►
Description
The City of Cupertino Environmental Review Committee considers the Vallco Special Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) at a special meeting, recorded August 31, 2018 at Cupertino City Hall.
A
B
A
You
very
much
and
I
guess:
I'll
conduct
the
roll
call
for,
or
does
anyone
wanna
conduct
the
roll
call
with
respect
I,
don't
see
a
clerical
individual
here
to
record
a
meeting
minutes
and
such
so
I'll
do
that
city
manager,
Chan
Chad.
Remember
me
of
your
last
name:
blinken
for
summary:
Chad
Mosley
from
Public
Works,
all
right,
artis
shrivastava
from
our
Community
Development
Planning
and
Community
Development
Department.
C
D
A
I'm
here
mayor,
Darci,
Paul
of
our
city,
okay,
so
we're
all
here
and
the
meeting
is
convened.
The
first
item
on
our
agenda
is
approval
of
the
minutes
of
our
draft
minutes
of
July
5th
2018.
Would
anyone
like
to
make
any
comment
with
regard
to
these
minutes?
Are
there
any
speaker
cards
with
regard?
Are
we
doing
speaker
cards
on
this
meeting?
A
A
So,
let's
do
that
if
anyone
has
any
comments
from
the
public
regarding
draft
minutes,
please
just-
and
this
applies
to
other
items
as
well.
Please
line
up
at
the
microphone
and
you'll
be
provided
your
normal
three
minutes,
seeing
none,
let's
go
ahead
and
close
off
the
public
comment:
I'll
bring
it
back
up
here.
Is
there
a
motion
to
approve
the
draft
minutes
of
July
5th
I.
A
A
Okay
motion
passes
four:
oh
one
to
approve
the
minutes
of
July
5th
we're
at
oral
communications
now,
and
this
is
a
portion
of
the
meeting
that
that
pertains
to
anything
that
is
not
agendized
on
the
meeting,
and
so
please
line
up
at
the
at
the
microphone
that
we
have
set
up
for
members
of
the
public
again
you'll
be
given
three
minutes
to
speak
and
please
introduce
yourself
and
I
will
give
you
a
one-minute
as
well
as
a
15-second
indication
of
your
time.
Welcome
Jennifer,
hi.
F
I'm
Jennifer
Griffin
I
live
on
Calvert
Drive
in
eastern
Cupertino.
I
wanted
to
do
a
shout
out
that
people
need
to
be
aware
that
the
hotel
that
is
being
proposed
at
Stern
Avenue
at
Stevens,
Creek,
Boulevard
and
Stern,
which
is
currently
a
Shell
gas
station,
as
proposed
by
to
be
a
AC
hotel
by
San
Jose.
That
is
currently
going
through
the
environmental
impact
review
for
San
Jose.
Many
many
people
in
the
neighborhood
have
written
in
opposition
and
pointed
out
in
adequate
traffic
survey.
They
only
looked
at
the
stern
and
Stevens
Creek
intersection.
F
They
didn't
look
at
any
other
parts
of
the
intersection.
There's
a
150
child
daycare
center
at
the
spino
building
directly
across
the
street
in
Cupertino
jurisdiction.
That
was
not
mentioned.
Hardly
at
all
comments
can
be
turned
in
until
the
14th
of
September.
We
are
looking
for
a
strong
push
back
from
Cupertino
politico's
against
this
hotel.
It
is
a
travesty.
It
looks
like
something
that
should
be
built
in
the
Tenderloin
100
years
ago.
F
The
architecture
is
not
up
to
par
for
anywhere
and
it
is
a
blight
on
the
eastern
gateways
into
Cupertino,
especially
with
the
new
Apple
Campus.
How
would
you
like
to
have
someone
going
to
the
September
12th
Apple
conference?
That's
the
Steve
Jobs
Center
at
10:00
a.m.
coming
off
of
two
80s
southbound
at
Stevens
Creek,
and
seeing
a
monstrosity
like
that.
8
story:
hotel
stuck
on
the
corner
with
no
arc
textual
review
and
no
trees,
they're
going
to
think
that
that
is
the
way
Cupertino
allows
their
buildings
to
be
built.
F
F
Poorly
on
Apple
it
that
building
is
not
up
to
standards
that
Cooper
to
Cupertino
has
way
high
standards,
architectural
e
and
environmentally
than
San
Jose
I
wish
we
can
annex
West,
San
Jose.
They
don't
belong
to
the
rest
of
the
city,
they're
better
because
they
care,
but
that
proposed
hotel
has
had
no
architectural
review
and
the
cruise
ship
building
in
Santa
Clara
I
was
there
had
no
architectural
review,
even
though
the
Planning
Commission
in
Santa
Clara
recommended
it.
F
H
I
also
live
on
the
east
side
of
Cupertino
and
I've.
Looked
at
the
stern
and
Stevens
Creek
hotel
as
well.
It's
95
feet
high
and
the
side
yards
are
they're
a
little
over
three
feet,
and
one
of
them
is
around
like
one
foot
to
10
inches
and
there's
a
concrete
block
retaining
wall
instead
of
a
fence.
So
I
really
don't
see
how
they're
going
to
be
able
to
do
even
basic
maintenance
at
that
location,
around
I'm
trying
to
get
around
the
building
and
I'm
also
concerned
for
fire
safety.
H
B
H
B
H
Was
when
I
was
writing
at
you,
the
city
about
how
the
plans
were
showing
a
non-existent
driveway
and
I
looked
at
measure
D
and
I
also
found
the
same
non-existent
driveway.
It
was
something
that
had
been
there
for-
let's
see,
maybe
it
was
there
20
years
ago
and
so
I'm
appalled
that
a
civil
engineer
at
the
city
sent
me
a
landscape
plan
and
trying
to
pass
it
off
to
me
as
though
it
were
an
actual
street
plan.
D
H
A
I
I
I
know
that
when
Sabina
was
mayor,
there
was
a
letter
written
and
by
the
staff
and
signed
by
her
to
send
to
the
city
boys,
seeing
that
Cupertino
does
not
support
the
way
it
is
I
can't
recite
the
letter,
but
I
am
asking
that
the
city,
someone
in
the
city,
please
send
another
letter
now
if
you
haven't
and
make
that
available
to
the
public.
Thank
you
thank.
A
You
any
other
speakers
from
the
public
on
any
items
that
are
not
on
the
agenda.
All
right,
very
well,
we'll
go
on
to
our
public
hearings.
Item
item
number
two
and
that's
consideration
of
the
Valco
specific
area,
special
area,
specific
plan,
environmental
impact
report
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
the
California,
Environmental,
Quality,
Act
or
sequa,
and
I
believe
that
we
have
members
of
the
consulting
team
as
well
as
our
planning
and
Community
Development
Department
here,
to
provide
us
a
an
introduction
to
this
item.
Welcome
good.
E
Morning,
mr.
mayor
and
chair
and
Jeff
paulsen,
I'm
just
going
to
introduce
our
consultants
here
who
are
going
to
give
you
an
overview
of
the
environmental
impact
report
that
was
prepared
for
the
Valco
special
areas,
specific
plan.
We
have
Judy
Shanley
here
from
David
J
powers,
and
we
also
have
a
Franziska
church
here
with
ferrant
peers
who
will
go
over
the
traffic
impacts
that
the
traffic
impact
analysis
that
was
done
for
the
environmental
impact
report.
E
I
will
also
let
you
know
that
there
is
a
desk
item,
which
is
a
supplemental
text,
revisions
memo
that
has
been
provided
first,
a
minor
text,
revisions
that
are
not
material
and,
in
addition,
there
is
also
another
letter
that
was
sent
to
us
by
the
city
of
Santa
Clara.
That
is
on
its
way
that
will
be
presented
to
you
as
a
desk
item
and
we'll
give
you
an
update
verbal
update
on
responses
to
that
and
with
that
I
will
turn
it
over
to
Judy
for
her
presentation.
E
J
Good
morning
my
name
is
Judy
Shanley
and
I.
Am
the
president
and
a
principal
project
manager
at
David
powers
and
associates
were
oh
sorry,
sorry,
once
again,
my
name
is
Judy
Shanley
I'm,
a
president
and
principal
project
manager
at
David
powers,
&
Associates,
and
we
were
hired
by
the
city
of
Cupertino
to
assist
them
in
preparing
the
environmental
impact
report
or
e
IR
for
the
Valco
specific
plan
project.
J
Just
sort
of
background
information,
environmental
impact
report
or
e
IR
is
the
most
complex
and
lengthy,
both
in
terms
of
process
and
the
type
of
document
for
sequa.
An
e
ir
is
an
informational
document
and
it
is
intended
to
inform
decision-makers
about
project
impacts.
It
provides
an
identification
of
mitigation
measures
to
avoid
and
reduce
impacts,
and
it
also
identifies
alternatives
to
the
proposed
project
to
avoid
and
reduce
impacts,
and
those
alternatives
are
also
supposed
to
meet
the
most
basic
of
objectives
of
the
original
proposed
project.
J
The
draft
EIS
range
of
alternatives
and
I'll
provide
a
slide
with
actual
numbers
in
just
one
second,
but
the
original
proposed
project
included
the
general
plan
allocation
of
residential
uses
on
the
Valco
site.
Another
alternative
that
was
analyzed
is
the
general
plan
build-out
with
maximum
residential,
and
that
did
not
limit
the
residential
proposed
in
terms
of
the
the
general
plans
allocation.
It
was
a
maximum
build-out,
a
retail
and
residential
alternative
that
didn't
include
any
office
and
also
in
response
to
some
community
interest.
J
After
the
draft
dir
was
circulated
and
in
response
to
some
of
the
interest
of
both
the
council
and
the
public
that
was
elicited
at
study
sessions,
an
alternative
to
the
proposed
project
was
identified.
That
was
called
the
housing
rich
alternative.
This
included
more
housing
units
than
the
original
proposed
project,
going
long
on
housing
to
include
an
increased
opportunity
for
housing,
affordability,
and
it
also
incorporated
some
additional
community
benefits:
a
City
Hall
Performing,
Arts
Center
and
space
for
schools.
J
So
the
revised
dir,
which
was
published
just
this
past
week,
includes
a
revised
project
which
is
a
refinement
of
the
original
proposed
project.
It
includes
responses
to
comments
that
were
obtained
or
received
by
the
city
during
the
45-day
circulation
period,
so
the
original
draft
dir
was
prepared.
The
housing
rich
alternative
was
evaluated
in
an
amendment
to
the
original
draft
dir,
and
that
was
also
circulated
for
45
days
and
at
the
conclusion
of
that
time
period.
J
The
finally
IR
was
prepared
providing
responses
to
both
the
comments
on
the
original
draft
dir
and
the
e
IR
amendment
and,
in
addition
to
responses
to
comments.
The
finally
IR
includes
text
revisions
to
the
draft
in
the
ER
amendment
that
provide
clarifications
or
were
needed
to
in
response
to
some
of
the
questions
that
came
up
on
the
draft
subsequent
to
preparation
of
the
finally
IR
Pugh
just
mentioned
the
Supplemental
supplemental.
Excuse
me
text
revisions
document,
and
that
includes
it's
basically
an
errata
that
refines
some
of
the
mitigation
measures.
J
J
Okay,
so
just
a
note,
the
revised
project
is
actually
larger
than
what
the
specific
plan
ended
up
with,
but
the
specific
plan
it's
closer
to
the
tier
2
build-out
of
the
specific
plan
that
was
made
public
last
week.
But
it's
the
revised
project
certainly
covers
all
of
the
maximum
build-out
of
both
the
tier
1
and
the
tier
2
of
the
specific
plan.
J
So
the
e
IR
addresses
all
of
the
environmental
issues
that
are
discussed
in
sequa
guidelines
checklist,
and
these
are
listed
here.
Everything
from
aesthetics,
air
quality,
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
biological
resources,
cultural,
both
archaeology
and
historic,
energy
use,
hazardous
materials,
hydrology
land
use,
noise
and
vibration,
population,
housing,
public
services,
recreation,
transportation
and
utilities,
and
service
systems
and
I'm
now
going
to
turn
it
over
to
Francisca
Church
affair
and
piers
to
talk
about
the
traffic.
K
Can
you
hear
me
okay,
a
little
closer?
Okay,
there
we
go.
My
name
is
Francisca
Church
and
I'm
a
senior
associate
with
fair
and
peers
transportation.
Consultants
I
was
the
project
manager
for
the
transportation
impact
analysis
that
was
ultimately
incorporated
into
the
environmental
document,
so
I'm
going
to
provide
a
very
brief
overview
of
the
analysis
itself
and
then
some
of
the
conclusions
from
the
transportation
analysis
as
it
relates
to
intersection
and
freeway
impacts.
K
Sorry,
we
got
that
closer
okay,
so
the
first
thing
I
wanted
to
talk
about
is
really
the
different
scenarios
that
we
analyzed
as
part
of
the
transportation
impact
analysis
or
T
ia,
as
we
call
it.
For
short,
there
are
basically
six
scenarios
that
we
evaluated
the
first
being
existing
conditions,
so
existing
conditions
really
represent.
K
What's
on
the
ground
today,
it's
based
on
data
that
we
can
did
in
January
of
2018
2018
of
this
year
and
so
really
provides
the
backdrop
for
the
analysis
itself,
and
then
you
have
scenario
two
which
ultimately
takes
existing
conditions
and
then
adds
on
the
project.
On
top
of
that,
she
evaluate
what
the
transportation
system
would
operate,
how
the
transportation
system
would
operate
with
the
proposed
project
in
place
and
then
scenario.
Three
is
background.
K
Conditions
are
background
without
project
conditions
and
that's
where
we
really
start
looking
at
future
conditions
on
the
roadway
as
it
relates
to
the
baseline
and
so
background
really
includes
all
developments
that
have
recently
been
approved
within
Cupertino,
but
also
adjacent
jurisdictions.
So
this
would
include
full
build-out
of
the
Apple
Campus
or
Apple
Park
other
developments
with
in
Cupertino,
but
even
a
jasonich
jurisdictions
as
well.
K
So
that
provides
a
baseline
to
say
what
would
happen
if
everything
that's
currently
approved
in
the
vicinity
how
the
street
would
operate,
the
transportation
network
would
operate
and
then
in
scenario
4
we
again
similar
to
scenario
2,
add
on
the
project.
Trips
from
the
revised
project.
Description
to
evaluate
the
impacts
related
to
background
conditions
and
cumulative
is
really
of
much
further
out
just
looking
at
year,
2040.
So,
basically,
what
it
includes
similar
to
background.
K
It
adds
on,
though
any
pending
development,
so
development
projects
that
are
not
necessarily
approved
but
are
in
the
approval
process
or
stages.
So
again,
we
go
out
and
ask
city
of
Cupertino,
but
also
adjacent
or
jurisdictions,
for
their
list
of
pending
projects
that
we
then
add
to
incorporate
into
the
baseline
for
cumulative
and
then
scenario.
Six
again
is
cumulative
with
project
so
again
we're
adding
on
the
project
trips
on
top
of
the
cumulative
volumes.
So
basically
what
the
analysis
were
able
to
look
at
different
horizon
years.
What
would
happen?
K
Basically,
if
Belko
would
open
tomorrow
what
it
would
look
like
if
development
would
that's
already
been
approved,
were
occupied
and
then
Valka
would
happen,
but
also
a
future
scenario.
If
all
the
pending
theoretical
developments
would
move
forward,
what
would
the
traffic
look
like
and
in
the
area
we
analyzed,
let
me
see,
we
analyzed
leaves
67
intersections
as
part
of
the
transportation
impact
analysis
and
over
30
in
freeway
segments
or
no
and
over
ya
around
over
30
freeway
segments
in
total,
but
in
terms
of
the
impact
so
with
those
that
have
significant
and
unavoidable
impacts.
K
Those
that
cannot
be
mitigated
through
mitigation
measures
we
identified
18
intersections.
That
would
have
significant
and
unavoidable
impacts.
I
should
note
that
these
include
intersection
impacts.
That
would
be
mitigated
with
TIF
project,
so
the
city
has
a
transportation
impact.
Fee
program
has
identified
improvements
for
these
intersections.
That,
in
theory,
would
mitigate
the
impact,
however,
and
this
the
way
the
TIF
structure
works
in
terms
of
city
needing
to
collect
the
funds
and
then
build
the
actual
improvements.
We
do
be
conservative
identify
these
as
significant
and
unavoidable.
K
Then
these
also
include
intersection
impacts
that
are
not
within
the
city
of
Cupertino,
so
the
other
adjacent
jurisdictions
would
be
responsible
for
their
implementation,
and
so
since
the
city
can't
insure
our
direct
and
Jason
city
to
implement
an
improvement,
we
also
identified
those
as
significant
unavoidable.
Just
to
be
conservative,
though
there
are
many
times
actual
improvements
identified
for
those
and
then
in
terms
of
the
freeway
impacts.
We
have
about
31
segments
that
have
significant
unavoidable
impacts
and
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
detail
about
the
actual
location
and
numbers
in
a
second.
K
So
this
is
a
map
that
shows
the
intersection
analysis,
so
you
can
see
on
the
map.
All
the
black
dots
represent
the
intersections
that
we
analyzed
as
part
of
the
transportation
impact
analysis
all
sixty-seven
intersections,
and
these
are
color-coded
to
help
identify
where
we
identified
impacts
so
purple
intersections
of
the
purple
circle.
We
see
intersection
number
11
so
that
DeAnza
and
Stevens
Creek
Boulevard,
as
well
as
Stevens,
Creek
and
wolf.
They
have
significant
unavoidable
impacts
and
there's
no
feasible
mitigation
measure
for
those
locations.
There
are
several
intersections
those
noted
in
orange.
K
Again
those
are
the
transportation
impact
fee
intersections,
so
the
city
has
identified
improvements
for
those
location
and,
as
will
be
collecting
fees
and
ultimately
at
some
point
will
be
a
as
they
collect.
Fees
will
be
able
to
mitigate
those
impacts,
but
again
just
for
be
conservative.
These
were
identified
as
sitting
they've
been
unavoidable,
and
then
we
also
have
an
teal
showing
intersection
impacts
in
in
jurisdictions
outside
of
the
city
of
Cupertino.
K
And
so
again
we
have
impacts
our
mitigation
measures
identified,
but
the
city
cannot
guarantee
the
implementation
of
those
of
those
improvements,
and
then
we
also
have
a
location
at
Valco,
Parkway
and
Wolf
Road,
where
we
have
an
impact
that
can
be
mitigated
to
less
like
significant
levels,
with
the
identified
mitigation
measure
in
terms
of
freeways.
I
don't
have
a
nice
map
for
this
here,
but
it
just
allows
to
summarize
where
the
freeway
impacts
were
identified.
On
what
freeways
so
we
evaluated
several
freeway
segments
along
highway,
85
I
to
80
my
880
route,
17
and
I.
K
K
K
It's
not
state
law
as
of
yet,
but
there
is
direction
that
each
agencies
will
need
to
implement
this
over
the
next
year
and
a
half
and
so
just
to
start
that
process
and
get
the
decision
makers
and
the
public
familiar
with
VMT
analysis.
We
included
that
for
information
purposes,
and
this
slide
here
summarizes
the
VMT
so
total
the
mt,
the
average
tip
lengths
and
the
VM
or
service
population,
so
VM
T's
vehicle
miles
traveled.
So
basically
it
says
of
all
the
trips.
You
know:
different
trip
types
have
different
trip
links.
K
D
J
Other
than
the
traffic
impacts,
the
environmental
impact
report
found
that
the
build-out
of
the
project
would
have
a
couple
other
significant
unavoidable
impacts
and
those
were
related
to
construction,
air
quality
impacts
due
to
the
large
size
of
the
project,
and
particularly
the
large
excavation
that
was
proposed
for
the
below-grade
parking
and
also
the
construction
equipment.
There
was
a
significant
unavoidable
air
quality
impact,
temporary
air
quality
impact
during
the
construction
period,
even
with
all
feasible
mitigation
measures
included.
J
There
was
also
a
significant
unavoidable,
operational
air
quality
impact,
and
this
is
primarily
due
to
the
volume
of
traffic
trips
that
are
generated
by
the
project
and
also
due
to
some
architectural
coatings.
But
the
project
did
include
for
that,
but
even
with
the
mitigation,
this
was
still
significant
and
unavoidable
over
the
thresholds
of
significance.
It
should
be
noted
that
both
the
previous
project
and
all
of
the
development
alternatives
that
were
analyzed
had
similar
significant
unavoidable
impacts
to
the
revised
project.
J
Noise
level
increases
that
was
another
impact
and
I
again.
This
includes
all
of
the
feasible
and
normal
construction
mitigation
measures
to
reduce
noise
for
the
long
term.
Noise
level
increases
that
is
related
to
the
increase
in
volume
of
traffic
trips
on
the
roads
closest
to
Valco.
So,
due
to
the
increases
in
traffic,
that
would
cause
a
proportionate
or
also
a
noise
level
increase.
J
There
were
the
mitigation
measures
that
were
included
in
the
project
did
reduce
many
of
the
impacts
to
a
lesson
significant
level.
This
includes
construction,
air
quality
impacts,
the
diesel
particulates
and
toxic
air
contaminants
that
can
be
part
of
construction
exhaust.
Those
were
all
reduced
to
less
than
significant
with
mitigation
measures.
The
cultural
resources
there
were
with
the
mitigation
measures
included
in
the
project.
There
is
no
cultural
resources
impact
the
GHG
emissions.
J
The
revised
project
was
found
to
have
less
than
significant
GHG
emissions
per
service
population
with
the
inclusion
of
mitigation
measures.
Other
mitigated
impacts
include
hazardous
materials.
There
are
some
sources
of
contamination,
soil
and
groundwater
contamination
on
the
site
due
to
the
previous
auto
related
uses
at
Sears
and
and
JCPenney.
J
E
G
J
E
L
A
D
I
have
a
few
traffic
questions.
Francesca,
if
you
don't
mind,
I
speak
partly
as
a
former
member
of
the
bicycle
pedestrian
Commission
and
one
of
my
favorite
quotes
is
where
a
person
said:
building
more
traffic
lanes
to
solve
traffic
congestion
is
like
loosening
your
belt
to
solve
obesity.
So
I
notice
in
the
report
that
there
are
a
number
of
so-called
traffic
improvements
by
adding
new
lanes
and
I
understand
that's
necessary
if
you're,
just
looking
at
automobile
traffic.
D
But
my
concern
is
twofold:
one
that
that
only
eventually
encourages
more
automotive
transportation
and
and
second
that
it
it
doesn't
account
for
future
trends
in
transportation
such
as
you
know,
Electric
skateboards,
scooters,
bicycles.
That
kind
of
thing
I
understand,
I've,
been
here.
What
now
thirty
two
years
and
and
I
have
not
seen
a
whole
lot
of
public
transit
improvements,
and
that
is
a
very
slow
process.
So
we
think
Valko
is
a
slow
process.
D
K
No
I
appreciate
the
question
I'm
happy
to
answer
that
too
you're
saying:
yes,
you
will
build
it
and
they
will
come
so,
but
we
definitely
took
a-you
know
with
the
city's
general
plan
really
focuses
on
multimodal
in
a
balanced
transportation
network
and
so
not
necessarily
focused
just
on
vehicle
travel.
And
so
yes,
my
presentation
just
right
now,
really
focusing
on
the
intersection
and
freeway
impact.
K
There
are
also
several
other
locations
where
widening
of
the
roadway
would
have
mitigated
it,
but
we
decided
that
more
technology-based
improvements
to
signal
operations
were
the
more
appropriate
way
to
go
just
to
help
the
flow
of
versus
just
building
more
capacity.
So
we
did
overall
try
to
take
a
really
balanced
approach
to
this
generally,
where
we
have
proposed
widening
of
roadways,
it's
really
related
to
already
planned
facilities
or
planned
improvements,
and
so
since
they
already
in
the
works
so
to
speak
our
plan.
D
Thought
so
thank
you
for
the
clarification
one
other
question
about
noise.
I've
noticed
that
cars
are
becoming
quieter
and
I.
Think
they're
going
to
be
more
and
more
quiet
in
the
future.
As
you
see
more
electric
vehicles,
did
you
account
for
that
in
terms
of
your
noise,
or
is
the
noise
mainly
from
tire
and
and
air
noise?
D
J
Noise
analysis,
I
do
not
believe
incorporates
the
quieter
electric
vehicle;
it
provides
a
standard
noise
from
tire
wear
and
and
normal
engine
use,
and
there
is
a
traditional
thought
that
a
doubling
of
traffic
volume
roughly
generates
a
three
decibel
or
a
perceptible
noise
level
increase,
and
so
the
calculation
of
what
the
additional
noise
would
be
from
traffic
is
based
purely
on
the
the
volume
of
additional
traffic
trips.
So
it
has
not
yet
incorporated
any
reductions
based
upon
quieter
vehicles.
Okay,.
D
A
Yeah,
thank
you,
Jeff.
Is
there
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
ask
some
questions
of
our
of
our
presenters
here?
All
right,
I
have
a
few,
so
I
noticed
that
in
the
commercial
envelope
we're
at
400
and
I
apologize
for
not
being
able
to
read
my
own
notes,
I
think
it's
four
hundred
and
sixty
thousand
square
feet
is
what
you
presented
in
the
the
more
the
less
intense
plan.
I
guess
plan
one
there
there
is
600,000
square
feet
of
retail
proposed.
A
Because
it
seems
just
to
you
know,
add
a
little
bit
of
you
know
from
my
own
perspective
as
to
how
this
envelope
got
studied,
I,
think
you're,
probably
starting
with
an
envelope
defined
by
what
was
in
the
prior
proposal
right
and
with
regard
to
the
current
specific
plan
process.
I
guess
through
interactive,
you
know,
discussions
between
our
staff
and
the
property
owner
or
slash
you
know
prospective
applicant.
There
was
probably
an
increase
of
some
of
the
willingness
to
add
commercial.
A
So
if,
if
we
do
have
a
potential,
essentially
zoning
proposal
right
with
a
specific
plan
on
on
for
consideration
that
has
six
hundred
thousand
square
feet,
how
do
we
get
to
oh,
so
the
prior
project
has
six
hundred
thousand,
so
okay.
So
so
you
know
the
the
slide
where
you
indicated
what
was
being
studied.
It
indicated
that
the
envelope
of
commercial
was
four
hundred
and
sixty
thousand
square
feet.
I
guess
the
threshold
question
is:
is
that
accurate
or
was
I,
perhaps
misinterpreting
what
was
being
conveyed?
Well.
G
J
For
each
of
the
alternatives,
the
trip
generation
was
calculated
as
a
whole.
So
when
the
original
previous
project
had
a
higher
number
of
commercial
and
a
higher
number
of
office,
the
revised
project
is
smaller
and
is
included
within
the
envelope
of
impacts
that
was
evaluated
in
the
original.
It
has
a
higher
number
of
residential
units
which
caused
a
greater
number
of
residential
related
traffic
trips
and
then
with
that
traffic
data.
J
That
was
then
also
converted
into
air
quality
impacts
and
noise
impacts,
and
that
sort
of
thing
so
the
original
draft
dir
the
EIA
our
amendment
and
then
the
final
did
the
calculations
again
to
ensure
that
the
revised
project
was
within
the
limits
of
the
overall
envelope
of
impacts
that
was
originally
evaluated
and
for
the
most
part,
the
housing
rich
alternative
had
the
highest
level
of
impacts
and
the
revised
project.
Even
though
it
has
a
little
bit
more
office,
it
is
has
fewer
overall
track
traffic
trips
and
impacts.
Okay,.
E
F
E
Has
four
hundred
and
sixty
or
four
and
eighty
five?
How
does
that
compare
in
Tier
one
the
amount
of
office
square
footage
is
much
lower
than
in
tier
two,
and
so,
when
you,
when
for
purposes
of
the
EIA,
are
because
we've
studied
the
maximum
envelope
in
terms
of
tier
two
we're
fine
with
having
the
amount
of
development
that
is
being
proposed
in
Tier,
one
okay,.
A
I
mean
to
me.
It
seems
like
we
should
have
added
another
140,000
square
feet
of
commercial
to
this
overall
study
if
we're
going
to
be
studying
maximum
envelopes
for
the
sake
of
saying
that,
as
long
as
it
stays
within
this,
our
analyses
are
legitimate.
So
tell
me
tell
me
why
that
impression
is
is
incorrect
in
a
straightforward
manner,
as
you
can.
E
E
So,
with
the
proposed
specific
plan
and
within
the
what
is
proposed
in
the
specific
plan,
we're
covered
with
this
er
for
those
impacts.
In
terms
of
if
the
council
wants
to
see
some
changes
made
to
the
program,
we
would
have
to
review.
Do
a
quick
analysis
in
terms
of
what
the
ER
is
covered
in
order
to
see
whether,
whatever
program
the
council
wishes
to
adopt
with
the
specific
plan,
whether
that's
covered
under
the
ER
or.
A
Not
okay!
Okay!
That's
a
fair
enough
answer!
That's
a
fair
enough
answer,
and
so
what
I'm
hearing
is
that
we
probably
do
need
to.
You
know:
take
a
look
at
the
commercial
because
you
are
indicating
the
the
residential
as
well
as
the
office
and
then
following
it
up
with
well.
If
the
council
does
decide
to
have
a
particular
choice-
and
in
this
case
you
do
have
the
first
choice
that
does
have
that
six
hundred
thousand
square
feet
of
commercial
correct
and
it's
not
a
de
minimis
amount
of
residential.
A
A
With
regard
to
the
noise
levels,
you
know:
I
appreciated
some
of
the
description
with
regard
to
air
quality
and
and
intersections.
So
if
a
noise
level
is
significant
and
unavoidable,
what
does
that
mean
with
regard
to
some
quantifiable
metrics
I
mean?
Is
there
a
decibel
threshold
that
we
can
define
and
say
it's
going
to
be
this
loud
and
I
was
noticing
long-term?
There
are
some
noise
levels
that
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
that
we're
also
under
the
su
category.
F
A
You
know
the
construction,
the
construction
noise
is.
It
is
something
that
you
can
see
a
you
know
a
sunsetting,
but
of
course
it's
it's.
It's
also
something
that's
very
important
to
try
to
mitigate
if
we
can,
but
but
in
terms
of
that
noise
level
you
know,
is
there?
Is
there
a
quantifiable
metric
for
defining
what
that
is
so.
J
Our
analysis
started
with
an
evaluation
of
the
existing
noise
levels
and
the
site
is
adjacent
to
280
and
Stevens
Creek
and
Wolf.
So
all
of
those
roads
have
a
lot
of
vehicular
traffic
and
are
fairly
noisy
and
given
that
the
specific
plan
did
not
yet
has
not
yet
been
refined
enough
with
detailed
projects
to
know
where
residential
is
going
to
be
versus
office.
The
noise
analysis
has
contour
lines
of
what
the
noise
levels
are
at
different
locations
within
the
site
and
based
on
that.
J
It
had
recommendations
of
where
you
know:
minimum
setbacks
for
to
80
and
from
Stevens,
Creek
and
wolf
in
order
to
meet,
for
example,
for
commercial
land
use
the
maximum
acceptable
noise
level.
Outdoors
is
70
decibels,
and
so
it
had
thresholds
a
contour
line
showing
where
the
seventy
and
it
had
also
setback
distances.
In
order
to
meet
the
city's
residential
noise
standards,
which
would
be
a
65
exterior
noise
standard
and
with
that,
it
also
includes
as
a
part
of
the
State
Building
Code.
There
are
requirements
for
detailed
project.
J
Specific
noise
analyses
to
be
done
at
the
time.
Building
plans
are
actually
prepared
to
ensure
that
interior
noise
levels
are
maintained
at
45
decibels
or
lower,
which
is
what
the
the
Building
Code
and
state
requires.
The
city
desire
is
to
have
65
decibels
as
the
residential
exterior
noise
level,
and
so
the
there
are
standard
permit
conditions
included
in
the
project
to
design
the
future
buildings
such
that
the
non-residential
uses
are
buffering,
the
residential
uses
from
noise
and
and
that
sort
of
thing
I
see.
Okay,.
A
J
The
long-term
operational
noise
impact
resulting
from
vehicular
traffic
is
not
an
impact
saying
that
noise
levels
are
in
excess,
a
certain
threshold
of
65.
It's
more
that
there
is
an
increase,
a
perceptible
noise
level
increase,
and
that
is
the
threshold
of
what
the
significance
is.
It
should
be
noted
that,
with
all
of
the
alternatives,
including
the
occupied
mall,
there
would
be
an
increase
in
traffic
and
associated
noise
level,
increase
sure.
A
J
As
a
part
of
both
mitigation
and
as
a
condition
of
approval,
the
project
would
be
required
to
meet
the
city's
municipal
code
related
to
construction
hours,
which
I
believe
allow
for
construction,
7:00
to
8:00
p.m.
7:00
a.m.
to
8:00
p.m.
on
weekdays.
And
then
only
there
are
certain
types
of
construction
allowed
on
week
ends,
but
those
would
be
subject
to
approval
by
the
city,
community
development
staff,
okay,.
A
J
Archaeological
resources
on
the
site,
but
nonetheless
the
project
includes
included
in
an
valuation
of
the
subject
and
includes
mitigation
measures
that,
in
the
during
construction
and
earthmoving
activities,
if
anything
were
found
that
all
construction
would
stop
and
depending
upon
what
the
resource
was
and
qualified
archaeologist
would
be
called
into
the
city
to
assist
in
providing
a
mitigation
plan.
And
then
there
are
also
additional
requirements
in
the
event.
Native
Americans
burials
are
found
I'm,
not
aware
of
those
having
been
anywhere
in
the
area,
so
it's
unlikely,
but
it's
included
anyway.
J
The
the
Valco
sign
along
280
is
identified
in
the
general
plan
as
a
special
resource
and
so
as
a
part
of
the
mitigation
for
that
there
was
I,
believe
documentation
of
the
history
of
the
mall
and
also
having
some
sort
of
informative,
kiosk
or
something
like
that
as
mitigation,
and
that
was
for
the
historic
aspect.
I
see.
A
Okay
and
then
final
question
for
the
time
being,
has
to
do
with
pews
comment
regarding
impacts
from
a
retention
in
mall.
Is
there
a
section
within
the
e
ir
that
reflects
the
assertions
that
you're
making
with
regard
to
what
happens
if
there's
a
retreat
ended
in
mall
and
us
not
having
certain
ability
to
impose
mitigations
and
what
section
of
the
so.
E
A
And
and
insofar
as
the
the
basic
assertion
that
we
would
have,
fewer
ability
to
you
know
require
mitigations
or
our
less
ability,
I
should
say
well.
Is
there
any
particular
part
of
the
ER
that
you
know
someone
reading
it
could
refer
to
to
get
a
sense
of
you
know
what
our
limitations
are
relative
limitations
to
so.
E
In
every
section,
in
every
section
we
talk
about
it.
Essentially,
the
mall
is
a
permitted
land
use.
There
are
no
discretionary
actions
required
in
order
to
retain
at
the
mall
and
it's
exempt
from
sequa.
So
we
could
not
impose
the
mitigation
measures
that
we
can
on
your
projects
with
the
REIT
ending
of
the
mall,
and
we
do
have
I
did
want
to
point
out.
We
do
have
a
table
that
identifies
the.
E
Oops
we
just
lost
the
table
is
essentially
and
if
we
can
get
that
table
back,
we
can
show
you
it's
in
it's
also
in
the
finally
AR.
This
table
is
in
the
finally
IR
and
it
talks
about
the
it
basically
compares
the
different
impacts
from
each
of
the
for
each
of
the
alternatives
with
each
other.
It
essentially
compares
them,
and-
and
we
have
that
back
now,
so
that
table
is
in
the
finally
IR.
If
you
are
interested
I,
think
it's
called
the
summary
of
impacts
or
summary
of
project
and
project
alternative
impacts.
A
E
A
E
Are
standard
permit
conditions
that
we
do
impose
with
regard
to
construction,
but
we
would
not
be
able
to
impose
any
mitigation
measures
related
to
transportation
impacts
or
there
would
be
some
noise.
You
know
standard
construction
hours
and
things
like
that,
but
it
in
terms
of
you
know,
repaving
the
streets
with
rubberized
asphalt
or
things
like
that.
That
would
possibly
go
above
and
beyond
what
we
could
require,
which
are
incorporated
as
mitigation
measures
in
the
event
of
new
development
right.
A
D
Is
a
one
sort
of
tangential
comment
about
noise
280
is
at
the
end
of
my
block
and
I've
noticed
that
its
quietest
during
maximum
rush
hour,
because
traffic
is
almost
at
a
stop.
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
incorporated
in
various
calculations,
but
actually,
if
we
wanted
to
make
things
quieter,
we
put
more
cars
out
there,
especially
electric
ones,
that
make
no
noise
when
they
start
up
in
intersections.
That's
just
a
thought,
but
I
have
a
couple
of
tree
questions,
as
my
my
colleagues
know.
G
J
D
There
are,
there
are
some
data
available
and
I'm
not
asking
you
to
revise
this
to
come
out
with
another
edition,
but
there
are
data
about
that.
Second
question:
about
trees,
ozone
notice
in
one
of
the
e
IRS
there
were
some
species
identified
that
would
help
capture
the
soot
and
the
dust
from
the
freeway
I
live
downwind
from
280.
We
get
a
lot
of
soot,
but
I'm,
also
on
the
board
of
a
tree,
planting
group
or
the
the
person
who's
doing
the
trees
for
apple
planted.
D
M
You,
mr.
mayor
just
a
couple
questions
of
clarifications:
can
you
go
over
one
more
time
in
this
report?
The
maximum
program
that
we
study,
for
example,
how
many
housing
units
how
many
offers?
How
many
retail
I
I
know?
The
report
contain
different
alternatives
and
your
comments
on
those
alternatives.
But
the
report
studied
the
maximum
number
and
what
would
those
be
right.
J
J
M
I'm,
just
going
to
give
some
example
on
the
housing
which
alternative
Lee's
appear,
that
it
has
the
highest
number
of
all.
The
numbers
that
you've
shown
there
so
30
to
50
is
the
number
that
study
if
council
decided
to
move
to
3500
I'm,
just
making
it
up
to
for
clarification
purposes
under
the
environmental
report
that
all
the
alternatives
that
you
study,
the
council
would
not
be
able
to
move
to
to
end
or
increase
to
3500.
Without
another
study
there.
J
J
J
E
M
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
understand
what
is
the
maximum
number
versus
retail
or
office
that
is
studying
here,
so
that
we,
if
counsel
or
corruption
or
Planning
Commission
recommendation,
exceed
what
we
study.
Then
we
have
to
do
another
additional
analysis
assuming
the
number.
Even
if
you
move
the
number,
it
won't
still
won't
fit
that
come
on
the.
J
M
A
thank
you
I
only
have
one
more
question
had
to
do
with
transportation.
If
I
understood
you
earlier
in
your
analysis,
you're
trying
to
take
them
out
Allen's
approach
and
you
look
at
all
of
the
current
planned
transportation
alternatives
and
incorporate
those
medication
impact
in
this
study.
So
it's
a
fair
to
assume
that
there
may
be
some
innovative
transportation
technology
that
people
are
talking
about
now,
but
have
not
incorporated
in
any
plant.
Is
it
fair
to
say
that
whatever
impact
those
might
be
have
not
yet
reflected
in
this
document
in
front
of
us
I.
K
Understand
your
question
correctly:
there
is
in
terms
of
mitigation
measures,
there
are
different
technologies
that
look
more
at
improving
the
operation,
so
the
flow
of
an
intersection,
for
example,
versus
just
adding
capacity.
So
we
have
that
we
call
that
IPS
information
technology
system,
so
we
have
included
IES
improvements
within
the
mitigation
measures.
They
haven't
been
identified
for
that
reason,
because
I
TS
changes
really
quickly,
and
so
we
just
identified
IES
improvements
that
would
help
mitigate
the
identified
impact
and
so
what
that
might
be
five
years
from
now.
K
So,
for
example,
along
Stevens
Creek
Boulevard,
you
have
several
pretty
large
intersections
that
are
relatively
closely
spaced
together,
you
know
between
Lawrence
Expressway
and
Wolf
Road,
and
so
you
can
look
at
signal.
Optimizations,
there's
different
technologies
there
that
can
help
a
lot
of
times
signals
with
the
way
they
operate,
but
there's
technology
that
can
help
read
the
vehicle
volume
flows
and
direct
it
better.
You
know
more
automated,
so
to
speak,
there's
also
different
technology
for
pedestrian
crossings
and
right
now,
usually
the
pedestrian
crossing.
Time
is
time.
K
So
it
says:
okay,
it's
gonna,
take
a
pedestrian
30
seconds
to
get
to
cross
the
intersection.
That
means
cars
have
to
wait
for
30
seconds,
but
there's
technology
being
developed.
This
could
be
more
reliable.
That's
able
to
detect
the
vehicle
the
pedestrians
in
the
crosswalk
and
be
able
to
adjust
the
timing
that
way.
So
those
are
some
other
operational
things
that
are
kind
of
coming
out
right
now.
That
would
help
with
the
overall
flow
along
the
corridor.
K
Oh,
we
didn't
necessarily
focus
on
major
infrastructure
improvement,
so
anything
that
goes
above
ground
or
below
ground.
Double
attacking
freeways
has
been
mentioned
before
I
mean
the
Caltrans
is
just
not
going
to
be
doing
that,
so
it
does
not
something
that
we
looked
at,
so
we
focus
a
more
on
that
actual
technology
application
within
the
right-of-way
that
we
have
today.
Thank
you.
A
Great
any
more
questions
from
the
committee.
All
right,
we'll
go
ahead
and
open
this
up
to
public
comment.
Please
feel
free
to
form
a
line
behind
the
microphone
there
and
we'll
provide
three
minutes.
Please
state
your
name
if
you
wish
and
I
will
give
you
an
indication
of
one
minute
remaining,
as
well
as
15
seconds
remaining
welcome,
hi.
N
I'm
Liang
chow.
Could
you
please
put
up
the
slide
with
the
alternatives,
so
the
notice
of
preparation
sent
out
did
not
give
any
indication
that
the
City
Council
is
considering
a
general
plan
amendment.
The
notice
of
preparation
for
the
AI
are
only
specified
the
existing
general
plan,
which
actually
includes
1.2
million
square
feet
of
retail
space.
N
That's
a
max
and
then
I
already
commented
to
the
staff
multiple
times
all
the
other
numbers
for
office
housing
units.
They
are
all
maximum
a
location.
Why
do
we
only
list
the
minimum
allocation
for
a
retail
space?
That's
inconsistent.
We
should
not
give
the
public
the
impression
that
somehow
the
City
Council
reduced
the
maximum
for
retail
space
along
the
way.
I
hope
we
didn't.
If
we
didn't
the
chart
should
reflect
exactly
what's
in
the
general
plan
as
the
previous
project,
the
maximum
for
the
retail
right
now
is
1.2
million
square
feet.
Minimum
is
600,000.
N
Okay
and
another
thing
is
I
wondered
when
did
the
City
Council
reach
an
agreement,
concerns
consensus
of
gave
ending
structure
that
we
want
to
evaluate
this
revised
project
with
460,000
Wendy?
The
City
Council
gives
us
to
give
to
stay
of
staff
instruction
to
reduce
the
retail
space.
Was
that
ever
put
on
any
city
council
agenda
for
discussion?
I?
Don't
think
so,
and
when
do
you
ever
give
the
staff
their
direction
to
consider
house
units
that
up
to
twenty
nine
hundred
units,
if
we
are
doing
any
AI,
are
the
instruction
should
come
from
the
City
Council?
N
A
C
F
Too
many
meetings
anyway.
First
of
all,
let
me
extend
my
sympathies.
Congratulations
whatever
to
our
city
staff,
our
illustrious
panel
over
here,
the
public.
We
all
learn
more
when
Valco
goes
through
iterations
and
I'm.
Sorry,
if
I
sound
cross,
but
this
has
been
going
on
since
2007,
maybe
2005
and
we
had
redevelop.
Why
do
I
know
about
redevelopment
agencies,
Valco,
yay,
okay,
so
I'm
going
to
say
right
now.
My
first
plan
in
this
is
I
think
the
most
the
easiest
thing
to
do
would
be
to
just
reach
tenant
the
mall.
F
We
just
had
orchard
supply
closed
in
one
day
and
the
next
day
they
hit
the
serious
series
of
elk
series
that
Capitola
mall
has
gotten
canned
and
it
was
both
corporate
decisions
Lowe's
and
Sears
holding
and
they
were
but
I
mean.
So
those
two
places
can
go
to
veljko
we
shop
there
I
know
those
places
are
loaded.
Orchard
is
loaded,
put
it
back
at
Valco,
I'd
go
there
now.
F
The
other
thing
is:
maybe
they
can
just
sell
it
to
Amazon
as
a
distribution
hub
I
mean
Amazon's,
buying
everything
I
think
that's
where
the
orchards
are
going
to
be
they're.
Going
to
be
distribution
hubs
anyway.
First
of
all,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
maintain
the
existing
trees.
The
street
trees
are
blessed
ashes
that
are
on
the
frontages
of
Wolfe
and
Stevens
Creek
Boulevard.
F
We
need
to
keep
the
heart
of
the
city,
full
35
foot
setback,
public
right-of-way,
with
the
existing
trees
that
are
there
now
those
things
I
don't
care
what
Valco
is
doing,
but
those
trees
are
public
resources.
They
are
city
street
trees,
please
don't
let
them
being
taken
down,
and
if
we
widen
the
streets
we
wind
up
taking
down
Street
trees,
as
was
evidenced
by
Apple
on
tan
towel,
but
the
city
put
the
tree's
back.
We
don't
want
that
happening,
I'm,
not
sure
how
many.
A
F
Have
one
minute:
okay,
I'll
talk
fast,
okay,
the
other
thing
is
okay.
We
need
to
slow
this
whole
thing
down.
If
we're
going
to
build
a
quality
product
Valco,
we
need
to
slow
it
down
and
study
it
more.
This
has
not
been
studied
adequately.
I
mean
we're
talking
about
a
major
potentially
destination
area
for
the
whole
area.
How
can
we
study
it?
I
mean
you
guys
have
tried
really
hard,
but
this
warrants
another
five
to
ten
years.
Also,
what
about
all
the
traffic
work?
Eastern
Cupertino
is
just
getting
hosed
big
time.
F
I
I
I
You
kick
in
all
these
requirements.
I
know
that
firsthand.
So
there
has
to
be,
as
it
was
indicated,
but
I'm
not
sure
there
was
a
level
of
indication
of
how
many
things
we
can
control
it
with
tenant
improvements
and
any
remodeling
and
additions
to
me
I
believe,
there's,
probably
more
possibilities
for
mitigations
that
are
being
expressed.
I
So
that's
just
one
point
and
when,
in
studying
the
air
quality
you
talk
later
about
internal
interior
and
exterior
noise
and
air
everything
that
I
heard
was
talking
about
moving
like
our
non-moving
traffic,
but
street
traffic
was
the
big
push
on
air
quality.
There's,
obviously
other
things
I,
don't
know,
there's
no
mention
really
of
mechanical
units.
Mechanical
needs.
What
those
do
and
without
knowing
what
the
exact
project
is.
I
How
can
you
even
study
that,
if
you
don't
know
what
units
they're
using
how
many
yadda
yadda
yadda
and
then
the
internal
we've
got
underground
parking
in
mass
with
gases
trapped,
and
then
we
have
a
green
toupee
trapping
it
all
in
the
project?
So
I
find
it
hard
to
believe
that
there's
no
mention
of
what
happens
on
the
51
acres
to
the
air
quality,
let
alone
outside
for
the
rest
of
us,
so
I
hope,
there's
something
in
there
and
I
wish
it
had
been
discussed.
If
there
is
one.
I
And
then,
when
we
talk
about
offsetting
of
square
footage
and
the
able
the
ability
to
mix
and
match
uses,
I
cannot
conceive
how
that's
possible
when
things
aren't
even
defined
apples-to-apples,
you
have
commercial
office,
Civic
space
and
green.
Well,
we
won't
count
the
roof
in
square
feet.
You
have
hotel
rooms
less
significant,
obviously,
and
residential
and
dwelling
units.
How
can
you
mix
and
match?
I
I
Speaking
of
foot
catching
trees,
I'd
like
to
know
what
these
trees
actually
do
with
a
suit
they
catch,
and
there
has
to
be
some
saturation
point
where
they
can't
take
any
more
soot.
So
then
what
happens
and
does
it
create
a
groundwater
problem
when
the
rain
comes
down
and
thank.
O
O
H
I
have
a
question
about
the
the
underground
storage
tank
that
was
found
in
the
phase
one
environmental
site
assessment.
It
is
next
to
the
storm
drain
on
the
west
side
of
Sears
and
I'm
wondering
why
they
didn't
lift
the
lid
of
the
storage
tank
and
I.
Don't
see
any
indication
that
the
environmental
engineers
filed
a
complaint
when
they
found
what
they
believed
was
a
waste
oil
tank
there
and
then
I
noticed
in
the
the
finally
IR
documents.
H
You
will
have
a
report
about
some
mitigation
that
was
done
in
the
90s
and
it
has
some
errors
in
it,
and
the
environmental
engineers
would
have
noticed
those
errors
as
well.
So
I'm
wondering
why
a
phase
2
environmental
site
assessment
hasn't
been
done,
especially
considering
it
was
an
orchard
going
back,
at
least
to
the
30s,
and
you
know,
as
I
had
said
at
the
previous
open
session,
to
talk
about
the
e
IR.
H
They
would
used
to
use
lead
arsonate,
which
is
a
mixture
of
lead
and
arsenic,
and
then
they
moved
on
to
DDT
and
you're,
looking
at
50
acres
of
soil,
which
would
be
disturbed,
and
that
was
not
mentioned
in
your
reports,
because
you
didn't
do
a
study
on
it.
You
didn't
test
the
soil
to
see
what
was
there.
So
that's
another
issue.
H
H
Impermeable
surface
so
you're
going
to
have
a
cap
next
230
acres
covered
next
to
200,000
vehicles
per
day
on
the
freeway,
and
then
your
wolf
and
Stevens
Creek
traffic,
and
there
is
no
study
about
what
the
environmental
conditions
are
going
to
be
like
for
the
people
living
there
and
I.
Think
that
that's
very
irresponsible
and
we're
looking
at
149
tons
of
air
pollutants,
31
tons,
non-mobile
and
118
tons
mobile
and
that's
pretty
appalling.
So
I
really
don't
understand.
C
B
H
A
D
Chair
Paulsen
I
would
just
like
to
commend
the
staff
and
the
consultants
for
doing
a
fantastic
job.
I
wrote
a
430
page
government
document
once
it
took
me
over
a
year
and
you
folks
have
done
a
wonderful
job
in
a
what
has
ended
up
being
a
compressed
time
frame.
So
I
really
commend
your
work
and
the
quality
of
the
products
you
produce.
So
thank
you.
A
One
of
the
speaker
commented
that
it
would
be
good
to
have
the
presentation
materials
as
part
of
the
public
record,
and
so
I
would
like
to
request
that
those
be
made
available
readily
available,
and
so,
if
we
can
put
those
online,
there
was
a
question
regarding
a
storage
tank.
Would
anyone
like
to
address
that
that
question
because
I
frankly
I'm
not
really
that
clear
on
what
the
official
status
and
you
know
what
the
you
know
accurate
background
is
on
that.
So
did
you
encounter
that
issue
and
you're
in
your
study,
sure.
J
So
we
have,
in
the
IRA
sub
consultant
cornerstone
Earth
Group,
who
is
a
well
renowned,
both
geologists
and
hazardous
material,
consulting
firm
they,
their
work
on
the
e
IR
was
to
review
the
several
phase,
one
environmental
assessments
that
had
already
been
done
and
I
think
there
had
been
a
couple
of
phase
two
where
they
actually
do
soil
testing
and
then
also
to
do
a
new
phase.
One
analysis
which
includes
looking
at
all
of
the
regulatory
agency
records
and
fire
department
records
and
from
that
they
came
up
with
some
identified
issues
of
concern.
J
One
of
the
questions
that
was
brought
up
in
the
final
is
why
certain
pieces
of
information
were
not
included
in
the
document
as
part
of
the
appendices
and
while
they
were
reviewed
and
and
included
in
the
assessment,
they
were
not
physically
attached,
and
that
is
normal.
You
don't
include
you
know.
The
fire
department
records
include
huge
volumes
of
material
that
aren't
all
end
up
in
the
phase,
one
typically
as
part
of
an
appendix,
due
to
the
fact
that
the
site
is
currently
developed
and
was
being
used
recently
for
the
school
district.
J
They
found
that
there
was
nothing
that
none
of
the
impacts
that
they
felt
in
their
professional
opinion,
warranted
soil
or
groundwater
evaluation
at
this
time
and
thought
that,
rather
than
doing
it
in
advance,
they
could
prepare
a
soil
management
plan
and
a
health
and
safety
plan
that
would
be
implemented.
Then,
at
the
time
that
the
project
went
forward
and
as
a
part
of
that,
it
includes
measures
to
account
for
all
the
different
parts
of
the
Sears
and
JCPenney
garage
that
were,
that
still
exist.
A
With
regard
to
not
being
able
to
put
all
the
information
and
materials
in
the
appendix
that's
perfectly
understandable,
you
wouldn't
want
to,
you
know,
create
you
know:
volumes
and
volumes
of
material,
of
course,
with
the
electronic
age
I
guess
it's
a
little
bit
easier
to
reference
things
and
include
them.
You
know
in
soft
copy,
but
with
respect
to
where
people
could
find
these
materials.
Are
they
referenced
within
the
report
itself
or
in
some
of
those
appendices?
I.
J
A
Okay,
okay
and
then,
with
regard
to
the
envelope
of
the
study.
Perhaps
this
is
an
artifact
of
ers
that
I
just
don't
fully
appreciate
and
understand.
Well
enough,
my
understanding
now
is
that
you
actually
studied
multiple
envelopes
right
and
then
there
was
one
envelope
called
a
revised
project.
Is
that
accurate
yeah?
So
did
you
actually
study
the
the
housing
heavy
with,
or
did
you
study
the
I
forget
what
you
call
it?
A
J
Over
the
course
of
the
preparation
of
the
e
IR,
the
draft
di
our
original
focused
on
the
original
proposed
project
and
then
as
well
at
an
equal
level
of
detail.
It
had
a
full
analysis
of
the
the
general
plan
build-out
with
maximum
residential
alternative
retail
and
residential
alternative
occupied
and
retain
ated
mall.
And
then
the
e
IR
amendment
that
came
out
later
had
a
full
analysis
of
the
housing
rich
alternative
and
then
the
finally
ir
includes
a
full
analysis
of
the
revised
project.
But
all
of
those
were
fully
vetted
and
evaluated
for
all
the
subject.
A
Okay
great
well,
maybe
this
is
more
of
an
artifact
of
this
presentation
and
the
table
because
we
do
have
one
that's
bolded
and
on
the
very
top
line
that
states
revised
project.
Is
that
a
function
of
e
IRS
that
you
have
to
identify
a
particular
project
and
label
it
the
revised
project?
Because,
if
we're
going
through
a
process,
that's
basically
determining
what
potentially
that
project
might
be,
it
would
seem
to
be
optically
a
little
bit,
perhaps
ill-advised.
A
J
Sequa
you
need
to
have
a
preferred
or
proposed
project,
and
so
originally
that
was
the
what's
called
in
the
table,
the
previous
project.
As
the
specific
plan
process
evolved,
it
was
determined
that
there
was
a
desire
for
more
residential
units,
and
so
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
if
that
was
in
fact
the
preferred
project
that
was
subject
of
the
the
final
specific
plan
that
it
was
fully
vetted
and
and
is,
has
become
what
is
the
preferred
project
for
the
e
IR?
Okay.
A
So
there's
no
sequel
requirement
necessarily
that
you
take
all
the
maximum
categories
of
each
of
the
type
of
usages
and
study
that,
even
though
it
might
be
well-advised,
given
it
may
be
well-advised,
given
the
you
know,
kind
of
natural
vicissitudes
of
the
discussion,
I
guess.
But
it's
probably
impractical
right
to
say
that
you
know
we're
gonna
be
looking
at
two
million
of
office.
1.2
of
retail
4,000
units
of
housing
I
mean,
but
there's
no
requirement
that
says
that
you
have
to
study
an
envelope
that
has
all
of
those
things.
At
the
same
time,
correct
no.
M
You
mr.
mayor
I
want
to
follow
up
on
a
couple
public
comments
and
wanted
you
to.
Let
me
know
what
what
what
you
know.
One
of
the
comments
is
I
think
Judy
address
is
that
we
have
a
geologist,
looked
at
the
underground
water
condition
or
the
soil
condition,
and
the
comment
was
that
I
there
may
be
some
work
done
on
phase
one,
but
may
not
be
off
the
face
would
have
been
completed.
Do
you
know
anything
about
that?
Well,.
G
M
G
J
Phase
one
for
hazardous
materials
has
been
completed
for
the
project
and
as
the
individual
I
believe
it
would
be
as
individual
development
sites
are
proposed,
then
additional
testing
of
soil
and
groundwater
contamination
would
be
done
to
determine
if
there
were
any
impacts.
Any
levels
of
contaminants
above
the
appropriate
levels
for
the
intended
use
of
the
project,
specific
location
and
then
the
mitigation
would
be
done
so.
M
J
The
mall
was
to
remain
in
its
existing
condition
and
be
REIT
ended.
There
wouldn't
be
a
need
for
any
environmental
review.
Now
that
said,
if
something
was
to
reoccupy
where
the
the
Auto
Service
uses
was
their
laws
were
related
to
removal
of
underground
storage
tanks
and
things
like
that.
But
there
wouldn't
be
a
comprehensive
system
of
testing
the
soil
and
groundwater
across
the
site.
It
would
just
stay
in
place.
M
E
I'm
just
trying
to
organize
my
thoughts
here
so
in
terms
of
the
office
square
footage.
It
is
my
understanding
that
no
the
office
square
footage
with
this
alternative
is
lower
than
the
SB
35
project
in
terms
of
the
residential
units
we
looked
at
the
this
is
essentially
the
program
for
the
entire
Valco
special
area,
so
it
includes
certain
sites
outside
of
what
the
SB
35
project
covers.
E
So
in
terms
of
the
residential
housing
units,
it
is
larger
than
what
SB
thirty-five
covers,
which
covers
a
smaller
area
of
the
special
area
and
in
terms
of
a
commercial
square
footage.
This
program
is
a
little
larger
because
it
does
include
a
community
benefit
in
terms
of
what
might
be
a
performing
arts
center,
as
council
had
directed
staff
to
look
at
ways
of
incorporating
community
benefits
into
the
program,
and
so
this
program
was
tailored
to
address
that
desire
from
counsel
from
their
June
fourth
study
session.
C
A
Any
other
further
comments,
well
I
would
like
to
ask
or
make
a
comment
regarding
job
creation.
Before
we
entertain
a
motion.
I
have
asked
for
and
I'll
make
a
formal
request
to
get
a
sense
of
the
number
of
jobs
that
would
be
associated
with
these
various
square
footages
of
uses,
including,
but
more
particularly
especially
the
the
office
square
feet
be
it.
A
You
know
a
million
square
feet
or
1.75
million.
If
it's
in
the
ER.
Please
do
let
us
know
what
your
reference
would
be
there.
That
would
be
very
useful
information
to
have,
and
also
the
the
commercial
side
of
it
as
well,
because,
of
course,
you
know,
commercial
space
creates
creates,
creates
jobs
too,
but
without
any
further
commentary,
I
will
be
happy
to
entertain
a
motion
with
regard
to
this.
A
Chair
Paulsen
motions
and
mr.
Mosley
seconds
all
in
favor,
please
say
aye
aye,
all
opposed
any
abstentions.
Motion
carries
unanimously.
Thank
you
very
much.
Our
next
item
is
old
business.
Is
there
anybody
from
the
committee
that
would
like
to
indicate
old
business
or
bring
up
an
item
of
old
business,
seeing
shakes
to
the
head?
How
about
new
business?
That's
the
next
item.