►
From YouTube: Cupertino City Council Meeting - July 25, 2023 (Part 2)
Description
Coverage of the Tuesday, July 25, 2023 Cupertino City Council Meeting.
Part 2 of 2.
A
So
we're
ready
to
see
her
friendly
Amendment.
Could
you
put
it
shared
on
the
screen?
Please,
the
meeting
is
being
re-adjourned.
B
Yeah
so
I
have
a
few
items
that
I
think
I
would
maybe
I
should
go
then
one
by
one.
The
first
two
words
mentioned
earlier
perhousing
element
law.
Consider
all
public
inputs
received
throughout
the
housing
element
process
when
drafting
programs
and
policies.
Second
identify
the
allocated,
Arena
units,
plus
the
suggested
25
to
30
percent
buffer,
which
look
mentioned
I
just
want
to
be
sure
that
that's
still
the
council's
intention
and
yeah.
A
B
Want
them
all
together,
yes,
okay
I
would
like
to
add
additional
requirements
for
extremely
low
income,
because,
right
now
we
don't
have
specific
percentage
for
that
and
the
prioritize
housing
for
developmentally
disabled
special
needs
people
specifically
in
our
priority
system,
as
requested
by
Van
Zoran,
to
prioritize
development,
disabled
airport,
because
the
priority
right
now
is
not
they.
B
They
don't
get
the
priority
with
the
scoring
system
right
now
and
The
Preserve
existing
BMR
units
with
potentially
Bond
or
grants
to
purchase
those
units,
consider
those
policies
and
consider
rental
registration
to
assess
the
needs
for
vacancy
tax
and
they
spend
the
pre-approved
Ado
plans
right
now.
I
just
checked
our
website.
We
don't
have
any
San.
Jose
has
10.
Explorer
multi-unit
family
under
sb9,
so
this
might
be
already
covered.
B
Density
would
also
allow
us
to
develop
Transit
throughout
the
city
and
preserve
retail
square
footage
in
commercial
centers,
so
that
we
can
people
can
shop
locally
and
generate
a
much
needed
revenue
and
also
reduce
traffic
to
other
cities
versus
sustainability
purpose
and
on
then
yeah
I.
Think
for
now
that
I
think
there
were
the
others
likely
won't
be
accepted
on
so
yeah.
So
that's
so.
C
Okay,
so
a
couple
of
things,
one
I
I
like
most
of
these.
The
issue
here
is
that
I
am
trying
to
give
staff
flexibility
to
work
with
the
consultant.
The
consultant
is
frankly,
I,
I,
think
the
best
regarded
in
the
state
and
certainly
by
hcd
they're,
very
used
to
working
with
them.
C
I
deliberately
did
not
include
a
whole
host
of
things
that
I
originally
intended
to,
because
that
was
the
intent
to
give
staff
flexibility
and
not
tie
their
hands.
So
I'm
going
to
decline
to
accept
this
one
at
present,
not
because
I
disagree
with
these
per
se,
but
because
I
think
In
fairness
to
everybody,
I,
don't
want
them
as
part
of
the
motion
at
present.
I
do,
however,
want
to
see
staff,
take
these
ideas
on
board
and
collect
them
as
the
feedback
that
was
intended
for
today's
session.
D
A
B
D
B
D
E
Three
minutes.
Okay.
Thank
you.
First
question:
it's
unclear
to
me.
Our
the
study
session
recommended
action
is
to
provide
policy.
Direction
I
would
like
a
real,
quick
answer.
It
appears
that
the
policy
direction
is
from
a
letter
provided
by
Cupertino
for
all
yesterday
afternoon.
Is
that
the
policy
Direction
it
is
unclear
to
me.
Could
someone
please
provide
a
yes
or
no
through
the
mayor
through.
E
D
E
Through
the
mayor,
we've
already
seen,
council
member
Chao
attempt
to
add,
and
it
was
declined,
so
it
sounds
like
we're
playing
a
game
of
try
it
and
see.
If
one
council
member
will
agree
with
what
you
suggested
so
as
a
procedure
for
collecting
policy,
Direction
I
would
have
preferred
that
this
meeting
be
conducted
differently,
where
a
a
collection
of
policy
ideas
were
presented
before
the
council.
E
We
had
about
four
or
five
that
were
suggested
in
the
presentation
and
I
said
that
I
appreciated
them
and
I
offered
some
up
as
well
with
regards
to
transitional
housing,
so
I'm
I
I,
the
policy
Direction
I,
would
suggest
here
would
be
that
we
have
another
meeting
and
that's
the
collection
of
policies
that
have
been
suggested
are
brought
back
and
we
actually
have
a
deliberation
rather
than
the
way
that
this
is
working
out
which
is
really
dominated
by
one
individual.
Rather
than
having
a
collective
deliberation
and
having
comments
from
the
public.
E
A
B
B
B
C
B
A
Used
their
time,
I'm
asking
my
councilman
unless
you
have
something
different
to
say,
I
think
I
would
like
to
end
up
entertain
a
vote
first.
If
it
doesn't
go
through,
then
we
can.
Oh
okay,
you
know
what
everybody
gets.
One
more
minute
to
say
things
that
council
member
more,
as
is
her
fans
of
the
ending
vice
mayor
child.
E
So
through
the
mayor,
there
was
a
question
about
impact
fees
and
the
importance
of
making
sure
that
the
impact
fees
are
kept
up
to
date
and
that
that
is
something
that
we
should
be
looking
into.
I,
don't
know
that
that
qualifies
as
a
policy,
but
that
should
be
addressed.
E
Also
I
want
to
clarify
that
all
of
the
comments
as
council
member
Chow
has
has
added
on
that.
All
of
the
comments
made
by
the
council,
members
are
going
to
be
included
and
I
do
hope
that
that
is
going
to
include
the
comments
made
by
members
of
the
public,
because
not
everyone
feels
the
same
way
about
these
policies.
So
I
hope
it
isn't
just
the
council
members,
but
all
of
the
public
who
came
here
and
provided
their
comments.
Thank
you.
F
No
I'm
going
to
be
brief.
I
I
think
I
agree
with
council
member
Moore
that
all
public
comments
made
today
or
or
that
you've
received
will
be
considered
in
your
response
to
hcd
and
I.
Think
the
motion
reflects
that.
B
Two
more
things
so
I
didn't
think
I
would
get
supported,
so
I
didn't
propose
in
earlier
in
the
friendly
amendment.
I,
don't
think
we
should
reduce
impact
fees,
since
the
city
will
need
to
provide
services
to
addition,
25
more
residents
in
eight
years
and
to
mitigate
the
impact
of
all
the
developments.
We
need
those
funding
and
no
reduction
in
parking
space,
since
families
and
seniors
do
not
have
other
Alternatives,
given
the
lack
of
Transit
options
in
Cupertino.
B
B
B
G
G
If
I
can
ask
for
a
point
of
clarification,
the
purpose
of
today's
session
is
to
receive
input
and
to
receive
feedback.
What
I
would
like
to
clarify
is
that
staff
definitely
is
going
to
take
all
points
that
have
been
raised
by
members
of
the
public
and
council
members
and
consider
them
as
appropriate.
I
hope.
This
Council
understand
that
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
incorporate
all
of
the
comments
and
the
points
that
has
been
raised
today
into
the
housing
element.
G
C
A
I'm
going
to
use
for
my
one
minute
to
say
a
few.
My
personal
observations
I
understand
this
community
cares
about
our
housing
elements.
We,
like
city
manager,
says
we
have
conflicting
ideals
and
or
how
this
should
go
through.
I
trust,
our
staff
working
with
our
consultant,
is
going
to
come
up
with
a
compliant
compliance
and
also
a
housing
element.
That's
going
to
bring
Cuba.
You
know
into
the
future
when
I
was
elected.
A
Mayor
I
made
a
very
short
speech
that
we're
here
for
our
current
residents
for
our
date
residents
and
for
our
future
residents
and
our
housing
elements
reflects
that
so
I'm
going
to
trust
our
staff
to
take
all
the
comments.
I
know
you
can't
put
everything
into
your
housing
element,
but
you're
going
to
do
your
best
with
our
very
fine
Consultants
to
come
up
with
the
housing
element,
so
that
our
city
can
have
a
reputation
that
we
are
taking
care
of
residents
all
three
levels.
So,
thank
you.
That's
my
comment
and
I
do
believe.
A
A
C
A
A
A
The
second
action
night
item
consider
taking
a
position
in
support
or
in
opposition
or
otherwise,
regarding
Senate
Bill,
SB
423,
streamlined
housing
approvals,
multi-family
housing
developments.
Do
we
have
a
staff
report
on
this.
D
Mary
mayor
members
of
council,
thank
you,
I,
don't
have
a
presentation,
but
I
will
have
a
I,
will
briefly
introduce
the
item
and
then
turn
it
over
to
council
for
questions
and
public
comment
and
deliverations.
So
the
item
before
council
is
is
to
consider
taking
the
position
of
supportive
in
opposition
to
or
other
regard
rise
regarding,
Senate
Bill
423,
which
is
streamlined,
housing
approvals
for
multi-family
housing
developments,
so
SB
423
would
amend
SB
35
SB
35
is
a
lot
that
I
think
everybody
here
is
familiar
with.
D
It
was
passed
by
the
legislature
in
2017
and
signed
by
the
governor
it.
The
SB
35
requires
local
government
agencies
that
do
not
satisfy
their
share
of
the
Regional.
Housing
needs
assessment
for
specified
income
categories
to
approve
applications
for
certain
Housing
Development
projects
ministerially.
If
the
project
satisfies
objective
planning
standards
and
and
the
applicant
provides
a
a
specified
share
of
affordable
housing
units
in
the
project.
D
As
a
result,
the
law,
preempts
local
discretionary
land
use
Authority
and
eliminates
secret
review
for
qualifying
Housing
Development
projects.
Currently,
SB
35
is
scheduled
to
sunset
in
2026
SP
SB
423
extends
the
Sunset
date
of
xb35
to
January
1
2036.
It
also
makes
substantive
amendments
to
SB
35,
as
it's
currently
amended,
which
are
outlined
in
this
Dash
report
and
I
can
answer
any
questions
you
have
about
those.
D
So
as
noted
in
the
staff
report,
the
league
of
cities
has
requested
that
member
cities
oppose
SB
423
because
it's
a
top
sat
down
one
size,
fits-all
legislation
according
to
Legal
cities
that
overrides
local
control
and
allows
the
approval
of
Housing
Development
projects
without
opportunities
for
public
input.
D
There's
several
cities
that
have
taken
position
and
support,
as
well
as
as
numerous
elected
officials,
a
complete
list
of
organizations
that
support
and
oppose
the
bill
is
provided
in
the
bill
summary
which
is
attachment
B.
So
so
Council
can,
by
majority
vote,
vote
to
support
or
oppose
SB
423.
It
could
also
choose
to
take
no
position,
in
which
case
no
action
would
be
required
with
that
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
A
And
questions
from
the
council,
if
not
may
I,
ask
City
attorney
Jensen
this
bill
is
still
in
the
process
of
going
through
right
and
are
we
expecting
more
amendments
from
this
bill
or
we're.
D
A
F
D
A
H
A
H
We
have
two
requests
to
speak
from
in
Community,
Hall
and
I
see
three
hands:
Four
Hands
raised
on
Zoom.
Just
a
reminder.
Please
have
your
hands
raised
in
the
next
nine
minutes
or
request
a
speed
card
submitted
from
Community
Hall.
We
have
Jennifer
Griffin,
followed
by
Gene
bedord,
welcome
Jennifer.
I
I've
spent
the
last
two
weeks
contacting
the
county
of
Santa
Cruz,
the
city
of
Santa
Cruz,
her
Board
of
Supervisors,
her
assembly
member,
who
is
on
the
natural
resources
committee,
and
also
an
adjacent
assembly
member
who
is
on
the
sorry.
It's
think
it's
the
it's
the
committee
that
it's
on
at
now,
sustainability.
No,
that's
the
wrong
word.
It's
the
whether
the
state
has
to
pay
money.
I
forgot
what
the
word
is
called
I've
had
more
information
about
this
bill
than
ever.
I
I
thought
I
would
I
know
it
inside
and
out.
Senator
weiner
is
not
backing
down
the
same
people
that
brought
us
a
b.
2011
are
bringing
us
this
bill.
I
will
say
again
that
Senator
Weiner
and
Buffy
Wicks
and
yimby
and
Mr
Grayson
are
not
qualified
to
be
making
decisions
about
what
happens
with
the
coastal
commission.
None
they
are.
I
They
may
be
attorneys,
which
is
wonderful,
but
none
of
them
are
trained
scientifically,
and
no
one
has
said
yet
who
the
person
was
that
they
relied
on
to
get
the
information
about
why
we
should
build
in
coastal
areas,
also
Gavin
Newsom
as
one
of
his
responsibilities
as
the
governor
is
to
nominate
people
to
the
12-member
coastal
commission.
If,
if
Gavin
Newsom
is
forced
to
decide
whether
he's
going
to
sign
this
bill
or
not,
he
is
in
conflict
of
his
duties.
I
I
do
not
believe
that
this
bill,
including
the
Coastal
commission,
is
legal.
It
is
completely
contradicting
the
coastal
commission
from
1976
was,
which
was
put
in
by
Statewide
initiative.
People
voting.
My
parents
were
very
involved
in
this.
I
could
not
vote
at
the
time,
but
it
made
a
big
imp
point
on
them.
They
were
always
concerned
about
keeping
the
coastal
areas
pristine
and
there
have
been
horrible
examples
of
building
in
areas
on
the
coast
that
are
dangerous
Florida.
We
had
a
whole
building
collapse
because
nobody
paid
attention.
I
It
was
on
the
coast,
they
lost
200
people.
If
Senator
weiner
wants
to
have
this
bill
through
take
out
the
references
to
the
coastal
commission,
we
will
deal
with
the
SB
35
Fallout,
but
I
do
believe
that
he
will
have
to
release
the
coastal
commission
references
to
get
it
through.
I
have
been
assured,
there
will
be
a
fight.
Thank
you.
Thank.
H
J
J
J
However,
in
reading
the
actual
bill,
as
presented
in
the
communications,
the
sheer
number
of
amendments
concerned
me
in
particular
the
modifications
and
specif
specify
construction
labor
requirements,
as
well
as
the
issue
raised
about
consistency
with
the
city's
climate
action
plan.
Concern
me
at
this
point
I
question
supporting
SB
40
423
in
its
current
form,
particularly
as
it
would
apply
to
Cupertino.
J
K
Hello
I
wanted
to
speak
in
support
of
SP
423,
which
is
both
a
critical
tool
for
housing,
affordability
and
also
for
the
environment
and
I'll
also
try
to
address
some
of
the
concerns
as
well.
That
have
been
brought
up
so
just
to
speak
to
the
success
of
sp-35,
which
has
you
know,
invited
controversy
in
Cupertino,
but
across
the
state
has
produced
more
than
20
000
below
market
rate
homes.
When
you
think
about
what's
actually
effective
from
Sacramento,
and
you
know,
there's
some
criticism
of
sb9,
for
example.
Is
it
working?
Is
it
not?
K
Sp35
has
been
working,
it's
been
producing
below
market
rate
homes
across
the
entire
State,
and
it's
been
one
of
the
most
effective
tools
that
we
do
have
as
well.
It's
also
created
a
lot
of
jobs
as
well.
Over
15
000
construction,
jobs
in
terms
of
affordability,
metrics
to
9000
plus
of
those
have
been
low
income
homes
and
over
5500
very
low
income
homes.
Now,
with
regard
to
the
environmental
concerns,
SB
423
also
has
open
space
and
sensitive
habitat
protections
as
well,
and
also
has
specific
rules
when
it
comes
to
building
on
Wetlands
as
well.
K
It
can't
be,
you
can't
use
it
to
build
housing
on
Wetlands
unless
the
development
in
the
wetlands
has
been
has
been
authorized
by
a
permit
or
other
approved,
issued
pursuant
to
federal
or
state
law,
and
also
takes
into
account
risk
of
wildfire
in
terms
of
coastal
zones.
There
are
actually
a
lot
of
really
well
off
communities
across
California
on
coastal
zones
that
already
have
housing
on
them.
K
This
increases
access
for
people
to
be
able
to
enjoy
coastal
zones
to
live
there,
and
those
communities
can
also
be
more
sustainable
too,
and
so,
while
you
know
appreciating
the
positions
that
have
been
hold
by
the
coastal
commission
and
the
league
at
the
same
time,
this
bill
actually
does
have
a
host
of
different
Environmental
sections
that
are
taken
into
consideration
too.
If
you
don't
take
a
support
position,
I
would
ask
that
you
take
no
position
on
the
bill.
Thank
you.
H
Thank
you
Neil,
and
we
will
now
move
to
our
speakers.
On
Zoom
we
have
six
hands-raised
Sean,
Hughes,
kamyab,
Martian,
Peggy,
Griffin
and
so
we'll
start
with
Sean
welcome
Sean.
L
Thank
you,
speaking
for
myself,
I
highly,
encourage
the
council
to
take
his
support,
or,
at
the
very
least,
no
position
on
SB
423,
hey,
no
position,
Bears,
no
more
risk
to
the
Cupertino,
but
a
supporting
position
reaffirms
our
City's
commitment
to
working
towards
better
housing
outcomes
and
good
faith
and
is
consistent
with
our
climate
action
plan
and
climate
emergency
declaration.
Taking
an
opposing
position
on
one
of
the
single
most
successful
housing
laws
in
recent
years
would
be
extremely
disappointing
and
a
companion
choice.
L
Please
consider
that
in
recent
bills
there
have
been
no
other
recent
bills
that
produces
many
homes
as
this
one
in
California
contemplate.
What
opposition
to
this
bill
would
signal
to
HED
as
we
try
to
get
another
draft
element
past
their
supervision
and,
to
reiterate
a
point
made
in
the
staff
report,
opposing
SB
423
is
likely
indirect
opposition
to
our
goals
that
are
stated
in
the
city's
adopted
on
action
plan.
L
Opposition
arguments
fail
to
understand
what
is
even
in
the
bill
itself,
especially
in
regard
to
Coastal
references
and
have
no
answer
or
actual
suggestion
for
what
would
be
a
better
alternative
to
address
exclusive
communities,
but
blocking
opportunities
for
housing
in
areas
that
have
already
been
built
for
the
sake
of
our
community
needs
building
homes
for
our
future
and
doing
all
we
can
to
fight
climate
change.
Please
take
a
supporting
position
or
no
action
at
all
on
this
agenda
item.
Thank
you.
H
M
Good
evening,
Council
and
staff
I
would
also
like
to
urge
you
to
support
this
bill,
or
at
least
take
no
position
on
it.
I
think
there
are
a
lot.
M
There
are
a
lot
of
pieces
of
housing
legislation
that
have
been
coming
through
the
state
recently
and
and
many
of
those
take
away,
control
from
municipalities
in
cities
like
Cupertino
and
end
up
overriding
their
zoning
and
their
land,
use
decisions
and
I
think
while
sometimes
these
are
necessary,
I
can't
really
fault
any
of
you,
as
as
elected
leaders
of
a
city
for
opposing
them,
but
but
this
bill
isn't
one
of
those.
M
This
bill
essentially
just
streamlines
the
approval
process
or
housing
that
is
already
conforming
with
the
zoning
that
exists
in
a
city
with
the
zoning
that
you
have
established
for
a
particular
area.
All
it
does.
Is
it
streamlines
that
process
and
prevents
these
projects
from
getting
bogged
down
in
in
Endless
hearings
and
approvals?
It
just
makes
a
ministerial
process
and
it
speeds
up
what
we
need
to
create
housing
beyond
that
I
would
really
just
Echo
the
comments
that
have
already
been
said.
This
has
been
an
effective
SB.
M
The
most
effective
piece
of
housing
legislation
in
from
the
past
decade
and
I
would
just
urge
you
to
support
it
or
at
least
take
no
position
on
it.
Thank
you.
H
N
Good
evening,
city,
council
and
staff,
this
bill
is
more
than
just
an
extension
of
the
existing
sb35
as
Gene
goodord
mentioned.
G
and
I
actually
agree
that
there
are
serious
concerns.
It
does
not.
N
She
doesn't
support
it
in
its
existing
state.
California
cities
doesn't
support
it.
I,
don't
support
it.
I'm
asking
you
to
oppose
SB
423
to
actually
stand
up
and
speak
out
against
it.
H
O
Good
evening,
mayor
and
city
council,
my
name
is
Ryan
Globus
and
I'm,
calling
tonight
to
ask
you
to
support
s
Beef
423
or
make
a
neutral
stance.
I,
won't
repeat
what
the
earlier
callers
had
said.
I'll
just
add
that
this
bill
has
unlocked
a
lot
or
sp-35
I
should
say,
has
unlocked
a
lot
of
affordable
housing
in
the
state
which
is
really
helped
with
the
housing
crisis.
O
I'll
also
add
that
I
I
live
in
a
market
rate
house,
but
across
the
street
from
me,
a
couple
affordable,
housing
complexes
went
up
five
or
six
stories
each
about
100
units
each
and
it's
a
lovely
addition
to
the
neighborhood.
It's
not
that
scary
and
I
hope
that
this
bill
can
unlock.
More
of
that.
Thank
you
so
much.
P
Hello
and
thank
you,
everyone
for
your
time
and
patience
today
to
the
staff
and
the
council.
My
name
is
Shivani
kavaluru
and
I
want
to
express
vocal
support
for
SB
423
and
just
want
to
quickly
remind
everyone
that
this
isn't
something
that's
random
or
scary,
and
that
it
must
be
implemented
only
in
the
city
or
county
that
is
currently
already
not
meeting
their
statemented
housing
and
I
do
hope
that
we
can
challenge
some
of
our
classist
impulses
that
do
tend
to
pop
up
when
it
comes
to
coastal
regions.
P
I
think
Carmel
is
a
particularly
poignant
example.
We
want
to
make
affordable
housing,
not
just
in
cities
all
around
us,
but
even
in
places
that
have
been
predominantly
for
wealthy
and
upper
class
folks,
because
we
want
to
desegreate
these
neighborhoods
I
also
want
to
Center
your
attention
to
the
immense
amount
of
Union
support.
Sb
423
is
getting
as
well,
including
other
environmental
organizations.
P
Q
Peggy
Griffin's
comments
and
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
you
know
it
if
SB
35
has
been
doing
such
a
great
job
as
not
even
as
originally
written.
This
is
a
bill
that
has
been
written
and
Rewritten
and
amended
and
amended
as
it
moved
along
and
in
many
ways
many
times
save
the
butts
of
the
developers
weren't
producing
what
they
said.
They
would
and
to
then
say
that
that
the
bill
is
currently
working
as
amended
several
times
already.
Q
Q
It's
just
it's
not
good
governance,
in
my
opinion,
to
begin
with
to
be
proposed
that
way,
especially
since
it's
been
such
a
contentious
bill
from
the
beginning
and
not
every
SBS
35
project
is
a
success
story.
I
promise
you
that
there's
yeah
the
look
on
Cox
Road
in
Saratoga
and
see
what's
happening
there,
and
and
what's
going
to
come
of
that
project,
how
many
affordable
units?
How
many
people
will
be
housed
amongst
the
luxury?
Q
A
You
thank
you
manage
Kirk
and
thanks
for
all
the
comment,
I'm
going
to
close
the
public
comment
period
and
bring
you
back
for
Council
for
discussion.
The
council
members
I
have
five
minutes
to
express
your
opinions
and
and
discussion
on
SB
423.
B
But
during
the
construction,
previous
SB
35
require
I
think
Fair
wage.
What's
that
term
prevailing.
B
D
Yeah
there
there
are
yeah,
there
are
complicated
changes
to
the
the
labor
requirements.
I
I
wouldn't
think
that
they
would
be
retroactive.
B
Oh
so
do
we
make
coming
so
yeah
I
am
very
concerned
that
there
is
the
blanket
removal
of
the
coastal
zone
exclusion
because,
as
we
know
the
way,
if,
if
there
is
no
it's
very
concerning
oh
actually
another
question:
could
this
be
combined
with
ab2011,
so
a
site
that's
qualified
under
AP
2011?
Can
they
apply
SB
35
then
get
streamlined.
B
To
right
now,
okay,
yeah
I,
think
the
streamlining
it's
a
good
initially
I
also
thought
the
biggest
bill
is
a
good
idea,
because
projects
still
need
to
comply
with
objective
standards,
and
the
issue
with
vocal
is
that
there
was
no
objective
standard
on
the
site.
As
a
result,
we
end
up
with
a
gigantic
project,
so
it's
not
the
result
of
the
bill.
I
specifically,
it's
really.
The
previous
console
refused
to
set
objective
standards
on
that
side,
but
then
the
the
other
additional
changes
in
this
bill,
I'm
not
so
sure,
yeah.
A
Okay,
any
other
comments
from
Council
council
member
more
please,
okay,.
E
Thank
you.
So
my
concern
with
SB
423
is
is
any
extension
of
SB
35
and,
and
there
are
a
couple
of
modifications
that
I
would
like
to
see
to
SB
35
and
one
is,
is
coming
out
of
the
sequel,
statutes
and
guidelines,
and
it's
21083
where
they
State
under
subdivision
D.
The
guidelines
shall
include
criteria
for
public
agencies
to
use
in
determining
when
a
proposed
project
is
of
sufficient,
Statewide,
Regional
or
area-wide
environmental
significance
that
a
draft
environmental
impact
report
a
proposed
negative
declaration
or
proposed
mitigated.
E
E
subdivision
B
2.
a
project
has
the
potential
for
causing
significant
effects
on
the
environment,
extending
beyond
the
city
or
county
in
which
the
project
would
be
located
and
I'll.
Just
move
to
the
size
project
subject
to
the
subdivision
include
a
proposed
residential
development
of
more
than
500
dwelling
units,
a
proposed
Shopping,
Center
or
business
establishment,
employing
more
than
one
thousand
persons,
or
encompassing
more
than
500
000
square
feet
of
floor
space.
E
E
It
really
should
not
have
been
approved,
and
if
you
look
in
in
the
sequel,
statutes
and
guidelines,
I
think
that
it
would
be
pretty
simple
to
have
the
addition
of
these
sizes
put
into
the
the
project
I'm
sorry
to
put
into
the
statute
so
that
we
don't
have
projects
of
Statewide,
Regional
or
area-wide
significant,
getting
ministerially
approved.
E
What
happens
when
in
in
describing
our
velco
project
when
you
have
above
ground
residential
parking
over
a
million
square
feet,
and
then
the
way
the
law
was
modified?
Was
that
underground
parking
and
it
was
over
3
million
square
feet
of
underground
parking-
was
not
counted
because
the
law
has
a
two-thirds
residential
requirement.
E
It
was
allowed
for
the
parking
garages.
They
were
over
a
million
square
feet
to
be
counted
as
though
the
actual
Apartments,
so
people
wondered.
How
is
it
that
valko
ended
up
using
a
housing
law
to
worsen
the
housing
shortage?
Well,
it's
because
of
a
deficiency,
a
defect
in
the
law,
where
you're
allowed
to
count
all
that
square
footage
of
parking
garages,
though
those
were
actual
residential
units.
Now
I've
heard
people
say
that
you
know
it's
done.
E
Sp
35
has
done
a
great
job,
adding
housing
and
there
are
really
good
projects
which
you
can
just
look
at
it.
You
see.
There's
you
know
six
stories,
five
stories
of
residential
units,
there's
retail
on
the
bottom.
You
can
just
look
at
it
and
you
can
tell
you're
looking
at
something
that's
at
least
two-thirds
residential
when
you're
looking
at
how
the
math
can
be
skewed.
E
As
we
see
at
valko,
you
end
up
with
1.9
million
square
feet
of
Office
Space
and
then
another
over
400
000
square
feet
of
retail,
and
then
we
only
had
2
402
residential
units
around
260,
000
I'm,
sorry
about
2.3
million
square
feet
versus
the
the
other
total.
So
it
didn't.
It
didn't
actually
work
out
when
you're
looking
at
the
actual
units
to
be
the
two-thirds.
E
So
these
two
modifications,
one
I,
think
it
would
help
prevent
a
lot
of
Heartache
for
a
lot
of
cities
to
put
the
size
constraints
of
area-wide
and
Statewide
and
Regional
significance.
Just
pull
that
code
right
out
of
SQL,
put
it
into
put
it
into
the
SB
35
law
and
then
clarify
that
you
can't
count
parking
garages
as
though
that
is
where
people
live,
because
that
doesn't
happen.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
council,
member
more
so
I
am
going
to
repeat
my
first
question.
That
is,
this.
Bill
is
still
being
amended
going
through
or
could
get
a
minute
going
through
the
the
law
process
right,
yeah.
A
Committee
back
I'm,
more
inclined
to
watch
it
to
keep
a
watch
on
the
bill
and
have
it
come
back
when
it's
in
a
definite
form
and
I
do
have
to
tend
to
agree
with
Jennifer
Griffin
that
I
do
not
let
that
coastal
region
in
the
bill
and
I
cannot,
in
my
conscience,
supported
now
with
that
Ingot.
So
I
like
to
keep
a
watch
on
it
with
the
city
attorney's
office
be
able
to
keep
a
track
on
it
and
keep
us
informed.
Yes,
of
course,
okay.
So
that's
the
position
I
would
take.
A
I
would
not
take
any
actions
on
it
and
I
do
a
sort
of
agree
with
because
remember
child.
Our
Valco
project
was
one
of
a
kind
that,
because
there
wasn't
there
wasn't
a
height
or
a
limit
on
wait
office.
Space
I
think
somehow
we're
we're
wearing
a
disadvantage
on
that
and
I
have
to
agree
with
some
public
comments
that
SB
35
did
produce
some
very
needed.
Low-Income
housing
I.
Don't
think
it's
a
terrible
bill
to
start
with
I.
Just
can't
imagine
coastal
regions
have
to
you
know
deal
with
that.
A
I
I
am
a
very
protective
of
our
coastal
regions
and
I
do
believe
that,
with
all
the
climate
action
with
all
the
rising
sea
level
rising,
we
need
to
really
pay
attention
to
that
and
I
see
that
the
coastal
region
commissions
are
are
opposing
it.
So
I
would
like
to
take
a
position
to
watch
and
let
city
council,
let
city
manager,
see
the
attorney's
office.
A
B
So
I
looked
up
AP
2011,
so
it
still
required
prevailing
wage
and
it's
administrial
and
I
think
it's
20
percent
affordable
right.
So
if
someone
apply
2011
on
plus
SB
35,
they
only
need
10
percent
affordability.
If
the
city
did
not
meet
the
call
yet
and
then
also
they
don't,
they
need
a
weaker
prevailing
wage
requirement
right.
D
So
you
see
so
so
yeah,
yes,
AB
2011
is
a
ministerial
and
also
has
a
prevailing
wage
requirement.
I'm,
not
sure
that
that's
the
level
of
affordability
in
AB,
2011.
I
still
not
sure
that
I
could
answer
sitting
here.
How
the
two.
B
Yeah,
so
it
seems
that
we
have
many
other
housing
bills
that
have
passed.
My
most
concerning
is
the
SB
35.
It's
only
required
10
percent
affordable,
that's
even
lower
than
our
BMR
15
and
20
for
for
for
sale
units.
So
the
affordability
requirement
is
too
low
for
a
streamlined
project,
and
that
needs
to
be
changed.
So
I
think
we
have
to
take
a
strong
position
to
oppose
it,
because
this
is
going
to
extend
it
for
another
10
years.
The
legislators
should
come
back,
revise
it
with
a
better
Bill
next
time.
A
Thank
you,
council,
member,
ciao,
I.
Think
that's
your
time.
While
you
have
30
seconds
left
council
member
from
advice,
would
you
like
to
council?
Member
from
you
go
first
vice
sure.
C
I
think
that
it
would
be
valuable
for
all
of
my
colleagues
to
reread
it.
The
the
bill,
even
in
its
current
form,
would
still
allow
us
to
maintain
our
our
current
BMR
maximum
of
15
percent.
That
remains
in
the
bill
that
has
never
changed.
There
are
some
differences
that
would
allow
the
SP
35
as
amended
through
this
bill
to
access
Live
tech
funding
more
easily.
But
that
is
not
the
same
thing
as
saying
that
all
of
a
sudden,
we
can
only
impose
a
10
requirement.
C
You
know
to
give
some
idea
of
how
this
would
be
taken
in
Sacramento
and
I.
I.
Think
that
it's
important
for
us
to
take
seriously
what
our
messages
mean.
There
I
direct
everyone
back
to
previous
attempts
at
amending
this
legislation
and
in
particular,
ab1174,
which
passed
last
year
and
was
directed
specifically
at
cupertino's
activities
with
relation
to
to
SB,
35
and
I
would
direct
you
to
Pages
four
and
five
of
the
Senate
local
governance.
C
For
example,
they
have
imposed
new
conditions
bulked
at
minor
modifications
and
attempted
to
withhold
permits
for
excavation
and
encroachment
after
the
Project's
approval.
So
far,
they
have
been
successful
in
delaying
the
project
for
almost
three
years
to
the
point
where
valco's
SB
35
approval
is
about
to
expire
prior
to
the
commencement
of
construction.
C
The
Valco
developer,
Sandhill
properties
and
other
Advocates
have
returned
to
the
legislature
and
every
year,
following
the
passage
of
SB
35,
to
revise
its
Provisions
in
an
attempt
to
head
off
the
city's
efforts,
spending
significant
time
and
resources
essential
explains
that
their
intent
with
ab1174
is
to
avoid
litigation.
But
local
governments
are
a
crafty
bunch
and
Cupertino
will
likely
find
additional
ways
to
hold
up
Falco,
even
if
the
changes
in
ab1174
occur.
C
Furthermore,
sp-35
already
prohibits
a
local
government's
review
and
issuance
of
subsequent
permits,
from
quote
inhibiting
chilling
or
in
any
way
precluding
the
development
end
quote:
cupertino's
actions
seem
clearly
intended
to
delay
the
project.
Litigation
may
be
the
only
way
to
ensure
that
Falco
is
successfully
constructed.
This
is
who
we
are
to
Sacramento.
F
I'd
be
very
brief,
maybe
I'm
concerned
about
the
timing
of
this
bill.
We
are
talking
about
the
housing
element
and
I
wasn't
clear
that
there'd
be
unintended
consequences
to
approving
or
not
approving
SP
423
I'm
also
conflicted
with
the
language
about
the
prevailing
wage,
I'm,
not
sure
how
the
final
version
will
come
out.
So
my
position
is
to
not
take
a
position.
A
Thank
you.
Okay,
councilman
Memorial
have
used
your
five
minutes,
so
I'm
gonna
go
to
council
member
ciao.
You
have
30
seconds.
B
So
things
written
in
the
bill
analysis
doesn't
mean
it's
all
true.
What
was
quoted
there
is
inaccurate.
The
city
did
not
win
anything
to
put
any
barrier
to
vocal
project
and
apparently
they
have
hired
the
lobbyist
to
put
such
paragraph
in
the
bill
analysis
and
they
have
they.
They
were
involved
in
in
promoting
some
loopholes
included
in
the
original
SB
35
II.
A
Okay,
I
think
we
have
made
our
points
very
clear,
I
think
councilman
from
you
do
have
a
couple
minutes.
If
you
like
to
take
make.
C
A
So
I
do
believe
that
our
council
members
have
made
our
position
pretty
clear
and
so
I
am
going
to
take
a
straw
vote
of
what
we
want
to
do
just
to
go
ahead,
and
so
we
can
get
a
feeling
of
it.
Why
don't
we
start
from
council
member
more?
What
is
your
proposal?
D
Elaborating
your
positions
because
may
I
suggest
this
procedurally
I
think
it
would
be
more
appropriate
at
this
point
for
you
to
either
request
a
motion
or
or
if
or
if,
you're
com.
If
the
intent
of
your
comments
was
to
table
this
item
to
to
to
either
request
emotion
or
make
a
motion
to
table
the
item.
Okay,.
A
D
A
B
A
I'm
not
withdrawing
my
motion
so
and
I'm
calling
for
vote
with
them
appetite
I
do
think.
Councilmember
I
want
you
to
explain
that
a
little
bit,
it's
not
debatable.
Okay,
thank
you.
So
I
would
entertain
a
vote
by
light.
Please.
A
I
must
admit
that
I'm
in
learning
mode
every
day,
so
I
would
need
to
learn
more
robber's
procedures.
So
that
concludes
this
item
and
I'm
calling
for
a
German
at
9
31
pm
foreign.