place, Santa Clara, CA 95054




− Resident at 4446 Moulin Place, Santa Clara, CA 95054

− Resident at 4473 Lafayette Street, Santa Clara, CA 95054

− Resident at 4474 Moulin Place, Santa Clara CA 95054

− Residents at 1886 Garzoni Place, Santa Clara, CA 95054

− Residents at 4513 Lafayette Street, Santa Clara, CA 95054

− Saggese, Delhy − Sathyamurthy, Anita and

Mahesh Mani − Sesani, Adithya − Sharma, Vikas (Vic) − Singh, Kuldeep − Sugali, Gane Naik − Sundaram, Shriram and

Uma Nadhavan − Sundersingh, David − Tenneti, Venkata − Thomas, Jasmine − Thomas, Jose − Vangara, Ravi − Vanikayalapaii, Prasada − Verma, Manish − VS, resident of Santa

Clara, CA 95054 − Vu, Jasmine − Vu, Toan − Vuppala, Kiran K − Wong, Dennis − Yadav, Anjali − Yadav, Rishi − Yoshida, Fred − Zaroo, Puneet



Responses to the questions raised in this letter are provided below. Master Comment 1: I take this opportunity to communicate my concerns related to the proposed new development - to the City governing body and Planning Department. I request this letter be read during the upcoming City Council Meeting to discuss the project. I would like to highlight potential problems that will have a severe impact on our communities, if the proposed construction were to take place. Some of these could be potentially hazardous in nature - given the vicinity of the construction site to our community. Especially for infants and small children in our communities. 1. Construction related dust, debris: Impact on health • Our primary concern with the proposed development is - the health impact it will have on our

residents • Residents of our communities have been perpetually living in a construction zone for almost 4

years now, enduring all the problems that come along with it including dust & debris • Majority of the people living around the area are young families with small children and infants.

We are extremely concerned about the possible short and long term affect this development will have on the health of our children.

Master Response 1: While not specifically commenting on the contents of the Draft SEIR, the

above comment expresses concern regarding health impacts to nearby residents from construction of the proposed project. Specific concerns are construction-generated dust and construction debris storage.

Construction dust is a type of particulate matter that is monitored and regulated regionally by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Excavation, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over exposed earth generate fugitive particulate matter emissions and exhaust emissions that temporarily affect local and regional air quality. These effects are identified in the Draft SEIR and mitigation is included in the project to reduce these effects to a less than significant level. The project’s short-term air quality construction-related impacts (which include dust) are discussed in Section 4.3.2.2 (see page 19) of the Initial Study included as Appendix A of the Draft SEIR. The project will be required, as a condition of approval, to implement dust control measures to mitigate construction-related air quality impacts. These dust control measures are listed in MM AIR-1.1 on page 19 of the Initial Study and include watering all active construction areas at least twice daily, daily seeping (preferably with water sweepers) all paved surfaces at the construction site (i.e., once pavement is in place), and daily sweeping streets (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Given the proximity of the site to sensitive residential uses, the role of the “noise disturbance coordinator” as defined in mitigation measure MM NO-3.7 on page 27 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to clarify that a “construction disturbance coordinator” will be responsible for any local complaints about construction noise, dust, debris, and other construction-related issues. The construction disturbance coordinator will determine the



cause of the complaint and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. The telephone number for the construction disturbance coordinator will be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Refer to Section 5.0 Revisions to the Text of the Draft SEIR. The City of Santa Clara, per Section 8.30.030(b) of its Municipal Code, recognizes that discarded materials left on a property can pose a public nuisance. As noted in a later comment and response (Master Comment 5), debris piles can host urban vectors, such as mice and rats. A condition of approval of the project will be added that requires vegetation and construction debris be placed in containers and food waste be placed in enclosed containers to discourage urban vectors. These containers shall be emptied and their contents disposed of appropriately on a weekly basis.

Master Comment 2: 2. Environmental impact. The waste associated with the construction including unused and excess material generated during site excavation, clearance, actual construction and related renovation activity will have toxic constituents that pose a risk to the environment in and around our communities. Master Response 2: The above comment expresses concern that the construction of the proposed

project would generate toxic waste, although it does not directly comment on the contents of the Draft SEIR.

As discussed in Section 4.8.2.3 Water Quality of the Initial Study (Appendix

A of the Draft SEIR), hazardous materials such as fuel, oil, paint, and solvents are routinely used during construction. Spills or improper disposal of these materials can result in impacts to human health or the environment. Under state regulations and as a mitigation measure included in the project, the project is required to conform to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Construction and prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Requirements of the General Construction Permit include the proper disposal of construction materials and waste. The SWPPP is to remain on-site during construction and the City of Santa Clara is responsible for construction stormwater runoff inspection and enforcement of SWPPP requirements.

Master Comment 3: 3. Support from builders in the past. The construction activity in the recent past has severely affected our buildings. For example - almost all of the buildings directly facing the construction have had dust & deposits on the windows. We have not received any support from the builder in terms of cleaning these buildings after the construction was over. Master Response 3: This comment regarding construction dust on buildings from past activities in

the area is acknowledged. As it does not raise any issues related to the contents of the Draft SEIR, no further response is required.



Master Comment 4: 4. Other problems associated with construction activity. Additional issues linked to construction include; o Surrounding communities being used for construction equipment o Construction vehicles related traffic congestion o Noise during construction Master Response 4: This comment raises several issues regarding construction activity impacts,

although it does not comment on the contents of the Draft SEIR.

The project site is surrounded by a masonry wall and there is one access point for construction equipment from Agnew Road. Construction staging is proposed to occur on-site. As required by the 2000 Final SEIR for the Rivermark-Agnews West Campus Planned Development Master Community Zoning project and as identified as mitigation measure MM NOI-3.4 on page 26 of the Draft SEIR, the project will be required to locate all stationary noise generating equipment as far as practical from sensitive land uses and to avoid staging construction equipment within 200 feet of noise-sensitive land uses. Construction noise impacts are discussed in Section 3.2 Noise of the Draft SEIR, specifically subsection 3.2.2.2 on pages 25 and 26. As noted in Master Response 1, a construction disturbance coordinator will be required to respond to complaints regarding construction noise outside of allowed construction hours or conditions of approval. The above comment also expresses concerns over construction vehicle traffic. During construction of the project, traffic would be generated by construction worker trips and truck deliveries to supply materials. Truck deliveries are expected to be made at any time during normal construction hours, but are more likely to occur during the earlier part of the day. It is likely that the construction-related traffic trips would arrive at the site prior to the AM peak commute hour and depart prior to the evening commute peak hour. The number of construction vehicle trips is expected to be less than the daily and peak hour traffic anticipated from buildout of the project. As discussed in Section 4.15 Transportation of the Initial Study in Appendix A of the Draft SEIR, the buildout of the proposed project would have a less than significant traffic impact. Therefore, since the number of construction-vehicle traffic trips would be less than what is estimated for the proposed project and the construction trips would likely occur during off-peak hours, construction-generated traffic would not result in significant traffic impacts. Text has been added to the Draft SEIR to include the above discussion regarding construction traffic (refer to Section 5.0 Revisions to the Text of the Draft SEIR). The above comment also raises concern about construction-related noise impacts. Construction noise impacts are discussed in Section 3.2 Noise of the Draft SEIR, specifically subsection 3.2.2.2 on pages 25 and 26.



Master Comment 5: 5. Rats & pest issues: • We are currently dealing with an onslaught of Rat & Rodent problems - as a result of all the

construction that has been going on in our vicinity - for the last few years • Multiple units in our community have been dealing with this issue for a long time • We are not sure if the construction practices of the builder are designed to control and

exclude pest entry into surrounding communities. Master Response 5: This comment identifies an existing condition in nearby residential areas.

Roof rats, Norway rats, mice and other rodents are an ongoing problem to residents in urban areas of Santa Clara County. These rodents are typically attracted to vegetation near buildings, homes with crawlspaces where the air vent screens are missing or have holes; and any other holes in buildings that they can reach from the ground.1 There are a number of methods to prevent and/or manage rodent problems. Residents can contact the Santa Clara County Vector Control District for a free inspection and recommendations on how to prevent and/or control rodent problems.

Currently, the project site does not support dense vegetation, brushpiles or fruit trees that provide prime habitat for rodent species, such as roof rats, that are likely to move into residential structures. As described in Master Response 1, a condition of approval of the project will be added that requires vegetation and construction debris be placed in containers and food waste be placed in enclosed containers to discourage urban vectors. These containers shall be emptied and their contents disposed of appropriately on a weekly basis. According to the project construction manager, a clean work site is encouraged and all food and garbage is to be cleared and disposed daily by work crews.2

Master Comment 6: 6. Parking issues in the area. Parking around this area has been terrible that, visitors and residents often need to park their cars as farther as 200 - 400 feet on the roads most of the times. The parking on the streets is resulting in car break ins’ and will eventually increase the crime in the area. It is reasonable based on all existing evidence to assume the proposed new townhouses to be the same situation. Such additional 50 units will surely add fuel to the fire of parking crunch. Per our observation nothing will get done to have the current problems alleviated. In fact we are convinced it will be made worse. Master Response 6: The above comment raises concerns regarding insufficient parking.

Generally, insufficient parking capacity is not an environmental impact unless it results in an environmental hazard (such as safety issues from parking illegally in front of fire hydrants or blocking driveways). The City’s parking requirement for a project of this type is 2.2 parking spaces per unit. The purpose of the City’s parking requirements is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public streets, and to promote the safety and welfare of the

1 Santa Clara County. “Santa Clara County Vector Control District.” Accessed 29 March 2010. Available at: http://ohr.sccgov.org/portal/site/vector/agencychp?path=%2Fv7%2FVector%20Control%20District%20%28DIV%29%2FWhat%27s%20Bothering%20You%3F. 2 Perry, Ken. SCS Development, VP Construction. Personal communications. 31 March 2010.

http://ohr.sccgov.org/portal/site/vector/agencychp?path=%2Fv7%2FVector%20Control%20District%20%28DIV%29%2FWhat%27s%20Bothering%20You%3F

http://ohr.sccgov.org/portal/site/vector/agencychp?path=%2Fv7%2FVector%20Control%20District%20%28DIV%29%2FWhat%27s%20Bothering%20You%3F



public by establishing minimum requirements for the off-street parking and loading of motor vehicles, in accordance with the use to which property is put (Zoning Ordinance Section 18.74.010). As discussed in Section 4.15 Transportation of the Initial Study included as Appendix A to the Draft SEIR, the project proposes to provide 2.28 parking spaces per unit. Therefore, the proposed project would provide sufficient parking per the City’s standards.

The commenters opinions regarding street parking demand and an association with an increase in crime are noted. The Community/Crime Prevention Services of the Santa Clara Police Department indicate that vehicle break-ins are generally random occurrences throughout the City where development is found. Measures recommended by the Police Department that motorists can take to deter vehicle break-ins including locking all of the car doors and not leaving valuables inside the car.

Master Comment 7: 7. Overcrowded Schools. Any new development will add to the already existing school overcrowding situation that we are currently facing. Master Response 7: As discussed in Section 4.13 Public Services of the Initial Study included as

Appendix A to the Draft SEIR, based on correspondence with Santa Clara Unified School District, local schools currently have capacity to serve the proposed project. While future students would not be guaranteed to attend the closest school facilities, they could be accommodated within the District. In addition, in accordance with California Government Code Section 65996, the developer shall pay a school impact fee to the school districts to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by the proposed project. Also refer to Response E.2 below.



GOVERNMENT AGENCIES A. Responses to Comment Letter A from the California Department of Transportation,

Division of Aeronautics (dated 3/15/10) Comment A.1: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division), reviewed the above-referenced document with respect to airport-related noise and safety impacts and regional aviation land use planning issues pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Division has technical expertise in the areas of airport operations safety, noise, and airport land use compatibility. We are a funding agency for airport projects and we have permit authority for public use and special-use airports and heliports. The proposal is to “amend the Master Community Plan for the Rivermark-Agnews West Campus to allow Medium Density residential uses on the 2-3 acre project site and develop 50 attached single-family units (i.e. townhouses).” The project site is located approximately 9,240 feet north of the San Jose International; Norman Y. Mineta Airport (SJC). As shown in Figure 7 of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the residential units will be located within the 65 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour projected for the year 2017. Pursuant to the Airport Noise Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 5000 et seq.), the County of Santa Clara declared SJC to have a “noise problem”. The regulations require a noise problem airport to reduce the size of its “noise impact area” (NIA), which is the area within the airport's 65 dB CNEL contour that is composed of incompatible land uses. Allowing new residential within the airport's 65 dB CNEL contour could result in an increase, rather than the required decrease, in the size of the airport's NIA. Consistent with the Airport Noise Standards, new residential development is not an appropriate land use within the airport's 65 dB CNEL contour. Response A.1: Text has been added to the regulatory overview in Section 3.2.1.1 of the Draft

SEIR to reference the California Airport Noise Regulations (refer to Section 5.0 Revisions to the Text of the Draft SEIR). As discussed in Sections 3.1 Land Use and 3.2 Noise of the Draft SEIR, the project site is located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and would not be compatible with State of California and Santa Clara County Land Use Commission policies. The project’s consistency with California Airport Noise Standards will be considered by the City Council when making a decision on the project.

Comment A.2: If allowed within SJC's 65 dB CNEL contour, all residential units should be constructed to ensure an interior CNEL due to aircraft noise of 45 dB or less in all habitable rooms. Additionally, to prevent this project from increasing the airport's NIA, any new residential unit should grant to the airport proprietor an avigation easement for aircraft noise. Sound insulation, buyer notification and avigation easements are typical noise mitigation measures. These measures, however, do not change exterior aircraft noise levels. It is likely that some future homeowners and tenants will be annoyed by aircraft noise in this area. Noise mitigation measures are not a substitute for good land use compatibility planning for new development. Business and Professions Code Section 11010 and Civil Code Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353 address buyer notification requirements for lands around airports and are available on-line at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Any person who intends to offer subdivided lands, common

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html



interest developments and residential properties for sale or lease within an airport influence area is required to disclose that fact to the person buying the property. Response A.2: The measures noted in this comment are included in the project as noise

mitigation and avoidance measures (refer to mitigation measure MM NOI -1.1 on page 26 of the Draft SEIR).

Comment A.3: The proposal should be submitted to the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a consistency determination. If the ALUC determines that the proposed action is inconsistent with the airport land use compatibility plan, the referring agency shall be notified. The local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote of its governing body after it makes specific findings. Response A.3: The ALUC considered the proposed project on February 24, 2010 and made a

determination that the project was inconsistent with the ALUC policies, as defined in the current 1992 County-wide Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports. It is acknowledged in Section 3.1 Land Use (see page 16) and Section 3.2 (see page 22) of the Draft SEIR that, if the City disagrees with the ALUC’s determination/recommendation, there must be a 2/3 vote of the entire City Council to override the ALUC’s decision. Also refer to Comment Letter C from the ALUC.

Comment A.4: At least 45 days prior to the decision to overrule the ALUC, the local agency’s governing body shall provide to the ALUC and Caltrans a copy of the proposed decision and findings. Caltrans reviews and comments on the specific findings a local government intends to use when proposing to overrule an ALUC. Caltrans specifically looks at the proposed findings to gauge their relationship to the overrule. Also, pursuant to the PUC 21670 et seq., findings should show evidence that the local agency is minimizing “ ...the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.” Response A.4: The City acknowledges these requirements for notification, review, and

findings per California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21670 et seq. Comment A.5: The proposal should also be coordinated with SJC staff to ensure that the proposal will be compatible with future as well as existing airport operations. Response A.5: The City of San José Airport Staff have been notified of the proposed project.

The Airport submitted a comment letter to the Notice of Preparation for the project, which is included in Appendix B of the Draft SEIR. The recommendations of the Airport Staff in the comment letter (granting an avigation easement to the City, achieving applicable State/ALUC interior noise level standards, and disclosing to future buyers and lessees that the site is located within an “airport influence area”) are included as mitigation measures in the Draft SEIR (refer to MM NOI – 1.1 on page 26 of the Draft SEIR). In addition, a copy of the Draft SEIR was sent to the Airport Staff for review.



Comment A.6: Aviation plays a significant role in California’s transportation system. This role includes the movement of people and goods within and beyond our State’s network of over 250 airports. Aviation contributes nearly 9 percent of both total State employment (1.7 million jobs) and total State output ($110.7 billion) annually. These benefits were identified in a study entitled, “Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life,” and available on-line at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/econstudy2003.html. Aviation improves mobility, generates tax revenue, saves lives through emergency response, medical and fire fighting services, annually transports air cargo valued at over $170 billion and generates over $14 billion in tourist dollars, which in turn improves our economy and quality of life. The protection of airports from incompatible land use encroachment is vital to California’s economic future. SJC is an economic asset that should be protected through effective airport land use compatibility planning and awareness. Although the need for compatible and safe land uses near airports is both a local and State issue, airport staff, airport land use commissions and airport land use compatibility plans are key to protecting an airport and the people residing and working in the vicinity of an airport. Consideration given to the issue of compatible land uses in the vicinity of an airport should help to relieve future conflicts between airports and their neighbors. These comments reflect the areas of concern to the Division of Aeronautics with respect to airport related noise, safety, and regional land use planning issues. We advise you to contact our District 4 office concerning surface transportation issues. Response A.6: The land use compatibility between the proposed residential uses and the

Airport are discussed in Section 3.1 Land Use of the Draft SEIR. The above comment will be considered by the City Council when making a decision on the project. The above comment does not raise any environmental questions; therefore, no additional response is required.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/econstudy2003.html



B. Response to Comment Letter B from the County of Santa Clara, Roads and Airports Department (dated 2/25/10)

Comment B.1: Your February 3, 2010 memo along with the attachment for the subject project have been reviewed. We have no comments. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Response B.1: The above comment is noted. No environmental questions were raised;

therefore, no response is required.



C. Response to Comment Letter C from the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (dated 2/26/10)

Comment C.1: At the meeting of February 24, 2010, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) considered the subject application. At the meeting, the proposed project was determined to be inconsistent with the ALUC policies, as defined in the 1992 Countywide Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports. The site is located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for San José International Airport. New residential development is considered to be an incompatible land use within the 65 CNEL unless it is infill development meeting the following criteria:

One acre in size or less and;

25 units or less. The proposed project does not meet this definition, as it is on a 2.3 - acre site and 50 new units are proposed. Consistent with prior earlier determinations in the Rivermark development, the ALUC voted unanimously to forward a finding of inconsistency with the 1992 County-wide Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports, to the City of Santa Clara for this project. Pursuant to the Public Resources Code, the City of Santa Clara has the option of overriding the ALUC’s determination. Overrides require a 2/3 vote of the entire body of the City of Santa Clara City Council. Response C.1: The statements in the above comment are consistent with the information and

discussion in the Draft SEIR (specifically Section 4.2 Land Use and Section 7.1.4 Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports consistency discussion).

Text has been added to the Draft SEIR to state that the ALUC made a finding of inconsistency between the proposed project and the current 1992 County-wide Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports (refer to Section 5.0 Revisions to the Text of the Draft SEIR). It is acknowledged in Section 3.1 Land Use (see page 16) and Section 3.2 (see page 22) of the Draft SEIR that, if the City disagrees with the ALUC’s determination/recommendation, there must be a 2/3 vote of the entire City Council to override the ALUC’s decision.



D. Response to Comment Letter D from the State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (dated 3/25/10)

Comment D.1: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Subsequent EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on March 24, 2010, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project’s ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that:

“A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation.”

These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. Response D.1: The comment letter from the State Clearinghouse was accompanied by a

comment letter from the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics dated March 15, 2010. Responses to the California Department of Transportation comments are provided above (see Responses to Comment Letter A).

Comment D.2: This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. (The attachments to this comment letter are provided in Section 6.0.) Response D.2: This comment acknowledges that the City has complied with the State

Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents. The comment is noted and no response is required.



INDIVIDUALS A number of individuals signed and submitted a letter that raised questions and concerns regarding construction-related issues (including dust and debris, waste and materials, equipment staging, traffic, and noise), rodents in the adjacent residential development, parking capacity, and school capacity. Responses to this form letter are provided under Master Responses starting on page 7. Letters that had additional comments to those in the form letter are responded to below. E. Response to Comment Letter F from Banerjee, Niloy (dated 3/21/10) Comment E.1: I take this opportunity to communicate my concerns related to the proposed new development – to the City governing body and Planning Department. I request this letter be read during the upcoming City Council Meeting to discuss the project. I would like to highlight potential problems that will have a severe impact on our communities, if the proposed construction were to take place. Some of these could be potentially hazardous in nature – given the vicinity of the construction site to our community. Especially for infants and small children in our communities. 1. Construction related dust, debris: Impact on health

• Our primary concern with the proposed development is – the health impact it will have on our residents

• Residents of our communities have been perpetually living in a construction zone for almost 4 years now, enduring all the problems that come along with it including dust & debris

• Majority of the people living around the area are young families with small children and infants. We are extremely concerned about the possible short and long term affect this development will have on the health of our children

2. Environmental impact

• The waste associated with the construction including unused and excess material generated during site excavation, clearance, actual construction and related renovation activity will have toxic constituents that pose a risk to the environment in and around our communities.

3. Support from builders in the past

• The construction activity in the recent past has severely affected our buildings. For example - almost all of the buildings directly facing the construction have had dust & deposits on the windows. We have not received any support from the builder in terms of cleaning these buildings after the construction was over

4. Other problems associated with construction activity

• Additional issues linked to construction include; o Surrounding communities being used for construction equipment o Construction vehicles related traffic congestion o Noise during construction



5. Rats & pest issues: • We are currently dealing with an onslaught of Rat & Rodent problems - as a result of all

the construction that has been going on in our vicinity - for the last few years (see attached for proof)

• Multiple units in our community have been dealing with this issue for a long time (see attached for construction defects where mice is entering our homes)

• We are not sure if the construction practices of the builder are designed to control and exclude pest entry into surrounding communities.

6. Parking issues in the area

• Parking around this area has been terrible that, visitors and residents often need to park their cars as farther as 200 – 400 feet on the roads most of the times. The parking on the streets is resulting in car break ins’ and will eventually increase the crime in the area. It is reasonable based on all existing evidence to assume the proposed new townhouses to be the same situation. Such additional 50 units will surely add fuel to the fire of parking crunch. Per our observation nothing will get done to have the current problems alleviated. In fact we are convinced it will be made worse

7. Overcrowded Schools

• Any new development will add to the already existing school overcrowding situation that we are currently facing.

• No effort has been given by the city officials to see what problems we as residents pay for irresponsible construction work. Look at the community issues related to school over crowding and the proposal by School district to eliminate us from the existing school boundaries at: www.NoCallejonRezoning.org, look and hear about the pain of residents when their normal life is taken away due to bad planning by city officials.

Regards, Niloy Banerjee 1897 Silva Pl Santa Clara, CA – 95054. WARNING: THE ATTACHED PICTURES MAYBE IN-APPROPRIATE FOR A PERSON WITH WEAK HEART. (The attachments to this comment letter are provided in Section 6.0.) Response E.1: Refer to Master Responses 1-7 above.

The impacts of the project, including impacts on Santa Clara Unified School District (SCUSD) schools from increased enrollment are identified in the Draft SEIR. As discussed in Section 4.13 Public Services of the Initial Study included as Appendix A to the Draft SEIR, the project site is located within the SCUSD. The site is currently within the attendance boundaries of Don Callejon School and Wilcox High School, and it is estimated that the project would generate eight K-8 students and three high school students. According to SCUSD, the local schools currently have capacity to accommodate the project-generated students.

http://www.nocallejonrezoning.org/



The discussion in Section 4.13 (specifically page 57 of the Initial Study) acknowledges that, if in the future, Don Callejon School requires additional capacity, the SCUSD can employ different options such as adding portable classrooms, reconfiguring the grade levels, and/or establishing new boundaries within the school district to more evenly distribute students to accommodate additional students. While impacts to school facilities must be disclosed under CEQA, there are statutory limits on how those impacts are considered by lead agencies, such as the City of Santa Clara. Under California Government Code Section 65996, school facilities fees paid to the school districts are “deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation” and a local agency may not deny or refuse to approve development of a property on the basis that school facilities are inadequate.



F. Response to Comment Letter G from Horne, Brian (dated 3/22/10) Comment F.1: I take this opportunity to communicate my concerns related to the proposed new development - to the City governing body and Planning Department. I request this letter be read during the upcoming City Council Meeting to discuss the project. I would like to highlight potential problems that will have a severe impact on our communities, if the proposed construction were to take place. Some of these could be potentially hazardous in nature - given the vicinity of the construction site to our community. Especially for infants and small children in our communities. 1. Construction related dust, debris: Impact on health

• Our primary concern with the proposed development is - the health impact it will have on our residents • Residents of our communities have been perpetually living in a construction zone for almost

4 years now, enduring all the problems that come along with it including dust & debris • Majority of the people living around the area are young families with small children and

infants. We are extremely concerned about the possible short and long term affect this development will have on the health of our children







5. Parking issues in the area

• Parking around this area has been terrible that, visitors and residents often need to park their cars as farther as 200 - 400 feet on the roads most of the times. The parking on the streets is resulting in car break ins' and will eventually increase the crime in the area. It is reasonable based on all existing evidence to assume the proposed new townhouses to be the same situation. Such additional 50 units will surely add fuel to the fire of parking crunch. Per our observation nothing will get done to have the current problems alleviated. In fact we are convinced it will be made worse



6. Overcrowded Schools • Any new development will add to the already existing school overcrowding situation that we

are currently facing. This is the most pressing concern, as the future lies in the children. If we cannot find sufficient space to teach our children now, this proposed development will only makes things worse and possibly the children's ability to learn.

Response F.1: Refer to Master Responses 1-7 and Response E.1 above.



G. Response To Comment Letter H from Nguyen, Tuan and Cecilia (dated 3/22/10) Comment G.1: I take this opportunity to communicate my concerns related to the proposed new development to the City governing body and Planning Department. I request this letter be read during the upcoming City Council Meeting to discuss the project. I would like to highlight potential problems that will have a severe impact on our communities, if the proposed construction were to take place. Some of these could be potentially hazardous in nature - given the vicinity of the construction site to our community, especially for infants and small children in our communities. 1. Construction related dust, debris: Impact on health

• Our primary concern with the proposed development is - the health impact it will have on our residents








• Additional Issues linked to construction include; • Surrounding communities being used for construction equipment • Construction vehicles related traffic congestion • Noise during construction

5. Rats & pest issues:

• We are currently dealing with an onslaught of Rat & Rodent problems - as a result of all the construction that has been going on in our vicinity - for the last few years

• Multiple units in our community have been dealing with this issue for a long time • We are not sure if the construction practices of the builder are designed to control and

exclude pest entry into surrounding communities. 6. Parking issues in the area

• Parking around this area has been terrible that, visitors and residents often need to park their cars as farther as 200 - 400 feet on the roads most of the times. The parking on the streets is resulting in car break ins’ and will eventually increase the crime in the area. It is reasonable based on all existing evidence to assume the proposed new townhouses to be the same



situation. Such additional 50 units will surely add fuel to the fire of parking crunch. Per our observation nothing will get done to have the current problems alleviated. In fact, we are convinced it will be made worse.



• No effort has been given by the city officials to see what problems we as residents pay for irresponsible construction work. Look at the community issues related to school over crowding and the proposal by School district to eliminate us from the existing school boundaries at: www.NoCallejonRezoning.org, look and hear about the pain of residents when their normal life is taken away due to bad planning by city officials.

Response G.1: Refer to Master Responses 1-7 and Response E.1 above.



H. Response to Comment Letter I from Tawade, Reshma (No date) Comment H.1: I take this opportunity to communicate my concerns related to the proposed new development - to the City governing body and Planning Department. I request this letter be read during the upcoming City Council Meeting to discuss the project. I would like to highlight potential problems that will have a severe impact on our communities, if the proposed construction were to take place. Some of these could be potentially hazardous in nature - given the vicinity of the construction site to our community. Especially for infants and small children in our communities. 1. Construction related dust, debris: Impact on health

• Our primary concern with the proposed development is - the health impact it will have on our residents









5. Rats & pest issues: • We are currently dealing with an onslaught of Rat & Rodent problems - as a result of all

the construction that has been going on in our vicinity - for the last few years. • Multiple units in our community have been dealing with this issue for a long time • We are not sure if the construction practices of the builder are designed to control and

exclude pest entry into surrounding communities.

6. Parking issues in the area • Parking around this area has been terrible that, visitors and residents often need to park their

cars as farther as 200 - 400 feet on the roads most of the times. The parking on the streets is resulting in car break ins' and will eventually increase the crime in the area. It is reasonable based on all existing evidence to assume the proposed new townhouses to be the same



situation. Such additional 50 units will surely add fuel to the fire of parking crunch. Per our observation nothing will get done to have the current problems alleviated. In fact we are convinced it will be made worse



Response H.1: Refer to Master Responses 1-7 above. Comment H.2: 8. No open space between buildings. The proposed project site for construction is situated in between medium to high density townhomes and condos with no yards and no open space between the buildings. Most of these residential units are occupied by young families with kids. The kids in these communities currently use driveways to bike and play. Rivermark is a "Master Planned Community" and it is sad to see no open space on the West side of Rivermark. Response H.2: The above comment expresses concerns regarding open space. As described

in Section 2.0 Project Description of the Draft SEIR (specifically subsection 2.2.3 on page 4), the project includes an approximately 8,000 square foot common open space area at the center of the project site. Refer to Figure 6 on page 10 of the Draft SEIR for a conceptual illustration of the project site plan, which includes the common open space area. This common space would include a tot lot, turfgrass areas, benches, and tables. In addition, each unit would include an approximately 112 square foot patio. Also, as described in Section 4.13 Public Services in the Initial Study included in Appendix A of the Draft SEIR, the project site is located less than one half mile from four existing parks (Agnews Park, Agnews Historic Park on the Sun Microsystems Campus, Lick Mill Park, and Live Oak Park) and within the vicinity of the Guadalupe River Trail and Ulistac Natural Area.

Comment H.3: 9. Parking issue at the Rivermark Village shopping center. The Rivermark Village shopping center is already busy with parking so hard to find on any day. Adding more houses will increase the burden on the parking of the shopping center. Response H.3: Generally, inadequate parking supply does not result in an environmental

impact unless it results in an environmental hazard (such as safety issues from parking illegally in front of fire hydrants or blocking driveways). Parking demand and supply is associated with the use in which the parking is provided for. For example, parking requirements for a grocery store is based on the size of the store and its operations – it is not based on the grocery store’s surrounding land uses. While parking at the Rivermark Village Shopping Center may be scarce during peak periods, the project would not alter the size or operations of the shopping center or otherwise make a land use change that would require an increase in parking supply at this commercial location.



I. Response to Comment Letter J from Yee, Jerry (No date) Comment I.1: I am concerned about the proposed new development at 1601 Agnew Road. I am requesting that this letter be read at the City Council Meeting. I would like to highlight potential problems that will severely impact our community, if the proposed construction were to take place. These problems are potentially hazardous - given the vicinity of the construction site to our community. Especially for Infants and small children. 1. Health Impact - Primary Concern

• Residents of our community have been living in a perpetual construction zone for almost 4 years now, enduring all the problems that come along with it including excessive dust and debris.

• The majority of residents are young families with small children and infants. We are extremely concerned about the short and long term affects that this construction project will have on the health of our children.

Response I.1: Refer to Master Response 1 above. Comment I.2: 2. Environmental Impact.

• Construction generates waste during site excavation. It releases toxic components that pose a risk to the environment throughout our community.

• Surrounding communities are used to store construction equipment. • Construction vehicles create extra traffic congestion. • Construction creates excessive noise. • Construction has caused an onslaught of rats and rodents. Multiple units in our community

have been dealing with this issue for a long time. Response I.2: Refer to Master Responses 2, 4, and 5 above. Comment I.3: 3. Lack of Builder Support. Recent construction activity has severely affected our buildings. All buildings facing the construction areas have dust and deposits on the windows. Residents have not received any support from the builder to remedy these issues in the past. Response I.3: Refer to Master Response 1 above. Comment I.4: 4. Lack of Parking

• Parking availability is terrible and continues to worsen. Residents and guests have a difficult time finding parking. They often need to park several hundred feet away, resulting in more car thefts.

• Not enough parking spaces were created during the construction of prior developments. We need more street parking spaces.

Response I.4: Refer to Master Response 6 above.



Comment I.5: 5. Overcrowded Schools. Don Callejon is already overcrowded. A new development will add to the existing overcrowding issues. Response I.5: Refer to Master Response 7 above.


SECTION 5.0 REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE DRAFT SEIR This section contains revisions to the text of the Draft SEIR for the Santa Clara de Asis project, dated February 2010. Revised or new language is underlined. All deletions are shown with a line through the text. Page 18 Section 3.1 Land Use; 3.1.2.1 Land Use Conflicts; Impact to the Project: ADD the

following text after the third paragraph, but before the Impact LU – 4 statement: At a meeting on February 24, 2010, the ALUC considered the proposed project and made a determination that the project was inconsistent with the ALUC policies, as defined in the current 1992 County-wide Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports. Pursuant to the Public Resources Code, the City has the option of overriding the ALUC’s determination, which requires a 2/3 vote of the entire body of the Santa Clara City Council. Page 22 Section 3.2.1.1 Regulatory Overview and Background: ADD the following text after

the second paragraph but before the State of California Building Code:

California Airport Noise Regulations The California Airport Noise Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 21, Section 5000 et seq.) apply to any airport that is determined to have a noise problem by the local County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the provisions in the regulation. At this time, there are 10 airports in California, including Norman Y. Mineta International Airport, that have been determined to have a noise problem by local county governments. Noise regulations in Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations Section 5000 et seq. establishes the level of noise acceptable to a “reasonable” person as a CNEL of 65 dB or below and identifies the following types of land uses as incompatible with a noise level of 65 dB CNEL or greater: • Residences of all types • Public or private schools • Hospitals and convalescent homes • Churches, synagogues, temples, and other places of worship. Page 24 Section 3.2 Noise; 3.2.2.1 Noise Impacts to the Project: ADD the following text after

the second paragraph, but before the Impact NOI – 1 statement: At a meeting on February 24, 2010, the ALUC considered the proposed project and made a determination that the project was inconsistent with the ALUC policies, as defined in the current 1992 County-wide Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports. Pursuant to the Public Resources Code, the City has the option of overriding the ALUC’s determination, which requires a 2/3 vote of the entire body of the Santa Clara City Council.

Section 5.0 – Revisions to the Text of the Draft SEIR


Page 27 Section 3.2 Noise; 3.2.3 Mitigation and Avoidance Measures: REVISE mitigation measures MM NOI – 3.7 as follows:

MM NOI – 3.7: A “construction noise disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for

responding to any local complaints about construction-related issues including construction noise, dust, and debris shall be designated by the project applicant. The construction disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. The telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.

Page 50 Section 7.1 Regional Plans and Policies; 7.1.4 Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding

Santa Clara County Airports: ADD the following text after the last paragraph: At a meeting on February 24, 2010, the ALUC considered the proposed project and made a determination that the project was inconsistent with the ALUC policies, as defined in the current 1992 County-wide Land Use Plan for Areas Surrounding Santa Clara County Airports. Pursuant to the Public Resources Code, the City has the option of overriding the ALUC’s determination, which requires a 2/3 vote of the entire body of the Santa Clara City Council. Appendix A, Page 19 Section 4.3 Air Quality; 4.3.2.2 Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts: ADD the

following text at the end of the page: MM AIR – 1.2: A “construction disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for

responding to any local complaints about construction-related issues including construction noise, dust, and debris shall be designated by the project applicant. The construction disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the complaint and institute reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem. The telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.

Appendix A, Page 20 Section 4.3 Air Quality; 4.3.3 Conclusion: REVISE the conclusion statement as

follows: Impact AIR – 1: The project, with the implementation of the above mitigation measures,

would not result in significant short-term construction-related air quality impacts. (New Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

Section 5.0 – Revisions to the Text of the Draft SEIR


Appendix A, Page 57 Section 4.13 Public Services; 4.13.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of

Impacts: ADD the following text at the end of the second paragraph: In accordance with California Government Code Section 65996, the developer shall pay a school impact fee to the school district to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by the proposed project. Appendix A, Page 61 Section 4.15 Transportation; 4.15.2 Environmental Checklist and Discussion of

Impacts: ADD the following text after the fourth paragraph, before Section 4.15.2.1: During construction of the project, building activities would generate traffic in the form of construction workers trips and truck deliveries to supply materials. Truck deliveries are expected to be made at any time during normal construction hours, but are more likely to occur during the earlier part of the day. It is likely that the construction-related traffic trips would arrive at the site prior to the AM peak commute hour and depart prior to the evening commute peak hour. The number of construction vehicle trips is expected to be less than the daily and peak hour traffic anticipated from buildout of the project. Therefore, since the number of construction-vehicle traffic trips would be less than what is estimated for the proposed project and the construction trips would likely occur during off-peak hours, construction-generated traffic would not result in significant traffic impacts.


SECTION 6.0 COPIES OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SEIR

Documents

Santa Clara de Asis Project