Thousand Oaks City Council
July 11, 2023

Overall, this chapter, combined with specific information from other chapters, provides a complete picture of health in Thousand Oaks.

Key Findings
x Residents living in the Thousand Oaks/Westlake area have the highest life expectancy across Ventura County (88.7 years). This means that, on average, Thousand Oaks residents live very healthy lives. x There are no areas that are identified as disadvantaged communities according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0’s overall index score. However, the disadvantaged communities’ Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-2
analysis found that there are three low-income census
tracts in the City with a disproportionate health and
environmental burden (see Figure A.2). Thus,
environmental justice goals, policies, and actions
addressing these topics will be required as part of the General Plan.
x Obesity is a leading cause of death across the nation.

Students at Thousand Oak’s elementary schools have the highest percentage of risk to health issues due to their body composition compared to middle school and high school students.
x The suicide rate across Ventura County is slightly higher than in the State. In Thousand Oaks, emergency room
rates due to suicide and intentional self-inflicted injury are consistently higher among youth than adults. x Access to health care professionals is a critical need for low-income individuals and families. Across the City, over a quarter of adults reported difficulty accessing medical care they felt they needed. Across the County, adults 25-44 experienced the most difficulties or delays in accessing care.2 2 Health Matters in Ventura County. (2017). Ventura County Public Health.

Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-3
Figure A.1 Thousand Oaks Zip Codes
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-4
Figure A.2 Census Tracts
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-5
The Health Connection Eleven key components are needed for creating healthy and equitable communities (Figure A.3). Of these components, significant ones include factors related to a person’s place, income, living conditions and education. Therefore, it’s important for cities to consider the combination of their physical, social, and economic environments, while planning and
prioritizing growth for the future. These factors impact how healthy residents are in the long term and can impact specific individuals and groups more vulnerable to long-term changes and short-term shocks. Additional contributing components include eating well, staying active, access to health care services, access to social and economic opportunities, quality of education, neighborhood conditions, workplace safety, and cleanliness of water and air, among others. These conditions influence why some people are healthier than others, and why where people live and work matters to community health.

Strategic healthy community programs can bring many benefits to the residents of Thousand Oaks, including improved quality of life, access to transportation, and economic investments. Improving conditions related to the social determinants of health can also help promote equity and community development over the long term and prepare the City for the potential impacts of climate change.

Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-6
Figure A.3 Example of Healthy Communities Components
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-7
Disadvantaged Communities Analysis Overview of SB 1000 Senate Bill 1000 (or the Planning for Healthy Communities Act) was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on September 24, 2016. SB 1000 requires cities and counties that update two or more elements of their general plan after January 1, 2018 to proactively identify and incorporate goals, policies, and objectives to address environmental and health impacts within their boundaries and also address the needs of disadvantaged communities most impacted by their effects. Given the revision of more than two elements to the current General Plan, the requirements of SB 1000 apply. The goal of SB 1000 is to help identify and reduce risks in communities disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. In doing so, SB 1000 offers an opportunity to adopt various methods to address existing community health concerns and mitigate impacts of future health issues, including increasing access to healthy food, preventing chronic disease, improving transportation facilities and infrastructure, promoting healthy land use design, and encouraging physical activity. Addressing SB 1000 requirements involves a three-step process. The first step is to identify whether there are any “disadvantaged communities” within the jurisdiction. According to California’s Health and Safety Code (Section 39711), a “disadvantaged community” is defined as “a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.” The second step is to conduct community engagement to better understand the health issues on the ground and through residents’ lived experiences. The third step is the creation of goals, policies, and implementation actions that address the health and environmental justice issues identified through the process.

Disadvantaged Communities Screening Analysis The first part of the SB 1000 process is to understand the negative health conditions in the community and determine the presence of any areas that are “disadvantaged communities” as defined by State law. This involves a three-step screening process:
x Part 1: Determine whether there are any census tracts that scored in the top 25 percent (i.e., above the 75th percentile) for the overall index score as established by the California Environmental Health Screening Tool 4.0 (CalEnviroScreen). This tool is a screening methodology developed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). x Part 2: Determine whether there are any census tracts with a median household income below 80% of the County’s area median income or below 80% of the State’s median income. If there are low-income areas, the next step is to determine if any have a disproportionately high pollution burden (75th percentile of census tracts in the State) for the 13 individual pollution burden indicators (such as ozone pollution) from CalEnviroScreen. x Part 3: Incorporate any other community-specific data related to other health risk factors, including social
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-8
vulnerabilities (such as linguistic isolation) and poor health outcomes (such as asthma rates).

Results of the Disadvantaged Communities Analysis Part 1 of analysis found that there are no census tracts in Thousand Oaks with a CalEnviroScreen 4.0 overall index score at or above the 75th percentile. A map of the 4.0 index scores by census tract can be found in Figure A.4. In fact, the city’s average score and most census tracts’ scores are below the 25th percentile, which indicates the best overall health and environmental conditions in comparison to the rest of the State. This result reinforces the perception that Thousand Oaks offers residents a healthy environment in which to live, work, and play.

Part 2 of the analysis found that there are four census tracts (65, 69, 70, and 71) with household median incomes below 80 percent of the County’s area median income and/or the State’s median income, and three of these (69, 70, and 71) scored above the 75th percentile threshold for at least one individual pollution burden indicator from CalEnviroScreen 4.0. Figure A.5 shows the median income by census tract in Thousand Oaks. The analysis also found that other census tracts in the City experience disproportionate pollution burdens. Thus, census tracts 69, 70, and 71 can be considered disadvantaged communities (See Figure A.2 for a map of census tracts in the City), while others have environmental health issues that can be addressed in the General Plan. The following is a summary of the results of the SB 1000 analysis for all census tracts in Thousand Oaks, regardless of income. This information is also summarized in Tables A.1 and A.2.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
x Impaired Water Bodies. The majority of census tracts in the city, including the three identified disadvantaged communities (Tracts 69, 70, and 71), scored above the 75th percentile threshold for impaired water bodies. This measure assesses the total amount of pollutants found in surface water bodies. This pollution burden indicator was the only one with a citywide average score above the 75th percentile threshold and, as a result, it is a citywide issue that should be considered but is unlikely to have significant public health impacts due to limited exposure by residents. x Traffic Impacts. 12 census tracts in Thousand Oaks,
including the three identified disadvantaged communities (Tracts 69, 70, and 71) scored above the 75th percentile threshold for traffic impacts. This measure evaluates the total traffic volumes within 150 meters of a census tract. The majority of the impacted census tracts are immediately adjacent to Highway 101, which is one of the busiest highways in the State. Although the City has limited control over the highway, there are various strategies and mitigation measures that can be implemented to limit exposure to highway-related air pollution, particularly in new buildings.
x Hazardous Waste. Four census tracts scored above the 75th percentile threshold for hazardous waste (Tracts 59.08, 60, 61, and 66), which measures the number of permitted hazardous waste facilities, hazardous waste generators, and chrome plating facilities within each census tract; it does not measure actual resident exposure to hazardous Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-9
wastes. The four areas with high scores contain biotech and industrial uses. Thus, the City will need to continue to partner with companies that use hazardous materials to ensure that they are used and disposed of safely. x Diesel Particulate Matter (PM). Three census tracts,
including one low-income census tract, scored above the 75th percentile threshold for diesel PM (Tracts 59.08,

59.09, and 71), which is a specific type of air pollution of concern in California. This measure assesses the spatial distribution of diesel PM emissions from on-road sources (such as trucks) and off-road sources (such as ports and rail yards). The three areas with a high pollution burden for diesel PM include Highway 101 and existing areas of concentrated commercial uses. x Groundwater Threats. Three census tracts scored above the 75th percentile threshold for groundwater threats
(Tracts 59.07, 60, and 61), which is a measure that assesses proximity to potential sources of groundwater contamination. The three areas that scored high for this indicator are in census tracts with health and biotech facilities. x Cleanup Sites. One census tract scored above the 75th percentile threshold for cleanup sites (Tract 61), which measures proximity to brownfield sites that require environmental remediation. x Pesticide Use. One census tract scored above the 75th percentile threshold for pesticide use (Tract 53.05). However, this census tract is mostly located in the Santa Rosa Valley where there are significant agricultural uses. Moreover, the Thousand Oaks portion of this census tract only includes the open space reserve of Elliot Mountain.

Therefore, exposure to pesticides is not a real concern for Thousand Oaks residents.

SOCIAL VULNERABILITY
x Low Birth Weight. Six census tracts had a high proportion of infants born classified as low birth weight (Tracts 58.01, 61, 63.02, 65, 70, and 73). Two of these six census tracts are considered low-income; Tracts 65 and 70. There are many known risk factors for LBW, including nutritional status, lack of prenatal care, stress, and exposure to air pollution. x Housing Burden. Two census tracts had a high proportion of low-income households who were severely costburdened, which is defined as paying more than 50% of income toward housing costs. Both census tracts are also considered low-income; Tracts 69 and 71. x Linguistic Isolation. Two census tracts had a high
proportion of limited English-speaking households, an
indicator associated with poor health outcomes. One of these two census tracts (Tract 70) is also low-income. x Unemployment. One census tract (Tract 63.02) had a high percentage of the population over the age of 16 that was unemployed, however the rest of the City had much lower unemployment rates.

Item No. 11A
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-10
Table A.1 CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Pollution Burden Percentiles3Below is the CalEnviroScreen (CES) 4.0 data for all census tracts in Thousand Oaks organized by the two main CES categories: Pollution Burden and Population Characteristics. All scores are percentiles in comparison to the rest of the state. Percentile scores at or above the 75th percentile are considered by the State as having a disproportionate burden and are shown here in RED shading in the table. Low-income census tracts are identified with TEAL shading and their rows are outlined in BLACK.

Census
Tract
Median
Household
Income
CES 4.0 Overall
Score Ozone PM2.5
Diesel
PM
Pesticide
Use
Toxic
Releases
Traffic
Impacts
Drinking
Water
Childrens’
Lead Risk
Cleanup
Sites
Groundwater
Threats
Hazardous
Waste
Facilities
Impaired
Water
Bodies
Solid
Waste
Sites
Pollution
Burden
Score

58.01 $157,667 11.0 42.8 39.3 3.5 2.8 37.5 12.9 57.5 6.6 0.0 0.0 50.1 87.0 0.0 10.3 58.02 $144,375 8.0 42.6 39.9 11.5 54.2 34.1 47.2 57.5 2.0 0.0 2.1 50.1 87.0 0.0 25.1 59.01 $131,289 6.4 47.0 41.2 9.6 15.0 33.9 11.7 58.6 15.3 0.0 0.0 50.1 87.0 0.0 14.7 59.06 $115,431 23.1 58.2 41.0 41.1 0.0 28.7 87.7 61.6 26.9 4.1 59.6 62.5 98.7 52.9 63.1 59.07 $86,332 11.1 60.9 42.3 37.0 0.0 33.6 74.4 42.4 11.8 11.8 81.5 22.0 83.0 0.0 38.7 59.08 $108,813 32.7 50.5 42.5 85.5 0.0 30.1 78.5 60.0 32.0 0.0 50.1 77.6 87.0 0.0 59.1 59.09 $81,927 19.5 51.9 42.5 84.9 0.0 28.4 82.8 60.0 9.3 0.0 0.0 28.3 87.0 0.0 36.3

59.1 $154,286 3.6 50.5 39.6 4.5 8.1 32.2 9.9 59.8 5.3 0.0 0.0 3.6 87.0 0.0 6.7

59.11 $106,250 14.9 55.4 40.4 30.9 11.0 29.0 95.1 58.8 13.4 17.1 0.0 56.4 87.0 0.0 38.9 60 $109,833 30.5 47.0 42.2 71.5 0.0 29.3 83.9 58.3 26.5 70.2 78.9 97.0 87.0 0.0 75.8 61 $102,717 61.1 47.4 41.5 54.6 23.9 25.9 88.0 57.5 26.2 76.7 95.4 99.0 96.8 0.0 82.2 62 $144,946 4.9 51.0 40.6 16.2 20.4 24.4 82.7 57.5 8.9 0.0 50.9 74.1 96.8 0.0 42.6

63.01 $111,500 7.6 52.1 39.7 4.3 64.6 22.6 19.8 67.1 11.3 0.0 0.0 51.7 97.5 0.0 25.3 63.02 $123,625 40.3 53.7 40.4 42.9 64.1 22.5 19.1 60.2 22.8 0.0 22.1 50.1 66.7 0.0 32.8 64 $118,750 16.7 58.2 40.2 24.6 45.1 21.6 63.3 66.4 13.1 0.0 22.1 24.7 91.9 0.0 34.1 65 $77,054 43.5 57.0 40.1 24.3 20.4 22.7 62.5 58.9 44.4 0.0 22.1 30.6 66.7 0.0 30.3 66 $110,000 22.5 53.7 40.3 21.8 0.0 23.0 35.1 65.2 27.0 0.0 49.8 77.0 66.7 0.0 29.3 67 $129,063 12.7 53.7 40.8 10.3 0.0 24.1 53.9 58.4 13.7 0.0 54.5 65.9 87.0 0.0 29.3 68 $95,179 28.6 57.0 40.8 48.1 10.2 24.4 73.1 58.9 27.6 0.0 61.5 59.1 87.0 0.0 49.1 69 $62,076 35.3 53.7 41.5 37.2 0.0 26.2 84.2 57.5 21.7 0.0 40.8 23.9 87.0 0.0 34.1 70 $77,292 57.6 57.0 42.3 60.8 0.0 26.4 89.2 58.9 41.4 4.1 22.1 69.4 87.0 0.0 52.8 3 Census tract 73 is only partially within city limits and includes some areas of housing. As such, CalEnviroScreen percentiles have been included here. Census tract 53.05 is also partially located within the City but only contains open space within City limits. As such, CalEnviroScreen percentiles have not been included here for this census tract.

Additionally, census tracts 75.07 and 75.14 are only partially within city limits and contains vacant land. CalEnviroScreen percentiles have been included here for these census tracts.

Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-11
Census
Tract
Median
Household
Income
CES 4.0 Overall
Score Ozone PM2.5
Diesel
PM
Pesticide
Use
Toxic
Releases
Traffic
Impacts
Drinking
Water
Childrens’
Lead Risk
Cleanup
Sites
Groundwater
Threats
Hazardous
Waste
Facilities
Impaired
Water
Bodies
Solid
Waste
Sites
Pollution
Burden
Score
71 $60,104 51.1 59.7 41.1 81.7 0.0 26.0 86.7 59.8 33.6 0.0 22.1 40.1 87.0 52.9 59.0

72.01 $162,159 5.9 59.7 40.9 52.2 1.6 24.6 73.9 58.9 30.1 0.0 7.0 23.9 87.0 0.0 32.6 72.02 $150,844 10.8 59.7 41.3 35.1 0.0 25.6 65.8 60.4 10.7 0.0 10.6 53.5 87.0 0.0 29.0 73 $204,773 8.2 48.5 35.2 3.3 43.6 36.7 2.5 36.4 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.6 0.0 7.4

74.02 $138,201 16.6 63.6 42.4 14.1 16.6 28.2 61.3 5.2 3.3 32.2 31.5 59.1 98.1 52.9 36.8 75.08 $95,025 5.1 59.7 40.9 53.2 3.5 22.3 78.3 58.9 20.1 0.0 0.0 35.6 66.7 0.0 28.8 75.09 $129,132 10.8 62.7 41.1 4.6 0.0 23.6 46.0 59.9 10.3 0.0 0.0 26.7 98.1 0.0 15.6

75.1 $178,388 9.4 62.7 40.1 18.2 13.3 21.7 78.8 58.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 4.9 66.7 0.0 16.4 Table A.2 CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Population Characteristics Percentiles4 Census Tract Asthma
Low Birth
Weight
Cardiovascular
Disease Education
Linguistic
Isolation Poverty Unemployment
Housing
Burden
Population
Characteristics
Score

58.01 9.5 84.8 34.3 6.5 26.4 1.2 17.1 11.6 16.9 58.02 8.3 7.1 29.8 4.7 28.8 14.8 37.7 20.6 6.1 59.01 11.9 18.8 42.4 14.8 0.5 5.1 32.3 13.6 6.6 59.06 5.3 37.9 23.1 18.4 14.9 12.7 51.3 26.2 11.4 59.07 5.2 14.5 22.1 6.5 18.1 14.0 21.1 61.3 6.8 59.08 11.9 58.2 42.4 6.9 10.4 19.9 33.6 50.7 21.3 59.09 11.9 2.5 42.4 30.4 63.3 43.1 25.2 7.7 15.3

59.1 7.1 52.4 26.7 9.0 2.8 8.5 10.7 3.6 5.9

59.11 3.4 48.8 11.9 21.4 32.0 17.7 0.9 41.9 9.8
60 11.9 28.5 42.4 15.8 12.3 8.5 57.2 25.7 14.3 61 6.5 81.5 23.6 42.3 79.0 41.7 63.4 36.7 42.6 62 3.3 30.6 9.6 9.0 4.6 2.2 29.4 2.6 1.8

63.01 7.8 29.7 26.2 6.5 0.0 10.7 26.9 26.7 5.7
4 Census tracts 73 is only partially within city limits and includes some areas of housing. As such, CalEnviroScreen percentiles have been included here. Census tract 53.05 is also partially located within the City but only contains open space within City limits. As such, CalEnviroScreen percentiles have not been included here for this census tract.

Additionally, census tracts 75.07 and 75.14 are only partially within city limits and contains vacant land. CalEnviroScreen percentiles have been included here for these census tracts.

Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-12
Census Tract Asthma
Low Birth
Weight
Cardiovascular
Disease Education
Linguistic
Isolation Poverty Unemployment
Housing
Burden
Population
Characteristics
Score

63.02 17.6 96.2 54.7 31.4 30.0 14.3 85.5 16.3 44.1
64 10.7 28.5 35.2 35.2 29.5 23.7 15.8 18.5 12.9 65 12.6 89.4 40.5 60.9 41.4 53.0 57.2 52.6 50.8 66 17.6 37.0 54.7 29.3 0.0 37.6 25.2 36.7 21.6 67 17.6 4.4 54.7 -999.0 21.4 14.3 18.3 22.1 10.1 68 14.2 18.4 46.2 34.4 -999.0 29.0 57.2 18.5 20.7 69 17.6 39.5 54.7 34.8 36.0 44.9 21.1 84.6 36.3 70 13.0 83.5 42.2 65.9 77.4 61.5 45.8 51.4 55.1 71 14.8 52.5 19.5 71.8 38.1 46.6 60.6 87.9 42.7

72.01 12.3 17.7 15.5 3.1 24.8 8.5 15.8 15.5 3.3 72.02 15.0 47.6 19.7 5.9 10.4 1.4 40.6 10.2 8.5 73 2.7 91.3 10.6 20.9 1.8 14.0 35.0 9.2 13.9

74.02 6.0 73.3 8.3 3.5 17.3 4.4 51.3 17.4 12.1 75.08 5.7 6.6 7.1 24.1 9.5 22.2 36.4 15.5 3.0 75.09 13.4 47.1 16.7 9.0 42.8 16.8 30.9 19.4 13.0

75.1 8.2 58.6 7.4 10.8 27.3 3.2 35.0 25.3 10.4
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-13
Definition of “Disadvantaged Communities” An area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code or an area that is a low-income area and is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. California Health and Safety Code Section 39711 (a) The California Environmental Protection Agency shall identify disadvantaged communities for investment opportunities related to this chapter. These communities shall be identified based on geographic, socioeconomic, public health, and environmental hazard criteria, and may include, but are not limited to, either of the following:
(1) Areas disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative public health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. (2) Areas with concentrations of people that are of low income, high unemployment, low levels of homeownership, high rent burden, sensitive populations, or low levels of educational attainment. (b) The California Environmental Protection Agency shall hold at least one public workshop prior to the identification of disadvantaged communities pursuant to this section. (c) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of the Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code does not apply to the identification of disadvantaged communities pursuant to this section. Item No. 11A APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-14
Figure A.4 CalEnviroScreen Percentile Scores
Item No. 11A
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-15
Figure A.5 Income by Census Tracts
Item No. 11A
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-16
CURRENT HEALTH CONDITIONS Life Expectancy and Leading Causes of DeathResidents living in the Thousand Oaks/Westlake area, identified by zip code 91361, have the highest life expectancy across Ventura County (88.7 years). Life expectancy drops slightly across other zip codes in Thousand Oaks: 91362 (84.4 years), 91320 (84.1 years), and 91360 (83 years).5 Data on life expectancy by race/ethnicity is not available at the City-level.

Based on data for Ventura County, life expectancy for the two largest population groups, Whites and Hispanics (any race), is 81.2 and 83.4 years respectively. The Asian population (93.5 years) lives nearly 15.4 years longer than Blacks (78.1 years), 12.3 years longer than Whites (81.2 years), and 10.1 years longer than Hispanics (any race) (Figure A.6). 6 Disparities in life expectancy underscore why improving community health is a critical longterm goal for the City. Thousand Oaks’ leading causes of death are roughly like those in Ventura County (Table A.3). The top two causes – cancer and 5 Ventura County Public Health. (2017). Community Health Assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/content/sites/ventura/ PH_CHA_Booklet_DIGITAL_4_2017-05-12_2.pdf heart disease – share some of the same risk factors, including poor diet and lack of physical activity. Figure A.6 Life Expectancy in Ventura CountySource: Vital Records Business Intelligence System (deaths 2012-2014) and Nielsen Claritas population estimates (2013), analysis by Ventura County Public Health, February 2017. Retrieved from: Ventura County Community Health Assessment(2017) Better access to nutritious foods and increased opportunities for physical activity could reduce Thousand Oaks residents’ vulnerability to these diseases. Poverty, low levels of education, and lack of access to health care also contribute to these causes of death. 6 Ventura County Public Health. (2017). Community Health Assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/content/sites/ventura/ PH_CHA_Booklet_DIGITAL_4_2017-05-12_2.pdf

93.5 81.2

83.4 78.1
959085807570
Asian White Hispanic (Any
Race)
Black
Years
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-17
Table A.3 Leading Causes of Death Source: California Department of Public Health (2014-2016); Ventura County 2040 General Plan (2018); California Leading Causes of Death – CDHP (2013) 7 Types of deaths considered included heart diseases, cancers, stroke, chronic lower respiratory disease (CLRD), unintentional injuries, pneumonia and influenza, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, intentional selfharm (suicide), hypertension and hypertensive renal disease, homicide, nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis, and chronic pulmonary disease. 8 Other causes of death include infections and parasitic diseases; endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases (not including anemias and cholelithiasis); diseases of the nervous system (not Alzheimer's); other diseases of the blood, bloodforming organs, and certain immune disorders mechanism; and "other" causes of infant/child mortality.
9 Other causes of death are highest in zip code 91360 (216), compared to 91320 (121), 91361 (73), and 91362 (112).
10 Ventura County Public Health. (2017). Community Health Assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/content/sites/ventura/ PH_CHA_Booklet_DIGITAL_4_2017-05-12_2.pdf Cancer Cancer is the leading cause of death in the City and the County. Within the County, the death rate due to cancer (140 per 100,000 persons) is slightly higher than the State (137.4 per 100,000 persons). Across the County, variations exist across gender, race and ethnicity. For instance, males are more likely to die from lung cancer than females, while females are more likely to die from lung cancer than breast cancer in Ventura County. 10
Hispanic/Latino residents in Ventura County have the highest average years of life lost per death to breast cancer (31.8) and all other types of cancer.11 Additionally, White (Non-Hispanic) females are twice as likely to die from breast cancer than Hispanic females. 12 Smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer and causes a majority (90%) of lung cancer cases in the United States.13 In Ventura County, African American residents have the highest average years of life lost per death to lung cancer (28.5).14 Tobacco 11 Ventura County Public Health. (2017). Community Health Assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/content/sites/ventura/ PH_CHA_Booklet_DIGITAL_4_2017-05-12_2.pdf 12 Ventura County Public Health. (2017). Community Health Assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/content/sites/ventura/ PH_CHA_Booklet_DIGITAL_4_2017-05-12_2.pdf 13 American Lung Association. (2018). What Causes Lung Cancer. Retrieved from:
https://www.lung.org/lung-health-and-diseases/lung-disease-lookup/lungcancer/learn-about-lung-cancer/what-is-lung-cancer/what-causes-lungcancer.html 14 Ventura County Public Health. (2017). Community Health Assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/content/sites/ventura/ PH_CHA_Booklet_DIGITAL_4_2017-05-12_2.pdf Rank Thousand Oaks7 Ventura County California
1 Cancer Cancer Heart Disease
2 Heart Disease Heart Disease Cancer
3 Other8 9 Stroke Stroke
4 Alzheimer’s Disease Alzheimer’s Disease Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease 5 Stroke
Chronic Lower
Respiratory
Disease
Alzheimer’s
Disease
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-18
smoke contains various chemicals known to cause lung cancer.

Non-smokers are also susceptible to lung cancer with exposure to air pollutants, such as radon, secondhand smoke, diesel exhaust, air pollution, and asbestos.

Heart Conditions Heart disease is a general term used to refer to a range of diseases that affect the heart. Some types of heart disease include diseases of the blood vessels (such as coronary artery disease); heart rhythm problems (arrhythmias); and heart conditions that people are born with (congenital heart defects). Heart disease is the second leading cause of death in Thousand Oaks with 6.5 percent of adults over the age of 18 ever diagnosed with heart disease, compared to 5.6 percent in the County and 6.4 percent in the State. 15 According to Health Matters in Ventura County, the death rate due to coronary heart disease in Ventura County (2015-2017) was 82.3 deaths per 100,000 residents.

Alzheimer’s Disease Alzheimer’s is the most common form of dementia. A person’s genetics can predispose some individuals to the disease, but increasing age is the most powerful risk factor. The disease is most common among adults aged 65 and older, but the risk 15 California Department of Public Health (CDPH) (2016). California Health Interview Survey (CHIS).
16 Alzheimer’s Association. (n.d.) Causes and Risk Factors. Retrieved from:
https://www.alz.org/alzheimers-dementia/what-is-alzheimers/causes-and-riskfactors 17 Alzheimer’s Association. (n.d.) Causes and Risk Factors. Retrieved from:
https://www.alz.org/alzheimers-dementia/what-is-alzheimers/causes-and-riskfactors doubles every five years beyond age 65. About one-third of adults 85 and older have Alzheimer’s disease.16 In Thousand Oaks, Alzheimer’s disease is the fourth leading cause of death. Additionally, Latinos are about 1.5 times and African-Americans are about two times as likely to have Alzheimer’s and other dementias as older whites.17 While the factors contributing to the risk of onset differ from person to person, keeping the brain healthy can help avoid the disease. Routine exercise, nutritious diet, and enough sleep are important healthy habits. Additionally, there is evidence suggesting that cognitive stimulation and social engagement are also associated with brain and physical health.

Stroke Stroke is a leading cause of death in the U.S. and third leading cause of death in Ventura County.18 A stroke is also a significant risk factor for coronary heart disease. In California, the prevalence of stroke among older adults is higher among men than women. While stroke frequency is similar among all levels of education and income, stroke is most common among multiracial and African American adults.19 A stroke can occur when a blood vessel in the brain ruptures or a clot blocks the blood supply to the brain, which can cause death or disability. The risk of stroke can be reduced through healthy 18 Ventura County Public Health. (2017). Community Health Assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/content/sites/ventura/ PH_CHA_Booklet_DIGITAL_4_2017-05-12_2.pdf 19 California Department of Public Health. 2019. Stroke. Chronic Disease Branch.

Retrieved from: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CDCB/Pages/Stroke.aspx Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-19
lifestyles choices, such as eating a healthy diet, being active, limiting smoking and alcohol use, and maintaining a healthy weight. According to Health Matters in Ventura County, the percentage of adults in Thousand Oaks who had experienced a stroke (2.4) was slightly lower than the State (3.2).20 Health Status How we plan and prioritize growth for the future can determine how healthy residents are in the long-run. Along with supporting the development of healthy and equitable communities, Thousand Oaks must address direct measures of population health that impact quality of life. This section provides a general overview of the current health conditions related to weight status, levels of physical activity, diabetes, asthma, mental health and substance abuse, and heath care access in the City of Thousand Oaks.

Obesity + Overweight Obesity is the most prevalent, chronic, and relapsing health disorder of the 21st century. It is a leading cause of the nation’s mortality, morbidity, disability, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs and California has experienced a dramatic increase in obesity during the last few decades. In 1985, less than 20 Health Matters in Ventura County. (2017). Ventura County Public Health.

Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/
21 Health Matters in Ventura County. (2017). Ventura County Public Health.

Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/
10 percent of California’s population was obese; by 2010, over 20 percent of Californians were considered obese.

In Thousand Oaks, 21.9 percent of adults are obese, which is a lower than the County (27.5 percent). Adults should exercise at least 150 minutes per week; however, almost two-thirds of adults (64.1 percent) walk less than 150 minutes a week.21 Additionally, commute times in the City are slightly shorter for residents living in the City (26.2 minutes) compared to the County (26.6 minutes).22 However, only 4.1 percent of workers (16 years and older) commute to work by transit, walking, or cycling, which is slightly above 4.04 percent of workers in the County.23 Research shows that walking and bicycling to school or work, for daily errands, and for recreation include increased physical activity and stress reduction, and better respiratory fitness.

Fitness Fifth-, seventh-, and ninth-grade students in California public schools are given the Physical Fitness Test (PFT) or FITNESSGRM. It tests six fitness areas that link level of fitness to the prevention of diseases that come from inactivity. The six fitness areas are: aerobic capacity, body composition, muscular strength, endurance, and flexibility. Students that achieve all six fitness areas are considered “fit overall.” Students at Wildwood Elementary School (39.1 percent), Madrona Elementary School (36.2 percent), and EARTHS Magnet School (28.7 percent) have the highest percentage of 5th graders considered “fit overall.” On 22 American Community Survey. Selected Economic Characteristics (2013-2017) 23 Public Health Alliance of Southern California. (2018). Healthy Places Index.

Retrieved from: https://healthyplacesindex.org/
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-20
the other hand, students at Glenwood Elementary School have no fifth graders considered “fit overall,” lower than 5th grade students across the Conejo Valley Unified School District (14.9percent), as shown in Figure A.7. Three of the schools with the lowest percentage of fifth grade students considered “fit overall” are located in zip code 91360: Acacia, Aspen, and Glenwood Elementary Schools. Westlake Hills Elementary School, the fourth, is located in zip code 91362. As shown in Figure A.8, seventh-grade students at Los Cerritos Middle School (49.2 percent) has the highest percentage of students considered “fit overall,” while Redwood Middle School has the lowest percentage of students (12.2 percent), followed by students at Sequoia Middle School. Redwood Middle School is in zip code 91360.At the ninth-grade level, students at Newbury Park High School (57.3) have the highest percentage of ninth graders considered “fit overall.” As shown in Figure A.9, Thousand Oaks High School (46.5 percent) and Westlake High School (47.1 percent) have a lower percentage of ninth graders considered “fit overall” than across the Conejo Valley Unified School District (50.9 percent).Data for Century Academy High School is not included in Figure A.9, as the collected data was too low to report as a percentage.

An important element of fitness is body composition, which is used to describe the percentage of fat, bone, water, and muscle in human bodies. Body composition impacts the exercise performance and aerobic capacity of an individual – in other words, someone that has more body fat will likely perform more poorly than someone with less body fat. As a result, it’s important to not only assess overall fitness, but also body composition, one component of the FITNESSGRM.

Figure A.7 Fitness Overall, Fifth Grade StudentsSource: California Department of Education (2018)

28.7 5.1 4.3

11.1 36.2

16.3 10.9

13.4 12.2
0 15.1

23.7 11.7

5.1 39.1

10.611.5

14.9 50
4540353025201510
EARTHS Magnet School
Acacia ES
Aspen ES
Banyan ES
Madrona ES
Maple ES
Walnut ES
Conejo ES
Cypress ES
Glenwood ES
Ladera Stars Academy
Weathersfield ES
Westlake ES
Westlake Hills ES
Wildwood ES
Lang Ranch ES
Sycamore Canyon MS
Conejo Valley USD
5th Graders
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-21
Figure A.8 Fitness Overall, Seventh Grade StudentsSource: California Department of Education (2018)Figure A.9 Fitness Overall, Ninth Grade StudentsSource: California Department of Education (2018)In assessing body composition, FITNESSGRM uses three different zones to determine fitness: Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ), Needs Improvement (NI) Zone, and Needs Improvement-Health Risk (NI-Health Risk Zone). Students in the Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ) are individuals who achieve a level of fitness that offers protection against diseases that result from sedentary living.

Students in the Needs Improvement (NI) Zone indicates a potential for possible health risk. Healthy habits, including regular physical activity and healthy diet can help mitigate, or even reverse this risk. Students in the Needs Improvement – Health Risk Zone indicates a likely potential for health problems and the recommendation for implementing healthy habits is more urgent.In Thousand Oaks, Glenwood (43%), Conejo (40%), and Walnut (31%) Elementary Schools have the highest percentage of fifth graders at risk to health issues due to their body composition(Figure A.10). For comparison, 21 percent of 5th graders statewide and 23 percent countywide are at risk for health issues. At the seventh and ninth grade levels, a greater number of students are in the Healthy Fitness Zone across all schools and are generally at a lower risk compared to the County and the State, as shown in Figures A.11 and A.12. 47.1

57.3 46.5

50.9 0
70605040302010
Westlake HS Newbury Park HS Thousand Oaks HS Conejo Valley USD 9th Graders

12.2 22.7

49.2 17.9

34.1 26.4
0 605040302010
Redwood
MS
Colina MS Los Cerritos
MS
Sequoia MS Sycamore
Canyon MS
Conejo
Valley USD
7th Graders
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-22
Figure A.10 Body Composition, Fifth Grade StudentsSource: California Department of Education (2018)Source: California Department of Education (2018) 76%
49%
71%
62%
68%
55%
56%
40%
78%
38%
66%
53%
48%
79%
83%
83%
60%
58%
12%
29%
16%
20%
15%
23%
15%
19%
14%
20%
15%
24%
42%
10%
11%
11%
19%
19%
13%
22%
13%
17%
19%
21%
31%
40%
8%
43%
19%
24%
11%
11%
7%
6%
23%
21%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
EARTHS Magnet School
Aspen ES
Acacia ES
Banyan ES
Madrona ES
Conejo ES
Walnut ES
Maple ES
Cypress ES
Glenwood ES
Ladera Stars Academy
Weathersfield ES
Westlake ES
Westlake Hills ES
Lang Ranch ES
Sycamore Canyon MS
County
State
Grade 5 Students in Healthy Fitness Zone Grade 5 Students in Needs ImprovementGrade 5 Students in Needs Improvement - Health Risk Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-23
Figure A.11 Body Composition, Seventh Grade StudentsSource: California Department of Education (2018) 73%
69%
68%
65%
79%
61%
60%
14%
17%
16%
19%
12%
19%
19%
13%
16%
14%
15%
9%
20%
21%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Redwood MS
Colina MS
Los Cerritos MS
Sequoia MS
Sycamore Canyon MS
County
State
Grade 7 Students in Healthy Fitness Zone Grade 7 Students in Needs ImprovementGrade 7 Students in Needs Improvement - Health Risk Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-24
Figure A.12 Body Composition, Ninth Grade StudentsSource: California Department of Education (2018) 80%
84%
75%
67%
63%
13%
11%
13%
17%
19%
8%
6%
12%
16%
18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Westlake HS
Newbury Park HS
Thousand Oaks HS
County
State
Grade 9 Students in Healthy Fitness ZoneGrade 9 Students in Needs ImprovementGrade 9 Students in Needs Improvement - Health Risk Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-25
DiabetesDiabetes is the seventh leading cause of death in the United States. Since the 1970s, the risk of developing diabetes has increased by over 50 percent for American adults. There are two types of diabetes: Type I is less prevalent and most often occurs during childhood or adolescence, Type II is the most common and preventable, affecting 90–95 percent of those with diabetes. About 5.9 percent of Thousand Oaks adults over the age of 18 reported having been diagnosed with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes by a doctor, which is lower than the County rate (7.8 percent).24 In Ventura County, diabetes disproportionately impacts the Medicare population (26.4 percent) aged 65 and older.25 As shown in Figure A.13, emergency room visits due to diabetes in Thousand Oaks are consistently lower than in the County. However, variation in emergency room visits exists across zip codes. The highest emergency room visit rate is for residents living north of the Highway 101 and areas west of State Route 23 (zip code 91360). 24 California Department of Public Health (CDPH) (2012). California Health Interview Survey (CHIS).

Figure A.13 Age-Adjusted ER Rates due to Diabetes (Per 10,000)Source: California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (2015- 2017). Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org 25 Health Matters in Ventura County. (2017). Ventura County Public Health.

Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/

8.4 11.2

6.4 7.6

19.4 50
25201510
91320 91360 91361 91362 County
Emergency Room Visit Rate
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-26
AsthmaDiseases of the respiratory system are an important public health issue; in the U.S., 26 million people have asthma. Asthma is a chronic lung disease that includes inflammation and intermittent narrowing of the airways. Asthma can cause repeated episodes of wheezing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and coughing. Asthma attacks are triggered by several factors, including smog, dust, pollen, and smoke. Although asthma cannot be cured, it can be managed with appropriate treatment and medication. Based on data from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, the percentage of adults diagnosed with asthma is 16.7%, slightly higher than the Ventura County rate (15%). Asthma rates for children under the age of 18 (8.7%) in Thousand Oaks are lower than the State (14.6%).26 As shown in Figure A.14, children are more than two times as likely to end up in the emergency room than adults across zip codes. Generally, higher rates of asthma-related emergency department visits indicate both asthma prevalence and possible lack of access to quality preventative care and management. 26 California Department of Public Health (CDPH) (2016). California Health Interview Survey (CHIS).

Figure A.14 Age-Adjusted ER Rates due to Asthma (Per 10,000)Source: California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (2015- 2017). Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org

12.4 18.5
ND

18.9 29.6

5.3 6.7 4.4 6.4
13 50
353025201510
91320 91360 91361 91362 County
Pediatric Adult
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-27
High Volume Roadways Living near high volume roadways and freeways and industrial areas increases exposure to a mixture of air pollutants, including diesel and ozone from vehicle exhaust. Ozone is the main ingredient of smog and comes from trucks, cars, planes, trains, factories, farms, construction, and dry cleaners. Diesel PM comes from the exhaust of trucks, buses, trains, ships and other equipment with diesel engines. Fine particulate matter can cause asthma attacks in children, in addition to impaired lung function, premature death and death from cardiovascular diseases and cardiovascular morbidity. Children, the elderly, people who live and work in industrial areas and near heavy truck or train traffic, and people with existing cardiovascular or lung diseases are most impacted by exposure to air pollutants. The California Environmental Protection Agency recommends sensitive uses maintain a minimum distance of 500 feet from high volume roadways, including freeways, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles a day.27 Figure A.15 illustrates this 500-foot buffer over the existing land use pattern in the City. High levels of traffic density exist along State Route 23, Highway 101, and the industrial hub on the western side of the City. Sixty one percent of the population lives in census tracts with high (top 50%) traffic density (Figure A.16). Despite this, the City does not have high levels of diesel particulate matter concentration (Figure 27 Sensitive land uses include areas where vulnerable populations may most likely spend time, including schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities.

A.17). As shown in Figure A.18, there are elevated levels of ozone concentration throughout the City, which may be due to daily traffic spread around the City.28 However, ozone concentration is below the EPA ground level ozone standard of 70 ppb, averaged over an 8-hour period.29 28 Diesel particulate matter and ozone concentration levels are assigned a percentile based on the Statewide distribution of values, per CalEnviroScreen 3.0 29 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Air Quality. Retrieved from:
http://www.vcapcd.org/air_quality.htm
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-28
Figure A.15 High Volume Roadways (500-foot buffer)
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-29
Figure A.16 Traffic Density
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-30
Figure A.17 Diesel Particulate Matter Pollution
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-31
Figure A.18 Ozone Pollution
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-32
Mental Health + Substance AbuseMental illness encompasses various behavioral health problems, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, and addiction to alcohol, illegal drugs (methamphetamine, heroin, hallucinogens, hazardous chemicals, etc.) or prescription drugs. The U.S. Surgeon General identifies positive mental health with allowing “people to realize their full potential, cope with the stresses of life, work productively, and make meaningful contributions to their communities.30 Mental illness can affect persons of any age, race, ethnicity, or income, but it is generally treatable. In Thousand Oaks, 9.69 percent of adults identified that their mental health was not good during two or more weeks of the year, compared to 11.7 percent in Ventura County.31 Suicide is the tenth leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for more than 47,000 deaths per year.32 In Ventura County, the suicide rate is slightly higher (10.8) than in the State of California (10.4), per 100,000 people. As shown in Figure A.19, youth (ages 10-17) emergency room visit rates due to suicide and intentional self-inflicted injury in Thousand Oaks, are on average, higher than those of adults (18 and older) across the City and the County. 30 Surgeon General. (n.d.). Mental and Emotional Well-being. Retrieved from:
https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/priorities/prevention/strategy/mental-andemotional-well-being.html Figure A.19 Age-Adjusted ER Rates due to Suicide & Intentional SelfInflicted Injury (Per 10,000)Source: California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (2015- 2017). Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org 31 Centers for Disease Control. (2016). 500 Cities Project: Local Data for Better Health. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/500Cities/
32 National Institute of Mental Health. (2017). Suicide. Retrieved from:
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide.shtml

24.6 46.4

25.1 33.3

39.2 11.6

21.1 14.5 13.3
18 0
5040302010
91320 91360 91361 91362 County
Youth Adult
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-33
In 2017, suicide was the second leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 10 and 34 in the United States. 33 Among adults in the United States, the prevalence of serious suicidal thoughts is highest among two groups: adults aged 18-25 (10.5 percent) and adults reporting two or more races (8.9 percent). While suicide is confounding, it is preventable, given effective education, services, and support. Prevention for suicide should be focused on risk detection and reduction through a variety of means. The earlier treatment is sought, generally the better the outcome. Mental illness and substance abuse are problems that severely compromise social and emotional health. A variety of health problems are associated with alcohol and drug abuse, including unintentional injuries, violence, birth defects, acute alcohol poisoning, stroke, heart disease, cancer, and liver disease. In the period between 2012-2014, 358 drug-induced deaths occurred in Ventura County, 29 of which were residents younger than 25 years of age. Drug overdose caused individuals to lose an average of 46.5 years of life across Ventura County, followed by motor-vehicle crashes (45.2), firearm-related deaths (44.7), and suicide (42.1).34 It is also important to note that in the United States, of over 64,070 drug overdose deaths, 75% are from 33 National Institute of Mental Health. (2017). Suicide. Retrieved from:
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide.shtml 34 Ventura County Public Health. (2017). Community Health Assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/content/sites/ventura/PH_CHA_Booklet_DIGITAL_4_2017-05-12_2.pdf 35 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2018). Addressing the Challenges of the Opioid Crisis and Serious Mental Illness. Retrieved from: https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/ default/files/2018-cadca-flyer-final.pdf opioids.35 In Ventura County, the death rate due to prescription opioid overdose was 6.9% per 100,000 and has been on an upward trend over the last few years.36 Access to Health Care Affordability, proximity to facilities, and limited transportation options can pose significant barriers for the City’s population of older adults and residents currently living at or below the poverty line. As shown in Figure A.20, over a quarter of adults in Thousand Oaks and the County report difficulty accessing medical care they felt they needed.37 Additionally, 7.3 percent of adults in Thousand Oaks do not have health insurance.38 Across Ventura County, 13.4 percent of all people experienced a delay or difficulty in obtaining care, compared to 14.4 percent of people 18-24, 25.1 percent of people 25- 44, and 16 percent of people 45-64.39
The Los Robles Regional Medical Center and Kaiser Permanente are private hospitals that provide a range of medical services to residents of Thousand Oaks, Ventura County, and surrounding areas. The County also offers important medical and mental health services in the City. The Ventura County Health Care Agency operates the Ventura County Medical Center which provides a variety of services, 36 Health Matters in Ventura County. (2017). Ventura County Public Health.

Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/
37 Health Matters in Ventura County. (2017). Ventura County Public Health.

Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/
38 Health Matters in Ventura County. (2017). Ventura County Public Health.

Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/
39 Health Matters in Ventura County. (2017). Ventura County Public Health.

Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org/
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-34
including: mental health, pediatric care, dental care, immunizations, HIV/AIDS programs, and other community services. Additionally, the Conejo Free Clinic offers primary care, mental health care, and legal services. No portion of the City of Thousand Oaks is designated as a Health Professional Shortage Area40 for primary care, mental health, or dental health. A community’s ability to access comprehensive, quality health care services is vital to promoting health, preventing disease, and improving overall quality of life. Access to health care professionals is a critical need for low-income individuals and families, particularly the elderly, uninsured, those with chronic conditions and disabilities, and pregnant women.41 Language can also be a significant barrier to health care access. These barriers can be amplified for community members that lack access to high-quality public transportation. The General Plan can propose strategies to increase access to medical services that promote the health of all City residents. 40 A Health Professional Shortage Area is a Federal designation given to areas that demonstrate a shortage of healthcare professionals, including primary care, dentists, and mental health providers, within certain geographic areas, population groups, or facilities.

Figure A.20 Adults Delayed or Had Difficulty Obtaining Care Source: California Health Interview Survey (2013-2014). Source: California Health Interview Survey (2013-2014). Retrieved from: http://www.healthmattersinvc.org41 Paradise, Julia. (2017). Data Note: Three Findings about Access to Care and Health Outcomes in Medicaid. Retrieved from: https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issuebrief/data-note-three-findings-about-access-to-care-and-health-outcomes-inmedicaid/

29.1 28.7
ND

27.2 26.7
50 40353025201510
91320 91360 91361 91362 County
Adults
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-35
Built Environment and Health The built environment consists of a community’s streets, homes, parks, and other spaces residents, workers, and visitors use. The physical design of all these components affect a community’s health, and, chronic disease, life expectancy, and quality of life. Also, differences in neighborhood conditions that contribute to health, such as pollution or park access, are often highly correlated with race and/or income. Other chapters in the existing conditions report provide additional information.

Exposure to Lead In 1978, the United States government banned the manufacture and consumer use of lead-based paint. Lead is commonly found in paint, gasoline, and water pipes. Lead poisoning is preventable but can easily go unnoticed. Early signs of lead poisoning can include low IQ, hyperactivity, difficulty sleeping, irritability, and behavioral problems in children. The U.S. EPA estimates that more than 80 percent of homes built before 1978 contain leadbased paint. In addition, in homes built before 1950, the risk of lead exposure is greater due to paint that may contain even higher concentrations of lead. In Thousand Oaks, approximately 57.6 percent of the City’s housing stock was built before 1980 and 42.4 percent was built after 1980. As shown in Figure A.21, older residential homes are concentrated east and west of North Moorpark Road, east of State Route 23, south of South Westlake Boulevard, and in an area north of Borchard Road and east of North Reino Road.

Exposure to Pesticides Various environmental concerns also negatively impact the health of residents. Pollution from agricultural fertilizers and pesticides are primary sources of air, ground, and water contamination in Thousand Oaks. While contaminants can be naturally occurring or manmade, these can impact both the environment and human health. Pesticides, for instance, are used to prevent and control pests, weeds, and other plan pathogens. Exposure to pesticides can happen by touching treated surfaces (skin contact), eating or drinking contaminated food or water (ingestion), or by breathing it in (inhalation). A single or short-term high-level exposure can result in poisoning or illness. Children and pregnant women are at greater risk from the health effects of pesticide exposure. Similarly, chronic, or long-term exposure, can result in serious illness, including some types of cancers, pregnancy issues, abnormal births, and poor brain development. Symptoms can include headaches, dizziness, and allergies to chemical burns on the skin, unconsciousness, and death. In Thousand Oaks, elevated levels of pesticide use include 1,3- Dichloropropene, Chloropicrin, and Chlorpyrifos in census tracts 61 and 62, as noted in Table A.1. In addition to these three pesticides, elevated levels of Chlorothalonil and Acephate are found in the vicinity of Wildwood Park (census tract 63.01). These pesticides are associated with industrial manufacturing, agricultural run-off, and wastewater discharge.

Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-36
Figure A.21 Percentage of Homes Built Before 1980
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-37
Healthy Homes One component of the built environment includes residential homes. These structures can impact a person’s health due to various physical and environmental factors, such as secondhand smoke, radon, fire hazards, fall hazards, allergens, lead, pesticides, moisture, volatile organic compounds, and drinking water. These factors can lead to various health impacts like asthma attacks, low IQ, difficulty sleeping, behavioral problems, and death. Additionally, low-income residents that live in substandard housing conditions can experience increased risk to an asthma attack. For instance, common indoor triggers for asthma include secondhand smoke, dust mites, mold, cockroaches and other pests, and household pets.

Housing Burden Housing burden or housing “cost-burdened” is defined as households that pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Severely cost-burdened is identified as households paying 50 percent or more of their income on housing. For many families, housing is the single largest expense for households and the number of households paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing is on the rise. Housing burden impacts the ability of households to pay for basic needs, including food, 42 U.S. Census Bureau; 2017 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, Table B25095; using Explore Census Data, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/>; (12 February 2020). transportation, and medical care, particularly low-income households. In Thousand Oaks, 52 percent of homeowner households face a housing cost-burden, compared to 55 percent in the County.42 For renters, over half (52 percent) of Thousand Oaks households face a housing cost-burden, compared to 55 percent in the County.43 As shown in Figure A.22, cost-burdened populations are largely concentrated north of Lynn Road, along the 101, in areas east of North Lynn Road and west of North Moorpark Road, along a stretch west of Erbes Road south and east of State Route 23, a pocket west of State Route 23 and east of North Moorpark Road, and a large swath along the eastern boundary of the City. In Thousand Oaks, there is also a concentration of renters and homeowners who experience severe housing cost burden, paying more than 50 percent of their income on housing. Nearly 11.6 percent of low-income homeowner households face severe housing cost-burden, compared to 24 percent of low-income renter households. The high cost of housing impacts overall cost of living and magnifies income disparities, forcing individuals to spend less on food, medical care, childcare, and other necessities. In Thousand Oaks, low-income and households of color who face significant housing cost-burdens are forced to choose between other important expenses, including health care, savings, and long-term investments. Addressing the severe housing burden can help mitigate other housing-related problems, including 43 U.S. Census Bureau; 2017 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, Table B25070; using Explore Census Data, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/>; (12 February 2020).

Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-38
limited access to a variety of housing options and adverse health effects. Homelessness A close connection exists between rising housing costs and homelessness. In 2019, the Ventura County Homeless Count and Subpopulation Survey reported a total homeless population of 103 in the City, including sheltered (22) and unsheltered (81) persons;

37.5 percent of whom identified as experiencing chronic homelessness; and 72.9 percent who identified as male. Food Access + Security Healthy communities provide access to affordable and healthy food at grocery stores, produce markets, community gardens, and farmers’ markets. “Food access” is defined as physical access to a food store (e.g., supermarket, large grocery store, etc.). While there are various food stores in Thousand Oaks, food access disparities exist in some areas of the City. As shown in Figure A.23, food access is most limited in northern areas of the City, east and west of State Route 23. The map shows the percentage of population (by census tracts) living more than 1 mile from a supermarket, supercenter, or large grocery store. Residents of communities with access to a full-service grocery store tend to eat more fruits and vegetables, have lower body weights, and lower rates of chronic diseases. Local food production can also reduce the distance food is shipped, lowering the environmental footprint of food production and distribution. “Food security” is defined as having access to enough food for an active, healthy life for all people at all times. Food insecurity can lead to undernourishment and malnutrition, which coincide with fatigue, stunted child development, and other health issues. In Thousand Oaks, households that lack “food security” are eligible for supplemental assistance from government programs, such as the Federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Women Infants and Children (WIC) program; the State CalFresh program, based on food stamps assistance; and local emergency programs, including the Manna Conejo Valley Food Bank. For seniors, the City also offers a Meals on Wheels Program. For youth (18 and under), the City and Conejo Valley Unified School District offers a free summer lunch program that includes healthy, nutritious, and tasty food. In Ventura County, 7.6 percent of the population experiences food insecurity at some point during the year, a rate (15.4 percent) which doubles for children (under 18 years of age). In Thousand Oaks, only 3.3 percent of households receive food stamps/SNAP benefits. The majority of these households (65.4 percent) do not include anyone over the age of 60.

Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-39
Figure A.22 Percent of Cost-Burdened Households
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-40
Figure A.23 Percentage of Population with Low Food Access Item No. 11A
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC HEALTH + EQUITY EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |A-41
Crime + Public SafetyA variety of factors can impact community safety, including aggression and violence, underemployment, and lack of youth and family activities. The perception of crime can also impact individual health, businesses, and social cohesion. Real and perceived crime can have health, social, and behavioral implications for victims and their families, resulting in negative impacts on the neighborhood and community. Community safety has improved in recent years for Thousand Oaks residents. The number of property crimes in the City has generally decreased over the last ten years, as shown in Figure A.24.44 Violent crimes in the City, on the other hand, have been on an upward trend, particularly in the last five years, as shown in Figure A.25. It is common for city-level crime rates to fluctuate – these may be impacted by the local economy, policing, and social discord.
44 “Cleared offenses” refer to when an arrest and charge are made.

Figure A.24 Property CrimeFigure A.25 Violent CrimeSource: FBI Crime Data Explorer (2007-2017) 1942
1769 1793
2036
1788 1838
1604 1599 1577 1686 1687
327 296 319 340 285 277 266 289 267 232 302
0 500
2500200015001000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Reported Cleared
146 148
163
139 137
157
139 128 136
164 172
82 62
74 57 65 61
80 70
92 79 79
0 50
200150100
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Reported Cleared
Item No. 11A
Appendix B
Emergency Evacuation
Analysis
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX B: EMERGENCY EVACUATION ANALYSIS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |B-1
INTRODUCTION This supplemental evacuation analysis was prepared in support of the Thousand Oaks General Plan Update. This study is intended to provide Thousand Oaks (the City) with a broad planning level assessment of the capacity of the transportation system during a citywide evacuation event. It identifies residential developments with a single entrance and exit road, and evaluates the potential consequences of large evacuation events on the roadway system under various hazard scenarios in compliance with the following two statutes: Senate Bill 99 (SB 99) requires that the Safety Element of the General Plan identify any residential developments in any hazard area that does not have at least two evacuation routes. This is a requirement for all safety element updates included upon the revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2020. Assembly Bill 747 (AB 747) requires that the Safety Element be reviewed and updated to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios. This will be a requirement for all safety elements or updates to a hazard mitigation plan completed after January of 2022. Since this requirement has recently gone into effect, there is no established standard methodology. These scenarios are intended to model a potential range of different evacuation scenarios, but not all possible scenarios. Emergency evacuations can occur due to any number of events 1 2019 California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9 with July 2021 Supplement. Accessed at:
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CFC2019P4/appendix-d-fire-apparatus-accessroads and at any location, beyond those specifically identified in this report. In addition, emergency movement is unpredictable and the specific conditions of an emergency evacuation could result in evacuation behavior that diverges from the assumptions used in this analysis. This analysis serves only to represent informed estimates of likely potential evacuation scenario footprints and capacity constraints based on available data and does not guarantee that evacuations will follow modeling that is used for analysis purposes. Emergency evacuation assessment is an emerging field and, as noted above, there is no established standard methodology. The methodology utilized in this evaluation is based upon best practices and the professional experience and knowledge of Rincon staff. Rincon is not responsible for any damage to life or property that might occur following the City’s emergency evacuation management techniques based on the results of the evacuation analyses herein, and any accompanying recommendations. SB 99 Analysis – Single Entrance/Exit Neighborhoods Per SB 99, the Safety Element of the General Plan is required to identify neighborhoods in any hazard area that does not have at least two evacuation routes. For this analysis, a neighborhood is defined as 30 or more dwelling units that only have a single route to access a collector or arterial road based on California Fire Code Appendix D107.1 We have identified 33 neighborhoods in the city Item No. 11A
APPENDIX B: EMERGENCY EVACUATION ANALYSIS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |B-2
that have a single entry or exit point. See Figure B.1. About half of the neighborhoods are located in the western portion of the city, predominately in the Newbury Park area and along Lynn Road, with the other half of the neighborhoods located in the eastern portion of the city, near Sunset Hills Country Club and areas along Thousand Oaks Boulevard on the eastern side of State Route 23 (SR 23). In the case of an evacuation event, these single entry/exit neighborhoods would likely utilize north/southbound Highway 101 and/or SR 23 to evacuate, depending on the location of the evacuation area. Some neighborhoods could also use alternative evacuation routes, such as Potrero Road and Kanan Road, depending on the severity of traffic congestion on traditional evacuation routes and/or the location of the evacuation area.

Item No. 11A
APPENDIX B: EMERGENCY EVACUATION ANALYSIS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |B-3
Figure B.1 Single Entry/Exit Neighborhoods
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX B: EMERGENCY EVACUATION ANALYSIS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |B-4
AB 747 Analysis – Evacuation Scenarios In accordance with AB 747, the following analysis and results outline the potential outcomes of a variety of hazard events requiring emergency evacuation.

EVACUATION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY In accordance with AB 747, a range of potential hazard scenarios has been presented in this evacuation analysis. Hazard scenarios were selected through a review of past hazard assessments, and by considering the potential likelihood, magnitude, and spatial extent of various hazards. With nearly all of Thousand Oaks in CAL FIRE’s Very high Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VFHSZ), and recent wildfires in Thousand Oaks and Ventura County, hazard scenarios included in this analysis evaluate the potential evacuation effects of three varied wildfire scenarios in addition to a baseline scenario:
1) Baseline – Typical traffic volumes within Thousand Oaks on Monday at 5:00 PM.
2) Wildfire approaching the city from the north, resulting in immediate evacuation southbound on SR 23 towards north/southbound Highway 101. 3) Wildfire approaching the city from the southeast,
resulting in immediate evacuation northbound on Highway 101 and/or northbound on SR 23. 4) Wildfire approaching the city from the southwest,
resulting in immediate evacuation southbound on Highway 101 and/or northbound on SR 23.

Data Sources and Data Processing Transportation Network The transportation network was created using ESRI’s StreetMap Premium . StreetMap Premium is a comprehensive dataset that provides enriched network data based on commercial street reference data from leading global and local street data suppliers: HERE and GeoTechnologies, Inc. The dataset includes detailed basemap data and a network dataset for routing, both of which were used in the evacuation analyses. This dataset is well-suited for emergency evacuation analysis because it includes a comprehensive network of roads, baseline traffic data, and is regularly updated to ensure that it remains accurate and current. Further, the network data models the movements of automobiles by obeying one-way roads, speed limits, avoiding illegal turns, and other rules specific to automobiles, and finds solutions that optimize travel time. Population Modeling The population of Thousand Oaks was modeled using ESRI’s Enrich Layer Tool. The Enrich Layer Tool appends demographic and landscape variables to any input polygon feature class for further analysis, modeling, and reporting. The input polygon layer used for Thousand Oaks was a tessellation of hexagons ¼ mile in diameter that covered the entire city. The Enrich Layer Tool was then used to add daytime population data to the hexagonal tessellation. Daytime population data was taken from Item No. 11A
APPENDIX B: EMERGENCY EVACUATION ANALYSIS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |B-5
ESRI’s daytime population data estimates, which are generated using a mix of inputs from ESRI's U.S. Updated Demographics, the decennial census, the American Community Survey (ACS), and business data from Data Axle, a full-service data provider. ESRI’s daytime population is an estimate of the population that includes residents and workers in the city on weekdays during standard workday hours, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Daytime population was used to best represent the number of individuals in the city at the time of an evacuation scenario, which was 152,397 in each scenario. After the values of daytime population were assigned to the hexagon tessellation, The City’s 2045 General Plan Land Use Update (GPLU) data was used to concentrate the daytime population into places where the population would typically exist. Residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses were selected from the GPLU data. The hexagonal tessellations with the daytime population data were clipped to areas with the previously listed land uses. The total daytime population value from the tessellation was generated into randomly placed points within the selected land use areas for each hexagon. The daytime population points that intersect the evacuation area represent the individuals that are evacuating, and where they start their evacuation from. These points served as evacuation origin points, which change based on the evacuation area used for each scenario. Evacuation Modeling Evacuation routes and traffic volumes during an emergency evacuation event were modeled using ArcGIS’s Closest Facility tool included in the Network Analyst extension. The Closest Facility tool enables finding the closest facility (e.g., hospital, fire station, or gas station) to a given location or set of locations. The Closest Facility tool can also be customized to include other factors that affect travel time, such as speed limits and road closures. For this evacuation analysis, the “facilities” analyzed were points outside of Thousand Oaks city boundaries located on roads along expected evacuation routes, Highway 101 and SR 23. After distributing the daytime population throughout the city, the evacuation model was run to simulate the level of traffic volumes on roads and major highways during each hazard scenario assuming simultaneous departure of all populations from the evacuation area to the nearest evacuation points within the transportation network. To depict the level of traffic volumes, average daily traffic (ADT) was assigned to arterial streets and highways within the city. ADT for the streets was provided by the City from their General Plan Traffic Analysis. In a few instances, some roads used in the model did not have ADT values. If a road did not have an ADT value, a value was estimated based on ADT of intersecting roads with ADT values. The number of evacuation routes that traveled along a particular road—moving from the evacuation origin to the nearest evacuation point outside the City Limits—was combined with baseline ADT to depict total traffic volume during an evacuation. For example, SR 23 has an ADT level between 60,001 and 120,000 during the baseline scenario. In the southeastern fire evacuation scenario, additional evacuation routes utilizing SR 23 pushed the SR 23 ADT level to greater than 120,000.

Assumptions and Limitations The results of this analysis are intended to show roads that could experience increased traffic volumes during an emergency evacuation event. This model assumes that the daytime Item No. 11A
APPENDIX B: EMERGENCY EVACUATION ANALYSIS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |B-6
population within the evacuation area is going to exit Thousand Oaks city limits at the nearest evacuation point during typical traffic conditions, Monday at 5:00 PM. It is assumed that the locations of the exit points for each scenario change depending on the original direction of the fire, and it is not possible to exit the city where the evacuation area meets the City Limits. While the daytime population was concentrated in residential and industrial/commercial land uses from GPLU data, some individuals may be located in different land use areas. Evacuation Assessment Results Baseline The baseline scenario evaluates typical traffic volumes in the city at 5:00 PM on a Monday. Baseline traffic data, depicted as ADT, was derived from the City’s General Plan Traffic Analysis and is used as the basis of comparison for each modeled evacuation scenario. As shown in Figure B.2, the largest traffic volumes, greater than 120,000 ADT, occur along north- and southbound Highway 101. Traffic volumes at levels between 60,001 and 120,000 ADT can be found along SR 23. Smaller traffic volumes below 30,000 ADT—aside from some instances at Highway 101 onramps/offramps —can be found throughout the rest of the city. All expected evacuation routes, Highway 101 and SR 23, are available to individuals for evacuation, with most onramps for each evacuation route showing traffic volumes of less than 30,000 ADT. Fire from Southeast This scenario assumes a wildfire southeast of the city. This scenario assumes that exiting the city to the east and southeast using Kanan Road, Westlake Boulevard, Thousand Oaks Boulevard, and southbound Route 101 would not be viable.

Consequently, evacuation would need to occur northbound on Highway 101 and northbound on SR 23. Figure B.3 shows the extent of the proposed southeast wildfire evacuation area and expected increased traffic volumes resulting from simultaneous departure throughout various points from the evacuation area. The largest traffic volumes, where traffic levels are expected to be greater than 120,000 ADT, occur along nearly all of northbound Highway 101 and northbound SR 23 as individuals evacuate away from the fire area. Traffic volumes between 30,000 and 60,001 ADT are expected at northbound 101 onramps Westlake Boulevard, Hampshire Road, Moorpark Road, and Lynn Road, as individuals use these connector roads to reach Highway 101 and vacate away from the evacuation area. With few exceptions, it is likely that the northern half of the city would utilize SR 23 to evacuate, and the southern half of the city would utilize Highway 101 to evacuate, because both offer the largest evacuee capacity and are the closest options for their respective (i.e., northern or southern) populations. Consequently, northbound SR 23 onramps Sunset Hills Boulevard and Janss Road, both depicting traffic volumes between 15,001 and 30,000 ADT, and the previously mentioned northbound Highway 101 onramps, would be critical to maintain in this scenario, as these are expected to experience increased traffic volumes. Evacuation responders could consider activating evacuation traffic management at these onramps and contra-flow lane reversal on northbound Highway 101 and northbound SR 23 to allow both lanes to be used for evacuation. Alongside the roads listed above, other roads to consider monitoring in this scenario include Kanan Road, Thousand Oaks Boulevard, and Erbes Road as increased traffic volumes are expected on these connector roads as individuals vacate northbound onto Highway 101 and SR 23.

Item No. 11A
APPENDIX B: EMERGENCY EVACUATION ANALYSIS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |B-7
Figure B.2 Baseline Traffic Conditions
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX B: EMERGENCY EVACUATION ANALYSIS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |B-8
Figure B.3 Fire from the Southeast Evacuation Results
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX B: EMERGENCY EVACUATION ANALYSIS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |B-9
Fire from the SouthwestThis scenario assumes a wildfire southwest of the city. This scenario assumes that exiting the city to the west and southwest using northbound Highway 101 and Potrero Road are not viable. Figure B.4 shows the extent of the proposed southwest wildfire evacuation area and expected increased traffic volumes resulting from simultaneous departure throughout various points from the evacuation area. The largest traffic volumes, where traffic levels are expected to be greater than 120,000 ADT, occur along all of southbound Highway 101. Traffic volumes between 60,001 and 120,000 ADT can be expected along northbound SR 23 as some individuals in the northern part of the city vacate using northbound SR 23. Roads and their associated highway onramps exhibiting between 30,001 and 60,000 ADT include Borchard Road, Lynn Road, Ventu Park Road, Olsen Road, Moorpark Road, and Westlake Boulevard. The critical areas to maintain in this scenario would include previously listed connector roads/highway onramps in the fire evacuation area to ensure evacuees coming from the westernmost portion of the city can quickly and safely access the major evacuation routes. Similar to the previous scenario, evacuation responders could consider activating evacuation traffic management at these highway onramps/connector roads and contra-flow lane reversal on southbound Highway 101 to allow both lanes to be used for evacuation if necessary. Fire from the North This scenario assumes a wildfire north of the city. This scenario assumes that exiting the city on northbound SR 23 is not viable. Figure B.5 shows the extent of the proposed north wildfire evacuation area and expected increased traffic volumes resulting from simultaneous departure throughout various points from the evacuation area. The largest traffic volumes, where traffic levels are expected to be greater than 120,000 ADT, occur along Highway 101 as individuals evacuate north- and southbound away from the fire evacuation area. Traffic volumes between 60,001 and 120,000 ADT can be expected along southbound SR 23 as individuals proceed towards Highway 101. Increased traffic volumes, exhibiting ADT levels between 15,001-30,000 ADT, can be found on portions of Erbes Road, Janss Road, and E. Avenida de Los Arboles, Olsen Road, and Moorpark Road. The critical areas to maintain in this scenario would include the southbound SR 23 onramps within the fire evacuation zone, southbound SR 23 as it merges with Highway 101, and previously listed connector roads as they feed individuals onto SR 23 or directly onto Highway 101. Like the previous scenarios, evacuation responders could consider activating evacuation traffic management at these onramps and contra-flow lane reversal on southbound SR 23 to allow both lanes to be used for evacuation if necessary.

Item No. 11A
APPENDIX B: EMERGENCY EVACUATION ANALYSIS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |B-10
Figure B.4 Fire from the Southwest Evacuation Results
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX B: EMERGENCY EVACUATION ANALYSIS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |B-11
Figure B.5 Fire from the North Evacuation Results
Item No. 11A
APPENDIX B: EMERGENCY EVACUATION ANALYSIS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |B-12
Evacuation Strategies The following lists evacuation strategies that city may consider to improve future evacuation events. Ventura County conducted The Hill & Woolsey Fires Emergency Response After-Action Review2 in January 2020, which also details the County’s recommended solutions to challenges that occurred during those events.

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
x Reverse one or more lanes of a highway (SR 23 or Highway 101) to accommodate an increased flow of traffic in one direction. x Redirect all lanes of a designated evacuation route to accommodate rapid evacuation from a city or region.
x Temporarily close inbound travel lanes on selected
unlimited access arterials (such as parkways and boulevards) to allow outbound traffic to utilize these lanes during evacuation. x Close inbound lanes on highways (SR 23 or Highway 101) utilized for evacuation routes to prevent drivers on these routes from entering the city while evacuation is underway. x Minimize left-turn movements along evacuation routes
and on roads leading to evacuation routes.
x Signage: Use variable message board equipment and
targeted installation of permanent dynamic message
2 http://vcportal.ventura.org/BOS/District2/Hill_Woolsey_Fires_Emergency_Response_After_Action_Review_01.21.2020.PDF signs on evacuation routes to improve communication and reduce public confusion. x Consider how to stage tow trucks at key bottleneck
locations along evacuation routes to help detect and clear minor crashes and maintain traffic flow. x Increase the green time and/or progression band for
through movements leading out of an evacuation zone.
x Install signal battery backups in case signal operations need to be maintained during a power outage. Consider using channeling devices, static signs, and coning strategies to manage intersection flow during power outage if the signals lack power. x Identify and communicate with communities that have at least two access points. Prioritize adding additional access to communities which are currently served by only one or two access points. x Develop transportation solutions such as the use of a bus system for evacuating individuals with special needs (such as those with mobility limitations). x Establish traffic control points (i.e., locations along designated evacuation routes with emergency management personnel) to maintain a greater degree of evacuation management. These locations could enhance the efficiency of an evacuation, reduce public confusion, and allow increased operational flexibility during an evacuation.

Item No. 11A
APPENDIX B: EMERGENCY EVACUATION ANALYSIS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |B-13

COMMUNICATIONS
x Strengthen and maintain communication among
coordinating emergency event agencies. This could be achieved through systems such as the Public Information Emergency System and Emergency Satellite Communications. x Implement a traffic control center to coordinate all
evacuation activities. This center would have up to the minute reports on traffic patterns and can communicate directly with the broadcast media to let drivers know about roadway congestion and conditions and direct them to alternate routes. x Install counters and/or CCTV cameras to assess traffic flow, volume of vehicles evacuating, and monitor incidents. x Develop communication plan to provide information
regarding primary and secondary evacuation routes and incidents to the public.

VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
x Understand if there are areas in the city with a greater percentage of senior adults, disabled people, mobility impaired, visually impaired, people with medical conditions, and people without vehicles with of objective of identifying areas that should be prioritized by first responders during an evacuation. x Develop system to ensure hearing impaired receive
evacuation warnings.
x Provide special assistance to mobility impaired, visually impaired, people with medical conditions, and people without vehicles such as paratransit. x Translated materials should be prepared to support
communication to non-English speaking populations
including during evacuation.
x Evacuation centers should provide dialysis machine or other life-sustaining equipment.
x Provide resources for free to unhoused populations during evacuation.

Conclusion Thousand Oaks’ transportation network allows for evacuation north, west, and east during a disaster. However, due to the population density, an evacuation event could still put a burden on the transportation network. In compliance with SB 99, we have identified 33 neighborhoods that have a single entry or exit point throughout the city. The analysis according to AB 747 shows that in the case of a large wildfire, large portions of the City’s evacuation network could become unviable. Depending on the direction of the wildfire, northbound/southbound Highway 101 and SR 23 could become affected thus prompting emergency traffic management and the use of alternative evacuation routes. Implementing traffic management strategies will aid in efficient and expeditious flow of evacuation traffic, which is the most critical and challenging element in a successful evacuation. Communication during an evacuation event is found to be an extreme challenge due to the coordination between agencies responsible for communication. Improved training, procedures, platforms, and public educations are all strategies that can occur pre-emptively to improve communication among entities Item No. 11A
APPENDIX B: EMERGENCY EVACUATION ANALYSIS
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL PLAN UPDATE |B-14
involved in the management of response, and communication between the City and the general public. Vulnerability of residents should be considered in determining which areas may need to be prioritized by first responders during an evacuation. Areas within the city with a greater percentage of elderly people, disabled people, households that do not own vehicles (i.e., transit dependent populations), and institutionalized populations require a greater amount of support during an evacuation. Other vulnerable groups should be evaluated relative to evacuation route vulnerability. It is recommended that the results of these analyses be considered to frame supportive policies for the Safety Element Update. These policies can be used to identify potential evacuation capacity and resiliency improvements throughout the city.

Item No. 11A
Public Draft
June 02, 2023

THOUSAND OAKS
- rooted in community -
G E N E R A L P L A N 2 0 4 5
Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan
June 2023
$77$&+0(17
cdd:420-20/Staff Report-Planning Cmsn/pz [FILE ID: 2019-70760] Item No. 11A
The Community Engagement Summary and Reference Material provides a summary of the outreach engagement activities completed during the process including public workshops, pop-up workshops, General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) meetings, focus groups, online surveys, neighborhood meetings, virtual office hours, and Planning Commission and City Council.

It is important to note that the COVID-19 Pandemic occurred during the update process. From 2019 through March 2020, all General Plan activities were held both in-person and online. In response to State and local public health guidance regarding the COVID-19 virus, all engagement activities were held virtually from March 2020 through the Spring of 2021. From Summer 2023 until adoption, the events were held in-person and online.

The City spent considerable time and effort informing residents in Thousand Oaks about the update process. As the list below shows, information about the project was distributed widely through multiple channels throughout the entire process. A summary of the methods used to inform the public about the process is below:
1 Citywide Mailer Sent to 38,004 households in water and wastewater bills in September 2019
2 Project Website The project website was created in English (www.toaks2045.com) and Spanish
(www.toaks2045.com/espanol) to provide information on
Item No. 11A
the project throughout the process. The website had over 50,000 page views and over 13,000 unique viewers.
3 General Plan
Email
Subscribers
An email database created for the Plan update had over
1,300 subscribers. Email blasts were sent 20 times during the process to inform the community about engagement
activities.
4 Social Media The City of Thousand Oaks utilized existing City Twitter and Instagram accounts that already had a significant
following. The City’s Twitter account has almost 300,000 impressions (the number of people that are served content from the page because they follow it) and over 3,000
profile visits (the number of people who took direct
actions on a post by continuing to visit the profile page).

The City’s Instagram account had a reach of over 6,500
unique accounts that saw any of the General Plan posts at least once and 1,600 who took direct action on a post
related to the Plan.
5 City
Newsletters
Articles in City-sponsored newsletters throughout the
process. This included the CityScene Newsletter (11 times with over 1,500 subscribers), the Economic Development
Newsletter (6 times with over 500 subscribers) and the
Sustainability Newsletter (4 times with over 10,000
subscribers). Each newsletter had articles about the
General Plan.
6 Advertisements Multiple advertisements around the City and in newspapers to promote workshops and forums. This
included:
o Paid use of the City Hall marquee.
o Posters in City Hall, Thousand Oaks libraries, and the Janss Marketplace.
o Paid Ads in The Acorn and VC Star newspapers.
7 Newspaper
Articles
Articles in two local newspapers—The Acorn and VC
Star—provided background on the project and
information about engagement activities. In total, there were over 30 articles about the General Plan Update in The Acorn and 3 in the VC Star. These newspapers reach a wide cross section of Thousand Oaks residents.
8 Email Emails requesting involvement to 167 homeowners’ associations, 48 religious organizations, President of
Conejo Council of PTAs, CLU students in the MPPA
program, and Conejo Valley Unified School District.
9 Mailers Mailing to all properties within the “Areas of Change.” 10 Flyers Flyers in both English and Spanish were distributed through the City Hall public counter, Thousand Oaks
Item No. 11A
libraries, Meals on Wheels, Conejo Recreation and Park
District volunteers.
11 October 2020
Planning
Month
Partnered with the Thousand Oaks Grant R. Brimhall
Library to promote October Planning Month and distribute materials on the General Plan Update.
o Passed out 1,000 postcards about planning and the
general plan update at curbside.
o Recorded two videos of reading children’s books
about city planning for Storytime.
o TO Library shared information on their website and
social media.

A diverse twenty-four-member committee was formed to provide insight throughout the City’s General Plan Update process. The GPAC is composed of residents, business owners, educators, students, and other members of the Thousand Oaks community at different stages of life and with different technical and professional expertise. All meetings were open to the public and the public in attendance was actively encouraged to participate. Input from both the GPAC and the public helped to guide each step of the General Plan Update process. Listed below are the topics, dates, and number of attendees for each of the 15 GPAC meetings. 1 August 28, 2019 Introduction to the GPAC and the
General Plan Update
41 in-person
attendees
2 September 25,
2019
Overview of key planning terms and
documents
40 in-person
attendees
3 November 14, 2019 Brainstorm on guiding principles 34 in-person attendees
4 December 12, 2019 Housing policy and identify areas of change and stability
30 in-person
attendees
5 February 6, 2020 Economic and market conditions;
review areas of change and stability
33 in-person
attendees
6 March 5, 2020 Develop land use concepts 37 in-person
attendees
7 May 28, 2020 Transportation and mobility 123 attendees via Zoom
Item No. 11A
8 July 23, 2020 Health, equity, and environmental
justice
48 attendees via
Zoom
9 August 20, 2020 Safety and resilience 49 attendees via Zoom
10 September 24,
2020
Sustainability 53 attendees via
Zoom
11 October 22, 2020 Arts and culture 58 attendees via
Zoom
12 November 19,
2020
Parks and open space 54 attendees via
Zoom
13 February 2, 2021 Joint GPAC/Community Workshop
on land use alternatives
255 attendees
via Zoom + 45
YouTube Live
viewers
14 March 25, 2021 Land use alternatives survey review
(Meeting held via Zoom with live
Spanish interpretation and closed
captioning.)
97 attendees via
Zoom + 11
YouTube Live
viewers
15 April 21, 2021 Joint GPAC/Community Workshop
on preferred land use alternative
(Meeting held via Zoom with live
Spanish interpretation and closed
captioning.)
75 attendees via
Zoom + 100
YouTube views
The summaries of the GPAC meetings are presented in this document.

In addition to larger, city-wide events, the consultant team sat down with smaller targeted groups and individuals of the community to hear feedback on specific topics.
1 June 24 and June 25,
2019
Stakeholder Interviews
2 July 18, 2019 Economic Development Focus Group
3 October 2019 Arts and Culture Element Stakeholder Interviews 4 November 2019 Arts and Culture Element Stakeholder Interviews and Arts Town Hall
5 January 2020 Economic Development Focus Group*
6 March 3, 2021 Environmental Justice & Equity Focus Group Item No. 11A
The summaries of the stakeholder interviews and focus groups are presented in this document. (* notes are not available for this focus group) Community Forums provided an opportunity to discuss key topics and insights on the latest land use, circulation, development changes, and market trends affecting Thousand Oaks and the region.
1 October 2,
2019
The Happy
City
This forum focused on
developing a vision for a happy
livable city. Charles
Montgomery provided a
presentation on his book, The
Happy City and led a discussion
for the General Plan. Insights
from this forum shaped the
vision and guiding principles of
the General Plan.

Approximately
115 in-person
attendees
2 January
29, 2020
The Math of
Smart
Growth: Why
We Cannot
Afford to Keep
Building the
Same Way
This forum focused on the
relationship between
development and community
economic health. Joe Minicozzi
presented an approach to
planning and city design called
Geoaccounting with case
studies.

Approximately
50 in-person
attendees
The summaries of the community forums are presented in this document.

Item No. 11A
At multiple times during the process, the City held public workshops to discuss the vision and overall direction of the General Plan. The public workshops provided opportunities for residents and stakeholders to come together and share ideas about the future of the City.
1 September 12,
2019
Visioning
Workshop
This workshop was held in person and
had over 125 attendees. The focus was
on identifying issues and opportunities
and developing a vision for the future.
2 February 2,
2021
Review of Land
Use Alternatives
(live Spanish
interpretation
was provided)
This workshop, which was a joint
meeting with the GPAC, provided an
overview of the three land use
alternatives. The meeting was held
virtually (via Zoom) and attended by
255 people. An additional 45 people
viewed the event live via YouTube.
3 April 21, 2021 Selection of
Preferred
Alternative
At this virtual workshop, residents and
GPAC members reviewed and provided
input on the preferred land use
direction. There were 75 attendees via
Zoom and over 100 YouTube views.

The summaries of the workshop are presented in this document. (Note: Workshop 4 is combined with GPAC #15)
Item No. 11A
The General Plan Team hosted “pop-up” workshops throughout the City to solicit feedback from members of the community who may not seek out opportunities for civic engagement. The following are the events that City staff and the consultant team attended.
1 September 28, 2019 Conejo Valley Pride Festival
2 October 13, 2019 Civic Arts Plaza 25th Anniversary
3 October 20, 2019 Rotary Street Fair
4 October 23, 2019 Sage Publications & Atara
Biotherapeutics
5 October 24, 2019 Farmer’s Market (cancelled due to
wind)
6 October 26, 2019 Tarantula Hill Brewing Company
7 November 5, 2019 Amgen
8 November 5, 2019 TOHS Latino Youth Leadership Class
9 November 12, 2019 Chamber of Commerce
10 December 4, 2019 YMCA Youth & Government
11 January 15, 2020 2020 Wellness Fest
12 February 20, 2020 Youth Leadership Summit
13 April 10, 2020 Senior Summit (cancelled due to
COVID pandemic)
A series of virtual question and answer sessions with the project team on various aspects of the process were held on Zoom. There was a total of 66 participants. 1 February 11, 2021 (6:00pm-8:00pm) Office Hours – English with live Spanish interpretation
2 February 17, 2021 (6:00pm-8:00pm) Office Hours – English with live Spanish interpretation
Item No. 11A
3 February 20, 2021 (10:00am-12:20pm) Office Hours – English with live Spanish interpretation
4 February 23, 2021 (10:00am-12:00pm) Office Hours - Spanish The General Plan Team provided General Plan Update presentations to various groups within the City.
1 January 11, 2021 We Belong 805
2 January 11, 2021 Democratic Club of Conejo Valley
3 January 13, 2021 Thousand Oaks Livability Action Network 4 January 28-29, 2021 Meetings with Macerich (The Oaks), Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce, NewMark
Merrill Companies (Janss Marketplace), The
Acorn, Thousand Oaks Boulevard Association,
Lee & Associates, Rexford Industrial, Newmark
Group, CBRE, Amgen, Westlake BioPartners, and
Atara Biotherapeutics
5 February 1, 2021 Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Conejo Valley Unified School District
6 February 9, 2021 Thousand Oaks Teen Advisory League
7 February 16, 2021 Los Angeles Rams
8 February 17, 2021 Council on Aging
9 February 17, 2021 Youth Commission
10 February 18, 2021 Conejo Recreation and Park District Meeting 11 February 22, 2021 Thousand Oaks Livability Action Network 12 February 23, 2021 Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce Legislative Roundtable
13 February 24, 2021 Students from Thousand Oaks, Newbury Park and Westlake H.S. – Latino Connection
14 February 25, 2021 Village Homes HOA
15 February 25, 2021 We Belong 805
16 March 1, 2021 Conejo Climate Coalition
17 March 1, 2021 Adelante Comunidad Conejo and Buen Vecino 18 March 8, 2021 Cal Lutheran University Governing Board Item No. 11A
19 March 9, 2021 Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting
20 March 10, 2021 City of Thousand Oaks Library Staff
21 March 11, 2021 Casa Conejo Municipal Advisory Council Online community surveys were conducted during the General Plan Update process.

The surveys were designed to provide the public with an opportunity to help guide the most critical aspects of the General Plan – the identification of issues and strengths in the City; future growth and development patterns; and the overall vision for the future. The following is a brief summary of each survey. 1 Issues and
Opportunities
(September 2019 –
January 2020)
This survey asked similar
questions as the first community
workshop: 1) what makes
Thousand Oaks unique and
special; 2) what are the issues
and opportunities facing
Thousand Oaks today and in the
future; and 3) what is your vision
for Thousand Oaks in 2045.

Response information helped
inform the vision statement for
the General Plan.

Over 600
surveys were
received.
2 Prioritization of
Community Values
(February 28, 2020 –
May 4, 2020)
This survey allowed residents to
prioritize feedback from the
community on their values,
issues facing the City, and vision
for the future. Respondents were
also asked to map where future
growth and change (e.g.,
housing, entertainment, open
space) should be located in the
City.
461 responses
were received.
3 Land Use Alternatives
(February 2, 2021 –
March 15, 2021)
Respondents were asked for their
preferences on three different
land use alternatives, which were
detailed in a “briefing book.” The
2,127 surveys
were received.

Item No. 11A
briefing book and survey was
available in both English and
Spanish. The City coordinated
distribution of the book and
surveys with Adelante
Comunidad and Westminster
Clinic.
4 Preferred Land Use
Plan (April 16, 2021 –
May 12, 2021
This survey asked for feedback
on the preferred land use plan.

The preferred land use plan was
developed through an extensive
community engagement process
of workshops, GPAC meetings,
an online survey, and
stakeholder meetings.
2,726 surveys
were received.

The survey results for each survey are presented later in this document.

City Council and Planning Commission meetings occurred throughout the General Plan process to provide project updates, discuss a variety of topics, and review the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. The following is a list of City Council and the Planning Commission meetings.
1 August 19, 2019 City Council General Plan Update kick off x Agenda, Item 9B (video)
x Staff Report
2 November 19, 2019 City Council update on the community engagement activities
x Agenda, Item 10A (video)
x Staff Report
3 March 29, 2021 Planning Commission consideration of land use alternatives
x Agenda, Item 8B (video)
x Staff Report
x Attachment 1
4 April 26, 2021 Planning Commission preferred land use map review and recommendation
x Agenda, Item 8A (video)
x Staff Report
Item No. 11A
x Attachments 1-3
x Attachment 4
x Attachment 5
5 May 18, 2021 City Council preferred land use map review (Meeting held via Zoom with live Spanish interpretation)
x Agenda, Item 4A (video)
x Staff Report
5 May 25, 2021 City Council preferred land use map decision (Meeting held via Zoom with live Spanish
interpretation)
x Agenda, Item 9A (video)
x Staff Report
6 September 27, 2021 Planning Commission review of Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
x Agenda, Item 7A (video)
x Staff Report
x Attachment 1
7 January 10, 2022 Planning Commission review and recommendation of Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
x Agenda, Item 8A (video)
x Staff Report
x Attachment 1
x Attachment 2
x Attachment 3
x Attachment 4
8 January 25, 2022 City Council review and adoption of Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
x Agenda, Item 8A (video)
x Staff Report
The staff report for each Planning Commission and City Council study session is available on the City’s website at: https://toaks.primegov.com/public/portal. x March 23, 2021, General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting 3/25. Join us to review the survey results and more! – https://conta.cc/2OXlhOo
x February 24, 2021, We need YOU to help guide the future of TO. Take the Land Use Alternatives survey Today! – https://conta.cc/2NEfRHt
x February 19, 2021, Let’s Chat About Maps Tomorrow! – https://conta.cc/3bm6u6X Item No. 11A
x February 11, 2021, Let’s Chat About Maps Tonight. Ask us about the future of Thousand Oaks from home! – https://conta.cc/3jNr7go
x February 3, 2021, Did you miss us last night? Recording of Community Workshop Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update – https://conta.cc/3atoT1u x January 22, 2021, Let’s Talk Land Use in T.O. Community Workshop Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update – https://conta.cc/3qMeMeF
x January 12, 2021, Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update - GPAC Meeting and Community Workshop – https://conta.cc/3sj21cR
x November 12, 2020 and sent to non-openers on November 15, 2020, Let’s chat about parks and open space! – https://conta.cc/35q51ec
x October 15, 2020, Next Week: Arts & Culture and Thousand Oaks. Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update – Upcoming Opportunity to Participate! – https://conta.cc/3j4jiRe x September 22, 2020, This Week: Sustainability and Thousand Oaks ᖤ (corrected links!) Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update - Upcoming opportunity to participate! – https://conta.cc/2FTOyEN
x September 17, 2020, Next Week: Sustainability and Thousand Oaks ᖤ Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update - Upcoming opportunity to participate! – https://conta.cc/3mAIbau
x August 18, 2020 and sent to non-openers on August 20, 2020, Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update - August 20th GPAC Meeting Agenda is Available Now! – https://conta.cc/2Q8yzEw
x August 5, 2020 and sent to non-openers on August 9, 2020, Join us for the next General Plan Update meeting on Safety & Resilience! – https://conta.cc/3kiqWti x July 15, 2020 and sent to non-openers on July 18, 2020, Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update - Upcoming Meeting! – https://conta.cc/2Wo7hO5
x June 25, 2020 and sent to non-openers on June 29, 2020, Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update - News & Updates – https://conta.cc/3duZzaR x May 21, 2020 and sent to non-openers on May 25, 2020, Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update - Spring Newsletter – https://conta.cc/36ptyij x February 28, 2020, Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update – https://conta.cc/2veJUMN x January 15, 2020, Upcoming Community Forum and Opportunities to Get Involved – https://conta.cc/35STq4h
x December 6, 2019, GPAC to Discuss Housing – https://conta.cc/2COrnXD x March 2021 – https://conta.cc/3q2U5dv
x February 2021 – https://conta.cc/3cvsDlv
x January 2021 – https://conta.cc/3pX7y6T
x September 2020 – https://conta.cc/2YSB96C
x June 2020 – https://conta.cc/2yUbRv9
x May 2020 – https://conta.cc/3aZbDzI
Item No. 11A
x April 2020 – https://conta.cc/2Jt4jky
x March 2020 – https://conta.cc/2VxhGaO
x February 2020 – https://conta.cc/2OivCRn
x January 2020 – https://conta.cc/2S3BiRV
x December 2019 – https://conta.cc/2ru0o1c
x March 2021 – https://conta.cc/3dUKNxT
x February 2021 – https://conta.cc/39uS58N
x January 2021 – https://conta.cc/38feI0j
x December 2020 – https://conta.cc/3fXKAZM
x March 2020 – https://conta.cc/2I9OLBA
x February 2020 – https://conta.cc/2Um1pEX
x February 2021 E-Newsletter -
https://www.toaks.org/Home/Components/News/News/9335/3338?backlist=%2fdepartm ents%2fpublic-works%2fsustainability
x January 2021 E-Newsletter – Three articles; this is lead article:
https://www.toaks.org/Home/Components/News/News/9316/3338?backlist=%2fdepartm ents%2fpublic-works%2fsustainability
x August 2020 Blog -
https://www.toaks.org/Home/Components/News/News/9236/3338?fsiteid=1 x July 2020 Blog - https://www.toaks.org/Home/Components/News/News/8222/3338 Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #1 Agenda | August 28, 2019
x Initiate the General Plan Advisory Committee.
x Discuss the roles and responsibilities of the General Plan Advisory Committee. x Provide an overview of the General Plan Update.
x Brainstorm on the key issues and opportunities in the City of Thousand Oaks.

GPAC Members
x Present: Alicia Rincon, Chaise Rasheed, Dr. Chris Kimball, Darren Bovard, Dena Jenson, Dustin Woomer, Emily Dale, Fred Fukunaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Michael Nigh, Nicholas Reale, Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Tara Carruth, Dr. Victor Hayek, Wyatt McCrea x Absent: Amy Commans, Andy Fox, Rorie Skei
City Staff
x Andrew Powers, City Manager; Ingrid Hardy, Assistant City Manager; Tracy Noonan, City Attorney; Mark Towne, Community Development Director; Haider Alawami, Economic Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; Brad Bussell, Senior Engineer
Consultant Team
x Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Rami + Associates
Introduction and Welcome
Andrew Powers, City Manager, welcome the GPAC members. GPAC members introduced themselves and shared how long they have been part of the Thousand Oaks community and in what capacity.

GPAC Roles and Responsibilities
Matt Raimi provided a brief overview of the role and responsibilities of the Advisory Committee.

Ground rules for participation were also covered.

Item No. 11A
Overview of the General Plan
Matt Raimi provided a brief demographic overview of the City, a summary of what a General Plan is, key components of the Thousand Oaks General Plan Update, the project schedule and community engagement approach.

Group Discussion
The consultant team posed the following questions to the Committee. A summary of responses are as follows:

1. What are the strengths of the City and opportunities for the future? o Open space, nature and outdoor recreation
o Public/private schools
o CLU
o Community spirit – small town feel
o City is fiscally sound
o City leadership
o Trails, parks and playfields
o Active civic community
o Location – proximity to mountains and beaches
o Affordable housing
o Arts accessibility
o Preservation of local history
o Sense of pride
o Public resource network for community members
o Local sports programs
o Clean
o Opportunity to attract filming
o Opportunity to increase non-profit sector

2. What are the key issues and pressures facing the City now and in the future? o Mobility – traffic congestion, commuting, public transportation, bikeability o Changes in retail
o Homelessness
o Housing/Lack of affordability/Choices for all lifestyles o Environmental sustainability (water supply)
o Aging population
o Arts and culture support
o Inclusiveness of people of color and/or immigrants with civic engagement o Lack of entertainment options and gathering spaces
o Infrastructure for future development
o Attracting business (not target specific industry, need flexibility) Item No. 11A

3. What topics do you want to have more in-depth discussion on during GPAC meetings? o Housing/Understanding density
o Retail
o Transportation
o Development
o Popular new businesses
o Infrastructure and parking
o City’s changing demographics/Aging Population
o Livability
o Trends in technology like driverless cars
o Health and environmental justice

4. How can you help with community engagement? What ideas do you have for reaching out to the diversity of community members?
o Due to time constraints, members were asked to send ideas to the project email ([email protected]).

Public Comments
Members of the public were given a maximum of three minutes to share any thoughts or comments. Seven community members participated in public comment.
o Fire resiliency
o Noise, homelessness, safety of neighborhoods
o Fire safety, evacuation plans
o Need for Cultural Plan
o Need more housing type options
o Young adults are leaving the City
o Climate change/Resilience/Water Scarcity
o Need focus group for sustainability and vegetation management/wildfire Wrap-up and Next Steps

Adjourn at 8:00 pm
Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #2 | September 25, 2019
x Discuss planning principles relevant to the General Plan Update GPAC Members
x Present: Andy Fox, Chaise Rasheed, Dr. Chris Kimball, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Emily Dale, Fred Fukunaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Rorie Skei, Tara Carruth, Dr. Victor Hayek, Wyatt McCrea
x Absent: Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Dena Jenson, Laura Behjan, Michael Nigh *Note: attendance at this GPAC meeting was optional.

City Staff
x Ingrid Hardy, Assistant City Manager; Tracy Noonan, City Attorney; Mark Towne, Community Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Developer Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; Dusty Russell, Assistant Analyst
Consultant Team
x Matt Raimi, Raimi + Associates
Presentation
Community Development Director Mark Towne provided a presentation on the planning principles and the general plan update. The presentation included an overview of the existing general plan structure and elements, and information about zoning, specific plans, and other land use restrictions.

Item No. 11A
Question and Answer
Following the presentation, members of the committee and the public in attendance made comments and asked questions of Community Development staff and Matt Raimi (Raimi + Associates). The topics of the questions included housing, aging population, jobs and income, Measure E, infrastructure, transportation, pollution (light, air, etc.), technology trends and how they affect land use, and climate change.

Committee members requested that the GPAC have in-depth conversations on some topics including housing (diversity, affordability, and State requirements), and sustainability.

Next steps
Following Q&A, the team discussed next steps and upcoming community engagement.

Item No. 11A
General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting #3 Notes| 1
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #3 | November 14, 2019 | 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm
x Provide an overview of community engagement events to-date x Highlight key existing conditions
x Present community ideas voiced through the survey, workshop, and pop-up workshops x Brainstorm on guiding principles for the General Plan Update GPAC Members
x Present: Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Andy Fox, Chaise Rasheed, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Fred Fukunaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Michael Nigh, Nicholas Reale, Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Tara Carruth, Wyatt McCrea
x Absent: Dr. Chris Kimball, Emily Dale, Dena Jenson, Rorie Skei, Dr. Victor Hayek, City Staff
x Ingrid Hardy, Assistant City Manager; Tracy Noonan, City Attorney; Mark Towne, Community Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Developer Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner
Consultant Team
x Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
Presentation
Matt Raimi provided a project update including flow of recent and upcoming work, phase one community engagement activities and participation and existing conditions overview. The high-level existing conditions overview highlighted land use, demographics, open space, housing, economic development, natural hazards, mobility, and community health. He then presented the results from Item No. 11A
General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting #3 Notes| 2
community engagement completed to date. This included a summary of the engagement activities and a composite summary of the strengths, challenges or threats, and opportunities for Thousand Oaks 2045.

Small Group Discussion
After the presentation, GPAC members split into small groups and brainstormed on community values and key strategies for the General Plan Update that will form the basis of the Guiding Principles.

Groups worked for approximately 45-minutes then shared their conversation with the other members of the GPAC. GPAC members also individually wrote their ideas about community values and key strategies on worksheets and gave the worksheets to staff. The following are the ideas generated from the GPAC.

Community Values
x Community pride/spirit
x Inclusive & welcoming community
o Embrace ethnic, racial, social, economic diversity
x Safe community
x High quality of life
x Family-friendly
x Suburban feel – a little bit of everything
x Open Space
o Preserve undeveloped open space
o Protect hillside/mountain views
x Desire to be more walkable
o Less car-centric and less traffic congestion
x Accessible and diverse entertainment options
x Ease of getting around
x Housing
o Affordable and workforce housing for diverse populations and needs o Equitable housing cost to labor salaries
o Diversity of housing choices
o Accessible housing
x Economic resiliency
o Vibrant/thriving economy with jobs
x Sustainable and diverse population
x Quality education both public and private
x Affordable and accessible healthcare
x High quality public services (police, fire)
x History of Thousand Oaks
o Part of the greater Conejo Valley ecosystem
Item No. 11A
General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting #3 Notes| 3
x Environmental leadership
x Climate conscious
Key Strategies
x Improved public transportation
o Better public transit
o Transit Master Plan
x Greater housing diversity
o Offer more housing types like mixed use development and multifamily x More community gathering spaces
x Greater youth involvement
x Mixed use development (combat siloed areas)
x Preserve and protect open space and views
x Reuse/revitalize existing developed land
o Repurpose land downtown
o Create mixed use at shopping centers
o Convert commercial to housing
x Address homelessness and mental illness
x Consider developing 2 downtowns/hubs
o City Hall/CAP
o Thousand Oaks and Westlake Boulevard
o Walkable environment
o Offer entertainment
x Plan for and consider energy, water, trash
x Climate change awareness and preparedness
o Innovative ways to reduce carbon emissions
x Protect small town feel – close knit community
x Protect mobility and ease of getting around
x Attract more of the younger demographic
x Attract families by creating community gathering places and entertainment x Community integration with future development
x Continue to support families
x Protect against future wildfires
x Encourage neighborhood character/sense of community in new development x Enable and encourage non-car transportation
x Develop path out of homelessness and into housing
x City resilience against climate change and natural disaster

Item No. 11A
General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting #3 Notes| 4
Public Comments
Five members of the community formed a small group to create their list of values and guiding principles. The public’s composite summary is below.

Community values
x Community character
x Open space
x Concerned about changes to Civic Arts Plaza
x More homes needed
x Out of balance between youth culture and old school peace and quiet-need more youth culture x Future needs of water, quality and availability
Key strategies
x Look to the original 1970 Master Plan – affordable housing x Encourage conversion of commercial spaces to mixed use or housing x Two town centers – Westlake and Thousand Oaks Boulevards and Moorpark Road and Thousand Oaks Boulevard
x Underground electric utilities for safety
x Consider transportation changes like electric and self-driving cars Additional Public Comment:

One member of the public provided additional comment which included their desire for additional climate change measures to combat severe drought, stronger winds, wildfires, and oak tree preservation.

Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #4 | December 12, 2019 | 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm
x Review and refine Draft General Plan Guiding Principles x Present overview of housing existing conditions
x Discuss potential areas of change and stability in Thousand Oaks GPAC Members
x Present: Chaise Rasheed, Dustin Woomer, Fred Fukunaga, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Michael Nigh, Nicholas Reale, Paul Shrater, Dr.

Chris Kimball, Emily Dale, Rorie Skei
x Absent: Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Andy Fox, Darren Bovard, Jacqueline Emanuel, Dena Jenson, Tara Carruth, Patrick DuRoss, Dr. Victor Hayek, Wyatt McCrea City Staff
x Ingrid Hardy, Assistant City Manager; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Developer Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Advanced Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner Consultant Team
x Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
x Veronica Tam, Veronica Tam + Associates
Guiding Principles Overview
Matt Raimi provided an overview of the draft Guiding Principles to the GPAC. GPAC members reviewed the draft Guiding Principles and provided comments and suggestions. Overall, GPAC members felt the general direction was correct and reflected the discussion at the last GPAC meeting; however, members provided multiple comments and suggestions for improvements. As a next step in the process, City staff and the consultant team will revise and expand the Guiding Principles and provide them to the GPAC at a future meeting.

Item No. 11A
Housing Existing Conditions
Veronica Tam provided an overview of housing existing conditions in the City and housing policy. The presentation included the following general topics:
x Existing housing conditions including housing stock, income distribution, median home price, rental rate by type and size, affordability, and housing costs x Programs by the City of Thousand Oaks to promote more affordable housing x An overview of the Housing Element requirements, Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
x The benefits of the having a diverse housing stock
x A summary of new housing law and policy direction from the State of California including consequences of noncompliance with having an approved Housing Element Following Veronica’s presentation, Matt provided an overview of density and intensity and how they relate to residential and non-residential development.

After the presentation, the group paused for questions and a brief discussion on housing. A summary of the conversation and topics discussed is below:
x There was a recognition that the housing challenges in Thousand Oaks are similar to the County and the State.
x Expand Housing Assistance Programs in Thousand Oaks since they are currently limited. x Pursue moderately priced housing that is attainable for people in the workforce (ideally for people working in the City).
x Require developers to provide a mix of housing types within a project. x Low income units should be included in all new developments – inclusionary housing. x Thousand Oaks should meet state requirements for housing while maintaining the character and quality of life in the community.
x Pursue creative development concepts and consider building taller buildings in order to build more housing at different income levels.
x Build new, higher density housing in limited areas of the City, such as along commercial corridors and adjacent to the mall.
x Concern that taller buildings will impact the views in the city. x Reduce fees for approving Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). x Consider objective design standards that produce good developments but expedite the process of approving new housing.

Small Group Mapping Activity
After the presentation and initial discussion, GPAC members were divided into three small groups for the mapping activity. The purpose of the mapping activity was to identify “areas of stability” (where there will be little change in the next 25 years) and “potential areas of change” where new development could occur.

The base map identified areas already defined as potential areas of stability through engagement activities. These included single family residential uses, civic and institutional uses, and parks and Item No. 11A
open space. Approximately 92% of the land area in the city was identified as “areas of stability.” GPAC members generally agreed that the areas of stability were correct.

Next, GPAC members were asked to identify potential areas of change using stickers representing different types of uses, including multifamily housing, mixed use, office and shopping, and annotating the maps with pens. Groups worked for approximately 40 minutes then shared their ideas with the larger group. The maps from small group activity results can be found in the attached file.

The following are some generalized results from the mapping activity:
x The areas of stability area generally correct.
x New development should be infill and not greenfields (previously undeveloped areas). x New multifamily and mixed-use housing should not be in single family residential areas. x Many groups identified Thousand Oaks Boulevard, the mall, and larger shopping centers as areas for new multifamily and mixed-use development.
x New housing should be located near CLU and the biotech areas to provide additional housing choices for students and faculty in CLU and employees of biotech companies.

In addition, there were approximately 25 people from the public in attendance. The members of the public divided into three groups and also participated in the mapping activity. The public’s mapping activity results can be found in the attached file.

Public Comment:

At the close of the meeting was the official public comment period. Seven members of the public spoke.

Their comments are summarized below.
x Concern for drought in California
x Concern about Thousand Oaks Boulevard traffic as there is too much already x Maintain permanent parks, recreation and open space
x Control/limit future growth
x Address overcrowded single family housing
x Currently there is a housing imbalance and there is only a small amount of land to accommodate future needs
x Additional high-density housing could accommodate students and workers x Encourage development of accessory dwelling units
Closing:

At the close of the meeting, Matt Raimi identified the next steps in the process, including:
x A Community Forum on January 29, 2020
x Future GPAC meetings in February 6 and March 5
x A citywide survey to prioritize issues and strategies x Pop-up workshops on new development
Attachment: Mapping activity results
Note: Individual participate names have been covered
Item No. 11A

-*0+
ҿр
Item No. 11A

-*0+
ҿс
Item No. 11A

-*0+
ҿт
Item No. 11A
0
'$

-*0+
ҿр
Item No. 11A
0
'$

-*0+
ҿс
Item No. 11A
0
'$

-*0+
ҿт
Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update

GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY

COMMITTEE
Meeting #5 | February 6, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm

MEETING NOTES

OBJECTIVES
x Prioritize themes from community engagement
x Provide an overview of economic and market conditions in the City x Discuss the relationship between land use, fiscal resources and community services x Review areas of change and areas of stability map

ATTENDEES
GPAC Members
x Present: Dr. Victor Hayek, Paul Shrater, Laura Behjan, Emily Dale, Dustin Woomer, Tara Carruth, Dr.

Chris Kimball, Jacqueline Emanuel, Wyatt McCrea, Michael Nigh, Darren Bovard, Chaise Rasheed, Mic Farris, Dr. Karen Gorback, Alicia Rincon RN, Amy Commans, Nicholas Reale x Absent: Jennifer Lobenhofer, Rorie Skei, Dena Jenson, Ken Lamont, Fred Fukanaga, Andy Fox, Patrick DuRoss
City Staff
x Tracy Noonan, City Attorney; Haider Alawami, Economic Development Manager; Mark Towne, Community Development Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner Consultant Team
x Matt Raimi, Raimi + Associates and Amitabh Barthakur, HR&A Advisors

MEETING MINUTES
Presentation
Matt Raimi provided a project update including flow of recent and upcoming work, review of community engagement activities and participation, and upcoming schedule of GPAC meetings. Matt paused for Item No. 11A
feedback from recent community engagement events. Comments on the 2nd Community Forum are summarized below.
x Data presented at the Forum provided a different perspective x Highlighted the street network in Thousand Oaks which is not a grid system. The Downtown Core will help address issues, bring in more revenue
x The presentation had good visuals
x The presentation was easy to understand
Community Priorities Exercise
After the presentation, Matt provided a prioritization exercise on community values and issues. This was a preview of the prioritization exercise that will be included in an online survey. GPAC members and the public were asked to rank the top 4 community strengths and values and top 4 issues and challenges. Comments on this exercise are summarized below.
x Consensus that the Community Strengths and Values is a good list and representative of the community
x Question whether they should be responding to the City’s top community strengths and values and issues and challenges, or what they personally care about for future generations? x High quality of life and suburban character seem to overlap and are too similar on the Community Strengths and Values list
x Based on the discussion from the 2nd Community Forum, maintenance responsibilities for too much infrastructure could be added to the list of Issues and Challenges x Connected with fear of becoming the “Valley” Issue and Challenge item Individual results were tallied (non-weighted) with the top 4 community strengths and values as (1.) High Quality of Life, (2.) Protected Natural Areas, (3.) Parks, Public Facilities and Services, and (4.) Education. While the top 4 issues and challenges recorded as (1.) Housing Challenges, (2.) Lack of Economic and Demographic Diversity, (3.) Vacant and Underutilized Retail and (4.) Traffic Congestion. See the attached summary table with tallied results.

Economic and Market Overview
Amitabh Barthakur from HR&A Advisors provided an overview of the Economic and Market Existing Conditions Report, the relationship between land use and fiscal resources, and the market and fiscal health in Thousand Oaks. A question and answer session—including members of the public—followed the presentation which is summarized below.
x How are Thousand Oaks’ online sales taxes captured?
x What are the impacts (i.e. traffic) of adding more hotels in Thousand Oaks? x Would adding more hotels result in more tax revenues as a result of Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT)?
x What land uses capture more tax revenue?
x What are some of the unintended consequences of having a biotech ecosystem? For example, smaller companies who want to be located near larger more established businesses get priced out.

Item No. 11A
Amitabh responded that the broader ecosystem can be sustained when there are a range of rental rates in the area.
x Are there any long-term economic dangers in biotech?
x Will the biotech presence price people out of Thousand Oaks? What if biotech leaves Thousand Oaks or fails? It’s possible that biotech could leave or fail. x What if Amgen wants to leave and they’re the leading employer in the city? How are they attracting young professionals to want to work and live here?
x There is a big demand for health care, education, and public services in Thousand Oaks. x Cities like Simi Valley and Oxnard are attracting people to live there by adding new housing, entertainment, and experiential retail centers. We need to pay attention to what other cities are doing to make sure we don’t lose more jobs or miss out on tax revenue. x How does the city earn revenue through businesses? City staff responded that City earns revenue through property tax and business license fees.
x How can we incorporate natural elements like oak trees and open space that attract most people to this city in economic development?
x How does the City pay to maintain open space? City staff responded that there is no money coming in to help maintain the open space.
x If Amgen only provides the city property tax, and employees aren’t living here, isn’t it a wash? Yes, we need more housing.
x How do we address restaurant and retail cannibalization? It’s a challenge for businesses to sustain themselves in the current market with new competition.
x Are there other revenue types from other cities that could be good examples of how we can earn more money? Amitabh noted that property taxes are stable, however, not as much as sales tax. x We already have an economic diversity that a lot of other cities envy, how do we maintain and continue to expand? Amitabh responded that Thousand Oaks can maximize impact by attracting employees to live here and spend money here by offering a diversity of housing options, entertainment options, and gathering places.
x What are the impacts of a revitalized downtown or main street? x Hotels are low impact and high revenue for the City.
x The Downtown Core will help gain revenue and fill an existing gap in the market by adding restaurants, bars, and other gathering places for patrons of the Bank of America theatre to go before and after a concert or show.
x Have we asked targeted age groups what amenities are missing in Thousand Oaks? We should look at Sacramento and other thriving downtowns and cities.
x With online shopping so prevalent today, people are looking for experiences instead of traditional retail shopping malls. They want to visit walkable place that offer a variety of experiences. x How can the City diversify its fiscal base?
x What strategies should be used to ensure high quality public services for the next generation? Public Comments
Members of the public were invited to provide additional comment at the end of the meeting. Each person was limited to two minutes. Below is a summary of public comment.

Item No. 11A
x Over the next 25 years, is the City planning to earn revenue over culture stability? Or at the same time? City staff responded that the goal is to address both together, as the City wants to preserve what it has and fix what needs to be fixed.
x Thousand Oaks teachers can’t afford to live here, we need to offer affordable options like condos. x Thousand Oaks needs to plant more oak trees
x Measure E should manage growth in Thousand Oaks
x Protect oak trees
Closing:

At the close of the meeting, Matt Raimi identified upcoming community engagement activities including:
x Future GPAC meetings on March 5th, April (TBD), June 4th, and September 10th x A citywide survey to prioritize issues and strategies x Pop-up workshops on new development
x Community workshop #2 April 30th
Attachment: Community priorities exercise results
Item No. 11A

COMMUNITY PRIORITIES EXERCISE
Below is a summary table with tallied results –not weighted– from GPAC meeting #5.

GPAC PUBLIC TOTAL COMMUNITY STRENGTHS & VALUES
1 6 7 Arts and culture: A commitment to arts and culture, especially the Civic Arts Plaza
11 8 19 Education: High quality public and private schools and the presence of California Lutheran University (CLU)
9 8 17 Engaged community: A civically minded community and a responsive local government committed to serving the needs of residents and businesses 14 10 24 High quality of life: A stable community with small-town character, a high quality of life, and family-friendly activities
11 10 21 Parks, public facilities and services: A diversity of well-maintained parks, usable open spaces, great public facilities, and diverse social services 9 14 23 Protected natural areas: A commitment to protecting natural open spaces, views, and oak trees that enhance the character of Thousand Oaks 10 6 16 Safe and welcoming community: A tight-knit community that is safe and welcoming
2 6 8 Suburban character: A suburban community that is easy to get around with attractive single-family neighborhoods

GPAC PUBLIC TOTAL ISSUES & CHALLENGES
8 4 12 Few gathering places and entertainment options: A lack of entertainment options and social gathering places especially for teenagers and young professionals
6 8 14 Fear of becoming “the Valley”: Concern that development will change the character or identity of Thousand Oaks and that it will look like the San Fernando Valley
15 12 27 Housing challenges: High cost of housing and lack of different housing options that lead to homelessness, the inability for employees to live in the City and for young adults to afford living in Thousand Oaks 5 7 12 Lack of mobility options: Lack of transit connectivity within Thousand Oaks and to other parts of the region; lack of wide sidewalks, crosswalks, and a connected bike network
10 8 18 Lack of economic and demographic diversity: Concern that the City lacks a diverse residential population and a diversity of jobs and industries that could result in declining revenue sources leading to a reduction in public services.
5 4 9 Public safety: Safety concerns including crime, wildfires, and natural disasters
Item No. 11A

GPAC PUBLIC TOTAL ISSUES & CHALLENGES
7 9 16 Traffic congestion: Traffic congestion on major roadways during peak periods
8 9 17 Vacant and underutilized retail: Vacant and underutilized retail areas, particularly along Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Moorpark Road, and at the malls.

Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #6 | March 5, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm
x Review and refine areas of stability and change
x Review existing land use and urban form in Thousand Oaks x Provide an overview of growth and development trends and innovations in the State x Discuss potential development location, type, and character x Work in groups to prepare land use concepts
GPAC Members
x Present: Laura Behjan, Darren Bovard, Patrick DuRoss, Jacqueline Emanuel, Mic Farris, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Wyatt McCrea, Chaise Rasheed, Paul Shrater, Nicholas Reale, Rorie Skei, Dustin Woomer
x Absent: Tara Carruth, Amy Commans, Emily Dale, Andy Fox, Fred Fukanaga, Dr.

Victor Hayek, Dena Jenson, Dr. Chris Kimball, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Michael Nigh, Alicia Rincon RN
City Staff
x Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner
Consultant Team
x Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
Youth Leadership Update
GPAC Member Jaqueline Emanuel provided an overview of the Youth Leadership Summit held on February 20, 2020 with over 60 people in attendance, including the Youth Commission and city staff. The event served as a forum for Thousand Oaks youth to weigh Item No. 11A
in on current City matters, including the General Plan Update. Jaqueline reported feedback from the summit, which is summarized below.
x The group reported concern for urban sprawl, environmental issues, lack of gathering spaces, and high rate of student vaping in schools. x Most youth did not see themselves living in Thousand Oaks in adulthood. x Youth noted that Thousand Oaks is an expensive place to live with not many things to do for entertainment.
x Youth desires for the future included more community gathering places that build off existing areas like the Janss Marketplace and Thousand Oaks Boulevard, specifically noting a desire for a drive-in movie theater somewhere in the city. x Another highlight was the event’s keynote speaker Tim Hagel, retired Thousand Oaks Police Chief, who discussed Safe Passage, a program in Thousand Oaks that supports youth and drives to eliminate gang-related crime and recruitment.

Presentation & Discussion
Matt Raimi provided a project update and overview of existing land use and form and existing land use regulations for the City of Thousand Oaks.

After this overview, one member of the public asked if the existing General Plan land use map is sound, to which the team responded that the existing General Plan land use map will serve as the baseline for the General Plan Update.

Matt continued the presentation by highlighting some land use and design trends across the United States. These trends included complete neighborhoods, missing middle housing, downtowns, corridor mixed-use, multi-family housing, village centers, regional mall conversions, coworking spaces and business incubators, and office park conversions.

After this part of the presentation, the group paused for questions. A summary of the discussion is provided below.
x One GPAC member asked what are the geographic extents of a neighborhood? Matt responded that it is typically a 1/4-mile radius of an area, with daily needs within walking distance. One GPAC member mentioned the concept of a 20-minute neighborhood.
x One GPAC member asked how other cities like Thousand Oaks—that developed in a suburban pattern—are updating and retrofitting their communities? The group mentioned in that examples were provided in previous GPAC meetings. These presentations are available on the project website.
x One GPAC member asked about architectural innovation and ways to bring new architectural ideas to Thousand Oaks? Matt responded that the 1st and 2nd floor experience is very important, and that Thousand Oaks doesn’t want every building to be the same. However, the General Plan doesn’t get into that level of granular detail.

Item No. 11A
The next part of the presentation reviewed density and intensity, some community concerns about density, and benefits of density and mixed use. After the overview presentation, the group played a game to guess a building’s density based on the physical appearance. Each GPAC member and public participant was given a handout to record their guesses for each of the 11 buildings. In general, the group was surprised by the building density results and that the appearance is not always indicative of the density.

Group Activity: Create Land Use Concepts
After the presentation and discussion, participants were invited to create their own land use concepts. GPAC members split into two groups, and members of the public created a third. Each group was given a large-scale aerial map of Thousand Oaks, a zoomed in aerial of the 101-Freeway corridor, various place type stickers and pens to craft their own land use alternative. The groups worked for about 40 minutes while the consultant team and city staff visited the tables to answer any questions.

Group Activity Report Out/Discussion
One representative from each group summarized their land use alternative to the larger group. These summaries are described below.

GPAC Group #1 (used 101-corridor map)
x Focus on the mall areas; The Oaks and Janss Marketplace x Higher density and mixed-use along Thousand Oaks Boulevard x Industrial flex and supportive uses, like restaurants and retail, around the existing industrial zones and Amgen
x Missing middle housing in underutilized or vacant areas around existing single family residential
x Desire to convert underutilized commercial and areas with expansive asphalt into mixed use or high-density housing that is close to existing jobs and/or retail GPAC Group #2 (used both maps)
x Desire to create village centers by adding missing middle housing, and mixed-use in and around existing malls
x Village centers with retail and residential incorporated x Existing underutilized office space retrofitted into multi-family residential, opportunity for the Promenade at Westlake
x New missing middle housing for people that already work in Thousand Oaks, give them an opportunity to live here, specifically in Newbury Park x Incorporate mixed-use into retail centers that are struggling, especially by California Lutheran University (CLU) to make them more walkable neighborhoods Item No. 11A
Public Group #3 (used both maps)
x Underutilized areas as future opportunity sites for housing, entertainment district, and hotels
x More housing with a little more density
x More amenities on the eastern side of town, near Amgen. x Incorporate higher density residential and mixed use
x Village centers, mixed use, parks and open space, and main street retail around the Civic Arts Plaza
x More flex industrial space
x Preserve open space around Westlake High School
x Consider reasonable density for future development
x Consider existing traffic and future impacts from new development x Missing middle housing on the western side of town, account for middle-low— income level housing
x New public transportation opportunities
Other Comments:
x Both GPAC groups identified the malls as opportunity sites for the future o Encourage retrofitting and new uses to keep malls viable x Fight retail center blight
Public Comments
Seventeen members of the public signed-in and many participated in the meeting activities. One member of the public spoke during the public comment period, which is summarized below.
x One member of the public announced that there are fundraising for Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (LLS) where donations go towards research for all cancer types Wrap-up and Next Steps
Matt highlighted the upcoming community events and next steps and asked for any final thoughts from the group. One GPAC member had closing thoughts which are summarized below.
x Housing that is supportive for homeless and seniors should be considered x Suggest a pop-up workshop event at the Goebel Adult Center before bingo to solicit feedback from seniors
Adjourn at 8:10 pm
Attachment: GPAC #6 map activity results
Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #1 Mapping Activity Results
Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #2 Mapping Activity Results
Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #2 Mapping Activity Results Continued
Item No. 11A
Public Group #3 Mapping Activity Results
Item No. 11A
Public Group #3 Mapping Activity Results Continued
Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #7 | May 28, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm
This was a virtual meeting held via Zoom and livestreamed to Facebook. Members of the public could register in advance to join the Zoom meeting to watch and/or make public comments, or view on Facebook live and submit comments through the online comment forum, Poll Everywhere.
x Review mobility existing conditions, state legislative context, best practices, and opportunities for Thousand Oaks
GPAC Members
x Present: Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Chaise Rasheed, Dr. Chris Kimball, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Emily Dale, Fred Fukanaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Michael Nigh, Nicholas Reale, Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Rorie Skei, Tara Carruth, Dr.

Victor Hayek, and Wyatt McCrea
x Absent: Dena Jenson, Andy Fox
City Staff
x Tracy Noonan, City Attorney; Ingrid Hardy, Assistant City Manager; Mark Towne, Community Development Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Development Director; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; Nader Heydari, Deputy Public Works Director; Jim Mashiko, Senior Civil Engineer; Kathy Naoum, Transportation Planner; and Ashley Humes, Neighborhood & Social Services Liaison
Consultant Team
x Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
x Viggen Davidian and Deepak Kaushik, Iteris
x Rogelio Pardo, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Viewers
x 94 total users (includes all staff, consultants, GPAC members and attendees) Item No. 11A
x 29 unique viewers (people viewing the webinar on their computer; does not include GPAC or attendees who listened by phone)
x 14 concurrent views (maximum number of online views at the same time during the webinar, excluding panelists)
Presentation & Discussion
Matt Raimi kicked off the meeting with an overview of the evening’s agenda.

Then Melissa Stark highlighted important Zoom features for GPAC members and how members of the public could participate in the meeting through Facebook Live, the comments forum, and make public comment within the Zoom meeting.

After this overview, Matt Raimi introduced City staff, consultant team, and GPAC members in attendance. Then the group participated in an “ice-breaker” activity where each GPAC member highlighted one positive thing they’ve experiences during the past two months.

Following introductions and the ice-breaker activity, Matt Raimi provided an overview of the General Plan Update progress, noting impacts on the schedule due to COVID-19. Matt highlighted that several in-person engagement activities and GPAC meeting where cancelled with additional delays to work tasks.

Rogelio Pardo began the mobility presentation by highlighting the background research and analysis conducted to-date. He then reviewed a series of maps and charts illustrating the city’s existing roadway network, roadway congestion, available capacity, bicycle network and safety, pedestrian network and safety, transit ridership, mode share split, and concluded with a summary of issues and opportunities.

After this part of the presentation, the group paused for questions and clarifications. A summary of the discussion is listed below.
x A City staff member commented that Lynn Road is mapped as six lanes, but it is striped as four lanes with bicycle lanes.
x One GPAC member commented on mixed-use projects, specifically related to parking and traffic congestion, and overflow parking onto adjacent streets. x A City staff member acknowledged that bicycle collisions are often underreported.

Noting that it is important to look at the entire network to determine what challenges bicyclists face.

Deepak Kaushik continued the presentation with an overview of key legislation including SB 743 and the Complete Streets Act. After a brief pause with no questions, he continued with a review of best practices and opportunities. Next, he reviewed mobility, connected networks, street design, designing for roadway, pedestrian, and cyclist safety, signature spaces, and Item No. 11A
improving local transit and regional connectivity. City staff provided the following comments:
x Every few years, the City conducts a road surfacing project to evaluate roadway capacity and consider pedestrian amenities. When feasible, this includes adding or widening bike lanes.

Members of the public submitted questions and comments on the presentation through Poll Everywhere throughout the meeting. These questions and responses are listed below. x What considerations are being made to climate change mitigation within the transportation element of the General Plan Update? The team noted that climate change and sustainability would be integrated throughout the document as well as through the Environmental Impact Report.
x I would like to see the Newbury Park bus go directly to the transit center instead of needing to transfer at the Oaks Mall. The team responded that this is a specific transit route and service issue that needs to be addressed as part of bus service planning, but if it may be relevant in the larger General Plan Mobility Element context, it may be addressed
x Do new developments have to keep in mind the traffic during evacuation? For instance, the Kmart proposal will increase density so much that evacuations for that community and surrounding communities will be dangerous. The team noted that this is not discussed in the General Plan Update but would be part of an individual project review prior to approval. The team also noted countywide efforts underway for evacuation planning
x Do curb extensions get in the way of bikes? It seems that they are better for the pedestrian, but not the bikes. The team noted that designs in some communities are as wide as the parking lane, which would leave the bicycle lane unobstructed. x Biking/walking mobility within Thousand Oaks could be improved by reducing vehicle speeds on roadways through residential areas where people currently avoid using adjacent walking paths. For instance, on Westlake Boulevard between the 101 freeway and Avenida de Los Arboles, where the 50-mph speed limit is dangerous and off-putting.

Discussion Questions:

The team posed a series of discussion questions to engage GPAC members in the materials covered: What do you like about the City’s current mobility system? What works well and what are issues the city is facing? What needs to be fixed? What do you want to see the General Plan accomplish for mobility? What mobility improvements should be prioritized? And What locations should be prioritized for mobility improvements? Below is a summary of GPAC questions and discussion.

Item No. 11A
x One GPAC member asked if traffic would increase if more bicycle lanes are added? Also, asking what the process is for adding carpool lanes and diamond lanes on a freeway? The team responded that congestion on routes could be an impact, but that the team would conduct a comprehensive analysis to understand overall network capacity, alternative routes for vehicles and bicycles alike, and design options to minimize impacts. The team also responded that the process for diamond lanes needs to be spearheaded by Caltrans, which holds jurisdiction over the freeway.

VCTC and Caltrans are already leading an effort to plan for HOV (carpool) lanes on US-101 from SR-23 in Thousand Oaks to SR-33 in Ventura. The team also mentioned that this process is in currently in the environmental analysis and preliminary design stage, but there is currently no specific timeframe for implementation pending availability of funding. There are currently no plans for HOV lanes on SR-23.
x One GPAC member referenced other cities that reduced city street lanes only to add them back later due to increases in traffic congestion. The project team responded that bike lane planning must be done with a proper complete streets context to minimize negative impacts if a lane is taken away.
x One GPAC member commented that people like gateway roads, such as Wendy Drive and Borchard Road. Mentioning that those streets can be beautified without losing functionality. The Project team acknowledged comment and balance between multi-modal needs and beautification features such as landscaping x One GPAC member commented that they were glad to see the new flashing crosswalks within Thousand Oaks, noting that they are safer for pedestrians. They continued to mention that additional crosswalks would be helpful in other areas of Thousand Oaks, such as at Thousand Oaks High School and Reino Road to Newbury Park High School.
x One GPAC member commended the City for fixing vehicular slow-downs between Duesenberg Drive to Westlake Boulevard, on Thousand Oaks Boulevard with the flashing yellow turn lanes; and, for the ensuring the safety of citizens going across Thousand Oaks Boulevard with the planned crosswalks next to 24 Hour Fitness. x One GPAC member stated that Thousand Oaks is a heavy car city because it was designed for automobiles. Mentioning the city’s local transit issue is related to cost, with an additional need for regional transit routes. This GPAC member also mentioned that their residential street is frequently used as an auxiliary bypass route where drivers speed, despite a school and many senior residents. The team noted that design features can help limit speed on auxiliary streets and cut through traffic as well to enhance safety.
x One GPAC member commented that connectivity and safety is important, noting that they don’t see much bicycle parking, and asked if there be more bicycle routes Item No. 11A
for connectivity and experienced bicyclists? A City staff member responded that the City encourages the installation of bicycle racks and requires their installation for all new projects. The City also has a Bike Rack program that provide racks to business owners. Racks are required to be install for all new projects. x One GPAC member referenced the “Future of Transportation” event held last year in Oxnard, that suggested our communities are at or near peak car usage. Noting that we should start to plan for a decrease in the number of vehicles on the road.

Regarding bike lanes, they commented that many streets are deliberately or unintentionally hostile for bicyclists, including Borchard Road and portions of Reino Road, where there are long stretches of brick wall. They suggested that the City make more accessible routes, or identify alternative routes, so cyclists do not have to use unsafe streets. Also noting that freeway crossings currently divide the city in two for cyclists.
x One GPAC member strongly endorsed making the city safer for pedestrians and cyclists. They questioned the feasibility and effectiveness of using painted buffers on existing bike lanes. They also questioned whether adding park-n-ride transit routes have ever been considered, such as, to the Civic Arts Plaza, Oaks Mall, Janss Marketplace, or the DMV. City staff responded that the current demand is not high enough to support such a specific route within Thousand Oaks Transit. Park-n-ride efforts exist with regional agencies.
x One GPAC member asked if the city would consider narrowing some streets for safety purposes, where streets appear wide for the posted speed limit or where kids need to cross the street, such as Kimber Drive. The project team noted this is a design consideration that can be incorporated into design recommendations.

Public Comments
Six members of the public registered to speak during public comment within the zoom meeting. Below are summaries of their public comments.
x One member of the public commented that they logged on because they were curious, but felt it was a good presentation and had no further comments. x One member of the public encouraged that we not lose the character of the community and the vision set forth in the original General Plan. Less improvements are needed.
x One member of the public referenced Chapter 5 of the original General Plan Conservation Element and questioned why the most recent Conservation Element does not include references to the Cultural Heritage Board, nor community cultural resources, such as the previous City Hall and Timber School. x One member of the public stated that our decisions will impact many lives. We need to preserve our small-town character.

Item No. 11A
x One member of the public stated they want no more high-density projects, such as the Lupe’s project. Thousand Oaks has the highest temperature increase in California. How does density address climate change?
x One member of the public mentioned the Amgen Cycling Club’s letter to the GPAC, encouraging support of cyclists and continuing to make Thousand Oaks a cycling destination within Southern California.

Two public comments were submitted through Poll Everywhere (in addition to those listed above).
x Promoting electric bikes can help solve topography issues and the more challenging problem, looking into how to decouple cyclists and pedestrians from cars trying o enter/exit the freeways without angering drivers.
x The Amgen Cycling club submitted a letter to the GPAC, but I would like to reiterate a few points regarding the main issues mentioned in the presentation, topography and freeway crossing challenges.

Wrap-up and Next Steps
Matt closed the meeting by reinforcing the many uncertainties still at play due to COVID-19 and mentioned that the team will revise the GPAC and project schedule in the coming weeks to reflect the new workflow.

Adjourn at 8:30 pm
Attached: Amgen Cycling Club letter to the GPAC
Note: this was a virtual meeting, therefore no sign-in sheets for the GPAC or public were collected Item No. 11A
City of Thousand Oaks May 28, 2020
General Plan 2045
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Dear General Plan Advisory Committee:

The Amgen Cycling Club has been around the Thousand Oaks community for over 15 years with 400 members working to increase biking enjoyability, safety, and accessibility for road, mountain, and commuting cyclists. Seeing that road biking and commuting by bicycle encompass transportation, we have ideas of how to form the 2045 General Plan which would improve enjoyability, safety, and accessibility for the entire community.

First, if biking is more convenient than driving, many people will choose to bike; if biking is as safe as driving, many people will choose to bike; if biking is about as easy as driving, many people will choose to bike.

Next, listed are a few ideas that would increase biking enjoyability, safety, and accessibility:
x Create directional, protected bike lanes with barriers from cars and pedestrians x Create wide bike lanes that allow cyclists to bike side-by-side (similar to the two front seats in a car)
x Create safe freeway crossings where bikes and cars do not compete for space x Identify crosstown routes with signage for tourists
x Encourage electric bikes to increase ridership and usefulness (e.g., small grocery trips) x Support cycling in the community by assuring businesses and public spaces have bike friendly amenities like racks and repair stands
Last, we believe that a city with exceptional biking resources creates less traffic, increases health, is better for the environment, and creates a better community than one requiring automobiles for even the smallest errand. Our goal is to make Thousand Oaks, which already has a great reputation for cycling, world-renowned for its amazing bike culture that takes advantage of its perfect weather and draws on its amazing landscape to support better living for all.

Sincerely,
Phil D. Clark, President
Tony Reed
Amgen Cycling Club
Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #8 | July 23, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm
This meeting was held via Zoom and livestreamed to YouTube. Members of the public could register in advance to join the Zoom meeting to watch and/or make public comments, or view on YouTube and submit comments through the online comment forum, Poll Everywhere. x Provide a background on health, equity and environmental justice and their relationship to the General Plan
x Present existing conditions information on health status, social determinants of health, environmental pollution, and characteristics of the built environment that impact health.
x Discuss how recent events – COVID 19 and the killings of unarmed minorities – relate to the General Plan
x Brainstorm on goals and policies that can be include in the General Plan relating to the above topics
GPAC Members
x Present: Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Chaise Rasheed, Dr. Chris Kimball, Dustin Woomer, Emily Dale, Fred Fukanaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Paul Shrater, Rorie Skei, Tara Carruth, Dr.

Victor Hayek, and Wyatt McCrea
x Absent: Andy Fox, Darren Bovard, Dena Jenson, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Laura Behjan, Michael Nigh, Patrick DuRoss
City Staff
x Ingrid Hardy, Assistant City Manager; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; James Fryhoff, Chief of Police Consultant Team
x Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
Item No. 11A
Guest Speaker
x Dr. Gregory Freeland, California Lutheran University
Presentation & Discussion
Matt Raimi kicked off the meeting with an overview of the evening’s agenda. Then Melissa Stark highlighted important Zoom features for GPAC members and how members of the public could participate in the meeting through Facebook or YouTube, the comments forum, and make public comment within the Zoom meeting.

After this overview, Matt Raimi introduced the guest speaker, Dr. Gregory Freeland, professor of Political Science, Director of the Global Studies Program, and faculty advisor to Model United Nations at California Lutheran University located in Thousand Oaks. Dr.

Freeland defined Environmental Justice and provided background on the history of environmental justice, racism, disadvantaged communities, and equity. He stated that land use planning and zoning should be race-neutral to avoid disproportionate effects on communities of color.

Following Dr. Freeland’s address, Matt Raimi began the evening’s presentation by acknowledging the ongoing health and safety issues related to policing and protesting and how they correlate to equity and public health. Matt introduced equity, types of racism, social determinants of health, and components of healthy and equitable communities. Then, Matt followed with an overview of existing conditions in Thousand Oaks which included health outcomes, environmental justice and disadvantaged communities, and health and the built environment.

During the presentation, two questions were asked. Those questions and responses are listed below.
x Is gentrification a concern for Thousand Oaks? The General Plan Team responded that Thousand Oaks does not have the gentrification disparities that the greater Los Angeles area has and does not have the desire to grow that would displace current residents.
x What types of industries are in Thousand Oaks that would create environmental issues? The General Plan team responded that various manufacturing, auto related uses, transportation, and even dry-cleaning businesses can contribute to pollution.

Members were invited to submitted questions and comments on the presentation through Poll Everywhere throughout the meeting. One comment was received during the presentation, which is listed below.
x From the information presented, it seems like the traffic and air quality are the main issues that affect our city the most.

Item No. 11A
Following the presentation, the General Plan Team posed a series of questions to spark discussion. Those questions and GPAC member responses are listed below. x What are the key issues and topics—related to health and equity—the General Plan should address?
o High housing and housing related costs.
o Homelessness, which disproportionately affects people of color. o Transportation as a means of accessing important social services. o Access to parks and open space that are not near the freeways. o Access to quality healthcare.
o Improved infrastructure and disadvantaged communities, especially older neighborhoods in need of repair and investment.
x What is your vision for a more equitable community?
o More accessible housing for different income levels to support the people that work in our community, which could make Thousand Oaks more diverse. o More apartments that are safe, clean, and healthy to rent. o More housing that is geared towards young professionals. o Accessible services for people experiencing homelessness, including transportation to existing Ventura County services, and a higher level of local year-round services.
x What are the health issues you are seeing in your work that relate to the built environment? o Diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol.
o Lack of physical activity due to limited access.
o Access to affordable healthy foods is critical, especially for people with chronic health issues like diabetes.
x Thousand Oaks has become a highly desirable place to live, but as it has evolved it has closed the door for certain populations to live here. There is an opportunity to create a wider diversity of residents in Thousand Oaks, is that something we want to intentionally attract? If so, how?
o Thousand Oaks should highlight the welcoming environment and fair community.
o Address the bad reputation it has for not accepting people of color, there are misconceptions about people who live in Thousand Oaks, the city is now 31% non-White.
o Feel that Thousand Oaks is not a very racist place.
o Diversification of housing is needed, especially apartments and a variety of housing types to support the community.
o Address housing but preserve the good qualities of Thousand Oaks like natural beauty and ridgelines.

Item No. 11A
o Until recently, housing policy favored older generations at the expense of young people.
o There is a need to address the perception that law enforcement is overly aggressive and hostile to younger people and people of color in Thousand Oaks.
o Promote hiring minorities and paying higher wages to help diversify the community in Thousand Oaks.
x When you think about a healthy community, what do you think about? o Safe and healthy housing.
o Accessible and connected transportation system.
o Access to healthy foods.
o Access to important elements of living like information, broadband internet/Wi-Fi, education, retail, open space, parks, and trails. x What are things we should think about moving forward to improve health and equity? o Open space in almost every neighborhood and accessible sidewalks. o Well-lit streets that make it possible to walk at night. o Clean air and bike lanes to encourage biking.
o More apartment complexes to reduce the number of people commuting. o Buy electric when possible and limit fossil fuels.
o Improve accessibility, ADA standards should be a minimum threshold. x What is your vision for the future?
o Working together as a community.
o A network of services that are supported by the city. o Improved access to open space and bus transportation for people of all ages. o Transportation to critical public services.
o A community that is wired with internet access throughout the city. x Other comments and thoughts
o Access to healthy foods should also consider car ownership, as some people that live farther away from grocery stores own automobiles and are able to drive to access healthy foods.
o There is not just a single barrier to accessing public services, there are cumulative effects of other factors. Appreciative of the work done to find these areas with multiple factors affecting health.
o The income by race graph in the presentation did not reflect one GPAC member’s experiences and knowledge within the community. o Value and appreciate the health and equity conversations.

Item No. 11A
Public Comments
Members of the public registered in advance to speak during public comment within the zoom meeting. Below are summaries of the two public comments shared via Zoom. No public comments were submitted through Poll Everywhere.
x Ventura County’s temperature has increased 4 degrees in recent decades. This causes an increased risk for wildfire and extreme heat. There is a need for policies to mitigate this temperate rise such as:
o Ambitious native tree and planting strategy
o Green space enhancement
o Discourage use of plastics in community
o Require electrification of new housing
o Prohibit natural gas hookups
o Climate expertise in our General Plan, on the GPAC and in the plan itself The General Plan Team responded to this comment noting that sustainability, climate, and resilience will be the topic of an upcoming GPAC meeting. The General Plan team has extensive climate and resilience expertise and it is an important component of the General Plan.
x There is a lack of multifamily housing in Thousand Oaks that is affordable, what is being built today is not affordable for most people. There is a desire to see thoughtfully designed housing options that address the needs of the community.

Adjourn at 8:05 pm
Note: this was a virtual meeting, therefore no sign-in sheets for the GPAC or public were collected Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #9 | August 20, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm
This meeting was held via Zoom and posted to YouTube. Members of the public could register in advance to join the Zoom meeting to watch and/or make public comments, or view on YouTube and submit comments through the online comment forum, Poll Everywhere. x Provide a background on safety, natural hazards, and resilience and their relationship to the General Plan
x Present existing conditions information on earthquakes and seismic events, flooding, wildfires, extreme heat, community safety, contagious disease, policing, and public safety.
x Brainstorm on goals and policies that can be include in the General Plan relating to the above topics
GPAC Members
x Present: Chaise Rasheed, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Fred Fukanaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Ken Lamont, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Rorie Skei, and Dr. Victor Hayek
x Absent: Andy Fox, Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Dr. Chris Kimball, Dena Jenson, Emily Dale, Dr. Karen Gorback, Michael Nigh, Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Tara Carruth, Wyatt McCrea
City Staff
x Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; Helen Cox, Sustainability Division Manager; John Brooks, Senior Analyst; Grahame Watts, Disaster Services Coordinator
Consultant Team
x Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
x Joe Power and Andrew Hatt, Rincon Consultants
Item No. 11A
Presentation & Discussion
Matt Raimi kicked off the meeting with an overview of the evening’s agenda, followed by a review of key Zoom features and public participation opportunities shared by Melissa Stark.

Joe Power and Andrew Hatt of Rincon Consultants led the evening’s presentation which included an overview of the California planning regulatory context, Thousand Oaks’ climate action planning, and three areas of existing conditions background: safety, resiliency, and emergency response planning. Joe and Andrew highlighted existing City of Thousand Oaks policies and programs related to safety, resilience, and emergency response, and summarized recommendations for future programs and policies.

Throughout the presentation, the team paused to administer Zoom polls to engage the GPAC and spur conversation. Members of the public could participate in the polls through an online forum called, Poll Everywhere. These poll questions, responses, and related comments are listed below. Note: Not all GPAC members responded to each poll questions.

Poll 1. How prepared do you feel for future wildfires, compared to before the Hill/Woolsey Fire? Do you feel the City is prepared?
GPAC Comments
x The City is prepared for future wildfire events with the mobilized emergency preparedness operations center but need to continue the public information program to help homeowners prepare and protect their properties. x The location—being surrounded by open space—makes it impossible to prevent wildfires in Thousand Oaks. The City and building codes have done a great job protecting the area.
x Some Thousand Oaks neighborhoods have low car ownership and high populations of seniors and/or disabled people, which made evacuations challenging. During the 10%
35%
15%
30%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Very prepared
Prepared
Neutral
Not very prepared
Not prepared at all
GPAC Responses
25%
25%
25%
25%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Very prepared
Prepared
Neutral
Not very prepared
Not prepared at all
Public Responses
Item No. 11A
latest fire, evacuation centers filled up very quickly and it was challenging disseminating information for where to take large animals. x The community and City responses to past wildfires were well-run; therefore I feel well prepared for the next wildfire.
x Based on the Woolsey fire, I feel less than prepared. Concerns from the Woolsey fire include, evacuation centers located very close to mandatory evacuation zones and freeways packed with everyone being told to leave at the same time. In the future, can we mitigate fire with strategic breaks or grazing?
o The General Plan Team responded that the City is not able to touch protected open spaces including removing or modifying brush.

Poll 2. How important is it for the General Plan Update to extensively address infectious diseases through planning and/or programsin light of the COVID-19 pandemic? GPAC Comments
x Planning for infectious disease is important, but not extensively. The location and details are the crux of the issue.
x Infectious disease is an issue bigger than Thousand Oaks, not sure what we can do differently than the County.
38%
29%
29%
0%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Very
important
Important
Neutral
Not very
important
Not important
at all
GPAC Responses
50%
25%
25%
0%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Very
important
Important
Neutral
Not very
important
Not important
at all
Public Responses
Item No. 11A
Poll 3. Which natural disaster or event are you most concerned about in the City of Thousand Oaks? GPAC Comments
x Consider what is the immediate threat? Climate change is more long term, but wildfire threat is here today.
x Wildfires are most relevant in Thousand Oaks, and we need to consider what we have control over. We need to plan for the biggest issues that we can influence in the future.
x Extreme temperatures and heat with the aging community in Thousand Oaks is an issue. In the summer, some seniors avoid using their air conditioning due to the high utility costs. We need to tie the General Plan to housing and sustainable energy. x In terms of safety and resilience, Thousand Oaks has a good handle on things, the biggest issue is related to wildfires.
x Extreme heat is a big issue, fires are dramatic events that get a lot of attention, but people die due to extreme heat. We cannot prevent the extreme heat events, but the City can mitigate those events.

Note: One additional poll was schedule but due to time restrictions, the group skipped the fourth poll and discussion.

Discussion Question & Answer
Following the presentation and polls, the General Plan Team posed a series of questions to further the group discussion. Those questions and GPAC member responses are listed below. x What are some of the critical safety issues in Thousand Oaks and how can the General Plan begin to address these issues?
o Earthquakes should be expected and planned for in Thousand Oaks. o Loss of power and emergency management contingency plans should be in place.
38%
4%
58%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Increased temperatures +
extreme heat
Precipitation, flooding +
drought
Wildfires + air quality
GPAC Responses
75%
0%
58%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Increased temperatures
+ extreme heat
Precipitation, flooding +
drought
Wildfires + air quality
Public Responses
Item No. 11A
o Terrorism is a potential future threat.
o Plan for freeway bridge collapse during an earthquake or evacuation and have alternate routes.
o Plan for multiple disasters occurring at once in the future. o Evacuation routes and timing of evacuations is critical. x Regarding climate change and resilience, what programs and policies should we consider for the future? Is there anything we can do now to prepare? o Retrofitting of homes including water collection, house hardening, and educations to help individuals protect themselves.
x The General Plan Team asked City Staff to answer the following question: What safety and resilience issues should be included in the General Plan to help the City? o Individual preparedness is a top priority for successful emergency management.
o Water, energy, and food supplies are not under the City’s control. How does the city become more resilient and avoid these essential supplies being cut off due to a disaster?
o Should the city consider ways to be more energy resilience with a local supply? o Look into alternative water options and reclamation.
o Broader solar citywide to be more self-sufficient in the event of a disaster.

Other questions related to the presentation are listed below. x Are the number of hazardous materials sites in Thousand Oaks decreasing year after year?
o The General Plan Team responded that they do not have a comparison of previous year sites, but can look into those details, noting that the location of hazardous cleanup sites should be taken into consideration when planning for future housing.

One comment related to the presentation was submitted through Poll Everywhere, which is listed below.
x “On how prepared is the City for wildfires – I think some of the evacuations were parking lots rather than escape routes.”
Members of the public registered in advance to speak during public comment within the zoom meeting. Below are summaries of the three public comments shared via Zoom. One public comment was submitted through Poll Everywhere.
x Ventura County’s temperature has increased 4 degrees in recent decades. This causes an increased risk for wildfire, extreme heat, and heat related hospital Item No. 11A
emissions. The Woolsey fire highlighted the need to anticipate multiple disaster events at the same time. How can I provide input to the City? o The General Plan Team noted that they would follow-up for an additional conversation related to safety and resilience.
x The COVD-19 pandemic has made it hard for the community to be involved and engaged in the General Plan. Some folks can’t get online for a Zoom meeting, we need to try to get them involved somehow. Is the General Plan the place to have evacuation plans for new buildings?
o The General Plan Team responded that the document references evacuation routes at a high level, but California Building and Safety Code includes more detailed evacuation guidelines and information on a smaller scale. The City also has emergency operations plans.
x Glad climate change is being covered as part of the General Plan Update, as adequate planning is essential for the community to do its part. Would like to see a climate advisory committee in the future.
x Submitted Via Poll Everywhere: “Reduce development and stop encroaching further into areas that are susceptible to wildfires. Promote electrification of all new buildings and retrofitting of existing buildings to reduce greenhouse gases.”

Matt Raimi closed the meeting and assigned homework for GPAC members to prepare for the next meeting by thinking about what sustainability means and define what a sustainable Thousand Oaks could look like in the future.

Adjourn at 8:05 pm
Note: this was a virtual meeting, therefore no sign-in sheets for the GPAC or public were collected Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #10 | September 24, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm
This meeting was held via Zoom and livestreamed to YouTube. Members of the public could register in advance to join the Zoom meeting and/or make public comments, or view on YouTube and submit comments through an online comment forum. x Provide a background on sustainability topics and their relevance to the General Plan x Present existing conditions information on the evolution of urban sustainability plans, types of topics covered, best practices from other communities, and connections to regional and State policy.
x Come to a common understanding of the definition of sustainability for Thousand Oaks x Brainstorm on goals and policies that can be include in the General Plan relating to the above topics
GPAC Members
x Present: Andy Fox, Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Chaise Rasheed, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Emily Dale, Fred Fukanaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Patrick DuRoss, Rorie Skei, Dr. Victor Hayek, and Wyatt McCrea x Absent: Dr. Chris Kimball, Dena Jenson, Michael Nigh, Paul Shrater, and Tara Carruth
City Staff
x Ingrid Hardy, Assistant City Manager; Mark Towne, Community Development Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; Helen Cox, Sustainability Division Manager; John Brooks, Senior Analyst Consultant Team
x Matt Raimi, Walker Wells, Melissa Stark, and Sami Taylor, Raimi + Associates Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 2
Matt Raimi welcomed GPAC members and the public with an overview of the evening’s agenda, followed by a review of key Zoom features and public participation opportunities shared by Melissa Stark.

Walker Wells and Helen Cox led the evening’s presentation which included an overview of environmental sustainability, climate action planning in California, and local sustainability policy, as well as current sustainability efforts in Thousand Oaks. The City’s 2018 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) inventory and recent community climate action planning survey results were shared for recent context and background. Matt then provided an overview of the connection between land use to transportation and GHG emissions.

Throughout the presentation, the team paused to pose and answer questions, administer Zoom polls, and to engage in conversation. Members of the public who joined the Zoom meeting could participate in the Zoom polls, while members of the public watching on YouTube could participate through an online forum. These questions, responses, and related comments are listed below. (Note: Not all GPAC members responded to each poll question.) Question: What does sustainability mean to you?
GPAC and public feedback:
x Sustainability means conservation and preservation of natural resources for future generations.
x Our ability to be self-sufficient for essentials like water and utilities including water reclamation.
x The World Health Organization’s definition of a livable community which is a safe, vibrant, growing place for people to live at all stages in their life, thinking about the future.
x Sustainability means the environment and how we protect our resources for future generations, considering climate change, drought, fires, pandemic, and how we handle them as a community.
x Sustainability means working with our environment to maintain quality of life for ourselves and those after us.
x Being sustainable means living within our means in terms of keeping our natural resources balanced.
x Consider the economic component along with the environmental impact.

Sustainability should also include “society” to ensure that all elements that make us functional are here in the future.

Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 3
Poll 1. How did you hear about this meeting?
Poll 2. How would you describe your knowledge about sustainability? Poll 3. What environmental sustainability topics are most important in Thousand Oaks?

0%
6%
48%
35%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Never heard of it
Don't know much about
it
Somewhat informed
Very informed
Expert in the field
Zoom Responses*
0%
0%
20%
50%
30%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Never heard of it
Don't know much…
Somewhat informed
Very informed
Expert in the field
Public Online Forum
Responses
0%
0%
55%
10%
0%
29%
3%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Acorn Ad
CLU
TO2045 email
GoGreen email
I'm a GPAC member
Other
Friend or Neighbor
City website
Zoom Responses*
0%
0%
64%
9%
0%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Acorn Ad
CLU
TO2045 email
GoGreen email
I'm a GPAC member
Other
Public Online Forum
Responses
3 5
4 10
15 6
5 11
10 3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Reducing building energy use
Water conservation
Waste reduction & recycling
Reducing GHG emissions
Protecting natural areas & open space
Protecting & expanding urban forest
Reducing stormwater runoff
Building compact development with a mix of uses
Expanding transit, bicycle & pedestrian infrastructure
Creating "green" jobs
Zoom Responses* (Select Multiple)
Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 4
*Zoom Responses include GPAC members and some members of the public who joined the virtual meeting.

Comments on the presentation:

GPAC member comments:
x California has a lot of environmental regulations. Can the City go beyond what is required by law in a City’s General Plan?
o The General Plan Team responded that California allows additional regulation beyond what is required by law. Cities can and do adopting more strict water standards, energy usage, and GHG targets, among others that are more stringent than the State’s. The City of San Luis Obispo is an example of a community that has implemented additional regulations in those areas. In Thousand Oaks we have the potential to establish policies that are stricter than the State’s baseline based on the community’s goals.
x The City should consider providing signs at parks reminding people to pick-up after themselves to maintain the quality of life in Thousand Oaks. x In the GHG inventory, trucks are separated out by light, medium, and heavy duty.

What an example of a light duty truck?
o The General Plan Team clarified that a light-duty truck refers to a pickup truck. x The City’s goal is 40% reduction by 2030, how much progress has been made? o The General Plan Team shared that Thousand Oaks has made a 25% reduction relative to 2010 levels. The City needs to extrapolate the reduction data and still has process to make in terms of reducing emissions.
x Transportation is a huge factor in Thousand Oaks. What is influencing VMT here, individuals or logistics transportation? How can the city reduce VMT? o The General Plan Team responded that most trips are local trips usually less than 5 miles. In Thousand Oaks, how can the city encourage people to use alternative transportation for short trips around town?
10%
17%
17%
24%
17%
3%
0%
3%
7%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Reducing building energy use
Water conservation
Waste reduction & recycling
Reducing GHG emissions
Protecting natural areas & open space
Protecting & expanding urban forest
Reducing stormwater runoff
Building compact development with a mix of uses
Expanding transit, bicycle & pedestrian infrastructure
Creating "green" jobs
Public Online Forum Responses (Select One)
Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 5
x Based on the City’s auto-oriented layout, how do we achieve reductions in GHG emissions from transportation. No one is walking 2 miles to go to the grocery store.

The city was laid out and oriented towards car use. What makes sense for Thousand Oaks? How do we pay for these things?
x Our current bus system does not run often enough to make it useful. Can we size the buses to be smaller and more efficient?
Public comments submitted through the online forum:
x “What is being done to help low wage workers afford housing in Thousand Oaks? Commuting from other cities is unsustainable due to increased GHG emissions. We need a serious plan to address this issue.”
x “Don’t eliminate natural gas from new homes and commercial.” x “SoCalGas is eager to share and enhance our local energy efficiency programs in the City, which reduced over 265,000 tons of CO2 emissions in 2019, as well as our developments with zero-and near-zero emission technologies.” x SoCalGas wants to congratulate the City of continually making environmentally sustainability a top priority, especially reflected in the General Plan Update. We look forward to collaborating with the city during this process.” x “SoCalGas is excited to explore opportunities to pursue potential strategies for promoting and using hydrogen fuel for both building and transportation technologies in pursuit of the City’s decarbonization goals.” x “I highly encourage the city to pursue use of fuel cell buses. They don’t have range of hill issues as electric buses and don’t require 30 minutes charging time or use harmful batteries (plagued with environmental pollution issues).” x “I am in support of mixed use, especially on Thousand Oaks Blvd.” Following the presentation, Q&A, and polls, the General Plan Team initiated 3 GPAC member and 2 public member Zoom breakout groups. The breakout groups discussed the three discussion questions below, with the assistance of a facilitator/note taker from the General Plan Team.

Breakout Group Discussion Questions

1. Issues: What are some of the critical sustainability issues and assets in Thousand Oaks?

2. Goals and Strategies: What should be the goals or outcomes for sustainability in Thousand Oaks? What strategies should the City use to achieve its vision for sustainability?
Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 6

3. GHG Reductions: The city needs to reduce transportation related emissions in order to achieve its GHG goals. Based on what you’ve heard tonight and what you know, what strategies should the City pursue?
The following are the results of the small group discussions for each group.

GPAC Group #1
x Issues/Assets:
o The layout of city, open space, and oak trees are assets in Thousand Oaks. o The business community is an asset, but the number of residents working outside the city and community is an issue.
o Desire to continue supporting businesses and encourage living and working in Thousand Oaks.
x Goals/Strategies
o Focus future change in key areas of the City like the 101-corridor. o Create strategies for reducing citywide emissions.
o Incentivize using other modes of transportation for short around-town trips. o Create sustainability policies that can be applied citywide.

GPAC Group #2
x Issues/Assets
o The existing lack of broadband access in areas of the city is an issue. o The built-out development pattern that necessitates driving and makes transit, walking, and biking challenging is a sustainability issue as it increases GHG emissions.
o The ongoing dry conditions, drought, and wildfires are concerning. x Goals/strategies
o Work to improve the urban forest in Thousand Oaks by planting more trees. o Create more walkable destinations like village centers at strategic locations. o Normalize sustainability measures and thinking throughout all facets of the city (entertainment, business, residential, etc.).
x GHG reduction actions
o Reduce cross-city trips by improving walkability and creating village centers. o Offer more frequent bus service with direct trips to key destinations, like a direct shuttle to the Civic Arts Plaza on performance nights. o Encourage people to use other modes of transportation for short trips.

GPAC Group #3
x Issues/Assets
o Thousand Oaks is already a leader in environmental programs. o Focus future sustainability goals on the realities of the suburban layout of the City.

Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 7
o Desire to maintain strong businesses that are already located in Thousand Oaks and consider costs of new sustainability measures. x Goals
o Seek a balanced approach to sustainability by weighing the benefits to the environment, impacts to businesses, and costs.
o Learn about sustainability measures from the businesses community that operate in the City (i.e., Amgen).
o Encourage or require businesses to incorporate sustainability when expanding in the city.
o Seek areas for higher density development like a downtown and promote living and working within the city.

Public Group #1
x Assets/Issues:
o Thousand Oaks has a lot of space devoted to overbuilt roads. o The development pattern in Thousand Oaks is intended for cars, which is not sustainable.
o The existing open space is an asset as well as city staff’s knowledge of sustainability.
o The bus system in Thousand Oaks is an unused asset with a great potential. x Goals
o Address transportation emissions by offering EV incentives, encourage bicycling, building retrofits from gas to electric, and considering a tax gas in Thousand Oaks.
x GHG Reductions
o Consider re-zoning to allow mixed use in residential areas that would encourage greater self-sufficiency and require less trips by car. o Encourage retrofitting of existing apartment complexes and condos with sustainability measures.

Public Group #2
x Assets/Issues:
o The city’s green space is a wonderful asset - continue to preserve green space in the future.
o The city’s size is an asset - the community can get involved in planning activities, there is the ability to educate and engage folks on sustainability. o The dependence on imported water is an issue, water scarcity needs to be addressed.
x Goals
o Seek incentives to guide behavior changes that promote a more sustainable and self-sufficient community.

Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 8
o Engage youth and schools in the City’s efforts to increase sustainability. x GHG reductions
o Develop the necessary infrastructure to create a closed system that reduces waste, like microgrids.
o Create village centers or community hubs that include goods and services, green space, and meeting space with a safely integrated bicycle and pedestrian network.

Members of the public registered in advance to speak during public comment within the Zoom meeting. Below are summaries of the three public comments shared via Zoom. One public comment was submitted through the online comment forum. x Thousand Oaks should promote centralized village centers that offer daily goods and services that are connected to bike paths and can reduce the number of short vehicle trips across town.
x I appreciated the format of this GPAC meeting, a lot of good ideas came out of the small group discussions. The issue of our dependence on imported water is not sustainable, drought tolerant landscaping has helped, but we could be diverting a lot of water. We should use the maximum feasible graywater throughout the City. x Thousand Oaks needs to be more self-sufficient and not so reliant on imported water. Need to divert stormwater runoff into areas that can enhance natural wetlands and create new wetlands. We need to reduce concrete and impermeable surfaces as much as possible.
x Submitted Via online: “What is being done to help low wage workers afford housing in Thousand Oaks? Commuting from other cities is unsustainable due to increased GHG emissions. We need a serious plan to address this issue.”

Matt Raimi closed the meeting with an overview of the General Plan schedule and next steps.

Adjourn at 8:15 pm
Note: this was a virtual meeting, therefore no sign-in sheets for the GPAC or public were collected.

Item No. 11A
GPAC Breakout Group #1 Notes
x “Record” your small group discussion.
x “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes x If you run into issues, click “invite host”
x When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
x Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
x The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. x Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
x Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!

1. Issues: What are some of the critical sustainability issues and assets in Thousand Oaks?
Notes:
x Transportation is an issue
x Community that pulls together and recognizes that sustainability is an important issues – asset
x Commuter our out of the community is an issue
x People love the community for the suburban quality, lower density, open space.
x Supporting the business community in the context of COVID, how people purchase goods now and impact on commercial centers. Smart planning and flexibility.
x With changing climate – how we harden to be protected against wildfires.
x Bus system needs to be viable for those that are not able to drive. Runs too infrequently. Downsize the buses and talk to riders about the routes.

Item No. 11A
GPAC Breakout Group #1 Notes
Also make the buses electric. And make the system something that really works.
x Transit system was started to provide services to elderly people that needed service.
x Trail systems are well developed and connect out to Santa Mountains. x Open space.

For Report out: 2-3 Issues and Assets

1. _

2. _

3. _

2. Goals and Strategies: What should be the goals or outcomes for sustainability in Thousand Oaks? What strategies should the City use to achieve its vision for sustainability?
Notes:
x Old Lupes location is an example of what may take place in the future. x Need to have strategies that can address the 80% of the community that may be untouched. Hillside neighborhoods are not walkable. Need strategies for the vast majority of the community.
x Reach codes can come into play for the newer developments as they come on line. Solar, energy efficiency.
x Need to consider the business community as well as housing, as the diversity of land uses is critical to creating walkable places. x Preserve landmark oak trees. Ensure that the open spaces are protected for the future.
x Consistent communication about oak trees and the value of open space For Report out: 2-3 goals for sustainability and strategies in Thousand Oaks

1. _

2. _

3. _
Item No. 11A
GPAC Breakout Group #1 Notes

3. GHG Reductions: Thousand Oaks needs to reduce transportation related emissions in order to achieve its GHG goals. Based on what you have heard tonight and what you know, what strategies should the City pursue? Notes:
x Reach codes
x Electric buses
x Support for electrical vehicle charging
x City could require businesses with large fleets to electrify sooner x Also trash collection, UPS, etc.
x Pick up trash as part of creating a culture of stewardship For Report out: 2-3 GHG Reduction actions the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing

1. _

2. _

3. _
Item No. 11A
GPAC Breakout Group #2 Notes
x “Record” your small group discussion.
x “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes x If you run into issues, click “invite host”
x When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
x Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
x The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. x Please identify someone to share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
x Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!

1. Issues: What are some of the critical sustainability issues and assets in Thousand Oaks?
Notes:

Asset
x Open Space, will & recognition on need for sustainability and acknowledging need to do something meaningful.
x Pandemic shows the critical need of stable internet and universally accessible.
x Water
x Baked in development pattern – is it enough to do some hi density considering mostly built-out
x Transportation
x Ongoing maintenance costs – (roads example)
x Structure hardening against wildfire
x Bikes need safe paths.

Item No. 11A
GPAC Breakout Group #2 Notes
For Report out: 2-3 Issues and Assets

1. _ universal broadband access

2. _ baked in development patterns

3. _ wildfire hardening

2. Goals and Strategies: What should be the goals or outcomes for sustainability in Thousand Oaks? What strategies should the City use to achieve its vision for sustainability?
Notes:
x State goals are minimum we need to hit.
x Solar assistance (financial)
x Improve urban forest –
x promoting local centers as walkable destinations.
x Term sustainability should become normalized (big cos. Orgs put on printed materials showing their commitment).
x Transit – higher frequency, make cool to use the bus.

For Report out: 2-3 goals for sustainability and strategies in Thousand Oaks

1. _ Improving urban forest

2. _norming sustainability

3. _walkable destinations

3. GHG Reductions: Thousand Oaks needs to reduce transportation related emissions in order to achieve its GHG goals. Based on what you have heard tonight and what you know, what strategies should the City pursue? Notes:
x Walkability, neighborhood centers
x Evs
x Smaller vehicles,
x Shuttles
Item No. 11A
GPAC Breakout Group #2 Notes
x Expanding bike network
x Reduce non-handicapped parking to reduce incentives to drive.

For Report out: 2-3 GHG Reduction actions the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing

1. _ walkable centers

2. _ more frequent bus service

3. _promotion of alternate transportation
Item No. 11A
GPAC Breakout Group #3 Notes
x “Record” your small group discussion.
x “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes x If you run into issues, click “invite host”
x When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
x Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
x The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. x Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
x Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!

1. Issues: What are some of the critical sustainability issues and assets in Thousand Oaks?
Notes:
x T.O already leader in env programs. Would like to see City focus on realities of sustainability and how we pay for it. Long term vision to make areas (downtown) walkable. Get people out of cars. x Cost – huge part of it. City must partner with businesses. Don’t want to drive business away. Need balance that keeps business here. x Don’t want to lose businesses that are already here.
x Businesses looking for place for family, good school system, safety, infrastructure is attractive.

2. Goals and Strategies: What should be the goals or outcomes for sustainability in Thousand Oaks? What strategies should the City use to achieve its vision for sustainability?
Notes:

Item No. 11A
GPAC Breakout Group #3 Notes
x Balance – sustainability – business – cost.
x Learn from businesses that operate here (eg Amgen). They may have good ideas.
x Business/construction/growth/expansion efforts should incorporate sustainability ideas. Be cognizant of that with planning efforts. x Make sure costs of reduced emission vehicles isn’t excessive for residents (eg natural gas trash trucks)
x Limited capacity for buses here in T.O. because of low density. Best use for buses would be in higher density – eg on TO Blvd
x Can’t have lofty goals but need to be realistic and incremental. Eg strategic transportation (like beach bus), maybe Sat morning to Mall

3. GHG Reductions: Thousand Oaks needs to reduce transportation related emissions in order to achieve its GHG goals. Based on what you have heard tonight and what you know, what strategies should the City pursue? Notes:
x Need more effective options for moving from home to work. x Park n Rides not effective because where are people riding to? Park N Ride has to drop people off close to where they work.
x Living and working in same City could reduce miles.
x Biggest opportunity is to create housing opportunities close to goods and services, and make it walkable.

For Report out: 2-3 GHG Reduction actions the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing

1. _

2. _

3. _
Item No. 11A
Public Breakout Group #1 Notes
x “Record” your small group discussion.
x “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes x If you run into issues, click “invite host”
x When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
x Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
x The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. x Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
x Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!

1. Issues: What are some of the critical sustainability issues and assets in Thousand Oaks?
Notes:

Assets
x Solar panels at community parks and TO mall
x Demographics of community – a lot more disposable income x Preserve diversity
x Open spaces are a huge asset; encourage community to embrace high density housing to support
x City staff
Issues/challenges
x City is built for cars; hard to do anything different x Transit is a great asset that no one is using
x Are there options for the individual to reduce driving x attitudes of community – need to explain why we are doing things x Trapped in low density pattern of development
Item No. 11A
Public Breakout Group #1 Notes
x Roads are overbuilt; can covert parts to ped/bike facilities – rethink how we use space to accommodate more compact development.
x Incorporate protected bikeways into TO blvd
For Report out: 2-3 Issues and Assets

1. _

2. _

3. _

2. Goals and Strategies: What should be the goals or outcomes for sustainability in Thousand Oaks? What strategies should the City use to achieve its vision for sustainability?
Notes:
x GHG emission reductions down to nothing as quickly as possible x Needs measurement
x Water use reductions
x City incentives for electric vehicles
x Cargo bikes
x Change awareness and community support; need to explain why its important to do these things
x Zero waste
x Transition away from gas connections; electrification of older buildings x Reach code – no gas
x Institute taxes on natural gas and give it back to pay for retrofits For Report out: 2-3 goals for sustainability and strategies in Thousand Oaks

1. _

2. _

3. _
Item No. 11A
Public Breakout Group #1 Notes

3. GHG Reductions: Thousand Oaks needs to reduce transportation related emissions in order to achieve its GHG goals. Based on what you have heard tonight and what you know, what strategies should the City pursue? Notes:
x Retrofit of existing multifamily buildings to install charging ports x Allow mixed use
x Densify without reducing community character – ADUs
x Commercial corridors allowing housing and mixed use
For Report out: 2-3 GHG Reduction actions the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing

1. _

2. _

3. _
Item No. 11A
Public Breakout Group #2 Notes
x “Record” your small group discussion.
x “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes x If you run into issues, click “invite host”
x When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
x Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
x The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. x Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
x Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!

1. Issues: What are some of the critical sustainability issues and assets in Thousand Oaks?
Notes:
- Natural environment as an asset
o Parkway trees to provide shade
- Wildfire risk, water scarcity are threats – develop local water supplies and reduce dependence on imported water
- Protect open space and trees to provide cooling effects and reduce urban warming through shade and evapotranspiration – reduce AC load - Space for trees and nature within the City
- Size of the city is manageable, allows for civic engagement and public participation
- Measures to capture stormwater and redirect into wetlands o Permeable pavement
o Preserve natural waterways – partner with county flood control district, naturalize the flood channels/remove concrete
- Require greywater systems in new construction and in remodels Item No. 11A
Public Breakout Group #2 Notes
- Public awareness and education of the community
o Behavioral change and sustainable choices
o Provide incentives to guide behavior change
- Solid waste contract negotiations – tiered pricing, charge per weight/vol.

For Report out: 2-3 Issues and Assets

1. Expansion of open space, urban greenery and trees to reduce urban heat island

2. Size of City – accessible planning initiatives, ability to engage/educate the community

3. Water – scarcity, stormwater redirection into natural areas and wetlands, groundwater recharge and percolation

2. Goals and Strategies: What should be the goals or outcomes for sustainability in Thousand Oaks? What strategies should the City use to achieve its vision for sustainability?
Notes:
- Circular economy to reduce waste – design systems and infrastructure - Involve youth and schools
- Microgrids and hydrogen fuel cells to provide back-up power and to power bus fleet
For Report out: 2-3 goals for sustainability and strategies in Thousand Oaks

1. Incentives to guide behavior change

2. Involve youth and partner with schools to spread awareness

3. _

3. GHG Reductions: Thousand Oaks needs to reduce transportation related emissions in order to achieve its GHG goals. Based on what you have heard tonight and what you know, what strategies should the City pursue? Item No. 11A
Public Breakout Group #2 Notes
Notes:
- Concern over Thousand Oaks Blvd. density and mixed-use because might create congestion
o Identify other business hubs to develop town squares, gathering places, gardens, bike network
- Use transit to connect high traffic destinations like schools, malls, etc o Park once destinations
- Public EV charging stations
For Report out: 2-3 GHG Reduction actions the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing

1. Circular economy

2. Village centers with open space throughout town – accessible to more people and households with safe bike/ped network

3. Microgrids – neighborhood resilience hubs
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Emailed comment received by CTO Friday, September 25, 2020 I briefly mentioned two suggestions last night in our break-out room. I've written them out below with more details.

An incentive for residential solid waste reduction:

Our city can negotiate solid waste contracts which offer reduced cost rates for customers who receive monthly, rather than weekly pick up service. Specially marked or colored containers could be used which are only picked up on the first regular neighborhood pick up day of the month.

Offering a significant cost saving incentive will encourage people to find ways to decrease their waste - such as by buying less single use plastics and packaging.

Re s i d e n t s wh o h e l p r e d u c e t h e Ci t y ’ s c o s t o f wa s t e d i s s in solid waste fees. We receive a $3.52 discount from Newbury Disposal Inc. for using a smaller trash container which takes us a month to fill. A discount should be offered that is more proportional to the value of the trash reduction.

My other suggestion is to encourage less water waste.

Dependence on imported water leaves our city vulnerable to disruptions and is not sustainable. The movement to drought tolerant landscaping has helped. Another way to use less water is to divert some of the mostly clean imported water now being sent through our Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Permits for all new homes and for kitchen or bathroom remodeling should require maximum feasible greywater reuse systems. There are many designs available for low cost systems that can irrigate plants and trees.

Recycling household greywater for gardening use is an excellent way to be more sustainable, use less imported water, and save money.

The added installation cost will pay for itself from reduced water bills over time.

Item No. 11A
Email received by CTO Monday, September 28, 2020
SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION WORKSHEET GPAC #10: Sustainability September 24, 2020

1. Issues: What are some of the critical sustainability issues and assets in Thousand Oaks? a) Our natural environment, native trees, open spaces and ridgelines, and surrounding natural vegetation are the draw that brought so many of us to this area and make our city a beautiful, pleasant refuge in which to live and recreate.
b) V e n t u r a Co u n t y ’ s a v e r a g e t e mp e r ature has already increased 4.7F degrees (2.6C) since 1895, making the county in which Thousand Oaks is located the fastest warming county in the continental United S t a t e s . Wi t h i n 2 0 y e a r s … i e : w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f o u r mperature is projected to SOAR 3-5F degrees HIGHER in the inland and elevated areas of our county, including here in Thousand Oaks. That translates to 27 extra days per year of 90-plus-degree heat and a 700% increase in days topping 100 degrees, by mid-century. Thus extreme heat, and the wildfire risk and water scarcity driven by extreme heat, are serious and accelerating threats to our community. c) Our city size is both an asset and an issue. It's small town character makes for a cohesive, supportive community; but it's widespread design makes walking and cycling from place to place largely impractical. d) Solid waste needs to be reduced and reused to the maximum extent feasible.

2. Goals and Strategies: What should be the goals or outcomes for sustainability in Thousand Oaks? What strategies should the City use to achieve its vision for sustainability? a) We must proactively preserve and expand tree canopy coverage, gardens, greenery and nature surrounding and within our city to reduce runaway urban heat island impacts through increased shade and evapo-transpiration.
b) We must develop local water sources and decrease dependence on imported water supplies. To that end, we must stop concreting natural areas. All new construction should be LEED-certfied and should require the use of only permeable pavers/paving. All remodels must also require the use of only permeable pavers/paving; and incentives should be developed for retrofits of existing pavements to permeable designs so as to allow for the recharge of natural aquifers. Permits for new construction, and kitchen and bathroom remodeling, should also require maximum feasible gray-water systems that divert nearly-clean wastewater to landscape irrigation. In addition, all storm and flood waters currently flowing into street drains must be redirected into our remaining natural wetlands and/or into artificially created wetland areas to ensure maximum recharge of aquifers.
c) Rather than overbuilding Thousand Oaks Blvd and encouraging everyone in the community to drive to and congregate downtown, we should consider creating centralized neighborhood hubs/town squares ... ideally by making use of and refurbishing vacant space (rather than building new) in areas where shopping, retail and entertainment is already concentrated. These hubs should be made compelling and attractive by incorporating abundant trees, gardens, open spaces, parks, and ample vegetation; should be within walking/cycling distance of their surrounding neighborhoods; and should include fleets of rental bicycles for the previous purpose. Hubs within the city should also be connected to one another, and to high travel areas (the Civics Arts Center; local colleges, middle and high schools for opening, closing and special events; malls, libraries, farmers markets, open spaces, sports playfields, etc) by clean-energy (ie:
electric, NOT fossil gas) powered public transit designed to reflect the character of our community. d) Before approval of any permits for all new construction going forward, the City must consider the wildfire safety and disaster evacuation impacts of said project on the entire community (including impacts resulting from said developments' resident density in relation to available egress roads and its Item No. 11A
contribution to potentially unsafe congestion on evacuation routes out of the city under multiple, simultaneous, disaster scenarios).

3. GHG Reductions: Thousand Oaks needs to reduce transportation related emissions in order to achieve its GHG goals. Based on what you have heard tonight and what you know, what strategies should the City pursue?
a) An expanded tree canopy and natural vegetation citywide will reduce the need for air conditioning, which in turn will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
b) Ideally we want people to work, shop and play in the same communities where they live, so as to reduce commutes, traffic congestion, and pollution. Realizing this ideal requires both affordable local housing (to reduce GHG emissions generated by workers commuting here from out of town, because they're priced out of renting/buying locally) and more good-paying job opportunities for local residents (especially for our grown adult children who want to continue living in our community past their schooling years), both of which Thousand Oaks lacks in adequate numbers. It would also require raising public awareness of these needs, perhaps by encouraging more telecommuting and by implementing incentives to hire local residents through a citywide "hire-local" campaign. That said, concentrating employment, retail and recreation in one extended "downtown" strip will encourage even larger numbers of residents to drive to and congregate all along T.O. Blvd and will actually attract and magnify traffic congestion and pollution ... because our city is already sprawled out and, as Helen Cox said at the meeting, we're not going to change that now. Strategically-located, orbital neighborhood, small business/grocery/park/garden/entertainment hubs (think European town squares) ... fashioned from renovating/refurbishing vacant space in existing business "centers" (and perhaps adding smaller gathering spots throughout the city where needed) ... each with their own rental bicycle fleets (like New York City) might make more sense ... with clean-energy (ie: electric, NOT fossil gas) powered public transit connecting these hubs to one another and to other already highly trafficked locations (middle and high schools, local colleges, malls, the Civics Arts Center, sports playfields, libraries, open space areas, etc.) within the city. A network of walking and protected biking paths (to ensure less-experienced cyclists feel safe) could connect neighborhoods to their hubs, and perhaps to other hubs. These hubs could also include small housing units made more affordable by incorporating shared common spaces. All new, remodeled, and renovated development should be required to be all-electric (no fossil gas lines or appliances) and equipped with both clean energy (solar photo-voltaic) micro-grids (for community resilience) and EV-charging stations (for cars and bicycles). Every hub should also have ample park space, public garden, vegetation and tree canopy coverage requirements. Longer distance public transit could include park-n-rides placed close to the northern, southern and easternmost hubs to connect them to other nearby cities.
c) Develop a comprehensive, citywide circular economy plan to reduce disposal of as much waste as possible and to instead reuse as many resources as possible. Provide incentives to reduce solid waste, including by reducing rates for people who need less frequent (perhaps monthly or every-other-weekly) trash pick-up & identified by specific bins.
d) Educating our residents about how unsustainable practices negatively impact each of us as individuals, and about how developing more sustainable habits can improve the quality of both our community and our everyday lives, together with providing incentives to guide the sustainable behaviors we want to see, is an inexpensive solution to reducing GHG emissions. People care but often don't have the knowledge or time to connect the dots and explore and implement emissions reductions strategies on their own. e) Involve City youth in problem solving, to engage, empower and draw on their creative perspective.

Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #11 | October 22, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm
This meeting was held via Zoom and livestreamed to YouTube. Members of the public could register in advance to join the Zoom meeting and/or make public comments, or view on YouTube and submit comments through an online comment forum.
x Provide context for arts and culture in the General Plan. x Provide an overview of Thousand Oaks’ arts and cultural ecosystem, including City programs, community cultural assets, and the creative economy.
x Share observations on Thousand Oaks’ cultural ecosystem and identify opportunities to be considered for the General Plan.
x Brainstorm issues, goals and strategies relating to the above topics that can be included in the General Plan.

GPAC Members
x Present: Chaise Rasheed, Dustin Woomer, Fred Fukanaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Ken Lamont, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Paul Shrater, Rorie Skei, Tara Carruth, Dr.

Victor Hayek, and Wyatt McCrea
x Absent: Andy Fox, Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Dr. Chris Kimball, Darren Bovard, Dena Jenson, Emily Dale, Dr. Karen Gorback, Michael Nigh, and Patrick DuRoss City Staff
x Mark Towne, Community Development Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; Jonathan Serret, Deputy Cultural Affairs Director; Health Cousin, Library Services Director; Dusty Russell, Assistant Economic Development Analyst
Consultant Team
x Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
x Linda Flynn and David Plettner-Saunders, Cultural Planning Group Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 2
Matt Raimi welcomed GPAC members and the public with an overview of the evening’s agenda, followed by a review of key Zoom features and public participation opportunities shared by Melissa Stark.

David Plettner-Saunders led the evening’s presentation which included an overview of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks, state and local policies, and community engagement surrounding arts and culture in the General Plan. Jonathan Serret provided an update on virtual community programming in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and shared details of some of the recent performances. Existing conditions, like cultural programs, the Civic Arts Plaza and Bank of American Performing Arts Center, and a description of the local creative economy were shared for context and to illustrate the connection between arts and culture and the Thousand Oaks economy.

Throughout the presentation, the team paused to answer questions, administer Zoom polls, and to engage in conversation. Members of the public who joined the Zoom meeting could participate in the Zoom polls, while members of the public watching on YouTube could participate through an online forum. These questions, responses, and related comments are listed below. (Note: Not all GPAC members responded to each poll question.)
Poll 1. Thinking pre-COVID, how would you describe your participation in arts and cultural activities? *Zoom Responses include GPAC members and some members of the public who joined the virtual meeting.

Comments on the presentation:

GPAC member comments:
x The presentation refers to a traditional arts audience, how is that defined? o The General Plan Team responded that arts audience in the United States is typically correlated with education and income, the Thousand Oaks community is both affluent and well-educated.
42%
26%
29%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Frequent (12+ per year)
Occasional (6-12 per
year)
Once in a while (<6 per
year)
Not at all
Zoom Responses*
67%
33%
0%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Frequent (12+ per year)
Occasional (6-12 per
year)
Once in a while (<6 per
year)
Not at all
Public Online Forum
Responses
Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 3
x There is $840 million dollars in sales related to the Thousand Oaks creative economy. Does that include outside productions that film in Thousand Oaks? o The General Plan Team responded that the income is reported based on where the business is located. Noting that employment may capture outside businesses who film in Thousand Oaks.
x To raise funds for the arts, I suggest we offer raffles. Raffles could be supported by the private sector and could offer tickets to a performance at the Civic Arts Plaza. x We should ask the public what kind of programming they want to see in the future and advertise on the City’s website and in the TO Acorn.
x Do we have data on the age groups who attend shows at the Civic Arts Plaza? The current programing seems to speak to older generations.
o The General Plan Team responded that both theaters use Ticketmaster for ticket sales, which tracks age demographics information but only in relation to the purchaser. The current method of determining what audiences want to see has been more trial and error. The theaters’ stadium-style seating is great for traditional performing arts and audiences who want to be seated – however, younger demographics are looking for opportunities to stand and venues that allow for more movement.

Poll 2. Thinking about the creative life of Thousand Oaks, which three of the following area more important to you? (Pick three)
*Zoom Responses include GPAC members and some members of the public who joined the virtual meeting. 12%
24%
24%
8%
16%
16%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Develop community art program
Vibrant Cultural scene
Enhanced art facilities/programs
Arts-centric areas
Increase support for arts
Increased arts learning for youth
Zoom Responses*
25%
0%
25%
25%
25%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Develop community art program
Vibrant Cultural scene
Enhanced art facilities/programs
Arts-centric areas
Increase support for arts
Increased arts learning for youth
Public Online Forum Responses
Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 4
Questions from non-GPAC members during the Zoom meeting:
x Can you clarify what the 14% of all jobs statistic refers to? o David responded that the 14% refers to creative occupations in Thousand Oaks. x How does the city compare to other cities in California, are we on par? What is your take on Thousand Oaks’ standing?
o David responded that Thousand Oaks is doing very well compared to other cities, nearly identical to Los Angeles County which is arguably one of the most creative Counties. The City has a high presence of creative professions that is an opportunity to capitalize on in the future.
x What does public art refer to?
o The General Plan team responded that a formal public or percent-for-art program refers to art that is accessible to all. This can include enhancements to buildings, integrated in public and private space, or be more flexible like a pop-up event. x What is the motivation for this study? Is it an outlet for creatives or for economic development? o The General Plan team responded that the General Plan is a long-term policy document that is required by state law. There are required topics like land use, transportation, housing, open space, air quality, among others, but Cities can include other topics that are important or reflective of their community. Thousand Oaks chose to include an Arts and Culture chapter of the General Plan. The process of creating this chapter started with stakeholder interviews, existing conditions research, and is now moving into policy ideas. This meeting is to establish what topics or policies should be included in the General Plan and to help establish a vision for arts and culture in the future. x (Submitted via online) Will you bring up solutions to meet the needs expressed? o We are transitioning from understanding the issues to thinking through policy ideas to address those issues – which we will start to discuss in our small groups later tonight.

No public comments or questions on the presentation were submitted through the online forum.

Following the presentation, the General Plan Team initiated two GPAC member and three public member Zoom breakout groups. The breakout groups discussed the discussion questions below.

Breakout Group Discussion Questions

1. Issues: What are some of the current arts and cultural issues in Thousand Oaks?

2. Goals and Strategies: What should the future of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks look like?

3. Economic Development: What arts and cultural strategies should the City pursue to support economic development? How can economic development investments support the arts? The following are the results of the small group discussions for each group.

Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 5
GPAC Group #1
x Issues/Assets:
o Affordability and access to arts and cultural performances o Availability of a city-wide calendar of arts and cultural events o Funding issues post-COVID
o Lack of local musicians
x Goals/Strategies:
o A unified arts curriculum for schools
o Broader and more diversity of community programming throughout Thousand Oaks o Events and programs targeted at younger audiences (20-40 years of age) o Connect the arts and culture talent across Thousand Oaks o A public art program
x Economics:
o Establish an arts and culture district that can apply for grant funding o Create a widespread arts and culture support program to infuse the arts structurally around the community
GPAC Group #2
x Issues/Assets:
o Lack of diversity of offerings citywide, need to appeal to a younger audience and build in affordability
o Identify a Thousand Oaks arts and culture identity that balances both national and local performers/acts
o Lack of flexible performance spaces, especially outdoor spaces o Increase awareness of and promote existing community arts and culture events and performances
x Goals/strategies:
o Capitalize on and continue virtual performances as they are very accessible and affordable o Re-evaluate restrictions (i.e., noise restrictions) that may limit performance venues o Continue and expand support for youth, local artists and performers x Economics:
o Address land use and permitting barriers to small/flexible venues. o Include arts and entertainment in Campus Master Plan.

Public Group #1
x Assets/Issues:
o Lack of space for artists to display and sell their work in the community o Desire to make Civic Arts Plaza performances more community oriented x Goals/Strategies:
o Include an outdoor amphitheater or European town center to support community and arts Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 6
o Represent the residents and artists of Thousand Oaks, focus on General Plan slogan “rooted in community”
o Increase awareness of arts and culture, including social media presence Public Group #2
x Assets/Issues:
o Thousand Oaks lacks a cultural identity
o Increase community engagement and awareness for new arts and cultural developments in the city
o Financial and physical access barriers to arts and culture in Thousand Oaks x Goals/Strategies:
o Integrate experiential art into the Downtown (and the Downtown Plan) o Help remove barriers to arts and culture by working with the school district to include arts integration
o Art should be participatory and more diverse across the city (i.e., pop-up events and drive-in movies)
o Develop a citywide arts and business council
Public Group #3
x Assets/Issues:
o Lack of coordination between arts and culture community o Lack of access to performing and meeting space throughout the city o Lack of diversity of audience, performers and practitioners, and art forms x Goals:
o Collaborations with business leaders and private sector to increase arts in community o Introduce a community arts and culture calendar and a “brag” site to showcase community talents and events
o Create a new city Arts Coordinator position to coordinate internally with agencies, organizations, talent, and externally with the community No public comments were shared during the Zoom meeting or submitted via the public comment forum online.

Matt Raimi closed the meeting with an overview of the General Plan schedule and next steps.

Adjourn at 8:05 pm
Attached are small group discussion worksheets from all facilitators and some participants.

Note: this was a virtual meeting, therefore no sign-in sheets for the GPAC or public were collected.

Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #1 Discussion Notes
x “Record” your small group discussion.
x “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes x If you run into issues, click “invite host”
x When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
x Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
x The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. x Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
x Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!

1. Issues: What are some of the current arts and cultural issues in Thousand Oaks? Notes:
x Type of programming at the Civic Arts Plaza – need for broader, diverse programming appealing to all
x Affordability of the arts; access for all
x Master calendar for the arts; clearer relevant and updated information for happenings – age, family, cultural, etc.
x Previous art walk was a huge success – revisit arts events, walks, etc. x Funding – post COVID – municipal budgets are stressed x Community wide arts for all – is there an umbrella funder for other programming? (i.e. local arts agency)
x Younger target (20-40) programming – there is none! – concerts in the parks would be an example of a great event.
x Lack of local musicians at coffee shops; nontraditional spaces; x Areas of TO area arts desert – example: Newbury Park – have to drive across town during rush hour.

Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #1 Discussion Notes

2. Goals: What should the future of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks look like? Notes:
x Know where to go and what going on; filled with events throughout the city
x More diversity of programming
x More diversity of venues
x Programming for all ages – more for younger generations x Arts opps that are accessible and affordable
x Fair and accessible Arts education
x Public art integrated into daily lives – (TO feels relatively sterile in interacting with art during the day).
x Integrate art into architecture and landscape
x The talent in the community – how to get them involved and connect to community? (guest speakers, school partnerships, youth)

3. Economic Development: What arts and cultural strategies should the City pursue to support economic development? How can economic development investments support the arts?
Notes:
x Arts districts
x Establish a structure/framework in the City to develop and provide arts outside of the Civic Arts plaza.

For Report out: 2-3 arts and cultural strategies the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing

1. _

2. _

3. _
Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #2 Discussion Notes
x “Record” your small group discussion.
x “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes x If you run into issues, click “invite host”
x When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
x Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
x The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. x Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
x Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!

1. Issues: What are some of the current arts and cultural issues in Thousand Oaks? Notes:
x Many arts choices don’t cater to a younger or diverse demographic. Civic Arts Plaza doesn’t offer what he’s interested in and sometimes it’s too expensive. TO doesn’t offer much “edge” to its programming. Maybe this is not a City function and can be offered by private organizations. x Piggy-backing on this, we’re near Los Angeles, cuts both ways. LA draws national acts - Pantages, Disney Hall - so it’s tough for TO to figure out its identity. Where do we fit in the artist identity/ community? We’re regional but high quality. Audiences can go to LA for quality at near the same price.
x Know theater well. Before shows transfer to Broadway, they do out of town tryouts. Can be all over. Some places pick up on these future hits.

With the Kavli, such a large theater, it would be a good venue for out-oftown tryouts. And if transfer to Broadway, it puts the City on the map.

Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #2 Discussion Notes
x Echoing comments…a lot of times she hears about shows after the fact.

Even being tuned into social media and visiting City Hall, shocked to know about the many other venues in TO. Didn’t know about these resources. An opportunity to promote and cross-promote. x As a teen in the city, know there are opportunities for her age group, but cost is sometimes to high. It’s a turn-off! And youth often don’t know about what’s going on.
x Lack of outdoor venues and informal, flexible venues contributes to lack of programming diversity.
x TO has free public concerts in the park – pass the hat! The programs are free but many will contribute voluntarily.
x Campus Master Plan includes an outdoor amphitheater. This may provide more entertainment outdoors. Exciting!
x CLU has a good Shakespeare program. Promoting it more. Also, don’t know about (visual) art opportunities in TO. Not a huge part of TO. x College age people – ask them what they want to see, hear. TO Acorn, local newspaper, is a great source of information. TO website. There are more ways to get people informed.

For Report out: 2-3 arts and cultural issues

1. Lack of diversity in programming in terms of age, taste, cost.

2. Programming is sometimes bland, not edgy. Opportunity to refine TO’s cultural identity.

3. Need for better promotion of what’s offered. Can make better use of existing communications (local newspaper, city website) but also need better marketing and promotion.

4. Need for more diverse venues, including smaller, flexible, outdoor, informal. Like arts as additions to places, like coffeehouse, that aren’t all about the arts.

2. Goals: What should the future of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks look like? Notes:
x Diverse presentations.
x Different sized venues to handle different types of artists, less expensive than the BAPAC. They can be private and don’t have to be all arts. Liked a coffee house in Santa Clarita that had music five night a week – no cover! We don’t have much of this in TO. Keep costs down, offer things that cater to different tastes.

Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #2 Discussion Notes
x Concerts in park, have gone with parents, but bands target an older demographic. Want bands interesting for teens.
x In Denver, there is a School of Rock event. Different bands over several days, a music festival downtown. Diversity of shows catered to everyone.

Classical to rock to country. Mixed it up. An interesting event and brought out very diverse audience.
x Camarillo has movies in park in summer, include junior and high school bands perform.
x Create places for local artists to perform or display their art – it’s great for the community.
x Provide venues that local, emerging artists can use and promote throughout the county. Shows, festivals with newer artists. Talented people needing a break. This could put city on map – a festival for the unknown talented artist.
x Post-COVID, keep some virtual programming. It’s good in preparation for future pandemics but some virtual art increases access, those who are homebound or can’t pay to attend certain events.
x UCSB has been having virtual programming – music and speakers – allows people outside the community to attend. Can still open up virtual seats, once COVID is over.
x Agree, museums have been successful in transferring to virtual access.

This can offer cross-medium opportunities, a museum with a dance troupe, in an integrated format.
x Younger people would be interested in this, as well. Let students know that virtual programs are being offered. Definitely something appealing – younger people don’t always want to travel to do something. Graphic design is becoming more important with so much inline programming.

It’s an art form for some.

For Report out: 2-3 goals for arts and culture in Thousand Oaks

1. [Address issues/needs stated above in first question.]

2. Keep virtual programming element, post-COVID, to increase access and offer new creative opportunities.

3. Provide opportunities for youth, emerging artists and community-based arts programming. Celebrate the local as well as established professional (Rooted in Community).

3. Economic Development: What arts and cultural strategies should the City pursue to support economic development? How can economic development investments support the arts?
Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #2 Discussion Notes
Notes:
x From land use perspective, are there restrictions on live music, for example? It is difficult to get a permit for a small venue? Worked on a small project in Los Angeles, with production set-up in a warehouse type space for artists.
x The Civic Arts Plaza is a good example of economic development.

For Report out: 2-3 arts and cultural strategies the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing

1. Address land use barriers to providing small/flexible venues. Make permitting easier for venues that offer arts, whether coffee shop or performing venue.

2. Include arts and entertainment in Campus Master Plan.

Item No. 11A
Public Group #1 Discussion Notes
x “Record” your small group discussion.
x “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes x If you run into issues, click “invite host”
x When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
x Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
x The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. x Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
x Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
x Issues: What are some of the current arts and cultural issues in Thousand Oaks? x Visual arts – nowhere to display artwork during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Even during good times there is not enough space, community center or hallways of civic arts plaza. Should have a communal center for arts. o The venues that do exist do not sell artwork.
x Funding is lacking for organizations.
x For past 25 years the focus has been on CAP.
x No amphitheater
x Less traditional types of performance space
x There is an increase in visitors – arts and culture should reflect the people who live in the City and not just visitors
x Outdoor performance venue would be a place to go post COVID-19. x Goals: What should the future of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks look like? Item No. 11A
Public Group #1 Discussion Notes
x Arts and culture should stay rooted in community -grassroots focus.

Focusing on locals as part of the movement.
x Amphitheater
x Creating more flexible spaces for arts and culture.
x Interconnected arts community where the sum of the parts is greater than the individual.
x Rethink basic funding of civic arts plaza – perhaps not make it selfsufficient. x Combine arts with dining, etc.
x Need a main street with eating, drinking and arts.
x More visual/social media
x Economic Development: What arts and cultural strategies should the City pursue to support economic development? How can economic development investments support the arts?
x Combine arts/events with shopping and eating venues
Item No. 11A
Public Group #2 Discussion Notes
x “Record” your small group discussion.
x “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes x If you run into issues, click “invite host”
x When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
x Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
x The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. x Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
x Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!

1. Issues: What are some of the current arts and cultural issues in Thousand Oaks? Notes:
x Siloing of the cultural community; lack of communication about events, activity, and needs. Intentional communication and opportunities to work together would be helpful.
x Barriers to artistic and cultural events and venues; cost is a large factor when much is centered at Kavili; neighborhood and local artists is not as vital as it could be which could help balance access issues x More opportunities for youth are a challenge when there are barriers to access and programming is not geared to them; murals and public art could break down those walls
x Thousand Oaks not known as a “cultural community” – lack of public displays of art and artistry; art identity as a story has not yet been told x Reputation as a suburban community and going elsewhere for art is ingrained beyond the City and, to some within the City; creating the downtown could offer a turning point to create the identity as an arts community
Item No. 11A
Public Group #2 Discussion Notes
For Report out: 2-3 arts and cultural issues

1. What is our cultural identity?

2. Developing our arts culture and identity must be intentional and aspirational

3. Access to arts and culture (financial, physical) is a key component of the community driving that discussion

2. Goals: What should the future of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks look like? Notes:
x Equal access to the arts for all
x Money is still a barrier for many elements of arts education; in the future those barriers should be removed for students
x Arts should be participatory, inclusive, and democratic; there should be multiple pathways and portals for participation and interaction with the City taking the lead
x Experiential art should be integrated into the planning for the downtown and throughout the City’s plan
For Report out: 2-3 goals for arts and culture in Thousand Oaks

1. Integrating experiential art into the planning for the downtown plan

2. Financial barriers to arts education should be removed

3. Arts should be participatory, inclusive and there should be multiple pathways for participation

3. Economic Development: What arts and cultural strategies should the City pursue to support economic development? How can economic development investments support the arts?
Notes:
x
Item No. 11A
Public Group #3 Discussion Notes
x “Record” your small group discussion.
x “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes x If you run into issues, click “invite host”
x When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
x Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
x The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. x Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
x Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!

1. Issues: What are some of the current arts and cultural issues in Thousand Oaks? Notes:
x Arts organization are siloed – not a lot of coordination across organizations, need to build bridges and connect the ongoing activities o TO Arts Association is working with the Westlake Village Art Guild – virtual studio tours
x Flexible space is needed for organizations to meet, gallery space, teaching space, - physical location
o Many going to the TO Community Gallery – next to NP Library o Hilcrest Center for the Arts – offer reduced rental fee o Westlake Village Art Guild uses the Los Robles Banquet hall x Diversity is a big issue – need diversity of audience and practitioners For Report out: 2-3 arts and cultural issues

1. Physical space
Item No. 11A
Public Group #3 Discussion Notes

2. Coordination

3. Diversity

2. Goals: What should the future of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks look like? Notes:
x Group of community business leaders to collaborate for the development of the visual arts community
x Combine private sector and arts
o East coast – private business is involved to generate ideas for financial support, creative ideas
x Creativity to communicate ideas – exposure
o Website for all arts and culture events across TO
o How does the community want to digest this information? Where is the place to get the most eyes?
ƒ Multiple separate organizations/institutions
ƒ Could help market TO as place for Arts
x Strategic visible changes to include arts & culture
o Market the city as an artistic place
x “Brining art to our community initiative”
x Potential City Arts Coordinator – paid position
o Internal coordination with existing organizations, institutions, non-profits, etc.
o External coordination, getting the word out about events, classes, shows, and all opportunities related to arts and culture o Website for all arts and culture opportunities
x Roundtable – volunteers in the arts community to coordinate with city council/planning commission
For Report out: 2-3 goals for arts and culture in Thousand Oaks

1. Improved communication – paid city arts coordination position to act as a liaison for the arts community internally and externally

2. Arts steering community/roundtable or foundation to seek grants, funding, physical space,

3. Market the city as an artistic place

4. Pursue Downtown Core and integration with arts culture Item No. 11A
Public Group #3 Discussion Notes

3. Economic Development: What arts and cultural strategies should the City pursue to support economic development? How can economic development investments support the arts?
Notes:
x
For Report out: 2-3 arts and cultural strategies the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing

1. _

2. _

3. _
Item No. 11A

SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION

WORKSHEET
GPAC #11: Arts & Culture| October 22, 2020

INSTRUCTIONS
This worksheet corresponds to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) presentation and discussion held on October 22, 2020 covering arts and culture in Thousand Oaks. During the small group discussion, please share your ideas with the group and write down your individual responses. Completed forms should be returned to the City of Thousand Oaks by Monday October 26th at [email protected]. If you did not (virtually) attend the GPAC meeting, we encourage you to watch the recorded video available at:
https://www.toaks2045.org/gpac.

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES:

Here are more of my thoughts from the Zoom breakout
group session I participated in on October 22.

1. Issues: What are some of the current arts and cultural issues in Thousand Oaks? x As a 12-year, African-American resident of Westlake Village I’ve seen the growth of residential diversity in Thousand Oaks. With the increase of dining, tastings, music, exhibits, and festivals, there is also a rise of visitors to our metro area. As a premiere community in Conejo Valley, our arts and culture don’t reflect those that reside among us from all walks of life and cultural backgrounds.

2. Goals: What should the future of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks look like? x Accessible and affordable events and activities. Those that appeal to all the walks of life shaping this community, as well as for those traveling through this hidden gem of ours.
x Out-of-the-box ideas that complement art AND culture. Focus on our TO 2045 slogan “rooted in community”. Create a movement and bring more awareness and appreciation, from a grassroots level.
x Expanding to a broader definition of what “the arts” is. A fashion art display of AsianIndian garment textiles/designs and the meaning behind them is an example.

Item No. 11A
x Showcasing the work of unsung/amateur artists in our own backyard. Harnessing our local resources as movers in this movement. Maybe it’s a seniors’ painting class exhibit from Goebel or Adult Enrichment, or spoken word night at the Teen Center. x Getting the word out beyond Conejo Valley/Ventura County. Partnering with initiatives such as National Arts and Humanities Month, via social media campaigns, will increase awareness of our grassroots efforts with those local arts enthusiasts already connected to such larger online communities.
x Tapping into social media to bridge the lack of space gap to showcase arts and culture.

Our young adults and youth residents would really appreciate a #TOforthearts, local online community to showcase their artistry and talents. Instagram live/stories is a popular platform for this.
x Leveraging existing general platforms and resources gives us a roadmap to tailor our local efforts. https://www.americansforthearts.org/events/national-arts-andhumanities-month x Ask for a local government proclamation. The mayor and city council can declare Thousand Oaks Arts and Humanities Month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Arts_&_Humanities_Month

3. Economic Development: What arts and cultural strategies should the City pursue to support economic development? How can economic development investments support the arts? x We didn’t get to discuss this
Item No. 11A
§q¨VaV[ZWgWZa‘©N./01234056’
“ª«¬rq”­VŸe[c\Za^®—Wc—[V¯WV]Vac°®_c˜Xd•–X—\Za^šZ±\¨VaV[ZWgWZa²³^ZcV 
®e²•´šµŸ•–_\V]Z_WX[_¶_aZcV^d[X]X—c\_^VXdc–VX[¶Za_·Z`Xah¸XaXcbW_b±W_a±\X[X³VaZfZb–]Vac\—aWV\\˜X—[VbX¶a_·Vc–V \Va^V[Za^±aXYc–VbXacVac_\\ZdVh
¹+¦0O1/H1O9
ºR15/+,+R1/-M+O/H+3-L-O/1OM0Q5J5-12QR650QRI13H-DMJTB-D+331E/1524ºO0Q5F--/+O6I-M+3,Q33-MH1L+O61 RD1,-/0„+OM-L-5T/H+O6,QD/Q51D1OMºF-O/+0O-M/H-+M-10„H1L+O613/--5+O6,0FF+//--,0O3+3/+O60„F-FJ-53„50F/H15/39,+/T1OM1D30R5+L1/-3-,/05»JQ3+O-33/0F0L-/H+O63„05I15M4 ¹-5-+3/H--¼1FRD-ºF-O/+0O-M+O5-615M3/0IH1//H-TM0+O½33-¼,0QO/TIH-5-FT„5+-OM+3+OL0DL-M4º¾Q3/I1O/-M/0 3H15-+/I+/HT0Q
1OMB-D+331„05„Q5/H-5+M-130„H0I1FJ+/+0Q3I-,1O6-/1OMIH1/I-,0QDMD-15O„50F0/H-53¿ H//R3?»»III4-33-¼,0QO/T,5-1/-34056»
ADD/H-J-3/9
AO-//-N0I-5
E-O/„50FFT+NH0OItem No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #12 | November 19, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm
This meeting was held via Zoom and livestreamed to YouTube. Members of the public could register in advance to join the Zoom meeting and/or make public comments, or view on YouTube and submit comments through an online comment forum. x Provide an overview of the General Plan and State regulatory framework relating to parks and open space.
x Provide an overview of Thousand Oaks’ parks, open space, trails, and natural resources including existing programs and policies.
x Brainstorm issues, goals and strategies relating to the above topics that can be included in the General Plan.

GPAC Members
x Present: Amy Commans, Chaise Rasheed, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Emily Dale, Fred Fukanaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Dr. Karen Gorback, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Rorie Skei, Dr. Victor Hayek, and Wyatt McCrea
x Absent: Andy Fox, Alicia Rincon, Dr. Chris Kimball, Dena Jenson, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Ken Lamont, Michael Nigh, and Tara Carruth
City Staff
x Gary Rogers, Deputy City Manager; Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; Dusty Russell, Assistant Economic Development Analyst; Andrew Mooney, Senior Park Planner; Brian Stark, COSCA Administrator Consultant Team
x Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
x Joe Power, Rincon Consultants
Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 2
Matt Raimi welcomed GPAC members and the public with an overview of the evening’s agenda, followed by a review of key Zoom features and public participation opportunities shared by Melissa Stark.

Joe Power began the evening’s presentation with an overview of the General Plan conservation and open space element requirements, State and Federal requirements that pertain to parks and open space, and an overview of natural resources existing conditions including natural communities, threatened plant and wildlife species, and wildlife corridors.

Brian Stark provided an overview of the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency (COSCA) including the trails and open space system and how they are managed in Thousand Oaks.

Andrew Mooney introduced the Conejo Recreation and Park District (CRPD), sharing history and background, how parks are funded, and an overview of the parks system and recreation programs serving Thousand Oaks.

Existing programs and policies, and an overview of community feedback on parks and open space were then shared by Joe Power, followed by potential new policy and program ideas and conclusions from the General Plan Team.

At the end of the presentation, the team paused to answer questions, engage in conversation, and administer one poll to participants in the Zoom meeting. Members of the public watching on YouTube could participate in the Zoom poll through an online forum, however, no responses were collected. These questions, responses, and related comments are listed below.

GPAC member questions on the presentation:
x Regarding the Santa Monica Sierra Madre Wildlife Corridor, is there any effort to provide a 101 Freeway crossing in Thousand Oaks?
o The General Plan Team responded that they are unaware of any new crossings In Thousand Oaks.
o A member of the GPAC added that the Liberty Canyon Wildlife Crossing is about a year away from beginning construction.
x I moved to Thousand Oaks specifically to be close to a public park. With the future Downtown and the need for new housing, will there be plans for pocket parks or public parks and open space along Thousand Oaks Boulevard? o The General Plan Team responded that CRPD is in the process of determining where new parks or recreation areas are needed, looking for opportunities along Thousand Oaks Boulevard for things like linear parks or linkages to other established parks and/or open spaces. The team continued that the types of open space in denser development may be different than other parts of the city.

Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 3
x I want to see clean parks that are well maintained in Thousand Oaks. The Conejo Creek Park area had a recent brush clearing that has made room for new encampments and debris.
o The General Plan Team responded that Conejo Creek Park South recently completed a scheduled brush clearing as part of ongoing maintenance. The team offered to discuss more detailed questions after the meeting. x How do we measure foot traffic on trails and in parks? Does this impact planning decisions?
o The General Plan Team responded that volunteers count users arriving at open spaces and parks at peak periods and ask for zip code information and encourage visitors to take part in an online survey. This helps track usage and determine future messaging for crowd issues.
x How are park fees derived for developers?
o The General Plan Team responded that Quimby fees are broken down by value added and number of new units – they are currently set at approximately $11,000 per new housing unit. When new households are added into the community CRPD needs to provide parks and recreation services for those households. The team noted that Quimby fees, which can be used for land acquisition or improvements, need to be applied in the area in which new housing units are added. Quimby fees are set by CRPD and regulated by the City of Thousand Oaks.

Several members of the public had questions or comments - due to time constraints they were asked to share in small group discussions and/or during public comment. After the discussion, the only Zoom poll was launched:

Poll 1. Where should existing city parks and open space funds be prioritized? *Zoom Responses include GPAC members and some members of the public who joined the virtual meeting. (Note: Not all GPAC members responded to the poll question.) No public comments or questions on the presentation were submitted through the online forum. 8%
43%
38%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Building new parks
Acquiring new open space
Improving existing parks
Adding public access to open spaces
Zoom Responses*
Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 4
Following the presentation, initial discussion, and Zoom poll, the General Plan Team initiated two GPAC member and three public member Zoom breakout groups. Each group spent 30 minutes discussing the questions below, after which one representative shared a report-out from their small group discussion.

Breakout Group Discussion Questions

1. Are there any specific types of recreational facilities that are currently lacking (sports fields, playgrounds, trails, etc.)?

2. Are there any existing recreational facilities that need updating?

3. Are there any specific areas of the City where parks are lacking?

4. What open space areas should be acquisition priorities?

5. Are you interested in increasing funding for open space acquisition and maintenance? If so, what funding mechanisms are you most open to?
The following are the results of the small group discussions for each group.

GPAC Group #1

1. Desire for additional sports fields, an official BMX track, and downhill biking trails in Thousand Oaks.

2. Would like each of the large recreation facilities to have a unique feature, like an amphitheater.

3. Some community centers need to be updated, otherwise recreation facilities are in good condition.

4. New parks will be needed near future housing on and around Thousand Oaks Boulevard.

5. Open space should be acquired in the City to complete the “ring of green.”

6. Would like to see more funding for parks and open space and would recommend corporate sponsors to provide additional funding.

GPAC Group #2

1. The City needs a senior center facility in the Newbury Park area and a park in the Downtown area on Thousand Oaks Boulevard. Would like to see a shuttle for users to Conejo Creek Park North.

2. Existing facilities need improved accessibility for all people. Would also like to see new security measures to maintain safety in public parks.

3. New parks and open space are needed near Downtown.

4. Agree with open space acquisition priority areas identified in the presentation and would consider a new wildlife crossing at the western end of the city.

Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 5

5. Interested in increasing parks and open space funding, open to all ideas shared in the presentation (commercial development linkage fee, sales tax, and park impact fees), and open to Community Facilities Districts (CFD).

Public Group #1

1. The City is lacking downhill mountain bike trails, skate, and BMX areas. Would like to see parks and open space embrace technology with wildlife cameras or WiFi.

2. Existing recreational facilities need more restrooms and WiFi.

3. The City needs new parks near the Downtown Core and the proposed development at the former K-Mart site. Would like to see native plant species added to the Conejo Creek parks.

4. Open space is key to limiting impacts of climate change. Desire to maintain and expand native trees and open space. Would like to see solar panels and charging stations added to parking lots.

5. Did not get to this question.

Public Group #2

1. Would like to see improved amenities at existing recreational facilities like water refill stations, picnic tables, trash cans, bike racks, and restrooms with baby changing tables. Would like to see improvements to active transportation infrastructure, additional trail signage and expanded public access, and more community gardens citywide.

2. The Dover and Hendrix Community Center needs updating and improvements. Would like to see playgrounds converted from wood chips to sand and more permeable surfaces and at all existing recreational facilities. Also, would like to see more bell boxes for mountain bikers in open space, and promotional materials explaining etiquette for mountain bikers and hikers on trails.

3. Parks are lacking on Thousand Oaks Boulevard and trail access is limited in the North Ranch area. Would like to see equestrian access that is separated from fast-moving cars, protected bike paths, and wider sidewalks citywide.

4. Open space areas that provide a linkage to existing parks, trails, and open space should be prioritized for acquisition around the City.

5. Interested in increasing funding for parks and open space. Would consider minimal parking or usage fees at trailheads or sales tax measure.

Public Group #3

1. The City lacks public swimming pools. Would like to see educational games for young people and students that promote caring for the environment.

2. Would like to see more trees planted citywide and replacement of trees in parkways.

Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 6

3. Would like to see better connectivity with the ring of open space and parks. Interested in safe routes for pedestrians to access parks and open space as well as horses and horse trails.

4. Support acquisition of land that will complete the “ring of green” open space in the City, specifically priority areas K and space between B and D as wildlife areas.

5. Did not get to this question.

Approximately 25 members of the public participated in the Zoom Meeting. Several spoke during public comment at the end of the meeting, which is summarized below. While available, no public comment was submitted via the online public comment forum. x I want to restate some of the climate change facts shared earlier tonight. Climate change will result in extreme heat, intense and fastmoving wildfires, among other impacts. While some decisions are beyond our local control, some are related to the choices we make as a community. I believe we can lower local temperatures and reduce impacts to health by preserving open space, expanding parks, strengthen preservation to landmark and heritage trees, setting aside undeveloped land near open space for rewilding and prohibiting development in open space.
x I would like to see more multi-use paths along flood control channels that encourage offstreet walking near creeks, like the one in Newbury Park. Also encourage more access for active transportation modes in the City.
x As a cycling advocate I would like to see directional down-hill only mountain bike trails in shared open space to mitigate conflicts with pedestrians and horses. An uphill trail could be shared by all users. In addition, we should attempt to capture revenue from visitors who use our open space and encourage them to shop or visit local businesses through sponsorships at trail heads.
x I want to thank CRPD and related agencies for doing a great job. I appreciate the wideopen hills and spaces in thousand Oaks. x Thank you for great job with rodent control in open spaces and parks by using owl boxes.

My organization, “Poison-free Conejo Valley” aims to continue educating how human and wildlife interaction can be safer for all.
x I would like to reiterate the importance of increased open space as it relates to climate change. Ventura County is the fastest warming county in lower 48 states, we should make sure climate change is at the forefront of every action in Thousand Oaks.

Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 7
Matt Raimi closed the meeting with an overview of the General Plan schedule and next steps.

Adjourn at 8:20 pm
Attached are small group discussion worksheets from facilitators.

Note: this was a virtual meeting, therefore no sign-in sheets for the GPAC or public were collected.

Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #1
x “Record” your small group discussion.
x “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes x If you run into issues, click “invite host”
x When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
x Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
x The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. x Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
x Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!

1. Are there any specific types of recreational facilities that are currently lacking (sports fields, playgrounds, trails, etc.)?
Notes:
x Use of facilities such as sports fields with set up goals, etc. x Not enough soccer fields
x More destination recreational facilities
x More designated bike trails
x More family-oriented facilities such as mini golf
x Amphitheaters in parks (socially distanced)
For Report out:
x Athletic fields
x More unique destination facilities
x Dedicated BMX and downhill biking trail areas

2. Are there any existing recreational facilities that need updating? Notes:
x Conejo Community Center
x Teen Center
Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #1
x Borchard Center
For Report out:
x Community Centers in general (for regular maintenance only)

3. Are there any specific areas of the City where parks are lacking? Notes:
x Thousand Oaks Blvd in between commercial/retail areas x We should have a taskforce committee to see which areas need to be improved
x Walking trails for different companies using their branding, expanding “Adopt a Trail”
For Report out:
x Thousand Oaks Blvd
x Heavy workplace areas with employees walking around on their breaks

4. What open space areas should be acquisition priorities? Notes:
x Central T.O.

For Report out:
x Any available properties in the center of the City

5. Are you interested in increasing funding for open space acquisition and maintenance? If so, what funding mechanisms are you most open to? Notes:
x Biotech should invest and adopt in these open space areas x (We do not want a rise in sales tax )
For Report out:
x Corporate adoption for acquisition
Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #1
Map for reference
Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #2
x “Record” your small group discussion.
x “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes x If you run into issues, click “invite host”
x When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
x Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
x The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. x Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
x Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!

1. Are there any specific types of recreational facilities that are currently lacking (sports fields, playgrounds, trails, etc.)?
Notes:
x Provide additional programming in the Newbury Park area for seniors, similar to the Goebel Center;
x Programming at the Newbury Park Library or community park. x Provide shuttle or transit options to existing facilities x The downtown area only has two smaller parks and as the area gets more active, more parks will be needed.
x Another community center and a senior center.
x We need a facility similar to the YMCA facility, located just outside the City in Westlake Village. The concept is fantastic and is all encompassing.
x Basketball courts are needed at Conejo Creek Park (North & South). x Be flexible and able to change to meet the needs of the community.

Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #2

2. Are there any existing recreational facilities that need updating? Notes:
x Should be a goal that all parks are accessible for all people, including restrooms, playgrounds, and larger walkways to be able to walk a stroller.
x In response to a comment made earlier in the meeting about trash, we want to make sure our parks are still usable. In other areas, for example Los Angeles and the SFV, parks are over-run, dirty, and feel unsafe. You can also park vehicles in parks in City of LA and never move, keeping old, non-running vehicles. All parks need general upkeep to make sure they are still usable.
x Conejo Creek Park North needs additional maintenance for trash pickup. x Do any parks have security cameras? Would that make people feel more safe or less safe? Some parks feel less safe.

3. Are there any specific areas of the City where parks are lacking? Notes:
x The downtown area, along the TOB corridor.

4. What open space areas should be acquisition priorities? Notes:
x The current priorities made sense.
x Discussed whether a wildlife bridge made sense at the western edge of the City but realize it takes a considerable amount of funding and one is being built nearby.

5. Are you interested in increasing funding for open space acquisition and maintenance? If so, what funding mechanisms are you most open to? Notes:
x Exploring a Community Facilities District (CFD) for acquisition and maintenance.
x What are our fees compared to other cities or the market range? So we don’t outprice ourselves.
x How much money is needed to acquire? Need to account for the cost.

Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #2
Other Group Comments:
x Need further education about wildlife conservation, responsibilities, and living in close proximity to wildlife.
x There’s a big diversity of parks here and they’re each a little bit different and that’s a positive.

Item No. 11A
GPAC Group #2
Map for reference
Item No. 11A
Public Group #1
x “Record” your small group discussion.
x “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes x If you run into issues, click “invite host”
x When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
x Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
x The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. x Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
x Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!

1. Are there any specific types of recreational facilities that are currently lacking (sports fields, playgrounds, trails, etc.)?
Notes:
x Develop specific downhill mountain bike trails
x Look at some trails that are single user trails
x Electric bikes are an issue – too fast and not skilled enough x Parks and playgrounds should be updated
x Allow feeding of ducks with designated foods
x Add more of a feeding aspect
x Embrace technology – interpretive signs with phones
x More skate and BMX parks are needed throughout town
x Trash and recycling bins in parking lots from teens in parks -more park rangers to monitor late night activities
Item No. 11A
Public Group #1

2. Are there any existing recreational facilities that need updating? Notes:
x Some need new restrooms or renovated restrooms (Old Meadows) x South Shore Hills needs a bathroom
x Wifi in some parks
x Critter cams – wildlife in parks and open space

3. Are there any specific areas of the City where parks are lacking? Notes:
x Along the boulevard where mixed use buildings
x Near the new building on the Kmart site
x Locations where there is a large concentration of apartments and lower income neighborhoods
x Need some open spaces closes to the Downtown Core
x Restoration work along Conejo creek; put in native species. x CRPD staff – looking at Boulevard for new parks; Conejo Creek SW (this will be developed soon once more units are developed along the Boulevard.)
o Quimby fee is for the developed park sites
o land on and near boulevard is expensive

4. What open space areas should be acquisition priorities? Notes:
x Need to look at habitats for rare and endangered species as top priority x Maintain wildlife corridors
x Urban canopy needs to be native trees – oaks and other landmark trees x Climate Change
o Ventura is the fastest warming county in the US
o Need as much open space as possible to act as carbon sinks o Native trees that act as carbon sinks
o Climate change will lead to a more active fire season o More shade structures with solar panels and the energy can be used directly for the parks
o All rooftops in the city should have solar
o Electric vehicle charging stations in parks
o Question: is the city benefiting from charging stations? (A:
offsetting costs)
x Add a water recapture systems
Item No. 11A
Public Group #1

5. Are you interested in increasing funding for open space acquisition and maintenance? If so, what funding mechanisms are you most open to? Notes:
x
Item No. 11A
Public Group #1
Map for reference
Item No. 11A
Public Group #2
x “Record” your small group discussion.
x “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes x If you run into issues, click “invite host”
x When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
x Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
x The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. x Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
x Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!

1. Are there any specific types of recreational facilities that are currently lacking (sports fields, playgrounds, trails, etc.)?
Notes:
x Some parks have vending machines. Helpful. Need more offering water.

Even better consider water bottle refill stations, instead. x Add/improve active transportation/connectivity.
x More music venue facilities.
x Rancho Conejo/Hill Canyon – improve user friendliness/improve connectivity.
x Trail markers/trail signs, please.
x Create a second community garden – like Las Flores community garden.

Waitlist is extremely long. Try to make design more communityfriendly, so community can see what people are growing. (Las Flores had to fence off due to homeless issue as well as proximity to riparian habitat.)
x More equestrian access.

Item No. 11A
Public Group #2

2. Are there any existing recreational facilities that need updating? Notes:
x More permeable pavement. (Co-benefit for equestrian. Softer for walking/running. Less of wildfire risk.)
x Bring back the sand (instead of the woodchips)
x Dover & Hendrix – pretty rundown.
x Consider one way trails: Ex: popularity of downhill mountain biking. x Need for enhanced trail education – trail etiquette.
x More bike racks – all parks – need to be closer to actual amenities. x Add bike racks at Tarantula Hill trailhead.
x All men’s restrooms – baby changing stations.
x Garbage cans at all trailheads.
x Gigantic open space – East of Las Flores/Erbes Rd. More equestrian access.

3. Are there any specific areas of the City where parks are lacking? Notes:
x TO Blvd area. Near Los Feliz/TOB streetscape. Perhaps, amphitheater.

Protected bike lanes.
x North Ranch area – more trail access.
x Newbury Park/Kimber area: need more amenities – need for casual gatherings. Flexible/multi-use.

4. What open space areas should be acquisition priorities? Notes:
x Open space connectivity. Open space to open space. A network.

5. Are you interested in increasing funding for open space acquisition and maintenance? If so, what funding mechanisms are you most open to? Notes:
x Low parking fees at trailheads (to help with maintain). Won’t impact adjacent residents as much. Will be like user fee for visitors. Problem:
might incentivize parking in neighborhoods. Might penalize residents that don’t live near trails.
x Sales Tax increase: 0.25%
x Nothing adding to property taxes.

Item No. 11A
Public Group #2
Map for reference
Item No. 11A
Public Group #3
x “Record” your small group discussion.
x “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes x If you run into issues, click “invite host”
x When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
x Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
x The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. x Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
x Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!

1. Are there any specific types of recreational facilities that are currently lacking (sports fields, playgrounds, trails, etc.)?
Notes:
x Public swimming pools
x Safe access to open spaces/recreational areas
x Educational components to play area (mechanical equipment, environment/ habitat/biodiversity/sustainability/land stewardship) x Replacement of trees in parkways, more trees in general

2. Are there any existing recreational facilities that need updating? Notes:
x Generally well maintained
Item No. 11A
Public Group #3

3. Are there any specific areas of the City where parks are lacking? Notes:
x Better connectivity between parks/open spaces
x Education
a. User friendly ways for equestrian access, public education (signage) to heighten awareness for equestrians/bikers/hikers, etc.
b. Integrate increased awareness between human and animal interactions (coexist)
x Improved safety and access for routes between parks

4. What open space areas should be acquisition priorities? Notes:
x Closing the gaps to complete ring of green
x Prioritize wildlife corridor connections (Area K and between V and D)

5. Are you interested in increasing funding for open space acquisition and maintenance? If so, what funding mechanisms are you most open to? Notes:
x Property tax would be most likely
x User fees (discounted parking passes for residents)
Item No. 11A
Public Group #3
Map for reference
Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 1

THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL
PLAN 2045
JOINT GPAC MEETING + WORKSHOP #2

SUMMARY
February 2, 2021 | 6:00 pm – 8:30 pm | Virtual Zoom Webinar

OVERVIEW
On Tuesday, February 2, 2021, the City of Thousand Oaks hosted a joint General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and public workshop to present three draft land use alternatives for the Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 update project. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the workshop took place virtually as a Zoom Webinar from 6:00 to 8:30 pm. Approximately 255 attendees (including 17 GPAC members) joined the Zoom meeting, not counting the consultant team, elected officials, and city staff, with an additional 45 YouTube livestream views. GPAC members participated in the webinar as panelists and were able to use audio to ask questions, while members of the public joined as attendees and typed questions into the Q&A feature. This joint meeting was the second workshop in a series of four that will take place over the course of the General Plan update.

The joint event served as an overview of the materials presented in the Land Use Alternatives Briefing Book, which provides detailed background on the land use alternatives process and maps. The purpose of this event was to provide an overview of the three draft land use alternatives, answer questions from the GPAC and public about the alternatives and instruct the community about how to provide feedback on the land use alternatives. An online survey was available between February 2, 2021 and March 15, 2021, in English and Spanish, and was printed and hand delivered upon request.

The following summary includes an overview of the presentation, polling questions and results, and summary of questions and answers from the GPAC and members of the public.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 2

PRESENTATION
The meeting began with an introduction by City Manager, Andrew Powers, and continued with a presentation by Matt Raimi, project consultant with Raimi + Associates. The evenings presentation was divided into several sections including background, alternatives overview, review of land use alternatives, comparison of alternatives, and conclusion and next steps. Throughout the presentation, the General Plan Team paused to answer questions and facilitate polls. Below are highlights of the presentation sections.

Background
The presentation began with a recap of the General Plan Update process, the benefits of a General Plan Update and key terminology used throughout the presentation of alternatives and in the briefing book. This also included an overview of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements, the City’s Measure E ordinance, and recent State SB330 legislation.

Alternatives Process
This section served as a precursor to the three land use alternatives by highlighting results from previous community engagement activities that led to the delineation of the areas of stability, where little to no change is anticipated, and areas of change, where the General Plan Team proposes changes in land use and or character. Matt noted that less than 8% of the City was identified as an area of change. Also presented in this section were the land use designations which included descriptions and supportive imagery.

Review of Land Use Alternatives
The land use alternatives are a long-term vision for the City that tests values and ideas from the community process. In this section, the three land use alternatives were presented highlighting the common themes and differences among the areas of change. The alternatives were also reviewed as five subareas: Rancho Conejo, Moorpark and West Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Westlake and East End, and village centers within the City.

Comparison of Alternatives
Following the detailed overview of each alternative by sub area, Matt presented a high-level comparison of land use category percentages for the three alternatives and metrics comparing the existing 1970 General Plan to the three land use alternatives.

Conclusion and Next Steps
The meeting concluded with an overview of next steps, including how members of the public could provide feedback through the briefing book, online survey, and virtual office hours.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 3

POLLING
Throughout the presentation, the General Plan Team used informal polls to engage GPAC members and attendees.

Below are the poll questions and corresponding results. Please note that not all participants completed one or all polls, and the participants who connected by phone only did not have access to the virtual poll.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
Live Work Own a
business
Own a
property
None of
the
above
Do you live and or work in
Thousand Oaks?
GPAC + Public Responses

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%
If you live in Thousand Oaks, how
long have you lived here?
GPAC + Public Responses

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%
100.00%
Rent Own
If you live in Thousand Oaks, do
you rent or own your home?
GPAC + Public Responses

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%
Under 18 25-34 35-44 45-64 65 or
older
What is your age?
GPAC + Public Responses
Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 4

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%
None, this is my first 1-3 meetings 4-6 meetings 7 or more meetings How many General Plan-related meetings and events
have you attended?
GPAC + Public Responses
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
NO. Continue to allow
townhomes and small
apartments in Medium
Density Areas
YES. Lower the density and
transfer the capacity to the
Areas of Change
A combination of the above don't know
The existing General Plan allows for townhomes and small apartments to be built in some single-family areas. The proposed alternatives would reallocate this unbuilt residential capacity into the Areas of Change. Do you agree with this approach?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
In Rancho
Conejo
At The Oaks
Mall or Janss
Marketplace
Near Downtown On the eastern
end of
Thousand Oaks
Boulevard (e.g.,
the Pavilion at
Westlake)
Around
Westlake Village
Shopping Center
In shopping
centers
throughout the
City
No preference
What is your top choice for where housing should be added? Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Yes, add a mixed-use district for
employees to live near where they
work
No, maintain the area for jobs only Not sure
Do you think that mixed-use development should be allowed in or immediately adjacent to Rancho Conejo?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Leave it as a regional mall Maintain some retail but
allow townhomes and 2-3
story multifamily residential
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 3-4 story
mixed-use
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 5-6 story
mixed-use
What best describes your vision for the future of The Oaks Mall? 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Leave it as a regional mall Maintain some retail but
allow townhomes and 2-3
story multifamily residential
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 3-4 story
mixed-use
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 5-6 story
mixed-use
What best describes your vision for the future of Janss Marketplace? Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Yes No Not sure
Should multifamily residential development be allowed on Thousand Oaks Boulevard?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Keep as-is Increasing development potential and
employment opportunities in the area
Allow a portion to convert to mixeduse
What best describes your vision for the Townsgate Road area? Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 7

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Throughout the presentation, the General Plan Team paused for questions to allow for discussion and input. The General Plan Team answered various questions from the GPAC, and the public submitted through the Q&A feature in Zoom Webinar. Questions and comments from the GPAC and the public are listed below (bolded) along with the General Plan Team responses (italics).

Questions from the GPAC
As the population and number of housing units increases on Thousand Oaks Boulevard, will the Plan include required publicly accessible parks and open space? How does that fit into the general plan designations?
The General Plan will identify general areas where new public parks are needed, but it cannot designate private property as parks or open space, as it would eliminate that property’s development potential and monetary value. Cityowned property can be designated as future parks.

RHNA numbers are significantly higher than previous cycles, does this include a “catch up” set of numbers? Can you provide background on these numbers?
This round does include an increase because over the last 30 years the State has not kept up with population growth and housing demands. The last time California was this unbalanced was in the 1980s. As a State, we are in a housing deficit of about 2.4 million units. This RHNA cycle was an attempt to begin to make up for that deficit. It is unclear if the State will continue to use higher numbers in the future.

How does transit factor into the land use designations? Is proximity to transit a factor when considering residential types?
More people in a concentrated area and higher density residential results in more successful transit options. The areas identified by the GPAC and the public for higher density housing happen to be in locations that may be viable for public transit.

To what extent will we build in assumptions about retail space and office space based on the COVID-19 pandemic?
There are knowns and unknowns related to the pandemic and its impact to the build environment. We know that retail and types of retail will likely change permanently, while the verdict is still out on office space. We are currently seeing development projects moving forward with office components across the city.

Can you summarize what the General Plan is, and what it isn’t, how it relates to city council, assisting property owners, etc.?
The General Plan is the long-term vision and policy document for the city, often referred to as the city’s constitution. All decisions about development flow from the General Plan and future policy documents must be consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan sets forth land use designations, which regulate, at a high level, future uses that are allowed on each property within the City. General Plan land use designations feed into Zoning, which includes dimensional requirements for properties like building height, setbacks, etc. There are a series of other documents and regulations that implement the vision of the General Plan. The General Plan does not build or demolish buildings, it sets the vision of the future of the City, and it is at the discretion of property owners to make changes to their property according to the vision and guidance set forth in the General Plan.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 8
Is parking a factor in the alternatives development process? In the speaker series (General Plan Community Forum #2) it was mentioned that many cities over develop parking, which goes unused. Can developers repurpose parking lots into housing and/or mixed-use development? Parking was considered in a limited capacity at this phase, but the General Plan does not specify the amount of parking required for development. The General Plan can include parking related policies, but parking specifications are addressed through the Zoning Code.

Quality of life is the concern for many residents – do we have enough land to increase population? Are we going to reduce the existing quality of life?
One of the challenges the General Plan update process tries to balance is preserving quality of life and making changes that people want to see in the City. In general, we see that the best performing retail spaces can have traffic congestion around them, and the commercial spaces with plenty of parking are not performing as well. The alternatives will look for balance between activity and accessibility.

Do these three alternatives stand on their own? I saw great components of each that I liked. Are there opportunities to pull different components from each?
Yes, the goal of the alternatives phase is to test different ideas. In some instances, we are looking at the extremes to test what works and gain insight from the community. The preferred land use alternative may ultimately be a combination of all three alternatives with new components as well. The survey asks specific questions to identify what components resonate with the community.

Throughout the alternatives process, have you considered ownership of property? What is the path to seeing the changes in the alternatives process realized? In this phase, we did not do a detailed analysis of property ownership, although through city staff we had general sense of what that looked like. Moving forward, we want to look at ownership patterns and likelihood of development. That is the difference between buildout and growth projections. Through the horizon of the General Plan (2045) we will be analyzing what could happen in roughly the next 25 years.

Questions from the Public
The following questions were asked in the Zoom Q&A feature and answered verbally by the General Plan Team.

Is parking included in FAR ratios?
Surface parking and structured parking above grade is included in FAR, while below grade parking is not.

Given the number units needed for low and very low-income housing, will the city proactively identify areas and subsidize development for these kinds of Affordable projects? After the preferred land use alternative is confirmed, the City will be required to identify specific locations that could accommodate low and very low-income housing as part of Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the Housing Element. Related to subsidies, the General Plan will address housing through policies and programs.

Can you provide more detail related to the parks and open space question? While we cannot designate private property for parks or open space, all new residential multifamily development is required to provide parks/open space for all units and common parks/open space as part of development standards.

Can you build taller structures thereby reducing the new land needed to develop? The alternatives explore those options. The alternatives have different organizations of land by either concentrating the development through taller structures or increasing the number of areas proposed for residential development.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 9
Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is becoming an important part of land use planning – are any land use alternatives future scenarios that reduce VMT being considered? Yes, VMT is one of the metrics that is considered when evaluating the three land use alternatives, in addition the EIR will consider the impacts to VMT through the proposed land use changes.

What will ultimately be presented to City Council?
Feedback from the survey, office hours, and this meeting will direct changes to the land use alternatives, which will be presented to City Council and Planning Commission in the Spring.

Have the previous General Plans been directed by State mandated housing laws or where they directed by a locally driven process?
A combination of both, this update process includes all Elements of the General Plan, however, the housing element has several State requirements that must be addressed every 8 years. There are repercussions for not having a certified housing element in each of the 8-year cycles, the city would not be eligible for grant funding that could limit or reduce many capital programs.

What is the penalty for violating SB 330?
Recent legislation puts financial penalties on a city for not complying with SB 330.

After the General Plan is adopted, how would a property owner go about requesting a land use change? Individuals would have to apply for a General Plan and Zoning amendment that would be analyzed at that time, considering the existing local ordinances (Measure E) and state requirements. We encourage folks to make detailed parcel-level comments on the briefing book and the survey, as this is a good opportunity to work through potential changes.

Do the units have to be built?
The General Plan needs to Plan for and maintain 81,124 units, but development of housing units is dependent on individual property owners. The General Plan does not build or demolish any buildings.

The following questions were asked by members of the public and answered in writing by the General Plan Team through the Zoom Q&A feature during the presentation.

Question Asked In Q&A Response In Q&A
Will you make the maps interactive so that
when you click on a parcel it tells you the
GP designation? Other cities do this to
make it more user friendly and technically
accurate for residents and professionals
viewing the maps.

After this presentation, we will provide information on how to access interactive maps that allow you to click on a parcel and check its designation.

Are there any plans to pre-zone
unincorporated islands? Although not discussed in tonight’s presentation, the General Plan land use map will include designations for the
unincorporated county islands. No changes are being proposed for those areas.

Since there are 33,043 units available
under Measure E, how many are currently
under consideration?
As explained in the presentation, the General Plan needs to maintain the capacity for 81,124 units. These do not need to be built but planned for.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 10
Who are our hosts for this? City of Thousand Oaks and the General Plan consultant team We all understand what a "taking" is,
however, all these new housing units will
require new parks. How will this be
addressed?
City staff is working with CRPD to discuss where new housing units would potentially be built under each of the alternatives, and how that would result in needs for new or expanded park facilities. It is ultimately CRPD’s decision as to where they will place new parks to best meet the demand, and to purchase the property needed for those parks using parks impact fees collected from developers.

I am hard of hearing. Is there a way to get
subtitles? closed captioning will be available on the city's YouTube channel tomorrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8YP74Kqkvw&feature=yo
utu.be
How do I access closed captioning? Can an
ASL interpreter be provided? closed captioning will be available on the city's YouTube channel tomorrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8YP74Kqkvw&feature=yo
utu.be
Are granny flats counted toward the stock
numbers? Granny flats are not included in the total unit counts Could you post a link to the briefing book? https://raimi.konveio.com/thousand-oaks-2045-land-usealternatives Please point me to where the survey
resides on the page? I see a link for survey
results, but not tonight’s polls.
https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts
I do not see a survey link on the main
website. https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts
I’m on the city website and don’t see the
link for the land use link https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts Each parcel that has been separately
delineated on the map should include the
acreage. It isn't hard to do. They did it
when they reconfigured Measure E.

I am checking with our GIS folks. We can add to the interactive maps tomorrow. Stay tuned. This capability was added after the meeting.

All the questions being posted are not being
seen by all attendees. I apologize for the inconvenience. I am unsure why this is happening. I encourage attendees to review the briefing book and respond to the online alternatives survey to record their comments. www.toaks2045.org
Will all the questions that are not being
answered or shown on screen be addressed
later somewhere?
If your question was not answered tonight, please attend one of our upcoming Virtual Office Hours. We received over 200 questions and tried to get to as many as possible. Thank you all for the great and thoughtful questions!
Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 11
What is the threshold for low income? Income categories are based on a percentage of the median income for the county. Additional information is in the Briefing Book.

Are residents able to vote yes or no on
proposed developments in their area? Individual residents do not vote on proposed developments, Planning Commissioners and/or the City Council vote on
projects. Residents are encouraged to participate in the public process providing input during environmental document review, public hearings and submitting correspondence to the City to help inform the decision makers.

Can you incorporate live work as a form of
mixed use in the General Plan? Live work would be permitted in mixed use areas Also, can we propose land uses currently
not identified to be included within the
proposed alternative change areas?
Matt will be describing these later in the presentation Also, how does the 2,615 needed units
under the state plan “fit” within the
available units under Measure E?
Measure E limits the citywide residential capacity. Many areas of the city were built at a lower density than what was allowed by the General Plan, resulting in unbuilt residential capacity.

The land use alternatives propose reallocating this unbuilt capacity from established residential neighborhoods into the Areas of Change.

What is the penalty for planning for or
building all 81,000 units? Measure E requires that the city not plan for more than 81,126 units, while SB 330 says the city may not plan for less than that number.

Is this a new survey or is it the one we had
opportunity to fill out a month or two ago? New survey. https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts Is it still possible to become a member of
the GPAC? Please attend future GPAC meetings. these are open to the public. Please sign up for notification of these meetings on www.toaks2045.org
It appears that the outcome already seems
made and the representatives of the
community is very small as there are over
100,000 people. What are you doing to get
the community involved and not push the
destruction of the community?
Please help us get as much feedback from the widest cross section of the TO community. Please respond to the online alternatives survey. www.toaks2045.org
The survey is open for the month of February.
what if we live and work in Thousand Oaks? please pick one.

The 3 options are heavily weighted on
Mixed Use. Are there still options to
consider Low Density SFD on certain
parcels?
Please provide this comment in the online survey for areas where you think Low Density SFD development would be
appropriate.

How can I get a briefing book? Is there a
link on City website? Please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at www.toaks245.org.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 12
How much impact does input have at this
point? Could public input influence which
sites are recommended to City Council?
Please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at www.toaks245.org. This is the start of the public review process and your input is valuable
How can I obtain a copy of the 70 page
Briefing Book? Is it "online"?
Please review the briefing book at www.toaks245.org.

I'm going to understand better once I've
had a chance to read all this. It's a lot to
process from a presentation. I'd like to have
a pdf of the slides as well, the keys are too
small to read on zoom.

Please review the briefing book which has detailed information and interactive maps and respond to the survey at
www.toaks2045.org.
wow! the poll answers are full of bias, and
none offer an open ended response. Please take the online alternatives survey which allows you to record open ended responses. www.toaks2045.org
Would like to know how many units of
housing each of the alternatives is allowing.

Are all alternatives going to allow for an
equal number increased housing units?
Please take time to read the Land Use Alternatives Briefing Book. https://www.toaks2045.org/events
All alternatives cannot allow more or less units overall due to SB 330 and Measure E.

What about solar over parking and
buildings? Solar is now required for all new residential statewide Why do ADUs/Granny Flats not count
toward Measure E mandates? can this be
modified?
State Law does not allow ADU's to count towards land use density/capacity. Measure E cannot be modified to count ADU's as part of overall dwelling capacity.

The poll is not in conflict with the prior
poll, the question was should mix use be
allowed in NBP, the answer is yes....the
question wasn’t whether it should be
concentrated there...if that was the
question the answer would be no
Thank you for the clarification
I think the difference in opinion re: Rancho
Conejo is related to information given
regarding Alt 1 - Alt 3. We did not have this
visual when first poll regarding same was
asked.

Thank you for the clarification
Whose quality of life? The families doubled
up into apartments because they cant find a
home?
Thank you for your comment. Please also record your thoughts on the online survey. https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts Concerned about impact to traffic of
additional development around TO
Blvd/WL Blvd. Traffic getting to and from
high school is already so challenging (preCovid when school was in session) Thank you for your comment. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Re Poll 4 - The residential areas should go
out into the business/industrial part of
Rancho Conejo. They are NOT compatible
Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 13
with the neighborhoods on the South side
of the 101.

Live Poll # 4 did not include the answers I
needed to provide. Nothing in this City
should be higher than 3 stories. That's our
limit.

Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Does this company understand that this city
doesn't want mixed use and they need to
come up with a non mixed plan. Your polls
all assume we are on board for mixed use
which I guarantee you we are not.

Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
I see another option for the mall as a
transport hub so residents to telecommute
commute but get out of their homes.
therefore, the mall becomes a “WeWork”
type of space as well. This does not exclude
the “mixed use” model, but “Mall as transit
hub” should be considered as a future
option.

Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Move the Toyota used car lot into the car
area south of the Blvd. It's an eyesore. Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Mixed Use growth...got it...move on to the
next section Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
(BTW...The 2 pdf downloads of the Land
Use Alternatives briefing books do not
seem to have separate unique file names
when downloading them.)
Thank you, we will fix after this meeting.

I believe the link in response to Larry
Turner was missing a 0...it should be
https://www.toaks2045.org/
thank you.
some of these areas already have multifamily neighborhoods. Does this mean you would knock it down and rebuild it?
That is dependent of the private property owners. The General Plan sets the policy whereby a property owner could propose redevelopment if it complies with density and other policies.

What is the green area on Westlake and
East End Alt 1? That is SCE property along Hampshire, which is designated Utilities and Flood Control.

Do they have a financial interest in what
happens? Are they tied in with any
developers?
The consultants do not own any property in the city and have been retained by the City to prepare a GP Update.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 14
Do we have enough water supply to fulfill
the requirements of measure E units in
Thousand Oaks?
The current Urban Water Management Plans for the multiple water purveyors all account for the amount of Measure E units under the 1996 General Plan. The General Plan Update
Environmental Impact report will analysis water supply under the preferred land use scenario, which will also have to be compliant with Measure E, just analyzed under current water supply circumstances.

Is the thought to take down the mall and
build new? The development envisioned in the land use alternatives could involve demolition and replacement of existing buildings, repurposing of existing buildings, and/or new buildings to supplement existing buildings. It is up to each property owner to determine if, when, and how to redevelop their properties. The mall and many other properties in Thousand Oaks have very large surface parking lots that could be used as locations for new buildings. The parking could be replaced with parking structures.

Can you repost the slides of the areas to be
developed? The entire presentation will be posted on the web site at toaks2045.org after the meeting. All of the maps and
information in the presentation are also included in the Briefing Book which is available now on the web site.

The Mixed Use land designations of Low,
Medium, & High have corresponding FAR of

0.25, 0.5, 1.0. The FAR seems to be
extremely low and not proportion to
density to achieve a reasonable size of
dwelling units. To reach these densities at
say a 0.5 FAR would have to be micro units
and not suitable for families. Is this correct?
The FAR is only for the commercial portion of a mixed use development
Can you touch on the funding
mechanisms/strategies for implementation
at this stage in the planning process?
The General Plan puts policies in place to manage development that is initiated by the private sector based on market conditions. The City would not itself build any of the
development envisioned by these land use alternatives.
500 survey responses is not predictable of
the city desires. There are 130,000 people
and only 400_ responded. An additional
survey should be sent out now that the
program has visibility.

The General Plan update process is ongoing and there are ongoing opportunities to provide additional input. Please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at
www.toaks245.org.

Can you please type in the Q&A what Matt
said in response to Rorie's question about
parks not being provided for thousands of
new housing units? Very important
question.

The GP will assess the need for new parks. However, the city cannot designate private property as parks or open space. is the GPAC group voting, or just the
residents participating? The GPAC and the attendees are all voting Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 15
Given the additional 2,600 RHNA units, will
the City maintain the "unit pool" system
used under Measure E? Or will that be
changed?
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) requires the City to allocate all of its residential capacity onto the land use map. The current “pool” system will be discontinued with the updated General Plan.

Given the # of units we need for low and
very low income residents, will the city
work proactively to identify parcels and
subsidize development of affordable
projects?
The Housing Element, which is a part of the GP process, will identify housing sites.

Will the planners or sustainability office
compare VMT's and estimated GHG
emission increases or reduction of each
alternative?
The metrics for VMT and GHG will be presented later in the presentation
Any indication whether those commercial
properties will actually be utilized in all
that mixed use? A town I used to live in
went very mixed use heavy at one point,
and most of the commercial spaces were
never leased. Has there been research into
the demand?
The mixed-use designations envision different options for providing a mix of uses with varying degrees of commercial and residential based on location and market conditions. We recognize that the traditional mixed-use format of retail on the ground floor and residential above does not work in all locations and can result in vacant commercial spaces if not implemented properly.

Does the City have a jobs growth goal that
was used for the alternatives? The numbers being presented are build-out numbers. how do I get to that firs poll we had? my
friend just logged in, Carol, and wants to
take it.

The poll was an informal survey at the start of the presentation.

It is now closed. The official survey will collect demographic information.

Not all questions are posting to everyone.

No censoring please. The questions and responses are available to all attendees and GPAC members.

Where can I find the list of stakeholders
who were consulted earlier on? The stakeholder summaries are available on the project website. www.toaks2045.com
How can you fulfill the state requirements if
you can not get any property owners to go
along with any Alternatives?
The State requires cities to plan for more housing understanding that the property owners have the choice to develop.
will measure E be repealed? There are no plans to repeal Measure E.

Also, is there any consideration to allow
affordable housing to be developed upon
church/synagogue land (without requiring
any type of General Plan amendment)?
There is state legislation under consideration to allow church properties to have housing by right.

None of your designs have rooftop gardens
for commercial or residential. These type of design components would not be part of the General Plan. Those type of requirements can be incorporated into zoning ordinance update, which would follow policy direction from the General Plan.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 16
What changes in city infrastructure are
required and accordingly incorporated in
the plan to accommodate this increase in
housing and commercial density.

This will be studied as part of the Environmental Impact Report, which will be available for public review later this year.

Is there a paper version of the survey that is
being distributed, to include the input of
folks without computer or Internet access?
To request a paper copy of the Briefing Book and survey, please email [email protected].

What about traffic impact? Many roads are
near gridlock at certain times of the day.

Adding density will make this worse. As
density increases near the freeway, there
will be less space remaining to
accommodate traffic (adding turn lanes, for
instance).

Traffic will be analyzed under the Environmental Impact Report. State Law requires a new metric for analyzing
transportation, which is Vehicle Miles Travelled.

Can a property's land use designation still
be considered after this meeting for
another use? For example, if none of the
alternatives allow for housing, is there an
opportunity to add before final vote?
We are looking for all input. Please provide your comments through the survey and interactive maps provided on
www.toaks2045.com.

The final decision will be made by the City Council later this Spring.

It is critical that acreage be provided for
each parcel you're showing. If the plan is to
go to mixed use "high" (45-60 units per acre
with a possible density bonus of 35% or
greater for "affordable"), the public should
be able to determine what the ultimate
increase in intensity would be at build-out.

We have some overall acreage numbers that will be presented shortly. These are also included in the briefing book.
www.toaks2045.org
Will you add acreage for the parcels to the
map? We will check and see if that is possible.

Will these slides be made available after
the meeting?
Yes
Will the housing element explore ADU's and
strategies to encourage these units?
Yes
Are there any traffic studies being
conducted for these alternatives? Yes, the EIR will include traffic studies Will this PPP be available in the TO2045
website? yes. Also, please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at www.toaks245.org.

Will a transportation impact study be done
to evaluate future land use scenarios? Yes. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the General Plan, including
development that may result from the preferred land use alternative. A transportation impact study will be conducted as part of the EIR. The Draft EIR will be released for public review along with the complete draft General Plan later this year.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 17
will all of these alternatives allow for the
81,000 housing units that are needed Yes. As described earlier, State law requires that the capacity is maintained.

Will the questions be archived? Yes. Please also provide your input by completing the survey.

Does the state mandate the number of low
income units that are required? Yes. The RHNA allocation has a breakdown of units by income levels
Other Comments
The workshop accumulated hundreds of comments and questions - some were addressed verbally to all in attendance at the workshop, some were addressed through the written Q&A feature, and some could not be addressed due to time constraints. The major themes of the latter comments and questions are summarized below. x Please provide closed captioning, ASL interpretation, and translation at future meetings. x Housing affordability, senior housing, and multigenerational housing needs are issues that need to be addressed.
x Consider rephrasing “protect single family neighborhoods”. x How is the City analyzing needs of our local community, economy, and environment? x Please clarify the thresholds for low and very low-income housing and if that addresses housing needs for those who are experiencing homelessness.
x Please clarify Measure E local ordinance and the State’s RHNA allocation process. x How will the General Plan address inclusion, incorporate active transportation, gentrification, and address parking?
x Are minority communities, populations with disabilities, and those without internet access being proactively reached through the General Plan process?
x Will the General Plan address sustainability solutions like zero carbon housing, and are there energy use goals and requirements for the future?
x How will water supply be addressed?
x Does the General Plan accommodate existing population or entice new populations? x Are there any plans to pre-zoning unincorporated County islands? x Can you touch on the funding mechanisms or strategies for implementation at this stage in the planning process?
x Are there options to add more single family residential? x Can the acreage be provided for each parcel within the change areas? x Are there job growth targets or targets for the types of jobs being created? x Concerned about new development and potential changes to City’s character. x Will there be impacts to the local school district?
x Will a form-based code be prepared?
x Will the General Plan prepare a land use/zoning consistency analysis? x Access to affordable housing for people of all ages is a huge issue.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 18
x Why do the alternatives propose so much retail space? x Will the General Plan include updates to infrastructure? Specifically bicycle infrastructure. x Are there public funds available to incentivize development according to the General Plan? x Why do the alternatives focus on the 101-corridor so heavily? x How does the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan interface with the new General Plan? Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update

GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY

COMMITTEE
Meeting #14 | March 24, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm | Virtual Meeting

MEETING NOTES
This meeting was held via Zoom and livestreamed to YouTube. Members of the public could register in advance to join the Zoom meeting and/or make public comments or view only on YouTube.

OBJECTIVES
x Provide an overview of recent community engagement activities. x Summarize land use alternatives survey results.
x Discuss preliminary direction for preferred land use alternative. x Review project schedule.

ATTENDEES
GPAC Members
x Present: Amy Commans, Alicia Rincon, Andy Fox, Chaise Rasheed, Darren Bovard, Emily Dale, Fred Fukanaga, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Patrick DuRoss, Rorie Skei, Tara Carruth, Dr. Victor Hayek, and Wyatt McCrea x Absent: Dr. Chris Kimball, Dena Jenson, Ken Lamont, Michael Nigh City Staff
x Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; and Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner
Consultant Team
x Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 2

MEETING SUMMARY
This meeting included closed captioning and simultaneous Spanish translation via two interpreters.

Approximately 97 people participated, including city staff and consultant team, GPAC members, and members of the public.

PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION
Matt Raimi welcomed GPAC members and the public with an overview of the evening’s agenda, followed by a status update on General Plan process.

The presentation began with an overview of community engagement, noting the General Plan Update efforts to date as well as the various activities, campaigns, and meetings held to discuss and raise awareness for the three land use alternatives. Matt highlighted the high rate of public interest in the land use alternatives process, which garnered over 2,100 survey responses, 6,000 public comments, and an additional 1,000 comments on the Land Use Alternatives Briefing Book.

Then, Matt described frequently asked questions from the public during the land use alternatives process, and their responses. These included questions like, “Why update the land use map?”, “What are land use alternatives?”, and “Does the General Plan require new housing to be built?” among others.

After updating the group on recent community engagement activities and commonly asked questions, Matt presented the land use alternatives survey results. These results covered demographics, citywide, and area specific responses. The demographics results were compared to citywide demographic data and demographics from the 2020 statistically valid Citywide Attitude Survey to better understand how representative the land use alternatives survey respondents were to the larger Thousand Oaks community. Citywide survey results included an overview of the three land use alternatives, the commonalities and differences, and the preferences indicated by respondents. The specific areas referenced in the survey included the five major change areas: Rancho Conejo, Moorpark Road and East Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Westlake and East End, and Village Centers. These survey results guide and direct land use changes specific to each major change area. For a detailed look at the survey results, please visit the General Plan Update website, TOaks2045.org.

During the presentation, two Zoom polls were conducted to gauge GPAC and public responses to the survey results. Those questions and results are shown below.

Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 3
Poll 1. Did you take the land use alternatives survey?
Poll 2. What is your overall impression or reaction to the survey results? *Zoom Responses include GPAC members and members of the public who joined the virtual meeting (Note: Not all GPAC members or members of the public responded to the poll question).

Following the presentation of survey results and polls, GPAC members providing their comments and reactions to the survey results.

GPAC member comments on the presentation and survey results:
x I am not surprised with the desire to keep the Moopark Road and East Thousand Oaks Boulevard area commercial. Though there is potential to modify the Janss Marketplace and The Oaks Mall to accommodate housing. Thousand Oaks has a lot of retail, which is changing quickly. There is a need for flexibility specifically for larger retail properties. Perhaps we can allow multiple land use designations like mixed-use high, or mixed-use medium on a portion to allow flexibility. x I am surprised by the lack of enthusiasm for village centers that provide walkable neighborhood centers. This would help provide the diversity of housing stock close to existing neighborhoods and should be on the table for the future.
18%
82%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
No
Yes
GPAC + Public Responses
25%
49%
25%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Not surprised
Somewhat surprised
Very surprised
GPAC + Public Responses
Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 4
x I feel we are missing the realistic build-out numbers for the City. I feel the current maximum is more like 50,000 units, which is based off the 2011 Environmental Impact Report for the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan. The natural place for mixed-use development is the Moorpark Road and Janss Marketplace area. Not a fan of taller buildings and I want to keep a slower pace of change in the City. x After looking at the Briefing Book comments, it is important to note the General Plan is a blueprint, not a guaranteed change. There is room for change in land use designation around The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. The existing retail bubble and effects of the pandemic could cause a greater decline in shopping. In addition, Thousand Oaks saw a population decline in the last year, which may continue due to the cost of living. I am interested to see what the Census reports in terms of population trends.

I think there is a need for housing choices for the populations that already live in Thousand Oaks, not necessarily for a lot of new people.
x After attending almost all the land use alternatives open house sessions, I talked with other residents ages 24-35 to get their take on things. Folks were most passionate about the idea of mixed-use development, wanting to see 3-5 stories buildings, specifically at the Janss Marketplace. Most people I talked to were excited about the village center concept and expressed a desire for more residential and mixed-use development along Thousand Oaks Boulevard. Overall, most were happy these ideas are being considered through the process, noting the single-family neighborhoods leave out young people who want to transition out of small apartments into other types of housing stock. x I feel both surprised and not surprised by the survey results, specifically with the low response rate in younger age brackets. I do not know how many people that age think there are opportunities for them in Thousand Oaks. We need more job opportunities.
x We need to stay focused on the process and trust community input. We cannot get sidetracked with specific numbers. I was not surprised by the survey results; we have a lot of forward-thinking folks in Thousand Oaks, and many recognize that we need change to maintain the quality of life in the City. We need to look at different types of housing stock, keep our options open, and use a balanced approach.

The General Plan is a blueprint for the entire City, we need to have a vision and be flexible. x I am surprised by the lack of support for village centers based on my conversations with GPAC members and feedback from other community meetings and surveys. I think we should keep that option on the table. Village centers are a better way to integrate different types of housing into the community, as opposed to having them segregated. I am concerned with the low response rate from the Hispanic/Latino community.
x The survey results show support for higher densities, but I am concerned with parking and crowding. x After talking with friends in the 25 to 34-year-old age range who grew up in Thousand Oaks and subsequently left the area, I think the downtown is a great place to add residential. I am more cautious about the intersection of Westlake and Thousand Oaks Boulevards due to existing traffic congestion. x We should maintain the openness and views in Thousand Oaks. Supportive of mixed-use in the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan area but concerned with overcrowding and traffic that was referenced in the survey comments. Think we should take a measured approach for implementing change in Thousand Oaks.

Item No. 11A
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 5
x Regarding participation from the Hispanic community, I was hoping for more input, but spoke with many people who did not understand the survey. Many folks couldn’t attend meetings and thought the concepts were difficult to understand. I appreciate the effort to reach out to the community.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Approximately 50 members of the public participated in the Zoom Meeting. Several spoke during public comment at the end of the meeting, which is summarized below. x The approach to village centers should be tailored to each area, as opposed to a blanket designation applied to all.
x Supportive of slow growth, confused about how we inform the entire community about the General Plan process. Many folks do not know about it.
x How are the individual survey comments accounted for in the numerical data? How is the land use map going to be designed?
x Do not feel the comments are a true representation, most community members want to keep the lowdensity lifestyle. x I do not support mixed-use in the area behind my backyard. x Want to see the results for each area, feel as though Casa Conejo is being dumped on. Would like to see a breakdown of survey results by zip code.
x Why are we not talking about congestion and traffic? How will transportation be accommodated? x The General Plan does not address Skyworks and semiconductor industries. x Not supportive of the General Plan change, though aware we need more housing. x Thousand Oaks Boulevard property owner and member of TOBA and supportive of mixed-use. Feel that people want Thousand Oaks Boulevard to be more pedestrian-oriented. Overall supportive of the alternatives.
x Village centers are an attractive idea that offer many benefits, like supporting family’s ability to live and work in Thousand Oaks.

WRAP UP
Matt Raimi closed the meeting with an overview of the General Plan schedule and next steps.

Adjourn at 8:15 pm
Note: this was a virtual meeting, therefore no sign-in sheets for the GPAC or public were collected.

Item No. 11A
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 1

THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL
PLAN 2045
JOINT GPAC MEETING + WORKSHOP #3

SUMMARY
April 21, 2021 | 6:00 pm – 8:30 pm | Virtual Zoom Meeting Attendees
GPAC Members

Present: Andy Fox, Chaise Rasheed, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Fred Fukunaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Rorie Skei, Dr. Victor Hayek

Absent: Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Dr. Chris Kimball, Dena Jenson, Emily Dale, Ken Lamont, Michael Nigh.

Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Tara Carruth, Wyatt McCrea Public
This was a virtual meeting; hence no public sign-in is available.

Overview
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021, the City of Thousand Oaks hosted a joint General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and public workshop to present the preferred land use map for the Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 update project. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the workshop took place virtually as a Zoom Meeting from 6:00 to 8:30 pm. Approximately 75 attendees (including 13 GPAC members) joined the Zoom meeting, not counting the consultant team, elected officials, and city staff, with an additional 100 YouTube views. Members of the public could register in advance to join the live meeting along with GPAC members. Both GPAC and members of the public had access to video and audio throughout the presentation and discussion. This joint meeting was the third workshop in a series of four that will take place over the course of the General Plan update.

The joint event provided a brief overview of the land use alternatives survey results and supplemental analysis, an overview of key components of the preferred land use map, and breakout group discussions among GPAC and community members. The General Plan Team also announced the preferred land use map survey which was open between April 20 and May 12, 2021 and available in English and Spanish.

The following summary includes an overview of the presentation, community small group discussions, GPAC direction, and public comment.

Item No. 11A
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 2
Presentation and Discussion
The evening kicked off with a presentation by Matt Raimi, project consultant with Raimi + Associates, which was divided into several sections including background and process overview, land use alternatives survey results, overview of preferred land use map, and next steps.

Below are highlights of the presentation by section and group discussions.

PRESENTATION
Background + Process
Matt introduced the meeting objectives, how community members can provide feedback on the draft land use map, an overall update on the General Plan Update process.

The land use alternatives process overview included a recap of the flow of work, areas of change and stability map, high-level comparison of the three land use alternatives, and overview of the survey. In this section, Matt shared some of the community engagement activities conducted for the three land use alternatives, survey statistics, demographics of survey respondents, and results of detailed sensitivity analysis.

Land Use Alternatives Survey Results + Preferred Land Use Map
This section outlined the preferred land use process, proposed designations, and details of the land use alternatives survey results and how they relate to the new preferred map. The preferred land use map incorporated components of the three land use alternatives based primarily on survey results. The preferred map provides less total development capacity and maximum density compared to the previous three alternatives.

Matt highlighted the overall characteristics of the preferred land use map, then reviewed each of the five geographic areas relating survey feedback to the preferred map changes. Matt noted that the vast majority (83%) of the citywide preferred land use map is made up of single-family residential and parks, golf courses, or open space.

Preferred Land Use Alternative Next Steps
At the end of the presentation, Matt shared key dates and next steps in the preferred land use map process including the survey open through May 12, 2021, presentations to Planning Commission on April 26, 2021 and City Council on May 18th and 25th.

DISCUSSION
Breakout groups
After the presentation, members of the public and GPAC dispersed into small groups to discuss the preferred land use map. The GPAC remained in the main Zoom room, while members of the public were invited to join breakout groups with a facilitator. Members of the public could opt out of a breakout group and instead observe the GPAC discussion.

Item No. 11A
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 3
Discussions took place for roughly one hour and were guided by two questions. For each area, both GPAC and members of the public were asked, “What did you like about the preferred land use alternative map?” and “What changes do you think should be made to the map?”
Once discussions concluded, the meeting reconvened for highlights shared by the small group facilitator. Below are summaries from public small groups’ report-outs.

Small Group Report Out (Public)
Group 1
x Discussion focused on big-picture citywide vision.
x Opinions split between those who wanted more housing, mixed-use, higher density, and taller building heights verses those who wanted lower density, lower building heights, and less mixed use. x Majority support housing in village centers and share a desire for more public meeting space like plazas. x Majority support flexible designations for large retail centers. x Group had split opinions on the future of the Borchard site, some in favor of mixed-use, and others in favor of maintaining single-family residential designation.

Group 2
x Discussion focused on the Rancho Conejo subarea because many participants did not feel comfortable discussing subareas they were not familiar with.
x Felt the Borchard property has a lot of potential and should allow for higher density residential. Many participants asked questions regarding the proposed split designation and preferred a single mixed-use designation.
x Acknowledged the need for affordable housing and felt the village centers were a good way to provide additional housing.
x Majority were disappointed village centers don’t include any residential and are commercial in the proposed land use map.
x Many felt The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace could include higher density residential.

Group 3
x Majority agree with the approach of focusing change to subareas and maintaining majority of the city in current configuration.
x Discussion focused on Rancho Conejo and Thousand Oaks Boulevard. x In the Rancho Conejo subarea, had the following recommendations:
o Supportive of mixed-use north of the 101 freeway.
o Not supportive of tall buildings south of 101 freeway. o Current vacant property in the northwest corner of the Rancho Conejo subarea (commonly referred to as the “goldfish” or “7th Day Adventist” property) should be residential, not industrial as proposed.
o Consider access and circulation in the area.
x Felt overall the preferred land use map is in a good place, with a few caveats. x Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan Area should treat all property owners the same, allowing for Mixed Use Medium across all parcels. Similarly, the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace should allow greater flexibility.
x Supportive of the Westlake and East End proposed land uses.

Item No. 11A
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 4
x Parking should be addressed within village centers if mixed-use is added.

GPAC Direction
After listening to public small group report-outs, members of the GPAC took turns sharing their final thoughts and overall review of the preferred land use map. Note that all members of the GPAC in attendance shared their opinion at this time (one GPAC member left the meeting early and therefore did not provide their opinions). Below is a summary of the direction received from the GPAC as well as individual comments from GPAC members.

Summary:
10 members of the GPAC supported the direction of the preferred land use map, but offered specific tweaks to the map:
o Introduce mixed-use at some of the village centers.
o Propose mixed-use across the Borchard property.
o Provide flexibility and focus mixed-use throughout the Thousand Oaks Boulevard corridor. o Add increased residential density at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. o Remove mixed-use designations from sites we know are not likely to change in the next 20-30 years.

These GPAC members shared support for specific elements of the preferred land use map:
o Mixed-use at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace.
o Emphasis on walkability and livability.
o Maintained community character by preserving parks, open space, and single-family neighborhoods.
o Expansion of jobs and focus on local economy.
2 members of the GPAC felt cautious about the preferred land use map, noting the scope of changes and potential impacts to schools, views and a potential to transform the overall character of the community as concerns.

GPAC member comments:
o Overall, the preferred land use map is reasonable and does not change most of the land in the city. o The City has done a great job of reaching out to community members through outreach. o The Borchard property owner is a lifelong resident and does not want to negatively affect the neighbors with future development. The proposed development there would be mutually beneficial for neighbors, businesses, and the city as a whole. o Cautious and hesitant to accept the preferred land use map as it stands now. There are impacts that will need to be addressed like school enrollment.
o Supportive of providing flexibility through higher densities at only The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace.
o Prefer to spread out density across the city.
o The preferred land use map is going in right direction, small tweaks are needed to increase flexibility.
o The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace both have too much parking, those areas could support future housing.
o The preferred land use map is going in the right direction. o Consider allowing more uses (like hotels) and providing greater flexibility on height and density for retail centers.
o Agree with other GPAC members that some of the large retail centers in the Westlake and East End (i.e., The Promenade) are not going to change, so the mixed-use designation should be moved elsewhere.
o The preferred land use map is moving in the right direction. o The General Plan is not about buildings; it is about people, enhanced livability, and making the City a better place to live, work, raise a family, and grow old. In the future we need to make those connections clear with the proposed changes to the General Plan.

Item No. 11A
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 5
o Village Centers would be a great place to live in the future. o Thankful to the Team for preparing this information and providing outreach to the community. o Generally supportive of the preferred land use map. Some tweaks are needed to address the concerns and comments raised tonight including:
ƒ Some village centers should allow mixed-use.
ƒ Not comfortable increasing heights or densities beyond what is proposed. ƒ Overall want to maximum flexibility.
o Overall, the map is a balanced approach that preserves what this community has built over the course of its history.
o The team has done a great job synthesizing input and preparing the preferred land use map.

Thank you for the effort and progress.
o By-in-large the preferred land use map is going in the correct direction, but a few tweaks are needed including adding mixed use to the Village Centers and allowing increased flexibility for The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. Additional housing units should go in these locations. o Cautious of the scope and size of proposed changes, seems out of historic character for Thousand Oaks. The proposed map includes some great resources for us to consider. o There are changes we need to make, State requirements, and inevitable economic changes are coming.
o Recommend or support changes at The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace since shopping malls are changing. The City should think proactively and not reactively. Support a global biotech hub in Thousand Oaks and want to continue to support Rancho Conejo north of the 101 freeway. o “Residents” historically have wanted buildings to be low profile to maintain mountain views. o Overall, the Plan is going in the right direction.
o Supportive of the mall areas and Village Center proposals. o Vision for the future is to have walkable, bikeable, destinations that are accessible by transit.

Desire to not have a landscape dominated by cars in the future. o At a high level, the proposed map is good, but does need a few tweaks. o We should remove mixed-use designations from sites we do not anticipate changing in the next 20 to 30 years. Those units should be reallocated to underutilized sites instead. o The plan does preserve long-standing principles like maintaining single-family neighborhoods, protecting open space, parks, and viewsheds. As well as focusing on job centers and the economy. o The plan should provide as much flexibility as possible along the 101 Corridor and throughout Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
o Mixed-use should be applied to the Oaks Mall, Janss Marketplace, along Thousand Oaks Boulevard in certain places, and the Borchard property.
o Consider a different designation for parcels that are 20 or 30 acres in size and greater. This could give flexibility to property owners while lowering the overall housing numbers that people are concerned with.
o Focus on opportunity sites identified by City Council. o Great job to the General Plan Team.
o Generally, support preferred land use map with a few tweaks. o Need for flexibility specifically the two large shopping centers. o Would like to see mixed-use Village Centers.
o Overall, the plan is well done.
o Echo several comments from other GPAC members.
o Feel that walkable Village Centers are important, especially for youth.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Following the small group discussions, report-outs, and GPAC direction, members of the public were invited to provide brief public comments. Nine members of the public participated. A summary of these comments is provided below.
x Thank you for a great meeting, I will provide additional comments via email.

Item No. 11A
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 6
x I am in support of future mixed-use development at the Borchard property with a buffer from the existing neighborhood.
x As the property owner, the goal for the Borchard site is to create a place that serves the Newbury Park community. There is a lack of gathering spaces in this neighborhood. We have a plan that includes open space, a buffer, and amenities, and want to work with existing residents to make this successful. x As a homeowner on Michael Drive, I support future development at the Borchard property. People are looking for areas to go and things to do, we would like to have something nearby that we can walk to. x The Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce appreciates the discussion on the preferred land use map. Would like to see flexibility for more property owners in the form of more medium and high density in the appropriate areas. Also support the GPAC’s comment regarding concentrating new land uses on feasible sites that are likely to change in the next 20-30 years. x Casa Conejo neighbors are largely opposed to major development on the Borchard property due to flood control issues and waterfowl. We are in favor of something softer on this site. There are other shopping centers nearby that are more appropriate for entertainment uses. x As a residential and businessowner in Thousand Oaks, I am supportive of future development at the Borchard property. I would like to integrate a future tap room into the area as an extension of my business. I feel that the property owner wants to work with residents and make something that enhances the Newbury Park neighborhood and supports existing businesses like Amgen. x I am supportive of future development at the Borchard property and am encouraged by the design the property owner showed that includes a large greenbelt buffering single family homes. I think the concerns about flooding and habitat would be addressed through the planning process by turning that area into a greenbelt, instead of the split zoning that is proposed now. The property should have one mixed-use designation going forward. The Janss Marketplace and The Oaks Malls should be considered for mixed-use medium which would provide those property owners maximum flexibility for the future. x Of the previous three land use alternatives, the Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce supported Map 1 because it offered mixed-use medium and mixed-use high. The survey results showed highest support for Map 1, and that was the basis for the new map (preferred land use map), but it removed the things we liked about map 1. We encourage the committee and City to add those things back into the preferred land use map. We want to promote affordable housing, but the only way to get affordable units is to allow higher densities.

NEXT STEPS
The meeting concluded with an overview of next steps, including how members of the public could provide feedback through the briefing book, online survey, and virtual office hours.

The meeting adjourned at 8:42 pm.

Attachments: Facilitator notes from GPAC and public small group discussions.

Item No. 11A

FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021

GPAC DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND NOTES
Responses by the General Plan Team are italicized.

GPAC Member 1. How will the impacts of new residential units on schools be addressed? If too many new units are developed, the district may have to redraw boundaries and that could influence neighborhood schools. x While this is a valid concern, we do not know the makeup of residential units will be, so we cannot yet anticipate the impact to local schools.

GPAC Member 2. Regarding village centers, if we are not changing land uses, how do we ensure that kind of walkable aesthetic and environment is created? x We can use policies to influence the format of a commercial shopping center to look and feel more like a main street. If we move forward with commercial only village centers, the General Plan could be amended later to allow residential or mixed-use in these areas.

GPAC Member 3. I think we need to reiterate that future development will incorporate sustainable principles and nature through parks, open space, and landscaping. This community is very sensitive to the environment, we cannot lose sight of that when talking about the future.

GPAC Member 4. I think it would be a missed opportunity to not include mixed-use or residential units in village centers. They could provide housing opportunities for young families, young workers, and seniors, and help spread out the residential units so we do not overwhelm one area of town. It could create a designation that is walkable from existing neighborhoods, like a European High Street Model.

GPAC Member 5. In talking with the property owner, I think the proposed development at the Borchard site would be a good project that would take into consideration the concerns of adjacent neighbors.

GPAC Member 6. Why were certain areas identified as mixed-use medium and others were identified as mixed-use low?
x Certain areas have already been envisioned for higher density, like the Civic Arts Plaza and Downtown Core areas, while west Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks Boulevard near Tarantula Hill has new
development that could provide synergy. The Rancho Conejo area was selected due to the proximity to adjacent uses, so it could be viewed as another node.

GPAC Member 7. I think village centers need to include housing in the form of mixed-use because retail is changing, and we need room to evolve. The area around Borchard should include something other than single family homes, we need additional flexibility.

GPAC Member 8. Concerned with the scope of changes proposed in the plan. Do the changes have to be as big as they are presented? Can we meet RHNA without such sweeping changes? Can we take steps forward in a phased approach? Density alone will not solve housing affordability; we need policies to ensure future housing is affordable.
x Agree with your assessment that strong housing policies are needed to ensure future development is affordable. In previous conversations, members of the public brought up the need for an (updated) Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

GPAC Member 9. I think we need to revisit the allowed uses across Mixed-Use Low, Medium, and High. Restaurants, retail, and hotels should be allowed across all three designations. Regarding The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace, I feel that Mixed-Use Low is insufficient to accommodate the future evolution of these shopping centers. Both centers should be up to Mixed-use Medium, and perhaps consider a residential unit cap to prohibit the site from turning to all residential and going beyond the Measure E capacity.

GPAC Member 10. I would suggest maintaining the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan as much as possible. Incorporate the opportunity sites identified by City Council, including the YMCA property for housing or mixed-use. Remove the mixed-use designation on sites we know are not likely to change in the next 20-30 years, including the Promenade site. Provide more flexibility at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. Regarding the Borchard site, the residents prefer a buffer and the only way to achieve that is through a higher density designation like Mixed-Use Medium or Mixed-Use Low.

GPAC Member 11. I support village centers and wonder if we can include mixed-use anywhere within the industrial core of the Rancho Conejo area (north of the 101 Freeway).

GPAC Member 12. We should consider policies to maintain retail (like grocery stores) within mixed-use village centers. We want to balance new residential with amenities that support existing neighborhoods.

GPAC Member 13. Young adults would like to see walkable village centers and revitalization of the Janss Marketplace.

Item No. 11A

FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021
PUBLIC GROUP #1 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND NOTES

1. What is your reaction to the overall citywide preferred land use alternative map? Notes
x Need more housing
o Disappointed with the lack of high-density housing
o Village centers – no mixed-use, more human scale, more walkability ƒ Reuse existing vacant retail
ƒ Transit hubs
ƒ Distribute housing, etc.
o Taller buildings should be located at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace
o Plazas and meeting spaces are needed
x Need affordable housing for young families, like starter homes, etc. x Do not concentrated multifamily housing
o Village centers should have housing
o Low density housing is preferred
o Move housing out by CLU and Moorpark Rd instead of Newbury Park x What about environmental considerations? Concern over infrastructure for water and transportation
x Consider ADU’s for additional housing units
x Concern over concentration of housing on TOB – traffic congestion, emergency evacuation
x Concern with building height increase but desire for affordability

2. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Rancho Conejo area?
Likes
x Downtown/village center for Newbury Park – activities for young families/children Changes
x Park or water feature at Alice/Borchard property
x More housing by industrial north of 101
x Village center needed in Dos Vientos
Item No. 11A
x Less need for office and retail after COVID.

3. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Moorpark Rd and West Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Likes
x Flexibility at Oaks Mall area

4. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
(N/A)

5. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Westlake and East End area?
Changes
x Lower building heights on Westlake Blvd (industrial flex)

6. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Village Centers? (N/A)
Item No. 11A

FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021
PUBLIC GROUP #2 QUESTIONS, NOTES + REPORT OUT:

1. What is your reaction to the overall citywide preferred land use alternative map? Notes
x Why did Village Center make it to the Preferred Land Use Map? There seems to be comparable support as to the Oaks Mall in survey.
x Small amount of space to work with in T.O. for new housing. Would like to see map re-evaluated to maximize change also like to see Village Centers reevaluated. x Has City considered a Specific Plan overlay for Borchard site? Allows developer flexibility to plan the overall site with consideration of constraints.

Report out
x Mixed comments regarding the Alice/ Borchard site.
x Comments regarding re-visiting the Village Centers.

2. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Rancho Conejo area?
Changes
x Concern regarding amount of change in the Rancho Conejo area and that it is where the most change/ new development will occur.
x “Alice” parcel should be re-designated to mixed use in its entirety. x Borchard/Alice site – concerns regarding parking if all mixed use.

3. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Moorpark Rd and West Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Likes
x 275 (?) East Moorpark- n/o Hillcrest – shows as Mixed Use Low -supports.

4. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Item No. 11A
(N/A)

5. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Westlake and East End area?
(N/A)

6. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Village Centers? Likes
x Add here Why did Village Center make it to the Preferred Land Use Map? There seems to be comparable support as to the Oaks Mall in survey.

Item No. 11A

FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021
PUBLIC GROUP #3 QUESTIONS, NOTES + REPORT OUT:

1. What is your reaction to the overall citywide preferred land use alternative map? Notes
x Paul is interested in the Rancho Conejo/Newbury Park area x Mark is interested in TOB (mixed-use) and the SDA property as a residential site; all of TOB should allow for mixed-use
Report out
x Only focusing on the 10% of City that are “areas of change” was a good approach
x There was too much to absorb at once and during a pandemic (but this is a multiyear process and is still a work in progress) x Initially worried about the survey due to the 3 alternatives but feel there is now a good compromise after seeing the results

2. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Rancho Conejo area?
Likes
x Mixed-use North of the freeway near existing commercial areas and Amgen Changes
x SDA site to a residential designation
x South of the freeway should not allow tall buildings (not necessarily mixed-use development)
x Better access for less traffic

3. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Moorpark Rd and West Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Changes
x All TOB should be at least mixed-use medium, not all the sites will be developed that way in the future; equal rights to develop for all TOB property owners Item No. 11A

4. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Likes
x The areas that do allow for mixed-use medium
Changes
x All TOB should be at least mixed-use medium, not all the sites will be developed that way in the future; equal rights to develop for all TOB property owners x Better access to lower traffic

5. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Westlake and East End area?
Likes
x Approved K-Mart pre-screen project is in a good location Changes
x Add here

6. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Village Centers? Likes
x Village Centers are essential and key; people should be able to walk to the store nearby
Changes
x Having adequate parking if you’re adding mixed-use
Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Summary | July 30, 2019
On June 24th and 25th, Raimi + Associates conducted twelve stakeholder interviews with Thousand Oaks industry leaders, educational entities, and community-based organizations about issues and opportunities for the Thousand Oaks General Plan Update. The comments received at these meetings have been categorized into one of four major categories – preserve, enhance, change opportunities, and barriers to change.

Members from the following affiliations were interviewed:
x California Lutheran University
x Caruso
x Conejo Valley Unified School District
x Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
x Los Angeles Rams
x Local Business owners
x Los Robles Hospital
x Macerich (The Oaks Mall)
x Newmark Merrill (Janss Marketplace)
x The Acorn
x Thousand Oaks Boulevard Association
x Thousand Oaks residents
x T.O. Arts
x Small town charm
x Safety
x Quiet and peacefulness
x Ring of protected open space
x Views
x Arts and culture
x High quality of life
x High quality public parks and recreation
x High quality public schools
x Strong relationships between community, City, and businesses o Reputation for family forward focused
x Presence of the Los Angeles Rams football team
Item No. 11A
x Housing opportunities
o Desire for a variety of different housing types at different price points x Entertainment and experience opportunities
o For youth, young professionals and families
x Meeting places for people
o Walkable spaces
o Expanded downtown
x Arts and culture
o Civic Arts Plaza programing - appeal to wider variety of patrons x Business-friendly reputation
x Nightlife
o More bars and lounges with good food
o More breweries
x Build on new businesses and residents’ desire to come to Thousand Oaks. x Los Robles Hospital Residency program begins July 2019 o Increase in medical students and physicians to the area x Demographics are changing
o Opportunities to appeal to new residents
o Desire for younger people to move (back) to Thousand Oaks x Newer companies and employers in Thousand Oaks
o More job opportunities
o Opportunity to become less of a commuter city and provide jobs and housing for more residents
x Opportunity to host the film industry
x Expand outdoors tourism
x Creative repurposing of land
o Redevelop and rebrand failing retail
o Develop amenity housing and multi-family housing
o Former K-Mart site
x General Plan can provide flexibility for development and future needs x Thousand Oaks Boulevard
o Desire for vertical mixed-use on Thousand Oaks Boulevard o Revitalize Thousand Oaks Boulevard
o Desire for high-end office space
o Desire for boutique hotel(s)
o Convert failing retail to other needed uses like office, entertainment or residential o Multifamily residential along the Boulevard
Item No. 11A
x Difficulty attracting employees to live/work in Thousand Oaks o Want more things to do and more affordable housing
x Too much retail in Thousand Oaks – retail is failing
x Changing identity of Thousand Oaks
o Some perception that local schools are going down hill o Increase in home invasions recently
x Local schools have had rapidly declining enrollment since 2010 x Hiring Special Education instructors is difficult
x Homelessness
x Traffic congestion (real/perceived)
x Market rate housing
x Aging community
x Changing economy
x Lack of diversity
x Businesses are having a harder time accessing funds than previously x Housing for students, CLU Faculty, and staff
x Many community members are opposed to needed change
x Jobs/housing imbalance
x Fear of stagnation
x Fear of businesses leaving because of housing un-affordability x Barriers to new development
o Codes are old and unclear
o Parks fees are very high
o Parking ratios are dated and too high
o Measure E
o Height limit is a barrier
o City’s regulatory process takes a long time
o Need incentives for affordable housing developers
o Lack of flexibility in current Code for modern uses such as co-working spaces o Density maximums are too low for development projects to be financially feasible for developers
o Difficulty adding residential units due to some community opposition x MOPs (Mothers Group)
x Calvary Community Church
x California Lutheran University
x TO Rotary Clubs
x Service Clubs such as Kiwanis
x Conejo Valley School District
o District Advisory Committee
o PTA
o Student DAV
o Special Education
Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Session 1 Summary | July 17, 2019
On July 18th, 2019, HR&A Advisors, Inc. (HR&A) led a focus group meeting on economic development at City Hall as part of the City of Thousand Oaks General Plan update project. The event focused on soliciting feedback from key stakeholders on existing conditions and identifying local economic strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. A summary of key takeaways and overarching themes that emerged as a result of this discussion is provided below.

Members from the following affiliations participated in the discussion:
x California Lutheran University
x Caruso
x Lee & Associates
x Amgen
x CBRE
x Macerich
x NewMark Merrill
x Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
x TOBA (provided input separately)
x Location
o Proximity between universities like UCSB, UCLA, and Caltech o Near Los Angeles amenities without urban life
x Open Space
x Managed growth
x High quality of life
x Quality public schools
x High level of safety
x Bioscience industry
o Diverse
o Connected in region
x Availability of venture capital
Item No. 11A
x Retail
o Aging retail centers
o Oversupply of retail market
o Competition from neighboring cities
o Decline in traditional retail
ƒ Auto Mall is key revenue generator for city
ƒ Different consumption patterns for younger generations x Jobs
o Decline in bioscience jobs
o Decline in overall high-quality jobs, supplemented with lower paying jobs o Employers choosing to locate in other communities
x Housing
o Lack of affordable housing options
o Neighboring cities have pursued multi-family development ƒ Unmet demand in Thousand Oaks
ƒ Need to attract young families
ƒ Decline in Thousand Oaks school enrollment
o Community apprehension about multi-family housing/new housing development x Laborious entitlement process
o Pre-application process for new development is costly and time intensive ƒ Previously conducted solely by City staff
o Measure E results in cumbersome discretionary approval process x Lack of quality industrial space
o Small format buildings are needed
o Support companies as they grow
x Desire for more amenities on Thousand Oaks Boulevard
o Success of Tarantula Hill Brewing Company as evidence x Attract young families and maintain high-quality public schools x Attract new technology and (bio)science companies or startups x Synergy between neighboring bioscience companies
x City aid in business expansion
x Reposition and revitalize former or declining retail centers x Increase industrial space to support rising demand
x Streamline entitlement process
x Incentivize private employers to offer shuttles for workers commuting into Thousand Oaks x Cultivate new identity for Thousand Oaks
o Attract newcomers
o Clear vision for the future
o Promote Thousand Oaks
Item No. 11A
x Building stock of wet lab space
x Diversify housing stock
o Help fill open jobs
o Attract recent college graduate/young professionals
o Attract young families
o Provide housing options for service workers
x Regional transit
o Enhance transit options between nearby communities to help elevate commuting x Diversify city revenue base
o Over-reliance on retail sales
x Create a Downtown as central focal point
o Central node of activity
o Provides entertainment and amenities
o Attract younger generations
o Strengthen retail
x Make doing business easier
Item No. 11A
Summary | March 3, 2021
On March 3, 2021, Raimi + Associates led a focus group meeting via Zoom on environmental justice and equity as part of the Thousand Oaks General Plan update project. The group focused on soliciting feedback for SB 1000 requirements, discussion of inequities occurring in Thousand Oaks, a vision for an equitable city, and goals and programs to be included in the General Plan. A summary of the discussion is provided below.

Members from the following affiliations participated in the discussion:
x Buen Vecino
x Thrive Conejo
x Adelante Conejo
x Former CVUSD Board member
x We Belong 805
x 805 Resistance
x Senior Concerns
x National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) x Latino Connections Club Advisor
x Safe Passage
x Lutheran Social Services
x Plan for public finance, overall vision, and investment priorities x How were factors chosen, why was disability not considered? x Looking for General Plan timeline.
x When was the last time the Housing Element was updated? x Housing that is affordable (not be definition, but actually) Item No. 11A
x Transportation – there is a lot of development is planning in the alternatives, but need to connect centers- seniors who are aging or homebound, and people with disabilities. x Issues or race that council is not ready to bring up for discussion in public. x Better, easier, walkable access to public parks and where they are. Interested to hear about cross-section between housing and pollution.
x Observing pockets of housing, right by the highway, thinking of fumes that people are breathing, children living there.
x Issues of race
x Issues with policing - whenever there’s a report for racist incidents, it’s hard to get good investigation and resources. For example, a South Asian family home was vandalized, and there wasn’t an interpreter to help them.
x Communication – Spanish-speaking families have no idea what’s happening in City Hall, need more advertisement in Spanish TV or radio for families and students. Need Spanish speaking interpreters and documents in multiple languages. x Wi-Fi and Computer Access – Need hotspots throughout the city and inexpensive laptops or devices for the community to have and use. Santa Paula did this for people right after the pandemic started.
x Access to food, transportation, internet. These are the minimum standards for all residents to have access to without regard to their economic status. x In order to get to a park, you have to drive. Should have parks in communities and access to parks for all residents, considering how much open space we have. x Things that affect people with disabilities affect Spanish speaking communities – where you live, access to food, low-income housing are the denominator. x Service available to all residents in Thousand Oaks should be available to all. x Agreeing to provide access is not the same as removing barriers. x Problem in TO with policing and mental health disorders, create a solution for it, it’s an equity and access issue for people with intellectual and mental disabilities. x No good internet infrastructure; became clear in pandemic. Its an opportunity to attract new businesses, can develop broad band for all at a minimum. x Transportation – would like to see TO commit to Vision Zero and use the equity indicators provided in the VZ.
x No comfortable biking in TO.
x Not safe to walk or cross streets (provided example of cross a street with disabled daughter who moves slowly and having to grab her arm and run across the street). x Buses were empty before COVID are empty now and transportation system is broken. x Concerns with having internet access when COVID started. x Lack of affordable and supportive housing for single-parent households. x Discrimination and racism against Latinos
x Affordable and safe homes for low-income families with children x Internet is like a utility now.
x Asian hate is on the rise, City Council is not comfortable talking about it; 805 has submitted a resolution; Chinese New Year and anniversary of Japanese internment was not celebrated, need some sort of master calendar to include all people in the community. TO sets a tone that is not welcoming to people who are not white and rich, but the community is much more diverse than that.
x Creates exclusion, fear, etc.

Item No. 11A
x Need equity and inclusion of cultures, languages, etc. x Exclusionary mindset in city – It’s in the fabric of the city, its not really intentional and there are small things that happen in daily life (subtle acts that happen every day everywhere create that atmosphere of exclusion); Shared example of being asked for ID as a Latina after the white person before her in line didn’t get asked for ID; innocuous but has an impact. x How to address he people that are afraid of affordable housing in their neighborhoods x Crux of new commissions and even in the General Plan, it will be important to call out white supremacy, so we can create a general plan that’s inclusive. x Don’t see people of color, cultural backgrounds, and people with disabilities considered in the city.
x Hopefully a commission can help with these issues, can’t make people change how they think but can have some regulations or ways of operating how meetings are done, how a General Plan is created.
x Discrimination by police and other entities is real and have seen it several times – traffic stops, cooperation with other cities that hire the sheriff’s office. x Crunch generations *taking care of aging parents and young kids* want more zoning for granny flats and starter homes and wrap around services. x Provide training on crisis intervention with staff.
x Have community liaisons.
x Need to do a Needs Assessment to capture what’s going on in areas where the data can’t show it. Equity analysis is not enough.
x Develop a DEI Commission that reviews developments.
x Require ongoing review of the General Plan and having DEI be a permanent part of the City. x Be intentional about engagement of people not usually involved in the planning process. x Be intentional with hiring for bilingual, bicultural, or other diverse experiences. x Be intentional with leadership development of people of different backgrounds in the City’s commissions and board or wherever else decisions are happening. x City should set the tone about racism, letting people know it not okay to be racist through education about the issues.
x Require training for city staff and council members in equity – it’s no longer okay to not understand how to change how you speak to and about people in the community. x Passing the resolution can be included as part of this General Plan. x Develop projections of expenses (fixed and major) as well as revenues for the General Plan implementation or even 5-10 years to show what we want to see if actually achievable – it’s affordable in the context of the budget and is only a small percentage of projected revenues and expenses.

Item No. 11A
x Send planning and land use development notices and materials in English and Spanish to send message to people that they’re welcome to participate. x Add subtitles/captions to all video meetings and announcements posted by the City. A great job is already being done with social media. On that note, closed captioning or ASL interpreter should also be a minimum for City communications, so people feel welcome. x Explore switching from buses to vans (ride share or dial-a-ride) and smart cars and other modes or services that are more convenient and serve the needs of young people (teens and students don’t really want to drive anymore).
x Sync local transportation from Conejo Valley to Moorpark College and improve headways for young people to be able to get to and from the college more easily.

Item No. 11A
























STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS



!






$"#%






STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW SUMMARY | 1
#
)$'
=?)

#
=@)
0
><=B
#

$+"'
=A)

#
=B)
0
><=B0



*!)*'!
!##
#

'$*%
$#*)
>?

() 
$!'

#)'+
,(6")
#
(
,
)


$*(#
 (3

+

!'(

%
#
')(
() 
$!'(0
$*)
')(
#
*!)*'!

((*(
#
$%%$')*#
)
(
$'
)


$*(#
 (
#'!
!#
%)2


$""#)(
'
+
)
)
(
")
#
(

+

#
)
$'
/

#)$
"$'
)
$'
(
8
%'('+0
#
#0

#

$%%$')*#
)
(0
#
''
'(
)$

#
2

"'(
'$"
)

$!!$,
#


!
)
$#(
,'

#)'+
,1


).
$

$*(#
 (
$*#
!""'(


).
$

$*(#
 (
!'(

%
#
()

!
$'#


*)
'#
#
+'(
).


).
$

$*(#
 (
$*)

$""
((
$#

$#$
!!.
#



$$!

()'
)

$#$
')
$#
#
'

()'
)


+

')(
!/
(
#)
$"%#
(

*!)*'!

'(
%')"#)
()


(*!
')
()(


$*(#
 (
!!
#
$'
)

')(
!!
#
$'
9
')(:


$*(#
 (

''.
'+
(

*!)*'!!.
(%


$""*#
).

'$*%(

PRESERVE
• 

#((
$
')(
#
*!)*'!
()$'

•
()$'.
#

'
)

$

$*(#
 (

• 
+

$##)
$#(
"$#


).0
$'
#
/)
$#(0
#
'(
#)(

• 
+

')(
!/
+#)(6)
+
)
(

• !$(
#
!$#
()#
#

'!)
$#(

%
,
)

!
$'#


*)
'#
#
+'(
).

• !$(
#
!$#
()#
#

'!)
$#(

%
,
)

$#$
')
$#
#
'

()'
)

•

!.7%'
/
&*!
).
$
!

$'
$""*#
).

• 
)

$""*#
).

• $*)

$""*#
).
')(
%'$
'""
#


•

''.
(.()"
#
%'$
'""
#

ENHANCE/ATTRACT
• 
$*(#
 (
(
#
4')(

).5

• $'

()'$#
'
$""*#
).
$##)
$#(


• ')


#)
).
$'
)


).

• ')
"$'

)
'
#

(%(


• %(
$'
!'

()
+!(
#
+#)(

• %%$')*#
)
(
$'
')
+
)
+
)
(
#
+#)(

o $'
.$*)
0
.$*#

%'$((
$#!(
#
"
!
(

• *
!
$""*#
).
$##)
$#(
),#

).
#
')
+
*(
#(((6')(
$'
#
/)
$#(

Item No. 11A
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW SUMMARY | 2
• ')(
(


!
#

$%%$')*#
).
9)'*"0
)#

((*(:

• !')
$#
$
*!)*'!

+'(
).
$
$""*#
).

• '$#
$*(
)$
)

')(
$*)(

$
)


+

')(
!/

• $""*#
)
$#(
#
$""*#
).
!#'

CHANGE OPPORTUNITIES
• #

"#)
$
')
()(

#
"*#

%!

$+'#"#)

o $""*#
).
#

"#)0
)'#(%$'))
$#0
$""*#
)
$#(

• -%#
')(
%')#'(

%(
,
)

!
''
(
#
!
$'#


*)
'#
#
+'(
).

• ')(
*)
$#

#
(
$$!(
9('+
#

#(
$
.$*)

#
*!)
+)
#

)

#-)

#')
$#
$
')(
%)'$#(:

•
,
"%*(

()'
!#

o ')
+
%'$
'""
#


o $""*#
).

)
'
#

(%(

o '$'"#
(%(

o *!

')

o
,
%')#'(

%(

• $'"!
%*!

')
%'$
'"

• ')
$#
)'
!(
#

#
%' (

• ')
()
!
+6,$'
(%(
#
()*
$(
9%)
+
'*(
$
')
!0
"
-7*(
+!$%"#)
$,#)$,#:

• )
+
)
(
)
)
%%!
)$
.$*#
'
""'(
$
$""*#
).


•
#+()"#)

#
*!)*'!
%'$
'""
#

.$#
)


+

')(
!/

• ')
+
,$' '(

#

))')
)$
)


).
*
)$

$)

$(

o ')

*!)*'!!.
+
'#)
$,#)$,#


• )
#
#

.$*)


#
$""*#
).
)$
,$'
#
!
+

• '$((7$+'
$%%$')*#
)
(

o ')(
#
$7)$*'
("

o ')(
#

!)

#
,!!#((
%'$
'""
#

BARRIERS TO CHANGE
• $*(
!,.(
$#

+

')(
!/

• *#
#

'()'
)
$#(
$'
)

')(


• (
#)(3
'(
()#
)$
($"
$'"(
$

#


• $'!

$*(
#


• )
#
#

#
))')
#

.$*#

%'$((
$#!(
*
)$
!
$
*!)*'!
+
)!
).

• 

#

$""*#
).

•

$
!')
$#
$

+'(
).

KEY ORGANIZATIONS/GROUPS TO REACH
• ')
+
*(
#(((


• $*#

%'$((
$#!
"%!$.(

• 
)

$'
#
/)
$#(

• !
$'#


*)
'#
#
+'(
).

• *!)*'!!.
(%



'$*%(
#
'(
#)(

• $""*#
).
.$*)


• *!)*'!!.

+'(
'(
#)(

Item No. 11A

! 

  
 




! !



Arts Roundtable Discussion
!
#
$

"

 

%
"$&
!
&

&+
!
!'% 


%
 $


"&-

'
&'$



$!'"



!"
&!)



%'%%
!
$!'"
!
&
%&&
!
&
$&%


!'% 


%0

&

)%



! +-

!($
68&-
7569-
&
&

(

$&%

,0 

%'%%
!
!'%
!
&
'$$ &
 
%
$
%&&
!
&
'
&'$


!
!'% 


%0

%'$+
!

+

&
)+%
 
&%

%
"$!(


!)0

$%
$!
&
!

!)



&
! %
"$&

"&


&

%'%%
! / "$!$
- (
%'

 

&$$+
$&%. $&%

!$
,&
! %.
$&
%&%.
!$
$%. $&%


%&$&!$%. $&%
'&!$%.
 
!&$
$&%
%&
!
$%0

NOTABLE STRENGTHS/RESOURCES

&+
%


'

$&%
 
'
&'$


 &


&


$&%
 
'
&'$

' 

(



$!

&+

 &1$%!'$%


!'
&+

($%
"!"'
&
! -
! !


+
 
%!


+

%%
!
!$
&
$&%

%'

 
"$!$

$&
%&%

(

 
)!$




&
!'
&+
!'
&+
 
"$!%%
! 

!$
,&
! %


(

$&%

,
 
!&$
!'
&+
( '%
 !) &
!$
&
$&%
!'%&
$&%
!'
&+
$&
%&


+
&
 &
+!'&
!&%
!
$&
%"%
!$
$&%-

!!$
 
!'&!!$
$&
!
 

$

"$& &

%
%&$! 
 

' '%'

$%!'$
!'
&+
 !$%
&

(

$&%

,
!
%!!
%
(
$&%
"$!$%
&$! 
$&%
"

 &$!"+
!&%
!
%
!$%
)!
$
$&%
(!
' &$%
! !

 
'&
! 


(

%'""!$&
$&$
)$ %%
!
&
$&%

CHANGE OPPORTUNITIES

$ &
!$
$&%
&*
2"'


$&
"$!$3

&
' 

!$
&
$&%
  
%%
&!

(

$&%

, !$
&
!'
&+

$&%
! %
$
%

"

$
!
&

&+-

! 
)
&
! !

(
&

&+-
$!
&
!
!
&
$&
(
! !+
"&
!
&
$&%
&&$
%%
&!
&
$&%-
!$

(
&

 (
$!  &



$&%
'$$
'
'
!$
&
%!!
%
Item No. 11A
 $%

&+
  &
 
"$& $%
"
)
&
$&%
 
'
&'$

!'
&+
&!
$%%


 %/
• $&

!$
(
$ &
"
%
 
!""!$&'
&
%
!$
)
 
*
%&

$%
 &%
• $%%

&
"%


$&%
'&
!
 
"$!$

• $%%

%!



%%'%
2!
%% %%-
&
"$%%
! -
&$'-
&03

BARRIERS/GAPS
!$

&+
!
$&% 2!$
&
!'
&+3


&+
&!
!$ &!
'%
&

(

$&%

, 2!$
$ &$%3
&$%
$
!&
%'""!$&
+

&+
2$
1"$
(3
 #'
&
%
!
$&%
'&
!


%!!
%

!

&+)

%&$
$&%

 $

!$"
%
$
 

$%&


+
• 




 $!

 &


%!!
%

• 

"!"'
&
!
!%&
!

(

1



!
!$

!'%



!
&$'
'
&'$

&$+

!'
&+
$&%

$%
"
!! !'%
2"$
$

+

&3


!$


"  &
! &$&!$ $'
%
$
 
 2)

&
 +


(
'
%
 
%

'%
%%%3
Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
October 2, 2019 | 6:00-9:00pm | Civic Arts Plaza – Janet & Ray Scherr Forum On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 the City of Thousand Oaks hosted the first community forum to discuss big picture trends affecting the City as part of the General Plan Update, Thousand Oaks 2045.

The focus of the forum was on how to create happy and healthy communities. The forum took place at the Civic Arts Plaza in the Scherr Forum from 6:00 to 9:00 pm. The forum’s keynote speaker, Charles Montgomery, award-winning author and journalist, presented thoughts and ideas behind what aspects of the built environment make people happy within their City. The event had roughly 65 participants sign in using the attendance sheet and many other attended the forum without signing in, not including City staff. The estimated attendance was over 100 people.

The forum began with an introduction by Councilmember Al Adams, who discussed the history of the City’s General Plan. Matt Raimi, the lead consultant for the General Plan update, then provided context for the presentation including that the presentation was based on research but not all concepts would be applicable for Thousand Oaks. He also asked community members to complete a feedback form with three questions:

1. What ideas or concepts did you hear tonight that resonated with you and should be considered in the General Plan visioning process?

2. What ideas or concepts did you hear that you feel are not appropriate for the City of Thousand Oaks?

3. In what ways, if any, did the concepts presented change your views about land use, transportation or other planning-related topics?
Individual responses to these questions can be found in Appendix A.

Following this introduction, keynote speaker Charles Montgomery detailed scientific research connecting the built environment (the design of our streets, buildings) with measures of happiness including physical health outcomes, exercise levels, obesity, mental health, and connections with other residents. The overall conclusion of the presentation was that how we build our cities has an impact on the physical and mental health of residents.

Following the presentation, there was a question and answer session with Charles Montgomery. The topics of the questions included housing, neighborhood preservation, transportation safety (with a focus on bicycle and pedestrian safety), growth, and preservation of the scale and character of the community.

Twenty-three community members also completed the feedback form. The following is a summary of the responses organized by each of the three questions.

Item No. 11A
Key themes are summarized below:

What ideas or concepts did you hear tonight that resonated with you and should be considered in the General Plan visioning process?
x Attendees who completed the comment form overwhelmingly mentioned the need for creating a more walkable community and a safer pedestrian experience. Specific ideas that resonated included: more pedestrian crossings, pedestrian-only streets, slowing traffic in high traffic areas and traffic calming.
x The second most mentioned comment was the desire to increase cycling in the City by constructing a safer and more complete bike network. Many people like the idea of creating protected bike lanes (switching the location of bike lanes and parking to protect bikes). x While not universal, the exploration of mixed use and higher-density communities was frequently mentioned as a positive concept to explore in the General Plan update. Along with this, some people mentioned a desire to create mixed use along Thousand Oaks Boulevard, to create a downtown and to explore a “village” concept by redeveloping older malls with mixed use and locating more commercial development near residential areas. x Housing was mentioned a number of times including the need for new housing types (such as the “missing middle” [e.g., townhomes, fourplexes and walk-up apartments] and modular housing), more affordable housing, senior housing and how opposition to housing in the City has contributed to the lack of affordable housing.
x The desire for more gathering spaces was also mentioned as an important idea to explore in the General Plan update.
x Other ideas there were identified by respondents included the following:
o Reduce isolation and bring people together.
o Keep all existing open space, increase the amount of open space and only allow infill development.
o Explore steps to encourage public transit.
o Expand arts and culture, including tourism.
o Reduce parking.
o Involve children in planning.
o Make the City fossil free by 2030 and address climate change. o Explore equitable planning and environmental justice.

What ideas or concepts did you hear that you feel are not appropriate for the City of Thousand Oaks? x Majority of participants either did not fill in a response or responded that nothing presented was inappropriate for Thousand Oaks. One commenter said: “Good discussion with positive ideas – what’s inappropriate about that?”
x Approximately one quarter of responders mentioned that higher density development is not appropriate for Thousand Oaks. The reasons provided were that there is too much traffic, fire Item No. 11A
trucks don’t reach above 3 stories, the community should remain suburban and lower density and there are already too many people living in the City. x Two people mentioned that affordable housing (or housing for people who cannot afford the high housing costs in the City) should not be considered in the General Plan. One commenter said: “We are out of room, sorry. And it’s not our job.” x Two commenters were concerned about civic engagement process for the General Plan. One said that the GPAC is not representative of the community and the other was concerned that the process would be dominated by white, male, homeowners. x Other comments included that embracing diversity will be challenging for Thousand Oaks residents and that bike lanes are not needed.

In what ways, if any, did the concepts presented change your views about land use, transportation or other planning-related topics? (Note that 5 of the 23 respondents did not complete this question.) x Like question one, the most mentioned concept was about bicycle and pedestrian transportation and the need to reduce automobile use. Some specific comments mentioned are listed below:
o “Relieved to hear that there are models to draw from to reduce auto dependence syndrome.”
o “Reinforced the walkability goals of design that I am familiar with.” o “Planning for a less auto-centric community.”
o “How ‘speed kills’-- pedestrians as well as an opportunity for connectivity, which is what fosters a sense of community.”
x Many respondents mentioned a changed or modified view of mixed use for Thousand Oaks, but several qualified their statement by limited the height or location of mixed-use buildings. Specific ideas included constructing mixed use in hubs, locating mixed use along Thousand Oaks Boulevard and the benefits of mixed use to building community interaction, reducing traffic and increasing the tax base. Some quotes from respondents included:
o “Some combination of residential/retail/commercial that does not increase density and noise; not over 3 stories.”
o “Business and housing ‘core’ can help tax base + reduce traffic” o “I’m more open to 3-5 story mixed use (business + residential) buildings.” o “The importance of mixed use building to build community.” o “Perhaps the boulevard as appropriate to build multi use buildings…” x Several respondents generally agreed with the direction of the ideas presented by Charles Montgomery. Specific comments included:
o “No change. Support the concepts presented.”
o “I agree with the speaker”
o “No change – validation.”
Item No. 11A
x Housing was mentioned multiple times including the need to address the issue of affordable housing.
x Other new concepts mentioned included
o Redesign the front of Civic Arts Plaza and parking in front of The Lakes shopping center.
o Thousand Oaks is for everyone/all kinds of people.
o Build connections and ways to be involved in the community. o Involve children in the visioning process.
o Do not give up any parks or open spaces.

Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A


"#
#

#
#









!

#




 
 # 
 




 







 



 

 




  
 





 

 
 

 







Item No. 11A




 
 















Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
January 29, 2020 | 6:30-8:30pm | Civic Arts Plaza – Janet & Ray Scherr Forum On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 the City of Thousand Oaks hosted the second community forum to discuss big picture trends affecting the City as part of the General Plan Update, Thousand Oaks 2045.

The forum took place at the Civic Arts Plaza in the Scherr Forum from 6:30 to 8:30 pm. The event had roughly 50 participants, not including City staff.

After a brief opening by Mayor Al Adam, the forum’s keynote speaker, Joe Minicozzi, Principal of Urban3, explored the relationship between development type, city expenses for infrastructure and services, and city revenues. Mr. Minicozzi presented case studies from cities across the United States demonstrating impacts of development patterns on community economic health.

During the presentation and subsequent Q&A, Mr. Minicozzi challenged our assumptions about the relationship between land use, development intensity and tax revenues. He introduced the notion that a city is a social corporation that should build wealth and provide long-lasting community benefits. Further, a city should expect a return on its investment in infrastructure, particularly roads and utilities, by generating tax revenues to pay for the long-term maintenance of the infrastructure.

Using graphics and visual mapping, he showed how sprawling, low density development has resulted in inefficiencies compared to more compact development patterns. One of his key messages was to rethink revenue metrics; instead of examining revenues by project, we should examine tax revenues per acre. When revenues per acre are used it’s clear that higher density development uses land more efficiently and produces far greater returns for a city. For example, he compared a WalMart in Ashville, NC to a 6-story mixed use building downtown. In raw numbers, the 34-acre WalMart produces, $20M per year compared to only $11M for the 0.2-acre mixed use building. However, when comparing property and sales tax per acre, it becomes clear that the mixed use building is more efficient as it produces $634,000 in total property taxes and $84,000 in city sales tax per acre compared to Walmart’s $6,500 per acre in property tax and $48,000 per acre in sales tax.

Mr. Minicozzi showed how building types can produce different levels of county tax revenues. Using information from 21 of his studies, he found that a mall or strip commercial development produces $9.30 per acre in property taxes compared to $47.80 for a 2-story mixed use building, $95.00 for a 3 story mixed use building and $274.00 for a 6-story mixed use building. His message for cities like Thousand Oaks—that have limited land resources—is to consider more compact development as a critical strategy for generating tax revenues, which in turn pay for quality public services and the ongoing maintenance of existing infrastructure.

Item No. 11A
The presentation also included maps and data showing the visual and spatial implications of tax revenues per acre. One example from the City of Redlands is below. He used similar examples from:

Palmdale, CA; Davis, CA; Riverside and Eastvale, CA; Fresno, CA, Hennepin County, MN; Bozeman, MT; and other jurisdictions.

Mr. Minicozzi tied his presentation to Thousand Oaks 2045 by highlighting the opportunity to examine the relationship between Thousand Oaks’ land development patterns and long-term revenues and expenses. His message for the City and its residents is to use data, rather than values or feelings, to make land use and development decisions that provide wealth and generate revenue for the community. This will ensure that the City can maintain its high quality of life, preserve its open space and maintain public facilities and services.

Following the presentation, there was a question and answer session with Joe Minicozzi which is summarized below.
x One participant asked if the City has sufficient fire infrastructure (fire trucks, etc.) to support higher density development? Thousand Oaks City Manager, Andrew Powers, responded to this question noting that the City of Thousand Oaks has adequate fire infrastructure to support taller structures.
x Some residents posed a fear of development height above Thousand Oaks’ current height restrictions for fear of destroying town character. Mr. Minicozzi challenged the audience to think about how they define character.
x One participant asked when parking is not required for a business, patrons seem to park in other businesses lots and walk to their destination. Which could be considered a subsidy. Mr.

Item No. 11A
Minicozzi noted that a parking strategy can offer centralized parking lots (or structures) that serves surrounding businesses.
x Mayor Adam noted that Thousand Oaks lacks a street grid system like cities mentioned in the presentation (Pasadena and Santa Barbara), and asked, how Thousand Oaks could become more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Minicozzi noted that Thousand Oaks should consider the long-term cost benefit analysis of their current street system design and consider adding in a new roadway network in their downtown area. x One participant noted that they would summarize the presentation as encouraging building efficiency, not necessarily tall buildings.
x Matt Raimi, the City’s General Plan consultant, offered an observation while facilitating the question and answer session, noting that most of the development in Thousand Oaks occurred between the 1970s and 1990s. The infrastructure developed during those years is now coming due for major investments, and there is not a lot of new vacant land to produce taxes to pay for those impending costs.
x One participant asked what Mr. Minicozzi thought about the relationship between density and the changes in demographic makeup of a community. Noting that they think many communities reject the idea of density for fear of demographic shifts. x One participant asked for Mr. Minicozzi to elaborate on an example from his presentation regarding a downtown shoe store that brought high value to its community economic health. Mr. Minicozzi responded that the building footprint took up 100% of the lot and had high potency which yielded high taxes per acre, despite being a small structure. x Another participant asked whether tax values or assessed values were used in the presentation, and how California’s Prop 13 impacts reassessments here versus other states where such Propositions don’t apply.
x A participant asked how Thousand Oaks, which is mostly built out and over 90% of the land will not change in the next 20 years should consider redevelopment potential. Mr. Minicozzi responded that the city should look at the existing land use and tax data then develop a basic level of floor area ratio (FAR) needed t0 collect revenues to support ongoing infrastructures maintenance costs.
x Lastly, a participant asked if Thousand Oaks should consider trying to establish a street grid structure to accommodate more efficient use of land?
For more information and to watch a recording of the second community forum click here.

The community forum ended with an encouragement for audience members to spread the word about the General Plan and to attend the February 6, 2020 GPAC meeting.

Item No. 11A
September 12, 2019 | 6:00 pm – 8:30 pm | Los Robles Greens Golf Course Sunset Ballroom

On Thursday, September 12, 2019, the City of Thousand Oaks hosted the first workshop to engage the community in identifying the vision and key priorities for the Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 update project. The workshop took place at Los Robles Greens Golf Course Sunset Ballroom from 6:00 to 8:30 pm and had approximately 126 attendees, excluding the consultant team, elected officials, and city staff. This workshop was the first in a series of four that will take place over the course of the General Plan update.

Upon arrival, participants were encouraged to visit six open house style activity stations. Participants perused the stations and gave feedback for the first hour, then the workshop formally began with an introduction by City Manager, Andrew Powers. Next, Matt Raimi, project consultant with Raimi + Associates, provided an overview presentation of the Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 objectives, schedule, engagement program, and key existing conditions. Matt then introduced the small group discussions, and invited participants to begin.

Item No. 11A
The following summary highlights key themes and ideas from small group discussions and activity stations. This summary does not represent every comment made during the workshop. For detailed responses, see Appendix A.

The activity stations consisted of the following topics:
x What is a General Plan? – Station 1 provided a brief overview of what a General Plan consists of, why it is important for the City, and the role it plays in future growth and development. x Thousand Oaks at a Glance – Station 2 provided demographics of the City and statistics regarding housing, economics, education and transportation. x Demographic Information – Station 3 provided an interactive opportunity for participants to answer questions about their background. Participants placed stickers on an exhibit to share information about themselves, such as: age, ethnic background, if they live and/or work in Thousand Oaks and how long they have lived in the City. x Where Do You Live, Work, Shop, Play, and Learn in Thousand Oaks? – Station 4 allowed participants to identify on a map where they live, work, shop, play and learn throughout the City with colored stickers.
x What is Your Vision for Thousand Oaks 2045? - Participants were given a worksheet to draw or write their vision for Thousand Oaks. All worksheets were put on display during the workshop, so participants could view their neighbors’ responses. x Comments- At the comment station, participants were encouraged to submit written comments and input on the project.

Participants formed 16 roundtable groups of 6-8 participants, each with a facilitator from the project team. At the start of the discussion, facilitators and participants were give worksheets and encouraged to take detailed notes, which were collected by the project team at the end of the workshop. Each table was encouraged to spend approximately 15 minutes per question and the table’s designated reporter provided a summary of the group’s input at the end of the discussion.

Participants were asked the following questions:

1. What makes Thousand Oaks unique and special?

2. What are the issues and challenges that the City is facing today and in the future? What concerns do you have about the future?

3. What is your vision for Thousand Oaks in 2045?
Below is a summary of the major themes that were captured for each of the questions through the roundtable discussions.

Item No. 11A
x Preserve Assets. Many participants noted the open space, parks, access to nature, suburban character, family-friendly community and small town feel as key assets in the community that should be preserved.
x Issues and Challenges. Participants expressed fear of losing the current character and quality of life in the city, concern over the cost of housing, vacant commercial buildings, taking care of an aging population, traffic congestion, ensuring stable water supply, entertainment for youth and adults, and homelessness, among others.
x Opportunities. Participants named multiple opportunities including; revitalize Thousand Oaks Boulevard, adding a diversity of housing options including housing for employees who work in the city, creating a “downtown,” investing in local and small businesses, the retrofit or repurpose vacant properties, and more opportunities for cultural and entertainment events and venues.
x Vision for the Future. Participants envisioned creating more gathering spaces, maintaining parks and open space, expanding the age diversity of the population, growing in a sustainable way, creating a downtown with a mix of uses, improving the infrastructure in the city, expanding partnerships with local businesses and educational facilities, and preserving residential neighborhoods.

Item No. 11A
What makes Thousand Oaks unique and special?
x Fresh air and environment
x Safe and clean city
x Access to open space and nature
x Strong arts emphasis
x Citizen engagement in government
(committees, etc.)
x Not crowded
x Open space, trails, and oak tress
x Schools and quality of education
x Small town community feel
x Family friendly city
x Openness
x Well maintained neighborhoods
x Civic Arts Plaza and performing arts
x Ease of getting around – wide roads
and free parking
x Employer base
x Single family neighborhoods
x Ring of open space
x Biotech hub
x Equestrian properties and stables
x Parks, dog parks, hiking trails
x Historic preservation
x Accessibility of health care
What issues and challenges are the city facing today and in the future? What concerns do you have about the future?
x Lack of diverse and affordable housing
x Aging population
x Lack of low-income housing
x Need job opportunities for young
people
x Need better housing balance
x Dated development standards
x Demand for amenities and capital
infrastructure
x Underutilized commercial space
x Not pedestrian friendly
x Need greater environmental
protection
x Homelessness
x Pollution – air, noise, traffic
worsening
x Cell towers (5G) near residential
neighborhoods
x Dying retail
x Lack of public places or sense of place
x Wildfires and changing climate risk
x Unstable water supply and drought
risk
x Limited risk taking in local
government
x Stagnancy in development and
planning
x Must meet complex needs of
increasingly older population
x Need greater job diversity to support
living and working in Thousand Oaks
x Underestimating threats and crime
x Lack of racial diversity
x Lack of innovative mobility options
x Climate change affecting our open
space and oak trees
x Need to strengthen our disaster
preparedness for fires, earthquakes,
etc.
x Lack of entertainment and activities
for young people
x Need higher paying local jobs
x High cost to build housing or operate a
business in the city
x Extreme housing shortage
x High cost of local utilities
x Over building of apartments near
single family homes
x Don’t want to become the San
Fernando Valley
x Lack of public transportation (within
the city and out of the city)
x Need to maintain quality services with
rising population
x Health concerns – changes in wireless
technology, addiction, mental health
x Displacement of middle class
x Restrictions on cannabis
x Incomplete bike network
x Lack of railroad connection
x Need for affordable senior housing
Item No. 11A
What is your vision for Thousand Oaks in 2045?
x Preserved quality of life
x Preserved open space, nature, and oak
trees
x Sense of community
x Safe
x Low profile buildings
x Clean air
x Protection from changes in climate
x Sustainable and carbon neutral
x Light trail to Los Angeles and Ventura
(carbon neutral)
x Retain safety and open space
x Take risks in developing forward
thinking housing styles and
transportation systems
x Intergenerational living and
communities that support all ages
x Thousand Oaks Boulevard as a hip
gathering place with great shops, arts
and culture, and restaurants
x Expand Ventura County wildlife
corridor zoning
x Pedestrian oriented community
x Mixed use development
x Relevant for younger generations
x Less parking
x New employment opportunities –
ventures
x More inclusive
x Economically and racially diverse
x Socially balanced
x Economic sustainability
x Technologically advanced – smart city
x More accessible
x Entertainment district with nightlife
x Thousand Oaks Boulevard streetcar
x Easy to live and work in Thousand
Oaks
x Collaboration between the school
district and local government
x Repurpose vacant and underutilized
buildings
x Increased density along thousand oaks
boulevard
x Maintain safety
x Environmentally friendly
x Livable for young people
x Return of children who grew up in
Thousand Oaks
x Preservation of neighborhoods
x Zero waste community
Item No. 11A
The following results indicate who participated in the demographic information activity station.

Note that not all participants completed the demographics survey. x Live + Work in Thousand Oaks. Majority of participants live or live and work in Thousand Oaks. x Tenure in Thousand Oaks. Majority of participants who attended the workshop have lived in Thousand Oaks for more than 31 years. A high number of participants also lived in Thousand Oaks between 11-20 years and 21-30 years.
x Age. The highest number of participants fell into the 45-64 age category, while a high number also participants also fell into the 35-44 and 65 and older category. x Background. Majority of participants at the first workshop identified as White (not Hispanic).

Item No. 11A
The following results indicate where workshop
participants live, work, play, shop, and learn in
Thousand Oaks. Note that not all participants
completed the mapping activity.

Stickers indicated the following:
x Yellow = where you live
x Black = where you work
x Green = where you play
x Red = where you shop
x Blue = where you learn
Results were clustered around the following areas:
x Live
o Dos Vientos
o Newbury Park
o Westlake
o Wildwood
o Sunset Hills
o Central Thousand Oaks (both
sides of 23 Freeway)
x Work
o California Lutheran University
o Los Robles Hospital
o Elementary, Middle and High
Schools
o Rancho Conejo Business/
Industrial Center
o Townsgate Road Business Park
o Thousand Oaks Boulevard
x Play
o Parks, open space & trail heads
o Grant R. Brimhall Library
o The Oaks Mall and Janss
Marketplace
x Shop
o Arboles and Moorpark
Shopping Center
o The Oaks Mall and Janss
Marketplace and surrounding
areas
o Westlake Boulevard and
Thousand Oaks Boulevard
shopping centers
o Westlake Boulevard and
Hampshire Road shopping
Center
o Lindero Canyon Road
x Learn
o California Lutheran University
o Library and Senior Center
o Thousand Oaks Boulevard
o Hub 101
o The Oaks and Janss
Marketplace
Item No. 11A
The following summarizes highlights from the My Vision activity station. Individual responses to this exercise are included at the end of this summary in Appendix A. Note that not all participants completed the My Vision exercise.

Participants envision the following for Thousand Oaks 2045:
x High quality of life and welcoming
place to live
x No barriers between communities
x Focused on future generations
x Diverse, balanced, safe, friendly,
happy and prejudice free
x Sustainable, green, and carbon free
x Clean air and water
x Trees, nature, wildlife, and preserved
open space
x Less car-centric, and more walkable,
bikeable, and expanded trails
x Preservation of neighborhoods and
dark skies
x No additional growth or development
x No 5G small cell cites
x Reduced noise and traffic
x Preservation of Western culture
x Prepared for emergencies
x Diverse job opportunities, job
providers, and abundance of livingwage jobs
x Vibrant Thousand Oaks Boulevard
x Filled with “third places” like a
Downtown, central district or old town
(note: the term “third place” refers to
places you spend your time outside of
work and home)
x Diverse housing options including
multi-generational, elderly, special
needs, homeless, and low-income
housing
x More entertainment options,
restaurants and local businesses
x Investments in technology and
innovation
x Smart growth, greater density, and
mixed-use development
x Regional transportation, light rail or
trolley, controlled traffic
x Most outstanding community in
southern California
x Youth in local leadership
Item No. 11A
At the end of the roundtable discussion report-outs, the floor was available for an open comment session and a selection of the comments that were made are listed below. x Concern about potential change to Thousand Oaks; many like the community as it is now. x Preserve the small-town feel, while incorporating progressive ideas of inclusivity to make the City more diverse.
x Develop in a smart and innovative way.
x Support public transit advancement.
x Concern over new technology that harms health (5G).
x Offer more programs to prevent homelessness including programs for veterans of war. x Expand on recreation and entertainment opportunities in the City, so people do not have to travel to Los Angeles or neighboring cities.
x Maintain the family-oriented atmosphere in the community and balance needs of young people and older adults.
x Desire to allow beekeeping in Thousand Oaks.
x Desire for hubs of community around town connected by light rail.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 1

THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL
PLAN 2045
JOINT GPAC MEETING + WORKSHOP #2

SUMMARY
February 2, 2021 | 6:00 pm – 8:30 pm | Virtual Zoom Webinar

OVERVIEW
On Tuesday, February 2, 2021, the City of Thousand Oaks hosted a joint General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and public workshop to present three draft land use alternatives for the Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 update project. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the workshop took place virtually as a Zoom Webinar from 6:00 to 8:30 pm. Approximately 255 attendees (including 17 GPAC members) joined the Zoom meeting, not counting the consultant team, elected officials, and city staff, with an additional 45 YouTube livestream views. GPAC members participated in the webinar as panelists and were able to use audio to ask questions, while members of the public joined as attendees and typed questions into the Q&A feature. This joint meeting was the second workshop in a series of four that will take place over the course of the General Plan update.

The joint event served as an overview of the materials presented in the Land Use Alternatives Briefing Book, which provides detailed background on the land use alternatives process and maps. The purpose of this event was to provide an overview of the three draft land use alternatives, answer questions from the GPAC and public about the alternatives and instruct the community about how to provide feedback on the land use alternatives. An online survey was available between February 2, 2021 and March 15, 2021, in English and Spanish, and was printed and hand delivered upon request.

The following summary includes an overview of the presentation, polling questions and results, and summary of questions and answers from the GPAC and members of the public.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 2

PRESENTATION
The meeting began with an introduction by City Manager, Andrew Powers, and continued with a presentation by Matt Raimi, project consultant with Raimi + Associates. The evenings presentation was divided into several sections including background, alternatives overview, review of land use alternatives, comparison of alternatives, and conclusion and next steps. Throughout the presentation, the General Plan Team paused to answer questions and facilitate polls. Below are highlights of the presentation sections.

Background
The presentation began with a recap of the General Plan Update process, the benefits of a General Plan Update and key terminology used throughout the presentation of alternatives and in the briefing book. This also included an overview of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements, the City’s Measure E ordinance, and recent State SB330 legislation.

Alternatives Process
This section served as a precursor to the three land use alternatives by highlighting results from previous community engagement activities that led to the delineation of the areas of stability, where little to no change is anticipated, and areas of change, where the General Plan Team proposes changes in land use and or character. Matt noted that less than 8% of the City was identified as an area of change. Also presented in this section were the land use designations which included descriptions and supportive imagery.

Review of Land Use Alternatives
The land use alternatives are a long-term vision for the City that tests values and ideas from the community process. In this section, the three land use alternatives were presented highlighting the common themes and differences among the areas of change. The alternatives were also reviewed as five subareas: Rancho Conejo, Moorpark and West Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Westlake and East End, and village centers within the City.

Comparison of Alternatives
Following the detailed overview of each alternative by sub area, Matt presented a high-level comparison of land use category percentages for the three alternatives and metrics comparing the existing 1970 General Plan to the three land use alternatives.

Conclusion and Next Steps
The meeting concluded with an overview of next steps, including how members of the public could provide feedback through the briefing book, online survey, and virtual office hours.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 3

POLLING
Throughout the presentation, the General Plan Team used informal polls to engage GPAC members and attendees.

Below are the poll questions and corresponding results. Please note that not all participants completed one or all polls, and the participants who connected by phone only did not have access to the virtual poll.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%
Live Work Own a
business
Own a
property
None of
the
above
Do you live and or work in
Thousand Oaks?
GPAC + Public Responses

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%
If you live in Thousand Oaks, how
long have you lived here?
GPAC + Public Responses

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%
100.00%
Rent Own
If you live in Thousand Oaks, do
you rent or own your home?
GPAC + Public Responses

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%
Under 18 25-34 35-44 45-64 65 or
older
What is your age?
GPAC + Public Responses
Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 4

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%
None, this is my first 1-3 meetings 4-6 meetings 7 or more meetings How many General Plan-related meetings and events
have you attended?
GPAC + Public Responses
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
NO. Continue to allow
townhomes and small
apartments in Medium
Density Areas
YES. Lower the density and
transfer the capacity to the
Areas of Change
A combination of the above don't know
The existing General Plan allows for townhomes and small apartments to be built in some single-family areas. The proposed alternatives would reallocate this unbuilt residential capacity into the Areas of Change. Do you agree with this approach?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
In Rancho
Conejo
At The Oaks
Mall or Janss
Marketplace
Near Downtown On the eastern
end of
Thousand Oaks
Boulevard (e.g.,
the Pavilion at
Westlake)
Around
Westlake Village
Shopping Center
In shopping
centers
throughout the
City
No preference
What is your top choice for where housing should be added? Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Yes, add a mixed-use district for
employees to live near where they
work
No, maintain the area for jobs only Not sure
Do you think that mixed-use development should be allowed in or immediately adjacent to Rancho Conejo?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Leave it as a regional mall Maintain some retail but
allow townhomes and 2-3
story multifamily residential
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 3-4 story
mixed-use
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 5-6 story
mixed-use
What best describes your vision for the future of The Oaks Mall? 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Leave it as a regional mall Maintain some retail but
allow townhomes and 2-3
story multifamily residential
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 3-4 story
mixed-use
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 5-6 story
mixed-use
What best describes your vision for the future of Janss Marketplace? Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Yes No Not sure
Should multifamily residential development be allowed on Thousand Oaks Boulevard?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Keep as-is Increasing development potential and
employment opportunities in the area
Allow a portion to convert to mixeduse
What best describes your vision for the Townsgate Road area? Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 7

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Throughout the presentation, the General Plan Team paused for questions to allow for discussion and input. The General Plan Team answered various questions from the GPAC, and the public submitted through the Q&A feature in Zoom Webinar. Questions and comments from the GPAC and the public are listed below (bolded) along with the General Plan Team responses (italics).

Questions from the GPAC
As the population and number of housing units increases on Thousand Oaks Boulevard, will the Plan include required publicly accessible parks and open space? How does that fit into the general plan designations?
The General Plan will identify general areas where new public parks are needed, but it cannot designate private property as parks or open space, as it would eliminate that property’s development potential and monetary value. Cityowned property can be designated as future parks.

RHNA numbers are significantly higher than previous cycles, does this include a “catch up” set of numbers? Can you provide background on these numbers?
This round does include an increase because over the last 30 years the State has not kept up with population growth and housing demands. The last time California was this unbalanced was in the 1980s. As a State, we are in a housing deficit of about 2.4 million units. This RHNA cycle was an attempt to begin to make up for that deficit. It is unclear if the State will continue to use higher numbers in the future.

How does transit factor into the land use designations? Is proximity to transit a factor when considering residential types?
More people in a concentrated area and higher density residential results in more successful transit options. The areas identified by the GPAC and the public for higher density housing happen to be in locations that may be viable for public transit.

To what extent will we build in assumptions about retail space and office space based on the COVID-19 pandemic?
There are knowns and unknowns related to the pandemic and its impact to the build environment. We know that retail and types of retail will likely change permanently, while the verdict is still out on office space. We are currently seeing development projects moving forward with office components across the city.

Can you summarize what the General Plan is, and what it isn’t, how it relates to city council, assisting property owners, etc.?
The General Plan is the long-term vision and policy document for the city, often referred to as the city’s constitution. All decisions about development flow from the General Plan and future policy documents must be consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan sets forth land use designations, which regulate, at a high level, future uses that are allowed on each property within the City. General Plan land use designations feed into Zoning, which includes dimensional requirements for properties like building height, setbacks, etc. There are a series of other documents and regulations that implement the vision of the General Plan. The General Plan does not build or demolish buildings, it sets the vision of the future of the City, and it is at the discretion of property owners to make changes to their property according to the vision and guidance set forth in the General Plan.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 8
Is parking a factor in the alternatives development process? In the speaker series (General Plan Community Forum #2) it was mentioned that many cities over develop parking, which goes unused. Can developers repurpose parking lots into housing and/or mixed-use development? Parking was considered in a limited capacity at this phase, but the General Plan does not specify the amount of parking required for development. The General Plan can include parking related policies, but parking specifications are addressed through the Zoning Code.

Quality of life is the concern for many residents – do we have enough land to increase population? Are we going to reduce the existing quality of life?
One of the challenges the General Plan update process tries to balance is preserving quality of life and making changes that people want to see in the City. In general, we see that the best performing retail spaces can have traffic congestion around them, and the commercial spaces with plenty of parking are not performing as well. The alternatives will look for balance between activity and accessibility.

Do these three alternatives stand on their own? I saw great components of each that I liked. Are there opportunities to pull different components from each?
Yes, the goal of the alternatives phase is to test different ideas. In some instances, we are looking at the extremes to test what works and gain insight from the community. The preferred land use alternative may ultimately be a combination of all three alternatives with new components as well. The survey asks specific questions to identify what components resonate with the community.

Throughout the alternatives process, have you considered ownership of property? What is the path to seeing the changes in the alternatives process realized? In this phase, we did not do a detailed analysis of property ownership, although through city staff we had general sense of what that looked like. Moving forward, we want to look at ownership patterns and likelihood of development. That is the difference between buildout and growth projections. Through the horizon of the General Plan (2045) we will be analyzing what could happen in roughly the next 25 years.

Questions from the Public
The following questions were asked in the Zoom Q&A feature and answered verbally by the General Plan Team.

Is parking included in FAR ratios?
Surface parking and structured parking above grade is included in FAR, while below grade parking is not.

Given the number units needed for low and very low-income housing, will the city proactively identify areas and subsidize development for these kinds of Affordable projects? After the preferred land use alternative is confirmed, the City will be required to identify specific locations that could accommodate low and very low-income housing as part of Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the Housing Element. Related to subsidies, the General Plan will address housing through policies and programs.

Can you provide more detail related to the parks and open space question? While we cannot designate private property for parks or open space, all new residential multifamily development is required to provide parks/open space for all units and common parks/open space as part of development standards.

Can you build taller structures thereby reducing the new land needed to develop? The alternatives explore those options. The alternatives have different organizations of land by either concentrating the development through taller structures or increasing the number of areas proposed for residential development.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 9
Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is becoming an important part of land use planning – are any land use alternatives future scenarios that reduce VMT being considered? Yes, VMT is one of the metrics that is considered when evaluating the three land use alternatives, in addition the EIR will consider the impacts to VMT through the proposed land use changes.

What will ultimately be presented to City Council?
Feedback from the survey, office hours, and this meeting will direct changes to the land use alternatives, which will be presented to City Council and Planning Commission in the Spring.

Have the previous General Plans been directed by State mandated housing laws or where they directed by a locally driven process?
A combination of both, this update process includes all Elements of the General Plan, however, the housing element has several State requirements that must be addressed every 8 years. There are repercussions for not having a certified housing element in each of the 8-year cycles, the city would not be eligible for grant funding that could limit or reduce many capital programs.

What is the penalty for violating SB 330?
Recent legislation puts financial penalties on a city for not complying with SB 330.

After the General Plan is adopted, how would a property owner go about requesting a land use change? Individuals would have to apply for a General Plan and Zoning amendment that would be analyzed at that time, considering the existing local ordinances (Measure E) and state requirements. We encourage folks to make detailed parcel-level comments on the briefing book and the survey, as this is a good opportunity to work through potential changes.

Do the units have to be built?
The General Plan needs to Plan for and maintain 81,124 units, but development of housing units is dependent on individual property owners. The General Plan does not build or demolish any buildings.

The following questions were asked by members of the public and answered in writing by the General Plan Team through the Zoom Q&A feature during the presentation.

Question Asked In Q&A Response In Q&A
Will you make the maps interactive so that
when you click on a parcel it tells you the
GP designation? Other cities do this to
make it more user friendly and technically
accurate for residents and professionals
viewing the maps.

After this presentation, we will provide information on how to access interactive maps that allow you to click on a parcel and check its designation.

Are there any plans to pre-zone
unincorporated islands? Although not discussed in tonight’s presentation, the General Plan land use map will include designations for the
unincorporated county islands. No changes are being proposed for those areas.

Since there are 33,043 units available
under Measure E, how many are currently
under consideration?
As explained in the presentation, the General Plan needs to maintain the capacity for 81,124 units. These do not need to be built but planned for.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 10
Who are our hosts for this? City of Thousand Oaks and the General Plan consultant team We all understand what a "taking" is,
however, all these new housing units will
require new parks. How will this be
addressed?
City staff is working with CRPD to discuss where new housing units would potentially be built under each of the alternatives, and how that would result in needs for new or expanded park facilities. It is ultimately CRPD’s decision as to where they will place new parks to best meet the demand, and to purchase the property needed for those parks using parks impact fees collected from developers.

I am hard of hearing. Is there a way to get
subtitles? closed captioning will be available on the city's YouTube channel tomorrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8YP74Kqkvw&feature=yo
utu.be
How do I access closed captioning? Can an
ASL interpreter be provided? closed captioning will be available on the city's YouTube channel tomorrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8YP74Kqkvw&feature=yo
utu.be
Are granny flats counted toward the stock
numbers? Granny flats are not included in the total unit counts Could you post a link to the briefing book? https://raimi.konveio.com/thousand-oaks-2045-land-usealternatives Please point me to where the survey
resides on the page? I see a link for survey
results, but not tonight’s polls.
https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts
I do not see a survey link on the main
website. https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts
I’m on the city website and don’t see the
link for the land use link https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts Each parcel that has been separately
delineated on the map should include the
acreage. It isn't hard to do. They did it
when they reconfigured Measure E.

I am checking with our GIS folks. We can add to the interactive maps tomorrow. Stay tuned. This capability was added after the meeting.

All the questions being posted are not being
seen by all attendees. I apologize for the inconvenience. I am unsure why this is happening. I encourage attendees to review the briefing book and respond to the online alternatives survey to record their comments. www.toaks2045.org
Will all the questions that are not being
answered or shown on screen be addressed
later somewhere?
If your question was not answered tonight, please attend one of our upcoming Virtual Office Hours. We received over 200 questions and tried to get to as many as possible. Thank you all for the great and thoughtful questions!
Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 11
What is the threshold for low income? Income categories are based on a percentage of the median income for the county. Additional information is in the Briefing Book.

Are residents able to vote yes or no on
proposed developments in their area? Individual residents do not vote on proposed developments, Planning Commissioners and/or the City Council vote on
projects. Residents are encouraged to participate in the public process providing input during environmental document review, public hearings and submitting correspondence to the City to help inform the decision makers.

Can you incorporate live work as a form of
mixed use in the General Plan? Live work would be permitted in mixed use areas Also, can we propose land uses currently
not identified to be included within the
proposed alternative change areas?
Matt will be describing these later in the presentation Also, how does the 2,615 needed units
under the state plan “fit” within the
available units under Measure E?
Measure E limits the citywide residential capacity. Many areas of the city were built at a lower density than what was allowed by the General Plan, resulting in unbuilt residential capacity.

The land use alternatives propose reallocating this unbuilt capacity from established residential neighborhoods into the Areas of Change.

What is the penalty for planning for or
building all 81,000 units? Measure E requires that the city not plan for more than 81,124 units, while SB 330 says the city may not plan for less than that number.

Is this a new survey or is it the one we had
opportunity to fill out a month or two ago? New survey. https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts Is it still possible to become a member of
the GPAC? Please attend future GPAC meetings. these are open to the public. Please sign up for notification of these meetings on www.toaks2045.org
It appears that the outcome already seems
made and the representatives of the
community is very small as there are over
100,000 people. What are you doing to get
the community involved and not push the
destruction of the community?
Please help us get as much feedback from the widest cross section of the TO community. Please respond to the online alternatives survey. www.toaks2045.org
The survey is open for the month of February.
what if we live and work in Thousand Oaks? please pick one.

The 3 options are heavily weighted on
Mixed Use. Are there still options to
consider Low Density SFD on certain
parcels?
Please provide this comment in the online survey for areas where you think Low Density SFD development would be
appropriate.

How can I get a briefing book? Is there a
link on City website? Please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at www.toaks245.org.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 12
How much impact does input have at this
point? Could public input influence which
sites are recommended to City Council?
Please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at www.toaks245.org. This is the start of the public review process and your input is valuable
How can I obtain a copy of the 70 page
Briefing Book? Is it "online"? Please review the briefing book at www.toaks245.org.

I'm going to understand better once I've
had a chance to read all this. It's a lot to
process from a presentation. I'd like to have
a pdf of the slides as well, the keys are too
small to read on zoom.

Please review the briefing book which has detailed information and interactive maps and respond to the survey at
www.toaks2045.org.
wow! the poll answers are full of bias, and
none offer an open ended response. Please take the online alternatives survey which allows you to record open ended responses. www.toaks2045.org
Would like to know how many units of
housing each of the alternatives is allowing.

Are all alternatives going to allow for an
equal number increased housing units?
Please take time to read the Land Use Alternatives Briefing Book. https://www.toaks2045.org/events
All alternatives cannot allow more or less units overall due to SB 330 and Measure E.

What about solar over parking and
buildings? Solar is now required for all new residential statewide Why do ADUs/Granny Flats not count
toward Measure E mandates? can this be
modified?
State Law does not allow ADU's to count towards land use density/capacity. Measure E cannot be modified to count ADU's as part of overall dwelling capacity.

The poll is not in conflict with the prior
poll, the question was should mix use be
allowed in NBP, the answer is yes....the
question wasn’t whether it should be
concentrated there...if that was the
question the answer would be no
Thank you for the clarification
I think the difference in opinion re: Rancho
Conejo is related to information given
regarding Alt 1 - Alt 3. We did not have this
visual when first poll regarding same was
asked.

Thank you for the clarification
Whose quality of life? The families doubled
up into apartments because they cant find a
home?
Thank you for your comment. Please also record your thoughts on the online survey. https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts Concerned about impact to traffic of
additional development around TO
Blvd/WL Blvd. Traffic getting to and from
high school is already so challenging (preCovid when school was in session) Thank you for your comment. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Re Poll 4 - The residential areas should go
out into the business/industrial part of
Rancho Conejo. They are NOT compatible
Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 13
with the neighborhoods on the South side
of the 101.

Live Poll # 4 did not include the answers I
needed to provide. Nothing in this City
should be higher than 3 stories. That's our
limit.

Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Does this company understand that this city
doesn't want mixed use and they need to
come up with a non mixed plan. Your polls
all assume we are on board for mixed use
which I guarantee you we are not.

Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
I see another option for the mall as a
transport hub so residents to telecommute
commute but get out of their homes.
therefore, the mall becomes a “WeWork”
type of space as well. This does not exclude
the “mixed use” model, but “Mall as transit
hub” should be considered as a future
option.

Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Move the Toyota used car lot into the car
area south of the Blvd. It's an eyesore. Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Mixed Use growth...got it...move on to the
next section Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
(BTW...The 2 pdf downloads of the Land
Use Alternatives briefing books do not
seem to have separate unique file names
when downloading them.)
Thank you, we will fix after this meeting.

I believe the link in response to Larry
Turner was missing a 0...it should be
https://www.toaks2045.org/
thank you.
some of these areas already have multifamily neighborhoods. Does this mean you would knock it down and rebuild it?
That is dependent of the private property owners. The General Plan sets the policy whereby a property owner could propose redevelopment if it complies with density and other policies.

What is the green area on Westlake and
East End Alt 1? That is SCE property along Hampshire, which is designated Utilities and Flood Control.

Do they have a financial interest in what
happens? Are they tied in with any
developers?
The consultants do not own any property in the city and have been retained by the City to prepare a GP Update.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 14
Do we have enough water supply to fulfill
the requirements of measure E units in
Thousand Oaks?
The current Urban Water Management Plans for the multiple water purveyors all account for the amount of Measure E units under the 1996 General Plan. The General Plan Update
Environmental Impact report will analyze water supply under the preferred land use scenario, which will also have to be compliant with Measure E, just analyzed under current water supply circumstances.

Is the thought to take down the mall and
build new? The development envisioned in the land use alternatives could involve demolition and replacement of existing buildings, repurposing of existing buildings, and/or new buildings to supplement existing buildings. It is up to each property owner to determine if, when, and how to redevelop their properties. The mall and many other properties in Thousand Oaks have very large surface parking lots that could be used as locations for new buildings. The parking could be replaced with parking structures.

Can you repost the slides of the areas to be
developed? The entire presentation will be posted on the web site at toaks2045.org after the meeting. All the maps and information in the presentation are also included in the Briefing Book which is available now on the web site.

The Mixed Use land designations of Low,
Medium, & High have corresponding FAR of

0.25, 0.5, 1.0. The FAR seems to be
extremely low and not proportion to
density to achieve a reasonable size of
dwelling units. To reach these densities at
say a 0.5 FAR would have to be micro units
and not suitable for families. Is this correct?
The FAR is only for the commercial portion of a mixed-use development
Can you touch on the funding
mechanisms/strategies for implementation
at this stage in the planning process?
The General Plan puts policies in place to manage development that is initiated by the private sector based on market conditions. The City would not itself build any of the
development envisioned by these land use alternatives.
500 survey responses is not predictable of
the city desires. There are 130,000 people
and only 400_ responded. An additional
survey should be sent out now that the
program has visibility.

The General Plan update process is ongoing and there are ongoing opportunities to provide additional input. Please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at
www.toaks245.org.

Can you please type in the Q&A what Matt
said in response to Rorie's question about
parks not being provided for thousands of
new housing units? Very important
question.

The GP will assess the need for new parks. However, the city cannot designate private property as parks or open space. is the GPAC group voting, or just the
residents participating? The GPAC and the attendees are all voting Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 15
Given the additional 2,600 RHNA units, will
the City maintain the "unit pool" system
used under Measure E? Or will that be
changed?
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) requires the City to allocate all of its residential capacity onto the land use map. The current “pool” system will be discontinued with the updated General Plan.

Given the # of units we need for low and
very low income residents, will the city
work proactively to identify parcels and
subsidize development of affordable
projects?
The Housing Element, which is a part of the GP process, will identify housing sites.

Will the planners or sustainability office
compare VMT's and estimated GHG
emission increases or reduction of each
alternative?
The metrics for VMT and GHG will be presented later in the presentation
Any indication whether those commercial
properties will actually be utilized in all
that mixed use? A town I used to live in
went very mixed use heavy at one point,
and most of the commercial spaces were
never leased. Has there been research into
the demand?
The mixed-use designations envision different options for providing a mix of uses with varying degrees of commercial and residential based on location and market conditions. We recognize that the traditional mixed-use format of retail on the ground floor and residential above does not work in all locations and can result in vacant commercial spaces if not implemented properly.

Does the City have a jobs growth goal that
was used for the alternatives? The numbers being presented are build-out numbers. how do I get to that firs poll we had? my
friend just logged in, Carol, and wants to
take it.

The poll was an informal survey at the start of the presentation.

It is now closed. The official survey will collect demographic information.

Not all questions are posting to everyone.

No censoring please. The questions and responses are available to all attendees and GPAC members.

Where can I find the list of stakeholders
who were consulted earlier on? The stakeholder summaries are available on the project website. www.toaks2045.com
How can you fulfill the state requirements if
you can not get any property owners to go
along with any Alternatives?
The State requires cities to plan for more housing understanding that the property owners have the choice to develop.
will measure E be repealed? There are no plans to repeal Measure E.

Also, is there any consideration to allow
affordable housing to be developed upon
church/synagogue land (without requiring
any type of General Plan amendment)?
There is state legislation under consideration to allow church properties to have housing by right.

None of your designs have rooftop gardens
for commercial or residential. These type of design components would not be part of the General Plan. Those type of requirements can be incorporated into zoning ordinance update, which would follow policy direction from the General Plan.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 16
What changes in city infrastructure are
required and accordingly incorporated in
the plan to accommodate this increase in
housing and commercial density.

This will be studied as part of the Environmental Impact Report, which will be available for public review later this year.

Is there a paper version of the survey that is
being distributed, to include the input of
folks without computer or Internet access?
To request a paper copy of the Briefing Book and survey, please email [email protected].

What about traffic impact? Many roads are
near gridlock at certain times of the day.

Adding density will make this worse. As
density increases near the freeway, there
will be less space remaining to
accommodate traffic (adding turn lanes, for
instance).

Traffic will be analyzed under the Environmental Impact Report. State Law requires a new metric for analyzing
transportation, which is Vehicle Miles Travelled.

Can a property's land use designation still
be considered after this meeting for
another use? For example, if none of the
alternatives allow for housing, is there an
opportunity to add before final vote?
We are looking for all input. Please provide your comments through the survey and interactive maps provided on
www.toaks2045.com.

The final decision will be made by the City Council later this Spring.

It is critical that acreage be provided for
each parcel you're showing. If the plan is to
go to mixed use "high" (45-60 units per acre
with a possible density bonus of 35% or
greater for "affordable"), the public should
be able to determine what the ultimate
increase in intensity would be at build-out.

We have some overall acreage numbers that will be presented shortly. These are also included in the briefing book.
www.toaks2045.org
Will you add acreage for the parcels to the
map? We will check and see if that is possible.

Will these slides be made available after
the meeting?
Yes
Will the housing element explore ADU's and
strategies to encourage these units?
Yes
Are there any traffic studies being
conducted for these alternatives? Yes, the EIR will include traffic studies Will this PPP be available in the TO2045
website? yes. Also, please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at www.toaks245.org.

Will a transportation impact study be done
to evaluate future land use scenarios? Yes. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the General Plan, including
development that may result from the preferred land use alternative. A transportation impact study will be conducted as part of the EIR. The Draft EIR will be released for public review along with the complete draft General Plan later this year.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 17
will all of these alternatives allow for the
81,000 housing units that are needed Yes. As described earlier, State law requires that the capacity is maintained.

Will the questions be archived? Yes. Please also provide your input by completing the survey.

Does the state mandate the number of low
income units that are required? Yes. The RHNA allocation has a breakdown of units by income levels
Other Comments
The workshop accumulated hundreds of comments and questions - some were addressed verbally to all in attendance at the workshop, some were addressed through the written Q&A feature, and some could not be addressed due to time constraints. The major themes of the latter comments and questions are summarized below. x Please provide closed captioning, ASL interpretation, and translation at future meetings. x Housing affordability, senior housing, and multigenerational housing needs are issues that need to be addressed.
x Consider rephrasing “protect single family neighborhoods”. x How is the City analyzing needs of our local community, economy, and environment? x Please clarify the thresholds for low and very low-income housing and if that addresses housing needs for those who are experiencing homelessness.
x Please clarify Measure E local ordinance and the State’s RHNA allocation process. x How will the General Plan address inclusion, incorporate active transportation, gentrification, and address parking?
x Are minority communities, populations with disabilities, and those without internet access being proactively reached through the General Plan process?
x Will the General Plan address sustainability solutions like zero carbon housing, and are there energy use goals and requirements for the future?
x How will water supply be addressed?
x Does the General Plan accommodate existing population or entice new populations? x Are there any plans to pre-zoning unincorporated County islands? x Can you touch on the funding mechanisms or strategies for implementation at this stage in the planning process?
x Are there options to add more single family residential? x Can the acreage be provided for each parcel within the change areas? x Are there job growth targets or targets for the types of jobs being created? x Concerned about new development and potential changes to City’s character. x Will there be impacts to the local school district?
x Will a form-based code be prepared?
x Will the General Plan prepare a land use/zoning consistency analysis? x Access to affordable housing for people of all ages is a huge issue.

Item No. 11A
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 18
x Why do the alternatives propose so much retail space? x Will the General Plan include updates to infrastructure? Specifically bicycle infrastructure. x Are there public funds available to incentivize development according to the General Plan? x Why do the alternatives focus on the 101-corridor so heavily? x How does the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan interface with the new General Plan? Item No. 11A
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 1

THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL
PLAN 2045
JOINT GPAC MEETING + WORKSHOP #3

SUMMARY
April 21, 2021 | 6:00 pm – 8:30 pm | Virtual Zoom Meeting Attendees
GPAC Members

Present: Andy Fox, Chaise Rasheed, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Fred Fukunaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Rorie Skei, Dr. Victor Hayek

Absent: Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Dr. Chris Kimball, Dena Jenson, Emily Dale, Ken Lamont, Michael Nigh.

Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Tara Carruth, Wyatt McCrea Public
This was a virtual meeting; hence no public sign-in is available.

Overview
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021, the City of Thousand Oaks hosted a joint General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and public workshop to present the preferred land use map for the Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 update project. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the workshop took place virtually as a Zoom Meeting from 6:00 to 8:30 pm. Approximately 75 attendees (including 13 GPAC members) joined the Zoom meeting, not counting the consultant team, elected officials, and city staff, with an additional 100 YouTube views. Members of the public could register in advance to join the live meeting along with GPAC members. Both GPAC and members of the public had access to video and audio throughout the presentation and discussion. This joint meeting was the third workshop in a series of four that will take place over the course of the General Plan update.

The joint event provided a brief overview of the land use alternatives survey results and supplemental analysis, an overview of key components of the preferred land use map, and breakout group discussions among GPAC and community members. The General Plan Team also announced the preferred land use map survey which was open between April 20 and May 12, 2021 and available in English and Spanish.

The following summary includes an overview of the presentation, community small group discussions, GPAC direction, and public comment.

Item No. 11A
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 2
Presentation and Discussion
The evening kicked off with a presentation by Matt Raimi, project consultant with Raimi + Associates, which was divided into several sections including background and process overview, land use alternatives survey results, overview of preferred land use map, and next steps.

Below are highlights of the presentation by section and group discussions.

PRESENTATION
Background + Process
Matt introduced the meeting objectives, how community members can provide feedback on the draft land use map, an overall update on the General Plan Update process.

The land use alternatives process overview included a recap of the flow of work, areas of change and stability map, high-level comparison of the three land use alternatives, and overview of the survey. In this section, Matt shared some of the community engagement activities conducted for the three land use alternatives, survey statistics, demographics of survey respondents, and results of detailed sensitivity analysis.

Land Use Alternatives Survey Results + Preferred Land Use Map
This section outlined the preferred land use process, proposed designations, and details of the land use alternatives survey results and how they relate to the new preferred map. The preferred land use map incorporated components of the three land use alternatives based primarily on survey results. The preferred map provides less total development capacity and maximum density compared to the previous three alternatives.

Matt highlighted the overall characteristics of the preferred land use map, then reviewed each of the five geographic areas relating survey feedback to the preferred map changes. Matt noted that the vast majority (83%) of the citywide preferred land use map is made up of single-family residential and parks, golf courses, or open space.

Preferred Land Use Alternative Next Steps
At the end of the presentation, Matt shared key dates and next steps in the preferred land use map process including the survey open through May 12, 2021, presentations to Planning Commission on April 26, 2021 and City Council on May 18th and 25th.

DISCUSSION
Breakout groups
After the presentation, members of the public and GPAC dispersed into small groups to discuss the preferred land use map. The GPAC remained in the main Zoom room, while members of the public were invited to join breakout groups with a facilitator. Members of the public could opt out of a breakout group and instead observe the GPAC discussion.

Item No. 11A
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 3
Discussions took place for roughly one hour and were guided by two questions. For each area, both GPAC and members of the public were asked, “What did you like about the preferred land use alternative map?” and “What changes do you think should be made to the map?”
Once discussions concluded, the meeting reconvened for highlights shared by the small group facilitator. Below are summaries from public small groups’ report-outs.

Small Group Report Out (Public)
Group 1
x Discussion focused on big-picture citywide vision.
x Opinions split between those who wanted more housing, mixed-use, higher density, and taller building heights verses those who wanted lower density, lower building heights, and less mixed use. x Majority support housing in village centers and share a desire for more public meeting space like plazas. x Majority support flexible designations for large retail centers. x Group had split opinions on the future of the Borchard site, some in favor of mixed-use, and others in favor of maintaining single-family residential designation.

Group 2
x Discussion focused on the Rancho Conejo subarea because many participants did not feel comfortable discussing subareas they were not familiar with.
x Felt the Borchard property has a lot of potential and should allow for higher density residential. Many participants asked questions regarding the proposed split designation and preferred a single mixed-use designation.
x Acknowledged the need for affordable housing and felt the village centers were a good way to provide additional housing.
x Majority were disappointed village centers don’t include any residential and are commercial in the proposed land use map.
x Many felt The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace could include higher density residential.

Group 3
x Majority agree with the approach of focusing change to subareas and maintaining majority of the city in current configuration.
x Discussion focused on Rancho Conejo and Thousand Oaks Boulevard. x In the Rancho Conejo subarea, had the following recommendations:
o Supportive of mixed-use north of the 101 freeway.
o Not supportive of tall buildings south of 101 freeway. o Current vacant property in the northwest corner of the Rancho Conejo subarea (commonly referred to as the “goldfish” or “7th Day Adventist” property) should be residential, not industrial as proposed.
o Consider access and circulation in the area.
x Felt overall the preferred land use map is in a good place, with a few caveats. x Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan Area should treat all property owners the same, allowing for Mixed Use Medium across all parcels. Similarly, the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace should allow greater flexibility.
x Supportive of the Westlake and East End proposed land uses.

Item No. 11A
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 4
x Parking should be addressed within village centers if mixed-use is added.

GPAC Direction
After listening to public small group report-outs, members of the GPAC took turns sharing their final thoughts and overall review of the preferred land use map. Note that all members of the GPAC in attendance shared their opinion at this time (one GPAC member left the meeting early and therefore did not provide their opinions). Below is a summary of the direction received from the GPAC as well as individual comments from GPAC members.

Summary:
10 members of the GPAC supported the direction of the preferred land use map, but offered specific tweaks to the map:
o Introduce mixed-use at some of the village centers.
o Propose mixed-use across the Borchard property.
o Provide flexibility and focus mixed-use throughout the Thousand Oaks Boulevard corridor. o Add increased residential density at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. o Remove mixed-use designations from sites we know are not likely to change in the next 20-30 years.

These GPAC members shared support for specific elements of the preferred land use map:
o Mixed-use at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace.
o Emphasis on walkability and livability.
o Maintained community character by preserving parks, open space, and single-family neighborhoods.
o Expansion of jobs and focus on local economy.
2 members of the GPAC felt cautious about the preferred land use map, noting the scope of changes and potential impacts to schools, views and a potential to transform the overall character of the community as concerns.

GPAC member comments:
o Overall, the preferred land use map is reasonable and does not change most of the land in the city. o The City has done a great job of reaching out to community members through outreach. o The Borchard property owner is a lifelong resident and does not want to negatively affect the neighbors with future development. The proposed development there would be mutually beneficial for neighbors, businesses, and the city as a whole. o Cautious and hesitant to accept the preferred land use map as it stands now. There are impacts that will need to be addressed like school enrollment.
o Supportive of providing flexibility through higher densities at only The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace.
o Prefer to spread out density across the city.
o The preferred land use map is going in right direction, small tweaks are needed to increase flexibility.
o The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace both have too much parking, those areas could support future housing.
o The preferred land use map is going in the right direction. o Consider allowing more uses (like hotels) and providing greater flexibility on height and density for retail centers.
o Agree with other GPAC members that some of the large retail centers in the Westlake and East End (i.e., The Promenade) are not going to change, so the mixed-use designation should be moved elsewhere.
o The preferred land use map is moving in the right direction. o The General Plan is not about buildings; it is about people, enhanced livability, and making the City a better place to live, work, raise a family, and grow old. In the future we need to make those connections clear with the proposed changes to the General Plan.

Item No. 11A
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 5
o Village Centers would be a great place to live in the future. o Thankful to the Team for preparing this information and providing outreach to the community. o Generally supportive of the preferred land use map. Some tweaks are needed to address the concerns and comments raised tonight including:
ƒ Some village centers should allow mixed-use.
ƒ Not comfortable increasing heights or densities beyond what is proposed. ƒ Overall want to maximum flexibility.
o Overall, the map is a balanced approach that preserves what this community has built over the course of its history.
o The team has done a great job synthesizing input and preparing the preferred land use map.

Thank you for the effort and progress.
o By-in-large the preferred land use map is going in the correct direction, but a few tweaks are needed including adding mixed use to the Village Centers and allowing increased flexibility for The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. Additional housing units should go in these locations. o Cautious of the scope and size of proposed changes, seems out of historic character for Thousand Oaks. The proposed map includes some great resources for us to consider. o There are changes we need to make, State requirements, and inevitable economic changes are coming.
o Recommend or support changes at The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace since shopping malls are changing. The City should think proactively and not reactively. Support a global biotech hub in Thousand Oaks and want to continue to support Rancho Conejo north of the 101 freeway. o “Residents” historically have wanted buildings to be low profile to maintain mountain views. o Overall, the Plan is going in the right direction.
o Supportive of the mall areas and Village Center proposals. o Vision for the future is to have walkable, bikeable, destinations that are accessible by transit.

Desire to not have a landscape dominated by cars in the future. o At a high level, the proposed map is good, but does need a few tweaks. o We should remove mixed-use designations from sites we do not anticipate changing in the next 20 to 30 years. Those units should be reallocated to underutilized sites instead. o The plan does preserve long-standing principles like maintaining single-family neighborhoods, protecting open space, parks, and viewsheds. As well as focusing on job centers and the economy. o The plan should provide as much flexibility as possible along the 101 Corridor and throughout Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
o Mixed-use should be applied to the Oaks Mall, Janss Marketplace, along Thousand Oaks Boulevard in certain places, and the Borchard property.
o Consider a different designation for parcels that are 20 or 30 acres in size and greater. This could give flexibility to property owners while lowering the overall housing numbers that people are concerned with.
o Focus on opportunity sites identified by City Council. o Great job to the General Plan Team.
o Generally, support preferred land use map with a few tweaks. o Need for flexibility specifically the two large shopping centers. o Would like to see mixed-use Village Centers.
o Overall, the plan is well done.
o Echo several comments from other GPAC members.
o Feel that walkable Village Centers are important, especially for youth.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Following the small group discussions, report-outs, and GPAC direction, members of the public were invited to provide brief public comments. Nine members of the public participated. A summary of these comments is provided below.
x Thank you for a great meeting, I will provide additional comments via email.

Item No. 11A
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 6
x I am in support of future mixed-use development at the Borchard property with a buffer from the existing neighborhood.
x As the property owner, the goal for the Borchard site is to create a place that serves the Newbury Park community. There is a lack of gathering spaces in this neighborhood. We have a plan that includes open space, a buffer, and amenities, and want to work with existing residents to make this successful. x As a homeowner on Michael Drive, I support future development at the Borchard property. People are looking for areas to go and things to do, we would like to have something nearby that we can walk to. x The Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce appreciates the discussion on the preferred land use map. Would like to see flexibility for more property owners in the form of more medium and high density in the appropriate areas. Also support the GPAC’s comment regarding concentrating new land uses on feasible sites that are likely to change in the next 20-30 years. x Casa Conejo neighbors are largely opposed to major development on the Borchard property due to flood control issues and waterfowl. We are in favor of something softer on this site. There are other shopping centers nearby that are more appropriate for entertainment uses. x As a residential and businessowner in Thousand Oaks, I am supportive of future development at the Borchard property. I would like to integrate a future tap room into the area as an extension of my business. I feel that the property owner wants to work with residents and make something that enhances the Newbury Park neighborhood and supports existing businesses like Amgen. x I am supportive of future development at the Borchard property and am encouraged by the design the property owner showed that includes a large greenbelt buffering single family homes. I think the concerns about flooding and habitat would be addressed through the planning process by turning that area into a greenbelt, instead of the split zoning that is proposed now. The property should have one mixed-use designation going forward. The Janss Marketplace and The Oaks Malls should be considered for mixed-use medium which would provide those property owners maximum flexibility for the future. x Of the previous three land use alternatives, the Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce supported Map 1 because it offered mixed-use medium and mixed-use high. The survey results showed highest support for Map 1, and that was the basis for the new map (preferred land use map), but it removed the things we liked about map 1. We encourage the committee and City to add those things back into the preferred land use map. We want to promote affordable housing, but the only way to get affordable units is to allow higher densities.

NEXT STEPS
The meeting concluded with an overview of next steps, including how members of the public could provide feedback through the briefing book, online survey, and virtual office hours.

The meeting adjourned at 8:42 pm.

Attachments: Facilitator notes from GPAC and public small group discussions.

Item No. 11A

FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021

GPAC DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND NOTES
Responses by the General Plan Team are italicized.

GPAC Member 1. How will the impacts of new residential units on schools be addressed? If too many new units are developed, the district may have to redraw boundaries and that could influence neighborhood schools. x While this is a valid concern, we do not know the makeup of residential units will be, so we cannot yet anticipate the impact to local schools.

GPAC Member 2. Regarding village centers, if we are not changing land uses, how do we ensure that kind of walkable aesthetic and environment is created? x We can use policies to influence the format of a commercial shopping center to look and feel more like a main street. If we move forward with commercial only village centers, the General Plan could be amended later to allow residential or mixed-use in these areas.

GPAC Member 3. I think we need to reiterate that future development will incorporate sustainable principles and nature through parks, open space, and landscaping. This community is very sensitive to the environment, we cannot lose sight of that when talking about the future.

GPAC Member 4. I think it would be a missed opportunity to not include mixed-use or residential units in village centers. They could provide housing opportunities for young families, young workers, and seniors, and help spread out the residential units so we do not overwhelm one area of town. It could create a designation that is walkable from existing neighborhoods, like a European High Street Model.

GPAC Member 5. In talking with the property owner, I think the proposed development at the Borchard site would be a good project that would take into consideration the concerns of adjacent neighbors.

GPAC Member 6. Why were certain areas identified as mixed-use medium and others were identified as mixed-use low?
x Certain areas have already been envisioned for higher density, like the Civic Arts Plaza and Downtown Core areas, while west Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks Boulevard near Tarantula Hill has new
development that could provide synergy. The Rancho Conejo area was selected due to the proximity to adjacent uses, so it could be viewed as another node.

GPAC Member 7. I think village centers need to include housing in the form of mixed-use because retail is changing, and we need room to evolve. The area around Borchard should include something other than single family homes, we need additional flexibility.

GPAC Member 8. Concerned with the scope of changes proposed in the plan. Do the changes have to be as big as they are presented? Can we meet RHNA without such sweeping changes? Can we take steps forward in a phased approach? Density alone will not solve housing affordability; we need policies to ensure future housing is affordable.
x Agree with your assessment that strong housing policies are needed to ensure future development is affordable. In previous conversations, members of the public brought up the need for an (updated) Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

GPAC Member 9. I think we need to revisit the allowed uses across Mixed-Use Low, Medium, and High. Restaurants, retail, and hotels should be allowed across all three designations. Regarding The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace, I feel that Mixed-Use Low is insufficient to accommodate the future evolution of these shopping centers. Both centers should be up to Mixed-use Medium, and perhaps consider a residential unit cap to prohibit the site from turning to all residential and going beyond the Measure E capacity.

GPAC Member 10. I would suggest maintaining the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan as much as possible. Incorporate the opportunity sites identified by City Council, including the YMCA property for housing or mixed-use. Remove the mixed-use designation on sites we know are not likely to change in the next 20-30 years, including the Promenade site. Provide more flexibility at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. Regarding the Borchard site, the residents prefer a buffer and the only way to achieve that is through a higher density designation like Mixed-Use Medium or Mixed-Use Low.

GPAC Member 11. I support village centers and wonder if we can include mixed-use anywhere within the industrial core of the Rancho Conejo area (north of the 101 Freeway).

GPAC Member 12. We should consider policies to maintain retail (like grocery stores) within mixed-use village centers. We want to balance new residential with amenities that support existing neighborhoods.

GPAC Member 13. Young adults would like to see walkable village centers and revitalization of the Janss Marketplace.

Item No. 11A

FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021
PUBLIC GROUP #1 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND NOTES

1. What is your reaction to the overall citywide preferred land use alternative map? Notes
x Need more housing
o Disappointed with the lack of high-density housing
o Village centers – no mixed-use, more human scale, more walkability ƒ Reuse existing vacant retail
ƒ Transit hubs
ƒ Distribute housing, etc.
o Taller buildings should be located at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace
o Plazas and meeting spaces are needed
x Need affordable housing for young families, like starter homes, etc. x Do not concentrated multifamily housing
o Village centers should have housing
o Low density housing is preferred
o Move housing out by CLU and Moorpark Rd instead of Newbury Park x What about environmental considerations? Concern over infrastructure for water and transportation
x Consider ADU’s for additional housing units
x Concern over concentration of housing on TOB – traffic congestion, emergency evacuation
x Concern with building height increase but desire for affordability

2. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Rancho Conejo area?
Likes
x Downtown/village center for Newbury Park – activities for young families/children Changes
x Park or water feature at Alice/Borchard property
x More housing by industrial north of 101
x Village center needed in Dos Vientos
Item No. 11A
x Less need for office and retail after COVID.

3. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Moorpark Rd and West Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Likes
x Flexibility at Oaks Mall area

4. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
(N/A)

5. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Westlake and East End area?
Changes
x Lower building heights on Westlake Blvd (industrial flex)

6. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Village Centers? (N/A)
Item No. 11A

FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021
PUBLIC GROUP #2 QUESTIONS, NOTES + REPORT OUT:

1. What is your reaction to the overall citywide preferred land use alternative map? Notes
x Why did Village Center make it to the Preferred Land Use Map? There seems to be comparable support as to the Oaks Mall in survey.
x Small amount of space to work with in T.O. for new housing. Would like to see map re-evaluated to maximize change also like to see Village Centers reevaluated. x Has City considered a Specific Plan overlay for Borchard site? Allows developer flexibility to plan the overall site with consideration of constraints.

Report out
x Mixed comments regarding the Alice/ Borchard site.
x Comments regarding re-visiting the Village Centers.

2. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Rancho Conejo area?
Changes
x Concern regarding amount of change in the Rancho Conejo area and that it is where the most change/ new development will occur.
x “Alice” parcel should be re-designated to mixed use in its entirety. x Borchard/Alice site – concerns regarding parking if all mixed use.

3. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Moorpark Rd and West Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Likes
x 275 (?) East Moorpark- n/o Hillcrest – shows as Mixed Use Low -supports.

4. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Item No. 11A
(N/A)

5. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Westlake and East End area?
(N/A)

6. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Village Centers? Likes
x Add here Why did Village Center make it to the Preferred Land Use Map? There seems to be comparable support as to the Oaks Mall in survey.

Item No. 11A

FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021
PUBLIC GROUP #3 QUESTIONS, NOTES + REPORT OUT:

1. What is your reaction to the overall citywide preferred land use alternative map? Notes
x Paul is interested in the Rancho Conejo/Newbury Park area x Mark is interested in TOB (mixed-use) and the SDA property as a residential site; all of TOB should allow for mixed-use
Report out
x Only focusing on the 10% of City that are “areas of change” was a good approach
x There was too much to absorb at once and during a pandemic (but this is a multiyear process and is still a work in progress) x Initially worried about the survey due to the 3 alternatives but feel there is now a good compromise after seeing the results

2. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Rancho Conejo area?
Likes
x Mixed-use North of the freeway near existing commercial areas and Amgen Changes
x SDA site to a residential designation
x South of the freeway should not allow tall buildings (not necessarily mixed-use development)
x Better access for less traffic

3. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Moorpark Rd and West Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Changes
x All TOB should be at least mixed-use medium, not all the sites will be developed that way in the future; equal rights to develop for all TOB property owners Item No. 11A

4. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Likes
x The areas that do allow for mixed-use medium
Changes
x All TOB should be at least mixed-use medium, not all the sites will be developed that way in the future; equal rights to develop for all TOB property owners x Better access to lower traffic

5. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Westlake and East End area?
Likes
x Approved K-Mart pre-screen project is in a good location Changes
x Add here

6. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Village Centers? Likes
x Village Centers are essential and key; people should be able to walk to the store nearby
Changes
x Having adequate parking if you’re adding mixed-use
Item No. 11A


 

  













 !
"#$%
&
'
 #
(('

!
&) 

 

















*


'

+,
 (-*%




'

&,
 .
(
! %/



'
+,
 #((/ %%



'+,

0


'

+,

1
 0%1* %%* 1% %/% %$%%2$2%3% 


'
&,
 )$ %%4( ($% %




'

+,

#05%2
 !
6
0+


'
+,








 








 





  
   


   ! 


 

)
 !

7

 !

)


 !

6%


 !
812%9
%0/ %
 !
":







Item No. 11A







 








 



 

12
 !
9
/"
&
'
 #
(('

!
&) 

"
 

#
"


#"


#"


#"


$"


%&
   


   ! 


 



;


;


; 

; 

<
6&






Item No. 11A

7%/0(%2%
"+ 2
 ( 
&
'  #
(('



 

)0



'

+,
 5$&% += %$%

'

+,
  %

' +,
 !
0
>/


' +,

6%?$


'
+,

//



'
&,
 6% $%2,(
@



'&,

!





' &,
 7
222A$ %0( %22$


'
&,

65)%B


'
&,

?/$ %
$%;C$%%5)B6%5*(

'
&,

 )?$

'
&,

 #%,(


'&,

  >%




'
+,

3$
$




'
+,

 >%



'
+,

 5C


'
+,

5 5C


' +,

 >/A*


'+,
 7A/%


'
+,

52)%B %


'
+,
 ?$*0*



'+,
 ./(*%95)B


'+,
 6
0+



'
+,

6
0+
90%#%/$$1


'
+,

!
0
>/



' +,
 65)B




'
&,

6%?$




'

&,
 D*.




'
&,
 ./



'

&,

A*( 



'&,
 /$


'
&,
 . 0/


'
&,
 #**2



'&,






Item No. 11A

6
0+




'

&,

)/?$


'
&,
 6
0+



'&,

)/$


'&,
 )/?$


'
&,
 E?$


' &,

6%?$


'
&,
 D@ 0



'
+,
 !22). 0/

'
+,
 65)B


'+,

# %A

'
+,

5C> %


'

+,
 7A/%


'+,

7A/%


'+,
 7
+



'+,

6
0+
5 5C

' +,


7 %
A

'
+,

 6
0(



'
+,

  >%



'
&,

 ?$5C


'
&,


7


'&,


7


' &,

 7 %
>/


'&,


72





'

+,

 7A/%



' +,






'
+,

# %



'

+,

 # %A


' +,

 . 0/7 



'+,


%$%%
!



'
+,

)?$



'
+,

?$5C>/


'

+,

 !
(



'

+,

)/?$


'
+,

 #
!




'

+,
 6
0(




'+,

6
0+




'
+,
 )0




'
&,
 6
0+
A$
+




'
&,
 !,




' &,

/$


'
&,






Item No. 11A

,%52


'&,
 !*



'&,

7 %
A


'

&,
 ) ?0 3 %%



'&,

%
%




'
&,

?$5C



'
+,

 5C!




'
+,

 #
!




'
+,

 5*%$



'
+,

7 %
A


'

+,

)/?$


'

+,

 ) F=



' +,

# %A


' +,

 ?/%22
 !
D0
)




'+,
 ?$22+ 



'+,







'
+,
 )/



'
+,
 >/*



'
+,
 7 %
>/
2+




'+,

7 %
A



'+,

7 %
>/



'
+,
 6
0+




'+,

>A/).



'+,
 $%



' +,

F 30



'
+,

#
!




'
+,

 6
0+




' +,


 !




'
+,

 6
0+



'
+,

65)B


'
+,

,(
@


'
+,

 )/?$,




' +,

7 %
>/


'
+,

 6
0(



'
+,

*



'+,

7



'+,

 7D$


'
+,

 ,=%)


'

+,

 &%$
2* 0%
6
0+
$#%


'
+,

6
0+




'
+,

?$G%50>



'
+,







Item No. 11A

 7




'+,

!
5 %




'
&,

 #
!





'&,

 5C!




'
+,


6%?$


'+,

 # %A


'
+,

 5)%

'
+,

 !,


'
+,


)/?$

'

+,


5C!


'
+,

 A$ %H7 %
D

'+,


6%?$

'
+,


 %
/


'

+,

 6&

' +,


5C

'
+,

 5C


'
+,

 7
6/0

' +,

 6
0+
9>%+


'

+,


)!


'+,


7




'
+,

 #%0



'
+,


30 H&0 D$
A*



'
&,

 5C!





'
+,

 !





'+,


5/



'
+,

 $%* 222




' &,

 6
0+

 

'
+,

 7

 
'
+,


5((
%$%



'
+,


6
0+




'+,

 
%

!;22%
!00%)






'
&,


#(/,
+




'+,

 6
0+




'
&,

 >%



'
&,

B((6%?$



' &,

 )/?$;30 H&0 % $%



'
+,

 !
0






'
&,

 /
5$





'
&,

 >%





' &,

*( 



' &,

 6
0+





'

&,







Item No. 11A

A*( 
.





' +,

 6
0+





'
+,

6
0+




'+,

!
$**




'+,

 )/?$&



'
+,

 )*



'
+,

 5C!




' +,

71)7!!




' +,

)@ 




'+,

 6
0(






'
&,

7 %
>/





'

&,

 7 %
>/




'
&,

 7





'&,


! 30



'
&,

 5((




'
&,

 ) ?0 ?8A*( 
!D % $%:



'

&,

 5/+




' &,


!,




' &,


)/?$




'&,

 )3 %%




'
&,


D%
A$ %
 !
DA$*(




'
&,

 5/+





' &,

#
!





'+,

7




'
+,

 6
0+




'

+,

 B$(%



'
+,

 7 %
>/


'
+,

 >%


'
+,

6
0+




'
+,

 6
0(




'

+,

6
0+




'
+,

 7




'

+,

 >%+

!



'
+,


A$ %?$



'+,

 )/?$


'
+,

 6
0+



'

+,

 !
0
A/


'
+,


6
0+



'+,


& 0


' +,

 6
0+



'+,


7A/%


'+,






Item No. 11A


!D


' +,
 . 0/?



' +,

A$ %30



' +,
  7A/%



' +,
  ./



'&,
  6
0+




'

&,

6
0+




'
&,

 >%


'&,
  # %A


'
&,

!
0
-% 9
*%$%



'

&,
  !$
(



'&,

# %



'
&,


A %


'
&,

 6
0+



' +,

 !,





'

&,

 ?$5C>/96
0+




' +,


7 %
A


' +,


5%%


'

+,

 6
0+




'
+,


3$%$%,3*%



'&,

  F H30 ?


'&,
 6
0+




' &,

5C





'
+,
 # %




' +,
 )/?$





'
&,
 6%?$97 %
>/


'+,

3 % 2
 !



'
+,


(




'

+,
 7 %
A



'+,

6
0+




' +,
 7 %
>/




'
&,
 !
0


*




'
&,

?$5C



'

&,
 /$



' &,
 5C!



'

&,
 3/?/


'
&,

!,




'
&,

6%?$



'&,
 7




' &,





'
&,
 >/A*


'&,







Item No. 11A
 6
0+



' &,

)/$



'
&,
 F %F$/


'

&,
 A*( 
25?



'
&,
 5C!




'
+,

5CA


'
+,

7 %
>/

'+,
 3$

'
+,


% %%2*%0

'
+,
 7



'
+,

5> %


'
+,


6%?$


' +,

 6
0+



'
+,

 !
0
>/

'

+,

 B((6%?$

'
+,


@ 30

'
+,


%F% 8$2&0 ,(
?:

' +,

  3* #%%

' +,


6
0+


'+,

 # %A

'
+,

 $

'
+,


)?$

'
+,

 6
0+



' +,

 
/



'
&,

 
0(



' &,


 %

'
&,


# %A


' +,

 A$ %
$5

'
+,


#
!


' +,

 3 %


'
+,
 F-*



' &,

7


'+,
 # %A

'
+,
 6%?$


'

+,
 )?. 0


'+,


*!



'+,

6%



'+,
 # %A



'&,

6
0+



'
&,
 7 %
>/


'&,

5%
!8*:

'
&,






Item No. 11A


5%


'
&,

 #%2
!/ $



'

+,

 5)%



'
+,

 !
+



'+,


F-*A 97 %
>/



'+,


/$




'
&,


7




'
&,


6
0+





'
&,

 6
0+





' &,
 /(
F




'&,

)?$



'&,
 6
0+



'
&,
 E/%


' &,
 !





'
&,

D
 !
A/#$



'&,

7 %
 

'+,
 >/A* 

'&,

) ?0 /0 



' &,
 ,(



'
&,

 !
, 


'

&,

7 %
>/(% 


' &,
  5C!

'+,
  )/?$ 

'
+,
  5 5C 

'
+,

7 %
>/ 


'

+,

5C!



'+,
  5%$3 %% 


' +,







Item No. 11A