Attachment 1 PC Staff Report Attachments and Supplementals — Thousand Oaks City Council, December 5, 2023 (part 4 of 10)

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 A-2
SUMMARY OF OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT FOR PHASE 2: LISTENING & VISIONING (September 2019 to December 2019)
Mailer: General Plan mailer to promote upcoming community workshop and pop-up workshops was included in 38,004 City water and wastewater bills on September 3, 2019.

Community Workshops:
• Community Workshop #1 to engage the community in identifying the vision and key priorities for the General Plan update on September 12, 2019 (126 attendees, not including the consultant team and city staff).
• Arts Town Hall to engage the arts community in a discussion about the Arts and Culture Element on November 18, 2019. (36 attendees, not including the consultant team and city staff)
Online Survey #1: The first survey was available from September 24, 2019 to January 10, 2020 and participants were asked to share what they like about Thousand Oaks and their vision, and describe issues and challenges in the City. There were 617 survey responses.

City Council Study Session: November 19, 2019 – Public Engagement Update: Three public speakers and one written statement submitted.

Community Forum:
• Forum #1 “The Happy City” with speaker Charles Montgomery, 6:00pm – 9:00pm, October 2, 2019. The forum focused on developing a vision for a happy and livable city and led a discussion for the General Plan update. Insights from this forum will shape the vision and guiding principles. Approximately 115 attendees.

General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) Meetings:
• GPAC Meeting #1: GPAC Overview, August 28, 2019 Number of attendees: 41 • GPAC Meeting #2: Planning Principles, September 25, 2019 Number of attendees:

Approximately 40
• GPAC Meeting #3: Community Values, November 11, 2019 Number of attendees: 34 Pop-Up Workshops (the same activities were conducted at the pop-ups as the community workshop):
• Senior Summit, April 10, 2020 (cancelled due to COVID-19) • 2020 Wellness Fest, 8:00am - 1:00pm, January 15, 2020 (about 50 people) • YMCA Youth & Government, 6:30pm – 8:00pm, December 4, 2019 (about 35 students) • Chamber of Commerce Board Retreat, November 12, 2019 (about 35 attendees) • TOHS Youth Latino Leadership Class, 3:00pm – 4:00pm, November 5, 2019 (32 attendees) • Amgen, 10:30am – 1:00pm, November 5, 2019 (about 25 people) • Tarantula Hill Brewing Company, October 26, 2019 (about 35 people) • Sage Publications & Atara Biotherapeutics, 11:30am – 1:00pm, October 23, 2019 (65 people) • Farmer’s Market, October 24, 2019 (cancelled due to wind) City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 A-3
• Rotary Street Fair, 9:00am – 4:00pm, October 20, 2019 (over 100 people) • Civic Arts Plaza 25th Anniversary, 1:00pm – 4:00pm, October 13, 2019 (about 70 adults and 30 children)
• Conejo Valley Pride Festival, 9:00am – 4:00pm, September 28, 2019 (about 70 people) Outreach via Email:

Email blasts sent to general plan update contact list (1,332 subscribers):
• November 15, 2019, City Council to Discuss Community Vision – https://conta.cc/2QnDjHP
• October 25, 2019, Last Chance To Take The Thousand Oaks 2045 Community Survey #1! – https://conta.cc/2Nh7k9d
• October 9, 2019, Share your vision for Thousand Oaks! – https://conta.cc/2VuxFnG • September 11, 2019, General Plan Community Workshop #1 – https://conta.cc/305MIF5 Mentions in City’s CityScene Newsletters (1,549 subscribers):
• October 2019 – https://conta.cc/2mInNKk
• September 2019 – https://conta.cc/32hl49W
Mentions in City’s Economic Development Newsletter (545 subscribers):
• October 2019 – https://conta.cc/2oxHN2M
• September 2019 - https://conta.cc/32v5aIP
Mentions in City’s Sustainability Newsletters (10,300 subscribers):
• August 2019 – promoted workshop and pop-up workshop dates • September 2019 - promoted workshop and pop-up workshop dates Other:
• Email sent on August 18, 2020 to all the California Lutheran University Masters of Public Policy Administration students to promote upcoming GPAC meeting Advertisements:
• Paid for use of City Hall marquee to promote workshop and forum events • Posters put up in City Hall, both City Libraries, and Janss Marketplace to promote workshop, pop-up workshops, and forum
• Paid Ads in The Acorn to promote first round of workshops on: Size 5x8 on September 5, 12, 19, 26, 2019
• Paid Ads in the VC Star to promote first round of workshops on: Size ¼ page, weekly from September 30, 2019 to October 18, 2019
Giveaways:
• Paid for 50 books of “The Happy City” to be given to attendees at the first community forum City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 A-4
• Paid for 250 canvas tote bags; 250 grocery tote bags; 1000 business cards; 200 coasters; 1,000 pens; 1,500 stickers; and 1000 bookmarks to give away at events Newspaper Articles: See Pages 8 – 11.

SUMMARY OF OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT FOR PHASE 3: POLICY
DEVELOPMENT & PLAN ALTERNATIVES (December 2019 to May 2021) *Starting in April 2020, all outreach and engagement for this phase was conducted virtually* Community Forum:
• Forum #2 “The Math of Smart Growth: Why we can’t afford to keep building the same way” with speaker Joe Minicozzi, 6:00pm – 9:00pm, January 29, 2020. This forum focused on the relationship between development and community economic health. Approximately 50 attendees.

Online Survey:
• Online Survey #2 – The second survey was available from February 28, 2020 to May 4, 2020, and there were 461 responses. The purpose of the survey was to confirm and prioritize feedback on values, issues facing the community and a vision for the future. Community members were also asked to prioritize top strengths and challenges in Thousand Oaks and provide comments on a map where future growth and change (e.g., housing, entertainment, open space) should be located in the city.

GPAC Meetings:
• GPAC Meeting #4: Housing Existing Conditions, December 12, 2019 Number of attendees:
30 • GPAC Meeting #5: Economic and Market Conditions, February 6, 2020 Number of attendees: 33
• GPAC Meeting #6: Review Current and Potential Land Use, March 5, 2020 Number of attendees: 37
• GPAC Meeting #7: Transportation, May 28, 2020 Number of attendees via Zoom: 123 • GPAC Meeting #8: Environmental Justice and Social Equity, July 23, 2020 Number of attendees via Zoom: Approximately 48
• GPAC Meeting #9: Safety and Resilience, August 20, 2020 Number of attendees via Zoom:

Approximately 49
• GPAC Meeting #10: Sustainability, September 24, 2020 Number of attendees via Zoom:

Approximately 53
• GPAC Meeting #11: Arts and Culture, October 22, 2020 Number of attendees via Zoom:

Approximately 58
• GPAC Meeting #12: Parks and Open Space, November 19, 2020 Number of attendees via Zoom: 54
• GPAC Meeting #13: Joint GPAC and Community Workshop, Land Use Alternatives, February 2, 2021
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 A-5
• GPAC Meeting #14: Land Use Alternatives Survey Review, March 25, 2021 Number of attendees via Zoom: 97 + 11 YouTube Live viewers
• GPAC Meeting #15: Review of Preferred Land Use Alternative, April 21, 2001 City Council Study Session: February 11, 2020 – Housing: The state of housing in Thousand Oaks today, Housing Element update, and state regulations were discussed. One public speaker.

Community Workshop #2: February 2, 2021 – Joint GPAC Meeting #13 and Community Workshop to present the three draft land use alternatives. Number of attendees via Zoom: 255 + 45 YouTube Live viewers.

Community Workshop #3: April 21, 2021 – Joint GPAC Meeting #15 and Community Workshop.

Review of Preferred Land Use Alternative.

Online Survey #3: Available from February 2, 2021 to March 15, 2021, and there were 2,127 responses.
• Hard copies of survey and briefing book were hand delivered by request • Copies of Spanish and English surveys and briefing books picked up by Adelante Comunidad (100 surveys and 20 briefing books)
• Copies of Spanish and English surveys and briefing books dropped off to Westminster Clinic (100 surveys and 3 briefing books)
• 1,000 Flyers distributed by the Thousand Oaks Library • 500 Flyers distributed to Meals on Wheels through Senior Concerns and 1,000 flyers were sent to other homebound and senior groups through Conejo Recreation and Park District volunteers
Online Survey #4: Available from April 16, 2021 to May 12, 2021, for the Preferred Land Use Alternative, and there were 2,726 survey responses. The survey sought feedback on the preferred land use map, which identifies the proposed land use designations for comprehensive up to the Thousand Oaks General Plan.

Virtual Office Hours (66 total participants):
• February 11, 2021, 6:00pm – 8:00pm
• February 17, 2021, 6:00pm – 8:00pm
• February 20, 2021, 10:00am – 12:20pm
• February 23, 2021, 10:00am – 12:00pm
These groups invited the General Plan update team for a presentation and Q&A (January to March 2021):
• January 11th – We Belong 805
• January 11th – Democratic Club of Conejo Valley January 13th – Thousand Oaks Livable Action Network
• January 28th and January 29th – stakeholders’ meetings with Macerich (The Oaks Mall), Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce, NewMark Merrill Companies (Janss City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 A-6
Marketplace), The Acorn, Thousand Oaks Boulevard Association, Lee & Associates, Rexford Industrial, Newmark Group, CBRE, Amgen, Westlake BioPartners, and Atara Biotherapeutics • February 9th – Thousand Oaks Teen Advisory League February 16th – Los Angeles Rams • February 17th – Council on Aging February 17th – Youth Commission • February 18th – Conejo Recreation and Park District Meeting February 22nd – Thousand Oaks Livable Action Network
• February 23rd – Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce Legislative Roundtable February 24th – City of Thousand Oaks Finance Dept.
• February 24th – Latino Connection February 25th – Village Homes HOA February 25th – We Belong 805
• March 1st – Adelante Comunidad and Buen Vecino
• March 11th – Casa Conejo Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) Equity Focus Group: Provide an overview of the General Plan update and SB 1000 requirements, discuss examples of equity in Thousand Oaks, and brainstorm a vision for equity in Thousand Oaks.

Number of attendees: 19.

Planning Commission Meeting (Spanish translation provided):
• March 29, 2021 – Consideration of GP Land Use Alternatives. • April 26, 2021 – Consideration and recommendation of Preferred Land Use Alternative City Council Meetings (Spanish translation services provided):
• May 18, 2021 and May 25, 2021 – Preferred Land Use Map Review and Endorsement of the Preferred Land Use Map
Outreach via Email:

Email blasts sent to general plan update email list (1,332 subscribers):
• May 12, 2021, Review the draft preferred land use map. Join us at City Hall. - https://conta.cc/3uHcPCE
• April 23, 2021, Review preferred land use map. Join us at Planning Commission - https://conta.cc/3awOzeg
• April 16, 2021, The Preferred Land Use Alternative is here! Complete the survey. https://conta.cc/2Qxk68C
• March 23, 2021, General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting 3/25. Join us to review the survey results and more! – https://conta.cc/2OXlhOo
• February 24, 2021, We need YOU to help guide the future of TO. Take the Land Use Alternatives survey Today! – https://conta.cc/2NEfRHt
• February 19, 2021, Let’s Chat About Maps Tomorrow! – https://conta.cc/3bm6u6X • February 11, 2021, Let’s Chat About Maps Tonight. Ask us about the future of Thousand Oaks from home! – https://conta.cc/3jNr7go
• February 3, 2021, Did you miss us last night? Recording of Community Workshop Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update – https://conta.cc/3atoT1u City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 A-7
• January 22, 2021, Let’s Talk Land Use in T.O. Community Workshop Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update – https://conta.cc/3qMeMeF
• January 12, 2021, Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update - GPAC Meeting and Community Workshop – https://conta.cc/3sj21cR
• November 12, 2020 and sent to non-openers on November 15, 2020, Let’s chat about parks and open space! – https://conta.cc/35q51ec
• October 15, 2020, Next Week: Arts & Culture and Thousand Oaks. Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update – Upcoming Opportunity to Participate! – https://conta.cc/3j4jiRe • September 22, 2020, This Week: Sustainability and Thousand Oaks (corrected links!) Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update - Upcoming opportunity to participate! – https://conta.cc/2FTOyEN
• September 17, 2020, Next Week: Sustainability and Thousand Oaks Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update - Upcoming opportunity to participate! – https://conta.cc/3mAIbau • 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
• 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 • July 15, 2020 and sent to non-openers on July 18, 2020, Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update - Upcoming Meeting! – https://conta.cc/2Wo7hO5
• June 25, 2020 and sent to non-openers on June 29, 2020, Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update - News & Updates – https://conta.cc/3duZzaR
• May 21, 2020 and sent to non-openers on May 25, 2020, Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update - Spring Newsletter – https://conta.cc/36ptyij
• February 28, 2020, Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update – https://conta.cc/2veJUMN • January 15, 2020, Upcoming Community Forum and Opportunities to Get Involved – https://conta.cc/35STq4h
• December 6, 2019, GPAC to Discuss Housing – https://conta.cc/2COrnXD Mentions in City’s CityScene Newsletters (1,549 subscribers):
• May 2021 - https://conta.cc/3eVDmWe
• March 2021 – https://conta.cc/3q2U5dv
• February 2021 – https://conta.cc/3cvsDlv
• January 2021 – https://conta.cc/3pX7y6T
• September 2020 – https://conta.cc/2YSB96C
• June 2020 – https://conta.cc/2yUbRv9
• May 2020 – https://conta.cc/3aZbDzI
• April 2020 – https://conta.cc/2Jt4jky
• March 2020 – https://conta.cc/2VxhGaO
• February 2020 – https://conta.cc/2OivCRn
• January 2020 – https://conta.cc/2S3BiRV
• December 2019 – https://conta.cc/2ru0o1c
Mentions in City’s Economic Development Newsletter (545 subscribers):

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 A-8
• March 2021 – https://conta.cc/3dUKNxT
• February 2021 – https://conta.cc/39uS58N
• January 2021 – https://conta.cc/38feI0j
• December 2020 – https://conta.cc/3fXKAZM
• March 2020 – https://conta.cc/2I9OLBA
• February 2020 – https://conta.cc/2Um1pEX
Mentions in City’s Sustainability E-Newsletters & Blog (10,300 subscribers):
• February 2021 E-Newsletter -
https://www.toaks.org/Home/Components/News/News/9335/3338?backlist=%2fdepart ments%2fpublic-works%2fsustainability
• January 2021 E-Newsletter – Three articles; this is lead article:
https://www.toaks.org/Home/Components/News/News/9316/3338?backlist=%2fdepart ments%2fpublic-works%2fsustainability
• August 2020 Blog -
https://www.toaks.org/Home/Components/News/News/9236/3338?fsiteid=1 • July 2020 Blog - https://www.toaks.org/Home/Components/News/News/8222/3338 Other mentions:
• March 2021 – California Lutheran University’s message from the Office of the President included information about the General Plan update and was sent to CLU students, staff, and faculty
Other:
• Email sent on February 11, 2021 to 167 homeowners’ associations asking for their involvement
• Email sent on February 11, 2021 to 48 religious organizations asking for their involvement • Email sent on February 25, 2021 to President of Conejo Council of PTAs asking for the PTAs involvement in the land use alternatives.
• Email sent on February 16, 2021 to Conejo Valley Unified School District to provide faculty with information on the land use alternatives survey
• Email sent on February 26, 2021 to CLU students in the MPPA program promoting land use alternatives survey
October 2020 Planning Month:
• TO Library passed out 1,000 postcards about planning and the general plan update at curbside • City staff recorded two videos of reading children’s books about city planning for Storytime • TO Library shared information on their website and social media Social Media including Twitter, Instagram, and General Plan Update Website (through March 2021):
• Twitter: 293,000 impressions, 3,165 profile visits, 279 followers, 120 mentions City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 A-9
• Instagram: 6,655 reach, 1,600 engagement, 653 followers, 1,700 video views • Toaks2045.org website: 37,352 page views, 13,000 unique viewers, top 2 visitor pages (homepage and land use), two biggest traffic sources (direct - 11,753 and social – 2,619) Advertisements:
• Paid ads in The Acorn to promote Community Forum: Size 3x7 in color on January 16, 2020 and January 23, 2020
• Paid ads in The Acorn to promote all engagement opportunities for land use alts phase: Size 4x10 in color on January 21, 2021, February 11, 2021, and February 18, 2021 • Paid for ads on our social media general plan accounts (see separate attachment for General Plan Social Outreach)
Public inquiries via email:
• Responded to more than 350 emails from the public since the beginning of the General Plan update.

Review and Adoption of Housing Element (September 2021- Present) The draft 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element reviewed by Planning Commission on September 27, 2021 with the community feedback incorporated was submitted to the State Department of Housing and Development on October 27, 2021. On December 3, 2021, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) completed review of the draft Housing Element and concluded that the draft element addressed many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. On January 10, 2022 the Planning Commission reviewed and made a recommendation to approve the Housing Element to City Council. The City Council adopted the 2021-2029 Housing Element on January 25, 2022. With the HCD comments addressed, the Housing Element was submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for Certification on February 7, 2022.

On April 7, 2022, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) completed review of the City Council adopted Housing Element, and provided a letter indicating that the adopted Housing Element met most statutory requirements; however, additional revisions were necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. The revised Housing Element was made available public review for a period of seven days from January 24, 2023 to January 31, 2023, prior to resubmittal to HCD. During the public review period of the 6th cycle housing element, the City received and accepted comments from a coalition of community and housing activists. Comments received from stakeholders are documented in the next four pages.

The City also maintains a website dedicated to the General Plan Update that includes all meeting materials and summaries for each of the community engagement activities at https://www.toaks2045.org/communityengagement.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 A-10
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 A-11
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 A-12
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 A-13
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 B-1
Appendix B: Evaluation of the 2014-2021 Housing
Element
This chapter contains an analysis of the effectiveness of the 2014-2021 Housing Element, appropriateness of goals and the progress in implementing programs for the previous planning period as required by California Government Code Section 65588(a). The chapter also includes an evaluation of the appropriateness of continuing the 2014-2021 Housing Element goals and programs. Findings from this analysis and evaluation have guided development of the Housing Action Plan described in Section 6: Housing Plan.

I. PROGRAM EVALUATION
The 2014-2021 Housing Element contained five primary goals and 14 implementing programs consistent with California housing element law and priorities expressed by the Thousand Oaks community, including input received from the City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff.

The five primary housing goals were:
• Goal 1: Provide a wide range of housing opportunities for persons of all income levels. • Goal 2: Provide housing opportunities for persons with special needs. • Goal 3: Maintain and improve the existing housing stock of the City by reducing housing deterioration.
• Goal 4: Preserve existing affordable housing opportunities. • Goal 5: Provide equal access to housing regardless of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, age, or disability.

Table B-1 summarizes the programs contained in the previous Housing Element along program objectives, accomplishments, and the appropriateness of continuing with the previous programs and policies for this Housing Element Update.

Table B- 2 presents the City’s progress in meeting the quantified objectives from the previous Housing Element. The 5th Housing Cycle RHNA allocated 192 units to the City of Thousand Oaks, but an additional 63 units in the very low and low income categories were carried over from the 4th Housing Cycle for a total of 255 units of quantified objectives included as part of the Housing Element Annual progress reporting to HCD.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 B-2
II. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ONADDRESS SPECIAL NEEDS
The City of Thousand Oaks has been successful in addressing the housing and supportive service needs of the special needs groups through its partnership with nonprofits, such as the Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura, Many Mansions, and County of Ventura. Between 2013 and 2021, the City funded the construction, acquisition and/or rehabilitation of 392 affordable units, primarily for special needs groups.

The City, through its CDBG and Social Service Endowment Fund (SSEF), continues to address homeless needs and supportive housing and service needs of seniors and persons with disabilities.

The City will carry forward this tradition in the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 B-3
Table B-1: 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Evaluation Program Objective and
Time Frame Accomplishments Continued Appropriateness
Goal 1: Provide a wide range of housing opportunities for persons of all income levels.

1. Work with local non-profits, such as Habitat for
Humanity, by identifying potential development
sites and financial assistance if appropriate to
provide additional affordable homeownership
opportunities.
1 Low income unit Discussions took place with many local nonprofits to identify potential sites, including Many Mansions, Area Housing Authority of the
County of Ventura, and Habitat for Humanity
of Ventura County.

The City recently purchased 2 parcels, totaling
approximately 4.07 acres on the corner of
Hillcrest and Erbes for $10 million using
general funds and Housing Successor funds
for 100% affordable housing. The RFP/Q
process for selecting development will be
complete by Winter 2021.

Program was consolidated with
other 2014-2021 programs as
Program 6 in the 2021-2029
Housing Plan.

2. Manage the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to
finance the creation, preservation or rehabilitation
of affordable housing. Where feasible, give
priority to housing projects that address the
needs of extremely low income households.

Identify and fund
project(s) based on
available funding.

On- going
The City discussed potential projects and
availability of financial assistance from the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund with non-profit
affordable housing developers. In 2014, the
City assisted the Area Housing Authority
Garden View Terrace Apartments (56 units)
Phase II with $1,000,000 in City Housing Trust
Fund and a $1 million match with the State of
California (CA) Housing and Community
Development (HCD) Housing Trust Fund.

The City recently conducted RFP/Q for project
HOME key and selected 2 nonprofit affordable
developers for permanent supportive housing
and year-round shelter.

Program was consolidated with
other 2014-2021 programs as
Program 6 in the 2021-2029
Housing Plan.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 B-4
Table B-1: 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Evaluation Program Objective and
Time Frame Accomplishments Continued Appropriateness

3. Update the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee and
non-residential development linkage fee based
on changes in economic conditions.

Monitor and update
fees when
warranted.

City staff submitted an analysis of economic
conditions to City Council on August 14, 2014,
which recommended no changes to the in-lieu
and linkage fees. In 2015, the City put its
Inclusionary Housing (IH) and nonresidential
linkage fee update on hold because of
questions related to the legal status of these
fees (BIA v City of San Jose case in US
Supreme Court). Though the US Supreme
County upheld Residential Inclusionary Zoning
in 2016, the updates remained on hold until
after General Plan Update commenced.

Program was consolidated with
other 2014-2021 programs as
Program 6 in the 2021-2029
Housing Plan.

4. Continue to cooperate with agencies that
gather information concerning housing needs,
including the Census Bureau.

On-going In collaboration with Ventura County and other Ventura county cities, the City spent $20,376
in CDBG funds to hire a consultant to
complete the regional Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). The
City also collected information from the
Census Bureau website and cooperated with
the Census Bureau and other agencies
throughout the planning period.

Collecting data is routine function
and is not included in the 2021-
2029 Housing Element as a
housing program.

Goal 2. Provide housing opportunities for persons with special needs.

5. Assist efforts of local agencies and non-profits to
implement the 10-Year Plan (2008-2017) toEnd
Homelessness in Ventura County.Continue to
provide funds to social service agencies that help
prevent homelessness and assist the homeless. City
to continue to collaborate with Ventura County and
participate with Conejo Affordable Housing
Workgroup on homeless prevention strategies.

On-going The City participated in the Ventura County
Continuum of Care (CoC) during the planning
period and the City Manager has been a
board member since 2017.

In 2014, the City participated in the Conejo
Affordable Housing Workshop hosted by the
County of Ventura.

Program was updated and
renamed Program 8 in the 2021-
2029 Housing Plan.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 B-5
Table B-1: 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Evaluation Program Objective and
Time Frame Accomplishments Continued Appropriateness
Between 2014 and 2020, the City provided
$311,320 in CDBG and Social Service
Endowment Funds (SSEF) to 4 local nonprofits for services to 7,318 Thousand Oaks residents who are homeless or at-risk of
becoming homeless.

In addition, in 2020, the City budgeted
$650,000 of CDBG-CV funds towards
Homeless Public Services related to COVID19 and expended over half of the budget which has severed so far 125 Thousand Oaks
residents who are homeless or at risk of
homeless. The City general funds granted 13
nonprofit applicants $10,000 each for a total of
$130,000 to serve the Social services
Emergency relief program which provides
funding to support local non-profits providing
COVID relief to Thousand Oaks Residents.

The City general funds also offered a Rental
Assistance Program to those residing in
Thousand Oaks meeting certain criteria. 168
households benefited from this program,
which provided $3,600 - $5,600 in rent relief
per household with total payments of
$878,000.

6. Continue allocating funding to local non-profit
groups thataddress the housing needs of special
needs households, including disabled and elderly
households.

Subject to available
funding
In years 2014 through 2020, the City provided
$452,369 in CDBG and SSEF funds to assist
22,745 disabled and elderly households.

Through the CDBG and SSEF, the City
continued to allocate funding to local nonprofit
Program is appropriate and will be
continued in the 2021-2029
Housing Plan as Program 9.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 B-6
Table B-1: 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Evaluation Program Objective and
Time Frame Accomplishments Continued Appropriateness
groups that address the housing and
supportive service needs of special needs
groups through the Annual Action Plan
process. Groups that benefited from the City’s
support include:
• Many Mansions
• Habitat for Humanity
• Lutheran Social Services
• Senior Concerns
• Westminster Free Clinic

In 2015, the City granted $114,291 in Housing
Assistance Program for Seniors (HAPS)
funding to assist 382 low-income disabled and
senior households with utilities. Effective
January 2018, the City Utility Assistance
Program (UAP) provides utility bill credits to
low-income Thousand Oaks utility customers
through the water and wastewater penalty
interest and late fee revenue funds. UAP has
an annual budget of $240,000 and has
capacity to serve 800 eligible water customers
and 1,600 eligible wastewater customers. As
of September 2021, the UAP program serves
573 wastewater customers and 503 water
customers.

Goal 3: Maintain and improve the existing housing stock of the City by reducing housing deterioration

7. Assist housing groups in securing local and
other sources offunds for the acquisition and
rehabilitation of multi-family structures for
On-going as
opportunities arise
From 2014 to 2018, the City granted $
149,317.92 to 11 low-income homeowners
for health and repairs.

Program is appropriate but was
updated and divided into Program
11 (Mobile Home Rehabilitation)
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 B-7
Table B-1: 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Evaluation Program Objective and
Time Frame Accomplishments Continued Appropriateness
affordable housing. Coordinate with non-profit
housing developers to identify opportunities and
provide supportwith applications as necessary.

From 2017, the City granted $890,291.57 in
CDBG funds to Habitat for Humanity and
Senior Alliance for empowerment (SAFE) and
rehabilitated 108 units primarily benefiting the
elderly and disabled. Both programs currently
are focused on mobile home rehabilitation.

From 2014 to 2020, the City approved a multifamily rehabilitation grant in the amount of $1,538,072 to the non-profits Area Housing
Authority of the County of Ventura and Many
Mansions for affordable housing at:
• Shadow Hills Apartments (100 units)
• Esseff Village Apartments (50 units)
• Florence Janss (62 units)
• Los Arboles Apartments (43 units)
• Richmond Terrace Apartments (26 units)
• Glenn Oaks Apartments (39 units)
• Bella Vista (72 units)
Most recently, the City allocated CDBG
funding to the: Los Arboles Apartments (12
units) owned by the Housing Authority of the
County of Ventura and Shadow Hills
Apartments (100 units) owned by Many
Mansions.
and Program 12 (Rental Housing
Rehabilitation) in the 2021-2029
Housing Plan.

8. Continue to require inspection of resale
housing as a methodto encourage maintenance
of the housing stock.

On-going The City streamlined the administrative resale research process by providing electronic
reports during the planning period and
Program remains appropriate
and will be continued in the 2021-
2029 Housing Plan as Program
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 B-8
Table B-1: 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Evaluation Program Objective and
Time Frame Accomplishments Continued Appropriateness
conducts inspections for open and not final
permits only when requested. Specifically, the
City on average annually performed 1,800
record searches and 380 inspections for open
and not final permits under the City’s
Residential Resale Program.
10 to pursue the program as
funding permits.

Goal 4. Preserve existing affordable housing opportunities.

9. Contact the property management company or
property owner annually to evaluate threat of
conversion to market rate. If threatened with
conversion to market rate: 1) help property owner
find alternate sources of funding to preserve the
affordable units; 2)facilitate sale of property to an
affordable housing developer/ operator to preserve
affordable units; 3) work with Area Housing
Authority to obtain project based rental assistance
(Section 8) certificates for qualified residents and
4) consider funding assistance from City to prevent
conversion tomarket rate.

Contact Conejo
Futures owner
annually:
90 Units
Conserved
Conejo Future, developed with a Declaration
of Restrictions recorded on March 6, 1974,
limits the use of the property as affordable
senior housing. Conejo Future continues to
apply to receive annual HUD Section 202 and
Section 811 for Section 8 Housing Assistance
Payments. The owners of Conejo Futures
operated the property under a contract with
HUD throughout the planning period.

Program was consolidated with
other 2014-2021 programs as
Program 13 in the 2021-2029
Housing Plan.

10. Monitor affordable housing units in the City’s
affordable housing program to ensure ongoing
affordability for the period of time required by
State and Federal law.

On-going The City monitored affordable housing units
throughout the planning period.

Program was consolidated with
other 2014-2021 programs as
Program 13 in the 2021-2029
Housing Plan.

11. Assist housing groups in securing local and
other sources offunds to extend existing
affordability covenants to existing multi- family
housing.

On-going as
opportunities arise
In 2016, opportunities and funding became
available to implement this program during the
planning period for the Many Mansions’
Shadow Hills apartments through bond
refinancing and extending affordability to
2070.

In May 2016, City owned project was sold to
Program was consolidated with
other 2014-2021 programs as
Program 13 in the 2021-2029
Housing Plan.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 B-9
Table B-1: 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Evaluation Program Objective and
Time Frame Accomplishments Continued Appropriateness
Many Mansions as Schillo Gardens LLC.

Many Mansions used California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee (CTCAC) 4% Bond
financing in 2016 for the acquisition and
rehabilitation of Schillo Gardens to extend the
affordability for 55-years or 2071.

12. Encourage affordable housing providers to
give priority to the housing needs of persons with
disabilities, including, butnot limited to, persons
with developmental disabilities.

On-going The City encouraged affordable housing
providers to give priority to special needs
households. The Thousand Oaks City
Manager has been a board member of the
Ventura County Regional Continuum of Care
(CoC) since 2017. In 2017, the CoC awarded
$108,321 to Thousand Oaks-based Many
Mansions for Permanent Supportive Housing
(PSH) at Richmond Terrace Apartments and
Esseff Village Apartments. The residents
assisted by Permanent Supportive Housing
(PSH) have a disability. The CoC continued to
award funds to Many Mansion for its PSH
through 2020.

Program was consolidated with
other 2014-2021 programs as
Program 6 in the 2021-2029
Housing Plan.

Goal 5. Provide equal access to housing regardless of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, age, or disability.

13. Continue to contract with appropriate outside
agencies such as Housing Rights Center in
collaboration with Ventura County and other local
jurisdictions to provide fair housing services.

On-going The City allocated CDBG funds contracting
with the Housing Rights Center in
collaboration with Ventura County and other
Ventura County cities to provide fair housing
services during the planning period.

Program is appropriate and will be
continued in the 2021-2029
Housing Plan as Program 14.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 B-10
Table B-1: 2014-2021 Housing Element Program Evaluation Program Objective and
Time Frame Accomplishments Continued Appropriateness

14. Provide fair housing information throughout
the City via the City’s website, city hall, libraries
and community centers. Host an annual fair
housing seminar to increase public awareness of
fair housing laws and services.

On-going Notices and information is posted on the City’s website, Thousand Oaks Television (TOTV),
Ventura County Star, Thousand Oaks Acorn,
public counter and provided to Thousand
Oaks stakeholders throughout the planning
period. The Housing Rights Center also
conducted free fair housing seminars
annually.

Program is appropriate and will be
continued in the 2021-2029
Housing Plan as Program 14.

Table B- 2: 2014-2021 Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives New Construction Rehabilitation Conservation
Objective Accomplished Objective Accomplished Objective Accomplished Extremely Low-Income 23 15 0
0 201 20
Very Low-Income 61 16 0 201 20
Low-Income 58 2 0 501 50
Moderate-Income 36 267 0 0 0 0
Above Moderate-Income 77 397 0 0 0 0
Totals 2552 697 0 0 901 90
1 Conejo Futures Apartments
2 Combined RHNA includes a 63 dwelling unit carryover of “Lower- Income” category from the prior RHNA cycle.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-1
Appendix C: Sites Inventory
The detailed assumptions and methodology for the residential land inventory summary presented in Section 3 (Resources) are provided below and summarized in Table C- 1 through Table C- 18.

The land inventory includes pipeline projects (housing developments that have been approved but not permitted), pending projects, and vacant and underutilized sites with potential for development.

The parcel-specific vacant and underutilized site analysis was performed using the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) data and information from the County Assessor’s database. The vacant and underutilized land inventory includes only lots that could realistically be developed based on an examination of existing conditions.

Table C- 1: Land Inventory Summary to Meet RHNA
Income Categories
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
RHNA 735 494 532 860 2,621
Potential ADU 54 111 153 42 360
Pipeline 22 94 10
1,103 1,229
Pending 0 32 0 388 420
Total CREDITS
76 237
163 1,533 2,009
Remaining Need
659
257
369
0 1,285
1 Remaining Need
(Combining Very Low and Low)
916 369
0 1,285
1 All Sites 1,527 614 154 2,295
Mixed-Use (20-30 du/ac) 1,239 453 78 1,770
Mall Sites (20-30 du/ac) 288 137 0 425
Neighborhood Medium-High (20-30 du/ac) 0 24 0 24
Neighborhood Low-Medium (6-10 du/ac) 0 0 76 76
Shortfall/Surplus Combined2 +611 +245 +154 1,010
Shortfall/Surplus % 66.7% 66.4% N/A 78.6%

1. Remaining need based on sum of remained feed of 916 low and 369 moderate units, not the difference between total credits and total RHNA.

2. Shortfall/surplus calculated based on remaining RHNA need.

I. CREDITS TOWARD RHNA
Since the RHNA uses June 30, 2021 as the baseline for growth projections for the Housing Element planning period, jurisdictions may count the number of new units with issued building permits or City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-2
certificates of occupancy since June 30, 2021 toward their RHNA. This section describes the applicability of the credits, while latter sections discuss the availability of land to address the remaining RHNA.

With the anticipated ADUs, approved projects and projects under review the City can accommodate 2,009 units (i.e., total credits). The City must accommodate the remaining RHNA of 1,285 units with vacant and nonvacant sites that are appropriately zoned and have near-term development potential

1. Potential ADUs
Pursuant to State law, the City may credit potential ADUs to the RHNA requirements by using the trends in ADU construction to estimate new production. Between 2018 and 2022, the City issued 225 building permits and issued 116 final building permits for ADUs. Assuming this trend continues, the City expects to produce around 45 ADUs per year (Table C- 2) or 360 ADUs over the eight-year planning period.

Table C- 2: ADU Permits Issued 2018-2020
Year Permitted Completed
2018 14 0
2019 17 15
2020 31 15
2021 60 27
2022 103 59
Total 225 116
Average 45 23
Sources: City of Thousand Oaks, Annual Progress Reports, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022.City of Thousand Oaks, June 2023.

Note: Averages rounded down.

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has issued guidance on the anticipated affordability of ADUs in order to determine which RHNA income categories they shoul d be counted toward. Table C- 1 shows the affordability level of assumed income categories for the expected 360 ADU units based on the SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis.
15 2. Pipeline and Pending Projects
Table C- 3Table C- 3 summarizes pending residential applications being processed as of June 2023.

These projects include pipeline projects (approved but not permitted as of June 2023) and pending projects (projects pending review including prescreen applications for General Plan Amendments approved by City Council to change non-residential designations to residential land uses). These 15 The affordability assumptions for Ventura County are 15 percent extremely low, 0 percent very low, 30.9 percent low, 42.5 percent moderate, and 11.6 percent above moderate. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/adu_affordability_analysis_120120v2.pdf?1606868527 City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-3
projects would include 22 extremely low/very low income units, 126 low income units, 10 moderateincome units, and 1,491 above moderate units for a total 1,649 units in pipeline and pending projects.

The number and income category of the income-restricted (affordable) units in these pending residential applications are based on the Development Agreements that are required as part of the prescreen applications for residential General Plan Amendments. Table C- 4 shows a detailed list with project information for pipeline and approved projects.

Table C- 3 : Summary of Pipeline and Credit Units
Project Status Units by Income Category
EL/ VL Low Mod Above Mod Total
Pipeline 22 94 10 1,103 1,229
Pending 0 32 0 388 420
Total Pipeline and Pending 22 126 10 1,491 1,649
Table C- 4: Pipeline and Pending Projects
Project Address Project
Type
Units by Income Category
EL VL Low Mod Above
Mod Total
325 & 391 Hampshire Rd (Kmart) Apts 0 0 50 4 366 420
Baxter Way Apts 0 16 18 0 230 264
Daylight/1872 Newbury Rd Apts 0 0 26 0 192 218
Ardalan Lynn & Kelley Rd SFD’s 0 0 0 0 10 10
The Lakes/2200 E. TOB Apts 0 0 0 0 165 165
88 Long Court Apts 0 6 0 2 65 73
Shapell Apts 0 0 0 4 23 27
2821 Los Robles Rd Condo 0 0 0 0 4 4
111 Jensen Ct Apts 0 0 0 0 5 5
2080 E Hillcrest Dr SFD's 0 0 0 0 9 9
Banafsheha/1583 El Dorado Dr SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
2831 Lynnview St SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
Turnkee/4920 Read Rd SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
Fang/2140 Speck Ln SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
Fang/2124 Speck Ln 1583 0 0 0 0 1 1
Poppen/715 Paige Ln SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
385 Skyline Dr SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
2430 Alice Ann Rd SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
4755 Golf Course Dr SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
1137 Oak Mirage Pl SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
273 S Skyline Dr SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-4
Table C- 4: Pipeline and Pending Projects
Project Address Project
Type
Units by Income Category
EL VL Low Mod Above
Mod Total
1816 Los Feliz Dr Apts 0 0 0 0 16 16
136 N Oakview Dr Apts 0 0 0 0 4 4
1879 Collingswood SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
4960 Read Road SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
1757 Classic Rose Ct SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total Pipeline (Entitled but Not Permitted) 0 22 94 10 1,103 1,229 AMGEN/2150 W. Hilcrest Dr Apts 0 0 30 0 303 333
Martens/3190 Los Robles Rd Twnhm 0 0 0 0 2 2
Allied Mgmt Group/Erbes and north of Copa de
Oro
Apts 0 0 0 0 30 30
1730 Los Feliz Drive Apts 0 0 2 0 22 24
59 Moody Ct * Twnhm 0 0 0 0 4 4
187 Flittner Circle SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
1651 Lynn Rd SFD 0 0 0 0 19 19
2595 W Kelly Rd SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
2131 High Knoll Rd SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
4398 Rayburn St SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
253 S Ventu Park Rd SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
Rios Ranch SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
395 Sherwood Ct SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
Allen SFD 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total Pending (In Planning Process) 0 0 32 0 388 420
Total (Pipeline and Pending) 0 22 126 10 1,491 1,649
* Prescreen applications for General Plan Amendments, Zone Change and entitlements to allow residential.

Availability of Credit Units During Planning Period
Table C- 5 below shows the status of projects and expected timing of credit units as of December 2021.

All pipeline projects are expected to be constructed or have permits in 2023. Pending projects may have a longer timeline but can be reasonably expected to be completed during the 2021-2029 planning period since current development timelines have not been found to be a constraint to development.

Table C- 5 : Remaining Approvals and Expected Timing for Credit Units Pipeline Project Address Remaining Approvals/Expected Timing Highgate Estates, Highgate Road Permits have been issued for two homes in 11/21 and they are under construction. The third home is in plan check and expected to start construction in 2023.
2821 Los Robles Rd Project is in plan check and issuance of building permits is expected in 2023. 111 Jensen Ct Project is in plan check and issuance of building permits is expected in 2023.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-5
Table C- 5 : Remaining Approvals and Expected Timing for Credit Units Pipeline Project Address Remaining Approvals/Expected Timing 2080 E. Hillcrest Dr. Developer received a time extension and issuance of building permits is expected by 2023.

Banafsheha/1583 El Dorado Dr. Project is in plan check and issuance of building permits is expected in 2023. 2831 Lynnview St. Project is in plan check and issuance of building permits is expected in 2023. 1649 Hauser Cir Building permits were issued in June 2022.

Turnkee/4920 Read Rd Project is in plan check and received a time extension. Issuance of building permits is expected in 2023.

Fang/2140 Speck Ln Project received planning entitlements and expected to submit to plan check.

Project is allowed automatic extension per City Council Covid resolution.

Fang/2124 Speck Ln Project received planning entitlements and is expected to submit to plan check.

Project is allowed automatic extension per City Council Covid resolution.

Poppen/715 Paige Ln Project is in plan check and received a time extension. Issuance of building permits is expected in 2023.
955 Brossard Dr Project is in plan check and issuance of building permits were issued in June 2022.
385 Skyline Dr Project is in plan check and issuance of building permit is expected in 2022.

Khodadadi/21 La Cam Rd Issuance of building permits is expected in 2023.

Sandefer/Skyline & Willow Ln Issuance of building permits is expected in 2023.

Pending Project Address Remaining Approvals/Expected Timing AMGEN/2150 W. Hillcrest Dr Prescreen application approved on April 27, 2021 and is pending per submittal of formal planning entitlement.

Ardalan/Lynn & Kelley Rd Following the July 1, 2021, planning period, planning entitlements were approved on July 26, 2021.

Daylight/1872 Newbury Rd Following the July 1, 2021, planning period, planning entitlements were approved on November 9, 2021.

Martens/3190 Los Robles Rd Issuance of planning entitlements is expected in 2022.

Scribner/515 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd Prescreen application approved on September 14, 2021 and is pending per submittal of formal planning application.

Cohan/3801 Maurice Dr Prescreen application approved in 10/2019 and is pending per submittal of formal planning application.

II. AVAILABILITY OF LAND TO ADDRESS REMAINING RHNA NEEDS Government Code Section 65583.2(c) requires that local jurisdictions determine their realistic capacity for new housing growth by means of a parcel-level analysis of land resources with the potential to accommodate residential uses. The analysis of potential land resources to accommodate new housing growth considered physical and regulatory constraints, including lot area and configuration, environmental factors (e.g. slope, sensitive habitat, flood risk), allowable density, and other development standards such as parking requirements and building height limits.

1. Shortfall of Adequate Sites
Based on the City’s current General Plan and zoning regulations, there are not sufficient available sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA of 1,285 units, the majority of which are very low and low income units. Furthermore, a buffer of sites capacity is needed to address the no-net-loss requirements (SB 166). However, the City is in the process of updating its General Plan 2045 and on May 25, 2021, City Council endorsed a Draft Preferred Land Use Map that creates a new mixed-use designation, City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-6
Mixed-Use, that allows for both residential and commercial development at a minimum density of 20 du/ac to a maximum density of 30 du/ac. The Mixed-Use land Use designation provides for a combination of neighborhood-serving goods and services and multi-family residential in a mixed-use format (vertical or horizontal) or as stand-alone projects including 100 percent residential. Buildings with this designation will be designed to be walkable with wide sidewalks, active frontages, and minimal setbacks from the back of the sidewalk. Allowed uses would generally consist of retail, restaurants, commercial uses (such as banks or real estate offices), residential in multi-family buildings, or attached single-family units (e.g., townhomes).

The sites inventory relies primarily on sites that will be redesignated as Mixed-Use. The sites inventory also uses sites in the Neighborhood Medium-High and Neighborhood Low-Medium designations, which have density ranges of 20 du/ac – 30 du/ac and 6 du/ac to 10 du/ac, respectively. The housing sites inventory includes both vacant and nonvacant (underutilized) land with the potential for additional housing during the Sixth Housing Element cycle. The analysis of nonvacant properties included only those properties with realistic potential for additional development or “recycling”, in light of existing uses on the site; prevailing market conditions; recent development trends; and/or expressed interests in housing development from property owners or developers. Explanation of the methodology and assumptions for estimating the development capacity of vacant sites is provided below.

Prepared under the assumption that the Endorsed Land Use Map will be adopted, and that new housing growth will primarily rely on the recycling of commercial sites to mixed-use, the 6th Cycle Sites Inventory is made up of three types of sites:

1. Mixed-Use Sites, including Village Centers

2. Mall Sites

3. Neighborhood Sites (Medium-High and Low-Medium)
Table C- 6: Land Inventory Summary to Meet RHNA
Income Categories
Very Low/ Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
Remaining Need
659 257
369
1,285
All Sites 1,527 614 154 2,295
% of Remaining Need 213.7% 238.9% N/A 178.5%
Mixed-Use (20-30 du/ac) 1,239 453 78 1,770
Mall Sites (20-30 du/ac) 288 137 0 425
Neighborhood Medium-High (20-30 du/ac) 0 24 0 24
Neighborhood Low-Medium (6-10 du/ac) 0 0 76 76
Shortfall/Surplus Combined +611 +245 +154 +1,010
Shortfall/Surplus % 66.7% 66.4% N/A 78.6%
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-7
With the anticipated Endorsed Land Use Map, the City estimates an additional 2,295 units can be accommodated by Mixed-Use Sites, Mall Sites, and Neighborhood Sites, including 1,527 lower income units. Together all of these zones make up a total of 125.75 acres.

Table C- 7: Acreage of Rezoned Sites
Acreage Potential Total Potential Lower Income Units
Mixed-Use Sites 90.48 1,770 1,239
Mall Sites 21.39 425 288
Neighborhood Sites 13.88 100 0
Total 125.75 2,295 1,527
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-8
Figure C- 1: Sites Inventory Map - Overview
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-9

2. Methodology and Guiding Assumptions for Sites
Mixed-Use Sites
One of the key strategies in drafting Land Use alternatives through the General Plan Update process was to revitalize underutilized land (including the malls, older shopping centers, and Thousand Oaks Boulevard) with a diverse mix of uses including residential. The engagement process led to the identification of areas with a series of strategies to be implemented over the next several decades. Site selection focused primarily on Priority Areas, the Downtown Core, and Village Centers identified through the General Plan Update process (Figure C- 2).

Figure C- 2: Priority Areas and Village Centers
The implementation strategies associated with each of these areas is as follows:
• Priority Areas (#12): Create a diversity of housing types and affordability levels, including mixeduse and multifamily development. Within the priority areas, create a new downtown core for the City near Civic Arts Plaza (#6) and revitalize underutilized land and opportunity areas (including City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-10
malls, older shopping centers, and Thousand Oaks Boulevard) with a diverse mix of uses including residential (#7)
• Village Centers (#9): Create village centers throughout the community that provide retail and services, gathering places, and multifamily housing.

General Plan discussions identified sites along Thousand Oaks Boulevard and other nonvacant sites with the potential for redevelopment based on regional and local trends. On July 18th, 2019, HR&A Advisors, Inc. (HR&A) led a focus group meeting on economic development as part of the City of Thousand Oaks General Plan Update. The event focused on soliciting feedback from key stakeholders on existing conditions and identifying local economic strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, as well as begin the conversation on necessary incentives or partnerships to produce the scale of development that is desirable to Thousand Oaks.

The focus group identified an oversupply of aging and auto-oriented retail, especially along Thousand Oaks Boulevard, as an issue. Focus group discussions emphasized the that retailers and shopping centers will need to focus on creating an enhanced consumer experience through the curation of tenants, likely with a heavy focus on food and beverage and placemaking. Furthermore, retail with strong visibility to major transportation corridors and proximity to other land uses is likely have greater resiliency. Thousand Oaks Boulevard was also identified as an opportunity area to create a centralized node of activity could be a place for entertainment, adding amenities younger generations desire, and attract younger residents.

According to the Draft General Plan, the Mixed-Use designation allows for multi-story, multi-use infill development in potential growth areas of the City, such as Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Rancho Conejo, and two mixed-use Village Centers. For the Sixth Cycle sites inventory, Mixed-Use sites along Thousand Oaks Boulevard were identified if they were at least 30 years old and/or with an improvement-to-land value (ILV) ratio of less than one. This query identified older areas with potential for redevelopment and returned 47 potential sites. Based on the location of the sites with the two filters, staff identified adjacent sites that have the potential to be consolidated with the identified sites. The City considered constraints like steep slopes and opportunities like underperforming/underused commercial centers, as well as high-turnover rates. In some instances, parcels that met at least one of the criteria but the property owners have expressed interest in redevelopment are also included in the inventory. The City also considered existing uses at recently redeveloped sites in the City or region as a factor to determine site suitability. In the region, uses that are being replaced on nonvacant sites include, sites with motels and existing commercial retail, office buildings, parking lots, single-family residences, schools, and industrial and agriculture uses. Section 3 Redevelopment Trends describes these trends in detail. The sites inventory tables at the end of this section show parcel-by-parcel analysis of the sites (before 1991, ILV<1, existing use, and criteria for selection).

In addition to individual sites and underperforming centers along Thousand Oaks Boulevard, other commercial centers with potential for mixed-use redevelopment due to the changing face of retail and need for housing were identified as opportunities for redevelopment through the General Plan outreach process. These centers were referred to as “Village Centers” (Figure C-2). Village Centers are neighborhood commercial centers that offer a mix of daily goods and services for residents, employees, and visitors to easily access. These centers are smaller and more walkable than other commercial centers and are located in or near residential neighborhoods. The Endorsed Land Use Map designated two Village Centers as Mixed-Use (Janss and Moorpark and Avenida de los Arboles City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-11
and Erbes), which allows theaddition of residential. These village centers are included in this inventory, Site L/LL and Site M, respectively. The next section (Redevelopment Trends) discusses the redevelopment potential in Sites L/LL and M in detail. Of the 41 additional sites identified, 28 sites are developed with structures that are at least 30 years old and eight sites are neither less than 30 years old nor have an improvement ratio of less than one. For the sites that did not meet either criterion, a reason for selection was given. In the Village Centers (Sites L, LL and M), ILV often exceeded 1.0 but the City did not consider this a disqualifying factor. The nature of these existing uses in Village Centers (shopping centers) often yields high ILV. 16 For example, a typical shopping center usually has an ILV of about 2.5 to 3.50. However, given the current nationwide trend of E-commerce, a high ILV has increasingly become a financial burden to property owners. High ILV means high property taxes regardless of whether the spaces can generate adequate revenues or rents.

Figure C-3 shows the sites by consolidation ID/cluster, to illustrate reasons for selection. Mixed-Use sites have a density range of 20 du/ac to 30 du/ac. A summary of the Mixed-Use sites with potential for redevelopment is provided in Table C- 8. Potential units were calculated using the minimum allowable density (rounded down) and, as shown, could result in approximately 1,770 units. Table C9 below also shows a parcel-by-parcel analysis of the Mixed-Use sites, including potential units and reason for selection.

Table C- 8: Mixed-Use Sites Summary
Criteria Parcels Acreage Potential Units
More than 30 years old AND ILV ratio <1.0 47 34.65 672
At least 30 years old, ILV ratio not <1.0 28 34.92 685
Not at least 30 years old, ILV ratio <1.0 5 1.07 20
Neither 30 years old NOR ILV ratio <1.0 8 19.83 393
Total 88 90.47 1,770
16 Improvement-to-Land Value (ILV) ratio is calculated by dividing the County Assessor estimates of improvement value by the land value for a parcel.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-12
Figure C- 3: Mixed-Use Sites by Consolidated ID Overview City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-13
Table C-9 shows the details of the selection characteristics for non-vacant Mixed-Use sites. The selection characteristics used to determine the suitability of non-vacant sites include:

1. Property owner or developer interest

2. Building age is at least 30 years

3. Improvement to Land Ratio is of less than 1.0, indicating the land is worth more than the structures on site.

4. Existing uses are the similar types of uses being recycled in the City or Region (retail, commercial, industrial, office, school) 4A: SFH with redevelopment potential to at least double existing unit number 4B: Vacant Retail

5. Parking Lot

6. Traditional retail along Thousand Oaks Blvd, identified as a Priority Area in General Plan discussion

7. “Village Centers”17 in Draft Land Use Element
17 Underperforming commercial centers with potential for mixed-use redevelopment due to the changing face of retail and need for housing.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-14
Table C- 9: Mixed-Use Sites
Site
ID APN Address Yr Built
ILV
ratio Acres Cons.ID
Owner
ID
Before
1991?
ILV
< 1.0 Lower Mod
Abv
Mod Total
Units
Existing
Use Notes
Criteri
a for
sel.
1 6670290215 2665 W Hillcrest
Dr
2009 1.4 7.43 61 No No 148 148 Ross/
PetSmart site
Owner expressed interest 1
2 5250052555 148 W Hillcrest
Dr A
1988 0.6 1.32 A 2 Yes Yes 13 13 26 Chase bank Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,6
3 5250052575 130 W Hillcrest
Dr B
1990 1.53 6.5 A 3 Yes No 65 64 129 Restaurants/
retail
Largest store in building
(PETCO) permanently
closed. In underutilized
shopping center, three of
five parcels in site and
meet two filters.
2,4,6
4 5250020365 139 W Thousand
Oaks Blvd.
1989 0.1 1.71 A 1 Yes Yes 17 17 34 Demolished
former
restaurant
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
5 5250052465 147 W Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1978 0.25 0.82 A 1 Yes Yes 8 8 16 Vacant
Nursery
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
6 5250052485 0 *Unassigned 1990 3.13 2.02 A 1 Yes No 20 20 40 Parking In underutilized older shopping center, three of
five parcels in site and
meet two filters.
2,5,6
7 6690050065 419 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1969 0.79 0.82 57 Yes Yes 16 16 Retail Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0.
2,3,4,6
8 6690201020 528 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1978 0.07 0.35 B 4 Yes Yes 3 3 6 Car wash Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
9 6690201160 556 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1960 0.66 0.49 B 5 Yes Yes 4 5 9 Permanently
closed
restaurant
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,4B,6
10 6690201110 99 Long Ct 1981 1.84 0.56 BB 6 Yes No 5 6 11 Office Building Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,4,6
11 6690201125 75 Long Ct 1970 1.56 0.62 BB 7 Yes No 6 6 12 Dental clinic Older building, near area with redevelopment
potential
2,4,6
12 6690262190 595 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1968 0.78 0.31 C 12 Yes Yes 6 6 Liquor store Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
13 6690262200 611 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1968 2.35 0.18 C 15 Yes No 3 3 Retail Older structure, in shopping center with 9
parcels that meet age and
ILV requirement
2,4,6
14 6690262210 621 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1969 3.3 0.18 C 16 Yes No 3 3 Retail Older structure, in shopping center with 9
parcels that meet age and
ILV requirement
2,4,6
15 6690262220 661 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1964 0.21 1.08 C 11 Yes Yes 21 21 Rv sales Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-15
Table C- 9: Mixed-Use Sites
Site
ID APN Address Yr Built
ILV
ratio Acres Cons.ID
Owner
ID
Before
1991?
ILV
< 1.0 Lower Mod
Abv
Mod Total
Units
Existing
Use Notes
Criteri
a for
sel.
16 6690262440 707 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd B
1991 2.15 0.44 C 18 No No 8 8 Retail Older structure, in shopping center with 9
parcels that meet age and
ILV requirement
4,6
17 6690262430 711 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd A
1991 1.28 0.54 C 18 No No 10 10 Latino market,
adjacent to
parcels with
potential
Older structure, in
shopping center with 9
parcels that meet age and
ILV requirement
4,6
18 6690262280 0 *Unassigned 1994 0.04 0.22 C 8 No Yes 4 4 Retail parking Older structure, in shopping center with 9
parcels that meet age and
ilv requirement
3,5,6
19 6690262290 732 Greenwich
Dr
1947 0.49 0.09 C 8 Yes Yes 1 1 Retail Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
20 6690262300 0 *Unassigned 1989 0 0.02 C 8 Yes Yes 1 1 Retail Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
21 6690262310 750 Greenwich
Dr
1989 0 0.11 C 8 Yes Yes 2 2 Retail Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
22 6690262270 723 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1964 0.7 0.2 C 8 Yes Yes 4 4 Retail Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
23 6690262320 757 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1961 1.03 0.19 C 8 Yes No 3 3 Retail Older structure, in shopping center with 9
parcels that meet age and
ILV requirement
2,4,6
24 6690262330 763 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1961 1.42 0.09 C 8 Yes No 1 1 Retail Older structure, in shopping center with 9
parcels that meet age and
ILV requirement
2,4,6
25 6690262340 758 Greenwich
Dr
1989 0 0.13 C 11 Yes Yes 2 2 Manufactured
Home
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,4A,6
26 6690262370 772 Greenwich
Dr
1958 0.49 0.33 C 11 Yes Yes 6 6 Personal
Services
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
27 6690262380 790 Greenwich
Dr
1947 1.44 0.11 C 11 Yes No 2 2 Retail Older structure, in shopping center with 9
parcels that meet age and
ILV requirement
2,4,6
28 6690262360 783 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1948 0.57 0.22 C 11 Yes Yes 4 4 Retail Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
29 6690262350 777 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1960 2.6 0.09 C 9 Yes No 1 1 Dental Office Older structure, in shopping center with 9
parcels that meet age and
ILV requirement
2,4,6
30 6690262390 799 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1986 1.26 0.16 C 17 Yes No 3 3 Retail Older structure, in shopping center with 9
2,4,6
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-16
Table C- 9: Mixed-Use Sites
Site
ID APN Address Yr Built
ILV
ratio Acres Cons.ID
Owner
ID
Before
1991?
ILV
< 1.0 Lower Mod
Abv
Mod Total
Units
Existing
Use Notes
Criteri
a for
sel.
parcels that meet age and
ILV requirement
31 6690273010 821 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1960 1.08 0.76 D 27 Yes No 15 15 Restaurant/
Grocery Store
Adjacent to parcel that
meets two criteria- also
older structure (more than
50 yrs old).
2,4,6
32 6690273020 840 Greenwich
Dr
1954 2.6 0.15 D 24 Yes No 2 2 Two detached
residential
units
Adjacent to parcel that
meets two criteria- also
older structure (more than
50 yrs old).
2,6
33 6690273170 851 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1972 0.5 0.19 D 26 Yes Yes 3 3 Auto shop Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
34 6690273030 874 Greenwich
Dr
1989 0 0.15 D 21 Yes Yes 2 2 Retail parking Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,5,6
35 6690273160 861 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1960 0.15 0.1 D 21 Yes Yes 2 2 Psychic Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
36 6690273040 0 *Unassigned 1992 1.46 0.11 D 19 No No 2 2 Auto repair shop,
underutilized
Adjacent to parcel that
meets two criteria.
4,6
37 6690273150 881 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1994 1.71 0.07 D 19 No No 1 1 Auto repair
shop,
underutilized
Adjacent to parcel that
meets two criteria.
4,6
38 6690273050 898 Greenwich
Dr
1994 0.15 0.12 D 19 No Yes 2 2 Auto shop
parking, no
structures
Adjacent to parcel that
meets two criteria. ILV
<1.0.
3,5,6
39 6690273140 895 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1989 0.23 0.07 D 19 Yes Yes 1 1 Retail parking
/paved
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,5,6
40 6690273060 0 *Unassigned 1994 0 0.12 D 23 No Yes 2 2 Auto shop parking, no
structures
Adjacent to parcel that
meets two criteria. ILV
<1.0
3,4,6
41 6690273130 901 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1969 1.51 0.13 D 23 Yes No 2 2 Auto shop Adjacent to parcel that meets two criteria- also
older structure (more than
50 yrs old).
2,4,6
42 6690273070 910 Greenwich
Dr
1955 0.63 0.12 D 22 Yes Yes 2 2 Single-family
home
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,4A,6
43 6690273120 933 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1962 1.63 0.08 D 20 Yes No 1 1 Medical office Adjacent to parcel that meets two criteria- also
older structure (more than
50 yrs old).
2,4,6
44 6700170175 1432 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1956 0.17 5.91 60 Yes Yes 118 118 Building
materials
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0.
2,3,4,6
45 6700043020 1320 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1961 0.37 0.14 E 28 Yes Yes 2 2 Auto shop Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-17
Table C- 9: Mixed-Use Sites
Site
ID APN Address Yr Built
ILV
ratio Acres Cons.ID
Owner
ID
Before
1991?
ILV
< 1.0 Lower Mod
Abv
Mod Total
Units
Existing
Use Notes
Criteri
a for
sel.
46 6700043120 1350 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1968 0.35 0.31 E 31 Yes Yes 6 6 Tire shop Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
47 6700043130 0 *Unassigned 1927 0.14 0.16 E 29 Yes Yes 3 3 Parking, with undefined
structure
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,5,6
48 6700043240 0 *Unassigned 1989 0.03 0.36 E 32 Yes Yes 7 7 Vacant, unpaved
parking
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,5,6
49 6700043270 1302 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1958 0.49 0.2 E 30 Yes Yes 4 4 Personal
Services and
Retail
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
50 6700043080 60 Cunningham
Rd
1965 1.97 0.58 E 33 Yes No 11 11 Trailer repair
shop
Adjacent to parcel that
meets two criteria; older
structure (>50 years old).
2,4,6
51 6700160260 1489 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1967 0.54 1.33 F 34 Yes Yes 26 26 Medical/retail/
services
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0.
2,3,4,6
52 6700160130 1429 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1963 2.01 0.72 F 34 Yes No 14 14 Vacant Office
Building
Adjacent to parcel that
meets two criteria; older
structure (>50 years old).
2,4B,6
53 6700160270 1459 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1969 3.78 1.86 F 34 Yes No 37 37 Medical/retail/
services
Adjacent to parcel that
meets two criteria; older
structure (>50 years old).
2,4,6
54 6700181245 1846 Oakwood
Dr
1958 0.87 0.41 G 37 Yes Yes 4 4 8 SFH Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4A,6
55 6700181050 102 Oakwood Dr 1956 3.36 0.17 G 36 Yes No 1 2 3 SFH Adjacent to parcel that meets two criteria, older
home (>50 yrs old).
2,4A,6
56 6700181190 0 *Unassigned 0 0 0.11 G 35 No Yes 1 1 2 Vacant, next to house
Vacant, ILV<1.0, adjacent
to other parcels with
redevelopment potential.
3,6
57 6700181380 0 *Unassigned 0 0 0.5 G 38 No Yes 5 5 10 Vacant, next to house, sign
for sale next to
it
Vacant, ILV<1.0, adjacent
to other parcels with
redevelopment potential.
3,6
58 6700182100 145 Oakwood Dr 1941 0.05 0.37 H 39 Yes Yes 3 4 7 Home Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4A,6
59 6700182110 81 Oakwood Dr 1958 0.07 0.34 H 39 Yes Yes 3 3 6 Home Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4A,6
60 6700182200 1850 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1970 0.52 0.5 H 39 Yes Yes 9 9 Roofing
company
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
61 6700192100 1735 Los Feliz Dr 0 0 0.53 I 40 Yes Yes 10 10 Vacant Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,6
62 6700192165 1741 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1966 0.82 0.74 I 41 Yes Yes 14 14 Retail/services Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-18
Table C- 9: Mixed-Use Sites
Site
ID APN Address Yr Built
ILV
ratio Acres Cons.ID
Owner
ID
Before
1991?
ILV
< 1.0 Lower Mod
Abv
Mod Total
Units
Existing
Use Notes
Criteri
a for
sel.
63 6710140080 2797 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1964 0.25 4.58 59 Yes Yes 91 91 Retail/services
/RV park
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0.
2,3,4
64 6710150090 2979 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1950 0.23 0.49 55 Yes Yes 9 9 Retail/kitchen
appliance
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0.
2,3,4,6
65 6710194150 2983 Crescent
Way
1940 0.04 0.54 56 Yes Yes 10 10 Paint shop +
two homes
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0.
2,3,4
4A, 6
66 6710160050 3157 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1965 0.05 1.6 J 44 Yes Yes 31 31 Car
rental/sales
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
67 6710160060 3167 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1950 0.88 0.22 J 42 Yes Yes 4 4 Car
rental/sales
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,4,5
68 6710160080 3185 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1958 0.12 0.22 J 42 Yes Yes 4 4 Automotive
Repair Shop
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
69 6710160090 3183 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1989 0 0.26 J 42 Yes Yes 5 5 Vehicle
storage
parking
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,5,6
70 6710160200 3175 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1989 0 0.67 J 42 Yes Yes 13 13 Car rental
parking
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,5,6
71 6710160070 3177 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1952 1 0.22 J 42 Yes No 4 4 Automotive
Services
Adjacent to parcels that
meet two criteria. Older
structure >50 yrs old.
2,4,6
72 6710160110 3209 E Thousand
Oaks Bl Blvd 1
1989 1.02 1.69 J 45 Yes No 33 33 Automotive
Parts Sales
and Service
Adjacent to parcels that
meet two criteria. Older
structure >30 yrs old.
2,4,6
73 6710160120 3245 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1962 0.81 0.36 J 43 Yes Yes 7 7 Automotive
services
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
74 6710171190 3173 Los Robles
Rd
1960 0.43 0.26 K 47 Yes Yes 2 3 5 Home Over 30 yrs old and ILV ratio <1.0
2,3,4,6
75 6710171180 3163 Los Robles
Rd
1989 3.6 0.26 K 46 Yes No 2 3 5 Home Adjacent to parcel that meets two criteria. Older
home (> 30 yrs old).
2,4A,6
76 6710171130 3234 E Thousand
Oaks Blvd
1933 0.12 1.25 58 Yes Yes 25 25 Retail/car
services
Over 30 yrs old and ILV
ratio <1.0.
2,3,4,6
77 6770300035 1330 N Moorpark
Rd
2006 1.51 5.31 L 48 No No 106 106 Vacant Retail,
and
commercial
services
(temporary)
Village center, corner
parcel next to site with
potential, large vacancy,
City identified as
underutilized shopping
area
4B,7
78 6770300045 1332 N Moorpark
Rd
1972 0.73 2.42 L 48 Yes Yes 48 48 Home Goods Village center identified during GPU as having
large redevelopment
potential.
2,3,4,7
79 6770300055 1382 N Moorpark
Rd
1989 1.66 2.32 L 49 Yes No 46 46 CVS Village center identified during GPU as having
2,4,7
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-19
Table C- 9: Mixed-Use Sites
Site
ID APN Address Yr Built
ILV
ratio Acres Cons.ID
Owner
ID
Before
1991?
ILV
< 1.0 Lower Mod
Abv
Mod Total
Units
Existing
Use Notes
Criteri
a for
sel.
large redevelopment
potential. Old shopping
area (over 30 yrs old).
80 6770300075 1388 N Moorpark
Rd
1977 2.48 4.06 L 50 Yes No 81 81 Restaurants Village center identified during GPU as having
large redevelopment
potential. Old shopping
area (over 30 yrs old).
2,4,7
81 6770300165 1440 N Moorpark
Rd
1982 6.16 0.92 L 50 Yes No 18 18 Bank of
America
Village center identified
during GPU as having
large redevelopment
potential. Old shopping
area (over 30 yrs old).
2,7
82 6770300195 620 E Janss Rd 1983 2.18 1.61 LL 50 Yes No 32 32 Retail and services
Village center identified
during GPU as having
large redevelopment
potential. Old shopping
area (over 30 yrs old).
2,3,4,7
83 6770300125 612 E Janss Rd 1990 0.78 1 LL 51 Yes Yes 20 20 Healthcare office
Village center identified
during GPU as having
large redevelopment
potential.
2,3,4,7
84 5700090335 1934 E Avenida
De Los Arboles
1996 1.58 5.02 M 54 No No 50 50 100 Next to DMV,
ACE hardware
Adjacent to parcels that
meet two criteria in
shopping center identified
as having redevelopment
potential during GPU
4,7
85 5700090345 2000 E Avenida
De Los Arboles
#A
1989 1.35 8.42 M 52 Yes No 84 84 168 Parking and
retail
Identified as potential for
redevelopment during
GPU. Over 30 yrs old and
ILV ratio <1.0.
2,4,5,7
86 5700090355 0 *Unassigned 1989 1.53 0.28 M 52 Yes No 3 2 5 Vons grocery Adjacent to parcels that meet two criteria in
shopping center identified
as having redevelopment
potential during GPU.

Older structure.
2,7
87 5700090245 2048 E Avenida
De Los Arboles
#B
1980 0.89 0.85 M 52 Yes Yes 8 8 16 Vons grocery Identified as potential for redevelopment during
GPU. Over 30 yrs old and
ILV ratio <1.0.
2,3,7
88 5700090045 2072 E Avenida
De Los Arboles
1998 2.07 0.91 M 53 No No 18 18 Next to DMV,
Chase/Starbu
cks in parcel
Adjacent to parcels that
meet two criteria in
shopping center identified
7 City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-20
Table C- 9: Mixed-Use Sites
Site
ID APN Address Yr Built
ILV
ratio Acres Cons.ID
Owner
ID
Before
1991?
ILV
< 1.0 Lower Mod
Abv
Mod Total
Units
Existing
Use Notes
Criteri
a for
sel.
as having redevelopment
potential during the GPU.

Total 1,239 453 78 1,770
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-21
Figure C- 4: Mixed-Use Sites by Consolidated ID- Detailed Aerial View City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-22
Note: Shaded areas denote common ownership.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-23
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-24
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-25
Note: Shaded areas denote common ownership.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-26
Note: Shaded areas denote common ownership.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-27
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-28
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-29
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-30
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-31
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-32
Note: Shaded areas denote common ownership.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-33

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-34
Mall Sites
The identified Oaks and Janss Mall parcels will all be designated Mixed-Use under the Endorsed Land Use Map, endorsed by City Council. These Malls, like many malls across the US, and especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, has suffered from underutilization and store closures. In the discussions for the General Plan 2045 update, the City, residents, and mall owners have expressed interest in redeveloping the space with a mix of uses. In an effort to balance housing and employment growth, as well as future retail needs, the City has assumed only a portion of the mall (approximately 18 percent) will be redeveloped into residential uses. Seven parcels were selected from the southern end of the mall, where the parcels are mostly used as parking, with the exception of three detached buildings. One of the buildings is currently unoccupied and cumulatively, the three buildings take up less than one acre of the 21 acres in the area. Table C- 10 shows the breakdown of the parcels by use, acreage, and potential units. Since these units will be designated Mixed-Use, the potential capacity was calculated by using the minimum allowable density of 20 du/ac. Table C- 11 at the end of this section also shows a detailed parcel-by-parcel analysis that includes the age, ILV ratio, and reason for selection.

Two of the three structures are more than 50 years old. Overall, re-development of a portion of The Oaks Mall property could result in approximately 275 additional units and re-development of a portion of the Janss Mall parking lot could result in approximately 150 units, for a combined total of 425 units.

Table C- 10: The Mall Sites - Parcels by Existing Use
Use Parcels Acreage Potential Units
Vacant 2 0.23 4
Parking 2 10.85 216
Parking + Structure 3 10.31 205
Total 7 21.39 425
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-35
Table C- 11: Mall Sites
APN Address Yr
Built
ILV
Ratio Acres Before 1991?
ILV
<1.0 Lower Mod Above Mod Units Existing Use Reason for selection 5250052365 158 W Hillcrest Dr 2011 1.546 2.54 No No 25 25 50 Out pad
restaurant in
mall area but
not part of
larger
Southern end of mall, mostly parking,
equivalent to 17% of mall area.
5250052605 0 *Unassigned 0 0 0.12 N/A Yes 1 1 2
Vacant lot,
small portion
adjacent to
larger parcel
Southern end of mall, mostly parking,
equivalent to 17% of mall area.
5250052525 0 *Unassigned 1979 0.185 3.34 Yes Yes 33 33 66 Parking at end of mall structure
Southern end of mall, mostly parking,
equivalent to 17% of mall area.
5250052475 150 W Hillcrest Dr 1979 3.224 4.96 Yes No 50 49 99 Out pad
restaurant
mostly excess
parking
Southern end of mall, mostly parking,
equivalent to 17% of mall area.
5250052595 0 *Unassigned 0 0 0.11 N/A Yes 1 1 2
Vacant lot,
small portion
adjacent to
larger parcel
Southern end of mall, mostly parking,
equivalent to 17% of mall area.
5250052475 150 W Hillcrest Dr 1979 3.224 2.81 Yes No 28 28 56 Out pad
restaurant,
mostly parking
Southern end of mall, mostly parking,
equivalent to 17% of mall area.
5250030470 33 W Hillcrest Dr 2000 2.40 7.51 No No 150 150 Janss
Marketplace
mostly parking,
Restaurant out
pad building
Large underutilized parking space
near Oaks Mall. Potential for
redevelopment. This site is only a
portion of the entire parcel. The
acreage of the parking only (7.51
acres) was used to calculate the
potential units. ILV however, is based
on the entire parcel and therefore
includes areas that are not part of
this yield assumption. As a result,
the ILV may be artificially high.

Total 288 137 0 425
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-36
Figure C- 5: Mall Sites Parcels
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-37
Neighborhood Sites
Both Neighborhood Medium-High and Neighborhood Low-Medium were identified using the criteria: at least 30 years old, not condo or townhomes, and ILV is less than 1.0. This query returned two sites, one in Neighborhood Medium-High (RV storage) and one in Neighborhood Low-Medium (vacant). As shown in Table C- 12, these two sites have a capacity for 100 units. Unit capacity is based on the minimum allowable density in each designation (6 du/ac and 20 du/ac, respectively).

Table C- 12: Neighborhood Sites
Parcels Acreage Potential Units
Neighborhood Medium-High 1 1.21 24
Neighborhood Low-Medium 1 12.67 76
Total 2 13.88 100
Figure C- 6: Neighborhood Sites
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-38
Table C- 13: Neighborhood Sites
APN Address Yr
Built
ILV
Ratio Acres Before 1991? ILV <1.0 Designation Lower Mod Above Mod Total
Units Notes Reason For Selection
6710140050 2740 LOS FELIZ 1935 0.533 1.21 yes yes
Neigh Med
High (20
du/ac)
24 24 RV storage
Over 30 yrs old, ILV
ratio <1.0, no
condo/townhouse
6600050125 0 *UNASSIGNED N/A 0 12.68 yes yes
Neigh Low
Med (6
du/ac)
76 76 Vacant
Over 30 yrs old, ILV
ratio <1.0, no
condo/townhouse
Total 0 24 76 100
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-39

3. Redevelopment Trends
In accordance with Assembly Bill 1397, the following discussions are included to demonstrate the feasibility of redevelopment of non-vacant sites addressing the lower-income RHNA allocation in the City. The City is largely built-out with limited vacant areas to identify for future housing.

The element includes housing sites on nonvacant land but expects that they will be redeveloped based on recent redevelopment trends. In past few years, City has not received proposals for 100 percent commercial projects and high vacancies in existing retails make 100 percent commercial projects less likely in the City. According to the City’s Demographic and Economic Profile and Existing Conditions, Thousand Oaks appears to have an oversupply of retail space as traditional retailers face a changing retail landscape and increased regional competition. The report found that between 2017 and 2018, Thousand Oaks saw retail vacancies increase from 5.1 percent in 2017 to 6.2 percent in 2018. Thousand Oak's retail vacancy rate is the second highest among the neighboring clusters.18 The North Cluster was the only area with a higher retail vacancy rate at 7.7 percent, which has increased

2.7 percent compared to 2017. The East Cluster’s vacancy rate remained unchanged between 2017 and 2018, at 4.3 percent, while Camarillo’s vacancy rate, which is currently the lowest of the clusters, decreased from 4.2 percent to 2.8 percent between 2017 and 2018. Economic development focus group participants noted that the vitality of traditional retail has declined in Thousand Oaks and there is an oversupply of aging retail centers, in particular along Thousand Oaks Boulevard. Many of the sites selected are located in older or underutilized retail centers along Thousand Oaks Boulevard as well as along Moorpark Road and Avenida de Los Arboles. Relatively slow population growth, and strong but less significant household wealth than the East Cluster has made it hard for Thousand Oaks to attract new retail tenants.

Even in mixed-use developments there are examples of projects with surplus retail. Mixed-use development is currently only allowed in the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan (SP 20) area along Thousand Oaks Boulevard. Recent development trends in the mixed-use areas have resulted in projects that include primarily residential with a small amount of commercial because it is currently required by SP 20 on properties that front on Thousand Oaks Boulevard. Examples include redevelopment of the former Lupe’s Restaurant that was replaced with 36 residential units and 4,980 square feet of commercial. Currently, the residential units are fully occupied while the commercial space is not. Another recent example is the project known as “299” on Thousand Oaks Boulevard that was formerly an auto dealership and repair garage where a 142-unit apartment complex with 10,000 square feet of commercial is under construction. Recent commercial activity has been largely limited to renovations of existing structures in the mixed-use areas or, as indicated redevelopment of commercial into residential dominated mixed-use. Given the trend and the high market value of residential development, construction of 100 percent commercial on mixed-use zoned properties is not likely. SP 20 will require updates for consistency with the updated General Plan with the intent to allow 100 percent residential on most parcels except at key intersections where a commercial component will be required. Details are yet to be established.

With adoption of the General Plan update, a new mixed-use designation will be expanded outside of the SP 20 boundaries to areas such as, the Oaks Mall, Janss Marketplace and certain neighborhood commercial centers where the property owners have expressed interest in flexible zoning that would 18 Clusters refer to groupings of neighboring cities formed for the analysis. The North cluster includes Moorpark and Simi Valley, while the Eastern Cluster consists of Westlake Village, Agoura Hills, and Calabasas.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-40
allow residential development. In addition to the General Plan update that is well under way, a comprehensive update to the Zoning Code will follow to ensure it complies with the new General Plan land use designations endorsed by the City Council (May 2021). In April 2022, Objective Development Standards for residential development were adopted as part of the Zoning Code.

Efforts are also moving forward to update the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program. These efforts are focused on facilitating and incentivizing the construction of all types of residential development.

Additional actions that support the assumption that residential or mixed-uses will occur in the sites selected include: the ongoing Inclusionary Housing ordinance amendments which will likely encourage housing development.

The City has also seen examples of redevelopment in non-vacant sites. Table C- 14 shows nine pipeline (approved) and pending (under review) projects that involve redevelopment. In addition to recent multi-family projects within the City, this Housing Element looked at nearby development in the neighboring cities to determine recent trends for nonvacant site redevelopment. Table C- 15 shows recent representative projects showing nonvacant redevelopment trends in the surrounding areas of Oxnard, Simi Valley, and Ventura.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-41
Table C- 14: Examples of Redevelopment Project
Status Project Existing Use Zoning Existing GP Size Project Type Parcel Consol.

Total
Units
VL/ L
Units
Density
(du/ac)
Pipeline 2821 Los Robles Rd SFH RPD-12U Medium Density Res 0.29 Condos 1 4 0 13.65 Pipeline Martens/3190 Los
Robles Rd SFH RPD-15U High Density Res 0.18 Triplex 1 3 0 16.67 Pipeline The Lakes/2200 E.

TOB Parking Lot SP-11 High Density Res 7.58 Apts 1 165 0 21.77 Pipeline Baxter Way Parking Lot M-1 to SP23 High Density Res 8.8 Apts 1 264 34 30 Pipeline Daylight/1872
Newbury Rd School C-2 to SP21 MU/High Density Res 9.67 Hotel/Apts 3 218 26 31 Pipeline 325 & 391 Hampshire
Rd
Retail (Kmart)
and Parking
Lot
C-1 to SP22 MU/High Density Res 11.1 Apts 2 420 50 38
Pending 1651 Lynn Rd SFH R-E-1AC Low Density Res 4.28 SFH 1 19 0 4.44 Pending 88 Long Court Office Bldg SP-20 High Density Res l 1.86 Apts 1 75 6 40.32 Pending AMGEN/2150 W.

Hilcrest Dr Office Bldg C-3 MU/High Density Res 8.2 Apts 1 333 30 40.61 City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-42
Table C- 15: Recent Redevelopment Projects in the Region City Address Existing Uses Size
(acres) Projects Parcel Consol.

Unit
Count
Density
(du/ac)
Oxnard 761 South C Street Office building and
large parking lot 1.7 Mixed-use, 5- story building 1 175 102 Oxnard 2714 Vineyard Ave Elementary school 9.1 Condominium apartments 1 164 18 Oxnard 705 N. Oxnard Blvd Motel and retail
restaurant 2.1 3-story 100% affordable housing 2 44 21
Oxnard 5536 & 5582
Cypress Rd
Commercial agriculture
and existing housing 5.2 100 percent affordable and special needs housing 2 150 29 Oxnard 184 North H Street Underutilized parking
area

1.5 Single-family housing 2 15 10
Oxnard 5600 Cypress Road Agriculture facilities 1.1 30 affordable special needs apartments and 77 bed farmworker housing 2 30 27
Oxnard 5451-5497 Cypress
Road 20 SF residences 4.9 2-story apartment complex 20 72 15 Simi Valley Belwood Center Retail and commercial NA Tapo/Alamo Mixed-Use (271 units, 84 lower inc) 40 Simi Valley Patricia Avenue SF homes NA Apartment, townhomes, and senior apartments multiple 53 Simi Valley Sycamore Landing
Apartments Former City offices NA project includes 99 units for sr. HH multiple 99+ Ventura Bell & Olive MU Apts Industrial Lot NA Demolish existing building and construct 4 duplex buildings 2 8 19.5
Ventura Maple Court Office Building NA Abandoned office space. Developer will be doing a small density bonus to get to 350 units. 350
Ventura Logue Light Industrial- NA Construct 125 condo with commercial 1 125 21.2 Ventura Orchid Gardens Single Family
Residence NA SFR conversion to 18-unit apartment 1 18 30 Ventura 940 E Santa Clara St
Quadplex Office Building NA New quadplex on developed parcel with an existing commercial building 1 4 26.6 Ventura The Lodge Parking /Rec Center NA Convert existing commercial space to Boutique B&B - 18 units 1 18
Ventura Hemlock Apartments Single Family
Residence NA SFR convert to 23 Apartments 1 23 41.1
Ventura 935 E Front St 91 Commercial/Industrial NA Industrial complex w/ office building convert to MU apt with commercial 1 1 29.5
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-43
Ventura Samet Apartments Service- Car Wash NA Demolition of an existing carwash; Construction of 19 residential units 1 19 79.2
Ventura Retail & Parking NA Two buildings containing in total one commercial space and 9 apartments with a lot merger multiple 9 23.1 Ventura Pacific Wave
Building Service- Auto repair NA Automobile repair shop replaced with Three-story mixed use building 1 28.6 Ventura Thompson Cruz Commercial NA Demolition of an existing commercial building and new construction of an apartment building, 1 38.7
Ventura Laurel Courts Commercial NA
Land with four existing structures replaced with MU
consisting of 6,595 sf commercial and 44 residential
units
1 44 36.7
Ventura The Lofts Industrial Light NA Demolition of an existing industrial building and the construction of a new apartment building 1 83.3
Ventura The Point Commercial LotVacant NA
Duplex and adjoining vacant land replaced with MU2,400 sf ground floor commercial; 1,000 sf coworkspace; 110 dwelling units 2 110 126.4
Ventura SRO @ 45 S.

California St Office Building NA
Demolish an existing 1-story office building replace
with a 4-story structure of approximately 10,000 sf for a mix of uses (retail and 27 SRO)
1 122.7
Ventura Front Street MU Retail/Office- Stores
and offices NA
Office/retail building replaced with 4-story mixed use; 46 market rate condominiums + 5 affordable; 6,384 sf
ground floor commercial
1 46 56.0
Ventura Downtown Triangle
Site Commercial NA Commercial space and adjacent parking replaced with Multifamily apartment development 1 231 19 Ventura Kellogg St
Apartments Industrial Buildings NA Demolition of industrial buildings and construction of two residential apartment buildings 1 30 38 Ventura Rothman On
Sheridan Wy
Single Family
Residence NA 10 unit Apartment building on existing SFR 1 10 34 Sources: Port Hueneme 6th Cycle Revised Housing Element October 2022, Simi Valley Drat 6th Cycle Housing Element 2021, and Ventura 2021-2029 Housing Element Technical Background Report, November 2022.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-44
Characteristics of Redeveloped Sites
Throughout the SCAG region, jurisdictions have experienced declining demand for retail space, especially outdated shopping malls that were designed to have large surface parking surrounding the mall structures. Such model of shopping center design represents an inefficient use of land that does not allow the property owners to realize the highest and best use of valuable real estate. The COVID19 pandemic further accelerated the decline of retail because of increased online shopping, following an upward trajectory that has been apparent for more than a decade. Similarly, the redevelopment of office buildings for residential uses, either as adaptive reuse or reconstruction, is an emerging trend as increasingly employers are accommodating remote working. COVID-19 proves that remote working can be an efficient work environment and facilitates significant cost savings for rents and other expenses associated with operating an office. As seen in Table C- 15, uses that are being replaced in Thousand Oaks and neighboring nonvacant sites include older shopping centers, sites with motels and existing commercial retail, older office buildings, parking lots, older single-family residences, and agriculture uses. In some cases, sites with single-family homes are being replaced with apartments and townhomes. In Ventura, a majority of projects did not use lot consolidation though other jurisdictions projects consolidated at least two lots for their projects. Achieved density of the projects in surrounding areas ranged from 19.5 to 126 but averaged 44 density units per acre. There are a number of 100 percent affordable projects on sites that consolidated small lots around 0.5 acres or less, such as the projects at 705 N. Oxnard Boulevard, Cypress Road, and N. Hayes Street. The housing sites identified for the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace properties consist of the parking lot areas due to the greater feasibility for development of housing with the Housing Element cycle. Though the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace owners both have expressed an interest in greater flexibility with the proposed mixed-use designation and opportunity to develop residential, housing identified in the sites inventory did not rely on the conversion of existing mall uses but assumes only infilling of parking lot areas with intensified uses. Reuse of shopping centers, such as the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace is an emerging trend regionally. Examples include:19
• 325 & 391 Hampshire Rd (Thousand Oaks)- Redevelopment a Kmart and parking to 420 apartment units at a density of 38 du/ac.
• Pacific View Mall (Ventura) - The mall has been struggling due to the declining retail market that further deteriorated due to COVID-19. The property owner has expressed interest in redevelopment the mall with residential uses. Ventura City’s affordable housing advocates – Homes for All – identifies the mall as an opportunity site. • The Willows (Ventura) – Redevelopment of Toys R Us into 306 units and 10,000 square feet of commercial and clubhouse uses at a density of 38 du/ac. • Thompson Courts (Ventura)—Demolition of an existing 3,000 square foot commercial building previously used as a gas station and then as a plant nursery and the new construction three-story, 12-unit multi-family residential apartment building.
• 705 N. Oxnard Blvd (Oxnard) – redevelopment of a motel and retail and restaurant uses to a 100 percent affordable project with 44 units at 21 du/ac.
• Promenade Mall (Rolling Hills Estates): A 6.98 site considered uncompetitive and with a 31 vacancy. The mall also has a high ratio of service uses vs. retail/restaurants compared to other 19 Because many of these projects have already undergone change in ownership or clearance of existing structures on site (and therefore reappraisal of property value), property data on the existing conditions prior to redevelopment is may not be available.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-45
successful commercial centers in the region. The property is available for sale and currently being negotiated to be purchased by a developer. Prospective buyers that have discussed redevelopment with the owner have also discussed an interest in building housing units with city staff. The Sixth Cycle Housing Element considered a potential for 123 units in this site. The Promenade Mall has an ILR of 3.50 but has a high vacancy rate.
• Mountain Gate Plaza (Simi Valley): One-story shopping center including County Public Health Office, pharmacy, and various commercial/retail with large, underutilized surface parking lot considered to have redevelopment potential for 149 units in its Sixth Cycle Housing Element.

This shopping center has an ILV of about 1.60, similar to those in the Thousand Oaks sites inventory.
• Towne Shopping Center (Simi Valley): Parcel with supermarket, restaurant and small retail stores with underutilized parking lots and interior parcels with a potential for 125 units in its Sixth Cycle Housing Element.

Redondo Beach Plaza (Redondo Beach): A 9.25-acre shopping center that includes a Vons grocery store is included in the Housing Element for 175 units. The owner of the shopping center demonstrated experience and current works throughout California (e.g., Pinole, Novato) in infilling shopping centers with grocery stores for additional housing without displacing existing uses. The site inventory includes non-vacant sites along Thousand Oaks Boulevard from Westlake Boulevard to Wilbur Road, which contains 1.6 million square feet of retail exhibiting a vacancy rate of 3.1 percent and buildings with leases (366,000 square feet) have a vacancy rate of 13.3 percent. Office space within this section of Thousand Oaks Boulevard consists of 797,000 square feet with a vacancy of 11 percent and buildings with leases (408,000 square feet) have a vacancy rate of 21.4 percent.20 Non-vacant sites along Hillcrest Drive from Hodencamp Road to Borchard Road contain 1.5 million square feet of retail (including the Oaks Mall) with 3.2 percent vacancy and buildings with leases (350,000 square feet) have a vacancy rate of 13.9%. Office space within this section of Hillcrest Drive consists of 555,000 square feet with a vacancy of 39.5 percent and buildings with leases (468,000 square feet) have a vacancy rate of 46.9 percent.21
Village Centers
Housing sites located in Neighborhood Centers (ID Areas L and M) designated Mixed-Use have expressed interest in housing development. Neighborhood Centers, including ID Areas L and M, have exhibited the following vacancy rates utilizing CoStar data analysis platform: Oakbrook Plaza (Erbes and Avenida De Los Arboles, Site M) – 12.2 percent, Conejo Plaza (southeast Janss and Moorpark, Site L/LL) – 57.1 percent, and Park Oaks Center (northeast corner of Janss and Moorpark) – 10.8 percent. As discussed before, a typical shopping center has an ILR of about 2.50 to 3.50.

Shopping centers that have not undergone any major improvements are also considered outdated and not accommodating the current retail trends.

Site L/LL (Janss and Moorpark)
The Site L/LL covers seven parcels totaling 12.3 acres. Existing uses include a mix of single story commercial, beauty, retail, restaurants, banking and medical offices with large surface parking areas.

This area and the rest of the existing commercial center will be designated as a mixed-use Village Center in the City’s General Plan. Village Centers are neighborhood commercial centers that are more 20 Source: CoStar real estate data analysis December 2021. 21 See note 18.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-46
walkable and located near existing residential neighborhoods that based on current commercial uses were identified as having mixed-use redevelopment potential and re-designated as Mixed-Use on the Endorsed Land Use map.

Most of the building structures are at least 30 years old and some are over 40 years old, and have not undergone major renovations. Existing conditions are ripe for redevelopment. Parcels included have structures that are older than 30 years and have ILVs that are below 3.50 (typical value of shopping centers). While some of the uses include national brands, like Home Goods, CVS, and Bank of America, discount stores and brick and mortar pharmacies have been shutting down in the past few years. For example, a portion of Site 70 (about one acre) is currently vacant. This site was formerly a Tuesday Morning Discount Store and has been vacant since at least July 2021. Tuesday Morning announced in May 2023 it was going out of business and closing all stores, making it the second discount store in 2023 after Bed Bath and Beyond also filed for bankruptcy in April 2023.22 In addition, in 2021 CVS announced it would close around 300 stores nationwide in response to the changing of "consumer buying patterns." 23 Site 81 is a Bank of America branch and while not identified as closing soon, bank closures have been on the rise since the pandemic. In 2021, Bank of America had a net closure of 166 branches nationwide.24 The trends toward digital banking lead to more bank closures.

Many banks have consolidated local branches and sold off excess properties. For example, the Chase Bank at Site M is vacant. According to a recent article on bankingdive.com, Bank of America’s strategic plan focuses on pursuing new markets such as Milwaukee and New Orleans and to grow its market share with a small number of centers. For every single new location opens, the bank will close two existing locations. 25 Furthermore. Site 80 had three vacancies as of May 2022 and is mostly parking (three of the five acres are parking). In fact, the two largest parcels included in this site have vacancies.

There is a combination of different scenarios that could facilitate redevelopment of the Site L/LL:
• Tear down and redevelopment;
• Develop the surface parking space while leaving the existing uses intact; • Cluster density on portions of the site; and/or
• Reconfigure the existing structures and expand with residential uses.

While seven parcels were selected in this shopping center due to higher likelihood of redeveloping, it is also possible for other parcels in the area to be redeveloped though the different scenarios stated above. In addition, two of the owners of the sites selected have expressed interest in housing in their properties.
22 Valinsky, Jordan (May 2, 2023). Tuesday Morning is going out of business and closing all of its stores. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/business/tuesday-morning-closure/index.html 23 Valinsky, Jordan (November 18, 2021). CVS is closing 900 stores. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/investing/cvs-storeclosures/index.html 24 Karnes, Bea. (Jan 21, 2022). Bank branch closures hit record: 269 in California shuttered. Patch. https://patch.com/california/san-francisco/bankbranch-closures-hit-record-269-california-shuttered 25 Bankingdive.com, June 14, 2023.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-47
Figure C- 7: Site L/LL Parcel Characteristics
Note: Green and pink shading denote common ownership.

Site ID Yr Built ILV ratio Acres Cons.

ID Owner ID Before 1991? ILV< 1.0 Use as of May 2022
77 2006 1.51 5.31 L 48 No No Pet food store, cleaner,
postal annex/FedEx,
optometrist, nail bar, fish
store, massage envy,
Vacant (largest area
adjacent to boundary with
APN -055)
78 1972 0.73 2.42 L 48 Yes Yes Home Goods
79 1989 1.66 2.32 L 49 Yes No CVS
80 1977 2.48 4.06 L 50 Yes No VACANT, Hair salon
(VACANT), Bead Store
poke store, threading,
juice bar, sandwich,
VACANT, pizza
81 1982 6.16 0.92 L 50 Yes No Bank of America – single
use bank building –
strong trend of
redevelopment in region
for similar uses and BOA
strategy to close two
existing locations for
every one location opens
in new market area
82 1983 2.18 1.61 LL 50 Yes No Café, Mathnasium,
Carbon Health,
83 1990 0.78 1 LL 51 Yes Yes Lakeside community
healthcare
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-48
Site M (Avenida de Los Arboles and Erbes Rd)
Like Site L/LL, Site M is identified as part of a Village Center to be re-designated as mixed-use in the General Plan. Site M covers five contiguous parcels that total 15.5 acres. This is also a single-story commercial center with a mix of small businesses (site 85) and other larger stores such as ACE Hardware and Vons. Most sites are over 30 years old. Though two were built in the late 1990s, they have not been modernized for over 15 years. The ILVs are also below the typical value for shopping centers (2.50 to 3.50). The sites with a variety of retail stores had multiple vacancies as of May 2022.

The site can be redeveloped by infilling excess parking areas without displacing existing uses.

However, the multiple vacancies can be conducive to redevelopment or reconfiguration of existing uses. The development scenarios in Site M are also similar to those in Site L/LL:
• Tear down and redevelopment;
• Develop the surface parking space while leaving the existing uses intact; • Cluster density on portions of the site; and/or
• Reconfigure the existing structures and expand with residential uses.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-49
Figure C- 8: Site M Parcel Characteristics
Site ID Yr Built ILV
ratio Acres Cons.ID Owner ID Before 1991? ILV< 1.0 Use as of May 2022 84 1996 1.58 5.02 M 54 No No ACE Hardware
85 1989 1.35 8.42 M 52 Yes No Fusion grill, cleaners,
device repair, massage,
hair salon, tutoring, café,
banking, coffee bar,
Goodwill, cigar store,
dental office, UPS store,
restaurant, logix banking,
pizza, and 5 VACANCIES
See also Site LL
discussion on bank
closures.
86 1989 1.53 0.28 M 52 Yes No Vons grocery
87 1980 0.89 0.85 M 52 Yes Yes Vons grocery
88 1998 2.07 0.91 M 53 No No Starbucks, Pizza & Deli,
hair salon, the Chase
space is now VACANT
These development trends of introducing high density residential to commercial centers have been seen in Novato, CA, Pinole, CA, and Bellevue, WA.

Figure C-9 and Figure C-10 provided several examples densification efforts in commercial centers with a variety of scenarios. In Pinole, CA, an underused retail space was converted to 223 homes while keeping other commercial space. In Bellevue, WA two sites within a commercial space used two City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-50
strategies, tear down and redevelop into Senior Housing as well as using existing parking to create a mixed-use structure and expand park access.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-51
Figure C- 9: Densification in Pinole, CA
Figure C- 10: Densification in Bellevue, WA
In addition, Redondo Beach has proposed the same redevelopment scenarios in its South Bay Marketplace with a similar composition as Site M in that their South Bay Marketplace Site is made up of contiguous parcels with large parking areas within a larger commercial/industrial center. The existing uses in South Bay Marketplace buildings include large retailers such as Nordstrom Rack and Sprouts Market as well as a large furniture store. According to their Housing Element, this 14.68-acre site (the parking lot encompasses 9.25 acres) can potentially accommodate 486 units at 80 percent of the maximum density, utilizing primarily the parking area. The majority of the parking for the South Bay Marketplace is on separate parcels from those with existing structures. Therefore, development City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-52
of residential uses on the parking lots would not require displacement of existing uses on site. They also did not rule out tearing down or repurposing existing structures, such as the Living Spaces into a parking lot (Figure C- 12). As stated above, development in Site M is not limited to just the parking lot but could also include tearing down structures, cluster density, and/or reconfiguring existing structures.

Figure C- 11: South Bay Market Place Site- Redondo Beach Source: Redondo Beach Housing Element, 2021-2029.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-53
Figure C- 12: Existing and Potential Reuse- South Bay Marketplace Source: Redondo Beach Housing Element, 2021-2029.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-54

4. Realistic Capacity
Mixed-Use and Mall Sites (Also Mixed-Use)
The City did not add a discount factor in these sites (which also allow for 100 percent nonresidential use) because as part of its site identification and selection process, the City selected sites with a high probability of residential development. The endorsed Preferred Land Use Alternative includes 440 acres of Mixed-Use sites, of which only 112 acres have been selected as part of the RHNA sites inventory. These 112 acres or 95 parcels represent the most likely to be used for mixed-use or standalone residential.

In addition, the City’s capacity estimates for potential RHNA units were conservative since they used 20 du/ac when the maximum allowable density per the Preferred Land Use Alternative is 30 du/ac.

The City used 20 du/ac since it does not currently have trends for mixed-use projects. The Preferred Land Use Alternative used the maximum allowable density and estimated a capacity of 13,189 units in Mixed-Use areas. The potential RHNA capacity in Mixed Use areas (2,195 units combined in MU and Mall Sites) represent only 16 percent of the total capacity estimated by the Land Use Alternative. The City’s 6th Cycle Sites Inventory also includes 470 surplus units (even with the conservative 20 du/ac assumption) as a buffer. In addition, recent redevelopment mixed-use projects in surrounding areas achieved an average density of 60 units per acre and ranged from 23.1 to 126.4 units per acre.

5. Small Sites
Sites smaller than a half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size and affordability were successfully developed during the prior planning period or other evidence to demonstrate these sites are adequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households. The City’s housing inventory does include some parcels that are less than half an acre but these sites are part of a contiguous block of parcels that have the potential for redevelopment. In Table C- 16 lower income unit sites with sites that do not have common ownership with adjacent parcels and are smaller than 0.5 acres are shown in bold. Only Sites C and J are considered to have lower income unit potential and have parcels smaller than 0.5 acres. Most parcels in Sites C and J share common ownership. For example, Site C is made up of 19 individual parcels ranging from 0.09 to 1.08 acres and is expected to accommodate 85 units affordable to lower-income households. Of these sites, 13 share common ownership in three different owners, as identified by their owner ID 18, 8, and 11. If the parcels smaller than 0.5 acres and without common ownership are not included in the lot consolidation (sites 12,13,14, and 29), this would equate to a loss of 13 lower income units. Similarly, Site J is made up of eight individual parcels, of which five are smaller than 0.5 acres. Five of these eight parcels share common ownership (Owner ID 42). Site 73 is the only parcel in Site J smaller than 0.5 acres and without common ownership with adjacent parcels.

If removed, there would only be a loss of seven lower income units. The total loss of potential lower income units is 20 units, while the City has a 559 lower income unit surplus buffer. Figure C- 13 also shows Sites C and J by common ownership. Of the mixed-income sites, only Site #86 is smaller than

0.5 acres but it shares common ownership with two adjacent parcels in Site M (Owner ID 52).

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-55
Table C- 16: Small Sites (<0.5 acres) by Common Ownership Site
# APN Address Acres
Cons.

ID
Owner
ID Lower Mod
Above
Mod
Total
Units
Lower Income Units Only Sites
1 6670290215 2665 W Hillcrest Dr 7.43 61 148 148
12 6690262190 595 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.31 C 12 6 6
13 6690262200 611 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.18 C 15 3 3
14 6690262210 621 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.18 C 16 3 3
15 6690262220 661 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 1.08 C 11 21 21
16 6690262440 707 E Thousand Oaks Blvd B 0.44 C 18 8 8
17 6690262430 711 E Thousand Oaks Blvd A 0.54 C 18 10 10 18 6690262280 0 *Unassigned 0.22 C 8 4 4
19 6690262290 732 Greenwich Dr 0.09 C 8 1 1
20 6690262300 0 *Unassigned 0.02 C 8 1 1
21 6690262310 750 Greenwich Dr 0.11 C 8 2 2
22 6690262270 723 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.2 C 8 4 4
23 6690262320 757 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.19 C 8 3 3
24 6690262330 763 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.09 C 8 1 1
25 6690262340 758 Greenwich Dr 0.13 C 11 2 2
26 6690262370 772 Greenwich Dr 0.33 C 11 6 6
27 6690262380 790 Greenwich Dr 0.11 C 11 2 2
28 6690262360 783 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.22 C 11 4 4
29 6690262350 777 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.09 C 9 1 1
44 6700170175 1432 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 5.91 60 118 118 51 6700160260 1489 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 1.33 F 34 26 26 52 6700160130 1429 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.72 F 34 14 14 53 6700160270 1459 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 1.86 F 34 37 37 63 6710140080 2797 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 4.58 59 91 91
66 6710160050 3157 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 1.60 J 44 31 31 67 6710160060 3167 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.22 J 42 4 4
68 6710160080 3185 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.22 J 42 4 4
69 6710160090 3183 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.26 J 42 5 5
70 6710160200 3175 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.67 J 42 13 13 71 6710160070 3177 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.22 J 42 4 4
72 6710160110
3209 E Thousand Oaks Bl
Blvd 1 1.69 J 45 33 33
73 6710160120 3245 E Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.36 J 43 7 7
77 6770300035 1330 N Moorpark Rd 5.31 L 48 106 106
78 6770300045 1332 N Moorpark Rd 2.42 L 48 48 48
79 6770300055 1382 N Moorpark Rd 2.32 L 49 46 46
80 6770300075 1388 N Moorpark Rd 4.06 L 50 81 81
81 6770300165 1440 N Moorpark Rd 0.92 L 50 18 18
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-56
82 6770300195 620 E Janss Rd 1.61 LL 50 32 32
83 6770300125 612 E Janss Rd 1.0 LL 51 20 20
Mixed-Income Unit Sites
2 5250052555 148 W Hillcrest Dr A 1.32 A 2 13 13 26
3 5250052575 130 W Hillcrest Dr B 6.5 A 3 65 64 129
4 5250020365 139 W Thousand Oaks Blvd. 1.71 A 1 17 17 34 5 5250052465 147 W Thousand Oaks Blvd 0.82 A 1 8 8 16
6 5250052485 0 *Unassigned 2.02 A 1 20 20 40
84 5700090335
1934 E Avenida De Los
Arboles 5.02 M 54 50 50 100
85 5700090345
2000 E Avenida De Los
Arboles #A 8.42 M 52 84 84 168
86 5700090355 0 *Unassigned 0.28 M 52 3 2 5
87 5700090245
2048 E Avenida De Los
Arboles #B 0.85 M 52 8 8 16
88 5700090045
2072 E Avenida De Los
Arboles 0.91 M 53 18 18
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-57
Figure C- 13: Site C and Site J Parcels with Common Ownership City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-58
Table C- 17: Redevelopment Projects with Lot Consolidation Site Description Lot Consolidation
Lupe’s Restaurant Conversion of Lupe’s Restaurant
and one SFH to two, three-story
buildings with 36 apartments and
4,980 s.f. of commercial on a 2.62
acres.

Yes- consolidation of multiple
parcels of land totaling 5.13 acres.

The 2.62 acre lot was the result of
merging 17 underlying legal lots into
3 legal lots. The resulting site for the
mixed-use development was the
result of combining lots of the
following approximate sizes: 0.273,

0.247, 0.241, 1.05 and 0.75 acres
with 0.14 acres of abandoned right of
way.

Hillcrest Villa 60-unit affordable housing project Yes- five (5) parcels of land totaling

2.98 acres
Garden View Terrace Construction of 56 units - included relocation of the low-income tenants
and one-to-one replacement of the
demolished units
Yes- five lots held by three different
ownership totaling 2.2 acres.
77 North Conejo School Road Construction of 40 apartment units.

There are examples of projects that involved lot consolidation of parcels with and without common ownership (Table C- 17). For example, Lupe’s Restaurant was replaced with 36 residential units and 4,980 square feet of commercial. Lupe’s project involved lot consolidation but did not include affordable units. However, with the adoption of the General Plan, corresponding Zoning Code updates, Objective Development Standards, and the Inclusionary Housing Program, development of more affordable units will be incentivized and there will likely be an affordable housing inclusionary component for all qualifying residential projects. The Objective Development Standards were adopted in March 2022 and Effective in April 2022 include an increase in maximum height for projects containing at least 20 percent affordable units. There have also been several inquiries from the development community regarding consolidation of smaller parcels within the SP 20 boundary suggesting that this trend will continue and expand.

Two examples of projects on small sties with affordable units include Hillcrest Villa and Garden View Terrace. The locations were appropriate for a new affordable housing projects due to proximity to an existing elementary school, and shopping and services along Thousand Oaks Boulevard (like many of the sites selected in the sites inventory). Layers of Federal, State, and City funding are invested in both properties. Both Sites C and J, which have some parcels smaller than 0.5, assume the potential consolidation of parcels with and without common ownership and are both located along Thousand Oaks Boulevard.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-59
Hillcrest Villa Project
With the assistance from the City, Many Mansions purchased the site consisting of five (5) parcels of land totaling 2.98 acres, located on the south side of Hillcrest Drive, approximately 350 feet east of Quinta Vista Drive (2672, 2676, 2686 and 2736 Hillcrest Drive and 2645 Los Feliz Drive).

In order for Many Mansions to construct the 60-unit affordable housing project, the General Plan “Low-Density Residential” designation on the three (3) parcels was amended to “Medium Density Residential”. Based on the total acreage of the site (2.98 acres), and medium density of 15 units per acre on the entire site, a total of 45 units was allowed. However, Many Mansions, consistent with State law and City ordinance, filed a Density Bonus application requesting a maximum of thirty five (35 percent) percent density bonus for an additional fifteen (15) units, for a total of 60 dwelling units.

The project 60 total units consisted of 15 Extremely low units for homeless persons with a mental disability and their families, 15 units for extremely low-income and homeless families, 18 Very Low, 11 Lower, and 1 Manager’s unit. Layers of Federal, State, and City funding are invested in the property.

The affordable non-profit developed is condition to have property remain affordable for 55-years.

Garden View Terrace
With the assistance from the City, the Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura (AHA) purchased five parcels held by three separate ownerships, identified as 1972, 1990, 1994, 2020 & 2026 Los Feliz Drive over a period of several years. The project included relocation of the low-income tenants and one-to-one replacement of the demolished units. Acquisition of these parcels provided an opportunity to assemble a site to construct affordable housing in the downtown area.

The project contained five lots totaling 2.2 acres of land, located on the south side of Los Feliz Drive, approximately 800 feet west of Conejo School Road. All five parcels totaled 96,000 SF (2.2 ac) are designated as “High Density Residential” by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. In order to construct the affordable housing project, AHA requested that the zoning on the entire site be changed from RPD -15U and RPD-20U to RPD-30U. This request is consistent with the existing designation of the General Plan Land Use Element of “High Density Residential”. The project consists of 56 unit distributed among ten buildings, a community building and a subterranean parking structure and additional parking spaces within the open parking lot and within a carport. The project’s 56 units consist of 9 extremely low, 46 Very Low, 1 Manager Unit.

For the Mixed-Use sites (not including the mall sites), in the event that these sites are not consolidated or/or produce affordable units, they only have a combined capacity of 81 lower units. If these units are moderate or low moderate, there are enough surplus units to buffer this loss. In the Mall sites, two parcels/sites are less than 0.5 acres but they are more likely to be developed as part of the entire block.

Also, these parcels only represent one lower income unit each. Their loss to moderate or above moderate income would not significantly affect the City’s availability to meet its lower income RHNA obligations.

In addition, Oxnard Projects at 705 N. Oxnard Boulevard, Cypress Road, and N. Hayes Street (Table C- 15) are examples of 100 percent affordable projects on sites that consolidated small lots around 0.5 acres or less.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-60

6. Affordability Assumptions
State law (Assembly Bill 2342/Government Code 65583.2) uses allowed density as a proxy for income/affordability for the sites inventory. Table C- 18: shows the site conditions used to determine affordability for the sites inventory. Generally, lower density zones are presumed to be affordable to moderate and above moderate households. Under state law, the “default density” for a jurisdiction in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) with a population greater than 100,000 are considered metropolitan, and so their default density is at least 30 units/acre. “Default density” refers to the density considered suitable to encourage and facilitate the development of affordable housing and “at least” means the density range allowed on the parcel has to include the default density. In estimating development potential, State law also requires the use of demonstrated trends or minimum density to estimate potential yield on each property. Given that the City has few recent multi-family or mixed use development projects to establish trends, this analysis uses the minimum densities to estimate potential yield. This approach would also minimize triggering the Not Net Loss provisions (SB 166) when sites are developed below the assumed density.

Mixed-Useand Mall Sites
The sites inventory assumes that sites with the Mixed-Use designation can be affordable to lower income, moderate, and above moderate income households, since the allowable density ranges from 20 units/acre to 30 units/acre. Sites with Mixed-Use designation (the Mixed-Use and Mall sites categories) were split into lower, moderate, and above moderate income based on:

1. Size of parcel, either alone or consolidated with adjacent sites;

2. Total unit capacity, alone or consolidated with adjacent sites); and

3. Location, resource category.

The City considered that according to HCD, parcels need to be appropriately sized (between 0.5 to 10 acres) to achieve financial feasibility of lower income units in selecting which site(s) to split. The City also considered that “to achieve financial feasibility, many assisted housing developments using state or federal resources are between 50 to 150 units.”26 Using 50 units as a threshold, Mixed-Use sites that had less than 50 potential units were considered feasible only for moderate and above moderate income. The City also made efforts to ensure lower income units were not concentrated in areas of low resources and that moderate and above moderate income units were located in lower resource to promote mixed-income neighborhoods. The City has committed to enhancing housing mobility strategies and encouraging development of new affordable housing in high resource areas by implementing Active Transportation Plan, ADA Transition Plan, and designating new residential areas, such as Village Centers as part of the Endorsed Land Use Map. 26 Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing and Policy Development, Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook Government code Section 65583.2. June 10, 2020, pg.15.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 C-61
Neighborhood Sites
The Neighborhood Medium-High site was considered feasible for lower and moderate income. The Neighborhood Medium-High site has an allowable density ranging from 20 units/acre to 30 units/acre. The neighboring land uses are lower intensity single-family use, which tends to be more feasible for moderate units. The Neighborhood Low-Medium site is suitable only for above moderate sites due to their allowable density (6 to 10 units/acre), or single-family home use.

Table C- 18: Affordability Assumptions by Density
Allowable Density
Range
(du/ac)
Income Level
Mixed-Use 20-30 Lower, Moderate, and Above Moderate
Mall Sites 20-30 Lower and Moderate
Neighborhood Medium-High 20-30 Lower and Moderate
Neighborhood Low-Medium 6-10 Above Moderate
III. CONCLUSION
Overall, the City has the ability to accommodate at least 2,295 units on vacant and underutilized sites across the City under the Endorsed Land Use Map for the General Plan 2045 update and its development regulations. The City has identified 97 candidate sites that are anticipated to get a new land use designation with allowable density ranges. Combined with the 1,891 credit units from potential ADUs and pipeline and pending projects, the City can meet its RHNA needs.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-1
Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF AB 686
AB 686 passed in 2017 requires the Housing Element to include an analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing. The Bill added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element which includes the following components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities, an assessment of contributing factors, and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.

The City collaborated with the HUD Entitlement Cities of Camarillo, Oxnard, San Buenaventura, and Simi Valley, and the Ventura Urban County including the Cities of Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, and the Unincorporated areas of Ventura County in the preparation of the Ventura County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in 2020. As appropriate, data and discussions from the 2020 AI are incorporated here.

II. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES

1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
As outlined in Ventura County’s 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2020 AI), the City has committed to complying with applicable federal and state fair housing laws including, but not limited to, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, and the Fair Housing Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

For housing services, the City relies on the County’s contract with the Housing Rights Center (HRC) to provide fair housing services to City residents, other County entitlement jurisdictions, and Ventura County. HRC is a non-profit agency whose mission is to actively support and promote fair housing through education and advocacy. The services provided by HRC include the investigation and resolution of housing discrimination complaints, discrimination auditing and testing, and education and outreach, including the dissemination of fair housing information such as written material, workshops, and seminars. The materials are made available free to the public in several different languages including English, Spanish, Korean, Mandarin, Armenian, Cantonese and Russian.

Depending on the audience, the presentations can be translated by staff into Armenian, Mandarin, Spanish, or Russian. Landlord/tenant counseling is another fair housing service that involves informing landlords and tenants of their rights and responsibilities under fair housing law and other consumer protection legislations as well as mediating disputes between tenants and landlords.

The 2020 AI presented information on housing discrimination basis for the entire County.

Discrimination complaints from both in-place and prospective tenants that are filed with HRC (or screened from regular calls) are first referred to the HRC Counseling Department. The complaining party is asked to describe the events and issues that prompted the complaint. Complaints are then City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-2
passed to the HRC Investigations Department and reviewed to see if the facts provided warrant an investigation. Figure D-1 shows the complaint process flowchart for the Housing Rights Center.

Figure D-1: Housing Rights Center Complaint Process Flowchart City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-3
Fair Housing Enforcement
Regional Trends
The 2020 AI presented information on housing discrimination basis for the entire County. A total of 35 housing discrimination cases were opened by HRC between 2017 and the first half of 2019, with most of the allegations of housing discrimination filed by the residents of Simi Valley (31 percent), Camarillo (29 percent) and Thousand Oaks (14 percent). Complaints pertaining to physical disability (66 percent) and mental disability (20 percent) were the most common. Discrimination based on national origin (6 percent), familial status (6 percent), and religion (3 percent) were less frequently reported. Over half of the complaints (57 percent) were successfully conciliated by HRC, with roughly a quarter either withdrawn by the client (17 percent) or closed with no enforcement action taken (9 percent). Fourteen percent (5 complaints) were reported as pending as of October 2019. The sole complainant of discrimination based on national origin, filed by a Camarillo resident in 2017 was referred to HRC’s ligation department.

The services provided by HRC are augmented by the State of California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), which has the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of state civil rights laws on a state-wide basis, including the use of discriminatory language in housing advertisement. Of the 969 complaints of housing discrimination investigated in 2017 in the state, only 21 (two percent) were from Ventura County residents. Most housing discrimination complaints filed with the DFEH are based on the disability (43 percent), race (14 percent), or familial status (11 percent) of the complainant. Of those individuals who identified their race when filing a complaint, 31 percent identified as white, followed by 28 percent identifying as Hispanic or Latino, and Black or African American (23 percent).

Local Trends
According to the Fair Housing Program Reports from FY 2014 to 2021, the HRC received 63 discrimination inquiries from Thousand Oaks residents resulting in nine cases being opened. Of the 63 discrimination inquiries, the most common reason for discrimination was physical disability (60 percent) followed by mental disability (24 percent) and national origin (three percent). Most of the discrimination inquiries (78 percent) were counseled, meaning the caller was only seeking fair housing information and/or did not want to file a complaint. Of the nine cases opened, discrimination was based on physical disability for seven cases, while mental disability and national origin was the basis for discrimination for the other two cases. Six of the nine cases were found to have sustained allegations and but only two were resolved with conciliation.

HRC also provided tenant/landlord services to 484 clients, with the most common issues being notices (17 percent), substandard conditions (13 percent), rent increases (eight percent), lease terms (seven percent), repairs (six percent), and security deposits (six percent).

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-4
Fair Housing Testing
Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair housing testing involves the use of an individual or individuals who pose as prospective renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, state, and federal fair housing laws.

Regional Trends
The 2020 AI reported that 10 fair housing tests were conducted by the Housing Rights Center (HRC) to investigate complaints of housing discrimination based on race in Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks.

Evidence of discrimination was found in three instances in Simi Valley, with White testers receiving preferential treatment as compared to Black or African American testers. A similar number of fair housing tests were conducted by HRC in 2017.

Local Trends
Testing is done through the case investigation process as shown in the flow chart in Figure D-1 and reported back to the county quarterly. There is also random testing throughout the County. The 2020 AI reported that testing was done in Thousand Oaks in 2018. Test status closed with successful conciliation. The tenant was provided a reasonable accommodation for an extension of time to vacate.

HRC submits Quarterly Summary Reports (QSR) between 2014 and 2020 .

Fair Housing Education and Outreach
Regional Trends
The HRC organizes an annual fair housing conference and resource fair for housing providers and advocates at the County Government Center and the Cities of Camarillo, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks on housing rights, which include the topics of sexual orientation, racial and ethnic relations, and religion. Housing rights workshops are offered to landlords, property managers, and community members. Information on federal and state fair housing laws, common forms of housing discrimination, protected characteristics, unlawful practices, and fair housing liability is presented to workshop participants. Bilingual media outlets (primarily English and Spanish) and social media platforms are used to promote the conference and scheduled workshops and to provide general information on fair housing.

Information on rental housing options gathered from various classified and rental property sources is published on a monthly basis and distributed to the public and to social services representatives throughout the County. Individual assistance is provided to Ventura County landlords and renters, many of whom are low- and moderate-income, seeking information on a variety of general housing topics.

Local Trends
In 2021, the annual housing workshop for the City of Thousand Oaks was held virtually on January 13 at 6:30 PM. In past years the resident’s workshop was held at the Thousand Oaks Main Library.

In addition, just in the month of June 2021, the HRC offered over 20 fair housing related outreach events. The outreach events included:
• Fair Housing Rights Workshops (in English and Spanish), City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-5
• COVID-19 Housing Rights Workshop,
• Facebook Live Housing Rights Q&A Live,
• Para Los Niños: Sexual Harassment Housing Rights Workshop, • National Center on Law & Elder Rights: "Emergency Rental Assistance Programs and Other Tools to Prevent Evictions of Older Adult Tenants," and • Housing Rights Workshop: Black Community Education Task Force.

These events were offered to Ventura County and Los Angeles County jurisdictions for which HRC offers Fair Housing services. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most events were held as webinars.

HRC has a permanent Weekly Calendar of online events (Figure D-2). Residents can register for the workshops and clinic appointments at: https://www.housingrightscenter.org/fair-housing-education Figure D-2: Weekly Online Workshops Offered by the Housing Rights Center (2021) Public Outreach for Activities Related to Housing and Community Development (CDBG) In accordance with the City’s Citizen Participation Plan (Resolution 2020-013) which is updated every five years, the City provides at least three public hearing throughout the year, and 30 days of public review for comments for the annual CDBG Action Plan, the annual Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER), and Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan and/or Action Plan. The City provides notices of public review and public hearing via announcements on the City of Thousand Oaks website, through a legal notice published in the Ventura County Star and through a prominent display ad in the Thousand Oaks Acorn free newspaper as well as social media.   The Thousand Oaks Acorn, a free newspaper, was named by respondents to the City’s most recent Attitude Survey, as their number one source for local news. On request, the City makes CDBG-related documents and reports available in alternative formats for review by persons with disabilities. Public noticing is also provided to low-income tenants living in apartments owned by the Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura, Many Mansions, and the Shadow Apartments.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-6
Public Outreach Strategies to Reach Disadvantaged Communities Housing Rights Center
Outreach activities ranged from media ads and literature distribution to fair housing presentations.

The Housing Right Center (HRC) annually submits press releases, public service announcements, and online advertisements to media contacts. These media activities included information, in both English and Spanish, on HRC’s programs and services (including the agency’s contact information and office locations) along with fair housing workshop opportunities throughout the Ventura County region.

Variety of venues to hold community meetings
Community meetings are held at City Hall, City Libraries, and various Community Rooms of low income apartment complexes throughout the City such as, Many Mansions and the Housing Authority of the County of Ventura.

Noticing
The City publicizes via a prominent display ad in the local free newspaper, the Thousand Oaks Acorn, and via a legal notice in the local newspaper of record, the Ventura County Star, on Community Development Block Grant related public hearings or public review periods. In the most recent City survey, respondents named the Thousand Oaks Acorn as their number one source for City news.

Increased mobile phone app engagement
The City communicates through its website at www.toaks.org and on its social media (Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter) accounts.

Other
While providing fair housing education for the public and housing professionals is critical, ensuring city staff understand fair housing laws and are sensitive to the discrimination issues is equally important. All City employees are required to take a “Discrimination Prevention” course. In addition, City Hall Buildings are accessible to persons with disabilities. The City's Public Information Office coordinates the citywide communications and civic engagement activities through:
• Social Media
• Media Relations
• City Website
• TOTV ‐ Government Access Television
• City Newsletters
• Press Releases
• Community Relations

2. Integration and Segregation
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-7
Race/Ethnicity
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences and mobility. To measure segregation in a given jurisdiction, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides racial or ethnic dissimilarity trends. Dissimilarity indices are used to measure how evenly two groups are distributed throughout a jurisdiction. The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <40: Low Segregation
• 40-54: Moderate Segregation
• >55: High Segregation
Regional Trends
Regionally, non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanic/Latinos make up 93 percent of Ventura County’s population and have similar shares in population (46 percent whites and 43 percent Hispanics, Table D-1). The cities of Oxnard and Santa Paula have the highest concentration of Hispanic population, with Hispanic residents making up 74 percent and 82 percent of their population.

As explained above, dissimilarity indices are measures of segregation, with higher indices meaning higher degree of segregation. In Ventura County, all minority (non-white) residents combined are considered moderately segregated from White residents (index is 50 in 2020, Table D-2). However, the dissimilarity index between Hispanic and White residents is considered a high degree of segregation. All dissimilarity indices have increased in the past 30 years in the County, except for Blacks/Whites, indicating increasing segregation among residents of non-White races from Whites.

Table D-1: Racial Composition in Neighboring Cities and County White
alone
Hispanic/
Latino
Black or
Afr. Am.

Am. Ind./
Alaska
Native
Asian Hawaiian/
Pac. Isldr
Other
City of Ventura 55.7% 36.0% 1.7% 0.4% 3.6% 0.1% 2.5%
Camarillo 57.3% 27.2% 1.6% 0.2% 10.1% 0.1% 3.4%
Oxnard 14.5% 73.6% 2.4% 0.2% 7.1% 0.3% 1.9%
Santa Paula 15.1% 81.9% 0.2% 0.1% 1.3% 0.0% 1.4%
Thousand Oaks 66.8% 19.4% 1.3% 0.2% 9.6% 0.1% 2.7%
Ventura County 45.4% 42.7% 1.7% 0.2% 7.2% 0.2% 2.6%
Sources: American Community Survey, 2015-2019.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-8
Table D-2: Dissimilarity Indices for Ventura County (1990-2020) 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current
Ventura County
Non-White/White 46.24 49.11 47.27 50.49
Black/White 47.82 45.42 36.6 41.99
Hispanic/White 52.19 56.14 54.55 56.75
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 29.93 28.93 28.61 34.03 Sources: HUD Dissimilarity Index, 2020.

Figure D-4 below shows the concentration of minority population in the County is concentrated in Oxnard, Santa Paula, and Fillmore. Red block groups indicate that over 81 percent of the population in the tract is non-white. Figure D-4 shows census tracts in Ventura County by the racial or ethnic groups that make up the majority of the population. The categories show the percentage population gap between the majority racial/ethnic group and the next largest racial/ethnic group. The more intense the color, the higher the percentage gap between the predominant racial/ethnic group and the next largest racial/ethnic group. As expected, based on the high percentage of Hispanic population (Table D-1), the cities of Oxnard and Santa Paula have the highest concentration of Hispanic majority census tracts. Overall, Hispanic population predominates the north (east of the City of Ventura), while White majorities are more common in Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, and Simi Valley.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-9
Figure D-3: Minority Concentration by Block Group- Ventura County Figure D-4: Racial and Ethnic Majorities by Census Tract- Ventura County City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-10
Local Trends
Unlike the County, Thousand Oaks’ population is predominantly White (67 percent). As shown in Figure D-5, the White population has decreased by 4.6 percentage points between 2010 and 2019, while the Hispanic/Latino has grown by 2.9 percentage points. Asians and Blacks make up the third and fourth largest shares of population in the City.

From 1990 to 2020, non-White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents have become more segregated (Table D-3). Segregation between non-White, Black, and Asian/Pacific Islander residents and Whites residents has also increased by more than six points though it is still considered “low segregation.” Hispanic and White residents have also become more segregated between 1990 and 2020, but their level of segregation is considered moderate. Figure D-6 shows which race or ethnicity is predominant, and by how much. It uses map colors to identify the predominant racial or ethnic group in specific areas by tract. The strength of the color indicates the extent to which one group is dominant over the next most populous. The map shows that white population predominates most of the City’s tracts (grey tracts), while Hispanic population predominates a single tract southwest of the intersection of Highway 23 and E. Avenida de Los Arboles. However, Hispanic population is less than one percent higher than White in this tract (47.4 percent Hispanic, 46.7 percent White).

Figure D-5: Race/Ethnicity Composition Changes (2010-2019) Note: All other includes ACS categories “some other race alone” and “two or more races.” Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2006-2010 and 2015-2019.

White Hispanic
Black or
African
American
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
All other
2010 71.4% 16.5% 0.9% 0.2% 9.0% 0.1% 2.1%
2019 66.8% 19.4% 1.3% 0.2% 9.6% 0.1% 2.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-11
Table D-3: Dissimilarity Indices City of Thousand Oaks (1990-2020) 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current
Thousand Oaks
Non-White/White 21.00 25.14 24.34 27.92
Black/White 14.47 15.26 15.27 24.23
Hispanic/White 31.78 37.9 36.25 39.12
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 12.50 14.6 21.3 26.63
Sources: HUD Dissimilarity Indices, 2020.

Figure D-6: Racial and Ethnic Majorities by Census Tract- City of Thousand Oaks Figure D-7 also shows the concentration of non-white minorities by block group across the City. Most minorities appear to be concentrated in block groups north of Ventura Highway 101 and at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-12
Figure D-7: RHNA Unit Distribution by Minority Concentration - City of Thousand Oaks Distribution of RHNA Units by Percent Minority Concentration As part of the AFFH analysis, the City must show that sites identified in the inventory were selected in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). This involves an analysis of whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.

As shown in Figure D-7, the minority population is concentrated in census block groups located at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23, block groups west of Highway 23 and the westernmost block groups of the City north of Highway 101 (in orange). While most of the City’s RHNA sites are located along Highway 101, which have a higher concentration of minorities (between 41 to 80 percent), only 17 percent of all RHNA units are located in block groups with the highest concentration of minorities (61 to 80 percent) (Table D-4). Approximately 36 percent of lower income units, 69 percent of moderate income units, and 49 percent of above moderate income units are in block groups with the lowest percent racial/ethnic minorities. Only 13 percent of lower income units are located in block groups with the highest concentration of minority population.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-13
Table D-4: RHNA Unit Distribution by % Minority Concentration Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate Income
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total RHNA
Units
0-20% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
21 - 40% 36.4% 68.6% 49.4% 45.9%
41 - 60% 50.3% 11.7% 3.9% 36.9%
61 - 80% 13.3% 19.7% 46.8% 17.3%
> 81% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total 1,527 614 154 2,295
Table D-4 also shows the City acreage by minority concentration. Only 2.2 percent of the City’s land area has a concentration of minority population higher than 61 percent and 17 percent of RHNA units are being sited in these areas of high concentration. However, the RHNA sites are intended to improve these areas where minorities are concentrated by both providing affordable housing opportunities (in low and moderate income RHNA units) and improvements through private investments through market rate development (above moderate units).

Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of their fixed income, the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability.

Regional Trends
In Ventura County, about 10.9 percent of the population has a disability. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, large jurisdictions in the County have a similar population with disability ranging from 7.9 percent in Oxnard to 12.3 percent in Camarillo and the City of Ventura, respectively. Figure D-8 shows the population with disabilities in most census tracts is between 10 and 20 percent. Only a few census tracts in the region, in Ventura and Camarillo have a population with disability between 20 and 30 percent.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-14
Figure D-8: Population with Disabilities- Region
Local Trends
Thousand Oaks has a lower percentage population of persons with disabilities (10.3 percent) than the County (10.9 percent) and its neighboring cities of Camarillo (12.3 percent) and Simi Valley (11.2 percent) but higher than Moorpark (9.4 percent). Within the City, census tracts are split between those with less than 10 percent of the population with a disability and tracts with 10 to 20 percent of the population with a disability (Figure D-9).

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-15
Figure D-9: RHNA Unit Distribution by Concentration of Persons with Disability Distribution of RHNA by Percent Population with Disabilities Most RHNA units (90 percent) are located in tracts where the population of persons with disabilities is between 10 and 20 percent (Table D-5). A similar share of lower income units (90 percent) and moderate units (100 percent) are also located in tracts with 10 to 20 percent of its population with disabilities. About half of the above moderate units are located in tracts with 10 to 20 percent of its population with disabilities.

Table D-5: RHNA Site Inventory Unit Distribution by % Population with Disabilities Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate Income
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total RHNA Units
< 10% 9.7% 0.0% 49.4% 9.8%
10% - 20% 90.3% 100.0% 50.6% 90.2%
20% - 30% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 1,527 614 154 2,295
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-16
Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18, whether the child is biologically related to the head of household or the marital status of the head of household. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Some landlords may have cultural biases against children of the opposite sex sharing a bedroom. Differential treatments such as limiting the number of children in an apartment complex or confining children to a specific location are also fair housing concerns. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law.

Regional Trends
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 35 percent of households in Ventura County have children under the age of 18. In the region, the cities of Oxnard and Santa Paula have the highest percentage of households with children (47 percent and 42 percent). Meanwhile, about a third of households in Moorpark, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks have children. Figure D-10 shows the distribution of children in married-couple households by census tract and Figure D-11 shows the distribution of single female-headed households by census tract. Census tracts in Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, and Moorpark have a high concentration of children in married people households. The inverse trend is shown in
Figure D-11, which shows that census tracts with a high concentration of children in single femaleheaded households are concentrated in Oxnard, Ventura, Santa Paula, and some tracts in Simi Valley.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-17
Figure D-10: Children in Married Households- Region
Figure D-11: Children in Single Female-Headed Households- Region City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-18
Local Trends
Approximately 30 percent of households in Thousand Oaks have children, fewer than the surrounding jurisdictions of Simi Valley (33.4 percent), Moorpark (36.3 percent), Santa Paula (42 percent), and the County (34.8 percent) but higher than the City of Camarillo (28.7 percent). According to the HCD AFFH mapin Figure D-12, children in married-couple households are mostly concentrated in the northern and eastern most areas of the City. In these census tracts, over 80 percent of children are in married-couple households. Census tracts at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23, the westernmost tracts of the City, and some tracts within Newbury Park had lower concentrations of children in married-couple households.

Figure D-12: Children in Married-Couple Households- City of Thousand Oaks Figure D-13 shows children in single female-headed households are concentrated in the census tracts northwest of the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23.

Figure D-13: Children in Single Female-Headed Households- City of Thousand Oaks Distribution of RHNA Units by Familial Status
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-19
Most RHNA units are located in tracts along Highway 101 in the city, which have a low percentage of children in married-couple households and a high percentage of children in family households (60 to 80 percent, relative to other tracts in the City). As shown in Table D-6, 97 percent of RHNA units are located in census tracts where 60 to 80 percent of children are in married-couple households, including all the lower income units.

All but two tracts in the City have less than 20 percent of children living in single female-headed households (Table D-7) and RHNA units are distributed between tracts that have less than 20 percent of the children population in single female-headed households and 20 to 40 percent. Most of the RHNA units (77 percent) are located in tracts with a lower concentration of children in single femaleheaded households, which consists of lower (71 percent), moderate (88 percent), and above moderate (87 percent) income units.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-20
Table D-6: RHNA Site Inventory Unit Distribution by Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate Income
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total RHNA Units
< 20 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
20% - 40% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
40% - 60% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
60% - 80% 100.0% 100.0% 50.6% 96.7%
> 80% 0.0% 0.0% 49.4% 3.3%
Total Units 1,527 614 154 2,295
Table D-7: RHNA Unit Distribution by Percent of Children in Single Female-Headed Households Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate Income
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total RHNA Units
< 20 % 71.4% 88.4% 87.0% 77.0%
20% - 40% 5.6% 11.6% 13.0% 7.7%
40% - 60% 23.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.3%
60% - 80% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
> 80% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 1,527 614 154 2,295
Income Level
Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the AMI).

Regional Trends
According to HUD’s 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data (most recent data available), 40 percent of Ventura County households earn low and moderate income.

Figure D-14 shows concentrations of low and moderate incomes by tract regionally. Tracts with high concentration of LMI households exceeding 50% are located within parts of Oxnard, Camarillo, Santa Paula, and the City of Ventura.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-21
Figure D-14: Low and Moderate Income Population – Ventura Region Local Trends
The City of Thousand Oaks’ LMI population (29.5 percent) is substantially lower than the County’s (40 percent). As seen in Figure D-14, the City of Thousand Oaks only has a few block groups with a high percentage of LMI population (50 to 75 percent) and none with more than 75 percent of its population earning low and moderate incomes. Most of the block groups with the high concentration of LMI population are along Highway 101 and Highway 23 (Figure D-15). Block groups with the highest concentration of LMI households (where between 50 and 75 percent of households are LMI) are located in the at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23 and in the westernmost block group north of Highway 101.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-22
Figure D-15: Low and Moderate Income Population- City of Thousand Oaks Distribution of RHNA Units by % of Low and Moderate Income Population Most RHNA units (61 percent) are located in census tracts with less than 50 percent LMI population (Table D-8). About 39 percent of all RHNA units are located in census tracts where more than 50 percent of the population earn low incomes. In an effort to encourage mixed-income neighborhoods, lower income units are located in census tracts with different percentages of LMI population. About two thirds of lower income units and moderate units are located in census tracts with less than 50 percent LMI population.

Table D-8: RHNA Unit Distribution by LMI Population
Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate Income
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total RHNA Units
< 25% 23.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.3%
25% - 50% 36.4% 68.6% 49.4% 45.9%
50% - 75% 40.6% 31.4% 50.6% 38.8%
75% - 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 1,527 614 154 2,295
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-23

3. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) In an effort to identify racially/ethnically-concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has identified census tracts with a majority non-White population (greater than 50 percent) and a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower.

Regional Trends
There are three R/ECAPs located within the County in Port Hueneme, Oxnard, and Santa Paula (Figure D-16).

Local Trends
There are no R/ECAPs identified in the City of Thousand Oaks. Because of this, zero percent of RHNA units are located in R/ECAP sites.

Figure D-16: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)- Region City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-24
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)
While racially concentrated areas of poverty and segregation (RECAPs) have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated, a key to fair housing choice. According to a policy paper published by HUD, RCAAs are defined as affluent, White communities. According to HUD's policy paper, Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States and in the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, conversely, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities.

While HCD has created its own metric for RCAAs, at the time of this writing the map on the AFFH tool is not available. Thus, the definition of RCAAs used in this analysis is the definition used by the scholars at the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs cited in HCD’s memo:
“RCAAs are defined as census tracts where 1) 80 percent or more of the population is white, and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).

Regional Trends
Figure D-3 and Figure D-4 show the concentration of minority/ non-white population and majority populations across the region. In Figure D-3, census tracts in yellow have less than 20 percent nonwhite population, meaning over 80 percent of the population is White. There are a few tracts with over 80 percent White population located throughout the County, especially in Ventura, Camarillo, and Thousand Oaks. These census tracts are also census tracts with a median income over $125,000 in Thousand Oaks (Figure D-17). Although not all census tracts have the exact relationship of over 85 percent White and median income over $125,000 to qualify as “RCAAs,” throughout the County tracts with higher White population tend to have greater median incomes.

According to the 2020 Ventura County AI, Ventura County residents making less than $15/hour in Ventura County struggle to afford basic needs. In 2015, 87 percent of the county’s White population earned at least $15/hour, the highest percent among racial and ethnic groups, while 54 percent of the Latino population earned at least this amount, the lowest percentage of all groups. County residents who are White (and not Hispanic or Latino) and Asian residents make more than the County median per capita income ($33,435). White and not Hispanic or Latino residents make the most above the County median at $13,079 more per person. All other racial and ethnic groups make less, with Hispanic or Latino residents making an average of $15,553 less per person annually.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-25
Figure D-17: Median Income – Region
Local Trends
As discussed previously in the Race/Ethnicity section, most tracts in the City of Thousand Oaks are predominantly White (gap between whites and other races is over 50 percent) (Figure D-6). Figure D7 shows the concentration of non-white minorities, but where non-white minorities are less than 20 percent (yellow block groups), the White population is over 80 percent. While only two of these yellow block groups have over 85 percent, they have the highest percentage of White population in the City (ranging from 80 to 85 percent). All but one of the block groups with more than 80 percent White population also have a median income greater than $125,000 (Figure D-18). While only two block groups meet the definition of RCAAs, there is a trend toward higher median incomes in areas with higher White population in the City.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-26
Figure D-18: Median Income - City of Thousand Oaks

4. Access to Opportunities
Significant disparities in access to opportunity are defined by the AFFH Final Rule as “substantial and measurable differences in access to educational, transportation, economic, and other opportunities in a community based on protected class related to housing.” TCAC Opportunity Maps
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened the California Fair Housing Task force to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/ departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task Force has created Opportunity Maps to identify resource levels across the state “to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with nine percent Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)”. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators. Table D9 shows the full list of indicators. The opportunity maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-27
• Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under federal poverty line; • Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County Table D-9: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty
Adult education
Employment
Job proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and values Education Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020 Regional Trends
According to the 2021 TCAC/HCD opportunity area map, two census tracts in the region are considered “high segregation and poverty” areas (yellow) (Figure D-19). These census tracts are located in Ventura and Oxnard. TCAC maps categorize the level of resources in each census tract.

Categorization is based on percentile rankings for census tracts within the region. Regionally, low resource areas (green) are concentrated in the western part of the County, starting in the middle of Ventura and south to Oxnard and east into the Santa Clara Valley. The southeastern census tracts (in Camarillo and Thousand Oaks) are considered high resource areas.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-28
Figure D-19: TCAC Composite Scores- Region
Local Trends
According to the HCD/TCAC opportunity map (Figure D-20), Thousand Oaks is made up of census tracts with varying degrees of resources, but most of the City is classified as high and highest resource.

Census tracts at southwest, northwest, and northeast the edges of the City are high and highest resource. Meanwhile, tracts adjacent to the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23 scored lower (low resource and moderate). The only low resource tracts in the City are concentrated east of this intersection.

Distribution of RHNA Units by TCAC Opportunity Area
Figure D-20 and Table D-10 also show the distribution of RHNA sites across the TCAC opportunity areas. About 61 percent of all RHNA units are located in high and highest resource areas. Of the 1,527 lower income RHNA units, 59 percent are in the high/highest resource tracts and 75 percent in either high, highest, or moderate resource tracts. About 25 percent of lower income units are located in lower resource areas. These lower income units are in sites that assume moderate income units will also be built alongside them. In this manner, it is expected that mixed-income projects and neighborhoods will be built in the lower resource areas east of the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-29
Figure D-20: TCAC Opportunity Areas- City of Thousand Oaks Table D-10: RHNA Unit Distribution by TCAC Opportunity Area Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate
Income RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total RHNA
Units
High/Highest Resource 59.4% 68.6% 49.4% 61.2%
Moderate Resource 15.3% 11.6% 13.0% 14.1%
Low Resource 25.3% 19.9% 37.7% 24.7%
High Segregation & Poverty 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 1,527 614 154 2,295
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-30
Opportunity Indices
While the Federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule has been repealed, the data and mapping developed by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) can still be useful in informing communities about segregation in their jurisdiction and region, as well as disparities in access to opportunity. This section presents the HUD-developed index scores based on nationally available data sources to assess Thousand Oaks residents’ access to key opportunity assets in comparison to the County. Table D-11 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
• Low Poverty Index: The low poverty index captures poverty in a given neighborhood. The poverty rate is determined at the census tract level. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood.
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools. The higher the score, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. • Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
• Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. • Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
• Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. • Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – January 2022 D-31
Table D-11: Opportunity Indices by Race/Ethnicity- Ventura County and City of Thousand Oaks Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency
Index
Labor Market
Index
Transit
Index
Low Transp.

Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity
Index
Env. Health
Index
Ventura County
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 72.62 61.67 51.75 64.1 70.38 78.93 44.78 Black, Non-Hispanic 60.76 39.71 49.13 52.75 75.08 82.03 39.34 Hispanic 47.82 30.11 46.29 43.25 73.84 82.15 38.13
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 69.26 52.5 50.94 61.22 73.62 80.08 40.16 Native American, Non-Hispanic 59.7 48.02 47.55 52.92 70.89 80.82 44.05 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 64.14 58.07 53.76 53.93 70.25 81.19 46.6 Black, Non-Hispanic 50.45 45.88 23.14 46.3 79.07 84.78 38.52 Hispanic 38.6 37.91 23.8 45.04 75.16 83.64 37.83
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 60.63 50.36 40.17 44.36 75.36 80.57 40.53 Native American, Non-Hispanic 31.63 35.08 13.42 33.15 81.40 86.51 37.49 City of Thousand Oaks
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 81.97 77.71 74.24 71.38 77.58 70.64 43.55 Black, Non-Hispanic 76.66 76.63 72.06 71.11 79.36 73.22 43.20 Hispanic 68.09 71.61 66.64 71.54 81.48 77.55 42.26
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 80.08 80.66 76.26 70.34 77.81 69.95 43.84 Native American, Non-Hispanic 74.81 75.38 71.24 71.16 78.80 74.69 43.00 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 72.78 69.34 69.75 72.79 81.35 79.62 42.85 Black, Non-Hispanic 97.25 57.24 92.54 64.54 79.38 95.43 45.25 Hispanic 59.15 70.58 63.86 72.61 85.26 88.63 42.23
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 81.99 75.38 72.82 72.62 76 65.92 46.85 Native American, Non-Hispanic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note: American Community Survey Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. See page 28 for index score meanings. Table is comparing the total Ventura County and Thousand Oaks population, by race/ethnicity, to the County and City population living below the federal poverty line, also by race/ethnicity.

Source: AFFHT Data Table 12; Note 1: Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – January 2022 D-32
Education
Regional Trends
School proficiency scores are indicators of school system quality, with higher scores indicating higher school quality. In Ventura County, Whites and Asian residents have access to better schools (scores 62 and 52) compared to Black, Hispanic, and Native American residents. For residents living below the federal poverty line, scores were lower for all races but were still higher for White and Asian residents.

The HCD/TCAC education scores for the region show the distribution of education quality based on education outcomes (Figure D-21). Lower education scores are found along the coast in Ventura, Port Hueneme, Oxnard, and inland into the Santa Clara Valley. Higher education scores are prominent in Camarillo, Moorpark, and Thousand Oaks.

Figure D-21: TCAC Education Scores- Region
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-33
Local Trends
In the City of Thousand Oaks, school proficiency TCAC indices ranged from 72 to 81 and were lowest (72) for Hispanic residents. However, for all races, school proficiency scores were higher than the County overall (ranged from 30 to 62). Similar to the County, residents living below the poverty line had lower school index scores than the entire population, but Blacks had significantly lower scores (57) compared to White, Hispanic, and Asian residents (69, 71, and 75, respectively). The differences in scores among the races living in poverty indicate a dissimilar access to schools.

Greatschools.org is a non-profit organization that rates schools across the States and uses different data points from TCAC. The Great Schools Summary Rating calculation is based on four ratings: the Student Progress Rating or Academic Progress Rating, College Readiness Rating, Equity Rating, and Test Score Rating. Ratings at the lower end of the scale (1-4) signal that the school is “below average”, 5-6 indicate “average”, and 7-10 are “above average.” Figure D-22 shows that Thousand Oaks preK, elementary, middle, and high schools range from below to above average. Out of the 30 schools, only one continuation high school and four elementary schools scored in the “below average” range.

The TCAC’s Education Score map for the City on Figure D-23, shows census tracts at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23 scored the lowest, with the tracts east of them below Highway 101 ranking second lowest (this area is also considered low resource in the TCAC composite scores).

Census tracts outside of this concentrated area scored higher, with the highest scores in tracts further from Highway 101 and along the edges of the City.

Figure D-22: Great Schools Ratings
Thousand Oaks
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-34
Newbury Park
Westlake The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-35
Figure D-23: TCAC Education Score- Thousand Oaks
Transportation
Regional Trends
HUD’s opportunity indicators have two categories to describe transportation- transit index27 and low transportation cost28. In the County, transit index scores ranged from 46 to 51, with Hispanic residents scoring lower and White residents scoring highest. For residents living below the poverty line, the scores had a larger range from 33 for Native American residents to 53 for White residents.

Regardless of income, White residents had higher scores.

Low transportation cost scores had a small range from 70 to 75 across all races and were similar for residents living below the poverty line. Considering that a higher transit index score indicates a higher likelihood to use public transit and a higher “low transportation cost” indicates a lower cost of transportation, Ventura County’s entire population has similar access and likelihood of using public transit.
27 The transit index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person singleparent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. 28 The low transportation cost index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description:
a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-36
Local Trends
Transit index scores within the City of Thousand Oaks were higher than the County, with all races scoring around 71. For residents living below the poverty line, scores increases slightly for all races (except for Black residents) indicating higher likelihood to use public transit by residents living in poverty (except for Black residents). For low transportation cost indices, scores in the City of Thousand Oaks were higher than the County overall but did not differ between races. However, low transportation cost indices were slightly higher for residents living in poverty, ranging from 79 to 85, meaning they have lower cost of transportation.

AllTransit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the most recent data posted (2019), Thousand Oaks has an AllTransit Performance Score of 2.5 (out of 10). The summary score notes that the City has “very low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling a negligible number of people to take transit to work.” The map in Figure D-24 shows that block groups along Highway 101 have the highest scores (green) compared to tracts far from that major highway or even along Highway 23. Figure D-25 shows that the number of transit stops within ½ mile of is greatest in the block groups east of the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23. AllTransit also provides other metrics including:
• Transportation costs are about 21 percent of the income for block groups within ½ mile of transit
• About 67 percent of households and of the population live within ½ mile of transit, but zero percent are within ½ mile of high frequency transit
• 100 percent of LIHTC building and units are located within ½ mile of transit • 81 percent of jobs are within ½ mile of transit and 68 percent of workers live within ½ mile of transit, but less than two percent use public transit City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-37
Figure D-24: AllTransit Score- City of Thousand Oaks
Figure D-25: Transit Stops within ½ Mile – City of Thousand Oaks City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-38
Economic Development
Regional Trends
HUD’s opportunity indicators provide scores for labor market and jobs proximity. The labor market score is based on the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. Ventura County’s labor market scores ranged from 46 to 52, with Hispanic residents scoring lowest and White residents scoring highest. Scores for Ventura County residents living below the poverty line dropped notably for Black and Hispanic residents (from 40s to 20s) but more dramatically for Native American residents (48 to 13). HUD’s jobs proximity score quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region. County jobs proximity indices were in the high 70s and low 80s, and were highest for Hispanic and Black residents. The jobs proximity map in Figure D-26 shows the distribution of scores in the Ventura County region. The highest scores are in the eastern block groups of Ventura County, and along Highway 101 from Oxnard to Thousand Oaks.

The Santa Clara Valley and most of Simi Valley had the lowest jobs proximity scores.

The TCAC Economic Scores are a composite of jobs proximity as well as poverty, adult education, employment, and median home value characteristics. The map in Figure D-27 shows that the lowest economic scores are located in the Santa Clara Valley and in the cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme, as well as some census tracts in the City of Ventura. The highest economic scores are concentrated in the center and east of the region, in Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, and Simi Valley.

Figure D-26: Jobs Proximity Index- Region
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-39
Figure D-27: TCAC Economic Score- Region
Local Trends
The City of Thousand Oaks has higher labor market index scores (ranged from 66 to 76) than the County overall (46 to 52), indicating a higher labor force participation and human capital. However, within the City, Whites and Asians scored the highest (74 and 76, respectively) and Hispanics scored notably lower (66). HUD’s jobs proximity score quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region. Thousand Oaks scored lower (70 to 78) than the County overall (79 to 82). Jobs proximity scores for residents living below the federal poverty line were slightly higher than the population at large with scores ranging from 66 for Asian/Pacific Islander residents to 95 for Black residents. The map in Figure D-29 shows the jobs proximity indices by block group within the City.

The most block groups along Highway 101 scored the highest, with the block groups north of Janss Rd and in the southwestern portions of the City scoring the lowest.

The TCAC Economic score map in Figure D-29, incorporates jobs proximity as well as poverty, adult education, employment, and median home value characteristics of the area. Once other economic characteristics are incorporated, the map shows that census tracts north of the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23 scored the lowest, while tracts adjacent to Highway 101 in the western parts of the City also scored lower than the rest of the City’s tracts. These inverse trends (lower economic scores but higher jobs proximity indices) shows that while residents along Highway 101 are close to jobs, their economic outcomes are less positive than those for residents in the rest of the City.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-40
Figure D-28: Jobs Proximity Index – City of Thousand Oaks Figure D-29: TCAC Economic Score- City of Thousand Oaks City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-41
Environment
The TCAC Environmental Score is based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 scores and the updated 4.0 scores where available The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment.

Regional Trends
The TCAC Environmental scores were lowest south of California Highway 126 in the County, with the least positive environmental outcomes throughout coastal Ventura, Point Hueneme, Point Mugu and inland in Camarillo, Santa Paula, Fillmore, Simi Valley, and parts of Thousand Oaks (Figure D30).

Figure D-30: TCAC Environmental Score- Region
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-42
Local Trends
As shown in Figure D-30, most census tracts in the City of Thousand Oaks scored the lowest on the TCAC environmental scores (less than 0.5). Only a few tracts in the northwestern and southwestern parts of the City near the City boundaries scored above 0.5. However, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has released updated scores in February 2020 (CalEnviroScreen 4.0). The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores in Figure D-31 are based on percentiles and show that tracts north of Highway 101 in the west side of the City scored in the highest percentile (scored the worst).

Distribution of RHNA Units by CalEnviroScreen Scores
Based on the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores, only 13 percent of RHNA units are located in census tracts with the lowest percentile scores (Table D-12). Most RHNA units are distributed in census tracts with 21 to 30, 31 to 40, and 41 to 50 percentile scores. Lower income RHNA units also have this pattern, with 23 percent, 27 percent, and 31 percent of units located in tracts with 21 to 30, 31 to 40, and 41 to 50 percentile scores, respectively. About 74 percent of moderate income and 100 percent of above moderate income units are also located in tracts with higher CalEnviroScreen scores. The map in Figure D-31 shows that this is because most units in tracts adjacent to the intersection of Highway 23 and Highway 101 have higher/worse scores.

Figure D-31: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores- City of Thousand Oaks City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – January 2022 D-43
Table D-12: RHNA Unit Distribution by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate
Income RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total RHNA
Units
1 - 10% (Lowest Score) 9.5% 26.4% 0.0% 13.4%
11 - 20% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
21 - 30% 23.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.3%
31 - 40% 26.9% 42.2% 49.4% 32.5%
41 - 50% 30.9% 31.4% 50.6% 32.4%
51 - 60% 9.7% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4%
61 - 70% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
71 - 80% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
81 - 90% (Highest Score) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 1,527 614 154 2,295

5. Disproportionate Needs
The AFFH Rule Guidebook defines disproportionate housing needs as a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing needs when compared to the proportion of a member of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing the category of housing need in the applicable geographic area (24 C.F.R. § 5.152). The analysis is completed by assessing cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing.

The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Thousand Oaks. Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
• Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; • Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income; • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and • Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom).

According to CHAS data based on the 2013-2017 ACS (the most recent dataset available), Ventura County households experience housing problems at higher rates (43 percent) than Thousand Oaks households (38 percent). In both the County and City, renters are more likely to be affected by housing problems than owners.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-44
Cost Burden
Regional Trends
In Ventura County, approximately 39 percent of households experienced cost burdens (Table D-13).

Renters experience cost burdens at higher rates than owners (53 percent compared to 31 percent), regardless of race. Among renters, Black and Hispanic households experience the highest rates of cost burdens (65 percent and 58 percent). Cost-burdened owner households are concentrated in a few census tracts in Santa Paula, Port Hueneme, and Thousand Oaks (Figure D-32). Cost burdened renter households are concentrated in census tracts in Ventura, Oxnard, northern Thousand Oaks, and Simi Valley (Figure D-33).

Table D-13: Housing Problems and Cost Burden- Ventura County White Black Asian Am. Ind. Pac Isl. Hispanic Other All
With Housing Problem
Owner-Occupied 30.2% 34.3% 29.9% 22.4% 35.5% 42.8% 37.6% 33.2% Renter-Occupied 53.1% 67.0% 48.2% 51.7% 67.7% 67.8% 53.2% 59.3% All Households 37.0% 51.5% 34.8% 35.2% 51.6% 55.5% 46.0% 42.8% With Cost Burden
Owner-Occupied 29.5% 33.3% 27.6% 21.3% 32.3% 35.2% 33.6% 30.8% Renter-Occupied 50.8% 64.8% 37.0% 27.6% 41.9% 57.7% 50.4% 53.2% All Households 35.9% 49.8% 30.1% 24.1% 37.1% 46.6% 42.6% 39.0% Source: HUD CHAS, (2013-2017).

Figure D-32: Cost Burdened Owners (2019) - Region
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-45
Figure D-33: Cost Burdened Renters (2019)- Region
Housing problems and cost burdens can also affect special needs populations disproportionately.

Table D-14 shows that renter elderly and large households experience housing problems and cost burdens at higher rates than all renters, all households, and their owner counterparts.

Table D-14: Housing Problems, Elderly and Large Households, Ventura County Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied All
Elderly Large HH
HH
All
Owner
Elderly Large
HH
All
Renters
Any Housing Problem 32.8% 45.4% 33.2% 64.7% 77.6% 59.3% 42.8% Cost Burden > 30% 32.4% 28.9% 30.8% 61.8% 55.4% 53.2% 39.0% Source: HUD CHAS, (2013-2017).

Local Trends
Thousand Oaks households experience cost burdens (36.2 percent) at lower rates than the County (39 percent). As presented in Table D-15, renters also experience cost burdens at higher rates than owner households (48.7 percent and 30.8 percent, respectively) and Black and Hispanic households are affected by cost burdens at the highest rates like the County. While renters in both the County and City experience higher cost burden at higher rates than owners, Black renter-occupied households experience the highest rates of cost burdens (88.6 percent) among all races, tenures, and all households in the City.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-46
Table D-15: Housing Problems and Cost Burden- City of Thousand Oaks White Black Asian Am.

Ind.

Pac Isl. Hispanic Other All
With Housing Problem
Owner-Occupied 31.7% 49.6% 25.6% 0.0% 0.0% 38.5% 5.4% 31.6% Renter-Occupied 51.4% 85.7% 28.7% 0.0% 0.0% 61.6% 54.3% 51.6% All Households 36.9% 64.8% 26.5% 0.0% 0.0% 49.2% 36.0% 37.6% With Cost Burden
Owner-Occupied 31.4% 50.0% 23.2% 0.0% 0.0% 35.2% 5.4% 30.8% Renter-Occupied 48.7% 88.6% 21.5% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 50.0% 48.7% All Households 35.9% 66.3% 22.7% 0.0% 0.0% 46.8% 33.3% 36.2% Source: HUD CHAS, (2013-2017).

Cost burden rates have decreased in the past five years from 40 percent to 36 percent. For owners, the decrease has been from 35 percent of owner households experiencing cost burdens to 31 percent.

Figures D-34 and Figure D-35 show the concentration of cost burdened owners in 2014 and 2019.

Geographically, cost burdened owner households used to be concentrated in the eastern tracts of the City, east of Highway 23 in 2014. The census tracts at the intersection of Highway 23 and Highway 101 had over 80 percent of owner households experiencing cost burdens. By 2019, most census tracts in the City have either 20 to 40 percent of owner households experiencing cost burdens of 40 to 60 percent, and only one tract at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23 has over 80 percent cost burdened owner households.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-47
Figure D-34: Cost Burdened Owners (2014)- Thousand Oaks Figure D-35: Cost Burdened Owners (2019)- Thousand Oaks City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-48
The proportion of cost burdened renter households has also decreased between 2014 and 2019 from 53 percent to 49 percent and the distribution of these households has changed dramatically. In 2014, the northernmost census tracts had the highest concentration of cost burdened renter households, mostly west of Moorpark Road. In addition, most tracts throughout the center of the city had between 40 and 60 percent renter households experiencing cost burdens (Figure D-36). By 2019, the cost burdened renter households were concentrated in the southwestern tracts of the City (south of Highway 101), and most tracts along Highway 23. These tracts have over 60 percent of renter households experiencing cost burdens.

Figure D-36: Cost Burdened Renters (2014)- Thousand Oaks City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-49
Figure D-37: Cost Burdened Renters (2019)- Thousand Oaks Like in the County, renter elderly and large households are disproportionately affected by housing problems and cost burdens. While 52 percent of renter households in the City experience problems, 64 percent of elderly households and 53 percent of large renter households experience housing problems. Large renter households are experiencing overcrowding or substandard housing conditions given that while 53 percent of households experience housing problems, only 47 percent experience cost burdens (the gap of six percent represents households experiencing overcrowding or substandard conditions but not cost burdens).

Table D-16: Housing Problems, Elderly and Large Households, City of Thousand Oaks Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied All
Elderly Large HH
HH
All
Owner
Elderly Large
HH
All
Renters
Any Housing Problem 36.1% 35.3% 31.5% 63.7% 52.5% 51.7% 37.6% Cost Burden > 30% 36.3% 29.6% 30.9% 60.6% 47.0% 48.8% 36.2% Source: HUD CHAS, (2013-2017).

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-50
Distribution of RHNA Units by Cost Burdened Households
Most RHNA sites are located in tracts along Highway 101 and at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23. These census tracts have a variety of concentrations of cost burdened owner and cost burden renter households, though the highest concentrations of cost burdened owners and renters are located along Highway 101. Sites zoned for Mixed-Use (and feasible for lower income development) are located in tracts with high percentages of cost burdened households. According to Table D-17, 57 percent of all RHNA units are sited in tracts with over 40 percent cost-burdened homeowners in the City. Of the 1,527 lower income units, about 52 percent are also located in these tracts with the higher percentage of cost-burdened households.

Cost burdened renter households are more prevalent throughout the City’s census tracts and a higher percentage of renter households are cost burdened per tract (e.g. some tracts have up to 80 percent cost-burdened renter households). Table D-18 shows that RHNA units are distributed among tracts with cost-burdened households ranging from 40 to 80 percent with close to half of the units (43 percent) being in tracts with the higher range of cost-burdened renters. However, 64 percent of lower income RHNA units are located in census tracts with a lower concentration of cost-burdened renter households (40 to 60 percent).

Table D-17: RHNA Unit Distribution by Cost-Burdened Homeowner Households Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate Income
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total RHNA Units
< 20 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
20% - 40% 47.7% 37.9% 13.0% 42.8%
40% - 60% 26.9% 42.2% 49.4% 32.5%
60% - 80% 25.3% 19.9% 37.7% 24.7%
> 80% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 1,527 614 154 2,295
Table D-18: RHNA Unit Distribution by Cost-Burdened Renter Households Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate Income
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total RHNA Units
< 20 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
20% - 40% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
40% - 60% 63.6% 31.4% 100.0% 57.4%
60% - 80% 36.4% 68.6% 0.0% 42.6%
> 80% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 1,527 614 154 2,295
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-51
Overcrowded Households
Regional Trends
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen). According to the 2019 five-year ACS estimates, about six percent of households in the County are living in overcrowded conditions (Table D-19).

This is lower than the statewide average of 8.2 percent overcrowded households. Over 12 percent of renter households are living in overcrowded conditions, compared to only three percent of owner households. Overcrowded households in the region are concentrated in western Ventura, Oxnard, and Santa Clara Valley areas (Figure D-38).

Table D-19: Overcrowded Households- Ventura County
Overcrowded
(>1.0 persons per room)
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons per room)
Owner-Occupied 3.0% 0.6%
Renter Occupied 12.1% 4.3%
All HH 6.4% 2.0%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019. Table B25014.

Figure D-38: Overcrowded Households – Ventura County
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-52
Local Trends
Households in the City of Thousand Oaks experience overcrowded conditions at lower rates (2.5 percent) than the County (6.4 percent) and the state (8.2 percent). Like County households, renters are more likely to experience overcrowded conditions than owners (5.3 percent versus 1.4 percent, respectively). Within the City, overcrowded households are concentrated in two tracts of the city, the westernmost census tract along Highway 101 and the tract northwest of the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23 (Figure D-39). In these tracts, overcrowded households exceed the statewide average of 8.2 percent but is less than 12 percent.

Figure D-39: Overcrowded Households- City of Thousand Oaks City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-53
Distribution of RHNA Units by Overcrowded Households
The majority of census tracts in the City have less than 8.2 households living in overcrowded conditions. As shown in Table D-20, about 80 percent of all RHNA units are located in census tracts with the lowest concentration of overcrowded households. A similar percentage of the lower income RHNA units (75 percent) is located in tracts with a low concentration of overcrowded households.

Table D-20: RHNA Unit Distribution by Overcrowded Households Lower Income
RHNA
Moderate
Income RHNA
Above Moderate
Income RHNA
Total RHNA
Units
≤ 8.2 (Statewide Average) 74.9% 88.4% 87.0% 79.3%

8.2- 12% 25.1% 11.6% 13.0% 20.7%

12.01-15% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

15.01- 20% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
>20% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total Units 1,527 614 154 2,295
Substandard Conditions
Regional Trends
Housing that is 30 years or older is assumed to require some rehabilitation. Such features as electrical capacity, kitchen facilities, and roofs, usually need updating if no prior replacement work has occurred.

According to the 2020 Ventura County AI, nearly 60 percent of Ventura County’s housing stock was built before 1980 and only 12 percent of housing was built in the last 20 years. The Cities of Ojai, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, and Ventura have the oldest housing stock in the County.

Local Trends
Thousand Oaks is an older community with the majority of its housing stock being built between 1960 and 1989, the majority of which (33 percent) was constructed between 1970 and 1979 according to the 2015-2019 ACS estimates. As of 2019, about 77.5 percent (approximately 35,409 units) of the City’s housing stock is over 30 years, 24.5 percent is over 50 years and only 22.5 percent of housing units built after 1990. However, the City of Thousand Oaks estimates four percent of units over 30 years old are not code compliant and in need of rehabilitation. Figure D-40 shows the median year housing units were built within the City of Thousand Oaks. Older housing (red and orange) is found in the center of the City, especially at the intersection of Highway 23 and Highway 101 and in Newbury Park.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-54
Figure D-40: Median Year Structure Built – City of Thousand Oaks Displacement Risk
Regional Trends
UC Berkley’s Urban Displacement research project defines residential displacement as “the process by which a household is forced to move from its residence - or is prevented from moving into a neighborhood that was previously accessible to them because of conditions beyond their control.” As part of this project, the research has identified populations vulnerable to displacement (named “sensitive communities”) in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost.

They defined vulnerability based on the share of low income residents per tract and other criteria including: share of renters is above 40 percent, share of people of color is more than 50 percent, share of low income households are severely rent burdened, and proximity to displacement pressures.

Displacement pressures were defined based on median rent increases and rent gaps. Using this methodology, sensitive communities were identified through the cities of Ventura, Oxnard, and Thousand Oaks and most of the tracts in the Santa Clara Valley from Santa Paula to Piru (Figure D41).

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-55
Figure D-41: Sensitive Communities- Region
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-56
Local Trends
The vulnerable communities identified in the City of Thousand Oaks are located in census tracts along Highway 101 in the center of the City, especially adjacent to Highway 23 (Figure D-42). Most City’s affordable apartments are located in this area and owned by nonprofit developers to maintain as permanent affordable housing, reducing the risk of displacement of residents in these units.

Figure D-42: Sensitive Communities- City of Thousand Oaks Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Homelessness includes individuals or families who lack or are perceived to lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, or who have a primary nighttime residence in a shelter, on the street, in a vehicle, or in an enclosure or structure that is not authorized or fit for human habitation. Persons that do meet HUD’s definition of homelessness but are considered at-risk of homelessness include persons doubled up in housing or staying with family or friends, persons paying for their own motel room, and persons in institutions (jail, hospitals, etc.). Ventura County’s Continuum of Care understands that at-risk populations must also be included in discussions of homelessness and provided information on them in their 2020 Ventura County Homeless Count and Survey.

Regional Trends
There were 1,743 adults and children who were homeless during the 2020 Point-In-Time count according to the Ventura County Homeless Count and Survey. This number represents an increase of 74 persons or 4.4 percent when compared to the number of homeless persons who were counted in 2019, which was 1,669. The cities of Oxnard and Ventura account for nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of the 1,743 homeless persons(567 persons representing 32.5 percent and 531 persons representing

30.5 percent, respectively). The City of Simi Valley again had the third highest population of homeless City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-57
(162 persons representing 9.3%) followed by the City of Thousand Oaks (152 persons representing

8.7 percent). Geographically, persons with homelessness are mostly concentrated in the western cities of the County along the coast in Ventura and Oxnard and also in the east along the County’s border with Los Angeles County, in the cities of Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks (Figure D- 43).

Figure D- 43: Homeless PIT Counts by City- Ventura County Of the 1,743 persons counted in 2020, 1,265 or 73 percent, where unsheltered. These 1,265 persons were surveyed or observed to get more details about the homeless subpopulations. Based on the survey results, homelessness disproportionately affects adult males (70 percent), Hispanics (66 percent), and persons with disabilities (mental or physical, 23 percent and 27 percent, respectively) as well as those with chronic health conditions (34 percent). Persons over the age of 55 are also disproportionately affected by homelessness- 30 percent of unsheltered County population is over age 55 and 13 percent is over age 62. However, there appears to be an increasing trend in the number of transitional age-youth experiencing homelessness. In 2018, only 41 TAY were counted, compared to 93 and 98 in 2019 and 2020, respectively. While the 2020 PIT did not provide reason for homelessness, a lack of affordable housing and rising housing costs are contributing factors to cost burdens, overcrowding, and potentially homelessness.

The 2021 State of the Homelessness in Ventura County report identified that a Countywide market rate vacancy below three percent and high rents as housing challenges for the County. A recent Bloomberg article noted Ventura County as among communities seeing sharp increases in rental market from March 2020-March 2021. With a Fair Market Rent of $1,503, a person has to work 89 hours each week to afford a modest one bedroom rental home at FMR if making minimum wage City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-58
($13.00). Also, considering that the maximum Social Security Income (SSI) for an individual is $944 a month, individuals depended on this income are vulnerable to disproportionate housing needs like cost burdens and overcrowding to afford rent.

According to 2017 ACS data, 9.8 percent or approximately 84,000 of the 854,223 residents of the County were living below the poverty level. These persons are at risk of becoming homeless. Many of these persons can become homeless because of social structural issues such as increases in rent, loss of job, and rising health care costs. In addition, personal experiences such as domestic violence, physical disabilities, mental illness, and substance abuse can cause members of a low-income household or an entire household to become homeless. Often, one or more of these experiences factor into a household’s homeless experience as suggested above The Ventura County Continuum of Care homeless services system saw 2,836 persons including 2,070 single adults and 766 persons in families, including 577 children. A total of 2,200 referrals were made to programs including homeless prevention assistance, emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re-housing and permanent supportive housing. In all programs that work to connect persons with permanent housing (emergency shelter, transitional housing, and rapid re-housing) 36 percent of persons served were assisted with permanent housing. While the system continues to experience challenges in identifying affordable and available housing units for all persons that need them, persons in permanent housing programs (rapid re-housing and permanent housing) saw a greater than 95 percent success rate in retaining permanent housing. The 29 participating partner agencies and their various programs are successful in housing individuals and families and supporting those households in achieving housing stability when the right resources are available. According to the 2020 Ventura County Homeless Count Report, Ventura County 2-1-1 saw the highest request for housing assistance resulting in the top unmet need category in 2019. As Table D- 21 shows, Ventura County 2-1-1 received 1,136 calls requesting housing assistance from persons at risk of homelessness and 1,933 from persons experiencing homeless. The majority of calls came from Oxnard and Ventura for both at-risk and homeless persons.

Table D- 21: 2019 Calls to Ventura County 2-1-1
Jurisdiction At-risk Homeless
Camarillo 6.6% 4.8%
Fillmore 1.8% 0.7%
Moorpark 1.9% 1.4%
Ojai 1.4% 1.5%
Oxnard 37.6% 45.3%
Port Hueneme 3.7% 2.4%
Santa Paula 5.0% 2.4%
Simi Valley 10.5% 7.4%
Thousand Oaks 8.2% 6.3%
Ventura 22.1% 27.3%
Unincorporated 1.1% 0.4%
Total 1,136 1,933
Source: 2020 Ventura County Homeless County and Subpopulation Report City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-59
Another measure of the population experiencing homelessness comes from the County of Ventura Healthcare for the Homeless. They reported 6,763 persons enrolled that met the Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) definition of homeless (includes doubled up and at-risk persons) in 2020. Of this number, approximately 20 persons of persons were literally homeless (on the streets, emergency shelter or transitional housing). Ventura County Office of Education also tracks the number of homeless students through a broader definition of homelessness set by the federal Department of Education. Data collected in the 2020 school year showed 5,715 students were temporarily doubled-up or at-risk of homelessness, 934 or 16 percent of students met the HUD definition of homelessness. This data includes all public K-12 schools in Ventura County.

On March 11, 2020, the Ventura County Continuum of Care (CoC) Board approved the following recommendations to end homelessness in Ventura County. These recommendations are in alignment with the 2019 Ventura County Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness which was adopted in January 2019.

1. Achieve functional zero with homeless veterans in 2020;

2. Establish a countywide working group to bolster homelessness prevention efforts to prevent new episodes of homelessness;

3. Further the efforts to end homelessness among unsheltered youth including unaccompanied transitional-age-youth (18-24);

4. Encourage each jurisdiction to review their updated unsheltered homeless count and review local strategies to reduce unsheltered homelessness;

5. Create a regional flexible funding pool for housing and services;

6. Formalize a Ventura County Continuum of Care Morbidity/Mortality Prevention Initiative (MMPI) to focus on homeless persons languishing on the streets with 1) life-threatening illness; 2) terminal illness; and 3) persons who are aging with serious or terminal illness.

Local Trends
According to the 2020 County Point-in-Time Count, there were 152 persons experiencing homelessness in Thousand Oaks, 130 sheltered and 22 sheltered. Of the 130 sheltered persons counted, 108 were surveyed. Like the County trends, persons experiencing homelessness tended to be over the age of 55 (40 percent), and have from mental and physical disabilities as well as chronic health conditions (13 percent, 17 percent, and 28 percent of the surveyed population, respectively).

However, only 13 percent of the surveyed population identified as Hispanic/Latino, compared to 66 percent Countywide. The 2020 annual call data for Ventura County 2-1-1 included 226 homeless residents in Thousand Oaks and 117 at-risk of homeless households. In 2020 In 2020, the Thousand Oaks Police Department also conducted a homeless county and identified 242 individuals experiencing homelessness in the City of which 198 of have roots or ties to Thousand Oaks. The TOPD Homeless Count is conducted at various times of day over multiple days, and leverages resources of local service organizations. It captures a more holistic count of our residents experiencing homelessness. Due to COVID-19, the point in time count conducted in 2021 included only sheltered persons. In 2021, there were 119 sheltered persons in Thousand Oaks (compared to 22 in 2020), demonstrating increased capacity. However, 2021 year to date data from the Ventura County Continuum of Care Coordinated Entry System includes 366 homeless households and 155 at-risk households and in Thousand Oaks, higher than in 2020. The TOPD and PIT counts and County data indicate an upward trajectory over recent years. Moreover, recent data shows 36 percent of the City’s unhoused are experiencing homelessness for the first time.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-60
Due to housing shortages, extremely low vacancy rates, and the high living costs in the City, many families and individuals continue to experience housing insecurity, homelessness, and the risk of becoming homeless. As explained in the regional trends, housing has become scarcer for those with limited incomes as rents increase and earnings from employment and benefits have not kept pace with the cost of housing for people with limited incomes. According to HUD’s CHAS data, approximately 24 percent renters (3,360 households) in Thousand Oaks pay more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs. Another 13 percent of homeowners pay 50 percent or more on housing costs in the City. These households are severely cost-burdened and most vulnerable to becoming homeless. In other words, about 16 of Thousand Oaks renters and homeowners pay 50% or more on their housing costs.

Maintaining existing multi-family and single-family affordable housing units is one of the most important needs for the City. In addition, the City needs to support the local provision of essential public and social services primarily to the vulnerable populations, including those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, and to very low-income individuals and households. The number of persons seeking services increases annually, especially for elderly and the disabled. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic increased the need for funding to support low-income Thousand Oaks residents.

The City of Thousand Oaks is collaborating with the Ventura County Regional Continuum of Care Board to address homelessness in Thousand Oaks as part of a multi-jurisdictional approach to update the Plan to End Homelessness in Ventura County. The plan establishes core requirements, practices, and recommendations to end homelessness. This plan forms the development goals for the Strategic Plan. In addition, as part of the City’s goal to Work to End Homelessness in the County’s Consolidated Plan, the City gives operational grants to one local, non-profit agency providing critical homelessness public/social services to low-income persons annually.

6. Other Relevant Factors
Lending Practices
A key aspect of fair housing choice is equal access to credit for the purchase or improvement of a home, particularly in light of the recent lending/credit crisis. In the past, credit market distortions and other activities such as “redlining” were prevalent and prevented some groups from having equal access to credit. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977 and the subsequent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) were designed to improve access to credit for all members of the community and hold the lender industry responsible for community lending. Under HMDA, lenders are required to disclose information on the disposition of home loan applications and on the race or national origin, gender, and annual income of loan applicants. Table D-21 examines detailed 2018 HMDA data for the City of Thousand Oaks and the County.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-61
Table D-22: Loan Applications and Approvals by Race (2018) City of Thousand Oaks Ventura County
% Applicant
Pool
%
Population
% Approved % Applicant
Pool
%
Population
%
Approved
Non-Hispanic
White 61.5% 67.9% 66.7% 49.4% 45.8% 66.5%
Hispanic 6.2% 18.3% 57.8% 19.7% 42.4% 57.8%
Am Indian/
Alaska Native 0.4% 0.2% 51.7% 1.0% 0.3% 55.2%
Asian 7.3% 9.3% 66.6% 6.3% 7.1% 64.0%
Black/ African
American 1.1% 1.3% 68.6% 1.4% 1.6% 57.1%
Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander 0.4% 0.1% 60.6% 0.7% 0.2% 65.0%
Other 20.4% 3.0% 62.3% 20.7% 2.6% 57.8%
ALL 7,810 65.3% 34,007 63.1%
Sources: Lendingpatterns.com, Accessed 2020; American Community Survey, 2014-2018.

Regional Trends
In the County, non-Hispanic whites were slightly overrepresented in the applicant pool while Hispanic residents were underrepresented. Hispanics made up 42 percent of the County’s population in 2018 but only 20 percent of the applicants. Approval rates for County residents was 63 percent but ranged from 55 to 67 percent across races. Non-Hispanic white, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Asian applicants had the highest approval ratings while American Indian/Alaska natives had the lowest approval ratings. The 2020 Ventura County AI also found that as the share of minority residents within a community increased, the approval rate for loan applications decreased and the denial rate increased.

Local Trends
Like the County, Hispanic residents were underrepresented but unlike the County, non-Hispanic White applicants were also underrepresented in the applicant pool compared to the proportion of White residents in 2018. Approval rates in the City were slightly higher than the county (65 percent) and ranged from 52 to 69 and were also highest for Black, non-Hispanic Whites, and Asian. American Indian applicants had the lowest approval ratings in the City. In 2018, as minority population per tract increased, the approval rates decreased from 63 percent in tracts where minority population was less than 20 percent to 53 percent in tracts with a minority population between 60 and 80 percent.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-62
Publicly Assisted Housing
Housing Choice Vouchers
Trends related to housing choice vouchers (HCV) can show patterns of concentration and integration.

As of June 2021, 545 Thousand Oaks households (including approximately 246 households with disabilities, 138 senior households, and 161 family households) were receiving Housing Choice Vouchers. The map in Figure D-44 shows that HCV use is concentrated in the northern census tracts along Highway 101 but mostly between Moorpark Rd and Highway 23. The census tract northeast of the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23 also has a high concentration of HCV users, where 17 percent of renters in the tract were HCV recipients. This may be because these areas have the lowest “affordability index” or median gross rents (Figure D-45). Despite low rents, over 40 percent of renter households in these areas are considered cost-burdened (Figure D-34).

Figure D-44: HCV Concentration- City of Thousand Oaks
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-63
Figure D-45: Median Gross Rent/ Affordability Index - Thousand Oaks City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-64
Public Housing Buildings
In addition to HCV use being concentrated in the tract at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23, all public housing units are also located in the two census tracts east and west of Highway

23. These buildings are located in areas classified as low and moderate resources.

Figure D-46: Public Housing Buildings- Thousand Oaks
Social Vulnerability Index
A number of factors, including poverty, lack of personal vehicles, and crowded housing may weaken a community’s ability to prevent human suffering and financial loss in a disaster. These factors are known as social vulnerability. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) uses U.S. Census data to calculate the Social Vulnerability Index of every census tract. The CDC/ATSDR SVI ranks each tract on 15 social factors29 and assigns them an overall ranking. In the City of Thousand Oaks, the census tracts along Highway 101 and west of Highway 23 were classified as having higher vulnerability, with the tract northeast of the intersection of Highway 23 and Highway 101 scoring the highest.
29 The 15 social factors used are American Community Survey (ACS) 2014-2018 (Five-year) data for the following estimates: below poverty, unemployed, income, no high school diploma, aged 65 or older, ages 17 or younger, civilian with a disability, single-parent households. minority, aged 5 or older who speaks English “Less than Well, multi-unit structures, mobile homes, crowding, no vehicle, and living in group quarters.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-65
Figure D-47: Social Vulnerability Index - Thousand Oaks

7. Local Knowledge
Current Targeted Activities
The 2020-2024 Ventura County Regional Consolidated Plan lists the High Priority needs to be addressed the low-income residents needs for Thousand Oaks, includes:
• New Rental Housing
• Housing Support and Stability
• Homeownership Opportunities
• Rehabilitation & Preservation of Existing Housing Units • Assistance for Senior Residents
• Social Services
• Homelessness

The City partners on an on-going basis with the Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura, local non-profit affordable housing provider Many Mansions, Habitat for Humanity of Ventura County, and local non-profit low-income senior housing advocate Senior Alliance for Empowerment (SAFE). The City is committed to providing CDBG funds to these partners for improving, maintaining, and preserving the City supply of affordable rental and owner housing units. In recent years, the City budgeted for the CDBG rehabilitation activities with affordable rental City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-66
units and mainly senior owner-occupied mobile home units. City and CDBG investments benefitted low-income residents in the following census tract area:
• Census Tract 5802: Vallecito Senior Mobile Home Park
• Census Tract 5909: Ventu Park Villas Senior Mobile Home Park and Ventu Estates Senior Mobile Home Park.
• Census Tract 6500: Los Arboles Apartments (43 affordable units) • Census Tract 6800: Glen Oaks Senior Apartments (39 affordable units) and Shadow Hills Apartments (100 affordable units)
• Census Tract 6900: Richmond Terrace Apartments (26 affordable units including 13 units restricted to persons with disabilities, and/or formerly homeless persons) • Census Tract 7100: Bella Vista Apartments (72 affordable units) and Ranch Senior Mobile Home Park.
• Census Tract 7100: Thunderbird Oaks Senior Mobile Home Park, Human Services Center (Under One Roof) as services delivery point for Conejo Free Clinic, Conejo Valley Senior Concerns, Lutheran Social Services and other public services.

The Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura (AHA) operates 3 public housing complexes in the City of Thousand Oaks:
• Fiore Gardens - 50 Family Units, at 220-480 Hillcrest Dr (Census Tract 7000). • Florence Janss - 64 Senior Units, at 190-210 Brazil St (Census Tract 7000). • Leggett Court - 49 Family Units, at 1824-1884 Los Feliz Dr (Census Tract 7100).

The AHA provides three opportunities for residents to get involved in management:

1. Attending Resident Council or Resident Advisory meetings;

2. Being a member of the Resident Council or Resident Advisory Committee;

3. Becoming a Resident Commissioner on the AHA Board of Commissioners.

AHA strives to help families build self-confidence and self-sufficiency through programs and services that empower households to build a strong financial and educational foundation. Some AHA on-site programs include:
• Career Training and Employment Readiness
• Positive Parenting Classes
• Financial Empowerment Training
• After-School Tutoring Programs
• Summer Lunch Programs
• Internet Safety and Identity Protection
Community Context and Feedback
The City of Thousand Oaks was envisioned with a mix of 80 percent single-family residential and 20 percent multifamily as part of the 1972 Comprehensive Plan. This emphasized that in order to preserve the semi-rural character, development was encouraged along the low lying areas with focus of placing commercial and industrial uses in centers with easy access to and along the Highway 101 and Highway 23 corridors. High density residential was placed primarily at sites accessible and close City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-67
to major centers of activity and along the Ventura Freeway. As of January 2021, the City of Thousand Oaks has 48,196 housing units according to the California Department of Finance.

Community engagement is a critical part of the General Plan update process. The development of the sites inventory and draft Housing Element was a result of the Visioning and Alternatives Development phases of the community engagement for the General Plan. Past engagement activities included meetings with the General Plan Advisory Committee, in-person and interactive online mapping activities, and surveys. These activities led to the identification of areas in the City which should be preserved from change to the greatest extent feasible (areas of stability), and where new development could occur (focus areas of change). Additionally, ideas for the type of uses (e.g., single-family housing, multifamily housing, mixed-use, etc.) and characteristics of the built environment (e.g. more walkable areas) were identified through “Where Should Growth Go?” exercises with the GPAC and public and through an online survey. This input resulted in the development of three land use alternative maps, which were presented to the public. After the alternatives were reviewed through a series of community engagement activities, a preferred land use alternative was identified and endorsed by City Council and used to prepare the draft Housing Element.

As a result of the engagement and the endorsed Preferred Land Use alternative, the City has focused locating affordable housing in the vicinity of the Thousand Oaks Boulevard area because it provides the best opportunity to expand the diversity of housing stock and address fair housing needs with better access to resources, such as transit, retail goods, and services.

The City requested input regarding fair housing issues at the September 27, 2021 Planning Commission meeting for the Draft Housing Element. The City will continue to accept comments for this section as well as the entire draft after the submission to HCD for the initial 60-day review period until the official adoption of the Housing Element.

III. SITE INVENTORY
AB 686 requires a jurisdiction’s site inventory “…shall be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with…” its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The number of units, location and assumed affordability of identified sites throughout the community (i.e., lower, moderate, and above moderate income RHNA) relative to all components of the assessment of fair housing was integrated throughout the discussion in the fair housing assessment section.

In finding the sites suitable for the inventory, the City considered access to transit, services, grocery stores as well as the areas of change identified through the General Plan Update process as these areas will be targeted for development and investment. Based on these criteria, the majority of RHNA sites are located along Highway 101 and at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23. Most sites are zoned Mixed-Use according to the Endorsed Land Use Map endorsed by City Council as part of the City’s General Plan 2045 update. Most of these sites were identified as feasible based on the age of the structure, land to improvement value ratio, and local knowledge of the commercial and development trends in the City. Since most of the sites are expected to be re-developed from commercial uses, they are located along commercial corridors, close to transit and jobs.

Unfortunately, the same areas with access to transit, services, and suitable for redevelopment are also areas that were identified as having low to moderate resources, compared to the rest of the City’s tracts with High resources. As a result, most sites are located in tracts that are also identified as having City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-68
patterns of segregation (a concentration of minorities, especially Hispanics, persons with disabilities, LMI households, housing choice voucher use), lower access to opportunities, and disproportionate housing needs. While most RHNA units were sited in these areas, the income level assigned to sites considered the fair housing assessment such that lower and moderate income units were distributed in efforts to promote mixed-income development as well as access to lower income housing opportunities in areas with high resources. As explained earlier, while lower income sites appear to be concentrated in areas with disproportionate needs, these areas also have the best access to transit and services, which is essential for lower income persons and persons with special needs. These areas, also due to their disproportionate needs, are the focus of many of the City’s public improvement efforts.

The sections below discuss the guiding principles used in the selection of sites and distribution of RHNA units by income level. The City considered access to existing transit and services as well as planned improvements in low resources areas and potential private investment in these areas through redevelopment as a way to improve conditions in areas that have lower resources than the rest of the City (i.e. Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard). At the same time, the City is encouraging development of new affordable housing in high-resource areas both through the selection of sites as well as through meaningful actions in its Fair Housing Plan. Table 42 in the City’s Housing Plan shows the commensurate programs with place-based strategies for community revitalization and actions to promote new opportunities in higher opportunity areas, housing mobility, and protecting residents and businesses from displacement.

1. Prioritizing Access to Transit and Services
Figure D- 48 shows the RHNA sites in relation to access to regional transportation (LADOT DASH) and TCAC resource areas. High resource areas are located far from the City’s main transportation corridor and transportation center. The City’s Transportation Center is location at 265 South Rancho Road (just south of the 101) and is the hub for eastern Ventura County. The Center connects riders with the four local Thousand Oaks Transit rides as well as:
• Metrolink Commuter Shuttle to Moorpark, which stops by the Oaks Mall (a mixed-income RHNA site)
• Several VISTA bus lines
• Metro Line 161, which takes riders east with stops in Westlake Village, Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Woodland Hills, and Warner Center, and
• LADOT Commuter Express 422 and 423 bus lines operating as far as Downtown Los Angeles (shown in Figure D- 48)
The highest access to transit is found within the lower resource tract, where a quarter of the RHNA lower income sites are. The Commute Express has a route that travels across the lower resource tracts in the west and connects to the mixed-income sites at the Oaks Mall in the east of the City.

Of note is that only 25 percent of lower income sites are located in this lower resource tract. Lower income sites are also located in this tract but as mixed-income sites. Mixed-income developments provide for an opportunity for private investment a lower resource area. A significant share of lower income sites are also located at the intersection of Janss Rd and Moorpark Road (L, LL) and the Janss Site, in an high resource area. These low income sites can connect to the Transportation Center through the Thousand Oaks Transit System (Route 41 and 42, Figure D- 49).

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-69
The City of Thousand Oaks Transit also participates in providing Connect Intercity Dial-A Ride services as part of the East County Transit Alliance (ECTA), which operates as a shared-ride transportation service for seniors age 65 or older and ADA-certified individuals with the Thousand Oaks, Moorpark and Simi Valley with connections to other areas within Ventura County and LA County. These services are provided at a minimal cost by reservation on an individual or reoccurring need in order to provide simplified travel for those special needs groups.

Figure D- 48: Access to Transit
Figure D- 49: Thousand Oaks Transit Routes
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-70

2. Access to Goods and Services
Because of the higher transit connectivity across the lower resource tract, locating low income units within this corridor also improves access to good and services like grocery stores. Figure D- 50 shows the location of grocery stores across the City as well as stores within a 10 minute walk. Darker blue colors indicate access to more stores. As with transit analysis, areas with higher resources (away from the major transportation corridors and highways) also have lower access to grocery stores. The city allocated lower income sites in the low resource area which have access to at least one stone within 10 minutes. Lower income sites at Janss Rd and Moorpark Road also have a high access to grocery stores.

The Manna Conejo Valley Food Bank is a non-profit food distribution center that provides food assistance to families, seniors and disabled people vulnerable to food insecurity. The food bank and serves, on average, more than 1,400 people per month. The City has recently approved the relocation and expansion of their facilities at 96 North Oakview Drive situated in the lower resource area off Thousand Oaks Boulevard. The new food distribution center will have almost 5,000 square feet devoted to food storage & sorting, pantry, classroom and office space. Existing and future lower income residents in the area can benefit from this service.

Figure D- 50: Access to Grocery Stores

3. Improvements to Low Resource Areas
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-71
The City also found it appropriate to site lower income RHNA units in the low resource tract because many of its planned improvement projects are focused on this area. The following provides a partial list of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), underway or planned in the near future that benefit the low resource areas. As demonstrated, the City contributes significant resources towards citywide and neighborhood improvements. All projects include public noticing and outreach component. Note that some of these improvements are west of the 23/101 interchange but still serve the “greater” TOB neighborhood areas. There are numerous additional CIP Projects scheduled in the CIP Budget that are Citywide maintenance and improvements to streets, sidewalks, water, wastewater and various other City facilities that benefit the City as a whole. More detail on these projects, timing and all the planned projects can be found on the City website.

Under Construction
• CI 5308 Rancho Road Sidewalks-Improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety on Rancho Road between Haaland Drive and TOB including sidewalks, curb ramps, designated bike lanes with protected intersection movements on freeway ramps. • CI 5492 Conejo School Road and Willow Lane Sidewalk and Bike Lanes Project - Construct sidewalk, bike lanes and associated improvements. • CI 5426 Los Feliz Phase 2 Sidewalks - Construct sidewalk on Los Feliz between TOB and Conejo School Road
• MI2634 Conejo Creek Southwest Park – the Paige Lane park is a 14.1-acre neighborhood park that will include new playground fitness area, walking paths, shade structure restrooms and other amenities.

Future Projects (next 5-8 years)
• CI 5598 2024 Pavement Program- Pavement rehabilitation overlaying various arterial streets, including Thousand Oaks Blvd.
• CI 5398 TOB Ped Crossing at Live Oak and Oakview
• CI 5558 Crescent Way Storm Drain
• CI 5486 Thousand Oaks Blvd and Westlake Blvd Widening • MI 2582 CAP Master Plan - Re-examine the uses and activities at the Civic Arts Plaza (CAP) and make modifications to the building and site to encourage an active downtown area surrounding the CAP
• CI 5627 Thousand Oaks Blvd Phase 2 Streetscape Improvements – pedestrian friendly improvements on TOB from Zuniga Ridge to Conejo School Road including sidewalk curb extension, enhanced pedestrian crossings, specialty paving, additional street furnishings, enhanced plaza or entry for potential redevelopment project and new trees and enhanced landscaping
• CI 5653 TOB Landscape Improvements - design and construction of landscape and irrigation improvements within the center medians on TOB between Duesenburg Drive and the County line (east)
• CI 5501 Hampshire Road / US101 Interchange - Replace undercrossing structure, add new turn lanes and Class II bike lanes.
• CI 5592 Retroreflective Backplates for Traffic Signals City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-72
• CI 5301 – Westlake Blvd and Agoura Road Intersection Improvements - : Widen the right of-way by 10 feet at northeast corner of Agoura Road/Westlake Boulevard. Project will include add a second westbound left turn. Traffic signal improvements to be coordinated with Caltrans include new signal poles, wiring, detectors, retaining wall, and signing/striping modifications.
• CI 5607 Citywide Bus Shelter Enhancements – Installation of various bus shelter enhancements throughout the City, including new benches, solar lighting, solar powered signs, and other rider amenities. May include replacement of some shelters due to condition.
• Hillcrest Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes – improve Hillcrest Drive to add bike lanes and sidewalks between Lynn Road and Moorpark Road.

The City is also a partner with the Conejo Recreation and Parks District (CRPD) in the development and planning for parks. While CRPD maintains the Parks Master Plan and the park facilities, the City supports the development of parks through enforcing the collection of development fees (Quimby) prior to issuance of building permits and through monetary contributions. The following summarizes upcoming park projects in the low resource areas.

Table D- 23: Conejo Recreation and Parks District (CRPD) Parks Projects Project Description Park Site Date Estimated Cost
In progress
14 acre neighborhood park
development Conejo Creek Southwest Park Summer 2021 $4,250,000 Future
General park improvements Beyer Park 2021/2022 $100,000 Playground improvement Russell Park 2021/2022 $300,000
Structural improvements Crowley House
(El Parque De La Paz) 2021/2022 $100,000
The City also hopes to ameliorate the concentration of HCV use at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23 by increasing its outreach efforts through the Housing Rights Center to educate tenants and landlords on the State’s new Source of Income Protection (SB 329 and SB 222), defining public assistance including HCVs as legitimate source of income for housing. Mixed-income RHNA units are located at the Oaks Mall and other mixed-use sites along Highway 101, potentially diversifying the socioeconomic profile in the area. In addition, the City plans to prioritize the low and moderate resource areas in the implementation of the Active Transportation Plan 2019 and ADA Transition Plan 2019 during the housing element planning period. To mitigate the impact of economic displacement, the City will be evaluating its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and linkage fees to assist with adding more affordable housing opportunities in the area.

4. Low and Mixed Income Units in High Resource Areas
The City’s strategy in the distribution of RHNA units was three-fold: place lower income RHNA units in areas with access to transit, goods, and services, improve low resource areas, and place lower and mixed-income units in areas with high resources. The mixed-income, mixed-use strategy directly follows from the City’s Endorsed Land Use Map which created and Mixed-Use designation to City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-73
incentivize development of housing. Over half of the lower income units are located in areas with high and highest resources, while 20 percent of moderate income units are located in low resource areas. Mixed-Use sites, especially the Oaks Mall and its parking areas are also generally located in areas that do not have patterns of segregation and disproportionate needs and are high resource areas.

Likewise, the lower income units at the Janss Mall Site and in Sites L and LL at the intersection of Janss and Moorpark Rd are also in an area of high resources. The Mixed-Income site at the northernmost part of the City (M) are located in an area with the highest resources. It is expected that more housing opportunities for lower income residents will arise in these sites through its Mixed-Use density zoning through the General Plan update.

IV. SUMMARY OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES AND PRIORITIZATION

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Below is a summary of the fair housing issues and contributing factors to those issues. This summary only lists the possible contributing factors with the highest priority- those factors that most limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity and those that the City can address given its limited resources.

1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Issue #1: Insufficient fair housing testing and limited outreach capacity Testing is done through the case investigation process as shown in the flow chart in Figure D-1 and reported back to the County quarterly. There is also random testing throughout the County. The 2020 AI reported that testing was done in Thousand Oaks in 2018 and the test status closed with successful conciliation. The tenant was provided a reasonable accommodation for an extension of time to vacate.

The contract with HRC states that Quarterly Summary Reports (QSR) will discuss results of responsive and random audit testing, but no results were reported in the Q4 QSR between 2014 and 2020. One contributing factor for insufficient testing is the lack of monitoring. While the scope of work includes testing, the City does track this reporting in its Annual Progress Reports.

The 2020 Ventura County AI also identified limited fair housing testing of discriminatory practices in private rental and home sales markets. An average of ten fair housing tests have been conducted by HRC on an annual basis and, to a large extent, these tests were limited to housing discrimination based on race. Meanwhile, discrimination based on physical disability is most prevalent in the region and in Thousand Oaks. Little detailed information on the fair housing testing efforts of HRC has been provided. The 2020 AI recommended that the County expand the contracted scope of services for providing fair housing services with HRC to include expanded fair housing testing for discriminatory practices impacting both renters and homebuyers, and require routine reporting of activity by jurisdictions. A contributing factor for this is the combunating of lack of testing and lack of monitoring. As explained above, the City and provider need to ensure routine testing and reporting.

Community meetings for City business takes place in City Hall, City Libraries, and various Community Rooms of low income apartment complexes throughout the City, such as Many Mansions and the Housing Authority of the County of Ventura. Fair Housing Meetings are primarily held at the Thousand Oaks Public Library (or more recently online platforms due to COVID 19). In addition, City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-74
the City uses primarily print media for noticing. While there are existing outreach and education efforts, there needs to be targeted outreach for residents most vulnerable to discrimination (persons with disabilities, persons using HCV, lower income persons). One contributing factor may be the lack of awareness of the resources due to a lack of targeted outreach to this population. The City needs to ensure target population is aware of the resources available.

Contributing Factors
• Lack of fair housing testing
• Lack of monitoring
• Lack of targeted outreach meeting locations within the City for Fair Housing Workshops

2. Integration and Segregation
Issue #2: Segregated living patterns with a concentration of minorities and special needs groups in the census tracts at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23 and adjacent tracts west of Highway 23.

The tracts at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23 and west of Highway 23 were identified as having a concentrated minority population, population with disabilities, and low and moderate income persons. Tracts west of Highway 23 also had a high concentration of children in single-female headed households. Both of these areas also had a concentration of HCV users and had a high social vulnerability index.

Possible contributing factors to these patterns include the location and type of affordable housing.

Areas with a concentration of minorities and low and moderate income households also had the lowest median gross rents. This limits the access of persons with limited incomes to other areas in the City, those with higher resources (and higher rents). There needs to be more affordable housing both where these groups are concentrated and in other areas to allow more choice. These areas of concentration also need public and private investments to improve the conditions (as seen in the next section- they have limited access to opportunities/resources).

Contributing Factors
• Location and type of affordable housing- HCV use concentrated • Lack of private investment
• Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities

3. Access to Opportunities
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-75
Issue #3: Lower access to opportunities in the census tracts east and west of the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23 as well as tracts west of Highway 23.

TCAC composite scores identified the tracts adjacent to the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23 as lower and moderate resource. Despite being close to jobs, these tracts also had low economic outcomes. TCAC education scores were also low in the tracts at the intersection and the Skyline and Westlake Neighborhoods of the City. The tracts at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23 and west of Highway 23 also had the highest percentile (worst) CalEnviroScreen scores.

Based on the analysis, possible contributing factors for the disproportionate access to opportunities is the lack of local jobs for the lower income residents as evidenced by the inverse relationship between jobs proximity and economic scores. Despite being close to jobs, residents along the transportation corridors have low economic scores (a combination of adult education, employment, and median home value characteristics). Proximity to freeways and automobile pollutants in transportation corridors can also contribute to the negative environmental outcomes for tracts along the freeways, which scored the lowest. In addition, lower resource areas are identified as having low composite environmental, economic, and educational outcomes. As such, they need private and public investment to improve these areas.

Contributing Factors
• Lack of access to local jobs
• Location near environmental pollutants (freeways)
• Lack of private investment
• Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities

4. Disproportionate Needs
Issue #4: Communities with disproportionate housing needs, like cost burdens and overcrowding, are concentrated in census tracts along Highway 101 and Highway 23, especially at the intersection.

Following the patterns found for the other issues, residents west of Highway 23 and adjacent of the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 23 are more likely to experience housing problems. Cost burdened owner households are concentrated in the census tract east of the intersection while cost burdened renters are concentrated in the northernmost census tracts along Highway 23. Older housing is also found along Highway 23. The tracts west and south of the intersection are also identified as sensitive communities at risk of displacement.

The major contributing factors to cost burdens and overcrowding are shortage of affordable housing and rising rental prices. Persons and communities with disproportionate needs include low income persons and those at-risk of homelessness (persons with disabilities, the elderly, renters with cost burdens). The City has seen increasing trends of the population at-risk of homelessness that are experiencing housing needs based on calls to 2-1-1 Ventura and school enrollment data. Increasing rent prices may also lead to increased overcrowding. With older housing stock in areas already experiencing housing problems, maintaining exiting housing and creating more housing should be a focus.

Contributing Factors
• Increasing rental prices
• Age of housing stock
• The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes V. FAIR HOUSING PLAN
Government Code section 8899.50 requires “meaningful actions” well beyond combating discrimination to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities. The City’s meaningful actions are considered a part of the schedule of actions or programs required by Housing Element Law and are also included in the under Goal 5: Affirmatively further fair housing.

City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – October 2023 D-76
cdd:440-20/H:COMMON/pPlanning Commission/Agenda Packet/2023/2023-11-13/2045 Gen Plan Update/07B Gen Plan Update 2019-70760-GPA Attach 1E/pz (FILE ID:2019-70760-GPA, 2022-70558-EIR, 2018-70723-HSG) 1 Draft City of Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045
Draft General Plan 2045 Public Comments
The following matrix shows the public comments that were received after release of the Draft General Plan 2045 through the online comment form. Where comments warrant substantive changes to the context of the Plan, including narrative text, goals, policies, and errors of figures and graphics, these changes have been recorded and itemized in the accompanying Addenda and Errata document (Attachment #1 – Exhibit D).

First
Name Last Name Chapter/Section Public Comment Response

1. Heather Swanson Appendix A:

Environmental
Justice & Health
Background
Report
Proposing to build on a wetland estuary is contradictory to environmental justice. Any plan to build on Borchard Wetlands is in direct violation of the will of the people of this community. There is no such thing as Sensible Planning on an established wetland estuary except NOT to do it! I continue to strenuously object to the nonsensible efforts being put forth by our city to allow Borchard Wetlands to be developed. The proposal is absurd in it's entirety. The very purpose of a city government is to override such nonsensible efforts to develop by private parties. The city has the right to approve or deny and must deny based on obligatory responsibility to citizens and the environment in which we reside. Wetlands and estuaries are by nature sacred pieces of land that must remain undisturbed. The preemptive act of grating the land should be fined as is.

Comment
acknowledged

2. Nora Aidukas Appendix A:

Environmental
Justice & Health
Background
Report
There is a key finding that seems to be in error. Equating longevity with living a healthy life, even on average, may be inaccurate. One can live a long life with chronic, unhealthy conditions, such as obesity, dementia, and heart disease. This sentence under Key Findings should be re-written to be clearer. It is an important point, not an exercise in semantics. Although long life is something almost universally sought after, how we live at the end of our life is as or even more important. Thousand Oaks' population is aging, and how we age and die needs to be faced and addressed honestly, even in arcane appendices of municipal plans.

Comment
acknowledged

3. Joan Edwards Appendix B:

Emergency
Evacuation
Analysis
This general plan update should be voted on by the citizens of T.O. Comment acknowledged

4. karen wilburn Appendix B:

Emergency
Evacuation
Analysis
The baseline for Wendy is 15/30k. Page 321 discusses evacuation of the western part part of the city to 101 south & 2 north. I don't understand why Wendy doesn't show any increase in the traffic flow for this scenario. Wendy is a major access point to the 101 fwy & would certainly be used as an alternative to Borchard & Lynn to get to the 101.

A revised Safety
Element is
proposed – see
Attachment 5

5. Karen Martin Appendix B:

Emergency
Evacuation
Analysis
You need to do a better job of evaluating the evacuation routes. The congestion on Lynn is severely underestimated. After experiencing the fire coming from Newbury Park that closed down the 101 and paralyzed Lynn Road, ( I tried to evacuate and after an hour had made it one block and went back to my home) you need another plan. Otherwise we will be like those poor souls in Lahaina and dying in our cars. I don’t know the answer, but your estimation of traffic density is lacking and will cost lives in a true emergency.

A revised Safety
Element is
proposed – see
Attachment 5

6. Nora Aidukas Appendix B:

Emergency
Evacuation
Analysis
No one can forget the two wildfires that surrounded the city in 2018, and no one can assume that that could be the only such time that large areas in the city would be affected. Given as much, shouldn't there be sites within the city to serve as shelter-in-place refuges that VCFD could help identify? For example, during the Woolsey fire, many neighborhoods were evacuated and sheltered at the Thousand Oaks Library on Janss Road. However, fire personnel from outside the area and thus unfamiliar with the neighborhoods' vegetated hillsides, set backfires outside the fire department's perimeter line. That perimeter line was Erbes Road along the west side of the active wildfire, and the library was and is located well away from it, but in the chaos and confusion certain fire personnel chose to set fires on the Old Meadows hillsides across the street from the library where many people were sheltering. It seems to me that there are areas within the center of the city, i.e. schools, parks, and other appropriate areas, that could be designated as "sheltering" places where this error in judgment could not occur again.

Again, I would be able to provide this historical information to the city if I were not constrained by the Jotform box. I have photographs and emails with VCFD regarding this that I would be happy to share in hopes of helping to plan better for the next emergency.

A revised Safety
Element is
proposed – see
Attachment 5
ATTACHMENT #2
(To 11/13/2023 PC Report)
2 7. Wendy Zimmerman Appendix B:

Emergency
Evacuation
Analysis
I live in Newbury Park off of Wendy Drive close to the 101 Freeway. During the Hill Fire, because of 101 closures, I could not have evacuated from my home because Wendy Drive was completely gridlocked with diverted traffic and NO traffic control was sent to assist. The only way I can get to and from my home by any means - car bike or on foot - is via Wendy Drive from either Bella or Alice. There is no alternate access whatsoever. Many times I have lobbied for multi-use paths along the arroyo that runs across the width of Newbury Park. Such paths could provide emergency ingress and egress for either evacuating residents and/or bringing first responders in to save lives and property. The rest of the time, multi-use paths serve as valuable community resources for transportation and recreation. The City should not only develop this path which would provide about 1.5 miles of thoroughfare with only ONE street crossing (at Wendy) but also look into others in places where they can also serve these needs. Newbury Park is in the WORST 1% of places for emergency access in the state.

A revised Safety
Element is
proposed – see
Attachment 5

8. Nora Aidukas Chapter 1:

Introduction
This comment is a general comment about the heading, "What Makes Thousand Oaks Unique and Special?" I have already submitted a comment about how Open Space is inarguably what makes Thousand Oaks unique and special, but this comment is about commenting and the city's responses to those comments. There sometimes is an unfortunate occurrence when members of the public comment on an environmental document and that is that the comment is noted, but that it doesn't go to the sufficiency of the document, and therefore is accepted but ignored. Please, do not resort to this trick. It makes the whole process a mockery.

I hope that each comment is considered in good faith.

Thank you.

Comment
acknowledged

9. James Smith Chapter 1:

Introduction
The property is needed as it is for periodic flooding. The initial reason that land was left vacant was to provide for overflow off the arroyo when we have wet years. The city should not allow development of this property and jepordize the current Fox Meadow and Casa Coney residents. If development is allowed, it should provide adequate area for overflow. This would provide space for a park and also space for runoff water.

Comment
acknowledged

10. Nora Aidukas Chapter 1:

Introduction
This comment is about the sentence, "Arguably the most defining feature of Thousand Oaks is the ring of green open space that encompasses the City." While it may be said that the open spaces surrounding the city are its most defining feature, what is omitted in this statement are the designated open spaces that are within in the city. This is a problem because those open spaces are just as defining--and cherished--as the ones that have been preserved and protected by the city council and by initiative over the years. I suggest that this sentence be changed to, "Inarguably, the most defining feature of Thousand Oaks is its open space, which not only encompass the city, but also lay interspersed within it." Note that I suggest the less namby-pamby word inarguably; I believe that the majority of people in Thousand Oaks would strongly agree. (Agreement is something that is becoming more and more rare, and so we should embrace it when we can.) Not mentioning the designated open spaces that are within the city conveys a message that they could disappear and not be missed, and that they are somehow less defining.

Please refer to this map to see at a glance the acres of open spaces that are not at the edges of the city, but lie within it. https://conejo-openspace.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/11/natural-open-space-20210604_.pdf I happen to live adjacent to Old Meadows Open Space, which is managed by both COSCA and the City of Thousand Oaks. This open space is a large, undeveloped set of hills that is visually prominent from the 23 Freeway; moreover there are other large undeveloped hillsides that are equally visually prominent from the 101 Freeway, such as Fireworks Hill, Tarantula Hill, Glider Hill, and large parts of the North Ranch Open Space. My listing these areas is not intended to be a complete accounting of all the lands that are omitted when one refers to the "defining" open spaces in Thousand Oaks. Please don't treat these lands as anything less than the "ring of green" open spaces.

If further information or clarification regarding this comment is needed, please contact me.

Updated language
is proposed – see
addenda and errata

11. James Smith Chapter 2:

Process
Only the nEastern portion should be developed. All traffic must be routed to Borchard road. Alice and Denise streets are not meant for high traffic levels. It would not be fair to the current residents to increase the traffic on their streets. The entire Western portion should be designated as a walking park area within vehicular traffic allowed.. The park are must be able to support the amount of water designated by the watershed district required for flooding.

Comment
acknowledged

12. Wendy Zimmerman Chapter 2:

Process
The process for this plan has been very flawed since the beginning. Newbury Park has been treated like the ratty step child from the poor family on the wrong side of the tracks. The survey was so biased it was embarrassing and those of us in Newbury Park, about 30,000 residents had few satisfactory choices to pick from. This lopsided, insidious survey basically asking residents of all of TO if it was OK with them if we essentially dump all the growth and burdens on the people of Newbury Park erroneously identified at Rancho Conejo. Of course, many said yes because it left them unscathed and protected. I attended meetings on-line and in person. I wrote letters for meetings. You put Newbury Park in a deep hole and you are still treating Newbury Park unfairly.

Comment
acknowledged
3 13. Steve Schiedermayer Chapter 3:

Vision and
Guiding
Principles
I apologize - my comments bridge more than one section, but mostly Safety.

In August 2020, early in the General Plan process, I asked the GP team-"After having read through the original Survey responses, I’m surprised to find nothing involving ‘keeping crime low’ in the agenda for the upcoming Safety section (though crime was mentioned by residents multiple times in your Survey). I’m confident that the taxpaying residents are far more concerned about crime prevention that they are about flooding. I know this isn’t a politically correct topic but it is apparently on the minds of residents and something TO has been known for in the past and part of its desirability. Our plan should fairly represent all views.”
The response I received from the Sr. Planner in August 2020 about including a meaningful stance for the City of TO on Crime in the General Plan was met with a polite yet also thoroughly dismissive recap of how “crime trends are typically more short-term” and solved through the contract with the Sheriff’s Dept. and that the “GP is a long-range document”.

Fast forward to 2023, where the long-term trend ( now 9 years since Prop. 47 passed) of increased lawlessness and crime in our state has created a mess.

Crimes such as well-organized, multiple participant smash-and-grab crimes are now solidly present in TO. On the other side of the LA-Ventura border, commercial burglaries have risen 29% from 2019 to 2022. Retail thefts up 123% in the 7 months of 2022 vs. 2023. Read The Acorn Police Blotter (try Sept. 8 edition, for example) and see if you think we’re immune crime-wise. Even the Governor again noticed and authorized funding for the second time (also in Nov. 2021) to combat retail theft. Current laws make it challenging to prosecute many crimes and even deter criminals from repeating crimes. This has turned into a long-term trend and it’s here, not just LA or SF. It won’t be a short-term fix.

Having a community safe from crime is a key reason for the attractiveness of our city, cited in the Surveys. What family with young kids wants to live in a crime zone like parts of LA have become? Why should economically disadvantaged residents have to put up with property theft when they can least afford it? Should someone looking to start a business in TO have to worry about the recurring smash-and-grab crimes and the financial impact on their hard-earned investment as well as keeping employees safe and employed? ” I strongly believe that we, as a community, should make quite clear in the General Plan and going forward that TO as a “safe and healthy community” or a “safe, welcoming, family friendly atmosphere” it isn’t just about enhancing public safety with respect to environmental hazards. Our residents, their families and our businesses should be free from the threat of rampant crime.

The current draft of the General Plan, even in “Community Services and Facilities” or “Safety” sections has next-to-nothing about Crime or Crime Prevention despite mentions of “safe and healthy community” in “Guiding Principles” or “‘Vision” sections, etc. There’s nothing outlined in the 17 “Major Strategies," yet we did have room for “Expand the number and types of entertainment options” and “Enhance visual gateways to the City with iconic architecture”.

The only Crime-related to-do tasks appear to be on pg. 246 - “Crime Prevention through Environmental Design” which are desperately minimal in their impact (“Improve lighting and nighttime security…)
In the “Police Services” part of the “Safety” section, the focus is on response time (how long after the crime is reported do police show up) and the number of officers needed based solely on the population. These measures have little if anything to do with preventing Crime, deterring Crime, or adjusting to new types of crime.

In the GP, we have both state-required sections and non-required sections included. For example, there are several sections that have little to do with Land Use (“expand the number and diversity of jobs in biotech…”).

I suggest that we include a new emphasis throughout the GP focused on keeping our residents, families and businesses safe from criminal activity. From Mission/Vision levels statements through Major Strategies and down to Implementation, we should state that TO is not now nor will be remotely crime friendly — our residents come first. Include a revised, meaningful Public Safety section with Crime Prevention as a major component. To maintain a “highquality of life accessible to all”. Think of high crime areas in the state and the impact on our goal — “attract new jobs and businesses…to create a balanced and economically resilient economy”.

All of the great things in the General Plan will be worthless if people don’t feel safe.

I believe that especially lower income people should have a right to a safe city to live in. Similarly, I believe that all residents and businesses regardless of country of origin, ethnicity, age or family status, etc., should be able to count on TO to be a safe city. We want our businesses to be free from economic and job losses due to crime. A “safe and healthy” community means a crime-free community. This includes residents of all socio-economic and other demographic groups and includes both personal and property safety.

Why spend all the energy, funds and effort to keep the city a great place to live and defeat the overall goal by failing to keep it actually safe? Let’s address Crime robustly in the General Plan. It will serve residents well, all the way to 2045.

Comment
acknowledged

14. James Smith Chapter 3:

Vision and
Guiding
Principles
Under no circumstance shall 2 of more story buildings be built on the Western portion of this property. This is a residential neighborhood and building 3 or 4 stories would destroy the privacy and view of the current residents. 3 story buildings must only be allowed on the Eastern portion of this property with entrance and exit onto Borchard.

Comment
acknowledged

15. Mike Wells Chapter 3:

Vision and
Guiding
Principles
Thousand Oaks is a unique community, especially because of it's location and physical attributes. DO NOT let greedy developers, using terms like "affordable housing" control our future. I watched the San Fernando Valley deteriorate in my lifetime (because of diversity and development), I would not want it to happen here.

Comment
acknowledged
4 16. Nora Aidukas Chapter 3:

Vision and
Guiding
Principles
Is it too late to comment on the vision statement? Could it be improved by including sustainability in it somewhere? Why does it have "family-friendly" twice? Is "tight-knit" a dog-whistle for white? Given how there have been displays of Confederate Flags and the infamous 14 Words over the 101 making national news, could there be re-consideration of this sensitive and important statement? I can help edit the current vision statement, making it clearer and unambiguous. I re-wrote the County's vision statement during its General Plan update.

Comment
acknowledged

17. Angela Huffine Chapter 3:

Vision and
Guiding
Principles
“A recognition that the community will evolve over time and change is inevitable” Sounds as a contrived prediction by the council to tell citizens that they will accept this notion, regardless of what they think, believe, accept and not accept.“Major Strategies-we need more parks, not concrete buildings that fill the pockets of developers. #5 and #6- DOWNTOWN- ridiculous – why do we need BIG CITY “Downtown “ which only results in more vehicle and noise traffic ; ridiculous! #7- WE DON’T NEED MORE RESIDENTIAL CROWDED SPACE OR MORE PEOPLE/POLLUTION. Entertainment options should be more open untouched space. #8/#9- Np more concrete- no more residential or business building. As indicated previously, are there not enough FOR LEASE business signs up in this town?? #10, Thousand Oaks does not have to be a place where people work, turning it into a techno rat race; it’s a place where people want to leave their place of work far away and come to the sanctuary of a beautiful town. This is where it was at before these developers took over! #12, #13,#14- redundancy- You have already done all this and the result is exactly the picture away from the rat race and concrete jungle of high rise office buildings. Why? Comment
acknowledged

18. Janet
Miller
Wall Chapter 4: Land
Use
p. 62 states that reductions in parking requirements will be allowed and goes on to say "while working to minimize potential impacts on adjacent properties." It doesn't give the public any idea HOW you will work to minimize impacts from inadequate parking due to more cars from new housing or other uses. HOW will the community development department do that? It reads like doublespeak.

Comment
acknowledged

19. Nathan Hickling Chapter 4: Land
Use
I would like to write in support of the current draft of the general plan. The city is taking bold and important steps towards creating a walkable city with a diverse range of neighborhoods that will serve our diverse population. The vision of creating a more walkable city, with town centers and a truly walkable downtown, will make our city a more accessible and livable place to call home. Thank you to the city for advancing these plans. Please continue to prioritize pedestrian oriented developments and infill housing!
Comment
acknowledged

20. karen wilburn Chapter 4: Land
Use
I object to showing the existing land use on the Borchard parcel and other vacant lots as just vacant. It is misleading. the Borchard parcel is currently residential low and to not include this is deceptive. The current land use designation s/b shown for all vacant parcels so residents are aware of the change being proposed.

Comment
acknowledged

21. John Smith Chapter 4: Land
Use
do NOT allow for building of multi-family residences in this oakbrook shopping center. this is a quiet neighborhood shopping center for the already existing homes and multifamily housing available. increased traffic on erbes, arboles, 23 will damage current environment. this should stay as retail ONLY. groceries stores, gyms, coffee shops. We do NOT need more density. do NOT make this area like the San Fernando Valley! it is perfectly OK to leave as is. focus density near TO BLVD, Amgen, Janns Mall. NOT oakbrook/lang ranch! Comment
acknowledged

22. Daniel Korda Chapter 4: Land
Use
My name is (removed) and I represent the Owners of 2560 Teller Road, one of four buildings in the Arbors office park. Our Ownership is a locaI family real estate office with over 80 years of Southern California history and office and residential properties ranging from Camarillo to Chino Hills.

I would like to commend the Planning Department on their foresight in rezoning our location as mixed use. The current usage is office, a use which is in crisis. Although our tenant has a stable lease, they are currently using less than 50% of their space due to remote work; accordingly their commitment to the buildng is very much in jeopardy when their lease expires. This phenomenon is not limited to our building or even the office park; the entire East County office market is in free fall with sublease space flooding the market and little demand for new office space. Lenders are not lending even to the remaining office buildings, concerned about the inability to replace even paying, active Tenants. As such, many office buildings face a derelict and dismal future, destined to become empty hulks and magnets for vagrants and crime.

The Planning Department's proposal to rezone the office park will spare the Arbors from this fate, allowing for a healthy and vibrant land use. Additionally, the Arbors is perfectly situated for apartments/retail, adjacent to two freeway exits and next to existing retail. The location is also not presently served by housing; as such, the new land use will not inconvenience existing homeowners and will provide a new residential option minutes from Amgen and in the heart of an R&D jobs corridor. On behalf of ownership, we strongly endorse Goal LU 18.

Comment
acknowledged

23. Aaron Korda Chapter 4: Land
Use
My name is (removed) and I am among the Owners of 2560 Teller Road, one of four buildings in the Arbors office park. Our Ownership is a locaI family real estate office with over 80 years of Southern California history and office and residential properties ranging from Camarillo to Chino Hills.

I would like to commend the Planning Department on their foresight in rezoning our location as mixed use. The current usage is office, a use which is in crisis. Although our tenant has a stable lease, they are currently using less than 50% of their space due to remote work; accordingly their commitment to the budling is very much in jeopardy when their lease expires. This phenomenon is not limited to our building or even the office park; the entire East County office market is in free fall with sublease space flooding the market and little demand for new office space. Lenders are not lending even to the remaining office buildings, concerned about the inability to replace even paying, active Tenants. As such, many office buildings face a derelict and dismal future, destined to become empty hulks and magnets for vagrants and crime.

Comment
acknowledged
5 24. Erika Korda Chapter 4: Land
Use
My name is (removed) and I am among the Owners of 2560 Teller Road, one of four buildings in the Arbors office park. Our Ownership is a locaI family real estate office with over 80 years of Southern California history and office and residential properties ranging from Camarillo to Chino Hills.

I would like to commend the Planning Department on their foresight in rezoning our location as mixed use. The current usage is office, a use which is in crisis. Although our tenant has a stable lease, they are currently using less than 50% of their space due to remote work; accordingly their commitment to the buidling is very much in jeopardy when their lease expires. This phenomenon is not limited to our building or even the office park; the entire East County office market is in free fall with sublease space flooding the market and little demand for new office space. Lenders are not lending even to the remaining office buildings, concerned about the inability to replace even paying, active Tenants. As such, many office buildings face a derelict and dismal future, destined to become empty hulks and magnets for vagrants and crime.

Comment
acknowledged

25. Laurel Bloom Chapter 4: Land
Use
Our city was named after the beautiful oak trees that tie this city together and yet this plan is severely lacking in any reference to how these trees or any other natural landscape will be incorporated into the plan. The current use of planting only crepe myrtle sticks everywhere is insufficient, dated, ugly, inappropriate and needs to be changed.

The Live,Work,Play concept has also changed since covid. No one now wants to live in an 'anthill.' The trend is for young people to move back to the one family house.

Comment
acknowledged

26. Mary Freed Chapter 4: Land
Use
I am aware that the owner of the long vacant property between the 101 freeway & Borchard & Michael Rds now wants to develop this property. I recommend that only 1 & 2 story homes be allowed and retail buildings limited to 3 stories. Retail buildings on the freeway side of this property would make a bit of a buffer for homes. A park/ dog walk space next to the existing homes would also be good with appropriate landscaping. A small children's play ground in the farthest west next to Alice Rd. would be a nice addition for the whole neighborhood.

Changes are
proposed – see
addenda and errata

27. Robert Korda Chapter 4: Land
Use
My name is (removed) and I am among the owners of 2560 Teller Road, one of four buildings in the Arbors office park. Our Ownership is a locaI family real estate office with over 80 years of Southern California history and office and residential properties ranging from Camarillo to Chino Hills.

I would like to commend the Planning Department on their foresight in rezoning our location as mixed use. The current usage is office, a use which is in crisis. Although our tenant has a stable lease, they are currently using less than 50% of their space due to remote work; accordingly their commitment to the budling is very much in jeopardy when their lease expires. This phenomenon is not limited to our building or even the office park; the entire East County office market is in free fall with sublease space flooding the market and little demand for new office space. Lenders are not lending even to the remaining office buildings, concerned about the inability to replace even paying, active Tenants. As such, many office buildings face a derelict and dismal future, destined to become empty hulks and magnets for vagrants and crime.

Comment
acknowledged

28. Jack Nosco Chapter 4: Land
Use
It seems very suspect to redistrict the Borchard wetlands/riparian area to be out side of Newbury Park on the new proposed maps.

If you have ever hiked Boney Mountain after a rain, you could see what looks like a lake covering this area being considered for new development/zoning.

This seems to go against why it was established as a flood zone. Poor politics happening here.

Comment
acknowledged

29. Peter Vlaskovits Chapter 4: Land
Use
There should be mixed-use village centers in Newbury Park as well! Would be great to upzone the commercial neighborhood zoned properties in Newbury Park to a mixed-use village center. For example, the Trader Joe's shopping center on Borchard and Reino can be upzoned to a mixed-use village center in order to provide future residents of the area conveinent access to parks, stores, and Newbury Park High School.

Comment
acknowledged

30. Peter Vlaskovits Chapter 4: Land
Use
Abolish parking minimums as well! We have too much parking and too little housing. We're in a housing crisis, and we should be prioritizing housing for people, not storage for cars.

Comment
acknowledged

31. Carol McNutt Chapter 4: Land
Use
Regardless of the DU/AC assigned to a particular location I strongly feel that there be "sufficient OFF STREET parking" to accommodate the residents. Comment acknowledged

32. Bill Clark Chapter 4: Land
Use
The Draft General Plans vision as it relates to LU-18.1 and the diversification of Land Use of Ranch Conejo South is spot on. Comment acknowledged

33. Fernando Nocedal Chapter 4: Land
Use
The "Borchard Property" lacks one very important thing: a large artery to access it!! The propoerty is currently in a "landlock" situation. A massive development of "mixed use" housing/commercial buildings will generate a traffic nightmare for the adjacent single family neighborhood of Casa Conejo. This would be in detriment to the whole neighborhood. If a development was to be approved, it would need to REQUIRE a NEW access road to the property, meaning some new access path from 101 onto the Property. Otherwise, how would potential customers to the commerical businesses access them? Finding their way through a maze of narrow two-lane neighborhood roads?? This would make those commercial business unattractive. A proposed plan shows an 8 Changes are
proposed – see
addenda and errata
6 lane traffic pouring from the Property onto Alice Drive, which is a narrow 2 lane street!! This is called a bottleneck. Please analyze access paths and future traffic implications of any proposed development. Keeping the Property as single family land use seems to make more sense. Yes, there will be a traffic impact but not a traffic nightmare. Respectfully submitted.

34. karen wilburn Chapter 4: Land
Use
I am happy to see some Borchard specific requirements, however they do not go far enough in protecting the adjacent neighborhoods, which is one of the goals of the GP. I would like to see a maximum of 2 story buildings within the 200’ buffer of existing single-family neighborhoods. This would go a long way in alleviating objections by the local residents.

Changes are
proposed – see
addenda and errata

35. karen wilburn Chapter 4: Land
Use
The lot lines for homes 2471-2543 extend all the way to the Borchard parcel. The county has easements which extend over the flood channel to the Borchard lot line. To make the bike path connections the city will need to obtain easements from these homeowners for this purpose and this is not addressed in LU

18.4. Changes are
proposed – see
addenda and errata

36. karen wilburn Chapter 4: Land
Use
The park requirement is too broad. I would like to see specific details such as the size, will there be parking & types of equipment. I would also like to see this park placed in the western portion south of Denise Street. Fox Meadows & neighboring Casa Conejo have long been without a walkable park in their vicinity.

Comment
acknowledged

37. karen wilburn Chapter 4: Land
Use
The property owner presented a vision of businesses which would include bars, breweries and hotels on the eastern portion of the parcel. Access to these types of businesses should only be allowed from the Borchard side and not be directed through single family streets such as Michael, Alice and Denise.

Comment
acknowledged

38. Diana Kauffman Chapter 4: Land
Use
I hate to believe that city council is going to do what will make the most money and not consider what the people who live here want. There is already TOO MUCH TRAFFIC where it bottle necks here. Also the water restrictions and now electricity please THINK about what will be best and NOT WHAT WILL BRING

IN THE MOST MONEY
Comment
acknowledged

39. todd Slater Chapter 4: Land
Use
I live in the adjacent neighborhood, this property is of large concern to me as I live on one of the main enter/ exits to the boarchard property. Tall buildings and mixed use seems like the wrong idea for this property. Increased traffic and cars that is only accessible through single family tracks is unfair to the property owners who bought homes in quiet area of Newbury park. Mixed use complexes are not the future for Thousand Oaks. People want the city to stay the same as it’s been for 40 years. Mixed use complex’s give the feel of surrounding city’s that people choose TO over to not deal with those headaches.

Open space and quiet streets are what we need to fight for to keep the charm of our city.

Changes are
proposed – see
addenda and errata

40. William Utermohlen Chapter 4: Land
Use
Since it's decided, apparently, to go forward with development of a flood control mitigation zone, and my property is directly affected by said flood mitigation, is the city or the developer going to pay for the flood damage incurred by the surrounding properties when the flooding occurs? I pay flood insurance, but the maximum federal payout will no where near cover the million dollar price tags these properties now hold.

Since developer states entertainment venues are included, is the city going to limit sound producing events at these venues, and hours of operation? Or will we get to endure loud music and drunk people until 2 a.m.? I'm still waiting to see the environmental impact and traffic studies associated with this development farce.

Changes are
proposed – see
addenda and errata

41. Barbara Ballenger Chapter 4: Land
Use
Development of this property could result in unfavorable & dangerous traffic through the residential properties. There should be barriers (as on Michael) that prevents traffic cutting through from Borchard to Wendy.

Comment
acknowledged

42. Barbara Ballenger Chapter 4: Land
Use
The businesses that are proposed for the property should be accessed only from Borchard Road & not through the residential streets, in order to prevent business traffic through residential areas.

Comment
acknowledged

43. Barbara Ballenger Chapter 4: Land
Use
The requirement for the park should be more specific. For example: size of the park, type of recreational equipment & parking,if any. Also placement of the park. It should be near the existing homes, on the west side of the property so these residential areas will finally have access to a neighborhood park in walking distance.

Comment
acknowledged

44. Brenda Peterson Chapter 4: Land
Use
I appreciate that the city needs to conform to the state's directives re: housing and most agree that towns need to embrace change; however, I wish it had pushed back like other communities did.

As a result, these height limits and weaving of more commercial/retail areas throughout the city will destroy the very reason many people moved here - because this area was not like the SFV. The implementation of this plan has already started and many feel hopeless to stop it so they may not voice their opinions.

Comment
acknowledged

45. Peter Vlaskovits Chapter 4: Land
Use
We should allow multi family homes in single family neighborhoods. I suggest upzoning neighborhoods where appropriate such as near downtown Thousand Oaks to allow for multi-family homes
Comment
acknowledged

46. Fernando Nocedal Chapter 4: Land
Use
Regarding the Borchard Property:
any development of the mixed use flavor , like the various strip malls/residential developments in Newbury Park or T.O. have a major artery of influx for traffic. Examples: Newbury Park Ave; Hillcrest Avenue, 101 frontagea road, etc. This seems to be missing in the case of the Borchard property. Unless a major artery is built to connect the 101 Southbound Borchard off-ramp to the property of interest. Without such major artery, this whole complex is basically "landlocked" within a single family home residential area. And implementing the development will cause a horrendous traffic problem: this will impact all the residences in the neighborhood e.g. Casa Conejo, and will be a detriment and serious constraint to the development itself. If I am business person opening a business in the complex, I want to know that customers can reach the shop easily, not having to figure out a way to get to the shop by driving through a zig Comment
acknowledged
7 zag of residential community streets. Needless to say the residents in this area will be affected tremendoualy. No monder 92% of the polled NP residents oppose turning this piece of land into "mixed use". And if you do change it, a serious plan for influx to the development is needed. Thank you for your consideration!

47. Shane Swerdlow Chapter 4: Land
Use
On behalf of (removed) owner of the commercial property at 550 N. Moorpark Road (southeast corner of Moorpark and Wilbur Roads in the Moorpark Road/Janss Marketplace sub-area) in the City of Thousand Oaks (“City”) since 2005, we appreciate this opportunity to comment on the TO2045 Draft EIR.

Currently occupied by a bank, the existing building on GJS’ property recently sat vacant for a five-year period. This long vacancy period reflects a citywide trend where commercial properties at prime locations (such as the Moorpark Road/Janss Marketplace sub-area) remain vacant or underutilized. These vacancies are due to evolving economic conditions and rigid zoning regulations that make it very challenging to attract new tenants (especially the current lack of mixed-use zoning options and high vehicular parking requirements).

GJS supports the Mixed-Use land use designation proposed for their property, as well as TO2045 Goal LU-16, which envisions a mixed-use, walkable future for Moorpark Road, between Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Wilbur Road. GJS also supports TO2045 Land Use Policies 16.1 through 16.4, which propose a future Specific Plan overlay to implement this vision for this Moorpark Road segment, along with building heights up to 75 feet, pedestrian-oriented streetscape improvements, and reduced setback and parking requirements. This Moorpark Road segment is the perfect location for mixed-use development because it is a designated Transit Route (Draft EIR Figure 4.11-3) adjacent to multi-family neighborhoods and within walking distance of offices and major retail destinations, including Janss Marketplace, The Oaks, and Village at Moorpark. The Mixed-Use designation and Specific Plan effort would help achieve TO2045 and associated Climate & Environmental Action Plan (“CEAP”) goals to provide more housing opportunities in a manner that complements the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood, and to reduce climate change impacts and improve quality of life by contributing to a more walkable neighborhood where residents can live, work, shop, and play.

GJS shares the City’s goal to create a vibrant new vision for under-performing commercial areas. In addition to using mixed-use development as a revitalization tool, GJS urges the City to reevaluate and reduce vehicular parking requirements as zoning regulations are updated. GJS supports TO2045 Land Use Policies 3.7, 5.6, and 16.4 and Draft EIR Mitigation Measure TRA-1, all of which focus on allowing vehicular parking reductions, while also promoting alternative modes of transportation. GJS urges the City to go one step further and update Zoning Code policies to “right-size” vehicular parking regulations, especially throughout the increasingly walkable Moorpark Road/Janss Marketplace sub-area and Transit Route. Current City parking requirements exceed actual parking demand for many uses and are higher than what other cities require for these same uses. This is particularly true for restaurants and medical offices, which were the types of community-serving businesses that showed interest in GJS’ property during its five-year vacancy period, but ultimately passed because high parking requirements could not be achieved. Reevaluating and reducing vehicular parking requirements to align with actual demand would help revitalize commercial corridors by allowing underutilized properties to be repositioned for new uses. Doing this in conjunction with transportation demand management strategies that encourage alternative modes of transportation would also support TO2045 and CEAP goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and enhance quality of life.

As you advance with this important TO2045 initiative, we appreciate the consideration you are giving to feedback from commercial property owners who play a critical role in contributing to the Thousand Oaks economy and revitalizing the City’s commercial corridors. If you have any questions, please contact me
Sincerely,
Comment
acknowledged

48. Heather Swanson Chapter 4: Land
Use
For a city to allow a landowner to build an apartment complex on a wetland/estuary in the center of the city is absurd. Can I build add on a 3rd and 4th story to my house so I can make more money renting space on my property?? No. Of course not. Because I am not the only person who would be affected. I have something called NEIGHBORS!!! Likewise, the Borchard Wetland and Estuary that our city proposes to allow building upon is SURROUNDED by neighbors who will be affected!! We do not allow multi-story buildings in this part of tow for a REASON and this case is NO EXCEPTION!! We do not want, need, nor approve more building in this already adequately developed area. YOU ALL have a DUTY to maintain slow growth and High Rise apartment buildings pose an EXTREME VIOLATION to that obligation!! During school hours Borchard Road off-ramp is already impacted on the way to Sequoia. During the fires the gridlock was impenetrable causing a SERIOUS SAFETY HAZARD! If someone is negligent enough to build on an estuary and flood plain which was converted to a lake during heavy any rains in recent years then it will need to comply with our height standards which is a TWO story MAXIMUM!!!!!!! In addition LARGE boundaries around the property would be REQUIRED to MINIMIZE noise and traffic pollution. Please be advised, you are failing to uphold your responsibility to our city by trying to approve stack n pack apartments in the center of our sacred city that we all worked so hard to create and maintain.

Comment
acknowledged
8 49. Maria Shaw Chapter 4: Land
Use
This park requirement does not provide the specific details that should be available, such as; size, parking requirements if parking will be available and types of equipment for the property.

I have reviewed some Borchard requirements however, more detail needs to be provided for the neighborhoods that will be directly impacted which should be a goal of the General Plan.

There are many major areas of concern: Traffic, power, water, schools just to name a few (this is not a conclusive list).

The plan provided by the property owner showed businesses including bars, breweries and hotels...Personally I think TO has sufficient bars and breweries to satisfy the general population. What would be more conducive to the area would be some business that catered to the youth of Newbury Park.

Also not enough information was provided regarding a plan for Arroyo Creek to be brought out of the 100 year flood plain this is important information that the surrounding neighborhoods needs to know including any negative impact on those areas (within and outside of the flood plain).

I would hope that Council will seriously consider the concerns of the residents and how this will impact our areas of concern that need to be addressed should this project go forth.

Comment
acknowledged

50. Jeff Harris Chapter 4: Land
Use
I am in great opposition to the building of higher density or multi unit residential buildings in our city. This will bring in larger numbers of residents - adding to traffic, pollution and noise.

Comment
acknowledged

51. Catherine Hoffman Chapter 4: Land
Use
Please do not change the Borchard Land Use designation. We love this area the way it is. It's so nice to look out from the freeway and see how the land changes seasons. If you let billionaire developers change this land, it will change the character of Newbury Park forever. Please keep it the way it's been for the last 50 years.

Comment
acknowledged

52. Catherine Hoffman Chapter 4: Land
Use
Mitigation for areas within the floodplain of Arroyo Creek is not broad enough. If your intention is that it needs to be brought out of the 100 yr flood plain, then I think you need to state this. It should also include requirements that it will not have any negative impact on adjacent areas that are currently outside of the flood plain.

Changes are
proposed – see
addenda and errata

53. Catherine Hoffman Chapter 4: Land
Use
Traffic from this project is a major area of concern. There needs to be restrictions that would require street construction in such a way that would prohibit this from becoming a direct means of travel between Borchard & Wendy. This would put an unfair burden on the 2-lane local streets on the Wendy side. For instance something like the barrier on Michael that prevents travel between Borchard & Wendy.

Changes are
proposed – see
addenda and errata

54. Catherine Hoffman Chapter 4: Land
Use
The Plan does not go far enough in protecting the adjacent neighborhoods, which is one of the goals of the GP. I would like to see a maximum of 2 story buildings within the 200’ buffer of existing single-family neighborhoods. This would go a long way in alleviating objections by the local residents.

Changes are
proposed – see
addenda and errata

55. Catherine Hoffman Chapter 4: Land
Use
The park requirement is too broad. I would like to see specific details such as the size, will there be parking & types of equipment. Comment acknowledged

56. Catherine Hoffman Chapter 4: Land
Use
Noise from increased freeway traffic is a concern. I would like to see plans to reduce the noise to the surrounding neighbors such as a sound wall from the top of the Conejo Grade to Borchard. At certain times, the freeway noise for houses along the west side of Freeway 101 is incredibly loud. Increasing traffic during the evenings and weekends will make the noise from the freeway non-stop. A sound wall should have been constructed along this stretch of the freeway a long time ago. Now this new project will just increase the noise.

Comment
acknowledged

57. Nicole Collazo, Air
Quality
Specialist,
VCAPCD
Planning
Division
Chapter 4: Land
Use
Goal LU-4.4.4 requires mitigation to reduce toxic exposure that contribute to cancer to sensitive receptors for new residential land uses, such as HEPA and HVAC systems. However, in Goal C-10.10.6, such mitigation is only required if a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) is done AND the results exceed the state thresholds for toxicological impacts, which would imply it is not a design requirement, as Goal LU-4.4.4 suggests.

Comment
acknowledged

58. Lorrie Dingman Chapter 4: Land
Use
This property is necessary for periodic FLOODING! You are jumping past this critical issue and staring with WHAT to build there and not IF you should build there. We recently had one large storm and in a matter of hours the arroyo was nearly to the top. It is unnerving that no one seems to be taking this seriously. There MUST be ample area that is not built on in order to accommodate the overflowing of the arroyo in certain years with large storms. The amount of land that the watershed district has deemed necessary for holding flood water should be set aside as a park without structures.

Comment
acknowledged

59. Lorrie Dingman Chapter 4: Land
Use
If ANY development is ever done on this property, the current residents must be protected and there must be a buffer zone to protect the integrity, privacy, and property values of these homeowners.
-The property should be essentially divided into two areas, East and West and there should be a sound wall blocking the commercial portion from the existing neighborhoods. Foot traffic and bicycles should be able to travel through, however NO vehicles shall travel from the East Portion to the West Portion and vice versa.
- This will prevent vehicles from using this as a thoroughfare through what has been a quiet residential neighborhood. It would however allow biking and walking joining one area to the other.
-The West Portion must be a Walking/Riding ONLY Park and would be a welcome area for families in the neighborhood. It must specify there will be no parling lot and no vehicle traffic. This area should be where the water retention would occur for flooding. This western area would be L shaped and should Changes are
proposed – see
addenda and errata
9 encompass the property beginning 200ft behind the homes on Nicole and will also include the "Pan Handle" portion which is the narrow strip behind the houses between Denise Street and the arroyo.
-The houses on Nicole Drive should have a minimum of a 200-foot buffer between existing homes and any new structure and it must be specified that the closest structure that is built to any of the existing homes must be specified to be only 2 story buildings. -If ANY 3-story building is allowed is must be designated that it must be on the easternmost portion of the property nearest the commercial areas already in place.
-There should be a maximum of ONE 3-story building, if any. -The property owner has stated that he intends and has the rights to purchase the adjacent property with the commercial buildings. (Stella's, Baskin Robbins etc)
-Therefore, it must be required that this area be reconfigured and all traffic from this new development must flow directly onto Borchard. -Wendy Drive is a RESIDENTIAL road that is ONE lane in each direction. It is already at maximum capacity and there is No possibility of widening the road. -- There shall be NO additional traffic allowed to egress onto Wendy via Denise Street or Alice Drive. -Wendy Drive cannot be widened or reconfigured and additional traffic of this magnitude cannot be supported on this road.

Bottom line: We still do not believe that this parcel should be changed on this version of the GP update, however the concept above, if made specific enough would allow the developer to make a useful area at the eastern portion while protecting the current property owners in the western portion from the destruction of their way of life, property values and will keep their neighborhoods safer by not allowing masses of additional traffic on residential streets with children.

We have been asked by councilmembers what a Win-Win might look like... this version above allows a higher density of building on the eastern portion only, allows for water retention and a neighborhood park in the Western Portion and helps retain the quality of life and safety of the existing property owners.

60. Lorrie Dingman Chapter 4: Land
Use
I have submitted several thoughts on specifics for the GP regarding this property. **However, I will continue to state that this property is too encumbered and there are too many unknowns to put this property on this year's GP update.

The most sensible plan is for this property to remain as is until more is known about how the property owner will be able to accommodate the needs of the flood easement. After such a time, a Site Specific Plan can be approved and the GP can be amended.

This is a common occurrence and this is the proper way to handle this complex property.

With all of the laws being handed down by Sacramento, don't tie the hands of the city of thousand oaks by setting the parameters for the building of something that cannot be conceptualized at all because of the current constraints.

Give the City of TO the most legally defensible position so that the property owner does not have the upper hand and the people of the city will have a say in the extent of what is built. This property owner is proven to be very litigious, the city needs to protect itself and the other property owners in Newbury Park from this developer.

Comment
acknowledged

61. Lorrie Dingman Chapter 4: Land
Use
I have already stated at length in another comment that the pan handle portion on the strip of land behind Denise street that joins Alice Drive needs to be designated as a walking park with no vehicle traffic and this is where water retention can be held. ** However, it must be noted that in NO event shall there be ANY 3-story buildings on the above mentioned western portion of the property.

This is a residential neighborhood and there is no way that any 3-story building should be allowed to destroy the view and privacy of the current residents. - The GP must specify that no 4-story buildings of any kind shall be allowed on this property. - If ANY 3-story buildings are allowed it must be specified on the GP that they must be located on the eastern portion of the property with traffic flowing onto Borchard.

Changes are
proposed – see
addenda and errata

62. Rob de Geus Chapter 4: Land
Use
The City notes that most of the proposed land use designations in proximity to the Westlake Village boundary are reflective of existing development patterns and densities. However, the area along the city boundary north of the 101 Ventura Freeway and south of Thousand Oaks Boulevard is designated “Industrial Flex” in the General Plan with a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0 and a maximum height of 75 feet. This intensity of development is substantially higher than existing development in this area, and the General Plan notes that this land use designation “includes the highest intensity job areas” in Thousand Oaks. The City is concerned about allowing this intensity of development in this area. The immediately adjacent business park area in Westlake Village, which is regulated by the North Business Park Specific Plan adopted in 2020, allows a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 0.5 and a maximum height of 55 feet. In adopting the Specific Plan in 2020, the Westlake Village City Council determined that taller and higher intensity development was not appropriate for this area. The City also notes that the only other area of Thousand Oaks with this designation is the core industrial and biotech area along Rancho Conejo Boulevard north of Hillcrest Drive. The City respectfully requests that Thousand Oaks reconsider allowing this intensity of development in this area, especially in proximity to the city boundary. This may include changing the proposed land use designation for this area, decreasing the maximum allowed building height and Floor Area Ratio in the Industrial Flex land use designation, or adding a policy related to limiting building height and intensity in proximity to the city boundary.

Comment
acknowledged

63. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 4: Land
Use
Support high-quality and visually interesting design and construction of all buildings throughout the City- 8.8 Design of Mixed Use. We respectfully request that notwithstanding this general policy, LU-15 concerning The Oaks make clear that any new requirements will not make existing commercial structures Comment
acknowledged
10 non-conforming and, as indicated above, we respectfully request that the existing commercial land use designation and requirements be retained for commercial development of The Oaks. (Chapter 4, Land Use P. 66)

64. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 4: Land
Use
Chapter 4, Land Use P. 61

1.5, Mixed Use Development - We appreciate and support the draft General Plan Update’s stated goal of increasing economic vibrancy through mixed use development, and respectfully request that the City clarify and modify requirements as suggested in our comments to ensure that this economic goal can be met.

1.8, Entitlement Process - We appreciate and support the draft General Plan Update’s stated goals of business friendly streamlining of the entitlement process, and encourage the General Plan to make such processes clearer in subsequent goals and policies, and carry through the business friendly approach in subsequent provisions. This is critical to the stated Goal in LU-1 of ensuring the long term fiscal viability of Thousand Oaks.

Comment
acknowledged

65. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 4: Land
Use
The FAR, density and height restrictions (which for The Oaks in Goal LU-15 are specified as 50 feet but 75 feet allowed with Specific Plan) are all individually overly restrictive both for commercial development, for which the envelope of development is substantial reduced as compared with existing General Plan designations, and for future residential development at The Oaks and will restrain development.

In addition, consistent with recently enacted state laws requiring that development of housing be facilitated rather than restricted, we respectfully request that the residential density be allowed to be calculated utilizing the entirety of the development area at The Oaks and that the General Plan Update allow clustering of development and the right to transfer density across parcels at The Oaks so that residential building density can be clustered in certain areas of the site and increased above the stated density limits in those areas where it is clustered. (Chapter 4, Land Use LU-15, p.74.

Comment
acknowledged

66. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 4: Land
Use
Mixed Use Designation - Chapter 4, Land Use P. 55
The draft General Plan Update lists residential density and FAR generally in this Section. However, it is unclear if the 1.0 FAR, 20-30 du/ac and 50 foot height maximum are suggestions, maximums, or restrictions because the general language in this section states that the density and FAR may be applied independently as long as the total building form is consistent with zoning regulations. As zoning regulations can restrict but not expand on general plan limitations, the calculation of FAR and densities per acre should clearly articulate the applicable restrictions and provide upward flexibility where that is intended. It is also unclear if this general language applies at The Oaks as it is not incorporated at LU-15, even though the FAR and other limits are stated there. Please see our additional comments at LU-15 below regarding FAR, density and height restrictions.

Comment
acknowledged

67. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 4: Land
Use
Redevelop underperforming commercial areas to support a thriving local economy.

We support the above goal and encourage the City to implement it in connection with mixed use development of commercial areas so that, as stated in policy 7.1, areas such as The Oaks can be high performing commercial areas that also accommodate multi-family residential uses. (Chapter 4, Land Use P. 65) Comment
acknowledged

68. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 4: Land
Use
As noted under the Commercial Designations comments, The Oaks currently is a commercial shopping center that contains, among other commercial uses, large format retailers consistent with the proposed Commercial Regional designation. The existing designation at The Oaks allows for big box retail, 2.0 FAR, and maximum 75 foot building height without restriction (for both commercial and residential uses). We respectfully request that these FAR and height standards be retained, that big box retail continue to be an allowed use at and that stand-alone commercial uses continue to be permitted at The Oaks. We further request that for The Oaks, the definition of mixed uses include all uses currently applicable under Commercial land use designation and C-4 zoning both to avoid creation of non-conforming uses and to maintain our investment backed expectations in the property. (Chapter 4, Land Use (Chapter 4, Land Use LU-15, p.74)
Comment
acknowledged

69. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 4: Land
Use

15.9 Building Heights.

The maximum building height for The Oaks under the current General Plan is 75 feet.

The draft General Plan Update reduces that height to 50 feet unless a specific plan is adopted.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that the phrase “as specified in a specific plan” be stricken and that the 75 foot height limit be retained. We also renew our concerns stated in our previous comment on 15.1 - Site Planning requesting removal of the specific or master plan requirement.

Comment
acknowledged

70. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 4: Land
Use
Comment below also applies to LU-4, in addition to LU-3 (Chapter 4, Land Use p. 62) - Support the creation of safe, affordable, and sanitary housing for all ages, income levels, and abilities, Goals 4.3 and 4.4 Air Quality of Homes.

We support the above stated goal. However, these goals contain as land use requirements design mitigation for any residential units that cannot be sited at least 500 feet from high volume roadways.

The required mitigation includes, without limitation, designing each unit with individual heating, ventilation, HVAC systems to allow adequate ventilation even with windows closed, using High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) air filters in the HVAC, use of sound walls, berms, and vegetation as physical barriers.

The draft General Plan Update designates high volume roadways such as the Thousand Oaks Blvd. corridor, as primary locations to develop needed high density residential units in the City, including low and moderate income housing. Likewise, the Housing Element location for housing at The Oaks is less than 500 feet from the 101 Freeway. The requirements in Goals 4.3 and 4.4 either are likely not feasible and/or can add significantly to the cost of construction.

Adding to the cost of housing construction contradicts the City’s goal in LU-3.2 of providing housing for different incomes including low income families.

Moreover, imposing such construction requirements and the added expense conflicts with housing statutes that (1) prohibit conditioning approvals in a Comment
acknowledged
11 manner that renders the housing development infeasible for low and moderate income housing; and (2) prohibits imposing standards that would interfere with the economic feasibility of producing housing at the lowest possible cost. We respectfully suggest that these requirements be revised so that they are made applicable only where the need for those types of improvements is determined to be necessary and feasible to reduce impacts expressly identified in the General Plan Update EIR. In addition, since HRAs are required (see Air Quality Goal C-10, 10.5), the HRA and not the General Plan should govern the requirements needed to reduce health risk impacts. This would allow both for environmental protection and flexibility for the City to impose any health related requirements that may be necessary. We suggest the environmental considerations be addressed exclusively through the General Plan EIR rather than in the General Plan itself. In addition, the Thousand Oaks Blvd. corridor is designated as at or above relevant City noise thresholds. Noise barriers are likely not feasible in such locations and even if they can be constructed may not be economically feasible or may not fully reduce impacts.

71. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 4: Land
Use
Mixed Use Designation - (Chapter 4, Land Use P. 55)
We agree with the City’s vision in the draft General Plan Update that The Oaks be redeveloped with a mix of commercial and residential uses. However, we do not see that the City has established a clear path to accomplishing this under the draft General Plan Update. It is not clear whether the new Mixed Use Designation is or is not applicable to The Oaks since The Oaks is not included in this section but is later given a Mixed-Use Designation. This confusion will make future administration of the General Plan for the site difficult. Although The Oaks is given its own discussion in Goal LU-15, which suggests that the City views the site, as we do, as requiring different standards than are established for the more general Mixed-Use Designation, in fact, The Oaks is treated in a more restrictive manner than are the sites clearly identified as governed by this section. First, The Oaks is subject to a specific plan or master plan requirement to which these other sites are not subjected. Second, the general description of mixed uses in this Section contains a greater range of allowed uses than the restrictions suggested for The Oaks in LU-15 on p. 74. Third, the FAR, density and height at The Oaks are the same as set forth in these general limits, despite the fact that The Oaks site is materially different. In addition, as compared with its designation in the current General Plan, under the draft General Plan Update uses are more limited and FAR and height limits for The Oaks are significantly decreased (FAR reduced from 2.0 to 1.0 and height reduced from 75 feet to 50 feet) which will impede further commercial development. Therefore, we respectfully request that (1) the City clarify that The Oaks is subject to the Mixed Use Designation in this section and then provide clear guidance and carve outs in LU-15 where different standards will be established, and (2) the definition of mixed uses for The Oaks should not be more restrictive (i.e., not allow a more limited set of uses) than the definition applied for other locations in the City designated for mixed-use and (3) the City retain existing commercial land use requirements rather than decreasing FAR and height limits in the General Plan Update. In addition, we would like to clarify that while the mixed use designation allows retail areas to have higher intensity uses when including multi-family residential, it also should allow for existing or future commercial development structures to be single use commercial, and allow for stand-alone residential uses in the mixed use area. We address our additional concerns about building height and FAR at The Oaks in subsequent comments.

Comment
acknowledged

72. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 4: Land
Use

15.7 - Street Network.

We respectfully request that the word “encourage” be substituted for “required” so that the policy reads as follows:
“As part of the redevelopment of The Oaks, encourage the creation of new walkable blocks with a public vehicle, pedestrian, or bicycle connection approximately every 600 feet.” (Chapter 4, Land Use P. 74) Comment
acknowledged
12 73. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 4: Land
Use

15.1 - Site Planning
This item requires preparation of a specific plan or master plan before approval of substantial new development or redevelopment. We have several concerns about this requirement. First, the term “substantial new development or redevelopment” is ambiguous and we respectfully request that this phrase be clarified and defined. For example, it is unclear what constitutes substantial new development, or what additional requirements or restrictions would be imposed on The Oaks when there are numerous goals pertaining to Mixed Use Development in the draft General Plan Update that could easily be applied to allow development plans to proceed now. To facilitate flexibility of development and optimal commercial and residential uses at The Oaks, we respectfully request that the following be added:
“Maximize the ability to develop mixed-use projects by maintain existing commercial development uses, FAR and height and permitting flexible residential development standards including increased height, clustering and transfers of densities across parcels to permit residential development on specific parcels to exceed stated dwelling units per acre to allow the continued improvement of The Oaks as a thriving commercial site while adding multi-family residential.” We also request that the City consider adding the concept described in our comment to LU-14, 14.6 of consolidating parcels that facilitate the development of housing and other uses to 15.1 and applying it to The Oaks.

Second, we also are concerned about any requirement (including the requirement of either a specific plan or master plan) that imposes an additional layer of approvals before the development of any residential units can proceed and before we can proceed with our other projects. The imposition of this requirement is contrary to our goal of expediting revitalization of The Oaks with commercial and residential development and is unnecessary in light of the proposal for mixed-use zoning to regulate these developments. It is also counter to applicable statutes. Further, because HCD has not approved the City’s Housing Element as being in substantial compliance with applicable requirements by the statutory timeframe, the City cannot meet the statutory deadline of rezoning or imposing other planning requirements such as zoning, specific or master plans, concerning residential development within the statutory deadline. The specific plan or master plan requirement also conflicts with the statutory requirements requiring ministerial approval of projects that meet statutory requirements concerning development of affordable housing and expediting the development of housing.

Third, this requirement contradicts the Goal LU-1, 1.8- Entitlement Process which states the City’s commitment to business friendly streamlining of entitlements and processing of proposed development projects. For all these reasons, we respectfully request that 15.1 be removed from the General Plan Update. (Chapter 4, Land Use P. 74)
Comment
acknowledged

74. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 4: Land
Use
Commercial Designations - Chapter 4, Land Use P. 56
The Oaks currently is a commercial shopping center that contains, among other commercial uses, large format retailers consistent with the proposed Commercial Regional designation. The existing designation at The Oaks allows for big box retail, 2.0 FAR, and maximum 75 foot building height without restriction.

We respectfully request that these FAR and height standards be retained, that big box retail continue to be an allowed use at and that stand-alone commercial uses continue to be permitted at The Oaks.

We further request that for The Oaks, the definition of mixed uses include all uses currently applicable under Commercial land use designation and C-4 zoning both to avoid creation of non-conforming uses and to maintain investment backed expectations in the property.

Comment
acknowledged

75. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 4: Land
Use

15.5 New walkable residential.

This goal “prohibit[s] construction of isolated and/or gated communities….” Given the proximity to extensive commercial use and the potential need for security measures, we respectfully request that this prohibition be stricken and the following requirement be substituted: “Encourage new residential development to be designed in walkable format with pedestrian connections from new to existing development with paths.” Without this modification, this policy as written potentially conflicts with Goal LU-8 policy 8.7 regarding crime prevention. (Chapter 4, Land Use P. 74) Comment
acknowledged

76. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 4: Land
Use
Chapter 4, Land Use P. 63

5.4, Residential infill within commercial shopping centers:

We support the goal of maintaining retail and commercial activity at mixed use sites and believe that the General Plan Update should not act as a constraint on that development. To that end, we respectfully request the General Plan Update retain the land uses, FAR and density for commercial uses without reduction at The Oaks.

5.8, Comprehensive Site Design:

We are concerned that the stated requirement that mixed-use development be comprehensively planned could be interpreted to preclude ongoing commercial businesses and uses at The Oaks. We believe that they can be allowed without modification and without restricting redevelopment onsite for housing.

Therefore, we respectfully request that this goal be revised to read as follows:
“5.8 Site design. Require mixed-use development to be planned in a manner that would not restrict either the continued commercial development of the site or the redevelopment of the area for, or addition of, housing in the future.” Comment
acknowledged
13 77. Kristine McCardle Chapter 4: Land
Use
Are you considering the dangerous legal precedent you are establishing by changing real property zoning designation? That's one issue. If this change is granted then lawyers only need to cite this one change in order to follow suit. Taxpayers, who you work for, clearly do not want this zoning change.

Also circulating among taxpayers is the following:

NP Fire evacuation routes are within the 1% WORST in the state! A recent study by the Associated Press identified our 91320 ZIP Code, “From Newbury Park to Dos Vientos Ranch in western Thousand Oaks in Ventura County” as being in the top 1% worst in the state! This confirms what many of us, including me, experienced when the Woolsey/Hill fire evacuations occurred in November 2018. We had gridlock on Wendy, Borchard & Potrero in the middle of the night as the fire raged in the hills and headed our way. We could have been another Paradise or Lahaina with rows of burned out cars & lost lives.

Here are the ZIP codes the analysis identified as being roughly within the worst 1% in the state when it comes to population-to-evacuation-route ratios:
https://apnews.com/article/california-wildfires-evacuations-redding-ca-state-wire6f621c1c54734d0b95d374556c2cf5c0?campaign_id=49&emc=edit_ca_20210929&instance_id=41569&nl=california-today&regi Notice the Newbury Park zip code (91320) in the above article.

Now the city wants to put more than 1000 apartments at the Borchard Wetland, between all of Newbury Park and our fire evacuation routes. Madness! The city of T.O. will decide on wether to change the land use this fall and allow mix use, multi story overdevelopment in our little community of Newbury Park, disregarding the 1% worse fire evacuation danger and making it worse.

I urge the city not to change the existing land use designation of the Borchard Property. We don’t need more people draining our resources and creating even more fire evacuation problems.

A revised Safety
Element is
proposed – see
attachment 5

78. Nora Aidukas Chapter 4: Land
Use
What sets Thousand Oaks apart from nearly every other city in Southern California is its look; the city's undeveloped hillsides are prominent and there's almost nothing blocking the views of natural open space. Many people notice the open space, but overlook how standards on signage maintain the peaceful, uncluttered view. Signage that has been allowed historically is low, limited in size proportionate to the space it occupies, and most importantly, does not have digital billboards. Why doesn't the City commit to preserving its look and adopt a policy of no large digital billboards? The gateway signage should contribute to a sense of community pride, not snickers, and the public view corridors should be free of garish distractions of digital signage. Given the fiasco of the Auto Mall sign some years ago, it is clear that not considering a policy now leaves room for another go at it not only there, but at other places, such as the Civic Arts Plaza and the Oaks Mall. How would the City proceed in the future if there is no consideration of this issue now? Comment
acknowledged

79. Nora Aidukas Chapter 4: Land
Use
Figure 4.4 Land Use Designations has an area in the unincorporated part of Thousand Oaks identified as "Industrial Low" that may be in error. Although it is adjacent to Teledyne Scientific and Imaging, it may be designated for housing in County of Ventura plans. There may be other conflicts with the county and the city in their respective land use plans that could be checked for consistency at this time.

Comment
acknowledged

80. Nora Aidukas Chapter 4: Land
Use
What power will the City have that it presently does not have to attain these goals? For example, recently a much-loved cafe called Chocolatine was forced out of its space by its landlord raising its rent prohibitively. After decades of providing service to our community, one landlord was able to close that business down. What role does the City play in preserving businesses that have revitalized the Boulevard and have provided for the daily needs of residents when a single, powerful, and greedy landowner can force them out by raising their rents astronomically? Can the City do something about this scenario in the future? What can it legitimately do?
Comment
acknowledged

81. Nora Aidukas Chapter 4: Land
Use
Why isn't the preservation of the Oaks Malls' mature Valley Oak trees not mentioned here? Shouldn't these trees be protected explicitly here, and if not, why not?
Also, there are a number of these "lifestyle centers" that have been developed in Los Angeles with questionable results. The Grove and Glendale Galleria are two examples of these developments that do not integrate well with the surrounding communities and so create a fortress-like appearance and function, which seems counter to what would be good planning. They are hot, crowded, and expensive concrete enclaves within their respective existing neighborhoods which have been negatively impacted by their associated traffic and air pollution. How can the City balance the need for the redevelopment of the Oaks Mall without making the mistakes other places have made, mentioned in this comment? The first step would be to preserve the oaks, wouldn't it? Comment
acknowledged

82. Nora Aidukas Chapter 4: Land
Use
The worst thing about the Janss Marketplace is that it was allowed to get away with adding large text to what were "gateway monuments" which were built much bigger than "signs" identifying the center would have been permitted. These signs are too large, numerous, and frankly, ugly. Moreover, no other commercial property in the city has as many or as big signs. This is the result of not having carefully-considered policies regarding standards for signage.

There should be clearer and more consistent standards for the redevelopement of this mall to avoid the visual clutter and tackiness that it has now. Where in these plans are there city-wide policies regarding aesthetics? If we leave it to the developer, the northwest corner of Hillcrest and Moorpark is what we get.

Go take a look, and please address this omission.

Comment
acknowledged

83. Nora Aidukas Chapter 4: Land
Use
The Borchard property is a tragedy. The property has had the vegetation and soil scraped off so as to avoid its being identified as a potential site for wetland mitigation. Even more recently, the drainage into the parcel may have been blocked during Hurricane Hillary, apparently causing a backup in the area to the north. Putting this aside, shouldn't the flood control easement issue be the first order of business in developing this property? Comment
acknowledged
14 84. Sohum Gokhale Chapter 4: Land
Use
I've been a resident of Thousand Oaks for nearly 4 years. I recently gained an interest in city planning and am a strong believer in the power of improved land use to better our city. I do not believe "Maintaining the single-family residential character of established neighborhood areas" should be a goal for Thousand Oaks in 2045. Given that the vast majority of residential land in Thousand Oaks is zoned for detached single-family homes, this goal is essentially stating that we will plan to change nothing. Not only does this goal seem to stand in direct contradiction to many of the other plan's stated goals, but it guarantees that our current and future residents will face prohibitively high housing costs due to an artificial shortage of housing. I support the development of mixed-use neighborhoods that do not restrict the freedom, implicitly or explicitly, of us residents to move without an automobile in order to conduct our daily business.

Such development will pay dividends in terms of our citizen's health and well-being, social and emotional connection, reduced pollution, and reduced traffic collisions, injuries, and fatalities.

Comment
acknowledged

85. Tamara Napier Chapter 4: Land
Use
NP Fire evacuation routes are within the 1% WORST in the state! A recent study by the Associated Press identified our 91320 ZIP Code, “From Newbury Park to Dos Vientos Ranch in western Thousand Oaks in Ventura County” as being in the top 1% worst in the state! This confirms what many of us, including me, experienced when the Woolsey/Hill fire evacuations occurred in November 2018. We had gridlock on Wendy, Borchard & Potrero in the middle of the night as the fire raged in the hills and headed our way. We could have been another Paradise or Lahaina with rows of burned out cars & lost lives.

I urge the city not to change the existing land use designation of the Borchard Property. We don’t need more people draining our resources and creating even more fire evacuation problems.

A revised Safety
Element is
proposed – see
attachment 5

86. W Koehl Chapter 4: Land
Use
The general plan needs more discussion of mechanisms enabling the the redevelopment or up-zoning of existing single-family residential parcels. Many residential parcels are currently designated as ‘Neighborhood Very Low’ or ‘’Neighborhood Low 1’ in the proposed plan when they could easily accommodate ‘Neighborhood Low 1’ or ‘Neighborhood Low 2’ densities in the long term, respectively. If the density designations of these neighborhoods are going to be set artificially low, then the city should develop a mechanism or set of principles that enable a parcel with a given residential designation to be transitioned to the designation with the next highest du/ac density, so that over time the city can accommodate continued growth without exacerbating what is already a very severe housing shortage.

While a ‘neighborhood feel’ is often associated with low density in suburban America, the features of a neighborhood that truly make it worth living in are things like walkability, access to parks and open space, well-tended public infrastructure, collocation with schools and other institutional properties, and a built environment that promotes positive interactions between neighbors. So as long as these sorts of features are protected or enhanced during redevelopment, it should be possible to gradually increase the density of single-family residential neighborhoods without destroying the feel of community that we all value so highly.

I feel strongly that Thousand Oaks needs to begin this sort of discussion in earnest, as there is a severe hosing shortage that will likely only intensify since the residential boundaries of the city are more or less set. Additionally, much of the housing stock in the city is beginning to get to an age that likely surpasses what was the originally intended build lifetime. Many of these older homes may contain hazardous materials within their construction, or are extremely energy inefficient, or make use of pollutants like natural gas for heating. Additionally, many of these homes contain wiring, plumbing, or sewer lines that are reaching end of life and can be very costly to replace. This situation could be taken advantage of by allowing old homes to be razed and replaced with new homes at a higher du/ac, if those homes can be built to higher modern standards.

Comment
acknowledged

87. Wendy Zimmerman Chapter 4: Land
Use
City of Thousand Oaks promised to protect single family neighborhoods. However, City mistakenly thinks it is OK to build multi-story mixed use homes on the Borchard lot which is located in a single family neighborhood. Old residential streets are not made to handle additional hundreds, and more likely thousands of vehicle trips. They are too narrow for public transit. TO needs to rethink this and keep any development on a lot which serves as a catch basin for rain and flood waters to a limited low density level, structures no higher than two stories that match the surrounding neighborhood. Area has a high water table, so would require substantial engineering to handle not only rain received directly, but the water flow from surrounding hills. Further, TO thinks it is entitled to over run neighborhood streets in an unincorporated section of County. TO does not have the right to do that causing increased danger to existing homeowners, preventing them from having appropriate ingress and egress to their homes located off of Wendy Drive (County from Bella to Borchard) Alice and Bella drives which are also County. These streets are too narrow to meet State of CA standards for the massive increase in car trips and because they cannot service TO public transit which is not routed and can't go through these streets. Only access to that property MUST be, if at all for any increased population beyond a very limited number of single family style homes, through the Michael and Borchard sides of the property. TO should NOT upzone that property. It could be used for valuable water storage and aquifers. TO could potentially develop a park with a lake/pond sufficient to allow for water recreation that is not available to the public in the City. All lakes in the Conejo such as Westlake, Sherwood and Malibu are PRIVATE so not available for use Comment
acknowledged
15 by all residents, only a privileged wealthy few. City must not overburden Newbury Park. City has other locations, such as the Oaks Mall where mixed use could be developed that have appropriate access and compatible rooflines and a more urban feel and surrounding shops and housing that would fit together.

88. Angela Huffine Chapter 4: Land
Use
Residents of Thousand Oaks are attracted to overall low intensity, low density development throughout the city. The General Plan Committee, herein referred to as The Committee, acknowledges this, but then continues to encroach on all open space areas with increasing development. The repurposing of “vacant or underutilized retail areas “ is an exact example of the proverbial “speaking out of both sides of the mouth”. Building more housing and office buildings in these areas. This doubly fails in the test of equating to low intensity building. There is no mention whatsoever of utilizing this space to create more or open horse/bike/ water trails. The Committee’s description of “Neighborhood Low Medium through Neighborhood High” is entirely what the community protests against, as well as the proposed mixed use designation and commercial buildings which also include higher height designations. NOT TO MENTION the loathsome SB9 of 2021, which disadvantages everyone and brings in unattractive aesthetics and undesirable dwellers. Then there’s the industrial designations of horrifically ugly commercial buildings with empty offices, with continual signs reading “Space For Lease” throughout the entire city.

Look around! Every commercial business already built has open unused space for lease with big ugly signs that read “For Lease” because they cannot get or keep tenants. The same goes for apartment availability. Signs everywhere “For Rent” . Why in creation would we build more business and residential structures when we cannot fill the ones already built?! Why would the city agree to expand residential beyond the unattractive, overbearing buildings already built on Thousand Oaks Blvd and Moorpark Road, especially when so many individuals have not even or will not be able to afford living here. “Affordable Living” ? The only people the overbuilding and overcrowdedness negatively affects are those who live here; those who pay taxes here ; those who support local government salaries, whatever terms you want to couch it in. Ultimately those who moved here for the very reasons these developers and this Plan does not support. We the citizens of Thousand Oaks are entirely and totally opposed to building more of anything on open space areas that this Plan considers to be “underutilized “ ! And for the record, what is that monstrosity built up on the road behind the Civic Arts Plaza?! Who permitted that thing to be built?? And Yes indeed, this city needs more trees to cover these obnoxious buildings. How does that monstrous building “enhance and frame views of the mountains and ridgelines”?? “Disadvantaged Communities”- every community has disadvantaged communities as you describe them, and Thousand Oaks as a people has always supported and accepted everyone in their socioeconomic and financial status. Then along comes these greedy developers who believe they have so much insight into everything Thousand Oaks, wedging lines between individuals by calling them out as disadvantaged communities. Utter Hogwash! Energy efficient upgrades and discounts to low income? Why just to them? Misplaced! What I fail to understand is the Committee’s reference to these except points other than an opportunity to pour tax money expenditures on the communities in the way that the city sees fit to do so. More hotels in the heart of Thousand Oaks Blvd! Seriously? So that they too can become homes for vagabonds? Keep Thousand Oaks SMALL and pleasant – DO NOT TURN IT INTO SAN FERNANDO VALLEY! No more building of multi family. We have had enough…NO OXNARD! By consolidation parcels, it’s the very thing that causes crowdedness and density. City officials need to be held accountable for all of this. It is currently a fact that Fiscal Health in Thousand Oaks and Camarillo as documented by the Ventura County Taxpayer Association, has ranked near the top with Oxnard near the bottom. Yet Thousand Oaks has slipped in the past 5 years and Oxnard is the eighth worst fiscal health! Why? Because General Fund liabilities increased from $12 million to a whopping $56 million, with all the building! Recession, which we are facing, will lead to insufficient general funds, high pension costs, high debt burden and low revenue growth trends, and possibly even decimate pension funds. Think about that one. Local government impacts our daily lives and they must have their finances in order; when they do they can serve our community better; when they don’t, essential services will be cut. Additionally, there have been no development of parks and other open spaces since all this concrete building insanity began in this town. CRPD has no say in the matter as against big business developers. The map on page 73 of Land Use proves that point. New neighborhood- The Oaks- disastrous with high density mixed use and allowable building heights. The mall was originally constructed as it were under the premise that it would never exceed encroachment of such things, but now the city wants to change all this without the consent /approval of the Thousand Oaks residents. Same with Janss Marketplace. We are ruining a perfectly small town marketplace into a monstrous development that will overcrowd, increase density, and over burden resources that we just don’t have; overburden the entire area all under your catch phrase of “Repurpose”. All for what? Let’s follow the money. The plan in its entirety does not reflect the community’s vision for the future, but has only incorporated the plans of Big Developer. Biotech Support Expansion- why?? Of course Borchard property, more housing, more, more, and more multi family housing all over the place.

The planners even admit under “Parks Standards “…….as the community population grows and residential development grows denser (availability of park sites…). Admittedly, they agree that population growth and density expands, because of what they propose. Again, exactly what this community DOES NOT WANT! Furthermore, what is the proposed and planned parks (page 13 of parks) and exactly when will these areas be developed for parks? Comment
acknowledged
16 89. Janet
Miller
Wall Chapter 4: Land
Use
The new designations on the Land Use Map on p. 59 has two huge icons (101 and 23) that covers portions of the map so we're unable to see the parcels covered by the icons. Please move the icons or make them smaller so that all parcels can be viewed.

Updated map is
proposed – see
addenda and errata

90. karen wilburn Chapter 4: Land
Use
Have you considered placing a time restriction on construction? It’s a large parcel & if allowed to be developed in phases, construction could literally go on for 10 years subjecting the surrounding neighborhoods to loss of enjoyment of their property.

Updated language
is proposed – see
addenda and errata

91. karen wilburn Chapter 4: Land
Use
I’d like to see a requirement that all construction equipment and trucks and supplies be required to access the property via Borchard road. Local streets should not be subjected to this type of equipment.

Updated language
is proposed – see
addenda and errata

92. Janet
Miller
Wall Chapter 4: Land
Use
P. 68: Healthy communities. Nowhere in the section is marijuana smoking and sales mentioned despite its noxious odor and air pollution effects. The section only addresses nicotine. Marijuana is not nicotine and should be addressed under Healthy Communities.

Updated language
is proposed – see
addenda and errata

93. Nora Aidukas Chapter 4: Land
Use
Why is there no mention of cannabis products in these sections? Shouldn't there be a policy included here? Updated language is proposed – see
addenda and errata

94. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 4: Land
Use

15.3 - Broad range of uses.

While this goal seeks a broad base of uses, it prohibits new big box retail. We respectfully request that this use continued to be allowed. It is a type of regional serving retail and would be a benefit to the new residents to have the convenience of broad based grocery and home goods shopping of this type so close. Adding further restrictions to the commercial development of The Oaks creates potential future constraints on site redevelopment. (Chapter 4, Land Use P. 74)
Updated language
is proposed – see
addenda and errata

95. Mark Sellers Chapter 4: Land
Use
The owner (501 Thousand Oaks, LLC) of the Stone Creek Professional Offices property at 195, 275 & 325 East Hillcrest Drive supports the land use map’s proposed designation of “mixed-use” for this property. The demands for office and retail space continues to decline and the fallout is littering the landscape with countless obsolete and horribly energy consuming buildings on sites that are better suited to be repurposed to meet the crushing housing needs of the community.

A residential mixed-use alternative has become a logical and needed option for commercial property owners in order to receive a reasonable return from, or in justifying any future investment in upgrading, their properties. The City should take the proposed general plan steps to avoid increasing the number of vacant office buildings that is basically a blighting influence and a form of urban decay.

A Stone Creek Professional Office mixed-use project would be on an ideal infill site in a dense employment zone since it is bordered on three sides with by multi-family housing, near public bus transportation corridors like Moorpark Road and Hillcrest Drive and the 101 Freeway, reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated traffic impacts. This location also promotes bicycling and pedestrian walking to many nearby retail shops and restaurants. Per the draft General Plan’s Goal LU-16 the property is in Moorpark/Janss Marketplace defined area to be repurposed to a mixed-use area, but as LU-16 focuses on repurposing Moorpark Road site at Janss, this specific site would seek to achieve the goals set forth in LU-5 for mixed-use areas.

We note that the draft General Plan’s section 16.1 (Site Planning) requires the preparation of a specific plan or master plan effort for the large mixed-use and commercial properties along Moorpark Road and W. Hillcrest Drive. Stone Creek Professional Office mixed-use project would be on an isolated site with only one owner and no interaction or coordination is needed with other or adjoining owners or uses on a master plan. The Stone Creek Professional Office site is on E. Hillcrest Drive, not West Hillcrest. As a result, a specific plan is NOT needed for a mixed-use project on this site.

Updated language
is proposed – see
addenda and errata

96. karen wilburn Chapter 4: Land
Use
Traffic from this project is a major area of concern. Even the 1977 EIR commented on how future development of the Borchard parcel would be untenable for the western side of the parcel. I would like to see some restrictions or guidelines that would require street construction in such a way that would prohibit this from becoming a direct means of travel between Borchard & Wendy. This would put an unfair burden on the 2-lane collector & local streets of Alice, Denise, Shirley and Bella. This could be accomplished by road barriers (such as the one on Michael), gates (with emergency access when needed), traffic calming treatments (speed bumps) or street design that would make it undesirable for nonresidents of the parcel to use it as a thru pathway.

Changes are
proposed – see
addenda and errata

97. karen wilburn Chapter 4: Land
Use
Mitigation for areas within the floodplain of Arroyo Creek is not broad enough. If your intention is that it needs to be brought out of the 100 yr flood plain, then I think you need to state this. It should also include requirements that it will not have any negative impact on adjacent areas that are currently outside of the flood plain.

Changes are
proposed – see
addenda and errata
17 98. Lorrie Dingman Chapter 4: Land
Use
IF this property is ever developed you must take into account the fact that this is an encumbered piece of land without sufficient egress to support what is being proposed. Safety for the people of this community must be your first concern. This parcel is land locked and the only roads for egress are single lane RESIDENTIAL roads that are already heavily impacted by current vehicle travel.

Very few additional vehicles can be supported on Wendy Drive and Michael. These are the ONLY two routes for exit. They are both single lane roads with no possibility for expansion.

The entire scope of what is allowed to be built and where it may be built must be downgraded and very specifically listed on the GP. -Only the eastern portion of this parcel should be considered for any structure development and all vehicle traffic must flow onto Borchard Road. -No building should be allowed on the western portion which is a narrow strip between residential homes. -No through traffic shall be allowed onto Denise Street and Alice Drive - Designate a walking neighborhood park in the western portion of the parcel. This park would be on the narrow strip of land behind the houses on Denise Street that joins with Alice Drive. This will allow a buffer for any building that may occur on the eastern portion of the property to retain the quiet residential quality of our neighborhood.
- Walking and bike paths ONLY should be specified on the GP on the western portion of the property. No vehicle traffic or through traffic should be allowed. -It must be noted that the above condition regarding no vehicle traffic on Denise and Alice and the concept of a park at the western end was proposed to my husband and I by Shawn Moradian himself on 02/16/21 as he discussed his ideas at length with us.

He wanted us to get "onboard" with a proposal of developing the parcel and he promised that no vehicle traffic would go down Alice or Denise Street and ALL traffic would flow onto Borchard. Hold him to this promise by putting this requirement on the GP conditions. **The park area must specify the requirement to be able to "hold" the amount of water deemed necessary by the watershed district required for flooding.

Changes are
proposed – see
addenda and errata

99. Shawn Moradian Chapter 4: Land
Use
Dear GP Team:

We had the opportunity to review the City’s draft general plan, thank you.

As owners of the Borchard Opportunity Site, we looked closely at the proposed land use conditions contained in Chapter 4, Section 18.4 relating specifically to our property. We would respectfully request the opportunity to discuss the eight (8) proposed conditions with staff to understand the intent, feasibility, and application of these conditions.

We recognize that after the adoption of the general plan, we will be required to bring forward a master or specific plan at which time we believe most, if not all, of these conditions will be addressed based on a specific project. Any specific conditions at this point would be premature, most notably the 200-foot buffer. At no time prior to receiving this draft was there any discussion and/or notice of these proposed conditions. Furthermore, during the city council meetings in May 2021, we don’t recall the council giving specific directions to staff to include this buffer size and/or any quantities whatsoever. Lastly, we note that of all the proposed mixed use land use designations in the draft general plan, the only property containing a 200-foot buffer is ours, which appears inequitable and gives the appearance of spot zoning.

The Thousand Oaks Blvd Specific Plan (SP20) adopted in 2011, established a reasonable buffer and precedent of 50-feet for any proposed mixed-use project which is adjacent to residential zoning. We would like to direct staffs attention to this policy and the fact that no other property citywide has a 200-foot buffer requirement.

We look forward to the opportunity to discuss these conditions and reach a mutually agreeable resolution prior to the final draft general plan release later this year.

As always, thank you for your service to our community and your consideration of our request.

Respectfully submitted,
Changes are
proposed – see
addenda and errata
100. Peter Vlaskovits Chapter 5:

Mobility
Table 5.1's design elements for Principal Arterial and Minor Arterial roads should include bus lanes where possible in order to align with the goal M-2 - "Create and maintain a public transit system that is safe, equitable, affordable, efficient, and accessible to all people in Thousand Oaks." As many bus routes of the Thousand Oaks Transit network drive along these roads with no bus lanes, it should be prioritized to add bus lanes along major roads such as Borchard Road, Thousand Oaks Boulevard, and Lynn Road in order to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and transportation emissions.

Comment
acknowledged
101. Kay Isaacs Chapter 5:

Mobility
I'm very glad to see that the general plan prioritizes mixed modes of transit. The weather is wonderful, so many things are close together, and I enjoy walking or biking from place to place.

However- it's frustrating when places are very close together on the map but, due to manmade barriers, require a lengthy walk.

For example, the other day I walked from my house to Ralph's on Moorpark (near Janss) to pick up some food for a picnic at Glenwood Park. Ralph's and the park are only about a quarter mile apart as the crow flies, but because there's a wall between the shopping center and Equestrian Ave, I had to walk all the way around via Janss to Montgomery. A gate or break in the wall at the end of Briarcliff would've made it much quicker, and wouldn't impact any of the houses or yards in that neighborhood.

I hope the general plan considers not only how close things are to each other, but also how long it takes to walk around due to artificial barriers.

Thanks,
Comment
acknowledged
18 102. Peter Vlaskovits Chapter 5:

Mobility
As a cyclist in Newbury Park, the current bike lane infrastructure is very inadequate. I do not feel safe biking in unprotected bike lanes. If the city had a network of protected bike lanes all over the city, I would be compelled to bike more for shopping, commuting, etc. The buffered bike lanes all over Thousand Oaks should be immediately upgraded to a protected bike lane where possible.

Comment
acknowledged
103. Fabienne Logan Chapter 5:

Mobility
We have been homeowners on Theresa Drive for 46 years having witnessed and heard the traffic volume multiply over years just with all of NP expanding, we are totally against more dwellings built backing up to our streets Borchard and Wendy drive already bring in huge semi trucks and drag racing cars.

Streets used to access this new proposal would be inundated with traffic noise and unsafe streets. our property values will decline. the owner of this land should turn the wetland area into a walking nature park families would be so grateful they would support his already multiple businesses. please do NOT approve….you may not live here but we do!!!! Thank you Comment
acknowledged
104. Jack Bernard Chapter 5:

Mobility
I am a frequent bicycle rider around all of Thousand Oaks, and I live off of Lynn road in Newbury Park. I am commenting to voice my support for the proposed Class IV cycle track along Lynn Road. Lynn Road is one of the most convenient routes for me to get where I am going. Using an e-bike as my main form of transportation around the city, the buffered bicycle lanes for portions of Lynn have been a welcomed addition but more is needed to get others on their bikes. This road is never congested, and often attracts speeding drivers due to it's wide nature, curves and downhill sections. Re-striping this roadway to thin out vehicle travel lanes and allow more space for cyclists would be appreciated and I believe a well received change within the community.

Additionally, I would like to comment to suggest that Thousand Oaks Boulevard get the same Class IV cycle track. The TO Blvd corridor is becoming a well developed, desirable gem in our city. If the city were to reclaim one vehicle travel lane to construct a Class IV cycle track, not only would more residents feel inclined to bicycle along the road to their favorite local business and attractions (the current sharrows make this extremely difficult now, even for passionate riders), it would set the tone that Thousand Oaks is a progressive, climate first city placing an importance on alternative modes of transportation for the future. To clarify, I am suggesting that ONE lane of traffic is sacrificed from one side of the road to make a 2 lane Class IV cycle track. This would turn TO Blvd into a 4 lane road with two travel lanes going in one direction, a center turn lane, and one travel lane in the other direction. Obviously both sides would be appreciated, but I realize downgrading TO Blvd to a 3 lane road is a tough ask for both planners and residents. If a class IV cycle track cannot be realized on this corridor for whatever reason, I would like to suggest the alternative of a bus-bicycle only lane along the road. The TOB express is an extremely underutilized form of transportation to and from the TO Blvd region. A bus-bicycle only lane would give priority to the public transportation service that passes along the road while also giving cyclists comfort and priority riding along the road as well.

Expanding on transit in Thousand Oaks and specifically the TOB Express, I believe the city could be doing much more to encourage transit ridership around the city. For example, why does the TOB Express not offer extended service for popular shows at the Civic Arts Plaza? This could easily encourage more ridership. Plans and ideas like these should be included in the plan to let residents know their tax dollars spent on public transportation are not going to waste.

Thank you for reading. TO has a wonderful draft of a great plan for the future.

Sincerely,
Comment
acknowledged
105. Karen Martin Chapter 5:

Mobility
I just left Leslies on the boulevard and I have forgotten what a mess that intersection(s) has become. There are now 2 lights within about 1/2 block and you have to go to the back of the auto store to leave (Zuniga dr).

Dare I mention the fact we were on the hook for an updated crosswalk at the brewery because you didn’t plan for a lack of parking and foot traffic. Imagine that! How are things going to be in 25 years as you take more liberties with traffic congestion, noise, ignore CEQA and refuse to give our police force an increased budget?
I am not against growth but I am against a lack of accountability for the developer. You passed plans for Caruso to build with gas utilities!!! Please, if you take into account noise and traffic, you will have funds in the budget to pay our police.

Comment
acknowledged
106. Jack Bernard Chapter 5:

Mobility
As a young person in the city of TO, every aspect of Goal M-6 needs to be met in the worst way possible. We MUST decrease VMTs, full stop. No questions asked, residents must be encouraged and equipped with infrastructure that allows them to cycle, walk, or take public transit to their everyday activities and errands.

Comment
acknowledged
107. Jack Bernard Chapter 5:

Mobility
Please continue to improve bicycle parking throughout the city. Thank you for specifically calling this out in the general plan. Comment acknowledged
108. Jack Bernard Chapter 5:

Mobility
This is an extremely important aspect to increasing cycling in our city. Yes yes yes! Thank you for calling this issue out specifically, please ensure this improves.

Comment
acknowledged
109. Jack Bernard Chapter 5:

Mobility
We are currently in a climate emergency, VMTs drastically need to decrease and public transportation access is a large component of this. Currently, taking the bus in TO is virtually impossible due to the infrequent and unreliable service. I am pleased to see that increasing transportation services throughout the city is a priority in the general plan, and very happy to see that specifically improving transit frequency and connections is spelled out in the policies.

Comment
acknowledged
110. Jack Bernard Chapter 5:

Mobility
As a young cyclist in the city of Thousand Oaks, I absolutely support the goal to create and maintain a safe transportation system for all users of the roadway including cyclists and pedestrians. I would encourage the city to include language regarding "Vision 0" to the general plan to prioritize mitigating pedestrian and cyclist deaths and show dedication to working towards a future where no one is killed on the roadway. Please add a 1.6 policy that would hold the city accountable to making responsible decisions regarding pedestrian and cyclist safety city wide to meet Vision 0.

Comment
acknowledged
19 111. Kat Selm Chapter 5:

Mobility
The mobility chapter presents an opportunity to shift the City of Thousand Oaks towards more diverse multi-modal transportation options. Diversifying our transportation and shifting away from a car-centric community garners a myriad of social, public health, and environmental benefits, as transportation accounts for by far the largest proportion of emissions in the city. Particulates and ozone from car exhaust leads to asthma and other poor health outcomes, particularly in those census tracts identified in the Public Health and Equity chapter, which scored above the 75th percentile threshold for diesel particulate matter and traffic impacts. We encourage the City to include the following actions in the mobility chapter for improved environmental and health outcomes for the residents of Thousand Oaks:

1. Bus service improvements:
a.Include Sunday bus service
b. Expand service to include later hours (past 8:00 pm) c. Increase and improve crosswalks for convenience and safety when accessing bus stops Maximizing ridership will help reduce the negative impacts from traffic, while increasing transportation accessibility for community members.

2. Bike lanes and pedestrian infrastructure:
a. Plan for, and implement class IV (protected) bike lanes around densely populated areas and schools, especially connecting Moorpark Road, Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Hillcrest Drive, and Erbes Road
b. Implement sidewalk improvements, high-visibility crosswalks, crossing improvements, and corridor improvement Investing in protected bicycle lanes has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower transport costs, prevent road fatalities for all road users, and improve quality of life.

3. Bicycle infrastructure:
a. Goal 3.5 should be expanded to include all new housing developments, not just mixed use b. Implementation action M-A.5. should specifically include bicycle storage at apartment complexes c. Implementation action M-A.5. should be expanded to include EV Bike chargers When bicycling infrastructure is readily available community members will see bicycling as a viable alternative to automotive transportation.

4. Set timeline for finalizing Thousand Oaks Boulevard lane diet study Road diets enhance safety, increase mobility and access for all road users, and help to create a "complete streets" environment to accommodate a variety of transportation modes.

5. Parking:
a. Require property managers to unbundle parking, this is where parking is sold or rented separately. b. Develop a dividend-account parking program for city employees. c. Re-imagine parking in the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific plan, including paid on-street parking, and opening up parking to the public at the civic center. d. Remove section 9-4.2402 of the municipal code (parking minimums) and put the onus on the developer to decide parking.

When parking is unbundled from a lease agreement, people pay only for parking they need and avoid the hidden costs of free parking. A dividend-account parking system will reward employees that do not use their allotted parking space to reduce single-passenger trips. Decreasing the amount of individual parking lots can have significant impacts on stormwater systems, energy demands, carbon emissions, community health, and a city's finances.

Comment
acknowledged
112. Iain Campuzano Chapter 5:

Mobility
Safer cycle routes to reduce the interaction of bikes and fast moving vehicles is key. Wider roads and more cycle lanes. Comment acknowledged
113. Rob de Geus Chapter 5:

Mobility
The City appreciates that Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) has replaced Level of Service (LOS) as the metric for determining environmental impacts pursuant to Senate Bill 743. However, to the extent that Thousand Oaks continues to conduct any LOS analysis as a matter of policy, the City requests that street segments and intersections in Westlake Village be included in any such analysis to the extent that they may be impacted by proposed development. If appropriate, the City requests that a policy to that effect be added to the General Plan. This will be especially important for high intensity development in proximity to the Westlake Village boundary as discussed above. Also, in light of the high intensity development along the boundary, the City stresses the importance of the General Plan’s policies to reduce VMT and traffic impacts, including providing quality transit service to major employment areas, providing infrastructure to promote and facilitate active transportation, and requiring employers to implement Transportation Demand Management strategies. The City respectfully requests that such policies be modified as appropriate to use words like “require” and “mandate” in lieu of words like “promote” and “encourage” to ensure that such policies are consistently and meaningfully implemented.

Comment
acknowledged
20 114. Conejo
Climate
Coalition;
Ventura
Climate
Coalition;
Citizens'
Climate Lobby,
Ventura
County;
CFROG;
Chalice
Climate Action
Team; CCCJN;
Ventura
County YIMBY;
Community
Environmental
Council
Chapter 5:

1. Bus service improvements:
a. Include Sunday bus service
b. Expand service to include later hours (past 8:00 pm) c. Increase and improve crosswalks for convenience and safety when accessing bus stops Maximizing ridership will help reduce the negative impacts from traffic, while increasing transportation accessibility for community members.

Remove section 9-4.2402 of the municipal code (parking minimums) and put the onus on the developer to decide parking.

Comment
acknowledged
115. Nora Aidukas Chapter 5:

Mobility
Would it be appropriate to discuss the shift to working from home from commuting to work in this section? Are there policies regarding internet reliability and security that the City could meaningfully develop and adopt? Also, could there be more connectivity between the bus service in the City with transit services outside it? Thousand Oaks is effectively an island, in my experience, and it's very hard to connect. About ten years ago, there was a Grand Jury report on this and I wonder if anything has been done in the meantime.

Comment
acknowledged
116. Robert Sarto Chapter 5:

Mobility
I don’t feel that traffic congestion and delays are being adequately addressed. Comment acknowledged
117. Tony Reed Chapter 5:

Mobility
The discussion of Bicycling Facilities on page 99 (As a result, they favor the most confident and experienced cyclists, who are comfortable riding on most high volume/speed roads in the City) suggests adding "safe bicycle facilities that minimize exposure to fast vehicle traffic," yet the only Class IV bikeways listed in Figure 5.2 seems to be part of Lynn Rd.

I suggest adding LOADS more Class IV bikeways in the city including the creation of bikeways along Conejo and other creeks.

Comment
acknowledged
118. Victor Cee Chapter 5:

Mobility
I heartily agree with all of the goals in chapter 5. My question is, what can we do to make this happen really, really fast? Like bicycle transformation of Paris fast. Because I believe there is a huge appetite for bicycling instead of driving in TO, but we are only seeing the bravest 1% out there, because we aren't doing two basic things:

1. completely separated, protected bike lanes when vehicle speeds >25 mph

2. intersection design that prioritizes biking and walking (no right on red, protected intersections, crossing preference for non auto transportation.

In my experience TO has been way way way too slow to recognize this.

Comment
acknowledged
21 119. Wendy Zimmerman Chapter 5:

Mobility
Thousand Oaks needs to improve its active transportation network and also to provide links so that people can combine active and public transit to travel more miles such as to the beach, or to parks and events in the San Fernando Valley or even downtown LA. We don't even have bike parking at many locations including parks and shopping centers. It is not easy to load bikes onto bus racks and they are vulnerable to theft because owners can't keep them close. TO needs to develop policies regarding e-bikes which are often ridden at high speeds on sidewalks and in other places that are improper. The same can also be said for electric scooters which can also go very fast with throttles.

Comment
acknowledged
120. Wendy Zimmerman Chapter 5:

Mobility
Thousand Oaks public transit MUST move into the modern world. The Monday -Friday 8-5 work week thinking is antiquated and does not meet community needs. Transit should be available at least close to 24/7. Transit should serve shopping centers and entertainment venues in the evening hours so people don't have to drive to go to dinner or a movie or a concert. TO should provide shuttles to its park concerts rather than forcing people to park many blocks away imposing on area home owners and creating long walks. Calabasas has successful shuttles that are quick and efficient, TO should also implement shuttles for special events. It is impossible to use transit in TO to connect with other forms of transportation such as the Red Line. Our poor transit system that features empty buses needs to be rethought. People who work at retail centers can't even take the bus home after work. TO transit doesn't get people to the Orange Line. Commuting is only available in EXTREMELY narrow windows to limited places. I've tried to see if I could take the bus from the Rancho transit center, but inevitably, even if I was willing to spend 2-3 times the amount of time to get somewhere, TO's transit system would have me stranded at my destination with no links to get home. It is abysmal.

Comment
acknowledged
121. Koby Reynolds Chapter 5:

Mobility
Related to active transportation and multimodal pathways. Provide protected pathways that allow children and parents to safely cross our city. Promoting and providing a safe means for active transportation in our community is essential. It should not require another tragedy to illustrate the importance of providing safe pathways for active transportation. In our city today, multimodal transport routes require too many risks with motorized vehicles. Many areas are unsafe and require people to travel close to motorized vehicles traveling at much higher speeds. Thank you.

Comment
acknowledged
122. Angela Huffine Chapter 5:

Mobility
RIDICULOUS proposals. This city is not a large scale town that should be required to uphold the overreaching and insane SB bill dictates by Sacramento. This town is not sprawling, ungoverned and reckless Los Angeles, NOR DO WE WANT TO BECOME SO - yet these proposed transportation acts incorporated into a small town are UNNECESSARY, ABSURD AND MONEY WASTERS! There are no more bikers than usual and the only thing more housing will bring is more cars and more congestion. Why? Because no matter how you slice it, Californians are in love with their cars and they won’t car pool! FREEWAYS - states the city may identify opportunities to improve facilities along the freeway on/off ramps. Now as between increased trash and litter , making our area along the freeway look like a trash dump site, and pawners begging for money – THE CITY NEEDS TO STEP IT UP AND HELP ON THIS NOW and not take a back seat to Cal Trans on these issues.All this time spent on bicycles and bike lanes, and yet nothing about motorized bikes driven by 10 year olds, with no helmets to boot, which are a complete danger to pedestricans, bicyclists and vehicles! The City’s idea of managing growth in the hopes that more people will use more walking and bicycling- this is simply a way to lull the masses into thinking there won’t be a massive traffic concern with housing being built. Wrong. It doesn’t work like that and never will and you know this. The only way to manage growth is STOP the building. “Address the needs and perspectives to people of color”…ARE YOU SERIOUS?! WHAT?? What are they even talking about; complete nonsensical statements. Do we live in the twilight zone here with these ridiculous proposals?! How dare these people discriminate against all peoples of this town – people who have lived here for over 20 years, paying taxes, supporting City Counsil, etc. What absolute bogus and an insult to even propose this. -what even does that mean?!! Equitable mobility? Haven’t these developers already wreaked havoc in Oxnard, with their two billion apartment developments and still ongoing?? How stupid does this General Planner think citizens of this town are? So utterly insulting, discriminating and gratuitous Money grubbing and downright disgusting. Beginning with vagrants who wander the streets causing harmful danger to citizens. Squatting at our libraries; these individuals who frighten children and adults alike, not to mention the filth and unsanitary conditions that follow. “Create neighborhood streets that unify neighborhoods” – really? What in stock’s name are these people even talking about with their euphemisms?? What is 3.2 “Neighborhood Streets” under Community Health even mean? C’mon, Man! Speak with clarity and definition, or don’t say anything on the topic at all! Don’t patronize this group. There is no sense in any of this deliberation or proposal other than to create deliberate confusion. “Continue to encourage adoption of low and zero emissions…” How do you intend to encourage such things? Raise gas prices to squeeze out those who driven gasoline only vehicles, and throw exorbitant amount of tax dollars to fund useless programs and for people who don’t contribute to the tax base? Emissions reduction- why is the city even getting involved in this? What is the plan? Buy a Tesla for those of us who can’t afford it ; much less knowing these cars are not properly tested and in many cases nonfunctionable and will soon be a thing of the past? Such absurdity and a waste of tax payers money.

How can it be that speed of movement will be improved when all this building will only result in more people to clog the roads. In fact, there is zero clarification or explanation on this proposal to “improve speed”. What does that even means?? Rider Amenities Just What? At who’s expense are these amenities to be given? What are Thousand Oaks citizens paying for now with their tax money? This information is deliberately vague and incomprehensible.Regional Travel- Partnering with Cal Trans should include routine LITTER CLEANUP ON A REGULAR AND CONSISTENT BASIS. Multimodal improvements- enhance access to Thousand Oaks Blvd, Moorpark Road; does “multimodal improvements” even mean? Focus on enhancing access to Thousand Oaks Blvd Moorpark Rd and other major arterials…what exactly does that mean and Why?! To bring in more robberies because of easy on/off access to these roads? Decrease vehicle trips – How? Put a bus on every corner, like San Fernando Valley? Encourage in-fill mixed use and other land use development- NO, NO , NO!! Citizens do not want that! Citizens want more OPEN SPACE!Support low emissions- No vehicle- ridiculous- Invest our tax money in how we the citizens intended it to be used, not things we don’t want, that is collectivism! And where will be the landfills for all the defunct batteries from electric cars or the solar panels that people no longer feel they serve their purpose? Has that even been considered by the local environmentalists? Comment
acknowledged
22 123. Diana Kauffman Chapter 6:

Parks and Open
Space
Why would you want to cause more congestion in this area of 101? There is always bumper to bumper traffic in this stretch of the freeway. Along with a water crisis that we already have, how do you propose to add all these houses . Are you not going to give them water? Newbury Park is beautiful don’t allow it to become a tangled mass of homes.

Another thing, last meeting I was in T.O waiting to go to the meeting when I found out it was changed to another area. Too late for me too attend. Sounded awful suspicious.

Comment
acknowledged
124. Kat Selm Chapter 6:

Parks and Open
Space
Parks are not only a valuable asset for play and socialization, they also can provide climate-smart green spaces that help our community adapt to climate impacts by providing shade, reducing temperatures and flooding impacts, and can help to sequester carbon. Cooperating on projects with Conejo Recreation and Park District would benefit our community and help future-proof our city.

1.Energy
a. Generate energy for park facilities onsite with solar power b. Install EV chargers at parks
c. Install microgrids to create areas of community resilience

2. Stormwater Retention
a. Encourage the use of permeable paving materials in hardscape areas; swale designs in landscape or grassy areas; and the discharge of roof drainage into pervious, greenbelt, and seepage pit areas to slow runoff, maximize infiltration, and reduce downstream impacts from development.

3. Cooling Centers
a. Include heat-relieving amenities like misters and ample overhead shade

4. California Native Landscaping
a. Incorporate California native plants into all parks projects b. Expand the city’s tree canopy in heat-stressed neighborhoods Trust for Public Land assessed parks in 100 of the most populous cities in the US, and found that 85% of them are adapting their parks to address climate change with things like EV chargers, and bioswales. Park acres, it turns out, are very good at buffering the effects of climate change. Green space has the power to lower air temperature and absorb flood water, and can be designed in such a way as to significantly enhance those climate benefits.

Comment
acknowledged
125. Conejo
Climate
Coalition;
Ventura
Climate
Coalition;
Citizens'
Climate Lobby,
Ventura
County;
CFROG;
Chalice
Climate Action
Team; CCCJN;
Ventura
County YIMBY;
Community
Environmental
Council
Chapter 6:

1. Energy
a. Generate energy for park facilities onsite with solar power b. Install EV chargers at parks
c. Install microgrids to create areas of community resilience

3. Cooling Centers
a. Include heat-relieving amenities like misters and ample overhead shade

Comment
acknowledged
126. Nora Aidukas Chapter 6:

Parks and Open
Space
Figure 6.1 Open Space Types and Trails Inventory has an error. There are trailheads missing on the Old Meadows open space area. There are recognized access points at Old Church Road and at Shadow Oaks Place that are not marked on the figure, but should be. These are approved trailheads that have been in place for 30 years and have improvements and trail use signage. This needs to be corrected, and a check of official trailheads and trails should be done now to make sure to correct any omissions and errors. Please respond to my comment. I have made this comment twice during the General Plan update process.

Comment
acknowledged
127. Angela Huffine Chapter 6:

Parks and Open
Space
Let’s talk about the VERY Little time speaking about parks, golf courses and general open space on page 58 of Land Use ; which amounts to about a one page discussion. If you have limitations of Land Use designations then city council needs to get involved much like they do on all other projects affecting city’s pocketbook and work out the details for more open space designation. All adaptation point to more housing development rather than open space designation. Every single parcel of land to be accounted for making this city reflect the San Fernando valley; the concrete jungle that developers love to Comment
acknowledged
23 exploit and then walk away from so they can go live in towns with endless open space and beautiful landscaping in multi million dollar homes, having reaped from the destruction and decimation of our once beautiful city.Speaking of which, there is an increased and continuous mounting trash along our freeway at Thousand Oaks as well as around many apartment complexes, all due to more people and more vagrants. How does the City intend to “improve, preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods throughout the city”? Discourage new housing in fire zones- This is not happening . Homes have and continue to be built atop mountains to which I personally objected to only to be met by the city with a rude brush off response. I guess if the money’s right, correct? How do you expect to reduce noise/light/traffic pollution when you propose more and more building bringing in more and more people?? Again, it’s the complete opposite of what the plan proposes; contradictory and speaking out of both sides of their mouths. And there we go with their jargon-affordable housing, stock, locations and preservation - unbelievable. Theres a continual fight between developers and the community of Thousand Oaks to stop building offices and apartment complexes. Al Adams and others have continually disappointed this community with their contradictory statements and then proceeding to do exactly as they please. They tout open space talk which has been encroached upon, nonetheless, the force of people brought into this have no stake here in this community/town. They are apartment dwellers use to city life in Los Angeles, which they can barely afford the rent their paying, let alone never be in a capacity to purchase a home in the Conejo Valley communities. This ties into POLLUTION - which the General Plan completely ignores and deliberately fails to address. To the extent that the amount of litter along our local highways has tripled; to which I personally have addressed with Cal Trans. Why am I the only one dealing with this issue while the City’s only concern is to increase population. There is no push back to Sacramento politicians to quit the building.

However, it is doubtful if there is even pressure by Sacramento these days, rather than the realization by developers how lucrative it has become to invade small towns and bully their way in to develop the open space areas, all due to lining their deep and greedy pockets. All the while resulting in ever more pollution, and doing absolutely nothing to address it?! The introduction of this plan speaks of “small town feel and quiet tight knit community”. I have written to city council on this issue numerous times, in an effort to maintain what “once was” and why taxpaying citizens live here. I’ve never yet once herd from the General Plan Commission personally in response to my concerns and comments- far to busy deciding on the destructive fate of this community regardless of citizen’s input, output, concerns, desires, demands.In review of the map on page 14, it is clear that there are not enough parks in the Thousand Oaks area where there definitely could be, especially in the Rolling Oaks area (the prior area designated for Young Set Club). This space should be designated for park and NOT for more commercial use. There’s enough medical buildings for that. Empty ones!! The community wants park space and that area is ideal for that; as well as control over wandering transients. The General Plan addresses rapid development of Thousand Oaks in the 1950’s and 1960’s. That needs to be recognized as ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. And now especially in light of what has and is being built. The key comments on page 15 address areas of major concern for Thousand Oaks residents … that “Thousand Oaks rate of growth continues to change gradually over time as property owners develop in-fill projects or re-develop land”. This herein is the major objection and has been in this town since 2019. Jobs to Housing Units 1.31 homes to 1 job …How does your total population figure up from 2010 to 2022? There’s no way this could be accurate unless the plan left out apartment dwellers where NOW apartment building renters are allowed to rent to multiple individuals living in one or two bedroom apartments, as well as where homeowners can set up secondary residences in their property because of the egregious approvals of Senate Bills& 10, which ends traditional single family zoning restrictions and which will never fix Sacramento’s demented and contrived theories about “housing crisis”; a fabricated and lame excuse by Sacramento politicians to simply rezone districts allowing for more transient/homeless individuals to live like squatters and gypsies on these grounds.City residents request to see a comparison of medium income levels and property rates as between 2010 and 2022 now that more unwanted apartments have been built and more transients have come into this town; as well as how many empty apartments there are currently and going forward simply because the rent is too high regardless of what you call it, and because this town is just too expensive to live in, and will remain so. Page 17 (of what topic)?- some aspects of the General Plan are “tightly prescribed” while others are left to the discretion of individual cities or counties. We are well aware that Sacramento has laid a more than heavy and egregious hand on town communities, serving up their own personal political agenda to redefine geographical lines/ changes in a sinister effort to redefine voting party lines. It’s more than evident how many local officials in their communities, rather than resisting the State to their face for the betterment of their community, instead sacrificing town residents desires in in exchange For accepting illegal and detrimental dictates from the State and choose toline their pockets instead. Then too once the taste of money came into the picture by developers and city officials alike, without naming names, (Al Adams, and the like), who continue to use these excuses to do the town wrecking they have done- all the while getting richer and more politically powerful. Government by the people for the people; not even close! There has been no accountability to the public other than the scarcely held town hall meetings wherein only the city developers do all the talking, all the while policies remain illusive/ trying to hide the real agenda behind the plan. Just like Gov’t Code 65301 allowing the General Plan to “be adopted in any format deemed …appropriate or convenient by the legislative body, including the (combining) of elements” which goes onto state “consequently some elements of the General Plan reply upon policies or information in other chapters in fulfilling the individual element’s statutory requirements described above.” What mumbo jumbo and confusing statements does that even mean? What hidden agenda is outlined here, statements so vague deliberately causing confusion for the community residents to comprehend what all this means in a sensible way??! What are the driving factors in the “Vision”!? The open space lands acquired to date have nearly completed the original goal of a ring of open space around the Conejo Valley. So this begs the question what is being done to complete this ring and what’s the long term goal to keep creating “open space”. (VISION AND GUIDANCE SUMMARIZES THE ENTIRE PLAN). Having attended hearings and listening to General Planner speakers, it is more than apparent that they do not consider Parks and Open Space important or critical topics over building more housing. The Impact?? It will increase density , population, less room for open space; essentially too many people which includes too much traffic, noise pollution, city trash and OVERUSE OF CURRENT NATURAL RESOURCES. SO ABSURD. 24 128. Nora Aidukas Chapter 6:

Parks and Open
Space
There is a sentence that seems incomplete: "The trails and open spaces described in the previous sections are owned by public agencies or owned by private entities subject to City-imposed restrictions." Are there not voter-imposed restrictions as well, for example the Parks Initiative and the SOAR and CURB initiatives? Why are these restrictions not included here? Updated map and
language are
proposed – see
addenda and errata
129. Nora Aidukas Chapter 7:

Conserva�on
On page 19 of 25, under Biological Resource Protec�on, the last sentence says, "Open space will be managed with a primary goal of natural resource protec�on." Could the words "and enhancement" be included? I am referencing other comments I have made regarding restora�on occurring now in the Old Meadows open space and the poten�al for other restora�on projects into the future.

Updated language
is proposed – see
addend and errata
130. Nora Aidukas Chapter 7:

Conservation
This comment is regarding the Figure 7.1 Vegetation Communities. The key has the words "Grassland and Barren" for the areas on the map that are filled in with the color yellow. The problem with this is that the word "barren" has a common definition that means "producing little or no vegetation." It is inaccurate to say that the yellow areas on the map are barren using this definition. Moreover, the glossary does not include the word barren to define with more accuracy what this figure is trying to convey. Might it be clearer to use different words to describe the vegetation on these lands, such as "Annual Plant Species"? There is no negative connotation to this, the way that the word "barren" has. Furthermore, these lands have the potential to be so much more.

With the Woolsey Fire and other recent fires that have burned throughout Thousand Oaks in the past, it is important to give consideration to what can grow in these areas, not just the recent explosion of non-native mustard and thistle that have come to dominate the landscape. There is seedbank in some of these areas that can be restored, and the native vegetation can grow if proper management is given. For example, in the area of the Old Meadows Open Space that is managed by the City of Thousand Oaks, there is an ongoing restoration project that has demonstrated that, if given the chance, native plants can return and thrive, even during periods of extreme drought. (This comment form, while convenient for planners, does not allow the ability to include documents and photographs, so it is insufficient to provide this information. There should be another way to comment on this draft General Plan that allows this inclusion.)
All that was required to encourage the restoration of native vegetation in this pilot area of the Old Meadows Open Space was the removal of non-natives by hand during the winter season. The seedbank historically and naturally in the ground responded vigorously because there was no competition for moisture and sunlight from the aggressive non-native plant species, especially mustard and thistle. The use of weed-whackers is anathema to this effort, as the roots of the mustard and thistle remain and grow back stronger year after year. I would be pleased to provide you with more information regarding this. There are dozens of native plant species growing in this pilot area, even during the years of drought, with no supplemental irrigation and no planting done.

The Conservation section of the General Plan is a required part of State law, I believe, and it is important to understand truly what is being conserved. It is not simply the land, but what can grow on the land. While non-native vegetation can provide cover and forage for some native species of animals, native plants provide important resources for native pollinators, which provide food for native birds, which can provide food for other native species. These things enrich our lives and are worth conserving.

In sum, please change the words in the key as suggested. Also, please allow for the possibility that lands can be restored, and that they are not doomed to be degraded by fire and poor land management. They are not "barren." Also, please allow comments that can include documents and photographs.

Incidentally, in coming back to the color yellow in the aforementioned key, does this way of showing these vegetation communities meet current standards for those who may not be able to discern color? Thank you for your consideration.

Comment
acknowledged
25 131. William Maple Chapter 7:

Conservation
RE: HISTORIC RESOURCES, PG. 144
"The City Council has the authority to determine whether a proposed historic landmark is suitable for designation based on recommendations from the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board." (that's it?)
It appears a majority of the preservation goals and safeguards of early T.O. General Plans and ordinances has been removed. I'm not sure it this is due to being uninformed, or that the priorities of the City Staff as changed. The City Council is now appointed to be our Cultural Heritage Board—there is rarely any communication between the VCCHB on the north side of the grade and our City Council. All recent evaluations of historic value have be introduced by citizen requests. The City Council/Cultural Heritage Board does not appear to have an active, much less proactive role in historic preservation. Our original city founders considered doing so very important. When was the last time the City Council held a public meeting as THE Cultural Heritage Board to list or review at-risk properties or landmarks?
Most of the surrounding Ventura communities care about their heritage and take active means to preserve it for future generations. There appears to be very little effort made in this current plan to install mechanisms to protect our local historic resources. This leaves residents with little option but to bypass a inert system and reach out to County, State or National CEQA evaluations or Registries—that tend to embarrass our community when the damage done is made public (see: Old City Hall, Dos Vientos barns or Timber School).

A pro-active review and evaluation of resources by the T.O. Cultural Heritage Board could avoid enraging citizens and lawsuits. Informing developers and owners of the tax benefits of P.O.I., or Landmark status would be positive rather than hostile beginning. Items like the Eicher homes or Roy C. Wilson Fire Station-35 (https://venturamuseum.org/wilson-stroh-wilson-architectural-driving-tour/), could help preserve some of the unique character of the Conejo for future generations. The abandonment Timber School—the oldest historic public building still standing in the Conejo is a sad testament to a lacking and failed historic conservation system. We are considered a bit of an embarrassment throughout the County for our indifference.

I have copies of the 1972 and 1975, signed "Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Thousand Oaks Creating a Cultural Heritage Board and Providing for the Powers, Functions and Duties Thereof" documents if anyone would like a copy.

There are twelve (12) pages of functions and duties that are now summarized in one (1) sentence in this proposed General Plan. Some of those responsibilities include:
—Protect by preserving and protecting items defined in Section 2-2.207, be they government or private ownership. Having special historical or aesthetic character or interest...in order to remind citizens of this community, visitors and tourists of the rich historic, cultural and natural heritage of the City of Thousand Oaks and the Conejo Valley.
—Compile and Maintain a list of all historic, culture and natural landmarks and monuments. Inspect and investigate and items...in Thousand Oaks which it has reason to believe is, or WILL BECOME in the near future, and historic landmark or monument. ——Recommend to the City Council if indicated that a specific landmark...be designated a Historic or Scenic Landmark Zone. —Determine which designated landmarks and monuments shall be marked with a uniform and aesthetic marker. —Public Hearings: Hold public hearings for the purpose of identifying historical landmarks and monuments with such hearings being held 15 days or more after the property owner has been notified.
—If a historical monument or landmark does exist, the property owner shall be prohibited from defacing, demolition, addition, alteration or removal of the landmark without having given 90 days notice to the T.O. Cultural Heritage Board. —There is also a long list of evaluation standards, procedures and funding mechanisms.

IN SUMMARY, IT APPEARS THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT HAVE THE TIME, KNOWLEDGE OR INTEREST REQUIRED TO ACTIVELY PROTECT OUR CULTURAL HERITAGE. PERHAPS A SEPARATE BODY SHOULD ONCE AGAIN BE ESTABLISHED TO FULFILL THESE RESPONSIBILITIES? If you would like to discuss this further, or receive a pdf copy of the referred to ordinance, please write me at Comment
acknowledged
26 132. Kat Selm Chapter 7:

Conservation
Conservation of our natural environment can help address many societal problems such as the climate crisis and water and food scarcity. The goals and actions in this chapter can help the City of Thousand Oaks address the dual problems of climate adaptation for humans and many other species as well as climate mitigation as our native habitats act as climate refugia, reduce temperatures, store carbon, and filter and store groundwater.

1. Wetlands and Riparian Habitat
a. Add a goal in C-9 to ensure the groundwater utilization project at Los Robles Golf Course does not affect oaks and other groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs). The City should 1) confirm the presence of GDE’s in the basin, and 2) incorporate mitigation of undesirable impacts to these GDE’s, including oak stands, in the further refinement of minimum thresholds, and thereby inform the sustainable yield of the basin with all beneficial users in mind.

To manage a groundwater basin sustainably, minimum thresholds are developed: this is the numerical line in the sand not to be crossed, going beyond this measure at basin wells results in not sustainably withdrawing water and there will be undesirable results on beneficial users of basin water. Beneficial users are people and environmental users–groundwater dependent ecosystems. Oaks, like the many majestic valley oaks in Thousand Oaks can use groundwater at around depths of 80 feet, but the minimum thresholds set for several wells in the Conejo valley basin are much lower than this rooting depth

2. Wildlife Connectivity
a. Add a goal in C-7 for a wildlife connectivity analysis within the City of Thousand Oaks to explore wildlife-vehicle collision hotspots and improvements to connectivity across the city with interventions like modified culverts Urban wildlife is transiting through the City of Thousand Oaks and utilizing the regional Santa Monica-Sierra Madre linkage. This movement should be evaluated and accounted for as improved wildlife connectivity reduces frequency, collision costs and improves driver safety. Improved connectivity also helps species adjust to the impacts of climate change by allowing for range shifts.

3. Air Quality
a. Under 10.2, actions encouraging less use of gasoline or diesel can be amplified by mandating hydrogen dispensers and electric vehicle charging stations at petrol stations. Also require EV charging infrastructure in new developments, commercial and municipal parking. b. Incentivize landowners to make land available for charging. Cities can provide tax incentives and other revenues to landowners who enable EV charging on their sites.

Primary sources of air pollution in Thousand Oaks are from vehicles, affecting several disadvantaged communities (tracts 69, 70, 71). Every municipality has a responsibility to protect its citizens from air pollution and help meet its basin’s air quality standards. Additionally, we now all have a duty to protect the planet from climate polluting gasses. Reducing emissions by incentivizing EV usage can help reduce the impacts of emissions on the most pollution burdened citizens, and help the City reach its climate goals.

Comment
acknowledged
133. William Maple Chapter 7:

Conservation
Proposed EIR notes and suggestions proceeded by the note, COMMENTS: 2045 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report August 2023

CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Pg. 2-15 , Goal C-11: Protect historical and culturally significant resources, which contribute to the community's sense of identity. COMMENT: Who and how are resources established? Years ago the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board would provide expertise, evaluations and recommendations. Today our City Council does not meet publicly as our Cultural Heritage Board to pro-actively evaluate cultural/historic assets, at risk elements or nominate point of interest or landmark status. A clear mechanism for this preservation role and process has been absent since it was removed from the County. The attached City of Thousand Oaks Ordinance creating a Cultural Heritage Board form 1980, presents the community with a document highlighting the value placed and tool to ensure the preservation of our unique cultural heritage. It states: “The purpose of this ordinance is to promote the economic and general welfare of the City of Thousand Oak by preserving and protecting____items having special historical or aesthetic character of interest…” My hope is that this General Plan will refer to, and incorporate the goals of our early leaders. Reestablishing an informed, focused and dedicated Cultural Heritage Board would also be a fruitful recommendation. See attached pdf titled: T.O. Cultural Heritage Brd.pdf ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 4.4.1 SETTING C. EXISTING RESOURCE Timber School House and Timber School Auditorium Constructed in 1924 and 1948, respectively, the Timber School House and Timber School Auditorium buildings are part of the current Conejo Valley High School campus. The 1924 Timber School building was designed in the Mission Revival architectural style by Roy C.

Wilson, the first licensed architect in Ventura County. It is the oldest original school and public building in the Conejo Valley. The Timber School House and Timber School Auditorium were designated as historic landmarks by the Thousand Oaks Cultural Heritage Board in 2004 (City of Thousand Oaks 2023).

COMMENT: Timber Schoolhouse and adjacent Auditorium are both a combined Ventura County Landmark #166) and should be noted as such in this document See: VENTURA COUNTY HISTORICAL LANDMARKS & POINTS OF INTEREST listing; third addition, May 2016, pages: 50-51 https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/programs/chb/Points_of_Interest.pdf [#166] Timber School House and Auditorium Built 1924 and 1948 Designated July 13, 2004. 1872 Newbury Road, Newbury Park, CA. The original two-room Timber School was built ca 1924 by Adolph Schroeder and designed by Roy C Wilson, architect, and it is the second school building to occupy this site. There is a later classroom which was added to the east side in 1955, and to the west is the auditorium structure added in 1948. The School is a simple one- story structure built in the Mission Revival style topped by a low gable roof that is capped by a small octagonal cupola that also served as a working bell tower. The Timber School Auditorium was added to the west side of the schoolhouse in 1948. The auditorium was also designed by Roy C. Wilson, providing a link both aesthetically and historically to the earlier 1924 building. 4.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS PG 4.4-9 a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds Methodology The assessment of potential impacts to historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources were informed based on a review of readily available information from the City’s Public Information Office website. In addition, this Comment
acknowledged
27 assessment includes a summary of the City’s consultation efforts pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18. As a programmatic document, this Program EIR presents a citywide assessment of the proposed project. Because the Program EIR is a long-term document intended to guide actions for many years into the future, this analysis relies on program-level and qualitative evaluation. COMMENT: I have been a resident of the Conejo Valley and have noticed a lack of pro-active evaluation of historic assets and a minimal effort to document existing elements that may be significant or at-risk. The listing of Historic Landmarks on the City’s website should be reviewed by local historians and third-party professional researchers for accuracy.“Readily available” information is extremely limited, so I suggest a survey be created to evaluate elements within the Conejo older than 45 years to determine cultural and historical relevancy proactively. If our community is truly interested in historic conservation, such a survey would create the groundwork for future preservation efforts. Rather than debate multiple development proposals, pursue expensive legal challenges and generated a multitude cultural heritage reviews—a overview survey, by professionals recognized by their historic evaluation credentials, could eliminate decades of debate and potential historic loss. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures PG 4.4-10 Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
134. William Maple Chapter 7:

Conservation
Impact CUL-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE ADVERSE CHANGES TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. As discussed in Section

4.4.1, Setting, there are 14 resources listed in either the NRHP, CRHR, or designated locally as a landmark or point of interest. COMMENT: Why have we limited this scope to only 14 listed resources?” The are potential cultural resources like the Eichler District that could easily be considered points of interest to the City, State, County and Nation. We could substantially reduce CEQA debates and loss of potential cultural assets by looking beyond this narrow 14 item list.The proposed project would guide the general distribution, location, and extent of the various land uses in Thousand Oaks. Currently, there are no development plans included in the proposed project which would substantially alter a historical resource; however, the proposed project could facilitate development on parcels containing buildings that meet the age threshold for potential historical resources, pursuant to CEQA. The proposed project could also facilitate development near historical resources, which could potentially alter the historic context of the resources. The proposed project’s Conservation Element includes the following policies which would minimize impacts to historical resources within Thousand Oaks: • Policy 11.1: Cultural Resource Identification and Recognition. Identify and, as appropriate, recognize significant cultural resources by identifying significant cultural resources with landmark designation plaques, directional signage, self-guided tours, programs, and events.

PG 4.4-11 These policies would help reduce impacts to…
COMMENT:
(add existing and potential) historical resources (and districts); …however, they do not require formal historical resource evaluations or the consideration of measures to reduce potential impacts to historical resources. As such, development facilitated by the proposed project could result in substantial alterations to historical resources. This would be a potentially significant impact to historical resources, and implementation of mitigation measures is required.

COMMENT:
(A Conejo Valley Historic Survey as suggested above would avoid much of the “potentially significant impacts,” since a developer would know beforehand the status and situation as any given property)
Mitigation Measures
PG 4.4-11
CUL-1 Historical Resources
Prior to project approval, the project applicant shall submit a report to the City that identifies any historical age features (i.e., structures over 45 years of age) proposed to be altered or demolished. If historical-age features are present, the applicant shall submit a historical resources evaluation to the City prepared in areas that contains buildings, structures, objects, sites, landscape/site plans, or other features that are 45 years of age or older, by a qualified architectural historian or historian
COMMENT:

Rather than each project applicant handpick their own evaluative entity, I believe the implementation of an overall Conejo Valley Historic Survey would result in a more open and informative evaluation. Rather than a whack-a-mole approach to cultural and historical evaluation—an established and balanced survey would inform residents, developers and staff, to status and nature of any site over 45 years. Unfortunately the current listing of the Conejo’s Historical Resources has been an amalgamation of information gathered over the years from sometimes unvetted or possibly self-interest resources that may be outdated. A professional third-party contribution would significantly increase the value and accuracy of any resource list evaluation. Future generations could depend on this resource documentation as source of pride in the unique qualities and heritage of their community.

Comment
acknowledged
28 135. William Maple Chapter 7:

Conservation
I apologize, this format does not provide color or other organization formatting. Some items are listed directly from the DRAFT GENERAL PLAN for reference with my suggestions noted as COMMENTS:

CHAPTER-7 CONSERVATION
HISTORIC RESOURCES Pg. 144
Jungleland, home Hollywood’s animal stars, was once located on the site of the current Civic Arts Plaza COMMENT:

Please consider featuring an existing landmark rather than a site that has be leveled, purchased by imminent domain and features only a plaque and photomontage to showcase what once existed. There are still several existing landmarks that are worthy of acknowledgement here. Consider adding landmark description, site features and photographer citation. (this document lays a foundation for the future and generations to come).

HISTORIC RESOURCES Pg. 145
Dos Vientos Barn Buildings
COMMENT: This appears to be glossy description of the landmark’s loss. Please consider researching and rephrasing this description and not using it as an example of cultural or historic preservation.The City Council (aka the Cultural Heritage Board voted to move the structures and hire an “professional” firm to dismantle the barns, document the prices and number the wood components for rebuilding at a future date. The landmark became the largest unprotected pile of documented lumber in Southern California. The technique of “demolition by neglect” appeared to be utilized, to claim that the material was later in poor condition and unsalvageable. Left in the open without protection from the elements or theft, materials and hardware were bit by bit stolen. Some of this material was taken to build a faux structure at the Stage Coach Inn site. I don’t believe this was approved by a vote of our Cultural Heritage Board? Please note repurposed lumber is not CEQA approved approach to historic preservation.

Hillcrest Center
Hillcrest Center was designated as a historic landmark on April 8, 1997, by the Thousand Oaks Cultural Heritage Board (CHB Resolution No. 1). It is the site of Thousand Oaks’ first
COMMENT: *(built) city hall. *(see EIR description: a rental was the first City Hall utilized) COMMENT: The description provided seems minimal compared with other items listed. Please consider fleshing out this description as it is the 60th anniversary of T.O. next yea.

Preserving the design of this early environmentally friendly and low-impact structure provides an invaluable contrast of the early City leaders’s vision.

Preserving this legacy provides a tale of two city halls: in contrast we are able compare it to those who promoted the current Civic Plaza. Celebrity nocompetition architect, enormous budgets, multiple stories and moving message boards would have not been permitted as appropriate for their humble vision of this community. If you would like more information on the original built city hall, please contact me, (I have four storage boxes of information and possibly the featured magazine). I have attached a few images from an architecture magazine article where it was featured.The article reads: “The completion program called for a city hall and chamber of commerce for the first stage of construction (43,114 sq. ft. budgeted at $1,078,000… riding principles were to maximum usefulness to the public, a conception of diverse municipal functions as “a single operating system,” and a need for civic pride.

Height could not exceed 75 ft.

First prize among the 158 entries [there were so many entries that they showcased designs in the high school auditorium] went to Robert Mason Houvenor of San Diego [a Navel ship designer]. His intention (right) is to leave the land as he found it, using the ravines to gain access to the higher elevation, and letting the cars be absorbed, invisibly, on the roof.

The Stage Coach Inn is a reproduction and not on the original site. Preserving for future generations typically includes one or the other, if not both. Please consider featuring a local landmark that is still standing and on its original site. Consider adding a description of site features and photographer citation.

Comment
acknowledged
136. William Maple Chapter 7:

Conservation
HISTORIC RESOURCES Pg. 145
Former Timber School House and Auditorium
Former Timber School House and Auditorium, constructed in 1924 and 1948, was designed in the Mission Revival architectural style by Roy C. Wilson, the first licensed architect in Ventura County.

COMMENT: Please note that the Timber Schoolhouse and adjacent Auditorium are both a combined Ventura County Landmark #166) and should be noted as such in this document
See: VENTURA COUNTY HISTORICAL LANDMARKS & POINTS OF INTEREST listing; third addition, May 2016, pages: 50-51 https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/programs/chb/Points_of_Interest.pdf [#166] Timber School House and Auditorium Built 1924 and 1948 Designated July 13, 2004. 1872 Newbury Road, Newbury Park, CA
The original two-room Timber School was built ca 1924 by Adolph Schroeder and designed by Roy C Wilson, architect, and it is the second school building to occupy this site. There is a later classroom which was added to the east side in 1955, and to the west is the auditorium structure added in 1948. The School is a simple one- story structure built in the Mission Revival style topped by a low gable roof that is capped by a small octagonal cupola that also served as a working bell tower. The Timber School Auditorium was added to the west side of the schoolhouse in 1948.

Comment
acknowledged
29 The auditorium was also designed by Roy C. Wilson, providing a link both aesthetically and historically to the earlier 1924 building.

GOAL AND POLICIES Pg. 150 Goal C-4: Protect oak and landmark trees to maintain Thousand Oak’s unique environmental character.

4.1 Protected tree preservation. Continue to implement the City’s Oak Tree and Landmark Tree Ordinances per the municipal code and the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines..

COMMENT: There doesn’t appear to be a proactive mechanism to list current or at-risk landmark trees. There were two trees dedicated to local MIAs during the Vietnam war. When the Hillcrest Center was abandoned and left to the elements and vandals, the former City Manager told family members the namesake trees would be managed. They were not. One tree survived, as did the POW Gregg O. Hanson who just attended the 50th anniversary celebration returning for Vietnam a the Nixon Library. The other tree named for Eric J. Huberth.

On May 13, 1970 during the Vietnam War, Eric J. Huberth, 26, was flying a mission on an F4D when his aircraft was shot down. He was classified as Missing In Action. He was the oldest child and only son of the Huberth family. His parents and four younger sisters grieved for him, said one of those sisters, Lorraine Larsen of Thousand Oaks. He was never found, and though many years have gone by, the grief remains.Larsen's father passed away. Her older sister Nancy also died. Her 83-year-old mother, Jeanne, now lives in Arizona. Together with her sisters Diane Dadrea and Suzanne Huberth, also residents of Thousand Oaks, Larsen had found comfort in a tree that was planted in their brother's honor.

After the Huberth tree was found to be dead, a citizen proposal initiated a sculpture to be made of the remnant beaches. It is featured today as a reminder of the family’s sacrifice, but also as reminder of the value of this preservation policy and desperate need to create and implement an methodology for assessing possible Landmark Trees and actively maintaining those the exist.

Cultural and Historic Resources Pg-152
Goal C-11: Protect historical and culturally significant resources, which contribute to the community’s sense of identity.

11.1 Cultural resource identification and recognition. Identify and, as appropriate, recognize significant cultural resources by identifying significant cultural resources with landmark designation plaques, directional signage, self-guided tours, programs, and events. 137. William Maple Chapter 7:

Conservation
COMMENT:

Next year, 2024 marks the 100th anniversary of (the existing and on its original site) Timber Schoolhouse, 1924. Adding a “landmark designation plaque” would be especially appropriate for this centennial celebration. Unfortunately there doesn’t appear to be a straight-forward process to request such a plaque. Because the City Council does not meet regularly as our T.O. Cultural Heritage Board to discuss preservation issues, there is no focus on action and goals such as stated in 11.1, (landmark designation plaques) become empty gestures.

Timber schoolhouse is the oldest public use building still standing in the Conejo. It was designed by the first licensed architect of Ventura County, Roy C.

Wilson. It may be the oldest example of his school designs in the county. It has been rezoned at least a couple of times without going before the T.O. Cultural Heritage Board and is now vulnerable to the element and vandalism.

Adding a landmark designation plaque for the centennial celebration seems a minimal effort by those who are required to preserve our cultural heritage.

Page-152

11.1 Cultural resource identification and recognition.Identify and, as appropriate, recognize significant cultural resources by identifying significant cultural resources with landmark designation plaques, directional signage, self-guided tours, programs, and events.

COMMENT:Who and how are resources identified and recognized? The T.O. Cultural Heritage Board does not meet and is not well informed. There is no overall Conejo Valley Cultural & Historical Survey of items over 45 years old, so no at-risk or worthy of evaluation baseline exists. This appears to be a mandate without a method?
Pg-153

11.8 Public and private involvement.

Collaborate with private and public entities whose goals are to protect and preserve historic resources and important cultural resources.

COMMENT: Entities may be a vague word choice. Consider adding “individual” or “resident” to list. Most recent recommendations have come from local private citizens.

SPECIAL NOTE: There has been very little communication between the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board and the Thousand Oaks Cultural Heritage Board. If the City waits on recommendations or proposals from the County, no preservation actions are likely to happen. Neither party now wants of engage or offend, so preservation efforts remain most inert.

I recommend an OVERALL CONEJO VALLEY HISTORIC & CULTURAL ASSETS SURVEY be added to the scope of the EIR and General Plan updates. Anything under 45 years of age should be assessed to help reduce future asset mistakes, losses, conflicts and CEQA debates.

Planning Staff, residents, T.O. Cultural Heritage Board members and developers would then have a common foundational document to evaluate assets, values and future actions. At this time it appears up to a developer or resident to initiate an evaluation.

Either the Rincon Consultants, Inc., or the San Buenaventura Research Associates would do a comprehensive and professional report.

Please consider adding this survey to help preserve at-risk and undocumented assets, that may slip through the current complex and inert process. I believe such a survey would serve future City Planners and residents for generations to come.

Sincerely,
Comment
acknowledged
30 138. Conejo
Climate
Coalition;
Ventura
Climate
Coalition;
Citizens'
Climate Lobby,
Ventura
County;
CFROG;
Chalice
Climate Action
Team; CCCJN;
Ventura
County YIMBY;
Community
Environmental
Council
Chapter 7:

2. Wildlife Connectivity
Add a goal in C-7 for a wildlife connectivity analysis within the City of Thousand Oaks to explore wildlife-vehicle collision hotspots and improvements to connectivity across the city with interventions like modified culverts Urban wildlife is transiting through the City of Thousand Oaks and utilizing the regional Santa Monica-Sierra Madre linkage. This movement should be evaluated and accounted for as improved wildlife connectivity reduces frequency, collision costs and improves driver safety. Improved connectivity also helps species adjust to the impacts of climate change by allowing for range shifts. 3 Air Quality
a. Under 10.2, actions encouraging less use of gasoline or diesel can be amplified by mandating hydrogen dispensers and electric vehicle charging stations at petrol stations. Also require EV charging infrastructure in new developments, commercial and municipal parking. b. Incentivize landowners to make land available for charging. Cities can provide tax incentives and other revenues to landowners who enable EV charging on their sites.

Additionally, we now all have a duty to protect the planet from climate polluting gasses. Reducing emissions by incentivizing EV usage can help reduce the impacts of emissions on the most pollution burdened citizens, and help the City reach its climate goals.

Comment
acknowledged
139. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 7:

Conservation
Conservation Element Goals and Policies, Air Quality Goal C-10, 10.5 provides for avoiding locating residences, schools, and other sensitive receptors near major sources of air pollution “when feasible.”
The purpose of this goal is unclear since it conflicts with the City’s siting of mixed use designated areas and most new multi-family housing along major roadways and the 101 Freeway. More important, we are concerned that the term “where feasible” is ambiguous and might prevent placement of housing on The Oaks site in what we believe are preferable locations from a logistics and design perspective.

Meeting the HRA requirements of C-10.6 should be sufficient along with construction requirements that may be triggered by the HRA study to protect against pollutants for housing that may be located near sources of air pollution.

However, we reiterate our concerns about imposing HRA and other mitigation type requirements as mandatory land use requirements instead of addressing these concerns as part of the CEQA analysis for the General Plan EIR, and the potential conflict between this policy and statutory requirements for low and moderate income housing. See comments to Goal LU-3 and LU-4. (Chapter 7, Conservation P. 152) Comment
acknowledged
140. Nora Aidukas Chapter 7:

Conservation
Figure 7.1 Vegetation Communities has many areas identified as being "barren." This is inaccurate. My previous comments during the entire comment process are included here by reference. "Barren" is a word that means land that is too poor to produce much vegetation or land unable to produce plants.

The City has been made aware of the ongoing resoration project on a portion of the Old Meadows open space that has had the non-native mustard and thistle removed for the past five years, which has resulted in the native seedbank being able to compete for sunlight and moisture, and thrive. Native plants in this restoration area include sagebrush, coyote bush, golden bush, and numerous other plants such as fuschia, narrow-leaf milkweed, slender tarweed, fiddleneck, doveweed, primrose, Spanish clover, lupine, deerweed, and more. Because of the limitations of this constrained method of submitting comments on the Draft General Plan, there are no means of providing photographs and the various communications with the City regarding this restoration area. (This is a flaw in the comment process, which artificially limits the public's ability to meaningfully participate in the process, one that I have pointed out previously.) The important fact is that native seed already in the ground can have its potential realized by removing the non-native plants during the time after the first part of the rainy season. The mustard and thistle easily pull out by the roots, the native plants have a chance to grow, and provide for native pollinators. There is an opportunity here to enhance the areas in the city not only for conservation, but also for fire safety, as dried mustard and non-native grassland catches fire and spreads quickly. A framework for restoring these non-native grasslands can and should be developed now. A single sentence could do it: "The resoration of certain open spaces with native vegetation should be encouraged." Please repsond to my previous comments on the General Plan, and change the word "barren" or omit it altogether.

Comment
acknowledged
31 141. Nora Aidukas Chapter 7:

Conservation
In the section regarding wildlife corridors, why aren't birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects mentioned? Shouldn't they be included? If not, why not? Comment acknowledged
142. Nora Aidukas Chapter 7:

Conservation
How does the Figure 7.4 Wetlands relate to the Borchard property discussed in the Land Use section of this document? What is the area identified in this figure? There is a lack of detail here that makes commenting too difficult.

Comment
acknowledged
143. Nora Aidukas Chapter 7:

Conservation
In the section under Prohibit Destructive Practices, there should be a sentence that includes camping as a destructive practice. Homelessness is an ongoing challenge, and every attempt needs to be made to provide unhoused people options. Unfortunately, there have been pervasive camps of unhoused people in various undeveloped areas of the city, one being a large tract of vacant land near Erbes Road, across from Los Cerritos Middle School. Could this section include camping as a destructive practice in this instance? Comment
acknowledged
144. Nora Aidukas Chapter 7:

Conservation
Could this sentence: "Support regional and state programs that facilitate the reintroduction of endangered, threatened, sensitive and rare species" be changed to include possible local programs to facilitate the reintroduction or restoration of native species? If not, why not? Please refer to other comments I have made during this process.

Again, this fill-in-the-box method of commenting on the General Plan is limiting on the public's ability to meaningfully participate in this process. This is the third or fourth time I've attempted to share information that is useful regarding conservation, but am prevented by this limitation.

Comment
acknowledged
145. Wendy Zimmerman Chapter 7:

Conservation
I greatly value the arroyo that crosses Newbury Park. The section at Wendy Drive between Gerald and Michael includes many life forms including frogs and tadpoles, turtles, bass, minnows, chub and crayfish. Plus blue and red/orange dragonflies that are not seen much elsewhere, and waterfowl including ducks, egrets in both regular and large sizes, herons and many smaller birds. It has plants of many kinds. TO is threatening to destroy this rich habitat with pollution if development of even medium density is allowed along its banks as people will throw more trash in the water and pollutants will be carried in from drainage in much, much bigger quantities from street run-off and waste water. It is fragile now. The view at the bridge is quite entertaining and educational. I usually stop to check on the creek when I pass by on foot or bike. TO says it wants to protect and restore our waterways, yet future plans and zoning do not reflect this goal at all here in Newbury Park.

Comment
acknowledged
146. Wendy Zimmerman Chapter 7:

Conservation
The Borchard parcel should not be yellow for grassland and barren. This is an error. It only looks barren at times because the property owner has the land scraped and denuded of vegetation several times a year (much more often than what is required for fire protection) and chooses to do so most often on holidays like Easter, Halloween and most recently Labor Day weekend when families living near the property are most likely to have outdoor festivities.

When allowed to be in its natural state, from outside the gates/fences, one can easily see ponds that form as soon as the rainy season begins and can last for some time after it ends. Many kinds of plants spring up every year, not just grasses, and you can hear frogs. Waterfowl of many varieties come to use the ponds in addition to the arroyo. You can see egrets, ducks, geese, herons, crows, smaller birds and more. Many birds come to the property even when it is not the rainy season. There are ground squirrels, rabbits and other animals that live in the area. It is FAR FROM BARREN. It is actually quite a rich habitat for plants (including water oriented plants) and wild life in many forms. You can see where ponds form because those are places where plants return the quickest in spite of the frequent scraping including that done most recently around the Labor Day weekend.

Comment
acknowledged
147. Jon Stoeckly Chapter 7:

Conservation
The most underhanded and poor handling in Thousand Oaks. Watering?? Rather than utilize and develop practical ways to conserve water, the city resorts to police like tactics, spying and egregious fines for using water- water that should have been conserved when the rains did come, instead of spending tax payer money on ridiculous projects and expenditures that tax payers would never have approved of had they been a given a voice to an opinion. Picking and choosing those areas that were watered relentlessly simply because they were a “soccer field”? Complete misplanning at the expense of citizens who always used water conservatively and already paid exorbinant prices to use water. How does bringing in more people lend itself to conservation of any natural resources?? “Open Space System” How do you intend to “set aside within development projects” natural open space? Nothing has been set aside thus far with land development for open space. For example, along Thousand Oaks Blvd specs for apartments built by the old Lupe’s Mexican Restaurant have been overridden extensively via this General Plan (page 110). Why aren’t the areas identified with “important open space resources”not being developed now? All that the General Plan Committee is concerned about is development of land via building. (page 114) …as the community population grows and residential development grows denser… availability of park sites are key…so , yea! Dump it on CRPD to keep up with all this development while the priority of city council says “oh yeah, this must be done while we wreck the open space with increased land development. CRPD should be supported to develop the park Comment
acknowledged
32 sites identified on page 117 especially so that land developers don’t snatch away these areas as they intend to. Page 120- this is awful “as new development occurs near T.O. Blvd, T.O. Oaks Mall, south of Moorpark Road, park and open space should be provided. IT SHOULD BE PROVIDED NOW, WITH NO NEW DEVELOPMENT OCCURING IN THOSE AREAS JUST MENTIONED! Protection of open spaces (page 121) à as T.O. bring in new people to open spaces there will be challenges of balance to the natural resources! INDEED!! DEFINITLEY! There’s already tons of trash along the local highways by people who don’t give two cents about our once beautiful city; those who have no stake in the Conejo Valley because they don’t even come from here and can’t afford to live here, yet they are here. That’s the people who have moved here with all the underhanded development to the detriment of current residents who have always cherished this town; who have kept it preserved aesthetically, and who always supported City Council in this effort. Park Standards- admittedly these developers state it will be a challenge to achieve the current park standards of requiring onsite parks and high ratio of parkland- so leave it to the city and its partners to figure this out, after the developers set the precedent for building, and continue to wreak havoc upon this town.Then they speak of “NEW FUNDING MUST BE SECURED TO ENHANCE THE PARK SYSTEM”! But of course, …go to the taxpayers to help fund this project when it’s the very taxpayers that are being ignored and strangled as they shout NO MORE DEVELOPMENT!! Conveniently the General Plan Committee state (page 123) that’s it’s the responsibility of the city to handle parks and open spaces. No, General Plan is out to destroy this town and then leave, never to be seen while the City and its residents are to clean up the aftermath of destruction/ park fees- Really? 149. Nora Aidukas Chapter 7:

Conservation
In the Historic Resources section, it seems like the Janss House should be included. There are other resources that may have been missed on this list:
https://stagecoachinnmuseum.com/activities/2020/9/26/historical-landmarks-driving-tour-of-conejo-valley Shouldn't all of these historic resources be included in the General Plan now? Updated language
is proposed – see
the addenda and
errata
150. Nicole Collazo, Air
Quality
Specialist,
VCAPCD
Planning
Division
Chapter 7:

Conservation

Page 142 ends

Thousand Oaks City CouncilDecember 5, 2023

Thousand Oaks City Council
December 5, 2023