[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.