City Council — March 10, 2026

The City of Oaks

Thanks for watching! you Okay. you ♪

I will now call to order the City Council meeting. Will City Clerk please call roll?

Council Member Adam.

Here.

Council Member Neumann.

Here.

Council Member Gutierrez. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Engler.

Here

and Mayor Taylor.

Here Council Member Neumann is participating remote in tonight's meeting pursuant to the Brown Act, I must ask Council Newman is there anyone who was 18 years or older with you in the room

Mayor Taylor, there is not.

Thank you. Tonight we have one closed session case. Ms. Noonan will you please announce the session?

Thank You mayor Taylor. We have one closed session conference with legal counsel on anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.92 when potential case a city employee has alleged age discrimination and harassment.

Thank you That's it all right we'll see you guys here shortly you

you ♪ Music playing ♪ You. Welcome to So, The The The Okay. The End ♪ Hi. ♪ Hi, everybody.

You. We are now back from closed session. Ms. Noonan, is there anything for you to report?

Nothing to

The City Council encourages Thousand Oaks residents to participate in the Donate Life California donor registry and we are therefore proclaiming the month of April as DMV, Donate Life California Month. Organ donation turns loss into legacy and you can register at donatelifecalifornia.com Is there anything you guys would like to say? No okay thank you guys we appreciate you here is the proclamation. And would you guys come up and take a photo with our council? Can I invite council for a photo?

And now we have our final presentation of the evening, I'd like to introduce Natasha Buran from the library. She is going to tell us about the library's One City One Book selection for the year.

Good evening Mayor Taylor and council members. I'm Natasha Buran a librarian at the Thousand Oaks Library and committee chair for Thousand Oaks Reads One City One Book I am pleased to be here tonight to announce the 2026 title. The Friends of the Library have been supporting this program for 18 years and we are just so thankful for their generous support. If you are unfamiliar with One City, One Book it is a citywide literary event that encourages community members to collectively read and discuss a selected book.

One City, One Book is really built on a simple but powerful idea that books bring people together. Stories have this unique way of helping us connect, start meaningful conversations and feel a little more rooted in our community. Each year this program reminds us that the library isn't just a place to check out books it's a vibrant gathering space where culture ideas and people come together In just the past three years, more than 4,500 people have participated in One City One Book events. And that kind of engagement is just so exciting for us and it motivates us to keep growing and serving our community through this program.

I am pleased to announce that The Foxwife by Yangshi Qiu was selected as the 2026 title. New York Times bestselling author, Yangshi Qiu brilliantly explores a world of mortals and spirits, humans and beasts, and their dazzling intersections. Blending historical fiction and folklore, The Fox Wife follows Bao, a detective investigating the death of a courtesan and a mysterious servant named Snow, a fox spirit seeking vengeance for the loss of her child on a journey through China and Japan.

We invite you to kick off this year's One City, One Book with a free concert at the Grant R. Brimhall Library on Saturday March 28th featuring internationally acclaimed and award-winning artist Beibei Monter. The Guzheng is a 21 string traditional Chinese zither with a history of 2,500 years. Joined by guitarist John Monter the duo will present an evening of contemporary fusion works.

In the following weeks, the workshops programs inspired by the book will continue culminating with an afternoon with Yang Xichu on Sunday April 26 at 2 p.m upstairs at the Fred Kavli Theater with a Q&A and book signing. Books are available in paperback large print e-book and e-audiobook and will be available to borrow starting tomorrow at the library This event is free. Seating is first come, first serve and if the public would like to know more information they can go to tolibrary.org or call us at the library.

Through One City One Book we aim to bring together diverse voices and viewpoints through a thoughtful exchange of ideas. A guiding principle that drives this program is the belief that when we open a book together we close it in greater harmony. With appreciation, we would like to leave a copy of The Fox Wife with each council member and invite you and all the community members to participate in the 2026 One City One Book program. Thank you so much for your time today.

Natasha thanks for being with us tonight and sharing about the reading program.

Thank you so much.

Next up is public comments will city clerk please announce them?

This is the time and place for public comments. Speakers are requested to state their name and community of residence for the record. Two individuals have requested to speak and pursuant to council standards, speakers are allowed three minutes. The yellow light displays when you have one minute remaining.

City Clerk, are you able to call on the names? I don't have them in front of me.

Yes our first speaker tonight is Scarlett.

Greetings Council, I'm Scarlett from Thousand Oaks and I have a seven syllable word for you. And that is semi-quincentennial. Semi for half, quin for five and centennial for 100. So of course half of 500 equals 250. And so as you know we are embarking on our 250th year birthday of America. And with that I'd like to, in the spirit of that, kind of revisit a little bit of our nation's history and traditions of America.

So 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed by 56 very courageous men. Lives, fortunes, sacred honor, all of that. Well, did you know that half actually more than half of those 56 had a degree in ministry? They were all also seminary degrees from universities. The declaration signer Francis Hopkinson this is what's fun about it we get to rendezvous with our founding fathers Francis Hopkinson actually created and designed the Great Seal of America. He actually served as one of our first judges, federal judges, and he was also the choir and music director for Christ Church in Philadelphia. He wrote America's very first hymn book, and he also set the entire Book of Psalms to music.

And so I could give you so many examples of the faith of our founding fathers, but I'm going to move on now to 1814. Francis Scott Key as we all know probably that he wrote our nation's national anthem and did you know that in the fourth stanza of that book he actually had written, and this be our motto In God Be Our Trust. So I don't have too much more time here, but I did want to mention that the commander of the Allied Forces of World War II, we have Dwight Eisenhower who officially set our national motto as in God We Trust.

And so there has been a lack of honoring our nation's history and tradition. And with that, I wanted to let you know that our sister cities of Port Hueneme and Fillmore have both adopted our national motto and it resides in their council chambers. And with that, I would love to request that the City of Thousand Oaks also honor the history and tradition of America and place those words in God we trust And our council chambers here. Thank you.

Thank you, Scarlett. Next up we have Madison Richeson on Zoom.

Can you hear me?

We can go

ahead. My name is Madison Richardson. I'm from Newbury Park just to Continue on the last speaker. I would also like to honor our traditions as America and keep church and state separated, but that's not what I'm here for today. I want to talk about how we are fortunate to live in a city that historically defines itself by how we support one another. We saw that unity during the fires. We saw it in the wake of borderline tragedy.

We are community more than capable standing together Yet when the topic of federal immigration enforcement arises, we see a shift towards needless division. Whether one supports ICE's mission or not, the reality of their current operations is by any metric unstable. We are seeing a massive $38 billion detention range initiative unfold in real time. Just today it was confirmed the core civic facility in Kern County, the largest in California has received official permission to expand.

This isn't a distant federal issue. It's a local reality. This expansion signals that these operations are accelerating, bringing with them documented financial hardships for our agricultural sector and a climate of fear that affects our neighbors daily. The residents who come before you to share these concerns aren't driven by ulterior motives. They're driven by empathy and a belief that our city can always strive to be better.

I fear that silence from the majority of this council allows contention to breed. We look to our leaders for clarity and guidance, especially when navigating the complex intersection of federal enforcement and local privacy. We need to move beyond political divisiveness and towards a healthy transparent discussion about how we protect our city's resources and our residents' peace of mind.

I hope we can lead with the same unity we showed during times of crisis, ensuring our policies reflect the character of the city we love. Thank you.

Thank you, Madison. Next is consent calendar. Does anyone have any questions or would like to pull anything? With no discussion, would anybody like to

make a motion? Mr. Mayor, we do have one speaker on this item.

Oh, we do! I'm not seeing that, do

you? Yes, we have John.

John, okay.

Hello City Council. I just want to clarify something I said last council meeting regarding the ADUs and the Constitution of the United States, and our oaths of office. I had said two weeks ago that you guys are violating your oath of office and the Constitution of the United States with Article 1 Section 10 where it says no state shall make a law which impairs the obligation of contracts With regard to ADUs, we're talking about CCRs. Covenants Conditions and Restrictions where Assembly Bill 670 says to ignore those with regard to building an ADU.

Now when I said that we're all violating our oath and I turned around and I said we all are violating our oath and the Constitution what I really meant to say was We're all partly to blame for allowing and tolerating those violations to happen and not speaking up. So that's really what I meant to say, I just want to clarify that. And in regard to the ADUs, I want to also reiterate I'm not an ADU hater I think they're cute, they're actually kind of fun.

But when it comes to a neighborhood where they have CCRs that says you cannot have those things like an ADU and additional dwelling we should follow that contract. And I'm, I have a question in that is do you think your constituents would like full disclosure in the process of building an ADU, in that case where the CCR is prohibited. I'm wondering if they would like to have full disclosure that the law that supports it is unconstitutional because if they're not being told this is true, they're opening themselves up to a lawsuit by their neighbors and I've seen some ADUs where there's a bunch of cars out front and it's getting really crowded And there's other issues, it's just violating the CCRs.

And I think it's just a matter of time before this starts to happen where they start suing their neighbors and it starts to cause a problem. So, I think the disclosure in the application process would be appropriate to just tell people hey keep an eye on your CCRs check them out. Now you guys know I love ya. I'm just trying to protect ya and our city and I appreciate ya so thank you God bless.

John, being in the real estate industry you are the first person I've ever heard call ADUs cute and fun. Okay now moving back to consent calendar still nothing to discuss will somebody move or put a motion up? No comments from staff.

I'm happy to move consent all parts of it.

City Clerk can call the vote.

and that motion passes five to zero on your ordinance title is an ordinance amending the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code relating to regulation of accessory dwelling units ADUs and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, JADUs. Updating title nine chapter four article 45 accessory dwelling units to be consistent with state law MCA 2025-7003 ordinance number 1747-NS.

Thank you next up we have our public hearing oh no excuse me. Next we have tonight's department reports

There we go, it is public hearing all right Will city clerk please open the hearing Hearing advertised as required by law is open to consider agenda item number 10A, Mixed Use Development Amendment SP 2025-7003 dagger 2025-0005 DP 2025-70019. Applicant is Latigo Hillcrest LLC. Speakers are requested to state their name and community of residence one person has presented a speaker card and pursuant to council standard That speaker is allowed five minutes. The yellow light displays when you have one minute remaining

Thank you, presenting the item tonight is Senior Planner Justine Kendall. And available for questions we have our Community Development Director Kelvin Parker, Assistant City Attorney Noel Doran and Deputy Community Development Director Fabiola Zala-Mellicher. Take it away staff.

Good evening Mayor, Council Members, members of the public As you just heard, the item before the City Council for this evening's consideration are amendments to Specific Plan 24 and Development Agreement 2022-70777-DAGR as well as a major modification of Development Permit 202270773-DP. Originally approved by City Council in July of 2023 that would allow changes to facade design and materials for the project approved at 2150 West Hillcrest Drive.

To provide a quick overview of what was already approved in 2023, The project site consists of one parcel totaling 8.28 gross acres, the map on your screen provides an aerial view of the site showing the previously existing vacant office and surface parking which have since been demolished. The project site is surrounded by developed urban uses and generally located north of US 101 East of Rancho Canejo Boulevard and a Chevron automobile service station, south of Hillcrest Drive and the Amgen Industrial Business Campus.

And west of an existing multifamily apartment complex. The project is currently under construction for aspects of the development that are unaffected by the subject request. The subject request involves modifications to various aspects of the project approved by City Council, which included the entitlements listed here. The general plan amendment zone change protected tree permit and special use permit are not proposed to be amended.

However, the specific plan development agreement and development permit are. The approved project is characterized by a multifamily mixed-use development that includes an internal pedestrian oriented roadway separating two buildings, which would contain 333 multifamily residential units including 30 very low income affordable units and three moderate income affordable units.

Common areas and amenities 5300 gross square feet of commercial retail and restaurant space above semi-subterranean parking structures containing a total of 462 parking spaces as well as 121 surface parking spaces. The northerly building fronting on West Hillcrest Drive, also known as Building A is the mixed-use building with three levels of apartments above a ground floor of both residential units, amenities and commercial tenant spaces.

Building B includes residential uses which appear as four other larger buildings on the site connected by various walking paths, breezeways and bridges. The smaller building incorporated into building B will house the leasing and property management office Additional indoor and outdoor amenities are provided to the residents throughout the site, including a playground, swimming pool, courtyards with active play spaces, roof decks and a dog park.

As approved, the project's architectural design is a modern style. The exterior walls of the building are earth-toned colors primarily consisting of stucco finishes, simulated wood fiber cement panels, brick veneer, multi-panel window areas with dark bronze trim, awnings and trellises. The northern building, again Building A, located behind an existing landscape berm with protected oak trees to remain in place includes significant articulation and massing breaks seen here.

Building A also features a public seating area on the ground floor in front of the commercial units and material changes at the driveway entries to encourage pedestrian safety and activity. The southern building, Building B includes similar materiality and articulation throughout although to a lesser degree than Building A. The southern facades of the building are visible from the 101 freeway and as approved are required to incorporate additional brick veneer somewhere on each sub-building subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department The development agreement is a contract between the property owner and the city which outlines the private benefits received by the developer in exchange for the benefits the project will provide to the public.

In this instance, the project must provide 333 new residential units including those 30 affordable units On-site amenities, an improved city gateway sign, sustainability features and enhanced architectural design in exchange for the adoption of the general plan amendment. The new specific plan deviation from the city's objective design standards and stability of some fee and regulatory requirements SP 20 was approved as part of the original project because the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code did not include a mixed use zoning designation at the time of approval.

A specific plan is a document designed to implement policies in alignment with the intent of the city's general plan and establish custom development and design standards, permitted land uses, infrastructure requirements, implementation measures, and other criteria. These standards are not required to replicate the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code requirements since they are intended to be unique for the specific development area.

It should be noted that relief from normally required development standards was granted as part of the development agreement negotiations and specific plan drafting process. For example, relief from municipal code building length restrictions, window inset requirements and others were all granted as part of the original entitlement approval. Before I get into each of the requests included in tonight's item, I will review a little bit of the process that led to the approved project just described.

As part of the typical planning entitlement review process, the part that occurs before a project goes to public hearing, the applicant submits plans which are refined as staff provides feedback. Corrections are made to bring the plans into compliance with regulatory requirements and negotiations are held to balance project-specific context and operational requirements with city design guidelines.

In some situations, such as this one, revisions are deferred to the post-approval process and memorialized as conditions of approval which are contained within the final resolution in order to allow an applicant to move forward to public hearings. In the instance of the subject project, the development permit resolution included specific design modifications as part of the conditions of approval requiring revisions to the plan set shown during the entitlement hearings to be made during the building permit plan check process.

Other conditions reinforce that certain aspects of the project must be maintained as they are particularly important to the design quality of the development. The draft conditions of approval, including the design-related modifications or enforcement conditions were provided to the applicant in advance of the public hearing to allow an opportunity for review and discussion. The applicant agreed to the conditions at the time of Planning Commission and City Council consideration, and the project was approved subject to the conditions presented at the hearings.

Many of the conditions of approval adopted for this project were intended to ensure consistency with the guidelines listed here, as well as the new specific plan for the property in the development agreement. As shown earlier, the development agreement negotiated by the city and development team present here this evening included the developer's commitment to provide quote enhanced architectural design with appropriate massing and scale, extensive articulation, glazing, and extensive detailing with upgraded materials.

Following planning entitlement approval, it is then normally expected that plans submitted for grading and building plan check review will be modified due to refinements made during the final engineering design process, updated business plan or financial considerations or to comply with conditions of approval. During those review periods revisions to plans are categorized as either minor or major changes.

In this case definitions of what is considered minor or major were included in section 10 of the adopted development agreement In particular, the development agreement specified that changes to building materials that are not comparable or better than those included in the project plans dated May 26th 2023 are to be considered a major amendment requiring Planning Commission review and City Council approval.

In April 2025, following both applicant and staff identification of 19 design revisions or in some cases the lack of revisions which are required by condition of approval. Nine of those were determined to be minor and granted ministerially per the direction of the development agreement and 10 were qualified as major. The applicant submitted complete applications to process the requested major design revisions. That would be the development permit, major modification, development agreement amendment application and specific plan amendment application on December 17th of last year.

The primary issue before the City Council is whether the requested architectural modifications maintain consistency with the enhanced design features and material standards of the original project approvals, including resolution number 2023-043 which approved the development permit subject to the conditions of approval contained therein. Specific plan number 24 and the development agreement.

The list of requests is summarized here, and I will go into more detail on each one They include the removal of approved trellises and non-compliance with the requirement to provide additional trellises Installation of external downspouts rather than internalizing those downspouts visible from prominent corners Hillcrest Drive or Rancho Canejo Boulevard as required by condition of approval number 62 Provide painted metal doors rather than the French gloss doors shown on the entitlement plan set or other similarly decorative doors.

This was recommended for approval by Planning Commission. To substitute painted accent headers in a complementary color in place of the previously specified wood look trim headers, reduce the total amount of transparency on the commercial storefront facade of building A Substitute wood frame trim for the residential window awnings at certain locations on the fourth floor to reduce the number of third-floor awnings from the number required by condition of approval.

This also was recommended for approval by Planning Commission. To remove vertical wood look slack cladding from prominent elevator tower facades. To provide additional brick veneer on building B, sub buildings B1 and B2 only. And to provide vinyl framed windows exclusively rather than the non-vinyl windows required by resolution number 2023-043 in specific plan 24.

Also recommended for approval by planning commission. To go into more detail for each one of these, request A is related to condition number 48 of the adopted resolution which required several changes from the plans presented at the hearings. The provision of shade structures over common outdoor spaces was required to maintain or provide greater visual interest and roof articulation as well as shade for the users of such areas. The applicant has declined to provide additional shade structures over common rooftop patios and is requesting to remove those several that were previously proposed.

Should this request be denied, the trellises originally maintained would need to remain and additional shade structures would need to be provided for instance at the southern courtyard of building A and the patio southwest of building B4. The plans as approved are shown here. You can see the top of the trellis within the red outline above building A, and this is what it would look like without.

This is where you would see that the trellise to be provided on building B's rooftop deck. And lastly on the ground floor of building B in the interior of the project, the permanent shade structure is now proposed to be movable furniture. Condition of approval number 62 states that downspouts shall be avoided or concealed within the building walls at specific feature corner elements, such as the commercial retail corner and brick lobby towers or any facade viewable from Hillcrest Drive or Rancho Conejo Boulevard. Any downspout not concealed within the building walls must be painted to match the wall behind.

While the applicant has attempted to reduce their visual impact, roughly 24 exterior downspouts remain visible from the facades facing Hillcrest Drive and Rancho Conejo which affect the overall architectural quality of those facades. The applicant is requesting that nine exit doors, shown here with yellow dots, primarily serving residents and their guests be allowed to be painted solid metal doors although they were originally approved to be French glass doors as you can see in these side-by-side images.

Condition of approval number 57 specified that exit doors visible from public streets needed to be decorative and although the doors requested to be changed are not visible from public streets, they're visible from the internal roadways. As such, it was determined that this request qualified as a major modification since doors serving primary residential and guest access should generally enhance the overall quality of the building design and incorporate decorative elements and provide visibility for individuals entering and exiting.

Condition of approval number 53, as well as the design standards within specific plan 24 require specific window trim or header material. These standards were required as material with heavier higher quality materials and more substantial detail help create physical and visual depth enhancing the overall quality of the design and adding articulation to the building facade The applicant is meeting their requirement to inset 36% of all residential windows, approximately 475 windows. However they have requested to provide a painted trim only rather than a wood look tile or brick header.

Condition of approval number 54 and specific plan 24 require that 65% of the commercial storefront facade have a transparent window area, and three inch recess requirement. The applicant is meeting the recess requirement but is requesting to reduce the transparency to 60%. The images above show an example of how this change might appear. Condition of approval number 48, sub-requirement E required that additional awnings be provided to increase visual interest in articulation throughout the project and to provide shading for residents.

The first sub requirement for awnings on the north side of building A is to be met by the applicant and is not part of the subject request. Otherwise, the applicant is requesting to refrain from providing the required additional third floor metal awnings and to remove awnings previously provided on the fourth floor level. This image shows an example of where third-floor awnings are requested to not be provided. It should be noted that in some cases the fourth floor awnings are proposed to remain as approved which is seen here.

In other instances, the applicant is requesting to remove awnings previously provided on the fourth floor and replace those awnings with wood frame trim. This change is proposed for the Hillcrest or north side of building A, the east side of building A, the Rancho Canejo or west side of building B1, the residential or east side of building B2 and the freeway or south side of building B3.

The facade as designed to meet the third floor awning requirement can be seen on the left, as an example. Versus a façade without the third floor awnings which can be seen on the right. While not specifically called out as a condition of approval, the applicant is also requesting to remove wood-like material cladding from elevator towers except those which appear on primary building facades facing public streets and interior driveways. As approved can be seen on the left and as requested on the right.

Specific plan 24 requires that veneers such as this vertical slot material turn corners on such building elements in order to appear more substantial and authentic and to provide visual interest from as many perspectives as possible. The removals are proposed at all seven locations shown here in yellow. Condition of approval number 48, sub-requirement F required that brick veneer which is proposed heavily on building A is also included on building B, sub buildings one through four.

Staff recommended this condition so that the building facades facing the 101 freeway exhibit a similar quality of design to those facing other roadways. The brick veneer adds significant value to the overall sense of authenticity and depth of quality of the design wherever it appears. The applicant is requesting relief from this requirement for the two southernmost buildings that are visible from the freeway, highlighted here in yellow.

As part of the development agreement negotiations, relief from the objective design standard prohibition of vinyl windows was provided and only those windows on the external facing facades were prohibited from being vinyl framed. The applicant now seeks complete relief from this requirement. Although vinyl windows have been used in other projects in the city, vinyl window frames may exhibit different long-term durability and aesthetic characteristics compared to aluminum fiberglass or wood alternatives.

In addition their manufacturer is considered to be not environmentally friendly. Condition of approval number 48, sub requirement D memorializes this agreement as do the design standards of specific plan number 24. That concludes my review of the individual requests. To further clarify, as some of those requests conflict with the requirements of SP-24 an amendment to SP- 24 is included as part of the request to accommodate those design revisions that are not currently permitted should they be approved and the subject development agreement is requested to remove and replace the dates of the approved plan set and specific plan within section 10.1 and remove and replace the conditions of approval which are included as an exhibit to that document.

The remainder of the agreement is unchanged. The Adopted Specific Plan Development Agreement and Development Permit established architectural standards and material requirements that formed part of the basis for the original project approval. Certain modifications to those elements are defined as major changes requiring Planning Commission recommendation and City Council action.

While the Planning Commission recommended several of their requests be approved, the City Council retains final authority and may approve, deny or modify the requested amendments in whole or in part based on its policy considerations and findings. In rendering its decision, City Council may consider whether the proposed revisions remain consistent with the adopted specific plan development agreement and design objectives supporting the original approvals If City Council agrees to some or all of the requested revisions, staff will prepare the appropriate documents and include them in a future City Council meeting for final approval.

If City Council denies all or part of the requested amendments, the applicant may submit revised plans for further review. Any future revisions would be evaluated to determine whether they constitute a minor change under the development agreement or require additional discretionary review. That concludes our presentation, staff is available for any questions and I will provide the list of requests for everyone's reference.

Thank you Justine and I'll just mention Mr. Newman because you're on Zoom if you have questions just put your hand up there and I'll come to you from the dais. Any questions for staff?

I just need to announce, I had an ex parte with one of the representatives of the developer.

With that mention, do you have any questions for staff?

Sure. Okay. The development agreement mentioned several different items, specific plan 24 and some other items are our Objective objective building standards were all those in place when the When this agreement went into no effect. In other words, was there any surprises for anybody involved in this disagreement?

The conditions of approval incorporated as an exhibit to the development agreement were provided before the hearings and at the After the hearings are finished, an affidavit of acceptance of conditions is signed by the applicant and the development agreement which remained unchanged after the hearings was signed and recorded by the applicant. So I'm not sure if that answers your question but there were no changes post-hearing.

I just noticed when I was reading through it there's a lot of references to the documents so I just want to make sure that they were plainly visible.

Yes.

Mr. Adams. Thank you, Mayor. Speaking of objective standards we have those in place so we are sure to get a quality project constructed here in the City of Thousand Oaks and With the incursions by the state when it comes to housing, our objective standards in my opinion are even more important. I hope you would agree with that. Do any of the requests here counter to our objective standards?

Yes, some of these requests are or would not comply with the objective design standards. And you know that was there were a number of design standards that are particular to this specific plan that are unique to this project which deviate from the objective design standards that was part of the negotiation process During the entitlement review and took into consideration The benefits provided on on both sides as well as the project specific context

And the builder was aware of the objective standards As we went through the process, correct?

Yes, sir

and okay and Complied initially shall we say correct but tonight The request is to void some of our objective standards, correct?

I would characterize it more as deviating from many of the conditions of approval which had already deviated in many ways from the objective design standards.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Newman.

Yes, thank you Mayor. I want to begin with a few general questions about the development agreement process, just so I'm clear on that before getting to these specific 10 requests or 10 deviations as Council Member Adam just characterized them. When there's a development agreement negotiated is it the case that the City works with an applicant over a period of time to come up with a commonly agreed upon set of conditions. Conditions that may number in the dozens or even the hundreds, but before an agreement is reached all of that is discussed and understood.

Do I more or less understand that at a 50 000 foot level?

Yes that is correct

And further, with this specific development agreement I watched the Planning Commission hearing and Ms. Kendall thank you for your report there and the one this evening at the planning commission you said all of those conditions quote form the basis for the original approval meaning there was a meeting of the minds on every single condition in the development agreement again is that understanding correct?

That's right.

Another general question is about the design guidelines that city staff uses in coming up with which conditions the city will and will not accept. It's my understanding, this was explained to me many years ago at the time there was a licensed architect on staff named Claudia Pedroso Who said whenever there's a plain surface that's not broken up, as a general rule the city looks for visual interest. So we'll try to seek articulation or some decorative element to break up something plain.

That was the practice 12 years ago. Has that been in continuous practice ever since then? To the current time? Is that still the practice?

Yes, I would say that's generally something that we would look out for.

Okay thank you. I want to follow up on a couple of suggestions made by the applicant and i will ask the applicant these as well but there were a couple of suggestions made at the Planning Commission hearing one was about code requirements with regard to the amount of glass that was in place so my question on that are Are any of the changes the applicant is requesting here necessary to meet code? In other words, is the development agreement that both parties agreed to two years ago, is that somehow not compliant with current building and fire codes.

No, any time that a light for safety or building code requirement is in play that would take priority. However it is possible for instance in the case of let's say like the metal doors where the glass may need to be reduced in order to comply with the building code requirement. The requirement to provide a decorative door or something that's comparable or better, one could still meet that requirement and as well as the building code requirement.

Okay my next question has to do with the definition of the word major in your presentation you gave a timeline and you said that when development agreements are worked out even after the agreement is reached Discussions continue between an applicant and the city. And there are often minor changes made, sometimes many minor changes of when there's a major change or in this case 10 major changes that's different. So I have two questions on that for you. The first one is do any or all of these changes in staffs expert opinion degrade the quality of this application?

of this project.

All of these requests, the all 10 requests presented this evening and staff's estimation were considered to not meet that threshold of comparable or better. And

by virtue of that threshold that is what makes them major changes correct?

That's correct.

Right So I'm not aware of any case ever in the past 12 years of any precedent where an applicant or developer has come back to the city and asked to revise their development agreement with one major change, let alone 10. Is staff aware of requests with major changes like this?

I'm not familiar with a project that's gone through a process like this one is going through.

Okay, thank you and then my final question actually two more questions sorry um in the sequencing of the major changes there are 10 of them lettered A through J is there any sort of hierarchy and sequencing not meeting that equal or better threshold? Like is J farther away from that threshold than A, or are these just in random order?

I would say they're roughly an order of lesser impact to greater.

So J would be the farthest away from equal or better and A would be the closest to a minimal change although we're still calling it major Is that right? Okay, very good. And the final question there was some discussion at the planning commission on the nature of vinyl materials in windows and whether Not whether vinyl is improved. I would agree that it has, but rather whether its lifespan and its sustainability was equal to or better than other materials such as wood or aluminum or something else.

Does staff have an opinion on that? There were assertions made by the developer, but I'd like to hear staff's view on that point.

It depends on the specific brand and type of vinyl window that would be proposed. We don't have the specific brand provided, but in general vinyl windows don't have quite the lifespan that other materials do. They can be less energy efficient. Some are not, but some are. And I would say that one of the major points and the reason why the prohibition of vinyl windows was included in the objective design standards, was that the manufacturing process for vinyl windows is not environmentally friendly and not necessarily in line with the city's overall sustainability goals.

Very good. Ms. Kendall thank you very much for your report and for these answers. Thank you very much.

Mr. Newman? Oh excuse me Mr. Engler

Mr. Newman covered most of what I had to answer. Ms. Gutierrez?

Thank you Mayor Taylor, thank you so much for the presentation and the visuals they are always necessary to further my understanding so I'm much appreciative of that I may be asking questions just for the public as well, but also to get direct staff responses. And I feel like Councilmember Newman did a great job of helping me along here so thank you to David on that.