►
Description
To request to speak at this meeting:
https://www.toaks.org/departments/city-clerk/boards-commissions/planning-commission/planning-commission-agenda
Planning Commission Meeting - 9/25/23
A
A
B
Good
evening
and
welcome
at
this
time,
I'd
like
to
call
to
order
the
Planning
Commission
meeting
of
September
25th
2023
for
viewers
watching
at
home,
some
members
of
the
public
may
be
participating,
bya,
video
or
teleconference.
Please
stand
and
join
me
now
in
reciting,
the
Pledge
of
Allegiance
ready,
begin
I
pledge
allegiance
to
the
flag
of
the
United
States
of
America
and
to
the
Republic
for
which
it
stands.
One
nation
under
God
indivisible
with
liberty
and
justice
for
all.
B
C
E
B
B
F
B
Today,
thank
you
and
now
is
the
time
for
public
comments
for
any
items
not
on
the
agenda
before
I
read
the
whole
Spiel.
Do
we
we
do
not
excellent.
Moving
on
next
up
is
the
consent
calendar.
We
have
on
consent,
the
minutes
of
the
September
11th
Planning
Commission
meeting
and
the
2024
Planning
Commission
meeting
schedule.
Are
there
any
comments?
Any
of
my
fellow
Commissioners
have
any
comments
or
a
motion
to.
C
G
B
B
D
H
Well,
thank
you
very
much
Commissioners
chair
and
members
of
the
public.
The
project
before
you
tonight
is
the
project
that
our
clerk
just
read
into
the
record
and
I'm
not
going
to
repeat
that,
but
I
also
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
I'm
joined
here
by
other
Community
Development
staff,
as
well
as
our
public
work
staff,
so
we'll
be
here
to
answer
questions
that
you
may
have
and
following
my
presentation,
the
applicant
has
their
own
short
presentation
with
that
said,
because
this
is
a
complicated
project.
H
H
So
the
applicant's
request
is
at
the
Planning
Commission,
adopt
the
resolution
to
find
the
project
is
exempt
from
squa
and
approve
the
project,
as
just
described
as
mentioned
in
the
title,
an
underground
utility
waiver
application
has
been
submitted
and
it's
referenced
in
the
staff
report,
but
it's
actually
not
before
the
Planning
Commission
tonight.
The
undergrounding
utility
waiver
is
an
administrative
process
where
an
applicant
can
pay
a
fee
to
the
city
for
a
future
city-wide
undergrounding
project
and
fulfill
the
applicant's
obligation
to
underground
overhead
utility
lines.
H
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
really
we're
looking
at
the
RPD
application,
which
is
the
building
and
the
density
bonus
concessions,
the
the
waiver
that's
requested
of
part
of
the
municipal
code
and
the
modifications
to
objective
design
standards.
So
the
project
site
itself
is
located
on
Los
Fus
Drive,
approximately
130
ft
north
of
Thousand
Oaks,
Boulevard,
Los,
Fus
drive
and
the
property.
By
extension,
it
doesn't
follow
Cardinal
Compass
directions,
it's
about
a
45
degree
angle.
H
So
for
the
remainder
of
this
presentation,
I'm
going
to
refer
to
low
Fess
drive
as
if
in
pretend
it
actually
runs,
north
south
and
the
property
in
pretend
runs
East
West.
So
we
can
go
ahead
and
communicate
easier
as
we
move
through.
The
project
side
is
just
over
five
half
an
acre
in
size.
It's
currently
vacant
existing
two
story,
single
family
residences,
are
located
to
the
north
and,
in
addition,
there's
other
multif
family
projects
around
the
corner.
H
H
So
the
Topography
of
the
site,
ascends
from
Thousand
Oaks
Boulevard
up
losis
Drive
and
in
particular
the
property
that
we're
looking
at
Rises
8
feet
from
north
to
south
along
the
street
and
then,
as
it
goes
across
the
street
at
17
ft
is
the
rise.
The
neighbor
directly
to
the
north
continues
at
rise,
4
feet
as
you
ascend
L
Fest
drive
and
12
feet.
H
As
you
go
across,
if,
if
you
go
the
other
direction,
Down
Los
Fus
Drive,
the
property
that
is
immediately
to
the
South
descends
8
ft
from
this
property
down
to
Thousand
Oaks
Boulevard.
So
we
we
do
have
that
stepping
a
little
bit
further
away
the
property.
That's
to
the
east
of
of
the
subject:
site
Rises
22
feet
from
Thousand
Oaks
Boulevard
to
the
rear
of
that
property
line.
H
H
At
that
point
in
time.
In
history,
it
wasn't
until
the
applicant
actually
submitt
their
application
to
us
on
March
29th
2022
that
a
formal
application,
a
further
formal
application
that
the
city
council
took
action
and
adopted
our
objective
design
standards.
So
the
formal
application
and
the
objective
design
standards
occurred
on
the
same
day
and
the
objective
design
standards
went
into
effect.
H
30
days
later,
the
Project's
formal
application
was
found
to
be
incomplete,
on
April
28th
right
before
the
objective
design
standards
U
were
implemented,
and
that
has
meaning
Because
by
the
time
that
the
applicant
came
back
and
submitted
their
materials
to
be
found.
Complete.
The
objective
design
standards
were
then
in
play.
So
from
that
point
forward.
H
H
The
Thousand
Oaks
Boulevard
specific
plan
touches
the
project
s's
boundaries
both
on
the
south,
as
well
as
on
the
east
side
and
the
general
plan,
and
the
specific
plan
to
to
thousand
o
Boulevard
specific
plan,
collectively
Envision
an
active
Corridor
going
through
thousand
orks
Boulevard,
and
this
project
is
yet
another
piece
to
achieve
that
that
transition
and
staff.
We
find
that
this
project
is
consistent
with
the
general
plan,
as
it
consists
of
a
residential
use
within
a
residential
area.
H
H
2029
we
already
talked
broadly
about
the
project
description,
so
I'm
going
to
jump
through
this.
We
do
have
a
24
unit
building
that's
being
proposed.
It
includes
a
total
of
three
very
low
income
income,
affordable
units
of
the
24
units.
14
of
them
are
one
bedroom
units
and
of
that
two
of
those
are
affordable
units.
The
remaining
10
units
are
all
two
bedroom
units
and
one
of
those
is
a
affordable
unit.
H
The
project
it
has
a
contemporary
style
and
I'm
going
to
skip
over
the
actual
materials
to
keep
the
the
presentation
moving
along.
But
if
we
have
questions
about
that,
we
can
get
back
into
that.
On
the
first
floor
of
the
building
U
there's
a
a
Terrace,
that's
located
adjacent
to
to
Los
Fess
drive
that
Terrace
leads
up
to
the
lobby
of
the
building
and
then
behind
that
there's
a
parking
garage.
The
second
floor
is
and
the
third
floor
both
have
12
residential
units,
a
piece.
H
The
second
floor
has
a
common
Fitness
room,
and
the
third
floor
has
12
the
the
residential
units
plus
a
common
Terrace,
overlooking
the
ground
level
Terrace
as
well
as
a
another
common
Courtyard.
That's
open
to
the
sky.
Project's
access
is
provided
by
a
two-way
Drive
onto
Los,
Fus
drive
itself
and
there's
31
vehicle
parking
spaces
and
24
bicycle
parking
spaces
that
serve
the
project,
and
the
project
also
includes
infrastructure
improvements,
hardscaping
and
Landscaping.
H
So
the
project
includes
a
density,
bonus,
concession,
three
of
those
a
density
bonus,
parking
ratio
is
allowed
by
the
state,
one
waiver
from
the
Thousand
Oaks
Municipal
Code,
and
then
the
12
modifications
from
the
objective
design
standards.
The
density
bonus
is
a
state
mandate
and
essentially
a
developer
who
meets
the
requirements
of
the
state
law
is
entitled
to
receive
d,
dity,
bonus
and
other
benefits
as
a
matter
of
right.
H
The
density
bonus
concessions,
allow
for
a
reduction
and
site
development
standards
or
modifications
of
the
zoning
code
or
architectural
design
requirements,
and
the
city
is
required
by
the
state
to
Grant
the
concessions
unless
the
city
finds
that
the
proposed
concession
does
not
result
in
identifiable
and
actual
cost
reductions
to
provide
for
the
affordable
housing
or
rent
costs
or
the
the
project
or
those
concessions
would
cause
a
public
harm
or
some
sort
of
safety
problem.
Those
concessions
would
harm
a
historic
property.
H
H
The
Thousand
Comm
Municipal
Code
also
gives
the
decision
makers
the
discretion
to
Grant
modifications
to
our
objective
design
standards,
and
essentially
the
thought
there
is.
It
allows
flexibility
to
our
Urban
design
standards
for
projects
that
fit
within
the
existing
built
environment,
as
well
as
the
allowable
development
under
the
same
zoning.
So
we're
looking
both
at
what's
there
today
as
well
as
what
could
be
there
as
we
apply
the
same
rules
and
regulations
and
this
project
it
utilizes
all
the
above
reference
tools
that
I
have
and
if
we
need.
I
H
H
The
project
includes
three
units
designated
as
affordable
for
households
in
the
very
lowincome
category,
which
are
incomes
at
or
below
50%
of
of
the
ventur
County
area,
medium
income,
and
we
had
a
typo
in
the
staff
report.
We
ident
we
wrode
80%,
and
that
was
incorrect.
It's
50%
so
good
job
to
the
eagle
eyes
that
spotted
that
the
conditions
of
approval,
however,
are
correct.
It
does
reference
the
50%
per
state
law
at
this
number
of
units
as
a
relative
to
percentage
of
the
project.
H
This
project
has
allowed
a
50%
density,
bonus
or
eight
units
and
that
8
plus
the
16
equals
24
total
units
which
would
be
allowed.
The
project
is
also
entitled
to
three
concessions
through
the
density
bonus
Provisions,
as
the
project
is
providing
18%
of
the
base
density
numbers
as
affordable
to
very
low
income
households.
So
I'm
going
to
go
through
the
three
concessions
that
they're
requesting
for
I
have
Graphics
to
help
us
along.
H
We
looked
at
both
of
those
in
the
RPD
Zone,
the
maximum
height
for
multif
family
developments
is
not
to
exceed
35
ft
unless
a
project
includes
20%
or
more
affordable
housing
units,
and,
if
that's
the
case,
then
a
project
is
allowed
to
go
from
35
ft
up
to
45
ft.
As
long
as
the
portion,
that's
45
ft
doesn't
cover
more
than
40%
of
the
foot
print.
However,
this
project
it
provides
18%
of
the
base
number
of
affordable
units.
H
So
just
as
a
metric,
we
wanted
to
share
that
with
you,
but
no
portion
of
the
building
actually
exceeds
the
45
ft
height
limitation
as
measured
from
finished
floor,
but
I've
mentioned
grading
a
few
times.
So
let
me
take
us
through
that,
as
discussed
the
Topography
of
the
site,
ascends
8
ft
along
Los
Fus
drive
and
17
ft
across
to
the
back
of
the
property,
and
that
requires
approximately
2400
cubic
yards
of
cut
from
the
project
site
and
40
cubic
yards
of
fill.
H
So
soil
is
being
removed
from
most
of
the
project,
whereas
it
otherwise
could
have
allowed
for
a
higher
Pro
profile,
as
the
site
went
to
the
East
and
the
intent
of
the
grading
plan
with
all
that
cut
is
to
Anchor
the
project
on
the
building's
Western
facade
in
an
area.
That's
that
has
a
relationship
to
the
street
and
the
Red
Dot
that
I'm
highlighting
right
now.
That's
the
Anchor
Point
for
the
building
relative
to
grading
and
and
the
street
and
the
building's
flat.
H
So
we
just
follow
that
into
the
rest
of
the
site,
and
what
that
means
is
that
to
the
south
of
there
we
do
need
to
have
some
fill,
so
the
orange
area
represent
one
foot
of
fill
and
the
red
strip
pipe
represents
2T
of
fill
so
as
we
add
that
fill
of
2T
to
the
bottom
of
the
building
and
then
additional
46
44
feet
and
8
in
from
there.
That's
where
we
come
up
with
the
46'
8
in
total
height
and
I'll
I'll
share
that
U
with
this
elevation
here.
H
So
the
orange
the
red
area
that
I'm
highlighting
that's
the
area
of
grading
of
fill
that
we're.
Looking
at
and
then
as
we
look
at
the
variable
Heights
of
the
building,
the
different
lines,
I'll
I'll
call
out
what
those
mean
here
in
just
a
second.
But
these
are
the
the
color
profiles
that
I
I
get
to
take
you
through.
H
So
the
density
bonus
concession
is
requested
to
increase
the
maximum
height
from
35
ft
to
44t
8
in
as
measured
from
B
the
building's
finished
floor,
plus
that
additional
2
ft
of
grading
for
a
total
of
46t
8
in
and
that's
to
provide
for
variable
height
perits
to
screen
the
mechanical
equipment.
It's
to
enclose
the
stairways
to
meet
the
fire
department
standards
to
have
access
all
the
way
up
to
the
roof,
as
well
as
generally
just
to
provide
architectural
interest
in
articulation.
H
In
at
the
red
line
and
staff.
We
find
that
the
proposed
scale
of
the
project
is
compatible
with
the
development
potential
of
the
surrounding
properties.
The
properties
to
the
north
could
be
developed
with
a
building
as
tall
as
45
ft,
applied
with
the
same
regulations
and
the
properties
to
the
South.
The
long
Tio
Boulevard
could
be
developed
with
buildings,
with
a
minimum
height
of
20
ft
and
a
maximum
average
height
of
50
feet.
H
So
moving
from
there,
there
was
also
a
concession
that
was
asked
for
the
sidey
setbacks.
So
these
are
our
standards
for
the
RPD
Zone,
which
includes
measurable
setbacks
on
both
the
front,
as
well
as
the
side
yard
setbacks,
but
it
leaves
it
up
to
the
discretion
of
the
commission
to
determine
what
an
appropriate
rear
yard
setback
is
so
the
table
as
shown
it
shows
that
the
project
as
proposed
it
does
exceed
the
minimum
front
yard
and
the
minimum
North
yard.
H
North
Side
yard
setbacks,
but
what's
at
question
essentially
is
to
for
the
Planning
Commission
to
Grant
a
a
rear
yard
setback
as
as
specified
here
and
we'll
go
through
that
in
a
little
bit,
as
well
as
a
modified
sidey
setback
instead
of
15
feet
at
a
minimum,
it's
requested
to
be
18,
sorry,
8,
ft
the
cumulative
size
of
the
sidey
setbacks.
The
project
is
is
consistent
with
that.
H
Requirement
so
the
required
setbacks
are
shown
on
the
screen
with
the
red
lines.
U,
the
minimum
sidey
yard
setback
of
15
ft
again
is
proposed
on
the
north
side
of
the
building.
This
large
setback
does
provide
for
a
26
foot
wide
Drive
aisle
landscaping
and
it
provides
the
building
to
be
set
back
further
away
from
the
single
family
residence
to
the
north
and
on
the
south
side
of
the
building.
H
There's
the
8ot
setback
and
this
reduceed
setback
positions,
the
building
towards
the
commercial
buildings
to
the
South
and
the
East
U,
and
also
includes
a
reduced
Landscaping
component
along
the
parking
garage.
The
applicant
has
requested
this
concession
to
decrease
the
minimum
s
side,
yard
setback,
to
avoid
decreasing
the
number
of
residential
units
again
to
shift
the
building
away
from
the
north
residence
and
to
provide
required
access
for
the
fire
department.
H
And
to
keep
the
garage
entry
screened
to
the
maximum
extent,
practicable
Vines
are
proposed
to
be
planted
along
the
South
elevation,
so
some
level
of
landscaping
would
be
provided
on
that
particular
setback,
and
then
the
third
concession
that's
being
requested
is
fairly
unique.
This
is
an
a
request
to
the
objective
design
standards,
specifically
the
building
type,
so
the
project
it
does
not
fit
into
any
spec
single
building
type.
H
As
the
staff
and
the
applicant
worked
together,
we
ultimately
came
to
a
a
joint
conclusion
that
the
intent
of
their
project
best
fit
the
courtyard
standards
and
we've
attempted
to
meet
those
standards
as
we
revise
the
project.
But
the
applicant
has
requested
a
concession
to
process
the
project
as
a
courtyard
building.
H
Again,
although
it's
not
completely
consistent
with
the
definition,
the
concession
and
short
avoids
completely
refiguring,
reconfiguring
and
redesigning
the
project
and
the
applicant
has
shared
various
designs
with
us
to
show
that
that
would
indeed
reduce
the
number
of
units.
If
we
had
to
go
down
that
process,
the
state
density
bonus,
parking
ratios
for
a
multif
family
apartment
are
are
shown
on
the
screen
here.
Essentially,
one
parking
space
is
required
for
a
one-bedroom
unit.
H
H
There's
31
total
parking
spaces
which
are
proposed
on
the
project
of
those
the
vast
majority
of
them
are
on
a
ground
level
garage,
there's,
28
of
them
in
the
garage
three
additional
parking
spaces
are
outside
the
garage,
the
formal
garage
entry
and
then,
in
addition,
we
believe
two
Park
spaces
would
be
allowed
on
the
street,
but
those
don't
count
towards
this
project.
It's
just
first
come
first
surf
parking
and
one
of
the
other
things
to
point
out
is
electric
vehicle.
H
Charging
stations
and
infrastructure
will
be
included
as
this
project,
as
required
by
the
Green
Building
Code,
and
then
both
in
the
garage
and
on
the
back
of
the
building,
a
total
of
24
parking
spaces.
Bicycle
parking
spaces
are
provided
the
project.
It
does
actually
meet
all
the
RPD
zoning
standards
after
the
density
bonus
concessions
are
applied,
U
both
the
RPD
Zone
and
the
objective
design
standards
include
standards
for
private,
patios
and
balconies,
and
we
wanted
to
highlight
this
because
we
know
the
Planning
Commission
has
asked
questions
about.
H
And
other
projects
so
where
a
conflict
occurs
between
the
objective
design
standards
and
our
RPD
standards,
the
objective
design
standards
supersede
they,
they
went
out
and
the
objective
design
standards.
They
require
a
minimum
of
25%
of
the
residential
units
which
face
the
street
an
alley
or
Overlook
a
common
open
space
to
have
patios
or
balconies,
and
it
includes
minimum
dimensions
of
6
feet
by
4
feet.
The
project
meets
and
exceeds
that
standard.
All
units
have
balconies
for
this
project.
H
As
mentioned
previously,
the
code
does
not
Define
a
rear
yard
setback.
So
the
commission
we're
going
to
ask
you
to
use
your
discretion
to
determine
if
the
one
that's
being
proposed
is
appropriate.
Staff
believes
it
is,
and
the
municipal
code
also
includes
guidelines
for
space
allocation
regarding
the
percentage
of
structure,
U,
the
building
coverage,
the
paved
areas
and
the
open
space,
and
while
there's
guidelines,
the
Planning
Commission
has
the
ability
to
use
your
discretion
to
determine
if
that's
appropriate.
H
While
the
project
is
consistent
with
all
the
RPD
requirements,
the
project
does
include
a
waiver
to
decrease
the
driveway
from
36
fet
of
pavement
down
to
26
feet
of
pavement
and
Associated
Landscaping
along
the
face
of
the
building
from
5et
to
1
feet
and
the
Planning
Commission
does
have
the
discretion
to
grant
that
waiver.
So
with
those
sort
of
disc
discussions,
I'm
going
to
take
us
through
those
items
now
so
again,
the
required
setbacks
are
shown
with
the
red
lines
here.
H
But
what
we're
sharing
here
is
the
rear
yard
setback
So
based
on
prior
projects,
a
15
foot,
rear
yard
setback
has
generally
been
required
by
the
Planning,
Commission
and
U.
This
project,
though
the
rear
yard
is
or
the
building
is
not
parallel
to
the
rear
yard.
So
a
variable
rear
yard
setback
exist
along
the
east
side
of
the
building
that
Northern
portion
located
north
Northerly
of
the
enclosed
Airways.
H
H
Sorry
that
rear
yard
setb
is
7',
8
in
and
then
south
of
there
in
the
green
area,
that
has
an
average
setback
of
about
21
feet
in
staff's
position
that
the
proposed
rear
yard
setback,
which
primarily
primarily
consist
of
the
staircase
encroaching
into
it,
is
adequate
as
light
and
air
will
be
available
to
both
residents
on
the
property
and
to
the
north.
The
commercial
buildings
on
the
south,
as
well
as
the
east
of
the
building
and
as
a
stairways
enclosed.
H
Location
as
far
as
the
space
allocation,
this
slide
includes
the
guidelines
as
well
as,
what's
being
provided
by
this
project
U.
Although
50%
of
the
structural
coverage
exceeds
the
state
of
guidelines,
23%
of
the
the
site
is
going
to
be
paved,
which
is
slightly
less
than
the
guidelines.
The
amount
of
open
space
that's
being
provided
on
the
ground
level.
H
That's
open
to
the
sky
is
less
than
what
the
guidelines
calls
for
the
common
open
space
on
the
a
Project's
third
floor,
including
the
Terrace
to
the
front
of
the
building,
as
well
as
the
courtyard
in
the
middle
of
it.
That's
not
included
in
our
our
open
space
calculation.
Because
again,
this
is
looking
at
stuff,
that's
on
the
ground
and
open
to
the
sky.
H
But
if
we
included
those
within
the
open
space
calculations,
we
would
have
23%
open
space
due
to
the
site
constraints
and
the
number
of
affordable
units
being
provided.
Staff
finds
that
the
proposed
space
allocation
is
acceptable
as
far
as
the
waiver
that's
being
proposed
or
requested
access
to
the
site
is
in
compliance
with
all
City
regulations.
H
With
the
exception
of
the
width
of
the
paved
area,
the
project
includes
a
waiver
to
decrease
the
paved
area
of
the
driveway
from
36
ft,
which
is
represented
in
the
color
block.
I
just
brought
up
down
to
26
feet,
which
is
essentially
the
the
face
of
the
building,
and
to
provide
the
landscape
planter
adjacent
to
the
garage
at
a
5
foot
to
1
foot
width
and
that
that
reduction
of
width
is
in
consideration
of
the
fire
department's
clearance
requirements.
H
H
H
At
this
width,
there's
only
certain
building
types
which
would
be
allowed,
it
would
be
the
triplex
and
quadplex
the
Villa
Bungalow
court
and
the
side
Court
building
types
the
courtyard
building
which
is
being
proposed
today,
is
allowed
once
you
have
a
property,
that's
100
ft
wide,
but
no
wider
than
105
ft.
So
it's
a
very
narrow
range
and
this
applicant
is
looking
for
us
to
allow
the
courtyard
building
on
this
project
site
the
the
triplex
building,
the
quadplex
The
Villa,
the
mongle
court
and
the
side
court
building
types.
H
We
found
that
they
would
only
allow
between
three
to
eight
units,
a
piece
which
wouldn't
be
consistent
with
the
general
plan
goals
and
policies
and
the
underlying
zoning
of
this
property.
But
the
courtyard
building
would
provide
the
number
of
units
anticipated
by
zoning
and
our
general
plan
so
U.
We
found
that
that
was
consistent
and
and
wanted
to
highlight
that
for
everyone,
a
second
related,
objective
design,
standard
modification
regards
the
depth
of
the
building.
H
The
proposed
building
depth
is
212t,
deep,
which
is
greater
than
the
200
foot
that's
allowed
for
the
code
and
the
intent
of
this
standard
is
to
avoid
a
monotonous
facade
along
the
public
RightWay,
and
we
find
that
U.
The
the
project
avoids
this.
It
has
strong
horizontal
elements
and
pedestrian
scale,
geometric
patterns
and
those
help
break
up
the
massing
of
this
building
and
those
those
materials
are
found
on
all
sides
of
the
building.
H
H
So
if
the
properties
to
the
South
and
North
would
be
redeveloped,
they
would
actually
block
views
from
the
public
right
of
way
to
this
particular
building.
So
staff
finds
that
this
modification
can
be
granted
as
the
courtyard
building
type
is
consistent
with
the
general
plan
goals
and
policies,
as
well
as
the
underlying
Zone
District
densities.
This
modification,
as
well
as
all
the
other
objective
design
standards.
We
also
find
that
they
would
result
in
development.
H
That
would
be
consistent
with
the
scaling
character
of
existing
and
allowable
development,
as
described
in
this
presentation
and
staff
report,
and
the
modifications
would
not
result
in
development
that
we
is
detrimental
to
or
would
aversely
impact
adjacent
properties,
as
those
properties
would
still
achieve
or
receive
adequate
light
and
air.
They
would
receive
public
utility
to
serve
those
facilities
and
they
would
need
to
be
constructed
consistent
with
our
building
code
and
fire
codes.
H
That
last
bit
of
justification,
I'm
not
going
to
repeat
that
for
each
of
the
modifications,
but
it
is
something
that
applies
to
each
of
the
the
standards.
The
next
grouping
of
objective
design
standards
is
the
courtyard
location,
dimensions
and
area.
So
the
intent
of
the
courtyard
is
to
create
a
semi-public
gathering
space
for
residents,
that's
open
to
the
sky
and
has
access
to
light
and
ventilation.
H
So
the
courtyard
building
Courtyard
is
on
the
third
floor
instead
of
the
first
floor
or
second
floor
and
a
courtyard
that's
located
on
the
third
floor
does
not
have
to
be
as
wide
as
something
on
the
bottom
to
allow
for
light
to
penetrate
all
the
way
down
to
the
first
or
second
floor.
So
consequently,
the
courtyard
that's
proposed
to
be
36
feet
wide
instead
of
40t
wide.
We
find
that
to
be
adequate
for,
for
this
particular
project.
H
Courtyard
buildings
Also
may
contain
one
or
more
Courtyards
and
those
are
supposed
to
collectively
equal
15%
of
the
lot
area.
So
in
this
project
that
would
just
be
north
of
3,400
square
feet.
This
project.
It
includes
the
one
single
Courtyard
that
I
have
highlighted
on
the
screen
in
red
and
the
size
of
that
is
895,
Square,
ft
or
3.9%
of
the
lot
size,
which
is
less
than
15%.
G
H
Ventilation,
in
addition,
we
have
an
access
modification
request,
so
the
intent
of
the
courtyard
building
is
to
create
residential
units
which
are
visible
from
common
areas
and
or
the
street
and
residentials
without
habitable
space.
On
the
first
floor
are,
must
be
accessible
by
a
Stairway
that
can't
be
enclosed.
It
has
to
be
either
open
or
covered,
and
those
stairways
can
only
access
a
maximum
of
three
units,
a
piece.
Essentially
you
start
getting.
This
clustering
effect
around
the
the
courtyard
and
those
cour.
H
The
courtyards
and
other
common
areas
need
to
be
connected
by
poo
or
or
zaguan,
which
are
two
architectural
terms.
A
p
essentially
is
a
pathway.
That's
open
to
the
sky.
A
zaguan
essentially
is
a
hole
in
the
building
that
you
would
walk
through,
but
it's
a
common
path,
if
you
will
from
one
common
area
to
the
next
and
the
Project's.
H
All
the
residential
units
and
the
common
areas
are
accessed
by
the
enclosed,
pedestrian,
Corridor,
stairs
and
elevators,
and
none
of
them
are
clustered
in
small
groupings
to
give
some
quick
metrics
here,
the
Double
L,
the
Double
loaded
corridors
exceed
100
ft
each.
But
if
you
measure
it
from
the
common
Courtyard
or
the
fitness
area,
it's
70
feet
going
to
the
east
or
90
ft
going
to
the
West.
H
So
there
is
some
level
of
consistency
with
that
staff
finds
that
the
modifications
can
be
granted
in
this
instance,
due
to
a
design
hardship,
as
allowed
in
your
findings
related
to
the
pre-application
direction
that
had
been
provided
to
the
applicant
prior
to
the
adoption
of
the
objective
design
standards.
While
the
project
as
designed
does
not
comply
with
a
courtyard
building
access
requirement,
we
think
that
it's
coming
as
close
to
the
spirit
of
providing
that
access
and
having
that
access
visible
from
those
common
areas.
H
Final,
two,
that
we're
getting
into
the
courtyard
building
residential
units
are
required
to
be
open
and
exposed
to
the
outdoors
on
two
sides
and
exposed
through
op,
operable
Windows,
Doors,
porches
and
balconies.
The
intent
essentially
is
to
provide
visual
connections
between
the
residential
units,
common
spaces
and
the
street,
and
additionally,
it's
to
enhance
cross
ventilation
of
the
individual
units.
The
proposed
project
only
includes
a
total
of
four
units
which
are
Exposed
on
two
sides
and
those
are
the
the
items
I'm
circling
on
the
screen
right
now.
H
All
of
these
are
the
corner
units
on
the
north
side
of
the
building.
The
remaining
dwellings
are
all
inline
units
that
only
have
exposure
on
either
the
North
or
the
south
side
of
the
building.
Earlier
I
mentioned
that
the
design
standards
require
that
25%
of
our
units
are
required
to
have
patios
and
balconies.
H
However,
this
project,
all
24
of
the
units,
have
balconies
and
I'm,
highlighting
those
with
the
the
blue
outlines
here,
and
these
provide
opportunities
for
those
visual
connections
between
the
residential
units,
their
balconies,
the
common
exterior
areas
and
to
the
street.
So
consequently,
staff
finds
that
the
modifications
can
be
granted
as
the
provisions
of
balconies
for
all
24
of
the
Project's
residential
units.
J
H
The
objective
design
standards,
intent
of
providing
visual
connections
as
well
as
enhancing
cross
ventilation
and
then
the
final
sorry
I
was
ahead
of
myself.
The
final
two
objective
design
standards,
the
front
of
the
building
follows
a
Terrace
building,
Frontage
top
pipe,
so
Terraces
are
elevated,
Gardens
or
patios
that
are
set
back
from
the
frontage
line
or
the.
H
And
the
frontage
type
can
effectively
be
a
buffer
from
the
residential
units
to
the
priv
to
the
public
open
space
on
the
sidewalk
and
the
Terrace
is
supposed
to
be
located
3
feet
above
the
sidewalk
to
allow
for
the
Terrace
to
be
close
enough,
but
not
too
close
to
the
sidewalk
to
allow
engagement
and
yet
create
that
buffering.
So
earlier,
I
mentioned
that
the
building
is
is
anchored
at
a
2
10
area.
That's
the
same
dot
that
I'm
highlighting
here.
H
So
at
that
end
it
is
consistent
with
a
3-
foot
level,
but
as
the
site
drops
away
as
you
go
towards
Thousand
Oaks
Boulevard,
the
Southern
portion
of
it,
the
Terrace
is
7
feet
3
in
above
the
sidewalk.
This
Terrace
is
accessed
by
both
ramps
and
stairs,
and
it
provides
that
transitionary
space
between
the
public
ride
of
way
and
into
the
building
as
intended
by
the
Terrace.
The.
H
Terrace
is
also
supposed
to
have
a
maximum
length
of
150
ft
and
it
complies
with
that
because
the
lot's
only
96
feet
wide
and
it's
supposed
to
have
a
minimum
lot
of
50
ft
wide
well.
This
Terrace
is
29
ft
8
in
wide
and
the
proposed
project.
The
Terrace
is
nestled
into
the
front
slope
between
the
staircase
in
the
ramps
and
various
landscape
elements.
H
It
was
possible
that
the
terce
could
get
slightly
larger
as
you
go
to
the
north,
but
you
would
end
up
sacrificing
Landscaping
to
do
that
and
potentially
creating
some
sort
of
blind
spot,
as
someone
would
be
coming
around
the
ramp.
So
from
a
design
perspective,
we
thought
it
was
appropriate
to
have
the
Landscaping
element
in
that
location.
These
Collective
components
have
a
width
of
of
60
ft,
which
is
slightly
larger
than
the
building
approximately
55
ft.
J
H
The
space
is
large
enough
for
individuals
to
gather
out
on
the
front
of
the
building
and
then
the
final
one
is
related
to
ground
equipment
location.
So
our
design
standards
seek
for
all
ground
equipment
and
the
waist
enclosure
to
be
located
at
least
10
ft
behind
the
facade
of
the
building
and
to
be
screen
from
view.
So
this
project
it
includes
a
transformer
in
proud
of
the
building
under
the
direction
of
Southern,
California
Edison,
so
I'm
I'm
circling
it
here
in
the
red
boxes.
H
This
Transformer
Pad
does
includes
screening
around
it
and
the
project
has
been
conditioned
for
all
sides
of
it
to
be
screened
by
land
scaping
or
a
decorative
enclosure
to
screen
it
from
the
public
RightWay.
All
the
other
equipment,
including
the
waist
enclosure
in
the
back
corner
of
the
property,
is
at
least
10
ft
behind
the
facade
of
the
building.
Consequently,
staff
also
supports
this
modification,
because
utility
screening
meets
the
intent
of
the
objective
design
standards
of
screening
equipment
from
the
public
view
on
the
home
stretch
here.
H
So
so
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
install
some
retaining
wall
systems
along
the
northern
property
line
and
I'm
highlighting
this
in
purple.
This
might
be
a
little
bit
hard
to
see
on
the
screen.
There
is
a
condition
of
approval
that
we
have
that
the
walls
are
not
to
exceed
6
feet
of
exposed
height
each.
Essentially,
it
runs
along
the
the
northern
property
boundary
itself
and
then,
as
we
as
we
get
closer
to
the
trash
enclosure,
there's
a
double
wall
with
some
lands
escaping
between
the
two
of
it.
H
In
addition
to
on-site
grading
and
the
development
of
those
retaining
walls
there
is,
there
are
overhead
utility
lines
located
again
adjacent
to
this.
The
Project's
Frontage
and,
in
particular
the
pole
on
the
east
side
of
Los
fleece,
would
be
undergrounded
as
well
as
three
poles
on
the
east
side.
The
project
includes
a
condition
of
approval
requiring
all
of
these
to
be
undergrounded
either
as
part
of
construction
or,
as
previously
mentioned,
there's
a.
H
Utility
waiver
that
the
applicant
could
pay
a
fee
and
then
the
city
would
take
care
of
of
undergrounding
as
we
go
into
the
future
in
terms
of
traffic
impacts,
we
did
analyze
the
project
for
our
our
thresholds
and
found
that
the
project
would
only
have
a
total
of
12
PM
peak
hour.
Trips
Which
is
less
than
the
100
PM
peak
hour
standard
that
we
have
to
require
the
traffic
study
or
the
Mt
analysis.
So
no
additional
studies
were
needed.
H
However,
the
project
will
be
conditioned
to
pay
the
fees
associated
with
our
traffic
mitigation.
In
terms
of
public
correspondence
and
Outreach,
we
did
post
all
the
required
application
and
hearing
notices.
The
notice
of
application
was
posted
on
May,
25th
notice
of
hearing
was
posted
on
September
11th.
H
We,
since
posting,
both
of
those
we
have
received
various
phone
calls
asking
about
the
project.
They
primarily
primarily
concerned
individuals
with
parking
in
the
public,
RightWay
privacy
walls,
fences
and
just
general
development
impacts.
Since
the
publication
of
the
staff
report,
we
did
receive
one
communication
that
was
included
in
the
supplemental
packet
today,
and
one
communication
was
included
in
the
STA
report
as
an
attachment.
H
Both
of
those
supported
the
project
as
submitted,
so
in
conclusion,
we
find
that
the
project
is
consistent
and
meets
the
intent
of
the
city's
General
plan,
City
standards
or
codes
and
policies.
We
find
that
the
proposed
design
and
site
layout
integrates
well
with
the
site's
surrounding
development
staff,
supports
the
requested
density.
H
Bonus
parking
ratios
are
density,
bonus
con
sessions,
the
waiver,
that's
requested
of
the
municipal
code
and
the
modifications
to
the
objective
design
standards,
given
the
site
constraints,
given
the
design
hardship
given
that
they're
compliant
with
life
and
safety
regulations
consistent
with
the
intent
of
our
regulations
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
So.
Based
on
that
analysis,
our
recommendation
is
that
the
plan
Planning
Commission,
find
that
the
project
is
categorically
exempt
from
sqa
and
the
to
adopt
the
resolution
to
approve
the
RPD
permit,
as
requested.
H
B
C
Thanks
for
letting
me
join
with
all
of
you
today,
so
thank
you
so
much
for
the
presentation.
It
was
detailed,
long,
there's,
lots
of
conditions
and
I
think
you
went
through
all
of
the
things
that
we're
working
through
here
tonight.
Very
well.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
that.
One
of
the
there
are
a
few
I
did
follow
up
with
some
comments
that
you
were
kind
enough
to
be
able
to
provide
some.
C
Some
responses
to
I
wanted
to
call
some
of
those
things
out
just
to
clarify
that
I'm
having
the
right
understanding
of
it.
So
the
building
one
of
the
concessions
is
the
building
height
regulations
that
we
have
on
the
books.
That
says
for
this
particular
Zone.
It's
35
ft.
They
don't
meet
the
specified
by
right
condition
to
go
to
45
feet
because
of
the
they
don't
meet.
20%
of
the
affordable
units
on
there
is
that
that.
C
And
then,
looking
at
the
definition,
what
one
of
the
things
the
the
with
the
objective
design
standards
I'm
a
big
fan
of
the
fact
of
making
things
more
explicit,
so
that
it's
very
clear
this
is
what
the
law
is.
This
is
what
you
have
to
to
work
within
and
how
we
Define
things
so
Building
height
is
defined
by
this
warping
plane
that
is
defined
by
the
lower
of
the
existing
or
finished
grade.
Is
that
right.
C
And
so
figure
I'm
looking
at
you
were
kind,
have
to
point
me
to
where
I
think
this
is
in
the
in
the
staff
report,
but
figure
10
shows
a
green
line
which
is
from
what
looks
to
be.
Is
it
the
finish
grade,
which
is
at
ground
level,
and
then
that
red
triangle
is
the
additional
fill
that's
needed
to
represent
where
things
exist,
but
would
go
to
finished,
and
so
that's
why
the
green
line
is
is
where
it
is.
Is
that
right.
H
That's
correct
and
for
reference,
I
pulled
it
up
on
the
screen
here
to
share
with
everyone.
As
you
look
at
the
upper
image,
the
green
line
is
primarily
horizontal
with
the
building,
but
then
we
see
that
it
dips
on
the
right
side
of
the
image
that
follows
the
topography
at
that
point
of
the
project
that
that
warped
plane
that
you
mentioned
it's
it's
interesting.
You
basically
would
take
like
a
million
different
lasers
and
shoot
it
straight
up
from
whatever
point
it.
A
C
Right,
so
that
means
that
from
where
the
existing
grade
or
the
finished
grade
is
35
ft
up
from
that,
that's
where
the
building
has
to
fit
within
from
that
other
diagram,
there's
sort
of
an
illusion
in
which
it
sort
of
slopes
down
from
like
2
feet
to
10
feet.
That's
the
street
level,
because
that's
where
the
steps
go
down
to
street
level,
that's
not
where
the
building
calcul
building
he
calculation
starts
right.
That's
the
it's!
The
grade
level
right.
C
Okay,
and
so,
given
that
it's
35
ft
and
there
and
everything
also
has
has
to
fit
within
that,
there
is
a
spec.
The
definition
of
Building
height
specifically
talks
about,
unless
it's
in
the
exceptions
in
the
code,
it
all
has
to
fit
within
it,
not
not
no
parapets.
No,
you
know
anything
else.
Is
that
right.
H
C
So
thank
you
for
just
kind
of
walking
through
that,
just
so
that
we
know
how
that's
actually
I
do
have
one
question
on
it.
So
does
this
mean,
for
example,
I
know
in
this
particular
case
that
we
have
a
plan
project
plan
in
front
of
us
at
46,
8
Ines,
but
is
that?
Does
this
mean
that
if
there
are
future
density
bonus
projects,
someone
could
come
before
us
and
say
like
basically
that
one
that
Building
height
one
we
want
that
one
to
be
the
concession
meaning?
We
have
no
Building
height
limitations.
C
H
J
H
Looking
for
it's
it's
a
financial
consideration
as
part
of
it,
there
are
other
thresholds
if,
where
we
could
say
no,
for
instance,
if
there
was
a
historic
building
that
was
being
damaged
by
a
concession,
then
that
could
be
a
reason
to
say
no
there.
There
are
a
couple
different
Provisions
that
are
built
in
there,
but
the
onus
falls
on
the
city
to
say
no.
We
can't
support
the
this
concession
other.
If
the
city
cannot
provide
that
justification,
then
we
have
to
approve
the
concession.
C
I
I
think
it'
be
pretty
straightforward,
there's
just
a
couple
other
items
that
I
had
called
out.
So
one
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
we're
here
is
because
the
zoning
was
placed
at
15
units
per
acre,
General
plan,
designation,
States
at
it's
between
15
and
30
I,
in
viewing
this,
especially
with
the
sense
of
trying
to
be
objective
with
how
how
how
we
do
this
15
units
per
acre
and
fitting
within
that
and
getting
a
project
to
also
then
fit
within
the
general
plan
range
designation,
15
to
30.
C
H
I
I
would
I
would
put
it
slightly
differently,
and
so
how
I
would
look
at
this
is
state
law
continues
to
evolve.
We've
been
on
a
treadmill
of
state
laws
coming
out
2017
going
forward,
trying
to
encourage
all
sorts
of
different
developments,
especially
as
it
relates
to
Affordable
units.
So
there's
an
old
law
that
dates
back
to
the
1980s
called
the.
J
H
Housing
accountability,
act
that
essentially
puts
forward
a
very
traditional
hierarchy
where
we
look
at
the
general
plan,
designations
and
and
densities,
and
the
zoning
code
essentially
implementing
the
general
plan
and
the
housing
accountability
act
basically
says:
if
there's
a
conflict
between
the
general
plan
and
the
zoning
code,
the
the
general
plan
wins
out
and
you
almost
have
to
read
consistency
or
inconsist
consistency
almost
in
the
negative
that
the
state
forbids
us
to
to
find
a
project
inconsistent
if
it's
consistent
with
the
general
plan.
But
you
know
the.
H
If
so,
I
hope
that
that
made
sense
the
the
other
way.
The
other
thing
that's
changed,
as
the
years
have
gone
on
is
the
density.
Bonus
law
has
been
modified
several
times
in
the
last
handful
of
years
and
the
density
bonus
regulations
at
the
state
explicitly
gives
language
that
As,
Cities
and
counties
Implement
projects
that
have
a
density
bonus
request.
H
We
are
to
read
that
as
liberally
as
possible
to
create
the
maximum
number
of
units,
as
that
code
can
be
read
and
through
those
series
of
laws
the
state
code.
The
way
it
reads
today
is,
if
you
have
a
zoning
provision,
a
density,
a
specific
plan
or
a
general
plan
where
the
zonings,
where
the
densities
are
not
aligning
the
one
that
provides
the
greatest
number
of
units
shall
Prevail.
H
So
in
that
case,
even
if
the
zoning,
if
the
zoning
has
a
higher
number
than
the
general
plan,
this
isn't
the
situation
that
you're
bringing
up,
but
just
for
how
the
laws
work.
If,
if
it
was
the
reverse
scenario,
if
the
zoning
said
30
units
per
acre,
but
the
general
plan
said
only
15
for
a
density
bonus
project,
the
30
units
per
Acer
would
apply.
H
In
that
scenario
and
again
the
state
looks
at
it
in
the
the
reverse
that
if
a
project
is
consistent
with
one
of
those
set
of
regulations
for
a
density
bonus
project,
the
local
agency
shall
not
find
it
inconsistent
with
those
set
of
regulations,
so
that
that
would
sorry
that
that
was
a
very
techn
answer.
I'm
I'm,
just.
K
K
It
is
very
important
for
you
to
understand
and
for
the
public
to
understand
that
this
is
a
30
unit
per
acre
project.
That's
what
they
have
and
So
based
upon
that.
That's
where
we
get
the
16
units
based
upon
the
size
of
the
of
the
parcel
and
then,
of
course,
the
density
bonus,
which
again,
is
another
example
of
something
that's
changed.
Now.
If
you
meet
certain
percentages,
you
get
50%,
which
is
exactly
what
he's
asking
for
under
the
density,
bonus
law
and
I
bring
up
the
density,
bonus,
law.
K
I've
said
it
a
few
times
now
already,
because
that
is
one
in
which
the
state
is
very
clearly
being
aggressive,
with
trying
to
incentivize
development
and
by
incentivizing
development
they're,
giving
concessions
which
they
say
we
want
you
to
build,
and
so
we're
going
to
give
these
concessions
another
one
that
Mr
cwood
brought
up
was
the
parking
right
again.
It's
not
exactly
what
the
density
bonus
allows.
K
In
fact,
it
would
allow
less
parking,
but
is
an
example
where
they're
not
meeting
our
requirements,
they're
meeting
the
density,
bonus
requirements
and
parking
with
a
little
bit
extra
right,
which
is
again
something
that
we're.
We
appreciate,
because
we
always
know
parking's
going
to
be
an
issue,
no
matter
what
right,
but
for
for
following
the
density
bonus
law.
This
project,
for
that
particular
issue,
does
that?
K
C
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
I
I
do
want
basically
for
the
Public's
understanding.
M
has
mentioned
it.
The
the
property
is
zoned
at
15
units
because
of
the
density
bonus,
its
applications,
it's
Judgment
of
inconsistency.
You
go
with
the
general
plan
maximum!
That's
why
we're
at
30
that's
100%
increase
from
what's
expected
on
the
zoning,
then
there's
a
50%
increase
on
that,
so
the
compounding
leads
from
what
might
be
thought
of
in
the
past,
or
even
even
depending
on
how
strict
you
want
to
interpret
the
law,
an
8-unit
project
becoming
a
24
unit
project.
C
C
Okay
last
thing
is
the
covenants
on
the
affordable
units
themselves.
I
did
ask
and
I
just
wanted.
You
didn't
mention
it
in
your
staff
report,
but
I
just
wanted
to
see
if,
if
it
was
something
that
that
would
be
amable,
one
was
in
N
condition.
19E,
which
talks
about
I
can't
remember,
there's
a
should
in
there
I'd
like
it
to
be,
shall
to
make
sure
that
there's
a
requirement
that
I
think
it's
dispersed
throughout
the
project
or
or
potentially
with
the
same
standards
of
construction.
H
K
C
One
one
last
one
and
and
I
think
you
addressed
it.
I
had
raised
a
concern
of
potential
of
you,
know
the
the
owner
of
the
property
and
is
getting
a
benefit
from
state
law
and
its
proposed
construction
for
having
three
very
low
income
units
into
this
particular
property
which
gives
it.
You
know
the
the
full
compounding
that
that
we've
we've
seen
on
this.
So
that's
a
significant
benefit
to
them.
We
get
the
benefit
of
having
those
units
available
for
members
of
the
public
to
actually
live
in,
but
what
I
was
raised?
H
Yeah,
that's
a
very
good
and
astute
question.
Our
housing
template
already
includes
that
language,
but
it's
not
identified
in
the
conditions
of
approval,
so
we
could
add
a
sentence
into
that
same
condition
that
Patrick
just
mentioned
condition
number
19
a
new
number
that
is
effectively.
If
that's
the
pleasure
of
the
Planning
Commission
would
say.
The
manager's
unit
is
to
be
set
aside
for
occupation
by
an
on-site
manager.
This
unit
shall
not
be
one
of
the
restricted,
affordable,
very
low
income.
G
Couple
points
of
clarification
and
Mick.
Thank
you
for
that,
because
I
think
sometimes
the
public
doesn't
understand
where
we
have
discretion
and
where
we
don't
have
discretion
and
Patrick.
Thank
you
for
explaining
that,
because
now
we
understand
a
little
bit
more,
sometimes
why
we
don't
have
discretion
with
with
some
of
these
projects,
so
Scott
I
have
a
quick
question
about
the
underground,
the
undergrounding
of
utilities.
So
here
it's
you've
indicated
that
that
was
one
of
the
conditions,
but
that
they
can
apply
for
the
underground
utility
waiver,
and
they
have
is
that
correct.
G
J
Good
evening
planning
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Brad
Buell
I'm
in
the
public
works
department.
The
city
council
has
designated
certain
projects
for
undergrounding,
so
if
they
choose
to
to
cash
out
this
project
and
and
the
Planning
Commission
approves
that
this
would
go
into
a
a
fund,
an
overall
city-wide
fund,
and
then
that
would
go
to
City
any
city-wide
project.
That's
on
the
city
council's
priority
list.
Now,
if
we
shortly
thereafter,
we
would
have
someone
that
would
come
right
up.
J
G
J
G
H
G
H
So
private
views
are
not
something
that
we
protect
in
the
city,
so
it
it
wouldn't
take
anything
away.
From
that
sense,
there
was
a
graphic
that
I
brought
up
on
the
on
the
screen
that
showed
sort
of
massing
diagrams.
If
you
will
so
we
would
be
working
with.
Applicants
to
you
know,
have
some
level
of
massing
to
allow
for
light
and
ventilation
and
air
and
whatnot,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
the
urban
standards
are
looking
for
more
urban
form
along
thousand
o
Boulevard.
E
Lanson,
thank
you
Vice,
chair,
Mr
colwitz.
Thank
you
for
the
report
on
what
I
think
to
me
looks
like
a
thesis
project
that
and
I
don't
think
I've
heard
the
word.
Zagan
come
up
in
a
meeting
since
I've
been
here
so
I
appreciate
that
a
few
follow-up
questions
and
I
want
to
have
the
applicant
come
up
and
answer
some
questions,
but
the
the
phone
calls
you
got
were
any
of
them
from
any
of
the
immediate
Neighbors
on
this
project.
H
Yes,
one
was,
and-
and
he
happens
to
be
sitting
in
the
audience
today
too
and
then
up
the
street
at
YOLO
apartment.
We
received
some
phone
calls
as
well.
Their
primary
concern
was
about
public
parking
and
they
acknowledged
that
parking
is
first
come
first,
come
on
the
street
and
I
haven't
heard
back
from
them.
Since
we
had
that
conversation.
H
E
That's
how
valuable
parking
is
on
Los
VES,
yes,
my
second
question
is
and
again
just
because
the
the
area
to
the
South,
which
I'm
calling
the
South
based
upon
your
your
your
concept,
there
is
a
retaining
wall
to
my
understanding
between
this
property
and
the
commercial
property.
How
is
that
going
to
be
impacted
by
this
project?.
H
So
we
did
have
an
initial
evaluation
of
that
done.
We
had
an
engineer
submit
a
report.
They
believe
it's
okay.
That
said,
we
have
a
condition
of
approval
in
both
planning
side,
as
well
as
Public
Works
side
that
as
we
go
through
the
plan
check
process
that
that
be
evaluated
even
more
to
make
sure
that
everything
is
going
to
be
okay
at
the
end
of
the
day,
and
not
only
that
shared
retaining
wall
that
separates
this
property
from
the
one
to
the
South,
but
also
on
the
east
side.
H
K
I
would
say
again
when
you
have
a
project
people
who
are
affected
by
the
project
if
they
can
establish
that,
based
upon
the
the
construction
of
the
project
there
there
were
damaged
in
some
way.
You
might
recall,
I
know
Mr
Ferris,
Might
Recall,
this
and
I
think
Mr
Lanson
Might
Recall
this
one
in
which
we
had
that
proposed
project.
That
was
actually
it
was
a
change
in
the
project,
but
it
was
at
nine
I.
Think
nine.
I
K
K
The
applicant
is
a
aware
of
those
issues,
and
so
it
certainly
will
be
the
applicant
to
make
sure
that
his
his
or
her
contractor
are
are
aware
of
that
and
again
you
know
accidents
do
happen,
so
you
can't
say
there's
any
intent,
but
certainly
you
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
some
safety
protocols
and
some
making
sure
that
you're
preparing
the
team
correctly.
So
they
understand
hey.
When
we
go
to
this
location,
we
need
to
be
careful.
The
walls
and
stuff
like
that.
J
E
H
E
Okay,
my
last
question:
again:
it
kind
of
relates
back
to
something
that
we
started
talking
about
with
regard
to
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance,
which
is
the
timing
of
these
applications
and
I,
do
appreciate
the
Jos
of
state
law
and
and
things
being
moving
thing
kind
of
and
again
we.
It
falls
upon
cities
to
kind
of
figure
it
out
kind
of
like
the
Adu
law
that
we
had
to
sit
there
and
kind
of
deal
with.
E
H
E
And
hence
the
reason
why
you've
included
lots
of
modifications
which,
by
the
way,
I
mean
it
sounds
like
there
was
obviously
in-depth
discussions
back
and
forth.
But
that's
why
we
have
that
discretion
is
because
there's
still
a
bit
of
discretionary
process
as
part
of
these
objective
standards.
I'm
assuming.
H
That's
correct
the
the
easiest
way
to
look
at
that
is.
If
something
came
in
here
and
they
abided,
they
were
completely
compliant
with
all
it's
an
easier
administrative
process,
and
if
it's
not
consistent
with
our
objective
design
standards,
then
we
raise
it
up
to
the
Planning
Commission
to
have
that
discussion.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
Lanson,
and
thank
you
again,
Mr
quotz
for
your
presentation.
It's
quite
thorough
I
wanted
to
continue
on
a
the
thought
of
one
of
my
Commissioners
commissioner
t
K.
With
regard
to
Building
height
now,
within
sp20
thousand
o
Boulevard
specific
plan.
Should
the
there
be
a
proposed
development
on
the
commercial
property
to
the
South,
with
the
maximum
Building
height
being
50
ft.
If
they
were
to
come
in
with
a
development
that
included
a
density
bonus
type
project,
they
could
then
exceed
that
50
foot
height,
correct.
B
So
that's
a
sort
of
a
freefor
all
in
some
cases,
one
of
the
things
that
we've
been
hearing
a
lot
about,
I,
think
or
a
lot
of
the
discussion
with
regard
to
I,
wouldn't
say
discretion,
but
that
or
consistency
consistency
is
based
on
what
could
potentially
be
developed
within
the
area.
So
when
we've
been
talking
about
building
Heights
and
setbacks,
Etc
it's
based
on
what
could
be
developed
in
the
adjacent
properties,
not
necessarily
what
is
existing.
B
Purely
for
the
project,
correct,
understood,
okay,
I
think
that
answers
my
question
and
I
think
that
was
it.
So
at
this
point
in
list
I
any
of
my
fellow
Commissioners
have
any
additional
questions
of
Staff.
Then
we
will
turn
it
over
to
the
applicant.
So
I
have
two
speakers:
Gabriel
Jones
and
Mark
pedit.
You
have
15
minutes
to
present
your
project
and
for
the
record,
please
state
your
name
and
city
of.
L
Great
good
evening,
chair
planning,
Commissioners,
my
name
is
Mark
pedit
I'm,
with
lauderbach
and
Associates
architects
in
Oxnard
and
with
me,
are
the
owners
and
one
of
our
other
main
Architects
on
the
project
ever
at
scoffield.
So
we're
very
happy
to
be
here
tonight
and
we
sincerely
wanted
to
thank
Scott
and
City
staff
for
working
with
us.
L
Over
the
last
three
years
we
got
caught
in
a
little
bit
of
a
of
a
timing
here
where
we
started
the
project,
not
knowing
that
there
were
objective
design
standards
submitted
the
project
and
then,
a
month
later
they
went
into
effect.
So
we
appreciate
the
city
working
with
us
to
come
up
with
a
project
that
could
be
built.
It's
the
intent
of
our
clients
to
build
the
project.
So,
in
order
to
build
the
project,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
it's
it's
able
to
be
built.
L
So
it's
economical,
the
intent
is
to
design
and
to
build
a
very
upscale
project.
Even
though
we
do
have
the
three
very
low
units,
those
will
be
built
to
the
exact
same
standards
as
everything
else
in
the
project.
The
project
does
have
amenities.
We
think
for
a
small
project
like
this
pretty
good
amenities
distributed
throughout
the
building.
First,
second
and
third
floor.
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
all
the
units
had
the
storage,
the
large
decks.
L
Of
course
it's
an
elevator
serviced
building
and,
of
course,
fitness
center
and
other
amenities,
including
barbecues
fire
pit
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
Our
building
is
all
electric
we
designed
to
lead
silver
standards
and
follow
all
the
Cal
green
energy
requirements,
and
there
were
some
questions
in
regards
to
the
height
the
area
above
the
35
ft
our
perits
to
screen
our
extensive
solar
panels
that
we'll
have
and
our
mechanical
and
our
water
heaters
and
everything
else
that
are
on
the
roof.
L
Also,
we
have
an
actual
stair
that
goes
up
to
the
roof
area,
so
for
maintenance
of
solar
panels
and
all
that
you
don't
have
to
go
through
a
roof
hatch,
so
that
contributes
to
the
heights
of
of
the
parapets.
So
the
screening
and
then
the
access
point
that
was
shown
on
the
slides,
so
I
wanted
to
make
that
pretty
clear,
and
we
try
to
error
on
the
side
to
having
enough
parit
to
screen
everything.
So
it's
it's
impossible
to
see
anything
on
the
side,
so
that's
really
kind
of
our
design.
Intent
with
that.
L
So
I
did
want
to
mention
or
maybe
answer
a
couple
questions
that
are
here
that
were
brought
up
the
requirement
for
making
sure
that
these
are
affordable
units
I,
believe
is
55
years
and
that's
fine,
we'll
have
that
recorded
and
typically,
when
we
do
these
affordable
housing
projects,
we
don't
ever
have
the
manager's
unit
as
affordable.
Some
cities
might
vary
it,
but
most
of
the
time
the
manager's
unit
is,
is
not
designated
as
the
affordable.
L
So
we
don't
typically
have
any
problem
with
that
we
talked
about
was
brought
up
about
the
undergrounding.
We've
already
brought
power,
a
conduit
for
power
across
Los
felis
already,
so
we've
tried
to
work
with
staff
and
and
Public
Works
to
make
sure
that
we've
kind
of
tried
to
do
what
we
can.
So
we
don't
have
to
dig
up
the
street
and
it's
Our
intention
that
obviously
the
power
pole
on
our
side
of
the
property
we'd
like
to
that
to
go
away
and
that's
something
that's
in
our
budgets
right
now.
L
So
with
any
luck,
we'll
have
the
cost
estimates
coming
in
and
have
that
confirmed
with
Edison
for
the
undergrounding
and
it'll
fit
perfectly
within
the
budgets
and
we'll
be
able
to
to
check
that
item
off
of
our
list.
The
building
is
situated
to
the
South
so
that
we
kind
of
set
back
as
much
as
we
can
from
the
neighboring
proper
property
to
the
north
and
as
far
as
the
26t
circulation,
that's
a
pretty
typical
and
standard
circulation
as
opposed
to
a
36.
L
So
we
worked
with
the
fire
department
and
the
requirements
and
they
had
no
issue
with
the
the
26
foot.
We
do
still
provide
the
landscape
along
our
neighbors
property
to
the
north
and
we
do
have
some
Vines
and
screens
that
are
adjacent
to
our
property.
So
in
conclusion,
we
wanted
to
have
a
project
that
we
can
build.
That
is
attractive,
that
is
upscale
that
provides
the
very
low
income
residential
units,
and
we
thank
the
city
and
especially
Scott
for
working
with
us
over
these
last
couple
years.
L
E
E
I
appreciate
you
answer
that
question
you.
You
indicated
that
you
were
acceptable
with
the
two
modifications
or
or
additions
to
the
U
conditions
that
we
talked
about
previously
correct,
correct
the
standard.
Other
question,
I,
usually
ask
is,
are
you
and
the
owners
and
everybody
else
agreeable
with
all
the
rest
of
the
conditions
provided
in
the
city's
report?.
L
E
L
Right
we,
the
owner,
had
hired
a
structural
engineer
that
went
through
and
did
some
fairly
I
thought,
pretty
good
analysis
of
that,
taking
in
conjunction
the
SS
report
that
we
had
done
and
the
the
options
of
how
our
foundation
system
could
be
done
for
the
building,
and
we
have
a
few
options
that
can
work
out
pretty
well
that
we
think
will
will
fit
in
and
work
work.
Well.
E
L
E
I
E
E
I
J
E
I
L
I
Of
commercial
real
estate
for
over
20
years
and
have
an
extensive
background
in
Land,
Development
and
entitlement,
this
would
be
the
largest
building
to
date.
We've
done
other
smaller.
You
know
4
unit,
adus
and
stuff
like
that
and
couple
custom
homes,
but
for
this
size
for
multif
family
would
be
the
first,
and
you
know
we
look
forward
to
working
with
a
possible
contractor
partner
who
has
several
projects
in
construction
now
with
Thousand
Oaks
and.
G
G
B
B
Okay,
so
then
we
have
a
total
of
one
public
comment.
One
speaker,
or
at
least
I
only
have
one
speaker
card.
If
there's
anybody
else.
In
addition,
please
fill
out
a
card.
That
means
that
you
will
have
let's
see
here,
5
minutes
and
our
one
and
only
speaker
is
Mr
Steve
Cameron.
Please
comment
up
to
the
dasis
and
please
state
your
name
and
city
of
residence
for
the.
M
Record
hello,
commissioner:
my
name
is
Stephen
Cameron
I
live
at
1750,
Los
Feliz
Drive,
just
north
of
the
of
this
project,
I've
been
a
resident
of
Thousand
Oaks
for
69
years.
I
bought
this
property
47
years
ago,
and
did
you
ever
have
any
other
questions
for
me
now
before
I
say
anything
okay
wanted
I
wanted
to
express
some
of
the
concerns
I
have
about
it,
as
my
wife
is
here.
Also
we
we've
owned.
The
property
I
have
been
in
contact
with
Scott
he's
answered
a
lot
of
my
questions.
M
You
know,
we've
talked
several
times.
I've
talked
to
G
Gabriel
several
times,
and
you
know
we
have
adjusted.
You
know
a
few
things
and
I
has
talked
to
the
architect.
I
think
he
has
a
landscape
architect.
He
has
it's
not
the
same
one.
That's
here,
but
I've
talked
to
him
before
we
went
up
and
down
the
street
and
over
the
property.
Some
of
the
concerns
I
have
are
safety,
because
it's
a
very
lot
of
Street
traffic
there
and
there's
a
lot
of
crime
lately,
like
7-Eleven,
has
gotten
robbed
several
times.
M
Just
a
couple
days
ago,
Winter's
Pizza
got
got
robbed
as
along
with
delices,
but
there
is
a
lot
of
traffic
and
a
lot
of
parking
problems
right
now.
There's
people
that
park
across
people
from
the
apartments
across
the
street
to
the
West.
You
know
generally
park
in
front
of
our
house
also,
but
there's
just
been
there's
this
just
the
added
thing
of
adding.
M
So
so
many
people
next
door,
but
there's
also
the
question
of
lighting
of
cars
pulling
in
and
out
and
our
bedroom
is
like
five
feet
from
the
property
on
the
upstairs
there.
So
we
were,
you
know,
concerned
about
cars
pulling
in
and
out
Gabriel's
also,
since
that
done
that
and
put
the
parking
underneath
instead
of
facing
to
the
north,
which
is
right
along
our
property.
We've
also
done
we
considered
about
the
noise
additional
noise
from
50
people
approximately
in
setad
of
five,
and
you
know
the.
M
M
You
know
alleviate
that,
but
when
to
alleviate
some
of
these
things
to
the
north
side
of
my
property,
I
have
a
retaining
wall,
That's
3
feet
and
a
6
foot
fence
on
top
of
that
and
going
down
to
the
street
I
have
a
rod,
iron
fence,
which
is
6
feet
tall
and
in
the
front,
because
previously
people
at
night
have
knocked
down
my
mailbox
driven
onto
the
property
before
I
had
the
fence
and
took
off.
But
since
then
you
we
put
up
a
fence
and
it's
and
it
hasn't
been
a
problem.
M
There's
been
a
there's,
a
property
to
the
east
of
us,
and
that
has
like
a
huge
development
and
the
developer
paid
for
the
retaining
wall
which
Gabriel
and
I
walked
up
and
the
mine
is
7
feet
tall,
it's
a
retaining
wall
of
4
feet
and
then
approximately
4T
retaining
wall.
On
top
of
that
I
have
a
six-
foot
fence
on
the
south,
so
Gabriel
and
I
were
talking,
and
he
agreed
to
that
and
Scott
recommended
that
also
that
the
proposed
now
is
a
5-ft
retaining
wall.
Buted
up
against.
M
On
my
property
and
I
would
be
asking
for
at
least
a
four
to
5
foot
masonary
wall
on
top
of
that
retaining
wall,
and
that
would
address
some
of
the
things
like
people
jumping
over
into
my
yard.
It
would
address
lighting,
you
know
going
into
my
front
or
my
backyard,
and
it
would
also
help
with
with
the
noise,
so
I
mean
the
higher.
The
fence
would
be
better
for
all
three
of
those
reasons
that
that
I've.
M
So
let
me
see
face
the
South.
He's
also
tried
to
do
talking
about
doing
modules,
which
would
be
less
time
for
for
construction.
But-
and
let
me
see,
let
me
just
review
what
I
wrote
down
here,
yeah
so
and
we
would
be
asking
for
this:
retaining
wall
plus
the
masonary
wall.
On
top
of
that
to
run
the
length
of
the
property
and
on
the
east
side
of
their
property,
the
retaining
wall
is
about
9
ft.
So
it's
much
harder
there.
It's
due
to
the
slope
of
the
property.
M
There
is
like
a
eight
8
foot
slope
from
the
top
to
the
bottom
and
they
they've
addressed
all
that
when
they
do
it
is
that
my
timer?
Okay,
that's!
Basically
what
what
I
wanted
to
say
is
we,
you
know
we
both
agreed
and
he
verbally
agreed
to
put
in
a
a
cement
wall
on
top
of
the
retaining
wall,
and
they
have
not
said
exactly
how
high
that
would
be
and
like
I,
just
repeat
myself:
it's
five
foot
retaining
wall
with
a
four
or
five
foot
fence.
H
Conversing
Vice,
chair
link
and
members
of
the
commission,
I
I,
don't
think
we
have
very
many
comments
to
provide
here.
You
know
we
definitely
understand
that
with
new
development,
there's
new
challenges
with
neighborhoods
and
things
like
street
parking
until
until
there
comes
a
time
that
we
don't
all
have
multiple
Vehicles,
that's
something
that
we're
going
to
be
working
with,
but
street
parking
will
continue
to
be
a
a
first
come
first
serve
project
or
Pro.
Sorry,
first
come
first
serve
process
in
terms
of
things
like
lighting.
H
Not
only
did
the
parking
get
relocated
as
this
project
went
through.
So
it's
now
underneath
the
building
do
remember
that
this
site
we're
going
to
be
digging
into
the
dirt.
So
it's
going
to
be
at
a
at
a
level
that's
lower
than
the
existing
residence
as
time
goes
on.
The
Northern
property
is
also
going
to
have
the
Stacked
retaining
walls
on
that
side,
plus
the
Landscaping.
H
There
are
trees
and
other
things,
so
that
should
help
with
things
like
lighting
and
then
the
the
fence,
idea
and
and
wall
ideas
that
we're
talking
about
or
that
were
just
brought
up
would
also
help.
Further
with
that,
we
I
do
want
to
also
point
out
that
we
don't
have
a
condition
that
there's
to
be
a
a
reconstruction
of
a
of
a
wall
or
a
fence
on
the
adjacent
property
to
the
north.
We
can't
compel
that
and
the
way
that
the
current
retaining
wall
is
proposed.
H
J
H
That
can
be
a
a
mutually
agreed
thing,
but
if
the
entirety
of
the
wall
is
going
to
be
on
the
property
to
the
north,
that's
not
something
that
we
can
compel
in
conditions.
Essentially
it
has
to
happen
on
this
property.
So
that's
a
a
potential
item
that
we
could
work
on
here
if
at
the
direction
of
the
Planning
Commission.
H
F
H
H
So
these
are
the
cross-sections
that
we're
looking
at
the
red
lines,
so
this
first
red
line
here
going
north
to
south
on
or
south
to
North
on
the
property.
The
bottom
image
is
the
the
related
section.
So
the
left
side
of
that
bottom
image
is
a
South
property
line
and
the
right
side
of
that
image
is
along
the
northern
property
line
and
in
that
location
it's
just
a
single
wall
as
we
go
further
to
the
east
of
the
property.
B
E
H
B
E
H
Let
me
kind
of
try
to
highlight
the
the
purple
lines
that
the
one
that's
popping
up
and
down
on
the
screen
right
now
is
where
one
retaining
wall
would
exist
for
pretty
much
the
entirety
of
the
north
property
line,
minus
the
first
20
ft
and
then
there's
a
second
one
back
by
the
trash
enclosure.
That's
maybe
the
back
third
of
the
property.
That's
where
we're
going
to
be
getting
the
higher
walls.
If
you
will
to
accommodate
the
request,
if
we
modified
the
condition
so
there's
less
than
4T,
then
there
could
be.
H
You
know
landscape
spillage
over
those,
smaller
walls
and
then,
as
we
get
to
even
to
a
taller
wall,
we
can
have
a
another
level
of
landscaping
up
there
and
we
would
modify
the
condition
to
allow
we've
said
6ot
increments,
essentially
of
no
more
than
greater
than
six
foot
increments
and
the
way
the
condition
is
written.
Now
too,
it
says
no
more
than
12
cumulative
feet
if
we're
going
to
be
adding
another
wall.
On
top
of
that,
we
would
need
to
change
that
12
to
to
a
higher
number
6
foot.
E
E
K
E
K
If
I'm,
as
he's
coming,
if
I'm,
if
I
made
just
to
be
clear
with
the
with
the
planners
for
the
record
for
the
conditions,
we're
talking
about
we're
talking
about
condition,
73
and
74,
because
if
I
understand
what
what's
going
on
here,
is
that
there's
again,
we
think
of
retaining
walls
is
necessary
for
the
for
the
stabilization
of
the
project
right,
the
land
and
everything.
So
it's
not
necessarily
a
decorative
wall.
It.
L
K
A
purpose
behind
it,
and
so
that's
why
we
have
those
limitations,
and
if
it
has
to
go
above
six
feet,
then
we
have
a.
We
have
two
basically
but
I
believe
Mr
cood
stated
that
with
the
landscape
plan.
Now
what
would
happen
is
you
would
have
the
up
to
a
six
foot
retaining
wall,
but
then
you
would
have
Landscaping
that
goes
again
along
the
northern
portion
of
this
property
to
add
to
any
need
for
light
poll,
pollution
or
or
sound,
or
anything
like
that.
So
that's
what
I
think
he
was
saying.
K
So
there
is
some
effort
in
the
sense
of
again
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
clear
we're
talking
about
retaining
walls
that
are
for
construction
and
for
the
engineering
aspect
of
it
versus
some
other
type
of
wall,
and
so
my
hesitation
is
just
that
I
I,
not
aware
of
you,
know
having
a
wall
than
having
another
wall
put
on
top
of
that
wall
it.
It
seems
a
little
bit
odd.
So
again,
I
want
to
make
sure
for
the
record
that
we're
talking
about
7
condition,
73
and
74
am
I
right.
Sir.
H
H
H
If
we're
looking
at
six
for
increments
I
would
say,
modifying
the
12
ft
to
18
ft
would
be
one
way
to
do
it
and
then
there's
a
minimum
landscaped
Criterion
here
that
talks
about
a
minimum
of
4
feet
essentially
between
the
wall
faces
in
order
to
pull
this
off
thinking
through
footings
and
whatnot
and
and
Landscaping
to
survive.
You
know
a
minimum
of
two
feet
should
allow
for
that.
H
B
This
might
be
the
third
time,
so
we're
looking
at
a
stem
height
here
potentially
of
over
18
feet
sounds
a
little
excessive
to
me,
especially
on
an
open
parking
area,
is
that's
something
that
we
generally
get
into
without
doing
tiebacks,
I'm
I'm,
no
structural
engineer,
but
that
seems
like
a
rather
tall
Wall
height.
That
is,
if
it's
unsupported
or
internally
only.
B
J
Yeah,
so
it's
going
to
be
two
Sixt
walls,
I
I,
don't
know
if
I
doubt,
if
it'll
be
a
tieback
wall,
it's
going
to
be
a
standard
foundation
retaining
wall
I.
Imagine
the
one
thing
is:
is
on
a
retaining
wall
like
that
you're
going
to
have
to
have
some
kind
of
a
safety
barrier
along
the
top
of
this
wall,
because
you
know
the
property
next
to
it
is
going
to
have
probably
a
12T
drop
from
their
property
over
to
this
property.
So.
J
J
B
B
L
L
It
looks
like,
as
as
I
think
Scott
mentioned,
each
one
would
have
two
to
22
in
of
planter
area
that
would
Cascade
down
the
wall,
so
I'm
not
really
seeing
per
the
plan
that
we
have,
that
it
really
would
be
that
much
different.
So
there
is,
there
are
three
walls
shown
that
second
wall
would
just
be
higher
to
accommodate
for
the
top
wall
That's
along
the
north
side
of
the.
L
That
would
be
the
the
third
wall,
the
top
wall
That's
along
the
property
line.
That
would
because
it
it
kind
of
slopes
that
that
could
be
staggered
up,
so
a
portion
of
that
would
it
could
be
6ot
Max.
But
we've
got
two
other
walls
below
that.
The
opportunity
for
two
other
walls
below
that
so
and
I'm,
just
looking
at
some
elevations
here,
I'm,
not
sure
that
it
would
go
up
to
18
ft.
But
it
would
probably
be
a
little
bit
more
than
than
12T.
E
I
The
protocol-
yes,
we
we've
had
conversations
about
that.
I
wasn't
able
to
clearly
articulate
exactly
how
the
walls
were
looking.
So
my
proposal
was
that,
as
we
move
on
to
the
next
stages
of
the
construction
documents
and
so
forth
that
we
look
at
the
6ot
wall,
the
way
that
it's
going
to
be
built
and
then
the
wall
wall
in
front
of
it,
that
would
be
larger
and
then,
if
there
was
some
modification
to
his
wall,
which
is
the
6ft
wall
directly,
basically
on
our
same
property.
H
It
depends
where
the
wall
is
constructed,
so
what
I
just
heard
was
modify
a
wall
on
at
1750
those
Fess
drive.
There
is
an
administrative
process
to
provide
that,
but
it
is
a
separate
application
that
we
would
process
and
we
could
work
with
the
developer
and
and
Mr
Cameron
and
his
family
to
process
that
or
if
it's
getting
constructed
on
this
property
as
part
of
the
conditions,
condition
73
and
74,
we
modify
those
metrics
for
the
tearing
to
occur.
So
all
development
is
happening
on
this
property.
L
On
the
grading
plan
that
we
submitted
to
the
city
along
the
backside
there
there
is
a
planter
wall.
That's
a
looks
like
it's
a
box
okay,
so
it
has
a
front
wall
and
a
back
wall,
and
then
back
of
that
it's
got
another
wall
so
effectively
in
the
area
which
is
the
highest.
There
are
potentials
for
three
walls.
So
what
I'm
saying
is
there
are
three
distinct
walls
with
landscape
possibilities
between
them
and
they
are
at
the
location
where
it
is
the
highest
grade,
difference
from
our
property
to
the
neighbor's
property.
L
H
It
it
does,
as
as
I
was
talking
over
here
there,
the
sections
are
actually
that
are
have
been
selected
are
slightly
different
than
the
plans.
The
the
grading
plan
is
showing
three
walls
at
for
portion
of
the
property,
whereas
the
section
are
only
showing
the
two
walls
so,
which
is
which
is
part
of
the
confusion.
K
Be
good
question
so
I
think,
based
upon
the
condition,
if
he's
not
satisfied
with
the
condition,
if
someone's
not
satisfied
with
that
condition-
and
they
say:
okay
well,
I'm
still
upset
I'm
not
going
to
can't
for
sure
get
what
I
want.
Then
that's
up
to
them
to
make
that
decision.
If
they
want
to
appeal
or
not.
B
I
B
B
K
E
K
The
documents
does
have
three
walls
in
the
one
portion,
so
it's
going
to
be
creating
the
walls
as
pursuant
to
the
conditions.
I'm
not
sure
if
Mr
C
was,
is
thinking
of
changing
condition,
73
for
the
cumulative
to
be
more
than
12
ft.
If
that,
if
he
thinks
that's
necessary
to
to
ensure
that
we
have
that
height
component,
that
we
need
up
through
the
top
of
the
project.
H
That
is
what
I'm
thinking
and
the
language
we
could
put
in.
There
would
be
something
you
know
the
the
maximum
would
be
18
and
we
could
even
put
some
language
in
there
trying
to
keep
that
as
as
low
as
possible.
You
know
as
we
go
through
that
process
and
then
that
separation
of
between
the
walls
to
be
landscaped
appropriately
and
I
would,
unless
the
architect
wants
to
tell
me
something
different,
that
a
two
foot
minimum
would
make
sense.
J
G
H
Correct
and
then
in
74
there's
references
to
4T
of
landscaping.
That
would
be
minimum
of
4T
of
landscaping.
That
would
be
changed
to
a
minimum
of
2
feet
and
then
that
same
condition.
Where
would
reference
the
cumulative
12
feet
that
also
changed
to
18
ft
and
again,
we
could
put
in
some
sort
of
quick
descriptor
that
to
make
every.
L
L
K
Topography,
so
if
I
may
Vice
chair
I,
think
by
changing
the
condition,
73
and
74
from
12
feet
to
18
ft
so
not
to
exceed
18t
gives
them
the
flexibility
that
they
need
in
74.
There's
the
condition
title
is
headlights
screen
wall
or
burm
right.
So
it's
obviously
talking
about
the
landscaping
for
that
purpose,
which
again
is
to
you're
going
to
put
Landscaping
in
there
to
again
add
to
various
things.
Light
sound
all
that
kind
of
stuff
that
create
a
little
more
more
densing,
dense
area
to
I.
K
Think
at
the
end
of
the
day
alleviate
some
of
the
concerns
that
were
voiced
by
the
public
comment.
So
I
think
with
the
change
to
18
ft
and
both
of
those
conditions.
We're
kind
of
meeting
I
think
what
I've
heard
from
Commissioners
as
far
as
they're
concerned,
and
there
is
a
landscaping
component
to
74.
K
That
I
think
would
address
the
need
to
to
give
Clarity
to
what
has
to
be
done
when
the
condition
comes
up,
because
we
always
have
we're
going
to
have
a
landscaping
plan
that
needs
to
be
approved
by
the
Landscaping
division
or
Landscaping
team
I
should
say,
and
so
that's
always
going
to
be
a
component
to
it.
And
since
this
has
a
very
specific
purpose,
I
think
the
Landscaping
architect
is
going
to
take
that
in
consideration
of
oh.
I
B
B
K
M
B
C
Yeah
thanks
I'm
wondering
as
we
get
to
the
motion.
If
I
can
ask
City
attorney
if
there
is
a
potential
for
some
of
the
findings
to
be
slightly
amended
so
that
I
might
be
able
to
support
any
motion
to
approve,
but
I
just
wanted
to
gain
your.
It
doesn't
change
any
conditions.
It
changes.
What
I
believe
we're
stating
as
the
findings
for
for
that.
So
I
wanted
to
offer
something
and
run
it
by
you
to
see
if
meets.
So.
M
I
C
Believe
it's
identical
language
in
section
3.1,
paragraph
2,
third
sentence
and
I'm
just
trying
to
pull
it
up
here.
So
this
is
the
one
where
it
speaks
to
the
finding
of
making
it
that
the
it's
it's
the
general
plan
density,
designation
density.
That
applies-
and
it
reads,
I'm
wondering
if
it
could
be
amended
to
read
actually
there's
two
two
slight
amendments
to
to
that
sentence.
C
If
it
could
read
per
California
law
per
California
state
law,
government
code,
section
65,
5895
keep
the
footnote
as
and
insert
the
zoning
is
inconsistent
with
the
general
planed
land
use
designation
and
the
general
plan.
Lan
use
designation
allows
for
a
greater
density
than
the
zoning
designation.
The
higher
density
level
applies
at
a
footnote
that
references
the
government
code,
section
65956,
which
talks
about
if
they
are
inconsistent,
the
greater
applies.
K
So
this
is
a
density
bonus
project
and
the
hcd
has
been
very
clear
and
the
government
code
section
was
modified
and
the
reason
why
that's
important
is
because
the
way
that
they
wrote
it,
it
sounds
like
a
double
negative,
but
the
way
that
they
wrote
it
is
that
if
it
meets
any
of
the
three
whatever
the
maximum
is
in
this
case
the
general
plan
right
of
30
units
per
acre.
It
says
the
governing
body
shall
not
find
it
inconsistent
with
the
law.
K
So
I
can't
have
you
change
it
to
say
it's
inconsistent
because
they're
literally
saying
that
whatever
one
it
is,
the
recommendation
is
going
to
be
or
the
finding
has
to
be.
They
have
to
find
it
unless
they
have
some
other
reasons
which
we
have
not
established
today
yet
or
tonight.
Yet
if
they
were
to
go
that
direction
that
it
says
you
shall
not
find
it
inconsistent
with
so
they're
saying
findings,
you
can't
make
a
finding
that
that
is
inconsistent
because
the
way
that
they
ordered
it.
K
So
my
my
concern
would
be
that
they
they're
just
very
careful
how
they
wrote
that
and
so
I
wouldn't
want
to
have
a
resolution.
That
literally,
is
contrary
to
that
government
code,
section
that
we're
actually
citing
and
we
went
back
and
forth
that
just
so,
you
all
know
the
staff,
because
they're
not
saying
the
way
that
they
wrote
it
is
it's
almost
like
we're.
K
You
know
they
say
make
it
consistent
and
the
way
you
do
that
is
you're
going
to
make
a
finding
that
it's
not
inconsistent
with
the
general
plan,
not
inconsistent
with
state
law.
That's
how
they
wrote
it
in
the
in
the
in
the
code
right,
so
I
can't
recommend
a
finding.
That
has
the
word
inconsistent
because
I
have
to
word
the
word
not
inconsistent
in
there
to
be
consistent
with
I'm
using
consistent
too
many
times.
C
If,
if
I
may,
if
I
may
and
I'm,
looking
at
the
section,
I
understand
the
the
language
you're
talking
about
as
been
not
inconsistent,
but
what
the
law
says
is
for
purposes
of
the
section.
The
proposed
housing
development
project
is
not
inconsistent
with
the
applicable
zoning
standards,
not
that
the
zoning,
nothing
about
the
zoning.
B
Interruptor
because
I
think
that
this
is
part
of
a
broader
discussion,
because
if
we're
going
to
change
the
language
specifically
for
this
project
and
we've
used
the
same
exact
language
for
all
previous
projects
that
have
density
bonus,
then
we
are
in
effect,
being
inconsistent
with
our
language.
So
I
think
that's
probably
a
broader
discussion
with
the
legal
team
at
the
city
of
Thousand
Oak.
So
I
don't
know
that
we
should
change
it
specifically
for
this
project
unless
the
powers
that
be
decide
that
they
are
going
to
change
that
language
going
forward
for
every
project.
C
I
and
I
understand
and
I.
That's
the
the
reason
why
I
was
asking
if
the
finding
could
could
be
done,
because
I
do
find
for
this
particular
project
that
the
zoning
is
inconsistent
with
the
general
plan,
and
for
that
reason
we
have
to
use
30
units
and
that
that
leads
to
the
same
approval,
but
for
a
different
reason
and
I
don't
agree
with
the
finding
language
that
that's
the
reason
why
we
have
to
do
it.
C
So
that's
the
reason
why
I
was
asking
for
that,
because
if,
if
it
can,
if
we
can
find
that
the
finding
language
and
I
actually
don't
think
it's
inconsistent
with
anything
that
that
we
have
done
before,
because
there
are
reasons
why
staff
said
that
the
zoning
in
the
general
plan
is
inconsistent
and
that's
why
we
use
the
higher
density.
It
would
apply
in
either
case.
But
if,
if
we
feel
that
we
don't
want
to
change
the
language,
so
I
mean
I
have
to
feel
comfortable.
That
I
can
agree
with
the
findings.
C
And
and
I've
asked
for
case
law
on
this,
and
no
one
has
provided
it.
In
fact,
with
with
this
today,
I've
asked
for
if
there
was
an
ordinance
or
resolution
or
any
any
court
order,
that
gives
us
an
understanding
how
to
interpret
this
and
I've
received
nothing
to
date.
So
if
there
is
I
would
absolutely
love
to
see
it
because
I
want
to
follow
the
law,
but
I
don't
see
anything
I.
It's
a
difference
of
understanding
of
what
the
state
law
reads
and
that's
the
reason
why
I'm
asking.
K
And
again,
I
with
with
great
respect,
I
I
understand
your
argument.
I
would
say
that
I
cannot
recommend
your
change
and
again
the
reason.
Why
is
because,
when
you
look
at
the
fact
that
you
have
a
consistency
with
the
general
plan,
hcd
is
very
clear.
The
code
is
clear
that
you
don't
find
it
inconsistent.
So
we
don't
want
to
say.
Oh
there's
inconsistency
here,
but
there's
consistent
with
the
general
plan.
K
What
you're
saying
and
I
I
don't
disagree
that
when
you
look
at
the
zoning-
and
you
look
at
the
general
plan,
there's
there's
different
numbers
there,
and
so
that
would
be
technically
inconsistent.
All
I'm
again
repeating
is
that
under
the
density
bonus
law
and
from
hcd
it's
and
all
the
changes
to
the
to
the
various
codes
they
are
making
a
finding
to
say
you
cannot
find
it
inconsistent
and
so
I
would
be
concerned
that
by
changing
the
resolution,
we're
we're
saying
it's
inconsistent,
but
it's
not
inconsistent
with
this
one.
K
E
I
I
can
go
next,
I
didn't
know
if
there
was
anything
else,
commissioner
Ferris
had
to
add
and
I
I
do
understand
that
comment.
I
do
understand
the
the
inconsistency
the
difficulty
is,
it's
just
a
another
indication
of
local
control,
kind
of
being
stifled
and
and
and
made
problematic
speaking
of
problematic.
E
This
is
is
got
to
be
one
of
the
most
involved,
things
we'
kind
of
looked
at
in
terms
of
all
of
the
different
elements
and
again,
I
still
think
it
was
a
thesis
project
that
Mr
colwitz
envisioned
I,
typically
don't
like
to
go
outside
of
a
box.
I
usually
will
always
say
that
I
was
appointed
to
a
committee
to
basically
enforce
the
law
in
this
situ
situation.
E
Talk
with
that
said,
though
I
I,
I
I,
do
have
a
lot
of
questions.
There's
a
lot
of
ifs.
There's
a
lot
of
u
impediments
a
lot
of
speed
bumps
along
the
way
that
is
going
to
have
to
get
done
and
I
truly
hope
that
it's
able
to
be
done.
I.
Thank
you
for
investing
in
our
city,
I.
Thank
you
for
your
involvement
in
your
years
of
Engagement
and
I
appreciate
Mr
colwitz
and
the
staff
kind
of
doing
this.
So
again,
I
I
have
a
lot
of
concerns.
K
B
C
Have
I
just
wanted
to
stay
for
the
record
that
that
I
I
can't
support
the
motion,
because
I
can't
necessarily
support
the
finding
I
do
find
it
inconsistent,
leading
all
the
way
up
to
why
we
have
the
compounding
and
would
have
voted
for
it?
Had
we
been
able
to
revise
it
while
there
was
a
lot
of
again
discretion
and
stuff
that
we
had
to
make
things
work?
That
was
my
reason
for
abstention.
On
on
the
motion.
B
E
B
F
Yes,
on
September
26
tomorrow
evening,
city
council
will
have
a
department
re
report
requesting
initiation
of
various
Municipal
Code
amendments
on
October
10th.
There
will
be
two
public
hearing
par
one
for
the
inclusionary
housing
program.
We
heard
at
our
last
meeting
and
an
appeal
of
a
Planning
Commission
approval
in
that
was
approved
in
July
for
a
30
unit
apartment
complex
at
170
herbs
Road,
the
applicant
was
Allied
Management
Group
and
then
October
24th.
F
There
will
be
a
second
reading
of
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance,
if
approved
at
the
previous
meeting
by
city
council
and
moving
to
item
10B
items
for
the
upcoming
Planning
Commission
schedule.
There
are
no
items
scheduled
for
October
9th
on
October
23rd.
There
will
be
two
public
hearings,
one
for
a
five-story
hotel
and
Retail
building
at
225
North
mo
Park
Road
and
one
for
the
for
navigation
center
with
up
to
50
units
and
support
services
at
1205
Laurence
Drive.