DOCSLIB.ORG

Exhibit B Additional Responses to Comments and Revisions Chapter 8.1 Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Exhibit B Additional Responses to Comments and Revisions Chapter 8.1 Introduction Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Exhibit B Additional Responses to Comments and Revisions Chapter 8.1 Introduction CEQA Process for the Project A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.), was prepared by the City of Santa Clara (City) to disclose the potential environmental effects of the City Place Santa Clara Project (Project). The Draft EIR, issued for public review on October 9, 2015, includes a description of the Project, an assessment of its potential effects, a description of mitigation measures to reduce significant effects that were identified, and consideration of alternatives that could address potential significant environmental impacts. The Draft EIR was released on October 9, 2015 for a 45-day review period, ending on November 23, 2015 (and subsequently extended to December 7, 2015). During this review period, the document was reviewed by various State, regional, and local agencies, as well as by interested organizations and individuals. Comment letters on the Draft EIR were received from 22 agencies, 9 organizations, and 8 individuals. The Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR and the Responses to Comments document, responds to written comments on the Draft EIR that were raised during the public review period, and contains revisions intended to correct, clarify, and amplify the Draft EIR. The responses and revisions in this document substantiate and confirm or correct the analyses contained in the Draft EIR. No new significant environmental impacts, no new significant information, and no substantial increase in the severity of an earlier identified impact have resulted from responding to comments. CEQA requires public review only at the Draft EIR stage. In this case, although not required by CEQA, the lead agency elected to provide an opportunity for the public to review and comment on the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the Project, as expressly allowed under Section 15089(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR was released for a 10-day public review period on April 19, 2016. During the 10-day public review period, letters were received from 8 public agencies, 5 organizations, and 2 individuals. As set forth in Section 15089(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, if an opportunity for public review of a Final EIR is provided, the review should focus on the Final EIR's responses to comments on the Draft EIR, including any inadequacies in the responses to comments. Pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, lead agencies may provide, but are not required to provide, responses to comments received after a Draft EIR review period (including comments received during a Final EIR review period). Accordingly, this Exhibit provides clarification and further documentation to support the analysis and conclusions presented in the Final EIR based on the comments that were received during the Final EIR comment period. As set forth in Section 15089(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, if public review of a Final EIR is provided, the review should focus on the Final EIR's responses to comments on the Draft EIR. Further, Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines stipulates that responses should pertain to major or significant environmental issues raised by commenters. Therefore, comments that express an opinion about the merits of the Project or Project alternatives rather than raise questions about the adequacy of the responses to comments or the Draft EIR analysis are not examined in detail in this document. In addition, this document does not provide a response regarding financial concerns or Project design that would not have a physical environmental impact. City Place Santa Clara Project B.l-1 June 2016 Final Environmental impact Report ICF 00333.14 City of Santa Cia ra Introduction How to Use This Exhibit This document addresses comments received after the release of the Final EIR and consists of five sections: • Chapter B.1 - Introduction. Reviews the purpose and contents of this Responses to Comments document. • Chapter B.2 - Responses to Individual Comment Letters. Provides responses to comment letters that were received from two public agencies, the City of San Jose and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), after the release of the Final EIR. • Chapter B.3 - Responses to General Comments. Provides a response to general comments that were raised in multiple comment letters received after the release of the Final EIR. As discussed above, as allowed under CEQA, this chapter responds only to those general comments that require further explanation or comments that were not previously submitted to the City. All comments that were addressed in the Responses to Comments document and Final EIR are not readdressed or reproduced. Comments that express an opinion about the merits of the Project or Project alternatives rather than raise questions about the adequacy of the responses to comments or the Draft EIR analysis are not examined in detail in this document, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. • Chapter B.4 -Additional Revisions to the Draft EIR. Provides a comprehensive listing of new text changes that have been made to the Draft EIR that are in addition to those that were made in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. These additional changes have resulted from responding to comments received after the release of the Final EIR or staff-initiated changes. New text that has been added to the Draft EIR is indicated with underlining. Text that has been deleted is indicated with strikethrough. The base text that is being edited represents text from the Draft EIR as revised in Chapter 5 of the Final EIR. • Chapter B.S- Comment Letters. Contains the compiled comment letters that were received after release of the Final EIR, with the exception of those comment letters provided in Chapter 8.2. The comment letter responses are included in Chapter 8.3, as explained above. City Place Santa Clara Project B.l-2 June 2016 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 00333.14 City of Santa Clara Introduction Table B.l-1. List of Commenters and Location of Responses Location of Comment Commenter (Date) Letter Public Agencies City of San Jose, The Sohagi Law Group, PLC, Margaret M. Sohago (letter dated April 29, B.2 2016) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Jeannie Bruins (letter dated May 5, 2016)/ B.2 Nuria Fernandez (letter dated April 29, 2016)/VTA Talking Points for Public Presentation (public hearing on April26, 2016) San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, Stacey Mortenson (letter dated May 4, 2016)/ B.2 Altamont Corridor Express, Corrine M. Winter (email dated March 21, 2016) Santa Clara Unified School District, Mark Allgire (letter dated April 28, 2016) B.5 County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, Jim Blarney (letter dated B.S April29, 2016) Santa Clara Valley Water District, Usha Chatwani, P.E., CFM (letter dated April29, 2016) B.S San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Terry Seward (letter dated May B.5 9, 2016) Organizations Sierra Club, Committee for Green Foothills, Friends of Cal train and Santa Clara Valley B.S Audubon, Gita Dev, Alice Kaufman, Adina Levin, and Shani Kleinhaus (letter dated March 21, 2016) Greenbelt Alliance, Matt VanderSluis (letter dated April 25, 2016) B.S Irvine Company, Carlene Matchniff (letter dated April 26, 2016) B.S Friends of Caltrain, Adina Levin (email dated May 9, 2016) B.S Sierra Club, Gita Dev and Gladwyn D'Souza (letter dated May 9, 2016) B.5 Individuals Sudhanshu Jain (no date) B.2 Jan Hintermeister (no date) B.5 City Place Santa Clara Project B.l-3 June 2016 Final Environmental impact Report ICF 00333.14 City of Santa Clara Introduction This page intentionally left blank. City Place Santa Clara Project June 2016 B.l-4 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 00333.14 Chapter 8.2 Responses to Individual Comment letters Introduction Written comments received after release of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) from the City of San Jose, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, Stacey Mortenson/Altamont Corridor Express (ACE), and Sudhanshu Jain are reproduced in this section. These comments were provided to the City of Santa Clara by letter or via email. Responses immediately follow each comment letter. The italicized text in the beginning of each response provides a summary of each distinct comment. The comment letters and responses begin on the following page. City Place Santa Clara Project B.2-1 June 2016 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 00333.14 City of Santa Clara Responses to Individual Comment Letters Letter from City of San Jose, The Sohagi Law Group, PLC, Margaret M. Sohagi (dated April 29, 2016) City Place Santa Clara Project June 2016 B.2-2 Final Environmental Impact Report ICF 00333.14 City of Santa Clara Responses to Individual Comment Letters Response to City of San Jose, The Sohagi Law Group, PLC, Margaret M. Sohagi (dated April 29, 2016) The Project is Consistent with the City of Santa Clara General Plan General Plan Consistency Requirements San jose asserts that the Project is inconsistent with the jobs/housing goals of the Santa Clara General Plan, and that the Project's proposed land use designation would result in an internally inconsistent General Plan. This issue is addressed in detail in Master Response 1 on page 3-1 of the Final EIR (3-1). The City agrees that a project must be consistent with the terms of the General Plan, though courts have made clear that "precise conformity" is not required, i.e., the project need not be "in rigid conformity with every detail" of the General Plan. To that end, courts afford cities "great deference" in determining whether a project under consideration is consistent with a General Plan.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Route(S) Description 26 the Increased Frequency on the 26 Makes the Entire Southwestern Portion of the Network Vastly More Useful
    Route(s) Description 26 The increased frequency on the 26 makes the entire southwestern portion of the network vastly more useful. Please keep it. The 57, 60, and 61 came south to the area but having frequent service in two directions makes it much better, and riders from these routes can connect to the 26 and have much more areas open to them. Thank you. Green Line The increased weekend service on the Green line to every twenty minutes is a good addition of service for Campbell which is seeing markedly better service under this plan. Please keep the increased service. Multiple Please assuage public concerns about the 65 and 83 by quantifying the impact the removal of these routes would have, and possible cheaper ways to reduce this impact. The fact is that at least for the 65, the vast majority of the route is duplicative, and within walking distances of other routes. Only south of Hillsdale are there more meaningful gaps. Mapping the people who would be left more than a half mile (walkable distance) away from service as a result of the cancellation would help the public see what could be done to address the service gap, and quantifying the amount of people affected may show that service simply cannot be justified. One idea for a route would be service from winchester transit center to Princeton plaza mall along camden and blossom hill. This could be done with a single bus at a cheaper cost than the current 65. And nobody would be cut off. As far as the 83 is concerned, I am surprised the current plan does not route the 64 along Mcabee, where it would be eq..
    [Show full text]
  • San Jose Campus Map Rev2-9 Pg1.Ai
    N San Jose Main Campus MR-3 W E MR-1 McCarthy Ranch S 237 680 . Dr B a 237 lew r Bel ber r. M D c Ln C 24 . nology a 237 ch r ters t r D h Headqua r. Te y y a 23 B Dr. W Z M l r s v 25 e r an u r. Site 5 r D d lg e p t . ke h o r groM mac a y u 880 H r S 21 u r R q a 22 R n ad d c 20 B . h He . Al a y R de r d r ber aW egdi aW D N . r . 1 y Renais sanc a . kw 3 . r e n F P 6 32 31 D L D i 4 5 n r. ta rst e a n n S nt 2 30 m r. o t 7 s A . oi a lderD M p Site 4 28 T a y E d 29 e t a Ta E s 9 11 s i m I B 8 an Site 5.1 V J 10 12 D 680 . r. W Tasm r. a D Center Rd. n K an D Site 2 m H r. as Cisc 15 20 c Z G F Champion Ct. T CYS r. E L E a e D b n 13 16 or 880 P k o m . a B r. r e c a D W y a D r 17 S B D n e r R a a O b M C m nt u W as y Site 1 .
    [Show full text]
  • Grading California's Rail Transit Sta on Areas Appendix LEGEND
    ! Grading California's Rail Transit Sta3on Areas Appendix LEGEND: CONTENTS: Group 1 - Residen<al • BART Final Scores • LA Metro Final Scores Group 2 - Mixed • Sacramento RT Final Scores • San Diego MTS Final Scores • San Francisco MUNI Final Scores Group 3 - Employment • Santa Clara VTA Final Scores A+ 95% A 80% A- 75% B+ 70% B 55% B- 50% C+ 45% C 30% C- 25% D+ 20% D 5% D- 2% F below 2% Appendix | www.next10.org/transit-scorecard Next 10 ! BART FINAL SCORES AVERAGE: C Final City Line Sta3on Raw Score Grade San SFO-MILLBRAE Civic Center/UN Plaza BART 90.60 A Francisco San SFO-MILLBRAE Montgomery St. BART 88.20 A Francisco San SFO-MILLBRAE 24th St. Mission BART 87.30 A Francisco San SFO-MILLBRAE 16th St. Mission BART 84.30 A Francisco San SFO-MILLBRAE Powell St. BART 84.10 A Francisco San SFO-MILLBRAE Embarcadero BART 83.80 A Francisco Oakland FREMONT Lake Merri] BART 77.60 A DUBLIN/PLEASANTON Berkeley Downtown Berkeley BART 74.50 A TO DALY CITY Berkeley RICHMOND Ashby BART 75.30 A- Berkeley RICHMOND North Berkeley BART 74.30 A- San SFO-MILLBRAE Glen Park BART 74.10 A- Francisco Oakland FREMONT Fruitvale BART 73.50 A- Oakland SFO-MILLBRAE 19th St. Oakland BART 72.90 B+ San SFO-MILLBRAE Balboa Park BART 69.80 B+ Francisco 12th St. Oakland City Center Oakland SFO-MILLBRAE 71.70 B BART Contra Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Costa SFO-MILLBRAE 66.20 B Centre BART Centre Appendix | www.next10.org/transit-scorecard Next 10 ! Oakland PITTSBURG/BAY POINT MacArthur BART 65.70 B Fremont FREMONT Fremont BART 64.20 B El Cerrito RICHMOND El Cerrito Plaza
    [Show full text]
  • GREEN LINE Light Rail Time Schedule & Line Route
    GREEN LINE light rail time schedule & line map Old Ironsides - Winchester View In Website Mode The GREEN LINE light rail line (Old Ironsides - Winchester) has 4 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) Baypointe Station (E): 10:16 PM (2) Civic Center Station (N): 12:36 AM - 11:43 PM (3) Old Ironsides Station (W): 5:59 AM - 10:46 PM (4) San Jose Diridon: 5:27 AM - 11:49 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest GREEN LINE light rail station near you and ƒnd out when is the next GREEN LINE light rail arriving. Direction: Baypointe Station (E) GREEN LINE light rail Time Schedule 17 stops Baypointe Station (E) Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday Not Operational Monday Not Operational Diridon Station Tuesday Not Operational San Fernando Station 415 San Fernando St, San Jose Wednesday 10:16 PM Convention Center Station Thursday 10:16 PM 300 Almaden Bl, San Jose Friday 10:16 PM San Antonio Station Saturday Not Operational 200 S 1st St, San Jose Santa Clara Station Fountain Alley, San Jose GREEN LINE light rail Info Saint James Station Direction: Baypointe Station (E) Stops: 17 Japantown/Ayer Station Trip Duration: 34 min 15 Hawthorne Way, San Jose Line Summary: Diridon Station, San Fernando Station, Convention Center Station, San Antonio Civic Center Station Station, Santa Clara Station, Saint James Station, 800 North 1st Street, San Jose Japantown/Ayer Station, Civic Center Station, Gish Station, Metro/Airport Station, Karina Court Station, Gish Station Component Station, Bonaventura Station, Orchard North 1st Street,
    [Show full text]
  • ORANGE LINE Light Rail Time Schedule & Line Route
    ORANGE LINE light rail time schedule & line map Mountain View - Alum Rock View In Website Mode The ORANGE LINE light rail line (Mountain View - Alum Rock) has 9 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) Alum Rock: 12:24 AM - 11:08 PM (2) Baypointe: 10:49 PM - 11:55 PM (3) Baypointe: 6:07 PM - 6:37 PM (4) Gish: 4:21 PM - 7:33 PM (5) Great Amereica Levi's Stadium: 5:43 PM - 6:41 PM (6) Great America Levi's Stadium: 3:15 PM - 6:51 PM (7) Levi's Stadium / Gish: 4:07 PM - 5:07 PM (8) Levi's Stadium/Alum Rock: 3:08 PM - 7:07 PM (9) Mountain View: 5:29 AM - 10:19 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest ORANGE LINE light rail station near you and ƒnd out when is the next ORANGE LINE light rail arriving. Direction: Alum Rock ORANGE LINE light rail Time Schedule 26 stops Alum Rock Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday 12:25 AM - 10:55 PM Monday 5:50 AM - 11:08 PM Mountain View Transit Center 650 W Evelyn Ave, Mountain View Tuesday 12:24 AM - 11:08 PM Whisman Station Wednesday 12:24 AM - 11:08 PM 400 Paciƒc Dr, Mountain View Thursday 12:24 AM - 11:08 PM Middleƒeld Station Friday 12:24 AM - 11:08 PM 580 E Middleƒeld Rd, Mountain View Saturday 12:24 AM - 11:10 PM Bayshore NASA Station Moffett Park Station 700 W Moffett Park Drive, Sunnyvale ORANGE LINE light rail Info Lockheed Martin Transit Center Direction: Alum Rock 1199 N Mathilda Av, Sunnyvale Stops: 26 Trip Duration: 57 min Borregas Station Line Summary: Mountain View Transit Center, East Java Drive, Sunnyvale Whisman Station, Middleƒeld Station, Bayshore NASA Station,
    [Show full text]
  • San Jose Main Campus Mccarthy Ranch 237 680
    MR-3 MR-2 MR-1 San Jose Main Campus McCarthy Ranch 237 680 B a lew Dr. r 237 b Bel er Ln. M Dr c C 24 nology a 237 r ters ch t r D h Headqua r. Te y y 23 B Wa Dr. Za Morgridge Way M l r v 25 e s u r. Site 5 r d lg er nk p h . o y mac D 880 H art er u 21 u R S a 22 R n d c 20 B eadq . h H . Al a R de r d r D ber N 1 . r . a kwy 3 . r Renaissanc . 31 D e Fi 4 5 6 32 L D an n r. rst S e P a n nt nt 2 30 m r. o t 7 s A D . a lder M Site 4 E 28 T a ypoi T d 29 e t a a E s 9 11 s i m I B 8 an Site 5.1 V J 12 D 10 r. 680 W. Tasm r. a D Center Rd. n K Site 2 an H D m r. as Cis 15 G F T c Z r. E L E an D co e b 13 16 or 880 P ke SYC02 m . a B r. SYC03 a Dr r R Wa yc a D e 17 S Buck D n r C ma O nt b W s y Site 1 . Ta d. e B ypoi r N a e Q L R M B 14 18 M ye Dr A i N.
    [Show full text]
  • North First Street 4500 San Jose, Ca | ±8,200 – ±83,185 Sf for Lease 4500
    NORTH FIRST STREET 4500 SAN JOSE, CA | ±8,200 – ±83,185 SF FOR LEASE 4500 STEVEN JENAB | +1 650 320 0211 | [email protected] | LIC #020850720 DREW ARVAY | +1 408 436 3647 | [email protected] | LIC #00511262 KALIL JENAB | +1 408 200 8800 | [email protected] | LIC #00848988 4500 HIGHLIGHTS FEATURES • Flexible Floor Plans from ±8,200–±83,185 SF • All-Hands Meeting Space • New Class A Interiors and Exteriors • Casual Lounges BUILDING OVERVIEW • ±3.3/1,000 Parking Ratio • Common Space Amenities • Floor-to-Ceiling Glass with Abundant Natural Light • Gym & Shower Access ±8,200–±80,185 SF • 2-Story Statement Lobby • Outdoor Patios & BBQs • Option for Open Interior Stairwells • Game Areas • Private Meeting Areas • Bay Walking & Hiking Trails • Outdoor Kitchen, Patio and Collaboration Area • LEED Certified Silver • Easy Access to Highway 237 • Quick Access to Local Retail Amenities 4500 NORTH FIRST STREET SUITE D SUITE B ±13,400 SF ±11,500 SF FIRST FLOOR CONCEPTUAL MULTI-TENANT PLAN UP UP • Flexible Floor Plans Available UP • Full Building Available ±80,881 SF • Contact for Hypothetical Layouts NORTECH PARKWAY NORTECH SUITE C SUITE A ±8,400 SF ±8,200 SF COMMON AREA 4500 4500 MCCARTHY RANCH AMENITY MAP Bank of America PROPOSED MICROSOFT In-N-Out Burger TOP GOLF McDonald's CAMPUS Maria Elena’s/El Taco Best Buy De Oro/Vahl’s ±66 Acre Parcel, ±1.2 Million SF Starbucks of Light Industrial PetSmart Ross PROPOSED Dollar Tree Black Angus The Shops @ Terra 4500 Dishdash Grill ±110,000 SF Retail Homewood Suites On the Border @FIRST Hilton
    [Show full text]
  • Tasman Corridor Complete Streets Study Round 2 Project Outreach Summary
    TASMAN CORRIDOR COMPLETE STREETS STUDY ROUND 2 PROJECT OUTREACH SUMMARY Summary of May 2018 Community Outreach Meeting May 23rd, 2018 The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) hosted a corridor-wide community outreach meeting on May 23rd, 2018 from 6:00-7:30 p.m. to discuss and present options to improve mobility along the Tasman Corridor. The meeting was held at the Lakewood Elementary School (750 Lakechime Drive) in Sunnyvale. The Study limits are from the Great Mall area of Milpitas to the Fair Oaks Avenue area of Sunnyvale. The Tasman Corridor Complete Streets Study has three objectives: · to identify a list of projects which enhance the safety, comfort, and reliability of sustainable transportation modes, while still accommodating drivers; · to be community supported; and · to be implementable. A dozen community members attended the meeting: five community members from Sunnyvale, four from San Jose, one from the City of Santa Clara, and one from the City of Palo Alto. An additional attendee arrived after the poll was conducted. Three attendees indicated they had attended the first round of community meetings held in April of 2017. When asked how the attendees heard about the meeting, the top responses were as follows: · Mailed Notices · NextDoor · E-blast lists from VTA’s GovDelivery system · HOA e-blasts · Word of Mouth Sunnyvale Vice Mayor Larry Klein attended the meeting, supported by city staff, Lillian Tsang, Transportation Engineer/Planner. Additional City staff in attendance included Ramses Madou, 1 Transportation Planning Manager from City of San Jose Department of Transportation, and Pratyush Bhatia represented the City of Santa Clara Department of Public Works.
    [Show full text]
  • 250 W. Tasman Drive | San Jose | CA
    NEW INTRODUCTORY RATE: $1.50 PSF/NNN FOR LEASE ±47,776 SF (DIVISIBLE) OFFICE/R&D BUILDING West Tasman Drive 250SAN JOSE, CA John Kovaleski David Buchholz, SIOR Alex Kovaleski +1 408 282 3844 +1 408 282 3843 +1 408 806 5318 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] CA License No. 00828965 CA License No. 01100075 CA License No. 02081540 250 W. Tasman Drive | San Jose | CA ±47,776 SF Fitness Center in the Building Located in the heart of the “Golden Triangle” Parking Ratio ±3.25/1,000 SF Mix of Private Offices and Open Collaborative Space Clear Height 10’ Finished FEATURES Remodeled Lobby with Creative Improvements TI Allowance Available Polished Concrete and Carpet Flooring Call to Tour This document has been prepared by Colliers International for advertising and general information only. Colliers International makes no guarantees, representations or warranties of any kind, expressed or implied, regarding the information including, but not limited to, warranties of content, accuracy and reliability. Any interested party should undertake their own inquiries as to the accuracy of the information. Colliers International excludes unequivocally all inferred or implied terms, conditions and warranties arising out of this document and excludes all liability for loss and damages arising there from. This publication is the copyrighted property of Colliers International and/or its licensor(s). ©2019. All rights reserved. 250 W. Tasman Drive | San Jose | CA FLOOR PLAN 2ND FLOOR Break Area Elev. Open to 1st Floor This document has been prepared by Colliers International for advertising and general information only.
    [Show full text]
  • LEVI's - MTN VIEW Light Rail Time Schedule & Line Map
    LEVI'S - MTN VIEW light rail time schedule & line map LEVI'S - MTN VIEW Great America Levi's Stadium View In Website Mode The LEVI'S - MTN VIEW light rail line (Great America Levi's Stadium) has 3 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) Great America Levi's Stadium: 1:13 PM (2) Great America/Levi's Stadium: 3:07 PM (3) Levi's Stadium / Gish: 12:07 PM - 1:07 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest LEVI'S - MTN VIEW light rail station near you and ƒnd out when is the next LEVI'S - MTN VIEW light rail arriving. Direction: Great America Levi's Stadium LEVI'S - MTN VIEW light rail Time Schedule 12 stops Great America Levi's Stadium Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday 1:13 PM Monday Not Operational Light Rail Yard Garage Tuesday Not Operational Gish Station North 1st Street, San Jose Wednesday Not Operational Metro/Airport Station Thursday Not Operational 1740 North First Street, San Jose Friday Not Operational Karina Court Station Saturday Not Operational 2108 N 1st St, San Jose Component Station 2315 North First Street, San Jose LEVI'S - MTN VIEW light rail Info Bonaventura Station Direction: Great America Levi's Stadium Stops: 12 Orchard Station Trip Duration: 22 min Orchard Parkway, San Jose Line Summary: Light Rail Yard Garage, Gish Station, Metro/Airport Station, Karina Court Station, River Oaks Station Component Station, Bonaventura Station, Orchard Station, River Oaks Station, Tasman Station, Tasman Station Champion Station, Lick Mill Station, Great America Station Champion Station Lick Mill Station 5090
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Triennial On-Site Safety Review of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (Vta)
    2011 TRIENNIAL ON-SITE SAFETY REVIEW OF SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (VTA) RAIL TRANSIT SAFETY SECTION RAIL TRANSIT AND CROSSINGS BRANCH CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SAFETY DIVISION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 June 6, 2011 Final Report Richard W. Clark, Director Consumer Protection and Safety Division 460078 2011 TRIENNIAL ON-SITE SAFETY REVIEW SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The California Public Utilities Commission’s Rail Transit Safety Section (RTSS) conducted this system safety program review. Staff members directly responsible for conducting safety review and inspection activities are: Stephen Artus, Rail Transit Safety Section Program and Project Supervisor Anton Garabetian – Senior Utilities Engineer Steven Espinal, Senior Utilities Supervisor Raed Dwairi, Project Manager, Utilities Engineer Rupa Shitole, CPUC Representative to VTA, Utilities Engineer Don Filippi, Senior Transportation Operations Supervisor Michael Borer, Vehicle Inspector Thomas Govea, Signals Inspector John Madriaga, Track Inspector Erik Juul, Senior Utilities Engineer Arun Mehta, Utilities Engineer Colleen Sullivan, Utilities Engineer Jimmy Xia, Utilities Engineer 460078 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1 2. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 2 3. BACKGROUND
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C: Walk Audit Summary
    Appendix C: Walk Audit Summary 3 This memo summarizes the findings of four walk audits at representative locations in Milpitas, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and San Jose. The audits were conducted on April 27 and 28, 2017 as part of the existing conditions analysis for the Tasman Drive Complete Streets Corridor Study. These audits had multiple purposes: 1. Identify specific issues impacting the pedestrian and bicycle environment and travel along the walk audit routes; 2. Catalog issues within each city along Tasman Drive for presentation in the Existing Conditions Report; 3. Create a shared understanding of infrastructure and behavioral issues that create a challenging, uncomfortable, or unsafe pedestrian and bicycling environments; and 4. Discuss potential countermeasures and/or policy and programmatic changes that can address identified issues. VTA staff, local municipality staff, and key stakeholders accompanied the consultant team on the respective walk audits and answered questions Photo 1: Walk audit materials about specific existing and planned infrastructure within the walk audit areas, as well as general practices with respect to complete streets projects and policies. The group stopped at designated points along the route to note observations about roadway geometry, lane markings, signage, and other issues that affect transportation. Identified issues and opportunities from the walk audits are summarized by location below. Walking and bicycling along Tasman Drive is reasonably comfortable and safe for some segments of the corridor. However, several gaps, conflicts, and constraints exist along the corridor that may discourage people from walking or biking. Common themes along the block lengths and intersections of Tasman Drive include the following: • Signal timing is oriented to minimize vehicle delay and results in long wait times for both bicyclists and pedestrians.
    [Show full text]