City Council — 2023-12-18

And we're going to be reporting out from closed session. Mr. City Attorney, anything to report out?

Yes, thank you Madam Mayor. The City Council met in closed session to consider several items in district litigation related to proposed development projects at 312 West Aliso Street, 412 Mallory Way, 107 North Ventura Street, 304 South Montgomery Street and 510 East Ojai Avenue. Also to consider existing litigation Simply Ojai v. City of Ojai and existing litigation Ojai Bungalows LP v. City of Ojai. The council provided direction from staff and council and has reached a tentative settlement agreement which the council, I will present in the open session for open session consideration and approval as part of item number one regarding the retroactive time extension request for the cottages project 312 West Aliso and the Mallory Way bungalows project and the other three addresses as listed.

So they, the settlement agreement reached in tentative form will be discussed in open session momentarily and no final approval was made. Final approval will be in open session thank you.

Thank you, Matt. All right, we will adjourn closed session. We will open session and welcome everyone to the OI City Council special meeting December 18th of 2023. Can we have a quorum? Could we have the roll call please Wesson?

yes, I have a brief staff report then we'll take public comment so the council is going to be considering Two retroactive time extensions, one for the Cottage Among the Flowers project which would extend a prior set of approvals that date back to 2007 with several extensions through the years most recently considered by the Planning Commission in 2019. The project consists of 10 units.

There are eight existing units at the cottages those eight would be rehabilitated and two more units would be built. The proposal is to extend Existing or past permits for further validity period second the Mallory Way bungalows project also Considered previously approved back in 2012 extensions through the years per state law last considered by the Planning Commission in 2019 Which extension was recommended both of those 2019 Planning Commission approvals were One was called up for review. The other was appealed to the City Council and The City Council in 2019 directed staff to work with the developer on a development agreement solution to those two projects and the other projects. That resulted in a development agreement that was approved by the City Council about a year ago, that was subjected to referendum Then the developer withdrew the referendum and withdrew the request for the project in August of this year, August of 23.

So the council has now set the underlying extension applications for consideration and as noted we're very pleased to report that we've reached tentative agreement on a settlement that will take care of all of the projects and result in significant new de-restricted affordable housing for the city. So I'll walk through that agreement, we are finalizing the text as i speak it covers four projects and I'll in part summarize the cottages project the 10 units would be extended and two more 55-year deed restricted affordable units would be added, one very low income and one low income.

The Montgomery that's at Cottage is at 312 West Aliso Street. The Montgomery project at 304 South Montgomery would be built with 15 new units, 12 moderate income, 55 year deed restriction and three low income, 55 year deed restriction 510 East Ojai, which was not in the development agreement is added now would be 13 units of which two very low income 55 year deed restriction. Two low-income 55 year deed restriction and one moderate income 55 year deed restriction. And then one too very low too low one moderate income for 510 East Ojai all 55 year deed restrictions and then for the Mallory project All 25 existing bungalows would be preserved and rehabilitated, not demolished. Four of them could be moved on site but still preserved.

And the rehabilitation would occur only as the existing tenants move out or are offered a unit that meets their existing rent level in another of the projects. The same tenant protection will be provided for cottages, no existing tenant would be required to move out involuntarily unless there is another unit at their current rent level in one of the other projects. So it protects all existing tenants at cottages and Mallory And then their rental unit they move into would be the same rent they pay now. and then subjected to the city's Rent Stabilization Ordinance limiting increases thereafter.

Mallory would have 10 deed-restricted affordable units, five very low income for 55 years and five moderate income for 55 years. All of the units at Mallory would have to be 500 to 600 square feet in size so small equivalent to the size that is there now with similar design materials and character maintaining the current sort of rule Bungalows type character with the oak trees that exist now preserved to the maximum extent possible We don't have a precise number of oak trees to be preserved because the site plan is not developed yet but that'll be worked through with staff and a maximum of two stories All of that is in contrast to what would be allowed if we did not have a settlement agreement If we did not have a settlement agreement Mallory would be The same 10 affordable but 48 market rate.

All of the bungalows could be knocked down and demolished, and it could be three or four stories or even higher by state law without any of the preservation for size in the existing character and without any of the tenant protections subject to state law first tenant protections for those who are truly low income or lower income. The cottages project would be 10 plus 280 U's was zero affordable units.

Montgomery would be one low income and one moderate income instead of three low and 12 moderate, so 13 more market rate units and 510 East Ojai that would be the same. In total the settlement as reached provides for 65 new units 63 new units of which 31 are affordable units, 18 moderate income 55 year de-destruction. Six low income, 55 year de-destruction. Seven very low income, 55 year de-destruction and 25 of the existing Mallory Way bungalows preserved for rehabilitation as tenants leave or are offered an alternative unit at their rent level at one of the other sites so only truly 42 new market rate units All of the Mallory Way bungalows units kept at the 506 square foot size, no three stories. The other piece is that all of this is in return for putting on the table and allowing the developer to take advantage of an unapproved right-of-way adjacent to the Mallory Way bungalows.

That unapproved right-of way is about 50 feet wide that would be a lot would be Conveyed to the developer after compliance with the Surplus Land Act and the street right-of-way vacation laws, and would allow the low spread out character to be maintained. The developer would be required to build a dirt or decomposed granite trail in maintaining the unimproved trail that exists in that right of way now And last piece on the tenant protections, again to emphasize all existing tenants at Cottages and Mallory would not have to move out as units rehabilitated unless they are offered a unit at one of the other projects that matches their current rent level. Not income level, the current rent level which would then be subject to the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and generally capping it at 4% per year in increases or state law whichever is lower.

A $2,000 up to $2000 moving allowance for tenants as they are required to move last. The developer will apply for the landmark status for the Mallory Bungalows once that project goes through Paired with Mills Act status, which would allow for their continued preservation even if this developer sells to a new developer. The landmark status would serve to preserve the Mallory bungalows and last there's an agreed upon above the city's ordinance requirement for local preference for local Ojai residents to be first preference for tenants in any of the projects, any of these units And the World University site is not a part as that the developer is in consultations with another developer to sell that separately. So the four sites are cottages among the flowers, Mallory Way bungalows, Montgomery Street affordable housing and 510 East Ojai with a net of 31 new 55 year D restricted affordable units.

Oh, and lastly, the Lastly, the project together with the Cabrillo Project as approved last week would meet the city's RHNA in full. RHNA is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. It's a state requirement that the city zone for a certain amount of affordable housing. Our requirement is to zone over the next eight years and eventually build or convince developers to build 13 very low-income units 9 low income 10 moderate income and 21 above moderate. And with the Cabrillo project plus this project, we've met that with 15 very low-income units, 47 low-income units, 18 moderate income units, and then 43 standard above moderate units plus the 25 smaller preserved Mallory Way bungalows.

Staff's available for any questions. The mechanics of this would be to approve the time extension for the cottages, for those 10 units subject to the settlement agreement being executed. If the settlement agreement is not executed, the approval is void and to take no action on the Mallory Way time extension because their developer will apply for a different project, for the modified project as modified through the settlement agreement and then to approve the settlement agreement.

And we have resolutions prepared to that effect that will pass out now.

Thanks, thank you Matt. Thank you Sonny

We're available for any questions and I must know must give a great thanks to my colleague Sonny Sultani with the law firm Elsh and winter managing partner right? Managing partner there and A very great help as the city's special housing council to bring this deal to fruition Thank You counsel

you two make a great team. Thank you so much. Thank you Any questions from Council? Nope, okay. We'll go ahead and move on to public comment First we have Tara Jeffrey then Anita Hendricks and then Bill Miley And just a reminder, if we could keep quiet while our people are talking. Thank

you. I'm sorry, I'm a little shell-shocked so I'm gonna refrain from making a comment right now. Good work but I need to digest all this it's a lot of change so thank you

Thank you, Tara. Next we have Anita Hendricks then Bill Miley and then Tom Francis.

Everything was so quickly presented that I really couldn't get all of the changes. My impression was is if the I'm going to go back to where I was before all of this because I'm a little overwhelmed with it. But if they were allowed to use expired permits, the California impact would require there would be no CEQA requirement and the housing element to displace low-income housing for that people who move would not be in effect. That's the 2013.

I don't know enough about this. I'm really not clear Did you guys is this an agreement that was presented by the attorneys of the city and the attorneys from? Vector, is that what this is that you have here and they would do it if it is passed Okay. I Have a problem with We talk about moderate health income income moderate income for Is 146,700 according to the county or for one person or for our in our housing element there was a mention of 86,450 for one person.

Now I don't know if the people in the cottages amongst the flowers can afford that. The, I really think that we need to expand very low extremely low because what happens is when we talk about moderate income or affordable housing includes moderate income which means the only thing that isn't included is market rate so when you're doing moderate income It is pretty high compared to what most, what we consider low extremely low. Extremely low is $43,000 a year. Very low is $71,750 or in our housing element Extremely low is twenty seven thousand nine hundred in the project that was proposed over that new project a Couple would have to both work full-time To be able to afford a studio over there and they still Would not have enough money to afford it.

So when we talk about moderate income, there's a whole strata of low and extremely low that cannot afford affordable housing. We need to focus on that, it's too easy to take that group and serve as a large group. What you're saying, what you've came up with I don't fully understand, it's kind of all new to me and hitting me. It has an appealing sound to it but it's hard for me to really grok it in such a short... You know all the sudden here it is, well I really don't have time to digest it so yeah.

The historic, I'm just concerned is there any slipperiness to this? Could you all approve it and then somehow or other there could be some maneuvers that would extract.

That would be... Thank you Anita.

Next we have Bill Miley then Tom Francis and then Carolyn Goldwasser.

And please mute microphones when not in use.

Good evening. Wow, what a change! My first sentence of my own message was this administrative memo is confusing. Now the new one is interesting but boy I had trouble writing everything down when we got to Mallory Way when Matthew was doing this. So, it seems to me that the request for a design review extension has been withdrawn. Is that right?

I can answer questions if the council would like. So no, it is not withdrawn for cottages. It would be withdrawn for Mallory and modified project from Mallory. But cottages would be extended plus two more very low-income unit on top.

What I have here is actually irrelevant. This is the key changes, I see. There's no World University in this. Is that right?

Yes, World University has taken out.

Okay. The bungalows are being saved. They're going to be under historic preservation. The tenants would not be evicted. They would basically guaranteed a spot And I heard something like equivalent to the rent they're paying now. I don't know how long though. The water requirement, and I know there were comments that went to the City Council in email and it's listed in comments on the agenda What is missing here is that they have allocations now for 25 at Mallory and 10 at the cottages, so they only need a few more. And that needs to be considered when there's the issue of how much new water they're going to use.

Another key issue which never gets included because it could be, but it's not. There is no outside money coming into this project or these projects. Development Corporation has probably over $35 million coming from the state of California through tax and bonds. The Becker Project has none, it's all based on what they are gonna get from their rent? They don't talk about that.

One key factor was mentioned in one of the comments that are on your agenda is the income survey. The original income survey was done in 2019, a new survey by somebody was done in 2022. I basically support this... Thank you Bill. I think that the City of Ojai will benefit if they can work something out.

Thank you Bill, time's up. Next we have Tom Francis then Carolyn Goldwasser and then Teal Rowe

I can address that now at the council

like briefly before mr. Francis speaks The deal is proposed Does not require the city to know the details of the incomes of the tenants Because all existing tenants would be entitled to keep their current rent for as long as is allowed under the state law and the city's ordinances So what that means is they stay in their unit at cottages or at Mallory until it's time for the developer who wants to rehab their unit can only do so if they offer them another unit at one of the other sites, whether cottages and other part of cottages are Mallory or Montgomery. One of the other sites at the same rent that they're currently paying And then increases thereafter only as allowed under the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and the State Tenant Protection Act.

So this structure allows a city to not have to get into the business of trying to understand what their incomes are because it's covered through capping their current rent. The side effect that benefits that is that for tenants whose income may be uncertain, or perhaps they're a moderate-income person and not a very low-income or low-income person They would still be able to keep whatever rent they have now.

So it would keep all current rents either at that unit or another unit somewhere in the project, provided they meet the terms of the lease. Obviously if you don't pay your rent then that's different.

Yeah thank you I think that's a great clarification thank you

Thank You mayor and council members for your service tonight I guess have a couple of questions to start with because I'm you know, I had comments prepared which some of which may no longer apply that So one question is how many units total with all the projects second question is how many of those units are market rate?

So 98 total units 63 new units, 98 counting the existing units. 63 new units, 31 of those affordable. Can you just tell me the market rate number? The market rate number is 42 truly market rate plus the 25 Mallory Way bungalows rehabilitation.

So that's 67 market rate units? Stop the clock while we're doing math here James, can you stop the clock and start

it again at 2 minutes 30 seconds? Like an NFL

game

Is the question how many new market rate units

there's 98 units total in the total project, right? Yeah The net effect will be 98 units totals all said and done 98 units, right? How many are market rate out of the 98 42 40 to 42 fully unrestricted market rate units. Okay, and then start the clock again that you were mentioning is what

I 25 Mallory Way bungalows units will be having that the tenant protection I just described for the current tenants. Okay

and then they go to market rate after the tenant moves? Correct. So eventually we end up with 67 market-rate units

42 market rate units in the 25 protected with the current tenants.

But once the tenants leave do they roll over to market rate or do they stay at that rent or what? They'll be whatever the market rate is at that time okay function so eventually account that there are all these people are gonna pass on so eventually it becomes a 67 market rate unit

I'm sorry, I have to clarify this. I'm Sunny Soltani. I am the special housing council. Thank you. Yes, yes. So there's gonna be 63 new units out of the 63 new units 31 are committed affordable so 63 minus 31 equals there is 32 Market rate units that are new market rate units that are coming is that

32 new market rate units.

Yes,

I don't really care if they're new or old. I just want to know how many market rate

Because is that right

because the difference is the cottages 10 existing market rate units that's the difference

No, he's not he's asking

out of the total So yeah, so is it 42

42 truly market rate units plus the 25. Eventually when people move, pass on or whatever they do so it's 67 ultimate result some years from now is 67 market rate units

at whichever time the tenants have all left Mallory right Versus 81 market rate units if there's no deal. That's a key comparison.

Okay, so I had some comments prepared. I think I'm still gonna read them because even if it's just for future process purposes maybe they'll apply, I don't know. So considering that there were multiple city hearings where hundreds of community members expressed opposition to four of these projects and that there was a successful referendum petition process. It is disappointing to many in the community that the council apparently has directed staff to engage in settlement negotiations with the developers without offering the community a chance to weigh-in on the pros and cons of doing so, or at a minimum, at least disclosing that this was going to occur.

Some in our community that lived through the Somis Fire are concerned about our ability to safely evacuate during the next fire or other natural disaster should many residents and workers need to exit our valley quickly. The council just approved a 50-unit low and very low income housing project brought forward by nonprofit housing experts Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation.

I applaud the council for supporting a project that includes homes with rents that are all within reach of regular working and retired people. I'm concerned that approving several additional housing developments absent thorough study of our valley's disaster evacuation infrastructure could increase risk of injury or death during a fire or other natural disaster due to overcrowding and gridlock of evacuation routes.

The public was not made aware of any substantial activity on these proposed projects until last Friday evening. It is unreasonable for the council to expect community members to be able to review and prepare comments on five projects over a period of three days, two of which are on a weekend during the holidays. In an effort to allow members of the public adequate time to review the information provided and enough lead time to schedule time in their calendars to attend Council meetings, I respectfully request that Council not take any further action on any of these proposed projects until the latter half of January. I also request that Council direct staff to seize settlement negotiations until the public has a right to define on how much staff resources should be invested into settlement negotiations versus potential legal avenues to deny one or more of the projects.

In addition, please allow adequate time between each hearing for community members to thoroughly review each proposal. So I'm a little confused. Are you guys actually approving this tonight?

Excuse me, I think time is up. Mr. City Attorney could you answer that question will be answered councilman rule. I got it. Do you want to answer that question?

Yes,

the whole Council

not you yeah If the council is comfortable with it, the council would be approving a processing agreement which is the settlement agreement. It would provide for future appropriate process to review the site plan for the revised modified Mallory project along with his final site plans for Montgomery and 510 East Ojai. So there'd be a future process on the site plan and it reserves discretion to the council at that teacher point. Mindful, however, there are provisions if the council were not to approve the projects then they'd be able to pursue under the default state law projects.

Thank you Matt. Okay next we have Carolyn Goldwasser and then Teal Rowe and then Anita Cram.

Hello, my name is Carolyn Goldwasser and I live at 302 North Signal Street at the corner of Aliso. I have walked by these projects, most of them, at least Mallory Way and Cottage of the Flowers. And what I would like to speak about is the environmental impacts of some of these things On the earth, the trees, the birds that live in the trees and the squirrels and the raccoons and all of the wildlife and whatnot. Also the water that runs down the roots of the grown trees. It takes decades for trees to get to be big. And they have extensive root systems and when it does rain, the water runs down the roots and replenishes the aquifer and helps the understory Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Four foot boxes, trees with four foot boxes. This is pretty big roots but it's nothing like the roots of a grown tree. It takes a long time for even a big tree in a big box to get big so this is something that I would urge you to work on with these people, the trees, the tree issue and the other thing about environment is that when you offer somebody living in the cottages Another place at one of these other places, in equal rent. That is a different environment. They don't know their neighbors.

If they don't have a car, walking to the library is no longer a real good option. If you live at Aliso right now, Cottages for the Flowers, if you're able to walk The library is two blocks away and Westridge is two blocks away. But if you're then transferred over to somewhere else, one of these other sites like Mallory Way which is pretty far away from Westridge or shopping or whatever, if you don't have a car this is another environmental impact. The goal I would think for the future is to have more people walking, bicycling, pedestrian friendly Thank you very much.

All that stuff, it's important to be aware and consider this. And it sounded like there's some leeway for the future to be the site plan and things like that, to be talking to people who are doing the rebuilding or whatever, that this is environment. It's important to our beautiful city. Thank you.

Thank you Carolyn. Next we have Teal Rowe then Anita Cram and then Sabrina Venskis.

Good evening Council and staff. Love the rehab of Mallory Way, it's great! And I'm really that all of this is way, way, way over my head. And I really wonder what happened with the referendum and the there's like there's a switch thing that goes on and I know it's the deal and the way it's going on. But the referendum Every signature on that referendum has value and the accountability to those signatures.

I would appreciate somebody to speak to that, to let everybody know what's going on because it's very complicated I'm with Tom Francis with the evacuation parts of especially on the heels of the 50 units at Cabrillo. It's like, OK when we're coughing in our cars waiting to get out of the valley this will be thought of in my mind. I'm also agreeing with Carolyn talking about the CEQA issues and Also, I'd like to add about the EMFs on the Montgomery site that it seems like that would be just unbelievable to live next to that electrical company whatever it is and Yeah, that's the end of my comment and thank you. I know it's a lot, I don't even know what to say so thank you for your service and it's just, I don't even know what to say thanks.

Thank You Teal next we have Anita Cram then Sabrina Venskas and then Nora Harold.

Well I thank you all for your negotiations and some improvements I'm angry right now I'm really angry that you sat in that room for an hour. We all set out here, then you come out and you drop this big plan on us that we have no way to be able to interpret it. And you're set to vote on it tonight? Okay so I'm going on here. With what I had prepared in a pissed mood. So page two of the staff report tonight says, open quote, the project applicant intends to keep the exterior cottages among the flowers. Exterior of existing dwelling units unchanged except for some paint and necessary minor repairs. A falsification that went all the way back to October of 2022. So what? Are they not tearing down walls anymore on cottages? We have no clue. Community doesn't know what's going on after you guys have done all those closed-door negotiations, and we're expected to listen to a 20 minute verbal report?

Don't vote on it tonight. I'm pissed! I'm telling you right now. What about CEQA? What about the wildlife corridor status of cottages among the flowers? What about endangered, threatened, sensitive species? I have casual observations of a lot of wildlife that occurs there. So we're just throwing all that out the window? We're throwing our integrity as a community out the window? How can you do this to us? You know, I can't even read my notes. So okay, are they freezing our rent at what it is right now? Is that what you're saying? You know I live at the cottages. They're separate partials. That developer can raise our rent 10% each year, force us all out by raising the rent too much and then it's moot on us needing replacement housing. I'm walking away.

You guys, I am so disappointed in this You need to put this all out in documentation, write it out. Let the community review what is happening before you approve it. That's malpractice if you do not.

Thank you Anita. Next we have Sabrina Venskis then Nora Harold and then Madeline I'm

not sure, H. Hi, Sabrina Venskis representing Simply Ojai tonight. Anita's a friend of mine but I'm gonna change the tone just a little bit. Wow what a difference a council makes! I mean the last council said that was the best deal they could get this is like phenomenally better and I think I just want to say thank you to the team here. I think it takes a team it takes a village So thank you, I think it's on the right path. I don't think that it is necessarily the final and we have a lot of questions. I do as an attorney on behalf of my client Simply Ojai I think that I'm a little confused about the claim that Mallory cottages could be demolished because my understanding is under the law, that's not the case and that they could do buy right 48 market or 48 units.

So I have some questions and as a land use and environmental attorney, I'd like the ability to evaluate and analyze this. I would like to see a project that simply Ojai could support But we just don't know. And so again, it sounds really good and I really appreciate the work that's been put into it. I understand some of the community members' frustration with not being brought into the fold a little bit sooner and to understand what the terms are but certainly this has been, this is a great team they're getting miles better than what that former council got So, thank you. The request is on behalf of Simply Ojai that you don't approve any settlement agreement tonight.

Let's take a look. Devil's in the details and I think that if it's a really good deal, the community can get behind it And so I think this is a great opportunity to bring the community together to support a project that everybody agrees to and everybody likes. It sounds like you're pretty close to that, thank you.

Thank You Sabrina next we have Nora Harold then Madeline H and then Spencer Aston

Hi everyone. Nora Harold, Miners Oaks. First I really want to thank you all for getting so much more than what had been gotten before. Like what a negotiation! Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for making affordable housing for people who really need it a priority. Thank you. This does seem very fast, right? I tried to keep track of all of the information that Matthew gave and it was hard to keep up because but I think it's all fast. It's very fast for you all as well correct this is all this happened tonight yes in that closed session so If it does not negatively affect the community in any way, to hold a vote.

Please hold so there can be full community response, more questions, better understanding. that would be my one request, if it can be done. But I don't know if you are able to do that. It seemed to me like this was a hard line. So I guess I'm also speaking to the other lawyer on the other side who is also a part of this community because these buildings are in this community and the community needs to get on board So to the Becker lawyers, it behooves you to have the community support.

It behooves you to have the community support so if you can agree To put a pin in this come back to it in January and have your vote at that point I think the entire community will benefit Thank you

Thank you, Nora. Next we have Madeline. Hi. Spencer Aston then and

Paul Magoulas. Just in lieu of the new information I'm not going to speak too much this evening but would greatly appreciate if we didn't come to final approval on anything this evening give the community time to process and vote on this.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Spencer Aston then Paul Magoulas and then what? Oh I'm sorry Spencer. Oops never mind. We have Paul and then we have Mirto Karamitsu and then Scott McKendry.

Hi Paul!

So well, congratulations on moving together. That is amazing. Feels like there's some new energy here. But we don't want to go too fast. We don't want to make mistakes. I don't know how many hours it took you to bring this plan together, but how much was it? A lot of hours?

Yeah, a lot. Many, many

weeks. Congratulations. Yeah, that's great. Yeah. That's amazing. Well, let's see it. Let's see all the work you've done. Let's not just race through and Commit to it so fast. Yeah, I'm sure it's amazing work but yeah the devil is in the details right and We do need to find those little things Which can make a difference? To everyone the low-income people the builders Everyone the community So yeah, that's not Russia

Thank you, Paul. Next we have Mitra Karamitsu, then Scott McKendry and then Julia Weissman.

Hi, congratulations for all the work you're doing and thank you. I feel the same thing. I mean, I wasn't expecting all this new information. Microphone please. Before I can clearly say that I support this or not, I need more time. I think it would be a rush for this. City Council members to vote right away. Thank you.

Madam

Mayor,

may I just before we get any more comments about rushing this? I think it's really important for your community to understand that there is a new state oh sorry it's on Oh, sorry. Is this better? I'm usually being told I'm too loud and I need to tone it down so thank you. I think it's really important for the community to understand why coming up with the constructs of the settlement agreement before the end of the year is a critical component to the council members And I think the community needs to understand that there is a new legislation that takes effect January 1st That would allow the developer as a matter of right under density bonus laws to come in file an application on Mallory, that would give them up to 58 new units that would allow them to go up to three to four stories.

That would allow them to, as long as they have a replacement place for or replacement rental unit for the current residents it would allow them to knock down the bungalows and rebuild it like an apartment complex or anything like that. They could cut down all of the oak trees, and they could have a very irresponsible development that would not be consistent with this community and the beautiful city that you have.

I believe it's critical for them to understand that the council has tried very hard to bring the developer to the table, to have the developer give the community a responsible development. And they pushed hard to get these beautiful units earmarked as a landmark which developer has now agreed to which is something Is our understanding that that was a critical component to the community. So the reason, and there's been hours and hours of meetings and discussions and back-and-forth. And the developers lawyers are here buyers remorse by the developer at some point. And then coming back to the table and trying to do the responsible thing. There's been a lot of back and forth, but it's really important for your residents to understand the reason it's happening quickly.

And tonight if it's continued, it could jeopardize a deal that saves the bungalows and saves the nature and the feel of this beautiful development that then you lose the opportunity to have it be a historic landmark and all of the tenant protections So I just wanted to clarify that because I think it's really important, because the council actually talked about having workshops and having everybody participate. And the timing doesn't allow for that right now. However, there is going to be each parts of these developments, the components of the settlement, there is going to be further hearings and there is going to be an opportunity for everybody to see it. I will make myself personally available for anybody that wants to come and sit down with me and review the settlement agreement.

This is a solid settlement agreement that protects your community, protects the nature of what's being presented, and I would not advise the client to lose that opportunity because what can happen January 1st, trust me, I don't think the residents are gonna like it. So I just want to clarify that and I want to commit to all of you if anybody wants to come meet with me. I have a copy of the settlement agreement that we're trying to finalize because again this council is so careful that they wanted to add a last-minute I'm here today to talk about the landmark.

I'm available to meet with anybody, go over the terms of the settlement agreement, answer any questions. And so I wanted to offer that. I can meet you after the meeting, give my phone number to you and we can take it from there. Okay. Sorry. I

thought that was important. Thank you, Sunny. Next we have Scott McKendry then Julia Weissman and then Maddie Gadsloy. Hello all. Before

you start my time though can I ask for a clarification about what it is about January 1st the changes in the law?

It's really unfortunate. So before I tell you that, I just want to say my law firm is one of the biggest advocates to preserve local control over these housing issues. We are the law firm that brought the coalition of the cities that filed SB 9 lawsuit challenge against the state of California which I think we're about to prevail on the judge ticket under submission for three months and They have actually continued it and asked for more briefing from the state on these issues. And the lawsuit was about the irresponsible way the state is handling these housing laws. If the goal is affordable housing, then their stated objectives in all of their legislative history says we want to preserve affordable housing, then your laws should be clear and mandate that.

However, unfortunately for all of us not just your community my community is affected too. They just passed these laws in a wholesale fashion without looking at the needs of local control and so the new law that they have just passed that's going to take effect January 1 will allow density bonuses that applicable to the Mallory project could give them 58 new units There's no restriction on height. It could go up to three to four stories, as long as yes they still have to comply with providing replacing affordable units that they're getting rid of but they could replace those in In any way or fashion they would want in their new project it wouldn't have to be in a way of preserving the bungalows and keeping them as a historic site.

You know, it's a wholesale approach the state is taking. They just want the numbers. That's all they care about. So the fact that through extensive negotiations, the council has gotten the developer to come to this realization that they want to do a development that's responsible for the community and they're willing to make the concessions that they're making and they're giving up a lot of their states rights under this settlement agreement to bring it together I think the council needs to be congratulated for their hard work and putting their heart and soul into this. And for everyone that's saying, did the referendum mean nothing? Yeah, the referendum meant a lot. This is a much better deal than the development agreement was, and you're preserving the character and nature of your community.