►
From YouTube: OCT 28, 2021 | City Council Study Session
Description
City of San José, California
City Council Study Session of October 28, 2021
Overview of Senate Bill 9 and Senate Bill 10 and Implications to Planning Policy and Zoning Regulations
Pre-meeting citizen input on Agenda via eComment at https://sanjose.granicusideas.com/meetings.
This public meeting will be held at San José City Hall and also accessible via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.
Agenda https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=900419&GUID=974A698B-4879-4D44-8827-04AF79C47AA1
A
A
A
A
C
A
Welcome,
I'm
sorry,
I
said
sb9,
I'm
at
sb,
9
and
10..
We
don't
want
to
leave
that
one
out.
I
want
to
thank
all
of
our
planning
and
city
manager
staff
who
work
so
hard
on
trying
to
catch
up
with
what
is
a
very
fast
changing
landscape,
and
I
think
we
don't
have
yet
all
the
facts,
because
there's
still
stuff
to
be
determined
but
we're
going
to
at
least
get
a
handle
on
what
we
know.
So
with
that
jennifer.
E
Thank
you
jennifer
mayor
and
council,
chris
burton
director
of
planning
building
code
enforcement
and
I'm
joined
today
by
michael
brio,
our
deputy
director
for
citywide
planning
and
martina
davis,
our
acting
a
division
manager
for
citywide
planning
as
well.
I
believe
we're
also
joined
on
the
zoom
by
tara
shafi
with
the
city
attorney's
office
who's
also
been
helping
us
dissect,
some
of
this
important
information.
E
The
opportunity
housing
workers
has
had
us
look
at
a
broad
spectrum
of
these
issues,
but
clearly
with
the
state
passing
sb9
and
10,
our
work
has
come
into
focus
in
a
different
way.
So,
in
addition
to
sorry,
let
me
just
get
us
to
the
right
place
in
our
presentation,
in
addition
to
the
info
memo
that
we
published
the
week
before
last,
we'll
be
covering
a
whole
series
of
information
today,
including
a
comparison
of
sb9
with
opportunity
housing.
E
Some
of
the
challenges
we
have
around
implementation
of
sb9
and
san
jose
information
around
sb10
and
what
that
means
for
our
work
in
the
future
and
then
we'll
be
available
for
questions
from
council
and
to
listen
to
additional
testimony
from
the
public.
I
will
just
note
before
we
dive
into
the
specifics
of
the
information.
E
A
lot
of
this
is
new.
We're,
certainly
working
as
fast
as
we
can
to
understand.
All
of
the
different
facets
of
these
of
these
bills
understand
the
implications
to
our
work
on
a
regular
basis,
but
that
may
change,
and
so
we'll
continue
to
keep
you
updated
and
informed
as
we
learn
more
and
with
that,
I'm
going
to
hand
it
over
to
martina
to
walk
through
a
presentation.
F
F
F
It
applies
to
all
properties
that
are
zoned
single-family,
so
in
san
jose.
That
means
properties
that
are
zoned
r1
or
plan
development
districts
that
allow
single-family
uses
I'll
note
that
plan
development
districts
also
often
are
areas
with
homeowners
associations,
and
there
is
no
provisions
in
sb9
that
would
supersede
a
homeowners
association
from
implementing
and
enforcing
their
own
standards.
So
if
there
are
ccnrs
that
would
conflict
with
sb9
those
are
not
over
written
like
for
adus,
there
is
legislation
that
invalidates
ccnrs
that
would
prevent
adus
accessory
dwelling
units.
F
F
Sb9
includes
a
number
of
mandatory
development
standards
that
I'll
be
covering,
as
well
as
it
does
allow
cities
to
adopt
their
own
standards
with
some
limitations,
and
we'll
be
talking
about
that
in
a
moment
as
well.
It
is
effective
january
1st
2022,
so
we
will
be
needing
to
start
processing
applications
come
january,
which
is
coming
quickly.
F
So
first,
I'm
going
to
cover
the
urban
lot
splits.
So
what
sp9
allows
and
requires
the
city
to
approve
is
a
lot
split
to
allow
one
property
to
be
subdivided
into
two
roughly
proportional
properties.
They
define
roughly
proportional
to
mean
that
one
lot
may
be
no
less
than
forty
percent
of
the
size
of
the
other.
So
just
using
this
ten
thousand
square
foot
lot.
Example,
if
you
start
with
ten
thousand
square
feet,
the
lowest
lot
size
you
could
get
to
is
four
thousand
square
feet
for
one
lot
and
then
the
other
would
be
larger.
F
No
lot
may
be
created,
that's
less
than
1200
square
feet,
so
that
would
mean
you
would
need
to
start
with
at
least
a
2400
square
foot
lot
to
be
able
to
subdivide
I'll
note
that
the
average
lot
size
of
your
kind
of
typical
post
world
war
ii,
san
jose
single
family
neighborhood
is
6
000
square
feet
per
lot,
so
2400
is
significantly
lower
than
most
lots.
We
have
in
san
jose
that
are
zoned
single
family.
F
The
city
is
not
required
to
permit
more
than
two
units
per
lot
for
lots
that
have
been
subdivided
under
sb9,
but
we
would
need
to
take
action
to
apply
that
into
our
zoning
ordinance.
That
currently
would
allow
someone
to
construct
accessory
dwelling
units
and
junior
accessory
dwelling
units,
regardless
of
an
sb9
subdivision.
F
A
couple
more
things
about
the
urban
lot
splits.
There's
this
interesting
owner
occupancy
requirement.
The
applicant
must
submit
an
attestation
that
they
plan
to
live
in
the
property
for
at
least
three
years
after
the
date
of
subdivision.
It's
an
interesting
one,
because
you
notice
it
says
they
plan
to
live
there.
It
doesn't
actually
require
that
they
continue
to
live
there.
F
It
just
requires
that
they
attest
to
us
that
they're
planning
to
live
there,
so
we
won't
be
looking
into
how
what
we
do
around
that,
if
there's
any
enforcement
mechanisms,
but
that's
an
important
kind
of
distinction,
the
same
applicant
cannot
subdivide
adjoining
lots.
I
think
this
is
to
prevent
a
developer,
who
owns
a
bunch
of
vacant
property
they've,
just
subdivided
to
then
come
in
and
double
the
density
of
that
subdivision,
while
they
all
still
own
it,
it
does
require
a
ministerial
approval
process,
so
an
sb9
subdivision
would
be
processed
through.
F
What's
called
a
parcel
map,
it's
something
our
department
of
public
works
already
does
process.
The
the
main
difference
is
that
it
would
not
because
it's
ministerial
it
would
not
have
sql
review
for
that
personal
map.
Personal
maps
tend
to
be
small
subdivisions,
so
they
tend
to
be
secret
exemptions,
so
that
shouldn't
be
a
huge
difference
in
process.
F
So
in
a
parcel
map
situation
most
frequently,
what
you
would
see
is
if
someone
wanted
to
subdivide
a
lot
that
didn't
have
a
sidewalk
built,
they
would
be
required
to
build
the
sidewalk.
As
part
of
that
subdivision,
we
would
no
longer
be
able
to
require
that
I'm
going
to
talk
about
the
lands
that
are
not
subject
to
sb9,
even
if
they're
zoned
single-family
these
first
two
protected
farmlands
and
wetlands
are
unlikely
to
occur,
but
of
course,
we'll
be
checking.
F
It
also
excludes
lands
within
a
very
high
fire
hazard
severity
zone.
That
is
something
mapped
by
the
state.
I
checked.
The
maps
in
san
jose
has
very
little
of
this
land
a
little
bit
in
our
east
hills
and
a
little
bit
on
the
west
side
of
san
jose,
but
very
very
little
would
be
subject
to
this
exclusion.
F
F
It
also
excludes
lands
protected
for
conservation,
so,
for
example,
a
conservation
easement
as
well
as
habitat
for
protected
species.
The
biggest
distinction
is,
it
does
exclude
lands
within
a
historic
district
or
in
a
site
that
is
designated
as
historic.
You
may
be
aware
on
our
historic
races
inventory.
We
have
a
number
of
different
levels
of
listing,
so
we
are
still
working
to
confirm
kind
of
what
level
this
this
exclusion
kicks
in
on.
Is
it
city
landmarks?
Only
does
it
include
conservation
areas
right
now?
F
The
legislator
was
cognizant
of
you
know
the
potential
unintended
consequence
of
sb9
projects
displacing
existing
housing,
so
they
did
include
a
couple
of
provisions
around
that.
One
of
them
is
that
units
created
by
sb9
cannot
be
rented
for
terms
of
30
days
or
less.
So
you
can't
use
sb9
to
build
a
airbnb
on
your
property,
for
example,
and
then
projects
under
sb9
cannot
alter
or
demolish
rent
control
units,
deed,
restricted,
affordable
units
or
units
where
the
ellis
act
has
been
exercised
within
the
last
15
years
to
remove
the
unit
from
the
rental
market.
F
We
think
those
ones
are
less
likely
to
come
up
because
those
protections
don't
kick
in
until
you
get
multiple
units
on
a
property,
but
the
one
that
would
likely
come
up
most
frequently
off
of
this
list
is
that
it
also
excludes
properties
that
have
been
occupied
by
a
tenant
in
the
last
three
years
and
when
I
say
exclude,
you
could
subdivide
if
you're
not
touching,
that
dwelling
you're
fine,
but
you
can't
alter
or
demolish
the
dwelling.
That's
been
occupied
by
a
tenant
in
the
last
three
years.
F
Okay,
so
I
touched
earlier
that
on
that
sp9
has
some
mandatory
development
standards,
so
the
first
one
is
that
we
cannot
require
more
than
four
foot
side
or
rear
setbacks
for
the
side
setback.
Currently
we
require
five
feet
for
most
single
family
zone
areas,
so
that's
a
difference
of
one
foot
and
then
the
rear
yard.
Currently
we
require
15
feet
for
one
story
and
20
feet
for
a
two
story
in
our
188
district,
which
is
our
most
frequent.
So
that
would
be
a
substantial
change
there.
F
We
cannot
require
any
setbacks
for
existing
structures
and
so
we're
reading
that
to
mean
that
if
somebody
wanted
to
subdivide
a
property
and
put
that
new
lot
line
right
at
the
edge
of
their
existing
home,
we
would
have
to
allow
that
that's
another
area
that
we
are
looking
for,
interpretation
on,
because
that
kind
of
situation
can
be
difficult
from
a
building
or
fire
code
standpoint.
So
we'll
be
clarifying
the
intent
of
that
provision.
F
We
must
allow
construction
of
attached
units,
so
we
would
not
be
able
to
adopt
a
standard
that
says.
Yes,
you
can
build
an
sp9
project
only
if
they
are
detached
units.
That's
not
permitted
as
a
note
attached
units
the
law
specifies
must
be
designed
to
the
standards
required
for
selling
individually,
so
no
doors
between
the
units.
You
can't
kind
of,
as
explained
to
me,
game
the
system
to
create
a
large
addition
on
your
house
and
call
it
a
new
unit
under
sb9
is
kind
of.
F
We
understand
the
intention
of
that
one
cities
may
apply
objective
development
standards
as
long
as
the
standards
do
not
conflict
with
these
mandatory
standards
and
the
standards
don't
prevent
construction
of
at
least
two
800
square
foot
units
on
each
lot
a
lot
of
times.
I
get
the
question.
What
does
objective
mean
objective
generally?
It
means
standards
that
involve
no
personal
or
subjective
judgment
and
are
verifiable
right
by
an
external
reference.
F
So,
for
example,
if
you
had
a
standard
that
said,
an
sv9
project
must
be
compatible
with
the
surrounding
properties.
That's
not
objective!
What
compatible
means
means
something
different
for
me.
You
anybody
and
there's
no
external
one
reference.
We
can
all
look
at
to
say
what
compatible
means,
and
so
generally
observative
standards
have
to
be
numeric
based.
You
know
no
more
than
this
many
feet
above
the
adjacent
property.
You
can
measure
that
and
verify
that
right.
F
F
F
Their
reading
of
it
is
that
we
must
allow
two
new
units
on
a
property,
regardless
of
what's
already
on
the
property.
So
under
that
interpretation,
you
could
actually
add
two
units
to
a
property
that
already
contains
a
single
family
dwelling
and
accessory
dwelling
units,
so
it
kind
of
makes
the
number
of
units
go
very
far
up.
F
G
F
Interpretations
and
the
interpretations
are
very
very
different,
so
picture
is
worth
a
thousand
words.
So
let's
go
through
a
couple
examples
of
unit
how
many
units
you
could
get
under
sp9
before
I
delve
through
these,
I
want
to
note
these
are
not
to
scale.
They
do
not
take
into
account
making
room
for
parking
staircases.
Anything
like
that
they're
just
to
illustrate
the
potential
number
of
units.
F
So
in
this
first
scenario
we
could
have
a
property
that
already
has
a
single
family
dwelling
and
if
they
wanted
to
max
out
under
sv9
with
building
another
single
family
dwelling,
they
could
do
so
so
they
could
build
a
single
family
dwelling
in
addition
to
the
current
one,
and
then
they
would
be
allowed
to
build
one
accessory
dwelling
unit
and
one
junior
accessory
dwelling
unit
on
the
property
as
well.
So
any
kind
of
configuration
of
an
sb9
project
using
two
single
family
houses
is
going
to
result
in
up
to
four
units.
F
F
So
next
example
is,
if
you
have
a
subdivision,
so
this
assumes
we
do
make
that
update
to
the
zoning
ordinance.
I've
been
talking
about
where
we
we
use
that
intent
and
that
provision
of
sb
9
that
says
cities
do
not
have
to
allow
more
than
two
units
per
lot.
In
this
scenario,
someone
could
do
any
combination
of
a
single
family,
an
accessory
dwelling
or
a
duplex,
but
no
accessory
dwellings
on
the
property,
and
it
would
result
in
a
total
of
four
units
on
this
subdivided
property.
F
Okay,
I'm
going
to
show
you
the
example
of
the
max
out
if
we
weren't
to
change
our
zoning
ordinance.
I
do
want
to
mention
that
that
we
did
some
kind
of
preliminary
calculations
and
we
don't
think
this
is
just
physically
achievable
on
your
typical
single-family
lot.
You
just
run
out
of
space
before
you
can
fit
this
many
units
period.
F
So
we
are
thinking
this
would
be
an
edge
case
on
a
much
larger
lot,
just
from
simply
what
you
can
fit,
but
in
theory
you
could
do
a
subdivision,
a
duplex
and
then
add
those
three
adus
onto
the
duplex,
because
again
our
local
adu
ordinance
still
says.
If
you
have
the
duplex
you're
allowed
adus
and
we
would
need
to
make
a
change
to
say
unless
it's
an
sb9
subdivision
and
this
could
result
in
up
to
10
units
but
again
typical
lot
size.
We
don't
see
this
this
fitting.
A
F
So
for
multiple
family
dwellings
are
actually
not
allowed
to
have
junior
adus,
it
does
allow
an
one,
a
full
adu.
I
mean
there's
not
a
huge
distinction
between
them
at
this
point,
but
it
does
allow
an
attached
kind
of
full
adu,
but
again
it
does
restrict
it
to
being
conversion
of
existing
non-living
space
got.
H
Okay,
michael
brio,
deputy
director
of
citywed
planning,
so
I'm
just
going
to
quickly
go
over
some
differences
and
similarities
between
opportunity,
housing
and
sb9.
So
I
think,
as
the
council
is
well
aware,
every
four
years
the
city
evaluates
the
general
plan's
progress
towards
achieving
its
goals.
There
is
a,
I
think,
it's
42
member
task
force
that
works
with
staff
on
developing
recommendations.
H
H
The
task
force
recommendation.
Essentially,
I
had
one
key
difference
with
the
staff
one,
and
that
is
that
they
recommended
exploring
opportunity:
housing
city-wide
for
properties
with
a
residential,
neighborhood,
landy's
designation
and
that's
the
landis
designation.
That
really
is
the
single-family
land
use
designation
in
the
city.
They
also
recommended
that,
while,
while
we
do
that,
we
should
really
double
down
and
prioritize
urban
village
planning
work.
H
So
I'll
quickly
go
through
a
comparison
we
can.
We
can
get
back,
come
back
to
this
later,
as
as
desired,
comparing
sb9
and
opportunity
housing.
So
martinez
gone
through
how
many
unit
units
could
be
allowed
on
sb9
there's
a
lot
of
variation
depending
on
what
we
do
with
our
code
and
some
interpretations
as
well,
but
it
could
be
with
our
current
code
up
to
10.
It
could
go
down
to
as
low
as
four.
H
H
So
the
the
geographic
boundaries,
of
course
sb9-
is
not
just
city-wide,
but
statewide
and
council
direction
was
again
to
focus
it
in
a
more
limited
area.
Around
transit
villages
and
staff
recommendation
aligns
with
council
direction.
It
just
provides
more
a
specific
radius
of
where
it
would
apply
with
a
half
mile
with
it
within
a
half
mile
of
transit
villages.
H
The
task
force
recommendation
again
is
to
take
it
city
wide.
So
it's
much
more
similar
to
the
sb9
provision.
Can
lots
be
subdivided,
of
course,
as
martina
went
through?
Yes,
they
can
and
in
terms
of
opportunity,
housing
that
that
would
be
tbd.
I
think
our
initial
thought
on
on
opportunity.
Housing
where
we
were
headed,
is
that
we
wanted
to
preserve
the
existing
lotting
pattern
of
single-family
neighborhoods.
H
So
demolition
of
existing
structures,
sp9
is,
is
yes,
there's,
there's
of
course,
restrictions.
If
the
unit
is
rented
it's
a
d,
it's
an
affordable
unit,
so
opportunity
housing
again.
That's
that's!
That's
also
would
be
tbd.
A
lot
of
this
is
tbd
and,
depending
on
what
council
direct
us,
but
in
general
the
the
feeling
was
that
there
should
be
some
protections
so
as
not
to
result
in
displacement
and
part
of
the
opportunity
housing
work.
H
So
martina
went
over
this
one
space
per
unit
for
sb9
projects
unless
you're
near
transit
opportunity,
housing
tbd,
we
didn't
come
up
with
a
policy
proposal
on
that.
Sb9
excludes
historic
properties,
opportunity
housing
as
it
was
being
discussed
by
the
task
force
and
the
staff
would
consider
the
adapted
reuse
of
designated
eligible
historic
properties.
H
An
example
is
where
martino
lives
as
an
old
victorian,
which
was
subdivided
into
a
triplex.
Oh
seven
units
wow,
so
studios.
So
you
know
that
was
kind
of
something
that
was
being
considered
as
part
of
opportunity
housing,
but
again
that
would
be
tbd
depending
on
the
council
direction.
Both
of
them
were
sb9
is
ministerial
opportunity.
H
H
The
council
smartly
advised
us
to
do
a
fiscal
analysis
of
opportunity
housing.
So
we
had
strategic
economics
repair
and
analysis
to
really
understand
what
would
be
built
where
it
would
be
built.
Would
it
be
feasible
so
they're
looking
at?
Is
it
rental?
Is
it
ownership?
Is
it
duplexes,
triplexes
or
fourplexes?
H
F
F
The
turner
center
for
housing
innovation
at
uc
berkeley
actually
published
a
study
on
a
feasibility
study
and
economic
analysis
of
sb9,
and
they
they
did
find
that
it
would
have
limited
impacts.
Most
parcels
throughout
the
state
would
not
be
feasible
for
construction.
Constructing
new
homes
under
sb9
they
found
97
percent
of
existing
single-family
homes
would
be
retained.
F
They
found
that
most
parcels
are
too
small
to
feasibly
subdivide
and
kind
of
some
geographic
specif
specific
analysis.
They
found
only
about
10
percent
of
the
single
family
zone.
Parcels
in
our
county
would
be
market
feasible
for
new
units
and
within
that
the
most
financially
advantageous
model
would
be
converting
an
existing
dwelling
into
a
duplex.
F
F
We
are
not
going
to
have
the
time
to
develop
a
full
implementing
ordinance
before
january,
so
we
are
going
to
have
to
do
some
interim
standards
to
figure
out.
Okay,
we
have
an
existing
zoning
standard
that
would
preclude
an
sb9
unit.
Well,
what
does
that
standard
turn
into
so
we'll
be
working
on
that
before
january
1st
and
along
those
lines
we
are
going
to
have
to
do
public
information?
F
F
We
don't
really
keep
track
of
rentals
for
single-family
homes
explicitly
so
we're
gonna
have
to
figure
out
kind
of
how
to
how
to
work
that
one
out
and
then
you
know
we're
looking
at
staffing
needs
to
implement
sb9.
This
isn't
something
we'd
start
from
scratch.
These
are
generally
the
same
properties.
F
F
A
couple
other
things
to
consider,
as
I
mentioned,
that
if
we
want
to
apply
that
provision
of
sb9,
which
is
the
intent
of
the
bill,
that
cities
are
not
required
to
permit
more
than
two
units
on
a
subdivided
lot,
we
would
need
to
bring
a
zoning
ordnance
update
to
council.
We
we
think
we
need
to
get
that
to
council
before
sp9
comes
into
effect,
or
else
we
may
have
a
down
zoning
issue
under
sb
330.
F
So
that
would
be
something
we're
going
to
work
on
and
bring
to
council
and
council
can
just
decide
what
we
want
to
do
with
that
thing
with
that
is,
we
can
always
go
back
up
later
right.
We
can
do
the
two
units
now
and
then
have
the
full
conversation
and
say:
actually
we
do
want
to
allow
more.
So
we
can
change
it
up,
but
we
don't
think
once
it
goes
into
effect.
We
can
really
change
it
going
down
and
reducing
the
number
of
units
allowed.
F
We're
also
going
to
have
to
I'm
going
to
be
working
on
design
standards
and
a
complete
ordinance
to
implement
sb9
again
that
maybe
will
likely
be
limited
by
the
sb
330
down
zoning
provisions.
It
would
require
extensive
outreach.
You
know
we
want
to
talk
to
the
community.
What
should
these
projects
look
like
one
thing
that
the
legislator
did?
Is
they
explicitly
exempted
any
ordinance
to
implement
sb9
from
environmental
review,
so
we
would
not
have
to
do
a
sql
review
for
that
ordinance
update
a
couple
more
things
to
think
about.
F
F
F
F
We
do
estimate
that
all
of
this
work
is
going
to
take
at
least
one
time
full-time
planner
to
to
complete
for
some
time
and
then
additional
resources
beyond
that,
it's
unclear
again
we're
getting
a
lot
of
inquiries
using
our
experience
with
adus
and
we'll
have
a
huge
in-slot
of.
Can
I
stop
by
my
lions?
It's
gonna
take
a
lot
of
time
and
it
may
die
down
and
we'll
see
fewer
applications
that
this
is
all
still
to
be
determined.
F
So,
although
these
two
bills
are
talked
about
together,
they're
really
not
related,
and
the
key
thing
to
know
about
senate
bill
10
is
that
it
is
voluntary.
It
is
not
required.
Senate
bill
10
by
itself
does
not
change
any
development
standard.
It
does
not
allow
any
additional
development
and
it
does
not
compel
cities
to
do
anything.
F
So
cities
can
just
say
thank
you
and
and
move
on
and
never
talk
about
sv10
again,
if
they
wanted
to
the
best
way
to
explain
sb10,
in
short,
is
if
you've
been
tracking
housing
legislation
over
the
last
couple
years.
You'll
remember
many
attempts
to
require
cities
to
upzone
or
allow
additional
units
around
transit
and
on
infill
sites.
F
So
again,
they're
saying,
if
you
want
to
do
this,
we're
going
to
make
it
easier
for
you
to
do,
but
cities
don't
have
to
do,
don't
have
to
do
it
a
couple
things
I
think
a
little
interesting
about
sv10
in
the
city.
I
mean
we're
still
analyzing
that
you
know.
Would
it
even
make
sense
for
us
to
look
at
an
sb10
project,
and
one
of
the
things
sb10
requires
is
that
a
property
zone
per
sb
10
would
be
eligible
to
use
the
streamlined
ministerial
approval
process
for
up
to
10
units.
F
However,
if
the
project
went
above
10
units,
they
would
no
longer
be
eligible
for
the
streamlined
ministerial
process,
and
so
you
know
knowing
that
san
jose
tends
to
plan
high
densities
around
transit.
For
example.
You
know
it's
unclear
if
there's
a
lot
of
up
zoning
to
do
in
a
lot
of
areas
that
would
be
covered
by
sb10.
F
F
And
with
that,
in
conclusion,
there's
still
a
lot
of
unanswered
questions.
We
are
working
very
hard
to
get
answers
to
those
questions
we
meet
regularly
with
planners
from
all
of
the
other
cities
in
santa
clara
county
to
kind
of
compare
notes.
What
did
your
attorney
tell
you
on
this?
How
are
you
reading
this?
What
are
you
doing
with
this
and
will
be
working
with
the
state,
housing
and
community
development
department,
and
we
do
expect
them
to
release
guidance,
hopefully
soon
and
we'll
be
reaching
out
to
them
on
some
issues?
F
Some
of
these
issues
specifically,
given
the
public
interest,
we've
gotten,
we
have
added
sb,
9
and
10
information
on
the
city's
opportunity.
Housing
website,
so
please
feel
free
to
direct
anyone
there,
just
some
kind
of
basic
information
links
to
the
memo
for
this
study
session
stuff,
like
that,
so
people
can
kind
of
take
the
time
to
get
a
handle
on
these
bills
themselves
using
that
website
and
then
finally,
we
will
be
incorporating
the
new
world
of
sb9
and
10
into
our
recommendation
for
opportunity.
Housing
and
that
concludes
our
report.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
Martina
chris
michael
and
everybody
on
the
team.
Who's
been
working
very
hard
to
get
a
handle
on
this.
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
public
interest
in
this
before.
Let
me
just
say
we
typically
in
public
hearings
where
we're
making
decisions.
That
is
a
typical
council
meeting.
We
go
to
the
public
first.
A
This
is
a
study
session
and
for
the
purpose,
we'll
certainly
be
going
to
the
public,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
we
get
questions
answered
of
the
council,
so
we
have
a
very
clear
picture
in
mind.
What
we're
dealing
with
so
we're
going
to
go
to
council
questions.
I'd
ask
for
council
questions
that
focus
on
clarification.
A
First,
we
can
leave
the
statements
for
after
public
comment,
any
any
objections
or
concerns
whatever,
but
please,
let's
focus
on
clarifying
questions,
so
we
all
have
a
very
clear
understanding,
along
with
the
public
of
what
we're
dealing
with.
So
I
do
not
yet
have
access
to
zoom
I've
been
trying
to
get
the
link.
So
my
apologies
I'm
going
to
ask
for
team
tony
to
help
me.
A
G
C
C
C
So
I
appreciate
the
information
first
thing
I
had
was
actually
that
informational
memo
I
had
assumed
it
would
be
attached
to
this
agenda
item
for
our
public
to
see,
and
I
had
actually
directed
some
individuals
from
the
public
that
to
come
and
look
at
this
agenda
item
to
find
that
informational
memo.
My
understanding
is:
it's
not
attached
there.
I
was
looking
for
myself
and
then
I
was
looking
for
other
places
where
it
might
be
reasonable
for
the
public
to
find
it.
C
It's
actually
a
great
informational
memo
that
our
website
puts
into
place
everything
that
you
put
on
the
powerpoint
here,
but
a
little
bit
more
detail,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
see
if
staff
could
try
as
quickly
as
possible
to
maybe
link
it
to
this
agenda
item.
So
that
way,
the
viewers
that
are
here
that
are
watching
can
can
go
and
find
that
info
memo
as
well,
so
just
wanted
to
first
hear
from
staff
on
that
see
if
that's
possible.
E
E
C
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
it
and
I
know
community
members
that
had
already
seen
it
and
that
I'd
shared
with
were
appreciative
of
that,
and
I
think
that
the
powerpoint
you
know,
sums
it
up,
but
the
memo
is
important
as
well
to
share
so
question
number
one
would
be.
When
do
we
expect
that
strategic
economic
analysis
on
opportunity,
housing
to
be
complete.
H
The
report
is
more
or
less
complete,
so
we'll
be
providing
it.
We
will
be
putting
it
in
the
planning
commission
packet
on
this
item.
However,
we
can,
we
can
talk
about
posting
it
on
our
website
sooner
than
that,
that's
a
possibility,
but
it's
more
or
less
done.
We
just
cross
a
few
more
t's
and
dot
some
eyes.
C
F
F
C
F
C
Is
there
a
difference
that
would
distinguish
one
district
from
the
next?
I
know
there's
different
levels
of
sort
of
historic
significance.
Is
there
anything
on
there
that
may
not?
You
know
that
may
not
be
excluded,
but
it's
listed
in
that
resource
or
is
everything
that
would
be
on
that
map?
We
should
expect
to
be
excluded
from
sb9.
F
Yeah,
so
right
now
again
our
working
or
working
assumption
is
everything
would
be
excluded
based
on
the
way.
Some
other
state
laws
are
written,
they're
written
a
little
bit
different,
but
often
it
actually
cuts
it
off
at
a
city
landmark
so
again,
right
now
we're
assuming
everything,
but
it
might
I'm
thinking
that
there's
a
potential
that
it
would
only
be
city
landmark
districts
and
not
our
other
type
of
district
is
called
a
conservation
area.
F
C
F
C
Would
we
expect
to
get
that
answer
back?
Would
it
be
when
maybe
the
opportunity
housing
discussion
comes
to
the
council
or
say
you
don't
have
the
answer
by
then?
How
do
we
expect
to
get
some
of
the
updates
say
on
sb9?
Should
we
should
we
plan
to
have
an
update
in
january
once
everything's
supposed
to
be
implemented?
Maybe.
F
Yeah,
that's
a
good
question.
Definitely
we'll
be
updating
our
website
as
we
get
more
concrete
information
so
again,
right
now,
the
web
page
just
has
some
basic
information
linked
to
the
memo
link
to
the
study
session
link
to
the
state
law,
we're
hoping
to
we're
working
to
develop
a
frequently
asked
question,
so
we
would
certainly
put
it
on
there
as
soon
as
we
get
answers
to
these
questions,
so
I
would
say,
check
there
and
then
yeah.
C
I
might
just
add
for
our
city
manager-
and
my
colleagues
purpose
is-
I
think
that
maybe
sometime
in
january
once
we're
we're
supposed
to
be
right,
ready
to
go
and
implementing
sb9
that
we
get
a,
maybe
another
update,
something
that
we
add
to
an
agenda
item
on
the
council
agenda
to
you
know
for
you
to
update
all
of
us
on
everything-
maybe
you've
already
updated
online,
but
just
to
have
that
as
a
discussion.
So
just
get
that
suggestion
for
for
january.
C
You
made
mention
what
it
sounded
like.
We
could
make
some
sort
of
addition
or
or
add
that
into
sb9
is.
Did
I
hear
that
wrong?
Would
we
simply
just
be
able
to
include
our
two
properties
into
the
allowances
of
sb9,
or
would
we
have
were
you
describing
that
we'd
have
to
do
something
like
that
in
opportunity,
housing
right
in
that
work,
we're
doing
to
then
add
in
our
two
properties.
If
you
can
just
clarify
that.
H
Know
so
sp9
does
not
require
sorry,
hang
on
the
canadian
ducks
are
going
home.
I
guess
sorry
sp9
does
not
require
us
to
allow
sp9
housing
on
r2
properties.
I
think
the
question
martina
rose
is
you
know
there
in
some
ways,
there's
more
allowance
for
housing
units
and
on
on
r1
single
family
properties
than
there
will
be
on
r2,
duplex
properties,
and
so
that's
a
question
for
council
to
decide.
H
So
under
the
current
r2
zoning
you
can
build
a
duplex
and,
of
course,
just
provisions
for
adus
on
top
of
that,
but
you
can't
subdivide
and
build
two
duplexes.
So
that's
just
a
question.
I
think
that
council
have
to
consider
we're
not
required
to
apply
sp9
to
r2
properties.
It's
just
something
for
the
council
to
think
about
and
provide
some
direction
at
some
point.
C
F
C
C
F
Yeah
so
adoption
of
an
ordinance
that
does
that
would
go
beyond
sb9,
so
we
would
need
sql
review
for
that.
We
could
set
it
up
a
system,
though
that
allows
those
projects
to
happen
ministerially
like
sb9,
so
that
we
could
set
it
up.
So
individual
projects
didn't
require
sql
review
that
tends
to.
You
know,
put
a
little
bit
more
secret
review
on
the
ordinance
work
when
you
can't
just
defer
it
to
the
project
level,
but
it
could
go
either
way.
Just
that's
something
we
can
control.
C
Okay
and
then,
lastly,
it
was
mentioned-
and
this
was
my
interpretation
as
well
as
our
opportunity-
housing
currently
from
the
the
suggestions
that
staff
was
putting
forward
and
and
even
the
suggestions
from
the
gp
task
force
that
it
sounded
like
most
of
what
we
were
considering
under
opportunity.
Housing
could
potentially
fit
under
an
umbrella
of
sb10
allowance
is
that
is
that
a
a
basic
understanding?
Is
that
correct.
H
C
F
Yeah
so
would
opportunity
housing
fit
in
sb10.
I
think
that
just
depends
on
what
council's
direction
of
sv10
is,
and
so
you
know
the
devil's
in
the
details
on
that.
So
I
definitely
we
would
not
be
able
to
give
you
a
definitive
answer
today.
Even
speculatively.
We
really
need
to
look
into
that
a
little
bit
more,
but
potentially
we're
thinking
it
potentially
could.
C
Okay
yeah,
my
understanding
of
sp
10,
is
that
it's
it's
sort
of
an
envelope
of
right
or
an
umbrella
of
an
opportunity,
but
that
if
the
council
based
on
say
all
the
work
we're
doing
opportunity
housing.
If
we,
if
we
wanted
to
move
forward
with
something
like
what
opportunity
housing
was
allowing
we
could
maybe
plug
that
under
the
umbrella
of
sb10
and
and
and
that's
where
it
would
kind
of
fit
and
that's
how
we
would
maybe
be
implementing
sb10
you're
saying
maybe
on
that
answer.
Then
right
now.
F
H
Depends
if
council
were
to
move
forward
with
opportunity,
housing,
it
kind
of
depends
on
where
they
would
direct
staff
to
apply
it
right,
because
sb
10
is
limited
to
areas
approximate
to
transit
right,
so
yeah
transit
infill
site,
so
it
could
have
applicability,
but
maybe
not
everywhere
so
yeah
marching
is
correct.
We'd
have
to
just
sort
of
it
depends
on
where
we're
going.
We'd
have
to
look
into
it.
C
Okay,
okay,
great-
and
I
think
the
question
that
you
answered
that
I
didn't
ask-
was
sort
of
the
comparisons
of
sb,
9
and
opportunity
housing
regards
to
sort
of
a
lot
of
the
the
similarities
there,
so
that
that's.
I
saw
that
as
well,
obviously
through
the
through
the
memo
in
the
presentation,
all
right.
That's
all
for
my
questions
at
the
moment,
thanks
man.
J
Wonderful.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
information
on
sb9
and
10
and
some
information
on
opportunity.
Housing
we've
been
all
getting
a
lot
of
questions
from
our
community
about
all
three
and
now
that
sp,
nine
and
ten
are
the
rule
of
law.
It's
nice
to
get
some
information
on
how
they
might
be
implemented.
So
I
have
a
few
questions.
J
F
Yeah
we
have
flexibility,
so
sp
10
doesn't
actually
it
doesn't
go
into
effect
until
january,
so
we
I
mean
not
that
we'll
have
something
ready
before
january.
Anyway.
We
couldn't
act
on
it
before
january.
There
is
a
sunset
date
on
it.
I'm
looking
for
the
sunset,
I
want
to
say
it's
a
few
years
out,
so
we
would
have
any
time
between
january
and
see
if
I
can
find
it.
J
F
Yeah
it
actually,
it
would
because
it
is
specific
to
anything
listed
on
the
california
register
so
that
eichler
disses,
I'm
talking
specifically
about
that
eichler
district
that
was
placed
on
the
national
register.
Anything
that's
placed
on
the
national
register
is
automatically
put
on
the
california
register,
so
it
does
explicitly
exclude
that
district.
J
F
Yeah,
so
I
mean
we
have
plant
development
zones
everywhere,
I
I
would
say
just
off
top
my
head,
probably
the
biggest
contiguous
chunk
of
single-family
plant
development
zones
are
in
the
evergreen
area
that
whole
evergreen
specific
plant
area
is
a
plant
development
zone,
silver,
creek
country
club
plant
development
zone.
Typically,
probably
you
know
the
what
is
it
the
meadowlands?
J
If
it's
prove,
if
further
development
is
restricted
by
their
cc
and
ours,
then
sb9
doesn't
doesn't
supersede
the
and
ours.
Is
that
what
you're
saying?
Yes,
that
would
be
correct?
Okay,
that
that
good
to
know,
thank
you,
and
then
you
mentioned
in
one
of
the
slides
and
and
the
presentation
was
really
helpful.
I
appreciate
that
that
they
must
be
sold
individually,
so
this
development.
Can
you
clarify
that
a
little
bit
for
me,
I'm
kind
of
confused
about
that
yeah.
F
It's
an
interesting
requirement:
I'm
not
entirely
sure
why
they
have
it
in
there.
It's
not
that
they
must
be
sold
separately.
In
fact,
it
doesn't
require
us
to
allow
them
to
be
sold
separately.
Of
course,
individual
lots
could
be
with
the
lot
splits,
but
if
you
were
to
say
build
a
duplex,
do
you
have
to
sell
each
duplex
unit
individually?
No,
absolutely
not!
You
have
to
design
it
to
meet
the
standards
to
where
it
could
be
sold
individually.
F
So
things
like
separate
plumbing
right
you're
not
going
to
share
a
meter
for
properties
that
would
be
conveyed
separately.
It's
stuff
like
that.
You
can't
have
a
door
between
the
units
it
so
they
have
to
be
built
to
those
standards,
but
there's
no
requirement
that
they
actually
be
sold
separately
and
there's
no
requirement
the
city
allow
them
to
be
sold
separately.
J
Okay,
are
there,
you
know
you
referred
to
objective
standards
and
or
development
standards,
and
you
talked
specifically
well.
You
talked
about
the
setback
requirements.
Are
there
any
maximum
height
requirements
that
that's
where
we're
getting?
A
lot
of
concern
is
about
height
of
buildings.
So
is
there
in
the
ordinance
or
in
the
in
the
in
sb9?
Is
there
any
restriction
on
height?
F
J
F
So
there
is
an
argument
out
there
that,
if
you
don't
already
have
that
height
restriction
in
your
zoning
ordinance
applying
it
to
sb9
units,
even
though
they're
additional
units,
it's
still
considered
reducing
the
intensity
of
development
on
the
lot,
that's
what
campbell,
I
think,
is
trying
to
do
with
their
ordinance,
as
I
want
to
say
a
16-foot
height
limit
for
sb9
units
and
that's
where
they've
they've
received
pushback
actually
on
from
some
housing
advocates,
saying
that
you're
not
allowed
to
do
that.
So
this
is
one
of
the
areas
that
I
will
tell
you.
F
D
F
Don't
you
know
there's
a
very
soon
as
soon
as
I'm
kind
of
done
with
this
presentation,
I
will
be
calling
hcd
until
I
can
try
to
get
an
answer
from
them.
I
mean,
hopefully
they
address
stuff
like
that
at
this
webinar
next
thursday,
that
they're
putting
on
with
the
league
of
cities
so
potentially
by
next
week,
but
I
do
know
it's
it's
a
really
fundamental
question
out
there.
So
I
am
hopeful
that
the
state
will
expedite
coming
up
with
an
answer
to
that.
J
Okay,
so
you
you,
you
did
bring
up
the
three-year
affidavit,
which
is
the
attest
station.
That's
really
kind
of
interesting,
so
a
homeowner
could
say
I
intend
to
live
there,
but
then
they
don't
live
there
and
I
just
imagine
a
bureaucratic
nightmare
in
us
trying
to
keep
track
of
that
and
clearly
not
the
staff
to
do
so.
So
how
do
we
are
there
penalties
if
they
don't
live
there
for
three
years?
If
what
I
mean,
what's
what
you
know,
how
do
we
even
improve
that.
F
It's
unclear
again:
the
law
only
requires
them
to
attest
that
they
plan
to
live
there
right,
so
they
can
say.
I
was
honestly
planning
to
live
there.
When
I
filed
that
attestation-
and
you
know
I
don't
think
we
can
do
anything
about
that
and
if
you
think
about
it
you
know
if
they
say
well,
I
was
planning
to
live
there,
but
I
had
to
move
across
the
country
to
take
care
of
my
sick
mom.
F
I
mean
ultimately
with
the
panel
to
be
unsubdividing
the
lot
and
making
the
person
who
bought
the
other
plot
go
away.
No,
we
can't
do
that,
so
the
reality
of
that
one
is,
I
I
think
the
enforcement
is
going
to
be
minimal
and
again
it's
the
only
requirement
is
that
they
attest
they
plan
to
live
there.
J
You
know
it's
kind
of
like
in
the
mortgage
business,
a
buyer
says
they're
going
to
live
in
the
house
and
they
have
every
intention
of
living
there.
So
they
get
the
a
loan.
That
is
an
owner-occupied
loan
which
is
an
interest
rate
lower
than
an
investment
property
rate,
and
so
but
then
maybe
they
get
in
and
maybe
after
six
months
they
have
to
move
out
out
of
for
various
circumstances.
J
The
lender
doesn't
necessarily
call
the
loan.
It's
it's
just
an
interesting
little
twist.
So
I'm
I'm
kind
of
curious
about
that.
Is
it
possible?
You
know
in
in
in
district
nine
we
have
a
lot
of
power
outages
that
occur
because
we
have
old
infrastructure
and
I'm
wondering
is
it?
Is
it
possible
to
require
that
the
developer
of
these
sb9
units
pay
to
improve
infrastructure,
or
can
we
cry
require
pg
e
to
improve
infrastructure?
F
Yeah,
I
mean
that's
a
good
question.
I
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to
answer
it
fully
and
what
I
can
tell
you
is
with
the
subdivision
backing
up.
You
know:
electric
infrastructure
tends
to
be
off-site
infrastructure
right
if
you're
asking
them
to
build
something
with
the
the
subdivisions.
No
right,
we
can't
ask,
we
cannot
require
they
do
anything
off
of
their
property
with
the
projects
themselves.
The
actual
construction
of
the
two
units
you
know,
we'd
have
to
look
at
that
and
see.
I'm
not
sure
on
that.
One.
J
Defer
to
my
colleagues
to
give
them
an
opportunity
to
answer
ask
any
more
questions,
but
before
I
do,
let
me
make
sure
I've
asked
all
the
real
key
ones
that
I
needed
to
make
sure
that
I
asked
based
on
the
notes
I
was
taking
as
you
were
talking
about.
No,
I
think
that's
it.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
that.
Thank.
A
K
Thanks
mayor
and
thanks,
councilmember
foley,
you
got
through
most
of
my
list,
so
I
appreciate
having
the
opportunity
to
ask
a
few
more
I'll,
try
to
be
quick
and-
and
thank
you
for
the
overview
martina
and
michael
and
chris.
It's
it's
definitely
helpful.
So
I
just
wanted
to
confirm.
I
think
you
were
pretty
clear
in
the
presentation,
but
if
the
council
wants
to
assure
that
a
lot
that
currently
has
a
single-family
home
when
sb9
is
implemented
does
not
result
in
more
than
four
units.
K
K
Okay,
got
it
and
then
what
okay?
In
addition,
so
that's
great,
I'm
looking
forward
to
seeing
that
in
addition
to
that,
what
other
questions
key
or
decisions
are
most
important
for
council
to
weigh
in
on
prior
to
january
1st-
and
I
guess
I'm
thinking
about
development
standards-
is
that.
Is
it
important
that
we've
locked
in
any
of
those
prior
to
january
1st,
or
do
we
have
flexibility.
F
Yeah,
so
I
mean
we're
bound
by
two
things:
what
our
zoning
ordinance
says
and
what
sb9
says,
and
so
we
we
have
to
follow
both
of
those
as
they're
written.
So
beyond
that,
you
know,
given
the
timeline,
we're
not
seeing
the
ability
to
have
more
than
just
that
urgency
ordinance
on
the
number
of
units
to
counsel
before
january,
and
then
we'll
have
the
conversation
on
the
rest
after
january.
K
Okay
and
that's
why
I
asked-
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
if
we
do
want
to
consider
additional
objective
development
standards
having
that
conversation
after
january
1st,
I
I
I
understand
that
the
timing
of
those
decisions
is
not
that
critical
or
is
it?
Is
it
important
that
we
propose
those
prior
to
january
1st,
or
is
it
acceptable
if
they're
allowable
it
doesn't
matter
when
we
pass
them
essentially.
F
We
don't
think
they're
yeah
we're
not
we
don't
think
they're
critical
before
january.
First,
not
as
much
as
that
unit
question
is
that's
more
clearly
after
january
1st,
if
you
just
if
you
do
that
down
zoning,
that's
very
clearly
a
down
zoning,
the
other
ones.
It
we're
not
thinking
it's
it's
going
to
be
as
much
of
an
issue
or
potentially
not
an
issue
at
all.
Okay,
but.
K
F
They
could
be
construed
as
a
down
zoning.
Now,
if
you
look
at
the
intention
of
the
bill,
we
do
not
think
that
that
was
the
intention
of
the
bill.
It
appears
to
be
wanting
cities
to
adopt
their
own
standards
and
it
just
sets
those
baselines.
So
again,
that's
one
where,
if
you
ask
two
different
people,
they
have
two
different,
very
strong
opinions,
and
they
both
feel
very
confident
on
that.
But
we're
with
the
side
of
you
know.
F
Clearly,
the
intent
of
the
law
is
to
allow
cities
to
adopt
standards
and,
if
you
think
about
it,
no
matter
what
sb9
units
are
additional
units
right,
so
you're
not
really
lowering
the
intensity.
The
other
kind
of
factor
that
could
play
in
here
is
it's
actually
lowering
the
intensity
lower
than
your
standards
as
of
2018.
F
K
Okay,
thank
you,
yeah,
and
I
know
this
is.
There
are
a
lot
of
unknowns,
a
lot
of
complexity,
I'm
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around.
It
does
sound
like
if
we
want
to
be
extra
safe
in
proposing
something
like
height
limits
or
or
a
floor
to
area
ratio
that
that
might
be
safer
to
to
discuss
before
january
1st,
but
you're
saying
we
don't
think
we're
precluded
from
making
those
decisions
later.
K
Great
and
then
just
on
impacts,
I
kind
of
want
to
pick
up
where
council
member
fully
left
off.
I
I
do
worry,
I
mean,
on
the
one
hand,
maybe
the
policy
doesn't
get
much
uptake
and
then
it's
kind
of
a
moot
point,
in
which
case
we
haven't
really
addressed
our
housing
crisis
or
the
policy
does
start
to
address
the
housing
crisis,
in
which
case
we
may
have
a
lot
of
problems,
and
so
I
guess
I'm
curious
when
we
think
about
impact
on
utilities
and
infrastructure
from
our
power
grid,
water,
sewer
roads.
K
A
F
A
K
Great,
thank
you,
okay,
so
we
can
have
that
it
would
be
subject
to
the
existing
impact
fees.
Okay,
let's
see
here
what
else
did
I
have
so
so
my
understanding
sort
of
related
to
impacts
fiscal
impacts?
You
know
my
understanding
is
that
providing
services
to
look
to
lower
density
residential
has
at
least
historically
not
been
fiscally
great
for
our
general
funds.
So
I'm
just
curious:
how
do
we
as
plan
9,
goes
forward
and
potentially
opportunity
housing?
K
How
do
we
track
the
impact
of
of
providing
services
and
and
kind
of
understand
and
maybe
try
to
mitigate
that
impact?
I
understand
it
probably
happens
slowly
over
time.
So
maybe
it's
not
a
fair
question,
but
I'm
just.
I
am
cognizant
that
it
seems
to
me
from
just
a
general
fund,
a
fiscal
standpoint.
It's
maybe
preferable
to
get
greater
density,
such
as
through
an
urban
village
plan.
So,
given
that
this
is
kind
of
the
opposite
of
that,
how
do
we?
How
do
we
understand
the
fiscal
impacts
over
time.
H
H
Hire
a
consultant
to
do
that
sort
of
analysis.
As
you
know,
we
obviously
need
some
time
for
these
things
to
be
built
to
sort
of
have
the
projects
to
assess
what
the
impacts
are.
But
that's
where
we
really
need
sort
of
you
know,
have
a
consultant
come
in
and
do
the
analysis
of
the
service
impacts
of
of
lower
density
housing
and
we've
done
that
we
we've
done
that
before
as
part
of
the
village.
K
Okay
and
if
if
this
and
potentially
other
policies
like
it
were
to
have
us
going
in
the
wrong
direction
on
something
like
average
vehicle
miles
traveled,
what
are
the
implications
other
than
not?
I
mean,
obviously
the
very
important
one
of
not
meeting
our
climate
smart
goals,
but
are
there
other
state
level,
regulations
or
laws
that
we
could.
H
Not
that
we're
aware
of
I
mean
the
the
state
has
put
housing
above
all
recognizing
the
housing
crisis,
and
so
I
I
don't
think,
there's
a
lot
we
can
do.
The
attention
of
these
bills
is
to
facilitate
this
stuff,
and
this
is
this
bill
is
nice
and
that
it
allows
us
some
flexibility
to
shape
it
to
our
individual
community,
our
individual
city,
which
other
bills
propose,
have
not
done
so
that's
good,
but
yeah.
I
think
there's
this
we're
kind
of
limited
here
in
that
regard,.
K
Okay
and
then
finally
I'll
wrap
up
with
this
question,
at
least
for
now
from
just
a
staffing
perspective,
what
is
the
impact
as
we
implement
sb9
consider
sb10
consider
opportunity
housing.
I
have
to
imagine
this
is
impacting
our
ability
to
execute
on
an
urban
village
strategy.
Can
you
just
describe
a
little
bit?
What
the
I
know,
I
think
I
heard
this
might
require
one
additional
staff
person
is
that
is
that
truly
the
limit
of
the
impact
here
well.
H
So
there's
really
two
different
parts
of
this,
so
there's
the
actual
setting
up
the
process
of
in
the
permit
center
to
actually
provide
information
and
then
process
sp9
applications.
So
they
come
in
and
respond
to
inquiry.
So
that's
that's
one
another
body
of
work,
much
like
what
we're
doing
with
adus
and
our
adu
ally.
That's
a
little
bit
tbd
then
there's
the
other
body
of
work
which
falls
on
citywide
team
and
martina,
and
I
and
that
that
body
of
work
is
about
updating
our
zoning
code.
H
K
G
G
I
know
it's
a
doozy
of
a
question,
but
but
but
I
would
say
that
a
lot
of
I
think
what
we're
gonna
hear.
I
mean
we're
trying
to
what
we're
clearly
seeing
and-
and
I
haven't
determined
what
I'm
gonna
be
doing
as
it
relates
to
this
topic.
But
it
seems
quite
evident
to
me
that
folks
are
trying
to
figure
out
ways
to
to
squeeze
out
of
this
applying
to
certain
areas
and
such,
and
so
I'm
curious
how
what
your
thoughts
are.
F
That's
a
million
dollar
question
that
I
think
is
is
being
grappled
with
at
minimum
statewide
right.
So
I
I
don't
know
that
there
is.
I
don't
have
a
good
answer
to
that,
but
it
is.
It
is
an
issue
we're
aware
of
and
and
it's
you
know,
we're
not
the
only
ones.
This
is
something
that
comes
up
in
the
state.
F
H
But
I
mean
if
someone
is
trying
to,
I
think
what
I
hear
you
saying,
council
member
is
someone's
trying
to
squeeze
their
neighborhood,
maybe
out
of
being
eligible
for
sb9
and
establish
a
historic
as
a
historic
district.
I
mean
we
do
have
professional
standards.
There
needs
to
be
a
professional
analysis,
so
while
their
objective
may
not
be
historic,
preservation
per
se,
they'd
I
mean
they'd
have
to
it
has
to
meet
the
criteria
of
being.
A
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
all
the
analysis
here
and
I
know
there's
more
to
come.
We've
had
some
conversations
with
legislative
staff
to
better
understand
their
perspective
and
it's
clear
that
the
intent
was
to
allow
up
to
four
units
in
the
most
extreme
case,
and
we
know
that's
that's
a
pretty
ambitious
design.
Clearly,
we've
we
think
we've
uncovered
something
at
the
very
far
extreme.
That
could
go
much
higher
to
10
units.
A
I
understand
that
if
we're
going
to
actually
enact
the
legislative
intent,
which
is
to
keep
the
lid
on
it,
four
units,
at
least
until
we
can
understand,
what's
going
on-
that's
going
to
require,
as
you
said,
routine,
that
we
would
come
back
before
we
enact
something
before
the
implementation
date
of
sb9.
Is
that
january,
1st.
A
A
F
Yeah
yeah,
that's
a
good
question.
I
mean
homeowners
associations,
it's
all
governed
by
state
law,
and
I
don't
know
how
hard
the
state
makes
it
to
form
one.
So
I
think
it
would
be
just
depending
on
how
hard
it
is
to
actually
form
one
I
mean
in
general.
I
think
you
need
all
the
neighbors
who
agree
which
is
easier
said
than
done
to
join
it
and
start
taxing
themselves
from
you
know,
form
an
official
association,
but
I
I
could
see
people
exploring
that
potentially.
A
F
So
the
bill
changed
on
this
this
matter
and
so
earlier
versions
of
the
bill
said
it
had
slightly
different
language
and
it
said
cities
may
impose
an
owner
occupancy
requirement
and
it
was
actually
a
last
minute
change.
I
think,
to
get
the
bill
over
the
finish
line
that
they
to
me
it
seems
like
a
compromise
right.
They
changed
it
to
a
mandatory
requirement,
but
then
they
softened
it.
A
F
Very
little,
the
probably
biggest
contiguous
chunk
as
alumrock
park
itself
right
non-issue
some
open
space
above
the
villages.
That's
pretty
much
the
extent
on
the
east
side
on
the
west
side
of
san
jose
kind
of
near
the
los
gatos
border.
There's
a
slave,
most
of
los
gatos
is
actually
covered
by
this
there's
a
slight
area
that
kind
of
creeps
into
san
jose
near
blossom
hill.
A
A
B
L
Every
day,
wvcs
assist
hundreds
of
households
that
are
struggling
to
get
by
as
housing
prices
rise
in
the
cost
of
living
increases,
while
affordability,
housing
opportunities
continue
to
be
elusive
and
unavailable.
As
you
explore
the
implications
of
sb9,
please
consider
affordability
as
an
integral
aspect
of
implementation.
L
M
Hello
johnny
lane
we
own
some
property
and
willow
glen
and
we
all
agree
everyone
agree
here.
We've
tried
to
read
with
all
of
our
friends
and
try
to
understand
sp9
and
sb10,
and
we
would
all
agree
it's
very
confusing,
there's
no
one.
That
would
not
agree
with
that
and
the
question
is-
and
I
would
direct
to
planning
so
they
talk
about
lot
splits
but
they're,
not
talking
they're,
talking
horizontal.
What
about
vertical?
M
What
about
you
know,
there's
there's
nothing
in
the
law
that
says
we
can't
go
up
instead
of
down.
So
when
we're
talking
about
you
take
r1s
in
san
jose,
why
do
we
need
to
go
out
and
take
a
bigger
footprint?
Why
don't
we
go
up
and
there's
just
the
bill
was
not
well
thought
out.
Everyone
would
agree
with
that.
Everyone
trust
me
there's
no
one
over
here.
Everyone
we've
talked
with
in
building
and
planning
everyone's
shaking
their
head.
We
have
some
projects
that
are
already
in
process
in
san
jose
on
direct
creek
road.
M
The
question
is:
could
they
be
split
to
multi-unit?
What
could
be
done?
What
couldn't
be
done?
How
could
it
be
done
right?
I
mean
but
they're
they're
they're
in
the
process
being
demoed,
but
the
law
doesn't
specify
anything
and
the
only
thing
this
law
has
managed
to
do.
I
get
their
intention
is
cause
confusion.
B
A
A
A
B
N
Hi,
my
name
is
katherine
hedges.
I
love
yeah.
My
name
is
catherine
hedges.
I
live
downtown
and
I
hope
that
we
can
use
all
of
these
changes
to
zoning
to
increase
the
amount
of
housing
in
california
in
san
jose.
It's
really
important
that
we
address
the
housing
shortage.
I
know
a
lot
of
this.
New
housing
won't
be
super
affordable,
but
even
if
it's
just
for
workforce
people,
that's
good
too
I
mean
teachers
and
firefighters
and
nurses
should
be
able
to
live
in
the
city
as
well.
Thank
you
very
much.
D
Yes,
thanks
tessa
woodman
c:
yes,
I'm
I'm
very
supportive
of
sb9
and
opportunity
housing
as
we
go
into
our
climate
crisis.
There
will
be
a
lot
of
climate
refugees
and
my
husband
as
a
biologist
and
futurist
says
that
our
our
population
could
40x
that's
like
40
times,
because
the
science
is
saying
that
a
billion
people
will
be
on
will
be
dislocated
by
2030.
Possibly
even
you
know
sometimes
2050
you
hear
so
this
type
of
you
know
impacts
into
our
city.
We
have
to
get
a
head
up
like
mayor.
D
Licardo
is
saying-
and
you
know
that
is
intensifying
our
our
housing
and
we
have
to
also.
I
agree
with
the
person
who
says
we
have
to
build
taller
so
that
we
can
use
more
land
locally
for
food
production.
So
those
are
our
challenges
going
forward
in
and
that
you
know
increasing.
Our
housing
is
very
important.
I
Yeah,
I'm
really
worried
about
trying
to
have
more
housing
in
my
district
pam
said
it
best.
We
have
a
lot
of
power,
algae
outages
in
in
this
district,
when
we
have
had
them
for
the
last
50
years
and
since
everything's
going
to
go
all
electric
someday,
because
that's
the
way
it's
headed,
it's
not
going
to
work
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
pack
all
these
people
on
a
lousy
electrical
grid
with
no
natural
gas.
I
Is
there
a
water
shortage
going
on
right?
Now?
Let
me
think
I
mean
all
the
rain
in
the
world
for
the
next
couple
years.
Isn't
gonna
make
it
so
to
have
this
vision
of
all
this
housing
and
high
density?
It's
just
it
wasn't
designed
that
way.
The
civic
design
does
not
work
of
dense
housing
in
this
area.
It
wasn't
it
was.
It
was
meant
for
urban
sprawl.
Unfortunately,
right,
that's
what
happened
so
to
try
to
do
it
in
reverse.
G
What
we
are
very
sure
about,
though,
is
that
older
and
historic
neighborhoods
are
already
bearing.
You
know
most
of
the
work
of
providing
affordable
housing
in
the
city,
so
any
solution
can't
come
with
unintended
consequences
of
incentivizing
the
demolition
of
those
older
and
historic
houses
in
historic
neighborhoods.
So,
as
these
issues
get
worked
out,
we
just
are
really
conscious
of
not
creating
more
preservation
problems
in
the
name
of.
B
M
Hi,
thank
you
so
much
to
the
city
staff
and
to
the
council
for
having
this
study
session.
We
think
it's
really
helpful
again.
My
name
is
corey
wohlbach.
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
silicon
valley
at
home,
silicon
valley
at
home
is
a
proud
member
of
the
san
jose
neighborhoods
for
all
coalition,
which
includes
more
organizational
members
than
I
can
list.
M
Please
go
to
our
website
and
take
a
look
at
every
organization
that
has
signed
on
our
organization
has
been
united
in
supporting
the
recommendation
from
the
general
plan
for
you
review
task
force,
and
that
includes
you
know,
as
we've
talked
about
earlier
today,
expanding
opportunity,
housing
or
at
least
looking
at
opportunity,
housing,
city-wide,
emphasizing
historic
preservation
and
affordability
and
anti-displacement,
while
the
conversations
got
pretty
heated
in
california
in
san
jose.
We're
glad
that
sb9
has
actually
answered
most
of
the
questions.
So
now
what
we
can
do
is
focus
on
affordability.
M
I
I
So,
as
you
go
forward
with
your
analysis,
just
a
suggestion
to
consider
how
how
we
protect
the
existing
inventory
of
that
particular
category
of
housing,
because,
frankly,
we
need
more
of
it,
not
less
of
it
and
that's
not
to
say
we
don't
need
multi-family
as
well,
but
the
dream
of
a
single
family
house
is
still
there.
Thank
you.
D
D
Also.
If
the
council
approves
sb10
in
any
form
and
other
cities
don't
opt
in,
and
we
know
that
other
cities
are
not
going
to
opt
in,
then
san
jose
will
become
even
more
of
a
bedroom
community
for
the
rest
of
silicon
valley
than
it
already
is
we're
already
short
staffed
in
city
planning.
There
are
shortages
in
the
police
department
services
that
that
residents
receive
will
become
even
more
diluted,
because
the
tax
dollars
per
resident
will
be
fewer
optimistically.
D
B
B
O
Hello,
I
am
a
resident
of
san
jose
and
I'm
asking
you
all
to
please
vote
no
on
studying
opportunity.
Housing
vote,
yes
for
local
control,
so
that
we
don't
have
sb
10
in
san
jose
and
please
implement
the
urban
villages
for
the
2040
general
plan
to
allow
housing
near
transit.
The
housing
department
has
been
overwhelmed
by
their
current
projects
and
should
not
waste
time
and
resources
on
studying
opportunity,
housing.
O
There
is
no
sense
in
ruining
the
california
dream
of
home
ownership
by
eliminating
single
family
home
zoning.
For
those
of
you
who
have
achieved
the
california
dream
of
home
ownership.
Do
you
want
a
four
to
ten
plex
house
and
all
of
its
parking
battles
on
your
street?
You
should
treat
others
as
you'd
like
to
be
treated
when
making
the
laws
plus
opportunity.
Housing
will
happen.
B
P
Hi,
yes,
thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
speak.
It's
an
important
issue
for
residents
and
homeowners
of
our
san
jose
community.
The
elimination
of
single-family
homes,
sb9
and
10
was
passed
for
the
benefit
of
well-funded
developers,
real
estate,
industry
landlords
at
the
expense
of
single-family
homeowners
as
an
attack
on
property
rights
and
quality
of
life.
The
state
county
and
city
continues
to
allow
more
housing
density
when
our
infrastructure
and
water
resources
is
already
strained
due
to
climate
change.
P
N
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
and
thank
you
for
council
member,
dev,
davis
and
pam
foley
for
assuring
that
these
issues
are
finally
getting
discussed
by
the
city
council.
The
decisions
the
city
council
will
eventually
make
will
impact
the
decades
for
decades
the
city
first
espionage
has
passed.
The
city
needs
to
prepare
for
that.
My
requests
are
the
following:
implement
sp
9,
with
a
minimum
impact
on
neighborhoods,
meaning
limited
to
4
units
do
not
include
r2
zoned
ratings,
2.,
stop
all
studies
and
work
on
opportunity.
Housing
in
sb,
10.
N
city
staff
is
behind
on
urban
villages,
building
permits,
reconciliation
of
zoning
maps,
esp9
implementation
work
and
they
have
lost
staff.
We
need
to
prioritize
their
work,
opportunity,
housing
and
sb10
can
be
done
later.
Our
neighboring
cities
will
not
are
not
discussing
oh
and
they
will
not
be
implementing
sb10
families
and
homes
is
a
grassroots
organization
and
coalition
that
has
joined
with
29
organizations.
Please
listen
to
the
citizens.
I
Q
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
rich
crowley.
I
know
a
lot
of
you
on
the
council.
I
wanted
to
first
of
all
recognize
the
planning
department
they've
been
working
under
a
great
pressure
for
a
long
time.
They
have
a
lot
of
things
that
they
need
to
get
done,
and
especially
things
like
the
urban
villages,
which
were
already
approved
by
envision
2040
with
the
idea
of
adding
400
000
new
residents
by
the
year
2040..
Q
B
R
G
R
R
R
We
joined
the
neighborhoods
for
all
coalition
and
encouraging
you
to
look
at
incentives
or
other
programs
to
additionally
create
affordable
housing
in
all
neighborhoods
across
san
jose.
Are
you
taking
a
first
step
for
that
with
your
sighting
policy,
and
I
think
there
are
opportunities,
as
you
study
this,
to
go
beyond
that,
I'm
really
excited
to
see
this
move
forward.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
great
for
san
jose
to
welcome
some
more
neighbors.
Thank
you.
O
Can
you
hear
me?
Okay?
Yes,
yes,
thank
you.
So
my
name
is
kat
wortha
and
I'm
the
south
bay
peninsula
organizer
for
the
housing
action
coalition.
Remember
supported,
non-profit,
focused
on
building
all
types
of
housing
at
all
income
levels
and
we're
also
a
member
of
the
san
jose
neighborhoods
for
all
coalition.
O
At
this
time,
I
think
it's
really
important
that
we
look
at
addressing
affordability
in
san
jose
and
how
we
can
bring
affordability
measures
into
sb9
implementation.
I
think
this
is
really
critical
in
enforcing
and
implementing
sb9.
We
think
the
state
has
done
a
great
job
and
we
also
really
want
to
thank
city
staff.
We
know
you're
working
day
and
night
to
understand
the
new
bills
and
then
to
to
see
their
implementation
put
forward.
So
thank
you
for
your
work
and
thanks
for
the
consideration
of
the
comments.
P
E
D
E
Q
I
had
a
bad
dream.
I
couldn't
sell
my
house
because
of
the
parking
structure.
Next
to
me,
you
see
half
the
22
neighbors
on
my
block
sold
their
houses
to
developers
for
huge
profits,
and
now
there
was
a
fourplex
on
every
other
lot.
Those
44
new
families
had
88
cars,
filling
the
68
street
parking
spaces
on
my
block,
plus
20
spaces
in
the
shopping
center,
a
lot
nearby,
the
shopping
center
sued,
the
city,
because
the
cars
from
the
other
blocks
in
my
neighborhood
were
taking
half
their
lot
space.
Q
After
years
of
litigation,
the
city
was
forced
to
seize
the
two
houses
of
joining
my
parcel
for
a
parking
structure
designed
for
my
block,
plus
the
block
across
the
street,
and
the
city
had
to
purchase
an
easement
at
the
rear
of
the
parking
structure
for
residents.
On
the
other
side
of
my
block,
I
awoke
with
a
start
and
thanked
heaven
that
it
was
only
a
bad
dream.
Thank
you.
J
B
B
P
P
However,
in
point
of
fact,
we
ask
for
the
following:
first:
retain
zoning
for
single
family
homes
throughout
san
jose
and
abandon
opportunity.
Housing
second,
do
not
opt
into
senate
bill
10,
which
is
too
extreme
and
do
not
couple
opportunity
housing
with
sb
10
to
obscure
passage
of
opportunity
housing.
P
R
R
Q
N
Go
ahead:
okay,
I'm!
My
name
is
linda
lock,
and
I've
been
in
my
single
family
home
in
berryessa
for
56
years
and
as
president
of
the
berryessa
citizens
advisory
council,
founded
in
1973
and
representing
this
residence
in
district
4.
I
want
you
to
know
that
we
are
actively
opposed
to
the
task
force
proposal
to
eliminate
single-family
zoning
and
the
protection
of
the
single-family
zone,
but
now
that
the
state
has
chosen
to
possibly
usurp
your
local
zoning
authority
with
sb90
sb9,
we
want
to
deliver
three
messages.
I
will
deliver
the
first.
N
The
council
should
immediately
pass
the
planning
department
to
incorporate
design
guidelines
that
protect
the
neighborhoods
to
the
maximum
allowed
under
sb9.
This
should
mandate
no
more
than
two
units
on
any
properly
formerly
zoned,
single-family
residential
setbacks
and
on-site
on-site
parking
for
at
least
one
car.
For
you.
R
Good
afternoon,
honorable
mayor
and
council
members,
my
name
is
justin
wang
advocacy
manager
for
greenbelt
alliance.
Green
health
alliance
has
been
working
for
over
60
years
to
encourage
the
protection
of
open
space,
as
well
as
directing
development
and
growth
into
our
existing
communities
to
promote
climate
resilience.
We
are
also
a
proud
member
of
the
san
jose
neighborhoods
for
all
coalition.
R
Today,
we're
asking
you
to
continue
the
direction
laid
out
by
the
san
jose
general
plan
task
force
by
directing
staff
to
study
and
propose
measures
to
expand
affordability,
including
affordable
homeownership
in
homes
for
rent,
as
we've
seen
heat
waves,
smoke,
floods,
droughts
and
other
climate
hazards
intensifying
in
the
last
few
years.
It
has
never
been
clear
that
we
cannot
afford
the
status
quo.
The
climate,
equity
and
ecological
value
of
increasing
our
infill
development
cannot
be
overstated.
R
The
science
shows
that
we
have
an
opportunity
before
us
to
reduce
supercommutes,
reduce
vmts,
reduce
emissions
and
increase
water
and
energy
efficiency,
all
of
which
are
critical
climate
action
again.
By
studying
and
implementing
sb9
and
10,
you
have
the
chance
to
contribute
to
a
safer,
more
climate,
smart
bay
area,
with
opportunities
for
generations
to
come.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
E
Hi
blair
beekman
here
thanks
for
the
study
session
today,
you
know
I'm
I'm.
I
wish
I
had
better
knowledge
about
these
things,
but
it's
my
understanding.
I've
tried
to
describe
many
times
now
the
the
openness
and
flexibility
of
mixed
income,
housing,
ideas
that
I
think
can
address
a
wide
range
of,
not
only
different
incomes.
For
you
know
local
housing
issues
within
within
a
housing
area,
but
it
it
can
address
help
address.
You
know
all
sides
of
the
issue
it
can
help.
People
address
these
concerns.
E
N
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
susan
fowle
and
I'm
the
treasurer
of
the
berryessa
citizens
advisory
council,
representing
the
second
oldest
neighborhood
association
in
san
jose
since
sb9,
is
mandatory.
We
expect
the
mayor
and
city
council
to
reallocate
city
budget
priorities
to
ensure
mitigation
of
the
lively
community
impacts.
N
Traffic
utility
infrastructure
power,
sewer
and
water
loss
of
tree
canopy,
code
enforcement,
staffing
parks
and
community
center
staffing
facilities
and
construction
oversight.
These
units
will
not
be
planned,
but
an
organic
mushrooming
distributed
randomly
across
the
city.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
Q
I
Policy
attorney
for
the
law,
foundation
of
silicon
valley
and
a
supporter
of
san
jose
neighborhoods
for
all,
as
both
the
san
jose
resident
and
attorney,
I
was
excited
to
see
the
passage
of
sb9
as
you
consider
its
implementation.
I
encourage
you
to
use
sb9
to
strengthen
our
community
and
caution
against
efforts
that
diminish
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
state
law.
Please
consider
separately,
studying
affordability
options
so
that
more
of
our
san
jose
neighborhood
neighbors
can
remain
in
our
city
and
pursue
homeownership
opportunities
in
an
equitable
manner.
I
I
Hey
good
afternoon,
city
council,
this
is
alex
shore
executive
director
of
catalyze
sv.
Thank
you
so
much
for
you
s
for
setting
up
this
study
session
today
and
to
planning
staff
for
presenting,
found
it
really
really
valuable
and
know
that
there's
a
great
conversation
happening
in
our
community
about
this.
Continuing
on
today's
conversation,
catalyze.
I
Q
Hi,
my
name
is
chetan
and
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
to
the
council,
so
the
first
one
is
as
a
young
family.
We
have
to
go
through
a
lot
of
efforts
by
while
buying
the
house,
like
I
had
to
go
through
like
30
houses,
because
before
I
could
buy
my
one
house
and
several
people
who
came
forward
to
buy
the
house
were
cash
payers
overseas
cash
payers
and
we
have
to
fight
with
them.
Q
So
is
there
a
law
which
can
be
made
that
such
kind
of
things
are
not
being
done
in
when
you're
in
the
housing
market?
Because
that's
a
very
critical
issue
and
I
think
there
should
be
some
law
which
should
be
put
forward
in
making
sure
that
the
housing
is
equal
opportunity
from
that
case
and
we
are
talking
about
affordable
housing.
So
when
such
cash
offers
are
being
done,
we
are
not
looking
after
the
local
residents.
We
talk
about
homelessness
or
low,
affordable
housing
for
the
people.
Q
N
Yes,
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
oppose
sb,
9
and
10
and
that
essentially
I'm
concerned
about
the
impact
to
both
the
historic
districts
and
the
conservation
districts,
and
that,
as
someone
mentioned,
primarily,
this
is
serving
the
interests
of
reits
and
other
investment
groups
that
basically
can
only
afford
to
redevelop
these
sites.
So
this
is
going
to
change
the
character
of
these
neighborhoods.
N
My
concern
also
is
that
the
housing
choices
are
going
to
be
reduced,
since
there
are
a
variety
of
housing
products
and
many
of
us
have
lived
in
high-density
housing
before
we
move
to
single-family
and
probably
in
our
older
years,
we'll
go
back
to
that
form
of
housing,
but
by
eliminating
that
or
changing
that
it
really
reduces
the
opportunity
for
others
to
enjoy
that
type
of
product
home
product.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
I
In
regards
to
greenbelt
alliance
and
others
in
regards
to
climate,
san
jose
already
has
an
urban
growth
boundary
and
virtually
all
of
our
development
is
infill.
So
the
question
now
is
between
transit
villages
versus
how
much
auto
dependent
development
will
be
allowed.
Well,
I
understand,
in
the
short
term
that
staff
doesn't
expect
rapid
development
of
sb9
housing,
and
I
don't
disagree.
I
I
I
Hi,
this
is
mike
with
preservation
action
council.
Thank
you
for
your
work.
This
is
really
quite
helpful.
Pac
is
still
working
on
determining
our
position,
as
was
mentioned
earlier,
we're
guarding
against,
hopefully
well-meaning
initiatives
not
resulting
in
unintended
consequences.
So
that's
our
area
of
analysis
thus
far
as
sb9
is
an
at-right
legislation
that
bypasses
sequa
and
therefore
community
input
we
have
concerns.
I
We
would
appreciate
a
definitive
position
from
the
city
attorney
on
the
effect
of
policing
rights
relative
to
local
and
use
decisions.
I
would
think
that
this
is
a
matter
that
the
council
would
be
very,
very
interested
in
in
answering,
as
this
is
justified
as
emergency
legislation,
it
should
have
an
objective
set
of
outcomes
that
would
end
the
emergency
and
I
would
be
interested
martina
when
you
go
to
the
meeting
next
week.
If
you
would
ask
your
peers
what
the
end
of
the
emergency
would
be.
Thank
you.
O
O
We're
really
excited
about
the
passage
of
sb9
and
just
as
someone
who
grew
up
in
the
bay
area.
I've
seen
many
of
my
friends
priced
out
of
the
bay
area,
which
creates
poor
quality
of
life,
both
for
the
people
who
are
pushed
out,
and
I
think
for
all
of
us,
with
increasing
ghgs
and
really
destroying
the
community
fabric
with
the
younger
generation
being
priced
out.
O
Q
Hi,
thank
you
for
the
recognition
of
speaking
to
you,
I'd
like
to
speak,
especially
to
opportunity,
zoning
and
opportunity.
Zoning
creates
really
really
a
great
opportunity.
It's
a
great
opportunity
to
make
money
which
bottom
line
is
what
everybody
tends
to
want
to
do,
and
I'd
like
to
point
something
out.
The
building
cost
of
building
property
is
pretty
much
the
same,
no
matter
whether
you
build
it,
you
know
in
almaden
or
the
east
side,
or
very
s
or
whatever.
Q
Q
P
I
think
sb9
has
some
interesting
aspects
to
it,
but,
as
you
can
tell
through
this
meeting
it's
extremely
complex,
it
doesn't
seem
as
if
we
have
answers
to
current
questions
or
future
questions.
So
when
we
look
at
the
added
complexity
of
adding
on
opportunity,
housing,
the
adu
program
and
then
also
sb10,
I
think
we
should
pause
and
really
think
about
the
unintended
consequences
for
especially.
P
P
A
B
I
F
G
F
Yeah
I
mean
that's,
why
I
definitely
want
to
look
into
it
more
to
kind
of
see.
Is
this
seriously
looking
like
it
might
happen,
or
is
this
kind
of
high
in
the
sky?
I
think
in
general,
when
you
collect
signatures
for
a
ballot
initiative,
there's
a
you
know,
there's
a
good
amount
of
time
before
it
ends
up
at
a
on
a
ballot.
B
And
council
member
jimenez
rosalyn
huey,
deputy
city
manager,
thank
you
for
the
question.
I
I
think,
although
we're
hearing
those
rumblings,
I
think
it's
important
for
staff
to
be
prepared
to
implement
come
january
1st.
This
is
the
law.
We
know
that
people
are
interested
in
exploring
and
we
have
to
be
ready
to
accept
applications
on
january
1
next
year.