►
Description
Coverage of the August 10, 2021 Cupertino Planning Commission Teleconference Meeting.
B
Hello,
hello:
everybody
welcome
to
the
city
of
cupertino
planning,
commission
meeting
for
august
10
2021.
in
accordance
with
the
governor's
newsome
executive
order
number
2920.
This
will
be
a
teleconference
meeting,
I'm
not
going
to
read
the
whole
thing,
but
it's
teleconference
meeting
without
a
physical
location
to
help
stop
the
spread
of
covet
19.
so
for
those
that
wanting
to
participate.
Of
course,
you
can
hop
in
on
this
zoom
meeting
and
of
course,
in
many
other
formats
with
that,
let's
go
to.
D
E
B
B
Okay,
oh
great!
Well
with
that
all
right,
let's
start
with
the
first
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
the
approval
of
the
minutes.
We
have
the
first
set
of
mutants,
which
is
the
draft
minutes
of
june
22
2021
recommended
action,
approve
or
modify
the
draft
minutes
of
june
22
2021.
So
let's
take
some
time.
Look
at
the
draft
minutes
and
you
know
if
there's
any
approvals
or
motions
to
actually
approve
or
make
changes.
H
B
B
I
D
D
B
I
believe
the
motion
carries
3-0-1
for
the
minutes,
so
that's
great.
Okay,
all
right!
We'll
move
on
to
oral
communications
for
folks
who
remember
this
portion
of
the
meeting
is
reserved
for
persons
wishing
to
address
the
commission
on
any
matter
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
commission
and
not
on
the
agenda.
Speakers
are
limited
to
three
minutes.
In
most
cases,
state
law
will
prohibit
the
commission
from
making
any
decisions
with
respect
to
matter
not
on
the
agenda,
and
so,
if
you're,
an
attendee
raise
your
hand
and
we
will
call
on
you
our
first
guest
is
jenny.
C
C
I
have
never
seen
legislation
like
this.
I
hope
we
never
see
it
again,
because
everything
that
I
have
read
about.
It
means
that
there
are
groups
in
california
that
are
taking
advantage
of
the
public,
but
when
you
have
things
that
are
considered
quote
by
right
and
ministerial,
those
are
other
words,
for
you
have
no
right
to
say
anything
and
you
can't
vote
on
it.
C
C
C
I
I
don't
know
why
these
people
think
that
they
have
the
right
to
say
that
these
bills
are
that
way,
but
I
sure
haven't
been
consulted
on
it
and
I
sure
have
not
been
asked
if
I
wanted
to
vote
on
it,
and
this
is
affecting
how
I
am
voting
on
the
recall
for
my
governor
and-
and
I
I'm
getting
to
the
point
now
where
sb9,
sb10
and
ad-1401
are
destabilizing
the
political
infrastructure
in
california
and
affecting
the
recall
of
our
governor,
and
I
sure
hope
these
politicians
think
very
very
carefully
about
this.
Thank
you.
B
B
B
B
B
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair
wong.
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
we
adopted
our
recently
adopted
a
density
bonus
ordinance
in
may
of
2021,
and
this
is
a
follow-up
to
that
particular
ordinance.
As
you
mentioned
in
the
subject,
the
amendments
are
to
various
sections
of
the
density
bonus
ordinance
to
comply
with
ab2345.
A
Again,
this
is
part
of
our
affordable
housing
strategies.
Work
program
item
which
included,
updates
to
the
city's
density
bonus
ordinance.
It
was
in
the
pri
prior
fiscal
year.
War
program
no
longer
carries
forward
into
our
21
22
fiscal
year
work
program.
However,
ab2345
had
increased
the
maximum
density
bonuses
for
projects
that
were
not
100,
affordable
from
35
percent
to
50.
A
For
a
mayor
four
to
five
percent
increase
in
affordability,
it
the
law
did
provide
that
the
city
could
adopt
its
own
housing
program
or
ordinance,
although
to
incentivize
the
development
of
affordable
housing
by
allowing
bonuses
that
exceed
35
percent,
which
the
city
did
in
earlier
this
year.
However,
that
again,
like
I
mentioned
this,
was
something
that
we
did
earlier
this
year.
A
A
There
is
also
a
separate
bill
which
was
codified
in
government
code
section
on
65915
a
100,
affordable
housing
developments
could
get
up
to
80
percent
density
bonuses,
and
so
that
is
also
being
codified
in
the
city's
local
ordinance.
At
this
time
we
just
wanted
to
make
a
point
that
the
city
has
consistently
approved
the
city
bonus
projects
on
its
particularly
housing
priority
sites.
These
include
valico,
marina
veranda
and
the
westport
projects.
A
The
city
has
also,
you
know,
offers
a
host
of
incentives
to
instead
of
incentivize,
affordable
housing
within
other
parts
of
the
municipal
code.
You
know
which
include
flexibility,
zoning
scanners,
in
our
plan
development,
zoning
districts.
There
are
many
of
those
already
that
exist
and
there
is
a
path
for
properties
that
are
not
planned,
developed
in
zoning
districts
to
apply
to
the
plan
development
zoning
districts.
A
There's
evidence
based
on
analysis
that
the
city
had
commissioned
by
a
consultant
and
also
in
looking
at
the
experience
from
san
diego,
where
av
2345
a
program
that
was
very
similar
to
ab2345
was
originally
implemented.
Developers
are
most
likely
to
use
the
program
by
providing
very
low
income
housing
units
because
that's
where
you
get
the
maximum
bonus
or
you
get
your
most
bang
for
your
buck.
A
In
terms
of
bonus
units
very
quickly
and
so
for
projects
with
very
low
income,
housing
ab2345's
maximum
bonus
of
50
for
providing
15
very
low
income
units
is
not
very
different.
From
the
city's
existing
density
for
affordability
ratio,
which
goes
at
17
percent,
very
low
income
units
you
would
have
to
provide,
you
would
get
a
50
density
bonus.
So
while
it's
not
that
different
atg
does
continue
to
assert
that
the
city's
program
does
not
comply
with
ab2345.
A
There
were
some
additional
incentives
and
concessions
that
if
the
city
had
a
program
that
would
not
apply
to
the
city's
density
bonus
ordinance,
those
incentives
are
currently
also
being
codified,
and
so,
additionally,
the
last
one
is
also
pursuant
to
that
government
code
section
that
I
mentioned.
I
believe
it
was
six
five
one,
nine
nine
one
five.
So
if
you
have
if
you're
100,
affordable
housing
development,
you
get
up
to
four
incentives
and
concessions,
and
then
there
were
certain
incentives
for
providing
higher
percentages.
A
These
are
additional
optional
incentives
that
the
city
staff
is
recommending
be
codified.
These
are
existing
things
that
the
city
already
does,
for
example,
for
all
affordable
units.
We
weigh
parkland
dedication
fees
and
construction
taxes.
This
is
talked
about
in
our
housing
element
and
also
mentioned
in
our
bmr
program.
A
There's
also
things
that
we
do
to
prioritize:
affordable
housing
developments
or
developments
that
have
additional
affordable
housing
units
than
required
by
the
city's
bmr
program,
and
then
another
commitment
that
the
city
wanted
to
make
was
which
we've
already
done
on.
One
of
our
projects
is
to
provide
letters
of
support
for
financial
brand
applications
when
you
have
a
development
or
a
building
that
comprises
of
100,
affordable.
K
G
A
G
A
G
B
A
It's
it's
not
codified
in
the
municipal
code,
it
is
in
the
general
plan.
It
talks
about
priority
processing
for
affordable
developments,
and
so
this
is
one
way
of
generally
stuff
that
is
in
the
general
plan,
gets
it.
The
general
plan
document
is
more
of
a
policy
document
and
in
terms
of
implementation,
it
gets
codified
into
the
municipal
code
or
some
manual,
or
something
like
that
which
gives
us
our
day-to-day
marching
instructions
in
a
way.
B
A
Sure,
in
addition
to
that,
a
new
section
is
being
recommended.
This
is
to
ensure
that
if
there
are
any
conflicts
with
state
law,
because
density
bonus
law
is
changing
so
rapidly
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
fall
out
of
step
with
the
state
density
bonus
law
in
terms
of
conflicts.
There
is
this
added
section
that
is
recommended
be
added
in
terms
of
sql
review.
A
We
don't
see
that
proposed
code
amendments
would
result
in
any
direct
or
foreseeable
or
reasonably
foreseeable,
indirect
physical
change
in
the
environment,
and
so
it
does
not
constitute
a
project
under
sequa
and
additionally,
the
amendments
can
be
seen
with
certainty
based
on
reviewable
facts
that
there's
no
possible
significant
effect
on
the
environment.
So
these
would,
it
would
be
considered
categorically
exempt
from
sql
under
section
15378
section
15061b3,
if
anybody's
interested
in
and
the
exact
numbers.
H
A
That
I
conclude
my
presentation
again,
the
recommended
action
is
to
adopt
the
draft
resolution
recommending
city
council
adopt
the
proposed
amendments
to
the
density
bonus
ordinance.
In
addition,
like
I
mentioned
in
the
alternative,
the
planning
commission
could
adopt
the
draft
ordinance,
but
not
recommend
the
additional
incentives
for
refrigerators,
etc.
B
G
G
B
G
So
now
now
we're
told
we've
got
to
forget
all
this
analysis
that
we
were
presented
with
december
15th
change
the
ordinance
which
is
going
to
probably
result
in
less
affordable
units
being
built
or
we're
going
to
be
sued
by
these
development
interests,
and
I
mean
I
think
it's
deplorable
that
this
is
allowed
to
happen.
I
understand
we
don't
want
to
subject
the
city
to
lawsuits,
but
I
just
think
you
know
we
know
what
happened
here.
G
We
know
which
developer
wrote
to
hcd
and
which
resident
wrote
to
another
anti-affordable
housing
organization
complaining
about
this,
and
I
just
think
it's
you
know.
We
were
told
that
the
big
shortage
in
cupertino
is
for
affordable
housing
and
now
we're
being
required
to
make
this
change
that
will
likely
result
in
less
affordable
housing.
G
I
mean
I
understand,
the
developer
makes
more
money
with
fewer,
affordable
units,
and
you
know,
maybe
if
I
were
a
developer,
I'd
do
the
same
thing,
but
I
it
really
is
a
shame
that
we
have
to
do
this.
I
don't
you
know
we
don't.
Nobody
here
wants
to
get
embroiled
in
an
expensive
legal
dispute,
but
I
would
ask
if
hcd
says
that
what
we
did
is
not
sufficient
to
qualify
as
quote
a
program,
what
other
cities
have
been
able
to
do
a
density
bonus
law
that
hcd
does
consider
compliant
and
can
we
do
something
similar?
B
G
Right,
so
let
me
interrupt
you
for
one
second,
so
I
did
speak
to
our
former
city
manager
who,
after
receiving
this
letter
in
may,
did
contact
hcd
and
ask
them.
You
know
what
would
be
considered
to
be
in
compliance
now,
she's
gone,
she
had
not
received
any
response
from
hcd
before
she
left,
but
I
wonder
if
the
new
interim
city
manager
had
ever
gotten
a
response
from
hcd
on
this
or
there's
been
nothing
else,
communicated.
A
G
Right
so
I
had
another
question
for
chris,
so
our
current
bmr
requirement
for
rental
housing
is
15
and
I
seem
to
remember
asking
the
pre
our
other
city
attorney
heather
at
one
point,
or
maybe
it
was
barb.
How
high
can
we
raise
that
fifteen
percent,
considering
our
next
arena
cycle
were
required
to
plan
for
over
40
percent
bmr
and
if
we
did
raise
it
from
15
to
20?
G
G
G
D
K
D
B
D
K
Well
so
so
I
mean
I
I
you
know:
I'd
refer
you
to
the
confidential
memo
that
we
provided.
I
mean
I,
I
think
I
think
it's
pretty,
but
I
mean
I
don't
think
I
think
it's
pretty
obvious
to
everybody
here
that
that
that
part
of
the
reason
that
the
main
reason
this
ordinance
is
being
brought
back
to
you
is
to
mitigate
legal
risk,
and
so
so
without
being
saying
to
say
anything
too
much
more
than
that
from
that
in
public.
I
would
refer
you
to
the
confidential
memo
that.
D
I
shared
with
you
on
friday:
okay,
thanks
I'll.
Take
a
look
at
that,
so
I
couldn't
access
emails
from
here
where
I
am
so.
That
might
be
a
different
issue.
So
let
me
understand
you
know
the
the
logic
behind
this
right.
So
I'm
going
to
use
an
example
right,
so
yeah
one
percent
increase,
I'm
going
to
use
the
numbers
now
that
may
not
be
you
know
the
numbers
that
exist
so
for
simplicity's
sake
and
I'm
going
to
use
some
numbers.
D
D
Let's
assume
that
you
know
10
percent
is
has
to
be.
You
know,
let's
assume
in
our
city,
ordinance
calls
for
10
being
in
affordable
housing.
So
that
means
you
know.
10
units
would
be
half
affordable
and
you
know,
and
the
remaining
90
would
be
you
know,
market
rate
or
whatever
right.
So
if
the
developer
says
you
know
I'm
going
to
increase,
you
know
one
percent
on
the
affordable
housing,
which
means
you
know
they're
going
from
10
to
11
right
they
get
to
increase
the
project
by.
D
K
A
K
A
D
D
A
D
A
D
D
H
D
E
So
I
just
wanted
to
understand.
This
essence
is
that
earlier
on,
we
required
slightly
higher
requirements
for
a
similar
level
of
concessions
and
density
bonuses
than
what
the
law
required
and
the
lawsuit
being
threatened,
says
that,
because
we
require
a
little
bit
more
in
the
the
low
income
bmr
housing,
we
are
not
in
compliance
with
the
with
the
state
law.
Is
that
a
good
summary.
K
E
Okay
and
the
language
of
the
bill,
does
it
make
it
clear
that
as
soon
as
you
reach
that
level
you
have
to
have
it
or
does
it
like?
Is
it
explicit
that
if
the,
if
the
bill
says
18
and
we
have
20,
it
is
not
compliant
like
do
we
do?
We
know
the
specific
segments
of
the
bill
which
says
that,
because
the
reason
I'm
asking
the
whole
purpose
of
the
bmr
laws
and
everything
affordable,
housing
density
bonus
is
to
incentivize,
affordable
housing.
E
I
think
we
all
know
that
housing
is
a
major
problem
here,
and
the
incentive
to
give
bonus
is
to
the
purpose
of
the
bonuses
is
to
incentivize
that
housing.
So
I'm
a
bit
lost
wide
pro
housing
groups
or
the
groups
which
are
claiming
to
be
pro
housing,
saying
that
requiring
like
two
percent
or
three
percent
or
something
more
in
affordable
housing
is
anti-housing.
K
K
That
says,
you
know,
once
you
get
to
a
certain
level
of
affordability,
that
you
shall
be
entitled
to
a
density
bonus
at
a
certain
level,
and
then
I
think
the
other
aspect
of
it
is
is
that
the
legislature
was
quite
explicit
that
you
could
require
you
could
that
cities
could
adopt
a
a
higher
density,
bonus,
a
lot
greater
density
but
but
not
lower,
and
so
I
I
think
so
I
I
so
I
I
think
you
know
again.
This
hasn't
been
adjudicated
and
you
know
we.
E
A
A
Other
thing
that
commissioners
and
I
just
wanted
to
sorry
for
the
interruption-
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
as
well,
and
you
know
other
housing
advocacy
groups.
I
think
their
whole
perspective
is
that
there
should
just
be
more
housing
altogether
at
every
income
level
and
it's
not
just
about
affordable
housing.
So
their
position
is
that
anything
that
it
just
allows
additional
or
housing
in
any
way.
That's
what
they
are
their
platform
and
support
is
for.
J
D
G
Yeah,
I
I
mean,
I
think
the
objection
is
it's
not
that
we
had
a
higher
requirement
for
the
number
of
affordable
units.
It
was
well
yeah.
That
was
it
because
you
could
still
get
to
50
under
our
ordinance.
But
to
do
so
you
would
need
more
additional,
affordable
units
which,
over
and
above
23.45,
so
23.45
the
way
I
see
it
is
it's,
it's
a
maximum.
G
A
city
can
require
not
a
minimum
in
terms
of
the
number
of
affordable
units
and
like,
as
you
said,
you
know,
you
know,
I
don't
want
to
put
words
in
the
mouth
of
any
of
these,
these
organizations,
but
yes,
they're,
concerned
and
based
on
who
you
know
funds.
Their
organizations
is
building
more
market
rate.
Housing
and
affordability
is
not
the
primary
concern.
G
E
E
Ms
gauche
clearly
outlined
that
that
they're
going
for
their
charter
or
the
intent
is
to
have
as
much
housing
and
not
market,
not
vmware
housing.
It's
just
that
it
sort
of
is,
I
would
say,
sad,
that
market
rate
housing
bonuses,
sort
of
piggyback
on
bmr
and
then
bmr
invariably
doesn't
get
built
because
of
so
many
reasons.
E
B
It's
not
just
that
bmr
doesn't
get
built.
What
we
end
up
with
these
little
boxes,
that
can't
even
put
families
in
right.
They
just
serve
as
an
excuse
for
a
very
low
income
and
don't
even
address
the
affordability
crisis.
We
end
up
with
market
rate
housing
which
gets
more
and
more
expensive
and
affordable
housing
which
gets
smaller
and
smaller
and
and
not
even
passable
as
something
for
a
family
unit.
So
it's
it's!
It's
a
massive
crisis.
That's
going
on
here,
especially
with
the
office
building
blood
in
exchange
for
housing.
That's
been
going
on
as
well.
E
B
I
agree.
Well
let
me
let
me
start
with
some
of
my
questions
as
well.
I
might
cover
some
of
the
same
ground.
Others
have
asked.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
it's
clarified,
for
the
interest
of
the
public
as
well.
First
question
here
is
the
hcd
concern
was
initiated
by
whom
is
there
a
public
records
request
of
hcd
out
there
do
we
know
for
sure.
B
Think
it'd
be
important
to
understand
who
that
is
or
find
what
that
is,
whether
they
had
developer
interests
that
were
for
market
rate
housing
as
opposed
to
affordable
housing.
You
know,
I
think,
that's
an
important
piece
or
well.
There
was
a
developer.
The
city
can
ask.
I
would
I
hope
that
we
can
ask
that
question.
B
I
would
like
the
city
to
ask
a
pr
for
hcd
to
find
out
who
made
that
request,
and
so
we
understand
what
the
interests
were
and
which
interests
were
aligned
with
the
citizens
and
residents
and
which
are
just
reliant
with
developers,
especially
if
it
was
a
specific
developer
number
two.
What
can
we
do
to
continue
incentivize,
affordable
housing
without
discriminating
against
families,
because
these
vli
and
li
numbers
are
very
discriminatory
to
families?
A
We'd
probably
have
to
go
back
and
do
additional
research
on
that.
However,
our
bmr
manual
does
require
that
units
be
in
the
same
report.
The
bmr
units
be
in
the
same
proportion
as
the
other
units.
However,
you
know,
state
law
does
allow
concessions
and
incentives,
and
so
you
know
we
do
have
to
go
back
and
do
additional
legal
research
on
what
can
be
done.
So
we
there
would
be
additional
research
required.
It's
not
something
that
I
can
obtain
or
talk
to
right.
B
Now,
actually
that
is
a
great
point.
That's
that
is
a
great
point.
So
in
our
bmr
manual
chapter
2.3.4
requirements,
maybe
we
can
actually
make
some
requirements,
and
this
is
for
the
attorney.
Can
we
add
language
to
actually
requirements
to
have
the
same
number
of
bedrooms
in
size
and
add
that
to
cmc
19.56.050
and
not
allow
that
to
be
taken
as
a
concession,
because
that
would
discriminate
against
families
who
may
want
their
children
in
the
great
schools
here
we
have
in
cupertino?
Is
that
something
we
can
look
into
as
well?.
K
We
could
certainly
evaluate
it
there
there
are.
There
are
restrictions
as
what
you
can
do
to
limit
concessions.
There
are
other
ways
through
the
bmr
program
that
you
can
encourage
family
size
units,
and
I
I
just
went
through
the
process
of
of
participating
in
an
economic
analysis
that
looked
at
that
in
a
different
jurisdiction
and,
and
it's
certainly
possible
to
to
to
to
require
family
size
units
or
or
give
or
give
the
option
for
family
size
units.
K
The
trade-off
tends
to
be
because
of
economic
feasibility
that
it's
you
know
it's
it's
family
size
units
versus
more
units,
because,
of
course,
you
know,
the
bigger
units
are,
you
know,
reduce
the
financial
feasibility
of
the
project
more
than
the
smaller
ones,
but
but
that's
certainly
something
that
you
can
do
through
the
city's
bmr
program.
If
that's
a
priority
for
the
planning
commission
in
the
city
council.
B
I'll
see
how
my
other
commissioners
feel
about
that,
but
I
think
affordability
is
the
priority
here,
not
market
rate
housing,
but
also
keeping
in
conformance
with
ab2345,
but
I
think
it's
important.
We
have
an
affordability
crisis
by
all
stats,
all
indications,
not
a
market
rate
housing
crisis,
it's
affordability
that
we're
worried
about,
and
we
continue
to
make
afford
to
be
out
of
reach
by
encouraging
so
much
market
rate
housing.
I
know
the
two
and
two
need
to
work
hand
in
hand
to
pay
for
it,
but
we're
out
of
balance
in
some
cases.
B
K
Since
that
point,
the
city
did
respond
through
a
letter
from
our
former
city
manager
to
hcd
and
that
response
provided
information
about
the
city's,
affordable
housing
programs
to
provide
some
context
to
hcd's
objections
and,
as
we
discussed
earlier,
I'm
not
aware
that
there's
been
any
any
any
any
response
to
from
htcd
from
that
since
then.
But
I
could
certainly
double
check
on
that
and
and
follow
up
with
you
to
confirm
that.
B
B
Okay,
so
let
me
get
this
right,
so
the
ordinance
we
adopted
to
be
conforming
to
ab2345,
to
improve
affordability
and
the
amount
of
housing
units
is
being
threatened,
potentially
by
developer
interests,
who
don't
want
to
see
more
affordability
but
want
to
see
more
market
rate
housing-
and
you
know
this
is
what
initiated
all
this
just
so
that
we
have
this
all
clear.
Does
that
sound
right.
K
B
B
Okay,
so
we
haven't
done
that
analysis
yet
and
then
real
quick.
What
are
the
concessions
and
when
we
talk
about
concessions
that
are
included,
I
mean:
do
we
just
take
a
list?
Take
three
take
four
or
our
neighboring
cities
allowing
concessions
on
the
same
number
of
bedrooms,
square
footage
height.
You
know
dispersal.
A
No,
I'm
only
aware
that
san
francisco
has
different
density
bonus
programs,
but
I'm
not
aware
that
any
of
the
other
cities
have
any
specific
programs.
I
know
san
diego
has
a
density
wellness
program.
I
believe
berkeley
may
have
its
own
program,
but
I'm
not
100
sure.
But
aside
from
that,
I
do
not
I'm
not
aware
of
any
immediately
adjacent
cities
that
have
their
own
very
specific
density
of
bonus
problems.
I
think
los
altos
might
have
something
as
well.
G
What
are
the
inclusionary
requirements
and
are,
I
guess,
is
any
inclusionary
requirement
that
a
city
puts
into
place
allowed
to
be
waived
using
waivers
and
concessions,
so,
no
matter
what
the
city
did,
they,
it
would
be
able
to
get
out
of
it.
That's
what
we
want
to
do.
You
know
that
would
be.
The
city's
goal
is
to
ensure
that
our
bmr
program
requirements
are
adhered
to
and
the
goal
of
many
developers
are
to
ensure
that
they
don't
have
to
adhere
to
them.
A
So
I
I
am
aware
that
there
are
many
cities
around
us
that
do
have
bmr
requirements.
I'm
sorry,
I
misunderstood
the
question.
I
do
know
that
the
city
of
saratoga
does
not
have
an
inclusionary
requirement
with
that
in
terms
of
whether
there
can
be
incentives
and
concessions
to
any
of
the
bmr
program
requirements.
I
think
I
will
have
to
defer
to
chris
on
that.
A
It
is
every
all
of
those
decisions
are
not
made
lightly
in
terms
of
whether
something
you
know
where
the
staff
would
recommend
that
something
be
you
know,
allowed
as
a
concession
or
incentive.
Those
are
made.
Those
decisions
or
those
recommendations
are
made
in
conjunction
with
review
with
the
city
attorney's
office.
So
chris,
do
you
have
any
additional
comments
on
that.
K
Nothing
nothing
very
concrete.
Like
I
mean
I
I
have
heard
of
of
of
that
request
being
made,
I
have
never
been
involved
in
a
project
where
that
that
that
waiver
or
concession
was
granted,
and
by
that
I
mean
a
waiver
of
of
of
affordable
housing,
what
local,
affordable
housing
requirements
above
and
beyond
what
is
required
to
obtain
the
density
bonus.
G
B
You
know
what
would
help
yeah,
I
think
what
would
help
is
to
have
a
comparison
table.
Actually
that
might
actually
help
I
mean,
maybe
I
mean
is:
can
we
get
a
comparison
table
actually
as
to
what
other
cities
are
doing,
especially
on
consensus
for
bmr?
I
think
that
will
help,
because
I
think
council's
going.
H
A
A
B
K
K
B
I
understand
that
I
just
don't
want
us
out
there
doing
prioritizing
permitting
when
you
know
we
have
no
idea
what
that
means
and
developers
are
gonna
run
roughshod
on
that
definition.
Others
might
run
rough
shot
on
a
definition.
Staff
may
be
confused,
not
intentionally
but
well
intentioned,
to
get
something
moving
along,
but
but
that's
just
something
I'll
leave
there.
Okay,.
G
D
K
G
K
B
B
F
Good
evening
planning,
commission
and
staff,
I'm
disappointed
that
there
are
cupertino
residents
that
are
lobbying
on
the
behalf
of
developers
to
decrease
the
number
of
affordable
units
in
the
city.
As
the
staff
report
states,
our
city
has
stepped
up
and
consistently
approved
density
bonus
projects,
yet
developers
consistently
have
not
followed
through
on
building
them.
F
F
Item
g
needs
to
be
amended
to
reflect
the
approved,
may
2020
bmr
manual.
Our
municipal
code
needs
to
specify
what
the
bmr
chapter
2.3.4
states
that
requires
same
number
of
bedrooms,
size
of
the
bedrooms
in
square
feet,
dispersal,
so
that
the
city
does
not
allow
and
enable
discrimination
against
families.
This
is
important
because
families
come
to
cupertino
for
the
schools.
We
should
not
allow
developers
just
to
discriminate
through
the
use
of
poorly
worded
laws.
F
D
B
C
C
I
am
if
the
two
authors
are
assembly,
woman,
lorena
gonzalez
from
san
diego
and
our
own
assembly
person,
david
chu
from
san
francisco,
I
will
tell
you
right
now:
I
am
not
impressed
with
san
diego,
whatever
they
want
to
do,
especially
with
how
horrendously
written
this
bill
is.
I
am
amazed
that
david
chu
would
even
want
to
be
part
of
this.
This
is
reflecting
badly
on
our
governor.
Also.
They
have
to
remember
that
mr
faulconer,
a
former
mayor
of
san
diego,
is
one
of
the
republicans
attempting
to
run
in
case
gavin
is
recalled.
C
I
got
my
ballot
today
and
he
faulkner
is
a
moderate
republican
okay
great,
but
I
am
not
impressed
if
this
type
of
garbage
ab2
345
is
coming
out
of
san
diego.
Do
I
want
my
governor
to
come
out
of
san
diego
tony
atkins
came
out
of
san
diego.
It's
it's
reflecting
poorly
god
bless
our
city
and
our
city
staff
and
our
new
attorney.
We
are
going
to
have
to
muck
our
way
through
this.
I
am
not
impressed
with
san
diego,
and
I
I
am.
C
B
J
J
J
I
I
was,
I
noticed,
noted
a
comment
that
chris
is
sitting
new
city
attorney
and
welcome
again
phrased
the
allegations
of
the
lawsuit.
Does
that
mean
there
is
already
a
lawsuit
in
play
or
just
the
threat
of
one?
I
think
that's
really
important
to
know,
and
I
don't
know
if
you
can
tell
us,
will
we
citizens,
but
it
would
be
nice.
J
I
really
questioned
why
yambi
law
and
others
like
them
spur
this.
That
and
the
other
thing.
Why
are
they
not
considering
lawsuits
against
developers
who
don't
build
housing
projects
that
have
been
approved?
Why
aren't
they
finding
an
angle
where
they
can
go
after
the
hey?
You've
got
this
to
build
you're
not
doing
it.
We
need
the
housing
get
on
it
or
we're
suing
you.
Why
do
they
always
go
after
cities
who
are
trying
to
do
the
right
thing
for
their
residents
and
their
community
and
future
residents.
J
And
and
again
you
know
the
school
district
does
this
it's
over
and
over
again?
Oh,
we
can't
do
this
because
we
might
get
sued
well,
you
know
what
how
much
do
we
the
collectively,
have
to
lose
if
the
city
lets
the
fear
of
a
lawsuit
drive
the
decision
of
what's
best
for
our
city
and
therefore
our
community?
Every
time
someone
makes
a
squeak
and
when
a
squeak
is
coming
from
a
resident
or
a
developer,
who
is
already
not
well
suited?
B
I
I
I
B
B
K
K
I
I
am
not
aware
of
it
in
a
an
official
blacklist
at
hcv.
I
I
did
so
so
I
I
think
the
answer
to
that
question
is
I'm
not
aware
of
it.
I
did
so
it's
also
just
if
you
don't
mind,
I
just
wanted
to
jump
in
was
in
response
to
ms
warren's
comments
just
to
clarify
if
it
was
not
clear
that
no
there
has
no
been
no
lawsuit
filed,
and
so
that
was
a
hypothetical
discussion
you
know
about
focusing
on
litigation
risks
there's
no
way
there
is
no.
D
Yeah,
so
thank
you
for
all
the
comments
you
know
from
public
as
well
as
fellow
commissioners.
I
I
get
a
pretty
good
view
of
you
know.
What's
going
on,
so
you
know
try
to
get
my
head
around.
Trying
to
you
know
see
the
numbers
right
like
you
know.
What
is
it
today
and
you
know
what
is
that
we
are
changing
to
and
also
you
know.
D
You
know
it's
pretty
clear
to
me
that
you
know
we
are
continuously
shortchanging,
affordable,
housing
for
a
market
rate
house
right.
So
I
that's.
You
know,
that's
not
where
I
want
us
to
be
right.
So
you
know
we
have
an
affordable
housing
crisis.
Not
you
know
a
market
rate
housing
crisis,
so
you
know
I
I
don't
like
you
know
us
continuing
to
favor
the
rich
and
wealthy.
D
You
know
market
rate,
you
know
housing,
people
and
and
give
up
on
an
offer
of
loss
right
and
there
are
projects
you
know
that
are
continuing
to
be
built
like
westport
is
a
good
example
of
that
right.
So
they
are
moving
forward.
You
know
with
the
current
ordinance.
So
so
why
can't
you
know
the
rest
of
the
developers?
No
move
forward
right
so
and
and
also
you
know,
we
potentially
run
the
risk
of
installing
the
projects
that
have
been
already
approved
because
they
would
anticipate
you
know
future
future
incentives.
D
It's
a
it's
a
slippery
slope
that
you
know
we
are
embarking
on
by
you
know
continuously
you
know
relaxing.
So
I'm
pretty
disappointed
that
you
know
you
know
we
can
continue
to
come
under
pressure
to
favor
market
rate
housing
and
you
know,
and
and
disfavor
the
affordable
housing
in
our
city.
So
so
that's
just
you
know
my
my
comments
that
I
just
wanted
to
share.
B
D
Yeah,
so
the
changes
that
you
know
some
of
you
brought
up,
you
know
I
would
like
to
see
those
changes
you
know
make.
For
example,
you
know
we
don't
want
the
affordable
housing
units
to
you
know
non-livable
right
compared
to
you
know,
like
you
know
the
market
housing.
So
so
I
think
you
know
we
need
to
be
fair
for
our
constituents
right
and-
and
we
all
know
that
you
know
we
have
an
operative
housing
crisis.
Let's
make
it
fair
and
you
know
for
those
residents
that
you
know
these
houses
are
now
level
right.
D
Like
you
know,
we
all
know
that
you
know
what
you
know.
People
come
to
cuba,
you
know
for
schools.
If
you
can't
have
you
know
family
and
kids,
you
know
in
the
office
of
housing
units,
then
we
pretty
much.
You
know
discriminated
discriminated
against,
so
I
would
like
to
see
you
know
some
of
our
ordinances
in
order
to
be
amended
to
reflect
that
you
know
we
truly
favor.
You
know
affordable
housing
in
public
right.
G
G
G
Well,
the
problem
we
have
is
we
can't
get
people
to
apply
for
permits
for
the
projects
that
we
already
approved,
or
you
know
they
apply
for
them,
but
they're
not
qualified
to
apply
because
of
the
issues
with
the
site
not
qualifying
for
a
permit
yet
so
yeah.
I
would
just
get
rid
of
that
whole
section.
Section.
Four,
subsection
d
number
one.
G
And
I
mean
you
know:
I'm
disappointed
with
what's
transpired,
because
you
know
it
will
likely
redu
result
in
fewer,
affordable
units
being
built,
but
you
know,
I
don't
think
that
you
know
you
know.
I
I
like
what
lisa
said.
We
can't
always
be
afraid,
but
reading
the
confidential
memo.
I
think
that
in
this
case,
it's
better
just
to
go
along
with
with
what
our
legal
team
has
suggested
and
not
not
push
this.
G
G
B
B
G
K
B
E
K
So
so
you
you're,
so
the
the
you're
able
to
propose
amendments
that
are
germane
to
the
item.
That's
been
agendized,
but
if
it's
not
related
to
the
ordinance
that
the
amendments
that
have
been
agendized,
you
know
you
would
not
be
able
to
vote
on
those
tonight
because
of
the
brown
brown
act.
Requirements.
G
B
I
mean,
I
think,
the
intent
of
the
council
and
the
commissions
was
to
improve
affordability
in
cupertino
and
improve
the
number
of
units
that
were
affordable.
So
I
we
have
missed
that.
So
I'm
a
little
worried
about
that.
My
only
request
is
is
really
that
we
have
a
comparison
table
that
we
were
talking
about
earlier
to
understand
what
the
other
concessions
are
for
other
cities.
I
think
it's
kind
of
tough
to
to
make
make
this
decision
without
having
that
comparison
table.
B
At
least
I
know
it's
still
got
it
one
more
level
to
go
to
council,
but
but
I
think
that's
something
useful
to
have,
and
if,
if
we
had
that,
we
can
quickly
say
okay,
we
understand
what
we're
giving
away
what
concessions.
I
feel
like
many
times
in
the
interest
of
our
public
and
our
residents
that
we
are
negotiating
with
two
hands
tied
behind
our
back.
We
have
very
little
leverage.
B
B
So
I
would
like
to
remove
section
4
as
well,
but
I'd
also
like
to
see
a
table
that
actually
talks
about
what
other
cities
are
doing,
so
that
council
has
that
information
by
the
next
council
meeting
so
that
they
can
do
some
comparison
and
understand.
You
know
what
other
concessions
are
being
given
away
and-
and
we
have
some
comparisons
to
to
work
with,
so
that
they
have
better
decisions
better
data,
so
they
can
make
better
decisions.
So.
E
E
E
We
sort
of
defeating
the
whole
purpose
of
having
a
bmr
housing
that
you
know
that
we
have
a
sense
of
community
that
people
who
live,
who
work
with
us
who
make
our
life
better,
are
also
able
to
live
with
us
and
don't
have
to
go
through
the
stress
of
a
long
commute
and
not
having
those
guidelines.
In
place
and
then
keep
on
adding
you
know
getting
these
bonuses
to
make
more
market
raise
housing
to
me,
it's
a
it
sort
of
defeats
the
whole
purpose
of
having
a
bmr
program.
E
It's
almost
becoming
like
a
way
of
bypassing
existing
zoning
or
density
laws
in
the
name
of
bmr.
So
it's
it's
it's.
It
makes
me
feel
a
bit
sad
that
somebody
actually
went
to
the
extent
of
filing
a
lawsuit
for
like
maybe
what
two
units
or
one
unit
extra
which
might
we
might
have
required
and
it
sort
of
speaks
speaks,
speaks
about
the
priorities
that
certain
people
have
and
the
interest
they're
serving,
and
I
hope
they
look
into
the
conscious
to
understand
why
we
have
a
vmware
program.
B
Commissioner
saxena,
thank
you
for
your
comments.
We
are
exposing
the
hypocrisy
of
those
that
are
using
the
excuse
of
market
rate
housing,
but
not
solving
the
affordability
or
homelessness
crisis
and
the
inclusionary
family
policies
by
hiding
behind
fake,
exclusionary
protests,
but
that's
something
for
another
day
for
a
commentary.
D
G
B
G
So
chair
wang,
I
mean
I
would
say
that
you
know
if
they
want
to.
If
the
city
council
sees
fit
to
modify
the
municipal
code
for
priority
processing,
you
know,
I
think
it's
fine,
if
as
long
as
they
do
it
for
100
housing
projects
and
projects
that
comply
with
our
inclusionary
requirements
prior
to
taking
any
concessions
and
waivers,
and
I
think
that
that
would
be
a
good
incentive
for
a
developer.
Maybe
to
do
the
right
thing
and
not
use
all
those
concessions
and
waivers
to
get
around
building
housing.
B
B
That
we
can't
have
the
same.
You
know
that
requirement
for
the
same
number
of
bedrooms
in
size
for
those
affordable
units
and
not
allow
that
to
be
taken
as
a
concession,
because
that
would
discriminate
against
families
who
may
want
their
children
in
these
schools.
So
I
would
like
that.
That's
the
only
thing
I
would
like
to
add
in
the
proposal
before
we
send
it
for,
for
someone
makes
a
motion
to
approve.
B
H
B
It's
not
like
we're
very
close,
though
so
I
guess,
for
the
sake
of
making
sure
we
do
this
legally
and
and
with
the
right
proper
procedure.
I
I
would
recommend
that
for
now,
let's,
let's
make
sure
we
can
include
that
provision
keeping
the
affordable
units
in
terms
of
the
same
size
and
shape
and
and
not
use
that
as
a
concession,
let's
get
rid
of
section
four
and
then
let's
have
a
table
of
comparisons
on
the
bmr,
and
then
we
can
get
this
and
we
can
get
this
passed
through.
B
G
K
A
Right
so,
in
order
to
get
this
to
council
in
september,
I
think
the
it
has
to
go.
The
second
reading
also
has
to
occur
in
september
and
in
order
to
get
it
to
the
first
meeting
in
september
to
council,
this
needs
to
be
recommended.
Some
decision
needs
to
be
made
by
the
planning
commission
at
tonight's
meeting.
G
B
B
A
Right,
so
we
do
need
a
21
day,
lead
time
from
when
from
a
meeting
in
order
to
get
that.
So
if
you
work
our
way
backwards
from
the
7th
of
september,
we
will
be
unable
to
meet
that
with.
If
planning
commission
met
on
the
24th
so
that
there
are
just
some
operational
things
that
we
would
be
unable
to
meet
to
get
this
to
the
council
on.
A
A
A
H
K
E
E
Like
it's
something
like
that,
if,
like
suppose,
we
have
the
first
reading
in
the
second
week
of
a
second
meeting
of
september,
and
because
of
that,
we
can't
have
the
second
reading
till
it
is
done,
and
then
the
lawsuit
gets
filed
at
the
end
of
september.
But
by
the
time
it
gets
to
a
hearing.
The
second
reading
happens
and
we
become
in
compliance
with
whatever
interpretation
of
the
law
we
feel
is
compliant.
E
B
Thank
you,
I'm
just
uncomfortable
making
decisions
without
having
that
data,
so
I
feel
like
we're
a
little
rushed
into
this
process.
That's
that's
really
why
I
want
to
have
some
of
that
data
available,
but
I
also
want
to
know
what's
within
our
limits,
and
you
know,
I
also
want
to
make
sure
we're
respectful
of
any
kind
of
agreements
that
were
made
that
that
we're
not
aware
of
so.
E
Yeah,
I
think
in
general,
I
feel
very
uncomfortable
about
sort
of
an
agreement
made
that
to
not
sue
the
city
should
undermine
the
process.
Is
this
like?
Because
do
you
know
if
there's
anything
under
consideration
with
the
city
right
now,
which
will
be
impacted
by
this
two
unit?
Adjustment,
like
anything
planned
so
like
something
which
could
utilize
the
new
guidelines,
which
is
not
there,
which
could
be
affected.
E
Okay,
cool,
thank
you
so
yeah.
I
think
I've
studied
what
I've
stated
and
I'll
defer
to
the
chair
and
the
vice
chair
think
about
oh,
what
should
be
the
best
man
of
action
here,
but
I
generally
am
very
uncomfortable
with
public
process
being
done
under
the
purview
of
a
lawsuit,
especially
something
where
we're
being
asked
to
change
the
amount
of
bmr
housing
and
reduce
it.
B
G
Yeah
I
mean
I
could
go
either
way
here.
I
I
understand
what
pew
and
our
city
attorney
stated
that
you
know
we
can
make
a
recommendation.
The
city
council
can
change
it.
We
could
always
come
back
later
and
modify
the
ordinance
we're
not
I
mean
what
we're
approving
is
going
to
be
approved,
whether
you
know
with
or
without
this
this
table
and
this
data.
I
think
I
think
that
those
are
almost
a
separate
issue
that
we
need
to
consider
separately
in
terms
of
how
do
we
ma?
G
I
don't
think
that
this
is
this
ordinance
tonight
is
necessarily
the
proper
place
to
do
that.
So
I
mean
I
would
vote
to
approve
it
tonight,
but
if
you
want
to
delay
it,
it
sounds
from
the
city
attorney:
there's
no
real
risk.
If
the
council
gets
it
the
first
meeting
in
october,
you
know
if
that
organization
decided
to
sue
on
september
30th
and
the
council
approves
it
on
the
first
meeting
in
october.
B
B
I
hope
they
are
too.
I
can't
I
can't
say
that
they're
not
and-
and
I
would
say
that
you
know
I
mean
we-
we
are
a
data
driven
planning,
commission
and
missing.
That
data
is
important.
I
think
that's
you
know
something
we
can
do.
I
would
like
to
put
forth
a
proposal
with
the
ordinance
with
section
four
strike
stricken
with
a
and
then
you
know
having
a
table,
that's
being
provided.
You
know.
B
Yeah,
I
mean,
I
think
they
need
that
for
for
the
city
council
to
have
that
information,
so
I
think
that's
important
and
also
to
look
into
the
legality
of
requiring
the
affordable
units
to
be
all
not
to
have
that
affordability.
You
know
taken
off
as
a
concession
like
having
the
same
size.
You
know
you
know
same
number.
G
A
You
know
we
only
have
one
week
and
I
don't
think
that
in
one
week
we
will
be
able
to
gather
data
in
terms
of
what
incentives
and
concessions
in
different
projects
in
various
cities
people
are
looking
for.
I
don't
know
that
we
will
be
able
to
get
that
data
in
such
a
short
period
of
time
and
I'm
not
trying
to
say
that
you
know
this
is
not
data
that
we
cannot
bring
back.
I'm
just
saying
it's:
it's
not
possible
to
be
done
in
one
week.
B
A
Yeah
still
on
our
you
know,
that
was
still
on
the
council's
agenda
again.
I
will
remind
the
planning
commission
that
this
item
has
not
been
continued
into
the
fiscal
2122
work
program.
However,
that
is
something
that
is
still
on
a
an
item
that
the
council
wishes
to
consider
and
we
we
can
bring
some
data
back
to
the
council,
but
at
this
time
you
know,
the
the
purpose
of
this
item
is
to
make
sure
that
our
local
ordinance
is
in
compliance
with
ab2345,
not
with
regard
to
additional
incentives.
A
This
was
just
an
option.
You
know,
because
we
had
committed
to
hcd
in
terms
of
here
are
the
different
things
that
the
city
does
do
already
in
order
to
incentivize
affordable
housing.
If
you
look
at
attachment
c
of
the
packet,
those
are
things
that
we
had
conveyed
to
it
sitting,
so
we
thought
those
might
be
things
that
we
could
incorporate,
but
if
the
county
commission
is
looking
for
other
things,
such
as
incentivizing
family
sized
units,
you
know
that
is
something
outside
the
scope
of
what
we
have
been
discussing
for
this
particular
item.
G
Yeah
I
mean
I
tend
to
agree
here
with
you
that
you
know,
I
think
we
should
bring
it
back
and
find
ways
that
we
can
modify
and
include
our
inclusionary
requirements
to
prevent,
what's
transpired
and
several
other
developments
in
the
city.
Not
it's
not
just
the
tiny
units
either
it's
you
know
we
would
like
some
for
sale,
bmr
housing.
I
mean
that
would
have
been
great
at
the
oaks
instead
of
having
everything
be
the
rentals.
But
I
think
that's
for
another
time
and
I
think
it's.
G
B
No
def
definitely
noted
yeah.
I
just
I'm
just
afraid
that
we're
we're
rushing
into
it
without
the
data,
but
I
do
I
mean
I'm
okay
with
getting
the
proposed
ordinance
in
play
with
section
four
stricken,
but
with
a
very
strong
language
to
counsel
that
that
data
is
needed.
If
you,
if
that's
where
you
want
to
proceed
with
it,.
G
G
G
A
G
B
G
D
Yeah,
so
so
I'm
I'm
really
sad
to
see
these
kind
of
changes
right
that
this
favors
inoperable
housing
in
the
city.
So
I
understand
you
know
the
lawsuit
by
you
know
some
question
interests
and
whatnot
threatening
and
dictating
the
timeline,
I'm
also
not
comfortable
making
decisions
without
the
data
that
no
you've
been
asking
for.
So,
let's
kind
of
know
where
I
am
so.
E
Yeah,
I
think,
we've
spoken
enough.
I
feel
I
feel
really
uncomfortable
doing
something
under
head
of
a
lawsuit,
especially
if
there's
it's
not
going
to
affect
anything.
But
you
know
I'll
defer
to
the
judgment
of
the
city
staff
and,
as
vice
chair
recommends,
and
essentially
go
ahead
with
this
for
the
time
being.
But
we
do
want
to
get
the
data
and
be
better
informed.
D
Yeah,
so
I
have
one
right
so
in
future,
can
I
ask?
Can
we
ask
the
city
staff
to
get
in
front
of
these
kind
of
laws,
not
on
the
back
end,
because
I
heard
a
vice
chair
shock
say
that
you
know
we
passed
the
deadline,
you
know
to
make
changes
and
blah
blah
blah,
and
I
I
heard
something
similar.
You
know
on
the
cell
phone
5g
cell
phone
ordinance,
where
we
missed
the
deadline,
so
I
I
would
like
us
to
get
in
front
of
these
not
know.
B
A
B
B
It's
I'm
respectful
to
the
folks
that
plan
to
litigate
or
are
thinking
about
litigating
and
respectful
to
any
kind
of
agreements
that
have
been
made,
but
but
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
you
know
making
decisions
without
data
making
decisions
with
long-term
implications,
making
decisions
that
may
have
severe
impact
in
future
contract
negotiations
with
other
developers
is
not
a
matter
we
should
take
lightly.
So
I
just
I
just
want
to
be
clear
about
that.
B
G
B
And
motion
a
second.
My
comment
on
this
motion
is,
I'm
probably
gonna
vote?
No,
mostly
because
we
don't
have
the
data,
we
are
being
rushed.
You
know
this
is
a
very,
very
important
issue.
I
do
want
to
make
sure
we
are
in
conformance.
I
want
to
make
sure
council
has
the
right
information,
they
need
to
proceed,
and
so
so
that's
that's
where
I
stand
so
I'm
probably
going
to
vote
no,
but
let's
call
for
a
vote
since
there's
another
comment
and
I
don't
want
to
delay
anyone
else,
so
abby
yeah.
D
G
B
Yeah
before
we
do
that
and
and
I'll
give
you
my
vote,
but
I
realize
that
I
screwed
this
up.
We
want
to
amend
section
three
number
four
and
remove
that
just
just
for
procedural
clarity.
So
it's
section
three
number,
four,
that's
the
part
that
we're
trying
to
strike
in
this,
so
that
we
have
the
right
one
and
then
I
I'm
voting.
No
so,
but
I
just
wanna
make
sure
we
have
the
right
procedure
in
place.
B
J
B
E
B
K
G
B
A
A
K
K
I
am
coming
from
the
city
of
berkeley.
I've
been
the
assistant
city
attorney
there
for
the
past
two
years.
I
did
a
lot
of
work
with
our
playing
department
and
our
zoning
board
in
berkeley,
and
so
I
think
you
know
I'm
familiar
with
a
lot
of
the
issues
that
that
that
you
all
all
of
you
deliberate
on,
and
you
know
hope
that
I
can
continue
to
support
you
and
hope
that
our
office
can
continue
to
support
you
so
anyway.
E
E
So
the
context
here
is
rcusd
is:
has
the
lowest
per
pupil
funding
in
the
whole
country,
especially
if
you
normalize
a
cost
of
living,
and
we
had
a
parcel
tax
fail,
because
a
lot
of
people
wanted
to
have
a
per
square
foot
tax
rather
per
parcel
tax,
but
like
many
things,
the
process-
and
I'm
glad
you
are
here,
because
you
probably
have
some
idea
about
how
that
thing
worked,
even
though
you
were
in
the
city
of
berkeley,
and
that
was
the
school
district.
Thank
you.
Yes
thank.
K
B
You
know
I
should
properly
introduce
you
know.
Chris
is
a
graduate
of
stanford
law
school
he's.
He
served
as
the
assistant
city
attorney
for
city
of
berkeley.
He
also
worked
for
you
know
before
he
did
that
he
was
a
partner,
hanson
bridget,
which
many
people
know
and,
of
course
he
has
an
undergraduate
environmental
chemistry
degree
from
ucsd
and
a
master's
degree
in
atmospheric
chemistry
at
mit
probably
took
class
12.335,
which
you
can
confirm
which
you'll
laugh
about,
but
thank
you
so
much
for
being
here.
D
D
B
B
B
Okay,
commissioner,
saxena
nothing;
okay,
I
I've
been
attacked
attending
the
cali
events
as
well,
looking
at
the
impact
on
legislation
for
sp9
and
sb10
and
spending
some
time
understanding
that
on
the
ground,
so
just
letting
folks
know
there's
some
of
the
meetings
I've
been
attending.
Okay
with
that,
let's
go
to
any
future
business
items.
Any
agenda
items
folks
would
like
to
place.
I
think,
there's
a
comment.
Go
ahead.
B
E
B
H
G
Yeah,
I
think
a
study
session
on
that
and
I've
got
volumes
of
data
on
that.
That
compares
the
pr
student
impact
long
term
of
rental
versus
for
sale
housing
as
well
as
also
including
the
impact
of
the.
When
you
go
to
the
small
units,
because
you
know,
then,
then
you
actually
get
fewer
students
and
yeah.
It's
very,
very
complicated.
All
that
data
and
often.
G
I
know
with
my
own
because,
all
of
a
sudden,
you
know
six
more
portables
appeared
and
because
we
had
no
idea
that
people
moving
into
those
condos
would
have
any
children,
then
it's
like
well,
we
could
have
told
you
that,
but
you
know
you
didn't
want
to
listen.
So
I
think
a
study
session
you
know
would
be
a
great
idea
on
that
and
then
the
other
agenda
item
is
to
look
at
modifying
our
inclusionary
housing
program
to
ensure
that
there
are
enough
requirements
to
offset
the
number
of
concessions
that
could
be
taken.
G
B
I'd
also
like
to
propose
a
series
of
study
sessions
on
on
some
interesting
concepts
as
well
get
ahead
of
the
planning
issue.
One
of
the
interesting
things
I've
been
hearing
a
lot
about
are
health
villages
right
so,
and
this
is
the
concept
of
creating
healthy
villages
healthy
living
areas,
and
so
I
think,
there's
concepts
like
that
in
other
new
planning
areas
that
we
can
bring
in
to
share
new
ideas
and
maybe
get
some
series
in
maybe
every
other
month
of
different
type
of
speakers
and
to
kind
of
share
ideas.
B
So,
for
example,
you
know
new
types
of
concepts
that
are
in
there
to
get
ahead
of
the
planning
curve,
as
well
as
getting
folks
getting
outside
views
and
outside
inputs,
as
well
from
from
folks
that
are
not
vested
developer
interests.
But
people
who
really
care
about
urban
development
urban
planning
to
make
sure
that
that's
that's
in
play
so
and
then,
of
course,
the
5g
issue
looms
and
I'll
be
working
with
some
folks
to
figure
out
how
to
get
that
rapidly
on
the
agenda
on
the
5g
ordinance
for
aesthetics.
B
B
Okay,
I
guess
that's
it
for
us
here.
No
other
comments
for
folks
all
right
with
that.
Thank
you
for
attending
the
august
10th
meeting
of
the
city
of
cupertino's
planning,
commission,
and
I
hope
you
tune
in
in
two
weeks-
join
us
august.
24Th
same
time
same
place
at
6
45
p.m.
This
meeting
is
now
adjourned.
Thank
you.
Everyone.