Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

For Tuesday, 04/28/2026. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. Great. Thank you very much. So we will now move to the roll call, city clerk.

Commissioner Feng?

Present.

Commissioner Linskog? Commissioner Rao? Vice Chair Scharf? Present. Chair Kasolstron? Present. For the record, Commissioner Linskog and Commissioner Rao are absent. Okay.

Thank you very much, City Clerk. And we will move on to approval of the minutes. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes from the 04/14/2026 planning commission meeting?

Sure. I'd be happy to do that. I move that we approve the minutes as submitted.

I'll second.

Great. City clerk, may we please have a vote?

That's a good question.

Okay, that's fine.

Commissioner Fung? Aye. Commissioner Linskog is absent. Commissioner Rao is absent. Vice Chair Scharf? Aye. Chair Giselsharon? Aye. The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you. So we will move on to postponements. Seeing as there are none, we'll move on to oral communications. City Clerk, do we have any oral communications?

We have no speakers, chair.

Excellent. Moving on, we have no old business, so we will move on to the new business, which is agenda item two, review of the fiscal year twenty twenty six to twenty twenty seven capital improvement program proposal for consistency with the city of Cupertino's general plan. And may we please have the staff report?

Good evening, commissioners. I'm Susan Michael, the CIP manager, and I'm here tonight with director of public works Chad Mosley. As support, we are going to run through the capital improvement program, and we're looking to check its conformance with the general plan. So tonight's Sorry. Action is to adopt a resolution finding that the fiscal year 2627 capital improvement program's proposal is consistent with the city's general plan.

And I just wanted to note that as noted in the staff report, California government code 65,401 requires that public works submits the list of proposed new CIP projects for the ensuing fiscal year to the Planning Commission for review as to conformity with the adopted general plan. And then Cupertino's Municipal Code section 2.32. Zero seven zero requires that the Planning Commission review the CIP for consistency with the general plan. So we are before you tonight for this review. I wanted to note that there is a CIP webpage.

If you navigate on the city's web page to the public works page, you will find the CIP information. And there's a plethora of additional information about the program there. So for fiscal year actually, I've got the wrong year there. For fiscal year 'twenty 06/2007, the CIP projects are there's five of them. And in the next pages, we will have a narrative page giving more information about the project and a page showing the conformance of each project.

So I'll go through that there. So the first project is the Blackberry Farms Golf Course Pro Shop renovation. That pro shop has not been comprehensively renovated in many years and is now outdated, inefficient, and out of alignment with current accessibility and building standards. This project proposes a full interior renovation to improve the functionality, safety, and customer service. And to note its conformance, this is in line with land use goals that ask for maintaining and improving the city's fiscal health and providing efficient operations of our facilities.

The infrastructure and recreation, parks, and community elements also prioritize maintenance and upgrades to meet the community's needs. The next project is the Blush Property Improvements. This project proposes to demolish the existing residential building and replace with minimal grading natural habitat, native plants, and modest pathways. To note its conformance, the infrastructure element notes that existing facilities should be maintained to meet the community's needs. An empty house on the edge of a verdant environment does not meet the community needs well.

And this project proposes utilizing the site's natural features, maximizing native plantings, and limiting activities to those appropriate to the habitat as noted in the recreation, parks, and community element.

The

next project is the Memorial Park Pickleball Sound Attenuation. So while the pickleball community is thriving at the Memorial Park Courts, the residents surrounding the courts have complaints about the noise. This project proposes installing sound attenuation on the fence surrounding the pickleball area. Structural augmentation of the fence is most likely required. By providing sound attenuation to mitigate the noise, we hope to create a better environment for everyone.

The health and safety element of the general plan looks to minimize noise noise impacts on the community. The recreation, parks, and community element calls for a range of park activities and city facilities that are sustainable, once again minimizing impacts on the environment. The next project is resurfacing the courts at the sports center. Resurfacing all tennis courts at the sports center will prevent further damage, reduce liability, and avoid more costly repairs in the future, as well as maintain a suitable and safe playing environment. They haven't been resurfaced in the last five, six years, and so they're beyond at this point.

And it becomes a CIP project in that it requires some engineering in order to get the specs right. For conformance, it's very similar to the ProShop project in that this project is in line with the land use goals regarding the city's fiscal health and providing efficient operations of our facilities. The general plan also prioritizes maintenance to meet the community's needs. And the last project is, long title, Stevens Creek Boulevard, State Route 85 northbound ramp intersection improvements. Improvements to the northbound ramp intersection improved circulation for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Required as part of the Westport development, the developer initiated the drawings for the intersection improvements and submitted them to Caltrans for approval. The project stalled with Caltrans, yet the Westport project is complete. The developer asked the city to complete the project and paid in lieu fees to support the project. The mobility element requires new developments to increase connectivity with safe pedestrian connections to adjacent amenities, and the city and development developers are required to enhance and maintain the transportation infrastructure for all modes of transportation. And that is my presentation.

The action tonight once again is to adopt a resolution finding that this year's CIP proposal is consistent with the city's general plan.

Thank you. Great.

Thank you very much, Susan. So, we will now bring it back to the commission for any clarifying questions Staff? Vice chair?

Yeah. So I have a question. I mean, all of these are fine with me. I'm just wondering how the pro shop and the tennis courts improve the city's fiscal health? Are they contributing a net positive revenue to the city? I thought there was a net loss.

I can't speak to that specifically, but I can say that they are facilities that are a part of a revenue generating facility, and it is in our interest to keep those facilities maintained and functional. And that's we're trying to keep the functionality of those facilities. Is that sufficient?

Okay.

Well, if I might ask, in the council meeting when this item was presented, I believe you mentioned that the golf course shop generates 100,000 per year. Was that a correct number?

Sounds right. Do you remember?

I I don't recall.

No. I don't remember. Sorry.

I I remember that.

I'd have to ask the parks and rec people.

Okay. Because that was the number that I heard that was cited but I, you know.

And that was after the labor costs and everything were deducted?

That I'm not sure.

I mean, like I said, I have no problem with any of these. I just didn't really think that the pro shop or the tennis courts generate a net positive in revenue. So I was surprised that those were LU 8.1 and LU 8.2, that those were those boxes were checked.

Noted.

Yes. I had one as well. I'm just curious that can you discuss the scope of the pickleball modification? Is it just adding sound absorbing material to the existing fence?

It is. Do you want to add?

I can probably answer that. Is this working? Can you hear that?

Yeah.

Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works. At this point in time, what we're doing is we're looking at doing an acoustic analysis to verify that any improvements would actually help the problem. And then after that, we would look to just structurally support the existing fence so that it could take the additional lateral load that these panels would include and then, of course, install the new panels.

Great. No. Thank you. I wasn't sure just looking at the picture in the packet what exactly was new there. So thank you.

Through the chair, pardon the interruption, I just wanted to announce that commissioner Rao has joined the meeting remotely. Commissioner Rao, are you at the lobby in the City Place Marriott?

You're muted. The sound still is not coming through, commissioner Rao. Yeah, we still see

you Mr. Rao, we still cannot hear you. We can see you, but we can't hear you.

Commissioner Rao, it looks like the problem is on your end with your mic. Commissioner Rao, are you able to restart your laptop and rejoin the webinar?

Can you hear me now?

Yes. We can.

Okay.

Yes. We can

hear you. My phone.

I wanted to confirm, are you at the lobby in the City Place Marriott?

Yes.

Are there any individuals over the age of 18 with you, and has anyone indicated to you that they intend to make public comment or address the planning commission?

No.

I'll rely on you to notify me if any members of the public wish to speak from your location. Thank you.

Sounds good.

Thank you very much, city clerk. Welcome, commissioner Rao. Excuse me, chair.

Madam city clerk, I believe there's one more question regarding posting of the agenda.

Yes, the agenda has been posted.

And thank you, Commissioner Rao.

All right. So I guess we'll pick up right where we left off. Thank you for confirming that you will do an acoustic study. That's very helpful to know. I did speak with a community member that lives right next to the pickleball courts who was concerned that the walls would not be effective. So helpful to know that you will measure the before and after. I did have one question around the sound walls as well. What is the ongoing maintenance

costs would be relatively minor, barring, of course, any kind of vandalism. But these panels are basically thick plastic or polyethylene, should not require a ton of maintenance, maybe replacement every ten to fifteen years. Of course, the manufacturer says they're good for twenty to twenty five. So we will see how that works out.

Okay, that's great. And do you have a sense of how high they will be? Because the concern was also that the sound would just go over the wall.

Yeah. The sound panels will be from the ground, maybe leaving a half inch at the bottom for drainage purposes, all the way through the full height of the fence, which is, I think, currently 12 feet. So they'll be 12 feet high. That will be part of the analysis because yes, some sound will go over that wall, but we want to make sure that that sound is mitigated enough to bring the noise concerns

determined that the mitigation was not sufficient, then what would be the next step from us?

Look into what other options there are. And again, we're going with what we think is the most fiscally responsible option to block that. We think that anything further would probably cost more, so we would go back to counsel and ask for their input on what they want to do there.

Okay. Thank you. I see that Commissioner Rao has his hand raised.

Thank you. Director Mosley, I hear you say this is the most fiscally responsible option. Are there no other more fiscally frugal options available to the city?

I can potentially answer that to someone. We're looking at or we've been requested to look at physical options to help block the sound with respect to an actual concrete sound wall, that would cost a lot more. There's not really enough space in that area to do any kind of dirt mound and have it be effective. And we don't believe vegetation would provide the sound attenuation needed. Definitely not in the short term, but probably not in the long term as well.

Aside from that, there are behavior items that we can ask for, like using quiet pickleball, potentially modifying the hours. But at this point in time, we've just been requested to look to see what physical options there are available to us.

And I just wanted to remind the commissioners that this item is agendized for consistency with the general plan and not a substantive discussion about the actual projects themselves.

That is thank understood, Atonybu. My questions are in that context itself. Thank you. I was going to before I was interrupted, let me go back to my question to Dirk Mosley. Is it not true that there is an alternative that quiet pedals and quiet balls can be mandated that would be fiscally more frugal?

I'm going to ask Director Mosley to evaluate whether that question goes to general plan consistency. If it isn't, then I do want to again note to the commissioners that this is agendized for broad eye purposes to find conformance with the general plan.

If I may point out, policies in the general plan include fiscal discipline. And so this is definitely in the scope of the general plan, that our policies in the general plan focus on finding the fiscally most feasible options.

So the question is whether this particular CIP project is consistent with the general plan. The question is whether other alternatives will be consistent. So this is what is before you, Commissioner. And I respectfully request that we we limit our discussion to what has been agendized under the Brown Act.

Correct. And in order to determine whether this particular project is the fiscally most responsible, we ought to be allowed the option to discuss whether there are other options available in lieu of this option.

I think we can move forward, Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Rao, do you have any other clarifying questions not related to alternatives but just around the CIP items themselves?

Yes. I do object to the overrule of the question. I believe the general plan has the fiscal policy as one of its policies, and we are within our general plan conformance criteria to be able to look at fiscal policies that are applicable here. We are being asked to spend $150,000 There are other options that we ought to be able to discuss. And my question to Director Mosley is whether a quiet pickleball paddle is an option or not?

I think that's a yes or no question, Director Mosley.

And I'm not sure I can answer yes or no. I mean that's more of a parks and rec decision. Like I said, public works has been tasked with looking for physical options to address the sound and that's what we're looking into.

Okay. Well, thank you for the question, Commissioner Rao.

Okay. My next question to Director mostly is what is the proposed material for this sound attenuation valve? And what are the choices of materials that were looked at for this project?

Again, we did some early preliminary conceptual plans. We looked at concrete walls. We looked to see if there was vegetation that was available. There are a number of they're actually pickleball related products that are basically polyethylene that can attach to existing fences. One of them is, I think, AcoustiBlock or PickleBlock. There's also another one, Hush Tex. We've looked at a number of these. They all seem appropriate. And we will have our engineer analyze which one's the most appropriate for this situation.

So Chair, I want to know for the record. I've expressed, again, my concerns that we're not acting consistently with the Brown Act as agendized. And so I'm going to respectfully request that you have Commissioner Rao conform to what has been described, you know, to the these are good questions that Commissioner Rao is asking. It just isn't appropriate here as agendized.

Understand. Point order. Different materials have different lifespans. And those lifespans go with the maintenance cost. And so in order to establish general plan conformance, we need to understand based on the material that is being considered, what is the lifespan of these walls. There is, on the one spectrum, a lifespan of three years. On the other spectrum is a lifespan of one hundred years. And so it is important for us to understand where we stand on that spectrum. Are we looking at maintenance costs every three years? Or is this a one hundred year wall, which clearly it's not because it's not concrete?

So we've got to be able

to ask these questions in order to establish what is the maintenance costs.

Commissioner Rao, I think Director Mosley previously said that there's replacement every ten to fifteen years. But city attorney, could you help me understand a little bit what exactly constitutes discussion around conformance with general plan versus discussion of the item itself? It's just a little bit hard for me to separate.

So I'll defer to capital improvement manager Susan Michaels and Director Mosley to go through the report again and explain how these these projects, in their opinion, conform to the general plan. And it is your task, responsibility, and duty tonight to evaluate whether this project conform to those. And if they do, then we found consistency. The question isn't whether there are multiple other alternatives that may or may not conform. It's really this one that's presented for you here tonight.

Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. All right. I think with that, city clerk, do we have any public comments?

We have one speaker remotely, Jennifer Griffin.

Through the chair. I was not done with my questions yet.

Okay. Then why don't we just pause briefly for public comments and then we will return back to the questions.

Thank you.

Welcome, Jennifer.

Yes, can you all hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Good, thank you. Yes, this is Jennifer Griffin, and thank you for the good report of these CIP projects. In the spirit of what we were discussing, I forgot what the general plan for the city. The 85 on ramp, which you all were talking about, which is adjacent to the Westport Sound Wall and to the the bridge over 85 from Stevens Creek Boulevard. I I think under terms of the safety issues from conformance to the general plan, I have been very, very concerned about that area for some time, and I'm glad to see that actions are being taken to address these issues.

I am as a member of the public, I am a bit concerned because of where Westport has wound up with the empty lot, etcetera, but we're talking about the on ramp. And I do think it's important that the city make sure that everything that had been discussed at the time of the development of Westport, that that is delivered as one package, and part of that is the the 85 on and off ramp there. The bridge over 85 is it's not it's I I think it's past its useful lifespan and it needs to be upgraded. The sidewalk on 85 when you go from West Port, you walk at the end of West Port and you're going west to cross the 85 on and off ramp the off ramp, and you're going to get onto the bridge, that whole area is is very substandard. I don't think it's, ADA compliant.

It's very narrow on that overpass, and I I don't know how much of this is going to address those issues, but I would like to see changes made in that whole area. Also, there's a lot of weeds that are along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The landscaping is fine for Westport, but when we're talking about conformance to the general plan for landscaping, etcetera, there are weeds and grass and all sorts of strange things along Stevens Creek Boulevard as you come to that site, that crossing, the crosswalk to go onto the bridge going westbound, and I think that those need to be addressed. I I'm I've been very, very concerned about the the the general upkeep of that whole corner. It looks really bad, and it that is an entrance.

Everyone sees that area. So I would hope that, you all can address the safety issues and the landscaping, and then I'm concerned about that empty lot. Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer. We have no remaining speakers, chair.

Thank you very much. So we'll return back to the commission. Commissioner Rao, you had further questions?

Yes. I believe the question around maintenance lifespan, I'd like to see if I can still get an answer whether Director Moseley agrees that the choice of material would determine the lifespan and therefore the maintenance cost. Is that a fair point, Director Moseley?

I believe I can address that. The product that we chose we choose to go with has not been decided yet. So we're not prepared to go into the details of the project at that level.

And so then are we at a point where we can be evaluating this project for GP conformance in the absence of those choices?

In absence of those choices, this project does meet the general plan conformance in that it reduces the noise impact to the community no matter which product that we choose. And we also know that we will be testing whatever is installed to make sure that we're not only doing a good job, but to see if there's further improvements that can be made once we take the first step here.

What would be the decibel reduction that would need to be achieved in order to evaluate that the project has met its requirement?

I don't believe we can answer that at this time.

Is there is there aspects of the general plan that talk about what decibel reduction needs to occur for noise attenuation or noise mitigation?

It doesn't the general plan, in my experience, doesn't get into that level of detail.

There is the ordinance, though.

What is the ordinance?

Yes. The muni code does provide noise levels within it, and we would look to see if we could meet those noise levels.

And would we know what that is? Or can we find out?

Yes, it's in the muni code.

So under what basis would we say this plan is confirmant or this project is confirmant of the general plan if we do not have any method to assess whether it does in fact achieve the noise attenuation that is being sought?

And respect to that, that's what the acoustical analysis is for.

And when will that be available? And should the GP conformance be assessed once

and at would

have evaluate the noise analysis. And if it doesn't meet the requirements, we would would go back to the drawing board and figure out what other options there are.

Okay. So the Modi code has different decibel level definitions for different sources of noise. But there is not a decibel definition for pickleball noise. So what decibel expectation are we taking from the Modi code right now? Because there are residential limits, there's construction, decibel limits, there's leaf blower limits, there's interior noise. So which one are we to look at?

So let me step in here and just suggest to Director Bosley and Susan Michaels that there's an attachment to the council report that sets forth those categories where these projects conform to the general plan. You guys want to go through those and explain to Commissioner Rao. And hopefully that addresses your concerns, Commissioner Rao. But as earlier indicated, the general plan doesn't get down to the level of a precise decibel level. For example, I'm seeing here under health and safety HS8, this particular project that that particular section says that the goal is to minimize noise impacts on the community and maintain a compatible noise environment for existing and future land use.

That was the determination the staff looked at and believes it conforms. And so, if you have questions about that, feel free to ask them. But it won't go down to the level of the particular decibel level.

Commission I'm sorry, yes, Vice Chair?

So my question is, as long as a project meets at least one of these goals, then it's compliant with the CIP goals. Is that true? Like, the pickleball thing doesn't say anything about fiscal anything, but it does meet other criteria. So I don't think we, you know, not here to determine whether we like the project or not, we're only here to see if it actually complies with at least one of these criteria. So I'm not sure why we're, you know looking into alternative sound reduction strategies because that's not you know the council is free to do that but I don't think that's our job here.

Through the chair, the health and safety element has very detailed policies around what is the decibel ranges to which noise is considered acceptable. And I draw your attention to six dash three six of the health and safety element. And you will see that there's ranges for different types of land use categories. So specifically, if you apply the residential category here because that is the adjacent land use, there are decibel ranges to what is acceptable. Therefore, points are important to establish whether this project will actually attenuate sound or noise to a level where the project is considered acceptable.

Failing that, a valid finding is that the project cannot show that this is, in fact, meeting the criteria that is defined in the general plan for the defined land use. So I urge my fellow commissioners to look at the health and safety element and look at six dash three six.

I guess that would for me, that would be a follow-up question for Susan or or director Mosley. Is there a reason why the health and safety element was not included in the conformance matrix that particular section that Commissioner Rao is citing?

I'm sorry, which section did he cite?

Six dash three six.

I don't have it in front of me. I do have eight. Sorry, I don't have that section. I have a much larger matrix, but I don't have all that in front of me. And also, I've also tried to condense it down into something that is digestible and to get to the heart of the matter.

And the specific details, it may be that what I chose isn't exactly what one of you might choose if you were going through the detail. It is mini page general plan. So I tried to not only distill it down for the packet, but also for the presentation. And I believe that these were the most relevant goals and policies and strategies. That was the working model that I used.

If I may, Chair, I just have one thing to add. The point of this exercise is to overall pick projects that can move forward through the process. And then they get designed and further refined as the process moves along. But if it doesn't even make the list, it can't even get to that point of that level of review or design. So if we don't add this to the list of projects, this project just simply does not move forward. It just ends at this point and then gets picked up when we just need to move it forward in order for it to get designed to meet any of those standards that may be in the general plan or in the muni code as far as noise standards go.

Okay. Thank you. That's helpful clarification. All right. Any further clarifying questions before we move to a potential discussion?

Yeah. Through the chair, I just want to make the same point staff member just made, which is that the purpose of checks and balances to evaluate conformance to the general plan is, in fact, present so that the planning commission may do its role to be able to recommend where a project may not be confirmed to the general plan that it not move forward. And therefore, this is not a check the box exercise. The planning commission actually has certain powers be able to recommend that certain things may not be conformant to the general plan. And I think part of that is the question of why the health and safety element has not been considered.

I think we need an answer to that. Can I can I ask, director Mosley or miss Michael whether, the health and safety element was considered in general plan performance?

Commissioner Rao, I believe Susan just answered that question. I mean, you can feel free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting this, Susan, but it was just a it was a discretionary choice. They they chose which general plan items they wanted, and they felt the the ones that they chose were the most salient. That was the answer.

Okay. But we do not have discretion to pick and choose what we would like to pick. The entire general plan in its totality, is evaluated for conformance. And as we have been told in the planning commissioner training, even a single set of findings that are material may, in fact, be used to show that the plan is not conformant if those findings are noncompliant. And the health and safety element is, in fact, a key aspect because that is the element that talks about noise. Is there any other my question to Director Mosely and Ms. Michael is, which element in the general plan talks about noise?

In my matrix, if I may, Chair, noise is health and safety element eight. And that was what was cited. Minimize noise impacts on the community and maintain a compatible noise environment for existing and future land use.

At this point, Chair, if appropriate, it sounds like we're beyond questions. And perhaps you can close that section and just move to discussion.

Yes, I was actually going to say exactly that. Commissioner Rao, it seems like you might be moving towards commentary and do you have a motion you would like to set forth for discussion purposes?

Through the chair, no. I think I did have more questions, but I I guess my next question is gonna be around the Blackberry Farm Golf Course Pro Shop. On the Blackberry Farm Golf Course Pro Shop, once again referring to the general plan policies around being fiscally picking the most fiscally responsible choice, what is the reason that we chose to renovate this Pro Shop when membership has been declining and whether there's cost recovery in the current operations of the Blackberry Farm Gold Shop and the Pro Shop?

So Commissioner Rao, again, the purpose of today's agenda item is not to evaluate the reasonableness or the best judgment for engaging in particular projects. You have before you the projects that has been set forth and the agendize item before this commission is to evaluate whether those items is consistent with the general plan and staff has taken the effort to provide a matrix establishing those elements where it is in their professional opinion judgment is consistent with the general plan. It's not about whether there are alternative projects that should be undertaken. It's not about alternative materials that should be used. It's about whether the project that's before you as presented in the staff report and attachments is consistent with the general plan.

Okay. I have a question, Atranivu. Policy LU 8.1 of the general plan, what is the basis to find that we are conformant with policy LU 8.1 or conversely that we may not be conformant with policy LU 8.1? Public staff references LU8.1 in a few places. LU8.1 talks about fiscal health. In the absence of a meaningful discussion on alternatives, how can we conclude that we are conformant or nonconformant with LU 8.1, which is in the general plan?

Sure, I can answer that or try to.

Thank you.

Thank you for the question. The facilities exist. The golf course has a pro shop, and the sports center has tennis courts that need to be resurfaced. Both facilities are functional, and we need to it is in the best interest of the city to keep those facilities functioning, including the pro shop. And it was determined that it would be prudent to renovate the pro shop at this time.

It is visually, obviously, dilapidated and has conditions that could be improved for safety as well as for efficiency and effectiveness. So that was why the project is deemed to be the fiscally prudent thing to do at this time?

I guess I don't understand why we would say that's a fiscally prudent thing to do versus to leave the

Commissioner Rappa.

Yeah. If you're if you're if you're prevented from discussing alternatives, how do we evaluate policy LU eight dot one?

Sorry.

Well, I I believe the the purpose of this discussion tonight is is not to

I believe Capital Group Manager Michael has just explained that, Commissioner Rao.

Okay. But that's it's unclear to me how that meets the finding for LU8.1.

Vice Chair, yes.

So, Commissioner Rao, I did bring this up earlier before you joined the meeting on this specific question on LU8-eight 0.1 and the fiscal health. I didn't see how the ProShop renovation met that standard, but it does meet other general plan standards. So I don't think it has to meet every single item in the matrix, just has to meet enough of them or even just one of them to qualify. And, you know, the city council is free to, you know, change which pro CIP projects they wanna do, but that's not why why we're here tonight.

To the chair, if I may address the vice chair, we were provided to understand in the Planning Commissioner Academy that even a single finding of nonconformance may be basis for finding the project nonconformant. Now I agree that that may be extreme, but that is what we were told. Maybe that can be clarified.

City attorney, would it be correct to say that if if a commissioner felt that something was not in conformance, they could just make that motion? Or how how does that get handled?

Yes, the commissioner, any commissioner is entitled to making the motion they deem appropriate in their judgment based on the discussion that's presented and the evidence and the facts and everything else are presented before them for evaluation.

If I may also add, if the commission finds that these projects, specifically for LU 8.1, don't meet that, they can strike that one line item and it can be forwarded on the basis of the remaining. There's plenty of policies that these projects are compliant with. Vice chair.

So I guess that's a good question. Does a project have to meet every single criteria? I mean, there's always CIP projects that don't enhance the physical health of the city but that we want to do anyway. So I don't think a project has to meet every single criteria in the matrix and you know, course I'd be happy to strike LU dash -8.1 for the ProSHOP. It would make no difference. It still meets the other criteria.

Okay. I think with that said, we are ready to move on to comments from the commission. Through the

Chair, I did have more questions. May I ask the Chair to not rush the proceedings so that we may actually take the time needed to do the due diligence needed here? My next question to either staff or the at Wu is what is considered a mandatory finding? And if Ani Wu can explain the all or nothing rule as regards to findings.

I'm not sure if I understand your question about mandatory findings. But as you heard, as long as there's one finding of conformance to the general consistency of the general plan, that is sufficient. I defer to staff when they've evaluated projects and they provide a list for you that in their professional judgment it conforms to, you know, the item they identified. For instance, for this pro shop, I mean, to the extent they I'm assuming they had discussions with the appropriate department to identify whether the pro shop is income generating, one. And two, whether, improvements to it will also increase revenue.

And I assume the answers were both were yes, which is why in the professional judgment they determine that is one of the element that satisfied. This body is entitled to disagree with that because of, you know, of lack of evidence presented before you. However, as we've heard from other commissioners here and from other commissioners here, other findings of consistency and those will be adequate to find that this particular project is consistent with the general plan.

And so just a point of clarification. Is the attorney able to explain what the all or nothing rule is?

I have never heard of all or nothing rule as it applies to general plan consistency in this context.

Okay. My understanding is there are set of mandatory findings. And of those mandatory findings, all mandatory findings must be found to be conformant. And so my question is, what do we consider as mandatory findings?

I'm not familiar with the legal requirement of mandatory findings in connection with this item as agendized. I believe it's to direct the task before you is to evaluate as presented to you by staff whether that particular project conforms and consistent with the general plan as they identify an attachment to this report.

Okay. So I'm what I'm hearing, Chair, if I may paraphrase, is I don't believe we are aligned on the basis for finding a project nonconformant. My understanding is that there is an all or nothing rule that says that if there are a set of mandatory findings, all mandatory findings must be found conformant, not a single one as Vice Chair Sharf was inquiring earlier. And so the question being asked here is what are considered mandatory findings to which we cannot get a clear answer. Absent that, one may bring up any finding.

And if it is nonconformant, the project may be motioned to be nonconformant with the general plan, unless I hear why that should not be the case.

So to this body, I want to express my legal opinion that there is no required mandatory findings for you to determine that a project as presented to you is consistent with the general plan. So please use your best professional judgment based on the report as presented to you and the attachment to that report to determine whether these CIP projects are consistent with the goals in the general plan as identified.

Okay. So I think we are it sounds like we are moving towards comments at this point. So I'd like to open this up for comments from the commission. Any comments? Okay.

Well, I personally have a few. Actually, this might even be a question, but it might be more of a question. So on the 85 on ramp, I understand that the on ramp has a tightening of the turn into the freeway. And I understand that we have a new draft health and safety element, it has not been approved yet. But to the extent that we can, I I would think it's very prudent to take into account the the draft health and safety element policy which is to HS 2.1.1 which is to ensure that evacuation routes into and out of the city have adequate capacity, safety, and viability in the event of an emergency?

And so I guess my ask would just be whether we can keep in mind the capacity of our roadways, especially as the 85 on ramp is an important on ramp for people trying to exit the city?

Yes, we can. The plan as it stands now, which is still conceptual, we don't lose any lanes, no vehicle lanes there. We're just enhancing pedestrian and bicycle safety at that intersection. We're tightening the curve to slow cars down a little bit as they turn onto the highway. As it's currently established, cars are picking up speed as they go around that turn because they're trying to get on the highway. We're trying to slow them down where there is conflict between bicycles and pedestrians.

Okay. Thank you. And then another comment is around the pickleball sound wall. So I understand that this is I understand fully the intentions behind this project. And I I just had some notes around L U 4, which is neighborhood preservation.

So the city will, you know, basically partner with the neighborhoods and welcome the citizens as partners as well as INF two, which was cited to ensure that existing facilities meet the community's needs. And as I had mentioned before, the neighbor directly living across from the pickleball courts was was quite concerned that the wall there would be no difference with the walls. And so I guess I would ask if we are because this is a solution that is specifically being designed to meet the community's pain points, that if you could actually consider speaking with some of the there's probably only four houses that are directly across from the pickleball courts to understand whether you think what they think of the solution before that investment is made, that would be helpful just because my understanding from them was they didn't think the wall would be effective. So that's just my ask is that if we are going to cite INF two to ensure that existing facilities meet the community's needs that that we speak with the four or five houses that are directly across. Thank you very much.

Commissioner Rao.

Yes. This is a question for Doctor. Mosley and Ms. Michael. There is no wall on the western side of those courts. So why do we believe that noise detonation will actually be achieved at all when there is no wall and it's completely open on the western side?

I think to a certain extent, on the western side, there is a mound there in the bleachers, which would block some of that sound. But all of that will be evaluated with the sound analysis.

You, Kashyir.

Okay. But we sorry, I was not there. But we were told earlier that trees was not an effective alternative, and we believe now that a mound would do better than trees.

Mounds are effective sound blockers.

And how far away is the mountain from where the courts are?

I'm not sure that that's germane to the topic, but it's approximately 20, maybe fifteen, twenty feet away.

And are the mountains in the direction of the homes or perpendicular to it?

Again, don't know that that's germane to the topic here.

The topic here is around noise attenuation as experienced by the homes on the northern side. Understand that.

No, I need to step in. No, that's not the agendaised topic, Commissioner Rao. The agendaised topic is whether this project is consistent with the general plan and that explanation is set forth for you in attachment to report. And I want to state again that I believe this line of questioning exceeds the agenda as required by the Brown Act. And I just want to remind you that the Brown Act is state law and that we should be very careful not to violate it because this is not a substantive discussion about the project itself.

This is not. And so, please, I ask you, Commissioner Rao, to consider your line discussion about the substantive merits of the project itself. That is not before you. That is not agendized. That is not for discussion.

Attorney Wu, my question to you is specifically on HS-eight, which is in the general plan. HS-eight reads, minimize noise impacts on the community and maintain a compatible noise environment for existing and future land use.

And I and I guess I will state

That is in the general plan. The That is in the general plan at the light of this Point point of order. Project. Point of order. Yes. The the commissioner has not completed his comment. Point of order. HS8 is the line of questioning here, and the line of questioning is specific and germane to the general plan findings and whether this project is in conformance with HS8. So I just wanna clarify to the point that Agnibou made. We are operating within the bounds of the general plan, and this is not a violation of the program act. And if it is, then I'd like to understand on what basis we evaluate HS8.

So HS8 state noise impacts on the community and maintain a compatible noise environment for existing and future land use. So I want to ask staff, do you believe this project conforms to that element?

That is the intent of this project.

Thank you. I hope that answers your question, Mr. Rao.

Operator word that is compatible and the compatible adjacent use is residential. And the residential noise definition in the general plan is, I believe, it's 10 decibel. I'm trying to understand what basis are we?

Once the project proceeds, we can do an analysis and see what is achievable. When we go to take the next steps with awarding the contract and developing the project, that will be public record. And you can comment on the project once it begins. We aren't at the place where we can talk about the project details presently.

At that point, however, we no longer have the ability to say that it is not conformant to the general plan. Is that right?

That is correct. That is the task tonight, to decide whether this is in conformance with the general plan. The general plan does have the health and safety element which asks us to minimize noise impacts. And that is the intent and the goal of this project.

Okay. So I rest my case to the fellow commissioners that HSA provides us the basis to find that this project is not conferment with the general plan absent a substantive baseline noise level study or any sort of modeling or harm on how noise is attenuated when there is no wall on the western side that would allow for noise to seep or escape through on the western side? So I will pause my question here.

Commissioner Rao, I would respond to that by saying I think part of this CIP item is to do that study that you are discussing. So it's

And the point being made here, Chair, is absent that study, we are not ready to conclude that we are confirming with the general plan. An alternative approach might be to require that that study occur before the project come to planning commission for verification of conformance.

I'm I'm not clear that there would be a way to have it come to us first. This is the first step. That said, I mean, if you if you felt very strongly that this is not conformant, you could make the motion?

I would I would actually back to differ. The noise study should have been a baseline noise study done on a change of use of the quartz that went from a decibel level that was far lower to what it was for pickleball. So there could have already been a baseline noise study. Maybe that is a question to staff. Is there already a preexisting baseline study of noise at this location?

I just don't believe that that question is relevant to the CIP discussion at the moment. We are not here to go in-depth on to all of the back study that happened behind each individual CIP item.

So may choose to say that without a baseline noise study, we cannot we do not have the basis to determine whether HS8 is found to be confirmed or not.

I think we're saying that we want to move forward to allow that study to happen and then actually make an informed decision rather than a decision based on nothing.

Correct, Vice Chair.

I think it's time for a motion. Can make a motion. I make a motion that we find that the proposed capital improvement program for fiscal year 2026 to 2027 is consistent with the City Of Cupertino general plan. I'll second that.

And just a question, vice chair, did you want to remove the, I think it was No. 8.1, the on fiscal?

No. That's fine to stay there. They mentioned that they believe it will generate positive revenue. So it's fine.

Question to the vice chair. Would you entertain a friendly amendment to your motion to exclude the pickleball sound detonation from your proposed motion? No. Are there are there amendments to this motion that you might think of that will provide the commission more leeway and checks and balances on the level of conformance to the findings around noise?

No.

Think, Commissioner Rao, the the way I I view this is whether you agree with the project or not. This discussion is actually not about that. It's really about whether the item is in conformance with general plan. You know, as vice chair said, there's enough areas where that item is in conformance. So, again, it's just it's just not used.

Through the chair, I ask you to not misstate any of my statements. At no time have I said I do not agree with this project. My questions are on the basis of noise and fiscal health and whether the city should be spending $150,000 when it is in a structural budget imbalance. And furthermore, we do not know what is the choice of material. And as I pointed out, depending on the choice of material, the maintenance needs to be done at a three year or five year interval to a ten year or twenty or thirty year or one hundred year.

We are hearing from staff it's ten years, so we'll take it at that. But even every ten years, spending $150,000 on this project for maintenance or replacement is a significant cost for a facility that is not revenue generating and has no cost recovery. The city has a cost recovery policy, and we are obligated to keep in mind LU 8.1, which is fiscal health policy.

Okay. I did actually want to comment on the fiscal item. I did visit the the golf shop, and I was impressed by how well they had kept the staff had kept the shop given the age, and I can understand the need to renovate it. They've they've kept it very well for it never having been touched since its inception, basically. Commissioner Rao, you still have your hand raised. Is is there another comment? So, okay. Alright. Do we have any further comments on this motion? Okay, then, city clerk, I

think we're ready for a vote. Commissioner Feng?

Aye.

Commissioner Linskog is absent. Commissioner Rao?

No.

Vice Chair Sharf? Aye. Chair Kasolchran? Aye. The motion carries with Commissioner Rao voting no.

Alright. Thank you very much. And so we will complete this item and we will move on. This is on the Commission reports. This is just to note that I submitted a written report on recapping my experience at the Commissioner Academy as well as my learnings into the written record. And that is available if anyone should want to review it. Do we have any staff reports?

Thank you. Good evening, commission again. I only have one announcement. It's kind of a PSA in terms of the major projects website that the planning department maintains. It includes a listing of all the major residential projects that or non residential projects that the city is reviewing.

Currently, we are reviewing, I want to say, nine residential projects, but I may be misstating that. The shortcut URL for that website is cupertino.gov/majorprojects. So if anybody wishes to view the list of projects that are under review, have been approved, or have been approved in the distant past and have majored of note, those are all available on that particular website. And aside from that, I don't really have much to add.

Thank you very much. And I realize just as a formality, since there is an attachment here, city clerk, do we have any public comments on this item?

We have no speakers, chair. Thank you very much.

Sorry. Point point of order. Did we ask other commissioners for any commission reports?

So my report was really just on the experience at the Planning Commissioner Academy. And I I think I had mentioned this actually a few two meetings ago when the other commissioners gave their verbal report that I was planning on submitting a written report.

Sorry, chair. My question was whether the chair called for commission reports from other commissioners.

I I did not call for

We haven't finished the item yet.

Right? Yes. Are there other reports from other commissioners? There are no other reports? Okay. Then we will move to future agenda setting. Any items for future agenda setting?

Through the chair, I think a number of future agenda items have been proposed. Can we what would be the appropriate method to understand the disposition of proposed future legit items that were previously offered?

Yes, it's an excellent question because I I know that I'm not supposed to be discussing things that are not agendized. I don't know city attorney if there's a way to discuss the items that were requested.

So thank you chair. So Commissioner Rao staff will has been compiling the list of items that has been identified during this particular agenda item. And at some future date, those items will be returned to this commission for evaluation.

Through the chair, a number of subcommittees have been proposed which do not require staff bandwidth. I would urge the chair to use the chair's discretion to agendize subcommittees, allowing commissioners to take forward studies that can occur in parallel with staff activity that may be fairly consumed with the various projects that are in review currently. So we have a number of subcommittee future agenda items that I hope will get agenda ized.

Thank you, Commissioner Rao. I understand it is somewhat within my discretion, but it's not quite as simple as just creating a subcommittee at my own will. So hopefully, we can find a way to communicate back on the subcommittees and all the other proposals. All right. So any other future agenda items to discuss? None? Then we will adjourn this meeting. Thank you very much.