2026-10-20 - City Council

00:00Good evening. It is 5:47. Welcome to the

00:02October 20th, 2026 special meeting of

00:04the Cupertino City Council. This meeting

00:07is called to order.

00:09Madam City Clerk, will you please call

00:10the roll and note that all votes will be

00:12I will be roll call votes this evening.

00:15>> Yes, Mayor. Um Councilmember Fruen?

00:20>> Here.

00:21>> Councilmember Mohan?

00:22>> Here.

00:23>> Councilmember Wong?

00:25>> Here. Uh this is the

00:28Here.

00:29>> Thank you. Mayor Moore?

00:31>> Here.

00:31>> Thank you. And um as a reminder or

00:34actually Councilmember Fruen and Vice

00:37Mayor is walking up right now.

00:39Councilmember Fruen, um I am confirming

00:41that you are attending the meeting

00:43tonight under just cause exemption under

00:45government code section

00:4754953.8.3

00:50due to a contagious illness that

00:52prevents a member from attending in

00:53person. Is that correct?

00:56>> That is correct.

00:57>> Thank you. And can you confirm whether

00:58there is anyone over the age of 18 in

01:00the room with you?

01:01>> There is not presently anyone over the

01:03age of 18 in the room with me.

01:06>> Thank you, Councilmember Fruen. And um

01:08noted for the record that Vice Mayor

01:09Chao is um present.

01:12>> All right. Thank you. And our first item

01:15is a study session regarding 22100

01:18Stevens Creek Boulevard, which is the

01:19Blue Pheasant property,

01:21uh also known as Hungry Jack's in the

01:25online agreements. Madam City Manager,

01:27do we have a presentation or report for

01:29this item?

01:30>> Thank you, Mayor. So, as you mentioned,

01:32tonight's study session item provides an

01:34overview of the proposed next steps for

01:36the city-owned property currently leased

01:38by Blue Pheasant Restaurant. With their

01:40lease coming to an end soon, the space

01:42will become available and staff is

01:44seeking council direction on how to

01:46proceed with the property. Presenting

01:48this item tonight will be Economic

01:50Development Manager Daniel De Goo and

01:52with him this evening to answer

01:53questions will also be Public Works

01:55Director Chad Mosley. And with that, I

01:56will turn it over to staff.

02:01>> Thank you, City Manager Kapoor. And good

02:03evening, Mayor and City Council members.

02:18Is the presentation showing on the

02:20screen? Just wanted to confirm.

02:23Excellent.

02:26As the City Manager outlined, uh tonight

02:29we are seeking Council direction

02:31regarding the future use of the

02:32city-owned property currently leased to

02:35Blue Pheasant.

02:36This presentation will provide

02:38background on the property and outline a

02:40proposed request for proposals RFP

02:44process should the Council wish to lease

02:46the space to a commercial tenant.

02:52Blue Pheasant's lease expires on

02:54November 30, 2026, and the tenant has

02:57indicated their intention to not renew

02:59their lease, making the space available

03:01starting December 1st.

03:03The space is approximately 6,800 square

03:06feet and includes a kitchen, bar,

03:09banquet room, office, and restrooms

03:13along with 92 shared parking spaces.

03:16The property has a parks and recreation

03:18zoning designation with a restaurant use

03:20permitted by the Council in 2013.

03:24For context, lease revenue for this

03:26tenant

03:27for 2025 totaled around a a 110,000

03:31dollars and has been approximately that

03:33amount annually.

03:40Should the Council desire to continue

03:41leasing the space to a commercial

03:43tenant, staff proposes an RFP process to

03:46identify a new tenant.

03:48The objectives and evaluation of the RFP

03:51would focus on activating the space with

03:54an experienced and financially capable

03:56operator

03:57while balancing neighborhood fit,

03:59economic return, and overall community

04:01benefit.

04:03Food and beverage uses, including

04:05restaurants, could be considered

04:07and the council may choose to prioritize

04:09or exclude uses from the RFP.

04:16To support the solicitation process,

04:19staff would conduct targeted outreach to

04:21businesses and seek support from the

04:23economic development committee.

04:25Before proposals are due, the city would

04:27also offer an informational meeting and

04:30an open house.

04:32The proposed RFP process would have two

04:34phases and align with the city's

04:36purchasing policy wherein proposals for

04:39phase one followed by interviews and

04:42oral presentations for phase two.

04:44Staff would then negotiate with the

04:46highest rated proposers and any proposed

04:48lease would return to the council for

04:50consideration and approval.

04:56If council wishes to proceed with an

04:58RFP, staff is requesting confirmation of

05:01the preferred use, tenant profile, and

05:04solicitation approach. The RFP process

05:07will be based on council's direction

05:09from tonight.

05:10If the council prefers a different path,

05:13council may instead request analysis of

05:15alternative uses or additional

05:17feasibility work.

05:22In closing and my final slide, staff

05:24recommends that council receive this

05:26update and provide direction on how to

05:29proceed with the property. Thank you.

05:34>> Great. Thank you, Daniel, for the

05:35report. And at this time, do we have any

05:39clarifying questions from the city

05:41council?

05:46Vice Mayor.

05:55>> Okay. Hi. Thank you.

05:57So, just curious, uh seems kind of late

06:01until the expiration date. So, I'm just

06:05wondering, is there um in the contract

06:09um um

06:10number of days they are supposed to

06:13notify the city ahead of time?

06:16>> There is language in the agreement for

06:18notification by the uh by the tenant,

06:21and they did provide that information to

06:23staff as far as notification.

06:25>> So, what's the required notification

06:28period?

06:31>> I believe it was a 180 days.

06:33>> So, they did provide that notice 180

06:37days?

06:38>> They did provide notice that they were

06:40interested in um

06:43ending their lease, potentially selling

06:45their business. Um we asked them to

06:48provide us some further information.

06:50That information ultimately didn't end

06:52up coming, and so then we've basically

06:55brought we've decided to bring the lease

06:57to council. So.

06:58>> So, we know about this about 4 months

07:01earlier or 5 months earlier?

07:04>> Yeah.

07:06>> Uh

07:07okay.

07:09Thank you.

07:17>> Councilmember Wong.

07:19>> Uh just following up on uh Vice Mayor's

07:21question. Um so, we knew about the lease

07:23uh from 6 months ago, and why is it just

07:25coming up now instead of earlier? Uh

07:27what were some of the mitigating

07:28factors, or there's other things that

07:30came into play? I think that's what she

07:31was getting at.

07:33>> Yeah, to to what our public works

07:34director mentioned, the

07:36the business owner did indicate that

07:38there was potentially some other

07:40interest from another business

07:41purchasing the prop uh purchasing the

07:43business.

07:44Uh but when staff did follow up with the

07:47uh owner, there wasn't much traction uh

07:50after those communications.

07:53>> And I may be able to provide a little

07:54more clarity on that. The owner was

07:56interested in extending their existing

07:58lease,

07:59um but potentially extending it under a

08:02new business owner. So, we said,

08:04"Provide us the information so that we

08:06can present that to City Council." We

08:08did not get that information, and that's

08:10when we decided to bring it to City

08:11Council.

08:12>> So, just for clarification then, is the

08:14existing business still for sale? Does

08:16the liquor license still stay with them,

08:19or is someone going to reapply and do

08:20all that?

08:21>> My understanding is they would have to

08:22reapply for a liquor license.

08:24>> Okay. But if they were to buy out the

08:25business, then they could keep that and

08:27continue it. Is that correct?

08:28>> Potentially, yes.

08:29>> Okay. For those folks that are listening

08:30that might want to purchase a restaurant

08:31with a liquor license. So, thank you.

08:35>> Vice Mayor.

08:37>> Yeah, so just to clarify, so there is

08:39the other possibility of by purchasing

08:43the business if anyone is interested.

08:49>> Um I know the current owner is still

08:52interested in talking with individuals

08:54about this. I don't know that he's had

08:56anybody express any interests

08:59um with respect to

09:02you know,

09:03him selling the business, that would

09:04still require council approval.

09:07>> Yeah, um but then

09:10there doesn't doesn't seem to have been

09:13any publicity about his potential his

09:17willingness to sell, so maybe the

09:20potential buyers are not even aware

09:23there is this opportunity, right?

09:26>> I am not sure what type of uh outreach

09:29uh the business owner performed with

09:31respect to to selling the business.

09:33>> I I do wish this had come to the council

09:36earlier because even if the city have to

09:40do RFP everything takes time. The city

09:43would need 6 months and all the delay

09:45means

09:47loss of

09:48uh rent revenue for the city.

09:52Um and also if they it had brought to

09:54the county been brought to the council

09:56earlier, that also help publicize the

10:00the potential opportunity

10:03uh for sale. So

10:06>> I think Vice Mayor just to to clarify on

10:08one note, if the

10:11um you know, the in a in a hypothetical

10:13situation, if the business owner was to

10:15sell the business, I I think the lease

10:17terms would still be a consideration,

10:20right? So, if the lease ends, um the

10:22city will still need to kind of step in.

10:24>> Yeah, I know we need to renegotiate

10:27everything, but still it would it might

10:29help them publicize and then yeah, we

10:33should have this they had this good

10:35discussion 5 months earlier.

10:37>> Yeah, there was some back and forth with

10:38the business owner that there was some

10:41lack of clarity but we tried to bring it

10:42as as quickly as we can cuz we want to

10:45do it obviously before the lease ends

10:47and get your um input.

10:49>> Thank you.

10:52>> I I have just have a quick question. Um

10:55Yelp has this uh property listed under

10:58dance clubs.

10:59Um and that evening hours on some nights

11:03run from 5:00 p.m. to midnight. Uh

11:06several reviewers describe dancing to

11:09'80s and some current high-energy DJ

11:11music Wednesday through Sunday.

11:13Um is uh and there's some karaoke there

11:17as well. Uh couple of questions, is uh

11:21having this be a dance hall, dance club,

11:23is that a permitted use um for parks and

11:27recreation zoned um

11:30building that's accessory to the golf

11:32course?

11:36>> I think back in 2005

11:39or maybe it was 2013, the city council

11:42had

11:43or I should say staff had recommended it

11:46to city council with

11:48I want to say there was a zoning

11:49amendment that wasn't approved.

11:52Um at that time

11:55the restaurant was considered an

11:56accessory use to the golf course.

11:58>> Mhm.

11:58>> And with the leases, there were specific

12:03uses that were permitted in that lease.

12:05I think you know, restaurant, bar,

12:08banquet room.

12:10Um and I think to a certain extent

12:14dancing may be considered

12:16accessory to a banquet hall, but

12:19that's for somebody else to speculate.

12:22>> Correct. Okay. Next council member Mohan

12:25and I I would want to make sure council

12:28member Wong, your hand is still raised.

12:29I don't know if you wanted to be back in

12:31the queue.

12:32Okay, thank you.

12:34>> Yeah, so in

12:38uh in your opinion,

12:40how long would it take for this whole

12:42process to go through the RFP, the

12:44issuance of the RFP, the return, the

12:46review, and when is when do you think we

12:50can get a new tenant if that's the way

12:52we we proceed?

12:55>> Yeah, I think that's a great question.

12:57It really depends, right, on the

12:58process, what we're getting as far as uh

13:01proposals and the negotiation, but I

13:04think by the we'll occupy the space by

13:07December and by the end of the year this

13:10this proposal should be able to go out

13:12and hopefully by beginning of the year

13:13we should have some information as far

13:16as proposals and being able to review

13:17that and going through phase one and

13:19phase two. So, I would say within Q1 we

13:21should hopefully be in a good place

13:23where we can start to identify tenants

13:25and start negotiating.

13:28>> And does the council how does the RFP

13:31process work? We get the responses and

13:34then is it reviewed by staff or by

13:36council or

13:37>> Yeah, we would just be following the the

13:39city's policy. Um the city's procurement

13:42policy. So we'll have a formal RFP

13:44process.

13:46Uh there'll be a window for businesses

13:48to provide their proposals and then

13:50staff would be able to review that and

13:52then score those proposals and then at

13:55some point once we finish phase one and

13:57phase two of the process then come back

13:59to council once negotiations are done

14:01with a proposed agreement.

14:03>> Okay, so it's likely then that there'll

14:05be a four or five month gap when there's

14:08nothing. There's

14:10Okay, thank you.

14:13Vice Mayor.

14:15>> Thank you.

14:16So

14:17um

14:18I guess it's interesting to question

14:21whether dancing is considered a

14:24recreation. I do consider it is.

14:27And also

14:29I have danced there and this is might be

14:32the only place with music that fit my

14:35age group. All these other bars, they

14:38have this

14:39they are music for the new generation.

14:42So I really

14:43am disappointed that we will be losing

14:46Blue Pheasant and I hope someone else

14:49can take over and provide similar kind

14:51of opportunity.

14:53Um but I think it it is a question

14:55though if it has

14:57if it is allowed liquor license, is that

15:00something uh

15:03part of the recreation

15:05under

15:07on the city property that

15:10But I my question for this is we have

15:14heard of some recent disturbance at the

15:16property. So has there been any

15:19disturbance? I guess first question is

15:22there any been disturbance because of it

15:25provides dancing

15:26or what this disturbance might be

15:30because of liquor license?

15:33And I think the neighborhood has

15:35complained about some noise from the

15:38property. Just curious about what's the

15:40source

15:42of potential

15:44>> I can potentially answer a little bit of

15:46that. I know

15:48probably about 15 years ago, I think

15:50during the 2013 lease renewal, there

15:53were concerns from residents about

15:55parking intrusion into the neighborhoods

15:57and noise late at night in the parking

15:59lot. That's probably people carrying on

16:01in the parking lot after the restaurant

16:03closed. I know that the current owner

16:07was

16:08very

16:09adamant about ensuring that things

16:11stayed quiet outside and worked very

16:14diligently over the last, you know,

16:1713 years to keep it quiet. I know

16:19recently we heard some noise

16:21disturbances and partially that's

16:22because the current owner actually fell,

16:24broke his leg, and was out of the

16:26restaurant uh

16:28late at night for a number of months and

16:30I think we started to hear some

16:32complaints about late night noise. He

16:35did speak with the

16:36restaurant manager and my understanding

16:38is that's been curbed and addressed and

16:41is being dealt with. I haven't heard any

16:43complaints since then.

16:44>> So that's what I want to know. So even

16:46if it does have provide has provide

16:49liquor and late night um

16:53um

16:54activities, but it hasn't really been a

16:57disturbance, not annoyance to the

17:00neighborhood because it has been under

17:03control. That's really good to know.

17:05Yeah.

17:11>> Okay, so the base rent for this property

17:14is about $80,625

17:17a year for about 6,800

17:21square feet. Plus, there's 92 shared

17:24parking spaces, and that works out to

17:27about 99 cents. I mean, 99 Yeah, 99

17:31cents, less than a dollar um per square

17:34foot per month. And then, um

17:38when I

17:39do a comparison for other

17:41uh retail and restaurant space in the

17:44area, um that looks more like over $3

17:49per square foot.

17:51Um

17:51and then,

17:53the percentage

17:55um

17:56of the

17:58rent that you you get the 6% of their

18:02gross sales, and that's amounting to

18:04about $30,000

18:07uh annually,

18:09um

18:09which would mean that their reported

18:12gross sales is about 500,000 per year.

18:16Um and is that including the banquet

18:20banquet room use? And um do you know how

18:24often the banquet room is being rented

18:27out? Is that part of the contract that

18:29we get money there? Um and then, working

18:33backwards, I'm trying to understand how

18:35it is they're able to

18:37um pay the rent if they're only bringing

18:40in um

18:42the 500,000 per year.

18:45>> Um has that been looked into?

18:48You know, do you look at a monthly cost

18:50there?

18:52>> Uh a lot of questions here. I may need

18:53to pull up our finance director. Um

18:57but yeah, I think, you know, with

18:59respect to

19:00the banquet room, I think that's also

19:02where they have the restaurant. Uh I

19:04imagine any form of rental of the

19:06banquet room would

19:08uh be included in the gross sales.

19:10Um

19:13I you know, I I when it comes to the the

19:15rent, I'm sure that's, you know, with

19:17their gross profits, it should be enough

19:18for them to

19:20uh to pay rent. Uh I will state that um

19:23the owner verbally said that he wasn't

19:25making a lot of money over the last few

19:27years and uh that may be part of the

19:30reason why.

19:31>> Okay. Um so, yeah. So, part of my

19:35question there is is um you know, how

19:37much is

19:38Have we gone over through Do we have

19:40like tax returns or something to uh

19:42ensure that we know

19:44um

19:45what their what their gross sales

19:46actually are?

19:48Um

19:50And do we

19:51perhaps have some more information on

19:52this? Would I be able to find this in

19:54our accounts payable register um for the

19:57payments that we're receiving from Blue

19:59Pheasant?

20:02>> Hello. Good evening. Um

20:04Honorable Mayor and council members. Um

20:06the way the finance bills uh Blue

20:10Pheasant, it includes the base rent,

20:13which it currently is 6715,

20:16plus an additional approximate $2,000,

20:19which is an estimate of what they will

20:21be generating in gross receipts, the 6%

20:24of the

20:25uh of gross receipts. At year end, so

20:28sometime in Mar- or at the close of each

20:30calendar year, once the

20:33the business does their taxes, they

20:35provide their tax return to the city, at

20:37which point the city will then issue a

20:40supplemental invoice. So, for instance,

20:43last year we received, I'm going to say

20:45about half a million dollars in gross

20:47rece- They received about half a million

20:49dollars in gross receipts, and we issued

20:51them a supplemental invoice to the sum

20:53about $6,000. So, 2 months or $2,000 per

20:57month gets us 24,000,

21:00and the additional $6,000 was billed in

21:02March as a collection as a supplemental.

21:06>> Okay. So, if I'm looking at what other

21:10restaurants are having to pay for their

21:14leases within Cupertino, and it's like

21:16triple what the Blue Pheasant's

21:19charging, and then I pulled up the old

21:21contracts. So, we're actually

21:24making less than was projected that we

21:27would

21:28receive in rent for 2017. That was

21:31$128,000

21:33for year 2017, and now we're around 100

21:37What are we at? 110,000?

21:39Um so, we're actually doing doing

21:43less than before,

21:45um and also the other restaurants,

21:48they're they they have to be doing

21:50something that they're able to clear the

21:51$3 per square foot or 350 per square

21:54foot.

21:55Um

21:56and I'm you know, this is making it

21:58sound as though this

22:01it's that it's busy, that there's people

22:03coming into this restaurant. Uh

22:06But

22:08can Is there some explanation for

22:11how much how much they're making on the

22:13restaurant versus versus others in the

22:16city? I'm just trying to understand how

22:18this is is working out and why the city

22:21didn't try to

22:23uh

22:24find perhaps years ago a different um

22:29a different restaurant or use for this

22:32facility since it looks like it's really

22:35kind of an untapped resource.

22:37>> Of course. So,

22:38to your point, they they were making

22:40about 120 to Well, about 120 to 2017,

22:44which included about $82,000 in rental,

22:4782,500,

22:49and grocery seats equated to about

22:5138,000,

22:53which gave

22:54just north of 120, about 121,000 total.

22:58So, if you factor in inflation, one

23:00could argue that they should be making

23:02north of $800,000 in total revenue of

23:05which

23:06um

23:07it would be

23:08in gross receipts which would then

23:10equate to about uh

23:13Let's see. Give me a brief moment.

23:18Which would then equate to

23:21uh an additional fifth Well, about

23:22$50,000 in

23:24uh

23:26gross receipt rental and gross receipts

23:28revenue, right? And so, comparing to

23:31what we're receiving today, which is

23:3230,000. So, there is something going on

23:35there. Now, as far as the operations, I

23:37can't say anything to that cuz that's

23:39kind of beyond our at least from finance

23:41our perspective our

23:43uh influence.

23:44Um

23:45and we have not performed a an analysis

23:47comparing Blue Pheasant to other uh um

23:51um like Coffee Society, but we're

23:53building them. So, it's one of those um

23:56analysis that we could perform and get

23:57back to council

23:59if council chooses.

24:00>> I'm Yeah, so I don't think that Coffee

24:02Society would be a good comparison. One

24:04of the issues with Coffee Society is

24:06that they um

24:07designed it too small so that it doesn't

24:09have a space for its own uh like kitchen

24:12to be a proper sandwich shop there. Um

24:15and we're at 6,800

24:18square feet. Um I would like to

24:22know a little bit more about the size of

24:24the banquet hall there.

24:26Um

24:27how much of this space is for kitchen uh

24:31how much is for seating it's the bar a

24:35separate area, how much is

24:37uh

24:37used for the the dance floor. So, for

24:41Parks and Recreation, this is not

24:44incidental to a golf course. And I think

24:47you could also argue that a bar isn't in

24:50incidental to the the golf course. But,

24:53certainly it's typical to see the golf

24:55course to have um a cafe uh and and this

24:59building also has the pro shop as well.

25:02Um

25:03So, there was

25:05an AP register for September showing the

25:08city paying $553

25:10for a utility bill for 22100 Stevens

25:13Creek Boulevard. Is that shared meter

25:17for the pro shop or is that something

25:20that the tenant

25:22should be paying or

25:25does anyone know what the issue is with

25:27that?

25:29>> We can look into that. I I can't say

25:31with that the certainty what it relates

25:34to at this point.

25:35>> Okay.

25:36Um that would be good and I think

25:39perhaps the the city attorney would need

25:41to let us know what is incidental to the

25:44golf course

25:45um

25:46with regards to the 2013 determination

25:50and I did

25:51um submit the

25:53minutes from 2013

25:55uh

25:56and the staff report from 2013 which

25:59showed how much revenue

26:01they were

26:03uh predicting at that time.

26:06Um

26:07and

26:09I think we do need to know more about

26:11what the neighbors complaints are cuz

26:13there were

26:14in within the minutes there were a

26:15number of complaints

26:17um

26:18from the neighbors back in 2013

26:20and

26:22need to know what's going on with that

26:25and why the why the um

26:27business is allowed to stay open so late

26:32um as well.

26:36Okay.

26:39>> Mayor um

26:40>> Yes.

26:41>> The business operating hours is in the

26:44agreement which is 11:00 p.m.

26:47And

26:49the complaints that we've received

26:51recently had to do with noise beyond

26:54that time.

26:55So we reached out to the owner to make

26:58sure he understands that even if the

27:00restaurant's closed, any disturbance in

27:02the parking lot is also the operator's

27:04responsibility. But that's the kind of

27:06the hours in the

27:07agreement.

27:09>> Okay.

27:10And that's that's a little different

27:12from like what Yelp is showing

27:15um

27:16about individual

27:16>> I have the lease agreement.

27:18>> Mhm.

27:18>> Uh in the lease agreement it says that

27:19they can

27:20uh doors of the restaurant and bar shall

27:22close at 11:00 in the evening and no

27:25person shall be allowed in the premises

27:26after that time. No alcohol shall be

27:28served after 11:30 in the evening. All

27:30music should stop no later than 12:00

27:31midnight and the parking lot should be

27:33cleared of all patron vehicles by 12:30.

27:35>> I'm I'm sorry Councilmember Wong, could

27:37you

27:38read the first sentence there again?

27:40It sounded like it closes at 11:00 but

27:42everything it keeps going.

27:43>> Once you're in once you're in you're in.

27:46The premises close at 11:00.

27:47>> The doors close but if you're already

27:49there you you can continue partying on.

27:51>> No new persons can be allowed in the

27:52premise and everyone has to be out of

27:54there by

27:5512:00.

27:56>> Mhm.

27:57>> 12:30 12:30.

27:59Music stops at 12:30.

28:00>> What what and what days what days of the

28:02week?

28:04>> Seven days.

28:08It's a good lease. If anyone wants to

28:09buy the assume the lease they should.

28:11>> And we basically never increased the

28:14the cost over all this

28:16>> That I don't know. I'm just looking at

28:17the old I'm flipping through old leases.

28:19>> Going yeah so in the written

28:21communication what I turned in from 2013

28:24was showing

28:25>> It's been the same.

28:26>> Yeah, we haven't

28:28really managed this property I would say

28:31to its

28:33best advantage. Um

28:34>> So

28:35>> So I'm I've finished speaking. I'm not

28:37sure I do see Vice Mayor as number two,

28:41number three Councilmember Wong. Is this

28:43correct?

28:44Vice Mayor?

28:45>> Yeah.

28:45>> Okay.

28:46>> Show me?

28:47>> Yes.

28:50Hello. Hi. I'm just curious. I think

28:53this location is isolated from

28:58other So, it's not a typical restaurant

29:01location that has

29:03foot traffic from elsewhere, but it does

29:06have the benefit of ample parking. So,

29:11do Do we have any market analysis on

29:14whether this kind of a restaurant

29:16normally

29:18would

29:19have lower rent because the location

29:23affect how much revenue they can

29:25generate? Do we have any

29:28market analysis on those?

29:30>> Um so, there has been We have done some

29:32analysis, uh but generally speaking,

29:34yes, if the location is not, you know,

29:38surrounding other types of businesses

29:41that are in that kind of space, then it

29:42does kind of create a

29:44uh a different type of environment. So,

29:47it could be that's why the leases are

29:48lower in areas like that. So, that's

29:51possible. It's very possible.

29:53>> And it it does seem quite low. So, do we

29:58know whether the

30:01the lease price has increased over time?

30:05Um in And also, I'm curious whether

30:08their revenue generated has um come

30:12historically

30:13increased or it has come down after

30:15COVID, for example. Do we have

30:18information on those?

30:19>> I can provide very general information

30:21on that. The lease agreement that was

30:23established in 2013 kind of set a base

30:26rent. Uh I believe it was at the six

30:296,700

30:30with no

30:32um

30:33ability to increase that that rental

30:35rate. I think what was intended was that

30:38the gross sales from the business

30:41uh would a would compensate for

30:45um that increase.

30:48I think prior to COVID, we were seeing

30:51generally an increase in revenue every

30:53year from the business. COVID

30:55um

30:56really kind of hampered the business for

30:58uh almost a year and a half, and I

31:01believe since then they haven't quite

31:03been able to recover back to uh levels

31:05before COVID.

31:07>> So, how much is the level before the

31:10normal

31:12amount?

31:14I mean, probably because the the owner's

31:17age, that maybe they have not really

31:19operated at it at the full capacity.

31:24>> So, the city earned in uh 2017 6% of

31:29gross receipts equated to about 37

31:32878,

31:34whereas in 2018, we started seeing a

31:36decline at to 35,866.

31:41So, with that, we have seen a steady

31:43decline since then. We are now seeing

31:46approximately $30,000 in gross receipts.

31:50So, factoring in inflation,

31:53>> is the

31:542017 number

31:57uh comparable

31:59in terms of the return to the city for

32:01this kind of property?

32:04>> We would have to perform that analysis.

32:06I don't have that for you today.

32:07>> Mhm. Okay, thank you.

32:13>> Councilmember Wong.

32:15>> Uh thank you.

32:17So, I know we've been harping on this

32:18for a little bit, but I think we have a

32:19unique opportunity to bring a new

32:20business with 92 parking spots, more

32:23experiential programming. Um so, I I

32:26want to know what efforts have we put

32:28into place to identify potential

32:29operators with the experience to serve a

32:31new demographic,

32:32uh and if staff can come back with a

32:34marketing plan and what the potential

32:36rental revenue would be. Uh if we could

32:38establish that and also look at a triple

32:40net lease option. Uh triple net lease

32:42for those who don't know is basically

32:43base rent plus real estate taxes,

32:45building insurance, and maintenance and

32:46repairs. Uh right now we cover exterior

32:48maintenance. Uh we should include that

32:50in the triple net so that you have

32:52exterior interior covered by the new

32:53operator. Um and so hopefully we can

32:56engage some commercial property person

32:58to go do that um to get the maximum rent

33:00and the maximum opportunity. Um has that

33:03been laid forth? If that's already been

33:04laid forth, just ignore me.

33:05>> No, we can do that. Some of that stuff

33:07we haven't done yet, so we can do that.

33:09>> Thank you.

33:10>> Okay.

33:10>> So I'm going to

33:12uh sort of ask a question and we're

33:13going to go for public comment real

33:15quick. Um so if they're

33:17re- assuming 500,000

33:20um per year

33:21and

33:24if you have

33:25restaurants I'm finding have about 30 to

33:2835% of the sales are for labor, that

33:31would be 150 to 175,000 per year.

33:34Um that's it doesn't really fit. This is

33:38only about three full-time minimum wage

33:40shifts per day.

33:42Um and then if you had a dance night,

33:45you're going to need a cook, dishwasher,

33:47couple of bartenders, servers, a door

33:50security person, manager, and you've got

33:53a DJ cuz they mentioned they have DJs.

33:55So I don't know how they're actually

33:57being able to pay all of these employees

33:59that they would need to have on site

34:02each day if they're only bringing in

34:04about um 1,400

34:07No, about 1,600 per day that they're

34:09open cuz they're closed on Mondays.

34:11Um has anyone had a chance to look into

34:14that?

34:15Okay, so I would like to know more about

34:17that. I think that's really important.

34:18So at this time we're going to go for

34:20public comment. Uh Madam City Clerk, do

34:21we have any members of the public that

34:22would like to speak on this item?

34:25>> Yes, Mayor. We have one request to speak

34:27in person. Um so at this time we'll go

34:28ahead and welcome Rhoda.

34:30>> Hi. Good evening, council members. I

34:33wrote you a note and uh

34:36I talked with a couple of neighbors last

34:38night. Um

34:39one actually neighbor is very far away,

34:42but very close to the site. Did not get

34:44notice and I think it would be good to

34:47get the neighbors involved. Um

34:51Particularly, I know there's a number of

34:53people over on Farlap uh who had issues.

34:57And I did write quite a bit you guys uh

35:01apparently it had been a big site for

35:03prostitution in the past. When my son

35:05was little, I was walking him around the

35:07orange orchard and we found

35:09some used condoms.

35:11You know, uh there's a lot of things

35:13that go along with this type of

35:15operation.

35:17And, you know, I get it. When it was

35:19privately owned, cuz this was part of

35:21the golf course and the swim

35:23and everything.

35:24And then we kind of get we continued

35:25that business. Now we have an

35:27opportunity to rethink it. It had been

35:28rethought in the way past. We're talking

35:31maybe teen center or something like

35:32that.

35:33Maybe I'm a prude. I am a prude.

35:37I do think that having the city owning a

35:40bar, night club, is

35:43odd.

35:45Um and and fraught with

35:47potential issues as there have been. Um

35:51I want to

35:52address a council member Wong's comment.

35:55Um

35:57I don't We don't I don't see I don't

36:00think we should be looking to maximize

36:02revenue from our facilities. We

36:03certainly don't do that with the

36:04library. Obviously, this would be a

36:06commercial

36:08commercial venue and certainly we nice

36:10to break even. I know that parks and rec

36:12we we do it seems like they actually pay

36:14their own way, which is good.

36:16But I think that the focus needs to be

36:18really on on serving serving the

36:19community. And I'm sure that you were

36:21thinking along those lines as well. Um

36:23so, you know, when we're We're to look

36:25at the RFP, what does our community

36:27need? And I know that, you know, uh

36:30Vice Mayor Chiao, you

36:31you'd like to see something for for the

36:33older generation.

36:35But I I can tell you the noise has been

36:37disruptive. And when people leave there

36:40at night, there's a hill going you know,

36:43each way. And and it is disruptive to

36:46the neighbors. And if they don't if if

36:48we don't involve them, you're not going

36:49to hear from them.

36:51Right?

36:52I where I live, I don't hear the cars,

36:54but I have heard I have heard the music.

36:55And as I said, I'm I'm quite a distance

36:57away.

36:58You know, and and and certainly

37:02having a nightclub is not ancillary to a

37:05golf course.

37:06Having a cafe, having a lunch spot, it's

37:10although a restaurant probably

37:12could not make

37:14make ends meet that way. And that's the

37:16other thing regarding the rent. And

37:17that's something that

37:19Mayor was talking about. I think that

37:21tying tying the rent with revenue and

37:23getting a boost from that is also

37:25potentially problematic. I think the

37:27rent should be

37:29fixed and and actually per

37:33Done.

37:34Thank you.

37:35>> Thank you. Thank you, Rhoda. And to

37:37Mayor, at this time there are no

37:39requests to be virtually on this item.

37:42>> Uh Vice Mayor.

37:45>> Um just brainstorming. If we

37:49right now it brings in 110

37:52a year, I think.

37:54And if we might consider non-commercial

37:58use,

38:00uh could we estimate if

38:03for example,

38:05it could be a

38:07Cupertino Historical Society may finally

38:10have a home, or this could be a

38:12nonprofit center where nonprofit can

38:16lease office and uh pay rent.

38:20And if it's this kind of non-profit

38:22office center,

38:25and how much rent the city might be able

38:28to collect from various non-profit,

38:32could that be a potential use

38:35that's

38:36um we evaluate?

38:39>> We could evaluate that and if the

38:41council desires that type of use, that

38:42that could be possible. Um the space

38:45right now is currently kind of built for

38:47a restaurant. There's equipment in there

38:50that's restaurant-based, so aside from

38:52those types of modifications needed to

38:54the space, that could be possible.

38:56>> have um

38:58it could be a non-profit center that has

39:01banquet facility, right? And then but

39:04with are there spaces for offices that

39:08could be configured to office?

39:11>> We would have to look at that, but if

39:12that's the desire, we can try to see how

39:14that works. But we would have to look at

39:16that when we get the space in December.

39:18>> Sure.

39:20Okay.

39:22>> Okay.

39:23>> Um so we out at uh McClellan Ranch, we

39:27have a couple of uh non-profits which um

39:30are leasing space. So one is the Friends

39:32of Stevens Creek Trail has uh some

39:35office space there along with the uh

39:38Silicon Valley Bird Alliance, formerly

39:40known as the Audubon Society. Um so we

39:42do have a couple of examples that could

39:44be brought back. I don't feel like there

39:45is consensus on what we would have at

39:48this time for uh an RFP, so I feel as

39:51though this needs to come back. Um I do

39:54think that we need to get the zoning

39:56question answered um for customarily uh

40:00incidental uh uses uh with regards to

40:04both um the bar and the uh dance club

40:08and to understand more about the um

40:11internal

40:12uh the condition of the property, such

40:15as when was the

40:17when was the kitchen last updated? Is

40:19that something that a new tenant would

40:22want to be using immediately? That it's

40:24in good condition with good venting and

40:26all for whatever menu that they would be

40:29interested in in providing or is this

40:31something that the new tenant would need

40:33to

40:34do, you know, gut and and replace

40:37all of that?

40:39I think I agree with the member of the

40:42public to talk to the neighbors and

40:46if we're going to have some potential

40:48change in use, it doesn't sound as

40:50though we're interested in intensifying

40:51the use because

40:53it's been

40:56they've had issues, noise issues.

40:58Um

40:59and I would like to have some clarity

41:00around whether or not there is has been

41:02any outdoor amplified sound, if it's all

41:04been inside and do they keep the windows

41:06closed?

41:08And then with that, you can if you've,

41:11you know, heard neighbors blasting music

41:13even with the windows closed, depending

41:15on how the construction of the building

41:17is, you can still hear the noise

41:18outside. So I am kind of curious if if

41:21that's been any kind kind of an issue

41:24cuz they are surrounded at least, you

41:26know, directly adjacent on the on the

41:28east side with

41:30single family residential there.

41:33Um

41:34And would like to know what the council

41:37thinks about the continuing of the

41:39liquor license. It seems like their

41:41hours of operation need to be pulled

41:44back from allowing folks to continue

41:47going into the club and then

41:52that it's staying open past then cuz I

41:55it would have been my preference that

41:57ordinarily for a restaurant they stop

41:59serving dinner perhaps at 9:00 within

42:03Cupertino and and then they're closing

42:06closing down at, you know, 10.

42:09Um so I think that the hours of

42:11operation are um,

42:14are things that need to be looked at.

42:17Uh,

42:19and I think it's interesting to not

42:21connect the revenue that they're making

42:24with the lease amount. Um, I kind of

42:26like the idea of having it connected.

42:28Um, and and it gives us a little more

42:31insight about how the business is doing.

42:34Um, we did already approve the

42:37demolition of the Bletch site. Um,

42:41for uh, to have it essentially return to

42:44nature with some seeding and natural

42:46vegetation there. I don't know if that's

42:48something that with this opportunity and

42:52in front of us, if if we want to

42:55reconfigure that for potentially some

42:58outdoor seating, but this is beyond this

43:00agenda item for this evening. So, if

43:02there's some Now, I'm seeing everybody's

43:04hand up, so we've got some ideas here.

43:08And it's 6:30.

43:10Uh, so the those are some some issues

43:12that I'd like to see addressed and we'll

43:14see as we go through the rest of the

43:16council how this works out. So, uh,

43:18Councilmember Wong is next followed by

43:20Vice Mayor and um, Councilmember Mohan,

43:23I don't see a hand raised by

43:26Councilmember Fruin yet, but that might

43:28happen in a moment. Okay, Councilmember

43:30Wong.

43:30>> Uh, yeah, I'll keep it brief. Um, I

43:32agree in general with the principles. I

43:34think it would be important to have a

43:35public notice and some brainstorming of

43:36potential ideas with the community. I

43:38think that's important. Um, I think once

43:40we have that, we should have a pretty

43:41good tight marketing plan to identify

43:43what potential rent and what potential

43:45services we could provide in that area.

43:47I think if we talk to a number of

43:48commercial realtors, they'll probably

43:50tell you what other uses they would

43:51imagine that would be great for there.

43:53Um, I don't agree with um, just singling

43:56out the Blackberry Farm area on bar

43:58times and late night. I believe um, Paul

44:01and Eddie's has a time and I think our

44:02bars have a consistent time. So, maybe

44:04we can apply by consistent standard

44:05that's there. Um, and I think it's also

44:07important to look at the revenue leakage

44:09that's going on. I think that's the

44:10piece you missed it. Uh,

44:12uh, Mayor, the the revenue leakage of

44:14what the revenues were and and how we

44:15got to those numbers. So, that's all I'd

44:17add.

44:19>> I Pardon. Uh, Councilmember Wong, when

44:21you talk about revenue leakage, um,

44:24I I'm concerned that we that the numbers

44:27that we have might not be reflective

44:29>> might not be accurate.

44:30>> number of employees that they need.

44:31Okay, good. Okay, we're on the same page

44:33there. Vice Mayor.

44:36>> Just wondering how we might engage the

44:39neighborhood. What method um, the staff

44:43might have in mind?

44:48>> Vice Mayor, depending on, um, you know,

44:51when Council expects this to come back,

44:54we can we can tailor a an engagement

44:57strategy accordingly. If we had a lot of

44:58time, I could think of some really

45:00intensive ideas, but if we want to sort

45:02of bring this back fairly quickly, um,

45:05then maybe maybe we can look at the most

45:07immediate neighbors and those who have

45:08reached out to us in the past and kind

45:10of, you know, um,

45:11informally gather feedback. So, there

45:13could be different models I could look

45:14at. If you have ideas, let me know.

45:17>> Um, okay.

45:20>> Uh, thank you. Just real quick question

45:22within the, um, information that we will

45:25be receiving, there are other cities

45:27which have municipal golf courses. I'm

45:29going to assume that that they're are

45:31similar uh, to us with the pro shop and

45:34a and a cafe. Um, so, I am kind of

45:36curious if we could have some

45:38information, some comparables from other

45:39cities to know what they're doing and if

45:42any of them are doing the bar, DJ, dance

45:44club thing. Um, that would be great to

45:46know. Uh, Councilmember Wong, your hand

45:48is still raised. Okay.

45:50Councilmember Mohan.

45:56>> So, my question is, uh, can

46:00how specific do we need to get before

46:02the

46:03RFP is issued? My understanding was that

46:06we are

46:08um doing outreach to the community and

46:11it's only after we get the responses

46:14that we can have a a discussion based on

46:18how many people responded and what kind

46:19of interest uh there there is to occupy

46:23this space. So, does it make sense to

46:26want all this information now uh before

46:29an RFP is issued? Because I can just see

46:31this delaying the process

46:34uh even more than it has been.

46:36Uh and um

46:39Uh yeah, I mean the RFP responses should

46:42be reflective of the kind of uh

46:45uh interest there is out in the

46:46community for this kind of uh property.

46:49So, why don't we wait for that before we

46:53uh get into details about what exactly

46:55we want to see.

46:58And that's my comment.

47:00>> Okay, thank you. Uh

47:01I did see Councilmember Refuan's hand is

47:04raised online. Councilmember Refuan?

47:07>> Thank you. I just wanted to broadly

47:09align my comments with Councilmember

47:11Wong. I think that this is a a space

47:14that generally speaking should allow

47:17for some fun in Cupertino and it's uh I

47:20I think uh also something that should be

47:22generating revenue for us. The uh topic

47:26of the percentage rent came up. That's

47:28actually a fairly common arrangement.

47:30So, I I don't think that it's something

47:32that should cause concern.

47:39>> Okay.

47:40All right. Thank you. Um and this is for

47:43the city manager. Do you feel as though

47:45there was enough uh direction and

47:47questions? Okay. And then do you have

47:50some sense of when this could come back

47:53to council since time is of the essence?

47:55I do understand that the the the least

47:58amount per month is about uh

48:00Is that like 9,000?

48:02Um that we that we potentially would be

48:04missing. Um and I guess the question

48:07would be is there something like a ghost

48:09kitchen at all that we could have as

48:10kind of a stopgap

48:13um uh

48:14user so that there is So if you are

48:16golfing that you can get a sandwich or

48:18something um

48:20during the during the day.

48:22>> Uh yeah, I would be I would like to

48:25bring this back as soon as I have all

48:27the information ready. I want to say a

48:30couple of months, but I I don't want to

48:32throw out a date just yet until I

48:34um kind of go back and you know, clarify

48:36the direction and talk to staff, but um

48:39you know, we want to reach out to couple

48:40of realtors. We want to look at some

48:42other cities. I know that either

48:44Sunnyvale or someone's doing something

48:46similar next to their golf course. So I

48:48just want to look at some um

48:50if there is any month or date in mind,

48:54uh let me know and I can try to meet

48:55that, but I'm thinking next couple of

48:57months.

48:58>> Okay. So yeah, so my my wish would be

49:01that it would be sooner um and is there

49:04any way with the current uh leaseholder

49:08that they would be interested in um just

49:10providing uh

49:13restaurant service while the golf course

49:15is open um perhaps and and and ending

49:19the the nighttime venue when it's when

49:22it's dark since we are going into

49:23wintertime.

49:25>> We can we can reach out to the um to the

49:27operator and confirm that.

49:30>> Yeah, cuz that's that's actually quite a

49:32loss that we're going to have here for

49:33patrons out of the golf course to not

49:35have that um during the day.

49:37>> Holiday season, right?

49:38>> Mhm.

49:39Okay.

49:41Great. And do we have any further

49:42comments from the council?

49:45>> Yeah, I had one quick comment.

49:46>> Okay. Okay. Councilmember Mohan followed

49:49by the vice mayor.

49:49>> So and this is a uh

49:51a question for staff. We've had some

49:53loss of retail, loss of restaurants in

49:55the community in recent months.

49:58Is that something

50:00that you can do approach these

50:03restaurants and see if

50:05they want to

50:06consider this this property without

50:09going through the formal RFP process.

50:12>> Yes, we would if the RFP process was to

50:15commence, we would definitely reach out

50:16to businesses that may be displaced or

50:18looking to expand or grow in Cupertino.

50:21Absolutely, they would be targeted as

50:23part of the targeting outreach.

50:28>> Right, exactly. That's what I was

50:30thinking about.

50:31>> You're thinking like a Voyager Panera,

50:32right?

50:33>> That's Yes.

50:37Okay, thanks. Okay, Vice Mayor.

50:39>> Um

50:40so I wonder

50:43Um since there's only 1 month left

50:48or

50:49I'm wondering

50:50is there a possibility for the current

50:53owner to extend the service for another

50:556 months to give us more time?

50:59Is that something they might consider?

51:02>> Um the mayor mentioned something similar

51:03to that and we'll reach out to the

51:05property owner and see what's possible.

51:07>> Okay. And then to Council Member Mohan's

51:10question, so in case someone is

51:13interested in taking over the current

51:17just purchasing the property, then they

51:20don't have to go through the RFP

51:22process.

51:24Is that true or do we have to go through

51:27RFP anyway?

51:29>> Um if the business owner was able to

51:31execute a sale to a prospective

51:34business,

51:35then that would have to be approved by

51:37City Council.

51:37>> Yeah, I know we have to approve it, but

51:40it doesn't need to go through RFP.

51:43process, right?

51:45>> Yeah, that's not our understanding.

51:46>> If we approve, of course we still have

51:48to prove the new lease, the new owner.

51:51>> Correct.

51:52>> Okay.

51:53Thank you.

51:54>> Thank you. And I just have to say that I

51:56would not personally approve the current

52:00configuration of the business with the

52:02DJ nightclub that they have right now. I

52:05think that we can do better for the

52:07community.

52:08And with that, there's enough

52:10information for for staff on this item.

52:14This meeting is

52:17actually I'm not sure if it's adjourned.

52:20It is adjourned.

52:22Okay, so we're adjourning to 6:45 for

52:24our regular meeting. Thank you.

52:32Good evening. It is 6:49

52:35and this October 20th, 2026 regular

52:39meeting of the Cupertino City Council is

52:41called to order.

52:43If you are able to, please stand for the

52:45Pledge of Allegiance.

52:50>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

52:52United States of America

52:55and to the republic for which it stands,

52:58one nation under God, indivisible, with

53:01liberty and justice for all.

53:05>> Thank you. Madam City Clerk, will you

53:08please call the roll?

53:10>> Councilmember Furman.

53:12>> Here.

53:13>> Councilmember Rohan.

53:14>> Here.

53:15>> Councilmember Wong.

53:17>> Here.

53:17>> Vice Mayor Chao.

53:18>> Here.

53:19>> Mayor Moore.

53:20>> Here.

53:21>> And

53:22Councilmember Furman, confirming that

53:24you are attending this tonight's meeting

53:27virtually under the Brown Act

53:29under the just cause for a contagious

53:32illness. Is that correct?

53:36>> That is correct.

53:37>> And

53:38are there any members of the any members

53:42um you that are over the age of 18?

53:45>> There is no one else here with me at the

53:47present.

53:47>> Okay, thank you, Councilmember Fong.

53:49>> All right, thank you. Madam City

53:50Attorney, do we have any closed session

53:52reports?

53:53>> This evening, we do not.

53:54>> Okay, thank you. Next, we move on to

53:56ceremonial items.

53:59And the first one is recognition of

54:01October is Domestic Violence Awareness

54:03Month. Each year, October is recognized

54:07as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

54:09This evening, we would like to

54:11acknowledge Maitri for its work

54:15supporting survivors of domestic

54:17violence.

54:19Maitri is a Bay Area nonprofit that

54:22supports individuals and families facing

54:25domestic violence, emotional abuse, and

54:28family conflict. This organization

54:31provides confidential services and

54:34resources

54:36with attention to cultural and language

54:39barriers that can make it more difficult

54:41to seek help.

54:43Through its work, Maitri helps survivors

54:46access support, find safety, and move

54:49forward with confidence and hope.

54:53On behalf of the City Council, I want to

54:55thank Maitri staff and advocates for

54:57their dedication and the support they

55:00provide to individuals and families

55:03during difficult times. We appreciate

55:06Maitri's contributions to our community

55:08and are honored to recognize its work

55:11during Domestic Violence Awareness

55:13Month. Madam City Clerk, do we have a

55:16recipient for Maitri for this

55:18certificate?

55:19>> We do, Mayor. She is She can come up.

55:22>> Oh, we have three ladies. Okay,

55:25wonderful.

55:26All right, so we're going to go on to

55:28the dais for a photo.

55:37>> Did they want to see?

55:39>> They didn't want to make comments, but

55:40yeah.

55:40>> Oh, okay.

55:50>> I didn't get to catch your names.

55:53Nathan.

55:54Nice to meet you. Congratulations.

55:56Thank you for your work.

55:58Shameena Lister. Thank you. Thank you

55:59for your work.

56:01Shasha. Shasha, thank you for your work.

56:03We have a proclamation for you.

56:07How are you doing?

56:08>> I got to have you guys come up a little

56:09bit.

56:21One more. One,

56:22two.

56:24Thank you.

56:25>> Thank you so much. Thank you.

56:32>> All right. One, two.

56:35Ready?

56:39Got it.

56:40>> Thank you so much. Thank you.

56:42Thank you. Thank you.

56:43>> Congratulations.

56:47>> Thank you so much.

56:50Thank you so much.

57:06Our

57:07Our next recognition is for National

57:10First Responders Day, which is observed

57:14October 28th.

57:16City Council would like to recognize the

57:18firefighters and Sheriff's Office

57:21personnel and our public works

57:24responders who serve our community and

57:26respond when residents need help.

57:31We appreciate

57:33their professionalism,

57:35dedication, and willingness to serve,

57:39often under challenging circumstances.

57:43We also recognize the families who

57:46support them and the sacrifices they

57:49make alongside them.

57:52On behalf of the City Council, thank you

57:54for your service and for the very

57:57important role you play in keeping our

58:00community safe.

58:03I want to invite the Santa Clara County

58:05Assistant Sheriff Adam Oberdorfer,

58:08Assistant Sheriff

58:09Rituerina,

58:11as well, Santa Clara County Deputy Fire

58:14Chief Estrada, Cupertino Citizen Corps

58:18Coordinator Ken Erickson, and all of the

58:22other first responders who have joined

58:24us here this evening. I did not expect

58:26such a full house. This is wonderful.

58:29So, please come on up to receive the

58:31proclamation. And I also want to thank

58:34the fire department and sheriff's office

58:36personnel in the audience who serve the

58:38the city of Cupertino. But, you're going

58:40to come up and we're going to try to

58:41figure out how to organize us all for a

58:43big group photo. So,

58:45uh I'm looking forward to it.

59:27>> THANK YOU.

59:32ALL RIGHT.

59:36GOES HERE.

59:38OKAY.

59:38>> YEAH, UNFORTUNATELY, YEAH,

59:40SORRY, BUDDY.

59:41>> Very good.

59:42Very good.

59:43>> All right.

59:43>> You got to go to the right.

59:45part of the mission.

59:47How are you going to do this?

1:00:02Okay. Okay. How are we doing

1:00:05for organization?

1:00:09I want to get some people over Yeah,

1:00:10here.

1:00:13There's a lot of

1:00:14laughter

1:00:30>> All right, I got you all there.

1:00:31>> Oh, wow.

1:00:32>> It's here. One,

1:00:34two.

1:00:35One,

1:00:36two.

1:00:39I'll collect the ballots between

1:02:00>> All right. Thank you to our first

1:02:02responders and lastly tonight, our third

1:02:08ceremonial item is we are proud to

1:02:11recognize United Against Hate Week,

1:02:13which is October 18th through the 24th

1:02:17and we reaffirm our commitment to

1:02:20building a community where everyone

1:02:22feels welcome, safe and respected.

1:02:27Hate has no place in our community.

1:02:30Our diversity is one of our strengths

1:02:33and we all share a responsibility to

1:02:36ensure that every resident feels a sense

1:02:40of belonging.

1:02:42Let us use this week as an opportunity

1:02:45to reaffirm our shared values and

1:02:48demonstrate through our words and

1:02:51actions

1:02:52that we stand united against hate.

1:02:56Thank you.

1:03:03Okay, so our next item is postponements

1:03:05and orders of the day.

1:03:07The city has heard from the applicant

1:03:10regarding item 12 that they would prefer

1:03:14to postpone the public hearing on the

1:03:15item to a future date. I propose that we

1:03:18table the item for now. We can

1:03:21re-agendize when the applicant is ready

1:03:23to move forward. As such, I make the

1:03:25motion that we table item 12, the Tax

1:03:28and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act

1:03:30public hearing, and approval of conduit

1:03:33financing for the Rise Block 5

1:03:35Apartments project. And

1:03:38I also request to postpone item seven to

1:03:42a date uncertain for additional

1:03:45information. Do I have a second on these

1:03:47two items?

1:03:48>> Second.

1:03:49>> Okay, thank you. That's um Councilmember

1:03:51Wong has seconded.

1:03:53Um

1:03:54So, Madam City Clerk, will you please

1:03:57conduct the roll call vote?

1:04:00>> Councilmember Barron?

1:04:02>> I.

1:04:04>> Councilmember Mohan?

1:04:05>> I.

1:04:07>> Councilmember Wong?

1:04:08>> I.

1:04:09>> Vice Mayor Chao?

1:04:10>> I.

1:04:11>> Mayor Moore?

1:04:12>> I.

1:04:12>> Motion carries unanimously.

1:04:14>> All right, thank you. Next item is oral

1:04:16communications. Madam City Clerk, how

1:04:18many speaker cards do we have at this

1:04:19time?

1:04:37Oh, also, I do want to mention that if

1:04:39you are here for item 12 um or item

1:04:44seven, uh because those items have been

1:04:47moved, you'll need to you can speak to

1:04:50those items during oral communications.

1:04:53You need to get your speaker card in

1:04:55within the first um 9 minutes if you

1:04:57want to speak to those items. So,

1:04:59please, if if that's uh if you're here,

1:05:01for instance, for item 12, Block 5, The

1:05:04Rise, you want to get your speaker card

1:05:06in for oral communications, otherwise

1:05:08you're going to miss your chance to

1:05:09speak on that item. Um so, Madam City

1:05:12Clerk, how many speaker cards did we

1:05:13have?

1:05:14>> Mayor, at this time we have seven

1:05:15requests to speak here in Community

1:05:17Hall, and I do not currently see any

1:05:20hands raised virtually.

1:05:22Um,

1:05:22>> Okay.

1:05:23All right, thank you. Um, then, will you

1:05:25please provide the instructions for oral

1:05:26communications and conduct the item?

1:05:29>> Yes, Mayor. This portion of the meeting

1:05:31is reserved for persons wishing to

1:05:32address the council on any matter within

1:05:34the jurisdiction of the council and not

1:05:36on the agenda for discussion. Oral

1:05:38communication shall be limited to 30

1:05:39minutes. Additional speakers wishing to

1:05:41comment on non-agenda items may be given

1:05:43time to speak at the end of the agenda

1:05:45after the city manager's report.

1:05:47Individual speakers are limited to 3

1:05:49minutes. As necessary, the Mayor may

1:05:51further limit the time allowed

1:05:52individual speakers or reschedule

1:05:54remaining comments to the end of the

1:05:55meeting on a first-come, first-heard

1:05:56basis with priority given to students.

1:05:59In most cases, state law will prohibit

1:06:01the council from discussing or making

1:06:02any decisions with respect to a matter

1:06:04not listed on the agenda. A council

1:06:06member may, however, briefly respond to

1:06:08statements made or questions posed by

1:06:10speakers. A council member may also ask

1:06:12a question for clarification, provide a

1:06:14reference for factual information,

1:06:16request staff report back concerning a

1:06:18matter, or request that an item be added

1:06:20to a future City Council agenda in

1:06:21response to public comment.

1:06:23And, um, as a reminder, members of the

1:06:24public wishing to speak regarding, um,

1:06:26oral communications shall submit a

1:06:28request to speak or raise their hand

1:06:30virtually within 9 minutes of the start

1:06:32of public comment or before the public

1:06:34comment period is closed, whichever

1:06:35comes first.

1:06:37Um, so, at this time we will go ahead

1:06:40and welcome Kat and Angelo

1:06:43followed by Harvey, followed by Jaime.

1:06:47Welcome, Kat.

1:06:49>> Kate. Kate.

1:06:50>> Kat Angelou.

1:06:51>> Kat, okay.

1:06:52>> Thank you.

1:06:52>> Thank you.

1:06:54>> Uh, good evening, Mayor and council

1:06:55members. My name is Kat Angelou. I'm

1:06:57senior specialist of government

1:06:59relations and community community

1:07:01partnerships at El Camino Health.

1:07:03I'm here to provide a brief update on

1:07:04our recent activities and community

1:07:06impact for you tonight.

1:07:08El Camino Health has served the

1:07:09communities of Silicon Valley and the

1:07:11South Bay for more than 65 years. We are

1:07:13nonprofit, locally governed health

1:07:15system with two acute care hospitals,

1:07:18one in Mountain View, one in Los Gatos,

1:07:20and 28 care locations across the region.

1:07:23We're very excited actually to be

1:07:24expanding into Cupertino.

1:07:27Over the past year, El Camino Health has

1:07:29handled nearly 400,000 outpatient visits

1:07:31across our care locations. We're also

1:07:33making major investments in the

1:07:35community. Most recently completing a

1:07:37$170 million renovation

1:07:40renovation of our Women's Hospital in

1:07:42Mountain View.

1:07:43We are proud that this is one of the

1:07:44most chosen locations for women in our

1:07:46region to deliver a baby

1:07:48and uh proud to serve our community's

1:07:51women and families.

1:07:52Our key services include advanced cancer

1:07:54care, cardiac and stroke care,

1:07:57maternity, mental and behavioral health,

1:07:59orthopedics, and more, delivered with

1:08:02the warmth of a locally based community

1:08:04health care provider.

1:08:06We're committed to improving the health

1:08:07and well-being of our neighbors through

1:08:09clinical excellence, innovation, and

1:08:10community partnerships.

1:08:13In addition to providing exceptionally

1:08:15high-quality medical care, we support

1:08:17the overall health and well-being of our

1:08:19region. Each year, the hospital and the

1:08:21healthcare district each invest in local

1:08:23health initiatives to increase access to

1:08:26healthcare, mental healthcare, and

1:08:28chronic disease prevention.

1:08:30The El Camino Healthcare District and El

1:08:31Camino Health awarded $13.48

1:08:34million in grants to support local

1:08:36health programs for our current fiscal

1:08:38year. This is even more than we were

1:08:40able to do last year, and we're excited

1:08:41about that.

1:08:43The organization approved funding for

1:08:44121 grants and 25 new programs in our

1:08:47last fiscal year. Here in Cupertino,

1:08:49we're very proud to fund the Cupertino

1:08:52Union School District through multiple

1:08:54different grant programs. Our financial

1:08:56support allows them to offer student

1:08:58health services, follow-up support, and

1:09:01mental health counseling.

1:09:03Beyond our grant programs, El Camino

1:09:04Health connects with

1:09:06the community through a number of

1:09:07public-facing events, most recently

1:09:09hosting our men's health fair in July,

1:09:11and our women's health fair in

1:09:12September. These annual events bring

1:09:14hundreds of visitors to Mountain View

1:09:16and Los Gatos campuses, connecting

1:09:18community members with our physicians,

1:09:20our services, and timely health

1:09:22information that you know can be trusted

1:09:24right here in your community.

1:09:26I want to thank you for allowing me to

1:09:27share a brief update about El Camino

1:09:29Health this evening. Uh we look forward

1:09:30to continuing to serve the Cupertino

1:09:32community.

1:09:34Thank you so much for your time.

1:09:36>> Thank you, Kat.

1:09:41Next, we will welcome Harvey, followed

1:09:43by Jaime,

1:09:45followed by Nicole.

1:09:47Welcome, Harvey.

1:09:48>> Thank you.

1:09:49Um I'm Harvey. I'm from the um

1:09:51Carpenters Union. Um

1:09:53I want to thank council for engaging

1:09:56with the materials we've sent them in

1:09:58regards to item 12, which um is now

1:10:00postponed, um but which would have

1:10:02represented yet further public financing

1:10:05for the Rise project. My understanding

1:10:07is that Cupertino City Council already

1:10:09voted to uh wave roughly 77 million, or

1:10:13arranged to wave roughly 77 million in

1:10:16developer impact and parkland fees for

1:10:18the Rise. So, you would have thought

1:10:20that with such significant tax breaks

1:10:22already, and this, you know, very

1:10:23generous gesture from the city, that the

1:10:25developer would make its best efforts to

1:10:27choose a contractor for the project who

1:10:30unequivocally creates good local jobs

1:10:33for the community during its

1:10:35construction phase.

1:10:37Instead, the union learns that the

1:10:38developer is considering a contractor

1:10:40with a very, very checkered history

1:10:42indeed. We laid out that history to the

1:10:44project stakeholders in a letter this

1:10:46week. It should be, I imagine, in the

1:10:49agenda materials.

1:10:51Um but, um

1:10:52just in case it's helpful, we printed

1:10:54out some some copies and put them in the

1:10:56lobby.

1:10:57Ultimately, TEFRA votes are a democratic

1:11:01process and we're entitled to raise

1:11:02these worker issues during that process.

1:11:06Um

1:11:07does this

1:11:08project really merit further

1:11:10preferential public financing in the

1:11:12form yet form of yet further tax breaks

1:11:16through TEFRA?

1:11:17What is the nature of the public benefit

1:11:19it represents to workers?

1:11:21Hopefully, we can meet with the

1:11:23developers to understand how the

1:11:25contractors it's selecting will comply

1:11:27with SB 35 labor requirements, that

1:11:31which is as a reminder the bill through

1:11:33which this project is entitled.

1:11:35At the moment, we still don't understand

1:11:37how these labor

1:11:40requirements will be guaranteed.

1:11:43That's not fair to workers and that's

1:11:45not fair to taxpayers or the local

1:11:47community generally.

1:11:49So, let's make sure we get this right

1:11:50now so this doesn't become a labor

1:11:53compliance mess later down the line and

1:11:55so this project provides both housing

1:11:58and good jobs to the local community.

1:12:01Our door remains open as a resource.

1:12:03You know, we pay very close attention to

1:12:06the industry and we're willing to talk

1:12:09at any point with any of the projects

1:12:10they call us. Thank you.

1:12:15>> Thank you, Harvey. Next we will welcome

1:12:17Jaime

1:12:18followed by Nicole followed by Daniel.

1:12:21Welcome, Jaime.

1:12:22>> Good evening, Mayor and City Council

1:12:24members. My name is Jaime Arteaga and

1:12:26I'm with the North Coast State

1:12:27Carpenter's Union.

1:12:28I'm speaking tonight regarding the Rise

1:12:30Block 5 apartment specifically

1:12:32concerning the selection of the general

1:12:33contractor.

1:12:35The Rise 5 The Rise is a SB 35 project

1:12:38which carries important labor

1:12:40requirements

1:12:41including prevailing wage and skilled

1:12:42and trained workforce standards.

1:12:45Before approving the tax exempt bond

1:12:47financing, I ask the City Council

1:12:50examine whether Brown Construction, a

1:12:52contractor reportedly

1:12:54being considered considered for the this

1:12:56project has demonstrated the ability to

1:12:58meet these requirements.

1:13:01There are serious concerns regarding the

1:13:02company's labor compliance history. In

1:13:042018,

1:13:06the California Department of Industrial

1:13:08Relations issued a civil wage and

1:13:10penalty assessment exceeding over

1:13:11$435,000,

1:13:13which is really significant for wage

1:13:15theft

1:13:16involving a project at UC Davis student

1:13:19housing where Brown Construction served

1:13:21as a prime contractor.

1:13:24In 2020,

1:13:27the labor commissioner

1:13:28recorded a lien exceeding 150,000 on

1:13:31unpaid wages on another Brown project.

1:13:34Brown Construction and his

1:13:36subcontractors have have Brown

1:13:37Construction and his subcontractors have

1:13:39also faced multiple lawsuits

1:13:42alleging unpaid wages including three

1:13:44cases filed between 2021 and 2023.

1:13:48Additionally, Cal/OSHA has cited Brown

1:13:50Construction for safety violations on

1:13:52seven occasions since 2013.

1:13:55These records raise legitimate questions

1:13:57about the wage compliance and worker

1:13:59safety and contractor

1:14:01accountability on these the the Brown

1:14:04Construction performance.

1:14:06I'm asking the City Council to consider

1:14:07these concerns before moving forward

1:14:09with the financing approval

1:14:11to request that developer provide in

1:14:13written assurance regarding the general

1:14:15contractor's compliance with applicable

1:14:18labor laws.

1:14:19Cupertino should not have to choose

1:14:21between building much-needed housing

1:14:25and protecting the workers who build it.

1:14:27We should expect both. Thank you for

1:14:28your time.

1:14:31>> Thank you, Jaime. Next, we will welcome

1:14:33Nicole, followed by Daniel, followed by

1:14:36Minna. Welcome, Nicole.

1:14:38>> Thank you. Good evening, Mayor,

1:14:41council members and staff. My name is

1:14:42Nicole Gordillo and I'm a field

1:14:44representative with the North Coast

1:14:45State Carpenters Local 405, which um

1:14:49covers our beautiful city uh Cupertino.

1:14:52First, I want to thank you for giving me

1:14:54the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm

1:14:55here to

1:14:57to make comment on the Rise project, in

1:14:59which is concerning that this project

1:15:01may be moving forward with a general

1:15:03contractor with a concerning track

1:15:06record. We welcome opportunities to grow

1:15:09and create new housing, businesses, and

1:15:11community spaces here in Cupertino,

1:15:14but we must pay just as much as

1:15:16attention to how the development is

1:15:18being built.

1:15:19Let's make sure it reflects our

1:15:21community's values by creating good

1:15:23jobs, supporting working families, and

1:15:25building a stronger, safer, and better

1:15:27environment for everyone.

1:15:29This project has the potential to be a

1:15:31positive addition to Cupertino, but

1:15:34quality housing should not come at

1:15:37expense of the people that build it.

1:15:40The last thing

1:15:41any of us need is to look back later and

1:15:44realize warning signs were ignored when

1:15:47action could have been taken.

1:15:48I respectfully ask the committee to

1:15:51ensure that this project is built

1:15:53responsibly. Our workers deserve nothing

1:15:55less.

1:15:56Thank you for your time and

1:15:57consideration.

1:16:00>> Thank you, Nicole. Next, we will welcome

1:16:02Daniel followed by Mina,

1:16:05followed by Oh, no.

1:16:07And Rhoda.

1:16:09Welcome, Daniel.

1:16:10>> Thank you.

1:16:11Uh good evening. Uh my name is Daniel

1:16:13Alvarez. I'm a field rep for the

1:16:14Carpenters Union representing members

1:16:16here in Santa Clara County.

1:16:18Uh I believe this project can be a great

1:16:20addition to our community

1:16:22only if it meets

1:16:23the SB 35 requirements.

1:16:26It can also help address the housing

1:16:27needs that we all have, especially for

1:16:29working people.

1:16:31However, I do concern about labor

1:16:34standards on this project. At this time,

1:16:37it is my understanding that the general

1:16:39contractor this developer is selecting

1:16:41could be Brown

1:16:43which they do not participate on state

1:16:45certified apprenticeship programs,

1:16:47provide health care for their workers,

1:16:49or pay livable wage.

1:16:52I have also spoken with workers who told

1:16:54me they were not paid properly on one of

1:16:57other Eden's Housing projects.

1:17:01I hope we can make sure this doesn't

1:17:04happen here in Cupertino.

1:17:06The workers who build this project are

1:17:07important part of our community, and I

1:17:10believe they deserve fair wages, good

1:17:12benefits, and safe workplace. Thank you

1:17:14for your time.

1:17:20>> Thank you, Daniel. Next, we will welcome

1:17:22Mina, followed by Rhoda. Welcome, Mina.

1:17:30Video will be displaying the document

1:17:32camera, please.

1:17:36Thank you.

1:17:37>> Uh hello. Uh my name is Mina. I'm a

1:17:40Cupertino resident.

1:17:42Uh and I come here to speak only

1:17:44represent and myself. And today I

1:17:47I'm still

1:17:49complaining about the non-stopping

1:17:51unauthorized signs. And actually, we saw

1:17:54more and more

1:17:55by the local business and by the

1:17:58residents' house.

1:18:01Uh they it shows

1:18:02uh the signs in front of a Chinese

1:18:04school. They're only authorized Tracy

1:18:07Santosh and Gopal Siyani sign. But right

1:18:10after they planted these three yard

1:18:12signs, they saw

1:18:13the other side just planting their yard

1:18:16signs without permission and without

1:18:18contacting the office.

1:18:20Um and the problem is when one campaign

1:18:24team, they just repeatedly re- dis-

1:18:27regards the rules, they will waste a lot

1:18:30of public resources to to do the

1:18:34enforcement work.

1:18:36Uh and it's not simply a matter of

1:18:38common sense. I think it's about

1:18:40respecting private property, follow the

1:18:43same rules that everyone else.

1:18:46And another problem is

1:18:49so this

1:18:52uh

1:18:53this resident living by Ballinger and

1:18:56they already submitted a complaint to

1:18:59Cupertino 311 and they uploaded the sign

1:19:04statement to say they didn't they only

1:19:06approved Tracy Santosh got positive

1:19:09sign. They didn't approve J.R.

1:19:12Ahluwalia, Seema Linda Scopp and John

1:19:14Town sign. And they attached the picture

1:19:18and they put the address in the

1:19:21complaint but after 9 days I I they got

1:19:25uh we heard this case is still under

1:19:29investigation and after 2 weeks the

1:19:32signs are still there. So they have to

1:19:34remove the yard sign themselves and

1:19:37another shocking thing happened

1:19:39at that time.

1:19:41They they found these anchoring system

1:19:43for these signs and you can see

1:19:47for this sign the anchoring system is

1:19:51there.

1:19:53And for these two signs this is Seema's

1:19:57yard sign and this is J.R. Ahluwalia's

1:19:59yard sign.

1:20:00So it becomes very difficult for senior

1:20:05um

1:20:07residents to remove those things by

1:20:09themselves. They need some help from

1:20:11their friends.

1:20:13And when they call the police, police

1:20:15says they won't come because it's such a

1:20:18small case they won't write down the

1:20:20address.

1:20:21And yeah I just show

1:20:24people so it's a serious concern about

1:20:28yeah some campaign team they have

1:20:30well-funded campaign workers, paid

1:20:33workers, but they use those money to

1:20:36surprise the freedom of speech of

1:20:39Cupertino residents.

1:20:42>> Thank you, Mina. Next, we welcome Rhoda.

1:20:51Hi, good evening. I wanted to echo

1:20:53Mina's comments. You know, this

1:20:56Cupertino Together people have risen to

1:20:59lows that I haven't seen before because

1:21:01now we can add violence to the list.

1:21:04Mayor, city manager is aware that can

1:21:06given them the sheriff

1:21:09numbers

1:21:10regarding violence, which is really bad.

1:21:13Now I'm getting nervous. Anyway,

1:21:15also want to echo the comments of the

1:21:18union. We need prevailing wages. We need

1:21:20union work. Better projects and please

1:21:22support them. Okay, so

1:21:25good news.

1:21:26And I did email you some paperwork. I

1:21:29just want you to know that the 5-plus

1:21:31acre Merlone Plaza project at Stevens

1:21:33Creek and De Anza had an open house this

1:21:35weekend. And I think the new proposal is

1:21:37pretty good. Since the 2022 application,

1:21:40the new proposal is adding over 50% more

1:21:42housing, total of 340 homes. The number

1:21:45of BMR homes is nearly doubled to 66.

1:21:47And there's a, you know, photo of the

1:21:49display. So that's that's pretty

1:21:50exciting stuff. And here's another thing

1:21:52that occurred to me. You know, the

1:21:54developer submitted a project way back

1:21:56in 2016 for 122 room hotel, 180

1:21:59apartments, 26,000 square feet of

1:22:01retail. But you know, I haven't heard

1:22:03anybody complain about city council

1:22:05obstructing progress there. It just

1:22:08hasn't happened yet. And I think that,

1:22:10you know, what we have in front of us is

1:22:12good for Cupertino. Ownership housing

1:22:14helps Arena numbers and lots of ground

1:22:16floor retail. It'll be seven floor seven

1:22:18stories, seven feet taller than its

1:22:19neighbor and and by far shorter than

1:22:21those across the street.

1:22:23Similarly, in 2021 KT Urban purchased a

1:22:268-plus acre Oak Shopping Center from

1:22:28Sand Hill Properties. And as you can

1:22:29see, most of it is already built and

1:22:31occupied. May 25th, the City Council

1:22:33accepted some modifications for the last

1:22:35project. Okay?

1:22:37Um and then we've got nearly 3 acres uh

1:22:39stables at Fontana site. Application

1:22:41came in 2024 and construction's

1:22:43underway. So, that takes us to

1:22:45Falco. Um now, the property was fully

1:22:49purchased in 2014 and fully entitled

1:22:51within 3 and 1/2 years. That was 2018.

1:22:54It was fully entitled.

1:22:56I haven't seen

1:22:58this council, any council, obstruct

1:23:00progress there. And in fact, has enabled

1:23:03progress, which is what we've heard from

1:23:05the union. You know, it's pretty quick

1:23:06to get 3 and 1/2 year approval of

1:23:0851-acre site with major change in use.

1:23:11You could say Marine has been over it oh

1:23:13then been delayed for longer than Falco.

1:23:16Not and but then we had these, you know,

1:23:18$77 million in in fees waived for Falco.

1:23:22And still people are complaining. They

1:23:24shouldn't complain. We've done a lot for

1:23:26them. And by the way, union wages are

1:23:29are key are important, too. Um kind of

1:23:31disappointed they're using the 2016

1:23:33building codes, which which which is on

1:23:35which is is a drag. So, anyway, um y'all

1:23:38haven't been impeding progress. Um I

1:23:41talked about this slide last time.

1:23:44Falco isn't going to make 10 million a

1:23:45year for us. It's going to be closer to

1:23:48net 2.3, possibly zero. And I also want

1:23:52to talk about um some other slides,

1:23:54which you'll have in your packets. Uh

1:23:58>> Thank you, Rhoda.

1:23:59And to Mayor, there are no requests to

1:24:01speak virtually under the oral

1:24:03communications.

1:24:07>> Okay, thank you. I do have one quick

1:24:09question for Daniel. Um

1:24:11you mentioned that the there was a lack

1:24:14of participation in some kind of

1:24:16statewide training. I was wondering if

1:24:18you could uh repeat what that what that

1:24:21item was.

1:24:25I was trying to jot it down, but I

1:24:27missed it.

1:24:29>> Nice. Okay. So, the general contractor

1:24:31that could be selected for this project,

1:24:34uh which is Brown, it does not

1:24:35participate on the state certified

1:24:37apprenticeship program.

1:24:38>> The apprentice Okay.

1:24:40Thank you.

1:24:42All right. Thank you.

1:24:43Yeah.

1:24:44And Vice Mayor, yeah.

1:24:46>> Yeah. Um I hope the city staff can

1:24:49clarify

1:24:51um what is the city's responsibility in

1:24:55terms of ensuring

1:24:57um developer comply with SB 35

1:25:00prevailing wage requirement, and how we

1:25:04are doing that. And if we our current

1:25:06code is not sufficient to ensure

1:25:09compliance, what do we can do to make

1:25:13sure

1:25:14it's implemented.

1:25:16>> Um

1:25:18I would probably have to look deeper

1:25:19into this, but my expectation is that um

1:25:22it would be the state that would be

1:25:25implementing, making sure that the

1:25:27developer is complying with SB 35. It

1:25:29doesn't mean that the city can't look

1:25:31over their shoulder, but I doubt that

1:25:33the city has the direct authority to

1:25:35enforce, but um

1:25:38uh that's why

1:25:39>> Yeah. I would like more detail if the

1:25:41state, which department of the state,

1:25:44who exactly is doing that and how.

1:25:46>> Mhm.

1:25:47>> And yeah, if the state is not doing it,

1:25:50what can the city

1:25:52uh make sure it's done. Thank you.

1:25:54>> Yes.

1:25:54>> second question is um

1:25:57we have heard um that

1:25:59there are unauthorized signs that's

1:26:02reported to the city, and then it's been

1:26:05I think 2 weeks the city hasn't done

1:26:06anything. I think per municipal code,

1:26:09there is specific date that the city

1:26:12should respond. And how

1:26:15why are we not implementing our I think

1:26:19it's in the Muni code. Why are we not

1:26:21implementing our own Muni code? Because

1:26:24this way those

1:26:26rule breakers get more visibility.

1:26:32>> Vice Mayor as as as

1:26:34Mayor should I answer it right now?

1:26:36As Mina was

1:26:38showing the photos I was just checking

1:26:40in with staff to see if there's any

1:26:41outstanding

1:26:44open tickets that we have not responded

1:26:46to. I know of at least one so I'll try

1:26:48to get you the

1:26:50status of why it's still open but

1:26:52typically the city's role is

1:26:55if we receive a code violation

1:26:59or a 311 ticket, you know, our first

1:27:02hope and our response and communication

1:27:04has been if property owner did not

1:27:06authorize signs they can remove it but

1:27:08in some cases it may be hard for them to

1:27:10do so and then the city staff can go out

1:27:12and then remove and store the signs and

1:27:15notify the the campaign

1:27:19people right? So I will look into why

1:27:21that's still outstanding.

1:27:22>> Yeah, my understanding is that the Muni

1:27:24code would require notifying the

1:27:26candidate give them two days to remove

1:27:29it. If they don't remove then the city

1:27:31would remove it.

1:27:32>> Correct.

1:27:32>> Um but it seems that's not followed.

1:27:36So I would like to clarify what exactly

1:27:40we are implementing this year.

1:27:43Especially prevalent this year.

1:27:45>> Yeah, I will say there there has been a

1:27:47lot more work this year related to signs

1:27:50but that is still our practice as if

1:27:52there is no you know, if we receive

1:27:53notice

1:27:55of unauthorized signs and the property

1:27:57owner is asking the city to step in and

1:27:59remove the signs that we will obviously

1:28:01if they're unauthorized.

1:28:02>> Thank you for the FAQ. I know the

1:28:03property owner has the right to remove

1:28:06but some have told me they are afraid

1:28:08because they could be pictured of by

1:28:11someone and then they can be falsely

1:28:14accused of removing signs. So, thank

1:28:18you.

1:28:20>> Thank you for bringing that up, Vice

1:28:21Mayor. I I personally would be pretty

1:28:23disturbed if I saw somebody unauthorized

1:28:26uh placed an unauthorized sign and then

1:28:28put that that U hook on top of it and

1:28:30hammered that into the ground. That

1:28:31would uh cause me some concern. And I I

1:28:34have also uh reported signs a couple of

1:28:37times now. Um there's in it and I really

1:28:41would like to remove them cuz they're

1:28:43sitting on Valley Water and now

1:28:44Cupertino land on on Finch. So, there's

1:28:47two right on Pacifica Valley Water land,

1:28:49one on Miller Calabasas Creek on Valley

1:28:52Water land. The one on Finch has been

1:28:54there for for several weeks. I'd really

1:28:56like to just clip them off myself, but

1:28:58I'm not allowed to even though I know

1:28:59they're placed incorrectly. Going back

1:29:01to Valco, when uh going back to maybe

1:29:042018 2019, there were actually monthly

1:29:08reports that were put on the city

1:29:11website which were monitoring the um

1:29:15the the labor um usage. And so that it

1:29:19was historically being done, but um I

1:29:22haven't seen anything and they've had

1:29:24multiple workers out there and there was

1:29:26that issue um that they didn't have an

1:29:28approved soils report and they were

1:29:30doing um soil disturbing activities

1:29:32without having a soil management uh

1:29:35program around the 2019 uh time frame.

1:29:38So, there was some uh reconstruction of

1:29:40the underpass that should have had um

1:29:43should have had uh proper soil

1:29:45management program in place because

1:29:47there was no way of knowing if there was

1:29:48contamination around the area that they

1:29:50were they were digging. So, historically

1:29:52there there has been a record of the um

1:29:56the use of of unionized labor.

1:29:59So, with that, we have

1:30:04finished the oral communications.

1:30:08and keep me on track.

1:30:15So, we are on to the consent calendar.

1:30:18Madam City Clerk, have any items been

1:30:19pulled from consent? I know that we have

1:30:22um

1:30:22uh postponed item seven, or do we have

1:30:25any council requests to pull an item at

1:30:27this time?

1:30:28>> No further requests, Mayor.

1:30:29>> Okay. And not seeing any hands raised to

1:30:31do that. Do we have any members of the

1:30:32public who'd like to speak on the

1:30:33consent calendar?

1:30:38>> Mayor, I don't have any requests here in

1:30:40community hall, and I do not see any

1:30:42requests to speak virtually under the

1:30:43consent calendar items.

1:30:45>> All right. Do Okay. Do I have a motion

1:30:47to move the consent calendar less item

1:30:49seven?

1:30:50>> Uh motion to move consent calendar less

1:30:52item number seven.

1:30:53>> And do we have a second?

1:30:55>> Uh second.

1:30:56>> Okay. Thank you. So, yes.

1:30:57>> have a statement to read?

1:30:58>> And I do have a statement to read um

1:31:01prior to the council's approval of the

1:31:03consent calendar item.

1:31:05And it's regarding the first amendment

1:31:06to the city manager's employment

1:31:07agreement agreement, which is item 11.

1:31:09In accordance with government code

1:31:11section 54953D3A,

1:31:14I'm providing an oral summary of the

1:31:15recommended action. The item before the

1:31:17council tonight is to approve the first

1:31:19amendment to the employment agreement,

1:31:20including a 5% increase in base salary

1:31:22retroactive to July 1st, 2026, and an

1:31:2580-hour increase to the maximum vacation

1:31:27accrual cap

1:31:28for the city manager position effective

1:31:30July 1st, 2026. The proposed base

1:31:32compensation is 353,650.

1:31:36Effective July 1st, 2026, the estimated

1:31:39total annual compensation and

1:31:40employer-related costs is 492,754,

1:31:44inclusive of fringe benefits, payroll

1:31:46taxes, and retirement contributions.

1:31:48Additional details regarding this item

1:31:50are set forth in the agenda and

1:31:51resolutions associated with this item.

1:31:55Madam City Clerk, will you please

1:31:57conduct the roll call vote on the

1:31:59consent calendar?

1:32:00>> Council Member Farron?

1:32:03>> Aye.

1:32:04>> Council Member Rohan?

1:32:05>> Aye.

1:32:06>> Councilmember Wong?

1:32:07>> Aye.

1:32:07>> Vice Mayor Chao?

1:32:08>> Aye.

1:32:09>> Mayor Moore?

1:32:10>> Aye.

1:32:11>> Motion carries unanimously.

1:32:12>> All right. Uh at this time we're going

1:32:14to take a 5-minute break. We're going to

1:32:15come back at 7:34.

1:32:19Thank you.

1:32:20All right, welcome back. We now have one

1:32:23public hearing item

1:32:2513. Item 12 was tabled. Item 13 is the

1:32:29general plan amendment to adopt various

1:32:31changes. Madam City Manager, do we have

1:32:33a report

1:32:34as we open the public hearing?

1:32:36>> Thank you, Mayor. Yes, um so just a

1:32:38little bit of background. So after close

1:32:40to 3 years and I think six meetings, it

1:32:43might have been, um at which several

1:32:45divisions were made to address public

1:32:47comments, uh commissioners, and council

1:32:50comments. Uh the draft health and safety

1:32:53element is being presented tonight to

1:32:55the City Council for adoption. The draft

1:32:57has been prepared in coordination with

1:32:59and input from the county fire and

1:33:01sheriff departments and multiple state

1:33:03agencies. I will now turn over turn it

1:33:06turn this item over to Luke Connolly,

1:33:08assistant director of community

1:33:09development, and the city's consultant,

1:33:11PlaceWorks, for their presentation.

1:33:14Planning division staff who worked very

1:33:15closely with PlaceWorks are also

1:33:17available to answer questions.

1:33:20>> Okay.

1:33:21Thank you, Tina, and good evening, Mayor

1:33:23members of the council.

1:33:25Um we're back. I think we were last year

1:33:27in July on this item and in May before

1:33:29that. So, um this is actually the

1:33:31seventh public meeting that we have on

1:33:33on this item.

1:33:35Um and as Tina had said, it's about 3

1:33:37years of work that we're we're trying to

1:33:40wrap up now. Um and the safety element

1:33:42update has occurred because it's

1:33:43required to happen um as part of the

1:33:46housing element update, which was

1:33:47completed 2 years ago.

1:33:49So, um rather than go on, I will turn

1:33:51this over to Eli Crispy, who is a senior

1:33:54associate with PlaceWorks. Uh he had

1:33:56presented the last couple times in May

1:33:58and July before you. So, we will let the

1:34:00presentation kick off now.

1:34:03>> Thank you, Luke. Good evening, Mayor

1:34:04Moore, city council members. Be like

1:34:06Chris B with Placeworks. I will give a

1:34:08brief presentation on the health and

1:34:11safety element update.

1:34:12We will be talking about an overview of

1:34:15the element, but mostly focused on the

1:34:17changes that have been made to the

1:34:18element since it last came before the

1:34:21council and some of the details of the

1:34:23process that have happened since then,

1:34:25including review by various state

1:34:27agencies, tribal consultation, the

1:34:30environmental review, and the

1:34:32recommendations from planning commission

1:34:33meeting which occurred last month.

1:34:37As a reminder, the health and safety

1:34:39element is a required part of the city's

1:34:41general plan, and recent changes to

1:34:43state law have required that the health

1:34:46and safety element now be updated in

1:34:49partnership with updates to the housing

1:34:50element and the hazard mitigation plan.

1:34:53And as those have both been recently

1:34:55updated, it is now time to ensure that

1:34:57the the safety element is brought up to

1:34:59speed. A large part of this update was

1:35:01focused on a number of new state

1:35:03requirements that have come into effect

1:35:05over the past 10 to 12 years.

1:35:07This includes requirements around

1:35:09addressing climate change in the city

1:35:11and the effects of climate change on the

1:35:14frequency and severity of natural

1:35:15hazards.

1:35:17We now have to address emergency

1:35:18evacuation and related issues in the

1:35:20health and safety element and

1:35:22requirements for extreme heat among

1:35:24others.

1:35:25The most recent This current update to

1:35:27the health and safety element also

1:35:29incorporates the most recent iteration

1:35:31of the countywide multi-jurisdictional

1:35:33hazard mitigation plan, which the city

1:35:36is a participant in, and inclusion of

1:35:38that plan in the health and safety

1:35:41element not only ensures a more

1:35:43integrated approach to addressing the

1:35:46city's natural hazards and and

1:35:48human-caused hazards, but also makes the

1:35:51city eligible potentially for increased

1:35:53grant funding and increases after relief

1:35:55funding from the state if that ever

1:35:57became necessary.

1:36:00The health and safety element, in

1:36:03contrast to the building code, is a

1:36:06fairly high-level broad document. It is

1:36:09part of the city's general plan.

1:36:11And it really is meant to provide policy

1:36:13direction to guide the city's growth and

1:36:16development and its resource use

1:36:19and to address certain gaps or certain

1:36:21policy issues that may come up over the

1:36:23course of the next

1:36:25several years of the city's growth and

1:36:27development periods.

1:36:28By contrast, the building code is a much

1:36:31more detailed, very specific set of

1:36:33requirements.

1:36:35As you may know, the state passes a new

1:36:37building code typically every 3 years,

1:36:40and then the city is under requirements

1:36:42to adopt that and implement it. The city

1:36:44may impose additional requirements

1:36:46through a local amendment process. And

1:36:48the most recent version of the building

1:36:49code includes not only the the state's

1:36:52fire code, but also a new what's called

1:36:55the wildland-urban interface code, which

1:36:57came into effect in January. That code

1:37:00pulls together various the separate

1:37:02requirements for development in fire

1:37:05hazard fire hazard severity zones,

1:37:08and now helps to ensure that any

1:37:09development that occurs in those zones

1:37:11is better protected against wildfire,

1:37:14and is less likely to to burn down, to

1:37:16be damaged, or to

1:37:18to threaten human health and safety in

1:37:20the fire zones.

1:37:23As you've heard, this has been

1:37:26quite a an involved process with a

1:37:27number of meetings. There were study

1:37:29sessions last year with the planning

1:37:31commission and with the public safety

1:37:33commission.

1:37:34And feedback from those meetings was

1:37:36taken into account and incorporated into

1:37:39the first draft of the health and safety

1:37:41element update.

1:37:43The health and safety element went out

1:37:45for public review this past spring

1:37:47February to May and at that time there

1:37:50was also a study session with the

1:37:52Planning Commission on March 9th.

1:37:54We then had study sessions with the City

1:37:56Council on May 19th,

1:37:58incorporated feedback received and

1:38:00presented a follow-up version of the

1:38:02health and safety element at another

1:38:03study session on July 7th of this year.

1:38:06At that time that also was in the middle

1:38:08of the tribal consultation process which

1:38:10I will get to in a moment.

1:38:12Following the last City's Council study

1:38:14session back in July, we have conducted

1:38:17required review of the health and safety

1:38:20element with various state agencies.

1:38:22That were those review periods have all

1:38:24concluded. There was a Planning

1:38:26Commission hearing on September 22nd at

1:38:29which time the commission did recommend

1:38:31adoption

1:38:32and that brings us to today's meeting

1:38:34with you all.

1:38:38The general organization of the health

1:38:40and safety element has remained mostly

1:38:43similar from the previous iteration or

1:38:45the the currently adopted iteration that

1:38:47was adopted in 2014.

1:38:50There have been a few new additions in

1:38:52response to state law particularly as I

1:38:54mentioned around climate change

1:38:55resilience and extreme heat. Those are

1:38:58entirely new parts of the health and

1:38:59safety element and some sections have

1:39:02moved around and been renamed but

1:39:04generally the the framework and the

1:39:05structure is similar to the existing

1:39:08element and the other components of the

1:39:09city's existing general plan.

1:39:13So since those earlier study sessions,

1:39:16there have been a number of changes

1:39:18mostly small scale but a few more

1:39:21significant ones and here

1:39:23is a a list of the changes we have made.

1:39:25They have mostly focused on three areas

1:39:28on emergency preparedness and response,

1:39:30on fire safety and on extreme heat. You

1:39:34know, those were the ones that state

1:39:35agencies offered the most

1:39:36recommendations on. Those were where

1:39:39many of the comments from this council

1:39:41and from the Planning commission were

1:39:42focused as well as comments from members

1:39:44of the public. So, we have tried to be

1:39:46responsive to all the feedback that we

1:39:48received and incorporate those changes

1:39:49into those sections.

1:39:51In addition to those three topics, there

1:39:53have also been smaller scale changes in

1:39:56the topics of regional coordination,

1:39:58public services,

1:40:00hazardous materials, climate change

1:40:02resilience, particularly around drought,

1:40:04and on the topic of noise.

1:40:09As I mentioned, we were required to

1:40:11submit the health and safety element for

1:40:13review by three straight state agencies.

1:40:16That is Cal Fire, the California

1:40:18Department of Forestry and Fire

1:40:19Protection as governed by the Board of

1:40:21Forestry,

1:40:23the Governor's Office of Emergency

1:40:24Services, and the California Geological

1:40:27Survey.

1:40:28Cal Fire conducted their review earlier

1:40:30this summer. Their staff reviewed the

1:40:32element and provided recommended changes

1:40:35on the sections that relate to wildfire

1:40:37and to emergency evacuation.

1:40:40We

1:40:41had consultation period with them. We

1:40:43made changes in response.

1:40:45And the Board of Forestry and Fire

1:40:48Protection formally heard the element

1:40:51back in September, and at that time they

1:40:52were very supportive of it. They offered

1:40:55great deal of praise to the city and its

1:40:56efforts, and they had no further

1:40:58comments at that time.

1:41:00The Office of Emergency Services

1:41:02received the health and safety element

1:41:04in July.

1:41:05And about a week later, they confirmed

1:41:07that the draft element is fully

1:41:09consistent with the the city's hazard

1:41:12mitigation plan. And that it properly

1:41:14incorporates the hazard mitigation plan

1:41:16in a manner consistent with Assembly

1:41:18Bill 2140, which is what gives the city

1:41:20eligibility for that increased disaster

1:41:22relief funding if that's needed.

1:41:24And then we also submitted to the State

1:41:26Geological Survey in the summer.

1:41:29They did not provide any comments, and

1:41:31so we we have moved ahead with the

1:41:33understanding that the sections that

1:41:34relate to geology and seismic issues are

1:41:37fully consistent with state law and with

1:41:39their best practices.

1:41:43In response to the CalFire review, we

1:41:45have made some changes to both the

1:41:46background section of the health and

1:41:48safety element and to a handful of the

1:41:49key policies around wildfires.

1:41:52There is now some more information

1:41:55about the CZU Lightning Complex Fire. We

1:41:58have affirmed in the language in the

1:42:01health and safety element that there are

1:42:02no areas of Cupertino that lack fire

1:42:04protection coverage. That is now stated

1:42:06very explicitly.

1:42:07And we have made sure there is an

1:42:09accurate and functioning web link to the

1:42:11city's evacuation route capacity

1:42:13assessment.

1:42:14On the policy side, there have been some

1:42:17revisions to the policies around new

1:42:18development and new subdivisions in the

1:42:21high and very high fire hazard severity

1:42:22zones.

1:42:24We have added policies to make sure that

1:42:26there is continued adequate access and

1:42:28road maintenance in the hillside areas

1:42:30for both emergency ingress and for

1:42:32evacuation egress.

1:42:34And we have revised some policies around

1:42:36defensible space, roadside vegetation

1:42:39management, and the anticipated future

1:42:42locations of water supplies.

1:42:46The city was also required to perform a

1:42:48tribal consultation process. This is

1:42:51required for any updates to any part of

1:42:53the general plan. So back in May, staff

1:42:55sent a request to the for list of tribes

1:42:57to be contacted with this through the

1:42:59state California Native Heritage

1:43:01Commission.

1:43:02We received

1:43:04one response from one of the contacted

1:43:06tribes, the Tamien Nation.

1:43:09Staff had a consultation with members of

1:43:11the Tamien Nation beginning in July of

1:43:12this year.

1:43:14There was a further meeting in August

1:43:16and the representative of the tribes

1:43:18confirmed that they did not have any

1:43:20comments on the proposed changes to the

1:43:22health and safety element.

1:43:26The health and safety element does does

1:43:29have to go through a California

1:43:31Environmental Quality Act process, but

1:43:33under that process we have concluded

1:43:36that the element is eligible for an

1:43:37exemption, and specifically the a common

1:43:40sense exemption, given that this is a

1:43:42policy level document. It does not

1:43:44commit the jurisdiction to any specific

1:43:47development actions. It doesn't require

1:43:49or include any land use changes or

1:43:51zoning changes. There's no change in

1:43:53Cupertino's development potential. It's

1:43:55not placing additional demands on

1:43:57natural resources or uh local

1:44:00infrastructure or any other services.

1:44:03Uh if there are any actions that occur

1:44:06through implementation of the health and

1:44:07safety element that could affect the

1:44:09environment at time of implementation,

1:44:11they would be subject to further CEQA

1:44:13review when the city moves forward with

1:44:15those actions. But uh

1:44:17as I mentioned right now, the the

1:44:19element overall is eligible for a CEQA

1:44:21exemption.

1:44:25So, in the September 22nd meeting at the

1:44:28Planning Commission, as I mentioned,

1:44:29they did recommend that the council

1:44:31adopt this health and safety element.

1:44:33They did make four recommendations to

1:44:36accompany their recommendation, or four

1:44:38specific recommendations that accompany

1:44:39that overall recommendation for

1:44:41adoption.

1:44:42They recommended adding a new policy

1:44:45under a new strategy under policy 2.11,

1:44:47as you see there.

1:44:49They recommended clarifying in the

1:44:51background information that the primary

1:44:54responsibility of the sheriff's office

1:44:56in Cupertino is the security and safety

1:44:59of the Cupertino community, which funds

1:45:00its operations.

1:45:02And they requested some adjustments to

1:45:04or they recommended some of the

1:45:05adjustments to two of the noise related

1:45:07policies.

1:45:11At this time, staff does recommend

1:45:14moving forward with uh

1:45:16the Planning Commission's

1:45:18recommendations for two, three, and

1:45:19four.

1:45:20Uh we are not currently recommending

1:45:22adoption of the Commission's

1:45:24recommendation number one.

1:45:26The County sheriff's office and the fire

1:45:28department already evaluate all proposed

1:45:31changes to roadways and ensure that they

1:45:32do not conflict with the city's or the

1:45:35county's or the state's requirements for

1:45:36emergency ingress and egress.

1:45:39If the council does desire to move

1:45:41forward with that recommendation, staff

1:45:43would recommend that the language be

1:45:45changed as you see

1:45:47uh

1:45:48presented on your screen, uh including

1:45:50revising the reference to the October

1:45:5225th evacuation study

1:45:55and change it into the most recent

1:45:56city-sponsored evacuation study. So,

1:45:59that way if the city did prepare a new

1:46:00study, the language in the safety

1:46:02element would not immediately go out of

1:46:03date.

1:46:07So, that said, uh the staff's

1:46:09recommended action is that the city

1:46:11council adopt the draft resolution in

1:46:13attachment one

1:46:14with amendments to the health and safety

1:46:17chapter, including the planning

1:46:18commission recommended changes

1:46:20uh for page six, policy HS 10.7, and

1:46:23policy HS 10.8,

1:46:25and adopting amendments to appendix D,

1:46:27E, and the new appendix H of the health

1:46:30and safety element, and finding that

1:46:32these actions are exempt from CEQA.

1:46:35Uh and that concludes our presentation.

1:46:37We'd be happy to answer any questions.

1:46:38Thank you.

1:46:40>> All right. Thank you very much for the

1:46:41report. At this time, do we have any

1:46:44clarifying questions from members of the

1:46:46council?

1:46:52Okay.

1:46:53Councilmember Mohan, followed by the

1:46:54vice mayor.

1:46:56>> Yeah, quick question for staff. What

1:46:58happens next?

1:47:02>> I think we would be adopting the updated

1:47:04health and safety element at this point.

1:47:06>> A- and then?

1:47:09>> I don't know what after that. It's

1:47:10pretty much done. We would have the

1:47:12process completed at that point.

1:47:15>> Does it become an addendum to the

1:47:17housing element?

1:47:18>> Uh no, this is actually its own separate

1:47:21element within the general plan. So,

1:47:22similar to the housing element, it it is

1:47:24its own element. It comprises the

1:47:26general plan. So, safety and noise are

1:47:29both required elements. In the city of

1:47:31Cupertino, you have health and safety

1:47:33included noise as well. So, this is

1:47:36really the finalizing of the process. I

1:47:38think as Eli said, it's gone through the

1:47:40state agencies that needed to weigh in,

1:47:42particularly Board of Forestry.

1:47:44Um their review, I would say, was the

1:47:46most critical. That was completed in on

1:47:48September 22.

1:47:50So, this is really the uh

1:47:53moment of finalizing the project.

1:47:56>> Okay. Thank you.

1:47:59Um Vice Mayor?

1:48:01>> Um

1:48:02So,

1:48:04could you clarify exactly what would

1:48:07trigger um evacuation analysis?

1:48:10It seems there are some road change and

1:48:12some

1:48:16>> Well, I guess I could say for the

1:48:17context of the health and safety

1:48:19element, it was I believe uh Assembly

1:48:21Bill 747

1:48:23required that as part of your health and

1:48:26safety element update, that an

1:48:28evacuation study be prepared. So, that

1:48:31was the reason we did one at this time.

1:48:33That was completed a year ago. It was

1:48:35last October. So, it was just a

1:48:37requirement of the health and safety

1:48:38element update.

1:48:40>> Okay. So, in case there is a new

1:48:44development in a

1:48:46in a area that might affect um

1:48:49an evacuation routes, that might

1:48:52increase its capa-

1:48:55uh capacity,

1:48:56an evacuation analysis would be

1:48:59required?

1:49:00>> It's possible. If you had a project

1:49:03that's subject to CEQA, there is

1:49:05guidance on preparing an evacuation

1:49:07study that would focus on that specific

1:49:09project.

1:49:11The study that we did here was again

1:49:13citywide. It was really trying to

1:49:14identify

1:49:16where you have veal vehicle to capacity

1:49:18problems. So, essentially, where would

1:49:20your bottlenecks likely occur if you had

1:49:22an evacuation?

1:49:24>> So, but if a project uh is not subject

1:49:27to CEQA or is exempt uh

1:49:30for whatever reason, then no evacuation

1:49:34study will be done.

1:49:36>> Currently, that's the case, yes.

1:49:38>> And then, if we have accumulated uh

1:49:40demand from multiple projects that

1:49:43exempt from CEQA, we would have no idea

1:49:47how

1:49:49the accumulated uh

1:49:51aggregated uh um impact on the

1:49:55evacuation routes because no one will be

1:49:57doing a study.

1:50:00>> Well,

1:50:01it's also very unlikely we're going to

1:50:04have a lot of development in areas that

1:50:06are, say, very high fire or on the

1:50:08extreme west of the city. You have lower

1:50:10densities, and there are a lot of

1:50:12requirements that are built into the

1:50:15health and safety element. So,

1:50:18as you get projects, you do try to

1:50:20analyze them on their own merits.

1:50:22>> So,

1:50:24in what area of the city currently have

1:50:27um is a

1:50:30constrained in their evacuation

1:50:32capacity?

1:50:36>> There are maps identified in the health

1:50:39and safety element, and I believe what

1:50:41is it, policy

1:50:43HS 216, which is evacuation route

1:50:46assessment requirement, that is part of

1:50:48this document.

1:50:50>> Mhm.

1:50:52>> I mean, there are, even if you look at

1:50:53some of the maps in this document, I

1:50:55forget which one, but we have There are

1:50:59evacuation issues technically even with

1:51:01anything that's a cul-de-sac

1:51:03because you only have one way in and

1:51:04out.

1:51:06So, I think though, when we're looking

1:51:07at, you know, evacuations,

1:51:11it's largely more on the west side of

1:51:12the city. As you would get into the

1:51:14hills, assuming that if you had

1:51:16something like a fire or a dam failure,

1:51:19it would have likely originated on the

1:51:20western side of the city, so traffic

1:51:22would be moving eastward or away from

1:51:24that area.

1:51:25>> Um I'm more thinking of

1:51:28for example, McClellan.

1:51:31McClellan, yeah. Um so and we have

1:51:35constrained as movement on some right

1:51:37turns and

1:51:39and then the more moving onto the land

1:51:43is pretty restricted. So is with that

1:51:48road has enough capacity for evacuation?

1:51:51And for example, Bollinger, it

1:51:55I think a lot of times it's pretty

1:51:57congested. Uh

1:51:58And in case the city reduce the number

1:52:01of lanes,

1:52:02um because the recent uh Bollinger

1:52:05feasibility study propose potentially to

1:52:08re- reduce the number of lanes to make

1:52:11room for bike lane. So then would that

1:52:14affect its evacuation capacity?

1:52:17So should Would the city then have to do

1:52:20an evacuation study for those?

1:52:23>> Well, I would think anytime you would

1:52:25reduce the capacity of a roadway, you

1:52:27would be analyzing that. As

1:52:28>> Even if it's not in high fire severity

1:52:31zone?

1:52:31>> Well, yeah, and I think the evacuation

1:52:33study um McClellan, Foothill, there were

1:52:37portions of those roads already were

1:52:39where the vehicle to capacity ratio was

1:52:41highest, meaning that those were your

1:52:43likely backups.

1:52:45And you know, most of McClellan's one

1:52:48lane each way.

1:52:49So the capacity's already it's not a

1:52:51multiple lane road. Um but I think if

1:52:53the city were looking at, you know, a

1:52:55public works type project that can

1:52:57affect roadway capacity, you would

1:52:59certainly be taking into account

1:53:01evacuation among many other things

1:53:03before you would make a decision.

1:53:05>> So for example, in case the does

1:53:07consider a bike lane along Bollinger, we

1:53:11should do a evacuation study

1:53:15for that.

1:53:16>> Well, I would I would defer more to

1:53:18public works on whether we would do a

1:53:19specific evacuation study over just a

1:53:22bike lane.

1:53:23>> Because we are reducing vehicle lane

1:53:25from two to one on each direction if a

1:53:29bike lane is door is installed. That's

1:53:31from the feasibility study for Bollinger

1:53:34Road.

1:53:35It's not just adding bike lane. It's

1:53:37reducing vehicle lane. That's why why

1:53:39I'm asking.

1:53:41>> Well, if if you're taking lanes away,

1:53:43you're obviously reducing vehicle

1:53:46capacity.

1:53:46>> So, that would trigger

1:53:48>> would It would certainly be part of an

1:53:49analysis if you were taking a major

1:53:51roadway and reducing its vehicle

1:53:53capacity. We would be working with the

1:53:55Sheriff's Department, the Fire

1:53:57Department, and analyzing anything that

1:54:00could come of that.

1:54:02>> Okay. Thank you. I have another

1:54:04question, but I'll ask let other people

1:54:06ask first. Go ahead, Allison.

1:54:09Okay.

1:54:10So, another question is regarding the

1:54:12noise generating uses.

1:54:15I see that we have added a policy that

1:54:18we require acoustic study acoustic

1:54:22analysis.

1:54:24However, um

1:54:26the current uh statement does not

1:54:30specify what exactly should be included

1:54:34in the analysis.

1:54:36Um

1:54:37I think many people have written earlier

1:54:40that we should really be studying

1:54:43impulsive, repetitive, and tone and

1:54:46frequency sensitive sounds.

1:54:48Um

1:54:50So, if we don't specify what

1:54:53is to be analyzed, likely those won't be

1:54:56analyzed, and we will be just analyzing

1:54:59bass

1:55:01um

1:55:02sound, right?

1:55:05>> Well, I think it like Eli said, this is

1:55:07a a high-level document and the way the

1:55:10policy HS 10-8 is written, it's

1:55:13referring to noise-generating uses

1:55:15whether they're public or private or

1:55:17recreational

1:55:18and that they're adjacent to residential

1:55:20areas. So,

1:55:22it's whether it would be repetitive or

1:55:24not. I think the focus is on is it

1:55:26noise-generating and is it close to a

1:55:27residential area where it could impact

1:55:29them.

1:55:30And any such use would then be looking

1:55:33at preparing an acoustical analysis to

1:55:35assess the the impacts it could have.

1:55:37>> Does the city currently has any standard

1:55:40on what acoustical analysis should

1:55:43include?

1:55:46>> We do have sections on Let me see if we

1:55:50can get here.

1:55:52When we have anything that could be

1:55:53noise-generating, I mean, even things

1:55:55that are fairly common such as, you

1:55:59know, air-conditioning condensers.

1:56:01>> No, I I don't mean when we would do an

1:56:04LS any I mean, what will be analyzed? Do

1:56:07we have any standard on what we would

1:56:10measure in such acoustics analysis?

1:56:15>> You're generally looking at the noise

1:56:17generated and how high that noise level

1:56:20is from the closest property line or

1:56:22whatever your sensitive receptor would

1:56:24be, a house

1:56:26or some other

1:56:27>> that seems to be not enough for the

1:56:30noise that we have gotten a lot of

1:56:32complaints about,

1:56:33which is

1:56:35impulsive, repetitive, tonal,

1:56:37frequency-sensitive sounds.

1:56:41So, I'm hoping that we

1:56:43are specific about

1:56:46that we should include uh

1:56:48the analysis should include this kind of

1:56:51sound. So,

1:56:55should

1:56:57Should that be Can we include that in

1:56:59this policy document?

1:57:03>> Um my view would be to leave it as it is

1:57:06because this isn't accepting anything

1:57:08like that. I mean, if you're saying say

1:57:10sounds coming from a racket,

1:57:12um it's a noise, whether that would be

1:57:15continuous or whether it would just be

1:57:17repetitive with intervals,

1:57:20the focus is really on the noise itself.

1:57:23>> Mhm.

1:57:23>> And how loud that noise is.

1:57:27>> So, can we I So, in terms of the city

1:57:30policy,

1:57:32sh- are you saying we This is a general

1:57:35policy document. We should adopt

1:57:38something at the municipal level on what

1:57:42we would require for the acoustical

1:57:44analysis?

1:57:47>> If you wanted to get more specific, I

1:57:49would say we would do that somewhere

1:57:50else rather than this because the the

1:57:52goal is the policy is being very

1:57:54inclusive. It's noise as a whole.

1:57:57>> Mhm.

1:57:57>> Whether it's recreational, it's private

1:57:59to public, whatever, the the

1:58:01what it's really focused on is the noise

1:58:03itself and lessening its impacts on

1:58:06residential areas.

1:58:08>> Okay. Thank you.

1:58:12>> Okay. Um thank you, Vice Mayor. That was

1:58:14the area that I wanted to look at a

1:58:18little bit. Um

1:58:20having

1:58:21looked at some of these pickleball

1:58:23locations, and there was one that I saw

1:58:26that was near a dentist's office, and I

1:58:29personally wouldn't want to have my

1:58:34you know, ortho surgeon trying to do

1:58:36some work with that noise going on. Um

1:58:40I'd really

1:58:41be concerned about that, getting a root

1:58:43canal, something like that. Um

1:58:46with that. So, I was thinking that

1:58:47perhaps that we just looking at

1:58:49residential that there could actually be

1:58:51some sensitive commercial areas where

1:58:54that kind of sound

1:58:56um

1:58:57whether it's some physical therapy or it

1:59:00could be a therapy session

1:59:03or you know the or

1:59:06outpatient surgery type of thing where

1:59:08there's there are some of these

1:59:11locations of these recreational areas

1:59:13where I mean

1:59:15point to pickleball that some of them

1:59:17are not in the best locations where

1:59:21they've been added and could it be that

1:59:24we um add to this

1:59:28um

1:59:29including public or private recreational

1:59:32uses within or adjacent to established

1:59:35residential areas

1:59:38and or sensitive commercial areas. It

1:59:42just is there some way to because I

1:59:44can't think of situations where it would

1:59:46you just don't want to listen to that.

1:59:48Um and they'll they're going to have to

1:59:50redo their windows and um potentially

1:59:52their

1:59:53sound insulation and and all in order to

1:59:57um provide some mitigation

2:00:00from this extra use. Uh

2:00:05So do you have some thoughts on that

2:00:07just to adding um and or sensitive

2:00:10commercial areas?

2:00:12>> Yeah, I mean that could be done. I know

2:00:14usually the the term often used is

2:00:17sensitive receptors. So whether it's

2:00:19commercial or not, but I think that

2:00:20distinguishes that it's not just

2:00:22residential.

2:00:23>> Mhm.

2:00:24>> Um

2:00:26I wouldn't want to try to define what

2:00:27all could fall into that category cuz

2:00:29like you're saying anything medical

2:00:31related could be possibly

2:00:35some areas where maybe children are. I

2:00:37don't know. Maybe they're not going to

2:00:38mind pickleball noise too much, but

2:00:41there probably are other areas that

2:00:43aren't residential that would have could

2:00:46be subject to noise impacts. So,

2:00:49a general term like sensitive or other

2:00:51sensitive receptors

2:00:53I think would suffice in a policy level

2:00:55document like this.

2:00:57>> Okay. So, then that it could go within

2:00:59or adjacent to established residential

2:01:01areas

2:01:02and

2:01:04What do you want? And or

2:01:06>> Yeah, and or other sensitive receptors.

2:01:10>> Okay.

2:01:12Uh okay, and then um so, I would like to

2:01:15to see that addition.

2:01:18Uh there were there were a couple of

2:01:20like really minor um

2:01:23typo issues

2:01:24uh

2:01:25such as referring to safety element

2:01:28chapter 6 instead of 7 and there were

2:01:32some small uh

2:01:36uh numbers uh that needed to be changes.

2:01:38There were some punctuation um

2:01:41issues which I don't it ordinarily we

2:01:44really wouldn't put that into a motion.

2:01:46We're looking for kind of the big

2:01:47picture things. So, um

2:01:50would that go as kind of a resolution

2:01:52clean up um

2:01:54later on? That's fine. Okay, good. So,

2:01:57we would retain then item one as the new

2:02:01strategy with your with your language

2:02:03change that you have here. So, um I'm

2:02:06not seeing any further hands raised from

2:02:08the council. So, we're going to see if

2:02:10there's any members of the public that

2:02:12would like to uh comment on this item

2:02:15and then we'll bring it back for a

2:02:17motion for deliberation purposes unless

2:02:19there are some further clarifying

2:02:20questions.

2:02:22And do we have any members of the

2:02:23public?

2:02:24>> Mayor, there are no requests to speak

2:02:25here in community hall, but I do see one

2:02:27hand raised virtually. So, at this time

2:02:29we will go ahead and welcome Jennifer

2:02:31Griffin.

2:02:31>> All right. Thank you.

2:02:35>> Thanks for the policy.

2:02:39>> video. I had to sign out of Zoom, so I

2:02:42don't have the capability.

2:02:46>> Hello. Can you all hear me?

2:02:48>> We can hear you.

2:02:50>> Okay, good. Thank you.

2:02:52I'm glad you guys are are keeping

2:02:55everything going.

2:02:56Hi, this is Jennifer Griffin.

2:02:58I'm really glad that there were so many

2:03:00public meetings about this document.

2:03:04I feel like it really has been fleshed

2:03:06out. Everybody has talked about things

2:03:09that have concerned them. We're still

2:03:12working on parts of it, but I think it's

2:03:14a really really robust document.

2:03:18We just had the anniversary of the 1989

2:03:22Loma Prieta earthquake on October 17th

2:03:25and the anniversary of the Oakland Hills

2:03:28fire just passed also.

2:03:31Um

2:03:32having been in the a person that grew up

2:03:34in the Bay Area,

2:03:36those two

2:03:38events are very very strongly

2:03:42something I think about quite frequently

2:03:45because I went through them.

2:03:47But I think for people

2:03:49who have not gone through something like

2:03:51that, and I will say the CZU fire

2:03:53complex was something that was

2:03:55personally

2:03:57extremely important for me because we

2:03:59had several people that I know that lost

2:04:01homes

2:04:03in the Santa Cruz area. We were

2:04:04concerned about relatives, etc. But

2:04:08these are the types of things that

2:04:11you have to plan and you have to plan

2:04:14again

2:04:15because they could occur at any time.

2:04:19And I don't want to sound like doomsday

2:04:22person, but you could have a

2:04:266.2

2:04:288 level earthquake anytime. The Hayward

2:04:31area will have an earthquake probably up

2:04:35to seven in probably the next 20 years.

2:04:38And we have to keep this in our minds

2:04:42day-to-day. What do we do? Where is the

2:04:44family? Do you have fuel in your car?

2:04:47Will you have to evacuate? And I could

2:04:50just recommend that

2:04:52in documents like this,

2:04:55you look at how much coordination and

2:04:59communication there is and can be made

2:05:03available

2:05:05with city services, emergency services,

2:05:08radio services, ham ham operators, uh

2:05:11fire prevention, um police departments,

2:05:16and that just coordination is the thing

2:05:20that saves lives. I would also like to

2:05:22add, I don't know, I think it might be

2:05:25important for the city to identify areas

2:05:28in the city where you have life flight

2:05:31helicopters that can come down and land.

2:05:34Certainly, Apple has uh helicopter

2:05:37facilities. Um there are probably other

2:05:40places in the city that have facilities

2:05:43like this, and you might want to note

2:05:46them in your document because if you

2:05:49have evacuation, you need to use those.

2:05:51Thank you.

2:05:52>> Thank you, Jennifer. Mayor, there are no

2:05:54further requests to speak on this item.

2:05:56>> Okay. Okay, um so I do have a clarifying

2:05:59question with regards to um

2:06:01recommendation number one uh

2:06:05with the the staff alternative wording,

2:06:09which uh removes the October 2025

2:06:13uh reference. Um but when I'm looking at

2:06:15the staff report, it says staff does not

2:06:17recommend adding the strategy

2:06:18recommended by the planning commission

2:06:20because as proposed, it doesn't provide

2:06:21clear or new direction to staff and

2:06:24could result in potentially significant

2:06:26new resource commitments to city roadway

2:06:28projects. The Santa Santa County

2:06:30Sheriff's Office and Santa Clara County

2:06:32Fire Department currently evaluate

2:06:33proposed changes to roadways to ensure

2:06:35that they do not conflict with emergency

2:06:38ingress and egress requirements. The

2:06:40proposed strategy does not define what

2:06:42it means to reduce capacity, which means

2:06:44that even a minor change such as adding

2:06:46or removing a stop sign could be

2:06:48interpreted as a reduction in capacity.

2:06:50In addition

2:06:51to understanding the capacity of a

2:06:53roadway designated as an evacuation

2:06:54route, it's also important to assess

2:06:57viability of the roadway as an

2:06:59evacuation route, which is not addressed

2:07:01in the proposed strategy. So,

2:07:04um

2:07:05so your alternative wording is kind of

2:07:09while it addresses the October 2025

2:07:12um reference, it

2:07:15I'd like to understand more about um

2:07:18it it it sounds like the recommendation

2:07:20is to just not add this new strategy at

2:07:23all. Is that correct? And it will it

2:07:25really cause this

2:07:28this huge number of of issues such as

2:07:31the stop sign problem.

2:07:33>> Yeah, I I don't know that that's the

2:07:35case. I think the

2:07:36the feeling was really that added the

2:07:38language was not really adding anything

2:07:41to what was already in the evacuation

2:07:43study and the the change from

2:07:45eliminating the October 25 reference, I

2:07:47think was clear that if we update it

2:07:50you're immediately then referring back

2:07:51to a document that was superseded. So,

2:07:54um

2:07:55staff's feeling was that

2:07:58it just didn't add anything to what was

2:07:59already there.

2:08:01So, but alternatively we wanted to

2:08:03include

2:08:04modified language

2:08:06um

2:08:08that tried to, you know, clarify what

2:08:10was meant by roadway capacity that a

2:08:13reduction in roadway capacity and again

2:08:15eliminate the October 25 reference.

2:08:19>> Okay.

2:08:21So, it's it's simply saying prioritize

2:08:24evacuation capacity analysis. That

2:08:26sounds like I should

2:08:29um probably to to prioritize that uh for

2:08:33any roadway changes that reduce roadway

2:08:35capacity in evacuation constrained

2:08:38corridors. So,

2:08:41it sounds reasonable to me. I'd kind of

2:08:42like to do a straw poll for from the

2:08:44council if there's some different um

2:08:46interpretations. I see Council Member

2:08:48Wong, you have your hand raised, but I'd

2:08:50like to also um hear from the rest of

2:08:52the council on this particular item what

2:08:54your opinions are of it, beginning with

2:08:55Council Member Wong.

2:08:57>> I would strongly encourage that we

2:08:58become more clear about impacts to

2:09:01uh evacuation routes, whether it's ATP,

2:09:04whether it's a change, whether it's a so

2:09:07sign. I think it's a very important

2:09:08piece. Uh we have been ignoring a

2:09:10holistic view in terms of circulation.

2:09:13Uh our mobility needs have been

2:09:15constrained, uh and I think it's very

2:09:17important to call that out.

2:09:19>> Okay. So, Council Member Wong, does that

2:09:21mean that you would prefer to keep

2:09:23recommendation number one um with a

2:09:26minor change from uh

2:09:28staff's alternative wording, which would

2:09:30state for us prioritize evacuation

2:09:33capacity analysis for any roadway

2:09:35changes that reduce roadway capacity in

2:09:37evacuation constrained corridors as

2:09:39identified in instead of the October

2:09:412025 the most recent city-sponsored

2:09:44evacuation study, which is to cover in

2:09:47case we've updated it down the road. We

2:09:49have new new studies.

2:09:50>> I think so. We have an obligation to

2:09:53look at emergency roadways first before

2:09:56we think about bike lanes and ATP and

2:09:58those other areas because that's a

2:10:00priority one concern. That's in if you

2:10:02think in your Maslow's hierarchy of

2:10:04needs, getting out for a fire is a lot

2:10:05more important than worrying about a

2:10:06bike lane. And so, I think we need to

2:10:08figure out a way to make sure that the

2:10:09wording emphasizes that and does not

2:10:12deprioritize the emergency routes for

2:10:15the sake of having a bike lane.

2:10:17>> Okay, thank you. And so, this so keep

2:10:19number one

2:10:20um

2:10:21emphatically.

2:10:22Okay, so uh uh

2:10:25I'm just going to call on Councilmember

2:10:27Mowat Han.

2:10:28>> Um

2:10:29I would I

2:10:31I was looking at the staff explanation

2:10:33for why they don't recommend the

2:10:35strategy and um

2:10:38from staff's perspective, it does not

2:10:41provide clear or new direction to staff.

2:10:44Uh

2:10:45so I I'm

2:10:47I would let like uh them to be the judge

2:10:50of that.

2:10:51Uh and the proposed strategy does not

2:10:55define what it means to reduce capacity,

2:10:58which means that even a minor change,

2:11:00such as adding or removing a stop sign,

2:11:02could be interpreted as a reduction in

2:11:04capacity. Uh so in addition to

2:11:07understanding the capacity of a roadway

2:11:09designated as an evacuation route, it is

2:11:12also important to assess viability of

2:11:14the roadway as an evacuation route,

2:11:16which is not addressed in the proposed

2:11:18strategy. So So to me, that that makes

2:11:21sense. Are we

2:11:22um

2:11:23what are we um

2:11:26what are we recommending if it doesn't

2:11:28provide clear direction? And I actually

2:11:31agree with the staff recommendation that

2:11:34uh maybe things like adding or removing

2:11:36a stop sign, which

2:11:38doesn't really have an impact on

2:11:41capacity, can be construed uh in this

2:11:44interpretation as a reduction in

2:11:46capacity and it basically delays things.

2:11:52>> Um understood. Uh

2:11:54I don't see a hand raised from either

2:11:57Councilmember Fruin or Vice Mayor.

2:12:00Uh okay, Vice Mayor and then what I'll

2:12:02go to Councilmember Fruin and then I

2:12:05will respond.

2:12:06>> Okay, so for this number one proposed by

2:12:09Planning Commission,

2:12:12it states prioritize evacuation capacity

2:12:16analysis for any roadway changes that

2:12:20reduce capacity in evacuation constraint

2:12:24corridors

2:12:25as identified in October 2025 evacuation

2:12:29study.

2:12:30So, I think it doesn't mean any stop

2:12:32sign. It means

2:12:34only if the roadway changes reduce

2:12:37capacity

2:12:39in the evacuation constraint corridors.

2:12:43And that's it. So, I don't think that

2:12:46there's anything unclear.

2:12:48I am confused of what is not clear about

2:12:52this.

2:12:53Um I do have a question.

2:12:56Um

2:12:58It seems the October 2025 evacuation

2:13:02study considers the existing condition

2:13:05from 2023

2:13:09population.

2:13:10So, it does not take into account of any

2:13:13of the

2:13:15new development

2:13:17in that may be coming in Cupertino, but

2:13:20we are assuming

2:13:22they are not in the constraint area, but

2:13:25but it doesn't matter. I just want to

2:13:27clarify confirm that the 2025 study

2:13:31considers the existing condition

2:13:35from the 2023 number, right?

2:13:39>> Yeah, I believe that's it. It's been a

2:13:40while since I looked at it, but the

2:13:42study was completed in October 2025. So,

2:13:45it was based on information in 2023

2:13:472024.

2:13:49>> Is there any legal requirement on how

2:13:52often we conduct such study?

2:13:55Um from I think you mentioned AB 747.

2:13:59>> It would need to be done every time you

2:14:01update the health and safety element.

2:14:03So, if in 8 years you do it again, you

2:14:06would likely

2:14:07>> we likely would do another study based

2:14:10>> Right. And and that may change, but

2:14:11right now that's the law.

2:14:13>> Okay.

2:14:14And I

2:14:16tried to look at what's the condition

2:14:19for Bollinger, and Bollinger is not

2:14:22included in our evacuation study.

2:14:25Maybe because it's a road bordering San

2:14:28Jose.

2:14:29But, I do wonder how So,

2:14:33So, who will be studying Bollinger?

2:14:38>> I I really don't know why would we

2:14:41Bollinger in particular? I'm not sure

2:14:43why we would be studying

2:14:44>> it was a proposal to reduce lanes on

2:14:47Bollinger.

2:14:49So, I'm concerned about the capacity

2:14:52um for people

2:14:55to evacuate from that area.

2:14:59>> Well, in this in the study we did,

2:15:01again, I mean, it was mostly looking at

2:15:04the constrained roads were largely on

2:15:06the west side.

2:15:08And funneling to McClellan, Foothill,

2:15:10and which you would expect. I mean,

2:15:12those are the those are where the

2:15:13populations generally going to be

2:15:15evacuating from.

2:15:17So,

2:15:18>> Um

2:15:19>> you know, a particular project on

2:15:20Bollinger was not something that study

2:15:23was looking at. It was really saying,

2:15:25"This is the city at this point in

2:15:26time."

2:15:27It gave you three scenarios that could

2:15:29cause evacuations, different time of

2:15:31year, different time of day,

2:15:32and tried to identify which of those

2:15:34would most likely be bottlenecks.

2:15:36>> Okay. So, when we are talking about

2:15:38evacuation, um I assume people are

2:15:41trying to evacuate

2:15:44from an area towards

2:15:47highway or evacuating, for example, is

2:15:51for McClellan. They are trying to

2:15:53evacuate onto

2:15:56Stelling, um De Anza, towards 85.

2:16:01What?

2:16:02>> Yeah, that that's true. But, I think

2:16:04also with an evacuation, too, you I

2:16:05could conceive of if you had an

2:16:07earthquake, you could have ramps or

2:16:10roadways that are blocked. So,

2:16:12likely people would be heading for

2:16:14freeways or major roadways going the

2:16:17direction away from the source of the

2:16:19evacuation.

2:16:20>> Mhm.

2:16:20>> Now, an earthquake could have impacts

2:16:23unrelated to hillsides.

2:16:25>> Okay.

2:16:25>> So, it would matter again what exactly

2:16:28is causing the evacuation. Um

2:16:30I think the primary assumption we had

2:16:32because we have significant fire zones

2:16:35is that if there were a fire

2:16:38in the hillside area, that seemed to be

2:16:40the most logical thing to study.

2:16:42>> Mhm.

2:16:43Okay. So,

2:16:45but I I think one one thing that I would

2:16:49be concerned

2:16:51about a kind of a road change is the

2:16:53removal of right turn lane. For example,

2:16:57if I drive westbound on McClellan, I

2:17:00notice that there's no right turn lanes

2:17:04on to Sterling. So, I will be blocked by

2:17:09people and only one person can uh one

2:17:12car one vehicle can go either forward

2:17:16and there's no right turn to Sterling.

2:17:20So, when we remove a right turn lane

2:17:24on this constrained corridor, in some

2:17:27way we are actually reducing the

2:17:30capacity because if there were a right

2:17:32turn lane, there are two cars can escape

2:17:36from McClellan

2:17:38on to Sterling to the right or to the

2:17:40straight, right?

2:17:43So,

2:17:44so would the removal of right turn lane

2:17:47trigger evacuation analysis because it

2:17:50does affect the

2:17:51the

2:17:53capacity.

2:17:56>> You know, I'm

2:17:57if we had roadway projects that were

2:17:59going to be reducing lanes, I think we

2:18:01would be looking at again all aspects of

2:18:04how it affects transportation including

2:18:06evacuation.

2:18:07>> right turn remove right turn lead.

2:18:10>> That would very likely reduce capacity

2:18:12and I think the the discussion we're

2:18:14having it's really all about roadway

2:18:16capacity and trying to prioritize

2:18:19those areas that were already identified

2:18:21as having capacity problems.

2:18:24>> So that's where I I think the number one

2:18:26from the planning commission study says

2:18:29any roadway change that reduce capacity.

2:18:33Um but you are saying this is not

2:18:35necessary. It's already included uh

2:18:38somewhere.

2:18:40>> I think the policy as written already

2:18:43covers that.

2:18:44I I don't know that this necessarily

2:18:48affects things. It just seems like it

2:18:50could be redundant and I think one of

2:18:51the questions was roadway changes that

2:18:53reduce capacity

2:18:55could include a lot of things

2:18:58that are not really identified. For

2:18:59instance, a stop sign or something like

2:19:01that because you're slowing traffic.

2:19:04So the feeling was that as written the

2:19:06policy was adequate and we wanted to

2:19:09remove reference to the particular

2:19:11study.

2:19:11>> Maybe you can point me to the existing

2:19:15language in the policy that you think is

2:19:18adequate. So

2:19:20the proposed number one is not

2:19:22necessary.

2:19:24Uh let me maybe it's in the staff

2:19:26report. Let me

2:19:28>> I think it's 2.11.

2:19:30>> Vice Mayor, I have a

2:19:31uh a one sentence suggested bit of

2:19:33language that perhaps you would

2:19:36find interesting to add to

2:19:39um the planning commission

2:19:40recommendation one with the removal of

2:19:42the October 2025

2:19:44uh reference if you're interested in

2:19:47hearing it.

2:19:47>> Okay, sure.

2:19:48>> Okay, so it would be the same it would

2:19:51be the same as uh recommendation number

2:19:53one, prioritize evacuation capacity

2:19:55analysis for any roadway changes that

2:19:57reduce roadway capacity in evacuation

2:19:59constrained corridors as identified in

2:20:02the most recent city sponsored

2:20:04evacuation study.

2:20:06Period.

2:20:07>> the specific year. I think that makes

2:20:09sense.

2:20:09>> Right.

2:20:10>> Because that change.

2:20:11>> And then the one sentence would be so

2:20:13you'd have the period just like you have

2:20:14there and then routine traffic control

2:20:17changes in parentheses signage, stop

2:20:20signs, signal timing, striping that does

2:20:22not remove a lane, close parentheses are

2:20:25excluded.

2:20:26Period.

2:20:27Would that help?

2:20:31That that knocks out all the we're we're

2:20:34you know

2:20:34>> routine

2:20:35>> fiddly little yes routine traffic

2:20:37control changes. Yeah, so that so the

2:20:40people know that this is this is about

2:20:42doing something significant whether it's

2:20:43a bike lane that's going to decrease

2:20:46your road capacity

2:20:48but if it's a if it's a stop sign you

2:20:50might need it for safety reasons

2:20:51somewhere.

2:20:53Signal timing is done to optimize

2:20:57vehicles leaving

2:20:59striping that doesn't remove a lane

2:21:01those types of things. Um

2:21:04Would does that work?

2:21:06>> Yeah, sounds good but I'm still curious

2:21:09which policy staff thinks is sufficient

2:21:12so this proposed uh

2:21:15policy is not necessary. Um

2:21:20>> It it's policy 2.11.

2:21:24So

2:21:24>> So it's 2.11.

2:21:25>> HS 2.11.

2:21:28>> Okay.

2:21:30>> It's labeled evacuation routes.

2:21:33>> Is it short you can read it?

2:21:36Okay.

2:21:38>> Is that something short that you could

2:21:39read?

2:21:40>> Um sure.

2:21:43Get the microphone over here.

2:21:45Okay, so and I'm not sure what page this

2:21:47is on but it says ensure that evacuation

2:21:51routes into and out of the city have

2:21:53adequate capacity, safety, and viability

2:21:56in the event of an emergency. Ensure

2:21:58evacuation route designations are

2:22:00reviewed and updated as needed.

2:22:06>> That's

2:22:07>> Too general.

2:22:08>> Very different.

2:22:08>> I still want to Yeah, I would still want

2:22:11to keep the PC recommendation and add

2:22:12the extra sentence that I just shared

2:22:14there.

2:22:14>> Yeah, I don't think it's covered though.

2:22:16This is

2:22:17very general.

2:22:20>> Okay.

2:22:21Um

2:22:22Vice Mayor, are you finished your part?

2:22:24>> second Yeah, I'm done.

2:22:26>> You You You appreciate that one.

2:22:27>> proposal.

2:22:28>> Okay, and then Councilmember Fruin, you

2:22:30haven't had a chance to talk about on

2:22:31this item.

2:22:36>> So, you've gone over this

2:22:39particular topic quite a bit, and I

2:22:41don't know that I have a whole lot

2:22:42that's useful to add, but I guess a

2:22:43question to both um Luke and the city

2:22:46attorney is

2:22:48it it seems to me that if we needed to

2:22:50clarify

2:22:53the provision that is proposed that

2:22:56otherwise staff would like to remove

2:22:58from the planning commission

2:22:59recommendation that we could adopt

2:23:01either a resolution or an ordinance

2:23:03later interpreting

2:23:05um

2:23:07you know, what would be a thing that

2:23:08reduces capacity. Is that not true?

2:23:12As long as it's consistent with the rest

2:23:14of the general plan.

2:23:19I guess I'll go first. I I think that

2:23:21would work.

2:23:22>> Yeah.

2:23:23>> So, maybe this isn't necessarily a

2:23:25debate that we have to have today.

2:23:28>> Yeah, I mean it it it just it seems like

2:23:30the question is the degree of

2:23:31specificity, and I understand the

2:23:35uh the current discussion we're having

2:23:37is more specific

2:23:38than the policy as written. So, I

2:23:41um

2:23:42my honest opinion at this point, I'm not

2:23:44sure how much of a difference it's going

2:23:46to make. I think the policy is getting

2:23:48at the same thing and

2:23:50but if a degree of more specificity is

2:23:54what you want,

2:23:55then that's probably the direction we

2:23:57should go with the policy.

2:23:59>> Okay.

2:24:00So, I'm going to make a motion on this

2:24:02item.

2:24:03Um I'm going to move that we adopt

2:24:04resolution 26. Uh 26-114 approving

2:24:08general plan amendment 2025-001,

2:24:11finding it exempt from CEQA under

2:24:13guidelines 15061 B3 with the following

2:24:16change, that we will be adding the

2:24:18planning commission recommendation as a

2:24:19new strategy under policy HS 2.11 using

2:24:23staff's alternative wording, quote,

2:24:25"Prioritize evacuation capacity analysis

2:24:28for any roadway changes that reduce

2:24:29roadway capacity in evacuation

2:24:31constrained corridors as identified in

2:24:33the most recent city-sponsored

2:24:34evacuation study."

2:24:36And adding the following sentence, which

2:24:38I said a moment ago,

2:24:40adding the following sentence, that

2:24:42routine traffic control changes,

2:24:45parentheses, signage, stop signs, signal

2:24:49timing, striping that does not remove a

2:24:51lane, close parentheses, are excluded,

2:24:54period. Um and

2:24:57would staff Let me know if I'm missing

2:24:59any parts of your recommended

2:25:02um

2:25:03action for this item. I think I have it

2:25:06all.

2:25:08>> Uh I believe you got everything.

2:25:11>> Okay.

2:25:12Okay, do I have a second on that?

2:25:14>> Um second.

2:25:15>> Okay, Vice Mayor seconds.

2:25:17Uh do we have any further discussion on

2:25:19this item?

2:25:19>> Um

2:25:21>> I Vice Mayor?

2:25:22>> Okay.

2:25:23I just want to clarify.

2:25:26Um so, I'm sharing my screen.

2:25:28The

2:25:29the policy HS 2.11, which the staff just

2:25:34uh read out,

2:25:35is a policy that has multiple

2:25:38strategies.

2:25:40And with planning commission's

2:25:42recommendation, which we are including,

2:25:46is to add a strategy to this policy. So,

2:25:50there is already multiple strategies as

2:25:53you're seeing here that implement that

2:25:55policy. So, I don't think it's too

2:25:59detailed. It's just the way strategies

2:26:03are supposed to be

2:26:04to implement. I think that it's true

2:26:07that policy is general because that's

2:26:11But it's a strategies that will

2:26:13implement them, the policy in more

2:26:16detail. Yeah, thank you.

2:26:17>> All right, thank you. Councilmember

2:26:19Wong.

2:26:20>> Yeah, I'm I'm fine with this. I think

2:26:22it's important to prioritize the

2:26:23emergency access routes as more

2:26:24important uh than any of the other

2:26:26changes because that is a priority. So,

2:26:29I'm with this.

2:26:32>> Councilmember Mohan.

2:26:33>> Just a quick comment. This is supposed

2:26:35to be a high-level policy document. And

2:26:38I think when we get into specific areas

2:26:41or specific uh

2:26:43uh

2:26:44tactics that we are planning to use,

2:26:46then

2:26:47we are sort of straying away from the

2:26:49high-levelness

2:26:51of this document and getting into

2:26:53details

2:26:54uh which I'm not sure serves any

2:26:57purpose.

2:26:57>> Um thank you, Councilmember Mohan. Uh

2:27:00I do want to say that having gone

2:27:02through this uh

2:27:04general plan, and that was one of the

2:27:05things that council had assigned to

2:27:08Councilmember Wong and myself when we

2:27:11were on the Planning Commission

2:27:13together. We had to go through every

2:27:14policy and strategy and goal. Um it took

2:27:18us 5 months to do so, and there the what

2:27:22we have are um items which run the gamut

2:27:25from

2:27:26highly detailed to um broad brush

2:27:29strokes uh within the general plan, and

2:27:31uh perhaps it would be council's

2:27:33appetite in the future to um analyze

2:27:36that and want to make some changes, but

2:27:38it would take

2:27:39a couple of years.

2:27:41Um, with that, Madam City Clerk, will

2:27:44you please conduct the roll call vote?

2:27:48>> Count

2:27:50Council

2:27:54>> May I continue? Uh

2:27:55before we vote,

2:27:57uh, may I propose a friendly uh,

2:28:00amendment

2:28:02um,

2:28:04that

2:28:05um,

2:28:06I think what I had mentioned earlier,

2:28:09I I understand the staff recommend we

2:28:12don't add detail about the acoustical

2:28:15analysis, but I hope that

2:28:18we

2:28:20um,

2:28:21propose a future agenda item to consider

2:28:25um,

2:28:26to to make a requirement that acoustical

2:28:28analysis should include a

2:28:31study of impulsive repetitive tonal

2:28:34frequency sensitive sounds in the study.

2:28:37Can

2:28:38would you consider that in the future

2:28:42and include that?

2:28:43>> That can be a future agenda item that

2:28:46that's

2:28:47uh, sent to the city manager.

2:28:50Um, I'll certainly support you on that,

2:28:52but it's um,

2:28:53>> Can we just include that as part of

2:28:55this? No?

2:28:56>> Okay, that's fine.

2:28:57>> Okay.

2:28:58>> So, we're doing the vote?

2:29:02>> Council member Fruin?

2:29:05>> Aye.

2:29:06>> Council member Mohan?

2:29:08>> Aye.

2:29:09>> Council member Wong?

2:29:10>> Aye.

2:29:11>> Vice Mayor Chao?

2:29:12>> Aye.

2:29:13>> Mayor Moore?

2:29:13>> Aye.

2:29:14>> Motion carries unanimously.

2:29:17>> All right, thank you.

2:29:19And that completes item 13.

2:29:22And we would move on to the action

2:29:25calendar, which we have none, and we

2:29:27only have some informational items. City

2:29:29Manager report, council member reports,

2:29:31future agenda items, which brings us to

2:29:34our adjournment. So, this October 20,

2:29:372026 meeting, yes?

2:29:40Is

2:29:42and we recognize Diwali. Would someone

2:29:44like to tell or share with me the name

2:29:47of

2:29:48today's

2:29:50special Diwali event?

2:29:56>> Thank you.

2:29:57Few, what's the right name for today?

2:30:00>> Lakshmi Puja.

2:30:01>> Dashami today. Vijaya Dashami, Vijaya

2:30:03Dashami.

2:30:04Vijaya, I know means victory. Dashami is

2:30:07the day, right?

2:30:09The 10th day of victory. And this Diwali

2:30:12has been a 10-day

2:30:14It's not Diwali, it's Navaratri, which

2:30:16is 10 days or nine nine days, and this

2:30:19is the 10th day of a series of events

2:30:22that took place over the last 10 days.

2:30:24>> So, today is a celebration day.

2:30:26>> a grand finale.

2:30:27>> Ah, excellent. And we're wrapping up

2:30:29early, so everyone go home and

2:30:31celebrate. Thank you all, and we'll see

2:30:33you next month.

2:30:35>> There we go.