►
From YouTube: Thousand Oaks City Council Meeting - 2/28/23
Description
Agenda and Request to Speak at the Meeting:
https://www.toaks.org/departments/city-clerk/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas
Thousand Oaks City Council Meeting - February 28, 2023
C
B
C
C
The
case
is
Caitlyn
Clint
versus
Fred
Gessler
in
the
city
of
Thousand
Oaks,
it's
Ventura,
County
Superior
Court
case
number,
five,
six,
twenty
Twenty
One
five,
five
one,
four,
four
five,
and
this
is
pursuant
to
government
code,
section
54956.9
A.
The
second
is
also
existing
litigation.
The
case
is
David
Hernandez.
The
first
is
city
of
Thousand
Oaks.
C
A
E
C
A
A
A
F
A
B
A
And
I
just
want
to
reiterate
that
you
have
three
minutes
and
I
want
to
have
five
minutes.
Five
minutes.
Sorry,
thank
you
for
the
correction
and
please
direct
all
your
comments
towards
the
council
as
a
whole.
Please
do
not
name
any
staff
or
council
members
directly
presentation.
First,
thank
you,
city
managers,
keeping
me
on
track.
Thank
you
very
much.
Dr
Cox!
You
have
a
presentation,
sorry
for
the
out
of
order
sequence
there.
Thank
you.
G
It's
okay
good
evening,
members
of
the
council
I'm
here
this
evening
to
present
staff's
recommendations
for
the
construction
of
solar
systems
at
various
City
facilities.
Also,
here
with
me
this
evening,
Mr
Ken,
Wang
senior
analyst
and
NADA
hidari
Deputy
Public
Works
director,
the
city
Prides
itself
on
its
commitment
to
the
environment.
To
that
end,
Council
established
environmental
sustainability
is
one
of
its
top
10
priorities
for
this
fiscal
year
included
in
its
priority
is,
and
I
quote,
make
strategic
sustainability
Investments,
including
clean
energy
and
battery
energy
storage.
G
This
program
exemplifies
this
commitment
by
developing
on-site,
solar
energy
storage.
Sorry,
on-site,
solar
energy
resources
at
all,
feasible
city-owned
facilities
where
solar
is
not
already
installed
and
doing
this
strategically.
During
a
narrow
window
of
opportunity,
a
30
percent
direct
pay
incentive
became
available,
January
1st
to
tax
exempt
into
entities
through
the
federal
government's
inflation
reduction
Act,
but
then,
coming
soon
on
April
the
15th,
the
utility
would
change
the
net
energy
metering
or
nem
2.0
tariff,
which
sets
the
reimbursement
rate
for
generated
solar
energy.
The
new
nem-3
tariff
will
be
much
more
unfavorable
to
the
customer.
G
G
G
With
a
desire
to
avoid
placing
carports
in
front
of
the
adult
center,
the
system
designed
for
the
global
Adult
Center
utilizes
part
of
the
roof
area
of
the
main
library,
to
supplement
what
can
be
accommodated
on
the
global
Center's
roof.
Again,
this
system
is
designed
to
avoid
any
shading
issues
and
also
eliminate
the
need
for
any
tree
removal.
G
G
A
carport
system
will
be
utilized
at
the
city's
Transportation
Center,
providing
shade
to
a
double
row
of
parking
spaces,
although
there
is
a
desire
to
construct
a
larger
system
here,
sce's
interconnection
rules
limit
sizing
to
meet
existing
energy
use
as
the
fleet
of
electric
buses
and
electric
vehicle
charging
expand.
We
anticipate
adding
to
this
system
in
the
future.
G
G
G
These
are
highly
attractive,
payback
times,
which
you'll
see
there
in
the
last
column.
If,
for
any
reason,
the
projects
are
not
accepted
by
SCE
under
nem
2.0,
we
anticipate
needing
to
install
batteries
at
these
sites
to
mitigate
the
reduced
energy
generation
credits
available
under
nem
3.0.
In
that
case,
we
would
need
to
perform
a
revised
cost
benefit
analysis
and
bring
that
back
to
council
for
your
consideration.
G
G
The
first
line
of
business
is
the
internet
connection.
Application
with
SCE
once
approvals
are
received.
The
project
would
proceed
with
designer
materials
procurement
due
to
high
demand,
the
sooner
that
the
developer
can
order
the
materials
the
better,
even
with
long
lead
times.
We
expect
the
systems
to
be
completed
in
approximately
18
months.
G
A
H
Thank
you
mayor.
Yes,
thank
you,
Miss
Cox,
for
the
great
presentation
and
for
this
project.
Frankly,
it's
a
great
project
to
have
in
our
town
a
couple
of
quick
questions.
One
you
mentioned
that
that
the
transportation
center
we
can't
put
a
more
robust
system
in
because
it's
it's
only
can
serve
the
current
use
there.
H
H
G
D
G
Correct
so
that
ITC
credit
which
is
30
has
traditionally
only
been
available
to
tax
paying
entities,
but
under
the
inflation
reduction
act
there's
a
new
provision
whereby
tax-exempt
entities
can
apply
for
the
equivalent
amount
of
funding
under
a
direct
pay
method.
The
actual
rules
of
exactly
how
that's
going
to
happen
have
not
been
released
yet
I
think
it's
going
to
be
run
through
the
Internal
Revenue
Service,
but
we
are
awaiting
Direction
on
that.
But.
D
D
G
D
G
A
A
I
think
the
people
who
park
there
will
appreciate
the
shading
that
they
get
from
it
to
protect
their
vehicles
and
the
Interiors.
So
this
will
be
very,
very
nice
and
I
missed
that
in
the
presentation.
What
is
our
Breakeven
point
with
what
the
city
has
to
put
out
versus
The
Energy
savings?
How
many
years
are
we
looking
at
here
well,
given
that
the
solar
panels
start
falling
off
20
years
or
so
with
their
efficiencies?
What's
what's
your
projection
on
this.
G
So
we
ran
the
cost,
benefit
analysis
for
the
Energy
savings
versus
depreciating
the
cost
of
the
the
capital
cost
of
the
system,
and
it
varies
from
one
facility
to
another.
The
shortest
payoff
time
is
projected
to
be
at
the
teen
center,
with
only
about
a
six
and
a
half
year
payback
period
and
the
longest
is
about
nearly
13
years
at
the
transportation
center
and
that's
just
because
it's
a
carport
system
which
is
more
expensive
than
rooftop,
and
it's
the
smallest
one.
So
you
don't
get
the
same
economy
of
scale.
I.
A
I
Council
members
wrestling
don't
need
five
minutes.
I'm
gonna
be
super
brief,
so
I'll
give
you
some
time
back.
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I'm,
a
resident
of
Thousand,
Oaks
and
I'm
speaking
here
on
behalf
of
Conejo
Climate,
Coalition
and
I
just
want
to
show
some
how
thrilled
we
are
with
this
prefab
solar
project
and
how
happy
we
are
that
the
city
is
working
towards
its
goals
and
enacting
its
sustainability
plan
for
its
Municipal
operations,
and
we
think
it's
great
and
we're
super
excited
about
it.
And
thank
you
so
much.
A
E
H
F
A
A
H
A
Friend,
thank
you
all
right.
Let's
move
on
to
item
16a
Department
reports.
We
have
the
navigation,
Center,
exclusive
negotiation
agreements
and
right
of
Entry
for
the
presentation
from
staff
we
have
assistant
city
manager,
Ingrid,
Hardy
and
also
assistant
City,
Attorney
Patrick.
He
her
who
will
be
doing
the
presentation
and
we'll
wait.
While
you
get
settled
in
there,
Ms
Hardy.
A
K
So,
just
as
a
reminder,
the
city
council
had
an
adopted
priority
in
2021-22
to
identify
and
Advance
solutions
for
emergency
Sheltering
or
for
homelessness
through
emergency
Sheltering
and
permanent
Supportive
Housing.
The
city
staff
has
made
demonstrable
progress
towards
these
two
goals,
the
first
of
which
we
were
able
to
secure
almost
27
million
dollars
from
the
state
of
California
for
project
home
key
and
then
previously.
The
city
council
unanimously
authorized
the
use
of
city-owned
property
on
Lawrence
Drive
for
future
use,
as
a
navigation.
K
K
The
item
that
is
before
the
city
council
is
for
interim
housing,
which
is
the
navigation
center,
located
on
Lawrence
Drive,
with
interim
housing,
typically
you're,
going
to
see
three
types:
they're,
either
temporary
winter
or
year-round
and
in
a
congregate
setting
like
a
dormitory
style
setting
or
non-congregate.
In
our
case,
we
are
proposing
a
year-round
shelter
that
will
be
in
a
non-congregate
setting.
K
The
interim
housing
will
be
operated
by
a
non-profit
organization
on
site.
Mills
are
provided,
Supportive
Services
are
provided
such
as
case
management
and
housing
navigation
services
to
help
the
individual
locate
permanent
housing,
and
they
also
have
access
to
a
host
of
additional
services
such
as
Healthcare,
Mental,
Health,
Services
and
employment
services,
and
the
goal
is
to
create
a
pathway
to
permanent
housing
and
to
end
homelessness.
K
K
The
city
council
previously
authorized
staff
to
move
forward
with
the
team
in
front
of
you
here
on
this
slide
and
they're
different
roles
for
these
team
members
for
dignity
moves
they
will
serve
as
the
developer
of
the
site.
Many
mansions
will
serve
as
the
consultant
and
leaseholder
and
hope
of
the
valley
will
serve
as
the
operator
for
the
proposed
navigation,
Center
and
just
a
quick
review
of
the
qualifications
of
the
team
that
was
selected.
Dignity
moves
is
a
non-profit
organization.
They
are
highly
skilled.
K
The
site
in
front
of
you
here
in
this
picture
is
actually
one
of
their
sites
in
Downtown,
Santa
Barbara,
in
the
heart
of
downtown,
it's
surrounded
by
businesses
and
it's
been
open,
I
want
to
say
just
under
a
year
and
the
adjacent
building
that
you
see
behind
this
location
is
actually
the
location
of
Morgan
Stanley
and
so
their
dignity
moves,
develop.
The
site,
Salvation,
Army
I,
believe,
is
the
operator
of
this
site,
and
you
know
it's
just
a
regular
facility,
if
you
don't
know
what's
behind
the
wall.
K
The
operator
is
Copa
the
Valley
Rescue
Mission.
This
is
a
faith-based
non-profit
organization,
they
have
extensive
experience
in
operating
tiny
home
villages
and
they
are
probably
one
of
the
larger
operators
of
homeless
services,
including
congregate
and
non-congregate
settings.
They
have
a
deep
understanding
of
funding
sources
and
Associated
requirements,
and
they
also
have
documented
success
in
taking
in
individuals
experiencing
homelessness
and
providing
that
pathway
to
permanent
housing.
K
We
are
all
familiar
with
many
mansions
and
certainly
value
the
experience,
the
long-standing
experience
that
they
bring
to
the
Conejo
Valley.
They
provide
affordable,
housing
and
they've
been
doing
so.
Since
1979.
there
are
18,
affordable
housing
communities
serving
about
1400
residents.
They
continue
to
expand
their
portfolio
throughout
Ventura,
County,
Los,
Angeles,
County
and
other
locations
throughout
the
state
of
California.
K
Just
quickly
on
the
estimated
costs
and
funding
sources,
which
was
previously
reviewed
with
the
city
council
on
the
capitol
side,
the
proposing
team
is
estimating
approximately
3.8
million
dollars
to
develop
the
site.
It
is
raw
land,
there's
no
utilities
on
the
site.
So
there's
grading
and
you
know
a
variety
of
improvements
that
are
required,
which
is
why
you
see
that
price
tag
there
on
the
operating
side,
it's
just
under
a
million
dollars,
approximately
nine
hundred
thousand
dollars
annually
to
operate
the
site.
K
I
also
did
not
mention
previously
that
the
proposed
number
of
beds
for
this
site
is
30
and
there
is
room
to
expand
up
to
50
in
the
future.
Should
the
city
council
choose
to
do
so
in
terms
of
potential
funding
sources?
The
council
previously
approved
a
budget
of
community
reinvestment
dollars.
There
were
16
million
dollars
set
aside.
10
million
has
gone
to
the
Hillcrest
site
which
you'll
be
discussing
after
this
item
tonight
and
then
an
additional
1.8
million
towards
project
home
key
there's.
K
Also,
the
state
encampment
resolution
Grant,
which
we
will
be
asking
the
city
council
to
approve
the
city
to
be
a
co-applicant
with
the
county
on
this
grant.
It
particularly
targets
encampments
and
it
prioritizes
encampments
that
are
adjacent
or
located
on
state
right-of-way.
We
have
the
support
of
our
Caltrans
liaison
to
apply
for
these
Grant
dollars.
We've
done,
I
should
say
that
the
Thousand
Oaks
police
department
has
worked
extensively
and
in
partnership
with
Caltrans
and
with
CHP
on
addressing
our
encampments.
K
So
if
we're
able
to
secure
these
dollars,
that
will
certainly
help
us
direct
funds
towards
this
proposed
navigation.
Center
there's
also
the
state
permanent
local
housing
allocation
dollars,
along
with
County,
competitive
and
non-competitive
grants,
and
also
the
county
cost
sharing
agreement,
which
is
before
the
city
council.
This
evening,
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
the
Board
of
Supervisors
unanimously
approve
the
cost-sharing
agreement
with
the
city
of
Thousand.
C
Thank
you,
Miss
Hardy,
that's
part
of
the
recommendation
tonight
and
for
the
public.
We
are
asking
that
the
council
approve
an
exclusive
negotiation
agreement
or
Ena.
Ena
is
a
good
faith
negotiation
time
period.
In
this
case
we
are
recommending
270
days
plus
possible
extensions
and
with
the
ENA,
the
city
may
only
negotiate
with
the
proposer,
as
identified
by
Ms
Hardy
during
the
term
of
the
ENA.
C
There
is
a
due
diligence
component
to
the
ENA
as
to
work
forward
to
the
goal
of
trying
to
reach
an
agreement
on
that
lease
with
the
proposer,
and
that
also
includes
visiting
the
site
and
preparing
the
necessary
plans
to
meet
the
proposed
project
task
as
part
of
the
ENA.
There
is
an
attached
right
of
Entry
agreement
and
we
have
that
attached
because
we
want
the
proposer
to
be
able
to
have
access
to
this
part
part
of
the
parcel
to
do
the
necessary
analysis
for
the
grading
and
construction
that
might
happen.
C
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
the
ENA
does
not
create
any
rights
to
acquire
or
convey
the
property.
This
is
just
a
a
prerequisite
if
you
will
for
the
parties
to
negotiate
in
good
faith.
The
ENA
is
not
an
approval
of
the
project,
and
the
SQL
analysis
will
be
done
as
part
of
the
project
review
is
not
part
of
this
particular
action
tonight.
K
K
K
K
H
Englert,
thank
you
for
the
good
presentation
and
looking
forward
to
this
getting
off
the
ground
in
the
staff
report.
You
mentioned
some
some
goals,
I
think
it
was
75
percent
or
70
percent
of
the
the
housing
always
occupied
75
percent.
Moving
people
into
permanent
housing
or
permanent
situations
is
that
aspirational.
Is
that
something
that
hope
of
the
valley
has
accomplished
on
a
regular
basis.
K
H
Well,
thank
you
and
then
we
have
30
30
modular
homes
going
in
out
there
is
that
30
beds
is
there
room
for
couples
in
these
places
is
and
then
the
second
part
of
that
question.
We
do
have
some
families
in
the
area
that
are
homeless.
Is
this
intended
for
families
or
is
there
other
accommodations
made
for
them.
K
So,
yes,
there
are
30
beds
that
will
be
available.
We
can
accommodate
couples.
We
are
not
in
terms
of
serving
families.
The
families
would
not
include
children
under
the
age
of
18..
That
is
our
our
preference.
We
think
that
at
different
site
would
be
more
appropriate
for
families
with
younger
children.
F
So
as
of
right
now,
you
know
we're
looking
at
the
cost.
We
don't
know
if
this
project
will
even
pencil
at
this
moment.
This
is
just
to
basically
enter
in
to
the
negotiations
to
find
out
if
we
have
a
viable
project
in
and
ultimately
the
deal
with
the
operator.
Is
that
correct
or
am
I
missing
that
so.
K
We
do
through
our
requests
for
proposals,
the
dignity,
moves
that
provide
a
line
item
budget
of
what
they
believe
are
the
cost
to
develop
the
site
so
I'm
could
those
costs
change
potentially,
but
this
is
what
they
believe
the
cost
to
be
at
this
time.
The
action
that
the
city
council
will
take
this
evening
is
to
exclusively
negotiate
with
the
proposer.
K
L
And
if
we
didn't
get
the
state
encampment
Grant,
we
would
have
fund
half
of
the
construction.
So
it
is
fully
funded.
We
do
have
the
budget
for
it,
we're
going
through
our
budget
process
right
now,
so
we
will
be
budgeting
for
the
next
two
years
for
half
of
the
operating
costs
as
well.
In
the
case
that
when
we
don't
get
the
state
encampment
Grant-
and
she
also
mentioned
there's
other
state
funding
that
we
it's
about
a
half
a
million
a
year.
L
C
C
We
have
to
work
with
the
county
as
a
partnership
with
the
county
to
make
sure
that
we
are
complying
with
some
of
the
goals
and
policies
that
they
need
to
have
followed
through
when
we
do
this
with
the
with
anyone
that
we
work
with.
So
that's
kind
of
now
we're
getting
to
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
the
terms
of
an
agreement
what
it
means,
the
long,
how
long
it
goes.
C
Termination
issues,
liability
issues,
all
those
kind
of
things
now
come
into
play,
but
the
initial
structure
of
it
was
from
the
proposal
and
we
again
thought
this
was
a
a
very
successful
proposal
team
and
that's
why
we're
trying
to
get
in
front
of
them
right
now
in
front
of
you.
I
should
say
great.
Thank
you.
A
A
Challenge
here
is
that
the
county
has
the
money
for
social
programs
for
the
homeless.
Why
are
they
not
paying
100
percent
of
the
costs
associated
with
it?
Given
they've
got
the
property
tax
dollars
that
go
into
social
programs
and
so
forth?
Why
are
we
as
a
city
doing
this
and
not
saying
here's
the
plan?
We
will
execute
this
Faithfully
County,
you
pay
100
of
it
as
compared
to
we
pay
50
percent.
K
Sure
so
I'll
start
out
in
and
then
Drew
or
Jamie
can
chime
in.
In
2018,
the
city
council
adopted
Aboriginal
memorandum
of
understanding
with
the
county,
along
with
other
cities
in
Ventura
County
and
as
part
of
that
agreement,
we
agreed
to
work
with
the
county
on
addressing
homelessness,
including
Sheltering,
permanent
Supportive
Housing,
asking
that
non-profit
organizations
utilize
their
database
system.
So
it
was
approached
as
a
collective
partnership
and
that
we
could
move
the
needle
further
in
addressing
homelessness
by
partnering
between
the
county
and
the
City
was.
M
M
M
The
county
does,
as
you
appropriately
point
out,
they
do
provide
social
services,
and
so
they
have
a
clinic
here
in
that
is
in
Thousand
Oaks.
They
provide
behavioral
health
support,
law
enforcement,
support
to
us
via
contract,
and
so
from
that
standpoint
the
question
of
housing
homeless
ends
up
one
of
those
that
straddles
the
line.
M
There
are
components
that
are
social
service,
absolutely
are,
and
the
county
in
Partnership
here
is
going
to
be
supporting
that
not
just
in
financial
means,
but
also
providing
likely
on-site
Clinic
services
at
the
at
the
eventual
facility
and
behavioral
health
support
services
at
those
at
that
facility.
On
the
other
side,
it's
a
housing,
question
and
housing
questions
are
traditionally
Municipal
responsibilities,
and
so
that's
where
this
this
one
really
straddles
the
the
line
policy
wise.
A
H
H
H
Just
providing
more
housing
in
general
is
another
portion
of
it.
This
is
intended
for
those
people
who
are
currently
experiencing
homelessness,
who
need
that
bridge
to
get
them
back
on
track
for
permanent
housing.
So
this
is
another
part
of
what
we
are
attempting
to
do
to
work
through
our
our
issues
here
of
homelessness
in
our
town,
I
think
it's
a
vital
part
of
what
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
to
do
so.
H
I
I
see
nothing
but
good
I.
Think
it's
money
well
spent.
Many
of
our
I
mean
we
all
have
received
emails
concerning
homelessness
in
our
town.
This
is
one
way
to
partner
with
the
county
to
address
our
local
issues
here
in
in
The,
Conejo
Valley
I
think
it's
a
good,
a
good,
a
good
approach
for
us
to
take
this
multi-faceted
multi-winged
approach
to
addressing
homelessness
with
that
I'd
be
happy
to
make
a
motion
and
we
could
talk
about
them.
J
I
want
to
begin
by
thanking
staff
for
for
bringing
bringing
this
to
the
point
we're
at
and
thanking
councilmember
Engler,
whose
comments
I
I
fully
concur
with
I've,
had
many
conversations
with
with
our
staff
with
the
counties,
medical
backpack
team,
with
Chief
Paris,
with
Mr
Schrader
from
many
mansions,
with
many
other
people
who
are
in
our
community,
addressing
homelessness
and
and
have
asked
them
the
question.
What
do
you
need
to
do
your
job
and
separately?
They've?
J
All
given
me
exactly
the
same
answer,
which
is
we
need
housing
and
we
need
services
and
that's
what
we're
doing
tonight
and
as
council
member
Engler
pointed
out,
it
is
a
multi-factor
multivariate
problem
and
we
are
addressing
it
in
multiple
ways,
but
I
fully
agree
that
this
is
an
important
part
of
it.
So
I'm
very
happy
to
support
the
motion
on
that
ground.
Thank
you.
Man
thank.
D
Adam,
oh
thank
you
mayor.
You
know,
I
did
visit
the
modular
housing
in
Santa
Barbara
and
it's
done
beautifully.
It
filled
instantly
as
soon
as
they
opened
it
and
it
coexists
with
the
surrounding
people
very
well.
So
I'm
sure
that's
what's
going
to
happen
here.
This
just
shows
you
the
commitment,
the
city
council
and
our
staff
and
Ingrid
you've
been
with
us
since
day.
One.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
tenacity
and
getting
these
things
done
to
a
commitment
to
help
homeless
people
and
a
greater
commitment
to
provide
affordable
housing.
D
I
mean
this
is
one
facet
of
affordable
housing
and
I'm
really
encouraged
that
the
county
has
stepped
in
and
to
contribute,
because
what
that
could
mean
if
you,
if
you
remember,
we
voted
for
30,
but
we
also
voted
to
increase
to
as
much
as
50.
and
with
the
county
support.
Hopefully,
maybe
we
won't
have
to
commit
to
50,
but
I
I
wouldn't
put
it
out
of
the
realm
of
possibility,
but
with
the
county
involved,
that's
going
to
make
that
a
lot
easier,
so
fully
supported
the
motion.
A
Thank
you,
sir
I
would
like
to
say
that
I
am
very
much
supportive
of
temporary
Supportive
Housing
to
help
people
get
a
leg
up,
get
back
in
the
game
again,
have
purpose
in
life
to
be
functional,
productive
and
self-reliant,
independent
and
this
project,
in
my
opinion,
meets
those
goals:
Miss
Hardy,
MS,
boscarino,
misreher
and
our
city
staff.
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
diligent
work
that
you've
done
on
bringing
it
to
this
point.
I
personally
would
like
staff
to
consider
moving
towards
50,
even
though
we
are
right
now
at
30..
A
Unfortunately,
we
have
300
approximately
homeless
in
our
city
and
growing,
so
the
77
we
have
over
at
the
Quality
Inn
the
50.
We
have
that
we're
talking
about
here,
which
is
actually
30
right
now,
is
nowhere
going
to
be
close,
but
it's
a
step
in
the
right
direction:
I'm
hoping
that
we
can
address
all
the
homeless
and
get
them
back
into
life,
being
productive,
having
purpose
being
self-reliant,
so,
city
manager,
Mr,
Powers.
Any
comments.
M
K
M
Operators
team's
ability
here
and
certainly
the
site,
is
raw
land
today,
so
we'll
be
pulling
utilities
and
doing
a
lot
of
construction
work
there.
Everything
that
we're
doing
is
is
not
going
to
preclude
the
council's
eventual
ability
to
look
to
expand.
Should
they
wish
should
they
wish
to
do
so,
but
we
we
do
think
it's
important
to
demonstrate
our
success
in
a.
E
A
Just
as
a
final
comment
for
myself
is
that
our
challenge
here
in
Thousand
Oaks
is
where
to
put
it,
and
this
is
an
ideal
place
for
this
effort.
Hopefully
we
can
identify
others
that
are
just
as
accommodating.
We
have
a
motion
on
the
floor
by
council
member
ingler
Madam
clerk.
Would
you
please
call
the
roll
council.
H
D
A
A
Very
much
next
up
we
have
the
Hillcrest
site
exclusive
negotiating
agreement
up
for
City
staff
to
make
a
presentation,
as
our
finance
director
Jamie
buscarino,
and
our
assistant
City
attorney
Noel,
Doran
and
available
for
questions.
Cheryl
Flores
vice
president
of
home
ownership
at
people's
self-help,
housing
Corporation
via
zoom,
and
also
Linda
Ron
schweiger
Housing
Trust
Fund,
Ventura
County.
This
is
bosscarino.
It's
yours.
L
He
has
a
long
history
of
supporting,
affordable
housing
and,
in
fact,
a
gold
J
of
the
city
council
goals,
States
in
part
that
the
city
will
continue
to
support
production
of
long-term,
affordable
housing
prior
to
the
dissolution
of
Redevelopment
agencies.
In
2012,
the
city's
RDA
supported
the
development
of
over
1
000,
affordable
housing
units,
the
city
consistently
partnered
with
agencies,
primarily
many
mansions
to
develop,
affordable
housing
projects
contributing
millions
of
dollars
towards
this
purpose.
L
Although
the
city's
RDA
was
dissolved,
this
city
council
goal
Still
Remains
to
this
day
as
part
of
the
goal
setting
in
2021
city
council
adopted
priority
number
four
for
fiscal
year
2021-22,
which
called
for
the
investment
in
the
post-pandemic
recovery
through
various
strategic
one-time,
non-recurring
Investments,
due
to
receipt
of
arpa
funding
from
the
federal
government.
In
order
to
work
towards
achieving
that
goal,
city
council
approved
as
part
of
the
2021-2023
budget,
16
million
towards
affordable
housing
and
homelessness
efforts.
L
As
whether
other
initiatives
city
council
then
adopted
priority
number
four
for
fiscal
year,
2022-23,
specifically
related
to
the
Hillcrest
site,
affordable
housing
development
project,
the
Hillcrest
site
is
located
at
the
corner
of
Hillcrest
and
herbs
close
to
the
Civic
Arts
Plaza
here
and
downtown
Thousand
Oaks.
It
is
a
3.87
acre,
parcel
zoned,
R3
multi-family
residential
that
housed
at
the
former
Hillcrest
Christian
School,
which
will
be
demolished
as
part
of
the
development
staff
evaluated
the
site
when
it
was
on
the
market
and
determined
that
it
would
be
a
suitable
location
for
the
development
of
affordable
housing.
L
On
August
31st
2021
city
council
approved
the
purchase
and
sale
agreement
for
the
Hillcrest
site.
Escrow
subsequently
closed
on
November
10
2021,
then
on
May
24
2022
city
council
adopted
a
resolution
to
declare
the
Hillcrest
site
as
exempt
Surplus
land
pursuant
to
the
Surplus
lands
Act
after
direction
from
city
council
staff
proceeded
to
develop
an
issue,
an
rfpq
for
development
of
the
Hillcrest
site
as
an
affordable
housing
project.
L
Based
on
this
direction,
preference
was
given
for
the
development
of
an
all
for
sale,
affordable
housing
project
and
an
all-electric
design
staff
evaluated
proposals
for
the
economic
viability
and
financial
strength
of
the
proposer
and
the
development,
as
well
as
the
expertise
and
experience
of
the
development
team.
Also
evaluated
was
the
vision
and
design
for
a
market
feasible,
affordable
housing
development,
implementing
the
city's
vision
for
the
community.
L
People's
self-help
housings
proposal
included
an
all-for-sale,
affordable
development
project
of
78
units
with
a
mix
of
low-income
and
moderate
income
units,
The
Proposal
fulfilled
the
requirements
of
the
Surplus
lands.
Act
was
Market
feasible
with
sound
financial
assumptions
and
reasonable
development
costs.
They
partnered
with
the
Housing
Trust
Fund
and
housing
Land
Trust
of
Ventura
County
Ventura
County
Community,
Development
Corporation.
As
the
home
ownership,
counselor
DeCicco
architecture
as
the
architect
and
McCarthy
companies
as
the
Builder
and
now
I'll
turn
over
to
Noel
to
go
over
the
exclusive
negotiating
agreement.
Thank.
N
The
ENA
establishes
the
framework
for
these
negotiations.
It
establishes
a
negotiating
term
of
180
days.
However,
there
are
options
to
extend
that
period.
During
that
time,
the
parties
will
further
refine
the
project
details,
including
the
development
schedule,
the
project
financing
and
the
disposition
of
the
site
to
the
developer.
N
The
ENA
also
makes
clear
that
the
costs
associated
with
the
project,
including
any
due
diligence,
project
planning
and
environmental
review,
are
the
sole
responsibility
of
the
developer
to
assist
people's
self-help.
Due
diligence
efforts,
the
city
council
is
asked
to
approve
a
right
of
Entry
agreement.
This
will
allow
people
self-help
and
their
contractors
to
enter
the
site
to
perform
any
necessary
physical
tests
and
inspections.
N
L
So
we
have
several
recommendations
before
you
tonight.
The
first
is
to
approve
the
exclusive
negotiating
agreement
between
the
city
of
Thousand
Oaks
and
people's
self-help
housing
Corporation
for
the
development
of
the
city-owned
parcel
on
herbs
as
a
for
sale,
affordable,
housing
project.
The
second
recommendation
is
to
approve
the
right
of
Entry
agreement
between
the
city
and
people,
self-help,
housing,
Corporation
for
the
development
of
the
city-owned
parcel
as
a
for
sale,
affordable,
housing
project.
L
The
third
is
to
authorize
the
city
manager
to
initiate
preparation
of
a
disposition
and
development
agreement
between
the
city
and
people's
self-help,
and
then
the
fourth
is
to
find
that
this
action
is
not
a
project
as
defined
under
the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act,
with
that
we
have
staff
available
for
questions
as
well
as
representative
from
people's
self-help
and
also
from
the
land
trust.
Thank.
F
L
L
F
Is
has
there
been
a
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
call
it
a
study,
or
is
there
a
potential
to
have
this
be
a
different
asset?
So
is
there
a
scenario
where
we
could
put
potentially
more
doors
as
a
multi-family
to
be
able
to
provide
more
Supply
and,
and
has
there
been
any
kind
of
comparison
to
see
if
that's
actually
a
better
option
to
bring
more
availability
than
potentially
a
limited
down
home
or
a
smaller
amount
of
units
on
the
down
home
size
side?.
L
M
M
Direction
Council
prescribed
a
desire
for
for
sale
and
so
and
as
we
went
through
the
process
that
was
certainly
weighted
in
the
process,
and
so,
while
one
of
the
submissions,
at
least
one
of
the
submissions,
did
have
a
blending
of
a
of
some
rental
multi-family
to
blend
in
with
some
for
sale
that
the
council
elected
to
move
forward
with
this
one
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
most
notably
the
strength
of
the
overall
team.
Okay,.
F
L
So
when
they
initially
purchase
it,
obviously
there's
a
cap
on
what
we
can
establish
the
purchase
the
sales
price
ad
based
on
their
income
levels.
They
could
stay
in
that
townhouse,
let's
say
10
years
at
that
point
in
time
there
would
be
a
new
calculation
as
to
what
they
could
sell,
the
property
for
which
would
be
under
market
right,
because
these
are
preserved
as
low
income
and
moderate
income
units.
L
F
It's
cap
in
cap
out
right
so
for
that
extra,
let
me
see
how
I
could
explain
this
because
I'm
actually
trying
to
figure
it
out
as
well.
Let's
say
you
know
in
theory,
market
value
is
a
million
dollars
right
day,
one
and
they're
getting
in,
for
let's
say:
700
000.
I
know
these
numbers
are
just
made
up,
but
that
300
000,
let's
say
it,
just
keeps
carrying
on
with
appreciation.
Where
does
does
that
margin?
If,
if
value
is
worth
more
when
they
sell
it,
go
anywhere,
are
you
saying
when
they
sell
it?
L
O
I'll,
try
I,
think
Jamie
did
explain
it.
We
have
proposed
that
there
would
be
the
resale
could
increase
as
much
as
the
percent
Ami
during
that
period.
That's
not
locked
down.
Yet
it's
still
up
for
discussion,
but
definitely
the
resale
would
be
capped
for
an
extended
period.
We
proposed
45
years
so
that
the
buyers
get
some
appreciation,
but
they
don't
get
a
windfall
profit
and
the
units
stay
affordable,
long
term,
which
is
what
the
city
asks
for.
Thank.
J
In
my
experience
they
sometimes
tend
to
correlate
that
with
destitution
and
poverty
and
extreme
situations,
but
we're
not
talking
about
that
here.
Are
we
where,
where
in
by
the
state's
definition
county-wide
Ventura,
not
here
in
Thousand
Oaks
but
county-wide,
can
you
confirm
that
low
income
for
a
family
of
four
here
is?
Are
we
using
the
hcd
definitions
where
low
income
is
more
than
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
year
for
a
family
of
four
and
moderate
income?
I
think
is
up
to
137
or
138,
something
like
that.
O
Do
not
have
them
in
front
of
me,
but
it's
substantial
yeah.
What
the
80
and
120
Amis
are.
The
families
have
to
have
enough
income
to
make
the
payment,
and
even
if
the
homes
are
sold
for
350
000,
that
still
requires
a
substantial
income,
probably
of
at
least
around
70
000,
depending
on
interest
rates
and
everything
else.
So
they
will
be
working
family.
So.
J
A
Ninety
thousand
dollars
combined
income
for
an
individual
or
married
couple
or
people
within,
and
then
we
have
it's
just
under
ninety
thousand
dollars.
So
as
as
we
talk
here
about
the
affordability
of
it,
my
question
for
staff
is:
how
do
we
go
about
selecting
who's
going
to
win
the
lottery
here?
Who
now
would
get
a
million
dollar
town
home
for
400
to
500
000,
which
was
made
at
the
presentation
originally
because
our
taxpayers
paid
10
million
dollars
for
that
property?
A
And
that
is
why
it's
able
to
be
contributed
or
priced
out
at
about
half
the
price
of
on
the
market
again
on
the
market.
It
was
800
to
a
million
dollars
for
a
town
home,
but
these
will
be
going
out
approximately
at
400
to
maybe
450
500
000.
and
that's
a
lottery
win
for
somebody.
How
do
we
decide
on
which
77
lucky
people
won
the
lottery
get
into
a
home
at
Half
Price
here?
In
Thousand
Oaks.
M
A
M
Do
that
so
I'm
going
to
let
so
that
process
as
prescribed
by
this
will
be
run
by
people's
self-help?
Who
do
this
and
all
their
jurisdictions?
But
I
think
it's
important
to
point
out.
There's
a
process
for
all
of
the
affordable
housing
projects
that
the
council
advances
so
299,
which
just
opened
12,
affordable
units
in
there,
and
so
they
had
a
third
party
that
runs
that
they
run
all
the
income
qualifications
and
they
run
all
the
the
lottery
process.
Associated
with
that,
but
perhaps
our
representative
from
people's.
A
L
A
So
they
will
take
care
of
the
selection
process
and
move
forward
with
it
again.
I
voted
no
on
this
originally
because
it
was
for
for
purchase
for
low
income,
and
my
argument
was
that
if
this
was
available
on
the
market,
there
would
be
7
77
families
that
would
be
able
to
live
there
who
could
afford
to
live
here
at
market
rate.
A
So
let's
do
the
following
here
at
Council,
any
other
questions
or
comments,
let's
move
into.
If
we
can
for
speakers
Madam
clerk,
do
we
have
any
speakers?
No
speakers,
then
staff
any
last
comments
here.
Any
thoughts,
yeah,
okay,
so
I'm
going
to
ask
for
any
other
final
comments
before
we
ask
for
a
motion.
Mr
Adam.
D
D
Thank
you,
114,
affordable
units
for
the
rental
side
and
I
can
tell
you
some
of
them
are
truly
affordable.
The
299
project,
the
affordable
units
there
going
between
700
and
1000
a
month,
that's
going
to
be
very
helpful
to
some
people
and
now
we're
we
we're
looking
at
another
tier
of
affordability
for
ownership,
and
you
know
I
know
the
public
wants
affordable.
D
But
thanks
to
this
Council
they're
going
to
be
able
to
do
that
and
they're
going
to
be
able
to
appreciate.
I
appreciate
some
appreciation
that
doesn't
make
sense
they're
going
to
be
able
to
benefit
some
appreciation
from
home
ownership
as
well
so
I
think
it's
a
good
move.
Mayas
and
I
I
will
move
that
we
go
ahead
with
the
ENA
for
16b.
J
I
concur
with
council
member
Adam
about
the
high
cost
of
land
here,
and
we
can
address
that
in
two
ways.
We
can
be
really
irresponsible
and
do
everything
we
can
to
wreck
our
local
economy
so
that
all
costs
land
costs
come
down
because
nobody
wants
to
live
here
anymore
or
we
can
do
the
responsible
thing
which,
which
is
to
provide
housing
at
all
different
income
levels
and
I.
Think
our
city
has
committed
to
doing
that.
I
applaud
them
for
doing
that.
J
If
you
talk
with
our
partners
in
the
business
Community,
they
are
telling
us
that
we
need
housing
and
alter
for
an
income
levels
not
only
to
rent
but
also
to
buy,
and
this
to
me
is
a
far
better
choice
than
a
deep
recession
or
a
deep
depression
that
that
Market
forces
bring
the
economy
to
a
quite
bad
place.
Our
economy
is
very
strong
and
we
are
in
a
fortunate
position
where
we
can
do
something
about
housing
for
people
who
need
it
so
I'm
happy
to
support
council
members
Adams
motion.
Thank.
F
H
Mr
Wrangler,
thank
you,
mayor,
yeah,
I,
agree
100
with
them.
Mr,
Taylor
I
think
this
is
another
step
along
the
way
of
taking
this.
This
idea
to
a
fruition,
so
we're
not
approving
it
tonight
per
se.
We
are
taking
that
next
step,
which
I
think
is
an
important
step
to
take.
That
said,
this
is,
as
I
said
earlier.
This
is
one
more
approach
that
we
are
taking
to
help
make
housing
more
affordable
in
Thousand
Oaks.
A
Thank
you.
I
would
like
to
conclude
my
comment
in
that
I'm
very
much
in
support
of
rentable,
affordable
housing
for
low
income,
not
for
ownership,
because
we
exclude
others
and
that's
making
government
into
a
charity
which
is
not
our
function
and
I
agree
with
councilman
Taylor,
and
that
I
agree
that
we
need
to
address
the
affordability
issue.
A
C
D
B
A
On
to
16c
inclusionary
housing
program
for
the
presentation
from
City
staff,
Ian
Holt,
Senior
planner,
we
also
have
Kathy
head
consultant
from
Kaiser
Martin
and
available
questions
will
be
Calvin,
Parker
Our,
Community,
Development,
Department,
director
and
Tom
Bretz
consultant
for
Kaiser
Marston
Mr
Holt.
Whenever
you're
ready
we're
ready
for
you.
P
Okay,
thank
you,
mayor
council
members,
so
before
you
tonight,
staff
is
basically
seeking
input
from
the
city
council
on
the
inclusionary
housing
program
and
non-residential
development.
Linkage
fee
update
we're
seeking
City
council's
policy
direction
towards
the
preparation
of
an
update
to
both
programs,
including
considering
introducing
a
non-residential
linkage
fee
based
on
the
feasibility
analysis
and
the
preliminary
recommendations
contained
in
your
staff
report.
P
So,
as
I
said,
the
request
before
you
is
first
to
discuss
the
inclusionary
housing
Financial
evaluation,
as
well
as
the
linkage
fee.
Nexus
study
results
and
the
preliminary
recommendations
contained
therein
and
then
ultimately
provide
direction
to
staff
on
completing
the
updates
for
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance,
as
well
as
the
non-residential
linkage
fee
ordinances.
P
Updating
the
program
assist
the
city
in
reaching
its
Regional
Housing
needs
assessment
numbers
for
the
affordable
housing
which,
for
the
sixth
cycle,
housing
element
from
2021
to
2029,
are
735
very
low
income,
which
actually
roughly
half
of
that,
is
extremely
low
income.
Then
you
have
494
low-income
units
and
532
moderate
income
units,
all
of
which
those
categories
meet
affordability,
criteria.
P
The
preliminary
recommendations
before
you
tonight
are
a
result
of
a
conservative
approach
to
applying
requirements
that
are
commiserate
to
the
different
types
of
residential
development,
also
included
for
the
council's
considerations.
The
policy
consideration
policy
of
applying
non-residential
development
linkage
fees,
the
goal
of
the
update
and
the
evaluation
is
to
avoid
placing
an
owner's
burden
on
Developers.
P
Placing
an
owner's
burden
on
developers
by
providing
options
to
contribute
towards
the
production
of
affordable
housing.
Development
of
these
recommendations
are
justified
by
the
financial
analysis
presented
tonight
and
are
intended
not
to
be
overly
strict
to
the
degree
that
they
become
an
impediment
to
the
production
of
housing.
P
When
considering
these
preliminary
recommendations,
staff
solicits
the
council
to
strike
a
balance
between
the
affordable
housing
and
the
economic
development
goals
of
the
community,
the
policy
Direction
received
tonight
by
from
the
city
council
to
staff
will
be
used
to
develop
a
draft
ordinance
for
the
update
to
the
municipal
code,
sections
related
to
inclusionary
housing,
as
well
as
the
linkage
fee,
and
then
also
any
resolutions
establishing
any
in
lieu
or
linkage
fee
amounts.
These
items
would
be
considered
by
the
Planning
Commission
for
recommendation,
followed
by
the
final
consideration
by
city
council.
P
At
a
future
meeting
now
I'd
like
to
turn
over
the
presentation
to
Kathy
head
to
cover
the
inclusionary
housing
program,
Then,
followed
by
Tim
bretts,
to
cover
the
non-residential
linkage
fee,
there
will
be
an
opportunity
for
questions
after
each
of
their
presentations
and
after
those
presentations.
We
can
conclude
by
going
over
the
final
direction
from
City
Council.
Q
R
R
Okay,
sorry,
my
name
is
Kathy
head
I'm,
president
of
Kaiser
Marston
and
I
manage
the
firm's,
affordable,
housing
practice,
as
you
can
see,
PowerPoint
is
not
my
primary
strength,
so
I
just
wanted
to
go
back
over
a
number
of
things
that
we
talked
about
earlier
at
our
last
meeting.
I
know
there
are
a
couple
new
council
members
and
it's
always
just
good
to
review
where
we
are
on
the
inclusionary
housing
issue
in
general.
So
to
start
with,
the
foundational
concepts
are
over.
R
So
threshold
project
size
means
what
size
market
rate
project
would
be
subject
to
the
inclusionary
housing
obligation
and
so
the
in
the
survey
of
the
93
jurisdictions,
the
thresholds
typically
range
between
3
and
10
units.
There
are
some
jurisdictions
that
have
it
set
at
one.
There
are
some
jurisdictions
that
have
it
set
at
50.,
but
typically
it
runs
somewhere
between
three
and
ten
units.
R
The
average
and
median
threshold
sizes
are
seven,
seven
is
the
average
and
five
is
the
number
of
units,
so
that
gives
you
some
context
on
what
size
projects
would
be
subject
to
the
inclusionary
housing.
The
income
and
affordability
restrictions
again
vary
widely
among
the
jurisdictions,
but
the
majority
of
the
programs
that
have
been
surveyed
some
fall
between
10
and
20
percent,
as
they
set
aside
for
affordable
housing.
R
Covenant
periods
they're
commonly
range
at
45
years
for
ownership
in
55
years
for
rental,
those
are
old,
Redevelopment
standards,
and
so
they
got
picked
up
by
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
programs.
I've
seen
them,
in
fact,
I
was
in
Ventura
last
night,
I've
seen
them
being
discussed
as
perpetual
and
I've
seen
them.
Shorter
Oxnard
is
currently
20,
although
they're
working
on
increasing
it
right
now,
they're
talking
about
55,
so
shorter
and
longer
periods
are
applied
in
some
jurisdictions.
Really,
the
most
common
are
45
and
55
45
for
ownership
55
for
rental.
R
So
then
I
narrowed
it
down
to
Southern
California
jurisdictions,
and
there
are
32
cities
and
counties
in
the
survey
that
are
in
the
Southern
California
area
and
those,
as
I
mentioned
before,
the
threshold
project
sizes
range
for
it
to
as
high
as
50
units
and
but
15
of
those
32
programs.
It's
set
at
five
or
fewer
units,
so
that
gives
you
another
sense
of
where
these
programs
are
going.
Five
units
is
a
fairly
typical
threshold,
because
the
state
density
bonus
also
sets
its
Threshold
at
five.
R
And
that's
because
moderate
income
households
have
more
disposable
income
to
spend
on
housing
over
time
and
the
ownership
costs
that
go
along
with
owning
units
over
time,
and
so
it
just
tends
to
be
more
feasible
to
set
the
requirement
at
the
moderate
income
level.
Comparatively
apartment
projects
are
typically
set
at
the
very
low
and
low
income
level.
Because,
again,
then
the
rents
are
set
accordingly,
they're,
not
bearing
any
homeownership
costs,
they're,
not
paying
property
taxes,
they're,
not
paying
maintenance
Etc.
R
So
it's
possible
to
set
those
standards
at
a
lower
income
level
than
is
is
typical
or
recommended
in.
In
my
opinion,
for
ownership
units
again,
the
Covenant
periods
are
45
to
55
years
for
ownership
and
we're
55
years
for
apartments
and
all
of
the
32
programs.
In
the
survey
offering
in
Luffy
options,
action
and
the
reason
for
that
is
when
the
when
the
legislature
and
the
court
cases
have
come
through
they've
made
it
very
clear
that
there
need
to
be
options.
So
you
can't
only
require
on-site
production.
R
You
need
to
provide
other
options
for
the
way
in
which
this
requirement
can
be
fulfilled.
You
don't
have
to
make
them
easy
to
use.
They
don't
have
to
be
by
right,
but
you
can
have
specific
criteria
that
you
establish
for
these
options,
but
there
need
to
be
options
and
the
most
common
option
is
in
Luffy.
I
haven't
seen
a
program,
yet
it
hasn't
had
some
form
of
an
in
Luffy.
They
range
all
the
way
from
every
developer,
who
wants
to
use.
R
So,
as
I
mentioned,
there's
been
legislation
in
the
bin
court
cases
on
inclusionary.
This
has
been
an
evolving
practice
over
time
over
the
last
30
plus
years
and
they
really
solidified
inclusionary,
with
with
two
things
with
the
San
Jose
case.
That
said
that
went
to
California
Supreme
Court
and
they
said
inclusionary
is
a
planning
tool,
it's
not
an
exaction,
and
so
you
it
gave
cities
and
counties
the
ability
to
impose
inclusionary
housing
requirements
as
a
planning
requirement
based
on
producing
affordable
housing
units
as
its
primary
function.
R
The
other
key
piece
of
legislation
then
was
ab1505
in
2017
and
that
allowed
jurisdictions
to
impose
inclusionary
units
on
apartment
projects
between
2009
and
2017
cities
and
counties
could
not
impose
inclusionary
requirements
on
rental
due
to
a
court
case
in
Los
Angeles.
It
was
the
Palmer
case.
This
is
an
ab-1505
is
known
as
the
Palmer
fix,
and
that
case
was
based
on
the
notion
that
inclusionary
was
a
former
rent
control
and
rent
control
wasn't
allowed.
R
So
what
the
legislature
said
in
2017
is
we're
going
to
allow
it
to
override
the
Costa
Hawkins,
which
imposes
the
rent
control
requirements,
so
in
2017,
then
you
got
the
ability
to
do
rental
again,
which
you
hadn't
had
since
2009..
Those
are
the
two
key
things
that
have
really
solidified
inclusionary
in
the
landscape,
but
what
they've
told
you
is
the
legal
there's
legal
standards
that
are
imposed
are
the
requirements
cannot
be
confiscatory
and
the
requirements
cannot
deprive
an
owner
of
a
fair
and
reasonable
return
on
their
investment.
R
R
That's
a
large
part
of
the
reason
that
Kaiser
Marston
will
always
do
a
conservative
analysis,
because
we
don't
want
to
set
up
a
situation
where
the
jurisdiction
runs,
a
foul
of
the
of
the
Court
decision
and
the
statutory
rules,
and
so
and
the
other
issue
is
that
we
want
to
balance
developers
interests
against
the
the
obvious
unmet
need
for
affordable
housing.
There's
no
question
that
no
one's
debating
no
one's
debating
that
there's
a
large
need
for
affordable
housing.
R
But
then,
if
a
developer
won't
build
in
your
community,
then
you
get
no
affordable
units
and
so
that
Balancing
Act
is
really
important
in
the
real.
The
strength
of
the
real
estate
in
Thousand
Oaks
you've
got
a
great
real
estate
market,
so
you're
in
a
position
to
have
some
flexibility
in
the
programs
that
you
adopt.
R
Okay,
as
I
mentioned
before,
inclusionary
Housing
Programs,
typically
set
the
requirement
for
ownership
units
at
moderate
income
and
then
with
ab1505,
which
I
just
mentioned
in
terms
of
rental,
is
what
ab-1505
did
was
it
provided
an
example
in
the
statute
that
said,
you
can
provide
15,
low-income
units
at
I'm,
15
at
a
low
income
requirement,
what
they
basically
said.
They
used
it
as
an
example
in
ab1505,
but
subsequently
the
Housing
and
Community
Development
Department
of
the
State
of
California
wrote
a
technical
memorandum.
R
That
said
no,
we
meant
that
so
what
they're
saying
is
they
don't
want
you
to
do
something
stricter?
And
if
you
want
to
do
something
stricter,
then
you
better
be
able
to
prove
that
the
stricter,
isn't
confiscatory
doesn't
deprive
an
owner
of
a
fair
and
reasonable
return
on
their
investment
and
is
not
a
constraint
to
housing.
And
so
again
it
is
typically
our
methodology
to
say
unless
you've
got
a
really
strong
case
to
do
something
more
stringent
than
15
low
income
for
rental.
We're
not
suggesting
you
set
that
up
as
your
standard.
Okay.
R
On
the
other
hand,
if
you're
allowing
an
off-site
production
option
for
apartments.
In
that
case,
you
can
sell
whatever
standard
you
want,
because
it's
an
option,
and
so
nobody
has
to
do
it.
They
can
do
the
underlying
foundational
requirement
of
whatever
it
ends
up
being
I'm,
not
saying
15
at
low
income,
always
works
I'm,
just
saying
I
wouldn't
go
more
stringent
than
that,
and
in
fact,
spoiler
alert.
R
I
don't
come
to
15
on
on
this
analysis,
but
the
other
thing
to
think
about
and
we'll
talk
about
this
more
is
that
the
state
density
bonus,
which
every
year
is
amended
in
some
way
by
the
legislature,
has
made
it
easier
and
easier
to
use
the
state
density
bonus
and
the
benefits
provided
by
the
state
density
bonus
are
getting
stronger
and
stronger
for
the
development
community
and,
and
so
what
we
find
is
when
an
inclusionary
housing
policy
is
adopted.
It
is
often
accompanied
by
developers,
then
exercising
their
right
to
use
the
the
density
Bones.
R
The
state
density
bonus
to
mitigate
the
impact
of
the
inclusionary
housing
requirement.
So
that's
something
to
know
that's
something
to
be
aware
of,
because
it
does
typically
come
part
and
parcel,
but
also
then
just
the
way
the
math
works
and
I
always
say.
This
is
because
the
legislature
doesn't
do
math.
Is
it's
much
better
to
use
the
very
low
income
requirement
by
density
bonus?
Then
the
low
income
requirement,
just
because
the
math
is
so
much
stronger,
and
so
what
you
will
typically
see.
R
Even
if
you
establish
a
low
income
requirement,
you
may
see
a
number
of
developers
choosing
to
do
very
low
income
because
you
have
to
if
you,
if
some,
if
a
developer,
meets
the
more
stringent
of
your
requirements
or
the
state
density
bonus
requirements,
you
have
to
count
that
unit
towards
both
requirements.
So
if
somebody
provides
a
very
low
income
unit-
and
you
have
a
low
income
requirement-
that
very
low
income
unit
has
to
count
towards
the
low
income
requirement-
that's
also
a
court
case.
That's
the
Napa
case.
So
that's
just
something.
To
keep
in
mind.
R
We
work
with
the
housing
element.
We
work
with
with
planning
documents
to
look
at
residential
projects
that
have
recently
been
proposed,
developed
or
being
considered
in
the
community,
and
we
base
our
prototypes
on
those
uses,
those
types
of
uses.
So
it's
no
specific
project,
don't
try
and
figure
out
what
project
it
is.
When
you
look
at
the
prototypes,
it's
an
amalgamation
of
projects
to
get
to
good
prototypes
that
represent
the
type
of
development
you'd
see
in
your
community.
So
that's
the
first
step.
R
The
second
step
is,
we
run
pro
forma
analyzes
on
these
prototypes
to
100
market
rate,
so
we
run
it
to
determine
what
sort
of
return
could
be
anticipated
if
a
developer
was
to
build
a
market
rate
project.
We
know
developers
are
building
market
rate
projects,
and
so
we
know
that
whatever
return
falls
out
of.
That
is
the
return
they're
accepting
so
rather
than
saying.
R
R
The
market
rate
returns
are
different,
but
it's
still
just
that
incremental
analysis
that
we're
interested
in
evaluating,
and
so
we
based
on
that,
we
incrementally
add
in
affordable
units
to
where
we're
measuring
against
a
couple
thresholds
so
over
time
and
I've
been
doing
these
for
30
years
now,
and
this
has
evolved
over
time
to
to
meet.
You
know:
changes
in
market
conditions,
changes
in
affordable
housing
conditions,
Market
Etc
is
the
two
parameters
that
I
look
at
is
today.
R
Neither
of
these
happen
today
and
that's
important
to
understand.
Neither
of
these
things
happen
today.
So
there
will
be
an
impact
of
having
an
inclusionary
housing
program
and
the
the
magnitude
of
that
impact
will
be
very
driven
by
market
forces
and
just
how
much
people
want
to
be
developing.
But
it's
important
to
understand
that
you're
allowed
to
have
an
impact.
The
legislature
in
the
courts
have
told
you
you
can
have
an
impact,
it
just
can't
be
confiscatory
and
it
can't
deprive
an
owner
of
a
fair
and
reasonable
return
on
investment.
E
Q
R
Next
one,
so,
starting
with
the
apartment
prototypes,
we
ran
three
different
types
of
prototypes.
We
ran
one
on
a
mall
property
and
the
zoning
in
place
on
the
mall
property.
We
ran
one
on
neighborhood,
medium
high
zoning,
and
then
we
ran
one
on
mixed-use
zoning
so
to
get
the
range
of
apartment
type
developments
that
we're
expecting
to
see
that
the
housing
element
is
expecting
to
see
the
general
plan
had
in
mind,
Etc
and
so
I'll
just
go
over
them
quickly.
R
So
the
the
mall
property
we
had
a
density
of
30
units,
the
acre
and
then
we
did
Market
rent
studies
to
to
look
at
the
the
rents
being
achieved
in
Thousand
Oaks
for
Four
Star,
Plus
apartment
projects
and
for
the
mall
property,
and
that
type
of
project
that
would
be
envisioned.
The
average
unit
size
is
about
890
feet
based
on
our
survey
and
then
the
development
cost
per
unit
or
about
485
thousand
dollars,
and
the
weighted
average
rent
per
unit
is
31,
basically
Thirty,
One
hundred
dollars
stabilized
return
on
investment.
This
is
a
hundred
percent.
R
Affordable
project
is
five
percent.
What's
important
to
understand
about
that
is
by
being
a
stabilized
return.
It's
a
point
in
time
return
it's
one
time
when
the
project
is
fully
stabilized
and
occupied.
So
the
idea
is
yes,
you
get
five
percent
the
first
year,
but
then
your
income
grows
over
time,
and
so,
if
you
were
measuring
this
on
a
cash
flow
basis,
it'd
be
significantly
higher.
But
again
since
we're
just
doing
an
incremental
analysis,
that's
what
shakes
out
meet
neighborhood
medium
high.
We
started
with
a
20
unit
per
acre
project.
R
R
So
what
we're
looking
at
as
I've
said,
is
we're
looking
to
see
what
the
difference
is
between
the
market,
rents
and
the
affordable
rents.
So,
as
you
can
see
in
this
chart,
the
weighted
average
Market
rent,
where
we
just
went
over
for
the
ones
twos
and
three
bedroom
units
range
from
three
thousand
dollars
to
four.
R
the
very
low
income
rents.
What
we
used
was
the
health
and
safety
code,
section
50053,
which
is
an
old
Redevelopment
standard,
but
it's
also
what
the
density
bonus
uses,
and
so
it's
important
to
understand
with
the
with
the
very
low
income
rents
is,
if
somebody's
doing
very
low
income,
they're
also
doing
density
bonus,
and
so
you
need
to
set
the
rents
there.
R
R
So
the
results
are
that
the
supportable
inclusionary
housing
percentage,
if
you're
assuming
a
low
income
requirement,
ranges
from
eight
percent
to
11,
depending
on
the
Prototype
and,
as
you
can
see
in
the
next
two
lines,
those
were
the
factors
that
I
told
you
that
I
that
I
weigh
when
I
when
I
come
up
with
the
percentages
and
the
idea
is
I,
don't
want
the
property
acquisition
cost
to
reduce
by
more
than
30
percent
and
I.
Don't
want
the
market
rents
to
have
to
increase
by
more
than
five
percent.
R
That
has
been
evolving
over
time.
I
did
Pasadena
in
2001,
and
that
was
the
first
time
we
actually
looked
at.
How
long
would
it
actually
take
for
land
values
to
catch
up
and
it
looked
like
if
you
put
a
30
requirement
on
it
or
not
requirement
but
Factor
on
it
that
that
that
worked
out
relatively
quickly
again,
there
will
be
an
impact,
and
so
that's
important
to
understand
if
you
switch
it
to
the
very
low
income.
R
The
reason
we
did
that
is,
that
actually
happened
in
Thousand
Oaks,
so
I
think
it
was
important
to
understand
that
not
everyone
will
take
the
50
density
bonus,
not
every
site.
It
can
be
efficiently
developed.
With
that
magnitude
of
increase
in
density,
you
change
parking
type,
you
change
construction
type.
Sometimes
it
outweighs
the
costs
outweigh
the
new
benefits.
So
we
ran.
We
ran
three
scenarios
on
that.
R
So,
as
you
can
see
on
this
chart
the
first
two,
the
mall
property
in
the
neighborhood
medium
high-
we
did
it
both
maximum
and
then,
when
we
did
the
mixed
use
project,
we
did
a
30
density
bonus
instead
of
a
50
density
bonus
and
what
that
generated
was
the
nine
percent.
Very
low
income
requirement
is
what
was
necessary
to
get
that
density
bonus
to
qualify
to
get
that
density
bonus.
But
when
we
did
the
math,
when
we
did
the
the
pro
forma
analysis,
it
could
actually
support
more.
R
It
could
actually
support
the
nine
percent
low
plus
seven
percent
low,
and
so
it
just
gives
you
a
picture
of
what
could?
What
could
be
supported
basically
means
that
if
somebody
can
use
density
bonus,
they
can
fully
mitigate
the
requirement
the
inclusionary
housing
requirement.
But-
and
this
is
an
important
caveat-
not
every
property
can
efficiently
use
density,
bonus
and
so
I
never
set
a
standard.
Assuming
that
all
projects
will
use
density,
bonus
and
so
I
set.
The
pro
I
set
my
parameters
based
on
somebody
using
base
zoning.
R
Then,
if
they
can
come
in
and
use
densy
bonus,
it
will
mitigate
the
impacts
of
the
requirement.
That's
been
set
and
will
be
well
within
the
bounds
of
what
the
law
has
told
us
to
do.
I,
don't
think
you
have
that
strength
of
logic
or
rationale.
If
you
just
assume
everyone
can
use
density
bonus
because
they
can't.
R
So,
based
on
that,
we
came
to
the
conclusion
that
we
recommended
for
rentals.
We
recommended
a
10
low
income
requirement.
But
again,
if
somebody
uses
density
bonus,
they
could
go
a.
They
will
do
very
low
income
very
likely
and
B.
It's
possible
you'll,
get
up
to
a
15,
very
low
income,
Productions
or
some
or
some
less
but
I
would
say,
almost
definitely
very
low
income
units.
R
We
did
two
prototypes
for
ownership.
We
did
a
townhome
prototype
and
we
did
detach
single
family
homes
and
the
reason
we
did
that
is
I
have
two
reasons
because
it's
happening,
but
also
to
show
you
the
magnitude
of
the
differences
in
terms
of
affordability,
gap
between
town
homes
and
detached
single-family
homes.
And
so,
as
you
can
see
here,
the
average
unit
size
for
the
town
homes
was
a
little
less
than
1900
feet.
The
average
size
for
the
single
family
homes
is
a
little
over
3
100
feet.
R
R
R
The
moderate
income
prices
for
the
detached
single
family
homes
are
actually
less
and
they're
actually
less
because
of
the
costs
associated
with
with
home
ownership,
and
so
the
cost
of
home
ownership
for
the
detached
single-family
homes
are
more
than
the
cost
of
owning
a
town
home,
and
so,
when
you
factor
in
that,
somebody
can
only
spend
35
percent
of
their
income
on
all
housing
related
expenses.
The
variable
is
mortgage,
and
so
in
that
case,
what
you
end
up
with
is
slightly
lower
prices
for
the
affordable
prices
and
then
the
low
income
prices.
R
We
used
30
percent
of
income
instead
of
35
percent
of
income,
and
so
then
that
gives
a
double
whammy
of
it.
So,
instead
of
being
priced
at
110
percent,
a
very
median
income
with
35
percent
of
income
spent
on
housing,
we
use
70
percent
of
area,
median
income
with
30
spent
on
housing
and
those
are
Redevelopment
they're.
R
The
section
505
2.5
of
the
health
and
safety
code
gives
you
those
calculations,
and
so
that's
what
we
used
so
I
like
to
use
statutes
I'd
like
to
use
something:
that's
a
published
calculation
methodology,
and
so
that's
why
we
use
that.
But,
as
you
can
see,
the
low
income
prices
then
are
dramatically
lower
than
the
moderate
income
prices
So.
Based
on
that,
we
came
to
the
conclusion
that
a
moderate
income
standard
for
Town
Homes
could
support
a
10
inclusionary
housing
requirement.
R
Whereas,
given
the
magnitude
of
the
affordability
gaps
between
detached
single-family
homes
and
and
the
moderate
income
price,
they
could,
we
could
support
a
five
percent
requirement
and
low
income.
Then
it's
less
it's
five
percent
or
three
and
a
half
percent,
but
we're
not
recommending
a
low
income
requirement.
We're
definitely
recommending
a
moderate
income
requirement,
and
so
I
said
all
that
I'm
not
going
to
say
it
again.
I
just
said
it.
R
So
in
Luffy's,
so
the
things
to
think
about
within
Liu
fees
are
how
and
when
you're
going
to
allow
developers
to
pay
a
fee
in
lieu
of
producing
the
affordable
units
and
so
I've.
Given
you
a
list
of
things
that
you
might
want
to
think
about
when
you're
making
this
consideration,
and
so
one
is
what
are
your
program
goals
you
know?
R
The
other
thing
to
think
about
and
I
think
this
is
probably
the
most
important
distinction
of
the
list
is
given
the
differences
between
ownership,
housing
and
apartment
development
and
and
what
it's
like
to
own
a
unit
versus
rent
a
unit
is,
do
you
want
to
think
about
allowing
it
in
Luffy
for
ownership
and
not
allowing
it
in
Luffy
or
making
it
difficult
to
use
an
in
Luffy
for
apartments?
And
do
you
want
to
make
it
easy
to
use
and
in
Luffy
for
ownership
units
recognizing
how
large
those
affordability
gaps
are
is?
R
Do
you
want
to
get
one
unit
where
somebody
won
the
lottery,
or
do
you
want
to
be
able
to
get
10
units
with
that
same
amount
of
affordability,
Gap?
So
that's
something
to
think
about,
and
it
also
telegraphs
what
my
recommendation
is.
The
other
thing
is
so
project
size
thresholds
is,
as
I
mentioned
at
the
beginning
of
the
presentation.
Small
projects
are
impacted
more
significantly
than
large
projects,
and
so
do
you
want
to
create
some
kind
of
a
sliding
scale
of
of
in
Luffy
requirements
for
those
projects
again,
so
that
you're
not
overburdening
small
projects.
R
The
then
this
is
another
well
they're.
All
important
I
wouldn't
have
written
them
is
The
community's
View
on
density.
So,
as
I've
said,
it's
very
likely
developers
are
going
to
want
to
use
density
bonus,
but
they
have
to
produce
the
units.
So
if,
if
you
want
to
get
as
I
mentioned,
if
you
want
to
use
in
Luffy's
to
get
money
to
do
leveraged,
affordable
housing
projects,
then
you
might
want
to
think
about
the
views
on
density.
It's
just
something
to
keep
in
mind.
R
R
What
we
do,
what
the
the
simple
way
to
put
this
chart
is
to
say
we're,
trying
to
figure
out
what
the
affordability
Gap
is.
The
effective
affordability
Gap
is
of
producing
a
low-income
rental
unit,
and
so
we
go
through
this
whole
process.
Where
we
compare
the
market
rents
the
affordable
rents,
then
because
the
the
value
of
the
affordable
units
is
less
than
the
value
of
the
market
rate
units,
we
discount
the
property
taxes,
we
figure
out
the
annual
affordability
Gap.
R
We
capitalize
that
at
the
market
rate
return,
and
we
translate
that
into
the
Luffy
happy
to
go
through
that
in
more
depth.
If
you
want,
but
that's
the
that's
the
methodology
So
based
on
that,
we
just
gave
you
one
example
in
the
report.
There
are
three
examples,
but
just
to
show
you
how
this
works
and
to
give
it
to
you
in
a
variety
of
different
ways,
to
make
it
understandable
to
different
ways
of
thinking,
but
it
all
ends
up
the
same
way.
Is
we
used
the
mixed
use
prototype,
which
was
a
large
project?
R
R
That's
just
one
way
to
look
at
it.
I
think
that's
the
the
most
logical
way
to
look
at
it,
so
you
can
see
how
all
the
math
works.
It's
not
the
typical
way
to
then
apply
it,
but
but
that
is
that
that
gives
you
that
orientation,
the
another
way
that
it's
sometimes
done
is
to
say
well,
what's
the
in
Luffy
per
total
unit
in
the
project,
so
there's
no
affordable
units
in
the
project,
so
we're
saying
okay,
then
we're
going
to
put
a
fee
on
every
single
unit
in
that
project.
R
So
if
you
accept
that
the
affordability
Gap
was
eight
million
two
hundred
and
twenty
thousand
dollars-
and
you
divide
that
by
300,
then
the
total
and
the
and
Luffy
per
total
unit
in
the
project.
So
all
300
units
pay
27
400
dollars
each
one
and
it
comes
to
eight
million
two
hundred
and
twenty
thousand
the
third
way
to
look
at
it
and
the
way
that
I
think
is
the
most
Equitable
way
to
Assassin
and
Luffy
is
based
on
the
size
of
the
unit.
R
So
the
total
leasable
area
of
the
project
and
the
reason
I
think
that
is
because
large
units,
if
you
do
it
per
unit
large
units,
get
a
break
and
small
units
pay
more
on
a
pro
rata
basis.
If
you
do
it
per
square
foot
of
leasable
area,
then
it
more
equitably
divide
allocates
that
fee,
and
so
using
that
we
have
a
project
that
has
three
hundred
and
twelve
thousand
six
hundred
square
feet
of
leasable
area.
That's
300
units
times
an
average
weighted
average
size
of
1042
square
feet.
R
We
have
the
in
Luffy,
which
is
eight
million
two
hundred
and
twenty
thousand
dollars.
If
you
divide
that
by
three
hundred
and
twelve
thousand
six
hundred
the
result
is
twenty
six
dollars
and
thirty
cents
per
square
foot
of
leasable
area.
So,
as
you
can
see,
the
fee
is
always
8.2
million
dollars.
It's
just
how
you're
doing
the
math,
but
and
and
just
reiterating
I
think
the
fairest
way
to
do
it
is
in
Luffy
per
square
foot.
R
So
you
only
do
this
math
once
you
don't
do
a
project
by
project
and
the
ownership
project,
we
use
the
detached
single
family
home
prototype,
and
so,
as
you
can
see
in
this
one,
the
total
units
were
60
units
60
units
in
the
project.
The
inclusionary
housing
percentage
was
five
percent,
so
that
leaves
you
with
three
inclusionary
units.
R
The
average
size
of
those
units
was
3,
100
3150
square
feet
and
the
affordability
Gap
per
unit
is
1.06
million
dollars.
Approximately
this
is
my
argument
for
an
in-lu
fee
for
ownership
units.
Do
you
give
one
person
the
benefit
of
a
million
dollars,
or
do
you
take
that
million
dollars
and
and
create
more
units
with
it?
But
following
that,
so
following
that
math
through
then
three
inclusionary
units
at
one
million-
oh
fifty,
seven
thousand-
is
and
in
Luffy
of
three
million
3.17
million
dollars.
R
So
then
what
we
do
for
the
total
the
fee
per
unit
in
the
project
is
take
3.17
million
dollars
divided
by
60,
which
gives
you
an
Lou
fee
per
total
unit
on
the
project
so
for
60
units,
52
860
a
unit
again
because
I
recommend
using
it
per
square
foot
of
salable
area.
The
salable
area
in
this
project
is
188
850
square
feet,
which
is
3150
square
feet
times
60..
R
R
R
R
Land
dedication
comes
with
a
lot
of
responsibilities
for
the
city,
so
you
have
to
make
sure
the
developer
gave
you
a
usable
parcel
that
can
feasibly
be
developed.
It
doesn't
have
hazardous
waste
that
doesn't
have
a
gap
in
addition
to
what
the
free
land
would
be,
and
so,
if
you
go
that
way
and
when
we
have
recommendations,
we'll
give
you
a
whole
list
of
things
that
you
should
look
at
acquisition
and
Rehab
of
existing
rental
units.
While
an
excellent
policy
is
not
great
for
arena.
Well,
it's
not
even
feasible
for
arena.
R
Okay,
do
you
want
to
do
this?
You
want
me
to
this.
I'll
keep
going.
Okay,
hope,
you're,
all
still
awake.
So
what
we're
recommending
is
that
the
threshold
size
of
the
project
be
set
at
10
units.
That
means
so.
For
example,
we
suggested
a
10
low
income
requirement
for
apartments.
That
would
be
one
unit,
so
it's
a
full
unit,
so
you're
not
dealing
in
fractions
the
Covenant
period.
R
This
is
something
that's
been
evolving
recently.
Typically,
as
I
mentioned,
most
programs
have
a
55-year
requirement,
but
a
lot
of
jurisdictions
have
started
talking
about
doing
Perpetual
requirements,
and
so
what
this
is
is
a
hybrid
of
that,
which
is
to
say
it
needs
to
be
affordable
for
at
least
55
years.
But
if
at
some
point
in
time
it's
no
longer
a
residential
use,
then
the
Covenant
comes
off.
R
So
if
the
characteristics
of
an
area
are
no
longer
residential,
you
don't
want
to
have
this
one
residential
project
just
sitting
there
in
the
middle
of
some
other
type
of
zone.
So
that's
why
the
recommendation
is
greater
of
and
then
for
ownership.
Housing
Development,
the
recommended
Covenant
is
one
cumulative
45-year
term,
so
the
owner
sells
and
resells
it
affordable
for
for
one
45-year
term.
R
So
just
reiterating
the
apartment
development
recommendation
is
10
low
income,
the
town
home
recommendation
is
10.
Moderate
income
detached
single
family
home
recommendation
is
five
percent
moderate
income.
The
reason
we
came
up
with
these
is
again
because
the
courts
haven't
given
us
guidance
on
what
these
standards
actually
mean,
and
so
we
want
to
have
a
conservative
approach
and
that
these
these
results
really
are
based
on
the
results
of
our
pro
forma
analysis.
R
So,
as
I
mentioned,
we're
recommending
in
Luffy's
be
based
on
the
total
square
feet
of
leasable
or
salable
area,
because
it
more
equitably
distributes
the
the
cost.
We
think
the
apartment
developer
development
fee
should
be
25.70
per
square
foot
of
leasable
area,
I,
think
the
town
home
should
be
14.60
cents
per
square
foot
of
salable
area
and
the
detached
single
family
home
should
be
1680
per
square
foot
of
salable
area.
R
I.
Think
our
recommendation
is
so.
If
you
have
a
fractional
unit
requirement
so
say
you
had
a
requirement
for
3.4
inclusionary
units
that
point
four
units.
The
recommendation
is
to
allow
a
developer
to
pay
an
in-lu
fee
for
that
point,
four
units,
rather
than
being
either
required
to
provide
one
more
inclusionary
unit
or
0.4
fewer
inclusionary
units
apartment
projects
with
20
or
fewer
units.
R
We're
recommending
that
those
be
allowed
to
pay
an
in-lu
fee
by
right.
So
a
developer
could
choose
to
pay
it
just
if
they
wanted
to
and
that
the
only
time
above
20
units
that
they
could
pay
the
fee
is
if
they
can
demonstrate
a
situation
of
extreme
economic
hardship,
and
we
actually
have
a
fairly
detailed
definition
of
what
extreme
economic
hardship
is.
R
So
for
the
off-site
production
of
inclusionary
units,
so
for
the
other
options,
because
again
you're
required
to
provide
options.
We
are
not
recommending
the
department
development
be
allowed
to
develop
the
affordable
units
off
site.
We
think
they
should
be
integrated
into
the
market
rate,
affordable
market
rate
project
on
the
ownership.
R
So
the
whole
purpose
of
this
tonight,
from
from
the
inclusionary
standpoint,
was
we
just
want
to
give
you
the
context
under
which
our
analysis
was
based,
so
you'd
understand
the
methodology
and
the
approach
that
we've
used.
We're
going
to
ask
you
to
provide
us
input
on
on
what
you'd
like
to
do,
based
on
what
you've
seen
tonight,
nobody's
voting
on
anything
and
then,
after
that,
we'll
prepare
a
report
that
actually
then
identifies
specific
recommendations.
Oh
it's
gone.
What
happened.
Q
A
D
Q
D
D
R
D
Q
D
Oh
hold
on
a
minute
here,
oh
and
one
other
thing.
When
you
talk
about
building
single-family
homes,
we
don't
have
we're
not
I.
Personally,
don't
think
we're
going
to
see
big
tracks
anymore,
like
Jose
fiantos,
with
1500
homes,
we're
going
to
see
infill
projects
right
if
that
10
homes
20
homes.
So
it
would
seem
to
me
that
the
home
builder
is
not
likely
to.
D
D
A
D
H
H
You
mayor,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
Kathy
for
the
great
presentation.
This
is
part
two
and
I
enjoyed
your
first
presentation
and
I
enjoyed
this
one
as
well.
Thank
you.
There's
an
old
saying,
you're
drinking
from
a
fire
hose
well
I
slipped
a
little
bit
from
this
one.
There's
a
lot
of
information
coming
at
us
on
this.
Q
H
R
H
R
H
And
then,
in
terms
of
there's
some
constraints
we
have
to
worry
about,
you
know
constraint
to
development
that
hcd
might
be
interested
in
what
we
also
have
return
on
investment
and
confiscation
problems.
We
have
to
try
to
avoid.
Have
you
had
that
issue
with
any
of
their
prior
documentation
that
you've
done
proplands
you
put
out
no.
R
That's
a
that's
a
really
good
question,
actually
so
in
West
Hollywood,
which
is
a
community
we
work
in,
but
we
didn't
do
their
original
inclusionary
housing
policy.
Hcd
actually
did
come
to
them
several
years
ago
and
say
prove
up
that
it's
not
confiscatory,
and
we
actually
did
that
analysis
for
hcd
and
then
they
they
took
that.
H
Very
good
and
you've
mentioned
a
couple
of
your
recommendations
that
you
have
a
buy
right
for
the
in
lieu
fees.
Is
that
an
advantage
one
way
or
the
other
other
than
just
streamlining
things
a
little
bit
or
should
we
as
a
council,
want
to
see
any
variation
to
an
elite
and
Luffy?
Is
that
something
we
want
to
take
on?
Well.
R
This
is
absolutely
a
policy
decision
on
your
part
on
how
you'd
want
to
handle
it.
My
this
is
my
professional
recommendation,
but
you
get
to
have
any.
You
know
this
is
from
Financial
perspective
and
this
is
to
get
more
bang
for
your
buck
perspective,
but
you
can
have
other
policy
reasons
to
make
other
decisions.
H
J
Q
J
As
a
preface
I
should
say,
although
I
wasn't
on
the
council
at
the
time,
I've
I've
watched
your
earlier
presentation
several
times
and
learned
many
new
things,
each
time
and
I
plan
to
do
the
same
thing
with
tonight's
presentation,
because
I
I
don't
think
I've
fully
absorbed.
Yet
all
the
information
but
I
want
to
soak
up
as
much
as
I
can
I
want
to,
rather
than
getting
into
each
of
the
details.
J
J
The
first
is
I,
didn't
see
anything
about
percentages
or
proportions,
maybe
not
hard
percentages
of
different
sizes
of
units,
and
my
concern
here
is
that
while
we
have
increased
the
number
of
affordable
units
that
we've
produced
in
recent
years,
they
tend
to
be
heavily
weighted
towards
Studios
or
as
one
developer,
expiringly
called
them.
Junior
Studios,
oh
no
broom,
closets
or
something
that's
not
great
for
working
families
and
that
there
is
a
great
unmet
need
for
affordable
housing
for
those
families.
J
J
J
The
other
interesting
thing
to
me,
I
heard
tonight
was
it
sounds
as
if
you're
saying
the
trend
with
Covenant
periods
is
going
longer
to
extend
the
terms
of
Covenant
periods
and
one
of
the
things
I've
heard
from
developers
of
condos
and
Townhomes.
Is
that,
especially
in
the
moderate
category
that
that
it's
a
disincentive
for
them
that
that
the
fact
that
they're
locked
in
for
55
years
is
a
non-starter?
They
just
won't
build
right
at
that.
J
R
So
here's
the
policy
issue
associated
with
that
because
there's
definitely
two
sides
of
this
coin
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
that's
why
I'm
going
to
tell
you
I
think
it
in
Luffy's.
The
better
way
to
go
is
if
you
set
it
up
so
that
it's
affordable
for
just
say
45
years,
so
each
and
a
person
who
buys
and
sells,
then
what
you
have
is
a
situation
where
the
people
who
own
that
unit
over
those
45
years
are
essentially
not
building
up
equity.
R
So
what
you've
achieved
with
that
goal
is
you've
said:
we've
got
this
affordable
unit
for
45
years,
which
is
a
laudable
goal,
but
each
family
who
owns
that
house.
They
will
accrue
some
equity
in
what
they've
paid
off
on
their
loan,
but
then
the
affordable
prices
don't
change
that
much
over
time,
and
so
what
will
happen
like
for
now
and
I
predicted
predicted
this
for
10
years
and
I'm?
Finally,
right
is
the
generational.
R
R
So
the
idea
of
the
irrevocable
Covenant
over
a
45-year
term
is
yes.
You've
got
to
keep
a
unit
in
your
inventory
all
that
time,
but
you're
not
creating
wealth
for
your,
your
home
buyers
and
you're,
not
creating
equity
and
move
up
ability
for
them.
So
now
oops,
sorry!
So
now,
if
we
move
it
to
the
other
side,
where
you
say:
okay,
like
the
density
bonus,
the
state
density
bonus
doesn't
put
any
Covenant
period
at
all
on
ownership
units,
the
first
time
it's
sold,
it
can
be
sold
at
Market.
R
Well,
let's
just
make
it
not
so
disproportionate,
say
it's
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
so
that
two
hundred
thousand
dollar
Gap
becomes
an
obligation
that
that
homeowner
owes
to
the
city
when
they
sell
the
unit
at
market
and
then
whatever
the
proportionate
share
of
the
equity
increase.
So
they
were,
they
were
to.
They
were
forty
percent
of
the
original
purchase
price.
They
get
40
percent.
The
city
gets
40
percent
of
the
appreciation.
You
want
to
put
any
money
in
it,
but
you
also
then
have
lost
the
affordable
unit,
so
your
compensation
for
losing
the
unit.
R
J
I'm
an
equity
fan
I
would
like
to
see
as
much
Equity
options
as
we
had
in
our
last
hearing
at
every
income
level
and
bringing
this
to
our
our
city.
Specific
Arena
numbers
our
greatest
need
by
far
is
in
the
low
income
group.
It's
not
in
moderate
income,
we're
at
742
percent
of
Target
over
the
past
eight
years.
Q
Q
J
R
I
will
say
for
an
inclusionary
program
right
so
again,
you're
I
mean
the
development
Community
provide
this,
for
you
is
to
sell
to
a
low-income
population.
The
affordability
Gap
is
so
big
that
you're
in
a
situation
where
the
home
buyer
is
paying
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
in
the
house,
costs
eight
hundred
thousand
dollars,
and
so
you've
got
a
six
hundred
thousand
dollar
affordability
gap,
which
means
that
75
of
the
price
of
that
home
has
been
Gap.
R
And
so
it's
just
I
mean
again.
It's
a
policy
decision
on
your
part,
I'm,
a
financial
person
and
to
me
the
magnitude
of
that
Gap
is
not
warranted.
Because
then
you've
got
one
home:
buyer
who
won
the
lottery
and
then
the
first
time
they
sell
their
they're
up
and
out
so
you've
lost
the
unit
and
and
instead,
if
you
could
have
taken
that
money
in
a
fee
and
provided
low
income
units
in
a
rental
product,
then
you
could
have
gotten
several
more
units
than
you
get
by
doing
it
as
a
low-income
ownership
unit.
R
F
Thank
you
mayor
and
thank
you.
I
appreciate
anyone
who's
analytical,
that's
not
my
skill
set.
So
thank
you.
My
first
question:
how
are
we
or
do
you
have
guidance
on
how
you're
supposed
to
create
a
standard
in
a
market
that
is
not
set
the
real
estate
cyclical
right?
So
how
are
we
supposed
to
create
a
policy
that
doesn't
give
us
flexibility
on
a
per
project
basis
when
we
cannot
hurt
Roi
and
knowing
there's
times
like
right
now
very
difficult
to
build?
We
have
the
debt
Market
completely
pulling
back.
F
R
Right,
so
what
I
would
say
is
you're
going
to
want
to
look
back
at
this
policy,
so
I
like
to
set
the
policy
on
a
conservative
basis
so
that,
maybe
you
know,
there's
there's
some
fluff
that
somebody's
getting
by
the
fact
I
didn't
set
it
at
a
higher
percentage,
but
I
want
it
to
be
usable,
but
I'll
use
my
Claremont
example,
which
I
always
use.
So
if
you've
ever
heard
me
talk
before
you've
heard
this
before
we
cleverly
did
inclusionary
in
Claremont
in
2007.
R
the
market
immediately
crushed
nobody
built
anything,
and
so
we
had
this
policy
that
nobody
was
using,
but
no,
but
it
wasn't
because
of
inclusionary
just
nobody
was
using,
but
so
as
the
as
it
started
to
calm
down
as
the
impact
started
to
come
down,
we
went
in
and
we
redid
the
policy
and
we
set
up
the
policy
in
a
way
that
was
then
usable
for
that
market.
So
what
I'm
suggesting
is
that
the
recommendations
that
I'm
making
to
you
tonight
and
in
this
program
I
think
are
doable
when
you
have
development
right?
R
So
if
you
don't
have
development
at
all,
then
obviously
you
get
zero
units,
but
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
be
because
of
inclusionary
that
you
don't
get
those
units.
So
then,
if
we
find
after
a
period
of
time
and
some
cities
set
it
at
three
years,
some
people
set
it
at
five
is
to
say
or
you
just
look
at
it,
and
you
say:
oh
my
gosh,
you
know
either
the
Market's
gone
crazy
and
we're
not
getting
nearly
as
much
affordable
as
we
could
have,
or
no
the
Market's
really
stagnant.
F
So,
okay,
on
one
thing
you
just
mentioned,
you
don't
think
building
will
stall
out
because
of
a
inclusion
policy,
it'll
be
more
Market
driven.
What
we
found
on
our
end
is
if
a
project
has
to
have
a
certain
percentage
of
affordability.
That
then
impacts
our
return
right
because
in
real
estate,
if
you're
developing,
this
is
the
greatest
risk
you
can
take
on
as
an
investor.
So
you
have
to
have
a
return.
F
That's
going
to
meet
the
the
risk
profile
right
if
the
percentage
is
too
high,
and
it
now
brings
a
return
to
a
point
where
we're
not
comfortable
taking
on
the
risk.
We,
as
investors
typically
have
two
options:
it's
either
try
to
drive
Market
values
higher
than
maybe
what
the
market
actually
supports
or
two
we
wait
and
we
let
rents
continue
to
grow
until
the
point
of
the
deal
actually
penciling
right.
So
I
would
say,
at
least
from
our
experience.
F
Inclusion
policies
will
hold
developers
back
if
deals
just
don't
pencil,
but
that
might
just
be
a
difference
of
opinion
on
the
sales
side
of
residential.
Where
I
agree
with
you.
If
the
option
is
have
one
house
where
somebody
gets
to
win
the
lotto
or
to
a
possibility
of
of
spreading
out
into
multiple
units
with
the
in
Luffy,
if
those
aren't
our
only
two
options,
really
I
guess
the
question
I'll
try
to
make
this
NADA
I'm
speaking
to
you,
put
it
formulated
in
the
question.
F
Let
me
ask
you
the
question:
have
you
seen
examples
where
it
would
actually
make
more
sense
to
not
have
an
in
Luffy
allow
Builders
to
build
and,
and
maybe
incentivize
them
to
put
more
Supply
in
our
area
where
that
is
really,
in
my
perspective,
the
need,
but
we
are
so
below
demand
when
you're
this
far
below
demand.
This
is
really
when
prices
rise.
So
wouldn't
that
be
the
best
example-
and
maybe
just
tell
me,
through
your
experience,.
R
Okay,
so,
through
my
experience,
and
especially
in
a
community
like
this
I,
think
what
overrides
exactly
what
you
said,
which
is
all
valid,
is
that
magnitude
of
the
gap
I
just
think
it
outweighs
it.
I
just
think
the
fact
that
there's
a
million
dollar
gap
on
a
single
family,
home
I
just
don't
think
it's
good
public
policy
to
give
that
one
million
dollar
Gap
to
one
person
I.
R
R
Q
R
You've
given
me
that
segue,
so
what
typically
happens
with
an
inclusionary
housing
policy
is
that
developers
have
already
purchased
land
and
are
already
you
know
well
along
the
way,
are
going
to
get
less
profit
than
they
wanted
and
less
profit
than
they
underwrote
for
right.
So
it's
the
risk.
As
you
mentioned,
then
what
happens
is
after
that
it's
or
it's
in
the
landscape
and
people
know
it's
there.
Then
what
happens
is
developers
say
I'm
not
going
to
pay
as
much
money
to
buy
this
land
because
I
can't
support
it.
I
can't
get
my
yield
right.
R
So
then,
what
you
have
a
situation?
Well
then
they're
property
owners
who
are
saying
well
I,
don't
want
to
sell
for
Less,
so
I'm
going
to
hold
right.
So
then
enough
time
goes
by
where
then
you're
in
a
situation.
Where
will
some
owners
start
to
pick
up
and
go
God
I
really
want
to
sell,
so
I
got
to
go
and
market
prices
increase.
R
You
know
over
time,
and
so
you
see
that
in
the
landscape
and
then
ultimately
much
like
any
kind
of,
even
though
it's
not
an
exaction,
because
the
courts
told
us
it's
not,
but
just
like
any
other
exaction,
it
doesn't
raise
the
value
of
the
house
right.
So
you
can't
necessarily
get
a
higher
price
for
it,
but
it
is
something:
that's
there.
It's
it's
a
public
good,
it's
just
like
a
park
or
you
know
any
of
those
things,
and
so
it
gets
built
into
the
landscape
and
then
it's
just
accepted
and
then
everything
balances
out.
R
I
did
this
is
now
several
years
old,
but
I
did
a
a
graph
of
inclusionary
in
four
different
cities
ten
years
before
it
started
10
years
after,
and
there
was
no
discernible
pattern
before
and
after
inclusionary
about
the
production
it
went
up,
it
went
down
with
economic
Cycles,
but
it
did
not
seem
to
have
any
correlation
to
the
inclusionary.
So
I
just
think
that
again,
because
we've
taken
a
conservative
approach,
I
don't
I
mean
this
I
wouldn't
suggest
it
to
you.
A
My
challenge
here
is
that
we
are
trying
to
provide
a
guideline
mandated
by
the
state
that
we
provide
affordable,
housing
too
low,
very
low
income
folks,
and
yet
we
have
in
Lou
fees
for
any
development
that
occurs
in
Luffy's,
meaning
per
square
foot,
as
you
discussed,
is
one
of
the
most
amicable
way
of
doing
this,
and
it
increases
the
cost
to
the
renter
or
that
home
buyer
who
does
not
qualify
for
lower
very
low
income
they're,
paying
those
in-lu
fees
when
they
make
the
purchase
or
rent.
That
unit
is
that
a
correct
statement.
I.
R
A
But
that
is
reflective
onto
the
price
of
that
apartment,
you're,
renting
and
or
that
home
that
you're
buying
when
they
charge
26
dollars
more
a
square
foot.
The
person
that's
going
to
pay,
for
it
is
the
renter
and
or
the
home
buyer,
because
your
assumption
is
well.
The
developer
is
going
to
charge
whatever
price
they
can.
What?
If
the
market
will
Bear
right
but
you're
going
to
hit
a
point
where
it
doesn't
pencil
out.
A
We
have
had
very
little
development
in
Thousand
Oaks
in
the
last
10
years,
and
this
is
without
in
Luffy's
and
without
affordable
housing
being
forced
upon
this
community.
We
have
greenlighted
over
a
thousand
plus
units
at
the
Kmart
site,
Baxter
and
lakes.
We
have
one
that's
coming
online
that
hopefully
will
come
forth
across
the
street
from
Amgen,
and
yet
everything
that
you
and
Sacramento
have
put
before
us
is
making
it
unaffordable.
The
interest
rates
have
gone
up
so
The
Debt
Service
on
the
loan
that
they
will
have
to
do
to
develop.
A
It
is
going
to
price
the
units
off
the
market
where
we
can't
afford
them,
and
this
is
all
without
these
in-lu
fees
or
these
affordable
housing
mandates
and
so
forth.
What
makes
you
and
Sacramento
think
that
we
can
afford
to
do
this?
This
is
going
to
stifle
development,
reduce
the
number
of
units
to
address
our
housing
needs
here.
This
is
lunacy.
Okay,.
R
R
A
And
we
have
not
developed
the
thousand
plus
units
because
it
does
not
pencil
out
now
with
The
Debt
Service
higher
interest
rates
inflation
and
he
can't
build
a
building
that,
if
you're
going
to
rent
a
one
bedroom
for
five
thousand
six
thousand
dollars
a
month
at
the
current
rate,
and
now
we
want
to
throw
in
Luffy's
for
any
future
development
and
affordable
units
there.
That
increases
the
fees
for
everyone
else,
who's
not
low
income
in
that
building.
Well,.
A
I
I
understand
that.
But
let
me
let
me
just
finish
with
my
final
question.
So
if
we
have
50
units
but
15
to
20
percent,
let's
say
are
affordable
set
10.
Whatever
the
question
is
for
the
people
of
Thousand
Oaks
can
we
live
then,
with
the
density,
bonus
of
60
plus
units
and
a
six
to
seven
story
building.
A
That's
the
question
at
hand
here
now
we're
losing
the
look
and
feel
that
makes
Thousand
Oaks,
so
wonderful
to
live
in
is
not
having
six
and
seven
eight
story,
buildings
with
60
plus
units
per
acre,
and
this
is
what
the
density
bonus
that
Sacramento
is
throwing
upon
us,
giving
the
developer
the
ability
to
do
so
is
that
is
that
a
correct
statement?
I.
R
M
To
know-
and
this
is
for
the
benefit
of
the
entire
Council,
because
we're
in
an
interesting
time
right
now
right,
everyone
knows
that
we
have
a
general
plan
right
on
the
horizon,
all
right.
So
the
reason
to
remind
everyone.
The
reason
why
we're
here
reason
we're
having
this
conversation.
We
have
a
housing
element,
the
housing
elements
in
with
the
state
one
of
the
programs
that's
required
in
that
housing
element
is
an
inclusionary
housing
program
and
because
they
recognize
that,
by
virtue
of
the
modifications
to
the
land
use
map.
M
That,
as
a
reminder,
is
the
first
time
we've
touched
that
in
this
capacity
since
1970..
So
so,
what
what
we
have
seen
and
what
we
have
witnessed
over
the
last
last
number
of
years,
and
especially
the
last
18
months
with
the
projects
that
have
come
through,
is
the
leveraging
of
development
agreements
and
these
development
agreements
have
been.
M
Essentially,
you
know
not
to
use
the
same
word
but
in
lieu
of
the
of
having
an
inclusionary
program
without
that
inclusionary
program
active
and
in
place
that
those
negotiations
happened
on
a
project
by
project
basis
that
goes
away
in
the
post-general
plant
era,
and
so
what
occurs
then,
rather
than
having
those
project
by
project
discussions,
is
that
that
that
certainty
is
at
least
known
on
the
front
side.
For
the
developer
and
I
know.
M
M
A
D
Glad
Drew
brought
that
up
because
we
have
had
inclusionary
housing,
but
it's
been
called
developer
agreements.
Basically,
that's
how
we've
been
operating
and
it
believe
me,
these
developers
don't
come
forward
and
say
you
know
I'd
like
to
build
some
affordable
housing
for
you.
It
doesn't
work
that
way.
We
have
to
insist
that
that
happens
and-
and
it
has
happened-
and
it's
been
at
about
the
rate
of
ten
percent
about
10
percent
of
the
Kmart
site,
10
at
the
299
site,
give
or
take,
but
it's
been
right
around
there
and
with
the
developer
agreements.
D
A
D
M
Or
just
while
you're
contemplating
that
I
just
want
to
quickly
remind
the
council,
we
do
have
the
linkage
fees
piece
of
this.
We
want
it.
We
did
not
want
to
conflate
the
two
items
together.
Linkage
fees
is
brief,
but
that
piece
needs
to
be
out
there
as
well.
Recognizing
you
may
have
questions
on
that
as
well.
Before
we
get
I
know,
we
have
a
handful
of
public
speakers.
D
H
Oh
I'll
make
my
my
question
fairly
short
here.
Just
to
remind
you,
everybody
we
do
have
an
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
on
the
books
right
now.
It's
it's
set
at
zero
and
really
what
we're
looking
at
is.
Do
we
re-establish
it
at
some,
some
figure
and
it
was
originally
set
quite
a
bit
higher
than
what
we're
proposing.
Now
it
looked
like
to
me
and
then
to
to
Mr
Taylor's
concern.
The
council
came
in
and
put
it
to
zero
when
we
had
the
downturn.
So
we
have
that
flexibility.
H
The
question
is:
do
most
developers
because
developers
have
had
to
pay
a
wrong
word
have
had
to
contribute
to
the
to
the
common
good
of
a
city
over
since
the
city,
our
city
has
been
in
place,
I.
Think
of
our
open
space,
our
Parks,
our
fire
stations.
Everything
came
from
the
developers
of
of
residential
areas
going
forward
with
this
inclusionary
housing.
H
H
J
Thank
you,
mayor
clarification
and
a
question.
The
clarification
is
I
think
you
I
heard
you
say:
you've
done
a
study
of
four
cities
and
found
no
discernible
impact
on
the
pace
of
overall
development,
but
but
within
that
there
was
an
increase
in
affordable
housing
production.
Was
it
not
yes,
okay,
great
and
then,
and
then
coming
back
to
the
that
low-income
category
which
I'm
sorry
to
be
a
broken
record,
but
it's
it.
This
is
important.
J
J
R
Would
have
to
assist
a
developer
just
like
you
just
said,
like
the
item
before
you'd
have
to
buy
the
property
and
then
then
donate
it
to
a
developer
of
a
self-help
type,
not
that
actual
self-help.
But
you
know
habitat
or
the
self-help
group
Etc
to
to
do
that,
because
that's
their
mission
and
that's
what
they
do,
and
so
you
would
be
creating
that
opportunity.
But
the
only
way
to
do
it
is
with
money.
J
Going
back
to
the
the
equity
questions,
I
I
had
asked
before
because
I'm
a
fan
of
equity,
the
the
Covenant
periods
and
the
ex
the
very
good
explanation
you
gave
about
about
there
being
an
equity
bump
from
doing
it.
That
way,
would
that
would
that
have
a
a
stimulative
effect
on
if
people
are
moving
out
of
that
very
low
income
category
would
would
they
then
be
in
a
better
position
or
would
there
then
be
more
low-income
housing
produced?
Is
that
your
expectation,
no
okay,
all
right?
Thank
you,
sir.
F
C
The
bummy
bear
so
to
Mr
Newman,
to
your
point,
I
think
one
of
the
key
points
that
Kathy
made
earlier
was
this.
You
heard
the
word
balancing
right,
and
so
we
talked
about
as
Al
Adam
mentioned
council
member
Adam
mentioned
the
development
agreements
that
are
going
to
be
going
away.
It's
like
our
attempt
to
do
the
inclusionary
housing
with
that
right.
C
So
that's
one
option
that
you
can
have
and
then,
if
you
have
them
Luffy,
of
course
you
can
use
that
money
for
low-income
housing
and
have
projects
like
we
just
talked
about
today
or
the
other
option.
Just
to
put
it
out.
There
is
that
you
can
actually
increase
the
density,
because
that
would
again
do
a
different
calculation
by
increasing
the
density,
like
some
other
cities,
that
we
have
in
our
County
that
have
a
different
density
number
and
that's
another
way,
because
again,
our
density.
C
The
reason
why
she's
doing
the
calculation
as
an
expert
for
us
is
because
she's
going
to
look
at
our
factors
right
our
factors
for
our
city.
So
if
you
change
some
of
those
factors
such
as
more
density
allowed
per
acre,
for
example,
then
that
changes
the
equation
and
changes
the
options
for
developers
who
look
at
our
city
and
say:
okay,
now
it's
a
different.
It's
a
different
calculation
which
again
goes
to
Mr
Taylor's
Point
too
right.
J
Point
just
to
clarify
that
the
reason
I'm
asking
this
question
is
is
not
that
we're
not
producing
more
affordable
housing.
We
are
and
I
very
much
appreciate
how
intelligent
and
nuanced
this
effort
is
toward
that.
The
point
I'm
making
is
is
a
nuanced
one
is:
is
that
affordable
housing
is
not
all
one
thing,
and
within
that
we're
talking
about
things
that
I've
heard
here.
That
will
definitely
stimulate
the
very
low
income
category
but
may
or
may
not
stimulate
the
low
income
category
where
our
need
is
greatest
that
that's
the
concern.
I
was
crazy.
Thank.
F
R
F
I
guess
the
reason
I
was
asking,
if
just
to
clarify
that
it's
California's
California
real
estate,
yes,
California,
is
a
special
place.
Is
there
there's
not
a
lot
of
places
like
it,
but
that's
not
the
main,
in
my
perspective,
main
driver
that
out
prices
us
at
least
comparable
to
the
nation.
It's
so
difficult
to
build
here.
So
really
where
I
wanted.
The
clarification
is:
how
much
is
the
inclusionary
plan
a
part
of
that?
And
how
much
is
it
just
difficult
for
us
to
put
Supply
online
a
part
of
that
equation?
F
Second,
you
were
mentioning
and
I
totally
agree
with
you.
If
you're,
suppressing
or
or
you're
bringing
the
margin
or
potential
return
down
by
limiting
rents,
you
got
to
go
after
density.
You
got
to
build
more
just
the
economies
of
scale
for
a
place
like
Thousand
Oaks
and-
and
this
is
you
know,
as
the
you
know,
there's
three
of
us
that
just
ran
a
campaign
recently,
something
that
we
heard
and
I
think.
F
Ultimately,
what
we're
trying
to
balance
is
one
there's,
an
affordability
issue
and
two
there's
a
concern
that
kind
of
Thousand
Oaks,
which
is
in
a
lot
of
ways
special
for
us
that
it's
not
somewhere
like
the
valley,
that's
something
we
heard
a
lot,
don't
make.
You
know:
Thousand
Oaks
the
valley
when
Builders
are
incentivized
to
go
large
and
ultimately
find
the
cheapest
possible
way
to
do
so,
which,
in
my
perspective,
now
we're
looking
at
incentivizing
big
ugly
gross
buildings.
Here.
How?
R
Well,
right
well,
I
mean
I
think
there
is
this
whole
key
of
the
affordability
issue
and
the
difficulty
of
development.
There's
no
question,
and
there
are
a
number
of
communities
where
the
difficulty
to
develop
is
not
related
to
anything
related
to
inclusionary.
That's
that's,
absolutely
correct,
I!
Think
from
a
planning
perspective
in
your
city
and
your
development
standards
in
your
city,
you
will
control
the
quality
of
these
projects.
R
You
won't
control
the
size,
but
you
will
control
the
quality
of
them
and
actually
one
of
the
nice
things
about
inclusionary
is
that
when
you
have
inclusionary,
you
can
establish
development
standards
within
the
inclusionary
housing
program.
Whereas
if
a
developer
just
comes
to
your
community
and
wants
to
do
a
density
bonus
project,
you
have
basically
nothing.
You
can
tell
them,
and
so
I
do
think
that
that
is
one
of
the
almost
unanticipated
values
of
inclusionary
is
it
does
give
you
more
discretion.
C
And
Mr
Taylor
I
will
say
that,
with
with
the
density
bonus,
just
not
even
with
the
inclusionary
housing,
but
just
a
destiny
bonus,
you
will
see
that
we
have
objective
standards
now
that
we've
adopted
in
the
last
year
and
a
half
and
and
those
standards
help
us
with
controlling
the
look
controlling
the
architecture
to
some
extent
again,
they
have
to
be
objective
standards.
We
have
adopted
those,
and
so
that
helps
us
with
that
issue
that
you're
concerned
about.
They
can't
just
build
a
big
block
even
with
the
density
bonus.
F
Reason
I
asked
was
not
if
we're,
if
we're
requiring,
let's
say
a
project
to
look
better,
which
is
also
a
meaning
more
cost
right.
What
we're
ultimately
doing
is
bringing
margin
a
return
down.
So
I
hear
what
you're
saying
I
think
what
I'm
trying
to
just
wrap
my
head
around
is
at
what
point
do
people
stop
wanting
to
build
here?
Yeah.
C
That's
going
to
get
people
in
here
right,
and
so
they
have
that
element
to
it,
and
so
I
think
our
objective
standards
help
them
in
harmony
with
that
to
help
them
build
yes
to
objective
standards,
but
also
something
that's
not
going
to
be
so
terrible
that
they're
going
to
say,
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to
rent
these
out
anymore,
especially
at
the
rents
that
they
would
be
requesting
in
our
city.
Mr.
A
D
E
D
Don't
you
probably
don't
know
our
299
project,
but
it's
extremely
high
quality
amenities,
Galore
water
features,
dog
parks,
we
work
spaces
and
exactly
what
we
wanted
and
they
came
in
at
about
10
percent
affordable.
They
were
able
to
give
us
the
quality
and
the
affordable.
So
my
question
is
and
I
think
this
is
self-evident.
There's
a
there's,
a
a
relationship
between
how
much
you
ask
for
affordable
versus
the
quality
that
you
are
going
to
end
up
getting
and
the
higher
you
ask
for
the
more
potential
there
is
for
diminishment
in
quality.
Is
that
correct?
D
R
R
R
Well
right,
but
because
and
again
so
to
your
point,
with
a
10
requirement.
That
means
ninety
percent
of
the
people
want,
you
know,
are
going
to
want
premium
quality
and
the
10
are
too.
But
you
know
it's
a
matter
of
the
90
are
going
to
be
willing
to
spend
significantly
more
money
to
get
that
quality
because
of
the
strength
of
your
real
estate
market,
which
is
a
major
factor
in
the
analysis.
Yeah.
R
And
I
think
the
one
other
thing
that
I
had
mentioned
that
that
hasn't
come
up
is
that,
because
of
your
new
general
plan
and
because
of
sites
that
have
effectively
been
created
for
residential,
the
fact
is
is
that
those
sites
now
are
just
worth
more
ones
that
they're
allowed
to
be
residential
than
they
were
before.
So,
instead
of
somebody
making
that
much
more
value,
if
they
have
an
inclusionary
requirement,
they're
just
making
that
much
more.
E
R
A
P
H
A
As
what
I'm
hearing
from
you
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
because,
for
example,
if
a
developer
wanted
to
build
10
houses
that
were
five
million
dollars
each
instead
of
making
that
10th
house
a
low-income
house,
that
someone
would
win
the
lottery
and
and
have
a
wonderful
house
for
pennies
on
the
dollar
in
Luffy's
would
be
a
better
way
to
go.
Is
that
your
position
on
this
that
for
both
rental
and
ownership,
it's
better
to
do
the
in-lu
fees
of
paying
per
square
foot.
R
A
The
question
that
kind
of
rings
through
this
entire
discussion
is,
we
had
control
with
our
developer
agreements
as
to
the
look
and
feel
and
the
design
and
how
much
affordable
we
want
to
have
in
a
certain
project
which
we
did
with
K
Martin
Baxter
and
in
Luffy's
with
the
Lakes
project
and
what
we
have
coming
on
board
across
with
Amgen
with
a
Latigo
group.
I
believe
it
is.
A
This
is
sort
of
mandating
now
that
we
we're
coming
out
of
the
discussion
that
we're
not
really
going
to
have
much
of
a
voice
there,
because
this
has
become
more
automatic
because
Sacramento
is
saying
you've
got
to
do
this
is:
is
there
any
hard
and
fast
rule
with
Sacramento
as
to
you've,
got
to
do
a
certain
percent
other
than
it's
defensible
or?
Or
is
it
just
open
to
how
we
want
to
put
this
all
together
here
on
on
the
city
level,.
M
Before
I'll,
let
Kathy
formula
I
think
one
important
distinction-
and
she
mentioned
it
earlier
and
it's
just
important
reminder-
is
the
reason
that
control
existed
is
because
the
land
designation
was
not
residential
right.
So
that
was
the
that's.
The
leverage
for
the
development
agreement
post-general
plan
that
land
designation
will
be
changed.
M
A
M
A
F
R
F
I
guess
the
the
you
know.
This
is
something
that
I
think
every
investor
wishes
they
had
a
crystal
ball
for
right,
of
course,
but
at
least
something
that
we're
wrestling
with
right
now
is
at
least
the
the
expectation
was.
Interest
rates
are
going
to
climb
we're
going
to
bring
down
inflation.
We're
going
to
you
know,
Target
to
land
back
at
two
percent.
R
What
I?
Well,
if
I
understand
your
question
correctly,
I
think
what
is
really
important
and
we've
been
talking
about
it
for
the
last
few
minutes
is
the
fact
that
the
city
is
creating
this
value
and
you're,
creating
it
now
right,
you're
not
create
you're,
creating
with
your
general
plan.
Once
your
general
plan
is
in
place,
then
the
land
values
are
going
to
adjust
to
the
fact
of
that
greater
opportunity.
A
A
All
righty,
let's
get
underway
again
we
have
a
question
by
here's:
the
game
plan.
We
have
a
question
by
a
couple
council
members,
then
we're
going
to
go
to
the
second
half
of
the
presentation
which
I've
been
promised.
It's
short,
not
you
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
public
comment,
so
Mr
Newman
you're
on.
J
There
was
some
mention
just
before
the
break
of
stakeholders
in
much
of
our
discussion
tonight
has
been
around
the
it's
been
pretty
technical,
around
Financial
requirements
for
the
real
estate
industry,
I,
wonder
if
a
different
group
of
stakeholders
has
been
consulted
in
this,
namely
the
customers,
the
residents
have
any
renters
groups
or
homeowners
groups
or
the
general
public
been
consulted.
As
part
of
this
discussion.
P
The
the
meetings
were
open
to
the
general
public,
but
specifically,
we
had
two
different
stakeholders
group,
one
from
the
development
Community,
which
both
discussed
the
inclusionary
and
the
linkage
fee.
And
then
we
also
had
a
group
for
housing
advocacy
groups,
primarily
so,
and
that
reached
out
to
the
Verizon
variety
of
non-profit
housing
developers
in
the
community,
as
well
as
some
of
the
other
groups
that
speak
in
front
of
the
Council
on
housing
issues
as
well.
P
P
A
S
S
And
so
first,
what
is
a
non-residential
development
linkage
fee?
It's
an
impact
fee
that
is
charged
to
new
non-residential
development
being
constructed
within
the
city.
The
purpose
of
the
non-residential
development
linkage
fee
is
to
mitigate
the
need
for
affordable
housing
that
is
created
by
newly
constructed
non-residential
development.
S
Now
just
some
historical
context.
From
the
city's
perspective,
the
city
originally
enacted
a
non-residential
development
linkage
fee
in
2008..
However,
due
to
the
economic
uncertainties
revolving
around
the
Great
Recession,
the
city
council
reduced
all
the
development
linkage
fees
to
zero
dollars
in
2009.,
the
elimination
of
these
linkage
fees
was
extended
annually
until
2014
and
then
in
2014,
the
city
council
set
the
linkage
fee
amounts
at
zero
dollars
indefinitely.
S
So
in
order
to
impose
a
non-residential
development
linkage,
fee
kma
conducted
two
studies,
the
first
of
which
is
a
Nexus
study
which
is
required
by
the
California
mitigation
fee
Act.
The
second
is
a
financial
feasibility
analysis,
which
was
used
to
assess
potential
linkage.
Fee
amounts
on
prototypical
non-residential
projects
that
may
be
developed
within
Thousand
Oaks
in
the
near
future.
S
So
here's
just
a
general
graphic
of
how
non-residential
development
linkage
fees
work.
The
fees
are
charged
to
new
non-residential
development.
Those
developers
will
pay
the
fees
to
the
city.
The
city
will
deposit
that
fee
Revenue
into
an
affordable
housing
trust
fund,
that's
controlled
by
the
city,
and
then
the
city
would
use
those
dollars
to
leverage
Financial
to
leverage
affordable.
How
fine
to
leverage
the
financing
of
affordable
housing
projects
within
the
city.
S
So,
as
mentioned
previously,
an
affordable
housing,
Nexus
study
is
required
to
be
conducted
prior
to
implementing
development
impact
fees.
In
this
case,
the
non-residential
development
linkage
fee,
specifically
an
affordable
housing.
Nexus
study
is
used
to
quantify
the
need
for
affordable
housing
generated
by
new
non-residential
development.
S
S
So
Kaiser
Marston
has
been
at
the
Forefront
of
preparing,
affordable
housing,
Nexus
studies
in
support
of
the
imposition
of
non-residential
development
linkage
fees.
A
general
overview
of
the
Nexus
study
method
methodology
is
shown
on
the
screen.
You
know
the
basic
concept
is
that
new
non-residential
development
generates
new
jobs
within
the
city.
S
The
financial
feasibility
analyzes
are
based
on
pro
forma
analysis
of
prototypical
non-residential
projects
that
are
currently
being
developed
or
likely
to
be
developed
in
the
near
future
to
design
the
Prototype
projects.
Kma
analyzed
entitlement
information
for
non-residential
projects
that
have
been
submitted
to
the
city
for
approval
within
the
last
several
years,
kma
also
discussed
with
City
staff
projects
that
were
considering
submitting
entitlement
applications
within
the
near
future.
S
However,
it's
just
a
an
important
point
to
make
is
that,
based
on
the
information
provided,
there's
been
limited
amount
of
non-residential
development
within
the
city
in
recent
years.
The
majority
of
this
non-residential
development
has
occurred
on
the
industrial
and
Warehouse
sectors,
so
for
each
Pro
for
analysis,
kma
relied
on
our
experience
with
similar
non-residential
projects
in
the
immediate
region,
as
well
as
the
greater
Southern
California
area.
S
S
We
reviewed
appraisals
as
well
as
performance
submitted
by
other
Developers
for
similar
projects
to
estimate
typical
return
requirements,
and
we
also
review
market
research
reports
to
establish
pertinent
assumptions
in
our
analyzes,
and
these
pro
forma
analyzes
are
used
to
conduct
two
primary
tests
for
establishing
recommended
linkage.
Fee
amounts
and
again
the
goal
of
the
financial
feasibility
tests
is
to
avoid
placing
an
owner's
burden
on
non-residential
development.
S
S
The
second
test
is
to
determine
how
the
imposition
of
linkage
fee
amount
affects
the
financial
return
of
prototypical
projects
and
so
to
conduct.
This
test
came
a
first
analyzes
a
base
pro
forma
analysis.
This
base
scenario
does
not
include
any
linkage
fee
and
this
establishes
a
base
threshold
return
to
determine
which
projects
are
feasible
versus
infeasible,
and
so
I
just
want
to
look
at
this.
The
the
first
row
across
with
the
no
non-residential
fee.
S
So
the
next
step
to
setting
recommended
fee
Amounts
is
to
look
at
linkage
fees
in
surrounding
jurisdictions,
and
so
we
completed
a
study
of
linkage
fees
throughout
the
Southern
California
region.
To
date,
there
are
eight
cities
in
Southern
California
that
have
non-residential
development
linkage
fees.
Five
of
these
cities
were
act.
The
linkage
fees
were
enacted
within
the
last
five
years
and
they
range
from
a
low
of
approximately
a
dollar
per
square
foot
in
San
Diego
up
to
over
ten
dollars
a
square
foot
in
Santa
Monica,
based
on
this
survey.
S
S
S
Furthermore,
staff
is
recommending
that
the
non-residential
development
linkage
fees
be
set
at
five
between
zero
and
five
dollars
for
industrial
and
then
no
linkage
fee
charged
to
retail
commercial
office,
research
and
development
and
hotel
lodging
Land
uses
and
I
promised
I
would
be
short.
So
that
is
the
end.
Thank.
F
First
Mr
tune.
Thank
you
mayor
two
questions.
The
first
one
actually
might
just
be
a
clarification
of
my
end
through
the
study
you
mentioned
that
this
is
Justified,
because
some
employers
pay
employees
a
low
wage
and
then
because
of
that
justification,
the
only
asset
class
that
can
hold
this
type
of
fee
is
industrial.
That's
correct
the
the
only
asset
class
that
we
can
implement
this
fee
on
and
it
doesn't
compromise
return
too
much
is
industrial.
S
Yes
I,
so
the
the
next
study
generates
or
generates
the
need
for
affordable
housing
or
justifies
imposing
a
linkage
fee.
The
financial
feasibility
analysis
is
where
we
get
to
the
recommended
fee
amounts
and
in
that
analysis,
industrial
Warehouse
uses
are
the
only
financially
viable
land
use
that
we
studied.
Okay,.
S
S
A
F
M
Just
to
add
a
further
point
to
it,
you
know
this
is
really
at
the
heart
of
public
policy.
This
is
big
public
policy
decision
making
here
right.
So
when
you
Embark
upon
a
a
study
like
this,
you
you
have
to
look
at
the
full
range
in
Spectrum
all
right,
and
so
that's
why
linkage
fees
are
a
part
of
that
spectrum
and
they
have
been
part
even
though
they've
been
set
to
zero
they've
been
part
of
the
historical
history.
M
Here
now
the
council,
from
a
policy
perspective
you're
not
just
looking
at
the
the
fee
as
it's
attached
to
this
you're,
looking
at
the
whole
spectrum
of
Economic
Development,
and
so
when
you're
doing
that
you're
having
to
weigh
and
that's
why
the
staff
recommendation
is
between
zero
and
five
right.
Five
can't
go
above
five,
but
you
have
to
weigh
your
Economic
Development
priorities
with
your
housing
priorities
with
your
and
use
priorities
with
all
these
other
things
overlaid
on
top
of
each
other,
and
so
that's
that's
really
why
the
range
was
provided
to
you.
A
Mr
Brett's
question:
for
you,
your
your
foundation.
Premise
on
this
is
that
jobs
are
created
here
with
industry
and
there
are
some
that
are
be
low,
paying
jobs.
Therefore,
we
as
a
city
policy
maker,
must
provide
homes
or
places
for
them
to
live
in
our
city
am
I
challenged
with
that
statement.
The
foundation
of
it
is
that
there's
three
things
that
determine
what
a
person
is
paid
in
the
marketplace.
A
A
A
A
How
do
you
answer
that,
with
this
low
income
demand
that's
being
put
out
through
Sacramento
to
our
cities?
How
do
you
answer
that,
because
we're
creating
a
class
of
low-income
folks
that
will
remain
there
and
not
become
more
because
it's
incentivized
to
stay
low
income
and
you
have
a
smaller
and
smaller
and
shrinking
population
of
those
that
can
afford
to
pay
these
linkage
fees?
How
do
we?
How
do
we
address
that
as
a
council
and
from
a
policy
standpoint.
S
So
I'm
gonna
take
a
step
back
a
little
bit.
You
know
the
linkage
fee
is
meant
to
be
sort
of
one
tool
in
your
tool
kit
for
affordable
housing.
You
know
we
just
talked
about
inclusionary
housing,
we're
talking
about
linkage
fees
right
now.
If
the
city's
goal
is
to
produce
more
affordable
housing
and
they
want
more
tools
to
do
this,
the
linkage
fee
is
one
way
to
do
that
and
I
mean
you
could
go
either
way.
S
S
And
so
again,
this
this
may
be
a
policy
decision
of
you
know
if,
if
you're,
if
you're
not
low,
if
a
person
is
a
household
is
not
low,
income
I
mean
do
they
belong
in
a
unit.
That's
reserved
for
low-income
people,
I,
don't
I,
don't
necessarily
think
that
any
anyone's
not
accepting
a
a
pay
raise
or
a
you
know,
a
bonus
so
that
they
can
stay
within
a
very
low
income
range
or
a
low
income
range.
I
haven't
seen
that
in
practice.
A
And
I
don't
know
how
intimate
you
are
with
the
person,
people
that
you
service,
but
I
can
tell
you
from
the
people.
I
talk
to
in
the
low
income
range
as
I
work
in
the
free
clinics
and
in
my
practice
it's
a
reality,
but
that
said,
I'm
going
to
hold
off
on
any
more
questions
at
this
point,
I
will
have
some
later
on.
Let
me
ask
my
other
council
members,
if,
if
they
have
any
other
questions
and.
C
Mayor,
if
I
may
just
really
quick,
just
to
make
sure
we
set
the
table
correctly
for
tonight
what
the
consultants
and
staff
have
done
with
this
is:
we've
responded
to
council's
requests
to
bring
information
back
and
as
we,
we
I
think
you
heard
a
number
of
times
now
with
the
various
tools
that
we
have
to
address
housing
to
address,
affordable
housing.
This
is
one
of
those
tools,
it's
very
important
that
when
the
Consultants
go
out
there,
they
create
the
foundation
to
have
a
legal
basis
to
allow
some
type
of
fee.
C
If
we're,
if
you're
going
to
go
that
step
right,
so
the
first
thing
that
they
had
to
do
is
say
for
any
type
of
mitigation
fee.
You
have
to
lay
a
foundation,
you
have
to
show
the
Nexus
and
that's
their
first
step
that
they
did
and
that's
why
it's
important
to
make
sure
that
you
understand
that
they
went
out
to
do
exactly
that.
We
can't
just
create
a
number.
We
have
to
do
the
study
and
demonstrate
that
there
is
some
Nexus,
so
we
can
defend
it
if
we
get
attacked
for
it.
C
The
second
part
is
he
he
mentioned
is
again
going
back
to
the
tool.
This
is
one
method
that
the
state
authorizes
the
city
to
do,
to
require
employers,
help
with
developing
housing
for
employees
that
are
going
to
be
coming
to
a
city
or
that
are
going
to
be
in
the
city,
and
so
again
this
is
just
one
possible
tool
that
we
can
use
and
that's
why,
when
we
do
that
analysis,
now
we
realize
okay.
With
this
analysis,
we
look
at
the
mitigation
study.
We
have
that
part.
We
can
defend
that
now.
C
The
second
part,
the
policy
part
okay,
now
that
we
have
that,
what
do
we
want
to
do
here?
It
doesn't
really
when
you
look
at
all
the
different
options
or
all
the
different,
the
five
different
categories,
the
one
that
we
say.
Okay,
this
is
possible
that
it's
not
going
to
it's
it's
it's
feasible
that
they
can
do
this
and
still
create
that
that
industrial
building
for
that
for
those
jobs,
it
is
feasible
with
the
industrial
section,
the
other
ones
doesn't
seem
like
it's
feasible.
C
So
that's
what's
being
presented
to
you
I
again,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
clarify
that,
because
it
is
important
that
we
had
two
parts
here
and
and
it's
important
that
you
realize
that
we
needed
to
establish
that
mitigation
fee.
The
next
is
that
we
can
do
it
and
then
okay
now
the
decision
is,
do
you
want
to
do
it
right?
I,.
A
I
appreciate
your
explanation.
There
and
I
agree
with
what
you're
saying
my
comment.
Votes
in
the
question
to
you
was
that
the
foundation
upon
which
we
are
saying
that
we
need
to
provide
this
this
flawed
and
that
if
you
have
minimum
wage
workers-
and
you
don't
have
enough
of
them-
the
wages
rise
because
that's
what
they
have
to
do
as
an
employer
to
attract
them.
So
by
doing
this,
we're
keeping
wages
low.
That's
my
point
that
we
were
going
here
so
with
that.
Let
me
pass
it
over
to
Mr
Engler.
You
had
some
questions.
A
T
Thank
you
Mr
Mayor
and
members
of
the
city
council.
My
name
is
Jackson
Piper
I'm
from
unincorporated
Newbury,
Park
I'm,
also
a
co-lead
of
Ventura
County,
UMB
housing
activist
group
and
part
of
the
Thousand
Oaks
livability
Action
Network,
more
homegrown.
You
know
in
The
Conejo
Valley
group
trying
to
trying
to
improve
the
quality
of
life
here.
T
I'm
happy
that
there's
an
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
update
on
the
books
right
now
and
I
want
to
see
this
be
as
refined
as
possible
to
produce
as
much
affordable
housing
as
possible
in
the
city.
Well,
still
maintaining
the
ability
of
developers
to
build
here
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
you
know
the
economy
today
is
not
fixed
forever.
It
will
change
over
time
and
whether
this
is
a
negative
or
positive.
It's
going
to
change
over
the
following
years.
So
I
think
it
maybe
a
concern
of
mine.
A
T
A
U
U
My
plea
is,
when
city
council
reviews
policies
to
remember
how
decisions
impact
the
older
adult
population
in
Thousand
Oaks.
My
frustration
is
that,
even
though
our
population
is
growing
older
city,
council
and
City
staff
do
not
take
this
growing
population
into
account
unpopulate,
when
policies
are
brought
before
you.
U
U
My
remarks
are
to
remind
you
that
this
population
needs
to
be
taken
into
consideration
with
looking
at
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance.
Well,
some
affordable
housing
projects
are
planned.
It
will
not
be
enough
to
meet
the
demands.
That
is
why
I'm
asking
city
council
to
review
the
percentage
recommended
and
ask
for
more
than
the
10
percent
on
new
developments.
U
A
V
Thank
you.
My
name
is
Stephanie
Sullivan
I
am
a
employee
at
Lutheran,
Social
Services
in
Thousand,
Oaks
I'm,
also
a
resident
of
the
city
of
Thousand
Oaks,
and
have
been
here
for
nearly
20
years,
so
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
my
organization,
but
also
as
a
resident
and
a
concerned.
Citizen
I
really
appreciated
the
thorough
overview
from
the
consultant
tonight
of
the
inclusionary
fees
and
the
linkage
fees
and
I
would
like
to
Echo
what
the
two
speakers
have
said
before
me
about
having
a
slightly
higher
inclusionary
fee.
V
I
think
it
is
critical,
considering
the
number
of
residents
in
our
community
who
are
low
income
and
very
low
income,
and
the
number
of
people
experiencing
homelessness.
I
would
like
to
add
that
this
is
not
just
adults
who
are
working
and
trying
to
find
a
job
that
can
meet
those
affordable
costs,
but
they
often
have
children.
They
are
often
in
our
school
district
and
they
are
trying
to
survive
and
I
work
with
them
on
a
regular
basis.
V
V
As
far
as
the
linkage
fees
again,
I
want
to
reiterate
that
if
you
own
property
in
the
city,
I
do
believe
that
there
should
be
a
you
know,
a
fee
that
goes
along.
That
to
help
lift
up
the
community
and
I
say
that
as
somebody
who
is
a
homeowner
and
who
is
willing
to
support
that
myself
because
I
feel
like
we
are
only
as
good
as
the
rest
of
our
community.
Thank
you.
A
W
Good
evening,
mayor
and
city
council
and
City
staff,
my
name
is
Willie
lupka
I'm,
a
resident
of
Thousand
Oaks
I'm,
a
small
business
owner
and
a
part
of
a
non-profit
organization
called
buen
Vicino.
We
are
partnering
with
a
bunch
of
other
local
non-profits
to
host
a
Community
Education
event
on
affordable
housing
on
Wednesday
March
29th.
All
of
you
will
be
invited.
I
hope
you
can
join
us
I
want
to
also
let
you
know
about
a
workshop.
W
I
think
that's
something
we
should
look
at
here,
because
the
available
land
to
build,
affordable
housing
on
is
so
limited.
This
could
be
a
way
to
serve
the
mission
of
the
faith
communities
and
help
our
community
I'm
here
to
speak
to
the
inclusionary
housing
program
and
thank
you
for
pursuing
it.
You're
ahead
of
some
other
cities
nearby
that
aren't
so
kudos
for
that
and
for
all
of
the
work
you've
been
doing
and
continue
to
do,
to
provide
affordable
housing
and
address
this
critical
need
in
our
community
I'm.
W
The
father
of
two
kids
in
in
their
20s.
Their
experience
right
now
is
very
different
than
mine
was
when
I
entered
adulthood.
My
peers
and
I
moved
out
of
our
parents,
homes,
After,
High
School,
and
either
rented
an
apartment
or
went
to
a
dorm
and
then
eventually
started.
Families
bought
homes,
pursued
careers,
I,
don't
know
how
many
people
you
know,
but
a
lot
of
people
I
know
have
their
20
year
olds
still
living
with
them.
W
I
strongly
support
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
and
regardless
of
what
anyone
says,
I
believe
you
are
doing
it
not
because
anyone
is
forcing
you
to,
but
because
you
love
our
community-
and
you
know
this
is
best
for
the
future
of
a
strong
community,
and
you
know
that
you
serve
everyone
in
this
community,
not
just
certain
interests
or
or
businesses.
15.
W
X
Good
evening,
mayor
McNamee
and
council
members,
I'm
Danielle
Borgia,
also
resident
Thousand
Oaks
in
addition
to
president
of
the
chamber,
I'll
start
with
the
the
easier
topic
from
the
chamber
side
in
regards
to
the
non-residential
linkage
fees.
We
really
think
it's
unfair
that
the
industrial
is
being
singled
out
in
this
category.
I
think
we
really
need
to
keep
the
linkage
fees
to
zero
across
the
board.
We
are,
you
are
working
so
hard
as
a
city
to
reinvent
the
industrial
area
in
Rancho,
Conejo
and
I.
X
Think
we
need
to
support
that
Economic
Development
and
not
provide
additional
fees
for
those
types
of
industrial
uses
on
the
residential
side.
I
think
you
know,
we've
talked
a
lot
tonight
tonight
about
bounce.
We
have
been
working
hand
in
hand
with
the
city
in
regards
to
housing
issues,
especially
the
last
two
years
and
I.
Think
we've
all
can
agree
that
we've
made
a
lot
of
progress
and
what
we
don't
want
to
see
is
that
progress
stifled.
X
So
we
are
looking
to
make
sure
that
we
still
have
opportunities
for
development
in
the
city
of
Thousand
Oaks,
moving
forward
our
biotech
companies
that
are
expanding
their
Footprints
need
this
housing.
We
are
looking
at
a
general
Plan
update.
There
are
a
lot
of
pieces
that
need
to
come
together
for
all
of
this
to
work
from
an
economic
standpoint
and
I.
Don't
have
a
an
exact
number
for
you,
but
I
appreciate
the
10,
Mark
I
really
hope
it
does
not
go
above
that
we
need
to
make
sure
our
developers
have
invested.
X
You
know
reasons
to
invest
in
our
community
and
one
of
the
other
speakers
compared
to
the
city
of
Ventura.
They
have
a
higher
density
that
they
allow
in
their
Community.
We
have
made
it
very
clear
that
we
do
not
want
a
strong
density
in
our
community
and
we
have
made
the
general
plan
and
aligned
it
with
those
beliefs
as
a
community,
and
so
we
can't
have
both.
X
Y
Mayor
McNamee,
members
of
the
city
council,
City
staff,
Rick
Schroeder
presidents
of
many
mansions
and
tonight
really
is
a
historic
night
with
respect
to
affordable
housing.
First,
the
Thousand
Oaks
navigation
Center.
Thank
you,
the
Hillcrest
for
sale
project
and
now
this
inclusionary
housing
ordinance,
inclusionary
housing
is
an
important
component
as
we
go
forward
in
trying
to
develop
more
affordable
housing.
Y
For
many
reasons,
many
mansions
other
non-profit
developers
have
a
very
difficult
time:
developing
more
affordable
housing
in
the
city
of
Thousand
Oaks
to
get
a
affordable
housing
financing
from
the
federal
government
to
the
state
government.
Thousand
Oaks
is
not
favored.
It's
low
density,
High,
land
costs,
lack
of
mass
transit,
very
difficult
to
develop,
more
affordable
housing
and
therefore
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
is
actually
going
to
play
a
very
large
role
in
developing
more
affordable
units,
especially
for
the
low-income
population.
Y
All
of
many
mansions
developments
now
really
focus
on
the
very
low
income
and,
as
a
saw
and
aside,
there
is
no
disincentive
for
our
residents
to
earn
more
income
they're,
not
displaced.
They
can
earn
as
much
money
once
they
had
qualified
their
rent
may
go
up,
but
they
do
not
lose
their
housing
as
to
the
rental
housing
inclusionary
housing
we'd
also
feel
that
10
percent
is
too
low
and
that
15
percent
would
be
a
better
number.
Y
This
number
will
not
discourage
developers
from
developing
rental
housing
developers
want
certainty
and
having
an
ordinance
in
and
of
itself
will
create
that
certainty
developers
want
to
build
in
Thousand
Oaks.
The
demand
is
high,
rent
is
high,
I,
don't
think
developers
are
going
to
choose
to
develop
more
rental,
housing
and
Oxnard
instead
of
Thousand
Oaks.
Simply
because
we
have
a
15
inclusionary
requirement.
Y
Also
15
gives
the
city
a
stronger
bargaining
position
with
developers.
You
can
start
negotiating
at
15
percent
if
you
start
at
10
percent
you'll
never
get
above
that
10
percent
15
percent
will
result
over
time.
In
a
lot
more
units
being
developed,
500
units
are
developed,
10
percent
yields,
50
units
or
15
percent
yields.
75.,
that's
25,
more
valuable
units.
The
recent
projects,
the
Baxter,
the
Kmart
project-
that
was
much
higher
than
10
percent.
My
recollection
is
those
numbers
12
or
13.
Y
Z
That
changes
our
financial
analysis
and
it's
factored
into
the
conservative
nature
of
the
recommendations
that
were
put
forth
tonight
by
our
consultant
in
terms
of
legislation
surrounding
affordable
housing
on
religious
facilities.
That's
something
that's
still
under
review
and
staff
is
tracking
that
closely
as
before
is
the
latest
version
of
that
bill.
Z
There
have
been
other
bills
that
address
that
same
issue
that
have
sort
of
died
on
the
vine
in
Sacramento
that
did
not
move
forward,
but
we
are
well
aware
of
that
and
it's
something
that
we're
tracking
closely
from
a
staff
perspective
And
in
regards
to
the
linkage
fee.
The
analysis
that
was
considered
in
terms
of
what
the
Consultants
presented
this
evening
was
robust
and
it
is
conservative
in
nature
and
it's
just
simply
to
establish
a
Nexus
to
determine
if
a
fee
can
be
supported.
Z
R
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
clarification
to
I
believe
it
was
the
first
Speaker
who
said
what
was
voted
on
in
Ventura
last
night.
I
was
conveniently
their
consultant
as
well.
There
was
a
motion
to
do
10
percent
very
low
and
five
percent
low
for
apartments
and
15
for
ownership
that
did
not
pass.
What
did
pass
was
10
percent
low
five
percent
very
low
for
rental
and
15.
Moderate
I
just
wanted
to
provide
that
clarification.
Thank.
AA
Sorry,
I
can't
be
there
with
you
all
tonight,
but
just
really
quickly.
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
emphasize
the
the
basis
for
the
analysis
and
the
basis
for
what
the
city
council
is
considering
tonight
when,
when
Kaiser
Marston
was
hired
to
look
at
you
know
our
a
potential
conclusionary
housing
ordinance.
You
know.
Obviously
my
number
one
concern
is
protecting
the
city
from
a
legal
perspective,
and
so
the
number
one
issue
or
the
most
important
issue
in
a
financial
feasibility
study
is
to
ensure
that
it's
legally
defensible
and
that's
why
the
10
percent
recommendation.
AA
We
are
well
aware
that
if
we
have
a
figure
that
is
too
high
based
on
the
densities
in
our
city,
the
land
valuations-
and
we
don't
have
an
economic
basis
to
ask
for
we
already
already
know
that
hcd
will
challenge
any
percentage
that
that
we
cannot
legally
sustain
or
that
we
cannot
legally
defend.
So
just
want
to
remind
the
council
that
the
10
figure
that
is
being
recommended-
it's
not
an
arbitrary
figure.
It's
based
on
financial
feasibility
analysis
that
Kaiser
Marston
that
Kathy
and
her
team
has
done.
AA
A
You
Mr
Noonan
for
the
sake
of
discussion
among
council
members,
I'm
going
to
suggest
the
following:
we've
got
two
items
here:
one
is
the
linkage
fees
with
industrial,
commercial
and
so
forth.
To
me,
that's
the
easier
one
we
can
deal
with,
get
that
off
the
table
and
then
we
can
move
into
the
other
and
have
a
more
robust
discussion
is
Council.
Okay,
with
that
that
approach
so
right
now,
can
we
put
up
the
PowerPoint
slide.
That
was
there
regarding
what
staff
recommendation
was
and
what
Kaiser
Marston
recommended.
A
So
we
can
have
that
up
in
front
of
us.
I,
don't
know
who's
in
charge
of
PowerPoint.
Can
we
get
that
up
on
the
screen
for
us
and
Council
and
the
audience
there
we
go
so,
let's,
let's
start
the
discussion,
we
have
staff
recommended
industrial
zero
to
five
dollars.
Kma
recommended
zero
to
five
all
the
way
through
for
all
the
different
council
members
on
open
discussions,
Mr
Adam
come
here.
D
That's
interesting:
it's
a
complete
juxtaposition
when
the
analysis
was
done
back
in
whatever
it
was
a
big
turn
of
the
century.
Industrial
was
the
only
one
that
didn't
work
and
all
the
other
ones
did,
and
that
just
shows
you
what's
happened
to
Office
Buildings
and
Etc,
and
now
supposedly
the
only
one
that
works
is
industrial.
Well,
I
mean
there's
one
thing
to
do
with
study
and
and
but
there's
other
things
to
bring
in
real
world
concerns.
D
My
real
world
concern
about
that
is
industrial
is
our
bioscience
and
we
have
17
bioscience
firms,
and
we
want
to
have
many
more
than
that.
We
have
a
huge
investment
in
it,
they're
bringing
all
kinds
of
jobs,
they're
bringing
all
kind
of
property
taxes.
You
know
all
the
things
the
city
needs
and
I
I
wouldn't
be
inclined
to
I
I.
Just
think
it's
it's
not
going
to
add
that
much
to
anything
frankly
and
it's
a
disincentive
and
it's
a
it's
a
bad
message
to
our
our
bioscience
conglomerate
out
there.
That's
just
my
thought.
H
H
So
there's
there
is
a
benefit
to
companies
to
have
the
affordable
housing
and
if
there's
a
benefit,
then
there
should
be
participation
by
the
by
the
by
the
companies.
However,
I
also
recognize,
as
my
colleague
Mr
Adams
recognizes,
that
we
have
a
burgeoning
developments
going
on
out
in
our
industrial
area.
H
That
is
creating
a
hub
of
activity
for
biotech
and
other
technology
that
will
be
the
the
future
of
of
Thousand
Oaks
in
the
same
way
that
we
used
to
have
a
Northrop
out
there
during
the
Aerospace
days,
so
I'm
I'm
torn
between
those
two
things.
My
concern
is
that
we're
not
the
only
fish
in
the
ocean
here
that
just
down
the
street,
we
have
Agora
Hills.
We
have
West
Lake
Village
down
the
hill.
We
have
a
Camarillo
that
is
in
the
same
general
area
as
our
biotech.
F
You
mayor
and
one
thing
I'll
say
I
didn't
say
in
the
beginning:
I
appreciate
you
guys
going
out
and
doing
the
study
you
did
yeah
that
was
incredibly
detailed
and
I
know
we
kind
of
beat
you
guys
up
in
some
regards.
So
thank
you
this
one
that
was
well
said:
councilman,
Engler,
I,
I,
guess
Through
My
Lens
and
it's
primarily
through
the
lens
of
a
business
owner
it's
hard
to
do
business
in
California.
F
It
actually
should
take
a
step
back,
it's
hard
to
do
business
period,
it's
kind
of
even
harder
to
do
in
California.
Some
regards
that's
originally
how
I
was
looking
at
it
until
you
kind
of
mentioned
the
Dynamics
of
neighboring
cities,
and
you
know
who
is
putting
a
message
out
there,
and
you
know
Drew
and
I-
spoke
about
this
earlier.
What
cities
are
putting
a
message
out
there
to
Growing
Industries
saying
we
want
you
guys
here.
F
We
want
you
to
take
the
risk
of
bringing
a
new
business
online,
which
ultimately
blesses
our
community,
because
now
we're
offering
new
jobs
to
our
residents-
and
you
know
in
a
lot
of
regard
we're
watching
what
life
science
is
doing
in
some
of
ours
is
high-paying
jobs.
This
is
this
is
an
opportunity
for
you
to
make
some
good
money
I
understand
that
you
know
that
might
not
necessarily
directly
impact
the
affordability
side
of
it,
but
I
think
the
Golden
Goose
through
my
lenses,
probably
something
we
need
to
protect
and
then
work
on.
A
J
I
want
to
make
a
plea
for
balance
here:
we're
not
we're
not
talking
about
just
minimum
wage
people,
low
income,
very
low
income.
These
have
specific
legal
definitions
in
the
context
of
this
discussion.
Okay,
we're
talking
about
moderate
income
housing,
we're
talking
about
a
family
of
four
making
up
to
138
thousand
dollars
a
year,
you're
talking
about
low
income.
It's
not
destitution,
it's
not
poverty!
It's
a
family
of
four
making,
a
hundred
thousand
three
hundred
and
fifty
a
year
there
is.
J
J
Now,
with
regard
to
the
fees
we're
talking
about
council
member
Engler
mentioned
Northrop
developing
here
years
ago,
when
there
was
a
lot
of
Defense
Contracting
going
on
here,
and
that
was
a
different
time
at
that
time.
There
was
such
a
thing
as
a
starter
home
and
it
wasn't
all
rocket
scientists.
Some
of
them
were,
but
some
of
them
were
janitors.
J
We
should
say
that
that's
that's
what
we're
doing,
but
I,
don't
think
any
of
us
want
to
do
that.
I
think
I.
Think
that's
a
bit
of
hyperbole
on
my
part,
I
think.
All
of
us
hear
all
of
us
are
making
a
good
faith
effort
to
try
to
find
a
way
to
provide
that
good
housing
at
all
different
income
levels
and,
for
my
part,
I,
would
I
would
support
a
five
percent
linkage
fee
for
the
industrial
group.
J
A
A
A
They
don't
go
to
what
the
City
of
Westlake
or
Agora,
who
have
just
under
10
percent.
They
come
here.
People
from
the
San
Fernando,
Valley
I
know
come
here
to
Thousand
Oaks
to
make
purchases
in
our
malls,
because
we
have
a
lower
sales
tax.
We
are
competitive
to
the
point
where
we
make
it
attractive
for
people
to
come
here
and
spend
their
hard-earned
dollars.
A
A
If
you
can't
find
the
quality
of
talent
you
want,
you
increase
the
pay,
you
increase
the
benefits,
whatever
the
case
may
be
so
I'm
thinking
the
biotech
Hub
as
I've
heard.
The
arguments
from
my
council
members
is
that.
Well,
you
know
what
we've
got
a
population
out
there
that's
going
to
be
minimum
wage,
we
need,
they
may
not
be
able
to
hire
them
because
they
can't
come
here
and
live
well.
A
That
can
be
part
of
the
employee
package
that
we
will
provide
a
certain
amount
of
housing
for
you
dollars
to
be
here
in
Thousand
Oaks
or
a
commuter
package
to
pay
for
your
transit
to
get
here
from
Camarillo
from
Oxnard
from
Simi
Valley,
wherever
they're
coming
in
from
to
work.
Here,
that's
up
to
the
market
to
side
the
owner
and
the
employee.
Why
are
we
trying
to
solve
everyone's
challenges?
A
The
adults
out
there
are
smart.
They
can
figure
it
out.
We
don't
need
to
do
this,
so
my
my
preference
is
zero.
All
the
way
across
the
board
to
maintain
our
competitive
Advantage
bring
businesses
in
which,
in
turn,
the
owners
and
the
employees
can
figure
out
the
answers
that
they
need.
If
there's
housing
is
an
issue,
it's
not
our
place
to
do
that
as
a
government.
D
Thank
you
mayor.
There's
a
company
out
in
our
bioscience
Hub
called
Captiva.
Some
of
you
may
have
visited
them.
They
started
with
three
people.
They're
up
to
150.,
the
average
age
for
hires
are
mid
to
late
20s.
They
start
them
at
around
80
90
000
a
year
within
three
years
of
making
up
to
150
000..
This
is
huge
for
our
community
and
charging
this
com,
this
one
company,
not
to
mention
the
other
16.
D
This
zero
to
five
dollar
fee
per
square
foot,
is
not
going
to
solve
our
affordable
housing
situation,
all
right,
they're
bringing
a
lot
to
the
table
already.
This
is
exactly
what
we
need
in
this
community.
It's
high
paying
jobs
for
young
people,
so
I
I
think
that
has
to
be
taken.
We
can.
We
could
make
a
lot
of
progress
with
affordable
housing
within
Lou
fees
in
the
next
section,
we're
going
to
talk
about
the
next
section
that
that's
where
we
have
the
discretion
to
put
those
fees
into
a
pot
and
leverage
them
to
create.
A
H
H
The
point
I
would
I
would
like
to
make
and
I'm
going
to
Echo
a
couple
of
our
our
public
speakers
and
and
I
know.
We've
had
this
discussion
before
Mr
Mayor
I,
don't
view
this
as
Charity
or
or
any
such
thing.
This
is
this
is
a
need
in
the
community
if,
if
we
intend
to
have
a
community
that
is
well
balanced
and
has
opportunities
for
for
growth
all
across
the
board,
one
of
our
speakers
said
as
opposed
to
doing
things,
because
the
state
you
know
quote
quote
makes
us:
do
it?
H
That's
not
the
reason
we
would
do
these
things
I
think
it's
in
our
best
interest
as
a
city
to
have
that
balance
and
have
the
opportunities
for
housing
for
all
levels
of
income.
I
just
think.
That's
a
good
outcome
for
our
city
to
have
that
availability.
I
know
when
I
moved
here,
part
of
our
decision
making
was
that
it
was
an
affordable
area.
H
That's
no
longer
true
I,
probably
if,
if
there
was
the
same
things,
I
probably
would
not
be
here
so
I
think
having
that
affordability
balance
is,
is
a
good
idea,
so
I
I,
just
don't
share
your
view
that
this
is
Charity.
This
is
this
is
trying
to
develop
a
city
that
has
Good
Foundations
and
two
Good
Feet
underneath
it,
but.
A
H
I
am
I
appreciate
my
colleagues,
discussion
and
I.
You
know
I
I
would
go
with.
My
recommendation
would
be
to
go
zero
across
the
board,
because
I
I'm
very
sensitive
to
the
to
having
the
ability
to
attract
that
business.
With
that
we
can
build
upon
for
our
entire
Community
again.
This
is
it
hurts
us
on
the
one
side,
on
the
inclusionary
housing
side
of
the
Asian,
but
I
think
having
the
balance
and
I'm
trying
to
get
the
balance
that
my
colleague
spoke
about.
A
A
H
A
Z
A
Very
good,
sir,
all
right
now
we're
going
to
move
on
to
the
fun
one
and
we
have
inclusionary
housing,
which
again
terrific
presentation
very
overwhelming
much
to
digest
and
we're
going
to
try
to
make
sense
of
this
up
here
and
I'm
going
to
try
to
see
if
I
can
organize
this
in
a
way.
If
we
were
to
take
this
apart,
I
think
we
could
probably
start
off
with
the
percentages
and
Mr
Adam
go
ahead.
Start
the
discussion
yeah.
D
There's
a
lot
to
say
about
this
mayor:
I
barely
know
where
to
start,
but
just
big
picture
wise.
You
know
this
community
for
the
last
20
years
has
been
virtually
no
growth
stagnant
as
much
of
the
Ventura
County
has
been,
and
we
finally
started
to
turn
the
corner.
We
chant.
We
have
a
change
in
attitude.
We
have
some
political
courage
from
some
elected
people
that
have
finally
decided
that.
D
Maybe
it's
a
good
idea
to
have
some
housing
here
in
town
and
maybe
the
quality
of
life
is
not
about
not
having
growth,
but
about
having
some
growth
that
actually
makes
for
quality
of
life.
So
just
want
to
be
very
careful.
We
don't
upset
this
progress
that
we've
made
big
picture
a
smaller
picture.
This
percentage,
this
10
business
I
think
the
Consultants
made
it
very
clear
that,
as
that
percentage
were
to
rise,
you
risk
a
number
of
things.
You
risk
a
diminishment
in
quality
Builders
if
they're
required
to
build
15
affordable.
D
Will
you
pick
a
number
they're
not
going
to
build
to
the
Quality
that
a
299
was
built?
We're
not
going
to
get
that
believe
me.
Furthermore,
you
are
it's
a
consultant
pointed
out
the
rules
that
we
have
as
far
as
density
and
height.
Don't
support
15
percent.
They
don't
support
it.
So
the
only
way
it
could
happen
is
we
would
have
to
increase
our
density
ability
and
increase
our
height,
which
is
so
strange
because
so
many
people
want
affordable
housing
but
at
the
same
time
they
don't
want
density.
D
So
the
two
are
in
inexorably
linked
if
you
want
affordable
housing,
you're
going
to
have
to
have
density,
so
that
10
number
to
me
is.
It
is
very
reasonable.
Suffice
it
to
say,
and
as
far
as
low
income
Mr
Newman,
you
brought
that
up.
I
I
think
we
can
address
that
through
these
in
movies
and-
and
you
know
when
it
comes
to
for
sale
property,
where
it's
almost
inevitable-
that
they're
going
to
pay
the
in-loo
fee,
they're
not
going
to
build
the
one
million
dollar
house
and
give
it
away.
D
We
built
that
pot
up.
Then
maybe
we
could.
We
could,
potentially,
you
know,
buy
start
another
Hillcrest
project
with
the
money
in
there
and
so
instead
of
getting
one
affordable
unit,
we
get
30
40,
50,
60
70.
We
have
huge
Leverage
and
so
that
there's
the
point
there
that
what
I
would
want
to
look
at
and
we
already
talk
about-
dropping
the
res
the
non-residential
fee
for
industrial.
D
D
A
We
have
two
two
issues
here:
one
is
ownership,
one
is
rental,
we're
going
to
look
at
both
and
then
correct,
but
in
your
discussion,
if
we
can
kind
of
delineate
between
the
two,
the
other
is
in
lieu
fees
which
consultant
recommended,
we
do
that
as
compared
to
mandating
that
you've
got
nine
and
a
half.
Therefore,
you've
got
to
complete
it.
To
ten
comment
on
that.
In
your
discussion
as
to
which
you
like
to
go,
is
there
any
other
nuances.
P
A
D
A
D
I
I
do
like
the
idea
of
these
premium
priced
projects
where
the
in-lu
fee
is
by
right.
I,
think
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense
because
that's
where
we
get
the
leverage,
that's
where
we
can
take
that
money,
build
up
a
pot
of
funds
just
like
we
did
with
Hillcrest
and
really
make
a
dent
in
low-income
affordability,
council
member
Taylor
had
a
good
point
about
the
economy
is
ever
fluctuating
and
we
need
to
be
able
to
respond
to
that
when
it
comes
to
this
whole
issue.
D
So
I'd
like
to
see
something-
and
that
gives
us
you
mentioned
three
to
five
years.
We
look
at
this-
maybe
something
to
give
us
a
little
be
a
little
more
Nimble
as
to
how
we
might
respond
to
an
economy
right
now,
an
economy
that
went
from
zero
interest
rates
up
to
six
or
seven
that's
having
an
impact
on
building
all
across
the
country.
So
I
don't
exactly
know
what
that
day,
maybe
we'd
review
it
once
a
year.
D
F
I
mean
there's
going
to
be
a
part
of
this,
that's
echoing
what
council
member
Adams
said,
but
for
speaking
just
from
our
experience,
if
we
want
to
invest
somewhere
in
a
deal,
doesn't
pencil,
we
don't
invest,
we
walk
away
from
it
and
so
I'm.
Okay,
you
know
we're
trying
to
put
this
into
our
general
plan
and
we
need
to
have
you
know
some
guidelines
I'm
going
to
Echo
what
what
councilmember
Adams
said.
How
do
we
create
flexibility
in
that?
F
How
do
we
make
sure
that
we're
not
in
a
time
where
we
need
more
housing
put
online,
which,
in
my
perspective,
really
helps
this
conversation,
which
is
affordability,
affordability?
How
do
we
make
sure
we're
not
putting
ourselves
behind
the
eight
ball
where
developers
aren't
developing,
where
we
need
them
to
so
I
like
the
idea
of
scale
or
how
would
I
call
it?
How
would
you
say
it
yeah,
I,
guess
a
scale
or
a
different
level
of
fees
that
we
might
have
discretion
over
implying
and
then
also
more
frequent
time
to
do
so.
J
You
mayor
I,
think
some
history
would
help
here.
One
one
of
my
reasons
for
skepticism
around
in
Luffy's
is
that
we've
done
such
a
bad
job
with
them
in
the
past.
If
you
look
at
the
Dos
Vientos
project
that
was
conditioned,
it
was
approved
condition
on
the
fact
that
there
would
be
hundreds
of
affordable
units
there
and
after
it
was
built
at
a
later
time
the
developers
went
back
to
the
city
and
said
we
don't
want
to
do
it
here.
J
We'll
give
you
some
money
and
the
city
said:
okay,
we'll
put
those
units
somewhere
else
and
then
at
some
later
time
that
allocation,
just
just
got
disappeared,
so
I
think
the
way
that
we
build
affordable
units
is
we
build
affordable
units?
So
if,
if
I'm
skeptical
about
the
power
of
in-lu
fees
to
get
that
done,
it's
because
it
hasn't
gotten
it
done
in
the
past.
J
I
also
want
to
agree
with
a
public
comment
that
Mr
Schroeder
made
that
that
if
we
start
at
10
that
becomes
a
ceiling,
and
we
don't
go
above
that
and
we
need
to
look
at
the
recent
historical
record.
We
have
gone
above
that
recently,
so
I
would
prefer
that
to
be
higher
and
and
have
it
be
a
floor,
not
a
ceiling,
because,
as
we
have
done
recently
and
I
agree
with
you
Al
that
we
have
done
some
quality
projects
recently
that
have
included
an
affordable
component.
J
D
J
So
it's
not
necessarily
the
case
that
it
has
to
have
a
density
bonus.
We
have,
we
can
and
we
have
gone
above,
10
and
I
would
advocate
for
a
higher
number
if
it's
possible,
because
again
you
know
we
can.
We
can
say
development,
industry,
good
government,
bad
all
we
want,
but
the
fact
is,
the
government
here
hasn't
done
anything
for
a
long
time
and
we've
fulfilled
Private
Industry
has
only
three
percent
of
our
needs
for
low-income
housing,
so
I
I
would
favor
a
number
higher
than
10
percent.
J
There
I
agree
with
staff
and
recommendation
about
in
Luffy's
I,
like
what
you're
doing
with
them.
I'm
not
saying
we
shouldn't.
Have
them
I
like
what
you've
done
to
make
them
hard
to
apply,
I
think
as
a
policy
matter.
We
should
be
build
build
first
and
then
only
if
we
can't
then
then
look
at
in-lu
fees.
H
H
H
Less
attractive
than
actually
putting
sticks
in
the
ground,
and
you
see
you
have
22
or
25
70.-
is
that
enough
of
an
amount?
If,
if
that
was
a
little
bit
higher,
would
that
make
it
more
and
more
of
an
incentive
to
actually
build
and
I
wanted
you
to
sharpen
your
pencil
and
see,
if
perhaps
there's
another
way
to
make
that
a
little
bit
higher
so
that
we
can
actually
get
some
sticks
in
the
ground?
H
R
H
Just
talking
about
rental
right
now,
but
we
could
talk
about
it
a
little,
maybe
a
minute
or
two
everyone's
talking
about
both
oh
we're,
talking
about
both
okay,
yeah
yeah
I,
would
for
the
for
the
for
sale.
I
would
flip
that
coin.
I
would
rather
have
the
in-lu
fees
rather
than
a
for
sale.
That
would
only
benefit
a
limited
number
of
people,
whereas
we
can
multiply
and
leverage
that
money
that
we
get
for
a
larger
number
of
people.
That's.
D
R
Under
extreme
economic
hardship,
for
which
we
have
a
a
detailed
definition
of
what
that
is,
you
always
have
to
have
this
one
opportunity:
I'll.
Let
the
attorneys
jump
in
on
this
if
they
want,
but
you
always
have
to
have
an
alternative
that
if
somebody
can
go
prove
that
you
violated
the
state
or
federal
Constitution
with
your
requirement
that.
Q
R
A
A
F
The
one
thing
I'm
going
to
add
is
on
no
you're.
Okay,
the
ownership
I
would
lean
more
I
would
lean
for
the
in
Luffy
on
that
aspect
and
I'm
gonna
kind
of
reiterate
some
type
of
flexibility
in
that
just
so,
we
can
make
sure
that,
if
we're
in
a
scenario
where
no
one
wants
to
build,
we
could
still
push
that
if
they
have
deals
where
we
can
push
it
great.
Oh.
F
A
I'd
like
to
talk
about
separate
separating
these
out
for
apartment
housing,
the
10
I'm
very
happy
with,
because
when
it
goes
up
higher
than
10
percent
now
the
developer
does
not
want
to
develop
and
we
now
create
more
of
a
housing
shortage.
So
the
10
I'm,
fine,
with
the
in-lu
fees
for
both
the
apartments
and
the
home
ownership,
are
those
fixed
as
to
what
you
have
here
being
1460
for
one
and
25.70
for
the
other
to
me,
economies
change
numbers
change.
A
R
Thank
you
for
that
question.
What
we'll
recommend
when
we're
now
preparing
our
recommendation
threat
report,
is
to
have
an
annual
adjustment
to
the
fee,
be
it
up
or
down
and
there's
an
easy
way
to
do
it
until
you
do
a
big
analysis
again,
which
is
the
Real
Estate
research
Council
every
year
puts
out
what
the
median
new
home
price
in
Ventura
county
is,
and
so
we
use
that
to
see
the
percentage
change
up
or
down
from
year
to
year.
R
So,
for
example,
we've
been
doing
this
in
Huntington
Beach
since
2007,
and
it
has
done
that
it's
gone
up
and
it's
gone
down
and
it's
done
this,
and
so
it's
a
good
reflection
and
and
I
agree
with
the
point
from
from
both
of
you,
because
a
lot
of
times
cities
just
never
think
about
it
again,
it's
what
you
think
you're
going
to
think
about
it,
but
then
all
you're
doing
everything
else,
and
so
this
is
an
automatic
until
you
do
another
analysis.
Okay,.
R
M
Just
as
a
reminder
that
we
will
be
setting
whatever
cycle
for
review
on
this
from
the
council
standpoint
and
we'll
talk
about
that
as
staff,
you
know
you
do
things
like
annual
housing
element
review.
You
know
you
may
set
it
up
on
an
alignment
with
that.
If
it's
annual
you
may
choose
to
do
it
biannually
you
know
you
can
we
can
discuss
what
that
looks
like,
but
that
will
be.
A
I'd
like
to
have
the
flexibility
in
here:
can
we
do
TV
if
you
can
put
the
screen
back
up
again?
Please.
Thank
you,
sir.
The
again
I
appreciate
that,
on
both
the
apartment
home
ownership
side,
I,
like
the
option
ability
on
both
the
apartments
and
ownership
that
it's
up
to
the
developers
to
do
what's
best
for
the
market
and
make
their
numbers
work,
we
do
not
want
to
tell
people
not
to
build
in
Thousand
Oaks
and
that's
the
challenge
that
we're
facing
here.
I
have
on
the
apartment
side,
the
affordability,
affordability
covenants
at
55
years.
A
That's
basically
saying
it
is
permanent,
because
these
buildings
aren't
going
to
last
more
than
55
years.
I
would
rather
have
a
something
along
the
lines
of
20
years,
which
is
greater
than
most
people
for
seven
after
the
accelerated
depreciation,
but
yet
it
still
gives
20
years
Horizon
for
enjoying
this.
Is
there
flexibility
in
there
from
55
to
bring
it
down
to
say
something
like
a
20
year
and
I
want
to
get
my
other
Council
colleagues,
thoughts
on
that.
H
I
could
I
can
give
you
my
thoughts
on
I,
think
I
think
a
longer
term
is
actually
better
for
the
the
long-term
stability
of
what
we're
trying
to
do.
20
years
seems
like
a
long
time,
but
I've
I've
been
here
a
long
time
and
it's
over
20
years.
Are
you
saying
you're
old,
yes,
well,
I
think
I
think
a
long,
a
longer
term
is
actually
better
for
the
stability
of
what
we're
trying
to
do.
A
But
what
again
remember
at
55
years,
the
building's
probably
going
to
be
torn
down
and
built
again,
but
if
it's
at
20
years
now
it
reverts
to
market
rate,
but
we
also
have
other
units
that
are
going
to
be
torn
down.
Now,
though,
that
winds
up
bringing
more
online
to
recycle,
do
you
follow
my
thought?
No.
H
I
understand
what
you're
saying
the
the
the
beauty
you
know
and
I'm,
not
a
market
guy
I
would
turn
to
my
my
friend,
Mr
Taylor
down
there
I
think
stability
is
an
important
factor
in
whatever
we
do
that
that
we
give
people
a
long-range,
Horizon.
That's
not
only
just
for
the
people
who
are
going
to
be
renting
these
apartments
because
they
may
start
renting
them
at
40
years
or
whatever
it
is.
They
have
a
they
have
a
horizon
that
they
know
is
solid.
A
D
Q
J
Mr
Mayor,
if
I
may
I'm
sorry,
let's
step
in
I,
started
in
the
same
place
as
you
did
on
this
thinking
that
that
shorter
Covenant
term
would
would
incent
more
housing
production.
But
I
I
rely
on
our
experts
here
and
when
I
asked
that
question
earlier
tonight.
If
I
understood
you
correctly
I
believe
you
said
it
would
not
that
that
in
fact,
because
businesses
of
all
kinds
like
stability
55
years
or
longer
would
actually
be
better
in
terms
of
ins.
If
the
goal
is
to
incent
housing
production
right.
R
So,
let's
split
this
between
apartments
and
ownership,
so
on
the
apartments
55
years
is
by
far
the
most
common
Covenant
period,
imposed
by
all
not
only
inclusionary,
Housing
Programs,
but
by
the
low
income,
housing
tax
credit
and
by
most
of
the
funding
sources
for
affordable
housing.
It's
it's
arbitrary.
It's
part
of
it's
part
of
a
statute
which
I
like
I,
like
things
that
are
part
of
a
statute.
R
R
A
R
Yeah,
so
in
the
ownership,
I'm
agnostic,
because
I
think
you're
exactly
right
and
it's
just
and
who
you're
trying
to
help
if
you're
trying
to
help
individual
families,
then
you're
going
to
want
it
to
be
shorter.
If
you're
trying
to
keep
an
affordable
housing
unit
in
the
inventory
you're
going
to
have
it
be
longer
so
that
one
that's
your
policy
decision.
F
R
The
Rhyme
or
Reason
to
it
again,
but
it's
it's
still
kind
of
random-
is
that
people's
55-year
covenants
are
starting
to
run
out
now,
so
people
have
been
doing
affordable
housing
now
for
long
enough
that
the
55-year
covenants
or
the
30-year
covenants
are
coming
due,
and
then
you
have
all
these
residents
who
are
being
displaced
who
are
living
there,
who've
been
living
in
an
affordable
unit,
all
of
a
sudden.
They
don't
have
an
affordable
unit
anymore.
So
people-
it's
it's
like
was
just
said.
F
R
Not
you
don't,
oh,
no,
absolutely
not.
Why
do
you
not
see
that
cities
are
really
Vigilant
on
this?
That's
why?
Because
there's
a
very
strong
requirement
in
in
cities
like
this
right,
we're
doing
inclusionary
housing,
that
they
want
the
quality
of
those
projects
to
be
maintained,
and
so
you'll
have
a
regulatory
agreement
that
requires
maintenance
standards,
okay
and
so
I
I
in
all
the
things
I've
seen
and
don't
even
get
me
started
on
home
ownership
because
of
all
the
things
I've
seen.
F
R
P
Quality,
okay,
okay
and
if
I
can
add,
council
member
Taylor,
you
know
the
city
embarks
on
cdbg
funds
and
other
funds
that
actually
help
with
the
rehab
of
these
designated
units.
So
there's
an
ongoing
commitment
from
the
city
through
the
grants
that
we
received
federally
to
maintain
these.
So
that
situation,
where
you
know
the
wear
and
tear
of
these
units,
is
you
know?
D
J
P
You
just
disregard
the
last
line
item
there,
because
that
was
left
there
for
the
linkage
fee
which
you've
discussed,
but
there's
two
other
things
we
would
want
to
just
kind
of
get
your
feedback
on
is
the
off-site
production
of
inclusionary
housing
what's
being
presented,
is
no
off-site
production
whatsoever
for
apartment
projects
and
then
the
option
to
do
that
as
part
of
ownership
projects,
whether
there's
a
parcel
within
the
project
set
aside
for
affordable
apartments
or
a
completely
off-site
parcel
set
aside.
Okay.
F
A
H
A
C
A
B
H
H
F
F
F
A
You
very
much,
let's
move
on
to
the
next
item,
again
staff.
Thank
you
so
much
Consultants.
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
work
you've
put
into
this.
Thank
you
so
much
next
up
we
have
our
very
own
one
and
only
Mr
David
Newman,
who
went
to
the
Cal
cities
conference
for
new
mayors
and
council
members.
Academy
he's
going
to
present
a
report
here:
Mr
Newman
the
floor,
zeros.
J
Thank
you,
Mr
Mayor,
very
quickly.
I
have
three
items
here:
I
did
attend
the
Cal
city's
new
council
members
Academy
with
our
legislative
affairs
director
Mina
laba
early
this
month.
It
was
excellent.
It
provided
training
on
a
wide
variety
of
issues
of
interest
to
all
of
us.
On
the
council,
there
were
mandatory
training
we
all
have
to
take
on
harassment,
prevention
and
ethics,
a
workshop
on
working
effectively
with
staff,
which
I
hope
to
make
use
of
land
use
policy,
something
we
hashed
out
pretty
well
tonight.
J
Social
media
engagement
and
what
the
legal
environment
is
around
that
other
legal
challenges
we
faced
even
more
a
B's
and
SBS
than
we
hear
from
legal
on
a
typical
night
and
then
a
very
useful
presentation
for
me
on
on
our
financial
responsibilities
and
City
revenues
in
how
to
read
a
budget.
So
all
in
all
time,
very,
very
well
spent
I
want
to
thank
Ms
leyba
for
her
very
comprehensive
report
on
three
very
educational
days.
J
If
I
may
just
quickly,
I
want
to
add
two
more
items:
I
want
to
commend
in
the
strongest
way
I
can
our
City's
Public
Works
Department,
who,
in
horrendous
weather
conditions
over
overnight
Friday
night,
multiple
Crews,
were
out
keeping
this
the
streets
safe
and
clean
despite
high
winds,
despite
rain
and
sleet,
that
was
going
sideways
despite
very
dangerous
conditions.
These
are
the
people
you
want
out
there,
keeping
us
all
safe
and
I'm
very
grateful
for
that,
and
then
finally,
I
want
to
commend
all
nearly
500
City
residents.
J
Community
leaders
who
took
part
in
the
March
against
hate
last
event
the
walk
against
State
event.
Last
Sunday,
it
was
very
well
attended
in
addition
to
nearly
500
residents,
there
were
numerous
Community
leaders
assembly,
member
Jackie
Irwin.
Was
there
Sheriff
Jim
fry
off?
Was
there
D.A
Eric
nazarenko
Chief
Paris?
Was
there
many
other
community
leaders,
multiple
council
members
from
other
cities
were
there
and
all
of
us
together
said
made
clear
that
there's
no
place
for
hate
in
this
community,
and
that
was
very
encouraging
to
hear.
A
A
A
F
A
M
Mayor
back
to
me,
we
have
a
meeting
two
weeks
from
tonight
on
the
14th
of
March.
We
currently
have
a
series
of
items
set
for
that
evening,
one
of
the
regular
reviews
of
council
protocols.
We
have
our
campaign
contribution
review,
which
we
do
in
all
fears,
as
long
as
well
as
a
department
report
on
sign
code
which
we
had
promised
to
bring
forward,
we'll
also
be
having
our
general
plan
annual
progress
report
and
a
study
session
on
user
fees.