10/10/2023
Item 10.A.
City of
housand Vak
1 170 Erbes Road
Apartments - APPEAL
170 Erbes Road
(APN): 670-0-250-230
City Council
October 10, 2023
Thousan
2 1
10/10/2023
Site and Setting
• Physical Site:
• 0.74-acre parcel;
• Vacant infill parcel; Erbes Road
• Slope steeply upwards
northwest to southeast.
-
TOB
• GP: High Density Residential
• Zoning: RPD-20U Los Feliz
City of
Thousand LOaks
3 PM Lot Merger
Parcel 1
Parcel 3
10/10/2023
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION
• Building Form and
Style
• 30 Multifamily Units
• 3 stories above garage
••,
• Mid-Century Modern and
COURTYARD Contemporary styles
= a
- PATIOS
290.05
Thousand Yoaks City of
5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION - Unit Mix
26 One-Bedroom + 4 Two-Bedroom = 30 Units
5 Affordable for Low Income
DENSITY BONUS BENEFITS TO APPLICANT:
Additional Units
Concessions (2)
Parking Reduction
Thousand Oaks
6 3
10/10/2023
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION - Form and Style
City of Perspective looking east from southwest corner (entrance) Thousand LOaks
7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION - Height
Area Below
35 Feet
City of
8 4
10/10/2023
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION - Setbacks
Adjacent
Yard Required Provided
Street/ Use
Front 20' from adjacent 20' including existing 4.5'
Erbes Road
(Northwest) public street sidewalk
Rear Multifamily (YOLO At the discretion of
8.33' minimum
(Southeast) East) Apartments Planning Commission
Appellant #2: 5' to parking area
Side
Multifamily 15' (Concession Requested)
(Northeast)
Apartments 18' 10" to existing residences
Appellant #1: 15' to backyard
Side
Single-Family 15'
(Southwest) 30' to existing garage
Residential
Ghousand YOaks
9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION - Access & Traffic fErbes Road
*o:
YOLO East Apartments
10 10/10/2023
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION - Parking
Parking Parking Ratio per Parking Ratio per Parking Ratio # of Units TOMC State Law Provided
Categories
1 Bedroom 26 1 space/unit 1 space/unit 1 space/unit
2 Bedroom 4 2 spaces/unit 1.5 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit Guest/ Temporary 0.5 spaces/unit NONE 8 spaces
Total 30 Units Total 49 Traditional Total 32 Total Required 42 Total Provided City of
Thousand LOaks
11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION - Amenities and Open Space 12 6
10/10/2023
Appeal
Appellant #2
Appellant #1: Meriko
Bradford, owner of 150
Erbes Road
Project
Site
Appellant #2: Patrick Appellant #1
Naylon, owner of 1800 Erbes Rd
Foursite Lane
11 City of
Thousand Oaks
13 Appellant #1
Concern: The proposed driveway location would create impacts from noise, fumes, lights, and errant motorists.
Response: Setbacks are not required for driveways, fences, or walls. A screen wall is to be provided per Condition No. 32
Concern: The project would shade the existing single-family home.
Response: The appellant's property is to the southwest of the proposed project and will not be shaded by the project.
Concern: The project would cause an invasion of privacy to the residential tenant.
Response: The project is set back 15' to 22.5' from the appellant's unimproved backyard, and up to 32' from the existing garage.
Concern: The property owner would lose access to her backyard.
Response: The appellant cannot rely on off-site access to get to other parts of her own property Thousand Y Oaks
14 7
10/10/2023
Appellant #1
COURTYARD
• = • -
- PATIOS
City of
Thousand LOaks
15 Appellant #2
Concern: Appellant was denied due process rights
Response: Noticing was provided as required, staff met with appellant several times, applicant met with appellant, testimony was properly provided to Planning Commission.
Concern: Project is a violation of density bonus law, TOMC, Fire Code, and TO General Plan
Response: Project qualifies for density bonus law, the City and state remain compelled to address the ongoing housing crisis, and state law requires the application of the higher density maximum allowed by the general plan. 14 Thousand Oaks
16 8
10/10/2023
Appellant #2
Concern: The project will sit at a grade significantly higher than adjacent multifamily property
Response: The finished grade of the proposed project is either at the same grade or lower than the existing multifamily property. The grade of the terrain immediately adjacent is not substantially changing.
15 City of
Thousand LOaks
17 View from Northeast Side
City of
18 9
10/10/2023
Appellant #2
Concern: The exceptions [concessions and waiver] requested constitute an illegal and unjustified application of the density bonus law as they create a threat to the environment, public safety, and health of the adjacent tenants Response: The applicant is entitled to two concessions per state law, based on the percentage of affordable units proposed. The burden of proof to find that these concessions would not result in cost reductions or would cause a safety concern is on the City. None of those conclusions were made. The single waiver requested is related to the TOMC and not related to the state density bonus law. 17 City of
Thousand LOaks
19 Appellant #2
Concern: The City has the right to deny the application if it finds that there is an unmitigable impact.
Response: Two specific findings based on a preponderance of the evidence must be made if the project were to be denied or reduced. 1) There is a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety and 2) There is no feasible way to mitigate that impact other than denial or reduction.
There is no evidence to suggest either finding can be made. 18 Thousand Oaks
20 10
10/10/2023
Appellant #2
Concern: The project will interfere
with the solar panels in the patios
of the Foursite Lane tenants. Appellant #2
Construction which will interfere
with a written or implied sunlight Erbes Rd
easement is not permissible.
Response: There are no known or
permitted solar panels installed on Project
the Foursite Lane property. Site
Neither has evidence been Appellant #1
submitted that a solar easement
been established
Only three of thirteen patios on
the southeast side of that property
abut the project site.
19 ity of
Thousand LOaks
21 Appellant #2
Concern: The project will create a noise nuisance, disrupt cell service, and create a fire hazard/ odor nuisance due to the setback reduction.
Response: There is no evidence to suggest the project will create a noise nuisance or disrupt cell phone service. The trash chute area is fully enclosed as part of the building, located below the existing grade of both properties and is located forward of the existing neighboring structure.
The Fire Department has reviewed the project during this entitlement process and would do so again during a Building Plan Check process. 20 Thousand
22 10/10/2023
Appellant #2
EREES ROAD
Concern: The project will
invade privacy rights of the
appellant's tenants,
exacerbated by a lack of
foliage due to the landscape
waiver requested
Response: The proposed
building is setback 18 feet
from existing residences on COURTYARD
the appellant's property and
provides the required
landscaping in that area,
including new trees to
- PATIOS
provide privacy for both
buty
properties.
22 Thousand Oaks
23 Appellant #2
Concern: The landscape waiver requested will result in a risk of flooding due to lack of drainage.
Response: The landscape reduction request only applies to the ~ 50' of daylighted garage area along the northern driveway, which is forward and below grade compared to the existing multifamily structure. In addition, the project is required to demonstrate onsite management of stormwater runoff during Building Plan Check.
Concern: The project is not consistent nor compatible with the General Plan.
Response: The project adheres to the maximum allowed density specified in the General Plan and meets the stated policy to place this type of development near major centers of activity (Downtown area) and avoid sprawl/ preserve the ring of natural open space.
23 Chousand YOaks
24 12
10/10/2023
Appellant #2
- EXISTING WALL
Concern: The project is inherently
unsafe from a structural analysis due PROPERTY LINE
to the pressure placed on the existing
retaining wall on the appellant's
property.
Response: The proposed driveway
and structure will be below the
existing grade and the project
proposed additional retaining walls
along the property boundary. In
addition, the project will be reviewed
under the Building Plan Check
process to ensure structural safety.
24 City of
Thousand Oaks
25 Appellant #2
Concern: The project will create a traffic nightmare, is under parked, and includes tandem parking which creates a public safety hazard.
Response: The proposed project proposed 10 more spaces than are legally radio pole me an a mile entre i a home appeared,
Concern: The appellant bought their property in 1999 under the assumption that only 15 units would be built on the vacant parcel.
Rhe General Than, haveant da ged since the ore mum density allowed under 25 City of
Thousand
26 13
10/10/2023
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution:
1. Adopt resolution denying the appeal, thereby upholding a decision of the Planning Commission approving a 30-unit apartment building, related site improvements, and merger of 3 parcels at 170 Erbes Road. [26
City of
Thousand 1
27 City of
Thousand Oaks
28 14
10/10/2023
Item 10.B.
Inclusionary Housing Program and
Nonresidential Development
Linkage Fee Update
MCA 2023-70004
City Council
October 10, 2023
City off
Thousand LOaks
Request
1. Adopt an Ordinance amending the TOMC:
• Title 9 Planning and Zoning, Chapter 10 Affordable Housing:
• Article 1 General Provisions
Article 2 Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Article 3 Inclusionary Housing Program
• Article 4 Nonresidential Development Linkage Fees
• Article 6 Compliance Procedures
2. Adopt resolutions setting the Inclusionary Housing In-lieu and Nonresidential Development Linkage fees and concurrently rescind resolutions 2012-071 and 2012-072.
3. Find that this Municipal Code Amendment is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
City of
Thousan
2 1
10/10/2023
Purpose
The amendment establishes:
• Provisions for the construction of affordable housing as part of new rental and ownership development, and
• Alternative options for the provision for affordable housing by paying in- lieu fees or off-site construction.
City of
Thousand Oaks
Inclusionary Housing Program and
Linkage Fee Goals
• Avoid burden on developers by providing
feasible options to contribute towards
the production of affordable housing.
• Balance of providing affordable housing
and economic development within
community
Thousand)
4 2
10/10/2023
Background
City Council February 28, 2023
• Reviewed findings of the Inclusionary Housing Financial Evaluation and Nonresidential Development Linkage Fee Nexus Study results. • Provided direction on completing updates to the Inclusionary Housing Program and Nonresidential Development Linkage Fee ordinances.
Planning Commission September 11, 2023
• Recommended approval of the proposed ordinance with minor text adjustments.
City of
Thousand LOaks
Inclusionary Housing Program Context
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES. INC.
3 10/10/2023
• The legal standards are:
• The requirements cannot be confiscatory; and
• The requirements cannot deprive an owner of a fair and Inclusionary reasonable return on their investment.
Housing • The strength of the real estate market needs to Program be considered in formulating goals & objectives.
Considerations • The requirement should balance the interest of property owners and developers against the
public benefit created by the production of
affordable housing units.
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
7 income households.
• AB 1505, and subsequent HCD guidance, strongly recommend Income and limiting the affordability level on apartment units to 80% of AMI:
• Stricter affordability requirements should not be applied to Affordability projects that fulfill the Inclusionary Housing requirements on Considerations site within the market rate project.
• Stricter standards can be applied to an off-site production option.
• Developers who use the State density bonus will likely propose to fulfill the affordability requirements with very low income units.
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
4 10/10/2023
§65915 Density Bonus
State density bonus can potentially mitigate the impacts of affordable housing requirements by allowing an increased number of units plus one to three incentives or concessions such as height and floor area ratio increases.
Projects that use the State density bonus cannot pay a fee in lieu of producing $
affordable housing units.
KMA is analyzing prototype density bonus apartment projects at and below the maximum bonus provided by §65915.
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
9 - Based on all the factors considered in the evaluation, Conclusions: KMA concluded that a 10% low income requirement can be supported within the guidelines provided by
Apartment the courts and the legislature.
Development: - Developers may choose to use the §65915 density Financial bonus to mitigate the impacts created by the
Inclusionary Housing requirements. It is likely that the Evaluation developer will choose to fulfill the density bonus and Inclusionary requirements with very low income units.
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. 10
10 5
10/10/2023
• Given the size of the Affordability Gaps, KMA believes that a moderate income requirement will maximize
Conclusions: the number of affordable units while minimizing the Affordability Gaps.
Ownership
- Based on all the factors considered in the evaluation, Housing: KMA concluded that the following requirements can be supported within the guidelines provided by the
Financial
courts and the legislature:
Evaluation • Townhomes: 10% Moderate Income
• Detached Single Family Homes: 5% Moderate Income
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. 11
11 Policy Recommendations
YEVSED MAADSTON ASSONATES INC
12 6
10/10/2023
General Policy Recommendations
Threshold Project Size The Inclusionary Housing requirements are imposed on projects with 10 or more units. This represents the first oint a whole Inclusionary Unit would be supported
Covenant Periods
Apartment Development A covenant that runs for as long as the property is developed with a residential use, but for not less than a 55-year period.
Ownership Housing Development The covenant is for one cumulative 45-year period.
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. 13
13 Recommended
Inclusionary Housing Production Requirements
Apartment Development 10% Low Income
Ownership Housing Development
Townhomes 10% Moderate Income
Detached Single Family Homes 5% Moderate Income
The requirements are based on the following factors:
The courts have not provided guidance for defining the meaning of confiscatory or a reasonable return on a property owner's investment
sing a conservative approach, KMA created benchmark impacts against which potential Inclusiona using requirements would be measure
The recommended Inclusionary Housing requirements are based on the results of the pro form analyses KMA undertook as part of this Financial Evaluation KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
14 7
10/10/2023
Recommended In-Lieu Fee Payments
In-lieu fees are based on the total square feet of leasable or saleable area of the market rate project. This more equitably assesses the fees based on unit sizes.
Apartment Development $25.70 per square foot of leasable area Ownership Housing Development:
Townhomes $14.60 per square foot of saleable area
Detached Single Family Homes $16.80 per square foot of saleable area In-Lieu Fees allowed to be paid in the following cases:
Any fractional Inclusionary Unit that is required to be produced.
Premium priced ownership housing developments of any size. der are refreeding yely based upon the average change in rents and sales prices within Ventura county KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
15 Fulfillment Alternatives
Land Dedication The City Council has the discretion, but not the requirement, to approve a developer's proposal to dedicate property in lieu of producing Inclusionary Units. If a land dedication option is provided, it should be subject to a detailed list of requirement that maximize the potential for an affordable housing project to be developed in a timely fashion.
Ownership Housing Development Developers of ownership housing developments are given the following options:
The off-site production of affordable apartment units; or The creation of a parcel within an ownership housing development site on which affordable apartments are constructed concurrently with the market rate ownership housing development project.
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
16 8
10/10/2023
General Plan Consistency
Goal Policies
To develop appropriate additional "Housing: Strive to provide a balanced tools enabling commercial, industrial range of adequate housing for Thousand and residential development to Oaks Planning Area residents in a variety flourish in an efficient and compatible of locations for all individuals regardless manner. of age, income, ethnic background,
marital status, physical or developmental
disability."
Thousand Oaks
17 Housing Element Consistency
Goal 1
Provide a wide range of housing opportunities for persons of all income levels.
Program 6: Affordable Housing Development
Objective and Timeframe:
• "Update the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee and linkage fee by 2024." Update assists the city in meeting the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers for affordable housing for the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2021- 2029).
• 735 Very Low-Income
• 494 Low-income
532 Moderate Income
City of
Thousand
18 9
10/10/2023
Staff Recommendation
City Council Approve :
1. Find that this Municipal Code Amendment is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
2. Adopt an Ordinance approving amendments to Chapter 10 of Title 9 of the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code.
3. Adopt resolutions setting the Inclusionary Housing In-lieu and Nonresidential Development Linkage fees and concurrently rescind resolutions 2012-071 and 2012-072.
Thousand Oaks
19 10
Item No.12A
City of
Thousand Oaks
Temporary Development
Impact Fee Deferral|
Program
Jaime Boscarino, Finance Director
October 10, 2023
housa
2 Current Environment
• Federal Funds Rate at 5.25% - 5.5%
• 22-year high
• High cost of borrowing
• Construction costs high
• California Construction Cost Index Oct 2023 - Oct 2022 was 10% • Supply-chain issues
City of
Thousand LOaks
3 City Impact Fees
1. Road Payback Fee 6. Citywide Traffic Impact Fee
2. Wendy/101 Interchange Fee 7. Air Quality Impact Fee
3. Borchard/101 Interchange Fee 8. Police Facilities Fee
4. Moorpark/101 Interchange Fee 9. WW Connection Charge
5. Lynn Rd Payback Fee 10. Water Investment Fee
Thousand
Temporary Development Impact Fee Program
• Program open for applications for up to two years
• Project applicants must apply for participation
• Not eligible if applicant has already paid development impact fees • Defers listed City development impact fees until Certificate of Occupancy
• Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until all fees are paid • Interest charged for participation at 5-year Treasury rate • Does not apply to fees charged by outside agencies
City of
Thousand LOaks
5 Benefits to City
• Encourages development to continue in the City
• Increases assessed valuation of properties
• Potentially moves Thousand Oaks projects ahead of other cities • Provides needed housing sooner
• City receives interest on deferral
City of
Thousand
6 Recommendations
1. Authorize staff to implement a City Development Impact Fee Deferral Program
2. Find that this action is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Thousand 1 Oaks
7 City of
Thousand Oaks
1/18/2024
Item No. 12B
updated
Public Meeting
Trenge Gutdelines.
Assembly Bill 2449)
OCTOBER 10, 2023
Thousand Oaks
2 Ralph M. Brown Act (Brown Act)
"Traditional" Teleconference Rules
• Quorum located within jurisdiction
• Teleconference locations identified on agenda
• Agenda posted at teleconference location 72 hours prior agenda describes
• All votes shall be by roll call
3 1
1/18/2024
Suspension of Traditional
Teleconferencing Rules
Date Action
March 4, 2020 COVID-19 State of Emergency declared
March 12, 2020 Executive Order
September 16, 2021 Assembly Bill 361
September 13, 2022 Assembly Bill 2449
4 Assembly Bill 2449
Teleconference Requirements
• Quorum located in one singular location within jurisdiction • Two-way audiovisual platform or telephonic service with live webcasting allowing meeting to be viewed/heard from a remote location
• Agenda describes how to access meeting/participate via call- in/internet/in-person options
• Meeting shall be paused/no action taken if audio or visual disruption • Offer public comment in real-time without registration cut-off time • Member must request remote participation based
on "just cause" or "emergency" circumstance
5 2
1/18/2024
Just Cause
Circumstance
Acceptable Reasons:
1. Caregiving
2. Contagious illness
3. Physical/mental disability
4. City Council/Agency travel
6 Emergency
Circumstance
Acceptable Reasons:
1. Physical emergency
2. Family medical emergency
7 1/18/2024
Requirements
For both Just Cause and Emergency Circumstances the
member must:
1. Make the request in writing as soon as possible
2. Describe specific circumstances
3. Announce if anyone 18 years or older is in the room
and their relationship to member
4. Must participate with both audio and video
And for Emergency only: City Council must approve
(vote)
8 Additional Requirements/
Considerations
Requirements:
•"Just Cause" circumstance can only be used twice in a year •"Emergency" use may not exceed three consecutive months or 20% of regular meetings within a year (Does not affect "Just Cause" limit) • ADA accommodations swiftly addressed (City already does this • Meeting shall be paused/no action taken if audio/visual disruption (City already does this
Considerations:
• Potential additional staff time to track/manage
• No guarantee of approval of "emergency" circumstance
9 4
1/18/2024
Recommendations
1. Option 1: Implement the provisions of Assembly
1ll (AB) 2449 and adopt resolutıon authorızın
pdated teleconference rules for meetings of Cit
and 54954.2)
2. Option 2: Maintain teleconference participation
or City Council and Planning Commission under
traditional Brown Act requirements
3. Find that this action is not a project under the
California Environmental Quality Act
10