►
Description
Coverage of the Joint Planning Commission/Housing Commission meeting of Tuesday, July 5, 2022 (Part 2 of 3)
B
C
C
E
A
C
A
F
All
right
really
quick,
so
curious
if
three
of
the
sites
are
valley,
church-owned
properties
with
underutilized
land
or
tennis
courts
would
have
you
curious
if
they've
expressed
an
interest.
Secondly,
the
homestead
shopping
center
is
made
up
of
all
different
owners
with
an
underlying
set
of
ccnrs
that
I
believe,
prohibit
development.
F
That's
why
you've
seen
groups
like
swenson
that
own
the
own,
the
bowling
alley
that
that
has
not
redeveloped
because
of
ccnr
issues
and
then,
lastly,
I'd
just
like
to
say
pew
and
luke
outstanding
job
tonight,
luke's
calculator
skills
on
the
fly
are
very
good.
You
guys
are
in
a
tough
position
of
answering
questions
on
the
fly.
You've
done
a
great
job.
Thank
you
very
much
great.
A
G
A
G
F
B
H
Thank
you,
church
sharp
yeah.
My
comment
about
yeah,
the
church.
You
know
I
who
knows,
but
the
homestead
shopping
center-
that
one
has
come
up.
You
know
a
lot
in
the
last
20
years.
I
think
there
are
three
separate
owners
in
there.
Four,
if
you
count
the
mcdonald's
and
their
reciprocal
parking
lot
agreements
in
there,
so
that
one
is
going
to
be
a
real
kettle
of
fish.
The
bowling
alleys
just
sat
there
for
years
nobody's
taking
care
of
it.
H
Parking
lot
looks
like
a
mess
and
it
it's
just
then
again
remember
this
is
the
gateway
to
cupertino.
We,
that
intersection
is
very,
very
busy.
You
have
homestead
down
the
road.
I
you
know
I
went
to
homestead.
I
know
this
area
very
very
well,
and
you've
got
sunnyvale
across
the
street
with
a
gigantic
park.
H
You
know
shopping
center
there
that
could
redevelop.
Also,
I'm
going
to
just
make
a
comment
as
we're
up
zoning
stuff.
We
need
to
keep
take
a
look
at
the
developers
that
come
in
right
away
to
buy
these
properties
to
find
out.
If
some
of
the
southern
california
big
development
groups
are
going
to
be
moving
in
and
I'm
going
to
say
stuff,
that's
attached
to
transform
san
diego
and
abundant
housing
l.a,
I
predict
they're
going
to
be
up
here,
a1
ready
to
buy
and
develop.
Thank
you.
I
Just
a
quick
reminder:
if
this
these
two
corners
get
developed,
please
find
policies
and
controls
to
maintain
some
retail.
These
people,
if
it
becomes
very
dense,
you've,
already
got
markham
and
the
sunnyvale
apartments
across
the
street
they're
going
to
need
retail,
and
it's
not
just
the
sunnyvale
provided
retail.
So
thank.
J
A
A
Okay,
let's
see,
if
we
have
any
comments,
does
anybody
wish
to
speak
on
this
before
we
entertain
a
motion,
and
I
would
point
out,
I
believe,
the
the
homestead
lanes
property
that
is
was
up.
I
forget
how
they
labeled
it
on
the
fifth
cycle.
That
was
one
of
the
sites
for
like
plan
b.
Is
that
correct?
You.
K
Thanks
a
lot,
I
think
my
my
big
concern
here
is
just
the
loss
of
massive
retail
here.
I
think
one
of
the
reason
that
retail
does
fail,
especially
the
restaurants,
are
every
time
we,
you
know,
put
a
new
development.
The
rents
go
up
to
a
point
where
the
cost
per
square
feet
doesn't
work.
These
old
shopping
centers
are
awesome
because
the
rents
are
pretty
low
and
and
and
they
you
know
they
get
they
get
to
actually
like
operate
or
try
to
experiment.
K
I'm
not
sure
how
we
recreate
that,
but
I
think
that
may
be
the
issue
as
we
get
to
mixed
development
and
mixed
use.
I've
seen
probably
100
articles
on
mixed
use
that
keeps
showing
that
developers
hate
it.
Nobody
uses
it.
No
retailers
want
to
move
into
that
space,
and
it's
really
the
economics
don't
work
out.
So
I'm
not
sure
what
we
can
do
to
improve
those
economics,
but
just
something
to
consider.
A
K
A
A
A
A
L
A
A
A
L
D
N
N
Yeah
yeah
yeah,
so
there
is
some.
I
I
think
that
the
housing
in
this
location,
I
think,
would
be.
I
I
think
it's
a
great
idea.
I
I
was
concerned
with
the
housing,
that's
on
the
side
of
the
bowling
lanes,
but
because
of
the
way
they're
configured,
I
don't
think
we
can
do
what
we
did
before,
because
they're
surrounded
by
or
at
least
on
two
sides
of
it.
So
it's
either.
O
O
Okay,
that's
good
yeah.
I
just
wanted
to
check
for
the
easement
yeah
no
problem.
The
other
thing
is
that,
because,
if
you're
going
to
change
this
tennis
courts,
I
believe
they
are
tennis
courts,
that's
what
it
looks
like.
If
there's
going
to
be
upzoning
of
this,
then
I
think
the
issue
would
be
that
to
make
sure
that
there's
sufficient
isolation
with
the
transformer
area-
I
don't
know
how
that
that's
done,
but
anyway,
so
other
than
that.
The
the
I
don't
have
any
specific
questions.
K
A
N
L
B
A
E
E
A
A
H
Griffin
number
one:
yes,
thank
you,
chair
shark.
You
know
I
just
had
a
comment
about
the
two
of
them.
I
understand
the
the
one
that
had
burned
down,
which
was
a
car
repair
place
that
might
be
a
good
site,
I'm
not
sure
what
the
height
is
there,
because
you
do
have
homes
behind
it,
which
I'm
not
sure
if
they're,
sunnyvale
or
cupertino,
the
other
site,
which
was
on
homestead
19a,
which
I
remember
is
the
one
that
came
up.
H
They
wanted
to
split
the
lot
and
put
in
adus
and
all
sorts
of
stuff,
I'm
just
wondering
what
height
they
could
go
to
there,
because
there
is
residential
around
it
and
I'm
I'm
a
little
bit
nervous
about
having
housing
element
sites
next
to
existing
homes.
That
area
along
south
danza
boulevard.
They
just
nailed
the
neighborhood.
My
husband
grew
up
in
which
is
back
there
by
blue
hills.
In
fact,
you
guys
have
just
up
zoned
his
old
dental,
his
medical
offices
down
there
that
building.
H
So
I
I'm
just
wondering
if
any
of
those
people
back
there
know
that
they
just
got
creamed
and
that
that
there's
going
to
be
high
density
housing
right
outside
of
the
back
of
it.
This
is
the
part
I'm
worried
about,
so
please
let
those
people
know
and
send
in
across
the
street
in
sunnyvale
that
this
is
what's
happening
so
that
they
can
go
and
complain
to
their
city
council
members
about
it.
Thank
you.
I
I
G
G
The
one
site
is
at
a
cross
section
of
the
two
major
good
two
major
streets,
homestead
and
de
anza,
and
the
other
one
is
more
set
in
a
residential
area.
So
the
density
recommended,
I
think,
pew
had
just
mentioned.
One
is
15
the
one
that's
grouped
in
there
with
the
homes
and
the
other
one
is
50
because
of
its
location.
It
would
have
less
of
an
impact
on
a
single
family.
F
F
The
other
thing
is
is
there's
been
a
lot
of
comment
about
proximity
to
single
family
homes,
and
maybe
this
is
a
question.
Pew
would
have
a
a
take
on
or
luke,
but
why
doesn't
the
city
just
do
what
other
cities
like
san
jose
does
and
say?
Look
if
you're
in
the
proximity
of
a
single
family,
home
institute
the
45
degree
plane
where
the
property
next
door
cannot
breach
that
45
degree
plane
from
the
other
property
line.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
E
We
already
have
those
policies
in
some
areas.
It's
a
two
to
one
in
some
areas.
It's
a
one
and
a
half
to
one
which
is
actually
better
than
a
45.
45
degrees
is
a
one
to
one
and
so
it's
but
and
we're
not
saying
that
those
policies
will
not
be
adopted.
All
we're
just
stating,
as
a
matter
of
fact,
is
that
they
can
be
encroached
upon
with
a
density
bonus.
Flavor,
that's
a
possibility.
A
D
A
A
E
A
E
So
so
I
guess
there's
the
trade-off
that
you
have
to
look
at.
You
know
what
is
this,
what
can
be
developed
here
and
what
can
it
be
developed
for
the
higher
density
will
allow.
You
know,
maybe
an
affordable
housing
developer
the
opportunity
to
purchase
that
site
and
develop
it
at
a
higher
density,
but
again
that
that's.
A
A
J
I
understand
scott
connolly's
question
and
he
knows
a
lot
about
all
of
this,
as
does
pew,
but
you
know
we
do
need
sites
that,
if
they're
in
the
right
location
and
not
going
to
be-
I
I
don't
know
what
the
adjective
I'm
looking
for
is
but
they're
in
a
good
location
for
a
higher
density.
We
that
is
a
place
for
what's
right
by
the
grocery
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
They
there's
services
for
people
of
low-income
who
may
want
to
walk
across
the
street.
A
K
D
E
A
E
Can
give
you
about?
It
was
not
an
application.
They
had
applied
for
a
general
plan,
amendment
authorization,
so
the
city
had
authorized
them
to
apply
for
a
general
plan
amendment.
However,
that
never
happened,
so
I
don't
believe
they
can
come
back
with
that
particular
authorization
they'd
have
to
go
through
the
process.
Again,
you
know.
D
D
O
Yeah
yeah,
if
it's
possible
to
zoom
assume
out
a
little
bit
so
that
we
can
understand
the
approximate
the
we
are
there.
So
I
think
I
kind
of
tried
I
and
I
agree
with
what
muni
just
expressed.
So
I'm
presuming
that
there
is
an
access
to
1919b
from
from
the
left
side
is,
is
my
understanding
correct?
No,
is
it
only
right
side
or
left
side.
E
O
O
E
A
L
L
E
L
A
N
G
L
G
C
G
Okay,
if
I
could
add
something
at
actually
information,
we
received
the
end
of
last
week
from
the
property
owner
on
monamis,
monte,
vista
village,
the
21a
and
21c,
the
olive
avenue
and
pasadena
avenue
properties
yeah
actually
had
more
existing
units
than
we
were
aware
of.
So
the
olive
avenue
site
instead
of
having
three
units,
has
five
existing
units.
A
H
C
H
Not
the
pg
e
sub
yard.
Okay,
we
tried
to
subdivide
that
years
ago
it
didn't
work.
You
know
the
two
sites
that
you
guys
just
said
had
more.
I
I
still
can't
see
them
in
here
that
had
had
more
units
than
you
thought.
What
were
those
were?
They
multi
were
they
single-family
homes
that
got
developed
and
split
like
about
10
to
14
years
ago.
H
We
had
a
lot
of
lot
splits
and
redevelopment
in
that
area
years
ago,
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
those
are
like
some
of
those
flag,
lots
and
things
that
had
multi-family
housing
built
on
them.
Why
were
they
even
suggested
in
the
beginning?
And
how
large
are
those
lots?
Are
they
are
they
in
single
family
home
areas?
E
E
E
A
J
A
E
E
I
B
B
A
B
O
If
there
is
no
issue
of
displacement,
then
I
think
we
should
consider
the
opposite
b
21b.
So
I
think
we
should
consider
that
because
it
might
be
possible
to
put
some
kind
of
units
which
are
larger
than
the
number
of
units
currently
there,
but
it
depends
on
whether
there's
a
displacement
or,
if
there's
displacement.
G
G
E
A
A
G
B
C
A
A
H
H
H
A
L
I
didn't
have
any
questions
about
it,
but
one
of
the
things
that
I
had
brought
up
at
the
last
meeting
was
how
concerned
I
was
about
displacement
and
we
did
hear
from
a
number
of
people
how
concerned
they
were
with
this
placement
and
excuse
me,
and
then
there
was
the
east
versus
west
divide
and
all
that
and-
and
I
had
an
idea
this
morning,
because
apple
as
a
matter
of
fact,
if
you
were
to
make
that
bigger.
This
is
all
bub
road
stuff
is
how
it
segues
in.
L
That
would
add
a
buffer,
especially
if
we,
if,
for
some
reason,
hamptons,
doesn't
build,
and
what
I
thought
was
very
interesting
is
that
somebody
had
said
is
that
these
are
all
leased
by
apple,
which
means
there's
a
property
owner
of
some
sort.
So
if
you
were
to,
if
apple
were
to
be
interested
in
the
fact
that
maybe
all
of
their
employees
are
no
longer
wanting
to
work
away
from
home
and
they
really
need
to
reduce
their
stock,
I
mean
their
office
space.
L
They
could
take
this
one
piece
and
just
take
those
people.
They'd
still
have
all
the
ones
on
the
other
side
and
they'd
still
have
all
the
ones
over
on
a
results
drive.
But
this
one
piece
here
then
could
be
made
into
a
nice
big
piece
of
homes
on
the
the
west
side.
So
I
wanted
to
raise
that
because
it
seems
to
me
that
there
is
some
possibility
that
apple
might
be
interested
in
that
and
that
the
property
owners,
if
apple,
were
not
going
to
be
leasing.
L
A
A
L
L
All
kinds
of
things
go
on
behind
the
scenes
and
build
building.
Excuse
me
in
businesses
and
apple
and
other
businesses
like
cisco
and
google,
have
also
been
offering
billions
of
dollars
to
help
with
homelessness
in
that.
So
there
is
a
certain
amount
of
of
prestige,
also
that
could
be
obtained
by
apple
by
helping
solve
a
serious
housing
issue
that
we
have
here
in
cupertino.
K
Actually,
this
is
one
of
the
few
areas
in
the
city
where
actually
it
would
support
higher
density
and
up
zoning.
I
think
we
can
do
a
lot
more
with
that
property,
even
when
it's
next
to
commercial
and
it's
on
the
other
side
of
85.,
I'm
not
sure
what
the
right
way
to
do
that
or
how
other
commissioners
feel
on
this.
But
but
I
think
it's
definitely
a
good
place
to
add
some
density.
K
D
G
D
A
G
A
yeah,
I
would
just
to
finish,
I
think,
if
the
commission
is
interested
in
higher
density,
despite
the
small
site,
given
the
location,
if
you
wanted
to
put
this
at
say,
50,
which
we
have
a
lot
of
other
sites,
mostly
long
major
corridors.
I
wouldn't
see
anything
wrong
with
doing
that.
This
could
be
a
very
good,
affordable
housing
site
that
could
meet
the
needs
of
the
students.
G
D
A
B
O
I'm
here
I
was
not
as
muted
so
yeah
I
I
think,
13
a
at
a
density
of
50
units.
I
think
that
would
be.
I
think
that
would
be
a
great
step
in
terms
of
providing
housing
for
students.
I
agree
with
that
part,
and
I
also
would
like
to
endorse
what
connie
cunningham
has
said
that
we
should
counsel
should
consider
the
whole
property.
That's
98.
She
mentioned
nine
acres,
so
I
guess
that
will
be
a
great
great
addition
to
our
pool
of
sites.
Thank.
N
Yeah
no
problem,
so
I'd
like
to
propose
what
mr
connolly
suggested
to
increase
the
density
for
13a
to
50,
and
then
I'd
like
to
propose
that
the
parcel
that
connie
mentioned
and
the
other
one
across
be
put
on
fa
tier
two,
because
I
do
think
apple
might
be
changing
their
mind.
I
mean
we're
going
into
a
recession
and
a
lot
of
things
have
been
happening
and
it
might
not
be
a
bad
idea
if,
if
the
commission
thinks
it's
a
good
idea.
E
B
C
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
this
could
be
something
that
is
demonstrated
to
hcd
as
as
an
increase
to
the
buffer.
So
if,
if
we,
we
have
a
few
different
buffer
options
right
now,
as
we
talked
about
at
our
last
meeting-
and
we
show
here
represented
so
if
we
were
to
go
with
a
smaller
buffer,
this
concept
could
be
suggested.
C
A
Know
I
I
had
mentioned
this
a
long
time
ago.
It
was
like,
should
we
re-zone
properties
with
no
interest
to
put
pressure
on
the
owners
who
may
have
dreams
of
high
density
commercial,
but
once
we
rezoned
it
to
housing,
high
density
housing,
they
might
be
interested
in
building.
But
you
know,
then
the
issue
is,
and
you
know
I
talked
to
pew
and
the
lawyer
about
this
earlier
today.
Is
you
know
you
don't
want
to
use
up
all
your
sites
in
this
housing
element
and.
K
Yeah,
I
do
have
a
quick
question.
I
mean
at
50
gu
on
half
an
acre
site,
which
is
a
four
and
a
half
million
dollar
land
acquisition.
Probably
four
units
per
floor,
you're
talking
12
stories.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
we're
on
the
same
page
on
heights
here.
So
does
that
sound
about
right
to
everyone
here.
A
A
A
G
K
M
B
A
C
O
E
E
A
E
A
A
B
Q
E
E
E
J
So
I
I
had
recommended
the
housing
commission
or
tried
to,
but
I
had
to
leave
the
meeting
before
I
could
the
8b
the
vacant
lot
on
cleo.
That's
it
absolute!
Yes,
because
it
is
across
from
the
habitat
human
from
humanity's
site,
it's
about
the
same
site.
It
was
on
the
market
a
few
years
back
and
was
taken
off
because
it
didn't
sell,
but
because
it
wasn't
zoned
for
what
people
probably
wanted.
J
So
if
you
look
on
the
lower
right
corner
of
the
where
the
cars
are
parked
in
that
parking
lot
and
go
up
a
little
more
on
the
map,
those
those
with
the
solar
panels,
that's
habitat
for
humanity,
and
it's
four
or
eight.
I
think
it's
eight
units,
maybe
only
four
but
they're
they
fit
in
there
nicely.
It
would
be
the
same
kind
of
thing
it
would
I
it's
a
definite
yes
for
me.
If
anybody
cares.
Okay,.
J
H
Hi
yeah,
I
thought
that
lot,
the
empty
one
had
come
up
at
some
point.
You
guys
had
talked
about
it.
I
think
people
were
upset
because
it
was
near
the
freeway
etc.
The
other
one
is,
you
know
the
big
house
8a.
I
really
you
know
it's
like
I
really.
If
the
owner
is
not
interested
in
it,
it
really
shouldn't
be
on
chair
one,
because
what
are
we
trying
to
do
here?
Destroy
people's
homes,
force
them
to
upzone
if
they
don't
want
to
that's
kind
of
like
an
invasion
of
your
privacy?
H
And
it's
to
me
it's
like
imminent,
like
we're
going
to
do
eminent
domain
now
that
other
house
that
you
guys
had
the
big
one
was
that
8c.
I
think
there
was
a
single
family
home.
It's
not
on
this
map.
It's
somewhere.
You
had
a
different
part.
If
you
could
change
the
map
that
one
you
know,
I
the
one
that
they
could
do
an
sb9
on.
H
I
Good
evening
I
s
a
second
what
lisa
warren
had
said
about
the
the
site.
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
in
our
area
we
have
single-family
homes,
but
there
are
not
niches
that
have
patio
homes
that
you
can't
tell
that
it's
not
a
single-family
home
and
so
like
in
8-d
got
it's
a
half
acre
site
two
houses.
I
F
There
this
one,
I'm
scratching
my
head
on
all
four
8b-
would
be
a
great
sight
for
a
hamburtat
for
a
humanity
type
site,
but
after
setbacks,
it's
such
a
funky
sight
there's
no
way
you're
getting
30
units
an
acre
on
it.
8A,
that's
a
3
000
square
foot
bomber
in
cupertino.
I
would
be
shocked
without
owner
interest.
If
that's
going
to
get
redeveloped
8c
ragnart
road.
Is
there
any
kind
of
high
high
fire
severity
zone
in
cupertino
like
there
is
in
saratoga,
I
mean
the
topography
challenge.
F
A
D
Okay,
so
on
all
of
these,
I
think
you
know
we
should
go
higher
density
in
my
opinion-
and
here
is
why,
like
you
know,
if
you
start
with,
you
know
eight
a
you
know:
yes,
it's
a
single
family
home,
but
you
know,
surrounded
by
you,
know
all
multi
units.
So
if
and
when
that
one
chooses
to
go
multi-unit
by
all
means,
and
it's
zoned
right
so
and
8b
wake
inside
it's
very
similar
to
you
know
what
we
have
done
with.
D
You
know,
one
on
the
mclaren
road
and
the
bob
road
stuff
right,
so
we
can
do
the
same
high
density
there
and
it's
surrounded
by
all
high
densities
hc.
I
think
it's
a
great
candidate
for
a
multi-unit
housing,
because
regina
is
one
of
the
schools.
You
know
that
struggling
with
enrollment
right.
So
we
don't
have
you
know
enough
multi-units
homes
in
that
area.
So
I
think
you
know
that
would
be
a
nice
candidate.
D
Given
that
it's
one
enough
acres,
you
know,
I
think
you
know
that
will
be
a
right
one
for
building
some
high-density
housing
there
80
it's
half
a
acre,
and
you
know
it's
yeah.
If
owner
wants
to
build
great,
if
not
they're,
going
to
go
usb
9
route
anyway,
I
will
force
a
high
density
there,
but
no,
as
one
of
the
residents
said,
you
know
yeah
four
units
possible
right.
O
O
You
know
we
can
go
for
high
density,
as
I
agree
with
mooney
on
that
side.
On
that
aspect,
eight,
a
and
a
d.
I
think
I
would
like
anything
which
kind
of
borderline
looks
like
eminent
domain.
I
just
want
to
stay
away
from
that,
because
I
don't
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
force
the
owner
to
do
something.
O
A
O
O
I
just
feel
that
we
should
not
give
an
idea
that
we
are
trying
to
do
something
which
looks
because
if
we
are
overstepping
so
I
think
if,
if
the
owner
interest
is
there,
I
think
we
definitely
go
for
it.
If
there's
no
owner
interest,
I
think,
to
some
extent
we
can
find
other
places
where
owner
might
show
interest.
That's
pretty
much
it
I
mean
I'm
not,
I'm
not
the.
I
I
think
planning
department
knows
everything
better
than
us,
so
I
would
just
leave
it
to
their
expertise.
N
But
if
you
know
I'm
being
told
or
we're
being
told
that
we
only
put
the
ones
that
show
owner
interest,
then
again
it's
a
bit
of
a
conflict,
so
maybe
phase
two.
If
we
really
think,
but
I
mean
I
mean
tier
two,
but
even
then
you
know
I
was
struck
down
on
the
other
one
because
they
showed
no
owner
interest.
Why
would
this
be
different?
It's
my
only
comment,
but
definitely
yes
on
the
other
one
and
high
density
on
this
one
that
mooney
had
mentioned,
then
there's
housing
all
around
it.
N
L
I
guess
just
an
interesting
point
that
joven
had
made
about
the
you
know,
putting
putting
something
on
there,
where
the
owner
hadn't
expressed
interest
a
little
bitty
guy,
like
that,
yes,
great
big
guy,
like
apple
and
not
so
much
so
I'm
just
saying.
I
think
that
there
can
be
it
depends
on
the
owner,
of
course,
whether
he
feels
like
you're
trying
to
force
him
to
do
something
or
if
it's
something
he's
really
happy
about.
L
The
main
point
I
would
make
other
than
that
was
that
on
another
issue
earlier
last
meeting
there
was
a
house
that
wanted
to
do
that
was
too
small
to
do
something
for
us,
but
because
of
sb9
they
would
be
able
to
do
something.
So
we
kept
them
on
the
report
and
were
able
to
claim
one
additional
unit
because
of
that
so
anyway,
I
guess
I
don't
know
the
difference
between
that
one,
and
this
this
one
or
these
two.
A
K
I
just
have
a
comment:
it's
just
more
consistency,
and
I
think
this
is
probably
confusing
a
lot
of
folks
in
the
audience
like
we
keep
saying
that.
Okay,
you
know,
we
have
permission,
we
don't
have
permission
right
and,
and
so
whenever,
like
you
know,
we
say:
hey
look,
we
have
not
heard
interest,
and
so
that's
not
interesting
like
we,
we
get
that
say,
push
something
away
and
then
sometimes
we're
like.
Oh
we
here
at
interest.
So
so
what
is
the
criteria
that
we're
all
working
here?
K
A
B
A
B
B
A
D
E
E
A
E
D
E
O
Yeah,
I
think
I
know
this
area
because
my
classmate
lives
there.
So
I
think
I
understand
that
topography
is
difficult,
but
I,
if
you
know
if
we
upzone,
maybe
some
developer
would
be
interested
in
buying
the
property.
There
are
ways
to
you
know
handle
the
slope
issue,
so
I
think
it
might
be
interesting
if
we
provide
a
higher
density
to
some
developers.
O
O
L
A
G
L
D
K
A
N
K
N
A
N
R
D
B
C
A
A
Q
E
A
H
Okay,
all
right
now
I
and
I
don't
know
if
it's
currently
zoned
agricultural
or
whatever,
but
I
I
think
this
one
would
cause
a
hue
and
a
cry
from
the
neighbors,
so
I
just
putting
high
density
in
there.
I
I
you
know
it's
like
you
know
I
at
this
point,
who
gives
a
hang
what
hcd
thinks.
I
think
you're
gonna
have
a
battle
royal
from
the
neighbors
over
this,
and
I
think
that
one
should
proceed
cautiously,
because
you,
you
know
you
could
do
high-density
housing
there,
but
linda
vista
is
a
very
narrow
road.
H
The
the
roads
in
in
and
out
of
there
are
are
very,
very
tight
and
what
about
parkland
back
there?
I
I'm
just
saying
this:
fire
risk,
etc.
I
you're
gonna
is
that
the
creek
there?
That's
that's
going.
I
see
on
the
left.
I
think
that
maybe
steve
is
that
is
that
stephen's
creek
there
or
is
that
the
golf
course
does
that
wrench
would
be.
H
J
I
I'm
all
for
this
you've
had
two
of
the
family
members
asking
and
participating
in
these
meetings.
I
don't
think
they're
here
tonight.
Maybe
they
are
hopefully
they'll
be
good.
I
hope
they
speak.
They've
been
wanting
to
be
on
the
site.
They
were
not
happy
with
the
process,
they
weren't
told
whether
they
were
on
or
off,
and
my
guess
is
because
long
ago,
this
this
street,
named
after
the
family,
this
you
was
was
created
a
street
for
development
and
it
never
happened
for
whatever
reason.
J
A
A
A
D
A
M
A
A
It's
it's
a.
I
mean
this
is
like
one
of
the
only
large
sites
we
have
in
that
area.
And,
yes,
you
know
you
often
have
residents
who
say
I
don't
want
high
density
near
my
house,
but
you
know
we
are
very
limited
and
we've
heard
over
and
over.
You
know.
Why
is
everything
on
the
east
side?
We
need
somewhere
on
the
west
side,
and
this
this
is
our
opportunity,
so
yeah.
I
would
be
very
much
in
favor
of
this
and
luke.
What
is
the
density
per
acre
that
we're
suggesting.
A
A
A
A
L
Q
D
D
E
It
just
depends
on
the
the
size
of
the
lot
and
what
you
would,
how
much
you
would
need
for
ingress,
egress,
etc
circulation.
That
kind
of
goes
around
it,
so
putting
all
of
that
together
is
just
based
on
again.
These
are
this.
There
is
no
magic
math
to
it,
but
this
is
kind
of
the
range
that
we
see
in
development.
D
Okay,
this
comes
from
that
okay,
so
so
my
ask
would
be
to
maximize,
because
this
is
the
only
vacant
site
on
the
west
side
that
we
can
add
some
decent
density,
because
there
are
a
lot
of
schools
there,
including
a
regional
school,
that's
suffering
and
at
the
same
time
you
know
without
compromising
privacy
for
the
neighboring
single
family
homes.
So
if
you
can
manage,
you
know
the
height
and
privacy
and
get
the
maximum
density
like
you
know,
25
or
30,
I'm
all
for
it.
P
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think
my
only
comment
would
be
that
when
you
look
at
30
units
per
acre,
I
mean
you
could
get
there
with
town
homes
they're
going
to
be
fairly
small
and
narrow
town
homes
you're.
Definitely
at
the
very
high
end
of
that.
I
think
that
you
know
development
at
that
level
would
might
tend
to
push
more
into
flat,
but
depends
on
the
development.
D
E
C
A
A
R
There
was
also
the
property
beyond
linda
vista
park
that
at
one
time,
was
going
to
be
a
school
one.
Time
was
going
to
be
housing
there.
There
are
other
properties
over
here.
So
this
is
not
the
only
one,
and
I
just
want
to
make
that
comment.
I
would
have
had
all
of
my
duckies
lined
up
and
my
homework
done,
but
I'm
hoping
you
know
which
properties
I'm
talking
about.
Thank
you.
A
K
K
I
know
it's
next
to
the
golf
course,
which
is
nice,
but
there's
still
a
lot
of
single
family
homes
there
that
are
less
dense,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
reflect
that
for
the
property
owners
if
you're
paying
attention,
I
mean,
please
raise
your
hand,
I
think
we're
all
curious
to
see
if
you
have
any
interest.
You
have
a
huge
opportunity
here
to
I
mean
with
that
plot
of
land
build
almost
anything
you
really
want
to.
I
mean
I
think,
the
sky's
the
limit.
K
If
you
really
want
to
think
about
it
that
way,
I
do.
I
do
appreciate
the
low
density
that's
there
and
the
and
the
isolation.
That's
there.
So
it's
almost
turned
into
a
museum
or
park,
that's
great
too,
but
but
I
think
you
have
a
huge
opportunity
from
a
development
standard
and,
if
you're
paying
attention,
please
please
jump
in
we'd
love
to
hear
from
you.
I
see
barrister's
hand
is
up.
K
S
Yes
well,
thank
you
and
I
agree
with
a
number
of
the
comments
that
were
earlier
made
about
his
proximity
to
some
of
the
school
rules
and
it
hasn't
been
utilized
for
some
time
and
a
point.
I
wanted
to
also
make
that
the
commissioner
just
said
that
about
interest.
We
showed
interest
when
we
filled
out
the
application.
A
A
S
To
that
issue,
that
was
also
addressed
in
the
application
that
we
completed,
and
the
point
we
made
was
that
we
are
not
developers.
We
would
rely
on
someone
else,
but
we
did
include
in
our
suggestion
for
how
to
better
utilize
this
property
would
be
town
homes
or
higher
density.
So
without
getting
more
specific,
you
can
now
that
was
our
recommendation.
A
K
Have
a
good
point
here
is
like
we.
We
have
a
number
of
folks
that
have
advocated
for
higher
density
all
across
the
city,
but
when
it
comes
to
their
own
neighborhoods,
they
traditionally
like
shied
away
from
it.
So
here's
a
chance
for
those
people
to
practice
what
they
preach.
So
I
think
it'd
be
a
great
opportunity.
So.
O
O
So
kind
of
you
know
facility
guys
this
is
a
very
attractive
site
and
the
amount
of
open
space
around
it
second
point
is
that
I
think
I
feel
very
comfortable
saying
that
we
can
go
for
a
density
of
25
dwelling
units
per
acre
here.
If
that's
going
to
help
the
builder
they
developer.
I
do
have
a
concern
about
the
single
family
home,
so
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
if
there's
a
way
that
they
can
redo
this
you
know
design
of
the
the
the
the
a
village
court.
O
B
O
A
N
Yeah,
so
I
just
wondered
so
you
know
lisa
had
mentioned
great
for
density,
and
I
agree
with
that
and
wondered
pugh
had
mentioned
that
30,
the
range
where
30
plus
qualifies
for
the
low-income
bonus
density
and
though
I
really
want
to
respect
the
height
limitations
in
that
neighborhood.
There
could
also
be
some
attractive
condos.
N
I
don't
know
why
condos
are
not
a
possibility
or
only
town
homes
are
being
just
because
it
is
such
a
great
location,
and
it
is
in
an
area
that
we
really
need
school
students
from
I've,
seen
neighborhoods
in
los
gatos
by
almendra,
where
there's
all
single
family
and
then
there's
a
pretty
large
apartment,
building
right
there,
and
they
did
it
very
nicely.
It
looks
great,
no
and
there's
not
a
problem,
just
wondering
why
we
can't
consider
condos
and
go
for
30,
so
we
have
some
low
income
units
there.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
I
think
you
did
mention
that
you
could
still
do
townhomes
at
30.
They
would
just
be
narrower
and
yeah.
I
mean
I've
owned,
a
town
home
in
campbell.
It's
you
know,
garage
underneath
and
then
two
levels
above
and
they
are,
they
are
quite
narrow.
But-
and
you
know,
since
there's
parking
for
each
unit
with
a
two-car
garage,
you
you're
not
wasting
a
lot
of
space
on
on
parking
lots
and,
and
it
works
pretty
well,
and
they
are,
I
think
it's
pretty
attractive.
A
So
I
would
not
oppose
going
to
30
units
per
acre
here
and
you
know
let
the
whoever
the
ends
up
buying
this
and
develop
property
and
developing
it.
They
can,
you
know,
decide
if
they
want
to
do
town
homes
if
it
works
at
30
or
condos
yeah.
I
know.
Sometimes
people
don't
want
condos
next
to
single
family
homes,
but
you
know
we
are
trying
to
meet
our
housing
element
here
and
meet
our
arena
and
if
that's
what
it
takes,
I
I
think
we
should
go
for
30.
A
A
E
A
E
A
N
L
G
C
A
B
B
C
A
K
A
Q
A
J
J
It
was
asked.
You
know.
Where
is
some
consistency,
and
I
understand
it
can't
necessarily
be
completely
consistent,
but
there
needs
to
be
to
me
that
are
guidelines
for
that.
You
know
again
an
example
pizza
hut,
fontanas.
It's
been
brought
up
by
people
from
all
over
the
city,
and
I
wish
that
some
of
those
things
would
be
added
in
so.
F
Hi
there
just
a
quick,
quick
point:
I
know
we've
moved
on,
but
I
it
was
great
that
the
if
you
which
owners
came
on
the
phone
and
spoke
and
we're
candid
that
they're
not
developers
and
that
they're
looking
to
potentially
redevelop
their
site,
but
I
just
I
think
david
from
els-
would
have
some
comments.
I
mean
when
you
guys
take
a
townhome
site
to
30
units,
an
acre.
F
You
were
you,
you
cannot
build
that
unless
every
single
unit
is
tandem
and
I
would
question
with
pure
luke
in
the
last
seven
to
ten
years
in
cupertino
attached
town
home
developments
have
been
approved.
I
I
I
would
be
hard-pressed
to
find
one
at
30
units
in
anchor,
and
so
I
would
just
say
we're
talking
about
a
minimum
density
here.
So
that's
what
you're
establishing
so
to
do
it
at
20
and
let
a
developer
that
wants
to
do
it
at
30.
Have
that
right.
That
would
give
the
property
owner
the
most
flexibility.
H
Thank
you
yeah.
I
you
know
this
site
is,
I
don't
know
if
this
is
over
by
the
post
office,
but
I
was
just
curious
about
how
narrow
that
lot
got
back
there
and
whether
you
guys
would
be
trying
to
put
housing
back
in
that
narrow
area.
I
I
don't.
I
don't
know
it
looks
like
a
potentially
buildable
site,
but
you
might
have
some
noise
from
the
off-ramp
etc,
and
is
that
a
multi-family
home
that's
on
the
water?
H
Is
that
one
home
already
and
I'm
just
gonna
kind
of
echo,
what
the
previous
person
said
about
I'll
just
dip
back
to
the
previous
one,
you're
gonna
get
at
30
units
you're
going
to
get
pushed
back
big
time
from
the
neighborhood
anyway,
but
this
looks
like
an
interesting
site.
I
just
was
curious
if
that
was
a
single
family
home.
Thank
you.
A
E
A
M
A
D
So
so
I'm
I'm
totally
confused
about
now
this,
the
minimum
maximum
you
know
and
how
come
you
know
we
do
30
dues
in
other
parts
of
the
city,
but
here
you
know
we
are
having
a
huge
discussion
about
you
know
25
or
30
right.
So
if
we
are
going
to
revisit
that,
then
to
me
you
know
we
need
to
revisit
every
site
that
we
said
you
know
30
dues
per
per
acre
with
town
halls
right.
D
I
understand
the
50
and
above
is
more
like
you
know,
apartments
and
a
lot
more
height,
but
most
of
the
other
ones
that
we
did.
You
know
with
the
30d
use
per
acre.
They
were
done.
You
know,
thinking
that
they
would
be
town
homes
and
so
that
no
they
because
they're
right
next
to
you
know
single
family
homes.
So
I'm
kind
of
you
know
confused.
That's
that's
general
comment
coming
to
this
particular
site.
To
me.
D
You
know
this
site
looks
like
you
know,
a
good
opportunity
to
go
for
a
higher
density
as
well,
because
it's
it's
it's
in
line
with.
You
know
two
other
pro
similar
properties
that
no,
we
approved
higher
density
for
one
on
the
bob
road
property,
the
other
one
was
you
know
closer
to
that,
the
location
where
it's,
I
think,
it's
a
7c
or
something
right
so
where
their
habitat
homes
are
habitat
for
humanity
homes.
So
that's
that
site
also.
E
So
if
I
mean
the,
I
was
just
looking
at
the
spreadsheet
and
and
a
lot
of
what
we've
approved
at
the
or
rather
the
motions
that
we've
made
at
the
30.
Those
are
kind
of
the
the
one
that
we
talked
about
for
townhomes
was
a
homestead
that
we
talked
discussed
today,
which
was,
as
I
mentioned,
we
kind
of
we
did
that
at
the
15
dwelling
unit
per
acre.
This
was
the
one
that
we
talked
about.
D
E
Yes,
so
those
ones
the
developer
actually
did
come
up
with
a
plan
based
on
what
he
has
developed
at
sunnyvale,
which
were
row
homes.
They
were
attached
to
row
homes,
he
kind
of
came
up
with
the
with
a
sort
of
plan
where
he
said
he
can
make
20
units
fit
on
that
particular
parcel,
which
was
six.
I
wanna
say
it
was
six.
D
E
E
A
A
K
O
O
So
I
that's
that's
a
longer
thing
which
I
will
get
back
to
when
you,
whenever
the
okay,
okay,
the
4a,
I
think,
can
go
for
higher
density.
It
can
be
a
25
or
thirty.
I
I
would
recommend
twenty
five
instead
of
thirty
twenty
five
dwelling
units
per
acre.
So
I
think
this
is
a
very
interesting
site
and
I,
as
long
as
they
can
build
some
kind
of
a
wall
sound
wall
on
the
other
side
as
equivalent,
then
this
could
be
a
very
good
site
to
add
units.
N
N
K
E
It's
just
a
very
odd-shaped
lot
for
that
kind
of
density.
It's
a
triangular
piece.
So
what
will
end
up
happening
is
that
you
might
have
some
of
the
units,
and
maybe
david
can
help
with
that
dave
can
help
with
this.
You
know
be
stacked
more
on
the
south
end
of
the
site,
as
opposed
to
on
the
north
end.
But
david,
do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
that.
P
I
mean
those
types
of
triangular
sites
are
really
tough
in
terms
of
trying
to
get
the
parking
in.
So
you
probably
you
probably
would
try
to
put
most
of
the
bulk
to
the
south
of
the
site
and
then,
where
it's
less
efficient,
maybe
you
try
to
park
it
up
to
the
north
right.
You
know
I
mean
that
that's
sort
of
the
easiest
way
to
go
about
it,
so
you
won't
get
as
high
of
a
du
count
as
you
would
on.
Let's
say
a
rectilinear
site.
O
So
you
know,
I
don't
exactly
know
whether
this
can
be
compared,
because
we
are
cooperating
on
the
san
jose,
a
similar
triangular
site,
where
what
they
have
done
is
they
put
the
parking
on
the
north
side
here
equivalent
would
be
a
parking
on
the
north
side
and
then
all
the
units
are
towards
the
south,
so
they
they
have
a
very
good
layout.
I
have
visited
that
several
times,
but
you.
A
K
You
could
stack
four
four
and
probably
two
four
four,
four
three.
Okay,
I'm
just
saying
like
it,
the
the
confusion
is
really
in
some
sites.
We're
like
okay-
and
this
is
this-
goes
back
to
the
other
issue.
We
could
do
30,
they
could
build
condos
they'll,
do
something
different
and
then,
in
this
site,
we're
in
the
same
conversation
point
it's
the
same
argument
of
you
know,
there's
like
oh,
we
can't
do
it
here,
but
let
the
developers
figure
it
out.
So
we
use
different
excuses
for
different
sites
and
I
think
that's
the
confusion.
E
K
E
K
K
B
A
K
B
K
A
O
L
I
guess
I
might
have
a
question,
though,
because
we've
never
okay,
we've
never
come
to
grips
with,
whether
that's
a
minimum
or
a
maximum
and
on
this
paperwork
that
has
been
handed
out
to
us.
It's
like
there's
a
current
maximum
density
and
then
there's
the
new
minimum
density.
So
that's
why
I
tend
to
think
that
the
minimum
idea
is
what
we're
going
with.
Rather.
A
I
think
we
all
believe
that
if
we
voted
for
say
30
and
the
and
the
property
owner
said
well,
I
only
want
to
build
25
that
that's
okay,
but
we
would
lose
a
certain
number
of
units
in
our
arena
because
you
know
they're
doing
less
than
what
what
is
authorized
but
that
you
know.
Oh,
we
do
have
a
buffer
to
take
care
of
some
of
that.
D
L
A
C
Hey
the
number
that
we're
calculating
right
now
is
our
anticipated
number
that
we
would
like
to
see
builds
at
these
sec
bytes,
whether
we
go
with
minimum
or
maximal
that'll,
be
a
policy
question
that
we
move
forward
and
you'll
see
that
again.
What
we
know
is
that
if
we
set
this
as
a
max
and
tried
to
go
forward
with
our
plan,
hcd
would
not
believe
it.
You
cannot
just
use
your
max
and
have
that
be
your
arena
number
right.
So.
B
C
A
D
N
N
No,
it
was
a
substitute
motion.
Yes,
andy
had
previously
suggested
that
we
could
put
it
in
with
an
explanation,
so
we
could
make
a
motion
where
you
know
with
it
could
possibly
go
from
15
to
20,
depending
on
my
understanding
was
that
if
we
put
a
a
minimum
say
it
on
the
other
130
or
this
one
20,
but
if
it
went
to
planning-
and
it
just
couldn't
be
done-
it's
no
one's
going
to
say
they
couldn't
they
can't
build
less.
I
don't
think
so.
Anyway.