►
Description
To speak / participate in the meeting:
https://www.toaks.org/departments/cit...
Thousand Oaks Planning Commission Meeting - 9/11/23
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
C
B
B
Thank
you.
It
appears
we
do
have
a
public
comment,
and
so
I
have
to
read
this
for
the
benefit
of
everybody
in
the
audience.
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
on
a
future
agenda.
B
Anyone
who
would
like
to
speak
under
public
comments
must
fill
out
a
speaker
card
in
Chambers
or
click
request
to
speak
on
the
agenda
to
receive
instructions
before
the
public
comments
portion
of
the
agenda
is
called.
The
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
screen
will
show
you
the
remaining
time
that
you
have.
E
William
Maple
resident
of
Newberry
Park
good
evening
members
of
the
pioneer
Commission
it's
my
first
time,
speaking
before
you
in
Thousand
Oaks
requesting
a
landmark
marker,
is
not
a
straightforward
process.
Typically,
you
would
address
members
of
the
cultural
heritage
board,
but
our
city
council
is
also
our
cultural
heritage
board
and
they
don't
normally
meet
publicly
to
make
proactive
decisions
or
evaluate
landmarks.
E
So
sometimes
a
resident
has
to
make
a
request
or
does
make
a
request
to
this
commission
or
this
board,
and
that
is
sometimes
handed
to
staff
and
then
sometimes
that
makes
its
way
to
the
city,
council
or
cultural
heritage
and
then
to
the
cultural
heritage
board.
So
my
point
is
it's
not
a
straightforward
process,
and
this
is
my
first
step
to
secure
what
I
think
is
a
well-deserved
Landmark
plaque.
E
2004
will
be
a
banner
year
for
the
city
of
Thousand
Oaks.
It
will
be
its
60th
anniversary,
that's
a
significant
Milestone,
but
even
more
impressive,
our
Timber
School
landmark
will
be
a
hundred.
It
was
designed
by
the
first
licensed
architect
in
Ventura
County,
and
it
may
be
the
earliest
example
of
roycia
Wilson's
a
public
school
designs.
E
It
is
the
oldest
public
usability,
Still
Standing.
Everything
else
are
replicas
or
lost
like
the
Dos
Vientos
barns
that
wasn't
a
public
building,
both
the
1924
School
in
the
1948
Auditorium,
our
County
Ventura
County
landmarks,
not
just
the
city,
We
Are,
Young
cities,
so
very
few
of
what
our
roots
that
we
that
we
acknowledge
remain.
They
need
to
be
preserved
and
celebrated.
E
Former
Conejo
Valley
High
School
has
been
abandoned
for
far
too
many
years.
The
public
occasionally
hears
rumors
that
plans
to
develop
the
site
are
in
progress,
but
unfortunately
it
doesn't
appear
so
there's
nothing
that
updates.
What's
going
on
there,
there's
no
acknowledgment
of
of
we're
doing
something,
and
they
occasionally
hear
about
that.
You
have
changed
the
zoning
this
body
twice
at
least
it
may
have
been
more
right.
E
I
did
attend
those
meetings,
but
year
after
year
the
land
sits
abandoned
and
it's
pretty
vulnerable
Ventura
and
many
of
the
neighboring
cities
around
here,
proudly
Place
blonde's,
Pratt,
bronze,
plaques,
Stephen,
Landmark
status
and
the
value
of
historic
assets.
It
seems
a
small
task
for
our
city
council
to
State
its
commitment
to
preserve
our
history.
Honor
our
roots
and
publicly
celebrate
the
Centennial
anniversary
of
Timber
School,
adding
100th
anniversary
Landmark
plaque
would
be
an
appropriate
step
by
those
responsible
for
protecting
the
heritage
of
the
community
they
serve.
Thank
you.
B
C
The
amendment
establishes
Provisions
for
the
construction
of
affordable
housing
as
part
of
a
new
rental
and
ownership
development
and
alternative
options
for
the
provision
for
affordable
housing
by
paying
in
Lou
fees
or
off-site
construction,
and
to
find
the
project
qualifies
for
a
categorical
exemption
from
the
California
Environmental
Quality
act.
Sql
pursuant
to
section
1506
1b3
of
the
SQL
guidelines
located
city-wide.
The
applicant
is
city
of
Thousand
Oaks.
H
Thank
you
chair,
commissioners.
So,
as
was
just
stated
by
Lori,
the
item
before
you
is
an
update
to
the
inclusionary
housing
program
and
also
by
default,
the
non-residential
development
linkages
fee.
This
is
a
municipal
code
Amendment
and,
as
stated
the
request
before
you
is
first
to
find
that
the
action
before
you
tonight
is
exempt
from
the
California
Environmental
Quality
act
as
well
as
amend
the
various
articles
of
the
affordable
housing
section
of
the
municipal
code,
though
the
title
of
the
project
is
to
amend
the
inclusionary
housing
program
and
the
linkage
fees.
H
And
basically,
the
staff
is
basically
following
the
goals
under
the
adopted
housing
element
program,
there's
an
objective
in
there
to
basically
update
the
housing
program
and
the
linkage
fees.
It's
primarily
focused
on
the
in-lu
fees
and
the
linkage
fees.
However,
since
the
inclusionary
housing
program
was
created
back
in
2008,
it
was
only
applicable
to
for
sale
projects,
and
so
given
the
times,
it's
been
evaluated
now
to
include
both
product
types.
H
But
one
of
the
other
main
goals
of
this
is
really
meeting
our
Regional
Housing
needs
allocation.
This
is
the
amount
of
housing
It's,
a
combination
of
various
income
categories
that
we
have
to
plan
for
for
the
next
eight
years
or
up
until
2029.
Now
so
less
than
that,
essentially
we
have
to
plan
and
we
have
to
demonstrate
that
and
that's
part
of
what
the
housing
element
does
as
well
as
the
general
plan.
But
but
here
we
are
to
basically
bringing
forward
a
implementation
measure
of
the
general
plan.
H
The
as
I
said
before
the
whole,
affordable,
affordable
housing
program
was
created
back
in
2008
that
included
the
inclusionary
housing
program
and
the
non-residential
development
linkages
fees
at
that
time.
In
2008
there
were
fees
actually
set,
but
given
the
circumstances
of
the
Great
Recession
2009
came
around
and
the
council
basically
adopted
a
zero
fee,
essentially
rendering
that
portion
of
the
affordable
housing
programs
ineffective
because
the
fee
was
a
full
option.
H
H
As
far
as
our
recommendation
and
basically
I
have
Kathy
here
to
kind
of
walk
you
through
essentially
a
lot
of
the
framework
for
the
inclusionary,
and
we
will
talk
about
linkage
fees
a
little
bit
but
just
to
cut
to
the
chase.
The
council
did
give
a
direction
of
applying
a
zero
fee
for
linkage
fees.
So
the
discussion
for
you
tonight
is
predominantly
or
the
Amendments
before
you
are
focused
on
the
inclusionary
housing
program.
I
I
We
also
met
with
a
variety
of
community
groups,
developer
groups
and
and
Commercial
developers
in
the
community
which
helped
to
guide
us
in
the
study,
so
I'm
just
going
to
start
off
with
a
little
bit
of
background
on
inclusionary,
especially
in
this
housing
element
year
or
the
last
two
housing
element
years,
I've
been
very,
very
busy.
Nearly
every
city
seems
to
have
said
in
their
housing
element,
we're
going
to
try
to
do
inclusionary,
housing
and
I
said
yippee.
Okay,
let's
go
so.
The
170
jurisdictions
in
California
is
undoubtedly
a
low
number.
I
I
It's
growing
all
the
time
and
as
I
mentioned
largely
in
the
last
couple
years
because
of
housing
element
because
of
the
very
large
Arena
goals,
so
that
leads
us
to
why
Arena
goals
are
a
major
reason
for
trying
to
measure
your
affordable
housing
and
trying
to
encourage
a
small
part
of
the
development
in
your
community
to
be
affordable,
housing
and
I.
Think
that's.
I
I
The
the
first
test
is
how
many
projects
and
what
type
of
projects
will
be
subject
to
the
requirement,
so
in
other
words,
what
size
project
will
trigger
the
obligation
and
the
reason
that's
important
is
because
creating
an
affordable
housing
requirement
on
small
projects
has
a
disproportionate
impact
on
their
economics
than
in
larger
projects
that
can
absorb
the
affordable
units
within
the
larger
project.
Whereas
if
you
have
one
affordable
unit
in
a
five
unit
project,
it
has
a
much
different
aspect
than
five
units
in
a
50
unit
project.
So
that's
something
to
keep
in
mind.
I
So
common
thresholds
are
are
between
in
the
survey
we're
between
three
and
ten
units.
There's
actually
some
cities
at
one
and
there's
actually
a
city
that
I'm
aware
of
it
at
50
as
as
their
threshold,
but
the
average
and
the
median
is
somewhere
between
five
and
seven
as
the
most
common
measurement
of
where
the
threshold
starts,
but
again
they're
all
over
the
board.
They
range
all
over
the
board.
Another
thing
that
varies
widely
is
the
income
and
affordability
restrictions
that
are
required.
I
The
majority
of
the
programs
in
in
the
survey
and
in
the
programs
I've
looked
at
range
between
10
and
20
percent.
A
requirement
of
affordable
I've,
seen
as
much
as
30
and
I've,
seen
as
little
as
five
and
so
but
really
10
to
20
percent
is
the
the
most
common
range
that
you'll
see
in
the
affordable
or
in
the
inclusionary
housing
requirements.
I
One
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is
the
more
strict
that
the
affordability
requirement
is
the
lower.
The
percentage
needs
to
be
because
this
as
they
can
make
less
as
a
developer,
can
make
less
money
from
a
project
than
they
can
afford
to
provide
fewer
units
than
if,
if
the
Restriction
is
placed
at
a
higher
level,
so
that
again,
what
you'll
hear
me
say
any
number
of
times
will
be
balance.
Everything
is
a
matter
of
trying
to
balance
the
unmet
need
for
housing
and
the
ability
to
create
a
feasible
requirement,
as
I
mentioned
already.
I
Covenant
periods,
Covenant
periods
for
ownership
units
are
commonly
set
at
45
years,
with
a
requirement
that
the
homes
be
sold
and
resold
during
that
period,
at
an
affordable
price
or
45
years,
within
the
first
seller
being
able
to
sell
at
market
rate
in
return
for
providing
the
city
with
repayment
of
the
original
affordability,
Gap
and
a
share
of
equity
appreciation
both
have
their
merits
and
and
demerits.
We
won't
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
that
tonight,
and
apartments
tend
to
be.
This
is
a
tax
credit.
I
Covenant
period
is
55
years.
It's
also
an
old
Redevelopment
period.
It's
55
years
what
I've
seen
lately
in
my
practices,
a
lot
of
cities
want
to
do
longer,
affordability
periods
than
the
55
years.
Many
want
to
do
Perpetual,
there's
some
issues
with
doing
it
perpetually,
there's
a
way
to
do
it
where
you
do
it
for,
as
for
at
least
55
years
or
as
long
as
it's
used
as
a
residential
site
going
to
the
the
Southern
California
jurisdictions
within
the
93
cities
start
survey
again.
I
Home
ownership
is
expensive
again,
I
already
did
the
covenants,
and
so
all
the
programs
that
I've
worked
on
include
an
in
Luffy
option
so
that
a
developer
can
pay
a
fee
in
lieu
of
producing
the
units
that
in
Luffy
option
can
be
hard
to
use
or
easy
to
use,
depending
on
the
city's
objectives.
For
that
in
Luffy,
and
so
the
reason
in
Luffy's
are
always
included
is
because
State
legislation
and
state
law
have
said
you
have
to
provide
options
in.
I
I
So
inclusionary
has
evolved
significantly
over
the
last
35
years
and
it's
been
helpful
in
a
number
of
ways.
One
is:
there
have
been
a
number
of
court
cases
and
there
have
been
a
number
of
legislative
actions
that
have
taken
place
over
the
past
35
plus
years
and
I've
been
working
on
them
that
whole
time,
which
is
a
little
scary.
I
So
what
the
courts
have
told
you
is
the
requirements
cannot
be
confiscatory
and
they
cannot
deprive
an
owner
of
a
fair
and
reasonable
return
on
their
investment.
Conveniently
they
don't
tell
you
what
that
means.
So
you're
left
on
your
own
as
a
jurisdiction
to
come
up
with
what
you
think
is
reasonable
for
not
being
confiscatory
and
not
depriving
an
owner
of
a
fair
and
reasonable
return.
That's
why
you've
done
a
financial
evaluation.
I
I
So
when
you're
looking
at
this
or
when
I'm
looking
at
this
in
a
financial
evaluation,
I
look
at
the
strength
of
the
real
estate
market
in
every
Community
I
work
in
I've
done
now
close
to
40,
inclusionary,
housing,
analyzes
and
every
time,
I
think
it's
going
to
be
easy
because
I've
done
so
many
and
yet
no
they're
always
different.
Every
Community
is
different.
You
really
have
to
look
at
the
characteristics:
the
demographics,
the
real
estate,
the
need
for
for
housing,
the
ability
of
property
for
that
affordable
housing.
I
So
it's
really
important
to
look
at
that
as
part
of
your
analysis
and
then
at
the
end
of
the
day,
your
goal
is
to
balance
that
that
need
for
unmet
that
unmet
need
for
affordable
housing,
two.
What
a
developer
can
feasibly
develop
without
deciding
to
go
to
the
next
door
community
and
develop
next
slide.
I
So,
as
I
mentioned,
inclusionary
Housing
Programs
tend
to
set
the
ownership
unit
requirement
at
the
moderate
income
level
and
then
on
the
rental
side
ab1505,
which
was
adopted
in
2017.,
allowed
cities
and
counties
to
use
inclusionary
housing
on
rental
projects
between
2009
and
2017.
You
could
not
do
that.
There
was
a
court
case
in
2009
called
The
Palmer
case
that
effectively
just
eliminated
the
ability
to
do
rental
inclusionary.
I
I
You
better
have
a
very
strong
study
to
support
it,
because
hcd
has
the
ability
to
come
to
your
community
before
you
got
your
housing
element
approved
to
not
approve
your
housing
element,
but
even
after
your
housing
element's
been
approved,
they
have
the
ability
to
come
in
and
and
ask
you
and
require
you
to
prove
it's
not
a
constraint
to
housing
and
I've.
Had
that
happen
in
cities,
I've
worked
in,
so
it's
not
it's
not
just
a.
Maybe
that
could
happen
it's
so
it's
very
important
I
think
not
to
tick
hcd
off.
I
That's
that's
my
technical
opinion
on
that.
However,
if
you're
going
to
allow
folks
to
develop
off-site
or
you're
going
to
allow
them
to
do
something
other
than
on-site
construction,
then
you
can.
You
can
do
whatever
requirement
you
want,
because
the
fundamental
requirement,
the
on-site
production
requirement,
is
what
any
developer
could
do
and
is
the
first
option,
and
so
you
get
more
flexibility
in
the
options
other
than
the
production
option.
I
Then
another
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is
that,
especially
on
rental
projects,
if
a
inclusionary
housing
program
is
adopted
or
used
and
the
affordability
requirements
are
imposed,
it's
very
likely
on
sites
that
can
efficiently
use
it.
They
will
use
the
state
density
bonus
in
addition,
and
so
that
state
density
bonus
is
one
way
of
mitigating
the
impact
of
the
income
and
affordability
restrictions
that
have
been
imposed
by
your
inclusionary
requirement,
because
you
have
to
count
the
affordable
units
produced
for
density
bonus
as
affordable
units
counted
for
your
inclusionary.
I
I
So
what
we
did
when
we
did
the
financial
evaluation
here
is
we
create
first,
we
created
residential
prototypes,
so
we
looked
at
recently
proposed
projects
recently
developed
projects.
We
worked
with
this
city
to
create
prototype
rental
and
ownership
projects
that
look
like
projects
being
developed
in
Thousand
Oaks,
and
we
did
that
so
that
when
we
do
the
financial
evaluation
we're
looking
at
things
that
are
likely
to
be
built
in
your
community,
we
also
looked
at
the
housing
element
as
part
of
creating
the
the
prototypes.
I
The
next
thing
we
do
is
we
create
a
pro
forma
analysis
for
a
project
that
has
no
income
and
affordability
restrictions
on
it,
because
the
whole
idea
of
inclusionary
isn't
was
the
residential
project
feasible
in
the
first
place,
it's
what
is
the
impact
of
adding
income
and
affordability
requirements
to
a
project?
So
it's
an
incremental
analysis
to
say:
okay,
if
a
developer
could
build
unfettered,
what
return
are
they
projected
to
receive?
Then?
I
And
so
a
couple
things
to
think
about
one
is:
is
that
it
it
does
create
if
it
can
be
efficiently
used.
It
does
create
significant
value
to
a
project,
and
that
really
needs
to
be
taken
into
consideration
when,
when
evaluating
projects,
two
is
if
a
project
chooses
to
use
the
state
density
bonus,
then
they
cannot
pay
an
in
Luffy,
they
must
produce
the
units
and
they
must
produce
the
units
on
site.
I
We
ran
prototypes
of
density,
bonus
projects,
four
thousand
oaks,
one
which
uses
the
maximum
density
bonus
that
is
allowed
by
the
legislation
and
then
one
that
uses
a
lower
than
the
maximum
amount,
because
that's
what
actually
happened
in
Thousand
Oaks,
so
developers
can't
always
efficiently
use
the
whole
density
bonus
Allowed
by
the
state
or
they
choose
not
to
use
it
for
public
reasons,
but
they're
and
it's
just
not
always
efficient
to
use
the
you
know.
If
you
have
to
change
the
type
of
parking
with
a
number
of
stories,
if
it
gets
too
too
tall
it.
I
Actually,
the
density
doesn't
create
value.
So
we
ran
it
both
ways.
We
ran
the
maximum
and
we
ran
one
with
a
lower
percentage.
Next
slide,
please,
so
the
conclusions
of
our
analyzes
were
for
apartment
development.
We
came
to
the
conclusion
that
a
low
income
requirement
that
ranged
between
eight
and
eleven
percent
could
be
supported
or
a
very
low
income
requirement
between
five
and
eight
percent
could
be
supported.
I
Moving
on
to
ownership.
This
is
the
example
that
I
talked
about
at
the
beginning
of
my
talk,
which
is
looking
at
the
affordability
Gap
created
by
imposing
income
and
affordability
restrictions
on
ownership
units.
So,
as
you
can
see
in
the
table
here,
if
you
look
at
a
townhouse
unit
at
784
thousand
dollars
and
you
look
at
the
the
moderate
income,
affordable
sales
price,
it's
in
the
500
to
530
000
range,
depending
on
number
of
bedrooms.
I
Comparatively,
if
you
look
at
it
as
a
low
income
unit,
the
Prices
range
between
228
and
236..
So,
as
you
can
see,
it's
about
half
going
from
moderate
to
going
to
low
primary
reason,
for
that
is
at
the
moderate
income
level,
a
higher
percentage
of
income
can
be
allocated
to
affordable
housing
costs
and
can
be
at
the
low
income
level
again,
just
because
of
discretionary
income,
but
also
because
of
statutes.
Looking
at
a
detached
single
family
home,
which
I
think
is
a
really
important
thing
to
look
at.
I
So,
as
you
can
see,
they're
still
in
the
range
of
500,
you
know
plus
or
minus
500
or
plus
or
minus
two
hundred
thousand
dollars.
But
there
is
a
difference
in
one
and
the
more
expensive
the
house
gets
the
lower
the
affordability,
affordable
housing
cost
gets.
So
that's
something
to
keep
in
mind
as
well
next
slide.
So
the
conclusions
to
our
ownership,
housing,
Financial
evaluation
were
that
a
five
percent
requirement
could
be
supported
for
townhouse
or
condominium
type
development
and
I
did
that
backwards.
I
A
five
percent
requirement
could
be
supported
for
a
single-family
home
type
development
and
a
10
requirement
could
be
supported
for
a
town,
home
or
condominium
type
project
at
the
moderate
income
level,
and
that
falls
to
three
and
a
half
percent
to
five
percent
for
low
income.
We
strongly
recommend
you
establish
a
moderate
income
standard,
a
just
because
the
affordability
gaps
are
so
large
and
B,
because
then
the
percentage
of
units
is
smaller.
That
can
be
supported,
and
that's
that
slide
so
fulfillment
alternatives.
I
So
in
Luffy's
are
always
a
major
topic
of
conversation.
Developers
are
very
interested
in
Luffy's
developers,
given
their
druthers
would
pay
the
and
Luffy
every
time.
So
it's
important
to
figure
out
as
a
community
how
you
want
to
treat
in
Luffy's.
Some
communities
really
want
to
get
in
Luffy's
because
they
want
to
be
able
to
provide
those
funds
to
leveraged
affordable
apartment
projects.
They
can
go
out
and
get
low
income,
housing,
tax
credits
and
things
like
that.
Other
communities
are
very
interested
in
making
sure
the
affordable
units
are
dispersed
throughout
the
community.
I
I
It's
neither
good
nor
bad.
It
just
is,
depending
on
your
community
view,
it's
either
good
or
bad,
and
if
you
take
in
Luffy's,
then
it
becomes
your
responsibility
to
produce
the
affordable
housing
units.
So
that's
the
downside
of
of
getting
it
in
Luffy.
In
addition
to
not
spreading
the
units,
you've
now
got
this
pot
of
money
and
you
need
to
figure
out
how
to
spend
it
to
get
affordable
housing
development.
I
The
three
ways
of
establishing
in
Luffy's
also
vary
based
on
what
your
goals
are.
The
basic
way
to
do,
it
is
to
say
well
if
they
produce
the
units
on
site,
what
would
that
cost
to
the
project
be
and
then
just
translating
that
to
a
fee?
So
it's
one
to
one:
a
developer
should
be
neutral
between
paying
the
fee
or
building
the
unit.
I
Conversely,
if
you're
a
community
that
wants
to
encourage
payment
of
the
in-lu
fee,
then
you
can
establish
a
discounted
in
Luffy
and
just
say
so:
it
becomes
an
encouragement
to
pay
that
fee
and
then
again
the
other.
The
third
one
and
again
this
is
commonly
used,
is
a
reduced
in
Luffy
for
small
projects.
I
So
you
have
a
one
base
fee
for
projects
over,
say,
20
units
and
then
anything
below
that
pays
pays
a
lower
fee
next
time.
Okay,
so
Department
development
and
Luffy
analysis
we're
just
going
to
skim
over
this.
We
just
Ian
and
I,
decided
that
we
should
show
you
this
just
to
show
you
how
complicated
it
is.
I
I
think
that's
really
the
sole
reason
for
this
slide
so
because
ownership's
easy
ownership,
you
take
them
the
market
price
and
the
affordable
price.
And
you
subtract:
it's
really
just
the
simplest
possible
way.
But
when
you
have
an
apartment,
it's
an
ongoing
concern.
So
it
has.
It
has
cash
flow
every
year
and
the
Gap
then
goes
on
for
55
years,
and
so
you
have
to
figure
that
out
and
that's
basically
what
this
does.
I
Is
it
figures
out
the
difference
between
the
rent
at
Market,
rent
and
the,
and
then
in
this
case,
at
low
income
rent?
It
figures
that
out
and
then
it
says:
oh
wait.
So
they're
going
to
get
less
income,
so
their
property
taxes
are
going
to
be
less
because
they'll
go
appeal,
their
property
tax
to
the
assessor
to
say
no,
my
income
was
less
so
I
want
to
pay
that
less.
So
then
you,
you
subtract
that
from
from
the
the
impact,
and
then
that
represents
the
annual
affordability
Gap.
I
So
once
you
have
the
annual
affordability
Gap,
then
you
take
it
and
basically
you
divide
it
by
the
the
threshold
return
on
investment
that
came
up
in
the
market
rate
analysis,
and
then
you
translate
that
into
a
fee
either
per
unit
or
per
square
foot.
So
simple,
right,
okay!
So
then
we
looked
at
other
fulfillment
options.
For
you
to
consider
off-site
production
is
often
discussed.
It's
a
very
common
option
that
is
considered
for
inclusionary
Housing
Programs,
almost
invariably
in
the
communities.
I
I
work
in
people
say
that's
great,
except
we
don't
have
a
land
so
how
we've
sort
of
adjusted
for
that
is
to
say
if
you
have
a
big
enough
site
and
you're
doing
an
ownership
project.
For
example,
you
can
split
that
site
or
you
can
divide
that
site
and
you
can
build
market
rate
ownership
units
and
then
affordable
apartment
units
on
the
same
site
to
fulfill
that
obligation.
I
That
way
in
many
ways,
inclusionary
is
much
better
suited
to
rental
than
it
is
to
ownership,
because
tenants
move
in
tenants
move
out.
They
don't
expect
that
they're
going
to
make
money
when
they,
when
they
move,
whereas
ownership
units,
if
you
create
an
ongoing
resale
control
where
each
owner
has
to
sell
and
resell
at
an
affordable
price.
There's
not
a
lot
of
money
to
be
made
and
in
fact,
if
you
bought
in
2015
and
you're
trying
to
sell
today,
there's
some
money
to
be
lost
because
interest
rates
have
risen
so
much
in
that
period.
I
So
that's
something
to
think
about
when
you're
thinking
about
ownership
units
and
so
to
the
extent
that
somebody
could
personalize
and
build
apartments.
That
can
be
an
advantageous
scenario
for
for
the
city
and
for
the
developer
again
with
off-site
production.
There's
a
land
shortage
issue,
land
dedication
there
it
can
be,
it
can
be
done.
I
If
you
do
it,
we
have
four
pages
of
things
that
would
have
to
be
done
to
for
a
city
council
to
approve
a
site
because
you're
going
to
get
that
site
and
you're
going
to
need
to
find
a
developer
to
develop,
affordable
on
it.
So
you
need
to
make
sure
if
you
do
this
option,
that
it's
ready
for
development,
it's
zoned
for
development,
it's
cleaned
up,
it's
appropriately
sized
for
the
number
of
units
Etc
there.
I
It
really
is
three
or
four
pages
of
restrictions
and
then
acquisition
rehab,
which
is
always
a
popular
scenario
and
we're
not
recommending
it
because
I
wear
a
black
hat
on
most
occasions.
It's
because
you
can't
get
Arena
credit
for
it.
It's
a
good
goal.
It's
a
good
way
to
provide
affordable
housing
and
in
a
vacuum.
If
you
didn't
have
Rena
goals,
I
would
have
a
different
recommendation,
but
given
the
finite
number
of
units
you're
going
to
get
and
the
large
Arena
you
have
I
can't
recommend
doing
acquisition
rehab
next
slide.
I
So
now
we
get
to
policy
recommendations
as
I
mentioned,
because
I
spoiler
alerted
it.
We
recommended-
and
this
was
discussed
at
the
city
council,
we
recommended
a
range
of
thresholds
and
gave
it
to
the
city
council
to
consider
and
and
10
units
is
what
came
up
it's
a
pretty
common
threshold.
It
divides
nicely
it's
within
well
within
the
range
of
typical,
as
I
mentioned
earlier.
I
This
is
sort
of
the
new
trend
with
apartment
development
is
to
say
that
the
Covenant
will
run
for
at
least
55
years,
but
for
as
long
as
it's
the
unit,
the
project
is
put
to
a
residential
use.
So
sometime
in
the
future,
it's
just
no
longer
a
residential
neighborhood.
You
don't
want
City
councils
and
planning
commissions,
hamstrung,
they
say,
oh
no,
that
has
to
be
an
affordable
apartment
forever.
So
it's
just
it's
a
way
to
getting
close
to
perpetuity
without
doing
perpetuity
and
then
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
I
So,
as
I
mentioned,
when
I
was
going
through,
the
the
presentation
we're
recommending
a
10
low
income
requirement
for
apartments,
10,
moderate
income
requirement
for
town
homes
and
Condominiums,
a
five
percent
moderate
income
for
detached
single-family
homes,
again
I
just
have
to
reiterate
this.
The
courts
haven't
told
you
what
confiscatory
are
providing
a
reasonable
return.
Is
we
really
think
it's
appropriate
to
use
a
conservative
approach
and
we
measured
this
in
in
three
different
ways.
I
So
the
in-lu
fees
we
did
it
on
the
affordability,
Gap
approach
that
I
discussed
as
one
way
that
you
would
do
afford
doing
Luffy's
and
the
result
was
that
for
apartment
development
it
would
be
25.70
per
square
foot
of
building
area
in
the
entire
project.
So
that's
an
important
distinction
because
there
are
no
affordable
units
in
the
project.
I
So
the
way
you
calculate
there's
three
ways
to
calculate
it,
but
the
way
we're
recommending
to
calculate
it
is
25.70
against
that.
Just
take
the
the
whole
project,
it's
square
footage
multiplied
by
2570
and
that's
the
in
Luffy.
If
you
look
at
the
financial
evaluation,
we
showed
how
that
correlates
to
the
inclusionary
cost
per
inclusionary
unit
or
the
cost
per
inclusionary
unit.
We
just
think
per
square
foot
is
a
more
fair
measure
so
that
small
units
don't
overpay
and
large
units
don't
underpay.
I
I
Also,
project
apartment
projects,
with
fewer
than
20
units
should
be
able
to
allow
be
paid
the
fee,
so
projects
between
10
and
20
units
should
be
allowed
to
pay
a
fee,
and
if
a
developer
can
prove
extreme
economic
hardship
projects
over
20
units
should
be
considered.
However,
extreme
economic
hardship
should
all
be
the
burden
of
the
developer
to
prove,
and
it's
only
in
very
limited
cases
that
it
would
ever
be
applicable,
because
once
an
ordinance
is
in
place
and
once
the
rules
are
there,
somebody
shouldn't
pay
too
much
for
the
land.
I
In
order
to
then
say,
Oh
I
can't
afford
to
do
affordable
housing
because
I
paid
too
much
for
the
land,
so
extreme
financial
hardship.
The
only
reason
we
put
it
in
is
because
the
lawyers
tell
us
to,
and
so
that's
that's
why
and
I've
written
a
long
definition
of
it,
but
most
of
the
definitions
of
extreme
financial
hardship
just
say
doesn't
violate
the
state
or
federal
Constitution.
I
And
then
I
think
that
particularly
single-family
homes,
but
even
town
homes
and
Condominiums
should
be
allowed
to
pay
the
in-lu
fee
by
right,
just
because
the
money
can
be
deployed
more
efficiently
for
rental
units
off-site
production.
I,
don't
recommend
that
off-site
production
be
allowed
for
apartment
units,
I
think
they
are
more
appropriately
included
within
market
rate
apartment
projects.
I
think
it
does
satisfy
the
goal
of
spreading
the
affordable
units
throughout
the
community
and
their
apartment
developments
so
to
build
a
separate,
affordable,
housing.
I
Ownership
requirements,
as
I
discussed
in
more
length
I
think
that
off-site
production
or
personalization
of
a
site
should
be
allowed.
If,
then,
they
fulfill
the
obligation
with
apartment
development
and
and
that's
that
actually
land
dedication.
This
is
where
the
three-page
explanation
comes
in
of
when
and
if
the
city
council
should
approve
land
dedications.
I
It's
definitely
should
be
left
to
the
city
council's
discretion
to
accept
or
reject
a
land
dedication
proposal
and
then
acquisition,
rehab,
I
already
said:
I,
don't
recommend
it
because
Arena
okay,
that
was
inclusionary,
now
we're
going
to
spend
two
minutes
on
the
linkage
fee.
We
did
a
whole
linkage
fee
analysis
and
we
talked
to
the
community.
We
talked
to
the
business
community
and
in
Southern
California
there
are
plus
or
minus
five
commercial
linkage.
Fee
programs
they're
much
more
prevalent
in
the
Bay
Area
than
they
are
in
Southern
California
at
this
point
over
time.
I
If
this
may
grow,
and
it's
not
that
it's
not
an
appropriate
way
to
to
help
get
affordable
housing
since
employment
tends
to
create
the
need
for
affordable
housing,
which
is
the
whole
premise.
However,
if
the
community
is
trying
to
compete
against
local
other
communities
for
these
commercial
Enterprises
and
it's
just
one
more
cost
burden,
that's
a
policy
objective
to
be
considered
and
that's
the
policy
objective
of
the
council
considered.
I
And
so,
if
you
look
at
this
this
chart
here,
we
we
did
this
whole
study
and
and
the
the
allowable
fee
is
dramatically
higher
than
dramatically
higher
than
this.
But
then
the
financially
feasible
fee
is
dramatically
lower
than
the
allowable.
The
Nexus
is
how
much
affordable
housing
need
is
created
by
commercial
development,
and
it's
this
much,
but
the
financially
feasible
fees
this
much
and
so
what
ended
up
happening
is
we
really
did
come
to
the
conclusion
that
five
dollars
was
the
maximum.
I
H
You
Kathy
I
would
just
like
to
add.
You
know
as
part
of
the
recommendation
did,
staff
did
recommend
because
out
of
the
five
categories,
only
the
industrial
actually
had
a
reasonable
rate
of
return,
but
in
turn
the
council
elected
not
to
apply
it
just
to
one
non-residential
land
use
designation,
they
didn't
foresee
it
being
kind
of
a
viable
source
and
of
itself
and
just
for
a
perspective
when
they
originally
set
the
fee.
All
the
others
had
a
fee
except
industrial.
So.
H
So
with
that
now,
I
would
just
like
to
kind
of
really
kind
of
go
over
the
components
of
the
the
ordinance
Amendment.
That's
before
you
and,
as
you
know,
stated
in
the
title,
the
chapter
10,
you
know,
encompasses
a
lot
of
aspects
that
are
somewhat
interrelated,
but
article
one
really
sets
the
definition.
So
part
of
the
ordinance
before
you
tonight
has
definitions
that
have
been
revised
to
reflect
the
current
terms
of
the
inclusionary
housing
program
and
then
also
eliminated
some
older
terms
that
are
really
not
applicable
article.
H
Two
there
was
just
some
slight
rewarding
for
the
purpose
and
the
use
the
monies
of
the
fund.
The
language
is
now
amended
to
prioritize
construction.
The
fund
still
has
the
ability
to
do
that:
preservation
and
Rehabilitation,
but
the
the
intent
behind
the
fund
Now
is
really
for
the
production
of
housing.
So,
in
the
event
that
production
of
housing
is
infeasible,
then
yeah
money
could
be
used
for
Rehab,
but
that
is
obviously,
as
we
just
stated,
not
the
priority
of
the
inclusionary
housing
program.
So
that's
just
some
language
amendments
there.
H
Then
you
get
to
the
inclusionary
housing
program
itself.
You
know
purpose
intent.
Basically,
with
revised
intent
statements
and
also
removed
any
of
the
findings
which
were
based
on
the
old
study
from
2009,
also,
obviously,
the
applicability
that
we
talked
about
the
10
unit
threshold,
the
percentages
and
how
in-lu
fees
can
be
paid
and
then
there's
also
revised
standards
or
just
to
say,
updated
standards
for
the
inclusionary
units
themselves.
H
The
exception
for
off-site
production,
timing
of
construction,
concurrent
with
the
market
rates,
as
well
as
access
to
the
same
common
amenities
that
the
rest
of
the
units
have
the
alternative
compliance
procedures.
Basically,
it
outlines
just
what
Kathy
went
over
as
far
as
the
recommendation
before
you
in
terms
of
the
application
of
the
in-lu
fees,
production
of
the
rental
inclusionary
units
as
part
of
ownership
development.
H
That's
that
on-site
parcelization
and
then
the
very
lengthy
criteria
required
for
the
council's
consideration
for
any
kind
of
land
dedication
in
terms
of,
and
then
you
have
a
section
five
which
includes
inclusionary
housing.
Incentives
that
incentive
in
there
is
basically
just
consistent
with
density
bonus
law,
for
example,
if
you
were
to
look
at
density
bonus
law,
a
project
that
provides
a
10
low
income
amount
of
affordability
would
be
allowed
one
incentive
under
density
bonus
law.
You
don't
actually
have
to
build
a
density
bonus
project.
H
But
if
you
are
a
qualifying
project,
you
can
meet
those
incentives
and
that's
actually
it's
not
a
very
common
practice,
but
it
is
something
that
jurisdictions
do.
You
may
have
a
project
come
in
and
they
will
use
the
density
bonus
law
if
they
provide
that
requisite
amount
of
affordability.
So
that's
the
one
incentive
that
we
included
as
part
of
the
inclusionary
housing
program
which,
for
the
most
part,
is
already
Allowed
by
state
law.
H
H
H
As
we
go
forward
to
the
city
council,
there
will
be
a
resolution
essentially
resetting
the
fee
at
zero,
but
it's
based
on
the
findings
of
the
Nexus
study
that
we
just
discussed
and
then
article
6
is
really
compliance
procedures
as
far
as
because
before
there
was
only
the
on-site
production,
so
the
various
options
that
are
allowed
under
the
inclusionary
program.
There's
compliance
procedures
amended
for
that,
as
well
as
some
additional
Recreation
requirements
whenever
there's
an
affordable
housing
agreement,
so
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
go
over
those
components.
H
You
know,
as
far
as
the
project
as
a
whole
meets
the
General
plan
goal.
You
know
to
develop
a
divisional
tools
enabling
commercial
industrial,
in
this
case
residential
development,
for
an
efficient
in
a
compatible
Manner,
and
then
we
also
have
the
housing
policy
to
provide
a
balanced
range
of
housing
for
the
planning
area
residents
regardless
of
age
and
income
and
variety
other
factors.
H
As
mentioned
before
the
housing
element
goal,
one
provides
a
wide
range
of
housing
opportunities
for
persons
of
all
income
levels
under
program.
Six,
there's
that,
as
mentioned
before,
the
objective
and
time
frame
of
updating
the
in-lu
fee
and
the
linkage
fee
by
2024.,
so
we're
on
a
path
to
meet
that
goal.
H
It
was
just
kind
of
brought
to
our
attention
as
we're
looking
at
it
under
part,
five
of
section
of
the
ordinance,
which
is
page
five,
the
ordinance
section,
9-10.303
reads:
A
and
E
of
the
Thousand
Oaks
Municipal
Code
is
amended
to
read
as
follows.
What
we'll
add
to
that
is,
and
the
deleting
deletion
of
section
f.
H
B
J
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
very
much.
Mr
Olden
Mr
said
for
going
through
this
process.
Again,
it's
funny.
I
I
went
to
the
Planning
Commission
meeting
six
years
ago,
where
we
first
started
just
talking
about
this.
So
this
is
a
an
amazing
fee
to
finally
get
it
before
us
all.
On
top
of
the
general
plan,
because
again,
you
guys
apparently
want
to
do
as
much
work
as
possible
in
terms
of
dealing
with
things.
J
I
had
some
clarifying
questions
from
my
own
thought
process
and
again
you
guys
have
been
living
with
this,
but
I
just
kind
of
want
to
understand
some
some
basic
things
again.
Looking
at
how
practical
things
may
come
out
kind
of
going
in
reverse
order
as
to
the
extreme
hardship
issue,
I
know
that
there
may
be
a
test
or,
however,
that
process
who
decides
that
it's
an
extreme
hardship
or
not.
J
H
Mean
I
I
think
I
mean
typically
that
I
would
assume
that
that
would
occur
during
the
entitlement
review
process,
or
is
that
in
advance
so
I
think
typically
like?
If
you
we
had
a
project
with
the
inclusionary
housing
component
or
they
were
saying
that
they
couldn't
comply
with
it
because
of
this
I
think
that
would
be
a
consideration
that
would
go
through
the
decision-making
process.
So
if
it
was,
you
know,
a
land
use
entitlement
that
was
already
slated
to
go
to
Planning,
Commission
I
would
think.
K
This
is
a
issue
that
we've
been
looking
at
because
it
is
we,
as
Ms
had
stated
earlier.
A
lot
of
jurisdictions
literally
have
a
very
short
definition
of
what
this
means:
extreme
hardship,
because
the
whole
point
is
okay:
what's
what
are
the
rules
right?
And
so,
when
we
looked
at
this-
and
this
had
came
up
with
a
definition,
I
think
it's
going
to
be
depending
on
what
the
circumstance
is.
K
If
it's
going
to
be
an
application
that
goes
to
Planning
Commission,
it
would
probably
be
a
recommendation
because,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
think
it's
city
council
has
make
that
policy
decision,
that
it
meets
the
extreme
hardship
at
the
end
of
the
day.
So
I
think
it
would
be
one
of
those
situations
where
you
have
a
decision
marking
process,
and
sometimes
you
make
the
decision
as
the
Planning
Commission
body,
and
sometimes
it
has
to
be
a
recommendation
to
council,
and
so
that's
I.
K
Think
as
I
see
this
happening,
I
think
that's
what's
going
to
happen.
It
just
depends
if
it's
a
specific
application.
Just
for
that
then
be
just
going
directly
to
city
council.
If
it's
going
to
be
an
application
as
part
of
a
a
a
a
development
project
in
which
they
are
going
to
ask
for
that
specific
type
of
request,
then
it
would
probably
go
through
Planning
Commission
with
a
recommendation.
The
city
council,
because.
J
K
It's
a
very
interesting
topic
because
we've
already
discussed
it
internally,
just
because
it
is
just
not
clear
right
and
and
that's
what
happens,
but
we
have.
For
example,
let's
give
you
the
example
and
Ms
had
mentioned
a
little
bit
in
her
report
is
the
city
of
San
Jose
case
that
came
out
a
few
years
ago
in
2015
and
then
a
couple
of
cases
later,
a
couple
years
later,
we
had
another
case
and
these
cases
are
defining
some
of
these
circumstances
right
and
so
you're,
starting
to
get
a
a
an
idea.
K
That's
why
we're
very
careful
with
the
balancing
to
ensure
that
we
can
lay
a
a
strong
defense
in
our
numbers
if
we
get
attacked
based
upon
all
the
history,
you
have
the
case
law,
and
so
that's
why
we
are
conservative
with
this
range
that
we're
we're
going
through,
but
again
it
becomes
boy.
A
case
came
out
that
really
helps
us
or
helps
understand
the
situation.
K
For
example,
the
other
comment
that
Miss
had
brought
up
was
a
case
in
which
they
clearly
established
that,
if
you
do
a
density
bonus,
those
affordable
units
apply
to
the
inclusionary
housing
right.
That
is
now
a
case
that
says
that
so
most
jurisdictions,
I
believe
him
is
said,
can
correct
me
from
I
think
most
jurisdictions
interpreted
it
that
way,
but
I
think
we.
We
now
have
a
case
that
clearly
says
that's
what
it
is
right.
K
So
those
are
just
examples,
though
you
might
have,
as
time
goes
on
when
we
have
these,
especially
in
today's
world,
with
California
and
the
housing
crisis,
that
we
have,
that
those
are
going
to
be
some
of
the
things
that
are
challenged
right
again.
We're
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
balance
the
ability
for
a
developer
to
come
in
here
and
do
it
and
build
it
right,
but
also
get
the
benefits
of
either
a
density
bonus
or
to
again
pay.
What
we
think
is
there
a
fair
share
for
affordable.
J
K
Know
window
to
fill
right,
and
so
we
can
say
you
know
a
taking
or
something.
You
know
some
large
kind
of
broad
kind
of
concept
like
that,
but
again
I
think
we
left
it
broad
on
purpose,
because
I
think
there's
going
to
be
some
development
as
cases
come
along
in
the
next
few
years
that
are
going
to
help
us
pinpoint.
Okay,
here
are
some
of
the
factors
that
we
have
to
rely
upon
and
then,
if
we
are
factors
that
we
we
see,
we
don't
have.
Then
we
put
those
into
our
system.
Okay,.
J
That
sounds
good
going
back
and
again,
this
is
I'm
picking
and
choosing
things
here.
The
in-lu
fee
issue
as
to
Apartments,
I.
Think
and
again
you
said,
and
it's
here
it's
based
upon
the
the
leasable
area.
That's
what
it
says
here.
I
think
you
kind
of
made
a
reference
to
the
you
just
take
the
overall
square
footage
of
the
building
and
you
divide
it.
What's.
I
J
Is
fantastic?
That's
what
I'm
looking
for,
speaking
of
which
and
again
kind
of
going
on
with
Mr
Hero
was
talking
about
to
kind
of
make
it
and
again,
if
I'm,
giving
a
hypothetical
it's
difficult.
But
the
double
counting
thing
of
what
we
were
just
talking
about
is
a
possible
Give,
an
example
say,
for
instance,
a
50
unit
apartment
building
is
going
to
be
built
and
they
want
to
take
advantage
of
both
the
density,
bonus
and
obviously
comply
with
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance.
How
many
units
would
that
ultimately
then
mean
that
they
were
able
to
build?
J
L
I
Okay,
so
if
you
have
a
project
that
by
zoning
can
allow
a
hundred
units
right,
then
by
the
inclusionary
housing
requirement,
that's
been
recommended,
you
would
have
10
low-income
units
in
90
market
rate
units.
Now
your
developer
comes
and
says
that's
great,
but
I
want
to
use
density,
bonus
and
so
I
want
to
use
density
bonus
and
get
to
150
units
because
you
can
get
the
maximum
density
bonus.
You
can
get
is
50
units
to
do
that.
I
J
Okay,
so
that's
how
it's
not
like
they're
building
an
extra
25
right.
So
that's
why
I
want
to
make
sure
that
was
clear,
because
that
seemed
to
be
double
counting
and
whose
favor
I
guess
is
the
question
it's
in
the
developer's
space.
That's
what
I
want
to
make
sure
it
was
clear:
okay,
the
the
the
ordinance
that,
if
it
kind
of,
goes
through
and
gets
passed,
it's
not
retroactive,
meaning
that
it
doesn't
apply
to
any
application.
That's
already
been
approved,
I'm
assuming.
H
That
is
correct
and
how
the
in
lieu
fee
is
set,
and
it
actually
continues
in
the
ordinances
it's
prior
to
approval.
So,
even
if
a
during
its
review,
like
the
application
of
the
fee,
the
inclusionary
housing
ordinance,
you
would
have
to
have
an
approved
project,
but
if
someone
were
to
elect
to
do
a
fee
currently
it
would
have
to
be.
H
Is
basically
the
statutory
requirement
within
30
days
of
a
review?
Well,
that
is
the
minimum
amount
of
time
that
we
have
to
review
basically
an
apple,
an
application
that
has
met
all
our
submittal
requirements
and
basically
has
provided
complete
information
for
full
evaluation
of
the
project.
Okay,.
H
J
So
it's
when
it
satisfied
the
city's
requirements.
It
sounds
like
in
terms
of
the
submission
of
all
the
information.
Okay,
I
just
want
to
again
trying
to
make
sure
that
it's
clear
in
terms
of
how
that
process
would
go.
I
think
that's
my
three
questions.
So
I
will
abdicate
the
rest
of
my
time
and
let
other
people
ask.
M
Don't
have
a
question
but
I
want
to
say
thank
you
for
a
ridiculously
thoughtful
analysis.
You
know.
That's
that's
something.
I
think
we
do
so
well
in
this
city
is,
is
provide
that
balance,
which
you
don't
see
in
a
lot
of
other
cities,
I
mean
where
you
said
it's
a
balancing
act.
We
we
take
the
unfettered
production
numbers
and
we
incrementally
add
in
the
inclusionary
housing
and
that
really
stood
out
to
me.
The
fact
that
you
are
incentivizing
there's
balance
that
you're
giving
alternative
compliance
procedures.
K
K
I
think
I
understand
what
you're
saying
I
I'll
check
I
again.
This
is
a
recommendation
to
city
council
tonight,
so
we
will
definitely
work
on
that
to
see
if
we
need
to
have
clarify
that
in
any
more
detail.
I'm
pretty
sure,
though,
that
we
would
consider
the
city
council
being
the
decision-making
body
for
that
issue,
but
I'd
have
to
look
at
it
a
little
bit
more
closely.
K
Correct,
but
sometimes
as
I
was
trying
to
explain,
maybe
I
just
did
a
board
job,
but
is
we
have
some
cases
that
come
before
you,
but
because
of,
for
example,
General
plan
Amendment?
It
goes
to
city
council
at
the
whole,
so
your
decision
is
a
recommendation
and
that's
how
I
was
envisioning.
This
would
be
a
recommendation
to
city
council.
If
that
was
one
of
the
elements
Again
part
of
it
is
to
who
can
make
the
final
decision
on
whatever
subject
it
is.
G
K
G
G
Thank
you
that
takes
care
of
that
one
question
I
did
have
I
just
want
to
double
check
in
the
presentation.
There
was
a
little
bit
of
confusion
as
I
was
reading
it
about
this
particular
area.
In
some
cases,
20
or
fewer
units
has
the
units
20
or
more
could
do
the
extreme
hardship,
I
believe
the
ordinance
allows
for
20
or
fewer
to
be
the
in
lieu,
but
above
20.
G
H
G
Fee,
okay,
Clarity
on
that
that
was
that
was
helpful.
Thank
you.
I
did
get
the
benefit
of
seeing
your
presentation
on
YouTube
from
February.
That's
give
credit
to
the
staff
of
making
all
videos
and
Records
just
publicly
available
and
and
chastise
you
all
for
making
Geeks
like
me
having
to
like
view
all
these
things,
so
I
can
get
it,
but
I
was
able
to
see
the
presentation
and
there
were
some.
There
were
some
things
in
the
the
other
presentation.
Weren't
necessarily
here
and
I
tried
to
get
an
understanding
of
like
the
owner.
G
G
If
it's
sold
at
a
lower
price,
when
it
is
first
sold
by
that
owner,
I
thought
in
the
previous
presentation
you
were
talking
about
someone,
there
was
a
payback
of
potential
Equity
back
to
the
city.
Can
you
go
into
a
little
bit
more
detail
there
because
it's
it's
almost
not
as
if
they
buy
it
at
220
and
they
sell
it
at
a
million.
They
get
the
balance
right.
I
They
will
have
built
up
some
principal
on
their
first
trusteed
mortgage
conceivably,
the
affordable
price
will
have
gone
up
a
little,
but
not
necessarily
again,
because
we
went
through
10
years
of
interest
rates
at
three
percent,
now
we're
at
seven
percent,
so
the
affordable
prices
today
are
dramatically
lower
than
the
affordable
prices
were
in
2020.,
and
so
because
that
homeowner
has
to
sell
at
the
then
current
affordable
price,
there's
very
little
chance
for
upside.
The
reason
to
do
this
is
a
45-year
covenant
where
that
happens
is
to
maintain
the
affordable
unit
in
the
inventory.
I
Having
said
that,
so
that's
the
recommendation.
The
other
way
to
do
it,
which
is
also
commonly
done,
is
to
say
okay,
so
the
original
of-
let's
just
say
it
was
a
million
dollar
house.
Well,
let's
not
say
that.
Let's
say
it
was
a
900
000
house
and
the
affordable
price
is
500
000.
right.
So
then
effectively
the
developer
subsidized
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
right,
but
the
developer
just
had
to
eat
that.
I
That's
just
that
was
the
impact
of
the
inclusionary
requirement
that
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
becomes
a
loan
payable
to
the
city
when
that
home
is
resolded,
an
unrestricted
market
rate
price.
In
addition
to
that,
so
in
addition
to
that
four
hundred
thousand
dollars-
let's
just
now
say
well-
I,
don't
know
what
four
of
nine
was,
but
anyway,
whatever
that
percentage
is
of
the
original
900
000
price,
it's
close
to
fifty
percent
so
say
forty
percent
is.
I
I
Okay,
so
that
being
240
000,
so
it'd
be
the
400
000
plus
the
240
000
would
be
repaid
to
the
city
for
something
they
didn't
spend
money
on,
but
they
lost
their
affordable
unit.
You
lost
your
affordable
unit,
so
you
would,
at
that
point,
have
six
hundred
and
forty
thousand
dollars
to
use
for
an
affordable
housing
purpose.
You
couldn't
replace
that
unit,
because
that
unit
now
cost
a
million
and
a
half
dollars,
and
you
only
had
640.
they
have
and
the
affordable
price
didn't
go
up
that
much.
G
G
Is
it
was
an
interesting
discussion
because
I
think
I
caught
the
first
part
of
it,
which
was
you
described
the
whole
like
Equity,
sharing
part
of
that,
but
it
helped
me
understand
a
little
bit
about
just
the
nature
of
making
sure
there
are
units
available
in
the
end
of
tour,
because
you
end
up
getting
this
loss
of
the
unit
once
in
that
particular
case,
but
that's
not
what's
being
recommended
for
our
ordinance.
Is
that
correct?
That's
correct!
Okay,
that's
really
helpful.
Thank
you
for
walking
through
that.
G
Again,
I
will
try
just
one
more
question,
and
so
it's
my
three
and
then
we'll
or
if
I'm
counting
it
might
be.
Four
I,
don't
know
yeah
three:
exactly
can
you
describe
for
the
10
unit
threshold
that
we
have?
It
was
stated
I,
think
in
the
in
the
presentation,
but
also
in
the
report
that
that
was
sort
of
the
minimum
number
where
you'll
get
a
whole
unit.
That's
correct,
for
that.
Were
there
any
other
specific
findings
for
why
that
was
the
particular
recommendation
for
the
threshold
no
Okay.
G
The
reason
I
ask
is
that
there
were.
It
was
also
highlighted
in
the
report
that,
with
a
five
percent
threshold
on
detached
single-family
homes,
you're
going
to
get
a
half
a
unit
right
at
10,
which
means
you're
going
to
have
to
use
an
in-loo
fee
for
those
anyway
and
secondly,
our
current
ordinance
has
a
threshold
of
six
right.
So
under
the
particular
structure
that
we
have
a
six
unit,
development
would
have
a
0.6
unit
requirement
and
they
would
pay
that
in
an
in-loop
fee.
G
Is
that
right,
that's
correct,
so
operationally
we
by
raising
it
to
10.
We
were
basically
taking
all
projects
that
are
infill,
that
that
we're
going
to
be
having,
as
as
part
of
maybe
smaller
units
that
maybe
six
to
nine
units,
and
they
would
have
no
obligation
under
the
recommended
ordinance-
is
that
right.
I
That's
correct,
but
the
other
thing
to
keep
in
mind
is
the
suggestion
is
given
that
that
even
that
0.6
requirement
or
that
0.5
requirement,
if
the
in-lu
fee
is
the
full
50
of
the
affordability
Gap,
it
starts
to
be
a
burden
on.
On
the
you
know,
that's
you're
going
to
start
getting
into
the
financial
hardship
question
because
that
impact
on
the
small
project,
the
the
Intensive
fairly
arbitrary
number,
but
the
small
number
of
units
is
any
restriction
on
those
starts
to
become
a
hardship
and
so
using
a
conservative
approach.
We
started
at
10.
B
F
You
chair
and
thank
you
both
for
the
presentation.
This
is
a
follow-up
question,
so
it
doesn't
count
toward
my
three
I
mentioned
that
in
some
cases
there
would
be
a
downside
potentially
if
there
was
an
affordable
unit
at
lower
interest
rates
that
had
a
higher
sale
price
and
then
potentially
at
increased
interest
rates.
That
would
be
a
lower
sale
price.
Does
the
seller
then
have
to
eat
that
downside?
Yes,.
I
And
I
think
that's
always
important
to
note
honestly
because
everybody,
especially
through
the
2010
to
2020
everything
was
great,
but
you
know
eventually
and
and
Ventura
County
tends
to
have
a
pretty
good
appreciation
in
area
median
income.
So
it's
less
likely
than
say
Los
Angeles
County,
which
tends
to
be
pretty
stable.
But
when
somebody
buys
an
affordable
house
with
an
irrevocable
Covenant,
they
are
absolutely
taking
that
downside
risk.
So.
F
F
I
F
And
then,
this
question
is
probably
from
Mr
Holt
in
the
event
that
we
have
a
development
that,
especially
in
this
climate,
where
interest
rates
are
outrageous,
we're
not
seeing
things
that
we've
approved
then
be
developed
if
they
come
back
for
a
Time
extension.
Is
that
then
create
this
recommend
requirement.
H
I
believe
I
mean
that's
at
the
discretion,
I
mean
time.
Extensions
are
typically
handled
administratively,
it's
different.
When
you
have
like
a
Subdivision
map,
then
you
actually
bring
the
subdivision
map
back
and
I.
Think
in
those
cases.
Typically,
you
can.
If
there
are
new
fees
or
new
rules,
you
can
apply
it
at
that
point,
but
in
terms
of
other
entitlements,
I'm
I
don't
know.
I
might
defer
to
our
attorney
on
that.
K
Yeah
I
was
going
to
say,
I
think
we
go
to
the
entitlement
aspect
of
it
and
if
it's
an
entitled
project,
then
the
extension
is
not
changing
the
entitlement
aspect
of
it.
It's
when
it
goes
into
some
other
type
of
major
change
to
the
project
in
which
they
have
to
bring
a
development
permit
back.
That
would
be
something
in
which
to
maybe
it's
back
on
the
table.
G
I
I
do
have
some
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
commission
had
the
ability
to
exhaust
others,
but
if
I
may
ask
a
few
more
yes
all
right.
Thank
you.
One
other
question
I
did
have
is
on
language.
Regarding
phasing
there
was
I.
Think
in
the
recommendation
is
that,
if
the
co,
if
the,
if
the
project
is
phased,
the
developer
should
pay
the
or
address
the
pro
ratashare
of
doing
that.
The
language
to
me
felt
a
little
loose
on
the
ability,
potentially
for
the
developer,
to
says
it.
G
Item
C,
yes,
part
C,
so
inclusionary
units
shall
be
constructed
and
occupied
concurrently
with
or
prior
to
the
construction
and
occupancy
of
market
rate
units
in
Phase
developments.
Inclusionary
units
may
be
constructed
and
occupied
in
proportion
to
the
number
of
dwelling
units
in
each
phase
of
the
development.
I
Okay,
so
the
the
default
is
you
provide
all
your
units
concurrently
with
construction
of
the
project?
Then,
if
it's
phased,
so
that's
still
the
that's
still.
The
basic
premise
was
that
you
provide
all
the
units
if
it's
phased
you're,
given
the
opportunity
to
produce
the
affordable
units
in
proportion
to
each
phase,
there's
no
story
in
any
of
those
where
they
could
be
anything
other
than
either
all
at
once
or
proportionate
in
each
phase
are.
G
H
No
I
don't
want
to
contradict
you.
I
just
want
to
add
a
bit
of
clarification
because
the
language
to
say
may
be
constructed
and
occupied
in
proportion.
I
mean
so
I
mean
it
comes
back
to
that
point
that
there
is
a
proportionate
amount
of
affordability
being
built
to
measure
it
with
the
market
rate.
Yeah
and
I
mean,
as
you
know,
to
what
degree
do
they
deviate
from
that
I
think
that's
well
I
mean
if
it
is.
G
I
just
want
to
make
sure
like
I'm
on
100
agreement
to
do
they
should
front
load
it
or
do
it
at
the
same
Pace
as
the
phasing
I
just
want
to
make
sure
just
the
language
ensure
that
that
is
in
fact,
what
will
happen
versus
some
creative
interpretation
phase.
Three
has
a
little
bit
more
of
the
inclusionary
units.
They
just
don't
happen
to
do
phase
three.
I
I
A
G
I
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
understanding
you,
because
this
is
actually
language
that
came
out
of
projects
this
year,
but
also
in
other
cities
that
came
out
of
projects
that
provided
say
it
was
100
units
provided
all
10
and
phase
one
and
then
just
financially
couldn't
do
the
rest
of
the
project.
That
was
never
the
intent
because
they
didn't
build
100
units,
so
they
got
more
inclusionary
units
than
they
were
owed
under
the
policy
and
developers
got
really
kind
of
ticked
off
about
that.
G
Yeah,
if
it
turns
out
that
that
our
legal
department
feels
that
there
is
no,
that
you
know
they're,
either
going
to
get
front
loaded
or
proportional
in
the
phasing
and
the
language
supports
that
that's
fine
I'm
bringing
that
up
because
I
read
it
and
I'm
like
oh
okay,
but
I,
don't
want
it
to
be
backloaded
and
not
not
happen.
That's
the
reason
so
I.
K
Understand
so
cheer
for
me,
I
I
am
looking
at
it
and
I
think
we're
okay
in
the
sense
of
it
does
say:
pareta,
it's,
let's
say
for
each
phase
development,
so
I
think
the
may
actually
is
they
can
pay
all
at
one
time
or
they
may
have
it
or
they
want
to
do
it
by
the
phasing
which
would
probably
make
sense
for
them.
But
I
think
as
far
as
the
requirement
that
we
there
are
going
to
do
it
for
each
section
or
each
phase,
I
should
say
I
think
we're
good
I.
F
K
Right
I
mean
I
think
they
have
that
obligation
to
do
it
period
so
for
each
phase
they're
going
to
have
to
meet
their
requirements
or
pay
the
inlet
fee
to
meet
that
requirement.
So
I
think
for
each
phase.
I
think
we're
going
to
be
satisfied
with
they're
going
to
have
to
do
what
they
have
to
do
to
meet
the
requirements.
So
I
think
the
language
is
good,
I
think
with
the
when
you
read
it
as
a
whole
and
the
totality
of
it
I
think
we
have
a
solid
ordinance
as
far
as
that
concern.
H
If
I
may
add
in
the
section
above
that
regarding
the
location
emphasizes
that
the
inclusionary
unit
shall
be
equally
distributed
throughout
the
residential
development
and
not
clustered
in
any
particular
area,
so
you
use
that
in
combination
with
the
timing.
So,
if
you're
doing
a
phased
project,
it
kind
of
reinforces
that
kind
of
equal
distribution
per
phase.
If,
let's
just
say,
all
phases
are
created
equal,
so.
G
I
do
in
the
while
it
wasn't.
We
didn't
go
into
detail
here
with
respect
to
the
the
financials
financial
analysis
for
the
non-residential
linkage
fees,
I
did
catch
the
overview
of
what
the
expected
rate
of
returns
were
and
what
were
used
as
a
sort
of
assuming
no
linkage
fee
what
would
be
zero
and
what
the
impact
of
that
would
be.
The
incremental
impact
of
that
would
be
if
we
had
a
five
dollar
per
square
foot
indication
there
and
in
that
one
the
each
of
the
standard.
G
Five
that
we
were
looking
at
had
a
rate
of
return.
It
was
upwards
of
between
five
or
seven
percent.
Only
in
the
industrial
was
the
threshold
set
to
where
that
anticipated
rate
of
return
was
higher
than
whatever
the
threshold
was.
Those
thresholds
were
like
eight
or
nine
percent,
and
so,
if
they
don't
reach
eight
or
nine
percent,
we're
going
to
say
well,
they
it's
not
a
fair
rate
of
return.
The
incremental
edition
of
a
five
dollar
fee
was
only
.06
to
0.29
percent
on
the
return.
G
I
G
Yeah,
it
didn't
work
in
the
first
place
right,
so
one
one
thing
I
worry
about
here
is
that
I
understand.
Council
has
made
that
direction.
They've
heard
the
same
information
they've
provided
the
direction,
but
that's
due
to
the
economic
factors
at
the
time
that
we
chose
that
the
study
was
conducted,
correct
correct,
and
this
is
a
program
that
is
going
to
have
an
effect
on
two
things:
one
changing
economic
environment
and
two
we're
about
to
update
our
general
plan.
That
has
a
whole
slew
of
a
different.
G
I
Think
that's
a
fair
interpretation,
but
what
I'd
also
say
in
both
the
inclusionary
and
in
the
linkage
fee
analysis
they're
a
point
in
time:
analysis
as
economic
conditions
change.
You
should
always
re-look
at
these
things
and
so
for
if
suddenly,
all
commercial
development
became
crazy,
you
know
viable,
then
you
could
look
at
it
again
and
then
you
could
just
amend
because
you
didn't
eliminate
the
linkage
fee.
You
set
it
at
zero
yep
and
so
that's
the
same
thing
with
the
inclusionary.
G
If
an
application,
let's
say
the
ordinance
is
approved
and
it
goes
into
effect
and
and
Council
keeps
the
policy
at
zero
and
an
application
comes
through
and
they
are
looking
at
it
and
they
are.
When
are
they
subject
to
the
non-residential
linkage
fee
as
long
as
it's
prior
to
the
application
being
complete
is
or
do
they
look
at
it
and
go?
You
know,
I'm
non-residential
I'm
going
to
pay
zero.
That's
my
option
correct.
H
I
mean
because
I
mean
if
the
fee
is
set
at
zero.
Basically,
the
program
doesn't
function,
it's
just
still
the
the
the
bones
of
it
are
still
there
in
the
code,
because
I
mean
based
on
the
council's
direction.
They
didn't
want
to
apply
it
fee
at
this
point
in
time.
That
tool
is
still
available.
If
the
economics
change
and
in
a
few
years
or
five-year
threshold,
you
know,
there's
a
study
that
goes
out
there
and
demonstrates
that
they
can.
Then
they
can
reenact
that
fee
via
resolution
and
set.
H
G
K
Right
and
I
would
say
that
with
in
reality,
trust
me
in
the
discussions
I've
had
with
numerous
developers
and
stuff.
They
are
well
aware
of
where,
where
the
city
council
is
moving
as
far
as
certain
things
and
I
I
think
they're
going
to
have
their
their
eye
on
that.
If,
if
counsel
is
going
to
be
start
starting
to
make
a
a
move
towards
evaluating
and
making
a
decision
on,
that,
I
certainly
think
that
this
could
be
sometimes
could
be
public
knowledge
that
they
will.
Okay
yeah
thanks,
move
on.
G
One
last
question
that
I
had
on
there.
The
definitions
that
we
have
here
deal
with
residential
developments
and
non-residential
developments
and
I
had
a
question
about
a
mixed-use
development
based
upon
what
generally
comes
up.
Usually
there's
some
commercial
plus
residential
and
based
on
the
definitions
that
I
saw
it
looked
to
me
like
a
mixed
use
could
be
counted
as
either.
I
G
I
K
I
I
know
it's
a
great
question:
I
I
mean
I
I,
actually
think
that
it
it's
a
residential
development
and,
if
it's
not
to
say
non-residential
development
and
therefore
both
of
them
would
apply
as
Miss.
He
just
mentioned.
Miss
had
just
mentioned
to
your
point,
though
I
think
we
can
look
at
that
as
far
as
if
we
want
to
entertain,
adding
that
again
I
when
I
looked
at
it,
I
I
thought
no,
we
have
residential,
we
have
non-residential.
Those
are
defined.
K
K
I
understand,
I,
just
I
think
I
actually
think
we're
good
in
the
ordinance
as
it
is
because
I
think
it's
either
one
or
the
other
and
you're
getting
application
you're
getting
a
development
for
those
things.
However,
you
know
we
don't
want
to
have
to
deal
with
a
surprise
when
someone
says
wait,
I
didn't
get
I
have
to
pay
both
right.
B
B
O
B
B
I
H
H
J
A
N
N
K
You've
provided-
and
we
really
appreciate
you,
provided
some
great
input,
and
so
we
would
take
those
comments
and
then
say:
okay,
we're
going
to
look
at
it
a
little
bit
more
thoroughly
as
we
get
ready
for
city
council
and
if
those
changes
are
made,
we
would
say
based
on
the
recommendation
of
Planning
Commission,
where
we're
suggesting
or
recommending
this
is
such
a
change.
Okay,.
K
J
Really
thought
commissioner
link
was
going
to
step
up
there,
but
okay
I
am
beyond
thrilled
that
something
we
have
talked
about
for
so
long
is
before
us
and
we
get
to
actually
kind
of
go
through
a
process
and
I
cannot
thank
you.
Mr
Holt,
For,
All,
You've,
Done,
Miss,
head
for
all,
putting
it
together
in
the
staff
for
a
lot
of
hard
work
that
went
into
making
sure
this
process
kind
of
came
together.
J
Commissioner
ferris's
comment
about
the
linkage
fee,
I
think
I,
like
it
being
set
at
zero,
now
I
think
it
sets
a
mindset
kind
of
like
the
same
as
our
sales
tax
being
the
lowest
in
the
county.
That
sounds
great.
Having
no
linkage
fees
creates
an
opportunity
in
the
minds
of
potential
owners,
whether
or
not
it's
a
material
or
substantive
issue.
That's
another
thing,
but
I
think
it's
a
positive
thing
in
terms
of
trying
to
appeal
to
businesses,
especially
biotech
and
other
businesses
that
we
have.
We
want
to
come
into
the
city.
J
So
again
it
was
a
very
detailed
process.
It
was
a
lot
of
reading
for
all
of
us
to
do
on
a
very
short
term
basis,
but
I
I
loved
what
I
was
reading
in
terms
of
trying
to
create
the
opportunities,
a
thing
again
that
was
so
important
to
our
city,
so
important
to
the
city,
council
and
again,
I
am
I'm
very
happy
to
be
able
to
make
this
motion
again
with
the
recommendation.
G
You
I
I
will
ultimately
be
supporting
the
ordinance
recommendation,
but
I
do
want
to
have
some
comments
about
it,
which
are
not
in
our
purview.
They
are
to
have
those
in
The
Ether,
potentially
listening.
Could
they
Lobby
the
council
to
do
better
in
my
view,
but
I
do
want
to
offer.
As
an
amendment
to
the
motion
which
my
my
we
may
very
well
vote
down,
but
I
really
believe
that
the
threshold
should
still
be
six
I
think
that
there
are
a
number
of
infill
projects
that
are
going
to
be
comp.
G
The
state
of
the
city
is
one
in
which
more
and
more
development
will
occur
in
an
infill
relationship
and
I
think
that
there
are
a
variety
of
smaller
lots
that
will
result
in
six
to
nine
units
that
I
think
are
worthy
of
contributing
to
the
inclusionary
housing
format.
The
way
the
ordinance
is
structured
is
that
they
would
pay
an
in-lu
fee.
It
would
not
be
required
to
end
up
doing
it.
B
K
So
I
I,
don't
mind
having
recommendations
to
say
certain
things,
but
as
far
as
the
motion
is
concerned,
I
think
we're
getting
to
a
point
where
we're
going
beyond
what
your
obligations
are
as
far
as
changes
again:
I
I,
if
you're
saying
it
as
a
motion
to
say
that
it's
going
to
be
another
part
that
we
want
to
recommend
as
a
comment
to
it.
I
think
I
think
you're,
okay,
but
as
far
as
changing
the
number
from
unless
Mr
Holden.
K
Unless
you
think
that
this
is
something
that
was
in
front
of
the
that
they
haven't
made
a
final
decision
yet.
But
to
me,
I
think
that
the
numbers
that
were
provided
to
us
were
based
upon
their
recommendations,
and
it
was
it
with
certainly
within
their
authority
to
do
that.
So
that's
where
I'm
kind
of
hesitating
on
the
motion
with
that
now
changes
a
direction
that
we
already
receive
from
Council.
On
that
point,.
B
B
J
K
Yes,
no
and
then
go
back
to
the
main
motion.
So
there's
a
request
to
amend
the
motion
and
the
vote
would
be.
The
initial
vote
would
be.
Do
you
wish
to
amend
the
motion
and
you
would
vote
on
that
first
and
then,
whatever
that
happens,
then
you
would
make
the
thing
I
think.
My
point
is
I
think
the
motion
is
concerned
about
the
motion,
but
if
you
would
do
it
that
way,
maybe
it's
simpler
to
do
it
that
way
and
then
we
can
move
on
with
the
motion.
M
M
K
Right
so
now
we're
back
to
the
motion
itself
and
again
I'm.
Not
you
know
to
me
part
of
it
is
we're
getting
Clarity
from
you
or
some
comments
from
you
about
changes
that
we
think
for
clarifying
the
ordinance
and
clarifying
things,
but
there's
some
parts
of
this,
in
which
I
think
the
council's
already
made
a
decision.
Given
it's
the
direction.
This
is
bringing
it
to
you
for
your
consideration,
but
some
of
those
elements
are
going
to
be
something
that
is
is
certainly
in
their
preview
and
I.
G
Yeah
so
under
understood
that
the
the
motion
for
the
amendment
has
failed,
but
I
I
I
disagree
with
with
the
particular
direction
that
is
being
provided
by
by
the
City
attorney.
The
reason
is,
the
direction
that
has
been
provided
by
council
is
based
upon
the
presentation
that
they
had.
It
was
after
further
study
in
seeing
the
actual
text
of
the
ordinance
in
its
effect
in
thinking
through
its
operations,
that
we
have
an
ability
to
provide
a
recommendation
back
to
council
and
I.
G
Think
it's
completely
within
our
purview
to
be
able
to
make
that
recommendation
to
language
of
an
ordinance
for
which
we
are
asked
to
make
a
recommendation.
So
I,
don't
I.
Don't
think
that
this
is
outside
the
purview.
It
is
certainly
a
discussion
of
the
commission
to
say
no.
We
don't
want
to
make
that
recommendation,
but
I
disagree
that
we
don't
that
it's
not
within
our
purview.
G
There
are
other
elements
such
as
the
fees
that
are
absolutely
not
in
our
purview
and
those
are
the
discretion
of
the
council,
but
the
one
thing
I,
the
the
comments
I
do
have
about
that
are
I-
am
concerned
that
if
we
have
an
ordinance
that
has
a
linkage
fee
and
the
council
chooses
to
set
it
to
zero,
it
is.
It
has
the
operational
effect
of
not
even
being
on
the
books,
because
there
is
no
requirement
of
anyone
to
follow
that,
and
it's
been
on
the
book.
G
Since
2008,
it's
been
zeroed
out
since
2009
zero
dollars
have
come
from
14
years
of
this
being
on
the
books.
We
are
effectively
I
I,
find
it
hard
to
believe
that
we're
meeting
a
goal
of
updating
our
linkage
fees
by
2024,
if
we're
keeping
it
exactly
the
same
and
at
zero,
so
I
think
the
ordinance
is
a
great
ordinance.
It
empowers
us
to
be
able
to
manage
the
inclusion,
the
the
inclusion
of
more
inclusionary
housing
in
our
city
as
the
city
grows
with
the
general
Plan
update,
I
I
I.
G
Don't
want
this
to
be
performative,
however,
and
I
think
the
ordinance
definitely
gives
the
city
the
opportunity
to
do
that.
I
will
vote
for
the
motion
and
support
support
that
my
hope
and
some
comments
would
be
if
there
could
be
clarification
on
the
application
for
mixed-use
development,
specifically
that
would
that
would
be
helpful,
but
other
than
that
I
will
support
the
motion.
C
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
L
Rincon
Consultants
as
part
of
our
consultant
team
working
on
the
general
Plan
update
and
they
prepared
the
draft
environmental
impact
report.
Matt
Maddox,
who
is
a
principal
with
rencon
Consultants,
is
actually
attending
via
Zoom
tonight
and
we'll
be
doing
the
presentation
so
with
that
I
will
turn
it
over
to
Matt
and
I
will
run
the
presentation
for
him.
P
P
The
purpose
of
tonight's
presentation
is
number
one
is:
is
Kristen
messenger
provide
an
overview
of
the
draft
general
plan
eir
and
also
to
inform
the
community
on
how
to
provide
feedback
during
our
public
review
process,
which
continues
for
another
two
weeks
which
we'll
get
into
some
of
the
milestones
and
dates
and
opportunities
for
additional
public
feedback
as
we
go
through
the
presentation.
A
couple
things
just
to
note
tonight
is
not
about
making
in
decisions
or
recommendations
related
to
the
draft
general
planning
IR.
P
F
P
P
General
Plan
update
pursuit
to
SQL,
the
intent
of
SQL
is
number
one
to
be
a
public
disclosure
of
the
potential
environmental
impacts
that
a
project-
in
this
case
the
general
Plan
update,
may
have
on
the
environment,
but
it's
also
intended
to
get
input
in
the
for
from
the
public
and
from
decision
makers
and
from
other
partnering
and
participating
agencies
early
on
in
the
process.
First
and
foremost,
it's
also
intended
to
minimize,
reduce
or
avoid
environmental
impacts,
and
we
analyze
projects
on
a
worst
case
scenario.
P
So
continuing
on
this
process,
where
do
we
fall
within
the
SQL
process?
This
slide
just
kind
of
demonstrates
the
entire
Arc
of
the
SQL
process
from
the
beginning,
all
the
way
to
the
end,
and
we
want
to
just
highlight
kind
of
where
we
are.
First
and
foremost,
the
process
began
back
last
June
in
2022,
when
the
city
circulated
a
notice
of
preparation.
P
Once
we
were
able
to
get
some
comments
and
and
get
further
along
in
the
general
Plan
update
process,
actually
have
draft
elements
and
draft
policies
and
a
draft
of
growth
that
we
could
anticipate
from
the
general
plan,
were
they
then
able
to
draft
eir
sections
which
is
highlighted
in
the
red?
At
that
point
in
time,
we
then
published
the
draft
eir
put
it
out
for
what's
called
a
notice
of
availability,
beginning
a
45-day
public
review.
That
is
where
we
are
right
now
in
the
process,
where
we're
day
30
of
the
45
day,
public
review.
P
We
have
two
week
two
weeks
remaining
in
that
process
and
we
wanted
to
come
before
you
and
for
the
public
today
to
disclose
some
of
those
impacts
as
a
first
step,
but
then
also
to
seek
additional
questions
or
any
comments
from
the
public
and
from
from
you
as
the
commission
tonight
when
once
that,
once
that
process
ends
that
45-day
public
review
is
completed
on
the
25th
of
September.
The
city
will
then
prepare
a
final
ER
which
will
include
a
response
to
any
comments
received
and
any
updates
or
edits
to
the
to
the
eir
analysis.
P
The
issues
or
analysis
that
we
included
as
part
of
the
environmental
review
included
all
the
issues
listed
here
and
I'm
not
going
to
read
all
of
them
off.
But
what
I
do
want
to
highlight
is
these
are
all
of
the
issues
that
are
recommended
based
on
the
SQL
guidelines
that
are
produced
by
the
state,
including
some
issues
that
may
have
no
impact,
including
mineral
resources
and
a
couple
others
that
have
less
than
significant
impacts
or
really
no
major
concern.
P
P
P
It
must
be
sorry,
it
must
be
frozen
on
the
TV
output
that
I'm
seeing
okay
I'll
continue.
Sorry
about
that,
in
terms
of
the
IR
structure,
the
the
eir
begins
with
an
introduction
providing
background
setting,
introduction
the
legal
background
of
of
the
setup
of
the
environmental
impact
report,
as
well
as
the
detailed
project
description
that
lays
out
number
one,
the
changes
that
are
anticipated
as
a
result
of
the
general
plan.
P
That's
twofold:
that's
both
the
elements
and
the
policy
changes
associated
with
the
general
Plan
update,
but
also
the
anticipated
growth
that
we
look
at
and
where
the
areas
of
potential
development
may
occur
as
a
result
of
the
general
Plan
update.
Then,
when
we
get
into
each
of
the
eir
impact
sections,
we
actually
have
a
three
a
three-tiered
setup
in
each
of
those
areas,
including
setting
the
ground
the
grounds
of
what
the
environment.
The
current
environmental
setting
is.
P
The
potential
impacts
when
implementation
of
the
general
plan
occurs
out
through
the
year
2045,
which
is
our
planning
Horizon
year,
and
then,
if
there
are
any
identified,
impacts,
what
mitigation
measures
are
necessary
to
reduce
or
to
avoid
those
impacts.
We
also
include
a
section
on
alternatives
to
the
proposed
project
and
also
analyze
other
impacts,
including
gross
growth,
inducing
impacts
and
energy.
One
thing
just
to
note
is
that
this
cir
is
a
pro
program
eir.
P
There
were
six
environmental
talks
that
were
found
to
have
no
impacts,
meaning
no
no
mitigations
necessary
as
well,
that
was
Agriculture
and
Forestry
Resources
energy
geology
and
soils
hazards
and
hazardous
materials,
hydrology
and
water
quality
and
mineral
resources.
Next
slide,
we
did
have
17
mitigation
measures
in
in
the
document
for
various
impacts,
both
for
those
that
were
potentially
significant
with
mitigation,
but
then
would
reduce,
impacts
less
significant
level,
or
there
were
some
where
mitigations
required
and
even
with
mitigation.
P
The
impact
was
not
reduced
and
I'll
share
that
on
the
next
slide,
so
mitigation
measures
included
the
following.
What
we
think
were
included
for
the
following
topics,
including
air
quality,
biological
resources,
cultural
resources,
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
noise,
paleontological
resources,
transportation
and
utilities,
and
one
thing
to
note
is
that
for
a
program,
ear
such
as
this
and
for
a
general
Plan
update
mitigation
is
a
little
bit
different
than
a
project
where
you
might
have
conditions
of
approval
on
a
project
to
do
something
during
construction
or
that
applies
operationally
for
that
project.
P
The
mitigation
measures
included
in
this
drafty
are
our
combinations.
In
some
cases
there
are
those
those
instances
where
there's
mitigation
that
would
apply
for
future
projects
that
would
be
implemented
under
the
general
plan.
That
would
have
construction
related
impacts
in
their
require
construction
mitigation
measures,
but
for
some
it
was
actually
policy
changes
or
policy
updates
to
the
actual
General
plan
itself,
such
that
the
general
planet
in
and
of
itself
is
self-mitigating
next
slide.
P
We
did
have
five
significant
unavoidable
impacts,
including
air
quality,
and
that,
as
a
result
of
cumulative
development
associated
with
the
general
Plan
update,
both
from
a
construction
and
operational
standpoint,
there
are
emissions
and
without
without
the
ability
to
predict
each
and
every
project
that
may
come
over
the
next
22
years.
Through
the
Horizon
year.
P
We
we
leaned
on
the
side
of
being
conservative
and
applied
a
significant
unavoidable
impact
for
that
cultural
resources,
because
the
project
could
potentially
cause
issues
to
Historic
resources,
even
yet
to
be
identified,
historic
resources
that
is
a
very
sensitive
topic
under
non-sequel
grounds
and
therefore
that
was
determined
to
be
significant.
Unavoidable.
Greenhouse
gas
emissions
is
an
interesting
one,
as
the
city
is
going
through
its
CF
update
process,
but
because
that
process
is
separated
from
the
general
Plan
update
and
not
included
as
part
of
this
draft
eir
and
under
its
own
separate
process.
P
Coming
later.
At
this
point
in
time,
we
can't
say
with
certainty
that
the
the
city
and
the
Gen
General
Plan
update,
would
necessarily
meet
State
requirements
for
greenhouse
gas
reductions
for
through
the
year
2030
or
2045.
I
will
say.
We've
left
some
some
notations
in
there
that
if
and
when
the
C
app
is
updated
and
identifies
a
pathway
to
achieve
that
and
if
adopted
with
and
identifies
those
that,
theoretically,
that
impact
would
be
reduced,
but
because
that's
not
happening
as
part
of
this
process,
we'll
need
to
wait
and
have
that
concluded
later.
P
So
we've
identified
it
conservatively
as
significant
amount
of
oil
from
a
noise
standpoint,
both
construction
and
at
a
couple
intersections
traffic
noise
was
a
concern,
an
exceeded
City
standards
that
we
identified
in
even
with
mitigation.
We
can't
say
with
certainty
that
the
noise
would
be
reduced
to
a
less
significant
level
and,
lastly,
Transportation
similar
to
greenhouse
gases
with
the
state
moving
away
from
level
of
service
as
a
SQL
impact
and
to
a
vehicle
miles.
Traveled
we
identified
and
and
the
city
not
yet
selecting
a
vehicle
model
travels
metric.
P
P
We
also
as
I
mentioned
before,
are
required
to
analyze,
bir
Alternatives.
As
part
of
the
process.
We
looked
at
three
Alternatives,
including
the
required
no
project
Alternatives
alternative
one
which
is
basically
identifying
what
the
continuation
of
existing
conditions.
In
this
case,
the
continuation
of
the
existing
General
plan
and
the
and
the
proposed
General
Plan
update,
would
not
be
adopted
alternative
two,
because
we
had
a
VMT
impact.
P
We
actually
looked
at
a
as
a
transportation
enhancement
of
looking
at
some
more
stringent
policies
in
a
development
framework
that
would
reduce
VMT
and
Associated
impacts
associated
with
that
Transportation,
including
impacts
to
air
quality,
noise
and
greenhouse
gas
that
we
also
identified.
And
lastly,
we
looked
at
an
enhanced
construction
regulation,
because
the
majority
of
the
impacts
that
we
looked
at
in
the
IR
were
construction
related.
We
looked
at
policies
that
would
that
would
reduce
overall
impacts
of
construction
with
stricter
regulations
prior
to
project
approval
and
doing
construction
next
slide.
P
P
P
Our
our
public
comment
period
ends
on
for
excuse
me.
Two
two
comment:
periods
earning
the
the
draft
general
plan
itself
has
been
out
for
public
review
since
June
2nd.
That
will
conclude
this
Friday
September
15th
on
comments
related
to
the
general
plan
and
then
on
Monday
September
25th
will
be
the
close
of
the
comment
period
on
the
eir
itself.
P
P
F
Mr
Maddox,
thank
you
for
your
presentation.
Just
one
comment
with
regard
to
the
transportation
impact
as
I'm
sure
you're
aware
with
SB
743
opr
does
not
require
that
Council
adopt
a
threshold
for
VMT,
but
the
city
has,
in
the
past,
used
a
threshold
of
a
zero
increase
in
VMT
for
the
projects
that
have
come
before
us
that
have
either
required
a
mnd
or
some
kind
of
environmental
document.
So
I'm
not
sure
whether
that's
the
threshold
we
should
be
using,
but
so
far
as
I
know.
It's
not
the
15
below
correct.
P
And-
and
we
have,
we
actually
include
that
as
a
discussion
as
part
of
the
methodology
in
the
in
the
document
itself
and
and
I
will
I
want
to
clarify
that
that
Pro,
that
threshold
that
has
been
being
been
used
lately
in
the
city
can
continue
to
be
used.
This
eir
does
not
override
the
city's
ability
to
select
a
project
threshold
on
a
project
by
project
basis,
but
from
a
guidance,
and
because
we
look
at
this
as
a
programmatic
and
looking
in
the
future.
P
The
15
recommendation,
while
not
set
in
stone
and
is,
is
a
recommendation
by
the
state.
We
deter
German
that
that
would
be
the
more
conservative
route
to
do
for
this
process,
and
we
have
some
guidance
in
there
and
discussion
that
the
city
is.
That
will
be
having
a
VMT
impact
study
done
following
the
adoption
of
the
general
plan,
if,
if
in
fact
it
gets
adopted
and
that
VMT
analysis
will
actually
help
determine
what
the
new
city
threshold
would
be.
O
P
That
continues
to
be
zero,
or,
if
it's
somewhere
in
between,
say
a
seven
or
eight
percent.
That
would
be
a
a
document
that
has
some
legal
analysis
behind
it,
as
well,
as
has
the
Nexus
study
to
make
that
determination
of
the
city
can
be
confident
that
that
they
are
following
SQL
guidelines
to
the
team
moving
forward.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
you
again.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation
on
on
the
on
the
environmental
document.
I
just
wanted
to
I
think
clarify,
given
the
the
alternative
that
was
entertained
but
rejected
I
think
I
might
have
made
the
recommendation.
If
you
look
at
the
letters,
I
had
provided
a
notice,
a
preparation
to
request
a
reduced
scope.
Analysis
alternative
for
this,
not
necessarily
bill
that
I.
Think
that
the
comments
in
the
eir
appropriately
making
that
Assumption
of,
if
you
just
lower
density
across
there,
we
might
not
meet
our
Arena.
G
Things
is
probably
an
appropriate
view.
Taking
the
reduced,
build
out
alternative
I
think
I
was
more
focused
on.
Could
you
just
pick
a
section
of
them
as
the
scope
with
respect
to
the
general
Plan
update?
That
said,
the
analysis
provides
analysis
for
four
different
Alternatives.
The
main
one
plus
alternative,
so
I,
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
I
did
have.
I
did
have
a
question
about
the
land
use
diagram
which
was
in
in
there.
G
There
are
some
portions
if
you
compare
the
current
General
plan,
land
use
element
to
that
proposed
and
identified
in
the
eir
that
they
are.
They
actually
lie
within
the
city's
labeled
current
planning
area,
yet
outside
the
city
limits
and
sphere
of
influence
and
they're,
not
in
they're,
not
on
the
exhibit
that
is
analyzed
and
part
of
the
general
Plan
update
and
I
wanted
to
just
understand
what
the,
because
they
have
specific
land
use
designations
on
them.
The
city
has
actually
made
them
in
some
cases.
G
Their
parks
golf
course
in
open
space,
which
is
voter
protected
by
measure
W
others
are
residential.
I
just
wanted
to
get
an
understanding
of
what
the
impact
of
that
would
be
if
we're
not,
including
that
on
our
land
use
element,
even
though
they
currently
are
what
would
happen
with
those
designations
that
the
city
has
already
made.
Decisions
about
asked.
H
Commissioner
Ferris,
if
I
may,
in
regards
to
the
planning
areas,
specifically
as
the
current
General
plan,
has
planning
area
that
is
beyond
the
sphere
of
influence.
Sphere
of
influence
is
essentially
the
area
that
we
have
land
use
authority
over.
Those
areas
that
are
included
beyond
our
severe
of
influence
are
essentially
policies
that
we
have
elected
to
use.
However,
they
don't
have
you
know
in
terms
of
our
ability
to
control
land
uses
beyond
our
sphere
of
influence.
They
have
very,
they
carry
very
little
weight.
H
H
You
know
the
analysis,
that's
before
you,
but
at
the
same
time,
even
though
that
their
land
use
designations
they're,
not
in
anything
that
we
would
have
authority
over
if
a
project
were
to
occur
on
any
of
those
areas,
it
would
fall
solely
within
the
County's
jurisdiction.
We
could
comment
as
a
practical
manner
like
hey.
We
have
a
policy
about
this
land
use
designation,
but
it's
beyond
our
sphere
of
influence.
We
don't
actually
have
a
say
or
say
on
what
goes
on
there.
H
That
being
said,
if
something
were
to
happen
on
the
county
side,
that's
contrary
to
a
land
use
designation.
You
know
they
would
actually
have
to
end
their
General
plan.
Like
let's
say
we
had
it
designated
open
space
beyond
our
sphere
of
influence
and
they
decide
to
turn
it
into
residential
rural
or
what
have
you?
Then?
H
G
Yeah,
okay
and
I
understand
that
the
lining
the
what
we
call
the
planning
area
to
the
sphere
of
influence
makes
makes
sense.
It's
just
there.
There
has
been
Decades
of
of
City
Planning
in
the
city
of
Thousand
Oaks
that
have
looked
beyond
that
and
even
I'm
just
trying
to
think
ahead.
Many
of
us
might
not
be
here
for
future
decisions
to
where
the
land
use
owning
of
land
is
different.
County
comes
in
and
says
you
know,
we'd
really
like
to
make
that
residential
and
we've
designated
it
open
space.
G
So
we
may
want
to
engage
in
annexation
and
lavco
to
try
and
bring
that
into
our
sphere
of
influence.
We've
already
designed
the
city
is
already
designated
these
areas
with
particular
land
use.
Designations
question
is
what
does
that
do
if
the
city
wants
to
take
action
to
expand
in
those
regions
and
what
effect
does
that
have
if
those
land
use
designations
aren't
on
our
land
use
element
anymore.
H
Well,
I
would
just
say:
I
mean
the
draft
general
plan
and
what
we've
heard
so
far
I
mean
there
hasn't.
I
mean
the
close
of
the
public
comment
period
is
in
a
couple
days
on
the
general
plan
and
it
will
be
presented.
But
at
this
point
in
time
there
hasn't
been
any
direction
to
pursue.
What
areas
can
we
expand
the
sphere
of
influence
at
this
point
in
time?
That
would
have
to
be
something
you
know
considered
by
the
council
and
then
directed
the
staff.
G
I'm
I'm
not
mentioning
that
there
are
any
things
on
the
horizon
I'm
just
trying
to
think
this
is.
This
is
a
planning
exercise
right
to
kind
of
look
into
the
future
in
that
so
I'm
passionate
about
the
water
demand
growth
percentages
as
they
relate
to
other
projected
growth
percentages
such
as
residential
units
population,
Wastewater,
demand
to
me
it
seemed
like
the
water
demand
was
not
increasing
at
PACE
as
the
other
ones
and
I
just
wanted
to
have
an
understanding.
Is
there
a
different
set
of
assumptions
or
something
else?
That's
that's
there.
In
the
analysis.
H
O
O
The
projections
for
the
water
supply
and
demand
listed
at
the
beginning
of
that
section
are
taken
from
the
respective
Urban
Water
Management
plans
prepared
by
each
of
those
water
suppliers
and
those
plans
are
updated
every
five
years
and
are
based
on
population
projections
from
State,
regional
and
local
agencies
and
those
projections
will
be
updated
in
future.
Urban
Water
Management
plan.
P
So
the
the
growth
rates
that
are
used
within
those
individual
plans,
don't
necessarily
align
with
the
current
projection
that
we
have
as
part
of
the
general
Plan
update
because
they
have
not
they
are.
They
are
from
the
existing
General
plan
or
from
the
Southern
California
Association
of
government's
data.
The
population
projections
onto
the
future.
P
What
we,
what
we
do
in
the
it's
part
of
the
analysis,
is
to
do
the
expected
growth
anticipated
to
see
if
the
existing,
if
the
future
demand
I'm
sorry,
if
the
future
Supply
would
accommodate
the
the
future
expected
demand,
plus
the
anticipated
demand
that
we
are
adding
to
that.
So
that's
what
the
utilities
section
of
the
IR
analyzes
and
looks
like
we
have
Jesse
back.
O
P
P
And
to
answer
your
question,
commissioner:
Ferris
about
the
reliability
of
that
data.
This
is
this.
Is
the
conservative
approach
that
we
are
that
we
typically
use
throughout
the
state
regarding
General
plans?
We
want
to
be
as
as
conservative
as
possible
and
and
as
mentioned
early
in
the
presentation,
we
want
to
analyze
the
worst
case
scenario.
So
often
our
analysis
usually
overestimates
the
potential
future
demand,
and
we
do
that
intentionally
so
that
we
aren't
underestimating
and
all
of
a
sudden.
P
You
get
20
years
down
the
road
down
the
road
and
don't
have
the
supply
that
we
anticipate.
So
this
is
intended
to
help
set
the
stage
on
what
anticipated
demand
may
be
if
every
parcel
is
developed
with
the
in
under
the
growth
assumption
that
we've
included,
and
if
so,
we
want
to
ensure
that
we
have
adequate
Water,
waste,
water
and
other
utilities
on
this
part
of
that.
E
G
G
Not
to
belabor
it
because
I
think
that
there's
going
to
be
public
hearings
down
the
road
in
here.
This
is
just
to
kind
of
bring
it
to
attention,
but
for
the
commission's
benefit
to
know
where
I'm
coming
from
provided
some
statistics
to
staff-
and
that's
that's
where
some
of
this
comes
from
to
me.
It
looked
as
in
given
sections
2.5.
The
growth
projection
for
housing
units
were
about
16
During.
The
period
economic
growth
in
jobs
was
about
16
percent.
G
The
Wastewater
demand
would
increase
by
about
16
percent,
but
the
listed
future
water
demand
was
at
about
four
and
a
half
percent.
So
that
that's
the
rationale
for
my
question
and
if
the
staff
and
Consultants
can
go
back
and
have
an
understanding
of
why
why
those
don't
necessarily
align
or
what
the
different
assumptions
might
be,
that
would
be
helpful
when
one
if
I
may
share
one
last
one
last
question.
G
If
you
don't
mind,
so
there
were
a
variety
of
sections
in
which
there
were
different
comments.
Some
of
the
things
were
brought
up
and
stated
that
they
were
addressed
in
the
AR.
Others
were
saying
this:
not
the
purview
of
the
eir
to
analyze,
for
example,
economic
impact
or
the
process
of
approving
the
general
plan
I
just
wanted
to,
because
the
public
might
hear
this.
L
Absolutely
commissioner,
Ferris
and
to
the
public
that
is
watching
the
best
way
would
be
to
submit
your
comments
online
at
tx2045.org
go
ahead
and
submit
a
form
and
put
your
comments
there.
You
could
do
General
comments
or
you
could
do
it
by
chapter
and
then
at
the
close
of
the
public
comment
period
for
the
general
plan,
as
we
stated
before,
we're
going
to
be
putting
all
the
comments
into
a
matrix
and
presenting
those
back
to
Planning,
Commission
and
city
council,
so
that
all
of
them
can
be
reviewed
and
potentially
Incorporated.
B
K
B
K
B
N
Good
evening
I'm
Karen
Wilburn
from
Newbury
Park,
you
can
you
hear
me:
okay,
yes,
okay,
I'm
from
Newbury,
Park
and
I'd
like
to
discuss
two
issues
on
the
draft
dir
several
exhibits
in
the
report
presented
current
average
daily
trips,
known
as
adts
versus
2045
General
plan
build
out
adts
for
various
sections
of
Roads
throughout
the
city
in
Newbury
Park.
The
greatest
impact
will
come
from
the
borchard
lot,
which
could
theoretically
include
commercial
sites
and
up
to
a
thousand
housing
units
main
roads,
Orchard
and
windy
will
certainly
be
impacted.
N
The
consultant
allocated
an
additional
5000
adts
on
borchard
from
the
101
to
Wendy.
On
the
other
hand,
they
only
allocated
20
additional
adts
on
Wendy
between
the
101
and
Orchard.
This
makes
no
sense
to
me
when
asked
the
general
plan
team
replied
that
a
this
is
not
a
Project
Specific
eir
and
doesn't
address
the
impact
of
individual
projects
and
B.
These
adts
are
being
used
in
reference
to
noise
and
air
quality.
N
Not
traffic,
so
I
know
traffic's
going
to
be
studied
more
closely
when
an
individual
project
is
reviewed,
but
I
have
to
ask
what's
the
point
of
the
cir?
If
it's
not
taking
into
consideration
potential
impacts
of
these
land
use
changes
I
also
understand
that
traffic
is
now
measured
by
vehicle
miles
traveled,
but
the
average
person
is
going
to
look
at
these
figures
as
a
traffic
predictor
and
clearly
the
consultant
made
an
error
here
which
should
be
addressed.
N
In
that
analysis,
they
identified
20
other
zip
codes,
also
in
the
worst
one
percent,
many
having
three
to
five
times
higher
rate
of
population
to
evacuation
routes.
Than
Paradise
had
one
of
those
zip
codes
is
91320
from
Newberry
Park
to
Dos
Vientos
comments
about
Wildfire
impact
on
page
45th
of
the
draft.
Dir
include
things
such
as
to
2045
includes
policies
to
address
emergency
access
to
2045
would
not
substantially
impair
an
adopted
emergency
evacuation
plan
impact
would
be
insignificant
and
no
mitigation
is
necessary
again.
N
I
understand
this
is
not
a
Project
Specific
eir,
but
respectfully
the
city
and
consultant
are
whitewashing.
This
issue
the
lamb
loose
chain,
land
use
change,
could
potentially
add
several
thousand
additional
residents
in
an
evacuation
area
which
is
already
in
the
worst
one
percent
of
the
state,
and
we
experience
this
firsthand
during
the
Wolseley
fire.
This
most
certainly
needs
to
be
addressed
as
part
of
the
general
Plan
update.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you
and
based
on
what
Miss
rice
has
said,
I
would
recommend
that
you
put
that
online
and
fill
out
the
form
that
she
has
spoken
about,
so
that
it
gets
added
to
what
is
presented
to
us
again
and
to
the
city
council,
and
then
the
next
speaker
is
Pedro
Toscano.
Please
state
your
name
in
city
of
residence
for
the
record.
Q
Thank
you.
For
your
time.
My
name
is
Pedro
Toscano
I
live
in
Fillmore
I'm,
a
business
agent
for
for
the
Southwest
Mountain
States
Regional,
Council,
Carpenters
I
work
in
recreating
the
vicinity
of
the
project
of
the
ma
of
the
general
plan.
I
believe
that
I
will
be
impacted
by
the
environmental
impacts
of
this
project.
Q
The
master
plan
2045.
I,
would
like
to
ask
the
Commissioners
to
incorporate
language
into
the
proposed
General
plan
2045
for
requiring
that
residential,
commercial
and
mixed-use
developments
be
built
with
contractors
that
will
hire
locally
pay
prevailing
wage
and
you
utilize
Apprentice
says
from
the
State
Certified
Apprenticeship
Training
Program
Workforce
requirements
reduce
construction,
related
environmental
impacts,
well
benefiting
the
local
economy
and
Workforce
Development,
and
the
most
recent
study
in
2020
report
titled
putting
California
on
the
high
road
a
job
and
climate
actions
plan
for
20
to
30..
Q
B
B
G
K
I
was
surprised
to
see
him
here
just
because
weren't
Planning
Commission
is
not
the
board,
it
is
city
council,
as
you
are
well
aware,
so
I
can
tell
you
certainly
that
staff
is
aware
of
the
request
and
I.
Don't
know
if
there's
been
an
official
response
to
him.
The
other
issue
I
just
want
to
bring
up
is
that
this
property
is
now
private
property.
K
There
are
conditions
for
maintaining
this
complex
as
a
historical
building,
as
you
all
are
well
aware,
it's
in
the
development
agreement,
but
it's
also
just
there-
we've
had
numerous
discussions
with
the
two
teams
proposing
to
build
on
this
site,
and
they
are
certainly
well
aware
of
the
need
to
maintain
and
refurbish
the
historical
site.
So
if
there's
some
type
of
plaque
that
would
be
put
on
there,
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
probably
negotiated
with
them
as
well,
just
because
it's
their
private
property.
At
this
point.
G
F
I
just
said
one
comment
and
I
apologize.
If
this
is
not
the
time
and
place
or
perhaps
even
my
place,
but
one
of
the
things
that
I've
been
noticing,
especially
on
Windy
days,
is
that
our
new
Solid
Waste
purveyor
has
a
tendency
to
leave
trash
that
is
fallen
out
of
the
receptacles
on
city,
streets
and
I.
Don't
know
if
anybody
else
has
observed
this,
but
it
happens
quite
frequently
in
my
neighborhood.
F
B
D
Yes,
thank
you
on
September
12th
tomorrow
evening,
city
council
will
have
a
public
hearing
on
the
cbdg
Consolidated
action
plan,
which
is
a
Community
Development.
What
Grant
and
Department
report
on
senior
mobile
home
park
urgency
ordinance
on
September
26th.
There
will
also
be
a
department
Rapport
requesting
an
initiation
of
various
Consul,
various
Municipal
good
amendments
to
update
various
sections
of
the
code
and
I'll
move
into
10B,
which
is
upcoming,
Planning
Commission
schedule
items
on
September
25th.
D
There
will
be
a
public
hearing
on
the
three-story
24
apartment,
complex
at
1730,
Los,
Phyllis,
Drive,
and
right
now
there
are
currently
no
items
scheduled
for
October
9th.
However,
on
October
23rd
there
will
be
items
there
will
be
two
public
hearings,
one
for
a
five-story
hotel
and
Retail
building
at
225,
North,
Moore,
Park,
Road
and
one
for
a
navigation
center
with
up
to
50
units
support
facilities
and
also
support
services
at
1205,
Lawrence
Drive.