►
Description
Coverage of the Cupertino City Council Teleconference Meeting, recorded on Tuesday, November 2, 2021. Part 1 of 2.
A
A
And
I'm
here,
thank
you
very
much,
madam
city
clerk.
Tonight
we
have
a
couple
of
ceremonial
matters
and
proclamation
items.
Item
number
one
is
a
presentation
from
united
against
hate,
an
initiative
out
of
the
office
of
the
mayor
of
berkeley,
and
I
believe
that
we
do
have
a
representative
from
the
mayor's
office.
Yes,.
A
A
Which
is
you
know
very
perilous
in
pretty
much
every
instance,
so
let's
go
ahead
and
conduct
a
study
session
with
regard
to,
I
believe
it
is
sb9.
Is
that
correct,
mr
city
manager,
okay,
excellent
and
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
bring
this
over
to
hugos
our
planning
manager.
Here
to
present
the
presentation
for
the
sp9
study
session.
Welcome
to
you.
D
Thank
you
for
introducing
the
subject.
Mr
mayor.
We
are
looking
at
standards
and
regulations
that
the
city
can
impose
related
to
sb9
projects.
I'm
just
going
to
go
quickly
through
my
presentation.
D
There
are
certain
criteria
under
which
sb9
projects
could
be
proposed,
one
of
which
is
a
reference
to
certain
sp35
criteria.
Sp35
is
a
bill
that
was
adopted
in
2019.
D
Those
sorry
2018,
essentially,
those
were
listed
on
this
screen,
essentially
that
the
land
is
not
prime
farmland
doesn't
incorporate.
Wetlands
is
not
within
a
state
designated
a
very
high
fire
security
zone
that
is
subject
to
limitations.
D
It's
not
within
a
delineated
earthquake
called
zone
also
subject
to
limitations,
not
within
a
hundred
year,
flood
zone,
subject
to
certain
exceptions,
written
into
the
law
within
a
regulatory
floodway,
also
subject
to
the
same
exceptions,
part
of
a
conservation
and
natural
resource
plan
or
under
conservation
easement,
and
also
not
include
habitat
for
species
that
are
protected
under
state
and
federal
laws.
D
Additionally,
for
both
of
those
type
of
projects
that
I
described
earlier,
there
are
certain
criteria
that
must
be
met.
You
cannot
demolish
any
bmr
or
rent
controlled
units.
It
cannot
be
property
that
was
occupied
by
tenants
in
the
past.
D
Three
years
has
not
been
it's
not
on
property
that
has
been
withdrawn
from
the
rental
market
under
the
ellis
act
for
the
past
15
years,
and
not
a
property
located
in
a
historic
district
or
a
state,
historic
resources,
inventory
side
or
within
county
or
local
landmark
or
historic
property
or
district,
and
so
those
are
the
exceptions
under
which
sp9
can
be
proposed
on
properties
that
don't
meet
those
requirements
for
urban
lot
splits.
Additionally,
there
are
certain
other
criteria.
D
You
cannot,
you
know
neither
the
owner
of
the
parcel
that
is
closed
for
subdivision,
nor
any
person
acting
in
concert
with
the
owner
has
previously
previously
subdivided
an
adjacent
crop
parcel
using
an
urban
lot
splits.
Essentially,
you
can't
have
a
developer
going
through
and
dividing
subdividing.
All
the
lots
within
the
block
there
are
lots
created.
Must
be
limited
to
residential
uses
only
and
applicants
must
sign
an
affidavit
stating
that
they
intend
to
occupy
at
least
one
of
the
units
as
a
principal
residence
for
a
minimum
of
three
years
after
the
lot
split.
D
So
moving
on
to
what
regulations
the
city
can
propose
with
regard
to
sb9,
there's
certain
limitations
under
sb9.
We
can
adopt
zoning
and
design
review
standards
as
long
as
we
do
not
have
regulations
of
standards
that
would
prevent
at
least
800
square
foot
units
on
the
lot
four
foot
side
and
rear
setbacks.
D
We
can
only
require
one
parking
space
per
unit
unless
it
is
within
half
a
mile
mile
walking
distance
of
either
high
quality
transit
corridor
or
a
high
major
granted
stop
or
if
there
is
a
car
share
vehicle
within
one
block
of
the
project,
and
no
more
than
25
percent
of
the
exterior
walls
of
an
existing
unit
will
be
impacted.
D
D
For
one
thing
with
regard
to
floor
area
ratio,
oh
I'm
sorry
before
I
do
that,
there's
a
certain
restrictions
in
sp9
about
lock,
splits
as
well,
and
so
we
can
adopt
objective
subdivision
standards
as
long
as
they
don't
conflict
with
the
standards
in
sb9,
which
is
that
the
new
lots
must
be
40
to
60
of
the
original
lock.
D
As
mentioned
before,
we
have
to
allow
at
least
800
square
foot
units
on
the
property,
so
two
units
800
square
foot,
each
maybe
one
of
the
ways
to
kind
of
allow
additional
square
footage
would
be
to
impose
you
know
certain
regulations
and
as
long
as
projects
meet
those
regulations,
they're
allowed
additional
floor
area.
D
I
just
wanted
to
remind
the
council
that
our
current
r1
florida
ratio
is
45
and
that
our
rhs
floor
area
ratio
is
45
up
to
6,
500
score
of
maximum
and
that
maximum
is
reduced
by
a
slope
reduction
factor
that
is
dependent
on
how
much
your
property
is
sloped
above
10,
so
there's
a
reduction
for
every
percent
of
increase
in
slope
over
10
and
then
council
could
consider
addition
additionally
consider
higher
or
lower
if
they
are
based
on
those
on
that
understanding,
subject
to
legal
constraints.
D
With
regard
to
second
story,
setbacks,
we're
of
course
limited
to
the
forefoot
side
and
rear
setbacks,
whether
that's
a
single
floor,
single
story,
instructor
or
two-story
structure.
If
a
forefoot
setback
is
proposed,
council
could
adopt
objective
privacy
standards.
You
know
things
like
you
know.
If
you're
at
a
four-foot
setback,
you
know
through
a
10-foot
setback,
you've
got
to
have
opaque
or
unopenable
windows,
or
your
sill
height
must
be
greater
than
five
feet,
and
but
if
your
setback
is
10
feet
or
more,
you
could
have
regular
windows.
D
Of
course,
we
would
continue
to
require
privacy,
protection
and
or
shrubs
as
allowed
by
the
current
r1
requirements,
whether
you're
at
r1
property
or
an
rhs
property.
That
is
something
for
council
to
consider
as
well.
D
This
is
entirely
of
the
city's
discretion
options
regarding
sb9
projects
include,
you
know,
disavowing
balconies,
all
together
allowing
balconies
as
long
as
there
are
much
larger
setbacks
than
what
we
currently
allow
under
regular
r1,
ordinance
or
rhs
ordinance
limit
balconies
only
to
front
yards
that
front
public
streets
or
other
front
yards
or
limit
balconies
to
larger
lots,
which
are
greater,
you
know,
could
be
greater
than
5000
square
feet
wider
than
50
feet.
D
You
know
whatever
the
council
wishes
to
see,
or
one
of
the
issues
we
had
recently
seen
was
where
there
was
a
balcony
proposed
on
a
property
that
was
five
foot
higher
than
the
adjacent
property,
so
those
are
all
options
for
the
council
to
provide
direction
on
with
regard
to
parking,
of
course,
as
mentioned
before,
only
one
space
per
unit
is
allowed
subject
to
limitations.
That
is,
you
can't
require
any
at
all
if
it
is
within
half
mile
walking
distance
of
certain
transit
amenities
or,
if
there's
a
car
share
on
the
block.
D
So,
however,
if
somebody
does
choose
to
provide
parking,
we
could
require
that
parking
to
be
in
an
enclosed
space
of
the
size
that
accommodates
our
standards
for
one
car
parking.
If
additional
spaces
are
proposed,
we
would
definitely-
and
we
could
require,
under
the
city's
existing
objective
parking
space
standard
to
be
applied
to
the
project.
That
is
something
that
the
city
could
look
into
doing
and
other
issues
with
basements,
with
a
large
number
of
potentially
smaller
lots.
D
You
know
it
was
at
the
city's
discretion
to
allow
or
disallow
the
basements.
These
are
expensive
to
build
because
you
are
hauling
out
dirt
and
putting
in
a
lot
of
concrete
in
order
to
hold
the
dirt
up,
and
then
there
are
additionally
environmental
impacts
from
having
basements
so
the
options
there,
of
course,
multiple
options,
some
of
which
include
disallowing
basements
on
sb9
projects,
maybe
counting
that
floor
area
toward
the
floor
area
of
the
site
or
allowing
it
on
larger,
larger
lots
with
larger
setbacks
and
small
light
wells,
for
example,
design
standards.
D
This
is
really
about
the
architectural
look
of
the
buildings.
You
know
I
spent
a
lot
of
time,
just
as
I
walk
and
drive
through
the
city.
You
know
what
looks
good.
What
doesn't
look
good
examples
of
objective
design
standards
could
be.
You
know
all
structures
shall
have
16
styling,
although
it
must
be
a
certain
pitch,
all
windows
shall
be,
shall
have
a
minimum
three
three
and
a
half
foot
wide
trim
around
them
orbeez
or
at
least
being
said
three
inches.
D
Allow
one
entry
feature
to
face
the
street,
so
it
doesn't
look
entirely
like
a
duplex,
even
if
the
duplex
is
proposed
in
the
rhs
zoning
standard.
The
concerns
are
around
several
lots
that
are
on
steep
slopes
and
so
one
of
the
suggestions
that
staff
has
that
rating
and
the
size
of
units
being
limited
there,
particularly
due
to
concerns
with
landslides.
D
We've
had
those
in
the
past
in
our
hills,
so
ideas
include
limiting
development
close
to
existing
driveways,
requiring
driveways
to
be
shared,
limiting
the
size
of
units
by
potentially
prolating
them
to
the
size
of
the
new
lots.
So,
for
example,
if
the
original
lot
was
allowed,
6
500
square
feet
with
no
slow
production,
the
new
lots
would
be.
You
know,
split
in
the
same
ratio
to
allow
that
potentially
follow
the
existing.
D
Of
course,
there
are
existing
objective
standards
in
the
rhs
ordinance
related
to
grading
massing
following
contours,
reflectivity
values,
etc
and
disallowing
development
on
the
ridgeline.
So
there
are,
those
standards
could
still
be
required
and
imposed
on
espionage
projects.
D
Moving
on
to
subdivision,
we
think
that
subdivision
should
consider
different,
lock
shapes
within
the
city,
and
I
just
wanted
to
identify
how
we
look
at
lots.
We
have
the
regular
old
interior
lots,
which
is
just
any
old,
regular
rectangular
lot.
That
runs
the
street.
You
have
a
cul-de-sac
lot,
which
is
a
you
know,
pie
shape.
Essentially,
you
could
have
more
than
four
property
lines.
D
You
also
might
have
a
pie
shaped
lot,
which
isn't
necessarily
a
cul-de-sac,
but
like
a
street
corner,
and
then
you
have
a
corner
lot,
which
fronts
two
streets
and
then
you
have
flag
lots
which
essentially
look
like
a
flag
with
a
with
access
through
the
flagpole
portion
of
the
lot.
D
So
just
moving
on
to
how
subdivision
you
know
getting
council's
feedback
on
how
subdivision
should
occur,
we
do
have
strategies
in
our
general
plan
with
which
essentially
disallow
flag
lots,
except
if
they
are
the
sole
alternative
to
integrate
the
subdivision
within
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
meaning
that
if
you
don't
have
existing
clag
lots
around
you,
you
know
your.
Your
subdivision
may
not
be
in
a
flag
lot
subdivision.
You
have
to
have
side
by
side,
particularly
in
cupertino.
D
So
there's
several
several
neighborhoods
that
currently
have
almost
no
flag
lots,
and
so
the
question
really
is:
should
we
allow
narrow
lots
with
street
footage,
or
should
we
allow
flag
lots,
but
the
homes
at
the
back
would
be
completely
disconnected
from
the
street
and
the
public
realm?
So
that's
the
first
question.
The
second
question
is,
you
know:
should
we
require
shared
driveways?
D
We
do
have
policies
regarding
minimizing
the
number
and
width
of
driveway
openings
in
our
general
plan.
So
if
you
didn't
share
driveways,
you
would
have
bibles
that
sort
of
looked
like
the
pink
in
this
diagram
versus.
If
you
were
required
to
share
driveways,
you
would
potentially
have
fewer
driveways
up
front,
and
that
would
be
better
for
pedestrian
bicycle
safety
subdivision
for
flag
lots.
This
is
an
interesting
one.
You
know,
should
we
keep
the
orientation
same,
for
example,
in
an
existing
condition?
D
If
you
had
a
flag
lock
that
was
going
to
be
subdivided
your
fronts
would
the
front
for
the
flag
lot
would
front
the
rear
of
a
standard,
interior
or
corner
lock.
If
the
subdivision
occurred
to
keep
the
orientation
the
same,
you
would
have
the
same
orientation
from
for
the
front
to
rear
of
the
existing
and
the
proposed.
D
However,
if
if
we
were
to
require
the
front
of
each
of
the
two
new
lots
to
be
fronting
this,
you
know
facing
the
street
or
into
the
street,
there
would
be
less
buildable
building
pads
and
there
might
be
more
impacts
because
you're
creating
more
of
a
front
of
your
situation
in
this
case.
So
this
is
just
another
question
for
council
about
what
they
wish
to
see:
the
existing
flag,
lots
of
vision.
D
Moving
on
to
hillside
subdivision,
we
have
many
many
policies
and
goals
and
strategies
about
preservation
of
the
natural
environment
and
hillsides
there,
as
I
mentioned
before,
they're
steep
slopes,
sometimes
very
long
driveways.
You
know
questions
for
council,
including
should
we
require
a
common
driveway?
You
know
have
to
share
the
driveway
so
that
there
isn't
new
grading
and
things
like
that
for
existing
property.
D
Should
we
prorate
the
grading
quantities,
which
makes
sense
to
do
should
we
require
development
on
the
flattest
part
of
the
site?
You
know
that
is
close
to
the
driveway.
In
order
to
ensure
that
there
isn't
additional
grading
on
the
site,
should
we
so
so
those
are
the
kinds
of
things
that
they're
looking
for
feedback
from
council
on
subdivision
of
rhs
rhs
property.
D
D
The
council
could
consider,
including
this
prohibition
and
the
urgency,
ordinance
that
or
interim
ordinance
that
they
might
adopt
with
regard
to
the
approval
process,
as
mentioned
in
sb9.
This
is
a
ministerial
process.
As
long
as
people
meet
the
requirements
they
get
their
approval.
There
are
no
public
hearings
that
can
be
required.
A
question
for
council
could
be.
You
know
that
the
council
could
consider
is.
D
Does
it
wish
to
include
notification
and
when
that
notification
should
appear
should
it
occur
before
or
after
approval,
though
I
did
want
to
let
the
council
know
there
is
you
know
there
is
no
recourse
in
terms
of
the
project,
because
it
is
a
ministerial
project
and
has
to
be
under
sd9.
D
So
here
is
a
table
that
I
put
together.
That
kind
of
goes
over
what
the
process
is
for
non-sb9
projects
which
are
current
and
future
projects
and
then
sb9
projects
that
could
you
know
how
that
process
could
change
based
on
sp9,
and
I
I
put
together
the
differences,
and
so
you
know
one
of
the
main
decision
points
for
council
is
you
know
our
direction
points
is,
you
know,
does
council
wish
to
incorporate
noticing
and
when
that
notices
should
occur?
D
A
Great
thank
you
pew.
Let
me
see
if
any
members
of
the
public
want
to
speak
to
this
item
before
bringing
it
to
council,
since
we
have
the
constraint
of
a
study
session,
so
I
do
see
that
we
have
four
hands
raised:
paul
soto,
peggy,
griffin,
jennifer
griffin
and
lisa
warren,
so
members
of
the
public
you'll
each
have
up
to
three
minutes
to
speak
on
this
item.
A
C
C
So
one
of
the
issues
that
doesn't
come
up
with
respect
to
talking
about
housing,
ordinances
and
and
mandates
and
and
bills
is
the
perspective
of
redlining
and
how
the
generation
to
to
be
able
to
when
we're
looking
at
menu's
policy
that
we're
able
to
take
on
a
perspective
that
accounts
for
that
generational
impact
because
we're
feeling
it
now
we're
seeing
it
now,
we
just
don't
necessarily
have
the
language
to
articulate
it
specifically
and
clearly,
without
arousing
the
racist
intentions,
without
arousing
those
racist
tensions
that
created
those
policies
in
the
first
place.
C
And
so
I
think
that
until
we
get
to
a
point
where
we
can
start
discussing
how
those
policies
are
still
it's,
it's
a
disease,
it
has
infected
policy
and
we
don't
know
how
to
articulate
it,
because
we
don't
necessarily
know
what
we're
looking
at.
And
some
of
us
do.
This
innocently
and
naively,
but
I
would
also
venture
to
state
that
there
are
some
that
don't
do
it,
unknowingly
or
naively.
It
is
still
calculated
and
it's
embedded
in
the
policy.
C
So
unless
we
get
to
a
point
where
we
can
articulate
what
it
looks
like
and
then
see
how
our
current
policies
are
infected
with
it,
we'll
never
get
to
a
point
where
equity
actually
has
a
concrete
manifestation
versus
just
having
a
intellectual
argument
about
it
or
intellectual
debate,
and
it
being
nothing
but
abstract
thought.
Thank
you.
E
E
I
grew
up
in
a
duplex
area
where
we
had
shared
driveways
and
it
seemed
to
work
okay,
basements,
I'm
concerned.
If
you
are
so
close
to
the
fence
line
and
someone
digs
a
basement,
can
they
impact
your
land
and
cause?
E
E
So
if
you're
gonna
stack,
everybody
together,
balconies
just
add
problems,
and
this
is
a
legal
question
due
to
the
limited
amount
of
time
in
order
to
make
all
the
necessary
changes
before
january
1st
2022.
E
Should
the
city
issue
a
memorandum
of
understanding
describing
what
it
plans
to
do
regarding
making
these
changes
to
include
the
objective
standards
so
that,
if
you
can't
get
everything
done
now
that
you're
covered
I'd
like
to
hear
the
answer
to
that?
Thank
you.
F
Thank
you,
mayor
darcy.
I'm
really
glad
you
all
are
having
this
study
session
sb9,
I'm
going
to
tell
you
right
now.
I'm
I'm
just
going
to
use
these
sb9
and
sb10
are
two
of
the
biggest
baloney
bills
that
have
ever
been
made.
F
We
know
who
the
money
is
coming
from,
but
I
we
draw
the
line
when
you
exclude
the
public,
I
would
never
have
bought
my
house
if
I
had
known
that
someone
next
door
could
subdivide
the
properties
and
make
them
1200
square
feet.
I
sacrificed
to
buy
this
property
and
windy
likes
to
think
that
everybody's
making
500
000
a
year,
I'm
sorry.
I
bought
this
as
a
single
female
and
I
was
a
I
was
a
programmer.
I
was
a
tech
worker
and
it
was
not
fun,
I'm
not
driving
a
jaguar.
F
F
I
am,
I
think,
that
cupertino
should
file
a
vote
of
no
confidence
against
the
state
against
the
governor
against
our
local
legislators
who
voted
on
this
travesty.
I
spent
the
weekend
in
portland
talking
to
my
relatives,
who
are
being
subjected
to
hb
2001,
which
is
the
equivalent
of
sb9
2-4
per
lot.
F
My
relatives
are
scared
that
other
neighborhoods
are
going
to
be
cut
up
into
two
to
four.
It's
the
poorer
neighborhoods,
the
the
neighborhoods
of
portland
that
are
not
by
reed
college,
are
going
to
be
subjected
to
this.
My
other
question
is:
what
about
utilities?
My
mother's
house
on
a
1920
lot
in
aptos
has
three
has
two
sewer
lines
from
from
three
adjacent
properties
going
across
the
back
of
her
property?
How
in
the
world?
F
Do
you
subdivide
that
my
aunt
had
a
house
in
santa
cruz
mountains
and
the
back
of
the
lot
collapsed
and
almost
in
1981
and
almost
covered
the
house?
What
what
securities
do
we
have
that
we're
not
going
to
do
this?
This
is
the
most
blindly
stupid
two
bills.
In
fact,
I'm
echoing
what
one
of
the
city
council
members
in
salem
said
when
they
had
hp.
201,
these
are
the
stupidest
bills
I
have
ever
heard
of.
I
am
appalled
that
our
state
is
being
subject
to
this.
I
have
28
seconds.
Okay,
I
so
is.
F
I
live
a
quarter
mile
from
the
bus.
Stop.
Okay,
23
is
bus.
Bus,
stop
23
bus
line
23.
Is
that
a
high
frequency?
I
can't
walk
a
half
mile.
This
is
insulting
it's
offensive
and
it
makes
me
sound
like
my
great-grandparents,
who
were
irish
and
were
suffering
from
protestant
and
catholics
that
they
were
stupid
enough
to
buy
homes.
Now
this
is
where
we're
going
to
start
off
we're.
A
G
G
I
missed
something.
I
came
in
mid,
slides,
but
second
story
setbacks.
I
feel,
like
you,
they're
not
even
required
with
a
forefoot
setback
and
then
no
second
story
setback
that
that's
something
the
city
got
away
with
a
long
time
ago
for
multiple
reasons
and
actually
recently,
I've
seen
new
construction
with
no
second
story,
setbacks
on
some
planes
and
I'm
not
understanding
that
at
all
that's
a
whole
other
subject,
but
we
need
second
story
setbacks.
G
If
they
aren't
here-
and
you
can
do
that-
and
I'm
sorry
if
I
misunderstood
the
slide
privacy
plantings
once
again,
my
one
of
my
pet
peeves,
our
current
municipal
code,
is
so
poorly
designed
for
that
it
might
have
been
fine
back
in
the
day.
It's
not
fine
currently,
and
it
certainly
won't
be
fine
with
these
kind
of
development,
and
I
wonder
about
solar
protection,
which
is
another
reason
for
I
don't
know.
If
you
can
just
not
allow
a
second
story,
I
don't
know
what
it
is,
but
solar
protection
is
going
to
be
a
huge
problem.
G
G
I
don't
know
what
the
first
few
slides
addressed
and
I
will
try
to
go
back
and
look
at
them
myself,
but
if
they're
talked
about
again
later,
that
would
be
great
and
thank
you
very
much.
A
Thanks
lisa:
well,
thank
you
for
all
the
comments
from
the
public.
Let's
bring
this
back
to
city
council
for
any
follow-ups,
questions
or
discussion.
The
request
from
city
staff
in
bringing
forward
this
study
session
is
to
have
council
provide
direction
for
next
steps
and
so
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
with
any
raised
hands
from
our
city
council.
First,
we
have
council
member.
H
Yeah
thanks
mayor,
so
are
we
limited
to
the
five
minutes.
A
Well,
let's
take
a
look
at
where
we're
at
we're
at
six
minutes.
Thank
you
for
reminding
me
about
the
time.
Let's
go
ahead
and
do
that
we'll
allocate
five
minutes
for
each
of
the
council
members.
H
H
D
So
I
can
try
to
explain
and
then
really
crisp
and
help
with
the
legal
limitations
that
the
council
might
have
on
floor
area.
There
are
certain
lots
in
there
are
certain
lots
that
might
be
smaller
than,
for
example,
five
thousand
square
feet,
and
if
those
are
subdivided
to
2500
square
feet,
then
allowing
sixteen
hundred
square
foot
on
it
as
a
minimum,
because
we
have
to
allow
that
per
state
law.
The
far
would
be
greater
than
forty
five
percent
right.
D
So
forty
five
percent
of
twenty
five
hundred
is
certainly
smaller
than
sixteen
hundred.
For
example,.
H
H
D
Right,
so
if
if
the
city
did
not
adopt
objective
standards
and
if
we
had
to
apply
the
state
standards
on
subdivision,
which
is
there
are
no
standards,
you
could
subdivide
any
way
you
wish
and
if
somebody
subdivided
it
and
only
wished
to,
but
just
wanted
to
subdivide
it.
They
could
only
disturb
up
to
25
of
the
existing
walls
of
the
structure.
H
Yeah,
I
think
that's
really
confusing.
I
don't
think
we
have
time
for
you
to
explain
it
to
me,
but
I
think
we
do
need
some
real
good
clarification
on
that.
The
parking
and
it
sounds
like
we're
late
able
to
say
we
can
stick
to
the
current
standard
in
cupertino.
Somebody
builds
a
brand
new
house
in
cupertino.
They
have
to
have
a
two-car
enclosed
garage.
Is
that
not
correct.
H
H
Each
of
those
substructures
would
need,
should,
I
think,
have
to
have
a
one
car
covered
cardboard
or
covered
garage
that
essentially
would
keep
the
character
of
the
the
community,
as
opposed
to
let's
say
for
plexi.
It's
all
just
a
a
top
on
top
of
the
exposed,
automobiles,
totally
different
character
than
you
know,
a
neighborhood
I'll
go
I'll,
go
ahead
and
pass
at
this
time,
but
boy
those
are
some
pretty
pretty
glaring
things
that
have
to
be
detailed.
Okay,
thank
you.
I
So
first
procedural
question
on
one
public
comment
mentioned
the
memorandum
of
understanding.
My
understanding
is,
we
are
planning
to
pass
an
urgency
ordinance.
Instead,
I
spoke
to
chris
and
he
said
that
this
is
actually
a
stronger
method
to
regulate
rather
than
memorandum
of
understanding.
I
So
I'd
like
a
confirmation
on
that
and
then
in
addition
also
in
case
we
say
we
permit
flag
lot
in
the
in
the
or
we
we
say-
or
we
didn't
say
anything
on
the
flag
dog,
but
we
change
our
mind
next
year.
Can
we
still
adopt
another
ordinance
to
say?
Okay,
we
would
like
to
disallow
flag
lot
or
allow.
I
don't
know
so
what
would
be
the
procedure?
So
maybe
I
understand
that
say
a
new
one.
Maybe
it's
adopted
next
junk.
Maybe
it
would
be
applicable
only
for
projects
proposed
after
that.
Thank
you.
D
J
Yeah,
sorry,
I
tried
and
of
course
I
was
muted,
so
so
yes,
so
so,
just
on
the
second
question,
taking
the
second
question:
first,
yes,
we
could.
We
could
change
the
bot
standards
subject
to
constraints
on
reducing
density
which
we'd
have
to
avoid.
With
respect
to
the
first
question,
you
know
the
mou,
an
mou
would
not
be
an
ordinance,
so
you
know
there
is
an
argument
that
it
doesn't
necessarily
carry
the
force
of
law.
The
urgency
ordinance
would
carry
the
force
of
law
and
adopt
enforceable
objective
development
standards.
J
I
J
Initially
takes
is
45
days
and
then
can
be
extended
up
to
a
year.
So
that
would
give
us.
You
know
really
the
entirety
of
next
year
to
go
back
through
the
full
process,
get
planning
commission
input
and
adopt
and
council
input
and
adopt
a
permanent
ordinance,
and
so.
I
That's
the
intent,
oh
that's
great,
because
for
issues
like
flat
blot,
I'm
not
sure,
I'm
like.
I
don't
think
that
that
might
be
an
issue,
but
when
talking
to
planning
staff
that
some
residents
might
just
not
like
that
kind
of
layout,
so
maybe
we
need
more
input
from
people.
That's
good
to
no
way
could
still
get
more
public
input
next
year
and
then
for
sure.
I
think
the
intent
is.
I
If
I
would
like
to
say
maybe
for
a
streamlining
project,
we
want
to
have
tighter
standards
on
issues
where
that
that
might
have
have
concerns
like
balcony
basement,
because
there
might
be
subterranean
issues
that
a
streamlining
process
might
not
be
able
to
take
care
of
so
but
then,
on
the
other
hand,
I
do
think
duplex,
even
even
last
split,
preferably
duplex
is
a
good
way
to
add
unit
cool
in
cupertino
that
has
minimal
impact
on
on
the
on
the
outlook
of
the
community.
I
I
Yeah,
okay,
okay,
so.
K
Okay,
thank
you
mayor
paul,
so
my
question
is:
we
could
adopt
emergency
ordinance
and
then
work
on
the
next
year.
So,
if
we
say
restricted,
say
no
black
lock,
but
to
have
that
sort
of
prevents
a
lot
from
being
split,
because
the
front
is
narrow,
then
that
that's
that
doesn't
apply
or
is
invalid.
How
how
do
we
interpret
that.
J
Yeah,
so
so
we
can,
we,
we
can't
adopt
standards
that
have
the
effect
of
precluding
a
you
know,
a
subdivision
or
a
development
under
this
chapter,
so
you
know
so
we
would
have
to
have
a
process
for
resolving
conflicts,
and
you
know
there's
certain
lots
that
may
be
very
narrow
and
so
difficult
to
split
lengthwise,
and
so
that's
something
that
I
think
we're
thinking
about
and
we
need
to
address
in
the
objective
standards.
K
Mr
mayor,
sorry,
can
I
follow
up
with
a
question
so
so
does
it
mean
that
even
we
adopt
a
strict
or
say
an
ordinance,
but
because
of
a
lot,
that's
cannot
confront
to
it.
If
conformance
to
it,
they
cannot
even
split.
It,
then,
is
that
a
special
case
they
can
appear
or
the
planning
division
can
have
authorization
to
you
know,
streamline
and
and
subdivide
it
to
a
flat
law.
How
does
that
work.
J
You
know,
and
and
and
basically
you
have
to
allow
a
subdivision
so
long
as
both
of
the
parcels
are
1200
square
feet
or
more
and
there's
certain
restrictions
on
the
relative
size.
They
have
to
be
roughly
evil
equal
size
and
there
are
other
restrictions
as
well,
and
then
you
have
that
then.
As
far
as
the
development
you
have
to
allow
two
800
square
feet:
foot
units
on
each
of
those
parcels,
and
so
we
we,
we
can't
adopt
objective
standards
that
conflict.
J
Minimum
requirements,
and
so
we're
going
to
try
to
develop
objective
standards
that
in
all,
or
at
least
the
vast
majority
of
cases,
will
allow
that
minimum
development
to
take
place
and
and
then
you
know,
if,
if
there's
sufficient
size
about
development,
really
up
to
the
to
basically
the
footprint
the
size,
at
least
the
size
of
the
footprint
that's
allowed
under
existing
zoning
standards.
So
this
that
that
that
is
what
staff
is
proposing
for
council's
input.
J
Were
a
conflict
between
those
standards
and
state
law,
state
law
would
prevail
so
we're
trying
to
avoid
that
conflict
by
carefully
developing
our
own
local
objective
standards.
A
L
Thank
you,
mayor
paul,
so
I'm
a
little
confused
about
what
we
need
to
direct
staff
for
the
december
urgency.
Ordinance,
for
instance,
are
you
looking
for
us
to
say
that
we
want
to
adopt
objective
privacy
standards,
opaque
unopenable
windows,
sill
height,
greater
than
five
feet?
Do
we
want
to
disallow
balconies
require
parking
to
be
an
enclosed
space
and
disallow
basements?
Are
you
looking
for
those
types
that
that
kind
of
direction?
Okay,
so,
and
we're
not
gonna
get
a
second
chance
at
this
before
the
december
meeting.
L
Is
that
right,
because
it
would
have
been
a
little
bit
easier
for
me
kind
of
menu
style
if
we
had
a
table
for
each
one
of
these
requirements
so
for
for
balcony
it
was
like
you
can.
Have
it
be
this?
These
are
your
different
ways
that
you
could
run
it
through,
but
for
for
me,
when
I
go
through
the
list,
I'm
just
more
inclined
to
go
since
we're
going
to
go.
L
Look
at
this
again:
let's
go
as
strict
as
possible
at
the
first
get
go
because
that's
the
easiest
way
for
me
to
for
me
to
think
it
through,
and
then
we
can
go
back
and
loosen
up
those
standards.
As
we
see,
and
I
don't
think
with
the
amount
of
time
we
have
30
more
minutes,
I
can't
come
up
with
any
kind
of
design
standards.
You
know
the
six
inch,
siding
or
or
stucco
or
three
inch
window
framing.
L
I
I
can't
get
that
that
detailed,
it's
just
not
going
to
happen,
so
that
would
be
something
would
probably
have
to
go
into
into
next
year.
L
There
was
one
bit
of
information
I
would
love
to
have,
and
this
is
from
the
turner
center
and
they
studied
sb9
and
said
there
were
40
000
market
feasible
units
from
sb9
for
santa
clara
county.
I
would
like
to
know
what
percentage
of
those
or
what
number
they
were
thinking
would
happen
within
cupertino.
If
someone
on
staff
is
able
to,
you
know
get
that
information,
I
hunt
it
all
over,
for
it
couldn't
find
it.
L
So
the
the
the
suggestions
that
I
just
made-
those
are
those
are
what
I
would
like
to
see
go
into
that
urgency
ordinance
and
there
might
be
some
more
in
the
list
that
we
could
add
on,
but
that's
mine
for
now.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
councilmember
moore
you're,
at
about
three
minutes
a
little
bit
less
and
vice
versa.
Your
hand
is
raised
again.
You
only
have
about
20
seconds
remaining
I'll
seat
over
a
couple
of
minutes
of
my
time,
if
you
wanted
to
make
some
follow-ups
at
this
point.
Thank
you.
I
So
much
so
I'm
guessing
we,
the
staff
needs
some
direction.
For
example,
do
we
want
to
allow
or
disallow
adujo
on
the
sb90
project
and
some
big
items
like
those?
Maybe
we
should
at
least
give
direction
and
another
a
comment
is
shared
driveways.
I
think
it's
nice
to
be
able
to
divide
divide
evenly.
However,
if
you
having
separate
driveways
would
take
out,
take,
wouldn't
would
not
allow
a
space
of
parking
on
street
then
maybe
we
should
encourage
shared
driveway,
because
we
want
to
preserve
as
much
on-street
parking
as
possible,
because
we
know
that
speed.
I
J
We
could
we
could
definitely
include
objective
standards
that
it,
you
know,
required
shared
driver
driveways
in
in
circumstances
where
it's
appropriate.
For
example,
if
there
are
narrow
lots.
A
Thank
you,
okay,
great
thank
you
vice
mayor
chow
and
then
I
just
see
hands
raised
again
from
councilmember
smore
way
and
willie,
and
so
let's
go
in
that
order.
I
believe
that
was
the
order
in
which
the
hands
were
raised.
Councilmember
moore,
as
I
stated
before,
you
have
a
little
less
than
three
minutes
left.
L
Okay,
mayor
paul,
this
is
kind
of
a
process
question.
How
are
we
going
to
come
to
an
agreement
about
what
we
want
to
go
have
go
into
this
ordinance,
the
urgency
ordinance
and
I'm?
L
I
am
agreeing
with
the
vice
mayor
if,
if
I'm
understanding
correctly-
and
I
would
for
the
time
being
like
to
see
a
prohibition
on
the
adus
and
jadu's
at
this
time,
so
I
I
don't
know
what
we
could
add
in
regarding
the
driveway,
I
guess
we
could
require
a
common
driveway
as
a
suggestion
for
it,
but
I
can't
I
I
can't
get
detailed
enough
at
this
point.
It's
just
it's
too
much
too
too
fast.
But
what's
your
suggestions
for
how
we
proceed
to
get
to
a
agreement
between
the
five
of
us.
A
Yeah,
let
me
let
me
stop
your
time
and
just
start
mine
back
up
since
I
I
think
that
nicely
segues
into
a
comment
that
I
was
going
to
make
you
know.
I
was
sitting
in
on
a
west
valley,
mayors
and
managers
meeting
with
dave,
cortese,
senator
dave,
cortese
representing
us,
and
the
some
of
the
other
west
valley
jurisdictions.
A
A
Mayor
gibbons
from
campbell,
you
know
mentioned
that
their
experience
thus
far
had
been.
They
had
started
looking
at
it
and
almost
before.
In
fact,
they
started
the
meeting.
They
had
gotten
threatened
with
litigation
from
an
outside
nonprofit
organization,
and
so
I
think
that
if
there
is
that
kind
of
a
sense
of
it
from
our
state
senator
that
our
staff
should
work
with
senator
cortese's
office
to
find
out
where
that
discretion
is.
A
The
comment
that
I
made
in
that
meeting
was
you
know,
because
senator
cortez
invited
comments
as
to
what
else
we
needed
collectively
from
the
west
valley.
Mayors
and
I
said,
look
I
I
think
there
are
three
things
that
we
need
and
this
wasn't
you
know
specific
to
various
objective
standards,
but
you
know,
I
think,
very
pertinent.
You
know
and
we
need
to
end
the
posturing.
A
Okay,
we
need
to
eliminate
the
litigation,
as
an
extension
of
you
know,
eliminating
the
posture,
posturing
and
then
we
also
need
to
try
to
end
the
profiteering
at
the
end
of
the
day
I
mean
because
a
lot
of
this
is
is
being
driven
by
factors
that
are
not
really
geared
towards
trying
to
sell
solve
the
problems
that
they're
puttingly
trying
to
solve.
A
So
you
know,
I
think,
if
we
can
do
those
things
and
we
can
work
with
our
state
senate's
office,
because
you
know
the
senator
has
expressed
you
know
willingness
to
to
work
with
us
and
the
opinion
that
we
have
a
broad
range
of
latitude.
Then
I
think
we
should.
I
would
suggest
in
answering
your
questions
squarely
councilmember
moore,
that
we
go
ahead
and
take
all
of
the
suggestions.
You
know
consolidated
from
all
of
the
council
members
here
this
evening
and
ask
staff
to
follow
up
on
those.
A
You
know,
to
the
extent
that
we
can
object
objectively,
add
requirements
there
within
what
staff
believes,
and
our
city
attorney
of
course
believes
is
within
our
allowance
and
also
work
with
the
senator's
office
to
you
know
see
what
other
types
of
requirements
we
can
be
putting
in
there
without
going
into
you
know.
Derogation
of
you
know
what
what
the
state
legislature
is
contemplating.
So
you
know
I.
I
think
that
that
should
be
sufficient
direction
to
staff.
A
I've
heard
a
number
of
suggestions
from
you
know
council
tonight,
but
I
also
think
that
our
staff
has
followed
homework
to
do
as
well.
My
my
understanding
is
that
our
city
council
is
being
fairly.
You
know
careful
about
this.
Not
all
councils
are
looking
at
this
and
going
hey.
You
know
this
is
a
you
know
massive
sea
change,
but,
as
you
know,
we
go
in
our
city,
we're
very
we're
very
careful.
We
have.
You
know
excellent
long-term
results.
A
I
think
the
points
that
we
bring
up
are
legitimate,
and
so
you
know
I
I
feel
I
feel
okay
with
this
exercise.
I
would
prefer
to
have
not
done
this
as
an
emergency
ordinance,
but
I
mean,
I
think
doing
it.
A
You
know
the
regular
fashion
was
really
a
bit
of
a
constrained
timetable
that
was
really
imposed
upon
us
by
you
know
a
a
fairly
you
know,
accelerated
timetable,
which
you
know
frankly
might
not
even
turn
out
to
be
all
that
useful
with
regard
to
getting
all
of
this
implemented
as
well.
So
those
are
my
comments
on
it
that
pretty
much
expires.
A
My
time,
I
had
seated
over
a
minute
of
my
time
to
vice
versa
as
well,
so
council,
member
moore,
did
you
want
to
follow
up
on
that?
Otherwise,
if
not,
I
will
go
ahead
and
call
on
council
member
way
and
then
council,
member
willie.
L
Okay,
well,
if
you
had
more
to
say
I'll
I'll,
see
you
the
two
minutes,
but
I've
I've
already
quickly
stated
as
much
as
I
could
come
up
with.
L
I
am
a
little
bit
concerned
about
the
lack
of
permeable
surfaces
with
regards
to
groundwater
recharge
and
what
impact
this
is
going
to
have,
and-
and
I
don't
I
don't
want
to
see-
that
we
have
the
the
lots-
are
pretty
much
completely
covered
over
and
and
then
there's
pavement
or
concrete,
put
on
the
surf
on
surfaces
and
a
concrete
driveway
and
at
the
end
of
the
the
project,
you
don't
have
any
actual
pervious
areas.
L
A
Well,
I
I
would
just
invite
you
the
second
emotion
that
I'll
bring
forward
after
everyone
has
brought
forward
their
substantive
comments
with
regard
to
what
they
would
like
staff
to
look
into,
or
you
know
potentially
add
to
the
requirements
here
under
the
allowances
that
sb9
writes
into
you
know
the
law
itself.
A
You
know
I'm
of
the
opinion
that
if
the
state
legislature
invites
us
to
work
with
them
that
we
should
be
working
with
them
and
that
we
shouldn't
be,
you
know
banding
about
in
fear
that
our
legitimate
points
are
are
being
you
know,
punted
around
by
you
know
what
essentially
amounts
to
profit
mongering
trickled
down
to
the
effect
of
basically
upending
the
democratic
process.
I
you
know.
I
think
these
are
very
legitimate
concerns
that
we're
putting
forward-
and
you
know,
I
think
everyone
knows
the
political
line
by
which
this
occurred.
A
You
know
there
was.
There
was
an
effort
to
bring
more
inventory
into
california
for
housing.
You
know
deriving
from
the
brown
administration
gubernatorially
and
you
know
I
see
this
basically
as
the
ultimate
extension
of
that,
but
I
think
that
you
know
the
state
lawmakers,
or
at
least
the
ones
that
represent
us,
you
know
are-
are
willing
to
work
with
us
in
terms
of
trying
to
represent
our
interests.
A
I
have
no
reason
to
think,
and
you
know
greg
correct
me
if
you
got
the
different
impression,
but
I
have
no
reason
to
think
that
our
state,
lawmakers
and
representatives
are
are
trying
to
play
a
game
of
gotcha
with
us,
and
you
know
I
directly
asked
hey.
You
know.
If
we're
trying
to
have
a
reasonable
conversation,
it
is
actually
quite
unreasonable
to
you
know,
take
people
that
are
having
a
good
faith
conversation
about
their
jurisdiction
and
trying
to
you
know,
enhance
the
implement
the
implementability
of
these
requirements.
A
Sorry
councilmember,
I
used
all
your
time,
so
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
call
on
councilmember
way,
followed
by
council
member
wooley,
a
councilman.
You
have
approximately
a
couple
of
minutes
left
really
you're
right
at
one
minute
got.
K
It
this
be
quick,
so
mayor
paul,
I
agree
with
you.
I
think
we're
not
the
only
city
who
is
looking
at
sb9,
so
maybe
we
could
really
collaborate
under.
You
know
our
state
representative
and
work
on
this
together
with
the
other
cities,
so
that
we
are
not
the
only
ones
who
are
studying
this.
That's
my
first
comment.
My
second
comment
is
I
I
I
think
the
most
strict
ones
may
not
be
the
most
beneficial
ones.
K
For
example,
we
can
say
everybody
has
shared
driveways,
but
driveway
is
a
great
place
to
park
cars,
so
that
would
minimize
the
street
parking.
So
I
think
our
staff
is
experienced.
Maybe
they
could
come
up
with
options
or
standards
that
could
fit
into
different
log
sites,
or
things
like
that
you
know,
building
is
not
one.
Size
fits
all,
so
I'm
gonna
trust
the
staff
to
provide
us
with
good.
I
K
On
how
do
we
implement
these
objective
standards.
H
So
gotta
rush
here,
so
I'd
really
like
to
have
staff
or
city
attorney,
tell
us
what
we
can
do
about
the
three-year
occupancy
requirement.
H
I
feel
that's
going
to
be
a
big
way
for
developers
to
manipulate
the
system
and
not
occupy
number
two,
a
little
concerned
about
the
four
foot
setbacks.
You
know:
families
they
have
kids,
we
want
them
to
be
safe,
go
play
in
the
backyard.
It
sounds
like
on
the
adjacent
property.
The
structure
can
be
four
feet
and
straight
up
two
stories
overlooking
their
kids
playing
in
the
yard.
I'd
like
clarification
on
that
number
three.
H
A
H
You
know
available
to
senator
cortesey,
so
he
can
see
that
we're
trying
to
facilitate,
but
also
to
protect
the
the
neighborhoods
to
some
degree,
and
I
think
we
do
need
to
work
with
him
and
then
the
last
one
will
be
my
previous
questions,
including
the
four
foot,
one
I'd
really
like
staff
to
get
back
to
me
on
the
true
understanding
of
those
questions.
You
know
the
25
percent
structure
disruption
and
those
other
questions.
I
I
I
don't
think
I
can
make
a
decision
without
knowing
that
and
that's
that's
it
for
tonight.
Thank
you.
A
L
Do
want
to
second
it,
and
I
do
second
it,
but
I
I
am
wondering
if
I
I
don't
recall,
hearing
a
mention
about
these,
the
sloped
lots.
L
L
A
D
A
Great
that
sounds
great
and
anything
else
either
from
our
city,
manager
or
city
attorney.
At
this
time
no
mayor,
thank
you,
okay,
great,
madam
city
clerk.
Would
you
please
conduct
a
roll
call
vote
for
the
motion?
That's
on
the
table.
A
Okay,
we're
at
6
31.
That
was
the
study
session,
for
I
should
correct
myself
when
I
was
going
off
of
my
memory
and,
admittedly
a
perilous
endeavor.
I
called
this
the
regular
meeting
that
that
was
in
fact
a
special
meeting
of
the
city
council
for
november
2nd.
We
will
adjourn
this
this
special
meeting
until
6
45,
at
which
time
our
regular
meeting
will
start
for
november,
2nd
2021.