►
From YouTube: DEC 1, 2021 | Planning Commission Study Session
Description
City of San José, California
Planning Commission Study Session 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=908607&GUID=0AFC20D3-3526-4ECA-B937-55683902638F
A
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
live
stream,
cable,
tv,
granicus
and
youtube
following
roll
call
during
summary,
hearing
or
procedure,
we
will
review
how
the
public
may
provide
comments
during
this
today's
study
session
I'll
start,
the
roll
call
chair
bonilla,
is
out
casey's
here,
commissioner
caballero.
C
B
Commissioner,
olivario
here
all
right,
commissioners,
wise.
B
Commissioner
torrance
here
and
commissioner
young
here
all
right
so
summary
of
hearing
procedures.
The
procedure
for
this
hearing
is
as
follows:
city
staff
will
call
out
names
of
the
public
who
identify
they
want
to
speak.
You
may
identify
yourself
by
the
raised
hand,
feature
on
zoom
click,
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
we
confirm
your
audio
is
working.
Your
allotted
time
will
begin.
Each
speaker
will
have
two
minutes.
B
Speakers
using
the
translator
will
have
four
minutes
planning.
Commissioners
may
ask
questions
of
the
speakers
response
to
commissioner
questions
will
not
reduce
the
speaker's
time
allowance
staff
will
unmute
the
speaker
to
respond
to
the
commissioner.
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.
A
A
Yes,
paul
sotoma
horseshoe.
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
thank
commissioners
control
caballero
in
montenez.
I
was
in
attendance
at
the
willows
meeting
and
you
demonstrated
the
moral
and
ethical
conflict
that
should
be
triggered
and
arise
when
having
these
discussions.
A
The
fact
that
it
does
not
is
the
problem
when
this
commission
was
only
seven
members
I
was
in
need
and
oliveria
was
absent
from
that
meeting,
but
everybody
else
was
there.
I
had.
I
carry
around
devil
of
silicon
valley
inside
my
backpack
somebody
told
me
to
go
to
one
of
the
commissioners
meetings
I
went
there.
There
were
seven
members
on
the
planning
commission
guess
how
many
members
were
from
district
six,
who
was
the
primary
beneficiary
in
terms
of
equity
in
their
homes
of
all
of
these
planning
commission
decisions.
A
It
was
disgusting.
So
I'd
like
to
think
that
I
played
a
small
role
in
ensuring,
because
I
took
that
right
to
the
council
and
I
fronted
off
oliverio.
I
found
it
off
everybody
from
olga.
I
said
you
guys
think
that
these
planning,
commission
allowances
are
legitimate
because
there's
people
that
are
gonna
profit
from
this.
No,
no,
no,
we
must
have
the
redline
map.
A
The
redlining
map
must
be
the
arbiter
of
the
decisions
that
are
made
from
the
planning
commission,
because
if
it
is
not,
then
the
then
the
legitimacy
of
your
decisions
is
not
credible.
Why
you
haven't
even
read
a
redlining
document.
You
want
to
read
one
I
have
a
hundred
of
them.
I
have
100
documents
of
redlining
documents
that
were
produced
in
order
to
affirm
that
map.
I
grew
up
in
d11,
that's
the
horseshoe
d11
is
the
lowest
designation.
A
So
I
I
just
I
I
can't
thank
you
enough.
You
three
for
doing
what
you
did.
I'm
sorry
paul.
Your
time
is
up
and
by
sure
this
looks.
D
A
D
Take
that
as
a
yes,
okay,
so
thank
you,
commissioners,
for
having
a
arriving
early
today
for
this
study
session,
we'll
be
focusing
on
sb9
senate
bill
9
today.
But
I
will
touch
on
senate
bill
10
very
briefly,
and
we
wanted
to
do
this
study
session
because
we
we
felt
it
would
be
helpful
to
have
a
better
understanding
of
senate
bill
9
before
you
consider
the
opportunity
housing
item
later
this
evening.
D
So
I
will
just
get
started
so
agenda
is
pretty
simple:
I'm
going
to
go
through
an
overview
of
the
bill.
I
will
talk
about
some
implementation
challenges
and
plans.
What
we're
going
to
do
with
senate
bill
9
and
then
I
will
very
briefly
touch
on
senate
bill
10,
just
because
they
are
often
talked
about
at
the
same
time,
kind
of
in
the
same
breath,
but
they're
actually
different.
D
So
I
just
want
to
kind
of
share
how
they're
not
really
related
and
then
we'll
open
it
up
for
questions
and
discussion
from
the
commission
so
overview
of
senate
bill
9.
It
applies
to
all
cities
in
the
state
of
california,
including
charter
cities
like
the
city
of
san
jose.
It
also
does
apply
to
counties
that
include
an
urbanized
area,
so
santa
clara
county,
for
example,
is
also
working
to
implement
senate
bill
9..
D
It
covers
properties
that
are
zoned
single-family,
so
within
san
jose.
That's
our
r1
zoning
district.
So,
for
example,
r18
is
the
most
common
one.
It
would
also
cover
plan
development
districts
that
are
for
single-family
homes.
I
will
note
with
that
is
that
plan
development
districts
frequently
also
are
areas
that
have
homeowners
associations
and
senate
bill.
9
does
not
supersede
a
homeowners
association
from
enforcing
their
own
restrictions.
So
if
you
had
ccnr's
that
said,
you
couldn't
subdivide
the
land.
For
example,
the
homeowners
association
could
continue
to
enforce
that.
D
There
are
certain
exemptions
that
I'll
be
talking
about
in
a
moment,
so
not
every
single
property
that
zone
single
family
qualifies,
but
the
vast
majority,
the
core
things
the
bill
does
is
it
allows
subdivision
of
one
single
family
lot
into
two
lots
and
it
allows
construction
of
up
to
two
units
on
any
lot
that
is
owned.
Single
family
much
like
accessory
dwelling
unit
legislation,
it
includes
mandatory
development
standards
and
it
does
allow
cities
to
adopt
and
implement
their
own
standards.
But
there
are
some
limitations
on
that
that
I'll
be
covering
later.
D
So,
first
I'll
talk
about
the
lot
splits.
The
bill
allows
property
to
be
subdivided
into
two
quote:
roughly
proportional
lots
and
how
they
define
that
is.
One
lot
may
be
no
less
than
40
percent
the
size
of
the
other
lot.
So
just
have
a
simple
example:
using
a
10,
000
square
foot
lot
to
kind
of
show
what
that
means.
D
D
It
also
specifies
that
on
lots
that
have
been
created
through
these
urban
lot
splits,
the
city
is
not
required
to
permit
more
than
two
units
per
lot.
So
that's,
including
accessory
dwelling
units
and
junior
accessory
dwelling
units
a
little
bit
more
about
the
lot
splits.
This
is
a
very
interesting
one.
D
D
So
if
they
end
up
moving
away,
you
know
their
plans
change
that
doesn't
make
their
attestation
untrue.
As
long
as
it's
true
that
they
were
planning
to
live
there
at
the
time
they
submitted
that
to
us,
there's
also
a
provision
preventing
the
same
applicant
from
subdividing
adjoining
lots.
We
think
this
is,
you
know
in
part
to
prohibit
someone
who
maybe
owns
an
entire
chunk
of
you
know
several
locks
in
a
row
from
kind
of
changing
the
density.
D
I
think
this
is
actually
more
aimed
at
if
you're
a
developer,
who
has
a
subdivision,
that's
approved,
but
you
haven't
built
the
homes.
Yet
they
don't
want
you.
Let's
say
you
have
50
single-family
home
subdivision
approved.
You
can't
then
use
sb9
to
turn
that
into
a
hundred
single
family
home
lot
subdivision
right.
So
I
think
it's
to
stop
developers
from
doing
that,
but
that
is
that
is
requirement
in
the
bill,
and
it
also
says
the
same
applicant
can't
be
working
with
in
concert
with
somebody
to
subdivide
adjoining.
D
It
does
specify
that
lots
can
only
be
subdivided
one
time,
so
you
can't
just
continue
to
subdivide
down
to
that
1200
square
foot,
minimum
you're
going
to
end
up
with
no
less
than
40
percent.
What
that
original
lot
was
and
you're
not
going
to
be
able
to
go
down
any
further
under
senate
bill
9.,
these
subdivisions
would
be
processed
through,
what's
called
a
parcel
map,
which
is
an
existing
process
that
covers
most
minor
subdivisions
of
under
four
units.
D
The
difference
that
sb9
makes
is
it
specifies
that
that
parcel
map
must
be
processed
ministerially
they
currently,
that
process
does
not
include
a
public
hearing
as
exists,
so
not
a
huge
difference
there.
The
main
difference
would
be
that
we
do
sql
review
for
personal
maps.
Typically,
it
is
an
exemption
under
sequa,
but
in
sb9
projects
they
would
not
undergo
that
review
at
all.
So
that's
the
main
practical
implication
of
the
processing
difference
between
a
regular
subdivision
and
an
sv9
subdivision.
D
D
However,
we
may
not
require
dedication
of
public
right-of-way
or
construction
of
any
off-site
improvements
for
a
minor
subdivision
like
a
two-lot
single-family
subdivision,
where
that
would
mostly
make
a
difference
is
if
you
were
to
say,
be
in
a
area
that
never
had
sidewalk
built.
Maybe
it
was
a
county
pocket
that
was
recently
annexed
under
a
normal
subdivision.
It
would
be
a
requirement
to
dedicate
and
build
that
sidewalk
curb
and
gutter
under
senate
bill
9.
We
would
not
be
able
to
require
that.
D
I
mentioned
there's
lands
that
are
excluded
from
senate
bill
nine.
This
covers
both
those
subdivisions
and
then
the
two
unit
projects
most
of
these
are
around
environmental
concerns,
so
protected
farm
lands.
Wetlands
high
fire
hazard,
severity
zones
there's
actually
very
little
of
that
in
san
jose.
I
was
a
bit
surprised,
it's
something
that
is
mapped
by
the
state,
so
you
can
just
google
it,
and
the
state's
map
will
come
right
up.
You'd,
think
a
lot
of
our
east
hills
were,
but
it
really
kind
of
stops
at
the
city
limits
generally.
D
So
there's
not
a
lot
of
that
in
the
city,
but
it
would
come
into
play
in
some.
Rare
instances
also
prohibits
these
projects
from
being
on
a
hazardous
waste
site
within
a
delineated,
earthquake
fault
zone
or
flood
zone.
Unless
the
project
is
designed
to
meet
the
standards
for
construction
in
those
zones,
it
excludes
lands
protected
by
conservation
for
conservation,
so
like
something
under
a
conservation
easement
where
that's
a
habitat
for
protected
species.
D
Given
that
these
these
projects
would
be
really
in
existing
single-family
neighborhoods.
Most
of
these
won't
come
up
very
often
the
one
that's
going
to
come
up.
The
most
often
is
historic:
it
excludes
lands
within
a
historic
district
or
in
a
site.
That's
designated
historic.
D
Sedan
bill
9
and
the
goal
of
it
is
to
produce
more
housing,
not
less
housing
and
produce
more
housing,
that's
affordable.
So
there
are
some
protections
around
existing
housing
stock,
particularly
rental
housing,
so
first
units
created
under
senate
bill
9
cannot
be
rented
for
terms
of
30
days
or
less.
So
you
can't
build
an
additional
unit
on
the
property
and
throw
it
on
say,
airbnb
as
a
vacation
rental
that
would
be
prohibited.
D
So
these
first
three
on
this
list,
those
protections
don't
kick
in
until
you
have
a
project,
a
property
that
has
three
units
or
more
so
we
don't
expect
to
see
these
come
up
very
often
again.
You
know
these
are
single
family
zones,
so
it's
less
likely
that
you
would
have
a
triplex
there
already
and
if
you
do,
are
you
going
to
tear
your
triflex
down
to
build
a
duplex?
Maybe?
D
But
we
don't
think
those
will
come
up
too
much,
but
the
units
that
have
been
occupied
by
a
tenant
we
do
expect
we'll
be
checking
for
that
and
we
expect
that
to
come
up
pretty
frequently.
D
So
the
bill
does,
as
I
mentioned
before,
include
a
number
of
mandatory
development
standards
that
all
jurisdictions
must
adhere
to
the
first
one
is
that
it
we
cannot
require
more
than
four
foot
side
or
rear
setbacks
for
sb9
projects
for
the
side
setback.
What
that's
doing
is
reducing
it
from
five
feet
to
four
feet,
so
not
a
huge
change
there,
the
rear
setbacks
a
bit
more
of
a
change.
In
our
say,
r1
district.
It's
20
feet
for
the
second
story.
D
Some
allowance
to
do
a
first
story,
addition
to
15
feet,
so
that
would
be
reduced
down
to
four
feet,
so
pretty
significant
difference
there.
We
also
cannot
require
any
setbacks
for
any
existing
structures,
so
the
way
we're
reading.
That
is
that,
if
someone
wanted
to
say
subdivide
their
lot
and
put
that
new
property
line
right
next
to
their
house,
they
could
do
that
they
would
have
to
do
some
remodeling
on
their
house
to
fire
rate
that
wall.
D
That's
right
there
on
the
property
line
like
take
the
windows
off
that
kind
of
stuff,
but
it
is
something
that
is
permissible.
We
would
have
to
allow
it.
The
bill
also
requires
cities
to
allow
construction
of
units
that
are
attached,
so
we
couldn't
adopt
a
standard
that
says
you
can
only
do
sb9
projects
if
they're
two
detached
units
on
a
lot
that
would
not
be
allowed,
but
it
does
specify
where
the
units
are
attached.
They
have
to
be
designed
to
the
requirements
for
spelling
individually.
D
They
don't
define
that
in
the
bill
and
so
how
we're
we're
interpreting
that
is.
They
have
to
be
basically
designed
kind
of
as
condominiums,
so
you
can't
have
a
door
between
the
units
you
have
to
celebrate.
Sell
excuse
me
separate
the
utilities
as
appropriate,
for
example,
and
the
idea
behind
this
one
is
they
don't
want
people
to
use
this
bill
to
do
just
say,
a
giant
addition
to
their
house
and
call
it
a
unit
and
not
actually
have
a
true
individual
separate
unit,
as
I
mentioned
before,
the
city
may
apply
objective
development
standards.
D
D
Get
the
question
a
lot.
What
does
objective
mean?
Standards
have
to
be
objective.
It
means
no
personal
or
subjective
judgment
by
anyone
involved
and
it
has
to
be
uniformly
verifiable
by
an
external
resource.
So
an
example
would
be
a
standard
that
says.
Sd9
projects
cannot
impact
the
privacy
of
adjoining
properties,
that's
subjective,
because
that
means
something
different
to
anyone.
You
ask
you
know
to
me
it
might
mean
as
long
as
you
don't
have
windows,
I'm
fine
to
someone
else.
It
might
mean.
D
I
don't
want
anything
within
20
feet
of
me
right
and
there
is
no
book.
We
can
look
in
to
say
here's
the
right
answer,
so
you
have
to
do
10
objective
standards
generally
have
to
be
numeric.
You
know
quantifiable
four
feet
right,
that's
objective!
We
can
look
what
four
feet
means
parking.
D
It
does
include
some
parking
standards,
the
first
one
being
that
we
could
not
require
more
than
one
parking
space
per
unit,
and
we
cannot
require
parking
for
projects
that
are
within
a
half
mile
of
a
high
quality
transit
corridor
or
a
manager
transit
stop
as
defined
in
the
bill.
D
So
generally
a
bus
line
with
a
frequency
of
at
least
15
minutes
during
commute
times
or
a
rail
or
bus,
rapid
transit
stop
or
the
intersection
of
the
kind
of
two
high
quality
transit
quarter
bus
lines,
and
we
are
working
with
department
of
transportation
to
produce
a
map
of
that.
So
we're
getting
some
data
from
vta
to
be
able
to
map
that
out.
So
people
know
where
those
areas
are.
D
D
All
right
the
magic
question,
so
how
many
units
can
you
really
get
on
sp9
projects
you're,
starting
with
one
house
lot
right,
might
have
just
one
single
family
house.
What
are
we
talking
about
being
able
to
go
up
to
believe
it
or
not?
The
way
they
wrote.
The
definition
of
a
two
unit
project
in
the
bill
leaves
some
ambiguity,
so
we've
been
doing
a
lot
of
research
and
a
lot
of
looking
at
how
everyone's
interpreting
this
and
we
have
settled
on
that.
D
When
combined
with
our
accessory
dwelling
unit
ordinance,
you
could
do
up
to
the
five
units
per
lot,
and
so,
if
you
subdivide
it,
it
would
be
10
units
total,
as
I
mentioned
before,
the
bill
does
say
that
cities
are
not
required
to
permit
more
than
two
units
per
subdivided
lot.
So
we
could
certainly
use
that
standard,
but
we
would
actually
have
to
update
our
zoning
ordinance
to
use
that
standard.
D
Because,
right
now
you
open
up
brazilian
ordnance
and
it
says
if
you
have
a
duplex,
you
can
build
three
adus
on
it
and
we
can't
just
say:
well,
we
don't
we're
not
going
to
approve
that.
We
actually
have
to
change
our
zoning
ordinance
to
say
okay,
except
for
on
this
sb9,
to
subdivided
lots,
and
I
do
want
to
make
you
aware
if
you
have
been
doing
any
of
your
own
research
sitting
in
on
any
webinars
or
whatnot
that
are
out
there
on
senate
bill
9.
D
This
is
an
interpretation
out
there,
based
on
the
kind
of
unclear
wording
of
what
a
two-unit
project
means
that
cities
must
allow
two
units
to
be
constructed.
In
addition
to,
however
many
units
they
already
have
on
the
property
and
we've
looked
at,
you
know
all
of
the
communication
when
this
bill
went
through
the
intent
of
the
bill
conferred
with
other
cities.
Other
you
know
everywhere
we
can
find
and
we
we
don't
think
that
that's
what
the
intent
is
and
we
don't.
We
don't
read
it
that
way.
That
said,
this
is
out
there.
D
So
I
wanted
to
make
you
aware
of
it,
and
this
is
one
where
really
there's
just
so
much
ambiguity.
The
state
is
going
to
have
to
kind
of
make
the
call
for
everyone
once
and
for
all.
The
state
is
working
on
guidance.
They
said
they
have
something
like
30
pages
of
technical
assistance
on
this
bill
drafted
so
far,
but
they
have
an
approval
process.
They
have
to
go
through,
so
they
are
saying
that
guidance
won't
be
out
until
february
at
the
earliest.
So
we
are
eagerly
awaiting
that.
D
But
until
then
we
are
going
with
our
interpretation
understanding,
based
on
all
our
research,
which
is
actually
consistent
with
what
I
believe
every
other
city.
How
is
interpreting
it,
including
our
neighbors
in
the
south
bay,
that
it's
two
units
not
in
addition
to?
However
many
you
have
existing
so
the
best
way
to
understand
that
I'm
a
visual
person-
and
so
I
find
examples
to
be
very
useful,
so
I
put
together
a
couple
examples
just
to
visualize
the
number
of
unit
scenarios.
D
I
do
want
to
preface
this
with
that.
These
are
not
to
scale.
They
don't
really
take
into
account
making
room
for
parking
anything
like
that,
they're
really
just
to
visualize
the
number
of
units,
so
keep
that
in
mind
as
we
go
through
them.
So
our
first
example
assumes
that
there's
no
subdivision
and
you've
got
a
vacant
lot
which
build,
let's
say
someone:
they
could
build
a
duplex
under
cynical,
nine
up
to
two
units
right
and
so
once,
but
once
they
have
the
duplex.
D
Our
adu
ordinance
would
allow
them
to
then
convert
existing
non-living
space
to
a
an
adu
as
well
as
build
two
detached
adus
in
the
rear
yard.
So
that's
how
you
would
get
to
five.
D
Our
second
example.
Let's
say
you
had
an
existing
house
and
someone
wanted
to
keep
it
and
just
wanted
to
build
a
new
house
on
the
back.
How
could
what
could
they
do
to
max
out
the
number
of
units?
In
that
scenario?
D
I
will
mention,
and
we
we
will
have
a
senate
bill,
sb9
ordinance
to
you
guys.
Actually,
next
week
to
the
commission,
so
we'll
get
into
this
a
little
bit
more,
but
our
current
zoning
standards,
unless
we
amended
that
actually
don't
allow
to
detach
single-family
homes
which
isn't
inconsistent
with
senate
bill
9..
We
have
to
allow
two
units
and
we
can't
prohibit
them
from
being
attached.
D
So
this
scenario,
I'm
showing
you
wouldn't
actually
be
consistent
with
our
zoning
unless
we
amended
it,
but
I'm
just
showing
you
kind
of
how
sb9
by
itself
in
this
in
this
case,
would
allow
not
to
take
into
account
our
zoning
ordinance.
D
Our
next
two
examples
are
assuming
someone
subdivides
a
lot,
so
this
is
assuming
if
we
were
to
amend
our
zoning
ordinance
to
use
that
provision.
That
says
no
more
than
two
units
per
subdivided
lot.
Let's
say:
they've
got
a
house
and
they
want
to
do
a
subdivision.
I
mean
they've
got
a
nice
large
lot
in
this
case.
D
So
I
again
want
to
preface
this
that
this
is
not
scale
and
when
we
actually
did
do
a
little
bit
of
a
you
know,
kind
of
rudimentary
exercise
trying
to
see.
Could
you
fit
this
on
the
typical
san
jose
single
family
lot?
The
answer
is,
I
just
don't
see
how
you
could
fit
this,
but
in
theory
you
could
do
you
know
two
duplexes
like
one
on
each
lot
and
then
once
you
have
those
duplexes,
you
can
add
the
three
adus
and
again
I
tried
to
figure
out
how
to
plot
this
out.
D
D
So
let's
talk
about
some
implementation,
thoughts
and
challenges.
So
what
do
we
expect
to
see
with
senate
bill
9.?
So
using
especially
our
experience
with
accessory
dwelling
units
which
are
very
similar
and
that
you
know
they're
same
properties
are
qualifying
for
these
as
accessory
dwelling
units,
same
customers
same
people
in
the
design
space?
D
We
don't
expect
to
see
this
result
in
wholesale
changes
to
neighborhoods
right.
So
a
lot
of
people
do
not
pursue
these
projects,
even
if
they're
eligible
to
for
lots
of
reasons.
One
major
reason
is
the
cost,
it's
very,
very
expensive
to
build
new
units,
especially
here
in
the
bay
area.
Another
reason
is,
you
know,
just
a
lot
of
people.
Don't
they're
not
interested
right.
D
The
turner
center
did
a
study
on
this
at
the
turner
center
at
uc
berkeley.
They
did
a
feasibility
analysis
of
senate
bill
9
projects
throughout
the
state,
and
they
did
find
that
it
will
have
limited
impacts
that
the
vast
vast
vast
majority
of
homes
in
the
state
would
be
retained.
D
That
most
parcels
are
too
small
to
feasibly
subdivide
and
that
the
most
financially
advantageous
model
would
be
to
just
to
convert
an
existing
dwelling
into
a
duplex,
so
they
did
some
geographic,
specific
analysis
and
within
santa
clara
county,
their
estimate
is
only
10
of
the
units
are
around
10
percent.
D
Are
market
feasible
for
new
homes
so
again,
not
looking
at
wholesale
changes
to
neighborhoods
based
on
this
you're
going
to
hear
a
lot
more
about
this
later
tonight,
so
I'm
not
going
to
steal
the
thunder,
but
we
did
do
a
economic
analysis,
a
feasibility
study
for
our
opportunity,
housing
project.
That
has
a
lot
of
overlap,
and
our
findings
are
generally
consistent
with
this.
D
So
what
do
we
have
to
do
to
implement
this
in
a
month?
It's
a
month
away
so
before
january,
1st-
and
we
are
in
the
middle
of
working
on
these
items-
we
are
working
to
just
clarify,
make
sure
we
understand
how
this
works
with
all
the
other
state
legislation
that
affects
housing
projects,
for
example.
The
permit
streamlining
act
has
some
deadlines.
We
want
to
make
sure
we're
all
on
the
same
page
as
to
our
review
timelines
and
deadlines.
D
For
example,
we
are
in
the
process
of
developing
updated
informational
forms,
applications
working
on
our
updating
our
processes
to
be
able
to
process
sp9
applications
come
january.
I
will
say
we
are
getting
a
lot
of
interest.
We're
getting
a
lot
of
phone
calls
a
lot
of
emails.
You
know
I
heard
about
this.
What
do
I
do?
What,
if
I'm
interested?
D
How
do
I
start
how
many
projects
that
will
result
in
is
to
be
seen,
but
we
definitely
are
getting
ready,
because
we
expect
the
interest
to
just
continue
to
grow,
we're
looking
at
how
we're
going
to
deal
with
that
kind
of
owner
occupancy
requirement?
Is
there
anything
we
can
do
beyond
collecting
that
attestation
from
people
we're
also
looking
at
how
we're
going
to
verify
the
units
have
been
not
rented
within
the
last
three
years
and
just
other
procedural
things
like
that
and
we're
keeping
a
close
eye
on
our
staffing
needs
potentially
looking
at.
D
D
Additionally,
as
I
mentioned
next
week,
we
have
for
you
a
coordinates.
We
put
together
pretty
quickly
to
implement
senate
bill
9
and
just
on
a
basic
level.
I
call
it
the
ordinance
that
just
makes
it
make
sense
in
context
of
our
existing
standards.
That's
what
the
goal
of
this
ordinance
is
so
it
would
apply.
D
The
intent
of
sv9s
would
apply
that
that
no
more
than
two
units
per
lot
per
vision,
it
would
clarify
how
our
existing
development
standards
interact
with
the
senate
bill
9
projects,
and
it
would
only
propose
new
standards
where
senate
bill
9,
essentially
wipes
out
our
existing
standards,
and
we
need
something
to
replace
it.
So
this
is
really
more
focused
around
the
lot.
The
lot
dimensions
lot
frontage,
as
you
said,
as
it
said,
we
can
require
access.
D
Our
current
access
requirement
would
be
not
consistent
with
senate
bill
9
projects.
So
what's
an
alternate
access
requirement
that
we're
we
want
to
have
so
we
published
the
staff
report.
I
think
came
out
today
on
that,
so
I'm
sure
you're
all
looking
forward
to
reading
that
and
we'll
have
a
much
more
in-depth
discussion
next
week
on
that
item.
D
Another
you
know
potential.
This
is
something
we'll
be
talking
about
a
little
bit
more
tonight
is:
do
we
after
this,
you
know
kind
of
basic
make
it
make
sense
ordinance.
Do
we
go
back
and
do
a
more
complete
implementation
of
sb9
looking
at
more
detailed
development
standards
where
we
may
want
to
adjust
our
existing
zoning
standards
for
these
projects,
it
would
include
a
significant
amount
of
outreach
with
you
know
the
residents,
the
design
community
etc.
So
we'll
have
more
discussion
on
that
later
tonight.
But
that's
something
that's!
D
D
So
what
that
means
is
that
we
are
not
allowed
to
pass
any
zoning
ordnance
update
that
reduces
the
intensity
within
an
existing
zoning
district
below
what
was
allowed
as
of
january
2018.,
so
they
define
reducing
intensity
to
mean
additional
setback
requirements,
larger
setback
requirements,
lower
height,
smaller
far,
etc,
new
open
space
requirements
etc.
D
So
how
does
that
interact
with
sb9?
Because
you
know
in
one
sense,
we
didn't
allow
multiple
units
back
in
2018,
so
anything
is
kind
of
in
addressing
senate
bill.
9
is
in
a
way
increasing
the
intensity.
I
mean
that's
one
way
to
look
at
it,
based
on
what
we've
heard
from
the
state
so
far,
that's
not
how
they're
looking
at
it-
and
this
is
also
consulting
with
our
own
attorneys.
You
know
again
talking
to
other
cities
how
what
are
they
hearing?
How
are
they
handling
this?
D
D
So
we
couldn't
say:
well,
okay,
you
know
your
one
house
can
have
a
30
foot
height
limit,
but
your
senate
bill
9
second
unit
is
limited
to
15
feet.
We've
heard
from
the
state
that
that's
that
they're
interpreting
that
as
a
violation
of
this
down
zoning
provision,
so
this
is
something
that
we
definitely
need
to
take
into
account,
particularly
as
we
do
if
we
do
a
more
complete
implementation,
ordinance
and
look
at
additional
design
standards,
and
hopefully
the
state's
official
guidance
will
clarify
this
issue
as
well.
D
And
finally,
on
senate
bill
9,
just
a
couple
other
things
to
think
about,
and
I'm
going
to
go
through
this
quickly
because
we're
actually
going
to
discuss
this
later
tonight,
but
it
only
covers
single-family
properties.
We
have
a
lot
of
single-family
houses
in
our
one
districts.
Do
we
want
to
go
beyond
senate
bill
nine
and
extend
that
to
our
two
dis?
Excuse
me
in
our
two
districts
we
have
a
lot
of
houses.
D
Do
we
want
to
extend
it
to
historic
properties?
If
we
can
do
standards
that
would
ensure
that
the
resources
is
not
impacted,
there's
maybe
some
other
areas.
We
could
look
at
extending
or
modifying
senate
bill
9
for
our
own
purposes
in
the
city.
D
We're
also,
as
I
mentioned
before,
looking
very
carefully
at
the
staffing
just
this
work
to
kind
of
do
one
more
complete
implementation
of
senate
bill.
Nine.
We
anticipate
taking
at
least
one
staff
member,
probably
about
a
year
to
do
and
again
we're
keeping
a
close
eye
on.
You
know
our
our
application
processing
resources.
These
projects
are
required
to
pay
fees
right,
so
we
we
are
cost
recovery,
so
they
will
pay
review
fees,
but
you
know
do
they
need
do
we
need
to
process
them
any
different?
D
D
The
key
thing
to
remember
is
again:
is
you
often
hear
nine
and
ten
nine
and
ten?
I
hate
nine
and
ten,
or
I
love
nine
and
ten
or
what
not
in
the
same
breath
and
and
they
were
passed
right
at
the
same
time
and
but
they
really
aren't
related
actually
in
any
way.
Technically
the
key
thing
with
senate
bill
10
is
it's
voluntary.
It
doesn't
by
itself,
do
a
single
thing
to
any
city's
development
allowances.
It
is
an
opt-in
bill.
D
The
best
way
to
explain
it
is
if
you've
been
tracking
housing
legislation.
Over
the
last
few
years,
there's
been
a
couple
of
attempts
to
require
that
cities
allow
say
10
unit
projects,
for
example
in
transit,
rich
areas.
A
D
This
past
year
they
took
another
look
at
it
and
they
tried
a
different
way,
which
was
to
say:
okay,
fine,
we're
not
going
to
impose
this
on
you,
but
for
cities
who
want
to
opt
into
doing
this,
we
will
make
it
a
lot
easier
for
you
and
the
main
way
that
senate
bill
10
would
make
it
easier.
Is
that
if
you
wanted
to
allow
these
10
unit
projects
in
the
areas
specified
by
the
bill,
your
ordinances
to
do
that
would
be
exempted
from
sql.
So
you
would
just
need
to
focus
on
your
ordinance
itself.
D
You
wouldn't
need
to
focus
on
any
of
the
environmental
review,
so
that's
how
they
would
streamline
it.
It
is
interesting
that
it
it
it
the
city
cities
to
implement
it.
You
would
have
to
actually
allow
all
10
units
right.
So
you
can
say
I'm
going
to
do
four
units
here
and
there
in
these
areas
and
use
that
sql
exemption.
It's
kind
of
a
go
big
or
go
home
type
of
thing.
D
So
with
that,
I
will
conclude
that,
as
I
mentioned
a
couple
areas,
there's
still
a
lot
of
unanswered
questions,
there's
still
area
that
is
open
for
interpretation,
that,
depending
on
who
you
ask
it's
interpreted
in
a
different
way,
and
we
are
continuing
to
work
with
again
our
other
cities,
we're
looking
for
guidance
from
the
state
any
outside
resources.
D
I've
been
in
probably
four
different
webinars
on
senate
bill-
nine,
for
example,
to
to
kind
of
get
through
and
and
get
answers
to
all
of
these
things
we
did
add
some
information
on
these
bills
to
our
website.
It's
under
the
opportunity,
housing
web
page,
so
people
can
find
some
some
information
there
and
you
will
hear
later
tonight.
The
opportunity
housing
item
is
going
to
incorporate
the
existence
of
these
two
bills
into
our
recommendation.
E
E
Okay,
so
thank
you.
Staff
appreciate
the
presentation,
curious
number
one
on
the
split
of
the
lot
it
looks
like
it
doesn't
have
to
be
equitable,
meaning
you
know
a
smaller
square
or
a
smaller
rectangle.
It
can
have
a
different
shape
where
a
driveway
goes
down
one
side
and
opens
more
to
the
back.
Is
that
correct.
E
Got
it
thank
you
and
then,
and
and
so
then
then
thank
you
for
clarifying
the
attestment
is
really
an
intention,
but
and
not
a
promise.
So
that's
a
bit
weaker
than
what
I
heard
prior
and
so
when
it
comes
to
no
curb
and
gutter.
Typically,
when
a
house
did
develop
on
a
street
that
didn't
have
a
curb
and
gutter,
it
would
add
it.
So
at
that
point
it
would
just
be
left,
as
is
unless
the
city's
general
fund
wanted
to
pay
for
that.
E
Okay
and
then
so,
for
example,
palm
haven
negley
park,
shasta
handshake,
I
believe,
are
all
conservation
areas.
I
was
not
clear:
are
they
exempt
or
not
exempt.
D
They
are
exempt,
so
we
we
are.
That
is
our
interpretation
of
the
bill.
You
may
hear
otherwise
right,
so
it
is
open
a
little
bit
to
interpretation,
but
the
way
that
we're
reading
it.
I
mean-
we've
been
through
this
again
with
council
that
we're
saying
that
they
are
exempt
from
this
bill.
E
D
Yeah
yeah,
so
the
way
that
those
areas
are
work
is
that
they
are
all
listed
on
our
historic
resources
inventory
because
really
anything
you
build
within
those
neighborhoods,
it
affects
the
character
of
them.
Even
if
the
property
you're
building
on
itself
is
not
historic,
so
they
are
all
listed,
so
it
would
cover
all
of
those
all
of
those
scenarios.
E
Got
it
and
it
would
seem,
the
setback
changes
on
the
rear
are
pretty
much
one
of
the
most
huge
differences,
because
typically
there
is
a
rear
setback
for
a
reason,
and
so
is
that
four
foot
setback
for
the
first
first
floor
only
or
first
and
second
floor.
D
It
doesn't
specify
it
says:
four
foot
setbacks,
so
we
we
are
addressing
that
in
the
ordinance
next
next
week
that
one
becomes
complicated
with
the
senate
bill
330.,
but
we
we
believe
we
have
the
ability
to
set
a
different
height
standard
within
that
rear
20
feet.
So
that
is
what
we're
proposing.
D
E
Parking
so
does
it
require
a
coverage
space
or
uncovered
space
for
the.
A
D
Yeah,
it
doesn't
specify
so
it
just
says
one
space
and
and
because
our
implementation
ordinance,
as
I
said
you
know,
we're
just
trying
to
we're
not
trying
to
introduce
anything
new,
given
the
fast
turnaround
so
right
now,
the
zoning
ordinance
does
require
covered
parking
for
single-family
homes.
So
unless
we
change
that
for
a
single-family
home,
it
would
be
a
cover
one
covered
space,
so
a
garage
or
a
carport
for
a
two-family
dwelling
or
duplex.
We
don't
require
covered
parking
currently,
so
we're
not
proposing
to
change
that.
E
Got
it
so
then
it
could
just
simply
be
cement
for
the
cars
to
park
with
no
garage
and
the
rest
of
the
land
is
for
the
living
space.
D
Yeah
for
a
two-family
dwelling,
unless
we
were
to
amend
the
zoning
ordinance
to
say
otherwise
that
would
be
the
case
for
one
family
dwelling
it
would
have
to
be,
it
would
have
to
be
covered
right.
The
other
thing
is
our
setback
standards.
It
doesn't
change
the
setback
standards
necessarily
for
those,
so
the
front
setback.
We
don't
allow
the
parking
space
to
be
in
the
front
setback
and
senate
bill
9
wouldn't
override
that.
E
Got
it
and
then,
if
I,
if
the
thing
is
next
to
transit,
where
no
parking
was
required,
then
what
a
house
or
a
duplex
might
look
like
today
would
be
completely
different,
because
there
would
be
no
garage
or
no
driveway.
It
would
be
structure,
maybe
landscaping
and
that's
it
and
then
parking
would
be
reliant
on
street
parking.
E
Okay
and
I'm
moving
along
chair,
which
state
agency
will
provide
the
guidance
for
further
clarification
of
cities.
E
Hcd,
okay
and
then
because
of
sb
330,
does
this
mean
that
this
up
zoning
is
permanent
and
it
could
never
be
changed.
D
D
As
far
as
we
can
tell
they're
subject
to
the
permit
streamlining
act,
so
we
are
required
to
give
them
a
completeness
review
within
30
days,
and
then
there
are
timelines
for
our
us,
considering
the
project
or
acting
on
the
project
after
it
has
been
deemed
complete.
And
I
don't
remember
that
timeline
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
I
will
tell
you
the
30-day
review
would,
I
believe,
would
apply.
D
I
have
not
yet
I
mean
I
can
definitely
tell
you.
I
haven't
talked
to
all
the
municipalities
around
we've
been
in
close
communication,
for
example,
with
all
the
other
cities
within
santa
clara
county.
I
haven't
heard
of
any
of
them
proposing
it.
I
think
everyone's
just
trying
to
to
figure
out
senate
bill
9
right
now
and
then
everyone's
going
to
probably
take
a
breath
and
say
well,
do
we
want
to
do
10,
but
I
haven't
heard
anyone
who
is
planning
to
at
this
point.
E
Okay
and
then
I
was
reading
the
los
angeles
times
on
tuesday,
the
articles
cities
will
be
blunting,
I'm
paraphrasing
now
blunting
sb9
implementation
prior
to
the
end
of
the
year,
with
their
own
restrictions
on
sb9
that
they
can
legally
do
under
the
law.
Would
you
say
what
the
ordinance
that
staff's
preparing
prior
to
the
end
of
the
year
is
that
narrowing
the
scope
of
sb9.
D
D
So
this
is,
as
I
said,
this
sort
of
just
make
it
make
sense,
but
I
do
think
that
in
certain
areas
when
you
overlay
are
like,
for
example,
the
covered
parking
right,
I
mean
that's
a
current
standard
and
there's
nothing
in
senate
bill
9.
That
says
we
can't
continue
to
apply
that
standard,
but
there's
nothing
in
senate
bill
9
that
says
the
parking
has
to
be
covered
right.
E
Enough
and
then
I'm
almost
done
chair,
I
got
two
more
one
was
just
the
the
end
result
of
the
la
times.
Articles
was
that
cities
were
not
not
fans
of
the
new
law
and
they
were
going
to
restrict
it
as
much
as
possible.
E
And
then
and
then
the
staff
is
bringing
an
ordinance
to
the
city
council.
Does
it
require
a
second
reading
or
it's
going
to
be
an
urgency
ordinance.
D
It'll
be
an
urgency
ordinance,
so
we're
bringing
both
to
council
at
the
same
time
a
standard,
ordinance
and
an
urgency
ordinance.
So
the
urgency
one
would
become
effective
immediately.
D
D
Yeah
so
you're
right,
so
that
is
the
only
area
that
we
would
be.
I
mean
again.
Sp9
is
very
clear
that
cities
don't
have
to
allow
more
than
two
units
per
lot,
so
we
would
be
restricting
it
in
that,
because
we
could
allow
more
than
two
units
for
subdivided
lots.
So
that
is
the
one
area
you're
correct,
michael,
that
we
are
kind
of
in
a
sense
restricting
it,
but
sort
of,
as
called
for
in
the
in
the
bill
in
a
way
right.
The
bill's
pretty
clear
that
cities
can
do
this.
B
Yes,
thank
you
chair.
Thank
you,
martina,
really
excellent
presentation,
and
I
I
like
the
staff
report
too,
is
very
clear.
I
have
just
a
couple
of
questions,
probably
as
a
new
commissioner.
I
wasn't
familiar
with
the
term
junior
accessory
dwelling
unit.
Could
you
talk
about
what
that
is.
D
Yes,
so
that
is
something
provided
for
in
state
law.
It
is
see
how
do
I
describe
it?
It
originally
started
as
basically
telling
people
hey
if
you
want
to
rent
out
a
room
in
your
house
as
a
unit
and
not
put
in
the
full
kitchen.
For
example,
you
can
do
that
and
it's
considered
a
junior
accessory
dwelling
unit.
So
that's
the
primary
difference
it
has
to
be
within
the
walls
of
the
existing
house.
For
the
most
part,
I
think
you
can
do
a
small
addition
for
it.
D
You
know
a
countersink
fridge
but
wouldn't
have
to
have
say
like
the
stove,
and
they
could
do
a
toaster
oven
or
something
like
that,
and
they
are
limited
in
square
footage
as
well
off
the
top
my
head,
I
believe
it's
500
square
feet,
whereas
accessory
dwelling
units
can
be
larger.
B
Okay,
so,
under
our
current
adu
ordinance
could
say
a
single
family
dwelling
have
a
j
adu
and
an
adu.
B
Okay,
great,
you
talked
about
transit,
rich
area.
I
appreciate
that.
Could
you
talk?
The
staff
report
talked
about
urban
infill
site
and
I
wasn't
familiar
with
what
that
meant.
D
Yeah,
let
me
see
if
I
can
do
this
off
topic.
It's
a
it's!
A
decently
complex
definition
of
the
state
law,
but
generally
it's
an
area.
That's
bounded
on
75
percent
of
the
sides
as
an
urban
use-
and
it
is
zoned
for
residential
uses-
are
the
two
key
components
of
an
urban
infill
site
and
again
that
only
comes
into
play
for
senate
bill
10.
So
it's
not
it's
not
in
senate
bill
9.
But
if
the
city
were
to
implement
senate
bill
10,
we
would
have
to
look
at
the
urban
infill
sites.
B
Okay,
great
there,
it
mentioned
the
staff
report.
This
is
getting
a
little
off
topic,
but
it's
of
interest
to
me
that
two
urban
villages
have
grant
funding
is
that
a
state
grant
or
city
grant
or
what
does
that
refer
to
yeah?
I
can
answer
that
yeah,
so
our
urban
village
plans
are
funded
generally
by
outside
grants.
I
the
ones
that
we
have
now,
I
think,
are
through
mtc
they're
generally
through
mtc.
B
Sometimes
we
get
grants
from
caltrains
caltrans,
not
train
and
every
once
in
a
while
we've
gotten
a
grant
from
the
strategic
growth
council,
but
yeah
okay.
So
these
are
grants
to
allow
a
consultant
to
work
with
staff
on
the
development
of
the
plan
yeah
they
actually
paid.
So
our
urban
village
staff
to
some
to
a
large
extent,
are
paid
for
by
grant.
So
it's
not
just
money
for
a
consultant.
We
do
use
it
for
consultant.
B
Okay
thanks
michael
one
last
question
martina,
which
is
in
the
staff
report.
I
believe
there
was
a
reference
to
a
minimum
lot
size
of
7500
square
feet
that
sp9
would
apply.
Did
I
interpret
that
correctly.
D
So
the
staff
report
was
about
opportunity
housing.
So
I
do
think
that
was
a
an
initial
recommendation
in
opportunity
housing.
But
that
is
not
something.
That's
in
senate
bill,
9.,
so
senate
bill
9.
All
it
has
is
the
40
60
size
and
then
you
can't
go
less
than
1200
square
feet.
So
you
know,
if
you
do
a
50
50
split
on
it.
You
know
12.
Basically,
you
have
to
start
with
2
400
square
foot
minimum
under
sp
sb9.
When
you
do
that
math
backwards.
B
C
Hi
there
first
off
martina.
I
always
really
appreciate
your
presentations.
They're
super
clear
and
easy
to
understand,
especially
given
the
complexity
of
these
issues,
so
always
really
appreciate
it.
When
you
break
this
down
for
us
into
something,
that's
a
little
bit
more
digestible.
C
So
I-
and
if
this
is
going
to
be
discussed
later,
we
can
just
talk
about
it
later,
but
you
mentioned
that
and
I
apologize.
My
dog
has
decided
right
now
to
start
barking.
C
You
mentioned
that
in
your
analysis,
roughly
only
30,
000,
30,
30,
500
or
so
parcels
would
could
potentially
be
impacted.
Were
those
parcels
spread
across
the
city
or
were
they
in
specific
districts?
Taking
apart,
taking
out,
of
course,
anything
that's
historic
in
nature
and
wouldn't
be
subject
to
the
to
the
law
in
the
current
way,
it's
written.
D
D
Was
county-wide
as
well,
so
some
a
lot
of
those
sites
would
likely
not
be
in
san
jose.
That's
where
that
figure
comes
from,
and
we
do
have
our
own
analysis
that
we're
going
to
be
sharing
a
lot
more
with
you
as
part
of
that
opportunity.
Housing
item
later
tonight
in
the
agenda,
so
we'll
get
into
the
details
on
our
analysis
and
it
is
broken
down
geographically.
C
Yeah
apologies.
I
I
misunderstood
that.
Well,
then,
based
on
your
own,
the
city's
analysis,
how
many
units
or
so
might
be
impacted
for
you
all.
D
So
we
didn't
do.
Our
analysis
was
not
specifically
on
senate
bill
per
se
because
it
analyzed
more
of
our
opportunity
housing
proposal
options
which
went
a
little
bit
beyond
senate
bill
9..
So
I
couldn't
give
you
that
figure
of
specifically
what
we
expect
to
see
for
senate
bill
9,
because
we
didn't
quite
do
that
analysis.
D
C
Okay,
no
problem,
my
other
question
for
you
all,
and
this
might
not
be
for
you
specifically,
but
might
be
for
other
folks
from
the
planning
department,
is
kind
of
in
a
similar
vein
as
a
commissioner
alvario
related
to
timing.
So
I
know
a
lot
of
folks
are
really
really
worried
about
the
implementation
of
potentially
opportunity
housing,
sv9,
sp
10..
C
You
know,
what's
the
sort
of
all
things
being
perfect
in
the
world,
how
quickly
would
we
actually
see
you
know
new
dwellings
going
up
in
certain
neighborhoods?
Are
we
talking
a
matter
of
of
you
know
six
months
10
12
months,
two
years,
five
years?
I
think
that
one
of
the
things
that's
been
really
concerning
to
me
as
a
commissioner
is
sort
of
the
just
the
general
fear
about
all
of
this,
and
and
I
get
that
folks-
don't
want
to
lose
the
character
of
certain
neighborhoods,
but
also
like.
D
Yeah
yeah,
so
we
will
have
to
start
processing
applications
on
january
3rd
when
we
reopen.
So
you
know
in
that
sense
it
it's
live
right.
Senobi's
live
building
off
our
experience
with
adus
I
mean
with
accessory
dwelling
units.
There
was
a
definitely
a
slow
uptick
in
those
one
of
the
things.
With
a
bill
like
this,
it's
brand
new-
and
so
you
know
it
didn't
exist.
D
D
Compliment
I
spent
years
working
the
permit
center
and
at
the
public
information
counter.
So
I
think
that
helps
me
break
things
down
to
people
so
just
kind
of
going
off
my
experience
there.
I
would
say
that
yeah
I
mean
I
would
expect,
maybe
for
some
really
motivated
people.
Who've
been
like.
I
wanted
to
do
this
subdivision
for
years.
We
might
see
those
come
in
fairly
quickly.
I
do
think
it
will
likely
be
a
couple
months.
D
Two
three
four,
maybe
more
months
before
we
really
start
seeing
a
lot
of
applications
for
these
projects,
and
then
you
know
they
have
to
get
permitted.
They
have
to
meet
the
building
code,
they
have
to
get
their
financing
together
really,
and
so
I
I
yeah.
I
would
predict
that
we're
going
to
see
a
slow
uptake,
but
I
would
be
surprised
if
we
see
construction
of
units,
for
example
within
the
first
couple
months.
I
mean
a
few
months
at
minimum,
it's
hard
to
say,
but
I
would
predict
a
gradual
build
up
over
time
of
it.
E
Thanks
sarah,
I
just
wanted
to
say,
based
on
commissioner
caballero's
inquiry,
that
if
preliminary
reviews
have
already
been
filed
with
the
city
under
sb9,
but
the
city
had
to
tell
those
applicants,
we
can't
even
start
processing
till
january
1st.
So
there
is
a
level
of
interest,
but
ultimately
we'll
know
when
it
happens
right,
but
I
think
the
concern
is
there
because
it's
unknown
so
we'll
we'll
see.
Thank
you.