CC Exhibit 4-21-15 Oral Communications .ZL T
Ldy
�7
a
a
w
s �� 1 -C/A
s
` CCis-
0�� .
Community Benefits
City Survey Community Benefits comments almost all negative
I..Ufi44IlUIlEt._r 6+:ncfits ilrtrit#atm h:ts b.:Kytt OtS.tYsit._ tr+v Ipper &� " ut GPA shout✓3 be rules and 4 utdi it!x-; re l;('nes err a+td ffAIUV Ixj. n(at
+rr•
171TK=tlil[lf� rfJ1 1)tta it 15 cor"a job to orthatire city", iRrr?t,trilf:'Ct)rn 811d fllild tfwt F? (�rrJj ".:t '.�}fftittT�l Plove, Yt�)r'.t+> �YOnf.CllT1�'}('wrafRlJr'r F� Ift� F, ">fl�hk
Chf(tt, !5 nave arka if('r;pf)415ib1( .
Inrreis(d hitildina heiigf is alit-;t Ie-iide_tits'qualI! of life in several ways* - !n-rea: Sed -itrollmi;nt in a fixed +,unAx_-r"11 school carnat► 1#x:rP4s1?d
rC9ffif and t1r'ere3 ed lir tjr�d ty 1t1GCc>:;-;fwd (onstimption of natural 777!1rrps like watoi h)l,!t?,Asetj Sfr,�!Sf i}j`• ".S� ;P?rV t;,?5 like' slit-riffanti earl and
l�pi^r�att }rZ-4crVfr+x VwNvs of sky, Eris and hill; at; the main rrnald.5 hPer)rle�: "rnrirrete cdllynci r itf: v.d115 ,yf tall hf,tildlnTs.
Ytdlif I(1Cf!'a5<_'fl hflildina, hel h(% tnt- 411. abov.-Gftllt:-erns. Ir additx)n, there ,rhmild always I-W a trans(trent prrx:t-',s for )r,CIPnpral Plan rxrertinn.
ant, public heaOno.,inpor rtngijir_
f.JFlltrtl!mtty ;�otwtity Pr,t'1,rwi ant' 'I") rh:o? :fc"✓f.pliypt?t 1,60i d til- ahic 1.1)1711;' t.¢i(: �>>.3'� 'tfol rJ tlri�! i11•{I t v'�C i.
Ili live Eros Il d cup uttt Ivf tt+(r de r'.f,i4)(>r +t,sf �gt�*r. are >o, "ivy d imrti¢)r€ar+t1ly.
(-upeit,01(!fk?1'. ra i��t,,1! fut dlrig ft'.)It Apo(e. "F✓a fl-(ould no; "7rC'f1:1nS('S r1w h(I'l(� hig flefith{ for --he d(' (lits Irl, t.+ll rj
rrt�ly I�(til(4tit i!t >nialt (.it"{ Oke t:uDettiro We WN"T 1_1Kr MONSTER NSTER 13011.01N(P. We tX)K I WAN I MQIW( 10 l3UI€.L>'!!*
1 vt,Lt.tj N0 Q', :,1tn f.t,;"ala .? 13"t .419c4} f", f1t.X11hility is nR inti()rwil it, .tllclwwI OIL,!1'elgIll 111110. 1p I)e tdcs4,td III "-wr tarn of tht: llst?tl ar.,i, flit i CxJt d1l+fa.,�t3
111 voffte of thN lrr-ri% the danglor 'if I'llslrilz tftr'litylit ill if. 2tim i,(VIA111Lj k;()1'- 't.tUlly worw to that ,ilea h1-r. it t)( oeht-i 0 -> wittt;lMleftl iS
allCtv.efi uti an4)Cher 41 -, Jv't rr_ is a rlis('rttlnt3(:i tflr#4..
Lets look at a Community Benefit example, Main Street Office Buildings
-� Community
�a
Benefits
"W ..
y
' err V
� ' S
IPMP
F
1
Ir
Community Benefits allowed a 4th floor in exchange for retail
YI'3'�f T.�Mt 'M:..•.
" ;.. j i+;bE: 't•Stpp,'�Gt1J+1,y.;1l95
'�6kJ�1t�IUI1S1l3�a _ �ft1�L..
.fw"k+�3Sft'f'+LL.t.� '�if�.- .: -ilflCfttA7a:Kt't'G �.6V1:1':3j1'�t 1y3Srt
f •, 11C!'f MK�w Mi:a+;K, _ '� T4s
a y[oi9.. � '� a-++t nat.a!..li •fa L..
AL AOL AL.JI
e t.Flrpt�n[eo�rE .
2.2 4tft5
LoJ r..
Lo
E
,.t J .r ..r J .r �' .► .. J , ,
jo
• � � J,� , .s --�- - �. �, -- ,�_ �-. � —amu.' J
446N rftfWan ftX$tAl 'tV
rlN STREET CUPER'INO �`°& `4�` '
ND HILL PROPERTY COMPANY R�,eLItiJ�=, s ..`
ER-INO CALIFORNIA �r
Z,e N••.♦ xo..� YR VR VR •R YR VI • p+ ♦ 1+
♦+t a I��'.R�?�•�'..tl'I Vr f`'♦�� i Itt t�Y 4•♦ N! �`I'rr.'r!+Riif�r�i'tR r«R♦•I♦ ... �..,r+++!,rt.
1-
It
e.:cE
- * • eft . � ♦•� � �
.n.
jr r y r r •.. .,, �
t .^' +♦•oR♦ Pl+M^ r r'. + Y•' W! : ♦ !rr , uw r i! r • ♦ r.
♦ rR
h
R FIRST FLOOR"-0fF)Cf •i)$MILF4
n
2 2y 'WTUOK ftmx
c'�v I ►AGE
f
_ I _ 40' Z 40' = 1600 ft2
�• '•S 24'-T •3
2'-0' L 16'4r 27-10-
40X40 = 1600 ft2 4 Developer Gets 4th Story "30,371 ft2„ X 2 Buildings = 60742 ft2
= size of 38 houses
Was this a fair a fair exchange for the Community Benefits?
x
MAW
t comial 1T itv
Benefits
O„
I a.
x
s
s
u
Was this a fair exchange for the Community Benefits?
C C Y(2-( (5-
Grace
sGrace Schmidt ® �
Subject: Be Responsible. Be Sensible
From: Liang C [mailto:lfchaoC)gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 6:43 PM
To: Grace Schmidt
Cc: City Clerk; David Brandt
Subject: Re: Be Responsible. Be Sensible
Please include the following with the slides for the public record.
Thanks.
-------------------
I would request the council to postpone the rest of the GPA items.
Let's properly do a General Plan 2020-2040 when the time is right. And let's get the community involved early
on as recommended by the State of California General Plan Guidelines.
• Do Not Circumvent The Process Using Amendment
• Require EIR Report that Reflects the Actual Impact.
• Include Impact Of Office Allocation On Housing And Schools
• Include Mitigation Plans for Traffic, Schools, Pollution,Noise.
The current EIR is not only erroneous. It is simply inadequate. And most importantly it is out-dated.
The EIR does not estimate the potential impact of office space on the number of housing units. And the
potential impact on housing market. Instead of providing affordable housing, the excessive amount of office
space would drive up housing prices instead. Such impact is never analyzed in the EIR. And the students
generated from these extra housing units generated from office are not accounted for. Yet, it is a standard part
of"Commercial/Industrial Development Fee Justification Study" that any school district does regularly. But it is
not included in the EIR, it seems.
The current GPA is trying to bundle up many parcels to be rezoned together as one "amendment." It may be
legal to the letter of the law. It is certainly not the intent of the amendment process. The state allows 4
amendments a year because each amendment is expected to be project.specific, parcel specific and incremental
changes.
Such bundled up GPA process circumvents the proper process where the immediate neighborhoods affected
would be notified and given a chance to provide inputs. Under the current process, the city has no obligation to
inform the neighbors of all parcels to be rezoned. It is an unfair process, whether or not it is legal or not. It is
unfair to the property owners adjacent to those commercial properties to be rezoned. .
And Community Benefits program is such a complex program. When implemented well, it might help the city
to "squeeze" benefits out of developers, as Vancouver has done. Yet, when it is not implemented well, it can be
easily abused as it has been abused in Cupertino many many times and as it has been abused in Palo Alto and
other cities. Yet, the city will end up paying more to mitigate the impact caused by a development.
Apparently, the staff has not finished doing research after 2 years of studying. And the public and the council
still yet to see any study materials on Community Benefits. It is premature to submit any such plan in a staff
report to be approved by the council in one meeting alone. Let's do it properly since it affects our city for the
1
next 25 years or more. Send it back to the Planning Commission to study it properly. That's do it right. Let's not
rush it.
As my analysis on Job Growth Chart shows, the current GPA will create significant job-housing imbalance. Not
just a little. We will create 5 times more jobs than ABAG projection. This in turn will generate 5 times more
demand on housing. Instead of 4,421 housing units by 2040, we will need 5 times as many housing units. And
before that many housing units could be built(if even possible), the amount of traffic on highway and local
streets will double. Please examine the current plan.
ABAG projection is 7,000 jobs from 2010 to 2040. With only 12,000 jobs from Apple,that's already over 7,000
jobs. Whether or not Apple releases the space they are currently renting, there will be space for at least 12,000
jobs. Plus, the amount from Main Street, the other new building on Tantau,plus Hyatt Hotel, there are already
14,000 jobs. Twice ABAG projection. Let's not go beyond the projection too much until there is a solid plan to
mitigate the impact of 2x4,421 housing units, 14,000 more people either residing in Cupertino or commuting to
Cupertino.
Just the already approved projects alone, we are already building TWO TIMES of the ABAG projection. Let's
plan ahead before we continue to build.
I hope that you, as the leaders of our city,would consider to take a step back and re-consider whether it is right
to continue to approve the rest of the GPA items, not well studied at all.
Be Responsible. Be Sensible.
2
cormO
Z =
a � �
CD
a
e
Mr
TAKE TIME TO PLAN. an nil l9sNp
•AFTER 18 MONTHS - IN DRAFT GPA ON
NOVEMBER 10TH, COMMUNITY BENEFITS
PROGRAM IS STILL SKETCHY.
• AFTER ANOTHER 6 MONTH - ON APRIL 21 , THE
STAFF STILL HASN'T SHARED ANY RESEARCH
ON COMMUNITY BENEFITS WITH THE PUBLIC.
• STAFF REPORT 3 DAYS BEFORE COUNCIL
MEETING
THE RESEARCH IS NOT DONE.
MANY OPEN ISSUES:
•
EXAMPLES OF SUCCESS
EXAMPLES OF FAILURE
NOW TO DEFINE IT?
HOW TO RE-ENFORCE IT?
HOW TO PREVENT DEVELOPERS FROM NOT FULFILLING THE
PROMISE?
SEND IT BACK TO PLANNING
COMMISSION
WHy RUSH? RESPONSIBLE
GROWTH!
ABAG PROJECTION - OVER
•ABAG Projection: 4,421 Housing Units, 7,000 lobs
From 2010 To 2040.
Eight Cities Object To ABAGs Oyer-estimation: Palo
Alto, Sunnyvale, Mountain View etc.
UPERTINO B GROWTH PROJECTION
Apple II Vallco Citywide
GPA Plan C 1 2 ,000 Ma n Street 13,000 9,933
, 700
GPA Plan C Total
Projection for 1 1 14 1 is 7,000
o s . Cupertino GPA Plan C will provide
ABAG 7000 36 , 700 jobs . 5 .24 times • - than
ABAG projection .
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 4
N ABAG N GPA Plan C Apple II Main Street Vallco M Citywide
y
150 square feet per
i
worker.
z
2 million square feet at
Vallco = 13,333 workers }'
t
WO
. i l }.
_
,u'
MORE THAN FIVE TIMES OF
ABAG PROJECTION
• 7900o Jobs => 364000 Jobs
4,4si Housiag Units => s4,466 Units
• Current Cupertino = 209000 units
Nome:trod Rd 145 ft* * -
Nome5tecd Rd
60 ft 11 -13 stories
5 stories 145 ft * V
11-13 stories
Apple 1 145 ft
75 ft 1 1 -13 stories
6-7 stories
75 fit Vallco
75 ft 6-7 stories 160 ft* *
6-7 stories 85 'ft 13-14 stogies ,
take. 75 fv6- ` stories 8 stories
Stevens Creek Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd z,
110 ft. �
10 stories �
w `'buildin�g height with "Deve.lopet, Benefits'
a aka so-called "Community Eerwefits program"
�yI
GPA Should
Project S ific.pec Neighborhood j7
Should Be
r
Informed.
S
A�
GENERAL PLAN 2020-2040
• Do Not Circumvent The Process Using Amendment
* Require EIR Report that Reflects the Actual Impact.
Include Impact Of Office Allocation On Housing And Schools
Include Mitigation Plans for Traffic, Schools, Pollution, Noise.
.. .��..
.. #�
' �.
. �
,�
_ ;.r�<
v
,�4�
�.
1
'}
.'
Cc N �zt If r
b �2tA L
Comments on GPA
City - Council Meeting on April 21 , 2015
Xiaowen Wang
True Color
Developer's version
What is the true color of Vallco?
What is the true color of
Cupertino ?
Off ice 0
Housin( Retail
Why can 't be this shade?
A
Finding the Color
Need Cost Benefit
Cost
benefit
Traffic Public
analysis Population Employment Retail need utility (noise, air services Property tax Retail Tax Development
growth growth pollution) (school, fee
park, etc.)
7
Where are
we ?
• Market Study / Retail Strategy Report provides data on need, EIR provides data on
cost, ?? provides data on benefit
• Most of the reports are not in good shape, basic errors are easily to be found.
• So far,
• Office and housing allocations are more than need
• Retail leakage in Cupertino is high while we are going to lose more retail space with
the current GPA.
• Traffic, noise and air pollution are identified in EIR as significant and unavoidable for
current GPA.
• No number on economic benefit is provided when overriding these concerns.
• Retail specialist recommends to have a proforma review on developer's Vallco plan,
but so far no action is taken.
Let 's do the right thing ! !
• Objective, accurate and data driven research and
analysis
• Give councils and community sufficient time to
study and digest
• Start an informative dialog on what is the true color
of Cupertino . '
• Councils decision on Foothill project on April 7
meeting sets a good example.
Back up
fir!of Cupertino School Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Table 4-12
Enrollment Capacity Compared to Enrollment by School Attendance Areas
from New Units in the City of Cupertino and Existing Units
Enrollment Enrollment RN 2023 Enrollment Yotal
Collins
FMstinp Condifions 598 9 64 53 809
A-Minimal Growth 53 Rog
R-Moderate Growth 159 199
Email inquiry about the table error C-
Eaton
sent to City Councils, City Manager
A-Minimal Growth Al 797 1 59 R14
and Planning Commission on March R-Moderate Growth 42 797 1 65 21n
18, 2015. Council man ChangC-Most Growth 42 797 1 67 R22
replied asking for further
investigation. No conclusion heard. R-Moderate Growth 23 861 29R
*-Most Growth 193 1031 333
Tinealn
Fxkfing Conditions 455 3 ROO 26 R23
Total enrollment
R-Moderate Growth 0 797 33 gin
C-Most Growth 0 797 39 R16 =12543
Regnnrt
FxFstFnp Conditions 407 34 541 43 550
A-Minimal Growth 34 541 43 550
R-Moderate Growth TI 540 66 C712
C-Most Growth 47 554 90 C 5R7
Sedgwick
Fx+,tinp Cond*tions 455 971 36 904
C-Most Growth 871 46
Stevens Creek
Fxmqting Conditi N 574 671 1; 671
A-Min mal Growth 671 5 671
C-Most Growth 5 71 e—671
Remainder of Distroct
Ex stim Condit ,
t— ?
Total capacity =10840
Mtroct Total*
Fxistinf!Conditions 295 11 897 461 F)073
A-M n mal Growth 285 11 R97 461 12.073
R-Moderate Growth 265 11 977 742 12-354
C-Most Growth 49R 12110 899
`Totals do not include enrollment from new units outside of the City of Cupertino,about 62 students.
Sources:City of Cupertino,Enrollment Projection Consultants,and Schoolhouse Services
Schoolhouse Services 29 June 2014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. HOUSING ELEMEVT UPDATE, AND ASSOCIATED REZONING DRAFT FIR
CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TABLE 3-2 SUMMARY—ALL PROJECT COMPONENTS DEVELOPMENT ALLocmow
Remaining Proposed
Allocation Project Difference
Total Built/Approved
Office 8,929,774 sf 54],231 sf 4,040,231 sf +3,500,000 sf
Commercial 3,729,569 sf 701,413 sf 1,343,679 sf +642,266 sf,
Motel 1,090 rooms 33)rooms 1,339 rooms + 1,000 rooms
Residential 21,399 units 1,E95 units 4,421 ur»Ls +2,526 units
Note:sf=square feet ii
a.includes Homestead,North Vallco Park,Heart of the City,North De Anza,and South De Anza Major Mixed se Special Areas
b_Includes Bubb Road Mixed-Use Special Area,Monta Vista Village,Other Ccmmercial/Mixed-Use Special Ari as,Other Neighborhoods,Major Employers
Category,and Housing Element Sites.
c.Net new commercial is not proposed.This number assumes that:he existing Vallco Shoppdng Mall square f otage(1,267,601 sf)will be demolished and
will go back into the GtY-wide commercial allocation pool.A total of 625,335 sf would be reserved for a futur project in the Vallco district_
Source-City of Cupertino,2014,
Where all these unit located?
A: No clue, some unit must exist in air. The closest
number can only adds up to 4325 (see next page)
Does it matter?
A: Without knowing the location of the housing units, how
could EIR analyze impacts on schools, traffic, etc?
Source: http://www.cu erp tinogpa.org/files/managed/Document/180/3 ProJectDescri tion.pdf
Source: Alternative . • of . Report on Dec.
Site name 100% number Site name 100% number
The Oaks Loree Center32
Vallco1179
Homestead178
Hampton1026
Jack in the Box182
121
74
13
32
United Furniture
Villages
Barry Swenson
Glenbrooks109
FootHill Market
23
274
Batech Bros.
Marina
Steven Creeks252 Carl Berg • •
Arya* •: Shan •
Cypress* 1244325
Both Arya .and Cypress are deleted from potential per • request.
Cupertino ice Allocation
How much we planI
How much we need VS0 N M
A-.
Proposed Vallco
2000000 -------------------- office space ----------------- --------------------------
1500000 _ ._ _. ---------------------- ......------- ---- --.
� 1000000
UD Apple Campus 2
Other proposed
offices ace
500000
Net new office demand
ABAG Pro'ections)
0
Source: Table 34 in Market Study http://www.cupertinogpa.org/files/managed/Document/392/P MarketStudy_pdf
What is said in Dec. 2nd staff report (http://www.cupertinogpa.ora/files/managed/Document/369/ STAFFREPORT.pdf)
Ret uuest from a potential applicant and consultant response—On October 13,2014, the City received a
letter from a potential developer of the Val!co Shopping District generally stating that the costs of
assembling the site, providing a minimum of 600,000 square feet of retail in a high quality mixed-use
"Town Center' envisioned for the area, community benefits and off-site infrastructure costs, would
require at least 2,000,000 square feet, or 1,000,000 square feet more than was recommended in the
Balanced Plan'see Attachment CC). The City's retail consultant reviewed the request and noted that
given the high cost of site assembly and construction, an office allocation of up to 2,000,000 could
potentially be necessary to make the project economically viable. However, it could not be verified
without a proforma review-
Where is this review?
Retail Leakage
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT—MARKET STUDY
Figure 7:Cupertino Retail Sales Leakages by Major Retail Store Category
- - - - -- Net New Planned and Proposed Retail
Cupertino Retail Sales Leakages
Food and Beverage Stores
General Merchandise Stores
Gasoline Stations
Fumiture and Home Furnishings stores ��, • • 196,622
Sporting Goods,Hobby,Book,&Mac Stores
Health and Personal Care Stores
Food Services and Drinking Places . • 7,000
Mscellaneous Store Retailers
Electronics and Appliance Stores
Clothing and Clothing AoxssonesStores • • • 59,827
Bldg.Matta.and Garden Equip.and Supplies
Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers
24,455
\ypo \s�tio \yo `y� `r'k
Annual Leakages/In)ectlons 130,500
FLeakages Injections
Cupertino Leakages as% of Total Potential Sales 10,582
General Merchandise Stores
Food and Beverage Stores 4,010
Gasoline Stations
Food Servicesand Drinking Places
Health and Personal Care Stores l • . . . . - 18,731
Furniture and Horne Furnishings Stores
Sporting Goods,Hobby,Book,&Anisic Stores
Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 352,631
•
Elecuonics and Appliance Stores
Bldg.Maid.and Garden Equip.and Supplies
Mscellaneousstore Retailers • • — 600,000
Motor Vehide and Parts Dealers
'O - 300 000
Annual Leakages/I njections as%of Potential Sales • t
'.—Leakages Injections 4
Source:BAE Urban Economia,based on Table 14;sources as noted in Appendix C and Appendix D.
Source: Figure 7 and Appendix H in Market Study http://www.cupertinogpa.org/files/managed/Document/392/P MarketStudy.pdf
uj
Submitted for Public Record on April 21 , 2015 OI �L
To: Cupertino City Council and Planning Staff
There are several issues with the concept of `community, or public, benefits' as being tossed
around. Some of the many things to consider.
When in the planning process does a public benefit become part of the discussion?
Who participates in the discussion?
When is the `building/creating' of ' it' required and what happens to it as time passes?
Who owns a public benefit, enforcement, ongoing funding, governance, parity, infrastructure
support ?
And most importantly how to VALUE it. Nobody seems to be able to put a monetary label on
anything, especially since it's supposed to be an ongoing benefit.
Notes from a previous speaker regarding the `notion' of Community Benefits.
Oral Communications March 3, 2015
Good evening Councilmembers,
My name is Cheryl Lilienstein and I live in Palo Alto. I'm the president of Palo Altans for
Sensible Zoning.
I'm here tonight to offer you some perspective about Public Benefits.
And to perhaps warn you about the pitfalls of this seductive bargaining approach.
You may know that as a result of an astoundingly successful referendum against a
high density development in my neighborhood, the Palo Alto city council wisely chose
to impose a moratorium on this exploitive and corrupt practice involving Public
Benefits.
am here tonight because the environment we live in really matters to those of us who
already live here, and developers who don't live here should be prevented from
undermining the quality of life in our communities.
Trading so-called public benefits for increased development rights wrong. It's a
strategy that WIPES AWAY all the zoning protections that create value and
predictability for existing residents and property owners.
In Palo Alto we have experience with these so-called public benefits.. here are 3 typical
bad examples
1 . Two public benefit parks were supposed to materialize in exchange for high density
housing. They look nothing like public parks. They are used as table space for
restaurants. One even has a gate across the entryway. The other has a partial stone
wall. This is clearly a private appropriation of public benefit space, and it sits on land
controlled by the property owner.
2. The gigantic JCC on Charleston and Arastradero was supposed to provide a soccer
field. It was never built. Instead there is a parking lot. With cars parked on it. Nothing is
done.
3. A Community Meeting Room was built in exchange for high density housing. The
Community Meeting Room is not accessible to the public: There is no key on site. The
AC and WIFI do not work. I think you'd agree that public access is a defining quality of
a community meeting room. So like other public benefits, it's a fake.
Consider: who responsible for the maintenance of a public benefit on private property?
Who is writing the contracts? Who on your legal team has the power or inclination to
take on the attorneys of Abu Dabi or the Sand Hill development team? not likely.
Further: where's the parity?
You can be sure that the developers know EXACTLY how much more money they will
make from offering public benefits.
Selling development rights for pretend public benefits means developers obtain lasting
and valuable revenue streams while residents and taxpayers who LIVE HERE get
everlastingly stuck with more congestion, more traffic, overcrowded schools,
infrastructure maintenance, and pollution.
Why would developers offer anything of equal value to their profit if they could avoid
the hassle by just building less?
So here's the bottom line: Public Benefits are a bad deal for taxpayers. Uphold your
own zoning laws.
In references below the particulars are:
1. Cafe Riace https:H ig fts.opentable.com/biz/Caffe-Riace (good photos of the appropriated"public park" and St
Michael's Alley http://www.stmikes.com/photos (the very first photo is of the outdoor"pubic park")
2. The JCC on Charleston and San Antonio
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2009/10/23/feature-story-it-takes-an-urban-village
Ultimately, when the Bridge Housing component is completed, walkways will connect to the street, to
market-rate housing, to soccer fields.
http://www.paloattoonline.com/weekly/morgue/2004/2004 03 31.cover3lit.shtml
The campus will feature a theater for evening performances, a pedestrian promenade that will lead
to a town square with an outdoor cafe and performance area for chamber music concerts. A soccer
field will double as a picnic area.
3. The Alma Plaza development on Alma community room (how is it a public benefit if the public has to pay to
rent it?)
http://www.cilyof
CC � � ( s-
March 10, 2015 Los Altos City Council meeting OizAL
Video
http : jjlo
altos. q ranicus.com/Media Player. php?view id =4&clip
id = 912
The item of interest is # 5
Beginning at 1 hour 12 minutes ends about 2
hours 10 minutes