►
Description
The City of Cupertino conducted this meeting on August 7, 2018 to receive public comments on the Vallco Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Amendment.
A
Good
in
good
evening,
everybody,
my
name-
is
Sean
Spano
I'm,
going
to
facilitate
our
our
meeting
tonight
and
welcome
to
the
Valco
special
area
specific
plan
amendment
to
the
draft
environmental
impact
report
meeting.
So
tonight's
meeting
is
designed
specifically
to
receive
public
comments
on
the
amendment
to
the
draftee.
I
am
going
to
get
us
organized
for
the
meeting
and
set
up
the
set
up
our
process.
So
right
now
we're
doing,
welcomes
and
introductions
and
the
meeting
purpose.
As
I
said.
As
I
said
it's
it's
all
focused
on
the
draft
EIS.
A
We
have
a
future
council
member
here.
I
see
her
in
the
future.
Being
a
council
member
already
plugged
into
community
meetings.
That's
wonderful,
Sean,
Spano,
a
facilitator!
I
am
an
independent
facilitator,
so
I'm
not
affiliated
with
cupertino
staff
I'm,
not
a
staff,
member
and
I'm,
also
not
with
the
consulting
firm,
that's
doing
the
e
IR,
so
I'm.
Here
as
an
as
an
independent
facilitator,
we
are
going
to
have
a
couple
slides
from
Kristy
Weiss,
who
is
with
David
powers.
A
&Amp;,
Associates
and
she'll
help
set
the
content
for
the
meeting
tonight
in
terms
of
a
little
bit
about
the
draft.
Dir
and
a
little
bit
about
the
amendment
and
then,
as
we
move
in
just
a
few
slides,
not
a
lot
of
slides
and
as
we
move
into
the
third
item
there,
which
is
really
the
heart
of
the
meeting
and
the
reason
why
we're
here,
which
is
the
public
comment
on
the
draft
ein
DeMint?
Yes,
question.
A
My
mistake:
it
was
kind
of
a
joke.
It
was
the
young
child.
Here,
I
was
small,
I
was
oh,
no,
no
I
was
I'm.
Sorry
I
was
I,
was
being
playful,
I
apologize
if
I
was
being
playful
inappropriately
okay.
So
as
we
move
forward
here
about
the
about
the
meeting,
the
the
public
comment
period
as
we
hear
your
comments
are
really
focused
on
the
amendment
to
the
draft
EIS.
A
A
I
have
some
over
here
on
the
rack
over
here,
not
the
blue
ones,
we're
working
on
the
the
white
comment
cards,
and
so
we
would
ask
that
you
fill
out
your
name
and
the
information
here
and
then
you
can
hand
that
to
me
and
then
I'll
queue
people
up
for
for
speaking
tonight,
also
and
I'll
mention
this
a
couple
times
tonight.
If
you
don't
want
to
provide
verbal
oral
comments
tonight,
then
please
just
write
your
comments.
A
There's
a
big
space
on
the
back
of
the
comment
card
and
then
we'll
collect
those
and
those
will
get
integrated
into
the
responses
that
will
be
that
will
be
collecting
tonight.
Also
that
I'll
mention
this
before
we
break
for
the
evening
tonight.
There's
an
opportunity
after
the
meeting
to
provide
written
comments
and
those
comments
can
be
collected
right
up,
til,
August
20th
on
the
amendment
to
the
draft
dir.
A
So
just
in
terms
of
that
piece,
if
you
turned
on
the
back
and
a
lot
of
that
information
is
right
here
on
the
front
of
the
hardcopy
agenda,
that's
on
the
table
out
front
on
the
back
I'm,
just
gonna
walk
us
through
just
real
quickly
and
sort
of
set
the
context
for
the
meeting
here
in
terms
of
how
we
got
here
so
on
the
back.
You'll
see
the
sequa
objectives
through
environmental
impact
report
process,
and
so
this
is
what
sequa
is
designed
to
do
in
terms
of
requiring
an
e
I
are
their
hat.
A
This
is
the
third
er
our
meeting
on
the
Valco
specific
plan.
The
first
meeting
was
the
notice
of
preparation,
and
then
there
was
a
public
scoping
meeting
that
came
within
the
notice
of
preparation
meeting
period
and
that
meeting
was
on
February
22nd.
What
do
you
want
to
see
in
the
e
IR
here's?
What
here
are
what
typically
goes
into
an
e
IR
and
then
what
factors
do
you?
Are
you
suggesting
that
the
e
IR
covered?
There
was
a
draftee
IR
that
was
produced?
A
There
was
a
review
period
for
that
draftee
IR
started
on
May
24th
and
ran
through
July
9th,
and
then
there
was
a
public
comment
meeting
on
the
draft
EIS
right
here
in
this
room
and
that
was
on
June
19th.
So
this
is
the
third
and
final
E
I
our
meeting
preparation,
AI
our
meeting
on
the
review
period,
which
is
started
on
July
6.
It
will
go
through
August
20th
and
then
obviously
we
are
here
tonight,
August
7th,
which
is
the
public
comment
period,
moving
down
the
list
here.
A
The
final,
the
responses
from
all
the
e
IR
meetings,
including
tonight's
meeting,
will
all
get
integrated
into
a
final
E,
I
R,
and
that
will
go
in
front
of
the
environmental
review
committee.
It
will
go
in
front
of
Planning,
Commission
and
ultimately
in
front
of
Council
and
at
every
one
of
those
meeting.
A
There's
an
opportunity
to
provide
public
comment
and
the
timeline
is
the
certification
of
the
e
IR
by
the
City
Council
looks
to
happen,
likely
early
fall,
September,
October
time
frame
and
then
the
decision
on
the
project
itself
likely
to
happen
early
fall
of
September
October
time
frame.
Okay
with
that
said,
then
I
think
I've
covered
all
my
notes
here.
Let
me
let
me
move
us
forward
purpose
of
our
meeting
tonight.
A
Overview
of
the
draft
e
IR
and
the
giraffe
teim
end
meant,
which
Christy
will
walk
us
through
in
just
a
moment
and
then
obviously
receiving
comments
on
the
amendment
to
the
to
the
e
IR.
So
with
that
said,
then
let
me
turn
it
over
to
Chris
Christy
Weiss
from
David
powers,
&,
Associates
and
she's,
going
to
walk
us
through
the
content
for
the
meeting
tonight.
Christy.
C
Thanks
John
good
evening,
my
name
is
Christy
Weiss
I'm,
a
project
manager
at
David,
J
powers,
&
Associates
and
our
firm
assisted
the
city
in
preparing
the
e
IR
for
the
project,
so
as
Sean
outlined
in
the
previous
slide.
The
first
purpose
of
the
meeting
is
to
give
you
a
brief
overview
of
the
draft
EIS.
The
draft
dir
was
circulated
for
public
review
between
May
24th
and
July
9th
and
the
draft
EIS
the
environmental
impacts
of
the
proposed
project,
which
is
summarized
in
the
first
row
of
the
table.
C
C
Subsequent
to
the
publication
of
the
draft
dir,
the
city
prepared
an
amendment
to
the
draft
dir.
This
amendment
was
published
on
July
6,
as
Sean
mentioned,
and
the
public
comment
period
for
this
document
ends:
August
20th,
the
purpose
of
the
EA.
Our
amendment
is
to
analyze
the
housing
rich,
alternative,
clarify
general
plan
amendments,
refine,
the
TDM
or
transportation
demand
management
program.
Add
a
specific
plan,
assumption,
refined,
select
mitigation
in
a
condition
of
approval
and
update
existing
available
general
plan
allocations.
C
C
So
just
a
quick
overview
of
the
e
IR
process.
Shawn
also
mentioned
it.
There
are
six
key
steps
to
this
process
that
we're
going
through.
So
the
first
step
was
the
publication
of
the
notice
of
preparation
or
the
NOP
and
the
EMA
NOP
notified
the
public
and
agencies
that
the
city
is
preparing
an
e
IR
for
the
project,
the
required
30
days
circulation
period
for
the
NLP
was
February
9th
through
March
12th.
C
The
next
step
was
the
scoping
meeting
for
the
e
IR,
which
was
held
here
on
February
22nd,
where
we
got
feedback
on
the
scope
and
the
content
of
the
e
IR.
The
next
step
is
the
preparation
and
circulation
of
the
draft
dir,
which
the
45-day
period
began
on
March
or
sorry
may
24th
and
ended
July
9th
right
now,
the
we're
preparing
and
circulating
the
a
IR
amendment
which
started
to
circulate
July
6
and
the
conclusion
of
the
circulation
period
is
August
20th.
C
Once
that
comment
period
ends
for
the
e
IR
amendment,
the
city
will
prepare
and
circulate
a
finally
IR,
which
includes
responses
to
comments
received
on
the
draft
dir
and
the
e
IR
amendment.
It's
anticipated
that
the
Final
EIS
will
be
available
this
summer
after
the
e
IR
is
prepared.
The
city
will
hold
public
hearings
to
certify
the
e
IR
and
make
a
decision
on
the
project.
C
C
And
you'll
see
the
housing
rich
alternative
is
highlighted
in
green
on
the
slide
on
up
there
and
it
consists
of
600,000
square
feet
of
commercial
uses.
1.5
million
square
feet
of
office
uses
339
hotel
rooms,
3,250
residential
units,
65,000
square
feet
of
Civic
space
and
a
30
acre
green
roof
section
for
includes
environmental
issue.
Areas
in
this
section
evaluates
the
impacts
of
the
housing
rich
alternative
on
the
following
environmental
issues
listed
on
this
slide
before
I
pass
it
back
to
Sean.
A
A
One
is
for
speaking
only
the
other
is
to
provide
written
comments
only
and
again
there's
plenty
of
space
on
the
back
and
then,
if
you
want
to
provide
written
comments,
provided
your
comments
on
the
back
written
and
then
obviously
you're
able
to
be
here
as
well.
So
do
I
have
speaker
cards
for
people
who
would
like
to
speak
tonight
come
on
up.
A
So
what
we'll
do
is
we
are
scheduled
until
7:15
and
we
will
be
here
until
7:15
as
the
publicly
notice
meeting.
So,
let's
start
with
the
two
minutes
and
then
let's
work
around
a
second
a
second
round,
so
that'll
give
you
an
another
opportunity
to
speak.
Just
given
that
we'll
have
plenty
of
time
to
hear
from
the
speakers
tonight.
D
I'm
Kitty
Moore
and
I'd
like
to
talk
about
the
phase
one
environmental
site
assessment
that
we
had
on
the
project.
It
is
missing
some
information
myself
and
some
assistance
went
to
the
fire
department,
Santa
Clara,
County,
Fire
Department,
to
pull
records,
and
it
took
us
between
eight
and
ten
hours
to
collect
all
the
records
from
the
fire
department
and
then
I
looked
at
the
previous
GSA's,
which
had
been
done.
The
2003
environmental
site
assessment
says
that
the
Cirrus
Associates
contacted
the
Santa
Clara
County
Fire
Department,
with
a
request
to
review
files
for
the
property.
D
According
to
the
agency,
hazardous
materials
or
underground
storage,
tank
files
were
not
found
for
the
property
address
that
was
2003
in
2006.
The
same
company
doesn't
appear
that
they
even
contacted
the
fire
department
and
then
WSP
contacted
the
Santa
Clara
County
Fire
Department
for
information
on
any
above
ground
or
underground
storage,
tanks,
hazardous
waste
storage
inspections
and
plans
associated
with
the
mall
property.
According
to
the
Santa
Clara
County
Fire
Department
no
records
were
found.
D
D
Concrete
access
cover
near
storm
drain
to
the
suspected
waste
oil,
underground
storage,
tank
location
at
Sears,
automotive,
the
steel
cover
of
the
acid
neutralization
chamber
adjacent
to
the
battery
room
at
si
si
in
my
records
it
shows
that
they
had
tetrachloroethylene
on
site,
which
is
a
degreaser.
It's
also
known
as
PCE,
which
is
commonly
called
dry,
cleaner
fluid.
D
B
Sure,
on
page
174
and
175
of
table
4.1
7-3,
it
shows
the
existing
and
the
existing
with
project
ratings
of
the
intersections
and
I.
Just
wonder
how
this
was
done,
because
for
wolfin
I
280
north
and
wolfen
to
ID
and
wolfen
to
IE
I
to
80
South.
It
shows
no
change
in
the
level
of
service
for
the
on
and
off
ramps
of
I
to
80,
either
AM
or
PM.
B
When
this
project
is
built
and
I'm
wondering
how
it's
possible,
how
are
they
measuring
this?
That
there
is
no
impact
on
any
of
these
intersections
and
the
other
issue
is
when
it
says
existing
the
Apple
Campus.
The
spaceship
quote.
Spaceship
is
about
two-thirds
occupied
now,
so
how
can
they
do
the
existing
when
the
major
facility
there
is
not
occupied
yet
not
fully
occupied,
and
would
that
change
the
level
of
service
of
these
intersections
wants?
The
additional
four
to
five
thousand
employees
are
at
the
Apple
Park
site.
A
E
I
would
argue
that
it
is
also
an
office
rich
anyway,
and
maybe
it's
because
the
proposed
specific
plan,
which
is
incorrect
according
to
our
general
plan,
mentions
two
million,
and
the
housing
rich
only
meant
is
one
and
a
half
million
office.
So
maybe
that's
why
it's
not
rich
in
office,
but
it
still
is,
and
the
air
that
has
been
brought
up
several
times
is
the
proposed
specific
plan.
E
Variety
here
shows
800
dwelling
units
when
really
the
general
plan
only
allowed
for
389,
based
on
the
housing
numbers
that
were
chosen
by
the
council,
so
I
guess
once
again
the
biggest
issues
to
be
no
one
really
knows
what's
being
studied
or
how
it's
being
studied
and
I.
You
can
argue
that
they
do
because
you
have
these
numbers
laid
out,
but
when
you
have
it
all
over
the
place,
it's
hard
to
say.
E
Oh
gosh,
the
study
isn't
very
good
because
you're,
forgetting
this
portion
or
you
need
to
add
this
portion
when
you
may
have
it
in
another
part
of
the
study.
I've
I'm
not
familiar
and
I'm
no
expert
with
such
a
wide
range
of
project,
alternatives
and
I
question:
do
the
alternatives
really
achieve
similar
objectives
with
the
numbers
all
over
the
place
and
do
they
propose
or
excuse
me
and
are
they
lessen
the
impacts
which
is
what's
required
and
I
believe
that
was
went
on
on?
One
of
your
slides?
E
I
would
like
to
mention
something
I've
learned
a
couple
weeks
ago
from
city
staff.
Member
economic
development
that
currently
Cupertino
has
95
percent
of
the
retail
is
restaurants.
I
believe
you'd
have
to
ask
Angela
if
I'm,
quoting
that
correctly,
that's
a
huge
number
of
restaurants
and
as
I've
learned
from
some
others,
greenhouse
gas
issues
are
huge
with
restaurants
for
various
reasons,
and
I
won't
go
into
that
now.
So
I,
don't
know
if
that
was
studied
properly.
E
A
A
C
D
So
I
was
looking
at
the
draft
dir
and
where
to
start
okay.
What
showed
up
now
in
the
draft
er
is
the
density,
bonus,
law
and
density.
Bonus
law
wasn't
in
the
first
draft
dir
and
that's
important,
because
it
makes
a
big
difference
about
form
based
code
and
looks
like
they
say
that
they
need
to
use
density,
bonus
law
in
order
to
get
to
their
totals
and
they're
claiming
thirty
five
percent.
D
Well,
at
thirty
five
percent
density
bonus
they
get
concessions.
I
am
a
minimum
of
about
two
and
then,
if
they
increase
their
affordable
housing
just
a
little
bit,
then
they
get
two
three
and
we're
starting
to
sound.
Exactly
like
SB
thirty-five.
Aren't
we
so
what
did
I
write?
The
draft
dir
amendment
makes
the
assumption
of
meeting
the
state
density
bonus
law.
It's
an
assumption
of
providing
thirty
five
percent,
affordable
housing
which
qualifies
them
for
the
maximum
density
bonus
units
and
then
that
results
in
concessions
which
negates
the
form
based
code,
specific
plan
process.
D
And
to
not
provide
the
same
number
of
bedrooms
in
the
BM
RS
as
the
market
rate
units
for
comparison,
they
provided
studio
and
one-bedroom
via
Mars
and
they
provided
larger
studio,
one
bedroom,
two
bedroom,
three
bedroom,
four
bedroom
and
five
bedroom
market
rate
units
and
those
were
the
concessions
that
they
chose.
So
it
seems
to
me
that
we've
been
spending
our
time
doing
form
based
code
when
the
heights
that
we've
been
talking
about
can
be
taken
as
a
concession
and
they
can
build
to
whatever
height
they
want.
A
Okay,
so
I
am
going
to
leave
the
floor
open
for
others
who
want
to
speak
and
again
the
speaker
cards.
The
white
speaker
cards
are
over
here
and
please
feel
free
to
do
that
and
if
you're
not
wanting
to
provide
verbal
comments
tonight,
please
provide
us
your
written
comments.
We
would
be
happy
to
receive
those
so
we're
just
gonna
go
into
Lowell
mode
here
and
because
we're
we're
obligated
to
be
here
till
7:15
and
so
we'll
just
wait
and
see
if
other
people
come
and
and
want
to
speak.
D
Draft
dir
amendment
because
again
we're
you
I,
don't
know
who
made
the
decision,
but
they
kind
of
pushed
the
two
project
alternatives
together
into
one
and
then
studied
that,
but
that
it
doesn't
quite
work
that
way.
I
have
a
concern.
I
think
Elyse
already
brought
this
up.
That
95
percent
of
the
new
commercial
use
in
Cupertino
is
restaurants.
Restaurants
generate
four
to
ten
times
the
amount
of
traffic
of
regular
retail,
and
we
don't
know
what
percentage
of
restaurants
they
anticipate
to
have
previously
the
like
in
the
SB
35.
D
It
looks
like
they
had
120,000
square
feet
of
entertainment
and
then
I
think
a
hundred
and
forty
seven
thousand
square
feet
of
restaurants
and
one
hundred
and
thirty
three
thousand
square
feet
of
straight
retail.
But
here
if
the
new
commercial
is
actually
coming
in
at
95%,
and
that
is
from
the
economic
development
manager
Angela
that
number,
then
we
can
expect
a
higher
amount
of
traffic.
A
E
E
Not
it
yeah,
we
need
30
acres
of
park,
but
we
don't
need
it
on
the
roof
and
on
a
roof
part,
because
it's
slanted
much
of
it
isn't
even
accessible
to
the
general
public
because
its
amenities
for
other
things
on
this
property
and
these
proposals
there's
no
real
breakout
showing
what
would
be
available.
But
it
is
expected
to
be
much
smaller
than
the
30
acres.
Obviously,
and
what
is
there
is
not
likely
to
be
a
spaces
where
you
can
play
cricket
play
soccer
because
you're
on
a
slope
for
most
of
it.
E
Now
that
could
be
wrong.
It
could
be
fixed,
it
could
be
flattened.
Who
knows?
It's
not
the
greatest
place
to
be
playing
sports
right
next
to
the
congested
freeway,
but
we
do
need
parks
and
I.
Don't
think,
there's
any
argument
from
anyone
in
the
city
that
the
east
side
is
Park,
starved
and
density
challenged.
E
So
I
would
hope
that
the
study
that
I
have
dives
into
that
more
there
are
actually
places
where
you
can
look
for.
Statistics
on
the
physical
fitness
levels
of
school-aged
children,
let's
say
or
young
adults
and
the
California
Department
of
Education-
is
one
that
publishes
things
but
I'm
sure
there
are
more
it.
E
It
basically
shows
if
you
look
at
demographics
park,
demographics,
that
the
schools
that
underperform
from
other
schools
in
any
given
area,
maybe
I
shouldn't,
say
any
given
area
in
some
areas
do
or
poorly
in
their
physical
fit
this
test,
and
one
may
wonder
if
that
has
to
do
with
the
lack
of
parks
and
the
lack
of
space
to
physically
fit
yourself.
So
please
do
look
at
the
parks,
more
care
or
carefully
and
the
way
the
parks
are
labeled.
I
understand,
there's
a
there's
a
park
in
Cupertino.
E
D
D
Before
this
was
made
public,
the
city
would
have
had
a
copy
of
it.
Sand
Hill
property
company
did
not
complete
the
provided
questionnaire,
so
they
alt
start
at
the
top
to
help
obtain
information
on
current
and
historical
site,
use
and
use
storage
of
hazardous
materials
on
site.
We
provided
environmental
questionnaires
to
each
of
the
three
property
owners,
so
you
know
you've
got
Valco
proper
property
owner
Hyatt,
House
and
the
I
don't
know
the
name,
the
owner
on
the
North
West
next
to
the
freeway
Sand
Hill
property
company
did
not
complete
the
provided
questionnaire.
D
However,
they
referred
cornerstone
to
the
previously
completed
reports
listed
in
table
three,
which
are
the
ones
that
I
mentioned
earlier.
That
did
not
get
in
data
from
the
Santa
Clara
County,
Fire
Department
and
provided
two
copies
of
each.
They
also
provided
access
to
the
site
and
contact
information,
etc.
D
Interviews
with
previous
owners
and
occupants
contact
information
for
previous
site
owners
and
occupants
was
not
provided
to
us.
There
are
four
interviews
with
previous
site.
Owners
could
not
be
performed
that
to
me,
doesn't
sound
like
the
owner
was
particularly
helpful
for
doing
this
report,
so
going
back
to
1969
what
they
found
is
building
plans
to
pick.
This
is
Sears
automotive
center.
D
Several
features
associated
with
the
auto
center,
including
two
adjacent
500-gallon,
new
oil.you
STS,
and
an
underground
storage
tank
and
a
nearby
1,000
gallon
waste
oil,
underground
storage,
tank
located
west
of
the
building,
a
sump
pump
in
the
southwest
corner
of
the
building's
basement.
Multiple
hydraulic
vehicle
lifts
battery
storage
room
with
drains
leading
to
a
below
ground,
neutralization
chamber,
located
east
of
the
building
and,
as
we
know
with
batteries,
a
neutralization
chamber
is
likely
to
have
led.
D
In
fact,
one
of
the
floor
photographs
shows
the
white
markings
which
look
like
lead
residue
on
the
floor
from
the
battery
storage
room.
Where
was
a
below
ground
sand
and
grease
interceptor
located
east
of
the
building,
grease
oil
and
transmission,
fluid
distribution
piping
throughout
the
interior
of
the
building,
an
elevator
with
a
southeast
portion
in
the
southeast
portion
and
210
horsepower
air
compressors.
D
D
When
the
there
was
a
gas
station
at
Sears
and
I
anyway,
because
it
was
an
orchard
from
at
least
the
30s
I
believe
that
you
probably
have
some
lead,
arsonate
residue
and
then
after
they
led
arsenate,
is
led,
miss
mixed
with
arsenic
and
water
that
they
used
to
use
as
a
pesticide,
and
then
they
moved
on
to
DDT,
which
was
also
banned.
So
there
hasn't
been
any
testing
of
that.
So
I
just
want
to
bring
that
up.
D
And
then,
between
1991
and
2010,
from
the
Department
of
Environmental
Health
Records,
which
I
also
obtained
and
they're
showing
it
here.
Inspection
reports
noted
multiple
violations,
including
unlabeled
waste
containers,
open
containers,
improper
record-keeping,
improper
management
of
lead,
wheel,
weights,
lack
of
proper
training
and
lack
of
secondary
containment.
D
D
Now
about
the
JCPenney,
people
are
saying:
oh
it's
a
closed
case.
Well,
no,
it's
not
because
they
have
to
leave
an
underground
storage
tank
behind
and
they
also
left
contaminated
material
behind
in
that
study,
even
though
it
says
online,
when
you
look
at
the
record
that
it's
a
closed
case,
that
is
still
there.
D
And
in
the
cornerstone
report,
they
indicate
that
there
is
material
that
was
still
dripping
when
they
did
their
study
and
Sears
to
my
knowledge,
has
been
closed
for
three
years
and
really
at
issue
with
the
underground
storage
tank
is
that
it
is
part
of
the
health
and
safety
code
that
they
be
cataloged
and
that
you
indicate
that
their
existence
and
there's
actually
very
high
fines
per
day
to
keep
a
an
abandoned
underground
storage
tank
on
your
site.
So
this
is,
it's
not
a
little
deal.
D
D
I
am
a
little
bit
confused
about
the
update
existing
available
general
plan
allocations.
Part
that
you
mentioned
with
the
e
ir
amendment
and
my
concern
with
that.
I'm
I
actually
questioned
whether
having
the
density
bonus
units
and
the
assumption
of
density
bonus
law
in
the
e
ir,
if
that
is
actually
even
legal
I,
think
it's
really
odd
and,
like
I
said
before
it,
because
we
looked
at
this
in
the
SB
35
project
that
they
were
using
the
density,
bonus
law
and
then
saw
that
the
concessions
allow.
D
For
you
know
you
can
have
increased
Heights
and
setbacks
and
and
make
changes
on
the
regulations
to
make
your
project
more
financially
feasible,
right,
so
I'm
kind
of
questioning,
because
if
we
now
this
is
such
a
moving
target
project
and
I,
don't
see
how
the
city
can
in
good
faith,
come
out
and
say
you
know,
here's
your
cross
section.
You
know
this
is
what
you
can
expect
at
Valco.
They
said
this
is
the
height.
D
You
know
it's
going
to
be
160
feet,
I
think
the
first
dir
said
and
yet
you're
claiming
and
you
can't
go
and
tell
the
developer.
Oh,
you
don't
get
to
have
density
bonus
law,
you
know
what
it
what
it
the
concessions,
so
I
I
think
the
project
ends
up
being
so
much
of
a
moving
target.
The
I
don't
know
that
it's
that
it
works.
It's
a
that
it's
and
that
just
even
among
the
alternatives,
you
know
the
alternatives
are
supposed
to.
D
You
know
obtain
similar
objectives
as
and
but
have
less
impacts
than
the
original
proposed
project,
and
it
doesn't
seem
like
that
happened
either.
So
all
very
confusing.
So
just
looking
at
the
traffic
study,
my
concern
is
that
it
used
shopping
center
for
the
retail
portion
and
we've
already
said
a
couple
times
that
we're
having
95%
restaurants,
so
the
shopping
center
would
then
yield
a
much
lower
amount
of
traffic
than
what
were.
D
You
know
realistically,
going
to
end
up
with
so
I'm
concerned
about
that
part
and
also
with
the
calculation
on
the
green
roof
amount
of
traffic
that
seemed
like
if
it
is
something
that's
going
to
be
a
regional
draw
like
a
tourist
attraction.
Type
of
thing
like
Apple's
visitor
center
has
become
you
could
end
up
with.