State council meeting to order. Today is Monday, November 10, 2014. He all please rise for the roll call.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mark. Roll call, please.
Council member Chang. Yes. Council member Centauro. Yes. Council member Mahoney. Yes. Yes. Mayor Wong. Presence.
Through moon mayors and presentations seen none. Madam clerk, do we have any postponements? No, postponement.
The next item? Yes. Mr. Mayor. Yes. It came to my attention light this afternoon as it did to yours. I think in everybody that this meeting.
Well, apparently it was published in the newspaper from Monday. There's notice that was on the website that was only corrected this morning.
That the meeting first was posted as Tuesday, November 10. Now, of course, that's inconsistent.
But given that our regular meetings are on Tuesday, I'm concerned about how this information might have confused those.
It's not like we don't have a great crowd, but I'm concerned about noticing. Yeah. I'm concerned about the noticing that we've done here.
I would like to understand both the legal aspect here as well as what and understand what the right things to do is.
I mean, I actually hate to send everybody home, but I'm a bit torn because if we said Tuesday, November 10th, in one place rather than Monday, November 10th,
what's the right thing to do here? Let's start with the legal and go on from there.
That's a very good point by some of your sinks of staff.
Madam C attorney.
Okay, here's my understanding and grace can the city clerk can check in with me, but what I understand is that there is a legal and oldest that said Monday,
November 10th. The agenda that we have here says Monday, November 10th. The website agenda has November 10th.
The call for this special meeting, which is the narrative right here that is done and signed by the deputy clerk in the clerk's office, does have that inconsistent time.
It was always said to be November 10th and as I said in one place online, the call for the special meeting, the narrative, as opposed to the agenda is incorrect.
And what was that rectified?
The city clerk told me that that was rectified this morning, correct on the portion of the call for the special basis.
Online on the call for special meeting notice online only.
So, and what is our noticing requirement? The legal noticing requirement for the special meeting?
A special meeting legal notices 24 hours in advance of a meeting.
However, the legal notice under the state law under the government code is 10 days and that was done correctly and both are displayed in the legal ed and that's his Monday, November 10th.
So we are perfectly legal in holding this hearing this evening.
Is that correct?
Correct.
Correct. There is a technical legal approval on this.
So my only question to my colleagues is, Gash, you know, I would hate.
One part of me would hate to send this crowd home tonight.
I respect that they want to speak. They want to be heard and whatever confusion was created by the snow.
It didn't phase them. They're here, right? On the other hand, there may be folks not in this room who would want to be who are going to show up here tomorrow night.
And I'd like to hear Mr. Mayor from colleagues and see, you know, if we have any other options or if the right thing to do on balance here is to proceed this evening.
And I'm, as I say, I'm really torn.
Well, tomorrow's the legal holiday. So, so office will be closed on that.
And then I'll be at that stage day thing, you know.
As you can see, we have a full house tonight, so I have no problem going forward because I see that.
It's been fully notified.
Then the other opinions.
If we add it like when Wednesday this week, would that work?
Yeah, we can now finish today, maybe we can extend it till Wednesday.
And that's what I was going to suggest.
Yeah, we got to the meaning that we're here already.
You send them home and bring them back. You just want more trip for them.
So, so you can hold all a pause.
I would really appreciate it. Thank you.
So, I guess I'm not really in favor of Wednesday because then you have a really short notice in period night.
I think it's not right.
I'm a little concerned that we're having it in a non-regard or meeting time in the first place.
And I don't know about the public, but I had a hard time trying to digest 2,000 pages in the last few days.
I'm at the rest of you.
I actually would like to show a hands between today and postponing it for a week.
How many people would rather have it tonight?
How many people would rather have it another time?
Okay. I'm for tonight.
Thank you, Mark. That's very helpful.
It's clearly, you know, it is unfortunately we had a technical error there, but it's pretty clear that from the amount of people here in the amount of emails we've gotten that it's well known what the agenda is tonight and what we're going to be talking about.
And if we make decisions tonight, that's perfectly legal.
We have properly noticed this meeting in the legal sense.
Yes.
Okay. I want to make sure.
Thank you.
I'll stand down on this.
Okay.
Now going to our communications.
This portion of the meetings reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any mayors not on the agenda.
Thank you.
Speakers are limited to three minutes.
And Mokin's the state law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda.
If you're here for the first time, you need to fill out a blue card.
When you step up to the podium, there is a green light yellow light red light.
When you approach 30 seconds, that means please wrap up and red means stop when you see a stop sign.
So I would really appreciate.
It would be very helpful that no clause, no going as we want to make this public hearing as far as possible.
So everybody's can be heard, no matter which side you're on.
So I would really strongly appreciate it.
Or I will stop the meeting and ask you to please don't do that.
Or communication is again, items that are not on the agenda, not on the general plan and not on the on the housing element.
The first person I have is rotor fry.
And thank you, rodent for help clarifying your subject matter.
Thanks.
I'm rodent fry.
And among other things, I'm working on putting in an exhibit in San Francisco celebrating the Centennial for the Panama Pacific International Exhibition.
So being historically minded.
I keep on seeing this whole house at Rancho Santonio, which is in Cupertino, called this Hammond Snider House, that is supposed to
be protected by the general plan.
And 15 years ago, the Oak Valley development was created.
And there was this house, this old house.
And in fact, it was owned by a by a 49er who discovered, actually discovered the Scott River in Golden.
He was a pioneer and did no irrigation grain growing.
And people followed him in Santa Clara Valley.
He had a ranch up at Rancho Santonio.
And this house is a remnant of it.
So Oak Valley gets developed.
And there's this house.
And the house gets sold to the historic society for a dollar.
And apparently was going to be taken care of.
And there was also money that exchanged hands.
And it was supposed to be taken care of.
And now it's kind of suffering from neglect.
And here it is.
And there's a there's a trail that goes around.
It's called the Hammond Snider Trail.
And there's a historic home.
And it's over by Stephen Streak and Foothill.
And it's a very popular, long stroller, baby hikes or hikes, baby mommies strollers.
So here's the house.
When it had a caretaker.
And there's a flag flying.
Oh, I don't know what you can see.
There's a flag flying up there.
And here it is.
Not too long ago.
I took this picture.
And it's kind of suffering from neglect.
So what's going on?
It had a caretaker.
And the caretaker was evicted according to the county rules.
And because there was cancer risk up there caused by the quarry.
The quarry in the county got together.
And the county said, well, quarry if you need to.
If you put in modern pollution controls, somebody can live in the house.
But if you don't, you can just make sure the house is vacant.
So basically, this is towards society.
Made the house vacant and rented it to the house.
So now we have a house that we kind of don't have that.
Affordable housing.
There are anymore, which is unfortunate.
But the thing that's really.
And here's the lease.
I've got the lease here, which I can show you.
It's like 15 pages.
And the thing is the general plan says the house is important.
And it needs to be preserved.
There's not even a plaque out there.
It's had it for 15 years.
And I think that we need to come.
Get to a point where we need to make a decision.
You know, maybe we put a plaque out there.
And we say that's good enough.
Or maybe we need to make sure that this house gets preserved.
And maybe that's good enough.
But I don't think that we should just let neglect happen.
I think we need to be.
Make a decision.
And you really are tensed up.
As to one of the other.
Thank you very much.
I'll give you my paper work.
Mayor, can I ask a little bit more than a question?
A clarifying question only.
Yes.
So what do you point what the city can do?
Should do to preserve this historical building?
Well, there's a number of things.
One thing we do know is that his sort of buildings any building,
benefits from having an occupant.
There is no occupant in there.
I talk with the pioneers of Santa Clara Valley about this.
The other thing we know is that pollution is bad for store buildings.
And so that's another issue is that there is more pollution.
And there another option would have been to have pollution controls at Lehigh.
You know, there's been talk about possibly moving it to Macau and Ranch,
which is, but you know, we need to kind of move for it.
Move, do something before it falls down or burns down.
The other issue is there's been a lot of weeds around the area.
And I talked with Don Son about that.
And I understand the historic society did some, did some weeding around there.
But, you know, it's suffering from neglect.
So you're seeing, this sounds, this is right next to the Dehigh,
it's also West, it's the membrane.
Well, as I showed on the map, it's right here, and here's the,
it's actually not, not really the plant.
It's more like that esmaterial storage area thing that big pile of stuff that
that mountain that you see when you go down the Steven Street Boulevard.
It's kind of right across the street from there.
Yeah, but I heard that some of the neighbors,
near by there, told me that there's occupant in there.
It's just a red or snack.
And a bunch of girls in there.
Right, but there's no care, there's no care take or no family living there.
All right, so my question to the city attorney is,
if we, if there's a building as a historical building,
and then the owner or the attendant is not taking care of it,
what can the city do?
We can not let it went down and then enough collapse,
then see this host historical building is gone.
We cannot do that.
Can we?
Otherwise, we don't need to design it as a historical building.
The story goes inside and we're on the building.
And the knee highs are renting it for $1 a month.
So that's what this is.
Actually, they bought it for a back.
They're renting it for $1,100 a month.
Oh, you didn't have an under a month.
So, thank you for the direction.
Instead, they could have put in better pollution controls.
But anyway, it was a agreement between the historic society and the,
but I wanted, we're talking about the house.
You know, we're talking about the house.
You know?
No, I'm not going to.
Yeah.
So, I wanted to ask them to do.
Yeah, the question.
So, if it's, if it's, the city owns the building,
the city does have obligations of maintain it under general plan,
because it's, if we own it, if it's owned by private party,
you can, you can try to decode enforcement.
We don't really have a historic building maintenance code.
So, if it's not owned by us, then, then we're limited in what we can do,
but it might seem to call.
It's in the general plan.
They talk about, yeah, I don't really, I don't have any teeth,
but it is mentioned in the general plan.
We just list things in the general plan.
Yeah, you need to historic building maintenance code to do that.
So, probably that's the next level of what we should do, maybe.
We do, we have very few buildings that are on the,
I mean, we're just probably be for this building,
and maybe one or two others in the entire city.
Yeah, but then if D.I. ran it for $1100 and purposefully,
you get this building off to the people.
That's the big building event.
And then all of these people go,
people go, and then they go.
And then they go.
They go, and then they go, and then they go,
and they go, and they go, and then they go, and they go, and they go,
and they think, so anybody's going like,
so that's what it's got to be like, if we weren't there,
so we can just get help, and they can want to go,
and they're going like, okay, let's go for this building.
So, you get to see them eating food,
society and they've used it. There may be very well provisions in those agreements that
require them to maintain it. So it's all building. I don't know that it is.
I don't believe it was ever building. It was never building. It was part of the discussion
of the Oak Valley development. How about this? We'll look at it and report. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I would like to put it on the agenda for the discussions sometime in the
future. This is not the place to do that.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you.
Thank you, Roda.
Next speaker is Peggy Griffin.
This is under oral communication.
Mr. Griffin.
Okay, thank you. There you are.
My name is Peggy Griffin.
My name is Peggy Griffin, and I'm a Cupertino resident.
I am frustrated as resident trying to understand and participate in the process.
When the housing element is mentioned in study groups, planning city,
I guess I'm sorry to interrupt you, but are you talking about the housing element?
I'm trying to talk about communication in general.
The definitions of housing element, retail, we as citizens need to know what these mean.
So, Nancy Clerk, can you help clarify that this is under oral or not?
Okay, so I'm going to keep you under the agenda, okay?
So, what does that mean?
If you could have a CL call you later.
Okay.
The next person is a meat of this was, a meat of this was,
and that might be the person that we were looking for at the planning commission.
And again, I'll say the name, a meat of BIS, W-A-S,
and that might be the other one over there.
I just want to check these carefully to make sure that there is no more oral communication here.
So, please give me a minute here.
Is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak in oral communication?
Can you raise your hand?
Not items not on the agenda.
Jennifer?
Griffin?
And then, sir, you can be next.
Can you please fill out a blue card case, sir?
Okay, sorry, Paul.
Jay said, it got lost in the shuffle.
Thank you, Mayor Wong.
I know tonight's going to be busy and confusing.
Since the Snyder Hammond House came up, I understand.
I mean, I have been to a lot of meetings in the last couple of years,
and a lot of people were talking about the Snyder Hammond House,
and I believe that the last time I heard about it was
that I understand the tenant was going to be a let go
in June of, I believe, a year ago,
and that the House would be preserved.
I understand documents are being stored in it from Lehigh,
pertaining to the history of the area.
It is a prominent house.
It was built in 1885 for the daughter.
That is actually the Hammond family.
It was built for Mr. Snyder.
Mr. Snyder actually owned all that land, bought it in 1865,
which is what Rancho San Antonio is on now.
I think it's very important that a Victorian house like this
is not let to just slide under the skirts.
I mean, it's been up there for so long.
We talked about it.
It's in Rancho San Antonio Park.
There's a trail that goes around it.
It has gingerbread on the porch, blah, blah, blah.
I think that we need to have a valid discussion about this
because I believe this is the last Victorian in Cupertino.
Cupertino has had a poor record of maintaining their Victorian homes.
And I think that this, the only reason this place has survived
is because of where it is.
So we need to have a serious discussion of what we're going to do with this.
And I believe Park and Rec talked significantly about it about a year ago.
I mean, I go to these meetings and I've heard Snyder Hammond come up many,
many times.
I researched it for some reason.
I actually, my husband goes up and walks circles around it on the trail.
So we need to do something proactive with this.
I think I said before that if no one's in it, it will burn down.
So let's protect it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jennifer.
And gentlemen, here who's under all of the approaches can't find your card.
I just don't have your card, sir.
I apologize.
I gave it to the clerk.
Okay, that's okay.
That's okay.
If you can just think you're going to need to be record, please.
The City Attorney addressed part of my concern here.
We switched to the projector.
Oh, my name is Steve Sharf.
Thank you.
I live on summer set drive.
I did receive two emails and one contact with a neighbor who was asking me,
why are they having this meeting on Veterans Day?
I'm a veteran and I went and looked and I didn't even realize it.
But apparently many people, if those three were confused, there's probably many others as well.
So as far as the folks behind you too.
Right.
But just because they're here, there could be twice as many.
So I wouldn't suggest postponing the meeting, but I would just encourage the city staff to be a little more careful with these legal notices.
Because there could be a challenge to the legality of anything done here today.
Thank you.
Again, to you Mr. Sharf and to the audience, we deeply apologize for the, for the small little snafu.
As Vice Mayor Sinc said, that talking to the attorney that this meeting is legal.
And that obviously, all of you will not be here if you didn't get the notification.
That is the end of oral communication.
Unless there's anybody who wants to speak on any item that's not on the agenda.
Seeing none.
I'm going to consent calendar, which is nothing under the consent calendar,
and also nothing under the second reading or ordinances.
I've been requested by both the C, Trinity and C manager to take a short break.
And the reason why we're taking a short break is obviously we're away over capacity for the farm,
our show for this room.
And we need to rearrange the folks.
And we'll go ahead and call a break by mid-break.
Are you going to ask?
To order.
And the first item is public hearing.
Is the certification of the final environmental impact report during a planning amendment,
draft housing element, resilience, specific amendment, and municipal code amendments.
This is a very important item, as you know, that we have a full house.
And again, it's very important to not boot here.
Our C staff are consultants.
The folks who are speaking, because we should be very respectful and we will allow everyone to speak.
Everything.
Maybe we have to start a report, Pew.
Certainly.
Good evening, Council.
Just like to start off with reminding everybody why we are
amending our general plan.
In August 2012, the City Council directed staff to begin the general
plan amendment in order to replenish office and hotel allocation to inform the
velcro shopping district specific plan to consolidate individual requests that the
city staff got from property owners, requesting specific general plan amendments,
to address recent state law requirements and update our general plan to
inform to those state law requirements and to address other general plan
cleanup items just to make sure that there is internal consistency and to make sure that there is
consistency between all the different elements and chapters of the general plan.
In addition to that, about the same time, the city was mandated by the state to update
the housing element in order to assess and update the housing plan of the housing element.
In addition to that, identify sites that address the city's regional housing
needs allocation, which was assessed to the city by the association of
barrier governments.
And also to make necessary changes to the municipal code to address state law requirements and
to make sure that there is internal consistency with the general plan.
And with that, I will hand the presentation over to our consultant from
MIG, Dan Anston, to discuss the kind of outreach that we did for this project.
Good evening Mayor and council members, Dan Anston with MIG.
So the first big question is what is a general plan?
How is acted as a work?
Where is the function of in the city government?
General plan, the city's general plan is really the guiding policy document for the city.
And it is also required by state law every city has to have an adopted general plan.
The focus of the general plan is to establish the city-wide vision for the future,
supported by goals, policies, and specific strategies related to land use,
circulation, health and safety, parks and open space, all topics covered by the city.
In turn, all city-specific plans, master plans, zoning decisions, other implementation requirements
must be consistent with the city's general plan by law.
Similarly, all land use and environmental decisions made by the city council must also be considered
consistent with the general plan.
The general plan, however, does not approve or entitle any specific development projects.
Probably owners have control over when they wish to propose a project and file decisions on
development projects or may on a case by case basis by either city staff,
Plan Commission or city council.
So, schedule this project, we've been, we're going to amendment for 18 months.
The process has been focused on identifying analyzing options for increases,
increase uses on the city's major mixies corridors.
The amendment, as mentioned, took 18 months, beginning spring of 2013, including with public hearings tonight, in four major phases.
During this process, there's been a lot of input to different policy ideas and different components of the plan.
It includes technical analysis.
The consultant team prepared three major reports during this process.
The first was a sense and opportunity port in September last year, which outlined major existing conditions and
opportunities.
The second was a market study, which looked at the capacity of different types of land uses, the demand for them.
And the third was a retail strategy report that looked at retail in particular, and also the
Valco site, in particular, on different retail uses that could be attracted to the city.
Similarly, there's also other projects going on with the city and also the region,
Plan Bay Area, is a regional plan that dissociation and barrier governments and
metropolitan transportation commission adopted in 2013.
It sets broad land use and housing and transportation goals to 2040.
The city is also planning a climate action plan, which is a draft right now.
It looks at specific strategies for improving sustainability.
But the real focus of this 18 month process has been the community input process.
Overall, we've had 24 public workshops, meetings, study sessions, open houses, or hearings during this project.
There's also been additional property on our outreach.
And we have a series of stakeholder meetings, both with community groups, school districts,
other entities in town.
To bring attention information about this project, we also set up a series of notifications.
We have three new letters and flyers, three postcards that were sent to every mail address in
Cupertino, also regular email updates.
We developed a project website that became this portal for all information about the project,
linked from the city's website.
It also includes interactive survey.
As of this week, we have 260 people registered for updates to that website.
The first major community event we had was community wide workshop number one,
which is held in July 18, 2013.
This workshop looked at assets, opportunities, and challenges facing the city.
And it's extensively the input from this informed the 2040 community vision and guiding principles,
which are starting point to the general plan update process.
In October 2013, we started a more focused discussion on alternatives.
And as part of this, we had an extensive series of community outreach events.
This included the city hosting workshops and meetings to solicit input on future land uses,
height, mobility, urban design concepts.
Approximately 170 people attended one of four major meetings and workshops that the city held.
The purpose of these workshops was to do twofold.
One was a community design survey, which tested potential land uses,
design and mobility concepts on each of the major mixie corridors,
the major streets in Cupertino.
Specifically, the survey was focused around three categories,
street scale mobility enhancements, parks and plazas, buildings.
Under each category, participants were shown a series of images, and then also asked to respond to the following questions, which included whether they liked the idea for Cupertino, where it would be most appropriate within the city.
We did an online version of this as well, so the entire survey was online and we said, you know, we had over 70 people conduct the online version as well.
We did a combined summary of all this input for commercial uses. There was pretty clear consensus, one or two story commercial throughout the major corridors was desirable.
When we started talking about Valco or CERN areas in the city, there was an interest in maybe higher stories for commercial districts, so long as it was an outdoor pedestrian commercial sort of volatile format.
For office uses, office development between two and six stories was also seen as desirable, again, where specifically it's located was key concern.
Similar results on hotel as well, and also for residential uses mix use in particular two to six stories was desirable but again key areas.
All the input from this is on the general plan website, and it's been the website for several months.
That's a question. Yes. So you have these little boxes of people voted on. Were staff members allowed to vote?
At the workshops, no, there's just workshop participants. The online survey was set up for anyone who wanted to respond. The only criteria for the online survey was tied to IP address, so only one IP address could fill out one survey.
Okay, so staff members, I've heard staff members were voting in the workshop, so that's not true.
Just I don't believe it's over my recollection. It was just members of community who had clickers.
Okay. Thank you.
So the second part of this workshop was looking the future of the Valco site.
And for this, we had a series of group exercises all around a map of Valco and different chips for different mobility improvements, land use improvements.
The chips were three-dimensional, so they not only had land use and approximately size, but also height each chip was essentially one story.
The input we received from this exercise was extensive some groups, as shown here, desired very little change of Valco, other groups other than making more successful.
Some groups had sort of a mid-level of change, moving a few buildings around and finally some other groups had more extensive change shown on their different maps.
In total, 24 different groups shared their visions for the future of the Valco site.
All maps included some form of retail, so keeping the commercial presence on the Valco site.
Nine of the groups desired little or no changes, maybe a few things to make reteniting or reposition them all, but largely to stay the same.
So can I ask a question?
Just nine out of 24 groups, say they want to keep it the way it is.
Correct, largely no changes, reteniting, maybe add a building here or there, but not a lot of changes on the site.
Okay, thank you.
We have a little graphic here showing some of the differences.
16 groups included some form of office, which is somewhat of a new use, particularly to use on Valco, although there is office in the approximate area.
12 of the groups or half had some form of hotel as part of the revision of the Valco site.
15 groups had some form of residential use on the Valco site.
A few of these groups specifically requested a new residential be either affordable or seen or only.
So some sort of condition on the new residential.
So out of this, extensive can I ask you another question?
Yes, on the 15 groups they want to have a residential in there.
Do they know how many units are going to be there?
No, we didn't go as far as a unit count because there's a more flexible exercise where they could just pick different uses and heights.
Because 10 units compared to 1000 units totally different.
Correct, okay.
So some common themes out of the community input portion of the projects.
Future development in Valco should provide community benefits and not impact public services in particular schools.
Careful consideration needs to be taken for any residential in terms of its density, location, type, single family, senior housing apartments, condos.
Increased building heights could be considered if they're not adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods.
Transit pedestrian and bicycle mobility needs need to be expanded and made safer throughout town.
And the Valco shopping district should be redeveloped as or retended to make it more economic successful and desirable to the community.
So out of this community input process all these workshops and meetings we prepared a alternative report that had three alternatives.
These largely book ended the discussion of change alternative A had less development allocation less growth alternative C had more development allocation and more growth and change.
So just to give you some background on the basic elements that have informed the general plan.
One is state and regional regulations and best practices those relate to climate change land use and transportation changes.
And that has to do with the new sustainable community strategy that was adopted by a bag and the metropolitan transportation commission for our region.
Complete streets and connectivity which is a state requirement now for all general plans that make sure that streets are designed for all modes of transportation including cars bikes pedestrians.
Performance measures for mobility that's something that is an upcoming issue that we need to address and that the general plan has a placeholder for sustainability which is another.
State requirement and then finally the housing element which is a state mandated element and we will go into a lot more detail.
In terms of that a little bit later on in the process.
Can ask you a question already go back to the previous.
We'll need to talk about company street and the connectivity and also performance measure for mobility.
Are you going to have more in that to show.
We can have as much detail as you wish.
At this point we were going to focus on the five key questions and the housing element.
But essentially what it what the state is still developing measures for level of standards for mobility we don't have those yet at this point.
And so we have a placeholder in the general plan because it's it's a it's a question right now.
So for for the public span of the can you translate this in English right.
I'm trying to find the ability.
Back well the before the performance the only one of the only performance measures used right now is level of service for streets and that talks about the second for traffic.
Okay, they talked about for cars seconds of delay at an intersection.
That's what's used.
Thank you.
But now the state wants us to look at pedestrian bike and other ways of measuring that and those measurements are not yet developed.
But it's going to be developed and also mass transit metrics and I'm sure they do yeah I mean again it's not just cars.
No it's all the all the most transportation and so we don't have those numbers yet we don't have.
You know metrics yet but at this point we know the state does want to look at vehicle miles traveled for every land use that is created.
Because the number of the distance that you need to travel because of a land use of the number of trips it creates adds to air quality impacts and other impacts.
So that that's a metric that we know is going to be there and we've analyzed that in our EIR.
So for example having jobs.
And housing.
Right.
I was one another.
Yeah.
A lot of things for example.
Right.
So.
Right.
Yes.
So it doesn't prove for example if you've got one use that creates traffic and you have another one that helps it because you're locating them next to each other.
It's a good thing and it reduces vehicle miles traveled.
Thank you.
Yeah, but then next to each other doesn't mean they will be working even here and then working there.
Right.
There's no necessity a connection there right.
Yes.
Our our consultants can tell you how they come up with those numbers are environmental consultant there's actually a methodology you use the same methodology you used to figure out how many seconds of delay you have it in intersection you know they're all.
They're all done in a in a in a in a technical way and the same way so it's at least you're comparable.
Okay, so let me ask you the clarification of the state doesn't have a performance major on the mobility yet.
No, not yet other than vehicle miles traveled.
That's the only one we have at this point.
But if they don't have the performance management.
How can they men they us we have to do with this many units that doesn't make any sense.
And we can go.
They come the current from the races and is they cannot get out of their house because you're.
So how can they do that?
So would you want to wait until we get to the housing element to tell you how we come up with the units we can do that.
Okay.
And so that the final thing is the housing element which is a state mandated element.
And then we can go more into the schedule that we need to adopt it by so that you kind of have a better understanding of what it means.
But we're going to spend a few minutes just going through five key questions that we would like to ask the council that are going to inform the general plan as well as.
The housing element and I'm going to I'm going to talk a little bit more about the chapters and the elements before before we go into those.
We have a chapter now on planning areas.
What we've basically done is organize the general plan to create a chapter on planning areas before it was distributed throughout.
The land use section and we've tried to create it planning area by planning area so that it is clear when you read the general plan.
What the expectations are for each area.
So we've reorganized that a little bit.
The the primary.
Language and the goals and policies have not changed since the 2005 general plan.
So we have two kinds of planning areas special areas that are already in our current general plan, a special areas and those are the major corridors.
Stephen's Creek, which is heart of the city.
Deans a boulevard north and south deans a homestead road.
As well as north and south Valco, which is in the wolf and Stephen's Creek through the homestead area.
We also have a section on neighborhoods now, which are mostly residential areas and the policies for that are mainly preservation of the existing neighborhoods.
To try to make sure that any development that abuts neighborhoods.
Bills in the right neighborhood buffers so that neighborhoods are protected and to improve connectivity of those neighborhoods to their local parks and schools.
Our mobility element used to be called circulation so there's a name change to reflect the changes that we are expected to make over time.
We have a recreation community services element and that talks about the parks and open space.
It used to be in land use but we've pulled it out because we think it's important.
As a separate element, there's infrastructure, sustainability and health and safety and all these in some way are required elements in a general plan.
So we have five key questions for the council that people will be walking us through.
One is what should the citywide development allocation be and those are for residential office hotel and commercial.
Should the city have a community benefits policy and we will go to each one of those in detail.
What should community form and the heights be in each area?
What should the vision for Valco be and then which ones should be our priority housing element sites that will go into the housing element.
And we've also asked for a list of alternative sites just in case the Department of Housing and Community Development, which is the State Department.
Disagrees with the city on any sites.
So you want to answer tonight?
Well, we're looking for answers on these questions.
It's up to the council to decide when they want to answer it.
With regard to the first question back in August 2012, the city council recognized the lack of development allocation.
We've been going through our office allocation at a fast clips since the adoption of the 2005 general plan.
There is only about 17,113 square feet left in the citywide office allocation pool.
And essentially city council recognizing that asked staff to look at what should be replenished and put back into the general plan.
And in order to support that, basically commissioned a market study.
And what it revealed was that there was a general capacity in the city to accept approximately two points.
About three million square feet of new office space.
985 hotel rooms.
And then 400.
A 4,421 residential units kind of in line with what the plan barrier, the region's sustainability community strategy says.
But it said that in general, the amount of commercial square footage that the city has in its allocation pool is about enough.
And so with that, we looked at several alternatives, like Dan mentioned, there were three alternatives created.
And then it looked at, in the first alternative, which is alternative, a, it only looked at about 500, half a million square feet of office allocation increase.
All the way to alternative C, which looked at about three and a half million square foot of increase in office allocation, which was approximately the maximum that was revealed by the market study.
And there were, the table basically lays out what the violence plan recommends and what the planning commission recommended at its October 20 meeting.
So the violence plan recommends an increase of about 2 million square feet of office development by the planning commission recommended approximately a half million square foot increase.
The planning commission also recommended that the major office major employers allocation pool for office allocation be dissolved into the citywide allocation pool.
So I'll be into the citywide.
That means pick it out way.
Marge it into the citywide pools and not have a separate allocation for major employers that the current general plan has.
However, the balance plan recommends retaining that and with the 2 million square feet at the 2 million square feet.
For commercial development in general, none of the alternative and alternatives anticipate an increase in the commercial square footage for hotel rooms.
The allocation was studied from an increase of about 600 hotel rooms in alternative A to about 1,000 additional rooms in alternative C both the balance plan and planning commission recommend an increase of 1,000 hotel rooms.
For a maximum of 1,339 hotel rooms to be available for development allocation.
With regard to residential development, the alternative study and increase in allocation from about 1800 and the current general plan has 1895 dwelling units that it available for allocation.
And the alternatives looked at no change in alternative A all the way to 4,421 units, which is an in net increase of 2,526 units to be in line with the plan Bay area regional targets.
And essentially the first question is what should the development allocation be for office commercial hotel and residential units through 2040.
Once again, the two highlighted columns show the balance plan recommendation and the planning commission recommendation.
And I'm happy to bring it up when the council decides this or discusses this.
With regard to community benefits, essentially the community at large did in through the community input process say that basically indicated that there was strong support for community benefits.
Essentially if there was development the community and that there would be any increased heights that were offered for developers to have that there should be some level of community benefit that is offered to the community in return.
Essentially the balance plan looks at it and says that the proposed level of benefit should be equivalent to about 15% of the project valuation.
The increase of the project valuation attributed to the increase in height.
The policy calls for the ground floor retail component and one or more of the following benefits, which include transportation and mobility improvements such as bike pedestrian facilities.
Maybe participation in a community shuttle program.
Public facilities either land or space for public facility, senior housing about 15% of the housing that is not already targeted towards seniors.
Public art and cultural facilities may be new or an expansion to an existing museum or teen center and parks and open space such as land or improvements within the project or even off site.
And additional component of the community benefits project program is the cash in new contributions.
So if they could instead of any of the other benefits that were provided on site.
The value of that would be calculated in cash in the developer could pay that in cash.
So the second question of facility council is should co-partina have a community benefits program.
And if so what revision should be made to the value of the community benefits or maybe specific program items such as the retail requirement or any other items.
Can I ask you a question?
Certainly.
Are you aware that the printing commission voted don't want to have anything to do with you?
That is correct.
The planning commission did recommend to do away with the community benefits program.
Or it is in the balance plan. So we're asking council whether they want to retain it or go with planning commission's recommendation of actually taking it out of the balance plan.
Okay. Thank you.
With regard to heights the way that the balance plan is set up that it is that the increased heights are recommended in some parts of the city.
Based on the falling input that they received.
There was the community design survey that indicated support for increased heights near freeways and away from residential development.
So the way that the heights are set up or a cup of tea no in nor deans special area.
Valco shopping district east.
The oak skate way that are all away from freeways and with appropriate buffering from some of the neighbourhoods along north deans that it might be appropriate to have increased heights.
For hotels there would be there was seem to be support for increased heights such as at cup of tea no in at the clinical properties.
And we're existing taller because the buildings exist already.
So it was at the north deans especially area and then at city center.
Or in some areas there was increased heights are being proposed to allow increased office development such as in north deans.
North crossroads note and at the Valco shopping district east which is on the east side of Wolfroad.
And also to address the housing element component.
Maybe allow increased heights to allow increased density on certain properties such as the oak skate way and at the Hamptons.
And these tables the following tables on the three slides essentially show where those increased heights are and and I can bring those up when each special areas under discussion by council.
Can you tell me how high the separate hotels.
Cypress hotel at this point I believe is around 95 feet 95 feet.
Yes.
Okay. Thank you.
Thanks.
No, no.
Cypress.
So the third key question for city council is are any changes to the heights recommended in the special areas with this council like any changes to those.
And I'd like to point out that there are a couple of requests of come in since the planning commission meeting and
Cooper to know in is requesting a hundred eight foot height for nine story building.
And Steven's Creek office center is requesting 75 feet proportions of the site that are away from the street and kind of towards the center of the site.
Yes.
Right.
When this.
Cooper to know in and Steven's Creek office center.
Who never request for a height.
Today.
Explain why they want to.
Would they request on it.
So.
So I can help here the applicant for those two items are here and when they come during the public hearing you can ask them.
Okay.
They'll do a presentation.
All right.
Thank you.
For the value shopping district.
As mentioned before, there were several community workshops that were held and the work community workshops indicated that there was support for office development residential development and retail development.
In a mixed use town center format, everybody use the words or many people use the words like Santana Rowe like stand for shopping center and also included open space in a mid to high higher rise kind of development with appropriate buffers for single family neighborhoods.
In addition, the city also conducted the God be survey recently and found that there was strong support for revitalization of Valco at 67.7% and a strong support for a mix of housing and office uses in addition to retail and entertainment uses about 52%
of the people survey indicated that they supported that.
And the balance.
One question.
Can you go back?
On the community workshop indicated open spaces.
Did they specify what kind of open spaces do they want it?
I think the predominantly they were just putting squares in.
So more like the main street project in the form of a town square or a plaza or a small place.
No, we didn't hear anything for soccer fields.
I think that was okay either linear square park where people could get together and eat and you know that kind of an activity area.
Generally.
Thank you.
Back.
Back question about the God be survey.
I believe.
If you do strongly support and somewhat support, you really get about three quarters of the people.
Is that correct?
Yeah, that's correct.
This is only those that were checked at various the highest levels of support.
So I'm sorry.
Can you give that to us again?
Besides strong.
If we go to strong and or.
We can get the numbers for you.
I have it here.
Right.
Okay.
So.
It's strongly support 52 as you said.
Somewhat support 26.1 and then somewhat opposed 6.7.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
For revitalization of Alco.
So the actual question.
Yes.
That this is the one about the specifics.
Economic economists are economists market experts advise that including a mix of housing and office uses.
To development project can make it financially feasible to say new vibrant retail and entertainment.
Would you support or oppose these uses of Valco strongly support 52 somewhat support 26.1.
Somewhat opposed 6.7 strongly opposed 10.2.
Do not know or no answer five percent.
Okay.
Do you have further revitalization over Allan?
I do.
The Valco shopping district of Latino at the intersection of Stephen's Creek Boulevard and
will throw this historically been an important central shopping district.
You support read by Lization of the Valco shopping district strongly support 67.7.
Somewhat support 19.
Somewhat opposed 5.3.
Strongly opposed 3.
Do not know.
No answer five.
Thank you.
Okay.
It's helpful.
All right.
You remember it doesn't make.
It doesn't end up though.
You just told me support 67.7.
Somewhat opposed 19.
Opposed 30.
So you added.
Somewhat opposed 5.3.
Would the 30.
Probably opposed 3.
And then there's the right now.
So there's the misunderstood.
Is no 30 percent.
No.
Opposed.
All right.
Got it.
Sorry.
I haven't hear if you want.
So I'd just like to restate.
There is support for revitalization at Valco at 86%.
And as strong support for mixed use of office and housing uses in addition to retail and entertainment of about 78.1%.
So with that in mind, the balance plan essentially includes office and residential uses with substantial retail and entertainment component.
It must the policy and the vision for Valco must include a complete redevelopment of the site.
And adoption of a specific plan with phasing and infrastructure improvements in a town centre format.
And just the falling table essentially just shows you the different allocations that are recommended to be set aside for Valco.
For commercial which is retail development of about 600,000 square feet for office, 1 million square feet for hotel, 375 hotel rooms and 600 dwelling units.
And the key question for council is would you agree with the specific plan on the town centre concept?
With a mix of entertainment and retail uses with residential and office uses at Valco.
So who come out with those number for town centre format?
The commercial retail 600,000 square feet and the residential units 600 units.
That was the staff recommendation which is the balance plan.
And the recommendation was to make Valco housing element site with 600 years.
So from staff evaluation this mix will make it successful.
Right. We do have an update for the office component which is going to be on the next slide.
We also want to report back that the planning commission did not want Valco to be housing element site.
They would not oppose to having office and residential and hotel uses on the site.
In fact they said with a specific plan but they wanted to see what the development would look like.
And so they did not want to allocate units in the housing element towards the site.
So that's the planning commission.
Okay so you're saying they said no to making it a housing element site while saying they'd be fine having a house.
They were open.
They didn't want to assign part of the housing element to it.
Yes.
Wouldn't that potentially mean if we had to have a certain number of sites to meet our regional housing element.
That would that anything that happened in Valco could be in addition to that.
They understood that when they set when they allocated the approximately 1,400 units on other sites.
But that's.
So that would.
That's to them.
Right.
If that would ultimately.
We had to make it.
Right.
But they said it would depend on a plan when they saw the specific plan.
Well we have no I mean the housing element has to be done.
Right.
So they they recommended 1,400 units on other sites.
Other than Valco.
Right.
Could.
Just to close a loop.
Which could.
If there would then was a specific plan for Valco that had.
It could be.
1400 plus another six hundred.
Right.
Okay.
Right.
And again they didn't talk about the number.
No.
Thank.
I didn't get the impression from the meeting.
They were in favor of housing in Falco.
They just didn't.
I don't say they didn't say they were against it.
But I didn't get the impression they were favorite of it either.
So just to be clear.
Currently there's about 1.2 million square feet of commercial.
Yes.
About that.
So this would be half the amount of commercial.
It's currently there.
Right.
And again, this is recommended as a minimum.
Right.
As not as a maximum.
Doesn't say that.
It just says recommended.
Right.
And we can clarify.
Okay.
So in other words, that that's the minimum amount of housing.
Staff is recommending six hundred units.
You know, six hundred thousand square feet is the minimum.
That staff is recommending that it should have a minimum.
The table's minimum, that says you're a minimum minimum of 600 housing units.
No, only the, you know, we, we, this table.
So is it a minimum, a maximum, or just a minimum?
Let me go through it.
We can point you to the right page, but the slide is probably missed the word minimum.
It recommends a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail, a maximum of 1 million square feet of office.
There is currently one million square feet of office, which there isn't currently on the slide.
Zero currently?
Zero.
Right.
A maximum of 375 hotel rooms.
Does that include what was just approved?
Yes.
It will include what was just approved.
Okay.
And then a maximum of 600 units of resident.
Okay.
It also recommends a specific plan.
And for the public, how many hotels were just approved?
Pardon?
How many hotel rooms were just approved for the private?
At the height?
On the 20.
About 145.
Is it 145?
I think that's right.
Exactly.
143.
So it gives us about 230 additional hotel rooms, because we had assumed there'd be a couple of sites.
I have a couple more questions on this slide.
Okay.
With regard to the statistics, how many acres are there on this Valco site?
So, it is about 50 some acres, roughly?
50 acres.
Okay.
And can you review what we've heard from the city hired retail consultant, or are you going to get to that?
I'm going to get to that on the next slide.
Thank you.
I would just like to point out in the staff's report.
Valco shopping district is the South Valco master plan of the documents.
Correct?
Is that a compass all of that?
Right.
The South Valco master plan encompasses Valco and then the connections to Main Street and other sites as well.
It talks about the streetscape connections.
It's not a legal document.
It's just a...
Well, it's referred to in some of the staff documents.
The South Valco versus North Valco master plan.
In the general plan?
With a layout for the South and North Valco.
Right.
So, is the Valco shopping district all of the South Valco?
No.
The South Valco special area consists of...
So, let's do the math.
The Valco shopping district is called out as a special separate special area from the rest of South Valco.
In the sort of some set of South Valco but does not include anything from North Valco?
Correct.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Um...
So, what do you want?
It is.
Yeah.
Just like, um, we got a specific request from Sandhill with regard to the Valco shopping district.
Sandhill has communicated with the city that they have acquired all properties in the Valco shopping district,
except the indoor and wall portion.
And the two parcels that are located at about the freeway.
But what they do need to redevelop the site is about 2 million square feet of office space.
600...
600,000 square feet of retail.
And they would like the heights that are associated or studied with alternative sea, which are essentially on the west side of the wall.
60 feet or 75 with retail.
Or up to 85 feet with retail and community benefits.
And on the east side of the wall, 75 feet or 90 feet with retail.
And up to 160 feet with retail and community benefits.
And this...
The city's retail strategist who's here tonight has stated that the residential and office...
Uh...
are the highest the best uses for the site.
And in addition that the BAE markets study found that the net new city-wide demand of 2.4 to 3 million square feet of office has been found.
And therefore up to 2 million square feet for Valco could be reasonable and necessary to make this project viable.
However, that the ultimate allocation is dependent on analysis of a development performance.
So the key question...
Just to be clear, highest and best use means the most profitable for the property owner.
That is correct.
Thank you.
And so the question...
The key question essentially is what should the Valco shopping districts allocation be?
There are other minor revisions to the General Plan with regard to the PG&E site.
It's changed from quasi-public to institutional to add a commercial designation to it.
To add a commercial designation to a property which is also about the PG&E site at Mirapat.
So it would include office and residential uses with...
Oops.
I'm sorry.
And then other revisions to ensure that the General Plan land use designations and zoning are consistent.
A few PG&E or E express to us that they have no interest to change it.
Correct.
This is a 26-year plan.
So this is just a long-term planning document.
And you think that they may change the online data?
It's time to tell.
Okay.
Just back to the PG&E site.
I'm going to ask you the same one.
Next to that site is all residential.
And there's sort of not a lot of commercial right there.
And so why...
And it doesn't look...
It's not obvious it would be a good commercial site to me.
So why commercial is opposed to residential?
Well, we had talked about this a very long time ago when we started the General Plan.
And it was something that the idea was to try to find larger sites for retail.
The city has very few sites.
And there have been, you know, retail retailers in the past who have come to the city to look for some of these sites.
And this was proposed as a potential site in the future.
It was not looked at as a residential site at all for a number of reasons because it could not be included in the housing element.
Because it is owned by a public entity.
And it would not be accepted by ACV as a site.
Because a lot of things have to happen before that could be a residential site.
And so staff did not recommend that as a residential site.
Because we felt that we wanted to focus on the housing element.
But if you look at it sort of an island, if you put it...
Right.
To tell island, not next to any other retail, even though it's a larger site.
Why would you feel it's comes as accessible?
Well, if you look at the corner, the Blaney and...
And home-stead corner, those are retail.
And so we thought it could be a long home-stead, not so much Blaney,
but it could create a corner retail in that area.
How big is that slice?
You can...
No, it's larger than that.
We can get you these 20 some acres.
20 some acres?
Right.
So that would be perfect for the school's side end.
Okay.
I'm sure...
If you can pose your paws, I really appreciate those.
Could you continue to staff, please?
Yes.
So moving on to the housing element portion of the project.
As mentioned before, it is the only element of the general plan that needs to review and certification
by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
This is the fifth planning cycle for the housing element, which encompasses the years 2014 to 2022.
And it must be adopted by January 31st, 2015.
However, there is a 120-day grace period.
So it must be adopted by May 31st, 2015.
If adopted, the next housing element update will be in 2023.
And if it is not adopted, it must be updated every four years.
So our next adoption date would be in 2019.
The content for the housing element is dictated by state law.
It includes needs assessment, constraints to new housing production,
description of goals, policies and strategies to achieve the objectives of the housing element,
housing production objectives consistent with the rena, which is the regional housing
needs allocation and a site inventory and evaluation of the accomplishments that have occurred
since the adoption of the last housing element.
And also a review of the consistency with other elements of the general plan.
I ask another question.
Most of the email I got, portion of it will ask in us to, can we today show within it?
Do we have time to delay the decision tonight?
I think the decision is really up to the council.
That's why we're here tonight, Barry.
But I'm asking them, do you have time if we choose to delay?
We try to sort of backtrack and try to figure out when this city would have to start
having hearings on the final adoption of the housing element.
And if you include one meeting of the council, one meeting of the planning commission and one meeting of the
housing commission, those would have to start happening in March, early March of next year.
Noticing usually takes about three weeks before that.
So in February, we need to know what the housing element is going to have.
And then I just want to say ACD takes about 60 days to get back to a city.
So please.
By the end of the year we had.
But then we would have no ability to talk to ACD.
If ACD says these are the things you need to do, then those will be done.
So it leaves no time for discussion with ACD.
We can not argue, we can only go to you.
No, they, yeah, last time it took us one year to go from draft to final.
And at that time we didn't have the same penalties that we have now.
So again, it depends on how much discussion we want to have with ACD.
Or are we just going to implement whatever ACD says.
And then just bring them through.
So ACD come out with something.
We don't have time, then we have to obey it.
We have to follow it.
If you want to have a housing element, yes.
Okay, thank you.
Right.
So I'll follow up with some questions on that.
If we fail to get the housing element adopted by me.
We're automatically put on a four-year cycle.
Right.
And my understanding is we would end up building significantly.
We would end up having to sign significantly more.
More you.
Over the eight year period then.
You know, it's, it's never happened before to anybody.
This is the first time people will be on a four-year cycle.
So we might be at test case.
So my understanding is that.
Medal of Park was recalcitrant on this.
The residents didn't want housing.
Medal of Park said no.
The city council said, yep, where were the residents.
And they basically.
In gender lawsuits.
And.
After the courts.
After these lawsuits came up in 2012.
In April they settled.
But in settling they paid a real price.
So in a city of 33,000 residents.
Which is what?
About half the size of Cupertino.
They were required by the settlement to find place for 1,975 units.
That's correct.
And I see Pleasanton.
In this gotten this boat.
I see Alameda gotten this boat.
Mr. City manager.
Madam City attorney.
Do you have anything to add on this?
We actually have a special council here who can give you the list of horribles that can happen.
Amongst other things if you don't have a complaint.
Housing element.
Any developer that comes with a project that has 20% affordable.
Get's automatic approval of their development regardless of general plan or zoning.
Whatever they happen to own it.
They get it right down right now.
Without the city council's approval.
Right.
It has to be approved.
And also they can put a moratorium in all building permits.
Especially commercial building permits.
During the dependency of you not having a housing element in place.
If the court so determines.
Which can be on risk.
I mean it would.
For example put the apple project at a halt because they wouldn't be able to get their building permits to continue.
We couldn't issue building permits for anything.
Just talk about it.
I'm trying to have everybody get educated about it.
If I may.
No.
I started as city attorney of element in 1989.
I was there until 2006.
One of the reasons I got my job was because of the problems in that.
Legal aid had sued the city for a non-compliant housing element.
The courts issued a moratorium until they got a complaint housing element.
You couldn't do a lot line adjustment when I started moratorium on.
You couldn't do that.
All building permits in the city.
I don't know about building permits.
But it was there was probably some ministerial building permits.
But any land use decision could not.
No land.
I mean they said couldn't even do a lot of money adjustments for 18 months.
Nobody could do anything zero until.
And the court issued that.
And I was there.
So this isn't a parade of horrible.
That's academic.
I worked for a city.
That I mean the planning commission was completely out of business for 18 months.
Thank God you're here in Cooper Tino now.
Yes.
So another question about the timing of this.
So my understanding is we are coming in at the.
That now all cities have been phased up to be on the same cycle.
And can you comment on where we're falling with respect to the other cities in the county and coming in.
If even if we decide make a decision tonight.
What's the.
How are we doing.
With respect to the other cities by the.
Out of the 13 cities and one county in Santa Clara County.
I think we have.
Cooper Tino Los Altos and Los Altos Hills that have not yet submitted their drafts.
Los Altos expected to submit there's this month.
And then I think Los Altos.
We're going to talk about what we actually achieved in the period that we're going to
really scrutinize you if they don't actually get built and it's going to get harder going on. Can you talk about
talk about what we actually achieved in the period that recently ended 2007 to 2020?
I'm going to talk to some, so this is an eight-year cycle. 2014 to 2022. Our regional housing
location number is 1,064 units. Last time around it was a 7-year period, 2007 to 2014. Our allocation was 1,170.
It's about 1200 units. We had already approved about 5,000 odd units and that included.
If you remember, this was the old Main Street project with 160 senior housing units.
No one that got overturned by referendum. Sorry. We had a 500 units. We had approved and that also included
the Rose Bowl project that was approved in 2006. It's being built now, but it was approved many years ago.
You're talking about entitlements over this thousand-dollar period. So you could take credit for those entitlements.
There was also a project on what was previously on the Apple Campus and I think 120 units.
Under a 30-unit project, that was approved there. So we had taken credit for all of those.
We also had about 13 sites that were selected to provide about 717 units.
That's the balance that we needed in order to make up the difference. Since then, we have the Rose Bowl
has been built for which we had credit. The Main Street units went from 160 to 120.
The bill was built with 80 units. But again, the Apple site became the Campus Sageway, which was a site
that became a retail development and kind of care, which was another site was approved with improvements
and a daycare. So against that 1170, what did we actually yield?
We actually were looking through, but 204 plus 120 plus 80. I looked it up in the staff report and I guess 62.
So that's 57% yield. What? I mean, actually I'm a little surprised for an eight-year period.
If I can say this got away with 1064. So one more year substantially less units.
And I understand we were initially given 1,300 and we were able to negotiate that down. Is that correct?
We were given 1365. But if we're coming in late and we only yielded 57% the last cycle,
HDD has every reason to scrutinize us carefully. Well, they did us scrutinize us last time too.
Like, they come out and they actually visit the sites. They talked to the property owners. They actually spend a lot of effort.
We spend a lot of money that we're really going to get 1064 out of this.
Right. We spend a lot of time with back and forth with them. And some cities were surprised to hear that they came down here to actually visit the sites.
They did. What were happy we were prevailed? And then we were able to convince them.
So last time if we found 14 sites and 13 sites and we had an allocate, we showed a total cap of around 5,000 this time.
Sorry. Sorry. A total of 1170. Right. So 517.
You said something about 525 year plan? No. Okay.
So we'll just stick with our housing. Okay. So.
So this time again, they are getting stricter and our consultants have said they're recommending because all of our sites tend to be
sites with existing buildings on them. We don't have bacon sites to look at about 40% more, which is a total of 1,400 units.
And so you will see through our recommendations we're trying to keep to those 1,400 units.
In addition, about 2,3rd of our housing is required to be affordable in one category the other with a minimum density of 20 units to the acre.
So you couldn't build lower than that and claim that they were affordable. Again, these sites have to be zoned for that density.
The city is not required to build them if the market is not good.
But we are required to zoned for them and entertain development proposals if they come forward.
Okay. And it's also the case.
I'll leave it there for now. Thanks.
So there's very low low moderate and above moderate housing on this chart and I know by price we don't probably make any of those.
We do make them by density. So what are the densities for each of those?
There's a blanket density of a minimum of 20 units to the acre that qualify for the low and very low.
And what about the moderate and above moderate?
Moderator above moderate don't have the same limitations but maybe we can verify.
We can verify with the consultant about the moderate because I remember last time when we took credit for.
We had built 500 plus units but we couldn't take credit for the very low low moderate.
You can only take credit for the above moderate category and we had to find sites for the balance.
So there have been some single family homes approved that would follow in the above moderate category.
And some people have submitted lots and things like that building small number.
So we actually have to show all those specifically as sites and our planner can we just say you have 30 approved and 32 second units in this space.
We're only getting credit for 30 over the next eight years that are going to be built.
Yes you have to show sites but in the past we have been able to tell them that in the last seven years we approved about 30.
We've approved an average of about 32 units as second units and so we're going to claim credit for that.
So 32 second units over this eight year period.
They haven't been built yet but we can claim credit and then we're going to claim credit for 30.
So 30 units have already been built since January 1st of 2015 and those are subdivisions or.
So why would we assume there's going to be no part of those why can't we claim some of those we have to find sites actual sites for the units.
So any any lot that's bigger than the it's big enough to be in theory subdivided would be a potential site and we can we can certainly talk to the consultant about that it would require.
A review of every possible lot and how many can be built yes.
And then look at the balance for finding sites in in our mixed use districts.
A couple more questions came to mind.
His mark was talking.
What can you comment on the number of housing elements sites and why.
You feel that we need a certain minimum and how you arrive at that number.
We can't put it all at one or two sites we've got to have a certain number right can you talk to that.
Again, this is this is more of experience having dealt with a CD and in discussions with a consultant who deals with it with them all the time.
But ATD ones and this is a department state department of housing and community development.
They need to make sure that cities are proposing housing element that can actually have.
Some capacity to get built out and it's not left on chance so if you put all of our units on one or two sites.
And and that didn't develop and that would be a problem for them so they like cities to look at.
As more sites than fewer sites again why is the number why we're recommending at least five.
As we feel that last time we had about we had about 13 sites this time we're trying to focus development on very few sites.
And so we feel like going to even a smaller number would would basically have a CD question again we don't have a whole lot of time for back and forth so we're trying to position this in the best way possible.
Okay, can you comment on whether we could make an allotment contingent on somebody going forward within a certain number of years say three four years.
And then if it's not used we would we would have a plan B in other words a backup that would say okay here's a credible alternative if a particular site did not go forward.
And we've talked a little bit and and we think we can convince the CD that the city is actually looking out for the housing element in that way because we want to make sure if a particular property on our doesn't perform.
Then we have the ability to find other sites so our sort of helps with the mitigation and not having to sort of overdo this assessment allotment okay.
And finally, can you comment on the number that we've seen the four the four thousand four hundred and twenty two and talk to how that's different than the housing element.
Right, so the city most cities don't have allocations.
Our city does and but our city also has densities so you can't go above a certain density on a site.
So I have to go back to a question that the planning commission asked because do we even need an allocation for residential units and we actually don't.
We read it in the general plan we don't need an allocation.
However, the EIR was analyzed based on the maximum that.
The sustainable community strategies plan that was done by.
A bag and MTC had assumed for a coupon to know because they do some projections and that's usually reconciled with.
And that projection showed that the anticipated growth for Coutino is 44 21 units.
Are we better off.
Frankly.
So that's 44 21 over 25 years.
Over 20 for the life of our plans 20 40 right.
Are we frankly better off in our negotiations to have a cap or to abolish it I noted that.
And doing some research before the meeting that the city of Pleasanton.
Was sued and the superior court of the state of California invalid invalid invalidated their housing cap is overly restrictive.
I'm wondering if rather than pick a fight with HCD we followed the planning commission's recommendation in this regard and get rid of it or does that invite.
It will require more SQL analysis because we had only analyzed 44 21.
If we take the cap out it would require us to go back and look at every single site in the city and figure out what the maximum development could be.
Really?
Right.
Yuck.
And that's the right.
That's all other cities do their EIRs.
Yuck.
Question mark.
Right.
This actually limits the amount of housing.
I think I thank you.
So next 24 next 25 26 years.
Right.
4,421 units.
For the year 20 40.
Right.
We're to allocate it.
We don't have to.
We could remove the cap but we.
The only allocation we need to meet right now is the rena allocation of 1064.
We'd have to go back and do the sequence.
Because the sequence analysis would have to look at.
Every site in the city that has residential capacity and look at.
How in units could be built on every single site, which would likely be more than 44 21.
Just just to be clear, there was a.
Study done that suggested what they thought the needs would be.
We don't have to allocate those.
Okay.
All right.
And we can't allocate more than those.
We certainly don't have to allocate 40 400 units.
Okay.
14 21 unit for the next.
A years.
That's what also.
14 to the same.
Yeah, that.
So that.
So that the 1,400 units we're recommending.
We'll be drawn down from this 4,400.
Okay.
Right.
It's part of that for the.
If we don't approve.
If we don't approve the 44 21 could we get ourselves in the same situation.
This Pleasanton where a cap is seen as a restrictive thing.
I will let David.
Eventually you would probably be near the later parts of the plan.
Well, I see.
Okay.
So the general idea is we're modifying this plan on the order of every 10 years.
The last one was 2005.
So we could, in fact, bring this down.
We could multiply by three say housing housing.
Current housing element times three.
Approximately 3,000 and.
That roughly corresponds with three housing element cycles that eight years of peace.
You could do that.
You just want ideas.
You don't want to.
Run out of overall allocation.
Before you can.
Because otherwise.
We're in we're another Pleasanton.
I guess.
Okay.
So thank you.
Can I ask council member.
Think.
Question.
Is that something fun?
It's not, uh, for menopause.
Yeah.
Quar, coming down.
That's for the next eight year.
Oh.
Yeah.
They refused to approve.
They basically.
Residents were didn't want it.
And the city council supported the residents.
And.
This was a number of parties to a lawsuit that was finally settled in April of 2012, and the city gave up a lot of money for affordable housing, but as part of the settlement, they also had to expeditiously approve sites for 1,975 units. And this is a city of 33,000 people.
So we could be penalized. We could be. No, I think I've heard from all these experts that's exactly what happens in this case.
In such case, where the city is recalcitrant, the folks at HCD and elsewhere in housing advocates, frankly, even in Silicon Valley, will be on our doorstep to say, hey, you know, you've got to meet your obligations and that's how it is.
So we don't, we could be, could be 3500 units, roughly, based on the population.
I don't think you can extrapolate, but the point is, I think, if I understand correctly, the point here is, we're much better off trying to reach accommodation with HCD and the timeframe that they have,
that they have giving our staff time to finalize negotiation so that it can be. The final thing, if it's different than what we approved tonight, can be handled by all of our commissions and then city council.
So we are completely done by May, and there's no issue with us, lapsing, which automatically puts us into the four-year cycle, which I all expectations would cause us to have to do more on this.
Okay, thank you. Okay, yeah.
It's definitely going to be like 30 more or less slides.
I guess I'm going to skip over this one.
With regard to the goals, policies and programs, they've been reformatted, they've been revised to address state housing law.
They've been amendments to the zoning ordinance related to density bonuses and emergency shelters and farm worker and employee housing.
There's also been a strategy identified to amend the Heart of the City specific plan to revise the method in which residential densities calculated and mixed use developments.
A new goal has been added to highlight energy conservation and existing general plan policy related to mixed use development has been repositioned in the housing element.
Again, these are updates related to state law and litigation.
We regard to potential sites, there were different sites that were analyzed in different alternatives based on what the emphasis of that alternatives was.
In alternative A, there was minimal change alternative B, there was moderate change focused along the transit corridors in alternative C, there were the maximum densities that were proposed in housing elements sites were studied as such.
There were certain criteria that were used to prioritize the housing element sites, there were ACD criteria, which are listed on this slide.
And then there were other criteria that were identified through the SES, whether they were located within half-mile.
The sustainable community strategy, which is the plan by area, which is adopted by ABag and MTC.
So it was within weather that site was located within a half-mile of the BTA, and whether it was located close to employment or activity centers.
Corner lots, and whether housing was needed for development of that site.
And again, the Godby Survey indicated support for development of housing along major routes, and this was again the strongly support category at 36.2%.
Can you give us the some support number there as well?
Right, we would also like to add that there was some support for putting housing in neighborhoods, but that was not something that we as staff are recommending.
Maybe more than 36.2%.
Yes, and so the way the question was structured, it was whether a dev housing development would be along major routes, whether they could be located on neighborhood streets.
And so if they were not particularly whether you strongly support moderately support, do not support.
The question was structured a little differently.
So you're talking about the residential, can you be most specific at OK to the residential area?
Neighborhood streets.
Neighborhood streets would be streets in our neighborhoods.
Some suggestion of that, or...
No, there was just the Godby Survey said, where would you support housing on major corridors, or would you support on major on neighborhood streets?
What percentage?
We'll try to have it here.
Right.
So it's the question was the state requires that each city adopt a housing element, a plan for housing and to select sites where housing can be built.
Options for site selection include first, a long major routes in the city, Steven Street Boulevard, Wolf Road, Homestead, etc.
And so the responses, the answers that you could select from was a long major routes, a long smaller residential streets and closer to existing apartments within single family neighborhoods.
Neighborhoods mixed opinions and do not know or not answering.
So the responses were a long major routes was 36.2%.
A long smaller residential streets and closer to existing apartments was 31.8%.
And within single family neighborhoods was 11.6%.
And the mixed opinions were 17%.
And they do not know or will not answer as 8.6%.
And with those priorities in mind, with those criteria in mind, the housing element sites that were recommended were prioritized in this order, essentially the Oaks and the Valco shopping district.
The top, the Oaks with the 35 dwelling unit per acre development density at 235 dwelling units, the Valco shopping district at 35 dwelling units per acre, but at a cap of 600 dwelling units.
Hamptons which has 342 units existing at 65 dwelling units per acre, additional 344 dwelling units.
United furniture plus other sites at 25 dwelling units per acre, which is their existing density at 103 dwelling units per, at 103 dwelling units.
Very swenson, which is a small site which is of interest to affordable housing developers at 25 existing 25 dwelling units per acre at 11 dwelling units.
And Glenbrook's which is an existing apartment complex and an existing housing element site with 517 existing units at 20 dwelling units per acre, which is the current density at 93 dwelling units additional.
I would like to note that sites 45 and 6 are housing sites in the 2007 2014 housing element.
But the United furniture and the Krembrook Foundation in the last four.
They this time around, we did not get letters from them saying that they specifically wanted to develop.
However, we send letters two sets of letters to every housing element site property owner.
To let them know that they were being considered as a housing element site and to let us know if they had any objection.
If they have no interest to build it, you add okay, it's not going to accomplish why not take it off on the list then.
But it's something the city council can certainly look at main changes to that.
I think she just said they sent them letters that they were being considered to let them know if they didn't want to be.
So they may still want to be considered just didn't, you know, comment.
In addition staff.
We'll go back at that one. So the number at the bottom, the 1386.
That number is there in the balanced plan, which is recommended because why is that there said the minimum we think is.
That's the total that we end up with at all these densities.
So why know that.
So it's just arrived from all these recommendations, so we just totaled up the number.
Can you talk to why it's not 1064.
Yes, okay.
Thank you.
So essentially, as in the previous slide, we saw that arena current arena is a balance of 1,000, 2 units.
And in talking to our housing consultant who was consulted with the ACD and essentially they recommend that there be a surplus of a moderate surplus of units.
In the housing element to accommodate changes.
For example, in our current housing element, there were certain sites that did not develop with housing uses.
And as a matter of course, the city should when it does approve.
Developments other than housing developments on housing element sites.
Make a finding of a no net loss in terms of housing units so that their housing element is whole.
However, you translate that into English.
Yes.
I mean, really.
So essentially.
If we, so currently we have 13 housing elements in our site.
And then all those 13 housing elements, there were two sites, two sites that were not developed with housing with housing.
In essence, the city is out of compliance with their arena numbers because there was housing not approved on those currently identified housing elements.
So if in this cycle, we only approved 1064 exactly.
Correct.
And we can expect that some of them wouldn't happen.
Correct.
And we would.
And ACD would basically say sorry, but you have to find some more sites.
Exactly.
Okay.
And in order to avoid having to do that, we're essentially proposing that a moderate surplus be accomplished with
it.
Because we don't have time to go back and forth.
And we don't want them to dictate to us what the final numbers look like.
We're going to go in with the plan that they will.
That we hope that they will buy.
And we would have to go through a general plan amendment process if we do if we do.
If we do.
Approve other than a non-residential development on those housing elements sites to add a site.
So our expert is suggesting that with 1064, we need to actually submit a plan of around 1386.
About a year.
In order to be satisfactory.
Approximately 14.
In terms of the total number.
Correct.
Around 1400.
Okay.
So that's really the answer to the question.
I think yeah.
Correct.
The honest answer.
Okay.
How many were we required to have last time?
Last time we ended up with close to I think I have to.
Question is how many were we required to have last time?
Right.
So it's a complicated answer now to try to answer it for you.
We had 1170 units that we were required to provide.
We were not allowed to take credit for a number of units that had already been approved.
Because they didn't fall in the affordable category.
And so we had to prove a few more sites in order to fall in the moderate category.
They didn't fall under those because when you actually build the sites.
20 units per acre is not enough.
They actually have to be affordable.
I don't know.
Why couldn't we have counted them in the in the higher bucket?
They did not let us count the moderate low and very low.
Only the above moderate were allowed.
Right.
So we got to count them in that bucket.
We got we got to count that bucket.
So we had to provide probably.
1170.
And then how many do we submit?
Probably.
We submitted about probably close to 1,300.
That is we the balance, which is about an additional 700.
So we only submitted 130 more than was required.
Right.
And this time you're asking us to submit 400 more than is required.
Yes.
Thank you.
Our consultant tells us it's because last time around the known net loss law had not been passed.
It has since we've since had no laws passed.
What is the known net loss?
The known net losses were few was explaining, which is if you end up approving
Non-a housing element site.
A development that is other than the amount of units you approved on the site.
You have to make a finding that you have other sites where you can put that loss of housing.
I see.
So there has been a new losses.
So this time if a site gets developed otherwise.
It's in the housing element.
We have to update our housing element in our general plan or if we have a surplus.
We don't have to update.
Okay.
So we worked on the surplus, but when we get close to the end of the cycle, we may be required to do take action.
Or we get a so-called bonus in the following cycle.
Again, we don't know.
ACD is now recommending that cities accommodate additional a surplus in their housing element.
So whatever the council ends up doing, we will try to have a conversation with the ACD.
Right.
Thank you.
With that, staff is also recommending a consultation with the housing consultant that there be alternate housing element sites adopted by the council.
So that in case ACD is not accepted.
It does not accept one of the recommended housing sites that staff has something to go back to and recommend sites off of this alternate list.
And essentially, that's this table here.
And I would like to update that site number nine is being recommended for removal because the property owner of that site has sent a letter to the city asking that their site not be placed.
Or about 60% of the site number nine has asked not to be placed on the housing element sites list.
And therefore staff is recommending that it not be placed here.
And again, this site is across the street from the main street site.
So across every street and street boulevard most of it.
So just to give you an idea, it's at Finch and Steven's Creek.
Correct.
In addition, there were some sites that were prioritized as low and staff is recommending that those sites be removed and not be considered as for the housing element.
And in addition to that site number 15 about 30, 40% of that site, the property owner for about 30, 40% of the site has sent the letter to say that they are not interested being placed in the housing element sites list.
The key question here is the city.
The council agree with the housing element sites list and the densities, and also whether you agree on the alternate sites list and the priority, so that when we have discussions with the ACD, we have a list to go off of.
The planning commission makes it up a little bit, and they recommended different sites, they recommended at the top priority, the Oaks.
They essentially recommended that 150-dwelling unit maximum be placed on the site, which results in approximately 19 units per acre for the site as a whole.
For the Hamptons, the Hamptons has requested 748 dwelling units additional over and about what they have existing.
And therefore, planning commission recommended that that be granted to them.
They also recommended that the United Furniture, Berry Swenson, Lennbrooks.
So, United Furniture and Berry Swenson be retained at the densities that they were studied at.
For the Glenbrooks, the planning commission recommended 300 additional units.
However, the, in talking to the environmental consultant, it appears that we can only allocate approximately 228 units to Glenbrooks that would be maximum that could be allocated to the Glenbrooks.
And they also added the summer winds and granite rock in the jack in the box site, which is just to, they moved it up from an alternate site into the recommended sites list at 25-dwelling, it's per acre.
But they also did recommend for the Glenbrooks and the summer wind site an increase of building heights from 30 to 45 feet to accommodate that development.
For a total about 1,400 units on their recommended list.
For alternate sites, the planning commission recommended the villages be retained, which is a current housing element site at the, at the current allocation that they have, which is about 62-dwelling units.
Marina Plaza at 35-dwelling units per acre to add 204-dwelling units and the callberg site, which is an office building site located off of Valley Green next to the villages at 25-dwelling units per acre.
This is also a current existing housing element site.
For a total of 435-dwelling units in their, on their alternate list.
In addition, there were other amendments and made to the general plan basically updating the residential density from gross acres to calculating it on the acreage of the lot.
Zoning map was updated to reflect the changes in the general plan conformance and I think RT has something to do.
I just wanted to update that first thing in the past residential densities been calculated on the gross which includes a portion of the street.
We're asked to change that and so that changes been made.
So portions of the streets can no longer be included in the density and that the only the lot size, only the lot itself can be included in the density calculated.
So this came up when we did the built more adjacency project again.
Yes, and the council asked us to make the change with this a general plan up.
Clean it up to make it more common sense for folks.
In addition, the municipal code has been updated.
It's been reorganized to lead better.
The amendments made to reflect the changes required for the housing element and state law essentially in the minor cleanup items.
And the heart of the city specific plan has been updated for the land use and the zoning map that is in the specific plan.
And to address housing element in general toned conformance with regard to the changes in which the residential densities calculated for mixed use developments.
And changes to the building plan line in the south of that query along Stephen Street Boulevard.
In addition, there were a lot of requests from the public with regard to the outreach question.
Do we actually include the heart of the city specific plan in the notice for this?
Yes.
There was several requests from the public about the kind of outreach that was done for the schools.
We just wanted to respond to that. There were four meetings with school district officials.
In addition, the school district's demographer and projections and analyst was used to prepare the school impact report for the.
The school districts did get a chance to review the report and did provide input to which changes were made to the drug to the analysis.
The projections indicated that for 4,421 units that in the CUSD and the if the free monitoring and high school district that about 1477 students could be added.
If the over the 26 year period and in the Santa Clara unified school district that 56 students could be added.
The current renacycle at about 1,400 units, 448 students could be added to both the CUSD and the free monitoring and high school district.
And that the in the Santa Clara unified school district that 19 students would be added to that.
And with that, I will invite our environmental consultants.
I would like to talk to the yeah.
You can go back to the last slide for a second.
That was.
What sites was that based on.
So the 4421 units is based on the allocation and the 1,400 units were based on.
The sites that were in the balance plan.
No, sorry, the 1,400 units were actually an extrapolation of the 4421.
It was assumed that most of this growth would happen in mixed use districts where the unit types would be smaller.
So those numbers are not based on any of the right.
They could be extrapolated to the 1,400 number for any site.
The number is an average for the city right based on housing units put it about 25 to the acre.
Right.
So in order to come up with not single family homes, but no, in order to come up with the incremental things we're talking about here where we're talking about someone higher density.
And at 25 units the acre, they're smaller than the big single family homes, but.
Right.
This is the generation rate.
And once again, the numbers came from.
The school district, well, we told them the number of units that were in the general plan and what the density was.
And what the density was and where the sites were, right, and we looked at.
All the sites that was studied in the housing element, there was some over that in the 4421 number.
But the school district has very detailed information on the student generation rate for all unit types.
And so they did their the demographer and their projections person did the projections.
Okay, and did we get any other input from them recommendations on where to place this or.
Things that would make it easier for them to accommodate what we have.
I think we talked about several things, which is how can the school accommodate this kind of growth and they said, well, we've got our existing sites we will have to go to a second story in order to do that.
If you're the things that will have to be done and so that discussion actually is in the EIR.
It talks a little bit about the kinds of improvements that have to be made and so we talked to the school districts and the people who are assigned by the school district.
The facilities people.
You know, it's a complicated discussion.
It's a combination of how of programming as well as building in order to make sure that they move the kids and programs around to best meet their needs.
So it's an uneasy discussion.
The mind understanding is that school impact fees cover very little.
The state mandated fees that we can charge.
On development are mandated by the state and cover very little of the schools either capital or ongoing operating costs.
Well, it depends.
In the case of basic aid sometimes it works out better because they get it based on the property tax and and they get property tax,
whether it's office, commercial retail, right?
And so if you have more of other uses in a in a city and fewer, you know, residential uses, they get a portion of the property tax for everything.
So it all depends on the mix of development.
In the case of free month union, it's a basic aid district.
In the case of the school district, the Cupertino union school district.
It's a question of the student generation rates.
And if the state basically they're at the floor for the state and they get so much per student.
So 10 more students means they get 10 more times, whatever that is.
Operationally and then they charge an impact fee and then state law does not allow a city to deny housing developments based on school impacts if they pay an impact fee.
So there's a lot of things and so we've tried to try to meet the housing element in the way that we best could by putting them where they would create the least amount of student generation.
Okay.
But we also have the ability if we say heights are, I don't know, maximum height for construction is 45 feet.
We can also talk about a community development program.
Community benefit program.
Community benefit program which requires a development agreement and then we could do all kinds of things with.
With the cash and loop fee.
Yes.
And then I guess it would depend on the school districts about how they could use that cash.
Yes.
Okay.
So this table doesn't, I mean it doesn't hang, it only hangs together in an aggregate.
It only hangs together in an aggregate.
Because if you if you for example the planning commissions recommendation had over half of their units or roughly half of their over half of their units.
And in a site that's Santa Clara school district.
So so this.
So this.
The mix here that you show here is.
So if you react to them.
So if you went with the maximum that goes to the Santa Clara.
Unified school district there would be 56 students that would be generated for Santa Clara.
If you did what.
If you if you use the maximum that was would be allocated to the particular site that is outside of the CUSD or the Fremont Union high school district.
The maximum generation would be 56 students.
I thought this was a balance plan.
No.
The 44 21 is the maximum that was said.
So but the.
But the.
The 1,400.
Yeah.
Exactly.
100 is a total.
Right.
That the planning commission.
Recommended.
Just to take it.
Just.
You know, I'm not saying.
They recommend that.
And if I remember right.
If I look at the numbers half of that a little bit more than half of that 748 units.
So I.
So if the 40 of the 44 21 and alternative C, which is the maximum development.
It looks at a 820 units for.
But if you start a system on the other side of the test.
The number.
If.
Well.
But you have the number number.
And the number hang up and the number has are.
So the number number has.
Five.
That.
It is.
You.
And the numbers.
In that school district generation is 56.
And this is scale of.
Well, you.
So the number.
You.
We'd say how they get that.
Yeah, you know what.
Can you do that?
Let me explain how they get it.
Then we can put that in its proper perspective.
I should just go on.
Well, you see the analysis based on the 4421 and of the 4421, that site would only generate
56 out of 4421 or whatever, whatever that.
And then they just scale everything down and the, all the other stuff that they scale
down was non-amptons.
But it's not, look, out of 1400.
I think bogus would be the technical where I'd use on this slide.
I'm trying to phrase that in a question.
Can you please hold your pause.
I really need you to hold your pause, please.
I'm just really trying to, I'm really trying to understand the answer for the question.
What do we expect the generation rate to be if at the Hampton's we did what the planning
commission recommended or if you can't answer that question.
Study that alternative C for the Hampton's was 820 units.
Right.
What was the generation rate to Santa Clara?
We can get that number for you.
All we can say is there was only one site that was studied in alternative C in Santa Clara school
district at 820 units.
And the maximum impact was 56 students.
With 820 units.
At 748, it would be about 52 students.
Well, I just want to ask the generic question.
Let's explain to the public on the relationship between the city and the school district.
How does that work?
We get some numbers.
And then.
Right.
What's your mission work?
So we found the school responsibility to provide the students.
Or is it the fee?
Well, let me explain a little bit about how student generation works.
Right.
We have in for the last over the last 10 years.
We have collaborated with the school districts,
we have a second, about five years and a second.
There's a second.
That's right.
We have the second.
What do you mean?
We can also work on the second.
We're not working on the wind and the wind and the wind and the wind.
And I just want to share all these examples.
And maybe I'll get that number.
And if you start focusing on the fifth,
and then I'll put my next call and then I'll move on to the first one.
That's absolutely incredible.
or the school district. It's the responsibility of the city to look at how many students are
generated to look at the EIR impacts of that in terms of the environmental impacts.
And then once they get that number, it's the school district. Right. Then it's up to the school
district, then to figure out how to design the facilities and to provide the facilities. Right.
So, yeah. And in our rows that we can affect 18 is outside the schools like traffic and other
things. Right. So, the city, the city's row is then to look at other issues and it's under the
city's jurisdiction. Right. Traffic. How to look at right away. How to look at the improvements.
That that's in the city's jurisdiction. So, for Cooper Tina unified school district and for the
Fremont Union high school district, these numbers came from the school districts. How about for the
Santa Clarion by the day come. They conferred with the Santa Clarion school district. The same
demographers conferred with the Santa Clarion school districts and asked them, what should the
student generation grades be based on this unit type. So, they go back and forth talking to the school
districts to get that number. Is it the proposed site? There's only one site. There's only one
site. The Hamptons. Right.
Right? Is it that it would be built so densely that the expectation is it generates so little because it's sitting right next to Apple Campus 2?
It's the density, and again, it's the school district that tells us.
Smaller units, not so suitable for families, et cetera.
Right. Right.
And just so the public is clear, who is benefiting from Apple Campus 2, which school district in terms of
both school impact fees, and substantial higher valuation of the property once projects completed.
It's property tax.
It's mostly on the north side of what is not from bridge.
Yeah.
And that is in the Santa Clara.
Santa Clara School District.
As is the Hampton's project.
Right.
Which is housing development, which is currently apartments between.
Between the three way and the Apple Campus.
Two eighty and we'll throw.
Right. Right.
Okay.
There's one more question on this.
One more follow-up with the jurors.
The Hampton project is the property tax doesn't go to the school district.
Because it's go to the Santa Clara, you know, unify school district.
I have to understand.
Even though the student is not coming to the CST, but the CST doesn't get the property tax for those units.
Okay.
Yeah.
That development plus the the main Apple Campus to building the circular building.
Right.
It's all in Santa Clara unified.
Right.
They're the beneficiary of the property taxes, school impact fees, et cetera.
Right.
The decision man by the CST and the Santa Clara unified school district years ago.
Okay.
My question.
So this one.
It's a clarification.
I think not.
There's a very tiny portion that they go to CST freebound high school district.
But it's not one percent.
I think it's like the ninety ten.
It's clear.
Right.
It's our understanding.
After I mean talked to the school districts that everybody in the Hampton's ghost
Santa Clara for the Apple Campus.
Oh for the.
Yes.
The question.
That is within the probably the phase two along Tantel.
Some of those.
There will be impact fees from that.
That will go towards.
That will go towards the CUSD.
Yes.
So one last question on the.
The 4421.
Is that the.
Alternative C number.
That is the alternative C number and the sustainable community strategies.
I'm in the.
Yeah.
It's not a projection for Guatino.
Right.
Okay.
So just a one 4421 of the.
The 4421 800.
Was on the U.S. D. E.
I'm sorry Santa Clara Hampton.
On the Hampton Let's just call it the.
Yes.
thing, a quarter of it is not in the school of the district.
Even on that number, forget about what happens when you go down in a 1,400.
And yet the number here is, you know, 5% or something.
Yeah, it's just, so, okay.
Thank you.
Senator Clara has different student-generation rates than cupatino?
Clearly.
Yes.
Thank you.
And the density proposed that I have to answer this way beyond anything else.
Right.
It's a combination of the student-generation rate as well as the type unit type.
Yeah, okay.
So, that really helps because it's like, you couldn't make it.
Right.
And again, to explain, we tried to put housing, trying to reduce the impacts of student
students on the school district.
Sure.
Right.
Yeah, okay.
That all helps a lot.
Thank you, much.
American ask one more question.
Party.
I remember October 7th right on this podium here, the sub-indendant from a female
union high school district, Polly, what we was here.
And she was saying that they asked us to support the Bound Major to build 50 classroom to
accommodate 18 students in the next few years.
If that's a case, how can it be only 250 students here for the next 24 year?
I'm going to make any sense to be pleased with your pause.
Please hold your pause.
I really appreciate it.
Again, I'm not having talked to the demographer.
The majority of students come from turnover of existing homes when they get sold, right?
And that's what the school district has told us.
In fact, in the last probably seven years until the Rose Bowl started getting built, we
had practically no housing units that knew housing units that were built in the city and yet
the school districts had about a thousand additional kids.
Most of those come from turnover of existing homes.
And they look at areas where they expect turnover to happen and they project it based on, so
their demographic projections are based on where's turnover going to happen, as well as
where's the city going to build new projects.
So the information.
So my next question is, the city has any survey based on the project we have approved already
in comparison of what they submitted the number and the actual number right now.
For example, the one on the corner of the end on Stephen's street, the next to a separate hotel,
I mean, can we find out a number, how many steering from the complex and then will they
were proposed to be, what is the actual number?
We can find out and I actually asked the demographer a question.
I said, have you gone back and looked at housing developments based on what you had proposed was
going to be generated versus, and they go, they said, you know, usually we find with newer developments
because they're more expensive, the smaller developments tend to have fewer students than
the older apartments because they're less expensive and families feel like they can go there.
So they're pretty confident with the numbers that they used because every year they go back and
look at these numbers.
We can certainly find out the difference between what was proposed and what ended up, but this
was a general question that we asked.
We said, where are the students being generated if these have lower student generation rates?
And so they sort of explained to us where they're coming from, where the students are coming from.
And this is not, we don't go back and look, it's them because they are the ones who work with the schools to
figure out the school planning so they can plan their facilities.
So based on this one here, 40421 units, you only generate 253 students.
That means every 20 units only generate roughly about every 20 minute, 20 units generate one
student.
I mean, that's kind of way too low to me.
I mean, we can give you the numbers that first student for a unit generation, they're pretty
confident because they go back and look at this every year and make sure that their numbers
comply.
They go back and look at the different units.
Can I make an observation?
Okay.
Whether we've been on a slide for like half an hour and it doesn't matter whether you believe
the numbers are not, you have an HD requirement.
Right.
Okay.
So when do we go ahead and bring our, is that's a good e-berry?
So you think that we can see, don't ask any more questions to me?
No, I'm just pointing out that the public might be getting tired and that you guys want
to continue.
I understand the slide's bogus, but it doesn't affect the numbers later.
So.
So you will have that time during the public hearing.
Okay.
Yeah.
At the public hearing, please.
You guys have been really good.
I really appreciate.
We do have the far Marshall can have been come in here, they'll also have a deputy of side
who is assisting us tonight.
So I really appreciate this dialogue here.
Okay.
Good evening.
My name is Steve Nullack.
I'm a principal with place works and we were the authors for the EIR and I'm going to
go through a few slides and highlight the findings of the EIR tonight and also talk a little
bit about the SQL process in general.
So an overview of CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act is the state's primary
environmental protection law and CEQA requires that public agencies disclose environmental
impacts that have the potential for physical effects on the environment as follows.
Effects found not to be significant, significant impacts, ways to mitigate or avoid impacts, effects
that cannot be mitigated and alternatives.
And the general plan EIR goes through all that whole process.
CEQA does not dictate project approval or denial and just the EIR, the draft EIR and the
finally EIR for this project are available on the city's general plan website as this
is a point of information.
The EIR looked at the 2040 build out her horizon and in terms of a general plan it's a large
scale, long range planning document and the EIR evaluates the impacts based on the horizon
year of 2040.
It analyzes growth that occurs between 2014 and 2040 or a 26-year build-out horizon and
2040 is consistent with the plan bay area and the regional transportation plan, some community
sustainable community strategy.
So this EIR is a program EIR, it's a little bit different than a project level EIR, which have
been before you many times.
The program EIR addresses large scale long-term projects and composing a broad scope
of physical development issues, such as general plans, specific or master plans and zoning
ordinances.
This EIR does not look at any specific project.
This looks at the build-out impacts of adoption of this general plan.
So Steve, what you've seen is each project come up later on, you've decided to build, then
they have to do a specific project EIR.
Projects will need to go through a sequel review independently.
That's correct.
Okay, thank you.
So it analyzes the full build-out scenario for this 27-year horizon and it allows project-level
environmental review for future development.
Some EIRs can tear off some of the information in this general plan if the project is consistent
and the information is accurate.
But each project will need to go through its own individual sequel review.
It's also really important to note here that in looking at the build-out horizon of this general
plan, we're really looking at cumulative development within the city and also regional development
as it affects the city.
So in some areas, that's a pretty big number and we've looked at that in close detail in the
EIR.
We've looked at environmental impacts to the extent feasible were environmental impacts
are identified.
Secret requires that they be avoided, minimized, rectified, reduced or eliminated or compensated.
And sequel permits incorporation of mitigation measures designed to protect, preserve and enhance
environmental resources, including goals, policies, and strategies.
And as was discussed earlier, the general plan contains many goals, policies, and strategies
that address potential environmental issues.
A number of impacts, next slide, that the topics that are listed here were evaluated and no impacts
were found.
And we can answer any question on these topics, but we're really going to focus on the impacts
of the environmental topics where we found potential impacts and discussion mitigation measures.
We found a number of significant impacts, both some that can be mitigated and some that are
significant and unavoidable, and I'll go over those in more detail in one minute.
So a very important component of this EIR is the review of the project alternatives.
We looked at these alternatives in a very deep, tremendous amount of detail, pretty much equal
to the project itself.
So in this case, alternative C, which we've talked about today was the highest development alternative,
was considered the project itself in the EIR.
In addition, we looked at the no project alternative, which really looks at continuation of development
under the current general plan, and then we also looked at the potential impacts of
land use alternative A and land use alternative B.
Many of the impacts were found to be less insignificant or able to be reduced to less insignificant
with mitigation.
However, even with implementation of feasible mitigation and compliance with mandatory regulations,
including the general plan policies, impacts to transportation, noise and air quality would
be significant and unavoidable at the general plan level.
The no project alternative would ultimately be the environmentally superior alternative,
which is requirement of sequat, because it would not allow for new development to occur beyond
what is currently planned for the 2020 general plan, and that would obviously result in the least
amount of development in the city, and thereby reduce the consumption of renewable resources.
It would also place fewer demands on the service providers, which require fewer road, sewer
water and energy and infrastructure improvements, and generate less waste.
In accordance with sequat, though, if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project,
the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
Accordingly, in this case, the next environmentally superior alternative would be land use alternative
A, because less development would occur compared to both the proposed project and land use alternative
B. So now I'm going to briefly go over the findings of the EIR, where we found potentially
significant impacts. First one is biological resources, and the EIR found that development in land use
activities as a result of implementation of the project would occur in urbanized areas, where special status.
Species are generally not expected to occur. The potential for occurrence of these species in developed areas is generally very remote and in comparison to undeveloped lands with natural habitat, that contain habitat characteristics for the range of species, known from the west, in the west, Gupertino vicinity.
The mitigation measures really focus on ways to minimize the possible loss or abandonment of nests of birds protected under the federal migratory birds.
Migratory bird treaty act and the California Department of Fish and Game Code, including natural resources, effects on birds and other protected animals.
Nest of raptors and other birds shall be protected when active use as required by the federal migratory bird treaty act and the California Department of Fish and Game Code.
So this was found to be less insignificant with mitigation.
In terms of hazards and hazards and materials, there are known hazards and hazards and materials within the city, and there are issues associated with ground disturbance and building demolition.
So the implementation of a mitigation measure, which is outlined in the hazards chapter, would insure that sites with known hazardous materials have been cleaned up or contaminated before new development occur, the conclusion again is less insignificant with mitigation.
In terms of utilities, utilities related to utilities, service providers, to the residents, visitors and employees of Gupertino are related to the available capacity of the service provider and the need to construct new or physically altered facilities in order to accommodate future development.
The impacts are found to be less insignificant with the exception of sewer treatment capacity and solid waste disposal capacity, both which require mitigation to ensure that service providers have adequate capacity for future development in the city through 2040.
Under sewer treatment, the city will work with sanitary district to increase the city wide treatment and transmission capacity and establish a tracking system as well as demand rates.
The impact here really, reflect the types of buildings that is permitted in Gupertino and this really has to do with the transmission capabilities, not with the actual ability of the sewer treatment facility in San Jose to treat future wastewater.
So with this mitigation measure, impacts will be less insignificant.
In terms of solid waste, the impacts related to utilities, service providers are related to the available capacity of the service provider and the need to construct new or physically altered facilities.
And the city under solid waste shall continue its current recycling ordinances in zero waste policies in an effort to further increase the diversion rate and lower its per capita disposal rate and monitor solid waste generation in relation to capacities at the receiving landfill sites and to ensure their sufficient capacity exists to accommodate future growth.
And with this mitigation measure in place, the impact was found to be less insignificant.
Can I ask a question? Yes. So just out of curiosity, we're required to do the CIR and we're required to have a certain number of housing elements to get approved.
If we have things that cannot be mitigated to significant impacts, we still have to do the same number of units.
Correct?
Yes.
The CIR is a disclosure document. It's not there's nothing that requires, you know, a correlation with housing element or the general plan itself.
So we have to do it, but even if there are significant impacts that we can't mitigate, we have to ignore them and do the housing units anyway.
Well, actually, there's a nuance that maybe one of our attorneys can tell us, we have to identify mitigation measures.
Every feasible mitigation measure that can go as far as it can go before we can do a statement of overriding consideration.
So you cannot say, you know, what we're not going to make and we're not going to have any mitigation.
So we have to do it.
We have to mitigate, we can't mitigate, we have to say we can't mitigate if we're doing it anyway and we have to end the housing units.
Right.
Well, but more exactly, we have to, we have to take it into consideration, we have to mitigate as far as we can.
Right.
And then if there's, there's effects that we can't mitigate, then we, yes, then we have to find overriding consideration.
Right, and we can walk is for some of those, because in some cases, we are not black and white things.
No, because we are identifying mitigations, but if they're not in the city's jurisdiction, for example, if it needs call trends or the county roads to approve them.
Yeah.
Then the city can't say that it's within our jurisdiction.
So we still have to say it's significant unavoidable, even though they will be mitigated.
So there are some technical, you know, technical, I would say, yeah, it texts in the document that maybe we can explain better.
Okay.
So the next one would be noise and the EAR found that under the long term conditions.
Right.
The noise levels.
Sir, I think you skipped the last slide.
Talked into the last slide.
Did I miss one?
This solid waste stuff.
Yeah, I just touched on that.
Okay.
All right.
Very enough.
Okay.
So in terms of noise, the EAR found that roadway noise level would increase as a result of the project to,
to significant and unavoidable impacts to ambient noise levels.
This is exterior noise certainly with building design characteristics and mandatory noise standards.
Interior noise levels are reduced to less and significant levels.
And again, this has to do with a number of factors including regional traffic that travels through the community as well.
So it's not all ascribed to future growth directly from this development.
Similar to air quality noise mitigation measures by individual projects may be able to reduce this overall impact to less and significant level.
In terms of air quality,
the project is consistent with the primary goals of the plan bay area.
And future development would be infill which is more energy efficient and incorporate sustainability sustainable building requirements.
Air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable at the general plan level.
But again, maybe mitigated to less and significant on a project of my project basis.
And I think it's important to note the greenhouse gas emissions both short term and long term are consistent.
Found to be consistent with the statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals.
In terms of traffic and transportation, the ER did find impacts that are significant and unavoidable.
And these are for a number of reasons RT mentioned some of the impacts are outside of the city's jurisdiction.
Also, some of the potential mitigation measures would really go against the idea of the complete streets notion that would affect the ability for multi model transportation.
So you may be able to widen a street to actually accommodate the traffic, but you're really impacting pedestrian and bicycle travel.
And so it was because of the balance they were found to be significant and unavoidable.
And in some cases it would require the taking of right away as well for expansion.
So I think we should mention this slide here on traffic level service.
So even though some of it is our neighboring cities, even if we were to do nothing today and with all the new development that we have proved.
All the retaining of of restaurant stores, etc.
Among our major therapists, I have noticed, you know, or increase of traffic.
A lot of people in this room.
So just going to be already concerns on that.
Other than in building double deck highways or double deck roads or major therapists.
You know, how could we bring in more public transportation.
How could we make sure that our pedestrians or cyclists are safe.
I just can't see how we can have the growth and also provide a level surface of traffic.
That's adequate for our committee.
And now those are very important considerations.
Looking at ways to get people out of their cars using public transportation using other forms of of transit.
I just did that VTA is not really cooperating with us.
We're trying to work our school district to get more buses and it is very, very expensive to do that.
So where can we, how can we make it happen with very little funding and very little cooperation with our regional agencies?
Well I think that as the city continues to grow and as the region continues to grow.
It's just a matter of working with VTA and as much as you can to, you know, facilitate that type of better service.
It has to do with ridership and so bringing in higher densities near workplaces, encouraging shorter commutes and providing, you know, the incentive for VTA to provide better service to facilitate that.
It is kind of a circle.
But we're going through a brick wall. I mean, we're asking for, you know, buses go down north and south on Highway 5.
We're asking for light rail and we're competing with the big 800 pound gorilla called San Jose and we're just very frustrated.
So I don't see, I mean, all you think, all you think is correct, but we're not getting the help that we need.
So I mean, is there something that we can say to the state to actually be to say that we're not getting assistance until we get assistance.
We can't move forward.
I don't, I mean, I am not a housing expert. I'm a SQL guy.
So I really can't answer that.
This from my experience to you, they should, they don't, we don't care about traffic.
Okay.
Order the care about schools really either.
Okay.
Now, who do they work for again?
The governor.
But who, who think a legend is working for for the people, right?
Who is just reelected by a lot of the people.
All right.
So another question you, you've come up for us before and there's a lot of noise and pollution things that you say inside of a building.
They can do things in a building to make that less noisy and say.
But part of this whole plan is to encourage people to walk around the city and bicycle and things.
How is that addressing the needs of the person on the bike?
Well, it means that there will be a noise here environment.
I mean, as, you know, as in any city, you do have a heavy ambient noise on roadways due to traffic and other factors.
And this is disclosing that that will occur over time as development increases.
So in conclusion, I think it's really important to note that we did look at all of the alternatives at the same level of detail independent of the proposed project.
And it sequer requires it a lead agency identify mitigation measures and alternatives in order to avoid or less an impacts.
They don't always less an impacts enough to bring them below the significance thresholds, which are outlined in the SQL guidelines.
The recommended mitigation measures in the EIR would apply to all the alternatives.
And even with compliance with federal state and local regulations, including both existing and proposed general plan policies,
designated to reduce environmental impacts.
They would also apply to all the future development.
What's really important here is to note that the significant and unavoidable impacts really were found to apply for all of the alternatives.
So, including the no project, including existing growth under the existing general plan.
And this has, again, a lot to do with cumulative development, which is factored in as required by SQL.
Happy to answer any other questions.
So just to be clear, they're found to be in all cases, even if we do nothing, but if we do more, they're all in all 30 cases, they're worse.
They are worse, but still under the no project alternative, you still are looking at significant unavoidable impacts.
So I'd just like to point out that under the SQL Law, we are required to have a 45 day public review period, which started for this draft for this EIR on June 18 included an August 1st of this year.
We got six comment letters from public agencies and 19 comment letters from members of the general public.
Most comments did not pertain to the adequacy of the draft EIR.
Since then, there have been a correction language that its implications made, but there were no substantial revisions made to the document, and that is all part of the final EIR.
Late comments that were addressed. I have been addressed in late comments memo.
These are this document addresses comments received through November 1st, 2014.
And I would like to note that it did not raise any new and addressed issues.
Late comments that have since the date of the date comments memo, which is November 3rd, have been sent to the council and do not raise any new and address.
Any new and addressed issues either.
With that, staff concludes this presentation and request that the city council review the key questions posed for your final adoption of reservations and ordinances.
Does that conclude staff support?
Yes.
Okay, just want to make sure there is more slides on mine, so just want to make sure.
With that, just the council has any questions for staff as if we didn't ask any questions that all during the two-hour presentation.
No further questions for me?
Thanks, near things.
Yeah, I do.
I wanted to talk a little bit more about Valco, so.
Good question to me, right.
Yeah, these are questions.
So, can you tell us again what the retail consultant city hired told us about the feasibility of retail at Valco?
He's available for questions, but we can summarize it by saying that.
What the retail consultant said is, can we have him come if I hear you can hear from the expert.
He's going to make his way to the party.
Thank you very much, and if you can state your name, of course, I know who you are.
The public and TV land.
Just for the record, so we have about 200 people in this room.
I want to say thank you for your cooperation.
And we also have another hundred people at the City Hall annex as well, too. So I have not forget about the folks who are in the secondary building as well, too. Thank you for your patience, everyone.
So I'm David Greensfeldor. I'm the retail consultant, and I was watching over in the lobby, so could you repeat the question, please?
I heard my name and took off.
Yeah, I appreciate it.
I mean, we've, you've testified to the City Council before and prepared a report. Can you summarize that report for the benefit of everybody here?
With regard to Valco. Yes.
Well, what, what, what, what is our hope for keeping Valco as a complete as a retail center?
A thriving retail center, the mall we had 30 years ago, or some fact suddenly they're of retail.
All retail.
Well, I think there are a number of questions there.
Can, could we have Valco remain as a, as a thriving retail center that we had 30 years ago?
Could it be some facsimile there of, should it be something else?
The conclusion that we came to in the retail report was that the Valco that we had 30 years ago is really not practical.
The retail landscape here in this area has changed that the Valley Fair because of its location, and also because of the anchors and the ownership is going to make it very difficult for Valco to become a a
a thriving regional mall in the traditional sense, and that it probably needs to be reinvented with less retail and the question that we really that we really posed in the report was, is it possible to assemble all of the various ownership.
Every one of those ownership, under the CC and ours for the project, has a, has a veto right effectively.
Any of them can say, no, you can't change the common areas, you can't change certain things.
AMC, which has a leasehold interest, has essentially the same veto right, and the question is, can one entity actually gain control of all of those.
One entity could, then they'd unanimously be able to amend or dispose of the CC and ours and, and change the project.
Certainly, there ought to be a substantial retail presence there, but whether it should be a traditional retail center, I think the answer for practical purposes probably is no.
Probably, can you, well, about that.
The, the probably has to do with.
Or had to do with because as everybody, I'm sure is aware, there's in very recent developments with sand to a property company, reportedly gaining control of all of the anchors except for AMC, I believe.
So the probably is, do those retail anchors stay because they effectively have no incentive not to.
The, they're not having an incentive to change has to do with the fact that it's very inexpensive for them to stay there, and even if they're not doing particularly robust sales,
they still could be operating profitably, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that they're old, their capital expenditures have been written down, they own their property.
You know, they're effectively the equivalent of somebody here in this room that has owned their house for 40 years completely paid off the mortgage and has a 40 year old property tax basis, it's pretty cheap to stay in that house.
So if somebody like Peter Powell has been able to gain control, then there could be change.
If he hasn't been able to gain control, then any one of those tenants really has a little incentive to close down an operation that operates profitably until somebody's willing to buy them out for more than the net present value of their cash flows from operations.
Are you aware of the Silicon Valley business journal article dated October 28th this year entitled developer buys anchor stars at Cupertino's Valcomal JC pennies and Sears to close.
I talked about Sears closing in 2015 sometime and then JC penny maybe after March 2016.
Yes, I refer to that article a moment ago, so I'm aware that that has happened again and I think the article.
What's liable to happen when Sears closes there?
I'm sorry.
What happens when Sears closes there? What happens to the rest of the facility?
Would somebody else likely move in?
Well, I think it's anybody's guess what happens because it has, you know, what have to do with who who then own Sears, which is a sandwell property company, or at least perspectively sandwell property company.
I think that they've bought that property for redevelopment purposes.
So would it continue to be retail? It depends on what their plan would show.
I mean, the Sears property is probably the best part of that overall land for retail development, at the corner of Wolfenstein Street.
Because it transcends Stephen's Creek.
Yeah, and Wolfenstein.
It essentially has the corner.
Yeah.
So, you know, would that be retail?
I would guess that that would be a spot that would be heavily considered for retail development, but I have not aware of any plans or at least have seen any plans that have been drawn.
Okay.
But you see every full retail component, right? Yes.
And then, but the current, the current theory is about 0.2 mean square fee for the retail, but the proposed is 600,000 square fee.
Do you see, how can that be? I mean, you reduce in half, how can you have a thriving retail?
Well, I mean, first of all, 600,000 square feet of retail is a very substantial amount of retail.
So, 600,000 square feet of retail is certainly not something that I would look at and say, oh, well, that's just a shadow of what would be a thriving retail environment.
Santana Roe is smaller than that.
On the retail.
So, you understand, we have 1.2 mean and square fee retail space right now.
Well, I understand that you nominally have 1.2 million square feet of retail space.
You certainly don't have 1.2 million occupied square feet of retail space.
Yeah.
Okay, exactly.
Do you know what the revenue right now?
The current revenue, we're receiving now?
For Velco.
In sales tax dollars?
Yes.
For property tax dollars?
A sales tax dollar, and then probably tax dollar.
On the top of my head, I don't know.
Can you get a few of us?
I would look to staff to...
Are you yet?
We can get it.
It's relatively small.
I think it's about the same amount we get for target.
That big is, is only about the same as the target?
It's because it's mostly vacant.
It's about 50% of vacant.
Okay.
And just to clarify that, targets and newer developments.
So it's going to have a more current or more recent property tax basis.
Secondly, target does fairly substantial sales,
whereas the sales that come out of the sears, pennies,
and Macy stores are relatively little.
It wouldn't surprise me if target sales,
you know, are approaching the other sales combined.
So from a sales tax generation perspective,
it wouldn't, you know, what we're being told doesn't surprise me at all.
Okay.
So you've seen San Danaro, there's then 600 we'll...
600 we'll feed retail space right now.
No, I didn't say San Danaro was 600,000 square feet,
but what I was saying was...
I was saying 600, 600,000 square foot retail project
could be a spectacular project.
I mean, one thing that I think, you know,
Council Member Chang, that's very important to keep in mind
is that I think that even if you had a 400,000 square foot retail project
that was full and bustling and people were dying to get in
and people were complaining that there wasn't enough space,
that's a problem of capacity constrained.
And that to me is a problem of abundance.
So if you're a worst problem is that you have 600,000 square feet
of retail space, and it wasn't quite enough,
that's so much better a problem than the problem
that you presently have with Falco.
But do we anticipate that will be a problem like
don't we ask for more now?
Instead of 600,000 square feet,
and we know it's going to run out of space,
that doesn't make any sense to me, though.
Well, perhaps I'm a spoke.
I mean, I was speaking hypothetically
about 600,000 square feet of occupied space,
that if I was saying if it were full,
not that it would be full.
I think that a market study needs to be done
to determine what sort of demand there is.
And that is in part going to depend on the sort of project
that would be built.
If it were a project that were a lot,
you know, what we commonly call big box stores,
so commodity retailers that are selling
the best buys of the world,
sports authority or dexporting goods,
those sorts of stores,
you could begin to populate 600,000 square feet
fairly quickly because those stores are so large.
I mean, a home depot would be 110,000 square feet.
Whereas if you're going to do a more specialty environment,
that is more about, you know,
what I think we traditionally call lifestyle
where places that people are spending their discretionary time
and their discretionary income,
those stores tend to be much smaller
by way of comparison.
And you might find yourself with a much smaller project.
So part of it really depends on what's determined
there to be demand for.
Okay, so can I ask you the next question?
Absolutely.
If this is thriving 600 square feet,
600,000 square feet retail space,
how much revenue can be generated?
Roughly.
You don't need to get it.
Even on a per square foot basis?
Right.
I'll just roughly help.
You know, again,
I'm going to, I'm going to dodge
giving you direct answer to that question.
Sure.
And what I'm going to say is that
it would depend on the sort of retail.
If you had a smaller project that had smaller
stores, boutiques, restaurants,
you might find a much higher per square foot number
than if you were going to have a home depot
or a Walmart, just, I mean,
not, I'm not advocating that those would be the uses,
but I'm using them as examples of proxies,
if you will, for, you know,
very large stores that on a per square foot basis,
probably would not generate the same sort of income.
Well, can you give me some wallpaper for you?
Your answer doesn't mean nothing to me.
I mean, no figure.
Okay.
I need some kind of, I'm,
engineers, I need some kind of figure.
I can figure out,
which is worthwhile to push that way or to push this way.
I,
are the scope,
the scope of work that we did,
did not include coming up with
potential sales volumes for different
developments in areas.
So, I'm sorry,
but I don't think that I could give you some numbers
that I, I feel comfortable,
I could stand behind.
Okay.
So, I wanted to go back to the question asked earlier,
if,
for whatever reason the developer decides that San Hill,
or whoever buys the property from San Hill
or whatever, whoever is able to aggregate this,
if they decide because of what actions we take,
that they're not going to go ahead with a redevelopment.
How feasible do you think it would be for,
when Sears closes for another anchor to move in,
to the place that Sears will leave?
I think it's entirely feasible for another anchor to move in.
The question is,
what would the anchor be?
So,
one of the things that we did study was where Cooper Tina sits
in the larger retail environment.
So,
you have,
you have Valley Fair on the one hand,
which has Macy's Nordstrom,
what have you on the other hand,
you've got,
you have Stanford Shopping Center,
Nordstrom, Blooming Dales, Blooming Dales,
and Neiman Marcus are both,
you know,
have both and continue to talk with Westfield
about expansion and Valley Fair.
I think you can cross along.
Valley Fair,
Valley Fair.
So, Blooming Dales,
what would a Blooming Dales,
or some real attractive retailer,
want were they to be attracted to move to Valco?
Would they,
would they move into the space currently occupied by Sears as it is,
or would they have other demands?
I would think that if they moved into the space that Sears,
presently,
I'm surprised that you wouldn't recognize it as you know it today,
that it would be,
it would be effectively remodeled to the point of,
of non-recognition.
I don't know if it would be expanded enough,
but I don't think you're going to get that sort of use here.
I think that effectively you're in the middle.
Because the area is already covered by those retailers,
that they're going to look at,
they're going to look at their sales patterns,
and look at their customer base,
and they're going to find that there's no reason to open a store
in Cupertino when they already have,
you know,
Winchester and Steven's Creek covered on the one end
and Stanford covered on the other.
They are,
if they do want to open,
if they're not currently in Valley Fair,
that's probably the preferred location,
because it's being so successful,
or,
I'll be out here.
Let's say that I have a location that stands for mall. And I'm considering something down this direction.
If it could be attractive to open up, even if the rent is rather small, could it be attractive to open up in either the sears location, or the JVC pennies location, or
would the calculation rather be, hey, we need to be where the, we need to be at the more successful mall, even if it costs us more, that is Valley Fair.
More successful, even at a higher price.
Yeah. Yeah. I see. So the answer is, they would elect to go to Valley Fair.
Yeah. It just has, it just has situational attributes in the trade area that are superior to Valko's.
And it has, it has proven sales that are superior to Valko's, and it has codependency that's superior to Valko's.
So what does somebody write? What is codependency?
Retailors, retailers aggregating together. So codizally would be, it's a Valko synergy.
Exactly. The fact that they, they're already, there's already a lot of traffic.
It's a destination. People go there for two or three or four stores and so forth.
I mean, for God's sake, if you're going to Valko, your codependency is hot dog on a stick, Victoria's secret, and AMC.
So can I ask a question? So 30 years ago, Valko was the place everybody wanted to be.
How did Valley Fair get all the people we from Valko?
Well, it's in a better location.
I mean, just fundamentally, it's in a better location.
It's at the intersection of two major freeways.
It's at the intersection of Steven's Creek and Winchester.
So in terms of location in the trade area, it's much higher traffic and much easier for more people to get to.
And they also invested.
You know, Valko has been, nobody's invested in Valko.
Oh, no, I don't have to feel bottom and overhauled them what 25 years ago.
Right. I'm just noting that they were able to move people from Valko to there.
I don't think they moved people from Valko there.
I think they got new people.
And there's always, they got new people.
They got new people.
And there's always, they got new people in a way.
Nordstrom's went there.
But there's new clothing stores and trendy things coming out of the time.
That may not have room at Valley Fairview.
How many go back to Councilor Chang's question?
I did think you said there's less than 600,000 square feet of retail at Santana Roe.
So is that true or not true?
You know, I could go look at the report and tell you exactly how many.
But it's not, it's not particularly large.
Do you know, as you know, if you have a regional moximate gap.
Yeah.
I recall, it's slightly over 600,000.
I'm going to say 639,000.
Okay.
And doing a big Valley Fairviews?
1.2 million.
I was going to say 1.3.
So it's about the same size as Valko.
According to the data I have here.
It's 40 Santana Roe is 42.5 acres.
It has 788,000 square feet of retail entertainment and entertainment and food and beverage.
That's some, right?
I'm sorry, Santana Roe.
Santana Roe is 42.5 acres.
So it's somewhat smaller than the Valko parcel.
It has 788,000 square feet of retail entertainment and food and beverage.
I think that the 788,000 also includes some non-retail uses.
So that does sound about right when you adjust for the non-retail uses that are part of that number.
Okay.
The answer to your question.
So the top 15 US retail is which includes Apple, Tiffany and whatever.
So some of those are like $3,000 to $4,000 square foot.
But when you get down at number 15 it's a thousand and then it'd be go below that.
So like a mostly jewelry store but like a coach's 1500.
So high end stores can generate quite a bit.
I mean a thousand dollars of square foot is a huge number.
Well it's just reading what the number.
So your number 15 is something where they're still hitting it out of the dark.
So cut that in half and say 500.
I mean just to give you a data point which I think is kind of interesting to this conversation
and also Cupertino.
I've been told the Blooming Dales in San Francisco is approximately $100 million a year store.
$100 million a year in sales.
The Apple store that's across the street does about $110 million a year in sales.
But it's tiny.
Right.
No Apple was the highest per square foot on the list.
So what are you saying is about pretty much doing that?
I think that that is I think that's absolutely true in its present incarnation.
I think that reinvented differently with a different set of tenants and a different configuration as a smaller project.
It could be quite successful.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other additional questions?
Thank you very much Mr. Randall.
Any other questions for staff?
Yes.
Okay.
Number one.
Can we ask this?
Can we ask school districts to send a representative to this meeting?
Can you please call your class?
I really need to.
Please call your class.
Thank you.
I believe that was a request.
I maybe somebody from the audience can I'm not sure if the representative is here.
Do we have any school districts from CUSD or free Mahaskos district representative here?
I don't see.
Okay.
You want to comment about the number of the students?
Okay.
You want to comment about the number of the students?
Okay.
The first thing is to comment on if you just don't choose to decide to come up.
So it's really up to you, sir.
If you would like to come up.
Because I can't have a conversation.
Because this is a public hearing.
So this gentleman is from the group.
He is good district.
I don't see anybody.
Is anybody here from the free Mahaskos district?
Okay.
So the group.
He is good district represents key through eight.
Yes.
Good evening.
I'm Christian on the chief business officer.
So.
Council.
Question again was around the student generation.
Right.
The number.
No.
As you were debating that, I was thinking about this.
Because prior to coming to the meeting, I had read the impact report.
Right.
That the demographer and our specials had put together.
If I recall right from the report, I think the projection that staff is using is based on
they had made an assumption based on what they had projected for like a tenure period
time.
So I think what's up there doesn't really reflect the entire period until 2040.
So I think the amount that would be generated is much greater when you take into account fully
implementing by the year 2040.
Again, I'm going to ask you to please stop the following.
Okay.
I do have a deputy outside.
If I hear it one more time, then I'm going to ask the deputy step inside and then
to find the folks who are clapping and ask you to step out.
So I probably asked to go back and look at the report.
Because I just read a navy about two hours ago.
Okay.
And that is what I believe I think the assumption was that the demographer was based upon what
it might look like in a tenure period of time.
So that I think the district could plan because we would not.
We would not necessarily assume that that all of the students would be generated or
obviously over a shorter period of time, but over the entire span.
Well, I mean.
Oh, go ahead.
I'm just kind of figure out when the number is generated.
I'm assuming.
Okay.
While it can fluctuate right that it has to arrive at some steady state value.
That is.
Okay.
All of a sudden new housing is created that generate students.
And over time that flats out to some increased average incremental student count.
Right.
And yes, it's going to go down and up with time.
But I'm hoping and I'm expecting that what the those numbers represent is that average rather than,
you know, fluctuation.
I would believe so.
I would think it would give you a kind of rough average over time.
Yes.
Right.
Okay.
So Chris.
Based on the slide.
I saw the middle school steering for 4042421 unit in 24 year, which generate 253 students for the middle school.
And then that's 24 years.
So that means every year it generates about 11.
11 students.
No, as I was saying, I think I think the amount that shows up on the screens of you,
maybe bring that back up.
I think it represents only like a change during that time.
Do you?
Can you bring up the.
What is that?
That's why I'm confused by your statement.
Yes.
The student number of students.
Please.
Yeah.
Please bring it up.
And Chris, thank you very much.
And thank you very much for taking this big podium.
So why they're working on it can ask the question.
Yes.
The attorney.
And the city manager.
Can we ask for community benefit for no.
No.
No, project.
No.
I'll say.
Can we ask for the community benefit?
I'm for.
No, no, no project.
No, attorney.
Oh, it's not.
It's not part of the no project alternative.
It's only part of the project alternatives.
One of them.
So you we see.
Alternatively, we can ask for the.
We can ask for the community benefit.
For alternative A right.
I believe so.
Okay.
A and B and C.
We can ask for the community benefit.
Okay.
The just one clarification.
Council member central mentioned about the staff was voting on the workshop.
I attend one of the workshop.
But my table.
Me and Pew, we did not.
We did not.
Okay.
So I can see the staff did not vote on the workshop table.
As far as I can see from my table.
So just just did that you know.
Any other questions?
No, I'm waiting for them to come back.
One question.
Our T told me that.
Only B and C are community benefits available because under alternative.
They are no increase in heights and the community benefits are only for increase in heights.
But we approved the higher height.
Okay.
I.
No.
Total building.
Then we can ask for the community benefit.
No, because it's it's an exchange for additional development capacity.
If I understand correctly to the question I asked earlier, if we said, it's 45 feet all over the city.
First developers that wanted to do more.
We could enter into a development agreement to provide community benefits.
And that money, for example, could go to the schools or to community shadows or lots of other things.
Yeah.
The question was alternative a the lowest.
Doesn't have any heights above 45 feet at all.
Well, it has 60 with retail in places, right?
Just just about.
Just in about.
Okay.
Maybe I just will take one minute and explain the community benefit for the viewing audience a little bit.
Because what happened is that we are absolutely restricted under the general plan from having additional private development money.
So so staff very creatively came up with an idea in with some consultants and assistants have a carefully tailored way of having some additional what they call community benefits.
And there's nothing magical about kind of just made it up because what happened is we're setting the standards for height.
But if somebody wants to exceed the height under our general plan then we can enter into a private development with them.
And so under the private agreement we can ask for things that we couldn't require under state law.
They could say yes, they could say no, they'd propose it.
So it's a private development deal that we can work on afterwards.
We can't make it part of this discussion.
All we can provide is an opportunity that if they want more, they can pay for more.
In other words, the details of what would be in that plan aren't appropriate for discussion.
The evening.
Correct.
But once we set a height or we set some bounds on things.
If if subsequently we get proposals in that go above that that somehow want to expand the envelope in some way.
As long as they don't exceed the EIR or I guess that could be separate secret we're required for these projects anyway.
We could but without secret review whatever the upper limit that you adopt in general plan which would be done by the secret review.
Right.
So we generally do not expect having to do additional secret review.
We expect it would be a private to private.
Extrinsic additional negotiation.
In other words, if a project falls within the sequence envelope that we've approved as part of this process.
We would have to see what the level of review is.
It all depends on the project type.
It's hard for us to say whether it's a supplemental to the EIR, it can be a negative day.
It depends on whether it's a complete falls within the envelope of the EIR.
Right, and the time frame, because once you get beyond a certain time frame of the EIR, it's a sale.
You have to update it.
Right.
Okay, thanks.
One more question.
The service showed not that the demand for the office space is 3.6 million square feet within
within how long.
We looked at through the 2040 period.
2040 people.
Does it include in Apple's campus 2.2.6 million?
No, it does not include that.
Okay.
So after 2.6 million square feet from Apple, we still have a demand of 3.6 million square feet for the office space.
Not including what Apple's campus, this is what's in the general plan.
Right?
That's what we're talking about.
So this general plan, and the 3.6, we're not going to mix up with the, what we deserve for the large corporation, like Apple.
For the, no, it basically said a maximum of 3.6 through these years, and that could include the 500,000.
Could include the 500,000.
Okay.
We don't have to do 3.6, that's just.
It's just a market study to say how realistic are these numbers?
So the campus is not bounded by any of these numbers.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
So let me explain the process when I'm going to do next for the public hearing.
So I have about 200 people here, and I have 100 people in city hall.
I'm going to call for a 10 minute break to give an opportunity for the folks in the other room to come here and fill a part.
If all the blue cards speak tonight, and I have 50 in my hand right now, and you get 3 minutes each, that will be about 2 hours and 40 minutes.
Once I come in the meeting, again, our farm mushrooms back there can come in our deputy in that corner.
We'll make sure that all the, the room is, is up to code.
And if I call your name, I will wait for you if you are in the, in the other room.
So I will keep calling your name until, you know, you're not here.
So I'm going to take a 10 minute break that will give folks who are in the cryptocurrency hall to come on over to fill a blue card.
And then when they come in the meeting, I will not start the meeting until the farm marshal gives me the OK that I can start the meeting that everything is up to code.
I call for a 10 minute break and ask the folks in the other room to come over and please fill in the blue card.
Thank you.
Again, I have 62 speaker cards and if you guys speak three minutes, we'll be here for about three hours.
I mean, you're all welcome to speak toward the end.
You can say that I agree with my previous speaker or speak one minute.
You don't have to take all three minutes, but you're welcome to take all three minutes, but we take all three minutes.
We'll be here for 10, 20, 11, 20, 12, about one, 30 in the morning.
Can I make a suggestion?
Can we have the developer make a dip presentation?
It's all under the public hearing parts, so we're going to begin.
The first speaker's presentation is Preston Shiappa, CHI-A-PPA Preston.
Followed by Brooke S.A. E. Z. Z. A. T. Followed by Patricia K. O. R. N. E. S. C. Z. UK.
If you can just step up forward, you will help the process.
Welcome.
My name is Preston Shiappa.
I live on Brittany Court, which is just a couple blocks away.
My wife and I can walk here.
We've lived in Kupatino for 27 years.
We didn't expect to live in a valley with giant buildings along both sides of our roads.
I have a question, and it's something the governor said.
The governor said that we're in a drought, and we've been in a drought for four years.
And I've seen nothing in the plans which have anything to do with what are we going to do for
water for the next four or five thousand people that are forced to come into Kupatino.
I think the city council, instead of just saying we're all we must obey the law that you should be doing,
is contacting our representatives and the governor and say, listen, we're in a drought.
We don't want to add 5,000 people to our city.
We don't have the water resources for it.
So can we do something to modify the law so that we don't have to do this until we can solve our water crisis.
And solving water crisis does the mean just wait till it rains.
But really solve our water crisis before we can bring new people in.
Second of all, please hold your positive really appreciate it.
Second of all, the streets which are being designated for a lot of the new sites.
Wolf Avenue is two lanes each way, but if you look at the next road over which is Tantau,
which is borders on the main street and also Apple, that street is one lane each way.
So what we're doing is our North South roads are being will be totally overloaded.
If you look at Wolf now, it's being overloaded because it's an entrance onto 280 North and South.
And when Apple gets built there, it's going to overload Wolf Avenue for that.
And third of all, how can my North don't see anything going on in East Gupertino?
There's no sites, for example.
If you go on McClull on a trillion hit, the net the road where it dead ends for that.
There's an old shopping center there.
Why is it that site being chosen as a possible site that can be built for housing?
You know, all the sites are being concentrated in same area.
It's going to cause extreme congestion in that area.
That's an area where I live in.
So I want to know why the city council has not chosen any other areas.
They East Gupertino or the North itself, but trying to concentrate everything into a very small area for that.
So that's my question right now for it.
Oh yes, and two other things.
One thing is I saw nothing in the general plan about new parks, acreage for new parks.
The only new park I know that was built recently was Cali Park, which is one acre, about 44,000 square feet.
We have 52,000 residents.
So that's less than one square foot per resident for the city of Gupertino.
So why isn't there something in the plan that says, we need park space for the people.
We've got 52,000 people.
We need more parks space for it.
Thank you Mr. President, your time is up regarding all your questions.
I wrote them all down so we'll answer them at the end.
Thank you very much.
Again, please hold your applause.
If there's so many someone's going to pause.
The deputy over there is going to ask you step outside.
I'm not asking to leave, but you can sit in the lobby because I want this to be a fair in.
The next speaker is Rook.
Is it easy to eat?
Rook?
Welcome.
Thank you for letting me speak.
I live on plump tree lane.
I think that your plan is great.
It covers a lot of bases, but something that it doesn't cover is the quality of life.
And that can't really be quantified.
I think that this additional development will put an undo burden
on schools, particularly in our side of Cupertina, which is the previous speaker mentioned as already congested.
And we have all of the development going on on our side.
Effectively, this is sort of ghettoizing the city.
It's turning our section of the city into the nimbee section of the city.
In regards to the schools, I really have serious concerns with the under estimation of the population of the school population.
When I looked at the 2010 census,
they stated that the average size of the family in Cupertina is 3.84 people up from 3.27 in 2010.
Clearly, the low number of people entering the schools, according to the estimates,
make me conclude that either everyone sending their children to private school,
or we have a lot of people that are single moving to Cupertina for exciting nightlife.
And finally, the thing that really concerns me about the development is the fact that we live in a valley,
and we're tied to technology.
And as we all know, that's really cyclical.
I lived in Cupertina when they were at vacant buildings on deans that were apple buildings.
And all things being equal, we're going to hit this again.
And I'm concerned that this plan will allow us to overbuild.
We won't have the capacity to absorb either that the housing or the people in the schools,
and that we will be sort of a belated area at some point.
And that's all I have to say.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Asit.
Next speaker is Patricia.
Cornesta C-K-O-R-N-E-S-Z-E-A-U-K.
Patricia.
Okay, I'm going to hold on to this card in the House.
The other building has been closed, because I've personally went over there,
and most of you are in the building.
Eddie Lee is the next speaker.
Eddie Lee.
Next speaker is Joan O'Yang Lee.
Joan O'Yang Lee.
Next speaker is Sam Lin.
L-I-N.
Sam Lin.
Welcome.
Good evening.
My name is Sam Lin.
I'm representing Chinese Church in Christ in Coppettino,
administrative committee.
And our church is located at 10455,
just by a blog away from Marina Funt.
And we have been in this current location since 2004,
a little bit more than 10 years,
and with a congregation of approximately 300 people.
And so I'm speaking on this Marina Plaza project,
simply from never in church as perspective.
And first of all,
because of the vicinity,
our church is able to outreach to the patrons of Marina Plaza.
And we share the good news with them.
They come to our church,
and their life been changed and make a very positive impact
to their families and the community as well.
And so we've seen just over the last 10 years,
the population in the surrounding apartments and houses,
close to Marina Funt.
There are a lot of Asian Americans migrating into the area.
Not only because they want to live in this great city of Corpettino,
but also because the anchor supermarket there,
providing not only the convenience,
but providing some kind of exchanges of information
in the very familiar settings.
And they find conference being there.
And we also,
the same token we see in the growth of population in our church,
for that same regards.
So when we heard this Marina Plaza,
it's going to be redeveloping and expanding not only the retail,
but also the housing.
Our feeling is that this is a very,
making a lot of sense in terms of the organic growth
and the grassroots growth,
because it's not only people residing that areas,
you know, with the easy communion access to the retail locally,
they can walk into the sports center,
the memory park,
they can come to the church,
so we see a great synergy of the growth
of both the church and Marina Plaza.
So I just want to be here to make a point.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Lynn.
The next speaker have is Larry Hennler,
I think it's H-E-N-D-L-E-R, Larry Hennler.
Okay, thank you for my three minutes of infamy here.
If I was cynical before this session,
I think I have grown exponentially,
and my cynicism is a result of everything we've seen here.
A brief comment,
I think Douglas Adams got the process perfectly
and they check his guy to the galaxy,
and those who don't understand the concept of libraries right over there,
and you can fill in the blanks that way.
We have basically an issue of values.
And it was brought up briefly about the cyclical nature of Silicon Valley and the like. We're talking about what the values, the value of our life is here, our home is here. And I see this entire program as proposed, a basically adversely affecting potentially strongly adversely affecting the values of all of our homes here.
The things that attracted us to cooperating or things like the schools, the quality of life, the nature, the small town nature, the low building, and here we're going around changing all of this.
And what really upsets me is the comment made early on by our consultants who put all this work into the plan.
Clearly stating, for example, that the Valko, the south of Valko proposal, is built to optimize the value for the investors.
And that really disturbs me. Because it completely ignores the value of the people who are already living there. And the residents in the impact that this is going to have on them.
So if we're going to be looking at value for going to be looking at how things behave, I would suggest that any proposal that's put in.
And we have no choice. I mean, laws have been dictated to us as to what we have to do.
I strongly suspect, and this is cynicism speaking, these laws have been dictated by those same people who are trying to optimize their value in their development processes.
They have a better value than I do definitely in the state of California.
So I wouldn't be surprised to track the process that way.
But I would strongly suggest to the council whatever proposal is chosen to take a proposal that is spread out as vastly over the area with a small development in each of the locations as possible.
To minimize the value added to the developers while at the same time meeting the requirements of the state law to make this happen.
And I think it's a matter of a little bit of arithmetic to make this happen.
I think the numbers in the bare minimum should be what we propose should be done in that fashion to minimize the adverse effect to us and minimize the profit of the developers.
Thank you, Mr. Henler.
The next speaker is a long next week, Jennifer Griffin.
Carlyne Mashinif and Claire Arnold.
Jennifer Griffin?
Thank you, Mayor Wong. I'm Jennifer Griffin.
And I wholeheartedly agree with that gentleman that just spoke before.
I think I wrote his name down, but I have diligently gone to all the 22 or 25 meetings for the last two years on this item.
And this is our second or third housing element that we've all kind of slugged through.
My kudos to the staff, they've done a tremendous job, believe me.
Nobody could pay anyone to go through this.
And you guys have gone, you know, everybody's been very patient, tried very hard.
But then again, I will just say, I'm a big proponent of the no project alternatives.
Let's just make it easy. No project alternatives.
No A, no B, no C.
No project alternatives fixes everything.
No community benefits under no conditions.
I have seen these things come up again every time and time again.
They people try to slip the men.
And that means that you have condominiums with inadequate parking.
You have cities giving developers the right to put in six stories.
When there was no public input at all, no parks.
I mean, I'm community benefits, as far as I'm concerned, should just be verboten.
And that's why I'm saying, and you can listen to what I said in the planning commission meeting about it.
And the planning commission was very wise to say no community benefits.
I also am concerned about putting a one to one building mass set back for multiple stories along Steven's Creek Boulevard.
Right now Main Street is one to one point five.
That is the way it was built.
We meant it to be beautiful.
We live in the eastern end.
What we see on Steven's Creek, we want to be beautiful for Cooper Tina.
One, we don't know what's going to happen to Steven's Creek Boulevard in the future.
We already have some high rises there.
And as far as I'm concerned, no vertical canyons.
Main Street will not be vertical canyons because we had the foresight to make sure people from my neighborhood
that the second stories on those buildings are pulled back from Steven's Creek Boulevard.
I don't want Main Street to be resowned to one to one because it is even finished being built yet.
I don't, I think we need to go slowly on this.
And no fixed bus rapid transit.
I heard today that Oakland had put this in from international Boulevard to Kalamazoo.
I sure hope this thing isn't being planned for Steven's Creek Boulevard because it comes through my end of the city.
And as it is now, I'm at Lawrence in 280 and I hop in Steven's Creek.
I can't get downtown, I can't get down Wolf, I can't get down Blaney half the time.
North South, you know, I understand it will be, we have a good reason of having building sites coming in.
They're doing a great job, but it is, you know, all I go down Lawrence half the time because I can't get around.
We need to make sure that what we're doing to Cooper Tina is not going to impact future generations.
I just say slow down, go slow.
No, no, let's, let's do the, no way, no, be no see.
Let's do no project alternative.
Keep the building height, stay on and protect Valka. Thank you.
Thank you. I really appreciate people watching their time.
I really appreciate Karline Meshanniff.
Good evening, Mayor Wong, members of the City Council.
My name is Karline Meshanniff with the Irvine Company.
I would like to speak this evening on the possibility of the redevelopment of the Hampton's currently a 342 unit project.
Located adjacent to the new Apple Campus 2.
The Hampton's is not located in the Cooper Tina school district, as mentioned earlier, so we will be
impacting the Santa Clara school district and are working with them already on discussions of mitigation and
an understanding of that school district needs and impacts.
Our traffic won't exit onto single family streets.
It will exit onto the I-280 and this project along with others will trigger improvements to the wolf interchange and
prepared to pay our priority share of those improvements.
We've also worked out and agreed to language for the general plan amendment on the height along the
Apple boundary and respect of their privacy and security to a maximum of 60 feet.
The redevelopment of the Hampton's will contribute to many of the fees and improvements in the city of Cooper Tina.
And the Irvine Company has a resources to design and build an outstanding project that the city can be proud of.
We have a tradition and history of not selling off assets.
We will be the landowner, developer, and property manager for the long-term.
The city and residents can be comfortable with our reputation, quality, and financial resources
that the Irvine Company can bring to the city of Cooper Tina.
We support the planning commission's recommendation on the Hampton's for 748 units.
Thank you very much.
Can I ask Connie in the question?
Yes.
Connie would not many units.
You ask in the city council to approve.
What kind of community benefit are you going to offer to the city?
Well, I think that those would be negotiated most probably through development agreement.
We have the continuation of 34 below market rate units which are already included in our existing Hampton's project.
Those will follow this project in addition.
We'll be park fees and all of the necessary other infrastructure improvements, including.
As I mentioned, the contribution to the wolf interchange once the city is conducted by the city.
There's a host of other fees which I don't know until we begin the negotiations.
But we're prepared to do that.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
The next speaker is Clare Arnold.
Clare Arnold.
Is she here?
She is back.
Next speaker is Dong Smith.
Dong Smith.
Next speaker is Dirl Lung.
And Bob McClung.
Dirl Lung and Bob McClung.
Let's see Bob.
Dirl Lung here, Dirl Lung here too.
McClung.
Good morning.
Okay.
Is it two separate cards said is or is it?
We should be on the same card.
We're going to the same card.
If you can get it to the clerk there, please.
Bye.
Do you have three minutes correct?
Dirl Lung is talking about the same thing.
We're representing some of the community groups in the area.
And what I have done is.
Okay. Six minutes.
We've made up a sheet of the sites that we're proposing.
Can I have this up on the screen, please?
Yes it is on the screen.
Okay.
A couple items I wanted to touch on.
One is there's a lot to cover tonight between the General Plan of Management and the Housing
Elements.
I would encourage the council as soon as possible to basically make a statement and put off the General Plan of
Amendment or future date and just roll on the housing component of this time.
Otherwise we're going to be here until Wednesday morning at 6 o'clock.
So that's my recommendation for that.
Also, my recommendation to our recommendation is to select the number of parcels that meet
the RHA and A, H, C, D, E, Egg numbers of 1,000 and 2,
and now look at other criterias going up to 1,400 or 4,400.
I would also recommend that the parcels be selected uniformly throughout the city.
So all the city shares in the negative impact that these major developments will have on the city.
I would also recommend how you recommend that the plan goes to 2022 and not to 2040.
Also, I'd like to do is correct one of the consultants.
They're saying that the recommendation is to move the numbers up to 1,400, which is 40%.
If you look at a report, it says a range of 25 to 40% for buffers.
That's 1250 to 1,400.
So I would encourage you if you are going to go beyond 1,2002 for some buffer that are not going higher than 1250.
If you look at this list, we basically broke it down.
The left hand side is a staff report priority number.
Next to that is a site name.
Then we added alternate A that is on the staff report.
Next to that is a community proposal of the groups that we have here.
And then the units per location.
Our recommendation is with the Hamptons.
We're looking at 609 units and not what they're asking for.
We believe that's valid and appropriate at 90 densies per acres.
We're recommending the Berry Swenson, which is number 5 on your list.
Glenbrooks is at 93.
The planning commission came out recommended 300 on this site.
And again, this is like an infill site.
So it has a less impact in regards to height and so forth.
On the rest of the city.
So Glenbrooks has some flexibility too, even though it's been recommended 93.
There's a flexibility to increase that to 300 or even farther.
The report says as a limitation, but that's only if the Oaks is included as 150 units.
And we do not recommend the Oaks in this selection that we have here.
So Glenbrooks came to go up even higher.
We have down home set lanes 108 that is number 11 on your report.
Summer wins at 96, which is being recommended.
Villages again, another site that's already existing.
And you're looking at infill for that was 62.
On the other side of town, Foothill Market, the recommendation is 27.
Beta brothers is 15 and in VV's location is 10.
This gives you a total count of 1,031.
And again, keeping in mind the A bag number really dictates a minimum of 1,022.
So above that number there.
Our recommendation again is keep as low as possible.
And we can always increase the numbers later at a future date.
We don't have to meet the 1400 or 4000 numbers at this time.
So I think our recommendation is to accept these sites.
We spreads it out uniformly throughout the city.
So everyone feels the negative impact of these developments.
We also meet the same numbers over at 1,031.
To switch gears a little bit, there's a talk about Valco.
I went to a lot of the community workshops, meetings there.
And the staff talked about the presentations.
And in my mind, they're very slanted toward trying to get people to accept housing
and also high density office there and so forth from my experience.
It wasn't neutral from a standpoint for a public person in the presentation.
And I think that's the reason you've got such a positive element.
Here regards to people thinking about how being housing there and so forth.
I agree with the Planning Commission.
I mean, they came out and says, there's no housing at Valco.
We fully agree with that.
Housing is such a large development that that should come back at a later date.
And these items, these specific items be discussed at a later date, not now and also.
We're not in the general plan amendment. There's a place for that, and this isn't it. Also, probably
half that people there were developers and so forth, so they had this way on the impact on
that. And at this point, I'm over for any questions. It's council members have, and we
are proposed sites. Thank you, Bob. Bob, do you have a question? You proposed site total
1,000 in two units, 1,031 units, 1,031 units, correct? 609 on the Hamilton, that's on the
east side, right? Right. But I don't know. I don't say east or west. I think it, well, they
can print them when I got a lot of email. I got a weird two concentrate on the east side and
not much on the west side. So then you add another 62 units from the village. That means almost
670 71 units. That's over almost 70%. Again, this, your group recommendation is focused on the east side,
not in the east, but in the east. Actually, it's focused formally because there are sites
that are not in our recommendation, such as the furniture site, and also the Jiffy-loop sites that were
part of the study here, that would have greatly impacted Wolf Road and Stephen's Creek Boulevard
area. Well, we tried to look at two as uniforming within the schools themselves, the school locations.
And we think this comes up with a very balanced element. The Hamptons is outside the school districts,
and hopefully it would have a larger impact on Santa Clara that could be Tino. And again, Glenbrook's
and Villages, they're existing now. And we've always advocated in filling where we can with existing
apartment complexes. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Manish Argoa,
H-E-R-W-A-L. Manish. The next speaker I have is Mo. Mo. Mo with no last name. Mo.
Tino, were you going to speak, or? Okay, because I was understanding that you were going to talk
with them together. I gave you six minutes. I'll give you three minutes, okay?
Would you give up, sir? I'll give him three minutes. Please talk to him. I'm not going to go through all this.
It doesn't matter. I'm going to need to speak. I have a lot of speaker. I just want to support Mr. McGillin's
statements fully. I just want to make a short and brief statement to you. Do to the length and complexity of the
2015 to 2040 General Pantiment, which is actually a 25-year document. We recommend that action be
completed after a more thorough discussion at the community and that the City Council concentrate
tonight on only the housing element, which has a state mandated deadline. We have recommended the following
possible sites, which I gave you copies of, and we have recommended them for increasing number
actually, that for possible inclusion in your general housing element. If I could go through some of them
from Benhead of the audience. Okay, we included the Hamptons and we use a calculation based on
90 joining units per acre, which gives us 951. Now if you deduct out the existing units, which is
342, you get a net of 609 net. Another one was the Barry Swenson existing vacant property, and we
felt that was a usable space because it's adjacent to an affordable housing complex, and that gives you 11 units.
The Glenbrook is in fill project. Going to the next page, we crossed out the Jiffy-Loo area
because it's right in the east side of town, and they're already impacted to a great degree. We also
left out the United Furniture Store site because that's on the east side too. I think that the east side
pretty much has a lot of housing going in there, and it would greatly impact the traffic, the
schools, and et cetera, and the infrastructure so we feel that we need to distribute housing over a
greater area throughout the city. The Homestead Lane's, I think, is potentially a good next-use
property, same thing with the sun, summer bit, winds, and granite rock property. Going to the
third page, the villages, the infill project, the foothill McClellan led just to some housing and mixes
over into the west side of town, and by, rather, there's two parcels, one is a 711 type store,
and there's a vacant, there's a property behind that, which would be a good mixed-use property,
and I think the property door is willing to develop it. Thank you, Dr. William, your time is up.
Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Mo, one last time. Could I just maybe go ahead, Mr.
Would you time is up? I'm sorry, Gerald. Okay, I'm sorry. Your time is up.
Well, we think the city, I'm just your time is up. I'd to be fair to everyone, Dr. Lump.
We think the structure of your time is up. The citizens, thank you very much, Dr. Lump.
The next speaker is U-E-N, U-E-N, Y-I-N-G, last name.
The next speaker is Kevin McClellan. Kevin McClellan.
Are you, U-E-N, U-E-N? Okay, come on up. Sorry, Kevin.
Okay, I'm, U-E-N. Hi, yes, my name's U-E-N, and I'm a resident on the other Brooklyn Lane in Cupertino.
Thank you very much. Yes. Two weeks ago, I heard about this enormous plan about building more than a thousand
condolences. Yet, the welcome hour area, I was shocked because I didn't hear about it. Then I thought,
was I the only one that I'm aware of this problem? So last, the afternoon, I spent four hours
walking down the other Brooklyn Lane, door to door, talking to my neighbors, checking out what's happening.
And out of the twenty-plus neighbors, I talked to only two of them know about this and attend the meetings
over the past 18 months. And now I have this letter. Then I decided I need to send that for them to
represent the information they need to know. And here I come to the letter and I relate to them and they
gave me the sixth test and the signature. Basically, in this letter, we all agree that we all
are afraid of falling. First, we are not effective in notified about this plan. Second, this plan makes
traffic on work on wealth, even worse. We request to see a plan to improve traffic congestion and the
parking issues before the reason or residential plan is approved. And third, the plan brings more than a thousand
families in that half square mile corner. Most of which will have school aged kids. And we request
to see a sustainable plan that provides more school resources, not just classrooms, we need new schools,
new fields, and new teachers. Fourth, our neighborhood is not safe as before. And we request to see a
budget, the detailed budget plan, to go with this reason planning. We want to know how many more
crews in the police and in the emergency facilities can we add to support this 5,000 more people.
And fifth, we urge the city council to postpone the approval of date of this
appointment until the residents are fully aware or provide or have sufficient time to review this plan.
And that's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Kevin McCormn.
Good evening Mayor Walgain City Council members. I just want to begin by thanking city staff,
24 meetings and workshops, year and a half EIRs consultants. This has been a lot of work.
You know, this year marks 30 years of me working in Cupertino and this process just seems to get tougher and
tough or so. I really wish you guys all the best in the process and getting through all that you
you guys need to do. You know, that's what remind you guys that we started this process because we ran out
of allocations in our general plan. It was empty. And so the hope is that through this process we can get
some of those allocations back. And from the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, that's what we're looking for
is just to get those those allocations replenished in a fair and balanced way. You guys received a letter
from us earlier and those are the what we feel is fair and balanced. We also feel that there's a lot of
good projects in Cupertino and Steven's Creek office. The stuff that needs to happen with the
Valko shopping mall in addition to the Hampton. There's some good projects here that could really help
our community and we really hope that you'll keep the mall in consideration and get those allocations replenished. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The next speaker I have is, see, Amiba Tijuana.
Amita, Amita Tijuana. Yes. Okay, come on up, please. Followed by Anshu Bhatt, the HATT is Anshu
here as well too. So I see you followed by Eric, Eric Shay, H-E-S-H. Welcome.
Thank you. I was here last week and I thought I needed to go more prepared but thanks to a lot of
community folks who've come here and said very eloquently what I wanted to that I think you really need to
reconsider visit the places where you've I mean kind of passed all the high density
construction between Wolfen and Lawrence and that's where a lot of community lives and feels that
this is really injustice to us folks. So I've been a resident here for 15 years and it looks like a
scary city in the future with tall hotels and parking structures and residents halls and so forth.
There's a great this, if workshops and outreach was very effective then I would not have expected
to see so many people out today and there seems to be a big discrepancy between the reports and the
reality. So you really need to check out for yourself or the traffic conditions are
during morning hours between 7 to 9 when the schools people are dropping their children at school
between 3 and 8 when Kupatino's high school kids get out of school and the four lanes of Steven
Kriegs are full of traffic and then to top it up there are double-decker buses of Apple that turn
onto Tanto which is a single lane so that is not the quality of life that I had thought we would be
really expecting from the city which was really it feels like we're living in downtown San Jose
and I am nervous of course but I do want you to consider it consider the recommendations that have been
made by fellow residents that if construction has to be done it has to be spread out over the
city rather than in one specific area and none of our roads are actually or the infrastructure
designed to kind of manage that type of traffic and this is without the construction being complete yet
so I hope we voted for you and you would take care of our interest. Thank you very much man. The next
speaker is on shoe bought on shoe bought I thought that's awesome we get on the next speaker is Eric
Shay H.E.S.H. Eric. I think it's her. I'm just glad to hear you. Yeah I agree.
All right, great. No, thank you. As Mark Santoro pointed out I think we're in a sticky situation
based on the state mandates we're trying to accommodate a thousand and two units of housing and
look at the discussion and the problems that it's generating just just from that so I feel
I feel like we should be able to respond back to the state and say you're putting us in a situation
that's unbearable for the community as well as for the county as well as for the departments as well as
for the community involved all throughout. To me it's a lose win situation and the city is not
on the win the win side of that the developers are they're going to make these developments and they're
going to move on we have to live with their the result of all of that. I think exception to the
comment that the staff made with respect to the sites were scattered throughout the city. They were
in all fairness there were 17 or so on the list but the bottom part of the list they asked that they
be removed which then concentrated the effort on the east part of of Cupertino and with the number
of units if we are talking 4400 units I did a simple math over here two kids of family that's 8000
students over the next 20 years and the impact on that will be right here at Cupertino high school
high middle school Eisenhower and Sedgwick the rest of the community is not feeling that pain and
expanding up a level and expanding the classroom sizes and doing all that I feel is not a good
justice for the city take in point independence high school in San Jose it's a huge high school and I
don't think the quality of education is there. With respect to Velco my plan.
And has always been to copy Westfield and you'll have success, because if you look at the freeway at that intersection of 80 and 280 and 80, if we could just get the run-off up here in Cupertino, we would be, I think, very successful in our retail development there.
So thank you very much for your time, and again, we voted for you, and so hopefully you will watch out for our interests.
Thank you, Mr. Hirsch. The next speaker is on Xing Lee, Xing Lee, Q-I-N-G, Lee-L-I.
I'm going to call those speakers again that didn't come up. The next speaker I have is Tim McKay, Tim McKay.
Thank you.
McCray, probably.
There you are, Mr. McKay.
McCray.
Here's his Tim.
Yeah, Tim McKray.
Good evening, Mayor Wong, Cupertino City Council members. My name is Tim McKray, and I am the energy director for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
My comments relate to Cupertino as a member of the Silicon Valley community.
Identifying appropriate areas in which to direct growth is vital to the reasons of regions ability to continue to grow, driving economy.
So regarding question one before you, we support the allocation of 3.6 million square feet of office space, and we encourage the Council to continue its current set aside for major employers.
Regarding question four, housing is a top issue for our employers year after year. We did a survey about this this year, and yet again, housing was almost at the top, if not the top.
Housing affordability is a choke point in Silicon Valley's ability to recruit and retain top talent.
We commend the city on identifying appropriate sites on which to build more housing, and we are especially excited about the prospect of a revitalized Velco shopping center that includes housing and retail.
We encourage you to move forward in adopting the city's housing element with the approximate 1400 units as suggested.
Thank you for your time and attention to these issues.
Thank you, Tim. The next speaker I have is Gary Lackshaw. Gary Lackshaw.
Followed by Scott Hughes, followed by Vincent Arrivero.
Thank you for the opportunity to finally be able to speak to you in May or in the Council and those here.
I'm speaking, well, there's the citizens in Cooper Tno and it's representative of the thinking of the CR club on these issues.
Namely, the Sustainable Land Use Committee and the Environmental Conservation Committee.
In general, I advocate for the, I think it was option C, the high growth option in particular for the Velco Center.
Why do I say that? Well, I say that because I have a 22 month old granddaughter.
And someday hopefully she'll be 22 and 44, et cetera.
Right now, the main thing on her mind is where she's making basic decisions is whether to listen to my son and his wife about pie train.
She finds it very easy to simply pee and poop in her diaper.
Now, 22 years from now, 44 years from now, people are going to wonder what did, she's going to wonder what did we leave her? How much poop did we put in the atmosphere?
We have to go to a low carbon solution.
One of the ways to do that is higher density people using less energy per unit and being able to develop a transit center so that people can use transit,
one of the individual vehicles to get from one place to the other.
If Velco is developed in a high density manner, mixed use, that could then invite, it uses a transit center,
that could then also invite that VTA would agree and have in a community bus.
So it can be a basic, a game changer for the care for the city with a community bus and lots of transit to that center.
And ultimately, we have to look for these low carbon solutions.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Next speaker is Scott Hughes.
Scott Hughes.
Next speaker is Vincent Rivero.
Nice to meet you.
Follow by Neil Strudders, followed by Claudio Fono, followed by Ruby Elbowgen.
Good evening, this mayor, Councilman.
My name is Vincent Rivero.
I'm with the ER engineer, 1625, the Elameda.
And I'm here to ask you today to reconsider the marina food site as a housing component.
Considering the marina food site would allow you to spread out the housing allocation stop the city.
By allowing that housing to happen on that site, you would allow marina foods in terms to reinvent itself.
To come forward and modernize a structure that was built several years ago for a bike on era.
We'd like to come by and reinvent that site, revitalize that site to use of walkability.
Getting a higher density at this 250 units on that site through use of a PUD or a GPA or by allowing housing element to be there.
And then in turn, that would allow us to better serve our residents to better serve our customers to come in and shop at a modern facility at that site.
So if you could please reconsider the marina food site as a housing element site to spread out the housing drop the city of Coutino.
That would be greatly appreciated and I think it would help serve the residents of Coutino.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next speaker is Neil Struthers.
Good evening, Admiral Mayer City Council staff.
I don't epithize your position having to decide between people in the community who want lower growth and those that want to see their sites developed.
I'm here to support as a previous speaker of the marina food site, but for a different reason.
Not that those reasons are legitimate because they are.
But this morning I was at a press conference in which the IBW and Nika who I work for created a partnership and codified it with the Sierra Club.
And that whole partnership is we can produce, well, we can reduce greenhouse gas, it's in great good jobs at the same time.
And we have very creative ways to do it. And one of the ways we're looking at doing that is creating finance and mechanism that creates existing buildings who are the largest source of greenhouse gases in the world and particularly in this country.
And we have a very unique funding system that allows them to retrofit their buildings.
In this case redeveloped their building with the cleanest technologies that reduce carbon footprint.
In some cases can create net zero energy facilities. I'm not sure this one will be one, but that's our motivation.
And in order for that to happen, this particular site has to be in the housing element or there will be no redevelopment of that site.
And as this previous speaker said, this is a major crossroads into to be able to clean up that corner and modernize it in the same time.
Research of carbon footprint makes sense for everybody.
I don't empathize your decision. This is tough. This is what government here for.
The housing element is dictated by the state for obvious reasons.
If left of their own devices and mispallies would just push housing onto other communities.
And that's not equitable.
So we're looking for this site to be added. Not sure exactly how you get to those numbers.
But we have confidence in that the people and staff can make that happen.
So thank you.
Thank you very much.
Any other questions? Any other? Can I ask you a question?
Sure.
Someone suggests to improve their traffic inside the city.
Have a great separation between the end of Ottawa and Stephen's Creek.
Depress at the end underneath of Stephen's Creek.
Marina, who is around the corner, is on the west side of the city.
Is the owner have any incentive or any plan to contribute to solve the traffic congestion inside the city?
I can't speak for the owner. That would be a better question left for the owner.
I understand there is a desire to do some kind of community benefit.
I think that's smart but that has to be a voluntary thing done by the landowners.
There can be incentives for that. But I can't answer that question.
It's not for me to say whether they would be interested in that or not.
Okay. You can ask them.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Claudio Bono.
Good evening, Mayor Wong.
Mayor of council. My name is Claudio Bono.
I am the general manager of the Cooper Tenoena as well as the Grand Hotel in Sanibel.
I am here to ask you for your consideration for the new project that we're excited and you go to build right where the
Goodier tire building is currently situated right next to the Cooper Tenoena.
Cooper Tenoena has been a community for over 27 years.
At this time for a new brother or sister to come up.
Cooper Teno has tremendous opportunities.
However, limited at this point.
If anyone wants to have or gather a wedding or large meeting space in Cooper Teno,
it is simply impossible.
Cypress Hotel. My colleagues can accommodate up to 250.
We are building this new hotel and asking for your consideration for over 108 feet.
Reason being is that we're trying to accommodate a lobby or space on the first floor with over 20,000 square feet of common areas.
Those areas already requires the lobby to be almost like two-story high.
In order to accommodate that hotel that should be over 4,000 square feet,
and over a 9-story tall, it would require a minimum of 108 feet.
Staff recommend a 90 feet.
However, if we do go towards the 90 feet, it would be probably similar to the loft.
I am the person who built and opened the very first loft in South Florida,
and in Miami and Florida actually.
Unfortunately, with that kind of height, you will not be able to create that timeless hotel,
five-star hotel feel like that we want to provide to the city, which we wanted to be a big beacon for the city of Cooper Teno.
As you know, we will bring definitely revenue for the city of Cooper Teno for which I am a proud Cooper Teno resident.
And also a creation of over 115 new jobs full-time.
So we are definitely asking for your consideration.
Can I ask you a question?
Absolutely. On the hotel, are you willing to pay a little bit higher on the utility to the city?
I believe so definitely yes.
You have to understand this young village by the way, who wanted to be here tonight was stuck in another city,
but we are trying to build a beacon, a nice hotel, and something that Cooper Teno could be proud of.
And again, just the community benefit would be over 20,000 square feet of common area just for the resident of Cooper Teno.
And what if it needs to be done, we will evaluate and do, but it will definitely be an added value for the city of Cooper Teno and its resident.
Okay, and all you also, your property is right on the end of Wuluwa.
That's correct, which also would not be a problem with traffic as we are right next to 280,
85 north the ends of Wuluwa and Homestead Road.
So really, with Underground Parking Valley, we will be definitely set up.
And we are right on the shopping center, right next to the safe way, on the same lot.
How many conference rooms are you going to provide?
And how big the conference rooms are?
The total is over 4,000 square feet, which will allow this brand new hotel to accommodate citywide.
Because as you know right now, Cooper Teno is off the map.
It cannot accommodate any request of over 250 at this time.
So any event planners and meeting planners would be happy to finally put Cooper Teno on the map.
And it would be over 4,000 square feet total.
4,000 square feet for the conference room.
That's correct.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you.
Let's hear things.
Yeah.
I understand you're looking for 110.
Correct.
On anything you speak.
Which is, would make it about the tallest building in town.
Time less hotels than tall.
Yeah, okay.
So, I'm getting a little late, right.
But my question to you is, do you have, what are your plans for the existing Cooper Teno in building?
Would you consider taking that down in order to reduce the height and spread the rooms of this wonderful five star hotel with all these wonderful amenities across a greater area?
Well, as you know, the Cooper Teno and maybe the ugliest building, Cooper Teno, however in institution, however I can promise you that the transformation made right now, if you do come in the hotel.
For any residents at this time, you will see it's a big transformation.
So, I don't feel that it would be something that we should be doing, but actually rather keep.
I said, well, I mean, you've done a great, I don't get me wrong.
I've been there a number of times.
You've done a great job refurbishing it.
Thank you.
But it, I mean, it lacks the energy conservation features and so much more that, you know, a new building,
a new building would provide, and you're asking for a great deal of heights.
So, I'm just asking if...
If you're interested in considering taking it down, or not.
Personally, not. However, I will be speaking for the honor, the project. Do you have a position on this that you can clarify?
I do, but I would need to double check. But again, the problem in cooperatives that we don't have as many rooms. That is the problem.
So, therefore, we want to add not to remove, because even if we demolish the hotel as you would suggest we do, and still build a hotel.
Yeah, I know you like rooms.
I can well imagine that you're not going to do it if you can't build substantially more rooms than you have today. When I'm asking if you're willing.
And this should be no news to you, because that's exactly what staff is about asking.
Personally, no, I would not be willing. Definitely not.
Okay. Got it. Thank you.
One quick question. She up in the house. So, the cypress hotels also nine floors, which is what you're requesting. Is that true?
Correct. Yes. Do you know the height of the cypress?
You mentioned it earlier.
No, somebody mentioned that.
95, 95 feet, actually.
I heard that number. Is that really only 95 feet from your floors? Are we sure about that number?
I always heard it was like the tower buildings that are next to the cypress hotel, or about 100,
and between, there are 115 feet. And the cypress hotel is a middle of shorter than those buildings.
Okay. That's what I thought. I thought 95 seemed to shorter.
Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions from Mr. Ballon?
No.
Thank you very much, Mr. Ballon.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Ruby Albuquer.
Ruby?
Okay.
Next speaker is
King H. Y. Shui.
Lee.
See, see, say, Jai and Jai on East SD strike.
Here we go. Thank you.
What kind of Ruby you call for name before?
Hi, city. Come some, maybe.
I leave across the Velco near the corner of the middle of the wall for the end of Steven's Creek Ballon.
I'm here to oppose the suggestion of including the Velco shopping district site as a potential house housing element site.
And to request to remove all wording related to the Velco shopping centre potential office space sites from the general pan.
The reasons first, the city didn't give proper notice of such a large scale project,
which would have a huge impact on our neighborhood.
Instead of these hidden under the amendment of the general pan process, which just little attention.
I have lived here for over 20 years,
and I have always received a notice letter from the city of all the neighborhood project.
For the Apple 2 campus campus project, I got several letters.
Yeah, for this important, the Velco project.
I got the no notice with hints of this big change.
Just like the former speaker said, things like this should not be allowed in our democratic system.
The Velco and the city should restart the proper notice process.
Second, traffic congestion.
According to the EIR transportation and traffic.
For point 13, that's 43 pages.
Even under the 2040 no project scenario.
There are 8 intersections that will operate on acceptable levels of service with no delay during peak hours,
which include a wall of mirror and Stephen's click in the section.
We already have about 2 campus in our area, 4,000 workers,
which you will not add additional 1 million square feet space.
1 million square feet of space and not all high density count in our area,
to make a weekday traffic worse.
Third, air quality is another concern.
This stop-and-go traffic, the cost, trucks and buses,
driving by will release more air pollutants in the area.
And it will series a better air quality here, especially on Windows Avenue,
which is a very narrow street.
With the houses on the street.
Since the Velco developed on, it has not studied the proper communication process,
and doesn't have a layout plan.
I'll see this should not put an up to a large number for the number of residences,
and the full office space size in general plan.
Especially without the proper notice to the neighborhood of the big project.
Doing this, I'll see it put our neighborhood in a bad position.
To negotiate in the future solution, good for the neighborhood and the residents.
That's it.
Thank you very much.
The next speaker is Mujo Xiao.
Mujo Xiao as H-A-O.
Mr Xiao.
Welcome.
Thank you.
Mayor Wong and the city council members.
My name is Mujo Xiao.
I have two concerns on the drop to housing element.
A virtual room in impact, a virtual room impacts our school and the community in the future.
The first concern is the population density.
The population density of kupino is about 5,300 per square mile.
It is already four times denser than the population density of a whole cent-clare country.
It is double than that of palato.
So we all know that east part of kupino is the highest population density in the whole city.
So the proposed expansion housing plan at east part of kupino will double the population population density.
So that the east part kupino has enough residential capacity for all those thousands of new residents.
The second concern is traffic.
We all know east part kupino traffic is already very congested during the rush hour.
The local news also mentioned the traffic grid log near the IPL campus.
So one that new IPL campus fully opened there would be 20,000 IPL employees will come in and go on a weekday and a weekend.
Plus the new proposed housing expansion plan will bring more than 1,000 new residents is likely to bring chaos to the daily traffic.
There are more than 20,000 students in the kupino high school.
And considering two kids for family, the expansion housing plan will fall at it.
Thousands of kids into kupino schools.
Job off in the pick up students would be, you know, not bad for the parents and residents.
The kupino high school entrance is just across the, just across the street to the Main Street kupino project area.
We do not wish the high school traffic bring another tragedy which happened several days ago at a month of winter high school.
So as kupino residents, we all hope a prospective future of our city.
The future is our hand.
So we, you know, I mean, one of the city council member and the mayor represents all the residents of the kupino residents was, yes, I'll know.
Thank you very much.
You mentioned about Apple employee after the campus to finish will be 20,000 employees will be working there.
Where did you get that number?
I got this number from you the net.
I didn't check the accuracy of the number.
Okay, because what they told us is 12,800 new employee will be working there.
Okay, number one.
The number two you also mentioned about 20,000 students in the kupino high school.
Yes.
Oh, 2000.
All right.
Okay, all right.
Thank you.
The next speaker is, um, Camille K.A.N.T.
Camille.
The next speaker is, um, Dica, uh, K.A.P. I.L. D.P. K.A.L.
K.A.L.
Next speaker is, um, Kathy, um, B.N.P. B.S. and boy, I.A.N. Kathy.
There we go.
Um, your name again.
Um, yeah.
Is it difficult K.A.P. I.L.
Yes.
Welcome.
Thank you.
So, uh, this is my fourth meeting, C.D.M.D.
I came to, um, planning commission meeting on October 14th.
That was the first one.
And I was, uh, really surprised.
Um, I'm sorry.
Um, not used to talking on broad level.
Um, but I was really surprised that I could count the number of people, uh, on fingers, uh, from the,
cupidino residents representing cupidino residents.
And, uh, that that was really shocking.
But, uh, anyways, we have a lot of member community members here.
Um, right now.
And, uh, a lot of concern is on the, uh,
uh, vocal and Hampton, uh, housing element.
And, this, this is kind of, uh, representing the data.
So, all the, uh, uh, uh, uh, the campus is going to be built here.
And the Hampton's are going to be here, right?
And, uh, the vocal, uh, 600 units that have been proposed are here.
So, if you look, look, and all the 600 and, uh, 400 units roughly talking.
Uh, like about 1,000 units are going, like, I proposed here.
Um, there was another, um, uh, united furniture that was also proposed.
That is also very, uh, as RT had mentioned.
Uh, this is on East-States Drive.
And, this is a neighborhood street.
We highly recommend to remove this, uh, from the list.
On the other hand, we have, uh, Marina Plaza and Oaks and villages that are, uh, uh, uh, like quite spread out, uh, and they're away.
And, look at the, all the construction that is going out only in this area.
I mean, street Hampton, the new apartment buildings here.
The ample campus here.
Everything is focused and, like, concentrated on the east side of Cupertino.
We have another location if you, uh, permit I would like to post is, uh, uh, the site where there's the 85 degree, uh, that restaurant.
We have some San Jose.
If I degree bakeries of San Jose.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
But then there's Oaks that, that is very close to the freeway.
And, uh, Marina Plaza is also kind of, uh, it's kind of spreading it out around, not concentrating all
thousand and affecting our Cupertino high school.
And I'm an engineer.
I go with the data.
And this is a, uh, really great data to tell me that.
This is not acceptable.
So at the point that I wanted to really bring out was, I agree with Jennifer Griffin about,
removing the community benefit altogether because.
Thank you very much.
Your time is up.
Let me say three.
I'm sorry, but everyone gets three minutes.
I apologize.
Let me ask you a question.
Yes.
Can I?
Yes.
Why, why you want to remove the community benefit?
Because the, uh, the thing is, we, uh, as, uh, I'm not sure, uh, Miss Arti, uh,
uh, mentioned that these are going to be the private negotiations later on.
They cannot be defined and no community.
I believe, no community input will be taken at that time.
All right.
So if the community, if the community input can be taken, then, would you consider it?
Yes.
Okay.
Number two.
Number one.
You, uh, you've, you've heard to spread it out on the, uh, on the, on the, on the housing unit,
you would like to add, okay, to a marina food and oak shopping center instead of everything
concentrate on the back wall.
I can see there are a thousand units that are going to be built and affecting only.
Go, go, go, go, go for dinner.
You're, uh, go for dinner high school.
Okay.
Got it.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
The next speaker is, um, Kathy, um, B.N.
B.I.A.N.
Kathy, be here.
Followed by, uh, Dennis Whitaker.
Followed by, um, Blair, um, Wolkman.
Followed by, um, and I, I know, another debica as well, too.
With no lasting.
Okay.
Thank you.
Well, um, I'm here to, you know, I just actually, I just got this news this evening, uh, over
the Chinese radio.
Uh, since you guys are going to, you know, have some special meeting regarding this new project.
And also, when they come over here, I just got to know that we have another, uh, project
Welcome, uh, big, big project going on.
So that's why, uh, I'm wondering that the, do you guys, uh, go through, uh,
through, uh, appropriate informed process, uh, so we can get a notice about all this, uh,
if change is going to happen, uh, you know, um, within about 10 to 20 years in the range.
Because we, uh, you know, uh, currently, I think there's, uh, uh, uh,
all the cities, uh, I personally just, um, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh,
need to be filled with that, uh, uh,
but you know, has been developed to some and to fast and also doesn't leave enough space for
our, uh, uh, future, uh, children, uh, you know, um, actually, um, look at the, uh,
the parks and also the rituals and then we, we are very low-racial, uh,
You know, according to the person, percentage per people for the park area. So also, for my own experience,
current, I have two kids, one is in Kennedy Middle School. And, you know, five years ago,
two thousand nine, they are, you know, I know that's on six graders. They have a 400 or 500 students
for the sixth graders. And when my son's goes to Kennedy at that time, they're almost reach to 800.
So double the size of the students, but, you know, the classroom, you know, everybody knows Kennedy still
have the old buildings, about the built 50 years ago. And the other thing is, you know, in large,
but, you know, actually the students are already doubled. So giving all this effect, you know,
you know, do you guys, you know, have to consider how to, you know, serve in our current, you know,
residents are better, you know, quality for the life and the quality for the, for the flow of kids.
Actually, we come over here, you know, to live here and try to build this city, we always the best.
But, you know, we wish our city to grow at our, you know, current to the, the best interest, you know,
for the local, I, you know, I personally want to go shopping a little bit more. At this time, you know, we really want to keep it.
But we don't know, that's what the best should be for us right now. So if we don't have any mature, kind of a plan,
how to develop, you know, a post shopping center, we think we should keep, as it is right now.
And then, after we find a better solution, rather than put, you know, put everything down,
close down and then put all the, you know, apartment buildings. So create more trouble in the schools and also the traffic.
Actually, this morning, I send my mom to the hospital and I drive down the Stephen Creek. I see that's,
you know, you know, the woman, that's, you know, people always take a woman by the scene Beijing.
But today is morning, I thought that's in no city. So that is something that we need to consider, you know, the traffic.
You know, actually, you know, there's really, something we're really to think about that before we put a more, you know, concrete building in this area.
So thank you so much for your, you know, for listening to me and then I wish you the best. Thank you.
Thank ya. Thank you.
That's ackatch.
This is being, sheee.
He tells me, sheee has a question.
Okay.
Okay. Thank you. How's your mom?
She's a very good bed, you know, she, you know, she is has some, you know,
but she is, she has some, you know,
reflex wrist.
She got a baby because you know, she's feeling like a baby,
her air condition, so something, but actually come over here and let's say, oh my, she's
going to do some stuff. Same thing, you know, you're saying, yeah, you're big in, so this
is something that's really to think about that, you know, actually, you know, we come over here,
we want better air condition solutions, you know, not to, you know, just embrace, oh my,
how should your mom do and why? My mom's hopefully she's doing well, but, you know, if
you brings everything to, you know, poetry to air, you know, how can you be happy, so we
want to see more grew in a grass area, to see more a library, and we want to know,
can't you educate all kids, you know, to the environment, there's harmony and also, they, even
today, I come over here, my daughter says, my daughter says, mom, why do you want to come over
here, you're not interested in any politics? I said, I have to be here, that's why I give me a reason.
I just gave her a wide reason, and she says, okay, mom, I support you to go, I said, why? So they are
going to put them more concrete, or, and if you set up the more partner for the students to play,
you know, for the board. Oh, my daughter says, oh, mom, you should go, I don't want to say concrete
anymore, you know, even that's in front of my fire, you know, you know, you know, that's everybody says,
we have a dropped area, and then Kubitino says, okay, you can, you know, 10 now to part of your
front loans to the concrete, drive ways. Thank you, this via have three other speakers, and I almost here
until like two o'clock in the morning. Thank you, and glad that your mom sounds good. I know that
whether in Beijing's getting a little bit better, but can't be here in California, can't be here in
California, she the last time I was in Beijing, the air was not as. I promise I will not be that energetic.
Mr. Woodaker is very energetic. It may or wrong, and city council on staff,
I'm a little naive, but I've been doing this for a long time in front of you. Which was supposed to be the
government of the people, by the people, for the people, but we seem to be dictated from up and sack of
mental down here. I would like you folks to take the initiative and get somebody from a bag and somebody
from our state government down here and let them take the heat that you guys are taking. There are a
couple of major contradictions that I've heard tonight. I saw the numbers 4,421 units. To me, that's
8,800 toilets, 8,800 sinks, probably about 9 to 10,000 people. Aren't we in a drought,
a penny, and I moved here in 1974. We moved here in the middle of a drought. I ask you the last time I was
here. Can you guarantee me when this drought's going to stop? How can we and cities around this plan on increase
and massively density? Well, we don't know when the water's thick, it's going to be turned on upstairs permanently
and we're not able to get the reserves that we need for our future. We're being asked to restrict,
restrict, yet the stupid states telling us to add, add. The second thing that's a little strange to
me in contradiction is I talked to Mr. Roadie earlier and I'm very glad to be a friend of his, but if we
lose JC Penne's and Macy's and Sears, all of which I shot, I asked Mr. Roadie, well, where's the nearest
JC Penne? So he said, well, you can go to East Ridge, or you can go to TAN for RAN, or you can go to
Fremont. Are we supposed to think about greenhouse gases and keeping the cars off the road? So I want
you to think about less density. I've said this before. We're not a city. We don't have a seas candy.
We don't have a hallmark. We don't have a bookstore. Let's get emphasis on retail back and cut the numbers down
on residents. Thank you. Can I ask Dennis? Yes, you mean? So it occurred. Have you talked to
come on Jerry Brown yet? He's on my list. Thank you. After Mr. Powell and after Mr. Roadie, he's next.
All right. Thank you. I thought you said you weren't going to get as excited as it was.
I'm not. It's.
Next speaker is Blair Volcobin. Volcobin?
Mayor Long, a city council and city staff. First and foremost, thank you for the time and substantial efforts
that have gone into this over the last year and a half. My name is Blair Volcobin and our family's
been the owner and occupant of Stephen's Creek office center as well as the peats in Panera. For the last 40
plus years, and we continue to continue our ownership for the next 40 years. We're proud to be owners and
such a great city and we've been dedicated to maintaining the property to high standards and both good
and bad economic times. However, we must acknowledge that there will come a time in the property.
Well, about lived its useful life and need to be redeveloped as we saw with good earth restaurant.
We must adapt to meet demand in order to compete with all the recently improved projects and new
development throughout Silicon Valley. These days, tenants are looking for a amenity rich,
sustainable projects with subterranean parking, 12 foot ceilings, improved finishes, larger open floor plans.
That allows for collaborative environments and this is unfortunately just can't be achieved with
the product that we have currently on our site. We're very fortunate that Apple's taking a large
position in Gupertino and our property over the years, which is kept occupancy high, but we were
worried that Apple will vacate data building such as ours once the new campus is completed, leaving a
glut of older product available. This occurred at our project upon completion of their current headquarters
when they occupied 95% of our project and then vacated shortly thereafter. We admittedly cannot predict
the future and if Apple were to downsize, it would be felt throughout Carbertino.
Given all this, we're asking City Council to increase the height limit of the majority of our site
to a minimum of 60 feet or four stories these days. We're open to keeping the height limit along
Stephen's Creek in line with the surrounding developments and how to the City Plan. And we envision
the standalone retail and mixed use development along Stephen's Creek with a setback office structure.
This would allow us to address the parking issues that currently existed Peats in Pinerum,
as well as the demand from our office tenants, and would nicely tie into the new stage way
and hold food developments. It would also allow us for us to provide new retail along Stephen's Creek
and ultimately sales revenue to the City, as well as additional public space and seating areas
near the retail along Stephen's Creek sidewalk. We believe the site can handle additional height
and density for a multitude of reasons. First, the effects of neighboring residents is
and can be mitigated, given the depth of the site, and location boards the east by the new
stageway development, and target west by Whole Foods and South by the Cupertino Crossroads retail center.
We will also propose a significant setback in the rear, as well as the addition of new trees and landscaping.
Second, it's proximity to Highway 85, location along a transit corridor, and proximity to amenities
will hopefully limit the traffic impact and provides a urban, walkable location.
Finally, given we're in no immediate rush to develop, we will have plenty of time to work with the
City, neighborhoods, and architects. Plenty of time to design a thoughtful, well-planned sustainable
development will complement Cupertino, and hopefully a new Cupertino itself.
Can I ask if there's any questions I do?
You would not ask in full the housing element, I was in unit, why?
If it precludes us from office development, which is currently on the site, and as experience, we're
asking to be removed from our housing element as a primary site.
Okay, so, but do you want to ask in full the height to go up on 45 feet to 60 feet?
That's correct. We would prefer 75 feet, given it would give us a little bit more architectural
creativity, and ultimately lead to what we believe would be a less dense development,
allow for some more open space, but 60 feet is the minimum economic that we would need in order to
redevelop. How many units do we have a sign for your site?
From a housing element, at the standpoint, I believe it's 25 units currently.
That could be how many units? I believe the planning was 35.
Recommendation was 35 units.
But you don't mind we remove the housing unit at all.
It would ultimately, if it precludes us from office development again, yes,
though we do see it as a very good housing element site, and we would definitely study that in the
future if we were to be nominated as one of the primary sites.
So, fully, Emily, you should check in for us. We give you the height, and then you will take
all of the housing units. That is correct. Okay, all right. Being a housing element site does not preclude
you from anything else. It just means you would be housing element site.
I would say that first and foremost, we would look to likely do office development, given that as,
again, what's currently at the site.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Oh, yes. I think in there, in that, in what you told us,
your intention would be to scrape the thing, the office that you currently have,
leave beneath the piece and there. Sorry, it is getting late. And then continue the retail
from where a piece goes today all the way along to Hall Foods, do you own that entire parcel?
We do on that entire parcel. Is that your, would that be your intention would be to leave an
entry that would access the, uh, the rear office redevelopment? Okay. And then the office building
that is currently along Steven's Creek, we would plan to tear down and create retail in line with,
is, would we have retail some Whole Foods all the way down? That is correct.
Past your property, the Target, etc. That is correct. That is correct. And a lower height limit
then what we're asking for the office development setback. Okay. God, thank you. Yes.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Didn't speaker, um, I have another to pick up, but no, uh, last name and no address. Okay. There you are.
You're last in please. Yes, my name is Deepika Patak and I would like to thank you all for
giving me the opportunity to speak. Um, I'm speaking on behalf of many, many Cooperating or Residents
who just recently came to know about all of this activity. I sincerely applaud many people that
I met here today that have attended 20, 22 meetings, which I didn't even know, uh, were happening. And I'm
not completely out of the, you know, news. So I think that I will try to make myself understand and become
more aware, but we can also improve some communications. Um, I am listing a lot of concerns that
I got via texts and people watching online as they had to go home and they couldn't wait.
Uh, some of the concerns as you've heard more eloquently put were about the concentration of
impacting high middle school and Cooper Tno High and as you approve or not approve this plan,
will you have some contingencies or do you have some plan of actions of how you're going to make
high support more students? Because many of us feel that the numbers that were shown about projected
generation were not really accurate. Uh, at least on my street, we have two kids on average that are
going to school that go to high and Cooper Tno and the number of 40 or whatever it was just didn't seem right.
So what are you going to do? Are we going to put modular there and high middle school? Are we going to be
hiring more teachers? How many? Because it's all very difficult to get it all the electives that we want.
Uh, but there's more details. Uh, second was the lessons have we learned lessons from the tragic incident?
That just happened because it doesn't seem like it, but hopefully we can consider that some more.
Third was, how we considered how we're going to take the impact to the libraries,
Cupertino Recreation Center. So awesome. I love it. And there's so many great activities, swimming classes,
and Maddalumpia, that gets filled on the first day and you have to join a lottery, and you know,
so we'll be able to support and sustain all of those high-quality programs that we have, you know, come to expect from Cupertino by adding so many students that, you know,
for planning on right now. And have we considered how we're going to hire the teachers, and accommodate, is it going to be a one step process, is it going to take several years?
There are many, many things to consider, and we hope that, as you've lumped many, many topics all in one day, one night,
can you please provide us more visibility? Because perhaps we might be able to approve some of this,
but right now I just see a lot more questions and very, very few answers.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
The next speaker I have is on you, and she did not put her last name or an address.
Do we have a on you with no last name and no address?
The next speaker is S-O-W-M-Y-A, last name is S-U-B-R-A-M-A-N-I-A-M.
I apologize. It's getting late, and I don't even want to but you're your name.
Can you help me with your name, please?
Yes. My name is Salmiya Subramanim.
Thank you. See you soon.
Thank you.
Thank you. I've got you to say that many times now.
Don't take me a year.
Okay. Thank you so much for the opportunity to come up and speak to the City Council.
I'm everybody here.
I have been preceded by plenty of people who've put it eloquently,
really, very effectively to saying that to put it succinctly.
This proposal is basically sending all those extra housing, all those extra students, all on the east side.
And that's where I live, and that's where my kids go to school at Hyde Middle School.
And Hyde right now is at 985 students, and you're projecting a bunch more coming in,
and we are again at full capacity.
We had our entire black top was taken down and we have modulars already set up there.
So our kids do not play volleyball outside anymore.
So those kind of small issues really snowball into a larger situation where, you know,
the kids are impacted really adversely.
And it really, I don't see how it can be considered equitable for the City of Cupertino and the school district
to have so many all these extra, what 600 housing units at the Walko,
and then another 600 over there at Hampton, you know, close to a thousand.
I mean, it's 90% of your expected numbers is all over there on one side.
So there was another gentleman who had his proposal where he showed how it could be spread out across,
and some on the OX village and all of that.
So I would, you know, hope that, you know, the council would seriously look into that,
and think about all the adverse effects of concentrating everything on the east side of Cupertino,
and, you know, stay away from that proposal and some analysis.
You know, we cannot have no development.
I mean, this is a Silicon Valley.
We are, you know, population is expanding.
We are growing.
But please make it equitable across the board.
All those people in the hills, they need to absorb some of these too.
And how about the ones on the west side?
How about some of the, you know, children going to those schools?
So it's really unfair to put it all on the east side.
And sure, it's going to turn into a ghetto.
It all, you know, trees that way based on how we are being treated.
And we vote you to power.
We would expect you and we would really hope that you would consider our, you know,
our requirements and try and make it fair.
And value of life be equitable across the board.
Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you very much.
The next speaker is Jason Lungard, followed by Lisa Warren, followed by Rachel Cow,
followed by Yon Pin Zhang.
Hello, I'm Jason Lungard with Apple.
I'm here to encourage the council to, to adopt this efficient amount of office allocation,
to allow reasonable growth in the city.
The general plan is intended to be a 25 year document.
And then the amount of office space available for growth needs to reflect that.
In addition, we'd recommend that you retain the existing allocation of office squares for major companies.
That was put in place to give the flexibility.
Strategically look at opportunities to to attract to retain sales, sales tax generating entities.
And I think that's important thing as you go forward.
Given the long-term nature of the general plan, I think something along the lines of alternative C is probably more appropriate for the amount of office space.
Although I'm sure there's a range of office space that you could consider.
I think the last thing that we want to do as a city is kind of create a really constrained world for office space,
which will cause kind of a natter rush for developers to try and claim that square footage and build, you know,
rush to build a project immediately.
Something kind of longer-term allows us to be more thoughtful and deliberate about the projects that we've proven.
Thank you for your consideration.
Next speaker is Lisa Warren.
Hi.
So there's so many people in the same good points and I'm so pleased to see so many residents.
Thank you.
Because this is a way I come to more meetings than I like, but it's usually a lot less populated.
I'm disappointed that all of these names left before they could speak, because I think you'd hear more of the saying.
These signs that are being held up, I can't see.
I think most of them were saying enough.
There's so many things to say.
I think we had a mini demonstration in here tonight.
We had high density and overcrowding right in this building.
And what did it do?
It created discomfort, confusion, disruption, and safety concerns.
Voila.
I think that needs to be thought of when you go through this process.
I think it's clear that most of these people are for the no project alternative or A if need B.
It scares me that we're being bullied by the HCD as Mark Centaro hinted at, you know, why do they require these things that create other issues?
And if that's the case and there's no way around that, I think you need to be really, really careful to minimize the density, the height, the encroachment of all other components besides the housing, which means,
you can't have it all and if you're forced to have the housing, you got to be careful with the rest of it.
Less is more.
Please remember that. Less is more.
I don't think any of you moved here to be in the kind of city that we are becoming.
I certainly didn't 28 years ago.
Yeah, 28.
Don't ask me why I'm still here.
I think there's a few phrases that you really need to be aware of and be aware of.
They're insufficiently defined phrases such as retail component.
There's questions all the time. What does that mean? If we're allowing a retail component, what the heck is that?
There's too much wiggle room for developers.
Community benefits and other one never identified mentioned earlier that it was kind of snuck in there as a way around some things, but that doesn't help.
It's too vague and significant and unavoidable.
I am so sick of those two words and everyone being okay when they show up on a report.
Oh, well, carry on.
Build.
It's just frustrating.
And I am so happy there's so many more people here tonight to share that frustration and to get the message across.
There's a whole lot more I want to say, but I think I can sum it up.
Thank you Lisa your time is off. Yes. Thank you.
Thank you.
Julie said I didn't think I was that subtle, but thanks.
Next week her is a winging cow winging followed by a young pink cow followed by a sway may blow all by Steven Scharf.
Hi. Hi. Thank you to give me opportunity to speak.
My name is Weedin.
And I'm here to thank my other resident.
Speak today and to state my opposition to the housing plan, which will mainly happen in the east side of Gubertino.
And because those we now will bring active impact over current public systems, which include traffic and schools and environment.
And especially impact the quality of our daily life.
And we all know, we all proud of Gubertino because Gubertino was considered as one of the best living.
Small tongue for people to live, but the housing elements which proposed today may change the entire history.
So other than the traffic schools and environment and another aspect of public supporting system is already overloaded and compare the libraries.
So if you visit the library very often, you will see it's very hard to find space for kids to sit.
And also it's very hard to find a parking spot.
If you visit a library with kids, but how if we bring in more residents, how the local public system can support more, how you can build more libraries.
How you can handle those much new residents.
And also, we also need grocery stores for shopping.
And we also need parks and recreational areas and recreational centers.
And we also need sports field for our kids to play soccer as one of the councilmen asked today.
So which we need to consider before we put in everything together.
So we cannot bring in more people, but not bring in more green grass area.
And do not consider any environmental impact.
Do not consider any traffic.
Do not consider the whole quality of the residents.
And also compare with the Dienza.
If you think about the answer, if you work the close to Apple campus.
So the residents who live near to any Apple campus area already claim the traffic.
Thank you very much.
The next speaker is young King Shaw.
So city members, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.
And here to express my objection to the proposed draft housing elements,
along the Quirchino, along Stephen's Creek, primarily in a walk-home area.
The reason is the traffic along the Quirchino, along the Stephen's Creek,
is already very congested and heavy.
I know this because my son goes to Hyde Middle.
So every morning I drive him along the Stephen's Creek.
And then past the walk-home, I have been doing this for three years.
And the distance is like 2.5 miles and take me at least 20 minutes to give you an idea of how slow it is.
An ordinary man can run the same distance at a pretty much the same time.
So once we sort about an option would be my husband.
My son, they run to Hyde every morning because you know, the reason.
So this new housing elements and the Apple new campus,
definitely the traffic will inevitably become even worse.
And then this means that our kids will be exposed to even greater danger of traffic accidents and tragedies.
And we all remember the last week's tragedy.
That's a direct result of congestion traffic.
I hope we don't have to see another tragedy of pressure's young life.
Before we stop this crazy plan, this crazy plan of building more and more housing units,
along the already very congested streets.
Another thing I want to say is actually, we, the Corporate General residents,
we have started a petition in change.org.
And then I want to read the first paragraph.
Dear the Corporate General City member, we do not agree with the proposed of reasoning of size for conformance,
be general plan and housing elements.
Within like a week, we have already collected.
730 and 34 signatures. And I believe we'll get more signatures as time goes. I think this number of signatures
is already large enough to express our residents' strong object opinions to this general plan and housing. I know our city need
to grow. But I don't want this growth to be accomplished at a cost of our quality of life and the
lives of our children. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jean, a nice person. I ask a
question. May this is so. So did you initiate the change in our work? No. No. I didn't initiate it. But it was
provided very, very fast. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Schwameh Lowe, followed by Stephen Scharf,
followed by Leon Schall. Schwameh Lowe is she here. Are he she or he? No. Next speaker is Stephen Scharf.
I saw Stephen. Is Leon Schall here? Leon. Good morning. I'm speaking for the 53,000 residents
that aren't here. So I would like 159,000 minutes. Is that okay, Mayor Wong? Probably not.
First, I would like to agree with several other speakers. It's already past midnight. The housing
element should be separated from the rest of the general plan amendments or you're going to be hurt
all Thursday not just the rest of tomorrow. Well, it's today. The big thing here is we have to do these
1,000 to units, but they don't all have to be in East Cooper, Tino. We need to spread the pain
among the three high schools and three middle schools that are located in our city. And that's not being
done now. I attended one of the exercises that the city staff did with the little buildings of different sizes.
It was really an insult to the residents. We didn't really have any opportunity to give realistic input
as to what we wanted. So when you make your decision here tonight, I would urge you to disregard
any results of that exercise and instead pay attention to the allocations suggested by Dr. Lom and
Bob McGibbon because those are realistic representations of what the residents would like to see.
I would also like to offer up my property to the housing allocation. I would like 108 feet height
and 9 floors, and I would like to be able to sell those as condominiums. So please add that I can give you my address later.
Also, the Cooper Tino in, I don't know if he's still here, but it does not the ugliest building in
Cooper Tino. That is the building on Steven's Creek and Deans of the brick building that looks like a prison.
And a switaker, he needs to go to JCPenney. Well, there's buses and he can take them. He doesn't have to drive this car.
Finally, the Sierra Club. Back when we did measures D&E, the National Sierra Club had a statement on its website
urging that urban sprawl be avoided by building housing in areas with rapid transit, trains, light rail.
We don't have that in Cooper Tino and we never will. We put that quote in our arguments for D&E,
and I got a nasty letter from the Loma Prea to chapter in the Sierra Club,
of which I'd been a member for 30 years saying you can't say that we support
that we're against D&E and I said we never said that. All we said was the Sierra Club does not want
all this housing in areas with no rapid transit. We are not getting rapid transit. VTA cut bus
service to Cooper Tino several years ago, and it's not going to change. Thank you, Steven. Your time is up. Thank you.
Dear Consolman members, sorry for the handwritten note that I wasn't planning on speaking today,
but then after listening to the informative talks by the Zizz Senior Planner, I feel I have to point
something out. I realized that there are a lot of meetings and workshops over the 18 months
which you know and things to know about. And then, as pointed out by the Planner, 180 people attended
the four workshops out of 58,000 residents, that's 0.29% of participation. Not counting a person
might have attended a three or four workshops, right? That's not a 10 year offer. And maybe 50% of
them are developers. So the percentage of even lower. Well, even if you count only against adults,
that's 0.58% and then we keep hearing that community input says, we they approve this how many
percent of that community input, so many slides are community input. But then this community input as you
can see is irrelevant. I know that you guys apparently spend time analyzing data. Thank you for that,
but that data isn't valid. Could we? I'm begging you. I beg you, City Councilman. That's just,
this is our future, our City's future. Let's start over. So we can have a valid workshop with
valid community input. And the second, I also, they pointed out that there is a
computer, GPA website, general planning amendment. I didn't sign up for the email list. I didn't know
about you that I saw probably many people did. But as pointed out by the presenter, the email list
has 250 people. Out of 58,000 residents. Did you guys everyone do? How come you have so many
in different residents? Did you feel frustrated that no one seems to care about this process?
Yes. So first point, data from the community input, I wish you scratch that. The second one,
the emergency impact report. Emergency impact report. You guys talk about general student
generation rate. And the data is from consultant. And from the document, I calculated 0.4 students
per family. But then from the table, you provided the rate is actually 0.3 to students per family.
Who has 0.3 to students per family? Whichever who they are, I don't know. So I have a seriously
have to doubt. All these consultants. How did they get their number? Did they get their number
from outer space, from all California, from all the desert region? We are living here in Cupertino,
in an area that everyone moved here for the great schools. Okay, one of our member Chris,
she got an analysis from Cupertino since the data. He compares the data between 2000
and 2010. And look at the growth, the number of increase in residences and the number of increase.
Thank you very much. So I have a group here of six people and they want to speak in this particular
Yes, where's your 1.72 student data come from? It's using the census data. I can, it's kind of complicated
to come. So I compare the number of increase in number of families. So that means those are new families.
And then you compare the number of increase in the age. They have the age from age 5 to 17.
And so then you divide that data how many kids per new families moved in? Okay, okay.
All right. So I think this way should fire these consultants, get new consultants.
Again, I'm going to ask you not to clap or else I will have the deputy escort you out and you can sit in the lobby. It's very
important, please. I have a request, which is fine, that you wanted to be in order of six folks.
And I just want to check again if the six folks are here and if the six people are here, you can have all six
coming up, please. The first one is Eric Schaffer. Yes. Okay, followed by Tom Puyke,
followed by Sashima Sharish. Is that person here? Thank you. You know followed by
N-A-G-A-P-R-I-Y-A. Yeah, I'm here. Okay, could you please stand up next behind her, please?
Followed by, and it's spelled as S-A-R-A-N-A. Okay, if you can comment down over here, please.
And then the six person is Chris Bencher, Chris. Okay, and then just a quick question, Eric, is that
are you all speaking as one group or are you just going to go in that particular order? We'd just like to go in that particular order.
Okay, so each person's going to get three minutes correct. Up to three minutes, you all have this big three minutes, but
but it's up to you. You know, I'm sorry. Can you speak in the microphone, please? I'm sorry. Thank you very much.
I believe Mr. Bencher is going to be speaking separately, so he had he will have her individuals.
Does he, he should be speaking over a minute or five? Yeah, so each of you can speak through him as if you want.
Okay, but if you can just stay in line here, I'll make our process go a lot faster. Thank you very much.
I'm sorry, and Mr. Bencher will have more time. Correct.
I got my own group. Yeah, he's guy. Understood. Okay, okay, okay, what will we work there? And you're in,
and his name again is Mr. Chris Bencher. Okay, God.
Okay, we'll work, Mr. Bencher out. Okay. Yeah. Mr. Eric? Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, Honorable Mayor, Council members, staff, and neighbors. My name is Eric Schafer.
My presentation is a summary of ideas that are shared by a group of neighbors that come from different neighborhoods
around the city. There were probably several dozen of us who met face to face sometimes,
sometimes we communicated in chat rooms. Okay, and thank you for honoring our request to come
and after the other. My pleasure. That'll be the information we understood. Yeah, go for the next one.
So, residents became aware of the progress and content of a general plan amendments only very recently,
and we're concerned that it was created without our input. We're concerned that the environmental impact report
is not accurate with respect to the impact of growth on school neighborhoods.
So, we recommend that tonight you do the A-Bag work,
allocates minimum number of parcels, and spread the allocation across the city.
The community was not sufficiently notified of the progress and content of the plan,
and as a result it contains insufficient community input.
But recently the community has been politicized, and I think they are eager to be heard.
Consider, well I'll see, the city has an opportunity to listen. Residents are eager,
and we're looking for a partner to help us to still our dreams and concerns into this vision document
for the city. Consider the November 6 meeting at Quinlan Center. There were over 200 people there.
The city was great. There was staffers at every table, materials. There was a procedure for us to
brick and storm. It was really fantastic. I thank you for that, and I wonder if something like that
could be done to get input into the general plan amendments. Thank you. Thank you.
It gives us a shiefer. No, I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Yeah, no, I'm wondering who won by one. So, are you finished with that? Yeah, okay, sorry.
So, the community uses school recreation spaces. Not only students are using it.
Classrooms can be built up. You can't do that with athletic fields or basketball courts.
Over crowded schools, they don't provide the same level of quality or access to these fields that
all of the community can use. The community recently acted on its concerns about school traffic safety.
More traffic from more children trying to get to school is only going to exacerbate the problem.
So, until we address the issues of open space and school traffic safety,
it's prudent to allocate only the minimum number of housing sites, as is required by ABAC.
So, our community wants to be heard. I believe that there are many people who will stand up to be heard.
They will stand up. They will raise their hands to be counted. They will raise their hands.
Thank you. Thank you Mr. Shefer. The next speaker.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your standing out this evening. My name is Tom Pike. I'm a 16-year resident of Wilson Park neighborhood and I think the community needs to have a meaningful and informed conversation about the subjects that we've addressed tonight.
In order to do that, the public simply needs more time to understand these proposals and their impact upon the community. Many residents I would suggest a large majority of the residents were not even aware of these issues until recently.
The reason is that even assuming for now that the city met the technical standards for legal constructive notice, in other words, the postcards and so on, that notice was so broadly stated that even a reasonable person would not have received actual notice of the specific construction proposals that we're talking about.
There's a big difference between receiving a notice about the general plan, workshops and so on, and finding out that there's going to be apartments built for example the United furniture.
And I think it's been previously stated tonight some good examples as to, for example, the minimal attendance at the previously noticed meetings, only a 170 attendees and so on just reflects that the residents didn't get actual notice of these things.
If you would like a further illustration, I would invite you to ask the audience to ask two questions here.
Number one, how many of you were aware of these proposed construction projects a month ago?
And second, as long as it's getting late, I'll just go ahead and ask the question, how many of you were not aware of these proposed construction projects a month ago?
And that just reflects the ineffective minimum constructive notice that actually was sent out.
Concert citizens want to become informed.
These proposals are too important to the community for the council to approve them without a meaningful informed dialogue.
We therefore respectfully request that you do it's right for the community and postpone your final decision on these proposals until after that conversation has taken place.
Thank you. Thank you Mr. Pake. The next speaker is Sushima.
Hi, I'm Sushima and I think a lot of the speakers have already expressed, you know, our concerns as Cooper Tito citizens.
There is an overall degradation of the quality of life and I think somebody said that East Cooper Tito is becoming like a ghetto and I couldn't agree more.
I'm here to say just a few things, you know, I am in support of separating the Cooper Tito general amendment approval from the housing element.
There's too much going on in the general plan amendment and we need more time as a community to absorb it and discuss it and have more involvement as most people have said.
Please approve only the bare minimum that's the 1,200 unit. If you must give a buffer, take it about 1,100, but not more than that.
Spread these units across the city so that everybody feels the development not just East Cooper Tito.
I happen to live on richwood drive and we are particularly opposed to united furniture.
We are right across from it. We'll be able to see their balconies from our street.
Also, I think a lot of people have already expressed this and I'll reiterate that none of us feel that the environmental impact report is accurate.
It's grossly under estimates the impact to traffic and to schools. None of those school numbers that they put up there are even believable.
The schools are over capacity right now. Come and see the schools.
That's it. Thank you very much. The next speaker is.
Thank you.
Good evening everyone. I'm Nagapriya Thrutani and so I was the person who started the campaign on change.org.
I'm sure you are bombarded with a lot of emails.
Please hold your pass.
Thank you.
I just want to bring to notice that a petitions event online a week ago could get 700 signatures in a week.
And that is like a huge participation in my terms because I didn't know about this general amendment plan till two weeks earlier.
So if you took the time to read the petition and also read the comments.
The comment message you would have gotten is congested roads, overcrowded parking, unsafe environment for biking for kids, crowded schools and crowded free space for kids and families.
So there's one thing that, you know, we want to make sure is the quality of life that people came to put in a form.
And the other message I want to pass on is the city needs to take more proactive actions to make sure the public is informed effectively.
I heard that the traffic meeting had more than 200 people. That's really good. It's good to see that kind of participation.
I'm sure if you had named the meeting as secure mobility meeting, people wouldn't have understood it.
They understood traffic safety meeting.
So when you announce, I mean when the city announces the meetings, we need to make sure the people understand what the meeting is about.
If the meeting said, you know, a general plan amendment meeting, we do not understand what it is.
We do not understand what impact it makes to us in 20 years.
We have to be, you know, we need to ensure that the people understand what the meeting is for and where the public participation helps.
We did see presentations about all the workshops and study sessions.
I just lived two doors down from here and I didn't know anything about it.
So I was really frustrated about it and that's why I started the petition and I'm glad that many people participated in it.
So I urge the council to delay the major decision until all the concerns the suggestions are heard and the plan is amended to make satisfactory addresses to the suggestions and concerns from the public.
Thank you.
I received so many email and especially from changing that work.
I tried to repribe, but whatever I repribe, it's all bounced back.
So it's also very frustrated from my side too.
Okay, I will let the change your dark people know about that.
Thank you.
And how do I pronounce your name, my apologies?
I am Sarah Wanakcomar.
That might take a time.
So I go by TBS.
My mom is the only person who calls me by the name anyway.
Thank you everyone for this time and the great work so far.
A couple of things is one of go through.
We moved in year 2006 and ever since we have been very practically engaged in the school development.
That's a draw.
The reason why we moved it to keep it in a was the good school and the beautiful neighborhood.
And we have been supporting this through higher property taxes, parcel taxes.
I'm sure many of you remember how we ran around for passing the measures to increase the parcel tax and so forth.
Now, the development plan that we've seen the general plan seems to favor developers like, you know,
Prometheus or the lack of better name, you know, like they come and build the apartments rented out.
They seem to have the benefit of higher rent because of the attractiveness of the great schools that we have.
But they do not proportionately contribute to the parcel tax because the whole of the apartment complex is just past $200.
So that's each one of the housing owners pay the same money.
Similarly, many of the properties are privately owned.
So they exchange as the equity or what not without receiving the property value and hence kind of getting locked into the lower property tax and, you know,
robbing of the potential revenue for the city, state and community.
So in any development effort that this plan is going to propose.
We urge this council and the city to consider having the developers build condos or individually owned properties.
So that any occupant proportionately pays for the development of the community schools, etc.
They pay equally equal amount of taxes property taxes and whenever we go and can was for new parcel taxes.
They also contribute and be part of the same community making this place as attractive as it's today.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Yes, sir.
I ask the city attorney.
I'll see you.
The gentleman just saying the the whole apartment is paying the same property tax as one unit.
Is that correct?
Partial tax.
Depending on your construct the tax, that could be the case.
You're talking about a positive amount of property tax.
Partial tax and the property tax is normally linked to the the private time they bought the property.
So what happens is unlike a regular property we don't sell and buy apartments right.
So the property tax never gets reset to the market value over time.
It gets anchored to a very low value that is in the past.
Well, I mean, that's property 13, which applies to both commercial and residential, right?
That is right.
But I think the point you're making on parcel taxes.
We've all just taxed ourselves.
70 plus percent of voters said they were willing to tax themselves.
Measure J for high schools.
Right.
We did a similar thing recent in the last year for CUSD, right?
Right.
And just for clarification.
Is it in fact true?
I heard from Pauli Bovi.
I talked to her today.
She's she confirmed that what you're saying is correct.
That is parcel tax.
I'm an entire apartment complex is paid quantity one.
It's a portion.
That's correct.
I'm one part.
Sometimes you're just to be the size of parcel, but it's generally.
I could have a thousand apartments quantity one.
One parcel.
Right.
This was close to personal.
Thank you.
Okay.
It's not a residence tax.
It's a personal tax.
Yeah.
The next speaker is Chris Venture.
I have seven coffee.
We can just give it to you.
I'd like to ask my question.
Jen, please come stand with me.
This is my group.
No problem.
And I'm asking for 10 minutes.
I also like to start off by recognizing my two boys here.
They were lasted.
You know, past midnight.
I just want to make sure that they get credit for that.
And I hope I have your full and undivided attention here.
So before we start Mr. Venture.
Just want to make clear that these folks here have not turned in a card.
They are to support me.
So that I don't understand.
I want to clarify because I have witnesses hearing on TV that you cannot come up and speak.
That Mr. Venture will be taking up your time.
Correct.
They're not going to.
They're not going to speak on their behalf.
Thank you.
So thank you very much.
I have a presentation.
No.
It's not being displayed.
It's all done for.
There we go.
Okay.
Super. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
So, you know, while I was sitting here listening.
What kind of came to me as the general theme here was that story book that most of us have
all read to our children called The Giving Tree.
And it really is about, you know, what do you really value?
You know, you could.
The tree for everything.
But at, at the end of the day, we need to have quality of life.
And so really today I'm going to focus on quality of life.
Specifically quality of life that parts give us.
And it may not be reflected in the EIR because the EIR did not really get into parks.
And certainly didn't get into the percentage of the target allocation of parks.
And definitely did not get into the percentage of target allocation in various neighborhoods.
Okay.
So North of Blaney and Velco neighborhoods are at the 16% of their target allocation for park lands.
The proposed housing element and general plan amendment will result by bringing in all the people reduced by 33% their available park land ratio.
And the result after the general plan is over is they would have only 10% target allocation for parks.
So I'm going to work through the math here so you see where this comes from because I'm an engineer.
So it's very data driven.
First of all, we have the Cooper Tino municipal code 1824.040.
This is the general standard, which is says for the public interest convenience, health, welfare and safety that we should have three acres of park land per 1,000 persons.
And that's our Cooper Tino municipal code, but it's actually based on the Quinn be act.
And the Quinn be act is staged that for the purpose of determining your performance to this measure you should be using the federal census data.
So I go to the US federal census data on my sources are stated at the bottom here.
So for this, the way to census breaks down Cooper Tino into four major census tracks.
On the west of the ANZ you have 507707807, east of the ANZ you have 5080808081 with Stevens Creek separating a 50808081.
So understand that we're broken into four major census tracks here.
So let's see how each of these as census tracks is doing compared to our municipal code 1824.040.
Okay, so for us, let's look at census track 5081.
According to the 2010 census population, it has 7600 people.
So therefore it should have 23 acres of park.
It has 3.8 acres of park.
So it has a current target allocation of 16 percent.
I don't know why the mic clock is only at five seconds left.
I'll keep clicking it.
So it's only at 16 percent.
So this is like a major red flag, and if you're going to have a general plan for the next 25 years to fix a problem for the city, this is certainly a major red flag that need to be fixed.
Okay, let's go to the next census track. This is 5080. And this one is not that bad. It's actually that 86% of the target allocation.
It's mostly drawn down by a Rancho Rinkanata, which has a zero park lands. Of course, we annexed that from San Jose and a lot of that is legacy.
But when you do annex a territory from someone else, you have an obligation to actually take care of them.
And so we do want to see the Rancho Area actually get some park lands. Even if it has to use, you know, use from some of the other nearby neighborhoods.
But we definitely people need access to parks. Okay, and then the census tracks for 5077 and 5078, you can see that the boundaries are very strange curving boundaries.
It's it's very complicated if you want to get into very detailed analysis there. So I'll just say 7778, if you put it all together as a as a weighted average, 36,000 people should have 110 acres.
It has 117 acres, so there are 106%. So what we have here, when you look at Cooper Tino as a whole, is you have 5077, 5078, are in great shape for meeting the Quinbly Act, for meeting your target allocation, you know, of three acres per 1,000 people.
But 5081, boy, that is really hurting. It's at only 16% of target allocation. And this is why I think that we need to be very careful about what we're doing here in the zoning, because the developer site is probably the last site ever, right, that you will have a chance to actually remedy this gap.
So that was using a 2010 census data. So now, that's actually look four years old. So if you look at the middle chart here, the middle chart here now shows what's going to happen when the population from rose bowl, main street, the 230 Stevens Creek, come online, and that's going to drop the target allocation down to 15%.
And if the proposals for the Hampton's Valko and United furniture, you know, come in, then that target allocation is going to drop at 10.
This is really drastically moving in the wrong direction. And so we have to actually, I mean, we have an obligation to those neighborhoods, because the reason for that title, that chapter 1824 was for health welfare and safety.
And I don't think that we can say that it's okay for the health safety and welfare to drop down to 10%.
Okay, so I've been speaking in terms of percentages. Now let's talk in terms of raw acreage.
So if you look at today's gap for 5081, it's a 19 acre gap. You would need to come up with 19 acres to actually bring them up to 100% of target allocation.
But after the potential rezoning that we're talking about here today, you'd have a 33 acre gap.
And not to mention that next door in track 5080, you have a 627 acre gap. That's the track we're in right now.
So overall, that we basically need to find where are we going to come up with 20 to 40 acres.
And what I've drawn there, that red box is drawn to scale, that red box indicates 10 acres.
So if a Valco basically disappears into development, then you never ever have a chance for the rest of all of us and our children and our children's children to ever repair that target allocation at 10%.
And so that's why I'm asking you all today, that we really need to consider the Cupertino park land dedication.
It's written into the municipal code. We should consider it. There's the California Quimbe Act. We should consider it.
And we have to be very careful about rezoning, because if you rezoned something that is commercial into mixed use, its market value is going to go up.
But we should have a park plan that includes acquiring properties.
And you should have a strategy, you don't want to jack the market rate up and then say, gee, I should try to acquire it.
You have to have a strategy to fix this. And I think it's really going to be a play important role about your rezoning decisions tonight.
You may potentially rezone the last area for a park. You may potentially rezone it to a new mix use that makes the market value go up.
And then is your last chance for basically that whole neighborhood to ever correct their target allocation.
Thank you very much.
Did your numbers adjust for the new parks such as the one that made street?
No, actually because the data that I was using, like I said, I got the data from the Cooper Tino or website, it listed all of your 24.
So what I was including.
So it doesn't list the parks that are currently under construction.
I'm not aware of any parks that are currently under construction that are coming from the main street.
So if so like I said, so the gap is, you know, like 20 to 40 if they were if they were contributing one to three or four.
Then I would come down to 16 or as the need.
Thank you.
Yes. I think the gap is still going to be quite big because the need is actually bigger than all of the main street anyway.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Then I'll use a few more.
Actually, actually, he's a club scout right here.
Okay.
And you know, these kids need to use park and he's going to be an actor.
Okay.
Thank you.
I would like to ask you.
I'd like that.
Venture.
Thank you.
We'll show you what I asked you.
Yeah.
Asked.
They see a Chinese question.
It's the manager.
Marco Park.
Marco Scherman said that right now had a 50 acre.
So based on your suggestion, take out 33 acre.
Can we enforce that?
We want to resolve that as a park.
The whole thing.
Yeah.
We have to buy it.
Where to buy it.
Yeah.
So I'd like to speak to that because, of course, if you want to buy it, you have to have the money to buy it.
Okay.
But we don't know.
Maybe we don't maybe we don't.
Maybe we don't have the money to buy it.
Actually, we were supposed to have a quimbi in lieu of reserve of fund.
And according to my calculations that are quimbi in lieu of reserve fund,
we should have at least enough money to buy three acres of market rate from the projects that happened in the near past.
But anyway, so if we don't have the money, so we say we can't do it.
But then in the future, if we did have the money, but we're not going to have the land.
Right.
So you're, you're at a, it's a difficult cross road.
And I don't want to hear that today we don't have the money.
And then in 2040, while we don't have the land.
And then you can never correct those neighborhoods, which are at a target allocation of 16% today, moving to 10%.
Thank you very much. We still have a lot more speakers.
I have another group of people that was very organized.
And I have five of you.
So if you can all five come in the order that you have, you can save me.
Senals said torners one followed by Shrinny, followed by Mina, followed by Ram, followed by Roger Gopal.
So are you single?
Yes, I am.
And just wanted to get clarification.
So no misunderstanding that issues speak three minutes each.
So I plan to speak on behalf of all of them.
Okay. So you want ten minutes altogether.
Yes.
Okay.
So thanks for giving us the opportunity.
I just want to make it clear to you guys that you're all.
He's going to speak on your behalf and that you will not be speaking.
And he'll be getting ten minutes altogether.
I really appreciate it.
Go ahead. Thank you.
So thanks for giving us the opportunity to talk.
We are primarily here to protest the general plan amendment, which also includes the housing element.
I just wanted to step back for a moment and remind everybody what the city's vision is.
This is what I found from the city's documents.
So we want to replenish our resources for development.
But at the same time, we want to retain our character, goals and objectives as a city.
And we want to consolidate development requests by several property owners, which is understood.
Provide full range of housing to meet the needs of all segments of the city's population.
Again, a valid concern and something we need to do.
But most important, we need to have a balanced community.
That's what it says.
We need to have, I'll just read it out.
Quiet and attractive residential neighborhoods.
Exemplary parks and schools.
Accessible open space areas, hillsides and creeks.
And a vibrant mixed use heart of the city.
So these are the city's vision.
So with what the city is proposing, will we be able to preserve this vision for the city?
So our answer to this question is no.
We will not be able to achieve these goals with all the proposed developments.
The redevelopment plans, we feel are excessive and will benefit the developers more than the community.
As a lot of people here have pointed out.
So the project proposals objectives is to have a city wide increase in official commercial residential and hotel allocations.
The key here is city wide.
And the proposed plans are not achieving this goal.
It's concentrating everything in one part of Cupertino, which is east Cupertino.
And the increase the city wide allocations according to the Bay Area plan.
Again, what is being proposed is too long term.
And we don't really need such excessive development right now.
So I just want to read what I found about the city's approach.
This is what I found in the planning process.
So what the city proposes is the proposed project.
Instead focuses on identifying and analyzing potential changes along the major transportation corridors.
Cupertino that have the greatest ability to evolve in the near future.
Since the rest of the city encompasses single family neighborhoods.
So the key here, from the surface it looks okay, but the key here is near future.
We are trying to capitalize on short term market conditions and economic activity.
It will be a very short-sighted decision by the planning commission as per their own
wordings and disclosure.
I'm not making this up.
We cannot satisfy the long term development of the city, as far as 2040,
by focusing on short term opportunities and market situation.
We have to think long term.
And as several others have pointed out, the impact on the community is largely ignored
or underestimated in the EIR.
So there's a debate of need versus want.
What does the city need versus what do the developers and others want out of this?
The projected deficit I've been correcting this number ever since I came here.
Now it's finally 1060.
So and the proposed housing is close to 4000.
So again, we have scaled that number down, but that was the original proposal.
60 versus 4000, that's huge discrepancy.
So one important thing to note here is that the developer interest
does not evenly map to the study areas.
There are several study areas, all across the city, but the eagerness with which the developers are waiting
to develop these properties, do not map evenly across these study areas.
Some of them will be developed faster than the others.
So projects in some study areas will be finished much sooner.
And just to, again, give the example, Valco, Hamptons, United,
alone could satisfy the deficit according to the proposed plan.
And once the, you know, the 1060 units have been satisfied,
we will not have a need to aggressively pursue the rest of the 2500 units.
So what will happen is that everything will get concentrated in one part of the city
and then then we might go slow.
So most of us were clueless and we felt excluded like again.
A lot of others have pointed out.
So I'm extracting from the text.
The general plan amendment process has involved extensive community discussions
and input provided during several public meetings, workshops, study sessions
and through online comment forms and surveys.
My question was really.
We have this petition in which last I checked we had 750 plus signatures.
So that represents a large number of households.
So voting yes on this proposal will mean that the planning commission and the council
does not care about these hundreds of concerned households.
So we have to, we have to really listen to these, the households
and make a more informed decision.
So we stop, we urge the city council to stop the madness really.
We are not against new development and housing.
We are only against the reckless expansion which is driven by short term vision,
economic conditions and developer interests.
There could always be a cycle like somebody else pointed out.
We could go, we could be in the bus mode.
The EIR ignores our underestimate the impact.
We need to spread the development more evenly across the city.
And we need to reduce the size of the study areas to only include what is needed
and not what we think we need for the next 20, 20, 25 years.
Again as several others mentioned, we urge the city council to decouple the ABAG requirement
from the general plan amendment.
So, we urge the city council to please either vote no on this proposal or postpone it so that we can have enough community input from the city residents.
So, this is the end of my slides, but I also wanted to talk about something from my own experience.
So, I moved into, we moved into Cooperty now three years ago and we are currently remodeling our house.
We've been out of the house for close to a year and part, a big part of that problem was the city planning council planning commission approved our plan.
And then when we were executing the project, the inspector came in and said, no, you cannot proceed further.
And then it turned out that the planning division had not even seen the plans properly.
So, the point being, you guys hold the residents accountable to such high standards, you want everything to be reviewed, all the, all the, the codes to be met.
Why not hold the developers to the same rigorous standards? We, we don't want double standards here, we want everybody to treat, we treat it in the same way.
Thank you.
Yes, thank you.
So, now you mentioned about 750 sign, the petition on the change network, right?
Did you get a chance to look at those signature who are the camp from?
So, I, I was tracking it until it reached about 200, so then after that I stopped tracking it.
When I looked at it, there's quite a few from Santa Clara from San Jose, Sunnyvale.
Not all of them from Coutino.
I could recognize some of the neighbors.
I'm relatively new to this neighborhood.
Okay.
All right.
I'm sorry, it's can't have you speak from there, but yes, there's a lot of speakers that were from Sergio, the, what San Jose, Santa Clara, Los Alchilles, South Sunnyvale.
And they're all within the Coutino school district and in the free-mountain high school district family, so we welcome all of our speakers.
But I think what Councillor Riching is stating is that we got a lot of people from other cities, as well, to the sign of petition.
Okay.
Can I ask a staff a question before there's on it?
A lot of people have requested that we decouple the general plan from the housing elements.
So to have approved housing element, minor standings, we also have to have the general plan to predict what is that true or not.
Well, we can, we can make, yes, in, in one sense, they're, they're coupled together.
But if the plan, Councillor wants to make only some changes, we can set it up so that only those changes are made in the general plan.
You can, you know, for general plan as we can system with the housing, yes, they both have to be consistent.
So you can decide you don't want to increase heights in an area, and so there's no change there.
So, you know, depends on what you want, we can make the appropriate changes.
Just to let you know that some preamble in the general plan and part of why it's there is because a lot of things have changed in the last 10 years.
And so there's some discussions in the general plan that make it more current regardless of what ultimately the development is going to be.
And then just to be clear, I think there's a lot of confusion about how many units we're in there.
So the EIR, my understanding of studies, the upper limit on anything we could possibly do not necessarily was being proposed is that correct.
Right, the 4421 is the maximum that you can have in the general plan.
Okay, and just for clarification for the rest of you speaking, there's, there's just a staff recommendation with the council appears listening to you.
And so we'd like to hear which think about things and there's not a, nothing is cast in stone yet.
The next speaker is Ruth Littman Ashkensee.
And that project of a mispronounce for the last one.
Can you see we can your name on that project?
Yeah, it's Ruth Littman Ashkenazi.
Thank you on all the work.
All right, good evening and good morning.
I just want to ask three why questions.
First of all, why when you receive such small turnout to the meetings wasn't a major push put to advertise these workshops.
These meetings, this issue.
You guys are part of our community.
We've elected you.
We live near you or you're earning a salary, maybe a combination.
Your part of us, why didn't you reach out harder?
We are a group of people who spend hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours for our schools, for our community, for our children.
We would have been happy to be here, had we known.
Isn't it your job to make this a big issue to make sure we understand what's going on?
The second why.
I want to know why parcel tax issues aren't made more generally known.
There was a very good question brought up that had to be a little bit debated and it was hesitated over here.
And that question was, if a developer has a thousand units, how many parcel taxes does he pay?
One.
How many do we pay?
One per household.
Speaking of someone who spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours to benefit our school in our community,
I want to say, expect you guys are elected officials to bring this to light to help us understand not to hesitate for a second.
But to come forth with this very important information, this is your job, your part of us, your one of us act like it.
Third, why.
I want to relive part of our meeting about four hours ago.
Okay, I can't quote exactly who said what here, but let me relive a moment.
Someone said, the HCD.
They don't care about traffic.
They don't care about schools.
Someone else said, whom do they work for?
And yet another person said, up here.
This was all a discussion that was going on up here.
They worked for the governor.
The legislature.
Let me ask you a question.
We elected you guys, not to stand a sheep against a bullying.
Damagagari in Sacramento.
We need you guys to represent our interests.
Stand up to them.
Don't let Sacramento bully us.
We're here to support you.
Please support us.
That's all I have to say.
Thank you.
Just to be clear this was a school parcel tax and this council had nothing to do with it.
It has everything to do with it.
When you know that developers bringing in thousands of units are going to be paying the 200
dollars that a single family homeowners are paid.
I mean, ma'am, I wasn't asking questions just explaining something.
No bit.
This this council had nothing to do with the parcel tax.
We had we have no right to explain it to the public.
It's up to the entity to put it on.
I think when you're entertaining.
Thank you for the.
Well.
Hold on.
You guys spend.
You guys spend a lot of time entertaining the questions and answers.
The developers.
I think we the people have a right to spend the same amount of time up here.
Talking as well.
Please don't show your biases so clearly it's it's a little painful.
Okay.
So when you bring in developers the thousand plus units.
I think it is your responsibility to make sure we do know that these developers are paying one parcel tax.
Regardless of whether it's for the schools because the schools are part of the community.
A very very integral part of this community.
And you are too.
Thank you.
So I'm I'm going to address your statements since you haven't been following the council means for the last seven years.
I voted against pretty much every high density project that's been put forward.
The parcel tax is not due to a developer.
It's due to if it's a bunch of really units and that's set for once again, not by this body.
I'm not blaming the spotty for setting it forward.
I'm blaming the spotty for not making it better known so that your population understands everything involved.
It's a matter of transmission just like the data leading takes place and just like the workshops that were not communicated effectively.
It's communication.
Thank you very much.
Your time is up.
Thank you.
Next speaker is Peggy Griffin.
Welcome Mrs. Griffin.
Thank you.
My name's Peggy Griffin and I live in Cupertino.
I have three things to ask you.
One.
First, I'm asking you to leave the PG&E zoning as is.
It is not part of the housing element and they have no intention of doing that and there's no reason.
PG&E is and it provides us.
We want them there for emergency preparedness.
They're close by and we want to keep them there.
I'm asking you to always tell the residents what it means to identify a parcel as part of the housing element.
I've attended several meetings in the study sessions and it wasn't until the last planning meeting that I realized that.
Because you identify it as a housing element, it gets resolved.
And as part of being alone, it will be developed.
And that just was like an aha to me.
The third thing that I'm asking is that again at the planning meeting,
they said housing, the height, in some cases they would increase it for retail.
And it implied to me that the whole bottom floor would be retail and in exchange for an extra floor.
But that's not true.
I found out that retail isn't defined.
There's no minimum square footage retail could be a vending machine,
breakfast bar, a restaurant or store selling goods, which was my definition.
So as residents knowing what retail means, knowing what the housing element or parcel on it would really help.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Mr. President.
Thank you.
Excuse me.
But there are certain requirements on density, so they often are.
So it's not a requirement, but it often is the case.
And I agree with you completely with the retail element thing.
But I lost on that vote when it came up.
Okay.
Excuse me.
Hey.
So you want to see to define a retail more vigorously in the future?
Personally, I would prefer that you don't exchange height for retail on the face.
Retail on the floor, but if you're going to do that, I would say define retail.
Define the minimum percentage of the floor that needs to be retail.
All right.
Great.
Thank you.
So have two more groups here.
The first group is Chris Wong, Albert Wayne, and Glenn Simmons.
We can come on up here.
And then so we want to get clarification.
Mr. Huang, are you each of you going to speak three minutes each?
Yeah.
Three minutes each.
Okay.
Sounds great.
Thank you.
Okay.
Good evening.
My name is Chris Wong.
My family has owned and operated the Marine of Food Squarespace store for over 25 years.
We're extremely excited about the prospect of redeveloping our site and refreshing our image.
As you may know, in the last 10 years, about seven or eight grocery stores have opened within two miles of us.
And this has led to enormous competition.
Because of this, we've been exploring the idea of a complete site remodel for quite some time now.
And felt this was the right opportunity to revise our business model and reposition ourselves in this new and demanding market.
By redeveloping the site with new amenities, exciting new tenants, and a brand new space from Marina Foods,
we can bring life and vibrancy to what we feel is a natural downtown area of Gupertino.
In order for us to make the plan financially feasible, however, we must include a housing component to the project,
as we need to build roughly six to 700 underground parking stalls.
But not only that, we feel that residents in retail in the same village type setting would be mutually beneficial.
We're not developers by trade, but we do know Gupertino intimately.
And we've hired a very reputable architectural firm in the Darling Group to help guide us through the process.
In working with them, we feel we can not only strengthen our retail presence, but also benefit the community.
Our site is conveniently located on a major thoroughfare with convenient access to public transportation and is within walking distance to deans a college,
Apple and most Gupertino retail centers.
We plan to put in roughly 230 residential units with either a senior housing or hotel component,
and look to increase our retail footprint from the current 44,000 square feet to over 66,000 square feet.
And with these additions, we feel Marina would be well positioned to start the community for another 25 years.
How about Wayne or who ever wants to come up?
This is a sticker name.
We will represent Marina Fu and Marina Plaza, and that would be probably providing service to the community for almost 30 years.
And we are part of the community and we want to stay this way for a long time to come.
And we have the majority of the parking space and the retail building Marina Fu.
There is also a way also that a decision that departs, which is, that the American government
rights rights are located. As part of housing element or goal is to develop the site into a vibrant,
mixed use, village, and major cross-use section of Cougar Tino. Alongside new housing options,
we want to provide the community a variety of shopping and dining and other professional services
that were integrated into and support the Stevens Recorder Retail District. For retail or
planning to bring back these, the retail space, what current has, we provide even more than that.
And for our revitalizing the area with new facilities and better amenities such as outdoor
seating, workable passways and large gathering places that make the plaza more attractive to shoppers.
And we have planted for 20 parking space to support both the retail space as well as the new residents.
For housing wishing, the marine site is fantastic location. A couple of Tino's major cross-use.
The marine site is located along the major transportation corridor where commuters can use the access to both 85 and 280.
While bus stops in front of the marine, I can take anywhere in town, as well as as couch stations, as far as the downtown San Jose.
Residents can easily walk to the Memorial Park, the Sports Center, the Senior Center.
What you can work across the target and the cross-use shopping.
We believe housing and retail together here can form a strong, co-benefitial relationship, well, decreasing the necessary traffic near Cougar Tino's residential neighborhood and schools.
And to help ensure that the project is a success, we have already brought on board, a well-respected architect, dining groups to design a project that will build substantially to lead standards as well as integrate smoothly into...
We're going to win your time.
So now we give the point into...
Perfect timing.
Is it chartered, Glen Sims?
I'm John Thach. I'm representing Glen. I'm a design partner, so I'm taking Glen Swag.
You're continuing for the record please?
John Thach.
Thank you.
I'm Principal and Darling Group Architecture and Planning.
I'm happy to be here, because I think we have a very interesting project as far as really a mixed-use project.
There's office, uses on the site, and basically we're looking at basically replacing the market, bringing in a very vibrant new market to the marketplace here.
And I think also it's designed and interesting that we have Danza and Stevenson.
And then we have those uses, the commercial uses on the edges and we're putting the residential on the quieter streets inside and having a bigger buffer there.
And the main thing I think as far as looking at how we're integrating the whole block is...
If you look at the plan as we have a plaza that sort of integrates everything as far as how we're creating a main street in the project, just bringing in, I think all the different uses together.
And it's something I think it's going to work out really well for this area.
As stated, there's a lot of different uses. This is very walkable. I think we're very connected as far as how this community can work and really appreciate your consideration for this site. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I think we're done. I have another group here as well.
Can I ask them a question? Yes.
The concern is traffic.
The concern is traffic and the school. Are you guys willing to help to solve the traffic problems?
We're going to discuss.
And then also the school.
My helping the school building in some classroom.
I have a part of our process with the city.
Okay. Thank you.
I have another group up here. I'm going to call the names here.
It's Michael of Cramer, Reed Moles, and Peter Powell.
Can you come up here, please?
Michael Cramer.
I just want to get clarification is that our issue we want to speak for three minutes or one person to speak for ten minutes.
I think in the interest of time Mr. Cramer yield his time to Peter and I.
Okay.
So Peter's going to speak for ten minutes?
I'll speak for some of the time and Peter will speak as well.
Okay, but I only have one person to speak for ten minutes.
So you have to, if you want to bring up more people.
Five minutes and five minutes?
Five minutes.
Okay. That's fine.
That's fine.
This is terrible.
My name is Reed Moles. I'm a San Diego property company.
On behalf of San Diego, I want to thank the City Council, staff and community for us working on the GPA.
The reason I'm here before you is because after three years of intensive negotiations,
we are in the midst of completing purchases for the entire Valco shopping mall.
Valco presents a unique opportunity for revitalization community building.
It's been neglected and in decline for decades.
In redevelopment efforts by all the many former owners were either abandoned or failed.
Prior attempts at Valco redevelopment have all run into the same problem.
Full ownership of the site is needed.
After 40 years, this is the first time anyone has ever been able to pull this off.
consolidating four owners who rarely talked to one another into single ownership.
In collaboration and partnership with the community in city,
we plan to completely transform the current dying center into a vibrant, sustainable, mixed use neighborhood,
consistent with the general plan.
The overarching vision is to create a pedestrian oriented town center.
One that will have synergies between the uses and nearby projects, such as Main Street,
to create a dynamic downtown where the community can live, work, shop, and play.
So, we were pleased to see the recent city of Cupertino community satisfaction survey conducted by Godby research
with an overwhelming 86% of Cupertino residents surveyed supporting redevelopment of Valco.
And 78% supporting and mix of uses including retail, office, and housing.
While we preferred the 800 units in alternative C, we agree with staff's recommendation that Valco be designated as a 600 unit housing element site.
We do request that the general plan include an office allocation for Valco of 2 million square feet
and height limits set out an alternative scene.
Without this specific office allocation, as well as the necessary retail and housing components,
there will not be adequate critical mass to make it possible for us or any other prospective developer to successfully redevelop Valco.
The benefits of the city of such a project are well beyond creating a sense of place.
A carefully planned retail format would reduce leakage and generate millions in sales tax revenues, far and excess.
What is there today?
Property taxes would also increase significantly given a billion-dollar plus investment,
Sand Hill is prepared to make in the city.
We're proud of what we've done in the city of Cupertino.
We've partnered with the city and community on a number of successful projects in the 90s.
We're a local owner and take pride in our commitment to the community and the city.
Our Main Street Project is now under construction, and we will open as new gathering place in 2015 and 2016.
Approval of the general plan is just the beginning, not the end of the planning process for Valco.
There is no Valco project to underview today.
Following adoption of the GPA, we plan to engage in not to mention the GPA required.
A comprehensive community-based specific plan process.
This will not be done in private.
We look forward to collaborating with the city and community stakeholders on the redevelopment of Valco on transportation and on community benefits.
This should be an exciting opportunity for everyone to come together and create something wonderful.
But without the necessary office, residential, retail and high-dallocations,
we will not be able to make the commitment required to successfully redevelop Valco,
and it will continue to languish for decades to come.
Thank you for consideration.
May I want to members of Council?
This is my name is Peter Paul.
I think a lot of people here because they care about what happened in Cupertino,
but we all put we all agreed that on one thing that Valco is not working.
It's a death center, it's not going to get any better.
We're here tonight because we want to ask the Council and the community to give us a chance.
A chance to show you and to convince you that we can come to the plan to turn this embarrassment into something that we can all be proud of.
We think the way right people do the job because, first of all, we care.
I've been doing business in Cupertino for 20 years.
I have a lot of interest in Cupertino, and I want this to work well.
We also have the experience to do that too.
Believe it or not, I'm the only one in Bay Area that I have taken down on one month's growth for enclosed mall
and convert it into a mixture's project and I've done it at you two times.
We also turn out that we actually, this is a very risky investment, but we have to capital.
Not just a short term game, but we're going to be here for long run.
You're part of take us 12 to 13 years to get our money back.
But we are willing to hang in there that long to make it work.
I'm basically putting my credibility on the line because we have a reputation for being open.
We have open mind and we have open door.
We have talked to about a thousand people at Main Street.
I don't know about three different meetings before even finalized the plan.
We're going to do it here too, even more.
We actually have a whole team set up here with Reed and Michael and I know when Eric is falling asleep by now,
but we have a whole lot of people here that was willing to talk to one.
Talk to everyone here, where the CCC care and the homeowners association, one to one.
We have on-site office and you're welcome to come in here.
We're accessible.
We always surround.
We want you to know that until we don't know this outreach and I know that's like complaining about not being informed, not being in the act.
Well, in the loop, we will try to do the best we can and until that happen, we will not have a plan to show you.
However, we are confident that we have some idea what we're doing.
We hope that the plan will come out great, but we don't have one yet, but I do know something will be in the plan.
One is a traffic.
If you think that we don't care about traffic, you're wrong.
Because we have tenants that we worry about.
Nobody's going to come here if the traffic is a problem as a nightmare.
We also have a very quality conscious that you probably know every project we've done in California,
and you can be seen on the hotel, the hotel, the whole food, the office building on the answer and the Marianne and Main Street.
I can tell you that we are going to because the critical mass of this project, we are able to buy the best design team possible.
We also care about schools.
I've been here for 20 years.
I know how big of a deal of school is.
If you think that we don't care about school, you're wrong too.
If we can get housing at the local, we will make sure the school is not only preserved, but we've improved.
And I can tell you that we will be able to come up ways to maybe give a surprise of you as to how we can help support the school.
One thing we're not going to do is to turn it to how high-density housing development.
It's going to be a mixture of housing, but if you really look at the social density and compare the other six or seven housing elements site, we have about 45% below them.
Just to give you some idea.
If you look at Santana Road and you consider high-density housing project,
our density is about 40% of what they have today.
So this is a long journey.
But we had to take the first step.
The first step is to get a GPA done.
Otherwise, we can't get going here.
And I think that you have a lot of chances to see it.
We don't, like I said, we don't have a plan.
You have a lot to do.
Lots of opportunities to see, yes or no.
Over Main Street Project, we came and put up the enclosure,
to try and close your gate with our TV view that.
We actually have to get a single approval on a color copy of the sidewalk.
So we're not going to be able to get away from anything.
So I just want people to relax that we're not going to come in tomorrow and build this thing out.
We will take a time.
Go for process.
You're all invited to participate.
And by the time we get through, we'll hopefully have something we'll be proud of.
So I'm not sure if I can add anything to it, but I can just tell you that,
based on our personal, I'll try to record it in town.
I think that we hope that we can get a break from everyone.
Thank you very much for your time.
And if you have a question, we'd like to answer that.
Very nice question.
So you've seen your way into work with the community to come out with the plan.
This is general plan of amendments.
So if we approve the general amendment, you will have a specific plan,
propose or write before you have that.
You will work with the community.
Find out what the community wants and what the community.
Yes, a key words to be for that.
We don't have a plan.
I like some big corporation here.
We're coming here with the plan that we decided on.
He said, you guys accepted.
We purposely do not have a plan.
We ought to go out there and talk to people.
I mean, now we may not agree.
We're not going to say we're going to please everyone.
But we want to go through the process that you know,
we do care and we do want to see what we work just like we did in Main Street.
That makes you probably very flexible.
We can adjust the juggle components in different ways.
And we are pretty flexible.
We're pretty good at what we do.
And I think that if you can, as I like to say, give us a chance.
We would have to wow you if you don't, we don't get approval.
So we are going to start tomorrow if we can.
Of course, I don't know what can happen tonight.
But as soon as the GP is done, we're coming here with application for a specific plan.
And at that point then we have to start working on some sort of real plan.
But we had to go through a long outreach process.
And I'm telling everybody today tonight or this morning that that.
This is what we've prepared to do. We're not hiding. You can find us. We're very accessible.
Yeah, one of the questions, one of the problem is the traffic. Are you willing to help write shut-off buses or the intensity?
I, you know, one thing people think that we're kind of greedy, we've asked for minutes, square feet, hundreds of units, all these other good stuff for the project.
We need it because we need a critical mass. The good part is that when we do get a critical mass, then we can afford to do things that other project cannot.
So for example, I'm not sure exactly what the shuttle system supposed to work. I heard something about it tonight and some time before.
But I'm pretty confident that if we can get our project going, we will be glad to work something out like this because we can fund it.
We actually will have enough, like I said, critical mass to able to do things, other project cannot even dream of.
Also another concern of the, of the resident is the library space is not enough here.
What you were willing, are you willing to provide some space for the library in your, in your, in your new units or your, your shopping center.
And then also, like, like a medical center for the pediatric, pediatric, pediatric, and for the kids kids playground and a daycare center.
Well, we, we have a pretty experienced, another makeshift project where we actually taught the city by putting a library within the project.
So it's a makeshift, so there's no rule is to what can go into makeshift's project. So a library, I don't know what the situation library is. We'll talk with branch library, expansion library of brand new library, but that kind of used it's certain fine.
There are other things that we can do, but daycare for example, maybe potentially, because of potential liabilities because you need to open space, but we're willing to actually, we're not just willing to, we're offering to do a lot of things for the community because,
frankly, this is my last big hero. I want my legacy to go down as something that say, I feel a wonderful project for the city of Copitino because I mean, fortunate to have very good success in the city of Copitino is time to give back.
So yes, I'm, I'm willing to offer various benefits because not because I'm trying to win your favor, but because I feel like I can do something like that and make every come out feeling good about it.
Also, because you're asking for 60 million that will create more students, right? So that means more, need a more classroom. Are you willing to build the classroom for the school here?
You know, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm discussing, I'm an immigrant. I came from Hong Kong and education is number one and number two thing in Hong Kong.
And so, at this point here, we've, we thought Kubernetes is great because of schools. And even though I don't have kids going to school here, it's a great asset to have in town.
And lastly, we want to do a school thing up for anyone. So I'm thinking that for last maybe five or six years to say, well, we can talk in the school problem.
We can talk in the old crime in the school, but at the same time, you cannot shut down a city either. You can say, well, we close with business, nobody can ever come in here again.
Well, you got to fix a problem that way I look at it, we go to the source and see how we can help the school.
Because it's not possible to say, well, we can never have anything that will impact the school. There'll be impact on the school, and we need to find a way.
And I hope that we, by the time we get through, if it's not a new show, if it's not positive, that we can support and contribute to the school more than what we call the school.
So you're willing to talk to the community, find out what their needs and then they will be part of the project for the specific brand.
Yeah, again, I was sitting through six hours, I was here in tonight.
And I mean, I don't enjoy it. I don't enjoy people coming here being unhappy and say, well, you didn't talk to us.
You wouldn't know what you're doing here. You guys agree or whatever. That is not how we operate.
I'm taking pride of what I've done. I have a good reputation.
I don't think that I've anything to apologize for. We never, never, you know, consider yourself greedy developers.
And so, we're sitting here telling you, we're here. If you want to talk to us, we're a good ideas. Fine.
If you just want to talk to us, it tells not to do anything. That's your prerogative, but if you can work to get it positively.
I mean, Valko is really a drag. It's a black marble sitting for Bettina.
I've been here for 40 years. I first visited Valko 40 years ago and I've seen it decline over time.
I taught to all four separate owners before that. There are two times the project are closed and I taught to the lenders both times.
I mean, this is a joke here. We got to fix this thing because we cannot have this going on here.
It cannot have obsolete center sitting here. I'm sorry, Mike, but the road here, but I'm saying, it cannot have this type of embarrassed.
We go to other cities. We bring people into tour Main Street.
We have important guests who respect the tenants coming here. They come down to Main Street and look around and see what's this thing across the street from this.
It's a mall and what kind of mall is it? It's the worst one in the entire area.
I mean, I got a lot of investment for Bettina. Do you think I want to see that all over again?
So I do whatever it takes. And frankly, we have easy projects to do. We don't need to do this project.
Thank you.
There's not regard to terms as the council member who's asking questions.
I have questions to you.
No problem. Vice Mayor Sinks.
If and when we approve the housing office retail components that you would need to make this go.
What is your timeframe for doing all this outreach and then coming to council with a specific plan?
Well, I just want to say because we've not right away, but again, I'm not sure.
We actually will have about one year process or two year process or what do you figure?
I mean, I think to be fair, we cannot just say we're going to reach out to community and then after two weeks is that we've done reaching out.
So we would take all time.
The fact that matter is there'll be at least a year or so where we can't even touch the property because it's very least obligation that we have out there.
So that's a good pair of a time where we actually, I think we're going to probably just guessing part of six to seven months to go through the community interaction.
Then we then have a design team to try to interpret that into a master plan.
We have lots of time to work with the council city in between time and when we ready would come in and start a specific plan.
So like we consider it's probably a long-term project, probably five or six years to finish.
So maybe a year or so just a front, the front getting into a good master plan.
Over at Main Street, we have about 30 versions.
Yeah, right.
Master plan.
I'll be carried by a target done.
Just to recall the history of Main Street.
When that was first entitled by a prior city council.
The economic times were such that you just couldn't go forward, right?
That was we had the banking crisis in 2008 and so forth.
So I guess it wasn't what entitled in that general timeframe, but it took five years until you had a plan and you work with a community and you said you had 30 meetings.
I think we have 34 public meetings.
Okay, and we finally went through a whole stage of entitlements because members of the public wanted to hear about the architecture.
They wanted to hear specifically about restaurant and this and that and the quality of the hotel and so forth.
And we went through this piece by piece and it took a long time and there was a lot of, yeah, there was a lot of community meetings, planning commission meetings, council meetings and so forth.
As I recall, when we actually went for the final approval under the previous city council.
We have a lot of supporters in the audience and I don't think anybody came out and spoke against the project.
There, no, it was very cool.
One of the few times.
Yeah.
Can you talk to?
So there, I'll call it rumors in Silicon Valley Business Journal and some of things talking about.
Sears making independent decision independent I guess of what you're doing to close this location.
It seems like they're turning into a real estate investment trust and they're just.
They just want to get out.
Is that true?
What do you know about sears?
Well, and unfortunately they sort of did on their own.
We had a great deal with them where they allowed to stay in the property for up to a year to wind up their business.
They can always leave early if you wanted to, but they can stay up to a year if they choose to as well.
So I'm pretty, I'm a year from a year from close of escrow.
Yeah, from close to that school.
You've already done that.
Yes, about a week or so.
Two weeks.
Right.
And so I'll be nice to us.
They use paper reporter talk to them and they somehow someone from studio said, yeah, we're closing pretty soon.
So they didn't bother telling us, but if that's the case, that's the case.
Macy's and JC Penny have the same right to stay there for a period of time.
And we think that we especially do inclusive time.
We don't we want to rock the building, cause anybody in the hardship.
But we have.
We are prepared to let them stay there for a while until they get finished to.
And then unless until the radical.
But sears is well known to us as being sun-stores all the country.
It's a public information of everybody knows that they are losing money quickly and the only
making it by sudden different real estate assets.
Okay, so if the community says you bring us a project, the community doesn't want it,
what is your, what are you going to do?
You have other things to do, you said, what would you do with these pieces of voucher that
you're acquiring?
Yeah, it's a risk, obviously we bought it with an entitlement and we're hoping that we
can convince everyone that we deserve a reasonable entitlement but if we can't get, of course,
not this guaranteed, the council takes us to take a hike, then we had to figure out
what to do with it, most likely we can sit there and hold it for a while until we can find
extra strategy because at this point, it's now possible we can re-tend it properly and
it was, you don't think you can re-tend it the property.
We can bring us some tenants who are basically fill in, but really, if you could talk about people
that blew me deal with, they're not, it's not going to happen.
Okay.
Okay, so you're figuring getting through a public process.
I mean, to council, the specific plan that that generally is satisfied the community could
be half a year, a year and a half, two years, something like this, right?
Well, if we do a job well, if we're able to, I mean, it's up to us, right?
Yeah.
If we had to show people, we'd have a great plan, and until we do that, it might take us six years
I don't know, hopefully shorter than that, we know that first thing we need to do is initiate
a specific plan, you know, contrary to what people believe doesn't plan today.
Your intention would be to do this over the next year's say.
We're not going to sit on this, because now we start immediately, the rumor also was that you
paid 1.2.5, 102.5 million for seers, so you have a lot of money sunk into this thing at this
point.
Yeah.
Second part of it, we're trying to keep a secret, because we owe it pay quite a bit,
but we also prepared to go quickly, again, this specific plan process itself is going to
take it well.
So the GPH night only allows to get started here.
We haven't even got to a home base, but we are prepared to go.
We fortunately have a capitalist source now that is pretty substantial and we don't use other
people's money, so we essentially can't start any time, and the first thing, like I said,
we do, is put up a notice, we put up a website, put up a site, put up a site at the office, and
tell people, we open a talk interview, and we probably reach out to some of the group that we know
about, and essentially tell them, we are ready to talk, we don't have a secret plan today,
in fact, we haven't even got to architect yet.
Well, all of these would be meetings that anybody could come to as your intention.
You might reach out to those groups that in the past, you've worked with on Main Street, but
the idea would be anybody could come.
Yeah, I've noticed that when we do everything we can to try to let people know, but at the end
of the day, right, it is.
I would say that anybody in the community or the city cannot come and tell us that they have been
in turn away from us by us.
We are never close at or to anyone.
Unfortunately, we're not a big time company, we're a WIPWIT firm, we're local, and people can
find us.
Okay, I will mayors signaling that it's time for us to move on.
So, Mike, there's Mike Roddy?
There's Mike Roddy?
Mike Roddy?
Mike Roddy.
There's a park in plus the town square.
Those are about what?
Four acres, total?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I think they are acres.
Well, those one for the park and then another.
One, one, one, one, one, one, one.
That's a little bit less than one for the soft park, and then it's about a little bit over one
for the town square.
Okay.
Thank you.
Mike, Roddy?
Mike Roddy?
Mike Roddy.
Followed by Wayne Gwon-Wang, followed by Mike Trasini, followed by Beverly
Bryant, are there any other people who wanted to us?
Become this item, please raise your hand, because those are the only cards I have, so that's
only cards that I will do. Okay? This is it, only four more cards, no more cards I'm going to take.
Hi there, I'm Mike Roddy, the General Manager at Valco Shopping Mall. It's really helping to go
before Mr. Powell, but sorry. That's okay. You know, I've heard a lot about the whole process today,
and we've heard a lot about Valco. You know, we've heard a lot about parks and city fees and
in Lou fees and such as that, but, you know, there's been really no discussion about how to pay for that.
So, correctly, from wrong retail sales tax pays for some of the city fees and staff fees.
Also, development fees, go to pay those expenses. At this point, you know, Valco is probably
seen its better days. It would be a very difficult process to retent this property.
And as Mr. Powell has already indicated, he's probably done you all a favor because these
the purpose stores, their days are numbered. I think that you can read the news and
services already indicated that I think two weeks ago, they indicated they're closing 119 stores.
And then prior to that, even a couple of years ago, they closed another 100 stores.
And JC Penny, also in a downslide, and there, they're in the process of closing stores.
So, likely, Mr. Powell has done you a favor by purchasing these properties.
You know, the likelihood of this property turning the corner is very difficult.
The department stores have really had a stranglehold on this property, something called an REA agreement.
Some of you have done the council for a while and we've had discussion in other venues.
So, I think that it's pretty clear that this particular property needs to become a mixed use process.
And if you look at the nationwide trend of shopping centers, there are no longer just a retail component.
If you also dig a little deeper, you can go to the International Council of shopping centers.
Every single retail venue now has almost a mixed use process.
No longer anchored by the department stores anchored by their mostly anchored by theaters and housing components and office space
and boutique restaurants and icon restaurants. So, it's really a really kind of a unique, unique situation these days.
And the days of big anchored department stores are over.
Thank you, Mr. Rady. When, on, when?
Welcome. Hi, I live in the neighborhood and my school school is in Cupertino, also I live in Santa Clara.
So, every day I go through the Stephen Creek and the job case of in school and go to work, it's already a very crowded part of the city, so it's part.
And if we develop so many more apartments around here, this can be much worse.
Also, the developer, I don't Mr. Paul, said, they're going to try to solve this for school, for traffic,
for everything I don't see any concrete plans. It's just a wish for thinking, because
as a previous speaker already pointed out, we are running out of space. There's no magic like
when you have no space, how do you make all the other parts of the life better? We're going to compromise the life quality.
So, I'm against all of this and there's so many people already made a wonderful
lecture about this, so yeah. Thank you, Mr. Roy. Next speaker is Mark Trasini, followed by
Beverly Brian. We can just both come on up. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the council.
My name is Mark Trasini. I'm a principal of KT properties, which is a development firm
that has been located in Cupertino since 1988 and marks me 26 years. The office building that we're in
is probably that the family acquired in the mid 70s and built the office buildings 30 years ago today.
Our office building is located at 21, 7, 10, Stephen's Creek Boulevard, which is just west of
what is now highway 85 in west of the Oaks shopping center. I'm here tonight to talk about the Oaks.
My brother, Ken and I have the property, the Oaks property in Eskro to purchase. It's a site that we've
been following for better than 20 years and it has had a couple of different ownership and unfortunately we were
not fortunate to get the property under contract. But we do have the property under contract today and we have a set
closing date in January of 2015 and the closing is not predicated on what goes on this evening and I want to be clear
about that. The site is an active retail center but this is a tired retail center and our plans
are to redevelop the Oaks shopping center with a combination of uses. Both of the Oaks to
opposite to maintain a viable and active retail component but also to introduce a viable office
and residential has been pointed out this evening. The site has been selected as a site for residential
and when we began the process of acquiring the site was in the early September time frame of this year
and I attended a number of meetings with city staff and brought myself up to speed with respect to
where the general plan process is to date and housing element update as it currently sits.
And in that the Oaks has been identified as a gateway a site and it's location obviously at the intersection of
highway 85 and Steven's Creek Boulevard or major transportation corridors that serve
Cupertino. And with this in mind my brother and I have looked at the development and the redevelopment
the repurposing of the Oaks and what we'd like to see is the opportunity to construct a vibrant
retail, the opportunity to develop at a minimum 235 residential units and we'd also like the
opportunity to repurpose the site with office and we're looking at the office in the neighborhood of 200,000
square feet in above. We don't have a site plan laid out it's too premature for us. We haven't even
started the process of reaching out to the to the tenants within that shopping center today.
Thank you. Thank you. Can I ask a question again? Yes, sir. Will you help on the solving the traffic?
By the way, council member Chang, I think there's a lot of opportunity to assist
the city of Cupertino and the traffic problems that are associated with the
this in and around the schools, the traffic associated with the ability to get from say the
answer college to the to the employment centers today. We believe there's an opportunity,
we're also believe there's an opportunity to provide a community benefit to play off of the
deans of college and some capacity with the Oaks shopping center site. Okay, also helping the school
that is correct. Okay, thank you. Good quick question. On the
form I'm looking at it seems to list is a 158k maximum under the staff report and you've asked for
235 housing units. Is that time that wrong? Sorry, we've studied a maximum of 235 units.
But I don't recommend it. Yeah, the planning commission recommended 150.
That's more questions for Mark. No, thank you so much. Thank you.
Beverly Bryant. Thank you very much. Members of the council, Mayor. I'm Beverly Bryant and
I'm speaking on behalf of the Oaks shopping center and since I'm the cleanup hitter here tonight,
I'm going to go very quickly because I know it's been a long, long evening. First of all, I just want to
say that we're looking at a long range plan tonight. This is a 26 year plan. The general plan that you're
looking at is not going to be for today. It's going to be for the future. And I think that's the first
important thing to think about tonight. The second thing is simply that all of us who remember the
Oaches of the past know that we're going into a different era and we're living in an interconnected
urbanized community, whether we like it or not, we have to plan for that and we have to think about it.
The whole idea of the manufacturing or the leadership group, gentlemen, said of locating jobs near housing
is exactly what the Oaks shopping center is all about. The proposal for office on that property,
along with the housing and along with the retail will mean that people will live together in a
situation where they can use the retail, they will have jobs and they will also be able to live.
I think as urban planners and decision makers, we ask you also to consider the possibility of putting
office on the west side of Cupertino. On the side of Cupertino, where there is access to Highway 85,
where there is a Stephen Street corridor, where there are places where people can exit easily and not
use City Street as much and also have office right there near housing. Finally, I think the suggestion
about looking at this whole plan and I know you're thinking about it very carefully as an entity for the
whole city and I think some of the ideas of integration and bringing housing and office together
and office at a corridor where transportation will be used is very, very important. So I thank you for
your long, long evening and for the deliberations that I appreciate your time. Thank you.
I really have many acres of the Oaks. Excuse me? How many acres is the Oaks? The Oaks. The Oaks,
the acreage, I thought was a but I've found out it may be 7.9 but I'd have to refer to Mr. Tricini because
he's the purchaseer and I'm not. Thank you very much.
With that I could go ahead and close the public hearing and I asked for, do you guys want to
five minute break? No, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and I can go through
deliberation. They want us to look at the five questions. Development allocation can be benefits building
heights, Dr. Shocking District and Housing Elements Sites and Council Member Armeling. Do you
want to start off first? Let me start off with a question first. We've been talking around it a little
but just to clarify that what on Balco in particular we're really talking about is not an entitlement
per say but a non-belope to work within where they would have to come up with a specific plan.
Yeah, it's good. They have nothing until they get a specific plan approved and that specific plan would
take a whole public process as we as Peter outlined and yeah I mean he probably I mean he says he's
going to enjoy it but I'm feeling it will be harder on it. Okay, so okay. See when we actually
start from there then? Yeah I'm going to can go do you want to ask questions. Any of these projects
is it conceivable that really? Well I'm not going to say for the smallest 11 how the 11 unit housing site
but is it conceivable at any of these larger things? Wouldn't go through a long public process and
I mean the Hampton's project would probably be the shortest process because they have to at least
complicated entitlement. It mostly would be only housing. Yeah that's why. In ASA we would go to council
but it wouldn't it wouldn't it's not a mixed use project so it's much simpler. Okay so any mixed
larger mixed use project is going to go through a series of hearings public comment. You know they'll
have public opinion but they're getting the getting residents input and making adjustment until you know
Finally, at some point, get to a final commission meeting or a city council meeting on the bigger ones.
All right. Okay, thanks. I'm sorry. No, it's fine.
So I think development allocation is, what should the C plan for in terms of development allocations for office commercial hotel and resident units through 2040?
And I believe that the planning commission's decision was to leave everything open. I believe for versus districts or there we go. This would help us here.
We will be our tea. You can help us on the first question.
Sorry. Sometimes the mics.
That's okay.
So you can see there's two sets of recommendations. The planning commission recommended this right here.
And their recommendation was to increase office by 500,000 square feet.
No change to the commercial. Increase hotel rooms by 1,000 rooms.
And then remove the residential allocation, which as we said, can't be done given unless we change the EIR.
So we recommend something, some number, and we can talk about that.
We're happy to go through any other.
A lot.
Pardon. Does it help you?
Yeah. Sort of kind of. Okay.
So let's talk about the overall thing for right now.
And then we've got to get into specifics in particular on the housing element.
Let's take the high level of Pittsburgh.
So I'll start with the fact that I've been up here in some sense for 25 years.
I started in 1990 on the planning commission here.
And in 1990 we were talking about what to do about Valco.
And within a shame, and what could happen, and Bullocks has gone, and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And in the meantime, we've had lots of iterations on Valco.
And everybody knows the problem all along has been the multiple ownership.
So that really we couldn't have a unified plan.
I wasn't here when the theaters got approved and all that trade-off happened.
That was my little break in between the planning commission and not getting elected a couple of times for the city council.
But ever since I've been on a council, Valco has been certainly a sore point in the city.
So it is encouraging that we have an opportunity.
And I'll just call it an opportunity and opportunity to turn that around.
I don't know, and I'll be up here making the decision on a specific plan.
I'll be out in the audience, maybe commenting on it.
What it could be like.
We haven't seen any specific anything even rough plans or whatever.
But I think this is the time to give San Hilly opportunity to come back with something that's exciting enough that we are willing to.
To pay the price of additional office and housing units there.
So I'll start with the fact that for Valco, I would like to do the two million square feet in the 600 units.
So let's go with office then.
I also would like to keep the major corporation allocation the same as it was.
It was not not take away that which is already there in the general plan which is in the current general plan.
Even though there was planning commission considered or talked about taking it away.
And then I think the rest of the city needs something and somewhere between 500,000 and a million for the rest of the city.
So that would come if he did 500,000 for the rest of the city.
That would be at the 304-0 number, which is between alternative be in alternative C. So that's office.
Hotel, I'm fine with the rooms, the number of rooms there nobody seems to be having any heartburn about that one way or the other.
We could talk later when we get in the heights and all of that, but I'm just talking about high level bits from the room point of view.
From a housing point of view.
And it's going to be a real struggle to figure out how to do this.
But I want to keep within the 1386 that staff has said is the minimum number that HDD is probably going to prove without going through you know,
whoops and grief and whatever, and we could talk later about how we might achieve that, including the 600 for Valco.
Do you agree with the plan commission commission is to remove the and just have everything.
All of us see versus see the recommendation plan commission.
I understand you're 1386.
Where were we talking about that?
Remove.
Could you explain the plan commission's recommendation?
What that means please.
That other proposal to remove the 4000 allocation and make it essentially unlimited.
For a housing.
Yeah, no, I don't agree with that.
Okay.
Well, there's currently 1895 in a central plan and they voted to remove those 1895 from the residential list.
The idea was not not to have a development allocation number.
And to let the densities on the sites decide what could be built on the site.
So in the case of housing, we kind of have a built in suspenders.
We have both density as well as allocation in, you know, and so it's not necessary.
However, our EIR consultant says that we can't have more than 4400 units.
And we have not analyzed removing the allocation might mean having to look at every residential site capacity.
And to try to figure out what that additional is.
So we would recommend some number below that what was studied in the EIR, which is 4400.
So you would recommend a number ideally not more than that number.
Right. And my number is the 1386.
Okay.
For this upcoming housing.
The current the current general plan has 1895.
Thank you.
Right.
Okay.
And.
Anything else?
Yeah.
Why don't we go one by one.
So we, so we got out the.
So.
And I think commercial was it the same.
Yeah.
Commercials the same and the minimum, you know, again, the Valco would be the minimum of whatever was a 640.
Um, for that site.
And in for the year of plans to have 102.
Yeah.
And I'm the.
I'd also, I think.
If.
If Falco.
If for whatever reason it doesn't happen.
I'd like to see some of the allocation, not all of it.
Some of the office go back into the general.
So while we're talking about 2 million, which is a really big number.
And we're talking about only 500,000 for the whole rest of the city.
Right.
I think there is a premier case office building and also seems creates office.
Right.
Whatever.
Right.
500,000.
So I'm saying if.
If Falco didn't happen.
For whatever reason.
And, and it's it's definitely, you know, it's it's all we're talking about is is.
Given.
Uh, saying the opportunity to make it happen, but if it didn't happen for whatever reason.
At least some of that office could go back in.
And rather than just have the city clamped down at 500.
But if it goes in it to or whatever.
Then I think 500,000.
Premier.
Premier is one.
It was at 250k.
Premier.
But.
Doesn't matter.
Okay.
Got it.
Okay.
So you asked your number one in number four, which is great.
Um.
Right.
Well.
My higher order bit is to satisfy the housing element.
I.
I really don't think our residents will appreciate.
Um.
Hit.
If.
And I wanted you to housing element last one to the GPA first.
Oh fine.
Okay.
Fine.
So try the easy one.
Well, so that's a higher order bit for me.
I think we have to do it.
And I don't think it makes sense to delay it.
I and theory could.
See we could have more community outreach and workshops.
I don't know what new we would learn from it.
I mean.
We have the God be surveyed.
And for me.
Whether I was campaigning three years ago.
And you know.
Listen to residents.
And we get into a discussion about Valco.
And everybody lamenting the state of Valco.
Um.
Or yeah.
The God be survey.
Um.
I think we.
We.
Out to the residents to entertain.
And alternative to a dying mall that we can't get back.
And I, you know, I really.
I talked to a lot of.
Developers.
I talked to the folks that did Santana row federated.
Um.
They lost their shirt on Santana row.
And so if you consider that all sunk costs, the guy lost his job and everything else.
But they're still operating that property.
And then on an operating basis that's now doing fine.
And you know, I don't think Santana row is exactly what.
Our residents envisioned.
You know, that when Santana row started the federated.
Had an idea that was going to be Beverly Hills.
And they were going to bring in all these high-end stores.
Which they did.
And one after the other, they collapsed.
And now we have H&M and, you know, mid-market retailers.
And it seems to be a very functional thing with hotel.
And with some housing and some office.
And it's an attractive place to go.
And I think we would be better served by something that's like Santana row.
With the kind of retail that Cupertino residents would appreciate.
As opposed to the thing we have today, where, you know, once upon a time, in 1987, I moved on to Dennis and Avenue.
I moved into Cupertino 27 years ago.
And two blocks to the west of Valco.
And I would go over there.
I would meet friends there.
We might go shop a bit.
We might go get something to eat there.
And today, it's no longer a real destination.
You go there for one thing and one thing only.
Maybe it's a movie theater here.
And maybe J.C. pennies there to make a purchase.
But it's no longer that place you go to get two or three things and hang out.
And I, you know, with all due respect to folks that figure that we're going to get it back,
I don't believe it now.
And I think, with Sears going and sounds like the others, you know,
we're going to get more and more shattering.
This is not a good situation.
I also appreciate that Mr. Powell and company are taking a huge risk by spending over 100 million just for Sears.
And that, as I understand, it doesn't include buying out the lease on the Bay Club.
It doesn't include the movie, buying out the lease on the movie theater.
This is going to be hugely expensive proposition.
But frankly, most of us have campaigned on it.
Most of our residents wanted.
I think the God be surveyed supports it.
I would like to ensure that, yeah, we give San Hill an opportunity,
to wow the community with something that's fantastic.
And that's kind of my high order bit.
And then once we have Valco in a place where
we can entertain a proposal in a reasonable amount of time.
I wouldn't give an unlimited amount of time.
But I would, you know, support the 600 units.
I would support, it makes me cringe, but up to 2 million square feet.
I want the thing to actually go and be successful.
And I think if we miss this opportunity, we may miss it for decades if not a generation.
So that's my, that's my, my first priority.
And then on the development allocation for office hotel,
Krubrishon Housing.
I think we ought to dial it down.
I mean, I really, the Apple Campus 2 project is 2.8 million square feet.
That's a huge amount of office.
We already have jobs housing imbalance in the city.
So I'm okay with the major allocation.
I would like to see, frankly, some diversity in the commercial economic life of the city.
I would like to see if we can't make Valco go with an reasonable amount of time.
I would like to see a good fraction of both the residential allocation of say 600.
Get moved elsewhere.
And yes, to the west side of the city.
So put more focus on there.
And I can give you some specific ideas.
But, you know, conceptually, this is where I'm coming from.
Can you just throw me a number like 1 million or 500.
Oh, for office space.
Let's clap it now to 500.
You know, and I realize that we have developers that would, in total,
like to build a lot more than that.
But I think, like the planning commission did, that we ought to be respectful of the fact
that we're absorbing a lot of office development right now.
We're doing it at Main Street.
We're doing it at the Apple Campus.
And there's some other stuff in town.
So when you claim to say, climb down to 500, there's already a million, 40.
And you're asking for $2 million for Valco, and then $500,000 on top of that. So, $3.5 million.
I would say we give, I mean, maybe we don't believe the $2 million, and frankly, no plan is going to come through here, and I'm just going to do it for me.
I think it's a $304 same. Unless we've seen the pro-forma, and we understand that this is really necessary, right?
We don't think Valco goes. He's $500,000 more than you.
So, five, no. So, for the non-Valco pool, and the non-major developer pool, for everything else, $500,000.
Which is what I said also. Why said $500,000 to a million, but?
Yeah, I mean, I think it's a short interview. $500,000.
$500,000, see if I've been a new or $500,000, there's already $500,000 existing outside that pool.
No, not new. I think it's like $30 or something, right?
We make it a firm. If you look at the no project, there's zero, right, outside of the pool is $540.
So, there's about $17,000 in the pool.
Alternative A has $500,000, and that's net entry.
Sorry, what did everyone call them? Okay.
Yeah, the pool is gone. That's how this whole thing started.
Correct. We...
For Main Street.
See, I haven't seen it at the Alternative A edition.
I'm sorry, what?
See, you guys are both using the Alternative A edition.
You want $2 million for that plus the $500 that's there plus another $500, which is roughly $3 million.
So, the total is $304,000.
$2 million for Valko.
And then Alternative A has $1 million in 40 of which roughly $500,000 of that is...
Okay, sure.
Because this is added for the two...
It's $2 million in addition to Alternative A, yes.
Let's take a look at it.
Right, so existing, there's $540,000.
You're adding $400,500,000 random plus $2 million for Valko.
Up to $2 million.
I mean...
Yeah, it's really...
It's not nice.
I don't think anybody has any clue as to how much it would take to make Valko work.
I'm just trying to...
We don't have it as a government plan, but I would say, let's lock away...
So, $500,000 for big companies, $500,000 for everybody else in the city, and $2 million for Valko.
Correct.
Right.
Just what both of them said.
And then for the...
Oh, I wouldn't change the current big company allocation.
I'd leave it the way it is.
But that's $500.
Yeah.
I just rounded it down.
Yeah.
I just rounded it down.
Yeah.
I just want to be sure.
And then for hotel and commercial was...
Yeah, it's cool.
Guess what I'm holding?
Yeah.
I mean, all the plans show commercial the same for hotel.
Correct.
I mean...
To me, it's a third or a bit.
I mean, I...
Again, I want to make Valko go.
And I want to satisfy the housing element.
And I don't have a strong opinion about hotel rooms.
Okay.
And then do you have a number for the housing allocation?
Okay.
So, this is where I'm a little concerned based on the Pleasanton case.
Um, of capping it at all, at no more than we need to satisfy the current eight-year housing element.
That we have to approve.
So, if we dial it down to the 1386, right?
Um, it forces us to do another general plan concurrent with the next housing element.
And even with that, right?
We may get into some tip with HCD.
I don't know.
Do you have any thoughts about this?
Yeah.
It's supposedly a 25-year plan.
I respect that we can dial it down, right?
I'm just not clear that it makes sense to dial it down all the way to.
I mean, it's currently at 1895.
We dial it down to 1386, which is the housing element with margin that we're being asked to approve.
It feels like a point.
I'm not looking for to pick a fight with HCD.
Okay.
It's not like we're being bullied, but I see...
So, you're asking a theme editor.
Well, I'm asking for some advice here on a plan that's supposedly 25.
Can I say slightly tighter version in that question?
Yes.
Yeah, please.
Can we give you a certain number of sites that's a small number that just barely makes it.
And then have alternate sites that you can propose the FHCD.
Turns out this one's down.
Yeah, we can.
And then the general plan would default to whatever the number that's required to meet the requirements.
Yeah, I think so.
I just wanted to remind you that the housing allocation also needs to accommodate the R1s and the LR2s that come up that.
Where we get on our two or three.
All right.
So we need to send the words you can leave the residential where it's at.
And as we can set the housing units where they need to go.
Pretty too deep.
Okay, so.
Again.
Yeah.
Okay.
I'm willing to dial it down to something that doesn't create more.
More pain that would have us.
Get some bonus units from the state.
Yeah.
Whatever that looks like.
Got it.
Okay.
Or Africa ask each other questions.
Do you support the community benefits that staff for a community?
Yes or no.
Yeah.
I do.
I support the community benefits.
Concept.
I think it needs to be definitely fleshed out.
I don't think it can be as soft as it seems to have been.
But I think.
You know, we've.
I mean, so far we've.
We've.
We've made retail as glowing community.
I mean, everything is just like retail and I think in.
A number of cases.
There are many things that the community would really value more than.
Some ground floor retail may or may not perform.
So retail could be a community benefit because it would be just one of them.
And if we can do something to help transportation helps the schools directly.
Helps.
Some other space and meeting space or whatever, you know,
there's a lot of good ideas tonight about community benefit.
And by the way, parks are included in any of these development plans, just like the one that we did.
And and and Apple campus has a fair amount of money to spend on.
That's dedicated to parks as well.
So that is will help.
Work on that problem that came up earlier.
So yeah, I like the concept of community benefits.
I like the the concept of making it broad.
I like the concept of.
The possibility of making it through in cash type of thing where we could actually spend the money.
And if possible.
So yes, I'm going to favor that.
Okay.
And building heights does a sea council has.
Any recommendations you use to the balance plan heights recommended in these specific areas.
I think I'm okay with the balance plan heights with the with the.
Again, the community benefits giving you some flexibility to go higher.
But you know, the higher you go the more the more the community benefit better be really really be there.
So and then there's two exceptions that staff wrote up in the staff report was.
Could be in requested 110 feet versus 90.
Five 90 feet, I think.
Yeah, I'm not like.
If.
The discussion earlier about.
An alternate way to get.
To get the benefits that that they're proposing.
You know, the current plan is to keep a company on the same and then build a big high thing next to it.
And I think that and integrated a more integrated approach will be better.
And then it wouldn't have to have as high a height.
So serial key with what's down.
Yes, got it.
Okay.
You're on it.
Yeah.
Can you benefit some heights?
Um.
So.
Here's where I'm at.
I don't think people moved to Cupertino because of the wonderful city council or the parks or anything else.
I think people moved to Cupertino because of our great schools.
And quite frankly, I'm so disappointed in the the formula nature of this that has.
By state mandate.
A set of school impact fees that is so.
Horribly miniscule that doesn't possibly compensate.
Our schools when they have to take extra loan.
Number one to build classrooms to capital cost to do that.
Okay.
And number two to continue to operate the school.
I think the community would feel.
Fine with growth.
A lot of folks in the community would feel fine with modest growth.
Um.
If schools were made whole.
So where I'm at is today we say you get.
45 feet.
And 60 with retail.
Well, quite frankly, okay, a couple of weeks ago we approved a hotel project in this room.
Um.
It had a retail component.
And I'm not saying I'm not.
Trying to be too negative about the retail component.
But as part of that process, I asked.
I said, you know, what's good enough for retail is selling toothpaste.
From the front tests desk.
Is that a retail component?
Is it enough that somebody would put in the breakfast bar.
Uh, for the benefit of guests that.
They would have done anyway.
I and and Mark pointed out that well, this is how.
How the council.
What the council is allowed over time.
Um, and I would know on the project and, you know, like I had a number of reasons.
But I don't think unqualified.
Um, benefits in my mind are good enough.
And I would like to see us make schools whole.
I would like to see a community benefits program.
For anything in the city over 45 feet.
And I would like that to be quantified.
I would like it to have real teeth.
That means, okay.
Maybe it also has to include retail.
I'm open to that.
But I want to see a pro forma that explains what.
Yes, effectively the the profit.
A developer or operator is making.
On anything above that 45 feet.
And I think staff is proposed the model that would say.
Take 15% of the net present value or some such thing.
And.
I would like to.
Have that quantified.
I'd like it to be a pro forma.
I think when we do these.
I need RT to participate with me here.
So when we do these development agreements.
I don't want them done behind closed doors.
I want them done in an open process or at least reviewed.
I mean, I'm not saying discussions can't take place.
But I would like to see open discussion.
With the community as part of the outreach.
As these agreements are formulated.
And certainly as their past, okay.
Is there anything in what I'm saying that doesn't work here.
From a legal point of view.
Not that I can think of.
Okay.
So.
I look at examples of what we've done with retail.
Not under the current general plan, even.
But take a look at the bullage.
And the associated business is sitting in city center.
Take a look at.
That are in suite take a look at the the image.
He's restaurant right.
There's so little retail in these projects.
There's not critical mass.
It's not a destination.
It's retail.
I'm not saying I don't go to those businesses.
I do regularly.
But you know, that's not the kind of benefit.
That's not the magnitude of benefit.
I think our residents are are looking for.
For the exception of height.
And so I would say.
45 feet and then we can then we can talk.
We can have a negotiation.
The public can engage and we can see.
Including the school districts.
We can see what it takes.
Particularly for housing projects to make the school district hall.
And make that part of the discussion.
And you know, developers that say, well, we we can satisfy.
We're going to satisfy our housing element at 45 feet.
Great.
Let them do that.
But if they want more than that.
Then I think we have a negotiated agreement.
So that's where I'm at.
And yeah, okay.
I'm a hotel question.
I would like to see Cooper T.
Noin.
Yeah.
It's a building that needs to be.
Redone.
So I would like to see that property.
I would like to see it a better plan for that.
I'm not looking for an exception.
It's more or less the balance height.
That's never committed.
Okay.
How's working?
I like that.
Okay.
Can I swear.
A central.
You guys are great.
You're quiet.
You're staying here.
You're patient.
Thank you for your patience.
It's been a long night.
Like you.
I'm a little bit concerned.
A lot concerned about the community input process.
I've heard a lot of complaints about how the.
Study groups were in the public.
And in that kind of concerns me.
I'm glad to see you all here tonight.
Let me start on housing.
If I thought we could get away with tape.
We're taking on the state government and not putting in any housing. I would vote for that, but it seems
that pretty much without exception everyone who stood up to that gorilla has been slaughtered.
And I don't want our community to get stuck with a lot of housing units in places we don't want.
So I'm going to argue for the minimum at that point. We'll get down to details later, and for having some additional
additional ones that staff can fall back on if needed.
With regards to, was it 13?
Well, it's actually a thousand and two, I believe.
Okay, thank you.
I've heard that number and I've heard that number and I've heard that number and I've heard that number
but there's 62 we get credit for.
We get credit for 62 because about 30 have been built since January 1st of this year,
for small subdivisions and other projects.
And for another 30 minutes.
Sorry, but don't try another mic because that mic is coming.
There we go.
All right.
I'd rather hear your voice in the home.
So it's a total of 164.
But as we've said, we get credit for 30 that have been approved since January 1st of this year.
And 32 second units that we can take credit for for the eight year period based on our past history.
So we were able to do that last time and we hope to do that again.
So as the slide shows, a thousand two units are remaining.
Thank you so much.
And it's so with the margin that you think we need to satisfy HCD above that minimum 1,000 and two remaining.
Right.
How many do we need total?
What's the number?
We are being told about 40% which is why we're saying about 1,400 units.
And I think what council member Centaur is suggesting is that we try to go with the minimum and have some alternative sites that can get to the 1,400.
So the 1386.
That is correct.
And that they drop off the general plan of housing elements sites if they're not required.
I'd also like to request that we consider looking into our one housing to eat up some of those because if we look at all the R1 housing, it could be some divided.
We should be able to take some off that list, I think.
I know you're going to tell me that's hard work.
You got to come up a little bit.
Right.
We have to identify the actual sites.
I understand.
Okay.
There's 20,000 properties.
Yeah.
But there's something that are clearly bigger than the rest of the surrounding neighborhood.
I don't think they're that impossible to pick out if it drops 100.
How long are you willing to volunteer your house to be cut into pieces?
Sure.
I have a lot of big enough.
It would count as a site that you'd be subdivided, you bet.
So anyway, that's, I mean, I've been against high-density housing since I've been in the council for those of you that haven't been around paying attention.
So that's no change for my general position.
With regards to office.
I, the problem with offices.
So while I'm not against office, I am against additional housing and traffic and things like that.
And so every time we add, every time we add office, we seem to have to add housing.
So I'm in favor of adding zero to the housing.
I'm sorry to the office allocation.
I think that, with regards to Valco, if they want to come in with a specific plan.
Could I just ask you for a short for hotel and coverage?
Can I just go, good morning, please.
Thank you.
With regards to Valco, I know that that creates a problem, but I think Valco should be a standalone thing.
And they should feel out and decide what does it.
And I think that the whole thing should be looked at in terms of they can always be a general plan invitation or something at that point.
But rather than just say, here's a bucket.
It looks to a future council. That bucket is the bucket.
I think that there should be a proposal that's worked out with the community and then figure out what that what those numbers are.
So there would be with the specific plan requirement, right?
Correct.
The question of, I just don't like to put a big number out there because then it seems like everyone seems to feel that that's the number that people are entitled to later.
Okay, we can, let's, we can talk more later.
In other words, you would do another general plan amendment for Valco with the specific plan, yeah.
Okay.
Right here.
Yeah.
With regards to the hotel, I'm okay with that, with the hotel allocation that was proposed by the Planning Commission.
I think that we're definitely having enough commercial already that were short hotel space.
I'm okay with what was proposed by the Planning Commission.
Community benefits.
I'm a no currently and I get a good reason because I hate the height exception for, quote, retail.
I never know what that means.
It's big.
I agree with the public.
I don't like it.
I think that should be taken out.
And if you, I do agree with with Vice Mayor Sanks, if we're going to put something in, it should be specific.
Because it's, it's, it's too vague and it's used as an excuse to, to grant additional heights.
With regards to heights, I'm pretty much not in favor of changing heights except for two potential locations.
With regards to the cupatino insight.
And I'd like to tie this specifically to it being a five star hotel or something that they, there's a reasonable shot at that.
I think their arguments are that they need a certain number of rooms and a certain amount of meeting space and certain amenities to qualify for more national international type conferences.
And things.
And they seem to need that additional heights.
I would limit it to nine floors.
And then whatever height that needs to cover to fall into that classification.
But, but once again, I would tie it to having, you know, a large amount of, I think there's four thousands for a feed or something proposed a meeting space.
What was that?
400.
Think of a house basis.
It's like seeding for 400.
Something to that.
Whatever that was, I would tie it down to that to that number and a decent size.
The landing commission recommended a 500 person convention center.
If that's what you're looking for.
Was that with the applicant?
I think the applicant is talking about four thousand square feet of conference space.
Right.
Which gets how many people, about 400 people?
I would think fewer if you add circulation space.
But, you know, that's the person we go back to.
We go back and talk about the details if everybody else sits.
And then, if we choose the Hamptons as a housing site.
For those that don't understand, it doesn't got a cup of tea in those schools.
Those are word about high-ed middle school.
It's actually in Santa Clara schools, which is why I'm interested in the Hamptons sites.
I would give them the additional footage.
And I know Jason's out there.
I'm going to give him a dirty look.
But I'm even be okay with 75 feet of long-prin rich.
I think apples worry about the security.
But if they watch the drone, but if videos, I'm not sure that the height of the house is really,
really matter.
I don't, I'm not in favor of rezoning PG&E.
And then I get everything.
Thank you.
Councillor Chey.
I think I've been thinking this problem for a long time.
And then, or night, what's working on the D-I-E issue,
on the pollution issue, this set it up in 70 years ago,
and when I look at the picture at that time and you have a picture.
It doesn't show so pretty well, but it shows something here.
Back in 70 years ago, Santa Clara County only had 60,000 people.
So I've been telling everybody, if at that time, no residency, no growth, and then there
are one point nine million people here, you and I won't be here.
If those people say, no growth.
So to say, no growth is very unreasonable, okay?
We have no right to stop other people, new or commoner to come into this area, and then to
make this city, and this area, Silicon Valley, economic engine for the state, and then also
economic engine for the country.
So the contributions out there, and then to say, no growth is very, my opinion is very unreasonable.
So I want everybody to think about that way, and then, component of what the state requirement
if you fight on it, it's already moving up a couple of cities, or it's lost, and then got slaughter.
And then one day you say, why you can't don't fight on it, it's not what we want to fight on it.
We have to look at the entire city here.
You know, yes, today we got three only people here, but also if you look at out, there's another
58,000 or 60,000, 50,000 people, it's not convenient here in the resident, and then if we
reduce the authority to, for the land use purpose, then it's inconvenient for everybody, the
entire city, then we're not doing our job to take care of it.
And then if the California, we know in the past 20 years, it's continued to grow up in
the population, and this trend is still continuing, and it has to be shared by every city.
Okay, I heard the Saratoga, I know Palo Alto, and all the city is talking about not to allow
the A back to control, but if you don't, then what choice you have.
So we have to look at the much bigger picture, and that's why I spend time to meet with a different
group, and ask them, you have to look at what you want for your community, where you live,
and also what you want for the city, okay.
Boko Shabon Center, it has been now, I've moved into this area in SC, in 1985, I've been living
this city for 30 years, when we were moving in, Boko still striving, but then it's went down,
and then it's just worse to get in worse and worse, and we don't get much of this, the revenue
from the retail sales tax and all, and to continue to say, Boko, keep it that way, fine, I think
that's very irresponsible, you can say it, but as the city council is sitting here, I cannot do that,
I cannot say that, so that the Boko do the way it is, because now we have a chance, you know,
Mr. Palo, we're in detective risk, I want to do it, I would give him the opportunity to develop,
and then see what you can do for our city, and of course I will make a requirement in the development
agreement that you have to provide the shuttle service for the entire city, and then provide
library, okay, and then also help the school be the cross-room, now we'll be the not development agreement,
I want the community to participate, okay. And you heard on the EIR report already, even we take no action
at all, no project at all, the the the EIR quality, the transportation, the noise is beyond, beyond the,
what you call that severe, but significant but unavoidable now, and then if we do that, we sit and sit down
to nothing about it, and we continue to have this EIR quality, this transportation problem, and if we can
take the project in and solve the problem, for example, transportation, with the shuttle bus running around
the entire city, free for us, for the reason to write on it, I think it's a benefit, and I also
will reduce the traffic around the city, why not do it? I don't see, instead of doing nothing,
and then continue the way it is, or doing something to improve it, I would, I would, I would take action
and improve it. So, this is the question, did you say shuttle bus do you mean one bus or
no, shuttle bus is a couple buses, you know, like if you check it out, Palo Alto, the Macarita is about
a cost about $1 million a year, they have several shuttle buses, you know, running around in the
instead of just one, we have to be quite here, in my opinion, has to be waiting time less than 10 minutes
for each stop. So, because we don't want to, you know, someone say, yes, I've provided shuttle bus service,
but then only provide one bus and you have to wait one hour to get the bus, then no one will use it,
you have to make it workable. So, I would say, waiting time less than 10 minutes, so that's
the way I would, I would propose, and then, so in that sense, of course, and I told many people,
don't give me that finger, okay, that's not polite, it's my time to talk. Thank you.
The development is not the reason, it's not the city council, it's also the owner, the developer,
it's a three-way negotiation, it has to be makes sense to everybody, you cannot be say,
well, you know, I'm the resident, I want all the developer, as someone say, text 58 from Valko and then
make a story, so you make it for the park, that's not reasonable, you have to be reasonable, you have to be fair.
Well, if you say that someone can say, well, I'll take you a house and then make it a park,
it doesn't make any sense, right? You have to be reasonable, you have to be accountable for everybody,
So, it's a negotiation between three parties. I know this is not an easy position, easy process to do it, but we all have to do it together. You can not see, you know, city council can not see it. Well, I forget about your input, forget about that input and then just we just do what we want. It's not. You have to everybody has to come in together to make a work. And that's why I'm saying in the development of women, I want to have it every project, development of women, have the community input and then open.
It's not to the public, it's not to be behind the scene. So, it will be something concrete for the community benefit. So, it sounds like you just support community benefit.
It's never entirely transparent to me.
To me, yes, because we never take any community benefit before and we are getting all this problem now and we continue this way here. We are so, I think that's not going to work for the city.
And I just want to get some clarity on the support of that. Does that mean 600 housing and 2 million office squares?
Right. And then for the hotel and commercial for the allocation was the status quo.
Yes. And then for the office, please.
Well, office, I would like, will retail, the office is too meaningful for the hotel. But retail, retail, the commercial, I would like to increase to now only 60,000 square feet.
Because I'm expecting if they're successful, they will be run on a retail space. So, I would like to increase that to 750,000 square feet.
700,000 square feet for commercial. And then office.
So, this clarification is already 700,000 and there's 1.2 million square feet in Balco and they're thinking of dropping that to half of that so there would be 1,300.
On the retail, the step proposed 600,000 square feet minimum, right?
So, I'm proposing minimum raises up to 750,000 square feet. I mean, if it's successful.
Okay. Just for about a year.
Just for about a year. If it's successful, they run out of space and then we got a problem.
And I'm expecting you will be a successful one. Not the one I see it.
And when I will, if I approve this one, I want to see this will be a successful.
Everybody want to move into this area and provide the extra space, besides the shuttle bus service, I would like them to provide additional library.
No, because the current library is 58,000 square feet.
I would negotiate that you provide another 58,000 square feet in the shopping center and then as a second library there.
And then we will reduce the pressure on this.
And this, and I'm making sure the counter is going to stop, but that's a separate issue.
And then on the office allocation, 500 for sales office like Apple.
Right. Right. And that will kick you, but found me separate for.
Okay. And then in an additional, uh, ex amount of office for the other people like Prometheus.
He wants to increase office. Oaks. Do you have a number?
I'm agree with the, we'll discuss the numbers.
Rusting and the or Mahoney.
Okay. And then, um, the housing, um, I think there was two suggestions, which was 1339 or 102.
1386.
I apologize.
139 is hotel rooms.
I'm sorry, 1386. I apologize.
I would go for the, what the step recommend, because that's what the requirement.
We don't want to get into the minimum and then run out of time and then you come down from the HCA save.
This is it.
We have no choice.
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
And then the last question is regarding, uh, height, uh, commissioner in.
I will go for, because I, I talked to them, they say that if it's not 110,
it's not going to work for them. So they know what they need to do.
And then, um, that area have a lease impact on our city.
It's close to the, on the other side of 85 and not 280.
So I will go for 110.
Okay. 110 feet, uh, which is 9, 9 floors.
And then, uh, the zoning of PG&E, yes or no.
I can be zoning that to become a school, I would do it.
You're right now, it's, it's good.
We shall leave it as well.
We leave it as well.
Yeah.
No problem.
All right.
Okay.
So you didn't ask me that.
I'm okay with not doing it.
Okay.
Even though I have some big.
Yeah.
Me too.
Okay.
So you're no and no.
Yeah.
I think if PG&E feels like they, like the site for keeping our transmission lines up,
I think it's good.
And yes, it sounds like it sounds that it could be a school.
Some day, if PG&E moved out, right?
I'll, I'll just go back to my public.
Yeah.
I'll go back to the hotel.
But then we ask one question.
I don't want clarification that I got.
I got some, I don't want to ask about some of these.
And then regarding, um, highly support our staff's recommendation.
Recommendation bell sites.
Right.
And I will go get the, uh, professional office.
They would need to 75 feet.
I will get them at the 75 feet.
Because if you don't give it to them, they cannot.
They won't.
It doesn't make sense for them to remodel it.
And then they're provided the, they're not asking for the housing unit.
That was Steve Street office correct.
Yes.
Okay.
So going back to the hotel.
We're going back to the office.
Oh, really?
What?
I'm very suggested.
I'm okay with the balance plan.
I, uh, and now it include,
and I'm okay with community benefits.
So, balance plan heights is a standard.
Right.
It does 45 and 60.
Right.
Except that the 60 doesn't have to be retail.
Could be retail.
Could be.
Would you be open to, like, scientific with community benefits?
I am.
Sure.
Okay.
Thank you.
Right.
I would like the height all over town to be 45 feet.
Except with community benefits.
And then I think it's a negotiation.
And I don't really see going over 90 feet in any circumstance.
Very, I mean, quite frankly,
I think the hotel can get done.
To just put, put this in context.
We just approved a hotel of 60 feet.
All right.
With conference space with a,
a small restaurant, et cetera, et cetera.
And now we're hearing that we can't get a great hotel.
Unless we go to 110 feet really.
Well, and, and, and, and if the existing Cooper Tino in was taken down,
I have confidence that we could.
And I agree with Mark that it ought to be five stars or why bother.
I mean, yeah, it would have to be a five star full service hotel.
But I don't.
I don't want to go to 110 feet per second.
Because I think that's important.
So I agree with the five star.
And the, if it's really going to be 400 people, I just.
Cranked out my little meeting calculator thing.
That's a nice little application on a web.
It's, it's got to be 5,000 square feet.
So.
So I think it's got to be 400 people minimum 5,000 square.
That's, no matter what table configurations.
So you want to make it that one 6,000 square feet for the conference room?
I'm okay with 5,000 400 people, but.
You know, when you see 400 people live them design it.
It's for that to have a 400 square meter show us.
Thank you.
All space.
Because it has to be for it.
That can't work right here.
Yeah, no, no.
So.
So I'm, you know, we can go do some straw votes on each of these.
So I'm still.
You know, it's still the mighty feet for the hotel.
I got that out there now.
Got that.
I, I, I, I, I got, I got, I got.
I'm going to go with the first.
I got you in the, and the, and the fourth five star. Sorry.
The requirement.
Got it.
And then both of you were no on the PG.
Reson.
Correct.
Okay.
But you wanted a 90 foot height limit.
Yes.
I don't know.
Yeah.
I'm okay with the 90 feet.
Which they said they can't do it in.
So they have to.
Well, they're going to have to care.
Care down the existing Cooperate.
No, I didn't do it.
And I can't.
I would give him a much bigger.
I guess I believe.
I will believe that they,
as a stand alone thing, they need the extra height.
So we'll see.
I'll see a lot of people.
Sounds like they're my sheets enough.
So I get to deliberate.
Really?
Yes.
I get to deliberate.
It is.
To 40 in the, in the morning, and again, I want to see, thank you very much to the audience for your patience.
I'm going to start out with a very, very, very full house.
And it really appreciate as this is my second time going through the journal plan
on amendment, and this is something that's really important for the community.
We heard a lot of different voices.
different voices, a lot of different opinion, and I would have to tend to agree with the majority of the
sea council, is that when I ran for sea council, and when I ran for a re-election, I was quoted by the
sounds, this is journal, was that vocal was something that was very important to me. When I was not living
for Latino, before I lived in Capitino, Valley Fair was just dead, and the best place to go shopping was
vocal, fashion, part, mall. Bullocks, gap. It was just a place to be when you were a high school kid,
and a college kid, was to come to Capitino, come to the wonderful library, come for one for shopping,
and, unfortunately, the mall has come to this repair. Now we have a opportunity that somebody has
came to town, probably way paid over paid the price. I mean, it's in the newspaper and it's public information
if you go to the county records, and you can see how much sale Hill has paid for it. So, they
would still have to go through a two year specific plan process. They would still have to go through
community outreach, and they have done it through Main Street, and it would be a very hard and challenging
process, and Mr. Powell has done it before, but I believe that he would be very challenging
and would have to go through it process. So, I do support the 600 housing units and the two million
square foot of office, and you have to think about it. That wouldn't be, and I, of course, I agree with
by some of the things that there would be a time limit of no more than four years, because if you don't have it
happen, it won't happen, but those 600 housing units and those two million office squares would be tied up
for about four years, which you see some process within two years to see what specific plan says, because there will be
another opportunity for the community to voice it. But, given opportunity to San Hill and see what
they can move forward on that, but I think that this is an opportunity, and this is an opportunity for
him to find the capital, but I think that if you're going to do the mall, and I think elsewhere in
Chang has his concerns, I also have my concerns with the mall too, which I have voice to Mr. Powell,
that we would have to keep the ice ring, we would have to keep the rolling alley, we would
have to keep, you know, the AMC theaters. These are all community benefits that we want, and
also we want to keep, you know, the bank would haul for that Chinese restaurant as well too.
All these things that it makes, as well as the rolling alley, that makes the mall special.
The part that's missing there is the retail. And as Mr. Randall said, a couple hours ago, is that it depends on
what kind of retail that you have. You can have 1.2 million retail that can be horrible, and you can have 600 or 700,000
square foot of retail that can produce even the same as 1.2 million or even more.
So it's up to Mr. Powell to prove to the community that he can do less. So I'm willing to work
between 600, 700 square feet and have him prove to the community that he can do with less and
produce the same amount of 1.2 million square foot of or higher. In regards to the allocations,
the office, I agree with my colleagues, 500,000 for a major salespeople like Apple
ength. We need to attract those companies to either remain here or our new companies.
Also, regarding to hotel and commercial, I agree with Councilor Chen,
down commercial that should be increased to 750,000 square feet.
The hotel is worth to African men at 1339, and then for the housing allocation is worth
to have for a committed at 1336.
Can I ask a good question about this? Because I think what staff was recommending was a certain
minimum. The retail component at Valco. Can you clarify whether you were looking for a minimum
there or yeah, that's a minimum.
We were recommending sorry, a minimum of 600,000 square feet.
It could always go more, but it's up to the council to, and we based that on what the retail
consultant told us.
But I have to question about that because it sounds nice to just say let's make it 750.
Why not make it 1 million, right?
But isn't it fair to say that, you know, if you're balancing it out that the more
that is, the more likely it is that they're going to be at the high end of the office in the housing
to make it work?
No, it's more likely you'll get inferior retail on the margin.
Because they'll have to fill it and get tenants that can't pay.
This is my trend and it'll, you know, not maybe dollar store, but not maybe what we want.
So staff feels comfortable with the 640 is a good number.
We recommend it 100 because the retail consultants said somewhere between 500 and 600.
Okay, up to the council.
Will the 640 come from there?
No, there was never was a 640 number.
Sorry.
Very flooded 750, right?
I think very flooded 700.
And that's 750.
Just 750.
I was okay with 600 for Valco.
Right.
Yeah.
And then the 750 I think maybe was for the off for the commercial allocation.
Was it what you said there?
We're talking about the floor, the Valco floor.
Okay.
I was okay.
Yeah.
What I don't want to do, you know.
Before this thing gets to us as a real project, right? It's going to go through a lot of community review. We're going to talk.
I certainly going to require community benefits. It sounds like we're all okay with community benefits, except for Mark.
But the majority is okay with community benefits.
So I haven't, I haven't waiting on that.
Oh, you haven't.
I don't know, sorry.
I mean, I mean, I mean, before I want to ask what that clarifying question, I just really want to try to finish.
I have to speak.
Sorry.
Yep.
You're right.
So I have not waiting on that.
Okay.
Because I don't even know if you have time to do the housing allocation, because it's 2v6.
Okay.
But I just want to finish.
No.
We'll talk.
Okay.
No.
No. I mean, you guys want to ask questions, though.
No.
Okay.
So I did the allocation.
I did that.
No one PG&E for the for the rezoning.
I think there's, I'll be the third vote on Seasons Creek for Centai feet with community benefits.
I think I am the third vote for the height for Caribbean in 110 feet or 9 stories.
Regarding height, I support the austi African mediation for the balance approach on on height.
And then also.
What am I missing here?
So how much can you benefit?
And then.
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
How much did you say?
I wish total office.
Total office was 500 500.
500 500 plus 2 million.
Correct.
Okay.
Yes.
And then for the community benefits.
Do you have a list for community benefits on what that list is?
Can you please pull it up for me please?
Okay.
So this is just a starting point on community benefits.
What is on the screen here?
This is, sorry, this is a recommendation from staff.
It's, and the council can, can change it.
So just a quickly.
Okay.
That's, that's going to.
So I support community benefits.
I agree with, I forgot.
I think it was orange who said that the in lieu cash contribution is very important to me.
In addition to our in lieu for parks and aiming for parks.
Public arts.
Public facilities.
I think.
I like to do a shallow program.
I think that we have to look into more on on on on on on on on that cost here as well as a library as well too.
But I think that you might need to come back to see council on a separate meaning and flesh out these community benefits as my recommendation.
So a bubble gum machine and one bike rack would constitute community benefits.
All right.
No, I think that didn't come out.
I mean, for example, I like the idea of, you know, the expansion of a museum or a teen center or a theater.
It has to be reasonable.
I mean, they can contribute X amount of money there.
My concern is that when we give it to the schools.
We won't have control over that money to the schools.
I mean, the schools will do whatever they want.
And it covers six different cities.
Is that the more control we have over that contribution of community benefit that the land owner gives.
I think it's very important for the city and the residents that we know we're every dollar is spent.
So I'm not sure.
I mean, I think that you see a majority of at least four of us supporting community benefits.
But I think that it needs to flesh out more.
I don't know.
I think that this is just a fair enough.
And I think that raises a lot of good points to including the percentage that we would take on the the height exception.
The percentage is 15% of the valuation attributed to the increase in height.
And that depends on where the council places the base height of its 45 feet and anything above that.
It's not like.
That was my proposal.
Nobody else wanted to.
Right.
And then wherever.
Right.
Well, I'm trying to where were you on.
Housing units.
I said.
The same as you.
Okay.
13.
13 six.
Thank you.
Okay.
So I think I covered everything.
Okay.
So.
We still have to do is where the house.
Yeah.
So I'll start the discussion on the housing allocation.
So housing allocation.
And then we have a couple of unsuggested areas.
Site was.
I think I think this is the public size time.
I'm hearing was a oak shopping center.
Doc was shopping district.
We already decided.
The Hamptons.
Um.
Very swan since site.
Uh, arena Plaza.
I'll take a shot.
Okay.
Let me get my nose here.
All right.
So.
Here's the problem.
Um.
What is this is just go site by site.
And then and then we can we can go.
We can play with the numbers later.
I mean, just take your site that you think is is workable with you and see if you got three council members supporting those sites.
I.
I would.
That the oak had the 235 units.
Okay.
On the west side.
Okay.
I would that the arena who has the unit they want it.
I will remove you.
Okay.
And then if you're going to let me think it was 235 correct.
Yeah.
245.
So actually very good.
Could I just kind of set a stage for a second and let you do that.
Yeah.
Okay.
So here's here's the challenge that we have.
If.
12.
So I'm I'm by I'm definitely by into the.
Bounce it out through the city.
However.
Big however.
We have two.
Reasons why.
Why I'm going to recommend that most of it is is not spread out.
If we want to stay with the 1386.
So we've got.
We all agreed on.
Valco.
Or when I mean in all agree, but the majority of us agreed on Valco of 600 to give them the opportunity.
Again, it's not like 600 units are going to go in there unless something good happens.
But the opportunity for 600 units there.
And actually I'd shave that.
As you'll see in a minute, I'll shave.
I have to shave that down a little.
So we've been told we need five sites throughout.
We've told we need six.
And I'm 75.
So we've got.
Valco want to give them around 600.
And then we've got the Hamptons and we've been discussing all night.
If schools are.
The biggest issue that people are concerned about and it certainly seems.
I mean, there are other issues out there, but if schools are the biggest issue.
That people seem to be concerned about.
To pick a site that's not in our school district is a major benefit.
And the only one of those sites is the Hamptons.
And they need a certain critical mass to make that happen.
So, you know, and they're not going to tear that.
All the existing stuff down.
And redo it in a higher density wave.
If we give another 200 units, it's just not going to work.
So my proposal, I'll just go through it.
So.
We're going to let Barry go first.
Is that all?
Well.
Okay.
So, so that's the issue.
Once we start.
If you start saying that there's, you know.
You know.
Read them for the time.
You can't get any of the big numbers over there.
Then we don't have enough to do the Hamptons.
Which has the advantage or in Valco.
I just want to.
I don't want to really.
Very only three numbers.
No.
I just figured out.
I would.
Because the concern on the on the Valco area is we will give a Valco 600 units.
That.
With the men's tree with the rose ball.
Now with Hampton with the United furniture.
Not to really a little bit too much.
What do you mean?
I don't have the furniture.
I was.
Right.
So, United furniture.
That's why I'm going to recommend that.
And then in the furniture.
Because that will be affecting the.
Resident on that side of the street.
Much more on this side.
So.
And then besides that they did not ask for why we put it on.
And then so that the part.
My suggestion.
And then group.
Grandbrook.
They did not ask for.
So we don't need to put it in.
You know.
Marina who is asking for it.
They're ready to go.
Doesn't make any sense when someone want to do it.
You don't give it to them.
And someone don't want to do it.
You want to give it to them.
And that.
To mean that doesn't make any sense at all.
And then also Marina who is on the.
On the.
On the West side.
So that will balance it out a little bit.
And then the.
Or will be on the.
Father West and that will be even.
Spray it out.
It's what's suggested by by the community.
To spread it out.
So I.
Suggest that way.
So it's.
We don't need it we don't.
But it needs us for it.
So we don't.
So what about sold to in Biris Berry once in sight for 11 units.
Yeah.
That's more when Soci.
That's.
That.
Think it.
And then he Martens was.
So we want to add it up to see how many.
We have no okay that's a case.
Is has can'sם that would be impact in dire for the traffic.
But then see we'll have that impact on the school netよね 50 with that.
with the Oaks Marine and Valco, if you go with the Maxis.
954. Okay, so probably then edit another 400 unit to make it 1300, 86,
for the 4th of the Hampton. How mean is for him, so I'm sorry?
We don't have to figure that out. Let's just give me number, very.
Then we'll read about the number later. We'll make it up 1386 and that's okay.
So you said 600 for Valco, 235 for Oaks, 250 for marina foods, 11 for a
various ones of the site and the difference for Hampton. Correct? Right.
Okay, let me do the math here. 1386, 132, 400, 302, thank you.
If I might just jump in just for one quick second. Yes,
marina foods, the Maxis and them that they were studied at was 204 units.
204. 204. Correct. Yeah, that's what I have done. That's what he said.
I heard 250, I just want to. No, no, it's too much. Okay, so I apologize.
204. So 150 was the Oaks, 204 from marina is 600 for Valco, 432 left over. No, no, no, no, no,
the Oaks, 235. No, 150.
Okay, all these Oaks are, sorry, that was the recommended one. So you don't want the recommended,
you want the Maxis. No, I will 235 to make it works.
For them, and then and then you move more unit to the west to bomb it up. So when I did,
when I did the calculation, you got a double train, maybe I did it wrong,
that not counting the Hamptons for those four, you're at 105, 050, that I do that right here.
You're at 105, that's what I have. Okay, so that means the Hamptons would get
at 336. 1039. It's 235, they're correct. No, you haven't. So the Hamptons would get in that scenario.
235 at 35 million, it's breaker. I'm sorry, I'm answering a council member of the
center, where I was question about the maximum number of units for marina plaza is 232 at 35
million, it's breaker. Right, but what we'd, so let me get clarity, marina foods,
is to get what amount is the two, four, and now I hear a different amount.
Okay, positive 32 at 40 million, it's okay. I'm trying to find out what marina wants.
Yeah, I'm trying to find out what marina wants. Yeah, I'm trying to find out what marina wants.
I mean, yeah. Mr. Chang. So 660 uniform about bar call. Yeah. 235 uniform, they all,
and 24 units for marina food, and you'd have a beautiful very sonson, and then
236 units for Hamptons. So that would add it up. 1386.
Your map is correct. So 233 units for marina foods, correct?
235 for marina food. 235 for the Oaks to go for marina, 600 for balko, 336 for the Hamptons.
Very good. That's clarification for you. The EIRC for alternative seed, the maximum
that marina foods can do, is 232 units. So you want to 233? Yes. All right. Then 231.
The more you put there, the more you squeeze the Hamptons and make it, so it's not going to happen.
All right. I was going to have another solution. Would one move all over to put
what is the number? No, but I'm not. Okay, there's one option. I just like Eric Fairfax and then I'll shut up.
All right. 600 units for balko, 235 for halk, and 232 for marina food, and 114,
very sonson, and 288 for Hamptons. So the question is that we could go over the number if for some
reason we, you know, my aunt, your next, you want the next? Yeah, so I'll go back to where I was.
So I, I think the Hamptons needs enough to make it work, and 308's not going to make it work. So if
we think that that's a good site for the reasons why we talked about it all night, I would give them
650. I would give balko 600, right? No, actually balko because of the way the numbers. I'd give
Glenbrook or somebody else, anybody 93 to 100 over there. I'd give, I'd cut the oaks down to 50.
Looks to 50. And Barry Swenson 11. So if you say, if you say Glenbrook's 93,
Swenson's 11, the oaks is 50, and Hamptons is 650 that makes balko 502, which is
close enough to 600. So, and that gets to the 1386.
Can't let him get clarity. Hamptons was 650. Balko was 582. Oaks was 50.
Glenbrook is 93. Glenbrook is 93. Barry Swenson was 11. He's in Balko 582. Yeah. Go word.
Yeah, I said 582. That's what I wrote down. I had to shave it to me. 582 is what? That's your number.
Okay. That's what he says. And 50 was work in Oran. Oaks. Oaks. Okay, got it. So you have five sites as well,
you have that. Okay. Rod? And I'm okay with Swenson, granted.
Rock for Glenn Rooker, something if it's in the same ballpark.
So, got it?
Yeah, I mean, given my high priorities, getting Valco done, using the Hampton site for two reasons.
One is, I mean, it sits in a terrific location for what all the urban plans
what all the urban planners say is the right idea. We have 12,000 jobs immediately adjacent and a freeway right next to it.
And we'll throw right next to it and then some hotels across the street.
I can't imagine a better site to put housing.
It's also the case that the Apple campus to the main building has property tax and school impact fees that go to the Santa Clara Unified School District.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to say, let's go and entitle that project.
But yeah, in order to do it, they're going to have to completely scrap something that they've done only in the last decade or something, right?
So, I know they're going to need a substantial number. I'm not convinced at all.
We've heard from them, but yeah, I'm not convinced at all and anything around 300 is going to get it done.
And I think if we're being responsible and HCD is monitoring what we're up to, I'd like to see it done.
So I'm with Oran on the, okay, I don't think it needs to be 748, but I would go with the 650 there.
And I would go with Oran's other numbers. Now, we know that the biggest gambit here, the biggest risk is Valco.
Sandhill come in with a project that's going to be high enough quality to satisfy our residents.
And, you know, frankly, it's going to be a high bar.
I think it's going to be a challenge. We're going to have to go through this process.
This is a huge amount of real estate, totaling some 50 acres, right?
This is the biggest thing that we may do here in a generation other than say the Apple campus 2 is a single project.
So, let's say that throughout the number 4 years, I'm okay with 3 and 1, 4 years.
Let's say that we're not able to make that go.
I think we're going to have to switch gears and take some of that allocation.
If not all of it and say, okay, we're going to have to have some alternate sites to have credibility with HCD.
So, what I would do is, let's take Oran's numbers as a starting point.
Valco at 582, Hamptons at 650, Barry Swenson at 11, Glenbork at 93, Oaks at 50.
And then, if we find that Valco can't go, we can't make it work.
We don't have a project that satisfies a community. This is not a given, right?
We have a high bar. And if we can't, we need a scenario B.
And so, my scenario B would look like this, Valco at 0. Valco doesn't get read done.
Hamptons then goes from 650 to 750, more or less, and in 748 is what the planning commission said.
Barry Swenson at 11, Glenbork at 93, I would load the Oaks at 235.
And then, in order to get to the same 1386, I would put the summer winds at 96.
And I would put Marina in at 201 say or something such.
We could play with those numbers a little bit, but my goal would be again to satisfy the 1386 with an alternate scenario.
And say, look, if we don't have an entitled project, a project that's been entitled by the community process that we've talked about.
And hasn't been entitled through the planning commission in the city council within 3.5 or 4 years.
We've got to move on and do the job elsewhere.
And spread it out in the city like spread it out.
I mean, yeah, it turns out the Hamptons and Valco, right?
Yep, not like you go with that.
I mean, are on the east side of town.
And then what I would do if Valco doesn't go, I'd still want to have the Hamptons happen.
But then I would take all the rest on the west side of town.
Summer winds, Marina, Oaks, Glenbrook, they all meet that on the west criterion.
I think I agree with that.
OK, so let's start with the Hamptons.
My opinion is we don't have a chance other than to give some housing element sites.
The Hampton has a couple desirable things.
It's between Apple and a freeway.
So height is not a big issue, although I would like it to be no more than 60 feet in a setback from from Wolf.
By the way, I don't agree with the changing the ratio on the rest of the units from 1.5 to 1 to 1.
Let that off last time, Ron.
Just so you can have that down.
So it's got a good location.
It's not towering over neighbors.
It has a close freeway access, although problematic.
Since the motion I made for Apple included money to study a freeway on ramp, which Apple agreed to.
And the Hamptons is agreed to also contribute to that fund.
Hopefully the freeway on ramp will be fixed and that will help you alleviate it.
But another desirable thing is I would presume that a lot of Apple employees would live there and then walk to work,
which would not cause as much traffic as if they had to drive.
If there were three blocks away from from the Apple site.
So I would go ahead and give that to 748 that was recommended by the Planning Commission.
I like the Glenbook apartments for 228 units.
And now I'm going to kind of jump down to some other ones you guys haven't mentioned.
First is the villages 62 units.
It's a existing and approved housing element site already.
It's a good site to potentially add more units to.
It took a good look at it today.
And so I think it's a desirable place that should be.
What's the number there?
About 62 units.
What's the name is in the East Side also.
No, no, no.
No, no.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
I've got a new idea.
I'm thin.
No, no.
No, it's the village green, open by the polling alley and all that.
They can bring up a map later and show you where he is.
The next.
How many did you join at the villages 62?
62.
OK.
The next one, I really like the Carlberg property.
It's a good location.
It's near other stuff of that type.
And I think it's 169 units.
And it's a big nice site, which quite a few units could be put on.
It's near other housing.
It's got good road access and things like that.
Mark, you're starting with basically none for Valkyl, right?
That's correct.
Yeah, okay.
I made my statement on Valkyl.
No, I just...
I just think it's...
It's...
For me, excuse point of view, it's just...
I mean, I kind of line up with the planning commissioners on that one.
So...
So if we did make Valkyl go in a required housing,
we'd be building more than we'd need to.
Okay, so I disagree with one earlier statement that Councilor Chang made,
which was you should put it where it's going to get built.
I actually think you should put it where HDD will approve it,
and you hope it's not going to get built.
So that's my view of that.
That's called Chikin.
That's been a effective strategy.
Valkyl and it's been...
I must say that...
Yeah, I think it was just...
I'll take it back.
I'll just...
I'll just take it back.
Last time we're not built.
Yep.
That's that.
The site that the Triple C's picked was built.
I'm going to leave it at that.
The last site I'd like to propose is the Q-Mart site,
which is currently an existing approve housing element site.
It has, I believe, 36 units, and since it's already been approved,
I also think it's got a good chance to be re-approved.
That would be a total of 1,244 units.
How much...
Q-must sites?
How many units?
20...
36.
Sorry.
37.
So, I apologize.
Can you repeat your summary?
Mark.
Sure.
Hamptons.
748.
Got it.
Glenbrook.
228.
Villages.
62.
Carl Berg.
169.
Carl Berg.
Was it not again?
169.
And then the Q-Mart at all is 37.
3736.
33.
If you can see your...
Okay.
I thought...
Well, I bet that.
A max of 37 on it.
33.
So, we got...
All right.
We got a letter from one of the property owners that was being proposed as a lot
consolidation site, which is the China Dance portion, which was 0.11 acres, which kind of effectively...
So, they took their number out.
Yeah.
So, we...
Because it was like a small portion we took.
I wonder why the number moved.
Okay.
So, you...
Your total is 1...
1,0244 unit.
No, 1,040 now.
Four of them just went away.
Okay.
So, let me deliver...
What?
33.
So, let the Mayor deliver it and then we can go faster.
Okay.
And then...
My numbers are kind of unusual.
So, don't scream at me.
Okay.
So, and here are my logic out first.
Okay.
So, let me throw my numbers out.
And I'll explain why my numbers are that way.
And then...
My logic.
Okay.
My wonderful logic here.
600 for Valko.
200 for Oak Shopping Center.
232 for Mune Plaza.
You're going too fast.
Okay.
600 for Valko.
Okay.
200 for Oak Shopping Center.
232 for Marina.
Okay.
650 for Hamptons.
And 11 for the Buries once in sight.
That will give you 1,693.
As Vice Mayor Singh said,
is that the 600's on Valko
won't get built out until maybe 3 or 4 years later from now.
And if it does not meet that requirement,
that number, if we minus that 600,
it would drop down to 1,093.
You like 1693?
Yeah.
So, on the...
But I'm doing it on the assumption
that the 600 will not get...
I mean...
Oh, Shopping Center.
Valko Fashion Park Mall
will need to prove to the future council
as that specific plan will take about 2 years.
And then they will have to go through
a use permit.
And then that could get chopped up from 600 to maybe
I don't know.
300 or 100.
Or even to 0.
Maybe they were able to get retail
to 200 or 7,000 square feet.
So, this is just my proposal, my suggestion.
If you make it a housing element site,
and you put 600 units on it,
and they proposed housing,
you can't take it down to 0 or even 300.
You might go to 450 or something,
but it can...
It has to be some reasonable range, I believe.
Not because...
What about...
Because it's a specific plan,
that we don't have that same hand cuff thing.
We would have to do the finding of known
that loss and make sure that we have other sites.
We would...
In Gilbert's case, we would.
Right.
And we could pop another back-up site in,
like...
Right.
Summer winds or whatever.
It'd be a same thing that Rod said
in a different way.
Right.
So, it's just a question of whether you start...
Yeah.
I could live with that.
I mean, it's just an idea.
I mean, it's just a thought.
No.
And I'm not saying that.
I'm not saying that.
Except I could live with that.
Okay.
If we can get a third person.
I'm...
So, I just want to understand.
You're proposing to go 307 over
the staff recommended number.
Correct.
But...
Yeah.
I'm not...
Or we can get an option.
I really think it would make more sense
to have an either or and not exceed the 1386.
But I am interested in staff's opinion
about whether this idea that we can say
after three years, four years, put a timer on
Valco and if Valco doesn't happen,
then we enable for the second half of our eight-year cycle.
We enable or some part of it, right?
Some... whatever it works out to be,
then we enable other sites.
But if... but only if.
And we don't do that in advance.
Do we have the ability to do that?
Is that...
Should we be able to convince HCD?
This is a reasonable...
doing something conditionals a reasonable plan with a timer?
Does... does this proposal mean that you would want
to come back and amend the housing element?
No.
I mean, ideally not.
No.
I want to be done with these folks for eight.
So we could set up a situation where you have
an initial list of sites in a number.
If one site doesn't develop within a certain amount of time,
then you have an alternative list of sites in a number.
And those numbers don't have to be the same.
But let's say we wanted the credible.
And I'll call it scenario a, plays out, we get Valco done. And we've done our approximately 600. I mean, we're kind of at 582, whatever, something in there, right?
So scenario B says, doesn't happen within given time frame. We still have time for somebody to come in and take the 600 because we've, we've defined, we can't just put it in the pool, we've got it assigned specific sites, I'm assuming in advance to be credible. We can't say, right?
So we need sites. So that's why I was, I was actually trying to name, well, uping the oaks from, in this scenario, 50 to 235, going from, putting summer winds in and putting marina in, where I didn't have them originally, to make the same 1386, I have under scenario a.
So under both scenarios, you would have no more than 1386. Right. That's about scenarios. I have exactly 1386. That's where I started. I hate the summer wind side. It's surrounded by a lot of residential housing. I think it's a fine, I think, I think, I think we don't well, I mean, are you, are we all fine with?
Well, can I ask Barry, did you like my idea, Barry?
I didn't see him walk away. I asked when he comes back.
So, Rod, when you just mentioned again, your numbers again?
Okay, here's my scenario, please. The thing that I would hope would go because I want Valco to go.
Valco at 582 by the two, Hampton's at 650, 650, Barry Swenson at 11, 11, Glenbrook, Glenbrook in Phil at 93, Glenbrook at 93, Oaks at 50, and where I'm assuming, right, that this is mostly a mixed use site.
And we figure out how to talk about the density requirement getting there by saying this, the housing is on a specific part of the site.
And what was brewing if the, I'm sorry, Marina Foods zero, summer wind zero, United furniture zero, I don't want United, I don't do not want to, I mean, anything on the east side, I don't want it.
Okay, I got it.
Okay, scenario B, okay, scenario B is where after our timer and we can decide what's reasonable there, Valco doesn't happen, so Valco zero, Hampton 750.
Okay, that's a question for you, go to scenario B. My concern is I think that the HD either accepts the site or they don't, and if they accept it, you don't have to have something that triggers something else later, right, I mean, that's not kind of within their ability to accept isn't it they accept the site or not.
Well, how we saw this alternative scenario is to say, if a site, if the city doesn't end up approving Valco because they don't like the plan that comes forward.
And you will have an alternative list of sites and an ACD might buy into that because now you're trying to find sites, so there's no net loss.
You're going to, you're going to, there's going to know that Valco's contingent potentially.
It's, it's a, it's a very high risk gambit.
So we can see, and then they might accept Valco, you did it versus they wouldn't accept it if you didn't do that is a site.
Well, Valco is either in or out and then if Valco's out within four years we have to find other sites.
I don't know, the question is would they accept Valco, the only reason to do that is if it increases their odds of accepting Valco, right, if they accept Valco.
Right.
Then.
Yeah.
It doesn't, it doesn't go in four years, you know, unconditionally terrific.
Yeah.
But.
Well, it was by understanding that the idea was that if the community and the council did not feel comfortable approving the Valco project.
Yeah.
They're not going to know all that.
Right.
My, is this the only talking about getting an opportunity.
This is how the hours of this.
I listened to it.
It's part of watch it tonight.
So.
So my question is, wouldn't they just simply accept Valco or not is the housing element site?
Well, the council is making it conditional so they may not.
Because they like sites to either be in or out.
So we have a consultant attorney who would like to say something and I'll allow her to say something.
Just in terms for the record your names.
I know who you are.
Yes, I know.
I'm sorry.
I'm Barbara Calts.
I'm with Gold for amendment on your council on the housing element.
And just in terms of.
Let's say a few years down the line.
Valco's not approved at that point.
You have enough sites.
And the state laws says that if you.
If a site is included in your housing element and you either want to deny the application or reduce it for few.
Or approve it for fewer units than are shown in the housing element.
You need to either say, well, you have enough sites left.
You know, to meet your arena, which you would not do if obviously if no units were approved on a Valco.
Or you have to find another site.
So what this staff is trying to do and I think with the alternative be.
Is to indicate an advance with those alternative sites would be rather than making you do it at the time.
You know, if you decide not to approve the housing on the Valco site.
Can you ask you a question?
Sure.
On my suggestion that I suggest a 1693.
But it would take four years for a Valco to build their suggested 600 units.
Right.
And then let's say that they're at their tail end.
And let's say that the community says we don't want to see the units.
We want maybe 300 or maybe 100.
Can we make a case to.
ACD that because of the that we met the minimum threshold of 1,000.
Where ever that number was 1,000 30 was it or.
Right. Right.
Yeah.
You're 100 that can we lower that amount as long as you met that.
Minomial threshold.
Right.
Under your scenario assuming that none of the other sites dropped out.
You really would have the option of approving zero to 600 units at Valco.
So I do have the option of approving zero to 600.
If you're not guaranteed to 600 as long as the other sites as long as the other sites.
As long as the other sites remain.
And you right because then you'd have 1093 left.
Yes.
I remember your.
1093.
Right.
And that exceeds the 1,000 to that you need.
Correct.
Because the minimum that council more central was supporting.
Was a 1,000 to which was.
And so it's going to.
But again, you know.
Some people think it's just going to be a good idea.
Some people think it's going to be a good idea and quote and quote.
These.
that you could make the finding that you still had adequate sites.
But again, assuming that none of the others dropped out.
I just did Barbara.
But Rod's idea works the same, which is,
well, you asked for a lower number than you say,
if one of these drop out we're going to swap in this alternate.
What I would hate to do is entitle everything that you've asked for,
and then find out that Valco indeed needs 600.
And now we want to make Valco go,
and all of a sudden, instead of entitling 1386,
we've entitled you your 1693, and that, you know,
is all the most it gets built.
Well, I would be okay with you could put just,
for example, Valco and the Hamptons with my list,
and put the others as alternate sites that go in if it weren't.
Well, that's what I was saying.
Because I'm okay with swapping, it's not enough,
but villages for granite rock, I don't really care.
Thank you.
Were you okay with my suggestion?
Well, what were your sites?
My very?
Yeah.
Well.
My site?
No, no, no.
I'll reset it.
600 if one more.
Let me answer that question.
Hamptons 300 and 8.
Marina 222, all 235, and pretty sons and 11.
I'm afraid that we go by Mayor's suggestion,
and you've all the project coming through,
and that means we got 1690s of units,
which is more than minimum.
So can I ask Mark about his sites, so I can...
Sure.
So tell me again about your son and what they were, why?
No, no.
What they are with the numbers again?
Hamptons 748.
Right.
Go and work 228.
228?
Yeah.
228.
OK, 228, no problem.
But they were on the list at 93, so that's a different...
Dinsley and realistic capacity is 228 on the table.
I'm looking at for Glenbrook's.
That a clear down and stuff.
Yeah.
Tell me more about...
That's a printing company.
No, there's 517 existing units.
228 additional.
Dinsley, realistic capacity.
What does that have 93?
So every sheet I have has 93.
Yeah, 93.
That changed again.
I guess what we're saying is 93 assumed that they would fill in the existing spaces.
Anything more than that would likely require a tearing down of existing units.
That might be more difficult if it was only being replaced by 100.
But we need to look at the site plan figure out how.
So it's not easy to say.
Are they going to tear down all of 517 units to build an additional 228 likely not?
Can they accommodate 28 in the open space likely not?
So they'd have to tear down a significant portion.
No, let me ask the question.
OK.
What HD by 228?
I think it would be hard because last time we were able to explain that they filled in the open space.
Now we'd have to say they would be tearing down existing buildings.
So HD would buy 93.
They would buy 93 because they bought it last time.
OK.
Villages 62.
So what number do you want to have?
You want to use that?
I can go with 93.
OK.
I want to number.
They're going to buy.
OK.
So 748 Hampton's Limburg 93.
Oaks.
And that's already been approved.
Was the Oaks on there?
OK.
Keep going.
Villages 62.
Which is also an existing approved site.
Wait.
Hold on.
Villages 62.
OK.
However, 169.
Where's that?
That's on.
Right.
It's on valley green adjacent villages.
Right.
It's on villages in that or adjacent.
So it's right next to villages.
OK.
It's already a high density housing thing.
It's currently.
OK.
The apple is currently occupying those buildings when they build the new space.
It's likely.
OK.
And remember that?
There were a big lot.
Huge parking lot.
OK.
Is it possible we could pull that up out of map?
Exposence possible.
So what's the total mark that you have?
And then in the queue mark.
So let's see.
I need to take off.
So it's a smaller number now.
So I need to re-ad them.
Do you have a null file?
1105?
And do you need to have the oaks in at all?
No.
OK.
I kind of like the oaks is a retail destination.
It's kind of the only one there.
And I kind of like it having critical mass for people to eat and stuff like that.
Some little bit.
There's a lot of housing right across the street from it.
Already this.
I was looking at adding to the Glenberg apartments instead.
Same part of town.
Just right here.
So I'm still back.
OK.
So my original proposal with rods scenario be.
But changing rods scenario be to be.
235 for the oaks.
62 for the villages.
And then it brought right at 50 for the oaks.
No.
Sorry.
OK.
Okay.
So scenario.
Yes.
I'm sorry.
So scenario.
1386.
scenario B now is.
Taco zero.
Hampton's.
750.
Swanson.
You know, Barry swanson 11.
Glenberg 93.
Oaks 235.
villages.
I'd say instead of summer winds.
Put the villages in at 62.
And then kick marine up to whatever it makes to make 1386.
Probably 232 is close because we're 30 off or something like that.
It's almost perfect for the 232.
And I could.
I could dig you with that.
Or can't throw another suggestion here.
So I'm trying to get.
And then just throwing this number of 1,400 to get to close to what staff was recommending.
500 for Valco.
100 for Oak Shopping Center.
500 for Valco.
Okay.
100 for Oaks.
200 for Marina.
600 for Hampton.
11 for.
Brace once in sight.
Why do you want to.
So Marina is a pretty popular.
And I'm going to.
You got that.
That the ALO often see a lot of stuff right around there.
And I think I think that's cutting the Hampton's down too much.
Okay.
So I think we're good if you agree with.
Okay.
We're going to rob it else.
Thanks.
Okay.
So we got two scenarios.
582 for Valco.
650 for Hampton's.
11 for.
20.
12.
Almost.
12.
11.
12.
We also go back up to 235, and I'm saying, I haven't gotten rid of buying it as billages 62 instead
12.
11.
7.
9.
3.
of summer winds in Marina, 232, and I think that comes out close to 386.
12.
13.
9.
13.
12.
Marina was what again? 232. I think that's what it needs to get, because billages 62 is that
12.
11.
in 96, so it's 34 less.
13.
I'm probably okay with that, but I did want to entertain Marks two sites and could we pull them up on a map?
I just wanted to plan because I kind of got mixed in here. So Plan B was 0 for Valgo, 754 Hamptons, 235 for Oaks.
Buries once the site was 11, Glenbrook was 93, Marina was 200, what again?
I think it's 232, after that I lost you, I'm sorry.
There is no after that. Oh, the billages 62.
The billages 62.
So I think that covered Marks site the only other site.
You mentioned it was the Carl Bird one, which is 200, some units, or 169 units.
It is a clear question on number B, so that will be an option if Valgo fell off.
Yes.
Okay, so if Valgo fell on, what happens?
Valgo fell on, it's scenario A.
I prefer scenario B as A.
I'm sorry, what?
The flip flop is that B would be A and the A would be B.
And then I'm okay.
So you're, you're saying?
I don't know.
So scenario B is, you want to add units.
That's not to make everybody happy, but I don't see that happen.
Right.
I'm getting three units short on your list here.
Well, yeah, no.
Cross it. Yeah.
Why are you talking about?
She's whispering.
Okay.
So Barry, where are you?
Are you okay with this two-edged scenario?
I mean, do you understand that?
I understand.
Yeah, but I also understand Baco need to sort in a month to make it work.
And then to me, Baco is much more important than.
Oh, I agree.
And Hampton.
And also to me to spread it out is much more important than concentrate on the E size.
So I know, but he can't go forward.
Those are three.
So we've got three things that we want to have happen.
We all want to have a happen.
I think we want to spread it out.
We want Valgo and we want to happen.
And we want to keep it 13.
Six.
It was here with Gilbert of going higher than 386.
So my original friends just stayed the same.
Six hundred four.
Baco Hampton.
Three hundred eight.
Three hundred nine.
Two thirty two.
Two thirty five.
Very sons and eleven.
But you understand the Hampton schools.
They probably can't.
I don't think so.
I think we will work.
Okay.
That's your.
Okay.
So that's your base.
Yeah.
Okay.
Concentrate too many units on that area.
Yeah.
I understand.
Yeah.
I have the same motivation.
I just don't.
I have a different opinion.
So not to spoil the party here.
But it's three thirty two in the morning.
And I got some additional information from our sea attorney.
And unfortunately, I mean, she'll explain why.
But regarding the housing element site.
Whatever suggestions that we make.
We can't make those.
We can't go on it today.
We will have to continue it and she'll explain why.
I mean, I think you're doing.
I don't know.
I mean, I was pretty much here.
And I was told to.
We can talk until four or five in the morning.
But what?
We can continue.
I don't.
We have to be able to conform the findings to whatever you.
Whatever you guys decide to do.
Right.
So you still have to decide to do it.
But we can't obviously conform our findings.
Tonight because.
Okay.
We can.
Yeah, you need to stop a straw vote.
And you probably do need to be like.
We need to be like.
Can we let him finish?
We need to know.
Okay.
Because I like to know.
Somebody.
We need to get some sort of a straw vote.
So we know what to draft.
So we do need you guys to come to consensus.
beneficially.
And then the question is, do we.
We'd like to get this to Sacramento.
As soon as possible.
So that we can start the process.
Which could be.
Long.
And so the options are to continue to.
And early date.
This week or early next week.
Or wait all the way to the 18th and I'm not really.
I wouldn't recommend doing this because it.
We're.
So why is why this I'm.
I'm trying to understand.
Yeah.
In the interest of transparency.
Why all of a sudden.
We.
Decided we can't finish tonight.
So to to be able to legally adopt.
Whatever we do we have to be able to have a sequence which reflect.
The actual decision that you're making.
And we don't it's not in line with what you already.
Yeah.
You know it's quite I mean.
There's a lot of differences to it.
But it's it's a win the scope of the I are but it's not this findings are very very specific.
And they've drafted for the bounce plan because that's all we had to go by.
And this is different.
So we can just do it.
And you can put that on consent with the funds.
Yes.
It's it's a consent item but we can officially.
Okay.
All right. Well, but let's get through it anyway.
Right.
So we can do it even if you have to.
Please.
Okay.
So.
Gilbert.
The findings.
I'm I'm I'm I'm playing the numbers here.
Okay.
I'm talking.
I'm I'm listening to skip on talking.
Well, while while he's doing that, I was interested in marks reasoning for.
Villagesburg and humor.
Over say.
Diox.
Sure.
And maybe if we can pull him up on the map so we can see what.
Side of town, etc.
They're on and yet he had a.
We can get a map of the city.
Which I think Ron asked for about 20 minutes ago.
And we get.
Or or or one of the maps in the plans to show the sites.
I think there's a map and I did shows potential sites and it'll show those.
Okay.
So could you point out to us, please, which side is the villages.
Right.
So that's up.
Stealing road just to the east of Stealing.
It's an existing housing.
It's an existing apartment complex that they didn't fill.
Okay.
Is actually in Valley Green 3.
Okay.
Some villages in existing housing site that are very charming, but older units.
And, you know, the carlberg site is an older.
Commercial building currently occupied by Apple.
Okay.
What about Q mark?
Where's that?
He's on the east side of town.
It is on the east side of town.
It's at the intersection of Blaney and Stephen's Creek across the street from built more.
It's actually a couple units and staff.
I think it was on a corner with.
Right.
It's currently in the housing element.
Right.
That's I understand.
You've been improved.
I mean.
My priorities.
I've been walking in Hamton's would preclude me from supporting anything more on the east side of town.
And, and on the other ones, I mean I'm not.
You know, so that so the the Q mark net thing is my.
If you want me to rank them that way, we might.
My third choice of those three.
Okay.
I like.
I like the carlberg site, I think is a great site and the village is already existing in proubsite.
and I put in the keymark.
It was also an existing approved site, which means it's probably got a high probability
being approved again.
Right?
So I like approved sites that didn't get built last time.
So you know, by and of the concept that the Oaks has, I mean, we already had one proposal
that didn't, in order to refresh the Oaks that they're going to need some housing there.
You know, the general concept that's proposed is any place we want to build anything we
should allow housing, because everybody says if you don't have housing, it won't
cancel out.
But I read that one.
That's what they say.
Yes.
Let me know too.
Office.
No.
I think we should look at beyond what we need to meet with the say requirement.
I'm looking at what will be the best for the city in the future.
I'm not dying on the Oaks, but I like the other choices better.
I like the Oaks better.
I think.
I mean, do you go on the A sites?
They're very nice sites.
No, I like your, I like the villages instead of, you know, again, we're only talking about, well,
so the power of birth site is never going to be, I don't know.
It could be a housing element site, but it's not going to be a retail or anything.
Can I try one more time please?
Okay.
Well, can I just say something before you go?
Okay.
In general, right?
What we understand with VTA and transit knowledge, if we can concentrate,
some housing along our major arteries, we have a better chance of getting some mass transit solutions,
a better mass transit solution.
So I think the Glenbrook and Oaks being right across from Deans, all of that on the west side of town,
and choosing it in that general area over something up against the freeway that sort of off the beaten track.
I feel like we have a better chance of making something happen with transit along Steven's Creek.
So that would be my argument for either Glenbrook, the Oaks or both.
Right.
But Marina also next to frequent,
Yeah, no, Marina qualifies.
Marina is an area of being, you know.
Yeah, I mean, the only thing I think, Marina is if we're trying to give something to energize the city,
it's, Marina is pretty energized.
It's also in a pretty difficult traffic area, in my opinion, versus the other two.
The reason I would pick Glenbrook over the Oaks, so by the way,
so Commissioner Brophy, who's, I think for his entire life, is what he's done is look at stuff like this,
it doesn't believe mass transit is going to happen along there no matter what we do.
And it's, I'm going to defer to his opinion, because he's kind of the expert there,
but certainly even if the mass transit doesn't happen, if you're going to put it fired,
it's a housing, it's nice to get him, so they don't have to, you know, close to that.
It's not bad to put him on a near freeway.
So I, I just the only reason I would, let's say,
I picked, for example, Carl Berg versus the Oaks,
because I think the Oaks is a viable retail center in Carl Berg is not.
So that's why, and Glenbrook's already a housing site, and it already has housing on it,
so it seems like a lot.
Well, let's say that we were able to get VTA to do an express by sub-85.
And by having something right there at Steven's Creek or about their abouts,
we've been walking distance.
You know, right, if I believe you're premised, then everything's different.
Yeah, I know.
I haven't been able to do it at them.
I understand.
I just can't.
You can't.
It was great.
That's a new attack number.
It's time for Gilbert to go again.
Take a shot.
Yeah, I'm just taking a while while shot here.
Take a shot.
You're going to go back from the arena again.
I'll go for 500.
Arena for 200.
Hamptons for 600.
Very soon for 11.
And Glenbrook for 50.
I've just said we could say before, right?
No.
It's different.
Pretty close.
That will bring us to 13.
13.
60.
So you take out.
Hulk.
Kodoroy?
Well, they want me to try to get as close to 1339 as possible.
But yeah, so I get.
Okay, so I'll start with.
I don't.
I don't have a.
I don't have a lot of traction for Marina for the reasons that we've heard up here.
You know, as far as.
It's working away it is now.
I think in a long term, something could happen to it.
But it's I don't see any big major community benefit to making that happen.
That a 200 unit.
Thanks.
So.
So it's especially at the expense of the oaks and some of the other ones.
And again, we're always talking about scenario B's.
So maybe it's semi academic, but.
It gets time for the main point.
My point.
My point is, Marina, who is ready to go and then do.
Don't forget ready to go.
It's not necessarily on the west side of it.
I mean, you want to.
You want to.
But there.
So I do.
I do I do have a problem to.
To see your point.
So.
And I agree with Barry.
I just want to clarification from C staff.
Is that since we have to come back on another day to get.
No, let's do this slide.
I know we should do it tonight, but.
Do we have another opportunity to meet that.
Sequo requirement and give you that final number.
Maybe one zero third zero.
Whatever that is.
I'm going to take us some time after we get the final number to do the sequel findings.
So we'll need the number before we can do the sequel findings.
So we can't do both of those on the same day.
So if you take another, then we'll have to come to another meeting after that.
So give it.
What was let me think?
What was your thinking?
500.
500 for Valco.
Okay.
200 for minifutes.
600 for Hampton.
And 11 for.
Very.
Once the site.
And 54.
I have a different way to approach this.
Or you give me an idea.
How about.
We see if there's three in support of any site that you can work the numbers.
For example, I heard three in support of Valco.
Correct?
Not the same number.
It's three of us supports Valco.
You can work at the number.
And there's the least three people.
Go for the Hamptons. Okay? I'll go through my own different numbers. We're going to have, we're going to have a last. We're going to have extras, but okay. So Glenn Brooks, I think, had three also. Is that true?
I think everybody has Glenn Burke. Yes. I don't have Glenn Burke. Right, has least three? You know?
No. Okay. So then I had three different ones, which is villages, Carl Burke and the, in the Q-Mart. And I think you guys didn't like, nope, there weren't three for the Q-Mart.
I believe. So, it's a way, so if you start with, let's start with what we see the minimum of the three of us agree on.
So, if we're rich three, that's what I was doing. No. No, well, no, but I'm looking for the number to put down.
So, what's the minimum? I mean, I had a, I think we get the list and then maybe the number just falls out. We don't get lucky.
Let's try it. We can go for the list. So, this is a list is a scenario, a list.
No, no. This is a list.
I've got Valko in. This is, yeah, fine. Yes.
Yes. Okay. No, I mean, I was going to put down everything that looks like it's being built.
So we have Valko Hamptons, Glenn Brooks.
Okay. From my list, we had a Q-Mart, which I think didn't have three votes, correct.
But how heard two of it in here, three of these? Is there 3 votes for that or not?
No. No. Yeah. No. No.
Then there was villages? No. No.
It's on the, it's on the, it's on the, it's not, it's gonna happen, it's probably scenario be.
We can go maybe. We don't have to just rise.
Yes, I guess.
Rod, yes, no, maybe. Nope. Okay, and then Carl Bird. Yeah, well,
folks. No, no, I'm, I'm going, just go ahead and I was sorry. Carl,
folks was an online list, so the Carl Bird was the last one. Does it have three,
three possibilities, or is it got? No. No. Okay, next was the Oaks. I think it
have three. Did it, where were the three? Yes, you know, that matrix was really
handy that you had it before RT. Okay, so the Oaks is on. We get the matrix back up
again. Please. So then we can see it. Everybody can see it. Sorry, I lost the place and
when I started this slide to start it from the first slide, so we're trying to find it.
Okay. Okay. So, so, and you had very, very, very, very expensive. You had villages on
your list. Did you take it off, Rod? You said, I had it. Yes. As a possible alternate, but I mean,
that's not, that wasn't my first choice. We were at, I'm not, I'm not, I'm trying to do a sort
out the ones that are gone, and we have less to talk about. Okay. Is it, can we get a bigger view
that or no? What kind of code? What? We just want the list. Okay. So Oaks had three, correct?
Right. Now, Oco has three, Hampton says three, Glenbrook's had three. I think so. Yes. Yeah. Okay.
Which, did Marina had three? No. Mm. Was there another way? I thought,
Aaron had Glenbrook in scenario A, you know? Did. Yes. Glenbrook had three. So this thing, that's
right. Yeah. Did Barry Swenson have three? Yeah. Barry Swenson had three. Yeah. Yeah. That's
in had no greater. All right. Well, I'm not crazy about that one. It's not a big number either way. I
actually think Barry Swenson is kind of a small housing site, but it's a better office building site, personally.
If it, if it, if it helps us make ours, it's not going to matter. It's not going to matter.
It also does. I have a 10 house service. I love market rate. Well, no. That's actually.
And if there's three of you, it doesn't. My opinion doesn't matter. Yeah. That's 11. I think that's it.
So those four. Yeah. Making an arrow. Okay. Whatever. Two. So Oaks, three. Valko, Hampton, Glenbrook. Five.
That's five. Yeah. That's five. Okay. Now, what's the maximum of each? Okay. So the, so the,
I don't know, Hampton's. May I? Just peel. How did you get from 7.48 to 7.50 on the Hampton's?
It was rounded. Yeah. We do.
It's rounded off. Okay. It is 7.48. The real max on the Hampton's or is it 7.50.
We don't want to be off by a little bit. They're letter requested 7.48. I thought it was 8.20 that we studied. No.
We did make. Make it 7.48. Make it 7.48. I mean, I don't know.
Please.
So Gilbert's over there that his bottom numbers, like 15, 16, something like that. Right.
So by the way, if you give 7.48 to the Hampton's in 600 to Valko, you got 13.48.
Which meets the housing requirements. So after that, you want to do the scenario B.
Well, that's why. What? That's why we didn't give 7.48 to the Hampton. That's why I didn't give 7.48 to Hampton.
Because I didn't want, I knew we had to spread something around.
I mean, that's the, that's the, that's the, the Le Mans man. I want Valko to succeed. I want the Hampton to succeed
for, for different reasons, but for good city reasons. And we, and we can't, but it all there are
notes to sites. I mean, it's my understanding. We need at least some other sites on there. So
we're, we're kind of strategy. Yeah. We need five sites. Ideally six, but so we, so we have five.
Right. Valko, Clint Brooks, very Swenson Oaks. Right. Okay.
And with scenario B, we also have some alternatives to look at. Yes, there would be, I'm open to
Yeah. Right. So we need a third.
You know, but so question for staff is that if we were to continue it to Wednesday and then maybe
Tuesday make the, the findings that would just push everything out by one week.
What, what, what, what, what, what, what, the things, yeah, what's going to happen between things are going to go like Wednesday.
It's just a question. I mean, it's kind of a question. I just want to question. I just want to go ahead.
I just want to go ahead. I just want to go ahead. If we, if we continue to Wednesday and then what, and then it was the scenario could we can't approve it at the same time.
Right. The staff are so many. They think it's going to take a few days at least to draft redraft the findings. So we want to take a final action, the probability team, which is what a week from absolutely like our regular, regular next next Tuesday.
And I'm very supposed to be like, Tahoe, so I'm not inclined to come back on Thursday.
Okay, I'm always just suggesting again on our.
We're still, so Rod and I are both the scenario a of.
You should be again, please.
Fifth is right there. 50.
50.
5.82.
6.50.
11.93.
And yeah, we can cut Valko down the, uh,
550 or something like that. Even 500 that buys us something here, but it doesn't buy you Maria's just too big a number day. I did there.
Just like, choose up the other rest of it.
So that's, that's real close to the number. Um, I also think, you know,
Marina is more or less in the middle of the city, and I, I wouldn't mind waiting it further west.
So if you wanted to put, um, the Hampton's Valko Glenbrook's, very swims in the Oaks, we make it.
There's enough, there's enough to make the, the number we need.
And if you want to drop 600 from Valko, not that I'm going to make my pitch, but I'm going to make it,
the villages in Karlberg would give us enough to get, to, to we just, yeah, if you want to take the, um,
come open to, a lot of different discussions on scenario V. So yeah, Falko drops,
I understand the benefit of the Karlberg property, having put it in the last time.
Yeah, I didn't pick it last night. I inside it was a good choice.
It has some specific benefits. Yeah.
So if we can pick the first five, and we can, you guys can tweak the numbers to whatever makes you happy.
And then if you want to pull out Valko, we'd have to have that, so you can put the other two in and then you'd make it.
Actually, you would make it with just adding the Karlberg property, if you didn't want to add the villages.
No.
So you could just add, you could take the five, and you could swap out Valko for Karlberg property,
but you'd barely make it. You took out zero to Valko.
Yeah, but I think the difference is, I still want enough in for the Oaks on scenario B.
Is the Oaks still up here yet? No, I already had the Oaks. I had it in an A.
Oh, so you have it instead of Marina?
The Karlberg. Okay, and A in A, and A, what you guys had three votes for was the Hampton's Valko, Glenbrook's,
Barry Swinson in the Oaks. Yes. That gets you over the limit if all those fly.
So the question is, if you want a scenario B that says, is it over the limit?
You know, it's over the required amount. No, it's not. No, it's right here, it's scenario A.
Because we've got the Oaks at 50.
Okay, sorry. I had
Maybe, okay. I play with what I put in, what I put in was I put in 748 for the Hampton 600 for Valko, 93 for Glenbrook 11.
Right. Right. Swinson, you can put in whatever you want for the Oaks. Right. Well, we've got to have enough units.
Yeah, if you put 748 for the Hampton's and 600 for Valko, you're there. You're already there.
But no, right. So what I'm saying is those five easily make the required number.
Oh, yeah. You could tell you with the numbers until you're there. If you want to take out
Valko, then you could add in for the fifth one Carlberg and there's plenty of numbers there to play with.
And we can redo the numbers and it's done so good. Okay.
Instead of Marina.
You may, I don't know if you made an additional Marina or we'd have to look at that scenario B.
Or would it be Carlberg plus villages to equal, to be Carlberg plus.
Like in our scenario B. No, we have 232. You could do Carlberg plus villages to make it.
Or you could, you could, you could barely make it without villages, but it's easier to make it with villages.
You can, you can get over the thousand and two. You get like 1126 if you put in Carlberg and you make all the numbers.
I, I think, I mean, to me, the right thing is to try to get 1386 in either scenario. So
is there something they can throw in for A and B that would include, um, I mean, something in number A that would include, uh,
Marina to win my vote. There's no way to have it in there.
It still have any, and you know, Valko needs close to close to 600 if the hamps is 650 and that's
shaving a hundred off from where they asked for.
Said receive the 93, 11 and 50, um, I'll go for that if you throw that into Marina.
No, it takes three sites away. What number did you want? 1389 for some reason?
I've, you guys, I'm sorry, I remember. Get off the Marina thing.
I think they're, we need great guys. We need minimum, I'm not excited to try. We're, we're pushing it with five. Okay.
I don't think we can do less. Here you go. Ready? Yep. Yeah, five sites.
600 for Valko. 93 for Glenbrook. 11 for Barry Swenson. 50 for the Oaks and at least 735 for the
mountains. We could put it up down there. Let's put it down there. Yeah, what you guys wanted. That gives you,
I think the right number. I think it's got to go out too much, right? Yeah.
This is your scenario. 1389 is not the number you want.
I want 1386. Oh, they sit 1389. No. Okay, so take three off of anybody.
We want to take it off of. So how do you?
How are you going? I'm going up and half. That adds up in March. Well, 40 you got to, you got an air. That's up to
more than 1386. What do you want to add up to? 1386. If you, there's my 1386, right? 1386.
You got your numbers all along and it's only 1286. Oh, we're not summinous. This is not a sum formula in here.
Oh, it's powerful. Oh, then, okay. Break out the calculators. Yeah.
So what, what would March's number be? What do you need nine? I can limit that.
100, 100 and three more than we need to. I've got 600 for Valko, 93 for Glenbooks, right? Yeah, 11 for
Barry Swenson. Actually, I think we're the same if you take the Hampton's down of a 650.
Yeah, the Hampton's would have to be 632 then.
That's shaving a little more than I would shave it. Okay, so we shave alcohol or something.
Or you can give the 50 from, well you want, you guys want that, this many in there. So,
Okay, so try shave off the villages. Mark, I think you're getting close. So do 550 for Valco.
Why don't we, why don't we, why don't we start with the Hamptons? Do we need to 748 or is there?
I think what number makes that?
I propose 650. I mean, that's, you know, they're, they're going to say yes or no, but that's just my educated quasi educated.
I mean, you know, you know, again, they ask for 748, but they're not going to get by with 300 either.
All right, so if you wanted to go, you want to go 650 for the Hamptons, 600 for Valco.
If you just did the other three numbers, you're just over by a little bit.
Right, that's just a little bit.
That's 1250 plus 154.
Let's see what that adds up to, right?
131404.
I'm good with that.
You still, you still, you still, I'm good with that, but this is the one we put it on the on the screen.
Please, you still on the village there.
No, the village isn't in the scenario. The village shows up if we.
The village is, you know what's in there with zero doubt?
Oh, you, you have to do not in your scenario?
No, you don't.
Okay, A. Let me try this again.
Right, right.
The places that all had three votes were the Hamptons.
Valco, Glenbrook, Barry Swenson, Oaks.
Okay, so you can play those numbers.
That's 650 and 500, you can adjust the rest.
So the, is the 1404 number good now?
Well, or you can take a few away from Glenbrook's or the Oaks or I guess I switched.
Right, I, I, I was interested in getting down to 1386, so the only difference now between the scenario.
You just talked about at 1404 and, and mine was, which I guess was orange originally was that we shaved.
I'm, I'm okay with that too. Shaved, um, 18 half of Valco to make it 582 instead of 600.
Fine.
So, I mean, I think that you should shave it off of Glenbrook because I mean, we want the Dockle and Hamptons to seed.
That's okay, too, because it's a boy.
Yeah.
So what you're saying is you should shave it off Glenbrook.
Yes.
Okay.
I'm okay with that.
So, yes.
Okay.
So what she's doing with Glenbrook is, um, make Glenbrook.
And it takes 16 off of them or something.
Something like that, yeah.
Well, 18.
Yeah.
You want, you want to have Valco, you, you, you, it's important to buckle maxed out at 600.
Yes.
Well, we don't know.
Okay.
I'm going to leave it at 582 that went out to redo the math and work like in the morning.
Let's go with the original plan.
I'm okay with the original plan.
Yeah.
That's okay.
Okay.
I'm going to go with the 582.
I'm going to give you some more information.
But you want the plan B.
You're selling the plan B.
Oh, okay.
Yeah.
I'm going with the plan B.
So, back up to plan A.
So, do we want 1386 or 1404?
No, 1386.
We're going right with the 582 at Valco.
We'll plan B for plan B.
I was okay.
I mean, this is the plan I've done for.
Well, this is, I thought this was planning.
Yeah.
This was planning.
And then this is plan B.
650.
We need to.
Well, we're going to, we're still working on plan 83.
Well, I'm okay with this plan B.
Are you okay with plan A, though?
Yes.
I'm okay with plan A.
All right.
If you're okay with plan B.
So, your, your plan B would be,
No, I'm not okay with plan B.
This one.
This is plan A.
This is plan B.
And I'm done.
No, you're back to the plan B.
We're going to put in.
Well, we think.
I think.
Or a not marina.
I think or run.
I will.
We're okay with these two circles.
So, this would be A.
Okay.
You're.
You're basically.
Three of us are okay with.
Carl Berg.
And you just put in marina circle it.
But I think.
Three of us prefer Carl Berg over marina.
Hmm.
Who was a third one?
And it was you Rod and I.
He's to want a marina.
Rod doesn't.
I was willing to entertain it.
I mean, I was willing to entertain it.
I'm.
In the interest of.
How big is Berg?
It's called a night one.
Yeah.
Yep.
In the interest of.
Of getting agreement on scenario.
I'm agree on that scenario.
Be.
Thought we already had agreement on scenario.
I know.
It was some.
I can pinch a night.
It's.
Correct.
No.
And it's four to one.
It's going to be four to one on B if you want marina.
So.
Be's not going to fly.
Little B's going to fly.
Well, B's going to fly.
Well, why do you think A was contingent?
Because of Gilbert's one.
No, though.
Yeah.
Four to one.
You think B's going to be five.
Oh.
With marina.
I don't think.
There's three.
And we're looking for three.
And we're.
And all these things.
We're looking for three.
Three.
Correct.
Well, so you have at least four on A the way it sits.
It's my point.
You certainly have three.
Yes, I don't have three on A without Gilbert.
Correct.
Oh, what do I do?
Because you're.
You're good on A.
No, Barry's not good on A.
You're good on A now.
Martin.
No.
You're not good on A.
No, he's not good on A.
Mark.
I'm good.
My.
Okay.
Mark.
Mark, you're good on A.
And you have a different B.
Can we.
Scoot that over a little bit.
It's like I see.
We're going to the side of my screen.
So.
Okay.
Right now in this.
What's called.
Mahoney scenario.
Which is just a column at this point.
I'm getting 13.
18.
Because if we put Carl Bergen.
And only one.
69.
We don't get to our.
13.
86.
We're.
Did you start by.
86.
That's why I want to get to 13.
1380.
So Bergen villages get you there.
I believe.
Well, if I had it.
If I had it, this column.
If I had it.
If you talk about.
Fine.
Getting 13.
18.
Rather than 13.
81.
Oh, that's a different number.
In other words.
Well, let me.
Let me try again.
2 35.
11.
I just wanted to point out that.
I'm per your discussion.
I was updating to take Marina off and adding Carl Bergen.
But I did not update the total.
Yeah.
He's updating.
Correct.
So in this column that I've highlighted in red here, I get 1318.
We are.
60ish.
Short.
What should we do?
We're still way over what we actually require.
And that is planned.
You need to put that on a new column because of it.
We have an A and B that we're given.
I think they'll take.
I think we're.
I'm going to make a motion.
Yeah.
Make the motion.
Okay.
The motion we'd like to hear is that you instruct staff to draft the findings to confirm the
water.
Yeah.
Okay.
But the rest of the motion can be motion.
Real motion.
No, no.
Okay.
So I move that we.
Let me look at this.
I move that we instruct staff to.
Take the next necessary steps to confirm.
To what?
To implement the following.
And update to the general plan amendment.
That would have.
An office allocation of a total of.
3040 for the major.
Off operation.
Two million for Boko contingent on a specific plan.
And 500,000 for the rest of the city.
That would be 1339.
Housing and be 1386 with.
The two scenarios that we just discussed.
Which scenario be here?
We have.
It was the other scenario.
Thank you.
Moving for the one that says Mahoney by it.
I think it's this.
I think it's this one.
Yeah.
Well, how many.
How many votes do we have for B versus.
How many votes do we have for Mahoney.
What's on this list.
So Mahoney B versus things being out that that's how it started.
But.
And the words villages and Carl Berg versus.
Marina.
I favor Mahoney's.
Right.
I favor Marina's.
But you're tying up your motion with everything.
You want to.
Right.
What do you want to try for everything.
I want to try.
I want to get this if we get to get this done.
I think we're done.
I think your motion has all the other stuff in it.
Right.
Well, the 1386 is.
Do I need to say your motion you put in all the office squares all the other
applications.
Everything other than just do.
I want to do a thousand.
How's the first and then the GPA that would be a lot simpler.
Or.
Okay.
Let's.
Put the GPA first.
But that nobody was seconded yet anyway.
So put that back.
Back on a back burner with draw that motion.
So I.
I.
My motion is to instruct staff to.
Take all steps necessary to implement the following housing element.
I.
Yeah.
Yes.
Can you just.
I'm.
Can you just.
I'm.
Can you just.
Circle which is be.
That's it's right.
It's these two right here.
A honey.
That's right.
It's that.
Let's see.
What whether we get the votes on that.
Can.
Can make a fairly amendment to.
Uh, sink speed.
Second.
Okay.
You're second.
The sink speed.
Yeah.
You're second and original.
I thought you wanted Carl Burke.
Yeah.
He just.
The whole motion is what's in the box.
Right.
The motion's what's in the box.
Which has Carl Burke on it.
And for Mark's second that.
He'll.
What was we going to make a friendly amendment.
Okay.
So now that motion on the table is.
Exactly.
What's in the box.
Yes.
Okay.
Do you.
Friendly.
Yeah.
Me.
Can we.
Yeah.
We're not.
Yeah.
Can we have the.
Okay.
So I'll put the box back.
So we all know what the motion was.
That's that right.
Yeah.
So my.
Friendly amendment is.
Is.
Sinks.
A and B.
Okay.
I'm.
Before we do that.
Can staff and lightness.
About.
Why.
Villages.
Carl.
Berg versus.
Ella.
Just.
Marina.
Could make sense.
And how do you feel about.
1318.
Please.
Regarding the 1318 number.
I.
I think we could make a case.
To.
To AC.
Because it would be for we'd be further along in the process at that point.
Right.
In terms of.
Carl.
You're going to generally impact.
Geansible word.
It's a.
It's been.
It's been studied and if the council wants to pick that.
That's a.
Well, car.
Actually sent a letter asking to stay in the housing element.
But they didn't.
Actually.
And it was in the last housing.
Well, it wasn't.
It's.
It's in a.
The housing element.
And he asked to stay in.
Right.
Yes.
I have reasons for picking up.
And I'm well aware.
I'm.
That's why I'm.
There.
Yeah.
It doesn't make sense because you're picking sites that are not.
Viable versus.
Six.
Viable because it was a.
It's.
Very.
Viable.
My.
You know, a hundred and four.
I think we can.
Like.
It's.
I.
Of.
They have no intention to build.
Why.
I mean, they ask to be the housing element.
Don't make sense.
I'm.
So you want to pick a place that you know, is 100% chance of building.
Or something is already.
I don't know that any of these are 100%.
I will support the box.
As it stands.
Okay.
It's a smaller number, I'm going to have to think.
And that motion carries with Chang and Wong the voting no.
Okay, so now I'll go back to my other motion and restate it.
There's one thing that I wanted to clarify which is what?
Clock. When does the clock tick to cause A to go to B?
No, we're part of this motion. The clock ticked.
Okay. Wouldn't it be just go to B if it's turned down as long as it's not been turned down?
Well, that might be, but I mean, the real thing is we, what we've said,
I think the majority has said is we want to see if we can make Valco go and we won't.
But we recognize that if Valco won't go, we recognize that Valco is highly risky.
And part of the reason is...
Okay, not all the parcels are owned yet. Another reason that's highly risky is the community, right, is going to have to be in favor of something that sand will actually build. We're going to have to, it's going to be a big long process. So, I think we need a credible scenario, but we also need, if we're going to get this done in this housing element cycle, we've got to have a credible alternative and we've got to decide when to pull the rip cord.
Oh, actually, I just want to finish the discussion before I make the motion. There's something we did not discuss, which is scenario be on office.
In other words, if falcon doesn't happen, I would say I would put another 500,000 back in a general office of the two million.
I will give it that.
You're okay with that?
Yeah, I'll give it that.
All right, so then the motion is to the right.
Let me help you here, so I make a motion to approve E8 2013-03. Do you have a second?
Yes, negative deck, right. Yes, please, but with your lights.
Can I get in? I move. No, no.
And don't follow this.
No, because we're just directing.
Oh, so we can't go there.
So today, we can only direct. We can't go this.
Do you have any instructions for conformity findings on E8?
Right, okay. So my motion is to give instructions to staff to do conformity findings on the following.
An office allocation of 3,040 or 3 million and 40,000, sorry.
It's full.
Okay.
I'm ready to hold down. I'm not playing tennis.
Morning.
Or do you do that one more time in the office?
Yeah, an office of 3 million and 40,000 of which 540 is the major company allocation.
2 million is about the contingent on the specific plans with a four-year timeframe.
And 500 is general office for the rest of the city.
What, what is four years?
We just think that's a good timeframe.
I just think that's a good five.
Four years from when I guess.
Yeah, that's from tonight.
You know, four years when it gets approved by a CD.
That puts us pretty late in the cycle.
No, it's okay.
Four years from now.
We have eight years cycle.
We have eight years, right?
Comment, staff, please.
And it's not built in four years.
It's got to be.
No, entitled, right?
Yeah, entitled. Yeah, I mean, that's probably fine.
Yeah.
Fine. Okay.
Okay.
Hotel of 1339.
Great.
Housing of 1386 on a scenario A with a 1381 on a scenario B as we just discussed.
Well, no, 1318.
2018, sorry.
I'm transposed.
Hotel height.
Well, the commercial was 717k.
Oh, commercial was 722k.
Good.
The Valko floor for the specific plan is 600k.
100.
Okay.
The height of the hotel was 110k.
It was 110k.
We're going to inspect the.
Come up with a reasonable and robust community benefits program.
Correct.
And can we add quantifiable?
Yes, reasonably quantifiable. Yes.
No rezoning.
Oh, sorry.
We missed.
What the 110 was for a bit site.
110 was for hundreds of years for the Latino in.
Right.
And also there was three votes.
Three strawberries for.
For.
Steen's Creek office at.
So if I feet with community benefits.
Do you really want to try to swallow that all at once?
Okay.
Yes.
Yeah.
Let's try.
I'm going to come back with power.
What was the overall residential allocation?
The overall residential allocation was 1386.
So you don't want any from our ones and.
Oh, we're just leaving whatever.
I want to leave it the way it was at 1895.
There.
2000.
Okay.
Yes.
Okay.
No rezoning of PG&E site.
Correct.
Heights per the balance plan.
Correct.
You got to see this Creek office, right?
And Steven's Creek office at 75.
Correct.
And I think that's it that I cover everything.
So you got the office.
You got the hotel.
You got the coverage.
You got the housing.
You got the community benefits.
Yes, but he has come back.
With a more specific plan.
You got the heights at the balance.
With exceptional student's Creek office and Cropino in.
No impeaching for rezoning.
I think we got everything.
So can I get a clarification?
So I'll second that motion for discussion.
So what did we just say about the.
Non-designated housing elements sites.
Well, the total number will be 2000.
So it's whatever 1300 minus 2000.
So you have an extra.
So instead of the Fort 4421.
We're talking about 2000.
Right.
Yeah.
We approve about 100 units.
Give or take a year and just borrow one.
So it gives us a few years before.
I think we're okay.
There.
All right.
Can I get any love on starting community benefits anywhere.
At above 45 feet.
Yeah.
Staff report was at 60.
And I frankly think, you know, we can do it at 45.
Yes.
I'll go ahead.
So I'll go ahead.
I'll go ahead.
I'll go with you.
You will go with me at 45.
Yeah.
I'll go with the balance plan.
I'm a no.
You got all the tons of building an office in there.
Which I don't think the public wants.
So I'm a no.
But sets in there.
That's why if you want to leave it all together.
That's fine.
I'm in favor of several things in there.
So we're still going to vote on.
Oh, you made a motion at one whole thing.
Listen this way.
I mean, it will give me a bit of what will come back to us.
And we can just sit that side.
Oh, I don't know about that.
Yes.
Regarding the community benefits.
If you can tell us what the base height is, then we can figure that out.
Right now, this language in the general plan.
And if you want that to be amended.
You can let us know and we'll bring back the men.
Can the 45 or 60 feet on the height for the community benefits?
Can we can we just decide that at the next meeting?
Or you need a decision now.
Whenever you decide it, we are the findings that have to be made a few days later.
Because we have to.
We have to know what the question is.
So the answer is now.
If you want.
Thank you.
You answered the question.
Right.
I would make a strong case based on everything we've heard tonight to say.
Look, right now it's very.
Developers are making good money.
On office space and residential.
We know about what happens with the schools.
We know about our desires for.
Lots of different things.
It could be land for parks.
It could be community shuttles.
It could be lots of things.
And I would argue that we.
We ought to take advantage of.
I think the community would appreciate us.
Starting at a lower level would have three people for that.
Right.
Now you have two to two.
I totally agree.
You agree, right?
Yeah.
And Mark would agree.
Well, no, Mark is.
I don't know where.
I'm already out of this motion.
Mark is not.
I don't.
Yeah, but it's not.
We need a.
We need a sense of view of time breaker.
I know what your sense would be, right?
I don't know what it is.
Really?
Yeah.
And what would my sense be?
It would be.
The problem I have is.
It really.
It really depends on what it is.
I mean, I don't like the current retail component.
I don't like it.
And so you're asking me to sign a blank check without.
No, no, no, no, no.
Forget the increase.
What do you want for the.
You want 40.
What would.
I think we have five.
I think we have.
I think we have certain areas that we looked at for higher zoning is naturally.
And so I think it should be if you want to give it a height over whatever it's own for.
I mean, so so basically we just you just set 110 for a hotel.
So you you basically can a tax M 15% of I'm going from 45 to whatever the height is.
And and that's the community benefit.
And it has to be quantified and if it's not good enough.
They can build a 45.
Have a nice day.
Yeah.
So agree.
But when I think I heard you say, I'm going to because I'm looking for your sense even on the
You don't believe in a community benefits thing.
So let's take that out of it for a second.
That's just a what to do when you get over X.
You think X should be the balance plan or 45 in the city.
I need to look at the balance plan.
Well, it had all the different.
Yeah, I know I'm it's complicated.
It.
Yeah, it's very we already made two exceptions.
I don't know.
I don't know why we we have sites that are only 30 feet.
So then it's like do they get to go to 45, but we're not we're not changing the basis for everybody.
I'm just talking about where I don't the community benefit would start.
That's not understand.
So we're not suggesting that you know we're automatically going to let everybody build a 45.
We have 30 at Glenbrook's for example.
But what I am saying.
When you're capping 45.
I'm basically saying.
Yes, I am.
I'm saying that we we.
About 45.
I'm not buying into this.
About 45.
I'm not buying into this.
So called retail thing.
Sir, you're going to argue that.
So right now in Valco's 45 feet or 60 with retail.
You only want to just change that one.
No, I want to change every damn last one of them.
So you want to let everyone of them have the opportunity to go to 60.
But 45 feet.
What is that?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Right.
So right now.
I'm going to limit it to 45 or 30 except for one that that has a higher if it has a retail component.
So if you're saying that you're going to cut that.
So that's the only one that would matter.
That's the only one right now that has an additional bump.
Unless you want to give it to somebody.
Is this no.
Or do you.
Is this the week.
Short of heights.
Or more.
Okay.
We have.
We have this whole complex schedule.
Which allows.
Keep going greater heights.
In certain places.
And I'm not suggesting that we interrupt that.
You don't accept that.
Except that our standard becomes 45.
And anything above that is calculated with the net presence.
That's how you formula to yield.
So barely benefit that it's a tangible bear with.
There's only certain areas allowed to go over 45 and all of them require.
Right now retail components.
I'm saying you can just take that same list and change the retail component to.
Right.
Whatever.
Yeah.
All of the other ones don't allow to go over 45.
So they're.
They're not the mix.
Well, there is.
Is there anything that allows over 45?
Yes.
North.
Right.
No.
Is 45 it today anyway?
Are you asking the current.
Is there any.
Yeah.
Is there currently anything that goes over 45 without a retail component?
North.
That's.
So what does North Falco allow exactly today?
Steep eat.
With retail.
No.
Just 60 period.
60 period.
Well, I would like.
I would like to take it to 45.
And then community benefit above that.
So that one plus all the existing ones.
Basically.
Just what you just said earlier.
So there's.
Yeah.
But I think it's really clear.
It's very straightforward.
It's easy.
It's.
You.
So what you want to give that in practice.
I don't know what it means.
You want to have a exception full grambroke.
Crembrothers.
No.
You know what he's saying is anybody that's currently allowed to go over 45.
Whether it's a retail component or for whatever reason.
The above 45.
They pay the tax.
It's not a tax.
It's the opportunity to have.
A benefit.
Okay.
So to to go higher.
With a community benefit under calculated formula.
To the benefit of whatever of, you know,
Future Council decides.
But it's quantified and it is clear.
So the only difference.
The only difference that we'd be talking about.
Because we're talking about saying community benefit.
Instead, including retail instead of just retail, right?
That's clear.
The only difference is North Falco.
With Rod's idea.
Well, what I what I understood Councilmember Singh's idea was was to go with the balance plan heights.
But then to start at the base height of 45 and anything above that would require a community benefit.
Am I.
Yes.
What does that mean start with the balance?
So that means let's take the Oaks gateway for example.
No, that's clear.
Let's see.
Because it's 45 today.
And he's proposing 45.
Find one at 60 today.
And he wants to go to 45.
Right.
So in the balance plan, it recommends 45 and 60 with retail under Council Member
Singh's plan is 45 at 60 with community benefits.
No, I understand.
Right.
That's great.
But I thought there were some 60s today without.
Today, there's there's only one 60 without retail.
And that is North Falco.
That includes the Cupertino in the Hamptons and the Apple Campus area.
That's North Falco.
That's the section between Tantau, Homestead.
And it includes the Cupertino in sight.
North.
So my only question about my proposal is, again, my concern is getting our housing element adopted without incurring delay penalties, etc.
If, would, well, maybe I'll forget about asking that question.
The reason I don't think you should, since I don't think you know the detail of it, I don't think you want this.
The motion, could you're not going to get?
What are they teller we're talking about? I'm sorry.
Okay, so the question is, what, what is the, the thing that public benefit constitute?
And you said to leave that to a future council, is that constitutive?
No, I'm adopted. No, I think no. I want a, the specific formula that staff has recommended that is, we go through the perform up validated by our economic expert.
We enter into a development agreement. We can't exactly dictate exactly what that would look like.
I'm being written on it. Okay. We can't, we can't say exactly what that is right now, but we would go through a numerical calculation and expect a benefit equivalent to that, which could be money or, yes, some other benefit could be part dedication or some such thing.
We're not going to have to have the economic value that follows from the formula.
So the only difference from what I was, the motion I was going to make was in North Valko, whether we started, it's one place, whether we started 60 and 45 there.
Can we just go with balanced plan, I mean, it covers 90% of the city for your thing.
Then North Valko, we're going to have the money going to need the height to do this thing.
Well, so my understanding is under the balance plan and staff's recommendation, the benefit, the community benefit doesn't start until we hit 60 feet.
Is that correct? So I want to lower that to 45.
Right. In, in our case, in some areas, there is no community benefit required and some areas.
You could build 60 feet without community benefit.
You could only play the staff.
Now you and North Valko.
Only in North Valko.
Anywhere else, if you build over 45, it requires retail, you could change retail.
Your proposal and the balance plan are identical for 95% percent for North Valko.
North North Valko currently has a 60 foot limit.
Well, the balance plan has taller heights at the oaks and the North Crossroads node above the current heights.
So if we take the staff recommendation and the balance plan, is there a community benefit if building the oaks as cat?
It's very high, can you mention the oaks?
Basic height for the oaks.
So let's look at the balance plan.
Right. The basic height for the oaks is 45 feet or 60 with retail.
Right. So we take the retail out.
The balance plan.
So the balance plan and rods proposal identical for everything except North Valko.
Is that correct?
Not as written.
But as we're not writing a community benefit for oaks.
No, no.
Okay.
So let me rephrase.
If the motion.
Let me try this.
If the motion said that the heights are as proposed in the balance plan.
With the difference being that it's community benefit instead of retail, which is I think what I said the motion would be.
That would be the same as rods proposal except for North Valko.
Is that a correct statement?
Well, I'll tell you where it's a little bit different.
It's a little bit different in city center where the recommendation was the same as alternative B.
It started at 60 feet in height.
So if you want to go back down to 45 feet, then I'll be a little bit.
I guess I was looking at the existing general point.
Right. Right.
So you tell us what you'd like.
The balance that is considerably more aggressive than the correct general point.
I would take a close look at the balance point.
Right.
It would help to us.
I think what we said everybody was talking about was taking the existing general plan where we are and increasing the heights for two locations.
The what the hotel and the.
Okay.
My motion is the existing general.
So if you went with the existing general plan with those two height adjustments and you want rods, then you could say anything that currently requires a retail component, which I'll retail component for whatever this is.
And that would be what you want for the existing general plan.
We're actually in a certain thing.
Correct.
Yes.
That's what I'd like to make the motion as.
Where exactly is 60 North Falco.
Can we shut that area on the map?
I think it's just North Falco, right?
Yes.
We can show you.
The only thing is Hamptons or.
No.
North Falco encompasses everything that is north of 280.
Between.
It includes Guartino village.
South of Homestead and everything that's along.
The current high requirement for North Falco is 60 feet.
Well, why wouldn't we be fair and just draw the 45 foot line there as well.
I don't understand.
I'm just allowing his point.
Yeah.
No.
I'm just trying to.
I'm trying to see why.
Well, the Hamptons there.
I'd take the Hamptons out and let it start at 60.
Why?
Because.
It's 60 now.
They need certain amount if they want to go higher.
That's fine.
Are they going to have to probably contribute to road, would you?
Yeah.
That's.
No.
Well, that would that would constitute a public benefit.
So that would.
The public benefit.
Would.
Would be anything that's over and above was required for the EIR.
So if it ends up being an EIR mitigation.
Be about.
It's getting late.
Take the Hamptons out.
We're good.
All right.
I'll take the Hamptons out.
Okay.
That's the motion.
I already seconded.
Okay.
Is that your vote?
Yes.
So do we clear it?
No.
Actually, in the height.
We're still trying to.
So do we understand that you start with the heights in the existing general plan, but you can
go up to the balanced plan, except for the Hamptons?
No.
You start with the heights in the existing general plan.
Right.
In the existing general plan, anything that you can go higher with a retail component.
Right.
They go some fortified distance.
No.
The retail component gets changed to the.
I mean, like benefit.
I mean, benefit.
And North Falco gets shrunk to the Hamptons.
Okay.
But then the balanced plan recommended increased heights in.
There's no.
No.
Correct.
So okay.
The maximum height in the city.
There's two increased heights.
No.
Two increased heights.
Okay.
See the Hamptons.
The Hamptons.
And the hotel.
And it seems to be gone.
You know it.
Those are the only two.
No.
And it's the motion.
depred to.
And Steven's got this, but not about go.
No.
Very.
Well, why wouldn't we go for community benefits at state and
street conference.
Yeah.
What is that?
Do you guys want to increase the height?
And see we got this?
Okay.
Would think really benefits there to.
Didn't know.
Did you guys want to increase the height?
Huh?
Please bring those for heights.
Yes.
There was.
Where are the three votes for it?
I always want one.
I want one.
It was community benefits.
Yeah, we can mean that 45 feet and then higher with community benefits, yes. Yes, above 45 feet with the exception being in the Hampton.
Correct, exception being the Hampton.
And you guys got enough in this motion.
Well, what's the base on the phone tell for motion?
I mean, this is just getting ridiculous, guys.
Okay. I don't understand the question.
Okay, what I don't understand is where is where does the community benefit calculation start on the hotel?
A call to question.
Well, the part of the community benefit is already there in terms of the requirement for to be a five.
Could you bring different screen up?
That's cool.
Part of the community benefit is already baked into that in a five thousand square foot.
I'm going to note that because I don't know.
Right, you just don't know then you can start your motion again and go where it's called the question.
I'll be killed and you can go back to where you were.
Yep.
So go ahead.
Does planning staff understand that last height motion?
I'm a little confused.
Right. It doesn't matter what it is.
Well, it does matter.
No exception.
This is still a motion.
Yeah.
I think that if this this hotel or any other project around town is such a hot, wonderful benefit.
I think that the developer.
The hotel would be under restriction for community benefits.
We have a 400.
Yeah.
It would have been a five star.
I have five star facility.
It'll be a full service.
I want community benefits quantified.
I want the same formula applied to everybody in town.
You want to give 110 feet on a hotel.
And I respect that.
I'm not the answer.
We're including that one, right?
Would you?
I don't.
That's not to me a pretty calculated benefit.
I think it ought to be calculated beginning at 45 feet in above.
That's all.
Can I read what I understand it to be for the height part?
So you already have the 110 for the cupatino in.
And you have.
Go ahead.
Well, we're back and also.
Okay.
Potentially back and off.
And that's the problem.
Okay.
You're doing something for one developer.
And that's it.
No.
Is there any really benefit baked in that sort?
No, that's not much.
So I agree with what's wrong.
We need to have started all over again.
What is the same analysis?
What's the same general plan on the cupatino insight?
45 feet.
You're okay with the Hampton or not?
Yeah, fine.
I mean, I know we need to make it go as a housing element site.
And what was the proposal for Valco?
There was only for the Hampton.
It was 45.
Everything's right now.
I think it was 45.
But back in five.
What's the maximum height?
With 45.
So with community benefit?
Minima.
So.
Or what do you see 110 feet with community benefits with that?
110 feet with community benefits?
Yeah.
It's going to probably need to be about 110 feet if you're going to come and talk about the hotel.
Yeah.
If you're going to kind of play two main square feet of office, you've got to.
On the east side.
Please.
You're adding basically almost 10 percent.
And you need that open part of the motion, right?
Not just a trigger point.
Right.
It has to have it.
It has to have a maximum.
We're just trying to figure out what the cap is.
And we would recommend a cap for every site.
So that it's not on the minute.
Are we okay with the balance?
What?
No.
I don't know.
I mean, I hit the cap on the art thing.
What's that?
I'm sorry.
We have a fine arts commission that people have to do.
I don't know.
If you build a $2 billion building, you still only pay the same amount of somebody who builds a 5 million
dollar building.
No, when we said cap cap on maximum heights, that's what we're going to do.
We're just talking about cap.
I thought she meant maximum.
No, no, no, no.
We're talking about.
We can walk you through the recommended plan to say, these are the areas where the heights are over
and above the current general plan.
And you can tell us if you agree, okay, walk us through.
No, I don't want to go through it.
We have three locations only.
We have two.
If two, if we agreed on one, I'm not sure if we did a grand or not.
We've agreed on the hotel.
We've agreed on the Hamptons.
And then maybe, he has to agree on the hotel.
Or unless you, yeah.
I think there's three of us that did really tell.
But starting at what for the community benefit calculation
is my question, 90, 60.
I mean, to me, the community benefit spaked into that one.
Right.
No matter what, you can either build it.
You can either measure it later.
So we required them to put in a big conference room.
Yeah.
Do you want to take those requirements out and then call it a community benefit?
Or do you want to make them put it in?
Yeah.
I want to calculate it just like we do for any other project.
I don't know why we've make an exception.
No, I don't want to.
So they can come back and say the conference room is the community benefit.
All right.
But show us the pro-Farma.
Show us quantify that for us just as we would for any other body
that wants to come in with a height exception,
especially with this being sedarant all.
Comference room won't be the band of community benefit.
I'm not arguing about some error in what you think.
But to say this one is exceptional, seems to me to be inherently unfair and equitable.
We're doing something for one project that we would do for nobody else in town for what?
No, for anyone.
For some justification.
No, we've always talked about leading space when we do hotels.
Okay.
So why not quantify it as we were to community benefit from you people ask for any other project here?
So we would you?
That's all.
Yeah.
We would you.
We would make this more complicated.
I'm simply saying.
No.
I'm not.
I'm trying to make it right.
I'm trying to have a uniform and fair standard.
And I don't.
You're trying to have a uniform standard, I'm not sure you're trying to have a fair standard.
Well, fair.
Fair in the sense that there's a calculation to go through.
And if our economic analysis shows that the conference center as proposed,
brings the community benefit that gets quantified by the added height.
Great.
Then that then we could enter a D.A. and do that.
Now, I'll explain why I have issues with this.
Okay.
So that's fine.
We'll tag it.
At 15%, everything over 45 feet. I'm good with that. So what's the community benefit? I think the community wants a big meeting space.
And I think the community wants a five-star hotel and to get the five-star hotel you had to add from 45 to 110 feet, which is clearly like half the cost of the hotel.
Therefore, done. So how do you qualify? So whatever somebody wants to call community benefit later, they can assign enough money to that to make it work.
Okay, but my point is there's a process in the community that we're going through a process that is quantified and not just trying to figure it out tonight.
That is, you know, it's gotta be done. I'm still, you still got the two and three million square feet of office, which I'm sort of the whole motion still in there.
So like I said, you're getting a no for me, so fire away. I'm not into building stuff.
So I always vote no on these things, and I don't take money from developers.
Okay, so the motion is 45 feet unless it's a community benefit.
Except for the handpins. I'm good with that. Except for the handpins.
The handpins, he's good with that. He could be, he's handed 110 feet.
No, no, no, no, no.
And the envelope is defined in the balance plan, right? The maximum of that week.
The maximum is defined in the balance plan.
So, but the standard is 45 with exactly that.
I would like to note that the balance plan has increased heights in a number of locations.
No, no, we're not understanding. It is only for the hand.
Okay, once again, everything heights as is except for the handpins, which he's proposing taking out the balance plan.
Okay, could we tune in?
At 110.
And other sites, because we've got to say, okay, we've set the floor at 45.
They're not just bear with me. Okay.
All of the heights stay the same as they currently are.
In other words, if they have 45, they're allowed to go to 65, whatever.
Anybody, what he's saying is anybody over 45, except the Hampton.
And then the question is, how many can they pay for?
We need that cap.
And I'm saying that's the balance plan.
How much? No, that's a height limit.
So that automatically covers that.
It's a height limit.
But that's only four of the Hamptons in the Caribbean.
No, no, no.
So we're saying if you have a community benefit, you can go above 45.
Let's take side X.
Right.
So what everybody said earlier was there was only two sites.
And maybe a third that they wanted to go over the current height limit.
Correct.
So you're not.
There's a whole bunch of things in here that go higher.
Tons.
No, I think there's a bunch of applicants that would likely go higher.
And maybe come in with a community benefit.
I know you think that.
But what I heard was that only the two and maybe the third site was this group
Considering going high.
I don't know.
No, that's not.
So what?
I'll ask.
So you want to let everybody build in the sky?
No, no.
What Rod is saying is there's two there's two things.
If you have a trigger point of 45 that implied and you say you can go higher.
Now what you need to say, what does higher mean?
You can't say it's 45.
Okay.
In the current general plan is a bunch of sites that have 45.
When you can go higher.
If you have a retail component.
Right.
There's North Falco, which has a 60.
And then there would be the Hamptons.
And it could be 10 at land that would all be higher.
Okay.
That's not.
Well, I thought the balance.
The balance plan was a whole bunch of other things that can go higher, which we've never discussed.
No, no.
Are there.
I thought there were other things in the existing general plan where you go higher with retail.
There's a bunch of.
There's a bunch of things that are 45.
And you can go 60 with a real component.
So those are not the ones in the balance plan.
You keep a frame.
There's a whole bunch of other things that aren't in the current general plan.
No, no, no.
If that's in the, if that's an existing general plan, then those are the final.
If there's just caps in there, that's fine.
There are.
There's 45.
You've got a 60 with retail.
So you're changing the retail component out to the.
But you can refer to a balance plan.
We did not prove the balance.
No, no.
I'm not.
Right.
Why keep back going back to the balance.
Because there's no majority.
Because it's almost five o'clock in the morning.
It was fired.
Well, we, we do have the, we almost have.
We might have a majority.
Right.
We're very close.
I didn't say that.
I said, he said, why are you going back?
And I say, because it's late.
No, he said, why go back.
We're going to have a majority.
So.
Okay.
So if the motion is the existing general plan.
But we're, but we're, we're substituting.
But the other reason was that was a balanced plan.
And then it, for if I feel it could be better.
There's no balance.
No, right.
The original proposed motion was the existing general plan with additional heights for the
Hampton's and the.
That was a balanced plan with the exception of those two or three sites.
The original motion.
The original motion was.
Yeah.
The original motion was.
Yeah.
Rod.
That will do that.
So.
We will pass their vote.
Well, I mean.
Currently in the city, there's no place where we can build over 60 feet.
Is that correct?
Right.
My belief is there places in the city that are going to need more than 60.
We've talked about some of them.
You talked about the business park.
Right.
And we imagine that Valco is going to need more than 60.
Yeah.
So I'm generally okay with considering.
Caps that are referred to in the balanced plan.
But with a floor with community benefit starting at 45.
Okay.
That's my motion.
Yeah.
Okay.
With that now.
So Hampton's being an exception.
So people come in here and want to lynch you guys for a retock.
I'm going on a couple of space.
There's like a halt.
Do you know how many things you just increased the potential heights on?
With that motion.
Let's talk about them.
Okay.
Let's talk about them.
Okay.
Here's the first one.
The Oaks go to 60.
North Crossroads can go to 60.
City Center can now go to 75.
South Falco can go to 75.
I'm writing you the planning commission.
Go to for none of these.
So this one city center starts with 45 now.
Right.
You can go to 90.
So you can change that.
In the balanced plan.
You can go to 90.
North.
Well, no.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
So I would like to balance points.
The two are substituting.
Now we're going to benefit for retail.
We're not adding it on.
Right.
So what would we understand?
The same is B.
The maximum heights are in the balanced plan.
It's bigger.
Without.
Take out the retail wording.
And then the base height is 45.
And anything above that to the maximum height needs a community benefit.
That's what it's calculated.
So in the in the example of city center.
They can go to 90.
But the community benefits start from 45 to 90.
Anything above 45 requires a community.
And again, this is not a entitlement.
Right.
They've got to come with a specific.
No.
The base height.
They're allowed to 45.
Right.
And they can only go up.
If that's an option.
The council can pick if they like the community benefits.
Let me hear 45.
Now you want to change it to.
Same is B, which is now 60.
Or 75.
No.
The 45 is 45.
It's 45.
Everything's 45.
It currently has to maximum height to 45.
And it's going to go to 90.
No.
I'm just 20.
Guys.
45 is the.
I don't know.
No.
You said you want to go with the balance plan for the cap.
Right.
Which are huge numbers compared to what the currently are all across the map of the city.
I know it's late.
I think Rock was okay with the balance plan.
Because we need to get to move rock.
So balance plan will be the other thing that he said.
Well, kind of which the public wants these meetings.
I mean, they're like.
We're really good.
You want to say about.
I mean, you want to just.
Well, I always hope that the balance plan going forward.
Before the morning.
You know.
I believe in places like Valco.
That we're going to need more than 60 feet.
So I'm okay with a development agreement that lets us negotiate to.
What has been presented in the balance plan.
That's not to say that we're going to approve any project.
But it says that we have.
We will calculate.
The community benefit and then decide we might decide that.
You know, we don't want 90 feet in a certain location.
We're willing to negotiate to 75.
But I think that.
The.
Agreement gives us the flexibility to do that.
Right.
So the development agreement gives us the flexibility.
I'm there.
Yeah.
So that's what on it.
But I'm just.
I just.
My only interest right isn't getting 45.
I'm getting community benefit above 45.
Right.
Okay.
We're there.
I think.
Right.
I think so.
Is this still accept the Hamptons.
Yeah.
Okay.
Hamptons in the hotel.
No.
Well, yeah.
For Valco.
Another option.
Just to set the height through the specific plan and not try to figure it out.
And set the base of 45 in community benefit between that.
Whatever is the plan.
That's fine.
The only thing we set is the Hamptons.
I don't think we did accept the hotel.
I don't think the hotel needs to stay in the 45 for you.
Right.
Yeah.
Okay.
There's no.
I mean.
It's going to have a community benefit.
And it's got to be on a five and justified.
And it's 45.
The matter of a nine.
I have trouble.
So I have trouble.
It's not the hotel.
Well, you may have trouble.
But if you want to get a vote here.
Let's do it.
No.
Thank you.
I'm talking.
Keep on.
We're not going to get there.
And just continue.
No.
You guys still realize that you're changing the max.
I understand it has to be a benefit.
But you're changing the maximum height.
I just about everything.
We understand.
So what we're talking about now is the height of the thinking first.
So I call for the point of order.
And almost five o'clock.
Let's bow down and please.
Okay.
Are you okay with the hotel also?
Everything.
You know right now there's a reception in the hampton.
It's not everything.
I know.
Do you accept you know Hampton?
Yes.
And then everything.
Yes.
Everything.
Okay.
I got cut in.
To it.
So have to anchor it in.
Okay.
That's what Barry said.
Somebody.
Yes.
No.
Hampton.
The reception.
The rest of them is included.
The rest of them are in the rest of my community benefits.
Yeah.
For five.
That's what I see.
We have three votes.
So you need my vote.
All right.
Good.
You really want to vote.
No one is over that.
But that's okay.
Make your decision.
You got it.
No.
I did.
It's the start.
Can we start?
Please.
Time down.
I must have time out after two hours.
Something.
Okay.
So the C attorney wants me to make a motion.
I moved the C council meeting to be adjourned.
To November 18th to 645 PM.
At this location for continued public hearing consideration.
Delirition and decision.
On all Mayors listed on the number 10th 2014 agenda for all others businesses as listed
in the agenda.
Do I have a second?
So when is that?
That's our Tuesday regular meeting.
The Tuesday regular second.
Next week.
Correct.
Can you read that again?
I moved the C council meeting.
This is from C attorney.
I moved the C council meeting.
The adjourned to November 18th 2014.
I moved the C council meeting to be adjourned to November 18th.
She offered a 645 at this location for continued public hearing consideration.
Delirition and decision.
On all Mayors listed on the number 10th 2014 agenda.
And for all other businesses as listed in the agenda.
I'll second that.
I think I read.
For the loss of the attorney.
Does that mean we have to take public end but again?
If you close the public hearing.
I think you have you have to reopen it.
And I'll be a council action.
We will take one night when we can be in the meeting.
Yeah, we take public hearing first.
Again, if you.
Okay.
I'm good.
I'm hoping they'll come and talk about the heights.
Everybody, please.
Shall we?
Do we do we do not?
If there are three votes.
For council to reopen the public hearing.
Then you do if there are not three votes.
And you don't.
No, no.
We adjourn the meeting.
We're just a new adjourned item.
So I believe they have a right-hand public input.
Correct.
Check it.
You'll be clarified with the state attorney.
I'll check the state attorney.
She would indicate before she left it.
No, that would require council to reopen the public hearing.
She already closed it.
Because we closed it.
Right.
I'll check.
That's what she said.
Yeah, no.
You're closing.
Make sure we do it right.
Whatever that is.
Okay.
Please vote your lights.
Please bring out the screen.
No.
Motion carries.
To adjourn.
So I go ahead and move to adjourn.
The meeting to number 1865.
That's a record.
Thank you.