►
From YouTube: Planning Commission - 03/29/2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
C
C
A
You've
got
it.
Thank
you
very
much.
Now
is
the
time
for
public
comment.
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
discuss
an
issue
raised
by
a
member
of
the
public?
The
issue
will
be
referred
to
staff
for
scheduling
out
a
future
agenda.
A
Anyone
who
would
like
to
speak
under
the
public
comments
must
complete
a
speaker
card
and
file
it
with
the
recording
secretary
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
an
individual
commissioner
or
staff
member
unless
otherwise
provided
by
the
commission.
Speakers
are
limited
to
five
minutes.
The
monitor
in
front
of
you
will
show
you
the
remaining
time
you
have.
A
I
believe
we
do
not
have
any
speakers
this
evening
for
the
public
speaking
comment,
no
problem,
no
all
right
will
move
on
to
the
consent
calendar
next.
Do
we
have
the
consent
calendar
with
the
minutes
of
march
15
2021.?
Do
any
of
my
fellow
commissioners
have
any
comments
or
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes.
A
F
G
Wait,
oh
someone
seemed
to
be
doing
it
all
right.
You
can
hear
me
now.
Yes,
sir,
all
right
all
right
good
evening,
chair
planning,
commissioners,
before
you
tonight
we
have
the
2020
general
plan
and
housing
element,
annual
progress
report.
G
So,
as
a
bit
of
background
each
year,
cities
are
required
to
provide
this
annual
report
to
the
state
office
of
planning
and
research
and
housing
and
community
development
they're
required
to
be
held
in
a
public
setting
and
presented
to
the
lead
decision-making
body
prior
to
submitting
to
the
state
which
is
has
the
due
date
of
april.
1St.
G
So
the
main
components
of
this
com
presentation
consist
of
the
status
of
the
current
general
plan
in
terms
of
any
amendments
and
the
implementation
measures
that
have
taken
place
also
provide
perspective
on
the
housing
production.
That's
occurred
during
this
current
housing
cycle,
the
fifth
cycle
from
2014
to
2021
and
then
also
just
provide
a
glimpse
perspective
into
our
future.
Housing
needs
as
we
get
into
the
general
plan
update
and
the
housing
element
for
those
housing
needs
identified
under
the
sixth
cycle
of
the
housing
element.
G
So
in
2020
there's
actually
been
no
amendments
to
the
general
plan
in
terms
of
any
of
the
various
chapters
related
to
the
topic
areas
and
also
any
land
use
designation
changes.
I'm
sure
you're
aware
that
there's
been
a
variety
of
pre-screens
for
potential
general
plan
amendments,
but
actually
for
the
year
2020
none
have
occurred.
G
In
terms
of
the
guidelines-
and
these
excuse
me
for
a
second
there-
we
go,
and
these
updates
reflect
a
variety
of
issues
not
addressed
in
the
previous
version
of
the
general
plan
guide.
Oh
wait,
the
general
plan
remains
in
compliance
for
2020,
as
we
basically
maintained
our
housing
element
certification
over
the
years,
so
in
perspective,
in
2017
office
of
planning
research
released
a
comprehensive
update
to
the
general
plan
guidelines.
G
These
updates
reflect
a
variety
of
issues
not
addressed
in
our
the
previous
version
of
the
general
plan
guidelines
and
also
reflect
a
variety
of
recent
regis
legislation
that
basically
uses
the
mandatory
update
of
the
housing
element
as
a
means
to
require
jurisdictions
to
address
the
growing
issues
such
as
safety
and
other
new
requirements
to
a
and
the
new
requirement
to
address
environmental
justice.
G
So,
overall,
what
we
have
the
report
is
the
implementation
parts
of
the
general
plan
and,
for
the
most
part,
the
implementation
occurs
at
the
project
level
through
discretionary
review
and
environmental
review
during
the
process,
and
that's
when
we're
applying
our
various
planning
policies.
G
However,
under
the
circulation
element,
you're
going
to
have
a
variety
of
other
non-private
project
related
implementation
measures
such
as
the
the
capital
improvement
programs
that
include
a
variety
of
pedestrian
and
safety
improvements,
as
well
as
some
programs
for
providing
updates
to
the
local
road
safety
plan.
Also,
I
should
mention
for
the
year
2020
community
development
department,
as
well
as
public
works,
worked
in
concert
to
adopt
an
administrative
vehicle
miles
travel
policy.
G
So
over
the
duration
of
the
current
housing
element
cycle,
the
city's
permitted
697
units
and
that
averages
about
99
and
a
half
units
a
year
over
the
past
seven
years
of
reporting
for
this
housing
element.
G
So
in
meeting
this
the
arena
progress,
we
have
a
breakdown
of
the
various
housing
types
and
income
levels
that
was
produced
during
that
year
we
had
144
apartment
units,
30
accessory
dwelling
units,
23
townhome
units
and
23
single
family
dwellings,
which
include
13
fire
disaster
rebuilds
in
terms
of
the
income
category
breakdown,
as
you
can
see,
by
the
chart
there,
we
have
11
in
the
very
low
income
category
and
131
in
the
moderate
income.
These
are
all
attributed
to
one
project,
which
is
the
299
thousand
oaks
boulevard
project
that
was
issued
this
year.
G
So,
to
put
a
little
bit
into
perspective,
you
know
here
we
have
the
state
income
limits
for
2020,
and
you
know
these
are
reset
every
year
by
hcd
and
it's
part
of
determination
that
they
give
and
it
relates
to
how
they
fund
qualifying
housing,
programs
and
projects.
G
So
you
know
in
the
chart
here
is
quite
a
bit
to
absorb
the
typical
proxy.
That's
used
in
determining
affordability
is
the
four
person
household
maximum
annual
income,
but
also
we
included
the
two
person
maximum
annual
income
as
well,
and
you
can
see
that
the
median
income,
you
know
basically
lands
right
in
the
middle
of
that
moderate
income
category.
G
Just
to
put
in
perspective,
you
know
the
the
median
income
for
a
thousand
oaks
is
actually
slightly
higher,
as
you
probably
all
know,
for
ventura
county
and
it
hovers
around
103
000
dollars
a
year,
but
the
parent
put
into
perspective.
G
You
know
people
who
can
afford
well,
the
the
salaries
of
you
know.
The
typical
workforce
can
be
quite
a
bit
under
any
of
these
median
incomes.
A
licensed
nurse
can
be
around
52
000
a
year,
an
elementary
school
teacher,
67
000
a
year,
a
paralegal
75
000
a
year
and
firefighters
at
approximately
ninety
thousand
dollars
a
year,
and
a
civil
engineer
is
around
ninety
eight
thousand
dollars
a
year.
G
Also,
the
you
know
the
income
to
rent
an
apartment
which
the
going
rate
for
a
two
bedroom
could
be
around
2200
a
month
basically
requires
an
income
of
about
a
hundred
and
five
thousand
six
hundred
dollars.
Whereas
if
you're
going
to
purchase
a
home,
you
would
need
a
home
at
a
price
about
732
000.
G
So
this
table,
basically
summarize
the
number
of
units
permitted
to
date
for
the
fifth
housing
element
cycle.
One
thing
to
note
that,
even
though
we've
exceeded
the
overall
number
of
255,
which
was
our
arena
number
and
we've
produced
697
during
this
time
frame,
the
permits
issued
fall
predominantly
in
the
moderate
and
above
modern
income
categories.
G
So
that's
leaving
a
quite
a
deficit
in
terms
of
the
very
low
and
low
income
categories
and,
as
you
can
see
you
know,
even
though
we
produced
far
more
than
the
total
number,
we've
only
met
48
of
our
arena
for
this
current
housing
cycle
and
middle
column.
Just
basically
summarized
those
income
categories.
There.
G
G
So,
just
to
provide
some
additional
perspective
in
planning
for
this
current
cycle,
the
fifth
cycle
of
arena,
our
2014
housing
sites
inventory
identified
sites
that
totaled
about
1
638
units,
so
this
plan
or
the
the
site
inventory,
provides
a
significant
buffer
over
those
the
number
of
units
required
for
that
year,
and
we
have
a
you
know:
various
breakdown.
Typically,
those
are
broken
down
into
vacant
sites,
of
which
there
was
a
704
units,
underutilized
sites,
hovering
around
575
units,
and
then
we
also
had
a
pending,
affordable
housing
partner
project
with
many
mansions
on
hillcrest.
G
However,
that
project
did
not
come
to
fruition
and
the
general
plan
amendment
for
that
project
was
not
approved,
so
those
units
were
not
achieved.
G
G
We
have
you
know
the
existing
general
plan
map
here
and
it
may
be
hard
to
see,
but
you
have
kind
of
grayed
out
are
the
actual
sites
inventory
and
I
wanted
to
kind
of
impress
upon
the
planning,
commission
and
also
just
provide
you
know
some
perspective
in
terms
of
when
planning
for
rena
and
identifying
sites.
It's
it's
important
to
also
well
it's
it's
important
to
note
that
the
arena
site
inventory
it's
not
based
on
the
capacity
of
the
land
area
for
any
of
the
land
use
designations
that
allow
residential.
G
So
the
housing
sites
are
selected
due
to
their
potential
feasibility
that
they
could
be
developed
within
the
next
eight
years.
So
you
know
when
planning
for
arena
and
identifying
the
sites.
You
know
we
also
have
to
kind
of
consider.
What's
the
typical
percentage
of
affordable
units
within
a
private
development
as
market
rate
units,
typically
subsidize
the
production,
affordable,
housing
and
in
thousand
oaks
that
percentage
of
affordable
housing
with
projects
over
the
recent
years
hovers
around
10
or
less.
G
So
this
is
kind
of
a
segue
into
our
upcoming
cycle,
and
our
arena
now
has
is
10
times
the
amount
of
what
it
was
the
last
time.
So
we
have
2
and
units
that
need
to
be
identified
in
a
site
inventory
with
an
adequate
buffer
and
given
the
higher
percentile
of
very
low
and
low
income,
you
kind
of
have
to
anticipate
a
buffer.
That
would
help
capture
that,
especially
since
there
are
less
opportunities
for
the
city
to
partner
with
non-profit,
affordable
housing
developers
or
agencies
to
actually
build
100,
affordable
projects.
G
Any
sites
identified
to
capture
very
low
and
low
income
categories
must
allow
at
least
the
maximum
density
of
30
dwelling
units
to
the
acre,
and
then,
when
we're
looking
at
the
site
feasibility,
you
have
to
look
at
within
that
land
use
capacity.
G
Well,
what
sites
are
actually
feasible
and
we
have
to
look
at
factors
such
as
you
know.
What's
vacant
and
underutilized
underutilized
sites
could
be
anything
such
as
land
value
to
improvement,
value
or
the
the
amount
of
development.
That's
occurred
on
property,
but
other
factors,
such
as
vacancy
availability
of
infrastructure
ownership
and
lease
agreements
are
some
new
criteria
that
hcd
will
be
looking
at.
As
we
start
developing
these
sites,
I
mean
identifying
these
sites.
This
city
does
not
develop
these
sites.
G
So
you
know
this
again
is
important
to
realize
that
in
planning
for
the
2621
units,
there
needs
to
be
a
buffer
to
allow
flexibility
and
planning
for
those
units,
and
you
know,
as
I
stated
before,
we
have
less
opportunities
to
work
with
non-profits
to
build
purely
affordable
housing
projects
and
the
typical
project
you
know,
does
not
generate
much
more
than
10
in
very
low
and
low
income
categories.
Typically,
when
it's
related
to
a
density
bonus.
G
So
and
another
reason
you
know
the
buffer
is
important
is
because,
as
each
as
a
development
of
each
site
is
unique,
projects
may
not
always
satisfy
the
arena,
and
in
such
a
case
you
know
the
know
that
loss
legislation
requires
a
jurisdiction
to
identify
sites
that
accommodate
the
shortfall
in
the
number
of
units.
G
So
you
know
in
the
event
that
we
do
not
get
certification
with
the
housing
element
or
we
are
actually
found
not
to
comply
with
the
housing
affordability
act.
There
are
a
variety
of
penalties
and
legal
challenges
that
the
city
may
face
in
the
event
that
it's
found,
and
I
should
mention
that
the.
G
Housing
account
will
be
a
housing
accountability.
Act
would
be
enforced
through
the
court
system
and
in
the
event
that
we
were
did
not
have
acted
in
good
faith
in
accommodating
a
project
under
the
housing
affordability
act,
we
could
lose
the
ability
to
qualify
for
a
variety
of
state
and
federal
funding.
That
would
include
you
know.
Community
development
block
grants
some
of
the
home
funds,
as
well
as
a
variety
of
other
infill
and
other
infrastructure
program.
G
And
additionally,
if
you're
also
found
you
know
fines
for
violations
of
the
housing,
accountability,
act
and
failure
to
comply
with
the
court
order,
there
can
be
fines
of
up
to
ten
or
from
ten
starting
at
ten
thousand
dollars
up
to
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
per
month
for
housing
element
programs
or
on
a
project
on
a
project
basis,
a
minimum
of
ten
thousand
dollars
per
unit
for
individual
projects
or
more
and
there's
a
variety
of
factors
that
are
considered
in
terms
of
modifying
the
fines
up
and
beyond.
Ten
thousand
dollars
a
unit.
G
But
I
won't
go
into
that
at
this
moment
and
then.
Finally,
if
we
are
in
violation,
we
also
have
to-
or
we
don't
achieve,
certification,
we
would
have
to
also
carry
over
the
unmet
housing
needs
from
the
browsing.
The
previous
cycle.
G
You
know
in
2012
there
was
the
dissolution
of
the
redevelopment
agencies
and,
as
such
every
year
as
part
of
our
annual
housing
progress
report,
we
have
to
report
on
our
expenditures
and
values
and
inventory
of
housing
units
the
affordable
housing
units
that
we
assist
with
so
over
the
year
we've
spent
about
148
000
in
administrative
expenditures.
G
G
So
with
that
would
conclude
my
presentation
for
the
2020
general
plan,
housing
element,
annual
progress
report
and
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
presentation.
Mr
holt,
do
any
of
my
fellow
commissioners
have
any
questions
for
staff?
At
this
point,
I
do
chair
bus.
I
appreciate
you
speaking
up
mr
lansing,
and
you
have
the
floor.
H
Mr
holt,
thank
you
for
your
presentation,
a
lot
of
information
there
to
go
through,
and
I
just
have
a
few
kind
of
questions.
I
know
we
have
a
lot
of
people
to
get
to,
but
a
few
initial
questions
when
you
refer
to
building
permits,
I
want
to
make
sure
everybody
understands-
is
that
just
the
right
to
build
something?
Is
that
an
occupancy
permit,
meaning
that
an
actual
unit
was
built.
G
It
is
for
the
purposes
the
primary
purpose
of
reporting
arena
is
permits
issued,
so
that
is
a
building
permit
issued.
There
are
other
components
that
I
didn't
go
over
in
my
presentation
that
talk
about
occupancies
as
well
as
applications
received
and
so
forth,
but
the
the
main
point
as
far
as
the
reporting
is
building
permits
issued.
H
G
I
would
say
not
all
of
the
697
permits
have
been
built
because
obviously
the
ones
for
this
year,
predominantly
the
299
project-
has
not
been
completed.
G
H
Yeah,
so
these
are
all
pursuant
to
applications
by
whoever
landowners
developers
whatever
as
to
those
properties
correct.
You
mentioned
the
arena
numbers
and-
and
we
may
wanted
more
explanation
for
those
at
home
to
understand
what
that
means.
But
one
question
I
had
is
for
the
again:
I'm
kind
of
looking
back
at
the
period
2014
on
you
indicated
that
we
didn't
meet
our
low
and
very
low
categories.
H
My
understanding
and
this
process
is
going
towards
certification,
so,
if
that
certified,
we
wouldn't
have
to
pick
up
those
units
for
the
past
seven
year
period,
correct
and
again,
based
on
one
slide,
you've
indicated
that's,
obviously
something
to
consider
going
forward
for
the
next
seven
years.
But
again
I
was
just
looking
backwards
to
see
whether
or
not
those
units
were
going
to
carry
over
and
they're
and
they're,
not
at
least
if
we
get
certification,
correct.
H
Okay,
you,
you
indicated
one
of
the
slides
of
potential
downsides,
the
local
control
issue,
and
I
kind
of
wanted
to
further
understand
that.
How
is
it
we
can
lose
local
control
by
not
going
along
with
this
process?
What
exactly
would
the
state
process
do
then
to
take
that
away.
G
Well,
you
know
part
of
it
would
have
to
be
that
we've
been
found
not
in
compliance
with
you
know
the
housing
accountability
act
so,
in
the
event
that
we
were
not
able
to
one
certify
the
housing
element.
G
Yeah
a
four-legged
one
now
any
case,
but
the
so
in
the
event
that
we
acted
in
contrary
to
the
housing
accountability
act
in
which
maybe
we
rendered
a
decision
that
we
reduced
the
density
on
a
project
and
someone
basically
took
us
to
a
court
of
law.
That
is
where
most
of
those
repercussions
would
take
place.
G
Now,
in
the
event
that
we're
unable
there's,
there's
some
things
that
we
would
have
to
like
if
we
were
unable
to
achieve
certification
of
our
housing
element
and
identify
adequate
sites,
and
we
would
have
to
come
up
with
this
a
site
program,
a
rezoning
program
that
would,
I
have
to
identify
those
sites
to
be
rezoned
within
a
certain
time
frame.
H
Okay
from
what
you
kind
of
went
through
my
understanding
and
again,
I
think
the
housing
accountability
is
sb
330.
I
I
I
believe,
based
on
what
action
was
so
one
of
the
the
process
in
there
is,
it
looks
like
we
have
to
have
objective
standards.
Is
this
part
of
trying
to
create
and
identify
these
objective
standards,
so
these
rules
will
hold
up.
G
I'm
sorry,
can
you
just
repeat
you're
asking
about
the
objective
standards.
H
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
again
the
ramifications
and
again
in
reading
sv
330.
I
think
one
of
the
issues
is:
we
have
to
have
objective
standards
in
order
to
hold
things
up.
We
can't
have
a
subjective.
I
don't
like
this
because
it
doesn't
look
good
type
process
anymore
and
that's
kind
of
one
of
the
ways
of
maintaining
local
control,
but
I'm
trying
to
make
sure
if
that's,
if
I
have
that
correctly,.
I
Mr
madison,
you
do
have
that
correct,
so
let
me
just
say
to
cut
to
the
chase.
I
think
there
are
examples
where
you
might
have
a
lawsuit
right
and
in
the
lawsuit
the
court
determines
that
the
city-
and
this
could
be
any
city.
Any
jurisdictional
agency
did
not
comply
with
various
things
like
sb330
and
then,
by
doing
so,
the
court
then
orders
that
developer,
for
example,
that
plaintiff
gets
to
now
produce
and
develop
the
property
to
their
development
plans,
and
the
city
based
on
this
action
cannot
prohibit
that
from
happening.
I
Another
concept
in
the
sb
330
is
the
five
hearings.
If
you
will,
you
only
have
five
hearings
on
a
project,
for
example,
so
these
are
again
you're
pulling
up
examples
of
how
sp330
from
2019
has
has
added
new
requirements
and
new
penalties,
including
the
ones
you
just
said
where
you
might
lose
the
control
that
you
once
had,
because
you
don't
follow
certain
requirements
that
they've
now
put
into
play.
H
I
Absolutely
I
think
it's
I
mean
in
an
end
case
scenario.
That
would
be
exactly
correct.
It
would
be
something
in
which
the
court
says:
developer
wins.
Developer
plan
are
to
build,
for
example,
40
units
on
this
property
and
the
city
now
is
prohibited
from
stopping
that
project
because
of
whatever
the
findings
are
going
to
be
for
that
decision.
Again
these
are
hypotheticals.
H
It
and
it's
just
it's
and
again
what
what
criteria
would
a
judge
use
and
how
you
know
how
and
again
so
that's
just
creates
a
whole
another
list.
Absolutely
right.
My
last
question
I'll
say
to
mr
holder
or
mr,
mr
here,
if
you
know,
is
what
does
this
do
process
due
to
our
pre-screening
process
that
we
have
in
the
city?
G
Well,
yes,
I
mean
well,
the
the
pre-screen
process
is
really
tied
to
measure
e,
and
I
mean
this
is
kind
of
more
segue
into
the
general
plan
update.
But
I.
G
Then,
but
that's
fine,
I
I
can
just
kind
of
as
a
precursor.
G
You
know,
through
the
general
plan,
update
we're
going
to
be
identifying
areas
where
residential
uses
would
be
allowed
right,
and
so,
therefore,
the
pre-screen
process
is
generally
a
tool
to
evaluate
whether
changing
a
land
use
designation
is
you
know,
right
for
the
purposes
of
residential
development,
so,
as
part
of
the
general
plan
update,
we're
going
to
be
basically
changing
designations,
of
which
a
majority
or
majority
of
the
residential
projects
would
not
need
to
go
through
a
pre-screened
process
any
longer,
because
the
land
use
designation
has
already
been
identified
for
residential
development,
and
I.
H
H
G
I
Just
what
this
does
is
really
quick,
mr
lanson,
is
that
when
you
have
property,
that's
not
zoned
for
residential
right.
You
have
a
process
to
go
through
a
general
plan.
Amendment
I
mean
every
city
has
that
process.
Ours
are
unique
or
our
process
is
unique
because
we
do
have
this
measure
e
bank
of
units,
and
we
can
use
those
units
to
ensure
that
we
are
not
going
and
violating
the
requirements
of
measure
e.
I
In
the
case
with
a
general
plan,
some
of
those
locations
in
the
future
might
be
considered
residential.
Therefore,
they
don't
have
to
go
through
that
general
plan
amendment,
so
that
would
in
sense,
in
a
sense
impact
any
pre-screening
requirement
for
that
location.
A
Commissioner
lansin
did
any
of
the
commissioners
like
to
ask
any
questions.
Ask
mr
mitchell.
C
Yes,
I
I
just
have
a
quick
question:
do
you
know
of
any
cities
in
of
our
general
size
that
have
had
that
happen,
where
they've
had
fines
and
and
all
the
ramifications
of
not
following
up
with
arena
numbers.
G
I
am
not
aware
of
any
personally
no,
I
know,
oh
all,
right,
go
ahead.
No,
I.
I
C
So
there
is
basically
intent
behind
this
and
they
and
the
state
seems
to
be
interested
in
following
through.
I
Right-
and
I
will
tell
you
that
in
the
last
year
or
two
years
of
legislative
action,
including
proposed
legislat,
proposed
legislation
for
this
year
upcoming
year
again,
this
is
proposed.
There
are
new
efforts
regarding
this
requirement
and
and
penalties
and
requirements
that
every
city
who
is
in
violation
of
the
housing
element
or
not
having
a
certified
housing
element
or
violation
of
of
their
general
plan.
For
example,
they
can
get
reported
to
the
attorney
general
there's
already
actually
a
process
for
that.
I
But
there's
a
new
proposed
bill
to
actually
emphasize
that
and
again
it's
just
more
of
a
an
example
of
how
the
housing
issue
for
the
state
legislature
has
not
died.
It's
actually
continuing
on
and
we
can
get
into
that
later
on
with
the
general
plan.
If
you
want,
but
there
are
some
again
proposed
legislation
that
again
it
it,
it
re-emphasizes
the
fact
that
they
really
are
focused
on
housing.
G
To
add
to
your
question
I
mean
I
do
know,
they
didn't
necessarily
have
fines,
but
I
know
like
city
of
oxnard.
They
had
a
conditional
certification
for
their
housing
element
years
back
and
they
basically
had
to
adopt
the
rezoning
program
and
implement
that
within
a
year.
So
you
know
they
went
in
with
the
intent
of
getting
it
certified,
but
they
couldn't,
they
didn't
meet
hcd's
needs,
and
this
was
just
around
the
time
that
a
lot
of
these
new
housing
legislation
was
taking
place
as
well.
G
A
E
A
Copy
that,
commissioner
link,
do
you
have
any
questions,
sir?
I
didn't
know
perfect
all
right.
I've
got
a
couple
of
questions
if
you'll
bear
with
me.
I
heard
you
refer
to
adus
as
considered
above.
Moderate
is
adus
considered
an
account
based
upon
the
property
that
they're
built
on,
and
the
value
of
that
property.
Is
that
how
that
works?.
G
No,
the
thing
is:
is
that
and
actually
we're
right
at
this
kind
of
changing
point?
Historically,
adus
and
hcd
has
not
allowed
most
jurisdictions
to
be
able
to
account
them
at
any
kind
of
affordable
level.
So
it's
not
really
based
on
the
land
value
or
you
know
the
size
of
the
the
home
or
the
property
that
they're
on.
But
I
would
like
to
say
for
this
upcoming
cycle.
Actually,
the
southern
california
association
of
governments
has
worked
with
hcd
and
they
have
we
are
able
to
and
there's
a
breakdown.
A
G
Shoot,
I
don't
have
it
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
I
could
probably
pull
that
up
for
you
later
but
yeah.
It's
it's!
It's
a
report
that
skag
has
provided
us.
I
had
to
kind
of
anyways.
I
I
have
that.
A
Important
to
us
based
upon
the
fact
that,
because
the
other
thing
that
you're
talking
about
is
that
historically
roughly
ten
percent
of
our
instruction
or
permits
given
have
been
for
low
and
very
low,
but
the
request
in
the
next
cycle
is
going
to
be
roughly
47
of
those
units.
So
my
question
is:
is
what
is
the
state
doing
to
incentivize
that
by
understanding
that
adus
is
a
part
of
it,
but
are
there
other
things
that
the
state
is
building
into
these
baggages
to
incentivize
developers
and
land
owners
to
create
housing?
A
The
question
is:
is:
will
there
be
anybody,
that's
going
to
come
along
with
money
and
put
their
money
into
it
and
still
be
able
to
stay
in
business?
The
cities
can
do
whatever
they
want.
So
my
question
is:
what
is
what
is
the
state
giving
us
that?
What
are
the
tools
that
we
have
this
as
cities
to
incentivize
this,
and
I
know
adu's-
was
part
of
that,
but
I'm
curious.
What
else
is
there?
Besides
density
bonuses,.
C
Mr
chair,
if
I
might,
I
might
interject
here,
there
is
also
a
we
have
an
inclusionary
housing
requirement,
but
it's
outdated
and
we're
looking
at
updating
that
which
will
mean
that
each
residential
project
will
be
required
to
do
a
certain
percentage
of
affordable
units
within
their
project.
It's
one
tool
that
we
have
that
needs
to
be
updated
and
we're
working
on
that
and
within
the
next
year,
or
so.
You
should
probably
see
that
come
forward
as
well.
A
Got
it
that
makes
sense,
but,
like
I
said,
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
what
the
states
do.
I
heard
a
lot
about
what
the
state's
going
to
do
to
penalize.
Well.
My
question
is:
is
what
is
the
state
doing
to
facilitate
this
because
they
have
to
understand
there's
an
economic
process.
The
city
doesn't
build
housing
we
have
to.
I
So
I
can
get
it
more
later
on
into
the
next
item,
but
just
a
quick
answer
would
be
that
they're
also
incentivizing
them
by
allowing
more
density
with
a
certain
requirements
if
it's
within
a
certain
zone
of
transportation,
for
example,
a
transportation
center
they're,
allowing
if
there's
a
certain
affordable
component
to
it,
they're
allowing
more
density
on
that
on
a
smaller
lot.
For
example,
that's
parking
requirements.
A
Copy
that
but
yeah,
like
I
said,
even
with
the
density
bonuses,
it's
still
roughly
10
correct
for
any
project.
G
Yeah,
it
depends
on
the
income
category,
but
yes,
if
you're,
providing
very
low
or
combination
very
low
and
low
it
hovers
around
10.
So,
and
I
just
wanted
to
yeah
be
clear:
I
mean
the
proportions
of
affordability
from
this
current
arena
cycle
and
the
future
the
lower
income
categories
only
go
up
slightly.
I
mean
we
just
had
an
overall
a
much
lower
number
to
deal
with
last
time.
You
know
255
units
versus
two
thousand
six
hundred
and
twenty
one
units,
but
oh.
A
F
A
Yeah,
because
I
that
was
the
first
time
I'd
seen
those
numbers
kind
of
set
hard.
So
so.
A
G
A
And
that's
the
only
reason
I'm
asking
this
question
is
because
I
don't
understand
how
the
state
expects
us
to
change
the
way,
the
pattern
of
development
without
incentivizing
the
people
who
are
actually
going
to
be
doing
it.
I
mean
they
can
tell
us
to
tell
people
to
do
it
all
day
long,
but
I
don't
see
how
we're
going
to
be
twisting
anybody's
arm.
G
G
We
can't
deny
them
regardless,
but
if
they
do
not
meet
the
numbers
identified
on
the
site,
that's
where
the
buffer
comes
into
play.
If
we
have,
we
would
I'd
have
to
identify
sites
in
excess
of
26
21
so
that,
in
the
event
that
a
project
was
built
below
the
number
that
was
identified
in
the
site
inventory
that
you
can
point
to
another
site
and
say.
A
Yeah,
so
that's
my
question
is:
is
that
they're
putting
the
onus
on
the
city
to
determine
this
without
coming
up
with
the
way
I
mean
if
we
just
if,
if
will
be
a
race
for
all
of
these
developers,
to
build
and
get
their
project
in
front
of
us
the
fastest,
so
that
they're,
not
the
ones
that
are
stuck
trying
to
build
these
these
units
at
the
end?
Like
I,
I
don't
understand
this
fully.
G
Well,
you
would,
I
mean
again
it's
just
your
your
you
have
your
core
set
of
sites
identified
to
meet
your
arena,
but
you
also
well,
and
then
you
have
maybe
potentially
additional
land
that
could
be
identified
in
the
future.
But
when
you
go
and
do
your
housing
element
in
this
cycle,
that's
why
you
would
create
flexibility
of
identifying.
G
You
know
a
lot
more
units
than
2621,
because
then,
as
each
project
comes
in,
it
creates
that
flexibility,
because
yeah
historically
and
in
in
any
jurisdiction.
You
would
see
this.
I
mean
you
know,
projects
do
not
always
meet
the
arena
that
was
identified
for
the
site
and
that's
where
cities
when
it
comes
to
decision-making
time.
They
can
rely
on
that
buffer
to
point
to
well,
there's
this
other
opportunity
site.
A
So
essentially,
they're
just
kind
of
built
into
the
into
the
formula
that
we
can
keep
kicking
the
can
down
the
road.
I
I
A
no
net
loss
is
what
we've
been
talking
about
and
that's
exactly
what
your
example
was
about,
which
is
that
if
someone
were
to
build
on
something
that
was
smaller
or
less
dense
than
what
was
allowed
on
that
site,
we
have
to
make
sure
that
we
have
ample
locations
where
we
can
cover
that
that
balance
or
that
delta
excuse
me
and
then
show
that
we
don't
have
a
net
loss.
That
makes
sense.
That's
interesting.
A
I
just
have
one
more
question:
there
was
some
mention
in
mr
lansin's
question
about
litigation
involving
non-compliance.
My
question
would
be:
would
that
litigation
be
something
that
would
be
initiated
by
a
developer
against
the
city
or.
A
By
the
state
itself,
in
the
event
that
there
was
an
issue
with
with
a
particular
property
yeah.
I
So
so
one
one
issue
we
have
when
we
started
talk
about
litigation,
is
we
get
into
these
incredible
hypotheticals?
And
so
I
I'll
just
temper
with
that.
With
with
that
there's
actually
different
ways.
The
attorney
general
actually
has
a
right
in
extreme
circumstances,
to
come
after
a
city
for
some
violations
of
not
having
the
housing
element
certified
and
things
of
that
nature.
I
But
of
course
I
think
the
main
example
would
be
a
developer,
who
didn't
get
their
project
approved
by
the
council
and
therefore
goes
to
court
to
say
they
should
have
approved
it
and
here's
how
an
agency
messed
up
or
made
a
mistake
and
not
approving
it
and
here's.
Why
and
then
that's
analyzed
and
if
they
win,
then
there
might
be
a
order
again
hypothetically
to
require
that
city
or
local
agency
to
permit
that
development,
as
proposed
by
the
developer
yeah.
That
makes
sense
all
right.
G
A
You've
got
it
all
right
perfect.
I
saw
commissioner
mcmahon
raise
your
hand
briefly.
Did
you
have
a
follow-up
question
before
I
move
on
public
comments.
C
Actually,
when
you
were
talking
about
kind
of
kicking
the
can
down
to
another
property,
if
we
get
a
project
that
is
proposed
that
doesn't
quite
meet
the
requirements
and
so
you're
thinking
well,
we
have
this
buffer
property.
C
G
D
You
know
if
I
may,
the
the
way
that
the
law
is
is
written
now,
as
ian
said
earlier,
the
city
is
not
actually
required
to
build
any
of
the
units
or
force
any
of
the
units
to
be
built.
So
it's
not
like
it's
not
somebody.
I
forget.
If
it
was
commissioner
bus
or
somebody
earlier
mentioned
it
like
a
race
to
you
know
the
developers
get
out
quickly,
and
so
you
don't
have
to
build
any
affordable
units
and
leave
it
for
the
later
ones.
D
That's
not
really
how
it
works,
because
at
this
point
in
time
anyway,
under
the
current
legislation
we
are
not.
We
are
not
required
as
a
city
to
build
units
or
to
force
developers
or
property
owners
to
build
the
the
affordable
units.
The
only
way
that
we
would
be
able
to
do
that
is
if,
as
a
matter
of
policy
the
city
wanted
to
do,
it
would
be
what
ms
finley
referred
to
earlier:
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance.
D
So
that's
really
if
the
city
is
interested
in
you
know
from
from
day
one
ensuring
that
affordable
units
get
built
and
in
you
know
spreading
that
out
among
developers
and
property
owners,
then
an
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
would
be
the
way
to
do
that,
absent
that
we
wouldn't
really
have
a
means
of
requiring
developers
to
build
affordable
housing,
and
that
would
be
the
same
today
and
the
same
five
years
from
now.
If
a
bunch
of
projects
got
built
without
affordable
housing,
we
wouldn't
necessarily
then
be
forcing
those
later
property
owners
to
build
that
affordable
housing.
D
It
would
just
be
the
city's
deficit
on
the
books
of
affordable
housing
would
just
keep
growing
and
growing
and
growing,
and
then
we
probably
end
up
getting
in
trouble
with
the
state
at
some
point,
but
that
wouldn't
necessarily
be
the
property
owners
or
the
developers
problems.
It
would
be
the
city's
problem.
A
All
right,
I
was
going
to
proceed
with
public
comments,
but
I
believe
we
don't
do
not
have
any
public
speakers
for
this
section.
Unless
there
is
a
correction
on
that
no
perfect,
then
we
will
go
back
to
staff
for
any
follow-up
comments.
Mr
old,
you
have
anything
further
to
add.
C
Mr
chair,
I'd
like
to
just
conclude
with,
we
will
be
coming
forward
with
the
housing
element
and
draft
goals
and
policies
and
and
you'll
have
a
whole
meeting,
probably
devoted
to
looking
at
the
two
different
tools
we
have
and
what
we're
proposing
to
try
to
implement.
You
know
this:
the
state
mandated
requirements.
A
A
I
think
we're
good.
Then
I
can
open
up
the
this
is
I
can
up
the
floor
for
further
discussion,
but
I
think
we're
all
in
agreement
we're
done
at
this
point.
So
since
this
is
a
department
report
and
no
vote
is
required,
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
agenda
item
8b.
A
C
I
would
like
to
introduce
to
you,
mr
michael
forbes,
who
is
the
deputy
director
as
well,
and
he
is
also
the
project
manager
for
the
general
plan
update
team.
So
I'm
going
to
let
him
introduce
the
team
and
the
consultants.
D
Thank
you,
chair
bus
and
members
of
the
commission.
Our
presentation
this
evening
is
going
to
be
given
by
our
consultant,
but
really
quickly.
I
just
wanted
to
introduce
the
members
of
the
general
plan
team
that
are
here
this
evening
in
addition
to
kari
finley
and
ian
holt,
who
you've
already
heard
from
this
evening.
We
also
have
with
us
tonight
kristen
rice
and
tabitha
mcatee,
so
the
five
of
us
together
composed
the
general
plan
team
in-house
and
we're
working
very
closely
with
the
city's
consultants,
matt
rainey
from
raymie
and
associates.
J
Good
evening,
chair
and
members
of
the
planning
commission,
I'm
matt
raimi
with
ray
mead,
associates
it's
nice
to
meet
all
of
you
nice
to
see
all
of
you
this
evening.
I'm
going
to
share
my
screen
and
go
through
the
presentation.
J
What
we
would
like
to
do
this
evening
is
to
give
you
an
overview
of
the
landis
alternatives
and,
more
importantly,
the
results
of
the
community
survey
that
we
just
completed
less
than
two
weeks
ago
or
exactly
two
weeks
ago.
So
let
me
jump
into
the
presentation
and
then
I'll
walk
through
the
information.
I
am
if
there's
a
I'm
okay
with
interruption
as
we
go
through
this.
If
you
all
have
questions,
however,
you,
however,
you
operate
is
fine
with
me.
I
will
just
go
until
someone.
J
Yes,
you
can
see
okay,
thank
you
all
right.
So
what
I
want
to
do
tonight
is
to
summarize
the
community
engagement
activities
that
we
have
been
undertaking
for
the
last
year
and
a
half
go
over.
Some
frequently
asked
questions
that
evolved
from
the
engagement
work.
We
have
done
present.
The
survey
results
present
the
gpac,
the
general
plan
advisory
committee's
reactions
to
the
survey
results
from
our
meeting
last
thursday
and
then
outline
some
of
the
next
steps
in
the
process.
J
We
started
the
general
plan
update
in
2019,
and
so
it's
been
just
over
a
year
and
a
half
since,
since
we
began
the
process,
there
are
five
key
steps
that
we
are
going
through:
existing
conditions,
listening
and
visioning
policy
development,
alternatives,
plan
development
and
then
review
and
adoption.
We
are
right
in
the
middle
of
policy
development
and
plan
alternatives
we
have
presented,
develop
and
then
presented
three
alternatives
and
presented
a
community
survey
throughout
all
of
this
process.
We
have
undertaken
quite
a
large
number
of
engagement
activities.
J
Those
activities
included
well
both
outreach
to
the
community
to
inform
them
of
the
process
and
then
engaging
with
the
community
to
ask
their
opinion
on
different
topics
and
overall,
we've
had
a
pretty
pretty
great
turnout
and
pretty
good
discussion
from
the
community
about
the
general
plan
and
the
vision
for
the
city.
J
So
we
started
with
a
city-wide
mailing
in
utility
bills.
This
allowed
everyone
in
the
community
to
hear
about
the
general
plan
process.
We
created
a
database
and
made
emails
and
phone
calls
to
organizations
and
neighborhood
groups,
all
of
them
in
the
community.
There
have
been
29
articles,
probably
more
at
this
point.
In
the
acorn
about
the
general
plan,
we
have
a
general
plan
advisory
committee
meeting.
We
have
14
gpac
meetings,
which
is
comprised
of
24
members
of
the
community
and
then
between
25
and
50.
Plus
people
have
attended
each
of
these
meetings.
J
I
believe
there
were
almost
90
at
the
la
at
the
meeting
last
week,
watching
we've
had
two
public
workshops
and
two
community
forums
with
guest
speakers.
We've
had
pop-up
workshops
when
we
could
have
those
where
we
went
around
the
community
and
just
presented
information
on
the
general
plan,
and
we
were
in
public
places
where
people
could
come
and
and
just
ask
us
questions
and
take
brief
surveys
and
we
had
over
a
thousand
people
respond
to
that.
J
We've
done
focus
groups,
interviews
with
individuals,
we've
had
three
online
surveys
with
over
three
thousand
separate
respondents.
We
were
part
of
a
city-wide
statistically
valid
survey
a
year
ago
and
then
there's
been
a
pretty
extensive
social
media
campaign
with
hundreds
of
posts.
So
we
have
tried
in
this
time
to
really
blanket
the
community
with
information
about
the
general
plan
to
make
sure
that
people
know
about
the
process
and
are
able
to
participate.
J
The
most
recent
activity,
as
as
you
know,
is
the
creation
and
discussion
of
the
general
plan.
Land
use
alternatives,
the
land
use
alternatives
were
released
in
early
february,
and
then
we
had
a
general
plan
advisory
committee
meeting
and
joint
public
workshop
on
february
2nd.
We
had
over
250
people
attend
that
meeting.
J
We
knew
that
that
the
alternatives
were
were
complicated
and
there's
a
lot
of
information
there.
We
had
a
briefing
book
that
we
published
that
was
online.
It's
about
75
pages,
describing
the
general
plan
update
process,
the
reason
for
it,
the
engagement
activities
and
essentially
how
we
got
to
where
we
were
so
the
first
public
workshop.
The
workshop
we
had
on
february
2nd
was
an
overview
of
the
land
use
alternatives.
J
Then,
for
the
six
weeks
we
also
released
an
online
survey
and
paper
survey
at
that
time.
For
the
next
six
weeks,
we
held
a
whole
series
of
meetings
with
groups
and
individuals.
We
had
four
office
hours
where
we
were
just
present
to
allow
people
to
come
and
ask
questions.
There
were
25
neighborhood
and
stakeholder
meetings,
and
I
have
to
really
complement
city
staff
for
doing
a
tremendous
job,
organizing
the
meetings
and
then
attending
them
and
reaching
out
to
and
attending
any
just
about
any
meeting
that
they
were
asked
to
attend.
J
There
were
articles
in
the
acorn
and
star
newspapers,
as
well
as
ad
ads
in
those
papers,
an
extensive
twitter,
facebook,
an
instagram
campaign.
There
were
eight
emails,
eight
separate
email
campaigns
sent
out
about
the
process.
There
were
2,
500,
hard
copy
flyers,
distributed
about
the
survey
and
then
200
surveys
distributed
and
then
email
blasts.
J
J
We
also
put
the
alternatives,
briefing
book
online,
that's
the
75
page
book
describing
the
different
alternatives
and
we
allowed
people
to
make
comments
on
the
briefing
book
at
different
places.
So
people
could
share
their
ideas.
Give
recommendations,
tell
us
things.
They
liked
tell
us
things
they
didn't
like,
and
then
people
could
respond
to
those
comments
with
a
thumbs
up
or
thumbs
down,
and
we
received
over
a
thousand
comments
in
that
briefing
book
as
well
as
well
as
about
a
dozen
and
a
half
comments
on
interactive
maps
that
we
also
had
online.
So
overall.
J
I'd
like
to
now
just
go
over
in
this
process.
We
heard
people
ask
questions.
There
was
some
confusion.
Some
of
the
questions
that
were
asked
were
actually
pretty
similar
to
the
questions
that
the
planning
commission
asked
about
the
housing
element
in
the
previous
conversation.
So
I
want
to
just
go
over
a
few
of
these
to
start
with
before
we
get
into
the
survey
results,
so
the
first
is
probably
the
most
basic
question,
which
is:
why
are
we
doing
this?
You
know
why.
Why
does
this
even
need
to
happen?
J
And
you
know,
as
you
all
know,
the
general
plan
is
the
long-range
vision
for
the
city.
It's
the
constitution,
for
the
city
of
thousand
oaks,
and
the
last
time
the
the
landis
map
was
comprehensively
looked
at
was
in
1970
so
51
years
ago,
and
since
then
a
lot
has
changed
in
the
city
and
even
in
the
last
20
years,
a
lot
has
changed
in
the
city.
J
Most
jurisdictions
update
their
general
plan
every
10
to
20
years
comprehensively,
and
so
the
city
has
never
actually
comprehensively
updated
its
its
general
plan
in
the
modern
times.
So
why
do
we
need
to
update
the
land
use
map?
Besides
that,
it's
was
out
of
date,
so
the
first
is
that
the
demographic
and
economic
conditions
have
really
changed
in
the
city,
since
the
land
use
map
was
created
again,
in
fact,
the
city
had
probably
35
000
people
when
it
was
the
land
use
map
was
created.
It
now
has
over
120
000
people.
J
The
residential
capacity
needs
to
be
reallocated
from
from
the
established
residential
areas
to
where
additional
housing
can
be
accommodated
and
that's
needed
in
order
to
meet
both
the
arena,
numbers
and
and,
more
importantly,
to
meet
the
vision
that
members
of
the
community
have
said
they
wanted
of
having
a
wider
diversity
of
housing
types.
J
To
meet
these
different
community
objectives
that
we
heard
through
engagement,
then
the
question
is:
what
are
the
land
use
alternatives?
Some
people
thought
that
we
actually
had
completed
the
general
plan.
This
document,
the
alternatives
briefing
book,
was
referred
to
on
more
than
one
occasion.
As
as
the
general
plan.
It
is
not
the
general
plan.
The
alternatives.
Briefing
book
is
really
a
way
of
presenting
three
different
versions
of
future
growth
and
development
in
the
city,
so
it
identifies
different
ways
that
the
city
can
meet
objectives
that
were
identified
through
the
community
engagement
process.
J
So
what
we
did
was
we
heard
for
a
year
and
a
half
we
heard
about
what
the
community
wanted
to
see.
We
asked
community
members,
through
surveys
and
pop-up
workshops,
to
identify
locations
where
a
new
development
could
go
in
order
to
meet
community
objectives.
We
asked
about
areas
that
should
be
preserved
with
no
new
development
happening,
and
all
of
that
information
gave
us
a
guide
into
what
we
should
do
for
the
land
use
alternative
to
test
the
values
and
ideas.
J
They
are
the
basis
for
continued
discussion,
leading
to
a
preferred
alternative
and
with
over
2
100
responses
to
the
survey.
6
000
comments
in
the
survey-
a
thousand
additional
comments.
We
certainly
are
getting
community
discussion
and
I'm
sure
you
all
have
heard
from
your
friends
and
neighbors
about
this
process,
and
there
are
there's
a
lot
of
conversation
going
on,
which
is
really
what
we
want,
because
part
of
the
general
plan
update
is
to
have
a
community
conversation
about
the
future
of
the
city.
J
So
we
are
right
in
that
process
now,
where
we
are
right,
where
we
want
to
be
and
need
to
be
with
this,
and
the
preferred
alternative
is
likely
going
to
be
a
combination
of
the
alternatives.
We
didn't
create
the
alternatives,
necessarily
so
that
you
would
just
just
pick
one
and,
as
you
probably
saw
in
the
survey
results,
we
asked
more
targeted
questions
about
different
elements
of
the
different
alternatives
so
that
we
could
get
feedback
on
community's
preferences.
J
J
J
No
city
have
I
ever
seen
that
is
able
to
achieve
maximum
density
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
most
importantly,
for
a
city
such
as
thousand
oaks,
which
is
predominantly
built
out.
It
means
that
areas
need
to
be
redeveloped
and
there
is
a
lot
less
financial
incentive
to
redevelop
a
parcel
that
has
an
existing
use
on
it
than
to
develop
a
parcel.
That
is
a
greenfield
site
that
is
vacant,
so
there
are
very
few
vacant
parcels
in
the
city,
and
the
capacity
is
also
referred
to
as
build-out
or
total
build
out
of
the
city.
J
The
growth
projection
is
an
expected
growth
set
in
a
period
of
time,
and
it
is
significantly
significantly
below
what
the
overall
capacity
of
the
city
is.
So
it
is
used
for
growth.
Projections
are
used
for
a
realistic
estimate
of
the
amount
of
growth
based
on
market
conditions
in
a
period
of
time,
so
we
have
not
yet
completed
the
growth
projections
for
the
project,
but
we
know
that
is
going
to
be
significantly
less
than
the
maximum
the
build-out
capacity
of
the
state.
J
J
J
We
can
move
around
where
the
capacity
is
within
the
city,
but
we
can't
we
can't
reduce
it,
so
the
the
city-wide
capacity
is
going
to
remain
and
it
does
in
all
of
the
alternatives
at
approximately
eighty
one
thousand
one
hundred
and
twenty
four
we're
not
going
to
quibble
over
a
couple
of
units
at
this
point
really.
J
But
we
know
that
that's
the
target
that
we're
trying
to
hit
there
are
currently
about
48
000
housing
units
that
have
been
built
in
the
city
that
are
currently
built
right
now
and
that
number,
as
you
probably
know,
if
you
look
at
the
evolution
of
the
city
over
time,
that
in
the
70s
and
80s,
the
number
of
housing
units
per
year
rose
pretty
precipitously
and
that
in
the
by
the
mid
90s
it
had
really
slowed
down
and
that
by
the
last
decade
the
rate
of
growth
had
decreased
significantly.
J
So
right
now
there
are
48
000
housing
units
in
the
city
and
if
you
subtract,
48
000
from
81
000,
you
get
33
000,
and
so
that
is
the
approximate
amount
of
unbuilt
capacity
in
the
city.
Right
now,
then,
there's
the
arena
number,
which
is
what
you
talked
about
previously
of
2621,
which
is
the
amount
of
land
that
needs
to
be
identified
for
the
sixth
housing
element
cycle.
J
As
I
mentioned,
there
were
over
2100
total
responses
in
the
unclean
survey
2127
to
be
precise,
the
majority
of
those
happened
online
just
over
2100,
and
then
there
are
about
25
hard
copy
versions
that
were
given
to
us
that
were
input.
The
survey
was
open
from
february
2nd
to
march
15th.
They
had
a
total
of
33
questions.
J
16
of
the
questions
were
multiple,
not
multiple
choice,
but
were
your
closed
ended
where
you
pick
one,
and
one
of
the
options
was
whether
you
wanted
to
see
something
different
and
so
16
of
those
questions
had
spaces
for
comments
and
then
five
of
the
questions
were
demographic
questions
right
off
the
bat
97
of
all
respondents
lived
in
the
city
and
some
of
those
both
lived
and
worked
in
the
city.
J
The
full
report
of
all
of
the
comments,
the
all
of
the
raw
comments,
are
available
on
the
thousand
oaks
website,
and
there
are
two
versions
right
now
on
the
website.
One
is
just
the
closed-ended
responses
and
the
other
includes
all
of
the
open-ended
responses
and
that
one's
about
400
pages,
long,
the
we
looked
at
the
demographics
and
we
start
with
the
demographics
to
see
how
well
the
survey
is
broadly
representative
of
the
community.
I
do
want
to
point
out.
This
is
not
a
statistically
valid
survey.
J
J
So
what
we
do,
because
it
is
not
the
statistically
valid
survey.
Is
we
look
at
the
demographics
and
compare
that
to
the
city
as
the
whole
to
see
how
well
it
represents
the
city.
So,
overall
we
asked
the
question
of
how
long
people
have
lived
in
thousand
oaks,
and
so
the
majority
of
people
are
almost
almost
half
of
the
people.
J
46
have
lived
in
the
city
for
21
years
or
longer,
and
the
group
with
the
most
responses
was
those
who
have
lived
in
the
city
for
11
to
20
years
and
a
relatively
small
number
less
than
seven
percent
have
lived
in
the
city
for
five
years
or
less.
This
means
that
the
people
who
have
been
here
are
the
longest
are
are
more
likely
to
have
taken
the
survey.
J
We
asked
the
the
zip
code
of
the
respondent
and,
as
you
can
see
here,
there's
some
pretty
good
representation
across
all
of
the
geographies
of
the
city,
so
it
wasn't
weighted
towards
completely
towards
one
area
again.
These
are.
These
are
good
results
to
see
from
the
survey
to
see
that
it's
spread
across
age
or
spread
across
the
amount
of
time
people
have
lived
in
the
city
and
also
with
the
zip
code
for
geographic
representation.
J
We
asked
survey,
respondents
their
age
and
then
compared
that,
which
is
what
you
see
in
the
dark
blue
on
the
left
and
we
asked
and
then
we
compared
that
to
the
census
numbers
for
the
city
and
what
you
can
see
is,
except
for
the
the
18
or
24
and
under
that
the
profile
from
the
25
and
and
up
is
actually
pretty
close
to
what
the
profile
of
the
census
has
for
those
living
in
the
city.
J
So
the
survey
is
underrepresented,
particularly
in
those
under
18,
which
is
not
a
surprise
and
and
still
underrepresented
for
the
18
to
24..
The
25
to
34
is
pretty
close.
It's
slightly
over
represented
for
the
for
all
of
the
other
age
groups,
so
essentially
this
skewed
not
a
surprise,
but
compared
to
the
population.
It's
skewed
older.
J
We
also
did
a
comparison
of
the
survey
results
to
the
to
the
statistically
valid
survey
that
was
done
just
over
a
year
ago
or
approximately
a
year
ago,
and
what
we
see
here
is
that
it's
still
pretty
close
in
terms
of
the
profile-
it's
not
exact,
but
it's
pretty
close
in
terms
of
the
profile
of
the
residents
on
the
right
is
the
statistically
valid
survey.
J
The
670
people
who
took
that
survey
and
on
the
left
is
the
2100
plus
who
took
the
survey
on
the
alternatives
we
asked
about
demographics
and
how
people
identified
themselves
in
terms
of
race,
ethnicity
and
overall,
though
on
the
left
is
in
the
in
the
dark.
Blue
is
the
results
of
a
survey
and
the
on
the
right
is
the
census
estimates,
and
what
we
see
is
that
the
white
population
is
over
represented
in
the
survey
again.
J
This
is
not
a
surprise
for
us
with
the
engagement
effort,
we're
78
of
the
people
identified
as
white
compared
to
69
in
the
city
and
that
the
big
differences
really
came
with
the
hispanic
and
latino
and
then
asian
was
slightly
lower.
But
if
you
sort
of
look
across
the
board
at
the
responses,
it
was
about
a
ten
percent
difference
in
nine
percent
difference,
and
so
again
it's
not
surprising,
but
but
it
is
not
a
bad
representation
of
the
city.
J
Overall,
I'm
going
to
jump
into
the
results
now
the
specific
results
of
the
survey.
We
started.
The
survey
with
asking
a
very
some
very
broad
questions
about
perspectives
on
development
in
the
city.
J
With
this
question,
we,
and
actually
I'm
gonna-
I'm
gonna-
go
to
one
of
the
one
of
the
comments
from
the
general
plan
advice.
Some
some
general
plan
advisory
committee
members
at
our
meeting
last
week
was
they
were
surprised
that
not
a
lot
of
people
said
that
the
area
where
the
oaks
mall
is
in
jan's
marketplace.
J
They
were
surprised
that
that
only
got
18.
of
people
who
said
that
they
would
want
to
have
housing
in
that
area,
because
that's
actually
a
little
different
than
what
we've
heard
throughout
the
process.
Thus
far.
J
The
third
question
was
whether
whether
people
agree
with
our
approach
of
protecting
the
character
of
single-family
residential
areas
and
transferring
the
capacity
remaining
capacity
into
the
areas
of
change
for
those
who
haven't
read
the
briefing
book.
What
we
did
was.
We
know
that
there
are
areas
there
are
single-family
residential
areas
that
are
allowed
to
go
to
be
built
up
to
15
units,
an
acre
which
is
essentially
town
homes,
perhaps
small
apartment
buildings,
but
they
are
designated
they're,
really
single-family
areas
right
now,
under
new
state
law,
you
can
build
up.
J
Two
people
have
the
right
through
the
objective
standards
that
were
mentioned
previously,
to
build
up
to
the
maximum
density,
so
it
would
be
possible
if
someone
wanted
to
to
come
in
and
try
and
build
a
duplex
triplex
fourplex
in
an
established
single
family
area
because
of
the
land
use
designation
that
the
city
has
right
now,
and
so
what
we
heard
throughout
the
process
was
the
majority
of
people
want
to
protect
the
low-scale
single-family
character
of
those
neighborhoods,
and
so
we
asked
the
question
of
if
we
is
it
okay
to
protect
those
areas
by
transferring
the
capacity
that's
there
over
into
other
areas
of
the
city,
what
we
call
the
areas
of
change
which
represent
about
eight
percent
of
the
city's
land,
to
think
about
whether
we
could
transfer
some
of
that
development
capacity
over
there
to
to
build
a
diversity
of
housing
types,
but
also
to
protect
the
single-family
areas.
J
And
what
we
see
here
is
that
85
of
people
either
agreed
or
strongly
agreed
with
the
direction
that
we
were
taking,
which
is
a
pretty
overwhelming
response
here
and
only
seven
percent.
Only
ten
percent
disagreed
with
that
approach.
J
J
What
this
would
mean
is
that
you
would
still
be
able
to
build
perhaps
a
50-foot
building
with
the
same
building
parameters,
but
you
would
have
slightly
smaller
units
in
order
to
be
able
to
achieve
a
higher
density,
and
70
percent
of
people
said
that,
yes,
that
we
should
allow
the
city
should
allow
densities
of
up
to
45
units
per
acre
in
the
same
building
form.
J
So
we
also
we.
We
then
went
through
the.
There
are
five
different
sub
areas
that
we
identified
for
areas
of
change.
So
I'm
going
to
step
back,
because
I
didn't
cover
this
previously
in
the
presentation
in
the
year
and
a
half
before
we
did
the
alternatives.
J
One
of
the
exercises
that
I
had
mentioned
previously
that
we
did
was
an
online
survey
and
working
with
the
gpac
to
ask
them
where
they
thought
new
development
should
go
and
there
were
exercises
virtually
and
in
person
where
we
gave
people
stickers
representing
different
uses,
and
they
put
them
on
the
map
where
they
thought.
J
New
development
should
go
and
essentially
overwhelmingly
the
the
area
that
people
identified
was
rancho,
canejo
oak,
small
jans
marketplace
down
thousand
oaks
boulevard
and
then
mostly
down
thousand
oaks
boulevard
to
the
east
side
of
the
city,
and
so
there
were
also
some
people
who
said:
move
housing
and
put
housing
throughout
the
whole
city.
But
the
majority
of
people
said
you
have
this
kind
of
corridor
this
this
band
in
the
middle
of
the
city
and
that's
where
new
development
should
be
focused
in
that
area.
J
Once
we
once
we
did,
the
numbers
represents
less
than
eight
percent
of
the
total
land
area
in
the
city
and
even
within
those
areas
of
change.
Only
about
half
would
would
even
be
considered
for
change,
because
the
rest
is
like
residential
or
the
auto
dealers
that
aren't
changing
at
all.
J
So
what
I'm
going
to
do
now
is
walk
through
each
of
the
areas
present
at
a
high
level,
the
different
alternatives
and
then
and
then
show
you
the
results
of
the
survey.
So
these
are
the
three
alternatives
that
we
came
up
with
it's
a
little
hard.
I
know
they're
they're
kind
of
start
blurring
together
when
you
look
at
them.
So
I
just
want
to
highlight
a
few
things.
I'm
going
to
assume
that
most
people,
most
of
you,
have
skimmed
through
the
briefing
book
and
looked
at
the
survey
results.
J
J
Industrial
which
allows
lower
scale
office
and
light
industrial
uses,
and
so
the
three
alternatives
have
are
vary
in
terms
of
the
balance
of
industrial
flex
to
industrial
uses
and
then,
where
the
mixed-use
development,
which
is
what
you
see
in
the
purple,
is
located
and
so
alternative
one
has
has
a
balance
of
light
industrial
and
industrial
flex,
and
it
takes
a
portion
of
the
area
in
rancho
canejo
and
converts
that
to
mixed
use
with
the
idea
that
you
would
allow
people
to
allow
projects,
developments
to
be
built
that
are
mixed
use
with
residential
uses
to
better
integrate
residential
and
office
together
to
create
mixed-use
districts.
J
J
It
leaves
the
all
of
the
area
that's
currently
designated
as
industrial
and
jobs
as
industrial
and
jobs,
and
then
moves
the
mixed
use
on
the
north
side
of
the
freeway
to
the
existing
commercial
areas.
South
of
the
freeway,
it
expands
the
mixed
use
further
east
and
then
keeps
the
commercial
uses
over
by
ventu
over
here.
J
So
the
the
amount
of
residential
development
was
held
constant
in
all
of
them,
and
really
it
was
an
exercise
in
looking
at
different
locations
where
the
residential
could
go
for
jobs,
alternatives.
One
and
alternative
two
were
really
pretty
close
in
terms
of
the
number
of
jobs
that
were
created
and
alternative.
Three
is
pretty
much
the
jobs
alternative
where
we
tried
to
maximize
the
number
of
jobs
in
the
city,
and
so
that
had
about
25
percent.
I
remember
correctly
about
25
percent,
more
jobs
for
question
five.
J
We
asked
about
whether
the
job
of
what
the
approach
should
be
to
jobs
in
rancho
canejo
and
whether
there
should
be
a
balance
between
industrial
flex
and
industrial
low
or
whether
it
should
be
more
industrial
flex
or
whether
people
had
no
preference
and
so
overwhelmingly
people
said
they
want
to
see
a
balance
of
the
mix
of
types
of
job-producing
uses.
Industrial
flex
and
industrial
low
70
of
people
have
that
preference.
J
J
So
the
first
one
is
was
alternative,
one
where
it
was
mixed
use
along
lawrence
drive
and
43
of
people
said
that
that
was
their
preference.
The
alternate
the
second
one
alternative
two
had
took
the
area:
that's
commercial
and
put
some
on
the
on
the
western
edge
and
converted
some
of
that
to
mixed
use
as
a
potential
land
use
to
allow
housing
there,
but
that
only
got
nine
percent
positive
response
and
then
alternative
three
was
really
to
keep
the
rancho
canejo
area
for
employment.
Only
that
was
38.
J
The
next
question
was
the
extent
to
which
the
respondents
agreed
with
the
statement
that
the
general
plan
should
allow
mixed-use
development
of
up
to
four
stories
and
45
units
per
acre
if
it
reduced
the
amount
of
housing
that
was
needed
elsewhere
in
the
city.
In
other
words,
should
there
be
new
residential
development
at
45
units,
an
acre
in
rancho,
pineo
and
57
of
the
people
strongly
agreed
and
17
17
agreed,
and
so
here
we
see
that
about
23
disagreed
with
that
statement.
J
So
again
it's
it's
very
directional
in
terms
of
housing
in
the
rancho
canejo
area
and
when
we
asked
which
alternative
best
matches
your
vision
for
the
future,
it
was
alternative
one
and
alternative
three
alternative.
Three
again
to
remind
you,
had
no
residential
north
of
the
freeway
and
it
added
more
mixed
use
south
of
the
freeway
and
alternative
one
was
a
balance
between
the
two.
J
The
second
area
is
the
moore
park,
road
and
west
thousand
oaks
boulevard
area.
I'm
going
to
walk
through
these
alternatives,
just
to
sort
of
so
orient
you
right
kind
of
up
the
middle
north
south
top
to
bottom.
Here
is
moore
park
road.
You
see
thousand
oaks
boulevard
hill,
crest
and
then
the
thumb
here
is
thousand
oaks.
Is
the
oaks
mall?
J
The
big
triangle
piece
purple
triangle
piece
in
this
image?
Is
jan's
marketplace,
so
alternative
one
focuses
development
in
a
couple
of
nodes
in
this
area
while
leaving
the
rest
as
commercial.
So
it
focuses
mixed
use
development
around
the
oaks
mall
in
jan's
marketplace
and
then
on
the
eastern
edge
of
thousand
oaks
boulevard.
J
J
So
you
can
see
here
there's
a
greater
expanse
of
the
light
purple,
which
is
mixed
use
low,
both
in
the
oaks
mall
area,
as
well
as
on
thousand
oaks
boulevard
and
then,
as
well
as
north,
along
moore
park,
road
leaving
a
kind
of
a
area
of
commercial
right
around
the
101
freeway
alternative
three
created
more
focused
development
and
created
more
more
jobs,
and
so
it
did
that
by
taking
the
area
north
of
hillcrest
and
making
it
industrial
flex
taking
the
area
a
portion
of
the
area
south
of
hillcrest
between
hillcrest
and
101,
and
allowing
commercial
uses
which
could
include
offices
or
stores
and
retail
or
hotels.
J
The
the
thumbnail
here
on
the
oaks
mall
is
is
residential,
neighborhood
medium
and
then
it
created
two
more
higher
intensity
nodes
of
mixed
use
on
the
eastern
edge
of
thousand
oaks
boulevard,
which
is
a
mixed
use
high
in
this
in
this
map,
as
well
as
in
jan's
marketplace.
J
A
series
of
questions
on
this,
this
question:
question
number
10.
We
provided
six
images
and
asked
whether
ask
people
to
identify
their
reaction
to
each
of
these
six
images
at
jan's
marketplace
and
the
oaks
mall,
and
this
is
a
question
that
really
focuses
on
these
two
large
parcels,
because
they
have
been
identified
as
large
opportunity
sites
throughout
the
process
without
going
through
the
details,
the
the
image
number
four,
which
is
essentially
retail,
two-story
retail,
with
lots
of
public
space.
Eighty-Seven
percent
of
people
like
it
or
love
it
for
that
area.
J
That's
not
a
surprise,
the
one
with
the
most
no
way-
and
that
was
actually
one
of
the
responses
was
no
way.
I
don't
want
this.
There
is
the
five-story
office
building
here
and
33
said
no
way
in
the
top
three
images.
It's
multi-family
or
mixed-use
housing
actually
number
two
is
probably
town
homes
or
stacked
flats,
and
there
was
a
you
know.
A
lot
of
folks
said
between
68
and
75
said
they.
They
either
love
it
or
they
like
it.
J
So
this
tells
us
that
there
are
a
lot
of
people
who
want
to
see
development
at
the
oaks
mall
and
jan's
marketplace
as
three
to
five
story:
mixed
use
or
residential
development
question
11
ask
for
the
area
along
moore
park,
road
between
thousand
oaks
boulevard
and
just
north
of
wilbur,
whether
that
shouldn't
maintain
the
current
mix
of
retail
and
commercial
uses
and
or
whether
it
should
be
mix.
You
should
be
allowed
in
this
area,
and
a
large
number
of
folks
said
essentially
keep
mostly
commercial
uses
in
this
area.
So
in
other
words,
moore
park.
J
The
next
question
was
asked
about
the
area
of
thousand
oaks
boulevard
between
moore
park
and
odin
camp,
and
we
gave
three
images
and
asked
people
what,
whether
they
liked
it
loved
it
were
agnostic
or
didn't
like
it
at
all.
In
no
way
they
don't
want
to
see
it
there,
and
what
we
see
here
is
that
these
are
essentially
four
to
five
story.
J
Residential
and
mixed
use,
buildings
and
between
70
and
78
of
respondents
said
they
either
love
it
or
they
like
it
and
so
again,
kind
of
very
directional
that
this
is
from
the
people.
The
2100
people
who
took
the
survey
the
majority
wanted
were
accepting
of
these
types
of
development
in
this
area.
J
The
the
next
area
is
what
we
call
downtown
and
thousand
oaks
boulevard.
This
area
extends
from
23
all
the
way
to
essentially
where
the
auto
malls
are
on
thousand
oaks
boulevard.
J
While
this
area
is
relatively
large
in
terms
of
geography
from
north
to
south,
the
majority
of
the
alternatives
have
almost
exactly
the
same:
land
use
designations
off
of
thousand
oaks
boulevard
alternative
one
is
the
nodal
approach
where
high
density,
mixed
use.
High
was
identified
in
the
downtown
area,
and
so
this
is
the
the
big
big
blue
here
right
along
the
101
freeway
is
the
civic
arts
plaza,
and
so
you
can
so
you
can
see
the
the
darker
purple
is
mixed
use
mixed
use,
high
and
then
the
rest
is
really
mixed.
J
Use
low,
with
the
light
pink
as
commercial
uses,
alternative
two
spread
low
and
medium
density
throughout
this
area
without
much
differentiation
and
then
oh,
that
was
alternative
two
and
then
alternative.
Three
was
a
mix
between
the
two
with
some
medium
and
some
low
mixed
use
throughout
the
area
we
asked
for
the
downtown
area,
so
we
asked
what
types
of
development
people
wanted
to
see
in
terms
of
intensity.
J
45
of
people
responded
that
they
wanted
to
see
five
stories
and
60
units.
An
acre
32
percent
said
that
the
maximum
they
would
want
to
see
is
four
stories
and
45
units.
An
acre
only
17
said
that
they
want
to
maintain
the
existing
designation
of
mixed-use
low,
which
is
three
stories
and
30
units
an
acre
and
then
six
percent
said
none
of
the
above,
which,
for
the
most
part,
meant
when
this
response
was
here,
it
usually
meant
they
didn't
like
any
of
them.
J
I
forgot
to
mention
that
previously
and
the
written
responses
that
we
got
here
were
mostly
negative.
So
if
someone
liked
what
they
saw
in
the
questions,
they
just
typically
answered
the
question
and
said
that
they
like
one
of
them.
If
they
didn't
like
any
of
them
or
they
didn't
like
the
ideas
at
all
or
they
had
other
ideas,
they
would
say
none
of
the
above
and
again
the
majority
was
was
negative.
J
We
asked
whether
the
city
should
allow
multi-family
residential
buildings
without
a
requirement
for
commercial
uses
in
some
areas
along
thousand
oaks
boulevard
in
this
section,
in
other
words,
because
retail
is,
is
a
more
of
a
dying
industry,
especially
with
covid,
and
there
is
more
retail
in
the
city
than
is
needed
right
now.
You
know:
could
some
of
those
retail
or
commercial
parcels
be
redeveloped
with
just
residential
without
any
commercial
or
retail
development,
and
almost
75
percent
of
people
said
that
they
would
agree
with
that
statement.
J
So
three
out
of
every
four
we
asked
which,
which
alternative
best
matches
your
vision
for
the
future
and
43
said
alternative
one.
This
is
about
the
same
percentage
that
43
said
that
they
would
want
60
units
an
acre
and
five
stories
in
this
downtown
in
the
downtown
area.
J
Alternative.
I'm
sorry,
the
next
area
is
west
lake
and
east
end.
You
can
see
the
101
freeway
and
then
the
you
can
see
thousand
oaks
boulevard
along
the
top.
These
alternatives
had
had
slightly
less
variation.
The
auto
malls,
which
you
see
in
sort
of
the
light
pink
here,
were
the
same
all
across
the
board
and
the
parcel
kind
of,
on
the
left
hand
side
south
of
the
freeway.
J
This
is
the
kmart
site
with
a
mixed-use
project
that
is
currently
going
through
the
process
right
now,
alternative
one
created
more
mixed-use
development
north
of
the
freeway,
including
on
the
south
side
of
thousand
oaks
boulevard
right
at
west
lake
boulevard,
but
then
also
on
the
north
side
of
of
thousand
oaks
boulevard.
This
area
is
not
included
in
the
thousand
oaks
boulevard
specific
plan,
so
the
current
designation
for
this
area
is
right.
Now
is
commercial.
J
It
maintains
majority
of
expanded
mixed
use
on
the
east
end
of
thousand
oaks
boulevard,
but
also
maintained
some
areas
for
jobs
and
then
on
the
south
side.
There's
a
large
area
that
was
essentially
maintained
for
jobs,
with
westlake
plaza
as
mixed
use
in
this
alternative
alternative
two
kept
more
commercial
uses
north
of
the
freeway,
but
then
expanded
the
amount
of
mixed
use
to
integrate
jobs
with
housing
on
the
south
side
of
the
freeway
alternative
three
is
the
jobs-focused
alternative.
J
When
we
ask
what
best
matches
your
vision
for
the
employment
district
near
hampshire,
road
and
townsgate,
and
that's
this
area
along
on
the
south
side
of
the
freeway?
That's
that's
gray!
In
alternative
one.
We
call
this
the
townsgate
area.
This
is
houndsgate
going
right
through
the
road
name
and
the
almost
half
of
the
respondents
said
that
they
want
to
expand
the
employment
focus
of
the
area
by
adding
industrial
flex.
But
really
a
lot
said
that
they
want
to
keep
commercial
uses.
J
A
very,
relatively
small
number,
25
percent
27
said
that
they
would
consider
adding
mixed
use
to
that
area.
So
this
tells
us,
through
the
results
that
people
really
want
to
see
that
area
maintained
for
jobs
and
not
allow
mixed
use
and
residential
in
that
area.
J
For
the
west
lake
plaza
and
center,
we
asked
what
best
meets
your
vision:
maintain
commercial
only
uses,
which
is
alternative.
Three
allow
for
mixed-use
development
at
30
units,
an
acre
alternative
two
or
allow
for
mixed
use
of
45
units,
an
acre
alternative.
One
overwhelmingly
people
said
that
they
want
to
maintain
that
area.
Just
for
commercial
without
residential.
J
The
the
results
here
were
were
pretty
split
between
the
alternatives
and
alternative
two
which
is
actually
the
first
one
here
with
30,
was
essentially
maintain
the
existing
amount
of
existing
commercial
uses
alternative
one
allowed
for
some
mixed-use
development,
alternative
three
allowed
for
a
lot
more
mixed-use
development,
so
about
65
percent
two-thirds
responded
that
they
would
want
to
see
some
amount
of
mixed-use
development
at
this
intersection.
Although
there's
not
necessarily
clarity
on
where
or
how
much.
J
From
this
survey,
we
asked
the
for
the
area
that
is
the
the
current
office
area
on
the
east
end
of
of
the
city
along
thousand
oaks
boulevard.
What
people
thought
should
happen
there,
alternative
one
was
expand
the
potential
for
jobs,
but
allow
residential
and
mixed-use
development.
So
that's
essentially
just
adding
some
mixed
use.
J
26
wanted
that
22
percent
said
really
just
maintain
the
the
focus
on
retail
and
entertainment
and
office
uses
and
then
alternative
three
was
to
create
to
keep
the
employment
uses
but
allow
more
more
intense
employment
to
create
more
of
an
office.
Intense
office
district
to
spark
some
redevelopment
in
that
area
and
42
said
that
that
was
their
preference
here
and
so
again.
Sort
of
the
directionality
with
this
is
that
for
that
area
there
was
a
preference
for
maintaining
a
strong
jobs
focus.
J
Seven
percent
had
other
ideas
and
three
percent
had
no
preference.
When
we
asked
which
alternative
best
matches
your
vision,
alternative
three
was
selected
more
than
any
other.
That
was
mixed,
use
on
all
four
corners
of
west
lake
and
thousand
oaks
boulevard,
with
limited,
very
limited
mixed
use
on
the
south
side
of
the
freeway
10
said.
None
of
the
above.
J
J
The
three
alternatives
we
didn't
go
through
each
of
these
seven
areas,
we
kind
of
grouped
them
together,
alternative
one-
was
a-
was
a
mix
between
some
mixed-use
low,
which
is
30
units,
an
acre
and
50
feet
or
commercial
neighborhood,
and
so
there
was
just
kind
of
a
split
between
those
two
throughout
the
seven
areas.
J
Alternative
two
was
to
just
keep
everything
as
commercial,
but
to
essentially
redevelop
it
and
in
a
nicer
pattern
and
alternative
three
was
to
allow
all
mixed
use
low
throughout
all
of
them,
and
the
results
here
were
directional
in
that
almost
60
of
people
said
that
they
want
to
keep
the
areas
commercial
and
not
allow
residential
uses
and
26
said
only
allowed.
Some
of
those
uses
some
of
some
of
the
shopping
centers
to
allow
residential
development.
J
J
You
can
pick
the
existing
general
plan,
so
we
basically
said
no
change.
That
was
this
option
or
none
of
the
above,
and
what
we
found
is
that
only
17
percent
picked
none
of
the
above
and
or
the
existing
general
plan.
A
lot
of
the
comments
under
none
of
the
above
here
and
other
ones
were
some
of
them.
Not
a
lot
were
you
know.
People
wanted
to
keep
the
city
as
it
is
today
and
they
were
afraid
of
losing
a
really
good
thing,
which
I
think
everybody
understands
so
again.
J
There's
some
directionality
here
where
alternative
one
and
alternative
three
were
really
significantly
higher
than
the
other
alternatives.
From
this
survey.
J
We
then
present
we
presented
these
results
to
the
general
plan
advisory
committee
meeting
and
then
had
led
a
discussion.
So
the
comments
that
I'm
going
to
talk
about
are
just
the
comments
of
individual
members.
They
are
not.
They
are
not
a
consensus
by
any
means
among
the
group
and
only
about
half
of
the
gpac
members
spoke
at
that
meeting.
So
we
asked
people
what
they
were
surprised
about
in
terms
of
what
what
they
saw
from
the
survey
results
that
surprised
them,
or
that
was
different
than
what
they
expected
and
what
came
up.
J
I
think
the
most
of
anyone
was
that
the
oaks
mall
and
jan's
marketplace
were
not.
There
was
not
overwhelming
comments
from
the
survey
that
those
areas
should
be
have
the
potential
to
redevelop
as
mixed-use
development.
J
It
did
come
across
in
when
we
showed
the
photos,
but
but
not
in
one
of
the
other
questions
when
we
asked
about
about
jan's
marketplace
and
moore
park
road,
and
so
there
was
some
kind
of
surprise
about
that,
because
the
gpac
had
previously
said
they
see
that
as
an
area
for
allowing
new
mixed-use
development
as
well
as
to
allow
for
changes,
because
the
retail
landscape
in
the
city
has
changed.
H
Mr
ramey,
can
I
ask
a
quick
question:
if
that's
okay
share
a
bus.
J
No,
it's
fine
keep
put
a
pin
in
that
we'll
come
back
to
it
and
I
can
go
back
to
these
slides,
so
the
village
centers
there
was
some
surprise
that
there
was
not
as
much
interest
in
the
village
centers
as
mixed
use.
Again,
these
are
just
responses
of
a
few
members
of
the
gpac,
but
I
wanted
to
report
what
they
had
said
since
they're
our
advisory
group.
There
was
some
support
for
housing,
new
housing
types
spread
throughout
the
city
from
gpac
members.
J
There
was
an
encouragement
of
having
new
job
opportunities
throughout
the
city,
and
then
there
were
a
series
of
other
comments.
One
that
was
made
was
to
a
reminder
to
look
as
at
the
general
plan,
as
the
blueprint
for
the
next
30
to
40
years,
so
think
big
and
think
way
into
the
future,
and
don't
just
think
about
the
next
five
to
eight
years,
which
is
what
the
housing
element
tells
us
to
do.
So,
in
other
words,
don't
just
focus
on
the
numbers
but
focus
on
the
big
picture,
vision
city.
J
J
There
were
concerns
raised
about
some
of
the
impacts
of
development
for
traffic
parking
and
others,
and
there
was
certainly
comments
that
echoed
previous
surveys
about
maintaining
views
and
open
space
in
the
city
and
that
that's
really
important.
J
Okay,
like
I
said
mr
lance,
and
I'm
almost
done,
should
I
leave
the
slide
up.
If
you
want
to
ask
that
first
question,
or
should
I
stop
doing
this
right.
A
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much
for
that
presentation.
Mr
ramey,
I
will
I
was
going
to.
B
Open
with
do
any
of
my
commissioners
have
any
questions.
H
I
I
apologize
for
jumping
the
gun,
but
you
were
on
an
issue
that
I
I
was
hoping
to
get
a
specific
question
about
is
as
to
the
malls,
both
the
jans,
mall
and
and
the
oaks
were
they
involved
in
the
discussion
process.
Did
they
give
you
any
comments
about
the
survey.
J
About
the
survey
you
know,
I'm
gonna
maybe
turn
to
staff
to
ask
that.
I
know
that
that
staff
had
met
with
them.
So,
michael
kristen,
do
you
guys
want
to
take
over.
D
Yes,
we
did
talk
with
both
of
them
on
a
couple
of
occasions,
and
I
believe
that
they,
I
know
at
least
one,
if
not
both
of
them
submitted
formal
comment.
Letters
through
the
process,
so
we're
in
the
process
still
of
compiling
all
the
comments
that
we
received
and
we'll
get
all
those
posted
on
the
website
and
make
those
available
to
you
before
the
meeting
when
you're,
considering
the
preferred
alternative.
D
The
the
comment.
The
one
comment
that
I'm
remembering
the
oaks
did
provide
a
written
written
letter
and
the
one
comment
that
I'm
remembering
from
them
is
that
they
they
said
it
was
important
to
them
that
the
entire
property
be
given
the
same
land
use
designation
and
they
were
in
favor
of
a
mixed
use,
designation
to
give
them
flexibility.
D
I
think
the
the
general
message
that
we
heard
from
both
jans
and
the
oaks
was
just
that
they
both
are
interested
in
having
as
much
flexibility
as
possible
in
developing
their
properties
in
the
future,
because
there's
just
so
much
uncertainty
right
now
with
retail
and
commercial
and
movie
theaters.
And
you
know
not
really
knowing
what
the
economic
situation
of
all
of
their
tenants
is
going
to
be
in
the
future.
They
they're
just
interested
in
having
a
lot
of
flexibility,
which
would
include
the
mixed
use,
ability.
H
Okay,
mr
amy,
I
want
to
first
of
all
congratulate
you
by
the
way
it's
a
fantastic
job.
I
have
to
say
personally
reading
through
the
briefing
book
I
I
did
the
part
with
all
the
comments
which
took
me
a
very
long
time
to
get
through,
because,
amazingly,
a
lot
of
our
citizens
wanted
to
make
sure
that
their
comments
were
were
heard.
And
again
I
really
appreciated
the
fact
they
were
able
to
put
a
little
pinpoint
and
and
really
direct
the
comment
to
that
thing.
H
So
that
was
a
really
fantastic
process
and
again
thank
you
to
you
and
by
the
way,
all
the
citizens
that
gave
their
comments,
because
that
was
a
really
huge
part
of
me
trying
to
understand
a
lot
of
what
the
interpretation
and
the
feeling
about
it
was
one
thing
again.
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
all
talking
the
same
things
that
everybody
understands.
You
said
that
against
26,
22
or
21
that
we
have
to
identify
when
you
say
identify,
do
we
not
currently
have
in
our
general
plan
and
ability
to
identify
26,
21
units.
J
J
So
we
okay,
you
know
and
again
I
you
know
we
we
think
of
the
general
plan
in
sort
of
two
ways,
and
you
know
I'm
gonna
answer
the
question
by
sort
of
not
answering
the
question
at
the
same
time
I
apologize,
but
you
know
there,
there
is
this
piece
of
the
general
plan,
which
is
the
housing
element,
and
this
number
that
we
have.
J
There
is
a
bigger
piece
of
the
general
plan,
which
is
all
of
the
engagement
that
we
have
done
throughout
the
process
and
asking
people
what
they
want
to
see
in
the
future
of
the
city
in
the
next
20
30
40
years,
and
so
you
know
there.
Yes,
there
is
that
piece.
We
do
need
it
for
for
the
housing
element,
but
you
know
we
also
asked
people
some
pretty
open-ended
questions
about
what
they
want
to
see
and
you
know
where
they
want
to
see
development
and
the
results
in
the
survey.
Were
you
know
it?
J
H
No,
I
believe
me
and
that's
why
it
was
important
to
get
all
those
questions.
So
I'm
glad
you
did
that
you
mentioned
at
some
point
the
specific
plan
that
the
city
has
what
happens
to
the
specific
plan
by
virtue
of
this
general
plan,
amendment.
J
Great
question:
the
specific
plan
would
need
to
at
some
point
be
amended
if
there
are
changes
in
in
land
use
as
a
result.
So,
for
example,
if
the
decision
is
made
to
essentially
maintain
30
units
an
acre
and
the
current
general,
the
current
regulations
along
the
entire
corridor,
it
might
not
need
to
be
amended
if
there
are.
You
know,
for
example,
in
the
downtown
area.
J
D
The
the
the
two
projects
that
are
the
recently
completed
lupe's
and
the
299
that's
under
construction
now,
I
believe,
are
the
only
two
but
kari.
Can
you
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong?
There
was
another
one
that
was
approved
and
the
address
is
escaping
me,
but
it
was
across
the
street
from
city
hall
that
one
was
approved
through
the
pre-screen
process,
but
ended
up
never
moving
forward.
D
So
the
units
that
were
allocated
to
that
went
back
into
the
bank
but
as
far
as
approved
and
moved
forward
to
construction,
blue,
bays
and
299
are
the
only
two
so
far.
D
That's
a
good
question.
I
actually
don't
know
off
the
top
of
my
head.
G
H
D
Is
when
it
was
adopted,
so
that's
confirmed.
I
Mr
lansin,
there
have
been
a
couple
apartment,
complex
projects
that
were
approved
and
used
allocations
from
the
specific
plan
20,
but
they
were
not
on
the
boulevard.
Okay,
okay,
we'll
just
mention.
J
H
One
thing
you
also
kind
of
one
of
your
slides
would
think
you
made
a
comment
and
again
there
is
no
single
family
housing
in
the
state
of
california
by
virtue
of
adus.
But
you
said
something
even
additionally
that,
by
virtue
of
our
current
general
plan,
somebody
could
have
put
up
a
four
plex
to
their
property.
Is
that
true.
J
Well,
they
can
now
so
there's
been
changes,
and
this
is
part
of
the
issue,
so
there's
been
changes
both
in
in
state
law
as
well
as
in
and
as
well
as
in
court
cases,
and
so
this
is
all
admit
a
little
bit
outside
of
my
area
of
expertise,
but
the
the
essence
of
it
is
that
that
jurisdictions
need
to
allow
development
at
up
to
the
maximum
amount
of
development
that
is
allowed
in
the
general
plan.
J
Previous
to
this,
and
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
get
wonky
here
for
a
second,
but
it
is
important.
So
I
apologize
previous
to
this.
You
could
do
something
called
nesting,
so
the
designation
in
question
has
a
range
of
4.5
units,
an
acre
to
15
units,
an
acre,
it's
a
pretty
wide
range.
It
used
to
be
that
that
was
okay
to
do
and
that
what
you
would
then
do
is
you
would
fill
in
zoning
that
as
long
as
your
zoning
was
somewhere
within
that
4.5
to
15,
you
were
fine.
J
It
was
perfectly
legal,
but
then
someone
sued
and
and
one
that
essentially
because
the
general
plan
is
the
constitution
and
the
guiding
document
of
the
city
that
cities
need
to
allow
the
maximum
amount
of
development
in
the
land
use
designation,
and
so
there
are
a
lot
of
areas
of
the
city
that
are
zoned
for
four
and
a
half
to
fifteen
units.
An
acre-
and
you
know,
on
a
on
a
you-
know,
ten
thousand
square
foot
lot,
of
which
there
are
many.
You
know
in
the
city.
J
You
know
you
can,
then
you
can
then
build
four
units,
and
so
you
know
to
us
that
was
a
little
bit
of
a
concern
and
we've
seen
we've
seen
this
happen,
that
that,
because
of
nesting
developers
and
because
of
the
nesting
was
allowed,
and
now
it's
not
that
there
are
lots
of
general
plans
that
need
to
be
updated
in
order
to
stop.
You
know
in
order
to
make
sure
that
the
vision
that
the
city
has
his
net.
H
J
Yes,
but
I
you
know,
I
love
that
your
detailed
questions
here.
So
yes,
but
because,
then
you
have
sb
330,
which
comes
in
and
says
you
can't
reduce
the
total
development
capacity
in
the
city.
So
I'm
just
going
to
use
I'm
going
to
just
throw
out
a
number
just
for
simplicity's
sake.
If
you
have
5
000
units
of
excess
capacity
in
an
area
where
you
want
to
down
zone
it,
you
want
to
change
the
designation,
you
need
to
take
that
5
000
units
and
put
it
elsewhere
in
the
city.
J
You
need
to
output
that
capacity,
the
ability
to
develop.
That
doesn't
mean
it's
going
to
be
developed,
but
you
need
to
be
able
to
move
that
over,
and
so
what
our
thinking
was
is
that
we
have
the
this
issue
in
the
residential
neighborhoods,
because
people
want
to
protect
them
and
they
don't
want
four
unit
buildings
built
in
and
then
we
also
have
the
desire
for
people
to
have
some
more
multi-family
residential
and
some
mixed-use
areas
and
very
limited
amount
of
the
city.
So
we
combine
those
two
together
and
that's
the
philosophy
behind
the
entrepreneurs.
H
A
Commissioner
mcmahon,
I
saw
you
raise
your
hand,
please
go
ahead,
commissioner,
mcmahon.
If
you
can
unmute
yourself.
C
I'm
so
sorry,
I
had
one
comment
based
on
the
previous
conversation,
because
if
you
think
about
it,
theoretically,
it
seems
not
real
that
somebody
would
plop
a
four
plugs
in
the
middle
of
a
bunch
of
single-family
homes.
But
if
you
remember
the
thomas
fire
in
ventura,
there
were
the
cul-de-sacs-
and
I
know
of
a
few
where
there
were
three
homes
in
a
normal,
single-family
residential
cul-de-sac
where
they
burned
to
the
ground.
And
then
there
were
other
homes
that
were
that
were
not,
and
so
it's,
if
they're,
if
it.
C
A
Copy
that
any
other
commissioners
have
any
questions
for
step.
Commissioner
newman.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you,
mr
ramey,
for
your
report
very
thorough,
appreciate
it.
I
want
to
apologize
in
advance.
I've
got
a
lot
of
questions,
mr
chair.
If
you
want
to
jump
in
at
some
point
and
do
half
half
split.
A
E
Well,
my
account
I've
got
depending
on
how
I
count
12
or
13
questions.
So
how
about?
If
I
go
through
about
half
of
them
and
then
pass
it
back
and
then
I
can
pick
up
the
the
remainder
later.
B
E
Well,
first,
first,
I
want
to
reference
a
letter
that
the
commissioners
received
late
this
afternoon,
alleging
some
shenanigans
with
the
survey.
Someone
wrote
into
note
that
a
disproportionate
number
of
responses
came
from
rancho
canejo,
something
like
1100
responses
and
of
those
850
used.
Many
examples
of
the
same
phrases
multiple
times
and
the
the
letter
is
specific
about
different
phrases
that
were
used,
and
I
wanted
to
give
you
a
chance
to
respond
to
that.
J
Well,
certainly,
eleven
hundred
didn't
come
from
rancho
canejo,
because
only
35
came
from
that
zip
code.
So
you
know
I
haven't
seen
that
letter.
You
know
we
are
like.
I
said
these
are
the
preliminary
the
preliminary
numbers
we
are
looking
at.
If
there
were
shenanigans,
we
don't
think
there
was
anything
significant
based
on
our
our
initial
assessment
of
it.
It's
it's
really
common.
J
When
people
do
campaigns
for
either
or
something
or
against
something
for
someone
to
send
out
an
email
and
tell
all
of
their
friends
what
to
say-
and
that
happens
in
surveys-
we
see
that
all
the
time.
So
the
fact
that
there
were-
and
we
did
see
you
know
lots
of
comments-
you
know
yes
or
no.
I
saw
like
flyers
and
emails
for
things.
People
didn't
like
and
did
like.
So
you
know
whether
there
were
shenanigans
or
whether
there
were
emails
that
were
sent
out
that
people
then
used
as
part
of
their
response.
J
I
don't
know-
and
you
know
we
have
to
rely
on
our
survey
tool,
and
this
is
a
guide.
You
know,
I
think
when
you
get
11,
you
get
2100
plus
responses.
That's
a
huge
number
of
responses
any
way
you
cut
it
and
there
are
a
lot
of
individual
ones.
J
So
you
know
we're
going
to
actually
you
know,
look
at
the
numbers
and
and
and
look
at
where,
where
we
think
there
could
be
issues
we
use
surveymonkey,
which
allows
essentially
allows
you
only
to
take
one
survey
at
a
time
and
it
tracks.
You
know
it
tracks
ip
addresses,
so
we're
gonna
be
able
to
go
back
and
look
at
that.
E
Okay,
I
mean
I'm,
I'm
a
former
network
engineer
and
I'm
speaking
to
you
from
a
machine
that
looks
to
the
outside
world
like
about
10
or
12.
Individual
ipa
addresses,
so
I
hope
I
hope
there
aren't.
There
isn't
anything
wrong
if
there
is.
I
also
hope
that
you'll
come
back
and
report
any
substantive
changes.
E
J
And
we
saw
those
two
when
we
were
looking
into
them
and
you
know
for
us:
it's
really.
It's
really
important
that
the
survey
has
validity
again,
it's
not
statistically
valid,
but
we
certainly
don't
want
it
undermined.
So
our
you
know,
our
approach
is
probably
to
go
back
and
do
some
sensitivity,
analysis
and
say
well,
if
you,
if
there's
similar
ip
addresses
or
lots
at
a
similar
time
or
whatever
we
kind
of
pull
those
out
and
then
rerun
the
numbers
and
see
what
it
does.
J
E
Okay,
yeah,
if
there
is
if
there
is
a
change,
absolutely
as
a
result
of
the
vetting-
and
I
understand
all-
surveys
need
cleaning
yeah.
If,
if
that
does
change
the
results
substantively,
I
hope
we
can
hear
about
that.
We.
E
The
next
set
of
questions
I
have
has
to
do
with
what
we
are
required
to
do,
either
by
current
policy
or
current
law
versus,
what's
more
aspirational.
What
what
would
like
to
change
our
policy
to
be
so
just
as
a
baseline
to
understand
what
we
need,
what
we
have
to
do
versus
what
we'd
like
to
do
number
one.
E
My
understanding
correctly
from
wrong
here
is
that,
as
as
we
heard
from
mr
holt
in
our
previous
presentation,
rena
requires
us
to
allocate
2621
unit
1
000
housing
units
by
2029..
Is
that
correct.
J
J
E
I'm
sorry
I
misspoke
for
forwarding
on
my
part
same
question,
but
are
we
required
to
add
or
to
allocate
rather.
J
You
you
are
not,
so
you
need
to
maintain
capacity
and
you
need
to
provide
the
the
space
for
the
the
26
21
units
as
part
of
this
as
part
of
this
update.
So
that's
what
you're
required
to
do.
You
know
I.
I
would
also
say
you
know
this
is
this
is
a
long
process.
It
takes
a
lot
of
time
from
the
community
and
you
know
there's
also
it's
26
21
and
then
there's
also
the
buffer.
E
We
must
allocate
26
21
units
by
2029
on
the
one
hand,
and
on
the
other
hand,
we
have
this
much
longer
term,
much
more
general
update
to
the
general
plan,
where
potentially
we
may
be,
adding
thousands,
maybe
tens
of
thousands
of
additional
housing
units,
but
that's
not
a
legal
requirement.
It's
a
policy.
J
E
J
E
Be
allocated
so
using,
I
I'm
apologize
for
abusing
the
terminology,
but
what
I'm?
What
I'm
getting
at
is
about
allocation.
We're
not
we're
not
adding
or
subtracting,
and
you've
explained
that
much
better
than
I
can
81
000
is
our
number
we're
not
sure.
B
J
J
I
So
again,
it
is
important
to
as
matt
was
just
referring
to
that.
This
is
a
general
plan.
Analysis
right.
This
is
a
the
housing,
is
one
element
of
this
process
that
we've
been
going
through
and,
yes,
it's
an
important
part,
and
yes,
we've
been
talking
about
the
arena
numbers
and
what
that
means,
but
this
general
plan
is
much
more
than
that.
It's
gonna,
it's
gonna
impact
economic
sustainability,
environmental
sustainability.
I
Where
do
we
want
to
keep
our
open
space
and
by
going
through
this
process
of
these
landings
alternatives
by
going
through
the
process
of
of
looking
at
all
these
other
elements
and
components
of
the
general
plan?
What
happens?
Is
you
start
to
come
up
with
a
a
plan
in
which
you're
going
to
place
commercial
in
certain
locations,
you're
going
to
place
industrial
in
certain
locations?
You've
got
to
place
residential
in
certain
locations
and
by
that
process?
What
ends
up
happening?
Is
you
ultimately
start
finding
out?
I
Okay
now
we
know
where
we
think
the
residential
is
going
to
go
based
on
this
huge
process
that
we've
gone
through,
and
then
what
that
does
is
says.
Okay,
now
that
we
have
this
allocation,
we
have
to
meet
our
arena,
of
course,
and
we
typically
go
with
at
least
three
times.
If
not
more
last
time,
we
did
six
times
what
our
arena
allocation
requirement
was
to
meet
and
because
you
do
that,
because
you
know
that
not
everything's
going
to
be
built
on
a
certain
parcel
as
planned.
I
It's
not
just
about
the
housing
element,
because
all
those
other
elements
come
into
play
with,
with
coming
to
a
conclusion
of
where
we're
going
to
put
residential
and
industrial
and
commercial
and
mixed
use,
all
those
factors
come
into
play
and
all
these
and
the
type
of
uses,
the
type
of
residential,
the
type
of
mixed
use,
for
example,
or
or
the
style
of
the
of
the
uses
etc.
I
So
I
just
want
to
again
let
you
and
all
the
other
commissioners
in
the
public
as
well
know
that
this
is
certainly
is
a
a
broader
process
of
just
a
housing
element,
but
an
important.
I
understand
that
housing
elements
an
important
part
part
of
that
as
well.
I
E
A
Yeah,
correct
you're
human.
I
think
we've
established
that
that
they're
two
different
numbers
that
the
reality
is
is
that
we
can't
change
81
000
to
anything
different
and
that
the
long-term
plan
is
going
to
be.
I
mean
our
current
general
plan
lasted
50
years.
There
is
a
possibility.
What
we're
discussing
now
will
outlive
all
of
us
at
on
the
on
this
meeting
right
now,
so
so
yeah.
So
we
we
do
have
to
kind
of
anticipate
beyond
just
the
immediate
future,
so
yeah
go
ahead
and
proceed
with
your
next
question.
Sir.
E
Thank
you,
sb
330,
as
mr
raymond
mentioned,
current
is
currently
in
effect
and
currently
prohibits
the
city
from
reducing
its
allocation.
It's
the
number
of
housing
units
in
the
city,
two
questions
on
that
one.
I
I
think
maybe
you
might
be
thinking
that
there
is
proposed
legislation.
I
think
it's
sb8
from
mr
skinner,
I
believe
in
which
he
wants
to
extend
the
timeline
of
sv330,
which
currently
ends
in
2025
to
the
year
2030
and
the
city
has
filed
an
opposition
letter
to
that
proposed
legislation
again
and
it's
imperative
that
you
all
understand
this
is
proposed.
There
are
never,
as
I
mentioned
earlier
today
tonight.
I
There
are
a
number
of
proposed
legislations
about
housing,
and
many
of
them
are,
for
example,
sba,
which
is
to
continue
or
extend
sb
330
to
2030,
and
I
apologize
for
all
those
numbers,
but
also
just
other
other
housing
focused
legislation
to
again
again
for
the
state.
This
is
a
housing
crisis
act
of
2019.
I
They
are
looking
at
this
crisis
and
saying
what
laws
can
we
continue
to
develop
and
and
place
on
the
burdens
of,
frankly
of
the
cities
and
local
agencies
to
deal
with
housing,
whether
it's
homeless,
whether
it's
adu's,
whether
it's
affordable,
housing
of
course
and
they're
continuing
to
evaluate
their
legislation?
I
So,
yes,
we
did
file
an
opposition
to
a
letter
for
sb8,
specifically
to
that
would
extend
it
to
2030,
but
as
far
as
sp
330.
I
That
is
the
law
that
we
have
to
deal
with
right
now
and
we
are
in
in
fact
responding
by
making
sure
that
we're
looking
at
our
general
plan
to
go
through
a
proper
process
again.
I
use
that
word
process
again
tonight
to
ensure
that
we
have
a
great
foundation
for
our
positions,
whether
it's
with
the
arena
meeting
the
arena
requirements
needing
affordable
housing.
All
those
factors
that
we
talked
about
earlier
tonight
we're
doing
this
process
to
kind
of
help.
I
Us
with
that
and
and
the
vision
of
forces
is
a
is
an
incredible
opportunity
for
all
of
us
to
to
look
at
their
general
plan
and
and
again
look
at
all
these
factors,
not
just
housing,
but
all
these
factors,
and
where
do
you
want
things
to
be
and
what
type?
And
by
doing
that,
then
you
come
up
at
the
end
of
the
day
you
one
of
those
factors
is
going
to
be
housing
and
where's
it
going
to
go.
E
I
As
far
as
the
timing
of
the
housing
element,
that
would
be
that
won't
change.
I
think
it's
it's
difficult
to
answer
that
question
fully
and,
and
I'm
not
trying
to
avoid
it.
I
think
the
problem
with
sp30
is:
it
has
many
components,
there's
many
factors
to
it
and
my
concern
with
with
just
not
just
sp8,
but
all
these
other
bills
that
are
being
proposed
is
that
this
is
just
one
year
right.
I
This
is
just
one
year
so
when
we
get
closer
to
2025,
if,
if
sba
doesn't
pass,
of
course,
there
might
be
other
ones
other
other
efforts,
there
are
a
number
of
them.
If
you
want
to
go
through
something.
E
C
J
Jump
in
on
that,
maybe
I
just
apologize
so
with
sb,
330,
sb,
330
and
the
housing
element
it
doesn't
have
as
much
to
do
with
each
other.
So
sp330
is
you
know
it's
about
capacity,
and
you
know
and
other
things.
So
you
know,
I
think
that
from
a
housing
element
perspective,
I
don't
think
you
would
necessarily
have
any
difference.
The
difference,
I
would
say
is
if
you
it
would
allow
you,
if
you
wanted
to
change,
to
reduce
the
overall
capacity
residential
capacity
in
the
city.
You'd
be
able
to
do
that.
E
Right,
okay,
thank
you.
Moving
on
to
terminology
in
the
study
guide,
I
had
I
had
some
confusion
between
the
term
theoretical
build
out
and
residential
capacity.
At
times
they
were
used,
kind
of
interchangeably
and
the
latter
term
wasn't
clearly
defined
and
yeah.
Mr
raymond,
as
you
said
tonight,
and
previously
council
member
al
adams
has
said
city
attorney,
tracy
newton
has
said:
there's
no
way
we'll
ever
max
out
these
allocations.
E
The
study
guide
also
says:
when
preparing
a
general
plan.
This
is
a
quote
quote
the
horizon
year.
Growth
projections
are
significantly
lower
than
full
build
up,
and
mr
here
just
underlined
that
as
well,
so
you
always
plan
with
a
bumper
and
that's
seems
like
a
sound
practice,
but
it's
hard
to
get
a
handle
on
what
kind
of
growth
we're
talking
about
here.
So
my
question
in
this
is:
what
is
the
realistic
number
of
housing
units?
E
J
So
we
use
growth
projections
for
sql
purposes,
for
environmental
analysis
is
the
main
purpose
for
that.
So
we
haven't
done
that,
yet
we
have
to
actually
and
we
do
it-
we
base
it
on
what
the
general
plan
designations
are.
So
we
base
it
on
a
number
of
factors,
which
is
why
we
haven't
done
it,
and
I
understand
we've
had
some
questions
about
what
that
number
is
and-
and
I
understand
the
frustration
when
people
are
like
come
on
just
tell
me
the
number
right,
so
I
I
understand
that
so.
J
So
I
you
know
we
can
we're
going
to
come
back
in
in
the
next
month
or
so,
and
we
can
give
you
a
range,
but
you
know
we
don't
have.
We
don't
have
the
actual
number
right
now,
because
again
you
know
if,
depending
on
what
the
designation
is,
it
has
an
implication
on
the
development
feasibility
of
a
person
and
so
that
what
that
plays
into
it.
E
The
agenda-
the
the
planning
commission
schedule
currently
calls
for
us
to
make
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council.
I
believe
it's
april
26th
when
we
have
that
range
of
projections
before
before
we're
asked
to
vote
on
this.
J
E
Yeah,
I
just
I
don't
I
don't
feel
like.
I
have
enough
clarity
on
what
we're
voting
on
without
that
range.
I
mean
there
is
a
range
today.
Well.
J
Yeah
you're
voting
you're
voting
on
vision,
I
mean
ultimately
and
and
growth
projections
tie
into
that,
but
you're
voting
on
vision
and
the
the
projections
are
what
we
it's
not
a
growth
management,
it's
an
an
allocation
of
identification
of
a
potential
amount
of
development
to
analyze
environmental
impact,
so
they're
very
different
things.
It
is
not
growth
management.
So
if
you
say
that
it's
I
don't
know,
5
000
units
is
what
is
analyzed
in
the
eir.
That
is
not
growth
management.
That
just
means
you
have
to
redo
your
eir
when
you
hit.
E
J
Understood
it's
it's
too
wide
there
and
and
part
of
it
is
we
needed
the
survey
to
understand
the
direction
that
people
wanted
to
go
like
you
know,
west
lake,
it
was
pretty
clear.
People
wanted
to
see
commercial
there
if
you
put
mixed
use
at
30
units,
an
acre
on
10
acres,
that's
300
units
that
we
have
to
identify
for
an
allocation
right
there.
So
that's
how
that's
why
we
needed
this
information
in
order
to
come
up
with
the
projection.
E
Great
well,
I
appreciate
your
efforts
to
get
more
clarity
on
that.
Mr
chair
I'll
I'll
see
back
some
time.
I've
got
more
questions,
but
I
think
this
is
a
good
break
point.
J
J
So
traffic
is
real
big
with
me,
so
I'm
curious
and
as
far
as
I
know
and
correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong,
there
was
no
traffic
model
developed
as
part
of
this
process,
and
why
wasn't
that
we
have
a
traffic
model
that
is
based
on
the
vctc
model
that
is
developed
and
ready
to
run
the
the
modeling
effort
as
part
of
once
we
have
the
numbers,
the
growth
projections
that
mr
newman
is
just
asking
about.
J
Okay,
so
really
the
question
I'm
looking
to
answer
is
it
probably
would
be
helpful,
especially
at
this
meeting
for
this
commission
to
assess
what
the
impacts
are
of
the
circulation
system?
Of
course,
this
leads
into
the
circ
element,
but
whether
we
could
have
those
traffic
levels
and
even
level
of
service
and-
and
I
can
get
over
to
vmt
in
a
minute
but
having
that
information
presented
to
us
that
we
can
understand
what
the
ramifications
are
of
each
alternative
and
even
when
we
get
to
the
next
meeting.
What.
J
J
To
circulation,
so
I
think
that
would
have
been
helpful
and
I
guess
it's
more
of
a
comment,
but
that.
J
Yeah,
I
unfortunately
don't
think
we're
going
to
have
a
the
traffic
model
run
by
then,
because
we're
not
going
to
have
the
growth
projections,
because
the
preferred
alternative
is
only
going
to
be
developed
a
few
weeks
in
advance
of
that.
So
it
will
we'll
have
to
come
back
and
look
at
that
and-
and
I
will
say
that
the
recommendation
to
counsel
is
for
the
preferred
alternative
and
that
you
know
if
there
are
issues
with
that,
that
we
can.
You
know,
because
of
transportation.
J
We
can
come
back
and
look
at
some
of
the
some
of
the
implications
of
that
later
on.
To
make
sure
that
they're
mitigated.
H
Okay
and
then
my.
D
Last
question
is
actually
for
chair
bus.
I
don't
know
if
we
can
entertain
a
a
break
here
in
between
or
before
public
comment.
A
Is
everybody
agreeable
to
taking
a
five
minute
break
or
actually,
let's.
J
A
8
30.
is
that,
okay
with
everybody,
and
I
would
like
to
go
ahead
and
call
it-
we
will
take
a
seven
minute
break
and
reconvene
at
8
30.
A
A
A
couple
of
questions
before
we
go
to
public
comment
too.
I
actually
have
a
lot
of
questions
much
like
commissioner
newman,
but
I'm
gonna
stick
to
technical,
related
ones.
Regarding
your
survey
methods,
if
that's
okay,
mr
raymond
number
one
did
you
use
any
direct
mail
or
anything
of
that
ilk
to
neighborhoods
within
the
city
of
thousand
oaks.
A
Okay,
you
said
that
you
did
use
social
where'd.
You
get
your
email
database.
J
We
built
our
database
for
this
project
over
the
past
year
and
a
half
two
years.
Did
you
use
it
by.
J
Correct
kristen
feel
free
to
jump
in
on
the
engagement
and
and
tabitha
since
kristin
did
a
lot
of
engagement,
work.
A
All
right,
my
other
question
would
be
you
said
that
you
had
social
media
presences.
Do
you
know
what
your
unique
engagement
was
as
far
as
those
social
media
outlets.
J
F
F
That's
the
most
amount
of
engagement
that
we've
had
on
the
website,
since
this
one
was
posted
about
a
year
and
a
half
ago.
Other
than
that
we
have
done
instagram
posts,
twitter
and
there's
some
posts
on
the
city's
facebook
account.
A
Okay,
okay,
so
it
was
limited
to
people
who
follow
the
city's
social
media
sites.
F
We
actually
have
our
own
general
plan.
Instagram
account
twitter
account
and
we
also
have
a
tick
tock
page.
That
one,
though,
is
for
the
city,
has
a
tick
tock
page,
so
we
have
posted
our
videos
on
it
on
the
tick
tock.
A
Dancing,
do
we
have
any
engagement
data
as
far
as
those
social
media
sites
go,
I'm
just.
A
A
We
still
are.
We
still
missed
a
big
chunk
of
people.
F
F
F
We
do
maintain
a
general
plan,
email
subscriber
list
that
has
about
1360
people
on
it
right
now
and
we're
just
trying
to
continue
to
do
more
and
more
outreach
and
hope
that
people
tell
their
friends,
families
and
neighbors
and
but
but
yes,.
J
And
can
I
just
point
out
two
things
with
this,
so
one
is.
This
is
a
pretty
large
number
of
people
to
spend
the
time
to
take
this
survey.
I
believe
there
were
lots,
more
people
who
didn't
take
the
survey.
It
took
time
to
go
and
read
the
alternatives
and
understand
them.
You.
J
Yeah,
the
other
is
that
there's
670
people
did
the
statistically
valid
survey
last
year,
so
we
got.
We
got
three
times
that
amount
of
folks
yeah.
A
Okay,
my
first
question
would
be
to
you
as
far
as
as
far
as
the
survey
itself.
How
did
you
determine
that
you
didn't
have
duplicate
surveys?
How
did
you
parse
that
data.
J
Surveymonkey
allows
us
to
not
to
say
so
that
you
can't
take
the
survey
twice.
So
you
know,
I
think,
if
you,
you
know
everyone.
A
Wanted
to
they
could
go
as
we're
all
clear.
I
I'm
a
computer
science
major
by
by
my
education
and
I'm.
B
Familiar
with,
and
I
worked
in.
A
For
20
years,
our
entire
industry
is
based
on
surveys
and
a
lot
of
the
work
that
goes
into
those
surveys
revolves
around
eliminating
gaming
them.
So
that's
why
I'm
curious
what
what
what
efforts
do
you
guys
put
in
what
have
you?
So
this
is
just
raw
data.
You
haven't
parsed
the
data
you
have
objective
for
for
duplicates.
A
J
J
To
a
certain
degree,
yeah
I
mean
there
were
people
who
some
people
who
came
to
three
of
the
four
open
houses
that
we
had
on
this.
That's
not
a
vote.
It
was
just
people
coming
and
giving
their
input
no
no
yeah.
We
certainly
I
mean
we,
you
know
we
want.
We
want
the
same
people
coming
throughout
the
process
because
it's
complicated,
so
that's
actually
a
good
thing
to
keep
coming.
J
Question
I'd
have
is
relative
to
other
cities.
J
Of
the
of.
A
The
of
the
engagement
you've
gotten.
A
Oh,
please
open-ended.
You
can
tell
me
both
okay.
J
I
I
think
the
engagement's
actually
been
pretty
significant
for
this.
The
you
know,
the
combination
of
our
staff
and
the
city
staff
has
done
a
lot
of
outreach
for
the
process.
There's
you
know,
there's
been
mailings
to
every
resident
of
the
city.
There's
been
the
two
years
a
year
and
a
half
of
newspaper
articles
we've
had
lots
of
events
going
on.
J
I
had
mentioned
that
in
the
presentation.
I'm
sorry.
If
I
went
quickly,
we
did
at
the
beginning
of
the
process.
We
did
announcements
in
the
utility
bills
because
we
wanted
everyone
to
know
about
the
process
at
the
beginning.
So
the
the
engagement
has
been
pretty
high
for
the
city.
It
is
not
uncommon
for
a
survey
like
this
to
get
one
percent
of
the
population,
it's
actually
maybe
more
than
that
two
percent
one
and
a
half
percent.
So
you
know
that's
actually
really
good.
J
Appreciate
hearing
that
yeah,
you
know
it's,
you
know
and
I'll
tell
you
you
know
personally,
we
always
we
are
always
challenged
by
you
know.
Looking
at
it
two
different
ways,
you
know
one
is
hey.
2100
people
spend
a
lot
of
time
going
through
the
survey
and
coming
up
with
answers.
It
took
time
to
do
that
and
that's
all
that's
a
lot
of
people
and
it's
three
times
what
the
statistically
valid
survey
had
for
numbers
and
at
the
same
time
we
share
your
your
feeling
of,
like
god,
we
wish
we
could
have.
J
Fifty
percent
of
the
population
take
this,
but
we
never
ever
ever
get
to
that
level
of
participation
yeah.
This
is
this
is
pretty
high,
like
usually
our
surveys
are
eight
to
nine
hundred
people.
A
A
A
In
the
presentation-
and
that
was
very
exciting,
yet
again
she's
the
little
girl
in
the
supergirl
outfit
in
one
of
your
first
slides.
A
So
so
thanks
for
putting
that
in
there-
and
I
give
a
little
shout
out
to
tristan
how
you
doing,
I
will
now
move
on
to
public
comments
at
this
point,
so
we
will
now
go
to
public
comments.
We
have
one
two,
three,
four
five.
I
believe
it
is
eight
speakers,
I'm
counting
correctly.
Each
speaker
will
have
three
minutes
and
we
will
start
with
karen
woolburn
of
newberry
park
if
you're
available
karen.
A
If
you
can
just
state
your
name
and
your
city
of
residence
for
for
edification,
and
you
may
proceed.
C
I
am
available
and
I
guess
I
have
to
cut
down
my
little
spiel
here,
karen
wilburn,
I'm
a
resident
of
newberry
park.
Results
of
the
survey
were
posted
on
march
24th.
The
survey
was
designed
so
that
it
should
only
be
taken
once
per
computer.
C
It
appears
to
me,
as
if
someone
managed
to
serve
circumvent
this
and
create
what
I
can
only
term
as
ballot
box
stuffing.
The
survey
permitted
free
form
comments
for
each
four
major
areas
of
change.
Rancho
caneo
had
an
unusually
high
number
of
comments
1137
when
compared
to
each
of
the
other
three
areas.
In
fact,
it
almost
equaled
the
total
of
the
other
three
areas
of
change
and
most
of
them
dealt
with
supporting
development
of
the
36
acre
newberry
park
lot
at
the
end
of
alice
often
called
the
wetlands.
C
There
were
79
pages
of
comments
in
response
to
question
at
least
850
or
75
percent.
Of
these
comments
used
similar
words
or
phrases,
words
and
phrases
such
as
police
police
force,
workforce
students,
firefighters,
firemen
teachers.
I
live
in
newberry
park.
I
live
in
thousand
oaks.
I
am
a
resident
and
40
acre
opportunity
appeared
839
times.
C
816
of
these
words
or
phrases
were
in
response
to
the
free
form,
question
nine
for
the
rancho
canao
area,
the
phrase
orchard
opportunity
appeared
114
times
in
the
results
and
only
in
response
to
question
nine.
A
further
breakdown
is
orchard
opportunity,
project
44
times
orchard
opportunity,
property,
33
times
and
orchard
opportunity
site
32
times.
Yet
this
phrase
isn't
anywhere
in
the
briefing
book.
C
C
Since
the
survey
answers
were
anonymous
and
only
asked
for
a
zip
code,
I
also
wonder
how
many
of
these
survey
responses
came
from
people
outside
of
our
community
in
support
of
special
interests
on
this
lot.
Frankly,
this
perceived
manipulation
of
the
results
undermines
the
credibility
of
the
survey
result
for
the
entire
rancho
canelo
area.
A
I
appreciate
your
time
karen.
Thank
you.
Our
next
comment
will
be
coming
from
gordon
clint
if
you're
available,
sir,
please
you
have
the
floor.
A
Scored
muted
of
his
own
accord,
or
can
we
can
we
free
him
up.
A
B
Good
yeah,
I'm
not
sure
how
this
works.
I
don't
see
a
camera
on
so
this
is
just
verbal.
Is
that
right,
yeah.
B
Well,
good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
gordon
clint.
My
family
moved
to
newbury
park
before
thousand
oaks
was
even
a
city,
but
my
wife
and
I
have
lived
here
in
our
newbury
home
for
about
25
over
over
20
years,
we've
been
following
the
development
of
the
general
plan
update
we've
read
the
briefing
book
and
we
took
the
survey.
B
B
Well,
the
other
three
areas
of
our
city
added
together
only
they
only
received
1164
comments
added
together
for
the
other
three
parts
of
the
city.
So
it's
way
out
of
out
of
balance
and
the
seems
to
me
that
the
other
parts
of
the
city
would
take
much
more
interest
and
get
more
comments
and
those
comments
that
were
listed
took
up
79
pages.
In
that
briefing
briefing
on
of
the
survey
I
should
say,
and
going
through
that
survey
most
of
those
comments
seemed
fishy
to
me.
B
They
were,
as
somebody
else
already
said,
they
were
very
repetitive,
with
similar
phrases,
often
referring
to
this
opportunity,
project
or
opportunity
property.
So
I
asked
opportunity
for
whom
I
expected
a
strong
response
from
the
organized
neighbors
who've,
been
speaking
out
against
the
development
of
the
so-called
wetlands
acreage,
just
south
of
the
the
101,
and
you
know
along
the
101,
but
surprise
I
was
surprised
anyhow.
The
question
number
seven
survey
chart
showed
that
1494
people
or
74
percent
want
up
to
four
stories
and
45
units
per
acre.
B
Now
I
that's
not
what
I
heard
from
the
number
of
the
neighbors
that
that
I've
heard
speaking
about
this,
so
I
wasn't
born
yesterday.
The
survey
was
obviously
manipulated
to
produce
the
results
that
someone
wanted.
So
anyhow,
that's
my
comments
for
thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
sir
all
right.
Our
next
speaker
is
jackson,
piper
jackson,
piper.
If
you're
there,
you
have
the
floor.
B
Thank
you,
commissioners
and
community
members
who
are
watching.
My
name
is
jackson
piper
I
live
in
unincorporated
newbury
park
spent
a
lot
of
time
in
thousand
oaks,
and
I've
been
following
along
with
this
process,
pretty
much
since
the
beginning,
and
I'm
pretty
happy
with
the
results
so
far.
B
I
do
have
to
agree
with
what
gordon
clint
and
the
previous
caller
mentioned.
It
does
seem
like
there's
a
big
discrepancy
in
the
numbers
for
the
rancho
canejo
area.
That
unfortunately
seems
to
throw
the
reliability
of
the
survey,
at
least
for
that
area
off.
B
The
city
and
the
consultant
to
try
to
go
back
and
and
extricate
the
comments
that
are
not
entirely
trustworthy
about
the
rancho
canelo
area.
B
My
main
set
of
comments
that
I
want
to
make
is
that,
even
though
I
know
a
lot
of
people
who
wrote
into
the
survey
are
not
happy
with
the
idea
of
change
in
thousand
oaks
and
with
the
development
along
the
boulevard,
it
unfortunately,
depending
on
your
perspective,
sometimes
fortunately
has
to
happen
because
we've
spent
decades
under
developing
throughout
california.
We
now
have
millions
of
housing
units
that
are
missing
that
are
causing
all
sorts
of
problems
in
terms
of
affordability
and
homelessness.
B
To
get
us
out
of
this
massive
hole,
we've
dug
ourselves
into
that
doesn't
mean
everywhere
has
to
change,
but
we
need
to
have
some
change
throughout
the
certain
parts
of
the
city
to
accommodate
new
residents
and
help
people
who
work
here
live
here
and
people
who
want
to
live
here,
who
might
already
be
working
here
to
be
able
to
afford
to
live
here.
A
F
My
name
is
roseanne
and
I
live
in
thousand
oaks.
I
strongly
urge
every
city
resident
to
actually
read
the
comments
in
the
land
use
briefing
book
and
survey
for
yourself.
I
read
all
of
them
for
an
open-ended
question.
Seeking
other
comments
about
an
entire
area
of
change.
I
counted
over
800
about
one
single
parcel.
F
Almost
all
were
some
variation
of
I
live
in
or
I
am
a
resident
of
fill
in
the
blank.
I
am
for
development
of
the
40-acre
opportunity
parcel
who
talks
like
that
or
the
37-acre
vacant
lot,
and
I
support
fill
in
the
blank
with
mixed-use,
workforce,
housing
or
affordable
housing
for
fill
in
the
blank
with
government
workers,
teachers,
students,
firemen
or
police.
F
Our
survey
was
hacked
surveys
that
rely
on
voluntary
participation
have
baked
in
credibility
issues
because
the
results
depend
on
which
population
sectors
or
individuals
have
the
resources
or
incentive
to
respond.
One
conspicuously
scammed
question
means
none
of
the
survey
results
can
be
trusted.
Someone
obviously
went
to
considerable
effort
to
game
question
nine.
So
why
stop
there,
especially
since
seizing
that
opportunity
to
also
distort
all
the
multiple
choice,
questions
with
their
preferred
answers
would
be
far
harder
to
detect.
F
If
state
required
housing
isn't
built
near
existing
and
increasingly
vacant
commercial
space,
where
is
left
only
teo
boulevard
and
who
stands
to
profit
most
from
that,
both
the
evidently
fraudulent
survey
responses
and
the
equally
predictable
outcome
that
must
result
throw
heavy
suspicion
on
the
validity
of
the
entire
survey,
which
can
no
longer
be
trusted
to
direct
the
course
of
our
community's
general
plan
update.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
mrs
wood.
Excellent
timing.
Three
minutes.
Even
our
next
speaker
is
marianne
vanzile,
I'm
erin
gonzale.
You
have
the
floor.
C
Thank
you
very
much
chairman
best,
that's
nice
to
say
and
other
commissioners
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
speak
about
the
land
use
alternatives.
C
C
So
I
took
I
I
just
sometimes
take
a
little
pause,
because
I'm
speaking
off
the
cuff
now
I
took
the
survey.
I
worked
with
a
bunch
of
people
not
to
feed
them
answers,
but
because
we
have
an
idea
that
more
housing
in
the
city
of
thousand
oaks
is
going
to
make
this
a
more
livable
place,
we're
so
excited
by
the
ideas
of
the
village
centers,
where
we
might
have
local
neighborhood
areas
that
can
reduce
the
need
for
cars,
at
least
for
those
weekend.
C
Trips
that
can
increase
walkability
in
neighborhoods
can
increase
bikeability
that
if
we
really
work
to
build
affordable
housing
in
the
city-
and
it's
not
going
to
be
easy-
that
we
can
bring
a
diversity
to
our
neighborhoods
that
that
we
don't
have
right
now
and
I'm
so
excited
about
the
possibilities
that
are
available
to
the
city
in
this
new
general
plan
amendment.
C
C
It's
going
to
rely
on
political
will
and
for
you
all
to
make
a
judgment
about
what
is
best
for
the
city
as
a
whole
to
develop
affordable
housing,
we're
going
to
have
to
be
really
creative
with
an
inclusive
housing
ordinance
that
perhaps
requires
more
a
higher
percentage
of
affordability
in
more
dense
areas,
so
that
or
denser
developments
so
that
we
really
can
bring
in
the
affordable
units
working
better
with
non-profits
working
to
develop
a
community
housing
trust
working
with
tax
incentives
and
working
with,
perhaps
reduced
developer
fees
to
encourage
the
development
of
affordable
housing
that
I
believe
this
city
needs,
because
our
teachers
can't
live
here.
A
A
C
Okay,
let's
turn
my
camera
on
hi
everybody,
I'm
lisa
powell
and
I've
lived
in
thousand
oaks
for
16
years,
and
I
wanted
to
take
this
opportunity
to
voice
my
enthusiasm
for
the
opportunity
the
city
now
has
to
plan
for
its
future.
With
the
general
plan
update
process,
we
know
that
to
be
a
vibrant,
livable
and
sustainable
community,
we
need
more
housing,
especially
affordable
housing.
C
We
know
we
need
more
housing,
not
only
because
of
the
extreme
shortfall
of
housing
in
our
state
as
a
whole,
but
because
of
the
decline
of
our
local
economy.
Here
in
recent
years
in
large
part
attributed
to
the
shortage
of
housing,
that's
affordable.
Nearly
70
percent
of
the
thousand
oaks
workforce
drives
in
largely
because
they
can't
afford
to
live
here,
and
there
are
many
reasons
why
we
should
want
more
folks
who
can
both
live
and
work
here
and
not
have
to
commute
the
land
use
map.
C
Alternatives
provide
some
promising
ideas
for
where
we
can
build
more
housing,
including
mixed
use
in
areas
like
the
teo,
mall
and
jans
marketplace.
We
know
we
have
too
much
retail
space
in
the
city
that
we
won't
won't
be
used.
There
are
several
areas
along
thousand
oaks
boulevard
that
have
been
suggested
as
well.
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
disperse
some
of
the
density
throughout
the
city
rather
than
just
on
the
boulevard.
C
C
I'm
sure
there
are
many
who
would
appreciate
being
able
to
walk
to
a
place
like
stonehouse
for
a
glass
of
wine
rather
than
having
to
drive
to
the
boulevard,
I'm
very
conscious
that
there
are
some
in
our
community
who
will
fight
progress
and
change,
and
I
hope
that
they'll
understand
that
the
land
use
changes
won't
result
in
anything,
we'll
actually
see
for
a
while.
This
is
long-term
planning
and
any
ultimate
changes
affect
only
small
part
of
the
city's
available
land.
C
C
Providing
more
housing
is
imperative,
especially
housing,
that's
affordable,
and
I
hope
the
planning
commission
will
play
a
key
role
in
developing
innovative
ways
to
do
that,
rather
than
just
putting
a
check
mark
in
a
box
or
reacting
to
potential
state
control,
let's
use
the
local
control
we
have
now.
There
are
ways
to
be
intentional
and
thoughtful
and
how
we
shape
the
future
of
thousand
oaks,
a
beautiful,
safe
and
livable
city.
That
is
also
equitable,
inclusive
and
diverse.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
ms
bell.
All
right.
Our
next
speaker
is
going
to
be
clint
fultz
clint.
If
you
can
just
state
your
name
and
your
city
of
residence,
I
don't
see
it
on
my
paperwork.
You
have
the
floor.
B
Good
evening
my
name
is
clint
and
I'm
a
renter
here
in
thousand
oaks,
I'm
also
a
founding
member
of
the
caneo
climate
coalition.
I
would
like
to
address
the
general
plan.
Update
land
use,
alternative
survey
results.
I
attended
the
last
gpac
meeting
and
I,
along
with
most
others,
were
surprised
by
the
survey
results.
B
The
results
didn't
seem
to
line
up
with
the
majority
of
comments
that
were
found
in
the
survey
and
repeatedly
expressed
in
letters
to
the
editor
and
local
newspapers
and
at
city
council
meetings.
The
results
seemed
skewed
specifically
in
the
rancho
canao
area
and
the
western
portion
of
the
thousand
oaks
boulevard.
B
I
would
hope
that
the
general
plan
update
would
reflect
the
will
of
the
people,
the
citizens
of
thousand
oaks.
I've
heard
that
the
community
and
gpac
members
would
like
to
see
neighborhood
town
squares
or
village
centers
that
would
reduce
car
traffic
and
make
neighborhoods
more
walkable
areas
like
the
jans
marketplace.
The
oaks
mall
and
village
centers
are
perfect
opportunities
to
make
to
take
advantage
of
a
dying
commercial,
real
estate.
B
It
would
increase
walkability
and
reduce
emissions,
and
it
can
spread
housing
and
traffic
congestion
throughout
the
city
rather
than
just
the
main
arteries,
such
as
thousands
boulevard
as
a
community.
We
need
to
come
together
in
a
sustainable
and
environmentally
friendly
way
as
we
head
into
the
future.
A
Glenn.
Thank
you
very
much.
Our
next
speaker
is
sean
moradian
sean.
If
you
can
just
state
your
city
of
residence,
you
have
the
floor,
sir.
A
B
B
Commissioner,
bus
commission
members,
sean
roddian,
I
am
a
lifelong
resident
of
thousand
oaks
and
the
proud
president
of
the
thousand
exploit
of
art
association
which
wanted
to
commend
staff
on
this
incredible
amount
of
work.
That's
been
put
into
the
general
plan
update
our
association
was
given
the
presentation
by
the
gp
team
participated
in
several
of
the
pop-ups
was
asked
to
do
outreach
to
our
members.
We
sent
out
over
300
letters
multiple
times
to
all
of
our
property
owners
and
ask
them
to
participate
and
give
input.
B
We
also
spoke
to
our
tenants
and
other
stakeholders
and
a
lot
of
which
our
residents
a
thousand
oaks.
So
we
are
highly
encouraged
by
the
activity
and
the
results
that
we
have
received
thus
far.
The
major
takeaway
that
we
found
is
that
people
want
flexibility.
B
I've
been
involved
in
the
specific
plan
since
its
deception
in
2011
and
to
some
of
the
commissioner's
questions
we
have
barely
touched
170
units
in
10
years,
of
which
you
know
just
one
of
them
is
being
occupied,
which
is
the
1710
project
so
moving
forward
in
the
general
plan
concept.
Looking
at
the
next
20
30
years,
our
city
definitely
needs
flexibility.
B
Now,
flexibility
doesn't
just
necessarily
equate
to
additional
housing
units.
It
also
brings
you
incredible
places
like
tarantula
hill
brewery
if
it
wasn't
for
the
specific
plan
and
its
amendments,
that
brewery
would
never
come
to
fruition,
and
so
I
caution
everyone
that,
when
we
think
long
term,
only
thing
that
I
think
we'd
gathered
from
our
outreach
is
that
the
community
wants
flexibility
and
if
we
really
want
to
create
a
place,
making
preserve
open
space,
trees,
neighborhoods
and
be
inclusive,
as
we've
spoken
a
lot
about
through
last
year's
pandemic
and
all
the
other
outreach.
B
A
C
Yes,
I
just
got
there.
I
just
got.
I
just
got
my
permission
to
speak.
Thank
you
I
want
to.
I
do
agree
very
much
over
question
number
nine
and
what
has
been
counted
so
in
adding
to
the
discussion.
I
would
like
to
talk
to
you
about
question
number.
Seven
question
number
seven
regarding
rancho
conejo
says
in
the
general
plan,
mixed
use
has
four
stories
and
forty
five
units
per
acre
in
rancho
canego.
Are
you
okay
with
that?
If
it
reduces
the
amount
of
housing
that
is
needed
elsewhere
in
the
city?
C
C
That
statement
absolutely
reeks
of
segregation,
discrimination
and
many
things
which
were
outlawed,
and
you
can
find
the
case
law
that
says
you
can't
do
that,
because
it
deprives
people
of
opportunities
and
mingling
with
people
of
different
incomes
in
different
races
and
different
means
from
you
and
sticks
them
all
and
basically
turns
rancho
conejo
into
a
ghetto.
I
actually
really
hate
all
the
areas
of
change
and
the
way
that
it
creates
a
ghetto
along
the
101
freeway
and
leaves
everybody
else
untouched
that
lives
further
off.
C
I
believe,
affordable
housing
and
any
new
housing
should
be
equitably
distributed
throughout
the
city
of
thousand
oaks.
It
would
be
much
healthier
for
our
society
and
get
us
out
of
this
bias
against
people
who
have
less
money
than
we
do
it
doesn't
matter
what
color
your
skin
is
as
much
as
is
your
wallet
fat
enough
to
live
here,
and
it's
really
ridiculous
and
it
is
putting
a
very
nimby
attitude
out
towards
that
of
newbury
park.
C
We
do
need
to
be
careful
about
how
we
build
and
throughout
the
entire
conejo
valley-
and
this
starts
from
calabasas
all
the
way
out
through
agora
and
west
lake
village
and
out
here
we
have
had
a
long-standing
policy
of
no
more
than
three
stories.
There
have
been
many
fights
about
the
three
stories
and
we
need
to
keep
it.
We
need
to
be
contiguous
and
we
need
to
maintain
our
views
throughout
the
conejo
valley.
C
The
other
thing
is:
I
live
two
blocks
from
an
apartment
building
that
is
35
units
in
two
stories
and
the
amount
of
trash
that
apartment
building
dumps
on
the
residences
that
are
near.
It
is
ridiculous.
It
looks
like
the
trash
heat,
there
are
liquor,
bottles,
fast,
food,
wrappers,
constantly
building
up
and
they
are
not
picked
up.
They
are
not
caused
by
the
people
who
live
on
the
other
side
of
the
street.
They
are
caused
by
the
people
who
visit
or
live
there.
Your
structures
don't
incorporate
adequate
parking
for
people
who
visit
apartment
buildings.
C
These
people
will
have
extra
trucks.
Casa
canejo
has
many
people
who
have
businesses
out
of
their
house
with
vans
that
service
their
business.
In
addition
to
their
personal
cars,
it
is
very
inadequate
planning,
and
if
you
talk
to
the
people
of
this
era,
you
will
find
we
are
not
happy
campers
and
our
area
is
poorly
defined.
Thank
you.
A
J
I
am
you
know,
I
guess
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
just
pretty
much.
Thank
the.
I
was
really
impressed
with
the
members
of
the
community
who
came
out.
I
think
that
what
we
need,
what
the
community,
what
we've
heard
that
they
need,
is
dialogue
and
discussion
about
these
issues.
They're
really
they're,
tough
issues.
J
We
know
that
when
you
talk
about
development-
and
so
you
know
when
we
when
we
use
when
we
talk
about
density,
when
we
talk
about
development
in
the
city
it
you
know
it
brings,
it
brings
things
out
in
people,
and
so
I
think
that
it's
great
to
actually
have
the
comments
and
the
discussion
about
this.
There
were
certainly
comments
on
the
questions
about
throwing
out
the
entire
survey.
J
I
want
to
say
that
we
intentionally
did
a
non-statistically
valid
survey
for
this,
because
we
wanted
to
give
everyone
the
opportunity
to
participate
in
their
comments.
Had
we
done
a
statistically
valid
survey,
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
that.
So
I
think
it's
important.
J
J
Not
statistically
valid,
but
we
did
get
a
lot
of
people
to
participate
in
the
survey.
We're
we'll
go
back
and
we're
going
to
look
at
it
for
any
redundancies
that
we
see
and
we'll
come
back
to
you
with
that
information.
J
But
we
do
feel
like
we
got
a
significant
number
of
people
to
participate,
and
some
of
the
comments
that
were
many
of
the
comments
that
were
identified
in
the
survey
are
are
consistent
with
what
we've
heard
throughout
the
process.
So
you
know
we
felt
like
when
we
did
the
statistically
valid
when
the
statistic
value
survey
was
done
previously,
it
actually
mirrored
all
of
the
engagement
that
we
had
done
today.
So
you
know
we
feel
relatively
confident
with
that
with
the
information
provided,
it
is
one
data
source.
J
One
of
the
speakers
said
that
you
know
ultimately
it's
up
to
the
planning
commission
to
recommend
and
the
city
council
to
adopt.
This
is
a
data
point
for
the
community
to
look
at,
and
so
I
would
just
encourage
folks
to
look
at
that.
There
was
also
a
comment
that
about
the
the
number
of
people
who
responded
and
that
to
the
open-ended
comments,
and
they
were
overwhelmingly
negative.
J
The
I'd
like
to
just
respond
to
that
quickly,
which
is
that
the
open-ended
comments
for
the
questions
about
preference
were
allowed.
If
you
had
none
of
the
above,
and
so
if
you
click
none
of
the
above,
it's
not
surprising
that
people,
the
responses,
are
negative.
They
represent
a
small
percentage
over
all
of
the
total
again
it's
you
know
what
we're
trying
to
find
is
not
specifics.
We're
trying
to
find
directionality
with
the
comments.
A
Yes,
I'd
like
to
go
back
to
my
fellow
commissioners:
does
anybody
have
any
additional
questions?
I
know
mr
newman's
chomping
at
the
bit
so
I'll.
Let
you
go
first,
sir.
E
I
want
to
follow
up
first
on
a
question
commissioner
link
asked
regarding
infrastructure.
He
was
asking
about
traffic,
his
area
of
expertise
and,
in
a
larger
sense,
all
kinds
of
infrastructure,
physical
plant,
soft
infrastructure
such
as
schools,
libraries,
what
does
staff
sense
of
our
current
city's
infrastructure,
the
ability
of
that
infrastructure
to
support
this
plan,
growth.
D
D
These
all
result
in
the
same
city-wide
residential
capacity,
so
the
type
of
analysis,
as
far
as
you
know,
ultimately,
water
supplies
and
those
kinds
of
things
is
going
to
be
relatively
similar
among
the
alternatives,
because
the
capacity
is
ultimately
the
same,
it's
very
time
consuming
and
costly
to
do
those
types
of
analyses
so
doing
three
different
analyses
for
three
different
alternatives
is,
is
you
know,
frankly,
just
cost
prohibitive
and
not
practical
to
do
so?
D
The
intent
is
that
all
of
that
analysis
will
be
done
on
the
preferred
land
use
alternative
once
we
once
we
get
to
that
point
and
then,
if
additional
tweaks
need
to
be
made
to
the
alternative
later
in
the
process
as
a
result
of
what
comes
out
of
the
eir,
there
will
still
be
a
possibility
to
do
that
so
long
as
the
the
changes
aren't
to
the
point
that
it
could
impact
our
housing
inventory
and
impact,
what
we're
doing
with
the
housing.
But
there
may
still
be.
You
know,
opportunities
to
make
those
changes
later.
E
Okay,
I
understand
that's
a
good
answer.
Thank
you.
It
sounds
like
you're
saying
in
a
general
sense,
I'm
not
trying
to
clean
you
down
on
amounts
or
types
of
infrastructure,
but
in
a
general
sense,
would
you
say
it's
a
fair
statement
that
a
substantial
increase
in
housing
capacity
might
also
require
substantial
upgrading
to
our
infrastructure.
D
E
Okay,
fair
enough
moving
on
in
a
big
picture
sense.
E
One
of
the
big
changes
potentially
from
this
vision
to
use
a
term
that
was
kicked
around
earlier
is
that
there
may
be
a
transition
from
our
current
situation
where
the
city
is
predominantly
or
mainly
single-family,
homeowners,
the
one
that
adds
thousands
potentially
tens
of
thousands
of
apartment
units,
which
I
presume
will
be
naming
renters.
E
So
two
questions
on
that.
One
is
what
impact
would
that
have
on
real
wages
and
the
distribution
of
income
in
the
city
and
two?
Is
there
any
evidence
at
all
that
upzoning
increases
housing,
affordability,
or
does
it
just
increase
land
values.
J
I'm
I'm
unclear
on
your
first
question.
Can
you
repeat
that
first.
E
Question
is
if
we
move
from
a
situation
in
which
we
have
today,
where
most
people
are
homeowners
to
a
situation
where
there
are
many
thousands,
more
apartment
dwellers
and
I'm
not
making
any
value
judgment
whatsoever
on
renters
versus
owners.
I'm
asking
an
economic
question:
how
would
the
city's
distribution
of
income?
How
did
the
city's
income
picture
change
as
a
result.
J
Well,
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
we
do
know
from
what
we've
heard
is
that
and
by
income,
do
you
mean
income
of
individuals
or
income
of
the
city.
J
So
one
thing
that
we've
heard
throughout
the
process
from
a
lot
a
lot
of
people
is
that
there
are.
There
are
a
lot
of
people
who
work
in
the
city
who
are
not
able
to
live
in
the
city,
and
so
what
that
does
is
that
actually
creates
a
situation
where
people
are
commuting
in
and
then
people
who
live
here
are
commuting
out,
and
so
that
has
impacts
on
the
transportation
system.
J
What
we've
heard
and-
and
this
is
this-
is
a
byproduct
of
the
way,
the
state,
the
direction
the
state
has
been
going
and
a
byproduct
of
housing
costs.
It's
not
anything
that
is,
you
know
the
city
has
intended
to
happen,
so
I
just
want
to
be
clear
on
that.
So
the
situation
that
we
have
in
the
city
is
that
housing
is
really
expensive
and
it's
you
it's.
J
The
majority
of
people
who
are
working
in
the
city
are
not
actually
able
to
live
in
the
sea,
and
so
what
we've
heard
from
the
process
is
that
people
want
to
be
able
to
live
in
the
city,
so
adding
a
certain
amount
of
multi-family
housing,
whether
it's
rental
or
affordable,
whether
it's
rental
or
ownership,
housing
and
housing
housing
that
is
smaller,
so
apartments
multi-family
housing
is
going
to
make
it
so
that
more
people
can
live
in
the
city
who
work
in
the
city.
J
That
will,
of
course,
have
slight
modifications
to
the
income
profile.
However,
there's
120
000
plus
people
in
the
city.
So
it's
not
going
to
have
significant
changes
in
that
profile,
but
sure
there
will
be
more
people
who
may
be
renters
than
owners.
If
you
add
more
rental
housing,
but
you'll
also
have
more
people
who
live
in
the
city
who
are
able
to
work
in
the
city
and
that's
what
we've
heard
throughout
the
process
that
people
want
here.
People
want
them.
E
J
You
know
it
will,
of
course
it
will
modify
it.
So
if
you
have
a
thousand
rental
units
that
are
low
income,
of
course,
it's
going
to
change
the
income
profile.
But
the
point
is
that's
what
people
have
said
they
need
that
the
city
needs
is
people
who
are
able
to
live
and
work
in
the
city.
You
know,
I
know
that
it
was
commented
on
in
the
survey
of
policemen
and
firemen
and
clu
professors,
but
those
are
the
people
who
can't
afford
to
live
in
the
city.
J
It's
the
the
people
who
are
working
in
the
stores-
and
you
know,
mowing
the
lawns
and
working
at
clu
and
the
nurses,
who
can't
afford
housing
in
the
city
who
are
working
in
the
city
and
serving
the
residents,
and
so
that's
what
we've
heard
that
people
want.
And
yes
what
that
means
is
it
may
change
the
income
profile.
J
However,
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
it
impacts
the
fiscal
resources
of
the
city
and
in
fact,
what
we
do
know
is
that
multi-family
housing,
new
multi-family
housing
actually
can
have
a
positive
impact
on
the
fiscal
resources
in
the
city,
because
it
is
new
housing
and
it
is
housing
where
the
value
of
it
is
more
than
what
the
the
existing,
maybe
single-use
retail
would
be.
So
while
it
may
be
multi-family,
it
actually
may
have
a
positive
impact
from
the
property
tax.
J
E
Well
that
that
brings
us
to
the
second
question.
I
asked
about
upzoning
and
housing:
affordability.
I've
seen
a
lot
of
evidence
in
the
past
10
20
years,
where
there
has
been
update
upzoning.
There
has
been
some
increase
in
density
and
there
has
not
been
a
concurrent
increase
in
housing,
affordability.
On
the
contrary,
so
my
question
is
what
what
evidence
is
there
that
that
increasing
density
will
lead
to
greater
affordability.
J
Yeah,
that's
a
really
good
question.
That's
a
really
important
one
to
ask.
So
what
we
do
know
is
that
the
cost
of
construction
is
extremely
high.
J
It's
very
expensive
to
get
projects
permitted
it's
very
expensive
to
build
the
buildings
it's
only
going
up
and
when
you
get
into
structured
parking,
you're
talking
about
60
to
75
000
per
parking
space
just
for
the
cost
of
construction
of
the
parking
space,
it's
extremely
expensive,
which
is
why
you
know
a
lot
of
cities
in
order
to
increase
the
amount
of
affordability
in
the
city
are
requiring
affordable
housing
through
inclusionary
zoning.
J
So
that's
an
option
that
the
city
can
have,
but
the
only
way
you're
going
to
get
to
that
is
by
allowing
housing
in
the
city.
It's
very
difficult,
very,
very
difficult
to
build
standalone,
affordable
housing
projects.
They
are
they're
extremely
difficult
to
put
together
because
the
my
rata
of
of
sources
of
funding
that
you
need
in
order
to
make
that
happen,
which
is
why
you
don't
see
that
happening.
J
What
we
also
know
again
through
the
the
conversations
we've
had
is
that
people
are
looking
for
a
diversity
of
housing
types
and
a
diversity
of
experiences
in
the
city.
You
can
only
get
that
by
looking
at
more
multi-family
housing
and
we're
not
talking
high-rises
we're
talking.
You
know
three
four-story
buildings
that
actually
produce
the
same
benefits
for
the
residents
of
having
a
place
to
go
and
live
and
walk
around.
So
we've
heard
a
lot
of
that
in
the
process.
E
Yeah
on
that
we're
100
in
agreement,
I
mean
planners
going
all
the
way
back
to
jane
jacobs
have
said
that
housing
works
most
successfully
when
all
income
levels
are
represented
in
the
same
neighborhoods.
E
The
final
question
I
have
is
just
about
a
process
of
the
study
guide
gives
the
term
maximum
heights,
and
I
want
to
be
very
clear
on
this
because
there's
been
some
mission
creep
under
our
current
system,
where
some
of
the
current
zoning
says
heights
or
things
that
initially
started
out
being
maximums
over
time
changed
and
became
average
limits
rather
than
maximum
limits.
And
I'm
wondering
if
in
making
these
changes,
if
we
have
the
potential
to
walk
down,
lock
that
down
and
codify
that
when
we
say
maximum,
we
really
mean
maximum.
Here.
J
Yeah,
you
know,
I
think
you
know
you
bring
up
a
really
good
point,
which
is
that
what's
critical?
Is
that
there's
clarity
of
outcome?
Because
I
think
that's
what
everybody
wants?
Is
you
know
when
you
agree
to
something?
You
know
what
you're
gonna
get,
and
so
you
know
I
I
do
think
there
is
the
potential
you
know,
following
on
with
the
from
the
general
plan,
to
the
zoning
to
change
definitions
of
things.
J
It
looks
terrible,
so
you
want
some
variation,
but
you
don't
want
extreme
variation,
and
so
I
think
that
the
regulations
can
be
modified
in
order
to
achieve
what
the
community
is
trying
to
achieve,
which
is
reservation
of
views
not
overwhelming
heights,
but
yet
also
have
varied
and
interesting
architecture.
E
J
E
J
E
I'm
sorry,
I
do
have
one
more
question.
I
think
this
is
really
better
for
mr
forbes
or
mr
holt.
Earlier
this
week
on
tuesday,
I
had
asked
for
a
breakdown
of
eligible
lots
with
breakouts
of
location
and
acreage.
Current
zoning
and
maximum
current
maximum
are
used
allowed,
I'm
hoping
that
the
information
will
be
available
soon.
Do
you
have
any
update
on
that.
D
We're
working
on
pressing
what
we
have
we,
the
analysis
that's
been
done
in
the
past
with
like
what
was
done
with
measure
e
in
2017
was
not
done
on
a
parcel
by
parcel
level.
It
was
done
more
on
a
neighborhood
level,
so
the
the
data
that
you're
asking
for
we
don't
have
in
the
exact
form
that
you're
asking
for
it.
So
we're
looking
to
try
and
find
you
know
what
it
is
that
we
do
have
that.
Can
that
can
address.
G
No,
not
real,
I
mean
no,
because
I
mean
I
think
the
basis
of
your
inquiry
was
related
to
measure
e
and
the
basically
the
baseline
capacity.
That
was
determined
back
in
2017.
G
and,
as
michael
said,
it
was
you
know,
based
on
an
area
analysis.
It
is
not
parcel-based.
So
you
know,
the
capacity
of
the
city
has
not
been
extrapolated
out
on
a
parcel
by
parcel
basis,
because
actually,
if
you
do
that,
you
run
into
different
numbers
because
you're
not
looking
at
gross
land
use
areas
and
so.
E
What
I'm
looking
for
here
is
a
baseline
for
comparison.
So
if,
if
we're,
if
we're
looking
only
at
general
neighborhoods
in
the
study
guide,
which
they
seem
to
be,
then
there
was
that
information
in
2017.
I
don't
have
all
the
color
around
what
was
in
those
neighborhoods
with
regard
to
current
zone.
E
E
D
G
Well,
I
I
would
say
that
I
mean
the
alternative.
The
preferred
alternative
is
going
to
have
to
balance
the
capacity
you
know
where
you
have
the
existing
communities
or
neighborhoods
that
will
be
at
a
land
use,
that's
calibrated
to
what's
on
the
ground
today
and
that
additional
capacity
is
moved
elsewhere,
but
the
81
000
units
that
were
basically
received
by
the
city
council
in
2017.
G
A
H
E
Mr
raymie
and
his
team
have
done
a
lot
of
have
gone
to
a
lot
of
effort
and
there's
a
lot
of
specificity
in
the
study
guide
for
each
of
the
three
alternatives
in
terms
of
how
dense
they
are,
how
they,
how
they
would
be
zoned
and
so
on.
What
I
don't
have
is
a
comparator.
I
don't
have
a
starting
point
and
that's
what
I'm
asking
for.
I
I'm
just
that
I,
I
was
a
little
concerned
that
we're
going
beyond
what
was
on
the
agenda
as
far
as
tonight
versus
a
public
record
request
or
a
request
from
mr
newman.
So
I
didn't
want
to
get
lost
in
that
shuffle
of
of
two
different
issues.
One
was
focused
on
the
measure
e
analysis
that
was
done
in
2017
versus
the
general
plan
update
preparation
for
tonight.
I
I
understand,
there's
a
correlation
that
you're
asking
for
my
only
recommendation
would
be
maybe
to
if
we
need
to
clarify
that
we
clarify
it
with
you
know,
with
with
understanding
for
staff,
what
you
want
us
to
be
looking
for
in
preparation
for
the
next
meeting
or
and
two
meetings
from
now.
Actually,
my.
E
My
email,
tuesday,
mr
here
was,
was
quite
specific.
I
I
gave
exact
I
I
was
quite
clear
in
what
I
requested.
I
asked
for
lists
of
eligible
lots,
showing
location
acreage,
current
zoning
and
current
maximum
residential
units
allowed.
I
understand
from
what
mr
holmes
has
said,
that
it
may
not
the
the
information
available.
E
I
I
thought
it
was
available
from
the
2017
measuree
study.
I
understand
that
it
may
not
be
about
granular,
so
granular
to
be
on
per
parcel
basis,
but
if,
if
that
information
is
available
on
a
per
neighborhood
basis
or
per
area
basis,
that
would
be
a
useful
starting
point
in
comparing
where
we
might
be
going
with
any
of
these
alternatives
and
this
being
a
study
session,
I'm
I'm
having
a
difficult
time
comparing
where
we
are
to
where
we
might
go
without
having
that
baseline
information.
I
I
mean
I
understand
what
you're
asking
for,
and
I
I
think
my
answer
is
going
to
be
as
far
as
your
request
from
tuesday.
We
need
to
continue
to
look
at
that
request
to
ensure
that
we
can
properly
answer
it
and,
as
mr
hold
mentioned,
it
might
not
be
exactly
in
the
data
that
you're
requesting
due
to
how
we
did
it
in
2017..
I
D
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
what
you're
asking
for,
if
you
look
on
that
measure
e
page,
there's
the
the
staff
report,
the
presentation
and
then
there's
some
additional
materials
that
were
posted
there
after
that
meeting,
there's
a
couple
of
maps
and
some
spreadsheets
that
I
think
it
would
help
us
if
you
once
you
take
a
look
at
that
and
then
let
us
know
what
additional
you
need
and
or
if
you
need
something
different
or
additional
than
what's
there.
That
might
help.
E
E
A
All
right,
fellow
commissioners,
anyone
else
have
any
additional
questions.
A
I'm
seeing
a
lot
of
head
shaking
no
so
bear
with
me.
I've
got
a
few
questions
and
and
I'll
try
to
try
to
be
rapid
about
this.
I
know
I
believe
we
are
limited
till
10
o'clock,
so
I'll
do
my
best
to
get
us
out
of
here
quickly,
all
right.
I
A
All
right,
the
first
question
I've
got.
I.
A
Mr
ramy,
this
in
my
my
first
battery
of
questions
on
the
survey,
did
you
find
that
people
were
more
positive
about
development
options
when
you
presented
them
with
visual
aids
for
the
for
the
questions,
as
opposed
to
the
the
map
formats.
A
J
J
A
Parse
that
as
well,
that
would
be
awesome.
I
I
had
a
question
for
staff.
I
I
heard
a
number
of
the
public
comments
refer
to
a
lot
off
of
orchard,
as
wetlands
is.
What
is
that?
What
is
the
this
area?
Zoned
ads?
I
I
think
I'm
familiar
with
it.
I
believe
we're
talking
about
the
area
right
off
the
freeway,
that's
open
space
kind
of
between
casa
coneyo
and
where
forgive
me,
but
the
alamo
and
ihop
are
over.
A
D
The
the
general
plan
and
the
zoning
designation
on
the
property
currently
is
a
low
density
residential.
I
don't
recall
offhand
exactly
what
the
residential
number
is.
No.
D
Family
single
family,
residential,
there
are
a
number
of
challenges
on
the
property
there
they're
it's
within
a
flood
zone.
There
are
flood
control
easements
on
the
property,
depending
on
which
government
agency
you
talk
to,
it
may
or
may
not
be
considered
a
wetland.
So
there
are
a
number
of
challenges
there.
We
proposed
in
the
alternatives
looking
at
mixed
use
or
higher
density
residential
on
the
property,
in
response
to
comments
that
we
heard
through
the
process
about
people
wanting
opportunities
for
more
residential
in
proximity
to
the
rancho
conejo
employment
center.
So
that's
many.
D
A
Okay,
but
it's
it
at
its
current
state,
it's
actually
zoned
single-family
residential,
yes,
okay!
Good
enough,
I
had
a
question
and
I
actually
don't
know
how
to
give
this
to.
But
we
talked
about
the
the.
A
Areas
of
change,
we
have
the
the
areas
of
change
areas,
and
then
we
have
the
village
centers,
and
my
understanding
is
that
there
seems
to
be
less
enthusiasm
for
the
village,
centers
and
greater
enthusiasm
for
creating
density
in
the
areas
of
change.
A
My
question
is:
is
that
kind
of,
following
up
on
mr
newman's
question
about
how
the
city
is
set
up,
where
our
open
space,
our
parks
and
our
schools
are
located,
seem
to
facilitate
the
village
centers
being
more
conducive
to
allowing
development
than
the
than
where,
where
these
proposed
areas
of
change?
If
we're
going
to
increase
our
density
and
allow
the
new
residents
that
we're
going
to
be
providing
for
have
access
to
some
of
the
things
that
make
thousand
oaks
wonderful,
those
are
our
schools
and
our
parks
and
and
our
open
space
access.
A
And
so
my
question
is,
is
how
big
a
factor
is
that
when
we're
talking
about
you
know
people
talking
about
developing
a
rancho
canal?
Do
we
know
which
schools
will
service?
Those
areas
are
these
things
that
are
going
into
the
consideration
of
this,
because,
if
we're
going
to
approve
this
and
we're
asking
our
school
district,
our
park
district
to
incur
significant
costs
in
trying
to
affect
this.
This.
This
development
that
we're
going
to
be
zoning
for
have
we
considered
that,
and
so
mr
amy,
mr
forbes,
mr
holt.
D
It
is
yes,
it
is
something
that's
being
considered
and
we've
actually
started.
We've
had
conversations
with
crpd
staff
and
we
you
know
we
recognize
and
understand
that
some
of
what
is
being
proposed
in
these
alternatives
is
putting
residential
units
into
areas
of
the
city
that
do
not
currently
have
them,
which
is
going
to
increase
the
park
demand
in
those
areas,
because
the
city
was
developed
under
a
very
you
know:
single-family
suburban
model
and
the
parks
are
located
in
those
neighborhoods.
D
It
is
definitely
going
to
be
a
challenge
to
purchase
new
park
land
or
or
have
it
dedicated
or
whatever
mechanism
that
ends
up
happening
to
create
new
parkland
in
those
areas.
So
it
is,
you
know
it's
absolutely
a
challenge
that
we
recognize
and
we've
we've
started
conversations
with
crpd
staff
about
that,
and
both
that
and
the
school
impacts
will
be
looked
at
through
the
environmental
impact
report.
Also
so
yeah,
the
the
neighborhood
center
or
the
village
centers,
rather
are
definitely,
you
know
closer
to
existing
parks,
but
there's
not
enough
capacity.
A
D
I
I
wouldn't
say
that
we've
abandoned
it,
but
definitely
the
you
know
the
feedback
that
we
that
it
you
know,
looks
like
we've
gotten
back
through.
The
survey
is
that
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
a
lot
of
interest,
at
least
from
you
know,
for
whatever
you
want
to
put
into
the
survey
results
and,
however,
you
feel
about
the
survey
results.
D
There
doesn't
seem
to
be
a
lot
of
support
for
those
through
the
survey
results,
but
you
know
there
are
still
groups
in
in
the
community
that
we
hear
from
that
are
very
much
in
support
of
doing
something
in
the
neighborhood
center.
So
it
will
be
ultimately
up
to
this
body
and
the
city
council
to
to
make
that
determination.
D
A
Throw
that
out
at
you
guys,
based
upon
the
fact
that
my
siblings.
A
Elementary,
which
is
no
longer
open,
and
so
parts
of
this
city
have
been
abandoned
by
the
infrastructure
that
it
was
originally
designed
for,
and
so
I
personally
think
that
it's
something
that
that
we
should
consider
as
one
of
the
I
think,
I'm
one
of
the
longest
tenured
residents
in
this
meeting.
I've
been
here
for
well
over
30
years
and
and
that's
one
of
the
things
that
comes
to
mind-
is
that
when
I
think
about
that
northern
part
of
thousand
oaks
there's
four
elementary
schools
across
there,
one
of
which
is
closed.
A
And
so
you
know
we
could
facilitate
a
lot
of
our
existing
infrastructure
by
thinking
about
where
we're
actually
set
up
for
families
and
people
to
live.
And
so
you
know
we.
We
talked
about
the
benefits
of
having
people
of
varying
income
levels
and
everything
be
able
to
mix
together.
But
at
the
same
time
our
city
was
kind
of
designed
for
some
places
to
actually
be
residential
and
livable.
A
And
so
so
I
I
don't
know,
that's
more
of
a
comment
than
a
question,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
part
of
the
discussion-
because
I
I
am
thinking
about
parks
and
open
space
access
in
a
b
c
and
d,
and
I'm
thinking
to
myself-
I
don't
know-
I
know
one
park
off
a
thousand
oaks
boulevard
on
the
south
side
behind
and
you'll
have
to
forgive
me
it's
across
the
street
from
the
24
hour,
fitness
and
behind
the
mouth
full
eatery,
but
that's
literally,
the
only
part
I
can
think
of
over
in
that
area,
so
so
yeah.
J
Mr
chair,
mr
chairman,
jump
in
quickly
with
this.
I
think
it's
a
really
important
point
and
I
just
want
to
say
that
that
there
are
a
few
areas
of
the
city
that
have
learned
that
are
larger
parcels
that
actually
afford
the
opportunity
to
be
able
to
build
parks
as
part
of
development.
J
One
of
the
challenges
is
when
you,
you
know,
build
half
an
acre
here
or
half
an
acre
there,
it's
difficult
to
actually
collect
enough
money
through
fees
to
then
buy
a
parcel
to
build
a
park
when
you
actually
deal
with
an
area
like
say
the
oaks
mall.
If
you're
going
to
redevelop
that
you
actually
have
an
incredible
opportunity
to
build
new
open
space
as
part
of
the
development
right
and
that's
how
the
city
was
created
and
that's
why
there's
so
much
great
open
space?
J
It's
because
you
had
these
larger
developments
and
you
could
take
a
chunk
of
it.
But
when
you
have
a
small
development,
small
footprint
you're
not
able
to
get
as
much,
and
so
you
know.
First,
is
those
big
parcels.
Those
big
projects
actually
have
an
opportunity
for
more
open
space.
The
second
is,
with
you
know,
more
vertical
development.
You
have
to
think
about
open
space
in
a
different
way
than
maybe
the
city's
been
thinking
about
in
the
past,
it's
more
clauses
and
more
walkable
spaces,
and
so
that's
something.
J
A
Again,
I
appreciate
that
you're.
Considering
that
the
other
question
I
had-
and
this
is
and
then
I'll
know
I'll,
I
think
I'll
be
done.
Industrial
flex
is
a
big
chunk
of
a
lot
of
these.
A
lot
of
the
the
maps
that
you
put
out
for
me
and
we're
talking.
E
A
Heights
of
buildings
up
to
75
feet,
and
I
I
know
that
the
majority
of
residents
I
speak
to
in
thousand
oaks
are
less
than
enthusiastic
of
ever
having
their
ability
to
see
the
hills
around
them.
Blocked
from
any
angle,
so
I
was
wondering,
is:
is
there
a
way
for
us
to
achieve
our
ends,
especially
considering
without
resorting
to
mixed
use
high
without
resorting
to
industrial
flex,
without
superseding
what
has
kind
of
been
a
standard
for
the
city
of
keeping
everything
relatively.
D
We're
I
think
it's
no
problem
well
with
regards
to
the
it
is,
I
mean
it
is
possible
to
to
meet
the
arena
numbers
and
provide
housing
without
the
mixed
use.
High.
It
just
means
that
there
will
have
to
be
more
mixed-use,
medium
and
mixed-use
slow.
You
know,
if
you
know,
should
the
city
council
decide
to
to
head
in
that
direction,
the
the
industrial
flex
since
it
doesn't
have
any
housing
in
it.
It
doesn't
really
play
into
the
housing
numbers.
D
D
The
the
height
limits
that
we
have
in
the
land
use
alternatives
are
those
height
limits
may
or
may
not
even
be
included
in
the
general
plan,
general
plans
very
often
do
not
include
height
limits.
They
only
include
the
far
as
the
means
of
controlling
the
the
intensity
of
non-residential
buildings,
and
then
heights
are
addressed
through
the
zoning
code
instead.
So
the
the
heights
that
we
put
in
there
were
really
intended
to
be
more
illustrative
and
conceptual.
D
So
if,
if
the
planning,
commission
and
city
council
are
you
know,
want
to
discuss,
a
different
height
limit
or
75
is
is
way
too
high,
but
50
or
60
is
okay.
I
mean
those
are
conversations
that
can
be
had
as
as
part
of
this
conversation
too,
and
then
for
the
residential
I
mean
the
the
more
you
limit,
the
height,
obviously
the
less
density
you
can
have.
D
So
you
can't
say
you
know
I
want
to
allow
45
units
an
acre
but
limited
to
25
feet
tall,
because
you
just
can't
fit
that
much
density
in
that
height.
So
there
is
definitely
that
relationship,
but
it's
it's
appropriate.
It
would
be
appropriate
to
have
conversations
about
the
height
too.
The
the
land
use.
Alternatives
are
not
intended
to
be
in
all
or
nothing
with
regard
to
the
height
and
the
far
and
the
names
that
go
with
the
categories.
A
Process,
so
those
definitions
are
malleable.
That's
that's
an
even
better
answer.
I
didn't
even
conceive
of
that
all
right,
one
more
question
and
then
I
promise
I'm
done.
Mr
ramey,
a
lot
of
the
plan
includes
ideas
of
mixed
use,
and
I
happen
to
be
in
real
estate
as
a
residential
realtor
by
trade,
and
one
of
my
questions
is
probably
because
you
have
a
better
broad-based
experience
than
I
do
on
this.
A
Do
you
know
of
mixed
use,
developments
that
exist
anywhere
in
the
state
or
in
the
country
that
involve
people,
individual
owners
having
equity
within
the
property
in
a
co-op
method
or
as
condos
above
the
the
units?
Or
is
it
always
rental.
J
J
So
you
might
actually
have
and
that's
why
we
asked
the
question
in
the
survey-
are
standalone
residential
buildings
on
thousand
oaks
boulevard
acceptable
to
you,
and
the
majority
of
people
said
yes,
so
they're
willing
to
accept
some
areas
that
are
residential.
Only
we
see
that
thousand
oaks
boulevard
actually
has
too
much
retail.
J
You
know
at
the
oaks
mall
or
at
jan's
marketplace
where
you
might
actually
have
residential
buildings
and
retail
buildings
that
are
near
each
other
and
according
to
our
definition,
that's
mixed
use.
It's
just
not
vertical.
So
to
go
to
your
your
specific
question.
There
are
places
where
owners
come
together
and
have
co-ops.
J
Co-Ops
are
different
than
condos,
so
condos.
Yes,
there
are
condos.
There
are
multi-family
condos.
I
will
tell
you.
Condos
are
very
difficult
to
build
because
you
have
attorneys
who
follow
the
condo
builders
around
and
file
lawsuits
if
there's
anything
wrong,
so
the
architects
don't
like
building
them
and
the
builders
don't
like
building
them,
because
they're
constantly
getting
sued,
which
is
why
we
see
more
multi-family
apartments
rentals
than
we
do
see
as
condos.
J
I
think
it's
unfortunate
because
I
think
condos
are
a
great
way
for
people
who
may
not
have
as
much
income
to
enter
the
housing
market.
We
just
don't
see
a
lot
of
them
and-
and
it's
actually
because
of
lawsuits.
J
I
mean
you
know
it's
complicated,
like
all
of
these
things,
it's
like
you
know
it's
a
great
idea,
but
when
the
sort
of
when
the
rubber
hits
the
road
with
this,
we
end
up
with
challenges.
Mixed-Use
buildings
are
a
challenge
to
get
financed
because
a
lot
of
times
it's
separate
lenders
for
the
retail
component
than
for
the
residential
component,
it's
easier
to
just
get
financing
for
a
straight-up
residential
building
or
just
for
a
retail
building.
J
So
that's
why
we
don't
see
the
mixed-use
places
so
some
of
the
things
and
that's
why
we
want
to
provide
flexibility
for
mixed
use,
we'll
probably
require
ground
floor,
active
spaces
in
certain
areas
and
potentially
relax
it
in
others,
so
that
you
don't
need
to
do
that
and
that
way
we
can
achieve
the
types
of
places
you
want.
If
you
want
to
go
to.
A
Yeah
I
appreciate
that
that's
I
appreciate
that
answer.
Thank
you
very
much,
fellow
commissioners
to
anybody
else
before
I,
commissioner,
mcmahon.
F
Okay,
I
threw
out
a
couple
examples:
the
lupe's
project
is
44
feet
tall
at
the
front
and
46
feet
tall
at
the
back,
so
that
would
have
been
an
example
of
something
similar
to
like
a
mixed-use
low,
which
has
the
50-foot
height
limit.
I
also
mentioned
the
lynn
villa
apartments.
Those
are
located
at
mccloud
and
hillcrest.
F
F
The
other
example
that
I
threw
out
was
the
sinclair
building,
also
known
as
the
bank
of
america
building
and
the
approved
plans
for
that
call
out
that
building
at
60
feet
high,
which
is
actually
taller
than
the
landis
designation
for
mixed-use,
medium
at
58
feet
and
also
the
neighborhood
high
at
55
feet.
F
A
couple
of
the
really
tall
buildings
in
the
city,
the
civic
arts
plaza,
is
much
taller
than
that.
That's
closer
to
the
commercial
regional,
landis
designation.
J
Can
I
jump
in
on
heights
because
a
perspective
on
heights
is
really
important
and
when
we
were
doing
the,
we
worked
on
the
downtown
strategy
plan
for
the
city
and
we
spent
time
walking
kind
of
in
in
the
sort
of
in
the
downtown
area
outside
of
civic
arts
plaza
and
looking
at
different
building
heights
from
different
perspectives
and
when
you're
on
a
sidewalk,
and
you
have
a
one
or
two
story:
building
right
next
to
you,
as
you
do
with
some
of
the
retail,
and
you
know,
if
you
look
up
from
that
building,
you
can't
see
the
hills
when
you're
right
next
to
a
one-story
building-
and
I
know
the
views
of
the
hills
are
really
important
on
that
side
of
the
street.
J
If
you
go
across
the
street
and
look
across
thousand
oaks
boulevard,
you
can
actually
get
a
sense
of
the
height
of
the
building.
So
if
you're
going
to
look
at
lupe's
for
the
46
to
48
feet,
you
know
experience
it
when
you're
on
the
sidewalk
right
next
to
it
and
then
experience
it
when
you're
off
on
the
other
side
of
the
street
and
looking
at
it
and
see
what
it
does
to
the
views
of
the
hills.
I
haven't
seen
the
lupe's
since
it
was
completed
because
of
covet.
C
A
You
got
it
and
commissioners,
are
you
prepared
to
vote
for
whether
or
not
we
can
go
pass
down
a
little
bit
here.
H
Chair
bus,
I
hereby
move
to
let
the
meeting
go
beyond
10
o'clock.
I
appreciate.
B
A
Hi,
thank
you
so
much
all
right.
I
will
now
open
it
up
to
the
floor
for
further
discussion.
If
any
commissioners
have
any
further
input
they'd
like
to
to
make
this
time
looking
around,
I
think
we're
done
talking
about
this
all
right.
So
this
is
a
department
report,
as
I,
as
I
said
earlier,
so
no
vote
is
required.
So
we'll
move
on
to
our
next
agenda
item.
Thank
you,
staff
for
being
so
well
informed,
so
helpful
and
for
putting
up
with
all
of
our
questions.
A
I
really
appreciate
your
time
and
thank
you,
mr
ramey
all
right.
Well,
now
is
the
time
for
commission
comments
and
or
any
ab1234
reports.
Are
there
any
comments
from
my
fellow
commissioners,
mr
mcmahon.
C
I
also
I
just
want
to
make
a
quick
comment
that
it
was
very
helpful
for
all
the
the
comments
and
the
questions
that
my
fellow
commissioners
had.
The
staff
report
was
terrific
and
I
really
really
got
a
lot
out
of
the
comments
of
the
general
public.
So
we're
going
to
be
doing
this
again
in
two
weeks,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
public
knows
that
we
want
to
hear
from
them
and-
and
it
was
there
were
some
really
good
points
that
were
brought
up
today
from
the
public
speakers.
H
Just
on
my
normal
comment
about
the
virus,
if
you
go
to
vcemergency.com,
it'll
have
information
as
to
where
to
sign
up
to
get
the
vaccine
if
you're
in
the
the
bracket,
whether
directly
or
through
my
term,
which
is
a
link.
That's
at
the
bottom
of
the
page.
Again,
vaccines
are
going
to
be
opening
up.
So
again,
please
go
on
as
soon
as
you
can
to
get
that
vaccine
and
sign
up
as
quickly
as
possible
so
that
we
can
have
this
meeting
in
person,
hopefully
pretty
soon.
A
Thank
you,
commissioner
lansin
anyone
else.
I
think
we're
good
there.
So
we'll
move
along
to
staff
updates.
Ms
finley,
are
there
any
follow-up
items,
announcements
or
upcoming
issues.
C
Yes,
just
briefly
I'll
provide
a
quick
update
that
I
want
to
emphasize
that
the
upcoming
general
plan
update
schedule
is
that
was
also
provided
in.
Mr
raymie's
presentation
is
also
posted
on
the
gpu
website,
which
is
the
www
dot
oaks
2045.org.
C
And
it
also
includes
additional
opportunities
for
public
comments,
including
an
upcoming
survey.
Then,
if
you
want
to
go
ahead
with
the
with
the
planning
commission
agenda
coming
up,
please.
C
Then
so
the
next
meeting
is
on
april
12th
and
there
are
three
items
on
that
agenda
and
the
first
one
will
be
a
consideration
of
a
special
use
permit
for
a
sports
training
facility.
C
And
then
we
have
an
item
concerning
making
a
jump
plan.
Consistency,
determination
for
the
capital
improvement
program
for
public
works,
which
is
required
by
state
law.
And
then
the
third
item
will
be
a
presentation
from
the
public
works
department,
sustainability,
division,
staff
on
the
climate
and
environmental
action
plan,
which
is
related
to
the
general
plan,
update
and
they're,
going
to
give
you
a
status
and
update
on
what
they're
doing
and
and
how
it's
related
to
the
general
plan
efforts.
C
Then
the
next
meeting
after
that
will
be
april
26
which
which,
as
you're
aware,
will
be
to
consider
the
the
preferred
land
use
alternative
discussion.
A
Thank
you
very
much
appreciate
that
all
right
with
that.
I
just
wanted
to
give
one
more.
Thank
you
to
all
the
staff
that
have
been
through
this
meeting
and
all
the
work
you
did
to
prepare
for
this.
I
cannot
thank
you
guys
enough
for
doing
such
a
service
for
every
everyone
who's
a
resident
of
this
town
and
works
here.
A
The
work
that
you're
doing
now
will
be
remembered
for
decades,
and
we
appreciate
your
time
and
with
that
I'd
like
to
thank
everyone
and.