►
From YouTube: DEC 8, 2021 | Planning Commission
Description
City of San José, California
Planning Commission meeting of December 8, 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=910107&GUID=108825E6-3E21-4D6C-B6D8-D36123A3EE61
A
A
A
A
B
B
Members
of
the
public
may
participate
by
following
the
instructions
listed
on
the
agenda.
You
may
also
view
and
listen
to
the
meeting
on
livestream
cable,
tv,
granicus
and
youtube
following
roll
call.
During
summary
of
hearing
procedures,
we
will
review
how
the
public
may
provide
comment
during
today's
session.
With
that
welcome,
and
I
will
now
take
roll
call
on
here,
casey.
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
I
was
just
going
to
do
the
follow
up
lord
and
noise
here
cantrell.
Yes,
I
see
commissioner
cantrell's
box
right
there
clearly
with
his
name.
So
with
that
we
have
quorum
all
commissioners
present.
I
will
now
do
the
summary
of
hearing
procedures.
The
procedure
for
this
hearing
is
as
follows.
After
the
staff
report,
applicants
and
appellants
may
make
a
five
minute
presentation.
B
City
staff
will
call
out
names
of
the
public
who
identified
the
items
they
may
want
to
speak
on.
You
may
identify
yourself
by
the
raised
tan
feature
on
zoom
click,
star
9
on
your
phone
or
you
may
call
408,
535-3505
or
email
planning,
support
staff
at
san
jose
ca.gov
and
identify
your
name
phone
number
and
what
items
you'd
like
to
speak
on,
as
your
name
is
called
city
staff
will
unmute
you
to
speak
after
we
confirm
your
audio
is
working.
Your
allotted
time
will
begin.
B
Each
speaker
will
have
two
minutes.
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
questions
will
not
reduce
the
speaker's
time
allowance
staff
will
then
meet
the
speaker
to
respond
to
the
commissioner.
B
The
public
hearing
will
then
be
closed
and
the
planning
commission
will
take
action
on
the
item.
The
planning
commission
may
request
staff
to
respond
to
the
public
testimony
ask
staff
questions
and
discuss
the
item.
If
you
challenge
these
land
use
decisions,
these
yeah
land
use
these
decisions
in
court.
You
may
I'm
out
of
practice.
You
may
be
limited
to
raising
only
those
issues
you
or
someone
else
raised
at
the
public
hearing
or
in
written
correspondence
delivered
to
the
city
at
or
prior
to
the
public
hearing.
B
The
planning
commission's
action
on
rezonings
pre-zonings
general
plan
amendments
and
code
amendments
is
only
advisory
to
the
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
C
C
C
C
You
have
the
ability
to
respond
constructively
to
the
deep
concerns
of
conservation
organizations
and
others
who
support
a
new
vision
for
coyote
valley.
So
please
take
this
as
a
moment
a
moment
to
understand
the
seriousness
of
this
situation
and
to
repair
that
break.
I
hope
we
hear
from
you.
Thank
you.
B
D
We
do
we
have
a
number
of
items.
All
general
plan
amendments
are
privately
initiated
for
the
annual
review
that
we're
supposed
to
were
planned
to
go
tonight,
but
they
need
to
be
deferred
to
january
11th,
yeah
january
11th.
D
Yeah,
so
I
guess
you
need
to
pass
a
motion
on
that.
Yeah.
A
A
D
B
A
We
do
have
one
hand
raise
of
denise.
Is
this
for
the
item
for
a
the
action
minutes.
A
A
Oh
okay,
so
I've
never
attended
one
of
these
meetings
before
and
so
I'm
just
I'm
here
to
hear
about-
and
I
may
have
to
come
back
on
january
12th
for
the
under
number
three
number
c
for
the
project
that's
going
to
be
built
on
julian.
So
I
wanted
to
put
my
input
on
on
to
that
one.
So
do
I
need
to
come
back
on
january
12th.
B
Good
night,
bye-bye
all
right,
any
other
items
on
the
consent
calendar
that
I'm
sorry
public
comment
on
the
consent.
Calendar.
B
All
right,
so
with
that
we
will
go
ahead
and
review
and
approve
the
action
minutes
from
12
1
21..
Do
we
have
any
changes
to
the
minutes.
B
A
B
Just
beat
me
to
it,
commissioner:
torrence
you
hot
hand
tonight
all
right,
commissioner
torrance
with
the
motion
to
approve
the
12
20.
Sorry,
the
yeah
12
121
minutes.
Is
there
a
second.
B
Okay,
torrance
with
the
motion,
who
was
that
second.
B
Nellis,
wise
and
lord
and
hua,
I
just
got
it
all
right,
torrens
with
the
motion
or
nellis
wise
with
the
second.
We
will
go
ahead
and
take
a
roll
call.
Vote.
Bonilla
will
abstain.
I
wasn't
here
casey
all
right.
A
A
E
B
Young
aye
motion
passes
with
bonilla
abstaining
and
everyone
else
voting
aye.
D
I'm
sorry
can
we
go
back
for
one
minute.
Can
someone
my
I'm
just
I'm
scrambling
around
here
a
little
bit
on
the
deferrals
who
made
the
motions
on
the
deferrals.
B
E
My
name
is
martina
davis,
I'm
the
acting
division
manager
for
our
citywide
planning
group,
and
I
am
also
the
project
manager
on
this
senate
bill.
9,
urgency,
implementation
ordinance
so
just
to
start
with
a
quick
overview
of
senate
bill.
9
won't
spend
too
much
time
on
this.
A
lot
of
this
will
come
out
in
the
details
of
the
ordinance,
but
as
a
reminder,
senate
bill
9
applies
to
all
property
zoned
single
family.
E
It
requires
cities
to
allow
subdivision
of
one
lot
into
two
lots
that
are
roughly
proportional.
It
requires
cities
to
allow
construction
of
a
two
unit
project
on
each
lot.
It
includes
a
number
of
mandatory
development
standards,
as
well
as
allowance
for
cities
to
adopt
and
implement
their
own
standards
with
some
limitations.
E
E
So
how
that
interplays
with
looking
at
senate
bill
9
is
that
we
are
not
able
to
introduce
standards
that
reduce
that
building
envelope
lower
to
what's
allowed
to
be
built
in
the
r1
districts
today.
So
we
couldn't
say
well
if
we
allow
two
stories
in
the
r1
district,
but
senate
bill,
9
projects
are
only
one
story
that
would
be
considered
a
down
zoning,
so
I
did
just
want
to
remind
everyone
of
that
now.
E
That
said
this,
it's
not
going
to
come
up
as
much
with
this
proposed
ordinance,
because
this
ordinance
is
really
just
a
baseline
standards
using
our
existing
standards.
That
is
the
goal
here.
The
real
purpose
of
this
ordinance
is
to
have
something
on
the
books
that
we
can
point
to
and
use
come
january.
E
I
am
not
going
to
sit
here
and
say
this
is
the
end-all
be-all
of
the
city's
sb9
work.
This
is
really
just
looking
at
our
existing
standards,
making
sure
they
still
work
under
senate
bill
9
and
applying
proposing
new
standards
where
our
current
standards
are
kind
of
essentially
wiped
out
by
senate
bill
9.
E
But
we
need
something
to
point
to
we're,
also
proposing
a
couple
clarifications
and
def
on
definitions
and
some
implementation
measures,
as
well
as
we
are
proposing
to
limit
sv9
projects
to
no
more
than
four
units,
which
is
something
that
is
anticipated
by
the
bill.
Future
work
on
any
sv9
ordinances
would
definitely
re-look
at
all
of
these
standards.
So
again,
I
don't
want
everyone
to
think
that
these
are
the
standards
that
will
live
forever
again.
E
So,
let's
just
go
through
the
various
standards,
what's
existing,
what
sp9
does
and
what
we're
proposing.
So
I'm
going
to
start
with
minimum
lot
sizes
and
I'll
focus
on
our
r1
8
and
r15
districts
they're
by
far
our
most
common
districts,
there's
a
small
amount
of
property
that
have
some
rural
single-family
zonings,
but
I'm
just
going
to
not
focus
on
those
for
purposes
of
tonight,
so
starting
with
minimum
lot
sizes,
our
current
standard
is
5445
square
feet
for
our
most
common
r1
district.
E
It's
r18
and
eight
thousand
square
feet
for
the
r15
district,
which
is
somewhat
less
common
than
r18.
Now,
of
course,
senate
bill,
9
kind
of
upends
that,
because
we
do
have
to
allow
subdivisions
of
lots
that
are
usually
actually
already
around
these
standards
right,
what
senate
bill
9
requires?
Is
we
allow
subdivisions
where
one
lot
can
be
no
less
than
40
the
size
of
the
original
lot
or
1200
square
feet?
E
Whichever
one
is
the
higher
number
senate
bill,
9
does
not
allow
us
to
adopt
a
larger
lot
size,
but
it
allows
us
to
adopt
a
lower
lot
size
limit
than
1200
square
feet.
We
are
not
proposing
that,
so
this
ordinance
wouldn't
propose
any
changes
to
lot
science
standards.
Our
current
standards
would
be
superseded
by
senate
bill,
9.
E
lot
dimensions
and
frontage.
Now
this
is
where
we
are
proposing
the
most
changes,
our
subdivision
ordinance.
It's
title,
19
of
the
municipal
code,
dictates
lot.
Frontage
dimensions
standards
that
kind
of
thing
and
these
standards
in
this
ordinance
are
written
around.
Assuming
lots
are
going
to
be
actually
at
least
6
000
square
feet
in
size.
E
So
when
we
looked
at
these
and
we
started
kind
of
running
scenarios
and
saying,
could
you
subdivide
our
existing
single-family
zone
properties
and
adhere
to
these
standards?
The
answer
is:
no.
You
really
couldn't.
So
that
means
that
we
cannot
continue
to
apply
them.
We
can't
apply
a
standard
that
would
preclude
use
of
this
bill
throughout
our
city,
so
we
need
to
come
up
with
something
new
senate
bill.
E
So
one
is
allowing
what
I
will
call
just
kind
of
your
standard
down
the
middle
lot
split,
so
you're
putting
a
lot
line
kind
of
near
the
middle
of
the
property,
dividing
it
into
two
equal
halves
that
are
around
the
same
shape.
So
we're
proposing
it
to
allow
that
and
if
you're
doing
that
type
of
subdivision,
you
would
maintain
be
required
to
maintain
30
feet
of
frontage
on
the
street
for
each
unit
type
or
each
lot.
E
That's
almost
entirely
always
true!
So
when
we
looked
at
this
we
said
well,
do
we
want
to
just
propose
this
kind
of
standard
type
of
subdivision?
If
we
went
with
this,
what
we
would
be
essentially
saying
is,
if
you
want
to
pursue
an
sdb,
9
subdivision,
you're,
going
to
have
to
demolish
the
house
on
the
lot,
and
we
don't
want
that
to
be
kind
of
a
requirement
if
people
don't
want
to
or
have
to
right,
and
that
leads
us
to
our
flag
log
configurations.
E
These
configurations
they
leave
it
a
lot
more
likely
that
you're
able
to
preserve
the
house
in
the
front.
We
do
know
there's
certain
parts
of
the
city
that
have
like,
for
example,
very,
very
narrow,
not
super
narrow,
but
very
deep
lots
in
relation
to
their
width.
Those
lots
it
just
makes
a
lot
more
sense
to
subdivide
off
the
back
and
in
a
lot
of
those
cases.
For
example,
you
can,
you
know,
keep
that
front
house
have
plenty
of
room
for
that.
Have
the
back.
E
E
This
front
lot
doesn't
lose
a
lot
of
frontage,
so
you're
kind
of
looking
it's
the
similar
dimensions
as
perceived
from
the
street
as
current
lots
in
the
neighborhood
and
then
the
new
units
on
the
second
lot
are
tucked
away
to
the
back,
so
you're,
seeing
a
lot
more
driveways
on
the
street,
but
not
necessarily
seeing
a
lot
more
units.
E
The
downside,
though,
that
leads
us
to
the
downside
of
this
subdivision
type,
which
is
that
it
forces
the
building
area
of
this
back
lot
to
be
in
the
back.
That's
kind
of
the
only
area
you
have
left,
that's
really
buildable
right
is
right
here
near
the
back,
and
so
what
that
means
is,
if
you
wanted
to
do
a
subdivision
in
a
project
that
include
proposes
you
know
your
traditional
rear
yards,
which
we
do
think
a
lot
of
people
want
people
like
rear
yards.
E
You
can't
really
accommodate
that
with
the
flag
lot
you're
going
to
have
to
put
the
unit
or
units
really
close
to
that
rear
property
line
which
is
close
to
the
rear
of
the
neighbors.
So
we
also
said
okay.
Well,
if
we
allow
just
flag
lots,
you
know
we're
precluding
instances
where
this
might
make
sense
and
would
allow
someone
to
have
the
you
know
the
down
the
middle.
I'm
not
sure
if
you
can
see
my
cursor,
but
it
would
allow
the
down
the
middle
to
you
know,
make
more
sense.
E
You
have
more
buildable
area,
that's
closer
to
the
street,
for
both
lots,
and
so
if
they
wanted
to
maintain
a
rear
yard,
for
example.
This
is
a
lot
more
conducive
to
that
so
kind
of
weighing
the
pros
and
cons
of
each.
We
didn't
really
think
that
either
one
stands
out
as
superior
to
the
other.
They
both
have
their
issues.
They
both
have
their
benefits,
and
so
we
are
proposing
to
have
standards
that
would
allow
either
type
of
subdivision
to
allow
applicants
the
flexibility
of
proposing
what
makes
the
most
sense.
E
Moving
on
from
our
subdivision
standards,
let's
talk
about
number
of
units
and
the
type
of
units
so
currently
in
our
zoning
ordinance.
We
of
course
restrict
single
family
properties
to
one
home
plus
accessory
dwellings
and
junior
accessory
dwelling
units,
so
they
could
have
essentially
three
units
total,
but
no
more
than
one
single
family
home,
actually
in
all
of
our
residential
zoning
districts
in
the
r1
r2
and
rm
in
particular,
we
have
a
standard
that
says
even
where
multiple
units
are
allowed.
E
They're
gonna,
you
can't
do
more
than
one
detached
home
per
unit,
so
that
is
a
standard
in
our
zoning
ordinance.
What
senate
bill
nine
does
is,
of
course
it
requires
us
to
allow
two
units,
two
primary
units
plus
accessory
dwellings.
It
also
requires
us
to
allow
attached
units.
So
it
says
cities
cannot
disapprove
units
because
they
are
attached
to
each
other,
and
it
does
say:
cities
are
not
required
to
have
more
than
two
units
per
subdivided
lot.
So
how
does
that
all
play
together
with
this
ordinance?
E
What
we
are
proposing
is
to
specify
that
the
city
will
not
allow
more
than
two
units
per
subdivided
lot.
We
also
took
a
look
at
our
standards
for
lots
that
aren't
subdivided
under
senate
bill
9
and
if
you
recall
our
study
session
from
last
week,
I
talked
about
how
they
could
use
our
existing
adu
standards
to
get
up
to
five
units,
so
two
units
in
a
duplex
two
detached
units
and
then
one
attached,
sorry
to
detach
accessory
dwelling
units
and
then
one
attached
accessory
dwelling
unit.
E
Looking
at
that,
we
that
actually
goes
a
little
bit
beyond
state
law.
State
laws
is
interpreted
now
to
say
that
we
only
have
to
allow
a
duplex
to
have
either
two
detached
data
use
or
one
attached,
but
not
both.
So
only
into
that
these
are
new
density
within
single
family
neighborhoods,
potentially
on
smaller
lot
sizes,
we
are
proposing
to
actually
go
with
the
state
minimum
for
projects
that
are
not
subdivided
under
senate
bill
nine,
so
those
would
still
end
up
with
a
total
of
four
units,
whether
you
subdivide
or
you
don't
subdivide.
E
We
also
are
not
proposing
to
change
the
standard
that
more
than
one
single-family
detached
residence
per
lot
is
not
allowed,
so
the
two
units
under
sp9
would
have
to
be
within
one
structure:
there's
nothing
in
senate
bill
9.
That
really
says
that
this
standard
is
inconsistent
with
it,
and
so
with
the
idea
that
we're
going
to
amend
as
few
standards
as
possible
we're
not
proposing
to
touch
this
one.
E
So
in
this
kind
of
blue
boxes,
those
are
the
sort
of
three
standard,
three
things
that
are
going
to
apply
when
you're
looking
at
number
of
units.
Of
course,
a
picture
is
much
easier
to
understand
than
all
the
words
I
just
said
so
kind
of
looking
at
your
max
build
out
right.
You
would
end
up
with
a
non-subdivided
lot.
You
know
a
duplex
and
then
up
to
two
adus
or
one
attached
one
and
then
for
a
subdivided
lot.
E
It's
either
a
home
and
an
adu
or
a
junior
adu
or
a
duplex
on
each
slot,
but
either
way
you're
not
adding
up
to
more
than
four.
That
is
what
we
are
proposing
with
this
ordinance.
E
Next,
I'm
going
to
talk
about
floor
area
ratio
before
I
talk
about
it.
Let's
talk
about
what
that
means:
floor
area
ratio.
Of
course,
it's
the
floor
area
of
the
building
divided
by
the
total
lot
area.
There's
some
specific
ways
we
calculate
it
for
our
zoning
ordinance.
It
includes
the
sum
of
all
floors,
measured
from
the
outside
walls.
It
does
not
include
garages,
basements,
accessory
structures
or
accessory
dwelling
units,
and
it
does
include
stairways
and
then
outdoor
areas
that
are
covered
and
and
more
than
50
enclosed.
E
So
if
you
had
a
porch
that
was
covered
and
have
walls
on
three
sides,
that
would
actually
count
towards
your
floor
area
ratio.
So
just
quick
examples
right
if
you
have
a
4
000
square
foot
lot,
what's
your
max
floor
area,
you
multiply
that
times.
0.45
you
get
your
max,
you
know
do
the
math
backwards.
If
you
want
to
figure
out
how
big?
E
What
is
my
far
this
house
that
I
have
now,
for
example,
it's
0.3
right
if
you
do
1200
house
or
divide
by
4
000.,
so
our
current
zoning
ordinance
limits
single
family
homes
to
0.45
floor
area
ratio
senate
bill
nines
that
does
not
have
a
floor
area
ratio
standard,
but
specified
cities
have
to
allow
construction
of
two
800
square
foot
units
on
each
lot.
E
So
what
we're
doing
with
this
proposed
ordinance
is
kind
of
marrying
the
two
standards
we're
clarifying
that
the
floor
area
ratio
standard
would
be
cumulative
with
both
units,
so
both
units
together
can't
add
up
to
more
than
0.45
floor
area
ratio.
Unless
that
precludes
the
units
for
both
units
from
being
800
square
feet,
you
could
exceed
it
up
to
two
800
square
feet.
Units
is
our
proposal.
E
E
9
does
not
touch
that
front
step
back,
but
it
does
require
cities
to
allow
forefoot
side
and
rear
setbacks,
and
with
this
ordinance
we're
not
proposing
changes
the
setback
standard
so
we're
not
proposing
to
reduce
or
modify
that
front
setback,
and
then
we
can't
require
more
than
four
and
we're
not
proposing
to
require
more
than
less
or
less
than
four
excuse
me.
E
What
we
are
proposing
to
do
with
this
ordinance
is
to
just
clarify
property
line
definitions
on
a
lot
where
your
rear
and
side
property
lines
are
is
related
related
to
where
your
front
is,
and
your
front
is
the
line
that
abuts
the
street.
If
you
had
a
subdivision
that
was
accessed
by
an
easement
the
back
lot,
it
doesn't
have
a
front
property
line,
so
we
would
clarify
that
you've
got
sides
in
the
rear.
E
Honestly,
it
doesn't
make
a
huge
difference
because
it's
four
feet
either
way,
but-
and
we
figured
it's
good
to
clarify
we're-
also
clarifying
the
use
of
setback
exceptions.
We
have
a
number
of
exceptions
to
allow
certain
encroachments
into
the
existing
setbacks.
So,
for
example,
you
could
build
a
chimney,
it
can
encroach
two
feet
into
the
five
foot
side
setback,
and
so
what
that
does?
E
Is
that
maintains
three
feet
on
the
side
of
the
property,
which
is
actually
very
important
for
emergency
access
is
a
good
example
of
why
that
three
feet
is
important,
so
we're
proposing
to
allow
use
of
those
setback,
exceptions
but
clarify
that
it
doesn't
get
you
a
foot
closer
to
the
property
line
using
the
exceptions
you
can
build
a
chimney,
but
that
chimney
is
still
going
to
need
to
stick
with
that
three
foot
minimum.
You
don't
get
two
feet
from
the
four
feet
down
to
two
feet,
so
that
is
what
this
ordinance
would
do.
E
Around
setbacks
heights.
We
have
a
30-foot
and
two-story
limit
unless
a
project
obtains
a
single-family
house
permit
with
a
public
review
and
public
hearing
and
design
review
senate
bill.
9
does
not
address
height,
so
what
this
ordinance
would
do
would
specify
that
that
30
feet
and
two
stories
apply
where
you
can
build
it
right
now,
but
within
the
that
20-foot
rear
setback,
we
are
proposing
to
limit
the
height
to
20,
20
feet
or
one
story,
and
that
standard
comes
from
our
existing
standard
in
the
zoning
ordinance
for
accessory
dwelling
units.
E
So
right
now
under
state
law,
you
can
build
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
that's
attached
to
the
home
down
to
a
four
foot
setback
and
we
have
the
20
foot
height
limit
and
one
story.
So
again
in
the
idea
of
we're
not
creating
new
standards,
it's
taking
an
existing
standard.
We
have
here
and
applying
it
to
senate
bill
9..
E
I
wanted
to
show
you
that
senate
bill
9
does
actually
require
that
we
allow
people
to
attach
the
units
at
the
shared
property
line
if
it's
created
by
a
senate
bill
9
subdivision.
So
in
that
case
they
wouldn't
have
that
4
foot
set
back
to
each
other.
They
could
go
ahead
and
build
kind
of
one
structure
with
a
essentially
a
party
wall
separating
them
in
between
so
structurally
it's
kind
of
two
structures,
but
physically
it
looks
like
one
essentially
what
that
means
and
similar.
Let's
look
at
just
a
flag
lot
example.
E
E
You
can
attach
at
that
shared
property
line
that
you've
created
through
the
senate
bill
9
subdivision.
Also.
I
wanted
to
show
you
that
if
the
driveway
was
done
by
an
easement
instead
of
being
owned
by
that
back
lot,
they
actually
that
easement's
not
a
property
line,
so
they
could
actually
build
right
to
that.
Driveway
easement
get
a
little
bit
more
buildable
area.
E
Let's
talk
parking
so
currently
our
zoning
ordinance
has
two
single
family.
There
are
two
parking
spaces
per
single
family
dwelling,
regardless
of
the
number
of
bedrooms.
Duplexes,
it's
a
range
per
dwelling
unit,
depending
on
how
many
bedrooms,
you're
proposing
so
could
actually
be
over
two
spaces
per
unit.
If
you're
proposing
more
than
three
bedrooms,
single-family
parking
must
be
within
a
garage
or
carport.
Duplex
parking
may
be
uncovered,
but
must
be
outside
of
the
side
and
rear
setback.
E
So
for
this
ordinance
we're
not
proposing
a
lot
of
changes
here,
we
obviously
can't
go
up
from
the
parking
requirement.
We
could
only
go
down
and
we're
not
proposing
to
you
know
reduce
parking
less
than
one
space
per
unit
or
none
if
they
qualify.
E
E
You
can't
really
pave
more
than
50
percent
of
the
front
setback
or
10
feet,
whichever
one
is
is
more
so,
when
you're
looking
at
say
a
30
foot
wide
lot.
If
you
try
to
do
a
two-car
garage
there,
you're
gonna
have
to
exceed
that
front
yard,
paving
limitation
and
that's
a
concern
right.
Just
having
you
know,
units
where
you
walk
down
the
street
and
you
just
see
garages,
that's
a
concern
too.
You
know
it's
less
attractive.
E
Also,
though,
what
this
does
is
not
only
would
having
a
two-car
garage
on
these
narrow
lots.
You
know
result
in
paving
of
the
front
yard.
You
also
think
about.
If
you
have
a
larger
driveway,
you're
gonna
need
to
do
a
new,
driveway,
apron
and
curb
cut
and
we're
concerned
about
what
does
that
do
to
street
trees
right
if
this
is
just
driveways,
driveway
aprons
curb
cuts.
So
that's
why
we're
proposing
this
garage
frontage
standard
and
just
like
all
of
these
standards,
these
are
things
we
can
absolutely
revisit
in
the
future.
E
E
We
are
going
to
specify
that
if
you
have
to
have
a
utility
line
that
crosses
one
property
to
access
the
other
property,
you've
got
to
create
an
easement.
For
that
you
know
so
this
guy's
water
line,
you
know,
has
the
right
to
exist
on
the
neighbor's
property,
pretty
straightforward,
I
figured
it
would
be
a
good
idea
just
to
make
sure
people
know
that
you're
going
to
need
to
do
that
senate
bill
9
restricts
rentals
of
properties.
E
We're
proposing
to
actually
have
that
reported
on
the
deed
of
the
property,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
we
want
to
make
sure
that
future
owners
of
these
properties
understand
the
limitations,
know
up
front
what
they're
getting
you
could
buy
a
lovely
new
house,
the
neighborhood
you've
always
been
wanting
to
fly
in
what
you
would
have
no
idea.
It
was
created
under
senate
bill
9..
E
Why
would
you
know
that
right,
and
so
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
everyone
knows
that
this
restrictions
up
there
and
so
that
it's
easier
for
you
know
people
to
adhere
to
it
and
that's
to
enforce
it.
It's
not
a
surprise.
When
you
know
the
code,
your
neighbor
calls
and
the
code
inspector
comes
knocking
on
your
door.
E
We
also
are
looking
proposing
to
have
a
requirement
around
the
rental,
the
demolition
of
rental
units,
so
backing
up
senate
bill.
9
says
units
that
have
been
rented
within
the
last
three
years
cannot
be
altered
or
demolished
for
senate
bill
9
projects.
E
We
are
looking
at
a
number
of
ways
to
ensure
we,
you
know,
are
able
to
try
to
figure
out
if
units
have
been
rented
in
the
last
three
years,
so
we're
still
kind
of
trying
to
figure
that
one
out
lots
of
other
cities
are
looking
at
that
too.
The
one
standard,
though
we
are
proposing
in
this
ordinance
is
just
something
to
get
us
started,
is
requiring
that
the
applicant
submit
to
us
an
attestation
that,
to
their
knowledge,
it
hasn't
been
rented.
E
So
I
mean
just
at
first
just
making
them
really
swear
to
us
that
it
has
not
been
rented,
and
then
we
will
be
looking
at
seeing
if
there's
other
things
we're
going
to
ask.
Maybe
asking
people:
do
you
have
old
utility
bills,
that
kind
of
stuff
still
working
on
that
we
also
are
proposing
to
define
the
term
acting
in
concert.
The
bill
prohibits
applicants
from
acting
in
concert
with
one
another
to
subdivide
adjoining
lots
does
not
define
that.
That
was
a
suggestion.
E
We
heard
a
couple
times
in
various
sb9
like
webinars,
so
we
worked
with
the
city
attorney's
office
and
they
came
up
with
the
definition.
That's
used
using
language,
that's
elsewhere
in
the
law,
and
I
think
our
municipal
code,
of
how
we
define
that
term
and
then
finally,
the
owner
occupancy
standards.
This
is
an
interesting
one,
as
you
probably
recall,
from
last
week,
senate
bill
9.
E
Has
this
very
interesting
owner
occupancy
standard
which
says
that
the
local
agency,
so
the
city,
has
to
require
the
applicant
submit
a
statement
or
an
attestation
which
is
actually
also
under
penalty
of
perjury,
that
they
intend
to
occupy
one
of
the
units
as
their
principal
residence
for
a
minimum
of
three
years
from
the
date
of
the
approval
of
the
subdivision
right.
So
that
is
the
language
of
law.
It
says
from
the
date
of
approval
the
subdivision,
so
we
looked
at
this
left
right
upside
down
backwards.
E
I
said
what
does
this
actually
mean
in
real
life
like?
How
does
this
get
applied?
If
you
notice
it
doesn't
even
say
they
have
to
live
there,
they
just
have
to
tell
us.
I
intend
to
live
there.
It's
kind
of
interesting
language,
but
we
realized
this.
The
one
thing
we
can
say
certainly
is
in
order
for
your
attestation
that
you
intend
to
live
there
to
be
not
false
from
the
date
of
the
subdivision.
There's
got
to
be
a
dwelling
unit
to
live
in
from
the
date
of
the
subdivision.
E
For
clarity,
this
does
mean
that
applicants
are
going
to
need
to
either
figure
out
how
to
retain
the
existing
dwelling
or
do
a
phased
project
where,
if
they
do
need
to
demolish
the
dwelling
for
a
senate
bill
9
project,
they
would
need
to
actually
build
one
back
before
that
subdivision
can
be
approved.
I
will
absolutely
acknowledge
this.
Does
you
know
make
the
subdivision
process
a
little
bit
more
complicated,
we'll
acknowledge
that,
but
we
think
you
know
I
mean
I'm
not.
E
This
is
how
we're
reading
the
law
we're
not
really
sure
how
else
to
read
that
you
know.
There's
got
to
be
a
dwelling
unit
from
the
date
of
the
subdivision,
for
you
to
say,
you're
going
to
live
there,
and
there
is
a
upside
to
this.
One
of
our
concerns
always
has
been
that
you
know
we're
concerned
around
kind
of
speculative
subdivisions.
I
just
want
to
get
the
small
unit
demolished,
get
the
subdivision
done
and
then
I'll
figure
out
what
to
do.
Maybe
I'll
get
some
more
money.
Maybe
I'll
sell
it.
E
Maybe
I'll
sit
on
these
properties
for
a
while,
and
in
that
case
we
lose
housing.
We
end
up
with
vacant
lots,
so
this
does
have
a
benefit
of.
You
know
ensuring
that
if
you
do
the
project-
and
it
involves
a
demolition
we're
going
to
get
a
unit
back
before
you
can
actually
get
the
benefit
of
that
subdivision.
Basically,
so
in
a
way
there
is
there's
definitely
an
upside
to
this.
This
is
one
that
I
think
I
I
can.
I
know
lots
of
jurisdiction,
cities.
E
Everyone
is
still
trying
to
wrap
their
heads
around
this,
so
we're
going
to
keep
our
ears
out
and
definitely
look
for
the
state's
guidance
on
on
interpretation
of
this,
and
you
know
things
may
change.
If
the
state
shifts
on
telling
us
it's
not
how
you're
supposed
to
read
it,
but
we're
just
we,
we
haven't
been
able
to
figure
out
a
different
way
to
read
it.
E
Finally,
so
today
you
guys
commission
excuse
me
was
provided
with
an
updated
ordinance.
I
just
wanted
to
run
you
through
those
changes.
They
are
extremely
minor.
We
were
just
doing
kind
of
some
last-minute
reading
of
the
ordinances
talking
to
the
attorneys.
D
E
We
realized
we
used
the
term
property
a
few
times
and
that
term's
not
actually
one
that
we
use
throughout
the
code
to
describe
the
property.
We
have
the
term
lot
defined
in
our
zoning
ordinance.
So
we
realize
you
know.
Whenever
we're
referring
to
property,
we
should
probably
use
the
term
in
the
zoning
ordinance,
which
is
lot
so
this
this
change
you
receive
today
would
change
the
term
property
to
law
in
a
couple
places
where
we
used
it.
E
We
also
realized
that
this
standard,
we're
proposing
203810f
just
was
read
a
little
awkwardly
when
we
read
it
and
we
said
hey
since
we're
making
this
other
change.
Let's
just
go
ahead
and
reword
it
slightly
so
it
just
it
doesn't
sound
quite
so
awkward,
but
it
doesn't
actually
change
the
what
the
standard
says
itself.
E
It
would
be
effective
immediately
we're
actually
asking
council
to
look
at
the
ordinance
in
two
twice
essentially
so
once
with
the
urgency
findings
and
then
a
permanent
ordinance,
and
that's
because
if,
let's
say
our
urgency,
findings
were
challenged
or
something
we
have
that
permanent
ordinance
to
fall
back
on,
but
we
do
want
to
have
something
on
the
books
for
january.
That
really
is
the
point
of
this.
E
We
are
currently
working
on
updating
application,
materials,
information,
moral
materials.
I
know
a
lot
of
members
of
the
public
are
eagerly
awaiting
that.
I
also
know
that
when
you
look
at
this
ordinance
itself,
it's
pretty
bare
bones.
So
it's
important
for
us
to
put
all
the
standards
together,
so
people
can
kind
of
get
a
comprehensive
understanding
of
what's
allowed
and
we
are
I'm
currently
working
on
that.
E
We're
updating
our
internal
processes,
we're
updating
our
permit
database
to
account
to
work
for
senate
bill
9
projects,
and
we
are,
of
course
continuing
to
collaborate
with
other
cities
and
seek
guidance.
I
mentioned
last
week
that
the
state
department
of
housing
and
community
development
will
be
publishing
official
technical
guidance
for
cities
on
implementing
this
bill,
but
that
guidance
last
I
heard
they
don't
think
it
will
be
out
until
at
least
february.
E
So
we
are
eagerly
awaiting
that.
I
really
wish
it
came
out
already,
but
we
we're
continuing
to
to
monitor
all
the
the
different
interpretations
and
things
that
are
going
on
with
senate
bill
9
and
if
we
have
to
modify
anything
in
this
ordinance,
we
will
come
back
with
those
modifications.
E
B
B
F
Martina,
thank
you.
This
presentation
was
super
helpful
and
it
answered
some
of
the
questions
I
had
already.
So.
Thank
you.
So,
let's
see
so
there's
a
couple
things
I
was
wondering
about.
First
off,
I
noticed
in
the
staff
report
there's
mentioned
that
sb9
is
not
applicable
in
you
know.
You
have
a
list
of
all
the
you
know,
areas
where
it's
not,
and
there
were
things
like
farmland
and
conservation
areas
and
habitat
prevention.
I'm
curious.
If
there's
any
interplay
there
between
those
exemptions
and
what
council
just
approved
for
coyote
valley.
E
I
do
think
and
michael
step
in
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
I
do
think
some
of
those
properties
out
there
were
zoned
r1,
potentially
like
r1
rule,
and
so
they
would
have
been
potentially
subject
to
senate
bill
9.
Of
course
we
would
have
to
look
and
say:
are
they
formally
protected,
farmlands
or
conservation
or
wildlife,
but
absent
those?
Those
would
have
been
subject
to
these
senate
bill,
9
subdivisions
and
additional
units
had
we
not
rezoned
those.
F
Gotcha,
okay
and
then
my
other
question
is
so
I
I
understand
you
know
from
reading
the
report
and
from
your
presentation
that
you're
really
just
going
for
the
minimum
here
because
of
the
the
time
crunch
and
just
making
sure
that
we
have
basic
guard
rails
and
that
the
law
is
functioning
as
intended
and
not
interplaying
with
our
local
ordinances.
In
a
way
we
wouldn't
want
it
to
I'm
curious.
F
It
was
mentioned
the
report
that
sp9
allows
cities
to
require
easements
for
the
provision
of
public
services
and
facilities
and
then
also
no
lock
can
be
less
than
1200
square
feet,
but
cities
may
adopt
a
lower
minimum
lot
size.
I'm
curious
if
any
of
our
existing
ordinances
slot
in
with
that,
and
if
there's
any
implications
of
that
those
two
things.
E
Yeah,
so
the
the
ability,
the
statement
in
senate
bill
9
around
the
can
require
easements
for
public
services.
So
we
do
already
have
standards
that
that's
really
more
something
public
works
looks
at
as
part
of
subdivision
standards,
so
I'm
not
intimately
familiar
with
those.
However,
where
those
are
already
required
right,
we
already
say
hey.
If
you
do
this
type
of
subdivision,
you
need
to
do
this
kind
of
an
easement
that
would
still
apply
right,
because
the
bill
allows
us
to
continue
to
apply
those.
E
That
said,
for
you
know
individual
single-family
subdivisions
within
developed
areas,
which
is
what
we
expect
to
see.
We're
really
not
expecting
to
see
the
need
for
public
services
outside
of
that
kind
of
utility
example.
I
gave
you
know
so
if
the
water
line
or
the
power
line
needs
to
go
through
front
property
to
reach
back
property,
that
would
be
an
area
where
yeah.
We
would,
of
course,
want
an
easement
for
that
to
ensure
that
they
could
continue
to
have
public
water
supply,
but
off
the
top.
E
F
Basically,
that
sp9
requires
that
when
you
subdivide
lots
that
the
individual
lots
be
no
less
than
1200
square
feet,
but
it
allows
cities
to
adopt
a
lower
size
and
I'm
just
curious
if
we
have
ordinances
that
would
have
that
effect.
Right
now,.
E
C
I
actually
have
one
question,
but
more
importantly,
I
have
one
statement.
I
think
city
staff
should
be
given
the
biggest
applause
for
pulling
off
a
hat-trick
here.
You
know
where
it
was,
I
think,
probably
ill
conceived
state
law,
if
not
peacefully
conceived
state
law
just
through
a
lot
of
work
into
the
lives
of
people
who
already
had
plenty
of
work
so
specifically
martina
fantastic
job.
You
know
this
makes
me
confident
and
making
a
decision
today
about
how
this
goes
forward.
C
I
really
appreciate
the
work
I
did
have
one
question:
I
I
think
we
were
saying
that
historic
properties
would
be
subject
to
this
rule
as
well,
but
just
to
be
clear,
there
are
already
ordinances
that
protect
facades
of
historic
buildings
and
things
like
that.
That
would
not
be
impacted
by
allowing
those
properties
to
be
subdivided.
Is
that
correct.
E
Yeah,
so
actually,
this
bill
does
not
allow
use
of
it
on
historic
properties,
and
so
the
direction
from
last
week
was
to
as
part
of
our
longer
term
senate
bill,
sv9
implementation.
Look
at
extending
the
allowances
under
this
bill
to
cover
historic
properties.
So
this
ordinance,
we're
looking
at
today,
just
just-
doesn't
touch
them
at
all,
they're
not
eligible
to
use
this
ordinance.
That
would
be
the
convert
next
conversation
and
it
would
be
looking
at
those
standards
we
have
now.
What
do
we
need?
Do
we
need
more
standards?
Do
we
need
specific
standards?
E
We
probably
would.
I
will
tell
you
a
lot
of
the
historic
preservation
is
around
sort
of
that
back
and
forth
design
review,
whereas
well,
actually,
no,
I
take
that
back
because
this,
if
we
extended
senate
bill
9
to
cover
historic
properties,
it's
not
truly
senate
bill,
9
right,
because
the
bill
itself
does
not
cover
it.
E
It's
our
own
local
allowances
to
extend
these
types
of
projects
to
our
historic
properties,
so
we
would
have
a
lot
more
leeway
actually
to
have
more
discretionary
review
more
standards,
but
that's
definitely
the
conversation
we
would
be
having
next,
not
not
part
of
this.
This
one
is
just
it
doesn't
touch
them,
which
I
will
say
I'm
grateful
for,
because
we
just
don't
have
time
to
kind
of
come
up
with
new
objective
standards
around
our
historic
properties.
A
I
agree
with
commissioner
contrell
martina.
You
did
a
fantastic
job,
I'm
very
impressed
with
your
work.
You
did
a
good
job
and
if
I
could
I'd
give
you
a
hug,
so
I
give
you
a
virtual
hug
right
now
good
job.
So
one
of
the
things
that
I
want
to
talk
about
is,
I
know
you
mentioned
the
two
lots
lit
with
the
house
down
the
middle
and
there
was
some
concern
with
tearing
down
a
house.
A
So
one
of
the
questions
that
I
have
is,
if
you
have
an
existing
house
that
straddles
the
potential
lot
line
down
the
middle,
can
they
take
that
house
and
convert
it
into
attached
two
units
to
preserve
and
reuse
the
existing
house?
That
is
there?
Would
they
be
able
to
do
that.
E
That
one
is
that's
a
great
question,
so
purely
in
theory-
yes,
you
you
could
do
that,
however,
in
practice,
because
when
you
have
a
proper
like
a
one
dwell
or
one
building
that
straddles
the
property
line,
you
really
do
need
to
provide
certain
levels
of
separation.
So,
like
a
firewall
down
that
middle
property
line,
so
they
really
do
effectively
kind
of
function
more
as
to
independent
structures.
E
So
if
you're
home,
you
could
remodel
your
home
to
do
that,
I
think
in
theory
I
don't
know
if
that's
practical
in
any
case
honestly,
so
you
so
of
course
you
know
I
I
would
love
people
to
prove
me
wrong
there
right,
but
I
I
just
thinking
through
kind
of
all
of
the
different
building,
because
separating
the
plumbing
all
of
that
kind
of
stuff,
it's
one
of
those
things
that
might
make
sense
on
paper,
but
when
you're
actually
trying
to
figure
out
what
you
need
to
do
to
make
that
work,
it
likely
is
not
going
to
make
sense
for
people
in
most
cases.
A
Okay,
good
and
then
you
know,
I
know
you
mentioned
the
three-year
owner
occupancy
per
the
intended
sb9.
I
know
that
you
know,
as
planners
you
like
to
see
development
in
urban,
create
infill
development
in
vacant.
Lots
within
you
know
an
r1
zoning
district.
So
one
of
the
things
I
think
like
in
my
mind
when
I
see
this
just
because
you
know
I
know
that
there's
a
lot
of
prefab
now
single
family
houses
or
tiny
houses.
A
You
know
if
somebody
wanted
to
you
know,
split
a
lot
that
is
currently
vacant
and
put
in
you
know
a
tiny
house
or
a
prefab,
because
you
know
you
know
prefab
is
a
little
bit
more
affordable,
something
like
that
to
meet
that
three-year
owner
occupancy
requirement.
A
E
Yeah-
and
they
would
definitely
be
able
to
do
that,
so
I
mean
in
that
case,
what
they
would
have
to
do
is
just
phase
it,
so
they
would
need
to
put
in
at
least
the
one
house.
First
we
approved
that
subdivision,
and
now
you
can
put
the
second
house
on
the
other
lot.
So
that's
certainly
something
that
people
could
do
and
I
think
you're
absolutely
right.
The
prefab
model
might
actually
make
that
a
lot
easier
and
faster
to
just
get
the
one
dwelling
unit
built.
A
You
know
another
thing,
of
course
you
know
parking,
you
know
as
as
a
mom
of
young
children.
You
know
parking
is
a
big
deal
for
parents
when
you
got
to
take
them
to
school
and
groceries,
and
I
know
that
there
seemed
to
be
some.
You
know
with
requirements,
but
the
50
you
know
just
because
I
know
that
there's
so
many
alternatives
per
of
like
maybe
impervious
pavers
or
new
alternative
impervious
material
to
prevent
water,
runoff
increase
of
water
runoff.
A
You
know,
just
just
you
know
some
things
I
don't
know
if
we
could
get
or
allow
people
to
have
that
creativity.
To
put
you
know
this
alternative
material
to
create
parking,
but
yet
the
look
of
it
looks
and
feels
more
organic
to
to
like
some
green
space
or
just
some
other
material.
That
looks
nicer
right,
just
just
things
that
I'm
just
thinking
out
loud.
E
Yeah,
I
I
would
agree-
and
you
know
definitely
that
was
just
something
that
I
just
did
not
feel
that
we
had
the
time
to
think
through
appropriately
with
this
ordinance,
but
I
think
it
is
an
absolutely
I
think
I
did
even
mention
on
that
slide,
that
this
would
be
something
we
would
really
want
to
re-look
at
to
see
you
know.
E
Are
there
alternates,
such
as
yeah
there's
this
grass
creek
pavers,
that
that
kind
of
stuff
right
to
kind
of
facilitate
both
goals
of
green
trees
and
also
have
the
parking
that
people
want
on
their
properties?
So
absolutely
something
I
think
we
could
look
at
in
the
future.
I
just
wasn't
really
able
to
come
up
with
anything
around
that
with
with
this
ordinance
at
this
time,.
A
Just
I
just
have
a
three
questions:
can
you
define
for
us
because
you
said
there
is
now
a
definition
for
acting
in
concert?
Can
we
get
that
definition
read
to
us.
A
You
just
let
us
know
that
in
your
in
your
layman's
terms,
so
that
we
can
understand
that.
E
And
you
know
I'll
be
honest.
This
is
going
to
be
an
interesting
one
on
enforcing
right
because
we're
not
investigators,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
how
often
this
will
come
up
in
practice,
but
you
know,
if
it
does,
we
did
want
to
have
something
to
point
to
so
our
definition
is
knowing
participation
in
a
joint
activity
or
parallel
action
toward
a
common
goal,
whether
or
not
pursuant
to
an
express
agreement.
E
E
So
I
think
in
practice
you
know,
I
think
where
this
might
come
up
is,
for
example,
if
we
get
people
trusts
right,
because
a
lot
of
times
properties
are
owned
by
trusts.
We
may
start
asking
well
who
are
the
beneficiaries
of
this
trust
right,
because
if
it's
the
same
beneficiaries,
you
know
different
names
right.
You
know
this
is
the
this
trust.
This
is
the
this
trust
and
turns
out
it's
all
the
same
beneficiaries.
That's
going
to
be
something
that's
acting
in
concert,
I
think
in
practice
it's
going
to
be
stuff
like
that.
E
The
idea
isn't
to
like
prevent
somebody
from
working
with,
say,
maybe
the
same
engineering
firm
if
they're
acting
independently,
that's
kind
of
not
where
we
think
this
is
going.
It's
really
going
to
be.
If,
if
it's
pretty
clear
that
on
a
deeper
level
there,
it's
really
benefiting
the
same
people
beyond
just
kind
of
engineering
services,
or
something
like
that,
but
yeah.
I
will
be
honest
that
this
one
I'm
not
really
sure
how
this
one
is
going
to
play
out,
and
I
do
actually
really
look
for
also
guidance
from
the
state
on
kind
of.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
then
on
the
other
one.
If
we
can
go
back
to
the
number
of
units,
so
we
have
limited
to
no
more
than
four
units
right
on
a
divided
parcel
right
parcel.
It
did.
We
did
you
think
about,
because
we
had
a
discussion
last
last
meeting
regarding
affordability
and
do
you
think
it's
premature
to
include
language
such
as,
with
the
exception
to
allow
for
density
bonuses
that
create
affordable
units
for
lmi
dwellers.
E
E
We
would
be
able
to
figure
out
before
january
first
of
this
year,
so
you
know
I
wish
I
had
a
different
answer
for
you,
but
given
the
time
constraints,
there's
a
lot
of
complexity,
around
kind
of
a
density,
bonus
approach
that
we
absolutely
would
look
forward
to
exploring
and
trying
to
figure
out
but
figuring
it
out
before.
This
goes
to
council
honestly,
on
tuesday
is,
I
would
say
it's
just
not
something
that
we
would
be
able
to
do.
A
So
if
we
we
at
some
point,
this
will
be
what
you're
telling
us
is
that
this
will
be
revisited
on
either
by
this
body
or
by
the
city
council,
and
at
that
point
we
can
open
up
these
limitations
for
further
discussion.
E
Yeah,
and
so
we
will
be
forwarding,
of
course,
your
recommendation
to
the
council
around
senate
bill
9
and
opportunity
housing,
and
that's
where
that
affordability
component,
exploring
that
affordability
component
was
was
included
so
and
we're
not.
We
are
absolutely
honestly
kind
of
looking
forward
to
looking
into
that.
E
So
assuming
council
does
take
that
direction,
and
I
think
that
them
looking
at
this
ordinance
on
the
same
night
will
really
highlight
the
need
to
continue
to
work
on
this
and
look
at
it
that
it
would
be
part
of
that
future
ordinance,
which
would
actually
would
be
coming
to
the
planning
commission
and
then
to
the
council.
A
Okay
and
then
my
last
question
regarding
setback
standards
right,
I'm
also
one
that
doesn't
really
like
garages
over
being.
You
know,
being
the
the
main
thing
that
you're
looking
at
when
you're
looking
at
at
a
home,
and
so
does
the
setback
standards
on
the
frontage
garage
frontage
preclude
us
from
saying:
okay
move
the
garage
set
back
back
from
the
house
itself,
or
are
we
precluded
from
doing
that.
E
So
if
we
were
to
propose
that
what
we
would
have
to
do
is
there
is
some
allowance
under
the
bill
to
kind
of
swap,
so
you
know
you
might
be
able
to
increase
the
setback
somewhere
as
long
as
you
decrease
it
somewhere
else,
and
so
I
I
really
I
actually
did
look
at
that
and
I
I
you
know,
the
thing
was
it's:
where
do
we
compromise?
Okay?
E
So
if
we're
going
to
require
an
additional
garage
setback,
that
means
that
we've
got
to
lessen
the
setbacks
somewhere
else,
and
we
don't
have
a
ton
of
room
to
do
that
and
I
think
that
just
needs
a
lot
more
study.
E
F
Yes,
thank
you.
So
I
have
a
couple
of
questions,
but
could
you
could
you
walk
us
through
again
the
the
example
of
the
lot
splits?
For
example,
like
you,
have
a
5500
square
foot
lot
and
you
split
it
into
they.
Each
have
to
have
30
foot
street
access
or
or
front
edge,
or
else
it's
going
to
be
a
flag
lot
which
are
really
problematic
and
then
the
floor
area
ratio
is.
F
Was
it
45
because
if
it's
45,
then
that
winds
up
being
like
just
under
2
500
square
feet
total
for
both
lots
is
that
right.
E
E
More
more
of
my
fancy
math
here
is
that
if
you
had
a
pretty
typical
6
000
square
foot
lot
and
you
weren't
subdividing
it
that
would
come
out
to
a
2700
square
foot
floor
area
ratio,
so
that
would
be
looking
at
two
units
could
be.
It
would
be
1350
square
feet
for
each
unit,
so
on
a
non-subdivided
lot,
you're,
definitely
able
to
exceed
the
senate
bill
9
lot,
minimum
of
800.
E
Once
you
start
subdividing,
if
you
were
to
say,
go
down
to
3
000
square
foot,
so
2
3,
000
square
foot
lots
the
45
on
each
of
those.
Lots
is
actually
going
to
be
less
than
2
800
square
foot
units.
So
you
would
need
to
invoke
the
ability
to
do
the
200
800
square
foot
units
on
those
subdivided
lots
if
you're,
starting
with
kind
of
a
smaller
lot
to
subdivide
with
and.
F
On
the
original,
in
that
example,
on
the
original,
6
000
square
foot
lot
and
you
wind
up
with
27.50,
that's
27.50
for
both
of
the
units
on
that
lot.
Right,
I'm
sorry!
That's
27.50
for
the
four
units
of
the
original
lot,
because
the
original
lot's
going
to
be
subdivided
into
two
which
then
each
have
two
units
of
which
each
at
the
end
of
the
day
each
unit
would
have
a
maximum
of
1300
square
feet.
F
E
In
that
example,
if
you
were
to
subdivide-
and
so
you
have-
you
have
to
split
that
2700
square
feet
over
four-
that
is
going
to
result
in
less
than
800
square
feet
per
unit,
so
you
would
actually
use
that
sp9
standard
of
800
square
feet
per
unit.
In
that
scenario,
and
then
the
lot
configurations
of
now
I'll
just
show
you
share
the
screen.
I
have
a
slide
for
that.
A
E
So
that's
kind
of
looking
at
how
it
looks
on
all
four
of
the
scenarios
so
yeah
with
the
30
foot
minimum
standard.
You
would
need
to
start
with
a
60
foot
wide
lot
to
do
this
type
of
subdivision.
If
you're,
starting
with
a
lot,
that's
less
than
60
feet
wide,
you
are
looking
at
doing
a
flag
lot
based
on
these
standards.
E
One
of
our
things
we
considered
looking
at
this
was
you
know
the
narrower.
These
lots
get
the
more
garage
frontage
you
have
and
the
kind
of
weirder
the
units
start
looking,
and
so
we
did
think
we
wanted
to
maintain.
At
least
we
were
thinking
30
feet
now
I
mean
this
could
be
adjusted
this.
If
you
adjusted
this
down
right,
it
would
allow
more
lots
to
have
this
down
the
middle
subdivision
type,
but
then
just
keep
in
mind
the
more
you
adjust
this
down
the
narrower
kind
of
homes.
E
You're
getting
so
we
landed
on
30
feet,
but
it
could
be
a
different
standard.
If
say,
the
commission
wanted
to
allow
more
lots
to
do
this
sort
of
down
the
middle
subdivision
to
avoid
flag
lots.
F
Okay
and
then
it
sounds
like
there's
somewhat
of
a
hesitant
hesitancy
to
ask
for
things
such
like
tax
returns
or
to
look
at
city
records
services.
F
Things
of
that
nature,
in
terms
of
by
adhering
to
benign
that
it's
only
an
intent
or
that
they
attest
that
they
intend
to
occupy
one
of
the
units,
but
with
the
with
the
fact
that
no
rental
units
can
be
demolished
or
impacted
shouldn't.
We
ask
for
these
type
of
things
to
protect
ourselves,
to
ensure
that
they're,
not
rental
units
already.
E
Yeah
and
we,
and
we
very
likely
will
be
asking
for
more-
I
mean
I
will
say
we
will
be
asking
for
more
than
just
the
attestation
we're
still,
though,
trying
to
figure
out
exactly
what
that
is,
we're
going
to
ask
for,
and
so
we
weren't
able
to
come
up
with.
You
know
really
set
things
that
we
wanted
to
put
in
our
ordinance
before
it
was
adopted,
and
then
also
we
want
the
ability
to
give
ourselves
some
flexibility
on.
Oh
wait.
We
thought
of
something
else.
E
You
know
so
we're
going
to
be
relying
on
our
application,
submittal
requirements
to
add
additional
things
that
we're
going
to
ask
to
be
submitted
to
ensure
that
that
rental
previous
rental,
exactly
what
those
are.
I
think
we
are
still
working
on
that,
but
but
I
I
would
say
that
we
are
going
to
be
doing
more
than
just
asking
for
a
statement.
The
statement
is
just
a
baseline.
We
want
something
to
put
in
the
ordinance,
but
we
will
be
looking
into
that
more
for
sure.
F
Okay
and
then
my
last
question
is
walk
me
what
the
process
looks
like
when
somebody
surprisingly,
I
don't
know
if
somebody
were
to
apply.
You
know
to
split
their
lot.
When
do
when
does
when
do
they
have
the
ability
to
to
finalize
these?
You
know
the
splitting
of
the
lots.
Is
it
you
know
application
and
then
it's
based
on
what
you're
telling
us
it.
F
It
makes
sense
and
it
can
be
approved
in
a
short
period
of
time
or
is
it
a
process
like
a
building
permit
process
where
every
stage
you
go
out
there
and
get
things
signed
off
and
then
at
the
end
you
don't
get
the
final
until
it
meets
all
the
requirements,
and
you
know
and
and
so
that
meets
all
the
requirements,
because
I
would
hate
to
see
people
split
their
lots
and
then
sell
a
lot
in
and
then
they're
done,
and
they
just
basically
like
you
said,
wound
up
with
an
empty
lot
and
it's
on
based
on
speculation.
E
Yeah,
so
the
process
is
dictated
in
the
law.
It's
called
a
parcel
map,
which
is
an
existing
subdivision
type
we
have
so
those
are
the
lead
department
on
those.
Are
our
public
works
department,
so,
under
the
I
believe,
the
map
act,
if
nothing
else,
our
local
ordinance.
E
You
are
required
to
have
a
licensed
engineer,
submit
those
plans
so
that
that
subdivision
they
would
submit
it
to
our
public
works
department
and
it's
similar
to
a
building
permit
in
that
public
works
will
route
a
copy
of
it
to
the
various
departments
to
do
technical
review,
so
a
copy
will
go
to
planning
and
so
planning
will
start.
Looking
at
all
of
those
various
sb9
standards,
the
public
works
will
assign
it
to
an
engineer
team.
E
The
engineer
team
is
going
to
look
at
it
for
those
engineering
standards,
the
driveway
curb
cuts
like
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
We
send
them
to
the
fire
department.
We
also
send
them
to
the
building
department,
and
so
they
can
look
at
those
for
all
of
their
standards
as
well.
So
then,
there's
a
you
know,
there's
a
back
and
forth
if
there
needs
to
be
know.
Typically,
there
does
there's
hey.
Can
you
clarify
this
comment?
Hey
actually,
this
doesn't
work.
Why
don't
you
revise
it
here?
E
It
goes
back
and
forth
and
then
once
it
gets
ready
for
approval,
they
actually
have
this
kind
of
old-fashioned,
but
they
actually
have
to
submit
a
copy
of
the
map
to
us
on
a
mylar
like
a
sheet
of
mylar
paper,
and
then
it
actually
has
to
get
signed
by
someone
on
behalf
of
the
director
of
planning,
as
well
as
someone
on
behalf
of
the
chief
engineer
of
the
city,
who's,
the
director
of
public
works,
and
I
believe
the
applicant
does
actually
have
to
sign
that
mylar
too
then,
once
it's
signed
it
we
go
and
re-record
it
at
the
county
and
when
it's
recorded
at
the
county,
that's
when
that
new
property
line
begins
to
exist.
F
But
but
the
but
lots
gets
so
the
lots
gets
the
lock
gets
split
until
the
construction
is
completed.
E
Yeah
so
based
on
how
we're
reading
that,
on
our
occupancy
and
kind
of
how
we're
clarifying
in
our
ordinance
that
we
would
not
issue
the
approval
for
that
subdivision,
because
once
that's
issued,
that's
it's
issued.
It
goes
to
the
county.
The
lot
line
exists,
so
we
would
not
issue
that
approval
until
there's
a
dwelling
unit
on
one
of
the
on
the
property,
so
that
could
be
on
one
of
the
future.
Lots.
F
Okay
and
there's
no
there's
no
ability
to
limit
the
way
they
hold
ownership
right,
I
mean
it's,
you
know
like
attendance
in
common
or
things
like
that
that
are
not
not
typical
in
san
jose,
but
maybe
they
could
be
based
on
sb9.
E
It's
actually
very
unclear
right
now,
for
example,
for
the.
If
someone
wanted
to
do
condominiums,
does
that
actually
fall
within
sb9
the
interpretations
for
the
most
part
I've
been
hearing.
Are
it
does
not
so
we're
really
reading
senate
bill
9
to
be
for
kind
of
your
straight
traditional,
I
own,
the
property
they
own.
The
property
subdivision
now.
Could
that
change
in
the
future
as
more
people
interpret
it?
E
Maybe
the
bill
gets
amended
to
be
determined,
but
based
on
kind
of
everything
we've
read
looking
at
the
bill,
it
does
appear
to
be
aimed
only
at
those
just
kind
of
traditional
you're,
creating
an
actual
lot
line:
you're,
not
creating
airspace,
condominiums
or
tenants
in
common.
That's.
That
is
something
different
under
the
map
act.
F
Okay,
thank
you.
F
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you,
martina
for
all
the
work,
as
everyone
else
stated,
this
is
the
new
unfunded
mandate
from
the
state
based
on
commissioner
garcia's
question.
You
mentioned
that
smaller
lots
would
then
use
sb9
to
exceed
the
far
I'm
I'm
just
curious.
What's
the
you
know
range
of
worst
case
scenario
on
far
exceedance:
0.75
0.85,
okay,.
E
E
Yeah
yeah
well
so
the
bill
the
bill
says
1200
square
foot.
Lots
is
that
the
minimum
now
that
said
in
order
to
go
down
to
that
minimum
because
of
the
rough
proportionality
kind
of
standard,
you
really
need
to
start.
You
start
with,
I
think
2
400
square
foot
to
get
there.
We
have
very
very
very
few,
if
any,
probably
maybe
a
handful
of
standard
lots
throughout
the
city.
We
consider
those
actually
substandard
that
are
even
that's
that
size.
So
I'm
going
to
give
you
the
absolute
like
total
worst
case
under
the
bill.
E
E
E
E
So
you
got
1600
divided
by
your
3
000
square
foot.
Lot,
that's
a
so
1600
divided
by
a
3
000
square
foot
lot
would
be
the
0.53,
so
that
would
be
invoking
the
ability
to
do
the
two
800
square
foot
units
on
a
3
000
square
foot
lot.
Just
for
example,
it
comes
up
to
a
0.353
far
so
a
little
bit
higher
than
what
we
currently
allow,
but
not
tremendously
so.
F
E
That's
another,
that's
a
that's
a
good
question!
So
yes,
and
I
mean
the
owner
occupancy
standard
or
sorry
yeah,
the
the
renter
right,
that's
the
main
thing
in
our
current
municipal
code.
If
you
propose
a
replacement
single
family
dwelling,
you
can
get
a
permit
to
demolish
it,
the
current
one.
So
in
that
sense
it
kind
of
goes
along
with
this.
Well,
there's
got
to
be
a
dwelling
unit
on
the
lot
in
order
to
demolish
it.
E
You've
actually
got
to
get
a
building
permit
at
the
same
time
to
replace
it
and
then
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
subdivide
until
you
actually
execute
that
building
permit
and
build
the
unit.
So
in
a
sense,
yeah
there
is
no
protection
from
demolitions,
but
that's
that
is
actually
the
case
now
right.
E
So
in
the
same
scenarios,
you'd
be
able
to
come
and
demolish
a
house
while
proposing
a
replacement
would
still
apply,
but
given
that
sort
of
to
subdivide
and
demolish
you've
got
to
have
a
house
at
minimum,
you
know
we're
kind
of
status
quo
with
when
it
comes
to
demolitions,
with
what
we
already
allow.
F
Fair
enough,
thank
you
and
then,
as
far
as
you
know,
there's
been
a
lot
of
mention
of
well.
Someone
will
build
a
house
in
the
back,
but
you
know
if
a
house
is
far
back
on
the
lot
and
has
a
substantial
setback
from
the
front.
I
think
in
under
sb9
neighbors
could
see
a
structure
built
in
front
of
the
existing
house.
Is
that
correct.
E
Yeah,
I
mean
definitely
in
theory.
I
would
say
you
know,
looking
at
san
jose's
lots,
that's
a
again
a
few
and
far
between
case
where
you
would
really
have
a
generous
enough
of
a
setback
in
the
front
to
be
able
to
have
that
much
space
to
then
be
able
to
go,
and
you
know
have
that
back
house,
be
your
existing
house
and
build
in
the
front,
I'm
not
going
to
say
it
would
never
happen.
E
But
I
think
that
would
be
a
very
rare,
rare
rare
exception
where
you've
got
a
kind
of
very
unusual
situation
where
you've
got
a
very
unusually
large.
Existing
setback.
F
B
All
right
can,
I
just
just
say
one
thing:
it's
the
motion
by
caballero
second
by
olivario,
and
this
is
really
immoral
to
walk
the
public
a
little
bit
through
this
I
mean
sb9
is
the
law
of
the
land
and,
as
I
talked
to
folks,
I
think
folks
still
think
that
the
city
council
is
passing
sb9,
so
just
just
to
walk
us
through.
I
know
we
know
the
answers,
but
martina
sb9
was
created
by
the
state
of
california
as
a
mandate
to
cities,
correct.
E
B
Projects-
and
you
just
jumped
to
my
second
question
and
the
city
of
san
jose-
cannot
say
no
we're
not
implementing
sb9.
Is
that
correct?
That
would
be
correct,
okay,
correct.
So
this
is
a
mandate
from
the
state
of
california
that
cities
and
towns
throughout
california
have
to
implement
ordinance
or
no
ordinance,
and
just
for
purposes
of
clarification,
I
do
want
to
say,
echoing
my
colleague,
sentiment
great
job,
I
mean
this
presentation
was
complicated
topic.
You
walked
us
through.
B
It
showed
us
pictures,
I
personally
I'm
a
big
coloring
book
guy,
so
those
pictures
really
went
a
long
way,
but
but
you
definitely
showed
that
I
guess
my
my
question
is
again
more
for
the
public.
We
are
somewhat
rushing
through
this
because
we
need
to
get
this
to
the
council
in
order
to
have
some
framework
by
january,
which
is
the
effective
date
of
sb9.
Is
that
correct.
E
B
E
I
suspect
so
I
think,
under
any
circumstances,
regardless
of
what
council
directs
with
opportunity
housing.
I
think
there
is
definitely
going
to
be
room
for
cleanup
for
this
bill,
particularly
again.
If,
when
the
state
releases
their
guidance,
they
may
come
out
with
some
surprises,
they're
interpreting
things
different
from
us.
E
We
would
need
to
address
that
and
then,
as
I
mentioned
as
just
part
of
our
normal
work,
especially
with
something
this
complex
and
new,
we
do
work
very
closely
with
our
permit
center
staff,
and
so
if
there
are
standards
that
are
causing
nothing
but
pain
for
everybody,
we
will
proactively
propose
to
amend
those.
B
All
right
well,
thank
you
for
answering
the
questions
that
we
know,
but
I
do
think
it's
important
to
walk
the
public
through
it
or,
at
the
very
least,
be
able
to
point
to
this
moment
so
that
it's
clear
we
are
implementing
the
law
of
the
land
as
far
as
the
state
of
california
on
this
topic,
whether
this
gets
challenged
or
not
is
tbd,
but
that's,
not
our
jurisdiction
or
jurisdiction
is
to
participate
in
the
framing
of
the
implementation
of
sb9
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
city
of
san
jose.
So
thank
you
for
that.
Martina.
B
A
B
B
D
B
B
D
Let
me
let
me
just
give
me
a
second
here
sure.
D
F
No,
I
just
had
a
question
chair
to
michael
brio
that
and
it
can
be
after
he's
done
looking
for
whatever
he's
looking
for,
but
I
was
curiosity,
does
he
contemplate
any
major,
significant
projects
coming
to
planning
commission
coming
to
planning
commission
in
the
first
half
of
next
year
or
anytime?
Soon
we
we
don't,
have
much.
You
know,
visibility
to
what's
coming
up.
You
know.
D
Yeah,
so
I
I
can't
in
terms
of
development
projects,
I'm
afraid
I
can
answer
that
robert's,
probably
better
the
better
person
to
answer
that
robert
manford.
I
I
do
know
that
we
have
an
urban
village
plan
coming
your
way
in
february
and
north
first
street,
we
have
gen
privately
initiated
general
plan
amendments,
but
in
terms
of
development
projects.
I'd
have
to
defer
to
robert
on
that-
and
I
don't
think
he's
here
tonight,
but
I
was
asked
that
of
robert
at
the
next
hearing.
B
D
Okay,
I
don't
know
if
you
can
see
this.
This
is
what
this
is.
The
motion
that
passed,
I
wrote
it
all
down,
so
there
was
about.
I
don't
know
six,
seven,
eight,
nine
memos,
eight
memos
that
were
blue
memos
that
were
put
out.
Ultimately,
what
happened
is
it?
It
went
relatively
quickly.
I
think
it
was
only
about
an
hour
and
a
half
to
two
hours,
all
the
memos
to
one
form
or
another
were
approved.
D
What
the
count
this
is
remember
so
remind
you.
This
is
the
kitchen
sink
everything,
but
the
kitchen
sink
general
plan
amendments
which
you
guys
heard
on.
When
was
that,
I
don't
remember
december
1st-
I
don't
remember
sorry
it's
a
blur,
but
they
heard
it
last
night
yeah.
It
would
have
been
december
1st.
You
guys
heard
it
so
they
heard
it
last
night
they
recommended
approving
they
approved
staffs
for
a
recommendation
in
general.
D
Overall,
with
a
couple
exceptions
for
the
signature
project,
we
had
recommended
a
minimum
parcel
size
criteria
of
three
acres
for
interior
properties.
They
went
with
the
task
force
recommendation
for
1.5
acres.
D
D
There
also
is
a
provision
added
to
to
exempt
pending
signature
projects
that
are
on
file.
There
are
three
of
them
from
changes
to
the
signature
project
policy
that
were
approved
by
council
last
night,
and
they
also
modified
the
neighborhood
businesses
to
commercial
requirement,
as
recommended
by
staff
at
the
hearing
from
replace
100
of
the
existing
square,
footage
of
commercial
or
industrial
space
on
site,
with
commercial
space
to
replace
existing
square
footage
of
commercial
or
industrial
space
on
site
by
providing
at
a
minimum
ground
for
commercial
space.
So
it's
less
prescriptive.
D
They
gave
us
direction
and
exactly
the
amount
of
commercial
that
would
be
provided,
and
that
will
be
done
as
part
of
a
implementing
zoning
ordinance
that
will
be
coming
back
to
council
next
year.
So
just
a
reminder
to
council
when
the,
when
I'm
sorry
reminder
to
you
planning
commission,
when
the
council
approves
general
plan
amendments,
they
do
not
go
into
effect
unless
an
implementing
zoning
ordinance
or
intel
and
implementing
zoning
ordinance
is
also
approved.
Sometimes
it
happens
in
the
same
night
other
times
it
comes
back
at
a
later
date
and
that's
the
case
here.
D
I
don't
think
I'll
get
into
all
of
these,
but
they
had
one
two,
three,
four,
five,
six,
seven,
seven
additional
work
items
they're
directing
staff
to
do
so.
We
got
something
done
and
we
got
seven
more
things
to
do.
D
I
can
go
through
this
if
you
want,
but
it's
quite
a
mouthful,
so
there's
a
lot
more
work.
They
gave
us
to
do
as
follow-up
to
their
approval
last
night
and
I
will
leave
it
to
that.
Unless
there's
any
other
questions.
B
All
right
seeing
none,
I
I
do
want
to
go
back
to
the
question
I
was
to
commissioner
olivario's
question.
I
know
robert's
not
available,
but
if
there
is
anyone
on
staff
that
can't
answer
that
question
now
would
be
a
good
time
to
help
him
answer
the
quote.
To
answer
his
question:
if
not
we'll
move
on,
but
just
wanted
to
give
someone
else
a
chance.
A
Yeah,
I
have
reviewed
actually
I
have
reviewed
some
agenda
items
for
january
from
implementation
from
the
implementation
side
of
the
department.
None
of
them
are
major.
However,
it's
the
more
typical
items
that
you
receive,
the
bigger
items,
the
more
significant
items
that
you're
receiving
are
the
urban
village
plan
for
north
first
street
and
the
private
general
plan
amendments.
B
D
I
don't
have
anything
hang
on.
Let
me
just
see
no.
B
B
Seeing
none
given
that
this
is
our
final
meeting
of
the
year.
I
want
to
take
this
moment
to
wish
each
and
every
one
of
you,
an
amazing
and
happy
festive
holiday
season,
may
be
healthy.
May
it
be
fun-
and
I
do
want
to
take
this
moment
to
let
you
all
know
that
the
work
that
we
do
is
is
is
a
great
service
to
our
city
and
for
me
personally,
it
is
an
amazing
privilege
to
serve
with
each
and
every
one
of
you
staff.
Thank
you
for
everything
you
do
to
to
provide
us
information.
B
I
know
we've
been
in
adjustment
with
eleven
and,
as
you
can
see,
we're
we're
not
shrinking
violence
here.
So
thank
you
for
working
with
us
and
us
with
you
as
well,
but
thank
you
all
for
your
service
to
this
great
city
with
that.
This
meeting
is
adjourned,
happy
holidays
and
happy
new
year.