►
Description
This is a special joint meeting of the Parks and Recreation, Bicycle/Pedestrian, and Sustainability Commissions to consider an update on the Fiscal Year 2021-22 City Work Program item regarding the Blackberry Farm Golf Course Needs Assessment.
Recorded September 8, 2022.
A
C
G
K
A
Okay,
thank
you,
everyone
and
now.
The
next
item
is
oral
communication
part.
Please
note
that
this
time
it's
only
for
the
public
in
public,
our
communication
for
items
not
on
today's
agenda.
Today
we
only
have
one
agenda
regarding
the
blackberry
farm
golf
course.
If
you
have
anything
to
say
unrelated
to
this
topic,
please
raise
your
hand
and
the
staff
will
call
your
name
and
each
community
member
will
have
three
minutes
to
speak.
A
B
J
Perfect
hi,
yay,
third
time's
a
charm
good
evening,
commissioners,
I'm
speaking
on
a
non-agenda
item
within
the
last
couple
of
weeks
or
so
the
slide
at
the
blackberry
farm
pools
has
vanished,
and
my
recollection
is:
is
that
their?
What
that
blackberry
farm
reopened
around
2009
a
new
slide
was
put
in?
J
There
was
no
slide
the
first
season
there
was
one
put
in
in
2010,
and
I
think
there
was
a
second
one
put
in
in
2014
and
during
and
over
the
years
there's
been
talk
about
wanting
to
put
in
a
splash
pad
down
there
and
there's
been
very
there's
been
various
proposals.
I
have
a
list
of
that
which
I
can
get
to
if
you're
interested
in
sort
of
a
history
of
it.
J
But
anyway,
during
the
capital
improvements
plan
on
the
issue
of
replacing
this
slide
came
up.
Council
was
against
it.
One
of
the
things
they
talked
about
was
that
staff
would
need
to
be
trained
on
that
slide
and
the
training
was
somewhat
onerous
and
that
it
would
take
more
staff
to
to
man
that
slide.
J
However,
you
know
if
you
did
some
quick,
math
and
figure
out
how
much
it
would
cost
to
build
a
splash
pad
versus
providing
a
a
young
person
a
summer
job
providing
having
the
slide
and
providing
a
young
person's
job
certainly
worked
out
in
the
city's
favor
to
a
large
extent.
So
question
I
have
is
what
happened
with
the
slide.
J
E
Good
evening,
commissioners,
multiple
commissions-
I
have
two
topics
to
talk
about.
One
is
the
slide
and
I
just
wanted
to
notify
the
count
that
you
that
the
blackberry
park
pool
slide
is
gone
and
it
disappeared
within
the
last
week
or
so
so
that's
kind
of
confusing
I'm
wondering
who
authorized
it
and
why
the
last
public
discussion
in
front
of
council
was
whether
to
replace
the
slide
with
an
expensive
splash
pad,
and
the
council
didn't
approve
it.
E
So
now
that
the
slide
is
gone,
I'm
thinking
this
splash
pad
is
going
to
come
back
or
resurface
in
a
request,
and
I
think
that's
not
a
good
way
to
do
business
one
by
one.
The
pool
amenities
at
blackberry
farm
are
being
dismantled
without
any
public
input
there
used
to
be
a
waiting
pool,
it's
gone,
there
used
to
be
a
pool
slide,
it's
gone.
The
parking
lot
had
trees
and
plantings,
but
now
it's
a
dead
zone.
E
E
My
other
request
is
that
all
the
parks
need
their
bathrooms
renovated
and
for
accessibility
issues
for
the
disabled.
It's
really
important
that
you
have
a
bathroom
and
a
bathroom
that
they
can
use.
So
I
would
like
you
to
prioritize
or
when
you're
looking
at
your
work
plan,
please
consider
upgrading
the
bathrooms
on
all
the
parks
in
the
city.
Thank
you.
A
A
J
J
A
A
Q
Thank
you
good
evening,
commissioners,
I'm
matt
morley,
I'm
the
part
of
the
public
works
director
here
in
cupertino.
I
wanted
to
thank
you
all
for
your
time
tonight
for
attending
the
meeting.
I
know
this
is
an
extra
meeting
for
you,
but
I
think
it's
an
important
subject
we're
here
to
share
with
you
the
the
results
of
our
public
outreach
from
the
blackberry
farm
golf
course
future
use
options
study.
Q
As
you
can
see
by
the
attendance
tonight,
the
community
outreach
by
the
project
team
has
been
amazing
and
the
resulting
input.
Equally
impressive
and
again,
you
can
see
the
attendance
tonight
of
the
public
as
an
example
of
that
there's
nothing
that
can
provide
greater
influence
to
a
project
than
providing
public
input
so
having
the
public
here
to
provide
that
input
is
great.
So
I
wanted
to
thank
the
the
entire
attending
group
for
being
here.
Q
I'm
going
to
hand
this
off
to
alicia
fennel
with
cascadia
consulting
group,
who
is
our
community
engagement
consultant
to
present
the
findings
to
date,
following
the
presentation
we'll
be
able
to
take
comments
from
the
public
that
are
present
so
you're
welcome
to
raise
your
hand
and
comment
at
that
time
and
we'll
let
you
know
what
the
right
time
to
do.
That
is
due
to
the
number
of
people
that
are
attending
it.
Q
Just
won't
be
practical
for
us
to
to
engage
in
dialogue
or
to
respond
to
any
questions
that
might
come
up
so
we'll
we'll
make
sure
to
make
note
of
everything
and
we'll
respond
back
with
a
an
faq
document
and
we'll
put
that
online
on
the
project
site
next
week.
Sometime
so
we'll
make
sure
and
capture
all
those
questions.
If
you
have
questions
you
can
ask
them,
but
know
that
we
we
just
won't
be
able
to
respond
directly
to
them
and
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
to
alicia.
Thank
you.
Alicia.
R
Great,
thank
you
matt
well
good
evening.
Everyone,
my
name
is
alicia
fennell
and
I
am
supporting
the
city
of
cupertino
with,
as
matt
said,
the
outreach
and
engagement
for
the
blackberry
farm
golf
course.
Future
use
options.
Project
tonight,
we'll
be
presenting
on
the
two
options
being
considered
and
the
results
from
the
community
survey.
R
I'll
start
off
with
a
few
introductions,
you'll
be
hearing
tonight,
mainly
from
lisa
camelli,
who
is
managing
this
project
with
the
city
of
cupertino,
also
from
the
city.
We
have
susan,
michael
and
jenny
coverman,
and
we
are
also
joined
tonight
by
jeff
danner
and
taylor
peterson,
who
work
with
the
consulting
firms
that
worked
on
the
feasibility
studies
for
the
two
options,
which
you'll
learn
more
about
shortly
and
again,
my
name
is
alicia
fennell
and
I've
been
supporting
community
engagement.
R
S
S
S
S
Stevens
creek
is
in
the
in
the
blue,
above
blackberry,
farm
pool
and
associated
parking
lot
is
located
south
of
the
golf
course
on
the
left
side
of
your
screen.
The
golf
course
is
within
the
yellow
boundary,
the
entire
site
is
approximately
16
acres
to
the
north
of
the
of
the
on.
The
golf
course
is
the
golf
course
parking
lot,
which
is
adjacent
to
the
main
building
the
main
building
houses,
the
pro
shop,
the
blue,
pheasant,
restaurant
and
restrooms
next
slide.
S
The
course
was
built
in
1962
and
the
city
took
on
ownership
in
operation
in
1991..
The
site
has
about
12.58
acres
of
irrigated
land.
Historically,
the
course
was
irrigated
using
well
water
and
a
storage
tank
in
2003,
the
well
storage
tank
failed
and
the
irrigation
system
was
converted
to
using
municipal
water.
S
S
The
golf
course
is
immediately
adjacent
to
stevens
creek.
The
stephens
creek
corridor
is
home
to
protected
wildlife
and
special
status
plants.
The
golf
course
is
also
within
a
designated
fun
place.
Flood
plain
the
most
recent
known
flooding
was
within
the
last
10
years
in
terms
of
use
of
the
golf
course
prior
to
covid
the
course
was
seeing
about
28
000
rounds
of
golf
annually
and
the
annual
average
subsidy
to
the
golf
course
from
the
city
was
about
272
thousand
dollars
next
slide.
S
S
S
S
S
Additionally,
the
master
panel
plan
specifically
articulates
the
goal
of
increasing
ecological
value
along
stevens
creek
corridor,
also,
the
stephens
creek
corridor
master
planning
process.
During
that
period,
the
public
expressed
interest
in
the
in
exploring
alternative
uses
of
the
site
and
because
of
that
city,
council
recently
directed
the
city
to
evaluate
two
options.
S
S
S
S
on
average,
after
2014,
the
city
used
only
53
percent
of
the
water
used
prior
to
2014.,
given
the
condition
of
the
existing
irrigation
system.
This
is
an
incredible
reduction
of
use
in
2014,
a
few
things
propelled,
the
reduction
in
water
use
first
county-wide
water
use
restrictions
were
introduced
and
implemented.
S
Additionally,
the
city
installed
a
higher
efficiency
control
system
for
the
irrigation
heads.
Also,
there
was
considerable
reduction
in
total
acreage
being
irrigated.
We
don't
have
specific
information
on
the
operational
reductions,
but
we
do
know
that
periodically
nearly
one-third
of
the
sprinkler
heads
are
turned
off.
S
S
S
S
S
Some
of
the
benefits
of
option
b
include
the
ability
to
integrate
natural
landscape
in
an
urban
environment.
Additionally,
there
will
be
a
reduction
in
water
demand
to
less
than
10
percent
of
that
used
for
the
golf
course.
There
will
also
be
environmental
education
opportunities
and
stronger
connection
with
nature
within
the
urban
setting.
S
S
These
photos
help
provide
some
context
for
a
conversion
of
the
golf
course
to
natural
habitat,
as
you
can
see
on
the
left.
This
is
the
existing
golf
course
on.
The
right
is
a
an
existing
oak
woodland
with
trails
similar
to
what
we
might
see
at
the
site.
If
that
option
is
chosen
next
slide
here
on,
the
left
is
a
photo
of
the
existing
pond
area
of
the
golf
course
on
the
right
is
a
sample
of
a
not
yet
mature
native
habitat
island,
which
I
believe
is
at
mcclellan
ranch
preserve,
I'm
guessing
correctly.
S
S
The
t
key
takeaways
for
this
table
include
the
following:
the
difference
in
total
project
cost
over
25
years
is
just
over
two
million
dollars,
with
cost
higher
for
restoration
to
natural
habitat,
the
average
annual
operations
and
maintenance
costs.
Difference
between
the
two
options
is
eighty
four
thousand
dollars
per
year
with
cost
higher
for
the
restoration
of
habitat.
S
S
R
Thank
you
lisa.
So
as
as
folks
have
noted
tonight,
community
engagement
has
been
an
important
piece
of
this
process
and
a
high
priority
for
the
city
throughout
the
project.
So
I'll
give
a
quick
overview
of
what
the
community
engagement
process
has
entailed
and
then
present
the
results
from
the
community
survey.
R
After
the
survey
closed,
we
analyzed
the
results
in
july
and
august,
and
today
we
are
here
presenting
findings
at
this
joint
commission
meeting
to
receive
your
feedback
and
recommendations
in
the
next
couple
of
months.
We
will
present
these
findings
to
city
council
and
seek
their
recommendations
for
how
to
move
forward.
R
R
Most
of
the
responses
reviewed
were
assumed
to
be
legitimate
entries
because
they
used
different
email
addresses
and
the
open-ended
responses
were
varied.
We
ended
up
removing
just
four
responses
that
were
assumed
to
be
duplicates,
which
comes
to
less
than
0.1
percent
of
total
responses,
so
does
not
impact
the
overall
results
of
the
survey.
R
R
R
R
When
looking
at
age
and
option
preferences,
we
see
that
generally
older
respondents
prefer
the
golf
course
and
younger
respondents
prefer
the
natural
habitat
when
filtering
responses
by
people
who
selected
option
a
the
golf
course,
41
percent
are
60
or
over
60
years
old.
Comparing
these
age
demographics.
To
those
who
selected
option
b,
the
natural
habitat
29
are
over
60
years
old.
R
The
survey
also
asked
respondents
how
often
they
would
use
the
blackberry
farm
site
in
the
future
for
each
option.
If
the
golf
course
repairs
and
improvements
were
made,
and
if
the
site
was
converted
to
a
natural
habitat
area,
the
figure
on
the
left
shows
how
often
respondents
say
they
would
use
the
site
in
the
future.
If
the
golf
course
repairs
and
improvements
were
made
option,
a
48
said
that
they
would
use
the
golf
course
frequently
or
occasionally
and
52
said
that
they
would
use
the
course
rarely
or
never.
R
R
M
Okay,
you're
perfect
I'll,
hear
you
now:
okay,
okay,
sorry
about
that.
My
audio
issues,
thanks
for
bearing
with
it
see
I
actually
wanted
to
point
it
a
point
out
to
you
that
there
is
a
difference
between
how
the
cupertino
residents
have
responded
versus
the
non-cupertino
residents
that
have
responded.
Correct
I'd
like
to
highlight
that
point
specifically,
because
there's
a
complete
difference
in
rather
a
complete
flip
in
how
the
preferences
are
rated,
so
cupertino
residents
overwhelmingly
seem
to
prefer
option
p,
which
is
the
conversion
to
natural
habitat.
M
Whereas
when
you
consider
the
totality
of
it,
then
I
think
the
option
a
comes
up
so
in
the
in
in
our
consideration
as
a
commissioner
of
of
cupertino,
I
feel
strongly
aligned
to
represent
the
citizens
of
cupertino
rather
than
everyone
else,
who
is
also
not
necessarily
a
part
of
the
cupertino
community,
but
makes
sense
of
so.
I
just
want
to
get
some
more
clarification
on
that.
A
M
N
I
don't
know
the
best
way
to
answer
that
I
mean
you
are
definitely
a
commissioner
of
cupertino,
but
obviously
you
know
the
information
is
out
there
and
so
sharing
how
you
feel.
Based
on
what
I
mean,
the
survey
wasn't
closed
to
non-residents
and
obviously
the
golf
course
isn't
either
so
being
able
to
share
how
you
feel
based
on
the
results,
is
really
what
we're
hoping
for
and
then
obviously
city
council
will
make
their
decision
based
on
similar.
T
Yes,
thank
you.
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
yes,
so
I
wanted
to
ask.
There
was
a
slide
that
said
about
the
plains
that
the
forgive
me
the
golf
course
is
in
a
flood
plain.
So
is
there
any
justification
or
any
knowledge
of
is
the
flood
plain
is?
Is
one
option
better
than
another
from
a
perspective
of
flooding?
Is
the
golf
course
better
or
is
the
natural
habitat
better
is?
Do
we
have
any
scientific
or
any
thought
processes
on
that?
That's
my
question.
Thank
you.
T
S
I
can
certainly
try
to
address
that
if
anyone
else
wants
to
jump
in
here.
Sorry,
I've
got
the
sun
in
my
eyes
right
now,
so,
with
the
natural
habitat
version,
there
would
typically
not
be
the
kind
of
management
practices
for
you
know,
fertilizers
or
herbicides,
etc.
Pesticides
would
typically
not
be
applied
and
there
might
be
some
initial
fertilization
in
the
soil
that
that
is
that's
used
to
establish
taylor.
S
Peterson
may
be
able
to
address
that
a
little
bit
more,
but
we
do
know
you
know
the
golf
course
does
practice
very
diligent
application
of
of
chemicals
and
only
on
as
needed
basis,
and
always
it's
all
reported
to
the
city.
So
as
a
flood
plain,
that
might
be
the
one
thing
that
that
sticks
out
to
me,
as
as
a
difference
between
the
two
options
in
times
of
flood.
U
Most
of
the
work
would
be
done
by
hand
or
with
weed
whips
or
goats
or
in
a
sustainable
way.
The
other
thing
I
I
could
say
about
floods
is
that
they
usually
carry
debris
with
them
and
in
a
natural
habitat,
the
debris
could
potentially
be
left
in
place,
whereas
on.
If
you
want
to
play
a
golf
course,
you
might
need
to
remove
some
of
that
debris.
U
D
S
So
the
the
analysis
is
the
assumptions
made
in
this
and
is
that
an
initial
300
000
may
be
available
for
the
initial
capital
improvement
and
then
over
the
course
of
the
following
20
24
years.
25
years
that
there
would
be
sort
of
you
know,
asked
on
an
annual
basis
essentially,
and
that
assumption
that
just
assumes
that
there
would
be
in
something,
like
you
know:
15
15,
to
twenty
thousand
dollars
available
annually
for
upkeep
and
restoration.
D
S
D
S
So
I
think
everything
we've
presented
to
the
commission
has
the
25-year
outlook,
but
I
did
in
the
analysis
that
I
did.
I
took
the
first
10
years
and
did
the
cost
comparison
between
those
and
then
added
the
following
15
years,
and
the
reason
that
I
chose
that
path
was
because
for
the
natural
habitat
option,
they're
the
first
eight
years
or
so
after
the
plantings
are
complete.
S
There
is
a
regime
essentially
for
upkeep
and
irrigation,
as
well
as
contracted
annual
maintenance
on
on
the
site
after
the
what
I'm,
what
we're,
considering
an
eight-year
establishment
period,
we're
assuming
those
all
go
away.
Essentially,
once
once
the
habitat
is
mature
enough,
the
the
practices
other
than
than
sort
of
fire
suppression,
maintenance.
D
S
P
S
S
U
I
am
not
sure
when
mcclellan
ranch
planted
those
or
how
big
the
plants
were
that
they
planted.
So
I
do
know
from
experience
that
that
that
this
eight
year
window
is
very
typical.
It's
typically
what's
required
by
cow
fish
and
wildlife
and
all
of
their
permits
for
creek
restoration
areas,
and
so
that's
experience
over
time
that
it
used
to
be
five
years
now,
it's
eight
to
ten
years
that
they
want
monitoring,
and
so
that's
what
I
I
base
that
estimate
on
great
thank
you.
They
do.
U
D
D
Oh,
I'm
sorry!
So
if
we
had,
if
let's
say
it
takes,
we
have
a
plan
to
water
them
for
eight
years
fully,
and
then
it's
going
to
take
us
another
four
years
for
that
to
be
established
without
watering
in
that
four
years.
What
is
going
to
be
our
watering
plan
and
how
much
is
that
going
to
be
cost
costing
us
is
that
in
the
calculation
in
both
the
water
calculation
and
the
cost
calculation.
S
S
D
And
the
cost
would
also
change
there
right,
so
we
didn't
put
the
possible
conservation.
Okay,
I
have
one
more
question.
This
was
with
regard
to
the
trail.
I
I
just
was
distracted
for
a
moment
and
you
had
mentioned.
We
would
be
getting
extra
trail,
how
how
much
of
extra
you
gave
some
number,
but
I
missed
that
number.
S
D
S
S
I
you
know,
I
think
that
just
looking
at
the
site,
the
site,
drawing
you
can
always
add
more
trails.
But
if
you
want
some
sense
of
nature,
I
think
you
want
some
sight
line
distance
between
other
trails
and
I
think
that's
the
intent
that
you
see
on
the
on
the
graphic
there,
where
the
white
lines
are
you're,
trying
to
create
some
separation
between
the
trails
and
some
sight
line
sight
line,
limitations.
S
X
If
I
may,
this
is
susan,
michael
I'm,
the
cip
manager,
and
I
just
want
to
reiterate
what
lisa
said.
We
asked
mig
to
proceed
with
the
study
in
order
to
facilitate
the
study.
They
came
up
with
this
conceptual
plan
only
to
facilitate
the
study.
If
we
were
to
go
down
this
path,
we
would
actually
start
again
with
public
comment
and
a
design,
that's
based
in
somebody's
comments
and
feedback
and
realities
as
well,
but
this
was
only
a
tool
to
develop
the
study.
S
Y
Sure,
thanks
lisa
yeah,
we
would
look
at
expanding
what
is
done
at
mcclellan
and
make
that
would
become
an
office
for
our
rangers.
So
we
would
aim
to
have
more
junior
ranger
program
and
things
that
would
revolve
more
around
the
rangers
leading
them
than
the
some
of
the
similar
classes
at
the
environmental
education
center.
But
we
would,
you
know,
work
in
conjunction
with
all
of
them
to
increase
as
much
programming
out
there
as
we
could.
Okay.
Y
We
do
we,
we
always
hope
to
have
four
part-time.
Our
ranger
position
is
currently
part-time
and
we
always
hope
to
have
four,
but
because
it
is
a
part-time
position,
we
do
struggle
to
get
rangers.
So
if
this,
I
believe
part
of
this
plan
also
included
a
the
potential
for
a
full-time
ranger,
which
would
then
give
us,
hopefully
a
broader
application
pool
and
someone
who
could
be
there
every
day
and
stay
on
long
term.
We
do
have
a
high
turnover
in
rangers
and
we
currently
have
about
one
and
a
half.
D
A
H
Thank
you
and
I
was
wondering
so
she
will
steal
all
my
questions
but
ugly.
She
left
few
for
me.
So
that's
good.
So
three
questions
number
one.
Maybe
I'll
go
on
the
reverse
order.
One
is
on
the
survey
and
while
it
may
be
a
completely
opposite
land
support
than
what
commission
swami's
asked
for
since
the
golf
course
is
bringing
so
much
revenue
right,
it's
I
see
it
is
a
9
million.
H
If
I
correct,
if
you
see
that
once
if
it
is
that
much,
I
think
it
is
also
contributed
by
the
people
from
outside
as
well
right,
not
just
copenhagen
resident.
In
that
with
that
angle,
do
we
have
a
combined
ignore
the
resident
non-residence?
Do
we
have
any
chart
with
displaced?
What's
overall
result,
because
I
tried
to
map
it
combine
these
two
with
the
numbers,
and
I
I'm
not
too
good
at
it
at
this
point,
do
we
have
a
combined
report
of
ignore
the
residential
non-distance?
How
many
people
voted
for
these
two
options?
Do
we
have.
C
H
S
H
Z
H
If
I
yeah
it's,
a
15.9
million
usage
to
8.5
million
gallon
right
usage
was
done,
was
reduced
to
that
level,
which
is
around
7.4
million
degrees
by
three
areas
you
mentioned,
one
is
the
restricted
usage
and
water
restriction
and
then
using
high
efficient
irrigation
system.
I
assume
and
then
reduce
usage
area
itself,
so
your
scope
is
reduced
and
water
is
reduced
and
then
used
efficient.
H
So
that's,
but
doesn't
only
do
we
have
a
data
because
since
then
the
efficient
irrigation
systems
have
gone
to
a
completely
different
level
like
we
use
it
at
our
own
launch
where
it
looks
at
the
weather.
It
looks
at
the
moisture
level
on
the
overall
and
then
it
stops
watering
right,
lawns
and
stuff,
and
I
personally
see
it
in
my
own
area.
Sustainability
commissioners
should
be
jumping
into.
I
think
when
at
least
people
started
using
it,
it
really
reduces
the
water
consumption.
It
is
more
efficient.
H
Have
you
done
any
just
a
quick
study
on
because
2014
to
2022
now,
eight
years
now,
if
we
go
replace
just
that
one
component
of
it?
What
is
the
effect
involved,
because
I'm
trying
to
see
that
we
are
going
with
the
study
of
whatever
it
is
like
eight
years
back
on
the
data,
but
the
same.
If
I
apply
the
principles
now,
definitely
I
do
see
that
there
should
be
some
increase,
but
I
want
to
know
what
that
is.
H
If
you
just
apply
that
because
they
provide
the
data
on
what's
the
average
usage
right
so
would
it
be
possible?
I
know
we're
not
going
to
make
addition
today,
but
it's
going
to,
but
it'll
be
a
very
important
data
point,
because,
because
all
the
natural
habitat
one
is,
we
are
taking
the
right
current
data.
H
So
I
like
to
understand
what
would
take
to
get
that
one,
because
that's
a
very
important
data
point.
I'm
sure
that
you
may
not
have
it
today,
but
I
like
to
get
that
data,
because
this
is
very
critical.
So
that's
number
one
number
two
and
we
talked
about
the
reduction
of,
I
think
in
the
when
the
comparative
statement,
and
you
said
that
the
reduction
would
be
less
than
percent
compared
to
the
golf
course
correct.
That's
for
over
25
years
or
per
year.
S
Z
H
There
will
be
a
90
deduction,
correct,
yeah,
sorry
if
you
could
go
by
yeah,
I
just
want
to
get
or
because
of
168
to
14
million.
Okay,
that's
what
I
was
confused.
Is
it
10
or
90
percent?
Okay
and
did
we?
I
know
you
called
it
out
saying
that
if
he
used,
I
think
maybe
couple
of
slides
back.
If
he
used
10.5
acres,
13
percent
less
and
if
you
reduce
it
by
one
more
acre,
is
21
percent
less
correct.
Can
you
if
you
don't.
AA
S
H
Got
it
okay?
The
reason
I'm
asking
is
that
I
don't
know
whether
you
have
the
data
today,
but
I,
if
not
I'm
just
I'm
just
gonna,
ask
the
question,
but
if
there's
no
data,
I'm
sure
that
you
may
not
have
it
offhand,
but
I
would
like
to
see
that
too,
because
once
we
get
the
data
on,
if
you
use
upgrade
to
the
new
irrigation
system
upgraded
to
2022
levels,
that's
one
number
two
reducing
this
one
to
9.5
whatever
these
are.
H
H
U
S
I'm
not
quite
understanding
your
question,
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
different
way
to
frame
it.
What
we!
What
we
know
is
that
for
the
previous
five
years
is
that
on
average
we've
used
8.5
million
gallons,
and
that's
that's
already
demonstrated
a
lot
of
reduction
both
in
total
acreage
as
well
as
in
the
browning
or
different.
You
know
allowing
heads
to
be
turned
off,
and
this
this
table
here
is
an
example
of
with
a
completely
new
state
of
the
state
of
the
art
irrigation
system.
H
Okay,
then
I
think,
maybe
what
are
the
next
comments?
I
think
possibilities
for
the
discussion
site
so
I'll
hold
on
to
it
and
the
last
question
I
have,
if
I
remember
when
it
was
presented
last
time
to
rock
and
roll
commission
as
well
as
in
one
of
the
return
things
here.
There
was
a
comment
about
the
well
which
we
could
tap
in
which
we
don't
is
there
any?
Can
you
just
highlight
on
it,
because
I
don't
think
that
it
was
discussed
today
for
the
rest
of
the
other
commissioner's
benefit.
H
S
Sure
I'm
glad
to
do
that
and
we
we
did
take
that
out
of
this
presentation
partially
for
the
sake
of
brevity,
and
also
because
both
both
the
city's
analysis
as
well
as
ngs
analysis,
it
was
determined
that
the
return
on
investment
for
for
reinitiating
use
of
that.
Well,
we
we
looked
at
up
to
a
94-year
return
on
investment
and
in
that
analysis,
that
ngf
did
that
didn't
account
for
all
elements.
H
H
For
other
commission
benefit
will
be
good
as
the
non-dump
to
the
presentation,
but
I
think
it'll
be
good.
I'm
just
trying
to
wonder
what
that
94
year
rate
of
return,
what
not,
because
the
water
is
going
to
be
precious
and
scared.
But
that
means
if
there
is
another
resource
sitting
within
us,
why
not
resurrect
it
that
that's
my.
I
AD
AD
Did
I
miss
something
somewhere
along
the
lines,
because
I
didn't
see
anything
in
the
in
the
information
you
guys
sent
us
that
described
that?
Oh,
we
first
threw
out
all
these
other
ideas,
so
were
any
other
ideas
ever
discussed
or
thought
about
before
picking
to
either
restore
the
existing
golf
course
or
turning
it
into
open
land?
X
Thank
you,
commissioner
carter.
This
is
susan
again,
I'm
gonna.
Take
this
one
real,
quick.
We
went
to
council
somewhere
in
the
last
year.
I
can't
remember
the
dates
exactly
for
that
and
we
went
with
two
or
three
options
to
counsel
and
they
asked
us
to
limit
it
to
these
two
options
on
our
investigation
and
partly
because
we
wanted
to
look
into
the
options
in
a
full
body.
You
know
comprehensive
way,
and
so
that's
why
you're
seeing
the
two
options.
X
AE
AE
AF
So
I'm
not
sure
exactly
how
many
days
a
week,
they're
watering
it
right
now,
but
all
our
assumptions
are
made
using
the
same
water
usage
requirements
that
you
have
right
now,
which,
in
our
opinion,
is
actually
too
low
for
what
the
turf
wants
to
have.
But
we
understand
why
you've
done
it,
so
the
real
savings
as
it
relates
to
water
reduction,
water
usage
reduction,
is
related
to
how
much
turf
you're
actually
watering.
AF
AE
Okay,
just
to
to
be
clear,
the
genesis
of
that
question
is
really
guidance
from
valley,
water
or
our
current
water
utilities
that
are
asking
everyone
to
to
limit
to
twice
a
week.
So
I'm
wondering
under
the
new
plan
would
we
be
looking
at
twice
a
week
less
than
twice
a
week
more
than
twice
a
week?
How
do
we?
How
would
we
gauge
compared
to
the
goal
that
the
utilities
have
the
water
utilities
have
set
for
us.
AF
Yeah
I
mean
you'd
have
to
prioritize,
probably
the
greens
and
teas
over
everything
else
there
it's
a
problem,
that
a
lot
of
golf
courses
are
facing
in
california
they're
being
held
to
these
restrictions
as
well,
so
you're,
seeing
a
lot
of
them
turn
brown
or
gold
or
whatever,
which
is
you
know,
actually
not
the
worst
surface
to
play
on
as
far
as
golf
is
concerned,
but
it's
you
know
it's
not
what
people
associate
with
a
golf
course.
So
yeah
I
mean
you,
you
would
have
to
follow
what
it
is.
Y
My
neck,
I
can
answer
a
little
bit.
Thank
you
sure
we
as
a
golf
course
we're
not
restricted
to
the
same
as
homes.
It
is
different
for
parks,
so
the
golf
course
was
directed.
I
think
it
was
last
summer
to
start
to
meet
whatever
stage
that
was,
I
can't
remember
if
it's
three
or
four
so
they
cut
their.
They
started
restricting
last
summer,
which
is
why,
if
you
see
the
golf
course
right
now,
there's
a
lot
of
brown
spots
out
there.
Y
AE
Okay,
thank
you
so
much.
The
next
question
was:
do
we
know
how
many
youth
rounds
are
played
annually?
I
know
that
some
of
the
the
gulf
managers
and
the
youth
groups
have
said
that
they
have
brought.
I
don't
know,
2500
youth
grounds.
Last
year
I
was
wondering
if
we
know
I
mean
that's
just
them.
Do
we
know
how
many
youth
grounds
are
played
there.
Y
AE
Okay
and
some
of
the
comments
from
some
some
of
the
feedback
from
the
residents
are
that
they
are
concerned
about.
If
we
take
this
to
habitat,
that
there
would
be
a
greater
risk
of
fires,
their
senses
that
the
golf
course
acts
as
more
of
a
fire
break,
and
so
I
was
wondering
if
anybody
could
address
what
kind
of
a
risk
do.
We
think
they
would
be
compared
to
the
golf
course
of
natural
habitat.
U
So
with
natural
habitat,
you
would
have
a
defensible
space,
but
we've
also
designed
most
of
the
natural
habitat
to
be
grassland
that
would
be
mowed
and
that
that
provides
some
of
a
fire
break
somewhat
of
a
fire
break.
Maybe
not
if
it
was
all
irrigated,
maybe
not
quite
as
strong,
but
if
you're
not
able
to
irrigate
all
the
golf
course
it
would
be
dried
grassland
similar
and
then
the
defensible
space
management
plan
is
something
that
is
based
on
what
the
cal
fire
recommends.
AE
AG
AG
That
being
said,
we
have
done
a
rough
investigation
as
to
what
it
would
take
to
bring
water
recycled
water
from
homestead
and
wolf
down
to
blackberry
farm
and
I
seem
to
recall
the
cost
being
somewhere
in
the
40
million
dollar
range.
So
this
is
not
something
that
you're
going
to
do
in
a
one-time
shots.
It's
going
to
be
something
that
you're
going
to
do,
probably
in
phases
over
years
to
to
extend
those,
hopefully
that
that
answers
your
question.
It's
not
something
that
can
be
done
quickly.
AE
F
Yes,
hello,
I
have
few
questions.
I
think
some
of
the
questions
have
been
already
addressed
or
asked
by
the
previous
commissioners.
So
so
let
me
ask
a
question
about
the
revenue
right,
so
you
have
shown
in
appendix
e
that
or
attachment
e
that
there's
a
revenue
of
9.37
million
over
25
years
right
for
the
golf
course
and
have
you
looked
at
increasing
the
revenue?
F
Actually,
this
is
estimated
I'm
assuming
based
on
today's
dollars
and
it's
considered
to
be
flat
throughout
you
know,
throughout
the
25
years,
I'm
not
sure
how
it's
how
it
was
calculated,
but
have
you
looked
at
the
option
to
increase
the
revenue
from
from
golfing
so
that
that
could
offset
the
subsidy
that
the
city
is
actually
paying
somewhere
in
the
2.75
like
275,
000
or
something
right
per
year,
so
that
can
that
be
subsidized?
The
second
thing
is
the
1.8
million
dollars
of
initial
investment
for
repairing
the
irrigation
system
and
whatnot.
F
S
Okay,
so
the
as
far
as
in
the
in
the
estimates
and
the
projected
revenue,
the
the
analysis
that
I
used
was
we
looked
at
historical
data
recovered
and
then
I
added
a
50
percent
15
percent
of
an
increase,
essentially
because
we
know
we've
seen
some
increase
over
the
covet
period
and
so
those
the
numbers
you
see
there
are
a
pre-covered
revenue
at
plus
15,
essentially
over
a
25-year
period.
So
there
is
some
essential
assumption
that
there
would
be
an
increase
in
use
because
of
the
increase
in
use
during
the
coven
period.
S
I
didn't
want
to
project
much
beyond
that,
because
once
you
start
to
project
beyond
that,
you
get
when
you
get
into
assumptions,
you
know
what
they
say
about
assumptions.
So
so
I
stayed
away
from
projections
like
that
there
hasn't
been.
No
there's
hasn't
been
a
lot
of
discussion
that
I'm
aware
of
of
you
know
increased
marketing.
You
know
getting
you
know,
sort
of
there's,
that's
that's
sort
of
a
whole
different
plan
so-
and
maybe
jenny
has
more
to
add
to
that.
Y
F
F
S
Great
thank
you.
I
can.
I
can
start
that
one
and
if,
if
tay
wants
to
chime
in
she
can
add
to
this,
but
yes,
the
the
natural
habitat
option
would
require
irrigation
in
those
first,
you
know,
let's
say
eight
to
ten
months
or
eight
to
ten
years.
The
the
the
type
of
irrigation
that
would
be
utilized
would
probably
be
drip
irrigation.
S
S
You
we
would
tap
into
the
existing
irrigation
system
and
either
use
quick.
Coupler
connections
would
require
some
additional
piping,
but
the
extent
to
which
the
part
of
the
situation
is
which
wasn't
articulated
well
earlier
is
that
the
irrigation
would
be
predominantly
for
the
for
the
habitat
islands
and
those
habitat
islands.
They
can
they
they
comprised
in
this
version
of
the
design.
S
F
Q
I
just
wanted
to
to
remind
the
commissioners
that
we
are
working
at
a
very
high
conceptual
level
plan
here.
So
a
lot
of
the
questions
you're
asking
are
about
the
detail
in
the
future
and
decisions
that
will
be
made.
Should
we
go
down
a
particular
path
or
not.
I
encourage
you
to
to
keep
your
questions
clarifying
in
nature.
Q
The
information
that's
been
provided
and
at
a
high
level,
and
also
to
remind
you
that
there
are
significant
members
of
the
public
that
would
like
to
to
provide
their
input,
and
so
you
want
to
get
leave
some
time
to
get
to
that.
So,
to
the
extent
that
I
can
encourage
your
cooperation
there,
that
would
be
fabulous.
F
Makes
sense
when
some
of
the
details
are.
We
are
asking
such
a
way
that
it's
also
going
to
help
the
public
who
are
listening
to
this
and
so
that
they
can
tailor
their
questions
accordingly
as
well
right.
So
my
question
is
like
some
other
details
that
we
are
asking,
because
we
are
going
to
make
decisions
based
on
this
data
that
you
are
presented
and
if
you
are
missing
some
data,
it's
best
for
us
to
go
and
collect
those
additional
data
which
will
help
us
to
make
informed
decisions.
F
F
S
AF
AF
So,
whether
you
have
a
new
system
or
an
old
system,
you're
still
going
to
have
to
throw
down
the
same
amount
of
water
where
the
efficiencies
come
in
and
why
this
is
hard
to
gauge,
because
we
weren't
able
to
dig
into
the
ground
at
blackberry
farm
and
find
out.
You
know
where
there
might
be
leaks
or
or
things
like
that
or
parts
broken.
AF
You're
gonna
have
to
either
use
more
water
on
the
same
footprint
or
you're.
Gonna
have
to
look
at
reducing
your
turf
footprint,
and
I
would
I
would
just
remind
everybody
here
that
you
know
back
in
2014
that
study
included
an
option
where
turf
was
greatly
reduced
and
we
were
looking
at
turning
this
property
into
a
par
3
course
that
had
less
maintained
turf,
and
I
believe
that
was
the
option
that
was
thrown
out.
That
was
mentioned
earlier,
so
to
really
solve
the
problem.
AF
You
have
to
look
at
reducing
your
turf
footprint
and
the
way
to
do
that
is
to
probably
get
rid
of
most
of
the
par
4
holes
that
you
have
par
4.
Holes
generally
occupy
about
3
acres
of
turf
on
average,
whereas
a
par
3
hole
occupies
about
1
acre
and
with
a
par
three
hole,
you're,
basically
hitting
from
the
green
to
the
t.
So
your
fairway
area
is
reduced
and
you
have
more
of
an
opportunity
to
naturalize.
AF
You
know
the
landscape
and
the
margins
more
into
what
you're
talking
about
when
we
discuss
the
option
for
converting
everything
back
to
a
native
habitat.
So
I
as
an
architect
I
I
feel
that
you
could
have
your
cake
and
eat
it
too
in
this
situation,
if
you
really
wanted
to,
but
it
would
take
some
further
studying
and
this
investigation.
F
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
have
a
last
question
is
regarding
a
hybrid
model.
I
mean
you
looked
at.
You
know
for
the
golf
course
right
you
have
right
now
we
are
drawing
from
the
municipal
water
sources
and
then
there
was
also
an
estimate,
additional
million
dollar
estimate
for
doing
the
well
using
the
well
water
for
the
irrigation.
Is
there
a
possibility
to
do
a
hybrid
of
this
so
that
we
could
I
mean?
Has
that
been
looked
at?
K
N
If
I
may
interject
for
a
second,
do
you
mind
going
to
any
of
the
commissioners
who
haven't
had
a
chance
to
ask
questions
yet
and
then
let's
go
to
the
public,
and
we
will
go
back
to
any
commissioners
who
you
will
get
a
chance
to
ask
your
questions.
But
for
the
time
that
we're
at
and
the
amount
of
people
we
have
in
attendees
I'd
like
to
let
our
public
speak.
A
M
It's
a
very
quick
question.
Yes,
two
things
I
wanted
to
stress
is
this
blackberry
farm
area,
a
protected
area
which
will
not
be
converted
to
housing
in
the
future?
Do
we
have
any
assurance
of
that
one
and
two?
What
is
the?
How
many
people
are
slated
to
using
the
park
if
it
is
converted
to
habitat,
as
opposed
to
the
retaining
it
as
a
golf
course,
because
I
want
to
understand
the
public
utility
value
of
one
versus
the
other
right
and
third
point.
M
I
just
want
to
point
out
because
it
has
come
up
by
a
few
people
in
the
past
in
terms
of
the
revenue
generation
of
because,
but
if
you
really
look
at
the
line,
item
cost
minus
revenue.
We
are
really
looking
at
a
2
million
dollars
over
25
years,
which
is
about
84
000
dollars
per
year.
So
am
I
getting
my
math
wrong
or
do
I
am
I
reading
it
right.
S
M
Not
ten
dollar
thing
that
we're
leaving
at
a
table.
We
are
absolutely
just
leaving
about
2
million,
but
we
really
also
need
to
balance
it
with
how
many
people
are
going
to
enjoy
the
facility
if
it
is
converted
to
natural
habitat
versus
because,
but
my
concern
is
also.
Is
that
a
protected
area
or
is
there
any
danger
of
any
part
of
that
park
being
converted
into
housing
in
the
future?
Because
that
weighs
in
on
people's
decision
as
well
and
certainly
would
for
mine.
Y
I
mean
we
can't
be
we
we
don't
know
the
future,
but
but
based
on
what
we
currently
have
so
the
average
rounds
of
golf
per
year
before
covid
were
about
28
000
rounds
a
year
in
cobit.
It
has
been
41
000
rounds
and
the
the
rangers
do
kind
of
try
to
track
how
many
people
they
see
on
the
current
trail
when
they
are
working,
and
we
know
that
that
is
over
50
000
a
year.
M
Y
M
My
assumption
is,
the
natural
park
will
have
a
lot
more
variety
of
people
and
it
has
more
heterogeneity
of
people
who
will
visit
it
as
opposed
to
a
false
course
where
golfers
will
probably
be
the
ones
that
will
primarily
use
it.
That's
my
assumption
right.
So
I'm
thinking
about
it
from
a
general
public
utility
standpoint
as
well.
N
M
M
S
Well,
I
would
say
that
any
any
of
the
above
would
be
possibilities.
Council
directed
us
directed
city
staff
to
look
at
these
two
options
specifically,
so
they
would
need
to
veer
from
their
course
for
us
to
make
any
decisions
about
what
what
else
to
study
or
to
consider
as
far
as
wild
wildlife
on
the
site,
I
think
you
would
probably
see
some
additional
wildlife
on
the
site.
P
G
Well,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation
tonight.
I
was
wondering
related
to
the
staff
report
and
also
to
the
commentary
made
earlier
today
about
the
eight-year
period
of
establishment,
which
requires
essentially
continued
irrigation,
so
I'm
assuming
all
the
savings,
will
be
coming
from
your
nine
onwards,
where
I
understand
it
can
be
completely
turned
off
in
terms
of
irrigation.
So
is
that
first
of
all,
is
that
correct?
G
U
Yeah
once
the
plants
are
established
and
the
people
who
are
monitoring
it
can
determine
that
the
irrigation
can
be
completely
removed
and
cut
off
and
completely
removed,
because
these
are
drought,
tolerant
plants
and
they're
they're
adapted
to
rainfall.
So
the
only
problem
we
would
have
is
if
we
don't
have
any
rainfall
so.
G
That
would
mean
we
have
a
very
huge
amount
if
you
go
to
the
property
today
and
as
we
have
seen,
the
city
of
locations
like
memorial
park,
those
trees
pretty
much
die
within
a
very
short
period
of
time
of
stopping
irrigation.
So
would
that
mean
we
are
going
to
be
essentially
giving
up
on
those
trees.
U
U
G
My
question
was
more
related
to
the
to
the
existing
mature
redwood
trees.
I
mean
there's
a
huge
amount
of
those
up.
Are
you
implying
that
those
trees
would
be
going
away
and
they
would
be
replaced
by
opportunities,
or
how
would
you
deal
with
those
there's
pretty
much
a
huge
amount
of
those
trees
today.
U
But
yes,
over
time,
it's
probably
likely
that
the
redwoods
are
not
native
well,
we
know
they're,
not
native
to
that
site
and
it's
probably
they're,
probably
adapted
to
the
ground.
The
irrigation
that's
happening
now
so
they're,
probably
very
shallow
rooted
and
it's
it's
likely.
They
won't
survive
over
time.
G
H
G
S
So
I'll,
just
I'll
just
interject
a
little
bit
here,
there's
been
no
set
decision
to
to
continue
or
not
continue
to
irrigate
the
the
the
redwoods
that
again
we're
at
the
conceptual
stage
it
you
know.
If
we
want
to
maximize
water
savings
we
would
we
would
choose
to
discontinue
irrigation
of
it
if
we
value
the
redwoods
in
some
way.
We
could
certainly
make
that
choice
at
that
time.
So
just
to
be
clear,.
C
A
A
L
Okay,
thank
you
good
evening
chairs
and
commissioners
park
and
rec
creation,
commission,
the
bicycle,
pedestrian,
commission
and
sustainability
commission.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time.
My
name
is
connie
cunningham,
I'm
a
member
of
the
santa
clara
valley,
audubon
society
and
a
long
time
resident
of
cupertino,
and
thank
you
to
the
staff
for
this
excellent
report.
Cupertino's
blackberry,
farm
and
mcclellan
ranch
are
environmental
jewels.
In
the
increasingly
urban
environment
of
our
county.
L
I
prefer
option
b
restore
natural
habitat.
I
share
that
opinion
with
57
percent
of
cupertino
residents
who
answered
this
survey.
The
restoration
to
nature
will
use
less
water.
It
will
open
the
area
to
more
people
to
enjoy
and
become
a
home
to
increased
biodiversity
based
on
using
california,
native
plants
and
trees.
L
L
Excuse
me,
return
to
nature
is
best
for
environment,
as
the
south
bay
becomes
increasingly
crowded.
It's
critical
that
blackberry
farm
and
the
stevens
creek
riparian
area
be
retained
as
environmental
jewels.
Our
city
has
supported
the
environment
in
many
ways.
Bird
safe
design
and
dark
skies
ordinance
is
valuable.
Another
is
the
13
seconds
plan
and
by
adding
this
to
our
open
space
system,
the
city
will
strengthen
the
sustainability
of
the
city,
and
I
thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
this
evening.
AA
Okay
good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
muni
madipatla,
I'm
a
long
time
couple
resident
and
also
a
planning
commission
voice
chair,
I'm
here
representing
myself
as
a
resident
thanks
for
holding
this
joint
session
on
this
important
topic,
it's
great
to
see
three
commissions
working
together
to
do
the
right
thing.
I
took
the
survey
on
blackberry
farm
golf
course.
A
couple
of
months
ago
spent
good
enough
time
digesting
the
data
that
was
made
available
and
concluded
that
you
know
keeping.
AA
The
golf
course
was
the
right
thing
as
it
was
costing
us
less
in
the
wrong
long
run
in
that
part
of
the
town.
We
already
have
lots
of
natural
habitat
and
trails.
I
don't
think
you
know
we
need
more
of
the
same.
I
would
encourage
the
commission
and
the
council
to
keep
the
golf
course
as
public
community.
AA
AA
AA
AA
AJ
Good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
anna
yang
and
I'm
the
chair
of
the
environmental
action
committee
of
the
santa
clara
valley,
audubon
society,
scbas,
I'm
also
a
resident
of
cupertino,
and
I
visit
blackberry
farm
and
mcclellan
ranch
preserve
at
least
once
a
week
to
visit
the
community
garden
to
hike
and
to
birdwatch,
I'm
speaking
today
in
favor
of
option
b.
Conversion
of
the
golf
course
to
natural
habitat.
AJ
As
you
may
know,
scvas
is
headquartered
right
here
in
cupertino
at
mccullen
ranch
and
we
are
joining
the
majority
of
the
public
server
respondents
from
cupertino
57
and
favoring
option
b.
The
amazing
number
of
participants
who
want
to
see
this
site
converted
to
natural
habitat
shows
that
bolstering
natural
ecosystems,
while
providing
more
equitable
enjoyment
of
the
space,
is
a
popular
choice.
AJ
Option
b
adds
habitat
value
to
an
important
wildlife
corridor.
We
are
seeing
massive
bird
loss
and
insect
declines
in
every
bit
of
land
planted
with
native
plants
that
supports
a
healthy
ecosystem
really
does
help.
This
is
especially
important
along
riparian
corridors
such
as
stephens
creek,
where
good
quality
habitat
is
often
threatened
and
fragmented
in
the
south
bay.
Connecting
the
stretch
of
riparian
grassland
habitat
to
the
rest
of
the
siemens,
creek
quarter
will
provide
a
valuable
habitat
connection
for
birds
and
other
wildlife.
AJ
However,
if
the
city
does
choose
option
a
we
strongly
recommend
adding
wildlife
habitat
as
an
improvement
such
as
complex
native
vegetation
structures
at
the
edges
of
the
course
restoration
of
the
ponds
trees
and
avoiding
additional
netting.
Although
we
prefer
option
b,
we
urge
a
city
to
make
maximizing
habitat
value
as
a
goal
in
either
option
mountain
view
recently
passed
a
citywide
biodiversity
strategy
through
which
it
will
integrate
biodiversity
outcomes
into
all
city
projects
and
policies
and
private
development.
We
encourage
cupertino
to
do
the
same.
AJ
Scvas
already
offers
some
educational
opportunities
at
blackberry
farm,
and
we
will
be
happy
to
partner
with
the
city
and
park
rangers
to
provide
more
ways
for
the
public
to
appreciate
and
learn
about
our
natural
spaces.
We
hope
that
you
take
this
opportunity
to
choose
to
rewild
an
important
connection
for
wildlife.
V
AK
Thank
you
very
much.
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you
to
staff
and
to
the
commissioners.
It's
a
excellent
presentation,
I
think
very
informative,
and
I
appreciate
the
hard
work
you've
put
into
it.
I
have
a
couple
of
points
to
make
one
is
the
staff
keeps
referring
to
the
pre-covered
number
of
rounds
of
golf
per
year
at
well?
I've
heard
two
numbers
either
23
000
or
28
000,
but
in
the
last
two
years
it's
been
41
000.
AK
So
the
fact
that
the
that
already
economically
the
golf
course
is
favored
should
be
dramatically
more
if
the
current
trend
continues
and
all
golf
courses
have
seen
a
permanent
increase
in
in
golf
activity
since
the
the
pandemic.
So
I
don't
think
there's
any
reason
to
to
do
as
you
did,
which
is
to
go
back
to
the
pre-pandemic
numbers
for
rounds
of
golf
per
year.
So
it's
an
almost
two
to
one
difference
where
the
financially
the
golf
course
will
look
a
lot
better.
AK
If
you
take
the
current
number
of
rounds
into
account,
one
one
other
option
for
for
you
to
consider
is
what
has
been
done
at
other
golf
courses
like
the
meadow
club
in
emerald
hills,
which
is
at
in
times
of
extreme
drought
like
we
have
at
the
moment,
just
water.
The
greens
that'll
reduce
the
water
use
of
a
golf
course
by
90
percent.
The
same
amount
as
converting
to
natural
habitat,
so
golfers
would
be
much
happier
to
have
a
brown
fairways,
then
no
fairways,
and
so
it's
it's
one
way
of
saving
water.
AK
AK
E
Good
evening,
commissioners
and
staff,
I
want
to
say
that
I
support
option,
a
fix
and
preserve
the
golf
course.
For
these
reasons,
the
wildlife
habitat
a
court
of
what
the
golf
course
and
a
wildlife
habitat
can
coexist
and,
like
he
said
you
can
combine
picnicking
on
sunday
and
golf
the
rest
of
the
day.
Rest
of
the
week
add
and
replace
the
trees
that
have
been
removed
on
the
golf
course
they
haven't
been
replaced,
restore
the
ponds
with
natural
vegetation
and
water
fire
safety.
E
Having
a
golf
course
would
be
a
fire
safety
corridor
for
adjacent
neighbors.
That's
critical!
It's
a
critical
feature.
Protecting
our
residents
on
either
side
of
the
golf
course
habitat
islands,
only
three
acres.
What
about
the
other
nine
acres
is
this
only
is
this
not
encouraging
a
fire
safety
finances?
I
think
the
numbers
are
off.
Just
like
several
other
people
have
mentioned,
raise
the
fees
golf
rounds
almost
doubled
from
28k
to
41k.
During
covet,
we
won't
go
back.
People
have
developed
habits
and
it's
been
two
years.
E
They
won't
go
away,
and
yet
you
don't
mention
this,
they
say
it
takes
three
weeks
to
develop
a
habit.
It's
been
two
years.
You
need
to
up
the
fees,
it
should
have
been
done
several
years
ago.
Currently
on
the
parks
and
rec
list,
all
the
beginning,
golf
classes
have
waiting
lists.
This
is
an
indication
of
inadequate
resources.
We
need
a
beginner
golf
course
for
people
to
use
and
practice
on.
Thank
you.
J
R
U
J
J
AL
J
J
J
AL
Hi
guys,
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
point
that
I
live
less
than
five
miles
from
the
golf
course.
But
I
am
not
a
cupertino
resident
because
I'm
kind
of
questioning
the
statistics
there.
I
also
want
to
say
that
I
know
that
the
city
of
sunnyvale
uses
reclaimed
water
100
on
their
golf
courses.
So
that's
something
that
you
guys
should
consider
and
as
far
as
you
know,
research
and
all
the
legwork
and
everything.
AL
P
A
AM
AM
I
think
the
numbers
that
were
presented
on
that
on
that
sheet
were
totally
off
using
the
pre
covered
numbers
was
absolutely
incorrect,
an
incorrect
thing
to
do
if
you
increase
the
number
of
rounds
by
50
percent
and
you
increase
the
rev,
the
fees
by
50.
It
would
double
that
number.
Instead
of
nine
million
dollars,
it'd
be
closer
to
18
million
dollars.
It
would
pay
for
all
of
those
costs.
AM
I
don't
know
why
you
went
from
the
25-year
thing
to
the
10-year
thing,
probably
because
it
favored
the
that
natural
habitat
page
two.
The
point
was
made
earlier
three
quarters
of
a
mile
addition
and
rail
and
trails.
How
many,
how
many
miles
of
trails
does
cupertino
currently
have,
and
so
what
percentage
are
we
gaining
so
we'd
be
gaining
some
some
for
small
percentage?
I
assume
and
then
losing
a
very
valuable
gem
this.
AM
W
AN
Good,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
commissioners
and
everybody
involved
today
and
hi
to
keith
and
richard.
I
support
keeping
blackberry
golf
course
open
long
term.
The
golf
course
is
celebrating
its
60th
anniversary,
which
is
quite
an
achievement
of
its
own,
and
I
think,
there's
no
better
way
to
celebrate
that
than
reinvesting
in
the
core
asset
that
the
cupertino
parks.
Recreation
department
has
right
now,
as
noted
in
the
parks
and
recreation
master
plan.
74
of
questionnaire
respondents
believe
that
a
greater
variety
of
facilities
and
programs
is
important
right.
So
that's
hard
stop
number
one
right.
AN
Very
quickly
right,
so
it's
up
to
him
when
he
decides
that
he
wants
to
shut
down
the
golf
course
something
he's
already
talked
about
in
between
and
the
other
thing
is
keeping
the
economic
part
in
it.
If
you
have
forty
thousand
rounds
a
year
and
twenty
thousand
of
those
rounds
are
coming
from
non-residents,
they're
all
visiting
the
gas
stations,
the
restaurants,
the
bars
everything
else
that,
along
with
that
and
finally
my
point
is
option
b.
The
only
driver
of
that
is
water,
usage
and
drought
considerations
and
there's
companies
out
there.
P
AN
Z
V
Hello
commissioners,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
thanks
for
getting
together
this
this
this
evening,
and
I
appreciate
the
staff
report,
a
special
shout
out
to
gopal,
who
was
a
former
library
commissioner
with
me
so
nice,
to
see
you
gopal,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
option
b,
I'd
like
to
see
the
the
area
return
to
natural
habitat
and
my
primary
reasons
for
that
I'm
a
cupertino
resident.
I
I
took
the
survey.
V
I
live
within
five
miles
of
the
location,
I'm
somewhat
in
the
minority
in
the
respondents
in
that
I'm
at
the
older
age
range,
but
I'm
in
favor
of
the
natural
habitat
selection.
So
I
think
that
that
the
the
60
roughly
57
of
the
cupertino
residents
that
voted
towards
the
natural
habitat,
restoration
and
the
fact
that
they
skew
in
age
range
to
the
younger
age
ranges,
I
think,
demonstrates
that
that's
a
choice
that
speaks
to
the
future
of
cupertino.
V
I
think
that
the
heat
wave
that
we're
experiencing
now
demonstrates
that
we
really
have
to
take
climate
change
seriously
and
when
we
have
an
opportunity
to
add
sustainability
to
the
natural
environment.
That
is
part
of
the
community
of
cupertino.
We
should
take
advantage
of
that.
We
need
to
take
advantage
of
that
the
what
was
mentioned
previously
about
the
sightings
of
mountain
lions,
I
think,
demonstrates
that
you
don't
need
to
revert
to
natural
habitat
to
have
those
kinds
of
incursions.
V
We
have
that
with
the
golf
course
currently,
but
what's
really
being
studied
in
the
natural
habitat,
reversion
is
providing
an
environment
for
aquatic
life,
for
birds
for
insects,
things
that
are
going
to
be
beneficial
for
our
farms
and
gardens,
and
I
think
that's
an
important
consideration,
but
primarily
the
use
of
water
is
just
going
to
be
unsustainable
as
we
move
into
the
future.
So
those
are
my
concerns
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
talk
with
you.
AO
AO
I
just
would
strongly
encourage
this
group
to
represent
an
act
on
behalf
of
the
residents
of
cupertino
and
their
interests.
The
residents
have
already
shown
that
protection
of
the
environment
is
important
to
them,
and
I
really
agree
with
the
points
that
rose
made
just
previously
and
to
those
that
say,
raise
the
fees
on
the
golf
course.
One
of
the
reasons
people
cited
that
they
wanted
to
keep
blackberry
farm
rather
than
going
to
the
other
one.
That's
literally
just
a
stone's
throw
away
was
because
the
fees
were
were
apparently
not
as
high
as
deep
cliff.
AO
So
just
want
to
raise
that
attention
that
as
we're
thinking
about
alternatives,
looking
through
the
commentary
that
was
provided
through
the
survey
but
again,
ultimately,
I'm
strongly
in
favor
of
returning
the
natural
habitat
and
again
encouraging
this
group
to
think
through
the
interests
of
the
residents
and
to
act
on
that.
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time.
Thank
you
for
opening
up
the
public
comment
and
I
hope
you
guys
have
a
good
rest
of
your
evening.
Thank
you.
AC
Yes,
hi.
Thank
you,
I'm
actually,
a
member
of
the
family
that
sold
blackberry
farm
to
the
city
and
my
parents
and
grandparents
put
in
the
golf
course.
So
certainly
there
is
sort
of
a
bias
in
my
opinion,
but
I
do
want
to
point
out,
as
others
have,
that
the
rev
revenue
figures
are
not
accurate,
because
the
fees
haven't
been
raised
for
a
number
of
years.
Golf
course
revenue
will
continue
indefinitely.
AC
The
natural
habitat
revenue
was
very
limited.
That's
one
point
I
I
would
suggest
that
possibly
the
difference
between
the
residents
and
the
non-residents
is
that
non-residents
have
access
to
natural
habitats
in
their
own
cities
oftentimes.
They
may
not
have
access
to
a
golf
course.
So
they're
coming
to
cupertino
to
use
the
golf
course
we
have
natural
habitat
or
cupertino,
has
natural
habitat
in
mclellan
ranch
and
in
blackberry
farm
the
park
so
an
assumption
that
more
people
will
use
natural
habitat.
AC
I
don't
know
that
that's
supported
because
there
are
opportunities
currently,
whereas
if
the
golf
course
is
removed,
there
is
no
opportunity
for
golfing
on
a
short
course
like
blackberry
farm
is,
and
my
final
point
is
you
presented
descriptive
statistics
from
the
survey.
I
don't
know
if
any
statistical
analysis
was
done
to
see
if
those
are
actually
significant
differences
in
the
percentages,
but
that
would
be
something
that
I
think
needs
to
be
considered
before
you
make
decisions
based
on
the
results
and
that's
it.
Thanks
for
listening.
AP
AP
I
see
juniors
who
needed
to
you
know
as
a
low-cost
option
for
their
own
training
into
golf,
and
then
I
see
beginners,
who
need
a
place
to
to
learn
to
to
to
golf.
So,
in
short,
this
is
kind
of
like
a
feeder
golf
course
and
if
you
know
as
a
golfer,
I
think
we'll
lose
a
valuable,
valuable
resource
to
kind
of
just
foster
the
game
and
to
bring
more
people
into
it.
AP
AQ
Hi,
sorry,
I
was
on
a
new,
I'm
mute.
This
is
law,
and
I
want
to
thank
the
commissioners
of
you
guys
for
asking
really
great
questions
to
help
us
understand
the
situation.
I'm
a
long
time
resident
of
cupertino
just
raised
my
kids
and
got
some
free
time
to
enjoy
myself,
which
is
the
golf
game.
I
want
to
first
point
out
that
option
b
of
having
the
natural
habitat
habitat
we're
just
adding
three
three
quarters
miles
of
trails
less
than
one
percent.
AQ
AQ
Secondly,
who
are
we
taking
this
away
from?
Well,
we
were
just
told
that
78
of
the
past
holders
of
of
blackberry
farm
are
seniors,
so
we're
saying
that
we
cannot
allow
them
to
walk
the
beautiful
sunset
stage
of
their
life
with
dignity
by
staying
active,
staying,
healthy,
getting
up
early,
getting
a
smile
from
the
doctor
when
they
go
see
the
doctor
we
have
to
do
that
to
them.
AQ
AQ
We
really
need
this
golf
course,
and
also
we
are
all
going
to
go,
grow
old
and,
as
our
knees
start
to
complain
about
us
playing
tennis
golf
is
a
good
game
to
to
pick
up
and
it
is,
and
it
is
not
too
late,
even
in
your
50s,
you
know
70
seconds,
you
can
still
do
that,
so
I
urge
that
we
keep.
The
blackberry
farm
golf
course
assist
and
do
repairs
to
it.
Thank
you
so
much.
I
I
I
It
is
something
which
is
only
there,
because
we
have
the
dam
in
place
right
now.
So
there's
gonna
be
some
changes
coming.
I
am
in
favor
of
a
keeping
the
golf
course.
I
particularly
am
annoyed
to
hear
it
described
as
a
failing
amenity
in
the
initial
presentation.
I'm
also
annoyed
that
the
initial
presentation
seemed
to
not
show
you
a
lot
of
the
data
that
was
shown
in
the
first
meeting
we
had
on
this
subject.
I
For
instance,
it
was
revealed
then
that
in
the
old
days
they
would
do
80
000
rounds
of
golf,
and
we
subsidized
a
lot
of
cupertino
parks
and
rec
from
the
golf
course,
but
the
city
has
consistently
not
done
the
bidding
of
the
people,
which
was
done
at
the
last
study,
which
said
fix
it
up,
make
it
better,
don't
spend
a
ton
of
money
and
then
people
more
people
will
play
now.
We've
wasted
another
five
years
and
guess
what
we're
back
at
the
same
boat.
We
need
to
do
it
change
the
irrigation
fix.
I
It
up:
change
the
greens
to
ones
that
use
grass
that
needs
less
water
and
it's
a
wonderful
amenity.
We
also
need
to
stop
just
waiting
for
people
to
show
up
run
it
like
a
business.
We
should
be
having
kids
classes,
we
could
have
free
club
rentals
for
kids
what
kinds
of
things
that
we're
not
doing
right
now.
We
can
run
this
as
a
business.
It's
proven
in
history
to
be
successful.
I
AB
AB
You
know
if
you
walk
from
mcclellan
ranch
out
to
stevens
creek
and
back
you
get
your
two
miles
and
I
don't
think
we
need
any
more
in
environmental
areas.
Also,
if
you've
ever
golf,
there
is
sometimes
deer
on
the
on
the
course.
I
don't
know
if
it's
so
much
at
blackberry,
but
we
do
have
some
little
creatures
around.
AB
So
it's
not
without
seeing
some
a
good
environmentalist
there,
and
I
think
there
is
a
way
to
recycle
the
water
if
we
have
to
and
also
what
do
the
football
players
do
they
play
on
other
kind
of
turf.
If
we
need
that
kind
of
turf.
Let's
go
for
that,
but
you
know
I
I
think
it's
it's
sad
that
this
even
came
up
and
I'm
sorry.
AB
I
didn't
follow
this
in
the
beginning,
how
this
was
precipitated,
how
this
all
came
to
pass,
but
I
do
think
it's
an
important
important
area
for
our
children
and
for
future
residents
of
cupertino.
As
I
say,
I've
been
here
a
long
time.
I've
seen
cupertino
grow.
I
remember
when
there
was
one
street
was
one
side
of
stephens.
Creek
was
higher
than
the
other.
I've
been
here
a
long
time.
I've
seen
all
the
the
orchards
go
away.
We
can't
allow
this
to
to
stop.
We
need
to
continue
with
this
golf
course.
Thank
you.
P
W
It
just
feels
so
right.
It
sits
so
well
in
that
area
and
those
beautiful
redwood
trees
they
make.
You
feel
good
even
before
you
walk
in,
and
I've
heard
such
wonderful
suggestions
if
it
was
open
one
day
a
week
for
people
to
walk
and
call
for
picnicking,
it
would
be
great
and
as
to
the
audubon
society,
I
visit
berkeley
regularly
and
they
have
the
tilden
park.
Golf
course.
W
I
saw
an
audubon
society
sign
there,
saying
that
this
is
a
friendly
golf
course
to
the
audubon
society,
so
there
must
be
a
way
to
make
it
the
best
of
both
worlds
to
encourage
birds
to
come
here.
At
the
same
time,
it
won't
take
much
effort,
it's
up
to
our
ingenuity
and
I'm
so
glad
to
hear
that
sunnyvale
has
already
a
very
good
recycled
water
program.
W
A
cursory
search
on
the
internet
told
me
that
apple
computers
spent
4.7
million
dollars
to
help
to
bring
recycled
water
for
their
campus,
but
then
the
city
of
sunnyvale
chipped
in
three
times
that
amount.
So
sunnyvale
is
our
peer
group
in
cities,
whereas
cupertino
is
concerned.
Why
don't
we
listen
to
one
of
the
speakers
and
learn
from
sunnyvale?
W
I
saw
a
lot
of
happiness
outside
the
gates
and
these
people
are
waiting
for
their
golf
buddies.
We
need
more
happiness
in
our
world
and
kids
in
tino.
My
impression
is
that
there
are
a
lot
of
cram
schools
and
there
should
be
more
opportunities
to
bring
our
school
children
to
learn
and
play
golf.
Thank
you.
J
J
I
don't
play
baseball
soccer
or
go
to
the
library
field,
and
I
don't
think
we
should
get
rid
of
those
either.
We
can
protect
the
environment
and
keep
the
golf
course.
We
can
walk
along
the
existing
trails
and
add
natural
habitat
to
the
golf
course
and
also
watch
the
golfers
play
it's
really
great,
to
see
people
of
all
ages
being
outside
and
enjoying
nature
in
their
way
and
playing
together.
J
The
golf
course
has
been
getting
41
000
users.
We
already
have
a
trail
for
the
50
or
so
thousand
users
per
year,
and
it's
not
overcrowded.
I
don't
see
how
adding
a
segment
of
trails
would
make
that
much
of
a
difference
to
our
existing
usage
on
the
economic
side.
I
don't
see
how
natural
habitat
could
add
20k
that
should
not
that
couldn't
be
achieved
already
at
mcclellan
ranch,
which
already
seems
to
be
somewhat
underutilized.
J
Cupertino
golf
on
weekends
costs
about
20,
20
bucks
27
at
sunken
gardens
wow.
The
fees
are
just
too
low
in
cupertino
as
to
water,
I'm
confused
about
how
san
jose
water,
a
for-profit
company,
who
get
in
the
way
of
our
grandfathered
in
water
rights.
What
happened
to
the
2006
plans
to
fix
the
irrigation?
I
think
it
was
estimated
about
250
k,
refurbishing
the
well
and
retaining
the
naturalized
habitat
provided
by
the
ponds,
we're
already
learning
that
we
might
need
to
do
more.
Watering
than
anticipate
for
natural
habitat
to
provide
a
fire
break.
J
AR
I
this
is
bob
again
26
year,
cupertino
resident
I
support
option
b
and
I'm
not
going
to
elaborate
but
20
years
down
the
road.
I
think
people
will
look
back
and
say
that
the
council
made
a
really
wise
recommendation
and
created
more
natural
habitat
cupertino
is
is
the
leader
in
preserving
natural
areas,
and
I
think
we
should
continue
that
trend
and
be
the
type
of
community
that
everyone
looks
back
and
say
that
was
the
right
thing
to
do.
That's
all.
I
have
thanks.
A
AH
Z
AH
AH
Now,
if
you
were
looking
just
at
golfers
versus
non-golfers,
I
mean
you
wouldn't
take
the
swimming
pool
out.
You
probably
wouldn't
take
the
tennis
courts
out,
but
you
do
have
a
high
representation
from
those
who
do
play
golf
in
your
community
that
do
want
it
to
stay.
I
hope
you'll
take
a
look
at
it.
Thank
you
for
utilizing
the
national
golf
foundation.
I'd
like
to
just
share
a
stat.
This
looks
a
little
bit
bigger
than
outside
of
our
silicon
valley,
but
the
state
of
california
right
now
is
short
even
to
reach
the
national
average.
AH
We
are
short.
We
need
533,
more
courses,
533.
I
hope
you
will
maintain
this
course.
The
golf
industry
is
able
to
help
you.
The
golf
course
superintendents
are
extremely
knowledgeable,
as
the
consultants
will
tell
you
and
can
provide
you
some
information.
There
is
an
audubon
society,
internet
audubon,
international,
the
audubon
cooperative
sanctuary
sanctuary
program.
We
would
encourage
you
that
would
be
something
to
take
a
look
at
where
you
can
have
education.
You
can
have
golf
and
you
can
have
the
natural
native
habitat
all
under
the
same
piece
of
property.
A
AS
AS
Mehul
will
talk
about
just
some
of
the
nice
family
aspects
of
the
golf
course
and
I'll
leave
you
with
a
little
thing
to
think
about
is,
if
you
were
a
gambler,
just
knock
on
the
door
of
some
cupertino
resident
five
years
from
now,
and
if
they
want
to
play
golf
or
do
they
want
to
hike
or
they
want
to
do
nothing.
These
are
the
choices
they
have
we're
we're
presented
with
an
option
of
all
natural
habitat.
U
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
So
in
this
chart,
what
you've
seen
before
the
the
red
box
up
there
is
points
out
that
the
golf
course
costs
the
city
more.
That's
not
good,
okay!
Well,
the
green
box
shows
that
you
get
a
whole
lot
more
revenue
and
that's
good,
and
the
blue
box
shows
that
the
two
million
dollars
of
difference
favoring
the
golf
course
at
this
point
without
fooling
around
with
the
numbers
just
we're
starting
off
at
2
million
next
slide.
AS
If
you
look
at
well
blackberry
compared
to
sunken
or
prune
ridge
or
deep
crypt,
these
are
their
posted
rates,
says
sunken
gardens.
Chart
is
28
percent,
more
22
percent
for
primage
44
for
deep
flip,
deep
cliff
charges,
a
nine
hole
rate
which
is
not
one
half
of
the
18
hole
they
charge.
You
know
like
80
or
90
percent,
that's
their
business,
but
anybody
can
look
at
this
and
say
hey.
AS
The
feasibility
study
there's
a
table
again.
If
you
raise
things
25,
it
would
add
2.3
million
dollars,
okay
and
then
we'll
go
to
the
next
slide.
There's
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
of
education.
That's
range
of
courses
that
are
already
offered
well,
that's
great,
but
you
can
offer
them
even
if
people
are
playing
golf.
So
that's
fine
list
it
there,
but
you're
listed
on
the
golf
sword,
sue.
Okay,
it's
something
you
can
do
either
way.
That's
it!
N
AI
AI
AI
I
think
the
city
needs
to
disclose
what
chemicals
they
have
used
on
the
guard
on
the
golf
course,
because
I
have
seen
them
use
chemicals
on
the
community
garden,
specifically
glyphosate
and
the
community
garden,
which
is
called
roundup,
which
the
community
garden
is
supposed
to
be
organic
and
the
previous
regime.
Nothing
to
do
with
rochelle
here.
AI
The
previous
regime,
who
was
in
charge
had
no
idea
what
they
were
doing
and
and
glyphosate
was
sprayed
in
the
garden
boxes
over
there,
and
it's
still
called
on
the
web
page
in
organic
garden,
and
I
don't
think
it.
I
don't
know
that
it
was
necessarily
disclosed,
and
so
regardless,
if
you
after
the
golf
course,
if
you
keep
it
golf
or
you
make
it
nature,
the
city
needs
to
disclose
it
right
and
also
it's
next
to
the
creek.
AI
O
Oh,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
hello,
hello,
great,
my
name
is
alan
takahashi,
I'm
a
dumbing
on
30-year
resident
of
cupertino,
I'm
actually
an
ex-planning
commissioner
and
bike
pet
commissioner.
I'm
very
much
in
favor
of
option
a
blackberry
farms
is
is
a
jewel.
I've
heard
that
you
mentioned
a
couple
at
least
two
or
three
times
lisa.
I
appreciate
your
feedback
on
this.
The
reason
it's
a
jewel
is
it's
a
family
course.
It's
a
small
course.
This
is
the
course
I've
taught
both
of
my
children
how
to
play
golf.
O
It's
it's
a
it's
a
course
where
you
learn
and
it's
it's
a
fantastic
little
course
and
taking
it
away,
it's
gone
forever
and
you
take
that
away
and
I
would
encourage
non-golfers,
who
are
generally
the
people
that
are
in
favor,
of
removing
it
to
go
there
and
learn
how
to
play
golf.
It's
the
best
course
to
learn
how
to
play
golf,
and
once
you
learn,
even
if
you're
not
good,
which
I'm
not
good,
but
I
still
love
to
play.
O
It's
it's
such
a
great
experience
to
be
outside
it's
green.
It's
not
brown,
I
mean,
and
that's
the
cost
of
the
water
and
going
to
reclaim
water
is
definitely
the
path
forward.
But
it's
such
a
a
fantastic
experience
to
be
with
your
family
and
and
and
another
another
speaker
talked
about
multi-generation
being
able
to
a
grandparent,
a
parent
and
a
child
all
golfing
together.
O
A
B
A
Z
A
AE
Hi
so
before
you
start
counting
my
three
minutes,
I'd
just
like
to
ask
a
clarification
of
you
of
what
is
it
that
we're
working
to
accomplish
here
and
if
we
can
get
clarity
on
that
I
know
some
people
may
have
an
expectation
that
we
are
to
come
up
with
a
recommendation
of
option
a
or
option
b,
or
are
we
just
looking
for
feedback
to
the
council?
If
you
could
clarify
that,
I
I
have
some
thoughts
about
how
we
could
do
it
as
well.
X
X
If
you
want
to
actually
email
me
any
comments,
if
you
want
to
make
sure
your
voices
are
heard
for
our
staff
report
to
counsel,
so
our
next
step
will
be
to
take
the
feedback
that
we
received,
as
well
as
the
comments
and
the
results
of
the
study
and
the
public
outreach
to
counsel
for
them
to
make
a
decision,
and
that
will
be
in
october.
We're
aiming
for
early.
The
first
meeting
in
october.
D
X
If
I
may,
then,
the
council
has
also
asked
for
the
feedback,
because
they
understand
that
the
public
has
been
very
actively
participating
in
this.
So
they
want
to
have
an
update
and
it
is
their
their
discretion
to
to
defer
action
and
to
get
further
questions.
And
it's
worth
noting
too,
that
we
are
trying
to
keep
this
a
very
high
conceptual
level
discussion
that
if
we
were
to
take
one
path
or
the
other,
there
would
definitely
be
questions
and
more
study.
That
needs
to
be
done.
H
Z
Z
F
Z
A
X
I
will
say:
that's
true:
we
haven't
received
council
direction
to
put
this
on
the
agenda.
That
isn't
didn't
mean
to
misrepresent
that.
I'm
just
saying
that
we
have
had
a
lot
of
people
at
council
meetings
in
this
forum
on
the
survey
giving
feedback
and
we
wanted
to
give
council
an
update
so
they're,
aware
of
where
we're
at.
X
We
have
reached
it
is
we're
saying
that
we've
done
what
council
has
asked
us
to
do,
which
is
to
do
the
two
studies,
and
it
may
not
have
all
the
answers,
but
it
does
have
enough
information,
perhaps
to
take
a
direction
from.
It
is
once
again
in
their
discretion
to
decide
that
or
not,
and
the
commissioners
are
welcome,
to
advise
counsel
to
not
make
a
decision
as
well.
N
AE
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
the
way
I
was
thinking
of
this
is
that
you
know
our
wreck,
the
city,
the
residents
and
the
community
members
have
all
weighed
in
on
the
suit
on
the
surveys,
and
we
have
a
ton
of
data,
and
I
don't
think
that
you
know
necessarily
one
recommendation
from
the
commissions
of
a
versus
b
is
really
going
to
help
them.
I
think
council's
going
to
go
their
own
direction
and
and
make
their
own
decision
based
on
what
they
see.
AE
AE
In
addition,
as
we've
heard,
we've
heard
open
it
up
for
one
day
a
week.
I
would
go
farther
open
it
up
two
or
three
days
a
week
to
allow
more
residents
to
enjoy
that.
So
that's
if
they're
going
option
a
those
are
some
of
the
things
I
think
they
should
consider.
If
they
decide
to
do
option
b,
I
would
ask
them
to
work
with
d,
cliffs
and
clemson
gardens
to
offer
cupertino
seniors
discounted
rates
to
play
nine
holes,
so
that
would
take
that
whole
issue
of
it's
cheaper
here
versus
somewhere
else.
AE
AL
AE
And
you
know,
I
think
we
do
we're
all.
I
get
literature
from
the
water
department
that
says
let
your
lawn
grow
brown.
A
lot
of
my
neighbors
have
brown
lawns.
I
have
drought,
tolerance,
landscaping.
I
think.
If
we,
if
we
go
down
the
keeping
it
all
green,
then
we're
going
down
a
path
of
do,
as
I
say,
not
as
I
do,
and
so
it
won't
be
a
very
good
model
as
a
good
corporate
or
good
city
citizen
to
go
down
that
model
to
go
down
that
path.
AE
As
far
as
raising
the
fees,
I
think
andy
said
it
best
where
she
said
you
know
there
is
this
thing
called
elasticity
of
demand.
You
raise
the
price.
Sometimes
the
demand
goes
down,
so
you
can't
just
assume
that
raising
the
price
you
could
get
a
lot
of
revenue.
I
don't
think
council
will
look
at
this
just
from
a
revenue
perspective.
I
think
it's
much
more
a
quality
of
life
issue
and
if
they
want
the
quality
of
life
to
be
the
golf
course,
I
think
they
should
do
that,
but
they
should
consider
these
other
options.
AE
D
My
issue,
though,
is
that
you
know
we
should
go.
We
have
recommendations
for
option
a
we
have
recommendations
for
option
b,
but
before
we
can
recommend
anything
for
a
or
b.
I
think
we
need
data
about
how
we
can
use
recycled
water,
how
we
can
use
fake
grass
through
part
of
it,
because
that's
also
an
option
in
some
golf
courses
how
we
can
let
the
grass
go
brown
that
all
adds
up
into
the
calculation
for
not
only
the
cost
of
maintaining
the
golf
course,
but
also
for
the
amount
of
water.
D
D
What
are
the
numbers
going
to
be
in
10
years,
because
that's
an
apples
to
apples
comparison,
I
think,
but
with
the
recycled
water,
with
that
fake
grass,
wherever
it
fits
with
other
other
options,
now
coming
to
option
b?
It's
you
know
the
the
on
the
surface
of
it.
It
doesn't
seem
like
there
is
any
problem
with
going
to,
because
it's
all
you
know
it's
it's
supposed
to
be
habitat
that
you
know
that
works
for
everybody.
D
My
concern
is-
and
I
think
one
of
the
commissioner
brought
this
up-
how
do
we
prevent
this
from
becoming
a
housing
issue?
Later?
That's
my
biggest
concern,
not
that
I
have
any
problem
with
housing.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
have
some
reasonable
way
in
which
we
monitor
what's
going
on
here
and
the
other
issue
that
to
me
is
a
biggest
bigger
problem
with
regard
to
with
regard
to
the
to
the
option
b.
Is
this
whole
fire
study?
I
know
we
talk
about.
Oh,
we
can
mow
this
grass.
D
We
can
do
this.
We
can
do.
That.
Is
that
all
you
know
concern
is
that
all
being
calculated
into
the
cost
of
maintenance?
And
more
importantly,
I
mean
we
want
this
place
to
be
safe.
More
than
anything
else,
we
cannot
create
a
problem
and
if
it
gets
hotter,
everything
is
more
likely
to
be
on
fire
than
not
that's
so
option
a
option
b,
but
I
think
we
need
a
lot
more
information
before
we
can
make
a
recommendation
one
way
or
the
other.
H
Thanks
sure-
and
I
started
my
clock
too-
I
think
first
of
all
I
started
with
it.
I
don't
think
that
we
are
in
a
position
to
go
even
give
an
update,
because
we
got
a
data
or
like
questioned
by
the
we
listen
to
there
are
like
25
people
talked
about
it.
Many
people
questioned
about
the
data
we
used
to
calculate
the
revenue
to
calculate
the
numbers
on
it
and
then
why
can't
we
use
recycled?
H
So
I
would
strongly
suggest-
and
this
has
to
come
back
to
the
commission,
because
one
of
the
reasons
why
commissions
are
set
up
is
for
the
council
to
go
and
delegate
and
do
the
work
rather
than
done
doing
the
work
and
if
you're
thinking
that
okay
you're
giving
out
feedback,
you
know
what
I'm
going
to
make
the
the
council
to
make
additional
critical.
One
is
absolutely
wrong
and
I
will
I
can
write
individually
to
our
entire
council.
They
can
create
an
update,
but
they
need
to
get
an
update
with
the
right
data
which
has
justified.
H
Not
many
people
ask
the
question:
what
is
that?
Why
are
we
considering
the
pre-code
data,
not
the
current
one?
What?
Then,
I
asked
about
latest
irrigation
system
what
it
means.
I
don't
think
that
these
are
all
like
just
a
tossed
away
as
a
feedback,
so
I
strongly
urge-
and
there
is
no
rush-
that
decision
to
be
taken
in
october
to
the
council
and
I
would
strongly
write
to
the
concept
absolutely,
but
in
the
update
I
don't
want
the
audit
to
go
us
with
the
same
data,
but
just
as
an
oh.
H
These
are
the
feedback
we
got
it
from.
No,
the
feedback
is
based
on
the
data.
You
have
it
itself.
That
means
they
are
questioning
our
the
community
is
questioning
our
brain,
which
we
analyzed
and
we
need
to
go
back
to
the
board.
We
cannot
ignore
those
things,
so
that's
a
strong
thing
that
I
wanted
and
also
I'd
like
to
make
sure
that
I
think
jeff
made
a
great
comment.
I
never
thought
that
you
can
have
a
cake
and
he'd
do
it
too.
H
There
is
an
option.
So
why
are
we
going
as
a
binary
answer
one
or
either
so
we
can
go
for
a
third
option.
I
think
these
are
all
very
critical
input
from
the
community
and
absolutely
I
strongly
recommend
we
have
to
go
back
to
the
board.
Put
those
three
to
go
back
in
and
we
have
one
more
discussion
with
the
commission
before
we
give
a
data
driven
decision
to
a
council.
Let's
not
get
the
council
to
go
run
around
all
over
it's
at
the
best
of
that
time.
So
that's
my
input.
AT
AT
AT
So-
and
I
don't
know
if
we
can
decide-
or
I
don't
know
if
I
there
will
be
a
vote
today
and
and
what
I
don't
think
there
will
be
an
anonymous
recommendation
to
the
council,
even
within
the
commissioners,
but
we
we
may
want
to
even
if
it's
a
very
split
vote.
We
may
want
to
take
a
vote
anyway,
so
they
they
understand
what?
What
the?
What
is
the
input
of
the
public
and
and
the
commissioners.
F
Yes,
thank
you,
chuck,
okay,
I'll
go
back
to
my
revenue
question
that
I
had.
I,
I
think
that
you
know
we
need
to
sharpen
the
pencil
to
figure
out
how
we
can
increase
the
revenue
so
that
it,
whatever
improvement,
that
we
are
doing,
pays
for
itself
and
more
than
that
right.
I
think
you
know
how
can
we
retain?
We
have
already
increased
the
participation
to
40
by
46
percent.
So
how
can
we
really
retain
them
right?
F
Half
of
your
marketing
is
already
done
because
you
need
to
figure
out
how
to
retain
those
users
of
the
golf
course
so
that
we
can,
you
know,
get
better
revenue.
Okay,
that's
number
one.
The
second
thing
is
I'm
again
looking
at
the
improvement
numbers,
the
capital
cost
for
the
natural
habitat.
You
know
it's.
It's
pointed
out
as
like
a
close
to
1.9
million
dollars.
That
numbers
is
grossly
underestimated.
You
know
just
now.
F
You
know
you
built
a
ragnar
creek
trail,
just
it's
a
three-fourth
mile
of
a
trail
built
on
an
existing
path
and
it
costed
six
million
dollars,
even
if
it
disconnect
for
the
fences
and
safety
features
that
have
been
there.
In
the
trail
remove
that
it's
still
half
of
it,
if
you
take
three
million
dollars
just
for
three-fourths
of
mile
of
paving,
you
know
having
a
granite
path,
it's
not
even
a
paved
path.
F
Right,
sorry,
decomposed,
granite
path,
so
I
think
it's
grossly
underestimated
and
the
other
thing
is:
if
you
have
to
go
back
and
plant
all
those
work
trees
in
there,
you
know,
and
in
all
the
plant
you
know
the
planting
that
we
have
to
do
in
there.
You
know
if
I
have
to
do
a
drug
tolerant
plant
in
my
just
backyard.
It
costs
you
know
anywhere
from
fifty
thousand
hundred
thousand
dollars
to
improve
it
in
a
small
residential
lot.
F
You
know
front
and
back
side
right,
whereas
here
what
I'm
seeing
is
like
you
know,
1.8
million
dollar,
for
you
know
that
that's
again
a
grassley
underestimated
one,
because
the
contractors
for
the
cp
cost
a
lot
more
than
what
it
is.
You
know
what
it
costs
the
resident.
I
mean
we
have
seen
that
in
in
while
building
the
regulatory
trade.
Okay,
then,
the
next
thing
I
also
wanted
to
point
out
is
what
is
the
current
value
of
investment
on
the
current
golf
course.
You
know
that's
being
not
taken
into
account
at
all.
F
Of
it
that
the
net
present
value
of
that
investment
is
also
to
be
added
to
that
natural
habitat,
let's
assume,
for
example,
it
cost,
like
you,
know,
15
million
dollars
to
or
10
million
dollars
to
put
a
new
golf
course.
Your
cost
of
natural
habitat
is
destroying
the
existing
investment
and
then
adding
another
two
million
dollars
on
top
of
it.
No,
it's
not
two.
Maybe
it'll
be
five
times
more
than
that
for
building
the
natural
habitat.
F
So
that's
something
that
you
need
to
account
for
it
and
it
needs
to
be
documented
as
well
before
we
take
it
to
the
council.
Initially,
I
thought
that
you
know
I
kind
of
looking
at
it
neutrally,
but
now,
after
listening
to
all
these
things,
just
for
a
three-fourth
of
mile
of
a
trial,
trail
and
rest
of
its
natural
habitat,
I
think
you
need
to
look
at
how
we
can
existing
use.
The
existing
golf
course
in
a
more
efficient
way
and
protect
the
current
investment
and
just
add
incremental
investment.
F
M
Z
M
Been
way
too
much
too
many
questions
way
too
many
open
issues,
and
these
are
all
very
good.
We
need
to
have
the
ability-
and
this
was
a
perfect
forum
for
us-
to
have
to
air
those
questions
and
concerns,
but
we
are
nowhere
close
to
a
particular
direction
in
which
we
have
all
settled
down.
So
I
would
also
strongly
retrain
that
let's
not
take
this
to
the
city
right
away
before
we
get
more
direction
and
more
answers.
M
I
would
actually,
for
example,
two
questions
that
really
come
to
my
mind
is
one
that
commissioner
baker
also
said
is
we
want
to
have
a
good
understanding
of,
and
this
has
not
been
brought
up
at
all
artificial
turf.
What
is
its
implication
to
the
environment?
We
have
not
even
considered
that
it
never
came
up
and
it's
a
great
suggestion,
and
certainly
certain
some
god
sports
have
that.
M
Secondly,
the
other
issue
is
one
of
I
would
like
to
understand.
If
we
retain
the
golf
course,
then
we
retain.
Does
the
city
continue
to
have
control
over
the
the
land
or,
if
we
convert
it
to
natural
habitat,
then
does
the
state
as
a
whole
have
the
ability
to
rezone
those
those
that
particular
piece
of
land?
So
I'm
not
saying
I'm
inclined
one
way
or
the
other,
but
I
definitely
need
the
answers
to
be
able
to
wrap
my
head
around
it.
P
AD
It's
been
said
that
we
won't
they're
just
ballpark
numbers
and
stuff,
so
I
think
before
we
even
get
go
down
to
that
path,
we
really
need
to
find
out.
What
do
we
want?
Do
we
want
to
have
if
we're
going
to
go
with
the
just
the
two
choices?
Do
we
want
to
have
the
golf
course
or
do
we
want
to
have
the
open
space
here
I
mean
before
I
got
onto
this
call.
I
called
up
a
friend
of
mine
who's,
an
avid
golfer,
and
he
said
he
never
goes
to
blackberry
farm
golf
course.
AD
AD
I
mean
basically
you're
saying
this
is
something
that
the
people
really
want
to
use.
This
is
an
issue
that
they
can't
get
otherwise,
so
that's
where
I
would
rather
go
start
there
and
then,
once
you
make
that
decision,
then
you
go
in
and
really
nail
down.
Okay,
how
can
we
make
this
work
financially
anyway?
That's
all
I
want
to
say:
oh
no
I'll
be
like
the
rest
of
you.
I
have
another
one.
AD
G
Well,
thank
you,
and
I
I
could.
I
couldn't
agree
more
with
the
last
comment
from
from
jack
carter
about
kind
of
figuring
out.
First,
what
we
want
to
have
and
then
working
towards
the
plan
it
feels
like
we
had
have
been
presented,
two
kind
of
options
today
and
quite
frankly,
I'm
I'm
not
convinced
that
we're
gonna
be
successful
in
that
kind
of
conversion
process.
G
The
city
has
tried
to
unsuccessfully
so
far,
convert
the
mcclellan
corridor
and
I've
been
going
there
by
probably
for
10
years
and
it's
kind
of
a
sad
experience
after
10
years,
seeing
kind
of
what's
happening
there.
So
I
consider
this
not
necessarily
a
success
story
and
I'm
not
convinced
that
we
would
be
successful
in
this
journey
here
unless
we
do
something
majorly
different.
So
I
think
there's
some
work
needs
to
be
done
here
to
really
convince
a
number
of
folks
here.
C
G
A
A
A
I
remember
the
irrigation
system
of
golf
course
started
to
have
problems
several
years
ago,
so
actually
the
discussion
about
the
future
of
blackberry,
farm
golf
course.
The
discussion
started
in
city
council
from
2016.,
and
I
remember
at
that
time
five
council
members.
They
brought
up
three
options:
council
member
barry
chong
was
the
first
one
to
introduce
the
concept
of
natural
habitat
and
he
said
maybe
we
can
think
about
convert,
of
course
to
natural
habitat,
but
no
other
council
members
supported
him.
Council
member
ross
thinks
and
savita.
A
A
Maybe
only
older
folks
likes
it,
but
now
from
today's
discussion,
I'm
thinking,
maybe
we
can
think
about
that
option,
but
only
decrease
an
area
which
need
water
and
maybe
think
about
change
there.
Some
other
place
to
natural
habitat,
maybe,
but
we
don't
consider
expanding
the
clubhouse,
but
I
remember
staff
already
have
some
study
on
the
decreased
area
of
the
golf
course
to
say
what
are
you
there's
already
some
study
some
report.
D
Comment,
I
don't
need
to
talk
for
three
minutes.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
something
that
maybe
I
did
not
quite
clearly
state.
There
are
more
than
the
questions
that
were
asked.
There
are
a
whole
lot
more
questions
I
have
in
mind.
So
by
no
means
are
we
ready
for
us
to
go
to
the
council
with
this
set
of
information
we
need.
I
think
we
need
to
have
this
information
back
either.
D
I
didn't
understand
this
or
or
or
there's
something
going
wrong
here,
because
valley
water
makes
its
money
makes
its
profit
based
on
how
much
water
we
use
and
valley
water
make
that
decision
that
somehow
we
have
to
go
with
the
with
portable
water
versus
as
opposed
to
well
water.
If
it's
unclear,
then
that
needs
to
be
clarified
too.
So
there
are
a
lot
of
things
that
need
to
be
clarified
before
we
can
go
to
the
council.
So
absolutely
we
need
to
come
back
and
talk
to
the
commission
first,
if
not
the
joint
commission.
F
F
Okay,
we
should
because
we
should
have
the
data,
because
I
don't
know
how
much
our
million
dollars
it's
going
to
cost
you
to
put
a
new
golf
course
there
that
investment
should
be
accounted
for
because
it's
been
the
city
paid
for
it.
You
paid
for
that
as
well.
The
improvements
as
well
right
and
the
when
you
are
going
towards
the
other
option
of
option
b.
What
you
are
meaning
is,
you
are
destroying
that
all
that
investment.
F
So
it's
not
just
an
incremental.
You
know
capital
investment
for
converting
to
something
else,
but
you're
also
destroying
the
current
golf
course
investment.
You
need
to
have
a
present
value
for
that
one
as
well,
and
the
second
I
mean.
The
second
comment
I
have
is
the
we
need
to
have
much
more
detail.
F
Okay,
two
million
dollars
is,
I
I
believe,
still
it's
a
grassley
underestimate.
I
want
to
see
more
data
on
that
one.
How
do
we
arrive
at
that
number,
including
the
number
of
trees
you're
going
to
plant?
You
know
how
much
area
that
we
are
going
to
improve
in
terms
of
you
know
that
you
know
the
trail.
You
know
what
kind
of
material
that
we
plan
to
use
and
also
for
the
rest
of
the
you
know,
plants
and
shell,
and
things
like
that.
A
A
H
Yeah,
okay,
a
privilege,
thanks
man,
I
appreciate
it,
so
I
think
what
I
want
to
make
it
is
a
chair.
We
need
to
make
a
motion
because
we
talked
about
each
one.
Each
commissioner
said:
let's
go
only
with
the
feedback
and
all
we
need
more
data,
all
of
them,
but
I
think
formally
we
need
to
make
a
motion
on
what
we
want,
so
that
the
staff
can
take
it
objectively
rather
than
being
a
substitute
in
nature,
because
I
want
to
give
them
the
right
direction
as
well.
So
that's
the
only.
H
Is
maybe,
after
maths,
maybe
maybe
coming
up
with
that
too
but
anyway,
but
I
would
like,
since
being
all
three
commissioners,
all
three
commissions
are
spending
a
lot
of
time
here.
I
think
we
need
to
get
our
motion
rather
than
just
leaving
it
hanging
around
and
saying
what
to
do.
We
need
to
make
a
motion
on
what
the
next
steps
that
can
even
presented
that
can
be
even
sent
to
council
in
advance
not
for
presenting
hey.
This
is
what
the
spa
is
not
coming,
because
this
is
what
the
motion
is
combined
by
the
combinations.
Q
As
I
started,
the
the
community
outreach
has
been
amazing
and
the
reciprocal
the
input
from
the
community
has
been
even
more
amazing.
So
this
is.
This
has
been
an
amazing
process.
All
the
way
around
the
the
the
difficulty
and
the
struggle
that
you're
having
and
we
we
as
staff
are
having
equally
is
that
this.
This
is
a
question
without
a
clear
answer,
and
and
so
we're
continuing
to
explore,
we
have
questions
that
are
unending.
Q
We
have
a
number
of
of
questions
that
are
in
the
detail
that
you
know
would
be
answered
at
a
later
phase
that
it
just
is
not
feasible
to
answer
now
and
we
have
have
a
great
amount
of
input
and
and
just
raising
the
questions
and
having
the
commissioners
raise.
Questions
that
are
unanswered,
I
think,
is
valuable
to
us,
as
as
we
sort
of
figure
out
what
what
is
next
and
what's
the
the
future
of
of
this
discussion,
I
want
to
point
out
specific
to
the
agenda.
Q
The
item
tonight
is
asking
the
commission
to
provide
input
and
feedback
on
next
steps
regarding
alternatives
for
future
use
of
the
golf
course-
and
I
think
you've
accomplished
that
and
then
summon
your
deliberations
tonight.
So
I
I
appreciate
that.
Just
a
note
there
there
is
not
a
an
agendaist
action
item,
so
we
won't
be
calling
for
a
vote
on
this,
because
there's
no
action
item
agendas.
Q
We'll
want
to
consolidate
that
and
look
at
where
we,
where
we
take
it
in
the
long
term,
so
so
sort
of
next
steps.
That's
where
we're
headed
with
this.
I
know
that
leaves
you
with
with
a
lot
of
open-ended
ideas.
If
you
have
questions
or
additional
thoughts,
I
encourage
you
to
send
them
along
to
susan
she'll.
She'll
continue
to
take
the
information
along
the
way
she
is
is
now
the
the
identified
project
manager
on
the
on
the
website.
Q
So
you
can,
you
can
find
her
name
there
associated
with
the
project,
or
you
know
our
naming
great.
Our
naming
functions
in
capetino
for
emails
is
pretty
easy.
This
is
an
medcupertino.org
and
with
that
that
concludes
sort
of
my
wrap
up
with
this,
and
I
would
encourage
you
to
to
to
to
move
forward
at
this
point
and
to
track
this
project.
As
we
continue
discussions.
Q
D
Q
I
I
envisioned
a
number
of
things
for
next
step.
So,
first
of
all,
as
I
said,
we
need
to
take
the
information
that
we
receive
tonight
and
digest
it
and
figure
out
where,
where
we
need
to
provide
additional
information
and
and
do
additional
research
and
where
the
the
questions
are
just
sort
of
for
a
later
stage
and
decide
where
we
go
from
there,
it's
likely.
Q
That
we'll
bring
it
to
a
study
session
for
the
city
council.
So
what
does
a
study
session
mean
it's
an
opportunity
for
the
council
to
to
discuss
it
and
hear
all
of
the
input
that
we've
had
from
all
of
the
community
and
all
of
the
commissions
to
give
us
sort
of
a
here?
Is
the
next
steps
that
they
want
to
see
or
here's
the
information
that
they
want
us
to
gather?
Q
Keep
in
mind
that
the
city
council
provides
us
the
direction
we
we
are
advisory
to
the
council
as
you
are
in
in
providing
the
information.
So
we
want
to
get
them
your
your
thoughts,
your
information
and
then
let
them
provide
us
additional
detail
before
we
go
off
in
a
direction
that
they
may
not
agree
with.
F
Yes,
I
see
the
agenda
is
like
to
get
a
recommendation
on
next
steps
right
from
the
giant
commissions.
So
why
can't
we
do
a
formal
feedback
here,
because
I
don't
know
what
is
the
next
steps?
That's
not
clear!
So
can
the
joint
commissions,
you
know,
write
a
statement
right
now
as
what
the
next
step
should
be.
Q
So
I
think
we've
got
your
next
step
ideas
through
the
conversation
that
have
occurred,
so
there's
a
lot
of
information.
A
lot
of
questions
you
would
like
to
have
answered
we'll,
try
and
categorize
those
in
in
a
way
that's
meaningful
and
provide
them
for
future
discussions
in
terms
of
next
steps.
I
think
it's
clear
you
want.
Q
You
have
additional
information
that
you'd
like
to
have
us
bring
back
to
you,
and
so
we
need
to
go
through
that
in
those
questions
and
see,
if
that's
information,
that's
reasonable,
to
bring
back
to
your
direct
your
direction.
If
it
is,
then
we'll
we'll
be
back
again,
it
may
make
sense
for
us
to
go
to
council
as
an
interim
step
and
have
a
conversation
with
them.
Letting
them
know
that
you
know
here's
a
list
of
unanswered
questions
from
the
commissions
that
you
would
like
to
that.
Q
Q
As
I
said,
there's
no
agendas
item
for
an
action
here,
so
it's
not
necessary.
It's
it's
an
input
meeting
and
we've
certainly
received
plenty
of
input
from
you
tonight,
so
I
think
we're
clear
and
you've
met
the
goals
and
and
the
detailed
items
in
the
agenda.
Let's
move
to
commissioner,
commissioner
kumar
upon.
H
Yeah
thanks
man
yeah,
so
one
request
I
will
make
is
whatever
the
city
staffs
are
consolidating
it
like
to
make
sure
that
we
see
it
as
a
joint
commission,
because
that's
going
to
be
printed,
I
know
it'll
be
as
public
it'll
be
available,
24
48
hours
or
whatever
it
is.
We
definitely
we
want
to
see
that
because
each
one
has
given,
I
know,
what's
going
to
be
presented,
typically
what
we
do
math.
Typically
it
comes
back
to
park
and
rec
in
general.
H
Whenever
we
do
they
present
back
the
star
says
this
is
what
you're
going
to
present
to
you.
We
do
it,
but
since
all
three
commissions
it's
going
to
be
difficult
for
the
staff
to
go
and
present
all
of
them
this
time,
but
I
think
we
would
like
to
see
it
too.
So,
whatever
mechanism
it
is,
you
know
it's
a
public
one.
So
I'll
leave
it
to
you,
but
that's
important.
That's.
Q
Fair,
we
want
to
see
that
that's
a
fair
point.
Thank
you.
What
we'll
do
is
consolidate
the
notes,
we'll
get
an
email
out
to
you
all,
letting
you
know
that
they're
there
and,
as
I
said,
susan's
available
for
comments.
So
if
you
see
something
that
that
we
missed
or
something
that
you
want
to
comment
on,
please
please
do
so.
We
have
the
recording
of
the
meeting
so
we're
able
to
go
back
in
addition
to
notes
and
and
make
sure
we
can
fill
in
some
gaps.
Commission.
M
Thank
you
very
much
matt
I
am
going
to
actually
just
add:
ask
that
you
had
one
additional
piece
which
is
either
of
these
options,
which
of
them
is
open
to
or
has
the
potential
of
getting
re-zoned
into
something
else.
So
that
is
a
very,
very
critical
piece,
because
cupertino
is
losing
a
lot
of
open
space
and
open
land,
and
that
is
something
that
would
be
very
critical
for
us
to
wrap
our
heads
around
to
make
a
decision.
M
Q
P
Z
A
Okay,
so
I
I
just
want
to
summarize
something
so
that
means
in
the
presentation
in
the
council
meeting
staff.
They
won't
bring
up
some
recommendations,
or
maybe
some
firestar
opinion
just
to
collect
all
the
input
and
to
show
the
result
of
the
surveys
and
the
community
feedback
to
council
member.
So
if
so,
I
I
just
encourage
the
commissioners
and
the
community
members
attend
this
meeting.
If
you
have
time
you
should
join
the
council
meeting
and
yeah,
I
know
our
staff.