[0:19] We

[1:31] However, you

[3:07] Hey,

[6:08] Heat. Heat.

[7:06] back. Heat.

[9:15] Heat. Heat.

[17:49] I will now I will now call to order the city council meeting. Will Oh, wait.

[17:55] Will city clerk please call roll. >> Council member Adams

[17:58] » here. >> Council member Newman

[18:00] » here. >> Council member Gutierrez

[18:03] » here. >> Mayor Prom Angler

[18:04] » here. >> And Mayor Taylor

[18:06] » here. Council member Newman is participating

[18:10] remote in tonight's meeting. Pursuant to the Brown Act, I must ask Council

[18:14] Newman, is there anyone who is 18 years or older with you in the room?

[18:19] » Mayor Taylor, there is not. >> Thank you. Tonight, we have one close

[18:23] session case. Miss Nan, will you please announce the session?

[18:27] » Thank you, Mayor Taylor. We have one close session conference with legal

[18:30] counsel on anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code section

[18:33] 54956.92. one potential case, a city employee has

[18:38] alleged age discrimination and harassment.

[18:41] » Thank you.

[18:45] » That's it. All right, we'll see you guys here shortly.

[25:13] Hey, hey, hey.

[25:18] Heat.

[26:42] Heat. Hey, Heat.

[27:20] I got

[28:04] Heat. Heat.

[28:26] Heat. Heat. N.

[28:48] Heat. Heat.

[30:13] Hey,

[30:19] hey, hey.

[31:57] Heat.

[32:08] Heat.

[37:00] I don't

[37:20] Heat. Heat.

[37:33] That's

[37:41] right.

[37:52] Heat. Heat.

[39:30] Heat.

[39:58] Hey, Heat.

[40:54] Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

[40:58] Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

[44:11] Heat. Heat.

[44:34] Hey,

[44:41] hey, hey.

[44:45] Baby,

[45:03] hey.

[45:11] Heat.

[45:35] Hey. Hey. Hey.

[45:55] 3.

[46:01] Hey, hey, hey. Heat.

[46:19] Heat.

[48:17] Heat. Heat.

[53:44] Wow. Yeah. Yeah.

[54:28] All

[54:48] right.

[54:51] All right.

[55:21] I got to go.

[55:46] Heat. Heat.

[56:05] Hey,

[56:14] hey, hey.

[56:22] That's

[56:41] all.

[58:48] Heat. Heat.

[59:10] Heat. Heat.

[1:01:34] Sound.

[1:02:01] Heat. Heat.

[1:02:50] Heat. Heat. N.

[1:03:38] Welcome.

[1:05:00] Heat. Heat.

[1:05:05] Heat. Heat.

[1:05:28] Heat. Heat.

[1:13:15] Hallelujah.

[1:17:53] We are now back from close session. Miss Nan, is there anything for you to

[1:17:57] report? >> Nothing to report.

[1:17:59] » All right. If you are able, can you please stand and join me in the pledge

[1:18:02] of allegiance?

[1:18:06] » Ready? Begin. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and

[1:18:13] to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with

[1:18:19] liberty and justice for all.

[1:18:26] » All right. Now we are going to move to the podium for our special presentation.

[1:18:45] All right. And I'd like to welcome Denise and David Belco. Would you guys

[1:18:49] like to come up? Thank you.

[1:19:03] All right. Uh Denise and David Belco who are ambassadors for Donate Life. Donate

[1:19:09] Life is a nonprofit organ and tissue donor registry dedicated to saving the

[1:19:14] lives of thousands of Californians awaiting life-saving transplants. The

[1:19:19] Belco family became involved in Oregon donor advocacy after their son Michael

[1:19:24] at the age of 20 saved the lives of eight people through Oregon donation.

[1:19:29] The city council encourages Thousand Oaks residents to participate in the

[1:19:32] donate life California donor registry and we are therefore pro proclaiming the

[1:19:37] month of April as DMV. Donate lifec california month organ donation turns

[1:19:43] loss into legacy and you can register at donatelifec california.com.

[1:19:48] Is there anything you guys would like to say?

[1:19:51] » No. Okay. Thank you guys. We appreciate you. Here is the proclamation. And would

[1:19:57] you guys come up and take a photo with our council?

[1:20:00] » Can I invite council up for a photo?

[1:20:42] All

[1:20:58] right. Now, and now we have our final presentation of the evening. I'd like to

[1:21:03] introduce Natasha Burn from the library. She is going to tell us about the

[1:21:07] library's one city, one book selection for the year.

[1:21:11] Good evening, Mayor Taylor and council members. I'm Natasha Buron, a librarian

[1:21:16] at the Thousand Oaks Library and committee chair for Thousand Oaks Reads,

[1:21:19] One City, One Book. I am pleased to be here tonight to announce the 2026 title.

[1:21:25] The Friends of the Library have been supporting this program for 18 years and

[1:21:30] we are just so thankful for their generous support. If you are unfamiliar

[1:21:34] with One City, One Book, it is a citywide literary event that encourages

[1:21:40] community members to collectively read and discuss a selected book.

[1:21:45] One City, One Book is really built on a simple but powerful idea that books

[1:21:51] bring people together. Stories have this unique way of helping us connect, start

[1:21:57] meaningful conversations, and feel a little more rooted in our community.

[1:22:02] Each year, this program reminds us that the library isn't just a place to check

[1:22:06] out books. It's a vibrant gathering space where culture, ideas, and people

[1:22:11] come together. In just the past three years, more than 4,500 people have

[1:22:17] participated in one city, one book events, and that kind of engagement is

[1:22:22] just so exciting for us, and it motivates us to keep growing and serving

[1:22:25] our community through this program. I am pleased to announce that The Fox

[1:22:31] Wife by Yang Xi Chu was selected as the 2026 title. New York Times best-selling

[1:22:37] author Yang Shi Chu brilliant brilliantly explores a world of mortals

[1:22:43] and spirits, humans and beast, and their dazzling intersections. Blending

[1:22:48] historical fiction and folklore, The Foxwife follows Bao, a detective

[1:22:52] investigating the death of a cortisone, and a mysterious servant named Snow, a

[1:22:57] fox spirit seeking vengeance for the loss of her child on a journey through

[1:23:01] China and Japan. We in we invite you to kick off this

[1:23:06] year's one city, one book with a free concert at the Grant Art Burmhal Library

[1:23:10] on Saturday, March 28th, featuring internationally acclaimed and

[1:23:14] award-winning artist Bay Mter. The Gu Jang is a 21 string traditional Chinese

[1:23:20] zither with a history of 2500 years. Joined by guitarist John Montter, the

[1:23:25] duo will present an evening of contemporary fusion works. In the

[1:23:31] following weeks, the workshops programs inspired by the book will continue

[1:23:34] culminating with an afternoon with with Yang Xi Chu on Sunday, April 26 at 2

[1:23:39] p.m. upstairs at the Fred Cavley Theater with a Q&A and book signing. Books are

[1:23:44] available in paperback, large print, ebook, and e audiobook and will be

[1:23:48] available to borrow starting tomorrow at the library. Uh this event is free.

[1:23:53] Seating is first come first serve and uh if the public would like to know more

[1:23:58] information, they can go to tool library.org or call us at the library.

[1:24:02] Through one city, one book, we aim to bring together diverse voices and

[1:24:07] viewpoints through a thoughtful exchange of ideas. A guiding principle that

[1:24:12] drives this program is the belief that when we open a book together, we close

[1:24:16] it in greater harmony. With appreciation, uh we would like to leave

[1:24:20] a copy of the Foxwife with each council member and invite you and all the

[1:24:25] community members to participate in the 2026 one city, one book program. Thank

[1:24:30] you so much for your time today, >> Natasha. Thanks for being with us

[1:24:33] tonight and sharing about the reading program.

[1:24:35] » Thank you so much. Next up is public comments. Will city

[1:24:40] clerk please announce them? >> This is the time and place for public

[1:24:43] comments. Speakers are requested to state their name and community of

[1:24:47] residents for the record. Two individuals have requested to speak and

[1:24:51] pursuant to council standards. Speakers are allowed three minutes. The yellow

[1:24:55] light displays when you have one minute remaining.

[1:24:58] And >> city clerk, are you able to call in the

[1:25:01] names? I I don't have them in front of me.

[1:25:05] » Yes. Our first speaker tonight is Scarlet.

[1:25:20] Greetings, council. I'm Scarlet from Thousand Oaks, and I have a seven

[1:25:25] syllable word for you, and that is semiquincential.

[1:25:29] Semi for half, Quinn for five, and centennial for 100. So, of course, half

[1:25:35] of 500 equals 250. And so, as you know, we're embarking on our 250th year uh

[1:25:43] birthday of America. And with that, um I'd like to in the spirit of that uh

[1:25:50] kind of revisit a little bit of our nation's history and traditions of

[1:25:55] America. So 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed by 56 very

[1:26:03] courageous men, lives, fortune, seek, sacred honor, all of that. Well, did you

[1:26:09] know that half, actually more than half of those 56 had a degree in um ministry.

[1:26:17] They were all um also seminary degrees from universities.

[1:26:22] The declaration signer Francis Hopkinson. This is what's fun about it.

[1:26:26] We get to rendeboo with our founding fathers. Francis Hopkinson actually

[1:26:33] created and designed the great seal of America. He actually served as one of

[1:26:38] our first judges, federal judges, and he was also the uh choir and uh music

[1:26:46] director for Christ Church in uh Philadelphia. He wrote America's very

[1:26:53] first hymn book and he also set the entire book of Psalms to music. And so

[1:27:01] um I could give you so many examples of the faith of our founding fathers, but

[1:27:06] I'm going to move on now to 1814. Francis Scott Key as we all know

[1:27:12] probably that he wrote our nation's uh and na national anthem. And did you know

[1:27:19] that in the fourth stanza of that book he uh actually had written um

[1:27:28] and this be our motto in God be our trust. So, um I don't have

[1:27:35] um too much more time here, but I did want to mention that uh the commander of

[1:27:39] the Allied Forces of World War II. Um we have um Dwight Eisenhower who

[1:27:47] officially set our national motto as in God we trust. And so um there has been a

[1:27:53] lack of honoring our nation's history and tradition. And with that, I wanted

[1:27:59] to let you know that our sister cities of Port Weini and Phil Filillmore have

[1:28:04] both adopted our national motto and it resides in their council chambers. And

[1:28:09] with that, I would love to request that the city of Thousand Oaks also honor the

[1:28:14] history and tradition of America and place those words in God we trust in our

[1:28:20] council chambers here. Thank you.

[1:28:27] Thank you, Scarlet. Next up, we have Madison Richardson on Zoom.

[1:28:33] » Hello. Can you hear me? >> We can. Go ahead.

[1:28:35] » Okay, great. Uh, my name is Madison Richardson. I'm from Newbury Park. Um,

[1:28:40] just to uh continue on the last speaker, um, I

[1:28:46] would also like to honor our traditions as America and um, keep church and state

[1:28:52] separated, but that's not what I'm here for. Um, today I want to talk about how

[1:28:57] we are fortunate to live in a city that historically defines itself um, by how

[1:29:02] we support one another. We saw that unity during the fires. We saw it in the

[1:29:06] wake of borderline tragedy. We are community more than capable of standing

[1:29:10] together. Yet when the topic of federal immigration enforcement arises, we see a

[1:29:14] shift towards needless division. Whether one supports ISIS mission or not, the

[1:29:19] reality of their current operations is by any metric unstable. We are seeing a

[1:29:24] massive $ 38 billion detention re-engineering initiative unfold in real

[1:29:28] time. Just today it was confirmed the core civic facility in Kern County, the

[1:29:33] largest in California, has received official permission to expand. This

[1:29:38] isn't a distant federal issue. It's a local reality. This expansion signals

[1:29:42] that these operations are accelerating, bringing with them documented financial

[1:29:47] hardships for our agricultural sector and a climate of fear that affects our

[1:29:51] neighbors daily. The residents who come before you to share these concerns

[1:29:55] aren't driven by ulterior motives. They are driven by empathy and a belief that

[1:29:59] our city can always strive to be better. I fear that silence from the majority of

[1:30:04] this council allows contention to breed. We look for we look to our leaders for

[1:30:08] clarity and guidance, especially when navigating the complex intersection of

[1:30:12] federal enforcement and local privacy. We need to move beyond political

[1:30:16] divisiveness and towards a healthy transparent discussion about how we

[1:30:20] protect our city's resources and our residents peace of mind. I hope we can

[1:30:24] lead with the same unity we show during times of crisis, ensuring our policies

[1:30:28] reflect the character of the city we love. Thank you.

[1:30:33] » Thank you, Madison. Next is consent calendar. Does anyone have any questions

[1:30:38] or would like to pull anything? Uh with no discussion, would anybody

[1:30:44] like to make a motion? >> Mr. Mayor, we do have one speaker on

[1:30:47] this item. >> Oh, we do.

[1:30:50] » I'm not seeing that. Do you? Um, yes, we have John.

[1:30:53] » John. Okay. >> Hello, city council.

[1:30:58] I just want to clarify something I said last council meeting regarding the ADUs

[1:31:04] and the Constitution of the United States and our oaths of office. I had

[1:31:10] said two weeks ago that you guys are violating your oath of

[1:31:16] office and the Constitution of the United States with article 1 section 10

[1:31:21] where it says no state shall make a law which impairs the obligation of

[1:31:26] contracts. With regard to ADUs, we're talking about

[1:31:30] CCRs, covenant, covenants, conditions, and restrictions

[1:31:35] where Assembly Bill 670 says to ignore those with regard to

[1:31:41] building an ADU. Now, when I said that um

[1:31:47] we're all violating our oath, and I turned around and I said we all are

[1:31:51] violating our oath and the Constitution, what I really meant to say was

[1:31:58] we're all partly to blame for allowing and tolerating those

[1:32:04] violations to happen and not speaking up. So, that's really what I meant to

[1:32:08] say. I just wanted to clarify that. Um, and in regard to the ADUs, I want to

[1:32:17] also reiterate, I'm not an ADU hater. I think they're cute. They're actually

[1:32:23] kind of fun. But when it comes to a neighborhood where they have CCRs

[1:32:30] that says you cannot have those things like an ADU an an additional dwelling,

[1:32:37] we should follow that contract. And I'm I have a question and that that is

[1:32:45] do you think your constituents would like full disclosure that

[1:32:51] in the processing of building an ADU in that case where the CCR is prohibited.

[1:32:58] I I'm wondering if they would like to have full disclosure that the law that

[1:33:03] supports it is unconstitutional because if they're not being told that

[1:33:09] this is true, they're opening themselves up to a

[1:33:13] lawsuit by their neighbors. And I've seen some ADUs where there's a

[1:33:18] bunch of cars out front and it's getting really crowded.

[1:33:22] And you know, there's other issues. it's just, you know, violating the CCRs

[1:33:28] and I think it's just a matter of time before this starts to happen where they

[1:33:33] start suing their neighbors and and it starts to cause a problem. So, I think

[1:33:37] the disclosure in the application process would be appropriate to just

[1:33:43] tell people, hey, keep an eye on your CCRs, check them out. And you guys know

[1:33:47] I love you. I'm just trying to protect you and our city, and I appreciate you.

[1:33:53] So, thank you. God bless.

[1:34:00] » John, being in the real estate industry, you you are the first person I've ever

[1:34:04] heard call ADUs cute and fun. Um, okay. Now, moving back to consent

[1:34:11] calendar. Still nothing to discuss. Will somebody move or put a motion up?

[1:34:20] » No comments on from staff. I'm happy to move consent

[1:34:25] » all parts of it. >> City clerk, can you call the vote?

[1:34:29] » Council member Adam, >> yes.

[1:34:32] » Council member Newman, >> hi.

[1:34:34] » Council member Gutierrez, >> yes.

[1:34:36] » Mayor Prom Angler, >> yes.

[1:34:38] » And Mayor Taylor, >> yes.

[1:34:40] » And that motion passes 5 to zero. And your ordinance title is an ordinance

[1:34:44] amending the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code relating to regulation of accessory

[1:34:48] dwelling units, ADUs, and junior accessory dwelling units, JADUs,

[1:34:53] updating Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 45, Accessory Dwelling Units to be

[1:34:58] consistent with state law MCA 2025-7003, ordinance number 1747- NS.

[1:35:07] » Thank you. Next up, we have our public hearing. Oh, no. I'm excuse me.

[1:35:16] Next we have tonight's department report.

[1:35:20] » No, you were right, Mr. Mayor. No, I was right. I was right. You're

[1:35:23] » right. It's public hearing. >> There we go. It is public hearing. All

[1:35:26] right. Will city clerk please open the hearing?

[1:35:31] Hearing advertised as required by law is open to consider agenda item number 10A

[1:35:36] mixed use development amendment SP2025-7003

[1:35:42] Dagger 2025-00005

[1:35:45] DP2025-70019

[1:35:49] applicant is Lato Hillrest LLC speakers are requested to state their name and

[1:35:54] community of residence one person has presented a speaker card and pursuant to

[1:35:58] council standard that speaker is allowed 5 minutes. The yellow light displays

[1:36:02] when you have 1 minute remaining. >> Thank you. Presenting the item tonight

[1:36:06] is senior planner Justine Kendall. And available for questions, we have our

[1:36:11] community development director Kelvin Parker, assistant city attorney Null

[1:36:14] Doran, and deputy community development director Fabiola Za Melicher.

[1:36:21] Uh take it away, staff.

[1:36:28] » Good evening, mayor. Um, council members, members of the public,

[1:36:37] as you just heard, the item before the city council for this evening's

[1:36:40] consideration are amendments to specific plan 24 and development agreement

[1:36:46] 2022-70777-dagr

[1:36:52] as well as a major modification, a development permit 202270773-

[1:36:59] -p originally approved by city council in July of 2023 that would allow changes

[1:37:04] to facade design and materials for the project approved at 2150 West Hill Crest

[1:37:09] Drive.

[1:37:12] Uh to provide a quick overview of uh what was already approved in 2023.

[1:37:19] The project site consists of one parcel totaling 8.28 gross acres. The map on

[1:37:24] your screen provides an aerial view of the site showing the previously existing

[1:37:28] vacant office and surface bike parking which have since been demolished. The

[1:37:33] project site is surrounded by developed urban uses and generally located north

[1:37:37] of US 101, east of Rancho Kaneo Boulevard and a Chevron automobile

[1:37:42] service station, south of Hillrest Drive and the Amgen Industrial Business Campus

[1:37:47] and west of an existing multif family apartment complex. The project is

[1:37:52] currently under construction for aspects of the development that are unaffected

[1:37:55] by the subject request.

[1:38:00] The subject request involves modifications to various aspects of the

[1:38:03] project approved by city council which included the entitlements listed here.

[1:38:08] The general plan amendment, zone change, protected tree permit, and special use

[1:38:12] permit are are not uh proposed to be amended.

[1:38:17] However, the specific plan, development agreement, and development permit um are

[1:38:24] the approved project is characterized by a multif family mixeduse development

[1:38:28] that includes an internal pedestrianoriented roadway separating

[1:38:32] two buildings which would contain 333 multifamily residential units including

[1:38:38] 30 very lowincome affordable units and three moderate income affordable units.

[1:38:42] common areas and amenities. 5,300 gross square feet of commercial retail and

[1:38:48] restaurant space above semi-ubterane parking structures containing a total of

[1:38:52] 462 parking spaces as well as 121 surface parking spaces. The Northerly

[1:38:59] building fronting on West Hillrest Drive or also known as building A is the

[1:39:04] mixeduse building with three levels of apartments above a ground floor of both

[1:39:08] residential units, amenities, and commercial tenant spaces. Building B

[1:39:13] includes residential uses which appear as four other larger buildings on the

[1:39:17] site connected by various walking paths, breezeways, and bridges. The smaller

[1:39:21] building incorporated into building B will house the leasing and property

[1:39:25] management office. Additional indoor and outdoor amenities are provided to the

[1:39:30] residents throughout the site, including a playground, swimming pool, courtyards

[1:39:34] with active play spaces, roof decks, and a dog park.

[1:39:41] As approved, the project's architectural design is a modern style. The exterior

[1:39:45] walls of the building are earthtoned colors primarily consisting of stucco

[1:39:49] finishes, simulated wood fiber cement panels, brick veneer, multi-panel window

[1:39:54] areas with dark bronze trim, awnings, and trelluses.

[1:39:58] The northern building, again, building A located behind an existing landscape

[1:40:02] burm with protected oak trees to remain in place, includes significant

[1:40:05] articulation and massing brakes seen here. Building A also features a public

[1:40:10] seating area on the ground floor in front of the commercial units and

[1:40:13] material changes at the driveway entries to encourage pedestrian safety and

[1:40:17] activity.

[1:40:21] The southern building, building B, includes similar materiality and

[1:40:25] articulation throughout, although to a lesser degree than building A. The

[1:40:29] southern facads of the building are visible from the 101 freeway and as

[1:40:33] approved are required to incorporate additional brick veneer somewhere on

[1:40:36] each sub building subject to review and approval by the community development

[1:40:41] department.

[1:40:45] The development agreement is a contract between uh the property owner and the

[1:40:50] city which outlines the private benefits received by the developer in exchange

[1:40:53] for the benefits the project will provide to the public. In this instance,

[1:40:57] the project uh must provide 333 new residential units, including those 30

[1:41:02] affordable units, on-site amenities, an improved city gateway sign, uh

[1:41:08] sustainability features, and enhanced architectural design in exchange for the

[1:41:12] adoption of the general plan amendment. Uh the new specific plan, uh deviation

[1:41:17] from the city's objective design standards and stability of some fee and

[1:41:22] regulatory requirements.

[1:41:26] SP20 was approved as part of the original project because the Thousand

[1:41:30] Oaks Municipal Code did not include a mixeduse zoning designation at the time

[1:41:34] of approval. A specific plan is a document designed to implement policies

[1:41:39] in alignment with the intent of the city's general plan and establish custom

[1:41:43] development and design standards, permitted land uses, infrastructure

[1:41:46] requirements, implementation measures, and other criteria. These standards are

[1:41:51] not required to replicate the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code requirements since

[1:41:55] they are intended to be unique for the specific development area. It should be

[1:41:59] noted that relief from normally required development standards was was granted as

[1:42:04] part of the development agreement negotiations and specific plan drafting

[1:42:08] process. For example, relief from municipal code building length

[1:42:12] restrictions, window inset requirements, um, and others were all granted as part

[1:42:16] of the original entitlement approval.

[1:42:24] Uh before I get into each of the requests included in tonight's item, I

[1:42:28] will review a little bit of the process that led to the approved project just

[1:42:31] described.

[1:42:34] As part of the typical planning entitlement review process, the part

[1:42:38] that occurs before a project goes to public hearing. The applicant submits

[1:42:42] plans which are refined as staff provide feed provides feedback. Corrections are

[1:42:47] made to bring the plans into compliance with regulatory requirements and

[1:42:50] negotiations are held to balance project specific contexts and operational

[1:42:54] requirements with city design guidelines. In some situations such as

[1:42:58] this one, revisions are deferred to the post approval process and memorialized

[1:43:03] as conditions of approval which are contained within the final resolution

[1:43:08] in order to allow an applicant to move forward to the public hearings. In the

[1:43:12] instance of the subject project, the development permit resolution included

[1:43:16] specific design modifications as part of the conditions of approval requiring

[1:43:20] revisions to the plan set shown during the entitlement hearings to be made

[1:43:23] during the building permit plan check process. Other conditions reinforce that

[1:43:28] certain aspects of the project must be maintained as they are particularly

[1:43:32] important to the design quality of the development.

[1:43:35] The draft conditions of approval including the design related

[1:43:38] modifications or enforcement conditions were provided to the applicant in

[1:43:42] advance of the public hearing to allow an opportunity for review and

[1:43:44] discussion. The applicant re agreed to the conditions at the time of planning

[1:43:48] commission and city council consideration and the project was

[1:43:52] approved subject to the conditions presented at the hearings.

[1:43:59] Many of the conditions of approval adopted for this project were intended

[1:44:03] to ensure consistency with the guidelines listed here as well as the

[1:44:06] new specific plan for the property and the development agreement. As shown

[1:44:10] earlier, the development agreement uh negotiated by the city and development

[1:44:14] team uh present here this evening included the developer commitment to

[1:44:18] provide uh quote enhanced architectural design with appropriate massing and

[1:44:22] scale, extensive articulation, glazing, and extensive detailing with upgraded

[1:44:26] materials.

[1:44:32] Following planning entitlement approval, it is then normally expected that plans

[1:44:36] submitted for grading and building plan check review will be modified due to

[1:44:40] refinements made during the final engineering design process, updated

[1:44:45] business plan, or financial considerations, or to comply with the

[1:44:48] conditions of approval. During those review periods, revisions to plans are

[1:44:52] categorized as either minor or major changes. In this case, definitions of

[1:44:56] what is considered minor or major were included in section 10 of the adopted

[1:45:00] development agreement. In particular, the development agreement

[1:45:04] specified that changes to building materials that are not comparable or

[1:45:07] better than those included in the project plans dated May 26, 2023 are to

[1:45:12] be considered a major amendment requiring planning commission review and

[1:45:15] city council approval. In April 2025, following both applicant and staff

[1:45:21] identification of 19 design revisions or in some cases the lack of revisions

[1:45:26] which are required by condition of approval, nine of those uh were

[1:45:30] determined to be minor and granted ministerially per the direction of the

[1:45:34] development agreement and 10 were qualified as major. The applicant

[1:45:38] submitted complete applications to process the requested major design

[1:45:42] revisions. Uh that would be the development permit major modification,

[1:45:46] development agreement amendment application and specific plan amendment

[1:45:50] application on December 17th of last year.

[1:45:56] The primary issue before the city council is whether the requested

[1:46:00] architectural modifications maintain consistency with the enhanced design

[1:46:03] features and material standards of the original project approvals, including

[1:46:08] resolution number 202343, which approved the development permit.

[1:46:12] subject to the conditions of approval contained therein specific plan number

[1:46:17] 24 and the development agreement. The list of requests is summarized here and

[1:46:21] I will go into more detail on each one. They include uh the removal of approved

[1:46:27] trelluses and non-compliance with the requirement to provide additional

[1:46:30] trelluses, installation of external downspouts rather than internalizing

[1:46:34] those downspouts visible from prominent corners Hillrest Drive or Rancho Kaho

[1:46:39] Boulevard as required by condition of approval number 62.

[1:46:43] Provide painted metal doors rather than the French glass doors shown on the

[1:46:46] entitlement plan set or other similarly decorative doors. This was uh

[1:46:51] recommended for approval by planning commission

[1:46:54] uh to substitute painted accent headers in a complimentary color in place of the

[1:46:58] previously specified woodlook trim headers.

[1:47:01] Reduce the total amount of transparency on the commercial storefront facade of

[1:47:05] building A. Substitute woodframe trim for the

[1:47:09] residential window awnings at certain locations on the fourth floor. uh to

[1:47:14] reduce the number of thirdf flooror awnings from the number required by

[1:47:17] condition of approval. Uh this also was recommended for

[1:47:21] approval by planning commission. uh to remove vertical wood look slack

[1:47:26] cladding from prominent elevator tower facades to provide additional brick

[1:47:30] veneer on building B sub buildings B1 and B2 only and to provide vinyl framed

[1:47:36] windows exclusively rather than the non vinyl windows required uh by resolution

[1:47:41] number 2023 043 and specific plan 24 also recommended for approval by

[1:47:46] planning commission

[1:47:50] uh to go into more detail for each one of these a request Quest A is related to

[1:47:55] condition number 48 of the adopted resolution which required several

[1:47:59] changes from the plans presented at the hearings. The provision of shade

[1:48:03] structures over common outdoor spaces was required to maintain or provide

[1:48:07] greater visual interest and roof articulation as well as shade for the

[1:48:11] users of such areas. The applicant has declined to provide additional shade

[1:48:15] structures over common rooftop patios and is requesting to remove those

[1:48:19] several that were previously proposed. Should this request be denied, the

[1:48:23] trelluses originally maintained would need to remain and additional shade

[1:48:26] structures would need to be provided. Um, for instance, at the southern

[1:48:31] courtyard at building A and the patio southwest of building B4.

[1:48:38] The plans as approved are shown here. You can see the top of the trellis uh

[1:48:42] within the red outline above building A.

[1:48:47] And this is what it would look like without.

[1:48:53] This is where you would see the the trellis to be provided on building B's

[1:48:57] rooftop deck. And lastly, on the ground floor of

[1:49:02] building B in the interior of the project, the permanent shade structure

[1:49:05] is now proposed to be movable furniture. Condition

[1:49:11] of approval number 62 states that downspouts shall be avoided or concealed

[1:49:15] within the building walls at specific feature corner elements such as the

[1:49:18] commercial and retail corner and brick lobby towers or any facade viewable from

[1:49:23] Hillcrest Drive or Ranchoko Boulevard. Any downspout not concealed within the

[1:49:28] building walls must be painted to match the wall behind.

[1:49:33] While the applicant has attempted to reduce their visual impact, roughly 24

[1:49:37] exterior downspouts remain visible from the facades facing Hillrest Drive and

[1:49:41] Rancho Kaneo, which affect the overall architectural quality of those facades.

[1:49:48] The applicant is requesting that nine exit doors shown here with yellow dots,

[1:49:52] primarily serving residents and their guests be allowed to be painted solid

[1:49:56] metal doors, although they were originally approved to be French glass

[1:49:59] doors, as you can see in these sideby-side images. Condition of

[1:50:04] approval number 57 specified that exit doors visible from public streets needed

[1:50:08] to be decorative and although the doors requested to be changed are not visible

[1:50:11] from public streets, they are visible from the internal roadways. As such, it

[1:50:15] was determined that this request qualified as a major modification since

[1:50:19] doors serving primary residential and guest access should generally enhance

[1:50:23] the overall quality of the building design and incorporate decorative

[1:50:27] elements and provide visibility for individuals entering and exiting.

[1:50:31] Condition

[1:50:37] of approval number 53 as well as the design standards within specific plan 24

[1:50:41] require specific window trim or header material. These standards were required

[1:50:46] as material with heavier, higher quality materials and more substantial detail,

[1:50:51] help create physical and visual depth, enhancing the overall quality of the

[1:50:54] design and adding articulation to the building facade.

[1:50:59] The applicant is meeting their requirement to inset 36% of all

[1:51:03] residential windows, approximately 475 windows. However, they have requested to

[1:51:08] provide a painted trim only rather than a woodlook tile or brick header.

[1:51:15] Condition of approval number 54 and specific plan 24 require that 65% of the

[1:51:20] commercial storefront facade have a transparent window area and 3-in recess

[1:51:24] requirement. The applicant is meeting the recess requirement but is requesting

[1:51:28] to reduce the transparency to 60%.

[1:51:34] The images above show an example of how this change uh might appear.

[1:51:41] Condition of approval number 48 uh sub requirement E required that additional

[1:51:45] awnings be provided to increase visual interest in articulation throughout the

[1:51:49] project and to provide shading to residents. The first sub requirement for

[1:51:53] awnings on the north side of building A is to be met by the applicant and is not

[1:51:57] part of the subject request.

[1:52:04] Otherwise, the applicant is requesting to refrain from providing the required

[1:52:07] additional third floor metal awnings and to prov and to remove awnings previously

[1:52:12] provided on the fourth floor level. This image shows an example of where third

[1:52:16] floor awnings are requested to not be provided. It should be noted that in

[1:52:19] some cases the fourth floor awnings are proposed to remain as approved which is

[1:52:23] seen here. In other instances, the applicant is

[1:52:27] requesting to remove awnings previously provided on the fourth floor and replace

[1:52:31] those awnings with wood frame trim. This change is proposed for the Hillcrest or

[1:52:35] north side of building A, the east side of building A, the Rancho Kanejo or west

[1:52:41] side of building B1, the residential or east side of building B2, and the

[1:52:46] freeway or south side of building B3.

[1:52:52] The facade as designed to meet uh the third floor awning requirement

[1:52:56] uh can be seen on the left as an example versus a facade without the third floor

[1:53:01] awnings which can be seen on the right.

[1:53:06] While not specifically called out as a condition of approval, the applicant is

[1:53:09] also requesting to remove woodlike material cladding from elevator towers

[1:53:13] except those which appear on primary building facades facing public streets

[1:53:17] and interior driveways as approved uh can be seen on the left and as requested

[1:53:21] on the right. Specific plan 24 requires that veneers such as this vertical slot

[1:53:26] material turn corners on such building elements in order to appear more

[1:53:30] substantial and authentic and to provide visual interest from as many

[1:53:34] perspectives as possible.

[1:53:38] The removals are proposed at all seven locations shown here in yellow.

[1:53:46] Condition of approval number 48, sub requirement F, required that brick

[1:53:49] veneer, which is proposed heavily on building A, is also included on building

[1:53:53] B, sub buildings 1 through 4. Staff recommended this condition so that the

[1:53:58] building facads facing the Rena Freeway exhibit a similar quality of design to

[1:54:02] those facing other roadways. The brick beneer adds significant value to the

[1:54:06] overall sense of authenticity and depth of quality of the design wherever it

[1:54:09] appears. The applicant is requesting relief from this requirement for the two

[1:54:13] southernmost buildings that are visible from the freeway highlighted here in

[1:54:16] yellow.

[1:54:20] As part of the development agreement negotiations, relief from the objective

[1:54:23] design standard prohibition of vinyl windows was provided and only those

[1:54:26] windows on the external facing facades were prohibited from being vinyl framed.

[1:54:30] The applicant now seeks complete relief from this requirement. Although vinyl

[1:54:34] windows have been used in other projects in the city, vinyl window frames may

[1:54:37] exhibit different long-term durability and aesthetic characteristics compared

[1:54:41] to aluminum, fiberglass, or wood alternatives. In addition, uh the their

[1:54:46] manufacturer is considered um to be not environmentally friendly.

[1:54:51] Condition of approval number 48 sub requirement D memorializes this

[1:54:55] agreement as do the design standards of specific plan number 24.

[1:55:03] That concludes my review of the individual requests. Um to further

[1:55:07] clarify as some of those uh requests conflict with the requirements of SP24,

[1:55:12] an amendment to SP24 is included as part of the request to accommodate those

[1:55:16] design revisions uh that are not currently permitted should they be

[1:55:19] approved. And the subject development agreement is requested to remove and

[1:55:23] replace the dates of the approved plan set and specific plan within section

[1:55:27] 10.1 and remove and replace the conditions of

[1:55:30] approval which are included as an exhibit to that document. The remainder

[1:55:34] of the agreement is unchanged.

[1:55:39] The adopted specific plan development agreement and development permit

[1:55:42] established architectural standards and material requirements that formed part

[1:55:46] of the basis for the original project approval. Certain modifications to those

[1:55:50] elements are defined as major changes requiring planning commission

[1:55:53] recommendation and city council action. While the planning commission

[1:55:57] recommended several of their requests be approved, the city council retains final

[1:56:01] authority and may approve, deny, or modify the requested amendments in whole

[1:56:05] or in part based on its policy considerations and findings. In

[1:56:10] rendering its decision, city council may consider whether the proposed revisions

[1:56:13] remain consistent with the adopted specific plan, development agreement,

[1:56:17] and design objectives supporting the original approvals. If city council

[1:56:20] agrees to some or all of the requested revisions, staff will prepare the

[1:56:24] appropriate documents and include them um in a future city council meeting for

[1:56:30] final approval. If city council denies all or part of the requested amendments,

[1:56:34] the applicant may submit uh revised plans for further review. Any future re

[1:56:38] revisions would be evaluated to determine whether they constitute a

[1:56:42] minor change under the development agreement or require additional

[1:56:45] discretionary review. That concludes our presentation. Staff is available for any

[1:56:50] questions and I will provide the lists of requests um for everyone's reference.

[1:56:57] » Thank you, Justine. And I'll just mention Mr. Newman because you're on

[1:57:00] Zoom. If you have questions, just put your hand up there and I'll come to you

[1:57:03] from the dis. Any questions for staff? Um I just need to announce I had an

[1:57:09] exparte with one of the u representatives of the developer.

[1:57:14] » With that mention, do you have any questions for staff?

[1:57:20] » Sure. >> Okay.

[1:57:24] The uh the development agreement mentioned

[1:57:27] several different items. Uh specific plan 24 and some other items are our our

[1:57:37] objective our objective building standards. Were all those in in place

[1:57:42] when the when this agreement went into into effect? In other words, was there

[1:57:47] any surprises for anybody involved in this this agreement?

[1:57:53] Uh the conditions of approval incorporated as an exhibit to the

[1:57:57] development agreement um were provided uh before the hearings and at the

[1:58:02] hearings. Um and uh both the conditions of approval were um after the hearings

[1:58:10] are finished. uh an affidavit of acceptance of conditions is signed by

[1:58:14] the applicant and the development agreement which remained unchanged after

[1:58:19] the hearings um was signed and recorded by the applicant. So I'm not sure if

[1:58:24] that answers your question, but there were no changes postering.

[1:58:28] » I just I just noticed when I was reading through it, there's a lot of references

[1:58:31] to to to the documents. I just want to make sure that they were plainly

[1:58:35] visible. >> Yes.

[1:58:37] » Thank you, >> Mr. Adams. Uh thank you, mayor. Um

[1:58:42] speaking of objective standards, um we have those in place so uh we uh are sure

[1:58:50] to get a quality project constructed here in the city of Thousand Oaks,

[1:58:54] right? And uh with the incursions by the state uh when it comes to housing, our

[1:58:59] objective standards, in my opinion, are even more important.

[1:59:03] Hope you would agree with that. Do any of the requests here counter to our

[1:59:09] objective standards? >> Yes, some of these requests um are or

[1:59:16] would not comply with the objective design standards. Um and you know that

[1:59:21] was there were a number of um design standards that are particular to the

[1:59:26] specific plan that are unique to this project which deviate from the objective

[1:59:30] design standards. That was part of the negotiation process. um during the

[1:59:34] entitlement review and took into consideration the the benefits provided

[1:59:39] on on both sides as well as the project specific context

[1:59:43] » and the builder was aware of the objective standards as we went through

[1:59:47] the process. Correct. >> Yes sir.

[1:59:50] » And okay and u complied initially shall we say?

[1:59:57] Correct. But tonight uh the uh request is to uh void some of

[2:00:05] our objective standards. Correct. >> I would characterize it more as um

[2:00:10] deviating from the conditions many of the conditions of approval which had

[2:00:14] already deviated in many ways from the objective design standards.

[2:00:19] » Okay. Thank you >> Mr. Newman.

[2:00:27] » Yes. Thank you, mayor. I want to begin with a few general questions about the

[2:00:33] development agreement process just so I'm clear on that before getting

[2:00:37] to the specific 10 requests retainment deviations as council member Adam just

[2:00:43] characterized them. When there's a development agreement

[2:00:47] negotiated, is it the case that the city works with

[2:00:52] an applicant over a period of time to come up with a commonly agreed upon

[2:00:59] set of conditions, conditions that may number in the dozens or even the

[2:01:04] hundreds, but before before an agreement is reached, all of that is discussed and

[2:01:09] understood. Is that do I more or less understand that at a 50,000 foot level?

[2:01:18] » Yes, that is correct. >> And further with this specific

[2:01:24] development agreement, I watched the planning commission hearing and Miss

[2:01:29] Kendall, thank thank you for your report there and the one this evening. you at

[2:01:35] the planning commission you said all of those conditions quote formed the

[2:01:40] basis for the original approval meaning there was a meeting of the minds on

[2:01:46] every single condition in the development agreement again is that

[2:01:50] understanding correct >> that's right

[2:01:55] » another general question is about the uh design guidelines that city staff uses

[2:02:02] in in coming up with which conditions the city will and will not accept.

[2:02:09] It's it's my understanding, this was explained to me many years ago, um at

[2:02:14] the time there was a licensed architect on staff named Claudia Pedroso

[2:02:20] uh who said whenever there's a plain surface uh that's that's not broken up,

[2:02:26] as a general rule, the city looks for visual interest. Well, so we'll try to

[2:02:32] seek articulation or some decorative element to break up something plain.

[2:02:39] That was the practice 12 years ago. Is that been in continuous practice uh ever

[2:02:44] since then to the current time? Is that still the practice?

[2:02:49] » Yes, I would say that's that's generally something that we would look out for.

[2:02:53] » Okay. Thank you. I want to follow up on a couple of

[2:02:58] suggestions made by the applicant and I'll I will ask the applicant these as

[2:03:02] well, but there were a couple of suggestions made at the planning

[2:03:06] commission hearing. Um, one was about code requirements with

[2:03:11] regard to the amount of glass that was in place. Um, so my question on that are

[2:03:19] are any of the changes the applicant is requesting here necessary to meet code?

[2:03:25] In other words, is is the development agreement that both parties agreed to

[2:03:30] two years ago, is that somehow not compliant with current building and fire

[2:03:34] codes?

[2:03:38] » No. the um anytime that a light for safety or

[2:03:44] building code requirement um is in play that would take priority. Um however, it

[2:03:50] is possible um for instance in the case of um let's say like the metal doors

[2:03:55] where the the glass may need to be reduced in order to comply with the

[2:03:59] building code requirement. um the requirement to provide a decorative

[2:04:05] door or something that's comparable or better. Um, one could still meet that

[2:04:11] requirement and as well as the building code requirement.

[2:04:16] » Okay. My next question has to do with the definition of the word major. Um in

[2:04:21] your presentation you gave a timeline and you said that

[2:04:25] that when development agreements are worked

[2:04:28] out even after the agreement is reached discussions continue between an

[2:04:33] applicant and the city and there are often minor changes made sometimes many

[2:04:38] minor changes of when there's a major change or in this case 10 major changes

[2:04:44] that's that's different. So my I have two questions on that for you. The first

[2:04:49] one is, do any or all of these changes in

[2:04:54] staff's expert opinion degrade the quality of this application of this

[2:05:01] project? >> All of these requests, all 10 requests

[2:05:06] um presented this evening um and staff's estimation were considered to not meet

[2:05:13] that threshold of comparable or better. Um

[2:05:17] and >> and that that by virtue of that that

[2:05:20] threshold that is what makes them major changes. Correct.

[2:05:23] » That's correct. >> Right.

[2:05:26] So I'm I'm not aware of any case ever in the past 12 years of any precedent where

[2:05:36] an applicant or developer has come back to the city and asked to revise a

[2:05:42] development agreement with one major change, let alone 10. Uh is is staff

[2:05:48] aware of of a request with major changes like this?

[2:05:56] I'm not familiar of a project that's gone through a process

[2:06:00] like this one is going through. >> Okay. Thank you. And then my final

[2:06:04] question, actually two more questions, sorry. Um,

[2:06:10] in the sequencing of the major changes, there are 10 of them, lettered A through

[2:06:15] J. Is there any sort of hierarchy in sequencing of

[2:06:20] uh not meeting that that equal or better

[2:06:25] threshold like like is J farther away from that threshold than A or are these

[2:06:31] just in random order? >> I would say they're roughly in order of

[2:06:36] um lesser impact to greater.

[2:06:41] So, so J would be the farthest away from equal or better

[2:06:46] and A would be the closest to a a minimal change, although we're still

[2:06:50] calling it major. >> That's

[2:06:52] » is that is it right? Okay, very good. And then the final question, there was

[2:06:57] some discussion at the planning commission on

[2:07:00] the nature of vinyl materials in windows and whether

[2:07:07] not whether vinyl is improved. I I would agree uh that it has, but rather whether

[2:07:14] whether its lifespan and its sustainability was equal to or better

[2:07:20] than other materials such as wood or aluminum or something else.

[2:07:26] Does staff have an opinion on that? There were assertions made by the

[2:07:30] developer, but I'd like to hear staff's view on that on that point.

[2:07:36] It it depends on the specific brand and type of vinyl window um that would be

[2:07:42] proposed. We don't have the specific brand provided, but uh in general, vinyl

[2:07:46] windows um don't have quite the lifespan that um the other materials do. Um they

[2:07:54] um uh can be less energy efficient. Some are not, but some are. Um and I would

[2:08:00] say that one of the major points and the reason why um the prohibition of vinyl

[2:08:04] windows was included in the objective design standards um was that the

[2:08:08] manufacturing process for vinyl windows um is not environmentally friendly and

[2:08:14] not um necessarily in line with the city's overall sustainability goals.

[2:08:19] » Very good, Miss Kendall. Thank you very much for for your report and for these

[2:08:23] answers. Thank you very much, >> Mr. Newman. Oh, excuse me, Mr. Angler.

[2:08:29] Mr. Newman covered most of what I had to answer.

[2:08:33] » Miss Gutierrez, >> thank you, Mayor Taylor. Um, thank you

[2:08:40] so much for the presentation and the visuals as they are always necessary to

[2:08:45] further my understanding. So, I'm much appreciative of that. Um,

[2:08:51] I'm I may be asking questions just for uh the public as well. Um, but also to

[2:08:58] get direct uh staff responses. Um,

[2:09:06] and I feel like uh council member Newman did a great job of helping me along

[2:09:12] here. So, thank you to David on that. Um,

[2:09:17] and these may also be questions I ask our applicant um because I may seem

[2:09:23] repetitive later on. Um so the requested changes are they from a staff and city

[2:09:30] perspective are they necessary for the feasibility of this project or is there

[2:09:37] something some other um driving factor that I might not be uh directly aware

[2:09:42] of? >> That would be a question for the

[2:09:46] applicant. >> Brilliant. Um,

[2:09:50] uh, second, I would love to ask, um, you know what? I have a feeling these are

[2:09:56] all going to be directly for the applicant, so I'm going to skip ahead.

[2:09:59] Um, I apologize. Um,

[2:10:07] here's one that might be a little more clear for our for for the city lens. Um

[2:10:14] and just again just for clarity the benefits being reduced with do we feel

[2:10:19] like the benefits are being reduced with without an equivalent um

[2:10:26] I I want to say give but like return of what's being asked. I I know that the

[2:10:31] process started long ago and as you mentioned about the specific plan, there

[2:10:36] were a lot of exchanges, right? A very delicate negotiation of this for that

[2:10:42] and understanding um the

[2:10:48] the city's interest in creating those visual

[2:10:52] um aesthetics. Um and as well as thank you

[2:10:58] for mentioning the sustainability goals that we also hold um as a priority and a

[2:11:04] goal of the city. Um

[2:11:09] yeah. Do we think that now we're getting too many standard deviations from the

[2:11:16] value proposition

[2:11:19] to to those exchanges initially? Sorry. So I I guess and um please let me know

[2:11:27] if anybody else wants to answer, but I would say that um that specific um part

[2:11:32] of the development agreement that says that the project shall provide enhanced

[2:11:36] architectural quality and design and articulation and all that. um the

[2:11:40] conditions of approval. Um many of them were crafted to um more uh specifically

[2:11:49] describe how to meet that requirement, that benefit to be provided to the city.

[2:11:54] Um that's included in the development agreement and um that's what's being

[2:11:58] requested um to be changed tonight. Um, and so, um, I would say that each of

[2:12:05] these requests is contributing to maybe not meeting that benefit that was, um,

[2:12:12] uh, approved to be provided. >> And originally, the approval is like any

[2:12:19] contract contingent upon these agreements following through.

[2:12:27] » Yes. >> Yes. Okay,

[2:12:30] that's it. Thank you. >> All right. Next, we have the applicant

[2:12:34] team and they will have 15 minutes to present and later 15 minutes to rebut.

[2:12:41] Excuse me. Five, excuse me, five minutes for rebuttal. We have Mark Marin from

[2:12:46] the Lato Group and Fernando Frisbee from KTGY.

[2:12:54] What is it? Oh, we have Keith as well.

[2:13:01] Good evening. Thank you council members for having us tonight. Planning staff,

[2:13:07] always a pleasure working with you. For those of you who don't know the Lato

[2:13:10] Group, we developed STL, which we're very proud of. Um we brought Go Fish, we

[2:13:17] brought Basta, uh we brought a Pilates studio, and of

[2:13:22] course the latest being Honeyup. And we intend to do that and more at Hillrest.

[2:13:27] So I hope that with Santal you've all seen that Lato's intentions are to do

[2:13:34] nothing but build the highest quality project. If you go to our in any market

[2:13:38] we're in. If you go to our website, you see the projects we have in Florida,

[2:13:41] they are best-in-class in every market we're in. That being said, we find

[2:13:46] ourselves in a very challenging economic environment. Um that was true before the

[2:13:52] situation in the Middle East. It's more true now. But I want to I'm only going

[2:13:56] to make a couple of remarks before KT KTGY and Keith speaks specifically to

[2:14:01] the 10 items. What I'd like to say is when we first met with planning and I

[2:14:06] could totally understand this if I was sitting on the other side. First

[2:14:09] question was why are you here now? You were approved in July of 23. I think

[2:14:14] what people have to understand is that development is a parallel process. We

[2:14:21] have plans. we have a budget because we have to raise capital. So when we were

[2:14:27] approved with the development um uh agreement,

[2:14:32] we still weren't done with plans. So what we did was we we we have to make

[2:14:37] assumptions at that point with a budget. We're not in an environment where

[2:14:42] lenders are particularly, you know, risk oriented risk-taking today. It's it's

[2:14:48] the completely the reverse. So, for example, windows and I'll I'll start

[2:14:54] with windows and probably leave with windows and leave the rest to Keith.

[2:14:57] SL has the same vinyl windows. Your current MBK project that's being built,

[2:15:02] the sanctuary has vinyl windows. The IMT project has the same vinyl windows.

[2:15:08] There would been no reason for us to assume we couldn't use the same windows

[2:15:14] in this project, which is a step up even from our STL project. There'd be no

[2:15:19] reason. There was nothing that was, you know, in the airwaves, if you will, that

[2:15:24] would have given us any sense that a new design standard was going to take place.

[2:15:29] So, it is a $2 million item. And I think for those of you who understand

[2:15:35] development, when we prepare a budget, and remember lenders look to the

[2:15:40] developer and they expect to see as the budget gets nailed down, but there'll be

[2:15:45] very few changes to that. Yes, some things can change and we set up a

[2:15:50] contingency with respect to construction or hard cost as we call it, which in

[2:15:54] this project is $5 million. The windows alone would wipe out 40% of

[2:16:01] that contingency. Lenders look at a contingency and I can tell you from our

[2:16:06] own projects, we have never ever built a single project without using every

[2:16:10] single dollar in that contingency. You simply cannot forecast with plans

[2:16:16] changes in the field that occur where you have to make changes and they cost

[2:16:19] money. So it's money not there are rainy days but both as as we all know and that

[2:16:26] contingency is incredibly important. If we get wiped out just one of these 10

[2:16:32] items takes out two fifths 40% of that contingency. It is a big deal that will

[2:16:38] have rippling effects with the lenders which is the last thing you know we need

[2:16:42] at this point in what is a very challenging

[2:16:45] environment extremely challenging so but understand that we knew 18 months ago

[2:16:50] that there were some things we'd have to work with planning and I have to say the

[2:16:54] planning staff is as good a planning staff they're better than anybody we've

[2:16:56] ever worked in Florida so we have no issues and nothing but respect for the

[2:17:00] planning staff they did their best we did our best but our development

[2:17:04] agreement states specifically speifically that any changes in design

[2:17:08] must come to city council. So you have a very you have a lot going on in Thousand

[2:17:14] Oaks. Hence your city council meetings are full. This is the earliest we could

[2:17:18] get to all of you. It's not like we didn't know 18 months ago that there

[2:17:22] were some things we'd like to see changed.

[2:17:26] Well, windows we didn't know because we had no reason to assume that we couldn't

[2:17:29] use the windows. the rest of the items I'm going to show you. Yes, there's a

[2:17:34] cost aspect to it, but there's also in some cases you're going to hear

[2:17:37] functionality. We need good public private partnerships

[2:17:43] with Thousand Oaks. You want development going forward. You need more affordable

[2:17:47] units. We provided that here. But there has to be an understanding that our

[2:17:52] budgeting process isn't perfect. Our plans, we did not have construction

[2:17:56] drawings when we went to capital to basically attract it. This took six

[2:18:01] months to close and I know you're all aware of projects that probably are not

[2:18:05] going forward here as a result of cost. Nothing has changed for the better.

[2:18:09] Construction costs have gone up. Rates have not come down. Insurance has not

[2:18:14] come down. So, we're tasked with building a project. It's a $200 million

[2:18:18] project that has thousands of pieces to it. Out of those thousands of pieces

[2:18:22] that connect, we're only here tonight talking about 10 things. And yes, it's

[2:18:27] later, but it's not because we woke up and said, "Let's go retrade with the

[2:18:31] city." That is not who we are. We have never not closed on a land purchase.

[2:18:35] We've never retraded a seller at the 11th hour like some people do. We value

[2:18:40] our reputation is everything. And we believe that here with the city with SL,

[2:18:45] which was a very different process. We delivered what we said we were going to

[2:18:48] deliver. And we're going to do the same thing here. When you look at the rents

[2:18:52] that we expect to receive and the tenants we expect to have on the retail

[2:18:57] side, we have to deliver a compelling and beautiful pro project. There is no

[2:19:03] substitute for it. The consumer is discerning. They will know. They will

[2:19:06] see the differences. We cannot get the rents we want without being the best

[2:19:11] project in the market. People are looking to Hillrest to set a new

[2:19:13] standard much the same way we did with Sunl. So I ask again that as you hear

[2:19:18] these things, this isn't a developer coming along and saying, you know what,

[2:19:24] we'll come back and renegotiate the development agreement. That is not

[2:19:26] what's happened. We simply have 10 things that is, as I said, out of many,

[2:19:30] many things. And and again, we worked through administratively with staff on

[2:19:34] many of them that you didn't even that are not even being discussed tonight.

[2:19:38] But when it comes to design, it has to come to city council. So I'll wait for

[2:19:43] some questions later. I'm going to turn it over to Keith. But I wanted you all

[2:19:46] to just understand this is our second project in Thousand Oaks. We actually

[2:19:50] would have had a third, but for a change in circumstances with the seller, we

[2:19:55] love the city. We love what it stands for. We love the rigorous design because

[2:19:59] it forces us to be to do our very very best. But we ask tonight that you have

[2:20:04] an open mind with respect to what we're asking for. There's cost, there's

[2:20:09] functionality, but most importantly do not want to be perceived as a group that

[2:20:13] comes into retrade agreements. That is not what we do. We're only here now

[2:20:16] because of the process you go through with planning and their hard work. Our

[2:20:21] hard work resulted in 10 items. Major Ma has to go to city council and this is

[2:20:26] the earliest we could be here. So, I just wanted to make that very clear

[2:20:30] because I know that planning the planning staff had some questions about

[2:20:32] that and I would too if I was sitting on the other side. So, I'm going to turn it

[2:20:36] over to Keith as we go through some of these things. I think you'll see with

[2:20:39] vinyl, for example, we don't see any difference as far as durability, um,

[2:20:45] sustain. I mean, durability, aesthetic, again, it's been used widely through

[2:20:50] Thousand Oaks. Where there was a change, it would have been would have been far

[2:20:55] more helpful had we known in advance, we would have budgeted. But we have no no

[2:20:59] ability at this point, especially with that contingency, which we have to

[2:21:03] protect. We've used 2 million of that 5 million already. So, we've used 40% of

[2:21:08] the contingency. You add the windows to it. We have no means by which in the

[2:21:11] field to to to make a change or do something without going extremely over

[2:21:16] budget. This is not the environment where lenders are kind. I can assure you

[2:21:20] of that. And it's not unique to us. I think you could speak to anybody who's

[2:21:22] in the development business today how challenging it is and how difficult it

[2:21:25] is to raise capital. >> Thank you.

[2:21:32] Hi, good evening, Mayor Taylor and city council. My name is Keith McCloskey with

[2:21:36] KTGY Architects from Thousand Oaks, California. And um in addition to some

[2:21:41] of the background that Mark provided this evening, I just wanted to take a

[2:21:45] moment to uh focus on some of the details uh of what Justine was

[2:21:49] presenting and some of the architectural um backup or justification for some of

[2:21:54] those changes.

[2:22:07] So, in terms of the changes that we're speaking about tonight, we kind of broke

[2:22:11] them out into three separate buckets or um groups of changes that we're

[2:22:16] proposing to the project. Um again, as Justine mentioned earlier this evening,

[2:22:21] there's a number of um changes that are related to the specific plan that was

[2:22:26] adopted into the project. So, when it comes to objective design guidelines for

[2:22:31] the citywide standards, um the specific plan that was proposed and ultimately

[2:22:37] approved by city council previously, SP24,

[2:22:40] um presents this specific project for this specific site and uh what was

[2:22:46] proposed by the developer at the time. So, there were deviations from objective

[2:22:50] standards for things like maximum building length, um where massing

[2:22:54] stepbacks, um plane breaks, etc. would occur and those were all worked through

[2:22:59] uh with planning to arrive at a um final massing which the massing itself has

[2:23:06] been uh maintained through this process. So when we think of the project overall

[2:23:10] the project as it exists with respect to unit count building massing building

[2:23:15] height parking counts is all identical. What we're talking about tonight are

[2:23:19] specific architectural details um which u Justine has kind of walked us through

[2:23:25] the highlights of those and some of them are things where our drawings that city

[2:23:29] council saw in many ways are the same. The conditions where we were asked to

[2:23:34] upgrade or enhance certain things that we're currently unable to do due to

[2:23:39] budget constraints uh are the ones that I wanted to highlight today. And so um

[2:23:45] of those brick veneer um the third floor awnings

[2:23:49] and then window frame color are the items where what you see in the drawings

[2:23:54] in terms of the color of the window frames um the locations of where the

[2:24:01] awnings are in those drawings um still matches what was shown at city council

[2:24:07] meeting and previously approved. um the conditions of approval uh and

[2:24:12] development agreement that ask for further enhancement. Um those are the

[2:24:15] items that uh we're asking for relief on tonight.

[2:24:23] And then some of these slides that we've got here represent um brick veneer where

[2:24:28] we've got the brick veneer that's being maintained along the public street on

[2:24:32] Hillcrest and then at the back of the site along the off-ramp um we have uh a

[2:24:38] material that is board form concrete that would not have brick veneer on it

[2:24:42] but it would still create an architectural base to the project still

[2:24:45] provide material variation. So the goal of having high quality architecture

[2:24:50] hasn't changed. The specific material of the brick and the square footage of that

[2:24:54] brick has changed.

[2:24:58] And then this is the u third floor um condition that you can see if you go up

[2:25:04] to the second level above the podium as it was shown in the um drawings that

[2:25:09] were presented at city council. This is what the awnings if added would look

[2:25:15] like. Um, and this is what we're looking for relief on is to basically provide

[2:25:20] this building elevation, same height, same architectural skin, same balcony

[2:25:25] railings, etc., but without the awnings at the third floor.

[2:25:30] And then when it comes to the window frames in terms of the wood grain versus

[2:25:36] um a solid bronze color, uh the vinyl is something that we feel strongly that

[2:25:42] while conditioned to the project to have non vinyl at certain locations that

[2:25:49] doing 100% vinyl, we feel confident that we can have a project that one meets

[2:25:54] building code that achieves the STC ratings that are required along the

[2:25:57] freeway along Hillrest and aesthetically matches the same um

[2:26:04] quality that you'd see on many other projects throughout the city. Um

[2:26:09] these window frames that we're proposing, you can see on SL

[2:26:14] pictured here. Um couple projects that we've done next to Levi Stadium in Santa

[2:26:19] Clara, California are also included here for reference. um a handover project in

[2:26:25] the Bay Area also give you a sense of what the buildings

[2:26:29] that we're talking about, you know, moving forward with tonight would look

[2:26:32] like. So, in our mind, while it's not what was um agreed to in the development

[2:26:36] agreement, we still feel that it's a high quality solution. And I think some

[2:26:40] of the things that um have really been um maybe giving the brunt of negativity

[2:26:46] for vinyl windows or lowquality manufacturers, all-white frames. These

[2:26:52] are upgraded um factory painted frames that are going to look very similar to

[2:26:57] aluminum storefront just uh construction method is vinyl. And we do that with a

[2:27:02] you know enhanced C channel in the horizontal mullions. It gets us a much

[2:27:06] more bigger, more commercial looking, robust window that's very durable. It's

[2:27:10] got a 25-year warranty. It's something that we're proud to stand behind. Um,

[2:27:15] happy to answer any questions regarding what we're proposing. Um, but these are

[2:27:20] just some examples of that. And then in terms of some of the other

[2:27:24] secondary items um trelluses that are being uh deleted, some of it is program

[2:27:30] related, some of it's cost related, but the idea to remove some of the permanent

[2:27:35] trelluses and in exchange for more mobile um uh FFN or fit and furnished uh

[2:27:43] trelluses or umbrellas that offer more smaller scale, more affordable, and more

[2:27:48] flexible solutions is something that we're looking to do for the project. And

[2:27:52] then the back of house openings is really just a uh something that came up

[2:27:56] with respect to security and um and cost as well and back of house doors like uh

[2:28:03] egress stairs. So I'm out of time, but I'm here to answer questions.

[2:28:07] » Thank you. You guys will have five minutes after.

[2:28:10] » All right, we'll move over to >> Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, um could I propose

[2:28:14] that we listen to his presentation, then ask questions after that? Give him an ex

[2:28:18] extended time. >> How much time do you have left?

[2:28:21] Maybe two more minutes. >> Two more. Yep, that's fine. Let's do

[2:28:24] that. We'll go two more minutes. Let's conclude, then we'll go to public

[2:28:26] speaker. >> So, back of house openings, just again

[2:28:29] to reiterate, we're talking about um doors at egress stairways are they're

[2:28:34] not just for egress. Somebody could use those stairwells to get to their unit if

[2:28:37] they don't want to walk around to an elevator. Um but they're not the primary

[2:28:41] entrances. All of our primary entrances are all still storefront. um some of

[2:28:45] these uh secondary entrances that were um had a a glass window element to them

[2:28:51] are being reduced. Um and then the commercial storefront design, that's

[2:28:56] something where based on final locations of for u storm drain pipes, structural

[2:29:02] shear walls, the window for the final storefront arrangement shifted and so

[2:29:06] the percentage is slightly less and that requires uh council approval.

[2:29:15] I think when you look at the overall percent of glazing along Hillrest, along

[2:29:19] the kind of return walls of the retail, um the retailer is going to want

[2:29:24] visibility, want transparency, and we're still providing that. So, we feel

[2:29:28] confident that this is still a good solution to the project.

[2:29:33] And then the rooftop trelluses, again, the ones up at the fourth floor roof

[2:29:37] deck or on the uh building B roof deck and barbecue area. Uh those are going to

[2:29:43] be replaced with more flexible, smaller scale furnishings.

[2:29:52] So, this is the barbecue uh area on the middle of the building B courtyard here

[2:29:58] that previously had a a fixed permanently mounted trellis on that

[2:30:03] slab. That's going to be um smaller furniture shade structures now, large

[2:30:08] scale umbrellas. And then there's some examples of other

[2:30:12] projects that have integrated smaller umbrellas for shading in lie of large um

[2:30:18] steel trelluses.

[2:30:25] And then one of the other ones that um I would point out is the window header

[2:30:29] design. This is the accent panel that's above the actual inset window that we

[2:30:35] still have the condition where we've got um 2-in recess and we've got additional

[2:30:43] um vinyl window frames with that accent panel there. It's still inset, still

[2:30:48] contrasting, but we're asking for um that to be an enhanced um stucco color

[2:30:54] to provide the contrast there in lie of uh tile or another material.

[2:31:01] Thank you, Keith. I'm going to have you stay up here. We don't have any public

[2:31:04] comments, so why don't we use this time for city council to ask applicant any

[2:31:09] questions and then we'll move over to staff. So, any questions from council?

[2:31:17] David Newman, excuse me, Mr. Newman, you want to start?

[2:31:21] » Thank you, Mayor. Uh, first off, let me say to Mr. Marin, I'm glad to hear you

[2:31:26] have your voice back. I've been there. I know what it was like uh hearing you at

[2:31:30] the planning commission. So glad to hear you're fullthroated again.

[2:31:37] Uh I think I have two or three questions regarding your presentation tonight. Uh

[2:31:42] first let me just reconfirm when the city council approved this

[2:31:48] project in July 2023.

[2:31:53] You did agree to this development agreement including every single one of

[2:31:59] its conditions. Did you not?

[2:32:04] » The architectural ones. Keith, you should speak to.

[2:32:07] » Yeah. In general, the question about was it approved? Yes, it was signed off by

[2:32:12] the developer. Right. Both parties, the city there there was a lot of discussion

[2:32:17] months and months between the city and your team and and both parties signed

[2:32:23] this development agreement which bound both parties to

[2:32:29] what was in the agreement and all of the conditions and I think we're all in

[2:32:34] agreement on that. Um, I wanted to ask

[2:32:39] » I'll just say this, David, again that when the development agreement was

[2:32:43] signed, we did not yet have um fully bid construction documents, right? Because

[2:32:49] CDs come last. So, what we do with staff is look, especially having um worked

[2:32:55] with with staff before in Thousand Oaks, we do the best thing we can to give our

[2:33:00] general contractor as much in the way of scope, but we don't know everything. So,

[2:33:06] post the development agreement, we went to work immediately with staff going

[2:33:10] back and forth. That took some time where many things, as I said tonight,

[2:33:13] they're not even on the table. >> Yeah, I understand. But, but Mr. Mayor,

[2:33:16] I'm I'm not referring to downstream agreements with contractors or other

[2:33:19] parties. I'm I'm only referring to the development agreement here where where

[2:33:23] the parties were yourself and the city and there was agreement at that time in

[2:33:29] July 23 on that agreement including every single one of the conditions. Is

[2:33:34] that is that a true statement? >> Well, yes, but again you can't ignore

[2:33:40] the plan part of it which is not complete. All we can do as developer is

[2:33:45] do our best to look at it and say, "Hey, can we fit what we want in a $200

[2:33:50] million project with this development agreement that at that time the answer

[2:33:55] was yes." But when we learn, for example, the windows, couldn't be vinyl.

[2:34:01] That's where again we got into things that were administratively signed off.

[2:34:05] In this case, it's a design element, so it had to go to city council. So as much

[2:34:09] as you can say yes, you signed a contract, you can't, unfortunately with

[2:34:14] development, you can't ignore the whole other side of that, which is you got a

[2:34:18] budget, you got to keep capital going. It takes six plus months just to get to

[2:34:24] a closing with capital. Budgets are changing.

[2:34:27] » So I'm glad I'm glad you mentioned timelines. So let's talk about those

[2:34:30] timelines. The the development agreement was agreed to by both parties in July

[2:34:36] 2023. As I understand it from Ms. Kendall's

[2:34:41] presentation, the request for these 10 major

[2:34:46] modifications came in December

[2:34:51] 2025. Is that right?

[2:34:55] » It would have No, I think >> I see I see Mr. Powers nodding his head.

[2:35:01] Is that is that one the major >> but again it's it's 10 David that come

[2:35:06] out of a whole number of things that we went back and forth. These are only 10

[2:35:10] out of many many things that were talked about where

[2:35:12] » but I do have the timing right there. There was a my only question is is on

[2:35:17] the timelines here. There was a DA that was agreed to in July 23 and then there

[2:35:23] was a request for 10 major changes and that would request was in December

[2:35:29] 2025. Is that is that correct? Do I have that right?

[2:35:34] » No, that's that's when it was deemed ready to come to council. But the

[2:35:38] » Yeah. So that's when it's scheduled, right?

[2:35:41] » So that's correct. It's December 17th of when we reached out to planning um to

[2:35:46] let them know that there's proposed changes to the projects was many months

[2:35:50] before that probably late 24 early 25.

[2:35:54] » Correct. But I mean I think this is important nuance, right? We all know you

[2:35:58] work with a lot of projects, Keith. Um there is an application process. We

[2:36:02] don't schedule for hearing until we have those applications filed and the

[2:36:06] documents all submitted and that's when that occurred in is in December. I just

[2:36:09] want to make sure everyone's level set on timing and I understand that

[2:36:12] discussions were happening much earlier but our

[2:36:16] process is based on applications.

[2:36:20] Then my my final question um for for the whole developer team here there was a

[2:36:28] statement by Ms. Kendall in her presentation that that staff

[2:36:33] views the the ordering of these major modifications

[2:36:39] roughly in order of um the the least deviation from equal or

[2:36:46] greater quality to the greatest deviation.

[2:36:51] I'm going to ask you uh basically the same question but in terms of cost would

[2:36:56] like would would you would you rank these equivalently

[2:37:02] a A throughJ in order in terms of having the greatest cost impact for you and if

[2:37:09] if not if they're not a A throughJ how how would you sequence these?

[2:37:16] Yeah, in our mind the the list u has nothing to do with the immediate cost.

[2:37:21] So, um I think J being a larger ticket item and lower in the list. Yeah, I

[2:37:28] would agree with that. But generally, they're not in order of magnitude of in

[2:37:33] our mind of deviation, extent or severity or cost. They're just, you

[2:37:39] know, lettered A through J. And that >> is J is J the most impactful in terms of

[2:37:43] cost. >> Yes, it is.

[2:37:46] Okay. All right. Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

[2:37:52] » Council member Gutier. >> Thank you, Mayor Taylor. Hello. Thank

[2:37:56] you so much for being here this evening. Um I realized mid questions with staff

[2:38:01] that these were going to be more appropriately um asked of you all. And

[2:38:07] um so I just want to start with where I started with staff. Um I'm I'm really

[2:38:13] interested in understanding what's driving the request to further delay the

[2:38:19] project. Um because that's how I see this. There was an approval and a green

[2:38:24] flag and now we're back and we're delaying. And so I'm trying to

[2:38:30] understand is the are the requests being asked for necessary for feasibility

[2:38:39] or or is there some other driving force? No, the the the project again we we

[2:38:47] again we need building permit um soon to go vertical but the project is moving

[2:38:52] on. We are simply basically coming and saying look

[2:38:55] » from the time we signed that development agreement there was a lot of work done

[2:38:58] afterwards. We're also trying to keep like any of you would with a business a

[2:39:03] budget. Okay. >> We have lenders um and it took a very

[2:39:09] long time to close this transaction. is probably one of the largest in Ventura

[2:39:14] County at, you know, a little over $200 million.

[2:39:17] When we present that budget and when we closed, we knew again we still had to

[2:39:24] come in front of council. So, there's very little flexibility. The lenders

[2:39:30] will show you, especially that's why that contingency is set up,

[2:39:33] » but we can't be this early in a project and have four of $5 million used in

[2:39:38] contingency. Any developer would would tell you that. I'm not saying anything

[2:39:42] that is, you know, not consistent with way the business really works. So, no,

[2:39:45] there's we're not there's no delay here. In fact, if anything, you know, but for

[2:39:49] the rains, we actually were 3 weeks ahead of schedule. Um, we lost some of

[2:39:53] that uh or a good chunk of that because of the heavy rains as you know, we all

[2:39:56] had. But look, much like SL too, you're talking this is we're we're a

[2:40:02] development group that goes beyond the norm. You've seen it with Zal and as

[2:40:09] I said, Hillrest arguably is an even nicer project. I mean, it was something

[2:40:14] that Amgen really, really wanted. We did our very best really to put a project.

[2:40:19] The Amjen folks were excited about the whole life sciences quarter is excited

[2:40:23] about. We've got amenities in there that you don't see um particularly on the

[2:40:28] wellness side that we're putting in there, but they cost money. and we made

[2:40:32] assumptions the very best that we could at the time where we didn't have our

[2:40:37] plans bid. We trust our contractor implicitly. He's a resident of Thousand

[2:40:41] Oaks. Company's here in Thousand Oaks. They do a great job. They're building

[2:40:44] MBK as well. And we know that when they submit numbers to us, they're honest

[2:40:49] numbers. They're the best they can get to. But we could have there's no way to

[2:40:54] know for as I keep pointing out windows. >> Yeah.

[2:40:56] » That that would be changed since Right. every high-quality project in the city

[2:41:00] has been done with those windows. >> I understand. I think my my what I'm not

[2:41:05] understanding or maybe what I understand and just want to say plainly are the

[2:41:12] assumptions that you made at the beginning of this is the responsibility

[2:41:17] and the cost of doing your business. And we as a city um our business is keeping

[2:41:25] to what we think our our constituents our communities are going to take as a

[2:41:32] as a contribution um whether it's aesthetics or not um by

[2:41:39] our doing by our collective decisioning. And so that's where I'm where I'm

[2:41:43] grappling. Um, and I think Dave, uh, Council Member Newman also tried to get

[2:41:48] down to what on the list is because I heard you say some of it is

[2:41:54] functionally, uh, driven and some of it is costbased driven. And I'm trying to

[2:41:59] weed through those those items. Um, but without your insight, I don't know which

[2:42:07] of those um, would garner either category. And then um you know cuz I

[2:42:13] think of the window um percentage going from 60 to 65 sounds reasonable. I saw

[2:42:20] the renderings. Those look like current um storefronts that we have here in

[2:42:24] town. I understand that we're but I I I'm

[2:42:29] again I'm I'm really just grappling with um

[2:42:34] what is driving the ask? what feels like for me after a a green

[2:42:40] lit project um coming back and and bringing us back to this conversation

[2:42:47] and um I'm just being as direct as I can so that I'm not kind of dancing around

[2:42:52] in my words. >> I I appreciate the directness and and

[2:42:55] and frankly I mean it's healthy. So, believe me, what the the as I'll kick

[2:43:01] speak to some some functional aspects from a pure cost standpoint, we simply

[2:43:06] cannot use our contingency this early in the project where we haven't even gone

[2:43:10] up yet. It's devastating. What are the worst case outcomes?

[2:43:14] Typically, what lenders will say is you use up your contingency, you need to

[2:43:18] reestablish it, rebalance the loan, which means put more capital in. We

[2:43:21] can't do it. We're at a point now where, as I said, it took six months to close

[2:43:24] this project. It took every bit, you know, of energy, of patience to stay

[2:43:33] focused. We could have stopped many times. Um, we almost did several times

[2:43:40] because of frankly just pressure from the lenders and development has to be a

[2:43:45] public private partnership. >> Agreed.

[2:43:47] » This isn't a math test where there's a there's an answer. It's right or you're

[2:43:50] wrong. There is a matter of gray here and what we're not coming back and

[2:43:54] saying, "Hey, help us make more profit. We didn't I can tell you that the

[2:44:01] assumptions that we have aren't even credible today as far as where assets

[2:44:07] are trading for. We're not looking short-term. We're looking at a long-term

[2:44:10] situation. But we have to build on time and we have to build on budget because

[2:44:14] if you don't do that, bad things do happen. And there are projects that get

[2:44:20] stopped and sit because the lenders stop. That is a worst case outcome. And

[2:44:25] I'm I'm I'm here to tell you today, it's a real possibility. We have no

[2:44:29] flexibility. Everybody in the environment we're in, and this was true

[2:44:32] before, you know, the uh the situation in the Middle East and rising oil

[2:44:36] prices. Lenders are nervous. The their books uh the losses are mounting. You're

[2:44:41] looking at foreclosures. There's nobody building. I mean, take a look around and

[2:44:44] see how many multif family projects are being built anywhere, not just here in

[2:44:49] in, you know, Thousand Oaks. Look around the country. Multif family starts at our

[2:44:53] almost at an all-time low again. Too much. So, I'm just seeing like we're not

[2:44:58] new. We we we did SL. We brought you >> some, you know, great amenities to the

[2:45:03] public. We'll do the same thing. What we're asking for is just sheer

[2:45:06] consideration for the situation we find ourselves in where we're we would be

[2:45:10] seriously out of budget. And part of that is for things that nothing we could

[2:45:14] have done differently because we couldn't have anticipated Windows for

[2:45:17] example. >> I appreciate it and I appreciate all the

[2:45:20] time. I'll ask my last question and then I'll I'll listen and learn from um the

[2:45:25] following questions. Um so if the amendment is not granted, if

[2:45:31] we don't move forward with um these changes, is the project at risk?

[2:45:36] » Yes. >> Okay. Thank you,

[2:45:40] » Mr. Engler. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for

[2:45:43] coming out tonight. Um, we appreciate I love the project over at 299, the

[2:45:49] Shantel project. Nice project, and we appreciate the um the commitment you

[2:45:54] have to this city. Um, I guess my struggle comes um I I was here for the

[2:46:02] presentation a couple of years ago. Um, I remember our uh actually your your um

[2:46:09] your attorney saying that um you have you have looked at all 279

[2:46:16] um items in the in the agreement. And I uh in the last couple days waited

[2:46:21] through all of those as well. everything from

[2:46:25] um where the trash goes to how how high the curbs are to a h a lot of different

[2:46:34] items. One of those items was the windows.

[2:46:38] Um item 48D talked a lot about the windows and described the type of

[2:46:44] windows that was looking for uh that the city was looking for. Um, I'm not sure

[2:46:51] if there was a a discrepancy in what you saw and what the city was presenting,

[2:46:56] but I know that your attorney said that all 279 were agreed to. How do you how

[2:47:02] do you square that? Go ahead, Keith. Yeah, I think just like

[2:47:07] Mark was suggesting a moment ago about we're only here because these are items

[2:47:12] that we feel can deliver a similar quality building um that the city is

[2:47:18] hoping for, but at a cost and budget that we can realistically deliver today.

[2:47:23] Otherwise, we wouldn't be here. We would just be building um the items that were

[2:47:27] agreed to at that time. So there's um I guess what I would describe as

[2:47:31] unforeseen escalation in certain things like windows, like steel, um insurance

[2:47:38] costs post fires um that are out of the developers control and other things um

[2:47:45] that um we were able to accommodate and find workarounds for. Uh for instance,

[2:47:49] one of the substitutions that we made for some of the slats on the project um

[2:47:54] we were able to find that staff believed was comparable and um you know it was a

[2:48:00] minor amendment and we moved forward with that and a lot of those items we

[2:48:02] did work through directly with staff. some of these where we're reducing

[2:48:06] square footage um or changing out a window type can only be done here at

[2:48:12] council and that's why we're here tonight

[2:48:14] » in in specific plan 24 as as you mentioned as we know from our our

[2:48:18] discussions with staff there was several items that were changed from our um

[2:48:25] design standards uh to allow this project to go forward in that location.

[2:48:31] Um were you partners to that those discussions as well as as a as a

[2:48:35] specific plan was being developed? >> Yeah, it was developed collectively uh

[2:48:41] with Rencon, KTGY, the developer and representatives from city staff that

[2:48:46] weighed in on um their thoughts on design, site planning, materiality, etc.

[2:48:52] And all that collectively became the project that went to city council. So

[2:48:57] then then at that time there was discussions of windows. I'm sure there's

[2:49:02] discussions of awnings, there's discussions of trelluses. Um wasn't that

[2:49:07] part of your discussions on that? I I'm just assuming so.

[2:49:12] » Yeah, it the the discussions went on for many months and ultimately at the final

[2:49:17] development agreement and final conditions of approval um they were

[2:49:21] reviewed. I think they were believed to be

[2:49:24] achievable at the time. Otherwise, the developer wouldn't have committed to

[2:49:27] them. After approval, when we began schematic design, design development,

[2:49:32] investigated more detailed material specs, um developed more comprehensive

[2:49:37] drawings that were submitted for um final bidding that the numbers escalated

[2:49:43] beyond what was projected at the time. We didn't have time to do a full 8week

[2:49:49] comprehensive budget from the time the final development agreement terms were

[2:49:52] presented to where they were accepted. It was um some of the items um came you

[2:49:57] know in a time where in good faith we accepted and we pursued them and went

[2:50:02] down that road to try and ensure that they could be provided. And in some

[2:50:07] cases like the windows uh we looked at some alternative specs that had a faux

[2:50:11] woodlook finish that we didn't believe were superior or that we would be

[2:50:16] comfortable putting our stamp on and we feel comfortable with the product that's

[2:50:20] specified. Um, and that one meets the budget.

[2:50:25] » Um, I guess I know we we there's a lot of give and take between development

[2:50:31] crew and our staff, but there's also a lot of give and take between the council

[2:50:36] and the citizenry. So, I know that you know that there were there were people

[2:50:42] opposed to this project because of the massing, because of the size, because of

[2:50:46] a whole host of different reasons. Um, I know this council, I I was on the

[2:50:52] council. Um, we weighed all this as part of our decision based on what was

[2:50:59] presented to us at that time. Um, so you can see perhaps our hesitation now of

[2:51:07] voiding the trust almost with our citizenry if we now change where we're

[2:51:13] going with this. Um, I I have some problems with that. Um, you're you're

[2:51:18] asking us to do that. Is that is that a fair ask of us?

[2:51:22] » I I think Bob, I I think it is. I mean, I think look, as I said, your planning

[2:51:28] staff, I mean, honestly, and trust me when I say this. I mean, we've

[2:51:34] got a lot of units in Florida. I only wish that the staff there was as capable

[2:51:39] as your staff here. Okay. So they've recommended,

[2:51:43] you know, four I think, you know, four out of five

[2:51:49] uh uh planning staff members recommended the 10 items be accepted tonight. So

[2:51:56] it's not like I think we're on the other side of your own planning staff as it

[2:52:00] relates to the things we're coming here for.

[2:52:02] What they told us again is that look, there's we have the authority to do this

[2:52:06] much. As Keith said, much of that has been done and you're not hearing about

[2:52:10] it tonight. The 10 items is they said, "Listen, this is got to go to council.

[2:52:14] This isn't something that we can simply opine on." Now, we did go back and forth

[2:52:19] as Keith said, we show different options, for example, for windows, um,

[2:52:23] and ultimately came back to, you know, same windows that the city has widely

[2:52:27] accepted throughout. So I don't think we're asking for things that again it's

[2:52:32] 10 items on a project that you know is as as visible and large as this project

[2:52:39] is but it will allow us to stay on course without it again we can only do

[2:52:46] so much at the time that development agreement was signed and in good faith

[2:52:50] because we had come to work with the city before look at SL we had a

[2:52:54] six-month delay over very slight differences in renderings we got through

[2:52:58] it. Um, I think both sides worked really, really hard. We narrowed it

[2:53:02] down. You improved your process substantially from the first time we

[2:53:06] were here. But I hope that in doing so, you've seen from us. We do what we said

[2:53:11] we're going to do. You are not going to get a project that is going to be in any

[2:53:16] way viewed as being less than what was proposed at the time. I mean, these are

[2:53:20] very small changes, some of which are not even observable, like I'd say the

[2:53:24] windows. And we're highly cognizant of the fact that it's our reputation. You

[2:53:29] know, we love hearing that Santel, for example, described as a trophy property.

[2:53:34] We want Hillrest to be the same thing. It's across the street from the largest

[2:53:39] employer here at Amjad. Believe me, we have our work cut out. We want to

[2:53:43] attract that 5,000 ft of commercial, something compelling, especially for the

[2:53:47] folks in that quarter. This is what we do. But it's got to be a little give and

[2:53:52] take. We're not asking really for that much. When you think about it in the

[2:53:55] context of all the moving parts with this project, it's 10 items, one of

[2:53:59] which we really had no reason to think would be any different than anything

[2:54:02] else both we had done and others are doing as we speak right now that they're

[2:54:07] building with vinyl windows. >> And but I want you to recognize it's

[2:54:12] it's also our reputation with our citizens that we have promised that this

[2:54:16] project was going to go forward as presented and now we have to make this

[2:54:21] decision whether we need to change what was presented and then reckoned

[2:54:27] with what uh going to come back from our citizens. So that's that's what I'm

[2:54:31] trying to weigh. So um with that, thank thank you for your honesty and thank you

[2:54:35] for your answers, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, Mr. Angler. Thank you guys

[2:54:39] both for being here. Uh my first question for you, when did you guys

[2:54:44] close on your financing?

[2:54:50] Dave, you know the date?

[2:54:54] » I think it was just June or I think it was June of 25.

[2:54:58] » June of 25. And then what's your guys current loan

[2:55:02] to cost on it?

[2:55:06] » With Pill? I mean, we got up to well over 80

[2:55:11] » 80%. >> Over that.

[2:55:14] » Over that. Okay.

[2:55:19] And then for your contingencies, you mentioned that you guys have a $5

[2:55:24] million contingency on a $200 million project. So two and a half%.

[2:55:27] » Yeah, it's it's on hard cost. So >> that's on your hard cost.

[2:55:31] » It's it's usually a 5% contingency on our hard cost, but you get to 5 million.

[2:55:36] » Okay. And you're saying that you have already eaten into that by almost 45% at

[2:55:43] this stage? >> 40%.

[2:55:45] Okay. which again is not I mean we still have

[2:55:50] um 60% left and we're going vertical. So a lot of that again with foundation

[2:55:55] grading it's you know worked out we're kind of where we think we'd be.

[2:56:00] » Okay. And the

[2:56:05] a couple of the things that you mentioned that

[2:56:09] when you're developing there's unknowns and you're making assumptions for at

[2:56:15] least the the timeline on this. We get the project and title. You guys have

[2:56:20] your developer agreement and you have kind of a pretty good idea of what is

[2:56:26] entitled to build considering that costs may improve may increase by the time you

[2:56:31] break ground. That fair statement. >> Mhm.

[2:56:34] » When you guys then brought the final budget to the lender, did you guys bring

[2:56:40] the final budget based on what was currently entitled?

[2:56:44] So it was we we we brought the budget at the time that was we must have rebided.

[2:56:51] I mean Steve's here. I mean we had that project rebid three I think at least

[2:56:57] three three three three three times. Um what I'm what I'm trying to really hone

[2:57:01] in on is you mentioned that you and if I'm saying something outline correct me

[2:57:06] but you kind of felt like you were blindsided or something you know with

[2:57:10] particularly the vinyl window windows. there was nothing that you saw that made

[2:57:16] you feel like you couldn't get that approved.

[2:57:19] And I think what some of the other council members mentioned and I do I do

[2:57:23] want this answer as well. If you had your developer agreement signed which

[2:57:29] stated that this was the requirement for Windows,

[2:57:34] then presenting it to the lender to then close on your financing after. When you

[2:57:39] were doing that budget, did you present a budget and made the assumption that

[2:57:44] you could do the vinyl windows as opposed to what you currently had in the

[2:57:48] agreement? >> We assumed that we would be able to use

[2:57:51] the vinyl windows. Yeah. Now, we knew at the time and I think

[2:57:57] that when we went to capital, Dave, you can come up here if you want because

[2:58:01] might be helpful, but I think we knew again that there were things we were

[2:58:05] going to work on with staff, some of which would be minor mod. We didn't

[2:58:08] think Windows would be a major mod, for example. We'd have no reason to think so

[2:58:12] based on what was being built. I mean, keep in mind, we're using the same GC as

[2:58:17] MBK is, right, on the Sanctuary project. So there'd be no reason for us knowing

[2:58:22] what's being used from a material standpoint that we wouldn't be able to

[2:58:24] do that. Other things happened as we kept rebidding, you know, costs went up,

[2:58:29] but again, we did everything we could value engineering where we could without

[2:58:33] involving even the city, you know, to to to stay within within budget. But at

[2:58:39] this point, you know, what we're talking about here are items that would only be

[2:58:44] taken up in contingency. And there just simply is it's there's not enough there

[2:58:46] to do that. particularly when we start first with the windows and the and the

[2:58:51] cost there.

[2:58:56] » What's what's you might have mentioned this what's what's your guys assumption

[2:58:59] on what the if all 10 modifications are approved. What's the the cost that

[2:59:04] you'll save in doing this? Do you have that number?

[2:59:11] » You have it.

[2:59:15] Total number Dave >> three four

[2:59:19] » approximately four million right >> Dave windows are half

[2:59:21] » Dave the CFO >> he's the head of development

[2:59:24] » okay $4 million

[2:59:28] okay um

[2:59:33] okay I think I have I think that answers it for now I'll move over to staff

[2:59:38] questions if you guys have any Mr. Mayor Mr.

[2:59:41] » Mayor excuse excuse me Mr. Newman, you have a question.

[2:59:45] » Just a quick clarification. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. To follow up on a

[2:59:51] question Mayor Prom Taylor, uh, Mayor Prom Angler was asking. Um, Mr. Marin,

[2:59:57] what what's the current status of the vinyl windows? I I think I heard a

[3:00:01] quote, I may have misheard it, uh, that quote they're building the vinyl

[3:00:06] windows. U, so where where is that? What what is the current status of that?

[3:00:14] We we we haven't gone up yet, so there's no windows yet.

[3:00:18] » Okay. So So it's not like you you we're we're discussing whether or not to use

[3:00:22] vinyl windows tonight. It's not like you've already purchased them or they're

[3:00:26] being constructed right now. >> No.

[3:00:29] » Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Now we we'll move over to staff.

[3:00:33] You'd like to reply to any of the comments.

[3:00:42] Excuse me. I'm just bringing up uh some reference material here. Um I just want

[3:00:48] to clarify a couple things or provide some um context. Um I do want to uh

[3:00:55] inter real quick. If you guys want to take a seat, you can. And then we'll

[3:00:58] call you back up if we have anything. Yep.

[3:01:01] » Uh I just want to confirm that um there there has been no uh real delay in the

[3:01:07] project. Um the construction is underway and we've worked um closely together

[3:01:12] with the applicant to make sure that building plan check and grading permits

[3:01:16] and things like that um proceed while we um review

[3:01:21] uh these requests. Um and indeed uh reviewing the building plan check um was

[3:01:27] a part of forming these requests and identifying the revisions that needed to

[3:01:31] be requested. Um in terms of the timeline um the

[3:01:38] building permits um were submitted in uh or the applications rather um were

[3:01:44] submitted in the August or September of 2024 and that's when we started

[3:01:50] discussing um these revisions and identifying them through that building

[3:01:54] plan check review process. Um the minor modifications there are a number of

[3:02:01] modifications that were not really design related um that were you know

[3:02:06] part of normal building plan check procedure. Um but in terms of design

[3:02:10] revisions um there were 19 that were identified in early very early um 2025

[3:02:19] maybe late 2024. Um and in April those um revisions which were identified as

[3:02:26] minor were granted and we were you know those were incorporated into the

[3:02:30] building plan check submitts. Um and then the final applications are that

[3:02:37] were are required were required to move forward with this request and schedule

[3:02:41] it for hearing um and process these major requests. Um those were submitted

[3:02:46] in December. So between September and now is when we were able to formally

[3:02:51] process um the major um requests, but again um review of the project and and

[3:02:59] other things were moving forward. um during that whole time and um

[3:03:04] discussions with the applicant on uh maybe how to revise or address these

[3:03:09] requests were also had during that time uh and I want to thank them for those

[3:03:14] discussions too. Um the in terms of the vinyl windows um to provide some context

[3:03:22] the objective design standards have always included that vinyl windows are

[3:03:26] not allowed um and those were identified as something to seriously take into

[3:03:31] consideration um as part of the pre-application process which was uh

[3:03:36] closed in June of 2022. Um and then the the discussion or

[3:03:41] negotiation on um requiring vinyl windows or not was very active

[3:03:46] discussion throughout the planning entitlement review process um which took

[3:03:50] place over the next year between June uh 2022 and June 2023. Um that was uh

[3:03:58] consistently a point of negotiation. Um, and then I I'd also just want to um

[3:04:05] clarify that um items F, G, I, and J, which are part of that group one that

[3:04:12] Keith described, um they were kind of described as inconsistencies

[3:04:17] um and and I would agree that they're inconsistent um with the

[3:04:23] entitlement set on on purpose. Um those are required revisions. Um, and so it's

[3:04:29] not that they were inconsistent or erroneous necessarily so much as they

[3:04:34] are revisions that are required.

[3:04:44] » I think that's it. >> Okay. Thank you. After hearing that,

[3:04:47] anyone from council have any questions for staff?

[3:04:52] » Mr. Mayor, >> Mr. Newman.

[3:04:56] » Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of clarifications

[3:04:59] of of statements made by the applicant. Um, one statement,

[3:05:04] » Mr. Neon, sorry to stop you. Did you ask for Mr. Marin to come to the podium?

[3:05:12] » A question. These are questions of staff.

[3:05:14] » Of staff. Okay, great. >> Thank you.

[3:05:17] Uh, just to clarify some statements made by the applicant team. Um, one, there

[3:05:23] was a characterization of vinyl windows as quote a new design standard. Uh, my

[3:05:30] reading of condition 48D is that it is not a new standard. The 48D

[3:05:40] specifies which building materials can be used. Uh, would you agree that this

[3:05:45] is not a new design standard?

[3:05:49] » I would. Yeah, I would uh reiterate that, you know, the vinyl windows were a

[3:05:55] very active point of negotiation throughout the entire entitlement review

[3:05:58] process. Um, and that's why specific facades were identified as requiring the

[3:06:04] vinyl windows as a, you know, um, as a concession that not all windows are

[3:06:11] required to be non vinyl, just the ones that are publicly facing

[3:06:15] um, or viewable from public areas. Um, that was a very specific point of

[3:06:20] negotiation. >> Oh, I see. So, so you're saying there

[3:06:23] was negotiation on vinyl or not vinyl >> prior to the enactment of the

[3:06:29] development agreement. >> That's right.

[3:06:33] » Okay. That's that's interesting. Okay. Thank you. Um, there's also a statement

[3:06:38] made that four out of five quote unquote planning staff, I think the intent was

[3:06:45] to refer to planning commissioners, um, recommended changes. Um, just to be

[3:06:52] clear on that, the the recommendation from the planning commission was not 10

[3:06:57] changes, it was three of the 10 changes. Correct.

[3:07:00] » That's correct. From the planning commission staff made no recommendation.

[3:07:05] » Very good. Thank you for those clarifications, Mayor.

[3:07:10] » Thank you, Mr. Newman. Go ahead, Mr. Adams.

[3:07:14] » Yeah, thank you. How many minor modifications did you say there were

[3:07:21] over the time period here? >> There were nine minor design revisions

[3:07:25] that were um approved ministerially. >> Nine. Okay. And then in your comments

[3:07:32] just a moment ago, you were talking about inconsistencies

[3:07:36] uh with the uh applicants requests and what our objective standards. Is that

[3:07:42] what you >> Yeah. The um the presentation framed it

[3:07:46] as inconsistencies between the what was required as the conditions of approval

[3:07:52] and the um entitlement set um that was presented at hearing. And um that sort

[3:08:00] of implies that there was an error in drafting those conditions. But I just

[3:08:03] want to be clear um those conditions weren't written erroneously. They were

[3:08:08] written specifically to require those changes.

[3:08:11] » Okay. So there was no error. >> Not in that respect. No.

[3:08:16] » If I can if I can just add on to it. But typically what happens is when you have

[3:08:19] an entitlement package, you know, up to the last minute, there's a lot of

[3:08:24] conversation and discussion. Um, so it's not uncommon for the plans that are

[3:08:29] presented to the decision-making body to not incorporate all of the conditions of

[3:08:33] approval that have been negotiated and submitted to the applicant. So sometimes

[3:08:38] you'll see a condition of approval that basically says applicant shall modify

[3:08:43] the plans that blah blah blah blah blah. And that's what happened in this case.

[3:08:51] » All right. The applicant has five minutes if you would like to rebuttal

[3:08:55] anything mentioned.

[3:09:06] » Yeah. One thing I wanted to um point out as part of the window discussion and

[3:09:11] deliberation about the right windows for this project. Um I think it was our

[3:09:16] intent and it was presented um as part of our density bonus ask to seek a

[3:09:20] density bonus waiver for um the objective design standard. Right? In

[3:09:26] this case, we had a specific plan. So we were presenting a specific plan that was

[3:09:30] proposing non- vinyl windows and by means of providing all of the affordable

[3:09:35] housing on site, the project has the right to take advantage of certain

[3:09:39] density bonus waiverss there. So that was one that we were seeking. staff

[3:09:43] recommended that in order to provide enhanced quality that although we're

[3:09:47] seeking the waiver provide kind of upgraded or enhanced windows on these

[3:09:53] certain elevations or locations and that's when you know at the final um

[3:09:59] point of approval that yes what's been discussed is correct like at the time of

[3:10:05] signing the development agreement those additional enhancements

[3:10:10] um were agreed to um and what we're coming back tonight um to request is

[3:10:16] basically going back to our original density bonus waiver request of um all

[3:10:21] 100% vinyl windows. Um so it's not because we didn't go out and um do

[3:10:28] research and seek the um uh the ability to provide what was

[3:10:35] conditioned to the project. But again, it says if we have to, you know, make

[3:10:39] changes, um, the development agreement allows for that. We just have to come

[3:10:43] here and request them formally and get them approved. So, um I I understand the

[3:10:50] kind of a the sensitivity to all these topics and um you know it is a back and

[3:10:55] forth and give and take and um things like the windows, the um tile accented

[3:11:02] windows. These are all things that we studied the details. We studied the

[3:11:05] pricing and we came with what we felt was kind of the balanced solution to

[3:11:09] provide a high quality project that met u the approved project conditions and

[3:11:14] development agreement as close as we could and um that's why we're here

[3:11:17] tonight. If I can ask some clar. So, so are you asserting at this point that

[3:11:24] » you're not asserting that the development agreement controls and that

[3:11:28] separate and apart from the development agreement, you have a right under the

[3:11:32] density bonus laws to ask for a waiver at this point. Is that what you're

[3:11:35] suggesting? >> No, no, no. project. Um was mentioning

[3:11:40] as part of the history of the discussions of what the project was

[3:11:43] proposing, which waiverss it would be requesting was discussing the density

[3:11:48] bonus waiver for um the non vinyl window clause of the objective design

[3:11:53] standards. through the process

[3:11:57] and negotiation, the final development agreement requested the enhancements of

[3:12:02] certain locations and it so it essentially partially approved the

[3:12:08] waiver that we were originally seeking but added enhanced areas and those are

[3:12:12] the ones that were unable to uh provide at this time.

[3:12:16] » Right. So originally the project if my my recollection is that the original

[3:12:20] project proposed 100% vinyl and staff objected to that because it violated our

[3:12:26] objective development standards. And therefore that's, you know, part of the

[3:12:31] negotiations as part of the development agreement which both the applicant and

[3:12:34] the city agreed to was that based on all of the other objectives and all of the

[3:12:41] other benefits to both the applicant and the city, the city's benefits being

[3:12:46] affordable housing, significant architectural improvements,

[3:12:50] um, and benefits to the developer, certainty, freezing of impact fees, for

[3:12:54] example, that's a huge benefit to the developer because since that time we've

[3:12:58] actually adopted to new user fees and our fees have significantly increased.

[3:13:02] So there was obviously the negotiation that occurred and at that time the

[3:13:06] applicant and the developer agreed that although vinyl windows uh were

[3:13:12] prohibited under our objective development standard since the

[3:13:15] development agreement was being negotiated, the both of the parties

[3:13:19] agreed to recommend to the city council approval of allowing vinyl windows in

[3:13:24] the interior facing areas but requiring non vinyl for the outward- facing ones

[3:13:30] in concert with the objectives and the benefits that were negotiated by the

[3:13:34] parties. Is that accurate? >> That is accurate as far as I believe.

[3:13:38] Yeah. >> Okay. And at that time, um I believe we

[3:13:41] actually incorporated into the specific plan to be clear how important that one

[3:13:46] in particular was. I remember that one in particular as uh a very important

[3:13:52] attribute or aspect of the of the project. And that's why it wasn't just

[3:13:56] added as a condition of approval, but was actually incorporated into the

[3:14:00] specific plan amendment.

[3:14:04] in the original approved specific plan, right?

[3:14:06] » Yeah. Yes. Okay. Thanks. >> Right. Thank you.

[3:14:13] All right. I'm now going to close the public hearing

[3:14:18] and then would anyone like to >> public speakers?

[3:14:22] » Uh I don't see any public speakers. Uh Mr. Newman,

[3:14:29] » city clerk. Correct. >> That's correct. the public speaker who I

[3:14:31] thought it was was actually the applicant.

[3:14:33] » Oh, did you hear that? >> My apologies.

[3:14:36] » No problem. Thanks for the check. >> My apologies.

[3:14:38] » Um, no problem. Anyone would like to make a comment or motion?

[3:14:43] » Mr. Angler. >> Uh, thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I'll take

[3:14:46] » Louise. >> Mr. Adams, I clearly didn't get enough

[3:14:48] sleep with this new baby. I called you Mr. Angler.

[3:14:51] » Oh, >> sheesh.

[3:14:52] » I take that as a compliment. Anyway, uh, yeah, I'll kick it off with

[3:14:58] the discussion. I think uh from what we've heard tonight that starting off

[3:15:02] with the discussion would be a good way to go. Um I do want to acknowledge my

[3:15:08] appreciation for Lato uh for the investments they've made in our city,

[3:15:12] particularly Santal, a mixeduse project on the western end of the boulevard that

[3:15:17] has been a gamecher for the city. It's fulfilled our dream of developing the

[3:15:22] 101 corridor and uh it's it's an excellent project and the project we're

[3:15:28] looking at tonight is also part of the 101 corridor and a very highprofile

[3:15:32] project as you say it's right next to Amgen right on the freeway. Uh and I do

[3:15:37] believe in the concept of a public private partnership. I think there's um

[3:15:42] obligations on both sides the city and the developer to make these projects

[3:15:46] happen. I do think the city has been a good partner. Uh when you look all the

[3:15:51] way back to 2023, whether it was the general plan we amended, the zone

[3:15:56] changes, the special use uh or the specific plan, the special use permits,

[3:16:02] the tree permits, the development agreement. Um you know, we've been right

[3:16:08] there. Um we approved a 55- foot uh build uh

[3:16:13] project, which is a little taller than usual, four stories. uh

[3:16:18] you were able to take advantage of the density bonus and I think that gave you

[3:16:24] 87 additional units which I would which good for you. I hope that makes the

[3:16:30] project pencil out even even better. We got some affordable units from that as

[3:16:34] well. Um you were granted as Justine said nine

[3:16:41] minor mods as we went along here. Um, that's routine.

[3:16:47] What's not routine are these major modifications.

[3:16:51] That that's not routine. Uh, I I um and and that means basically

[3:16:58] starting over, you know, notifying the public, having a planning commission

[3:17:02] hearing, and here we are at the city council.

[3:17:05] And I'm I'm just concerned, you know, the windows, the doors, and all that

[3:17:10] business. That's one thing. I'm concerned about the potential precedent

[3:17:14] that this might be setting in the city. You know, as a developer, you have a the

[3:17:19] right to the original approval and now we're looking at the approval

[3:17:25] plans are are that we approved are just not final all of a sudden. uh

[3:17:33] this the precedent of that concerns me that is the developer agreement

[3:17:39] you know a an agreed upon plan or is it just a suggestion

[3:17:43] but by the uh by the city and uh I'm I I uh I'm wonder I'm I'm worried about

[3:17:51] that and I'm worried about it because Thousand Oaks is at the forefront of

[3:17:56] housing in this county by any measure whether it's the regional studies that

[3:18:01] have been done, studies by uh different intellectual think groups and whatever.

[3:18:05] We are at the forefront. We have projects coming up out of the ground now

[3:18:09] and we have projects in the pipeline and uh

[3:18:14] I just worry a little bit about the what you would think would be the finality of

[3:18:21] an entitlement and it's now becoming flexible. What about all these other

[3:18:26] projects? What what could that mean for them?

[3:18:30] Will will it mean more requests for changes? Um will it complicate our

[3:18:36] future planning? I I see this as a potential slippery

[3:18:42] slope. Uh this demand for flexibility after

[3:18:46] everything's already been agreed to. And I worst case I see it as you know

[3:18:52] community groups or competitors you know getting uh you know getting

[3:18:57] legal with us uh when it comes to a project

[3:19:02] and and as I mentioned I'm concerned about our objective standards too. The

[3:19:05] the state of California has interjected themselves so much into the housing

[3:19:09] process in cities. They've taken away a lot of our ability. But we do have the

[3:19:15] objective standards as our one of our last lines of defense and and I really

[3:19:20] think that we need to uphold those. Um

[3:19:26] so those are my concerns. Um maybe we can discuss it a little further.

[3:19:33] » Mr. Angler, >> thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I I appreciate

[3:19:39] my colleagues uh comments. um this this uh relationship that we've had

[3:19:47] with with uh uh Mr. Mayor and in company um it's been a good relationship and I

[3:19:53] think it reflects well with our staff that comments that were made about the

[3:19:57] uh cooperation among staff uh reflects well both on the company and on the

[3:20:02] city. Um, I do have um similar concerns and uh

[3:20:10] um we've been presented I suppose in just layman's terms with a menu of

[3:20:15] items, 10 items that perhaps we can choose a few too. We could go with what

[3:20:21] the uh planning commission recommended. We could uh take all take none. It's

[3:20:27] this menu of items that we're now presented with. Um, and I've uh I've

[3:20:33] said it to uh staff, I've said it to my colleagues, designing from the dis is

[3:20:40] probably the worst thing you can do. It's not um and I'm sure the applicant

[3:20:46] could also uh agree to that that when um we five start getting involved and what

[3:20:55] color the walls should be or should there be a uh horizontal slats on the on

[3:21:01] the railings or vertical slats on the railings.

[3:21:06] That's not our function. We're not good at it. It's not what we should be doing.

[3:21:11] We should be setting policy such as the design standards, such as approving um

[3:21:18] the uh development agreement, such as approving and and and going after our

[3:21:23] our specific plan for 24. Um

[3:21:29] a lot of the development uh that has occurred and this is another good

[3:21:33] example of it has been a give and take along the way. Um my colleague mentioned

[3:21:40] uh the trees. Uh there were 17 oak trees taken out and and we all know how much

[3:21:45] we love oak trees in Thousand Oaks. 17 oak trees taken out. Believe me, that

[3:21:51] raised some eyebrows with the citizens. But we were able to convince the

[3:21:56] citizens that because of that sacrifice of trees um we we received in in

[3:22:03] exchange some affordable housing. We exch

[3:22:07] received in exchange the redevelopment of a defunct office building. Um, we

[3:22:13] could sell that as part of what we approach the citizens with. That's why I

[3:22:17] mentioned earlier it's our reputation as well that is is at risk here and is is

[3:22:25] uh being um talked about. um our re we we told our citizens that this is what

[3:22:31] the agreement was going to be and um I don't I don't take breaking that trust

[3:22:37] with our citizens um lightly. It it's something that I I I stake my reputation

[3:22:43] on. Um but I do agree with my colleague Mr. Adam down at the end. Um,

[3:22:50] development agreements are one of the last things that we have to where we can

[3:22:55] put a Thousand Oaks stamp on projects. The state does preempt us in a lot of

[3:23:01] different areas. Um, and uh, I mean, a prime example is the density bonus.

[3:23:08] We're willing to go along with the density bonus even though it produces

[3:23:12] larger projects than we're used to because of the of the um give and take

[3:23:19] that allows us to get that community benefit that resulted from the the uh

[3:23:25] density bonus. But the state is more and more involved

[3:23:29] in what we do here at the local level. And I'm I'm um a little a little uh

[3:23:36] hesitant to um give up what little u influence we have with our development

[3:23:42] agreements. Um I'm I'm torn on this one because I want I want a developer that

[3:23:50] has produced good good product to continue to produce good product.

[3:23:57] But for the reasons I've annunciated, I have a problem. um designing from the

[3:24:02] dis. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[3:24:06] » Mr. Newman. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I want to fully

[3:24:12] endorse the comments of council members Adam and Angler and also echo as well my

[3:24:20] appreciation for what Mark Marin and team have done.

[3:24:25] There was a lot of collaborative discussion

[3:24:29] prior to the July 23 approval by this council and I was one of the council

[3:24:35] members that enthusiastically voted in favor of this project. There was a lot

[3:24:39] of discussion about that night about what a highquality project this was and

[3:24:44] it is and that unlocks a lot. It gives Mr. Marin and his team a lot of

[3:24:52] benefits. The staff presentation tonight had a bullet list of six of them. I can

[3:24:59] think of at least three more. But it also gives the community benefits. Uh

[3:25:04] there is a $600 million R&D center going in literally across the

[3:25:10] street. There's another $170 million in investment at DECA down the street and

[3:25:16] this is a gateway to that. So this is a project that will be adjacent to some

[3:25:24] very high dollar and high quality investment because

[3:25:28] of an agreement between the people and this applicant for such a high quality

[3:25:35] project. So given all that I'm

[3:25:41] very torn on this. On the one hand, I'm not at all unsympathetic to the issue of

[3:25:49] rising costs for building materials. I mean, anyone

[3:25:53] who has gone into any hardware store anywhere to buy a 2x4 in the past 5

[3:25:59] years has experienced sticker shock, let alone what Mr. Marin and team do when

[3:26:06] they're buying thousands of windows and tons of rebar and concrete at a time.

[3:26:13] building costs are really significant problem and I'm I'm not unsympathetic to

[3:26:17] that and I'm also not unsympathetic to the

[3:26:22] challenges of financing. Uh we'll talk more about that in our next agenda item

[3:26:27] this evening. It is true however that there was an

[3:26:31] agreement in July 23. And further, it's also true that investment u sorry

[3:26:38] interest rates which were challenging at the time have actually improved since

[3:26:42] then. The national interest rate was about 3.2%.

[3:26:46] In July 23 when the development agreement was reached and when the major

[3:26:51] modification request came back in December 25, the interest rate had

[3:26:55] dropped a half a point to 2.7%. So yeah, I get it that you do the deal

[3:27:02] with your lenders. you can at the time you do that deal. But this all happened,

[3:27:07] these changes happen at a time of improving, not worsening interest rates.

[3:27:14] Specific to this project, my discomfort is in three areas and I'll I'll ask

[3:27:20] these in the form of questions for my colleagues. Um first is just the

[3:27:26] unprecedented nature of this. I'm I'm this is my 12th year doing land

[3:27:32] use stuff. I don't remember a developer ever coming back to the table

[3:27:39] with one major change, let alone 10 and also not as not offering anything in

[3:27:47] return. There's not more affordable units. There's not some other community

[3:27:52] benefit here. So I guess the question I'd ask my

[3:27:55] colleagues is why would we negotiate that badly? Why would why

[3:28:01] would we be willing to enter into a negotiation like that? It seems very

[3:28:05] one-sided. So that's one question. Another question is why would we

[3:28:11] hamstring our staff? Be as council member Adam mentioned,

[3:28:18] it's not just this development agreement. There are others in the

[3:28:20] pipeline and as council member Angler may prom

[3:28:25] Angler I'm sorry mentioned a development agreement is one of the

[3:28:30] last toolkits we have here locally. Why would we lessen the value of that,

[3:28:38] the sanctity of that bond between an applicant and the people,

[3:28:46] which is what what this would do. And then finally, I I appreciate Mr.

[3:28:52] Marin's statement that he's not looking to increase profit here. I believe that

[3:28:57] this is this is about what his lenders want, not what he wants. That that's

[3:29:02] probably right. I I take him at his word on that.

[3:29:07] But when there's this agreement, we do agreements because build builders,

[3:29:14] businesses of all kind like certainty. And a development agreement provides

[3:29:18] certainty. But it provides certainty to two

[3:29:22] parties. Not only to a developer, but also to the people. And the people were

[3:29:28] promised a very high quality project in July 23.

[3:29:33] And what we're being asked to do here tonight is a lessening of that quality

[3:29:38] in 10 different ways. And that is essentially a transfer of

[3:29:43] wealth away from the people toward Mr. Marin's investors.

[3:29:51] And maybe that's a good idea, maybe it's not. But if we're prioritizing things, I

[3:29:57] understand that a developer should be asking

[3:30:01] to optimize his business and optimize his

[3:30:06] his or her returns. That's that's literally the business. I get that. But

[3:30:13] here on the other side of the table, that's not our business. Our business is

[3:30:17] to ensure we are doing right by our citizens. that we are prioritizing

[3:30:22] community interests and the community interest here is the very high quality

[3:30:27] project that we all agreed to in July 23.

[3:30:32] So those are those are the three questions I would ask is is if we are

[3:30:36] going to contemplate making changes um why would we be doing that and who would

[3:30:41] benefit? So, I I don't have a motion to offer at this time. Um, but those three

[3:30:49] areas are my three areas of discomfort around this. Thank you.

[3:30:54] » Thank you, Mr. Newman, Miss Gutierrez. >> Thank you, Mayor Taylor. I I also uh

[3:31:02] like my fellow council members are gra I feel myself grappling with the um

[3:31:11] with bringing a helping or assisting or continuing to um

[3:31:20] usher this project forward to fruition. um the 30 units of lowcost

[3:31:27] um affordable units is not lost on me um not to be confused for the for the

[3:31:32] public with moderate cost um affordable housing. So that's significant. Um as my

[3:31:38] colleagues have um articulated very beautifully all of the elements of uh

[3:31:44] collaboration and um proven um just well done work that is

[3:31:53] here in Thousand out Thousand Oaks already um and we would like to see

[3:31:58] continue. I too want to um make sure that I'm doing my job and I

[3:32:07] think we're we're all of the same uh notion here and can agree amongst

[3:32:14] ourselves that our job is to ensure that the community value that was initially

[3:32:22] negotiated stays intact. I I

[3:32:30] and and I think I'll leave it at that. I I think if there were conversations

[3:32:36] um around

[3:32:39] uh an exchange instead of a a a straight ask and there were more there was more

[3:32:44] on the table for the community to um to gain from this ex this amendment. I

[3:32:53] would be it would it would be less of a grapple. That would be a clear a clear

[3:33:00] um negotiation. Right now it just feels like an ask on something that was very

[3:33:05] intently um negotiated and balanced between the

[3:33:09] two parties. And um yeah, I just and for those reasons, I

[3:33:15] too don't have a motion. And and um we'll leave it at that. Thank you so

[3:33:19] much.

[3:33:24] I'll start by saying thank you. We appreciate you guys. We appreciate the

[3:33:29] time and investment that you have made and continue to make in our community.

[3:33:34] Um, you know, a couple of things mentioned from my council members that I

[3:33:39] do agree with the

[3:33:43] the negotiation aspect and when we're speaking to other developers,

[3:33:49] if we're known as a body that agrees upon terms and then is constantly

[3:33:57] changing them after the fact, I I don't like that positioning that it puts the

[3:34:02] city in. I I think we lose credibility and we lose leverage. So, I would agree

[3:34:07] with both of you guys. I don't like that position.

[3:34:11] Second, you know, Mr. Angler brought up a good point that I didn't factor into

[3:34:16] this, which I think is valuable. The local policy makers have been stripped

[3:34:21] of so much. And it does feel like there's very little that we get to

[3:34:26] control. And the design standard I think is an

[3:34:31] important one especially as we're going through a pretty big change as we're

[3:34:36] starting to see development in our community. A lot of that is multif

[3:34:40] family and multif family has the tendency of looking like big boxes. It's

[3:34:46] very easy for multif family to not look good. And one thing I do appreciate

[3:34:51] about Lato Group is your guys product is very good. I I think you guys are

[3:34:55] helping this city maintain a great character. But what I would agree with

[3:35:00] you, I don't want to lose that either. You know, something that was mentioned,

[3:35:06] I think Mark mentioned this, is just the development environment,

[3:35:10] and it it is brutal out there, especially for multif family. I I I I

[3:35:15] completely agree with you and I want to be mindful of how we are

[3:35:20] as a city when we're working with developers because as policy makers

[3:35:25] there's the balance that that Mr. Angler brought up. What is the community

[3:35:29] benefit and how do we create policy that gives potential benefit to the community

[3:35:35] without being so offbalance that no one can invest here?

[3:35:40] There's just no return to be made. And if there's no return to be made, no

[3:35:44] one's going to take the risk. And so that's the balance that that we're up

[3:35:48] against. And how at least I look at it is when we're

[3:35:53] creating the original entitlement, and I mentioned this when we spoke when we

[3:35:57] entitled your guys project, I was very willing to figure out where there was

[3:36:02] room on our end to make it so that you guys had a viable and successful

[3:36:07] project. And I do understand that there's assumptions that are made and I

[3:36:14] do understand that things have changed, but I don't like that now we're back at

[3:36:20] the point where we're having to consider additional

[3:36:24] options to make the project more viable after the fact because certain

[3:36:29] assumptions weren't realized. And so I don't like the timing of it. I guess

[3:36:33] what I'm wrestling with is and I tend to be like this. Where is the balance? And

[3:36:39] I I don't feel like this is this is the balance. Now, if I'm being truthful, I

[3:36:44] think the project we entitled I think it looks better. When I was looking at the

[3:36:48] A verse B, I do think the original project looked better.

[3:36:53] I want to protect the credibility of the council and so I'm struggling with it as

[3:36:58] well. Um this is not an easy one. And I would say one of the more difficult

[3:37:02] ones. I'm okay if there's more discussion to

[3:37:06] be had, but before I do that, I will entertain a motion if anyone has one.

[3:37:15] » Mr. Mayor, >> Mr. Newman.

[3:37:19] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> I I don't disagree with anything any any

[3:37:25] of you have said. Um, I'm appreciative of the applicant. I'm appreciative of

[3:37:32] the challenge, very challenging environment,

[3:37:36] uh, we're in, especially around multif family housing. I'm appreciative

[3:37:42] of the affordable units, which is, as we'll hear further tonight, by far our

[3:37:47] greatest unmet housing need. and I'm appreciative of the deal that we

[3:37:52] reached in 2023 and would like to see that deal go forward. So, for all those

[3:37:59] reasons, I'm going to move that we do not consider modifications to the

[3:38:07] development agreement and reject the um all of the asks in item

[3:38:15] 10. And madame clerk, if I I apologize for phrasing that so in in articul

[3:38:24] in artfully. Um well actually it

[3:38:32] you 10A asks to consider and provide direction. So my motion would be to not

[3:38:40] make amendments to SP24. the DA

[3:38:46] or the development permit and to find that this action is SQA exempt. Thank

[3:38:53] you, Mr. Mayor.

[3:38:57] » State clerk. Well, I'll stop. Anything else to discuss now? There's a motion.

[3:39:05] » Lauri, you have the motion. Everything's good with it.

[3:39:09] » Yes. Except I would like to clarify that's not SQA exempt. It previously had

[3:39:14] an EI. >> Exactly. It's not that it's exempt. It's

[3:39:16] reliant on the previous E. >> It's SEA compliant. I'm sorry.

[3:39:19] » Complaint. >> Thank you, Mr. Newman.

[3:39:21] » Okay. >> Thank you. Sorry.

[3:39:24] » Will you please call the vote?

[3:39:28] » Council member Adam, >> yes.

[3:39:32] » Council member Newman, >> I.

[3:39:35] » Council member Gutierrez, >> yes.

[3:39:37] » Mayor Prom Angler, >> yes.

[3:39:39] » And Mayor Taylor, >> yes. And that motion passes 5 to zero.

[3:39:48] » Let's do that. Let's do a 5m minute break and we will be be back at about

[3:39:53] 8:30.

[3:45:32] Heat. Heat.

[3:50:18] hanging in there. I love it.

[3:50:36] All right, we are back. Next is tonight's department report. Presenting

[3:50:42] the report will be senior planner Ian Holtz.

[3:50:52] » All right. Thank you, Mayor, Council members. So, uh, before you tonight, uh,

[3:50:57] is a summary of the general plan and housing element annual progress report

[3:51:00] for the 2025 calendar year.

[3:51:05] As a quick background, uh, California government code requires all

[3:51:08] jurisdictions to file a general plan annual housing progress report as well

[3:51:13] as a housing element annual progress report and the housing successor agency

[3:51:17] annual report to the state office of land use and climate innovation or LCI

[3:51:22] and uh the housing and community development department prior to April

[3:51:26] 1st of each year. uh these reports uh for 2025 um and are required to be

[3:51:33] submitted for each jurisdiction's lead decision-making body in a public setting

[3:51:37] prior to submitting to the state.

[3:51:42] So throughout 2025 um there's been uh several general plan implementation

[3:51:46] actions that were either initiated or have made um some significant progress.

[3:51:51] The full list of these short-term items are contained in attachment one of the

[3:51:55] staff report. Uh some of the actions to highlight for you tonight are uh under

[3:52:00] the land use and safety chapters. Um first off under uh the comprehensive

[3:52:05] code update uh land use A1 uh there's a work currently underway uh aligning the

[3:52:11] zoning regulations with the 2020 45 general plan. Uh variety of um technical

[3:52:18] assessments has been done by the consultant evaluating the existing code.

[3:52:22] A series of public workshops were held gathering feedback and uh the zoning and

[3:52:27] sign code is currently being drafted. There's expectation that the code would

[3:52:32] be released for public review in 2026. Um also is the continued effort and

[3:52:37] progress on the downtown Thousand Oaks project. Uh entitlement action uh

[3:52:42] applications were submitted um and processed or currently being processed

[3:52:46] but were being processed towards the end of 2025.

[3:52:50] also uh uh implementation items in uh steps towards adopting streetcape

[3:52:56] standards. Uh in 2025 there has been uh work doing uh moving forward updating

[3:53:04] the uh active transportation plan um which would inform any kind of design

[3:53:11] details for like the Thousand Oaks Boulevard and other streetscape

[3:53:14] standards used by the public works and community

[3:53:18] development department. Moving

[3:53:24] on to the housing element progress report. Um

[3:53:29] so the sixth cycle housing element was adopted back in December 5th, 2023.

[3:53:35] Um the report includes a summary of the

[3:53:39] residential housing and building permit activity progress towards meeting the

[3:53:43] six cycle reena uh implementation of the housing programs and the housing

[3:53:48] successor annual um successor agency annual report.

[3:53:54] Major component of the excuse me major component of the housing element is the

[3:54:00] reena allocation which provided by HCD in coordination with the Southern

[3:54:04] California Association of Governments. Uh the city of has met that reena

[3:54:09] allocation by actually adopting the general plan and reszoning the areas

[3:54:13] that would facilitate the building of housing u in those numbers which is uh

[3:54:19] 2,621 units were allocated to our

[3:54:22] jurisdiction.

[3:54:32] First off, um for 2025, this slide summarizes uh table A of the housing u

[3:54:38] development applications submitted. Um these are applications we have received

[3:54:44] 143 within 2025. Of those 143 applications submitted, there were 139

[3:54:51] units approved. Um but the total number of units

[3:54:56] proposed is far more. We have 554 units of which um a significant amount of the

[3:55:04] units submitted are captured in three pending projects. 411 um apartments that

[3:55:10] are spread across the 195 East Hellcrest development uh and uh two projects along

[3:55:17] Herbs Road. Uh all these projects all have density bonus applications and are

[3:55:22] providing affordable housing and will be continued to be processed um

[3:55:27] in 2026.

[3:55:34] So just to quickly summarize uh yeah for 2025 we had 139 units uh approved

[3:55:41] um that is planning entitlements uh of which

[3:55:46] 130 of those are accessory dwelling units uh six single family and three

[3:55:51] were uh SB9 units.

[3:56:01] In 2025, uh the number of building permits issued was 111 for accounting

[3:56:07] for 340 new housing units. Um those are broken up into 97 dwelling units, nine

[3:56:13] single family and 234 multifamily units.

[3:56:24] So 2025 marks the biggest number of units permitted in the first year

[3:56:28] capturing affordable housing since the adoption of the housing element. Um

[3:56:33] those units uh are spread the well the 234 units that are spread amongst the um

[3:56:42] the permits issued are associated with the 1818 Los Feliz Apartments as well as

[3:56:47] the timber school site.

[3:56:56] This slide summarizes this uh table B of the report. Uh it gives the total number

[3:57:02] of perpends issued in the sixth cycle for 21 2021 to 2029. There's 1,934

[3:57:10] remaining units for the sixth cycle with 687 units permitted in total for the

[3:57:15] current housing cycle. As a reminder, the city's fulfilled its

[3:57:19] RENA obligation as part of zoning the land to accommodate the 2,621

[3:57:24] units. However, uh building permits are not representative of all the recent

[3:57:28] development entitlements approved by the city council. While there are only 340

[3:57:33] units permitted in 2025, approximately 1600 residential units

[3:57:38] with approved entitlements, including 263 deed restricted affordable units uh

[3:57:43] that are in the pipeline.

[3:57:53] The number of building permits issued by the city is anticipated to increase

[3:57:57] dramatically in the coming years uh with the issuing of building permits for

[3:58:03] several projects including uh 500 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard with 328 units

[3:58:09] including 44 low-income units, Latiggo Hillrest project with 333 units, and

[3:58:15] three moderate and 30 very low units. Uh also 325 or the IMT project on or 325

[3:58:23] Hampshire Road 420 units and then at 1500 Pacino Circle it's also known as

[3:58:30] the Chappelle Apartments with 27 units.

[3:58:35] Staff continues to work with developers to ensure the completion of the projects

[3:58:38] and are confident that the affordable units will be full building permits in

[3:58:42] the future.

[3:58:47] So as part of the program implementation highlights uh under programs 3 and 8 uh

[3:58:53] the ADU regulations had been updated in 2025 to be consistent with state law uh

[3:59:00] primarily with AB 2533 and SB 1211.

[3:59:11] And then under program seven, uh, the city continues to work with people's

[3:59:16] self-help housing on the 78 unit for sale town home project, uh, together

[3:59:20] with the housing land trust Ventura County to condition the units as

[3:59:24] affordable into perpet per perpetuity. In 2025, the developer was awarded a

[3:59:29] total of 12.5 million in funding from California HCD, Cal Home, HP Home, and

[3:59:36] PHA programs. Also under program 7, the Thrive Grove

[3:59:43] Navigation Center opened in June 2025, uh, which provided 30 modular non-

[3:59:49] congregate emergency shelter units with on-site navigation services.

[3:59:58] Also under program 9, uh, a variety of community service support grants. City

[4:00:03] general funds provided support service for 281 persons who are homeless, at

[4:00:08] risk of home homelessness or lower income residents. Uh, CDBG funds

[4:00:14] provided support services for 12 persons who are homeless and 719

[4:00:18] non-homelessness, lower income residents.

[4:00:25] and some of the other remaining uh housing programs 12 program 12 mobile

[4:00:29] home rehabilitation uh city city CDBG grants provide

[4:00:34] rehabilitation assistance for 20 lower income seniorowned owner occupied mobile

[4:00:39] home units under program 13 rental housing rehabilitation CDBG grants

[4:00:46] accomplish the rehabilitation of 72 affordal units in the Bella Vista

[4:00:50] apartments program 14 uh affordable housing

[4:00:55] monitoring and preservation of at risk housing. The city continues to monitor

[4:00:59] the affordability of 975 apartment units and 37 single family units.

[4:01:05] And then lastly, under program 18, which is our neighborhood improvement program,

[4:01:10] uh city public works department has conducted a variety of bicycle,

[4:01:14] sidewalk, and other infrastructure improvements in low resource census

[4:01:18] tracks as well as sensitive community census tracks. Those consist of a

[4:01:23] variety of projects such as pavement overlay programs,

[4:01:27] uh, traffic signal painting restoration, uh, curb pedestrian crossings along

[4:01:32] Thousand Oaks Boulevard, a variety of flood mitigation projects along Herbs

[4:01:37] Road, as well as wastewater pipe and maintenance um, upgrades.

[4:01:45] So with that, that concludes uh the summary report and staff recommends the

[4:01:50] city council receive and file this report, find this action is not a

[4:01:53] project under SQA. Uh and after tonight, uh staff will submit this report to the

[4:01:59] state office of land use and climate innovation and the housing and community

[4:02:03] development department by April 1st. Um staff's available for any questions.

[4:02:09] » Thank you, Mr. Holt. Does anyone from council have questions?

[4:02:15] Mr. Newman.

[4:02:23] » Thank you, Mayor. I have comments, not questions. Is it Is it appropriate to

[4:02:27] make those at this time or do we want to hold for questions first?

[4:02:40] Oh, oh, oh, oh. Okay, got it. So, no questions. Okay.

[4:02:46] Now, we will have speakers. And we have one speaker tonight on Zoom, which is

[4:02:53] Oh, we're a mess tonight, Mr. Angler.

[4:02:58] » Okay. Um, one of the obvious um questions I think people would have uh

[4:03:05] is meeting our our arena numbers across the board. Um, uh, I got a feeling that

[4:03:12] perhaps my my, uh, council, uh, colleague would be speaking to this as

[4:03:17] well, but is is are we is there anything else we could do to encourage uh,

[4:03:22] development? I know we have we have set up the areas that are available for

[4:03:27] development. We've made that through our general plan and through um, you know,

[4:03:32] our housing element, making sure that we have the spots for this type of

[4:03:36] development. Is there anything that we're missing or anything we can do to

[4:03:39] make uh more development available to uh our our community?

[4:03:47] Well, um I mean it staff does continue to uh you know receive inquiries

[4:03:53] regarding housing and you know facilitate um pre-application

[4:03:57] consultations in regard so that you know developers have an idea of you know what

[4:04:04] works within the land you know the the confines of the land use designations

[4:04:08] and the policies of the city. Um also we as part of one of the programs we do

[4:04:15] also um have to post and that this will be a work in progress you know the

[4:04:20] available sites that we have um those identified in the housing element um and

[4:04:26] also do outreach to developers to basically see where the development

[4:04:31] community is at in terms of seeking properties for building housing in the

[4:04:36] community. And if I could add to that, uh, city council has done everything

[4:04:40] within their purview to provide the opportunities for housing to be built.

[4:04:45] You've used a number of tools at your disposal to provide opportunities for

[4:04:50] market rate and affordable housing, even going as far as to fund affordable

[4:04:54] housing projects. So, council is on point on point for providing the

[4:04:59] opportunities for additional housing to be constructed.

[4:05:03] » Thank you for that. I I know we do have some some projects in the pipeline

[4:05:07] coming through and that's that's encouraging. Um I just want it to be

[4:05:11] known that uh the city of Thousand Oaks is interested in meeting those numbers

[4:05:15] if at all possible and that's something that we're we're encouraging folks to

[4:05:19] help us with.

[4:05:24] » All righty. We will now move to our speaker for the night, Jackson Piper.

[4:05:31] » Uh good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the city council. Uh, can you hear

[4:05:35] me? All right. >> Yes, sound great.

[4:05:37] » Oh, great. U, my name is Jackson Piper. I'm from unincorporated Newbury Park and

[4:05:43] uh, I've spoken before this council many times before as a housing advocate for

[4:05:48] Ventura County Yimi. Uh, so I'm here in that capacity today also um, along with

[4:05:54] some other housing advocates uh, that I I've worked with over the years. So, um,

[4:06:00] first off, I do want to say I appreciate all that the city of Thousand Oaks has

[4:06:04] done up to this point to, um, to build to get more housing built within the

[4:06:09] city. Um, the current economic situation across

[4:06:14] the globe is not great. It looks like it's going to be worse for the

[4:06:17] foreseeable future. Um, that being said, and while I recognize that there are a

[4:06:25] lot of levers uh that deal, you know, that affect housing that people on the

[4:06:31] city council cannot control, I still think the city needs to be doing more to

[4:06:37] produce more housing. Uh, especially in those lower income categories where we

[4:06:43] are not anywhere near meeting the Rhino targets. Um, I do appreciate that we are

[4:06:50] a significant part of the way uh towards meeting our overall goals. Um, and it's

[4:06:56] heartening to hear that we have what 1,600 or so units um in the pipeline

[4:07:01] that are approved but not yet uh permitted for for building. Um,

[4:07:08] but the reality has always been that Thousand Oaks, like just about every

[4:07:12] other community in California, hasn't built nearly enough housing to meet the

[4:07:17] demand and the need uh for people that want to live there. And that just forces

[4:07:24] people with less means to uh support themselves out of the community. So, we

[4:07:30] lose out on people um who are lower income or who or don't

[4:07:36] have the means or who who haven't had the benefit of being able to

[4:07:42] purchase a house early enough where it was cheap and then just hold on to it

[4:07:46] for decades. Um, I'm asking you to look at and and

[4:07:51] the zoning and land use elements and housing element of the um the general

[4:07:56] plan. We did go over years ago, a few years ago, and it was it was great work,

[4:08:01] but I think we need to look at that again and see where things can be

[4:08:04] tweaked to get more housing produced in the city. And we need to look at any

[4:08:09] other mechanisms that the city council has leverage over to encourage

[4:08:13] developers to build in the city and to speed up the process between

[4:08:20] approval and actually getting a project open for um habitation. So those are my

[4:08:26] thoughts. Thank you and um please do all you can to produce more housing in the

[4:08:30] city. Thank you. >> Thank you Drew Powers.

[4:08:35] » Yeah. and I'll let staff add any other pieces in the um response section here.

[4:08:39] Uh appreciated um Mr. Proper's comments. Um and I just want to remind the council

[4:08:45] and the community at large, the single biggest missing component uh right now

[4:08:49] is a funding stream uh to provide affordable housing. Uh we've done a

[4:08:53] tremendous amount uh this council reszone 600 acres. Um and we're seeing

[4:08:57] tremendous in interest. uh a lot of factors that have been talked about at

[4:09:01] Nauseium that are affecting the pace of building, but um as you know, we're

[4:09:07] working on a project at Herbs and Hillrest that's a for sale affordable

[4:09:11] project. We're likely to be back in front of you with some other components

[4:09:14] to that soon. Um but that's a great illustration of just how challenging it

[4:09:18] is to materialize these uh these components even when you underwrite land

[4:09:22] cost and do these things. Uh the state has put a lot of requirements out there.

[4:09:26] you saw those numbers and those those numbers are real. They're daunting.

[4:09:29] That's every city has different numbers to that effect. And um without the the

[4:09:34] necessary funding that we used to have in the RDA era that that we built,00

[4:09:39] units of affordable housing with during that period of time, it's just going to

[4:09:42] be difficult to elicit significant production beyond inloo production in in

[4:09:48] housing. >> Steph want to add anything?

[4:09:54] » Uh no, Mr. powers covered in great detail.

[4:09:56] » Okay, great. Um, anyone from council have a comment or a motion?

[4:10:03] » Yeah, I'll move uh 12A that we accept the uh staff report.

[4:10:11] » Mr. Newman, I see your hand up. You have a comment?

[4:10:15] » I do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to commend staff for a really

[4:10:22] pretty good year last year um on a number of fronts.

[4:10:26] The housing actual sticks in the ground increased by more than fourfold last

[4:10:31] year, which is huge. And for the first time in this arena cycle, there's low

[4:10:37] there are low income units there. And just as a reminder for the public,

[4:10:42] because I hear this sometimes from residents, when they hear the term

[4:10:46] lowinccome, they think of destitution and poverty. And in the context of

[4:10:51] housing affordability in California, that's not what low income is. We're

[4:10:56] talking about a family of four making nearly $120,000

[4:11:02] in Ventura County. And in Thousand Oaks, that figure is almost certainly higher.

[4:11:08] So it's very good to see that for the first time in this arena cycle we are

[4:11:13] producing units in that category because that is by far that workforce entry

[4:11:19] level housing by far is our greatest unmet need. And then below that it's

[4:11:26] also good to see that we opened Thrive Grove last year. It's also great to hear

[4:11:34] that we've got even more good things coming in the pipeline. Just three

[4:11:39] projects alone next year, we've got I think there's the pipeline is about

[4:11:44] 1,600 in total now. And my math is right. It's nearly,00 units will be

[4:11:52] under construction next year. 1100 additional units. So that's a really

[4:11:58] significant bite taken out of the projects in the pipeline. But to wrap

[4:12:03] this up, I'll want to endorse something Mr. Power said, which is that all of

[4:12:09] this is really dependent on access to capital. And lending costs in the macro

[4:12:16] environment economically are way above the pay grade of the city

[4:12:21] council. But that that does have a very large, arguably the largest impact on

[4:12:29] whether housing gets built here. But overall, great job by staff. Really

[4:12:34] pleased to see a four-fold increase in housing production, better than

[4:12:38] four-fold last year, and an even more significant increase to come this year.

[4:12:44] Thank you. >> Any comments?

[4:12:49] » Right. We have a motion. Will the clerk please call the vote?

[4:12:56] » Council member Adam, >> yes.

[4:12:58] » Council member Newman, >> I.

[4:13:01] » Council member Gutierrez, >> yes.

[4:13:03] » Mayor Prom Angler, >> yes.

[4:13:05] » And Mayor Taylor, >> yes.

[4:13:06] » And that motion passes 5 to zero. >> Next is city manager announcements. Mr.

[4:13:12] Powers, do you have any for us? >> Uh, thank you, Mayor Taylor. Uh we will

[4:13:17] be back on the 24th of this month for our next meeting. Um uh on that night um

[4:13:24] uh we have currently a couple of public hearings. One for a major capital um uh

[4:13:31] project. Uh the second one is for a um a really great item, our film permit

[4:13:37] ordinance update. something that we've been working on for the better part of

[4:13:41] the last year to make some modernizations to our film permit

[4:13:45] ordinance. Uh and then we will also have um an item on our 2026 active

[4:13:52] transportation plan. Thank you, Mr. Powers. I will now

[4:13:57] adjourn the meeting to the next regular meeting on March 24th, 2026.

Thousand Oaks City Council Meeting - March 10, 2026

Transcript