►
Description
City of San José, California
Envision San José 2040 General Plan Task Force meeting of July 30, 2020
This public meeting will be conducted via Zoom Webinar. For information on public participation via Zoom, please refer to the linked meeting agenda below.
Agenda https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showdocument?id=61848
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
G
A
A
A
A
Over
the
following
three
years,
multiple
policies
have
been
considered
and
continue
to
be
advanced
to
address
our
city's
housing
needs.
In
june
of
last
year,
mayor
lucardo
and
council
members,
jimenez
perales
and
arenas
added
opportunity.
Housing
to
our
general,
planned
four-year
review.
Scope
of
work
staff
has
a
slide
in
their
presentation
with
a
specific
language
about
what
we
are
to
consider,
but
I
want
to
make
it
clear
and
reinforce
what
staff
detailed
in
their
memo
that
opportunity
housing
is
still
at
an
early
exploration
phase.
A
There
is
no
plan
that
we
are
considering
tonight
and
the
maps
that
staff
prepared
are
for
illustrative
purposes
to
help
us
envision.
What
this
change
might
look
like
and
give
us
a
sense
of
scale
of
the
housing
that
might
be
produced,
and
I
want
to
recommend
if
you
haven't
already
reviewed
it.
Please
do
take
a
look
at
the
opportunity.
Housing
frequently
asked
questions
piece
posted
on
the
general
plan
review
website.
It
was
very
well
done.
A
So
as
to
our
process
tonight,
once
staff
is
done,
presenting
I'm
going
to
call
on
task
force
members
who
have
clarifying
questions
only
and
ask
that
you
refrain
from
commentary
at
that
point.
Hopefully
this
will
help
everyone,
including
our
members
of
the
public,
understand
what
is
and
is
not
being
presented.
A
I
want
to
thank
the
task
force
members
for
accommodating
this
request
and
thank
all
of
you,
including
members
of
the
public,
for
submitting
questions
in
advance,
which
I
hope
will
help
us
to
streamline.
The
conversation
tonight
note
that
this
meeting
is
scheduled
for
two
hours,
and
our
emphasis
tonight
is
to
gather
feedback
on
this
concept,
so
that
staff
can
further
research
and
bring
it
to
council,
along
with
the
task
force's
package
of
recommendations
likely
next
spring.
H
Okay
sounds
good
how
about
now?
Yep?
Okay!
Thank
you.
So,
as
theresa
mentioned,
we
had
originally
presented
opportunity
housing
back
in
february,
but
in
the
additional
time
that
we
had
between
then
and
now
so
due
to
covid,
we
had
time
to
further
refine
the
recommendations
and
even
with
the
extra
time,
it's
not
gonna,
be
perfect
or
final,
so
we
look
forward
to
the
task
force
and
the
public's
input
to
better
the
recommendation.
H
Let's
start
with
a
refresher
on
the
scope
of
work
that
led
us
to
opportunity.
Housing
in
the
approved
general
plan,
four-year
scope
of
work
council
directed
staff
to
explore,
allowing
up
to
four
units
on
single-family
parcels
with
the
residential
neighborhood
land
use.
Designation
council
also
gave
us
some
parameters
in
exploring
what
we
are
calling
opportunity
housing.
H
H
There's
also
some
background
included
in
the
scope,
and
I
wanted
to
share
the
language
directly
from
the
council
approved
scope
to
provide
some
context
behind
opportunity
housing.
The
memo
established
that
there
is
a
need
for
opportunity,
housing
types
such
as
duplexes,
triplexes
and
fourplexes,
and
they
mentioned
portland
seattle,
minneapolis
and
vancouver
as
examples
of
places
that
have
implemented
these
types
of
developments.
H
For
some
additional
context,
we
should
discuss
what's
already
allowed
on
single
family
lots.
Our
recent
ad
ordinance
was
created
to
comply
with
state
law.
It
already
allows
up
to
three
units
on
most
single
family
properties,
so
one
main
home
one
detached
or
attached
adu,
and
also
a
junior
adu,
so
opportunity
housing
would
theoretically
allow
one
more
unit,
but
on
a
larger
building
footprint,
which
makes
it
more
flexible.
H
Here's
a
graphic
to
break
down
the
process
that
we
have
for
opportunity,
housing
right
now,
we're
still
in
the
conceptual
framework
phase,
where
we're
exploring
the
idea
of
opportunity,
housing
based
on
direction
from
council.
The
task
force
input
you
know
tonight
or
the
next
meeting
will
help
us
inform
the
changes
to
the
conceptual
framework
and
after
the
task
force
has
wrapped
up
opportunity.
Housing
staff
will
begin
with
the
short
term
next
steps
which
include
drafting
general
plan
action
items
so
that
staff
can
continue
to
look
into
opportunity
housing.
H
H
There
are
quite
a
few
things,
as
teresa
mentioned
that
are
in
the
long
term
steps
there
would
be
a
comprehensive
community
engagement
program,
a
displacement
risk
analysis,
draft
general
plan,
amendments
to
allow
opportunity,
housing
revisions
to
our
zoning
code
to
allow
opportunity,
housing
and
then
establishing
design
standards
which
may
vary
city-wide
and
then
an
in-depth
environmental
analysis.
Since
we
would
have
started
to
narrow
down
the
areas
that
would
be
impacted.
H
All
these
components
will
be
shared
with
the
public
for
comment
through
the
community
engagement
process
and,
after
all
of
that
is,
complete
staff
will
put
together
an
implementation
framework
package
and
then
present
it
officially
to
city
council
for
approval.
So
if
city
council
approves
the
implementation
framework,
then
we
would
begin
opportunity
housing
implementation.
H
H
We
would
also
allow
opportunity
housing
next
to
existing
multi-family
development
or
next
to
sites
that
have
a
medium
or
higher
residential
land.
Use,
designation
and
we'll
call
this
the
non-tod
criteria
for
opportunity
housing.
They
would
still
have
to
meet
criterias
three
through
seven,
so
they
can't
in
order
to
build
opportunity
housing.
You
can't
be
a
qualifying
property
under
the
apartment,
red
ordinance.
You
cannot
have
had
renters
in
the
past
seven
years.
You
shouldn't
have
used
ellis
act
within
the
last
15
years.
H
If
your
property
is
historic,
we
would
allow
opportunity
housing
there,
but
it
would
have
to
reuse
the
structure
and
then
the
last
one
is
something
new.
The
first
six
criteria
were
similar
to
our
recommendation
before,
but
the
last
one
is
new
that
we
would
limit
opportunity,
housing
to
purchase
or
long-term
rentals.
H
Some
other
refinements
we
made
to
staff
recommendation
is
that
one
opportunity
housing
should
be
a
land
use
overlay.
In
our
previous
recommendation,
we
proposed
it
as
just
a
policy
text
which
would
be
vague
and
lead
to
inconsistencies
and
implementation,
and
so
an
overlay
is
proposed
for
the
tod
criteria
to
provide
transparency
and
clarity
to
both
the
public
and
staff.
The
non-2d
criteria
will
have
to
remain
as
policy
text
since
we
don't
have
a
reliable
data
source
to
map
all
the
existing
smaller
scale,
multi-family
housing
types.
H
H
We
also
changed
the
base
methodology
from
a
straight
radius
from
the
transit
urban
village
boundary
to
wake
shed
generated
from
the
transit
corridor
and
rail
stations
within
transit
urban
villages.
Staff
made
this
change
because
using
an
existing
sidewalk
and
street
network
is
a
more
accurate
depiction
of
access
to
transit
into
the
retail
and
services
that
you
typically
find
in
urban
villages.
H
Another
refinement
that
we
made
was
to
apply
streets,
freeways,
creeks
and
other
natural
and
human-made
boundaries
to
the
opportunity.
Housing
boundaries
before
the
radius
and
the
walk
sheds
would
go
to
mid-block
and
the
boundaries
would
be
okay
mid-block,
but
in
our
revision
we
polished
it
and
applied
and
included
whole
blocks
and
excluded
whole
blocks,
where
appropriate,
to
use
some
natural
boundaries
to
polish
the
boundaries.
H
H
The
scope
proposed
allowing
opportunity
housing
proximate
to
transit
or
transit-oriented
urban
villages,
but
staff
understands
that
there
is
many
ways
to
define
proximate
staff
analyze
two
scenarios.
We
have
a
half-mile
scenario,
which
is
a
15
minute,
walk
and
then
a
quarter
mile
scenario.
There
would
be
about
a
30
difference
in
qualifying
sites
between
the
two
scenarios.
H
H
We
found
that
by
keeping
opportunity
housing
areas
closer
to
the
boundary,
it
reduces
the
number
of
qualifying
sites
in
higher
resource
areas.
In
the
half
mile
area,
59
of
the
qualifying
sites
were
in
higher
resource
areas,
but
in
the
quarter
mile
area
dropped
to
54
decreasing
qualifying
sites
in
the
higher
resource
areas
would
provide
less
opportunity
for
lower
income
households
to
live
in
higher
resource
areas
and
could
potentially
increase
displacement
pressure
in
low-income
communities.
H
H
H
Opportunity
housing
is
an
opportunity
to
make
renters
homeowners,
but
we
acknowledge
that
there
are
equity
and
displacement
issues
in
the
framework
we
suggested
displacement
risk
analysis
as
part
of
our
long-term
plan.
Many
equity
and
displacement
data
sources
are
regional,
and
so
it
doesn't
capture
the
nuances
that
we
have
locally.
H
We
would
hope
to
build
upon
the
anti-displacement
work
that
the
city
already
has
to
identify
the
risk.
The
at-risk
neighborhoods
and
identify
mitigation
measures
that
are
specific
to
opportunity.
Housing
and
staff
would
also
consider
an
affordable
housing
incentive
and
we
don't
know
what
that
incentive
would
look
like
yet,
but
we
hope
that
the
cost
effectiveness
study
would
help
inform
a
feasible
housing
incentive
to
provide
affordable
housing.
H
There's
a
lot
of
different,
affordable
housing
incentives
and,
for
example,
portland,
has
a
their
their
version
of
opportunity,
housing,
which
is
the
residential
info
project,
and
they
get
a
building
square
building
square
footage
bonus.
If
a
project
includes
one
affordable,
housing
unit,
you
know
that's
them
and
that
may
not
fit
here.
So
we
have
to
do
further
work
to
see
what
works
in
san
jose.
H
There's
a
few
pending
state
laws
that
are
pertinent
to
opportunity
housing.
The
first
one
is
similar
to
opportunity
housing
it
would
allow
sb1120
would
allow
duplexes
and
lot
splits
citywide
in
any
single
family.
Zoning
district
by
right,
sb
902
allows
cities
to
adopt
zoning,
allowing
up
to
10
units
per
parcel
in
transit,
rich
areas,
jobs,
rich
areas
or
urban,
and
full
sites
and
ab3040
would
allow
single-family
homes
to
count
as
part
of
the
regional
housing
need
allocation
inventory
if
four
dwelling
units
are
allowed
by
right.
H
That's
established
in
the
zoning
code,
and
I
know
we
mentioned
that
we
might
revise
the
zoning
code,
but
we're
not
expecting
drastic
changes,
since
the
scope
of
work
mentions
that
opportunity,
housing
is
meant
to
blend
in
with
the
existing
neighborhood.
So
in
this
example,
we'll
use
the
the
same
r18
standards
that
are
currently
there.
So
a
20-foot
front
setback,
a
20-foot,
rear
setback
and
5-foot
side
set
back.
So
you
can
build
a
duplex
within
here.
H
H
So
in
example
two
so
we
chose
this
example,
this
block,
so
the
colors
on
the
map
show
the
existing
uses
today.
So,
as
you
can
see
in
our
in
our
block
example
right
here,
there
are
four
parcels
that
are
already
built
with
two
to
four
unit
development
types.
And
so,
if
you
were
to
share
a
property
line
with
these
existing
opportunity,
housing,
you
would
be
able
to
opportunity
housing,
and
so
the
same
concept
applies.
If
your
neighbor
or
the
person
that
lives
next
to
you,
has
a
single
family
home.
H
So
they
don't
have
multi-family
a
multi-family
development,
but
their
property
is
has
a
land
use,
designation
with
medium
or
higher
residential
density.
You
could
also
build
opportunity
housing
there,
so
we
selected
three
different
case
studies.
We
selected
three
different
transit
urban
villages
to
to
illustrate
on
a
high
level.
You
know
what
we
think
it
could
look
like.
H
H
H
So
here
are
some
examples
of
opportunity:
housing
types
we
you
know
that
could
possibly
go
there,
and
I
want
to
emphasize
that
these
aren't
set
like
the
design
standards
that
we
come
up
with.
That
will
be
part
of
the
public
outreach.
So
these
are
just
you
know,
suggestions
and
illustrations
of
what
could
go
there
and
it's
also
not
an
exhaustive
list.
So
these
three
examples
right
here
are
actually
from
around
the
bay
area.
I
believe
this
unit
up
here
has
up
to
four
units.
H
H
H
Okay,
yes,
so
this
one
right
here
is
up
to
four.
I
think
it's
three
to
four
units
and
then
this
one
has
the
entrance
on
the
same
side,
and
this
one
has
an
entrance
to
the
front
and
then
one
in
the
back.
So
these
are
these
two
at
the
bottom
are
duplexes,
and
this
one
is,
I
believe,
four
units
there's
also
this
rendering
up
here,
which
I
thought
was
really
nice,
and
so
it
has
an
entrance
at
the
front.
H
Our
second
case
study
is
blossom
hill
and
snell.
You
know
it's
a
much
different
example
compared
to
the
alameda,
so
we
wanted
to
showcase
the
range
of
opportunity.
Housing
types
we
would
see
here
we'll
also
go
over
the
existing
conditions.
It's
a
newer
area,
and
so
a
lot
of
this
is
single
family
homes.
As
you
can
see,
there
are
some
condos
to
the
north
of
the
urban
village,
but
it's
primarily
single
family
homes.
H
H
H
So
you
know
it's.
This
is
different
from
both
the
alameda
and
blossom
hill
smell.
What's
it
called
right
here,
you'll
notice,
it's
grayed
out.
A
lot
of
this
is
unincorporated
unincorporated
county
land,
but
it
is
still
surrounded
by
single
family
homes,
but
has
a
more
has
more
variety,
with
two
to
four
unit:
housing
developments,
condos
and
townhomes,
and
multi-family
housing
scattered
around
it.
H
H
This
is
a
case
study
and
it's
different
because
we
finally
found
a
vacant
site
which
is
great,
so
we're
not
we're
not.
You
know
insinuating
that
this
should
be
built
with
opportunity
housing,
but
it
was
it's
gonna
be
used
as
an
example.
These
are
actually
two
different
vacant
lots
next
to
each
other,
so
the
existing
neighborhood
around
it
is
actually
already
developed
with
two
to
four
units:
it's
all
sandwiched
between
680
and
then
lobu
park
and
on
the
other
side,
it's
single
family
homes,
as
you
can
see
here.
H
So
since
it's
a
bigger
lot,
we
wanted
to
show
a
different
type
of
example.
So
these
opportunity
housing
types
have
three
units,
so
I
believe
it's
one
two
and
I
think,
maybe
a
third
in
the
back
here.
It's
two
lots
and
shares
this
driveway
and
has
the
same
building
mirrored
over
here.
It's
an
opportunity
for
more
opportunity.
Housing.
This,
I
believe,
is
in
west
san
jose
too.
So
it's
the
same
as
a
specific
example.
This
one
right
here
is
a
duplex
but
square
footage
wise.
H
It's
bigger,
I
believe
each
duplex
is
2500
square
feet,
and
so
we
wanted
to
showcase
something.
A
little
bigger.
This
specifically
right
here
is
actually
an
example
in
milbree,
and
so
that
brings
us
to
the
end
of
our
presentation,
but
we
wanted
to
help
guide
the
conversation
by
providing
some
discussion
points.
So
this
is
not
an
exhaustive
list
of
questions,
but
you
know,
according
to
the
correspondence
that
we
receive,
these
are
the
the
common
themes
that
we've
been
seeing.
H
So
one
are
there
additional
or
other
ways
to
protect
historic
resources
while
still
allowing
opportunity
housing?
What
do
you
think
of
the
quarter
mile
and
half
mile
boundaries?
Should
we
expand?
Should
we
shrink
it?
What
do
you
think
in
what
other
ways
can
we
better
address
equity
and
displacement
concerns,
and
are
there
any
other
criteria
that
we
should
add
and
with
that
teresa
I'll
pass
it
back
to
you.
A
A
A
F
I
a
couple
of
clarifying
questions.
I
noticed
on
the
conceptual
framework
and
jessica.
That
was
a
great
presentation.
Thank
you
very
much
very,
very
detailed,
but
I
I
have
two
questions
regarding
the
framework.
One
is
related
to
the
purchase
or
long-term
rentals.
Can
you
tell
me
what
the
background
is
on
the
limitation
to
properties
for
sale
and
the
long-term
rentals?
Why
are
we
limiting
opportunity
housing
to
those
right.
H
And
it's
to
preserve
opportunity.
Housing
is
intended
to
be
more
affordable
by
design
and
it's
smaller
units,
and
so
we
want
to
preserve
that
for
our
community
rather
than
having
them
rent
it
out
to
short-term
rentals
like
airbnb-
and
you
know
the
rbo,
so
the
intent
is
is,
that
is
to
preserve
the
affordable
housing
stock.
J
F
G
F
Was
confusing
to
me
then,
so
perhaps
we
could,
because
I'm
I'm
in
the
real
estate
business.
So
I
read
that
as
I'm
selling
my
house
and
therefore
I
can
benefit
from
the
opportunity
zone
or,
but
I
can't,
if
I
own
it
and
am
converting
it,
let's
say
or
adding
on
an
additional
unit.
So
if
we
can
clarify
that
language
for
the
future,
I
understand
what
you're
saying
now
that
makes
perfect
sense
to
me,
the
other
and-
and
maybe
the
other
question
is
around
the
same
issue.
F
K
If,
if
you
had
rented
your
home
over
the
last
seven
years,
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
this
particular
policy
to
avoid
having
someone
evict,
renters
and
kind
of
hold
the
the
property
or
evict
renters,
and
to
be
able
to
then
develop
opportunity
housing
to
be
able
to
rent
it.
You
know
at
a
higher
rate
or
rent
more
units.
F
Okay,
I
appreciate
that
thinking
and
maybe
this
is
for
a
discussion
later.
I'm
not
sure
if
this
fits
into
theresa's
criteria,
but
if
we
limit
it
to
the
seven
years,
then
we're
limiting
it
and
and
cut
me
off
trees
if
I'm
going
in
the
wrong
direction,
if
we
limit
it
to
seven
years,
if
I
say
I
and
I
could
potentially
expand
the
number
of
units
that
I'm
renting,
rather
than
decreasing
the
number
of
units
I'm
renting
so
with
an
opportunity
zone,
the
idea
is
to
increase
housing
stock.
F
So
it's
a
possibility
that
and
displacement
is
important
for
us
to
consider
absolutely,
but
if
we're
limiting
it
to
properties
that
have
been
rented
in
the
last
seven
years,
then
that
limits
potentially
property
owners
from
being
able
to
create
more
housing
from
their
properties.
So
maybe
we
want
to
consider
other
types
of
restrictions
on
those
properties
when
when
it
comes
through
as
an
exemption
and
then
last
question,
what's
the
status
of
sb
1120.
L
M
I
B
Okay,
so
sorry
about
that,
thank
you.
So
my
question
is,
you
know:
is
it
fair
to
say
that
the
proposal
today
could
have
the
effect
increasing
segregation
in
san
jose
and
not
really
decreasing
it,
and
I
appreciate
some
of
the
letters
that
have
come
in
through
the
public
and
also
as
part
of
some
of
the
task
force,
members
that
have
recognized
this
and
then
could
citywide
opportunity
housing
likely
to
have
maybe
potentially
the
opposite.
H
Effect,
I
think
it's
tough
to
say
right
now
without
doing
the
displacement
risk
analysis,
whether
or
not
it
would.
You
know,
increase
gentrification
the
areas
that
are
proposed
right
now
are
you
know
some
of
them
are
in
disadvantaged
communities,
and
so
increasing
the
opportunity
to
citywide
you
know,
would
create
more
opportunities
in
higher
resource
areas.
I
hope
that
answers
your.
H
L
L
I
think
the
way
to
look
at
this
is
that
opportunity
housing
depending
on
how
you
craft
the
framework
could
provide
more
opportunities
for
lower
income,
individuals
and
people
of
color
to
live
in
higher
opportunity
areas,
so
that
I
think
it's
more
that
there's
an
opportunity
to
move
into
other
areas
that
have
been
exclusively
like
higher
income.
They
might
be
exclusively
wide
and
allowing
other
people
to
move
into
that.
That's
kind
of
the
thinking
behind
it.
B
Thank
you,
yeah
no,
and
I
appreciate
that.
I
think
that
would
create
more
equity,
but
from
what
it
looks
like
now
in
the
map
that
you
have
in
the
presentation
it
looks
like
targeted
areas
are
around
transit
urban
villages
and
those
are
already
in
places
where
there's
a
lot
of
segregation
and
policies
that
you
know,
policies
that
were
beyond
us
that
would
establish
establish
this
type
of
segregation.
That's
continued
on,
and
so
it's
up
to
us
to
decide
whether
we
continue
on
with
that
legacy.
B
K
Sure
yeah
go
ahead,
jared,
oh,
but
yeah.
It's
it's
pretty
typical,
particularly
in
our
historic
neighborhoods,
for
there
be
to
be
a
variety
of
of
housing
types,
particularly
our
you
know,
pre-world
war,
two
neighborhoods!
That's
that's
not
uncommon
for
to
be
up
to
you
know
four
plexes
single-family
homes
up
to
four
plexes.
B
K
B
E
Hi
I'd
like
to
start
by
saying
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
I
really
like
the
the
maps
were
so
easy
to
see
and
the
case
studies
were
really
helpful.
So
appreciate
that
two
quick
questions,
one
is
that
process
you
described.
What's
our
what's
like
the
horizon,
for
that,
are
we
thinking
two
years
or
six
years
for
it
to
go
all
the
way
through
to
implementation?
E
And
then
the
second
question
is:
are
we
operating
on
the
premise
that
everything
will
go
back
to
normal
as
it
was
before
the
pandemic
in
terms
of
how
people
use
transit
public
transit,
or
is
there
a
chance
that
there
will
be
a
reset?
Because
you
know
google
is
now
telling
people
to
work
from
home
till
next
summer?
So
I'm
just
wondering
if
we're
going
to
come
out
on
the
other
side
of
this
by
the
time
this
is
getting
implemented
when
people
have
more
flexibility
and
maybe
less
need
for
close
by
transit.
K
In
terms
of
the
yes,
in
terms
of
the
timing,
you
know
it's,
it
is
a
you
know,
it's
a
handful
of
additional
items
that
need
to
be
worked
on,
so
we
would,
you
know,
anticipate
from
once
we
were
given
direction
by
council.
I
would
think
you
know,
18
months
to
a
couple
years
is
probably
reasonable
to
to
foresee
in
terms
of
getting
that
work
fully
completed.
L
L
That's
no
surprise
to
any
of
us
or
any
of
you,
I
think,
and
so
our
thought
at
least
at
this
point
I
mean
we
can
always
look
at
speeding
this
up,
but
I
kind
of
thought
it
is
that
it
make
logical
sense
to
include
that
as
part
of
that
process
and
we'd
have
use
the
environmental
clearance
likely
in
eir
for
the
housing
element.
We'd
use
that
sort
of
to
clear
this
package
of
policies
and
ordinances
for
opportunity,
housing
regarding
pre-covet
and
postcode,
but
we
I
mean
we
don't
really
know.
L
I
think
you
probably
can
guess
you
can
guess
as
well
as
we
can.
I
mean
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
questions
about
that.
A
lot
of
unknowns.
I
think
you
know
there
could
be
sort
of
permanent
changes.
A
lot
I
mean
we
could
anticipate
very
well
that
people
will
work
remotely
going
forward.
We
just
don't
know
to
the
extent
of
that
of
that,
and
you
know,
while
transit
definitely
is
being
impacted
now
and
probably
will
be
for
the
next
couple
years.
L
D
Yeah,
thank
you
teresa.
So
my
clarifying
question
is
what
motion
or
recommendation
is
the
staff
looking
for
from
the
task
force
tonight,
because
in
my
personal
neighborhood,
the
venn
dome
neighborhood,
there's
significant
concern
of
single-family
homeowners
about
potential
impact
of
this
policy
and,
as
I
understand
it
tonight,
all
we're
really
doing
is
recommending
to
the
city
council
that
they
initiate
a
process
and
a
big
part
of
the
process
is:
is
future
community
engagement
and
analysis
of
potential
criteria
to
come
up
with
a
policy
that
ultimately
will
be
decided
by
the
council?
D
So
it'd
be
good
to
to
understand
exactly
what
the
task
force
is
supposed
to
do
tonight,
because
there's
members
of
the
community
who
are
going
to
speak,
that
fear
that
we
are
literally
adopting
a
policy
tonight
we're
deciding
on
the
specific
criteria
and
that
this
this
is
a
done
deal.
So
can
we
clarify
that.
A
Yeah,
let
me
respond
first,
if
I
could
that's
why
I
spent
so
much
time.
Eric
on
the
my
framing
comments
that
you
know,
we
really
wanted
to
invite
the
public
to
give
us
feedback
on
this
concept
that
this
is
still
a
very
early
stage.
There
certainly
is
no
plan.
These
maps
are
not
maps
per
se
that
that
define
what
areas
are
covered.
They
are
for
discussion
purposes.
A
At
the
same
time,
we
are,
we
are
a
task
force.
This
is
a
task
force
meeting.
It
was
not
billed
as
a
study
session,
and
so
you
know
either
way.
This
is
very
much
the
start
of
a
public
process.
What
I
wanted
to
do
was
make
sure
we
left
enough
time
for
public
comments,
because
I
knew
there
was
quite
a
bit
of
concern
out
there
and
we
just
I
hope
people
are
recognizing
that
this
certainly
is
in
no
way
any
kind
of
a
done
deal
if
staff
want
to
add
to
that
you're.
O
N
A
L
Okay,
well
all
right
yeah,
I
was
just
gonna
say
that
yeah
I
mean
we're.
We
have
sort
of
this
concept,
we're
looking
for
input
and
a
recommendation
really
for
the
task
force
on
the
concept
on
the
criteria
are
the
type
of
things
that
we
should.
The
the
council
staff
should
be
considering
if
this
were
to
move
forward.
L
L
I
mean,
I
think
those
are
the
kind
of
things
that
we're
looking
for
mind
you,
what
gets
approved,
we'll
get
direction
from
council
on
this
input
that
this
task
force
is
providing
and
staff
will
be
giving
to
them,
but
what
ultimately
get
approves
may
not
be
for
another
two
and
a
half
or
years
from
now,
so
that
it's
a
longer
term
play
so
we're
just
trying
to
get
you
know.
Are
we
heading
the
direct
right
direction?
What
are
the
concerns?
What
are
the
things
that
we
need
to
focus
on?
N
Yeah,
I
I
really
don't
think
we
should
allow
people
from
the
public
to
be
misinformed
about
what's
before
us,
and
I
really
don't
think
eric.
What
you
described
in
any
way
whatsoever
is
close
to
being
accurate
of.
What's
before
us
we're
not
just
looking
at
a
recommendation
and
commenting
on
it.
There's
a
staff
recommendation.
N
N
Now.
One
of
the
problems
that
occurred
here
is
there's
been
a
request
for
months.
I
think
harvey's
made
this
request
quite
a
bit
to
get
the
maps
out
of
the
areas
that
would
be
affected
by
this,
and
those
maps
only
came
out
on
friday
less
than
one
week
before
this
meeting,
and
we
have
tens
of
thousands
of
people
properties
that
are
being
affected
by
this
and
there's
a
move.
A
foot.
N
N
I'm
gonna
keep
going
here.
There's
a
move
afoot
to
approve
this
tonight
with
really
little
notice
to
people
in
the
neighborhood
and
frankly,
I
was
pretty
shocked
to
find
out
that
staff
had
not
sent
these
maps
out
to
any
of
the
neighborhood
groups
that
are
being
affected
by
this.
So
it's
a
disservice
to
tell
them
eric
that
we're
not
doing
anything
tonight
that
we're
not
making
a
recommendation.
N
N
D
D
D
E
P
E
I
think
the
implications
of
a
tightened
application
of
opportunity-
housing
does
have
true
equity
implications
and
I'd
I'd
hoped
that
that
office
would
be
in
tight
coordination
with
city
planning,
as
this
process
moves
forward,
because
I
do
think
the
training
and
lens
that
that
group
has
will
be
tremendously
beneficial.
I
do
worry
that
implementing
opportunity
zone
in
a
narrowly
focused
scenario
does
create
opportunity
for
further
segregation,
and
so
I'd,
like
professionals
that
are,
you
know,
well-versed
in
equity
issues
to
be
working
hand-in-hand
with
planning
staff.
As
as
the
process
moves
forward.
E
I
think
people
are
really
concerned
about
doing
away
with
single
family
neighborhood
context,
but
this
is
a
voluntary
process.
So
I
want
to
understand
the
data
points
and
from
neighborhoods
that
have
actually
adopted
similar
policy.
You
know
what
does
the
implementation
look
like?
Do
we
have
any
data
like
that.
H
Q
You,
madam
chair,
thank
you
staff
for
your
presentation.
I'm
gonna
split
my
clarifying
questions
into
two,
so
I
don't
overwhelm
staff
too
much.
I'm
trying
to
understand
a
little
bit
better.
What
the
overall
outcome
is
is
meant
to
be.
Are
we
trying
to
come
up
with
for
sale,
housing
or
for
available
housing,
including
rental
housing,
I'm
kind
of
keying
off
of
council
member
foley's
question
and
then
will
that
apply
to
pd
zonings
as
well,
so
that'll
be
the
first
half.
K
The
in
terms
of
rental
versus
ownership-
or
you
know
it's
really
we're
agnostic
on
that
it
could
be,
it
could
be
both
or
it
could
be
either
for
purchase
or
or
rental
for
pd
zonings.
We
would
that's
work.
I
think
we'd
have
to
to
look
into.
You
know
down
the
line
at
this
point.
We
weren't
contemplat
necessarily
contemplating
it
in
in
pd
zonings,
but
it's
something
I
think
we
need
to.
We
would
consider.
L
L
Housing,
though,
is
that
they
have
homeowners
association
with
lots
of
rules,
and
so
you
have
to
acknowledge
that,
even
if
the
zoning
code
change
there's
other
rules
that
would
likely
preclude
opportunity
housing
unless
the
state
chan,
you
know,
creates
a
framework
where
that
would
be
where,
where
these
kind
of
opportunity
housing
would
supersede
the
hoa-
which
I
think
is
what
they
have
or
are
proposing
for
adus.
I'm
not
sure
where
that
is
probably
leslie
can
speak
to
that.
Q
So
I
appreciate
those
answers
and
if
that's
true,
then
we
really
do
have
to
be
clear
because
there's
a
lot
of
the
newer
developments,
especially
in
evergreen,
I'm
sure
in
other
neighborhoods
as
well,
that
are
pds
and
there
are
a
lot
of
larger
lots
as
well.
That
probably
could
accommodate
well
homes.
So
that's
something
to
look
into
so
the
question
to
to
tag
on
regarding
reynolds.
I'm
glad
to
hear
that
it's
it's
it
could
go
either
way.
Q
A
H
C
C
M
K
L
K
C
Thank
you,
theresa
just
had
a
quick
question.
I
wanted
to
go
back
to
the
scope
of
work,
because
I
noted
that
item
a
says
that
the
council
directed
that
we
limit
the
parcels
proximate
to
transit-oriented
urban
villages
and
immediately
adjacent
to
residential
parcels,
and
I
want
to
understand
if
that
is
in
fact
the
verbiage
that
the
council
directed
and
why
wouldn't
we
want
to
consider
city-wide,
because
to
me
the
issues
of
displacement
and
the
opportunities
for
additional
opportunity.
Housing
would
be
increased
if
we
looked
at
other
areas.
E
H
What's
it
called
the
the
slide
after
the
scope
of
work
mentions
a
background,
and
so
I
think
opportunity.
Housing
was
introduced
to
be
that
transition
between
the
high-density
urban
residential.
I
mean
there's
high
density,
urban
village
development
and
then
the
low
density
surrounding
low.
You
know
residential
neighborhoods
and
I
think
that's
the
intent
behind
it
and
why
it
should
be
close
to
transit
urban
villages.
A
C
A
M
Seeing
how
when
you
go
from
half
mile
to
a
quarter
mile
to
a
half
mile,
it
increases
the
opportunity
for
high
resource
areas
to
be
included.
What
was
your
thinking
in
doing
walking
distance
versus
as
the
crow
flies?
My
understanding
is,
it
looks
like,
as
you
get
further
in
you
know,
marginally,
you
increase
the
equity
of
this
plan,
and
so
that's
one
and
then
two.
It
seems
like
you're
doing
a
lot
of
things
that
overlay
with
existing
city
laws.
M
The
city
has
a
vacation
rental
ordinance
that
only
allows
them
to
be
rented
half
the
year
anyway,
and
the
city
has
an
ls
act,
ordinance
that
requires
payment
of
relocation
costs
and
a
year
notice
to
tenants.
So
I
know
your
staff
has
limited
time
and
efforts,
but,
like
it
just
seems
like
you're,
revisiting
ellis
act
and
the
rbo
ordinances
that,
like
the
council,
I
know
spent
years
on.
So
I
just
I
don't
know.
If
that's
a
can
of
worms
for
you
to
reopen.
H
A
G
Yes,
thank
you,
madam
chair
michael
started
answering
my
question
concerning
the
cumulative
impacts
of
the
state
ordinances
such
as
ab68
and
potentially
the
two
pending
ordinances
or
two
pending
bills.
I,
if
I
understand
what
you
were
saying
potentially
on
my
house,
I
could
have
seven
dwelling
units.
I
could
have
a
four
plex
and
then
two
adus
separate
adus
and
a
junior
edu
is
that
correct?
G
Yes,
and
so,
okay,
and
and
throughout
the
rest
of
the
city
on
every
residential
property
based
on
ab-68.
You
have
three
dwelling
units
on
a
particle
by
right,
so
I'm
not
sure
we
clearly
understand
the
cumulative
impacts
at
this
point
in
time.
I
know
that's
commentary.
The
second
question
was
concerning
the
oak.
The
map,
the
overlay
map,
was
that
inclusive.
G
Yeah,
because
I
think
you
know
it's
based
just
repeating
what
harvey
said-
it's
very
important
for
us
to
see
an
accurate
map
and
then
finally,
the
fees
associated
with
these
developments.
If
I
can
go
and
create
seven
dwelling
units
on
my
single
parcel,
what
fees
are
associated
with
potentially
such
as
parkland
dedication
fees,
because
we
have
a
significant
impact
on
our
services
and
we
can
have
the
revenue
stream
to
support
it.
K
C
A
C
C
Yeah,
okay
and
then
I'm
looking
at
the
case
study
that
you
gave
the
alameda.
I
looked
at
the
existing
conditions
for
historic
and
you've
got
the
shasta
hatchet
conservation
area
clearly
defined.
But
you
have
st
leo's,
which
you
said
was
a
1920s
neighborhood
and
you
only
have
like
a
scattering
of
houses.
When
are
we
going
to
be
able
to
do
a
significant
historic
resources
inventory
so
that
we
can
actually
find
out
what
we
have
right,
because
I
think
that
st
louise
neighborhood
has
a
large
number
of
historic
num
houses
in
it?
L
Yeah,
I
don't
have
a
a
a
a
100
answer
that
harvey-
I
I
don't
know
I
think,
but
we
do
have
resources
and-
and
we
are
moving
forward-
we've
selected
a
a
bench
of
consultants
to
assist
us
with
that
work.
So
I
can't
give
you
an
exact
timeline,
but
the
staff
thinking
is
on
this
is
that
if
opportunity
housing
were
to
move
forward,
it's
going
to
be
very
important
to
do
that
survey.
Work
as
as
expeditiously
as
we
can
to
understand
what
are
the
resources
out
there.
A
E
P
H
P
H
No
not
yet
in
terms
of
like
how
many
existing
rentals
are
there.
I
don't
think
we
have
a.
We
don't
have
a
database
for
it,
so
they
are
included
right
now.
So
we
have.
You
know
we
that
twenty
thousand
thirty
thousand
number
is
still
high
level,
and
you
know
we
could
refine
it
more,
but
we
have
not
done
so.
P
P
I
I
have
a
follow-on
question
to
to
harvey's
question
about
historic
resources,
because
my
original
question
had
been
exactly
what
harvey's
was,
which
is
what
about
our
our
historic
neighborhoods
that
haven't
been
studied
yet
michael,
you
said
there
would
be
a
commitment
to
doing
that
before
this
policy
was
enacted.
So
what
is
the
timeline
for
getting
all
of
those
I
mean
I
I
know
there's
a
backup,
and
I
also
know
that
in
the
neighborhood
in
which
I
sit
right
now,
where
I
live,
it
took
12
years
to
get
our
neighborhood
designated
as
historic.
L
Right
oops
so
yeah,
I
didn't
say
there
was
a
commitment
to
do
historic
surveys.
I
think
that's.
Ideally,
we
would
like
to
do
them
ahead
of
time.
I
think
that
and
we
can
come
back
with
more
information
and
what
the
status
of
the
historic
surveys
are
in
the
timeline
we
don't
have
that
tonight,
but
we
can
bring
that
to
the
task
force.
Provide
that
information.
I
think
that's
something
the
task
force
can
consider.
I
mean
we're
not
you
know.
L
One
approach
could
be
that
that
opportunity,
housing
doesn't
move
forward
in
certain
identified
neighborhoods
until
the
survey
is
completed,
we're
not
proposing
that
in
the
criteria
right
now,
but
that's
something
the
task
force
could
discuss
and
think
about
or
recommend,
but
yeah.
So
we're
not
I'm
not
saying
that
we
are
committed
to
doing
them
before
opportunity.
Housing
would
could
move
forward.
I
think
that
that's
again
something
the
task
force
can
talk
about.
I
I
B
I
B
L
Right
so
I
think
the
first
step
really
frankly
is
identifying
what
are
the
properties
that
have
some
historic
character,
and
then
we
typically
use
the
secretary
of
state
standards
and
interior
standards
on
historic
properties.
We
could
develop
additional
standards
for
historic
properties.
That
would
then
be
applied.
L
I
think
the
other
thing
is
that
if
a
property
is
on
the
inventory,
it's
not
a
buy
right
process,
it's
a
discretionary
process
where
there's
a
lot
more
working
on.
How
do
you
sensitively
integrate
an
opportunity,
housing
or
a
four
plex,
or
a
duplex
or
tribec,
by
converting
an
existing
historic
property.
F
My
question,
I
think
follows
on
the
council
members.
All
of
the
recent
legislative
intended
to
encourage
infill
housing
has
emphasized
that
all
design
standards
must
be
rigidly
quantitative,
no
style.
No
and
making
such
standards
compatible
with
historic
structures
is
frequently
very,
very
difficult.
So
in
the
future
implementation
phase,
as
the
staff
develops
this,
I
think
that
should
be
considered
and
discussed
that,
in
fact,
criteria
that
the
state
is
in
the
habit
of
imposing
these
days
may
make
design
standards
in
historic,
neighborhoods
impossible
to
implement.
Do.
F
E
H
The
main
difference
was
that
we
considered
a
quarter
mile
because
we
weren't
sure
how
the
task
force
interpreted
proximate.
We
recommend
half,
but
we
understand
some
people
might
be
more
conservative
and
want
a
quarter
mile.
But
the
main
difference
between
the
two
is
that
one
is:
has
better
access
to
higher
resource
areas
and
the
other
the
one
closer
to
the
transit
urban
villages
have
less,
and
so
that
is
the
the
main
difference.
In
terms
of.
Q
Thank
you
teresa.
My
question
also
relates
to
the
half
mile
and
the
quarter
mile,
so
I
know
that
our
goal
is
to
increase
the
housing
stock
of
housing
units
to
accommodate
more
people,
and
if
we
are
to
achieve
that
goal,
then
the
logic
would
be
that
the
more
housing
units
we
can
build,
the
better
that
we
can
achieve
that
goal,
and
then,
in
that
case,
then
why
would
we
go
with
25
quarter
miles
when
we
can
go
with
half
a
mile
and
if
we
can
go
with
half
a
mile?
Q
H
A
Great,
thank
you
so
much
staff.
Okay,
we
are
moving
to
public
comment.
We
have
15
people
with
their
hands
raised
at
two.
Oh
now,
17
now
21.,
so
we're
gonna
move
that
to
one
minute
versus
two
minutes,
given
that
we
now
have
24
people
with
their
hands
raised
and
it's
going
up-
and
we
have
you
know
a
little
over
half
hour.
So
I'm
going
to
try
the
staff
to
manage
that.
R
Right
if
you'd
like
to
speak,
please
raise
your
hand.
It
looks
like
we
have
a
good
number
of
people
raising
their
hands
already.
If
you're
calling
in
you
would
press
star
9
to
raise
your
hand
and
if
you're
not
comfortable
speaking,
you
can
always
email
generalplanstaff
at
san
jose.gov
to
record
your
public
comment
and
the
first
speaker.
O
O
So
increasing
house
density
by
itself
does
not
improve
the
community.
It
only
makes
it
denser.
So
if
the
task
force
objective
is
to
make
an
urban
village
start
with
cleaning
up
the
parks
and
make
the
other
make
the
urban
villages
better,
you
know
improve,
encourage
businesses,
more
emphasis
on
improving
schools,
develop
policies,
and
if
the
city
of
san
jose
wants
to
be
a
world-class
city,
it
needs
world-class
communities,
world-class
design,
request,
parks
and.
J
Tessa,
okay,
good!
Thank
you
very
much,
okay.
Well,
I
just
wanted
to
reinforce
the
importance
of
the
outreach
because,
especially
because
our
neighborhood
was
injured
when
the
general
plan
change
happened
in
our
community
to
put
a
commercial
property
on
the
west
side
of
stockton
avenue,
and
so
I
don't
see
my
timer
just
so
you
know,
but
anyway,
and
basically
that
really
injured
our
community,
because
we
had
you
could
say.
Oh
you
had
meetings.
You
had
this.
J
You
had
bad
and
yeah,
but
we
need
to
have
in
our
envelope
in
an
envelope
not
in
a
card
address
to
the
property
owners
that
this
is
the
changes
that
we're
considering
that's
very
important.
So
that's
one
issue
that
didn't
happen
when
they
2040
plan.
You
know
no
jobs
for
housing
conversion
and
you
know
it
really
injured
our
neighborhood
to
have
you
know
a
proposed
five-story
hotel
put
in
our
historic
neighborhood.
So
that's
one
comment.
R
S
Okay,
tom
mccarter,
that's
me
so
really
quick.
I
just
I
I'm
curious,
I'm
new
to
this.
I'm
I'm
a
member
of
the
umbs,
and
so
you
know
the
the
voters
have
passed
several
measures
in
supporting
affordable
housing
and
somebody
stated
earlier
that
the
the
state
is
going
to
require
more
housing
in
a
couple
of
years.
S
So
why
not
get
out
in
front
of
it
now?
Why
wait
until
the
state
says
yeah,
you
need
x,
more
housing
when
we
don't
even
have
enough,
as
it
is.
That's
my
basic.
You
know
the
the
voters
have
said
yeah.
We
want
affordable
housing.
So
what
are
you
doing
about
it?
That's
my
main
question.
I
don't
understand.
J
I'm
I'm
speaking
in
support
of
opportunity,
housing
within
a
one-half
mile
radius,
and
I
think
it
should
have
been
done
in
the
general
plan
to
begin
with.
I
live
in
nagley
park
and
negley
park
in
the
north
side
are
full
of
multi-family
housing
and
they
enrich
the
neighborhood.
They
promote
economic
and
social
and
cultural
diversity.
J
I
lived
in
seattle
from
1993
tonight
to
2004.
when
the
urban
village
plan
came
through.
A
lot
of
the
neighborhoods
were
opposed
to
them,
but
over
time
a
lot
of
neighborhoods
ended
up
within
phil
housing
that
was
very
compatible
with
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood
and
it
actually
promoted
more
walkable
neighborhoods
and
increased
things
like
neighborhood
retail.
I
think
the
key
to
making
this
work
is
to
make
sure
that
there's
design
compatibility.
C
J
C
Thank
you.
Can
you
hear
me?
Yes,
I'm
looking
at
the
process
page
in
your
presentation
and
the
thing
I'm
thinking
is
this
is
going
to
come
to
pass.
I
don't
know
if
the
council
is
explicitly
supported.
Statewide,
I
mean
city
wide
by
right,
four
plexes
in
their
support
of
the
various
measures
like
senate
bill
50,
but
I'm
assuming
that
this
is
going
to
happen.
C
So,
if
you're
interested
in
having
a
consistent
building
process
with
neighborhoods
who
are
not
far
along
with
understanding
this,
I
would
suggest
that
you
continue
this
for
a
week
or
till
your
next
meeting,
that
you
add
to
your
conceptual
framework,
the
public
outreach
program
and
the
zoning
code
and
some
things
on
design.
The
reason
I
say
that
is
jessica
was
already
talking
about
how
you're
not
going
to
be
sticking
with
the
single
families.
E
P
My
name
is
deborah
arendt
and
I
would
like
to
just
point
out
that
the
urban
villages
one
size
did
not
fit
all.
There
are
different
recommendations
for
each
urban
village
and
I
think
that
the
opportunity
housing
should
follow
the
same
format.
Not
every
single
design,
element
or
piece
will
fit
every
neighborhood
the
same,
and
you
need
to
look
at
each
individual
neighborhood
and
tailor
it
to
those
neighborhoods.
M
Larry
here
a
number
of
questions,
I'm
concerned
about
the
damage
to
the
established
neighborhoods.
I
echo
harvey's
and
devs
concerns
about
the
historic
landmarks
commission
not
having
had
chance
to
mark
and
identify
historic
buildings.
Yet
I
echo
bob
levy's
concerns
about
park,
you're,
doubling
or
tripling
the
number
of
number
of
people
in
the
area
you
provide
for
the
people,
I'm
worried
about
the
environmental
impacts.
When
you
build
build
over
the
back
yards
you're,
going
to
clean
converts
and
you're
going
to
have
more
water.
All
that
has
to
be
considered
I'm
worried
about.
M
M
A
D
M
I
want
to
say
first
how
excited
I
am
to
be
here
speaking
on
this.
I
think
the
framework
has
a
tremendous
potential
to
address
the
housing
crisis
and
create
more
affordable,
sustainable
and
inclusive
communities.
I
think
there's
a
chance
for
san
jose
to
be
a
housing
leader.
In
that
spirit,
I
would
recommend
that
you
expand
the
geographic
hope
to
cover
as
much
of
the
city
as
possible
opportunity.
Housing
works
via
small
scale,
infill
development
for
that
to
match
the
scale
of
san
jose's
housing
need.
You
need
a
very
broad
base.
M
I
think
the
type
of
gentle
density
that
opportunity
housing
brings
would
be
appropriate
everywhere
in
the
city,
but
especially
in
higher
resource
areas
on
a
half
mile
radius
round
transit
is
unnecessarily
restricted.
I
would
also
encourage
you
to
look
at
design
standards
that
meet
the
needs
of
multi-family
housing,
rather
than
some
of
the
restrictions
that
currently
apply
only
to
single
family
homes
and
hope
you
will
move
forward
with
this.
Thank
you.
J
Hi
thanks
for
taking
my
comment.
My
name
is
katherine
hedges
and
a
member
of
pact
and
catalyze
sv
and
yeah,
I'm
allied
with
how
ski
at
home-
and
I
think
that
increasing
opportunity
housing
is
a
great
idea.
I
agree
with
the
previous
speaker
who
said
that
this
should
be
extended
to
more
areas
of
the
city
instead
of
restricting
it
to
just
areas
around
housing
when
they
are
noticed
with
the
affordable
housing
complexes
is
that
there
is
kind
of
a
battle
between.
J
I
Hi,
my
name
is
allie,
I'm
a
resident
of
the
hensley
neighborhood
and
a
member
of
south
bay
yimby.
I'm
also
calling
to
support
opportunity
housing
in
san
jose
and
encourage
the
task
force
to
expand
the
opportunity
housing
beyond
the
urban
villages
and
transit
corridors
to
cover
more
of
the
city,
especially
our
high
resource
neighborhoods.
G
G
G
E
E
E
If
this
conceptual
proposal
would
be
approved-
and
I
ask
that
because
I
feel-
as
it
is
right
now-
that
the
public
notice,
we
didn't
get
enough
notice
about
this
concept,
information
even
being
discussed,
and
I
so
therefore
I
would
ask
for
a
deferral
of
this
particular
item
so
that
adequate
public
notice,
fair
and
equitable
public
notice
can
be
given,
so
that
people
have
an
opportunity
to
hear.
Thank
you.
T
Yes,
thank
you.
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
second
tina's
comments.
I
live
in
the
vendome
and
one
of
the
it's
one
of
the
oldest
and
most
historic
areas
in
the
city
I
live
in
the
atkinson
house.
He
was
mr
atkinson
was
one
of
the
first
developers,
and
we
didn't
hear
about
this
until
a
couple
of
days
ago.
T
Housing
we're
the
beneficiaries
of
some
pretty
bad
city
planning
in
our
neighborhood
and
I'm
afraid
that
a
lot
of
this
opportunity,
housing
along
with
all
the
rehab
centers
and
permanent
supportive
housing
projects
and
everything
else
that
gets
dumped
here,
will
end
up
in
our
neighborhood
and
it
won't
be
equitable,
as
some
people
are
making
it
sound.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Judith.
C
Okay,
you
know
we're
hearing
a
lot
about
transparency,
but
as
a
resident
of
san
jose,
I'm
finding
more
and
more.
The
curtains
remain
closed
until
the
final
hour.
We're
then
left
scrambling
to
notify
neighbors
and
learn
of
the
proposed
changes
that
will
affect
our
daily
lives
with
little
to
no
representation.
C
I
call
for
the
postponement
of
this
vote
until
all
neighborhoods
that
will
be
affected
can
be
properly
notified,
informed
of
any
proposed
changes
and
have
the
ability
to
voice
their
concerns
and
or
support
before
going
to
council.
I
also
re
also
remember:
we
are
in
a
covid19
crisis,
not
all
our
res
neighborhood
neighbors
on
are
on
social
media
and
have
the
ability
to
zoom
to
be
heard.
Shame
on
those
who
assume
that
they
are
providing
outreach
for
feedback
yet
failed
to
properly
notify
the
residents.
C
M
E
M
Great
mitch,
mankin
market
almaden
neighborhood-
I
just
want
to
say
where
I
live.
There
are
single-family
homes
like
the
one
I'm
renting
in
there
are
eight
plexes.
There
are
garden
core
departments,
there
are
taller
apartment
buildings
and
it
doesn't
cause
problems.
It
doesn't
destroy
the
neighborhood
I
used
to
live
in
st
leo's
lots
of
four
plexes
nate
plexus.
There
too,
I
lived
in
a
pretty
affordable,
three-story
apartment
building
that
wouldn't
be
legal
to
build
today.
So
I'm
strongly
supportive
of
this
opportunity.
M
Housing
and
I
want
to
see
the
city
wide,
not
just
along
transit
corridors,
even
without
access
to
major
transit.
You
can
have
four
plexes
anywhere,
but
if
you
have
to
choose
one
of
the
options
go
with
the
half
mile.
This
is
an
opportunity
for
people
to
add
on
to
their
homes
a
lot
more
people
live
in
the
neighborhood
and
in
light
of
cover
19,
it's
really
really
important,
reduce
overcrowding.
M
E
J
This
is
going
to
be
kind
of
a
scatter
shot
of
various
thoughts.
First
of
all,
thank
you,
david
pandori,
for
bringing
to
the
attention
to
helen
chapman,
our
neighborhood
association,
member,
that
this
was
happening.
This
was
on
july
25th.
He
sent
that
email
to
her.
She
forwarded
it
to
the
forum
on
july
27th.
J
That
is
the
first.
Anyone
in
the
shasta
hatchet
neighborhood
heard
about
this
this
plan
and
it
took
us
all
by
you,
know
blind
side.
I
am
concerned.
I
purchased
this
home
in
2003
because
of
the
neighborhood
because
of
the
historic
relevance
of
the
neighborhood.
I
have
no
interest
in
having
try
or
fourplexes
in
the
neighborhood
parking
suit.
In
an
issue
a
neighbor
sells
a
house.
A
developer
comes
in
and
out
bids
any
single
family
homeowners
who
want
to
buy
into
the
neighborhood.
J
P
M
Good
evening,
chair
alvarado
members
of
general
plan
task
force
and
city
staff,
my
name
is
matthew
jumanwa
and
I'm
a
junior
at
stanford
university,
studying
urban
studies.
During
the
past
spring
quarter,
I
was
enrolled
in
gentrification
a
class
that
included
a
partnership
with
silicon
valley
at
home,
where
I
work
with
my
fellow
peers,
aj
nadel,
olivia
shields
and
jordy
portillo
to
study
the
role
and
history
of
zoning
in
san
jose
as
a
mechanism
of
segregation
along
socio-economic
lines.
M
Today,
although
opportunity
housing
through
adus
and
limited
higher
density,
residential
rezoning
adds
access
to
high
resource
areas,
we
believe
that
the
city
should
explore
wider
implementation
of
multi-family
zoning
and
reform
of
urban
villages
across
all
regions
of
the
city
to
truly
pursue
equity,
which
should
always
come
with
an
understanding
of
the
checkered
history
of
single-family
zoning
being
a
force
of
segregation.
Thank
you.
B
Hello,
yes,
I
imagine
you
can
hear
me
I'd
like
to
echo
larry
ames,
who
was
concerned
about
the
watershed
and
tree
cover
in
neighborhoods.
Just
like
you
can't
build
hundred-year-old
houses,
you
can't
plant
hundred-year-old
trees,
so
any
plan
that
needs
to
move
forward
needs
to
be
cognizant
of
our
environmental
impact.
B
C
Good
evening,
with
little
to
no
community
engagement
is
difficult
to
fully
understand
the
latest
catchphrase
opportunity
housing.
The
committee
also
seems
stacked
with
political
leaders
and
one
or
two
community
members
from
each
district,
hardly
enough
representation
or
input
to
set
policy
on
such
a
drastic
proposal.
C
C
My
100
year
old
home
is
adjacent
to
the
zone
north
1st
street
transit
village.
The
transit
village
alone
is
a
big
change
for
the
neighborhood.
Why
not
take
a
more
cautious
approach
and
see
how
the
many
urban
villages
throughout
the
city
pan
out
before
implementing
additional
widespread
extreme
zoning
changes?
I'm
not
sure
that
providing
opportunity.
Housing
is
the
answer
anyways
as
it
penalizes
taxpayers,
especially
single-family
homeowners
and
their
property
values,
wouldn't
staying
focused
on
getting
businesses
to
raise
their
employee
rate
wages
and
take
less
profit,
be
a
better
solution.
C
Q
Yourself,
hello,
my
name
is
alan
saldowski.
I
live
in
nagley
park.
I
would
also
advocate
that
more
public
input
be
taken
and
more
time
spent
determining
the
historic
inventory
in
these
neighborhoods
one
size,
as
people
have
said,
does
not
fit
all,
and
we
have
had
many
decades
of
urban
redevelopment
in
san
jose.
That
has
failed.
Q
So
I
believe
that
we
should
wait
until
after
the
historic
inventory
is
taken
to
determine
whether
one
half
mile
or
quarter
mile
or
another
measurement
being
stated,
and
that
it
would
vary
from
neighborhood
to
neighborhood.
You
need
more
community
comments.
You
need
to
understand
that
the
public
will
not
accept
this
unless
they
get
to
participate.
Thank
you.
C
M
Right,
hi
and
I'd
like
to
thank
the
san
jose
the
envision
san
jose
2040
task
force
for
calling
this
meeting
and
for
creating
this
proposal
and
for
inviting
public
comment.
I
come
here
to
add
my
voice
to
those
of
the
south
bay
yimby
organization,
along
with
silicon
valley
at
home,
along
with
the
valley
transit
authority,
along
with
the
silicon
valley,
bicycle
coalition,
to
support
opportunity
housing.
M
I
would
like
to
echo
the
advisement
that
this
be
extended
to
city
wide,
that's
going
to
have
impacts
on
the
equity
of
the
implementation,
and
it's
also
just
going
to
allow
for
more
housing
to
be
built.
The
housing
crisis
that
we're
experiencing
is
obviously
urgent.
We
need
opportunity
housing
five
years
ago,
not
15
years
from
now.
M
P
Yes,
thank
you.
I
live
in
a
candidate
landmark
historic
district
called
chile
alameda
park
and
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
quality
of
the
data
that
planning
presented
us
tonight,
because
I
noticed
that
our
neighborhood,
although
we
were
put
on
the
inventory
two
months
ago,
it's
not
marked
on
the
map
that
they
showed
and
if
anyone
knows
where
we
stand
in
this
process,
it's
the
planning
department.
So
that
concerns
me.
P
I
do
support
a
lot
of
the
individuals
who
say
maybe
this
should
be
considered
across
the
city,
because
I'm
very
concerned
that,
since
many
of
your
historic
neighborhoods,
your
single-family
neighborhoods
are
close
to
downtown
that
the
plan
is
simply
to
run
us
over
put
up
four
plexes
and
build
a
very,
I
think,
unlivable
area,
where
people
don't
have
open
space
and
they
don't
have
any
options
for
the
types
of
homes
in
which
they
want
to
live.
Thank
you.
R
M
All
right,
thank
you
very
much.
I'm
john
cerrino.
I
live
in
the
rose
garden
area.
You
know,
I
do
hear
comments
and
I
understand
people
who
do
love
to
live
in
areas
where
there
are
multi
multi-family
homes,
three
plexes,
four
plexes
et
cetera.
I
get
that
I'm
not
necessarily
one
of
them.
That's
why
I
bought
a
single
family
home
in
the
neighborhood.
I
I
do
live
in.
I
enjoy
living
among
single-family
homes.
You
know,
I
guess
you
know
for
this,
for
this
task
force.
M
I
think
the
problem
you
have
is
we
don't
understand
why,
like
I've,
been
trying
to
dig
for
the
last
two
or
three
days
to
figure
out
why
this
has
come
about?
I
get.
We
need
affordable
housing,
but
I
suspect
there
are
other
pressures,
and
all
I
can
see
is
that
this
is
going
to
be
a
boon
for
developers,
people
developers
who
can
come
in
pay
cash
for
homes
that
are
up
for
sale,
crowd
out
other
families
and
run
roughshod
over
neighborhoods.
It
looks
like
a
tsunami
to
me
and
I'm
very
concerned.
C
Hi
I'm
bill
rankin.
I
live
in
the
north
willow
glen
neighborhood.
I
do
understand
and
do
encourage
that
more
housing
needs
to
be
built
in
san
jose
as
a
carpenter
and
homebuilder.
I
thought
the
example
shown
in
the
presentation
would
be
an
enhancement
to
any
neighborhood,
but
what
would
prevent
someone
from
tearing
down
a
single-family
home
to
build
a
soviet-style
cinder
block,
4-plex
cube
units
like
that
are
fast
and
easy
and
cheap
to
build?
C
G
G
The
lack
of
fair
and
equitable
public
notice
must,
by
definition,
mandate
that
any
recommendations
to
staff
be
deferred
until
such
time
that
neighborhood
residents
are
informed
and
engaged
by
something
other
than
social
media.
I
think
I
made
that
clear
in
the
three
page
issues
oriented
opposition
letter
that
was
sent
to
everybody
today.
G
In
addition,
it's
interesting
that
pd
zoning
is
already
being
talked
about
by
staff
is
having
more
protection
than
conservation
areas.
It's
interesting
that
we
haven't
implemented
and
taken
full
advantage
of
the
urban
village
density
for
units
per
acre
before
looking
at
much
less
dense,
much
less
effective
way
to
add
housing
units.
G
No
rental
database
to
verify
the
data
that's
being
used
is
a
terrifying
omission
as
a
long-term
renter
being
unable
to
verify
who
and
who
is
and
who
is
not.
A
renter
is
terrifying
and,
with
the
lack
of
the
hpo,
we're
not
even
being
allowed
to
agendize
any
discussion
of
the
hri
at
present,
so
not
requiring
hri
updates
before
this
moves
forward
is
inconceivable.
A
J
Okay,
thank
you,
I'm
sorry.
So
december
31st
1994
was
the
best
new
year's
eve
of
my
life.
My
young
daughter
and
I
spent
the
whole
evening
carefully
putting
fresh
contact
paper
on
our
kitchen
cat
in
our
kitchen
cabinets.
You
see
me
a
single
mom
and
a
non-profit
director
was
able
to
get
the
keys
to
to
our
first
home
and
we
were
able
to
and
spend
the
next
20
years
of
our
lives
being
active
parts
of
the
members
of
our
community.
J
I'm
a
firm
advocate
of
home
stability
and
security
and
creating
wealth
through
home
ownership,
and
I
want
to
advocate
the
opportunity
housing
throughout
the
city
of
san
jose
and
to
urge
it
to
be
more
for
housing
for
purchase,
so
that
families,
and
particularly
black
and
latinx
families,
have
the
opportunity
to
line
their
kitchen
cabinets
with
contact
paper
and
to
be
active
members
of
their
community.
Thank
you.
D
In
san
jose,
I'd
suggest
there
is
still
a
lot
of
land
still
undeveloped
or
underdeveloped,
and
these
sites
should
be
the
priority
locations
for
new
housing
well
before
unleashing
what
I'd
call
a
carpet
bombing
approach
with
opportunity,
housing
and
broad
residential
neighborhood
overlays?
It's
kind
of
hard
to
accept
the
concept
that,
for
example,
we
have
13
acres
on
santa
clara
street
adjacent
to
a
transit
corridor,
sitting
idle
for
15
years
since
san
jose
hospital
closed
after
half
of
that
site,
we
were
told
recently
that
the
development
horizon
is
another
10
or
20
years.
D
This
is
a
site
that
could
support
thousands
of
housing
units
and
merge
with
the
urban
village
and
complement
surrounding
neighborhoods.
The
point
is,
we
should
be
starting
by
making
sure
that
sites
that
can
clearly
support
high-density
housing
and
sites
that
are
land-banked,
get
developed,
spreading
out.
Blankets,
duplexes
and
fourplexes
is
not
going
to
solve
the
housing,
availability
and
affordability
crisis.
What
it's
going
to
do
is
destabilize
a
lot
of
fragile
neighborhoods
and
anger.
A
lot
of
residents
who've
worked
hard
to
make
their
communities
better,
defer
the
opportunity
housing
initiative.
E
I
I
You
can't
tear
down
existing
housing
and
rebuild
new
housing
for
lesser
cost.
These
new
units
are
going
to
rent
for
more
than
the
existing
housing
in
north
side,
the
adus
and
nagley
park,
and
everywhere
else
the
city
has
not
made
developers
build
affordable
housing.
They
have
let
developers
build
luxury
housing.
I
This
situation
we
have
with
a
lack
of
affordable
housing
is
the
city's
fault,
and
now
they
want
to
encroach
on
single-family
neighborhoods
to
solve
the
problem,
seven
units
in
a
single-family
residence
neighborhood.
Where
are
the
cars
going
to
park?
What
is
the
city
thinking
these
people
aren't
going
to
ride
bikes?
There
is
no
transit.
You
can't
ride
a
bike
in
san
jose.
It
will
be
stolen
in
five
minutes.
The
environmental
impact
is
huge.
C
Hi,
my
name
is
jean-marie
white.
I
am
a
resident
of
negli
park
and
I
wanted
to
voice
my
my
support
for
this
initiative.
I
I
love
this
neighborhood,
it's
a
great
historical
neighborhood
and
I
would
welcome
even
more
density
and
more
people
in
this
neighborhood.
I
agree
someone
made
the
comment
that
it's
not
the
buildings,
it's
the
people
who
make
the
a
place
special,
and
I
agree
with
that.
C
I
agree.
I
also
think
that,
with
increased
density,
there
would
be
more
opportunities
for
businesses
to
succeed.
Restaurants,
to
succeed,
it
would
make
the
neighborhood
more
walkable.
It
would
be
more
interesting
to
live
here.
I
do
and
I
think
that
maybe
more
than
half
mile
might
be
reasonable
as
well.
I
agree
with
bill
rankin's
concern
about
you
know,
making
sure
that
the
what
is
built
matches
the
neighborhood.
I
don't
want,
like
some
ugly,
like
cinder
block
building
going
up
and
same
with
edward
and
les
levitt.
C
M
Hi
this
is
bill
dodge
and
we're
from
nagley
park
as
well,
and
our
major
input
and
concern
is:
we
need
to
actually
do
a
study
with
the
increase
or
the
proposed
increase
of
a
quarter
mile
and
a
half
mile
on
the
impact
of
the
surrounding
property
values
around
those
areas.
So
high
density
population
is
not
a
bad
thing
in
amongst
itself
as
long
as
we
understand
how
it
impacts
the
surrounding
neighborhoods,
for
instance,
in
the
nagley
park
area.
M
Those
high
density
areas
may
impact
surrounding
areas
quite
negatively
for
property
values
and
as
people
that
pay
very,
very
high
property
taxes
in
general
to
maintain
the
neighborhood,
we're
very
concerned
about
making
sure
that
we
have
a
full
360
degree
perspective
on
how
this
will
impact,
not
just
those
who
need
high
density
housing.
But
those
of
us
who
have
invested
our
entire
lives
in
making
sure
that
this
is
a
neighborhood
that
one
wants
to
live
in
even
from
the
70s
when
it
was
a
very
different
type
of
area.
M
Words
on
housing,
the
american
dream
is
built
from
hard
work,
but
it's
also
made
of
many
of
us
hold
up
as
a
hero
and
someone
who
fought
for
the
beloved
community,
a
community
which
he
as
a
middle-class
white
person
is
absolutely
imperative,
is
grippa,
amen.
Third,
the
concept
of
opportunity
housing
is
great.
I
urge
the
task
force
to
adopt
the
commencement
of
the
process.
M
I
very
much
appreciate
staff's
change
to
the
walking
distances
which
reflect
the
reality
of
some
suggestions.
Again,
I
urge
the
task
force
to
move
forward
with
opportunity
housing.
I
look
forward
to
continuing
to
provide
input,
as
the
concept
is
revised
through
the
drafting
and
outreach
process.
Thank.
C
I
Yeah
hi,
my
name
is
joseph
burke.
I
live
in
japan,
town
and
I
have
to
say
that
the
half
mile
radius
just
feels
like
it's
dumping,
our
small
little
neighborhood
into
a
way
higher
density
that
you
know
if
we
were
a
few
blocks
away,
would
not
be
the
case
like
it
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
me
to
keep
this
at
a
half
mile
like.
If
this
density
is
appropriate
for
single
family
neighborhoods,
then
it
should
be
citywide.
I
Additionally,
I
didn't
hear
much
discussion
about
the
parking,
but
if
we
have
seven
units
per
property,
that's
you
know.
14
cars
like
that,
makes
everything
completely
chaos
for
parking
and
for
for
traffic
and
the
expectation
that,
just
because
it's
near
a
train
stop
so
that
means
people
won't
own
a
car.
That's
not
realistic
whatsoever.
I
Hello,
hello,
yes,
go
ahead,
hi!
Yes,
I
want
a
fourth
person
to
tim,
claussen,
ed,
som
and
richard
nie
said
nothing
should
be
voted
on
tonight.
You
had
20
people
ahead
of
me
all
state
that
they
were
unaware
of
this
going
on
and
it
was
just
heard
through
david
pandori,
I
mean
when
something
significantly
affects
properties
across
the
city,
thousands
of
them
property
value
and
lives.
You
should
be
sending
a
mailer
to
every
one
of
these
residents.
I
I
moved
into
one
of
these
neighborhoods
because
I
wanted
to
be
in
a
single
family
home.
I
don't
want
six
families
living
right
next
door
to
me
in
four
plexes
and
two
adu
units
up
to
three
stories
high,
when
every
house
on
this
street
is
a
single
family
home.
I
understand
opportunity,
housing
and
I
understand
you
need
more
housing,
but
I
didn't
move
here
to
be
in
an
urban
center
if
you
want
to
be
an
urbanist
move
to
san
francisco
move
to
new
york.
Thank
you.
This
is
not
what
san
jose
is
about.
O
O
O
So
you
know
where
you're
actually
good
resources
of
100
year
old
homes
are
and
things
that
you
need
to
protect
and
the
cluster
that
is
our
urban
village
plan
that
doesn't
really
have
a
plan
means
you
need
to
postpone
this
and
you
need
to
reach
out
to
people
and
talk
to
them,
because
it
is
in
the
communities
where
you
will
find
the
solutions.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
C
J
Yes,
all
right,
yes,
I
just
wanted
to
reiterate
what
was
said
by
edward
and
richard
and
and
some
of
the
other
people
that
first
off,
I
think
this
whole
thing
should
be
deferred
the
whole
concept
of
opportunity,
housing,
but
especially
no
vote
tonight.
The
the
notice
was
only
a
couple
days
ago
on
next
door.
Anyone
who's
not
on
social
media,
wouldn't
even
know
about
it.
I
think
it
has
to
be
noticed
to
everyone
that
owns
a
single-family
home
that
could
be
affected.
J
I
live
in
a
house,
that's
120
years
old
and
it's
not
listed.
It
didn't
not
show
up
there,
I'm
in
the
rose
garden
area,
and
I
bought
this
house
on
a
large
lot
that
could
have
several
abuse,
because
I
wanted
a
single
family
home,
surrounded
by
single
family
homes,
not
with
apartments.
Next
to
me,
looking
down
in
my
yard,
you
have
to
consider
the
parking
issues,
the
open
space,
all
the
land
that
would
be
covered
up,
there's
just
so
many
issues
that
have
not
been
addressed.
J
M
M
It's
it's
it's
in
incredibly
out
of
date
and
the
planning
department
right
now
has
zero
or
close
to
zero
staff
to
be
able
to
undertake
the
inventory
work
that
needs
to
be
done
just
for
perspective,
we're
the
tenth
largest
city
in
the
united
states.
Dallas
is
right
ahead
of
us
at
nine.
It
has
a
historic
preservation
staff
of
ten
we
have
less
than
one
so
to
not
tie
the
the
opportunity
housing
moving
forward
to
legitimate
historic
resources.
M
C
A
Folks
who
were
in
line
earlier
okay,
I
just
want
to
make
one
comment,
and
just
I
I
heard
repeatedly
and
if
you
all
can
mute
yourself.
That
would
be
great.
I
think
people
were
perhaps
misled
that
there
was
some
official
action
that
we
were
considering
tonight.
The
memo
clearly
says
that
our
any
action
would
be
to
direct
staff
to
further
study
opportunity,
housing,
establish
an
overlay
in
policy
and
create
a
framework
and
many
long-term
steps,
including
significant
public
outreach,
even
before
this
goes
to
the
city
council.
A
So
this
is
really
the
start
of
a
process,
and
you
know
it's
unfortunate.
We
have
many
many
hands
up
of
task
force
members,
but
of
course
we
are
already
over
time,
and
so
I'm
I'm
really
struggling
with
the
fact
that
this
is
a
very
simple.
You
know
request
of
staff,
and
yet
it's
become
quite
complicated.
A
A
M
D
I
mean
the
task
force
has
a
lot
of
remaining
work
to
do
we're
way
behind,
and
we
have
a
lot
more
important
issues
than
this
policy
that
will
generate
really
no
housing
at
all,
and
so
I'd
like
us
to
wrap
this
up
tonight
and
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion,
and
this
is
it.
The
motion
is
that
we
we
recommend
that
the
city
initiate
a
robust
community
outreach
and
stakeholder
process
and
in
that
process
every
comment
made
tonight
by
the
public
and
that
any
task
force
members
will
be
analyzed
and
considered.
D
So
there
there
have
been
concerns
expressed.
Staff
should
listen
to
the
whole
tape
here,
write
down
every
concern
stated
there
have
been
positive
comments,
those
should
all
be
written
down
and
all
of
those
should
be
analyzed
and
considered
through
the
community
engagement
process
and
formulate
a
policy
recommendation
to
the
council.
That's
it.
We
should
not
adopt
any
specific
criteria.
We
should
not
make
decisions
on
half
mile
quarter
mile
city
wide,
not
at
all,
simply
consider
all
the
comments
made
and
initiate
a
robust
community
outreach
process.
That's
my
motion.
P
D
A
So
I'd
like
to
call
the
question-
and
I
know
that
there
are
folks
who
would
rather
make
a
different
motion
and
there
are
many
hands
raised.
I
think
we
need
to
vote
on
this
motion,
which
really
is
nothing
specific
other
than
directing
staff
to
listen
to
public
comment
and
craft,
a
policy
that
will
go
to
council.
A
C
C
C
A
Let's
take
a
vote
on
this
and
we
will
not
have
an
additional
motion
entertained
this
evening,
so
all
in
favor,
if
you
can
please
lower
your
hands
now
because
we're
going
to
do
it
by
a
show
of
hands,
can
you
seriously?
What
are
we
voting
on?
Are
we
voting
on
not
having
any
motion
tonight
and
starting
from
scratch?
No
on.
O
A
D
A
A
So
far,
it's
tied,
oh
15..
Okay,
that
motion
fails
so
17
16
went
down
to
16.
motion
fails
either
way.
We
will
not
take
an
alternate
motion
tonight.
This
is
going
to
require
significant
task
force
commentary.
I
really
appreciate
you
all
and
your
patience,
I'm
sorry.
We
didn't
get
to
your
comments,
but
we
will
have
to
do
that.
Next
time,
motion
to
adjourn.
B
N
A
C
I
just
want
to
strut.
I
respectfully
request
that
at
the
next
meeting,
it'd
be
very
structured
questions
during
question.
Phrase:
clarification
when
clarification
is
requested
and
co-chair
or
others-
please
don't
just
jump
in
david.
I
I
appreciate
you,
but
the
meeting
would
be
better
if
we
all
just
played
by
the
rules.