►
Description
Coverage of the September 14, 2021 Cupertino Planning Commission Teleconference Meeting.
A
A
A
Good
residents
of
city
of
cupertino
we're
here
for
the
planning
commission
meeting
for
september,
14
2021.
so
and
as
you
know,
this
is
a
teleconference
public
participation
in
accordance
with
governor
newsom's
executive
order
number
2920.
This
will
be
a
teleconference
meeting
without
a
physical
location
to
help
stop
the
spread
of
covered
19..
So,
of
course,
you
can
always
tune
in
on
channel
6
26
on
comcast
and
channel
99
on
att
uverse
and,
of
course
the
meeting
will
be
stream
live
and
online
at
www.cupertino.org,
backslash,
youtube
and
www.coopertino.org
backslash
webcast.
A
A
D
A
A
E
A
B
F
A
A
G
C
A
A
A
A
F
A
A
This
portion
of
the
meeting
is
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
commission
on
any
matter
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
commission
and
not
on
the
agenda.
You
get
three
minutes,
we'll
have
a
clock
up
there
and,
of
course
raise
your
hand
in
zoom
and
we'll
call
on
you.
In
most
cases,
stale
will
prohibit
the
commission
from
making
any
decisions
with
respect
to
a
matter
not
on
the
agenda.
A
J
J
Okay-
and
so
I
say
that
to
say
that
the
first
housing
development
that
went
up
after
david
supervisor
dave
cortezi
stated
what
the
homeless
problem
is
sent
it
to
the
voters.
The
voters
voted
on
it.
I
don't
have
a
timer,
I'm
looking
for
a
timer.
You
got
one
minute
and
12
seconds
left.
Please
continue.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
I'm
used
to
a
timer
anyways,
so
dave
cortesey
give
a
policy
that
this
is
going
to
help
the
homeless.
There's
a
homeless.
Oh
man,
we
got
a
homeless
problem.
J
Do
you
know
that
the
first
development
that
went
up
as
a
result
of
that
policy
that
the
voters
approved
that
they
believed
was
going
to
help
homeless
people,
and
I
mean
homeless,
people
that
are
sleeping
on
the
streets
that
need
a
place
to
go?
The
first
development
was
a
19
19
unit
development
in
cupertino.
J
Now
I'm
not
stating
anything
against
the
city
of
cupertino.
I
know
you
have
a
homeless
issue.
I
know
you've
got
problems,
but
that's
not
what
exactly
the
voters
had
in
mind
when
they
were
voting
for
homeless
people
to
have
a
place
to
go.
It
was
900
million
dollars
and
the
first
money
that
was
extracted
from
them
had
to
do
with
cupertino
19
units
senior
housing.
J
A
Paul,
thank
you.
I'm
sorry
you're
out
of
time.
I
appreciate
you
coming
out
here
and
just
to
correct
the
record.
We
don't
have
a
homeless
problem.
It
was
a.
We
had
a
manufactured
homeless
crisis
sponsored
by
some
individuals.
Those
individuals
are
no
longer
there,
but
of
course
we
support
helping
homeless
folks
everywhere.
So
just
wanted
to
clear
the
record
there.
A
E
I
know
I
mean
I
was
yeah.
I
would
like
to
add
something
actually,
so
I
was
mayor
when
the
veranda
opened
and
I
met
some
of
those
residents
that
moved
in
there
and
it
was
very
emotional
to
talk
to
them
because
one
guy
who
has
an
apartment
there
said
you
saved
my
life,
and
I
know
you
get
less
for
your
money
when
you,
you
know
building
cupertino,
but
I
think
we
need
to
distribute
the
affordable
housing
all
over
the
valley.
E
A
A
A
The
recommended
action
is
that
the
planning
commission
adopt
the
draft
resolution,
which
is
attachment
one
recommending
that
the
city
council,
one
find
the
actions
exempt
from
seqa
and
two
adopt
amendments
to
the
cmc
code,
sections,
19.56030,
19.56030f
and
table.1956040a
to
allow
for
density
bonuses
and
other
incentives,
as
provided
by
state
law
and
to
add
a
new
section
19.56.080,
providing
that
the
density
bonus
ordinance
will
be
interpreted
consistent
with
state
density.
Bonus
law.
Note
that
the
language
providing
additional
incentives
is
not
being
proposed
at
this
time.
Let's
go
to
the
staff
report
pew
all
yours.
F
I
can
I'm
happy
to
share
that
and
I'm
I'm
having
trouble
with
sharing
today
for
some
reason,
what
the
only
thing
that
has
changed
in
the
draft
ordinance
that
the
commission
reviewed
last
time
is
that
we
took
out
the
additional
incentives
that
were
proposed
in
as
a
subsection.
In
section
19.56.040,
there
was
a
subsection
d
that
was
proposed
with
some
additional
incentives
that
was
called
defying
certain
general
plan.
F
Amendment
sorry,
not
amendment
general
plan,
incentives
and
requirements
that
were
built
in
already
into
cities
policy,
but
that
section
the
commission
was
uncomfortable
with
having
that
section.
So
we
removed
that
section
from
the
actual
proposed
draft
ordinance
and
if
the
commission
pleases,
I
do
have
a
longer
presentation
to
go
through.
But
it's
pretty
much
everything
that
the
commission
saw
last
time,
but
I'm
happy
to
go
over
it.
F
Have
to
perfect-
and
I
failed
to
update
the
date,
but
that's
on
me.
So
we
are
basically
looking
at
the
very
similar
amendments
to
what
we
had
looked
at
at
the
last
meeting,
which
is
amendments
to
the
density
bonus
ordinance
where
we
update
table
19.56.030
update
a
reference
correction
in
section
19.56.030f
updates
to
19.56440,
particularly
to
the
table
overall,
a
and
added
new
section,
19.56.080
and
I'll
go
over
what
each
of
those
changes
are
in
just
a
minute.
F
F
So
in
order
to
make
sure
that
we
comply
with
82345.
The
amendments
that
are
shown
here
are
what
is
proposed
to
the
existing
table
in
the
city's
municipal
code.
As
you
see
at
the
very
end
of
the
maximum
density
bonuses
for
15
or
more
of
very
low
income,
has
increased
to
50
for
low
income
from
24
or
more
is
at
50
percent.
F
F
You
know
the
city
has
consistently
approved
density
bonus
projects
which
includes
falco,
marina,
veranda
and
westport.
The
city
continues
to
offer
a
host
of
incentives
to
incentivize,
affordable
housing
within
other
parts
of
its
municipal
code,
including
flexible
zoning
standards
and
the
planned
development.
Zoning
district
coordinates,
bmr
housing
program
and
and
through
its
associated
administrative
and
other
manuals.
F
And
with
regard
to
incentives
and
concessions,
82345
also
made
certain
amendments
and
these
groups.
These
changes
on
this
table
reflects
those
changes.
So
essentially,
if
you
have,
if
you're
low
income
units
with
17
in
a
development,
then
you
get
more.
You
get
two
consent,
two
incentives
or
concessions,
and
if
your
percentage
of
affordable
needs
is
24
or
greater,
you
would
get
three
incentives
and
concessions.
And
then,
if
you
are
a
100,
affordable
development,
you
would
get
four
concessions.
Those
are
all
built
into
state
law.
F
I
just
wanted
to
remind
the
commission
that
you
know
we
have
proposed
additional
incentives
which
are
not
proposed
at
this
time
and
additionally,
the
question
is
to
seek
additional
information
on
concessions
that
other
cities
have
provided.
This
was
provided
with
the
staff
report
in
looking
at
the
different
concessions
that
were
in
waivers,
that
were
requested
height
was
the
most
common
incentive
of
waiver
and
it
varied
between
six
feet
to
20
feet,
which
is
about
two
stories.
F
F
Therefore,
the
recommended
action
is
that
the
planning
commission
recommends
that
the
draft
resolution
be
well
recommend.
The
draft
registry
should
be
adopted
and
recommended.
The
city
council
adopted
the
post
amendments
to
the
city's
density
bonus
ordinance,
as
described,
and
with
that
I
conclude
my
presentation
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions.
We
also
have
the
attorney
chris
christopher
jenner,
here
to
help
answer
questions.
A
E
H
G
H
H
A
G
H
F
So
if
I
may,
we
did
that
and
the
standard
is
not
just
that
additional
bonuses
be
allowed,
but
that
there
would
be
additional
incentives
in
addition
to
that.
That
is
their
argument
again.
This
is
in
response
to
the
the
advice
that
we're
getting
from
ecb,
and
so
therefore,
we
are
recommending
that
we
give
these
amendments
to
comply,
what
they
need
to
do.
Okay,.
H
F
G
E
G
G
A
A
A
Is
that
true
I
mean
we're.
Gonna,
have
these
super
small
units
for
concessions
and
all
you're
gonna
get?
Are
these
little
boxes
that
are
like
no
no
offense
to
people
in
asia,
but
they're
like
asian
business,
hotels,
which
are
a
little
bed
in
the
hole?
And
it's
like
good
luck.
You
know
we'll
fit
you
in
here.
If
you
can
for,
and
we
call
that
affordable
housing
for
individuals
we
couldn't
even
fit
families
in
there
is.
That
is
that,
would
that
be
the
impact
potentially.
G
You
know
those
obviously
vary
from
project
to
project
and,
and
there
are,
there
are
ways
of
regulating
them,
but
but
there
there
are,
you
know,
obviously
that's
conduct
concession
has
been
used
in
the
past
in
in
cupertino,
and
so
it's
not
impossible.
I,
but
I
would
say
there,
there
are
a
variety
of
projects
and-
and
you
know,
and
the
concessions
very
quite
widely-
and
I
think
the
chart
that
that
pew
provided
showed
that
the
most
common
waivers
incentives
concessions
taken
are
increases
in
height
or
decreases
in
setbacks.
A
I
understand
that,
but
can
we
put
some
prohibit,
prohibit
prohibition
at
prohibitions
on
concessions
when
we're
in
this
situation,
for
example,
not
have
the
same
number
of
bedrooms
not
have
the
same
square
footage
as
market
rate
units.
That
would
be
something
we'd
prohibit
not
have
the
same.
You
know
finishes
right
that
they
I
mean
these
are
things
that
would
would
not
be
given
as
concessions.
If
you're
going
to
do
this
so
that
we
actually
have
you
know
equality
in
the
housing
here.
G
Yeah,
so
you
know
I'll
I'll
answer
that
question
you
know,
but
caution
that
you
know
at
some
point.
This
is
not
agenda,
but
I
I'm
comfortable
answering
that
question.
Is
it
that
so
I
I
would
definitely
steer
away
from
anything
that
prohibits
the
use
of
certain
concessions
under
state
law.
There
are
ways
you
can
regulate
the
usage
concessions
that
that's
the
word
I
I
would
prefer
if
we're
going
to
have
that
discussion
and
you
know,
through
different
policies
and
stuff
that
regulate
the
use
of
concessions
prohibiting,
I
think,
is
difficult.
E
So
chris,
can
I
oh
sorry,
go
ahead,
go
advice,
true,
so
it
seems
to
me
like
ab2345
those
percentages
at
the
different
density
bonus
levels.
Those
could
just
be
considered.
Maximums
we're
not
allowed
to
say
hey,
you
know
the
state
law
says
15,
but
we
want
17.
You
know,
that's
not
our
prerogative
to
do
it.
It
sounds
like
from
the
warnings
we
got
from
hcd.
G
G
There
are
ways
which
you
know
we
discussed
in
our
last
meeting,
where,
if
the
city
is
looking
to
increase
the
level
of
affordability
in
projects
that
can
be
done
in
a
way
that
is
not
tied
to
the
award
of
a
density,
bonus
and
and
those
strategies,
you
know
that
they
need
to
be
looked
at
carefully,
but
there's
a
a
a
pathway
to
having
a
a
strategy
to
to
increase
the
affordability.
That
way.
That
is
consistent
with
state
law
and
consistent
with
you
know.
The
rights
of
project
applicants.
E
Right
so
does
the
city's
inclusionary
housing
requirement
right
now
we're
at
15,
which
would
be
the
same
as
what
you
get
with
the
50
density
bonus.
I
mean
if,
if
we
increased
it
to
20
that
would
that
take
precedence
over
ab2345
or
would
they
say?
No,
no,
no
ab2345
lets
us
go
down
to
15
and
you
can't
have
an
ordinance
in
your
city
that
says
20
percent
inclusionary.
I
G
E
A
A
Okay,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
clear
on
that
and
then
for
those
folks
who
are
misinterpreting
our
objectives.
Here
I
would
say
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
ensure
that
housing
is
affordable,
it's
inclusionary
and
it
doesn't
discriminate
against
families.
That's
why
we're
asking
this
question.
We
have
certain
developers
and
certain
interests,
sometimes
that
come
into
the
city
that
think
they
can
get
away
with
building
shoddy
small
units
that
don't
actually
support
families
and
the
types
of
individuals
that
we
may
need
to
support
in
the
community.
A
And
you
know
this
is
just
questions
and
inquiry
line,
just
to
make
sure
that
you
know
we
can
hold
developers
to
be
able
to
solve
affordability
in
housing
and
not
just
put
market
rate
housing
and
have
a
density
bonus
just
for
the
sake
of
it
by
meeting
it
with
you
know,
unequal
units,
very
small
units
units
that
don't
have
the
same
sets
of
fins
finishes
or
fixtures,
which
would
be
almost
discriminatory
when
one
could
interpret
as
well.
So,
okay
go
ahead.
Any
other
questions.
C
C
C
Yeah,
so
this
is
regarding
the
number
of
incentives
and
concessions
broken
down
in
very
low
income
units,
low
income
units,
moderate
income
and
so
most
of
them.
I
am
seeing
that
number
of
incentives
we
have
basically
given
in
the
low
income
units,
which
is
not
very
low,
but
it
is
between
the
low
and
moderate
and
like
instead
of
20
or
greater,
it
became
17
or
greater,
and
incentives
have
gone
to
two
30
percent
earlier
now
it
is
24
percent
of
greater
and
incentive
has
gone
three.
C
I
H
I
F
C
F
So
the
very
low
income
units
are
basically
units
that
make
a
50
or
less
than
the
area
area
median
income,
the
very
low
the
low
income
units
are
between
51
percent
and
80
percent
of
the
area,
median
income
and
anything
above
that
I
believe,
between
81
and
120,
I'm
sorry,
81
and
100.
It
is
considered
to
be
moderate
income
units
and
100,
and
one
percent
220
percent
or
101
and
above
that
would
be
considered
a
moderate
above
moderate
inconvenience.
C
C
I
F
Okay,
so
I
I
believe
this
is
where.
So,
if
you
look
at
the
the
other
table,
when
you
compare
it
to
the
other
table,
the
max
percentage
went
from.
You
know
you
had
to
originally
provide
at
least
20
in
order
to
be
at
a
certain
level,
and
so
when
those
levels
dropped
with
the
changes
that
they
moved
to
the
density
bonus
that
you
get,
they
basically
tried
to
amend
it,
to
align
it
and
make
it
adjusted
to
whatever
the
changes
they
need
for.
The
density
bonus
table.
F
G
A
A
F
C
So
yeah,
so
just
to
clarify
my
I
actually,
I
didn't
understand
the
explanation
why
it
is
so
concentrated
in
the
low
income,
but
just
to
get
a
clarity
a
little
bit
more,
that
what
he's
saying
is
that
it
is
just
based
on
the
statistics
of
the
other
table
when
they
adjusted
it.
It
simply
trickle
down
to
this
table
from
low
income
units
from
20
to
17
and
30
to
24
percent.
Somehow
is
just
the
math.
Is
that
what
he's
saying
is
there
is
no
symmetry.
F
C
F
F
F
F
All
we
say
in
our
bmr
manual
is
that
if
you
have
a
rental
project,
you
have
to
provide
15
of
the
units
to
be
at
the
very
low
and
the
low
income
levels
at
a
certain
percentage
of
each
and
20.
If
you're
a
for
sale
project,
you
have
to
provide
20
of
those
units
at
a
moderate
or
a
median
income
level.
So
that's
that's
our
bmr
program
and
that's
that's
it.
This
is
a
separate
program.
That's
set
up
by
the
state,
so
this
does
not
have
to
be
reflected
in
our
vmware.
A
G
C
G
G
It's
it's,
it
might
be
a
somewhat
arbitrary
number.
It's
not
a
random
number.
The
general
theory
is
that,
for
the
same
number
of
incentives
and
concessions,
a
applicant
is
going
to
be
required
to
provide
more
low-income
units
than
very
low
income
units
and
the
theory
behind
that
is
that
it's
more
expensive
to
provide
the
very
low
income
units,
because
they're
heavily
more
heavily
subsidized
and
so
so
you're.
G
So
so
the
the
theory
behind
the
law
is
that
you
provide
more
incentive
per
unit
and
that's
true
both
in
terms
of
the
density
bonus
and
incentives
and
consent
concessions
to
encourage
the
development
of
very
low
income
units
than
low
income
units,
because
it's
more
expensive
for
the
applicant
to
to
subsidize
and
provide
the
very
low
income
units
at
lower
rents.
So
I
I
don't
know
if
that
helps
at
all.
F
F
F
So
so,
if
you
look
at
the
way
the
progression
works
for
the
very
low
income
units,
it
goes
from
5
to
10
to
15,
and
so
10
is
basically
halfway
between
the
5
and
the
15..
Similarly,
if
you
look
at
the
moderate
income
units,
it
goes
from
10
to
20,
to
30,
with
the
middle
of
the
two
incentives
being
smacked
out
in
the
middle
and
then
for
low
income.
You
go
from
10
where
the
maximum
is
24.
F
A
H
H
F
F
B
F
H
H
Enough,
okay,
so
it's
proportional
correct!
Okay,
that's
my
first
question
so
second
question:
so
if
there
is
absolutely
no
wiggle
room
whatsoever
to
the
law
because
it
looks
like
you
know,
we
are
being
forced,
you
know
to
scale
down
our
affordable
housing
requirements
for
these.
You
know
density
bonuses.
F
A
G
F
A
So
700
units
could
potentially
be
affected
at
balco.
If
I
do
a
quick
calculation
here
to
be
reallocated,
that's
pretty
huge
number.
So
all
right,
I'm
sorry,
I'm
a
stickler
on
this
bmr
manual
thing.
I
just
have
a
question:
do
we
have
an
update
on
this
bmr
manual
so
because
it's
missing
things
in
it
and
I
just
want
to
know
what's
missing
or
why
is
it
missing?
A
G
G
A
I
want
to
know
if
my
project
qualifies
in
the
vmr
manual,
so
then
you
can
apply
this
density
bonus
law
on
top
of
it,
and
then
you
can
tell
me
there's
an
impact
on.
You
know
the
next
set
of
interesting
laws
coming
from
our
state.
That's
all
they're
in
sequence.
I
know
it's
not
agendas,
but
if
1174
comes
into
place,
you
know
I
mean
it's
not
every
day
you
get
to.
A
A
B
B
Could
we
start
so?
This
is
from
jennifer
griffin,
says,
dear
planning,
commission
she's,
sending
in
her
comments
regarding
the
density
bonus,
ordinance
changes.
She
says
I
am
very
concerned
about
ab2345
and
its
effect
on
building
in
cupertino.
This
bill
was
passed
without
much
ability
from
the
public
to
comment
on
it.
It
suffers
from
many
of
the
issues
that
the
other
housing
bills
do
and
that
the
target
of
the
bill
is
also
to
take
away
local
control
from
cities,
the
public
and
counties.
B
There
are
already
some
very
serious
issues
with
hcd
and
arena
and
mtc
and
abac.
They
do
not
seem
to
be
operating
in
an
arena
of
reality
and
are
throwing
unachievable
and
erroneous
housing
numbers
at
cupertino
and
other
cities
across
the
state,
as
they
try
to
enact
a
much
flawed
plan
bay
area
2050
upon
the
public
and
the
cities
of
california.
B
Again,
the
public
was
never
asked
their
opinion
of
plan
b
area,
yet
plan
bay
area
was
implemented
by
abag
and
ntc
and
hcd.
Excuse
me
when
they
came
up
with
their
outrageous
arena
numbers
for
the
cities
across
the
state
again,
cupertino
and
other
cities
are
left
picking
up.
The
pieces
from
these
disastrous
housing
bills,
as
evidenced
this
time
by
ab2345
it
is
poorly
written
and
is
meant
to
enable
developers
to
just
build
high
density
housing
without
any
regard
to
affordability
or
environmental
constraints
like
sb9
and
sb10
ab2345
is
a
total,
sellout
and
giveaway
to
developers.
B
Please
proceed
cautiously
with
any
modifications
to
city
density
codes.
Cupertino
has
to
make
sure
this
law
does
not
take
advantage
of
it.
It
sounds
like
our
staff
have
some
good
ideas
and
I
am
sure,
with
our
caring
elected
planning,
commissioners,
we
can
come
up
with
a
good
plan
to
protect
cupertino
from
the
ravages
of
eb2345.
B
Please
do
not
give
any
developer,
80
or
100
density
bonus
increases.
This
is
appropriate.
This
is
inappropriate
and
it
would
have
to
be
studied
in
more
depth.
The
goal
of
laws
like
ab2345
are
100
density,
and
that
is
not
something
that
is
appropriate
at
this
time
of
state
and
the
rollout
of
these
high-density
housing
bills,
since
the
public
have
not
been
allowed
to
voice
their
opinions
on
them
or
vote
on
them.
B
I
I
I
A
A
A
A
E
E
It's
not
really
a
discussion,
it's
a
comment.
It
seems
like.
If
we
had
proper
legal
advice,
we
might
have
had
a
chance
to
come
up
with
our
own
alternative
to
the
state
law
that
did
provide
the
incentives
that
hcd
expects,
even
though
they
don't
really
say
what
those
expectations
are.
I
presume
it
would
be
some
kind
of
funding
mechanism.
E
H
Just
comment
right:
I
just
wanted
to
record
my
voice
on
this
topic
right,
so
I'm
pretty
disappointed
with
you
know
the
state
laws
that
are,
you
know,
anti-affordable
housing
right
when
they
sit,
I
mean
pretty
much.
You
know
what
they're
telling
us
you
know
adopt
something
that's
you
know,
delivers
lesser
percentage
up
in
affordable
housing
for
these
huge
giveaways.
H
To
me
you
know
that
just
doesn't
sound
right
right,
so
I
think
you
know
cities
should
be
allowed
to
tailor
programs.
You
know
to
their
needs
right
so
and
and
second
to
your
comment,
car
chair,
wong,
where
you
know
the
developers
can
go,
get
away
with.
You
know,
providing
small
box
type
houses
for
as
offerable
houses,
and
you
know
build
mansions
in
order
to
sell
you
know,
market
rate,
that's
just
you
know
discriminating
for
me.
H
C
C
I
understand
there
is
a
housing
crisis
out
there
and
they
want
to
build
more
houses,
but
at
the
same
time,
if
people
can't
afford
it
and
you
build
more
market
rate
houses
and
giving
you
give
away
the
incentives
for
building
affordable
houses,
this
is
kind
of
goes
counter-intuitive
to
the
whole
agenda.
Although
you
may
want
more
houses,
but
you
you're
not
letting
the
affordability
come
in.
C
I
A
D
It
makes
me
a
bit
sad.
First
of
all,
it
takes
away
focus
and
energy
and
mind
share
from
other
ways
of
addressing
affordability.
I
mean
I'm
a
strong
proponent
of
public
transit.
You
know
having
lived
in
the
new
york
city
area,
what
about
a
decade
ago?
I
know
you,
could
you
know
within
our
manhattan
train
ride
of
manhattan?
D
A
I
think
my
comments
are
similar
in
line
with
many
of
you
well-intentioned
yin.
Bees
who
are
trying
to
improve
the
supply
of
homes
have
made
an
unholy
alliance
with
developers
and
wall
street
corporate
types
to
actually
take
over
the
housing
industry
by
creating
very
I'd,
say,
hypocritical
incentives,
you
know
when
you
build
office
space
to
generate
affordable
units
that
lead
to
less
affordability
and
less
housing
and
actually
make
the
ratio
worse.
A
When
you
use
this
bill
to,
actually,
you
know,
create
a
very
unfair
use
of
you
know
units
leading
to
potentially
single
units
that
don't
allow
for
families
to
have
affordable
housing
which
incentivize
builders
to
actually
you
know,
abuse
these
rules
and
also
influence
their
senators
and
legislators
with
campaign
contributions
to
rewrite
these
rules.
We
have
a
significant
problem
in
sacramento,
so
you
know
I
think
the
intentions
are
well
intentioned.
A
I
don't
think
anyone
has
a
bad
intention,
but
if
you
truly
want
to
address
affordable
housing,
none
of
these
rules
are
going
to
help
these
actually
exacerbate
the
problem.
They
create
short-term
solutions
that
create
longer-term
exacerbations,
making
the
problem
even
worse
and
they
don't
address
any
of
the
issues
that
are
being
used
for
affordability.
A
In
fact,
the
excuse
of
affordability,
housing
is
being
used
to
abuse
the
system
here
and-
and
this
is
just
ridiculous,
so
I
know
we're
compelled
to
actually
do
this
and
compelled
to
actually
comply
with
hcd's
rulings,
but
I
challenge
acd
people
who
are
watching
this.
That
really
think
about
the
impact.
Are
you
really
getting
affordable
housing
here?
I
know
it's
well
intentioned,
or
are
you
really
creating
a
market
rate
disaster,
or
are
you
actually
letting
developers
run
roughshod
on
the
intention,
affordability
and-
and
I
think
that's
where
we
are
at
this
moment
in
good
conscience?
A
D
You
know
I'm,
actually
I
really
you
use
the
word
give
me
I
generally
don't
like
to
type
cuz,
but
because
that's
a
fairly
well
understood
word,
I
will
use
it
and
I
will
sort
of
call
them
people
who
want
to
develop
more
housing.
I
think
I
can
completely
empathize
with
their
needs.
You
know
you
know
I
was
having
a
conversation
with
one
young
man.
Young
person
in
his
twenties,
who
went
to
uc
berkeley
had
a
job
which
weighed
between
fifty
two
hundred
thousand.
D
D
How
are
you
going
to?
I'm
pretty
sure
that
person,
a
uc
berkeley
graduate
of
having
a
good
salary
is
not
interested
in
staying
in
that
may
not
even
be
eligible
for
the
behavior,
I'm
sure
he's
he
has.
He
expects
a
slightly
higher
standard
of
living
than
living
in
a
box
like
home.
Maybe,
while
they're
single
they
can,
but
not
once
they
have
a
family,
you
know
if
we
had
transit.
If
we
had,
the
ability
to
you
know
reach
a
place
of
work
within
an
hour
of
a
comfortable
train
ride.
D
He
wouldn't
have
to
have
those
struggles,
they
won't
have
to
have
those
things
and
that's
where
the
energy
should
go
to
instead
of
just
trying
to
you,
know,
create
more
and
more
market
rate
housing
and
increasing
the
density
in
areas
which,
like
cooper,
doesn't
get
any
form
of
mass
public
transit
beyond.
It's
actually
used
by
office,
goers
or
workers.
D
Most
of
it
we
do
get
vta,
that's
primarily
used
by
de
anza
college
and
other
students,
which
is
great,
but
for
the
for
the
for
the
general
office
going
public,
the
vta
doesn't
seem
to
fit
the
bill.
We
have
seen
that
and
the
occupancy
number
or
any
service
tell
us
there.
So
foreign
of
the
most
crowded
freeways
it
doesn't
get
any
any
a
public
transit.
D
A
Yeah,
no,
it's
been
shown,
people
want
single-family
housing,
they
don't
be
cramped
into
condos,
especially
when
they
do
have
families,
and
I
think
the
pandemic
has
shown
that
that
density
as
a
business
model
no
longer
applies.
Commissioner
scharf,
please
go
ahead
and
I
have
an
amendment
proposal
to
make
as
well.
E
Okay,
yeah.
Thank
you,
commissioner
saxena.
You
know.
Unfortunately,
we
can't
solve
the
world's
problems
here
at
our
planning
commission,
but
I
did
want
to
share.
I
did
talk
recently
to
one
of
sunnyvale's
previous
council
members,
and
he
said
you
know
all
these
laws
that
they're
passing
yes,
most
of
them
are
bad
laws.
E
They
will
not
fix
the
affordable
housing
crisis,
which
is
what
we
really
need
to
address,
but
in
the
end
it's
all
going
to
balance
out
because
it
may
succeed
in
wrecking
a
few
cities,
but
the
bottom
line
is
developers
will
build
what
people
want
and
they
want
single
family
homes
and
that's
what's
being
built
out
in
areas
like
lathrop
and
tracy,
and
you
know
there
is
slow
mass
transit.
I
know
people
that
live
in
lathrop
and
work
in
cupertino
and
take
the
ace
train
and
it's
slow
or
they.
E
D
See
the
challenge
here
is
that
in
the
area
where
we
live
in,
there
are
many
people
who
just
buy
homes
as
an
investment,
and
I
think
there
was
a
study
done
about
how
much
of
homes
are
are
actually
occupied
or
unoccupied,
and
we
had
questions
about
that.
So
the
so
the
argument
about
you
know
empty
homes
might
forcing
developers
to
do
something
different.
D
I
think
it
sounds
good
in
principle
that
should
happen,
but
there's
so
many
other
market
dynamics
at
play
that
that
I
don't
think
that
is
going
to
happen
because
in
the
heart
of
the
valley
there
is
enough
pent-up
demand
for
people
to
justify,
and
you
know
for
a
developer.
It
makes
absolute
sense
to
build
a
home
in
the
heart
of
the
valley
where
they
can
get
3x
the
construction
cost
versus
tracy
or
that
through
where
they
probably
just
have
to
sell
it
slide
above
slightly
above
the
construction
cost.
D
So
their
profits
are
like
are
enormously
affected
by
where
they
build
and
they
see
no
reason
they
don't
have
any
incentive
to
build
there
if
they
can
build
them.
So
they
probably-
and
I
think
we
have
enough
demand
to
build
everywhere
and
do
it
and
at
the
right
price
points.
It's
just
that
the
whole
idea
of.
C
D
The
noble
cause
of
you
know
providing
housing
for
the
homeless
or
the
people
who
are
not
are
making
that
much
of
money,
but
still
serving
the
communities
is
used
as
an
excuse
to
increase
density.
To
me,
that
connection
is
the
one
which
is
the
most
sad
and
it
makes
me
feel
worried
about
where
our
country
is
heading.
A
I
think
I
want
to
add
an
amendment
here
that
would
say
that
the
density
bonus
ordinance
would
not
apply
to
sites
that
are
listed
as
hazardous
sites.
I
think
that's
important
just
in
case
we
have
other
sb-35
bills
that
come
in
here.
Is
there
a
second
for
that
amendment
and,
of
course
I
want
to
check
with
the
city
attorney.
If
that's
something
we
can
do.
G
In
general,
listed
sites
are
going
to
have
to
have
some
kind
of
environmental
review
which
would
address
the
the
contamination
issue,
but
the
state
density
bonus
law
does
not
have
an
exemption
for
listed
sites,
but
it
also
does
it
just
the
identity.
Bonus
project
may
be
subject
to
sql
and,
in
contrast
to,
for
example,
an
sb35
project.
A
G
A
I
will
probably
be
writing
a
letter
about
that
for
internal
review.
We
made
a
lot
of
mistakes
in
the
last
five
years
and
those
should
be
looked
at
so
I'll,
be
very
clear
about
that.
I'm
very
unhappy
with
that
process,
I'm
very
unhappy
with
how
it
was
handled.
I
wanted
to
prevent
something
like
this
from
happening
again.
A
The
headline
last
week
should
have
said
you
know.
Falco
site
is
environmentally
hazardous,
it's
listed
and
you
know,
and
people
lied
that
really
should
have
been
the
headline.
I'm
surprised
that
was
not
the
headline,
so
that's
where
I'm
at,
and
I
hope
no
other
site
and
cupertino
has
that.
I
hope
another
developer
abuses
that
system
to
do
that,
especially
when
we're
doing
a
density
bonus
warnings-
and
I
hope
you
know
the
folks
that
you
know
maybe
listening
in
on
here-
that
not
from
the
city-
that's
trying
to
understand.
A
What's
going
on
understand
that
a
that
our
obligation
to
protect
the
health
and
safety
of
our
citizens
should
come
first,
along
with
these
laws,
and
people
should
actually
factor
that
in
in
a
holistic
approach
when
they're
thinking
about
the
impact
of
these
laws
and
how
they
can
be
abused.
So
so
I
can't
propose
this
amendment.
There's
no
way
to
do.
That
is
what
you're
saying
legally
will
get
challenged.
G
E
A
A
Three:
two:
zero:
three:
two
dash
zero
three
dash:
two
dash:
zero;
sorry
for
the
abstentions,
since
we're
tracking
them
who's
paying
attention
to
these
meetings.
No
just
kidding,
I'm
glad
people
are
actually,
I
think,
that's
important.
Okay.
So,
with
that
item
four
is
closed.
We're
going
to
any
old
business
staff.
F
A
H
H
B
A
E
Okay,
well,
I've
been
attending
the
california
alliance
of
local
electeds.
You
know,
even
though
I'm
no
longer
elected,
they
do
allow
planning
commissioners
to
attend,
and
you
know
their
main
concern
has
been
affordable
housing.
You
know
disappointed
that
sb9
and
sb10
are
moving
forward,
since
those
you
know
will
reduce
affordable
housing.
E
But
the
good
news
is
that
in
2022
subject
to
collecting
enough
signatures,
there
will
be
a
local.
There
will
be
a
statewide
initiative
on
local
land
use
control,
and
this
was
started
by
mayor
bill
brand
of
redondo
beach,
and
it
has
a
lot
of
support
from
city
councils
through
throughout
the
state,
as
well
as
affordable
housing
groups.
They
liken
this
to
the
the
next
prop
13..
E
It
wouldn't
be
exaggerating
to
say
there
could
be
a
billion
dollars
of
opposition
to
this
kind
of
law,
so
we
will
see
what
happens,
but
this
would
solve
a
lot
of
the
issues
that
our
city,
council
and
our
planning
commission
have
been
dealing
with
over
the
years.
Instead
of
the
whack-a-mole
system
of
trying
to
stop
these
bad
state
laws,
this
would
really
fix
things
up
so
we'll
see
what
happens.
Thank
you.
A
H
I
have
a
question
more
on
the
upcoming
law.
Ab1174
I've
been
trying
to
read
up
on
it.
You
know
to
get
familiar
myself
right
so,
and
I
saw
some
document.
That
said
you
know:
senate
committee,
governance
and
finance
right
dated.
I
think
you
know
seven
eight
twenty
one
hour
right
so
and
that
document
six
page
document
had.
H
G
E
So
all
right
yeah,
I
would.
I
would
like
to
propose
that
so
I
think
we
should
be
looking
at
what
we
can
do
to
propose
a
law
regarding
development
on
contaminated
sites
and
how
we
how
we
determine
if
a
site
is
contaminated,
you
know
we
should
be
able
to
avoid
a
repeat
of
what
has
what
has
transpired
yeah.
It's
just
not
acceptable.
So
I
would
like
to
propose
an
agenda
item
on
that.
A
A
So
I'd
like
to
put
that
into
the
agenda
as
well
to
be
a
calendarized
item
that
we
actually
have
so
something
to
talk
about
in
our
agenda
meeting,
and
I
also
have
a
second
item.
Oh
sorry,
I'll
make
sure
we
get
pew
in
there.
I
see
a
raised
hand.
Also.
A
second
item
that
I
want
to
ask
about,
which
is
really.
A
F
F
A
Oh
and
as
we
start
looking
at
our
housing
element,
we
can
get
ahead
of
that.
I
really
want
to
take
a
look
at
our
land
use
designations
and
that's
something
else
I
like
to
get
on
to
the
agenda
as
well.
So
we
understand
our
language
land
use
designations
and
where
pd
sites
may
make
sense,
where
pd
sites
don't
make
sense
what
sites
are
sitting
on
listed
hazardous
sites.
A
That's
something
we
should
have
actively
been
up
and
understood,
also
understanding
where
deed
restrictions
are
in
play,
so
something
that
we
should
start
taking
a
look
at
okay,
any
other
items
anybody
wants
to
add
otherwise,
we'll
call
for
a
german
okay.
Seeing
that
there's
no
other
items
there.
We
are
here
to
adjourn
the
september
14th
meeting
of
the
city
of
cupertino
planning,
commission.
So
thank
you.
Everyone
for
attending
and
look
forward
to
seeing
in
two
weeks.