City Council — 2022-02-22

Thank you very much Gail Bill, will you please lead us in that pledge? Sure.

I do not see any commissioners currently in the waiting rooms so no commissioner reports.

Okay thank you and just a quick reminder to my council members about the three rules so that we can be most efficient and civil meeting possible please raise your hand and wait to be called on no cross talk Please bring it back to the chair. Use raised hand icon, please. That makes it a lot easier on Zoom. Please be brief and to the point. And number three, please refrain from comment or deliberative discussion on any agenda item until after we have heard from all members of the public.

When you ask a staff member a question, please avoid turning your question into a comment Thank you, and when you're out of order I'm going to use the gavel. And then just a note on public communication for clarity another business these are items not on the agenda and because they are not on the agenda we cannot discuss them. When you make a comment and I'm speaking to the public when you make a comment we're not ignoring you appreciate your viewpoint and participation We can agendize for the future and normally public comments are three minutes if there are more than 10 speakers on one specific agenda item, we will reduce that to two minutes.

In the sense of fairness and efficiency I ask that you stop talking when the time is up The model civility and respect for our children and our children's children. There will be no giving away time to another speaker, a lot can be said in two or three minutes so we're doing our best all of us to run an effective meeting and I thank you very much for your understanding and your cooperation.

So let's move on to the consent calendar

Mayor? Yes. I want to pull item F. Okay.

Move approval items A through E.

Oh, sorry. I'll

second.

Okay roll call please Gail.

Yeah, I mainly wanted to give Mayor Pro Tem Haney the opportunity to tell us something about the applicant. And because the applicant didn't really fill out the application except for his contact information and that he's been in the valley for seven months and he lives in the city but you know these commissions are very important and I think from here on we should require that they be filled out

Okay, yeah we can make sure that all the boxes are filled even if it's just none or any. So we'll follow up on that.

Okay thank you but can Randy tell us something about...

I thought I shared that with you did you get my email that you sent me?

Yes

but

i think

it's... Why don't you read it out loud? I have no more to say.

I don't have it in front of me Randy Well, I do remember that you said he was a wonderful family man who had children in sports.

And in our schools

and in our schools

just remind y'all to bring it back to the chair so if you can use your icon just to make it simpler well any subject in terms of moving forward James we can make sure that all the boxes are checked

Thank you. I have a request that even though it's post, I want to say postpartum, I want to say that I think the applicant should still fill it out Okay, we'll send us an email that tells us something about him or he can speak during public comments next time.

Thank you. All right we will move on to public communication.

Anyone in the zoom meeting would like to speak please use the hand raise function now And we've got one person who has his hand raised. This is Tim Kraut. I'm going to go ahead and bring him in. Mr. Kraut, you should be able to speak if you can please unmute yourself.

OK, can you hear me?

Yes.

OK. Thank you. Good evening Madam Mayor, council members, staff. Starting February 1st this month, I've been tabulating the number of players Utilizing the eight tennis courts at Libbey Park and the number of players using the pickleball courts. As you remember, the pickleball courts take up one tennis court. I personally observed the number of players two times a day morning and afternoon every weekday at both locations.

So today, February 22nd which is a total of 16 days. The number of players at each location is as follows. Libbey Park, a cumulative total of 346 players. This is an average of 22 players per day on eight tennis courts or 2.7 players per day on one tennis court. Pickleball courts, a cumulative total of 554 players. This is an average of 34 players per day on one tennis court.

This shows that there are 13 times more people or Ojai citizens using the one tennis court that has been converted to pickleball than the number of people, Ojai citizens using the eight tennis courts at Liddy Park. Your job as elected officials is to make decisions and establish policies that best serve the majority of the Ojai citizens. So are you really serving the majority of the Ojai citizens by denying the expansion of pickleball into Libbey Park?

How would the tennis community be hurt by giving up one or two courts to be converted to pickleball? Thank you.

Thank you, Tim. Any other public communication, Gail? No one else has raised their hand. OK, thank you. All right, we will move on to number two, the public hearing.

Mayor, can you see my screen?

Yes, sorry. Go ahead.

I don't know if Tim Kraut can hear me, but I think I would like to have those statistics in writing.

OK.

All

right. In case it's valuable for the future.

Thank you. And Mayor, can I just quickly add that the pickable item is going to be discussed on the March 3rd Parks and Recreation Commission meeting? So just for anybody interested in that topic.

Good to know. Thank you. All right we will move on to number two, the public hearing zone change and general plan amendment for proposed change of zone designation from public to multifamily residential at 309 North Blanche Street. We'll move to the staff report James?

Real

quickly,

Mayor. I have a financial relationship with the applicant so I have to excuse myself on this.

Thank you,

Ryan. Okay and I have a brief presentation. I also see the applicant and then our Community Development Director in the waiting room. So while I'm giving those couple slides, I'll ask James or Gail to let Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His): The. Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His.: : The item is for a proposed zone change and general plan amendment for 309 North blanche street which is currently zoned pl or public public use.

And the applicant has applied to change it to a residential use. They had initially applied for an R3, which is a higher density zoning but the planning commission reviewed it and identified it as or recommended that the city council adopt an R2 zoning instead. And I'll go through quickly a little bit on what that means but I want to start with just quickly Showing the property at 309 North Blanche to give everybody an idea of the location. It is on the corner of Oak and Blanche.

The property has the Christian Science Society reading room, which dates back to about 1940. They served the Ojai community until 2019 but Closed at that time. And so the site still includes that building, which is a single story L-shaped building. It still includes the parking area and the landscaping from the Christian Science Society reading room. For that reason it was zoned PL Public Use.

Apologies, it looks like the capitalizations disappeared when we formatted this but... It was previously the Christian Science Society reading room, the applicant applied to for his own change in a general plan amendment. That item went to the Planning Commission on January 19th, earlier this year. The Planning Commission reviewed and compared it to the neighboring properties which I'll also show in a map in a moment and the density of those neighboring properties and ultimately recommended that the City Council adopt an R2 zone not an R3.

And so that is the item before council today Give me one second. I wanted to just briefly note when we say R1, R2, R3, I wanted to explain what that means for zoning. As I mentioned a moment ago, the public zoning which it currently is located in a PL zone is usually for buildings like churches or the city hall building and other kind of government agency buildings.

The application is to consider either R3 or an R2 and what those kind of the three zones The three zones that it would potentially fall under for residential zoning would be either an R1 zoning, which is single family residential with up to four dwelling units per acre. This site is a half an acre so that would mean basically two dwelling units for the half-acre.

R2 zoning, which the Planning Commission ultimately recommended Plan A, R2 zoning is multi-family residential medium high density. That allows eight dwelling units per acre since this is a half acre it would be four units in this situation would be the maximum allowed and then there's R3 zoning which was the original application that's multifamily residential high density that allows up to 15 dwelling units per acre but again because this is a half an acre Now we did receive a public comment that I think had a good point that I will point out, which is there was a public comment that said these numbers don't include things like ADUs, which could also potentially be added on top. And that is a fair statement.

The city would still be able to review any ADU and it would have to meet the standards but that could increase the density further And so one of the things we look at when we look at zoning is we look at what the neighboring properties are to find compatibility. And so you'll see from this zoning map that there's the site 309 North Blanche, there's a PL zone property, a couple PL zone properties fairly close.

This kind of the circle around the property is VMU And then this darker pink, which is close but it's about a block removed is R2. And so I think when the planning commission reviewed it looking at this that's where they saw some compatibility with the R2 zoning. Now, I believe the applicant has put it out that these brown parcels here Our R3 and those are fairly close as well.

And so that was part of the argument of why the city should consider R3 zoning for this property, but the planning commission felt that the R2 zoning was more appropriate in this case. And so with that our staff recommendation is to open the public hearing adopt the CEQA exemption determination And approve the resolution for the general plan amendment and adopted ordinance changing the zoning designation from PL to R2.

And with that, we're happy to answer any questions.

Susan then Bill? James, I watched the planning commission meeting and two of the planning commissioners were in favor of applying the village makeshift zone to property. In part because that requires a design review and because of the neighboring VMU around it. Excuse me but can you clarify How many units, if it's DMU? How many houses and accessory ADUs?

I'm trying to remember. And actually, I see Lucas is on the video here. So I'll see if he remembers. I don't remember. I believe that the ADU I believe they are applicable in VMU, but I'll ask Lucas to confirm that. Confirmed. Okay and so density with VMU would it be four units? Yep before units because this is half an acre. Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His): yeah so so that if it were vm you would be four units which is about the same as the art to zoning in this case except our two zoning, as I said with the public comment earlier. Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His.: : That pointed out that you know potentially they could apply for an ad you as well. That's a fair point. So

just so I'm clear, the only difference then is that with VMU they're allowed to have compatible home business. That would be the only difference really?

It's the primary difference. I don't know if it's fair to say only different but I'd say the primary differences yes it would be able to have that mix of commercial and residential space.

Okay thank you. Bill and then Randy.

Just to be so I'm absolutely clear on the thread of inquiry that Councilperson Francina started, my reading of the staff report in the code is that the core density for residential of VMU and R2 are identical At eight dwelling units per acre, except that there is a mention of a density bonus associated with the VMU that's not clear it's associated with R2. Is that correct?

Yes and I don't know if Lucas had a chance to look at the density bonus question but I'll let Lucas

The density bonus I have to look at closer. The per unit square footage for each unit, for instance, for the R2 is 5,000 square feet. For the VMU in terms of density it's 5445. So it's just slightly larger but it's almost apples-to-apples.

But the density count per acre for R2 is the same as VMU? The

basic is 5,000 square feet per unit for the R2. It's 5445 for the VMU.

So that works out roughly at the eight per acre then or four per half acre? Okay thank you.

You know, it never fails when someone asks a question that you're listening and then you want to have more questions regarding that same topic. Clarify the 5,000 square feet. If I'm talking a half acre site and I've allocated four units and I can build up to a 5,00 square foot residence, A half acre site, so I'm a little lost. So it's 5,000 square feet on the house not 5000 square feet on the square footage of each lot correct?

Correct. It's actually, I mean it's 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit. You still have site coverage.

Right. And the next question is are ADUs allowed and mini-ADUs allowed with each of those four developments?

ADUs would be expressly allowed within multifamily and they have a specific category that addresses that.

And in the VMU?

And within the VMU, because it's considered yes would be considered multifamily.

Okay then I have a couple other questions for Lucas Mayor. An R3 zone designation is 15 units per acre and planning sent it back to an R2 which allocates what 7.2 or 8? What are we looking at here?

It would be eight you would round it up to eight.

You'd rounded up not round down okay Then there's another part of that same area says, the applicant agreed at the public hearing to the less intense zone and land use designations recommended by the commission to be forwarded to the City Council for final determination. Was the applicant aware of the time of the appeal process? I wasn't

discussed at that

meeting, because what happens here when I read into this it sounds like they agreed and then went home and change their mind or decided to appeal. At any point in the conversation with them regarding this property. Have you made clear the appeal process. I've not had the discussion with them regarding the appeals process now. Okay, I just wanted to know that then on zone changes, the request for a zone change to R2 is to allow a single family residential use while also maintaining compatibility with the complementing And complimenting the residentially and commercially higher intense surrounding by the VMU uses. My question, does the R3 provide the same effects as the R2 based on that sentence?

It would just at a higher density. The compatibility is really embedded within the immediately surrounding zones and more specifically The comparison where you're talking about distance between R2 and R3.

And I think Council Member Haney might have dropped off, but I'll add while we give him a minute to come back. I think the VMU and the R2 are the closest kind of very similar even though they're Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His.: : Like customer Francine has said there's that difference between being being able to have the commercial use there but the density is similar our three zoning is a step up in density so that's why our two is. Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His): Our position was our two is more compatible with the vm you so. And Council Member Haney, I stalled there for a minute while you popped back up.

Well that's fine I just Mayor if I could continue my question. My questions yeah so um I was just trying to you know I was at the planning hearing and it was it was real clear that there were two planners that had no You know, they kind of agreed that the R3 was fine. And then we had two planners that felt the VMU was maybe a better way to go and I think the compromise was R2.

That was my takeaway so my questions are alluding to there's really not much difference between the R2 and the R 3 other than density Either today or tomorrow. Am I correct on that, Lucas and James? Yeah, density is the difference it's twice the density essentially. And then I know mayor is asking us to stick to questions. The general plan land use element states that the primary purpose of areas designated as MHR is to provide an area transition from single family densities to those found in buildings mixed use designation.

This designation includes single-family residential and individual lots up to eight dwelling units on a parcel. So again, under R2 and R3 are both of these compatible to that statement?

I would say so. Even though the surrounding is VMU, if you look at the uses surrounding it, it's single family.

Well and then the last question I have is on to get some more clarity on this as you look at our packet and you look at our zoning classifications, you can't really tell how many R2s, R3s, VMs. You know, it's too small a map to really get a clear concise picture of it. The applicant did send us one that I thought shares a better picture of what is adjacent to them. So Lucas, directly across east of them, how many units sit there?

Yeah, there's about nine. I want to say there's nine units there.

And then as I go across that group of units and I go north, isn't there another complex there?

Yeah, that complex is about seven units in size.

And then as I head to west, Yeah,

that one's slightly larger. Or no, a little smaller than that was five either for the largest

one is the 22 unit that sits probably two blocks away the old manor Am I correct? Correct. So R3 is in this zone. R3 has been in the zone and it has been allowed in this zone, correct?

Well I would say instead not necessarily R3 because all those zones, the current zoning for those are VMU or R2, all of which are considered non-conforming as to the current standards. Bill, all those examples that Council Member Haney had just mentioned are all built in the 60's and early 70's

Okay, thank you.

All right let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Oh you have another question Susan? Yeah um

can you clarify whatever zoning we uh the council majority agrees on And then at what point, I mean no matter what we do there will be, am I correct that there will still be standards that need to be applied and the affordability factor? Can all of that come later or is if Is there any difference, you know for choice. Standards are applied

yeah technically. Yes, you know that they still they'll still have to go through the process and still have to take a design through the planning Commission and all that but I do want to note because i've seen this happen before one of the challenges is once you change the zoning. Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His): You know let's say that the property owner sells the property and somebody else buys it two months from now that person is going to come in and say I bought our three zoned property and i'm entitled to do you know. Harmon Zuckerman, PB – He, Him, His.: : These things so it does make it more difficult to include certain requirements like affordability requirements in the future, I would say.

So typically, I would say best practices unless you have an application before you that shows the need for it is not to approve the upzoning until that time. But it's ultimately council's choice.

Thank

you.

Let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Any public comments?

Anyone in the Zoom meeting who would like to speak please use the raise hand function now And we have, whoops, they disappeared.

The property owners on as well so if there's any council, but if Council has any questions for them that they aren't raising their hand so I don't know that they want to speak but that would be another option.

Okay,

well no

public comments will go home. Oh, we do we have one. She's disappeared again. So we, oh, we have one comment. She keeps disappearing but now she's here so I'm going to bring her in Sherry and Kate. If you're muted please unmute yourself and you can go ahead and speak.

Hi, all right. Can you hear me all right? Yes. Okay. We live at the property immediately adjacent to the subject property. I would like to point out that there is one big difference with VMU and R2, a couple of them. One of them is setbacks. And also the other is the height allowed. The VMU would allow a 35 foot height of the building, this is what I'm understanding secondhand as I noted in my letter to all of you there is a lot of confusion most of us don't understand the ramifications of this. The other difference is that our R2 is allowed only a 25 foot height You know, and then there's the restrictions on how much of the piece of property you can cover.

But then the number of units is more. And so, you know, there's a concern that in order to get the number of units on the property with an R2 they're going to have to build a second story. You know, going ahead and giving them an R2 designation I understand that the owner wants to live there. And that's fine but as I think it was the city manager or maybe it was Lucas mentioned once you have a designation and you sell the property well the next home buyer comes in there and says well it's already zoned R2 or whatever I totally agree that we should be waiting to see what the intention is of the homeowner and the builder in terms of their plans before any zoning is changed. It seems like, you know, we're putting the cart before the horse.

Let's see. And also, there are not seven units north of the subject property. I'm not aware of any... All the properties surrounding this piece are single-family residences. Across one place, there's four units that are apartments and all the rest are single family with You know, only people living in there. They're all you know one story. So this would be a big change for us and I think it requires more information and more time before you make a decision on this. I would appreciate it if you would carry it forward to another meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you Sherry. Any other comments? Yes, we have Gil Weber. I'll go ahead and allow him to speak. Mr. Webber you can go ahead and speak if you're muted please unmute yourself.

Okay and could also everybody else mute? Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes Good evening. We appreciate the opportunity to speak with you tonight When we moved or purchased property here in Ojai 10 years ago, I was 58. These 10 years have shown me that the simple act of climbing stairs has become more challenging. So that was really the attraction of 309 Blanche single story house And that is our plan. That's all we're planning to do. I think that was pretty clear in the Planning Commission meeting, and that addresses your prior caller.

We agree with Mr. Seibert's initial characterization that it seemed appropriate Again, an R3 zoning given the size of the parcel. We understand that there are surrounding BMU but as pointed out earlier by Mr. Vega, there are nine units directly across the street to Blanche. The previous caller said there weren't seven units north of this property. She's correct. The seven units is directly across from the nine units which occupy the corner across from this property And it's our understanding that we have the ability, which is what we're doing tonight to ask the council to consider R3. But if the council is not so inclined, we are grateful for the ability to achieve an R2 zoning.

My mom used to say there's no harm in asking and that was the impression I had in speaking with Mr. Seibert. In fact he Encouraged us to reach out to the council members, which we did initially on January 31st and seemed like that really didn't find its way to everyone. So then we wrote up this little letter with the map. So the map does clearly show a fair amount of high density near this property.

Our plan is merely to remodel the inside of the church We would not change its perimeter at all. We would replace the opaque windows with translucent windows and that's about it. So, our understanding is that at some future time probably not in our lifetimes Someone might come back to the council and say, this is our proposal for more units. But that's not what we're proposing tonight.

We want to be able to get started with our residential remodel and we appreciate the opportunity to do that. And again, we are grateful that the Planning Commission saw fit to find R2 but we felt like well let's make one final appeal at R3. Thank you.

Thank you, Gail. Any more public comments, Gail? No more public comments. OK, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and we'll move on to discussion. Bill.

Yeah, I have two questions, and Lucas, if you could be ready to bring up the zoning map, I'd appreciate it blown up on that area. My first question while preparing to do that is what were the specific noticings Of surrounding properties that was were done, you know when did they go out and what did they say?

And I'll answer that quickly. We just provided that to me earlier so it was we noticed this Council meeting with a display ad in the newspaper the February 11th edition and with the mail notice to the neighbors within a 300 foot radius on the same day Friday February 11th And that notice specifically talks about the, it proposes a change to R2 zoning designation. It does not mention any potential of an R3 zone designation.

So the noticing to the surrounding properties was limited to the R2 recommendation? Correct. Okay and then my second point I wanted to make is that Yes, there's not conforming use in this area but other than the PL catty corner everything surrounding this is VMU which has the same core density as R2. And that's pretty persuasive to me in terms of consistency I don't think we should be creating A higher density island, particularly since the surrounding property owners weren't notified of that possibility without continuing if that's where the majority is. But I'm comfortable with the R2 since the property owner seems to be within their plans and we all know from zoning it's basically forever until it's changed by council And therefore, I think it's advisable to try to stay with the consistency on the density from the surrounding property.

So that's my opinion.

Thank you, Bill. Do you mind taking the map down, James? I can see everything.

Yes. Sorry about

that. Randy. Unmute Randy. You're muted.

I said, I keep putting my hand up and my hand keeps disappearing. So I don't know if it's giving you the thumbs up or the in between. You're on. So Mayor, thank you. Can we have someone clarify? The question regarding the building heights on VMU and R2. Were they right on a 35-foot level versus what's in our packet at 25, less than 25? Does VMU have a higher build height than an R2?

Yes, I just took a look at the code and the VMU does have a height limitation of 35 feet. The R2 has a height limitation of 25 feet but allows to the DRP process a height above 30 feet.

Right. And then how about the log coverage?

Log coverage for R2 is set at 35% and I believe it's 50% for the VMU

So the VMU would actually allow for more density. Same number of units, but... Density is density whether it's horizontal or vertical. More lock coverage right? Yeah okay well I'm kind of in agreement with Councilman Wyrick about What is presented as an R2 and being consistent, you know to help the community understand this better. It all still no matter what happens here still has to come back to planning for plan review so there'll be plenty of opportunity for the community to weigh in and so I'm willing to make a motion unless we have more discussion.

Well i actually want to say something Though it is highly localized, this upzoning decision must be made in the context of recent changes in regional land use laws and worsening water supply insecurity. There's a huge legislative disconnect at the state level. Our state legislator continues to accelerate mandated economic expansion. All of this expansion requires water.

Every city and county in the state has been mandated to accommodate growth. Almost none of this mandated growth provides homes for those of modest means. Instead, there are more places to live for the advantaged. These market and moderate rate housing mandates do nothing to put ruse over the heads of the unhoused and ignore the laws of nature. I believe in science.

Paying attention to science helps us avoid making irreversible errors Sadly, the state's present approach to land use recklessly disregards the laws of geophysics. For decades, scientists have warned us that if we continue to release carbon into the atmosphere, we do so at the risk of catastrophic consequences. We are now experiencing some of these consequences on a global scale. For example, in the Western US, we're not just experiencing drought, we're also experiencing aridification Unlike drought that leaves hope for wetter times, aridification is permanent.

What scientists are telling us is apparently true as evidenced by the dangerously low water levels in reservoirs throughout our region. Lake Mead, the largest water reservoir in the nation, is at its lowest level since the Hoover Dam was built in the 1930s. Here in the Ojai Valley, a Casitas Water District study projects that if very low precipitation trends continue, in a few years we will reach stage 5 drought.

Among other restrictions, stage five means that we can no longer use water to irrigate outdoor landscapes. Geophysics are the laws of nature. Mother Nature is signaling to us that we must change our behavior, we must stop burning carbon and live within our water means. In the Western U.S., we have decades of work to do to find our way to water supply sanity.

Unlike nearly all other cities in Southern California that rely on water from elsewhere to meet their needs, Ojai relies solely on natural water supplies that come from the mountains around us. Our mountains receive water from rain clouds when they're kind enough to pass over us. This water that we rely on is a gift from nature, that we must not take for granted. We cannot continue to grow beyond what our watershed can support.

Ojai is not exempt from aridification It is time for us to pause and focus our efforts on increasing our water reserves, rather than foolishly committing more water to expansion that does not prioritize making homes for those most in need. I met with applicants Claudia and Gill they are lovely people and I understand their desire to increase the value of the property by upzoning it to a more intense use Though I would really like to help, considering the unprecedented water insecurity both the Ojai Valley and the entire Western region are experiencing. At this time, I cannot in good conscience vote for upzoning in any way on this property.

I encourage my colleagues on the Council to pause on approving any more economic expansion and instead focus our efforts on ecologically sound methods of increasing water levels in Lake Casitas and underground aquifers in our valley. Thank

you. Randy? Mayor, that was nicely read. I think all of us agree with you. I don't know how it's relative to what we're talking about tonight so I'm not going to go there with you but They're trying to take this church and turn it into a single family dwelling. And I'm hoping that they remove the majority of the asphalt on that site, and actually allow for some true water gathering percolation and developing of some sound water saving practices on their site. So I can agree with you and I'm hoping that the applicant does that one way or the other they're going to put a home on that site and that's their right.

Like I said, I'm ready to make a motion unless we have more discussion.

Well, I would like to say that just a minute Susan in response to that Randy, I think this is 100% relevant and we all need to face the music right now. We are running out of water. We need to do everything we can to conserve and stop growing at this point. We need to- I hear you. Please don't interrupt me. And so we just need to finish. We need to look at it from the big picture and stop the madness, because we are completely water insecure. And when you're in a hole, stop digging.

Susan?

So you're recommending R1 is that what you're recommending?

I'm recommending that we keep it the same. Yeah. And you know, it will be a wonderful house

Karen Hollweg, OSBT-Karen Hollweg, OSBT-2900. Karen Hollweg, OSBT"-Is that's called R1 right?

It's PL. Current zoning would be PL. You can't use PL for a single family residence.

If it were PL... The current zoning is PL which does not allow for single family residence. There would be an option to consider R1 for lower density single families.

That's what I'm recommending. Randy?

So again, Mayor I don't want to get into argument with you. I disagree with you in the moment and I believe that anything that this applicant does now is going to help that site become more environmentally sensitive than if we leave it alone with all of that asphalt And so I'm thinking there's some good things that could happen. And I'm also thinking down the road that there could be low-income housing built. There's a multitude of things that they can do to that site. I'm not going to live in the fear of what they're going to do because anything they have to do, they have to bring back to us.