►
Description
Coverage of the Tuesday, August 30, 2022 Cupertino City Council Meeting. Part 1of 2.
A
B
D
A
A
We
are
done
with,
I
believe,
10
of
those
maps.
Now
so
we
have
gone
through
maps
a
through
j
and
we
will
subsequently
go
through
maps,
k,
l
and
m
and
then
we'll
take
public
comment
and
then
we
will
go
through
maps,
n,
o
and
p,
and
then
we'll
take
public
comment
again
and
then,
from
last
night
we
have
two
additional
sites
that
were
suggested
by
members
of
council.
A
I
believe
they
are
maps
22
and
13,
based
upon
the
original
enumerated
designator
and
so
for
the
benefit
of
the
members
of
the
public
that
are
here.
The
differentiation
between
the
map
maps
that
are
enumerated,
you
know,
1
through
26,
and
the
maps
that
are
put
in
order.
A
through
p
1
through
26
were
the
original
maps
that
comprise
the
entirety
of
our
city.
A
A
The
enumeration
of
maps
1
through
26
was
simply
by
alphabetical
order
with
regard
to
how
the
maps
are
named,
so
they
weren't,
you
know
geographically
arranged,
and
so
that's
how
you
get
the
original
naming
of
those
maps
when
you
have
them
enumerated,
but
when
you
have
them
listed
as
alphabet
letters
a
through
p
or
16
letters
of
the
alphabet
right
now,
that's
generally
from
east
to
west
through
the
city.
So
to
remind
everyone.
We
are
now
on
map
k.
A
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
mayor,
and
apologizing
on
my
multiple
accounts
of
technical
difficulties,
but
we're
here
so
to
follow
up
on
my
closing
remark
to
counsel
last
night.
I
do
want
to
bring
to
attention
to
the
council
that,
just
about
maybe
half
an
hour
ago,
we
have
sent
out
two
documents
to
you.
One
is
a
summary
of
all
the
comments
and
recommendations
and
feedback
that
staff
received
from
last
night's
comments
from
last
night's
meeting.
F
We
will
be
making
this
a
life
document
as
the
continuation
of
the
feedback,
and
the
conversation
goes
on.
Planning
staff
will
continue
to
enumerate
the
items
and
then
will
respectfully
ask
for
recess
or
as
to
consolidate
that.
So
the
council
can't
include
this
list
into
your
emotion.
Should
you
choose
to
do
something?
F
A
separate
document
that
was
sent
to
you
includes
the
correction
that,
as
I
mentioned
last
night
for
vice
mayor
child's
request
to
correct
to
add
this
acreage,
and
we
also
went
ahead
and
correct
the
height
density
and
also
the
tier
one
versus
tier
two
indication
for
each
of
the
map
for
the
purpose
of
not
going
back
in
time.
So
I
wanna
went
ahead
and
and
send
counsel
the
presentation,
so
you
can
look
at
it.
F
Hopefully
I
know
it's
a
very
short
amount
of
time
before
we
start
on
slide
47
when
lou
continues
with
the
rest
of
the
area.
I
also
want
to
bring
to
council's
attention
that
we
will
be
discussing
the
two
new
added
sites.
The
office
space
and
also
the
outback
side
towards
the
end
of
the
area
and
also
council
can
provide
more
feedback.
F
Mind
you,
given
that
we
have
very
limited
amount
of
time.
Please
excuse
the
roughness
of
these
maps
that
are
kind
of
just
put
together
very
last
minute.
So
if
there's
any
typos
mistakes-
or
you
know,
correction,
that
needs
to
be
made-
please
excuse
them.
So
with
that
said,
I
want
to
turn
that
to
luke
who
will
be
presenting
on
the
rest
of
the
area
map
starting
on
slide
47..
G
Okay,
thank
you
city
manager,
good
evening,
mayor,
paul
members
of
the
city
council.
You
just
want
to
summarize
briefly.
We
won't
have
a
long
opening
presentation
like
last
evening,
but
for
anybody
who
may
have
not
attended
last
evening
we're
showing
a
slide
right
now
that
lists
all
of
the
16
areas
that
the
mayor
referred
to.
We
went
through
the
first
10
of
those
last
evening
showing
the
potential
housing
sites,
the
tier
2
sites,
which
we'll
get
into
again
tonight.
Those
are
not
recommended,
but
we
went
through
the
first
ten.
D
G
Those
ending
on
salty
anza,
so
we
will
be
starting
off
this
evening
on
the
west
side
of
cupertino,
with
the
jolly
man
neighborhood
the
sites
we're
going
to
be
going
through
tonight.
If
you
look
at
that
table
for
the
number
of
units,
many
of
these
have
much
lower
unit
totals
and
generally
fewer
sites
than
what
we
were
looking
at
yesterday
evening.
G
G
These
were
based
on
planning
commission
recommendations.
I
see
in
the
table
for
6c
the
the
density
is
there,
but
we
don't
have
a
total
number
of
units.
The
total
number
of
units
in
that
table
should
be
three.
This
is
a
small
residential
property.
It's
about
a
third
of
an
acre,
so
it
would
accommodate
three
units
at
that
density.
G
G
G
A
Okay,
well
just
just
to
back
up-
and
I
I
apologize
if,
if
this
is
irregularly,
you
know
procedured,
but
let's
just
try
to
get
this
part
of
the
information
out
there.
So
so
kirsten.
You
said
an
email
to
us,
I
think
at
509,
and
that
should
us
being
the
council
that
should
include
a
powerpoint
presentation
that
has
these
updated
slides.
Is
that
correct.
G
A
Oh,
I
see
okay.
Well,
I
won't
delve
too
much
into
that,
so
it
it
it's
fair
to
say
that
for
the
rest
of
the
sites
that
we'll
be
looking
at
on
first
impression,
k
through
e
that
if
there
was
owner
interest,
there
will
be
a
red
dot
on
the
site
in
in
the
map.
Is
that
correct?
That
is
correct?
Yes,
okay,
okay,
great
all
right!
So
let's
go
to
our
members
of
council
for
questions.
A
C
F
Through
the
mayor
vice
mayor
chow,
you
brought
up
a
good
point
as
we
realize
that
there's
really
very
little
time
available
between
last
night
and
to
get
this
information
ready.
We
did
as
much
as
we
can,
but
we
cannot
come
to
a
full,
comprehensive
information
on
what
you've
requested.
We
can
follow
up
and
provide
that
to
you.
C
H
So
this
particular
pipeline
project
is
a
it's
a
single-family
residential
development.
It
is
a
density
of
one
to
five
dwelling
units
to
the
acre.
They
can
develop
six
units
on
the
site
which
they
are
proposing
to
develop.
It
is
expected
that
this
would
go
to
a
planning
commission
on
september
13th.
I
believe
and
following
that
it
will
be
a
review
by
council.
H
I
Okay,
thank
you,
okay,
so
because
we
just
got
some
new
documents.
All
I
was
going
to
ask
for
was
about
two
minutes,
so
I
can
get
my
stuff
off
the
printer,
because
I've
got
a
new
new
slide
deck
printed
out
and
so
that
members
of
the
public
can
also
get
situated.
I
think
it
might
help
so
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page,
looking
at
these
documents-
and
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
read
through
the
text
document
that
we
also
have
so
I
would
like
to
be
able
to
scan
that
skim.
A
Let
me
stop
you.
There
counselor,
I
think,
that's
an
excellent
idea.
I
have
517
on
my
clock,
let's
just
start
up
again
at
5
20,
so
that
we
have
a
moment
guess
situated
here.
So
it's
not
really
a
break.
Just
a
brief
pause
in
the
proceedings.
I
haven't
started
your
time
so
we'll
see
in
a
couple
of
minutes.
A
I
J
I
I
don't
have
any
questions
not
now,
but
I
did
see
my
package
if
we're
looking
at
the
pipeline
project.
I
think
in
our
package
number
page
five
listed,
not
the
details,
but
how
many
units
in
all
the
pipeline
projects
just
for
vice
mayor
charlie,
if
you
want
a
list
of
pipeline
project,
how
many
units
no
details,
it's
on
page
five
of
our
package.
A
A
A
I
I
actually
do
have
a
question.
I
want
to
make
sure,
because
the
it's
kind
of
covered
over
that
that
pipeline
project
is
p8.
Is
that
correct
and-
and
I
believe
it
I
believe
that
is
and
20860
mcclellan
road.
That
was
something
that
came
to
the
environmental
review
committee
and
the
some
of
the
comments
from
the
public,
including
a
housing
commissioner
speaking
for
themselves,
only
was
that
the
number
of
units
was
was
really
low.
So
I'm
I'm
curious.
I
If
I
have
the
the
right
pipeline
project,
is
it
p8
my
table
says
12
units
I
thought
when
it
came
to
the
erc.
We
were
looking
at
six.
So
I'd
like
to
hear
a
little
bit
more
about
about
that.
Do
I
have
the
right
number
here:
p7
beyond
yeah,
I'm
not
sure
how
to
pronounce
it
bianchi
way:
s6
p8,
20860
mcclellan,
showing
12..
I
G
Yeah,
yes
I'll,
take
a
stab
at
that
council
member,
more
yeah.
I
believe
this
site
is
a
little
bit
over
an
acre.
It
does
not
have
full
approvals
yet.
I
recently
received
an
email
from
the
developer
as
well,
who
has
some
interest
in
developing
more
units
on
the
site
and
would
be
consistent
with
the
mcclellan
corridor.
G
Many
of
the
sites
were
recommended
at
a
density
of
about
20
units
per
acre,
so
I
don't
believe
he
has
revised
the
project,
but
we
have
been
contacted
about
having
more
units
than
what
was
originally
proposed
on
that
property.
It's
just
not
definite
at
this
time.
If
he's
going
to
up
the
density
on
that.
I
G
Okay,
if
I
could
just
clarify
that,
for
I
believe
the
12
is
a
result
of
six
single-family
homes
with
six
adus,
so
that
would
get
you
the
total
of
12.
But,
as
I
said
within
the
last
month,
I've
received
an
email
from
the
developer,
who
has
expressed
an
interest
in
potentially
going
up
to
20
or
more
units
on
the
site.
I
Okay,
so
further
about
this
site
to
the
directly
adjacent
to
the
west
is
a
church
property
I
believe,
but
it
isn't
single-family
residential,
just
adjacent
to
the
west
and
then
to
the
east.
As
I
mentioned,
that
you
have
the
the
four
single
family
residences-
okay,
so
I
I
don't
know
if
they're
well,
we'll
we'll
cross
that
bridge
when
we
get
to
it,
if
they
choose
to
put
more
at
that
site.
So
do
we
need
to.
I
G
I
could
try
to
answer
that
is
that
this
is
one
of
the
interesting
questions
with
pipeline,
because
I
think,
as
we
said
last
night,
six
of
the
sites
are
fully
entitled
and
ready
to
go
with
no
changes
planned.
Three
of
them
do
not
have
full
entitlements,
so
it
raises
a
question
of
there's
an
application
on
file,
so
it
is
definitely
in
the
pipeline,
but
because
it
is
we're
now
going
through
the
housing
element
exercise
where
densities
are
potentially
being
raised.
G
This
could
be
a
site
that
has
a
revised
plan
that
increases
the
units,
may
even
double
them,
we're
showing
12.
Now
you
could
conceivably
have
24
units
at
a
density
of
20
per
acre,
which
is
what
we
would
look
at
as
a
typical
density
along
mcclellan.
So
it
does
raise
a
legitimate
question
about.
Should
this
be
listed
as
a
tier
one
property
or
a
pipeline?
A
A
G
A
D
Sorry,
I
should
raise
my
hand,
okay,
but
I
mean
the
problem.
If
the
property
is
going
to
be
entitled
in
the
near
future,
it
will
go
through
whatever
sport
process
it
needs
to.
You
know
well
in
advance
of
the
finalization
of
the
the
cir
for
the
housing
element,
so
I
mean
the
the
the
er
for
the
housing
element
is
really
going
to
cover
properties
that
need
to
be
re-zoned
after
the
housing
element
is
adopted
or
when
the
housing
element
is
adopted.
D
A
E
A
A
They're,
quite
far
along
okay,
okay,
great
all
righty-
that
was
my
follow-up
question
there,
which
took
two
and
a
half
minutes,
but
that's
totally
good,
that's
more
so
so!
Actually
I
guess
I
must
have
borrowed
from
either
either
councilmember
willie
or
councilmember
waste
time,
because
it
occurs
to
me
that
I
only
had
about
a
minute
and
a
half
left
after
I
you.
A
A
I
A
Member
more,
I
was
going
to
give
you
about.
You
know
maybe
15
seconds
to
wind
up
on
that
one,
but
it's
been
30
and
you
know
just
out
of
politeness.
Let
me
go
ahead
and
grab
a
little
bit
more
time
from
council,
member
or
council
member
willie,
because
we're
in
this
tranche
right
with
for
fairness,
three
minutes
each
and
vice
mayor
chow
is
prior
to
you
in
the
line,
and
you
had
you
know,
exhausted
your
three
minutes
so
so
so,
rather
than
you
know,
kind
of.
A
Have
you
go
on
on
that
one?
Why
don't
you
hold
that
you
know
in
abeyance?
For
now?
Let
me
go
to
council
member,
william
wig.
Can
I
grab
your
guys's
time
for
map
okay?
So
I
see
a
head
nod
from
council
member
willie
as
well
as
councilman,
okay,
great
so
we've
got.
We've
got
five
minutes
to
work
with,
but
let
me
go
to
vice
mayor
chow.
A
C
They
used
to
have
a
project
that
was
approved
and
expired,
and
then
they
come
back.
They
propose
a
new
proposal,
so
excluding
them
from
the
process.
Things
not
fair.
So
I
wonder
whether
the
eir
could
include
pipeline
projects
approved
or
not
at
the
comparable
density.
As
the
other
housing
element,
though
we
can
at
least
study
them.
Then,
in
one
year,
when
we
finalize
this,
maybe
some
of
the
pipeline
projects
would
like
to
be
considered
for
the
study
density.
Then
we
have
the
opportunity
to
consider
whether
to
quit
that
request
or
not.
D
Yeah,
so
the
so
that
so
the
pipeline
projects
really
shouldn't
be
thought
of
as
part
of
this
process
right,
but
we're
here
we're
trying
to
come
up
with
an
inventory
of
additional
sites,
that's
the
zone
for
to
accommodate
housing.
So
you
know
the
pipeline
projects
have
either
already
been
rezoned
or
entitled
or
are
in
the
process
of
of
being
entitled
and
or
rezoned.
D
So
you
know
by
the
time
this
er
eir
is
done.
You
know
those
pipeline
projects
are
going
to
have
buffed
in
through
a
separate
sql
process.
In
some
cases,
they'll
be
considered
part
of
the
baseline
for
the
sql
process
and
that's
part
of
the
project,
and
so
it's
really
better.
If
we
keep
those
two
try
to
keep
those
two
things
separate
in
our
mind
again,.
C
If,
if
the
pa
is
1.358,
I
looked
it
up
and
if
it's
zoned
at
20
units
per
acre,
that's
27
units
it
can
accommodate
the
proposal.
Right
now
is
only
six
units,
that's
a
huge
difference,
and
now
these
property
owners
who
are
on
the
housing
element
they
are
receiving
minimum
density,
some
of
them
don't
like,
but
this
property
owner
maybe
would
like
to
develop
to
develop
a
27
unit.
How
come
we
are
excluding
them
from
this
opportunity,
doesn't
make
sense.
D
You
know
it's
not
actually
it's
not.
Actually
it's
not
actually
a
huge
difference.
I
mean
we
have
4
000
4
500
units
in
our
arena,
so
21
units
is
a
pretty
small
number.
You
know,
but
you
know,
they'll
they'll
have
the
opportunity
to
go
through
that
process,
and
I
mean
I
think
luke
mentioned
that
he's
having
discussions
with
them
now.
But
you
know
that
information
isn't
his
firm
at
this
time.
C
A
K
Just
just
briefly,
just
just
to
add
with
what
chris
is
saying,
I
think
it's
helpful
to
think
of
the
pipeline
projects
as
the
existing
condition.
That's
what
it's
considered
regarding
seqa
and
for
any
additional
sites
that
can
be
built
beyond
what
was
approved
as
a
pipeline
project.
Those
are
considered
sort
of
bonus,
so
that
just
enables
us
sort
of
like
the
buffer
does
to
be
more
flexible
with
our
other
sites.
A
Okay,
so
let's
go
go
on
john.
I
think
your
time
is
pretty
much
exhausted,
but
for
30
seconds
I
I
you're
divvying
it
up
and
we
might
have
another
round
here.
Council,
member
moore,
you
had
a
question
that
you
had
started
with
regard
to
with
regard
to
valco
and
the
pipeline
and
eir
issue.
You
know
please,
please
feel
free
to
proceed
and
we
have
about
a
couple
and
a
half
minutes
left
in
in
this
round
of
questions.
I
Okay,
yeah,
so
something
I
want
to
point
out
that
that
we're
we're
what
that
we're
hearing
here
is
that
the
baseline
includes
the
pipeline
project
that
the
pipeline
projects
are
being
considered
the
existing
condition,
so
the
existing
condition
is
if
the
valco
project
the
rise,
is
already
built.
So
you
know,
what's
going
to
happen,
you're
not
going
to
have
noticeable
significant
impacts
from
the
rest
of
these
projects
that
we
have
coming
into
the
city,
because
we're
imagining
that
that
whole
project
is
there
with
all
of
the
traffic
with
all
the
people
with
everything.
I
A
M
A
J
A
I
hear
you,
but
you
know,
let's
just
bear
with
as
we're
you
know,
all
kind
of
readjusting
to
the
computer
environment
and
also
yeah.
I
my
own
configuration
I
I
have
my
own
sort
of
like
I
try
to
go
with
portrait
mode
on
one
of
my
screens
and
I'm
just
like
you
know
so,
but
but
I
think
we're
doing
well,
I
you
know
I
I
get.
We
have
our
comments,
but
you
know
kind
of
I
I
think
we'll
we'll
shake
it.
A
You
know
off
and
get
it
on
with
the
next
map
and
so
we'll
we'll
get
into
the
swing
of
things
here.
So
why
don't
we
go
on
to
map
l
and
so
luke?
And
you
know
madam
city
manager,
we're
all
learning
each
other's
styles
as
well.
You
know
feel
free
to
interject
if
you
want
me
to
go
ahead
and
go
through
you
with
regard
to
talking
to
the
staff,
but
I
just
you
know,
I
think,
maybe
keep
a
synergistic
flow
if
that
works
out.
Okay,
okay,
thank.
G
O
G
There
have
existing
residences
on
them.
The
last
site,
8d
at
rainbow
drive,
has
a
as
you
can
see,
a
density
projected
at
just
5
units
per
acre.
That's
because
it
is
on
the
extreme
west
and
has
slope
issues
which
would
make
it
a
much
tougher
site
to
develop
at
a
higher
density,
so
again
fewer
sites
and
fewer
total
units.
Here,
as
you
can
see
as
well
like
the
last
slide,
though,
we
have
a
lot
of
owner
interest.
All
of
all
of
these
sites
have
owner
support
to
be
on
the
housing
sites
list.
G
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
hands
raised,
but
let
me
go
to
the
participants
level.
I
have
a.
I
have
a
question
about
a
site
and
I
had
been
in
communication
with
the
property
owner
after
seeing
him
this
past
weekend
and
there's
lots
of
familiarity
with
our
city
staff.
I
mean
not
necessarily
you
know
the
the
cdd
staff.
That's
involved,
you
know,
particularly
with
this
process.
A
I
don't
know,
but
there's
a
property
owner
that
has
a
very
significant
amount
of
land
along
dorothy
and
way
which,
if
you
can
read
the
street,
that
kind
of
curves
a
little
bit
yeah.
It's
a
little
bit
like
a
sideways
smile,
exactly
where
that
arrow
is
and
when
I
asked
him
about
you
know
whether
he
had
you
know
talked
about
the
housing
element
he
he
said
no
over
the
years.
Frankly,
you
know
his
his
whole
narrative
with
me
is
well.
You
know.
A
Staff
is
basically
getting
on
my
case
about
this
and
that
right
so
and
by
over
the
years
I
I
mean
you
know
it's
probably
five
or
six
years
that
he's
been
telling
me
about.
You
know
various
things,
but
I
mean
I've
been
outside.
Looked
at
it,
it's
a
very
significant
amount
of
space,
and
so
you
know
to
the
point
of
you
know
what
some
of
my
colleagues
have
been
mentioning
yesterday.
A
You
know
if
I'm
talking
kind
of
you
know
by
happenstance
to
an
owner
and
that
person
seems
a
bit
surprised
as
to
the
entirety
of
the
process
and
he
actually
came
in
you
know
last
night
live
and
watched
our
meeting
for
a
little
bit.
I'm
just
wondering
you
know
what
are.
Is
there
a
recourse
at
this
time?
Or
you
know,
perhaps
someone
on
you
know
our
cdd
staff.
That's
here,
you
know
knows
what
property
I'm
talking
about
might
be
able
to
say.
A
A
H
Hi
good
evening,
mr
mayor,
the
union
council,
the
the
particular
property
that
you're
referencing
is
a
is
on
the
national
historic
registry
and
on
the
state
registry
and
as
a
result,
we
weren't
looking
at
that
particular
site
for
the
increased
density.
In
fact,
when
the
the
seven
springs
ranch
was
redeveloped,
a
lot
of
that
density
from
that
site
was
also
allocated
to
the
small
that
single
family
home
development
at
the
base
of
it,
and
so
when
they
did
the
density
calculations.
A
A
H
A
A
G
H
If
I
may
jump
in
as
well,
I
don't
know
that
the
current
density
is
five
dwellings
for
the
acre.
I
believe
it
is
a
slope
density
formula
for
the
hillsides.
This
is
hillside
property,
so,
based
on
the
the
existing
general
plan,
designations
of
hillside.
What's
surrounding
it
and
everything
that
kind
of
is
around
it,
this
particular
we're
actually
up
zoning
it
from
a
hillside
designation
to
the
five
drawing
unit
to
the
acre,
which
would
allow
it
to
subdivide
to
add
one
more
unit
on
it.
A
C
H
H
C
C
And
this
has
nothing
to
do
with
like
that
foreign.
My
question
is
regarding
whether
this
that
property
owner
could
be
eligible
to
apply
for
to
be
added
on
the
housing
element
site
and
then
receive
on
a
certain
proper
zoning
designation,
so
that
he
can
build
two
units
in
whatever
division
he
proposed,
and
the
council
then,
of
course,
would
have
to
approve.
So
that's
a
valid
path
for
them.
Right
that.
H
C
H
Right,
but
you
know,
as
as
your
city
planner,
I
would
not
recommend.
Actually
we
did
not
recommend.
We
actually
talked
to
the
planning
commission
about
this
particular
site
as
well,
and
we
were
recommending
not
to
have
sites
where
we
would
generate
just
one
unit
and
add
that
to
the
inventory.
But
that
was
not
the
position.
C
G
Believe
the
reason
was
because
it
was
mistakenly
classified
on
the
inventory,
and
I
think
this
was
in
our
corrections
list
in
the
packet
yesterday
that
it
was
listed
as
a
tier
two
property
and
we
did
and
we
did
not
calculate
the
number
of
units
for
any
tier
two
properties.
It
should
have
been
tier
one.
So
it
was
a
mistake
on
the
inventory.
A
A
M
M
A
Councilman
willie,
if,
if
you
don't
mind,
I'd
like
to
have
half
a
minute
of
your
time,
is
that
okay,
okay,
you're
nodding,
and
so
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
great.
So
that's
two
and
a
half
minutes
remaining.
So
let
me
just
let
my
notes
here
all
right,
so
I
was
the
first
to
start,
I'm
going
to
stay
on
this,
and
I'm
just
going
to
with
this
30
seconds.
A
Unless
the
property
is
involved
in
project
that
receives
federal
assistance,
usually
funding
or
licensing
permitting.
So
I
would
like
to
have
clarity
with
regard
to
the
standards
that
we're
applying
here
so
yeah,
just
let's
just
kind
of
follow.
That
is
my
request
down.
It's
it's
next
logical
course
of
avenue
and
get
a
sense
of
what
what
the
restrictions
truly
are
there
vice
mayor
ciao.
Did
you
want
to
continue
with
your
line
of
comments
and
questions
at
the
time.
G
N
G
A
C
P
G
Yes,
right
now,
I
believe
it's
in
the
pr3
zoning
district,
so
all
properties
have
development
standards
associated
with
them.
I'm
just
saying
that
once
this
were
to
be
rezoned
and
you
have
a
density
going
up
to
30
units
per
acre,
the
the
setback
once
it's
developed
would
likely
be
different
than
what's
shown
today.
G
A
Okay,
that
that
means
30
seconds
of
counseling
release
time
customer
way.
Did
you
have
any
follow-ups
at
this
time?
Okay,
so
let's
go
on
to
map
m
I'll,
go
ahead
and
remind
our
members
of
the
public
that
we
are
taking
public
comment
after
map
m.
It's
not
necessarily
relegated
just
to
maps
kl
and
m.
However,
I
guess
it
would
be
logical
to
speak
to
those
if
that's
fresh
on
everyone's
minds,
luke,
why
don't
you
provide
the
brief
overview
of
matt
adam?
Thank
you.
G
A
G
G
G
A
I
I
A
H
A
M
Sorry
about
that,
maybe
we
could
go
back
well,
let's
go
ahead
and
leave
it
with
this
one.
I
think
what
you,
what
I'd
like
to
say,
it's
a
follow-on
to
what
councilman
moore
said.
You
know
I
can
definitely
see
you
know
we're
we're
here,
we're
trying
to
to
get
the
the
maximum
amount
of
housing
that
we
can,
but
you
know
maximum
amount
that
could
be
achieved
30,
but
with
the
owner
previously
telling
us
he
wants
to
keep
it
at
20..
M
I
think
we
have
to
be
very
respectful.
I
mean
I
I
I
just
don't
feel
comfortable
pushing
something,
especially
when
the
owner
has
already
come
forward
and
said.
You
know
I'd
like
to
do
20
units
on
my
on
my
property
and
we're
not
listening
to
what
he
would
like,
and
so
I
think
we
need
to
adhere
to
those
criteria,
those
limitations
throughout
this
process,
and
it
might
even
be
that
we
might
say
30
at
a
particular
site
per
acre
and
an
owner
says
40
or
50..
M
A
J
J
Why
would
the
pending
commission
put
the
property
at
30
per
acre
without
the
owner's
consent
or
even
knowledge
of
it?
That's
my
first
question.
The
second
is:
I
do
believe
this
is
in
a
deep
neighborhood
with
you
know.
I
wouldn't
put
this
kind
of
a
prop
in
any
neighborhood
at
30
per
unit,
whether
it's
on
east
side,
west
side,
middle
side
of
cupertino,
so
I
agree
with
council
member
willie
and
we
need
to
respect
the
owner's
wishes
on
this
property.
Well,
it'll
be
very
strange.
J
J
This
is
a
neighborhood
property,
whether
it's
on
east
side,
west
side,
north
side,
middle
side,
north
south
side,
it's
not
a
fit
picture
for
authority
and
it's
not
practically
being
able
to
build
with
our
parking
requirement
or
anything
like
that.
So
I
first
I
would
like
to
know
how
did
it
become
the
32
for
a
third?
Second,
I
do
think
we
need
to
listen
to
it
all.
A
G
Yes,
thank
you
mayor
paul
on
the
density
and
I
I
believe
the
owner.
I
I'm
assuming
he
will
speak
tonight,
but
has
requested
more
like
a
20
unit
per
acre,
which
would
allow
a
townhome
project
to
go
in
on
the
site
at
the
planning
commission.
I'm
not
sure
if
I
can
fully
explain
the
rationale,
but
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
the
discussion
was
about
trying
to
increase
density
on
the
west
side
and
the
fact
that
this
is
a
fairly
large
site.
G
G
The
issue
with
that,
I
think
from
the
owner's
perspective,
is
that
30
units
per
acre
town
homes
become
fairly
infeasible
or
difficult
to
do.
You
start
going
above
the
density
for
townhomes,
which
are
typically
in
the
mid
teens
to
maybe
low
20s
per
acre,
so
at
20
per
acre.
This
actually
would
be,
in
my
opinion,
a
very
good
town
home
site.
So
that's
really
all
I
have
to
add
to
to
the
council
member
way's
questions.
C
C
So
we
have
seen
many
other
sites
that
yesterday
they
are
zoned
the
30
units
50
units.
Some
of
them
are
actually
right
next
to
single
family
homes.
So
so
the
density
30
units-
it's
not
way
out
there,
but
then
I
do
think
we
should
respect
the
owners.
We
do
want
to
respect
the
owners
and
intent.
However,
we
also
wish
to
incentivize
get
more
units
smaller
units
so
that
they
are
more
moderate
because
we
really
need
a
moderate
income
unit
and
this
will
be
such
a
fantastic
site
for
moderate
income.
C
But
if
you
build
all
town
homes,
they
are
going
to
be
very
expensive.
However,
if
let's
say
the
west
side
of
the
property,
we
can
zone
that
for
30
units
and
then
those
units
can
overlook
the
golf
course.
I
think
that
will
be
really
great
units
to
have,
and
so
many
middle-income
people
can
live
there.
So
I
really
wish
the
owner
could
rethink
their
plan
and
potentially
build
more
units
on
this
fantastic
site.
C
A
I
I
So
it
is
not
adjacent
to
the
single-family
residential
and
they
can
do
some
stepping
down
and
then,
if,
if
the
owner
only
wants
the
20
dwelling
units
for
the
rest,
then
that
can
be
maintained
and
it'll
step
down
in
some
manner
to
the
the
homes
to
the
to
the
south.
Looking
at
the
the
the
imagery,
though,
those
are
those
look
like
they're,
rather
large
single-family
homes
to
the
south,
but
anyway
I
I
do.
I
J
I
am
so
happy
to
hear
both
of
my
council
fellow
members
mentioned
about
moderate
income,
housing,
futures
housing
and
just
one
correction.
It
does
not
order
the
golf
course
it
is
ordering
the
cupola
swimming
record
club,
where
my
kids
grew
up
there,
and
so
that
is
a
perfect
place
for
a
little
bit
more
density.
I
did
talk
to
the
owner
this
afternoon.
J
Supervisor
joe
smithen
is
very
interested
in
building
teacher
housing
in
our
neighborhood.
I
actually
took
him
around
a
couple
months
ago
and
toured
this
property
and
we
have
a
specialist
from
future
housing
with
us,
catherine
and
they're
very
interested
in
talking
with
the
owners,
and
I
have
teacher
housing
for
all
five
or
six
high
school
districts
or
elementary
school
district
in
cupertino,
sunnyvale,
saratoga
or
or
fotenza
on
future
housing
in
this
site.
J
So
it
is
a
great
proposal,
and
so
I
do
believe
it
doesn't
bother
the
golf
course,
but
it
does
bother
the
north
side
or
the
swing
and
record
club,
which
is
a
perfect
place
for
a
little
more
density.
So
I
do
agree
with
my
colleagues.
We
can
do
a
little
bit
more
density
on
the
north
side
of
the
property,
but
the
rest
is
all
surrounded
by
single-family
homes.
J
A
Okay,
that's
a
little
bit
over
time
so
well
to
give
you
time
to
wind
down
there.
Okay!
So
let's
let's
go
on
to
council
member
willie
and
then
consider
more
your
hand
raised,
but
vice
mayor
chad,
let's
go
to
the
vice
mayor
after
council,
member
willie
and
I'll
give
over
say
a
minute
of
my
time
there
so
customer
will
you
have
about
a
minute
15
left.
M
M
I
think
it's
great
to
have
a
conversation
and
explain
that
joe
submittian
has
interest
in
teacher
housing
and
things
like
that,
but
I
am
really
fixed
on
what
we
submit
to
hcd
needs
to
reflect
the
final
word
from
the
residents
of
the
community
and
they
may
come
back
later
on
and
say
you
know
what
we've
rethought
this
and
we
want
to
add
it,
but
I
think
it's
wrong
to
say
this
is
the
way
it's
going
to
be,
even
though
you
don't
like
it,
it's
just
wrong.
So
I
want
to.
A
A
C
C
So
I
think,
like
what
was
mentioned
earlier
might
be
inaccurate.
It's
right
next
to
the
golf
course
in
the
north
is
a
very
large
property
of
maybe
a
country
club.
I
don't
know,
what's
that
there
we
see
that,
though,
on
the
south
side
is
next
to
single
family
homes
and
like
many
other
sites,
that
was
done,
the
38
units
per
acre
also
thanks
to
singapore,
family
homes
and
yeah,
there
might
be
more
traffic
to
this
area,
but
this
is
an
area
that
has
really
good
resources
too.
A
Okay,
well,
thank
you
very
much.
Vice
mayor
chao,
I
don't
see
further
hands
raised
at
this
time,
so
so,
let's
go
to
our
members
of
the
public.
I
think
some
really
good
points
were
made
on
these
several
maps
and
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
provide
the
instruction
for
the
members
of
the
public
in
terms
of
how
we
conduct
the
public
commentary.
So
we
just
got
done
looking
at
maps,
k,
l
and
m
and
so
we'll
be
reopening
another
round
of
public
comment.
A
You're
not
limited
necessarily
to
those
maps,
but
I
would
suggest
it
probably
makes
sense
to
you
know,
focus
upon
those.
If
we're
you
know
just
you
know
fresh
in
our
minds,
and
so,
if
you
have
your
hand
raised
and
zoom
by
the
time
the
first
person
is
done
speaking
and
I
don't
actually
have
a
shot
on
community
hall
here.
So
I'm
assuming
that,
even
though
this
is
a
hybrid
meeting,
we
don't
have
members
of
the
public
in
community
hall.
A
A
O
Thank
you,
mayor
darcy,
you
know,
I'm
just
gonna
make
a
comment
start
out
here.
I
think
we're
gonna
need
another
night
of
this.
I
fell
asleep
last
night
about
10,
30
or
11,
and
I
woke
up
and
the
zoom
was
gone.
Okay,
you
know
it's
been
seven
hours
and
I
think,
for
I
feel,
like
tonight,
there's
been
a
whole
bunch
of
new
properties
introduced,
but
I
mean
I
sat
through
both
knights
of
the
planning
commission.
We
worked
this
lot
by
lot
and
yes,
the
public.
The
public
needs
more
input.
O
O
O
This
group
would
get
in
there
and
start
to
go
into
san
san,
juan
batista
and
they
would
level
buildings
from
1840
that
the
donner
party
lived
in
after
they
were
brought
in
out
of
the
cirrus.
That
is
our
history.
No
group
in
california
has
the
right
to
destroy
california,
history,
be
it
bad
or
good.
That
is
how
you
learn
from
history.
O
So
I
have
a
quarrel
with
some
of
this
yin
b
loud
mouth
group
that
are
saying
that
areas
of
my
state
are
not
worth
saving,
that's
a
bunch
of
whatever
I'm
going
to
talk
right
now
about
the
outback
site.
I
didn't
remember
that
coming
up,
I
think,
that's
a
better
site
for
supportive
housing
in
the
back
end
of
the
valco
site,
where
you
don't
have
any
access
in
there
bellco.
Basically,
right
now
is
a
big
dump.
You
know
it's,
it's
there's
nothing!
There,
there's
no
buses.
O
So
how
can
you
even
build
a
supportive
housing
site
in
that
back
property
because
the
rest
of
balco
god
knows
when
it's
going
to
be
built?
Okay,
it's
a
pipeline
whatever
you
can't
that
site
at
the
back
of
it.
The
simmons
okay
cannot
be
built
until
the
rest
of
balco
is
built
honestly.
Looking
at
20
years-
I
I
say
right
now,
20
years,
but
but
that's
holding
up
that
site.
Let's
move
the
supportive
housing
to
outback
restaurant
area
and
and
put
the
housing
back
in.
A
Q
Thank
you.
So
I
wanna
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
comments
about
the
eir
and
the
pipeline
projects
as
a
whole.
As
I
came
up
in
these
three
maps
or
the
first
map,
I
think
so
I
want
someone
to
please
clarify
for
everyone
existing
condition
versus
approved,
but
not
built,
because,
as
I've
been
moving
through
this
development
world
eirs,
you
have
to
consider
any
project
that
has
been
approved
but
not
built
as
it's
been
approved,
not
what
it
was
approved
of
six
eight
years
ago.
Q
So
please
staff
explain
it
andy
used
the
word.
I
believe
andy
used
the
word
existing
conditions,
but
I
believe
and
chris
I
hope,
I'm
right
approved,
but
not
built.
Okay.
Now,
let's
see
cleo
vice
mayor
chao
asked
some
questions
about
cleo
and
I
actually
sent
her
an
email
with
some
pictures
of
that
area.
Q
Q
Thank
you
vice
mayor
that,
yes,
those
existing
home
sites
do
face
they're
actually
about
the
linda
vista
trail,
which
is
right
next
to
the
golf
course
and
that
it's
the
actually
the
cupertino
swim
and
tennis
club
to
the
north.
So
I
I
you
know
I
hadn't
thought
of
it,
but
I
think
it
sounds
great.
The
idea
of
having
a
mix
of
density,
given
that
there's
four
parcels.
Q
R
So
what
we
discussed
or
what
I,
what
my
point
of
view,
was
as
a
commissioner
when
we
voted
on
that
was
just
looking
at
it
from
what
the
city
needs
and
what
would
be
really
wonderful
to
increase
the
number
of
families
coming
into
the
area
because
of
the
numbers
of
students
downtrending
in
the
schools.
We
were
trying
to
do
that,
but
I
at
the
core
of
my
being.
R
S
It's
a
corner
lot
at
the
corner
of
imperial
and
lumica,
and
it
is
completely
vacant
and
it
completely
satisfies
all
the
criteria
that
luke
was
mentioning
yesterday
about
site
selection,
except
for
the
size.
It
is
5800
square
feet,
but
it's
a
vacant
land
with
no
displacement,
and
I
have
two
kids
who
really
want
to
attend
the
schools
of
cupertino
and
it's
on
the
west
side
as
well.
It
fits
right
well
in
the
neighborhood
and
it's
a
corner
lot
and
it's
probably
going
to
be
an
owner-occupied
lot
if
allowed.
S
So
I
wanted
to
express
my
interest
to
build
a
single
family
home
here
on
this
land.
It
is
currently
zoned
as
ml,
but
the
whole
neighborhood
is
a
mix
of
ml
and
residential
constructions,
and
it's
not
like
one
street
is
mlm.
The
other
one
is
residential.
It's
right.
It's
completely
mixed.
There
are
multiple
properties
there,
residential
properties
on
the
ml
zoning
right
in
the
vicinity.
So
we
really
plead
our
case
to
allow
us
to
build
a
home
here
for
our
family
to
move
in
if
this
does
not
qualify
only
because
of
the
size
limit.
S
T
Good
evening,
mayor
paul
and
council
members,
my
name
is
gene
badord
and
I'm
a
long
time,
cupertino
resident
and
I'm
commenting
tonight
on
the
housing
element
sites
in
the
monte
vista
area.
The
first
issue
is
assigning
a
higher
density
to
the
linda
vista
parcels
and
the
resident
and
property
owner
is
willing
to
accept.
T
You
know,
he's
willing
to
build
housing,
but
he
wants
it
to
fit
the
neighborhood
and
the
planning
commission
just
arbitrarily
increased
the
designation
from
20
units
to
30
units
per
acre
over
the
objection
of
the
property
owner.
So
what's
the
incentive
for
residents
to
build
housing
when
the
city
ignores
their
property
right.
T
The
second
issue
is
that
even
at
lower
housing
levels,
neighbors
have
already
expressed
concern
about
increased
traffic.
They've
made
their
feelings,
clear,
there's
negative
comment:
the
dreaded
bub
road
crawl
is
back.
This
area
has
to
contend
with
traffic
from
not
just
one
school,
not
just
two
schools,
not
just
three
schools,
but
four
school.
T
T
T
T
The
city
needs
to
nurture
new
manufacturing
companies,
not
just
retail
hospitality
and
the
plethora
of
tutoring
and
special
schools.
Direct
is
the
last
biotech
company
in
that
area.
There
used
to
be
more
years
ago,
a
major
developer
proposed
housing
in
the
bub
road
area.
The
community
emphatically
turned
the
project
down,
citing
the
need
to
provide
space
to
develop
new
companies
not
hindered
by
the
limitations
of
housing.
T
A
A
U
U
We
have
provided
comments
during
online
meetings
submitted
a
number
emailed
about
dwelling
units
per
acre
and
the
use
of
our
property
in
an
effort
to
help
meet
cupertino's
housing
needs.
Unlike
many
of
the
sites
discussed
last
night,
we've
been
interested,
have
not
expressed
any
interest.
We've
had
interest
from
the
very
beginning.
U
We
also
shared
information
learned
from
developers,
which
is
very
important
about
our
site.
We
are
not
developers,
and
we've
mentioned
that
before,
and
we've
shared
that
with
you,
which
included
that
20
dwelling
units
per
acre
as
a
density
is
neither
feasible
or
practical
for
our
property
as
the
way
we
looked
at
it
and
our
neighborhood.
Our
recommendations
to
the
city
throughout
the
process
and
best
use
of
our
property
is
for
townhouses
and
at
a
minimum.
20
dwelling
units
per
acre,
while
not
100,
affordable,
townhouses,
are
affordable
by
design
and
more
affordable
than
single
family
homes.
U
Town
homes
in
the
north,
monte
vista
area
will
likely
attract
younger
families
to
the
city
and
utilize
nearby
schools
and
services.
We
learned
last
night
during
the
discussions
that
a
minimum
30
dwelling
unit
per
acre
density
requires
45
feet
of
height,
which
is
simply
too
high
for
our
neighborhood
and
not
practical.
In
our
opinion,
and
based
on
the
information
that
we've
gathered
thus
far,
our
email
concerning
tonight's
meeting
addressed
several
things
that
we
felt
we
wanted
to
to
bring
up
with
you.
U
First,
our
concern
that
the
attachment
a
to
your
agenda
could
be
interpreted
to
mean
that
we
were
in
favor
of
the
30
unit
minimum
for
our
property,
when
we
were
not
also
a
correction
to
attachment
c
to
your
agenda.
Summary
of
site,
inventory
changes
and
this
topic
has
been
brought
up.
The
density
for
our
property
has
been
changed
from
15
to
20
and
now
30
units
per
acre,
without
really
any
substantive
discussions
or
feasibility
by
the
city
that
we
know
or
with
us.
U
Our
email
for
this
very
important
council
meeting
also
refers
to
an
action
previously
taken
and
precedent
by
the
council
that
action
reduced
and
proposed
the
proposed
minimum
density
for
a
housing
element
site
from
30
to
20
units
per
acre.
We
feel
our
property
deserves
a
similar
consideration
and
outcome
tonight.
U
A
P
Good
evening
I
was
here
yesterday
as
well.
I
talked
a
bit
about
pipeline
projects
and
I
know
somebody
else
brought
it
up
earlier
tonight,
so
I
just
want
to
kind
of
second
that
and
hope
the
council
continues
to
consider
that
I
would
also
like
to
bring
up
future
housing.
I
know
that
was
briefly
discussed.
I
think
future
housing
would
be
very
beneficial
to
our
community.
P
There
are
shortages,
not
only
in
cupertino
but
nationally,
and
if
we
encourage
teachers
to
come
and
live
in
our
cities,
it
will
enrich
our
education
and
our
youth,
and
you
know
in
that
way
it
will
enrich
our
future.
If
there's
like-
I'm
not
sure
about
this,
but
if
there's
like
any
policy
that
can
encourage
the
building
and
teaching
future
housing
or
kind
of
set
aside
parts
of
the
element,
housing
element
plan
for
teacher
housing,
I
think
that
would
be
very
conducive
to
a
good
environment
for
the
city.
P
P
L
L
I
think,
with
respect
to
this
property,
you
know
I
can
understand
all
the
great
reasons
for
wanting
to
incorporate
a
portion
of
the
site
at
30
units
an
acre.
You
know
I
I
would
say
if
you
I,
I
looked
at
it
on
google
earth.
While
I
was
waiting
to
speak-
and
you
know
the
site
is
a
half
mile
into
the
neighborhood
from
bug
road,
I
mean
it's
a
really
long
distance
to
have
any
type
of
structure
built
there
that
might
be
45
feet.
L
L
I
think
the
discussion
on
this
site
at
the
council
level
this
evening
has
been
really
focused
on
density.
Breaker,
which
is
one
metric,
but
it's
a
lot
larger
than
that.
You
know
I.
I
think
it
would
be
interesting
to
see
what
someone
like
david
mast
in
the
consultant's
architect
might
think
about
how
this
site,
that's
relatively
small
site
in
a
pretty
well
established.
Neighborhood,
could
actually
be
blended
with
density
of
20
and
30
units
an
acre
so
that
you'd
actually
be
able
to
park
it.
L
I
think,
barking,
the
30
units,
an
acre
piece
would
be,
would
be
really
challenging.
I
think
council,
member
wiley
has
a
really
good
approach
here
in
terms
of
understanding.
You
know
what
is
important
to
a
willing
and
ready
property
owner.
Lastly,
vice
mayor
ciao,
you
brought
up
a
really
good
point.
You
know
you
had
mentioned
that
this
would
be
a
great
site
for
30
units,
an
acre
because
it's
in
a
high
resource
area.
A
A
U
U
We
believe
that
20
units
per
acre
is
the
appropriate
density
for
the
property.
At
this
point
it
can
always
be
increased
at
some
other
time,
but
not
at
this
time.
We
have,
as
I've
said
numerous
times
talked
to
many
developers,
and
the
possibility
of
going
up
in
the
future
is
certainly
there.
We
are
not
opposed
to
that,
but
our
position
is
20
units
per
acre.
At
this
point,.
A
A
Okay,
so
there
is
also
a
roy
evaluage
with
his
hand
raised.
I
I'm
assuming
that
there
may
be
some
more
information
there.
So
with
a
a
leave
of
my
colleagues
I'll
go
ahead
and
and
now
roy's
hand
is
down
so
go
ahead,
so
so
so
roy.
If
you
have
some
follow-on
thoughts,
I
I
guess
generally
outside
of
the
scope
of
20
dwelling
units
breakers
better
for
the
property.
From
your
perspective,
please
feel
free
to
express
those,
let's
say
within
a
minute
or
two.
If
you
can
oh.
N
N
We
can
always
go
higher,
it
doesn't
mean
we
want
to
if
there's
an
area
that
needs
to
be
changed
to
30
for
that,
but
we'll
only
commit
to
20
units
per
acre
and
the
the
neighborhood
has
put
forth
what
they
thought
and
the
information
that
the
neighborhood
had
gave
us
a
negative
number
and
the
you
know-
and
I
appreciate
the
comments
from
the
city
council
and
the
effort
that
people
have
put
in.
But,
as
my
brother
said,
we
stand
at
20
units
per
acre.
A
I
Thank
you
so
question
for
the
the
city
attorney
or
staff.
So
the
the
reason
why
we're
going
with
the
30
dwelling
units
per
acre
in
general
on
the
sites
is
because
of
hcd.
Could
you
please
reiterate
what
the
difference
means
for
us
if
we
switch
to
20
dwelling
units
per
acre
and
then
we're
going
to
need
to
if,
if
that's
dropped,
we're
now
going
to
need
to
account
for
this,
this
drop
in
unit
somewhere
else.
D
Yeah,
of
course,
so
if
I'm
in
there
30
units
per
acre
is,
is
presumptively
suitable
for
low
and
very
low
income
housing
according
to
hpv
guidance,
so
that
doesn't
necessarily
prevent
us
from
from
from
from
this
property
from
being
suitable
for
moderate
income
housing,
for
example.
So
that
would
be
a
potential
use
to
fulfill
one
of
our
our
arena
shortfalls
as
a
modern
housing
site.
If,
if
council
chose
to
lower
the
density.
I
Okay
and
then
the
other
issue
is
with
the
the
densities
that
we're
selecting
for
these
particular
sites
will
be
used
in
the
in
the
eir
for
that
for
the
housing
element.
So
what
what
happens
if,
if
we
study
a
site
at
a
lower
amount,
and
then
the
owner
says?
Oh
well,
I
I
you
know,
I
changed
my
mind.
I
really
want
to
go
with
with
a
higher
density
later.
What
what
happens
there
so
so,
first,
we
don't
get
credit
for
those
in
our
housing
element.
I
D
So
if,
if,
if
after
that
process
happens,
a
property
owner
decides
that
that
they
want
to
develop
a
site
at
a
higher
density,
there's
potential
that
they
could
do
the
general
plan
and
then
that
there's
potential
that
they
could
need
a
zoning
or
other
amendment,
there's
a
potential
that
they
could
need
a
separate
sql
process,
and
so
it
all
just
kind
of
depends
on
on
the
property,
the
general
plan,
navigation,
the
zoning
and
the
project.
Okay,.
I
I
C
Yeah,
thank
you
for
those
questions.
I
think
we
we
should
understand
what
we
the
density
we
are
talking
about
is
the
map
that
will
be
studied
in
the
eir
and
in
about
a
year
when
we
actually
do
the
general
plan
amendment
it
could
be
lower
out
and
then
in
case
the
property
change
hand.
Maybe
the
county
purchased
the
property
they
might
want
to
consider
30
units
per
acre
later,
because
it's
studied,
then
the
city
or
the
property
owner
doesn't
need
to
do
another
study
to
request
a
amendment
to
the
general
plan.
C
So
it
actually
gives
you
flexibility
down
the
line
and
then,
if
this
property
owner
feels
strongly
that
they
don't
want
the
property
to
be
to
have
a
minimum
density,
then
I
have
a
question
for
the
attorney.
So
when
we
say
minimum
density
30
units
per
acre,
if
a
property
owner
proposed
a
plan,
that's
20
units
per
acre.
What
happens
then
does
this?
Is
the
city
obligated
to
reject
that's
your
proposal
or
we
still
have
the
discretion
to
reveal
it.
D
The
city,
the
city's
not
obligated
to
reject
the
proposal,
I
mean
it
could
be
the
potential
that
the
property
owner
would
need
a
general
plan
amendment
to
to
accommodate
a
density
below
the
the
minimum
density,
and
you
know,
but
the
city
would
be
free
to
do
that
as
long
as
there
were
sufficient
units
in
our
our
you
know
our
allocate.
Otherwise
you
know
that
are
allocated
in
our
housing
element
to
cover
our
arena,
so
you
know
so
it
could
come
out
of
our
bodies.
C
C
Yeah.
Okay,
so
I
I
have
to
say
that
when
I
look
at
all
this
density,
that's
being
proposed
for
every
site,
I
don't
like
any
of
them.
I
look
at
the
ones,
especially
the
ones
that
where
the
owner
did
not
even
request,
we
put
30
units
per
acre
here
they
are
in
tier
one.
Do
I
like
them?
I
don't
like
them.
They
don't
make
sense.
C
A
All
right
so
that
you're
at
the
three-minute
mark,
let
me
go
ahead
and
clarify
a
question
there.
So
if
we
set
these
mr
properties
at
20
units
per
acre
and
then
they
come
in
later
at
30
units
per
acre,
then
what
happens
to
our
credit
for
for
for
meeting
these
arena
requirements?
Are
they
do
we?
Do
we
get
the
benefit
of
the
presumption?
At
that
point,.
E
D
A
Okay,
so
there's
no
retroactive
kind
of
mechanism
to
be
able
to
say
well,
you
didn't
get
these.
However.
Many
units
is
like
70
units
before,
but
since
they're
not
coming
in
at
30
dollars
against
breaker
we're
now
going
to
give
you
70
to
70
units
for
the
low
income
and
very
low
income
categories,
there's
no
there's
no
mechanism
for
doing
that.
Is
that
what
you're
saying?
D
D
A
D
A
A
A
Okay,
let
me
take
a
quick
look
at
or
sorry
it's
got
various
layers
of
windows
here,
councilman
moore,
your
your
hand
is
back
up,
but
I
guess
we
haven't
heard
from
council
members
way
and
lily
on
this
one.
Perhaps
there's
no,
you
know
follow
up
here.
I'm
not
saying
that
you
have
to
you
know,
but
councilmember.
Why
you
you
have
your
hand
up
now.
Did
you
want
to
win
at
this
time.
J
Just
very
briefly,
I
said
it's
not
adjacent
to
the
golf
course.
What
I
mean
is
the
access
is
not,
but
in
the
back
it
is.
As
one
of
the
speakers
said,
this
property
is
deep
in
the
inside
of
neighborhoods.
There
is
no
access
to
it,
it's
right
in
the
neighborhood,
so
it
is
really
in
a
neighborhood
of
property.
As
I
repeat
it
again,
I
wouldn't
put
30
per
acre
in
any
neighborhoods,
whether
it's
south
west
north
east
of
cupertino.
J
It
has
no
access
to
the
golf
course
and
yes,
it
looks
to
be
into
the
golf
course
of
some
back
homes,
but
I
wouldn't
consider
that
adjacent
to
a
golf
course.
That's
what
I
said.
It's
not
adjacent
to
the
golf
course
so
just
want
to
make
it
clear.
We
do
need
to
consider
the
owner's
wishes,
because
I
think
hcd
is
very
clear.
The
owner
needs
to
say
they
are
going
to
build
this
in
the
next
eight
years.
J
If
the
owner
says,
I
don't
want
to
build
30
per
acre,
I
do
think
we
probably
need
to
comply
with
the
owners
wishes
and,
of
course,
if
something
comes
up
in
the
future,
we
can
always
observe
it
for
teacher
housing.
It
works
out
with
the
county
and
I
do
think
the
owner
make
it
clear
harris
and
roy
make
it
very
clear
that
they
would
like
to
have
20
per
acre
and
the
neighborhood
responses
are
very
clear.
I
think
there
are
over
100
responses
on
that
property.
The
satisfactory
rate
is
18.
J
A
M
A
Apologies
for
that
we
don't
know
what
happened
yeah.
I
think
we
all
got
a
message
that
says
says
something
to
the
effect
of
you
know.
This
meeting
has
been
ended
by
the
host.
I
don't
think
it
was
me,
but
I
I
was
the
co-host
I,
and
so.
If
it
was
me
inadvertently,
I
apologize,
but
I
got
the
same
message.
I
think
everyone
else
did
in
any
event,
what
we're
gonna
do
now
we're
a
couple
of
hours
into
the
meeting
704.
A
A
So
that
would
be
the
bub
road
special
area
when
we
start
up
again
and
I'm
just
going
to
see
if
we
can
clean
up
some
of
those
any
residual
comments
that
people
had
and
I
see
councilman
warner's
hand
raised
so
705
now
on
your
clocks
will
come
back
around
7,
11
and
so
we'll
see
in
a
few
minutes
all
right.
Thanks
folks,.
A
We
were
in
the
middle
of,
I
believe,
some
comments
from
council
councilmember
moore
following
our
reach
out
for
public
comment,
and
so
before
we
go
on
to
the
bub
road
special
area,
which
is
map
n
site
13
council
number.
Or
would
you
care
to
finish
out
your
comments
and
then
councilmember
willie
has
a
hand
raised
as
well,
and
I
believe
councilmember
really
does
have
some
time
left
so
got
to
learn
more.
I
I
A
A
A
S
M
The
question
is
for
the
city
attorney,
the
the
one
speaker
had
brought
up
teacher
housing.
I
think
we're
all
in
favor
of
teacher
housing,
but
the
the
question
comes
in.
You
know
if
you
could
truly
give
the
narrative
on
what
limitations
or
how
how
we,
what
we
can
and
can't
impose,
but
please
go
one
step
further,
so
the
bmr
you
know,
has
a
requirement
there,
there's
moderate
low,
very
low
and
then
the
category
with
developmentally
disabilities
res
existing
cupertino
residents
versus
non-residents.
M
I
mean
de
anza
college
students
versus
non-con
d'anza
college
students.
If
we
set
up
a
dormitory
type
development
somewhere
and
the
intent
is
the
anza
college
students,
but
other
people
decide
hey.
I
want
to
live
there,
so
if
you
could
kind
of,
you
know,
give
some
type
of
guidance
so
that
it
we
we
all
in
the
residence
know
what
we
can
and
can't
do.
D
D
You
know,
that's
usually
requires
you
know,
cooperation
with
the
developer
and
or
property
owner
and
or
you
know,
the
institutions
that
that
are
being
targeted
and
then
often
it's
in
the
question
of
funding
you
know,
for
purposes
of
of
of
you
know
the
exercise
that
we're
engaged
in
now.
You
know
that
that
the
you
know
part.
M
M
Well,
you
qualify
for
below
market
qualify
for
low
qualify
for
very
low
special
category
development
disabilities,
again
a
qualification
teacher
housing.
That's
a
big
question
mark
or
student
housing,
big
question
mark:
just
how
do
we
qualify
or
not
qualify?
Can
we
do
anything?
That's
the
real
question.
D
So
it's
possible
for
individual
projects
to
be
developed
with
a
specific
population
in
mind,
for
something
like
teacher
housing.
You
know
in
the
intersection
with
you
know,
low
and
moderate
income
housing.
You
know
so
you
know
there
are.
There
are
some
educators
that
would
qualify
in
those
categories,
but
you
know
you
know
you
know
as
they
get
more
senior
in
their
career
or
you
know,
depending
on
the
income
of
their
their
partner,
they
might
not
qualify.
M
D
Yeah,
so
so
so
local
resident
and
employee
preferences
are
permissible
for
affordable
housing
development,
so
just
but
it
could.
Just
we
would.
Just
you
know,
deal
with
sort
of
the
restrictions
would
depend
on
the
funding
source.
You
know,
you
know
how
you
know,
you
know
the
developers
sort
of
you
know
what
they
were
interested
in
providing
but
legally
we
would
certainly
be
able
to
restrict
any
affordable
development
to
bonafide
local
residents
or
bonafide
local
employees.
M
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
Councilmember
wooley
we're
going
to
go
on
to
the
bub
road
special
area,
which
was
site
13,
and
so
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
take
public
comment
after
map
n.
I'm
sorry
but
not
map-
and
this
is
map
and
map
o
after
map
n-
is
the
homestead
villa
neighborhood.
So
we'll
take
a
public
comment
after
that,
and
then
we
have
map
p,
which
is
the
creston
farlab
neighborhood,
followed
by.
A
A
You
know
the
in
looking
at
it
yesterday,
of
course,
but
in
my
mind
I
thought
that
was
one
of
the
two
that
we
were
going
to
look
at
later
after
the
16
maps,
we're
looking
at
that,
but
it's
one
of
the
16.
So
let's
just
go
ahead
and
take
map
n
and
then
map
o.
Take
public
comment
map
p,
as
well
as
the
map
22
and
then
we'll
take
public
comment
again.
So
luke
did
you
want
to
give
us
a
summary
of
map
n?
Please.
F
A
G
G
A
Okay,
thanks
luke,
and
so
I
I
think
it
makes
sense
we're
on
this
map
to
go
ahead
and
take
some
comments
from
council
and
I'm
sure
that'll.
You
know
bring
out
some
follow-up
responses
on
on
this
map.
So
would
I
even
like
to
start
us
off
here?
I
see
a
couple
hands
raised.
Those
are
from
council
member
willie
and
vice
mayor
chow
and
so
we'll
go
ahead
with
the
same
practice.
Three
minutes
each
and
council
member
willie.
Please.
M
A
C
G
G
C
So
we
not
only
sells
the
answer,
I
think
for
many
other
areas
of
the
city.
We
did
consider
quite
a
few
sites,
even
without
owner
interest,
but
then
we
think
they
are
suitable
for
housing
government.
So
we
are
considering
them
for
potential
encouraging,
especially
in
the
environmental
impact
study,
so
they
could
give
us
flexibility
to
consider
learning
to
add
residential
right.
G
Yes,
that's
correct,
owner
interest
is
a
factor:
it's
not
the
soul
factor,
so
you,
you
have
other
things
with
locations
of
the
property
what's
currently
on
site.
What
what's
really
determinative
with
with
hcd
is:
does
is
the
site
likely
to
redevelop
on
south
the
anza?
I
believe
you
have
several
sites
that
would
fall
into
that
underutilized
category
for
being
along
a
major
corridor
and
they're
very
likely
to
redevelop
in
the
next
eight
years.
C
So
I
think
this
site
it's
about
in
route
85,
and
this
is
an
area
I
think,
really
needs
retail
space.
That's
walkable,
I
think
monta
vista
high
school
students
have
no
place
that
they
can
walk
for
lunch
except
the
7-eleven
which
doesn't
provide
healthy
food.
This
area,
I
think,
really
needs
some
updating
to
include
a
retail
area
and
the
residential
units
that
those
units
could
be
for
students
who
actually
attend
the
dianza
college.
C
I
I
know
this
area
has
been
it's
been
of
interest
for
mixed-use
development,
with
ground
floor,
commercial
and
residential
above
for
for
some
time.
So
I'd
like
to
hear
what
the
other
council
members
have
to
say
about
it
as
well,
and
how
we
would
go
about
adding
it
in
if
staff
has
some
suggestions
about
how
to
do
that,
I'd
appreciate
it.
Thank
you.
F
A
N
H
Mr
mayor,
if
I
may,
I
just
wanted
to
comment
again
on
the
bub
road
sites.
Pretty
much
all
the
sites
on
the
west
side
of
bub
road
are
not
owned,
but
are
occupied
by
apple.
They
have
long-term
leases
on
these
buildings.
These
are
flexible
spaces
that
apple
particularly
likes
because
they
have
particular
business
groups
that
actually
got
the
entire
place
every
year
or
18
months.
In
order
to
be
able
to
use
these
facilities
on
the
west
side
again,
we
do
have
the
caltrans
courtyard
we
have
direct,
which
is
their
corporate
headquarters.
H
It
is
just
one
of
the
very
few
companies
that
has
their
corporate
headquarters
in
here
in
cupertino.
We
also
have
a
church,
and
the
church
also
has
apple
as
a
tenant
in
one
of
the
buildings
that
they
are,
that
they
own
there
are.
There
is
one
all
vacant
office
building
that,
as
I
mentioned
last
night,
that
started
construction
in
terms
of
adding
residential
density
to
this
particular
area.
I
would
continue
to
recommend
that
you
know
if
we
do.
H
They
have
paid
approximately
4.25
million
dollars
for
improvements
within
the
bub
right
away
and
along
mcclellan
road
in
order
to
improve
connectivity
for
their
employees
in
this
area
and
to
their
other
facilities.
I
don't
necessarily
see
them
going
away
from
this
area.
However,
with
that
you
know
I'll
hand
it
back
to
council,
for
it
is
their
prerogative
to
determine
what
they
wish
to
do.
A
H
A
Right
precisely,
and
so
those
fallback
options,
as
I
think
they're
you
know
adequately
and
then
they're
properly
couched
are
probably
sites
that
we
would
want
to
select
along
the
way
for
tier
two.
So
pew,
do
you
feel
ready
to
go
through
this
map
on
bub
road
to
you
know,
essentially
tell
us
what
really
just
wouldn't
work
I
mean:
do
you
feel
prepared
to
tell
us
that
I
mean
it
looks
like
there
are.
A
A
A
At
least
okay,
okay-
and
I
know
that
you
know
there
may
be
more
sensitivity
with
regard
to
the
triangular
part,
but
that's
not
really
under
consideration
along
the
road
right
so
and
then
how
about
the
eastern
side
of
road
you?
I
know
we
talked
a
little
bit
about
it
yesterday,
but
are
there
particular
sites
that
we
need
to
be
especially
careful
about?
In
terms
of
you
know,
we
don't
essentially
want
to
waste
time
right
to
put
it
through
a
sql
review.
H
I
wouldn't,
I
would
not
suggest
necessarily
studying
the
caltrans
side,
the
direct
to
direct
sites,
those
are
manufacturing
sites.
These
are
industrial
areas
and
have
been
for
a
very
long
time.
The
everything
south
of
the
two
properties
where
my
cursor
is
these
two
are
the
direct
buildings.
Everything
south
of
that,
barring
the
building
with
the
cross,
is
also
occupied
by
apple.
H
The
north
of
the
caltrans
side,
there
is
a
building
which
is
the
building
that
we
were
discussing
yesterday,
which
is
that
had
a
proposal
with
the
city
to
remodel
that
is
also
an
industrial
building.
They
all
these
buildings
have,
I
believe,
loading
docks
at
the
rear.
At
least
these
two
have
loading
docks,
I
believe
at
the
rear
of
the
property,
so
these
have
functioned
as
warehouses
or
industrial
properties.
H
A
A
Yes,
well
I'm
suggesting
everything
other
than
what
you
were
indicating
for
the
caltrans
trans
corporation
yard
and
those
two.
You
know,
I'm
not
100
sure
why
why
the
direct
sites
would
not
necessarily
be
potentially
subject
to
to
study,
but
I
I
know
you're
saying
that
they're
they're
light
industrial,
but
I
mean
that's
that's
kind
of
applicable
to
the
rest
of
it
as
well.
So
I
mean
any
event
you
know
studying
it.
A
I
don't
think
is
something
that
would
really
cause
any
harm
and
it
does
give
us
some
potential
fallbacks
in
case
other
things
fall
through.
But
let
me
go
to
vice
versa,
councilmember,
moore
and
councilman.
Well,
actually,
councilman
will
you
have
your
hand
raised,
and
I
don't
think
that
you've
spoken
on
this
yet
so
why
don't
we
go
to
you
before
we
head
back
to
vice
martial.
M
M
M
M
M
Okay,
let's
go
back
to
bub
wrote
here's
the
office
building
pictures
for
bubba
road.
This
would
be,
in
my
view,
the
opportune
time,
if,
if
we
don't
do
something
at
this
juncture
and
building
owners,
decide
to
double
the
size,
apple
would
like
to
double
the
size
of
their
buildings
over
on
valco
parkway.
At
that
point,
you
won't
get
them
to
tear
them
down,
but
the
old
single
story
buildings
could
in
fact
usher
in
a
development
like
this.
M
Together
those
sites
first
got
and
the
information
that
he
sent
last
night,
27.08
acres.
If
today
it
were,
let's
say
40
far
of
45,
even
though
commercial
and
office
don't
have
fars
that
would
be
530
000
square
feet
at
200
square
feet
per
person.
That
would
be
about
2
600
people
that
could
work
there
if
they
were
all
fully
loaded
if
they
double
the
height
and
make
them
all
two-story
you're.
Looking
at
5300
workers,
so
one
of
the
residents
said
well
bud,
road's
real
crowded.
We,
we
can't
do
anything
there
yeah.
M
M
So
I'm
going
to
leave
it
at
that,
but
I'm
seriously
wanting
to
look
at
this.
I
want
to
be
a
part
of
if,
if
city
staff
can't
get
interest
from
the
building
owners,
I
think
the
city
council
should
be
meeting
with
the
building
owners
and
talking
about
a
vision,
a
vision
for
this
area,
and
so
with
that
I'll.
Let
you
take
control
back
there
and
it's
all
yours.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
council,
member
willie.
That's
your
time
as
well.
Vice
mayor
ciao,
let
me
take
a
look
here.
Well,
you
you
appear
to
have
exhausted
your
time
and
then
I
guess
I'll
I'll
go
to
councilman
way.
Can
we
split
your
three
minutes
hung?
Is
that
okay,
all
right?
Thank
you
so
vice
mayor
ciao
and
then
councilman
moore
has
about
a
minute
left,
so
vice
mayor
chad,
why
don't
we
why?
Why
don't
we
go
with
your
follow-up
thoughts
at
this
point.
C
C
C
C
So
that's
in
addition
to
the
rectangular
area
on
the
right,
and
these
three
like
this
one
in
the
middle
is
industrial
residential
and
then
the
bottom
is
industrial
residential.
So
my
question
is:
if
one
of
these
sites
today
propose
a
project
to
raise
housing,
my
understanding
is
the
current
state
law
says
we.
C
If
the
zoning
is
inconsistent
with
the
general
plan,
land
use,
the
land
use,
the
general
plan
goes.
So
what
does
that
mean
here?
Does
that
mean
someone
can
actually
propose
a
residential
project
today
with
the
current
zoning,
but
then
what
would
be
their
units
per
acre
on
that
this
one?
One
of
them
has
10
to
20
units
per
acre,
but
most
the
other
sites.
Don't
have
that
density
specified.
So
I'm
curious.
H
I
I
can
answer
that
the
current
density
is
20
dwelling
units
to
the
acre
and
they're
in
the
old
days
of
development
allocation.
I
believe
there
were
94
units
allocated
somewhere
within
the
bub
road
area
that
could
be
developed
at
20
20
units
per
acre.
However,
with
the
state
law
changes,
they
could
develop
20
times
the
acreage
within
the
bubblewood
area
for
the
site,
so
that
that
is
the
the
impact
of
the
state
law.
Every.
C
H
And
there
is
another
factor:
yes,
there
is
another
piece
to
it,
which
is
the
likelihood
of
development,
so
we
do
have
to
convince
hcd
that
this
these
sites
will
develop
within
the
next
eight
years
and
as
your
staff
at
this
point,
we're
saying
that
there
doesn't
appear
to
be
that
likelihood,
given
the
investments
that
apple
has
made
within
the
buildings
and
the
right-of-way.
However,
if
the
council
does
want
this
area
to
be
studied
at
22
units
to
the
acre,
I
would
recommend
that
they
be
studied
at
the
tier
2
level.
C
C
I
I
I
So
with
regards
to
that
caltrans
site,
I
I
sure
wish
that
we
could
somehow
acquire
some
of
that
into
the
city
or
you
have.
You
know
reach
out
and
have
some
negotiation
and
discussion
about
that.
It's
not
a
particularly
attractive
addition
to
to
that
to
that
area.
The
buildings
the
the
it
looks
like
hvac
is
all
over
the
roof.
You've
got
these
massive
looks
like
ventilation,
pipes
on
on
top
and
the
rest
of
it.
You've
you've
got
vehicles
parked
all
over.
It's
just
a
parking
lot.
I
Essentially,
so
I
don't
know
if,
if
council
member
willie,
perhaps
when
you
shared
your
screen,
if
you
could
point
that
out-
and
I
you
might
have
the
satellite
layer
available
to
show
it
and
you're
nodding,
so
I
think
you've.
I
think
you've
looked
at
that
site
too
so
I'll.
I'm
gonna
mute
myself
and
have
some
more
discussion
thanks.
A
M
M
The
ship
will
have
sale,
but
by
bringing
it
under
the
umbrella,
and
maybe
that
one
vacant
site
next
to
the
caltrans
site,
talk
to
the
owner
and
if
he
says,
he's
he's
game
for
doing
something
like
this.
That
site
in
itself
gets
rezoned
and
it
sends
a
message
to
all
the
building
owners
wow.
This
is
what
you
can
achieve,
but
if
we
don't
do
anything
they're
each
going
to
go
off
on
their
own
and
everything's
going
to
grow
eventually,
so
I
want
to
say
that
we
need.
M
I
I
D
So
you
know
so
I
mean
just
to
be
clear
that
the
the
project
that
the
sequa
project
that
we
will
be
studying
as
part
of
this
eir
is
the
general
planned
amendment
and
rezoning.
So
so
things
that
are
not
part
of
that,
and
so
that
would
include
you
know
the
velcro
project.
It
would
include
projects
that
have
already
been
entitled
and
or
rezoned.
They
would
not
be
studied
as
part
of
the
cir.
D
I
So
I
was
understanding
earlier
that
that
that
valca
would
be
considered
our
baseline,
even
though
it's
a
mostly
vacant
property,
with
no
traffic
whatsoever,
that
the
baseline
would
be
the
pipeline
project
as
if
it
were
fully
built.
So
it
would
be.
We
would
be
pretending
that
the
whole
thing
was
built
with
all
those
towers
and
all
of
that
traffic,
and
that
would
be
our
baseline.
So
I
I'd
like
to
to
really
understand
that.
D
J
Thank
you
mayor
park,
so
I've
been
listening
and
I
I
do
believe
that
we
are.
You
know
we
have
many
discussions
and
I
think
we're
opening
up
to
public
comments,
but
I
do
want
to
caution
from
what
I
understand
the
ac
is
looking
at
owner.
Yes,
it
doesn't
need
owner
approval,
but
the
possibilities
of
owner
will
develop
it
in
the
next
eight
years
and
if
I
listen
correctly
with
staff's
comment
on
the
bob
road,
there
are
long-term
leases.
The
owners
has
been
contacted.
J
There's
no
interest
at
all,
so
to
include
that.
I
think
it
is
we're
probably
likely
to
receive
hcd's
comments
saying
that
it's
not
eligible
because
the
owner
has
no
interest,
but
that's
just
my
personal
feel,
so
I
do
think
we
need
to
look
more
into
what
our
desires
are
and
what
realistically
can
be
accomplished
in
our
housing
elements.
I'm
not
saying
that.
That's
not
included.
J
I'm
saying
that
maybe
the
staff
recommendation
to
do
a
tier
2
will
be
a
good
one,
but
it
will
be
very
according
to
what
I
hear
so
far.
It's
going
to
be
pretty
difficult
for
us
to
convince
hcd
with
properties
with
long-term
leads
that
could
be
developed
in
next
eight
years.
That's
just
my
comment
and
I
do
want
to
reiterate
on
the
linda
vista
site
that
the
owners,
which
is
20
units
per
acre,
if
we
force
it
to
be
30
acres,
the
owner,
can
really
say.
I
don't
want
to
develop
that
way.
A
Let
me
refer
this
to
the
city
manager,
madam
city
manager.
You
have
a
running
list
of
items
that
you're
planning
on
having
us
go
through
correct
in
terms
of
seeing
if
we
can
get
majority
support
for
them,
so
that
you
have
a
omnibus
motion
promote
what
I
understand
that
we're
looking
to
set
forward
and
propose
after
we've
gone
over
all
the
maps.
Is
that
correct
that.
F
Is
correct,
mr
mayor,
so
we're
hoping
to
come
back
to
you
with
the
itemized
recommendation
that
has
been
proposed
by
either
individual
council
member
or
a
collection
of
many
council
members
for
you
to
act
to
either
include
in
the
how
in
the
list
or
not
for
this
particular
site.
Staff's
recommendation
is
to
include
it,
but
to
put
it
on
tier
2.,.
A
D
Yeah,
so
I
just
I
was
trying
to
to
track
the
parcels
that
people
were
talking
about
so
and
I
believe
the
mayor
you
referred
to
one:
zero,
zero,
forty
one,
zero,
zero,
eighty
and
one
zero
zero
one
hundred
pub.
I
believe
those
are
three
parcels
that
you
were
talking
about.
Council
member
willy,
I
believe,
referred
to
one
zero
one
hundred
bub.
There
were
some
other
more.
You
know
general
comments
we
would
include,
but
those
are
the
specific
properties
that
I
was
able
to
capture.
D
A
I
mean
I
would
suggest
that
you
track
with
the
parcel
addresses
that
the
city
attorney
just
recited.
I
think
that
sounds
you
know
workable,
but
briefly,
let's
go
back
to
councilman,
moore
and
then
customer
will
you
still
have
your
hand
raised,
but
but
very
briefly
I
want
to
keep
us
on
track
here
time,
wise
and
so
after
this
we'll
go
over
to
the
next
map.
Councilmember
moore.
I
I'm
sure
I'd
like
an
opinion
about
one
zero
one:
zero,
zero,
bub
road.
It's
got
long-term
management
on
geotracker
and
yeah.
So
I'm
not
I'm
not
sure
about
that
one.
It's
got
soiled
vapor
extraction
going
on.
Currently
I
see
there's
a
hand
up,
I
mean
yeah,
you
can
you
can
put
it
down,
put
it
down
it's
starting.
D
I
Okay-
okay,
so
they
it
it
could
it's
got.
You
know
tce
tca,
it
could
have
a
soil.
Vapor
barrier
I
mean
they're.
We
have
gas
stations
that
end
up
with
residential
on
them,
but
they
have
to
make
make
mitigations
for
it.
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out,
because
this
particular
site
was
brought
up.
Okay,
thank
you.
That's
it.
M
M
We
hope
this
will
be
a
residential
corridor
and
we're
starting
down
that
path.
We
don't
want
to
re-zone
everything
at
this
point
in
time,
we'll
start
here
and
then
let
it
build
out
just
like
san
jose
does
so
again
thinking
that
somehow
hcd
is
going
to
you
know
nix
our
housing
element.
I
I
don't
understand
that
yeah
I
haven't
said
suggested
that
thank
you.
A
G
G
So
right
now
you
have
two
units
on
the
site.
It
has
a
proposed
density
of
20,
which
would
yield
12
new
units
on
the
property.
This
site,
like
many
of
the
others
that
are
residential
properties,
also
has
owner
interests
submitted,
and
that
is
all
I
had
to
add
on
this
property.
I'm
happy
to
turn
it
back
to
council
and
be
available
for
questions.
Okay,.
A
C
So
again,
trying
to
compare
the
density
with
the
ones
who
have
seen
this
one
is
only
20
units,
not
30
or
50,
even
though
it's
right
next
to
highway,
it's
only
one
small
south
side
is
that
just
a
two
neighbor
likely
single
family
home,
the
rest
is
either
highway
or
road.
So
what's
the
rationale
for
only
20
units
here
I
can
try
and
answer
a
great
question
for
that.
G
Yeah-
and
I
don't
know
if
david
massington,
who
has
not
participated
yet
tonight
as
an
architect,
he
may
be
able
to
add
something
as
well,
while
the
site's
up
against
the
freeway,
it's
not
directly
accessing
that,
so
it
is
in
a
residential
area.
It
is
kind
of
a
large
oddly
shaped
lot.
It
already
has
a
duplex
on
there
rather
than
a
single
family
home.
G
So
as
part
of
the
you
know,
the
whole
housing
element
exercise
this
round
with
the
arena.
Numbers
are
much
higher.
We
are
trying
to
add
density
where
single-family
neighborhoods
typically
would
have
been
about
10
units
or
so
per
acre,
we're
looking
at
20
for
this
site.
It's
it's
not
along
a
major
corridor
like
homestead
or
de
anza
or
stevens
creek,
where
the
50
per
acre
sites
are
so
a
20
seems
to
be
a
realistic
density
for
a
lot
like
this
at
this
location,.
E
Yeah,
I
think
you
would
probably
end
up
with
a
townhouse
development
here
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
what
would
make
the
most
sense
because
you
could
park
underneath,
keep
the
you
know.
You
wouldn't
have
to
be
parking,
a
larger
number
of
units.
It
does
narrow
towards
the
north,
but
I
think
it's
feasible.
E
C
A
Okay,
great
anyone
else.
This
is
again
map
o
and
I
don't
see
any
further
hands
raised,
and
so
let's
go
on
to
our
members
of
the
public.
As
indicated
we
will
be
taking
public
comment
on
on
this
item.
We
just
went
over
maps
n
and
o
jennifer.
Your
hand
is
raised,
as
is
lisa
warren's
same
same
guidelines
apply,
please
have
your
hand
raised
or
an
email
into
cityclearcat
cupertino.org
before
we
have
our
first
speaker
done
and
so
jennifer
welcome.
You'll
have
three
minutes.
O
S
O
O
There
is
also
a
railroad
way
there.
If
you're,
not
aware
of
it,
I
used
to
see
trains
go
by
there
all
the
time.
You
know
you
had
the
the
famous
tracks
that
went
across
monte
vista
and
if
you
got
stuck
there,
it
was
10
minutes
back.
In
the
day
there
were
heavily
loaded
trains
that
went
back
and
forth.
I'm
just
going
to
throw
this
out
here
because
santa
cruz
area,
where
my
mother
is
they
recently
retired
a
railroad
track.
It
was
a
very,
very
contentious.
O
It
was
rails
for
banking
or
something
they
had
a
like
an
initiative
about
whether
to
get
rid
of
the
railroad
tracks
that
went
through
apttus,
and
I
think
that
they
basically
are
getting
rid
of
them
they're
going
away,
and
what
exactly
you
have
that
railroad
trap
going
through
there
who
uses
that
was
that
the
permanente
spur
line
does
caltrain
own
it
are
there?
Are
there
actually
trains
that
go
through
there?
Is
it
time
to
start
looking
at
retiring
that
section
of
the
railroad
to
I
mean
it?
It's
it's
feasible.
I
mean
it's.
O
O
You
could
build
a
lot
of
housing
along
that
road
bed,
so
I'm
just
going
to
throw
that
out
there,
because
we
don't
know
are
trains
going
to
be
not
used
in
that
area.
I
don't
think
caltran
goes
caltrain
the
one
that
goes
up
to
the
city
for
the
ball
games.
I
don't
think
they
go
through
there.
So
we
need
to
have
that
discussion
now,
because
you,
you
also
have
retention,
ponds
and
creeks
since
there's,
I
think,
there's
a
creek
that
goes
back
there
too.
O
So
if
you
guys
could
discuss
the
train
situation,
I
would
appreciate
it
the
other
one.
Let's
see
the
other,
the
homestead
villa
one,
oh
okay,
that
area
okay,
I
went
to
homestead
high
school.
I
went
to
cupertino
junior
high,
I'm
very
familiar
with
that
area.
I
I
think
that
the
30
is
pushing
it
a
little
bit.
That
is
a
very,
very
tight
road
back
in
there.
You
also
have
a
lot
of
traffic
coming
in
from
the
road
that
goes
past.
O
A
Q
Thank
you.
So
I
I
don't
want
to
forget
to
say
this,
so
I'm
going
to
say
it
I
I
haven't
heard
much
talk
about
the
the
tallied
scores
so
to
speak,
for
the
comments
from
both
the
survey
and
the
mapping
exercise,
but
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
I
spent
hours
doing
that
and
I
went
through
those
things
multiple
times
as
it
kept
going
forward
and
changing.
Q
Q
Q
Q
A
Thank
you
lisa.
Well,
I
you
know
what
one
thing
I'll
say
is
that
I
I
understand
the
sentiment
expressed
here,
but
with
regard
to
the
sql
process,
you
know
we
do
have
a
tier
one
and
tier
two
side
of
things.
I
know
that
staff
has
been
keeping
track
of
notes
on
on
these
various
items,
but
you
know
what
what
I
would
suggest
since
we
have
a
couple
of
more
maps
to
go
through.
Is
that
we
do
that?
A
G
Yes,
thank
you
mayor
paul.
This
is
the
final
neighborhood
map
and
then
we'll
be
looking
at
the
map
that
includes
the
former
outback
steakhouse
site
on
de
anza.
The
map
here
now
is
the
creston
farlap
neighborhood
in
the
northwest
corner
of
the
city.
There
are
three
sites
here.
I
believe
two
of
them
are
single
family
homes.
One
is
a
small
office.
A
S
S
So
I
I
I
think
I
mentioned
about
the
property
earlier
today
and
on
816,
but
just
wanted
to
kind
of
get
that
information
even
for
general
public
as
well.
You
know
if,
if
a
property
doesn't
qualify
for
one
of
as
one
of
these
a
tier
tier
one
or
two
properties,
what's
the
procedure?
Do
we
still?
If
we
can,
we
still
put
a
concept
to
kind
of
build
a
residence
there.
A
G
G
G
If
you
wanted
to
proceed
with
that
in
terms
of
being
a
housing
element
site
again,
it's
about
6
000
square
feet,
so
it's
well
below
half
an
acre
and
is
currently
not
designated
for
housing,
and
I
my
understanding
is
that
he
just
wanted
to
build
a
one
residence
for
his
family.
So
I
think
you
would
need
to
go
through
the
usual
procedure
to
get
the
land
uses
change
to
allow
that.
C
C
G
These
sites
were
recommended
as
tier
one
by
the
planning
commission
and
again,
I
I
think
part
of
it
had
to
do
with
the
dispersal
of
units
throughout
the
city
that
crest
and
farlab
did
not
have
a
lot
of
opportunities
or
any
large
sites
where
you're
able
to
get
a
lot
of
housing.
So
in
order
to
get
some
properties
over
in
this
portion
of
the
city,
these
are
the
three
that
were
put
as
tier
one
sites
but
yeah
they're.
G
H
Mr
mayor,
if
I
may
yeah
with
these
particular
sites,
we
recognize
these
are
small
sites
and
at
the
planning
commission
hearing,
we
did
recommend
potentially
eliminating
any
sites
that
had
very
small
yield
and
they
did
not
have
owner
interest.
However,
because
the
planning
commission
had
an
interest
in
finding
sites
on
the
western
half
of
the
city,
they
did
place
these
particular
they
re
they
recommended
keeping
these
sites
on
the
inventory.
C
H
Acres
right
right,
and
that
is
why
they
were
identified
as
potential
sites,
and
that
is
why
the
planning
commission
placed
them
on
the
sites.
However,
we
do
have
to
realize
that
we
have
a
pretty
large
number
that
we
need
to
hit
and
the
more
sites
that
we
you
know
have
that
there
that
we
know
that
have
less
likelihood
of
development.
H
It's
going
to
be
a
heavier
lift
to
try
to
convince
hcd
that
those
sites
will
all
develop
in
this
site
in
this
cycle,
and
so
as
a
result
again
as
staff.
We
would
continue
to
recommend
that
we
look
at
sites
where
there
is
owner
interest
and-
and
we
had
recommended
that
the
smaller
sites
with
smaller
yield
potentially
not
be
included.
But
there
was
an
interest
in
looking
at
sites
on
the
western
half
of
the
city
and
that's
why
these
sites
were
included.
C
A
I
I
The
last
time
we
had
the
the
housing
element,
we
had
scenario
a
and
scenario
b,
and
I
recall
there
being
maybe
five
to
seven
properties
in
in
in
each
scenario
something
around
that
order,
like
there's
definitely
less
than
ten,
but
I
believe
about
five
to
seven
sites
and
and
this
time
it
seems
like
I've
got
pages
upon
pages.
Would
you
happen
to
know
how
many
assessors
parcel
numbers
were?
I
I
G
I
Okay,
and
and
just
from
from
a
planner's
perspective-
and
I
imagine
you
talk
to
planners
from
other
cities-
have
have
you
had
conversations
about
this
process
and
how
it
differs
from
before
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
about
how
you're
finding
this
experience
just
just
kind
of
any
any
anything
you'd
like
to
share
about
that.
That's
just
you
know,
I'd
like
to
hear
it
because
it's
just
it
looks
really
difficult
and
I'm
wondering
what
your
thoughts
are
about
it
and
yeah.
Thank
you.
That's
it.
G
I'm
fine
to
share
a
couple
of
thoughts.
I
think,
first
and
foremost
is
the
arena.
Numbers
are
so
much
higher,
so
yeah
in
city
cupertino.
You
went
from
1064
to
4588,
so
you
want
to
fourfold
which
is
going
to
drive
you
to
look
at
more
sites
and
higher
densities
than
you
typically
would
look
at.
I
think
the
second
thing
for
cities
in
the
bay
area.
G
It's
a
challenge
too,
because
you're
more
built
out
you're
looking
for
sites
that
have
the
potential
to
redevelop,
you
may
be
looking
at
more
small
sites,
you're
looking
at
now
through
affh,
not
necessarily
so
much
in
cupertino,
but
trying
to
disperse
sites
more
throughout
larger
areas.
So
it
has
changed
a
lot
both
in
terms
of
the
numbers.
G
The
site
totals
things
like
the
affh
requirements
which
people
are
still
trying
to
figure
out
as
they
go,
so
it
is
a
different
dynamic.
If
you
went
through
this
the
last
time
I
mean
I,
I
look
at
cupertino.
You
had
several
large
properties
that,
given
the
size
of
those
sites,
you
were
able
to
get
to
your
arena
pretty
easily
several
of
those
sites
we
have
in
the
pipeline.
A
A
They
were
all
viable
and
with
regard
to
the
the
the
development
you
could
see
it
over
time.
We
had
something
like
a
thousand.
I
think
it
was
57
or
something
like
that
in
our
last
arena
requirement,
and
so
between
three
sites
we
did
cover
those
numbers
and
valco
was
out
allocated
400
units
at
the
time
so
and
it
was
not
part
of
our,
you
know
primary
numbers,
so,
okay,
tesla
more,
you
still
have
your
canned
up.
Did
you
want
to
speak
on
this
site.
I
Well,
I'm
glad
I'm
not
going
to
be
here
for
it
honestly,
because
I
I
just
I
don't
know
how
it's
going
to
how
it's
going
to
get
done,
and
so
my
concern
is,
is
how
is
this
going
to
progress
you're
going
to
end
up
essentially
needing
to
take
take
neighborhoods?
I
know
I
know
people
are
balking
at
having
developments
in
neighborhoods
around
in
the
neighborhood
homes.
I
So
with
regards
to
retail
in
the
eir
are,
it
seems
to
me
that
we
need
to
be
having
some
sense
of
a
policy
that
it
isn't
just
the
housing.
But
we've
got
to
have
some
sense
for
how
much
retail
is
going
to
be
retained
in
the
commercial
areas
which
have
it
so
that
in
the
eir
that
will
be
addressed,
it
can't
simply
be
we're
going
to
look
at
the
dwelling
units
per
acre
at
a
commercial
site.
I
And
then
we
come
back
a
few
months
late
down
the
road
and
say
our
policy
is
that
we
you
need
to
retain
that
retail
at
that
site,
that
we
are
not
going
to
have
this.
We're
not
going
to
have
the
retail
sales
tax
space
completely
removed.
We're
not
going
to
have
those
retail
local
services
and
and
things
that
people
are
talking
about,
wanting
to
make
sure
that
we
have
for
the
residents
to
have
some
shopping
nearby.
Some
you
know
places
to
eat,
etc,
and
so
how
does
that
get
handled?
I
G
G
Okay,
thank
you.
Yes,
this
is
okay,
so
we're
looking
at
the
north,
the
anza
boulevard
area,
which
does
not
have
a
listing
on
the
site's
inventory,
because
there
were
no
sites
recommended
for
this
area
within
the
city
running
up
the
middle.
In
that
sort
of
orange
color
is
de
anza
boulevard
running
north
to
south
the
site
shown
in
the
pinkish
colors
on
the
south
side
of
valley,
green
drive,
it
fronts
onto
de
anza
boulevard,
it's
about
an
acre
and
a
half,
and
this
is
the
former
outfit
outback,
steakhouse
outback,
steakhouse
site.
G
A
A
And
I
think
that
if
you
put
it
as
a
tier
one
project-
and
there
was
actually
some
movement
with
regard
to
you
know
other
things
that
might
affect
the
property,
then
we
would
have
time
to
be
able
to.
You
know,
make
the
requisite
adjustments.
So
I
I
really
I
don't
have
any
particular
you
know
strong
preference.
I
I
just
think
that
you
know.
A
I
May
I
continue
on
this
particular
site
what
I,
what
what
bothers
me
is
that
the
the
county
purchased
it,
and
we
had
our
discussion
back
in
june
june
june,
18
2021
regarding
this
property
and
supervisor
simidian.
He
came
and
spoke
about
it.
What
concerns
me
is
that
this
property
is
now
been
sitting
vacant
and
it
could
have
some
use
at
at
this
time
in
it
potentially
for
some
kind
of
low-income
job
training
office
for
some
some
use
for
helping
the
the
jobs
homeless
situation.
I
We
have
this
homelessness
task
force
in
the
space,
and
it's
just
sitting
there
doing
doing
nothing
at
this
point
and
and
that
it
seems
I
don't
it's,
it's
really
disappointing
the
county
bought
it
and
they
they
took
away
a
retail
area
it
potentially
could
have
had
for
thinking
of
the
scope
of
the
city
and
the
cost
to
rent
spaces.
It
could
have
had
lower
rents
for
startup
companies
in
incubator.
Space
is
anything,
but
it's
just
sitting
there
doing
nothing.
I
So
I
I
kind
of
want
to
say
it's
put
it
as
tier
one
to
try
to
get
this
project
in
gear
and
get
the
county
to
to
consider
it.
And-
and
here
we
are
concerned
about
our
retail
space
going
away
and
they
bought
on
a
on
a
commercial
lot
and
just
shut
it
down.
Essentially,
so
I'm
I'm
quite
frustrated
by
what
they've
done
and
I
would
like
to
see
some
see
it
go
to
some
good
use
rather
than
just
sitting
there
as
it
is.
A
C
So
yeah
I
it
seems
this
side
has
a
very
likelihood
of
being
developed
there
right
things
are
county
about
it,
even
if
they
swap.
If
then
they
have
other
plans.
Something
has
to
be
done
right
so
and
then
this
is
in
a
location
where
we
could
actually
loan
for
50
units
per
acre
and
that
it's
1.5
acres.
So
it's
large
enough
not
like
those
other
tiny
sites.
We
actually
have
zoned
30
units
per
acre,
and
so
I'm
trying
to
understand
the
rationale
to
first
not
include
the
site
and
then
only
consider
for
tier
2..
C
H
C
H
C
A
All
right,
thank
you,
so
we
don't
have
further
answers
at
this
time,
and
so
let's
go
to
our
members
of
the
public.
We
have
two
hands
raised
from
the
public,
so
warren
and
jennifer,
and
so
a
reminder.
Please
have
your
hands
raised
and
zoom
or
send
an
email
to
cityclerk
at
cupertino.org
before
the
time
that
the
first
person
is
done
speaking
so
lisa
welcome.
You'll
have
up
to
three
minutes.
Q
Thanks
so
this
is
a
perfect
example.
This
map
and
I'd
already
been
thinking
of
it,
but
this
is
the
right
map
to.
I
can't
see
it
there's
something
on
my
screen:
okay,
bandley
drive,
family
drive
is
a
bunch
of
low-slung
office
buildings
just
like
on
bub,
and
there's
been
talking
over
the
years
of
doing
housing
over
there,
and
you
know
it's
going
to
be
the
same
thing.
Oh,
there
are
leases
by
apple
there's
this
that
the
other-
I
I
don't
think
apple
owns
all
of
them.
If
any,
but
was
that
area?
Q
Why
was
that
area
not
considered?
I
you
know,
like
I
said
over
the
years,
many
people
have
suggested
that
site
and
I
think,
when
these
maps
that
have
no
sites
recommended
on
them
aren't
shown
to
the
public
that
the
few
of
us
who
are
involved
in
this
you
know
it's
not
triggered.
So
I
again
think
that
it
was
a
mistake
to
have
no
access
on
the
balancing
act,
for
people
to
go
and
add
sites
to
areas
mapped
areas
that
didn't
have
sites
already
selected
by
the
consultant
or
staff.
Q
O
O
O
If
we're
going
to
be
doing
anything
really
really
large
up
there,
because
those
are
very
small
roads
back
there
and
you've
got
that
constrained
area
where
you
come
down
the
hill
to
like
the
blue
pheasant,
and
if
people
are
not
aware
there
are
fire
danger
areas
back
there,
and
I
think
that
it's
important
to
remember
that
and
there's
that
wonderful
railroad
track
again:
okay,
interesting,
okay,
the
next
one.
Let's
just
go
talk
about
the
the
outback
okay,
I
must
have
fallen
asleep
last
night
when
you
guys
were
talking
about
the
outback.
O
You
know
I
I
hate
to
say
this,
but
I
really
miss
that
restaurant
and
lisa's
correct
it's
a
it's.
A
shame
that
nothing's
nothing's
happened
to
it
in
the
last
two
years
or
year,
and
a
half
or
kitty
said
that
it,
it
really
should
be
put
to
some
use,
and
I
think
that
it
is
a
much
better
site
for
some
type
of
let's
just
throw
it
out
there.
Supportive
housing
then
doing
some
type
of
supportive
housing
back
there.
In
the
back
of
the
valvco
area.
Sorry,
I
called
it
a
dump,
but
it
it.
O
You
can't-
and
I
I
think
I
made
an
epiphany
tonight.
No
one
can
develop
the
siemens
property
until
balfour
was
built
either
that
or
they're
going
to
have
to
run
a
road
back
there
through
a
construction
site
to
try
to
access
the
back
of
that
property.
There's
no
amenities
back
there.
It's
just
you
know.
What
are
you
gonna
do:
walk
up,
hike
up
to
stephens
creek?
O
We
could
send
the
shuttle
back
there,
but
I
think
that
if
you're
going
to
be
doing
supportive
housing,
if
you're
going
to
be
doing
it
correctly,
this
site,
the
outback
is
a
much
better
location.
Yes,
it
may
be
a
really
really
great
place
to
grab
for
tech
again
or
you
know,
whatever
we're
going
to
do
with
it,
but
I
I
say:
let's
don't
do
supportive
housing
in
the
back
end
of
the
velcro
site,
because
it's
not
feasible
at
this
time.
O
A
Okay,
thank
you
jennifer,
and
we
are
back
to
council
here,
we've
gone
through
the
16
maps,
as
well
as
an
additional
map
that
includes
the
outback
steakhouse
site,
the
shopping
center,
and
so
what
I'll
do
now
is
refer
to
our
city
manager,
pamela
wu
pamela.
Do
you
have
a
suggestion
as
to
how
to
proceed,
and
I
do
see
customer
role.
I
see
both
of
your
hands,
the
virtual
one
and
the
actual
one.
A
L
L
What
they've
done
with
these
15
plus
sites
they've
purchased,
is
they
hold
them
and
they
go
out
privately
to
the
affordable
developer
world
and
they
take
rfps
and
they
make
a
decision
on
which
affordable
group
is
going
to
develop.
This
has
happened
on
park,
moore
avenue
in
san
jose.
Recently,
that's
just
broken
ground.
It's
happening
in
numerous
locations,
so
much
so
to
the
point
that
the
county
has
stopped
purchasing
these
affordable
sites
because
they
have
created
a
pipeline,
that's
sufficient
for
them.
So
again
the
county
always
moves
slow.
L
I
would
suggest
someone
reach
out
to
ron
griswold
at
the
county
who's
in
charge
of
a
member
of
the
real
estate
department,
but
I
would
think
this
is
a
site
that
that
would
be
100,
affordable
and
really
take
a
deep
crack
into
the
very
low
and
moderate
shortfall.
I
would
also
say
that
when
you're
looking
at
density
for
this
site,
there
are
no
homes
around
it.
It's
on
a
major
transit
near
services.
You
know
an
affordable
housing
group.
L
If
you
went
out
to
the
market
and
said,
hey
charities
housing,
how
many
units
would
you
like
to
build
on
this
site?
They
would
tell
you
150
units,
and
so
I
just
say
that
as
a
as
food
for
thought,
but
boy
of
all
the
sites.
This
is
the
county
bought
this
18
months
ago
for
the
purpose
of
having
a
chip
to
build,
affordable
housing.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
F
Not
necessarily,
mr
mayor,
so
I
was
just
going
to
suggest
that
we
have
concluded
all
the
maps
if
we
could
potentially
take
after
at
the
end
of
this
exercise.
After
taking
all
the
council's
comments,
if
we
can
take
a
potentially
15-minute
break
a
recess
for
planning
staff
to
consolidate
what
they
have
heard
tonight
and
then
come
back
to
you
to
walk
you
through
the
comments
that
you
know
from
last
night
and
tonight.
A
Sure
absolutely
so
I'll
take
a
couple
of
minutes
of
comments
from
council
in
terms
of
the
fact
that
we
are
checking
back
in
after
the
last
round
of
public
comments.
So
we
have
vice
mayor
ciao,
followed
by
councilman
moore,
followed
by
councilmember
way.
So
a
couple
of
minutes,
each
at
this
time
by
smart
channel.
C
Yeah,
I'm
calculating
from
the
numbers,
got
suggested,
I
think,
for
this
site.
We
should
study
for
75
units
per
acre
as
tier
one
site,
and
that
seems
to
be
in
line
with
the
num,
the
100,
affordable
housing.
The
county
might
be
looking
for.
At
least
we
study
that
so
that
when
they
request
it,
we
don't
have
to
do
another
environmental
study.
Thank
you.
I
A
I
H
I
I
will
tell
you
that
we've
had
one
conversation,
at
least
with
one
developer,
that
said
that
for
rental
developments
they
are
not
looking
for
anything
less
than
150
million
per
acre.
That's
what's
making
it
viable
for
them
these
days,
given
the
high
cost
of
land
and
how
tall
would
that
be
probably
in
the
120
range
and
then
david
massington
can
also
help
with
that.
I
I
H
D
I
You
kind
of
have
to
work
work
backwards
from
there
on
the
density.
So
if
there
could
be
some
guidance
to
try
to
stay
within
that
envelope,
the
bmr's
in
this
that
senior
unit
it
was
it
was
40,
48
senior
bmrs
for
that
height
and
I'm
just
trying
to
think
of
that
footprint
that
it
that
it's
sitting
on
extrapolated
over
the
whole
project.
A
J
J
I
do
believe
the
siemens
side
is
owned
by
apple.
If
I'm
correctly
and
the
county
is
doing
some
kind
of
a
negotiation
with
apple,
I
don't
know
the
result
of
it,
but
I
do
think
if
we
put
both
on
q1.
That
is
not
going
to
happen.
So
what
do
the
staff
know
anything
about
it,
or
should
we
put
one
or
two
one
one
or
here
two
just
so
that
we
know
one?
H
I
I
think,
adding
the
outback
steakhouse
side
as
a
tier
two
side
gives
you
the
flexibility
again.
I
I
my
understanding
is
that
the
county's
hesitation
continues
to
be
that
the
other
side
does
not
currently
allow
residential
uses,
but
they
are
very
interested
in
that
particular
site,
considering
they
would
get
three
times
as
many
affordable
units.
F
F
I
do
want
to
kind
of
put
some
parameters
as
we're
putting
together
a
proposal
for
you.
There
are
two
sites
that's
been
contemplated.
Our
original
proposal
coming
forward
to
you
is
to
put
our
back
outside
as
a
tier
two,
so
it
gives
the
city
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
for
some
reason.
If
both
sides
want
to
be
developed
the
same
time,
the
eir
has
it
covered,
but
we're
not
obligated
to
have
them
both
developed
as
tier
one.
So
that's
one
option
in
terms
of
the
density.
F
If
this
is
affordable,
housing
100,
50,
whatever
it
is,
they're
eligible
for
additional
waivers
incentive,
extensions
and
whatnot,
so
at
a
75
density
per
acre
ratio.
Imagine
how
much
more
this
can
be
and
also
look
around.
What's
around
it.
So
planet
likes
to
talk
about
compatibility
so
right
now,
you're
surrounded
by,
I
want
to
say,
maybe
a
four
to
five
story:
apartment
building,
some
probably
in
the
area.
F
M
A
C
N
C
A
E
A
For
for,
for
the
purposes
of
what
we're,
what
we're
required
to
to
perform
here,
so
I
I
don't
see,
hands
raised
further,
so
it's
right
before
nine,
let's
go
ahead
and
reconvene
and
9
15,
and
I
think
that
should
give
staff
enough
time
to
consolidate
our
comments
over
the
course
of
the
last
couple
of
nights.
I
know
that
they
were
working
hard
at
doing
so
for
the
previous
evening.