City Council — 2022-10-18

Thank

you,

staff report Then we'll open the public hearing. We'll get developers reps comments the ad hoc committee council members why Rick and blasts will then make a comment and We'll pause for council questions Then we will take all the other public speakers There'll be a brief rebuttal comments by the developers reps and then they will close the public hearing and move on to Council deliberation So we'll begin with a staff report from James Thank you

Thank you Mayor and Council. The staff report will include comments from myself, our Community Development Director Lucas Seibert and our City Attorney Matt Summers. I'm going to start with an introduction and I think over the next several minutes we're going to hear a lot of detail and a lot of 15 plus years of history on this project, so I'm going to start with just some introductory comments that are maybe a little bit more big picture.

I'm going to start with the introduction about the background of the project and how it came before the City Council, and the potential challenges on this project due to the history and somewhat complicated history of this project. As our first slide shows, there is quite a history on this project. The city initially issued permits for the cottages among the flowers to be redeveloped 15 years ago in November of 2007.

So the first bullet point on this slide again shows that 15 years ago permits were issued for this project. The final tract map was then approved in December of 2009 and design permits were extended in 2011 and 2016. In April 2019, the fifth bullet point on this slide, the planning commission approved an additional extension If that extension had not been appealed by the City Council, the extension would have been granted and would have taken effect. And the developers could have redeveloped the cottages.

James real quick there's a car driving by but if anybody needs to know the cards are going up here tonight we've seen a few people who are coming in a little late just so you know the cards are going up here in the corner but go ahead and repeat that because there's a truck driver sure

So in April of 2019, the Planning Commission approved an additional extension. And if that extension had not been appealed by the City Council it would have taken effect and the developers would have been able to redevelop the cottages without the city being able to require any affordable units. However, the City Council did appeal that decision in 2019 solely as an effort to protect the affordable housing units at the cottages.

The city had adopted requirements in its city code to replace and protect affordable housing units by requiring replacement of affordable housing units with affordable housing units in 2013. Thankfully, the council realized that the requirement was not being met before the extension was approved in 2019. I explain this background because I want to make sure everybody understands the history of this project and that this project was not a project that was started with a goal of developing those sites. It was, again, granted permits in 2007 that could have been acted on at any point subsequent to 2007.

Again, when the application for the time extension in 2019 came up, the City Council had two choices. Either to let the project move forward without affordable units or to work with the developer to try to figure out a way to replace the affordable units. Again, in 2019, the difficult decision was made not to simply grant the extension but instead to work with the developer to try to meet the replacement requirement for affordable units.

Because of the complicated history on this project, there are no easy answers unfortunately. When the city initiated the negotiation process, the city argued that 33 units across cottages and Mallory were rented at affordable rental limits and therefore 33 units would need to be replaced with deed restricted affordable units However, even that has been in dispute.

It is not clear it's something that potentially could be litigated because the developer argued that the city couldn't apply these requirements after the original permits were issued, after the series of extensions were issued and that none of the units were deed restricted previously and therefore didn't count as needing replacement So there are a lot of arguments, a lot of gray area. There's a lot of things we've talked about the legal risk and the possibility of a legal challenge. There is a lot that would potentially and could potentially be litigated or we could work together to try to find a solution so...

These factors and many others resulted in over two years of negotiation, which is reflected on this slide. The timeline of the development agreement process starting in May of 2019 with a dozen or so meetings over 2019 to 2021 to develop the development agreement A January 2022 public City Council review of the deal, and then the July 12th 2022 most recent review of the project where the city council directed the ad hoc committee and staff to continue to work to try to improve the deal.

The result of this extended process over the last 15 years is a proposal that would replace 27 affordable units, all of the undisputed units and two of the disputed units. And result in 40% of the proposed units at these four sites being deed-restricted affordable for 55 years. The deed restriction, a lot of people it seems like aren't understanding how important a deed restriction is. If a unit is affordable but does not have a deed restriction there's no guarantee that it will continue to be affordable.

The deed restriction guarantees it for 55 years and so essentially if approved these deed restricted units would be affordable until 2077. Let's see, so again the important thing to note there is that without an agreement at this time there is some risk. The city has no power to keep these units affordable in the absence of an agreement and the City Attorney will provide some more information on that and other possible outcomes during his part of the presentation.

So I'm going to turn this over the next Staff person to speak is gonna walk through the project in a little more detail again. I was trying to stay high-level with the timeline here But before I hand it over to our community development director, I do want to just Remind everybody that one of the roles of staff is to provide facts and so I know there's a lot of Thoughts and opinions, but we are trying to provide the facts about the potential risks to the city.

The potential loss of affordable units and what could result as part of the agreement or what would result in the absence of an agreement. And then it will be up to the City Council to make that difficult decision based on those facts. Again, unfortunately because the project was approved in 2007 and received several time extensions. There are risks involved which we'll go over and We're going to explain those as part of our presentation tonight With that Lucas will walk through the sites units and affordability in the development agreement

Next slide please Well, good evening. My name is Lucas Seibert, Community Development Director here with the city of Ojai. The project as it relates to the development agreement includes four sites. You can see up on the top is Mallory Way and cottages hugged up against each other. World University is kind of centralized and you have which is 107 North Ventura. And the Montgomery site is kind of towards the bottom right hand corner.

Next slide please. So the development agreement proposal includes cottages amongst the flowers, Mallory Way, World University, Montgomery site. Four sites. We talked about that and certainly it was discussed at the July 12th meeting. Cottages is including 12 units in total. Two of those now are affordable at a low and very low affordable rate, and then it still is being proposed as a 10-year rental covenant for that site. Mallory Way is 30 units in total.

Seven of those units are affordable. Six are at moderate, one is at low. World University includes 10 total units that would be converted to an existing building on an existing building. Three would be affordable, two at moderate, one at low and then Montgomery site is proposed at 15 units in total. All 15 of those will be affordable, 12 at moderate three at low The Montgomery site is actually a vacant site, so that would actually ground up construction.

I'm going to ask a question that many people don't understand, and it was also what you just stated with the first on the first item cottages among the flowers. The newspaper also stated that there's no very low by whatever however the state defines it but in real life the people are paying very low rent. The only very low rent in Ojai that I'm aware of

You're talking about boots on the street in terms of what's going on currently versus what's being proposed with the development

agreement. Yes, currently the cottages are very low. Am I correct?

There are tenants currently who are paying a rental rate that is very low income yes but there's no legal requirement for that developer to continue to allow them to pay that low rent The development agreement as proposed would require that those units to cottages and the other sites be at that lower rental rate, whether very low or moderate for 55 years. So it exists now but it doesn't have to continue to exist. That's the difference.

And the city has no power to ensure it exists right now?

And the reason the city doesn't have the power, or doesn't think it has the power is because it doesn' think that our municipal code applies to this situation.

No. The city's position is that the municipal code applies to the project like all projects but no code requirement when cottages was built and Mallory were built required affordable units.

In 2007? Correct.

But before that, nothing when they were built. The 07 was approval not when they were built. When they were built 100 years ago, 50 years ago, nothing required them to be affordable. The 07 approval at that time required some affordable at Montgomery and none at cottages. The city's position is that the proposed extension of the permits, the rehab will require affordable and that's what's done through the development agreement.

But that's the difference between forcing affordable as a result of the redevelopment and forcing affordable without redevelopment. The city's position is that we can only require affordable units, that's restricted, deed-restricted if they're redeveloped. If they're not redeveloped, if the developer simply does nothing then there's no affordability requirement. That's the heart of

it. So it sounds like our municipal code doesn't apply

It applies only if they redevelop. If they do not redevelop... then it doesn't apply. That's

really, really... But you know it says our municipal code my interpretation is that our municipal code requires that if a developer demolishes or remodels affordable housing housing that low-income residents can afford and replaces it with housing that is not as affordable that he has to replace it with an equal number or equally affordable units

Yes, that applies and the proposed deal implements that code section.

Between, but not

on the site.

Not on the site.

All four sites. That's what the proposal does. That's the catch. The ad hoc committee's negotiated proposal provides for complying with that requirement across all four sites, not just at one.

And the reason it's not... The developer didn't agree to apply it just to the two sites, the cottages and the Mallory Way bungalows. Is that right?

Correct. And I'll let the developers rep speak to their motivations, but as we understand it based on our prior discussions, the developer's request as negotiated through the council is across all four sites in order to make economics work that the additional units of the other sites create the revenue to pay for the subsidy at for the affordable units. Spreading it across four sites enables a subsidy to work. They wouldn't be able, per their statements, to afford to rehab an affordable-only project.

I'll let

them speak to that further. Let them speak to

that point. One more question. So this idea of bundling the four properties came from members of the ad hoc committee?

As I understand it, it was a joint decision that was created between the ad hoc committee and the development team. And I'll let the ad hoc committee members speak to that further in their comments.

OK. Thank you. That's good. I just want to be really clear on those points. Thank you.

I think real quick before you start again. This is where this is why we started with the long history at the beginning in 2007 Permits were granted with no affordable requirements, so we get to the point where? The city kind of in 2007 Gave away that ability to some extent yeah And then this City Council challenged that and tried to negotiate a compromise

Yeah Don't worry, Gilmore. I'll be quiet.

Okay, continuing. And then the last bullet is strengthen residential relocation plans. So really what it speaks to as part of the development agreement there is also revised strengthened residential relocation and assistant plan. This plan would put into place those residents which are living in cottages a mile or way away to be first in line. I think that's an important phrase to remember. I think you'll hear it throughout tonight.

for new or renovated units as they become available within this development agreement, this proposed development agreement. The phasing plan would require two units closest to Aliso Street for the cottages to be renovated first and then the low and very low units above the garage central to the cottage's site to be built concurrent Conversion of the World University site, which is the 10 units and the Montgomery site Which is 15 units that would be the first phase And then this will provide options for those residents within cottages in Mallory to be first in line again To relocate to one of those sites. The second phase would be Mallory Way and the remaining eight cottage residential units next slide please So what does affordable housing really mean in California?

Well, housing levels themselves have a range. The range within this proposed development agreement include moderate, low and very low. And then they have income tied to them and then through that income is an equation that spits out a rent. What's being shown here is an example of one person with an income of $96,950. That rent equates to $2,424. For low, $70,250 for that annual income and that's up two. Now that equates to a rent of $1,616.

And then new to this proposal is the very low, the one unit that we have as a part of this development agreement with income at $43,900 for one person and then that rent equating to $878. Now the state defines affordable housing, which is really borrowed from HUD. Housing in which a household spends no more than 30% of its gross monthly income for A rent and utilities or B mortgage loan principal and interest property taxes insurance utility and homeowners association dues if any if they apply next slide please

Let me just note a couple of points there, too. So one thing that I know we got a lot of questions about this week was what is this a ceiling or floor? Essentially the income limits and the income limits are the maximum. And so somebody making under that amount could still qualify. So for example, somebody making $36,000 could still qualify for very low. It's up to $43,900.

Somebody making $60,000 could qualify as low income to qualify for the low units and somebody making $89,000 could qualify for the moderate. And so we're going to get into more detail right now showing this is for a one person household. For example, we're going to show a couple different numbers but This is a ceiling not a floor. And so I know a lot of people say well, you know who makes $100,000? Well, you can make less than that and be Be eligible for the housing in these situations and then just a reminder because I know we always hear You know there's always a question of is this really affordable and Well, what the city has to act upon is the state's definition. And we are required through our housing element to plan for a certain number of units that meet these state definitions.

So that is the term as we use it and it's open to people's opinions of whether they believe that's really affordable but it is a ceiling so it does allow for people who make less than that.

Mayor, I just had a short inquiry by text saying the sound on channel 10 is not intelligible. I just thought I'd mention that to James.

OK. So James Hahn is listening. We'll ask him to make sure the sound on channel 10 is working correctly.

Before we go onto the next slide, well this is fine keep it up. Can you hear me? OK. I'll speak closer to the mic. I think what's important also to note is through our housing element, before I speak to these numbers. Through our housing element each city is required to do and perform a housing element every eight years. If they miss that eight year mark it's every four years.

This city's been lucky enough to do it and to comply with state regulations, and do it every eight years. But I can't say that's true for every city. And I would say at some point when we were sliding in from the fourth cycle to the fifth cycle, we're currently in the sixth cycle, a lot of cities weren't compliant. HCDs come down a lot harder with those regulations and ensuring that housing elements are up-to-date with current state standards. And certainly HCD, which is Housing and Community Development, which is basically the right arm of the state governor's office, is coming down hard on cities. Huntington Beach is a perfect example of that that's happened over the last four years where they weren't compliant and now they're required to be compliant.

So with that, I want to identify again within that sweet spot of what this development agreement includes. It's your moderate, your low and your very low incomes. And here we're showing a range in between one and four individuals within a specific household. The range goes all the way up to eight. Here we're showing really kind of what that sweet spot would be for what's anticipated for this type of a project given the size of the units etc., etc.

So here I'd already shown the one individual, but there's also two, three and four. And those range from 43 to 62 in terms of very low $62,000 a year as a four-person household. And then the rent limits then are identified meaning that a developer cannot charge more than what's identified here. That would be part of not only the development agreement that's identified as proposed here tonight, but that would also be a part of the affordable housing agreement as well.

And then the moderate sliding down the scale of moderate it's in between 96, 950 up to 138, 500 and that's four individuals once again. Again it's a sliding scale cannot exceed that number

Lucas, just to confirm there's another category acutely low income that's not on this chart?

There's acutely and extremely low. Correct within this and then there's above moderate there is other there's other sliding scales as well we're focusing on only the pieces and parts that apply to this development agreement as proposed

Microphone, please

Can we just bring it through the chair?

It doesn't I keep looking and I have the area housing authority figures and they don't seem to match but maybe that we can look at that another time but

Well, I'm not sure what figures you're looking at but this is taken directly from the state and from HCDs. They come out with a report every year and it comes out in between April and May of every year and it's for every single county

And the rules, the income limits do vary by county. Correct. This table is the Ventura County limit set by the state. I would suggest at the break we're happy to take a look at the numbers you're citing for AHA and sort through that. Yeah,

let's pass it down. That'll become a public record as well. It's April of this year, April 18th of this year, Ventura County. Ryan, you have a question?

Yeah, can you go back one slide real quick? Because that's got moderate for one person at $24.24, and then you go to the next slide and I think it's $2900. So I want to make sure that's clarified because that can't be right unless I missed something. If you'll go to the next slide. And it's got $2909 as moderate for one person?

OK. Yeah, I'll clarify that. So moving on to

the

next

slide. I will note, yes these are correct and they match except this includes extremely low and median which we do not show on this chart.

Yeah some of them match.

The low income in the...

In other words the county list you have from AHA is every category. The list on the slide is only the categories that are in the development agreement.

Okay thank you thank you I asked because someone asked me about that. She's probably in the audience.

Next slide, thank you. Can you hear me in the courtyard? Okay. So overview of the development agreement. The affordable and market rate, we're looking at a total of 67 new and renovated units that was also discussed by the city manager earlier to Ojai's housing stock in favor of the housing element 27 affordable units in total 20 moderate six in the low category and then one in the very low category This also includes deed-restricted affordable units, or those affordable housing units for 55 years which includes an affordable housing agreement as I had mentioned earlier.

In addition to that is a trail built and maintained by the owner developer And that would be an easement in favor of the city for walking, hiking trail throughout both the Mallory Way site and cottages among the flowers. Again built to maintain by the owner developer of this development agreement as proposed. Additionally, there's water recharge that's identified within the development agreement for both Mallory Way and cottages.

And that would be a potential alternative to concrete channelizing of the project. That's already been identified through the engineering plans. We would be looking at alternatives to that through an engineering report that's been identified as part of the development agreement as well. And then a phased development relocation plan for better protection to the existing residents.

Those are residents for both the Mallory Way site as well as the cottages site, so it's two affordable units as I'd mentioned before and the two vacant units at cottages those two vacant units are closest to Aliso Street And then after that you would have World University, Montgomery site, Mallory Way and then the remaining six units at cottages built within a two phase as opposed to a four phase approach.

Next slide.

Let me ask you a question. Sure. Does that mean on the previous slide that all of World University, all those units will be fixed?

Yeah, World University isn't a ground-up construction. It is renovation and conversion, right? So yes that would be... The developer can certainly speak to where they're at in that phase but I think they're very close to submitting depending on the outcome only if approved.

All right thank you.

I want to focus on the Residential Relocation Assistance Plan. The relocation assistance to displaced persons for each existing tenant, that's like I said before cottages among the flowers and Mallory Way bungalows it's the first in line Those residents that are currently here at Mallory Way and Cottages are first in line. They get first pick of those projects or those units that come online before anybody else has any sort of chance to see any of these units, whether they're renovated or new construction as they become available.

In addition to that there's moving costs of up to $2,000 within the project area Additionally, relocating to units within the project in addition to tenants' verified level of affordability for one year. Again, moving costs up to $2,000 are included within that as well. And then third is for the first 12 months of current rent would be offered if no unit is available within the project.

Again, plus the moving costs of up to $2,000. So really what you're looking at here for the last one is if there are no units available within that qualified verified level of affordability and the tenant no longer wants to reside within Ojai There is that option, that third option where they can have moving costs up to $2,000 addressed as well as the first 12 months of the current rent if no unit is available within the project.

So but what if the tenant wants to stay in Ojai?

If the tenant wants to stay in the Ojai, then they have those two first options. First in line and then the relocation to a unit within the project. And not only locating within a unit within the project but it's also tenant verified affordability so it would be... I can't tell you when to jump in but listen to me. Finish your point. Okay. It would be basically through income statements identifying that they're within those income levels. Like we were mentioning before, moderate low versus very low.

And two points I wanted to add, if for whatever reason a tenant can't find a unit that works for them in the project and they have been offered one and haven't taken it then the development agreement calls for that one year of cash rental assistance. There's no unit in the project available for them plus the $2,000 in moving costs which they can then use in any rent whether in Ojai or anywhere else and the $2000 moving assistance for all tenants that are being relocated Is anywhere they want to relocate you? So if somebody wants to move to be with family in Oakview, for example They would get the two thousand assistance. It's not only within the project

Yes I understand that but the concern that the tenants have expressed to me is That if there's no unit available In the project that there is no unit The 12 months rent will only last maybe at most four months if they want to still live in the city and In the current conditions, if you're paying 1650 now and you and the only rental you can find is 4000 how long will that money last? That's one of the concerns that have been repeatedly expressed to me.

No I certainly understand that concern and the developer will speak to that further. OK but I think the key there is the expectation not necessarily guarantees but expectation is that the phasing plan should mean that all tenants who are being forced to relocate will be able to move into a unit at the intention is to structure the phasing plan so that every tenant who's being required to move as a part of the development project has an has a unit to go to within the project

And so are the residents going to receive some kind of a legal document that spells this out, signed by all parties?

Yes. The development agreement includes an exhibit, I believe Exhibit D. That is the relocation plan and they'll be provided copies of that if approved and if signed, approved by the council and signed by the developer. They'll be provided copies of that for sure. And the developer, I think can speak a little more to the details of the plan

And I just, I just want to note so that is one of the things that was renegotiated over the 30 day period that council asked us to go back and improve some things. One of the needs was to better protect the existing residents. So we went back and Renegotiated what we think is that even more protective better relocation assistance program but also the renegotiated the phasing which is maybe kind of tough to explain, but we essentially worked with the developer to say I If you did it in this order, could more people stay in their current developments or will they then have an opportunity to move to another location in Ojai where they're still getting that affordable rental unit? So that is part of what was negotiated over the last 30 days.

So James Han, the speakers in the back are out if you can get those going.

Can I just add on to something here as well? Can you hear me? Okay. We went from a four phase Proposed development agreement to two phases. That first phase is covering two units within cottages that aren't occupied currently, so you're renovating those first two? In addition to that as a part of this proposal there are the two units above the garage. Those are two affordable units. That's four units right there yeah in addition to that so then There's no other units that are being touched for cottages with that first phase

Yeah

Then you've got Montgomery and you've got World University going before Mallory Way and the remaining eight units for cottages. So, you really have more than a head start. You're really kind of setting the stage. Do you understand what I'm saying?

I follow, yeah.

Okay. Setting the stage for the existing tenants.

And can we ask, or maybe the developer will probably explain. It's not like they're working on one thing at a time. They could be simultaneously working on those two cottages in front and World University, right?

Right. That's up to them. I think it's certainly you would want to ask them in terms of how they want to structure that phasing.

Okay thank you.

All right, so moving on to CEQA or California Environmental Quality. Can you hear me better? Good. So the DA exempts and relies on previous studies in environmental documents, that includes the MND or the Mitigated Negative Declaration for cottages. Cottages includes 12 mitigation measures those include mitigation measures for air quality, biological resources which are trees, cultural resources which is historic and then water quality obviously.

The final EIR that was prepared for and certified in 2012, mind you the MND for cottages was in 2007. Includes 15 mitigation measures covering cultural resources which again is historic as well and biological resources it really focused in on those two pieces no overriding considerations but mitigation that brought it to a threshold of less than significant The bio report that was prepared and with conditions for the Montgomery site includes conditions of approval to address Cultural resources as well as historic pieces, or not historic pieces it's a vacant site.

As well as trees essentially there are several trees that are on-site and those trees some of those are actually oaks that would be potentially removed as part of the project Additionally the DA, the development agreement as a part of the CEQA exemptions includes four different exemptions. The common sense which is 15-061B3, the existing facilities 15-301, new construction and conversion which is 15-303 and then infill which is 15-332. Next slide please.

Other items to consider and that are of concern, certainly we heard quite a bit during the July 12th City Council meeting. And historic trees and water I think were the three that were certainly discussed quite a bit. Obviously the affordable housing was discussed but The three of these are important pieces and for starting off with historic resources, the Historic Resources Report that was prepared for cottages in 2007 was approved by the Historic Preservation Commission in 2007 and then City Council later that year in 2007.

It includes two mitigation measures, one in which is the archival of photos and buildings of the physical conditions. And those go to the Ojai Museum. Those photos have already been taken and we've already received them and would be providing them at the Ojai Museum. in due time. The second is any historic features damaged shall be repaired rather than replaced, and that was a condition that was added by the City Council in 2007.

And the interesting thing about that is I've never seen a condition quite like this before. It's pretty robust in terms of ensuring that the resources as they exist are retained either from the exterior standpoint or from the interior standpoint. There's no distinction between the two. And it also requires a architectural historian to be commissioned and on site to address when those situations arise.

For Mallory Way, there is also a historic resources report that was prepared by San Buenaventura Research. It was approved by Historic Preservation Commission in 2012 and then City Council later that year Again it includes really two point, I think two historic resource mitigation measures that are worth mentioning. Again the archival of quality photos of the building's physical conditions that goes to the city as well as The Ojai Museum. The second is to offer the buildings for off-site reuse and advertised in the paper for a minimum of seven days and then removed within 30 days and then the applicant has the option to go for additional time I've seen this done in other communities when you're looking at, when you're faced with reviewing and finding mitigation measures that come out of a historic resources report.

A lot of the times 30 days isn't enough time especially if you have individuals that are interested in relocating these buildings That's when the negotiation begins and typically that takes in between 30 and 90 days. I've seen 90 days, I've seen six months. Typically you're trying to work with a group or a company to come in load them up and then move them out. A lot of times roofs have to come off for those relocations.

And then we have the tree permit. So tree permits for both cottages and Mallory Way, both done by Pawley Associates. Cottages was approved in 2007 by, recommended by Planning Commission and then approved by City Council. That includes 47 trees, on-site 37 will be retained. As I'd mentioned in the July 12th meeting 10 of those trees were being removed however in doing further research through my department we found that two of those have already been removed and removed in 2010 because of the house meaning they were dead That leaves one tree in poor health that would be evaluated.

19 new trees would be planted as a part of the requirements and conditions. That's already within the conditions of approval. The tree report that was prepared for Mallory Way was approved, recommended for approval by Planning Commission in 2012 and then later that year approved by City Council. That includes 88 trees on site, 74 will be retained, 14 trees will be removed, 4 are large eucalyptus trees and then the replacement ratio and the conditions of approval require a four to one ratio replacement.

And then lastly, the water usage. That is really considered by Casitas Municipal Water District. The applicants required to provide technical engineering reports to address retention of water onsite. That was something I had mentioned earlier in my presentation. That could be attained through rain gardens and other physical site reconfiguration measures essentially.

And with that, I'll turn this over to the city attorney Matthew Summers.

All right. Thank you. Just a couple of further points and first on note we have copies of the stuff to pass out those are the same income limits as were stated on the chart. Thank you. As noted, the chart was just a subset but they had their numbers do match. So with that, I'm going to cover a couple of points first off As staff noted, what we're looking at is a development agreement for 67 units of which 27 will be affordable, deed restricted for 55 years. 20 moderate, six low, one very low.

A little bit on deed restriction. When a unit is deed restricted it means that the landlord has prevented from raising those rents above that affordability level at the different levels that Lucas noted and that commits the applicant And future owners, so it's not just this developer. If he sells and sells to the next one and the next one, 55 years of protection for those units at those stated levels.

And none of that exists now on the current site. The second piece about it is as proposed 10 of the additional units, 10 of the remaining 40 would be restricted to rental only for 10 years. And so they would be rental at a market rate, but it would be rental only which should help with supply to an extent. The next piece to note is development agreement. I've heard questions from council members and some others sort of is it standard to do a development agreement for a project for housing? Is it standard or weird or odd to do development agreement for a quote small project? You know the oft used phrase is develop agreements are common A new Amazon warehouse facility or a new large scale development. And while that is true those are common they're also common at the small scale.

Ojai has a history of development agreements if we go back the last one was another Becker project, a Jeff Becker project in downtown. The three spaces next to Bonnie Lou's that was done via development agreement because it solved a complex land use challenge The city owned a strip of land in the middle, the old brick walkway. The developer owned the two strips on either side, neither of which is useful by themselves. So a deal was done via development agreement to shift the city's land in a swap, move the walkway to the edge, put the sites together and allow productive use of it while requiring, in that case, requiring the brick walkway to be removed and replaced and restored and the green wall to be installed and maintained by the developer.

So I just cite that as an example question

Has there been a development agreement in Ojai that has several different pieces of property, like this current one? I mean the one you just mentioned is just one piece of property really.

Three parcels, one location. We haven't had one with four sites to my knowledge now. Three

different sites?

That one had three parcels, all next to each other

though. Has there been one with say three separate sites or two separate sites?

I believe we've had a couple with two separate sites but not three or four. Okay thanks Matt. But it will know it's not uncommon in other communities and a development agreement is typically used to solve zoning challenges where you have a complex site history A complex and disputed set of facts, and a long history. It can be solved in a single deal that creates certainty. All parties know exactly what they're getting because it's laid out in the deal. And it avoids litigation risk on all sides or reduces if not avoids.

And it ensures that the developer and the city and the community all know what they're going to get with certainty out of it. That's why development agreements are typically done The policy question embedded in that is whether the deal is right. That's the choice for the elected council, not myself. Let me see if there's a question there and then I'll turn to the next point.