►
Description
Coverage of the October 11, 2022 Cupertino Planning Commission Teleconference Meeting.
A
A
A
A
G
A
B
A
D
C
D
A
A
Great,
we
are
now
on
there's
no
postponements
that
I
see
here,
so
we
are
on
to
oral
Communications,
and
this
portion
of
the
meeting
is
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
commission
on
any
matter
within
our
jurisdiction,
but
that
is
not
on
the
agenda.
So
if
it's
on
the
agenda,
this
is
not
the
time
to
speak.
Speakers
are
limited
to
three
minutes,
and
state
law
in
most
cases,
will
prohibit
us
from
making
any
decision
with
respect
to
a
matter
not
on
the
agenda.
H
H
Ab2097
you
all
may
recall,
is
the
reducing
the
amount
of
parking
across
the
state.
Ab
2011
is
Buffy
Wicks,
where
you
can
build
reach
housing
on
any
retail
site,
Etc
et
cetera
and
ab2653,
which
I
was
not
familiar
with,
has
to
do
with
the
housing
element.
Therein
lies
the
kicker
of
what
I'm
talking
about.
So
there
is
a
paragraph
at
the
bottom
of
the
text
for
ab2097
the
parking
bill
that
talks
about
that.
If
ab2653
and
ab2011
get
enacted
and
then
ab2097
the
parking
Bill
gets
enacted.
H
H
The
authors
of
these
bills
are
Senator
weiner,
Nancy,
Skinner
and
Buffy
Wicks,
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
So
how
does
ab2097,
which
is
the
parking
Bill?
How
is
it
passing?
How
does
it
affect
ab2011
in
anyone's
wild
imagination?
This
is
the
parking
bill
and,
if
it
passes,
it
affects
something
in
2011,
which
is
the
blitz-filled
housing
on
any
former
retail
site.
Etc
commercial
anywhere
in
the
state
ab2097
has
the
same
authors
as
AB
2011
and
ABC
2653.
This
is
no
random
coincidence.
This
stuff
was
wired
to
work.
H
This
way
can
any
of
these
politicians
who
wrote
these
bills
explain
why
there
are
so
many
Bill
references
to
other
bills
at
the
bottom
of
the
text
of
these
bills.
It
sounds
pretty
fishy
to
me.
What
is
the
goal
of
this?
Are
we
supposed
to
be
trying
to
confuse
and
evade
the
public
Gavin
signed
all
of
these
bills
into
law?
I
Tree
to
February
1992.,
when
I
visited
in
attendance
at
a
city
of
Cupertino,
Planning,
Commission,
Lehigh,
then
owned
by
Kaiser
cement
had
just
announced
the
developer's
vision
of
the
21st
century
on
their
3600
Acres
adjacent
to
Cupertino.
The
ambitious
plan
would
build
up
to
3
200
homes
served
entirely
by
Public
public
transportation,
eliminating
the
need
for
cars.
Naturally,
this
project
would
necessitate
annexing
the
property
from
unincorporated
candy
to
the
city
of
Cupertino.
I
Prior
to
this
announcement,
all
of
the
players
have
been
lined
up
to
make
this
plan
a
reality.
In
1985,
Kaiser,
executive
Tom,
Ligon
served
on
the
County
Board
of
Supervisors
and
attempted
to
relax
housing
density
on
hillsides.
County
Council
said
that
he
could
vote,
but
the
fppc
disagreed
around
1990.
We
had
former
Kaiser
employee
and
backmed
board
member
Barbara
Koppel
on
our
very
own
city
council
when
she
ran
against
supervisor
Sue
media
and
his
campaign.
I
It
outed
her
for
taking
too
much
money
from
her
former
employer,
along
with
the
contribution
from
assembly
member
Jim
cuneen,
who
later
became
a
consultant
for
Lehigh.
That
brings
us
to
today.
The
cement
plant
is
shut
down,
active
mining
has
ceased
and
the
county
is
poised
to
purchase
the
property.
We
know
that
a
number
of
entities
are
looking
to
establish
New
Uses
on
this
land.
As
it
becomes
available
reminder,
there
are
3
600
acres.
I
A
A
The
first
item
is
a
sign
exception
to
allow
three
wall
signs
where
two
are
permitted
and
to
further
allow
two
of
the
three
wall
signs
to
be
oriented
towards
the
freeway.
On
two
on
two
separate
storage
facility
buildings,
application
numbers,
EXE
2022003,
the
applicant
is
David
Ford
all
signed,
Services
location,
20565,
Valley,
Green,
Drive,
assessor
parcel
number
326-1044.
K
K
K
So
again,
here's
the
subject
signing
accession
to
a
lot
of
three
wall
signs
where
two
are
permitted
and
two
further
allow
two
of
the
three
wall
signs
to
be
oriented
towards
the
freeway
on
two
separate
storage
facilities
with
the
applicant,
as
the
chair
had
explained
earlier,
David
Ford
from
all
science
services
and
I
believe
him.
He
himself
is
in
attendance
as
well
as
his
his
team.
K
K
This
side
will
explain
where
those
buildings
are
as
well
as
those
signs
so
building
one
is
located
on
the
is
the
Eastern
Building
of
the
two
buildings.
Building
two
is
the
Western
building
of
the
two
buildings
sign
wall
sign,
one
is
on
the
Eastern
facade
facing
the
interior
of
the
of
the
project.
Sign
two
is
one
of
the
one
of
two
wall
signs
that
will
be
that
are
proposed
to
be
freeway
oriented.
The
other
is
sign
three,
which
is
the
lone
wall,
sign
on
building
two.
K
So
really
quick
sign.
One
is
a
52
square
foot
sign
that's
on
81
foot
Frontage,
it
is
internal
facing
it
does
take
up
the
length
of
this
29
of
the
frontage
and
currently
it
is
approved
through
the
building.
Permit.
That's
they're
listed.
This
sign
can
be
approved,
ministerially
as
it
as
it
is
not
facing
the
freeway
and
it's
within
all
the
the
ordinances
illumination
standards,
as
well
as
size
and
location
side.
K
K
K
Lamberts
for
all
three
of
those
sides
is
88.8
foot
lampards
Which
is
far
below
what
is
typically
allowed,
so
freeway
oriented
signs
again
allowed
per
business
is
one
per
business
or
tenant
in
a
building
occupied
by
two
or
more
tenants
in
maximums
two,
not
per
business,
but
maximum.
Two
for
any
any,
like
you
know,
Shopping,
Center
or
or
a
multi-tenanted
building,
so
typically
we'll
we'll
be
allowed.
Is
a
freeway
oriented
one
freeway
oriented
sign
per
business?
K
The
further
exception
for
this
for
this
application,
so
I
have
two
freeway
oriented
signs,
which
typically
would
not
be
allowed
per
the
sign
ordinance
where
you
would
need
an
exception
to
approve
that
even
further
so
going
through
the
applications.
Staff's
recommendation
is,
is
a
little
bit
more
conservative
than
what
the
application
is
coming
in.
For
so
we're
staff
is,
as
you
read
through
the
staff
report
in
the
in
the
in
through
our
resolutions
that
sounds
recommended.
K
Applying
commission
approves
a
sign
exception,
allowing
side
two
to
orient
I-280,
you
know,
say
280,
but
not
to
allow
the
installation
of
sign
three
in
any
location
on
the
property,
and
so
how
do
we
come?
How
did
staff
come
with
this
decision?
Well,
we
have
to
go
through
three.
The
three
findings
that
are
required
to
be
to
be
met
to
approve
any
type
of
sign
exception
within
our
sign
ordinance.
K
The
first
finding
is
that
the
literal
enforcement
of
the
provision
of
this
title
will
result
in
the
restrictions
that
consistent
with
the
spirit
and
intent
of
this
title
staff
believes
that
allowing
science
three
to
be
freeway
oriented
would
permit
a
sign
above
maximum
number
of
signs
facing
a
busy
thoroughfare,
such
as
I280,
and
would
allocate
multiple
signs
to
a
single
business.
That's
contrary
to
intent
of
purpose
of
of
the
sign
ordinance
again,
you
know,
typically
with
our
design
standards
within
the
ordinance.
K
The
second
finding
is
that
the
granting
of
the
exception
will
not
result
in
a
condition
which
is
materially
detrimental
to
Public.
Health,
States
and
Welfare
staff
has
found
that
you
know
the
size
location
of
the
signs
one
and
two
along
the
elevations
building,
one
we're
not
resolved
in
anything
that
is
material
detrimental
to
public
health,
safety
and
Welfare.
K
You
know
both
signs
are
far
below
what
they
can
be
in
terms
of
maximum
size,
also
in
terms
of
Illumination,
as
well
as
being
conditioned
to
be
limited
to
be
shut
off
by
11
pm
every
night.
So,
with
those
taking
consideration,
we
don't.
We
don't
believe
that
the
that
the
signs
would
would
prevent
propose
a
public
health
safety
issues.
K
And
the
third
and
final
findings
of
the
exception
to
be
grand
is
one
that
would
require
the
least
modifications
to
the
prescribed
regulations
and
the
minimum
variance
that
will
accomplish
this
purpose
side.
Three
proposal
for
side
three
and
allowing
signs
three
along
the
north
elevation
building
2
is
above
the
allowed
number
of
wall
signs,
as
well
as
above
the
number
of
allowed
freeway
oriented
sides.
This,
allowing
this
exception
for
sign
three,
would
require
greater
modification
and
variance
to
CMC
19104
signs
that
would
totally
be
supported
by
staff.
A
L
Good
evening,
chair,
Scharf
and
planning
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Rashi
Sharma
and
I
am
a
local
high
school
student
and
intern
with
the
Santa
Clara
Valley
Audubon
Society
in
2019
city
council
allowed
the
construction
of
two
four-story
buildings
and
signage
details
were
excluded
from
the
permit
applications.
As
signage
proposals
are
now
being
evaluated.
We
ask
that
the
commission
does
not
approve
Lighting
on
any
sign
design
criteria
and
the
city
code.
States
quote
the
science
color
and
illumination
shall
not
produce
distraction
to
motorists
or
nearby
residents
unquote
as
signs
that
face.
L
The
freeway
are
intended
to
draw
attention
and
distract
motorists.
They
are
not
consistent
with
cupertino's
design
criteria.
Interstate
280
and
the
Santa
Clara
county
is
eligible
for
Scenic,
Highway,
designation
and
Lighting
on
signs
degrades
aesthetic
resources.
We
believe
the
illuminated
freeway
facing
signs
should
undergo
should
undergo
SQL
review
and
must
require
public
Outreach.
These
points
are
discussed
further
in
the
letter
sent
to
the
commission
on
October
10th.
Thank
you.
A
H
Thank
you,
Mr
Scharf
hi
I'm
Jennifer
Griffin,
and
that
was
a
really
good
presentation
by
the
staff.
You
know
we
want
to
encourage
businesses
in
Cupertino,
but
then
again
the
frontage
along
280
is
controversial.
You
know
there.
There
is
a
lot.
Thank
heavens,
there's
a
lot
of
redwood
trees,
mature
coverage
there,
but
I
have
seen
lots
of
things.
So
you
go
up.
H
I
remember
when
we
had
the
Hyatt
hotel
that
was
going
in
behind
the
end
of
back
of
Valco.
There
was
a
discussion
about
their
signs
and
I
think
that
the
resulting
signs
are
very
elegant.
Looking
it's
a
very
lovely
hotel
and
I
would
wish
the
same
for
the
public
storage
building.
I
think
I
have
seen
the
the
the
public
storage
edifice
as
it
comes,
come
up.
I
I
saw
it
for
the
first
time
a
couple
weeks
ago
and
I
knew
what
it
was.
I
will
just
say:
it's
a
nice
building.
H
H
H
Think
that
one
sign
strategically
placed
will
be
very,
very
nice
and,
and
it
would
look
very
nice
on
the
building,
I
I,
don't
think
Neon
Lights
should
be
there
and
whatever
you
all
are
doing
in
terms
of
low
light
after
10
or
11
pm.
The
city
knows
best
about
that.
But
I
think
that
the
the
goal
there
is
to
have
not
having
distracting
things
along
280
but
be
able
to
say
to
the
public.
H
H
I
In
favor,
does
the
city
of
Cupertino
want
to
be
known
for
defiling
one
of
California's
eligible
State
scenic
highways?
Please
help
me
understand
why
the
application
that
is
justified
by
saying
that
the
building
is
existing,
but
the
construction
is
incomplete.
Specifically,
six
out
of
eight
of
the
permits
pulled
on
this
project
have
not
even
been
final,
so
the
justification
for
being
exempt
from
sequa,
because
it
is
an
existing
facility,
makes
no
sense
to
me.
I
Furthermore,
unless
we
do
sequence,
we
will
not
know
whether
the
project
poses
a
health
and
safety
risk.
The
sign,
ordinances,
19.104.050
and
19.
104.220
are
specific
in
this
regard,
as
mentioned
earlier
quote,
the
proposed
signs,
color
and
illumination-
is
not
in
conflict
with
a
safe
flow
of
traffic
on
the
city
streets
and
quote:
unquote.
The
signs,
color
and
illumination
shall
not
produce
distraction
to
motorists
or
near.my
residence
since
residents
well
tongue,
twister.
I
Okay,
to
my
knowledge,
this
would
be
the
closest
illuminated
sign
to
our
freeway,
which
again
is
eligible
to
be
considered
a
Scenic
freeway.
We
need
sequa
and
finally
I'm
going
to
repeat
this
so
that
you
know
this
forever.
Does
the
city
of
Cupertino
want
to
be
known
for
defiling
one
of
California's
eligible
State
scenic
highways?
A
K
A
J
F
Yeah
so
I
think
you
asked
my
one
of
my
questions
so
why
this
is
called
an
exception,
so
it's
free
facing.
Does
that
mean?
You
know
that
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
right,
because
you
said
you
know
there
are
two
signs.
You
know
that
are
allowed
for
the
business.
That
is,
you
know
previously
right,
one,
the
inside
and
the
other
one
is
previously.
Then
why
are
we
calling
it
an
exception
right
if
they
are
entitled
for
two
signs?
Why
are
we
calling
the
second
sign,
as
an
exception.
J
F
J
J
F
F
J
C
Is
there
a
a
CMC
or
a
municipal
code
that
does
these
signs
have
to
be
right
in
the
front
of
the
building
or
I,
if
I
I
can
think
of
it?
Is
that
if
you,
if
that
sign,
can
be
a
second
sign,
can
be
between
the
two
buildings
building
one
and
two
and
and
that
way
you
have
an
East
one,
one
sign
and
one
front
one
facing
and
you
meet
the
requirements.
C
I
I
mean
I'm
just
looking
at
the
picture
and
that's
how
I
see
that,
because
the
sign
2
is
in
front
of
the
building,
one
sign
three
is
in
the
front
of
the
building
two
so
and
and
seems
like
there
is
some
gap
between
the
building,
1
and
building
two,
and
so,
if
you
are
going
to
commit,
you
are
happy
with
two
signs
that
the
second
sign
could
be
between
the
building
one
and
two,
and
there
is
no
need
of
third
sign.
I
guess:
I
mean
I
I.
C
I
mean
I'm
just
thinking
that
you
could
have
it
at
two
arrows,
one
pointing
to
left
and
one
pointing
to
the
right,
and
that
serves
the
purpose
of
two
and
three
right
and
you
can
have
the
signage
on
that.
So
you
place
the
the
sign
between
these
two
buildings
and
one
points
to
the
one
arrow
point
to
the
left
and
one
Arrow
points
to
the
right
and
it
says
whatever
it
needs
to
say
so.
J
I,
don't
believe
that
the
signage
is
meant
for
as
a
directional
sign.
The
signage
is
meant
for
advertising
purposes,
and
it
could
you
have
one
sign
on
you
know,
building
one
which
is
the
one
already
permitted
and
the
other
sign
on
building
two
as
being
the
freeway
oriented
sign.
Yes,
you
could,
it
has
to
be
a
wall
assigned,
so
it
has
to
be
attached
to
a
wall,
so
it
can't
ping
between
the
two
buildings
that
that
would
be
my
assessment.
C
A
M
M
K
So
a
great
clarifying
question,
commissioner
saxena,
so
the
dark
sky
ordinance
is
I.
Believe
that's
the
one
you're
referring
to
exempts
signs
out
of
meat
within
the
dark
side.
Ordinance.
The
exempt
signs
that
meet
the
19104
was
our
sign
ordinance,
which,
which
would
be
this
one.
The
foot
Lampard
standard
was
one
that's
been
in.
K
The
sign
ordinance
for
I
would
say
for
a
long
for
as
long
as
I
can
remember
to
you,
I
don't
know
if
you've
been
here
longer
than
I
have,
but
since
you've
been
here
too
so
that
standard
within
the
sign
orders
for
the
foot
Lamberts,
which
I
believe
you're
referring
to
as
well,
has
been
their
predating.
The
dark
sky,
ordinance
I
should
say.
M
To
me,
it
looks
like
a
gap
in
the
dark
sky
ordinance
honestly,
because
when
you
have
such
giant
science
and
so
on,
that's
a
question.
The
second
question
I
had
was
about
the
scenic
highway
designation
of
280
and
or
where
does
it
extend
to
because
I
know,
I
will
love
this
riding
on
280
and
does
that
designation
end
somewhere
a
city
of
cupid?
Does
it
still
cover
city
of
Cupertino
and
like
what's
the
details
about
that
sure.
K
K
Here:
okay,
perfect,
so
here's
Cupertino,
oh
gosh,
my
computer's,
slow,
I'm.
Sorry
guys
right
here
is
where
the
proposed
signs
right
there.
So
the
blue
is
the
eligible
eligible
for
Scenic
designation
now
to
become
a
saint
designation.
The
city
has
to
take
extra
steps
to
provide
an
application,
a
plan
of
action,
how
to
regulate
the
standards
to
be
a
Scenic,
Highway
and
whatnot.
It's
a
pretty
robust
process.
K
In
fact,
when
this,
when
the
building
was
being
evaluated
per
sequel
through
our
super
consultant,
they've
stated
that
this
you
know,
there's
no
impact
to
the
highway
because
it's
not
officially
a
designated
Scenic
Highway,
it's
just
eligible.
So,
okay,
a
long
way
to
answer
your
question,
Commissioners
that
the
closest
one
is
downtown,
Saratoga,
Highway,
nine
right
here,
you
can
see
in
the
orange
right
there.
If
you
can
follow
my
cursor,
that's
five
miles
away
in
280.
It's
the
Alpine
exit
right
there
by
Stanford,
University,
okay,.
K
M
K
M
D
K
J
D
D
K
J
The
dark
sky
ordinance,
really
it
through
the
chair
again
really.
The
whole
purpose
of
the
dark
sky
ordinance
is
to
make
sure
that
illumination
is
downward
lit
if
it
is,
if
it
is
lighting
stuck
up
after
11
pm
that
it's
downward
lit
that
it's
not
you
know
pointed
up,
and
one
of
the
conditions
of
approval
of
this
particular
sign
is
that
the
signs
be
turned
off
at
11
o'clock.
D
Got
it
okay
and
then
the
last
question
was
really
about
for
the
applicant.
Have
they
been?
Has
a
suggestion
been
made
to
the
applicant
as
to
being
able
to
put
the
incredible
the
quick
map
in
terms
of
the
sign
by
putting
up
Bill
by
putting
the
sign
on
the
western?
Is
it
Western,
yeah
western
part
of
building
one?
K
Not
that
I'm,
aware
of
now
we
the
only
suggestion
we
had
made
early
on
again
I
took
this
project
on
after
Erica
had
left.
So
earlier
discussion,
I
wasn't
privy
to
we.
We
did
let
the
applicant
know
that
our
support
for
the
third
sign.
We
would
not
support
the
third
sign
in
terms
of
having
that
alternative,
I
I,
don't
believe.
We've
made
that
in
the
past
and
I
know,
I
haven't
made
that
that
suggestion.
Okay.
D
E
E
J
N
M
J
M
A
O
O
As
John
mentioned,
we've
been
working
with
planning
staff
on
this
signage
since
February,
and
we
appreciate
the
time
and
effort
that
they
have
spent
working
with
us
while
we're
in
agreement
with
majority
of
staff's
recommendations.
We
believe
that
the
findings
can
be
made
to
allow
both
of
the
freeway
facing
wall
signs
based
on
a
few
factors.
First,
is
that
the
site
has
a
unique
location,
as
it
does
not
front
the
public
Street.
O
There's
offices
between
this,
this
property
and
Valley
Green
Drive,
so
their
only
visibility
really
is
facing
the
freeway.
The
development
of
the
property
is
unique
in
that
this
is
one
commercial
business
with
two
separate
buildings
and
the
size
of
each
building
exceeds
a
hundred
thousand
square
feet.
O
And,
lastly,
there
is
limited
visibility
from
the
freeway
due
to
the
existing
trees.
I
think
I'd
sent
late
to
John
a
kind
of
some
photos
that
we
had
from
the
freeway,
showing
that
a
lot.
You
know
a
lot
of
portions
of
these
buildings
are
blocked
by
those
trees
which
are
right
along
the
freeway
there.
The
idea
was
that
one
sign
would
be
visible
on
one
building
for
southbound
traffic
and
the
other
would
be
visible
for
Northbound
traffic.
O
We
believe
at
these
unique
aspects
would
justify
approval
of
all
three
sign
exceptions
that
we're
requesting.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
Happy
to
answer
any
questions
we
also
have
Josh
Kate
is
on
with
Public
Storage
I
know
that
there's
another
gentleman
Andres
Friedman
who
had
tried
to
join
but
was
having
some
issues
getting
connected.
K
O
Be
yeah
I
mean
it's.
It's
real
brief.
I
mean
anyone
who
is
familiar
with
this
and
has
driven
along
that.
Freeway
knows
that
that
you
know
if
you've
seen
these
buildings
as
they're
going
up
there's
you
know,
there's
limited
visibility.
This.
This
is
just
kind
of
an
overall
view
that
shows
where
the
two
signs
would
be
located.
One
is
at
the
you
know,
southbound
end
of
building
one.
The
other
is
the
Northbound
end
of
building
two
I
think
on
on
the
site
plan
of
our
drawings.
We
have
a
distance
that
you
know.
O
The
two
signs
are
like
530
feet
apart,
something
like
that.
So
obviously
the
intent
is
not
they
that
they
don't
both
be
viewed
at
the
same
time,
but
on
this
photo
you
can
see
the
trees
that
are
in
front,
and
then
you
know
if
you
just
if
you
go
through
these
Pages,
these
are
photos
from
the
freeway
that
just
kind
of
show
how
the
buildings
you
know
from
various
angles
are
are
obscured
for
the
most
part.
F
So
I'm
just
curious
right,
so
I
understand
you
know
the
signage
facing
towards
De
Anza
makes
sense
right,
but
on
the
previous
side
they're
going
to
be
obscured
by
you
know
the
trees.
Why
bother
you
even
put
up
signs?
I
mean
I
mean
the
one
idea
of
sign.
Is
you
know
you
want
to
be
visible
from
the
tree,
but
at
the
same
time
you
know
you're,
coming
and
saying
you
know
this.
This
won't
be
visible
from
the
tree
because
I
mean
from
the
freeway
because
of
all
the
trees.
O
I
mean
I
think
there
is
some
visibility
from
the
freeway
I
think.
What
we
were
trying
to
point
out
was
that
it's
not
like
these
buildings,
the
entire
buildings
are,
you
know,
visible
the
entire
time
you're
along
280..
If
that
was
the
case,
I
think
only
one
time
would
be
sufficient
because
everybody
could
see
the
built
directions.
The
the
trees
partially
obscure
both
buildings,
and
because
of
that,
we
feel,
like
you
know,
one
side
on
each
building
would
provide
visibility
for
both
Northbound
and
southbound
traffic.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
so
there's
no
more
hands
raised
by
Commissioners
and
the
City
attorney
assistant,
City
attorney.
Advised
me.
The
proper
procedure
here
before
we
deliberate
among
ourselves
is
to
make
the
motion
and
the
second
and
then
we
deliberate,
and
then
we
vote
so
making
the
motion
and
seconding.
It
does
not
mean
that
you're
voting
to
approve
the
resolution.
It
just
means
that
we
will
be
discussing
it.
Did
I
get
that
right.
Attorney
Wu
that.
A
F
A
E
Thank
you
sure,
I
know,
there's
been
some
discussion
about.
Sql
I
just
want
to
say
that
a
couple
of
things,
the
first
one
is
to
the
extent
this
was
a
category
exempt
project
in
the
beginning.
The
fact
that
they're
now
requesting
signs
also
means
that
there's
continue
to
be
exempt
on
the
sequel.
In
addition,
even
not
not
the
case,
that's
I,
this
just
doesn't
have
any
environmental
impact,
so
it
would,
it
would
be
exempt
in
the
sequel.
F
F
F
So
the
one
on
facing
on
the
bianza
side
is
approved
and
ready
to
go.
The
ones
facing
the
previous
side
is
what
we
are
discussing
here
and
of
those
you
know.
Staff
is
recommending
to
approve
only
one,
whereas
applicant
is
asking
for
two.
So
it's
up
to
us
to
decide
to
approve
you
know
one
or
two
or
no
zero.
D
I
actually
think
there's
a
bigger
policy
issue
here
and
I
think
it's
a
question
of
whether
we
want
to
have
lit
signs
on
280
in
general
and
and
I.
Think
that's
the
larger
question
here
and
I
know:
we've
got
some
exceptions.
I
think
you
know,
we've
got.
We've
got
a
potentially
large
project
if
they
clean
the
contaminated
land
on
the
project
that
will
be
super
lit.
So
we
probably
should
think
about
the
broader
implications
of
what
we
want
to
do
with
280..
D
A
E
A
E
D
But
I
can
make
a
I
can
make
a
motion
to
deny
just
so
that
people
understand
it's
really
about
the
lighted
signage
on
280
and,
if
there's
a
second
for
it,
we
can
actually
consider
that
as
a
substitute
motion,
if
I
understand
that's
correct
and
Rosenberg
rules,
I
just
want
to
verify
that
before
I.
Do
that.
E
A
E
J
D
Oh,
thank
you
for
the
clarification.
I
think
that
the
denial
is
on
the
denial
is
on
the
third
sign,
but
that's
all
I
can
do
because
the
first
two
are
actually
permitted,
but
we
do
have
the
right,
if
I
understand,
to
deny
all
the
signs
facing
the
freeway.
So
if
that
is
correct
and
I
just
want
to
validate
that
I'm
just
walking
people
through
the
process
I'd
like
to
deny
the
science
facing
off
your.
M
K
D
M
D
A
F
I'm
just
curious,
you
know,
maybe
you
know
Anthony
Michael.
You
will
clarify
so
I
understand
the
way.
I
understood
you
know.
Mr
Wong's
emotionally
didn't
I
both
like
at
science.
You
know
facing
freeway,
but
could
there
be
a
third
motion
that
says
you
know
just
approved?
You
know
non-lighted
sign
one
facing
freeway.
E
E
F
N
N
D
A
A
C
I
just
want
to
point
out
here
that
that
there
is
a
precedence
here
we
have
approved.
We
have
signs
facing
280
before
for
other
buildings,
so
so
before
we
go
into
a
direction
of
proposing
new
stuff
to
the
applicant.
What
one
thing
we
should
keep
in
mind
and
second
question
the
question
I
have
this
is
a
comment.
The
question
I
have
is
that
the
dark
sky
ordinance
basically,
does
it
apply
for
freeway,
or
does
it
apply
for
local
streets?
C
A
J
A
A
M
Okay,
go
ahead.
I
just
made
commented
yeah
I
think
there
are
two
things
now
you
know
at
a
very
meta
level.
I
think
the
question
is:
what
does
the
sign
provide
to
the
applicant?
What
does
it
do
to
the
city
and
the
people
around
us?
Okay
to
me,
the
sign,
especially
if
it's
going
to
be
open
only
after
the
thing
is
closed.
Is
it's
just
an
advertisement.
It's
not
serving
a
purpose
of
navigating
people
to
the
storage
or
anything
like
that.
M
M
D
Brief
I
I'm
I'm
thinking
about
the
environmental
effects
of
keeping
things,
bird,
safe
and
dark
skies
and
thinking
about
potential
precedence.
That's
really
why
I'm
voting
in
this
way
forward
and
to
commissioner
sexy.
In
his
point,
the
average
billboard
in
the
Bay
Area
is
running
about
five
thousand
to
eight
thousand
dollars
a
month
in
Revenue.
So
just
to
give
you
a
cost
estimate
of
that.
A
J
C
A
A
A
F
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
A
A
Excuse
me,
number
MCA,
2022001
applicant
city
of
Cupertino,
the
location
is
Citywide
and
all
residential
single-family
zones
recommended
action.
Is
that
the
Planning
Commission
adopt
the
draft
resolution
recommending
that
the
city
council
find
the
actions
exempt
from
sequa
and
adopt
the
proposed
Municipal
Code
amendments.
So
can
we
can
we
have
the
staff
report.
P
L
P
All
right,
Senate,
Bill,
9
or
sv9
requires
that
cities
ministerially
approve
both
the
development
of
two
units
on
a
single-family
zoned
lot
and
the
subdivision
of
one
single-family
zoned
lot
into
two
throughout
this
presentation.
I
will
be
referring
to
the
development
of
one
or
two
units
on
a
lot
under
the
provisions
of
sv9
as
sb9
development,
and
then
the
subdivision
of
the
lot
into
two
lots
as
Urban
lot.
Splits.
P
P
However,
under
sb9
the
lot
can
be
developed
with
up
to
two
units
or
be
split
into
two
lots
through
an
urban
lock
split
now,
following
that
Urban
lot
split.
Each
resulting
lot
can
either
be
developed
with
one
single
family
residence
subject
to
the
typical
standards
of
the
municipal
code
or
be
developed
with
up
to
two
units
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sv9
and
the
city's
objective
standards.
P
So
for
a
property
to
qualify
for
sv9
development,
the
property
must
be
in
a
single
family,
zoned,
District
Additionally.
The
project
cannot
result
in
the
demolition
of
affordable
or
rental
housing.
It
cannot
be
located
in
a
sensitive
area
as
it's
identified
under
Senate
Bill
35,
and
it
cannot
be
in
a
Historic
Landmark
or
in
a
historic
district
following
their
development.
These
units
cannot
be
used
as
short-term
rentals.
P
P
P
In
terms
of
the
standards
for
development
that
this
state
prescribes,
sv9
requires
that
cities
allow
for
residential
units
that
are
at
least
800
square
feet
each
and
have
a
side
and
rear
setbacks
of
four
feet.
Additionally,
sv9
does
not
allow
the
city
to
require
setbacks
for
existing
structures
or
structures
that
are
rebuilt
within
the
same
footprint
of
an
existing
structure
in
sb9
development.
The
city
cannot
require
more
than
one
parking
space
per
unit
and
in
terms
of
urban
lot
splits.
P
P
Staff
has
performed
Outreach
to
ensure
that
feedback
from
both
city
council
and
the
public
was
incorporated
into
the
proposed
ordinance.
The
city
council
conducted
a
study
session
to
discuss
major
items
addressed
through
the
proposed
ordinance
staff,
then
hosted
a
hybrid
community
meeting,
which
was
attended
by
101
residents
and
resulted
in
the
completion
of
71
surveys.
P
Under
the
city's
proposed
ordinance,
an
urban
lot
split,
which
is
again
the
splitting
of
one
lot
into
two
allowed
under
sb9,
will
be
processed
through
the
recordation
of
a
parcel
map
and
will
be
reviewed
ministerially
at
a
staff
level,
with
no
public
hearing
the
decisions
that
are
made
on
these
Urban
lot.
Splits
are
final
and
cannot
be
appealed.
Finally,
review
and
approval
of
the
urban
lot
split
is
subject
to
the
city's
objective
subdivision
standards.
P
Sb9
development,
which
is
again
is
the
development
of
two
units
under
the
provisions
of
sv9,
are
approved
through
the
city's
miscellaneous
ministerial
permit.
So
this
is
reviewed
ministerially
at
a
staff
level
with
no
public
hearing
again.
The
decision
that
is
made
on
this
application
cannot
be
appealed
and
the
development
is
subject
to
the
city's
objective.
Zoning
and
design
standards.
P
P
For
driveway
standards,
these
apply
for
both
Urban
lot,
splits
and
sb9
developments
exclusively
in
the
R1
zoning
District.
The
proposed
ordinance
retains
the
requirement
for
there
to
be
shared
access
on
smaller
Lots,
and
that
was
incorporated
again
in
interim
ordinance.
However,
the
proposed
ordinance
includes
additional
flexibility
and
reflects
the
changes
of
lot
configuration
standards
that
will
go
into
more
detail
on
later
in
the
presentation.
P
As
such,
in
the
proposed
ordinance,
staff
has
kept
the
grade
change
limitation
but
expanded
the
standards
to
apply
not
only
to
Urban
lot
splits,
but
also
to
sv9
development
as
well
to
ensure
that
the
standards
were
not
impeding
development
staff
has
included
a
scaled
limit.
That's
based
on
the
loss,
slope
Additionally,
the
limits
have
been
placed
on
finished
floor
height,
and
we
also
require
now
the
use
of
split
level
design
for
an
avoidance
of
additional
grading.
P
On
Hillside
Lots,
the
interim
ordinance
required
that
building
pads
be
located
on
a
flat
portion
of
the
lot.
Additional
limits
were
put
on
the
amount
of
earthwork
that
was
allowed.
The
total
flat
yard
area
and
the
areas
of
grading
outside
of
the
building
pad
in
the
proposed
ordinance
staff
has
built
upon
the
adopted
interim
ordinance
standards
and
has
required
that
the
new
driveways
also
avoid
significant
grading
requiring
retaining
walls
being
screened
and
also
has
applied.
The
revised
grade
change
limitation
that
we
discussed
before.
P
P
During
the
study
session
staff
noted
for
city
council
that
the
standard
could
use
additional
Clarity
and
council
members
supported
staff
recommendation
to
add
modifications
to
the
standards,
and
so
now,
as
proposed,
the
zero
foot
setback
allowance
would
only
be
allowed
when
other
side
yard
setbacks
are
a
minimum
of
five
feet.
On
the
first
floor
and
10
feet
on
the
second
floor
units
along
the
zero
foot,
setback
are
developed
at
the
same
time
and
the
entirety
of
wall
faces
with
the
zero
foot.
Setback
are
structurally
attached.
P
The
alternative
standard
for
lock
configuration
applies
to
R1,
Zone
interior
and
Pie
shaped
Lots
under
the
interim
ordinance
standards.
Interior
of
high
shaped
Lots,
with
less
than
60
feet
of
Street
Frontage
were
required
to
result
in
a
flag
lot
and
lots
with
the
street
Frontage
of
60
feet
or
more
were
required
to
result
in
two
side-by-side
Lots.
P
Comments
submitted
related
to
The
Standard
noted
that
the
standard
limited
development
potential
of
lots.
Additionally,
when
discussed
in
their
study
session,
Council
numbers
generally
requested
for
more
flexibility
in
the
standards
while
continuing
to
address
the
privacy
concerns.
Finally,
77
of
those
polls
supported
allowing
Urban
lot
splits
to
result
in
Black
lives.
P
Under
the
proposed
ordinance,
a
lot
with
the
street
Frontage
of
less
than
60
feet
will
still
be
required
to
result
in
a
flag
lot.
Configuration
left
with
Street
frontages
between
60
and
75
feet
or
Street
frontages
exceeding
75
feet
with
a
lot
depth
of
less
than
or
145
feet
are
required
to
result
in
side-by-side
Lots.
P
B
P
And
so
the
internal
ordinance
standards
disallowed
balconies
on
sv9
development.
This,
however,
did
not
apply
to
the
subsequent
development
of
balconies,
which
would
be
approved
through
a
discretionary
minor
residential
permit
for
properties
in
the
R1
zone
or
a
building
permit
for
properties
in
the
rhs
zone.
P
Through
the
proposed
ordinance,
balconies
continue
to
be
disallowed
for
development
on
sv9
units
and
has
the
proposed
ordinances
also
expanded.
The
requirement
for
discretionary
review
of
balconies
subsequent
to
sb9
development
in
both
the
R1
and
rhs
slots,
and
this
is
to
address
the
potential
privacy
issues.
A
H
Thank
you,
Mr
Sharp.
Thank
you.
Miss
Emmy,
that
was
a
very
good
foray
into
the
complexities
of
sb9
I
did
attend
the
public
session
on
this
benign
and
all
the
other
meetings,
and
especially
from
what
I
spoke
about
in
the
finding
strange
wording.
At
the
end
of
other
build
texts.
I
am
currently
as
a
beliefs
and
then
I'll
talk
about
sb9
that
the
authors
of
sb9
are
incompetent.
H
We
do
not
know
who
the
actual
bill
authors
were,
but
from
things
that
they
have
made
in
this
bill,
which
is
essentially
ministerially
splitting
a
lot.
That's
that's
impossible.
That's
a
stupid,
stupid
way
to
do
anything
and
then
the
other
part
about
the
maximum.
Like
four
foot
setbacks,
it
leads
me
to
believe
that
the
governor
signed
these
bills
and
the
bills
are
basically
incompetent.
The
bill
authors,
if
they
want
to
identify
themselves,
are
probably
we're
going
to
find
out
that
they
have
zero
land
use
experience.
H
If
the
Senators
and
assembly
people
who
claim
that
they
sent
these
bills
forward,
if
they
offered
the
bills
they're
incompetent
to
do
that,
their
elected
officials,
they
have
other
duties,
it
would
be
like
you
had.
A
third
grader
writing
sb9.
That
is
my
opinion
and
I.
Think
it's
going
to
be
borne
out.
Then
again,
I'll
just
make
the
statement
that
the
part
about
sb9
and
I
mean
it's
the
governor's
at
fault.
You,
the
public.
H
We
have
had
to
clean
up
the
mess
from
this
bill
for
the
last
nine
months
and
you
know
we're
wasting
our
time.
Cleaning
up
the
governor's
mess
and
the
incompetent
Bill
authors,
I
won't
call
them
out
I
think
we
know
who
they
are,
but
they're.
They
have
no
land
use
experience.
We
know
who
they
are,
but
the
part
that
is
so
insulting
about
this
is
that
the
neighbors
have
no
right
to
say
anything.
You
get
to
split
the
lot
by
yourself
and
not
include
the
neighbors
I'm.
Sorry,
you
know
believe
me.
H
If
the
builders
I'm
gonna
have
to
incur
costs,
because
I'm
gonna
have
to
have
my
land
surveyed.
If
somebody
starts
splitting
locks
next
to
me,
who
will
reimburse
me
nine
thousand
dollars
what
if
the
Builder
damages
my
property,
the
Builder
damages
my
trees,
the
Builder
builds
above
grade
and
inundates
my
property
with
water.
The
Builder
damages
my
sewer
line
or
my
water
line
who's
going
to
pay
for
upgrades
to
the
infrastructure.
H
G
Thank
you
chairman.
Thank
you,
planning,
Commissioners,
and
you
and
Emmy
hats
off
to
you
guys
for
educating
the
population
on
sb9
I
thought
I
had
read
it
all
when
I
originally
applied
for
the
sb9
in
January,
I
learned
so
much
more
from
your
presentations
thanks.
So
much
all
right,
so
I
did
have
a
presentation
that
I
wanted
to
share
it.
G
G
We
can
go
to
the
next
slide
and
the
next
just
wanted
to
say
that
we're
proud
Cupertino
residents
we've
lived
here
22
years
now,
since
I
wrote
this
and
both
our
kids
went
to
Monte
Vista
and
went
on
to
San
Jose,
State
and
Davis.
But
this
is
a
neighborhood
of
Cupertino
that
has
larger
Lots.
You
just
happen
to
be
lucky
to
live
there.
There
are
45
blocks,
I
believe
that
are
15
000
square
foot
with
very
large
frontages.
Let's
move
on
to
the
next
and
the
next
slide.
G
So
what
we
were
asking
for
was
this
black
lot
split.
We
noticed
in
the
new
proposal
that,
because
these
lots
are
larger
and
that
flag
each
flag
lot
is
7
500
square
foot
with
a
golden
ratio
which
is
probably
as
large
as
50
of
the
units
in
Cupertino
I'm
glad
that
the
Planning
Group
has
decided
to
suggest
that
this
is
a
possibility.
Let's
move
on
to
the
next.
G
So
we've
talked
to
all
our
neighbors,
at
least
most
of
them.
We
had
a
backyard
party,
they
all
support
this.
They
love
the
fact
that
the
house
on
the
front
will
not
break
away
from
the
city
Frontage.
This
whole
neighborhood
has
100
foot
white
houses,
so
this
maintains
that
beautiful
houses
to
the
left
and
right
of
us
are
two
stories.
Houses
around
us
are
single
and
good
stories.
I
have
pictures
of
all
of
them
from
Google
Maps
that
don't
want
to
waste
your
time
on
that
the
cool
part
about
doing
it.
G
G
G
So
if
we
were
to
split
our
law
based
on
the
sb9
guidance
right,
a
buyer
comes
and
buys
this
law
hypothetically
to
now
build
on
this
law,
and
this
is
an
urban
lot
split.
I
mean
thank
you
for
that
clarification,
I'm
learning
that
difference,
Urban
Locksmith
versus
sp9
development,
so
they
come
in
and
they
want
to
build
via
sb9
or
they
can
build
under
the
standard
discretionary
process.
Is
that
right?
That's
a
question
that
you
know
I'll
have
for
the
planning
department
and
if
they
can
guide
us,
they'll
be
great.
G
The
last
thing
I'd
want
to
point
out
is
the
lot
split
fee.
The
old
fee
of
19
000
was
very
expensive
and
almost
felt
as
if
it
was
you
know,
to
discourage
people.
So
these
are
a
bunch
of
little
questions
that
will
come
up,
but
again,
thanks
to
the
planning
department
for
coming
up
with
rules
that
are
flexible.
Q
Q
My
thinking
is,
we
expect,
after
a
lord
spirit,
is
done
successfully.
Both
the
Lords
are
going
to
be
paying
taxes
and
they're
going
to
be
part
of
city
of
Cupertino.
So
all
these
Lots
should
be
treated
as
equal
to
the
rest
and
I'm
glad
the
Planning
Commission
is
making
a
change
to
the
grading
rule,
which
was
too
restrictive.
Q
I
also
recommend
that
they
remove
the
restriction
on
amount
of
cut
and
fill
right.
Now,
it's
2500
cubic
yards
and
this
impacts
a
lot
on
Hillside
Lots,
where
you
can
build
one
house
with
a
cotton
field
of
2500
cubic
yards.
If
you
say
that
two
houses
are
to
be
built
with
a
pattern,
fill
of
2500
cubic
yards,
that
becomes
really
restricted.
Q
So
my
request
is
make
some
modification
to
this
or
make
it
discretionary
based
on
the
situation,
because
in
a
hillside
lot
you
do
require
a
bigger
cut
and
fill.
This
probably
doesn't
apply
to
Flat
large
spot
on
the
hillside
Lord.
She
do
so
either
remove
the
Restriction
of
2500
cubic
yards,
make
it
2500
cubic
yards
each
or
make
it
discretionary
based
on
situation.
A
F
F
Lot
of
people
attended,
so
I
really
appreciate
that
the
only
thing
is
you
know:
I
wish
you
know,
I
had
access
to
that
recording
so
that
I
would
have
seen.
You
know
myself
and
you
know
familiaries
and
all
the
changes,
or
you
know
this
presentation
that
we
just
went
through
you
know
was
available
now
before
the
meeting.
So
because
it's
we're
talking
about
a
lot
of
changes,
you
know
to
the
existing
interim
ordinance
right.
So
you
know-
and
also
you
know
it's
not
clear
to
me
in
my
head.
F
You
know
all
the
changes
that
are
being
proposed
because
you
know
I
saw
staff
saying
you
know
the
commission
could
adopt.
You
know
a
b
c
and
all
that
right.
So
it's
like
another
multiple
options
and
I'm,
not
sure
which
option
you
know
for
a
given
topic
is
being
recommended
to
be
adopted
right.
So
that
part
is
not
clear
to
me,
but
I
do
have
some
questions
right,
so
we
so
Amy,
you
said
you
know
built
within
limits,
doesn't
require
you
know
setbacks.
Can
you
please
clarify
that?
P
N
F
P
N
F
F
Yeah
yeah
yeah,
so
the
permitted
ones,
whatever
setbacks,
you
know
that
that
existed
before
we
established
you
know
municipal
code,
for
setbacks
would
be
grandfathered
it.
Okay,
okay,
all
right!
That's
good!
Does
the
SB
9
split
of
a
particular
lot?
Does
it
preclude?
You
know
neighbor
slot
from
applying
for
a
split.
P
P
P
F
So
that's
good
thanks
for
the
clarification
and
can
someone
apply
for
isb9
lot
split
now,
but
not
built
act
on
it
like
you
know
they
got
the
lot
split
approved
and
you
know,
but
then
they
just
you
know
living
as
it
is.
You
know,
on
the
existing
structure,
not
build
anything
for
next
10
years
or
15
years.
Is
it.
J
So
the
lot
splits
are
only
good
for
as
long
as
the
state
law
would
allow
those
to
be
tentative
Maps,
their
personal
Maps,
as
long
as
personal
maps
are
allowed
to
be
alive,
essentially
the
permit
to
be
alive,
that's
as
long
as
they
would
live,
and
then
they
would
expire
at
some
point.
If
they're
not
used
yeah.
F
J
You
can't
you
have
there's
there's
more
stuff.
That
needs
to
happen
once
the
let's
say,
whoever
the
approval
Authority
is
once
that
happens.
In
this
case
it
would
be
a
stop
level
decision
so
once
that
decision
is
made
they're
still
more
steps
that
one
has
to
go
through
in
order
to
actually
record
those
that
property
as
two
different
Lots.
So
if
you
don't
go
through
those
motions
within
a
certain
amount
of
time
that
up
that
approval
could
lapse.
F
J
F
F
What's
the
difference
in
in
your
diagrams
that
you
showed
right
there,
you
know
there
is
a
single
family
lot
as
it
exists
today,
two
units
can
be
built
on
it
through
the
sb9
and
then
you
also
showed
a
diagram
where
you
know
the
lot
is
split
and
you
know
two
units
are
built.
You
know
on
as
independent
units.
J
It's
really
a
matter
of
two
versus
four,
it's
as
simple
as
that.
So
you
you
take
your
lot.
For
example,
Vice
chair,
you
know
you
could
build
either
another
primary
unit
on
it,
which
would
be
considered
a
duplex
or
you
could
take
your
lot
split
it
into
two
and
put
two
duplexes
on
each
of
those
lots.
So
it's
just
okay.
F
J
So
there
are
some
the
six
distinctions
because
we
do
have
to
have
objective
standards
on
things
such
as
grading
and
things
like
that
there
is
more
Authority
or
more
things
that
could
potentially
be
required.
You
know
as
a
discretionary
matter
if
it's
a
discretionary
parcel
map
approval
when
it
comes
to
an
sb9
split.
It's
really
a
matter
of.
Do
you
meet
the
standard
or
don't
you
meet
the
standard?
It's
got
to
be
a
black
and
white
answer
pretty
much
wherever
it's
gray.
J
It
basically
means
that
we
we've
lost
discretion
in
the
matter
and
and
to
be
fair,
it's
going
to
be
very
hard.
There
will
be
cases
where
it'll
be
like
okay,
this
is
a
gray
area
and-
and
we
don't
have
much
regulation
about
it,
but
we've
tried
to
address
most
of
what
we
think
are
the
big
picture
issues
which
is
grading.
You
know
how
tall
you
can
build
and
things
like
that.
F
J
That's
only
if
you're
using
the
ministerial
process
to
develop
sb9
units,
if
you
use
the
city's
discretionary
process,
that's
still,
you
know,
as
you
would,
your
normal
two-story
permit,
with
the
extra
setbacks
and
all
the
other
things
that
are
regulated
under
the
city's
regulations.
You
could
still
do
that.
You
could
still
build
a
basement.
J
You
could
still
build
balconies
as
we
normally
would
approve
okay,
but
if
you
want
to
do
it
under
the
sb9
ministerial,
you
know
standards
where
you
can
get
closer
to
your
neighbor,
where
you
know
you
you
are
on
a
smaller
lot.
Potentially,
then
you
have
to
do
these
additional
things
which
are
more
like
I,
said
black
and
white.
Okay,.
F
F
J
Correct
so
in
Mr
Coley's
case,
the
gentleman
that
spoke
today
I
think
he
would
end
up
with
potentially
two
7
500
square
foot
Lots.
You
know,
there's
a
pretty
standard
size,
lots
and,
and
he
could
proceed
under
the
normal
regulations,
to
build
a
basement
to
build
a
two-story
structure
as
long
as
he
meets
the
setbacks
that
are
allowed
in
their
current
city
code.
The.
F
Normal
process
will
allow
normal
process.
Yes
last
question,
so
there
was
one
you
showed
some
diagrams
about.
No,
if
it's
less
than
60,
you
can
only
split.
You
know,
flag
lots
and
you
know
if
it's
you
know
60
to
75.
You
know
there
is
one
way
of
doing
it
and
then
it's
above
75
but
sudden
depth.
You
know
you
can
do
it
in
certain
ways,
so
so
I'm
a
little
bit
lost
on
that
one
right,
so
it
lives
confusing.
So.
J
So
I
I
can
speak
to
that.
So
one
of
the
things
that
we're
trying
to
do
is,
like
I,
said,
establish
those
black
and
white
rules.
You
know,
if
your
lot
is
this
wide,
and
you
know
this
deep,
you
get
to
do
X,
Y
and
Z.
If
your
lot
is
less
than
60
feet,
you
know
we're
trying
to
make
sure
that
you,
you
have
enough
straight
front
edge
and
so
Amy
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
here,
because
I
keep
mixing
these
up.
J
If
you're
less
than
60
feet,
you
have
to
do
a
flag
lot
subdivision,
because
it
means
that
ultimately,
you
would
end
up
with
one
building
on
the
front,
with
a
certain
amount
of
Street
branch
and
then
a
flag
that
runs
to
the
back
to
a
separate
piece
at
the
back.
Another
lot
at
the
back,
however,
if
you're
greater
than
60
feet,
but
you
are
up
to
75
feet,
then
you
got
to
do
a
side
by
side.
Lot
split.
N
J
You're
less
than
145
feet
or
more
of
them
or
yes,
yes,
up
to
145
feet,
you
have
to
do
a
side
by
side,
because
at
that
point
we
basically
want
to
make
sure
their
eyes
on
the
street
that
there's
a
certain
amount
of
facade
that
you
see
from
the
street
and
things
like
that,
also
because
the
lot
may
not
be
deep
enough
to
have
a
building
pad,
because
the
lot
won't
be
too
deep.
What
that
would
force
is
to
have
a
rear
set
back
of
four
feet.
J
J
If
you
chose
to
do
that
and
then,
if
you
are
greater
than
75
feet,
but
an
Emmy
stop
me
at
any
time,
if
you're
greater
than
75
feet,
but
more
than
145
feet
deep,
then
you
have
an
option.
Then
you
could
either
do
a
flag
lot
because
you're
so
deep
that
you're
not
going
to
impact
and
have
a
much
smaller
rear
yard
or
you
can
choose
to
split
side
by
side,
so
we're
giving
people
that
option.
H
C
H
C
Yes,
correct,
yeah,
right
and
and
other
less
than
60
feet.
It
becomes
a
flag,
correct.
Okay,
so
just
one
question
I
have
is
that
if
everybody
starts
doing
this
on
a
street,
you
know
lp9
split
what
happens
to
the
common
road
infrastructure.
I
mean
I
mean
it
doesn't
line
up
right
I
mean
we
will
be
all
clogged
on
the.
C
We
can
just
double
the
density
on
that
street
by
every
single
family
home
splitting
it
into
two,
and
we
have
2X
the
number
of
residents
on
that
street
and
2x
the
number
of
cars
effectively
and
the
road
remains
same
correct.
Yes,
so
that
is,
you
can't
do
anything
about
it.
My
understanding
is
that
it's
a
requirement.
C
So
that
means
that,
irrespective
of
its
condition,
deterioration
from
over
the
period
of
a
time
of
the
soil
or
whatever
happened
in
that
particular
property,
where
we
are
not
going
to
perform
any
testing
or
is
there
any
kind
of
a
guide
oversight
on
that,
so
that
you
can
till
control
some
contamination
of
the
soil
or
any
other
kind
of
equal
guideline?
Although
it
is
exempt
so.
J
J
Basically,
state
law
says
that
your
action
tonight
in
recommending
that
the
council
adopt
this
or
the
council's
actually
future
action
in
adopting
these
ordinance
amendments
is
exempt
from
SQL
and
that's
written
into
state
law,
but
with
regard
to
the
actual
development
of
structures,
the
city
actually
does
have
a
chapter
on
environmental
regulations
which
basically
talks
about
how
to
address
development
and
regardless
of
whether
you're
a
building
permit
or
whether
you're
a
planning
permit.
You
do
have
to
do
certain
things,
which
is
you
got
to
do,
provide
us
with
soil
testing
results.
J
You've
got
to
do
certain
things
to
make
sure
that
you
know
you've
got
to
make
sure
that
if
you're
moving
a
certain
number
of
trees
that
you
address,
that
there
are
no
birds
nests
there
or
if
it's
a
if
they're
cultural
resources,
if
you
find
cultural
resources
during
construction,
you're
going
to
do
XYZ.
So
there
are
these
regulations
that
are
adopted
by
the
city.
J
Already
and
in
place
so
that
we
would
make
sure
that
when
applications
come
in,
we
would
evaluate
that
application
against
those
standards
and
make
sure
that
they
do
those
and
and
make
sure
that
they
do
those
Implement
those,
although
they
are
sb9.
Although
there
has
been
it
doesn't
matter
what
project
you
are.
C
J
C
J
There
are
actually
a
couple
of
reasons
why,
for
under
sb9
development,
we're
not
seeing
that
basements
are
not
allowed
under
the
city's
discretionary
rules.
So,
for
example,
if
you
have
a
really
large
lot
and
you
subdivided
it
and
you
wanted
to
build
a
two-story
house
or
any
one-story
house,
you
could
go
under
the
normal
rules
that
exist
today,
which
involves
you
know.
Whatever
permits
are
involved,
but
you're
allowed
a
basement
under
the
city's
current
rules.
J
But
if
you
come
in
as
a
ministerial
process
where
you
could
be
as
close
as
four
feet
to
the
property
line-
and
you
know
you
could-
there
are
certain
limitations
that
the
city
has
we're
saying
in
that
case,
staff
is
recommending
that
a
basement
not
be
allowed.
However,
we
have
provided
some
options
for
the
Planning
Commission
to
consider
to
allow
how
should
could
basements
be
allowed.
We
kind
of
provided
some
language
for
the
planning,
commissions,
consideration
and
attachment
five.
J
Is
it
any
so
so
that
you
could
look
at
it
and
decide
whether
you
want
to
allow
it
or
not?
But
the
reasons
why
we
didn't
want
to
allow
it
are
twofold:
one
is
an
environmental
impact.
You
know,
because
these
are
ministerial
projects
and
again
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
earth
that
is
moved
when
basements
are
put
in.
J
You
got
to
put
pumping
systems,
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
that
goes
into
a
to
the
infrastructure
of
the
basement,
so
in
order
to
keep
the
cost
of
these
sb9
units
down,
which
is
the
the
whole
purpose
of
having
allowing
this
by
the
state,
is
to
provide
more
affordable
housing
options
within
the
city.
That
was
another
one
of
the
reasons
and
considerations
about
why
staff
recommended.
A
C
D
Okay
and
in
the
neighborhoods
that
have
you
know
ten
thousand
square
foot,
Lots
or
fifteen
thousand
square
foot
Lots,
if
sb9,
just
just
for
people
listings
that
they
understand
what's
going
on.
If
all
the
neighbors
decided
that
they
wanted
to
turn
their
neighborhoods
into
an
sb9
area,
they
would
basically
end
up
with
the
same
density
as
like
Rancho
Rinconada.
J
D
So
that's
the
average
for
those
okay
and
then
I
have
a
procedural
question
for
the
deputy
City
attorney
as
we're
going
through
this.
Are
we
basically
going
through
each
of
the
chain
changes
and
actually
voting,
or
is
it
or
to
the
chair?
Are
we
going
through
each
of
the
changes
in
voting
and
actually
providing
input
or
are
we
you
know?
Are
we?
Is
there
a
process
for
this
so
that
we
can
go
through
each
of
the
changes
or
amendments
that
are
suggested
because
I
think
that
it's
going
to
come
down
a
little
detail.
D
A
D
A
J
You
go
ahead.
I
I,
just
did
also
want
to
focus,
I
mean
the
interim
ordinance,
and
the
changes
that
are
proposed
related
to
carrying
the
interim
ordinance
forward
are
Incorporated
in
the
regular
ordinance
for
where
we
thought
that
maybe
the
and
where
we
figured
the
council,
wanted
the
planning
commission's
input
on
we
kind
of
added
those
as
options
in
attachment
five.
J
No,
so
so
the
whole
point
of
allowing
the
zero
foot
setback
is
to
have
maybe
a
more
building
like
form
when
you
look
at
it,
some
look
at
a
structure
from
the
street,
so,
for
example,
you
have
your
lot
and
your
house
is
right
in
the
middle
of
it.
Now
you
wanted
to
put
two
lots
on
it
down
the
middle,
but
you
could
essentially
redesign
it
to
still
look
like
one
house.
So
that's
the
whole
purpose
of
having
this.
A
A
A
A
J
A
J
A
A
Okay,
okay,
but
we
have
to
allow
18
feet
plus
two
feet.
We
just
don't
have
to
allow
two
story:
correct,
okay
and,
as
one
commissioner
pointed
out,
you
know,
since
it's
only
one
parking
space
required
per
unit.
If
the,
if
a
lot
of
owners
did
that,
we
would
have
a
problem,
so
I
guess
like
other
areas
in
this
Bay
Area,
we
could
do
permit
parking.
There's.
No
there's
no
prohibition
on
permit
parking
and
that's.
A
J
J
A
Well,
I
had
you
couldn't
put
a
basement
in
after
the
fact
anyway,
yeah
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
not
allow
basements
just
because
you
know
basements
end
up
turning
into
living
areas,
and
you
only
have
one
parking
space
per
unit.
You
probably
want
to
reduce,
not
have
an
excessive
amount
of
square,
even
though
the
basement
square
feet.
Don't
count.
Is
that
true,
when
you're.
A
A
J
A
J
That
yes,
I
mean
that
is
in
the
ordinance,
and
there
is
a
the
staff
report
did
address
it,
but
I
mean
maybe
this
presentation
didn't,
if
you
wouldn't
mind,
pulling
that
up,
I
think
I
believe
it
is.
If
you
are
between
zero
to
five
percent,
it
allows
up
to
a
12
inch
change
in
grade
if
you're,
between
five
and
ten
percent.
It
allows
up
to
a
24
inch
change
in
grade
and
Emmy
will
tell
us
what
it
is
beyond
that.
Okay,.
A
J
P
N
P
And
so
then,
the
additional
kind
of
points
that
I
touched
on
were
that
we
do
have
a
restriction.
Now
on
the
finished
floor,
we're
not
we're
allowing
more
than
36
inches
of
finish
floor
above
the
finished
grade,
and
then
the
other
portion
is
that
we
are
requiring
that
you
use
a
split
level
design
for
your
foundation
and
your
building
when,
when
you
need
to
in
order
to
avoid
additional
change
in
grade.
A
J
The
way
that
we
there
is
another
requirement
in
here
that
the
building
pad
that
you
identify
should
be
the
flattest
area
that
is
near
and
close.
It's
served
by
an
existing
driveway.
So
it's
not
as
though
you
find
the
you
know
the
highest
point
on
your
really
steep
lot
and
build
a
driveway
up
to
it,
and
you
can't
do
all
of
that
under
the
sb9
lot
split
you
have
to
find
whatever
is
the
flattest
area,
that's
close
to
your
driveway
and
that's
where
you
would
have
to
build
your
home?
J
J
A
A
P
When
we
do
have
standards
that
become
restrictions
and
would
not
allow
for
an
urban
lot
split
or
development
of
those
lots,
then
they
do
default
to
state
law,
and
so
they
are
allowed
to
have
two
800
square
foot
units
and
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
control
how
much
their
their
grading
on
that.
We
would
be
able
to
apply
other
standards,
but
it
just
means
that
that
would
no
longer
be
applicable
to
them.
So.
A
A
J
Under
sp9
development-
yes,
you
would
only
be
allowed
you
would.
We
can
only
require
one
okay,
okay,
the
last
split
is
the
lot
split
itself,
so
you
could
do
a
lot
split,
and
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
how
many
parking
you
know
spots.
We
require
okay,
presumably
most
people
will
go
under
the
discretionary
process
because
it
gives
them
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
potentially,
and
in
that
case
we
would
require
the
number
of
parking
spaces
that
we
do
normally.
M
But
they're
required
okay,
so
the
driveway
sort
of
like
well,
okay,
so
can,
and
that
is
probably
for
the
attorney.
Can
we
impose
a
fee
if
you
don't
go
for
like
the
two,
the
two
minimum
limit,
or
something
like
that?
If
you're
only
going
for
one,
because
essentially
you're
going
to
be
using,
essentially
City
street
for
any
reasonable
person
parking?
M
E
There
may
be
other
ordinances
or
other
policies
that
that
may
prevent
that
commissioner
saxena,
but
under
espni
it
simply
sets
forth
the
certain
conditions
when
you
can
have
certain
development
and
then
it's
up
to
the
city
to
adopt
objective
standards
to
allow
for
a
ministerial
process.
And
so
you
know
so
I
thought
this.
That's
that's.
E
A
I
mean
I
think,
commissioner
sexy
and
he
did
have
a
that
was
a
clarifying
question.
Could
we
charge
owners
that
choose
to
only
put
in
one
parking
space
and
yeah
I,
don't
believe
that's
possible,
but
we
can
always
do
permit
parking
and
we
can
you
know
I,
don't
well.
Yeah
I'll
save
my
comments
for
later.
For.
A
C
Okay,
yes
I
one
question:
I
have
I
think
I
forgot
to
clarify
was
there?
Is
a
somewhere
I
read
that
that
in
the
duplex
development
on
the
same
split
lot,
I
I
will
give
in
the
duplex
development
of
the
same
blog.
You
need
to
have
you
need
to
have
the
suppose
it
is
800
square
feet.
That's
at
The,
Limited,
floor
area
of
the
other
unit
needs
to
be
50
of
that.
So,
if
you
are
saying,
2
000
square
feet
is
permitted
living
space.
C
N
M
C
J
J
J
It
is
capped
currently
at
4
000,
because
that
is
the
cap
on
the
the
unit
size.
Any
unit
developed
under
sp9
is
limited
to
a
2
000
square
foot.
But
if
I
came
in,
if
you
came
in
to
develop
a
house
on
your
10
000
square
foot,
Urban
slot
split
lot,
you
could
build
a
for
one
single
family,
home
4
500
square
feet
with
a
basement
and
an
88.
C
N
C
J
P
Oh,
no,
no
I,
think
it's
it's
similar
to
what
you
were
saying
before
the
units
are
each
limited
to
2
000
square
feet
in
living
area
right
and
then
they
could
have
their
own
garages
that
could
still
max
out
the
45.
Those
are
the
two
caps
that
we
have
on
sv9
development
and
then
for
standard
development
you're
still
at
45,
but
you
can
also
have
an
Adu.
P
N
C
M
N
J
So
at
the
minute
you
use
sb9
development
regulations.
Adus
are
out
the
window,
you,
basically
you
have
to
use
the
discretionary
regulations
to
be
able
to
build
a
new
deal,
but
but
it
doesn't
prevent
you
from
building
a
second
sb9
unit.
You
know
what
I
mean
like
you
could
build
two
sb9
units
under
sb9
regulations.
A
C
C
E
E
Right
right
so
again,
sp9,
if
you
wanted
sb9,
simply
says
under
certain
conditions,
you
can
either
build
an
additional
structure
on
your
single
line,
or
you
can
split
your
lot
and
build
two
stretches
on
each
for
four.
They,
they
delegate
to
each
City
to
come
up
with
objective
standards
to
to
oversee
this
ministerial
process.
A
A
M
A
F
A
F
Thank
you
so
just
so
that
no,
my
head
is
clear
on
this
one
right,
so
we
I
can
use
you
know
sv9
for
lot
splitting,
but
after
the
split
I
can
go
sv9
ministerial
route
for
building
the
structures,
in
which
case
you
know,
I'll
be
limited.
You
know,
2000
square
feet,
build
out
dot,
right,
2000
square
feet.
Each
and
no
Adu
is
allowed,
but
I
can
go
duplexes
on
each.
You
know
maxing
out
at
2000
square
feet
so
or
I
can
choose
to
go.
F
F
F
A
A
M
J
J
A
A
F
A
E
A
M
A
M
M
J
Idea
stop
is
recommending
a
change
based
on
feedback
that
we've
received
from
Mr
Cooley
tonight
and
from
others
basically
to
allow
flag
Lots
in
certain
situations
when
the
flags
are
particularly
wide
and
particularly
deep,
and
so
that's
the
staff
recommendation.
However,
we're
basically
letting
the
commission
know
that
in
the
interim
ordinance
we
had
adopted
this
particular
standard,
which
is
reflected
in
the
italics,
which
basically
disallowed
any
flag
Lots.
It
would
just
mean
that
it
even
Mr
Coley's
situation.
He
would
have
to
do
a
side-by-side
lot
split
because
he
had
a
hundred
foot
wide
lot.
J
A
D
May
ask
a
process
question
because
there's
also
a
lot
I
mean
what's
Limited
in
attachment.
Five
doesn't
address
issues
around
definitions.
Around
bay
windows
doesn't
address
definitions
around
Gable
ends,
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
missing,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that,
even
if
we
go
through
attachment
five,
there
are
other
things
in
the
changes
of
the
ordinance
that
we
are
going
to
be
glossing
over.
If
we,
if
we
don't
keep
a
detailed
list,
that's
all
I
want
to
point
out.
So
it's
good
to
go
through
attachment.
Five.
M
J
That
is
that
effect
and
then
again,
like
I,
said
we
can
go
back
over
the
specific
edits
if,
if
it
pleases
the
commission,
there
is
a
lot
and
I
will
say
in
some
cases,
for
example,
I
I.
Just
because
you
raised
the
issue
of
bay
windows.
Commissioner
Wong
those
are,
you
know,
interpretations
that
staff
has
made
for
the
longest
time
in
allowing
bay
windows,
and
that
is
essentially
what
we're
trying
to
translate
into
an
objective
standard
in
the
code,
because
again
it
has
to
be
black
or
white.
J
You
know
this
is
how
we've
allowed
bay
windows
even
under
the
discretionary
process
forever,
and
this
is
exactly
how
we
would
continue
to
allow
it
even
with
an
sb9
development,
so
just
kind
of
modifying
some
of
those
things,
but
absolutely
we're
happy
to
go
over
any
and
all
of
that,
but
this
is
some
of
this-
is
also
some
of
the
other
changes
that
were
made
between
the
interim
ordinance
and
now
are
just
changes
to
make
sure
that
we're
there
isn't
a
gray.
You
know
we've
been
asked
this
question
and
it's
like
you're
right.
A
J
J
In
terms
of
allowing
a
big
enough
Frontage,
you
would
essentially
be
left
with
25
feet,
and
now
you
have
to
have
a
eight
foot
setback
based
on
state
law,
so
you
would
end
up
with
a
building.
That's
17
feet
wide
right
that
fronts
the
street.
So
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
when
you
have
a
particularly
narrow
law
that
you
are
allowed
that
flag
lot
so
that
that
front
building
can
have
some
Street
View
and
some
a
good
Frontage
that
fronts
the
street.
Well,.
F
J
That
is
right.
It's
a
black
and
white
question.
So
yes,
if
it
is
140,
we
will
say
no,
but
the
point
really
is:
we
came
up
with
145
feet
because
we
kind
of
did
the
math.
There
were
a
couple
of
considerations.
One
is
the
whole
impact
on
privacy.
We
did
Lay
this
out
for
Council.
You
know
when
you
do
have
a
flag
lot
situation.
You
know.
If
you
have
a
side-by-side,
lock
split,
you
could
have
two
units
on
each
of
those
two
side-by-side
Lots
right.
J
N
J
We
kind
of
did
the
math,
we
basically
said:
look,
you
could
have
a
20-foot
deep
garage
and
you
know.
Typically,
you
have
like
a
family
room,
something
that
kind
of
abuts
it
which
is
about
25
feet.
You
know
deep
most,
usually
these
days
25
to
28
feet
is
what
we
see
and
then
you
know
what
would
be
allowed.
You
would
be
allowed.
You
need
a
20-foot
front
setback
and
then
what
is
left
over
for
a
rear
yard
right?
We
were
trying
to
get
to
a
a
reasonable
depth
of
rear
yard.
J
N
J
Are
three
options
here?
If
I
may
chair,
okay
go
through
them,
one
is
well,
it's
not
permitted
out
right,
which
is
what
is
in
our
code
right
now.
It's
not
permitted
with
sb9
development.
Here's
the
other
thing
that
the
commission
could
do
is
just
not
permitted
them
period.
If
you,
if
you
lot
split
under
sv9,
you're,
not
allowed
it
if
you
develop
under
sv9,
you're,
not
allowed.
That
is
an
option
too.
J
The
second
option
is
basically,
you
know
not
from
it's
only
permitted
on
lots
that
may
be
wider
than
50
feet,
oh
and
which
are
not
much
higher
than
the
neighbor.
This
is
the
other
thing
that
we
see
where
you
know
one
neighbor
neighbor
may
be
higher
than
the
other,
so
there
might
be
concerns
about
privacy
by
the
neighbor.
That's
a
little
bit
lower
right.
A
J
That
that
was
what
we
were
trying
to
address
here
and
then
also
have
increased
setbacks.
So
basically
you
know,
if
you,
you
can't
have
it
unless
you
really
have
you
know
clearly
large
setbacks
from
the
property
line.
So
that
was
one
option
and
the
other
option
was:
it's
only
permitted
if
you
face
the
front
yard
of
a
property
and
a
public
Street,
basically,
and
then
there
are
some
size
limitations
like
it,
can't
really
be
a
huge
deck.
J
A
F
So
I
I'm
in
favor
of
you
know,
option
A
or
C,
because
privacy
is
a
big
deal
for
our
residents.
That's
one
of
the
biggest
complaints
that
we
hear.
Whenever
you
know
any
modification
is
occurring
on
any
of
the
homes,
so
that
being
a
number
one
priority
for
our
residents,
you
know
I
do
want
I,
don't
want
to
compromise
on
that
part
by
allowing
you
know
decks
under
the
ministerial
approval.
C
N
A
J
B
I
J
F
D
Okay,
I'm
I'm,
trying
to
figure
out
the
the
gaming
here
and
the
games
Theory
on.
Do
you
want
them
to
go
sb9
or
do
you
want
them
to
not
go
sp9
and
I'm,
not
sure
what
the
implications
are
in
this
game
model,
so
I
think
that's
so
if
we
don't
permit
Second,
Story,
decks
and
balconies,
as
this
is
right
here,
I'd
like
to
know
what
that
means.
This
is
for
is
this
just
for
the
discretionary
ones
or
this
is
for
both
this.
J
A
D
Okay,
you
basically
shut
down
balconies,
you
don't
have
the
Rancho
Rinconada
problem,
where
everyone
has
a
balcony
into
each
other
right
and
or
you
have
the
problem
in
Monte
Vista,
where
people
built
there's
a
couple
cases
that
we
saw
where
people
built
the
balconies,
but
every
neighbor
is
really
mad
that
you
can
see
across
into
their
backyard.
So
that's
all
that's
what
that
does.
C
Yeah,
so
basically
what
happens
is
if
you
allow
for
discretionary.
The
plan
will
come
with
the
balcony
to
you
and
you
have
to
shut
it
down.
So
this
is
how
it
will
work.
It
will
won't
work
other
way
around
that
that
that
somebody
will
ask
you
whether
can
I
have
a
balcony
and
a
diagonist,
and
then
they'll
put
it
in
the
plan,
so
they
will
put
it
in
the
plan
and
they
will
come
to
you
to
approve
it.
F
J
D
A
J
C
Idea,
wow,
so
I
have
a
very
fundamental
question
here:
how
did
you
come
up
with
option
A?
Is
it
your
design
or
is
it
something
you
followed
it
from
a
from
some
kind
of
a
standard,
or
this
thing
like
option
A
not
permitted
I,
either
in
discretionary
or
sb9
either
way.
Is
that
the
way
you
have
put
it
up
here?
If
this
is
your
design
or
it
is
taken
from
a
some
standard,
how
did
you
come
with
the
action?
A
definition,
that's
that
question
these.
C
That
yeah
option
a
prime
says
that
that
not
permitted
under
these
things
and
option
a
prime
says
it
is
permitted.
Under
that
thing
it
is
up
to
us
to
put
what
options
we
we
propose.
It
is
not
taken
from
a
state
standard
right,
so
you
can
always
have
a
option.
A
prime
saying
that
not
permitted
under
certain
circumstances
and
and.
A
A
N
J
Build
an
sb9
unit
on
one
and
I
build
a
discretionary
unit
on
the
other
on
the
discretionary
unit.
I
can
concurrently
apply
for
a
discretionary
permit
for
a
second
story
balcony
on
the
other
lot,
which
has
the
sv9
unit.
I
first
have
to
get
the
sb9
unit
permitted
and
then
I
have
to
apply
for
a
discretionary
permit
for
the
balcony
on
that
lot.
Okay
and
that's
built
into
the
current
draft
ordinance.
F
J
A
J
J
A
D
A
C
C
J
Goal
I
have
is,
if
I'm
a
chair
in
terms
of
numbers,
we
probably
approve
25
to
30
balconies
a
year,
and
we
probably
had
three
balconies
appealed
in
the
last
couple
of
years.
That's
just
numerically
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
suggesting
that
it's
any
less
emotionally
hard
to
make
those
decisions,
but
I'm
just
giving
you
thoughts
here.
Okay,.
A
C
F
A
D
E
Yeah
I'm
trying
to
follow
this
this
discussion,
so
the
issue
is
you:
you
want
to
allow
for
a
sb9
ministerial
Lots,
lit
Urban
lot
split,
but
preclude
any
decks
or
balcony
to
the
extent
that
that
the
owner
chooses
to
then
build
a
minister.
Do
a
Mr
process
build
a
structure
on
the
second
lot.
However,
if
that,
if
that
structure
is
undergoes
a
discretionary
process
that
at
that
point,
you
allow
them
to
have
a
discretionary
approval
process
for
a
Decker
balcony
is.
E
That
Warden
is
going
to
address
this
and
they'll
say
any
sb9
administratively
approved
project
can
I,
have
any
decks
and
then
you're
going
to
build
into
that
ordinance.
However,
if
the
owner
decides
to
undergo
sb9
lot
split,
but
chooses
not
to
develop
that
second
lot
with
the
sbat
process,
they
can
have
a
discretionary.
A
A
They
could
have
a
basement,
they
could
have
an
Adu,
they
can
have
a
deck
if
they
go
the
discretionary
if
they
go
the
other
way.
No,
because
we
are
trying
to
you
know,
we
prefer
discretionary
and
I
think
most
of
the
owners
would
prefer
discretionary.
They
get
a
lot
more
out
of
it,
regardless
of
the
balcony.
They
get
to
have
an
Adu.
They
get
to
have
a
basement,
which
I
think
would
be
more
popular
way
because
it
doesn't
count
in
your
far
so
yeah
that
that
was
my
thinking
is.
E
A
D
D
A
D
A
D
Want
some
clarification
here
from
from
the
deputy,
State
Attorney
again
attachment
five
is
only
about
sb9
ordinances,
correct,
and
it
only
applies
to
an
sb9
project,
and
these
are
objective
standards
that
we're
suggesting
on
an
sb9
project.
Is
that
correct
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
all
the
same
page.
D
D
You
know
we
would,
for
example,
say:
if
you
go
discretionary,
you
could
have
the
option
of
potentially
passing
a
second
story
Deck
with
approval.
If
you
go
through
the
discretionary
process,
you
could
potentially
have
you
know
something
else
right.
That's
kind
of
what
we're
saying
with
this
thing,
around
Second
Story
decks,
that's
the
design
Point
you're
you're
advocating.
Is
that
correct.
A
J
I
will
admit
there
are
some
words
missing
chair,
but
that
is
because
the
the
ordinance,
the
draft
ordinance,
is
written
in
a
way
that
basically
allows
a
balcony
after
you.
If
you
build
out
your
sb9
unit,
you
could
apply
for
a
discretionary
permit
for
a
balcony.
If
you
build
out,
do
you
know
it
under
discretionary
rules?
You
could
apply
for
a
discretionary
permit
for
a
balcony,
so.
D
A
A
D
J
A
N
A
D
D
A
J
D
E
D
D
A
A
A
J
P
Before
I
kind
of
went
over
this
slide
specifically
this
grade
change
limitation
is
not
saying
that
the
resulting
home
will
be
on
a
five
percent
slope
or
a
ten
percent
slope,
or
anything
like
that.
It's
strictly
limiting
how
much
we
can
cut
into
it
or
add,
fill
to
that
lot
on
a
five
percent
or
ten
percent
or
more
slow.
P
P
But
when
we
grade
and
we
put
in
a
building
pad,
we
usually
will
level
out
the
lot
that
we're
on.
And
so
when
we
cut
into,
let's
say
a
hillside:
that's
called
just
a
cut.
That's
just
pretty
straightforward!
Now,
if
we're
on,
maybe
a
slope
that's
going
downwards
and
we
want
to
level
it
out.
The
other
way
we'll
add
extra
dirt
to
it
and
that's
called
our
fill
and.
P
That's
that's
the
difference
from
here
to
here
to
make
this
flat.
So
that's
why
we
have
the
five
percent
as
a
12
inch
cut
allowance
or
12
inch
difference
allowance
to
allow
for
a
20-foot,
deep
garage,
okay
and
then
when
we
develop-
and
let's
say
you
know,
this
is
going
to
also
be
leveled
out.
This
is
what
we
refer
to
as
our
split
level
design.
J
Yeah,
because
otherwise
I
mean,
if
you
can't
have
a
level
pad
for
a
garage,
it's
going
to
be
really
hard
to
park
a
car
and
and
to
meet
80.
You
know,
there's
just
other
building
codes
that
you
need
to
meet,
and
so
you
need
to
have
fairly
a
level
garage,
and
so
the
12
and
the
24
really
stems
from
what
do
you
need
to
get
across
20
feet?
Yeah.
F
P
Yes
and
I,
I've
worked
with
nagesh
before
and
I
know
that
he
actually
proposed
a
lot
split,
where
the
six
inch
requirement
that
we
had
proposed
originally
and
that's
that's.
What
was
included
with
the
interim
ordinance,
really
limited
the
potential
for
any
any
lots
that
had
grading
and
I
believe
his
lot
was
in
an
rhs
zone,
so
it
had
a
much
more
substantial
slope
to
even
build
a
regular
building
pad.
P
So
in
that
context,
what
we
would
see
is
they
would
come
in
for
the
urban
lot
split,
which
is
what
it
usually
or
originally
applied
to
during
our
interim
ordinance
and
if
they
wanted
to
even
build
up
their
driveway
and
building
pad
to
be
limited
to
six
inches
they'd
be
about
here
and
I
hope.
You
can
see
my
Mouse
just
to
cut
in
due
to
how
steep
the
slopes
are
right,
so
they're
not
able
to
cut
into
here
anymore
and
they're,
not
able
to
fill
so
I
think.
P
P
F
J
So
he
would
be
in
category
three
right,
I
mean
so
so,
basically,
the
way
that
we've
designed
it
right
now
is,
commissioner,
so
valley
floor.
Lots
are
typically
about
five
percent
right
I
mean
no
more
than
five
percent
they're
fairly
flat
right.
So
you're
allowed
up
to
a
foot
of
cut,
and
usually
you
probably
won't
even
it's
basically
a
foot
of
change
in
elevation.
Really
it's
you
could
either
fill
it
in
or
cut
it
down
right.
So
a
one
foot
would
typically
allow
your
lot.
J
You
know
even
my
lot,
no
my
don't
mind
but
yours.
It
would
certainly
allow
development
of
that.
Once
you
get
between
five
and
ten
percent,
you
know
we
basically
see
that
in
order
to
at
least
allow
that
garage
you,
you
need
to
have
at
least
two
feet
cut
now
you
it
may
be
that
that
steep
is
at
the
back
of
your
lot
right.
So
so
then
the
cut
is
really
far
back
on
the
lot.
It's
not
really
at
the
garage
level.
It's
really
at
the
far
end.
J
Now
you
get
to
Mr
nagesh's
lot,
which
you
know
could
be
a
30
slope
you
know,
could
be
even
higher
right
because
it's
rhs
that's
what
we
have.
We
have
lots
that
are
40
50
steep
over
there
and
so
over
there.
It's
really
hard
to
develop
these
standards
that
are
very
cut
and
dry,
and
so,
which
is
why
we
came
up
with
that
standard.
That
basically
says:
look.
We
don't
know
how
much
cut
you
need,
but
we
know
a
few
other
things.
J
We
know
you
got
to
develop
on
the
flattest
part
of
of
your
property
that
is
closest
to
the
existing
driveway.
You
got
you
can
cut,
you
can
have
no
more
than
this
much
grading
a
certain
quantity
of
grading
and
we'll
allow
you
to
do
up
to
that
much
as
long
as
you
give
us
an
engineer's
report,
and
they
tell
us.
This
is
peer
reviewed
by
our
engineer
to
say
that
is
the
minimum
amount
of
cut
that
you
need
so
so
there's
multiple
layers
of
things
that
will
kind
of
cap.
J
D
J
Are
all
things
that
will
be
determined
during
the
Engineering,
Process,
okay,
and
so
the
way
that
it's
written
right
now?
It
can't
really
be
visible
from
certain
parts,
and
you
know
it
has
to
be
at
the
back
of
the
building.
So
it's
you
know
screened
with
buildings,
and
things
like
that.
So
we
do
have
some
more
standards.
That
kind
of
prevent
those
from
being
viewed
from
the
public
right
away,
necessarily.
C
Okay,
basically,
the
the
higher
the
percentage
of
upgrading
the
cost
goes
up
for
the
structural
stability.
So
if,
if
as
benign
development
is,
is
completely
open-ended,
maybe
we
can
allow
higher
percentages
of
grading
but
five
percent
one
feet.
Ten
percent
ten
percent
two
feet
and
you
keep
going
and
you
you
are
digging
deeper.
So.
J
A
N
D
A
D
D
A
A
J
A
J
J
And
then,
and
then
we're
also,
but
we're
also
adding
in
these
things,
which
basically
say
that
you
know
it's
the
maximum
amount,
that's
necessary.
You
know
we're
saying
that
you
got
to
do
a
split
level
design,
so
your
buildings
don't
become
Too
Tall
or
that
you
have
really
tall
crawl
spaces,
we're
trying
to
balance
the
spoils
on
site
so
that
we
can,
you
know,
retain
the
dirt
on
site
rather
than
hauling
it
off.
J
A
N
A
A
D
D
A
F
A
A
We're
not
picking
between
them
yeah.
My
my
proposal
was,
was
getting
rid
of
BNC
and
only
having
a
and
then,
if
somebody
says
Hey,
the
state
law
says
I.
Can
you
know
do
this?
No
matter
what
you
could
say
yeah
you
can't
go
ahead,
build
the
two
800
square
foot
units
and
you
can
have
whatever
grade
change
you
want,
which
is
the
case
now.
Actually
you
could
have
a
it
could
be
a
50
and
you
could
still
do
it
if
it
was
physically
possible
and
10
or
more
would
cover
50
or
45
percent.
C
Do
you
actually
have
to
comment
on
this
necessarily
or
you
just
have
to
redirect
to
this
document?
I
mean
whatever
it
says.
It
covers
ABC's
and
anyways.
What
you're
saying
is
also
covering
ABC
yeah.
So
only
thing
is
that
you're
putting
a
over
there,
so
so
I
I
would
think
that
you
just
redirect
for
grading
just
redirect
to
this
document.
A
J
N
J
A
J
A
A
N
A
D
So
if
you're
on
the
west
side
like
west
of
De
Anza
and
your
lots
are
like
seven,
eight,
you
know
probably
not
going
to
hit
you.
But
if
your
lots
are
like
over
10
000
square
feet,
you
will
have
5
000
square
foot
Lots
like
Rancho
Rinconada.
You
will
have
the
density
of
Rancho
Rinconada
and
you
will
have
all
the
associated
infrastructure
requirements
that
may
not
have
been
planned
for,
like
Rancho.
A
F
F
M
This
is
one
thing,
a
follow-up
to
what
red
said.
I
think
the
city
should
actually
in
some
way
be
aware
of
what
we
just
did
and
what
the
city
staff
and
the
city
council
did
is
to
put
some
basic
objective
standards,
which
is
the
pretty
much
the
best
we
can
do,
and
we
also
Incorporated
input
from
people
when
it
came
to
flag
route.
M
D
I'm
not
suggesting
that
we
stop
what's
going
on
in
Sacramento
in
any
way,
that's
obstruction.
I
just
think.
It's
really
important
to
make
sure
that
we
get
more
Community
input
before
we
pass
these
ordinances
and
and
that's
why
I'm
non-committal
to
to
what
we're
about
to
vote
on,
because
I,
don't
think
people
fully
understand
the
implications
and
back
to
your
Point
Church
I
mean
if
I
had
a
lot
in
Monte
Vista
today
with
15
000
square
foot
with
a
3
500
square
foot
home
on
it
right
now.
D
You
know
my
lot
value
just
actually
almost
doubled,
because
that's
true
I'm
gonna
shut
down
that
house
and
raise
it.
I'm
gonna
put
another
house
I'm
going
to
maximize
the
other
piece
right
and
I
mean
there's
always
Kinder
words.
Those
people
who
don't
really
understand
policy
who
make
policy
are
going
to
make
everything
unaffordable
because
people
are
going
to
come
in
and
basically
everything's
going
to
double
in
price
again.
So
so
I
think
people
need
to
understand
this
before
we
make
changes
to
the
ordinance
I
mean,
as
is
I'm.
You
know.
D
A
N
N
D
A
D
A
F
A
F
A
J
A
N
A
I
propose
the
following
amendments
to
the
motion
I
made
earlier
that
per
staff
recommendation.
We
allow
flag
Lots
as
specified
you
know.
Balconies
are
not
permitted
with
any
development
pursuant
to
sb9
ministerial
units.
Basements
are
not
allowed,
adus
are
not
allowed
and
for
grade
change.
Grading
on
slopes
of
any
percentage
shall
not
result
in
a
change
in
grade
elevation
by
more
than
12
inches
from
existing
grade.
Did
you
take
out
the
five
percent.
J
D
A
E
J
C
A
C
C
M
F
N
M
Again,
I'm
not
fully
familiar
where
this
belongs
to,
but
I
wanted
to
get
an
update.
An
official
update
from
the
staff
on
where
the
work
item
on
the
school
generation
ratios
for
different
kind
of
housing
units.
Is
that
and
just
an
update
on
where
we
are,
whether
it
is
scheduled
to
be
funded
or
it
will
not
be
funded
or
whatever,
or
whether
we
made
a
request
for
information.
J
So
we
have
contacted
this,
the
school
district.
Actually
we
contacted
the
school
district.
Now
it's
been
at
least
a
year.
They
actually
were
not
able
to
give
us
that
data
and
were
unable
to
come
and
present
related
to
that
data.
So
that
is
something
that
we
do
not
have
any
information
on
Sir.
So
it's
not
something
that
we
can
bring
to
the
language.
A
A
M
A
The
the
I
don't
know
if
this
is
old
business
or
not,
but
this
is
regarding
5G
and
if
anyone
saw
what
recently
transpired
in
Los
Altos
with
them
winning
their
lawsuit,
so
we
may
you
know,
can
we
bring
back?
Does
staff
have
the
resources
to
do
anything
regarding
the
5G
towers
and
the
discretionary
approval.
A
F
F
E
F
A
J
It
is
my
understanding
that,
at
this
point,
we're
we're
aiming
for
that.
I
know
that
there
was
a
conversation
with
the
applicant
to
but
I'm
not
sure
whether
they
wish
to
withdraw
their
application
or
not,
but
but
all
think
that
all
of
that
aside,
this
may
be
coming
to
a
hearing.
Next
at
the
next
meeting.
Okay.
A
E
E
A
D
We
are
in
this
unique
situation
in
the
city
where
the
public
works
department
does
not
have
oversight
by
commission
and
many
times
comes
to
us
for
that
oversight,
and
so
I
encourage
the
city
council
members
to
to
resolve
this
issue,
because
we
have
dragged
this
issue
for
way
too
long
and
I
have
no
idea
why
it
keeps
getting
dragged
out
and
in
the
process.
Hundreds
of
residents
are
being
impacted
by
the
towers,
and
these
are
it's
a
stealth
approval
process,
as
you
remember
where
they
just
do
a
few
permits.
D
They
rush
them
through
and
they
put
them
up
and
I,
sincerely
hope
and
I'm,
not
making
an
accusation
here,
I'm
just
making
a
suggestion.
I
sincerely
hope
this
is
not
because,
like
someone's
trying
to
figure
out
like
you
know
how
to
become
the
first
5G
City
or
something
like
and
would
love
to
present
on
that
in
the
future.
D
E
E
E
E
A
A
A
J
I
believe
that
commissioner
madipatla
attended
the
Institute
of
local
governments
planning
commissioner
training
last
Friday
and
I
the
city
of
Cupertino
hosted
that
event.
It
was
a
free
to
all
planning
Commissioners
and
it
was
exclusively
floor
planning
commissions
to
kind
of
receive
some
basic
training
on
sequa
and
other
matters
in
terms
of
other
matters.
I
think,
oh,
thank
you,
commissioner.
I
wasn't.
C
F
Yes,
I
did
that
in
the
training
last
Friday
and
fellow
commissioner
Sanjeev
was
there
and
there
were
Commissioners
at
least
to
come,
which
in
some
cases
you
know
three
Commissioners
from
a
lot
of
cities
in
around
Bay
Area,
like
you
know,
Santa
Clara
Sunnyvale,
and
you
knows,
and
you
know,
Redwood
City.
Even
you
know,
Broadway
cities
right
I,
think
you
know
roughly
around
some
50
to
60
Commissioners
were
there.
So
it's
a
pretty
well
written
day.
I
found
the
session
very
useful.
F
I
learned
a
lot
and
I
also
met
with
you,
know
the
hcd
representative
and
spent
some
time.
I
specifically
asked
a
question
that
you
know.
Are
we
allowed
to
take
credit
for
pipeline
projects?
You
know
for
Arenas
and
she
was
very
clear
at
saying
you
know.
Yes,
you
can
take
credit
for
it.
Everybody
does
that
and
you
are
no
different.
We
expect
you
to
take
credit
for
you
know,
pipeline
units.
She
was
very
clear
on
that
and.
A
F
And
and
and
and
and
and
and
they
think
you
know,
they
know,
and
you
know
they're
spreading
the
false
information
so
I
want
to
clarify.
You
know
for
the
Public's
benefit
in
this
public
forum
that
you
know,
I
asked
the
hcd
person
and
there
are
about
50
or
60
planning
Commissioners
from
various
cities,
and
they
all
said
you
know,
yep
everybody's,
taking
advantage
of
you
know.