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-21Figure 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 – June 2023January 2022 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-22Figure D-22 shows that Thousand Oaks pre-K, 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-23Figure 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 – June 2023January 2022 D-34
Newbury Park
Westlake The picture can't be displayed.
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – June 2023January 2022 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 – June 2023January 2022 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-24Figure 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-25Figure 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 – June 2023January 2022 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-26Figure 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-27Figure 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 – June 2023January 2022 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-29Figure 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-29Figure 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 D30Figure D-30).
Figure D-30: TCAC Environmental Score- Region
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – June 2023January 2022 D-42
Local Trends
As shown in Figure D-30Figure 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-31Figure 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-12Table 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-31Figure 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 – June 2023January 2022 D-44
Cost Burden
Regional Trends
In Ventura County, approximately 39 percent of households experienced cost burdens (Table D13Table 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-32Figure D-32).
Cost burdened renter households are concentrated in census tracts in Ventura, Oxnard, northern Thousand Oaks, and Simi Valley (Figure D-33Figure 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 – June 2023January 2022 D-45
Figure D-33: Cost Burdened Renters (2019)- Region
Housing problems and cost burdens can also affect special needs populations disproportionately.
Table D-14Table 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 – June 2023January 2022 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-36Figure 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 – June 2023January 2022 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-17Table D-17, 57 percent of all RHNA units are sited in tracts with over 40 percent costburdened 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-18Table 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 – June 2023January 2022 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-19Table 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-38Figure 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 – June 2023January 2022 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-39Figure 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 – June 2023January 2022 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-20Table 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-40Figure 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 D41Figure D-41).
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – June 2023January 2022 D-55
Figure D-41: Sensitive Communities- Region
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – June 2023January 2022 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-42Figure 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) City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – June 2023January 2022 D-57
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 (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- 43Figure 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 City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – June 2023January 2022 D-58
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 ($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- 21Table 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 – June 2023January 2022 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-44Figure 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-45Figure D-45). Despite low rents, over 40 percent of renter households in these areas are considered cost-burdened (Figure D34Figure D-34).
Figure D-44: HCV Concentration- City of Thousand Oaks
City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – June 2023January 2022 D-63
Figure D-45: Median Gross Rent/ Affordability Index - Thousand Oaks City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – June 2023January 2022 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 PreferredEndorsed 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 42Table 42 in the City’s Housing PlanHousing 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- 48Figure 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- 48Figure 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 JannsJanss 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 – June 2023January 2022 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- 50Figure 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – June 2023January 2022 D-73
follows from the City’s Eendorsed Preferred Land Use Map which created and Mixed-Use designation to 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 JannsJanss 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 City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – June 2023January 2022 D-74
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, 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 – June 2023January 2022 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 City of Thousand Oaks
2021-2029 Housing Element – June 2023January 2022 D-76
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. 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 4/pz (FILE ID:2019-70760-GPA, 2022-70558-EIR, 2018-70723-HSG) Safety | 193
Chapter 10
Safety
ATTACHMENT #5
(To 11/13/2023 PC Report)
194 | City of Thousand Oaks General Plan
Overview of ChapterThe City of Thousand Oaks is committed to protecting the communityfrom natural and human-induced hazards and building resilience to projected climate change risks. This Element describes these hazards and establishes goals and policies to protect people, property, and the natural environment.
The following topics are included in this chapter:
• Statutory Requirements
• Natural Hazards
• Human Induced Hazards
• Key Issues and Opportunities
• Goals and Policies
Statutory RequirementsState law requires that the General Plan include an element that addresses hazards such as fires, floods, droughts, earthquakes, landslides, climate change, and other human-induced hazards (Government Code 65302(g)). This chapter meets the legal requirements for a Safety Element and includes policies intended to reduce the potential short and long-term risk of personal injury and damage to the city. Effects as a result of tsunami or peak water supply requirements do not apply to the city and are not addressed. The Safety Element is internally consistent with other topics, as required by State law, including: 1) Land Use; 2) Housing; 3) Open Space; 4) Conservation; and 5) Environmental Justice. Thousand Oaks has also conducted an Evacuation Assessment.
Safety | 195
BackgroundThis section provides an overview of natural hazards, including faultingand seismic activity, landslides, liquefaction, and known geological hazards, flooding, dam failure, wildland and urban wildfires, and climate change. Human-induced hazards include hazardous materials, terrorism, and disease. In addition to this Safety Element, the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency (COSCA) Strategic Plan acts as a guiding document for natural and climate hazards’ resilience and adaptation. Ventura County and the City have adopted a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMPMJHMP) that addresses existing and potential natural and human-made hazards in Thousand Oaks. The City EmergencyOperations Plan addresses the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency incidents associated with natural disasters, cyberattacks, and national security emergencies. Emergency management context, goals and policies are provided in the Community Facilities and Services Element (Chapter 8).
Solar panels help the City meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals 196 | City of Thousand Oaks General Plan
Natural Hazards Thousand Oaks is located in the Conejo Valley of eastern Ventura County in an area with distinctive geomorphic features comprised of mountains, artificial lakes, and rolling hills with clearly defined access points to the City. The Valley is about nine miles long and seven miles wide and is situated at an elevation of about 800 feet above sea level.
The Conejo Valley is surrounded by Mountclef Ridge and the Simi Hills to the north and east, the Santa Monica Mountains to the south, and Conejo Mountain to the west. The developed portions of Thousand Oaks are located primarily on the Conejo Valley floor and on slopes of less than 25% gradient. The unique features of the Conejo Valley introduce a variety of natural hazards. This section of the Safety Element describes the associated natural risks in Thousand Oaks.
Faulting and Seismic Hazards
Thousand Oaks is in a seismically active region at risk from hazardsassociated with earthquakes, including fault rupture and seismic shaking. While no active faults have been mapped within the City limits, the Boney Mountain and Sycamore Canyon faults, both of which are inactive, traverse part of the City.36 The Simi fault, an active fault located approximately one mile north of the City, is anticipated to generate the highest peak ground accelerations for the City. These and other faults in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties can produce large earthquakes that could impact the entire region, including Thousand Oaks, as depicted in Figure 10.1. Earthquake damage depends on a variety of factors including fault properties, proximity to the fault, ground and soil characteristics, among others.
Landslides and Debris Flows
“Landslide” is a general term for the dislodging and fall of a mass of soil or rocks along a sloped surface. Many landslides have resulted from indiscriminate modification of sloping ground or the creation of slopes from cut and fill in geologically unstable areas. Some previous landslides could have been prevented through recognition ofpotentially unstable soils and/or incorporation of design standards prior to grading and construction. Landslides, debris flows, rockfalls, and mudslides could all occur in portions of Thousand Oaks. All are manifestations of gravity driven flows of earth materials due to slope instability. Hill slopes naturally tend to fail. Unless engineered properly, development in hillside areas tends to increase the potential for slope failures. Slope modification by grading, changes in the infiltration of surface water, and undercuttingslopes can create unstable hill slopes, resulting in landslides or debris flows. Areas at high risk of landslides in Thousand Oaks are shown in Figure 10.2. These areas are generally located around the perimeter of the City in open space areas with steeper slopes.
36. Inactive faults are geologic structures that can be identified but cannot cause an earthquake. An active fault is a fault that is likely to have another earthquake sometime in the future. Faults are commonly considered to be active if there has been movement observed or evidence of seismic activity during the last 10,000 years.
Safety | 197
Soil Hazards Liquefaction occurs when soil below the water table temporarily loses strength during an earthquake and changes to a near-liquid state. Depending on specific soil conditions such as density, uniformity of grain size, and saturation of soil materials, a certain intensity of seismic shaking is required to trigger liquefaction. Liquefaction is typically associated with medium to fine-grained sands in a loose to medium-dense condition. Liquefaction can cause large movements of the ground and the resettlingof soils after a liquefaction event can damage buildings and buried utilities. Liquefaction risk zones are present along Lang Creek, which runs southwestward from Oakbrook Regional Park, crossing State Route23, and junctions with the Arroyo Conejo. Liquefaction zones also run along Highway 101 into Newbury Park. Another liquefaction zone is present in the northwest corner of the City’s Sphere of Influence, along Hill Canyon Road, near where North Fork Arroyo Conejo meets Conejo Creek. High liquefaction risk zones are shown in Figure 10.3. Expansive soils generally have a high clay content and shrink when dry and swell when wet. Expansive soils can cause considerable damage to building foundations, roads, and other structures. The presence of expansive soils is typically determined by soil testing on the project site level. In Thousand Oaks, potentially expansive soils can be found throughout the City. Settlement hazards can occur in areas with alluvial deposits. Largescale settlement problems have generally not been an issue in Thousand Oaks since geological hazard studies and compliance with California Building Code guidelines are required prior to construction. Areas of poorly consolidated sediments are engineered to support the weight of a structure that is to be built on the site. In areas of fill, the fill must be compacted to adequately support the proposed development.
Flood Hazards Thousand Oaks is part of the Calleguas Creek Watershed. Heavy rainfall in this watershed can result in runoff that inundates the stormwater conveyance system, resulting in flooding. The Thousand Oaks area is subject to periodic inundation from flooding in certain areas, which can result in destruction of property, loss of life, and creation of health and safety hazards. Heavy rains during winter storms have caused several flooding events in Thousand Oaks. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood risk zones are depicted in Figure 10.4.37 The 100-year floodplain identifies areas that have a 1% probability (1 in 100) of flooding. The 500-year floodplain identifies areas that have a
0.2% probably (1 in 500) of flooding. The main area of the City that is potentially subject to flooding is in the Newbury Park area of the City, south of Highway 101, between Old Conejo Road and Borchard Road.
37. A 100-year flood zone is the land that is predicted to flood during a 100-year storm, which has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year.
City staff address flooding in the City
198 | City of Thousand Oaks General Plan
FIGURE 10.1 Seismic Faults
Safety | 199
FIGURE 10.2 Landslide Risk Zones
200 | City of Thousand Oaks General Plan
FIGURE 10.3 Liquefaction Risk Zones
Safety | 201
FIGURE 10.4 FEMA Flood Hazard Zones
Dam Failure
The Thousand Oaks area has five dams, depicted in Figure 10.5. Lake Sherwood and Lake Eleanor have the potential to result in inundation impact as a result of a dam failure. Failure of the Lake Sherwood Dam could flood the Westlake area of Thousand Oaks, while failure of the Banning Dam at Lake Eleanor could flood the Westlake Boulevard area.
Failure of the remaining three dams in the area would not flood any portion of Thousand Oaks.
Wildfires Wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape, and vegetation conditions. Thousand Oaks is vulnerable to wildfire, as shown by the devastating effects of the Woolsey Fire in November 2018. The fire, fueled by strong and dry northeasterly Santa Ana winds, damaged and destroyed dozens of properties and temporarily displaced hundreds of residents. A substantial portion of Thousand Oaks is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, also known as CAL FIRE. This can be partially attributed to the abundance of open space and vegetated hills throughout the City. Developed areas of Thousand Oaks on the Valley f loor are generally at lower risk of wildfire. Areas within City limits are designated Local Fire Responsibility Areas, meaning their management is the responsibility of the Ventura County Fire Protection District. The unincorporated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones surrounding Thousand Oaks are designated State Responsibility Areas, meaning their management is the responsibility of CAL FIRE. Figure 10.6 shows VHFHSZs in Thousand Oaks, which encompasses a majority of the City.
Only the more densely developed core of the City is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Figure 10.7 shows where the cities critical facilities and infrastructure are located in regards to the Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Most of these facilities are located outside the local responsibility area (LRA), except for fire stations which are located inside and outside the LRA.
Wildfires in or near Thousand Oaks have been documented as far back as 1935. Figure 10.8 shows local fire history from 1935 to 2019. The most recent fires are the Hill and Woolsey Fires. The Hill Fire was reported at 2:03 p.m. on November 8, 2018, and twenty-one minutes later, the Woolsey Fire was reported. The Hill Fire began in the Camarillo area at Hill Canyon, about one mile west of Thousand Oaks, and burned a total of 4,531 acres. The Woolsey Fire started in Woolsey Canyon on the Santa Susana Field Laboratory property in Simi Valley and burned 96,949 acres in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, destroyed 1,643 structures, killed three people, and caused the evacuation of more than 295,000 people. The Woolsey Fire response was made more complex due to the mass shooting that occurred the day before the fire began, on November 7, 2018 at the Borderline Bar and Grill taking the lives of 13 people.Climate change is expected to exacerbate wildfire risk by creating hotter and drier landscapes, which are more susceptible to burning. In 2020 alone, California experienced six of the 20 largest fires in modern history and as of the 2021, over three million acres of land have burned. These fires arose during extreme fire weather conditions and record-breaking heat waves across California. The observed frequency of autumn days with extreme fire weather, which are associated with extreme autumn wildfires, has more than doubled in California since theearly 1980s.38 Due to an increase in factors that contribute to wildfires (variability in precipitation, hotter and drier landscapes) and because the City is in a VHFHSZ, it is expected to see an increase in wildfire hazards largely due to climate change. Mitigating these wildfire hazards are a high priority for the City of Thousand Oaks.
Wildfire Prevention Planning There are several countywide plans that guide wildfire policies and programs in Thousand Oaks. Ventura County Fire Protection District (VCFPD) Unit Strategic Fire Plan describes Ventura County’s fire history, firefighting capabilities, and collaboration throughout different agencies, non-government organizations, and private entities. It also provides a reporting mechanism that tracks the implementation of projects that work to meet VCFPD’s goals and objectives. 202 | City of Thousand Oaks General Plan
The Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council is also in the process of The Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council is in the process of completing a Ventura County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) that provides regional context and the county-wide priority actions regarding community engagement and education, structural hardening, defensible space, fuels reduction, evacuation and emergency response. The Ventura County CWPP is expected to be completed by Fall 2023. The Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), which covers the City of Thousand Oaks planning area, was developed in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) and followed FEMA’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan guidance. The MJHMP incorporates a process where hazards are identified and profiled, the people and facilities at risk are analyzed, and mitigation actions are developed to reduce or eliminate hazard risk. The implementation of these mitigation actions, which includeboth short and long-term strategies, involve planning, policy changes, programs, projects, and other activities.
Urban Fires Urban fires occur in cities or towns with the potential to rapidly spread to adjoining structures. These fires damage and destroy homes, schools,commercial buildings, and vehicles. Although fires can start from numerous causes, major fires are often the result of other hazards such as storms, drought, transportation accidents, hazardous material spills, criminal activity (arson), or terrorism. The potential secondary effects of an urban fire include utilities’ failure and hazardous material spills.
Although any developed area of the City can be subject to an urban fire, Thousand Oaks has no areas of unusually high urban fire risk.
38. Goss, Michael et al. 2020. Climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme autumn wildfire conditions across California. Environmental Research Letters 15.094016 Safety | 203
204 | City of Thousand Oaks General Plan
FIGURE 10.5 DamInundationDam Inundation
Safety | 205
FIGURE 10.6 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
206 | City of Thousand Oaks General Plan
FIGURE 10.7 Public Facilities and Fire Hazard Severity Zones Safety | 207
FIGURE 10.8 Wildfire History
Emergency Evacuation
As part of the General Plan update process, the City of Thousand Oaks completed an emergency evacuation analysis pursuant to SB 99 (Section 65302) and AB 747 (Section 65302). The SB 99 and AB 2911 map identifies any residential developments in any hazard area that does not have at least two evacuation routes. AB 747 requires scenario modeling to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios. Results of the analysis show that even with Thousand Oaks’ broad transportation system, an evacuation event could still result in significant congestion, resulting in delayed evacuation for residents. For example, in the case of a large wildfire, Highway 101 and SR 23 could become unviable prompting emergency traffic management and the use of alternative evacuation routes. The analysis also found that 33 residential developmentsFigure 10.9 shows the neighborhoods and subdivisions throughout the city that have a single entry or exit point. (as identified by CAL FIRE and/or the City). The analysis allows the City to identify areas at higher risk of impacts of human welfare and supports new evacuation strategies that improve the transportation system in future evacuation events. These strategies include implementing traffic management strategies, improving communication among entities involved in the management of response, improving communication between the City and the public, and prioritizing vulnerable populations. The detailed evacuation analysis can be found in Appendix B and the map of single exit/entry neighborhoods can be found in the goals and policies section of this Safety Element.
Climate Change As seen by the rise in average temperatures, extreme heat days, and sea levels over the past century, climate change is already affecting California. Climate change has wide-reaching consequences that affect California’s health and prosperity, such as increased frequency and severity of wildfires, pressure on water supplies, and an increase in populations that will be exposed to intense heat waves. The City has long been committed to environmental leadership, especially in the face of climate change. This commitment is critical since virtually all people and assets in Thousand Oaks –including infrastructure, buildings, and the natural environment
– will be affected
in some way. The City participates in climate action and sustainability planning both locally and through regional collaboration and has taken steps to reduce the City’s reliance on fossil fuels, a primary source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2015, the Ventura County Regional Energy Reliance (VCREA) released “Climate on the Move”, a regional GHG emissions inventory and climate action plan template for each of the local government member organizations in Ventura County. Since then, the City has developed its own 2010-2020 GHG emissions inventory. According to this inventory, transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions for the City (65% of all emissions) and natural gas is the second largest source (22% of all emissions). The inventory also includes forecasts to 2030 and beyond. The City is using this data to understand its emissions sources and develop pathways to reduce emissions to the working targets established by City Council in 2021 of at least 40% below 2010 levels by 2030 and 80% below 2010 levels by 2050.
Climate change impacts and climate resilience in Thousand Oaks are described in the following sections.
39. Model RCP 8.5, Cal-Adapt 2019. 40. “Business as usual” refers to a an GHG emissions scenario where there will be no major change in technology, economics, or policies, and consequently the trajectory of GHG emissions would continue to increase at the same rate they have historically.
208 | City of Thousand Oaks General Plan
Safety | 209
Temperature and Extreme Heat Average maximum temperatures in Thousand Oaks are expected to rise between 4.5°F and 7.2°F by the end of the century, with some variations depending on the emissions model used. Additionally, average minimum temperatures in the City are expected to rise between 4.9°F and 7.9°F by the end of the century. The projected continued warming of average minimum and maximum temperatures as well as more frequent high temperature extremes may have severe impacts on water and energy demand, as well as public health and ecosystem function.39 The annual number of heat waves, defined as four or more days over the extreme heat threshold of 94.1°F, is projected to increase from
0.3 to 4.4 by the end of the century, based on the business-as-usual scenario emissions scenario.40 The annual number of extreme heat days with temperatures greater than 94.1°F is projected to increase from approximately nine days in 2015 to roughly 56 days by the end of the century, resulting in longer heatwaves. From 1961 to 1990, the observed average number of days in the longest heat wave was 2.5. By the end of the century the business-as-usual emissions scenario projects the average number of days in the longest heat wave to be 8.6. The increase in surface heating may result in changes in seasonal patterns, an increase in heat waves, drought, and potentially increased storm frequency and intensity. Overall quality of life in the City would be impacted during extreme heat events as outdoor activities would be limited and overall comfort reduced. The primary population that is vulnerable to temperature increases and extreme heat in Thousand Oaks is older adults, who do not adjust as well as young people to sudden changes in temperature and are more likely to have medical conditions that can worsen with extreme heat. Older adults living alone are at even higher risk. Children are also at risk to extreme heat impacts, especially those under the age of four, due to their less-developed physiology, immune system, and dependence on others.
Extreme heat can be highly dangerous to persons with chronic healthconditions, because very high temperatures can exacerbate diabetes, cardiovascular conditions, respiratory ailments, and other diseases. Some of these populations have weakened immune systems which can make them more likely to contract illnesses and increase overall vulnerability to other human health hazards. In addition, outdoor workers are vulnerable to extreme heat. Thousand Oaks does not have a high number of households in poverty. Nevertheless, the City’s low-income households are at higherthan-average risk because of limited financial resources for home improvements and energy costs for air conditioning usage to better cope with extreme heat.
Climate Action Plan The State of California Scoping Plan includes guidance for local jurisdictions to reduce GHG emissionsthrough local planning and permitting. The State recommends that local governments evaluate and adopt robust and quantitative locally appropriate GHG reduction goals that align with the statewide targets for 2030 and 2050. The guidance states that it is appropriate for local jurisdictions to derive evidence-based per capita goals based on local emissions sectors and population projections. LocalGHG reduction strategies to achieve the statewide targets can be implemented through standalonedocuments such as the Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP). This includes GHG emissions reduction targets, and policies and actions to achieve these targets. The CEAP can serve to provide GHG targets and performance metrics for future projects.
210 | City of Thousand Oaks General Plan
Precipitation Projections show little change in total annual precipitation in California, with no clear or consistent trend during the next century. Cal-Adapt precipitation models show evidence for precipitation intensification over shorter durations of time with the annual number of dry days increasing. While there is likelihood of increased drought severity, there is also the possibility of occasional wet years. Because precipitation projections remain variable, some years will be less drought prone than others due to more frequent and possibly stronger storms.
Both increased temperatures and altered precipitation patterns can lead to altered seasons and intense rainstorms in Thousand Oaks. Intense rainstorms could result in increased flooding, which could affect property as well as human safety. Increases in intense precipitation could result in slope failures in the landslide prone areas shown in Figure 10.2.
Drought Climate change will increase the probability that low precipitation years will coincide with above-average temperature years. This increases the likelihood of drought due to decreased supply of moisture and increased evaporation. This has implications for water demand. Warmer temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns, as well as more frequent and extreme drought conditions, are anticipated to result in increased water needs to support irrigation.
Even though the State may not have a reduction in overall water, the City depends on imported water from the State Water Project (SWP) from northern California, and extended drought scenario is predicted forthis area. Areas that supply water to the State Water Project are expected to see a 22% reduction of their water supply, which could reduce the amount of potable water available for delivery to the City.41 In 2022, allocation of water to this region from the SWP was severely curtailed, forcing the City to declare a Level 4 (40- 50%) water shortage. This resulted in a number of drought measures in the City including a oneday-a-week watering limit and a ban on the watering of non-functional turf at commercial properties.
Human-Induced Hazards Human-induced hazards originate from technological or industrial accidents, dangerous procedures, infrastructure failures, or certain human activities that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption, or environmental degradation.
Human-induced hazards can also result from the alteration of natural processes in the Earth’s systems caused by human activities that may accelerate to aggravate the damage potential.
Hazardous Materials A wide variety of products, chemical and purified chemical compounds,and elements considered hazardous, or toxic are used in households, commercial businesses, and industrial operations and processes. These include home and pool related chlorine products, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, stored fuels and waste oil, chemical solvents and lubricants, and a variety of medical materials. The improper use and/or management of hazardous materials can pose a threat to the community and the environment. Thousand Oaks is one of the only cities in the region to have its own dedicated Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) facility to collect and process waste from residents.
Beginning in 2023, the City began a home collection program to collectHHW at residents’ homes. Thousand Oaks does not contain a high concentration of hazardous material sites such as leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites, contaminated groundwater sites under the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Site Cleanup Program, and hazardous waste sites under the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Site Cleanup Program.
41. State Water Project Delivery Capability Report (DCR) 2019 (DWR 2020) Safety | 211
Terrorism Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.42 Most Americans see terrorism as an assault on the most basic human right to life and security that cannot be justified based on any political or social objective. Public safety services such as police, fire, and emergency management and response are discussed in the Community Facilities and Services Element of the General Plan and in the City Emergency Operations Plan.
Disease Infectious disease emergencies are circumstances caused by biological agents, including organisms such as bacteria, viruses, or toxins with thepotential for significant illnesses or death in the population. As evidenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, unforeseen infectious diseases can be disastrous for communities, especially vulnerable groups such as older adults, and those with compromised immune systems. The City worked diligently during the pandemic to minimizerisks to community members and address local economic effects of the pandemic. Between 2020 and 2021 the City created numerous public relief funds for residents and businesses. Additionally, the City disseminated information regularly, including where to buy groceries (at onset of the pandemic), testing information, business support, homeowner support and more. Through collaborations with Ventura County Public Health (VCPH), the City has worked to prevent and minimize effects of and spread of disease, while responding to emergency incidents and assisting in recovery. Policies set forth in this Element regarding infectious disease can help expedite recovery and prepare the community for future related risks.
42. 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85
Drought affects overall water usage in the City
212 City of Thousand Oaks General Plan
Key Issues & OpportunitiesThis section identifies the key issues and opportunities facing the City, relative to safety topics. This concise list was developed in combination of the public engagement phase and existing data to address issues facing the city now, and in the future, and the opportunities for positive change. The topics inform the overall direction identified in the goals, policies, and actions listed below.
Seismic Hazards Although no active faults traverse Thousand Oaks, the City is subject to potentially severe ground shaking in the event of seismic activity on any of several active faults in the region. Continued enforcement of applicable state and local codes will minimize the potential for loss of life and property during an earthquake.
Landslides/Debris Flow Safety Issues Steeply sloped areas of the City continue to be landslide prone, which can be exacerbated by wildfires that denude vegetation and reduce slope stability. Continued enforcement of applicable code requirements, in combination with limiting development density on steep slopes and efforts to minimize and address wildfires, will minimize the potential for landslide-related property damage and loss of life.
Soil Hazards. Limited areas of Thousand Oaks are subject to liquefaction and soil expansion, which can result in property damage. Continued enforcementof state and local code requirements on new development will minimize the potential for severe damage.
Wildfires can cause damage to life and property in the City Safety | 213
Flooding Limited areas of the City are within 100-year flood zones, but the potential frequency and severity of floods may increase over time due to climate change. Continued enforcement of federal and local restrictions on development in flood-prone areas will minimize the potential for flood-related damage. However, ongoing tracking of flood patterns in coordination with FEMA will be needed to identify changes in flood potential. Urban and Wildland Fires Thousand Oaks is vulnerable to wildland fires, which present a substantial and potentially growing risk to the community. Continued enforcement of state and local fire codes will address fire risks, but ongoing enforcement and, as necessary, update of fire codes will be needed to minimize the effects of wildland fires. Ensuring the adequacy of emergency evacuation procedures and routes will also be a high priority over the time horizon of the General Plan. Climate Resilience The City is subject to a variety of potentially adverse effects related to climate change, including increased heat exposure and increased potential for flooding, drought, and wildland fire. Various new state requirements specifically address these types of risks. Reducing the potential for such changes to occur and/or to affect residents and community services and improving the ability to respond effectively to a range of climate-related events will be a high priority for the community. Hazardous Materials Although hazardous material exposure is not a major issue in Thousand Oaks, the potential for exposure exists due to the presence ofcontaminated sites, hazardous material transport, and emissions from freeways and other major roadways. Key approaches to addressing these issues include cleaning up contaminated sites and limiting exposure of sensitive land uses to potential hazardous material spills and emissions of toxic air contaminants.43 Terrorism Thousand Oaks, like many communities, has facilities that are potentially targets for terrorism. Such acts can occur in a range of spaceswhere people congregate. Continuing to identify and avoid terrorism threats will remain a priority for local law enforcement. Disease Like many communities, Thousand Oaks is not immune to the spread of disease. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrated that no community is immune to the effects of infectious diseases. The City will continue to work with federal, state, and local authorities to track and, as necessary, prevent the spread of infectious diseases to the degree feasible.
43. Toxic air contaminants are addressed in the Conservation, Cultural, and Historic Resources Element. Fire crews fight a fire in the Thousand Oaks hills 214 | City of Thousand Oaks General Plan
Goals and PoliciesThis section includes goals and policies for the Safety Element. Policies regarding emergency facilities and response are in the Community Facilities and Services Element. Faulting and Seismic Hazards Goal S-1: MinimizeMitigate the risk of loss of life, injury, damage toproperty, and economic and social dislocation resulting from fault rupture and seismically induced ground shaking.
1.1 Geologic and engineering investigations.
Require site-specific geologic and engineering investigations as specified in the California Building Code (as adopted by the State of California with local amendments) and Municipal Code for proposed new developments.
1.2 Earthquake resistant design.
Enforce the latest California Building Code (CBC) provisions relating to earthquake resistant design.
1.3 Strong motion instrumental program fund.
AllocateContinue to allocate a percentage of building permit fees (as specified in the Public Resources Code) to a trust fund (Strong Motion Instrumentation Program Fund) which is remitted to the State of California.
1.4 Setback distances.
Provide setbacks, as determined to be necessary, for any proposed development located on or near an active or potentially active fault. Appropriate setback distances will be determined through engineering geologic investigation.
1.5 Notice of geologic hazards.
Require all developers and/or subdividers of a parcel or parcels in an area of a known fault hazard to record a Notice of Geologic Hazards with the County Recorder describing the hazards on the parcel and the level of prior geologic investigation conducted.
1.6 Faulting/seismic hazards.
Require hazard mitigation, project redesign, elimination of building sites, and the delineation of building envelopes, building setbacks and foundation requirements, as deemed necessary, to minimize faulting/ seismic hazards for new development and redevelopment.
1.7 Seismic retrofitting.
Investigate options for seismic retrofitting of older buildings that do not meet current seismic standards.
Landslides and Debris Flows Goal S-2: MinimizeMitigate loss, injury, damage, and economic and socialdislocations resulting from soil landslide, debris flow, soil expansion, and settlement. 2.1 Setbacks from debris flow.
Require all development to provide setbacks from potentially unstable areas, including potential debris flow channels, as identified in engineering and geologic studies.
2.2 Drainage plans.
Require new projects to prepare drainage plans designed to direct runoff away from unstable areas.
2.3 Surface runoff in unstable areas.
Discourage introduction of surface runoff, including nuisance water into the ground, where the area is unstable.
2.4 Road reconstruction.
Where washouts or landslides have occurred on public or private roads, require road reconstruction to meet the conditions of geologic and engineering reports.
2.5 Building in flowline.
Discourage development in the flowline or discharge areas of hillside swales or channels.
2.6 Notice of geologic hazards.
In areas of known slope instability or debris flow hazards, require developers and/or subdividers of a parcel or parcels to record a Notice of Geologic Hazards with the County Recorder describing the potential hazards on the parcel and the level of prior geologic investigation conducted.
Soil Hazards Goal S-3: MinimizeMitigate loss, injury, damage, and economic and socialdislocation resulting from soil hazards. 3.1 Liquefaction.
Require developers to submit studies that evaluate liquefaction potential for proposed developments in areas susceptible to liquefaction as illustrated by Figure 10.3.
3.2 Liquefaction hazard risk.
Require project alterations and/or mitigation as necessary to remediate liquefaction hazard risk.
3.3 Notice of geologic hazards.
Require developers and/or subdividers of a parcel or parcels in areas susceptible to liquefaction or of known highly expansive soils hazard to record a Notice of Geologic Hazards with the County Recorder describing the potential hazards on the parcel and the level of prior geologic investigation conducted unless the condition has been mitigated.
3.4 Soils reports.
Require the preparation of a soils report, prepared by a registered civil engineer, for developments where soils have been identified that are subject to expansion, or where there is inadequate soils information.
3.5 Hazard mitigation for soil hazards.
Require hazard mitigation, as necessary, to mitigate hazards associated with soils that may be subject to expansion, or settlement.
Flood Hazards Goal S-4: MinimizeMitigate loss of life, injury, property damage, andeconomic and social dislocations resulting from inundation by dam failure or floods. 4.1 New development in flood zones.
Require new development in flood zones and dam inundation areas to minimize flood potential and ensure that development siting and design features will not increase flood inundation potential offsite. Regulate filing, grading, dredging, and other development that may increase flood damage.
4.2 New essential facilities in flood zone.
Prohibit the siting and construction of new essential public facilities within flood hazard zones, when feasible. If an essential facility must be located within a flood hazard zone, incorporate flood mitigation to the greatest extent practicable.
4.3 Critical and lifeline facilities.
Maintain the structural and operational integrity of critical and lifeline facilities during and after flooding events.
Safety | 215
216 | City of Thousand Oaks General Plan
4.4 Master Plan of Drainage compliance.
Comply with provisions of the Master Plan of Drainage for new development.
4.5 Drainage deficiencies.
Implement drainage improvements to address deficiencies identified in the Master Plan of Drainage, and periodically update the City’s Master Plan of Drainage to incorporate new data and conditions.
4.6 Notice of flood hazards.
Require the developers and/or subdividers of a parcel or parcels in an area of known flood hazards to record a Notice of Geologic Hazards with the County Recorder describing the hazards on the parcel or parcels and the extent of prior hydrologic or geologic investigation conducted.
4.7 Floodplain improvements.
Partner with the Ventura County Watershed Protection District to complete drainage improvements to enable parcels to be removed from the 100-year floodplain.
4.8 Flood control.
Protect and maintain natural hydrological and ecological functions by implementing flood control improvements that use natural materials when possible. If the use of natural materials is not feasible, select the most environmentally preferred option and limit concrete channelization to the extent possible.
4.9 Agency coordination.
Coordinate flood control planning with the Ventura County Public Works Department and Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Wildfires Goal S-5: Provide necessary prevention services to reduce loss and damage due to wildfire.
5.1 Cooperation of VCFPD.
Continue to support the Ventura County Fire Protection District (VCFPD) and property owners living in the wildland urban interface by supporting inter-jurisdictional fire protection agreements.
5.2 Road widths and clearances.
Ensure that new development has appropriate road widths and clearances in accordance with:
• Standards specified in the City of Thousand Oaks Road Standards and construction specifications in effect at the time ofconstruction. • Any other standard and specific conditions required by State and County Fire Codes and VCFPD in the permit application.
5.3 DefensiveDefensible spaces.
Establish defensivedefensible spaces in the urban/wildland urban interface (WUI) interface to protect against wildfire. DefensiveDefensible spaces shall:
• Establish and maintain a 100-foot defensible perimeter or other measures in compliance with state and local codes around eachhabitable structure along the urban wildlandWUI interface. • Provide for the removal of annual fuels within the
defensivedefensible perimeter.
• Provide any fire suppression resource from any agency the opportunity to successfully protect structures and other valuableproperties during a wildfire threat. • Create an ember resistant zone within 5 feet of structures by using extra fuel reduction measures within 5 and 10 feet of the structure,pursuant to AB 3074 (Public Resource Code 4291).. • Protect watershed areas from exposure to structure fires in the Safety | 217
urban/wildlandWUI interface areas.
• Require fuel modification zones for new development within the VHFHSZ.
5.4 Public facilities and utilities in high fire zones.
Discourage the location of new public facilities and above-ground utilities in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. When unavoidable, special precautions should be taken to minimize potential fire impacts to public facilities.
5.5 Science-based fuel management.
Work with VCFPD, COSCA, and other agencies, as appropriate, to implement science-based fuel management programs and post fire recovery plans that conserve wildlife habitat while protecting public safety.
5.6 Fire Safe Development standards.
Continue to incorporateupdate and require fire safe design into development standards such asfor new development in SRAs or VHFHSZs that meet or exceed the statewide minimums in the SRA Fire Safe Regulations. Fire safe development codes shall includeinitial site design standards, landscape design standards, on-going maintenance standards, and mitigation measures into individual developments to reduce the potential damage and destruction due to fire.
5.7 Fire Hazard Severity Zone map.
Work with the Cal FireCAL FIRE and VCFPD to update the Very HighFire Hazard Severity Zone map as new data is available.
5.8 Wildfire resilience.
Continue to meet all current standards and best practices for wildfire planning in accordance with local regulations and State guidance.
5.9 Public outreach and education.
Educate residents on fire hazard reduction strategies to employ on their properties and nearby evacuation routes. Prioritize outreach to the most vulnerable populations such as older adults and individuals with chronic health conditions.
5.10 DevelopmentFire protection for new development.
Require that all new development have adequate fire protection and that development can be served with VCFD’s response time goal.
5.105.11 Develop fire safety compliance.
Ensure that all new development in SRAs or VHFHSZs complies with fire safety requirementsfor construction in , including the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zonesmost current version of the California Building Codes, California Fire Code, and Fire Safe Regulations for fuel modification around homes and subdivisions.
5.115.12 Fire management best practices.
Require that developments located in wildland urban interface areas incorporate measures to reduce the threat of wildfires, accounting for any increased risk related to climate change. Clearly delineate fuel modification areas on grading plans.
5.125.13 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Follow all guidelines in the Local Hazard Mitigation PlanMJHMPand other applicable County, State, and Federal fire mitigation policies.
5.135.14 Ingress and egress points.
Whenever feasible, require the construction of multiple ingress and egress points for new development projects in high fire hazard severity zones.Fire Hazard Severity Zones. For example, each neighborhood/subdivisions should have at least two emergency evacuation ingress and egress points. See Figure 10.79.
5.145.15 Fuel Long-term fuel reduction.
Implement the Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the VCFPD Unit Strategic Fire Plan, and the Ventura County Community Wildfire Protection Plan by requiring long term maintenance of fuel reduction projects; including but not limited to, a roadside fuel reduction plan, defensible space clearances (including fuel beaks) around structures, subdivision, and other development in the VHFHSZ.
5.16 Fire clearance.
218 | City of Thousand Oaks General Plan
Continue to establish and maintain community firefuel breaks and fuel modification/reduction zones, including public and private road clearance. Provide a plan detailing long-term maintenance including implementation methods and funding source.
5.155.17 Local ordinance updates.
Continue to update both Fire & City ordinances to require development standards for the VHFHSZ to meet or exceed title 14, CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 2, articles 1-5 (commencing with section 1270) (SRA Fire Safe Regulations) and title 14, CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 3, article 3 (commencing with section1299.01) (Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structures Regulations).) for SRAs and/or VHFHSZs.
5.165.18 Rebuild post fire re-development.
In the event of a large fire, the City will evaluate redevelopment within the impacted fire zone to conform to contemporary fire safe standards and require all development to meet or exceed City and State standards.
5.19 Siting new development.
Prioritize all new residential development to be built outside the VHFHSZ.
5.175.20 Fire Protection Plans.
Require Fire Protection Plans for all new development in VHFHSZs. 5.21 Existing non-conforming development.
Minimize risks to existing development by identifying existing non-conforming development not meeting current fire safe standards, in terms of road standards and vegetative hazard; and requiring all development to meet or exceed CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 2, articles 1-5 requirements (SRA Fire Safe Regulations).
5.22 Evacuation and emergency vehicle access.
Maintain evacuation and emergency roadways and improve them as necessary and appropriate to ensure ongoing serviceability.
5.23 Street signage.
Require that all homes have visible street addressing and signage
5.24 Evaluate water supply.
Continuously evaluate the City’s capacity to adequately suppress wildfire, taking into account water supply availability, maintenance and long-term integrity of water supplies, and location of anticipated water supply, as part of the City’s Water Master Plan.
5.25 Additional water supply.
Investigate the use of additional water sources, such as local groundwater and reclaimed water resources, to reduce reliance on imported water from the State Water Project.
5.26 Water storage and availability.
Coordinate with Calleguas Municipal Water District to support the provision of adequate water availability throughout the City and provision of adequate water storage to meet future peak fire demand during times of peak domestic demands.
5.27 Evacuation operations planning.
ContinueContinue to assess and update the City’s Emergency Operations plan to improve evacuation operations and planning for the community, with a focus on areas with inadequate access/ evacuation routes., identified in Figure 10.9. This includes developing minimum standards for evacuation of residential areas in VHFHSZs.
5.28 Emergency service needs.
Continue to assess and update the City’s Emergency Operations plan to assess current emergency service and projected emergency service needs, goals, and standards for emergency services training for City staff and volunteers.
FIGURE 10.9 Neighborhoods/Subdivisions with One Entry/Exit Safety | 219
Climate Resilience
Goal S-6: Reduce community vulnerability to climate-related threats andincrease community resilience. 6.1 Reduce urban heat island effect.
Reduce urban heat island effect by continuing to invest in the City’s urban forest and tree plantings, and support the use of heat reflective paint, cool surface treatment, and cool paving in buildings, facilities, infrastructure and streets, parking lots and other pavement if feasible.
6.2 Microgrids for municipal facilities.
Develop battery energy storage and microgrids at critical municipal facilities to maintain operations with clean energy during power outages.
6.3 Community-serving microgrids.
Support and encourage the development of community-serving microgrids, on-site battery energy storage, and resilience centers particularly in new development projects. Incorporate installation of such in residential use and other zoning designations.
6.4 Climate impacts.
Consider climate change impacts including increased storm severity, drought and extreme heat in planning decisions, including those involving public infrastructure, urban forest, sidewalks, streets, utilities, facilities, and private development.
6.5 Adaptation strategies.
Implement climate adaptation strategies at a local and regional level in which coordination and pooling of resources (e.g., emergency/ evacuation centers for people and animals, transit agency mutual emergency support) is planned.
6.6 Regional coordination.
Ensure the community’s engagement strategy for climate
adaptation planning includes surrounding jurisdictions to identify coordination opportunities.
6.7 Heat response.
Update emergency/disaster response measures to account for increased heat days.
6.8 Heat education.
Provide education on heat-related illness and mitigation measures, particularly targeted to seniors and other vulnerable populations.
6.9 Air conditioning alternatives.
Encourage alternatives to air conditioning such as ceiling fans, air exchangers, increased insulation and low-solar-gain exterior materials to reduce need for air conditioning and concomitant high electricity demands during high heat events to increase the reliability of the electrical grid.
Climate Change Mitigation Goal S-7: A sustainable community with reduced energy demand andgreenhouse gas emissions. 7.1 Climate and Environmental Action Plan.
Prepare and update the City’s Climate and Environmental Action Plan every ten years or more frequently.
7.2 Community emissions.
Reduce community GHG emissions by at least the SB 32 target of 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 relative to 2010.
7.3 Municipal emissions.
Reduce GHG emissions from Municipal operations by at least 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 relative to 2010. 220 | City of Thousand Oaks General Plan
7.4 Electrification of new and existing buildings.
Encourage electrification of newly constructed buildings.
7.5 Transition to clean energy.
Reduce non-building-related energy emissions through
conservation, efficiency measures, and use of renewable energy in street lighting, water and wastewater conveyance and treatment, and municipal operations.
7.6 Clean energy vehicles.
Increase electric/alternative fuel use through charging and other appropriate fueling infrastructure expansion.
7.7 Clean energy technology.
Support deployment of emerging and future clean energy technologies such as hydrogen fuel cell and electric vehicles, battery energy and other clean energy, storage means, carbon capture technologies, smart technologies with inter-device and grid communications, such as vehicle-to-grid and IoT (“Internet of Things”) for demand reduction, and other technologies, as feasible.
7.8 Renewable energy sources.
Encourage renewable energy supply for all buildings and infrastructure by 2045.
7.9 Community forest.
Expand and maintain the community forest to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Hazardous Materials Goal S-8: Protect the community and environment from the effects ofhazardous materials released into the air, land, or water. 8.1 Risks from hazardous materials.
Regulate the locations of businesses that utilize large quantities of hazardous materials, to prevent exposure of people or the environment from excessive hazardous material risks.
8.2 Cleanup of sites.
Coordinate with the Ventura County Environmental Health Department and the Regional Water Quality Control Board to cleanup sites that have been contaminated by hazardous materials releases, especially those that have contaminated groundwater.
8.3 Household hazardous waste disposal.
Continue to operate a local household hazardous waste (HHW) collection facility that is convenient and open for weekly drop off by the public and expand the HHW home collection program throughout the City.
8.4 Household hazardous waste education.
Support the education of the public about the importance of complying with household hazardous waste programs through City, waste hauler, and HHW facility operator communications.
8.5 Agency coordination for hazardous materials
transportation.
Continue to follow guidelines set in the Hazard Mitigation Plan regarding regional plans for transportation corridors for hazardous materials.
Safety | 221
Terrorism
Goal S-9: Protect life and property from the potential effects of terrorism.9.1 Terrorist vulnerability.
As part of the development review process, conduct vulnerability assessments of terrorist-sensitive facilities and, where practical, implement measures to protect these facilities against terrorist acts. Terrorist-sensitive facilities include places that are at-risk for terrorism, including, but not limited to, government offices, schools, and religious facilities.
9.2 Special events.
Ensure that providers of major special events in City-owned facilities and public spaces implement security plans to address potential terrorism concerns.
9.3 Cross-jurisdictional information sharing.
Ensure that terrorist-related information is shared with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and the Ventura County Joint Regional Intelligence Center (JRIC) via the Terrorism Liaison Officer to identify and minimize terrorism risk.
Disease Goal S-10: Limit loss of life and economic disruption due to pandemics.10.1 Disease spread.
During a pandemic or similar infections disease event, coordinate with the Ventura County Department of Public Health to implement measures that minimize the spread of disease including but not limited to: providing testing and contact tracing resources and promoting public safety protocols, maintaining up-to-date health services on the City’s website, connecting residents with up-to-date County infectious disease information, and partnering with local non-governmental organizations and community groups to provide economic support services.
10.2 Expert guidance.
During an infectious transmission event, implement the guidance of County, State, and federal health officials to protect human health.
10.3 Website resources.
Maintain up-to-date public health service information on the City’s website and the County website for all emergencies. 222 | City of Thousand Oaks General Plan
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 6/pz (FILE ID:2019-70760-GPA, 2022-70558-EIR, 2018-70723-HSG 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 5/pz (FILE ID:2019-70760-GPA, 2022-70558-EIR, 2018-70723-HSG) Thousand Oaks General Plan
Updated November 2023
ATTACHMENT #6 (To 11/13/2023 PC Report)
The Community Engagement Summary and Reference Material provides a summary of the outreach engagement activities completed during the process including public workshops, pop-up workshops, General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) meetings, focus groups, online surveys, neighborhood meetings, virtual office hours, and Planning Commission and City Council.
It is important to note that the COVID-19 Pandemic occurred during the update process. From 2019 through March 2020, all General Plan activities were held both in-person and online. In response to State and local public health guidance regarding the COVID-19 virus, all engagement activities were held virtually from March 2020 through the Spring of 2021. From Summer 2023 until adoption, the events were held in-person and online.
The City spent considerable time and effort informing residents in Thousand Oaks about the update process. As the list below shows, information about the project was distributed widely through multiple channels throughout the entire process. A summary of the methods used to inform the public about the process is below:
1 Citywide Mailer Sent to 38,004 households in water and wastewater bills in September 2019
2 Project Website The project website was created in English (www.toaks2045.com) and Spanish
(www.toaks2045.com/espanol) to provide information on
the project throughout the process. The website had over 50,000 page views and over 13,000 unique viewers.
3 General Plan
Email
Subscribers
An email database created for the Plan update had over
1,300 subscribers. Email blasts were sent 20 times during the process to inform the community about engagement
activities.
4 Social Media The City of Thousand Oaks utilized existing City Twitter and Instagram accounts that already had a significant
following. The City’s Twitter account has almost 300,000 impressions (the number of people that are served content from the page because they follow it) and over 3,000
profile visits (the number of people who took direct
actions on a post by continuing to visit the profile page).
The City’s Instagram account had a reach of over 6,500
unique accounts that saw any of the General Plan posts at least once and 1,600 who took direct action on a post
related to the Plan.
5 City
Newsletters
Articles in City-sponsored newsletters throughout the
process. This included the CityScene Newsletter (11 times with over 1,500 subscribers), the Economic Development
Newsletter (6 times with over 500 subscribers) and the
Sustainability Newsletter (4 times with over 10,000
subscribers). Each newsletter had articles about the
General Plan.
6 Advertisements Multiple advertisements around the City and in newspapers to promote workshops and forums. This
included:
o Paid use of the City Hall marquee.
o Posters in City Hall, Thousand Oaks libraries, and the Janss Marketplace.
o Paid Ads in The Acorn and VC Star newspapers.
7 Newspaper
Articles
Articles in two local newspapers—The Acorn and VC
Star—provided background on the project and
information about engagement activities. In total, there were over 30 articles about the General Plan Update in The Acorn and 3 in the VC Star. These newspapers reach a wide cross section of Thousand Oaks residents.
8 Email Emails requesting involvement to 167 homeowners’ associations, 48 religious organizations, President of
Conejo Council of PTAs, CLU students in the MPPA
program, and Conejo Valley Unified School District.
9 Mailers Mailing to all properties within the “Areas of Change.” 10 Flyers Flyers in both English and Spanish were distributed through the City Hall public counter, Thousand Oaks
libraries, Meals on Wheels, Conejo Recreation and Park
District volunteers.
11 October 2020
Planning
Month
Partnered with the Thousand Oaks Grant R. Brimhall
Library to promote October Planning Month and distribute materials on the General Plan Update.
o Passed out 1,000 postcards about planning and the
general plan update at curbside.
o Recorded two videos of reading children’s books
about city planning for Storytime.
o TO Library shared information on their website and
social media.
A diverse twenty-four-member committee was formed to provide insight throughout the City’s General Plan Update process. The GPAC is composed of residents, business owners, educators, students, and other members of the Thousand Oaks community at different stages of life and with different technical and professional expertise. All meetings were open to the public and the public in attendance was actively encouraged to participate. Input from both the GPAC and the public helped to guide each step of the General Plan Update process. Listed below are the topics, dates, and number of attendees for each of the 15 GPAC meetings. 1 August 28, 2019 Introduction to the GPAC and the
General Plan Update
41 in-person
attendees
2 September 25,
2019
Overview of key planning terms and
documents
40 in-person
attendees
3 November 14, 2019 Brainstorm on guiding principles 34 in-person attendees
4 December 12, 2019 Housing policy and identify areas of change and stability
30 in-person
attendees
5 February 6, 2020 Economic and market conditions;
review areas of change and stability
33 in-person
attendees
6 March 5, 2020 Develop land use concepts 37 in-person
attendees
7 May 28, 2020 Transportation and mobility 123 attendees via Zoom
8 July 23, 2020 Health, equity, and environmental
justice
48 attendees via
Zoom
9 August 20, 2020 Safety and resilience 49 attendees via Zoom
10 September 24,
2020
Sustainability 53 attendees via
Zoom
11 October 22, 2020 Arts and culture 58 attendees via
Zoom
12 November 19,
2020
Parks and open space 54 attendees via
Zoom
13 February 2, 2021 Joint GPAC/Community Workshop
on land use alternatives
255 attendees
via Zoom + 45
YouTube Live
viewers
14 March 25, 2021 Land use alternatives survey review
(Meeting held via Zoom with live
Spanish interpretation and closed
captioning.)
97 attendees via
Zoom + 11
YouTube Live
viewers
15 April 21, 2021 Joint GPAC/Community Workshop
on preferred land use alternative
(Meeting held via Zoom with live
Spanish interpretation and closed
captioning.)
75 attendees via
Zoom + 100
YouTube views
The summaries of the GPAC meetings are presented in this document.
In addition to larger, city-wide events, the consultant team sat down with smaller targeted groups and individuals of the community to hear feedback on specific topics.
1 June 24 and June 25,
2019
Stakeholder Interviews
2 July 18, 2019 Economic Development Focus Group
3 October 2019 Arts and Culture Element Stakeholder Interviews 4 November 2019 Arts and Culture Element Stakeholder Interviews and Arts Town Hall
5 January 2020 Economic Development Focus Group*
6 March 3, 2021 Environmental Justice & Equity Focus Group The summaries of the stakeholder interviews and focus groups are presented in this document. (* notes are not available for this focus group) Community Forums provided an opportunity to discuss key topics and insights on the latest land use, circulation, development changes, and market trends affecting Thousand Oaks and the region.
1 October 2,
2019
The Happy
City
This forum focused on
developing a vision for a happy
livable city. Charles
Montgomery provided a
presentation on his book, The
Happy City and led a discussion
for the General Plan. Insights
from this forum shaped the
vision and guiding principles of
the General Plan.
Approximately
115 in-person
attendees
2 January
29, 2020
The Math of
Smart
Growth: Why
We Cannot
Afford to Keep
Building the
Same Way
This forum focused on the
relationship between
development and community
economic health. Joe Minicozzi
presented an approach to
planning and city design called
Geoaccounting with case
studies.
Approximately
50 in-person
attendees
The summaries of the community forums are presented in this document.
At multiple times during the process, the City held public workshops to discuss the vision and overall direction of the General Plan. The public workshops provided opportunities for residents and stakeholders to come together and share ideas about the future of the City.
1 September 12,
2019
Visioning
Workshop
This workshop was held in person and
had over 125 attendees. The focus was
on identifying issues and opportunities
and developing a vision for the future.
2 February 2,
2021
Review of Land
Use Alternatives
(live Spanish
interpretation
was provided)
This workshop, which was a joint
meeting with the GPAC, provided an
overview of the three land use
alternatives. The meeting was held
virtually (via Zoom) and attended by
255 people. An additional 45 people
viewed the event live via YouTube.
3 April 21, 2021 Selection of
Preferred
Alternative
At this virtual workshop, residents and
GPAC members reviewed and provided
input on the preferred land use
direction. There were 75 attendees via
Zoom and over 100 YouTube views.
The summaries of the workshop are presented in this document. (Note: Workshop 4 is combined with GPAC #15)
The General Plan Team hosted “pop-up” workshops throughout the City to solicit feedback from members of the community who may not seek out opportunities for civic engagement. The following are the events that City staff and the consultant team attended.
1 September 28, 2019 Conejo Valley Pride Festival
2 October 13, 2019 Civic Arts Plaza 25th Anniversary
3 October 20, 2019 Rotary Street Fair
4 October 23, 2019 Sage Publications & Atara
Biotherapeutics
5 October 24, 2019 Farmer’s Market (cancelled due to
wind)
6 October 26, 2019 Tarantula Hill Brewing Company
7 November 5, 2019 Amgen
8 November 5, 2019 TOHS Latino Youth Leadership Class
9 November 12, 2019 Chamber of Commerce
10 December 4, 2019 YMCA Youth & Government
11 January 15, 2020 2020 Wellness Fest
12 February 20, 2020 Youth Leadership Summit
13 April 10, 2020 Senior Summit (cancelled due to
COVID pandemic)
A series of virtual question and answer sessions with the project team on various aspects of the process were held on Zoom. There was a total of 66 participants. 1 February 11, 2021 (6:00pm-8:00pm) Office Hours – English with live Spanish interpretation
2 February 17, 2021 (6:00pm-8:00pm) Office Hours – English with live Spanish interpretation
3 February 20, 2021 (10:00am-12:20pm) Office Hours – English with live Spanish interpretation
4 February 23, 2021 (10:00am-12:00pm) Office Hours - Spanish The General Plan Team provided General Plan Update presentations to various groups within the City.
1 January 11, 2021 We Belong 805
2 January 11, 2021 Democratic Club of Conejo Valley
3 January 13, 2021 Thousand Oaks Livability Action Network 4 January 28-29, 2021 Meetings with Macerich (The Oaks), Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce, NewMark
Merrill Companies (Janss Marketplace), The
Acorn, Thousand Oaks Boulevard Association,
Lee & Associates, Rexford Industrial, Newmark
Group, CBRE, Amgen, Westlake BioPartners, and
Atara Biotherapeutics
5 February 1, 2021 Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Conejo Valley Unified School District
6 February 9, 2021 Thousand Oaks Teen Advisory League
7 February 16, 2021 Los Angeles Rams
8 February 17, 2021 Council on Aging
9 February 17, 2021 Youth Commission
10 February 18, 2021 Conejo Recreation and Park District Meeting 11 February 22, 2021 Thousand Oaks Livability Action Network 12 February 23, 2021 Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce Legislative Roundtable
13 February 24, 2021 Students from Thousand Oaks, Newbury Park and Westlake H.S. – Latino Connection
14 February 25, 2021 Village Homes HOA
15 February 25, 2021 We Belong 805
16 March 1, 2021 Conejo Climate Coalition
17 March 1, 2021 Adelante Comunidad Conejo and Buen Vecino 18 March 8, 2021 Cal Lutheran University Governing Board 19 March 9, 2021 Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting
20 March 10, 2021 City of Thousand Oaks Library Staff
21 March 11, 2021 Casa Conejo Municipal Advisory Council Online community surveys were conducted during the General Plan Update process.
The surveys were designed to provide the public with an opportunity to help guide the most critical aspects of the General Plan – the identification of issues and strengths in the City; future growth and development patterns; and the overall vision for the future. The following is a brief summary of each survey. 1 Issues and
Opportunities
(September 2019 –
January 2020)
This survey asked similar
questions as the first community
workshop: 1) what makes
Thousand Oaks unique and
special; 2) what are the issues
and opportunities facing
Thousand Oaks today and in the
future; and 3) what is your vision
for Thousand Oaks in 2045.
Response information helped
inform the vision statement for
the General Plan.
Over 600
surveys were
received.
2 Prioritization of
Community Values
(February 28, 2020 –
May 4, 2020)
This survey allowed residents to
prioritize feedback from the
community on their values,
issues facing the City, and vision
for the future. Respondents were
also asked to map where future
growth and change (e.g.,
housing, entertainment, open
space) should be located in the
City.
461 responses
were received.
3 Land Use Alternatives
(February 2, 2021 –
March 15, 2021)
Respondents were asked for their
preferences on three different
land use alternatives, which were
detailed in a “briefing book.” The
2,127 surveys
were received.
briefing book and survey was
available in both English and
Spanish. The City coordinated
distribution of the book and
surveys with Adelante
Comunidad and Westminster
Clinic.
4 Preferred Land Use
Plan (April 16, 2021 –
May 12, 2021
This survey asked for feedback
on the preferred land use plan.
The preferred land use plan was
developed through an extensive
community engagement process
of workshops, GPAC meetings,
an online survey, and
stakeholder meetings.
2,726 surveys
were received.
The survey results for each survey are presented later in this document.
City Council and Planning Commission meetings occurred throughout the General Plan process to provide project updates, discuss a variety of topics, and review the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. The following is a list of City Council and the Planning Commission meetings.
1 August 19, 2019 City Council General Plan Update kick off • Agenda, Item 9B (video)
• Staff Report
2 November 19, 2019 City Council update on the community engagement activities
• Agenda, Item 10A (video)
• Staff Report
3 March 29, 2021 Planning Commission consideration of land use alternatives
• Agenda, Item 8B (video)
• Staff Report
• Attachment 1
4 April 26, 2021 Planning Commission preferred land use map review and recommendation
• Agenda, Item 8A (video)
• Staff Report
• Attachments 1-3
• Attachment 4
• Attachment 5
5 May 18, 2021 City Council preferred land use map review (Meeting held via Zoom with live Spanish interpretation)
• Agenda, Item 4A (video)
• Staff Report
5 May 25, 2021 City Council preferred land use map decision (Meeting held via Zoom with live Spanish
interpretation)
• Agenda, Item 9A (video)
• Staff Report
6 September 27, 2021 Planning Commission review of Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
• Agenda, Item 7A (video)
• Staff Report
• Attachment 1
7 January 10, 2022 Planning Commission review and recommendation of Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
• Agenda, Item 8A (video)
• Staff Report
• Attachment 1
• Attachment 2
• Attachment 3
• Attachment 4
8 January 25, 2022 City Council review and adoption of Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
• Agenda, Item 8A (video)
• Staff Report
The staff report for each Planning Commission and City Council study session is available on the City’s website at: https://toaks.primegov.com/public/portal. • 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 • 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 • 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
• 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
• February 2021 E-Newsletter -
https://www.toaks.org/Home/Components/News/News/9335/3338?backlist=%2fdepartm ents%2fpublic-works%2fsustainability
• January 2021 E-Newsletter – Three articles; this is lead article:
https://www.toaks.org/Home/Components/News/News/9316/3338?backlist=%2fdepartm ents%2fpublic-works%2fsustainability
• 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 Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #1 Agenda | August 28, 2019
• Initiate the General Plan Advisory Committee.
• Discuss the roles and responsibilities of the General Plan Advisory Committee. • Provide an overview of the General Plan Update.
• Brainstorm on the key issues and opportunities in the City of Thousand Oaks.
GPAC Members
• Present: Alicia Rincon, Chaise Rasheed, Dr. Chris Kimball, Darren Bovard, Dena Jenson, Dustin Woomer, Emily Dale, Fred Fukunaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Michael Nigh, Nicholas Reale, Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Tara Carruth, Dr. Victor Hayek, Wyatt McCrea • Absent: Amy Commans, Andy Fox, Rorie Skei
City Staff
• Andrew Powers, City Manager; Ingrid Hardy, Assistant City Manager; Tracy Noonan, City Attorney; Mark Towne, Community Development Director; Haider Alawami, Economic Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; Brad Bussell, Senior Engineer
Consultant Team
• Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Rami + Associates
Introduction and Welcome
Andrew Powers, City Manager, welcome the GPAC members. GPAC members introduced themselves and shared how long they have been part of the Thousand Oaks community and in what capacity.
GPAC Roles and Responsibilities
Matt Raimi provided a brief overview of the role and responsibilities of the Advisory Committee.
Ground rules for participation were also covered.
Overview of the General Plan
Matt Raimi provided a brief demographic overview of the City, a summary of what a General Plan is, key components of the Thousand Oaks General Plan Update, the project schedule and community engagement approach.
Group Discussion
The consultant team posed the following questions to the Committee. A summary of responses are as follows:
1. What are the strengths of the City and opportunities for the future? o Open space, nature and outdoor recreation
o Public/private schools
o CLU
o Community spirit – small town feel
o City is fiscally sound
o City leadership
o Trails, parks and playfields
o Active civic community
o Location – proximity to mountains and beaches
o Affordable housing
o Arts accessibility
o Preservation of local history
o Sense of pride
o Public resource network for community members
o Local sports programs
o Clean
o Opportunity to attract filming
o Opportunity to increase non-profit sector
2. What are the key issues and pressures facing the City now and in the future? o Mobility – traffic congestion, commuting, public transportation, bikeability o Changes in retail
o Homelessness
o Housing/Lack of affordability/Choices for all lifestyles o Environmental sustainability (water supply)
o Aging population
o Arts and culture support
o Inclusiveness of people of color and/or immigrants with civic engagement o Lack of entertainment options and gathering spaces
o Infrastructure for future development
o Attracting business (not target specific industry, need flexibility)
3. What topics do you want to have more in-depth discussion on during GPAC meetings? o Housing/Understanding density
o Retail
o Transportation
o Development
o Popular new businesses
o Infrastructure and parking
o City’s changing demographics/Aging Population
o Livability
o Trends in technology like driverless cars
o Health and environmental justice
4. How can you help with community engagement? What ideas do you have for reaching out to the diversity of community members?
o Due to time constraints, members were asked to send ideas to the project email ([email protected]).
Public Comments
Members of the public were given a maximum of three minutes to share any thoughts or comments. Seven community members participated in public comment.
o Fire resiliency
o Noise, homelessness, safety of neighborhoods
o Fire safety, evacuation plans
o Need for Cultural Plan
o Need more housing type options
o Young adults are leaving the City
o Climate change/Resilience/Water Scarcity
o Need focus group for sustainability and vegetation management/wildfire Wrap-up and Next Steps
Adjourn at 8:00 pm
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #2 | September 25, 2019
• Discuss planning principles relevant to the General Plan Update GPAC Members
• Present: Andy Fox, Chaise Rasheed, Dr. Chris Kimball, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Emily Dale, Fred Fukunaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Rorie Skei, Tara Carruth, Dr. Victor Hayek, Wyatt McCrea
• Absent: Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Dena Jenson, Laura Behjan, Michael Nigh *Note: attendance at this GPAC meeting was optional.
City Staff
• Ingrid Hardy, Assistant City Manager; Tracy Noonan, City Attorney; Mark Towne, Community Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Developer Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; Dusty Russell, Assistant Analyst
Consultant Team
• Matt Raimi, Raimi + Associates
Presentation
Community Development Director Mark Towne provided a presentation on the planning principles and the general plan update. The presentation included an overview of the existing general plan structure and elements, and information about zoning, specific plans, and other land use restrictions.
Question and Answer
Following the presentation, members of the committee and the public in attendance made comments and asked questions of Community Development staff and Matt Raimi (Raimi + Associates). The topics of the questions included housing, aging population, jobs and income, Measure E, infrastructure, transportation, pollution (light, air, etc.), technology trends and how they affect land use, and climate change.
Committee members requested that the GPAC have in-depth conversations on some topics including housing (diversity, affordability, and State requirements), and sustainability.
Next steps
Following Q&A, the team discussed next steps and upcoming community engagement.
General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting #3 Notes| 1
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #3 | November 14, 2019 | 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm
• Provide an overview of community engagement events to-date • Highlight key existing conditions
• Present community ideas voiced through the survey, workshop, and pop-up workshops • Brainstorm on guiding principles for the General Plan Update GPAC Members
• Present: Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Andy Fox, Chaise Rasheed, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Fred Fukunaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Michael Nigh, Nicholas Reale, Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Tara Carruth, Wyatt McCrea
• Absent: Dr. Chris Kimball, Emily Dale, Dena Jenson, Rorie Skei, Dr. Victor Hayek, City Staff
• Ingrid Hardy, Assistant City Manager; Tracy Noonan, City Attorney; Mark Towne, Community Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Developer Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner
Consultant Team
• Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
Presentation
Matt Raimi provided a project update including flow of recent and upcoming work, phase one community engagement activities and participation and existing conditions overview. The high-level existing conditions overview highlighted land use, demographics, open space, housing, economic development, natural hazards, mobility, and community health. He then presented the results from General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting #3 Notes| 2
community engagement completed to date. This included a summary of the engagement activities and a composite summary of the strengths, challenges or threats, and opportunities for Thousand Oaks 2045.
Small Group Discussion
After the presentation, GPAC members split into small groups and brainstormed on community values and key strategies for the General Plan Update that will form the basis of the Guiding Principles.
Groups worked for approximately 45-minutes then shared their conversation with the other members of the GPAC. GPAC members also individually wrote their ideas about community values and key strategies on worksheets and gave the worksheets to staff. The following are the ideas generated from the GPAC.
Community Values
• Community pride/spirit
• Inclusive & welcoming community
o Embrace ethnic, racial, social, economic diversity
• Safe community
• High quality of life
• Family-friendly
• Suburban feel – a little bit of everything
• Open Space
o Preserve undeveloped open space
o Protect hillside/mountain views
• Desire to be more walkable
o Less car-centric and less traffic congestion
• Accessible and diverse entertainment options
• Ease of getting around
• Housing
o Affordable and workforce housing for diverse populations and needs o Equitable housing cost to labor salaries
o Diversity of housing choices
o Accessible housing
• Economic resiliency
o Vibrant/thriving economy with jobs
• Sustainable and diverse population
• Quality education both public and private
• Affordable and accessible healthcare
• High quality public services (police, fire)
• History of Thousand Oaks
o Part of the greater Conejo Valley ecosystem
General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting #3 Notes| 3
• Environmental leadership
• Climate conscious
Key Strategies
• Improved public transportation
o Better public transit
o Transit Master Plan
• Greater housing diversity
o Offer more housing types like mixed use development and multifamily • More community gathering spaces
• Greater youth involvement
• Mixed use development (combat siloed areas)
• Preserve and protect open space and views
• Reuse/revitalize existing developed land
o Repurpose land downtown
o Create mixed use at shopping centers
o Convert commercial to housing
• Address homelessness and mental illness
• Consider developing 2 downtowns/hubs
o City Hall/CAP
o Thousand Oaks and Westlake Boulevard
o Walkable environment
o Offer entertainment
• Plan for and consider energy, water, trash
• Climate change awareness and preparedness
o Innovative ways to reduce carbon emissions
• Protect small town feel – close knit community
• Protect mobility and ease of getting around
• Attract more of the younger demographic
• Attract families by creating community gathering places and entertainment • Community integration with future development
• Continue to support families
• Protect against future wildfires
• Encourage neighborhood character/sense of community in new development • Enable and encourage non-car transportation
• Develop path out of homelessness and into housing
• City resilience against climate change and natural disaster General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting #3 Notes| 4
Public Comments
Five members of the community formed a small group to create their list of values and guiding principles. The public’s composite summary is below.
Community values
• Community character
• Open space
• Concerned about changes to Civic Arts Plaza
• More homes needed
• Out of balance between youth culture and old school peace and quiet-need more youth culture • Future needs of water, quality and availability
Key strategies
• Look to the original 1970 Master Plan – affordable housing • Encourage conversion of commercial spaces to mixed use or housing • Two town centers – Westlake and Thousand Oaks Boulevards and Moorpark Road and Thousand Oaks Boulevard
• Underground electric utilities for safety
• Consider transportation changes like electric and self-driving cars Additional Public Comment:
One member of the public provided additional comment which included their desire for additional climate change measures to combat severe drought, stronger winds, wildfires, and oak tree preservation.
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #4 | December 12, 2019 | 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm
• Review and refine Draft General Plan Guiding Principles • Present overview of housing existing conditions
• Discuss potential areas of change and stability in Thousand Oaks GPAC Members
• Present: Chaise Rasheed, Dustin Woomer, Fred Fukunaga, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Michael Nigh, Nicholas Reale, Paul Shrater, Dr.
Chris Kimball, Emily Dale, Rorie Skei
• Absent: Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Andy Fox, Darren Bovard, Jacqueline Emanuel, Dena Jenson, Tara Carruth, Patrick DuRoss, Dr. Victor Hayek, Wyatt McCrea City Staff
• Ingrid Hardy, Assistant City Manager; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Developer Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Advanced Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner Consultant Team
• Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
• Veronica Tam, Veronica Tam + Associates
Guiding Principles Overview
Matt Raimi provided an overview of the draft Guiding Principles to the GPAC. GPAC members reviewed the draft Guiding Principles and provided comments and suggestions. Overall, GPAC members felt the general direction was correct and reflected the discussion at the last GPAC meeting; however, members provided multiple comments and suggestions for improvements. As a next step in the process, City staff and the consultant team will revise and expand the Guiding Principles and provide them to the GPAC at a future meeting.
Housing Existing Conditions
Veronica Tam provided an overview of housing existing conditions in the City and housing policy. The presentation included the following general topics:
• Existing housing conditions including housing stock, income distribution, median home price, rental rate by type and size, affordability, and housing costs • Programs by the City of Thousand Oaks to promote more affordable housing • An overview of the Housing Element requirements, Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
• The benefits of the having a diverse housing stock
• A summary of new housing law and policy direction from the State of California including consequences of noncompliance with having an approved Housing Element Following Veronica’s presentation, Matt provided an overview of density and intensity and how they relate to residential and non-residential development.
After the presentation, the group paused for questions and a brief discussion on housing. A summary of the conversation and topics discussed is below:
• There was a recognition that the housing challenges in Thousand Oaks are similar to the County and the State.
• Expand Housing Assistance Programs in Thousand Oaks since they are currently limited. • Pursue moderately priced housing that is attainable for people in the workforce (ideally for people working in the City).
• Require developers to provide a mix of housing types within a project. • Low income units should be included in all new developments – inclusionary housing. • Thousand Oaks should meet state requirements for housing while maintaining the character and quality of life in the community.
• Pursue creative development concepts and consider building taller buildings in order to build more housing at different income levels.
• Build new, higher density housing in limited areas of the City, such as along commercial corridors and adjacent to the mall.
• Concern that taller buildings will impact the views in the city. • Reduce fees for approving Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). • Consider objective design standards that produce good developments but expedite the process of approving new housing.
Small Group Mapping Activity
After the presentation and initial discussion, GPAC members were divided into three small groups for the mapping activity. The purpose of the mapping activity was to identify “areas of stability” (where there will be little change in the next 25 years) and “potential areas of change” where new development could occur.
The base map identified areas already defined as potential areas of stability through engagement activities. These included single family residential uses, civic and institutional uses, and parks and open space. Approximately 92% of the land area in the city was identified as “areas of stability.” GPAC members generally agreed that the areas of stability were correct.
Next, GPAC members were asked to identify potential areas of change using stickers representing different types of uses, including multifamily housing, mixed use, office and shopping, and annotating the maps with pens. Groups worked for approximately 40 minutes then shared their ideas with the larger group. The maps from small group activity results can be found in the attached file.
The following are some generalized results from the mapping activity:
• The areas of stability area generally correct.
• New development should be infill and not greenfields (previously undeveloped areas). • New multifamily and mixed-use housing should not be in single family residential areas. • Many groups identified Thousand Oaks Boulevard, the mall, and larger shopping centers as areas for new multifamily and mixed-use development.
• New housing should be located near CLU and the biotech areas to provide additional housing choices for students and faculty in CLU and employees of biotech companies.
In addition, there were approximately 25 people from the public in attendance. The members of the public divided into three groups and also participated in the mapping activity. The public’s mapping activity results can be found in the attached file.
Public Comment:
At the close of the meeting was the official public comment period. Seven members of the public spoke.
Their comments are summarized below.
• Concern for drought in California
• Concern about Thousand Oaks Boulevard traffic as there is too much already • Maintain permanent parks, recreation and open space
• Control/limit future growth
• Address overcrowded single family housing
• Currently there is a housing imbalance and there is only a small amount of land to accommodate future needs
• Additional high-density housing could accommodate students and workers • Encourage development of accessory dwelling units
Closing:
At the close of the meeting, Matt Raimi identified the next steps in the process, including:
• A Community Forum on January 29, 2020
• Future GPAC meetings in February 6 and March 5
• A citywide survey to prioritize issues and strategies • Pop-up workshops on new development
Attachment: Mapping activity results
Note: Individual participate names have been covered
GPAC Group #1
GPAC Group #2
GPAC Group #3
Public Group #1
Public Group #2
Public Group #3
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Meeting #5 | February 6, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm
MEETING NOTES
OBJECTIVES
• Prioritize themes from community engagement
• Provide an overview of economic and market conditions in the City • Discuss the relationship between land use, fiscal resources and community services • Review areas of change and areas of stability map
ATTENDEES
GPAC Members
• Present: Dr. Victor Hayek, Paul Shrater, Laura Behjan, Emily Dale, Dustin Woomer, Tara Carruth, Dr.
Chris Kimball, Jacqueline Emanuel, Wyatt McCrea, Michael Nigh, Darren Bovard, Chaise Rasheed, Mic Farris, Dr. Karen Gorback, Alicia Rincon RN, Amy Commans, Nicholas Reale • Absent: Jennifer Lobenhofer, Rorie Skei, Dena Jenson, Ken Lamont, Fred Fukanaga, Andy Fox, Patrick DuRoss
City Staff
• Tracy Noonan, City Attorney; Haider Alawami, Economic Development Manager; Mark Towne, Community Development Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner Consultant Team
• Matt Raimi, Raimi + Associates and Amitabh Barthakur, HR&A Advisors
MEETING MINUTES
Presentation
Matt Raimi provided a project update including flow of recent and upcoming work, review of community engagement activities and participation, and upcoming schedule of GPAC meetings. Matt paused for feedback from recent community engagement events. Comments on the 2nd Community Forum are summarized below.
• Data presented at the Forum provided a different perspective • Highlighted the street network in Thousand Oaks which is not a grid system. The Downtown Core will help address issues, bring in more revenue
• The presentation had good visuals
• The presentation was easy to understand
Community Priorities Exercise
After the presentation, Matt provided a prioritization exercise on community values and issues. This was a preview of the prioritization exercise that will be included in an online survey. GPAC members and the public were asked to rank the top 4 community strengths and values and top 4 issues and challenges. Comments on this exercise are summarized below.
• Consensus that the Community Strengths and Values is a good list and representative of the community
• Question whether they should be responding to the City’s top community strengths and values and issues and challenges, or what they personally care about for future generations? • High quality of life and suburban character seem to overlap and are too similar on the Community Strengths and Values list
• Based on the discussion from the 2nd Community Forum, maintenance responsibilities for too much infrastructure could be added to the list of Issues and Challenges • Connected with fear of becoming the “Valley” Issue and Challenge item Individual results were tallied (non-weighted) with the top 4 community strengths and values as (1.) High Quality of Life, (2.) Protected Natural Areas, (3.) Parks, Public Facilities and Services, and (4.) Education. While the top 4 issues and challenges recorded as (1.) Housing Challenges, (2.) Lack of Economic and Demographic Diversity, (3.) Vacant and Underutilized Retail and (4.) Traffic Congestion. See the attached summary table with tallied results.
Economic and Market Overview
Amitabh Barthakur from HR&A Advisors provided an overview of the Economic and Market Existing Conditions Report, the relationship between land use and fiscal resources, and the market and fiscal health in Thousand Oaks. A question and answer session—including members of the public—followed the presentation which is summarized below.
• How are Thousand Oaks’ online sales taxes captured?
• What are the impacts (i.e. traffic) of adding more hotels in Thousand Oaks? • Would adding more hotels result in more tax revenues as a result of Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOT)?
• What land uses capture more tax revenue?
• What are some of the unintended consequences of having a biotech ecosystem? For example, smaller companies who want to be located near larger more established businesses get priced out.
Amitabh responded that the broader ecosystem can be sustained when there are a range of rental rates in the area.
• Are there any long-term economic dangers in biotech?
• Will the biotech presence price people out of Thousand Oaks? What if biotech leaves Thousand Oaks or fails? It’s possible that biotech could leave or fail. • What if Amgen wants to leave and they’re the leading employer in the city? How are they attracting young professionals to want to work and live here?
• There is a big demand for health care, education, and public services in Thousand Oaks. • Cities like Simi Valley and Oxnard are attracting people to live there by adding new housing, entertainment, and experiential retail centers. We need to pay attention to what other cities are doing to make sure we don’t lose more jobs or miss out on tax revenue. • How does the city earn revenue through businesses? City staff responded that City earns revenue through property tax and business license fees.
• How can we incorporate natural elements like oak trees and open space that attract most people to this city in economic development?
• How does the City pay to maintain open space? City staff responded that there is no money coming in to help maintain the open space.
• If Amgen only provides the city property tax, and employees aren’t living here, isn’t it a wash? Yes, we need more housing.
• How do we address restaurant and retail cannibalization? It’s a challenge for businesses to sustain themselves in the current market with new competition.
• Are there other revenue types from other cities that could be good examples of how we can earn more money? Amitabh noted that property taxes are stable, however, not as much as sales tax. • We already have an economic diversity that a lot of other cities envy, how do we maintain and continue to expand? Amitabh responded that Thousand Oaks can maximize impact by attracting employees to live here and spend money here by offering a diversity of housing options, entertainment options, and gathering places.
• What are the impacts of a revitalized downtown or main street? • Hotels are low impact and high revenue for the City.
• The Downtown Core will help gain revenue and fill an existing gap in the market by adding restaurants, bars, and other gathering places for patrons of the Bank of America theatre to go before and after a concert or show.
• Have we asked targeted age groups what amenities are missing in Thousand Oaks? We should look at Sacramento and other thriving downtowns and cities.
• With online shopping so prevalent today, people are looking for experiences instead of traditional retail shopping malls. They want to visit walkable place that offer a variety of experiences. • How can the City diversify its fiscal base?
• What strategies should be used to ensure high quality public services for the next generation? Public Comments
Members of the public were invited to provide additional comment at the end of the meeting. Each person was limited to two minutes. Below is a summary of public comment. • Over the next 25 years, is the City planning to earn revenue over culture stability? Or at the same time? City staff responded that the goal is to address both together, as the City wants to preserve what it has and fix what needs to be fixed.
• Thousand Oaks teachers can’t afford to live here, we need to offer affordable options like condos. • Thousand Oaks needs to plant more oak trees
• Measure E should manage growth in Thousand Oaks
• Protect oak trees
Closing:
At the close of the meeting, Matt Raimi identified upcoming community engagement activities including:
• Future GPAC meetings on March 5th, April (TBD), June 4th, and September 10th • A citywide survey to prioritize issues and strategies • Pop-up workshops on new development
• Community workshop #2 April 30th
Attachment: Community priorities exercise results
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES EXERCISE
Below is a summary table with tallied results –not weighted– from GPAC meeting #5.
GPAC PUBLIC TOTAL COMMUNITY STRENGTHS & VALUES
1 6 7 Arts and culture: A commitment to arts and culture, especially the Civic Arts Plaza
11 8 19 Education: High quality public and private schools and the presence of California Lutheran University (CLU)
9 8 17 Engaged community: A civically minded community and a responsive local government committed to serving the needs of residents and businesses 14 10 24 High quality of life: A stable community with small-town character, a high quality of life, and family-friendly activities
11 10 21 Parks, public facilities and services: A diversity of well-maintained parks, usable open spaces, great public facilities, and diverse social services 9 14 23 Protected natural areas: A commitment to protecting natural open spaces, views, and oak trees that enhance the character of Thousand Oaks 10 6 16 Safe and welcoming community: A tight-knit community that is safe and welcoming
2 6 8 Suburban character: A suburban community that is easy to get around with attractive single-family neighborhoods
GPAC PUBLIC TOTAL ISSUES & CHALLENGES
8 4 12 Few gathering places and entertainment options: A lack of entertainment options and social gathering places especially for teenagers and young professionals
6 8 14 Fear of becoming “the Valley”: Concern that development will change the character or identity of Thousand Oaks and that it will look like the San Fernando Valley
15 12 27 Housing challenges: High cost of housing and lack of different housing options that lead to homelessness, the inability for employees to live in the City and for young adults to afford living in Thousand Oaks 5 7 12 Lack of mobility options: Lack of transit connectivity within Thousand Oaks and to other parts of the region; lack of wide sidewalks, crosswalks, and a connected bike network
10 8 18 Lack of economic and demographic diversity: Concern that the City lacks a diverse residential population and a diversity of jobs and industries that could result in declining revenue sources leading to a reduction in public services.
5 4 9 Public safety: Safety concerns including crime, wildfires, and natural disasters
GPAC PUBLIC TOTAL ISSUES & CHALLENGES
7 9 16 Traffic congestion: Traffic congestion on major roadways during peak periods
8 9 17 Vacant and underutilized retail: Vacant and underutilized retail areas, particularly along Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Moorpark Road, and at the malls.
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #6 | March 5, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm
• Review and refine areas of stability and change
• Review existing land use and urban form in Thousand Oaks • Provide an overview of growth and development trends and innovations in the State • Discuss potential development location, type, and character • Work in groups to prepare land use concepts
GPAC Members
• Present: Laura Behjan, Darren Bovard, Patrick DuRoss, Jacqueline Emanuel, Mic Farris, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Wyatt McCrea, Chaise Rasheed, Paul Shrater, Nicholas Reale, Rorie Skei, Dustin Woomer
• Absent: Tara Carruth, Amy Commans, Emily Dale, Andy Fox, Fred Fukanaga, Dr.
Victor Hayek, Dena Jenson, Dr. Chris Kimball, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Michael Nigh, Alicia Rincon RN
City Staff
• Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner
Consultant Team
• Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
Youth Leadership Update
GPAC Member Jaqueline Emanuel provided an overview of the Youth Leadership Summit held on February 20, 2020 with over 60 people in attendance, including the Youth Commission and city staff. The event served as a forum for Thousand Oaks youth to weigh in on current City matters, including the General Plan Update. Jaqueline reported feedback from the summit, which is summarized below.
• The group reported concern for urban sprawl, environmental issues, lack of gathering spaces, and high rate of student vaping in schools. • Most youth did not see themselves living in Thousand Oaks in adulthood. • Youth noted that Thousand Oaks is an expensive place to live with not many things to do for entertainment.
• Youth desires for the future included more community gathering places that build off existing areas like the Janss Marketplace and Thousand Oaks Boulevard, specifically noting a desire for a drive-in movie theater somewhere in the city. • Another highlight was the event’s keynote speaker Tim Hagel, retired Thousand Oaks Police Chief, who discussed Safe Passage, a program in Thousand Oaks that supports youth and drives to eliminate gang-related crime and recruitment.
Presentation & Discussion
Matt Raimi provided a project update and overview of existing land use and form and existing land use regulations for the City of Thousand Oaks.
After this overview, one member of the public asked if the existing General Plan land use map is sound, to which the team responded that the existing General Plan land use map will serve as the baseline for the General Plan Update.
Matt continued the presentation by highlighting some land use and design trends across the United States. These trends included complete neighborhoods, missing middle housing, downtowns, corridor mixed-use, multi-family housing, village centers, regional mall conversions, coworking spaces and business incubators, and office park conversions.
After this part of the presentation, the group paused for questions. A summary of the discussion is provided below.
• One GPAC member asked what are the geographic extents of a neighborhood? Matt responded that it is typically a 1/4-mile radius of an area, with daily needs within walking distance. One GPAC member mentioned the concept of a 20-minute neighborhood.
• One GPAC member asked how other cities like Thousand Oaks—that developed in a suburban pattern—are updating and retrofitting their communities? The group mentioned in that examples were provided in previous GPAC meetings. These presentations are available on the project website.
• One GPAC member asked about architectural innovation and ways to bring new architectural ideas to Thousand Oaks? Matt responded that the 1st and 2nd floor experience is very important, and that Thousand Oaks doesn’t want every building to be the same. However, the General Plan doesn’t get into that level of granular detail.
The next part of the presentation reviewed density and intensity, some community concerns about density, and benefits of density and mixed use. After the overview presentation, the group played a game to guess a building’s density based on the physical appearance. Each GPAC member and public participant was given a handout to record their guesses for each of the 11 buildings. In general, the group was surprised by the building density results and that the appearance is not always indicative of the density.
Group Activity: Create Land Use Concepts
After the presentation and discussion, participants were invited to create their own land use concepts. GPAC members split into two groups, and members of the public created a third. Each group was given a large-scale aerial map of Thousand Oaks, a zoomed in aerial of the 101-Freeway corridor, various place type stickers and pens to craft their own land use alternative. The groups worked for about 40 minutes while the consultant team and city staff visited the tables to answer any questions.
Group Activity Report Out/Discussion
One representative from each group summarized their land use alternative to the larger group. These summaries are described below.
GPAC Group #1 (used 101-corridor map)
• Focus on the mall areas; The Oaks and Janss Marketplace • Higher density and mixed-use along Thousand Oaks Boulevard • Industrial flex and supportive uses, like restaurants and retail, around the existing industrial zones and Amgen
• Missing middle housing in underutilized or vacant areas around existing single family residential
• Desire to convert underutilized commercial and areas with expansive asphalt into mixed use or high-density housing that is close to existing jobs and/or retail GPAC Group #2 (used both maps)
• Desire to create village centers by adding missing middle housing, and mixed-use in and around existing malls
• Village centers with retail and residential incorporated • Existing underutilized office space retrofitted into multi-family residential, opportunity for the Promenade at Westlake
• New missing middle housing for people that already work in Thousand Oaks, give them an opportunity to live here, specifically in Newbury Park • Incorporate mixed-use into retail centers that are struggling, especially by California Lutheran University (CLU) to make them more walkable neighborhoods
Public Group #3 (used both maps)
• Underutilized areas as future opportunity sites for housing, entertainment district, and hotels
• More housing with a little more density
• More amenities on the eastern side of town, near Amgen. • Incorporate higher density residential and mixed use
• Village centers, mixed use, parks and open space, and main street retail around the Civic Arts Plaza
• More flex industrial space
• Preserve open space around Westlake High School
• Consider reasonable density for future development
• Consider existing traffic and future impacts from new development • Missing middle housing on the western side of town, account for middle-low— income level housing
• New public transportation opportunities
Other Comments:
• Both GPAC groups identified the malls as opportunity sites for the future o Encourage retrofitting and new uses to keep malls viable • Fight retail center blight
Public Comments
Seventeen members of the public signed-in and many participated in the meeting activities. One member of the public spoke during the public comment period, which is summarized below.
• One member of the public announced that there are fundraising for Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (LLS) where donations go towards research for all cancer types Wrap-up and Next Steps
Matt highlighted the upcoming community events and next steps and asked for any final thoughts from the group. One GPAC member had closing thoughts which are summarized below.
• Housing that is supportive for homeless and seniors should be considered • Suggest a pop-up workshop event at the Goebel Adult Center before bingo to solicit feedback from seniors
Adjourn at 8:10 pm
Attachment: GPAC #6 map activity results
GPAC Group #1 Mapping Activity Results
GPAC Group #2 Mapping Activity Results
GPAC Group #2 Mapping Activity Results Continued
Public Group #3 Mapping Activity Results
Public Group #3 Mapping Activity Results Continued
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #7 | May 28, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm
This was a virtual meeting held via Zoom and livestreamed to Facebook. Members of the public could register in advance to join the Zoom meeting to watch and/or make public comments, or view on Facebook live and submit comments through the online comment forum, Poll Everywhere.
• Review mobility existing conditions, state legislative context, best practices, and opportunities for Thousand Oaks
GPAC Members
• Present: Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Chaise Rasheed, Dr. Chris Kimball, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Emily Dale, Fred Fukanaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Michael Nigh, Nicholas Reale, Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Rorie Skei, Tara Carruth, Dr.
Victor Hayek, and Wyatt McCrea
• Absent: Dena Jenson, Andy Fox
City Staff
• Tracy Noonan, City Attorney; Ingrid Hardy, Assistant City Manager; Mark Towne, Community Development Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Development Director; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; Nader Heydari, Deputy Public Works Director; Jim Mashiko, Senior Civil Engineer; Kathy Naoum, Transportation Planner; and Ashley Humes, Neighborhood & Social Services Liaison
Consultant Team
• Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
• Viggen Davidian and Deepak Kaushik, Iteris
• Rogelio Pardo, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates
Viewers
• 94 total users (includes all staff, consultants, GPAC members and attendees) • 29 unique viewers (people viewing the webinar on their computer; does not include GPAC or attendees who listened by phone)
• 14 concurrent views (maximum number of online views at the same time during the webinar, excluding panelists)
Presentation & Discussion
Matt Raimi kicked off the meeting with an overview of the evening’s agenda.
Then Melissa Stark highlighted important Zoom features for GPAC members and how members of the public could participate in the meeting through Facebook Live, the comments forum, and make public comment within the Zoom meeting.
After this overview, Matt Raimi introduced City staff, consultant team, and GPAC members in attendance. Then the group participated in an “ice-breaker” activity where each GPAC member highlighted one positive thing they’ve experiences during the past two months.
Following introductions and the ice-breaker activity, Matt Raimi provided an overview of the General Plan Update progress, noting impacts on the schedule due to COVID-19. Matt highlighted that several in-person engagement activities and GPAC meeting where cancelled with additional delays to work tasks.
Rogelio Pardo began the mobility presentation by highlighting the background research and analysis conducted to-date. He then reviewed a series of maps and charts illustrating the city’s existing roadway network, roadway congestion, available capacity, bicycle network and safety, pedestrian network and safety, transit ridership, mode share split, and concluded with a summary of issues and opportunities.
After this part of the presentation, the group paused for questions and clarifications. A summary of the discussion is listed below.
• A City staff member commented that Lynn Road is mapped as six lanes, but it is striped as four lanes with bicycle lanes.
• One GPAC member commented on mixed-use projects, specifically related to parking and traffic congestion, and overflow parking onto adjacent streets. • A City staff member acknowledged that bicycle collisions are often underreported.
Noting that it is important to look at the entire network to determine what challenges bicyclists face.
Deepak Kaushik continued the presentation with an overview of key legislation including SB 743 and the Complete Streets Act. After a brief pause with no questions, he continued with a review of best practices and opportunities. Next, he reviewed mobility, connected networks, street design, designing for roadway, pedestrian, and cyclist safety, signature spaces, and improving local transit and regional connectivity. City staff provided the following comments:
• Every few years, the City conducts a road surfacing project to evaluate roadway capacity and consider pedestrian amenities. When feasible, this includes adding or widening bike lanes.
Members of the public submitted questions and comments on the presentation through Poll Everywhere throughout the meeting. These questions and responses are listed below. • What considerations are being made to climate change mitigation within the transportation element of the General Plan Update? The team noted that climate change and sustainability would be integrated throughout the document as well as through the Environmental Impact Report.
• I would like to see the Newbury Park bus go directly to the transit center instead of needing to transfer at the Oaks Mall. The team responded that this is a specific transit route and service issue that needs to be addressed as part of bus service planning, but if it may be relevant in the larger General Plan Mobility Element context, it may be addressed
• Do new developments have to keep in mind the traffic during evacuation? For instance, the Kmart proposal will increase density so much that evacuations for that community and surrounding communities will be dangerous. The team noted that this is not discussed in the General Plan Update but would be part of an individual project review prior to approval. The team also noted countywide efforts underway for evacuation planning
• Do curb extensions get in the way of bikes? It seems that they are better for the pedestrian, but not the bikes. The team noted that designs in some communities are as wide as the parking lane, which would leave the bicycle lane unobstructed. • Biking/walking mobility within Thousand Oaks could be improved by reducing vehicle speeds on roadways through residential areas where people currently avoid using adjacent walking paths. For instance, on Westlake Boulevard between the 101 freeway and Avenida de Los Arboles, where the 50-mph speed limit is dangerous and off-putting.
Discussion Questions:
The team posed a series of discussion questions to engage GPAC members in the materials covered: What do you like about the City’s current mobility system? What works well and what are issues the city is facing? What needs to be fixed? What do you want to see the General Plan accomplish for mobility? What mobility improvements should be prioritized? And What locations should be prioritized for mobility improvements? Below is a summary of GPAC questions and discussion.
• One GPAC member asked if traffic would increase if more bicycle lanes are added? Also, asking what the process is for adding carpool lanes and diamond lanes on a freeway? The team responded that congestion on routes could be an impact, but that the team would conduct a comprehensive analysis to understand overall network capacity, alternative routes for vehicles and bicycles alike, and design options to minimize impacts. The team also responded that the process for diamond lanes needs to be spearheaded by Caltrans, which holds jurisdiction over the freeway.
VCTC and Caltrans are already leading an effort to plan for HOV (carpool) lanes on US-101 from SR-23 in Thousand Oaks to SR-33 in Ventura. The team also mentioned that this process is in currently in the environmental analysis and preliminary design stage, but there is currently no specific timeframe for implementation pending availability of funding. There are currently no plans for HOV lanes on SR-23.
• One GPAC member referenced other cities that reduced city street lanes only to add them back later due to increases in traffic congestion. The project team responded that bike lane planning must be done with a proper complete streets context to minimize negative impacts if a lane is taken away.
• One GPAC member commented that people like gateway roads, such as Wendy Drive and Borchard Road. Mentioning that those streets can be beautified without losing functionality. The Project team acknowledged comment and balance between multi-modal needs and beautification features such as landscaping • One GPAC member commented that they were glad to see the new flashing crosswalks within Thousand Oaks, noting that they are safer for pedestrians. They continued to mention that additional crosswalks would be helpful in other areas of Thousand Oaks, such as at Thousand Oaks High School and Reino Road to Newbury Park High School.
• One GPAC member commended the City for fixing vehicular slow-downs between Duesenberg Drive to Westlake Boulevard, on Thousand Oaks Boulevard with the flashing yellow turn lanes; and, for the ensuring the safety of citizens going across Thousand Oaks Boulevard with the planned crosswalks next to 24 Hour Fitness. • One GPAC member stated that Thousand Oaks is a heavy car city because it was designed for automobiles. Mentioning the city’s local transit issue is related to cost, with an additional need for regional transit routes. This GPAC member also mentioned that their residential street is frequently used as an auxiliary bypass route where drivers speed, despite a school and many senior residents. The team noted that design features can help limit speed on auxiliary streets and cut through traffic as well to enhance safety.
• One GPAC member commented that connectivity and safety is important, noting that they don’t see much bicycle parking, and asked if there be more bicycle routes for connectivity and experienced bicyclists? A City staff member responded that the City encourages the installation of bicycle racks and requires their installation for all new projects. The City also has a Bike Rack program that provide racks to business owners. Racks are required to be install for all new projects. • One GPAC member referenced the “Future of Transportation” event held last year in Oxnard, that suggested our communities are at or near peak car usage. Noting that we should start to plan for a decrease in the number of vehicles on the road.
Regarding bike lanes, they commented that many streets are deliberately or unintentionally hostile for bicyclists, including Borchard Road and portions of Reino Road, where there are long stretches of brick wall. They suggested that the City make more accessible routes, or identify alternative routes, so cyclists do not have to use unsafe streets. Also noting that freeway crossings currently divide the city in two for cyclists.
• One GPAC member strongly endorsed making the city safer for pedestrians and cyclists. They questioned the feasibility and effectiveness of using painted buffers on existing bike lanes. They also questioned whether adding park-n-ride transit routes have ever been considered, such as, to the Civic Arts Plaza, Oaks Mall, Janss Marketplace, or the DMV. City staff responded that the current demand is not high enough to support such a specific route within Thousand Oaks Transit. Park-n-ride efforts exist with regional agencies.
• One GPAC member asked if the city would consider narrowing some streets for safety purposes, where streets appear wide for the posted speed limit or where kids need to cross the street, such as Kimber Drive. The project team noted this is a design consideration that can be incorporated into design recommendations.
Public Comments
Six members of the public registered to speak during public comment within the zoom meeting. Below are summaries of their public comments.
• One member of the public commented that they logged on because they were curious, but felt it was a good presentation and had no further comments. • One member of the public encouraged that we not lose the character of the community and the vision set forth in the original General Plan. Less improvements are needed.
• One member of the public referenced Chapter 5 of the original General Plan Conservation Element and questioned why the most recent Conservation Element does not include references to the Cultural Heritage Board, nor community cultural resources, such as the previous City Hall and Timber School. • One member of the public stated that our decisions will impact many lives. We need to preserve our small-town character.
• One member of the public stated they want no more high-density projects, such as the Lupe’s project. Thousand Oaks has the highest temperature increase in California. How does density address climate change?
• One member of the public mentioned the Amgen Cycling Club’s letter to the GPAC, encouraging support of cyclists and continuing to make Thousand Oaks a cycling destination within Southern California.
Two public comments were submitted through Poll Everywhere (in addition to those listed above).
• Promoting electric bikes can help solve topography issues and the more challenging problem, looking into how to decouple cyclists and pedestrians from cars trying o enter/exit the freeways without angering drivers.
• The Amgen Cycling club submitted a letter to the GPAC, but I would like to reiterate a few points regarding the main issues mentioned in the presentation, topography and freeway crossing challenges.
Wrap-up and Next Steps
Matt closed the meeting by reinforcing the many uncertainties still at play due to COVID-19 and mentioned that the team will revise the GPAC and project schedule in the coming weeks to reflect the new workflow.
Adjourn at 8:30 pm
Attached: Amgen Cycling Club letter to the GPAC
Note: this was a virtual meeting, therefore no sign-in sheets for the GPAC or public were collected City of Thousand Oaks May 28, 2020
General Plan 2045
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Dear General Plan Advisory Committee:
The Amgen Cycling Club has been around the Thousand Oaks community for over 15 years with 400 members working to increase biking enjoyability, safety, and accessibility for road, mountain, and commuting cyclists. Seeing that road biking and commuting by bicycle encompass transportation, we have ideas of how to form the 2045 General Plan which would improve enjoyability, safety, and accessibility for the entire community.
First, if biking is more convenient than driving, many people will choose to bike; if biking is as safe as driving, many people will choose to bike; if biking is about as easy as driving, many people will choose to bike.
Next, listed are a few ideas that would increase biking enjoyability, safety, and accessibility:
• Create directional, protected bike lanes with barriers from cars and pedestrians • Create wide bike lanes that allow cyclists to bike side-by-side (similar to the two front seats in a car)
• Create safe freeway crossings where bikes and cars do not compete for space • Identify crosstown routes with signage for tourists
• Encourage electric bikes to increase ridership and usefulness (e.g., small grocery trips) • Support cycling in the community by assuring businesses and public spaces have bike friendly amenities like racks and repair stands
Last, we believe that a city with exceptional biking resources creates less traffic, increases health, is better for the environment, and creates a better community than one requiring automobiles for even the smallest errand. Our goal is to make Thousand Oaks, which already has a great reputation for cycling, world-renowned for its amazing bike culture that takes advantage of its perfect weather and draws on its amazing landscape to support better living for all.
Sincerely,
Phil D. Clark, President
Tony Reed
Amgen Cycling Club
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #8 | July 23, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm
This meeting was held via Zoom and livestreamed to YouTube. Members of the public could register in advance to join the Zoom meeting to watch and/or make public comments, or view on YouTube and submit comments through the online comment forum, Poll Everywhere. • Provide a background on health, equity and environmental justice and their relationship to the General Plan
• Present existing conditions information on health status, social determinants of health, environmental pollution, and characteristics of the built environment that impact health.
• Discuss how recent events – COVID 19 and the killings of unarmed minorities – relate to the General Plan
• Brainstorm on goals and policies that can be include in the General Plan relating to the above topics
GPAC Members
• Present: Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Chaise Rasheed, Dr. Chris Kimball, Dustin Woomer, Emily Dale, Fred Fukanaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Paul Shrater, Rorie Skei, Tara Carruth, Dr.
Victor Hayek, and Wyatt McCrea
• Absent: Andy Fox, Darren Bovard, Dena Jenson, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Laura Behjan, Michael Nigh, Patrick DuRoss
City Staff
• Ingrid Hardy, Assistant City Manager; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; James Fryhoff, Chief of Police Consultant Team
• Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
Guest Speaker
• Dr. Gregory Freeland, California Lutheran University
Presentation & Discussion
Matt Raimi kicked off the meeting with an overview of the evening’s agenda. Then Melissa Stark highlighted important Zoom features for GPAC members and how members of the public could participate in the meeting through Facebook or YouTube, the comments forum, and make public comment within the Zoom meeting.
After this overview, Matt Raimi introduced the guest speaker, Dr. Gregory Freeland, professor of Political Science, Director of the Global Studies Program, and faculty advisor to Model United Nations at California Lutheran University located in Thousand Oaks. Dr.
Freeland defined Environmental Justice and provided background on the history of environmental justice, racism, disadvantaged communities, and equity. He stated that land use planning and zoning should be race-neutral to avoid disproportionate effects on communities of color.
Following Dr. Freeland’s address, Matt Raimi began the evening’s presentation by acknowledging the ongoing health and safety issues related to policing and protesting and how they correlate to equity and public health. Matt introduced equity, types of racism, social determinants of health, and components of healthy and equitable communities. Then, Matt followed with an overview of existing conditions in Thousand Oaks which included health outcomes, environmental justice and disadvantaged communities, and health and the built environment.
During the presentation, two questions were asked. Those questions and responses are listed below.
• Is gentrification a concern for Thousand Oaks? The General Plan Team responded that Thousand Oaks does not have the gentrification disparities that the greater Los Angeles area has and does not have the desire to grow that would displace current residents.
• What types of industries are in Thousand Oaks that would create environmental issues? The General Plan team responded that various manufacturing, auto related uses, transportation, and even dry-cleaning businesses can contribute to pollution.
Members were invited to submitted questions and comments on the presentation through Poll Everywhere throughout the meeting. One comment was received during the presentation, which is listed below.
• From the information presented, it seems like the traffic and air quality are the main issues that affect our city the most.
Following the presentation, the General Plan Team posed a series of questions to spark discussion. Those questions and GPAC member responses are listed below. • What are the key issues and topics—related to health and equity—the General Plan should address?
o High housing and housing related costs.
o Homelessness, which disproportionately affects people of color. o Transportation as a means of accessing important social services. o Access to parks and open space that are not near the freeways. o Access to quality healthcare.
o Improved infrastructure and disadvantaged communities, especially older neighborhoods in need of repair and investment.
• What is your vision for a more equitable community?
o More accessible housing for different income levels to support the people that work in our community, which could make Thousand Oaks more diverse. o More apartments that are safe, clean, and healthy to rent. o More housing that is geared towards young professionals. o Accessible services for people experiencing homelessness, including transportation to existing Ventura County services, and a higher level of local year-round services.
• What are the health issues you are seeing in your work that relate to the built environment? o Diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol.
o Lack of physical activity due to limited access.
o Access to affordable healthy foods is critical, especially for people with chronic health issues like diabetes.
• Thousand Oaks has become a highly desirable place to live, but as it has evolved it has closed the door for certain populations to live here. There is an opportunity to create a wider diversity of residents in Thousand Oaks, is that something we want to intentionally attract? If so, how?
o Thousand Oaks should highlight the welcoming environment and fair community.
o Address the bad reputation it has for not accepting people of color, there are misconceptions about people who live in Thousand Oaks, the city is now 31% non-White.
o Feel that Thousand Oaks is not a very racist place.
o Diversification of housing is needed, especially apartments and a variety of housing types to support the community.
o Address housing but preserve the good qualities of Thousand Oaks like natural beauty and ridgelines.
o Until recently, housing policy favored older generations at the expense of young people.
o There is a need to address the perception that law enforcement is overly aggressive and hostile to younger people and people of color in Thousand Oaks.
o Promote hiring minorities and paying higher wages to help diversify the community in Thousand Oaks.
• When you think about a healthy community, what do you think about? o Safe and healthy housing.
o Accessible and connected transportation system.
o Access to healthy foods.
o Access to important elements of living like information, broadband internet/Wi-Fi, education, retail, open space, parks, and trails. • What are things we should think about moving forward to improve health and equity? o Open space in almost every neighborhood and accessible sidewalks. o Well-lit streets that make it possible to walk at night. o Clean air and bike lanes to encourage biking.
o More apartment complexes to reduce the number of people commuting. o Buy electric when possible and limit fossil fuels.
o Improve accessibility, ADA standards should be a minimum threshold. • What is your vision for the future?
o Working together as a community.
o A network of services that are supported by the city. o Improved access to open space and bus transportation for people of all ages. o Transportation to critical public services.
o A community that is wired with internet access throughout the city. • Other comments and thoughts
o Access to healthy foods should also consider car ownership, as some people that live farther away from grocery stores own automobiles and are able to drive to access healthy foods.
o There is not just a single barrier to accessing public services, there are cumulative effects of other factors. Appreciative of the work done to find these areas with multiple factors affecting health.
o The income by race graph in the presentation did not reflect one GPAC member’s experiences and knowledge within the community. o Value and appreciate the health and equity conversations.
Public Comments
Members of the public registered in advance to speak during public comment within the zoom meeting. Below are summaries of the two public comments shared via Zoom. No public comments were submitted through Poll Everywhere.
• Ventura County’s temperature has increased 4 degrees in recent decades. This causes an increased risk for wildfire and extreme heat. There is a need for policies to mitigate this temperate rise such as:
o Ambitious native tree and planting strategy
o Green space enhancement
o Discourage use of plastics in community
o Require electrification of new housing
o Prohibit natural gas hookups
o Climate expertise in our General Plan, on the GPAC and in the plan itself The General Plan Team responded to this comment noting that sustainability, climate, and resilience will be the topic of an upcoming GPAC meeting. The General Plan team has extensive climate and resilience expertise and it is an important component of the General Plan.
• There is a lack of multifamily housing in Thousand Oaks that is affordable, what is being built today is not affordable for most people. There is a desire to see thoughtfully designed housing options that address the needs of the community.
Adjourn at 8:05 pm
Note: this was a virtual meeting, therefore no sign-in sheets for the GPAC or public were collected Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #9 | August 20, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm
This meeting was held via Zoom and posted to YouTube. Members of the public could register in advance to join the Zoom meeting to watch and/or make public comments, or view on YouTube and submit comments through the online comment forum, Poll Everywhere. • Provide a background on safety, natural hazards, and resilience and their relationship to the General Plan
• Present existing conditions information on earthquakes and seismic events, flooding, wildfires, extreme heat, community safety, contagious disease, policing, and public safety.
• Brainstorm on goals and policies that can be include in the General Plan relating to the above topics
GPAC Members
• Present: Chaise Rasheed, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Fred Fukanaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Ken Lamont, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Rorie Skei, and Dr. Victor Hayek
• Absent: Andy Fox, Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Dr. Chris Kimball, Dena Jenson, Emily Dale, Dr. Karen Gorback, Michael Nigh, Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Tara Carruth, Wyatt McCrea
City Staff
• Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; Helen Cox, Sustainability Division Manager; John Brooks, Senior Analyst; Grahame Watts, Disaster Services Coordinator
Consultant Team
• Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
• Joe Power and Andrew Hatt, Rincon Consultants
Presentation & Discussion
Matt Raimi kicked off the meeting with an overview of the evening’s agenda, followed by a review of key Zoom features and public participation opportunities shared by Melissa Stark.
Joe Power and Andrew Hatt of Rincon Consultants led the evening’s presentation which included an overview of the California planning regulatory context, Thousand Oaks’ climate action planning, and three areas of existing conditions background: safety, resiliency, and emergency response planning. Joe and Andrew highlighted existing City of Thousand Oaks policies and programs related to safety, resilience, and emergency response, and summarized recommendations for future programs and policies.
Throughout the presentation, the team paused to administer Zoom polls to engage the GPAC and spur conversation. Members of the public could participate in the polls through an online forum called, Poll Everywhere. These poll questions, responses, and related comments are listed below. Note: Not all GPAC members responded to each poll questions.
Poll 1. How prepared do you feel for future wildfires, compared to before the Hill/Woolsey Fire? Do you feel the City is prepared?
GPAC Comments
• The City is prepared for future wildfire events with the mobilized emergency preparedness operations center but need to continue the public information program to help homeowners prepare and protect their properties. • The location—being surrounded by open space—makes it impossible to prevent wildfires in Thousand Oaks. The City and building codes have done a great job protecting the area.
• Some Thousand Oaks neighborhoods have low car ownership and high populations of seniors and/or disabled people, which made evacuations challenging. During the 10%
35%
15%
30%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Very prepared
Prepared
Neutral
Not very prepared
Not prepared at all
GPAC Responses
25%
25%
25%
25%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Very prepared
Prepared
Neutral
Not very prepared
Not prepared at all
Public Responses
latest fire, evacuation centers filled up very quickly and it was challenging disseminating information for where to take large animals. • The community and City responses to past wildfires were well-run; therefore I feel well prepared for the next wildfire.
• Based on the Woolsey fire, I feel less than prepared. Concerns from the Woolsey fire include, evacuation centers located very close to mandatory evacuation zones and freeways packed with everyone being told to leave at the same time. In the future, can we mitigate fire with strategic breaks or grazing?
o The General Plan Team responded that the City is not able to touch protected open spaces including removing or modifying brush.
Poll 2. How important is it for the General Plan Update to extensively address infectious diseases through planning and/or programs in light of the COVID-19 pandemic? GPAC Comments
• Planning for infectious disease is important, but not extensively. The location and details are the crux of the issue.
• Infectious disease is an issue bigger than Thousand Oaks, not sure what we can do differently than the County.
38%
29%
29%
0%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Very
important
Important
Neutral
Not very
important
Not important
at all
GPAC Responses
50%
25%
25%
0%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Very
important
Important
Neutral
Not very
important
Not important
at all
Public Responses
Poll 3. Which natural disaster or event are you most concerned about in the City of Thousand Oaks? GPAC Comments
• Consider what is the immediate threat? Climate change is more long term, but wildfire threat is here today.
• Wildfires are most relevant in Thousand Oaks, and we need to consider what we have control over. We need to plan for the biggest issues that we can influence in the future.
• Extreme temperatures and heat with the aging community in Thousand Oaks is an issue. In the summer, some seniors avoid using their air conditioning due to the high utility costs. We need to tie the General Plan to housing and sustainable energy. • In terms of safety and resilience, Thousand Oaks has a good handle on things, the biggest issue is related to wildfires.
• Extreme heat is a big issue, fires are dramatic events that get a lot of attention, but people die due to extreme heat. We cannot prevent the extreme heat events, but the City can mitigate those events.
Note: One additional poll was schedule but due to time restrictions, the group skipped the fourth poll and discussion.
Discussion Question & Answer
Following the presentation and polls, the General Plan Team posed a series of questions to further the group discussion. Those questions and GPAC member responses are listed below. • What are some of the critical safety issues in Thousand Oaks and how can the General Plan begin to address these issues?
o Earthquakes should be expected and planned for in Thousand Oaks. o Loss of power and emergency management contingency plans should be in place.
38%
4%
58%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Increased temperatures +
extreme heat
Precipitation, flooding +
drought
Wildfires + air quality
GPAC Responses
75%
0%
58%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Increased temperatures
+ extreme heat
Precipitation, flooding +
drought
Wildfires + air quality
Public Responses
o Terrorism is a potential future threat.
o Plan for freeway bridge collapse during an earthquake or evacuation and have alternate routes.
o Plan for multiple disasters occurring at once in the future. o Evacuation routes and timing of evacuations is critical. • Regarding climate change and resilience, what programs and policies should we consider for the future? Is there anything we can do now to prepare? o Retrofitting of homes including water collection, house hardening, and educations to help individuals protect themselves.
• The General Plan Team asked City Staff to answer the following question: What safety and resilience issues should be included in the General Plan to help the City? o Individual preparedness is a top priority for successful emergency management.
o Water, energy, and food supplies are not under the City’s control. How does the city become more resilient and avoid these essential supplies being cut off due to a disaster?
o Should the city consider ways to be more energy resilience with a local supply? o Look into alternative water options and reclamation.
o Broader solar citywide to be more self-sufficient in the event of a disaster.
Other questions related to the presentation are listed below. • Are the number of hazardous materials sites in Thousand Oaks decreasing year after year?
o The General Plan Team responded that they do not have a comparison of previous year sites, but can look into those details, noting that the location of hazardous cleanup sites should be taken into consideration when planning for future housing.
One comment related to the presentation was submitted through Poll Everywhere, which is listed below.
• “On how prepared is the City for wildfires – I think some of the evacuations were parking lots rather than escape routes.”
Members of the public registered in advance to speak during public comment within the zoom meeting. Below are summaries of the three public comments shared via Zoom. One public comment was submitted through Poll Everywhere.
• Ventura County’s temperature has increased 4 degrees in recent decades. This causes an increased risk for wildfire, extreme heat, and heat related hospital emissions. The Woolsey fire highlighted the need to anticipate multiple disaster events at the same time. How can I provide input to the City? o The General Plan Team noted that they would follow-up for an additional conversation related to safety and resilience.
• The COVD-19 pandemic has made it hard for the community to be involved and engaged in the General Plan. Some folks can’t get online for a Zoom meeting, we need to try to get them involved somehow. Is the General Plan the place to have evacuation plans for new buildings?
o The General Plan Team responded that the document references evacuation routes at a high level, but California Building and Safety Code includes more detailed evacuation guidelines and information on a smaller scale. The City also has emergency operations plans.
• Glad climate change is being covered as part of the General Plan Update, as adequate planning is essential for the community to do its part. Would like to see a climate advisory committee in the future.
• Submitted Via Poll Everywhere: “Reduce development and stop encroaching further into areas that are susceptible to wildfires. Promote electrification of all new buildings and retrofitting of existing buildings to reduce greenhouse gases.” Matt Raimi closed the meeting and assigned homework for GPAC members to prepare for the next meeting by thinking about what sustainability means and define what a sustainable Thousand Oaks could look like in the future.
Adjourn at 8:05 pm
Note: this was a virtual meeting, therefore no sign-in sheets for the GPAC or public were collected Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #10 | September 24, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm
This meeting was held via Zoom and livestreamed to YouTube. Members of the public could register in advance to join the Zoom meeting and/or make public comments, or view on YouTube and submit comments through an online comment forum. • Provide a background on sustainability topics and their relevance to the General Plan • Present existing conditions information on the evolution of urban sustainability plans, types of topics covered, best practices from other communities, and connections to regional and State policy.
• Come to a common understanding of the definition of sustainability for Thousand Oaks • Brainstorm on goals and policies that can be include in the General Plan relating to the above topics
GPAC Members
• Present: Andy Fox, Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Chaise Rasheed, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Emily Dale, Fred Fukanaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Ken Lamont, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Patrick DuRoss, Rorie Skei, Dr. Victor Hayek, and Wyatt McCrea • Absent: Dr. Chris Kimball, Dena Jenson, Michael Nigh, Paul Shrater, and Tara Carruth
City Staff
• Ingrid Hardy, Assistant City Manager; Mark Towne, Community Development Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; Helen Cox, Sustainability Division Manager; John Brooks, Senior Analyst Consultant Team
• Matt Raimi, Walker Wells, Melissa Stark, and Sami Taylor, Raimi + Associates GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 2
Matt Raimi welcomed GPAC members and the public with an overview of the evening’s agenda, followed by a review of key Zoom features and public participation opportunities shared by Melissa Stark.
Walker Wells and Helen Cox led the evening’s presentation which included an overview of environmental sustainability, climate action planning in California, and local sustainability policy, as well as current sustainability efforts in Thousand Oaks. The City’s 2018 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) inventory and recent community climate action planning survey results were shared for recent context and background. Matt then provided an overview of the connection between land use to transportation and GHG emissions.
Throughout the presentation, the team paused to pose and answer questions, administer Zoom polls, and to engage in conversation. Members of the public who joined the Zoom meeting could participate in the Zoom polls, while members of the public watching on YouTube could participate through an online forum. These questions, responses, and related comments are listed below. (Note: Not all GPAC members responded to each poll question.) Question: What does sustainability mean to you?
GPAC and public feedback:
• Sustainability means conservation and preservation of natural resources for future generations.
• Our ability to be self-sufficient for essentials like water and utilities including water reclamation.
• The World Health Organization’s definition of a livable community which is a safe, vibrant, growing place for people to live at all stages in their life, thinking about the future.
• Sustainability means the environment and how we protect our resources for future generations, considering climate change, drought, fires, pandemic, and how we handle them as a community.
• Sustainability means working with our environment to maintain quality of life for ourselves and those after us.
• Being sustainable means living within our means in terms of keeping our natural resources balanced.
• Consider the economic component along with the environmental impact.
Sustainability should also include “society” to ensure that all elements that make us functional are here in the future.
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 3
Poll 1. How did you hear about this meeting?
Poll 2. How would you describe your knowledge about sustainability? Poll 3. What environmental sustainability topics are most important in Thousand Oaks?
0%
6%
48%
35%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Never heard of it
Don't know much about
it
Somewhat informed
Very informed
Expert in the field
Zoom Responses*
0%
0%
20%
50%
30%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Never heard of it
Don't know much…
Somewhat informed
Very informed
Expert in the field
Public Online Forum
Responses
0%
0%
55%
10%
0%
29%
3%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Acorn Ad
CLU
TO2045 email
GoGreen email
I'm a GPAC member
Other
Friend or Neighbor
City website
Zoom Responses*
0%
0%
64%
9%
0%
27%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Acorn Ad
CLU
TO2045 email
GoGreen email
I'm a GPAC member
Other
Public Online Forum
Responses
3 5
4 10
15 6
5 11
10 3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Reducing building energy use
Water conservation
Waste reduction & recycling
Reducing GHG emissions
Protecting natural areas & open space
Protecting & expanding urban forest
Reducing stormwater runoff
Building compact development with a mix of uses
Expanding transit, bicycle & pedestrian infrastructure
Creating "green" jobs
Zoom Responses* (Select Multiple)
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 4
*Zoom Responses include GPAC members and some members of the public who joined the virtual meeting.
Comments on the presentation:
GPAC member comments:
• California has a lot of environmental regulations. Can the City go beyond what is required by law in a City’s General Plan?
o The General Plan Team responded that California allows additional regulation beyond what is required by law. Cities can and do adopting more strict water standards, energy usage, and GHG targets, among others that are more stringent than the State’s. The City of San Luis Obispo is an example of a community that has implemented additional regulations in those areas. In Thousand Oaks we have the potential to establish policies that are stricter than the State’s baseline based on the community’s goals.
• The City should consider providing signs at parks reminding people to pick-up after themselves to maintain the quality of life in Thousand Oaks. • In the GHG inventory, trucks are separated out by light, medium, and heavy duty.
What an example of a light duty truck?
o The General Plan Team clarified that a light-duty truck refers to a pickup truck. • The City’s goal is 40% reduction by 2030, how much progress has been made? o The General Plan Team shared that Thousand Oaks has made a 25% reduction relative to 2010 levels. The City needs to extrapolate the reduction data and still has process to make in terms of reducing emissions.
• Transportation is a huge factor in Thousand Oaks. What is influencing VMT here, individuals or logistics transportation? How can the city reduce VMT? o The General Plan Team responded that most trips are local trips usually less than 5 miles. In Thousand Oaks, how can the city encourage people to use alternative transportation for short trips around town?
10%
17%
17%
24%
17%
3%
0%
3%
7%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Reducing building energy use
Water conservation
Waste reduction & recycling
Reducing GHG emissions
Protecting natural areas & open space
Protecting & expanding urban forest
Reducing stormwater runoff
Building compact development with a mix of uses
Expanding transit, bicycle & pedestrian infrastructure
Creating "green" jobs
Public Online Forum Responses (Select One)
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 5
• Based on the City’s auto-oriented layout, how do we achieve reductions in GHG emissions from transportation. No one is walking 2 miles to go to the grocery store.
The city was laid out and oriented towards car use. What makes sense for Thousand Oaks? How do we pay for these things?
• Our current bus system does not run often enough to make it useful. Can we size the buses to be smaller and more efficient?
Public comments submitted through the online forum:
• “What is being done to help low wage workers afford housing in Thousand Oaks? Commuting from other cities is unsustainable due to increased GHG emissions. We need a serious plan to address this issue.”
• “Don’t eliminate natural gas from new homes and commercial.” • “SoCalGas is eager to share and enhance our local energy efficiency programs in the City, which reduced over 265,000 tons of CO2 emissions in 2019, as well as our developments with zero-and near-zero emission technologies.” • SoCalGas wants to congratulate the City of continually making environmentally sustainability a top priority, especially reflected in the General Plan Update. We look forward to collaborating with the city during this process.” • “SoCalGas is excited to explore opportunities to pursue potential strategies for promoting and using hydrogen fuel for both building and transportation technologies in pursuit of the City’s decarbonization goals.” • “I highly encourage the city to pursue use of fuel cell buses. They don’t have range of hill issues as electric buses and don’t require 30 minutes charging time or use harmful batteries (plagued with environmental pollution issues).” • “I am in support of mixed use, especially on Thousand Oaks Blvd.” Following the presentation, Q&A, and polls, the General Plan Team initiated 3 GPAC member and 2 public member Zoom breakout groups. The breakout groups discussed the three discussion questions below, with the assistance of a facilitator/note taker from the General Plan Team.
Breakout Group Discussion Questions
1. Issues: What are some of the critical sustainability issues and assets in Thousand Oaks?
2. Goals and Strategies: What should be the goals or outcomes for sustainability in Thousand Oaks? What strategies should the City use to achieve its vision for sustainability?
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 6
3. GHG Reductions: The city needs to reduce transportation related emissions in order to achieve its GHG goals. Based on what you’ve heard tonight and what you know, what strategies should the City pursue?
The following are the results of the small group discussions for each group.
GPAC Group #1
• Issues/Assets:
o The layout of city, open space, and oak trees are assets in Thousand Oaks. o The business community is an asset, but the number of residents working outside the city and community is an issue.
o Desire to continue supporting businesses and encourage living and working in Thousand Oaks.
• Goals/Strategies
o Focus future change in key areas of the City like the 101-corridor. o Create strategies for reducing citywide emissions.
o Incentivize using other modes of transportation for short around-town trips. o Create sustainability policies that can be applied citywide.
GPAC Group #2
• Issues/Assets
o The existing lack of broadband access in areas of the city is an issue. o The built-out development pattern that necessitates driving and makes transit, walking, and biking challenging is a sustainability issue as it increases GHG emissions.
o The ongoing dry conditions, drought, and wildfires are concerning. • Goals/strategies
o Work to improve the urban forest in Thousand Oaks by planting more trees. o Create more walkable destinations like village centers at strategic locations. o Normalize sustainability measures and thinking throughout all facets of the city (entertainment, business, residential, etc.).
• GHG reduction actions
o Reduce cross-city trips by improving walkability and creating village centers. o Offer more frequent bus service with direct trips to key destinations, like a direct shuttle to the Civic Arts Plaza on performance nights. o Encourage people to use other modes of transportation for short trips.
GPAC Group #3
• Issues/Assets
o Thousand Oaks is already a leader in environmental programs. o Focus future sustainability goals on the realities of the suburban layout of the City.
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 7
o Desire to maintain strong businesses that are already located in Thousand Oaks and consider costs of new sustainability measures. • Goals
o Seek a balanced approach to sustainability by weighing the benefits to the environment, impacts to businesses, and costs.
o Learn about sustainability measures from the businesses community that operate in the City (i.e., Amgen).
o Encourage or require businesses to incorporate sustainability when expanding in the city.
o Seek areas for higher density development like a downtown and promote living and working within the city.
Public Group #1
• Assets/Issues:
o Thousand Oaks has a lot of space devoted to overbuilt roads. o The development pattern in Thousand Oaks is intended for cars, which is not sustainable.
o The existing open space is an asset as well as city staff’s knowledge of sustainability.
o The bus system in Thousand Oaks is an unused asset with a great potential. • Goals
o Address transportation emissions by offering EV incentives, encourage bicycling, building retrofits from gas to electric, and considering a tax gas in Thousand Oaks.
• GHG Reductions
o Consider re-zoning to allow mixed use in residential areas that would encourage greater self-sufficiency and require less trips by car. o Encourage retrofitting of existing apartment complexes and condos with sustainability measures.
Public Group #2
• Assets/Issues:
o The city’s green space is a wonderful asset - continue to preserve green space in the future.
o The city’s size is an asset - the community can get involved in planning activities, there is the ability to educate and engage folks on sustainability. o The dependence on imported water is an issue, water scarcity needs to be addressed.
• Goals
o Seek incentives to guide behavior changes that promote a more sustainable and self-sufficient community.
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 8
o Engage youth and schools in the City’s efforts to increase sustainability. • GHG reductions
o Develop the necessary infrastructure to create a closed system that reduces waste, like microgrids.
o Create village centers or community hubs that include goods and services, green space, and meeting space with a safely integrated bicycle and pedestrian network.
Members of the public registered in advance to speak during public comment within the Zoom meeting. Below are summaries of the three public comments shared via Zoom. One public comment was submitted through the online comment forum. • Thousand Oaks should promote centralized village centers that offer daily goods and services that are connected to bike paths and can reduce the number of short vehicle trips across town.
• I appreciated the format of this GPAC meeting, a lot of good ideas came out of the small group discussions. The issue of our dependence on imported water is not sustainable, drought tolerant landscaping has helped, but we could be diverting a lot of water. We should use the maximum feasible graywater throughout the City. • Thousand Oaks needs to be more self-sufficient and not so reliant on imported water. Need to divert stormwater runoff into areas that can enhance natural wetlands and create new wetlands. We need to reduce concrete and impermeable surfaces as much as possible.
• Submitted Via online: “What is being done to help low wage workers afford housing in Thousand Oaks? Commuting from other cities is unsustainable due to increased GHG emissions. We need a serious plan to address this issue.” Matt Raimi closed the meeting with an overview of the General Plan schedule and next steps.
Adjourn at 8:15 pm
Note: this was a virtual meeting, therefore no sign-in sheets for the GPAC or public were collected.
GPAC Breakout Group #1 Notes
• “Record” your small group discussion.
• “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes • If you run into issues, click “invite host”
• When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
• Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
• The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. • Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
• Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
1. Issues: What are some of the critical sustainability issues and assets in Thousand Oaks?
Notes:
• Transportation is an issue
• Community that pulls together and recognizes that sustainability is an important issues – asset
• Commuter our out of the community is an issue
• People love the community for the suburban quality, lower density, open space.
• Supporting the business community in the context of COVID, how people purchase goods now and impact on commercial centers. Smart planning and flexibility.
• With changing climate – how we harden to be protected against wildfires.
• Bus system needs to be viable for those that are not able to drive. Runs too infrequently. Downsize the buses and talk to riders about the routes.
GPAC Breakout Group #1 Notes
Also make the buses electric. And make the system something that really works.
• Transit system was started to provide services to elderly people that needed service.
• Trail systems are well developed and connect out to Santa Mountains. • Open space.
For Report out: 2-3 Issues and Assets
1. _
2. _
3. _
2. Goals and Strategies: What should be the goals or outcomes for sustainability in Thousand Oaks? What strategies should the City use to achieve its vision for sustainability?
Notes:
• Old Lupes location is an example of what may take place in the future. • Need to have strategies that can address the 80% of the community that may be untouched. Hillside neighborhoods are not walkable. Need strategies for the vast majority of the community.
• Reach codes can come into play for the newer developments as they come on line. Solar, energy efficiency.
• Need to consider the business community as well as housing, as the diversity of land uses is critical to creating walkable places. • Preserve landmark oak trees. Ensure that the open spaces are protected for the future.
• Consistent communication about oak trees and the value of open space For Report out: 2-3 goals for sustainability and strategies in Thousand Oaks
1. _
2. _
3. _
GPAC Breakout Group #1 Notes
3. GHG Reductions: Thousand Oaks needs to reduce transportation related emissions in order to achieve its GHG goals. Based on what you have heard tonight and what you know, what strategies should the City pursue? Notes:
• Reach codes
• Electric buses
• Support for electrical vehicle charging
• City could require businesses with large fleets to electrify sooner • Also trash collection, UPS, etc.
• Pick up trash as part of creating a culture of stewardship For Report out: 2-3 GHG Reduction actions the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing
1. _
2. _
3. _
GPAC Breakout Group #2 Notes
• “Record” your small group discussion.
• “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes • If you run into issues, click “invite host”
• When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
• Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
• The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. • Please identify someone to share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
• Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
1. Issues: What are some of the critical sustainability issues and assets in Thousand Oaks?
Notes:
Asset
• Open Space, will & recognition on need for sustainability and acknowledging need to do something meaningful.
• Pandemic shows the critical need of stable internet and universally accessible.
• Water
• Baked in development pattern – is it enough to do some hi density considering mostly built-out
• Transportation
• Ongoing maintenance costs – (roads example)
• Structure hardening against wildfire
• Bikes need safe paths.
GPAC Breakout Group #2 Notes
For Report out: 2-3 Issues and Assets
1. _ universal broadband access
2. _ baked in development patterns
3. _ wildfire hardening
2. Goals and Strategies: What should be the goals or outcomes for sustainability in Thousand Oaks? What strategies should the City use to achieve its vision for sustainability?
Notes:
• State goals are minimum we need to hit.
• Solar assistance (financial)
• Improve urban forest –
• promoting local centers as walkable destinations.
• Term sustainability should become normalized (big cos. Orgs put on printed materials showing their commitment).
• Transit – higher frequency, make cool to use the bus.
For Report out: 2-3 goals for sustainability and strategies in Thousand Oaks
1. _ Improving urban forest
2. _norming sustainability
3. _walkable destinations
3. GHG Reductions: Thousand Oaks needs to reduce transportation related emissions in order to achieve its GHG goals. Based on what you have heard tonight and what you know, what strategies should the City pursue? Notes:
• Walkability, neighborhood centers
• Evs
• Smaller vehicles,
• Shuttles
GPAC Breakout Group #2 Notes
• Expanding bike network
• Reduce non-handicapped parking to reduce incentives to drive.
For Report out: 2-3 GHG Reduction actions the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing
1. _ walkable centers
2. _ more frequent bus service
3. _promotion of alternate transportation
GPAC Breakout Group #3 Notes
• “Record” your small group discussion.
• “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes • If you run into issues, click “invite host”
• When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
• Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
• The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. • Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
• Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
1. Issues: What are some of the critical sustainability issues and assets in Thousand Oaks?
Notes:
• T.O already leader in env programs. Would like to see City focus on realities of sustainability and how we pay for it. Long term vision to make areas (downtown) walkable. Get people out of cars. • Cost – huge part of it. City must partner with businesses. Don’t want to drive business away. Need balance that keeps business here. • Don’t want to lose businesses that are already here.
• Businesses looking for place for family, good school system, safety, infrastructure is attractive.
2. Goals and Strategies: What should be the goals or outcomes for sustainability in Thousand Oaks? What strategies should the City use to achieve its vision for sustainability?
Notes:
GPAC Breakout Group #3 Notes
• Balance – sustainability – business – cost.
• Learn from businesses that operate here (eg Amgen). They may have good ideas.
• Business/construction/growth/expansion efforts should incorporate sustainability ideas. Be cognizant of that with planning efforts. • Make sure costs of reduced emission vehicles isn’t excessive for residents (eg natural gas trash trucks)
• Limited capacity for buses here in T.O. because of low density. Best use for buses would be in higher density – eg on TO Blvd
• Can’t have lofty goals but need to be realistic and incremental. Eg strategic transportation (like beach bus), maybe Sat morning to Mall
3. GHG Reductions: Thousand Oaks needs to reduce transportation related emissions in order to achieve its GHG goals. Based on what you have heard tonight and what you know, what strategies should the City pursue? Notes:
• Need more effective options for moving from home to work. • Park n Rides not effective because where are people riding to? Park N Ride has to drop people off close to where they work.
• Living and working in same City could reduce miles.
• Biggest opportunity is to create housing opportunities close to goods and services, and make it walkable.
For Report out: 2-3 GHG Reduction actions the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing
1. _
2. _
3. _
Public Breakout Group #1 Notes
• “Record” your small group discussion.
• “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes • If you run into issues, click “invite host”
• When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
• Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
• The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. • Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
• Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
1. Issues: What are some of the critical sustainability issues and assets in Thousand Oaks?
Notes:
Assets
• Solar panels at community parks and TO mall
• Demographics of community – a lot more disposable income • Preserve diversity
• Open spaces are a huge asset; encourage community to embrace high density housing to support
• City staff
Issues/challenges
• City is built for cars; hard to do anything different • Transit is a great asset that no one is using
• Are there options for the individual to reduce driving • attitudes of community – need to explain why we are doing things • Trapped in low density pattern of development
Public Breakout Group #1 Notes
• Roads are overbuilt; can covert parts to ped/bike facilities – rethink how we use space to accommodate more compact development.
• Incorporate protected bikeways into TO blvd
For Report out: 2-3 Issues and Assets
1. _
2. _
3. _
2. Goals and Strategies: What should be the goals or outcomes for sustainability in Thousand Oaks? What strategies should the City use to achieve its vision for sustainability?
Notes:
• GHG emission reductions down to nothing as quickly as possible • Needs measurement
• Water use reductions
• City incentives for electric vehicles
• Cargo bikes
• Change awareness and community support; need to explain why its important to do these things
• Zero waste
• Transition away from gas connections; electrification of older buildings • Reach code – no gas
• Institute taxes on natural gas and give it back to pay for retrofits For Report out: 2-3 goals for sustainability and strategies in Thousand Oaks
1. _
2. _
3. _
Public Breakout Group #1 Notes
3. GHG Reductions: Thousand Oaks needs to reduce transportation related emissions in order to achieve its GHG goals. Based on what you have heard tonight and what you know, what strategies should the City pursue? Notes:
• Retrofit of existing multifamily buildings to install charging ports • Allow mixed use
• Densify without reducing community character – ADUs
• Commercial corridors allowing housing and mixed use
For Report out: 2-3 GHG Reduction actions the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing
1. _
2. _
3. _
Public Breakout Group #2 Notes
• “Record” your small group discussion.
• “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes • If you run into issues, click “invite host”
• When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
• Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
• The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. • Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
• Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
1. Issues: What are some of the critical sustainability issues and assets in Thousand Oaks?
Notes:
- Natural environment as an asset
o Parkway trees to provide shade
- Wildfire risk, water scarcity are threats – develop local water supplies and reduce dependence on imported water
- Protect open space and trees to provide cooling effects and reduce urban warming through shade and evapotranspiration – reduce AC load - Space for trees and nature within the City
- Size of the city is manageable, allows for civic engagement and public participation
- Measures to capture stormwater and redirect into wetlands o Permeable pavement
o Preserve natural waterways – partner with county flood control district, naturalize the flood channels/remove concrete
- Require greywater systems in new construction and in remodels Public Breakout Group #2 Notes
- Public awareness and education of the community
o Behavioral change and sustainable choices
o Provide incentives to guide behavior change
- Solid waste contract negotiations – tiered pricing, charge per weight/vol.
For Report out: 2-3 Issues and Assets
1. Expansion of open space, urban greenery and trees to reduce urban heat island
2. Size of City – accessible planning initiatives, ability to engage/educate the community
3. Water – scarcity, stormwater redirection into natural areas and wetlands, groundwater recharge and percolation
2. Goals and Strategies: What should be the goals or outcomes for sustainability in Thousand Oaks? What strategies should the City use to achieve its vision for sustainability?
Notes:
- Circular economy to reduce waste – design systems and infrastructure - Involve youth and schools
- Microgrids and hydrogen fuel cells to provide back-up power and to power bus fleet
For Report out: 2-3 goals for sustainability and strategies in Thousand Oaks
1. Incentives to guide behavior change
2. Involve youth and partner with schools to spread awareness
3. _
3. GHG Reductions: Thousand Oaks needs to reduce transportation related emissions in order to achieve its GHG goals. Based on what you have heard tonight and what you know, what strategies should the City pursue? Public Breakout Group #2 Notes
Notes:
- Concern over Thousand Oaks Blvd. density and mixed-use because might create congestion
o Identify other business hubs to develop town squares, gathering places, gardens, bike network
- Use transit to connect high traffic destinations like schools, malls, etc o Park once destinations
- Public EV charging stations
For Report out: 2-3 GHG Reduction actions the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing
1. Circular economy
2. Village centers with open space throughout town – accessible to more people and households with safe bike/ped network
3. Microgrids – neighborhood resilience hubs
Emailed comment received by CTO Friday, September 25, 2020 I briefly mentioned two suggestions last night in our break-out room. I've written them out below with more details.
An incentive for residential solid waste reduction:
Our city can negotiate solid waste contracts which offer reduced cost rates for customers who receive monthly, rather than weekly pick up service. Specially marked or colored containers could be used which are only picked up on the first regular neighborhood pick up day of the month.
Offering a significant cost saving incentive will encourage people to find ways to decrease their waste - such as by buying less single use plastics and packaging.
Residents who help reduce the City’s cost of waste disposal should pay less in solid waste fees. We receive a $3.52 discount from Newbury Disposal Inc. for using a smaller trash container which takes us a month to fill. A discount should be offered that is more proportional to the value of the trash reduction.
My other suggestion is to encourage less water waste.
Dependence on imported water leaves our city vulnerable to disruptions and is not sustainable. The movement to drought tolerant landscaping has helped. Another way to use less water is to divert some of the mostly clean imported water now being sent through our Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Permits for all new homes and for kitchen or bathroom remodeling should require maximum feasible greywater reuse systems. There are many designs available for low cost systems that can irrigate plants and trees.
Recycling household greywater for gardening use is an excellent way to be more sustainable, use less imported water, and save money.
The added installation cost will pay for itself from reduced water bills over time.
Email received by CTO Monday, September 28, 2020
SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION WORKSHEET GPAC #10: Sustainability September 24, 2020
1. Issues: What are some of the critical sustainability issues and assets in Thousand Oaks? a) Our natural environment, native trees, open spaces and ridgelines, and surrounding natural vegetation are the draw that brought so many of us to this area and make our city a beautiful, pleasant refuge in which to live and recreate.
b) Ventura County’s average temperature has already increased 4.7F degrees (2.6C) since 1895, making the county in which Thousand Oaks is located the fastest warming county in the continental United States. Within 20 years … ie: within the scope of our updated General Plan … our average temperature is projected to SOAR 3-5F degrees HIGHER in the inland and elevated areas of our county, including here in Thousand Oaks. That translates to 27 extra days per year of 90-plus-degree heat and a 700% increase in days topping 100 degrees, by mid-century. Thus extreme heat, and the wildfire risk and water scarcity driven by extreme heat, are serious and accelerating threats to our community. c) Our city size is both an asset and an issue. It's small town character makes for a cohesive, supportive community; but it's widespread design makes walking and cycling from place to place largely impractical. d) Solid waste needs to be reduced and reused to the maximum extent feasible.
2. Goals and Strategies: What should be the goals or outcomes for sustainability in Thousand Oaks? What strategies should the City use to achieve its vision for sustainability? a) We must proactively preserve and expand tree canopy coverage, gardens, greenery and nature surrounding and within our city to reduce runaway urban heat island impacts through increased shade and evapo-transpiration.
b) We must develop local water sources and decrease dependence on imported water supplies. To that end, we must stop concreting natural areas. All new construction should be LEED-certfied and should require the use of only permeable pavers/paving. All remodels must also require the use of only permeable pavers/paving; and incentives should be developed for retrofits of existing pavements to permeable designs so as to allow for the recharge of natural aquifers. Permits for new construction, and kitchen and bathroom remodeling, should also require maximum feasible gray-water systems that divert nearly-clean wastewater to landscape irrigation. In addition, all storm and flood waters currently flowing into street drains must be redirected into our remaining natural wetlands and/or into artificially created wetland areas to ensure maximum recharge of aquifers.
c) Rather than overbuilding Thousand Oaks Blvd and encouraging everyone in the community to drive to and congregate downtown, we should consider creating centralized neighborhood hubs/town squares ... ideally by making use of and refurbishing vacant space (rather than building new) in areas where shopping, retail and entertainment is already concentrated. These hubs should be made compelling and attractive by incorporating abundant trees, gardens, open spaces, parks, and ample vegetation; should be within walking/cycling distance of their surrounding neighborhoods; and should include fleets of rental bicycles for the previous purpose. Hubs within the city should also be connected to one another, and to high travel areas (the Civics Arts Center; local colleges, middle and high schools for opening, closing and special events; malls, libraries, farmers markets, open spaces, sports playfields, etc) by clean-energy (ie:
electric, NOT fossil gas) powered public transit designed to reflect the character of our community. d) Before approval of any permits for all new construction going forward, the City must consider the wildfire safety and disaster evacuation impacts of said project on the entire community (including impacts resulting from said developments' resident density in relation to available egress roads and its contribution to potentially unsafe congestion on evacuation routes out of the city under multiple, simultaneous, disaster scenarios).
3. GHG Reductions: Thousand Oaks needs to reduce transportation related emissions in order to achieve its GHG goals. Based on what you have heard tonight and what you know, what strategies should the City pursue?
a) An expanded tree canopy and natural vegetation citywide will reduce the need for air conditioning, which in turn will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
b) Ideally we want people to work, shop and play in the same communities where they live, so as to reduce commutes, traffic congestion, and pollution. Realizing this ideal requires both affordable local housing (to reduce GHG emissions generated by workers commuting here from out of town, because they're priced out of renting/buying locally) and more good-paying job opportunities for local residents (especially for our grown adult children who want to continue living in our community past their schooling years), both of which Thousand Oaks lacks in adequate numbers. It would also require raising public awareness of these needs, perhaps by encouraging more telecommuting and by implementing incentives to hire local residents through a citywide "hire-local" campaign. That said, concentrating employment, retail and recreation in one extended "downtown" strip will encourage even larger numbers of residents to drive to and congregate all along T.O. Blvd and will actually attract and magnify traffic congestion and pollution ... because our city is already sprawled out and, as Helen Cox said at the meeting, we're not going to change that now. Strategically-located, orbital neighborhood, small business/grocery/park/garden/entertainment hubs (think European town squares) ... fashioned from renovating/refurbishing vacant space in existing business "centers" (and perhaps adding smaller gathering spots throughout the city where needed) ... each with their own rental bicycle fleets (like New York City) might make more sense ... with clean-energy (ie: electric, NOT fossil gas) powered public transit connecting these hubs to one another and to other already highly trafficked locations (middle and high schools, local colleges, malls, the Civics Arts Center, sports playfields, libraries, open space areas, etc.) within the city. A network of walking and protected biking paths (to ensure less-experienced cyclists feel safe) could connect neighborhoods to their hubs, and perhaps to other hubs. These hubs could also include small housing units made more affordable by incorporating shared common spaces. All new, remodeled, and renovated development should be required to be all-electric (no fossil gas lines or appliances) and equipped with both clean energy (solar photo-voltaic) micro-grids (for community resilience) and EV-charging stations (for cars and bicycles). Every hub should also have ample park space, public garden, vegetation and tree canopy coverage requirements. Longer distance public transit could include park-n-rides placed close to the northern, southern and easternmost hubs to connect them to other nearby cities.
c) Develop a comprehensive, citywide circular economy plan to reduce disposal of as much waste as possible and to instead reuse as many resources as possible. Provide incentives to reduce solid waste, including by reducing rates for people who need less frequent (perhaps monthly or every-other-weekly) trash pick-up & identified by specific bins.
d) Educating our residents about how unsustainable practices negatively impact each of us as individuals, and about how developing more sustainable habits can improve the quality of both our community and our everyday lives, together with providing incentives to guide the sustainable behaviors we want to see, is an inexpensive solution to reducing GHG emissions. People care but often don't have the knowledge or time to connect the dots and explore and implement emissions reductions strategies on their own. e) Involve City youth in problem solving, to engage, empower and draw on their creative perspective.
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #11 | October 22, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm
This meeting was held via Zoom and livestreamed to YouTube. Members of the public could register in advance to join the Zoom meeting and/or make public comments, or view on YouTube and submit comments through an online comment forum.
• Provide context for arts and culture in the General Plan. • Provide an overview of Thousand Oaks’ arts and cultural ecosystem, including City programs, community cultural assets, and the creative economy.
• Share observations on Thousand Oaks’ cultural ecosystem and identify opportunities to be considered for the General Plan.
• Brainstorm issues, goals and strategies relating to the above topics that can be included in the General Plan.
GPAC Members
• Present: Chaise Rasheed, Dustin Woomer, Fred Fukanaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Ken Lamont, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Paul Shrater, Rorie Skei, Tara Carruth, Dr.
Victor Hayek, and Wyatt McCrea
• Absent: Andy Fox, Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Dr. Chris Kimball, Darren Bovard, Dena Jenson, Emily Dale, Dr. Karen Gorback, Michael Nigh, and Patrick DuRoss City Staff
• Mark Towne, Community Development Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; Jonathan Serret, Deputy Cultural Affairs Director; Health Cousin, Library Services Director; Dusty Russell, Assistant Economic Development Analyst
Consultant Team
• Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
• Linda Flynn and David Plettner-Saunders, Cultural Planning Group GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 2
Matt Raimi welcomed GPAC members and the public with an overview of the evening’s agenda, followed by a review of key Zoom features and public participation opportunities shared by Melissa Stark.
David Plettner-Saunders led the evening’s presentation which included an overview of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks, state and local policies, and community engagement surrounding arts and culture in the General Plan. Jonathan Serret provided an update on virtual community programming in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and shared details of some of the recent performances. Existing conditions, like cultural programs, the Civic Arts Plaza and Bank of American Performing Arts Center, and a description of the local creative economy were shared for context and to illustrate the connection between arts and culture and the Thousand Oaks economy.
Throughout the presentation, the team paused to answer questions, administer Zoom polls, and to engage in conversation. Members of the public who joined the Zoom meeting could participate in the Zoom polls, while members of the public watching on YouTube could participate through an online forum. These questions, responses, and related comments are listed below. (Note: Not all GPAC members responded to each poll question.)
Poll 1. Thinking pre-COVID, how would you describe your participation in arts and cultural activities? *Zoom Responses include GPAC members and some members of the public who joined the virtual meeting.
Comments on the presentation:
GPAC member comments:
• The presentation refers to a traditional arts audience, how is that defined? o The General Plan Team responded that arts audience in the United States is typically correlated with education and income, the Thousand Oaks community is both affluent and well-educated.
42%
26%
29%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Frequent (12+ per year)
Occasional (6-12 per
year)
Once in a while (<6 per
year)
Not at all
Zoom Responses*
67%
33%
0%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Frequent (12+ per year)
Occasional (6-12 per
year)
Once in a while (<6 per
year)
Not at all
Public Online Forum
Responses
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 3
• There is $840 million dollars in sales related to the Thousand Oaks creative economy. Does that include outside productions that film in Thousand Oaks? o The General Plan Team responded that the income is reported based on where the business is located. Noting that employment may capture outside businesses who film in Thousand Oaks.
• To raise funds for the arts, I suggest we offer raffles. Raffles could be supported by the private sector and could offer tickets to a performance at the Civic Arts Plaza. • We should ask the public what kind of programming they want to see in the future and advertise on the City’s website and in the TO Acorn.
• Do we have data on the age groups who attend shows at the Civic Arts Plaza? The current programing seems to speak to older generations.
o The General Plan Team responded that both theaters use Ticketmaster for ticket sales, which tracks age demographics information but only in relation to the purchaser. The current method of determining what audiences want to see has been more trial and error. The theaters’ stadium-style seating is great for traditional performing arts and audiences who want to be seated – however, younger demographics are looking for opportunities to stand and venues that allow for more movement.
Poll 2. Thinking about the creative life of Thousand Oaks, which three of the following area more important to you? (Pick three)
*Zoom Responses include GPAC members and some members of the public who joined the virtual meeting. 12%
24%
24%
8%
16%
16%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Develop community art program
Vibrant Cultural scene
Enhanced art facilities/programs
Arts-centric areas
Increase support for arts
Increased arts learning for youth
Zoom Responses*
25%
0%
25%
25%
25%
0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Develop community art program
Vibrant Cultural scene
Enhanced art facilities/programs
Arts-centric areas
Increase support for arts
Increased arts learning for youth
Public Online Forum Responses
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 4
Questions from non-GPAC members during the Zoom meeting:
• Can you clarify what the 14% of all jobs statistic refers to? o David responded that the 14% refers to creative occupations in Thousand Oaks. • How does the city compare to other cities in California, are we on par? What is your take on Thousand Oaks’ standing?
o David responded that Thousand Oaks is doing very well compared to other cities, nearly identical to Los Angeles County which is arguably one of the most creative Counties. The City has a high presence of creative professions that is an opportunity to capitalize on in the future.
• What does public art refer to?
o The General Plan team responded that a formal public or percent-for-art program refers to art that is accessible to all. This can include enhancements to buildings, integrated in public and private space, or be more flexible like a pop-up event. • What is the motivation for this study? Is it an outlet for creatives or for economic development? o The General Plan team responded that the General Plan is a long-term policy document that is required by state law. There are required topics like land use, transportation, housing, open space, air quality, among others, but Cities can include other topics that are important or reflective of their community. Thousand Oaks chose to include an Arts and Culture chapter of the General Plan. The process of creating this chapter started with stakeholder interviews, existing conditions research, and is now moving into policy ideas. This meeting is to establish what topics or policies should be included in the General Plan and to help establish a vision for arts and culture in the future. • (Submitted via online) Will you bring up solutions to meet the needs expressed? o We are transitioning from understanding the issues to thinking through policy ideas to address those issues – which we will start to discuss in our small groups later tonight.
No public comments or questions on the presentation were submitted through the online forum.
Following the presentation, the General Plan Team initiated two GPAC member and three public member Zoom breakout groups. The breakout groups discussed the discussion questions below.
Breakout Group Discussion Questions
1. Issues: What are some of the current arts and cultural issues in Thousand Oaks?
2. Goals and Strategies: What should the future of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks look like?
3. Economic Development: What arts and cultural strategies should the City pursue to support economic development? How can economic development investments support the arts? The following are the results of the small group discussions for each group.
GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 5
GPAC Group #1
• Issues/Assets:
o Affordability and access to arts and cultural performances o Availability of a city-wide calendar of arts and cultural events o Funding issues post-COVID
o Lack of local musicians
• Goals/Strategies:
o A unified arts curriculum for schools
o Broader and more diversity of community programming throughout Thousand Oaks o Events and programs targeted at younger audiences (20-40 years of age) o Connect the arts and culture talent across Thousand Oaks o A public art program
• Economics:
o Establish an arts and culture district that can apply for grant funding o Create a widespread arts and culture support program to infuse the arts structurally around the community
GPAC Group #2
• Issues/Assets:
o Lack of diversity of offerings citywide, need to appeal to a younger audience and build in affordability
o Identify a Thousand Oaks arts and culture identity that balances both national and local performers/acts
o Lack of flexible performance spaces, especially outdoor spaces o Increase awareness of and promote existing community arts and culture events and performances
• Goals/strategies:
o Capitalize on and continue virtual performances as they are very accessible and affordable o Re-evaluate restrictions (i.e., noise restrictions) that may limit performance venues o Continue and expand support for youth, local artists and performers • Economics:
o Address land use and permitting barriers to small/flexible venues. o Include arts and entertainment in Campus Master Plan.
Public Group #1
• Assets/Issues:
o Lack of space for artists to display and sell their work in the community o Desire to make Civic Arts Plaza performances more community oriented • Goals/Strategies:
o Include an outdoor amphitheater or European town center to support community and arts GPAC MEETING #11 SUMMARY | 6
o Represent the residents and artists of Thousand Oaks, focus on General Plan slogan “rooted in community”
o Increase awareness of arts and culture, including social media presence Public Group #2
• Assets/Issues:
o Thousand Oaks lacks a cultural identity
o Increase community engagement and awareness for new arts and cultural developments in the city
o Financial and physical access barriers to arts and culture in Thousand Oaks • Goals/Strategies:
o Integrate experiential art into the Downtown (and the Downtown Plan) o Help remove barriers to arts and culture by working with the school district to include arts integration
o Art should be participatory and more diverse across the city (i.e., pop-up events and drive-in movies)
o Develop a citywide arts and business council
Public Group #3
• Assets/Issues:
o Lack of coordination between arts and culture community o Lack of access to performing and meeting space throughout the city o Lack of diversity of audience, performers and practitioners, and art forms • Goals:
o Collaborations with business leaders and private sector to increase arts in community o Introduce a community arts and culture calendar and a “brag” site to showcase community talents and events
o Create a new city Arts Coordinator position to coordinate internally with agencies, organizations, talent, and externally with the community No public comments were shared during the Zoom meeting or submitted via the public comment forum online.
Matt Raimi closed the meeting with an overview of the General Plan schedule and next steps.
Adjourn at 8:05 pm
Attached are small group discussion worksheets from all facilitators and some participants.
Note: this was a virtual meeting, therefore no sign-in sheets for the GPAC or public were collected.
GPAC Group #1 Discussion Notes
• “Record” your small group discussion.
• “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes • If you run into issues, click “invite host”
• When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
• Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
• The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. • Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
• Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
1. Issues: What are some of the current arts and cultural issues in Thousand Oaks? Notes:
• Type of programming at the Civic Arts Plaza – need for broader, diverse programming appealing to all
• Affordability of the arts; access for all
• Master calendar for the arts; clearer relevant and updated information for happenings – age, family, cultural, etc.
• Previous art walk was a huge success – revisit arts events, walks, etc. • Funding – post COVID – municipal budgets are stressed • Community wide arts for all – is there an umbrella funder for other programming? (i.e. local arts agency)
• Younger target (20-40) programming – there is none! – concerts in the parks would be an example of a great event.
• Lack of local musicians at coffee shops; nontraditional spaces; • Areas of TO area arts desert – example: Newbury Park – have to drive across town during rush hour.
GPAC Group #1 Discussion Notes
2. Goals: What should the future of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks look like? Notes:
• Know where to go and what going on; filled with events throughout the city
• More diversity of programming
• More diversity of venues
• Programming for all ages – more for younger generations • Arts opps that are accessible and affordable
• Fair and accessible Arts education
• Public art integrated into daily lives – (TO feels relatively sterile in interacting with art during the day).
• Integrate art into architecture and landscape
• The talent in the community – how to get them involved and connect to community? (guest speakers, school partnerships, youth)
3. Economic Development: What arts and cultural strategies should the City pursue to support economic development? How can economic development investments support the arts?
Notes:
• Arts districts
• Establish a structure/framework in the City to develop and provide arts outside of the Civic Arts plaza.
For Report out: 2-3 arts and cultural strategies the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing
1. _
2. _
3. _
GPAC Group #2 Discussion Notes
• “Record” your small group discussion.
• “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes • If you run into issues, click “invite host”
• When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
• Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
• The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. • Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
• Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
1. Issues: What are some of the current arts and cultural issues in Thousand Oaks? Notes:
• Many arts choices don’t cater to a younger or diverse demographic. Civic Arts Plaza doesn’t offer what he’s interested in and sometimes it’s too expensive. TO doesn’t offer much “edge” to its programming. Maybe this is not a City function and can be offered by private organizations. • Piggy-backing on this, we’re near Los Angeles, cuts both ways. LA draws national acts - Pantages, Disney Hall - so it’s tough for TO to figure out its identity. Where do we fit in the artist identity/ community? We’re regional but high quality. Audiences can go to LA for quality at near the same price.
• Know theater well. Before shows transfer to Broadway, they do out of town tryouts. Can be all over. Some places pick up on these future hits.
With the Kavli, such a large theater, it would be a good venue for out-oftown tryouts. And if transfer to Broadway, it puts the City on the map.
GPAC Group #2 Discussion Notes
• Echoing comments…a lot of times she hears about shows after the fact.
Even being tuned into social media and visiting City Hall, shocked to know about the many other venues in TO. Didn’t know about these resources. An opportunity to promote and cross-promote. • As a teen in the city, know there are opportunities for her age group, but cost is sometimes to high. It’s a turn-off! And youth often don’t know about what’s going on.
• Lack of outdoor venues and informal, flexible venues contributes to lack of programming diversity.
• TO has free public concerts in the park – pass the hat! The programs are free but many will contribute voluntarily.
• Campus Master Plan includes an outdoor amphitheater. This may provide more entertainment outdoors. Exciting!
• CLU has a good Shakespeare program. Promoting it more. Also, don’t know about (visual) art opportunities in TO. Not a huge part of TO. • College age people – ask them what they want to see, hear. TO Acorn, local newspaper, is a great source of information. TO website. There are more ways to get people informed.
For Report out: 2-3 arts and cultural issues
1. Lack of diversity in programming in terms of age, taste, cost.
2. Programming is sometimes bland, not edgy. Opportunity to refine TO’s cultural identity.
3. Need for better promotion of what’s offered. Can make better use of existing communications (local newspaper, city website) but also need better marketing and promotion.
4. Need for more diverse venues, including smaller, flexible, outdoor, informal. Like arts as additions to places, like coffeehouse, that aren’t all about the arts.
2. Goals: What should the future of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks look like? Notes:
• Diverse presentations.
• Different sized venues to handle different types of artists, less expensive than the BAPAC. They can be private and don’t have to be all arts. Liked a coffee house in Santa Clarita that had music five night a week – no cover! We don’t have much of this in TO. Keep costs down, offer things that cater to different tastes.
GPAC Group #2 Discussion Notes
• Concerts in park, have gone with parents, but bands target an older demographic. Want bands interesting for teens.
• In Denver, there is a School of Rock event. Different bands over several days, a music festival downtown. Diversity of shows catered to everyone.
Classical to rock to country. Mixed it up. An interesting event and brought out very diverse audience.
• Camarillo has movies in park in summer, include junior and high school bands perform.
• Create places for local artists to perform or display their art – it’s great for the community.
• Provide venues that local, emerging artists can use and promote throughout the county. Shows, festivals with newer artists. Talented people needing a break. This could put city on map – a festival for the unknown talented artist.
• Post-COVID, keep some virtual programming. It’s good in preparation for future pandemics but some virtual art increases access, those who are homebound or can’t pay to attend certain events.
• UCSB has been having virtual programming – music and speakers – allows people outside the community to attend. Can still open up virtual seats, once COVID is over.
• Agree, museums have been successful in transferring to virtual access.
This can offer cross-medium opportunities, a museum with a dance troupe, in an integrated format.
• Younger people would be interested in this, as well. Let students know that virtual programs are being offered. Definitely something appealing – younger people don’t always want to travel to do something. Graphic design is becoming more important with so much inline programming.
It’s an art form for some.
For Report out: 2-3 goals for arts and culture in Thousand Oaks
1. [Address issues/needs stated above in first question.]
2. Keep virtual programming element, post-COVID, to increase access and offer new creative opportunities.
3. Provide opportunities for youth, emerging artists and community-based arts programming. Celebrate the local as well as established professional (Rooted in Community).
3. Economic Development: What arts and cultural strategies should the City pursue to support economic development? How can economic development investments support the arts?
GPAC Group #2 Discussion Notes
Notes:
• From land use perspective, are there restrictions on live music, for example? It is difficult to get a permit for a small venue? Worked on a small project in Los Angeles, with production set-up in a warehouse type space for artists.
• The Civic Arts Plaza is a good example of economic development.
For Report out: 2-3 arts and cultural strategies the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing
1. Address land use barriers to providing small/flexible venues. Make permitting easier for venues that offer arts, whether coffee shop or performing venue.
2. Include arts and entertainment in Campus Master Plan.
Public Group #1 Discussion Notes
• “Record” your small group discussion.
• “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes • If you run into issues, click “invite host”
• When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
• Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
• The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. • Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
• Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
• Issues: What are some of the current arts and cultural issues in Thousand Oaks? • Visual arts – nowhere to display artwork during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Even during good times there is not enough space, community center or hallways of civic arts plaza. Should have a communal center for arts. o The venues that do exist do not sell artwork.
• Funding is lacking for organizations.
• For past 25 years the focus has been on CAP.
• No amphitheater
• Less traditional types of performance space
• There is an increase in visitors – arts and culture should reflect the people who live in the City and not just visitors
• Outdoor performance venue would be a place to go post COVID-19. • Goals: What should the future of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks look like? Public Group #1 Discussion Notes
• Arts and culture should stay rooted in community -grassroots focus.
Focusing on locals as part of the movement.
• Amphitheater
• Creating more flexible spaces for arts and culture.
• Interconnected arts community where the sum of the parts is greater than the individual.
• Rethink basic funding of civic arts plaza – perhaps not make it selfsufficient. • Combine arts with dining, etc.
• Need a main street with eating, drinking and arts.
• More visual/social media
• Economic Development: What arts and cultural strategies should the City pursue to support economic development? How can economic development investments support the arts?
• Combine arts/events with shopping and eating venues
Public Group #2 Discussion Notes
• “Record” your small group discussion.
• “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes • If you run into issues, click “invite host”
• When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
• Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
• The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. • Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
• Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
1. Issues: What are some of the current arts and cultural issues in Thousand Oaks? Notes:
• Siloing of the cultural community; lack of communication about events, activity, and needs. Intentional communication and opportunities to work together would be helpful.
• Barriers to artistic and cultural events and venues; cost is a large factor when much is centered at Kavili; neighborhood and local artists is not as vital as it could be which could help balance access issues • More opportunities for youth are a challenge when there are barriers to access and programming is not geared to them; murals and public art could break down those walls
• Thousand Oaks not known as a “cultural community” – lack of public displays of art and artistry; art identity as a story has not yet been told • Reputation as a suburban community and going elsewhere for art is ingrained beyond the City and, to some within the City; creating the downtown could offer a turning point to create the identity as an arts community
Public Group #2 Discussion Notes
For Report out: 2-3 arts and cultural issues
1. What is our cultural identity?
2. Developing our arts culture and identity must be intentional and aspirational
3. Access to arts and culture (financial, physical) is a key component of the community driving that discussion
2. Goals: What should the future of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks look like? Notes:
• Equal access to the arts for all
• Money is still a barrier for many elements of arts education; in the future those barriers should be removed for students
• Arts should be participatory, inclusive, and democratic; there should be multiple pathways and portals for participation and interaction with the City taking the lead
• Experiential art should be integrated into the planning for the downtown and throughout the City’s plan
For Report out: 2-3 goals for arts and culture in Thousand Oaks
1. Integrating experiential art into the planning for the downtown plan
2. Financial barriers to arts education should be removed
3. Arts should be participatory, inclusive and there should be multiple pathways for participation
3. Economic Development: What arts and cultural strategies should the City pursue to support economic development? How can economic development investments support the arts?
Notes:
•
Public Group #3 Discussion Notes
• “Record” your small group discussion.
• “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes • If you run into issues, click “invite host”
• When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
• Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
• The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. • Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
• Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
1. Issues: What are some of the current arts and cultural issues in Thousand Oaks? Notes:
• Arts organization are siloed – not a lot of coordination across organizations, need to build bridges and connect the ongoing activities o TO Arts Association is working with the Westlake Village Art Guild – virtual studio tours
• Flexible space is needed for organizations to meet, gallery space, teaching space, - physical location
o Many going to the TO Community Gallery – next to NP Library o Hilcrest Center for the Arts – offer reduced rental fee o Westlake Village Art Guild uses the Los Robles Banquet hall • Diversity is a big issue – need diversity of audience and practitioners For Report out: 2-3 arts and cultural issues
1. Physical space
Public Group #3 Discussion Notes
2. Coordination
3. Diversity
2. Goals: What should the future of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks look like? Notes:
• Group of community business leaders to collaborate for the development of the visual arts community
• Combine private sector and arts
o East coast – private business is involved to generate ideas for financial support, creative ideas
• Creativity to communicate ideas – exposure
o Website for all arts and culture events across TO
o How does the community want to digest this information? Where is the place to get the most eyes?
▪ Multiple separate organizations/institutions
▪ Could help market TO as place for Arts
• Strategic visible changes to include arts & culture
o Market the city as an artistic place
• “Brining art to our community initiative”
• Potential City Arts Coordinator – paid position
o Internal coordination with existing organizations, institutions, non-profits, etc.
o External coordination, getting the word out about events, classes, shows, and all opportunities related to arts and culture o Website for all arts and culture opportunities
• Roundtable – volunteers in the arts community to coordinate with city council/planning commission
For Report out: 2-3 goals for arts and culture in Thousand Oaks
1. Improved communication – paid city arts coordination position to act as a liaison for the arts community internally and externally
2. Arts steering community/roundtable or foundation to seek grants, funding, physical space,
3. Market the city as an artistic place
4. Pursue Downtown Core and integration with arts culture Public Group #3 Discussion Notes
3. Economic Development: What arts and cultural strategies should the City pursue to support economic development? How can economic development investments support the arts?
Notes:
•
For Report out: 2-3 arts and cultural strategies the City of Thousand Oaks should consider pursuing
1. _
2. _
3. _
SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION
WORKSHEET
GPAC #11: Arts & Culture| October 22, 2020
INSTRUCTIONS
This worksheet corresponds to the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) presentation and discussion held on October 22, 2020 covering arts and culture in Thousand Oaks. During the small group discussion, please share your ideas with the group and write down your individual responses. Completed forms should be returned to the City of Thousand Oaks by Monday October 26th at [email protected]. If you did not (virtually) attend the GPAC meeting, we encourage you to watch the recorded video available at:
https://www.toaks2045.org/gpac.
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES:
Here are more of my thoughts from the Zoom breakout
group session I participated in on October 22.
1. Issues: What are some of the current arts and cultural issues in Thousand Oaks? As a 12-year, African-American resident of Westlake Village I’ve seen the growth of residential diversity in Thousand Oaks. With the increase of dining, tastings, music, exhibits, and festivals, there is also a rise of visitors to our metro area. As a premiere community in Conejo Valley, our arts and culture don’t reflect those that reside among us from all walks of life and cultural backgrounds.
2. Goals: What should the future of arts and culture in Thousand Oaks look like? Accessible and affordable events and activities. Those that appeal to all the walks of life shaping this community, as well as for those traveling through this hidden gem of ours.
Out-of-the-box ideas that complement art AND culture. Focus on our TO 2045 slogan “rooted in community”. Create a movement and bring more awareness and appreciation, from a grassroots level.
Expanding to a broader definition of what “the arts” is. A fashion art display of AsianIndian garment textiles/designs and the meaning behind them is an example. Showcasing the work of unsung/amateur artists in our own backyard. Harnessing our local resources as movers in this movement. Maybe it’s a seniors’ painting class exhibit from Goebel or Adult Enrichment, or spoken word night at the Teen Center. Getting the word out beyond Conejo Valley/Ventura County. Partnering with initiatives such as National Arts and Humanities Month, via social media campaigns, will increase awareness of our grassroots efforts with those local arts enthusiasts already connected to such larger online communities.
Tapping into social media to bridge the lack of space gap to showcase arts and culture.
Our young adults and youth residents would really appreciate a #TOforthearts, local online community to showcase their artistry and talents. Instagram live/stories is a popular platform for this.
Leveraging existing general platforms and resources gives us a roadmap to tailor our local efforts. https://www.americansforthearts.org/events/national-arts-andhumanities-month Ask for a local government proclamation. The mayor and city council can declare Thousand Oaks Arts and Humanities Month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Arts_&_Humanities_Month
3. Economic Development: What arts and cultural strategies should the City pursue to support economic development? How can economic development investments support the arts? We didn’t get to discuss this
2 345¿½±±¿³´±·¿6©
£ 7¿
9:5¿;<=·¸º¶>?¿@¾³A±·¿BB?¿BDBD¿EFGH¿I¿
J35¿K³½¶<¶½¿L±··±¿6M
7¿
O5¿P±½±·¶²¿²¶½¿6Q¨7¿
9RST:5¿U±F¿·¸¿¶½º¿V=²=·±¿W²±¹±½¿X¿V»>¿³¿;<³=¸¶½º¿@¶Z¸¿P±½±·¶²¿²¶½¿[\º¶± ¿
V[;]@^F¿;<»¸¿±¹¶»²¿³·»_»½¶±º¿·³¹¿³=¸»º±¿³¿<±¿³·_¶½»`¶¼³½ ¿a³¿½³¿¾²»¾Z¿²»½Z¸¿³·¿³\±½¿¶¶¾<¹±½¸¿=½²±¸¸¿>³=¿·±¾³_½»`±¿<± ¸±½º±·¿¶½º¿Z½³´¿<±¿¾³½±½¿»¸¿¸¶±
b¿M©¢©
c¿
§¿©¿¢¿
¦
©¿©§¿¬¿¤
¿¬¿¬¿£¿¢
§¿¤¯¿
¿¿¿c©¿¬¿
©¿£
¿§¬
§¿¢¦©¿
¿¿(©§¿
¦
¯¢©¿¬¬¿©§¿c¿
©©
§¿¢
¿§
¿(¿¢¦©¿¿
©¿
¿©©¿(¿
¤
¿( ¿¢
¿¯¿©§¿¿¦
¿
e¤¬©
¿¿ ¦
¿¢©¿(£§¿¿¿
b
¿¿¢
¿
f
¿c¿
©©
§¿©¿
§¿¿£¢¿¢
¯¿§¿©¿g
f¿¬©¯¿£¢
¿ ¯¿(
©§¿¿©¦¦
§¿¿c¿h¬¿£©
§¿
¢
¿¿£¢¿¯¬¿¿
©§¿
¿(¿(¬¢
¿§
¿(¿¢£¿ ¤¬¿£
¿©¿
¿©§¿£¢¿£
¿¬§¿
©¿( ¿¢
i
¢ee£££
f¬©¯
e
¿¢
¿¤
©
¿¨£
©¿( ¿ ¯¿¨¢©
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Meeting #12 | November 19, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm
This meeting was held via Zoom and livestreamed to YouTube. Members of the public could register in advance to join the Zoom meeting and/or make public comments, or view on YouTube and submit comments through an online comment forum. • Provide an overview of the General Plan and State regulatory framework relating to parks and open space.
• Provide an overview of Thousand Oaks’ parks, open space, trails, and natural resources including existing programs and policies.
• Brainstorm issues, goals and strategies relating to the above topics that can be included in the General Plan.
GPAC Members
• Present: Amy Commans, Chaise Rasheed, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Emily Dale, Fred Fukanaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Dr. Karen Gorback, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Rorie Skei, Dr. Victor Hayek, and Wyatt McCrea
• Absent: Andy Fox, Alicia Rincon, Dr. Chris Kimball, Dena Jenson, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Ken Lamont, Michael Nigh, and Tara Carruth
City Staff
• Gary Rogers, Deputy City Manager; Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner; Dusty Russell, Assistant Economic Development Analyst; Andrew Mooney, Senior Park Planner; Brian Stark, COSCA Administrator Consultant Team
• Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
• Joe Power, Rincon Consultants
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 2
Matt Raimi welcomed GPAC members and the public with an overview of the evening’s agenda, followed by a review of key Zoom features and public participation opportunities shared by Melissa Stark.
Joe Power began the evening’s presentation with an overview of the General Plan conservation and open space element requirements, State and Federal requirements that pertain to parks and open space, and an overview of natural resources existing conditions including natural communities, threatened plant and wildlife species, and wildlife corridors.
Brian Stark provided an overview of the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency (COSCA) including the trails and open space system and how they are managed in Thousand Oaks.
Andrew Mooney introduced the Conejo Recreation and Park District (CRPD), sharing history and background, how parks are funded, and an overview of the parks system and recreation programs serving Thousand Oaks.
Existing programs and policies, and an overview of community feedback on parks and open space were then shared by Joe Power, followed by potential new policy and program ideas and conclusions from the General Plan Team.
At the end of the presentation, the team paused to answer questions, engage in conversation, and administer one poll to participants in the Zoom meeting. Members of the public watching on YouTube could participate in the Zoom poll through an online forum, however, no responses were collected. These questions, responses, and related comments are listed below.
GPAC member questions on the presentation:
• Regarding the Santa Monica Sierra Madre Wildlife Corridor, is there any effort to provide a 101 Freeway crossing in Thousand Oaks?
o The General Plan Team responded that they are unaware of any new crossings In Thousand Oaks.
o A member of the GPAC added that the Liberty Canyon Wildlife Crossing is about a year away from beginning construction.
• I moved to Thousand Oaks specifically to be close to a public park. With the future Downtown and the need for new housing, will there be plans for pocket parks or public parks and open space along Thousand Oaks Boulevard? o The General Plan Team responded that CRPD is in the process of determining where new parks or recreation areas are needed, looking for opportunities along Thousand Oaks Boulevard for things like linear parks or linkages to other established parks and/or open spaces. The team continued that the types of open space in denser development may be different than other parts of the city.
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 3
• I want to see clean parks that are well maintained in Thousand Oaks. The Conejo Creek Park area had a recent brush clearing that has made room for new encampments and debris.
o The General Plan Team responded that Conejo Creek Park South recently completed a scheduled brush clearing as part of ongoing maintenance. The team offered to discuss more detailed questions after the meeting. • How do we measure foot traffic on trails and in parks? Does this impact planning decisions?
o The General Plan Team responded that volunteers count users arriving at open spaces and parks at peak periods and ask for zip code information and encourage visitors to take part in an online survey. This helps track usage and determine future messaging for crowd issues.
• How are park fees derived for developers?
o The General Plan Team responded that Quimby fees are broken down by value added and number of new units – they are currently set at approximately $11,000 per new housing unit. When new households are added into the community CRPD needs to provide parks and recreation services for those households. The team noted that Quimby fees, which can be used for land acquisition or improvements, need to be applied in the area in which new housing units are added. Quimby fees are set by CRPD and regulated by the City of Thousand Oaks.
Several members of the public had questions or comments - due to time constraints they were asked to share in small group discussions and/or during public comment. After the discussion, the only Zoom poll was launched:
Poll 1. Where should existing city parks and open space funds be prioritized? *Zoom Responses include GPAC members and some members of the public who joined the virtual meeting. (Note: Not all GPAC members responded to the poll question.) No public comments or questions on the presentation were submitted through the online forum. 8%
43%
38%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Building new parks
Acquiring new open space
Improving existing parks
Adding public access to open spaces
Zoom Responses*
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 4
Following the presentation, initial discussion, and Zoom poll, the General Plan Team initiated two GPAC member and three public member Zoom breakout groups. Each group spent 30 minutes discussing the questions below, after which one representative shared a report-out from their small group discussion.
Breakout Group Discussion Questions
1. Are there any specific types of recreational facilities that are currently lacking (sports fields, playgrounds, trails, etc.)?
2. Are there any existing recreational facilities that need updating?
3. Are there any specific areas of the City where parks are lacking?
4. What open space areas should be acquisition priorities?
5. Are you interested in increasing funding for open space acquisition and maintenance? If so, what funding mechanisms are you most open to?
The following are the results of the small group discussions for each group.
GPAC Group #1
1. Desire for additional sports fields, an official BMX track, and downhill biking trails in Thousand Oaks.
2. Would like each of the large recreation facilities to have a unique feature, like an amphitheater.
3. Some community centers need to be updated, otherwise recreation facilities are in good condition.
4. New parks will be needed near future housing on and around Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
5. Open space should be acquired in the City to complete the “ring of green.”
6. Would like to see more funding for parks and open space and would recommend corporate sponsors to provide additional funding.
GPAC Group #2
1. The City needs a senior center facility in the Newbury Park area and a park in the Downtown area on Thousand Oaks Boulevard. Would like to see a shuttle for users to Conejo Creek Park North.
2. Existing facilities need improved accessibility for all people. Would also like to see new security measures to maintain safety in public parks.
3. New parks and open space are needed near Downtown.
4. Agree with open space acquisition priority areas identified in the presentation and would consider a new wildlife crossing at the western end of the city.
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 5
5. Interested in increasing parks and open space funding, open to all ideas shared in the presentation (commercial development linkage fee, sales tax, and park impact fees), and open to Community Facilities Districts (CFD).
Public Group #1
1. The City is lacking downhill mountain bike trails, skate, and BMX areas. Would like to see parks and open space embrace technology with wildlife cameras or WiFi.
2. Existing recreational facilities need more restrooms and WiFi.
3. The City needs new parks near the Downtown Core and the proposed development at the former K-Mart site. Would like to see native plant species added to the Conejo Creek parks.
4. Open space is key to limiting impacts of climate change. Desire to maintain and expand native trees and open space. Would like to see solar panels and charging stations added to parking lots.
5. Did not get to this question.
Public Group #2
1. Would like to see improved amenities at existing recreational facilities like water refill stations, picnic tables, trash cans, bike racks, and restrooms with baby changing tables. Would like to see improvements to active transportation infrastructure, additional trail signage and expanded public access, and more community gardens citywide.
2. The Dover and Hendrix Community Center needs updating and improvements. Would like to see playgrounds converted from wood chips to sand and more permeable surfaces and at all existing recreational facilities. Also, would like to see more bell boxes for mountain bikers in open space, and promotional materials explaining etiquette for mountain bikers and hikers on trails.
3. Parks are lacking on Thousand Oaks Boulevard and trail access is limited in the North Ranch area. Would like to see equestrian access that is separated from fast-moving cars, protected bike paths, and wider sidewalks citywide.
4. Open space areas that provide a linkage to existing parks, trails, and open space should be prioritized for acquisition around the City.
5. Interested in increasing funding for parks and open space. Would consider minimal parking or usage fees at trailheads or sales tax measure.
Public Group #3
1. The City lacks public swimming pools. Would like to see educational games for young people and students that promote caring for the environment.
2. Would like to see more trees planted citywide and replacement of trees in parkways.
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 6
3. Would like to see better connectivity with the ring of open space and parks. Interested in safe routes for pedestrians to access parks and open space as well as horses and horse trails.
4. Support acquisition of land that will complete the “ring of green” open space in the City, specifically priority areas K and space between B and D as wildlife areas.
5. Did not get to this question.
Approximately 25 members of the public participated in the Zoom Meeting. Several spoke during public comment at the end of the meeting, which is summarized below. While available, no public comment was submitted via the online public comment forum. • I want to restate some of the climate change facts shared earlier tonight. Climate change will result in extreme heat, intense and fastmoving wildfires, among other impacts. While some decisions are beyond our local control, some are related to the choices we make as a community. I believe we can lower local temperatures and reduce impacts to health by preserving open space, expanding parks, strengthen preservation to landmark and heritage trees, setting aside undeveloped land near open space for rewilding and prohibiting development in open space.
• I would like to see more multi-use paths along flood control channels that encourage offstreet walking near creeks, like the one in Newbury Park. Also encourage more access for active transportation modes in the City.
• As a cycling advocate I would like to see directional down-hill only mountain bike trails in shared open space to mitigate conflicts with pedestrians and horses. An uphill trail could be shared by all users. In addition, we should attempt to capture revenue from visitors who use our open space and encourage them to shop or visit local businesses through sponsorships at trail heads.
• I want to thank CRPD and related agencies for doing a great job. I appreciate the wideopen hills and spaces in thousand Oaks. • Thank you for great job with rodent control in open spaces and parks by using owl boxes.
My organization, “Poison-free Conejo Valley” aims to continue educating how human and wildlife interaction can be safer for all.
• I would like to reiterate the importance of increased open space as it relates to climate change. Ventura County is the fastest warming county in lower 48 states, we should make sure climate change is at the forefront of every action in Thousand Oaks.
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 7
Matt Raimi closed the meeting with an overview of the General Plan schedule and next steps.
Adjourn at 8:20 pm
Attached are small group discussion worksheets from facilitators.
Note: this was a virtual meeting, therefore no sign-in sheets for the GPAC or public were collected.
GPAC Group #1
• “Record” your small group discussion.
• “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes • If you run into issues, click “invite host”
• When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
• Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
• The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. • Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
• Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
1. Are there any specific types of recreational facilities that are currently lacking (sports fields, playgrounds, trails, etc.)?
Notes:
• Use of facilities such as sports fields with set up goals, etc. • Not enough soccer fields
• More destination recreational facilities
• More designated bike trails
• More family-oriented facilities such as mini golf
• Amphitheaters in parks (socially distanced)
For Report out:
• Athletic fields
• More unique destination facilities
• Dedicated BMX and downhill biking trail areas
2. Are there any existing recreational facilities that need updating? Notes:
• Conejo Community Center
• Teen Center
GPAC Group #1
• Borchard Center
For Report out:
• Community Centers in general (for regular maintenance only)
3. Are there any specific areas of the City where parks are lacking? Notes:
• Thousand Oaks Blvd in between commercial/retail areas • We should have a taskforce committee to see which areas need to be improved
• Walking trails for different companies using their branding, expanding “Adopt a Trail”
For Report out:
• Thousand Oaks Blvd
• Heavy workplace areas with employees walking around on their breaks
4. What open space areas should be acquisition priorities? Notes:
• Central T.O.
For Report out:
• Any available properties in the center of the City
5. Are you interested in increasing funding for open space acquisition and maintenance? If so, what funding mechanisms are you most open to? Notes:
• Biotech should invest and adopt in these open space areas • (We do not want a rise in sales tax )
For Report out:
• Corporate adoption for acquisition
GPAC Group #1
Map for reference
GPAC Group #2
• “Record” your small group discussion.
• “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes • If you run into issues, click “invite host”
• When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
• Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
• The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. • Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
• Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
1. Are there any specific types of recreational facilities that are currently lacking (sports fields, playgrounds, trails, etc.)?
Notes:
• Provide additional programming in the Newbury Park area for seniors, similar to the Goebel Center;
• Programming at the Newbury Park Library or community park. • Provide shuttle or transit options to existing facilities • The downtown area only has two smaller parks and as the area gets more active, more parks will be needed.
• Another community center and a senior center.
• We need a facility similar to the YMCA facility, located just outside the City in Westlake Village. The concept is fantastic and is all encompassing.
• Basketball courts are needed at Conejo Creek Park (North & South). • Be flexible and able to change to meet the needs of the community.
GPAC Group #2
2. Are there any existing recreational facilities that need updating? Notes:
• Should be a goal that all parks are accessible for all people, including restrooms, playgrounds, and larger walkways to be able to walk a stroller.
• In response to a comment made earlier in the meeting about trash, we want to make sure our parks are still usable. In other areas, for example Los Angeles and the SFV, parks are over-run, dirty, and feel unsafe. You can also park vehicles in parks in City of LA and never move, keeping old, non-running vehicles. All parks need general upkeep to make sure they are still usable.
• Conejo Creek Park North needs additional maintenance for trash pickup. • Do any parks have security cameras? Would that make people feel more safe or less safe? Some parks feel less safe.
3. Are there any specific areas of the City where parks are lacking? Notes:
• The downtown area, along the TOB corridor.
4. What open space areas should be acquisition priorities? Notes:
• The current priorities made sense.
• Discussed whether a wildlife bridge made sense at the western edge of the City but realize it takes a considerable amount of funding and one is being built nearby.
5. Are you interested in increasing funding for open space acquisition and maintenance? If so, what funding mechanisms are you most open to? Notes:
• Exploring a Community Facilities District (CFD) for acquisition and maintenance.
• What are our fees compared to other cities or the market range? So we don’t outprice ourselves.
• How much money is needed to acquire? Need to account for the cost.
GPAC Group #2
Other Group Comments:
• Need further education about wildlife conservation, responsibilities, and living in close proximity to wildlife.
• There’s a big diversity of parks here and they’re each a little bit different and that’s a positive.
GPAC Group #2
Map for reference
Public Group #1
• “Record” your small group discussion.
• “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes • If you run into issues, click “invite host”
• When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
• Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
• The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. • Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
• Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
1. Are there any specific types of recreational facilities that are currently lacking (sports fields, playgrounds, trails, etc.)?
Notes:
• Develop specific downhill mountain bike trails
• Look at some trails that are single user trails
• Electric bikes are an issue – too fast and not skilled enough • Parks and playgrounds should be updated
• Allow feeding of ducks with designated foods
• Add more of a feeding aspect
• Embrace technology – interpretive signs with phones
• More skate and BMX parks are needed throughout town
• Trash and recycling bins in parking lots from teens in parks -more park rangers to monitor late night activities
Public Group #1
2. Are there any existing recreational facilities that need updating? Notes:
• Some need new restrooms or renovated restrooms (Old Meadows) • South Shore Hills needs a bathroom
• Wifi in some parks
• Critter cams – wildlife in parks and open space
3. Are there any specific areas of the City where parks are lacking? Notes:
• Along the boulevard where mixed use buildings
• Near the new building on the Kmart site
• Locations where there is a large concentration of apartments and lower income neighborhoods
• Need some open spaces closes to the Downtown Core
• Restoration work along Conejo creek; put in native species. • CRPD staff – looking at Boulevard for new parks; Conejo Creek SW (this will be developed soon once more units are developed along the Boulevard.)
o Quimby fee is for the developed park sites
o land on and near boulevard is expensive
4. What open space areas should be acquisition priorities? Notes:
• Need to look at habitats for rare and endangered species as top priority • Maintain wildlife corridors
• Urban canopy needs to be native trees – oaks and other landmark trees • Climate Change
o Ventura is the fastest warming county in the US
o Need as much open space as possible to act as carbon sinks o Native trees that act as carbon sinks
o Climate change will lead to a more active fire season o More shade structures with solar panels and the energy can be used directly for the parks
o All rooftops in the city should have solar
o Electric vehicle charging stations in parks
o Question: is the city benefiting from charging stations? (A:
offsetting costs)
• Add a water recapture systems
Public Group #1
5. Are you interested in increasing funding for open space acquisition and maintenance? If so, what funding mechanisms are you most open to? Notes:
•
Public Group #1
Map for reference
Public Group #2
• “Record” your small group discussion.
• “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes • If you run into issues, click “invite host”
• When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
• Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
• The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. • Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
• Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
1. Are there any specific types of recreational facilities that are currently lacking (sports fields, playgrounds, trails, etc.)?
Notes:
• Some parks have vending machines. Helpful. Need more offering water.
Even better consider water bottle refill stations, instead. • Add/improve active transportation/connectivity.
• More music venue facilities.
• Rancho Conejo/Hill Canyon – improve user friendliness/improve connectivity.
• Trail markers/trail signs, please.
• Create a second community garden – like Las Flores community garden.
Waitlist is extremely long. Try to make design more communityfriendly, so community can see what people are growing. (Las Flores had to fence off due to homeless issue as well as proximity to riparian habitat.)
• More equestrian access.
Public Group #2
2. Are there any existing recreational facilities that need updating? Notes:
• More permeable pavement. (Co-benefit for equestrian. Softer for walking/running. Less of wildfire risk.)
• Bring back the sand (instead of the woodchips)
• Dover & Hendrix – pretty rundown.
• Consider one way trails: Ex: popularity of downhill mountain biking. • Need for enhanced trail education – trail etiquette.
• More bike racks – all parks – need to be closer to actual amenities. • Add bike racks at Tarantula Hill trailhead.
• All men’s restrooms – baby changing stations.
• Garbage cans at all trailheads.
• Gigantic open space – East of Las Flores/Erbes Rd. More equestrian access.
3. Are there any specific areas of the City where parks are lacking? Notes:
• TO Blvd area. Near Los Feliz/TOB streetscape. Perhaps, amphitheater.
Protected bike lanes.
• North Ranch area – more trail access.
• Newbury Park/Kimber area: need more amenities – need for casual gatherings. Flexible/multi-use.
4. What open space areas should be acquisition priorities? Notes:
• Open space connectivity. Open space to open space. A network.
5. Are you interested in increasing funding for open space acquisition and maintenance? If so, what funding mechanisms are you most open to? Notes:
• Low parking fees at trailheads (to help with maintain). Won’t impact adjacent residents as much. Will be like user fee for visitors. Problem:
might incentivize parking in neighborhoods. Might penalize residents that don’t live near trails.
• Sales Tax increase: 0.25%
• Nothing adding to property taxes.
Public Group #2
Map for reference
Public Group #3
• “Record” your small group discussion.
• “Screenshare” this page in your small group and take notes • If you run into issues, click “invite host”
• When you are finished discussing, “return to main session” or wait for the host to close the breakout group.
• Please take 30 seconds and introduce yourselves.
• The facilitator will serve as the groups note taker. Document all comments. • Please identify someone share a 1-2 minutes “report-out” with the rest of the group after this discussion.
• Spend approximately 10 minutes per question, the group does not need to reach a consensus. Different ideas are okay!
1. Are there any specific types of recreational facilities that are currently lacking (sports fields, playgrounds, trails, etc.)?
Notes:
• Public swimming pools
• Safe access to open spaces/recreational areas
• Educational components to play area (mechanical equipment, environment/ habitat/biodiversity/sustainability/land stewardship) • Replacement of trees in parkways, more trees in general
2. Are there any existing recreational facilities that need updating? Notes:
• Generally well maintained
Public Group #3
3. Are there any specific areas of the City where parks are lacking? Notes:
• Better connectivity between parks/open spaces
• Education
a. User friendly ways for equestrian access, public education (signage) to heighten awareness for equestrians/bikers/hikers, etc.
b. Integrate increased awareness between human and animal interactions (coexist)
• Improved safety and access for routes between parks
4. What open space areas should be acquisition priorities? Notes:
• Closing the gaps to complete ring of green
• Prioritize wildlife corridor connections (Area K and between V and D)
5. Are you interested in increasing funding for open space acquisition and maintenance? If so, what funding mechanisms are you most open to? Notes:
• Property tax would be most likely
• User fees (discounted parking passes for residents)
Public Group #3
Map for reference
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 1
THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL
PLAN 2045
JOINT GPAC MEETING + WORKSHOP #2
SUMMARY
February 2, 2021 | 6:00 pm – 8:30 pm | Virtual Zoom Webinar
OVERVIEW
On Tuesday, February 2, 2021, the City of Thousand Oaks hosted a joint General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and public workshop to present three draft land use alternatives for the Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 update project. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the workshop took place virtually as a Zoom Webinar from 6:00 to 8:30 pm. Approximately 255 attendees (including 17 GPAC members) joined the Zoom meeting, not counting the consultant team, elected officials, and city staff, with an additional 45 YouTube livestream views. GPAC members participated in the webinar as panelists and were able to use audio to ask questions, while members of the public joined as attendees and typed questions into the Q&A feature. This joint meeting was the second workshop in a series of four that will take place over the course of the General Plan update.
The joint event served as an overview of the materials presented in the Land Use Alternatives Briefing Book, which provides detailed background on the land use alternatives process and maps. The purpose of this event was to provide an overview of the three draft land use alternatives, answer questions from the GPAC and public about the alternatives and instruct the community about how to provide feedback on the land use alternatives. An online survey was available between February 2, 2021 and March 15, 2021, in English and Spanish, and was printed and hand delivered upon request.
The following summary includes an overview of the presentation, polling questions and results, and summary of questions and answers from the GPAC and members of the public.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 2
PRESENTATION
The meeting began with an introduction by City Manager, Andrew Powers, and continued with a presentation by Matt Raimi, project consultant with Raimi + Associates. The evenings presentation was divided into several sections including background, alternatives overview, review of land use alternatives, comparison of alternatives, and conclusion and next steps. Throughout the presentation, the General Plan Team paused to answer questions and facilitate polls. Below are highlights of the presentation sections.
Background
The presentation began with a recap of the General Plan Update process, the benefits of a General Plan Update and key terminology used throughout the presentation of alternatives and in the briefing book. This also included an overview of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements, the City’s Measure E ordinance, and recent State SB330 legislation.
Alternatives Process
This section served as a precursor to the three land use alternatives by highlighting results from previous community engagement activities that led to the delineation of the areas of stability, where little to no change is anticipated, and areas of change, where the General Plan Team proposes changes in land use and or character. Matt noted that less than 8% of the City was identified as an area of change. Also presented in this section were the land use designations which included descriptions and supportive imagery.
Review of Land Use Alternatives
The land use alternatives are a long-term vision for the City that tests values and ideas from the community process. In this section, the three land use alternatives were presented highlighting the common themes and differences among the areas of change. The alternatives were also reviewed as five subareas: Rancho Conejo, Moorpark and West Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Westlake and East End, and village centers within the City.
Comparison of Alternatives
Following the detailed overview of each alternative by sub area, Matt presented a high-level comparison of land use category percentages for the three alternatives and metrics comparing the existing 1970 General Plan to the three land use alternatives.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The meeting concluded with an overview of next steps, including how members of the public could provide feedback through the briefing book, online survey, and virtual office hours.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 3
POLLING
Throughout the presentation, the General Plan Team used informal polls to engage GPAC members and attendees.
Below are the poll questions and corresponding results. Please note that not all participants completed one or all polls, and the participants who connected by phone only did not have access to the virtual poll.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Live Work Own a
business
Own a
property
None of
the
above
Do you live and or work in
Thousand Oaks?
GPAC + Public Responses
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
If you live in Thousand Oaks, how
long have you lived here?
GPAC + Public Responses
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Rent Own
If you live in Thousand Oaks, do
you rent or own your home?
GPAC + Public Responses
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Under 18 25-34 35-44 45-64 65 or
older
What is your age?
GPAC + Public Responses
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 4
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
None, this is my first 1-3 meetings 4-6 meetings 7 or more meetings How many General Plan-related meetings and events
have you attended?
GPAC + Public Responses
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
NO. Continue to allow
townhomes and small
apartments in Medium
Density Areas
YES. Lower the density and
transfer the capacity to the
Areas of Change
A combination of the above don't know
The existing General Plan allows for townhomes and small apartments to be built in some single-family areas. The proposed alternatives would reallocate this unbuilt residential capacity into the Areas of Change. Do you agree with this approach?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
In Rancho
Conejo
At The Oaks
Mall or Janss
Marketplace
Near Downtown On the eastern
end of
Thousand Oaks
Boulevard (e.g.,
the Pavilion at
Westlake)
Around
Westlake Village
Shopping Center
In shopping
centers
throughout the
City
No preference
What is your top choice for where housing should be added? Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Yes, add a mixed-use district for
employees to live near where they
work
No, maintain the area for jobs only Not sure
Do you think that mixed-use development should be allowed in or immediately adjacent to Rancho Conejo?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Leave it as a regional mall Maintain some retail but
allow townhomes and 2-3
story multifamily residential
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 3-4 story
mixed-use
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 5-6 story
mixed-use
What best describes your vision for the future of The Oaks Mall? 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Leave it as a regional mall Maintain some retail but
allow townhomes and 2-3
story multifamily residential
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 3-4 story
mixed-use
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 5-6 story
mixed-use
What best describes your vision for the future of Janss Marketplace? Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Yes No Not sure
Should multifamily residential development be allowed on Thousand Oaks Boulevard?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Keep as-is Increasing development potential and
employment opportunities in the area
Allow a portion to convert to mixeduse
What best describes your vision for the Townsgate Road area? Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 7
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Throughout the presentation, the General Plan Team paused for questions to allow for discussion and input. The General Plan Team answered various questions from the GPAC, and the public submitted through the Q&A feature in Zoom Webinar. Questions and comments from the GPAC and the public are listed below (bolded) along with the General Plan Team responses (italics).
Questions from the GPAC
As the population and number of housing units increases on Thousand Oaks Boulevard, will the Plan include required publicly accessible parks and open space? How does that fit into the general plan designations?
The General Plan will identify general areas where new public parks are needed, but it cannot designate private property as parks or open space, as it would eliminate that property’s development potential and monetary value. Cityowned property can be designated as future parks.
RHNA numbers are significantly higher than previous cycles, does this include a “catch up” set of numbers? Can you provide background on these numbers?
This round does include an increase because over the last 30 years the State has not kept up with population growth and housing demands. The last time California was this unbalanced was in the 1980s. As a State, we are in a housing deficit of about 2.4 million units. This RHNA cycle was an attempt to begin to make up for that deficit. It is unclear if the State will continue to use higher numbers in the future.
How does transit factor into the land use designations? Is proximity to transit a factor when considering residential types?
More people in a concentrated area and higher density residential results in more successful transit options. The areas identified by the GPAC and the public for higher density housing happen to be in locations that may be viable for public transit.
To what extent will we build in assumptions about retail space and office space based on the COVID-19 pandemic?
There are knowns and unknowns related to the pandemic and its impact to the build environment. We know that retail and types of retail will likely change permanently, while the verdict is still out on office space. We are currently seeing development projects moving forward with office components across the city.
Can you summarize what the General Plan is, and what it isn’t, how it relates to city council, assisting property owners, etc.?
The General Plan is the long-term vision and policy document for the city, often referred to as the city’s constitution. All decisions about development flow from the General Plan and future policy documents must be consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan sets forth land use designations, which regulate, at a high level, future uses that are allowed on each property within the City. General Plan land use designations feed into Zoning, which includes dimensional requirements for properties like building height, setbacks, etc. There are a series of other documents and regulations that implement the vision of the General Plan. The General Plan does not build or demolish buildings, it sets the vision of the future of the City, and it is at the discretion of property owners to make changes to their property according to the vision and guidance set forth in the General Plan.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 8
Is parking a factor in the alternatives development process? In the speaker series (General Plan Community Forum #2) it was mentioned that many cities over develop parking, which goes unused. Can developers repurpose parking lots into housing and/or mixed-use development? Parking was considered in a limited capacity at this phase, but the General Plan does not specify the amount of parking required for development. The General Plan can include parking related policies, but parking specifications are addressed through the Zoning Code.
Quality of life is the concern for many residents – do we have enough land to increase population? Are we going to reduce the existing quality of life?
One of the challenges the General Plan update process tries to balance is preserving quality of life and making changes that people want to see in the City. In general, we see that the best performing retail spaces can have traffic congestion around them, and the commercial spaces with plenty of parking are not performing as well. The alternatives will look for balance between activity and accessibility.
Do these three alternatives stand on their own? I saw great components of each that I liked. Are there opportunities to pull different components from each?
Yes, the goal of the alternatives phase is to test different ideas. In some instances, we are looking at the extremes to test what works and gain insight from the community. The preferred land use alternative may ultimately be a combination of all three alternatives with new components as well. The survey asks specific questions to identify what components resonate with the community.
Throughout the alternatives process, have you considered ownership of property? What is the path to seeing the changes in the alternatives process realized? In this phase, we did not do a detailed analysis of property ownership, although through city staff we had general sense of what that looked like. Moving forward, we want to look at ownership patterns and likelihood of development. That is the difference between buildout and growth projections. Through the horizon of the General Plan (2045) we will be analyzing what could happen in roughly the next 25 years.
Questions from the Public
The following questions were asked in the Zoom Q&A feature and answered verbally by the General Plan Team.
Is parking included in FAR ratios?
Surface parking and structured parking above grade is included in FAR, while below grade parking is not.
Given the number units needed for low and very low-income housing, will the city proactively identify areas and subsidize development for these kinds of Affordable projects? After the preferred land use alternative is confirmed, the City will be required to identify specific locations that could accommodate low and very low-income housing as part of Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the Housing Element. Related to subsidies, the General Plan will address housing through policies and programs.
Can you provide more detail related to the parks and open space question? While we cannot designate private property for parks or open space, all new residential multifamily development is required to provide parks/open space for all units and common parks/open space as part of development standards.
Can you build taller structures thereby reducing the new land needed to develop? The alternatives explore those options. The alternatives have different organizations of land by either concentrating the development through taller structures or increasing the number of areas proposed for residential development.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 9
Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is becoming an important part of land use planning – are any land use alternatives future scenarios that reduce VMT being considered? Yes, VMT is one of the metrics that is considered when evaluating the three land use alternatives, in addition the EIR will consider the impacts to VMT through the proposed land use changes.
What will ultimately be presented to City Council?
Feedback from the survey, office hours, and this meeting will direct changes to the land use alternatives, which will be presented to City Council and Planning Commission in the Spring.
Have the previous General Plans been directed by State mandated housing laws or where they directed by a locally driven process?
A combination of both, this update process includes all Elements of the General Plan, however, the housing element has several State requirements that must be addressed every 8 years. There are repercussions for not having a certified housing element in each of the 8-year cycles, the city would not be eligible for grant funding that could limit or reduce many capital programs.
What is the penalty for violating SB 330?
Recent legislation puts financial penalties on a city for not complying with SB 330.
After the General Plan is adopted, how would a property owner go about requesting a land use change? Individuals would have to apply for a General Plan and Zoning amendment that would be analyzed at that time, considering the existing local ordinances (Measure E) and state requirements. We encourage folks to make detailed parcel-level comments on the briefing book and the survey, as this is a good opportunity to work through potential changes.
Do the units have to be built?
The General Plan needs to Plan for and maintain 81,124 units, but development of housing units is dependent on individual property owners. The General Plan does not build or demolish any buildings.
The following questions were asked by members of the public and answered in writing by the General Plan Team through the Zoom Q&A feature during the presentation.
Question Asked In Q&A Response In Q&A
Will you make the maps interactive so that
when you click on a parcel it tells you the
GP designation? Other cities do this to
make it more user friendly and technically
accurate for residents and professionals
viewing the maps.
After this presentation, we will provide information on how to access interactive maps that allow you to click on a parcel and check its designation.
Are there any plans to pre-zone
unincorporated islands?
Although not discussed in tonight’s presentation, the General Plan land use map will include designations for the
unincorporated county islands. No changes are being proposed for those areas.
Since there are 33,043 units available
under Measure E, how many are currently
under consideration?
As explained in the presentation, the General Plan needs to maintain the capacity for 81,124 units. These do not need to be built but planned for.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 10
Who are our hosts for this? City of Thousand Oaks and the General Plan consultant team We all understand what a "taking" is,
however, all these new housing units will
require new parks. How will this be
addressed?
City staff is working with CRPD to discuss where new housing units would potentially be built under each of the alternatives, and how that would result in needs for new or expanded park facilities. It is ultimately CRPD’s decision as to where they will place new parks to best meet the demand, and to purchase the property needed for those parks using parks impact fees collected from developers.
I am hard of hearing. Is there a way to get
subtitles?
closed captioning will be available on the city's YouTube channel tomorrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8YP74Kqkvw&feature=yo
utu.be
How do I access closed captioning? Can an
ASL interpreter be provided?
closed captioning will be available on the city's YouTube channel tomorrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8YP74Kqkvw&feature=yo
utu.be
Are granny flats counted toward the stock
numbers?
Granny flats are not included in the total unit counts
Could you post a link to the briefing book? https://raimi.konveio.com/thousand-oaks-2045-land-usealternatives Please point me to where the survey
resides on the page? I see a link for survey
results, but not tonight’s polls.
https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts
I do not see a survey link on the main
website.
https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts
I’m on the city website and don’t see the
link for the land use link
https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts
Each parcel that has been separately
delineated on the map should include the
acreage. It isn't hard to do. They did it
when they reconfigured Measure E.
I am checking with our GIS folks. We can add to the interactive maps tomorrow. Stay tuned. This capability was added after the meeting.
All the questions being posted are not being
seen by all attendees.
I apologize for the inconvenience. I am unsure why this is happening. I encourage attendees to review the briefing book and respond to the online alternatives survey to record their comments. www.toaks2045.org
Will all the questions that are not being
answered or shown on screen be addressed
later somewhere?
If your question was not answered tonight, please attend one of our upcoming Virtual Office Hours. We received over 200 questions and tried to get to as many as possible. Thank you all for the great and thoughtful questions!
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 11
What is the threshold for low income? Income categories are based on a percentage of the median income for the county. Additional information is in the Briefing Book.
Are residents able to vote yes or no on
proposed developments in their area?
Individual residents do not vote on proposed developments, Planning Commissioners and/or the City Council vote on
projects. Residents are encouraged to participate in the public process providing input during environmental document review, public hearings and submitting correspondence to the City to help inform the decision makers.
Can you incorporate live work as a form of
mixed use in the General Plan?
Live work would be permitted in mixed use areas
Also, can we propose land uses currently
not identified to be included within the
proposed alternative change areas?
Matt will be describing these later in the presentation Also, how does the 2,615 needed units
under the state plan “fit” within the
available units under Measure E?
Measure E limits the citywide residential capacity. Many areas of the city were built at a lower density than what was allowed by the General Plan, resulting in unbuilt residential capacity.
The land use alternatives propose reallocating this unbuilt capacity from established residential neighborhoods into the Areas of Change.
What is the penalty for planning for or
building all 81,000 units?
Measure E requires that the city not plan for more than 81,126 units, while SB 330 says the city may not plan for less than that number.
Is this a new survey or is it the one we had
opportunity to fill out a month or two ago?
New survey. https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts
Is it still possible to become a member of
the GPAC?
Please attend future GPAC meetings. these are open to the public. Please sign up for notification of these meetings on www.toaks2045.org
It appears that the outcome already seems
made and the representatives of the
community is very small as there are over
100,000 people. What are you doing to get
the community involved and not push the
destruction of the community?
Please help us get as much feedback from the widest cross section of the TO community. Please respond to the online alternatives survey. www.toaks2045.org
The survey is open for the month of February.
what if we live and work in Thousand Oaks? please pick one.
The 3 options are heavily weighted on
Mixed Use. Are there still options to
consider Low Density SFD on certain
parcels?
Please provide this comment in the online survey for areas where you think Low Density SFD development would be
appropriate.
How can I get a briefing book? Is there a
link on City website?
Please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at www.toaks245.org.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 12
How much impact does input have at this
point? Could public input influence which
sites are recommended to City Council?
Please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at www.toaks245.org. This is the start of the public review process and your input is valuable
How can I obtain a copy of the 70 page
Briefing Book? Is it "online"?
Please review the briefing book at www.toaks245.org.
I'm going to understand better once I've
had a chance to read all this. It's a lot to
process from a presentation. I'd like to have
a pdf of the slides as well, the keys are too
small to read on zoom.
Please review the briefing book which has detailed information and interactive maps and respond to the survey at
www.toaks2045.org.
wow! the poll answers are full of bias, and
none offer an open ended response.
Please take the online alternatives survey which allows you to record open ended responses. www.toaks2045.org
Would like to know how many units of
housing each of the alternatives is allowing.
Are all alternatives going to allow for an
equal number increased housing units?
Please take time to read the Land Use Alternatives Briefing Book. https://www.toaks2045.org/events
All alternatives cannot allow more or less units overall due to SB 330 and Measure E.
What about solar over parking and
buildings?
Solar is now required for all new residential statewide Why do ADUs/Granny Flats not count
toward Measure E mandates? can this be
modified?
State Law does not allow ADU's to count towards land use density/capacity. Measure E cannot be modified to count ADU's as part of overall dwelling capacity.
The poll is not in conflict with the prior
poll, the question was should mix use be
allowed in NBP, the answer is yes....the
question wasn’t whether it should be
concentrated there...if that was the
question the answer would be no
Thank you for the clarification
I think the difference in opinion re: Rancho
Conejo is related to information given
regarding Alt 1 - Alt 3. We did not have this
visual when first poll regarding same was
asked.
Thank you for the clarification
Whose quality of life? The families doubled
up into apartments because they cant find a
home?
Thank you for your comment. Please also record your thoughts on the online survey. https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts Concerned about impact to traffic of
additional development around TO
Blvd/WL Blvd. Traffic getting to and from
high school is already so challenging (preCovid when school was in session) Thank you for your comment. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Re Poll 4 - The residential areas should go
out into the business/industrial part of
Rancho Conejo. They are NOT compatible
Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 13
with the neighborhoods on the South side
of the 101.
Live Poll # 4 did not include the answers I
needed to provide. Nothing in this City
should be higher than 3 stories. That's our
limit.
Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Does this company understand that this city
doesn't want mixed use and they need to
come up with a non mixed plan. Your polls
all assume we are on board for mixed use
which I guarantee you we are not.
Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
I see another option for the mall as a
transport hub so residents to telecommute
commute but get out of their homes.
therefore, the mall becomes a “WeWork”
type of space as well. This does not exclude
the “mixed use” model, but “Mall as transit
hub” should be considered as a future
option.
Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Move the Toyota used car lot into the car
area south of the Blvd. It's an eyesore.
Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Mixed Use growth...got it...move on to the
next section
Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
(BTW...The 2 pdf downloads of the Land
Use Alternatives briefing books do not
seem to have separate unique file names
when downloading them.)
Thank you, we will fix after this meeting.
I believe the link in response to Larry
Turner was missing a 0...it should be
https://www.toaks2045.org/
thank you.
some of these areas already have multifamily neighborhoods. Does this mean you would knock it down and rebuild it?
That is dependent of the private property owners. The General Plan sets the policy whereby a property owner could propose redevelopment if it complies with density and other policies.
What is the green area on Westlake and
East End Alt 1?
That is SCE property along Hampshire, which is designated Utilities and Flood Control.
Do they have a financial interest in what
happens? Are they tied in with any
developers?
The consultants do not own any property in the city and have been retained by the City to prepare a GP Update.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 14
Do we have enough water supply to fulfill
the requirements of measure E units in
Thousand Oaks?
The current Urban Water Management Plans for the multiple water purveyors all account for the amount of Measure E units under the 1996 General Plan. The General Plan Update
Environmental Impact report will analysis water supply under the preferred land use scenario, which will also have to be compliant with Measure E, just analyzed under current water supply circumstances.
Is the thought to take down the mall and
build new?
The development envisioned in the land use alternatives could involve demolition and replacement of existing buildings, repurposing of existing buildings, and/or new buildings to supplement existing buildings. It is up to each property owner to determine if, when, and how to redevelop their properties. The mall and many other properties in Thousand Oaks have very large surface parking lots that could be used as locations for new buildings. The parking could be replaced with parking structures.
Can you repost the slides of the areas to be
developed?
The entire presentation will be posted on the web site at toaks2045.org after the meeting. All of the maps and
information in the presentation are also included in the Briefing Book which is available now on the web site.
The Mixed Use land designations of Low,
Medium, & High have corresponding FAR of
0.25, 0.5, 1.0. The FAR seems to be
extremely low and not proportion to
density to achieve a reasonable size of
dwelling units. To reach these densities at
say a 0.5 FAR would have to be micro units
and not suitable for families. Is this correct?
The FAR is only for the commercial portion of a mixed use development
Can you touch on the funding
mechanisms/strategies for implementation
at this stage in the planning process?
The General Plan puts policies in place to manage development that is initiated by the private sector based on market conditions. The City would not itself build any of the
development envisioned by these land use alternatives.
500 survey responses is not predictable of
the city desires. There are 130,000 people
and only 400_ responded. An additional
survey should be sent out now that the
program has visibility.
The General Plan update process is ongoing and there are ongoing opportunities to provide additional input. Please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at
www.toaks245.org.
Can you please type in the Q&A what Matt
said in response to Rorie's question about
parks not being provided for thousands of
new housing units? Very important
question.
The GP will assess the need for new parks. However, the city cannot designate private property as parks or open space. is the GPAC group voting, or just the
residents participating?
The GPAC and the attendees are all voting
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 15
Given the additional 2,600 RHNA units, will
the City maintain the "unit pool" system
used under Measure E? Or will that be
changed?
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) requires the City to allocate all of its residential capacity onto the land use map. The current “pool” system will be discontinued with the updated General Plan.
Given the # of units we need for low and
very low income residents, will the city
work proactively to identify parcels and
subsidize development of affordable
projects?
The Housing Element, which is a part of the GP process, will identify housing sites.
Will the planners or sustainability office
compare VMT's and estimated GHG
emission increases or reduction of each
alternative?
The metrics for VMT and GHG will be presented later in the presentation
Any indication whether those commercial
properties will actually be utilized in all
that mixed use? A town I used to live in
went very mixed use heavy at one point,
and most of the commercial spaces were
never leased. Has there been research into
the demand?
The mixed-use designations envision different options for providing a mix of uses with varying degrees of commercial and residential based on location and market conditions. We recognize that the traditional mixed-use format of retail on the ground floor and residential above does not work in all locations and can result in vacant commercial spaces if not implemented properly.
Does the City have a jobs growth goal that
was used for the alternatives?
The numbers being presented are build-out numbers.
how do I get to that firs poll we had? my
friend just logged in, Carol, and wants to
take it.
The poll was an informal survey at the start of the presentation.
It is now closed. The official survey will collect demographic information.
Not all questions are posting to everyone.
No censoring please.
The questions and responses are available to all attendees and GPAC members.
Where can I find the list of stakeholders
who were consulted earlier on?
The stakeholder summaries are available on the project website. www.toaks2045.com
How can you fulfill the state requirements if
you can not get any property owners to go
along with any Alternatives?
The State requires cities to plan for more housing understanding that the property owners have the choice to develop.
will measure E be repealed? There are no plans to repeal Measure E.
Also, is there any consideration to allow
affordable housing to be developed upon
church/synagogue land (without requiring
any type of General Plan amendment)?
There is state legislation under consideration to allow church properties to have housing by right.
None of your designs have rooftop gardens
for commercial or residential.
These type of design components would not be part of the General Plan. Those type of requirements can be incorporated into zoning ordinance update, which would follow policy direction from the General Plan.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 16
What changes in city infrastructure are
required and accordingly incorporated in
the plan to accommodate this increase in
housing and commercial density.
This will be studied as part of the Environmental Impact Report, which will be available for public review later this year.
Is there a paper version of the survey that is
being distributed, to include the input of
folks without computer or Internet access?
To request a paper copy of the Briefing Book and survey, please email [email protected].
What about traffic impact? Many roads are
near gridlock at certain times of the day.
Adding density will make this worse. As
density increases near the freeway, there
will be less space remaining to
accommodate traffic (adding turn lanes, for
instance).
Traffic will be analyzed under the Environmental Impact Report. State Law requires a new metric for analyzing
transportation, which is Vehicle Miles Travelled.
Can a property's land use designation still
be considered after this meeting for
another use? For example, if none of the
alternatives allow for housing, is there an
opportunity to add before final vote?
We are looking for all input. Please provide your comments through the survey and interactive maps provided on
www.toaks2045.com.
The final decision will be made by the City Council later this Spring.
It is critical that acreage be provided for
each parcel you're showing. If the plan is to
go to mixed use "high" (45-60 units per acre
with a possible density bonus of 35% or
greater for "affordable"), the public should
be able to determine what the ultimate
increase in intensity would be at build-out.
We have some overall acreage numbers that will be presented shortly. These are also included in the briefing book.
www.toaks2045.org
Will you add acreage for the parcels to the
map?
We will check and see if that is possible.
Will these slides be made available after
the meeting?
Yes
Will the housing element explore ADU's and
strategies to encourage these units?
Yes
Are there any traffic studies being
conducted for these alternatives?
Yes, the EIR will include traffic studies
Will this PPP be available in the TO2045
website?
yes. Also, please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at www.toaks245.org.
Will a transportation impact study be done
to evaluate future land use scenarios?
Yes. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the General Plan, including
development that may result from the preferred land use alternative. A transportation impact study will be conducted as part of the EIR. The Draft EIR will be released for public review along with the complete draft General Plan later this year.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 17
will all of these alternatives allow for the
81,000 housing units that are needed
Yes. As described earlier, State law requires that the capacity is maintained.
Will the questions be archived? Yes. Please also provide your input by completing the survey.
Does the state mandate the number of low
income units that are required?
Yes. The RHNA allocation has a breakdown of units by income levels
Other Comments
The workshop accumulated hundreds of comments and questions - some were addressed verbally to all in attendance at the workshop, some were addressed through the written Q&A feature, and some could not be addressed due to time constraints. The major themes of the latter comments and questions are summarized below. • Please provide closed captioning, ASL interpretation, and translation at future meetings. • Housing affordability, senior housing, and multigenerational housing needs are issues that need to be addressed.
• Consider rephrasing “protect single family neighborhoods”. • How is the City analyzing needs of our local community, economy, and environment? • Please clarify the thresholds for low and very low-income housing and if that addresses housing needs for those who are experiencing homelessness.
• Please clarify Measure E local ordinance and the State’s RHNA allocation process. • How will the General Plan address inclusion, incorporate active transportation, gentrification, and address parking?
• Are minority communities, populations with disabilities, and those without internet access being proactively reached through the General Plan process?
• Will the General Plan address sustainability solutions like zero carbon housing, and are there energy use goals and requirements for the future?
• How will water supply be addressed?
• Does the General Plan accommodate existing population or entice new populations? • Are there any plans to pre-zoning unincorporated County islands? • Can you touch on the funding mechanisms or strategies for implementation at this stage in the planning process?
• Are there options to add more single family residential? • Can the acreage be provided for each parcel within the change areas? • Are there job growth targets or targets for the types of jobs being created? • Concerned about new development and potential changes to City’s character. • Will there be impacts to the local school district?
• Will a form-based code be prepared?
• Will the General Plan prepare a land use/zoning consistency analysis? • Access to affordable housing for people of all ages is a huge issue.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 18
• Why do the alternatives propose so much retail space? • Will the General Plan include updates to infrastructure? Specifically bicycle infrastructure. • Are there public funds available to incentivize development according to the General Plan? • Why do the alternatives focus on the 101-corridor so heavily? • How does the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan interface with the new General Plan? Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Meeting #14 | March 24, 2020 | 6:00 to 8:00 pm | Virtual Meeting
MEETING NOTES
This meeting was held via Zoom and livestreamed to YouTube. Members of the public could register in advance to join the Zoom meeting and/or make public comments or view only on YouTube.
OBJECTIVES
• Provide an overview of recent community engagement activities. • Summarize land use alternatives survey results.
• Discuss preliminary direction for preferred land use alternative. • Review project schedule.
ATTENDEES
GPAC Members
• Present: Amy Commans, Alicia Rincon, Andy Fox, Chaise Rasheed, Darren Bovard, Emily Dale, Fred Fukanaga, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Patrick DuRoss, Rorie Skei, Tara Carruth, Dr. Victor Hayek, and Wyatt McCrea • Absent: Dr. Chris Kimball, Dena Jenson, Ken Lamont, Michael Nigh City Staff
• Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director; Michael Forbes, Deputy Community Development Director; Kari Finley, Planning Manager; Krystin Rice, Senior Planner; Iain Holt, Senior Planner; and Tabitha McAtee, Assistant Planner
Consultant Team
• Matt Raimi and Melissa Stark, Raimi + Associates
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 2
MEETING SUMMARY
This meeting included closed captioning and simultaneous Spanish translation via two interpreters.
Approximately 97 people participated, including city staff and consultant team, GPAC members, and members of the public.
PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION
Matt Raimi welcomed GPAC members and the public with an overview of the evening’s agenda, followed by a status update on General Plan process.
The presentation began with an overview of community engagement, noting the General Plan Update efforts to date as well as the various activities, campaigns, and meetings held to discuss and raise awareness for the three land use alternatives. Matt highlighted the high rate of public interest in the land use alternatives process, which garnered over 2,100 survey responses, 6,000 public comments, and an additional 1,000 comments on the Land Use Alternatives Briefing Book.
Then, Matt described frequently asked questions from the public during the land use alternatives process, and their responses. These included questions like, “Why update the land use map?”, “What are land use alternatives?”, and “Does the General Plan require new housing to be built?” among others.
After updating the group on recent community engagement activities and commonly asked questions, Matt presented the land use alternatives survey results. These results covered demographics, citywide, and area specific responses. The demographics results were compared to citywide demographic data and demographics from the 2020 statistically valid Citywide Attitude Survey to better understand how representative the land use alternatives survey respondents were to the larger Thousand Oaks community. Citywide survey results included an overview of the three land use alternatives, the commonalities and differences, and the preferences indicated by respondents. The specific areas referenced in the survey included the five major change areas: Rancho Conejo, Moorpark Road and East Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Westlake and East End, and Village Centers. These survey results guide and direct land use changes specific to each major change area. For a detailed look at the survey results, please visit the General Plan Update website, TOaks2045.org.
During the presentation, two Zoom polls were conducted to gauge GPAC and public responses to the survey results. Those questions and results are shown below.
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 3
Poll 1. Did you take the land use alternatives survey?
Poll 2. What is your overall impression or reaction to the survey results? *Zoom Responses include GPAC members and members of the public who joined the virtual meeting (Note: Not all GPAC members or members of the public responded to the poll question).
Following the presentation of survey results and polls, GPAC members providing their comments and reactions to the survey results.
GPAC member comments on the presentation and survey results:
• I am not surprised with the desire to keep the Moopark Road and East Thousand Oaks Boulevard area commercial. Though there is potential to modify the Janss Marketplace and The Oaks Mall to accommodate housing. Thousand Oaks has a lot of retail, which is changing quickly. There is a need for flexibility specifically for larger retail properties. Perhaps we can allow multiple land use designations like mixed-use high, or mixed-use medium on a portion to allow flexibility. • I am surprised by the lack of enthusiasm for village centers that provide walkable neighborhood centers. This would help provide the diversity of housing stock close to existing neighborhoods and should be on the table for the future.
18%
82%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
No
Yes
GPAC + Public Responses
25%
49%
25%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Not surprised
Somewhat surprised
Very surprised
GPAC + Public Responses
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 4
• I feel we are missing the realistic build-out numbers for the City. I feel the current maximum is more like 50,000 units, which is based off the 2011 Environmental Impact Report for the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan. The natural place for mixed-use development is the Moorpark Road and Janss Marketplace area. Not a fan of taller buildings and I want to keep a slower pace of change in the City. • After looking at the Briefing Book comments, it is important to note the General Plan is a blueprint, not a guaranteed change. There is room for change in land use designation around The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. The existing retail bubble and effects of the pandemic could cause a greater decline in shopping. In addition, Thousand Oaks saw a population decline in the last year, which may continue due to the cost of living. I am interested to see what the Census reports in terms of population trends.
I think there is a need for housing choices for the populations that already live in Thousand Oaks, not necessarily for a lot of new people.
• After attending almost all the land use alternatives open house sessions, I talked with other residents ages 24-35 to get their take on things. Folks were most passionate about the idea of mixed-use development, wanting to see 3-5 stories buildings, specifically at the Janss Marketplace. Most people I talked to were excited about the village center concept and expressed a desire for more residential and mixed-use development along Thousand Oaks Boulevard. Overall, most were happy these ideas are being considered through the process, noting the single-family neighborhoods leave out young people who want to transition out of small apartments into other types of housing stock. • I feel both surprised and not surprised by the survey results, specifically with the low response rate in younger age brackets. I do not know how many people that age think there are opportunities for them in Thousand Oaks. We need more job opportunities.
• We need to stay focused on the process and trust community input. We cannot get sidetracked with specific numbers. I was not surprised by the survey results; we have a lot of forward-thinking folks in Thousand Oaks, and many recognize that we need change to maintain the quality of life in the City. We need to look at different types of housing stock, keep our options open, and use a balanced approach.
The General Plan is a blueprint for the entire City, we need to have a vision and be flexible. • I am surprised by the lack of support for village centers based on my conversations with GPAC members and feedback from other community meetings and surveys. I think we should keep that option on the table. Village centers are a better way to integrate different types of housing into the community, as opposed to having them segregated. I am concerned with the low response rate from the Hispanic/Latino community.
• The survey results show support for higher densities, but I am concerned with parking and crowding. • After talking with friends in the 25 to 34-year-old age range who grew up in Thousand Oaks and subsequently left the area, I think the downtown is a great place to add residential. I am more cautious about the intersection of Westlake and Thousand Oaks Boulevards due to existing traffic congestion. • We should maintain the openness and views in Thousand Oaks. Supportive of mixed-use in the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan area but concerned with overcrowding and traffic that was referenced in the survey comments. Think we should take a measured approach for implementing change in Thousand Oaks.
GPAC MEETING #12 SUMMARY | 5
• Regarding participation from the Hispanic community, I was hoping for more input, but spoke with many people who did not understand the survey. Many folks couldn’t attend meetings and thought the concepts were difficult to understand. I appreciate the effort to reach out to the community.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Approximately 50 members of the public participated in the Zoom Meeting. Several spoke during public comment at the end of the meeting, which is summarized below. • The approach to village centers should be tailored to each area, as opposed to a blanket designation applied to all.
• Supportive of slow growth, confused about how we inform the entire community about the General Plan process. Many folks do not know about it.
• How are the individual survey comments accounted for in the numerical data? How is the land use map going to be designed?
• Do not feel the comments are a true representation, most community members want to keep the lowdensity lifestyle. • I do not support mixed-use in the area behind my backyard. • Want to see the results for each area, feel as though Casa Conejo is being dumped on. Would like to see a breakdown of survey results by zip code.
• Why are we not talking about congestion and traffic? How will transportation be accommodated? • The General Plan does not address Skyworks and semiconductor industries. • Not supportive of the General Plan change, though aware we need more housing. • Thousand Oaks Boulevard property owner and member of TOBA and supportive of mixed-use. Feel that people want Thousand Oaks Boulevard to be more pedestrian-oriented. Overall supportive of the alternatives.
• Village centers are an attractive idea that offer many benefits, like supporting family’s ability to live and work in Thousand Oaks.
WRAP UP
Matt Raimi closed the meeting with an overview of the General Plan schedule and next steps.
Adjourn at 8:15 pm
Note: this was a virtual meeting, therefore no sign-in sheets for the GPAC or public were collected.
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 1
THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL
PLAN 2045
JOINT GPAC MEETING + WORKSHOP #3
SUMMARY
April 21, 2021 | 6:00 pm – 8:30 pm | Virtual Zoom Meeting Attendees
GPAC Members
Present: Andy Fox, Chaise Rasheed, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Fred Fukunaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Rorie Skei, Dr. Victor Hayek
Absent: Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Dr. Chris Kimball, Dena Jenson, Emily Dale, Ken Lamont, Michael Nigh.
Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Tara Carruth, Wyatt McCrea Public
This was a virtual meeting; hence no public sign-in is available.
Overview
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021, the City of Thousand Oaks hosted a joint General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and public workshop to present the preferred land use map for the Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 update project. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the workshop took place virtually as a Zoom Meeting from 6:00 to 8:30 pm. Approximately 75 attendees (including 13 GPAC members) joined the Zoom meeting, not counting the consultant team, elected officials, and city staff, with an additional 100 YouTube views. Members of the public could register in advance to join the live meeting along with GPAC members. Both GPAC and members of the public had access to video and audio throughout the presentation and discussion. This joint meeting was the third workshop in a series of four that will take place over the course of the General Plan update.
The joint event provided a brief overview of the land use alternatives survey results and supplemental analysis, an overview of key components of the preferred land use map, and breakout group discussions among GPAC and community members. The General Plan Team also announced the preferred land use map survey which was open between April 20 and May 12, 2021 and available in English and Spanish.
The following summary includes an overview of the presentation, community small group discussions, GPAC direction, and public comment.
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 2
Presentation and Discussion
The evening kicked off with a presentation by Matt Raimi, project consultant with Raimi + Associates, which was divided into several sections including background and process overview, land use alternatives survey results, overview of preferred land use map, and next steps.
Below are highlights of the presentation by section and group discussions.
PRESENTATION
Background + Process
Matt introduced the meeting objectives, how community members can provide feedback on the draft land use map, an overall update on the General Plan Update process.
The land use alternatives process overview included a recap of the flow of work, areas of change and stability map, high-level comparison of the three land use alternatives, and overview of the survey. In this section, Matt shared some of the community engagement activities conducted for the three land use alternatives, survey statistics, demographics of survey respondents, and results of detailed sensitivity analysis.
Land Use Alternatives Survey Results + Preferred Land Use Map
This section outlined the preferred land use process, proposed designations, and details of the land use alternatives survey results and how they relate to the new preferred map. The preferred land use map incorporated components of the three land use alternatives based primarily on survey results. The preferred map provides less total development capacity and maximum density compared to the previous three alternatives.
Matt highlighted the overall characteristics of the preferred land use map, then reviewed each of the five geographic areas relating survey feedback to the preferred map changes. Matt noted that the vast majority (83%) of the citywide preferred land use map is made up of single-family residential and parks, golf courses, or open space.
Preferred Land Use Alternative Next Steps
At the end of the presentation, Matt shared key dates and next steps in the preferred land use map process including the survey open through May 12, 2021, presentations to Planning Commission on April 26, 2021 and City Council on May 18th and 25th.
DISCUSSION
Breakout groups
After the presentation, members of the public and GPAC dispersed into small groups to discuss the preferred land use map. The GPAC remained in the main Zoom room, while members of the public were invited to join breakout groups with a facilitator. Members of the public could opt out of a breakout group and instead observe the GPAC discussion.
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 3
Discussions took place for roughly one hour and were guided by two questions. For each area, both GPAC and members of the public were asked, “What did you like about the preferred land use alternative map?” and “What changes do you think should be made to the map?”
Once discussions concluded, the meeting reconvened for highlights shared by the small group facilitator. Below are summaries from public small groups’ report-outs.
Small Group Report Out (Public)
Group 1
• Discussion focused on big-picture citywide vision.
• Opinions split between those who wanted more housing, mixed-use, higher density, and taller building heights verses those who wanted lower density, lower building heights, and less mixed use. • Majority support housing in village centers and share a desire for more public meeting space like plazas. • Majority support flexible designations for large retail centers. • Group had split opinions on the future of the Borchard site, some in favor of mixed-use, and others in favor of maintaining single-family residential designation.
Group 2
• Discussion focused on the Rancho Conejo subarea because many participants did not feel comfortable discussing subareas they were not familiar with.
• Felt the Borchard property has a lot of potential and should allow for higher density residential. Many participants asked questions regarding the proposed split designation and preferred a single mixed-use designation.
• Acknowledged the need for affordable housing and felt the village centers were a good way to provide additional housing.
• Majority were disappointed village centers don’t include any residential and are commercial in the proposed land use map.
• Many felt The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace could include higher density residential.
Group 3
• Majority agree with the approach of focusing change to subareas and maintaining majority of the city in current configuration.
• Discussion focused on Rancho Conejo and Thousand Oaks Boulevard. • In the Rancho Conejo subarea, had the following recommendations:
o Supportive of mixed-use north of the 101 freeway.
o Not supportive of tall buildings south of 101 freeway. o Current vacant property in the northwest corner of the Rancho Conejo subarea (commonly referred to as the “goldfish” or “7th Day Adventist” property) should be residential, not industrial as proposed.
o Consider access and circulation in the area.
• Felt overall the preferred land use map is in a good place, with a few caveats. • Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan Area should treat all property owners the same, allowing for Mixed Use Medium across all parcels. Similarly, the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace should allow greater flexibility.
• Supportive of the Westlake and East End proposed land uses.
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 4
• Parking should be addressed within village centers if mixed-use is added.
GPAC Direction
After listening to public small group report-outs, members of the GPAC took turns sharing their final thoughts and overall review of the preferred land use map. Note that all members of the GPAC in attendance shared their opinion at this time (one GPAC member left the meeting early and therefore did not provide their opinions). Below is a summary of the direction received from the GPAC as well as individual comments from GPAC members.
Summary:
10 members of the GPAC supported the direction of the preferred land use map, but offered specific tweaks to the map:
o Introduce mixed-use at some of the village centers.
o Propose mixed-use across the Borchard property.
o Provide flexibility and focus mixed-use throughout the Thousand Oaks Boulevard corridor. o Add increased residential density at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. o Remove mixed-use designations from sites we know are not likely to change in the next 20-30 years.
These GPAC members shared support for specific elements of the preferred land use map:
o Mixed-use at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace.
o Emphasis on walkability and livability.
o Maintained community character by preserving parks, open space, and single-family neighborhoods.
o Expansion of jobs and focus on local economy.
2 members of the GPAC felt cautious about the preferred land use map, noting the scope of changes and potential impacts to schools, views and a potential to transform the overall character of the community as concerns.
GPAC member comments:
o Overall, the preferred land use map is reasonable and does not change most of the land in the city. o The City has done a great job of reaching out to community members through outreach. o The Borchard property owner is a lifelong resident and does not want to negatively affect the neighbors with future development. The proposed development there would be mutually beneficial for neighbors, businesses, and the city as a whole. o Cautious and hesitant to accept the preferred land use map as it stands now. There are impacts that will need to be addressed like school enrollment.
o Supportive of providing flexibility through higher densities at only The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace.
o Prefer to spread out density across the city.
o The preferred land use map is going in right direction, small tweaks are needed to increase flexibility.
o The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace both have too much parking, those areas could support future housing.
o The preferred land use map is going in the right direction. o Consider allowing more uses (like hotels) and providing greater flexibility on height and density for retail centers.
o Agree with other GPAC members that some of the large retail centers in the Westlake and East End (i.e., The Promenade) are not going to change, so the mixed-use designation should be moved elsewhere.
o The preferred land use map is moving in the right direction. o The General Plan is not about buildings; it is about people, enhanced livability, and making the City a better place to live, work, raise a family, and grow old. In the future we need to make those connections clear with the proposed changes to the General Plan.
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 5
o Village Centers would be a great place to live in the future. o Thankful to the Team for preparing this information and providing outreach to the community. o Generally supportive of the preferred land use map. Some tweaks are needed to address the concerns and comments raised tonight including:
▪ Some village centers should allow mixed-use.
▪ Not comfortable increasing heights or densities beyond what is proposed. ▪ Overall want to maximum flexibility.
o Overall, the map is a balanced approach that preserves what this community has built over the course of its history.
o The team has done a great job synthesizing input and preparing the preferred land use map.
Thank you for the effort and progress.
o By-in-large the preferred land use map is going in the correct direction, but a few tweaks are needed including adding mixed use to the Village Centers and allowing increased flexibility for The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. Additional housing units should go in these locations. o Cautious of the scope and size of proposed changes, seems out of historic character for Thousand Oaks. The proposed map includes some great resources for us to consider. o There are changes we need to make, State requirements, and inevitable economic changes are coming.
o Recommend or support changes at The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace since shopping malls are changing. The City should think proactively and not reactively. Support a global biotech hub in Thousand Oaks and want to continue to support Rancho Conejo north of the 101 freeway. o “Residents” historically have wanted buildings to be low profile to maintain mountain views. o Overall, the Plan is going in the right direction.
o Supportive of the mall areas and Village Center proposals. o Vision for the future is to have walkable, bikeable, destinations that are accessible by transit.
Desire to not have a landscape dominated by cars in the future. o At a high level, the proposed map is good, but does need a few tweaks. o We should remove mixed-use designations from sites we do not anticipate changing in the next 20 to 30 years. Those units should be reallocated to underutilized sites instead. o The plan does preserve long-standing principles like maintaining single-family neighborhoods, protecting open space, parks, and viewsheds. As well as focusing on job centers and the economy. o The plan should provide as much flexibility as possible along the 101 Corridor and throughout Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
o Mixed-use should be applied to the Oaks Mall, Janss Marketplace, along Thousand Oaks Boulevard in certain places, and the Borchard property.
o Consider a different designation for parcels that are 20 or 30 acres in size and greater. This could give flexibility to property owners while lowering the overall housing numbers that people are concerned with.
o Focus on opportunity sites identified by City Council. o Great job to the General Plan Team.
o Generally, support preferred land use map with a few tweaks. o Need for flexibility specifically the two large shopping centers. o Would like to see mixed-use Village Centers.
o Overall, the plan is well done.
o Echo several comments from other GPAC members.
o Feel that walkable Village Centers are important, especially for youth.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Following the small group discussions, report-outs, and GPAC direction, members of the public were invited to provide brief public comments. Nine members of the public participated. A summary of these comments is provided below.
• Thank you for a great meeting, I will provide additional comments via email.
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 6
• I am in support of future mixed-use development at the Borchard property with a buffer from the existing neighborhood.
• As the property owner, the goal for the Borchard site is to create a place that serves the Newbury Park community. There is a lack of gathering spaces in this neighborhood. We have a plan that includes open space, a buffer, and amenities, and want to work with existing residents to make this successful. • As a homeowner on Michael Drive, I support future development at the Borchard property. People are looking for areas to go and things to do, we would like to have something nearby that we can walk to. • The Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce appreciates the discussion on the preferred land use map. Would like to see flexibility for more property owners in the form of more medium and high density in the appropriate areas. Also support the GPAC’s comment regarding concentrating new land uses on feasible sites that are likely to change in the next 20-30 years. • Casa Conejo neighbors are largely opposed to major development on the Borchard property due to flood control issues and waterfowl. We are in favor of something softer on this site. There are other shopping centers nearby that are more appropriate for entertainment uses. • As a residential and businessowner in Thousand Oaks, I am supportive of future development at the Borchard property. I would like to integrate a future tap room into the area as an extension of my business. I feel that the property owner wants to work with residents and make something that enhances the Newbury Park neighborhood and supports existing businesses like Amgen. • I am supportive of future development at the Borchard property and am encouraged by the design the property owner showed that includes a large greenbelt buffering single family homes. I think the concerns about flooding and habitat would be addressed through the planning process by turning that area into a greenbelt, instead of the split zoning that is proposed now. The property should have one mixed-use designation going forward. The Janss Marketplace and The Oaks Malls should be considered for mixed-use medium which would provide those property owners maximum flexibility for the future. • Of the previous three land use alternatives, the Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce supported Map 1 because it offered mixed-use medium and mixed-use high. The survey results showed highest support for Map 1, and that was the basis for the new map (preferred land use map), but it removed the things we liked about map 1. We encourage the committee and City to add those things back into the preferred land use map. We want to promote affordable housing, but the only way to get affordable units is to allow higher densities.
NEXT STEPS
The meeting concluded with an overview of next steps, including how members of the public could provide feedback through the briefing book, online survey, and virtual office hours.
The meeting adjourned at 8:42 pm.
Attachments: Facilitator notes from GPAC and public small group discussions.
FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021
GPAC DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND NOTES
Responses by the General Plan Team are italicized.
GPAC Member 1. How will the impacts of new residential units on schools be addressed? If too many new units are developed, the district may have to redraw boundaries and that could influence neighborhood schools. • While this is a valid concern, we do not know the makeup of residential units will be, so we cannot yet anticipate the impact to local schools.
GPAC Member 2. Regarding village centers, if we are not changing land uses, how do we ensure that kind of walkable aesthetic and environment is created? • We can use policies to influence the format of a commercial shopping center to look and feel more like a main street. If we move forward with commercial only village centers, the General Plan could be amended later to allow residential or mixed-use in these areas.
GPAC Member 3. I think we need to reiterate that future development will incorporate sustainable principles and nature through parks, open space, and landscaping. This community is very sensitive to the environment, we cannot lose sight of that when talking about the future.
GPAC Member 4. I think it would be a missed opportunity to not include mixed-use or residential units in village centers. They could provide housing opportunities for young families, young workers, and seniors, and help spread out the residential units so we do not overwhelm one area of town. It could create a designation that is walkable from existing neighborhoods, like a European High Street Model.
GPAC Member 5. In talking with the property owner, I think the proposed development at the Borchard site would be a good project that would take into consideration the concerns of adjacent neighbors.
GPAC Member 6. Why were certain areas identified as mixed-use medium and others were identified as mixed-use low?
• Certain areas have already been envisioned for higher density, like the Civic Arts Plaza and Downtown Core areas, while west Thousand Oaks Boulevard near Tarantula Hill has new
development that could provide synergy. The Rancho Conejo area was selected due to the proximity to adjacent uses, so it could be viewed as another node.
GPAC Member 7. I think village centers need to include housing in the form of mixed-use because retail is changing, and we need room to evolve. The area around Borchard should include something other than single family homes, we need additional flexibility.
GPAC Member 8. Concerned with the scope of changes proposed in the plan. Do the changes have to be as big as they are presented? Can we meet RHNA without such sweeping changes? Can we take steps forward in a phased approach? Density alone will not solve housing affordability; we need policies to ensure future housing is affordable.
• Agree with your assessment that strong housing policies are needed to ensure future development is affordable. In previous conversations, members of the public brought up the need for an (updated) Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
GPAC Member 9. I think we need to revisit the allowed uses across Mixed-Use Low, Medium, and High. Restaurants, retail, and hotels should be allowed across all three designations. Regarding The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace, I feel that Mixed-Use Low is insufficient to accommodate the future evolution of these shopping centers. Both centers should be up to Mixed-use Medium, and perhaps consider a residential unit cap to prohibit the site from turning to all residential and going beyond the Measure E capacity.
GPAC Member 10. I would suggest maintaining the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan as much as possible. Incorporate the opportunity sites identified by City Council, including the YMCA property for housing or mixed-use. Remove the mixed-use designation on sites we know are not likely to change in the next 20-30 years, including the Promenade site. Provide more flexibility at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. Regarding the Borchard site, the residents prefer a buffer and the only way to achieve that is through a higher density designation like Mixed-Use Medium or Mixed-Use Low.
GPAC Member 11. I support village centers and wonder if we can include mixed-use anywhere within the industrial core of the Rancho Conejo area (north of the 101 Freeway).
GPAC Member 12. We should consider policies to maintain retail (like grocery stores) within mixed-use village centers. We want to balance new residential with amenities that support existing neighborhoods.
GPAC Member 13. Young adults would like to see walkable village centers and revitalization of the Janss Marketplace.
FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021
PUBLIC GROUP #1 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND NOTES
1. What is your reaction to the overall citywide preferred land use alternative map? Notes
• Need more housing
o Disappointed with the lack of high-density housing
o Village centers – no mixed-use, more human scale, more walkability ▪ Reuse existing vacant retail
▪ Transit hubs
▪ Distribute housing, etc.
o Taller buildings should be located at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace
o Plazas and meeting spaces are needed
• Need affordable housing for young families, like starter homes, etc. • Do not concentrated multifamily housing
o Village centers should have housing
o Low density housing is preferred
o Move housing out by CLU and Moorpark Rd instead of Newbury Park • What about environmental considerations? Concern over infrastructure for water and transportation
• Consider ADU’s for additional housing units
• Concern over concentration of housing on TOB – traffic congestion, emergency evacuation
• Concern with building height increase but desire for affordability
2. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Rancho Conejo area?
Likes
• Downtown/village center for Newbury Park – activities for young families/children Changes
• Park or water feature at Alice/Borchard property
• More housing by industrial north of 101
• Village center needed in Dos Vientos
• Less need for office and retail after COVID.
3. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Moorpark Rd and West Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Likes
• Flexibility at Oaks Mall area
4. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
(N/A)
5. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Westlake and East End area?
Changes
• Lower building heights on Westlake Blvd (industrial flex)
6. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Village Centers? (N/A)
FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021
PUBLIC GROUP #2 QUESTIONS, NOTES + REPORT OUT:
1. What is your reaction to the overall citywide preferred land use alternative map? Notes
• Why did Village Center make it to the Preferred Land Use Map? There seems to be comparable support as to the Oaks Mall in survey.
• Small amount of space to work with in T.O. for new housing. Would like to see map re-evaluated to maximize change also like to see Village Centers reevaluated. • Has City considered a Specific Plan overlay for Borchard site? Allows developer flexibility to plan the overall site with consideration of constraints.
Report out
• Mixed comments regarding the Alice/ Borchard site.
• Comments regarding re-visiting the Village Centers.
2. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Rancho Conejo area?
Changes
• Concern regarding amount of change in the Rancho Conejo area and that it is where the most change/ new development will occur.
• “Alice” parcel should be re-designated to mixed use in its entirety. • Borchard/Alice site – concerns regarding parking if all mixed use.
3. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Moorpark Rd and West Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Likes
• 275 (?) East Moorpark- n/o Hillcrest – shows as Mixed Use Low -supports.
4. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
(N/A)
5. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Westlake and East End area?
(N/A)
6. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Village Centers? Likes
• Add here Why did Village Center make it to the Preferred Land Use Map? There seems to be comparable support as to the Oaks Mall in survey.
FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021
PUBLIC GROUP #3 QUESTIONS, NOTES + REPORT OUT:
1. What is your reaction to the overall citywide preferred land use alternative map? Notes
• Paul is interested in the Rancho Conejo/Newbury Park area • Mark is interested in TOB (mixed-use) and the SDA property as a residential site; all of TOB should allow for mixed-use
Report out
• Only focusing on the 10% of City that are “areas of change” was a good approach
• There was too much to absorb at once and during a pandemic (but this is a multiyear process and is still a work in progress) • Initially worried about the survey due to the 3 alternatives but feel there is now a good compromise after seeing the results
2. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Rancho Conejo area?
Likes
• Mixed-use North of the freeway near existing commercial areas and Amgen Changes
• SDA site to a residential designation
• South of the freeway should not allow tall buildings (not necessarily mixed-use development)
• Better access for less traffic
3. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Moorpark Rd and West Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Changes
• All TOB should be at least mixed-use medium, not all the sites will be developed that way in the future; equal rights to develop for all TOB property owners
4. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Likes
• The areas that do allow for mixed-use medium
Changes
• All TOB should be at least mixed-use medium, not all the sites will be developed that way in the future; equal rights to develop for all TOB property owners • Better access to lower traffic
5. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Westlake and East End area?
Likes
• Approved K-Mart pre-screen project is in a good location Changes
• Add here
6. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Village Centers? Likes
• Village Centers are essential and key; people should be able to walk to the store nearby
Changes
• Having adequate parking if you’re adding mixed-use
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Summary | July 30, 2019
On June 24th and 25th, Raimi + Associates conducted twelve stakeholder interviews with Thousand Oaks industry leaders, educational entities, and community-based organizations about issues and opportunities for the Thousand Oaks General Plan Update. The comments received at these meetings have been categorized into one of four major categories – preserve, enhance, change opportunities, and barriers to change.
Members from the following affiliations were interviewed:
• California Lutheran University
• Caruso
• Conejo Valley Unified School District
• Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
• Los Angeles Rams
• Local Business owners
• Los Robles Hospital
• Macerich (The Oaks Mall)
• Newmark Merrill (Janss Marketplace)
• The Acorn
• Thousand Oaks Boulevard Association
• Thousand Oaks residents
• T.O. Arts
• Small town charm
• Safety
• Quiet and peacefulness
• Ring of protected open space
• Views
• Arts and culture
• High quality of life
• High quality public parks and recreation
• High quality public schools
• Strong relationships between community, City, and businesses o Reputation for family forward focused
• Presence of the Los Angeles Rams football team
• Housing opportunities
o Desire for a variety of different housing types at different price points • Entertainment and experience opportunities
o For youth, young professionals and families
• Meeting places for people
o Walkable spaces
o Expanded downtown
• Arts and culture
o Civic Arts Plaza programing - appeal to wider variety of patrons • Business-friendly reputation
• Nightlife
o More bars and lounges with good food
o More breweries
• Build on new businesses and residents’ desire to come to Thousand Oaks. • Los Robles Hospital Residency program begins July 2019 o Increase in medical students and physicians to the area • Demographics are changing
o Opportunities to appeal to new residents
o Desire for younger people to move (back) to Thousand Oaks • Newer companies and employers in Thousand Oaks
o More job opportunities
o Opportunity to become less of a commuter city and provide jobs and housing for more residents
• Opportunity to host the film industry
• Expand outdoors tourism
• Creative repurposing of land
o Redevelop and rebrand failing retail
o Develop amenity housing and multi-family housing
o Former K-Mart site
• General Plan can provide flexibility for development and future needs • Thousand Oaks Boulevard
o Desire for vertical mixed-use on Thousand Oaks Boulevard o Revitalize Thousand Oaks Boulevard
o Desire for high-end office space
o Desire for boutique hotel(s)
o Convert failing retail to other needed uses like office, entertainment or residential o Multifamily residential along the Boulevard
• Difficulty attracting employees to live/work in Thousand Oaks o Want more things to do and more affordable housing
• Too much retail in Thousand Oaks – retail is failing
• Changing identity of Thousand Oaks
o Some perception that local schools are going down hill o Increase in home invasions recently
• Local schools have had rapidly declining enrollment since 2010 • Hiring Special Education instructors is difficult
• Homelessness
• Traffic congestion (real/perceived)
• Market rate housing
• Aging community
• Changing economy
• Lack of diversity
• Businesses are having a harder time accessing funds than previously • Housing for students, CLU Faculty, and staff
• Many community members are opposed to needed change
• Jobs/housing imbalance
• Fear of stagnation
• Fear of businesses leaving because of housing un-affordability • Barriers to new development
o Codes are old and unclear
o Parks fees are very high
o Parking ratios are dated and too high
o Measure E
o Height limit is a barrier
o City’s regulatory process takes a long time
o Need incentives for affordable housing developers
o Lack of flexibility in current Code for modern uses such as co-working spaces o Density maximums are too low for development projects to be financially feasible for developers
o Difficulty adding residential units due to some community opposition • MOPs (Mothers Group)
• Calvary Community Church
• California Lutheran University
• TO Rotary Clubs
• Service Clubs such as Kiwanis
• Conejo Valley School District
o District Advisory Committee
o PTA
o Student DAV
o Special Education
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Session 1 Summary | July 17, 2019
On July 18th, 2019, HR&A Advisors, Inc. (HR&A) led a focus group meeting on economic development at City Hall as part of the City of Thousand Oaks General Plan update project. The event focused on soliciting feedback from key stakeholders on existing conditions and identifying local economic strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. A summary of key takeaways and overarching themes that emerged as a result of this discussion is provided below.
Members from the following affiliations participated in the discussion:
• California Lutheran University
• Caruso
• Lee & Associates
• Amgen
• CBRE
• Macerich
• NewMark Merrill
• Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce
• TOBA (provided input separately)
• Location
o Proximity between universities like UCSB, UCLA, and Caltech o Near Los Angeles amenities without urban life
• Open Space
• Managed growth
• High quality of life
• Quality public schools
• High level of safety
• Bioscience industry
o Diverse
o Connected in region
• Availability of venture capital
• Retail
o Aging retail centers
o Oversupply of retail market
o Competition from neighboring cities
o Decline in traditional retail
▪ Auto Mall is key revenue generator for city
▪ Different consumption patterns for younger generations • Jobs
o Decline in bioscience jobs
o Decline in overall high-quality jobs, supplemented with lower paying jobs o Employers choosing to locate in other communities
• Housing
o Lack of affordable housing options
o Neighboring cities have pursued multi-family development ▪ Unmet demand in Thousand Oaks
▪ Need to attract young families
▪ Decline in Thousand Oaks school enrollment
o Community apprehension about multi-family housing/new housing development • Laborious entitlement process
o Pre-application process for new development is costly and time intensive ▪ Previously conducted solely by City staff
o Measure E results in cumbersome discretionary approval process • Lack of quality industrial space
o Small format buildings are needed
o Support companies as they grow
• Desire for more amenities on Thousand Oaks Boulevard
o Success of Tarantula Hill Brewing Company as evidence • Attract young families and maintain high-quality public schools • Attract new technology and (bio)science companies or startups • Synergy between neighboring bioscience companies
• City aid in business expansion
• Reposition and revitalize former or declining retail centers • Increase industrial space to support rising demand
• Streamline entitlement process
• Incentivize private employers to offer shuttles for workers commuting into Thousand Oaks • Cultivate new identity for Thousand Oaks
o Attract newcomers
o Clear vision for the future
o Promote Thousand Oaks
• Building stock of wet lab space
• Diversify housing stock
o Help fill open jobs
o Attract recent college graduate/young professionals
o Attract young families
o Provide housing options for service workers
• Regional transit
o Enhance transit options between nearby communities to help elevate commuting • Diversify city revenue base
o Over-reliance on retail sales
• Create a Downtown as central focal point
o Central node of activity
o Provides entertainment and amenities
o Attract younger generations
o Strengthen retail
• Make doing business easier
Summary | March 3, 2021
On March 3, 2021, Raimi + Associates led a focus group meeting via Zoom on environmental justice and equity as part of the Thousand Oaks General Plan update project. The group focused on soliciting feedback for SB 1000 requirements, discussion of inequities occurring in Thousand Oaks, a vision for an equitable city, and goals and programs to be included in the General Plan. A summary of the discussion is provided below.
Members from the following affiliations participated in the discussion:
• Buen Vecino
• Thrive Conejo
• Adelante Conejo
• Former CVUSD Board member
• We Belong 805
• 805 Resistance
• Senior Concerns
• National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) • Latino Connections Club Advisor
• Safe Passage
• Lutheran Social Services
• Plan for public finance, overall vision, and investment priorities • How were factors chosen, why was disability not considered? • Looking for General Plan timeline.
• When was the last time the Housing Element was updated? • Housing that is affordable (not be definition, but actually) • Transportation – there is a lot of development is planning in the alternatives, but need to connect centers- seniors who are aging or homebound, and people with disabilities. • Issues or race that council is not ready to bring up for discussion in public. • Better, easier, walkable access to public parks and where they are. Interested to hear about cross-section between housing and pollution.
• Observing pockets of housing, right by the highway, thinking of fumes that people are breathing, children living there.
• Issues of race
• Issues with policing - whenever there’s a report for racist incidents, it’s hard to get good investigation and resources. For example, a South Asian family home was vandalized, and there wasn’t an interpreter to help them.
• Communication – Spanish-speaking families have no idea what’s happening in City Hall, need more advertisement in Spanish TV or radio for families and students. Need Spanish speaking interpreters and documents in multiple languages. • Wi-Fi and Computer Access – Need hotspots throughout the city and inexpensive laptops or devices for the community to have and use. Santa Paula did this for people right after the pandemic started.
• Access to food, transportation, internet. These are the minimum standards for all residents to have access to without regard to their economic status. • In order to get to a park, you have to drive. Should have parks in communities and access to parks for all residents, considering how much open space we have. • Things that affect people with disabilities affect Spanish speaking communities – where you live, access to food, low-income housing are the denominator. • Service available to all residents in Thousand Oaks should be available to all. • Agreeing to provide access is not the same as removing barriers. • Problem in TO with policing and mental health disorders, create a solution for it, it’s an equity and access issue for people with intellectual and mental disabilities. • No good internet infrastructure; became clear in pandemic. Its an opportunity to attract new businesses, can develop broad band for all at a minimum. • Transportation – would like to see TO commit to Vision Zero and use the equity indicators provided in the VZ.
• No comfortable biking in TO.
• Not safe to walk or cross streets (provided example of cross a street with disabled daughter who moves slowly and having to grab her arm and run across the street). • Buses were empty before COVID are empty now and transportation system is broken. • Concerns with having internet access when COVID started. • Lack of affordable and supportive housing for single-parent households. • Discrimination and racism against Latinos
• Affordable and safe homes for low-income families with children • Internet is like a utility now.
• Asian hate is on the rise, City Council is not comfortable talking about it; 805 has submitted a resolution; Chinese New Year and anniversary of Japanese internment was not celebrated, need some sort of master calendar to include all people in the community. TO sets a tone that is not welcoming to people who are not white and rich, but the community is much more diverse than that.
• Creates exclusion, fear, etc.
• Need equity and inclusion of cultures, languages, etc. • Exclusionary mindset in city – It’s in the fabric of the city, its not really intentional and there are small things that happen in daily life (subtle acts that happen every day everywhere create that atmosphere of exclusion); Shared example of being asked for ID as a Latina after the white person before her in line didn’t get asked for ID; innocuous but has an impact. • How to address he people that are afraid of affordable housing in their neighborhoods • Crux of new commissions and even in the General Plan, it will be important to call out white supremacy, so we can create a general plan that’s inclusive. • Don’t see people of color, cultural backgrounds, and people with disabilities considered in the city.
• Hopefully a commission can help with these issues, can’t make people change how they think but can have some regulations or ways of operating how meetings are done, how a General Plan is created.
• Discrimination by police and other entities is real and have seen it several times – traffic stops, cooperation with other cities that hire the sheriff’s office. • Crunch generations *taking care of aging parents and young kids* want more zoning for granny flats and starter homes and wrap around services. • Provide training on crisis intervention with staff.
• Have community liaisons.
• Need to do a Needs Assessment to capture what’s going on in areas where the data can’t show it. Equity analysis is not enough.
• Develop a DEI Commission that reviews developments.
• Require ongoing review of the General Plan and having DEI be a permanent part of the City. • Be intentional about engagement of people not usually involved in the planning process. • Be intentional with hiring for bilingual, bicultural, or other diverse experiences. • Be intentional with leadership development of people of different backgrounds in the City’s commissions and board or wherever else decisions are happening. • City should set the tone about racism, letting people know it not okay to be racist through education about the issues.
• Require training for city staff and council members in equity – it’s no longer okay to not understand how to change how you speak to and about people in the community. • Passing the resolution can be included as part of this General Plan. • Develop projections of expenses (fixed and major) as well as revenues for the General Plan implementation or even 5-10 years to show what we want to see if actually achievable – it’s affordable in the context of the budget and is only a small percentage of projected revenues and expenses.
• Send planning and land use development notices and materials in English and Spanish to send message to people that they’re welcome to participate. • Add subtitles/captions to all video meetings and announcements posted by the City. A great job is already being done with social media. On that note, closed captioning or ASL interpreter should also be a minimum for City communications, so people feel welcome. • Explore switching from buses to vans (ride share or dial-a-ride) and smart cars and other modes or services that are more convenient and serve the needs of young people (teens and students don’t really want to drive anymore).
• Sync local transportation from Conejo Valley to Moorpark College and improve headways for young people to be able to get to and from the college more easily.
ThousandOaksGeneralPlanUpdate: Arts and Culture Element
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Summary | October and November 2019 Site Visits
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW SUMMARY | 1
On October 14th and 15th, 2019 and November 18th and 19th, 2019, The Cultural Planning Group conducted 24 stakeholder interviews/meetings with Thousand Oaks’ civic leadership and arts stakeholders, about arts and cultural issues and opportunities for the Thousand Oaks General Plan Update. The comments received at these meetings have been categorized into major categories – preserve, enhance, change opportunities, and barriers to change.
Members from the following affiliations were interviewed:
City of Thousand Oaks Councilmembers
City of Thousand Oaks leadership and staff
California Lutheran University
City of Thousand Oaks Youth Commission
Conejo Valley Unified School District
Conejo Recreation and Park District
Civic Arts Plaza Resident Companies
Cultural Affairs Department staff
Visual Artists
Thousand Oaks Alliance for the Arts Alliance Board (TO Arts) Thousand Oaks Library Services
Culturally specific community groups
PRESERVE
• Richness of arts and cultural sector
• History and heritage of Thousand Oaks
• Civic connections among City, organizations, and residents • Civic Arts Plaza events/activities
• Close and longstanding relationship with California Lutheran University • Close and longstanding relationship with Conejo Recreation and Park District • Highly-prized quality of life for community
• Faith community
• Youth community arts programming
• Library system and programming
ENHANCE/ATTRACT
• Thousand Oaks as an “arts city”
• Forge stronger community connections
• Create a identity for the City
• Create more gathering spaces
• Spaces for large festivals and events
• Opportunities for creative activities and events
o For youth, young professionals and families
• Build community connections between City and creative businesses/arts organizations STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW SUMMARY | 2
• Arts as a healing opportunity (trauma, teen issues)
• Celebration of cultural diversity of community
• Broaden focus to the arts outside of the Civic Arts Plaza • Communications and community calendar
CHANGE OPPORTUNITIES
• Engagement of artists in municipal government
o Community engagement, transportation, communications
• Expanded arts partnerships with libraries and California Lutheran University • Arts education in schools (serving needs of youth and cultivating the next generation of arts patrons) • New Campus Master Plan
o Creative programming
o Community gathering spaces
o Performance spaces
o Public art
o New partnerships
• Formal public art program
• Art on trails and in parks
• Artist live/work spaces and studios (adaptive reuse of retail, mixed-use development downtown) • Activities that appeal to younger members of community • Investment in cultural programming beyond the Civic Arts Plaza • Creative workers being attracted to the City due to biotech jobs o Create a culturally vibrant downtown
• Retaining youth in community to work and live
• Cross-over opportunities
o Arts and eco-tourism
o Arts and health and wellness programming
BARRIERS TO CHANGE
• Focus always on Civic Arts Plaza
• Funding restrictions for the arts
• Residents’ resistance to some forms of change
• Affordable housing
• Retaining and attracting young professionals due to lack of cultural vitality • Aging community
• Lack of celebration of diversity
KEY ORGANIZATIONS/GROUPS TO REACH
• Creative businesses
• Young professional employees
• Faith organizations
• California Lutheran University
• Culturally specific groups and residents
• Community youth
• Culturally diverse residents
Thousand Oaks GeneralPlan Update: Arts and Culture Element Arts Roundtable Discussion
Summary | November 18th, 2019
As part of the City of Thousand Oaks General Plan Update, The Cultural Planning Group led an open town hall discussion group on the state of the arts in Thousand Oaks. The meeting was held Monday, November 18th, 2019, at the Civic Arts Plaza. The discussion focused on the current and desired state of the cultural life of Thousand Oaks. A summary of key takeaways and themes is provided below.
Members from the following affiliations participated in the discussion: performing, visual and literary arts; arts organizations; artists; board members; arts administrators; arts educators; and other arts stakeholders.
NOTABLE STRENGTHS/RESOURCES
City has included an arts and cultural element in the GPU Arts and cultural funding available from City
Talent/resources in community
Diverse population, economically and socially
Passion for the arts
Visual and performing artists living and working in the community Community and professional organizations
Civic Arts Plaza and other community venues
Endowment for the arts
Robust arts community
Artistically talented youth
Lots of great spaces for arts, indoor and outdoor
Recreation and Park Department is strong and an unusual resource Community endorsed the Civic Arts Plaza
Some schools have arts programs
Strong arts philanthropy
Lots of seniors who are arts volunteers
Economic and educational level support greater awareness of the arts
CHANGE OPPORTUNITIES
Percent for arts tax (public art program)
Dedicated funding for the arts
Enhanced access to Civic Arts Plaza for the community
Arts considered as a pillar of the city, along with economic vitality, recognition of the creative economy impact of the arts Better access to the arts, more inviting environment
Unified arts curriculum for the schools
Increased City engagement and partnership with arts and cultural community to address challenges:
• Creating more vibrant places and opportunities for new and existing residents • Addressing the gaps in arts education and programming • Addressing social issues (homelessness, teen depression, trauma, etc.)
BARRIERS/GAPS
Affordability of arts (for the community)
Ability to afford to use the Civic Arts Plaza (for renters) Theaters are not supported by City (real/perceived)
Inequities of arts education in schools
No citywide master arts calendar
Demographics are changing drastically
• Decline in enrollment in schools
• Aging population
Cost of living / lack of affordable housing
Lack of true cultural literacy in community
Arts leadership homogenous (primarily White)
California independent contractor rules are changing (will affect many individuals and small businesses) Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
October 2, 2019 | 6:00-9:00pm | Civic Arts Plaza – Janet & Ray Scherr Forum On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 the City of Thousand Oaks hosted the first community forum to discuss big picture trends affecting the City as part of the General Plan Update, Thousand Oaks 2045.
The focus of the forum was on how to create happy and healthy communities. The forum took place at the Civic Arts Plaza in the Scherr Forum from 6:00 to 9:00 pm. The forum’s keynote speaker, Charles Montgomery, award-winning author and journalist, presented thoughts and ideas behind what aspects of the built environment make people happy within their City. The event had roughly 65 participants sign in using the attendance sheet and many other attended the forum without signing in, not including City staff. The estimated attendance was over 100 people.
The forum began with an introduction by Councilmember Al Adams, who discussed the history of the City’s General Plan. Matt Raimi, the lead consultant for the General Plan update, then provided context for the presentation including that the presentation was based on research but not all concepts would be applicable for Thousand Oaks. He also asked community members to complete a feedback form with three questions:
1. What ideas or concepts did you hear tonight that resonated with you and should be considered in the General Plan visioning process?
2. What ideas or concepts did you hear that you feel are not appropriate for the City of Thousand Oaks?
3. In what ways, if any, did the concepts presented change your views about land use, transportation or other planning-related topics?
Individual responses to these questions can be found in Appendix A.
Following this introduction, keynote speaker Charles Montgomery detailed scientific research connecting the built environment (the design of our streets, buildings) with measures of happiness including physical health outcomes, exercise levels, obesity, mental health, and connections with other residents. The overall conclusion of the presentation was that how we build our cities has an impact on the physical and mental health of residents.
Following the presentation, there was a question and answer session with Charles Montgomery. The topics of the questions included housing, neighborhood preservation, transportation safety (with a focus on bicycle and pedestrian safety), growth, and preservation of the scale and character of the community.
Twenty-three community members also completed the feedback form. The following is a summary of the responses organized by each of the three questions.
Key themes are summarized below:
What ideas or concepts did you hear tonight that resonated with you and should be considered in the General Plan visioning process?
• Attendees who completed the comment form overwhelmingly mentioned the need for creating a more walkable community and a safer pedestrian experience. Specific ideas that resonated included: more pedestrian crossings, pedestrian-only streets, slowing traffic in high traffic areas and traffic calming.
• The second most mentioned comment was the desire to increase cycling in the City by constructing a safer and more complete bike network. Many people like the idea of creating protected bike lanes (switching the location of bike lanes and parking to protect bikes). • While not universal, the exploration of mixed use and higher-density communities was frequently mentioned as a positive concept to explore in the General Plan update. Along with this, some people mentioned a desire to create mixed use along Thousand Oaks Boulevard, to create a downtown and to explore a “village” concept by redeveloping older malls with mixed use and locating more commercial development near residential areas. • Housing was mentioned a number of times including the need for new housing types (such as the “missing middle” [e.g., townhomes, fourplexes and walk-up apartments] and modular housing), more affordable housing, senior housing and how opposition to housing in the City has contributed to the lack of affordable housing.
• The desire for more gathering spaces was also mentioned as an important idea to explore in the General Plan update.
• Other ideas there were identified by respondents included the following:
o Reduce isolation and bring people together.
o Keep all existing open space, increase the amount of open space and only allow infill development.
o Explore steps to encourage public transit.
o Expand arts and culture, including tourism.
o Reduce parking.
o Involve children in planning.
o Make the City fossil free by 2030 and address climate change. o Explore equitable planning and environmental justice.
What ideas or concepts did you hear that you feel are not appropriate for the City of Thousand Oaks? • Majority of participants either did not fill in a response or responded that nothing presented was inappropriate for Thousand Oaks. One commenter said: “Good discussion with positive ideas – what’s inappropriate about that?”
• Approximately one quarter of responders mentioned that higher density development is not appropriate for Thousand Oaks. The reasons provided were that there is too much traffic, fire trucks don’t reach above 3 stories, the community should remain suburban and lower density and there are already too many people living in the City. • Two people mentioned that affordable housing (or housing for people who cannot afford the high housing costs in the City) should not be considered in the General Plan. One commenter said: “We are out of room, sorry. And it’s not our job.” • Two commenters were concerned about civic engagement process for the General Plan. One said that the GPAC is not representative of the community and the other was concerned that the process would be dominated by white, male, homeowners. • Other comments included that embracing diversity will be challenging for Thousand Oaks residents and that bike lanes are not needed.
In what ways, if any, did the concepts presented change your views about land use, transportation or other planning-related topics? (Note that 5 of the 23 respondents did not complete this question.) • Like question one, the most mentioned concept was about bicycle and pedestrian transportation and the need to reduce automobile use. Some specific comments mentioned are listed below:
o “Relieved to hear that there are models to draw from to reduce auto dependence syndrome.”
o “Reinforced the walkability goals of design that I am familiar with.” o “Planning for a less auto-centric community.”
o “How ‘speed kills’-- pedestrians as well as an opportunity for connectivity, which is what fosters a sense of community.”
• Many respondents mentioned a changed or modified view of mixed use for Thousand Oaks, but several qualified their statement by limited the height or location of mixed-use buildings. Specific ideas included constructing mixed use in hubs, locating mixed use along Thousand Oaks Boulevard and the benefits of mixed use to building community interaction, reducing traffic and increasing the tax base. Some quotes from respondents included:
o “Some combination of residential/retail/commercial that does not increase density and noise; not over 3 stories.”
o “Business and housing ‘core’ can help tax base + reduce traffic” o “I’m more open to 3-5 story mixed use (business + residential) buildings.” o “The importance of mixed use building to build community.” o “Perhaps the boulevard as appropriate to build multi use buildings…” • Several respondents generally agreed with the direction of the ideas presented by Charles Montgomery. Specific comments included:
o “No change. Support the concepts presented.”
o “I agree with the speaker”
o “No change – validation.”
• Housing was mentioned multiple times including the need to address the issue of affordable housing.
• Other new concepts mentioned included
o Redesign the front of Civic Arts Plaza and parking in front of The Lakes shopping center.
o Thousand Oaks is for everyone/all kinds of people.
o Build connections and ways to be involved in the community. o Involve children in the visioning process.
o Do not give up any parks or open spaces.
Con1D1unity ForUJn Question Card
NaJDe:
Address:
E1nai1:
Question( 1) ijj'I\,) �r/rel -rh,Q d1sMl/<rn 17J for� �lO'-/f ('" ? z)!JJ�'(?J\ \JJ4s \-t ()f:f!l,.'\.llv (J\l�t]� �
3j
� vl
W½
� v
vtf
rJ,,,
b.,;
VI ij'-1
'l•il
-1
le
(+
I ,,
Ct [o () { �
((), j �J fir-'"'.
1-o !���
�
1�'..!�tM�
lf'Jr_ ?fJ:; � 7,
Conun11nity Fornlll Question Carel
GENERAL PLAN 2045
• rooted In community ·
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
January 29, 2020 | 6:30-8:30pm | Civic Arts Plaza – Janet & Ray Scherr Forum On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 the City of Thousand Oaks hosted the second community forum to discuss big picture trends affecting the City as part of the General Plan Update, Thousand Oaks 2045.
The forum took place at the Civic Arts Plaza in the Scherr Forum from 6:30 to 8:30 pm. The event had roughly 50 participants, not including City staff.
After a brief opening by Mayor Al Adam, the forum’s keynote speaker, Joe Minicozzi, Principal of Urban3, explored the relationship between development type, city expenses for infrastructure and services, and city revenues. Mr. Minicozzi presented case studies from cities across the United States demonstrating impacts of development patterns on community economic health.
During the presentation and subsequent Q&A, Mr. Minicozzi challenged our assumptions about the relationship between land use, development intensity and tax revenues. He introduced the notion that a city is a social corporation that should build wealth and provide long-lasting community benefits. Further, a city should expect a return on its investment in infrastructure, particularly roads and utilities, by generating tax revenues to pay for the long-term maintenance of the infrastructure.
Using graphics and visual mapping, he showed how sprawling, low density development has resulted in inefficiencies compared to more compact development patterns. One of his key messages was to rethink revenue metrics; instead of examining revenues by project, we should examine tax revenues per acre. When revenues per acre are used it’s clear that higher density development uses land more efficiently and produces far greater returns for a city. For example, he compared a WalMart in Ashville, NC to a 6-story mixed use building downtown. In raw numbers, the 34-acre WalMart produces, $20M per year compared to only $11M for the 0.2-acre mixed use building. However, when comparing property and sales tax per acre, it becomes clear that the mixed use building is more efficient as it produces $634,000 in total property taxes and $84,000 in city sales tax per acre compared to Walmart’s $6,500 per acre in property tax and $48,000 per acre in sales tax.
Mr. Minicozzi showed how building types can produce different levels of county tax revenues. Using information from 21 of his studies, he found that a mall or strip commercial development produces $9.30 per acre in property taxes compared to $47.80 for a 2-story mixed use building, $95.00 for a 3 story mixed use building and $274.00 for a 6-story mixed use building. His message for cities like Thousand Oaks—that have limited land resources—is to consider more compact development as a critical strategy for generating tax revenues, which in turn pay for quality public services and the ongoing maintenance of existing infrastructure.
The presentation also included maps and data showing the visual and spatial implications of tax revenues per acre. One example from the City of Redlands is below. He used similar examples from:
Palmdale, CA; Davis, CA; Riverside and Eastvale, CA; Fresno, CA, Hennepin County, MN; Bozeman, MT; and other jurisdictions.
Mr. Minicozzi tied his presentation to Thousand Oaks 2045 by highlighting the opportunity to examine the relationship between Thousand Oaks’ land development patterns and long-term revenues and expenses. His message for the City and its residents is to use data, rather than values or feelings, to make land use and development decisions that provide wealth and generate revenue for the community. This will ensure that the City can maintain its high quality of life, preserve its open space and maintain public facilities and services.
Following the presentation, there was a question and answer session with Joe Minicozzi which is summarized below.
• One participant asked if the City has sufficient fire infrastructure (fire trucks, etc.) to support higher density development? Thousand Oaks City Manager, Andrew Powers, responded to this question noting that the City of Thousand Oaks has adequate fire infrastructure to support taller structures.
• Some residents posed a fear of development height above Thousand Oaks’ current height restrictions for fear of destroying town character. Mr. Minicozzi challenged the audience to think about how they define character.
• One participant asked when parking is not required for a business, patrons seem to park in other businesses lots and walk to their destination. Which could be considered a subsidy. Mr.
Minicozzi noted that a parking strategy can offer centralized parking lots (or structures) that serves surrounding businesses.
• Mayor Adam noted that Thousand Oaks lacks a street grid system like cities mentioned in the presentation (Pasadena and Santa Barbara), and asked, how Thousand Oaks could become more pedestrian friendly. Mr. Minicozzi noted that Thousand Oaks should consider the long-term cost benefit analysis of their current street system design and consider adding in a new roadway network in their downtown area. • One participant noted that they would summarize the presentation as encouraging building efficiency, not necessarily tall buildings.
• Matt Raimi, the City’s General Plan consultant, offered an observation while facilitating the question and answer session, noting that most of the development in Thousand Oaks occurred between the 1970s and 1990s. The infrastructure developed during those years is now coming due for major investments, and there is not a lot of new vacant land to produce taxes to pay for those impending costs.
• One participant asked what Mr. Minicozzi thought about the relationship between density and the changes in demographic makeup of a community. Noting that they think many communities reject the idea of density for fear of demographic shifts. • One participant asked for Mr. Minicozzi to elaborate on an example from his presentation regarding a downtown shoe store that brought high value to its community economic health. Mr. Minicozzi responded that the building footprint took up 100% of the lot and had high potency which yielded high taxes per acre, despite being a small structure. • Another participant asked whether tax values or assessed values were used in the presentation, and how California’s Prop 13 impacts reassessments here versus other states where such Propositions don’t apply.
• A participant asked how Thousand Oaks, which is mostly built out and over 90% of the land will not change in the next 20 years should consider redevelopment potential. Mr. Minicozzi responded that the city should look at the existing land use and tax data then develop a basic level of floor area ratio (FAR) needed t0 collect revenues to support ongoing infrastructures maintenance costs.
• Lastly, a participant asked if Thousand Oaks should consider trying to establish a street grid structure to accommodate more efficient use of land?
For more information and to watch a recording of the second community forum click here.
The community forum ended with an encouragement for audience members to spread the word about the General Plan and to attend the February 6, 2020 GPAC meeting.
September 12, 2019 | 6:00 pm – 8:30 pm | Los Robles Greens Golf Course Sunset Ballroom On Thursday, September 12, 2019, the City of Thousand Oaks hosted the first workshop to engage the community in identifying the vision and key priorities for the Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 update project. The workshop took place at Los Robles Greens Golf Course Sunset Ballroom from 6:00 to 8:30 pm and had approximately 126 attendees, excluding the consultant team, elected officials, and city staff. This workshop was the first in a series of four that will take place over the course of the General Plan update.
Upon arrival, participants were encouraged to visit six open house style activity stations. Participants perused the stations and gave feedback for the first hour, then the workshop formally began with an introduction by City Manager, Andrew Powers. Next, Matt Raimi, project consultant with Raimi + Associates, provided an overview presentation of the Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 objectives, schedule, engagement program, and key existing conditions. Matt then introduced the small group discussions, and invited participants to begin.
The following summary highlights key themes and ideas from small group discussions and activity stations. This summary does not represent every comment made during the workshop. For detailed responses, see Appendix A.
The activity stations consisted of the following topics:
• What is a General Plan? – Station 1 provided a brief overview of what a General Plan consists of, why it is important for the City, and the role it plays in future growth and development. • Thousand Oaks at a Glance – Station 2 provided demographics of the City and statistics regarding housing, economics, education and transportation. • Demographic Information – Station 3 provided an interactive opportunity for participants to answer questions about their background. Participants placed stickers on an exhibit to share information about themselves, such as: age, ethnic background, if they live and/or work in Thousand Oaks and how long they have lived in the City. • Where Do You Live, Work, Shop, Play, and Learn in Thousand Oaks? – Station 4 allowed participants to identify on a map where they live, work, shop, play and learn throughout the City with colored stickers.
• What is Your Vision for Thousand Oaks 2045? - Participants were given a worksheet to draw or write their vision for Thousand Oaks. All worksheets were put on display during the workshop, so participants could view their neighbors’ responses. • Comments- At the comment station, participants were encouraged to submit written comments and input on the project.
Participants formed 16 roundtable groups of 6-8 participants, each with a facilitator from the project team. At the start of the discussion, facilitators and participants were give worksheets and encouraged to take detailed notes, which were collected by the project team at the end of the workshop. Each table was encouraged to spend approximately 15 minutes per question and the table’s designated reporter provided a summary of the group’s input at the end of the discussion.
Participants were asked the following questions:
1. What makes Thousand Oaks unique and special?
2. What are the issues and challenges that the City is facing today and in the future? What concerns do you have about the future?
3. What is your vision for Thousand Oaks in 2045?
Below is a summary of the major themes that were captured for each of the questions through the roundtable discussions.
• Preserve Assets. Many participants noted the open space, parks, access to nature, suburban character, family-friendly community and small town feel as key assets in the community that should be preserved.
• Issues and Challenges. Participants expressed fear of losing the current character and quality of life in the city, concern over the cost of housing, vacant commercial buildings, taking care of an aging population, traffic congestion, ensuring stable water supply, entertainment for youth and adults, and homelessness, among others.
• Opportunities. Participants named multiple opportunities including; revitalize Thousand Oaks Boulevard, adding a diversity of housing options including housing for employees who work in the city, creating a “downtown,” investing in local and small businesses, the retrofit or repurpose vacant properties, and more opportunities for cultural and entertainment events and venues.
• Vision for the Future. Participants envisioned creating more gathering spaces, maintaining parks and open space, expanding the age diversity of the population, growing in a sustainable way, creating a downtown with a mix of uses, improving the infrastructure in the city, expanding partnerships with local businesses and educational facilities, and preserving residential neighborhoods.
What makes Thousand Oaks unique and special?
• Fresh air and environment
• Safe and clean city
• Access to open space and nature
• Strong arts emphasis
• Citizen engagement in government
(committees, etc.)
• Not crowded
• Open space, trails, and oak tress
• Schools and quality of education
• Small town community feel
• Family friendly city
• Openness
• Well maintained neighborhoods
• Civic Arts Plaza and performing arts
• Ease of getting around – wide roads
and free parking
• Employer base
• Single family neighborhoods
• Ring of open space
• Biotech hub
• Equestrian properties and stables
• Parks, dog parks, hiking trails
• Historic preservation
• Accessibility of health care
What issues and challenges are the city facing today and in the future? What concerns do you have about the future?
• Lack of diverse and affordable housing
• Aging population
• Lack of low-income housing
• Need job opportunities for young
people
• Need better housing balance
• Dated development standards
• Demand for amenities and capital
infrastructure
• Underutilized commercial space
• Not pedestrian friendly
• Need greater environmental
protection
• Homelessness
• Pollution – air, noise, traffic
worsening
• Cell towers (5G) near residential
neighborhoods
• Dying retail
• Lack of public places or sense of place
• Wildfires and changing climate risk
• Unstable water supply and drought
risk
• Limited risk taking in local
government
• Stagnancy in development and
planning
• Must meet complex needs of
increasingly older population
• Need greater job diversity to support
living and working in Thousand Oaks
• Underestimating threats and crime
• Lack of racial diversity
• Lack of innovative mobility options
• Climate change affecting our open
space and oak trees
• Need to strengthen our disaster
preparedness for fires, earthquakes,
etc.
• Lack of entertainment and activities
for young people
• Need higher paying local jobs
• High cost to build housing or operate a
business in the city
• Extreme housing shortage
• High cost of local utilities
• Over building of apartments near
single family homes
• Don’t want to become the San
Fernando Valley
• Lack of public transportation (within
the city and out of the city)
• Need to maintain quality services with
rising population
• Health concerns – changes in wireless
technology, addiction, mental health
• Displacement of middle class
• Restrictions on cannabis
• Incomplete bike network
• Lack of railroad connection
• Need for affordable senior housing
What is your vision for Thousand Oaks in 2045?
• Preserved quality of life
• Preserved open space, nature, and oak
trees
• Sense of community
• Safe
• Low profile buildings
• Clean air
• Protection from changes in climate
• Sustainable and carbon neutral
• Light trail to Los Angeles and Ventura
(carbon neutral)
• Retain safety and open space
• Take risks in developing forward
thinking housing styles and
transportation systems
• Intergenerational living and
communities that support all ages
• Thousand Oaks Boulevard as a hip
gathering place with great shops, arts
and culture, and restaurants
• Expand Ventura County wildlife
corridor zoning
• Pedestrian oriented community
• Mixed use development
• Relevant for younger generations
• Less parking
• New employment opportunities –
ventures
• More inclusive
• Economically and racially diverse
• Socially balanced
• Economic sustainability
• Technologically advanced – smart city
• More accessible
• Entertainment district with nightlife
• Thousand Oaks Boulevard streetcar
• Easy to live and work in Thousand
Oaks
• Collaboration between the school
district and local government
• Repurpose vacant and underutilized
buildings
• Increased density along thousand oaks
boulevard
• Maintain safety
• Environmentally friendly
• Livable for young people
• Return of children who grew up in
Thousand Oaks
• Preservation of neighborhoods
• Zero waste community
The following results indicate who participated in the demographic information activity station.
Note that not all participants completed the demographics survey. • Live + Work in Thousand Oaks. Majority of participants live or live and work in Thousand Oaks. • Tenure in Thousand Oaks. Majority of participants who attended the workshop have lived in Thousand Oaks for more than 31 years. A high number of participants also lived in Thousand Oaks between 11-20 years and 21-30 years.
• Age. The highest number of participants fell into the 45-64 age category, while a high number also participants also fell into the 35-44 and 65 and older category. • Background. Majority of participants at the first workshop identified as White (not Hispanic).
The following results indicate where workshop
participants live, work, play, shop, and learn in
Thousand Oaks. Note that not all participants
completed the mapping activity.
Stickers indicated the following:
• Yellow = where you live
• Black = where you work
• Green = where you play
• Red = where you shop
• Blue = where you learn
Results were clustered around the following areas:
• Live
o Dos Vientos
o Newbury Park
o Westlake
o Wildwood
o Sunset Hills
o Central Thousand Oaks (both
sides of 23 Freeway)
• Work
o California Lutheran University
o Los Robles Hospital
o Elementary, Middle and High
Schools
o Rancho Conejo Business/
Industrial Center
o Townsgate Road Business Park
o Thousand Oaks Boulevard
• Play
o Parks, open space & trail heads
o Grant R. Brimhall Library
o The Oaks Mall and Janss
Marketplace
• Shop
o Arboles and Moorpark
Shopping Center
o The Oaks Mall and Janss
Marketplace and surrounding
areas
o Westlake Boulevard and
Thousand Oaks Boulevard
shopping centers
o Westlake Boulevard and
Hampshire Road shopping
Center
o Lindero Canyon Road
• Learn
o California Lutheran University
o Library and Senior Center
o Thousand Oaks Boulevard
o Hub 101
o The Oaks and Janss
Marketplace
The following summarizes highlights from the My Vision activity station. Individual responses to this exercise are included at the end of this summary in Appendix A. Note that not all participants completed the My Vision exercise.
Participants envision the following for Thousand Oaks 2045:
• High quality of life and welcoming
place to live
• No barriers between communities
• Focused on future generations
• Diverse, balanced, safe, friendly,
happy and prejudice free
• Sustainable, green, and carbon free
• Clean air and water
• Trees, nature, wildlife, and preserved
open space
• Less car-centric, and more walkable,
bikeable, and expanded trails
• Preservation of neighborhoods and
dark skies
• No additional growth or development
• No 5G small cell cites
• Reduced noise and traffic
• Preservation of Western culture
• Prepared for emergencies
• Diverse job opportunities, job
providers, and abundance of livingwage jobs
• Vibrant Thousand Oaks Boulevard
• Filled with “third places” like a
Downtown, central district or old town
(note: the term “third place” refers to
places you spend your time outside of
work and home)
• Diverse housing options including
multi-generational, elderly, special
needs, homeless, and low-income
housing
• More entertainment options,
restaurants and local businesses
• Investments in technology and
innovation
• Smart growth, greater density, and
mixed-use development
• Regional transportation, light rail or
trolley, controlled traffic
• Most outstanding community in
southern California
• Youth in local leadership
At the end of the roundtable discussion report-outs, the floor was available for an open comment session and a selection of the comments that were made are listed below. • Concern about potential change to Thousand Oaks; many like the community as it is now. • Preserve the small-town feel, while incorporating progressive ideas of inclusivity to make the City more diverse.
• Develop in a smart and innovative way.
• Support public transit advancement.
• Concern over new technology that harms health (5G).
• Offer more programs to prevent homelessness including programs for veterans of war. • Expand on recreation and entertainment opportunities in the City, so people do not have to travel to Los Angeles or neighboring cities.
• Maintain the family-oriented atmosphere in the community and balance needs of young people and older adults.
• Desire to allow beekeeping in Thousand Oaks.
• Desire for hubs of community around town connected by light rail.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 1
THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL
PLAN 2045
JOINT GPAC MEETING + WORKSHOP #2
SUMMARY
February 2, 2021 | 6:00 pm – 8:30 pm | Virtual Zoom Webinar
OVERVIEW
On Tuesday, February 2, 2021, the City of Thousand Oaks hosted a joint General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and public workshop to present three draft land use alternatives for the Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 update project. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the workshop took place virtually as a Zoom Webinar from 6:00 to 8:30 pm. Approximately 255 attendees (including 17 GPAC members) joined the Zoom meeting, not counting the consultant team, elected officials, and city staff, with an additional 45 YouTube livestream views. GPAC members participated in the webinar as panelists and were able to use audio to ask questions, while members of the public joined as attendees and typed questions into the Q&A feature. This joint meeting was the second workshop in a series of four that will take place over the course of the General Plan update.
The joint event served as an overview of the materials presented in the Land Use Alternatives Briefing Book, which provides detailed background on the land use alternatives process and maps. The purpose of this event was to provide an overview of the three draft land use alternatives, answer questions from the GPAC and public about the alternatives and instruct the community about how to provide feedback on the land use alternatives. An online survey was available between February 2, 2021 and March 15, 2021, in English and Spanish, and was printed and hand delivered upon request.
The following summary includes an overview of the presentation, polling questions and results, and summary of questions and answers from the GPAC and members of the public.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 2
PRESENTATION
The meeting began with an introduction by City Manager, Andrew Powers, and continued with a presentation by Matt Raimi, project consultant with Raimi + Associates. The evenings presentation was divided into several sections including background, alternatives overview, review of land use alternatives, comparison of alternatives, and conclusion and next steps. Throughout the presentation, the General Plan Team paused to answer questions and facilitate polls. Below are highlights of the presentation sections.
Background
The presentation began with a recap of the General Plan Update process, the benefits of a General Plan Update and key terminology used throughout the presentation of alternatives and in the briefing book. This also included an overview of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements, the City’s Measure E ordinance, and recent State SB330 legislation.
Alternatives Process
This section served as a precursor to the three land use alternatives by highlighting results from previous community engagement activities that led to the delineation of the areas of stability, where little to no change is anticipated, and areas of change, where the General Plan Team proposes changes in land use and or character. Matt noted that less than 8% of the City was identified as an area of change. Also presented in this section were the land use designations which included descriptions and supportive imagery.
Review of Land Use Alternatives
The land use alternatives are a long-term vision for the City that tests values and ideas from the community process. In this section, the three land use alternatives were presented highlighting the common themes and differences among the areas of change. The alternatives were also reviewed as five subareas: Rancho Conejo, Moorpark and West Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Westlake and East End, and village centers within the City.
Comparison of Alternatives
Following the detailed overview of each alternative by sub area, Matt presented a high-level comparison of land use category percentages for the three alternatives and metrics comparing the existing 1970 General Plan to the three land use alternatives.
Conclusion and Next Steps
The meeting concluded with an overview of next steps, including how members of the public could provide feedback through the briefing book, online survey, and virtual office hours.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 3
POLLING
Throughout the presentation, the General Plan Team used informal polls to engage GPAC members and attendees.
Below are the poll questions and corresponding results. Please note that not all participants completed one or all polls, and the participants who connected by phone only did not have access to the virtual poll.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
Live Work Own a
business
Own a
property
None of
the
above
Do you live and or work in
Thousand Oaks?
GPAC + Public Responses
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
If you live in Thousand Oaks, how
long have you lived here?
GPAC + Public Responses
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Rent Own
If you live in Thousand Oaks, do
you rent or own your home?
GPAC + Public Responses
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Under 18 25-34 35-44 45-64 65 or
older
What is your age?
GPAC + Public Responses
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 4
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
None, this is my first 1-3 meetings 4-6 meetings 7 or more meetings How many General Plan-related meetings and events
have you attended?
GPAC + Public Responses
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
NO. Continue to allow
townhomes and small
apartments in Medium
Density Areas
YES. Lower the density and
transfer the capacity to the
Areas of Change
A combination of the above don't know
The existing General Plan allows for townhomes and small apartments to be built in some single-family areas. The proposed alternatives would reallocate this unbuilt residential capacity into the Areas of Change. Do you agree with this approach?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
In Rancho
Conejo
At The Oaks
Mall or Janss
Marketplace
Near Downtown On the eastern
end of
Thousand Oaks
Boulevard (e.g.,
the Pavilion at
Westlake)
Around
Westlake Village
Shopping Center
In shopping
centers
throughout the
City
No preference
What is your top choice for where housing should be added? Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Yes, add a mixed-use district for
employees to live near where they
work
No, maintain the area for jobs only Not sure
Do you think that mixed-use development should be allowed in or immediately adjacent to Rancho Conejo?
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Leave it as a regional mall Maintain some retail but
allow townhomes and 2-3
story multifamily residential
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 3-4 story
mixed-use
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 5-6 story
mixed-use
What best describes your vision for the future of The Oaks Mall? 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Leave it as a regional mall Maintain some retail but
allow townhomes and 2-3
story multifamily residential
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 3-4 story
mixed-use
Redevelop with “main
street” retail and 5-6 story
mixed-use
What best describes your vision for the future of Janss Marketplace? Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Yes No Not sure
Should multifamily residential development be allowed on Thousand Oaks Boulevard?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Keep as-is Increasing development potential and
employment opportunities in the area
Allow a portion to convert to mixeduse
What best describes your vision for the Townsgate Road area? Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 7
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Throughout the presentation, the General Plan Team paused for questions to allow for discussion and input. The General Plan Team answered various questions from the GPAC, and the public submitted through the Q&A feature in Zoom Webinar. Questions and comments from the GPAC and the public are listed below (bolded) along with the General Plan Team responses (italics).
Questions from the GPAC
As the population and number of housing units increases on Thousand Oaks Boulevard, will the Plan include required publicly accessible parks and open space? How does that fit into the general plan designations?
The General Plan will identify general areas where new public parks are needed, but it cannot designate private property as parks or open space, as it would eliminate that property’s development potential and monetary value. Cityowned property can be designated as future parks.
RHNA numbers are significantly higher than previous cycles, does this include a “catch up” set of numbers? Can you provide background on these numbers?
This round does include an increase because over the last 30 years the State has not kept up with population growth and housing demands. The last time California was this unbalanced was in the 1980s. As a State, we are in a housing deficit of about 2.4 million units. This RHNA cycle was an attempt to begin to make up for that deficit. It is unclear if the State will continue to use higher numbers in the future.
How does transit factor into the land use designations? Is proximity to transit a factor when considering residential types?
More people in a concentrated area and higher density residential results in more successful transit options. The areas identified by the GPAC and the public for higher density housing happen to be in locations that may be viable for public transit.
To what extent will we build in assumptions about retail space and office space based on the COVID-19 pandemic?
There are knowns and unknowns related to the pandemic and its impact to the build environment. We know that retail and types of retail will likely change permanently, while the verdict is still out on office space. We are currently seeing development projects moving forward with office components across the city.
Can you summarize what the General Plan is, and what it isn’t, how it relates to city council, assisting property owners, etc.?
The General Plan is the long-term vision and policy document for the city, often referred to as the city’s constitution. All decisions about development flow from the General Plan and future policy documents must be consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan sets forth land use designations, which regulate, at a high level, future uses that are allowed on each property within the City. General Plan land use designations feed into Zoning, which includes dimensional requirements for properties like building height, setbacks, etc. There are a series of other documents and regulations that implement the vision of the General Plan. The General Plan does not build or demolish buildings, it sets the vision of the future of the City, and it is at the discretion of property owners to make changes to their property according to the vision and guidance set forth in the General Plan.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 8
Is parking a factor in the alternatives development process? In the speaker series (General Plan Community Forum #2) it was mentioned that many cities over develop parking, which goes unused. Can developers repurpose parking lots into housing and/or mixed-use development? Parking was considered in a limited capacity at this phase, but the General Plan does not specify the amount of parking required for development. The General Plan can include parking related policies, but parking specifications are addressed through the Zoning Code.
Quality of life is the concern for many residents – do we have enough land to increase population? Are we going to reduce the existing quality of life?
One of the challenges the General Plan update process tries to balance is preserving quality of life and making changes that people want to see in the City. In general, we see that the best performing retail spaces can have traffic congestion around them, and the commercial spaces with plenty of parking are not performing as well. The alternatives will look for balance between activity and accessibility.
Do these three alternatives stand on their own? I saw great components of each that I liked. Are there opportunities to pull different components from each?
Yes, the goal of the alternatives phase is to test different ideas. In some instances, we are looking at the extremes to test what works and gain insight from the community. The preferred land use alternative may ultimately be a combination of all three alternatives with new components as well. The survey asks specific questions to identify what components resonate with the community.
Throughout the alternatives process, have you considered ownership of property? What is the path to seeing the changes in the alternatives process realized? In this phase, we did not do a detailed analysis of property ownership, although through city staff we had general sense of what that looked like. Moving forward, we want to look at ownership patterns and likelihood of development. That is the difference between buildout and growth projections. Through the horizon of the General Plan (2045) we will be analyzing what could happen in roughly the next 25 years.
Questions from the Public
The following questions were asked in the Zoom Q&A feature and answered verbally by the General Plan Team.
Is parking included in FAR ratios?
Surface parking and structured parking above grade is included in FAR, while below grade parking is not.
Given the number units needed for low and very low-income housing, will the city proactively identify areas and subsidize development for these kinds of Affordable projects? After the preferred land use alternative is confirmed, the City will be required to identify specific locations that could accommodate low and very low-income housing as part of Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the Housing Element. Related to subsidies, the General Plan will address housing through policies and programs.
Can you provide more detail related to the parks and open space question? While we cannot designate private property for parks or open space, all new residential multifamily development is required to provide parks/open space for all units and common parks/open space as part of development standards.
Can you build taller structures thereby reducing the new land needed to develop? The alternatives explore those options. The alternatives have different organizations of land by either concentrating the development through taller structures or increasing the number of areas proposed for residential development.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 9
Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is becoming an important part of land use planning – are any land use alternatives future scenarios that reduce VMT being considered? Yes, VMT is one of the metrics that is considered when evaluating the three land use alternatives, in addition the EIR will consider the impacts to VMT through the proposed land use changes.
What will ultimately be presented to City Council?
Feedback from the survey, office hours, and this meeting will direct changes to the land use alternatives, which will be presented to City Council and Planning Commission in the Spring.
Have the previous General Plans been directed by State mandated housing laws or where they directed by a locally driven process?
A combination of both, this update process includes all Elements of the General Plan, however, the housing element has several State requirements that must be addressed every 8 years. There are repercussions for not having a certified housing element in each of the 8-year cycles, the city would not be eligible for grant funding that could limit or reduce many capital programs.
What is the penalty for violating SB 330?
Recent legislation puts financial penalties on a city for not complying with SB 330.
After the General Plan is adopted, how would a property owner go about requesting a land use change? Individuals would have to apply for a General Plan and Zoning amendment that would be analyzed at that time, considering the existing local ordinances (Measure E) and state requirements. We encourage folks to make detailed parcel-level comments on the briefing book and the survey, as this is a good opportunity to work through potential changes.
Do the units have to be built?
The General Plan needs to Plan for and maintain 81,124 units, but development of housing units is dependent on individual property owners. The General Plan does not build or demolish any buildings.
The following questions were asked by members of the public and answered in writing by the General Plan Team through the Zoom Q&A feature during the presentation.
Question Asked In Q&A Response In Q&A
Will you make the maps interactive so that
when you click on a parcel it tells you the
GP designation? Other cities do this to
make it more user friendly and technically
accurate for residents and professionals
viewing the maps.
After this presentation, we will provide information on how to access interactive maps that allow you to click on a parcel and check its designation.
Are there any plans to pre-zone
unincorporated islands?
Although not discussed in tonight’s presentation, the General Plan land use map will include designations for the
unincorporated county islands. No changes are being proposed for those areas.
Since there are 33,043 units available
under Measure E, how many are currently
under consideration?
As explained in the presentation, the General Plan needs to maintain the capacity for 81,124 units. These do not need to be built but planned for.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 10
Who are our hosts for this? City of Thousand Oaks and the General Plan consultant team We all understand what a "taking" is,
however, all these new housing units will
require new parks. How will this be
addressed?
City staff is working with CRPD to discuss where new housing units would potentially be built under each of the alternatives, and how that would result in needs for new or expanded park facilities. It is ultimately CRPD’s decision as to where they will place new parks to best meet the demand, and to purchase the property needed for those parks using parks impact fees collected from developers.
I am hard of hearing. Is there a way to get
subtitles?
closed captioning will be available on the city's YouTube channel tomorrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8YP74Kqkvw&feature=yo
utu.be
How do I access closed captioning? Can an
ASL interpreter be provided?
closed captioning will be available on the city's YouTube channel tomorrow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8YP74Kqkvw&feature=yo
utu.be
Are granny flats counted toward the stock
numbers?
Granny flats are not included in the total unit counts
Could you post a link to the briefing book? https://raimi.konveio.com/thousand-oaks-2045-land-usealternatives Please point me to where the survey
resides on the page? I see a link for survey
results, but not tonight’s polls.
https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts
I do not see a survey link on the main
website.
https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts
I’m on the city website and don’t see the
link for the land use link
https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts
Each parcel that has been separately
delineated on the map should include the
acreage. It isn't hard to do. They did it
when they reconfigured Measure E.
I am checking with our GIS folks. We can add to the interactive maps tomorrow. Stay tuned. This capability was added after the meeting.
All the questions being posted are not being
seen by all attendees.
I apologize for the inconvenience. I am unsure why this is happening. I encourage attendees to review the briefing book and respond to the online alternatives survey to record their comments. www.toaks2045.org
Will all the questions that are not being
answered or shown on screen be addressed
later somewhere?
If your question was not answered tonight, please attend one of our upcoming Virtual Office Hours. We received over 200 questions and tried to get to as many as possible. Thank you all for the great and thoughtful questions!
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 11
What is the threshold for low income? Income categories are based on a percentage of the median income for the county. Additional information is in the Briefing Book.
Are residents able to vote yes or no on
proposed developments in their area?
Individual residents do not vote on proposed developments, Planning Commissioners and/or the City Council vote on
projects. Residents are encouraged to participate in the public process providing input during environmental document review, public hearings and submitting correspondence to the City to help inform the decision makers.
Can you incorporate live work as a form of
mixed use in the General Plan?
Live work would be permitted in mixed use areas
Also, can we propose land uses currently
not identified to be included within the
proposed alternative change areas?
Matt will be describing these later in the presentation Also, how does the 2,615 needed units
under the state plan “fit” within the
available units under Measure E?
Measure E limits the citywide residential capacity. Many areas of the city were built at a lower density than what was allowed by the General Plan, resulting in unbuilt residential capacity.
The land use alternatives propose reallocating this unbuilt capacity from established residential neighborhoods into the Areas of Change.
What is the penalty for planning for or
building all 81,000 units?
Measure E requires that the city not plan for more than 81,124 units, while SB 330 says the city may not plan for less than that number.
Is this a new survey or is it the one we had
opportunity to fill out a month or two ago?
New survey. https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts
Is it still possible to become a member of
the GPAC?
Please attend future GPAC meetings. these are open to the public. Please sign up for notification of these meetings on www.toaks2045.org
It appears that the outcome already seems
made and the representatives of the
community is very small as there are over
100,000 people. What are you doing to get
the community involved and not push the
destruction of the community?
Please help us get as much feedback from the widest cross section of the TO community. Please respond to the online alternatives survey. www.toaks2045.org
The survey is open for the month of February.
what if we live and work in Thousand Oaks? please pick one.
The 3 options are heavily weighted on
Mixed Use. Are there still options to
consider Low Density SFD on certain
parcels?
Please provide this comment in the online survey for areas where you think Low Density SFD development would be
appropriate.
How can I get a briefing book? Is there a
link on City website?
Please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at www.toaks245.org.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 12
How much impact does input have at this
point? Could public input influence which
sites are recommended to City Council?
Please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at www.toaks245.org. This is the start of the public review process and your input is valuable
How can I obtain a copy of the 70 page
Briefing Book? Is it "online"?
Please review the briefing book at www.toaks245.org.
I'm going to understand better once I've
had a chance to read all this. It's a lot to
process from a presentation. I'd like to have
a pdf of the slides as well, the keys are too
small to read on zoom.
Please review the briefing book which has detailed information and interactive maps and respond to the survey at
www.toaks2045.org.
wow! the poll answers are full of bias, and
none offer an open ended response.
Please take the online alternatives survey which allows you to record open ended responses. www.toaks2045.org
Would like to know how many units of
housing each of the alternatives is allowing.
Are all alternatives going to allow for an
equal number increased housing units?
Please take time to read the Land Use Alternatives Briefing Book. https://www.toaks2045.org/events
All alternatives cannot allow more or less units overall due to SB 330 and Measure E.
What about solar over parking and
buildings?
Solar is now required for all new residential statewide Why do ADUs/Granny Flats not count
toward Measure E mandates? can this be
modified?
State Law does not allow ADU's to count towards land use density/capacity. Measure E cannot be modified to count ADU's as part of overall dwelling capacity.
The poll is not in conflict with the prior
poll, the question was should mix use be
allowed in NBP, the answer is yes....the
question wasn’t whether it should be
concentrated there...if that was the
question the answer would be no
Thank you for the clarification
I think the difference in opinion re: Rancho
Conejo is related to information given
regarding Alt 1 - Alt 3. We did not have this
visual when first poll regarding same was
asked.
Thank you for the clarification
Whose quality of life? The families doubled
up into apartments because they cant find a
home?
Thank you for your comment. Please also record your thoughts on the online survey. https://www.toaks2045.org/landusealts Concerned about impact to traffic of
additional development around TO
Blvd/WL Blvd. Traffic getting to and from
high school is already so challenging (preCovid when school was in session) Thank you for your comment. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Re Poll 4 - The residential areas should go
out into the business/industrial part of
Rancho Conejo. They are NOT compatible
Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 13
with the neighborhoods on the South side
of the 101.
Live Poll # 4 did not include the answers I
needed to provide. Nothing in this City
should be higher than 3 stories. That's our
limit.
Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Does this company understand that this city
doesn't want mixed use and they need to
come up with a non mixed plan. Your polls
all assume we are on board for mixed use
which I guarantee you we are not.
Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
I see another option for the mall as a
transport hub so residents to telecommute
commute but get out of their homes.
therefore, the mall becomes a “WeWork”
type of space as well. This does not exclude
the “mixed use” model, but “Mall as transit
hub” should be considered as a future
option.
Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Move the Toyota used car lot into the car
area south of the Blvd. It's an eyesore.
Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
Mixed Use growth...got it...move on to the
next section
Thank you for your feedback. Please be sure to record your comment on the online alternatives survey as well.
www.toaks2045.org
(BTW...The 2 pdf downloads of the Land
Use Alternatives briefing books do not
seem to have separate unique file names
when downloading them.)
Thank you, we will fix after this meeting.
I believe the link in response to Larry
Turner was missing a 0...it should be
https://www.toaks2045.org/
thank you.
some of these areas already have multifamily neighborhoods. Does this mean you would knock it down and rebuild it?
That is dependent of the private property owners. The General Plan sets the policy whereby a property owner could propose redevelopment if it complies with density and other policies.
What is the green area on Westlake and
East End Alt 1?
That is SCE property along Hampshire, which is designated Utilities and Flood Control.
Do they have a financial interest in what
happens? Are they tied in with any
developers?
The consultants do not own any property in the city and have been retained by the City to prepare a GP Update.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 14
Do we have enough water supply to fulfill
the requirements of measure E units in
Thousand Oaks?
The current Urban Water Management Plans for the multiple water purveyors all account for the amount of Measure E units under the 1996 General Plan. The General Plan Update
Environmental Impact report will analyze water supply under the preferred land use scenario, which will also have to be compliant with Measure E, just analyzed under current water supply circumstances.
Is the thought to take down the mall and
build new?
The development envisioned in the land use alternatives could involve demolition and replacement of existing buildings, repurposing of existing buildings, and/or new buildings to supplement existing buildings. It is up to each property owner to determine if, when, and how to redevelop their properties. The mall and many other properties in Thousand Oaks have very large surface parking lots that could be used as locations for new buildings. The parking could be replaced with parking structures.
Can you repost the slides of the areas to be
developed?
The entire presentation will be posted on the web site at toaks2045.org after the meeting. All the maps and information in the presentation are also included in the Briefing Book which is available now on the web site.
The Mixed Use land designations of Low,
Medium, & High have corresponding FAR of
0.25, 0.5, 1.0. The FAR seems to be
extremely low and not proportion to
density to achieve a reasonable size of
dwelling units. To reach these densities at
say a 0.5 FAR would have to be micro units
and not suitable for families. Is this correct?
The FAR is only for the commercial portion of a mixed-use development
Can you touch on the funding
mechanisms/strategies for implementation
at this stage in the planning process?
The General Plan puts policies in place to manage development that is initiated by the private sector based on market conditions. The City would not itself build any of the
development envisioned by these land use alternatives.
500 survey responses is not predictable of
the city desires. There are 130,000 people
and only 400_ responded. An additional
survey should be sent out now that the
program has visibility.
The General Plan update process is ongoing and there are ongoing opportunities to provide additional input. Please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at
www.toaks245.org.
Can you please type in the Q&A what Matt
said in response to Rorie's question about
parks not being provided for thousands of
new housing units? Very important
question.
The GP will assess the need for new parks. However, the city cannot designate private property as parks or open space. is the GPAC group voting, or just the
residents participating?
The GPAC and the attendees are all voting
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 15
Given the additional 2,600 RHNA units, will
the City maintain the "unit pool" system
used under Measure E? Or will that be
changed?
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) requires the City to allocate all of its residential capacity onto the land use map. The current “pool” system will be discontinued with the updated General Plan.
Given the # of units we need for low and
very low income residents, will the city
work proactively to identify parcels and
subsidize development of affordable
projects?
The Housing Element, which is a part of the GP process, will identify housing sites.
Will the planners or sustainability office
compare VMT's and estimated GHG
emission increases or reduction of each
alternative?
The metrics for VMT and GHG will be presented later in the presentation
Any indication whether those commercial
properties will actually be utilized in all
that mixed use? A town I used to live in
went very mixed use heavy at one point,
and most of the commercial spaces were
never leased. Has there been research into
the demand?
The mixed-use designations envision different options for providing a mix of uses with varying degrees of commercial and residential based on location and market conditions. We recognize that the traditional mixed-use format of retail on the ground floor and residential above does not work in all locations and can result in vacant commercial spaces if not implemented properly.
Does the City have a jobs growth goal that
was used for the alternatives?
The numbers being presented are build-out numbers.
how do I get to that firs poll we had? my
friend just logged in, Carol, and wants to
take it.
The poll was an informal survey at the start of the presentation.
It is now closed. The official survey will collect demographic information.
Not all questions are posting to everyone.
No censoring please.
The questions and responses are available to all attendees and GPAC members.
Where can I find the list of stakeholders
who were consulted earlier on?
The stakeholder summaries are available on the project website. www.toaks2045.com
How can you fulfill the state requirements if
you can not get any property owners to go
along with any Alternatives?
The State requires cities to plan for more housing understanding that the property owners have the choice to develop.
will measure E be repealed? There are no plans to repeal Measure E.
Also, is there any consideration to allow
affordable housing to be developed upon
church/synagogue land (without requiring
any type of General Plan amendment)?
There is state legislation under consideration to allow church properties to have housing by right.
None of your designs have rooftop gardens
for commercial or residential.
These type of design components would not be part of the General Plan. Those type of requirements can be incorporated into zoning ordinance update, which would follow policy direction from the General Plan.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 16
What changes in city infrastructure are
required and accordingly incorporated in
the plan to accommodate this increase in
housing and commercial density.
This will be studied as part of the Environmental Impact Report, which will be available for public review later this year.
Is there a paper version of the survey that is
being distributed, to include the input of
folks without computer or Internet access?
To request a paper copy of the Briefing Book and survey, please email [email protected].
What about traffic impact? Many roads are
near gridlock at certain times of the day.
Adding density will make this worse. As
density increases near the freeway, there
will be less space remaining to
accommodate traffic (adding turn lanes, for
instance).
Traffic will be analyzed under the Environmental Impact Report. State Law requires a new metric for analyzing
transportation, which is Vehicle Miles Travelled.
Can a property's land use designation still
be considered after this meeting for
another use? For example, if none of the
alternatives allow for housing, is there an
opportunity to add before final vote?
We are looking for all input. Please provide your comments through the survey and interactive maps provided on
www.toaks2045.com.
The final decision will be made by the City Council later this Spring.
It is critical that acreage be provided for
each parcel you're showing. If the plan is to
go to mixed use "high" (45-60 units per acre
with a possible density bonus of 35% or
greater for "affordable"), the public should
be able to determine what the ultimate
increase in intensity would be at build-out.
We have some overall acreage numbers that will be presented shortly. These are also included in the briefing book.
www.toaks2045.org
Will you add acreage for the parcels to the
map?
We will check and see if that is possible.
Will these slides be made available after
the meeting?
Yes
Will the housing element explore ADU's and
strategies to encourage these units?
Yes
Are there any traffic studies being
conducted for these alternatives?
Yes, the EIR will include traffic studies
Will this PPP be available in the TO2045
website?
yes. Also, please review the briefing book and respond to the current survey at www.toaks245.org.
Will a transportation impact study be done
to evaluate future land use scenarios?
Yes. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the General Plan, including
development that may result from the preferred land use alternative. A transportation impact study will be conducted as part of the EIR. The Draft EIR will be released for public review along with the complete draft General Plan later this year.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 17
will all of these alternatives allow for the
81,000 housing units that are needed
Yes. As described earlier, State law requires that the capacity is maintained.
Will the questions be archived? Yes. Please also provide your input by completing the survey.
Does the state mandate the number of low
income units that are required?
Yes. The RHNA allocation has a breakdown of units by income levels
Other Comments
The workshop accumulated hundreds of comments and questions - some were addressed verbally to all in attendance at the workshop, some were addressed through the written Q&A feature, and some could not be addressed due to time constraints. The major themes of the latter comments and questions are summarized below. • Please provide closed captioning, ASL interpretation, and translation at future meetings. • Housing affordability, senior housing, and multigenerational housing needs are issues that need to be addressed.
• Consider rephrasing “protect single family neighborhoods”. • How is the City analyzing needs of our local community, economy, and environment? • Please clarify the thresholds for low and very low-income housing and if that addresses housing needs for those who are experiencing homelessness.
• Please clarify Measure E local ordinance and the State’s RHNA allocation process. • How will the General Plan address inclusion, incorporate active transportation, gentrification, and address parking?
• Are minority communities, populations with disabilities, and those without internet access being proactively reached through the General Plan process?
• Will the General Plan address sustainability solutions like zero carbon housing, and are there energy use goals and requirements for the future?
• How will water supply be addressed?
• Does the General Plan accommodate existing population or entice new populations? • Are there any plans to pre-zoning unincorporated County islands? • Can you touch on the funding mechanisms or strategies for implementation at this stage in the planning process?
• Are there options to add more single family residential? • Can the acreage be provided for each parcel within the change areas? • Are there job growth targets or targets for the types of jobs being created? • Concerned about new development and potential changes to City’s character. • Will there be impacts to the local school district?
• Will a form-based code be prepared?
• Will the General Plan prepare a land use/zoning consistency analysis? • Access to affordable housing for people of all ages is a huge issue.
Live Presentation: Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #2
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 18
• Why do the alternatives propose so much retail space? • Will the General Plan include updates to infrastructure? Specifically bicycle infrastructure. • Are there public funds available to incentivize development according to the General Plan? • Why do the alternatives focus on the 101-corridor so heavily? • How does the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan interface with the new General Plan? Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 1
THOUSAND OAKS GENERAL
PLAN 2045
JOINT GPAC MEETING + WORKSHOP #3
SUMMARY
April 21, 2021 | 6:00 pm – 8:30 pm | Virtual Zoom Meeting Attendees
GPAC Members
Present: Andy Fox, Chaise Rasheed, Darren Bovard, Dustin Woomer, Fred Fukunaga, Jacqueline Emanuel, Jennifer Lobenhofer, Dr. Karen Gorback, Laura Behjan, Mic Farris, Nicholas Reale, Rorie Skei, Dr. Victor Hayek
Absent: Alicia Rincon, Amy Commans, Dr. Chris Kimball, Dena Jenson, Emily Dale, Ken Lamont, Michael Nigh.
Patrick DuRoss, Paul Shrater, Tara Carruth, Wyatt McCrea Public
This was a virtual meeting; hence no public sign-in is available.
Overview
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021, the City of Thousand Oaks hosted a joint General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and public workshop to present the preferred land use map for the Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 update project. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the workshop took place virtually as a Zoom Meeting from 6:00 to 8:30 pm. Approximately 75 attendees (including 13 GPAC members) joined the Zoom meeting, not counting the consultant team, elected officials, and city staff, with an additional 100 YouTube views. Members of the public could register in advance to join the live meeting along with GPAC members. Both GPAC and members of the public had access to video and audio throughout the presentation and discussion. This joint meeting was the third workshop in a series of four that will take place over the course of the General Plan update.
The joint event provided a brief overview of the land use alternatives survey results and supplemental analysis, an overview of key components of the preferred land use map, and breakout group discussions among GPAC and community members. The General Plan Team also announced the preferred land use map survey which was open between April 20 and May 12, 2021 and available in English and Spanish.
The following summary includes an overview of the presentation, community small group discussions, GPAC direction, and public comment.
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 2
Presentation and Discussion
The evening kicked off with a presentation by Matt Raimi, project consultant with Raimi + Associates, which was divided into several sections including background and process overview, land use alternatives survey results, overview of preferred land use map, and next steps.
Below are highlights of the presentation by section and group discussions.
PRESENTATION
Background + Process
Matt introduced the meeting objectives, how community members can provide feedback on the draft land use map, an overall update on the General Plan Update process.
The land use alternatives process overview included a recap of the flow of work, areas of change and stability map, high-level comparison of the three land use alternatives, and overview of the survey. In this section, Matt shared some of the community engagement activities conducted for the three land use alternatives, survey statistics, demographics of survey respondents, and results of detailed sensitivity analysis.
Land Use Alternatives Survey Results + Preferred Land Use Map
This section outlined the preferred land use process, proposed designations, and details of the land use alternatives survey results and how they relate to the new preferred map. The preferred land use map incorporated components of the three land use alternatives based primarily on survey results. The preferred map provides less total development capacity and maximum density compared to the previous three alternatives.
Matt highlighted the overall characteristics of the preferred land use map, then reviewed each of the five geographic areas relating survey feedback to the preferred map changes. Matt noted that the vast majority (83%) of the citywide preferred land use map is made up of single-family residential and parks, golf courses, or open space.
Preferred Land Use Alternative Next Steps
At the end of the presentation, Matt shared key dates and next steps in the preferred land use map process including the survey open through May 12, 2021, presentations to Planning Commission on April 26, 2021 and City Council on May 18th and 25th.
DISCUSSION
Breakout groups
After the presentation, members of the public and GPAC dispersed into small groups to discuss the preferred land use map. The GPAC remained in the main Zoom room, while members of the public were invited to join breakout groups with a facilitator. Members of the public could opt out of a breakout group and instead observe the GPAC discussion.
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 3
Discussions took place for roughly one hour and were guided by two questions. For each area, both GPAC and members of the public were asked, “What did you like about the preferred land use alternative map?” and “What changes do you think should be made to the map?”
Once discussions concluded, the meeting reconvened for highlights shared by the small group facilitator. Below are summaries from public small groups’ report-outs.
Small Group Report Out (Public)
Group 1
• Discussion focused on big-picture citywide vision.
• Opinions split between those who wanted more housing, mixed-use, higher density, and taller building heights verses those who wanted lower density, lower building heights, and less mixed use. • Majority support housing in village centers and share a desire for more public meeting space like plazas. • Majority support flexible designations for large retail centers. • Group had split opinions on the future of the Borchard site, some in favor of mixed-use, and others in favor of maintaining single-family residential designation.
Group 2
• Discussion focused on the Rancho Conejo subarea because many participants did not feel comfortable discussing subareas they were not familiar with.
• Felt the Borchard property has a lot of potential and should allow for higher density residential. Many participants asked questions regarding the proposed split designation and preferred a single mixed-use designation.
• Acknowledged the need for affordable housing and felt the village centers were a good way to provide additional housing.
• Majority were disappointed village centers don’t include any residential and are commercial in the proposed land use map.
• Many felt The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace could include higher density residential.
Group 3
• Majority agree with the approach of focusing change to subareas and maintaining majority of the city in current configuration.
• Discussion focused on Rancho Conejo and Thousand Oaks Boulevard. • In the Rancho Conejo subarea, had the following recommendations:
o Supportive of mixed-use north of the 101 freeway.
o Not supportive of tall buildings south of 101 freeway. o Current vacant property in the northwest corner of the Rancho Conejo subarea (commonly referred to as the “goldfish” or “7th Day Adventist” property) should be residential, not industrial as proposed.
o Consider access and circulation in the area.
• Felt overall the preferred land use map is in a good place, with a few caveats. • Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan Area should treat all property owners the same, allowing for Mixed Use Medium across all parcels. Similarly, the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace should allow greater flexibility.
• Supportive of the Westlake and East End proposed land uses.
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 4
• Parking should be addressed within village centers if mixed-use is added.
GPAC Direction
After listening to public small group report-outs, members of the GPAC took turns sharing their final thoughts and overall review of the preferred land use map. Note that all members of the GPAC in attendance shared their opinion at this time (one GPAC member left the meeting early and therefore did not provide their opinions). Below is a summary of the direction received from the GPAC as well as individual comments from GPAC members.
Summary:
10 members of the GPAC supported the direction of the preferred land use map, but offered specific tweaks to the map:
o Introduce mixed-use at some of the village centers.
o Propose mixed-use across the Borchard property.
o Provide flexibility and focus mixed-use throughout the Thousand Oaks Boulevard corridor. o Add increased residential density at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. o Remove mixed-use designations from sites we know are not likely to change in the next 20-30 years.
These GPAC members shared support for specific elements of the preferred land use map:
o Mixed-use at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace.
o Emphasis on walkability and livability.
o Maintained community character by preserving parks, open space, and single-family neighborhoods.
o Expansion of jobs and focus on local economy.
2 members of the GPAC felt cautious about the preferred land use map, noting the scope of changes and potential impacts to schools, views and a potential to transform the overall character of the community as concerns.
GPAC member comments:
o Overall, the preferred land use map is reasonable and does not change most of the land in the city. o The City has done a great job of reaching out to community members through outreach. o The Borchard property owner is a lifelong resident and does not want to negatively affect the neighbors with future development. The proposed development there would be mutually beneficial for neighbors, businesses, and the city as a whole. o Cautious and hesitant to accept the preferred land use map as it stands now. There are impacts that will need to be addressed like school enrollment.
o Supportive of providing flexibility through higher densities at only The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace.
o Prefer to spread out density across the city.
o The preferred land use map is going in right direction, small tweaks are needed to increase flexibility.
o The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace both have too much parking, those areas could support future housing.
o The preferred land use map is going in the right direction. o Consider allowing more uses (like hotels) and providing greater flexibility on height and density for retail centers.
o Agree with other GPAC members that some of the large retail centers in the Westlake and East End (i.e., The Promenade) are not going to change, so the mixed-use designation should be moved elsewhere.
o The preferred land use map is moving in the right direction. o The General Plan is not about buildings; it is about people, enhanced livability, and making the City a better place to live, work, raise a family, and grow old. In the future we need to make those connections clear with the proposed changes to the General Plan.
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 5
o Village Centers would be a great place to live in the future. o Thankful to the Team for preparing this information and providing outreach to the community. o Generally supportive of the preferred land use map. Some tweaks are needed to address the concerns and comments raised tonight including:
▪ Some village centers should allow mixed-use.
▪ Not comfortable increasing heights or densities beyond what is proposed. ▪ Overall want to maximum flexibility.
o Overall, the map is a balanced approach that preserves what this community has built over the course of its history.
o The team has done a great job synthesizing input and preparing the preferred land use map.
Thank you for the effort and progress.
o By-in-large the preferred land use map is going in the correct direction, but a few tweaks are needed including adding mixed use to the Village Centers and allowing increased flexibility for The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. Additional housing units should go in these locations. o Cautious of the scope and size of proposed changes, seems out of historic character for Thousand Oaks. The proposed map includes some great resources for us to consider. o There are changes we need to make, State requirements, and inevitable economic changes are coming.
o Recommend or support changes at The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace since shopping malls are changing. The City should think proactively and not reactively. Support a global biotech hub in Thousand Oaks and want to continue to support Rancho Conejo north of the 101 freeway. o “Residents” historically have wanted buildings to be low profile to maintain mountain views. o Overall, the Plan is going in the right direction.
o Supportive of the mall areas and Village Center proposals. o Vision for the future is to have walkable, bikeable, destinations that are accessible by transit.
Desire to not have a landscape dominated by cars in the future. o At a high level, the proposed map is good, but does need a few tweaks. o We should remove mixed-use designations from sites we do not anticipate changing in the next 20 to 30 years. Those units should be reallocated to underutilized sites instead. o The plan does preserve long-standing principles like maintaining single-family neighborhoods, protecting open space, parks, and viewsheds. As well as focusing on job centers and the economy. o The plan should provide as much flexibility as possible along the 101 Corridor and throughout Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
o Mixed-use should be applied to the Oaks Mall, Janss Marketplace, along Thousand Oaks Boulevard in certain places, and the Borchard property.
o Consider a different designation for parcels that are 20 or 30 acres in size and greater. This could give flexibility to property owners while lowering the overall housing numbers that people are concerned with.
o Focus on opportunity sites identified by City Council. o Great job to the General Plan Team.
o Generally, support preferred land use map with a few tweaks. o Need for flexibility specifically the two large shopping centers. o Would like to see mixed-use Village Centers.
o Overall, the plan is well done.
o Echo several comments from other GPAC members.
o Feel that walkable Village Centers are important, especially for youth.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Following the small group discussions, report-outs, and GPAC direction, members of the public were invited to provide brief public comments. Nine members of the public participated. A summary of these comments is provided below.
• Thank you for a great meeting, I will provide additional comments via email.
Joint GPAC Meeting + Workshop #3
TO2045 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE | 6
• I am in support of future mixed-use development at the Borchard property with a buffer from the existing neighborhood.
• As the property owner, the goal for the Borchard site is to create a place that serves the Newbury Park community. There is a lack of gathering spaces in this neighborhood. We have a plan that includes open space, a buffer, and amenities, and want to work with existing residents to make this successful. • As a homeowner on Michael Drive, I support future development at the Borchard property. People are looking for areas to go and things to do, we would like to have something nearby that we can walk to. • The Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce appreciates the discussion on the preferred land use map. Would like to see flexibility for more property owners in the form of more medium and high density in the appropriate areas. Also support the GPAC’s comment regarding concentrating new land uses on feasible sites that are likely to change in the next 20-30 years. • Casa Conejo neighbors are largely opposed to major development on the Borchard property due to flood control issues and waterfowl. We are in favor of something softer on this site. There are other shopping centers nearby that are more appropriate for entertainment uses. • As a residential and businessowner in Thousand Oaks, I am supportive of future development at the Borchard property. I would like to integrate a future tap room into the area as an extension of my business. I feel that the property owner wants to work with residents and make something that enhances the Newbury Park neighborhood and supports existing businesses like Amgen. • I am supportive of future development at the Borchard property and am encouraged by the design the property owner showed that includes a large greenbelt buffering single family homes. I think the concerns about flooding and habitat would be addressed through the planning process by turning that area into a greenbelt, instead of the split zoning that is proposed now. The property should have one mixed-use designation going forward. The Janss Marketplace and The Oaks Malls should be considered for mixed-use medium which would provide those property owners maximum flexibility for the future. • Of the previous three land use alternatives, the Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce supported Map 1 because it offered mixed-use medium and mixed-use high. The survey results showed highest support for Map 1, and that was the basis for the new map (preferred land use map), but it removed the things we liked about map 1. We encourage the committee and City to add those things back into the preferred land use map. We want to promote affordable housing, but the only way to get affordable units is to allow higher densities.
NEXT STEPS
The meeting concluded with an overview of next steps, including how members of the public could provide feedback through the briefing book, online survey, and virtual office hours.
The meeting adjourned at 8:42 pm.
Attachments: Facilitator notes from GPAC and public small group discussions.
FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021
GPAC DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND NOTES
Responses by the General Plan Team are italicized.
GPAC Member 1. How will the impacts of new residential units on schools be addressed? If too many new units are developed, the district may have to redraw boundaries and that could influence neighborhood schools. • While this is a valid concern, we do not know the makeup of residential units will be, so we cannot yet anticipate the impact to local schools.
GPAC Member 2. Regarding village centers, if we are not changing land uses, how do we ensure that kind of walkable aesthetic and environment is created? • We can use policies to influence the format of a commercial shopping center to look and feel more like a main street. If we move forward with commercial only village centers, the General Plan could be amended later to allow residential or mixed-use in these areas.
GPAC Member 3. I think we need to reiterate that future development will incorporate sustainable principles and nature through parks, open space, and landscaping. This community is very sensitive to the environment, we cannot lose sight of that when talking about the future.
GPAC Member 4. I think it would be a missed opportunity to not include mixed-use or residential units in village centers. They could provide housing opportunities for young families, young workers, and seniors, and help spread out the residential units so we do not overwhelm one area of town. It could create a designation that is walkable from existing neighborhoods, like a European High Street Model.
GPAC Member 5. In talking with the property owner, I think the proposed development at the Borchard site would be a good project that would take into consideration the concerns of adjacent neighbors.
GPAC Member 6. Why were certain areas identified as mixed-use medium and others were identified as mixed-use low?
• Certain areas have already been envisioned for higher density, like the Civic Arts Plaza and Downtown Core areas, while west Thousand Oaks Boulevard near Tarantula Hill has new
development that could provide synergy. The Rancho Conejo area was selected due to the proximity to adjacent uses, so it could be viewed as another node.
GPAC Member 7. I think village centers need to include housing in the form of mixed-use because retail is changing, and we need room to evolve. The area around Borchard should include something other than single family homes, we need additional flexibility.
GPAC Member 8. Concerned with the scope of changes proposed in the plan. Do the changes have to be as big as they are presented? Can we meet RHNA without such sweeping changes? Can we take steps forward in a phased approach? Density alone will not solve housing affordability; we need policies to ensure future housing is affordable.
• Agree with your assessment that strong housing policies are needed to ensure future development is affordable. In previous conversations, members of the public brought up the need for an (updated) Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
GPAC Member 9. I think we need to revisit the allowed uses across Mixed-Use Low, Medium, and High. Restaurants, retail, and hotels should be allowed across all three designations. Regarding The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace, I feel that Mixed-Use Low is insufficient to accommodate the future evolution of these shopping centers. Both centers should be up to Mixed-use Medium, and perhaps consider a residential unit cap to prohibit the site from turning to all residential and going beyond the Measure E capacity.
GPAC Member 10. I would suggest maintaining the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan as much as possible. Incorporate the opportunity sites identified by City Council, including the YMCA property for housing or mixed-use. Remove the mixed-use designation on sites we know are not likely to change in the next 20-30 years, including the Promenade site. Provide more flexibility at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. Regarding the Borchard site, the residents prefer a buffer and the only way to achieve that is through a higher density designation like Mixed-Use Medium or Mixed-Use Low.
GPAC Member 11. I support village centers and wonder if we can include mixed-use anywhere within the industrial core of the Rancho Conejo area (north of the 101 Freeway).
GPAC Member 12. We should consider policies to maintain retail (like grocery stores) within mixed-use village centers. We want to balance new residential with amenities that support existing neighborhoods.
GPAC Member 13. Young adults would like to see walkable village centers and revitalization of the Janss Marketplace.
FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021
PUBLIC GROUP #1 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND NOTES
1. What is your reaction to the overall citywide preferred land use alternative map? Notes
• Need more housing
o Disappointed with the lack of high-density housing
o Village centers – no mixed-use, more human scale, more walkability ▪ Reuse existing vacant retail
▪ Transit hubs
▪ Distribute housing, etc.
o Taller buildings should be located at the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace
o Plazas and meeting spaces are needed
• Need affordable housing for young families, like starter homes, etc. • Do not concentrated multifamily housing
o Village centers should have housing
o Low density housing is preferred
o Move housing out by CLU and Moorpark Rd instead of Newbury Park • What about environmental considerations? Concern over infrastructure for water and transportation
• Consider ADU’s for additional housing units
• Concern over concentration of housing on TOB – traffic congestion, emergency evacuation
• Concern with building height increase but desire for affordability
2. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Rancho Conejo area?
Likes
• Downtown/village center for Newbury Park – activities for young families/children Changes
• Park or water feature at Alice/Borchard property
• More housing by industrial north of 101
• Village center needed in Dos Vientos
• Less need for office and retail after COVID.
3. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Moorpark Rd and West Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Likes
• Flexibility at Oaks Mall area
4. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
(N/A)
5. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Westlake and East End area?
Changes
• Lower building heights on Westlake Blvd (industrial flex)
6. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Village Centers? (N/A)
FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021
PUBLIC GROUP #2 QUESTIONS, NOTES + REPORT OUT:
1. What is your reaction to the overall citywide preferred land use alternative map? Notes
• Why did Village Center make it to the Preferred Land Use Map? There seems to be comparable support as to the Oaks Mall in survey.
• Small amount of space to work with in T.O. for new housing. Would like to see map re-evaluated to maximize change also like to see Village Centers reevaluated. • Has City considered a Specific Plan overlay for Borchard site? Allows developer flexibility to plan the overall site with consideration of constraints.
Report out
• Mixed comments regarding the Alice/ Borchard site.
• Comments regarding re-visiting the Village Centers.
2. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Rancho Conejo area?
Changes
• Concern regarding amount of change in the Rancho Conejo area and that it is where the most change/ new development will occur.
• “Alice” parcel should be re-designated to mixed use in its entirety. • Borchard/Alice site – concerns regarding parking if all mixed use.
3. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Moorpark Rd and West Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Likes
• 275 (?) East Moorpark- n/o Hillcrest – shows as Mixed Use Low -supports.
4. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
(N/A)
5. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Westlake and East End area?
(N/A)
6. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Village Centers? Likes
• Add here Why did Village Center make it to the Preferred Land Use Map? There seems to be comparable support as to the Oaks Mall in survey.
FACILITATOR WORKSHEET
Joint Workshop #3 and GPAC #15
Preferred Land Use Alternative | April 21, 2021
PUBLIC GROUP #3 QUESTIONS, NOTES + REPORT OUT:
1. What is your reaction to the overall citywide preferred land use alternative map? Notes
• Paul is interested in the Rancho Conejo/Newbury Park area • Mark is interested in TOB (mixed-use) and the SDA property as a residential site; all of TOB should allow for mixed-use
Report out
• Only focusing on the 10% of City that are “areas of change” was a good approach
• There was too much to absorb at once and during a pandemic (but this is a multiyear process and is still a work in progress) • Initially worried about the survey due to the 3 alternatives but feel there is now a good compromise after seeing the results
2. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Rancho Conejo area?
Likes
• Mixed-use North of the freeway near existing commercial areas and Amgen Changes
• SDA site to a residential designation
• South of the freeway should not allow tall buildings (not necessarily mixed-use development)
• Better access for less traffic
3. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Moorpark Rd and West Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Changes
• All TOB should be at least mixed-use medium, not all the sites will be developed that way in the future; equal rights to develop for all TOB property owners
4. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Blvd area?
Likes
• The areas that do allow for mixed-use medium
Changes
• All TOB should be at least mixed-use medium, not all the sites will be developed that way in the future; equal rights to develop for all TOB property owners • Better access to lower traffic
5. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Westlake and East End area?
Likes
• Approved K-Mart pre-screen project is in a good location Changes
• Add here
6. What is your reaction to the preferred land use alternative for the Village Centers? Likes
• Village Centers are essential and key; people should be able to walk to the store nearby
Changes
• Having adequate parking if you’re adding mixed-use
54.57% 239
5.02% 22
38.58% 169
1.83% 8
Q1 Do you live and/or work in Thousand Oaks? Select one.
Answered: 438 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 438
# NEITHER LIVE NOR WORK IN THOUSAND OAKS (IF NEITHER, WHAT BRINGS YOU TO THOUSAND OAKS?)
DATE
1 meow 10/29/2019 2:11 PM
2 proximity 10/26/2019 11:51 AM
3 Grew up in TO and visit regularly 10/25/2019 1:48 PM
4 Shopping/restaurants 10/25/2019 1:37 PM
5 i live nearby 10/23/2019 6:56 PM
6 I was born there and I miss it tremendously. It is the greatest city on the face of the Earth. 10/16/2019 3:54 AM 7 Local land use attorney; prospective resident 10/15/2019 5:16 PM 8 Surrounded by City of Thousand Oaks in Newbury Park 9/26/2019 7:21 PM Live in
Thousand Oaks
Work in
Thousand Oaks
Live and work
in Thousand...
Neither live
nor work in...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Live in Thousand Oaks
Work in Thousand Oaks
Live and work in Thousand Oaks
Neither live nor work in Thousand Oaks (If neither, what brings you to Thousand Oaks?) 1 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
2.76% 12
11.49% 50
8.28% 36
19.08% 83
19.31% 84
34.02% 148
5.06% 22
Q2 If you live in Thousand Oaks, how long have you lived here? Answered: 435 Skipped: 4
TOTAL 435
1 year or less
2-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
21-30 years
31+ years
N/A
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
1 year or less
2-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
21-30 years
31+ years
N/A
2 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
Q3 What neighborhood/part of town do you live in? Please fill in your response.
Answered: 307 Skipped: 132
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Lynnbrooke 10/29/2019 5:55 PM
2 Civic Arts Plaza District 10/29/2019 4:55 PM
3 dos vientos 10/29/2019 4:20 PM
4 Oakbrook Village 10/29/2019 1:09 PM
5 North Ranch 10/29/2019 1:01 PM
6 village glen 10/29/2019 11:28 AM
7 Near intersection of Moorpark and Janss 10/29/2019 11:27 AM 8 Old Town 10/29/2019 11:00 AM
9 Work off of Hillcrest by post office 10/29/2019 10:14 AM 10 Near Cal Lutheran Univ 10/29/2019 8:25 AM
11 Ridgecrest Tract - adjacent to CLU North Campus 10/29/2019 7:48 AM 12 Lynn Ranch 10/29/2019 7:36 AM
13 South Moorpark rd 10/29/2019 7:33 AM
14 Dos Vientos 10/28/2019 11:45 PM
15 Eichler Track 10/28/2019 10:25 PM
16 Dos Vientos 10/28/2019 10:21 PM
17 Conejo 10/28/2019 9:10 PM
18 Casa Conejo 10/28/2019 9:09 PM
19 Village Homes 10/28/2019 7:44 PM
20 Waverly Heights 10/28/2019 7:17 PM
21 California Lutheran University 10/28/2019 7:14 PM
22 Ranch mobile homes 10/28/2019 5:37 PM
23 Greenridge Development, near CLU 10/28/2019 3:47 PM
24 Newbury Park 10/28/2019 3:14 PM
25 Newbury Park, by the Stagecoach Inn 10/28/2019 2:48 PM 26 Oakbrook Village 10/28/2019 1:07 PM
27 Near CLU 10/28/2019 11:54 AM
28 North Ranch 10/28/2019 11:11 AM
29 Braemar Gardens 10/28/2019 11:10 AM
30 Greenridge 10/28/2019 10:56 AM
31 Hampshire area 10/28/2019 10:32 AM
32 lang ranch 10/28/2019 9:52 AM
33 Gainsborough 10/28/2019 9:14 AM
34 Summerfield 10/28/2019 8:32 AM
3 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
35 Newbury Park 10/28/2019 8:18 AM
36 Lang Ranch 10/28/2019 7:59 AM
37 Newbury Park 10/28/2019 7:37 AM
38 Lang ranch 10/28/2019 7:27 AM
39 Lang Ranch 10/28/2019 7:12 AM
40 Kelly Ranch 10/28/2019 7:07 AM
41 North Ranch 10/28/2019 2:53 AM
42 By Janss library 10/27/2019 11:21 PM
43 Off Lynn and Gainsborough 10/27/2019 9:35 PM
44 Near CLU 10/27/2019 8:43 PM
45 Sunset Hills 10/27/2019 7:59 PM
46 Conejo Vista 10/27/2019 6:56 PM
47 Waverly Heights 10/27/2019 6:34 PM
48 Waverly Heights 10/27/2019 6:23 PM
49 Wildwood Park area 10/27/2019 5:24 PM
50 Newbury Park/Casa Conejo 10/27/2019 3:20 PM
51 Westlake Hills 10/27/2019 2:41 PM
52 Newbury park 10/27/2019 1:12 PM
53 Dos Vientos 10/27/2019 11:38 AM
54 Rancho Conejo 10/27/2019 10:35 AM
55 Wildwood 10/27/2019 9:43 AM
56 Wildwood 10/27/2019 9:00 AM
57 Westlake Village 10/27/2019 6:42 AM
58 Wildflower 10/26/2019 11:58 PM
59 Waverly Heights 10/26/2019 10:02 PM
60 wildwood 10/26/2019 8:28 PM
61 Sunset hills 10/26/2019 8:18 PM
62 Sunset Hills 10/26/2019 7:07 PM
63 Gainsborough/Windsor 10/26/2019 6:42 PM
64 Terra tract in north TO 10/26/2019 5:50 PM
65 Lynn Ranch 10/26/2019 5:26 PM
66 Rancho Conejo Village 10/26/2019 4:56 PM
67 Oak park 10/26/2019 2:56 PM
68 Lang Ranch 10/26/2019 2:17 PM
69 Shadow Oaks 10/26/2019 1:11 PM
70 Newbury park 10/26/2019 12:44 PM
71 Newbury Park 10/26/2019 12:25 PM
72 Lynnbrooke 10/26/2019 10:38 AM
73 Newbury Park/Hickory Park area 10/26/2019 8:53 AM
74 Old Meadows 10/26/2019 8:30 AM
75 lang ranch 10/26/2019 7:48 AM
4 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
76 Mont Clef 10/26/2019 7:44 AM
77 Old meadows 10/26/2019 7:22 AM
78 Westlake Hills 10/26/2019 7:16 AM
79 Los Robles Estates 10/26/2019 5:37 AM
80 twenty oaks 10/26/2019 1:05 AM
81 Rancho Conejo 10/25/2019 10:52 PM
82 Conejo Oaks 10/25/2019 10:12 PM
83 Shadow Oaks 10/25/2019 10:06 PM
84 Camelot condos 10/25/2019 8:25 PM
85 Westlake Hills 10/25/2019 7:58 PM
86 Lang Ranch 10/25/2019 7:56 PM
87 Los Feliz Drive 250 10/25/2019 7:30 PM
88 Sunset Hills 10/25/2019 7:07 PM
89 Right off Thousand Oaks Blvd bear The Lakes 10/25/2019 6:44 PM 90 Radcliffe/Pederson 10/25/2019 6:33 PM
91 91362 10/25/2019 6:31 PM
92 Lang 10/25/2019 6:13 PM
93 Village homes 10/25/2019 6:06 PM
94 Westlake Village near Triunfo Park 10/25/2019 5:47 PM 95 Westlake Hills 10/25/2019 5:47 PM
96 Westlake Village 10/25/2019 5:25 PM
97 Newbury Park 10/25/2019 5:23 PM
98 Valley High and La Granada 10/25/2019 5:22 PM
99 central 10/25/2019 5:20 PM
100 Flores and Erbs 10/25/2019 5:10 PM
101 Shadow Oaks 10/25/2019 5:10 PM
102 Newbury Park 10/25/2019 5:09 PM
103 Thousand Oaks 10/25/2019 5:06 PM
104 Newbury Park 10/25/2019 4:57 PM
105 Near CLU 10/25/2019 4:35 PM
106 Moorpark/Janss 10/25/2019 4:12 PM
107 Lang Ranch/Meadowwood 10/25/2019 4:09 PM
108 Westlake Village 10/25/2019 3:59 PM
109 Newbury park 10/25/2019 3:38 PM
110 old meadows 10/25/2019 3:34 PM
111 Wildwood 10/25/2019 3:34 PM
112 Wendy/Borchard 10/25/2019 3:13 PM
113 Manzanita Lane 10/25/2019 2:56 PM
114 A track of homes built in 1979 in Newbury Park called Suntree 10/25/2019 2:25 PM 115 Newbury Park 10/25/2019 1:54 PM
116 Racquet Club Villas 10/25/2019 1:48 PM
5 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
117 Wildwood 10/25/2019 12:47 PM
118 Oak Crest 10/25/2019 11:59 AM
119 Shadow Oaks 10/25/2019 11:27 AM
120 Conejo Oaks 10/24/2019 11:28 PM
121 North Ranch 10/24/2019 8:22 PM
122 Sunset Hills 10/24/2019 8:06 PM
123 near Cal Lutheran 10/24/2019 4:01 PM
124 Old Meadows 10/24/2019 3:48 PM
125 Lang Ranch 10/24/2019 3:18 PM
126 Conejo Oaks 10/24/2019 2:46 PM
127 Hillcrest & Westlake Blvd. 10/24/2019 2:24 PM
128 North Ranch 10/23/2019 7:06 PM
129 westlake village 10/23/2019 6:56 PM
130 N/A 10/23/2019 4:09 PM
131 Conejo 10/23/2019 3:57 PM
132 Conejo oaks 10/23/2019 3:35 PM
133 Wildwood Neighborhood 10/23/2019 3:20 PM
134 Newbury Park, Ventu Park 10/23/2019 3:15 PM
135 Lynn Oaks 10/23/2019 2:42 PM
136 Wildwood 10/22/2019 11:38 PM
137 Stoneybrook 10/22/2019 6:19 PM
138 Erbes & Arboles Brock Homes 10/22/2019 11:12 AM
139 Conejo Oaks 10/21/2019 11:21 PM
140 Old Town 10/21/2019 8:44 PM
141 College 10/21/2019 8:28 PM
142 country homes off 23 fwy 10/21/2019 8:40 AM
143 Newbury Park 10/20/2019 5:48 PM
144 Wildwood 10/20/2019 2:38 PM
145 Copperwood tract 10/18/2019 3:06 PM
146 Newbury Park 10/18/2019 2:32 PM
147 Downtown TO - off the TO blvd by the Lakes 10/18/2019 11:46 AM 148 Spring Meadow Park area 10/17/2019 12:44 PM
149 Newbury Park 10/17/2019 10:45 AM
150 Dos Vientos 10/17/2019 10:45 AM
151 Upper North Ranch 10/17/2019 8:04 AM
152 Lang Ranch area - near Erbes & Arboles intersection 10/16/2019 2:19 PM 153 Oakbrook 10/16/2019 11:57 AM
154 Dogwood Circle 10/16/2019 11:53 AM
155 Dos Vientos 10/16/2019 11:07 AM
156 hampshire 10/16/2019 9:00 AM
157 Newbury Park 10/16/2019 6:16 AM
6 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
158 Hampshire / The Groves 10/15/2019 11:40 PM
159 Newbury Park 10/15/2019 10:26 PM
160 Newbury Park 10/15/2019 9:42 PM
161 Oaknoll condominiums 10/15/2019 6:42 PM
162 Lang Ranch Area 10/15/2019 3:59 PM
163 Lynnmere 10/15/2019 3:10 PM
164 Conejo Oaks 10/15/2019 2:30 PM
165 WILDWOOD 10/15/2019 1:00 PM
166 Lynn and Janss area 10/15/2019 12:29 PM
167 Newbury park 10/15/2019 11:26 AM
168 Westlake Village 10/15/2019 11:18 AM
169 Westlake Village 10/15/2019 10:52 AM
170 Wildwood 10/15/2019 10:37 AM
171 Olsen/Erbes 10/15/2019 9:52 AM
172 Copperwood 10/15/2019 9:45 AM
173 Los Robles Road (Hampshire/TO Blvd nearest insection) 10/15/2019 9:15 AM 174 College Park 10/15/2019 9:00 AM
175 Old Meadows 10/15/2019 9:00 AM
176 Lang Ranch 10/15/2019 8:43 AM
177 Lynn Estates 10/15/2019 8:28 AM
178 Between Hillcrest and Thousand Oaks Boulevard near Hodencamp 10/15/2019 8:12 AM 179 College Park 10/15/2019 8:07 AM
180 Shadow Oaks 10/14/2019 11:34 PM
181 Wildwood 10/14/2019 10:48 PM
182 Newbury Park 10/14/2019 10:15 PM
183 Unincorporated 10/14/2019 10:08 PM
184 Westlake Village 10/14/2019 9:06 PM
185 Dos Vientos 10/14/2019 9:01 PM
186 Newbury Park 10/14/2019 8:50 PM
187 Newbury park 10/14/2019 8:16 PM
188 Newbury Park 10/14/2019 8:06 PM
189 Wildwood 10/14/2019 5:56 PM
190 Ventu Park/TO 10/14/2019 5:31 PM
191 Hillcrest/Rancho 10/14/2019 5:24 PM
192 Lang Ranch 10/14/2019 4:52 PM
193 Newbury Park 10/14/2019 3:55 PM
194 Oakbrook Highlands 10/14/2019 3:41 PM
195 Newbury Park 10/14/2019 3:29 PM
196 Avenida de los aeboles 10/14/2019 3:04 PM
197 Newbury Park 10/14/2019 2:42 PM
198 Waverly Heights 10/14/2019 2:29 PM
7 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
199 TO Blvd 10/14/2019 2:09 PM
200 Gainsborough Rd 10/14/2019 1:09 PM
201 Hillcrest and Erbes 10/14/2019 1:03 PM
202 Waverly Heights 10/14/2019 12:07 PM
203 Greenridge 10/14/2019 10:34 AM
204 Newbury Park 10/14/2019 10:16 AM
205 Newbury Park 10/14/2019 10:05 AM
206 Dos Vientos 10/14/2019 9:43 AM
207 Sunset Hills 10/14/2019 9:35 AM
208 Oakbrook extension, Tamara tract 10/14/2019 8:51 AM 209 On calle Tulipan 10/14/2019 8:27 AM
210 Sunset hills 10/14/2019 8:12 AM
211 Houston Drive 10/14/2019 7:38 AM
212 Newbury Park 10/13/2019 2:30 PM
213 Old Meadows 10/13/2019 11:18 AM
214 Rancho Conejo Village, Newbury Park 10/12/2019 10:03 PM 215 Westlake Hills 10/12/2019 3:03 PM
216 Central north 10/12/2019 2:58 PM
217 Newbury Park 10/12/2019 12:41 PM
218 Eichler tract near Madrona Elementary 10/12/2019 10:34 AM 219 de las Flores & Erbes Rd 10/12/2019 9:43 AM
220 Newbury Park 10/12/2019 8:02 AM
221 Conejo oaks 10/11/2019 5:54 PM
222 Sunset hills 10/11/2019 12:02 PM
223 Lang Ranch 10/11/2019 11:48 AM
224 North Ranch, Westlake Village 10/10/2019 9:42 PM
225 Eastern side of Thousand Oaks 10/10/2019 7:46 PM
226 oak park 10/10/2019 12:55 PM
227 Westlake Hills 10/10/2019 12:49 PM
228 Newbury Park 10/10/2019 12:20 PM
229 Westlake Village 10/10/2019 11:10 AM
230 Oakbrook Townhomes 10/10/2019 11:06 AM
231 Rancho Conejo 10/10/2019 10:51 AM
232 lang ranch 10/10/2019 10:00 AM
233 Conejo Oaks 10/10/2019 9:51 AM
234 Eagle Ridge 10/10/2019 9:26 AM
235 Old Meadows 10/10/2019 8:52 AM
236 North Ranch 10/10/2019 8:24 AM
237 Wildwood 10/10/2019 8:20 AM
238 sherwood 10/10/2019 7:28 AM
239 Village Homes 10/10/2019 7:23 AM
8 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
240 Newbury Park 10/10/2019 7:07 AM
241 Lang ranch 10/10/2019 6:48 AM
242 Fieldstone/Falconridge 10/10/2019 2:58 AM
243 Hampshire and Triunfo Cyn Rd 10/10/2019 12:26 AM
244 Conejo Oaks 10/9/2019 11:13 PM
245 Conejo Hills 10/9/2019 10:53 PM
246 Westlake Village 10/9/2019 9:42 PM
247 Eichler 10/9/2019 9:21 PM
248 Down the street from the library 10/9/2019 9:21 PM
249 Wildwood area 10/9/2019 8:41 PM
250 Clara Vista 10/9/2019 8:06 PM
251 North Ranch 10/9/2019 8:04 PM
252 Newbury Park 10/9/2019 8:01 PM
253 Oakbrook Village 10/9/2019 7:55 PM
254 Upper North Ranch 10/9/2019 7:45 PM
255 Janns and Erbes 10/9/2019 7:41 PM
256 Tortilla Flats (near corner of Arboles and Moorpark Rd.) 10/9/2019 7:40 PM 257 990 Emerson Street 10/9/2019 7:40 PM
258 Newbury Park 10/9/2019 7:39 PM
259 Sunset Hills 10/9/2019 7:38 PM
260 olsen road area clu 10/9/2019 7:35 PM
261 Lynn Ranch 10/9/2019 2:21 PM
262 Newbury Park 10/7/2019 12:40 PM
263 Dawnridge 10/5/2019 6:13 AM
264 newbury park 10/4/2019 10:40 AM
265 sunset hills 10/4/2019 9:19 AM
266 Sunset Hlls 10/3/2019 6:00 PM
267 Hillcrest Terrace Condos 10/3/2019 4:52 PM
268 Shadow Oaks 10/3/2019 3:04 PM
269 East 10/3/2019 1:50 PM
270 Foxmoor 10/3/2019 11:04 AM
271 Wildwood 10/2/2019 2:34 PM
272 Sunset Hills 10/2/2019 2:21 PM
273 North Ranch 10/2/2019 1:15 PM
274 Lynn Road and Gainsboro 10/2/2019 12:49 PM
275 Tuolumne Oaks 10/2/2019 12:47 PM
276 Northwood 10/2/2019 12:43 PM
277 Sunset Hills 10/2/2019 11:32 AM
278 Newbury Park 10/2/2019 10:52 AM
279 Westlake Village 10/2/2019 10:24 AM
280 Central TO (near dmv) 10/2/2019 2:59 AM
9 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
281 Center 10/2/2019 12:14 AM
282 South of TO high school 10/1/2019 8:11 PM
283 Cal Lutheran 10/1/2019 5:14 PM
284 Oak Park 10/1/2019 2:49 PM
285 Foxmoor Hills, Westlake Village 10/1/2019 12:24 PM
286 lang ranch 10/1/2019 11:59 AM
287 The Woodlands 10/1/2019 11:45 AM
288 Newbury Park area 10/1/2019 11:41 AM
289 Newbury Park 10/1/2019 11:40 AM
290 dog park on Flores 10/1/2019 11:23 AM
291 Lynn Ranch area 10/1/2019 10:23 AM
292 Newbury Park 10/1/2019 9:50 AM
293 Kevington 10/1/2019 9:00 AM
294 Old Town 10/1/2019 8:46 AM
295 By Thousand Oaks High School 10/1/2019 8:44 AM
296 Westlake 9/29/2019 1:39 PM
297 Village Homes 9/29/2019 10:42 AM
298 Los Robles neighborhood 9/28/2019 11:02 AM
299 Moorpark 9/28/2019 10:17 AM
300 Thousand Oaks Mall 9/28/2019 10:16 AM
301 Westlake Village part 9/28/2019 6:30 AM
302 Conejo Oaks 9/27/2019 4:47 PM
303 Lang Ranch 9/27/2019 12:28 PM
304 Casa Conejo 9/26/2019 7:21 PM
305 Westlake Village 9/26/2019 6:15 PM
306 Conejo Oaks 9/26/2019 12:37 PM
307 Chanteclair Estates 9/25/2019 8:04 PM
10 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
0.00% 0
21.02% 91
0.00% 0
0.46% 2
35.10% 152
7.62% 33
32.10% 139
0.69% 3
0.23% 1
2.77% 12
Q4 What is your zip code?
Answered: 433 Skipped: 6
TOTAL 433
91319
91320
91358
91359
91360
91361
91362
91377
93012
Other (please
specify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
91319
91320
91358
91359
91360
91361
91362
91377
93012
Other (please specify)
11 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 93036 10/27/2019 2:40 PM
2 93035 10/26/2019 11:51 AM
3 93063 10/26/2019 9:13 AM
4 93065 10/25/2019 1:37 PM
5 N/A 10/23/2019 4:09 PM
6 93003 10/23/2019 1:24 PM
7 93021 10/19/2019 11:30 AM
8 93036 10/15/2019 5:16 PM
9 91320 10/14/2019 10:08 PM
10 91320 10/14/2019 8:16 PM
11 93066 10/14/2019 4:04 PM
12 93065 9/27/2019 2:27 PM
12 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
Q5 What makes Thousand Oaks unique and special? Describe what you like best about Thousand Oaks.
Answered: 327 Skipped: 112
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Strong sense of community; Family orientated. 10/29/2019 8:58 PM 2 Open spaces, relatively low density, easy access to walking trails, semi-rural feel. Many neighborhoods have decent sized lots that make you feel less crowded.big issue 10/29/2019 6:20 PM
3 Safe, family-oriented, surrounded by open space. An oasis from the chaos of the valley/ Los Angeles area, but close to everything.
10/29/2019 5:00 PM
4 scenery, weather, people, etc 10/29/2019 4:20 PM
5 semi-rural atmosphere with just enough entertainment, low crime rate 10/29/2019 3:59 PM 6 methow 10/29/2019 2:11 PM
7 Open spaces, beautiful old trees 10/29/2019 1:51 PM
8 We have great parks and schools. Roads are well maintained. Not too crowd, but getting more so.
Most people are considerate.
10/29/2019 1:47 PM
9 Small town and safe environment. Good place to raise a family. 10/29/2019 11:38 AM 10 it used to be a great place to live unfortunately too much development has spoilt it. 10/29/2019 11:29 AM 11 generations of friends and neighbors 10/29/2019 11:05 AM 12 Family friendly. Community organizations engagement (CYBA, CVBB, CVYO, Conejo YMCA, Religious - St. Paschal’s, etc.), city master plan w/ business corridors separated from residences, CRPD INCLUDING SENIOR activities, TOSS, & numerous parks, no crime, fire and safety services, CVUSD, and available performance events at Kavli, Scherr, and other venues. I love this city.
10/29/2019 9:00 AM
13 The hills and small community feel in a bigger city 10/29/2019 8:33 AM 14 Open space and the views. Good schools. Diverse neighborhoods. 10/29/2019 8:30 AM 15 open space, great schools 10/29/2019 7:41 AM
16 Open land which is being brutally developed and against resident wishes! 10/29/2019 7:36 AM 17 It’s community and environment. 10/28/2019 11:46 PM
18 The semi rural, small town atmosphere and the preservation of the surrounding hills and open spaces.
10/28/2019 10:33 PM
19 Small town feel. It’s family friendly 10/28/2019 9:44 PM 20 Small town feel with access to unique landscapes 10/28/2019 9:15 PM 21 Family environment, the looks of the mountains and trees and openness of the area and the beautiful well kept parks.
10/28/2019 9:12 PM
22 Not too crowded; nearby hiking trails, bike and walking paths, fresh air; good restaurants and shopping; good employment opportunities; strong public schools; three colleges/universities within easy driving distance
10/28/2019 7:47 PM
23 The greenbelt and trails. World-class public schools. Equestrian heritage and focus, at least in some parts. Proximity to the Valley and LA without embodying the worst of those places. 10/28/2019 7:24 PM
24 Open Space, places to hike, diversity of restaurants, diversity of grocery stores 10/28/2019 7:18 PM 25 Quiet, peaceful, surrounded by nature. 10/28/2019 5:39 PM 26 Open spaces - small town feel 10/28/2019 4:51 PM
13 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
27 open space, excellent schools and CLU, many beautiful parks, cultural opportunities 10/28/2019 3:52 PM 28 open spaces concern for the environment 10/28/2019 3:17 PM 29 Surrounding open space. I grew up in OC when there were still orange groves, it is fantastic that our hills are not covered with homes and condos.
10/28/2019 2:51 PM
30 The open space that is still here. 10/28/2019 1:28 PM 31 Everything! City has always put community 1st 10/28/2019 12:40 PM 32 Safe, clean, good places to eat, not like San Fernando valley or the rest of california. Less people than the valley.
10/28/2019 11:58 AM
33 less densely populated 10/28/2019 11:57 AM
34 Quiet, open space, clean 10/28/2019 11:53 AM
35 It's great place to live with beautiful surroundings and a low crime rate. 10/28/2019 11:51 AM 36 The open space, low density, slower pace of life, and the parks. 10/28/2019 11:18 AM 37 Best? The close relative proximity to numerous great locations of interest - mountain trails, beaches, parks, schools, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, etc. 10/28/2019 10:56 AM
38 small town feel, openspace 10/28/2019 9:58 AM
39 It’s thousands of oak trees in town obviously make it unique. What makes it special? I would say it’s proximity to LA, Malibu, beaches, etc. But when you live here you feel the small town suburb vibe which makes it a great place to raise a family. There are great open spaces for hiking and activities with family and friends.
10/28/2019 9:29 AM
40 The small-town feel, abundance of open space and proximity to the opportunities the metro-L.A. area affords.
10/28/2019 9:03 AM
41 Open space, bicycle lanes, and park lands, coupled with safety and great schools make it a great place to slow down and be grateful to raise a family and settle here. 10/28/2019 8:24 AM
42 Small town feel. Great community. Open space. The arts. The restaurants and shopping. The schools.
10/28/2019 8:07 AM
43 Connected police (safe passage), Kiwanis and Rotarians, multi-cultural, open space, not open 24/7
10/28/2019 7:40 AM
44 It’s beautiful and safe, people are mostly friendly. It has almost everything you need. The open spaces are amazing and local parks are wonderful too.
10/28/2019 7:30 AM
45 Safety and security, tranquility , open green spaces, close to urban and rural areas, availability of a diversified services, are some special things
10/28/2019 7:19 AM
46 Open space 10/28/2019 7:12 AM
47 Small town feel where everyone knows their neighbors. 10/27/2019 11:28 PM 48 Good air quality, good schools, naturally pretty, safe. 10/27/2019 9:40 PM 49 Open Space, lots of parks 10/27/2019 8:35 PM
50 Open spaces, small town charm, plenty of parks for families. 10/27/2019 8:00 PM 51 Open space 10/27/2019 6:58 PM
52 Low density housing, easy access to open space, excellent school system, easy access to equestrian events, perimeter of open space
10/27/2019 6:28 PM
53 The open space! Places to hike & walk. 10/27/2019 5:26 PM 54 Family atmosphere--parks, libraries, activities. 10/27/2019 3:30 PM 55 Schools, Community, Parks, Library 10/27/2019 2:53 PM 56 The amount of Tesla’s? I only work here so It’s hard to assess what makes the city special. I’ve heard there’s a low crime rate.
10/27/2019 2:48 PM
57 The city is starting to feel a little safer for queer youth 10/27/2019 1:18 PM 14 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
58 The natural beauty! The protected open space, Wildwood Mesa, and of the various parks and the fact that no homes or other buildings are built on the hill tops. The fact that we are not like the San Fernando Valley!!!!
10/27/2019 12:35 PM
59 mom and pop shops and feel not major city open spaces 10/27/2019 11:41 AM 60 It’s friendly and safe, and it has a lot of potential for growth. Our performing arts centre is also really impressive for a city our size.
10/27/2019 10:49 AM
61 The hill/mountain views Hiking/outdoor activities Suburban feel Primary services (shopping, medical, commercial, dining, etc) are all readily available in town 10/27/2019 10:04 AM
62 Access to open space. Friendly and well maintained community, with limited congestion. Great schools.
10/27/2019 9:29 AM
63 The open space and lack of large buildings, apratments buildings and traffic conjestion 10/27/2019 6:49 AM 64 Open space, small town feel yet becoming more diverse. 10/26/2019 10:12 PM 65 open spaces, hiking trails, quiet neighborhood, convenience of stores, well planned community, park & rec, adult school activities, senior center, friendliness of residents, library and its programs.
CLU programs, and its pool! Public pool too.
10/26/2019 8:41 PM
66 Small, local business mixed with city necessities. 10/26/2019 8:20 PM 67 Less traffic, availability of parking, clean air, Oak trees, equestrian neighborhoods, semi rural atmosphere, small town feeling, multi-use trails, ridge-line views, buildings are set back from the street, limit to 2 story buildings(although this seems to be in danger), Parks and Recreation department (classes and events offered), Adult School-one of the last in the state & beautiful parks.
10/26/2019 6:56 PM
68 Having grown up here, TO’s slow growth has allowed the city to remain idyllic and avoid the crowdedness of neighboring cities. The natural boundaries act as protector, mostly. The low lying buildings work with the natural landscape. The mix or suburban and outdoor space is balanced. (I hope this continues despite the multi level buildings in and near the blvd) 10/26/2019 6:01 PM
69 Outdoor Amenities, Educational Opportunities k-12 and Higher. Security, community atmosphere. 10/26/2019 5:44 PM 70 Quiet. Peaceful. Low crime. 10/26/2019 4:59 PM
71 Peaceful community which a vast array of places to eat, outdoor activities and shopping. I prefer to never go to the San Fernando valley if I can help it. It's great to have most of what I need at my fingertips in town.
10/26/2019 3:32 PM
72 Open space 10/26/2019 3:20 PM
73 Open space. No high rises or heavy congestion. Community events. Our proximity to the ocean, mountains, and larger cities.
10/26/2019 2:56 PM
74 Open space - lack of congestion and traffic, parks, trails, good schools 10/26/2019 2:27 PM 75 The schools are great. We really enjoy the fact that it’s not over developed and there’s lots of open space. It’s nice to be able to sleep with a window open on occasion because it’s so quiet at night.
Love the unique businesses, the ease to get around, the streets are in great shape with great drainage during heavy rains. Love the fact that it’s generally safe and not crammed together like Los Angeles (where we used to live). We moved here for the public schools which have been amazing for our children but ended up really liking everything else about Thousand Oaks. We also like the hiking trails and public parks, wide streets... yep we really like it the way it is right now I guess, would hate to see it grow if it doesn’t need to, less is more, the small town feel keeps us here.
10/26/2019 2:25 PM
76 Open space and rural feel 10/26/2019 1:25 PM
77 I feel safe living here 10/26/2019 1:13 PM
78 Small town environment 10/26/2019 12:49 PM
79 Rural and safe 10/26/2019 11:10 AM
80 The community is diverse with a neighborly feel. 10/26/2019 9:16 AM 81 Parks and other open space 10/26/2019 8:32 AM
82 People 10/26/2019 8:15 AM
15 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
83 Open Space, low traffic congestion, conservative government, low spending, well planned neighborhoods, good shopping , good property values, slow growth 10/26/2019 8:03 AM
84 Open space, beautiful parks, ridge tops with no buildings, no high rise buildings, small town atmosphere great people and great schools. Don’t ruin it with more development. there is getting to be too many cars already
10/26/2019 7:26 AM
85 The small community feel without too much urbanization. 10/26/2019 7:18 AM 86 The family focused, small community feeling. 10/26/2019 6:17 AM 87 Rural atmosphere Convenience to shops, markets, and medical care 10/26/2019 5:40 AM 88 beauty, safety 10/26/2019 1:08 AM
89 Open space, great schools 10/25/2019 10:53 PM
90 the amount of space we have between other cities and between our houses. 10/25/2019 10:14 PM 91 Wonderful Library, great schools, parks and outdoor activities too. Broad appeal for diverse community.
10/25/2019 10:14 PM
92 Auto Mall and Amgen 10/25/2019 9:40 PM
93 Horse Trails, conejo open space wildwood park, la jolla park, los robles trails 10/25/2019 8:30 PM 94 Natural location in the Santa Monica Mountains and the Conejo Valley, with hilltop restrictions on building new structures
10/25/2019 8:09 PM
95 Parks, closeness to open space the people 10/25/2019 8:06 PM 96 Oak Trees. Outdoor open space. Parks. Great schools and library. Good shopping. 10/25/2019 8:00 PM 97 Open space Safety/Low crime Close/supportive community 10/25/2019 7:58 PM 98 It’s not full of high rises and traffic. 10/25/2019 7:43 PM 99 The atmosphere when people come together in a crisis or for someone in need. It feels like a city from a Hallmark movie.
10/25/2019 7:40 PM
100 It’s beauty and high quality. 10/25/2019 7:10 PM
101 Multi use trails, views of the hills, nature, oak trees. Not much traffic, or smog, easy parking. It’s not crowded with people, cars and tall buildings. It doesn’t feel like a city it’s more like a smaller town. There are neighborhoods with large yards, fruit trees and horses! The schools are wonderful. I’m happy to live in a town that has not been over developed and still has its history and own character.
10/25/2019 6:54 PM
102 Safe small town feel. Beautiful hills and parks. Increasing amount of entertainment in the way of new kinds of bars and restaurants.
10/25/2019 6:50 PM
103 Small-town feel; open space; we value our history. City feels a sense of itself as a community. 10/25/2019 6:36 PM 104 Not congested, safe, good schools, gets ocean breezes 10/25/2019 6:08 PM 105 Sense of community. I hope it can still feel small even if we add 20,000 people. 10/25/2019 5:53 PM 106 The open space. 10/25/2019 5:38 PM
107 I love the open space, the less crowded feel, the safety, good schools and beauty. 10/25/2019 5:26 PM 108 Beauty of open space and landscaping in the developed areas. Quality of schools 10/25/2019 5:25 PM 109 Conejo Park and Recreation District: parks, programs and facilities. AYSO soccer fields. Trails for hiking. SAFE place to live. St. Paschal Balyon church, parish and school. La Reina. 10/25/2019 5:25 PM
110 Quieter community, my company is based here. 10/25/2019 5:17 PM 111 The open space and schools 10/25/2019 5:10 PM
112 Open space, trails, spacious, hometown feel 10/25/2019 4:58 PM 113 The climate and the beauty of the geologic features, the many open spaces, our great community parks with all of the activities they offer for all ages, and the jewel; the Santa Monica Mountains National Park. The appreciation and support for the Arts and our great Libraries! 10/25/2019 4:38 PM
114 Oak trees and open space. Love seeing the surrounding hills. 10/25/2019 4:37 PM 16 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
115 The rolling hills and small town feel that make you feel Completely separate from the city 40 miles away
10/25/2019 4:12 PM
116 Born in 1972 here...raised and still live here. It's safe, beautiful and a wonderful community. It's grown WAY too much in the past few years, we must protect our open space and consider traffic issues, which are already terrible. I love my community and I want to preserve it's beauty for my son and his future here.
10/25/2019 4:07 PM
117 Little traffic, availability of parking, clean air, Oak trees, equestrian neighborhoods, semi rural atmosphere, small town feeling, multi-use trails, ridge-line views, buildings are set back from the street, limit to 2 story buildings(although this seems to be in danger) 10/25/2019 4:04 PM
118 Clean Safe Children activities 10/25/2019 3:52 PM
119 The community atmosphere, the outdoor activities (hiking, biking, crpd sports) 10/25/2019 3:41 PM 120 Long-time residents, pride of ownership/residency, small-town feel, natural beauty/open space 10/25/2019 3:41 PM 121 Strong family community. Clean, safe city. 10/25/2019 3:39 PM 122 natural beauty close to urban culture 10/25/2019 3:35 PM 123 All the open space, low crime, good schools and no billboards 10/25/2019 3:33 PM 124 Open ridge lines. Buildings are set back from the streets and height of most buildings kept at two stories. Open space, and clean air.
10/25/2019 3:05 PM
125 It’s a ‘Boutique’ City, small family run businesses that embrace the community 10/25/2019 2:56 PM 126 I love the weather and the location. It's wonderful to live within driving distance to the world-class museums in Los Angeles, to the beaches and the mountains. 10/25/2019 1:23 PM
127 Suburb with lots of open space, hiking, good local spots to go for food, entertainment but could use more
10/25/2019 12:50 PM
128 I love the Oak Trees---I also love how the shopping areas are secondary to the natural beauty-you can drive by costco and not even see it10/25/2019 12:03 PM 129 Laws and ordinances that attempt to preserve the very things we think make TO special, but are disappearing.
10/25/2019 11:32 AM
130 I moved here to get away from the San Fernando Valley Congestion. And chose to live on the only dirt street in Thousand Oaks. The open spaces, country feel make this special. 10/24/2019 11:38 PM
131 Open space, great schools, large employers, quality of life 10/24/2019 8:31 PM 132 The small town, semi rural feel of the area with the conveniences of of the city. Love the oaks and other trees and all of the accessible open space.
10/24/2019 5:36 PM
133 Well kept public areas, parks & recreation, convenient shopping, malls, good restaurants, Kiwanis, Rotary, Sr Concerns, good police & fire depts, good schools, CAP 10/24/2019 4:23 PM
134 It is a small town feel removed from busy city life. It has wonderful schools and lots of wonderful open space.
10/24/2019 3:57 PM
135 Its not LA.. Growth has been somewhat controlled and the city is mostly built out. 10/24/2019 3:42 PM 136 Rural, low density, equestrian neighborhoods, open space, and parks. 10/24/2019 3:40 PM 137 Safety, Education, Slower Pace of Life 10/24/2019 3:18 PM 138 We love the outdoor activities, the schools, and the communities and neighborhoods. 10/24/2019 2:28 PM 139 Lots of open space and emphasis on nature 10/24/2019 10:28 AM 140 It is a safe community with a lot of open space. 10/23/2019 3:59 PM 141 Friendly community, with strong family values. Good schools and one of the safest cities in the U.S. The weather is fantastic and it is beautifully set in the Conejo Valley. Easy to get to the beach, LA, and heading up north, along the coast. Cost of living is much more reasonable than most California suburbs.
10/23/2019 3:24 PM
142 Easy access to LA & beach communities without the daily hubub, and easy access to outdoor areas.
10/23/2019 3:18 PM
143 Location and Community Feel 10/23/2019 3:10 PM
17 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
144 Open space, safety and educational opportunities 10/23/2019 2:53 PM 145 I enjoy the open areas, as well as my experience growing up in the public schools. 10/23/2019 1:29 PM 146 Clean air, not much traffic, beautiful oak trees, trails, horses, parks, ridge-line views, low profile buildings, small town feeling, western history, easy free parking, multi-use trails that connect to neighborhoods
10/23/2019 11:53 AM
147 Sense of community - including lots of free or low-cost events, OPEN SPACE and protected view sheds, our Native Oak Trees used as street and landscape trees in public areas, Small town - semi-rural atmosphere, excellent schools,
10/23/2019 12:17 AM
148 Open space, slow growth, good people 10/22/2019 11:39 PM 149 Trees! Shade! Sustainable energy choice! A better air than SF Valley! Dial a ride! Beautiful Valley Oaks.
10/22/2019 11:21 PM
150 My family moved to Thousand Oaks in 1980. It was such a great place to grow up. The Mountains and open areas are a child's dream.
10/22/2019 7:17 PM
151 its ever decreasing semi-rural status 10/22/2019 1:11 PM 152 Lots of community activities, open space and places to walk/hike 10/22/2019 11:15 AM 153 Community involvement, open spaces and rural vistas, oak trees, low profile buildings 10/21/2019 11:52 PM 154 Rural atmosphere and safety. 10/21/2019 9:01 PM
155 It is not L.A. 10/21/2019 8:30 PM
156 Small town feel, open spaces, very few large buildings on the Blvd, Oak trees, 10/21/2019 8:09 PM 157 little traffic, availability of parking, clean air, Oak trees, equestrian neighborhoods, semi rural atmosphere, small town feeling, multi use trails, ridge-line views 10/21/2019 7:24 PM
158 open spaces, hiking and community programs 10/21/2019 8:48 AM 159 Beautiful open spaces, safe home, great schools 10/20/2019 7:30 AM 160 Social activity opportunities; Goebel Center acitivities; adult ed; wonderful TO Library with adjacent Conejo Creek Park
10/19/2019 1:48 PM
161 Safe. 10/19/2019 11:33 AM
162 Family and community come first. 10/18/2019 2:40 PM 163 I like that we have easy access to everything, and we never have to worried about parking space.
We have a lot of what the City has to offer with space, and calmness. The mixed of generations from older to newbies, entrepeneurs that rejunavise the town. I love TO! <3 10/18/2019 12:03 PM
164 The Open Space and Small Town Feel 10/17/2019 4:53 PM 165 So many parks for my daughter to play Conejo Valley Days Yarrow YMCA 10/17/2019 4:46 PM 166 A balanced mix of wild, open space and suburbia/urban core. It's like the valley, but not gross and sad.
10/17/2019 12:46 PM
167 Open space, friendliness. 10/17/2019 11:03 AM
168 It's far enough away but close enough to get to other places which have things to do. Relatively safe and quiet.
10/17/2019 10:56 AM
169 Small town feel, open space, friendly community atmosphere. 10/17/2019 8:14 AM 170 schools, arts and culture opportunities (both to attend and to participate in), presence of university 10/16/2019 2:24 PM 171 Family Friendly, good school, good public amenities, 10/16/2019 1:49 PM 172 Quiet, not too crowded or too much traffic. Very low crime and good police. Lots of sky visible. The City is well-managed. Accent on landscaping and nature preservation. Controlled growth laws.
Clean streets.
10/16/2019 12:14 PM
173 Safety, alot of green trees which is less pollution, good restaurants, events for kids 10/16/2019 12:01 PM 174 open space, no billboards, early closing hours, low crime, no traffic, less stop lights 10/16/2019 9:04 AM 18 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
175 The commitment to preserving the open spaces and the oak trees. The hillside ordinance. The fact that it still feels like it's own "town" in the midst of an overpopulated southern California. 10/16/2019 4:22 AM
176 The beautiful trees and open spaces, community and schools. 10/16/2019 12:05 AM 177 1. Sense of community 3. Peaceful and safe 4. Public areas/green space 10/15/2019 10:30 PM 178 Small town feel. Safety Planned community 10/15/2019 9:45 PM 179 Safe, generally speaking. Mostly nice, caring people. 10/15/2019 6:47 PM 180 Location, topography, geography 10/15/2019 5:19 PM
181 Great community programs, great schools, beautiful open space, safe comfortable environment. 10/15/2019 3:39 PM 182 Smaller town feel, safety, open space. 10/15/2019 3:27 PM 183 low crime rate, good school district, quiet neighborhoods 10/15/2019 1:58 PM 184 Open Space , Culture , community spirit & awareness Business , Parks & Recreation 10/15/2019 1:08 PM 185 Safe. Great place to raise a family. Shopping-oaks mall etc 10/15/2019 12:40 PM 186 Nothing anymore! I have lived here all of my life. 60 years. I would never live here by choice anymore. The quaint small town atmosphere is gone.
10/15/2019 11:41 AM
187 Great place to raise a family, K-12 Education, work and enjoy the open spaces for hiking, golf, and enjoyment of community parks.
10/15/2019 11:13 AM
188 The nature and open space, it's a place to settle down and relax 10/15/2019 9:57 AM 189 Low crime and still maintains a small-town feel for the most part. 10/15/2019 9:22 AM 190 Neat, clean, safe, choice of shopping, good schools, major triage center, close to ocean, mountains and other forms of entertainment.
10/15/2019 9:02 AM
191 Small town world with the advantages of a big city 10/15/2019 9:01 AM 192 comfortable, less-crowded than big cities, and Orange County, the weather, more friendly than L.A., access to most necessary facilities
10/15/2019 8:46 AM
193 The best part of living in Thousand Oaks is the feeling of safety and the ease of access to almost anything one could want.
10/15/2019 8:22 AM
194 The small town atmosphere, how pretty it is, the good access to larger venues (like Los Angeles), the wonderful weather, excellent services, safety, and low crime. 10/15/2019 8:18 AM
195 I like that there is very little traffic that I have the freedom to drive around without waiting in line like in West Hollywood. I like that it is quite without a lot of night life. The people are polite and friendly.
I feel safe.
10/15/2019 8:08 AM
196 Good mix of neighborhoods, outdoors, and space 10/15/2019 6:14 AM 197 Set among rolling hills, parks and proximity to the Santa Monica Mountains and the Pacific Ocean. 10/15/2019 5:50 AM 198 It's a beautiful well balanced hometown community of good people. 10/14/2019 11:56 PM 199 I like the big small town vibe. 10/14/2019 11:23 PM 200 Clean 10/14/2019 10:33 PM
201 The sense of community 10/14/2019 10:20 PM
202 Pace, family oriented, quiet, safe. 10/14/2019 10:11 PM 203 A commitment to suburban character and the preservation of open space/rural areas. 10/14/2019 9:10 PM 204 Weather, the Oaks, nice people, less transients, drugs, filth, crime, theft. 10/14/2019 9:08 PM 205 Quaintness, community, beauty, opalence 10/14/2019 9:02 PM 206 I love that it has a small town feel with all the amenities, like stores and movie theaters nearby. I love the big parks that are safe for my kids to enjoy, as well as the trails all around. 10/14/2019 8:52 PM
207 The calmness that there are big business only in certain areas and they are mostly held separate from residential areas, unless the residential is apartments. Also that structures are not allowed to be too tall.
10/14/2019 8:15 PM
19 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
208 The trails 10/14/2019 7:45 PM
209 It a good place to raise a family. 10/14/2019 6:02 PM 210 We live in a comfortable and safe bubble. 10/14/2019 5:39 PM 211 City beautification awareness. Uncrowded. Controlled growth. Strict codes. Mandated Nature spaces. Humans answering phones at City Hall. Underground utilities. Nice Library, Senior and Teen Centers. No skyscrapers. Low crime and low homelessness population. Good police and Fire protection. Free parking. Clean streets. Top schools. 10/14/2019 5:12 PM
212 Family oriented, a loving community, safe, well maintained, plenty activities, so many parks, trails, and access to neat adventures whether it's the beach, museums in L.A. or traveling north to camp by a lake. It is my home and I never want to leave.
10/14/2019 3:36 PM
213 Proximity to the beach, mountains, hiking and biking trails. Weather 10/14/2019 2:50 PM 214 Open space, parks, and low crime. 10/14/2019 2:34 PM 215 Beautiful landscape, adjacent to the Santa Monica mountains. Amazing weather. Great cycling and mountain biking.
10/14/2019 2:14 PM
216 Small town atmosphere, community, open spaces, great city services. 10/14/2019 1:24 PM 217 Open Space, Great Parks, and hiking trails, and not overcrowded. 10/14/2019 1:06 PM 218 Open space and trees 10/14/2019 1:05 PM
219 I like the open space, hiking and parks 10/14/2019 12:10 PM 220 Low crime, good schools, ring of open space, traditional community values 10/14/2019 10:38 AM 221 Convenience to stores, restaurants and medical 10/14/2019 10:26 AM 222 Small town 10/14/2019 10:07 AM
223 Safe, clean, and beautifully maintained city. By far the best place to raise a family and retire. 10/14/2019 9:48 AM 224 The safe rural and open looking environment; with no high rising buildings, good schools, low crime and nice views from around the city where you typically just see trees and hills. 10/14/2019 9:37 AM
225 Low-rise architecture, restricted development, strict code compliance, no hilltop building, great library, excellent police, low noise, no billboards, no parking meters, commercial businesses kept to certain streets, good shopping
10/14/2019 9:09 AM
226 It is not Not a sprawling city. It is not a los angels of San Francisco. It had resisted being such by not allowing vagrants, homeless and criminals to infest our city. It upholds the laws of this country with pride.
10/14/2019 8:37 AM
227 The beautiful surroundings, and the parks. 10/14/2019 8:33 AM 228 Sadly, less and less with passing years. The unique qualities of T.O. Are fading as development, crowding and traffic gets worse
10/14/2019 8:19 AM
229 Open space 10/13/2019 3:03 PM
230 It is not the SF Valley no 3 and 4 story buildings blocking our view. Great open space to hike with my dogs.
10/13/2019 11:22 AM
231 Open space, trees, good schools 10/12/2019 10:04 PM 232 Excellent schools, plenty of Open Space, excellent parks and safety. 10/12/2019 3:06 PM 233 Educated, progressive leaders and decisions that have provided Civic Arts Plaza, CRPD, senior services, excellent non-profit organizations that meet a variety of interests and needs, nearness to LA for big city options.
10/12/2019 3:05 PM
234 Open space, well maintained city 10/12/2019 12:43 PM 235 Open space trails/parks and Arts culture 10/12/2019 10:44 AM 236 The relaxed suburban atmosphere achieved by density and zoning restrictions probably going to be outlawed by radical state gov't led by Newsom.
10/12/2019 9:52 AM
237 Open spaces, less peopls 10/12/2019 8:09 AM
20 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
238 The beautiful appeal of the natural landscape and foliage. The nice looking buildings and shopping centers. In general an appealing place to live and be in. We enjoy the community of people and the relatively low crime and good school system.
10/11/2019 6:00 PM
239 Open space 10/11/2019 12:03 PM
240 Small town feel, open space, low traffic, easy parking, no billboards, safe 10/11/2019 11:50 AM 241 quality of life, open space, family friendly, safe 10/11/2019 10:28 AM 242 Family-friendly and city-suburban vibe; all walks of life and socio-economic backgrounds live here; the hidden gem aspect
10/10/2019 10:47 PM
243 Feels like a small town. Everything I need is within five miles of home. 10/10/2019 7:55 PM 244 no traffic, easy parking, open space, no graffiti, clean streets, picturesque setting surrounded by hills
10/10/2019 2:53 PM
245 Great location, close to PCH, great mountain views, and easy beach access. 10/10/2019 1:20 PM 246 Quiet 10/10/2019 12:56 PM
247 Family friendly and its safe 10/10/2019 12:50 PM
248 Clean and quite! 10/10/2019 12:38 PM
249 Lots of culture & arts, PRIDE festival, aesthetic of city 10/10/2019 12:28 PM 250 Financially sound. Balanced budget. Ring of open space. 10/10/2019 11:16 AM 251 Like being in the country and still has that small-town feeling! 10/10/2019 9:27 AM 252 Open space. Commitment to parks, wildlife, and safety. Cleanliness and building for beauty.
Regulating building size and honoring oak trees. Excellent Parks and Recreation programs. Kind people.
10/10/2019 9:23 AM
253 Open space preservation strong sense of community great public schools 10/10/2019 8:25 AM 254 Mountains, weather, hiking trails, proximity to LA 10/10/2019 8:24 AM 255 Proximity to preserved natural accessible open space. Also our well planned development with beautiful landscaping.
10/10/2019 8:08 AM
256 Safe community, good schools, not overpopulated 10/10/2019 8:06 AM 257 nicely set, good schools 10/10/2019 7:47 AM
258 Less traffic, less people, kinder and politer crowd, healthier and cleaner town in Los Angeles areas 10/10/2019 7:44 AM 259 The nature aspect and lots of yummy food. 10/10/2019 6:49 AM 260 The open space feel of the area (lots of nature around), but is close to the city. 10/10/2019 3:13 AM 261 Residential neighborhoods that are largely quiet and well maintained with easy access to convenient shopping and services. I'm walking distance to the TO library, which is a wonderful facility for the community.
10/10/2019 12:00 AM
262 It has a small town feel. 10/9/2019 10:55 PM
263 Our incredible location - close enough to LA to access what the city has to offer, but far enough away to have a small town feel. Our open space, hiking trails, and parks are incredible. Our schools are great and there is a great sense of community. 10/9/2019 10:12 PM
264 Open space surrounding city. 10/9/2019 10:11 PM
265 Safe, clean , laws are enforced, transient/drug/lawlessness/violence/robbery problems not out of control YET.
10/9/2019 9:51 PM
266 Open Space with maintained trails. Conejo Botanic Garden. No buildings on ridgetops. 10/9/2019 9:29 PM 267 Open space and beautiful parks and hiking trails. 10/9/2019 8:47 PM 268 The beautiful greenery and mountains and a quiet less congested small town feeling. 10/9/2019 8:25 PM 269 Suburban, safe, great schools and involved community members. Close enough to Los Angeles without the negativity (I.e., incessant traffic, crime) 10/9/2019 8:13 PM
21 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
270 Parks, School and surrounding open space 10/9/2019 8:08 PM 271 Safety; Sign ordinances that prohibit billboards; open space; low building height; buried power and phone lines
10/9/2019 8:03 PM
272 The weather. Not much crime. Not much traffic. Parking is free. The Teachers are fantastic. 10/9/2019 8:01 PM 273 The small town feel and the open space 10/9/2019 7:58 PM 274 #1: Open space, no question. 10/9/2019 7:58 PM
275 Ample open space; friendly attitude; small town feeling. 10/9/2019 7:53 PM 276 Open spaces, bike Lanes. 10/9/2019 7:48 PM
277 Open space, fantastic parks 10/9/2019 7:46 PM
278 safe, open space, stars at night 10/9/2019 7:43 PM
279 It's a small community and still relatively safe. 10/9/2019 7:43 PM 280 civic arts plaza, trails, oaks mall, lots of restaurants, open space, oak trees, parks, movies, friendly safe community
10/9/2019 7:43 PM
281 Large town benefits; small town feel. Safe. Diverse. 10/9/2019 7:41 PM 282 Safe and quiet neighborhood. Close proximity to main freeways which connect to LA. 10/9/2019 7:36 PM 283 Big enough to have everything but not so big that you don't know anyone 10/9/2019 2:25 PM 284 Our wonderful open space and trails. The design of neighborhoods that have nearby shopping and wide streets that usually aren't crowded. Nice people and plenty of opportunity to volunteer and be involved with helping the community become a better place. 10/8/2019 1:16 PM
285 Open Space 10/7/2019 1:22 PM
286 Quiet, no overhead utility lines and absence of road billboards and high buildings make it easy to enjoy the beauty of the area. Great university involvement in the community, great library and parks ( except for the off leash dog parks). Older folks and the terrific activities for them - Conejo Adult Ed. Great city for affordable activities for retirees. 10/5/2019 6:25 AM
287 open space 10/4/2019 10:46 AM
288 small town feel. not much traffic. 10/4/2019 9:22 AM 289 Feeling of space, many parks, good air quality, uncrowded, full range of services including health, education, commercial, retail.
10/3/2019 6:11 PM
290 Growing up here, I have seen it grow into a beautiful city with amazing services. Many in my group moved away after high school, including myself, but came back to raise our children here. 10/3/2019 5:13 PM
291 Great community. Great schools and educational opportunities for my family. Parks and trails - open space. Amenities - businesses. City Services like the Library. Safe. 10/3/2019 3:14 PM
292 Open space, convenient to markets, theaters, shops, etc. Easy commute to Ojai, Santa Barbara, and beaches. It has a community feel.
10/3/2019 11:28 AM
293 Great amount of open space and limited ridgeline building. I love being surrounded by nature and having a beautiful view from almost everywhere in the city. Also love the oak trees and semi-rural feel of the city.
10/2/2019 2:50 PM
294 I like the small town atmosphere even though this is not really a small town. I like the Senior Center, closeness to Reagan Library, general quality of life. 10/2/2019 2:24 PM
295 The proximity and convenience of open space. 10/2/2019 1:20 PM 296 Community, Safety, Clean 10/2/2019 12:56 PM
297 Open space. Clean neighborhoods and pothole free streets. Little traffic. Good weather. Abundant recreation opportunities. Great parks. Proximity to beaches, big city, and major airport. Good shopping. Lots of Oaks. Not a sanctuary city.
10/2/2019 12:54 PM
298 The green space surrounding our area, the citizens (friendly, caring, involved), the municipality (the City is caring, available, responsive), access to good shopping, Cal Lu. 10/2/2019 12:52 PM
299 Parks, schools, reasonable city governance, limited growth 10/2/2019 11:43 AM 22 / 70
TO2045 Community Survey #1
300 small town atmosphere in a small city. Schools have been great. Easy to get around and navigate.