►
Description
Thousand Oaks Planning Commission Meeting - 9/26/2022
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
D
D
C
D
D
C
D
Thank
you
moving
on
to
public
comments.
At
this
time,
any
person
may
address
the
commission
regarding
a
city
planning
matter.
That
is
not
on
this
evening's
agenda.
Should
the
commission
wish
to
address
to
discuss
an
issue
raised
by
a
member
of
the
public.
The
issue
will
be
referred
to
staff
for
scheduling
on
a
future
agenda.
D
Anyone
who
would
like
to
speak
under
public
comments
must
fill
out
a
speaker
card
in
Chambers
or
click
request
to
speak
on
the
agenda
to
receive
instructions
before
the
public
comments.
Portion
of
the
agenda
is
called
speaker's.
Remarks
should
be
addressed
to
the
commission
as
a
whole
and
not
to
any
individual
commissioner
or
staff
member
unless
otherwise
provided
by
the
commission.
Speakers
are
limited
to
five
minutes.
The
screen
will
show
you
the
remaining
time
you
have
do.
We
have
any
public
comments
this
evening.
No.
Thank
you
from
now
on
I'm
going
to
ask
that
question.
D
D
B
D
B
A
D
D
D
E
Good
evening,
chair
members
of
the
Planning,
Commission
and
public,
as
just
stated,
the
request
before
you
this
evening
is
to
find
that
this
Municipal
Code
amendment
is
exempt
from
the
provisions
of
the
California
Environmental
Quality
act
or
sequa.
Pursuant
to
California
government
code
sections,
65852.21,
J
and
664-11.7
n,
and
to
adopt
a
resolution
recommending
that
city
council
introduce
an
ordinance
amending
the
Municipal
Code
by
adding
article
37
to
Title
IX,
chapter
4
and
modifying
sections
9-4.202,
or
the
definition,
sections
and
9-4.2202.
E
The
objective
standards
section
and
adding
section
9-3.305
to
Title
9
chapter
3,
article
3,
to
update
the
city's
zoning
regulations
to
implement
2021
Senate
bill
number
nine
known
as
sb9,
including
the
addition
of
a
ministerial
process
for
the
approval
of
urban
lot.
Splits
and
two
unit
housing
developments
and
to
determine
the
ordinance
to
be
exempt
from
sequa.
E
On
May
24
2022
city
council
approved
a
resolution
initiating
this
request,
which
brings
us
to
the
hearing
tonight
in
which
the
Planning
Commission
is
to
review.
The
proposed
ordinance,
hold
the
public
hearing
and
make
a
recommendation
back
to
the
city
council
on
the
adoption,
denial
or
alteration
of
the
proposed
amendments.
City
council
will
then
review
and
hold
a
public
hearing
prior
to
taking
final
action,
and
that
meeting
is
scheduled
to
take
place
in
about
two
weeks
on
October
11th.
E
at
the
most
basic
level.
Sb9
allows
owners
of
a
property
within
a
single-family
residential
Zone
to
one
build
two
Primary
Residential
units
per
lot
and
two
to
to
subdivide
a
lot
into
two
Parcels
with
the
end
goal
of
allowing
a
possible
maximum
of
four
dwelling
units
within
the
original
single
family.
Lot.
Boundaries
and
I'll
go
ahead
and
note
here
that,
since
the
law
went
into
effect
and
the
city
therefore
began
accepting
applications,
there
have
been
approximately
30
inquiries
into
the
city's
sb9
implementation
and
application
process.
E
In
addition
to
laying
out
the
type
of
development
now
allowed,
the
law
also
describes
the
eligibility
criteria,
process
and
level
of
review
allowed
and
how
jurisdictions
may
regulate
sb9
projects
through
objective
standards.
Both
the
state
mandated
and
potentially
implemented
by
a
local
jurisdiction
I'll
go
over
each
of
these
areas
that
you
see
here
in
more
detail,
but
for
a
quick
overview
again.
The
development
allowed
is
a
one-time
subdivision
of
an
existing
single-family
residential
parcel
into
two
Parcels.
E
To
be
eligible
to
propose
either
of
those
project
types,
a
property
must
be
designated
as
within
a
single
family,
residential
Zone,
with
several
key
exceptions,
including,
but
not
limited
to
properties
within
prohibited
areas
like
historic,
Properties
or
protected
habitat
areas,
projects
that
require
the
demolition
or
alteration
of
certain
types
of
rental
or
affordable
units.
An
environmental
hazard
areas
if
adherence
to
required
additional
standards
are
not
possible.
E
I'm
sorry
I
lost
my
place
for
a
second.
If,
if
eligible
sb9
specifically
states
that
all
sb9
projects
must
be
reviewed,
ministerially
jurisdiction
jurisdictions
can
conduct
objective
design
review
but
may
not
apply
subjective
or
other
discretionary
approval
processes
and
may
not
have
hearings
for
projects
that
meet
those
State
rules.
E
Each
and
I'll
repeat
that,
quite
often,
this
law
is
similar
to
recent
State
Adu
legislation,
in
that
it
allows
jurisdictions
to
apply
local
standards
as
long
as
they
do
not
prevent
that
minimum
level
of
development
and
I
will
go
into
what
standards
are
mandated
and
where
the
city
has
some
flexibility.
When
we
talk
in
more
detail
about
these.
E
So
now
I'll
dive
into
more
detail
on
each
of
those
kind
of
four
main
areas
and
quick
reminder
again.
The
law
requires
ministerial
approval
of
an
urban
lot
split
or
a
one-time
subdivision
of
an
existing
single-family
residential
parcel
into
two
and
a
two
unit,
Housing
Development,
which
is
two
homes
on
an
eligible
single-family
residential
parcel,
not
including
permissible
adus.
E
If
there
is
an
existing
home,
they
can
add
one
new
dwelling
unit,
plus
whatever
adus
and
jdus,
would
be
allowed
on
site
and
an
event
in
any
event,
no
more
than
two
for
again
a
total
of
four
residential
units.
If
an
existing
residence
and
an
Adu
or
a
Jadu
already
exist
on
site,
one
new
dwelling
unit,
plus
one
only
one
additional,
Adu
or
JD
Jadu
could
be
added.
E
E
E
To
show
it
another
way,
prior
to
the
passage
of
sb9,
a
single-family
residential
zone
property
allowed
for
a
a
total
of
three
housing
units,
one
primary
dwelling
unit,
the
main
house,
one
Adu
and
one
Junior
accessory
dwelling
Unit
A
Jadu,
now
under
current
law,
with
the
implementation
of
sb9
without
an
urban
lot
split,
which
is
the
middle
column
that
you
see
here.
A
lot
with
the
single
family
home
can
add
an
additional
primary
dwelling
unit,
plus
a
junior
or
regular
Adu
per
primary
or
main
unit.
E
If
you
have
a
vacant
lot,
you
can
build
two
primary
dwelling
units
plus
a
junior
or
regular
Adu.
Each
these
homes
are
subject
to
objective
standards
as
long
as
those
standards
do
not
preclude
two
800
square
foot
units
on
each
property
and
if
you
do
use
an
urban
lot
splitter,
if
you
propose
this
development
with
an
urban
lot
split,
a
homeowner
can
build
two
homes
on
each
of
the
two
new
Lots,
allowing
for
a
total
of
four
units.
No
more
than
two
homes
may
be
on
each
lot.
E
Okay,
moving
on
to
eligibility
again
in
more
detail,
sb9
applies
to
all
single-family
residential
zones
in
urbanized
jurisdictions,
which
city
of
Thousand
Oaks
is.
These
are
zones
in
which
residential
uses
are
limited
to
one
single
family
dwelling
per
lot
and
uses
a
typically
associated
with
single-family
zones
are
permitted,
no
multiple
family
uses
or
other
commercial
uses
are
allowed
in
those
zones
in
Thousand
Oaks.
This
includes
the
R1
r,
a
r
e
r
o
residential
districts
and
those
Hillside
plan
development
and
residential
plan
development
zones
in
which
the
predominant
existing
development
is
single-family
residential.
E
However,
sb9
specifically
prohibits
Urban
lot
splits
and
two
unit
Housing
Development
projects
in
historic
areas,
which
is
not
applicable
in
the
city
or
environmentally
sensitive
areas
such
as
Wetlands
conservation
areas
and
protected
species.
Habitat
areas
wetlands
are
not
generally
present
in
single-family
zoned
areas
in
the
city,
and
there
are
few
if
any
conservation,
easement
areas,
but
as
I'll
discuss
later
on
affirmative
documentation
that
no
protected
habitat
area
will
be
disturbed,
is
suggested
to
be
required
as
part
of
the
application
process.
E
There
are
also
eligibility
requirements
for
urban
law
splits
projects
only
including
one
use
that
only
one
lot
split
is
allowed
per
lot.
However,
further
splits
may
be
possible
under
a
regular
subdivision
procedures
if
the
lot
size
and
dimensions
allow
and
sb9
prohibits
lot
splits
where
the
owner
or
any
person
acting
in
concert
with
the
owner
has
previously
subdivided
an
adjacent
parcel
using
an
urban
lot
split
process
since
sb9
does
not
specifically
Define
acting
in
concert.
E
If
a
property
and
project
are
found
to
be
eligible
under
all
those
requirements,
applications
will
need
to
be
submitted
and
reviewed
under
a
process
determined
by
state
and
local
regulation
jurisdictions,
including
the
city,
must
review
and
process
applications
for
two
unit.
Housing
developments
and
urban
lot
splits,
ministerially
ministerially
means
projects
must
be
approved
without
any
public
hearing
or
subjective
judgment
from
City
staff
if
it
meets
state
and
local
law
requirements
and
the
subject,
including
the
subject
ordinance
implementing
objective
standards.
E
Sb9
does
also
specifically
exempt
eligible
projects
from
SQL
review,
and
it's
important
to
note,
too,
that
all
sb9
projects
will
still
be
reviewed
by
all
the
various
City
departments-
Community
Development
Public,
Works
Etc,
to
ensure
compliance
with
applicable
municipal
code
standards
and
Technical
codes,
such
as
the
building
code
and
the
fire
code.
E
In
addition
to
all
unnecessary
plans
and
Exhibits,
the
application
for
either
type
of
sb9
project,
the
urban
lot
split
or
to
unit
Housing
Development
will
require
a
biologist
statement
of
no
protected
Habitat
to
determine
eligibility,
as
well
as
a
protected
tree
report
or
statement
that
there
are
no
protected
trees
in
the
vicinity
of
the
project
area.
A
title
report
and
proof
that
the
HOA
has
been
notified,
if
applicable,
recorded
affidavits
are
required
for
all
sb9
projects
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
eligibility
requirements
and
to
acknowledge
that
short-term
rentals
are
not
permitted,
as
required
by
sb9.
E
If
an
applicant
proposes
an
urban
lot
split,
that
subdivider
must
also
record
an
affidavit
stating
that
they
intend
to
occupy
one
of
the
housing
units
for
a
minimum
of
three
years
from
the
date
of
approval.
In
order
to
meet
that
requirement,
a
habitable
dwelling
unit
must
exist
on
the
property
at
the
by
the
time.
The
new
parcel
map
is
approved
to
ensure
a
residence
exists
at
that
time
and
to
encourage
projects
to
meet
the
intent
of
the
law,
which
is
to
increase
the
supply
of
housing.
E
Sb9
details
methods,
jurisdictions
may
use
to
regulate
sb9
proposals.
There
are
some
actions,
jurisdictions
must
take,
some
decisions,
jurisdictions
can
choose
to
take,
and
some
topics
that
they
may
not
regulate
at
all
importantly
jurisdictions
may
only
impose
objective.
Zoning
design
and
subdivision
standards
standards
may
not
physically
preclude
the
construction
of
two
units
or
less
of
less
than
800
square
feet
each
per
property.
E
The
city's
subdivision
and
zoning
ordinances
currently
contain
a
number
of
objective
standards
that
would
continue
to
apply
to
sb9
projects
and,
as
you
may
remember,
the
city
also
recently
adopted
a
set
of
objective
design
standards
contained
within
article
22
now
of
the
zoning
code
and
those
apply
usually
to
the
development
of
housing
projects
of
two
units
or
more.
However,
the
ordinance
is
drafted
to
state
that
this
article
22
should
not
apply
to
sb9
developments,
as
those
standards
really
were
not
tailored
for
this
type
of
small
scale.
Infill
development.
E
E
The
city
must
require
that
or
must
allow
any
setbacks
requirements
for
a
unit
that
is
currently
existing
to
remain.
So
if
a
unit
is
converted
within
an
existing
living
area
or
in
the
same
location
and
to
the
same
dimensions
as
the
existing
structure,
those
setbacks
must
be
allowed
to
remain.
E
The
following
additional
additional
limitations
apply
to
all
Urban
lot
split
projects
under
sb9
that
the
primary
uses
on
the
resulting
lots
are
limited
to
residential
uses.
Only
the
subdivider
must
sign
that
affidavit
stating
that
they
intend
to
occupy
one
of
the
units
for
a
minimum
of
three
years
jurisdictions
may
not
require
correction
of
an
existing
legal
non-conforming
condition
as
a
condition
for
ministerial
approval.
E
The
draft
does
require
or
include,
however,
language,
clarifying
that
the
proposed
projects
may
not
exacerbate
an
existing
legal
non-conformity.
Jurisdictions
may
not
require
dedications
of
Rights
of
way
or
the
construction
of
off-site
improvements.
They
may,
however,
require
easements
that
are
required
for
the
provision
of
public
services
and
Facilities,
and
no
parcel
shall
be
less
than
1
200
square
feet
or,
and
the
smallest
parcel
must
be
at
least
40
percent
of
the
original
lot
size
and
jurisdictions
may
buy.
This
ordinance
adopt
a
smaller
minimum
lot
size
if
they
choose
per
sb9.
E
E
The
list
here
describes
areas
of
flexibility
Allowed
by
sb9,
where
those
possible
objective
standards
could
be
imposed
by
the
city
and
I'll
go
through
each
of
these
now
describing
what
is
in
the
ordinance
as
drafted
and
touching
on
what
flexibility
is
allowed
per
sb9.
These
standards
may
be
revised
per
the
recommendation
of
the
Planning,
Commission
or
direction
of
city
council,
provided
that
they
comply
with
their
requirements
of
sb9.
E
E
For
example,
the
limit
could
be
reached
on
each
lot
by
creating
two
primary
units
or
a
primary
unit
and
an
Adu
or
a
primary
unit,
and
a
junior
Adu
by
building
two
units
on
each
lot.
The
overall
maximum
of
four
units
required
under
sb9
is
achieved
again.
The
city
may
choose
to
allow
more
than
two
units
per
lot
if
desired,
when
a
lot
split
has
not
occurred.
The
lot
is
eligible
to
build
two
primary
units,
as
well
as
one
Adu
or
Junior
Adu
per
primary
unit,
as
it
ordinarily
would
under
Adu
law.
E
In
terms
of
Maximum
unit
size
under
the
proposed
ordinance,
the
size
of
a
unit
would
be
controlled
by
the
required
setbacks.
The
percentage
of
usable,
open
space
on
the
lot
property
characteristics,
limitations
on
grading,
existing
development
and
cost,
and
the
standards
that
we'll
review
in
this
presentation
a
maximum
floor
area
standard
is
not
included
in
the
existing
Municipal
Code
standard
or
in
the
standards
that
are
currently
existing
for
single-family
residential
development
and
so
to
maintain
that
consistency
that
has
not
been
recommended
in
the
draft
ordinance.
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Typically,
the
extension
is
only
as
wide
as
a
driveway
which
gives
the
resulting
lot
the
appearance
of
a
flag
on
a
flagpole,
since
the
purpose
of
the
extension
is
to
connect
the
rear
lot
to
the
street
for
vehicular
access,
the
base
of
the
pole
usually
has
a
curb
cut
and
an
apron
built
into
the
public
right-of-way
and
situations
where
land
allows.
An
urban
lot
split,
including
a
flag
lot,
would
likely
result
in
two
driveways
with
curb
Cuts,
where
previously
there
was
only
one.
E
Except,
as
required
by
the
building
code,
existing
setbacks
may
be
maintained
for
sb9
units
built
within
an
existing
structure,
conversion
or
built
in
the
same
location
and
within
the
same
dimensions
as
an
existing
structure.
Setback
requirements
are
also
waived
for
subdivisions
where
the
new
property
line
is
adjacent
to
an
existing
structure
for
all
other
sb9
units.
The
city
may
only
require
side
and
rear
yard
setbacks
of
no
more
than
four
feet.
Normally
side
setbacks
range
from
0
to
15
feet
and
rear.
E
The
draft
ordinance
states
that
all
setbacks
shall
be
a
minimum
of
four
feet
as
it's
often
impractical
and
that
subjective
to
determine
which
property
line
is
the
front.
And
then,
as
you
can
see
in
this
diagram,
the
selecting
the
front
yard
may
be
somewhat
arbitrary
in
some
cases
and
artificially
push
a
prop
or
a
development
towards
one
house
or
another
by
prescribing
a
front
lot
standard.
E
In
addition
to
the
required
setbacks,
a
minimum
amount
of
usable
open
space
is
currently
required
by
both
the
city's
new
objective
standards
and
residential
plan
development
or
RPD
permits
to
remain
consistent
with
existing
single-family
residential
standards.
The
ordinance
has
included
that
at
least
15
percent
of
each
lot
with
an
sb9
unit
is
designated
as
usable
open
space,
as
defined
in
the
ordinance
as
it
relates
to
required
yards.
E
In
almost
all
cases,
the
city's
existing
regulations
limit
the
height
of
single-family
dwellings
to
25
feet
and
less
increased
side
yard
setbacks
are
provided.
Adus
and
jadus
are
typically
held
to
the
same
height
limit
as
the
primary
dwelling
unit,
except
when
detached,
in
which
case
they
are
limited
to
16
feet.
E
Accordingly,
the
ordinance
states
that
a
25
foot
height
limit
is
the
maximum
or
up
to
35
feet,
with
increased
and
side
and
rear
yard
setbacks
for
sb9
units
to
remain
consistent
with
the
majority
of
existing
single-family
resident
standards.
A
detached
adus
would
continue
to
be
regulated
by
adu-specific
law
and
still
only
be
allowed
to
be
16
feet.
E
The
city's
existing
regulations
require
two
enclosed
off-street
parking
spaces
for
each
single-family
dwelling
with
four
bedrooms
or
less
three
spaces,
or
two
enclosed
for
those
with
five
or
six
bedrooms
and
three
enclosed
spaces
for
those
with
seven
bedrooms
or
more.
However,
sb9
limits
this
requirement
to
only
one
parking
space
per
unit
and
none
at
all.
If
located
within
a
one-half
mile
of
a
walking
distance
of
a
high
quality,
Transit
Corridor
or
within
one
block
of
a
car
share
a
vehicle.
There
are
no
Cur.
E
There
are
currently
no
bus
routes
in
Thousand
Oaks
operating
at
a
level
which
would
qualify
it
as
a
high
quality,
Transit
Corridor,
but
neither
sb9
nor
previously
adopted
State
Adu
law,
which
includes
similar
parking
exemptions,
defines
a
car
share
vehicle.
As
such,
the
ordinance
does
include
a
definition
for
that.
E
Unlike
Adu
law,
there
is
also
no
reduction
of
the
parking
requirement
for
garage
conversion
projects.
Staff
recommends
that
one
enclosed
off-street
parking
space
be
required
for
each
sb9
unit
unless
the
garage
structure
would
physically
preclude
the
sb9
units
from
being
at
least
800
square
feet
in
floor
area,
in
which
case
the
required
parking
may
be
unenclosed.
E
Foreign,
the
city's
existing
regulations
require
a
design
review
for
new
single-family
dwellings
and
additional
on-site
development.
This
is
a
discretionary
process
using
subjective
design
guidelines
with
final
approval,
typically
granted
either
by
staff
or
the
Planning
Commission.
If
a
project
is
required
to
be
heard
at
a
public
hearing,
the
city
may
not
impose
the
same
discretionary
and
subjective
process
for
sb9
projects
as
currently
drafted.
The
ordinance
requires
facade
requirements
for
garage
conversions
to
avoid
flat
blank
walls
facing
the
street
which
can
occur
in
some
cases.
E
Staff
recommends
that
the
objective
grading
limitations
currently
contained
within
the
municipal
code
apply
to
all
sb9
units
located
on
located
on
Lots
designated
as
being
within
the
HPD
Zone.
Similarly,
projects
proposed
on
properties
that
are
located
within
the
protected
Ridgeline
overlay
zone
are
subject
to
the
objective
standards
contained
within
the
municipal
code,
section
related
to
protected
Ridgeline
overlay,
Zone
regulations.
Those
objective
standards
have
been
referenced
and
incorporated
into
the
subject
ordinance.
E
This
review
and
approval
process
is
discretionary
and
subjective
and
therefore
cannot
apply
to
subdivisions
or
the
construction
of
new
dwellings
pursuant
to
sb9,
as
such,
staff
recommends
that
no
sb9
projects
shall
be
allowed,
which
requires
grading
on
a
natural
slope
greater
than
25
percent.
Unless
that
restriction
would
physically
preclude
the
development
of
at
least
two
800
square
foot,
primary
dwelling
units.
E
E
The
city's
existing
regulations
do
not
require
owner
occupancy
for
dwellings
other
than
jadus,
in
which
case
owner
occupancy
of
the
house
or
jdu,
is
required
by
state
law.
Sb9
prohibits
the
city
from
requiring
owner
occupancy
as
a
condition
of
an
sb9
urban
lot
split,
but
applicants
choosing
to
pursue
an
urban
Lots,
but
are
required
again
to
declare
that
they
will
occupy
a
dwelling
unit
on
the
property
for
three
years.
Following
approval
of
the
subdivision,
the
ordinance
has
included
this
statemented
provision
in
the
proposed
ordinance.
E
Sb9
is
silent
as
to
whether
or
not
the
city
can
require
owner
occupancy
of
sb9
units
that
do
not
involved
an
urban
lot
split
in
order
to
maintain
consistency
and
to
discourage
absentee
landlords
and
speculative
development.
The
ordinance
states
that
this
same
requirement
to
live
on
the
property
for
three
years
from
the
date
of
approval,
be
included
for
a
two-unit
Housing
Development
foreign.
E
Jurisdictions
have
included
affordability,
requirements
for
sb9
units
in
their
implementation
ordinances.
These
requirements
have
not
yet
been
legally
challenged
and
the
validity
of
affordable
requirements
for
SB
unit
sb9
units
is
unclear,
as
staff
is
reviewing
housing.
Affordability
at
a
holistic
level,
both
through
the
general
Plan
update
process
and
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance,
which
was
initiated
by
city
council
affordability
requirements
have
not
been
included
in
the
draft
ordinance,
if
determined
to
be
appropriate
or
desired.
Such
requirements
could
be
reviewed
in
conjunction
again
with
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance.
E
Staff
does
recommend
two
amendments
based
on
some
public
correspondence
that
we
received.
One
is
to
clarify
how
protected
trees,
which
absolutely
must
be
removed,
are
to
be
mitigated.
The
language
to
be
added
is
here
in
yellow.
E
E
E
Staff
recommends
again
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommended
the
city
council
that
they
find
this
Municipal
Code
amendment
is
exempt
from
the
provisions
of
sequa
and
to
approve
the
Amendments
described
in
the
ordinance
included
in
today's
agenda
packet.
The
next
steps
would
include
city,
council,
review
and
final
action.
That
concludes
my
presentation
and
we
are
all
here
for
questions.
D
F
You
sure
okay
I'll,
be
glad
to
go
through
everything
here,
Miss
Kendall.
Thank
you.
So
much
I
think
this
is
one
of
the
most
sweeping
changes
in
law
that
I've
seen
by
indicating
that
essentially
there's
no
more
single
family
zoning
throughout
the
state
of
California
and
for
us
to
kind
of
go
through
this
is,
is
a
bit
overwhelming,
so
you
did
a
fantastic
job.
F
My
understanding
is
we
have
no
choice
but
to
implement
the
state
regulations
of
sb9,
but
what
we're
doing
as
part
of
this
is
going
through
a
lot
of
objective
standards
to
actually
allow
us
to
have
some
kind
of
control
over
the
process.
Would
that
be
accurate.
E
Yes,
the
city
does
currently
have
to
accept
these
projects,
which
are
allowed
pursuant
to
sb9.
The
ordinance
before
you
this
evening,
implements
the
state
law
and
takes
advantage
of
the
flexibility
baked
into
sb9,
which
specifically
allows
a
jurisdiction,
such
as
the
city,
to
implement
standards
that
are
as
long
as
they're
objective.
F
In
the
second
supplement,
we
we
got
today,
one
of
our
citizens.
Miss
Sabella,
is
very
concerned
about
sb9
and
it
sounds
like
the
implementation
of
it.
She
concerns
about
there's
no
requirement
of
to
inform
neighbors
of.
What's
going
on,
she
has
nine
trash
cans
that
are
going
to
be
mounting
up.
She
is
very
upset
it's
going
to
affect
property
values.
Looking
at
this,
it
sounds
like
there's
really
nothing.
We
can
do
to
stop
implementation
of
of
the
things
that
she's
most
upset
about.
E
E
F
All
right
so
again,
that's
my
concern
is
that
it
sounds
like
we're
really
kind
of
strapped
in
terms
of
being
handcuffed
in
terms
of
some
of
the
issues
she's
concerned
about
in
terms
of
it
has
to
be
Ministry
approved.
It's
not
something
we
can
actually
require.
Have
public
hearings
as
long
as
they
satisfy
these
requirements.
Is
that
correct.
F
And
one
thing
you
you
made
specific
to
point
out
which
I'm
glad
you
did
is
in
terms
of
no
more
than
four
per
lot.
There's
been
a
lot
of
talk
with
regard
to
people
concerned
about
how
that
might
split
might
end
up
having
10
units
on
the
two
different
lots
and
that's
not
going
to
happen.
According
to
this
draft
correct.
E
F
Okay,
so
that
tries
to
limit
the
the
impact
I
remember
in
the
Adu
law
it
came
out
in
within
six
months
to
eight
months,
a
new
law
came
out
trying
to
fix
some
of
those
Provisions.
Do
you
anticipate
any
kind
of
change
in
sb9
that
is
coming
down
the
pike
so
to
speak?.
E
G
We
can
answer
that
question
early
on.
There
were
a
couple
lawsuits
that
came
down,
but
they
haven't
been
successful
in
Striking
down
sb9.
F
F
E
F
D
E
F
H
H
Conversation
sure
well,
thank
you.
Actually,
you
know
the
municipal
code
standards
wouldn't
actually
be
embedded
within
the
housing
element
per
se.
You
would
have
the
policy
direction
to
kind
of
follow
through
and
amend
the
code
as
needed
generally
you're
doing
that
as
a
response
to
the
various
State
legislation.
So
if
there
was
State
legislation,
that
said,
you
need
to
update
sb9
just
like
Adu
law,
and
we
would
have
to
address
it
at
this
point
in
time.
H
There
wouldn't
be
a
need
to
overhaul
objective
standards,
I
think
as
when
I
presented
objective
standards
to
this
body
and
the
city
council.
You
know
it
was.
You
know,
basically
our
first
attempt
to
address
the
law
and
so
that
we
had
some
clarity
moving
forward.
H
It's
not
to
say
that
you
know,
even
in
our
own
analysis,
moving
forward
and
evaluating
projects,
do
we
go
back
as
we
look
at
the
municipal
code
after
the
general
plan,
I
mean
there
will
be
that
occurring,
maybe
not
specifically
for
objective
standards,
but
you
know
for
a
variety
of
things.
H
H
They
would
and
so
and
I'll
just
take
it
a
little
bit
further,
just
like
adus
it
wasn't
until
you
could
have
a
demonstrated
track
record
that
you
could
count
them
or
project
them
out
into
the
future,
so
we're
probably
going
to
have
to
wait
a
year
or
two
at
least
to
see
you
know
what
is
the
production
levels
that
we're
receiving
we
do
have
to?
F
Be
it's
just
unfortunate
we're
doing
this
at
a
time
that
I
think
the
square
footage
price
is
800
to
a
thousand
dollars
a
square
foot
to
try
to
build
things
there.
But
that's
that's
a
different
issue.
You
indicated
there
was
one
application
that
had
already
been
submitted
and
I
guess
not
approved,
but
submitted.
Would
that
require
any
kind
of
retroactive
evaluation
of
that
application?
F
F
F
Again,
you
answer
a
lot
of
questions,
so
I'm
kind
of
skipping
through
here
now
I'm,
going
to
ask
the
obvious
question
here
that
one
of
the
exceptions
which
is
interesting
because
of
how
the
state
and
again
whenever
you
have
a
one-size-fits-all
rule,
I
think
you're
going
to
end
up
finding.
This
is,
as
you
kind
of
noted,
that
our
entire
area
is
a
high
fire
danger
zone
area.
F
G
Yeah
so
I
mean
there's,
there's
a
kind
of
exceptions
to
the
exception
for
high
fire
zones
right
and
and
the
if
you
can
establish
building
criteria
to
ameliorate
the
the
risk
of
the
high
fire
zone,
then
you
need
to
allow
for
the
building,
so
you
could
build
an
sb9
unit
in
a
high
fire
zone
as
long
as
the
building
code
is
has
criteria
in
there
to
to
address
those
issues.
F
So
we
can,
as
a
city,
just
basically
kind
of
throw
it
through
there.
We'd
have
to
actually
make
sure
that
it
would
apply.
These
exceptions.
To
the
exception
is
what
you're
saying
correct.
I
thought
we
had
I
thought
we
had
an
out
there.
I
guess
not.
You
indicated,
though
speaking
of
exception,
the
adus
had
a
HOA
has
to
comply,
but
it
sounds
like
when
you're
saying
this
HOA
doesn't
have
to
actually
let
it
in
and
can
still
enforce
its
rules
not
to
allow
this.
G
Yeah
I
mean
if
you'll
recall,
with
with
the
Adu
law.
Initially
there
was
no
discussion
about
HOAs
and
their
ability
to
to
prevent
adus,
and
then
subsequent
legislation
came
in
and
said,
HOAs
didn't
have
any
authority
to
prevent
them
at
this
time.
With
regard
to
sp9
projects,
sb9
is
silent
as
to
the
authority
of
HOAs,
it's
possible
in
the
future
that
the
legislature
could
come
back
and
change
that,
but,
as
we
sit
right
now,
HOAs
can
still
apply
and
enforce
their
ccnrs
with
regard
to
sb9
projects.
F
And
I
noticed
there
was
a
I
say
requirement
of
process,
though,
to
make
sure
there
was
a
notification
to
the
HOA
again
looking
at
trying
to
make
sure
that
the
city
doesn't
get
embroiled
in
something.
Is
there
something
where
the
city
actually
verifies,
whether
it's
subject
to
an
HOA
or
the
necessary
applicable
approvals
have
been
given
or
not
given?
Or
do
we
get
involved
in
that
at
all.
G
Well,
we're
not
going
to
enforce
an
HOA
ccnrs.
The
the
requirement
in
the
application
is,
is
for
the
applicant
to
provide
the
city
with
proof
that
they
notified
the
HOA
of
the
project.
So
once
the
HOA
knows
that
there's
a
project
they
can
decide,
you
know
what
or
if
they
will
do
anything
about
it.
In.
I
So
Sheriff
I
may,
if
you
go
back
to
solar
right
when
we
talked
about
solar
initially,
solar
also
did
not
have
that
that
section.
That
said,
an
HOA
could
not
control
or
prohibit
solar
on
homes
within
HOA
or
within
the
ccnrs,
and
that
course,
then,
within
a
short
time
that
changed
and
the
law
under
solar
law
was
that
any
contract
that
prohibited
solar
was
now
Nolan
void.
Right
and
then
Adu
law
came
around
and
I.
I
Remember
saying
in
front
of
this
body,
it's
silent
because
we
had
that
question
and
then
within
a
I
would
say
within
eight
months
or
a
year,
as
you
noted,
the
added
that
section,
I
I
think
with
HOAs
this
one
might
be
a
little
bit
different
I
think
they
certainly
are
going
to
there's
a
whole.
Obviously
purpose
behind
this,
which
is
a
good
housing
in
right.
I
mean
this
is
what
they've
been
hitting
with
as
a
housing
crisis
act.
I
think
we
all
have
to
understand.
I
That
is
the
fundamental
basis
of
which
all
these
housing
laws
are
coming
at
us
right
and
more
and
more
of
our
local
controls
being
taken
away.
The
purpose
again
that
we
stated
tonight
is
to
ensure
that
we
can
have
the
flexibility
that's
permitted
under
this.
The
reason
why
we
were
careful
with
the
ccnr
is
as
Mr
Doran
noted.
We
do
not
enforce
the
ccnrs.
We
don't
want
to
get
into
that
battle
between
a
private.
I
You
know
private
parties
with
a
contract
with
that
said,
we
thought
at
this
point
to
ensure
that
they
gave
us
information
that
they
notified
the
HOA
the
HOA.
If
they
want
to
take
action
with
them,
they're
going
to
be
doing
that
and
it
happens
with
solar,
sometimes
where
the
again
HOA
cannot
prohibit
a
solar
on
a
property,
but
they
can
as
you
as
most
of
you
know,
they
can
say
as
long
as
we're
not
reducing
the
amount
of
solar
a
house
is
going
to
have,
for
example,
we
can.
I
Give
again
remember
this
is
going
to
be
ministerial
applications,
and
so
we
can't
have
that
delay
where
you
have
someone
from
a
HOA
body,
saying:
hey,
guess
what
we
have
a
problem
here,
so
we're
going
to
have
a
meeting
in
about
two
months
and
we're
going
to
let
you
know
what
we
decide
to
do
and
if
we
say
they
can't
have
it,
you
can't
issue
their
permit
that
there's
nothing
in
our
law.
That
says
we
can
do
that.
So
it's
more
about
hey!
You
might
want
to
make
sure
you
check
with
HOA.
F
I
Lansing,
that
is
exactly
right.
It
is
small
small
Wireless
facilities,
we're
doing
exactly
the
same.
F
Thing:
okay,
that
does
make
sense
coming
back
in
terms
of
just
the
process,
so
in
the
event
they
submit
their
application
and
for
whatever
reason
it
doesn't
get
approved.
What
is
their
next
step?
Do
they
appeal
it
to
this
body?
Do
they
have
any
other
remedy?
Is
it
just
denied
and
that's
it.
E
E
No
seeking
a
variance-
and
there
is
nothing
baked
into
the
ordinance
which
would
allow
something
like
a
waiver
but
seeking
a
variance,
would
throw
them
out
of
the
parameters
of
sb9
and
so
they'd,
be
out
of
the
box.
And.
F
F
The
the
last
thing
I'll
actually
ask
about
is
the
affordability.
You
indicated
that
the
thought
is
to
any
affordability
issue
is
incorporate
with
the
inclusion,
how
inclusionary
housing
ordinance.
That's
the
obvious
question:
when
is
that,
potentially
something
that
might
come
before
us.
H
So
we've
currently
Enlisted
the
services
of
the
consultant
and
they
are
preparing
a
feasibility
and
Nexus
study
for
the
inclusionary
housing
with
that
they
will
be
looking
at
a
variety
of
building
protein
prototypes.
H
You
know
part
of
that
will
kind
of
set
the
parameters
for
what
is
feasible
and
what's
legally
defensible
in
terms
of
applying
inclusionary
housing,
and
it
does
need
to
be
fair
and
so
there's
two
different
processes
that
they
go
through.
You
know
what
is
legally
acceptable
and
then
what
is
financially
feasible
and
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
the
second
part
that
is
going
to
be
very
critical
in
consideration
on
whether
you
can
apply
inclusionary
housing
to
a
project
of
four
units,
typical
wow,
inclusionary,
housing,
ordinances.
F
H
Yeah,
that
is
something
that
you
know.
We
I
think
the
the
studies
will,
you
know,
can
address,
but
it's
typically
not
found
in
inclusionary
housing
ordinance,
it's
not
to
say
that
I
mean,
unlike
adus
with
like
or
with
a
housing
element
that
we
just
adopted.
I
mean
there
are
hcd,
wants
to
have
cities,
promote
incentives
for
Adu.
F
F
H
A
E
E
A
Thank
you,
let's
see,
and
then
the
short-term
rental
designation
is
that
on
the
deed
for
perpetuity.
Yes,.
A
Okay,
let's
see
and
is,
are
there
any
teeth?
Is
there
any
mechanical
policy,
or
how
is
it
going
to
be
that
there's
the
insurance
that
the
owner
will
stay
in
that
unit
for
three
years?
What
is
the
mechanism
for
that.
G
That's
a
good
question,
so
we're
going
to
require
that
there
be
a
deed
restriction
placed
on
the
property
that
the
city
would
be
able
to
enforce.
You
know
certainly
there's
some
difficulties
with
a
short
window
of
time
three
years
and
they're
only
required
to
intend
to
occupy
the
house
for
three
years.
So
to
be
honest,
enforcement's
gonna
be
a
little
bit
difficult.
A
I
If
I
may
I
think,
as
we
discussed,
certainly
current
I
would
say
currently
there
is
no
prohibition
for
HOAs
to
under
their
season
areas
to
do
exactly
what
you
said
to
adopt.
I
Cc
nards
that
restrict
or
prohibit
I
should
say
sb9
units
I
will
just
tell
you
that
I
think
that
you're
going
to
see
the
reaction
from
the
state
just
like
with
the
Adu
law
in
which,
if
that
happens,
I
think
to
a
great
extent,
there's
going
to
be
probably
a
reaction
from
the
state
to
modify
that
because
of
that
underlying
purpose
about
housing.
A
Okay
and
I
do
think
the
rest
of
my
questions
were
answered.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
Miss
Kendall,
for
your
presentation,
I'm.
Sorry,
you
drew
the
Short
Straw,
but
and
if
you
volunteer
for
this,
you
know
tudos
to
you,
but
I
did
you
did
wow?
Congratulations
quite
the
undertaking.
C
My
apologies
also
to
the
the
attorneys
in
the
in
the
room,
because
there
are
at
least
three
that
I
count
and
although
I
am
a
child
of
attorney
and
I'm,
going
to
try
to
put
on
my
attorney
hat
I,
it's
it's
not
going
to
go
well,
but
anyway,
so
I'm
going
to
dig
into
some
semantics
here,
unfortunately,
starting
with
demolition.
So
there's
some
terminology
in
here
that
I
think
potentially
may
need
to
be
defined,
but
for
the
purposes
of
demolition,
so
we
have
25
is
the
maximum
at
least?
E
Needed
if
it,
if
it's
so,
we
include
in
the
ordinance
a
definition
of
death
of
demolition
and
if
it's
not
something
that
is,
staff
I
could
make
a
determination
or
if
it's
close,
we
would
have
the
building
official
and
a
building
plan
check
technician
to
make
that
determination.
Okay,.
C
And
as
far
as
the
definition
was
concerned,
it
said
structural
wall,
so
this
doesn't
include
sun
rooms
or
a
covered
patio,
or
anything
like
that
as
part
of
the
definition,
so
that
either
the
homeowner
would
be
short
cheated
or
maybe
figured
out
a
way.
So
does
that
include
a
garage
or
is
it
just
the
habitable
area
of
the
house
in
terms
of
structural
walls.
E
Yeah
we
did,
we
were
just
talking.
We
it's
defined
as
any
portion
of
the
structure,
so.
C
C
C
Okay,
got
it
moving
on
to
more
or
less
access,
so,
in
the
event
that
a
lot
would
occur
more
or
less
down
the
middle
of
the
property.
But
the
access
driveway
is
not
in
that
location
with
the
property
owner
of
the
person's
putting
the
lot
and
then
be
required
to
relocate
access
so
that
it
is
continued
to
be
shared
or
would
they
be
allowed
to
have
two
curb
cuts.
J
Actually
sb9
has
very
little
to
do
with
public
work
requirements
as
far
as
the
driveway
location,
driveway
distances.
The
lot
line,
split
regulations
and
reviews
track
map
personal
map.
All
those
requirements
stays
the
same
as
that
doesn't
have
any
waiver
or
exclusion
from
all
any
of
our
requirements
for
public
works.
Basically,
so.
C
And
lastly,
and
I
know
that
we
have
several
developments
in
the
city
like
this,
but
we
have
a
lot
of
zero
lot
lines.
So
could
potentially
a
person
build
a
house
within
four
feet
of
an
existing
dwelling
on
a
zero
lot
line
if
the
setback
is
for
only
minimum
four
feet.
E
I
I
will
say
that
I
think
that's
where
you
get
into
the
the
the
situations
in
which
we're
going
to
contemplate
saying
no
to
a
project
because
of
that
issue.
But
you
have
to
really
establish
that
through
the
factors,
because
it's
a
preponderance
of
evidence
of
the
city
to
deny
that
and-
and
that
goes
to
the
public
safety.
I
So
you
really
got
to
establish
that
that
would
be
the
undermining
issue,
as
you
mentioned,
and
so
I
think
we're
looking,
obviously
in
like
case-by-case
basis,
but
where
you're
going
to
be
underlying
undermining
some
Foundation
of
another
residence
that
probably
would
trigger.
I
Understand
I
think
that
goes
back
to.
As
we
said
earlier,
the
state
has
made
this
a
a
significant,
a
change
as
far
as
the
city's
burden
when
it
comes
to
saying
no
to
these
kind
of
projects
and
so
therefore
taking
an
action
like
that
would
be
something
we
would
seriously
consider
and
what
the
reasons
are
and
make
sure
we've
documented
those
reasons
had
those
Communications
have
the
have
those
factors.
K
Thank
you,
sir.
Thank
you
very
much
for
this
presentation.
It
was
very
thorough.
I
had
a
bunch
of
questions
coming
in
and
I
really
don't
now.
I
just
have
a
few
for
clarification.
Number
one
for
me
was
acting
in
concert.
There
is
a
slim,
but
none
possibility,
but
an
existent
possibility
that
family
members
could
be
living
adjacent
to
each
other
and
be
doing
these.
Making
these
efforts
for
an
elderly,
parent
or
or
younger
family
members
would
that
fall
in
that
category
or
is
that
an
exception
of
some
kind?
Yes,.
K
Them
you
got
it
so
okay,
so
if
one
family
member
splits
a
lot,
then
the
person
next
to
him
is
not
allowed
to
do
the
same
thing
good
to
know.
Okay,
then,
on
the
the
landlocked
Lots
and
flag
lots
and
additional
cutouts
I'm
thinking
of
neighborhoods
like
I
forgot
it
again,
that's
amazing
caneo
Oaks,
which
doesn't
have
sidewalks,
and
so
we
don't
have
Express
cutouts,
as
as
you
would
Define
them
off
of
a
sidewalk.
We
have
a
number
of
neighborhoods
like
that,
but
I'm.
Just
citing
that
example.
K
K
H
No,
we
cannot
require
it,
I.
Think.
The
purpose
of
doing
the
limitation
on
one
curb
cut
on
those
landlocked
parcel
Maps
is
so
that
you
preserve
the
on-street
parking,
because
if
we
are
left
only
being
able
to
apply
one
parking
space
per
unit,
then
the
thought
process
is
that
then
parking
will
spill
out
onto.
K
As
the
person
in
the
second
letter
mentioned,
the
number
of
trash
cans
that
got
on
trash
day
could
be
adversely
impacted.
If
every
available
parking
space
is
full,
every
access
cut
out
is
full.
What
do
we
start
doing
in
those
situations?
Is
that
we're
just
going
to
kind
of
shake
our
hands
out
and
say
that's?
That
is
what
it
is,
or
are
we
going
to
start
creating
red
zones
within
our
residential
neighborhoods?
Is
that
something
we'd
contemplate
at
this
point.
K
H
G
K
J
I
may
this
is
not
a
new
thing
for
us.
If
you
go
to
part
of
North
Branch
that
you
were
talking
about,
it's
the
same
situation
exists,
you're
just
going
to
have
more
cans
right
now,
if
you
go,
let's
say
a
Golf
Course
Drive
you'll
see
the
narrow,
narrow
streets
yeah
with
no
sidewalk,
and
probably
a
dozen
people
with
their
dogs
walking
every
day
up
and
down.
J
Parking
is
the
same
issue.
You
know
the
same
parking
areas
we
have
in
those
streets
going
to
be
taken
by
the
trash
cans,
also,
and
normally,
that
this
trash
cans
come
out
either
late
at
night
before
or
early
in
the
morning,
and
hopefully
by
afternoon,
when
people
come
back,
they're
back
into
their
garage.
J
What
we're
hoping
for,
but
no
we
don't
have
actively.
We
don't
have
any
regulations
or
anything
that
requires
a
specific
location
for
trash
cans
or
create
no
parking
days
during
the
trash,
pickup
or
red
zones.
As
you
mentioned,
or
limited
red
zones,
we
don't
have
any
of
that.
Okay,
so
far,
we
didn't
have
any
issues
yet.
J
K
J
K
Sounds
good
to
me
all
right:
let's
follow
that
up
with,
we
were
talking
about
the
height
allowances
up
to
25
feet,
and
then
we
were
talking
about
demolition
of
wall,
so
I
just
wanted
for
my
own
clarification,
there's
a
large
number
of
single-family
ranch
homes
in
Thousand
Oaks.
If
somebody
decided
to
go
two
stories,
that's
obviously
permitted.
K
K
Because
then
you
keep
your
land
area,
you
know
your
footprint's
the
same.
It
doesn't
necessarily
require
demolition.
That
kind
of
thing,
so
that
would
make
sense.
Okay,
I
was
just
curious
about
that.
If
that
was
a
feasible
and
then
just
following
up
on
the
the
intent
for
the
three
years
thing,
so
we're
just
confirming
that
in
signing
a
letter
of
intent,
we
don't
have
an
enforcement
it.
It
doesn't
really
have
teeth
right.
G
So
so
we're
going
to
require
that
they
sign
an
affidavit
and
that's
going
to
be
recorded,
that
they're
going
to
that
for
the
applicable
projects
that
they
will
stay
in
the
in
one
of
the
units
for
three
years
and.
K
K
K
G
K
K
K
I,
don't
understand,
okay,
so
so
say:
I
live
in
Florida
and
my
mother
lives
here.
She
signs
this
thing
promises
to
stay
in
it.
She
passes
away
after
a
year,
I
inherit
the
property
from
Florida
I
have
no
intent
of
moving
the
Thousand
Oaks.
What's
my
recourse,
if
my
mother
agreed
to
remain
in
the
property,
would
the
property
then
remain
vacant
for
two
years
while
we
waited
out
or
would
we
be
able
to
to
remove
that
Covenant
for
them?
I
ask
because
this
is
something
that
could
happen.
K
I
J
I
I
Like
people,
people
with
good
intentions,
correct,
and
so
what
does
that
mean
right,
and
so
this
is
another
example
of
a
sb9
law
and
the
housing
laws
they're
new,
and
we
have
no
case
law
to
help
us
figure
out.
Okay,
what
what
happens
when,
when
this
particular
fact
pattern
occurs?
What
happens
when
this
particular
fact
pattern
occurs?
So
this
is
where
we,
because
of
the
newness
it's
hard
to
answer
a
hypothetical,
because
I
think
it's
going
to
be.
As
Mr
Duran
said,
we
might
look
at
this
as
a
civil
matter.
You
signed
affidavit.
I
What
are
the?
What
are
the
factors
for
your
case,
obviously
with
death
with
someone
saying
I
intended
to
but
I'm
moving?
What
does
that
mean?
How
can
we
can
we
enforce?
This
I
think
we're
going
to
see
some
litigation
happen
over
a
very
short
period
of
time
with
these
issues
because
of
the
concerns
that
we
have
with
okay.
This
is
really
not.
There
was
a
fake
intention
right
because
the
state
didn't
put
any
consequences
into
this
bill
to
say:
oh,
if
this
happens,
these
are
the
steps
the
city
can
take
against
this
person.
I
That's
not
in
there
right
now,
I'm
not
going
to
get
into
the
intent
of
the
the
makers
of
this
bill
right
because
they
put
that
word
in
there
and
I
thought
boy.
You
could
have
used
a
better
word.
You
could
have
made
this
a
little
bit
more
restrictive
and
they
did
not
do
that.
They
said
intend
right-
and
they
put
that
word
in
specifically
and
that
that
word
has
a
specific
meaning
right
or
a
limitation
of
what
does
that
really
mean
right?
It
opened
a
little
law,
school
I
trust.
I
K
I
And
what
we're
asking
you
to
do
tonight
is
to
say:
here's
the
state
law,
here's
the
flexibility
that
we
have,
that
that
we
that
that
staff
has
been
presenting
to
you
to
say:
okay,
these
are
the
things
that
we
have
some
control
over.
Here's.
Why
we're?
This
is
how
we're
we're
going
to
do
this,
and
this
is
our
recommendation,
because
the
State
lost
the
state
law
right.
If
we
don't
do
anything,
it's
going
to
be
you
don't
have
a
you,
don't
have
an
ordinance
on
this.
Okay,
what
are
the
state
requirements
boom?
K
I
That
is
another
example
of
not
thinking
the
whole
thing
through
right
from
the
state,
and
so
we're
going
to
see.
Maybe
these
changes
that
happen
in
the
next
couple
of
years,
where
we
have
to
have
some
modifications
because
of
whatever
happened
right
and
some
might
be
modifications
to
make
it
more
restrictive
and
some
might
be
modifications
to
make
it
broader.
I
Like
the
as
we
discussed
the
HOA
issue,
right
I
mean
you're
going
to
see
things
change,
but
I
think
it's
very
important
for
staff
for
the
public
to
understand
for
Commissioners
to
understand
that
the
basic
premise
again
goes
back
to
housing
right
and
this
major
push
for
the
housing
crisis
act
to
make
these
laws
that
continue
to
push.
You
mentioned
the
parking
one.
It's
really
not
that
agenda
tonight,
but
there
was
a
question
previously
about
the
parking
from
I.
Think
it's
ab2097
and
and
again
we
we
don't
meet
that
definition
for
traffic.
I
I
But
to
your
point,
it
just
is
like
this
is
another
thing
being
thrown
at
us:
that's
very
quick,
it's
so
impactful
and
if
it
if
it
does
impact
our
cities,
you
know
in
some
way.
We
need
to
be
aware
of
that
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
do.
You.
K
Got
it
all
right,
thank
you,
and
that
was
my
last
question
and
with
that
I
just
want
to
throw
out,
especially
you
for,
for
taking
up
this
challenge,
trying
to
re-envision
what
a
city
looks
like
or
a
suburb
looks
like
when
it's
no
longer
the
suburb
as
it
was
originally
designed,
is
amazing
and
thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
for
doing
it.
A
Thank
you,
I,
don't
mean
to
dwell
on
this
three
years,
but
I
have
one
more
question.
The
wording
is
the
intent
for
minimum
of
of
a
minimum
of
three
years
from
the
date
of
approval.
If
that's
a
date
of
approval
for
the
project
and
the
project
takes
a
year,
do
they
only
have
to
live
in
there
for
two
years
or
did
they?
Does
this
mean
to
be
the
certificate
of
occupancy.
E
D
Miss
Kendall
I
I
also
want
to
add
my
thanks.
This
is
a
very
complex
law.
It's
very
new
law
and
I
appreciate
your
thoroughness
and
explaining
it
to
us
in
terms
we
can
understand.
So
thank
you
for
that.
I
want
to
go
back
to
appoint
commissioner
Lanson
alluded
to
at
the
beginning
of
his
questions.
It's
really
a
wire.
Why
are
we
here
question
commissioner?
D
There
there
is
relevance,
city
law
today
governing
many
of
the
things
that
we've
talked
about,
and
there
is
sb9.
There
are
areas
where
they're
in
Conflict,
for
example,
regarding
setbacks
for
our
tree
ordinances
or
other
things.
If
not,
if
we
recommended
not
to
act
on
this,
and
there
are
two
sets
of
laws
that
are
in
Conflict,
which
one
takes
precedence.
D
All
right,
thank
you.
Mr
Duran
mentioned
you
said
there
had
been
a
couple
of
lawsuits.
None
successful!
So
far,
are
you
aware
of
I'm?
This
is
a
question
about
the
legal
landscape
around
sb9
right
now.
Are
you
aware
of
other
legal
challenges
that
exist
now?
Are
you
aware
that
the
league
of
California
cities,
of
which
our
city
is
a
member
is,
is
it
contemplating
bringing
a
legal
challenge?
I
If
I
make
sure
I
I
will
also
say,
I'm
not
aware
of
the
league
in
any
way
challenge
in
this
I
will
say
that
before
this
sb9
was
adopted,
we
do
have
a
a
legislative
liaison,
Mina
liba,
who
looks
through
all
the
bills
that
are
upcoming,
and
this
one
has
is.
It
was
something
that
was
sort
of
presented
a
while
back
and
didn't
get
enough
legs
to
move
forward,
and
then
we
have
this
one,
but
we
certainly
opposed
the
city.
Certainly
opposed
this
legislation
and
I
know
a
number
of
cities
did.
I
Of
course,
there
might
have
been
some
minor
compromises
with
some
of
the
public
agencies
over
a
period
of
time
that
might
have
changed
a
little
bit
the
drafting
But.
Ultimately,
the
the
big
impact
that
we
still
have
is
certainly
State,
driven
the
only
again
the
I
I
want
to
I'm
over
emphasizing
this
point,
but
I
think
it's
on
purpose
is
sb9.
Is
the
law?
What
we're
presenting
to
you
today
is
a
way
for
us
to
modify
the
law
to
some
benefit,
where
we
have
a
little
bit
more
control.
I
We
have
standards
that
we
can
apply
and
we
can
have
the
ability,
in
some
cases
to
say
no
to
a
project
because
they
don't
meet
certain
standards
and
if
we
don't
have
that,
then
we're
going
to
even
lose
our
ability-
or
at
least
it's
going
to
be
much
more
of
a
challenge
to
fight
these
situations
or
these
projects,
certainly
because
we
don't
have
anything
to
stand
behind
and
say:
oh
you're,
you're
violating
the
ordinance.
You
know
section
9-3.425
whatever
it
is.
So
that's
where
we
got
to
be.
I
You
know
we
I
really
want
to
emphasize
that
we
are
trying
to
do
the
best
with
what
we
have
and
and
then
use
this
ordinance
to
help
direct
the
best
of
the
sp9
projects
that
we
can
possibly
get.
I.
Think
that's
the
best
way
to
say
it.
D
And
I
appreciate
that
effort
on
your
part
and
on
all
of
your
parts,
has
the
city
done
any
sort
of
impact
analysis
on
the
outcome
of
sb9?
As
as
we
understand
it
is
it?
Is
it
going
to
quadruple
the
number
of
rentals?
Is
it
going
to
have
a
meaningful
impact
on
our
affordability
picture?
Has
there
been
any
sort
of
analysis
around
whether
the
law
will
do
what
its
intention
is.
H
H
Also,
in
terms
of
you
know,
affordability
I
mean
the
law
is
actually
silent
in
terms
of
affordability.
It's
just,
and
this
is
kind
of
with
a
lot
of
the
legislation.
It's
just
about
numbers,
creating
the
housing
creating
the
housing
stock.
So
you
know
in
terms
of
its
intent
of
meeting
affordability.
It's
the
bill
isn't
clear
in
that
regard.
So
right.
D
H
Correct
I
mean
because
I
mean,
as
far
as
how
you
can
demonstrate
their
affordability.
I
mean
they
have
been
kind
of
characterized
as
affordable,
but
that's
more
that.
D
H
C
Mr
chairman
I,
think
I'd
also
add
there
that
it
is
I,
think
informative
or
indicative,
since
this
law
has
been
in
effect
for
nine
months,
we've
only
had
one
application
that
met
the
criteria
where
we
had
30
inquiries
and
staff's
been
talking
to
those
30
different
people.
None
of
them
either
met
the
criteria
or
could
afford
to
do
it.
Once
they've
found
out
what
happened
to
happen.
D
D
Right
right
right
so
that
that
might
it's
just
the
evidence,
suggests
so
far
in
the
nine
months
that
this
has
been
law,
that
it's,
the
the
very
complexity
of
the
law
itself
and
the
the
number
of
requirements
is
a
break
on
the
rate
at
which
this
this
type
of
housing
might
be
produced.
Is
that
is
that
a
fair
understanding
of
what.
I
It
right,
okay
and
chair
I
would
also
say
that,
with
with
Adu,
you
mentioned
adus
right
and,
if
you've
noticed
I'm
sure
all
of
you
have
noticed
now
that
there
are
almost
like
80
youth
Specialists.
Now
that
have
been,
they
know,
there's
a
market
for
this
and
so
they're
saying
here's
our
design.
We
have
the
design
for
you.
I
We
have
the
process
for
you
we'll
work
with
the
city
for
you
and
and
there
will
be
the
consultant
for
you
and
we'll
get
for
our
fee,
of
course,
but
you
see
that
developing
more
now
throughout
California
and
I
think
as
time
goes
on
with
sb9
projects.
Maybe
it
goes
that
way.
I
think
there
is
certainly
a
different
threshold
for
cost
because,
as
Miss
Kendall
noted,
you
will,
if
you
split
the
law,
for
example,
you're
paying
those
fees.
I
If
you
have
a
different,
a
primary
residence
you're
you're,
you
have
to
pay
for
those
fees.
There's
connection
fees,
all
those
factors
come
into
play
where
you
say:
okay,
here's
the
value
of
my
house
I,
want
to
add
another
house
wow,
that's
you
know,
that's
a
big
number
I
gotta
deal
with
for
your
purpose,
right
versus
an
Adu,
smaller
you're
in
control
over
it
still
a
little
bit
less
costly.
D
Thank
you
for
that
I,
wonder
if
staff
want,
which
is
to
address
a
question
raised
in
our
supplemental
packet
by
Mr
Friedman
regarding
the
lack
of
architectural
control,
if
there
is
in
many
aspects
only
ministerial
approval
allowed
and
I
his
his
point.
This
is
point
number
question
number
four
he's
asking.
His
point
is
that
that
includes
automatic
or
ministerial
approval
of
architectural
details.
D
E
No,
the
an
applicant
would
still
need
to
submit
a
full
set
of
plans,
as
they
would
just
like
for
an
Adu
that
shows
the
height.
You
know
what
it's
going
to
look
like,
and
there
are
some
standards
in
here,
for
example,
the
Privacy
glass,
if
you're
within
10
feet
of
an
adjacent
dwelling
unit,
your
windows
have
to
be
fitted
with
privacy
gloss,
so
we
would
need
to
see
where
those
windows
are.
We
also
need
to
see
things
like
floor
plans
to
make
sure
that
it
qualifies
as
a
dwelling
unit,
and
things
like
that.
E
So
I
think
it's
a
misrepresentation
to
say
that
the
city
does
not
have
any
architectural
control.
We
all
of
those
architectural
standards
are
in
the
ordinance,
as
drafted.
D
H
Not
currently,
as
the
ordinance
is
written,
we
did
not
apply
and
if
you
recall,
as
part
of
the
article
22
objective
standards,
there
were,
you
know
things
in
terms
of
articulation
of
wall
planes
and
so
forth,
but
that
was
primarily
written
for
much
larger
structures,
wall
planes
exceeding
30
or
50
feet.
So
at
this
point
in
time,
there
isn't
anything
in
the
ordinance.
H
D
H
H
You
know
probably
have
to
stay
away
from
style
things
like
that
because,
but
you
know
in
terms
of
wall
articulations
roof
pitches.
You
know,
maybe
there's
a
certain
gradient
of
how
well
it
matches
the
form
of
the
primary
unit.
You
know
all
those
kind
of
parameters
could
be
explored
and
introduced
all.
D
D
Some
more
points,
just
so
I
understand
what
what
is
and
isn't
permitted
under
sb9
the
grading
standards.
If
I
understand
correctly,
as
as
is
the
case
today,
grading
of
slopes
of
25
percent
or
greater
is
not
permitted.
Unless
Planning
Commission
grants
a
waiver
do
I
understand
correctly
that
a
waiver
would
not
be
required,
provided
a
lot
would
support
two
houses
of
at
least
800
square
feet.
Apiece
is
that
is
that
correct.
E
So
grading
on
areas
that
are
25
percent,
steeper
or
more
steep
would
be
prohibited
unless
that
precludes
you
from
getting
those
two
units
of
800
square
foot
each.
So
if
your
whole
property
is
steep,
then
you
would
only
be
allowed
to
fit
the
those
two
units
in
the
minimum
amount
of
land
disturbance
feasible.
D
I
thought
that
well
just
just
for
clarification,
I'm,
not
sure
I
I,
understand
what
you're
saying,
but
I
I
also
thought
that
that
was
the
current
standard.
We
use
this.
The
we
allow
with
a
waiver
when
there's
no
other
way
to
let
the
property
owner
make
reasonable
and
conformant
use
of
their
property.
That's
the
case
today.
So
what
what
changes
here
does
the
fact
that
it's
two
structures
and
they're
800
square
feet
or
greater.
D
Right
and
that
that
would
be
allowed
without
waivers
without
public
review
without
public
comment,
correct
I
see
so
so
I'm
not
I'm,
not
saying
anything
specific
about
an
upcoming
hearing.
We
are,
we
owe
a
future
applicant,
a
fair
hearing,
but
there
is,
there
is
an
upcoming
hearing
for
a
project
that
is
significantly
larger
than
an
800
square
feet.
E
E
E
H
Basically,
a
chair,
they
would
have
to
exhaust
all
their
design
options
in
looking
at
setbacks,
open
space
requirements,
the
grading
and
even
our
tree
ordinance
requirements.
I
mean
all
those
things
have
to
be
evaluated
to
determine
whether,
if
all
those
rules
preclude
the
ability
of
800
square
feet,
a
unit
per
unit,
that's
allowed.
D
So
it's
a
sort
of
last
Last,
Resort
approach,
saying
right,
right,
I,
see
speaking
of
tree
ordinances.
Do
I
understand
correctly
that
the
replacement
of
trees
in
sb9
eligible
properties,
one
is
ministerial,
is
that
is
that
correct.
E
Yes-
and
let
me
just
recap,
what's
included
in
the
ordinance
because
I
deleted
that
slide
inadvertently,
so
the
removal
of
protected
trees
is
prohibited,
just
like
the
grading
standard,
unless
that
precludes
you
from
getting
that
minimum
level
of
development,
so,
but
so,
if
you
have
to,
as
a
last
resort,
remove
that
protected
tree,
you
are
required
to
replace
it
on
site
with
one
oak
tree
per
the
recommendations
of
the
City
Arborist.
Why.
E
E
I
recall
when
we
had
this
conversation
it
more
so
related
to
if
you
had
a
property
where
that
was
your
last
resort
and
you
were
precluded
from
this
minimum
level
of
development
and
you
had
to
remove
a
tree
or
trees.
You
probably
don't
have
a
lot
of
space
on
your
property
to
then
plant
new
trees
and
the
preference
being
the
replacement
on
site.
Rather
than
off-site.
E
D
D
And
then
the
final
question
I
have
is
is
regarding
SQL
review.
Do
I,
understand
correctly,
that
sb9
properties
are
just
automatically
sequel
exempt.
Is
that
is
that
a
correct
understanding
of
the
rule.
D
D
Okay,
then
I
think
our
next
step
is
to
turn
to
public
comment
and
we
have
three
speakers,
all
of
whom
are
joining
us
remotely
and
because
it's
three
speakers
they
will
each
have
five
minutes
and
we
ask
that
you
each
state
your
name
and
your
city
of
residence
for
the
record
and
we
will
begin
with
Jackson
Piper,
followed
by
Marianne
vanzile
and
then
Clint
fultz
Mr
Piper.
Are
you
with
us.
L
I'm
here,
can
you
hear
me:
I
can
good
evening
great
good
evening.
My
name
is
Jackson
Piper
I
live
in
unincorporated,
Newbury,
Park
and
I'm.
Here,
sorry,
if
I
missed
anything,
please
let
me
know,
and
I'll
I'll
include
that
but
I
I'm
here
to
support
the
implementation
of
sb9
by
the
city,
not
only
because
it's
a
Statewide
law,
but
because
I
think
it
will
be
beneficial
to
to
prospective
residents
of
the
city
and
even
to
the
existing
residents
of
the
city,
to
have
more
flexibility
and
what
our
zoning
allows.
L
We
definitely
need
more
housing.
We
don't
only
need
single-family
housing
increases,
but
we
can
definitely
use
more,
and
this
will
give
some
incentive
for
people
to,
in
my
belief,
make
better
use
of
their
properties
than
just
having
the
large
yard,
and
maybe
a
house
that's
oversized
for
their
current
needs.
L
L
Just
looking
through
the
Ventura
County
income
limits
that
were
put
out
by
the
state
for
this
year,
minimum
level
of
payment
of
2885
dollars
per
month
for
for
the
the
upper
end
of
the
very
upper
end
of
the
low
income
level
for
20
years
would
result
in
692
400
over
that
20
years,
going
to
the
the
property
owner,
which
sounds
like
a
lot.
L
But
then,
if
you
consider
the
cost
of
the
construction
of
the
unit,
it
doesn't
seem
like
they'll
be
doing
much
more
than
breaking,
even
if
at
that,
so
there's
got
to
be
some
way
to
allow
for
lower
income
families
and
even
moderate
income
families
that
are
otherwise
blocked
from
accessing
housing
in
Thousand
Oaks.
To
be
able
to
to
afford
some
of
these
units
and
I
very
much
hope
that
the
city
can
find
a
way
to
do
that
other
than
that.
L
I'm
very
pleased
with
the
staff's
recommendations
and
I
encourage
you
all
to
endorse
what
they've
presented
here
today.
Thank
you.
M
Good
evening,
chair,
Newman
and
good
evening
to
the
rest
of
our
planning,
Commissioners
I
too,
am
in
favor
of
your
acceptance
of
this
proposed
implementation
of
sb9.
One
of
the
things
that
I
I
am
not
certain
about
and
I'm,
not
certain
that
it
was
described
correctly
was
that
the
city
May
adopt
regulations
which
allow
this
is
on
page
13,
the
bottom
of
13
or
bottom
of
12..
M
The
city
May
adopt
regulations
which
allow
for
greater
than
25
percent
demolition
of
the
existing
units
as
long
as
they
have
not
been
occupied
by
a
tenant
for
the
last
three
years.
However,
staff
has
not
included
any
such
provision
in
the
proposed
ordinance,
although
staff
is
not
recommended
allowing
greater
demolition
than
the
statemented
minimum.
A
more
flexible
standard,
May
encourage
conversion
of
existing
single-family
homes
and
duplex,
rather
than
development
of
multiple
detached
units.
M
M
There
are
many
older
suburbs,
not
quite
so
much
like
the
you
know,
Thousand
Oaks
used
to
be
an
ex-erb,
and
now
it
is
a
suburb.
Closer
in
suburbs
have
duplexes
mixed
in
with
single-family
homes,
and
the
neighborhoods
have
Charming
character.
I
think
this
is
important
to
I.
Think
this
entire
process
important
to
densify
areas
of
the
city
and,
as
we
think,
about
creating
incentives
for
people
to
move
through
this
process
more
quickly
or
with
lowered
fees.
M
I
hope
the
city
would
consider
incentives
for
people
making
this
type
of
conversion
within
a
half
mile
of
our
our
res,
our
neighborhood
shopping
centers.
The
city
could
use
density
in
these
areas
to
promote
active,
Transportation,
bicycling
and
walking
to
remove
Reliance
on
cars.
M
If
we
actually
had
protected
bike
Lanes
between
these
pods
within
the
city,
these,
perhaps
densified
pods
within
the
city,
it
would
bring
a
great
benefit
to
Citizens
and
the
city
and
our
environment
alike,
so
I
hope
that's
another
thing
that
the
city
will
consider
and
that's
it
for
me.
Thank
you
very
much.
D
Thank
you
and
before
you
go,
if
I
may
follow
up
with
a
question
on
these
incentives
for
Property
Owners
within
a
half
mile
of
shopping
areas,
are
you
thinking
of
density
bonuses
or
or
something
what
sort
of
incentives
are
you
recommending
here.
M
Heard
this
regulation
it
doesn't
appear
that
density
bonus
is,
is
allowed
and
I'm.
Okay
with
that,
perhaps
perhaps
there
could
be
a
height
exception,
although
I
don't
know
that.
Well,
that
actually
might
be
nice
in
some
areas
where
the
lots
are
relatively
small,
but
I
was
thinking
more
in
terms
of
reduced
permitting
fees
for
various.
M
You
know
various
parts
of
permits
that
there
might
be
a
reduction
in
permit
fees
and
perhaps
a
race
of
the
height
allowance.
That's
what
I
had
in
mind.
Thank
you.
Thank.
C
Hello,
my
name
is
Clint
folks
and
I'm,
a
resident
of
Thousand
Oaks
I'm,
not
speaking
tonight
on
behalf
of
any
organization
and
the
views
expressed.
Herein
will
be
my
own
for
far
too
long,
cities
in
the
U.S
have
made
building
climate-friendly
housing
difficult
and
often
impossible.
Zoning
laws
that
were
explicitly
designed
to
segregate
black
indigenous
and
people
of
color
from
White
Suburban
neighborhoods
have
helped
to
fuel
the
housing
crisis,
as
well
as
the
climate
crisis,
we
need
to
move
past
luxury
zoning,
also
known
as
single-family
residential
zoning
towards
more
inclusive
climate.
C
Warehousing
and
SB
9
is
a
small
step
in
that
direction.
Much
of
the
U.S
is
currently
saddled
with
car-centric
suburban
sprawl,
an
increasingly
large
houses,
often
built
in
the
wilderness,
Urban
interface,
but
building
denser
environmentally
friendly
adus,
duplexes,
triplexes
and
fourplexes
in
luxury.
Zoning
areas
have
been
illegal.
A
Vestige
of
day
jury
segregation
here
in
Thousand
Oaks.
We
have
overcrowding
and
homelessness
in
part
due
to
a
lack
of
housing.
While
a
whopping,
64
percent
of
our
communities,
greenhouse
gases
come
from
vehicle
use.
C
Science
tells
us
that
electric
vehicles
alone
will
not
reduce
our
greenhouse
gas
emissions
fast
enough
to
keep
us
under
the
recommended
safe
level
of
global
Heating.
We
need
to
create
denser
walkable
cities
with
reliable
public
transportation
luxury
zoning
prevents
us
from
doing
that.
I
believe
housing
is
a
human
right.
C
So
far,
local
control
has
failed
to
provide
enough
housing
and
is
only
perpetuated.
Inequality
along
racial
and
class
divides
what,
if
we
left
abortion
rights,
civil
rights
or
lgbtq
plus
rights
to
local
control.
What
sort
of
society
would
we
have
now
and
sequel
is
good,
but
is
often
misused
by
Bad
actors
to
prevent
climate-friendly
infill
housing.
We
need
more
infill
housing
and
not
more
sprawl
into
Farmland,
open
space
and
the
Wilderness
Urban
interface.
We
need
to
create
a
just
human-centric,
fossil
fuel-free,
City
and
denser
infill
housing
will
help
do
that.
D
E
Current
requirement
is
the
three
to
one
replacement
for
new
construction
in
residential
areas.
However,
in
cases
where
houses
currently
exist,
the
requirement
for
replacement
shall
be
one
36
inch
box
oak
tree
for
every
healthy
oak
tree
approved
for
removal.
So
that
is
what
we
were
mimicking
in.
The
proposed
ordinance.
E
And
then
I
I
believe
one
of
the
speakers
mentioned
some
confusion
around
the
Demolition
and
I'm,
not
sure
I
heard
her
comment
all
the
way
through
correctly,
but
I,
I
and
I.
Don't
have
the
staff
report
in
front
of
me,
but
there
has
been
some
clarification
of
the
demolition
allowed,
and
so,
if
somebody
needs
me
to
repeat
that,
please
let
me
know.
E
E
Demolition
of
up
to
25
percent
of
the
existing
exterior
walls
of
the
non-rental
unit
is
allowed
per
sb9
unless
the
city
allows
more
via
local
ordinance,
which
could
incentivize,
conversions
or
attached
Construction,
which
I
believe
is
what
the
speaker
was
mentioning.
If
no
dwelling
unit
on
the
site
has
been
rented
in
the
last
three
years,
the
entire
structure
may
be
demolished.
D
Okay,
great
I
had
a
couple
of
terminology
questions
I
know.
Commissioner.
Link
had
asked
about
terminology
before
is
the
are
the
concepts
of
a
single
family
dwelling
and
B?
What
what
is
a
renter?
Are
they
any
different
in
sb9
than
they
are
in
in
our
existing
law
in
in
our
in
the
municipal
codes?
D
C
F
D
K
K
65852.21
J
and
66411.7
n,
as
in
Nancy
and
approve
amendments
to
the
Thousand
Oaks
Municipal
Code,
has
described
in
attachment
too
subject
to
the
editorial
modifications
we
made
earlier.
Thank
you.
I
do
want
to
add
a
brief
editorial
comment
about
this,
as
was
mentioned,
I
believe
31
parties
reached
out
to
the
city
after
this
was
passed,
and
only
one
of
them
found
that
it
was
financially
feasible
for
them
and
made
sense.
I
do
not
believe
that
prop
9
is
going
to
solve
our
local
housing
issue.
I
do
not
believe
it's
going
to
increase
affordability.
K
I
do
have
a
few
ideas
for
the
state.
If
anybody's
listening
from
the
state
number
one,
they
need
to
incentivize
the
missing
middle
housing,
that's
not
being
built
right
now,
condos
co-ops,
townhouses,
all
of
those
things
the
state
representatives
may
or
may
not
be
aware.
It's
nearly
impossible
for
Builders
to
get
insurance
on
those
things
right
now,
due
to
the
way
many
of
them
were
sued
out
of
existence
by
HOAs
and
the
way
that
our
laws
are
set
up
currently.
So,
if
the
state
like
to
go
into
the
insurance
business,
that
would
be
awesome.
K
I'd
really
appreciate
that
maybe
they
can
refloat
the
people
that
need
to
build
these
things.
This
would
help
out
first-time
buyers.
People
like
me,
when
I
was
23
years
old
and
bought
my
first
condo
1100
square
feet
in
Thousand
Oaks,
and
it's
the
reason
that
I
was
able
to
stay
here
for
for
25
years,
so
I
think
a
lot
about
the
generation
coming
up
and
they
can't
do
that
now.
The
other
thing
is
that
I'd,
like
the
state
and
also
Federal
Representatives,
consider,
is
perhaps
expanding
access
to
loans.
F
Thank
you,
chair
Newman,
and
thank
you,
commissioner.
Bus
I
by
the
way,
I
have
a
thought
with
regard
to
the
estate
planning
question
we
had
in
the
fact
of
the
three
years.
There's
this
thing
called
Prop
19
that
was
passed
that
ultimately
requires
somebody
actually
move
into
the
property
in
order
to
maintain
the
property
value
of
the
subject,
to
not
being
reassessed,
so
that
probably
will
motivate
them
to
either
live
there
or
sell
it.
F
So
maybe
indirectly,
that
might
be
actually
a
a
way
that
that
issue
may
get
resolved,
but
anyway,
putting
that
aside
as
I'm
going
through
this.
This
is
a
massive
law,
Miss
Kendall
and
the
entire
staff.
You
guys
did
a
fantastic
job
of
putting
it
together.
I've
been
reading
it
for
months
now
trying
to
kind
of
understand
all
the
different
tendrils
that
kind
of
goes
into
this
process.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
going
through
that
and
looking
at
this
and
I
know,
there's
lots
of
frustrations
about
things.
F
Changing
and
I
realized
I'm
I'm
as
old
as
the
city
I
was
born
in
1964,
which
was
when
the
city
was
adopted
and
the
the
and
when
the
plan
was
set
forth
yeah
a
long
time
ago,
when
the
plan
was
set
forth,
our
city
had
a
certain
way
of
looking
at
a
certain
plan
and
that
General
plan
was
done
50
years
ago
and
we've
successfully
satisfied
that
plan
now
again
because
of
various
reasons.
We
need
to
modify
that
and
again
I.
Think
commissioner
bus
said
it.
We
need
to
re-envision
the
city
in
in
various
aspects.
F
I
I
appreciate
what
the
state's
trying
to
do
with
regard
to
this
process.
I
personally
feel
that
our
efforts
with
regard
to
the
general
Plan
update
that
we
did
have
been
far
more
and
will
be
far
more
effective
in
terms
of
trying
to
actually
help
our
citizens
than
what
I
deem
to
be
a
one-size-fits-all
law
that,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
isn't
really
going
to
be
it's
more
theoretical,
I
I
think,
unfortunately,
especially
right
now,
because
of
the
cost
that
goes
into
things
so
I
I
very
much
and
again,
I
know.
F
Miss
van
zyl
I
agree
with
you
that
there's
some
situations
here
that
may
not
have
gone
enough.
But
to
me
this
is
a
huge
change.
We
have
gone
from.
Essentially
the
state
is
required.
There
is
no
more
single-family
zoning
in
the
state
of
California
that
is
absolutely
huge
and
to
require
any
local
municipality
kind
of
adopt
those
issues.
I
think
that
is
in
itself
a
huge
Monumental
task.
So,
yes,
we're
going
to
do
things
probably
incrementally
I.
F
Think
in
some
of
the
aspects
and
again
as
we've
been
talking
about,
there's
certain
things
that
we're
going
to
wait
and
see
a
little
bit
as
to
how
HOA,
maybe
issues
work
out
or
how
some
of
the
demolition
issues
maybe
work
out
so
again.
Hopefully,
there's
that
patience
of
saying
we
always
can
come
back
and
revise
this
if
it's
necessary,
but
with
that
I
will
say
I'm
in
favor
of
and
I
support.
The
motion.
A
I
will
support
the
motion.
I
think
a
lot
has
been
said
about
I.
Don't
think
it's
going
to
change
our
city,
that
much
I
think
it's
just
too
difficult
to
build
here.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
very
expensive,
but
if
somebody
wants
to
do
it,
it
would
help
out
with
housing
and
and
what
we
don't
want
to
see
is
every
third
lot
to
be
built
like
this.
So
maybe
the
cost
prohibit
prohibitiveness
of
it.
A
Oh
brother,
that
was
a
bad
word,
but
the
costliness
of
it
will
maybe
keep
it
tamed
and
not
so
dense
for
our
city
and
yet
still
allow
for
an
additional
amount
of
housing.
So
I
like
I,
said
I
will
approve
this
one.
C
Thank
you
chair.
If,
if
nothing
more
than
to
maintain
local
control,
I
will
wholeheartedly
support
the
the
ordinance
has
been
presented
by
staff
and
all
the
dubious
or
not
dubious.
That's
the
wrong
word,
good
god
extensive,
there's
a
word
that
begins
with
d
and
I've
completely
lost
it.
But
anyway
no,
your
extensive
research,
not
dubious,
but
that
that
was
a
Freudian.
So
dubious
is
with
what
regard
I
think
that
this
bill
came
from
which
I
think
wants
to
be
everything
for
everybody.
C
When
we
take
a
lot
and
split
down
to
1200
square
feet,
that
makes
sense
in
a
place
like
Santa
Monica,
but
it
doesn't
necessarily
make
sense
in
a
place
like
Thousand,
Oaks
and
I.
Think
one
of
the
things
that
sort
of
gets,
stuffed
under
the
rug
and
doesn't
quite
out
is
that
when
you
make
these
kind
of
modifications
in
here,
as
I
can
tell
from
sp9
and
the
various
other
bills,
your
property
taxes
will
adjust
their
basis
with
these
kind
of
improvements.
D
I
want
to
talk
for
a
moment
more
about
the
intentions
that
commissioner
link
mentioned
and
at
a
50,
000
foot
level.
I
agree
with
the
intentions
of
sb9,
as
staff
has
has
reminded
US
every
year.
Our
greatest
unmet
need,
by
far
is
to
produce
call
it
entry-level
housing
call
it
housing.
People
can
afford.
D
The
group
of
people
in
our
city
who
make
who
are
families
making
between
roughly
63
000
and
100
000.
per
year,
have
a
serious
unmet
need
for
housing
and
I.
Appreciate
the
efforts
of
state
legislatures
to
try
to
mandate
the
creation
of
that
housing.
Statewide
I
agree
with
the
pejorative
characterization
of
this
being
a
one-size-fits
all
approach.
D
H
D
Not
doing
a
thing
about
affordability,
tonight,
I'm
I'm,
going
to
support
commissioner
boss's
motion
because
it's
the
Alternatives
here
are
the
the
question
before
us
here
tonight
is:
do
we
flout
state
law,
which
is
an
option?
We
can
do
nothing,
but,
as
Mr
Durant
has
pointed
out,
we
have
less
control
than
not
more
because
the
state
would
the
state
law
and
only
the
state
law
would
be
the
governing.
D
We
would
govern
our
housing
policy
here
or
do
we
take
a
greatly
reduced
amount
of
of
of
control,
but
still
some
control,
not
zero,
which
of
those
two
is
better
well,
neither
is
good,
but
the
latter
is
clearly
preferable
and
the
final
thing
I'll
say
against
sb9.
Well
again,
I
do
like
the
idea
of
addressing
our
housing
affordability
problem.
D
I
agree
with
the
state's
intent
here,
I
think
the
way
they're
doing
it
is
in
some
ways
is
good
because
it
is
creating
some
of
the
housing
we
need,
but
in
other
ways
it's
it's
really
bad
and
really
counterproductive.
So,
if
I'm
able
to
pick
and
choose
which
parts
of
this
I'm
voting
for
that
is
definitely
not
one
of
them,
but
I
will
I
will
vote
for
the
the
good
efforts
that
staff
has
made
and
I'll
wrap
up.
My
comments
by
Echo
and
commissioner
lansing's
noticed
that
we've
had
planning
here
for
50
years.
D
I
would
characterize
as
very
good
planning
the
reason
that
Thousand
Oaks
is
so
desirable.
The
reason
that
so
many
people
want
to
live
here
is
in
part
because
of
the
efforts
that
you've
made
and
your
predecessors
have
made
for
decades,
but
that
requires
you
having
the
tools
you
need
to
do.
Your
job
and
I
joined
the
others
in
in
preferring
that
we
have
good
control
of
those
tools
and
that
we
produce
housing
using
those
tools
to
produce
housing
for
all
residents
at
all
levels.
D
D
D
K
Just
wanted
to
thank
the
Thousand
Oaks
Police
Department
chief
Paris
and
Sergeant
Patterson
this
week,
there'll
be
a
pedestrian
safety
enforcement
operations
plan
throughout
the
city
and
I
as
a
person
who
watch
my
children
to
school
every
morning,
am
extremely
grateful
for
the
efforts
they're
putting
in
to
make
sure
that
my
kids
are
safe.
Thank
you.
Thank.
F
I,
thank
you,
chair,
Newman,
I,
I
would
say
to
everybody
of
of
the
many
things
that
are
going
to
be
on
the
ballot.
This
year
is
what
we
just
got
through
talking
about,
which
is
the
general
Plan
update
as
part
of
voting
for
your
city
council.
So
please
go
get
registered
to
vote.
It's
important
to
be
part
of
that
process.
Again
we
just
talk
about
the
community.
We
have
be
part
of
that
Community
get
out
there
and
vote
and
again
understand
that
General
plan
is
on
the
ballot
with
regard
to
whoever
it
is.
D
C
Mr
chairman,
there
are
several
on
September
27th,
the
city
council
meeting
tomorrow
evening.
There'll
be
a
consent,
calendar
item
for
environmental,
consulting
services
for
the
Los
Robles
Cancer
Treatment
Center
project.
That's
proposed
and
October
11th
we'll
have
a
public
hearing
on
sb9
at
the
council,
and
the
item
will
be
her.