►
From YouTube: DEC 1, 2021 | Planning Commission
Description
City of San José, California
Planning Commission meeting of December 1, 2021.
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://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=908608&GUID=169DF559-0A05-4F91-80D1-6F349488F8C0
A
A
B
All
right,
let's
begin
good
evening,
my
name
is
george
casey
and
I'm
the
vice
chair
of
the
planning
commission.
Welcome
to
the
planning
commission
meeting.
This
meeting
is
being
held
via
zoom
conference
call
due
to
the
coven
19
crisis.
Members
of
the
public
may
participate
by
following
the
instructions
listed
on
the
agenda.
B
B
B
Commissioner
lard
noir
here
garcia's
here:
okay,
garcia,
is
a
great
commissioner
montagnes.
D
E
A
B
A
C
B
Oliverio
and
commissioner
chair
bonilla.
C
B
No
problem
the
procedure
for
this
hearing
is
as
follows:
after
the
staff
report,
applicants
and
appellants
may
make
a
five-minute
presentation.
City
staff
will
call
out
names
of
the
public
who
identify
the
items
they
want
to
speak
on.
You
may
identify
yourself
by
the
raised
hand,
feature
on
zoom
clicking
star
9
on
your
phone,
or
you
may
call
408-535-3505.
B
Or
email
planning
support
staff
at
san
jose
ca.gov
and
identify
your
name
phone
number
and
what
item
or
items
you
would
like
to
speak
on?
As
your
name
is
called
city
staff
will
unmute
you
to
speak
after
you
confirm
your
audio
is
working.
Your
allotted
time
will
begin.
Each
speaker
will
have
two
minutes.
B
Speakers
using
a
translator
will
have
four
minutes
after
the
public
testimony
the
applicant
and
appellant
may
make
closing
remarks
for
an
additional
five
minutes.
Planning
commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
the
speakers.
Response
to
commissioner's
questions
will
not
reduce
the
speaker's
time
allowance
staff
will
unmute
the
speaker
to
respond
to
the
commissioner.
B
B
The
planning
commission's
actions
on
re-zonings
pre-zonings
general
plan
amendments
and
code
amendments
is
only
advisory
to
the
count
city
council.
The
city
council
will
hold
public
hearings
on
these
items.
Section
20.120.400
of
the
municipal
code
provides
the
procedures
for
legal
protests
to
the
city
council
on
rezonings
and
pre-zonings.
B
A
Hello
vice
chair,
I
do
see
two
hands
raised,
paul
soto.
Please
confirm
that
this
is
for
items
not
listed
on
the
agenda.
H
Yes,
yes,
thank
you,
commissioners,
and
that's
important
for
me
to
announce.
I
announced
myself
as
from
the
horseshoe
and
the
horseshoe
designation
is
d11,
which
is
the
lowest
designation
on
the
1938
map
that
was
written
and
authored
by
a
man
that
is
familiar
to
the
horseshoe.
His
name
was
bebrak,
that's
the
name
of
the
park
because
will
glenn
annexed
eight
months
prior
to
the
formation
of
these
redlining
maps.
H
What
I
would
like
to
know-
and
I
would
I'm
I'm
I'm
asking
this
not
as
a
question
or
a
request,
but
an
actual
expectation-
that
this
entire
planning
commission
read
every
single
redlining
document
that
was
produced
by
that
informed.
The
creation
of
that
map
that
you'd
be
put
on
record
that
you
read
all
those
documents.
I
have
them
there's
over
100
of
them.
H
I
have
every
single
one
of
them,
so
does
the
city
of
san
jose,
but
I
have
my
copies
okay
and
so
what
what
is
happening
here
and
I'm
glad
that
cantrell,
caballero
and
montenez
they've
struggled
at
least
they
struggled
with
the
moral
and
ethical
conflict
that
arises
from
the
decisions
that
you're
making.
Mr
michael
of
I
don't
know
what
your
last
name
is,
but
dude
you
don't
struggle
at
all.
Homeboy
you
just
you're
ready
to
just
decimate
neighborhoods
go
into
barrios
gaia.
Willow
is
the
womb
that
is
the
womb.
H
H
A
E
E
It's
a
real
place
has
a
real
church,
real
food,
real
community
feel,
and
if
you
guys
wreck
that
by
some
kind
of
weird
gentrification
it's
gonna
just
wreck,
I
mean
take
a
look
at
willow,
avenue
or
willow
street
and
then
take
a
look
at
your
downtown
and
you
can
see
how
no
matter
how
much
money
you
throw
at
something,
no
matter
how
many
high-rises
you
build
that
nobody
lives
in
by
the
way
people
don't
know
this.
People
do
not
live
in
those
high-rises.
E
The
lights
come
on
and
off
during
the
night
to
make
it
look
like
people
are
living
there.
They
even
put
furniture
in
there
to
make
people
look
like
they're
living
there
there's
a
reason
why
everything
is
shut
down
in
downtown.
There's
nobody
living
down
there
and
the
students
don't
count
either,
and
now,
with
the
panda
I
mean
that
place
looked
like
a
pandemic
before
the
pandemic,
so
it
seems
as
if
the
more
money
and
rules
and
regulations
and
gentrification
you
do
the
worse.
It
gets
for
the
city
of
san
jose.
E
Just
look
no
further
than
what
I
call
plywood
city,
that's
downtown,
plywood
city
with
a
stenciled
tucker
construction.
It's
a
it's
pathetic!
I
couldn't
imagine
people
coming
to
visit
this
town
going.
Oh
wow,
we're
going
to
see
the
heart
of
the
silicon
valley.
Oh
yeah,
take
a
look
at
this,
our
beautiful
downtown.
We
have
the
best
raw
plywood
nailed
to
a
window
in
the
whole
united
states
of
america.
Even
though
this
is
the
richest
place
on.
I
Yes,
thank
you
very
much,
commissioners.
I
really
appreciated
listening
to
the
last
session
on
sb9
sb10.
I
appreciate
that
very
much.
I
was
a
little
confused
because
the
last
study
session
that
was
performed
for
the
city
council.
There
were
public
comments
afterwards
and
I
guess
I
should
have
had
my
public
comment
beforehand,
but
thank
you
so
much
for
that
session
and
thank
you
so
much
for
the
staff
that
prepared.
B
B
B
Okay:
let's
go
to
the
consent
calendar.
Are
there
any
public
speakers
on
items
currently
on
the
consent
calendar?
B
B
A
Yes,
good,
thank
you
and
commissioner
torrance
right.
You
beat
her.
B
Review
and
approach
and
approval
excuse
me
action
items
from
11
10
21.
Do
we
have
any
changes
to
the
minutes.
G
G
A
On
you
also
have
three
hands
up,
so
I
don't
know
if
I
yeah.
A
Sure
I
racetrack
casey,
would
you
like
me
to
help
you
out?
Okay,
so
you
should
take
public
comment
on
the
consent
items
before
we
vote.
Please.
A
Okay,
we
have
our
first
hand
raised
so
paul
if
you
can
just
state
which
item
you'd
like
to
speak
on
we're
not
going
to
take
public
comment
until
we
move
it
to
public
hearing.
But
if
you
can
state
the
item
number
for
this,
that
you'd
like
to
move
to
public
hearing.
H
Yes,
so
I
can't
comment
on
it.
I
just
have
to
let
you
know
which
one
I
would
like
pulled.
G
H
Okay,
so
I
want
to
comment
on
that,
because
when
they
had
that
video
trip,
where
peralta's
blocked
off
the
streets
from
alma
and
lincoln,
our
minnesota
lincoln
brought
all
the
way
down.
You
know
oh
yeah,
let's
just
look
at
this
area
and
then
and
then
went
from
chula
burgers
to
to
to
first
I
mean
happy
holiday
park.
H
H
They
were
serving
pirellis,
got
that
all
blocked
off
so
that
he
so
that
people,
so
that
anglos
that
were
feeling
threatened
by
the
area,
because
you
know
you
know
those
homeless
people
that
they
wanted
to
ensure
their
safety
and
security
while
they
surveyed
their
area
from
keys
all
the
way
down
to
happy
hollow.
That's
what
he
does
to
me.
Both
sides
of
the
street.
You
have
towers,
you
already
got
a
tower
going
up
right
there
on
first
keys,
and
so
I
already
know
this.
H
I've
read
the
documents
I
already
know
what
time
it
is.
I
already
know
what's
happening:
we
had
no
representation
of
what
these
maps
they
got
submitted.
They're
gonna
be
lawsuits
against
it
guaranteed
guaranteed
because
they're
illegitimate.
Why?
Because
the
red
lining
map
you
see,
frederick
douglass,
didn't
know
how
to
read,
and
the
bible
was
used
as
the
means
by
which
to
enslave
the
people
to
give
a
rationalization
and
justification
for
it.
H
So
the
problem
became
the
solution.
Frederick
douglass
the
first
book.
He
learned
how
to
read
was
the
bible
and
it
was
the
very
means
by
which
the
very
means
by
which
he
was
enslaved
was
the
source
of
his
freedom.
He
used
the
principles
outlined
in
the
bible
in
order
to
become
a
consultant
to
abraham
lincoln.
J
A
K
I
too
am
a
little
bit
unsure
about
this
process,
so
I
want
to
speak
to
agenda
item
number
eight
when
it
comes
on,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
now
is
not
the
appropriate
time
to
speak.
A
Yes,
yes,
marnie
when
we
reach
to
item
a8
I'll,
go
ahead
and
put
you
on
the
list
to
speak
for
this
item.
Thank
you
so
much.
I
appreciate
that.
B
Okay,
chairman
is
absent.
Chair
casey
is
a
yes
pleasure,
casey,
commissioner
caballero.
Yes,
commissioner
cantrell.
Yes,
commissioner
garcia.
Yes,
commissioner
lardinwa.
Yes,
commissioner,
montagnes.
D
I
D
G
So
vice
chair,
casey
state
law
requires
us
and
we
have
it
up
on
the
board,
but
I'm
just
going
to
clarify
that
the
motion
was
approved
by
nine
zero
and
two
absent
and
the
absent
members
are
commissioners
bonilla
and
oliveria.
Oh
excuse
me
your
hero,
commissioner
oliveira
excuse
me,
so
it's
actually
ten
to
one
correct:
okay,
ten,
zero
one.
B
E
G
B
L
Okay,
all
right,
thank
you,
jared
ferguson
project
manager
and
the
housing
catalyst
with
office
of
economic
development
here
this
evening
to
talk
to
you
about
opportunity,
housing
within
the
general,
planned,
four-year
review
and
also
implementation
of
senate
bill
nine.
L
L
So
what
is
opportunity
housing
opportunity?
Housing
allows
two
to
four
units
of
housing
on
properties
currently
designated
for
single-family
homes.
This
is
also
referred
to
as
missing
middle
housing.
The
idea
is
to
deliver
more
housing
choices
in
the
same
form
and
scale
as
existing
single-family
neighborhoods.
L
L
This
shortage
of
land
to
build
additional
homes
is
one
of
the
contributors
to
the
housing,
shortage
and
affordability
crisis,
and
it's
something
we
see
throughout
the
bay
area.
It's
also
reflected
in
home
and
rental
prices.
The
current
san
jose
median
home
price
is
1.25
million.
According
to
redfin.
L
L
Those
parameters
were
limit,
opportunity,
housing
to
parcels
proximate
to
transit-oriented
urban
villages
or
immediately
adjacent
to
residential
parcels
within
existing
medium
density.
Building
types,
duplexes
or
triplexes
develop
a
set
of
design
guidelines
that
would
maintain
current
allowed
heights
and
keep
setbacks
comparable
to
existing
single
family
homes.
To
ensure
development
would
be
well
integrated
into
neighborhoods.
L
Allow
flexibility
on
the
number
of
units
allowed
per
parcel
that
would
vary
based
on
lot
size,
location
and
other
factors
clarify
that
any
redevelopment
remains
within
the
discretion
of
the
property
owner,
specify
that
opportunity
housing
would
be
sensitive
to
historic,
neighborhoods
and,
lastly,
validate
that
opportunity.
Housing
projects
are
cost
effective.
L
Opportunity
housing
was
discussed
at
four
of
the
ten
general
plan
task
force
meetings
at
the
december
19
task
force,
meeting
staff
provided
background
to
the
task
force
about
opportunity,
housing
at
the
february
27
2020
task
force,
meeting
staff
provided
an
initial
recommendation
to
the
task
force
concerning
opportunity,
housing
and
presented
information
about
state
legislation
under
consideration
at
the
time,
along
with
information
about
other
missing
middle
housing
programs
in
other
cities
across
the
country
following
the
interruption
in
meetings
due
to
the
pandemic.
The
item
was
again
taken
up.
L
At
the
july
30
2020
task
force,
meeting
staff
presented
a
modified
recommendation
based
on
feedback
from
the
public
and
members
of
the
task
force.
The
recommendation
presented
a
framework
with
specific,
short-term
and
long-term
actions.
The
meeting
was
continued
on
to
the
august
20
2020
task
force,
meeting
staff
further
modified
its
recommendations
based
on
the
discussion
with
the
task
force
and
with
members
of
the
public.
L
Some
task
force
members
expressed
concern
that
the
staff
time
and
resources
used
to
implement
opportunity
housing
would
detract
from
implementation
of
other
general
plan
related
work
such
as
urban
village
planning
other
task
force.
Members
were
supportive
of
opportunity
housing,
but
were
concerned
with
the
limited
geography
defined
in
the
scope
of
work.
L
Meetings
based
on
this
feedback
and
the
limitation
of
what
could
be
done
as
part
of
the
four-year
review
staff
modified
its
proposal
to
be
a
work
program
that
proposed
action
items
that
would
be
completed
if
council
were
to
move
forward
with
opportunity
housing.
This
proposed
work
program
included
extensive
community
engagement.
L
L
The
task
force
also
passed
a
second
recommendation
to
staff
that
it
prioritized
urban
village
implementation.
This
was
approved
by
a
vote
of
27
in
favor.
Six
opposed
and
one
as
abstaining
staff
agree
agrees
with
this
recommendation
on
urban
village
work,
which
is
consistent
with
a
major
strategy
of
the
general
plan
ribbon
village
implementation
has
continued
through
the
completion
of
urban
village
plans.
To
date,
13
urban
village
plans
are
approved
and
one
is
in
process
of
two
additional
villages,
have
grant
funding
and
will
be
initiated
next
year.
L
This
first
diagram
shows
the
tiers
for
rental
housing
in
order
to
determine
these
tiers
for
multi-family
rental
data
was
taken
from
co-star
and
analyzed.
Certain
areas
of
the
city
are
stronger
for
a
rental
and
may
or
may
not
be
strong
markets
for
for
sale.
For
example,
the
central
sub-area
which
includes
downtown
is
in
tier
one
for
rental,
but
tier
two
for
for
sale.
L
L
L
L
L
Prototypes
vary
in
parking
supplied,
but
all
two
to
four
unit
configurations
assume
at
least
one
parking
space
per
unit.
There
were
seven
configurations
with
two
to
four
units:
the
first,
the
stacked
four
plex
is
two
stories
with
a
single
building
with
four
units,
one
common
entrance
and
two
units
on
each
floor.
L
This
was
tested
as
both
a
condo
and
a
rental
project
and
then
attached
town
homes,
which
four
attached
town
homes
on
on
one
lot
tested
as
a
condo
and
then
very
similar
to
that
ford
attached
small
lot
single
family
units
on
one
lot
tested
as
a
condo,
then
there
were
some
additional
configurations,
analyzed
that
contain
more
than
four
units.
These
configurations
are
two
or
three
stories
and
may
have
parking
ratios
less
than
one
per
unit.
These
were
analyzed
and
added
to
the
analysis.
L
L
So
the
report
from
strategic
also
analyzed
the
affordability
of
the
configuration
tested.
The
chart
here
summarizes
the
findings
for
tier
one.
The
two
to
four
unit
configurations
that
are
feasible
in
tier
one
would
require
tenant
or
owner
household
incomes
above
100
120
percent
of
area
median
income
for
santa
clara
county.
L
However,
it
should
be
noted
that
three
stories-
the
three-story
six-plus
condo,
the
three-story
eight-plex
condo
and
the
three-story
aplex
rental
configurations-
would
be
affordable
to
moderate
income,
renters
or
home
buyers.
Those
are
who
those
are
households
that
earn
between
80
to
120
percent
ami.
L
The
configurations
highlighted
in
green
are
those
that
were
determined
to
be
feasible.
Tier
two
affordability
is
included
in
the
full
report
from
strategic
economics.
That's
figure
26.
There
are
two
feasible
configurations:
the
side
by
side,
duplex
and
the
small
lot
single
family
both
are
above
the
moderate
income
range.
L
So
the
main
financial
model
used
in
the
consultant
analysis
assumes
redevelopment
of
a
site
as
an
investment
opportunity.
However,
we
also
wanted
to
understand
other
situations,
so
this
could
include
a
case
where
a
homeowner
owns
their
property
outright,
where
there's
no
associated
mortgage
on
the
property,
or
maybe
they
own-
a
large
share
of
equity
in
the
property.
L
The
property
owner
may
not
be
interested
in
moving
but
might
want
to
add
more
units.
The
consultant
conducted
an
additional
cash
flow
analysis
using
the
rear
yard.
Duplex
rental
configuration
this
analysis.
Looked
at
an
existing
single
family
home,
adding
a
duplex
in
the
rear
yard,
using
a
cash
out
refinance
mortgage
to
finance
the
new
construction.
L
The
analysis
looked
at
all
the
associated
costs
and
revenue
and
then
predicted
what
year
the
homeowner
could
expect
to
break.
Even
the
analysis
showed
that
in
a
typical
situation
in
the
tier
one
sub-markets,
the
property
owner
could
expect
to
break
even
by
year
six
with
year,
one
being
the
start
of
construction
and
mortgage
payments.
L
This
assumes
rental
income
beginning
in
year,
two
after
the
completion
of
construction,
tier
two
properties
would
break
even
in
year.
Seven
tier
two
is
more
challenging
due
to
the
property
value,
limiting
the
potential
maximum
loan
value.
These
properties
would
break
even
in
year
14
and
would
also
require
additional
development
funding,
since
the
overall
development
cost
exceeds
the
maximum
loan
value.
L
Also
worth
noting
a
cash
flow
cash
cash
out
refinance
mortgage
is
the
most
likely
financial
product
available
to
a
homeowner
to
finance
this
type
of
project.
However,
it
isn't
necessarily
ideal
since
the
homeowner
would
need
to
show
sufficient
income
excluding
the
anticipated
rental
income
of
the
new
units
in
order
to
qualify
for
a
mortgage.
L
So
to
summarize,
the
key
findings
of
the
cost
analysis.
Overall,
there
were
several
configurations
in
specific
sub-markets
within
the
city
where
redevelopment
of
single-family
lots
into
multiple
units
is
financially
feasible.
However,
there
are
still
many
situations
where
redevelopment
is
not
financially
feasible
or
where
site
constraints
would
prevent
redevelopment
extensive
or
sweeping
redevelopment
of
single-family
neighborhoods
is
unlikely.
Given
the
findings
of
this
financial
feasibility
analysis,
this
conclusion
is
consistent
with
the
july
2021
study
released
by
the
turner
center
for
housing,
innovation
at
uc
berkeley.
L
L
However,
sb9
allows
cities
to
adopt
additional
objective
design
standards.
This
could
include
standards
to
ensure
new
units
fit
better
within
the
existing
neighborhood,
such
as
requiring
front
doors
to
be
street
facing
or
limiting
the
percentage
of
a
front
facade
that
is
taken
up
by
garage
doors.
These
are
just
two
examples.
Staff
is
recommending
development
of
these
design
standards.
That
would
then
be
brought
to
the
planning
commission
in
the
city
council
for
consideration.
L
L
If
no
action
is
taken
regarding
the
r2
zoning
district,
it
could
be
easier
to
develop
a
duplex
on
a
property
zoned
r1
sb9
does
not
apply
to
sites
within
a
historic
district
or
on
a
site
that
is
designated
historic
under
opportunity.
Housing
staff
was
considering
allowing
limited
sb9
type
projects
on
historic
properties
where
the
project
would
not
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
historic
resource
staff
is
recommending
exploring
allowing
sb9
type
projects
on
historic
properties.
L
L
L
L
So,
given
this
analysis,
staff
is
recommending
that
the
city
declined
to
move
forward
with
its
opportunity,
housing
effort
at
the
present
time
in
order
to
focus
on
implementation
of
sb9
which,
as
we
just
discussed,
required
the
city
to
allow
many
of
the
opportunity.
Housing
types
contemplated
as
part
of
the
four
year
review.
General
plan
process.
A
Yes,
hi
jared
a
couple,
quick,
hopefully
quick,
questions
under
sp9
or
under
opportunity,
housing
which
would
allow
more
potential
housing
development
within
the
city
of
san
jose
and
across
sort
of
city
or
citywide.
L
I
think
they're
pretty
similar.
I
guess
it
would
depend
on
if
you're,
if
you're
talking
about
the
task
force
recommendation
of
city-wide
opportunity,
housing
versus
sb9,
I
think
I
think
it's
hard
to
put
an
exact
number
on
it,
given
kind
of
the
unique
characteristics
of
the
lot
split
versus,
not
a
lot
split
required,
and
then
you
know
kind
of
the
the
characteristics
of
a
lot
and
then
the
financial
feasibility.
So
I
don't
know
if
we
have
a
good
answer
of
which
one
would
allow
more
per
se.
L
I
mean,
I
guess
a
simple
response
would
be
that
you
know
there
are
some
additional
configurations
like
the
stacked
fourplex
right.
That's
you
know
not
allowed
under
sb9,
but
we
were
contemplating
under
opportunity
housing.
You
know
that
that
could
be
more
affordable
but
is
also
not
was
not
found
to
be
financially
feasible.
So.
C
Yeah,
I
think
the
main
the
main
total
number
of
units
opportunity
housing
would
allow
the
same
number
of
units
as
sp
opportunity.
Housing
allowed
them
in
a
more
traditional
sort
of
multi-family,
four
bucks
or
triplex
fashion,
whereas
sp9
does
not,
as
jared
just
said,
given
the
feasibility
analysis,
we
did
the
you
know
four
plex
and
tripos
configuration.
We
wouldn't
anticipate.
That
would
be
be
built
in
more
in
many
cases.
So,
overall,
we
think
that
the
amount
of
housing
that
would
result
in
opportunity,
housing
versus
xb9
is
probably
very
similar.
A
L
That's
right
only
in
those
kind
of
larger
complexes
did
it
approach
kind
of
that
moderate
income
range
that
would
be
in
the
realm
of
you
know,
kind
of
what
we
would
consider
affordable.
C
Yeah
that
was
kind
of
disappointing,
because
I
think
the
term
missing
middle
is
used
and
missing
middle
means
missing
middle
housing,
type
like
we
don't
we
build
high
density
and
we
build
single-family
homes.
We
don't
build
much
in
between,
but
it
also
means
it's
a
missing
affordability
level
and
what
the
analysis
showed.
It's
it's
not
covering
that
missing.
Moderate
level,
housing,
affordability,
which
is
unfortunate.
C
A
Okay
and
then
my
last
question
is,
is
you've
all
mentioned
multiple
times
that
the
majority
of
housing
in
san
jose
is
zoned
r2,
do
we
and
that
sb9
really
only
applies
to
r1
but
opportunity
housing
was
contemplating
r2
and
r1.
Do
we
have?
Am
I
misunderstanding
that
you
just
shook
your
head
michael.
C
Yeah
so
opportunity
housing
was,
was
intended
to
be
or
being
considered
for
parcels
with
a
residential,
neighborhood
general
plan
designation.
So
it
wasn't
zoning.
It
was
the
general
plan.
R1
is
the
tip.
Is
the
conforming
zoning
district
to
that
land?
Youth
designation?
That
being
said,
there
are
properties
in
san
jose.
Many
places
like
where
I
live
in
north
side,
where
the
properties
are
zoned
are
two,
but
the
general
plan,
as
a
nation
is
residential,
neighborhood
yeah.
A
L
C
Yeah
and
where
those
parcels
tend
to
be
are
in
the
older
parts
of
pre-world
war,
two
parts
of
town
like
the
neighborhood
I
live
in,
which
is
north
side.
You
know
probably
around,
oh
god.
What
is
it
called?
I'm
forgetting
spacing
out.
F
G
G
No,
that's!
Okay,
and
it's
not
until
the
chair
closes
the
public
hearing.
It's
when
all
of
your
questions
of
staff,
the
public
everything
are
closed,
and
then
you
know
that
that's
the
opportunity
to
close
the
public
hearing
when
you
have
a
motion
and
then
vote
on
it,
okay
and
make
your
own
discussions
about
why
you're
voting
the
way
you
are.
If
you
desire.
F
Okay,
thank
you
for
clarifying
that.
So
I'm
just
curious
about
the
timeline
here.
I
know
commissioner
olivario
brought
it
up
during
the
study
session
and
it
was
clarified
that
city
council
really
needs
to
make
a
decision
on
december
14th
in
order
to
have
an
ordinance
in
place
by
january
1st.
So
I'm
curious,
you
know
that's
in
two
weeks.
So
how
like?
F
How
much
of
what
we
recommend
tonight
is
relevant
to
like
the
bare
bones
that
needs
to
be
in
place
before
january
1st
versus
I
know
some
of
the
discussions
we're
having
here
like
the
design
standards
you
mentioned
will
probably
take
a
full
year
to
implement.
F
M
M
I
was
gonna
say:
first
of
all,
you
guys
will
be
hearing
the
bare
bones
ordinance
next
week
too,
so
you'll
have
more
information
on
what
it
includes.
So
if
there's
anything
in
there
that
you
said
well,
this
bare
bones
ordinance
really
needs
to
include
x,
y
and
z
next
week
is
when
we're
going
to
have
that
discussion.
M
So
so
there
is
that
now
yeah,
I
would
say
you
know
you
could
give
us
lots
of
direction.
So
I
think
tonight
we
were
more
looking
for
direction
on
on
the
bigger
picture,
the
longer
term
ordinance.
That
would
be
something
we'd
be
able
to
accomplish.
As
you
said
in
this
extremely
short
time
frame,.
C
And
I
think
we're
really
also
looking
for
direction.
Is
it
do
you
agree
as
well
that
do
you
agree
and
recommend
to
city
council
that
we
put
do
not
move
forward
with
opportunity,
housing
and
instead
move
forward
and
focus
on
sb9?
F
Okay
and
then
I
don't
know
if
this
is
really
a
question
or
just
feedback,
but
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
for
the
feasibility
and
affordability
analysis
tables
that
are
in
this
presentation
if
it
also
included
kind
of
the
base
case
of
just
a
single
single
family
home
on
a
lot.
F
I
think
that,
for
the
sake
of
comparison
and
then
also
this
question's
kind
of
left
field,
I
know
it's
more
of
a
housing
department
question,
but
with
sb9
and
the
intent
of
you
know
limiting
it
to
I
mean
the
basic
content
I'm
seeing
in
this
in
the
staff
presentation
tonight
and
also
at
the
study
session
at
city
council
is,
you
know,
limiting
to
two
units
on
a
lot
and
then
you
know
subdividing
out
two
units
on
that
lot
and
making
sure
that
the
adu
ordinance
doesn't
allow
to
go
beyond
that.
C
L
I
I
can
comment
too,
but
I'd
better
prefer
to
hear
it,
but
we're
limited
on
applying
rent
control
to
new
construction.
They
have
right
has
to
be
the
older
buildings
when
we're
looking
to
apply
rent
control
so.
F
The
reason
I
ask
that
is
because
I
think
I
think
I
remember
reading
that
in
san
francisco,
their
ordinance
is
two
units
and
up
and
when
adus
were
legalized,
they
started
applying
it
to
older
construction
that
had
a
converted
adu
because
it
wasn't
considered
new
construction.
But
it
seems
like
that's,
not
really
relevant
in
san
jose,
because
our
ordinance
is
three
units
anyways
right
right.
N
Yeah,
actually,
I'm
just,
I
guess,
I'm
a
little
puzzled,
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
the
quantitative
difference
between
the
two
or
the
quantitative
number
for
either
one.
How
many
units
are
we
talking
about
you.
J
E
L
I
think,
generally
speaking,
both
allow
up
to
kind
of
four
units
on
on
a
lot,
but
it
just
comes
down
to
how
you're
able
to
configure
those
units
on
that
lot
and
then,
but
I
mean
we
generally
think
that
kind
of
the
feasibility
assessment
that
that
we
did
on
on
those
configurations
of
two
to
four
units
could
could
kind
of
be
taken
and
applied
to
senate
bill
nye,
and
to
show
that
you
know
there
are
going
to
be
cases
where
it
is
financially
feasible
to
redevelop
sites.
L
You
know
with
with
two
to
four
units,
but
that
there's
still
going
to
be
a
lot
of
cases
where
it's
not
going
to
be
financially
feasible
or
or
makes
sense.
You
know
from
from
an
investment
standpoint
to
to
redevelop
properties,
so
it
can't
really
give
you
an
answer
to
a
question
of
how
many
units
it
will
be
over
time.
You
know,
I
think
it's
that
that's
to
be
determined,
but
it
you
know
it's
really
around
just
kind
of
understanding.
What
the
potential
is.
L
L
N
No
idea
at
all
about
what
is
possible,
given
you
know,
understanding
what
our
parcels
look
like
you
know.
Any
guidance
at
all
would
be
helpful
right
now.
So
it's
hard
for
me
to
say:
well,
let's
not
do
this.
Let's
do
this!
If
we
can't
stack
the
two
and
see
the
value
of
this
over
this,
they
both
sound
very
similar
great.
N
L
Well-
and
I
think
some
of
our
recommendation-
we
are,
you-
know,
kind
of
pulling
from
opportunity
housing
a
little
bit
in
terms
of
considering
it.
You
know
it
on
r2
zoning
district
and
then
also
looking
at
it
in
you
know,
in
a
more
limited
fashion
in
historic
areas.
So
so
we
are
kind
of
pulling
from
that
a
bit.
You
know
in
terms
of
what
we're
what
we're
recommending
here,
but
I
think
you
know
it.
It
gets
hard
to
predict
over
time.
You
know
kind
of
redevelopment
and
and
and
finance
would
just.
L
We
can
only
kind
of
look
at
this.
This
current,
you
know
snapshot
in
time,
so
it's
hard
to
give
you
a
number
of
what
what
the
what
the
you
know.
True
potential
is.
C
Yeah
I
mean
it's
jared's
right,
I
think,
just
in
general,
whether
it's
opportunity,
housing
or
sp9,
we
don't
think
there's
gonna,
be
a
lot
of
difference
between
either
either
strategy,
but
I
mean
if,
if
any,
I
think
the
adus
might
be
an
indicator
of
how
many
sb9
projects
we
might
see.
So
I
mean
that's
the
closest
sort
of
indicator
we
have
and
we
you
know
we
approve
roughly
or
build
about
roughly
around
400
a
year
now
adu.
So
that
is
probably
the
the
closest
thing
we
can
point
to
this.
C
N
So
and
I'm
not
faulting
anyone
here,
but
I
think
that
that
drives
why
people
are
concerned,
because
there's
no
way
to
know
what
their
communities
might
look
like
communities
they've
already
invested
in
and
live
in
they
change.
Then
nobody
knows
how
much
so
I
I
get
their
concern
there.
I
wish
we
could.
We
could
help.
N
C
M
M
It
really
actually
depends
on
where
we
go
with
it
right
I
mean
we
do
have
a
lot
of
leeway
to
apply
standards
to
relax
our
current
standards
for
sb9
projects,
for
example.
So
if
we
were
directed
to
hey,
let's
work
on
sb9,
you
know
that's
what
we'd
be
looking
at
okay.
Well,
so
now
we've
got
the
baseline.
M
M
L
And
I
would
just
also
to
add
on
a
little
bit,
I
think
that's
that's
also
to
respond
to
your
your.
Your
comment
is
just
you
know
the
importance
of
the
design
standards
right
so
that
we're
developing
them
in
a
way
where
these
new
units
can
really
match
the
form
and
feel
of
the
neighborhood.
You
know
with
the
kind
of
concept
of
having
the
front,
you
know
front
doors
facing
out
to
the
street
so
that
you
know
it.
N
And
we'll
hear
more
about
that
in
the
next
meeting.
Is
that
right.
M
Yeah,
definitely
I
mean
somewhat
so
so
again
next
week
is
focus
mostly
on
that
just
sort
of
avoid
chaos
make
it
make
sense.
You
know
how
does
this
work
within
our
existing
standards,
but
it
definitely
will
kind
of
be
get
a
discussion
of
okay.
Well,
what
if
we
went
beyond,
but
that's
kind
of
what
we're
asking
today,
you
know:
do
you
want
us
to
really,
after
this
bare
bones,
get
into
that
really
in
deep?
How
do
we?
How
do
we
address
sb9
so
we'll
have
some
of
it
next
week,
but
not
the
full.
E
You
know
in
in
this
staff
recommendation
is
I'm
not
opposed
to
the
not
investing
more
resources
in
opportunity,
housing
and
focusing
on
sb9?
I
guess
it
I
would
ask.
Is
it?
Is
it
premature
to
develop
city-wide
standards
for
the
implementation?
Is
it
really
necessary
because,
while
the
sb9
doesn't
put
specific
requirements,
it
just
says
what
you
what
you
cannot
do
like
like
was
mentioned
right.
You
can't
you,
you
can
have
objective
standards,
but
you
cannot
put
them
so
that
they're.
E
What
would
preclude
you
know
the
two
units
being
able
to
be
built
less
than
you
know,
each
being
800
square
feet?
You
can't
require
setbacks
greater
than
you
know
four
feet,
so
I'm
interpreting
it
as
it's
just
supposed
to
work
within
the
framework
of
our
existing
standards
and
then,
as
the
applications
come
in.
E
If
we
see
the
need
to
change
our
design
standards,
then
then
we
could
look
at
it
at
that
time.
I
mean,
isn't
it
kind
of
early
to
to
decide
to
just
because
that's
basically
car
blanche
to
design
standards?
Why
shouldn't
it
just
fit
our
existing
standards
as
long
as
it
doesn't
preclude
us,
you
know
prevent
people
from
splitting
it
and
building
you
know
two
homes
or
having
two
homes
on
what
was
previously
one
home.
E
It
just
seems
premature.
M
Yeah
and
if
I
could
respond
to
that,
I
mean
I
I
absolutely
right
so
so
this
ordinance
next
week
is
not
applying
new
standards
other
than
where
sb9
eliminates
the
standard
that
we
have
to
have
something
to
refer
to
and
then
clarify
how
our
existing
standards,
where
it's
unclear,
because
there
are
a
couple
areas
where
just
given
the
configuration
of
sv9.
M
You
know
it's
not
clear
if
you
did
a
front
and
a
flag
lot,
for
example,
under
sp9
where's
that
front
setback
for
the
back
property
line,
our
current
definitions
of
property
lines
don't
really
address
that.
Well,
so
this
ordinance
would
clarify
that.
So
that
really
is
the
goal.
We
really
really
did
limit
it
to
clarifications
to
filling
in
basically
holes
in
the
zoning
ordinance
that
fsp9
left
that
we
need
to
have
an
answer
to
when
people
come
and
say.
Can
I
do
this?
M
You
know
if
our
current
standard
says
is
is
wiped
out,
but
we
need
a
lot
access.
For
example,
we
need
to
be
able
to
point
to
something,
so
we
are
very
much
proposing
and
you'll
see
again.
You'll
see
it
shortly,
but
we're
very
much
proposing
to
limit
this,
this
initial
ordinance
to
just
plugging
those
holes
in
and
explaining
how
the
existing
standards
apply,
where
it's
not
clear.
C
C
This
is
the
emergency
ordinance
gets
us
in
a
bit,
but
sv9
itself
doesn't
doesn't
necessarily
dictate
good
design,
and
so
we've
seen
a
lot
in
the
city
where
projects
have
been
built
where
there
haven't
been
good
design
standards
and
it
creates
pretty
pretty
yucky
urban,
that's
a
technical
term,
but
pretty
yucky,
streetscapes
and
yucky
urban
environment
and-
and
you
know
an
example
of
this-
is
in
the
university
neighborhood
around
san
jose
state,
where
they
had
lots
of
victorians
in
the
late
50s
and
60s
when
they
didn't
have
design
centers.
C
They
built
dingbat
apartments
that
people
are
still
complaining
about
to
stay,
how
ugly
they
are,
and
so
I
think,
I
think
what
we
want
to
do.
There's
a
lot
of
concern
out
there
in
the
community
about
sb9
housing,
and
it's
here
the
state
put
it
upon
us
for
better
or
worse,
depending
on
your
perspective,
but
we've
we
do
have
an
opportunity
to
make
it
work
better
for
san
jose
and
better
for
our
neighborhoods
by
coming
up
with
design
standards.
C
So
I
think
those
are
the
kind
of
things
that
we
think
are
important
to
get
into,
so
we
so
we
end
up
with
with
good
projects
that
come
in
and
make
the
best
of
it,
and
we've
seen
examples
of
sp9
type
projects
from
texas
that
our
consultant
is
showing
it
that
are,
that
are
horrible,
and
if
they
were
to
be
built,
people
would
go
bananas
and-
and
rightly
so
frankly,
they
just
really
detract
from
the
neighborhood.
The
quality
of
life,
the
aesthetic
yeah.
B
Okay,
we
have
commissioner
caballero
or
nellis
wise
and
young,
I'm
going
to
go
to
ornelas,
wise
and
young
and
come
back
to
caballero.
I
I
Would
it
be
possible
to
do
these
either
side
by
side
or
concurrently,
because
they
kind
of
to
figure
out
what
sb9,
what
challenges
either
homeowners
will
have
with
developing
the
site,
or
I
mean
not
meeting
the
intent
and
maybe
I
I
don't
know
holding
them
on
the
opportunity
housing
list
I
mean.
Obviously
sb9
needs
immediate
attention.
You
you
need
to
prioritize
that
because
it's
something
that
needs
to
be
done
now
and
I
understand
why
you
want
to
delay
the
opportunity
housing,
but
I
don't
want
to.
I
I
don't
want
certain
things
to
be
left
out.
You
know
I,
I
guess
that's
what
I'm
saying
I
don't
want
there
to
you
know
whatever
is
missing
there
like
one
of
the
things
that
you
mentioned
was
historical
sites
and
some
of
those
historical
properties
maybe
be
limited,
but
based
on
my
experience,
a
lot
of
those
historical
properties
or
historical
homes
have
larger
lots,
so
they
may
be.
I
You
know,
have
more
room
to
either
subdivide
and
create
a
flag
lot
or
put
additional
housing
in
the
rear
of
the
lot,
and
you
know
in
regards
to
some
of
the
design
standards
that
you're
talking
about.
I
think
that
there
should
be
some
design
standard.
You
know
exceptions,
because
every
lot
is
in
topography
is
slightly
different
and
I
know
one
of
the
staff
mentioned.
You
know
the
door
on
the
side.
I
You
know
I
don't
know,
one
of
them
might
be
a
corner
lot,
so
the
the
door
on
the
side
might
work
well,
you
know.
Sometimes
I
know
that
you
have
certain
ideas
of
certain
design
guidelines,
but
they
don't
fit
they're,
not
cookie
cutter
for
every
lot.
So
that's
that's
just
some.
I
mean
I
of
course,
would
like
to
see
design
standards,
but
I
don't
want
to
create
more
restrictions
that
would
either
prohibit,
or
you
know,
obviously
cost
to
just
develop
is
a
lot
you
know.
I
So,
obviously,
if
we
want
to
encourage
people
to
build
more
housing,
we
want
to
make
it
easy
for
people
that,
like
the
regular
folk,
not
just
the
developer,
like
a
homeowner
to
be
able
to
go
ahead
and
take
a
second
out
to
be
or
or
you
know,
a
line
of
credit
or
whatever
they're
gonna.
Do
you
know
you
really
or
even
look
into
you
know
somebody
that
already
has
an
existing
detached
garage
that
is
within,
doesn't
mean
city,
setbacks
or
something,
but
can
easily
refurbish
that
structure
and
turn
it
into
a
second
unit.
I
I
don't
want
it
to
be
so
strict,
because,
obviously
the
intent
really
of
what
we're
wanting
to
do
is
allow
people
to
to
build
more
housing.
So
I
think
it
would
be.
Okay,
obviously
sp9
needs
attention
and
you
need
to
focus
on
that.
So
I
see
and
understand
what
you're
doing,
but
just
you
know
keep
in
mind.
You
know.
Okay,
this,
we
could
put,
you
know,
opportunity,
housing
and
just
set
it
aside.
I
That's
those
are
just
my
thoughts
and
if
it
could
possibly
be
done
concurrently
or
if
there's
something
that
you
see
that
there's
a
need
missing,
because
if
you
would
delay
it
basically,
when
would
opportunity
housing
come
back
to
the
table
when
when
would
that
come
back.
C
C
So
there
is
a
little
bit
of
blending
between
the
two
we're
taking
sb9
and
we
are
adding
a
few
elements
of
opportunity
housing
to
our
sp9
approach,
but
I
mean
get
you
know,
I
think.
As
we
move
forward,
we
may
discover
new
things
or
new
opportunities
or
find
that
certain
things
aren't
working
and
we'll
have
to
adjust
and
adapt.
I
think
one
thing
that
was
really
interesting
for
me
is
you
know
again.
The
affordable
affordability
levels
were
very
disappointing
right.
You
have
to
make
a
lot
of
money
to
afford.
C
One
of
these
sb9
housings
they're
not
really
missing
middle,
but
what
we
did
find
is
the
six
plexes
and
eight
plexes
actually
kind
of
fit
that
niche
of
you
know
more
middle
class,
moderate
income
earners
where
you
could
make
less
than
a
hundred
thousand
and
be
able
to
buy
something
so
or
rent,
and
so
I
think
that's
the
housing
type
that
our
general
plan
doesn't
allow.
Much
of
sb9
doesn't
allow
that
opportunity.
C
Housing
wasn't
contemplating
that,
and
urban
villages
are
really
more
reserved
for
that
higher
density,
and
so
it's
sort
of
like
thinking
like
well
gee.
You
know
maybe
in
the
future.
We
should
start
to
think
about.
Where
could
you
allow
that?
Really?
You
know
that
more
moderate
density
to
happen,
and
that
was
kind
of
an
interesting.
I
think
finding
from
that
report
is
something
that
we
haven't
thought
a
lot
about
until
recently.
I
Thanks,
I
agree
that
the
both
r2
and
the
historic
should
be
included
somehow
so
yeah
and-
and
I
would
you
know-
I-
I
would
like
to
see
obviously
more
affordable
home
ownership
opportunities
throughout
city-wide,
and
you
know
in
different
neighborhoods,
because
I
you
know,
obviously
the
homeownership
would
help
create
a
better
quality
of
life
in
some
of
the
neighborhoods,
so
not
just
focus
on
things
that
are
rental
but
homeownership
as
well.
O
Yes,
thanks,
chair
casey,
actually
it's
a
procedural
suggestion.
I
don't
have
a
question
at
this
time.
I
I
do
have
some
comments
after
we
make
a
motion.
O
So
if
there's
other
commissioners
that
have
questions
but
then
I
think
it's
important
to
hear
from
the
public
the
the
public
members
that
that
want
to
testify
before
we
make
any
kind
of
motion.
So
just
a
suggestion.
Thanks.
B
Yeah
vera
do
we
overstep
and
were
we
supposed
to
do
public
comments
before
the
commissioner
comments.
G
Well,
the
commissioners,
I
think,
are
asking
questions
of
staff
right
and,
to
the
extent
that
they're
asking
questions
of
staff
that
should
happen
before
you
close
the
public
hearing.
But
you
know
you
can
take
the
public
comments
now,
if
you
desire
obviously
or
take
them
after
the
commissioners,
ask
some
questions
of
staff
and
they
may
have
more
questions
of
staff
once
the
public
speaks.
G
B
G
B
All
right
guys,
you
heard
vera
commissioner
montagnes.
L
So,
like
I
mean
intent,
you
would
be
put
to
the
legislature,
but
I
mean
that
the
outcome
is
that
you
know
up
to
four
units
can
be
built
on
on.
Well
really,
two
lots,
so
it
allows
up
to
two
units
to
be
built
on
a
lot
and
then
allows
a
lot
to
be
subdivided
once
and
then
you.
D
That
the
intent
of
allowing
of
basically
doing
away
with
single
family
residential
there
was
an
intent
behind
that
right
and
that
was
to
alleviate
the
affordable
housing
crisis.
Am
I
correct
or
not
am
I
misunderstanding?
What
that
intent
was.
D
That
was
the
that
was
part
of
the
intent.
Okay,
nothing
that
I'm
seeing
on
the
recommendations.
D
D
There
really
isn't
anything
that
is
going
to
alleviate
the
affordable
affordability
of
housing
in
san
jose
with
sb9,
and
I
guess
my
question
is
as
we
as
we're
having
this
discussion
and
asking
these
questions
and
making
these
recommendations
at
any
point,
is
there
going
to
be
a
component
that,
or
can
we
include
a
component
that
would
allow
us
to
say
if
x,
then
y
right?
If
you
do
this
or
if
we
allow
for
this,
then
x,
you
know
happens
right
because
right
now
I
mean
I'm
looking
at
this
and
I'm
I'm
thinking.
D
Well,
you
know
we
even
on
the
east
side,
families
you
know
making
you
know
where
I
work.
We
service
a
lot
of
these
families
that
you
know
are
having
to
live.
Multiple
people
into
in
a
household
right
and
if
the
intent
is
for
affordability,
how
are
we
going
to
get
there
by
what
we're
being
what
by
what
we're
recommending
right?
I
don't
see
anywhere
on
there
on
us
having
a
study
on
how
to
expand
affordability.
D
I
mean
is
this
coming
later
because
right
now,
as
I
see
it,
it
is
to
me
you
know,
and
it
seems
to
be
a
deterioration
of
single-family
residential
for
the
opportunity
to
make
additional
income
on
properties
without
restricting
the
affordability
of
those
units
for
individuals
in
our
community
who
are
in
need
of
being
able
to
afford
homes
so
that
people
aren't
living
in
single
family
residential
for
people
inside
one.
You
know
four
families
inside
one
household
12
families
inside
a
three-bedroom
home,
renting
out
garage
units
that
are,
you
know,
fire
hazards.
D
Like
all
of
these
things,
if
sb9
was
the
intent
was
to
create
some
affordability,
I
don't
see
it,
and
so,
as
we
have
this
discussion,
I'd
like
for
staff
to
let
me
know
how
I
need
to
how
I
find
that
in
sb9,
because
I'm
not
finding
it
based
on
the
what
was
presented
to
us
tonight.
D
So
that's
just
a
comment
I
mean,
I
don't
know
if
anybody
wants
to
address
any
of
those
things,
but
that's
my
commentary
as
staff
presents
tonight,
and
I
know
you
guys
didn't
create
sbsp9,
it's
something
that
we're
having
to
do
based
on
the
you
know
the
governor,
so
I
know
we're
trying
to
you
know:
maybe
you
know
fit,
you
know
make
it
fit,
but
I
would
hope
that
we
would
you
know,
because
we
do
talk
about
housing
equity.
D
You
know
we.
We
started
off
this
conversation,
this
presentation
by
saying
that
single
family
residential
created,
you
know
racial
inequities
and
I
don't
see
any
racial
equity
right
now
or
any
housing
equity.
Any
of
that
be
presented
on
the
table
tonight.
So
just
by
comments.
C
Yeah,
I
think
you're
right
I
mean,
I
think,
the
thought
behind
s.
Well,
I
can't
speak
to
sp9
exactly
what
they
were
thinking,
but
the
thought
between
opportunity
housing
is,
it
would
deal
with.
You
know,
kind
of
address
the
segregation
of
single
dummy
homes
and
provide
opportunities
for
people
to
live
and
all
many
different
neighborhoods.
But
the
reality
is
that
opportunity.
Housing
is
not
affordable.
Sv9
housing
will
not
be
affordable,
so
this
is
it.
D
Are
any
other
michael
are
any
other
cities
looking
at?
Maybe
I
don't
know:
are
there
any
actions
that
are
any
legal
action,
that's
being
taken
by
other
cities
with
respect
to
sb9,
to
challenge
some
of
these
components?
Or
is
it
basically
we
do
it
and
we
move
on
and
we
set
these
these
these
guidelines
or
is
there
any
other
any
and
any
other
course
of
action
that
there.
C
You'll,
let
martina
respond
to
that.
I
will
say
I
mean
you
know.
One
thing
that
the
commission
could
do
is
direct.
That
staff
explore
are
there
opportunities
to
somehow
through
sb9,
to
provide
more
affordable
opportunities?
I
know
in
portland
oregon.
They
have
something
similar
to
opportunity
housing
and
what
they've
done
there
is.
You
can
get
a
density
bonus
if
you,
if
one
of
the
units
comes
in
if
it's
restricted
an
affordability
level,
so
I
mean
I
think
it's
going
to
be,
I'm
not
going
to
say
we're
going
to
end
up
with
some
panacea
here.
C
I
think
it's
going
to
be
pretty
difficult,
but
it
could
be
something
of
the
commission's
direct
staff
to
explore.
But
did
you
have
any
comment
or
martina
on
what
other
cities
are
doing
in
terms
of
challenging
espionage?
I
don't
think
anybody's
challenging.
I
think
everybody's
scrambling
to
figure
out
how
to
get
it
done.
M
I
mean
yeah
at
this
moment.
It
is
happening
in
january
and
you
know
a
challenge
wouldn't
wouldn't
help
us
in
january
when
people
want
to
apply
for
these
permits.
So
there
is
that
I
haven't
heard
of
any
cities.
Well,
you
know
what
I
heard
I
haven't
yeah
I
haven't
had
it
heard
any
like
really
good
believable
things
of
any
cities
that
have
created
a
challenge.
Yet,
to
be
honest,
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
if
it
does
happen.
M
I
know
you
know
throughout
the
state,
there's
a
lot
of
concern
about
this
bill
and
yeah.
I
do
want
to
emphasize
if
you
look
in
the
findings
of
the
bill
and
actually
specifically
the
finding
that
applies
it
to
charter
cities
is
the
need
for
affordable
housing,
and
so-
and
I
you
know-
and
so
I,
including
an
affordable
housing
component,
would
not
be.
You
know
against
the
intended
stated
intent
of
the
bill
so
yeah.
M
G
Actually,
actually,
I'm
not
aware
of
any
cities
that
are,
but
there
are
members
of
the
public
who
want
to
challenge
it.
There's
a
rather
large
group,
in
los
angeles,
who
just
wants
to
put
an
initiative
on
the
ballot
that
does
away
with
sb9
and
they
want
to
preserve.
You
know
residential
neighborhoods,
the
way
they
are
right
now
and
that
may
have
a
lot
of
traction
actually
in
a
number
of
areas
you
know
in
in
this
in
the
state.
So
who
knows?
G
But
I
think
that
you
know
it's
a
reflection,
apparently,
according
to
the
news
that
a
number
you
know,
many
many
homeowners
do
not
want
this
type
of
subdivision
of
land
in
areas
where
they
have
lived
for
a
long
time
with
a
certain.
You
know
a
certain
manner
of
development,
and
so
I've
heard
of
of
that
possibility
happening
to
challenge.
You
know
to
get
rid
of
sb9
on
a
statewide
level
through
an
initiative.
L
I
just
wanted
to
add
just
going
back
to
kind
of
the
general
comments
around
affordability
and
I
think
what
what
we
did
find
in
the
analysis
and
that
we
talked
about.
I
mean
that
a
slight
increase
in
the
number
of
units
right
lowered
the
affordability
of
those
units.
So
I
mean
you
can
look
at
some
increased
density
to
improve
affordability
and
also
look
at
unit
sizes
as
well
to
to
have
an
impact
on
on
affordability.
So.
B
Thanks
jared
commissioner
caballero
good
question.
A
Sure,
I
guess
my
question
goes
to
something
that
commissioner
now
has
brought
up
is
what
are
the
cons
moving
forward
with
both
the
task
force,
recommendation
and
sb9
concurrently
and
as
a
government
employee,
I
totally
recognize
that
staffing
is
a
huge
concern.
Sometimes
you
know
if
that
that's
one
of
the
issues
you
know,
I
think
that
the
the
staff
recommendation
tries
to
to
blend
the
two,
but
just
if
someone
could
kind
of
talk
through
quickly,
what
are
the
cons
of
trying
to
do
together.
C
C
Based
on
the
conversations
we
had
at
the
task
force
based
on
the
number
of
neighborhood
meetings
we
had
based
on
the
emails
that
were
getting
flooded
in
our
inbox.
It
is
it's
a
very
heavy
lift
may
have
driven
one
of
our
planners
to
go,
see
a
job
elsewhere.
C
Actually,
who
was
working
on
this
so
it
yeah,
it
would
be
a
huge
lift
and
I
think
you
know
I
think
we
need
to
pick
our
battles
or
pick
our
tough
assignments,
and
I
think
we
would
recommend
moving
forward
with
sp9
with
the
sort
of
opportunity,
housing
elements
that
we
talked
about
integrated
in.
We
can
always
see
how
it's
working
and
saying
yes,
it's
working,
no,
it's
not
working
or
it
is
working,
but
we
could
do
more
here
and
then
have
a
conversation
about.
You
know
how
we
might
go
beyond
sb9
as
well.
C
We
can
also
talk
about
you
know.
As
we
talk
about
the
standards.
Are
there
things
we
want
to
open
up
more
in
the
standards
that
would
provide
more
flexibility
and
opportunities
for
sb9
housing,
but
I
think
I
think,
they're
what
we,
what
we
think
we're
going
to
find
is
so
again
we
don't
see
a
lot
of
difference
between
opportunity,
housing,
sp9
in
terms
of
production.
C
I
think
where
we
could
see.
Some
benefits
is
sort
of
in
that
next
tier
up
of
density,
and
that's
the
real
question:
we're
not
recommending
doing
that
now,
because
we
have
our
hands
full,
but
it's
the
kind
of
thing
that
council
could
say
down
the
road.
Maybe
we
should
be
exploring
some
opportunities
for
six
pluses
and
apexes
and
templexes,
and
maybe
they
belong,
for
example,
on
those
single
family,
lots
that
about
a
four-lane
arterial
like
blossom
hill,
road
or
saratoga.
C
You
know
those
are
the
kind
of,
so
those
are
the
kind
of
things
that
I
think
we
can
think
about
as
a
next
step,
once
we
get
through
implementing
sb9.
J
C
J
C
J
Okay
and
then
in
the
report,
it
doesn't
mention
any
chance
of
gentrification
or
displacement
and
on
this
topic
in
los
angeles,
historically
african
american
neighborhoods
african-american
neighborhoods,
all
the
political
leaders
were
opposing
this
because
they
felt
it
was
taking
away
from
what
was
gained
by
by
those
families,
and
I
don't
see
anything
talking
about
gentrification
or
displacement
in
the
report.
So
question
to
you:
do
you
believe
that's
a
shortcoming
or
that's
just
not
pertinent.
L
That
was
really
something
that
we
intended
to
do
as
part
of
the
the
comprehensive
work
plan
related
to
opportunity.
Housing
if
council
had
moved
forward
was
a
more
in-depth
displacement
risk
analysis.
So
this
report
was
just
responding
to
the
the
council
scope
regarding
a
cost
analysis
and
we
intended
to
do
more
work
later
on
displacement.
So
but
it
kind
of
got
interrupted
by
by
sb9
so,
but
it
wasn't
that
we
weren't
interested
in
that
or
that
we
didn't
intend
to
do
that
work
later.
J
Understood
so
for
that
content
to
be
covered
might
be
another
couple
hundred
thousand
dollars.
C
So
that's
why
we
haven't
thought
about
whether
we
should
do
a
displacement
analysis
under
sb9,
because
we
just
have
to
do
it.
There's
not
a
lot
of
options.
Here
I
mean
I
guess.
Maybe
there
could
be
some
things
that
the
city
could
do
if
it
results
in
displacement.
That's
very
possible,
but
I
mean
right
to
be
yeah
right
now,
we're
in
sort
of
the
I
don't
want
to
say
panic
mode,
martinez,
actually
pretty
she's
the
silicon
valley
expert
on
this
for
the
whole
county.
J
Thank
you
and
fair
to
say,
michael
when
something
like
this
comes
down
from
the
state
and
you've
shared
it,
but
you
you
need
to
find
resources,
meaning
staff
to
allocate
them
to
work
on
this,
and
my
guess,
is
there
weren't
spare
cycles
sitting
around
in
the
planning
department
with
nothing
to
do?
That
means
those
resources
you're
putting
on
sb9
will
be
taken
from
somewhere
else.
C
Yes,
although
I
will
say
we
do
have
a
grant
from,
I
think
it's
either
the
leap
grant
or
the
reap
grant
forget
because
they
sound
so
similar,
but
we
do
have.
Oh,
do
you
remember
martina,
I
think
it's
350
000.
We
have
a
significant
amount
of
money
that
we
can
apply
that
we
are.
Let
me
just
say
this.
We
are
confirming
right
now
that
we
can
use
that
money
for
sv9
implementation.
C
So
yes,
while
it's
true,
you
know
we're
always
short
on
resources.
The
good
news
is
that
we
do
have
funding.
That's
looking
like,
we
can
spend
an
sp9
implementation
to
hire
a
consultant.
We
even
have
a
consultant
in
mind
to
do
the
design
standards
to
help
with
community
outreach
yeah.
So
that's
good
news,
usually
we're
not
in
that
situation.
J
J
C
No
yeah,
we
lost
five
planners,
so
so
at
the
moment
there
is,
I
mean,
we're
we're
figuring
this
out
right
now.
How
we're
gonna
do
this,
but
yeah.
N
C
Mean
we're
we
are
short
staff.
We've
got
recruitments
that
are
I'm
going
on
right
now,
so
you
know
we'll
be
shifting
people
around
probably
a
more
experienced
person
to
work
on
this,
but
it's
not
that
we
can
yeah.
So
we
have
some
challenges
but
we're
working
on
it.
J
Sure
and
then,
when,
when
this
proposal
came
from
the
general
plan
task
force
to
move
forward
with
opportunity,
housing
city-wide,
it
was
noted
that
it
would
require
an
eir
some
high
level
of
work.
Besides
constituent
public
outreach.
Is
that
still
the
case
of
sb9
or
did
sb9
eliminate
the
city's
need
to
do
that.
C
M
Yeah
so
or
ordinances
that
are
strictly
limited
to
implementing
sv9
are
actually
in
sp9
exempted
from
sql.
I
will
say
that
if
our
you
know
full
sp9
implementation
is
looking
beyond
it.
So
again
the
r2
or
the
historic.
Those
components
wouldn't
be
exempted
from
sequa.
So
we
would
have
to
do
something,
but
it
wouldn't
be
that
same
level
of
oh,
my
gosh,
we're
now
allowing
all
this
more
housing.
I
mean
there's
a
different
baseline
that
we're
looking
at
the
baseline
as
the
state
already
moved
the
baseline
a
lot.
M
J
Thanks
martinez,
so
so
just
to
to
say
it
again,
if
the
city
still
wanted
to
pursue
opportunity,
housing
where
you
didn't
have
to
subdivide
a
lot
and
you
could
put
upwards
of
seven
units
on
a
single
family
lot,
you're
telling
me
that
there,
no
no
eir
work
would
need
to
be
done.
M
So
that
level
of
beyond
was
I
can't
say
that
would
be
the
case.
That's
that's
pretty
far
beyond
so
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
say
no
eir
in
that
case,
but
it
you
know
it
again.
The
baseline
is
different,
so
it
does
lessen
it.
In
any
case,
it
just
depends
on
how
far
beyond
we
decide
to
go.
G
Well
and
remember,
you
also
still
have
a
cumulative
impact
analysis
which
may
take
into
consideration
everything
that
sp9
has
allowed.
So
you
know
your
baseline
may
be
different,
but
still
your
cumulative
analysis
has
to
look
at
everything.
That's
had
that's
happening,
and
so
we
can't
say
no
eir
necessarily.
J
Okay,
I
think
that's
important
to
note
and
then
just
to
clarify
from
our
study
session
earlier
on
sb9,
I
was
under
the
assumption
based
on
sb9.
You
could
not
change
the
rear
setback,
which
today
is
20
feet
and
sb9
makes
it
4
feet,
which
is
a
huge
difference,
and
for
anyone
that's
going
to
have
that
structure
built
to
them
is
going
to
it's
going
to
be
a
big
difference.
J
M
Yes,
and
no
so
for
projects
that
strictly
conform
to
sp9,
so
those
two
unit
projects
we
would
not
have
that
ability.
We
should,
though,
if
we
say
hey
we're
implementing
sp9
and
then
some
though,
and
then
some
projects
don't
get
those
same
protections
of
setbacks
and
whatnot
under
sv9,
so
a
certain
level
of
projects
we
absolutely
have
to
allow
the
forefoot
rear
setback.
There's
no
way
around
that,
but
it's
going
beyond
that.
We
have
a
lot
more
leeway.
M
Currently
it's
unclear,
which
is
why
we're
bringing
an
ordinance
to
clarify
that
and
our
proposal
for
next
week
would
be
to
say
no
on
the
four
foot
setback.
If
you're
going
down
to
four
feet,
we
would
apply
the
existing
standard.
We
actually
have
for
accessory
dwelling
units
that
are
attached
to
a
dwelling,
which
would
be
one
story
in
height
and
20
feet
is
our
proposal
again
with
the
kind
of
just
trying
to
match
what
we
have
now.
J
So
I
apologize
so
if,
in
your
proposal
that
you
have
coming
forward
you're,
you
would
say
that
a
two-story
structure
could
would
be
stuck
at
20
feet,
not
the
first
floor.
The
first
story
at
four
feet
and
then
the
the
second
story
had
a
setback.
M
J
J
Okay,
great,
I
appreciate
that
and
michael
brio
would
love
to
see
those
photos
from
texas
that
caused
you
so
much
concern.
You
use
the
term
yucky.
I
think,
but
you
know
it'd
be
interesting
to
see
those
images.
C
L
No
they're
kind
of
these
configurations
where
they're
they're,
like
these
townhomes
kind
of
stacked,
like
kind
of
facing
sideways
and
so
you're
kind
of
looking
at
these
side
of
one
townhome
and
then
kind
of
this
driveway
it
just
doesn't
it
doesn't
really
match.
You
know
what
what
neighborhoods
are.
I
think
they
also
had
this
kind
of
in
denver.
L
I
think
when
they
were
looking
to
to
make
changes
to
single
family,
where
that
that
kind
of
became
the
predominant
like
kind
of
style
like
people
just
kind
of
applied,
you
know
started
doing
that
and
it
just
didn't.
Really.
People
were
kind
of
upset
because
it
didn't
really
match
in
in
the
neighborhood.
J
Well,
well,
considering
that
you
know
in
sb9
we
talk
about,
you,
know:
20-foot,
rear
setbacks
and
and
matching
things
that
are
you
know
where
allowed.
If
we
were
talking
about
this
the
size
and
shape
of
a
structure,
nowhere
does
it
dictate
the
materials
or
the
aesthetics,
and
so
when
you
were
saying
this
yucky
slot
houses
in
texas,
I
was
imagining
just
someone:
hey,
I'm
abiding
by
the
rules,
I'm
building
by
sb9
and
I'm
going
to
use
the
most
ugliest
materials.
You
can
imagine
that
won't
fit
in
anywhere
in
san
jose.
J
C
M
I
think
we
could.
Yes,
I
mean,
if
you
think
about
it,
so
sp9
doesn't
preclude
that
as
long
as
those
standards
are
objective
and
don't
prevent
the
projects
and
are
not
inconsistent
with
sb9
standards.
Yes,
and
thinking
about
the
kind
of
is
that
a
reduction
in
intensity,
I
mean
something
around
yeah
materials.
I
can't
see
how
you
could
argue,
that's
a
reduction
in
the
intensity,
so
that
is
something
that,
as
part
of
a
that,
you
know
developing
guidelines,
developing
design
standards
around
sv9
would
would
certainly
be
looked
at.
J
C
Yeah,
but
you
can
also
do
density
bonus
where,
if
you
get
more
density,
you
get
more
density.
If
you
agree
include
some
amount
of
affordability,
so
that
would
be
another
approach.
That's
the
approach.
My
understanding
is
that
portland
oregon
did
with
their
opportunity
housing
type
program
that
if
you
did
somehow
deed
restricting
unit,
I
don't
know
what
to
what
level.
I
don't
know
the
details,
I'm
sorry,
but
they'd
give
you
somehow
something
more.
I
don't
know
the
details
of
that,
but
but
I
think
for
an
affordability
program
for
sb9.
C
J
And
then
in
the
staff
recommendation
it
mentions
r2
zoning
as
well
as
historic
conservation
areas
does.
Is
there
a
map
for
that.
C
M
I
mean
look,
I
mean
the
r2,
we
don't
have
a
map
that
specifically
calls
it
out
right.
Of
course
we
have
our
zoning
map
online.
You
can
look
for
the
color,
but
we
do
believe
we
had
at
some
point
and
put
on
our
website
and
mapped
the
historic
properties.
Let
me
look
and
see
if
I
can
find
it
one.
Second.
J
Know
being
that
that
might
take
time
to
find
I'm
happy
to
you
know
let
someone
else
go.
Thank
you,
chair.
M
In
order
to
subdivide,
you
need
to
start
with
at
least
2400
square
feet,
but
to
build
a
project.
There's
no
minimum
lot
size.
So
if
you,
whatever
you
have
now,
you
can
build
the
two
units
on
and
then
whatever
you
have
now,
as
long
as
it's
more
than
2
400
square
feet,
you
can
sub
divide
or
2400
or
more
square
feet
or
more.
You
could
subdivide
yeah,
it's
quite
small.
M
It's
down
to
1200,
so
it
specifies
that
you
can't
go
less
than
1200.
So
that's
how
you
get
to
that.
You
know
you
got
to
start
with
at
least
2
400
to
get
down
to
1200,
but
yeah.
It's
actually
1200
square
feet,
which
is
quite
small.
I
And
you
know,
I
know
that
we
mentioned
materials
right
now.
I
know
that
construction
cost
recently
has
tripled
because
of
covid
and
that
even
building
materials
are
hard
to
come,
come
by
at
least
it
delays
pro
construction
projects
right
now.
So
that's
just
something
to
take
into
consideration
when
you're
writing
all
this
up,
it
does
sp9
have
any
owner
occupy
deed
restrictions
at
all.
M
So
the
only
restriction
in
sb9
is
the
requirement
that,
if
you're
going
to
subdivide
the
lot,
you
have
to
attest
that
you
plan
to
live
there
for
three
years,
not
that
you're
actually
going
to
live
there
for
three
years.
You
just
have
to
tell
us
that
you
plan
to
live
there
for
three
years
and
then
actually
the
bill
specifies
that
cities
cannot
adopt
any
additional
owner
occupancy
requirements
beyond
that.
So
that
is
the
only
requirement
that
is
there.
It
only
applies
to
the
subdivided
lot.
I
And
so,
okay,
I'm
just
thinking,
because
I
know
that
there's
some
single
family
r1
lots
that
have
a
zero
lot
line,
so
they
would
still
have
to
adhere
to
the
rear.
Four
lock
four
foot.
I
I
That
may
be
less
than
4
000
square
foot.
You
know
if
they
want
to,
because
the
lot
is
small
and
maybe
their
house
is
already
on
the
lot
and
if
they'd
want
to
build
a
second
story,
you
know
maybe
kind
of
like
a
a
second
story:
duplex,
I'm
just
thinking
out
loud
here
yeah.
Let
me
clear
your
setback
for.
I
M
For
the
second
story,
we
are
proposing
to
maintain
the
20
foot.
Rear
setback
is
our
proposal,
which
is.
I
M
I
Yeah
I
mean
I,
I
do
believe
in
neighborhood
preservation,
you
know
and
and
all
that,
but
I
think
also
compatibility
with
what's
already
existing
in
there
would
be
key.
So
that's
why
I
think,
if
there's
some
design
guidelines,
there
should
just
be
some
built-in.
You
know
exceptions
to
the
rule,
because
these
different
other
lots
exist
throughout
the
city
or
development.
I
F
Yeah
so
earlier,
commissioner
olivario
brought
up
displacement
and
I
believe
it
was
covered
in
the
study
session.
That
sp9
does
have
some
anti-displacement
provisions
included
martina.
Could
you
go
over
those
again.
M
Yeah,
so
it
you
can't
alter
demolish
rent-controlled
units
units
where
the
ellis
act
has
been
exercised
to
take
it
off
the
rental
market
units
that
are
already
deed,
restricted
as
affordable.
All
three
of
those
don't
kick
in
until
you
get
to
the
three
triplex
or
more
or
you
can't
alter
or
demolish
units
that
have
been
rented
within
the
last
three
years
that
have
had
a
renter
within
the
last
three
years.
F
E
So,
just
to
clarify
regarding
the
historic
property
criteria,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
this
is
part
of
the
bill.
This
is
not
the
staff's
recommendation
that
it
not
be
allowed
on
historic
properties,
correct.
M
M
Yeah,
so
I
mean
that's
what
we're
asking
the
commission
tonight.
Do
you
want
to
recommend
that
we
do
that
as
part
of
the
do
you
want
to
recommend
we
shift
from
opportunity
housing
to
sb9
and
then
do
you
want
to
do
you
want
to
recommend
that
I
mean
our
recommendation
is
yes,
we
should
explore
that
and
you
know
do
you
want.
Do
you
guys
agree?
You
want
to
direct
us
to
do
that.
That's
kind
of.
E
One
of
the
questions
does
an
sb9
say
that
that
that's
one
of
the
criteria
that
that's
not
allowed,
so
I
mean
it-
wouldn't
really
be
locally
at
local
discretion
agency
discretion.
Would
it.
M
We
can
allow
all
types
of
projects
using
our
own
local
zoning
powers,
so
this
would
be
not
using
sp9,
but
this
would
be
using
our
own
powers
as
a
city
to
allow
someone
to
say
do
a
two
unit
project
on
a
property
to
say:
hey,
yeah,
we're
using
sb9
standards
and
applying
it
ourselves
using
our
own
zoning
ordinance.
B
I
I
agree
that
you,
you
should
put
historical,
I
mean
obviously
not
demoing
the
historic
structure,
but
because
these
lots,
like
especially
in
the
downtown
area
near
san
jose
state
in
pacific,
because
there's
been
such
a
need
for
affordable
housing
for
students,
I
mean
it
would
be
nice
to
see
that
these
larger
lots
have
other
units
in
the
rear
of
the
lot.
Maybe
you
could
create
some
design
standards
to
that
effect.
I
I
just
because
I
see
that
there's,
obviously
a
high
concentration
of
historical
properties
in
the
downtown
core
and
those
are
larger
lots,
and
you
know
that
there's
you
know
obviously
multi-families
and
also
students,
and
because
of
those
needs.
I
I
think
that,
as
long
as
you
preserve
the
historical
character
of
those
neighborhoods
by
not
demoing
those
existing
historic
structures
by
allowing
it
in
the
rear
I'd
be
in
favor
of
that.
B
J
B
K
Earlier
today
I
attended.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
Earlier
today,
I
attended
this
commission
study
group
on
sb9.
In
it
it
was
said
that
the
city
planning
department
had
determined
that
historic
districts
and
conservation
districts
were
not
subject
to
sb9
laws,
but
I
see
that
the
agenda
tonight
includes
a
recommendation
that
the
city
permit
sb9
units
to
be
built
in
these
districts.
K
K
They
can
never
be
replaced,
they
are
the
heart
of
the
city
and
what
makes
it
unique
sb9
does
not
allow
for
anything
other
than
objective
standards,
which
means
that
you
need
to
protect
these
these
areas
initially
until
you
get
a
sense
of
what
the
real
effects
of
sb9
are,
especially
since
sp30
sorry,
sp
330
does
not
allow
for
down
zoning
once
you
open
up
conservation
and
historic
districts,
there
is
no
going
back.
K
K
Do
not
allow
permissive
and
yucky
design
standards,
which
you
can't
walk
back.
Please
do
not
open
these
neighborhoods
to
sb9
at
all,
but
if
you
must
then
at
least
wait
until
the
dust
settles.
Please
take
this
slowly.
Other
cities
are
implementing
urgency,
ordinances
ordinances
that
are
astringent
as
possible.
A
A
I'm
calling
in
to
support
the
staff's
recommendation
to
focus
on
the
implementation
of
sb9
and
ask
that
the
commission
also
add
a
referral
to
study
additional
incentives
or
other
programs
to
support
greater
levels
of
affordability
for
these
buildings,
and
I
do
just
want
to
say
that
I
lived
in
the
hensley
neighborhood
the
entire
time
I
lived
in
san
jose
and
many
of
those
historic
buildings.
A
I
I
Please
limit
the
impact
of
what
you're
doing
it
is
irreversible
in
the
historic
districts
and
any
other
place
in
the
city.
I
do
not
support
that.
We
look
at
sbi
for
r2
zoning
or
sb9
in
the
historic
districts.
Let's
try
it
first
at
four
units,
only
in
our
neighborhoods
and
see
how
it
goes
realize
this
is
irreversible.
I
I
Q
Good
evening,
commissioners,
corey
smith,
with
the
housing
action
coalition,
we're
a
regional
nonprofit
that
advocates
for
more
homes
for
everybody
around
the
entire
bay
area
and
state,
I'm
in
support
of
opportunity,
housing
and
honestly
think
that
san,
jose
and
and
everywhere
else
around
the
region
just
needs
to
build
a
lot
more
housing.
Q
It's
really
important
for
so
many
reasons,
but
what
I
actually
want
to
do
is
tell
you
a
story
about
our
dinner
table
last
night,
my
partner's
parents
just
drove
across
the
country
and
they
were
trying
to
help
take
care
of
their
other
daughter's
newborn
and
they
were
leaving
modesto
and
driving
into
the
bay
area
and
noticed
huge
numbers
of
single-family
track
homes
under
construction
just
west
of
modesto
and
when
no
housing
gets
built
in
places
like
san
jose,
san
francisco
and
other
cities
in
the
urban
core.
Next
to
jobs.
Q
Q
The
result
is
co2
emissions
that
are
an
existential
threat
to
our
planet
and
I
think
a
lot
about
the
world
that
we're
going
to
leave
future
generations
and
if
we
don't
build
housing,
you
are
really
really
harming
the
next
generation
and
the
generations
after
that,
and
so
please
be
thoughtful
when,
when
you
make
these
decisions
and
think
about
the
type
of
place,
we
want
to
leave
our
kids.
Thank
you.
N
Yes,
good
evening,
commissioners
and
staff
matthew
reed
from
silicon
valley
at
home.
We
are
a
member
of
the
san
jose
neighborhoods
for
all
coalition.
N
That
has
been
involved
in
advocating
for
opportunity
as
and
I'm
I'm
here
to
say
that
we
support
staff's
recommendation
to
shift
to
sb9
implementation
when
you
look
side
by
side,
you've
seen
some
of
it
here,
a
lot
of
what
was
discussed
as
the
potential
of
opportunity.
Housing
has
been
addressed
by
state
law.
N
The
recommendations
of
the
task
force
that
it
be
city-wide
that
it
include
protections
for
lower-income
rental
units
are
included
in
the
state
law.
The
state
law
acknowledges
the
importance
of
historic
responsiveness,
which
was
also
in
the
task
force
recommendations,
and
so
we
think
that
there's
work
that
can
be
done
and
and
we're
pleased
to
see
that
staff
is,
is
ready
to
lean
in
to
the
implementation
process.
N
Nobody
ever
said-
and
I
apologize
to
those
folks
that
were
misled
by
some-
that
the
intent
of
this
was
a
market
driven
policy
that
would
create
affordability
at
levels
of
of
100
of
the
area
median
income.
This
was
never
an
affordable
housing
program.
It
was
an
opportunity
to
expand
the
the
range
of
price
points
in
different
neighborhoods
in
different
parts
of
the
city,
and
we
knew
it
was
going
to
address
upper
middle
income
households.
N
I'm
sorry
I've
been
muted.
Can
you
hear
me
thumbs
up?
My
last
point
was
just
that
we
do
have
public
investment
already
in
first-time
homebuyer
programs.
Whether
or
not
these
programs
are
positioned
right
now
to
facilitate
a
different
type
of
housing
option,
it's
something
that
should
be
pursued.
N
R
I
think
it's
no
surprise
that
my
primary
concern
is
the
preservation
of
the
existing
housing
stock
that
characterizes
the
city,
not
just
because
it's
historic,
but
because
it's
providing
what
is
essentially
the
lion's
share
of
affordable
housing
in
single-family
neighborhoods,
and
we
talk
about
historic
districts
like
hensley
that
are,
you
know,
made
up
of
large
victorians,
but
we
don't
want
to
lose
sight
of
the
smaller
houses
that
also,
you
know,
create
a
very
important
historic
districts,
like
you
know,
like
martha
gardens
or
guadalupe
washington,
more
vernacular
workers,
houses
that
need
to
be
preserved.
R
If
you
know
the
the
challenge
of
affordable
price,
affordable
housing
is
build
more
and
and
don't
tear
down
what
we
already
have
and
our
biggest
concern,
and
I
think
it's
shared
by
the
commission.
I
don't.
I
don't
think
that
we're
bringing
a
new
concern
is
we
don't
want
to
incentivize
the
demolition
of
the
housing
that
is
already
contributing
to
our
you
know
our
livability,
and
so
we
definitely
support
staff's
recommendations
to
focus
on
sb9.
R
R
There's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
work
to
be
able
to
put
down
the,
I
think,
appropriate
protections
that
make
sure
that
we're
not
displacing
or
demolishing
the
housing
stock,
not
in
you
know,
hensley
and
and
in
rose
garden
exclusively,
but
all
across
the
city,
that's
composed
of
historic
and
older
houses
that
are
really
important
to
keep
thanks.
B
S
Somebody
needs
to
be
muted,
I
think,
moving
right
along.
I
would
like
to
say
that
I
am.
Can
you
hear
me
because
the
clock
isn't
budging?
We
can
hear
you.
Thank
you
very
much
I'd
like
to
say
I'm
in
full
support
of
all
three
recommendations
made
by
staff
and
full
disclosure.
I
am
part
of
a
statewide
organization
that
reviewed
sb9
and
sb10
in
detail,
and
we
found
it
to
be
a
strong
bill.
We
recommended
support.
We
did
speak
with
sponsors
of
the
bill
throughout
the
state
and
we
had
some
considerable
land
use.
S
Expertise
on
our
group
and
the
first
thing
we
asked
was
adus
and
we
were
told
no
two
plus
two
equals
four.
The
issue
of
whether
ads
adus
are
allowed
remains
firmly
under
local
control.
Our
next
question
was
displacement,
because
half
of
this
group
are
homeless.
Advocates
are
advocates
on
behalf
of
homelessness
and
of
the
extremely
low
income,
so
the
issue
of
displacement
was
really
what
we
spent
the
most
time
on.
We
found
these
provisions
to
be
excellent.
We
viewed
this
bill,
there's
no
one
bill
that
solves
everything.
S
We
viewed
this
as
a
bill
that
is
narrow
in
scope.
We
didn't
view
it
as
curing
affordability
or
even
having
a
huge
impact.
We
did
believe
it
would
fill
a
particular
niche
that
is
gaping
in
the
housing
market
now,
while
the
results
on
affordability
are
disappointing
in
santa
clara
county,
it's
not
that
way
throughout
the
state.
It's
going
to
vary
very
much
from
region
to
region,
and
there
were
folks
in
southern
california
that
thought
that
they
would
dip
easily
into
moderate
income
levels,
even
if
it
exceeds
the
120
percent
average
median
income.
S
There
is
still
a
niche
above
that
that
needs
housing
and
when
they
are
housed,
it
reduces
the
pressure
of
affordability
on
other
units.
So
I
ask
you
to
please
look
closely
at
staff
remark.
I
am
very
excited
about
the
possibility
of
community
engagement
as
we
explore
what
needs
to
be
added,
and
I
hope
you
will
take
your
time
as
one
of
the
commissioners
recommended
do
what
you
need
to
do
to
clarify
immediately
and
I'll.
Read
the
ordinance
carefully
again,
please
support
staff
recommendation.
Thank
you
so
much
staff
for
the
excellent
presentation.
P
P
You
know,
I
know
we
would
all
love
for
this
housing
to
be
more
deeply
affordable,
but
we're
still
talking
about
options
that
are
going
to
be
25
to
40
percent,
lower
cost
of
the
median
home
in
santa
clara
county,
which
I
think
is
really
significant
progress
without
investing
a
single
dollar
of
public
money,
we're
talking
about
middle-income
homeownership
opportunities
that
are
sorely
lacking
today.
San
jose
needs
this
model
of
housing
production,
which
has
historically
been
a
key
part
of
creating
some
of
the
most
inclusive
and
beloved
neighborhoods
around
california.
P
That
said,
this
definitely
isn't
a
panacea.
We
shouldn't
stop
here.
I
think
recommendation
three
is
a
great
common-sense
expansion
of
the
policy
and
would
also
encourage
a
study
of
additional
incentives
and
programs
that
are
possible
to
support
greater
levels
of
affordability,
portland's,
small
scale
density
bonus
is
a
great
model
and
there
are
a
lot
of
other
tools
that
could
be
brought
to
bear
to
to
make
this
policy
even
better.
P
S
Yes,
good
evening,
I
hope
the
planning
commission
protects
historic
districts
and
conservation
areas
that
tell
san
jose's
history.
Through
its
architecture,
these
areas
have
character,
defining
features
such
as
front
setbacks,
detached
garages
in
the
backyards
and
porches.
All
that
make
friendly
and
safer
neighborhoods
and
permitted
adus
are
already
being
permitted
in
neglige
park,
a
conservation
area
even
two
adus
over
new
garages.
S
So
we
we
are
adding
housing.
I
haven't
heard
anything
about
the
expansion
of
utilities,
waters,
sewer
utilities,
adequate
parking
that
would
go
along
to
support
all
this
new
housing.
So
that
to
me,
that's
a
concern.
My
house
in
egli
park
has
a
very
narrow
driveway.
I
I
don't
see
how
you
could
turn
around
in
it
to
exit
or-
and
I
can't
back
up
in
it.
S
I
know
some
houses
are
large
and
you
know
it
could
expand
into
more
housing,
but
a
lot
of
them
are
much
smaller
than
what
we've
heard
about
in
the
50s.
The
shoebox
apartments
were
built
in
magley
park
and
they
are
still
with
us
and
as
planner
brio
said,
you
know
they
are
un
unpleasant
to
look
at
and
certainly
don't
match
anything
there's
nothing
about.
There's
no
guarantee
there
will
be
any
guidelines
or
any
policies
about
matching
the
or
complementary
architecture
for
these
units,
and
that
would
be
a
concern
of
mine.
S
We
should
be
very
proud
of
our
bungalow
and
victorian
heritage
and
not
demolishing
them
or
damaging
its
appearance.
Thank
you.
E
I,
like
the
pierre
luigi's,
shout
outs,
it
was
funny,
but
now
we
don't
need
more
housing,
there's
not
enough
electricity,
water.
The
natural
gas
has
been
banned
once
again
that
where's
the
expansion
of
the
infrastructure,
like
the
previous
caller
said.
Where
are
we
going
to
park
our
cars?
Where
are
we
going
to
put
our
garbage
cans
like
there's,
not
enough
room
that
you
cannot
reinvent
the
wheel?
It
was
designed
to
be
single
family
dwellings.
That's
why
that's
why
people
moved
here?
That's
why
they
bought
the
house.
E
That's
why
the
houses
are
worth
what
they're
worth,
because
you
actually
have
a
small
plot
of
land
to
enjoy.
I
mean
remember
when
the
monster
home
craze
hit
and
willow
glen.
They
were
building
these
ridiculous
mansions
in
the
track.
Mansion
look
in
the
middle
of
quaint
willow,
glen,
look
like
crap,
it
still
does,
and
this
is
a
city
that
will
sight
you
for
a
flagpole,
that's
an
inch
too
high
or
a
shed
and
all
of
a
sudden
they're
going
to
have
this
come
to
jesus
moment
and
try
to
build
adus.
E
Hence
what
these
are
called
casitas
in
the
back
come
on
man
they're,
not
gonna,
they're,
not
gonna,
be
able
to
handle
that
they,
their
code
enforcement.
Isn't
about
that!
It's
about
finding
people
regulating
people
that
you
won't
be
able
to
get
one
built.
The
way
that
this
city
does,
I
feel
it
it'll
be
like
trying
to
build
in
manhattan,
it'll,
be
so
difficult,
you'll
see,
it'll,
be
a
joke.
There's
not
enough
police
there's,
not
enough
fire
departments.
E
There's
not
enough
of
anything,
and
this
city
wants
to
pack
more
people
into
the
suburbs
they're
completely
out
of
their
minds.
You
know
where
they
need.
You
know
what
they
need
to
pack
people
into
downtown
because
nobody
lives
down
there.
I
don't
even
know
if
they
even
live
in
the
houses
down
there.
No
one's
living
in
those
high
rises
figure
it
out,
there's
a
bunch
of
empty
storefronts
everywhere.
Why
don't
you
turn
those
into
opportunity,
housing
and
condo
coffins
or
whatever
your
people
are
crazy?
You
shouldn't
do
it.
It's
not.
P
Mike
savage
preservation,
action
council:
I
appreciate
staff's
comment
that
six
to
eight
plexes
get
closer
to
affordable
housing,
but
it's
truly
sad
that
there
is
no
strategy
by
the
state
or
unfortunately,
even
at
the
local
level,
to
provide
more
affordable
housing.
So
our
kids
and
frontline
workers
can
can
live
here.
P
Pax
sees
the
commission's
need
to
approve
staff's
recommendation
on
items
number
one
and
two,
but
with
everything
the
city
is
scrambling
to
do
to
be
ready
for
january
first
question:
they
need
to
do
item
number
three
now,
given
that
the
state's
allowance
for
the
city
to
prepare
design
standards
that
will
enable
better
outcomes,
perhaps
or
separating
off
the
r2
designation
from
the
historic
places
makes
sense.
I
do
have
a
question
about
the
staff's
expectation
of
legal
challenges
to
sb9.
P
You
know,
I
think,
of
the
example
of
the
sellers
of
solar
panels
that
get
a
lien
on
a
home
and
then
something
happens
and
a
sale
is
forced.
I'm
thinking
of
our
seniors,
who
own
their
homes,
have
owned
them
for
a
long
time.
Maybe
don't
have
an
assessment
of
the
true
value
of
the
home
or
members
of
the
community
with
english
as
a
second
language
being
taken
advantage
of,
I'm
surprised
to
see
some
of
the
areas
fall
into
the
tier
two.
P
I
live
in
amaden
valley
and
I
was
shocked
that
it
wasn't
tier
one.
I
really
think
that
the
analysis
to
pick
actual
representative
neighborhoods
and
model
these
for
what
the
outcome
is
and
if
a
development
does
exceed
utility
capacity.
Who
pays
for
that?
Thank
you.
Q
Hi
commissioners,
my
name
is
vince
rocha,
I'm
with
the
silicon
valley,
leadership
group,
the
senior
director
of
housing
and
community
development.
I
sat
on
the
general
plan
task
force.
I
also
voted
in
favor
of
expanding
opportunity,
housing
city-wide,
I'm
also
speaking
in
favor
now
of
staff
recommendation
to
focus
on
sv9
implementation.
Q
I
will
add
that
I
want
to
ensure
that
this
implementation
is
good
faith.
I
believe
there's
great
comments
from
commissioners
on
how
we
can
maybe
reduce
costs
of
development
to
ensure
that
these
opportunities
can
be
even
more
affordable.
But
I
will
remind
the
commission
that
in
santa
clara
county
right
now,
according
to
the
california
association
of
realtors,
you
need
to
make
at
least
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
as
a
family
unit
to
afford
a
home
in
santa
clara
county
right
now.
I
believe
most
of
the
tier
one
models
were
below
that
amount.
Q
I
I
I
ask
you
to
consider
the
historic
properties,
because
I
know
I
heard
several
comments
about
how
these
are
larger
lots.
Not
all
of
them
are,
but
many
were
built
as
r1.
Some
have
been
legally
converted
to
multi-units
over
the
years.
Then
I
ask
you
to
minimally
defer
allowing
historic
properties
until
you
create
design
standards
that
specifically
address
keeping
a
design
cohesiveness
within
a
historically
character.
Neighborhood,
keep
it
within
the
historic
character
of
neighborhood.
I
Obviously,
not
demoing
historical
property
has
been
mentioned
by
council,
commissioner
on
tanya's,
but
if
you
don't
expressly
disallow
demoing
a
historic
property
in
a
home,
I
think
you
open
an
unfortunate
door
to
rich
investors
to
buy,
demolish
and
develop
housing
to
generate
income.
That
is
not
the
intent
of
this.
Our
map
of
the
historic
resources
is
woefully
inadequate,
as
proved
by
a
lack
of
having
a
historic
preservation
officer
in
san
jose
for
many
years
as
a
duplex
property
owner
zero
property
online
to
commercial.
I
N
Thank
you
very
much.
I'm
tobin
gilman,
I'm
with
a
community
based
organization
called
families
and
homes
san
jose.
I
just
want
to
echo
some
of
the
comments
that
other
callers
have
already
made
number
one.
I
support
the
staff's
recommendation
to
put
opportunity
housing
on
the
shelf
and
focus
on
senate
bill
nine.
So
I
support
that.
I
would
encourage
you
to
not
recommend
extending
senate
bill
nine
to
historic
districts.
N
Let's
leave
that
that
tiny
little
fraction
of
our
city
alone
and
not
mess
with
that,
and
also
I
recommend
I
would
ask
you
to
not
recommend
extending
senate
bill
nine
into
our
two
areas.
One
reason
just
a
pragmatic
reason
is:
the
council
has
a
lot
on
its
plate
in
december.
It's
got
redistricting.
N
It's
got
charter
review,
commission
a
whole
lot
of
other
things
and
the
more
complexity
you
add
to
your
recommendations,
the
slower
it's
going
to
get
and
then
finally,
somebody
asked
about
challenges
to
senate
bill
9.,
I'm
not
aware
of
any,
but
I
am
aware
of
a
ballot
initiative.
That's
been
proposed
and
recommended
and
approved
by
the
attorney
general,
the
state
attorney
general,
and
it's
now
in
the
petition
gathering
phase
and
essentially
it
would
restore
local
control
over
zoning
and
planning
decisions.
N
N
P
Hello,
thank
you
for
putting
all
this
together,
so
I
am
speaking
in
favor
of
the
adoption
of
sb9.
Basically,
single-family
homes
are
quite
possibly
the
the
most
expensive
type
of
housing
we
have
in
the
bay
area,
and
I've
lived
in
the
bay
area,
my
entire
life
and
it's
shocking
to
see
just
how
expensive
it's
gotten
in
the
past
10
years.
P
P
Yesterday
is
kind
of
a
dense
housing,
so
the
apartments
that
may
not
look
so
good.
Those
are
kind
of
the
apartments
today
that
provide
the
cheapest
rent,
and
I
know
because
I
lived
in
some
of
those
in
in
college
and
even
that
that
was
extremely
expensive,
but
it's
nothing
compared
to
like
the
new
construction.
P
P
Hi
there
I
want
to
say
first
off,
thank
you
very
much
to
the
staff
for
putting
together
this
presentation
and
all
the
work
you're
doing
on
this,
and
also
thank
you
to
the
commission
for
your
your
thoughtful
comments
and
your
questions
there's
a
lot
to
unpack
here
again
my
name
is
corey
wobach,
I'm
with
silicon
valley
at
home
and
the
silicon
valley,
home
action
fund,
and
we
are
really
proud
members
of
the
neighborhoods
for
all
coalition.
P
This
sv
at
home
action
fund
was
a
really
proud
supporter
of
fsp9.
We're
really
glad
that
it
passed
and
s
via
home
has
been
a
really
strong
supporter
of
opportunity
housing.
Now
that
sb9
has
been
passed,
we
are
in
agreement
with
a
lot
of
people
who
maybe
were
opposed
to
opportunities,
were
in
agreement
with
the
staff
recommendation.
P
Just
allowing
a
duplex
relying
lock
split
on
its
own
is
not
the
end
of
the
of
solving
the
problem.
It's
a
piece
of
the
puzzle,
though
there
have
been
other
bills
passed
over
the
last
few
years
in
sacramento
that
we
also
supported
bills
to
protect
renters
from
rent
gouging,
especially
for
cities
that
don't
have
rent
stabilization
like
san
jose
bills,
to
expand
production
and
preserve
the
existing,
affordable
housing
that
we
have
so
sb9
again
is
just
a
piece
of
that
puzzle.
Now.
P
What
san
jose
has
is
an
opportunity
to
figure
out
what
kind
of
policies
to
pursue
take
the
time
let
staff
take
the
time
we
know
they're
short
staffed
right
now.
Take
the
time
to
figure
out
how
to
do
that,
whether
that's
additional
streamlining,
whether
that's
additional
density
in
exchange
for
affordable
units,
so
that
it
pencils
out
or
working
with
other
financial
partners
or
other
resources
to
provide
funding
to
people.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
Q
Hello,
my
name
is
neil
park
mcclintic
and
I'm
the
president
of
cupertino
for
all.
We
advocate
for
inclusive
and
diverse
neighborhoods,
as
well
as
accessible
and
high
frequency,
transit
use
and
affordable
housing,
I'm
not
from
san
jose.
Although
I
do
spend
a
lot
of
my
life
in
san
jose,
I
go
to
san
jose.
Very
often,
I
go
to
a
lot
of
the
historic
neighborhoods
very
often,
but
I
would
ask
that
this
commission
support
the
most
ambitious
form
of
sb9
as
someone
who's
from
a
city
where
that
would
never
happen.
Q
I'm
pretty
sure
that
my
city
council
is
going
to
do
everything
it
can
to
limit
the
effect
of
sb9,
potentially
even
to
the
point
of
being
sued
by
the
state.
I
guess
the
case
I'd
make,
for
you
is
just
don't
be
my
city
be
better
than
that.
Right
like
this
is
an
opportunity
to
help
solve
a
particular
affordability
level,
and
there
is
no
sitting
city
council
member
who's
going
to
support
something
that
allows
you
to
just
bulldoze
entire
historic
neighborhoods.
Q
That's
just
not
happening
and
to
suggest
that
would
happen
is
just
nonsense,
so
I
will
leave
it
at
that.
Thank
you.
A
G
A
A
So
please
implement
local
control
so
that
we
can
manage
things
here
on
our
own
instead
of
the
state
level
and
and
stop
all
the
work
on
opportunity
housing
now.
Thank
you.
I
yield
my
time.
P
Good
evening,
commissioners,
I
just
want
to
second
the
comments
made
by
my
friend
ali
rico
and
urged
the
support
of
sbe9
implementation
everywhere,
including
in
historic
districts.
Far
from
these
claims
that
sp9
will
damage
historic,
neighborhoods
and
areas.
Sb9
and
multi-family
housing
in
general
will
enhance
them
and
will
allow
more
neighbors
to
experience
these
places
that
we
all
love
and
value.
P
P
The
real
threat
to
our
neighborhoods
is
not
additional
density
or
buildings
that
look
a
little
bit
different.
The
real
threat
is
the
loss
of
those
who
make
this
area
such
a
wonderful
place
to
live,
and
then
lastly,
I'd
just
like
to
say
that,
despite
the
comments,
you
know,
certain
comments
made
earlier.
P
Increasing
our
housing
stock
decreases
housing
prices.
Overall,
it
allows
us
to
use
public
money
to
subsidize
those
who
need
the
most
help
rather
than
subsidizing
the
middle
class,
and
it
not
only
allows
new
neighbors
to
move
in,
but
it
helps
keep
our
communities
intact
by
allowing
people
our
friends,
our
family
living
here
already
to
be
able
to
stay.
So.
Thank
you.
So
much
really
appreciate
your
time
tonight.
I
hope
you
go
with
staff's
recommendation
thanks.
So
much.
A
A
Every
day
the
law
foundation
hears
from
residents
who
face
displacement
from
san
jose
this
year,
nearly
75
of
my
foundation's
housing,
clients
were
people
of
color
and
more
than
60
percent
were
women.
We
were
proud
to
support
the
general
plan
task
force's
recommendation
for
city-wide
opportunity,
housing
as
a
means
to
uphold
the
fair
housing
act
by
dismantling
systemic
inequities
that
segregate
and
divide
our
community,
and
we
supported
the
recommendation
to
study
making
city-wide
opportunity
housing
affordable.
While
we
were
excited
to
see
the
passage
of
sb9.
A
A
As
you
consider
this
issue,
keep
in
mind
that
we
are
not
talking
about
housing
units,
we're
actually
talking
about
people,
so
when
neighborhoods
blanket
reject
multiplex
housing,
they're,
actually
rejecting
the
people
who
live
in
those
homes
perpetuating
historically
rooted
segregation
patterns.
This
is
not
a
housing
crisis.
This
is
an
equity
crisis.
We
therefore
urge
you
to
lead
the
effort
to
expand
affordability,
both
for
affordable
home
ownership
and
rent
to
the
local
implementation
of
sd9.
A
Hello,
I'm
sherry
taylor
and
I
live
in
ugly
park.
I
am
really
hoping
that
you
will
reject
this.
Having
us
having
nagley
park
become
a
place.
S
That
will
be
lose
its
livability,
so.
A
That
what
they
really
are
looking
for
are
places
to
buy.
So
I
agree
with
tobin
that
you
should.
You
know
just
wait
to
way
too
involved
in
sb9.
We
need
to
keep
control
at
the
local
level.
Thank
you.
A
A
Okay,
it
looks
like
paul
is
not
on
the
call,
so
this
does
conclude
all
of
our
speakers.
B
Okay,
we're
gonna
close
public
comment.
Commissioner
young
you
had
a
question.
O
Thank
you
chair.
Actually,
it's
not
a
question.
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
give
my
take
on
what
we've
been
talking
about.
This
has
been
a
great
discussion
by
both
the
commissioners
and
I'd
like
to
thank
all
the
members
of
the
public
for
their
input.
O
I'm
in
support
of
the
staff
recommendations.
I
was
a
strong
supporter
of
sb9
and
the
reason
is
that
we
have
a
housing,
affordability
crisis
in
this
city.
We
have,
I
believe,
it's
the
second
highest
rents
in
the
united
states
here
in
san
jose.
Why
is
that?
Because
we
have
a
very
healthy,
thriving
tech
industry
and
other
industries.
There's
lots
of
jobs,
there's
not
enough
housing
units.
O
So
we
have
a
shortage
of
housing
units
of
all
kinds.
We
we
need
to
build
more
market
rate,
housing,
affordable
housing,
supportive
housing.
You
know,
and
as
one
of
the
speakers
said,
this
is
just
a
little
piece
of
the
puzzle.
Now,
how
do
we
do?
How
do
we
build
more
housing?
Well,
one
of
the
things
I
like
about
sb9
is
that
it
requires
city-wide,
any
single-family
parcel
to
be
able
to
be
divided.
O
It's
too
bad
chairman
is
not
here
because
he
brought
up
something
really
great
at
a
previous
meeting.
He
said
that
he
actually
voted
no
on
a
housing
project
and
he
said
he
wasn't
voting
no
against
the
project.
He
was
voting
no
because
he
was
concerned
that
a
disproportionate
amount
of
housing
projects
were
being
built
on
the
east
side
of
san
jose,
which
I
agree.
O
So
if
you
looked
at
the
tier,
1
and
tier
2
on
the
little
chart
of
where
these
would
go,
they
would
go
for
the
most
part.
These
opportunity
or
sp
sp9
housing
would
go
in
west
san,
jose
willow,
glen
and
cambrian
pioneer
where
I
live,
which
is
a
good
thing
in
my
opinion,
because
we
all
need
to
have
skin
in
the
game
right,
that's
an
expression
which
means
that
we
all
need
to
help
solve
the
problem,
not
just
the
folks
who
live
downtown
or
on
the
east
side.
O
You
know
I
really
have
difficulty
with
many
of
many
of
the
residents,
even
in
my
district,
who
are
very
concerned
about
homeless
issues,
they're
very
concerned
about
encampments
they're,
very
progressive,
compassionate
people
that
want
more
housing,
but
they
don't
want
any
more
housing
in
their
neighborhood,
and
that's
just
in
my
opinion,
that's
wrong.
You
know
these
units,
these
sb9
units,
a
lot
of
them,
will
be
built.
I
believe,
as
the
financial
feasibility
said,
they'll
be
built
in
willow,
glen
cambrian,
probably
even
the
amaden
valley
in
west
san
jose.
That's
a
good
thing.
O
It
provides
options
for
people
who
own
a
home.
For
example,
I'll
give
you
a
scenario
an
older
couple.
Maybe
their
kids
have
moved
out.
They
no
longer
need
this
huge
house.
They
have
but
they'd
sure
like
to
maybe
have
two
houses
one
for
their.
You
know
families
for
their
kids
and
their
grandkids
and
one
for
themselves.
This
would
allow
them
to
do
that.
O
O
We
you
know
we
as
a
city,
I'm
proud
that
we
put
that
up,
put
the
opportunity,
housing
initiative
forward
and
I
think
other
people
in
the
state
saw
that
and
said
you
know
what
let's
make
it
statewide
so
that
as
one
of
the
callers
referred
to
one
of
our,
you
know,
cities
to
the
north
of
us
that
doesn't
tend
to
approve
any
housing,
sb9
kind
of
levels,
the
playing
field
right,
everybody
in
the
state,
everybody
in
the
city
has
to
help.
So
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion
that
we
approve
the
staff
recommendations.
A
F
So,
thank
you
vice
chair,
so
I
am.
I
thought
we
had
some
interesting
discussion
about
affordability
earlier
in
this
meeting
in
particular
that
you
know
as
it
stands,
the
idea
with
sb9
and
building
these
types
of
housing
units
is
that
they
will
be.
F
Individually,
cheaper
than
single-family
homes,
but
also
michael,
you
were
talking
about
some.
You
know
potential
ways
we
could
explore
affordability
because
in
particular,
I
think
you
know
if
we
went
the
whole
inclusionary
housing
route.
I
don't
think
that
would
work
for
this
kind
of
development.
I
think,
if
you
say,
okay,
one
out
of
four
units
have
to
be
deed,
researched,
affordable,
you'd,
probably
kill
the
feasibility
of
a
lot
of
projects,
but
I
would
like
to
ask
commissioner
young
if
it's
friendly,
if
we
also
include
a
recommendation
to
staff,
to
explore
incentivizing.
F
Income
income-based
affordability
into
sb9
projects,
and
I
I
guess
michael
you
can
tell
me
if
that's
a
clear
enough
recommendation
or
not.
C
Yeah,
no,
I
think
it
is,
I
think,
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
challenges
on
that
and
it
there
was
an
example
where
I
think
they
were
looking
at
ways
to
do
that
with
adus,
and
it
was,
I
think,
a
a
foundation
was
going
to
somehow
give
money
to
a
housing
owner
to
help
them
with
the
fees
if
they
agreed
to
deed,
restricted
at
a
certain
level.
So
there
may
be
mechanisms.
C
We
can
definitely
explore
that.
If,
if
that's
something
the
commission
in
the
council
wants
to
do,
I
don't
want
to
promise
a
lot,
but
it's
something
we
can
definitely
explore.
I
don't
think
inclusionary
will
work
when
you're
only
building
four
units,
but
yeah.
F
Yeah-
and
I
I
understand
that
you
know
these
are
broad
stroke,
recommendations
and
it's
hard
to
say
without
further
staff
work
where
they'll
go,
but
I
think
it's
important
that
we
include
this
in
our
recommendation.
So,
commissioner,
young,
what's
your
thoughts
on
that.
A
Sorry,
I
muted
myself
instead
of
okay,
I
did
the
opposite.
So
yes,
I
would
like
to
say
something
thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
to
the
all
the
people
who
have
come
out
tonight
that
our
poor
beleaguered
staff
doing
all
this
work
and
our
community
members
coming
out
and
and
being
here
this
late
and
speaking.
A
So
I
am
in
support
of
this
as
I've
listened
and
studied,
I
become
more
and
more
in
support
of
it.
As
the
night
went
on.
I
do
feel
like
san
jose
was
a
leader
in
this
with
presenting
the
opportunity
housing
and
that
once
gavin
newsom
realized
he
wasn't
going
to
be
recalled.
A
He
went
okay,
let's
I
can
sign
off
on
this
bill,
and
so
so
here
it
is,
and
if
it
is
only
one
tool,
it's
not
going
to
solve
the
whole
housing
crisis,
as
has
been
said,
but
it's
a
start
and
we
always
have
you
have
to
start
somewhere.
A
You've
got
to
do
something
and
as
far
as
historic
buildings,
I
agree
that
and
from
what
I
heard
in
the
presentation
tonight,
this
will
be
done
respectfully
if
a
unit,
if
a
duplex
is
built,
it'll,
be
in
the
backyard,
so
you'll
still
have
the
beauty
of
the
structure,
even
if
it
if
the
home
is
divided
up,
you
know
in
itself
you
still
have
the
beauty
of
the
structure,
and
we
have
many
many
examples
of
that
throughout
the
city.
A
So
I
think
those
with
concerns
for
the
historic
nature
it's
going
to
be
okay,
so
I
think
we
really
saved
a
big
fight
here
in
san
jose
over
opportunity
housing
by
the
state
taking
this
step.
So
I'm
appreciative
appreciative
of
that,
and
that
is
all
I
have
to
say
tonight.
J
C
L
C
It's
working,
okay,
I
had.
I
had
to
pull
it
down
because
I
couldn't
unmute
myself
until
I
pulled
it
up
now.
It's
back
up
yeah,
so
this
has
looks
like
it
has
a
national
register
or
c
landmark:
district
city
conservation
areas
and
individual
properties.
C
C
You
know
you
have
nagley
park,
the
hensley
shasta
hanchette,
washington,
guadalupe,
gardner,
there's
the
lake
house
historic
district
and
there's
somewhere
near
googleville,
yeah.
B
J
L
Yeah,
I
can
show
a
map
of
the
r2
I'll
pull
this
down.
L
So
you
can
see
there
as
michael
said
kind
of
concentrated
in
downtown,
but
there
are,
you
know,
pockets
of
them
elsewhere
throughout
the
city.
That's.
M
C
D
I
actually
have
more
of
a
comment
than
a
question,
so
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
you
know
it
is
our
responsibility
to
be
a
voice
for
all
of
the
residents
in
our
community
and
when
we
have
an
opportunity
to
question
whether
all
of
the
members
in
our
community
are
part
of
actions
that
we're
taking.
I
think
we
should
question
those
actions
and
one
of
the
things
that
keeps
coming
up.
D
You
know,
as
as
individuals
have
spoken
about
you
know,
this
is
housing,
for
you
know
some
people
in
san
jose
right
for
middle
and
upper
income,
individuals
in
our
community,
that's
how
we
got
to
where
we're
at
today
with
individuals
in
our
communities
living
in
situations
that
are
not
the
safest
are
not
the
most
most
healthy.
You
know
how
housing
is
health.
The
way
that
I
look
at
it
is,
if
you
don't
have
an
appropriate
place
to
live.
D
It
has
a
lot
of
impacts
on
our
communities
right
and
I
and
yes,
we
can
look
at
all
of
this
and
say:
oh
you
know
neighborhoods
other
neighborhoods
like
willow,
glen
are
gonna.
Take
some
of
the.
I
want
to
call
it.
The
burden
the
opportunity,
but
when
I
look
at
this,
I
think
about
how
many
individuals,
if
it's
still
gonna
cost
you
know
thirty,
two
hundred
dollars
a
month
or
thirty,
five
hundred
dollars
a
month
or
twenty
eight
hundred
dollars
a
month.
Are
we
really
diversifying
those
neighborhoods?
D
Is
that
really
what
we're
getting
to?
Unless
we
begin
to
ask
the
really
hard
questions?
And
so
I
appreciate,
commissioner,
your
your
your
wanting
to
your
inclusion,
including
in
the
motion
you
know,
looking
at
potentially
other
ways
to
get
to
ensuring
that
people
from
other
parts
of
you
know
east
san
jose.
I
look
at
I
look
at
and
I'm
like
people
that
live
in
east
san,
jose,
look
and
speak
like
me
and
have
are.
Are
I
grew
up
in
a
very
difficult
situation?
D
You
know
my
parents,
you
know,
were
immigrants
from
another
country
and
they
have
fought
really
hard
to
own
their
their
homes
and
all
of
that
right,
but
it's
more
difficult
today
than
it
was
50
years
ago,
and
so
and
so
when
we
talk
about
all
of
this,
this
about
oh
we'll,
do
it
in
the
future.
Today
is
the
future,
and
so
today
we
have
to
ask
those
questions
and
to
so
today
we
have
to
create
the
policies
and
push
staff,
maybe
a
little
bit
harder
to
find
solutions.
D
I
don't
do
this
day
in
and
day
out,
working
on
these
types
of
issues
day
in
and
day
out
in
a
planning
department.
This
is
not
my
full-time
job,
but
it
is
my
job
to
come
here
as
a
representative
of
our
communities
and
ask
the
questions,
and
it
shouldn't
be
about
later
on
we'll
find
out
solutions
for
the
other
members
of
our
community.
This
is
about
like
we're
working
on
this
issue
right
now,
let's
figure
out
how
we
ask
the
hard
questions
so
that
we
we
can
get
to
where
we
need
to
be.
D
So
you
know,
let's
continue
to
ask
the
hard
questions
and
I
really
think
staff-
and
I
do
think
the
the
commission
and
I
think,
staff
for
you-
know
giving
us
the
answers
pointing
us
in
you
know
in
in
in
the
direction
being
very
very.
How
will
I
say
this
very
honest
and
clear
with
us
about
what
we
can
and
we
can't
do
and
maybe
what
we
where
we
can
move
towards.
So
thank
you.
B
Commissioner
lar
noah
and
commissioner
olivario,
are
you
guys
hands
still
up
from?
I
forgot.
J
B
Oh
no
problem,
commissioner
young.
O
Yes,
thank
you.
I'd
just
like
to
respond
to
commissioner
montenez.
I
think
I
may
have
inelegantly
said
what
I
was
trying
to
say.
So,
let
me
say
what
I'm
trying
to
say.
I
think
we
need
housing
throughout
the
city
of
san
jose
for
everyone.
O
If
you
talk
about
opportunity
housing,
unfortunately,
the
folks
on
the
east
side
have
opportunity
housing
by
having
you
know
two
families
living
in
an
apartment
and
that's
not
right.
That's
not
right.
Everybody
deserves
to
have
a
place
to
live
so
the
way
I
look
at
it
is.
O
First
of
all
I
want
to
emphasize.
My
remarks
were
not
meant
to
say
that
this
should
only
be
available
in
willow,
glen
or
cambrian,
or
ramadan
valley.
That
was
not
my
intent.
My
intent
was
to
say
that
the
folks
in
those
areas
like
me,
we
need
to
be
part
of
the
solution
too.
We
can't
put
all
the
affordable
housing
downtown
and
on
the
east
side,
it's
that's
not
fair.
O
We
need
to
have
housing
projects
out
here
in
cambria
and
almaden
valley
too
so
and,
and
the
other
point
I'd
like
to
make-
and
I
think
some
of
the
speakers
made
this-
is
that
although
these
units
may
not
be
affordable
for,
say
working
class
folks,
it's
it's
kind
of
a
step
down.
In
other
words,.
O
O
O
O
D
I'm
just
gonna
have
us
a
response
to
that,
and
this
is
twice
now
that
I've
heard
it,
and
maybe
we
don't
understand
that
the
comments
that
we're
making
the
way
that
I'm
hearing
them
are
very
racist
and
the
reason
is
and
I'll
explain
to
you
why
earlier
somebody
had
made
the
comment:
let's
build
it
faster,
let's
build
as
much
as
we
can
and
then
hopefully
you
know
those
older
units,
that's
the
ones
that
become
affordable
so
somewhere
down
in
the
future.
Those
older
units
will
be
affordable
to
those
people
right.
D
That's
not,
okay
to
me,
what
I'm
saying
is:
if
we're
going
to
build,
there's
got
to
be
a
way
where
even
the
units
that
we're
building
today
should
be
affordable
to
people
period.
So
just
we
can't.
We
can't
like
in
my
mind
what
I'm
hearing
is
newer
stuff
for
people
who
make
a
certain
income
pass
along
hand-me-downs
to
those
people
who
who
may
work
hard,
but
those
people
look
like
me
right.
D
D
There
there's
enough
equity
in
properties
in
the
silicon
valley,
where,
if
you
do
build
something
on
them,
that
you
can't
offer
affordability,
there
was
someone
from
from
one
of
the
historic
districts
who
says
I
do
this,
and
I
and
I
and
I
want
college
students
to
live
here
and
I'm
able
to
offer
it
at
a
certain.
You
know
they're
invested
and
they
want
to
keep
their
neighborhoods
up
and
and
all
of
that
right,
but
they're
also
kind
of
being
conscientious
about
what
they're
doing.
D
D
D
I
don't
want
my
our
communities
to
be
able
to
afford
this
when
they're
40
years
old.
I
want
my
community
to
be
able
to
be
in
the
willow
community.
I
agree
with
you,
commissioner
young.
I
want
our
communities
to
be
in
the
world
glenn
community,
but
as
the
way
that
it's
structured
right
now
they
will
not
be
in
the
willow
community,
and
so
that's
the
last
I'll
have
to
say
that's
my
my
response.
B
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
on
the
floor.
There
are
no
more
commissioner
comments.
We
can
actually
vera
or
someone
if
we
can
get
a
summary
of
what
we're
voting
on.
I
think
commissioner
young,
along
with
commissioner
lardon
noise
friendly
amendment
and
commissioner
torin.
Second,
we
can
get
a
capsulized
version
of
what
we're
actually
voting
on.
I
think
it'd
be
helpful.
C
Yeah
well,
what
I
heard
is
that
the
motion
is
to
recommend
staff
recommend.
The
planning
commission
approved
staff's
recommendation
with
the
addition
that
staff
explore
options
for
creating
affordable
units
as
part
of
sb9.
G
L
B
Your
hand
up
again
or
is
that
from
the
previous
question:
okay,
okay,
we're
going
to
take
the
vote!
Chair
bonilla
is
out.
I'm
gonna
say
yes,
commissioner:
cavallaro.
A
E
B
Commissioner,
lard
noah;
yes,
sorry,
that
was
a
yes
commissioner.
Excuse
me:
yes,
okay,
commissioner
montanious.
D
J
I
A
F
B
B
A
J
A
A
O
G
Casey
before
we
move
on
michael
brio,
wrote
me
and
asked
me:
he
noticed
that
there
was
an
incorrect
portion
in
item
4b,
which
is
the
minutes
for
the
november
10th
meeting,
and
I
don't
have
them
in
front
of
me,
but
it
was
item
4a
on
your
agenda
and
we
would
like
to
correct
that.
But
it
requires
a
motion
to
reconsider
the
item
by
the
commission.
G
G
They
are
the
minutes
of
of
november
10th
and
here's
what
the
problem
is
on.
It's
item,
8a
on
those
minutes.
The
description
of
the
item
is
fine.
The
summary
of
the
planning
commission's
action
is
okay.
G
What
is
not
okay
is
it
listed
as
there's
like
one
and
two
that
have
to
do
with
the
actions
and
they
are
actually
from
the
empire
lumber
item
instead
of
the
item
that
has,
that
was
the
subject
which
was
the
kitchen
sink
four-year
review,
all
of
those
four-year
review
items
that
went
before
you
on
the
10th,
and
so
we
would
just
like
to
correct
items
one
and
two
to
reflect
the
correct
item
and
what
item
one
will
pr
will
say,
and
I'm
paraphrasing
right
now
is
consider
the
addendum
to
the
envision
san
jose
2040
general
plan,
final
program,
eir
and
supplemental
eir,
the
envision
san
jose
general
plan,
final
program,
eir
and
addenda.
G
There
too,
and
then
item
number
two
that's
listed.
There
would
be
adopt
a
resolution
approving
the
general
plan
text
and
diagram
amendments
associated
with
the
envision
san
jose
2040
general
plan
for
your
review
and,
as
I
said,
the
recommendation
by
the
planning
commission
in
the
minutes
is
accurate
and
it
has
been
accurately
forwarded
to
the
council
as
well,
and
that
is
you
know
your.
G
The
planning
commission's
recommendation
was
if
you
recall
that
that
the
task
force
recommendation
be
forwarded
to
the
council,
where
they
differ
from
the
staff
recommendation,
and
that
is
accurate
in
the
minutes.
So
it's
just
paragraphs
numbered
one
and
two
that
described
what
staff
was
asking
for.
G
G
F
G
B
Lania's
out
casey's
a
yes
commissioner,
caballero
have
a
yes
from
her
commissioner
cantrell.
Yes,
commissioner,
garcia.
Yes,
commissioner
lardinwa.
Yes,
commissioner
montagnes,
yes,
mission,
oliveria,.
I
S
B
J
My
apologies
as
I'm
you,
yes,.
B
A
A
G
Thank
you
very
much
for
reconsidering
that,
and
we
will
staff
will
post
the
corrected
minutes
online.
C
There,
I
don't
think
you've
had
a
city
council,
there
was
one
last
night,
the
kitchen
sink
general
planned
for
your
review.
Items
were
supposed
to
go,
but
they
were
con.
They
were
deferred
till
this
coming
tuesday
because
of
the
redistricting
conversation,
so
it
didn't
happen.
So
it's.
B
B
Okay-
and
at
this
time
we
can,
does
anyone
want
to
put
anything
on
a
public
record
before
he
calls
out.