►
Description
Coverage of the July 27, 2021 Cupertino Planning Commission Teleconference Meeting.
C
C
D
F
C
C
C
C
Okay,
great,
can
we
have
our
roll
call
vote?
Please.
C
Yes,
okay
yeah,
I
don't
think
they're
approved
we'll
have
to
postpone
this
to
the
next
meeting
when
chairman
wong
is
back
and
we
can
have
a
majority,
but
that's
fine,
we'll
just
postpone
this
until
our
next
planning
commission
meeting
so
that
does
not
carry.
C
H
Thank
you,
mr
sharp,
be
yes,
my
tablet
is
working
now.
It
still
scares
me
sometimes,
but
yes,
it's
good
to
see
you
all.
I
just
wanted
to
now
the
planning.
Sorry
city
council
just
had
a
their
first
hybrid
meeting,
which
was
over
the
tv
with
masks,
and
it
was
a
little
difficult
to
understand
some
of
the
people,
but
are
you
and
I
think
it
may
be
better
once
they
go
into
council
chambers-
are?
Is
the
planning
commission
going
to
have
a
hybrid?
H
Are
you
guys
going
to
be
back
in
chambers
at
some
point,
or
are
you
still
going
to
be
doing
zoom
for
a
while?
Has
anybody
come
up
with
the
agenda
for
that?
The
other
I'll
just
put
in
a
plug
that
I
sb9
sb10
and
ab1401
are
horrible
bills,
they're
unconstitutional
and
I
sure
hope
that
they
don't
vote
them
in.
I
hope
that
the
governor
does
not
sign
them.
Thank
you.
C
Okay,
thank
you
jennifer.
I
I
don't
know
about
going
back
to
in-person
meetings.
I
mean
at
first.
I
thought
it
would
be
soon
and
now,
with
the
delta
variant
and
the
return
of
masking,
I
kind
of
doubt
it,
but
that
that's
not
my
decision,
that's
something
I
think
the
city
manager
and
staff
would
decide
seeing
no
other
hands
raised
from
attendees.
C
We
will
move
on.
Are
there
were
there
any
written
communications
today?
No,
very
good?
Okay.
So
we
are
on
to
the
only
other
item
on
the
agenda.
This
is
the
public
hearing
consider
recommending
approval
of
a
vesting
tentative
map
to
replace
a
previous
approved,
vesting
tentative
map,
tm
20
1803
for
the
westport
cupertino
development
project
to
create
a
separate
parcel
for
the
age,
restricted
senior
below
market
rate
housing
city
approval
will
be
a
vesting
tentative
map,
application,
number
tm,
2021-002
applicant
kt
urban
mark
tricini
location,
21267,
stevens,
creek,
boulevard,
assessor
parcel
number.
C
I
Thank
you
vice
chair
of
sheriff
and
to
plan
commissioners
who
can
make
it
tonight.
I
really
appreciate
your
efforts
being
here
again.
My
name
is
john
martier.
I'm
a
senior
planner
with
the
community
development
department
and
I've
been
the
project
planner
for
this
since
it's
inception-
and
I
presented
this
also
on
june
22nd
as
well.
So
I
do
have
a
quick.
I
I
Okay,
let
me
just
confirm
everyone
can
see
that
correct
okay,
so,
as
vice
chair
scharf
had
indicated,
this
is
a
tentative
map
tm-2021-002
for
westport
development,
located
21267
stevens
creek
boulevard
again,
the
subject
is
considered
recommending
approval
of
investing.
I
City
approval
would
be
a
best
intended
map
and
again,
on
june
22nd
of
this
year,
the
planning
commission
originally
heard
the
the
application.
However,
it
was
moved
3-0
with
saxena
maripotla
app
said
that
the
item
shall
be
postponed
to
a
later
date
for
further
clarification
on
a
couple
points,
the
first
one
being
the
legal
review
on
the
performance.
I
D
from
parsley
and
to
removing
the
requirement
for
developer
to
provide
a
class
4
bike
lane
on
the
southern.
J
Into
greater
detail-
and
we
also
attached
three
traffic
studies
submitted
two
staff,
which
were
peer
reviewed
by
our
consultant
as
well
throughout
the
project,
including
the
first
two,
their
earlier
two,
which
were
included
in
the
project's
environmental
impact
reports.
I
So
again,
really
quick
the
project
locations
is,
is
a
mix
of
uses
surrounding
it.
You
have
higher
densities
in
the
north
city
city
park,
spaces
to
to
the
east
delta
college,
to
the
to
the
south
and
highway
5
to
the
west.
I
So
within
the
heart
of
the
specific
heart
of
the
specific
plan
area
and
within
that
is
part
of
the
oaks
gateway
and
again
the
project
site
which
isn't
changing
the
scope
of
building
one,
which
is
the
131
unit,
senior
mixed
use
and
27
memory
care
rooms,
building
two
48
unit,
bmr
senior
mixed
use,
which
is
the
building
that
is
proposed
to
be
personalized
out.
And
then
you
have
the
70
town
home
condominiums
as
well.
I
Again,
the
two
commercial
buildings-
sorry,
two
residential
commercial
buildings
which
which
you
saw
will
refer
to
the
48
unit,
bmr
building,
as
throughout
this
presentation,
most
likely
it's
building
two.
I
Originally,
the
best
intent
of
the
investing
tent
of
map
application,
which
was
approved
in
august
18th
by
council
of
2020,
was
the
best
intentive
map
to
divide
the
property
into
two
separate
parcels.
Parcel
a
on
the
western.
I
I
Cup
has
just
built
into
again
the
the
intent
of
this
was
to
meet
permitting
construction
timelines
of
the
state
of
california
tax
credit
program
and,
as
we
discussed
in
the
staff
report,
this
was
a
requirement
that
tax
the
tax
credit
we'll
discuss
a
little
bit
later.
But
the
tax
credit
program
requires
a
separate,
personalization
or
distinct
ownership
of
that
building
to
receive
the
monies.
I
And
so
this
is
what
the
resultant
partialization
would
look
like
with
the
new
parcel
c
carved
out
of
parcel
b
and
outlined
in
blue
and
then
the
the
reason
for
the
again.
The
partialization,
as
proposed
by
the
applicant,
was
that
the
bmr
projects
rely
on
tax
credits
must
be
owned
by
single
asset
entities
as
discussed
prior
and
just
to.
Let
you
know
that
the
applicant
is
here
to
discuss
this
further,
as
well
as
their.
I
Further
condition
three
one
one
of
the
development
permit
resolution
did
discuss
that
at
a
certain
point.
It
was
anticipated
that
this
building
would
be
partialized
out
when
it
states,
when
the
state
of
the
developer
has
transferred
that
the
the
triggers
for.
Finally,
this
project
would
be
that
the
developer
has
transferred
this
parcel
on
which
senior
bmr
housing
will
be
constructed
through
an
affordable
housing
developer
or
its
affiliate.
I
So
again,
the
the
best
intention
of
map
was
found
to
be
conformance
with
the
general
plan
in
2018.
I'm
sorry
august,
18
2020,
because
it
was
the
general
plan
did
did
permit
up
to
32
million
acre
it
didn't
qualify
for
density
boasts,
which
means
it
could
go
above
that
density
at
that
point,
with
the
density
bonus
and
the
density,
nor
the
the
amount
of
dwelling
units
on
site
and
the
density
is
not
proposed
to
be
changed
at
all.
I
With
this,
this
revision
or
modification
rather
is
consistent
with
the
intent
of
the
general
plan
for
this
site
for
high
density.
Mixed
use,
development
and
again,
the
corn
proposal
does
not
propose
any
revisions
to
the
approved
project
again
proposed
investigative
map,
the
the
previous
approval
required
installation.
So
to
talk
about
why
the
class
4
bike
lane
is
being
removed
from
the
best
intention
of
map.
Why
was
there
originally
was
because
public
works
staff
had
looked
at
this
and
said?
I
Well,
we
will,
and
again
we
have
public
works
staff
in
attendance
as
well,
that
I
could
probably
better
describe
this
than
I
can
that
the
the
equivalent
tiff
fee
that
they
would
have
had
to
pay
would
have
been.
The
would
be
the
work
to
be
done
to
put
the
class
4
bike
lane
on
the
southern
side
of
stevens
creek
boulevard
in
looking
at
the
the
city's
policy
and
generating
the
tiff,
which
again
is
a
transportation
impact
fee.
I
This
is
really
not
based
on
square
footage
of
the
development,
but
rather
it's
based
on
any
net
new
traffic.
That's
a
result
of
the
development-
and
you
know
with
those
three
traffic
impact
studies
that
were
submitted
to
the
city
and
peer
reviewed
by
our
both
our
consultant
and
city
staff.
This
found
that
the
development
would
actually
have
no
new
net
traffic
impacts
from
what
would
be
existing
there,
based
on
the
85
capacity
of
the
of
the
site.
Therefore,
no
tiff
would
be
required
and,
if
not
typically
required.
J
I
I
Again,
an
initial
study
was
prepared
and
final
as
well
as
a
final
eeir
was
certified
by
the
by
council
in
august
of
last
year.
The
proposed
changes
their
project
would
not
have
any
new
or
substantially
more
severe
significant
environmental
impacts.
The
creation
of
a
new
lot
and
decision
not
to
construct
certain
improvements
would
not.
I
Let's
see,
I
believe
we
still
have
to
do
the
revision
to
the
draft
resolution
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
seth
this
this
part
was
to
the
resolution
itself
correct
this
revision.
I
And
so
the
outreach
was
to
the
ordinance
requirements
and
the
recommended
actions
that
staff
recommends
at
the
planning
commission
consider
the
evidence
presented
and
determine
whether
the
project
can
be
recommended
for
approval,
in
accordance
with
the
following
draft
resolution,
including
revision,
as
previously
noted
by
staff.
K
C
Okay,
thank
you,
yeah.
I
have
no
problem
with
this
all,
which
is
why
we
postponed
it
and
didn't
deny
it.
We
just
wanted
to
get
the
outside
counsel
to
discuss
this.
I
guess
I'm
a
little
disappointed
that
originally
when
this
was
approved,
that
the
property
owner
and
the
planning
commission
planning
department
didn't
know
that
it
had
to
be
a
separate
parcel
for
the
affordable
housing.
D
C
It,
let's
put
a
public
comment
now
and
then
we
can
bring
it
back.
I
see
two
hands
raised.
The
first
member
of
the
public
is
gene.
Badord
welcome
gene.
You
have
three
minutes.
I
will
allow
you
to
talk
and
unmute
yourself.
Please.
E
E
E
The
project
itself
is
unchanged,
but
the
financing
is
dependent
on
creating
a
separate
parcel,
a
legal
requirement
unrelated
to
land
use
like
so
many
aspects
of
managing
a
large
project.
The
legalese
and
details
need
to
be
satisfied.
So
I
urge
you
to
do
your
job
as
a
commission
to
approve
this
modification
to
ensure
financing
goes
ahead.
E
E
This
is
a
city
which
produced
only
20
units
of
housing
in
2020,
of
which
19
were
adus.
It's
actual
production
of
housing
that
counts,
not
entitlement.
Why
present
roadblocks
to
builders
who
are
actually
ready
to
break
ground?
I
urge
you
to
unanimously
approve
this
application
tonight,
so
residents
can
finally
see
construction
underway,
not
a
dead
shopping
center.
Thank
you.
C
Okay,
thank
you
gene
next,
we
have
lisa
warren
welcome,
lisa.
M
Vice
chair
sharp
you,
you
said
you
were
a
little
disappointed
that
the
applicant
and
the
staff
didn't
know
this
already.
I
have
to
say
that
I'm
more
than
a
little
disappointed-
and
I
you
know
if
someone
wants
to
blame
the
city
for
delaying
this.
If,
if
the
applicant
didn't
even
know
what
it
had
to
be
done,
it's
not
correct
to
blame
the
city
for
having
to
go
through
this,
I'm
also
a
little
concerned.
M
But
I
guess
that's
the
discussion
for
another
time,
but
it's
a
little
odd
and
if
you
can't
explain
that
now
that'd
be
good,
and
I
guess
at
this
point-
that's
it
I'm
still
concerned
about,
and
maybe
I
missed
something
in
the
presentation
about
the
internal
bike,
not
necessarily
path
but
access
for
bikes
that
all
the
speakers
when
this
first
came
up
and
was
approved
this
project,
the
approved
project
were
concerned
about,
and
there
wasn't
a
clear
answer
to
me
from
the
applicant
that
that's
still
happening
and
I
feel
like
there
hasn't
been
a
lot
more
input
about
that.
M
C
Okay,
thank
you.
Lisa
yeah,
we'll
get
public
works
in
a
few
minutes.
To
talk
about
that.
Next
we
have
jennifer
griffin,
welcome
jennifer.
You
have
three
minutes.
H
Thank
you,
mr
sharp.
This
is
jennifer
griffin
and
you
know
I
I
just
let
me
first
make
a
comment.
We
need
retail,
so
bad
in
this
city.
There
is
no
place
to
shop
zero
places,
we're
losing
the
little
target.
H
I'm
gonna
wind
up
having
to
shop
in
the
new
target
in
scotts
valley,
which
is
going
in
where
the
kmart
was.
I
mean
that
is
a
disgrace
that
we
can't
even
I
know
we
have
one
target
in
town,
but
we
I
I'm
having
to
shop
at
capitola
mall
I
mean
they
have
a
macy's
fair.
H
You
know
we
have
came.
I
mean
scott's
valley
is
right
on
in
my
mind
that
they're
putting
in
a
big
target
there
but
cupertino's
shopping
is
a
complete
disgrace.
I
I
know
we
need
senior
housing,
but
I
really
really
am
very,
very
upset
that
we
don't
have
more
retail
at
the
oaks.
Look
at
the
convenience
factor.
You
have
people
from
los
altos.
I
mean
my
family's
been
shopping
there
for
probably
close
to
40
50
years.
H
You
you
it's
right
across
from
de
anza,
you
know,
diane's
is
coming
back,
full
bore
in
the
fall
and
yeah
okay.
Yeah
we're
putting
in
housing.
Okay,
that's
great,
that's
fine,
but
I'm
really
really
upset
about
losing
the
potential
for
retail.
Also,
I'm
not
real
happy
about
getting
three
parcels
out
of
this
property.
This
has
been
going
on
since
2008.
H
When
somebody
first
tried
to
redevelop
the
oak
shopping
center,
they
were
talking
about
compar.
Having
multiple
lots
then-
and
I'm
very
very
wary
about
this-
I
I
really
also
too,
I'm
not
real
happy
about
them,
giving
away
the
the
the
lot
that
has
the
bmr
housing
on
it
to
someone
else
to
another
group,
give
it
to
cupertino
or
keep
it
by
the
owner.
I
I'm
really
getting
to
the
point
where
these
housing
bills
have
so
completely
corrupted.
H
What
is
anything
that
we
think
of
for
for
building
housing?
I
probably
know
far
too
much
about
this
stuff,
but
I'm
very
suspicious,
and
I
I
really
really
hope
that
this
project
comes
to
fruition,
but
if
it
doesn't
it's
just
going
to
be
like
2008
over
and
over
again.
Thank
you.
C
Okay,
thank
you
jennifer,
and
that
is
all
the
members
of
the
public
that
wish
to
comment.
I'm
looking
at
the
panelists
to
see
if
anyone
wishes
to
speak
all
right.
So
let's
bring
it
back
to
the
commission.
C
Sheriff
yes
I'll
go
ahead!
Mr
cassini
applicant.
N
I
did
want
to
introduce
myself
to
the
commission.
Some
of
the
members
of
the
commission
were
not
present
at
the
last
hearing.
I
believe
that
gion
mater
did
a
very
good
job
on
the
overview,
but
I
did
want
to
make
sure
the
commission
understood
that
the
applicant
was
available
to
answer
any
questions
along
with
the
affordable
housing
provider
mike
kelly
with
pacific
companies.
N
O
Thank
you
vice
chair
sheriff,
commissioners.
I'd
just
give
you
a
really
quick
overview
of
the
the
changes
to
the
plan
and
if
I
could
share
my
screen,
real
quick.
O
O
N
Mark
this,
the
the
image
that's
coming
up
is
is
clear
to
us
when
you,
oh,
it
is
okay.
C
O
Okay,
all
right,
so
the
this
is
the
the
revised
tentative
map,
it's
very
much
very
similar
to
the
existing
I'm
gonna
zoom
into
the
site
plan.
Real,
just
real,
quick.
The
the
cyan
line
is,
as
staff
presented
is
the
original
approved
division
line.
This
was
parcel
a
this
was
parcel
b,
the
line
that
literally,
we
added
this
line
in
order
to
create
parcel
c,
the
point
six
acre
for
building
two,
the
affordable
building
property.
O
That's
that's
literally
the
extent
of
the
change
I
do
wanna
that
we
we're
moving
any
of
the
buildings,
we're
not
moving
any
of
the
driveways
we're
not
moving.
You
know
the
utility
design
is
the
same.
We
are
keeping
the
cut
through
bicycle
this,
this
green
easement.
It
then
it
shows
where
the
the
bicycle
easement
is
in
order
to
cut
through
from
mary
to
stevens
creek
in
the
design
that
the
tentative
map
had
showed
that
he's
been
coming
out
here
in
the
design.
O
We
have
straightened
this
out
a
bit
to
come
a
little
bit
more
in
line.
We
are
also
still
coordinating
with
staff
and
caltrans
to
get
that
protected
bike
lane
in
on
the
north
side
of
stevens,
creek
boulevard
and
and
that
this
this
dark
blue
line
is
the
extent
of
the
of
the
changes
to
the
project
and
there
there
really
isn't
anything
else.
That's
that's
changing.
So
that's
I
just
wanted
to
take
a
few
minutes
and
explain
that
and
that's
the
end
of
my
presentation
thanks
great
thank
you.
C
All
right,
we
can
bring
it
back
to
the
commissioners.
Please
raise
your
hand
if
you
wish
to
speak.
I
see
mooney
go
ahead.
Mooney.
D
Thank
you
vice
chair,
so,
first
of
all
I
would
like
to
thank
the
developer
and,
and
my
pre
predecessor,
like
you,
know
the
previous
planning
commission
as
well.
As
you
know,
the
council
members
for
approving
such
a
wonderful
project.
You
know
this
site
like
this
is
a
much
much
more
needed.
D
You
know
housing
project,
so
I
really
appreciate
you
know
after
multiple
attempts
you
know
coming
up
with
a
project
now
that
serves
the
community
and
you
know
works
for
developers
and
you
know,
and
it's
a
great
project
no
doubt
so
I'd
like
to
thank
everyone
involved
in
knowing
that
this
shenandoah.
So
thank
you
coming
to
the
topic
of
change.
D
My
perception
is,
you
know
there
are
two
changes
right.
So
one
is
the
part.
The
second
parcel
is
getting
past.
You
know
parcel
b,
I
think,
is
being
split
into
b
and
c
right.
So
I
understand
the
upside,
which
is
you
know
the
it
allows,
for
you
know
the
financing
and
all
that
stuff
right.
I
want
to
understand
if
there
is
any
downside
at
all
like
what
is
if
there
is
any
downside
I
want
to
hear
from
the
staff
there
is
any
downside
to
doing
it.
D
The
reason
I'm
asking
this
is,
I
don't
want
to
repeat
after
this
is
nothing
to
do
with
you
know
this
developer
or
this
development
from
the
past.
You
know
we
had
some
bad
experience
from
other
developments.
Where
promised
you
know,
senior
housing
was
not
built
and
stuff
like
that.
So
I
want
to
see
you
know
that
nothing
is
always
weighing
in
our
minds.
In
terms
of
you
know
any
changes
you
know
we
are
being
careful
so
so
I
want
to
understand.
You
know
if
there
is
any
downside
at
all
for
this.
I
I
could
I
could
speak
for
planning,
and
then
I
see
chad
lighting
up,
so
he
can
probably
speak
for
public
works
in
terms
of
it.
You
know
downside,
you
know,
that's
that.
That's
a
tough
question
to
to
ask.
I
think
it's
relative
to
how
you
see
it.
You
know
the
if,
if,
if,
if
the
question
you're
trying
to
get
at
you
know
it,
can
this
be
three
parcels
and
then
would
not
have
affordable
development
on
this
side?
I
You
know,
that's,
I
think,
that's
what
you're
you're
getting
to
and
and
that's
in,
and
that
was
a
concern
that
was
shared
by
you
know
prior
planning,
commissioners,
as
well
as
prior
council
members,
and
so
what
you
know
what
the
city
had
done
was
put
together
conditions
that
would
assure
concurrent
development
of
the
bmr
and
the
market
rate
housing
portions.
You
know
this,
regardless
of
how
many
parcels
are
on
the
site.
I
You
know
whether
it's
two
or
three,
it's
still
considered
one
development,
and
so
you
can't
finalize
all
the
the
townhomes
and
row
houses
until
you
get
a
certificate
of
occupancy
or
certain
other
triggers
on
the
bmr
portion
as
well,
and
vice
versa
too.
We
know
we
also
want
to
make
sure
that
there
are
that
missing
middle
housing
on
the
side
and
not
just
the
bmr,
so
we
have
triggers
for
that
as
well
too.
I
So
one
of
the
triggers
for
that
in
that
case
is
that
well
you
can't
you
can't
finalize
the
bmr
building
without
having
10
of
the
row,
houses,
townhomes,
completed
and
ready
for
occupancy.
So
there's
still
that
there's
still
that
condition
and
conditions
like
that.
I
Tying
this
development
together,
whether
it's
two
parcels
or
three
parcels
so
and-
and
that
was
again
that
was
these-
were
preemptive
measures
that
final
cut.
You
know
prior
council
now
current
council
members
actually
and
the
vice
chair
himself.
You
know
thought
about
ahead
of
time
and
said
you
know
we
want
to
make
sure
that
this
thing
is
developed
as
proposed,
or
at
least
very
something
extremely
similar
to
that,
and
so
these
were.
These
are
the
the
triggers
that
were
that
were
set
in
place.
C
Okay-
oh
sorry,
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
what
transpired
at
main
street
I
mean
that
was
authorized
by
a
previous
council
that
allowed
the
it
was
actually
market
rate
senior
housing
to
not
be
built
and
market
rate
all
ages
housing
to
be
built
instead,
and
you
know
the
council
has
the
power
to
do
that
if
they
wish-
and
hopefully
that
will
not
happen,
but
it's
not
really
up
to
us
here.
D
Thank
you.
No
thanks
for
the
clarification,
but
that's
that's
what
you
know
is
being
in
my
mind
right.
So
so
is
there
any
downside
at
all
where
this
bmr
housing
would
never
get
built
right
when
rest
of
the
project
moves
ahead
right?
So
so,
if
I
had
heard
you
correct,
you're
saying
you
know,
the
occupancy
certificate
will
not
be
issued
for
the
town
homes
and
the
market
rate
housing.
I
Yes,
that's
that
that's
correct!
You
know
the
one
is
that
you
know
what
what
the
condition
literally
reads
is
that
that
you,
the
city,
will
issue
a
certificate
occupancy
or
undertake
final
exposure
of
the
66
row
house
towns
units
the
affordable
housing
mile.
C
I
Right,
that's
right
as
well
too.
So
so
what
it
says
over
here
is
this
is
the
this
is
verbatim
what
the
concurrent
development
of
bmw
and
bmr
market
rate
housing
says.
So
it's
all
senior
bmr
units
must
have
received
a
certificate
of
occupancy
or
final
inspection,
or
the
project
shall
have
reached
the
affordable
senior
housing
milestone
before
the
city
will
issue
a
cfo
or
undertake
final
inspection
of
the
66
rowhouse
townhouse
units.
The
affordable,
senior
housing
milestones
means
time
at
which
the
following
conditions,
a
plus
b,
have
occurred
or
condition
c
has
occurred.
I
A
is
developer
has
transferred
the
parcel
of
which
the
senior
bmr
housing
will
be
constructed
to
an
affordable
housing
developer
affiliate.
This
is
what
we
had
talked
about
earlier
in
the
presentation
that
transfer
or
parcel
plus
b
the
affordable
housing
developer,
has
closed
on
its
construction
financing
or
independently
c.
The
developer
has
provided
evidence
of
a
completion
guarantee
which
may
be
a
performance
bond
to
the
city
and
form
an
amount
reasonably
acceptable
to
the
city,
so
basically
means
that
that
bond
would
ensure
that
this
gets
built.
D
So
so
so
stay
there,
so
it
says
you
know
a
plus
b
have
occurred
or
c
occurred
right.
So,
let's
see
the
a
is
what
we
are
talking
about
here.
Transferring
this
parcel
to
a
probable
construction
unit
right
yeah
b,
the
offer
of
housing
developer,
has
closed
on
its
construction
financing.
So
what
if
you
know
they
close
the
construction
financing,
but
they
don't
build
because
c
doesn't
have
to
happen
right
if
a
and
b
happens,
that's
good
enough
to
issue
the
permit
right.
So
what
if
you
know,
b
happens,
but
no,
the
construction
doesn't
continue.
I
D
Right,
but
I
get
the
impression
that
you
know
if
a
and
b
occurs,
that's
good
enough.
You
know
to
issue
the
occupancy
permits
for
those
units.
That's
okay!
I'm
reading
it!
Yes,
so
if
that's
good
enough
to
issue
occupancy
permits,
then
yeah
a
is.
What
we
are
talking
about
here,
b
occurs
where
you
know
that
they
financed
it,
but
did
not
proceed
with
the
construction
right.
I
D
D
D
D
I
Correct
what
mr
falgo
was
referring
to
was-
and
mr
fargo
was
the
engineer
for
mr
trusini-
was
at
the
the
bike
lane.
The
the
dedicated
bike
lane
on
the
north
side
of
stevens,
creek
boulevard
adjacent
to
project
site
still
going
to
be
built
out
in
coordination
with
caltrans
and
city
staff,
but
the
the
bike
lane
on
the
original
vtm.
I
Investing
tentative
map
would
would
not
be
built
out
as
original
design,
because
the
traffic
impact
the
traffic
impacts
will
rewind
a
little
bit.
So
the
state
typically
can
impose
a
trafficking
traffic
impact
transportation
impact
fees
for
new
development
if
they
trigger
further
traffic
impacts.
Now
all
the
the
traffic
studies
there's
three
of
them
that
were
attached
to
a
staff
report
again.
The
first
two
were
part
of
the
eir.
The
last
one
was
a
revised
one
submitted
earlier
this
year.
I
All
three
of
them
showed
that
there
would
actually
be
a
negative
traffic
impact,
meaning
negative
that
there's
less
traffic
generated
from
this
proposed
development
than
the
oaks
would
be
if
it
was
85
occupied.
So
in
that
case,
we,
the
city,
does
not
have
the
ability
to
charge
the
tif.
Thus,
as
the
the
roadway
improvements
on
the
southern
end
were
in
lieu
of
the
fees
we
couldn't
require
those
either.
D
I
C
I
C
D
C
D
B
B
It
is
the
eastbound
bike
lanes
on
the
south
side
of
stephens
creek
adjacent
to
the
anza
college
that
have
been
removed
from
this
project
and
the
reason
we
were
requesting
those
improvements
originally
was
we
were
going
to
offset
the
tiff
fee
based
on
those
improvements,
so
that
we
could
have
fully
improved
bike
lanes
in
that
area
based
on
the
latest
assessment
of
the
tiff
fee,
there's
actually
a
negative
pm
peak
trip
count,
which
means
we
can't
require
a
tiff
fee,
and
thus
this
offset
of
having
improvements
done
as
opposed
to
the
the
fee
is
non-existent.
D
B
D
C
All
right
can
we
move
on
now.
Vikram
you
have
your
hand
raised
next,
go
ahead.
F
Thank
you,
commissioner,
and
thank
you
everybody
for
talking
about
the
project.
I
had
a
few
questions.
First
of
all,
this
is
for
getting
some
credits
for
building
the
bmr
housing
right.
I
just
wanted
to
confirm
that
it's
not
tied
to
this
building
but
financing
the
construction
is
it
for
financing
or
is
it
some
like
federal
credits
or
state
credits,
or
what
exactly
are
we
talking
about
here?.
I
So
again,
the
applicant
search
in
in
the
applicants
go
ahead.
N
I'd
like
to
introduce
mike
kelly
the
affordable
housing
builder
pacific
companies
mike
you
answer
the
question.
That's
commissioner,.
A
C
C
Actually
perhaps
he
stepped
away
or
something.
C
N
Pacific
company
has
secured
state
tax,
increment
financing.
In
addition
to
that,
the
house
also
secured
financing
for
the
entire
project.
It
required
a
separate
parcel
to
to
secure
that
financing.
That
is
part
of
the
requirements
of
the
affordable
housing
builder.
F
Okay,
so
so
it's
primarily
determined
by
how
the
convention
on
affordable
housing
financing
works.
Okay,
okay,
cool!
Thank
you.
I
think
the
second
question
is
more
for
the
city
in
general,
in
the
planning
that
do
we
have
guidelines
for
developers
who
are
developing
and
who
are
trying
to
navigate
the
labyrinth
of
laws
on
like
what
is
the
standard
practice,
or
maybe,
mr
kelly
can
even
talk
about
it,
that
do
they
publish
standard
practices
because,
ideally,
we
would
have
wanted
to
avoid
the
situation.
F
I
Sure-
and
I
I
could
try
to
I-
can
attempt
to
answer
that
from
a
processing
from
from
staff.
You
know
we
we
take
in
and
we
base
our
judgments
much
on
what
is
provided
to
us
by
the
applicant
applicant
sees
you
know
we.
We
trust
that
the
applicant
knows
that
how
to
finance
a
project
and
knows
that
you
know
do
they
need
another
parcel,
not
to
finance
it
and
whatnot.
You
know
I'm
guaranteed,
I'm
not
an
expert
on
tcac
and
whatever
else.
I
I
You
know
four
book
charities
housing
for
example
they
they
would
be
under
the
same
predicament
too,
that
they
couldn't
get
the
financing
for
this
development
if
they
were
going
to
build
themselves
unless
they
had
a
separate
title
of
that
portion
of
the
development.
I
What
I've
learned
is
that
you
know
if,
if,
if
a
financing
mechanism
were
financed
or
worse,
to
place
some
type
of
lean
or
hold
on
this
porsche
development,
it
would
consider
something
like
a
illegal
subdivision,
so
that
would
violate
a
ton
of
different
subdivision
map
act,
laws
and
whatnot.
So
yeah
yeah.
F
And
because
you
know
I
remembered
heard
many
people
talk
about
the
fact
that
the
bmr
units
should
be
very
similar
to
the
other
units
and
they
should
be
dispersed
in
the
development
in
a
manner,
but
they
don't
stand
out.
But
from
what
we're
hearing
right
now
like
in
terms
of
having
a
clear,
separate
parcel
for
the
bmi
units.
F
Those
two
requirements
seem
to
be
in
conflict
with
each
other.
So
I'm
a
bit
confused.
I
F
I
F
And
in
that
case,
because
there's
dispersed
within
them
the
market
rate
units,
they
wouldn't
be
eligible
for
the
special
events,
incentives
and
financing,
of
which
kt
urban
is
trying
to
sort
of
arrange
right
now.
I
F
N
P
Okay,
sorry
about
that.
Yes,
I
just
wanted
to
you
know.
Let
you
folks
know
that
you
know
we
did
receive
our
financing
from
the
tcac,
the
taxpayer
allocation
committee,
it's
a
very,
very
competitive
process,
and
so
we're
able
to
receive
an
official
award
from
them
to
the
tune
of
20
million
dollars
to
this
project.
So
we
are
ready
to
move
forward.
We
have
our
debt
and
our
equity
already
aligned.
P
The
only
thing
that
we
need
really
are
two
things:
we
just
need
a
parcel
created
because
debt
and
equity
will
not
invest
in
the
project.
We've
done
over
150
of
these
projects
and
in
no
circumstances
whatsoever
have
we
done
a
deal
without
a
single
parcel,
because
the
single
asset
entity
is
is
required
both
by
debt
equity,
as
well
as
the
tax
credit
allocation
committee.
P
So
the
only
two
things
we
really
need
to
move
forward
is
a
separate
parcel
and
our
building
permits,
and
you
know
we
were
confident
enough
in
our
situation
where
we
started
that
process
about
two
months
ago,
just
to
give
staff
time.
So
we
don't
jam
everybody
up
and
you
know
move
forward
in
a
velocity
that
makes
sense
for
everybody.
P
So
we
are
very
confident
that
this
project
can
become
a
reality,
and
you
know,
and
again
the
only
two
things
we
need
is:
you
know,
parcel
and
building
permits.
You
know.
I'd
also
add
that
you
know
one
of
the
virtues
of
the
project
that
is
moving
forward.
Is
it
is
the
level
of
income
targeting
that's
taking
place?
It
is
substantially
deeper
than
that.
That
is
a
required
from
kt
urban
in
their
development
agreement.
P
I
believe
it's
like
60
percent
40
mi
and
you
know
40
at
50
ami,
something
like
that.
I'm
close,
but
what
we're
offering
is
a
substantial
number
of
30
ami
units,
40
ami
units,
50
ami
units
and
60
ami
units
and
for
the
market
study
that
we've
produced
that's
required
for
the
tax
cut
allocation
committee
there.
The
market,
just
in
cupertino
alone,
would
fill
the
project
20
times
over.
Just
give
you
an
idea
of
what
the
demand
for
for
that
project.
P
So
we
are
very
accomplished
developers.
We
have
a
good
number
of
projects
there
in
the
bay
area.
We're
super
excited
to
be
working
with
kate,
sherman
and
and
the
city
of
cupertino,
because
you
folks
will
be
partners
of
the
project
as
well,
and
you
guys
will
have
oversight
in
the
operations
as
well.
P
C
C
And
we
are
yeah
we're
all
looking
forward
to
the
permits
being
issued
and
and
construction
starting
this
all
these
projects
tend
to
take
way
too
long
to
move
through.
Was
there
anyone
else?
I
don't
see
any
other
hand
raised
from
the
panelists
kapil.
Oh
there
you
go,
okay,
go
ahead,
kapil.
G
Yeah
I
I
was-
I
have
a
small
question
here-
is
that
the
tax
credit
which
you,
which
is
obtained
by
the
this
company
that
is
based
on
the
area
or
is
based
on
the
number
of
units,
so
you
I
heard
48
units
or
something
like
that
for
bmr,
and
that
must
be
covered
in
a
certain
area
right,
so
that
tax
credit
is
kind
of
depends
upon
the
area
in
which
those
units
are
constructed.
Or
is
it
based
on
the
number
of
units
alone,
no
ideal
constraints.
I
I'll,
let
mike
or
mark
respond
to
that
question.
P
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
capturing
the
question
correctly
so
is
it
is
the
cash
credits
based
on
the
number
of
units
is,
that
is
that
the
question.
G
P
See
so
it's
it's
the
former
it's
based
on
the
number
of
units
and
that
the
construction
costs
in
relation
to
producing
those
number
of
units
so
more
technically,
it's
it's
related
to
your
eligible
basis.
So
if.
P
G
But
it
doesn't
compromise
on
the
units
to
maximize
maximize
them
right
I
mean
the
thing
is
that
it
seems
like,
as
you
said,
number
of
units
entitled
more.
The
number
of
units
entitles
you
more
of
a
tax
credit.
G
So
if
you,
what
about
the
individual
unit
size,
does
it
has
any
bearing
on
the
minimum
standard
on
that.
P
It
does
I
mean,
I
hate
to
say
all
the
above,
but
it
kind
of
it
kind
of
is
except
for
the
parcel
size,
so
it
contemplates
the
number
of
units
it
contemplates.
The
costs
associated
with
each
of
those
units-
and
this
project
here
you
know,
really
is
a
very
expensive
project,
because
the
design
criteria
is
very
high,
but
you
also
have
a
parking
requirement
associated
with
it.
So
you
know
we're
helping
to
pay
for
the
parking
garages
as
well.
P
That
will
tell
you
how
many
tax
credits
you
can
get
based
on
those
costs.
So
that's.
I
know
it's
a
little.
It's
a
little
confusing
but
they'll
say
hey
your
total
costs.
Are
you
know
37
million
dollars,
which
is
the
cost
on
this
project
and
then
once
it
kind
of
flows
through
the
calculations,
which
is
I
mean
it's
almost?
P
It
sounds
like
dolphins
clicking
a
little
bit,
but
in
this
project
here
we
are
eligible
for
about
26
million
dollars
of
tax
credits
and
then
it
goes
through
an
additional
layer
of
calculations,
and
you
know
what
we
do
is
and
as
does
every
cashco
developer,
we
sell
those
credits
to
investors.
In
this
case,
probably
like
say,
u.s
bank
will
buy
those
credits
and
then
in
exchange
for
cash
that
goes
directly
into
the
project.
P
So
after
I'm
all
said
and
done,
and
I'm
hoping
I'm
answering
a
question
here,
but
the
project
cost
here
is
about
37
million
dollars.
The
eligible
cash
credits
is
about
26
million.
Then
after
it
flows
through
a
few
different
paginations,
we
will
receive
about
20
million
in
actual
cash
that
goes
directly
into
the
project
and
then
there's
a
you
know,
a
bunch
of
oversight
that
comes
with
that.
You
know
the
irs
is
involved.
P
You
know
the
tax
credit
investor,
you
know
they
don't
get
the
tax
credits.
You
know
right
out
of
the
shoot.
You
know
they
have
to
stay
in
the
deal.
It's
not
like.
They
just
get
their
credits
and
walk
away.
You
know
they're
in
it
for
15
years
the
state
is
involved.
You
know.
F
P
Code
allocation
committee,
you
know
they're
in
it
for
all
55
years.
You
guys
have
oversight.
So
you
know
I'm
hoping
that
answers
your
question
but
to
get
into
the
the
way
it's
specifically
calculated
it's
a.
It
is
a
little
bit
nuanced,
but
I'm
hoping
I'm
answering
your
question
accurately
directly.
G
G
Yeah,
that
was
there
is,
as
you
said,
there
is
some
oversight
on
the
the
demands
of
those
units
which
are
being
constructed
to
gain
the
tax
credit.
N
G
Other
question
I
had
was
related
to
the
north
side
bike
lane,
which
you
said
you
are
negotiating
with
a
car
train.
So
what?
What
kind
of
negotiation
is
required
for
the
car
with
caltrain
or
that
for
that
lane
and
why?
It
is
not
yet
decided.
I
I
I
can't
this
guy,
I
mean
I
can't
talk
about
the
timing.
I
think
chad
can
probably
discuss
it
better,
but
caltran
is
stevens.
Creek
boulevard
is
at
least
that
portion
of
it
it's
within
the
caltrans
jurisdiction,
particularly
so
indesign
is
not
based
upon
the
city.
It's
about
coordinating
with
them
and
anytime.
You
get
two
different
government
agencies
trying
to
try
to
help
with
the
design
of
a
of
a
road
that
could
that
is
a
little
bit
time
consuming,
and
it's
sometimes.
C
Out
there-
and
I
think
you
know
the
entrance
to
to
a
state
highway-
is
involved
there
as
well
as
country
which
is
caltrans.
Oh
so
mike
I
was
calculating,
so
it
sounds
like
the
average
cost
of
these
bmr
units
are
771
thousand
dollars
each
if
it's
48
units
and
37
million
dollars.
I
I
don't
remember
what
the
size
of
these
are
these
a
mix
of
one
and
two
bedrooms?
Are
they
all
one
bedrooms
are
their
studios.
P
Yeah,
that's
correct,
so
you're
told
at
all
cost
is
accurate,
that
that
is
what
they
are
on
a
per
unit
basis
and
it's
a
mix
of
studios
and
and
ones
and
the
average
square
footage
for
the
studios.
I
think
we
have
538
feet
and
then
the
ones
are
600
about
610
feet.
Oh
I'm,
sorry
we
have
some
twos
as
well,
and
those
are
about
850
square
feet.
C
I
see
yeah
the
actually.
These
are
larger
than
what
we
got
over
at.
I
forget
the
name
of
it
on
stevens
creek,
the
veranda
so
yeah,
it's
hard
to
say
it's
a
bargain
at
770
000,
but
yeah.
These.
C
Which
was
all
studios
and
had
an
about
an
equivalent
cost,
so
so
that
I
think,
because
it's
a
larger
number
there's
some
economy
of
scale
there.
So
great.
C
If
there's
no
more
questions
from
commissioners,
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
that
we
consider
the
evidence
and
we
approve
the
vesting
tentative
map,
tm
2021-002,
to
create
a
separate
parcel
for
the
age-restricted
senior
bmr
building
and
the
city
approval
would
be
investing
tentative
map,
tm
202102
for
kt
urban,
assessor
parcel
number,
326,
27042
and
043.
L
Vice
chair,
this
is
the
city
yeah.
I
have
a
question
for
you.
I
had
the
pleasure
of
sitting
in
on
the
city
council
meetings
last
week
and
I
noticed
that
they
they
simply
say
I
I
move
to
move
to
adopt
the
staff
recommended
resolution
just
to
avoid
any
conflict
between
what
you're
saying.
C
D
F
C
C
Okay,
I'll
just
I'll
give
a
short
one.
I
have
been
attending
most
of
the
cali
meetings.
A
lot
of
discussion
on
the
various
housing
bills
that
are
coming
up
before
the
state
legislature,
specifically
sb9
and
sb10,
are
the
ones
that
are
great
concern
to
cupertino
and
most
cities
throughout
california,
and
we
will
see
what
happens
with
those.