Reply by Lobo Grande on 03/12/2021 at 12:26pm [Comment ID: 1535] - Link Agree: 9, Disagree: 0
Especially considering that most of these units will be occupied by more than one person. That's the potential to more than double our population without the resources to sustain it. Awesome. </sarcasm>
#266
Posted by Betty Resnick on 03/09/2021 at 4:16pm [Comment ID: 1391] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
It's NUMBER of housing units, not amount.
#267
Posted by Kurt K Sauter on 02/24/2021 at 8:25pm [Comment ID: 1131] - Link Agree: 20, Disagree: 0
This was a total workaround and completely against Measure E. This BANK was a TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 105 Printed 03/24/2021 contrived method to get around the will of the people.
Reply by Aaron on 03/13/2021 at 8:37pm [Comment ID: 1610] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
Didn't we just vote in mostly new council who are against all this? Are the bribes that good?
Reply by FK on 03/14/2021 at 10:05pm [Comment ID: 1672] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
Yeah, something smells fishy? trying to push this through while we are dealing with a pandemic? But I guess that's what we can expect from our city leaders who are charging Caruso Development $1./ year for the rent at "The Lakes". Ridiculous
#268
Posted by Kelly T on 02/24/2021 at 12:13pm [Comment ID: 1083] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
These figures are done with estimates/projections from over 24 years ago? #269
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 1:57pm [Comment ID: 1787] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Or here:
The Rise and Fall of Measure E:
https://micfarris.medium.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-measure-e-87a881f193f5 #270
Posted by Kelly T on 02/24/2021 at 12:14pm [Comment ID: 1085] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: 0
Does this mean that the previous paragraph of Measure E does not even apply any longer? Legislation passed by politicians in 2019 (and not by referendum) now make the decisions?
#271
Posted by Randy Roth on 03/14/2021 at 8:10pm [Comment ID: 1660] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
This number was increased substantially in the last couple of years, over the objections of many people. At that time, the proponents of the increase argued it really didn't mean anything, was just a technicality. It's now being used to justify this revision to the General Plan.
Reply by Scott Collins on 03/15/2021 at 12:09am [Comment ID: 1689] - Link TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 106 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Keen insight.
Reply by Tracy B on 03/15/2021 at 2:10pm [Comment ID: 1790] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
I recall the City Council decided a few years ago that they could reclaim unbuilt but previously allocated housing units at completed developments throughout the city, which gave them 80K+ new units to offer up to developers. #272
Posted by RD on 03/03/2021 at 12:19am [Comment ID: 1250] - Link Agree: 13, Disagree: 0
We need full disclosure here about this number. Who decided this and when? I'm having a hard time believing this was the number decided in 1996, which is what this paragraph makes it sound like.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 1:53pm [Comment ID: 1786] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
The Rise and Fall of Measure E:
https://micfarris.medium.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-measure-e-87a881f193f5 TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 107 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 17
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
According to the Institute for Local Government, “the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) is the process by which each community is assigned its share of the housing need for an eight-year period. This allocation consists of two steps. First, The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) determines the total housing need for each region in the state. Second, as the Council of Governments, … [SCAG distributes] … this needs to local governments . The purpose of the RHNA is to encourage communities to anticipate their share of regional growth and plan for this growth in a way that enhances quality of life, improves access to jobs, promotes multi-modal transportation solutions and expands affordable housing.
The RHNA identifies each jurisdiction’s responsibility for planning for housing and is divided into four income categories that encompass all levels of housing affordability. Once it receives its RHNA, each local government must update the Housing Element of its General Plan to show how it plans to meet the housing needs in its community.” The Housing Element is then certified by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Thousand Oaks’ RHNA for the eight-year Housing Element cycle from 2021 to 2029 is 2,615 units. Of this, 733 units must be Very Low Income, 493 must be Low Income, 531 must be Moderate Income and 858 units must be Above Moderate Income. It is also important to remember that the RHNA cycle is only eight years, but the horizon year for the updated General Plan is 2045. This means that the growth projections for Thousand Oaks should accommodate at least three times the RHNA number.
SENATE BILL 330
In 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) to promote housing development throughout the State. One of the core components of this legislation is that jurisdictions may not change an existing land use designation to prohibit residential development or lower the intensity of residential development unless there is a concurrent increase in capacity elsewhere in the city, a concept known as “No Net Loss”.
This means that the new General Plan cannot reduce the total residential capacity of the City because of SB 330 nor can it increase capacity because of Measure E. The decision that must be made in the General Plan is how to distribute the 81,124 housing units to produce the greatest benefit for the city.
Additional requirements in SB 330 include permit streamlining to reduce the time for housing approvals, prohibiting subjective decision-making for residential development, and a prohibition from imposing a moratorium or similar restriction on a housing development that was adopted after 2005.
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 108 Printed 03/24/2021 #273
Posted by Steve Schiedermayer on 02/23/2021 at 4:39pm [Comment ID: 987] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Might be good for residents to be informed of what full buildout would look like - were it required by the State, which could happen.
#274
Posted by Aaron on 03/13/2021 at 8:39pm [Comment ID: 1611] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Is SCAG an elected body?
#275
Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:12pm [Comment ID: 669] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 5, Disagree: 0
In several examples of 2014-2021 document, "Sites" capacities were reduced due to environmental or inability to complete as originally thought in general plan (1970).
Example is Site 57 that went from 150 dwellings to 20. And Site 49 that went from 16 to 1 dwelling. Since the designation didn't change, it would seem feasible that our total units should reduce with that required change in development ability. #276
Posted by Steve Schiedermayer on 02/23/2021 at 4:34pm [Comment ID: 986] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Why does the growth projection need to accommodate at least 3x the 6th cycle #? Why not the 5th cycle x 3? Or to buildout fully? All you've done here is make a projection based on politics
#277
Posted by FK on 03/14/2021 at 10:38pm [Comment ID: 1675] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
Why? Who decided the growth projections should accommodate at least three times the RHNA number? You guys are trying to predict the future, we should be doing the bare minimum responsibly.
Reply by Scott Collins on 03/15/2021 at 12:22am [Comment ID: 1690] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Of some note, 3 times current RHNA cycle is approximately 8K. This may be high, and possibly an unwarranted estimate. Still, it is much less than the approximate 35K incremental du that the plan alternatives incorporate.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 109 Printed 03/24/2021 #278
Posted by Carl G Kolvenbach on 03/08/2021 at 8:32pm [Comment ID: 1385] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
With the impending recall or Newsom will this bill be repealed? Reply by Carl G Kolvenbach on 03/08/2021 at 8:33pm [Comment ID: 1386] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
of not or
#279
Posted by FK on 03/14/2021 at 10:40pm [Comment ID: 1676] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I thought the number was 2,615?
#280
Posted by Barbara on 02/18/2021 at 7:35pm [Comment ID: 766] - Link Agree: 7, Disagree: -1
If Newsom is recalled or loses next election, and possibly SB 330 reversed/repealed, then would the city still go ahead with expansion?
Reply by karen wilburn on 02/27/2021 at 5:47pm [Comment ID: 1206] - Link Agree: 15, Disagree: -1
The prohibition against downzoning expires in 2025. My concern is Sacto will renew this restriction, so the danger is once we change the overall general plan to allow mixed use housing at density levels that could be up to 4 stories & 45 units per acre, we could be stuck with these forever. Again I say why tie our hands & give more than what is needed now. We may not be able to take it back.
Reply by Betsy on 03/12/2021 at 7:52pm [Comment ID: 1554] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -3
The reason to do this is not Sacramento making us, it is to remain a vibrant community that can attract great businesses and support good restaurants and retail. This is where the tax base comes from that keeps the infrastructure up to date. Even before the pandemic, shopping centers were losing leases. The malls had lots of empty units. Too many people who work here drive out of town at the end of the day for cheaper housing elsewhere. We are shooting ourselves in the foot.
Reply by Aaron on 03/13/2021 at 8:45pm [Comment ID: 1612] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 110 Printed 03/24/2021 So, retail is struggling, and your solution is more retail, but now underneath apartments?
Ok, got it.
#281
Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:09pm [Comment ID: 666] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
In 2014-2021 general plan update Thousand Oaks needed to provide 192 dwellings - was this number met, exceeded, short? And which grouping (by %) received the result of the development?
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 111 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 18
Land use designations are the intended future use of every parcel of land in the city.
According to State law, land use designations must identify the allowed uses and the development intensity (measured in dwelling units per acre, floor area ratio (FAR) or jobs/ residents per acre). Zoning districts must be consistent with the General Plan land use designations.
While land use designations provide for overall development intensity and allowed uses, they do not specify the form or character of the building. Different interpretations of the same density and FAR can result in buildings of very different character. To encourage similar interpretations of allowed FARs, other City regulations such as zoning height limits, building setbacks, or open space requirements are used to guide the form of buildings within a given FAR range.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The City’s Development Plan (also known as the General Plan) was adopted in 1970. The Existing General Plan Map on the following page represents area within the 1997 General Plan Planning Area and the existing land use designations for the city. Table 1 presents the current breakdown of land uses and residential densities allowed in each category. The existing General Plan does not describe allowed uses and density ranges for commercial, industrial, and institutional land use designations.
LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
LIMITATIONS OF LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
It is important to note a few limitations of land use designations. Land use designations cannot require specific uses or tenants. This means that the General Plan cannot require the type of ownership of buildings (rental versus ownership, or specific tenants in buildings). For example, the General Plan cannot require or prohibit that specific parcels be used for affordable housing, senior housing, specialneeds housing, or prohibit certain types of tenants in commercial spaces (such as chain stores). Further, the City cannot identify specific locations for parks, schools, and public buildings unless they are on land that is currently publicly owned.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 112 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 19
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
Erbes Rd
E Olsen Rd
Borchard Rd
W Hillcrest Dr
W Lynn Rd
N Westlake Bl
S Westlake Bl
N Lynn Rd
E Kanan R d
N Moorpark Rd
E Janss Rd
E Thousand Oaks Bl
S Reino Rd
E Avenida De Los Arboles
E H illcrest Dr
La Granada Dr
Rancho Conejo Bl
Wendy Dr
Sunset Hil ls Bl
Hampshire Rd
Old C onejo Rd
Via Las Brisas
W Olsen Rd
N Reino Rd
W Potrero Rd
Potrero Rd
Moorpark
Rd
Lindero Canyon Rd
E Potrero Rd
Thousand Oaks Bl
Westlake Bl
W Janss Rd
W Wilbur Rd
Agoura Rd
Rancho Dos Vientos
S Ventu Park Rd
Lynn Rd
¤£101
£¤101
¤£101
¤£101
23 UV
UV23
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
City of
Westlake
Village
City of
Simi Valley
City of
Camarillo
°
City of
Agoura Hills
Raimi + Associates 2019 | Data Source: City of Thousand Oaks, County of Ventura, County of Los Angeles Unincorporated Counties Land
City Limits
City Sphere
Major Roads
Freeways
School Adjacent Cities
Existing Park, Golf, Open Space
Proposed Park and Recreational Area
Residentially Developable Land
Undevelopable Land
Commercial
Commercial/Residential
Industrial
Institutional
High Density Residential Mobile Home Exclusive
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Reserve Residential
Very Low Density Residential Lake
LAND USE ACRES PERCENT OF
LAND AREA
Very Low Density
(0-2 dwelling units/net
acre (du/ac))
3,989 10
Low Density
(2-4.5 du/ac)
9,094 24
Medium Density
(4.6-15 du/ac)
1,918 5
High Density
(15-30 du/ac)
565 2
Mobile Home Exclusive 130 <1
Commercial/Residential 372 1
Commercial 1,377 4
Industrial 1,188 3
Institutional 584 2
Elementary School 246 <1
Intermediate School 83 <1
High School 153 <1
Existing Park, Golf,
Open Space
16,414 42
Proposed Park and
Recreational Area
316 <1
Residential Developable
Land
327 <1
Undevelopable Land 1,340 4
Reserve 628 2
Lake 47 <1
Grand Total 38,770 100
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Acre totals
cover land in the 1997 General Plan planning area.
Source: City of Thousand Oaks, 2019.
TABLE 1 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
291 290
292
293
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 113 Printed 03/24/2021 #282
Posted by Noah Tillipman on 02/02/2021 at 11:23pm [Comment ID: 591] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -5
This area should be considered for high density housing #283
Posted by Noah Tillipman on 02/02/2021 at 11:23pm [Comment ID: 590] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -3
This area should be considered for high density housing. #284
Posted by Karen Maloney on 02/16/2021 at 1:54pm [Comment ID: 696] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
This area is commercial and should stay this way. Upgraded one stores buildings with a good setback from road. #285
Posted by Kenneth Brown on 02/28/2021 at 11:00pm [Comment ID: 1226] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
It would be nice if you clicked on an area and could see what is there now and what is open for development or options available if one owns this or a parcel close by. #286
Posted by Kevin Kohan on 03/11/2021 at 2:59pm [Comment ID: 1494] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Properties north of Hillcrest Drive currently have a land use designation of Medium Density Residential. However, under the General Plan Update, these properties are downzoned to Single Family Residential. Recommend that these properties maintain its Medium Density Residential designation in order to provide opportunity for affordable housing near important community services such as the local church, synagogue, and Conejo Elementary School.
#287
Posted by Phil Clark on 03/14/2021 at 10:10pm [Comment ID: 1673] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
A bike path that connected from Lang Ranch, through Sapwi park, behind Los Cerritos, to Conejo Creek park, to TOHS and to Wildwood would provide a safe alternative for kids, parents, and seniors to access schools, work, library, shopping and open spaces without needing a car! Huge increase in quality of life and property value.
#288
Posted by Susan Everett on 03/05/2021 at 1:20am [Comment ID: 1278] - Link TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 114 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I live on Los Feliz Dr. between TO Blvd and Conejo School Rd., new apartments keep going in and there is nowhere for all the cars to park. Speeding is constant on this street and I have witnessed many car accidents in front of my apartment. Seems to be poor planning for this neighborhood. Need more parking, speed bumps on this street and Police to crack down on the speeding and extremely loud vehicles. I stop calling the Police because they are slow to show up and dont do anything about the problem. One day a vehicle is going to run right into my home. #289
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 8:27pm [Comment ID: 824] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -2
Just for argument. This piece of land appears to be between Conejo School and Rancho. There appears to be "undeveloped land". As I have stated elsewhere there is a freeway ramp already in place.
To me the indication is development. Medium desity residential and perhaps horizontal mixed use. #290
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 12:31pm [Comment ID: 1748] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
One of the biggest draws to Conejo is exactly how this map is laid out. Leave the rural areas with open spaces and keep the concentration of retail areas in concentrated areas. This area is rather small in size and everyone is willing to drive to their retail/commercial areas rather than take away our beautiful open spaces. Keep retail/commercial in concentrated areas. No more malls or strip malls needed.
Just fill what we have.
#291
Posted by Brandon on 02/24/2021 at 5:39pm [Comment ID: 1123] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
Mobile Home areas should be upgraded to high density zoning to create more affordable housing bring a younger population to Thousand Oaks. Give developers high incentives to buy mobile home parks and redeveloping them for high density apartment buildings.
Reply by Wes Myers on 03/01/2021 at 7:20pm [Comment ID: 1232] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
I agree with Brandon that MH parks would be an ideal location for multifamily buildings. Due to their nature, these parks have large footprints, minimal environmental issues (effectively already paved over 100%), and are inefficient living and parking footage due to single story. In addition, they are hazardous during wildfires and are oftentimes aesthetically blighted due to fragmented ownership of the structures and lots.
Lowering restrictions on these parks for developers specifically when it comes to rent control, age restrictions, building requirements, and zoning on these areas could provide the room to meet state housing mandates. These parks could likely be redeveloped in a manner that provides the same if not better living environment but accommodate at least three times the residents that they already have.
Because these parks are flat and have utilities, developments can be phased with "garden-style" units so they would only temporarily displace minimal residents as more units are built.
Redeveloping MH parks would add value to surrounding neighborhoods weather they are rented out or sold as condo/townhome units. Even though new construction would cost more than the existing mobile homes, it would be more affordable and accessible to more families due to the conventional financing available from conventionally built structures that is not available to temporary structures.
Lastly, the property tax base would increase for the county.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 115 Printed 03/24/2021 #292
Posted by Kristen Henson on 02/13/2021 at 11:01am [Comment ID: 652] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
Developing this as anything other than low density residential is totally inappropriate. It backs to residential neighborhoods of predominantly one story homes. 50-60ft tall structures would be a huge blight and out of keeping with available infrastructure resources. Since low density residential automatically becomes MEDIUM after state density bonuses and City incentives are thrown in, development here is already guaranteed to be a blight and hugely disruptive to current residents.
Are the members of City Council and the Mayor providing housing for the less fortunate in ADUs on their own properties, behind their own homes? If not, they MUST stop lecturing their residents on the virtues of dense housing. Such hypocrites!
#293
Posted by Kristen Henson on 02/13/2021 at 10:56am [Comment ID: 651] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
Neighborhood residents have already shown overwhelming opposition changing this to a "Medium" density residential development of 35-40ft tall, out of keeping w/the area. Medium Density actually = High or Ultra High density after builder is automatically allowed extra units (density bonus). Then the City eagerly waives height, setback and other zoning reqs as further incentives. Awful. The City only seems to care about increasing its tax base at the expense of its current residents. How much affordable housing are the mayor and councilmembers personally providing on their own properties? Do they have the less fortunate living in their backyards in ADUs? If not, they shouldn't lecture their citizenry about the virtues of more dense "affordable housing." TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 116 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 20
PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
In order to better meet the vision of the community, the updated General Plan will have new land use designations. Some will be similar to existing designations and some will introduce new development opportunities. The proposed land use designations meet the objectives identified through the community engagement process as well as State law that places new restrictions on the relationship between land use designations and zoning districts.
The land use designations are divided into five basic categories:
1. Residential designations for the residential-only areas of the city.
2. Mixed-use designations to allow for a mix of uses in an area, including vertical and horizontal mixed-use.
3. Commercial designations to provide areas for retail, offices and service uses.
4. Industrial designations to allow for a range of job-producing uses including light industrial, light manufacturing, research & development (R&D) and office uses.
5. Institutional uses including schools, parks, open spaces, hospitals, and other public uses.
The following pages describe the proposed land use designations. 294
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 117 Printed 03/24/2021 #294
Posted by Betsy on 03/12/2021 at 7:53pm [Comment ID: 1555] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I hate when the parking lot is at the front of a commercial building. Put the building in the front with a wide sidewalk and some common areas for sitting. Put the cars in the back. This is why nobody walks in this town.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 118 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 21
RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS
Description: This designation provides for very lowdensity single-family neighborhoods. The designation is generally applied to areas with significant
topography and in locations that necessitate a
transition from residential areas to preserved open
spaces.
Allowed Uses: single-family homes; ADUs; public
facilities such as parks and schools.
Density: up to 1.0 dwelling units per acre*
Height (max): 35 feet
NEIGHBORHOOD VERY LOW
Description: This designation includes single-family
neighborhoods at a very low density. The purpose is to
preserve single-family large lot developments in areas
of some topography.
Allowed Uses: single-family homes; ADUs; public
facilities such as parks and schools.
Density: > 1.0 to 2.0 dwelling units per acre*
Height (max): 35 feet
Description: This designation includes single- family
neighborhoods at a variety of densities. The purpose
is to protect existing single-family areas and to
provide for infill development at a similar scale as the surrounding residential context.
Allowed Uses: single-family homes; ADUs; public
facilities such as parks and schools.
Density: > 2.0 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre*
Height (max): 35 feet
NEIGHBORHOOD LOW
NEIGHBORHOOD RURAL
* The density ranges may be further calibrated for existing residential tracts to better reflect current densities.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 119 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 22
NEIGHBORHOOD LOW-MEDIUM
Description: This designation includes a variety of
attached and detached housing units oriented for
walking and biking while still accessible by car.
Allowed Uses: small lot single-family, townhomes,
rowhouses, and duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes;
ADUs, public facilities such as parks and schools.
Density:> 6.0 to 10.0 dwelling units per acre*
Height (max): 35 feet
Description: This designation provides for a mix
of lower-scaled attached multi-family homes in a
walkable setting, often close to existing or proposed
retail and commercial uses.
Allowed Uses: small lot single-family, townhomes,
rowhouses, and duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes;
courtyard housing, and walk-up multifamily buildings
of 2-3 stories in height; ADUs, public facilities such as parks and schools.
Density: > 10.0 to 20.0 dwelling units per acre*
Height (max): 35 feet
NEIGHBORHOOD MEDIUM
* The density ranges may be further calibrated for existing residential tracts to better reflect current densities. 295
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 120 Printed 03/24/2021 #295
Posted by Betsy on 03/12/2021 at 7:55pm [Comment ID: 1556] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
We need more of this!
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 121 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 23
NEIGHBORHOOD MEDIUM-HIGH
Description: This designation provides for “missing
middle” housing types in a walkable neighborhood
setting. Included are a variety of attached housing
types within walking distance of retail, services, and
major centers of activity. This designation is mostly
focused near Thousand Oaks Boulevard between
Hillcrest Drive and the 101 Fwy., east of Hwy. 23.
Allowed Uses: townhomes, rowhouses, and
multifamily buildings of up to four stories in height;
ADUs, public facilities such as parks and schools.
Density: >20.0 to 30.0 dwelling units per acre
Height (max): 50 feet
Description: This designation provides for high
density multi-family homes oriented in a walkable
neighborhood design where buildings are close to the
sidewalk and within walking distance of goods and
services. This designation is used sparingly across areas of change within the land use alternatives.
Allowed Uses: multifamily housing; ADUs, public
facilities such as parks and schools.
Density: >30.0 to 45.0 dwelling units per acre
Height (max): 55 feet
NEIGHBORHOOD HIGH
Description: This designation provides for existing
mobile home parks in Thousand Oaks.
Allowed Uses: mobile homes
Density: none defined.
Height (max): 35 feet
MOBILE HOME EXCLUSIVE
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 122 Printed 03/24/2021 #296
Posted by kristen Toscano on 03/07/2021 at 2:29pm [Comment ID: 1291] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This is too high. Four storieshas never been in an accepted plan for Thousand Oaks and should never get that high. Three stories is bad enough. Four is totally unacceptable
#297
Posted by Betty Resnick on 03/08/2021 at 7:03pm [Comment ID: 1380] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
I have live in T.O. since 1978. While I understand changes to the General Plan are necessary, structures above 3 stories do not preserve or enhance our community. They diminish our quality of life and are incompatible with the character of T.O. #298
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 12:37pm [Comment ID: 1750] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I don't like any of the med-high or neighborhood high for this area. No one wants to have any hint of highrise building in our community. The civic arts plaza is more than enough of ugly high rise. Mobile home parks provide more affordable living and are single story/low profile residences. But they need to be kept very nicely maintained with landscaped common areas on exterior to create a beautification from street view. #299
Posted by Steve Schiedermayer on 02/23/2021 at 4:44pm [Comment ID: 988] - Link Agree: 7, Disagree: -4
I would just throw these medium high and high scenarios in the trash. Totally against what residents want. 35 feet is it. Waste of time and money trying to work these in.
Completely out of character. Move to the Valley if you want 4+ stories. #300
Posted by Melissa Walendy on 02/08/2021 at 4:29pm [Comment ID: 638] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 12, Disagree: -1
No no no. Horrible idea to allow high stories within our city limits. The beauty and charm of TO has been deliberately strategic for years to avoid such buildings and it's that dedication that makes this city so beautiful. To allow these types of structures is just the wrong path and would be a true disappointment. Find another way. #301
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 123 Printed 03/24/2021 Posted by Barb on 03/15/2021 at 1:37am [Comment ID: 1708] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
I agree with the comments made. 35 should be the max.
#302
Posted by FK on 03/14/2021 at 10:47pm [Comment ID: 1677] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -2
This Is not what we want in T.O. or N.P. You start building these and you might as well rename the city to "West San Fernando Valley".
#303
Posted by Audrey Harvey on 02/04/2021 at 5:29pm [Comment ID: 610] - Link Agree: 12, Disagree: -5
I am very much opposed to anything over
3 stories high!!! It would
FOREVER CHANGE THE SKY LINE OF THE
CONEJO VALLEY AS WE KNOW ???
#304
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 2:40pm [Comment ID: 1795] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
I dislike the Neighborhood High and Mixed-Use High land-use designations; these are both too tall and out-of-character with the semi-rural, Nature-centric surroundings that make the Thousand Oaks community both desirable and unique. #305
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 2:32pm [Comment ID: 1793] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
The maximum height allowed on the Neighborhood Medium-High and all of the Mixed-Use land-use designations are too high. The original General Plan height limits of 35-foot maximum and generous setbacks must be retained. #306
Posted by Audrey Harvey on 02/04/2021 at 5:36pm [Comment ID: 611] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 16, Disagree: -4
I’m very much opposed any development over
3 stories high. I have lived here for over 40 yrs.
6 stories high WOULD FOREVER CHANGE THE SKYLINE OF THE CONEJO VALLEY AS WE KNOW IT.
THAT IS NOT WHAT WE MOVED HERE FOR.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 124 Printed 03/24/2021
I UNDERSTAND DEVELOPMENT WILL HAPPEN
BUT 6 STORIES HIGH. VERY DISAPPOINTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
ALLOWING THIS TO GO ON
YOUR MAP.?? THIS IS OUR CITY
#307
Posted by Cynthia Futvoye on 02/22/2021 at 4:11pm [Comment ID: 920] - Link Agree: 9, Disagree: -1
Please do not build medium high or more in NP. We are not this type of city. We need to protect the horizon line and feel of the single family community. Apartments and condos can be achieved at two stories.
Reply by John Scott on 03/10/2021 at 9:45pm [Comment ID: 1446] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -3
This would be great on TOB
#308
Posted by Wes Myers on 03/01/2021 at 7:28pm [Comment ID: 1233] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -4
If we need to meet housing requirements dictated by the State, I believe that redevelopment of MH parks is the best solution to get our numbers up. Furthermore, it would be easy to re-define density on park-by-park basis in order to get our housing allocations to align with the State's mandate. Development could be phased to meet demand, while the City of Thousand Oaks could remain RHNA compliant "on paper". #309
Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:25pm [Comment ID: 672] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 26, Disagree: -7
There are adjacent cities who can put up this type of dwellings/acre. This is too high for Thousand Oaks/NP and goes against the very people who build it to be a suburban look/feel. This option should be removed from the options.
NOTHING OVER 3 STORIES
Reply by Susan Widick on 02/18/2021 at 5:40am [Comment ID: 747] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 16, Disagree: -7
I agree with Tim. No building should be higher than three stories. The new definitions of low, mid and high density is outrageous. The original densities should be continued. I own two houses in Thoisand Oaks on Willow Lane. The traffic continues to get worse every year.
We want to live in our suburban city. I own a home in Santa Monica but choose to live here. It is a slower calmer lifestyle.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 125 Printed 03/24/2021 Reply by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 9:03am [Comment ID: 1725] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -4
Communities change. Why is anything over three stories a bad thing? It will allow us to accommodate more residents, which we need for the city to prosper and which needs to happen to enable more housing affordability.
Reply by Aaron on 03/15/2021 at 12:56pm [Comment ID: 1761] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Why do we need more residents for the city to prosper? Has it not been prospering? What is the definition of affordable housing? Can you tell me, roughly, how much more affordable the housing will be? For example, an economic model like, "if we increase the number of units by X, prices will decrease by Y, etc." Will that be good for the rest of us. Homeowners, etc? If so, how? Thanks buddy!
Reply by Lisa on 03/16/2021 at 2:35am [Comment ID: 1919] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
I love downtown Santa Barbara and Old Town Pasadena, as do many others - they get lots more tourists than we do! Tall mixed use buildings that are also charming in their design. I'd love to see that in some areas of TO. #310
Posted by Kurt K Sauter on 02/24/2021 at 8:29pm [Comment ID: 1132] - Link Agree: 12, Disagree: 0
Why are we building Medium High on the BLVD at all? Please put Multti-use where they make sense. for example: Far more people work at AMGEN and CaL Lu than on the BLVD. Put Mixed Use, where people work not where developers want them to get the biggest $$.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 2:21pm [Comment ID: 1791] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Agreed. It only makes sense to put the "workforce housing" where the work is. #311
Posted by Cynthia Futvoye on 02/22/2021 at 4:11pm [Comment ID: 921] - Link Agree: 8, Disagree: 0
Yes mobile home parks are affordable and can be attractive if managed well. #312
Posted by john francis reid on 02/16/2021 at 5:19pm [Comment ID: 707] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 21, Disagree: -2
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 126 Printed 03/24/2021 It is completely inappropriate to go as high as 55 feet. It should not be permitted anywhere in the city.
Reply by Kat Selm on 03/14/2021 at 7:33pm [Comment ID: 1655] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
There are currently several buildings in the city that are 61 feet tall. Do they ruin the character or view? You probably don't know where they even are. This goes to show you that if you sight buildings in appropriate areas it will not detract from what you love about this place. The zoning is not restrictive, we can make decisions about exactly where we can tolerate taller buildings and where we will not. It is not a one size fits all.
Reply by Gordon Clint on 03/15/2021 at 10:56am [Comment ID: 1738] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I agree. Height of buildings should be appropriate for the site - not subject to blanket prohibition.
#313
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 8:37pm [Comment ID: 827] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -4
I lived in Santa Monica when this blew up. The telephone building built by L. Welk caused a Communist take over. Height is a third rail. If you want to keep your jobs watch out for this one.
#314
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 8:34pm [Comment ID: 826] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
I think the city can own these things. The vehicles I mean. Then working with local agencies occupy them with elements that meet dictated goals. #315
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 8:31pm [Comment ID: 825] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -2
Low income housing is ideal. Reasonably easy for government agencies to dictate regulations. Scatter ultra/very low among them.
#316
Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:24pm [Comment ID: 671] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 24, Disagree: -2
There are adjacent cities who can put up this type of dwellings/acre. This is too high for Thousand Oaks/NP and goes against the very people who build it to be a suburban look/feel. This option should be removed from the options.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 127 Printed 03/24/2021 Reply by FK on 03/14/2021 at 10:50pm [Comment ID: 1678] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
Not What We Want!!
#317
Posted by Randy Roth on 03/14/2021 at 8:25pm [Comment ID: 1664] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Where did the criteria for each of these categories come from? Are they numbers generated by the consultant? If so, based on what? For instance, is the height requirements back calculated from the assumption you need 81,124 units? #318
Posted by john francis reid on 02/16/2021 at 5:18pm [Comment ID: 706] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 25, Disagree: -6
No building should exceed 35 feet in height. It will completely ruin the character of TO to go higher than 35 feet.
Reply by Susan widick on 02/18/2021 at 5:33am [Comment ID: 746] - Link Agree: 19, Disagree: -6
I agree no building should exceed 35 feet. This has always been the overriding design factor for the city. We are not interested in becoming urban.
Do not ruin our city. We love our site lines, our views and our lower architecture.
Reply by Randy Roth on 03/14/2021 at 8:23pm [Comment ID: 1663] - Link Agree: 5, Disagree: -2
Agree, the current limit of 35 ft has been a constant in all the public discussions about preserving the feel of T.O. For me, when I say "we don't want to become the Valley", it's based on not only the density of units in the Valley, but also the visual aspects. I fear TO Blvd becoming a congested, concrete canyon. The current development on the old Lupe's site has only underscored my fears.
Reply by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 9:08am [Comment ID: 1726] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: -3
Why is 35' so attractive to people? It keeps us from efficiently using the limited land that we have to house people, and pushes development elsewhere, creating more driving and a worse environmental impact. Another twenty or thirty feet allowed in a few locations in the city won't make us Hong Kong or New York City.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 2:26pm [Comment ID: 1792] - Link
Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 128 Printed 03/24/2021 If we specifically design for housing affordability in strategic locations (like in the village centers, where residents can actually walk to nearby retail, dining, entertainment and services) by allowing higher density while maintaining our existing building heights, the resulting apartments will necessarily be smaller, more affordable (by virtue of their size), and more numerous - meeting our city's state-mandated RHNA requirements faster in fewer developments, while also curtailing the construction of yet more, luxury apartments that handsomely benefit developers but not T.O. residents who want housing our adult children and senior family members can actually afford.
#319
Posted by FK on 03/14/2021 at 10:51pm [Comment ID: 1679] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -2
This Is not what we want in T.O. or N.P. You start building these and you might as well rename the city to "West San Fernando Valley".
#320
Posted by Munsoor Behbahany on 03/04/2021 at 10:19pm [Comment ID: 1276] - Link Agree: 10, Disagree: -3
Agree with previous comments to keep all structures under 35 feet, regardless of density or land use.
#321
Posted by vanessa p on 02/23/2021 at 5:26am [Comment ID: 972] - Link Agree: 7, Disagree: -2
Not interested in multi use or anything over 3 stories.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 129 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 24
MIXED-USE DESIGNATIONS
MIXED-USE LOW
Description: This designation provides for
neighborhood-serving goods and services and multifamily residential in a mixed-use format (vertical or horizontal) or as stand-alone projects. Buildings
with this designation will be designed to be walkable
with wide sidewalks, active frontages, and minimal
setbacks from the back of the sidewalk.
Allowed Uses: Retail, restaurants, commercial uses
(such as banks or real estate offices), residential in
multi-family buildings, or attached single-family
units (e.g., townhomes), public facilities such as
libraries.
Density and FAR:
>20 to 30.0 dwelling units per acre
0.25 FAR (non-residential)
1.0 FAR (all uses)
Height (max): 50 feet
MIXED-USE MEDIUM
Description: This designation creates a walkable
neighborhood-scaled environment with buildings that
contain active ground floor uses located at or near the sidewalk with housing or office next to or above.
Allowed Uses: office, commercial, multi-family
housing.
Density and FAR:
>30.0 to 45.0 dwelling units per acre
0.5 FAR (non-residential)
1.5 FAR (all uses)
Height (max): 58 feet
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 130 Printed 03/24/2021 #322
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 12:45pm [Comment ID: 1755] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Again, I don't want to have my community changed into the SF Valley. I used to live in Woodland Hills and they have built up Ventura Blvd with so much med/high mixed use that it is ugly, crowded, and impossible to find parking on the blvd for these stores. I am not a fan of mixed use as it becomes too crowded like what you allowed on the old Lupe's site. That is an ugly and many of my friends agree, that what the city allowed on that site is much too much for our blvd. You want it to become a walking retail path, that mixed use theme does not create a welcoming desire to walk past crowded buildings looming over the sidewalk. No beautification with landscaping on streetside, just massiveness. No mixed use unless you create it in the industrial areas, closer to where people working in the business parks can walk to work from their mixed use areas. that makes much more sense. Then you have use mixed-use high with the warehouse communities. It all blends together and is more practical for those single professionals to live and work.
#323
Posted by CB on 02/24/2021 at 2:51pm [Comment ID: 1089] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Looks like the background of many people's weekend getaway photos. It's be nice to have similar in our backyard.
#324
Posted by CB on 02/24/2021 at 2:58pm [Comment ID: 1090] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -2
A nice option to have housing and places to eat/visit with friends within walking distance. I'd like to see more of this.
#325
Posted by Barb on 03/15/2021 at 1:39am [Comment ID: 1709] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -2
again no higher than 35 feet.
#326
Posted by FK on 03/14/2021 at 10:55pm [Comment ID: 1681] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: -1
Totally against this! Looks like Encino or Tarzana.
#327
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 131 Printed 03/24/2021 Posted by Barb on 03/15/2021 at 1:41am [Comment ID: 1710] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: -1
I love the idea of cafes and a place to meet friends, but buildings to remain no higher than 35 ft.
#328
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 2:52pm [Comment ID: 1799] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Minimum setbacks (as noted in the Neighborhood High, Mixed-Use Low, and Mixed-Use Medium land-use designation descriptions) are unacceptable; sidewalks must be wide and setbacks must be generous.
#329
Posted by john on 02/03/2021 at 11:36am [Comment ID: 599] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: -3
no residential units in city centers (i.e. Arboles and Erbes) #330
Posted by FK on 03/14/2021 at 10:53pm [Comment ID: 1680] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
This Is not what we want in T.O. or N.P. You start building these and you might as well rename the city to "West San Fernando Valley". Nothing over 35ft. #331
Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:28pm [Comment ID: 673] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 8, Disagree: -1
In 2014-2021 general plan there was reference to "Setback Standards Are Satisfied".
What are those setback standards? The first design Erbes/T.O. Blvd is way too close to the street, and way to high. It was an extremely poor plan and goes against the residents of Thousand Oaks requires.
Reply by Betsy on 03/12/2021 at 7:58pm [Comment ID: 1557] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Have you gone over to walk around? I love that the cars are in the back and the retail is in front where you can window shop while walking. All of my favorite towns are set up this way. Why does car have to be king in TO? #332
Posted by john francis reid on 02/16/2021 at 5:20pm [Comment ID: 708] - Link TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 132 Printed 03/24/2021 Type: Suggestion
Agree: 17, Disagree: -3
I agree that the current height limit is the right one. This is too high. #333
Posted by Betsy on 03/12/2021 at 8:00pm [Comment ID: 1558] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 5, Disagree: -3
I love this. Wide sidewalks. Cars in the back. Perfect for strolling and window shopping.
Meet a friend for a coffee or a glass of wine. Yes!
Reply by Albert on 03/14/2021 at 6:06pm [Comment ID: 1634] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: -1
I also like the idea, but 58 feet is too high.
Reply by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 9:13am [Comment ID: 1728] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: -2
58 feet doesn't seem unreasonable to me. If I might ask, why do you think it is too high?
#334
Posted by john francis reid on 02/16/2021 at 5:21pm [Comment ID: 709] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 30, Disagree: -2
Everywhere I look I see a Desire to build the City up, to make it higher. This will change our character to much. It should not be allowed.
Reply by Susan Widick on 02/18/2021 at 5:44am [Comment ID: 748] - Link Agree: 23, Disagree: -2
I agree with John. Everywhere the plan shows five and six story buildings with very dense du/acre.
We do not want this in Thousand Oaks.we have guarded our town character for years. We do not want to be railroaded now.
Reply by Betsy on 03/12/2021 at 8:03pm [Comment ID: 1559] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -9
by building up, a developer can make a profit AND afford to put in common areas where we can stroll and gather. This makes for a shared community feel.
It's good for retail. restaurants. and for everyone getting exercise and enjoying each other's company. Also great for anyone who can't drive (mobility issues) to be in a village setting.
#335
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 133 Printed 03/24/2021 Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:29pm [Comment ID: 674] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 22, Disagree: -4
Height Max should be 2 stories along Thousand Oaks Blvd -- That is the standard already established.
#336
Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:31pm [Comment ID: 675] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 16, Disagree: -4
Too high -- 3 stories maximum, and something like this should not be on Thousand Oaks blvd. If places to live is the problem, we should limit the retail/commercial requirements.
Reply by John Scott on 03/10/2021 at 9:50pm [Comment ID: 1448] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: -4
It would be great to see this on TOB.
Reply by Lisa on 03/16/2021 at 2:36am [Comment ID: 1920] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Agree! And in some of our village centers as well!
#337
Posted by Cynthia Futvoye on 02/22/2021 at 4:12pm [Comment ID: 923] - Link Agree: 16, Disagree: -1
If we already have a high volume of empty stores and buildings, why are we focusing on mixed use? We have plenty of out-door areas to enjoy. We don't need more new empty buildings.
Reply by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 9:11am [Comment ID: 1727] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
As I understand it, the mixed use zones will allow both retail/commercial uses and residential uses, including buildings that are strictly residential but located near businesses. This would allow for more housing where it could serve those businesses and means that the market would dictate whether or not new businesses are put into a project by a developer.
#338
Posted by John Scott on 03/10/2021 at 9:49pm [Comment ID: 1447] - Link Agree: 8, Disagree: 0
A few places like this in the City would be nice, especially with wider sidewalks to encourage walking.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 134 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 25
Description: This designation allows for pedestrianoriented high density mixed-use developments made up of ground floor retail, commercial and office or
residential above (primarily vertical mixed-use).
Allowed Uses: office, retail, commercial, hotels, and
multi-family housing.
Density and FAR:
>45 to 60.0 dwelling units per acre
1.0 FAR (non-residential)
2.0 FAR (all uses)
Height (max): 68 feet
MIXED-USE HIGH
339
340
341
342
343
344 345 348 347 346
349
350
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 135 Printed 03/24/2021 #339
Posted by Mary Lou borgstrom on 03/10/2021 at 1:06am [Comment ID: 1401] - Link Agree: 10, Disagree: 0
The height of the proposed changes is not something that should be implemented. The beauty of Thousand Oaks was the strict adherence to two stories. Many on our council have bent to developers, so wrong. And five and six stories is not the vision we should ever embrace.
Reply by Lobo Grande on 03/12/2021 at 12:38pm [Comment ID: 1536] - Link Agree: 5, Disagree: 0
Agreed 100%!!! If you want Encino, go freakin' live in Encino. #340
Posted by Steve Schiedermayer on 02/23/2021 at 4:48pm [Comment ID: 989] - Link Agree: 13, Disagree: -2
Insane. Waste of time entertaining this
#341
Posted by Karen Maloney on 02/16/2021 at 11:20am [Comment ID: 690] - Link Agree: 23, Disagree: -2
This is unacceptable, too high! Two stories max, the open space views will be blocked.
That is why we live here for the natural beauty, and blue skies. #342
Posted by FK on 03/14/2021 at 10:56pm [Comment ID: 1682] - Link Agree: 5, Disagree: -1
Totally against this Way Too High, Looks like the Valley. #343
Posted by Barb on 03/15/2021 at 1:42am [Comment ID: 1711] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: -1
I did not move here for into become like the valley with high risers. This will give Thousand Oaks a very different feel.
#344
Posted by Nicole gates on 02/23/2021 at 12:22am [Comment ID: 961] - Link Agree: 20, Disagree: -3
These types of residential buildings decrease the value of our city. Nobody wants Thousamd oaks to become the next “valley”. It’s why people pay such high prices to live here. If you build up and build out, you will see the money leave the city and you will see a decline in house pricing. I strongly oppose these plans.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 136 Printed 03/24/2021 Reply by Lisa on 03/16/2021 at 2:39am [Comment ID: 1921] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Actually, more money will come in when business want to come here and flourish because there is enough housing for their employees and for potential customers/clients.
#345
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 2:51pm [Comment ID: 1798] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
The Neighborhood High and Mixed-Use High land-use designations are both too tall and out-of-character with the semi-rural, Nature-centric surroundings that make the Thousand Oaks community both desirable and unique. The maximum heights allowed on the Neighborhood Medium-High and all of the Mixed-Use land-use designations are, likewise, too high. The original General Plan height limits of 35-foot maximum and generous setbacks must be retained.
#346
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 8:44pm [Comment ID: 829] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: -1
Already at 7stories in the minds of voters. Good Luck
#347
Posted by Susan K Soy on 02/21/2021 at 3:08pm [Comment ID: 894] - Link Agree: 21, Disagree: -1
Too high.
#348
Posted by john francis reid on 02/16/2021 at 5:22pm [Comment ID: 710] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 32, Disagree: -1
Wow, as if five stories wasn't enough, now it is proposed to go to six or seven stories? This is not appropriate and would never be supported by the residents. Do not make this change.
Reply by Sue widick on 02/18/2021 at 5:47am [Comment ID: 749] - Link Agree: 30, Disagree: -1
Mixed use high is ridiculous. The density and vertical 6-7 stories. The is not appropriate and will not be accepted in Thousand Oaks.
Reply by Jaki Kackert on 02/27/2021 at 8:26pm [Comment ID: 1214] - Link Agree: 20, Disagree: -1
We were just driving through the Valley today and saw no apartment buildings TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 137 Printed 03/24/2021 off of the 101 higher than 4 stories. I agree that this is so not appropriate. #349
Posted by Anne Marquart on 02/22/2021 at 11:40pm [Comment ID: 956] - Link Agree: 25, Disagree: -2
The residents have made it pretty clear that high density is unwelcome. This option should be dropped from the conversation.
#350
Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:32pm [Comment ID: 676] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 31, Disagree: -3
Way to high for anything in Thousand Oaks. This should be removed from the choices.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 138 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 26
COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS
COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
Description: This designation includes conveniencetype retail, neighborhood offices and service activities designed to serve the daily needs of the immediate
neighborhood accessible by car, bicycle, and onfoot. This designation also includes existing auto dealerships and related uses in specific locations.
Allowed Uses: neighborhood offices, commercial, daily
goods, and services, auto uses.
FAR: 0.5
Height (max): 35 feet
COMMERCIAL TOWN
Description: This designation includes small business
parks, garden offices, and retail in a walkable setting that is also accessible by car.
Allowed Uses: office and commercial uses.
FAR: 1.0
Height (max): 50 feet
COMMERCIAL REGIONAL
Description: This designation accommodates
retail and services, office, and R&D uses attracting
consumers from a regional market area.
Allowed Uses: commercial, office, hotel, healthcare,
and R&D.
FAR: 2.0
Height (max): 75 feet
351
352
353
354 355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 139 Printed 03/24/2021 #351
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 12:53pm [Comment ID: 1760] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I provided a much more sensible suggestion for commercial areas by adding med/high mixed use with business parks. The single professionals or young couple professionals have a place to live and walk to their places of work. It also blends into the existing warehouses. Mixed use is on the perimeter of the commercial/business parks. You get more of a walking community to decrease pollution and keep open spaces open and create more affordable housing without stuffing in low income housing in residential communities that clogs up with traffic like Ramona Dr in NP with low income housing that Andy Fox decided to push through. Now Ventu has much more traffic like Wendy does by freeway passes. Because you put in Lowes, that entire intersection at the freeway pass at Wendy is ridiculously unsafe. One cannot tell which lane to turn left in or right in as you designed it. Again, who thought this up and thought it was a good idea.
#352
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 3:03pm [Comment ID: 1803] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
The heights on the Commercial Regional and Industrial Flex land-use designations are both too tall and out-of-character with the semi-rural, Nature-centric surroundings that make the Thousand Oaks community both desirable and unique; please reduce the maximun heights allowed for these designations, or use the Commercial Neighborhood and Commercial Town designations instead ... both of the latter, at the original General Plan height limits of 35-foot maximum, with generous setbacks, represent the right scale for Thousand Oaks.
#353
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 2:56pm [Comment ID: 1800] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
We can have more people-centric, walkable, connected neighborhoods like this that enable residents to accomplish their routine working, grocery, banking, shopping, dining and entertainment needs/errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of their home. Here's how: *IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. *REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each commercial "center". *BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with native trees, plants, gardens and parkland. *BUILD housing that's actually "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. *POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. *JOIN each Town Square to its surrounding neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. *CONNECT every Town Square and TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 140 Printed 03/24/2021 major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. *LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs. #354
Posted by Karen maloney on 02/18/2021 at 11:32am [Comment ID: 755] - Link Agree: 26, Disagree: -1
This is too high, we are in the Conejo Valley, anything this high will give the feeling and appearance of being walled in. That is a negative.
#355
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 8:46pm [Comment ID: 830] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: -1
Three stories works well with .5 FAR. And good setbacks. #356
Posted by John Scott on 03/10/2021 at 9:51pm [Comment ID: 1449] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Walkable downtown areas would be nice
#357
Posted by john francis reid on 02/16/2021 at 5:24pm [Comment ID: 712] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 18, Disagree: -1
Same comment. Three stories maximum.
#358
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 8:39pm [Comment ID: 828] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: -1
As in previous ,this stuff can change election outcomes. Remember Santa Monica. #359
Posted by john francis reid on 02/16/2021 at 5:23pm [Comment ID: 711] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 14, Disagree: -1
Same comment as before. Way too high. Limit to three stories anywhere in City maximum.
Reply by Susan Widick on 02/18/2021 at 5:49am [Comment ID: 750] - Link Agree: 14, Disagree: -1
Again, the vertical development is not appropriate for Thousand Oaks. I agree with John.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 141 Printed 03/24/2021 #360
Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:35pm [Comment ID: 677] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 8, Disagree: -2
Love this idea of walkable downtown -- but buildings need to be setback off main street and limited to 2 stories. The new building on Erbes/T.O. is way too close - the ones just west of it (BBQ Hut/Moqueca's is right distance for setback.
Reply by Rose Ann Witt on 03/02/2021 at 8:59pm [Comment ID: 1249] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 5, Disagree: -1
Rather than "a downtown" which would encourage the entire existing population of the city's various neighborhoods to drive to T.O. Blvd and converge on the latest, trendy locations ... increasing traffic, congestion and pollution where it's already heaviest adjacent to the 101 frwy ... let's revitalize under-performing retail centers by enabling more Thousand Oaks residents the opportunity to accomplish our routine working, grocery, banking, shopping, dining and entertainment needs/errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of our homes/neighborhoods: *To create a more walkable, people-centric and connected community, create & deliberately design multiple Neighborhood Town Squares (1 for each neighborhood): *Identify existing, strategically-located neighborhood "centers" where shopping, small business, entertainment, and jobs are already concentrated within walking/cycling distance of surrounding neighborhoods. *Renovate any vacant spaces to create orbital, Town Squares, for each neighborhood, that feature cafes, coffee shops, restaurants, retail, grocers, farmers markets, finance, and leisure activities, all located surrounding a central outdoor feature (a piazza, fountain, park, etc.) with public seating areas. *Make each Town Square a compelling and attractive social gathering space by preserving ancient oaks and other heritage trees, and planting abundant complementary tree canopy coverage, park land with ample green space and native plants, and organic, edible community gardens. *Within each Town Square, build housing (similar to university dormitories) at existing height limits that is disability-accessible and actually affordable, by combining studio apartments (consisting of a private bedroom, bathroom, and compact living space equipped with a microwave and small refrigerator) with common indoor and outdoor spaces (shared kitchens, lounges, laundry facilities and courtyards) that allow for significantly reduced rental rates. This arrangement could work equally well for students and singles as well as for seniors by building-in the socializing opportunities that young people so often seek, while also providing mature residents who are still able to take care of themselves, but are downsizing both their belongings and the spaces they have to maintain, more camaraderie than living alone often offers. *Require that all new, remodeled, or renovated development be all-electric (Eliminating natural/fossil gas connections reduces both construction and operating costs, while also eliminating the risk of explosion and the dangerous indoor air pollution that harms health.) and powered by clean energy-generating rooftop solar (with the intention of TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 142 Printed 03/24/2021 ultimately phasing in battery storage-based micro-grids for enhanced community resilience) with EV-charging stations for cars and bicycles. *Equip each Town Square with bicycle racks and rental bicycle fleets; and connect each neighborhood to its own Town Square, and to other Town Squares communitywide, through a network of separate dedicated walking and cycling paths (like those in First Neighborhood), and protected bike lanes along surface streets (to ensure less-experienced cyclists feel safe) to enable residents to easily navigate their neighborhoods without having to drive. *Establish fossil-free, electric-powered (ie: not natural/fossil gas) public transit to connect all town squares to one another, and to other frequently visited city attractions (local colleges; middle and high schools during drop-off, pick-up, and special events; malls; the Civic Arts Center; sports playfields; libraries; open space areas; etc.). *Locate longer distance, intercity public transit hubs adjacent to park-n-rides positioned near to the northern, southern and easternmost Town Squares, to provide connections to nearby cities. (Neighborhoods which currently lack established “centers” within walking/cycling distance of their households could identify appropriate potential sites that could be re-purposed to establish smaller versions of the Town Square concept.) Reply by Betsy on 03/12/2021 at 8:05pm [Comment ID: 1560] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 6, Disagree: 0
It is better for the shops to be right next to the extra wide sidewalk and plaza areas. Put the cars in the back and let those folks walk around. It's no fun to walk at the front of the parking lot.
#361
Posted by Susan K Soy on 02/21/2021 at 3:09pm [Comment ID: 895] - Link Agree: 5, Disagree: -1
We need hotels, but let's not go this high. 75 ft. is way too high.
Reply by D.C. Long on 03/13/2021 at 8:22pm [Comment ID: 1609] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Do we really need more hotels? We have a bunch in NP, and the one they built a few years ago for Amgen, the Marriott was finished just about the time of the major Amgen layoffs!
#362
Posted by Dennis Barnikel on 03/07/2021 at 5:16pm [Comment ID: 1301] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 12, Disagree: -1
Limit height to 35 feet and let developers go back to LA.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 143 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 27
INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATIONS
Description: This designation allows manufacturing,
industrial, R&D, offices, breweries and distilleries,
supportive retail, and services.
Allowed Uses: light industrial, R&D, office,
commercial.
FAR: 1.0
Height (max): 50 feet
INDUSTRIAL LOW
Description: This designation allows industrial, R&D,
offices, breweries and distilleries, supportive retail
with limited commercial
Allowed Uses: light industrial, R&D, office,
commercial.
FAR: 2.0
Height (max): 75 feet
INDUSTRIAL FLEX
363
364
365
366
367
368
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 144 Printed 03/24/2021 #363
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 12:59pm [Comment ID: 1762] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Industrial Low is preferred here. Height of 50 ft max is workable for companies.
Amgen was permitted to build these massive warehouses and build up too. A low profile industrial park became a high rise park overnight. I understand you want to provide flexibility and options to invite businesses to build here and support our community. But at the same time not at the cost of our community. People are already moving out of California and you begin to change our rural communities to cities and more Californians will move out of our valley. People are fed up with being ignored and bullied over. Please listen to your community
#364
Posted by Dennis Barnikel on 03/07/2021 at 5:17pm [Comment ID: 1302] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Stop trying to change our great city to LA.
#365
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 10:55pm [Comment ID: 847] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
POT, always going to be an issue.
#366
Posted by john francis reid on 02/16/2021 at 5:25pm [Comment ID: 715] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 19, Disagree: -1
Too high. Three stories maximum.
Reply by Susan Widick on 02/18/2021 at 5:51am [Comment ID: 751] - Link Agree: 18, Disagree: -1
Again, Industrial Flex is way too many stories. Three stories max. #367
Posted by john francis reid on 02/16/2021 at 5:25pm [Comment ID: 714] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 21, Disagree: -1
Again. too high. Plus it penalizes all the business and industry that complied with previous rules.
#368
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 145 Printed 03/24/2021 Posted by Susan K Soy on 02/21/2021 at 3:10pm [Comment ID: 897] - Link Agree: 19, Disagree: -1
Too high. Keep it low and attractive
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 146 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 28
INSTITUTIONAL DESIGNATIONS
INSTITUTIONAL
Description: This designation allows public, quasipublic and institutional facilities.
Allowed Uses: public facilities, utilities, public and
private schools and colleges, hospitals, other public
and quasi-public institutions, religious institutions.
FAR: none defined.
Height (max): none defined.
PARKS, GOLF COURSES, AND OPEN SPACE
Description: This designation includes the city’s
public and private parks, golf courses, and open space.
Allowed Uses: public and private recreation and open
space.
FAR: none defined.
Height (max): none defined.
UTILITIES AND FLOOD CONTROL
Description: This designation includes the city’s
public and private utilities and flood control uses.
Allowed Uses: public or private utilities, flood control channels, and detention basins
FAR: none defined.
Height (max): none defined.
369
370
371
372
373
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 147 Printed 03/24/2021 #369
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 1:04pm [Comment ID: 1766] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
So I understand our conejo has some flood areas that are useless for development purposes. However, what if you were to create raised wooden walkways across these open space flood areas with benches to sit down and work out station areas. You could make good use of these flood areas while providing more parks for the community. We don't need any more golf courses or playgrounds. We need to make sure that religious buildings are not permitted to become these massive buildings that grow higher and higher. I am speaking about the Muslim mosque in NP that started out single story and now is this massive 3 story mosque squeezed into this small area.
Where was the building code restrictions on this project. And will they be allowed to build it out even more and higher?
#370
Posted by Tony Reed - ACC on 03/11/2021 at 1:23pm [Comment ID: 1482] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 13, Disagree: 0
I want to make sure that trails in the Thousand Oaks Open Spaces are safe, fun, and enjoyable for all users (cyclists, hikers and equestrians as well). With expected increases in trail use by all these groups, I believe that implementation of the ideas below would improve the experience for all trail users:
• Create directional, downhill mountain bike only trails with optional features: jumps, berms, etc.
• Uphill mountain bike trails would be shared amongst all three groups; these trails would not be directional for hikers and equestrians; this creates a better environment for other trail users as they do not have to worry about mountain bikes speeding down a trail towards them.
• Increase the signage on mountain bike trails with difficulty ratings (i.e., green, blue, black) and include suggested loops and routes on the open space website. Clear markings must delineate which groups are permitted on each trail to mitigate conflicts among groups.
• Using bike paths/lanes to connect trails in open spaces with trails to other open spaces and parks. For example: connecting Lang Ranch Open space to Sapwi trails, Conejo Creek park and Wildwood park via paved bike paths, road bike lanes, and/or revitalized riparian zone paths (e.g., along Conejo Creek). These bike routes would serve the community for exercise, commuting to school and work, while also allowing more advanced mountain bikers to string together several off-road trail sections into a longer ride.
I believe that a city with exceptional open space resources should try to encourage out-of-area trail users to stay in the Thousand Oaks for coffee, food, shopping, etc. after their activity. Integration between trailheads and centers of commerce with route TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 148 Printed 03/24/2021 suggestions would entice those who are not part of our residential tax base to spend their money in Thousand Oaks. Trailheads could be sponsored by a local restaurant to keep a post-activity meal on rider’s (as well as hiker’s and equestrian’s) minds.
Reply by Brien on 03/11/2021 at 9:39pm [Comment ID: 1505] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 8, Disagree: 0
Tony Reed has the right idea here. Communities across the country have already moved into this direction of open space and trail planning as a high focus. Well planned and purpose built trail systems provide both a rich recreational environment for all users as well as improved safety. Communities such as Bentonville Arkansas have embraced well planned trail networks, connecting residential, business and open space areas. Directional trail systems, where possible, reduce trail widening, increases safety for all users, reduces trail conflict, and allow for better trail use planning. Our open spaces are what attract many of our residents, but much can be learned from other communities which value outdoor and recreational spaces.
The Thousand Oaks City website states, "We are one of the country's top 50 bike-friendly cities." Whether I am commuting or recreating on my bicycle, I have not found a way to cross the 101 which feels safe. I think there is a lot of work to be done to confidently make this claim.
Reply by Betsy on 03/12/2021 at 8:09pm [Comment ID: 1562] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
Village Centers can provide hubs throughout our community where people can gather in common areas to socialize and reach transportation hubs that connect up the city.
Reply by Betsy on 03/12/2021 at 8:14pm [Comment ID: 1563] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
In other cities, the coffee shop and cafe plazas are filled with bicyclists and hikers meeting up and relaxing after an outing. TO is perfect for this. We have trails in every direction.
Reply by Victor Cee on 03/11/2021 at 10:56pm [Comment ID: 1507] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
100% agree. TO has so much potential for a world class off-road trail system, but the key is good management for all users. Directional trails and a rating system will help set expectations of all trail users. We are crazy if we don't recognize that connecting trail systems together and connecting trail systems with good paved bike paths to shopping/restaurants will make for a major win-win in quality of life and local businesses.
Reply by Betsy on 03/12/2021 at 8:08pm [Comment ID: 1561] - Link TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 149 Printed 03/24/2021 Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
These great ideas cost $$. We need to keep younger working families and the businesses who hire them in our community by providing flexible housing options. They are the ones who shop and dine more and will keep the tax revenues we need for the parks.
#371
Posted by Cindy on 03/15/2021 at 4:06pm [Comment ID: 1830] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
The open space and parks should all be designed for ALL kids and community members to access. Large swings, ramps, wide bridges and slides that will allow wheelchair users access are necessary. Right now we have 1 park that is designated (by design) for kids with "special needs". It's great, but the needs of kids with disabilities are not special, they are like all kids. ALL parks should offer similar considerations. We need to do MORE THAN meet minimum ADA requirements. #372
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 11:09pm [Comment ID: 849] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
Open space if you can keep it. Best place to put that senior service center. Or Boy Scout club. Or soft ball field. Or music bowl. How about that? Our very own "Redlands Bowl".
#373
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 11:05pm [Comment ID: 848] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
The thing about these kind of developments is that they have a lot of weight. Think UCLA, Amgen, or Cal Lutheran. I think you gotta' give them what they want and take the max in return. Most important is the "curb" appeal and then the mitigations offered.
Like scholarships or involvement in community programs that benefit targeted minorities.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 150 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 29
OVERVIEW
Throughout the community engagement process described above, residents expressed their ideas about the future of the city, particularly related to land use and growth and the quality of life. A summary of how these outcomes area embodied in the land use alternatives is presented in Table 2.
In addition to the above list, there was also general consensus about where new growth should go and the mix of uses for the growth areas. As part of the engagement activities, the public and GPAC provided specific ideas about where new growth should go and the mix of uses in each area. Overall, participants in the process wanted to limit new development in the existing residential areas and instead focus development in the commercial corridors, employment districts and commercial centers, generally along the 101 freeway corridor.
These ideas are summarized in Appendix A in a series of maps from the GPAC meetings and interactive online MetroQuest survey which occurred from February to May 2020. These comments led to the development of the “Areas of Change” map on the following page and the types of development that should occur in each of these areas.
The areas of change represent less than 8 percent of the entirety of all of the City’s land area. This means that more than 92 percent of the City will maintain the same general character as it has today. While some new development may occur in Areas of Stability, the expectation is that the new development will be of a similar character and scale as the existing development.
Despite the significant consensus on many topics, there were differences of opinion about how much growth should occur, the height of buildings and the density or intensity of development. Some residents wanted to see more development and taller buildings while others wanted to limit the amount of development and the height of buildings.
The land use alternatives are the next step in the process because they identify different ways that the Guiding Principles can be implemented through development decisions.
Alternatives are only presented for the Areas of Change and they represent how different land uses and land use intensities can be applied to meet city objectives.
The following information is included in this section:
• Summary of proposed direction for the Areas of Stability. This is approximately 90% of the total land area of the city.
• Summary of three citywide land use alternatives.
• Summary of the alternatives for each of the five subareas in the Areas of Change. • Qualitative and quantitative metrics of the three citywide alternatives.
LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
374
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 151 Printed 03/24/2021 #374
Posted by Aaron on 03/13/2021 at 8:55pm [Comment ID: 1613] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
A strong IPA is 92% alcohol free!
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 152 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 30
IDENTIFYING AREAS OF CHANGE & VILLAGE CENTERS
A RANCHO CONEJO
A
VILLAGE CENTERS
AREAS OF CHANGE
B MOORPARK RD AND WEST T.O.
BLVD.
C DOWNTOWN AND T.O. BLVD.
D WESTLAKE AND EAST END
3 REINO AND KIMBER
2 REINO AND BORCHARD
1 LAS BRISAS AND VIA RIO
4 JANSS AND MOORPARK
B
C
D
5 ARBOLES AND MOORPARK
6 ARBOLES AND ERBES
7 KANAN AND LINDERO
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Note: areas outside the areas of change and
village centers are referred to as “Areas of
Stability” and are expected to maintain the
same character.
375
376
377 378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
411410
412
413
414
415
416 417
418
419
420
421
423422
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 153 Printed 03/24/2021 #375
Posted by Karen Maloney on 02/16/2021 at 11:39am [Comment ID: 692] - Link Agree: 7, Disagree: 0
Area D is already too congested at Westlake and TO Blvd. The addition of housing units will block our views of the Mountains, add to the pollution, noise and traffic problems. This intersection was supposed to be a visual showpiece of the area. Even you get off the 101 it is open and attractive. Anything less than beautiful or more that two story will be a blot on the image of Thousand Oaks. We need to think about that. Oceanside cities nearby in great locations are far less appealing to live in, because they built up and they did not honor the beauty of the landscape. #376
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/11/2021 at 12:51am [Comment ID: 1474] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
We can have a more people-centric, walkable, connected Thousand Oaks by creating distinctive Neighborhood Town Squares: * IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. * REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each neighborhood "center". * BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with trees, plants, gardens and parkland. * BUILD housing that's "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. * POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. * JOIN each Town Square to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. * CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. * LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs. #377
Posted by Betsy Connolly on 02/19/2021 at 5:19pm [Comment ID: 799] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
Village Centers should include housing that meshes with the retail in the center. This would be a great way to provide a walking and biking destination for the surrounding neighborhoods, a stronger retail base, and a more livable city.
#378
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 02/22/2021 at 6:20pm [Comment ID: 936] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
Transportation accounts for our community's largest source of the climate-heating greenhouse gases driving drought, water scarcity and wildfire risk, contributing fully half (50%) of our total emissions.
In 2018, commuters drove six million miles, DAILY, into and out of Thousand Oaks. So it’s essential that our General Plan Update (GPU2045) and our Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) actually reduce traffic, congestion, pollution, and Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by enabling more Thousand Oaks residents the opportunity to accomplish our routine working, grocery, banking, shopping, dining and entertainment needs/errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of our home:
To create a more people-centric and connected community, create and deliberately design Neighborhood Town Squares in each of the identified "Village Centers" as follows:
Identify existing, strategically-located neighborhood "centers" where shopping, small business, and entertainment, and jobs are already concentrated within walking/cycling distance of surrounding neighborhoods. (Neighborhoods which currently lack established “centers” within walking/cycling distance of their households could identify appropriate potential sites that could be re-purposed to establish smaller versions of the Town Square concept.) Renovate any vacant spaces to create orbital, Town Squares, for each neighborhood, that feature cafes, coffee shops, restaurants, retail, grocers, farmers markets, finance, and leisure activities, all located surrounding a central outdoor feature (a piazza, fountain, park, etc.) with public seating areas.
Make each Town Square a compelling and attractive social gathering space by preserving ancient oaks and other heritage trees, and planting abundant complementary tree canopy coverage, park land with ample green space and native plants, and organic community gardens.
Within each Town Square, build housing (similar to university dormitories) that is disability-accessible and actually affordable, by combining studio apartments (consisting of a private bedroom, bathroom, and compact living space equipped with a microwave and small refrigerator) with common indoor and outdoor spaces (which allow for significantly reduced rental rates) that offer shared kitchens, lounges, laundry facilities, and courtyards. This arrangement could work equally well for students and singles as well as for seniors by building-in the socializing opportunities that young people TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 154 Printed 03/24/2021 so often seek, while also providing mature residents who are still able to take care of themselves, but are downsizing both their belongings and the spaces they have to maintain, more camaraderie than living alone often offers.
Require that all new, remodeled, or renovated development be all-electric (Eliminating natural/fossil gas connections reduces both construction and operating costs, while also eliminating dangerous indoor air pollution and the risk of explosion.) and powered by clean energy-generating rooftop solar (with the intention of ultimately phasing in battery storage-based micro-grids for enhanced community resilience) with EV-charging stations for cars and bicycles.
Equip each Town Square with bicycle racks and rental bicycle fleets; and connect each neighborhood to its own Town Square, and to other Town Squares communitywide, through a network of separate walking and cycling paths (like those in First Neighborhood), and protected bike lanes along surface streets (to ensure less-experienced cyclists feel safe) to enable residents to easily navigate their neighborhoods without having to drive.
Establish fossil-free, electric-powered (ie: electric, not natural/fossil gas) public transit to connect all town squares to one another, and to other frequently visited city attractions (local colleges; middle and high schools during drop-off, pick-up, and special events; malls; the Civic Arts Center; sports playfields; libraries; open space areas; etc.).
Locate longer distance, intercity public transit hubs adjacent to park-n-rides positioned near to the northern, southern and easternmost Town Squares, to provide connections to nearby cities.
Reply by Gordon Clint on 02/23/2021 at 5:58pm [Comment ID: 1005] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
I strongly support the vision for Town Squares. But, I have a problem with gathering areas in malls and shopping centers where owners of the private property can exclude political or social justice petitions and signs. I would like these public gathering squares to be a "commons" on land the developer gives to the City. The new development’s Town Square should connect with the city street and sidewalk with a wide public walkway that can also provide fire, police, and maintenance access.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/03/2021 at 4:52pm [Comment ID: 1256] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Privately Owned Public Spaces, aka POPS, are spaces dedicated to public use and enjoyment and which are owned and maintained by private property owners. POPS can provide opportunities to sit, relax, people watch, eat, meet others, etc. POPS can come in many shapes and sizes, both outdoor and indoor, and are the result of City zoning regulations aimed at ensuring even our densest areas offer open public space and greenery.
Reply by Betsy on 03/12/2021 at 8:19pm [Comment ID: 1564] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
This is the Village Center concept and we need them everywhere we have a shopping center. Residential offers customers for smaller retail. Surrounding neighborhoods will come to enjoy the common areas as meet up and after activity relaxation spots. #379
Posted by Karen Maloney on 02/16/2021 at 11:43am [Comment ID: 694] - Link Agree: 18, Disagree: 0
Area D is already too congested at Westlake and TO Blvd. The addition of housing units will block our views of the Mountains, add to the pollution, noise and traffic problems. This intersection was supposed to be a visual showpiece of the area. As you you get off the 101 onto Westlake the area is open and attractive. Anything less than beautiful or more that two story will be a blot on the image of Thousand Oaks. We need to think about that. Oceanside cities nearby in great locations are far less appealing to live in, because they built up and they did not honor the beauty of the landscape.
Reply by Susan Widick on 02/18/2021 at 6:04am [Comment ID: 752] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I can only find a comment area as a reply to the person above. I would like to know the actual streets that are being affected. Please also identify the cross streets and residential streets. Where is the Kmart development? Will the light industrial zoning on the north side of Willow Lane be changed? The actual Zoning and/ or the definition of the type of industrial. What will be done to limit the traffic increase on Willow Lane. We still take our lives in our hands getting down our driveway. We own 3058 and 3034 Willow Lane. Please save our site lines, our views over the tops of buildings, our demand to not exceed three stories in our city.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 155 Printed 03/24/2021 #380
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/03/2021 at 5:50pm [Comment ID: 1261] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Identifying additional village centers for the creation of Neighborhood Town Squares can enable more Thousand Oaks residents the opportunity to accomplish our routine working, grocery, banking, shopping, dining and entertainment needs/errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of our homes, & create a more people-centric and connected community. The North Ranch neighborhood currently lacks any such village center within walking/cycling distance of our homes. Our residents could identify an appropriate area where shopping, small business, entertainment, and the associated jobs could be located within walking/cycling distance of our surrounding neighborhood, to create an orbital, Town Square that features cafes, coffee shops, restaurants, retail, grocers, farmers markets, finance, and leisure activities, all located surrounding a central outdoor feature (a piazza, fountain, park, etc.) with public seating areas. If, for example, the North Ranch Country Club ever ceased to function as such, the clubhouse and parking lot could provide a compelling location for a Neighborhood Town Square and an attractive social gathering space given the ancient heritage oaks and other landmark trees preserved nearby. The parking area could be replaced with permeable paving and planted with additional trees and native plants to complement any new, remodeled, or renovated development, which should be required to be all-electric (Eliminating natural/fossil gas connections reduces both construction and operating costs, while also eliminating dangerous indoor air pollution and the risk of explosion.) and powered by clean energy-generating rooftop solar (with the intention of ultimately phasing in battery storage-based micro-grids for enhanced community resilience) with EV-charging stations for cars and bicycles. This new Town Square could also be equipped with bicycle racks and rental bicycle fleets to better connect it to the North Ranch neighborhood, and to other Town Squares communitywide, through a network of separate walking and cycling paths (like those in First Neighborhood and existing along the golf course), and protected bike lanes along surface streets (to ensure less-experienced cyclists feel safe) to enable residents to easily navigate their neighborhoods without having to drive. Fossil-free, electric-powered (ie: not natural/fossil gas) public transit could connect the North Ranch Town Square and all other town squares to one another, and to other frequently visited city attractions (local colleges; middle and high schools during drop-off, pick-up, and special events; malls; the Civic Arts Center; sports playfields; libraries; open space areas; etc.). Longer distance, intercity public transit hubs adjacent to park-n-rides could be positioned near to the northern, southern and easternmost Town Squares, to provide connections to nearby cities. #381
Posted by Karen Maloney on 02/16/2021 at 11:40am [Comment ID: 693] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
See bubble placed in Agoura.
#382
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 02/22/2021 at 7:09pm [Comment ID: 942] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 6, Disagree: 0
Prior to approving permits for new construction going forward, the City must consider the cumulative wildfire safety and disaster evacuation impacts of proposed projects on the *entire* community, including the impacts resulting from a development's resident density in relation to available egress roads ... and especially impacts resulting from the combined load of multiple or concentrated developments' contributing to likely or potentially unsafe congestion on escape routes out of the city under multiple, simultaneous, disaster scenarios (which are expected to become more frequent in a changing climate), as occurred in November of 2018 when the Borderline shooting, high Santa Ana winds, and Hill and Woolsey wildfires converged to strain resources and gridlock freeways as frightened residents attempted to flee.
#383
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 02/22/2021 at 7:09pm [Comment ID: 941] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 6, Disagree: 0
Prior to approving permits for new construction going forward, the City must consider the cumulative wildfire safety and disaster evacuation impacts of proposed projects on the *entire* community, including the impacts resulting from a development's resident density in relation to available egress roads ... and especially impacts resulting from the combined load of multiple or concentrated developments' contributing to likely or potentially unsafe congestion on escape routes out of the city under multiple, simultaneous, disaster scenarios (which are expected to become more frequent in a changing climate), as occurred in November of 2018 when the Borderline shooting, high Santa Ana winds, and Hill and Woolsey wildfires converged to strain resources and gridlock freeways as TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 156 Printed 03/24/2021 frightened residents attempted to flee.
#384
Posted by Kevin Kohan on 03/11/2021 at 3:01pm [Comment ID: 1495] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Properties north of Hillcrest Drive should maintain its Medium Density Land Use Designation. Under the proposed General Plan Update, these properties are downzoned to Single Family Residential. It is vital to maintain these Medium Density Land Use Designations in order to provide the opportunity for affordable housing near important community services like the Conejo Elementary School, Conejo Valley Church of Christ, and Temple Adot Elohim.
#385
Posted by Julie on 03/15/2021 at 10:58pm [Comment ID: 1869] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
This area is a neighborhood with single family homes, why is this under an "area of change"? The current general plan states to protect the character of neighborhoods with single family homes. Just because you want to convert the entire Thousand Oaks Blvd into mixed use developments does not mean you need to change an entire nearby neighborhood. Keep your mixed use developments away from single family home neighborhoods! Remove these neighborhoods from your "areas of change" map. #386
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 2:06pm [Comment ID: 1323] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
I would say minimal "Mixed Use" properties. We already have an abundance of retail, some of which may need to convert to residential as well. Nothing wrong with having some nice town-homes or condos on main streets. Can be done well. Oppose all these proposed developments with apartments disguised as "affordable housing". We need to give more people a chance to become stakeholders in our communities.
#387
Posted by Betsy Connolly on 02/19/2021 at 5:25pm [Comment ID: 802] - Link Agree: 10, Disagree: 0
I love the idea of Village Centers that include residential and dining. Walking and biking paths could link these areas to the neighborhoods. People shouldn't have to drive to another part of the city to sit outside enjoying a cup of coffee or a glass of wine.
#388
Posted by Betsy Connolly on 02/19/2021 at 5:23pm [Comment ID: 801] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -3
underground and ramp parking would lower the impact of greater residential development and also accommodate more shoppers who drive in from other neighborhoods. The expectations of shoppers is changed over the last 50 years. People want a shopping and dining experience. We need to draw people into our city center areas with that experience. #389
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 8:27am [Comment ID: 1721] - Link Type: Suggestion
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 157 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
We can have more people-centric, walkable, connected neighborhoods that enable residents to accomplish their routine working, grocery, banking, shopping, dining and entertainment needs/errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of their home:
*IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. *REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each commercial "center". *BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with native trees, plants, gardens and parkland. *BUILD housing that's actually "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. *POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. *JOIN each Town Square to its surrounding neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. *CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. *LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs. #390
Posted by Anne Marquart on 02/22/2021 at 11:30pm [Comment ID: 954] - Link Agree: 8, Disagree: 0
The Sunset Hills and 23 interchange is underutilized. Consider putting a village here. Too much development and growth is planned for interchanges that are already over burdened - such as Hampshire, Westlake Blvd and Moorpark and the 101 interchanges.
Reply by Rose Ann Witt on 03/03/2021 at 4:25pm [Comment ID: 1251] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I agree that strategically distributing any required development throughout the city will reduce pressures resulting from traffic, congestion, pollution, and Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) on any given area. Identifying additional village centers for the creation of Neighborhood Town Squares can enable more Thousand Oaks residents the opportunity to accomplish our routine working, grocery, banking, shopping, dining and entertainment needs/errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of our homes, & create a more people-centric and connected community: Neighborhoods, such as that surrounding the Sunset Hills and 23 interchange, can: *Identify an existing area where shopping, small business, and entertainment, and jobs are already concentrated within walking/cycling distance of the surrounding neighborhood. *Renovate any vacant spaces to create an orbital, Town Square that features cafes, coffee shops, restaurants, retail, grocers, farmers markets, finance, and leisure activities, all located surrounding a central outdoor feature (a piazza, fountain, park, etc.) with public seating areas. *Make it a compelling and attractive social gathering space by preserving ancient oaks and other heritage trees, and planting abundant complementary tree canopy coverage, park land with ample green space and native plants, and organic, edible community gardens. *Within their Town Square, they can build housing (similar to university dormitories) that is disability-accessible and actually affordable, by combining studio apartments (consisting of a private bedroom, bathroom, and compact living space equipped with a microwave and small refrigerator) with common indoor and outdoor spaces (which allow for significantly reduced rental rates) that offer shared kitchens, lounges, laundry facilities, and courtyards. This arrangement could work equally well for students and singles as well as for seniors by building-in the socializing opportunities that young people so often seek, while also providing mature residents who are still able to take care of themselves, but are downsizing both their belongings and the spaces they have to maintain, more camaraderie than living alone often offers. *Require that all new, remodeled, or renovated development be all-electric (Eliminating natural/fossil gas connections reduces both construction and operating costs, while also eliminating dangerous indoor air pollution and the risk of explosion.) and powered by clean energy-generating rooftop solar (with the intention of ultimately phasing in battery storage-based micro-grids for enhanced community resilience) with EV-charging stations for cars and bicycles. *Equip the Town Square with bicycle racks and rental bicycle fleets; and connect the Sunset Hills neighborhood to its own Town Square, and to other Town Squares communitywide, through a network of separate walking and cycling paths (like those in First Neighborhood), and protected bike lanes along surface streets (to ensure less-experienced cyclists feel safe) to enable residents to easily navigate their neighborhoods without having to drive. *Establish fossil-free, electric-powered (ie: electric, not natural/fossil gas) public transit to connect all town squares to one another, and to other frequently visited city attractions (local colleges; middle and high schools during drop-off, pick-up, and special events; malls; the Civic Arts Center; sports playfields; libraries; open space areas; etc.). *Locate longer distance, intercity public transit hubs adjacent to park-n-rides positioned near to the northern, southern and easternmost Town Squares, to provide connections to nearby cities.
Reply by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 2:15pm [Comment ID: 1324] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Great observation regarding usage of Sunset interchange. Possibly there will be some natural evolution, where it picks up some of the Arboles traffic. Not sure where to incorporate the TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 158 Printed 03/24/2021 additional town homes and condos, but definitely something to think about. #391
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/11/2021 at 12:52am [Comment ID: 1475] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
We can have a more people-centric, walkable, connected Thousand Oaks by creating distinctive Neighborhood Town Squares: * IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. * REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each neighborhood "center". * BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with trees, plants, gardens and parkland. * BUILD housing that's "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. * POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. * JOIN each Town Square to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. * CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. * LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs. #392
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 02/22/2021 at 6:19pm [Comment ID: 935] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
Transportation accounts for our community's largest source of the climate-heating greenhouse gases driving drought, water scarcity and wildfire risk, contributing fully half (50%) of our total emissions.
In 2018, commuters drove six million miles, DAILY, into and out of Thousand Oaks. So it’s essential that our General Plan Update (GPU2045) and our Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) actually reduce traffic, congestion, pollution, and Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by enabling more Thousand Oaks residents the opportunity to accomplish our routine working, grocery, banking, shopping, dining and entertainment needs/errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of our home:
To create a more people-centric and connected community, create and deliberately design Neighborhood Town Squares in each of the identified "Village Centers" as follows:
Identify existing, strategically-located neighborhood "centers" where shopping, small business, and entertainment, and jobs are already concentrated within walking/cycling distance of surrounding neighborhoods. (Neighborhoods which currently lack established “centers” within walking/cycling distance of their households could identify appropriate potential sites that could be re-purposed to establish smaller versions of the Town Square concept.) Renovate any vacant spaces to create orbital, Town Squares, for each neighborhood, that feature cafes, coffee shops, restaurants, retail, grocers, farmers markets, finance, and leisure activities, all located surrounding a central outdoor feature (a piazza, fountain, park, etc.) with public seating areas.
Make each Town Square a compelling and attractive social gathering space by preserving ancient oaks and other heritage trees, and planting abundant complementary tree canopy coverage, park land with ample green space and native plants, and organic community gardens.
Within each Town Square, build housing (similar to university dormitories) that is disability-accessible and actually affordable, by combining studio apartments (consisting of a private bedroom, bathroom, and compact living space equipped with a microwave and small refrigerator) with common indoor and outdoor spaces (which allow for significantly reduced rental rates) that offer shared kitchens, lounges, laundry facilities, and courtyards. This arrangement could work equally well for students and singles as well as for seniors by building-in the socializing opportunities that young people so often seek, while also providing mature residents who are still able to take care of themselves, but are downsizing both their belongings and the spaces they have to maintain, more camaraderie than living alone often offers.
Require that all new, remodeled, or renovated development be all-electric (Eliminating natural/fossil gas connections reduces both construction and operating costs, while also eliminating dangerous indoor air pollution and the risk of explosion.) and powered by clean energy-generating rooftop solar (with the intention of ultimately phasing in battery storage-based micro-grids for enhanced community resilience) with EV-charging stations for cars and bicycles.
Equip each Town Square with bicycle racks and rental bicycle fleets; and connect each neighborhood to its own Town Square, and to other Town Squares communitywide, through a network of separate walking and cycling paths (like those in First Neighborhood), and protected bike lanes along surface streets (to ensure less-experienced cyclists feel safe) to enable residents to easily navigate TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 159 Printed 03/24/2021 their neighborhoods without having to drive.
Establish fossil-free, electric-powered (ie: electric, not natural/fossil gas) public transit to connect all town squares to one another, and to other frequently visited city attractions (local colleges; middle and high schools during drop-off, pick-up, and special events; malls; the Civic Arts Center; sports playfields; libraries; open space areas; etc.).
Locate longer distance, intercity public transit hubs adjacent to park-n-rides positioned near to the northern, southern and easternmost Town Squares, to provide connections to nearby cities.
Reply by Gordon Clint on 02/23/2021 at 5:57pm [Comment ID: 1004] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
I strongly support the vision for Town Squares. But, I have a problem with gathering areas in malls and shopping centers where owners of the private property can exclude political or social justice petitions and signs. I would like these public gathering squares to be a "commons" on land the developer gives to the City. The new development’s Town Square should connect with the city street and sidewalk with a wide public walkway that can also provide fire, police, and maintenance access.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/03/2021 at 4:50pm [Comment ID: 1255] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Privately Owned Public Spaces, aka POPS, are spaces dedicated to public use and enjoyment and which are owned and maintained by private property owners. POPS can provide opportunities to sit, relax, people watch, eat, meet others, etc. POPS can come in many shapes and sizes, both outdoor and indoor, and are the result of City zoning regulations aimed at ensuring even our densest areas offer open public space and greenery. #393
Posted by Justin Link on 02/16/2021 at 9:20pm [Comment ID: 722] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 5, Disagree: 0
Density should be dependent upon availability of on-site parking, and judicious application of the City's parking ordinance. On-street parking should not be included in calculations as it discourages patronage by those who do not live in or near the boulevard.
Mixed-used overlays should be applied where there are attractors to encourage active transportation, such as supermarkets and other retail. Isolated mixed-use will do nothing to reduce vehicle trips. #394
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 11:15pm [Comment ID: 850] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: -1
As stated above. The freeway access is already in place. It needs to be incorporated into master plan. It is very obvious that development further West will require a freeway access at Wilbur . This is a no brainer.
#395
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 02/22/2021 at 6:17pm [Comment ID: 934] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: -1
Transportation accounts for our community's largest source of the climate-heating greenhouse gases driving drought, water scarcity and wildfire risk, contributing fully half (50%) of our total emissions.
In 2018, commuters drove six million miles, DAILY, into and out of Thousand Oaks. So it’s essential that our General Plan Update (GPU2045) and our Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) actually reduce traffic, congestion, pollution, and Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by enabling more Thousand Oaks residents the opportunity to accomplish our routine working, grocery, banking, shopping, dining and entertainment needs/errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of our home:
To create a more people-centric and connected community, create and deliberately design Neighborhood Town Squares in each of the identified "Village Centers" as follows:
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 160 Printed 03/24/2021 Identify existing, strategically-located neighborhood "centers" where shopping, small business, and entertainment, and jobs are already concentrated within walking/cycling distance of surrounding neighborhoods. (Neighborhoods which currently lack established “centers” within walking/cycling distance of their households could identify appropriate potential sites that could be re-purposed to establish smaller versions of the Town Square concept.) Renovate any vacant spaces to create orbital, Town Squares, for each neighborhood, that feature cafes, coffee shops, restaurants, retail, grocers, farmers markets, finance, and leisure activities, all located surrounding a central outdoor feature (a piazza, fountain, park, etc.) with public seating areas.
Make each Town Square a compelling and attractive social gathering space by preserving ancient oaks and other heritage trees, and planting abundant complementary tree canopy coverage, park land with ample green space and native plants, and organic community gardens.
Within each Town Square, build housing (similar to university dormitories) that is disability-accessible and actually affordable, by combining studio apartments (consisting of a private bedroom, bathroom, and compact living space equipped with a microwave and small refrigerator) with common indoor and outdoor spaces (which allow for significantly reduced rental rates) that offer shared kitchens, lounges, laundry facilities, and courtyards. This arrangement could work equally well for students and singles as well as for seniors by building-in the socializing opportunities that young people so often seek, while also providing mature residents who are still able to take care of themselves, but are downsizing both their belongings and the spaces they have to maintain, more camaraderie than living alone often offers.
Require that all new, remodeled, or renovated development be all-electric (Eliminating natural/fossil gas connections reduces both construction and operating costs, while also eliminating dangerous indoor air pollution and the risk of explosion.) and powered by clean energy-generating rooftop solar (with the intention of ultimately phasing in battery storage-based micro-grids for enhanced community resilience) with EV-charging stations for cars and bicycles.
Equip each Town Square with bicycle racks and rental bicycle fleets; and connect each neighborhood to its own Town Square, and to other Town Squares communitywide, through a network of separate walking and cycling paths (like those in First Neighborhood), and protected bike lanes along surface streets (to ensure less-experienced cyclists feel safe) to enable residents to easily navigate their neighborhoods without having to drive.
Establish fossil-free, electric-powered (ie: electric, not natural/fossil gas) public transit to connect all town squares to one another, and to other frequently visited city attractions (local colleges; middle and high schools during drop-off, pick-up, and special events; malls; the Civic Arts Center; sports playfields; libraries; open space areas; etc.).
Locate longer distance, intercity public transit hubs adjacent to park-n-rides positioned near to the northern, southern and easternmost Town Squares, to provide connections to nearby cities.
Reply by Gordon Clint on 02/23/2021 at 5:56pm [Comment ID: 1003] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: -1
I strongly support the vision for Town Squares. But, I have a problem with gathering areas in malls and shopping centers where owners of the private property can exclude political or social justice petitions and signs. I would like these public gathering squares to be a "commons" on land the developer gives to the City. The new development’s Town Square should connect with the city street and sidewalk with a wide public walkway that can also provide fire, police, and maintenance access. #396
Posted by Betsy Connolly on 02/19/2021 at 5:17pm [Comment ID: 798] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 8, Disagree: 0
I'd like to see each of the village centers with a bit of denser housing focused on the village center. Condos and apartments that are integrated into these retail areas will benefit everyone in that area of the city. We need gathering places with tables and seating that is not restricted to paying customers. It would be great to have the village centers linked by dedicated walking and bike paths.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/03/2021 at 4:49pm [Comment ID: 1254] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Privately Owned Public Spaces, aka POPS, are spaces dedicated to public use and enjoyment and which are owned and maintained by private property owners. POPS can provide opportunities to sit, relax, people watch, eat, meet others, etc. POPS can come in many shapes and sizes, both outdoor and indoor, and are the result of City zoning regulations aimed at ensuring even our densest areas offer open public space and greenery.
#397
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 161 Printed 03/24/2021 Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 02/22/2021 at 6:21pm [Comment ID: 937] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
Transportation accounts for our community's largest source of the climate-heating greenhouse gases driving drought, water scarcity and wildfire risk, contributing fully half (50%) of our total emissions.
In 2018, commuters drove six million miles, DAILY, into and out of Thousand Oaks. So it’s essential that our General Plan Update (GPU2045) and our Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) actually reduce traffic, congestion, pollution, and Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by enabling more Thousand Oaks residents the opportunity to accomplish our routine working, grocery, banking, shopping, dining and entertainment needs/errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of our home:
To create a more people-centric and connected community, create and deliberately design Neighborhood Town Squares in each of the identified "Village Centers" as follows:
Identify existing, strategically-located neighborhood "centers" where shopping, small business, and entertainment, and jobs are already concentrated within walking/cycling distance of surrounding neighborhoods. (Neighborhoods which currently lack established “centers” within walking/cycling distance of their households could identify appropriate potential sites that could be re-purposed to establish smaller versions of the Town Square concept.) Renovate any vacant spaces to create orbital, Town Squares, for each neighborhood, that feature cafes, coffee shops, restaurants, retail, grocers, farmers markets, finance, and leisure activities, all located surrounding a central outdoor feature (a piazza, fountain, park, etc.) with public seating areas.
Make each Town Square a compelling and attractive social gathering space by preserving ancient oaks and other heritage trees, and planting abundant complementary tree canopy coverage, park land with ample green space and native plants, and organic community gardens.
Within each Town Square, build housing (similar to university dormitories) that is disability-accessible and actually affordable, by combining studio apartments (consisting of a private bedroom, bathroom, and compact living space equipped with a microwave and small refrigerator) with common indoor and outdoor spaces (which allow for significantly reduced rental rates) that offer shared kitchens, lounges, laundry facilities, and courtyards. This arrangement could work equally well for students and singles as well as for seniors by building-in the socializing opportunities that young people so often seek, while also providing mature residents who are still able to take care of themselves, but are downsizing both their belongings and the spaces they have to maintain, more camaraderie than living alone often offers.
Require that all new, remodeled, or renovated development be all-electric (Eliminating natural/fossil gas connections reduces both construction and operating costs, while also eliminating dangerous indoor air pollution and the risk of explosion.) and powered by clean energy-generating rooftop solar (with the intention of ultimately phasing in battery storage-based micro-grids for enhanced community resilience) with EV-charging stations for cars and bicycles.
Equip each Town Square with bicycle racks and rental bicycle fleets; and connect each neighborhood to its own Town Square, and to other Town Squares communitywide, through a network of separate walking and cycling paths (like those in First Neighborhood), and protected bike lanes along surface streets (to ensure less-experienced cyclists feel safe) to enable residents to easily navigate their neighborhoods without having to drive.
Establish fossil-free, electric-powered (ie: electric, not natural/fossil gas) public transit to connect all town squares to one another, and to other frequently visited city attractions (local colleges; middle and high schools during drop-off, pick-up, and special events; malls; the Civic Arts Center; sports playfields; libraries; open space areas; etc.).
Locate longer distance, intercity public transit hubs adjacent to park-n-rides positioned near to the northern, southern and easternmost Town Squares, to provide connections to nearby cities.
Reply by Gordon Clint on 02/23/2021 at 5:56pm [Comment ID: 1002] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
I strongly support the vision for Town Squares. But, I have a problem with gathering areas in malls and shopping centers where owners of the private property can exclude political or social justice petitions and signs. I would like these public gathering squares to be a "commons" on land the developer gives to the City. The new development’s Town Square should connect with the city street and sidewalk with a wide public walkway that can also provide fire, police, and maintenance access.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/03/2021 at 4:47pm [Comment ID: 1253] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Privately Owned Public Spaces, aka POPS, are spaces dedicated to public use and enjoyment and which are owned and maintained by private property owners. POPS can provide opportunities to sit, relax, people watch, eat, meet others, etc. POPS can come in many shapes and sizes, both outdoor and indoor, and are the result of City zoning regulations aimed at ensuring even our densest areas offer open public space and greenery. #398
Posted by Scott Searway on 03/03/2021 at 5:43pm [Comment ID: 1260] - Link Type: Suggestion
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 162 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
The bike lanes here on Moorpark are good. If adding to this Neighborhood concept, can bike lanes and green paint be added along Janss at this intersection? #399
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:18pm [Comment ID: 1358] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
Wondering how many under-improved areas there are around CLU, which could provide a good opportunity for multi-family homes. Much like what Cal State Channel Islands did for their faculty etc..
How could this be incorporated into our plan?
#400
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/11/2021 at 12:51am [Comment ID: 1473] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
We can have a more people-centric, walkable, connected Thousand Oaks by creating distinctive Neighborhood Town Squares: * IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. * REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each neighborhood "center". * BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with trees, plants, gardens and parkland. * BUILD housing that's "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. * POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. * JOIN each Town Square to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. * CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. * LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs. #401
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 02/22/2021 at 7:08pm [Comment ID: 940] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 6, Disagree: 0
Prior to approving permits for new construction going forward, the City must consider the cumulative wildfire safety and disaster evacuation impacts of proposed projects on the *entire* community, including the impacts resulting from a development's resident density in relation to available egress roads ... and especially impacts resulting from the combined load of multiple or concentrated developments' contributing to likely or potentially unsafe congestion on escape routes out of the city under multiple, simultaneous, disaster scenarios (which are expected to become more frequent in a changing climate), as occurred in November of 2018 when the Borderline shooting, high Santa Ana winds, and Hill and Woolsey wildfires converged to strain resources and gridlock freeways as frightened residents attempted to flee.
Reply by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 3:37pm [Comment ID: 1815] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Agree that these impacts should be studied. I also think that new development should be required to use fire-resistant materials when within the very high fire hazard zone, and encouraged to construct publicly accessible wildfire-resistant shelter facilities within or adjacent to projects in areas at high risk of exposure to wildfires to reduce the need for evacuation by vehicle - if not within every development, which would probably be very expensive, then within every block or every quarter-mile. #402
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 8:26am [Comment ID: 1720] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
We can have more people-centric, walkable, connected neighborhoods that enable residents to accomplish their routine working, grocery, banking, shopping, dining and entertainment needs/errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of their home:
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 163 Printed 03/24/2021 *IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. *REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each commercial "center". *BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with native trees, plants, gardens and parkland. *BUILD housing that's actually "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. *POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. *JOIN each Town Square to its surrounding neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. *CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. *LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs. #403
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/11/2021 at 12:50am [Comment ID: 1472] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
We can have a more people-centric, walkable, connected Thousand Oaks by creating distinctive Neighborhood Town Squares: * IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. * REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each neighborhood "center". * BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with trees, plants, gardens and parkland. * BUILD housing that's "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. * POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. * JOIN each Town Square to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. * CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. * LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs. #404
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 1:49pm [Comment ID: 1322] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Yes to adding condos and townhomes and property people can BUY to Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. IF they have gathering areas great. Disagree that everything has to have a political consideration.
#405
Posted by Betsy Connolly on 02/19/2021 at 5:27pm [Comment ID: 803] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 9, Disagree: -1
Let's save the mall by adding condos and apartments. Shopping and dining are enhanced when people live nearby and have places to sit and socialize.
Reply by Gordon Clint on 02/23/2021 at 6:10pm [Comment ID: 1006] - Link Agree: 7, Disagree: -1
The mall area needs a truly public Town Square as well as condos and apartments. I have a problem with gathering areas in malls and shopping centers where owners of the private property can exclude people with political or social justice petitions and signs. I would like these public gathering squares to be a "commons" on land the developer gives to the City. The public gathering area in a revitalized mall should connect with the city street and sidewalk with a wide public walkway that can also provide fire, police, and maintenance access.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/03/2021 at 4:46pm [Comment ID: 1252] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: -1
Privately Owned Public Spaces, aka POPS, are spaces dedicated to public use and enjoyment and which are owned and maintained by private property owners. POPS can provide opportunities to sit, relax, people watch, eat, meet others, etc. POPS can come in many shapes and sizes, both outdoor and indoor, and are the result of City zoning regulations aimed at TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 164 Printed 03/24/2021 ensuring even our densest areas offer open public space and greenery. #406
Posted by Barb on 03/15/2021 at 1:48am [Comment ID: 1712] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
I would like to see town squares, like the Piazza's in Italy and other countries in Europe. through Conejo valley Reply by Gordon Clint on 03/15/2021 at 11:26am [Comment ID: 1739] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
Yes! Town squares bring vitality and a greater sense of community. #407
Posted by Angela Diamond on 03/11/2021 at 8:23pm [Comment ID: 1503] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
The Lynn exit gets so clogged as the freeway narrows...there needs to be an alternative exit to access the mall if that area is to be expanded. #408
Posted by Mark Sellers on 02/15/2021 at 4:42pm [Comment ID: 660] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
have submitted for TOBA and will be taking survey
#409
Posted by Cynthia Futvoye on 02/22/2021 at 4:14pm [Comment ID: 924] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
Why are all the areas of interest along the freeway instead of back inland? #410
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/11/2021 at 12:48am [Comment ID: 1468] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
We can have a more people-centric, walkable, connected Thousand Oaks by creating distinctive Neighborhood Town Squares: * IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. * REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each neighborhood "center". * BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with trees, plants, gardens and parkland. * BUILD housing that's "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. * POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. * JOIN each Town Square to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. * CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. * LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs. #411
Posted by ali marie matheson on 02/26/2021 at 3:33am [Comment ID: 1189] - Link Agree: 7, Disagree: 0
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 165 Printed 03/24/2021 I live in Rancho Conejo and walk its streets daily to see ENDLESS office buildings already here that almost NO ONE is currently using-and i don't believe that once Co-Vid is gone, they will be totally full (because they weren't BEFORE Co-Vid even hit us) This area is beautiful-why are you building MORE office space when no one is even using what the heck is here???! #412
Posted by Ben Eduarte on 02/18/2021 at 4:41pm [Comment ID: 760] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 13, Disagree: -1
The current zoning of R1- Residential low-density of "The Wetlands" bordering FWY 101 south and the Borchard exit should be maintained and not changed to multi-use. The Fox Meadows development and the unincorporated parts of Newbury Park adjacent to "The Wetlands" have a serious limitation when it comes to traffic. There are only two vehicle accesses -- Wendy/Alice and Wendy/Bella -- to these communities. During rush hours traffic in these intersections become hectic. In particular, the Wendy/Bella intersection is prone to congestion as a multi-room, two story apartment building sits on the corner and residents of the apartment park along all sides of the intersection. Changing the zoning of "The Wetlands" to multi-use will add a lot more traffic and congestion to the area. I'm in favor of the current zoning and the development of "The Wetlands" for single family homes.
Reply by Barbara on 02/18/2021 at 7:13pm [Comment ID: 763] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: -1
i agree
Reply by Marissa on 03/12/2021 at 3:52pm [Comment ID: 1537] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Agreed.
#413
Posted by Kendall Lousen (“Kenny”) on 03/15/2021 at 11:44pm [Comment ID: 1879] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Implement viable land use designations with compatible densities and development standards to minimize encroachment for military operations, by preventing incompatible land use development within Naval Base Ventura County’s military influence area boundary, by ensuring the proposed land use designations and allowable densities for land use types aim to foster Senate Bill 1462 and Senate Bill 1468 to ensure long-term compatibility for NBVC and City of Thousand Oaks. #414
Posted by Lorrie Dingman on 02/15/2021 at 10:41pm [Comment ID: 686] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 13, Disagree: -1
This area is RESIDENTIAL and according to characteristic stated in your own document you acknowledge that your own surveys show that current residents want to preserve residential areas as residential. Remove this as an "area of change"
#415
Posted by Bill Serantoni on 03/09/2021 at 11:59am [Comment ID: 1387] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Parking is becoming a problem. Any new development needs to provide the parking needed to support it. If that isn't done we'll become like L.A. where parking is a nightmare.
Reply by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 3:27pm [Comment ID: 1811] - Link TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 166 Printed 03/24/2021 Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
If transportation modes are shifted to walking, biking, or public transportation where feasible (which will require better infrastructure in TO) that will reduce issues with parking. Where densification does occur and parking is still needed, hopefully the developers and/or city will see fit to create public parking structures and/or introduce parking management for the impacted areas. #416
Posted by Gordon Clint on 02/23/2021 at 6:17pm [Comment ID: 1007] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
I strongly support the vision for Town Squares if this area ever adds residential units. But, I have a problem with gathering areas in malls and shopping centers where owners of the private property can exclude political or social justice petitions and signs. I would like these public gathering squares to be a "commons" on land the developer gives to the City. The new development’s Town Square should connect with the city street and sidewalk with a wide public walkway that can also provide fire, police, and maintenance access.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/03/2021 at 4:53pm [Comment ID: 1258] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Privately Owned Public Spaces, aka POPS, are spaces dedicated to public use and enjoyment and which are owned and maintained by private property owners. POPS can provide opportunities to sit, relax, people watch, eat, meet others, etc. POPS can come in many shapes and sizes, both outdoor and indoor, and are the result of City zoning regulations aimed at ensuring even our densest areas offer open public space and greenery.
#417
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/11/2021 at 12:49am [Comment ID: 1470] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
We can have a more people-centric, walkable, connected Thousand Oaks by creating distinctive Neighborhood Town Squares: * IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. * REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each neighborhood "center". * BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with trees, plants, gardens and parkland. * BUILD housing that's "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. * POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. * JOIN each Town Square to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. * CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. * LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs. #418
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/11/2021 at 12:48am [Comment ID: 1469] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
We can have a more people-centric, walkable, connected Thousand Oaks by creating distinctive Neighborhood Town Squares: * IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. * REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each neighborhood "center". * BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with trees, plants, gardens and parkland. * BUILD housing that's "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. * POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. * JOIN each Town Square to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. * CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. * LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs.
Reply by Aaron on 03/13/2021 at 9:00pm [Comment ID: 1614] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Please quit spamming the same message over and over!
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 167 Printed 03/24/2021 #419
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 02/22/2021 at 6:21pm [Comment ID: 938] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: -1
Transportation accounts for our community's largest source of the climate-heating greenhouse gases driving drought, water scarcity and wildfire risk, contributing fully half (50%) of our total emissions.
In 2018, commuters drove six million miles, DAILY, into and out of Thousand Oaks. So it’s essential that our General Plan Update (GPU2045) and our Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) actually reduce traffic, congestion, pollution, and Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by enabling more Thousand Oaks residents the opportunity to accomplish our routine working, grocery, banking, shopping, dining and entertainment needs/errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of our home:
To create a more people-centric and connected community, create and deliberately design Neighborhood Town Squares in each of the identified "Village Centers" as follows:
Identify existing, strategically-located neighborhood "centers" where shopping, small business, and entertainment, and jobs are already concentrated within walking/cycling distance of surrounding neighborhoods. (Neighborhoods which currently lack established “centers” within walking/cycling distance of their households could identify appropriate potential sites that could be re-purposed to establish smaller versions of the Town Square concept.) Renovate any vacant spaces to create orbital, Town Squares, for each neighborhood, that feature cafes, coffee shops, restaurants, retail, grocers, farmers markets, finance, and leisure activities, all located surrounding a central outdoor feature (a piazza, fountain, park, etc.) with public seating areas.
Make each Town Square a compelling and attractive social gathering space by preserving ancient oaks and other heritage trees, and planting abundant complementary tree canopy coverage, park land with ample green space and native plants, and organic community gardens.
Within each Town Square, build housing (similar to university dormitories) that is disability-accessible and actually affordable, by combining studio apartments (consisting of a private bedroom, bathroom, and compact living space equipped with a microwave and small refrigerator) with common indoor and outdoor spaces (which allow for significantly reduced rental rates) that offer shared kitchens, lounges, laundry facilities, and courtyards. This arrangement could work equally well for students and singles as well as for seniors by building-in the socializing opportunities that young people so often seek, while also providing mature residents who are still able to take care of themselves, but are downsizing both their belongings and the spaces they have to maintain, more camaraderie than living alone often offers.
Require that all new, remodeled, or renovated development be all-electric (Eliminating natural/fossil gas connections reduces both construction and operating costs, while also eliminating dangerous indoor air pollution and the risk of explosion.) and powered by clean energy-generating rooftop solar (with the intention of ultimately phasing in battery storage-based micro-grids for enhanced community resilience) with EV-charging stations for cars and bicycles.
Equip each Town Square with bicycle racks and rental bicycle fleets; and connect each neighborhood to its own Town Square, and to other Town Squares communitywide, through a network of separate walking and cycling paths (like those in First Neighborhood), and protected bike lanes along surface streets (to ensure less-experienced cyclists feel safe) to enable residents to easily navigate their neighborhoods without having to drive.
Establish fossil-free, electric-powered (ie: electric, not natural/fossil gas) public transit to connect all town squares to one another, and to other frequently visited city attractions (local colleges; middle and high schools during drop-off, pick-up, and special events; malls; the Civic Arts Center; sports playfields; libraries; open space areas; etc.).
Locate longer distance, intercity public transit hubs adjacent to park-n-rides positioned near to the northern, southern and easternmost Town Squares, to provide connections to nearby cities.
Reply by Gordon Clint on 02/23/2021 at 5:53pm [Comment ID: 1001] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
I strongly support the vision for Town Squares. But, I have a problem with gathering areas in malls and shopping centers where owners of the private property can exclude political or social justice petitions and signs. I would like these public gathering squares to be a "commons" on land the developer gives to the City. The new development’s Town Square should connect with the city street and sidewalk with a wide public walkway that can also provide fire, police, and maintenance access.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/03/2021 at 4:53pm [Comment ID: 1257] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Privately Owned Public Spaces, aka POPS, are spaces dedicated to public use and enjoyment and which are owned and maintained by private property owners. POPS can provide opportunities to sit, relax, people watch, eat, meet others, etc. POPS can come in many shapes and sizes, both outdoor and indoor, and are the result of City zoning regulations aimed at ensuring even our densest areas offer open public space and greenery. #420
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 168 Printed 03/24/2021 Posted by Brett T. Boynton on 02/05/2021 at 3:55pm [Comment ID: 615] - Link Agree: 11, Disagree: -3
The LA style overbuild of 40 units in 1.7 acres of land at Maurice and Reino in Newbury Park is completely opposed by your constituents. I asked the TO City Council members to have the courage to walk our neighborhoods and directly ask our neighbors. Of course, zero response from the City Council members. What are they hiding from? #421
Posted by Gordon Clint on 02/22/2021 at 9:45pm [Comment ID: 948] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: -1
This property backs up to a supermarket and is across the street from a higher density single family area so seems appropriate for town homes and condominiums. #422
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/11/2021 at 12:49am [Comment ID: 1471] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
We can have a more people-centric, walkable, connected Thousand Oaks by creating distinctive Neighborhood Town Squares: * IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. * REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each neighborhood "center". * BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with trees, plants, gardens and parkland. * BUILD housing that's "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. * POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. * JOIN each Town Square to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. * CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. * LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs. #423
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 02/22/2021 at 6:22pm [Comment ID: 939] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
Transportation accounts for our community's largest source of the climate-heating greenhouse gases driving drought, water scarcity and wildfire risk, contributing fully half (50%) of our total emissions.
In 2018, commuters drove six million miles, DAILY, into and out of Thousand Oaks. So it’s essential that our General Plan Update (GPU2045) and our Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) actually reduce traffic, congestion, pollution, and Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by enabling more Thousand Oaks residents the opportunity to accomplish our routine working, grocery, banking, shopping, dining and entertainment needs/errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of our home:
To create a more people-centric and connected community, create and deliberately design Neighborhood Town Squares in each of the identified "Village Centers" as follows:
Identify existing, strategically-located neighborhood "centers" where shopping, small business, and entertainment, and jobs are already concentrated within walking/cycling distance of surrounding neighborhoods. (Neighborhoods which currently lack established “centers” within walking/cycling distance of their households could identify appropriate potential sites that could be re-purposed to establish smaller versions of the Town Square concept.) Renovate any vacant spaces to create orbital, Town Squares, for each neighborhood, that feature cafes, coffee shops, restaurants, retail, grocers, farmers markets, finance, and leisure activities, all located surrounding a central outdoor feature (a piazza, fountain, park, etc.) with public seating areas.
Make each Town Square a compelling and attractive social gathering space by preserving ancient oaks and other heritage trees, and planting abundant complementary tree canopy coverage, park land with ample green space and native plants, and organic community gardens.
Within each Town Square, build housing (similar to university dormitories) that is disability-accessible and actually affordable, by combining studio apartments (consisting of a private bedroom, bathroom, and compact living space equipped with a microwave and small refrigerator) with common indoor and outdoor spaces (which allow for significantly reduced rental rates) that offer shared kitchens, lounges, laundry facilities, and courtyards. This arrangement could work equally well for students and singles as well as for seniors by building-in the socializing opportunities that young people so often seek, while also providing mature residents who are still able to take care of themselves, but are downsizing both their belongings and the spaces they have to maintain, more camaraderie than living alone often offers.
Require that all new, remodeled, or renovated development be all-electric (Eliminating natural/fossil gas connections reduces both construction and operating costs, while also eliminating dangerous indoor air pollution and the risk of explosion.) and powered by clean energy-generating rooftop solar (with the intention of ultimately phasing in battery storage-based micro-grids for enhanced community resilience) with EV-charging stations for cars and bicycles.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 169 Printed 03/24/2021 Equip each Town Square with bicycle racks and rental bicycle fleets; and connect each neighborhood to its own Town Square, and to other Town Squares communitywide, through a network of separate walking and cycling paths (like those in First Neighborhood), and protected bike lanes along surface streets (to ensure less-experienced cyclists feel safe) to enable residents to easily navigate their neighborhoods without having to drive.
Establish fossil-free, electric-powered (ie: electric, not natural/fossil gas) public transit to connect all town squares to one another, and to other frequently visited city attractions (local colleges; middle and high schools during drop-off, pick-up, and special events; malls; the Civic Arts Center; sports playfields; libraries; open space areas; etc.).
Locate longer distance, intercity public transit hubs adjacent to park-n-rides positioned near to the northern, southern and easternmost Town Squares, to provide connections to nearby cities.
Reply by Gordon Clint on 02/23/2021 at 5:51pm [Comment ID: 1000] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
I strongly support the vision for Town Squares. But, I have a problem with gathering areas in malls and shopping centers where owners of the private property can exclude political or social justice petitions and signs. I would like these public gathering squares to be a "commons" on land the developer gives to the City. The new development’s Town Square should connect with the city street and sidewalk with a wide public walkway that can also provide fire, police, and maintenance access.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 170 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 31
COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES ACROSS ALL ALTERNATIVES
The following is a summary of many of the characteristics common for all of the alternatives. These are based on a number of sources including: 1) the guiding principles developed by the community; 2) input from the community on areas of preservation and change; 3) State and local laws (e.g., SB 330 and Measure E).
CHARACTERISTICS IMPLEMENTATION IN ALTERNATIVES
Preserve parks
and open spaces
In the MetroQuest community survey developed for the project, parks and open space was the top ranked strength/value of the participants.
All alternatives preserve parks and open spaces and target any new development to existing urbanized areas.
Maintain Measure
E cap
All alternatives maintain the existing citywide residential capacity consistent with Measure E (81,124 housing units). The alternatives vary in where the residential development is located.
No Net Loss
of Residential
Development
Capacity
SB 330 requires that jurisdictions not reduce citywide residential development capacity. All alternatives maintain the total residential development capacity in the city of 81,124 units.
Meet RHNA
requirements
While this will occur at a later stage, all alternatives will be able to meet the RHNA requirements imposed by the State.
Maintain/expand
job capacity
All alternatives maintain and expand biotech and other professional jobs to allow people to live and work in the City and to expand the tax base. The alternatives explore different locations and amounts of jobproducing uses.
Protect
single-family
neighborhoods
In the Areas of Stability, the land use designations for the existing single-family neighborhoods were changed to ensure that only compatible new development (at a similar density and scale) could occur. This addresses a potential issue with the existing land use designations that allow multifamily projects by right in existing single-family areas.
Focus new
development in
limited locations
During the engagement process, participants identified that new development should be focused in limited areas in the City, particular along Thousand Oaks Boulevard, in the Oaks Mall area, around Rancho Conejo, and in other non-residential areas along the 101 freeway.
These are the Areas of Change and the land use alternatives focus only on these areas.
TABLE 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ALTERNATIVES
424
425
426
429 428 427
430
431
432
433
434
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 171 Printed 03/24/2021 #424
Posted by Cynthia Futvoye on 02/22/2021 at 4:15pm [Comment ID: 925] - Link Agree: 12, Disagree: -1
Yes we voted for the city council members because they pledged open space. So why is the development zone between Borchard and Wendy on the table? This is wetland.
This is among the last open land. It will hurt the animals and create a traffic backlog.
We do not have a way to funnel people in and out safety and efficiently. It will also take away quality of life of residents you already have in the neighborhood surrounding it. #425
Posted by Susan K Soy on 02/21/2021 at 3:14pm [Comment ID: 899] - Link Agree: 11, Disagree: 0
Open space is an investment for the future. It is a good thing. We need trees, water, space and efforts to preserve that are appreciated. Thank you. #426
Posted by Cindy on 03/15/2021 at 4:12pm [Comment ID: 1832] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I like the idea of the Village Centers very much! It will help create centers of community within our neighborhoods, while reducing the feeling of suburban sprawl. As our community ages towards disability, locally accessible transportation, shopping, entertainment and commerce will provide less segregation, isolation, and promote interdependence.
#427
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 11:33pm [Comment ID: 851] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -15
Of all the non-productive ideas this is the most obvious. Politically sensitive to be sure.
However times have changed. It will take leadership that at this time does not exist.
Open space for the sake of openness is a poor idea. There are areas that seldom if ever see human use. This is not productive. The single driving factor here is reasonable use to benefit all. Urbanization is just that. There will come a time when there will be the will and courage to assess and document the utilization of some of these open spaces that serve no good use.
#428
Posted by Betsy Connolly on 02/19/2021 at 5:31pm [Comment ID: 804] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
Our current lower priced and higher density areas don't have the public spaces, parks and plazas, that other parts of the city have. that should be corrected. Building up should be done to decrease footprint of housing so that more public places are TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 172 Printed 03/24/2021 provided for everyone to enjoy. Building up should not be done just to sell more dwelling units or make each until bigger and therefore more expensive. All people need spaces - paved and unpaved.
#429
Posted by Janet Miller Wall on 02/17/2021 at 2:14pm [Comment ID: 727] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 11, Disagree: 0
Aren't parks already "preserved" by the Parks Initiative which provides that any park or open space conversion application goes to a vote of the people? If the plan is to add 32,000+ new condos/apts/townhomes, why are no new parks added on any of the suggested new maps? Parks were suggested at the GPAC meetings.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/03/2021 at 7:17pm [Comment ID: 1266] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
A City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) extension (Measure W) was on the ballot for Thousand Oaks voters in Ventura County, California, on November 8, 2016. It proposed extending the City Urban Restriction Boundary ordinance from December 31, 2030 to December 31, 2050, and was approved by 76.26% of the voters:
https://ballotpedia.org/Thousand_Oaks,_California,_Extension_of_City_Urban_ Restriction_Boundary_(CURB)_through_2050,_Measure_W_(November_2016) #430
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 11:38pm [Comment ID: 852] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Big shots big lots, bla bla bla.
#431
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 3:31pm [Comment ID: 1813] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Maybe the City could explore conditional use permits where appropriate to allow very small commercial businesses (ie: cafes, coffee, smoothie and juice shops, small grocers, barber shops, salons, and similar neighborhood retail activities) in residential settings in single-family-zoned areas to enable residents to accomplish more of our routine, daily errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of our homes.
Reply by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 3:42pm [Comment ID: 1817] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/12/8/best-of-2020-accessory-commer cial-units
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 173 Printed 03/24/2021 #432
Posted by Betsy Connolly on 02/19/2021 at 5:33pm [Comment ID: 805] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 12, Disagree: 0
We allowed lots of homes to be built at a lower density than our plan called for. Now we have to squeeze that "missing" housing into the remaining unbuilt space. This is why Village Centers make good sense. Give each area of the city some higher density housing and help retail centers survive at the same time.
Reply by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 2:29pm [Comment ID: 1327] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: 0
Agree, as long as "higher density" is not crazy density. We just spent a year of lockd-owns for a virus, which ran rampant in denser areas in all metropolitan cities. I know our medical professionals would agree. So it is important that our willingness to accept some greater density is not mistaken for outright "cram-em-in" density. Also, there is a chance that in the future State requirements for higher density could be reversed or lessened. Lastly, much of the new development should allow for home ownership. Whether it's rent-to-own or outright purchase. We want to encourage create more stakeholders in our communities.
#433
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 11:43pm [Comment ID: 853] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -2
This is a political version of what many know to be BS. From the start it is designed to placate a singular minority of wealthy inhabitants who fear us poor folk. What a load of ..., never mind. I realize how hard you work. Thank you. #434
Posted by Amy K Leicht on 02/24/2021 at 5:34pm [Comment ID: 1121] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
While considering the future of our city we should look at the fact that we are surrounded by "Open Space" full of fire fuel rich with invasive weeds like mustard grass. As beautiful as it is in the Spring it dries out and becomes fire fuel in the Fall/Winter. Our fire season is becoming longer due to climate change. The rain is coming later and later and the dried brush from the Spring is ready to burn during the Santa Ana wind events through December. We should be doing more brush clearing in our surrounding hills to help limit/reduce the amount of flying embers that will inevitably land in our yards and on our houses. COSCA manages the City land and should be held accountable for keeping up to date with the growth of our city. The brush clearing requirements set by the Ventura Fire Hazard Reduction Program haven't been updated since the 1990's. We are considered a WUI (wildland urban interface) city and we need to take steps to prevent another Woolsey fire or worse.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 174 Printed 03/24/2021 https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fire-brush-clearance TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 175 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 32
CHARACTERISTICS IMPLEMENTATION IN ALTERNATIVES
Allow for
multifamily
housing at a
variety of scales
Many participants expressed a desire for the City to expand the amount of multifamily development as a way of expanding home ownership, increasing housing diversity and providing housing for teachers, public safety professionals, and young adults. The land use designations in the alternatives provide a range of densities that are applied in different locations and amounts in the alternatives.
Add mixed-use
development in
strategic locations
In the MetroQuest community survey, participants were asked to identify the type of new development they wanted to see in the City.
Development with a mix of uses was mentioned more than another other use, including parks and open space. The land use designations reflect this desire by creating three different land use designations (at varying intensities of development). The application of the mixed-use land use designations varies across the alternatives.
Develop a
“downtown”
and walkable
“village centers”
throughout the
city.
Many participants liked the idea of creating a new Downtown for the City (as envisioned in the Downtown Core Master Plan) and developing a series of walkable, mixed-use “village centers” throughout the City. The village centers could occur in existing shopping centers throughout the City and in focused areas along Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
Explore
higher density
development in
limited locations
While there was no consensus on the topic of high-density development, a large number wanted to explore allowing higher density development (over 3 stories and 30 units an acre) in limited areas of the City. Some expressed the desire for development up to 6 or 7 stories at key “nodes” such as Rancho Conejo, the Oaks Mall and along Thousand Oaks Boulevard. The alternatives contemplate limited opportunities in differing locations.
Emphasize
development
character more
than density
Many people stated that creating high-quality, attractive development in a walkable pattern was more important than the dwelling units per acre since the numeric density can vary based on unit size. The land use designations allow a greater number of dwelling units per acre and additional building stories while maintaining some of the existing height limits. This could allow more units (and hence density) in the same building form.
Identical land
use designations
in the Areas of
Stability
The Areas of Change account for less than 8% of the total land in the city. The Areas of Stability are identical across all the alternatives. This is a means of protecting the parks and open spaces, preserving singlefamily residential areas, and maintaining institutional uses such as California Lutheran University and Los Robles Regional Medical Center. 435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 176 Printed 03/24/2021 #435
Posted by Cindy on 03/15/2021 at 4:16pm [Comment ID: 1835] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Love the Village Centers and would like to see the radius expanded for each center.
Ideally each center has access to grocery, cafes, banks, postal service, entertainment and accessible transportation.
#436
Posted by Steve Smith on 03/15/2021 at 6:50pm [Comment ID: 1847] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
No, no, no to anything exceeding 3 stories in any area of the city. What we don't need are building that block the view of the mountains that surround our beautiful city.
Thousand Oaks has long been a magnet as a beautiful place to live because we don't have tall buildings.
#437
Posted by Betsy Connolly on 02/19/2021 at 5:38pm [Comment ID: 807] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: -2
I love the idea of Village Centers with housing and retail. Also want it downtown. #438
Posted by Betsy Connolly on 02/19/2021 at 5:43pm [Comment ID: 808] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -5
I am interested in using more stories as a way to allow more open areas around apartment / condo buildings rather than adding more dwelling units by adding another floor. Plazas and pocket parks make wonder places to live and visit. And they are good for retail as well.
#439
Posted by Karen maloney on 02/18/2021 at 11:38am [Comment ID: 756] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 9, Disagree: 0
There should be a moratorium on this stage in planning. During Covid crisis the community has not been made properly aware of this critical stage in the future of Thousand Oaks.
#440
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 177 Printed 03/24/2021 Posted by Mandy Reynolds on 03/12/2021 at 3:00am [Comment ID: 1524] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
Did those "some" that expressed a desire for up to 6-7 stories actually live near any of these "nodes"? Was there even a mapping of all the vacant commercial/retail buildings performed to see what could be leveraged rather than taking the easy route for wealthy developers to develop parking lots and open space (Rancho Conejo)? It is unfortunate people engaged in these proposals may have overlooked how bad traffic can be on the grade from Camarillo and how long it takes to exit to NP.
Reply by Gordon Clint on 03/15/2021 at 12:01pm [Comment ID: 1742] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Our General Plan should enable more people to live closer to where they work so they won't need to commute by freeway.
#441
Posted by Janet Miller Wall on 02/17/2021 at 2:17pm [Comment ID: 728] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 8, Disagree: 0
Again, parks and open space are protected by the Parks Initiative which requires a vote of the people to convert them, right?
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/03/2021 at 7:14pm [Comment ID: 1265] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
A City Urban Restriction Boundary (CURB) extension (Measure W) was on the ballot for Thousand Oaks voters in Ventura County, California, on November 8, 2016. It proposed extending the City Urban Restriction Boundary ordinance from December 31, 2030 to December 31, 2050, and was approved by 76.26% of the voters:
https://ballotpedia.org/Thousand_Oaks,_California,_Extension_of_City_Urban_ Restriction_Boundary_(CURB)_through_2050,_Measure_W_(November_2016) #442
Posted by Susan K Soy on 02/21/2021 at 3:18pm [Comment ID: 901] - Link Agree: 11, Disagree: -1
Limit how high we go, please. 6-7 stories is a no-no.
Reply by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 2:45pm [Comment ID: 1331] - Link Agree: 7, Disagree: -1
THREE STORIES MAX
#443
Posted by Scott Collins on 03/15/2021 at 1:04am [Comment ID: 1699] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Just to place this in another perspective, 8% means that 1 in every 12 equal-sized plots TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 178 Printed 03/24/2021 of land will be changed by this plan. Keep in mind that if you exclude open space, this means that approximately 1 in 8 equal-size non-open-space land sections will be affected by this plan. (Note: Uses a figure of 34% land protected as open space.) #444
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 11:53pm [Comment ID: 855] - Link Agree: 18, Disagree: -1
7 stories = voted out of office.
#445
Posted by PB on 02/16/2021 at 5:25pm [Comment ID: 716] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 11, Disagree: 0
How many is "a large number?" Again, just trying to get clarification if this is truly a consensus of the current population, or not?
#446
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 3:36pm [Comment ID: 1814] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
We can have a more people-centric, walkable, connected Thousand Oaks by creating distinctive Neighborhood Town Squares on the Janss & Oaks Mall sites, in the Rancho Conejo employment hub, and in each "village center". Here's how:
*IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. * REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each neighborhood "center". * BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with trees, plants, gardens and parkland. * BUILD housing that's "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. * POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. * JOIN each Town Square to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. * CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. * LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs.
#447
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/03/2021 at 6:40pm [Comment ID: 1263] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: -1
If we specifically design for housing affordability in strategic locations (like in the village centers, where residents can actually walk to nearby retail, dining, entertainment and services) by allowing higher density while maintaining our existing building heights, the resulting apartments will necessarilly be smaller, more affordable (by virtue of their size), and more numerous - meeting our city's state-mandated RHNA requirements TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 179 Printed 03/24/2021 faster in fewer developments, while also curtailing the construction of yet more, luxury apartments that handsomely benefit developers but not T.O. residents who want housing their adult children and senior family members can actually afford. Envision studio apartments (consisting of a private bedroom, bathroom, and compact living space equipped with a microwave and small refrigerator) with common indoor and outdoor spaces (which also allow for significantly reduced rental rates) that offer shared kitchens, lounges, laundry facilities, and courtyards. This arrangement could work equally well for students and singles as well as for seniors by building-in the socializing opportunities that young people so often seek, while also providing mature residents who are still able to take care of themselves, but are downsizing both their belongings and the spaces they have to maintain, more camaraderie than living alone often offers.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/03/2021 at 6:49pm [Comment ID: 1264] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: -1
City adoption of a strong Inclusive Housing Ordinance (IHO), perhaps one offering a density bonus for the construction of all smaller units, could ensure every unit is actually affordable; and their smaller size would ensure they remain affordable (given that there's a limit to how much tenants would be willing to pay for a small space.)
Reply by Gordon Clint on 03/15/2021 at 11:54am [Comment ID: 1741] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Yes! A strong Inclusive Housing Ordinance is so important and will be essential to actually getting housing built that is affordable. #448
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/03/2021 at 6:21pm [Comment ID: 1262] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: -2
Transportation accounts for our community's largest source of the climate-heating greenhouse gases driving drought, water scarcity and wildfire risk, contributing fully half (50%) of our total emissions. In 2018, commuters drove six million miles, DAILY, into and out of Thousand Oaks. So it’s essential that our General Plan Update (GPU2045) and our Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) actually reduce traffic, congestion, pollution, and Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by enabling as many Thousand Oaks residents as possible the opportunity to accomplish our routine working, grocery, banking, shopping, dining and entertainment needs/errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of our homes. Developing a "downtown" on T.O. Blvd. could encourage more people from neighborhoods all across the city to drive to and congregate there, actually increasing traffic, congestion, pollution and VMT (especially in "change areas" C & D). To create a more people-centric and connected community, we should instead focus our efforts on the creation and deliberate design of multiple Neighborhood Town Squares in each of the identified "Village Centers", as well as in the Oaks & Janss mall areas, and in neighborhoods (like Sunset Hills and North TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 180 Printed 03/24/2021 Ranch) which currently lack established “centers” within walking/cycling distance of their households. We could do so as follows: *Identify existing, strategically-located neighborhood "centers" where shopping, small business, and entertainment, and jobs are already concentrated within walking/cycling distance of surrounding neighborhoods. *Renovate any vacant spaces to create orbital, Town Squares, for each neighborhood, that feature cafes, coffee shops, restaurants, retail, grocers, farmers markets, finance, and leisure activities, all located surrounding a central outdoor feature (a piazza, fountain, park, etc.) with public seating areas. *Make each Town Square a compelling and attractive social gathering space by preserving ancient oaks and other heritage trees, and planting abundant complementary tree canopy coverage, park land with ample green space and native plants, and edible organic community gardens. *Within each Town Square, build housing (similar to university dormitories) that is disability-accessible and actually affordable, by combining studio apartments (consisting of a private bedroom, bathroom, and compact living space equipped with a microwave and small refrigerator) with common indoor and outdoor spaces (which allow for significantly reduced rental rates) that offer shared kitchens, lounges, laundry facilities, and courtyards. This arrangement could work equally well for students and singles as well as for seniors by building-in the socializing opportunities that young people so often seek, while also providing mature residents who are still able to take care of themselves, but are downsizing both their belongings and the spaces they have to maintain, more camaraderie than living alone often offers. *Require that all new, remodeled, or renovated development be all-electric (Eliminating natural/fossil gas connections reduces both construction and operating costs, while also eliminating dangerous indoor air pollution and the risk of explosion.) and powered by clean energy-generating rooftop solar (with the intention of ultimately phasing in battery storage-based micro-grids for enhanced community resilience) with EV-charging stations for cars and bicycles. *Equip each Town Square with bicycle racks and rental bicycle fleets; and connect each neighborhood to its own Town Square, and to other Town Squares communitywide, through a network of separate walking and cycling paths (like those in First Neighborhood), and protected bike lanes along surface streets (to ensure less-experienced cyclists feel safe) to enable residents to easily navigate their neighborhoods without having to drive. *Establish fossil-free, electric-powered (ie:
electric, not natural/fossil gas) public transit to connect all town squares to one another, and to other frequently visited city attractions (local colleges; middle and high schools during drop-off, pick-up, and special events; malls; the Civic Arts Center; sports playfields; libraries; open space areas; etc.). *Locate longer distance, intercity public transit hubs adjacent to park-n-rides positioned near to the northern, southern and easternmost Town Squares, to provide connections to nearby cities. #449
Posted by Lorrie Dingman on 02/15/2021 at 10:30pm [Comment ID: 685] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 10, Disagree: -1
A large portion of the Moradian property which you include in your Rancho Conejo" area of change is currently zoned as Low Residential! You claim throughout this entire document that you want to preserve single family residential areas and yet you are TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 181 Printed 03/24/2021 suggesting a change to Mixed Use Medium in that location. Changing the use of that parcel doesn't fit the current General Plan nor the stated "characteristics" of your new plans. Remove this parcel from your planned area of change and include it in the area of stability.
#450
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 11:54pm [Comment ID: 856] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Ah... intelligence!
#451
Posted by Rachel E Payton on 02/22/2021 at 5:24pm [Comment ID: 932] - Link Agree: 14, Disagree: -1
6-7 stories is too high
Reply by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 2:44pm [Comment ID: 1329] - Link Agree: 9, Disagree: -1
Nothing over three stories!!!! We are losing our skylines. I used to drive down Thousand Oaks Boulevard and see the hills. Now I see concrete. This is not what the people want and not how the City was originally intended to grow. I understand things have to evolve. But that evolution can be less imposing. #452
Posted by PB on 02/16/2021 at 5:24pm [Comment ID: 713] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 5, Disagree: 0
How many?
Reply by Barbara on 02/18/2021 at 7:14pm [Comment ID: 764] - Link Agree: 14, Disagree: -2
I'd like to know how many were "many"? Most of us homeowners here (not renters) but people who plan to be here awhile do NOT want multifamily developments.
Reply by Betsy Connolly on 02/19/2021 at 5:37pm [Comment ID: 806] - Link Agree: 11, Disagree: -7
I've lived here for more than 30 years and raised both of my children here. I own a beautiful single family home. My kids are grown up and have good jobs but can't afford to live in Thousand Oaks. I absolutely want multifamily developments. I don't want to have to choose between having my adult children live with us, supplementing their income so they afford their own place, or having them move out of the area. When people in the 25-45 year old range can't afford to live here, our city starts to die.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 182 Printed 03/24/2021 Reply by Gordon Clint on 03/15/2021 at 11:46am [Comment ID:
1740] - Link
Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
I agree. One of the Community Values of the General Plan update is the ability of people to live here regardless of income or stage in life.
#453
Posted by Kurt K Sauter on 02/24/2021 at 8:34pm [Comment ID: 1133] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 12, Disagree: 0
The parking and traffic per recently approved projects are completely unacceptable.
Use of street parking for residential allocation will choke the remaining small amount of parking available for those who want to come and "walk" downtown. Traffic is not being mitigated on TO BLVD. And needs to be a requirement.
Reply by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 2:42pm [Comment ID: 1328] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
Agree. Yet I know the City's hands are tied on a great deal of this due to State requirements. If people truly want change they need to elect a State legislature that will reverse these requirements which strangle a City's right to evolve in a manner consistent with it's existing infrastructure.
#454
Posted by Barbara on 02/18/2021 at 7:17pm [Comment ID: 765] - Link Agree: 19, Disagree: -1
This is hard to believe that MANY people here want 6-7 story high buildings? I don't think so.
Reply by Jeff on 02/23/2021 at 9:05am [Comment ID: 975] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 17, Disagree: -1
I agree. Everyone I know that lives in Thousand Oaks is against this type of high density 6-7 story buildings in our community. This will only bring more traffic, crime, etc. Keep Thousand Oaks smaller, and semi rural! Reply by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 2:44pm [Comment ID: 1330] - Link Agree: 5, Disagree: -1
THREE STORIES MAX!
#455
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/19/2021 at 11:51pm [Comment ID: 854] - Link Agree: 7, Disagree: 0
Downtown is a bad idea. It allows special interests to intrude with their re development TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 183 Printed 03/24/2021 ideas. Decentralize is the solution. Smaller venues with diversity. The only time the music center in LA sees diversity is the wonderful Christmas show. #456
Posted by Mary F. Baum on 03/08/2021 at 2:24pm [Comment ID: 1326] - Link Agree: 5, Disagree: -1
1. Keep height max to three stories.
2. Density levels need to be lowered.
3. Multi-use development "village" concept
is a great idea so long infrastructure of water and
other utilities can handle increased demands
during heat waves/droughts. Increased traffic congestion will change our quality of life (noise levels and air quality). #457
Posted by J Francis on 03/13/2021 at 3:30pm [Comment ID: 1572] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: -1
I ask that the city set a height limit so that we can keep the beautiful views of our mountains, hills and trees. Do not want to live in a city with tall buildings - residential, mixed use, or commercial. Would like to see a limit of three story buildings max, except in cases like the Amgen campus, etc.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 184 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 33
AREAS OF STABILITY
This map reflects the land use designations for the Areas of Stability. The land use designations for this area were crafted to ensure that development is limited to uses and densities compatible with existing development patterns. To achieve this outcome, new residential land use designations were developed that closely resemble the built development in each area.
CHARACTERISTICS FOR AREAS OF STABILITY
• Preserves of existing parks and open spaces to ensure no new development on hillsides, along ridgelines and in other open space areas.
• Applies new residential land use designations for the Areas of Stability. This will reduce the maximum allowed residential density to generally match existing density in order protect existing residential neighborhoods. The excess development capacity will be transferred to the Areas of Change.
• Designates schools, religious institutions, California Lutheran University, Los Robles Medical Center, and other public uses as “Institutional.” • Designates parks and preserved open spaces as “Parks, Golf Courses, and Open Space.” [Note that the changes to this geographic area are the same for all three alternatives.] 459 458
460
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 185 Printed 03/24/2021 #458
Posted by Betsy Connolly on 02/19/2021 at 5:46pm [Comment ID: 810] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -4
More dwelling units doesn't necessarily mean increased population. Presently, college grads who grew up here are either living with parents or not able to live in Thousand Oaks. So these are people who were counted as residents (high schools students) and will be moving away. If there was housing here, those of us presently living here could spread out into the new housing.
#459
Posted by PB on 02/16/2021 at 5:26pm [Comment ID: 717] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 8, Disagree: 0
Any plans to add park spaces due to increased population? #460
Posted by Amy K Leicht on 02/24/2021 at 5:35pm [Comment ID: 1122] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -2
While considering the future of our city we should look at the fact that we are surrounded by "Open Space" full of fire fuel rich with invasive weeds like mustard grass. As beautiful as it is in the Spring it dries out and becomes fire fuel in the Fall/Winter. Our fire season is becoming longer due to climate change. The rain is coming later and later and the dried brush from the Spring is ready to burn during the Santa Ana wind events through December. We should be doing more brush clearing in our surrounding hills to help limit/reduce the amount of flying embers that will inevitably land in our yards and on our houses. COSCA manages the City land and should be held accountable for keeping up to date with the growth of our city. The brush clearing requirements set by the Ventura Fire Hazard Reduction Program haven't been updated since the 1990's. We are considered a WUI (wildland urban interface) city and we need to take steps to prevent another Woolsey fire or worse. https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fire-brush-clearance TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 186 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 34
City Limits
Sphere of In uence
County Islands
Areas of Change
Parks, Golf Courses, And Open Space
Utilities and Flood Control
MIXED-USE
Mixed-Use Low
(>20 to 30 du/acre, 0.25 FAR)
Mixed-Use Medium
(>30 to 45 du/acre, 0.5 FAR)
Mixed-Use High
(>45 to 60 du/acre, 1.0 FAR)
Industrial Low (1.0 FAR)
Industrial Flex (2.0 FAR)
Institutional
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Commercial Neighborhood (0.5 FAR)
Commercial Town (1.0 FAR)
Commercial Regional (2.0 FAR)
Land Use Designations
RESIDENTIAL
Neighborhood Rural (0 to 1.0 du/acre)
Neighborhood Very Low (>1 to 2 du/acre)
Neighborhood Low (>2 to 6 du/acre)
Neighborhood Low Medium (>6 to 10 du/acre)
Neighborhood Medium (>10 to 20 du/acre)
Neighborhood Medium-High (>20 to 30 du/acre)
Neighborhood High (>30 to 45 du/acre)
Mobile Home Exclusive
Moorpark Fwy
Moorpark Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks Blvd
W Hillcrest Dr
W Hillcrest Dr
W Olsen Rd
W Janss Rd
Pederson Rd
Kanan Rd
E Olsen Rd
E Avenida De Los Arboles
Lynn Rd
Lynn Rd
Erbes Rd
Lynn Rd
Borchard Rd
Via Las Brisas
Borchard Rd
Lynn Rd
E Hillcrest Dr
E Hillcrest Dr
S Westlake Blvd
N Westlake Blvd
N Westlake Blvd
S Westlake Blvd
W Aven idaDe Los Arboles
AREAS OF STABILITY (SAME FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES)
461
462
463
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 187 Printed 03/24/2021 #461
Posted by Kevin Kohan on 03/11/2021 at 3:03pm [Comment ID: 1496] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
These properties have been downzoned to Single Family Residential and are not consistent with the current General Plan Land Use Map. It is important that these properties north of Hillcrest Drive maintain its Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation in order to have the opportunity to bring affordable housing near important community services such as the local church, temple, and elementary school.
#462
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/20/2021 at 11:10am [Comment ID: 865] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I realize what a lone call in the mix this is. However this area should be identified as a "special" area. It needs to be removed from the stable designation. The transportation infrastructure is already in place. So much can be done here. Right now I think about all the use it gets is occasional bicycles between Westlake area and Moorpark area. To my eyes it appears as a kind unique area. Even the Transit Center is located there. This is a hub area and is going to waste. Touching un-used open space is politically safer then this suicidal idea of six and seven stories. You are going to end up with a freeway access at Wilbur going in the direction you are going. Why not exploit the area already set up for more intense use. #463
Posted by Larry Persons on 03/10/2021 at 5:19pm [Comment ID: 1417] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
The City should general plan this area at the edge of the City for residential housing in the Medium to Medium-High classification to allow for future homes in this area TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 188 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 35
Maintains Mixed-Use Low land use designation along Thousand Oaks Boulevard to limit land use changes and focus development in the nodes mentioned above.
Maintains a strong job focus by adding Industrial Flex (for office and R&D uses up to 2.0 FAR) in Rancho Conejo, on the east side of the city along Thousand Oaks Boulevard and maintaining the industrial uses in the Townsgate employment area.
Maintain a variety of commercial uses along Highway 101 and along Moorpark Road. These uses allow for retail, commercial, office and hotels.
Create limited areas of higher intensity residential development adjacent to Thousand Oaks Boulevard between Rancho Road and Conejo School Road.
Create mixed-use, “Village Centers” at some but not all existing commercial shopping centers throughout the city.
+
+
+
+
+
Creates nodes of mixed-use development in several key locations throughout the City to focus future development in a limited number of areas. The nodes allow for a vertical or horizontal mix of uses at mostly the Mixed-Use Medium and Mixed-Use High designations. Nodes are located in the following areas:
o In the Rancho Conejo area, both North and South of 101. Compared to other alternatives, mixed-use is more integrated into the employment uses thus enabling mixed living-working districts.
o In the area currently occupied by the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. o Along key locations along Thousand Oaks Boulevard including around the intersection of Boardwalk Avenue, in the Downtown area between Conejo School and Erbes Roads, at the intersection of Thousand Oaks Boulevard with Westlake Boulevard, and in the Westlake Plaza and Center.
+
The vision for this alternative is to create a limited number of high density, mixed use activity centers in key locations around the City, namely adjacent to Rancho Conejo, Downtown, The Oaks Mall and on Thousand Oaks Boulevard near Boardwalk Avenue. Each area would have a diversity of neighborhood-serving retail, high density housing and potentially jobs in a walkable environment. The alternative also maintains a strong job focus by allowing increased densities in parts of Rancho Conejo and protecting job centers in the Auto Mall, along Townsgate and on the eastern end of Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
ALTERNATIVE 1 KEY FEATURES
464
465
466
467
468
470 469
471
472
473
474
475
477 476
478
479
480
481
482
483
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 189 Printed 03/24/2021 #464
Posted by Steve Schiedermayer on 02/23/2021 at 5:06pm [Comment ID: 992] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: 0
Each of the alternatives negatively impacts one area or another. Inasmuch as possible, I'd suggest we balance low (35 or 3 story) height concepts along the entire length of TO Blvd + Hillcrest etc. and other areas of opportunity. Each site and plan has its challenges and I don't think it's wise to decide on a plan just because one Plan has more proponents or opponents than another
Reply by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 2:48pm [Comment ID: 1332] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: -1
THREE STORIES MAX SO THAT WE CAN STILL SEE THE HILLS AND THE SKY.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 3:51pm [Comment ID: 1819] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
The wider we distribute any necessary change, the less pressure any individual area will have to bear. Neighborhood Town Squares can spread the housing across the city AND create a more people-centric, walkable, connected Thousand Oaks. Here;s how: * IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. * REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each neighborhood "center". * BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with trees, plants, gardens and parkland. * BUILD housing that's "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. * POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. * JOIN each Town Square to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. * CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. * LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs.
#465
Posted by Tracy B on 03/15/2021 at 2:45pm [Comment ID: 1796] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Isn't the area south of the 101, near the Borchard exit, a wetlands/marsh area? Is it protected? It floods during major rainstorms.
#466
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 1:11pm [Comment ID: 1771] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
You have tried to create a walking retail/leisure atmosphere with the TO Blvd for years and years. Without success. Even with the Lakes, civic arts, Gardens of World - people TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 190 Printed 03/24/2021 still drive it and dont walk it. Doing mixed use on the blvd will ruin any possibility of creating a walking atmosphere. Suggestion, the angled parking at The Lakes is brilliant.
More of that would make the blvd better. But you don't have the street width to do so.
So create pockets of angled parking where you can. Keep the building low profile so it is still attractive to walk the blvd and we can enjoy the mountain views that we can still see, with the exception of the mixed use at Lupe's old site. #467
Posted by Kurt K Sauter on 02/24/2021 at 8:40pm [Comment ID: 1134] - Link Agree: 9, Disagree: 0
Put Mixed use where more people really work and that's not on the BLVD. #468
Posted by Phil Clark on 03/15/2021 at 12:04am [Comment ID: 1687] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Key to this area being walkable/bike-able will be improving non-car modes for crossing 101. A dedicated bike/pedestrian bridge would be ideal or dedicating an entire lane, with barrier, to non-motor transit.
#469
Posted by Melissa Krikorian on 02/16/2021 at 11:45am [Comment ID: 695] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 13, Disagree: 0
Westlake Plaza has consistently and high traffic use with the retail shops there:
Ralph's, Trader Joes, DIY Center and smaller shops. We do not need to increase the traffic in the shopping Center vs one like The Lakes.
#470
Posted by Karen Maloney on 02/17/2021 at 12:57am [Comment ID: 726] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 10, Disagree: 0
Thousand Oaks Blvd and Westlake is a commercial area that is thriving, there is a great mix of services, retail, grocery and restaurants and financial. This area is walkable from our neighborhoods already. This space should remain completely commercial.
#471
Posted by Jorge Luciani on 02/19/2021 at 12:33am [Comment ID: 771] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -4
I really like this concept of certain high density centers in each area (Alternative 1). It TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 191 Printed 03/24/2021 creates sort of a mini-town in each area that is walkable and livable for those who live there but also for those who work nearby as well as those who visit (I actually think it promotes people to visit each area. For exactly the opposite reasons, I don't like Alternative 3 at all!!.
In my view, alternative 2 washes out Alternative 1 and although ideas are OK, I prefer to go all in with Alternative 1.
#472
Posted by Christine Elowitt on 03/15/2021 at 12:34am [Comment ID: 1694] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Although I generally agree with the idea of mixed use housing, there are a few questions I have about it when it comes to Thousand Oaks. First of all, if we already have an overabundance of retail then wouldn't adding retail on the ground floor of mixed used housing areas just further add to the glut? Secondly, if the goal is to cut commutes and auto use by allowing people to live where they work, has anyone studied whether the employees at mixed use developments in other cities are actually the ones living on site? Or are the people living there commuting elsewhere and the people who work there commuting in from elsewhere?
#473
Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:43pm [Comment ID: 679] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 19, Disagree: -1
Difficult to view so many changes in all the different variations. My overall comment is NO Neighborhoods with Medium or High Density, No Mixed Use or Residential only over 3 stories, and none over 2 stories along Thousand Oaks Blvd. Parking constraints is a big concern but not raised in your presentation. Cities that start parking on streets tend to look worn down and detract from appearance of clean & safe. #474
Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:40pm [Comment ID: 678] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 8, Disagree: -1
Without knowing age groups over the next 25 years (segmented every 8 years to understand impact of RHNA), coming up with alternatives seems early in the process.
There are many macro forces against big growth -- cost of living, companies leaving California due to high taxes, crime, illegal immigration, traffic congestion (already). #475
Posted by Tamara Napier on 03/15/2021 at 4:13pm [Comment ID: 1833] - Link Type: Suggestion
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 192 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Develop the North side of the 101 at Rancho Conejo. Leave the South side alone. #476
Posted by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 3:57pm [Comment ID: 1825] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
We can have a more people-centric, walkable, connected Thousand Oaks by creating distinctive Neighborhood Town Squares on the Janss & Oaks Mall sites, in the Rancho Conejo employment hub, and in each "village center". Here's how: *IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. * REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each neighborhood "center". * BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with trees, plants, gardens and parkland. * BUILD housing that's "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. * POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. * JOIN each Town Square to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. * CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. * LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs.
#477
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/20/2021 at 12:55am [Comment ID: 857] - Link Agree: 12, Disagree: 0
I like Malls to Apartments. Take the K-Mart building. Lots of useable land and utilities all in place. Plus freeway access.
Reply by Tamara Napier on 03/13/2021 at 5:34pm [Comment ID: 1575] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I agree. Why is there no plan to revitalize the old K-mart eyesore? How many decades has it been sitting empty now? Nothing more than 3 stories though. #478
Posted by Doug Chabot on 02/07/2021 at 6:58pm [Comment ID: 632] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 15, Disagree: -4
3 alternatives are offered. But the baseline answer has to be an Alternative 0 which is NO CHANGE!! None of the alternative plans are viable or consider the massive and long-lingering change in life patterns and life style since COVID hit. #479
Posted by Deidre on 03/15/2021 at 8:39pm [Comment ID: 1861] - Link Type: Suggestion
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 193 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I love the idea of the Village Centers for several reasons - 1.) A Village Center is a good option for seniors to have a walkable area, where they (we?) can live and socialize. Also good for young folks; 2.) I would like to see more places where we can eat outside, walk shops etc, without having to go to WLV; 3.) Density is limited to these centers, so we can maintain our sprawl, views, etc; 4.) It's an opportunity to create more local jobs.
#480
Posted by john on 02/03/2021 at 11:38am [Comment ID: 601] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 12, Disagree: -7
no mixed use at village centers, only commercial operations. Restaurants/shops/ etc.
Reply by Betsy Connolly on 02/19/2021 at 5:52pm [Comment ID: 811] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 11, Disagree: -1
I love the idea of Village Centers. Our shopping centers were struggling before the pandemic. Shopping online is only growing. By creating a village for each part of the city, we create a destination where retail can survive. Allowing housing means customers for a cafe. Walking and bike paths could connect with the surrounding neighborhood. It would be charming.
Reply by Tim on 02/23/2021 at 6:17pm [Comment ID: 1008] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: -7
Easy to suggest Betsy, when you're not living there. Village Centers sound like COVID spreading centers. If this pandemic taught us anything, it's that we need less densely populated areas, more space! Density = low-cost = increased crime. Thanks but no thanks.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/03/2021 at 7:38pm [Comment ID: 1267] - Link
Type: Suggestion
Agree: 5, Disagree: -4
Transportation accounts for our community's largest source of the climate-heating greenhouse gases driving drought, water scarcity and wildfire risk, contributing fully half (50%) of our total emissions. In 2018, commuters drove six million miles, DAILY, into and out of Thousand Oaks. So it’s essential that our General Plan Update (GPU2045) and our Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) actually reduce traffic, congestion, pollution, and Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) by enabling as many Thousand Oaks residents as possible the opportunity to accomplish our routine working, grocery, banking, shopping, dining and entertainment needs/errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of our homes. Developing a "downtown" on T.O. Blvd. could encourage more people from neighborhoods all across the city to drive to and TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 194 Printed 03/24/2021 congregate there, actually increasing traffic, congestion, pollution and VMT (especially in "change areas" C & D). To create a more people-centric and connected community, we should instead focus our efforts on the creation and deliberate design of multiple Neighborhood Town Squares in each of the identified "Village Centers", as well as in the Oaks & Janss mall areas, and in neighborhoods (like Sunset Hills and North Ranch) which currently lack established “centers” within walking/cycling distance of their households. We could do so as follows:
*Identify existing, strategically-located neighborhood "centers" where shopping, small business, and entertainment, and jobs are already concentrated within walking/cycling distance of surrounding neighborhoods. *Renovate any vacant spaces to create orbital, Town Squares, for each neighborhood, that feature cafes, coffee shops, restaurants, retail, grocers, farmers markets, finance, and leisure activities, all located surrounding a central outdoor feature (a piazza, fountain, park, etc.) with public seating areas. *Make each Town Square a compelling and attractive social gathering space by preserving ancient oaks and other heritage trees, and planting abundant complementary tree canopy coverage, park land with ample green space and native plants, and edible organic community gardens. *Within each Town Square, build housing (similar to university dormitories) that is disability-accessible and actually affordable, by combining studio apartments (consisting of a private bedroom, bathroom, and compact living space equipped with a microwave and small refrigerator) with common indoor and outdoor spaces (which allow for significantly reduced rental rates) that offer shared kitchens, lounges, laundry facilities, and courtyards. This arrangement could work equally well for students and singles as well as for seniors by building-in the socializing opportunities that young people so often seek, while also providing mature residents who are still able to take care of themselves, but are downsizing both their belongings and the spaces they have to maintain, more camaraderie than living alone often offers. *Require that all new, remodeled, or renovated development be all-electric (Eliminating natural/fossil gas connections reduces both construction and operating costs, while also eliminating dangerous indoor air pollution and the risk of explosion.) and powered by clean energy-generating rooftop solar (with the intention of ultimately phasing in battery storage-based micro-grids for enhanced community resilience) with EV-charging stations for cars and bicycles. *Equip each Town Square with bicycle racks and rental bicycle fleets; and connect each neighborhood to its own Town Square, and to other Town Squares communitywide, through a network of separate walking and cycling paths (like those in First Neighborhood), and protected bike lanes along surface streets (to ensure less-experienced cyclists feel safe) to enable residents to easily navigate their neighborhoods without having to drive. *Establish fossil-free, electric-powered (ie: electric, not natural/fossil gas) public transit to connect all town squares to one another, and to other frequently visited city attractions (local colleges; middle and high schools during TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 195 Printed 03/24/2021 drop-off, pick-up, and special events; malls; the Civic Arts Center; sports playfields; libraries; open space areas; etc.). *Locate longer distance, intercity public transit hubs adjacent to park-n-rides positioned near to the northern, southern and easternmost Town Squares, to provide connections to nearby cities.
#481
Posted by kristen toscano on 03/07/2021 at 3:07pm [Comment ID: 1294] - Link Agree: 11, Disagree: -1
None of these alternatives is acceptable. We already have too much traffic. We are always concerned about water. And why do we need to exceed the state mandates? Who profits from all this development? What makes Thousand Oaks special will disappear. There are less dramatic ways to improve the City. Once an alternative has been accepted there is no going back.
Reply by Michele Havskjold on 03/12/2021 at 4:22pm [Comment ID: 1538] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: -1
Your comments perfectly capture the views and the feelings of myself and my husband. None of the alternatives is acceptable and once an alternative is accepted there is no going back regardless of what city council members may say. Among others, developers will profit.
#482
Posted by Denis Dux on 03/05/2021 at 8:56pm [Comment ID: 1288] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
would create living space for Amgen workers.
#483
Posted by Justin Link on 02/16/2021 at 9:23pm [Comment ID: 723] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
Should be designated in areas that are attractors, such as supermarkets and retail where non-vehicle trips are more likely.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 196 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 36
City Limits
Sphere of In uence
County Islands
Areas of Change
Parks, Golf Courses, And Open Space
Utilities and Flood Control
MIXED-USE
Mixed-Use Low
(>20 to 30 du/acre, 0.25 FAR)
Mixed-Use Medium
(>30 to 45 du/acre, 0.5 FAR)
Mixed-Use High
(>45 to 60 du/acre, 1.0 FAR)
Industrial Low (1.0 FAR)
Industrial Flex (2.0 FAR)
Institutional
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Commercial Neighborhood (0.5 FAR)
Commercial Town (1.0 FAR)
Commercial Regional (2.0 FAR)
Land Use Designations
RESIDENTIAL
Neighborhood Rural (0 to 1.0 du/acre)
Neighborhood Very Low (>1 to 2 du/acre)
Neighborhood Low (>2 to 6 du/acre)
Neighborhood Low Medium (>6 to 10 du/acre)
Neighborhood Medium (>10 to 20 du/acre)
Neighborhood Medium-High (>20 to 30 du/acre)
Neighborhood High (>30 to 45 du/acre)
Mobile Home Exclusive
Moorpark Fwy
Moorpark Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks Blvd
W Hillcrest Dr
W Hillcrest Dr
W Olsen Rd
W Janss Rd
Pederson Rd
Kanan Rd
E Olsen Rd
E Avenida De Los Arboles
Lynn Rd
Lynn Rd
Erbes Rd
Lynn Rd
Borchard Rd
Via Las Brisas
Borchard Rd
Lynn Rd
E Hillcrest Dr
E Hillcrest Dr
S Westlake Blvd
N Westlake Blvd
N Westlake Blvd
S Westlake Blvd
W Aven idaDe Los Arboles
ALTERNATIVE 1: CHANGE AREAS ONLY
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
504 503
505
506 507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
517516
518
519 520
521
522
524523
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 197 Printed 03/24/2021 #484
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:36pm [Comment ID: 1367] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 6, Disagree: 0
This is a heavily used commercial area already. Traffic is already a nightmare in this area. No mitigation will fix it and it will only get worse. Plus, the City has already "green-lighted" a 241 unit development adjacent to this parcel. Unrealistic.
#485
Posted by Steve Smith on 03/15/2021 at 7:01pm [Comment ID: 1849] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Easily the busiest intersection in the city. Any additional development of residential / retail / business will only make matters much worse and decrease the quality of life here by making it much more difficult to move around town at any time of the day.
#486
Posted by Steve Smith on 03/15/2021 at 7:05pm [Comment ID: 1850] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Has anyone bothered to check the traffic here Monday through Friday during "rush" hours? People commuting to Simi Valley, Moorpark or even to the other side of town do not use Route 23 because it is a parking lot at these times of day. Westlake Blvd. has become an alternate to Route 23. They use surface streets that go through residential areas. The existing infrastructure can barely sustain what it has to handle now without adding additional high density units. #487
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:28pm [Comment ID: 1363] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
This is already a heavily used commercial center. There is no need to change this designation. It will create more problems than it solves. ANY increase in density/adding housing units around this intersection, for the most part will bring havoc. Would require underground parking etc. So I don't know, maybe you put it on the plan as a possibility. However the reality is a different story. #488
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:33pm [Comment ID: 1366] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Nothing more than two stories.
#489
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/20/2021 at 1:14am [Comment ID: 860] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
These developments need to have dedicated space for fresh air and relaxation. As seen on the map they appear as blights. #490
Posted by Jason on 03/11/2021 at 12:54am [Comment ID: 1477] - Link TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 198 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 1, Disagree: -3
The only place I could possibly support buildings up to seven stories high would be along Thousand Oaks Blvd near and around the 23/101 interchange from about Moorpark Road to Hampshire. Since this is considered "downtown", lets make it look like a real downtown. We already have one building there that's four stories, so what's a handful more of buildings four to seven stories high. It would also fit in well with civic arts plaza/city hall. We will not be able to go back to the Thousand Oaks Blvd of yesteryear. That is long gone. The damage was done a long time ago. #491
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:29pm [Comment ID: 1364] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
This should remain a commercial site, or low low density housing. Maybe even homes. Our roadways cannot handle the stress a large development would bring. #492
Posted by Kyle T Thorsen on 02/25/2021 at 1:24am [Comment ID: 1155] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
This area could be high density residential.
#493
Posted by Adam G Ochs on 02/26/2021 at 1:04am [Comment ID: 1185] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
Amen on mixed-use here.
#494
Posted by Kyle Thorsen on 02/25/2021 at 1:31am [Comment ID: 1161] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
These smaller parcels would need high density residential zoning to be able to provide affordable housing. #495
Posted by Youth Commission 2 on 02/17/2021 at 8:39pm [Comment ID: 734] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Would be open to see more housing like Yolo apartments. #496
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:21pm [Comment ID: 1359] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
This is already a heavily used commercial center. There is no need to change this designation. It will create more problems than it solves.
Reply by Kathy Nouam on 03/15/2021 at 5:31pm [Comment ID: 1841] - Link Type: Suggestion
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 199 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This center is busy and the west end recently saw a lot of investment into the shops. We don't need mixed use here. This is already a neighborhood shopping center it doesn't need to be any thing else then it is already.
#497
Posted by Jason on 03/11/2021 at 12:43am [Comment ID: 1466] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
I think the city has a good thing going here, no need to change anything. There is are already two shopping centers, plenty of housing ( apartments, townhomes, single family homes) in this area. No mixed use here. Keep it as it is currently.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 4:03pm [Comment ID: 1829] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
How about a Town Square featuring cafes, coffee shops, restaurants, retail, grocers, farmers markets, finance, and leisure activities, all located surrounding a central outdoor feature (a piazza, fountain, park, etc.) with public seating areas? It could make the whole center a compelling and attractive social gathering space by preserving any ancient oaks and other heritage trees, and planting abundant complementary tree canopy coverage, park land with ample green space and native plants, and organic, edible community gardens. #498
Posted by Youth Commission 2 on 02/17/2021 at 8:43pm [Comment ID: 738] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
City needs to find a balance between more compact development and moving into open space areas. Keep in mind local wildlife. #499
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:07pm [Comment ID: 1337] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
WHAT IS THE PROPOSED NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL UNITS TO THE AREA BETWEEN THE 23FWY AND WESTLAKE BLVD??? THIS PORTION OF THE CITY IS OVERBUILT AND SHOULD NOT BE THE DENSITY DUMPING GROUND FOR THE REST OF THE CITY. FIND THE SPACE ELSEWHERE. THE INFRASTRUCTURE CANNOT HANDLE IT. #500
Posted by Kathy Nouam on 03/15/2021 at 5:48pm [Comment ID: 1843] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This corner should be zoned the same as the adjacent properties to the east (Hillcrest) and northwest (Erbes) all three maps have it colored the same color but it's not clear if that is more or less density then the adjacent properties. There's no reason to "spot" zone these parcels. #501
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:01pm [Comment ID: 1335] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
THE AREA BETWEEN HILLCREST AND THOUSAND OAKS, BETWEEN THE FWY AND SKYLINE IS ALREADY COMPLETELY OVERBUILT. THIS IS NOT THE DENSITY DUMPING GROUND FOR THOUSAND OAKS. SPREAD LOW-LOW DENSITY HOUSING THROUGHOUT VILLAGE/CITY CENTERS MORE.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 200 Printed 03/24/2021 #502
Posted by Youth Commission 2 on 02/17/2021 at 8:35pm [Comment ID: 732] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Would like to see more opportunities for active recreation and entertainment in the Core area. #503
Posted by Kyle T Thorsen on 02/25/2021 at 1:24am [Comment ID: 1157] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This area could be high density residential
#504
Posted by Kyle T Thorsen on 02/25/2021 at 1:27am [Comment ID: 1159] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
This area could have high density residential zoning
#505
Posted by Adam G Ochs on 02/26/2021 at 1:20am [Comment ID: 1187] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: -5
Before anyone claims that what is being proposed along TO Blvd would turn the Conejo Valley "into the Valley.." please look at the Lupe's project. That doesn't look like the Valley to me. It looks like the beginning of an elegant and fully realized City. I applaud the City for being proactive with this bold and thoughtful approach to the future of our City. Keep it up! #506
Posted by Youth Commission 2 on 02/17/2021 at 8:55pm [Comment ID: 742] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: -1
Make safe bike lanes a priority for major roads.
#507
Posted by Youth Commission 2 on 02/17/2021 at 8:33pm [Comment ID: 730] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -3
More mixed-use along TO Blvd. Similar to Lupe's project. #508
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:05pm [Comment ID: 1336] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
CONSIDERATION HAS TO BE GIVEN TO RANCHO FWY ACCESS, AS THIS INTERSECTION WILL BECOME AN IMPORTANT POINT OF ACCESS AND EGRESS UPON COMPLETION OF ANY OF THESE MAJOR PROJECTS.
#509
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 201 Printed 03/24/2021 Posted by Youth Commission 2 on 02/17/2021 at 8:54pm [Comment ID: 741] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: -1
Need to add more EV charging stations to adhere to related state mandates. #510
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/20/2021 at 1:10am [Comment ID: 859] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Rancho rd. freeway on / off . This space is not used by humans for anything. Use it to help reduce congestion. #511
Posted by CB on 02/24/2021 at 3:17pm [Comment ID: 1092] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
There is a transportation center near here. The City should leverage this. A higher density use near Rancho/TO Blvd could be good, but there needs to be safer walkway to the transportation center. #512
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:24pm [Comment ID: 1361] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
Nothing here, at the old Rollerdome sight under consideration for redesignation? #513
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:25pm [Comment ID: 1362] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
This is already a heavily used commercial center. There is no need to change this designation. It will create more problems than it solves.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 4:09pm [Comment ID: 1831] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
We could have a more people-centric, walkable, connected neighborhood that enables residents to accomplish their routine working, grocery, banking, shopping, dining and entertainment needs/errands within a 15-20 minute walk or bike-ride of our homes. Here's how: *REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) within the "center". *BEAUTIFY and green the area with native trees, plants, gardens and parkland. *BUILD housing that's actually "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of the shopping and retail. *POWER the Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. *JOIN the Town Square to its surrounding neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. *CONNECT the Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. Doing so would create a beautiful neighborhood space that's more walkable, people-centric, and less trafficked.
#514
Posted by Adam G Ochs on 02/26/2021 at 1:04am [Comment ID: 1184] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: -1
I love this idea here. I live around the corner and this would be a refreshing makeover for a pretty decrepit retail center.
Reply by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:22pm [Comment ID: 1360] - Link TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 202 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
This might be one of the few good places for mixed use-low low density. Would never get anything over two stories though. Which would be the most that would be appropriate. #515
Posted by Jacqueline Anderson on 02/25/2021 at 9:27pm [Comment ID: 1172] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 7, Disagree: 0
Please consider adding more bike paths between high traffic areas and parks in the city. We need dedicated bike lanes, not just lanes that run along side busy streets. I would love to be able to bike the Conejo valley with my kids but there aren't many options.
Reply by Adam G Ochs on 02/26/2021 at 1:08am [Comment ID: 1186] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
Amen. It would also be great to have bike paths meant to connect various nodes of the city to prioritize carbon-free transport within the city. Many people in the city (including me) would prefer to bike to the grocery store for food, but who wants to brave bike lanes with cars inches away? Make bikes and walking paths a priority in this beautiful city.
Reply by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 2:57pm [Comment ID: 1334] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Yes, too many people have died biking on our roads. Would love to see that number somewhere. It was so sad that we could not let our kid ride their bike to school as traffic much too dangerous. #516
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:32pm [Comment ID: 1365] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -3
This seems to be a natural place for some mixed use, keeping it to the current two stories. #517
Posted by Tom Cohen on 03/11/2021 at 12:49pm [Comment ID: 1481] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This site should be considered for mixed use housing as the current use for office is unlikely to be sustainable as it is considering the changing landscape in office use going forward. It is ideally located to jobs, services and retail. Because of its location, medium to high density mixed use makes sense. #518
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:46pm [Comment ID: 1368] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
Would like to see more multi-family housing for students and faculty near the University if possible. But of course something that mixes in nicely with current mix of housing. Guessing some apartment complexes under-improved out here.
#519
Posted by CB on 02/24/2021 at 3:23pm [Comment ID: 1093] - Link TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 203 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 7, Disagree: 0
We live in uncertain economic times. This Plan is supposed to look out 20 years. Economic conditions and consumer demands will change. Flexibility is needed. #520
Posted by K Becker on 02/03/2021 at 11:36am [Comment ID: 600] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 9, Disagree: 0
Has there been a study on the impact to the intersection of Lynn and Hillcrest of the Oaks mall is moved to High Density. Will there an impact to Lynn Ranch Housing and Lynn Road at the intersection? #521
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 1:16pm [Comment ID: 1772] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
The reality is that rents and leases are too high. We have too many empty commercial spaces. There should be a rent cap for commercial sites. You have small/med businesses that would love to be here, but can't work with landlords on high rent. And then the landlords don't keep their commercial properties looking nice in our community. We don't need more commercial properties but need to make the best use of what we have here while working with the landlords. #522
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/20/2021 at 1:03am [Comment ID: 858] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -3
From the colors there is a lot of space for people to work. However where do they live? Park space, food and such. It seems to be a blight that will create traffic problems. How about interspace with higher density residential and some recreational space. Mixed use blended in?. #523
Posted by Lorna Maxwell on 03/13/2021 at 11:19am [Comment ID: 1568] - Link Agree: 8, Disagree: 0
There are a lot of buildings in this area that are currently unoccupied, mainly because the owners of the properties charge unreasonable rents and leases. Before adding additional buildings or “changing” anything in these areas, this situation needs to be dealt with. Otherwise there will just be *more* empty, unoccupied buildings everywhere! #524
Posted by Christine Elowitt on 03/15/2021 at 12:41am [Comment ID: 1697] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -2
I think if the wetlands area were developed, a townhouse complex would be the ideal solution. Similar in density and height to some of the other townhouse communities on the South side of the freeway near Lynn and Ventu Park. It would add some much needed housing ownership opportunities, and serve as a "bridge" of sorts between the single family residential behind it and the commercial properties on the other side.
#525
Posted by Jorge Luciani on 02/23/2021 at 5:18pm [Comment ID: 996] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 204 Printed 03/24/2021 These industrial land lots should incorporate path accesses from Rancho Conejo Blvd. for pedestrians hiking along the Arroyo Conejo open space area (in addition to the access along Conejo Center Dr after the household Hazardous Waste). This would further bring together the industrial with the residential on Alternative 1. #526
Posted by Jorge Luciani on 02/23/2021 at 5:23pm [Comment ID: 998] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
I really like this concept of a mixed use area along Lawrence. It creates sort of a mini-town with access to shops and open space nearby that is walkable and livable for those who live there.
Reply by CB on 02/24/2021 at 3:11pm [Comment ID: 1091] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
I'm with Jorge. Especially given how more biotechnology companies seem to be moving into this area. Would be nice to have walkable/bikeable options between home and work. Also, we have incredible weather. Would like to see a lot more outdoor seating for restaurants/shops. #527
Posted by Doug Chabot on 02/07/2021 at 6:56pm [Comment ID: 631] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 14, Disagree: 0
3+ story medium / high / mixed residential spaces in this area will be an abhorrent eyesore and completely overload the all ready overloaded freeway in intersections at Borchard, Wendy and the 101.
Find someplace else for this abomination of a plan.
Reply by Ernest Siracusa, Jr. on 03/14/2021 at 7:16pm [Comment ID: 1653] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
This area is known to be a wetlands with potential flooding issues and would be unsuitable for high density development due to this characteristic alone. Further, this large parcel is situated between the 101 freeway and existing single family residential neighborhoods and is disassociated with any nearby commercial land uses.
The most appropriate development for this site would consist of various types of single family homes (conventionaL, small lot, cluster, paired single family) or low density attached, such as townhomes, or some combination of these. A small apartment community might also be a compatible use, as long as the buildings are no more than two or three stories in height. #528
Posted by Jorge Luciani on 02/23/2021 at 5:02pm [Comment ID: 991] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
What is the plan for this open space area? This area has even a fairly large flat area right above the warehouses/offices along Lawrence. This open space could be changed into a park/recreation/sports for those living in the proposed mixed use area along Lawrence Dr. in alternative 1. In fact, it is walking distance from the proposed mixed area.
What I don't know is whether there is vehicle accessibility and parking into this area or not. #529
Posted by Greg Clure on 02/24/2021 at 7:35pm [Comment ID: 1126] - Link Agree: 13, Disagree: -1
Before the allowance of any higher density housing of business the 101 Freeway bottleneck between US23 and the Conejo grade needs to be fixed. This area is consistently slow and will only get worse with more traffic.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 205 Printed 03/24/2021 #530
Posted by Tim on 02/23/2021 at 6:22pm [Comment ID: 1009] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 10, Disagree: 0
We've talked about this swampland before, please don't build here, you'll ruin traffic for all of Newbury Park if you do. #531
Posted by Mark Daris on 02/07/2021 at 1:06pm [Comment ID: 627] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 7, Disagree: -2
Having worked for Amgen for 20 years in a prior job, having access to affordable proximate housing is important in my opinion. Therefore I like the mix that brings in housing in Alternative 1. Even new hires at Amgen make a decent living but with housing costs so high many of them still struggle. The apartment complexes on the other side of Hillcrest are still very expensive as there are too few of them.
Reply by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 2:51pm [Comment ID: 1333] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
Which is again why the City should insist on properties people can OWN. If people are going to pay high rents, then they should ultimately be paying a mortgage and building PERSONAL equity.
Reply by John Scott on 03/10/2021 at 10:02pm [Comment ID: 1453] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -2
twenty-somethings are not ready for that and some residents may also be here for sub-five-year assignments and then moving to a different state or country with large firms like Amgen. #532
Posted by Kevin Kohan on 03/11/2021 at 2:54pm [Comment ID: 1492] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -9
Mixed Use Housing and a town center concept would thrive in this location given its strategic location near the Rancho Conejo Industrial Center. #533
Posted by Kendall Lousen (“Kenny”) on 03/15/2021 at 10:42pm [Comment ID: 1867] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
The map shows this is an area of change, what land use changes or developable densities for this ‘area of change’ are proposed? Given the proximity to Naval Base Ventura County, this site is within the NBVC’s Military Influence Area Boundary; recommend keeping land use designations/densities to similar development patterns of existing neighboring building heights for military compatibility; prevent encroachment to airspace training aviation operations conducted at NBVC Point Mugu.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 206 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 37
ALTERNATIVE 2 KEY FEATURES
Expands the potential for jobs in Rancho Conejo by increasing the amount of land for Industrial Flex (compared to Industrial Low).
Reduces the potential for jobs in other parts of the City by allowing mixed-use in the majority of the Townsgate employment area and allowing retail and service uses on the east side of the City along Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
Expands commercial and retail uses on the east side of the city along Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Highway 101.
Converts industrial land on the east side of the City and south of Highway 101 to mixed-use development to expand the potential for residential uses.
Maintains commercial uses at the commercial shopping areas (Village Centers) throughout the city. None of these areas would allow residential development in this alternative. +
+
+
+
+
Allows mixed-use development in more areas than Alternative 1 but only at the Mixed-Use Low and Mixed-Use Medium Designation. The Mixed-Use High land use designation is not used in Alternative 2. Areas with mixed-use are:
o On the southwest edge of Rancho Conejo where large format retail uses (Home Depot, Ross, and other retailers) are currently located. o South of Highway 101 in Newbury Park.
o At Janss Marketplace and The Oaks Mall.
o Along Moorpark Road.
+
Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 spreads mixed use development potential throughout the areas of change, rather than trying to focus development into a few locations. New mixeduse areas are introduced on the southwest edge of Rancho Conejo, along Moorpark Road and in the Townsgate employment area. Employment uses are concentrated in Rancho Conejo, which is expanded compared to Alternative 1. The employment district on the east end of Thousand Oaks Boulevard would be re-designed as Commercial Regional (compared to Industrial Flex in Alternative 1) to allow a wider diversity of commercial and employment uses. 534
536 535
537 539538
540
541
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 207 Printed 03/24/2021 #534
Posted by Stefanie Sellars on 02/19/2021 at 4:11pm [Comment ID: 794] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 8, Disagree: -1
Looks like doubling the population of T.O. To accommodate United Nations Agenda 21 strictures. Everyone in apartments. No homes. We don’t want this! #StopAgenda21 #KeepThousabdOaksFree
Reply by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 3:52pm [Comment ID: 1820] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Please expand on what you think Agenda 21 is.
#535
Posted by J Francis on 03/13/2021 at 3:32pm [Comment ID: 1573] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I support mixed use with residential at these neighborhood centers, with a height limit.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 7:21pm [Comment ID: 1852] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I do too. If we specifically design for housing affordability in strategic locations (like in the village centers, where residents can actually walk to nearby retail, dining, entertainment and services) by allowing higher density while maintaining our existing building heights, the resulting apartments will necessarily be smaller, more affordable (by virtue of their size), and more numerous - meeting our city's state-mandated RHNA requirements faster in fewer developments, while also curtailing the construction of yet more, luxury apartments that handsomely benefit developers but not T.O. residents who want housing their adult children and senior family members can actually afford. #536
Posted by Betsy Connolly on 02/19/2021 at 6:16pm [Comment ID: 814] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 10, Disagree: -2
Why are the Village Centers not a possibility for this option? Every option should include Village Centers. Planners are always saying "remember, this building can happen but may not happen" so we would be restricting residential building with no real idea that it will happen in the other areas. Village Centers should be an option for each plan.
Reply by Gordon Clint on 03/15/2021 at 12:29pm [Comment ID: 1746] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Allowing housing in Village Centers is essential for improving walkability and overall quality of life.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 208 Printed 03/24/2021 Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 7:19pm [Comment ID: 1851] - Link
Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
We can have a more people-centric, walkable, connected Thousand Oaks by creating distinctive Neighborhood Town Squares on the Janss & Oaks Mall sites, in the Rancho Conejo employment hub, and in each "village center". Here's how: *IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. * REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each neighborhood "center". * BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with trees, plants, gardens and parkland. * BUILD housing that's "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. * POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. * JOIN each Town Square to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. * CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. * LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs. #537
Posted by Steve Schiedermayer on 02/23/2021 at 5:10pm [Comment ID: 994] - Link Agree: 10, Disagree: 0
Agreeing with the ones on the left - this is also why we should never have done this work in the middle of the pandemic. Never do long-term research or surveys in the middle of this type of a crisis. Employment, commercial space availability, other open parcels, etc. And yes, I did point this out to planning staff early in 2020.
Reply by Michele Havskjold on 03/12/2021 at 4:42pm [Comment ID: 1539] - Link Agree: 5, Disagree: 0
Major decisions should not be made until the covid pandemic has abated.
Those making the decisions should be personally accessible for discussion with city citizens. That is not currently possible. The future of Thousand Oaks should not be defined until the city is fully open for business. Decisions affecting growth possibilities and changes in the master plan for the city should wait until then. Post covid much will be changed.
#538
Posted by vanessa p on 02/23/2021 at 5:37am [Comment ID: 973] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 11, Disagree: 0
Agree with comment to the left. Employment will affect the GP, as will retail and restaurant, all of the above was and is still being affected by covid. Many closures have occurred, many will occur in the future. Planing should only ensue after we know what the "new normal" is in terms of business, and see how many empty shells of buildings TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 209 Printed 03/24/2021 are left before planning to build more. Nothing over 3 stories should be built. #539
Posted by Doug Chabot on 02/07/2021 at 6:52pm [Comment ID: 630] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 20, Disagree: -2
Each alternative plan fails to take into consideration the fundamental shift away from centralized work spaces. While not all employment can be remote, a majority can, especially in the professional spaces. Thus there are no needs to develop brick and mortar work spaces. The existing commercial unoccupied capacity offers many years of capacity without changing the very nature of Thousand Oaks as proposed in the three alternatives.
#540
Posted by Jaki Kackert on 02/27/2021 at 8:34pm [Comment ID: 1215] - Link Agree: 10, Disagree: 0
Am I missing the part of this plan that details how we're going to upgrade the infrastructure of the city to accommodate the increase in cars and people along a slow, 4-lane road with badly timed lights? Please send me those plans! #541
Posted by Tamara Napier on 03/15/2021 at 4:14pm [Comment ID: 1834] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Develop the North side of the 101 at Rancho Conejo. Leave the South side alone.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 210 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 38
ALTERNATIVE 2: CHANGE AREAS ONLY
City Limits
Sphere of In uence
County Islands
Areas of Change
Parks, Golf Courses, And Open Space
Utilities and Flood Control
MIXED-USE
Mixed-Use Low
(>20 to 30 du/acre, 0.25 FAR)
Mixed-Use Medium
(>30 to 45 du/acre, 0.5 FAR)
Mixed-Use High
(>45 to 60 du/acre, 1.0 FAR)
Industrial Low (1.0 FAR)
Industrial Flex (2.0 FAR)
Institutional
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Commercial Neighborhood (0.5 FAR)
Commercial Town (1.0 FAR)
Commercial Regional (2.0 FAR)
Land Use Designations
RESIDENTIAL
Neighborhood Rural (0 to 1.0 du/acre)
Neighborhood Very Low (>1 to 2 du/acre)
Neighborhood Low (>2 to 6 du/acre)
Neighborhood Low Medium (>6 to 10 du/acre)
Neighborhood Medium (>10 to 20 du/acre)
Neighborhood Medium-High (>20 to 30 du/acre)
Neighborhood High (>30 to 45 du/acre)
Mobile Home Exclusive
Moorpark Fwy
Moorpark Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks Blvd
W Hillcrest Dr
W Hillcrest Dr
W Olsen Rd
W Janss Rd
Pederson Rd
Kanan Rd
E Olsen Rd
E Avenida De Los Arboles
Lynn Rd
Lynn Rd
Erbes Rd
Lynn Rd
Borchard Rd
Via Las Brisas
Borchard Rd
Lynn Rd
E Hillcrest Dr
E Hillcrest Dr
S Westlake Blvd
N Westlake Blvd
N Westlake Blvd
S Westlake Blvd
W Aven idaDe Los Arboles
542 543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555 557556
559558
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 211 Printed 03/24/2021 #542
Posted by Noah Tillipman on 02/02/2021 at 11:26pm [Comment ID: 593] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -6
This area should be considered for high density housing #543
Posted by Noah Tillipman on 02/02/2021 at 11:26pm [Comment ID: 592] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
This area should be considered for housing
#544
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/20/2021 at 1:39am [Comment ID: 861] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Strange as this land is already mostly for parking cars. #545
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:56pm [Comment ID: 1354] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
THIS IS ALREADY A HEAVILY UTILIZED COMMERCIAL CENTER. THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THIS DESIGNATION TO MIXED USE. IT WOULD CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.
#546
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:56pm [Comment ID: 1355] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
THIS IS ALREADY A HEAVILY UTILIZED COMMERCIAL CENTER. THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THIS DESIGNATION TO MIXED USE. IT WOULD CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.
#547
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:57pm [Comment ID: 1356] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
THIS IS ALREADY A HEAVILY UTILIZED COMMERCIAL CENTER. THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THIS DESIGNATION TO MIXED USE. IT WOULD CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 212 Printed 03/24/2021 #548
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:55pm [Comment ID: 1353] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
THIS PARCEL SHOULD BE KEPT AS COMMERCIAL OR SUPER LOW LOW DENSITY HOUSING. FOR OWNERSHIP. ALREADY HEAVILY TRAFFIC AREA. INFRASTRUCTURE CANNOT HANDLE.
#549
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:59pm [Comment ID: 1357] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -2
THE AREA BETWEEN HILLCREST AND THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD IS ALREADY TOO DENSE. IT SHOULD NOT BE THE DENSITY DUMPING GROUND FOR THE CITY. #550
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:50pm [Comment ID: 1369] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
LOW LOW DENSITY. MIXED USE. NOT AS TALL AS NEW DEVELOPMENT AT ERBES AND TO BLVD, WHICH IS TOO TALL, TOO CLOSE TO THE STREET AND NOT SURE WHO PAID FOR ALL THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE THIS PROJECT.
#551
Posted by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 1:09am [Comment ID: 1700] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Freeways are a major source of pollution, from both internal combustion engine emissions and from tire particulates. I am entirely in favor of high density residential development along Thousand Oaks Boulevard and at the Malls, but some means of filtering the pollution must be incorporated to protect the residents of these developments. #552
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:51pm [Comment ID: 1371] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This is already a heavily used commercial center. There is no need to change this designation. It will create more problems than it solves. #553
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:51pm [Comment ID: 1370] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This is already a heavily used commercial center. There is no need to change this designation. It will create more problems than it solves. #554
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 213 Printed 03/24/2021 Posted by Edward Carloni on 02/25/2021 at 5:21pm [Comment ID: 1164] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Have the planners taken into account the long term effects of the pandemic? I'm especially thinking of work place changes. in that many employees working from home now will not go back to working in a traditional office setting. This means less office space will be needed, less commuting miles and altered travel patterns. This is a difficult time to predict the future. #555
Posted by k on 02/03/2021 at 12:33pm [Comment ID: 604] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 10, Disagree: -1
With the new amount of housing that is being added to the city, where are the new additions of schools, the addition of staff from the police department, the increase of the fire department plus the utilities?
Reply by Barbara on 02/18/2021 at 8:03pm [Comment ID: 767] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
excellent question! If you're increasing population, you need other things. How about a bigger hospital as well? Reply by Adam G Ochs on 02/26/2021 at 1:30am [Comment ID: 1188] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Not only does new development bring impact fees for police/fire/schools into the City's coffers, it also increases property taxes that add to the City's budget for these services. New residents pay their own way, same as existing residents do. I wonder if the Chumash asked the same questions when we moved in? Reply by Betsy on 03/14/2021 at 6:11pm [Comment ID: 1635] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
TO has shrunk in the last 4 years. There are fewer children. Mostly more old people. That means less workforce. Less shopping. Less dining. We won't need more schools. In fact we are going to have to start closing schools if something doesn't change. Any time new dwellings are built, a fee is paid that funds the extra services needed. #556
Posted by George Schultz on 03/01/2021 at 12:19pm [Comment ID: 1231] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: 0
This wetland area is needed for flood protection. The homes in this area are required to have costly flood insurance. The city should concentrate on removing the 100-year flood hazard instead of allowing a higher density development.
#557
Posted by Kevin Kohan on 03/11/2021 at 2:55pm [Comment ID: 1493] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -4
Project site is not a wetlands property and received ACOE and CDFW clearances. This is an opportunity site within the City that can bring potential affordable housing opportunities with creative park and open spaces.
#558
Posted by Denis Dux on 03/07/2021 at 6:06pm [Comment ID: 1308] - Link TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 214 Printed 03/24/2021 Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
This area next to Albertson's should remain Commercial
Reply by Gordon Clint on 03/15/2021 at 2:01pm [Comment ID: 1789] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Since this property backs up to a supermarket and is across from a street with higher density single family homes it seems appropriate for townhomes and condominiums. #559
Posted by Michael Mostats on 02/21/2021 at 5:59pm [Comment ID: 905] - Link Agree: 5, Disagree: 0
This proposal would destroy rather than preserve the integrity of the single family home community that circumvents surrounding area for miles. This parcel is best left for commercial use as the location abates a shopping center and would lead to significant traffic and congestion which is not only detrimental to the safety and well being of the adjourning residents but also to the property values of existing single family homes. In summary this proposal represents a lazy and un-resourceful approach by the city to addressing future housing needs while also preserving the quality of life and continuity of Thousand Oaks and Newbury Park.
Reply by Christine Elowitt on 03/15/2021 at 12:48am [Comment ID: 1698] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I'm confused about your comment. In this map for alternative 2, this spot where you added your comment is zoned to stay commercial. Isn't that what you are saying you want? TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 215 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 39
Expands focus on job producing uses throughout the City with job centers at Rancho Conejo, north of The Oaks Mall on Hillcrest, and on the east side of the city both north and south of Highway 101. As part of this the Industrial Flex designation (at up to 2.0 FAR) is allowed in all employment areas. This alternative has the greatest potential to expand jobs and employment uses compared to Alternatives 1 and 2.
Allows residential development (at the Neighborhood Low Medium designation) at the Oaks Mall.
Creates High-Density Mixed-Use nodes at three locations:
1) near the intersection of Boardwalk Avenue and Thousand Oaks Boulevard; 2) at Janss Marketplace; and
3) at the intersection of Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Westlake Boulevard.
Expand mixed-use development south of Highway 101 in Newbury Park.
Creates Village Centers (with the Mixed-Use Low designation) in all identified commercial shopping centers throughout the City.
+
+
+
+
Allow mixed-use development along all of Thousand Oaks Boulevard with the Mixed-Use Medium and Mixed-Use Low designation.
+
Compared to Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternative 3 has a strong focus on jobs and employment. The primary job centers in Rancho Conejo, the Townsgate employment district and on the eastern side of Thousand Oaks Boulevard all focus on employment (office, research and development, and light industrial) uses and many parcels have increased intensities to 2.0 FAR to encourage redevelopment. In addition, many existing commercial areas will remain commercial and not covert to mixed use as occurs in Alternatives 1 and 2. To compensate for the increased focus on employment and commercial uses and meet the housing needs of the City, the mixed use areas allow for higher density development. The Janss Marketplace, the western end of Thousand Oaks Boulevard and the Promenade at Westlake Village are designated as Mixed Use High with Mixed Use Medium on many parcels between these areas. In addition, in this alternative, the Oak Mall would be a combination of commercial and residential uses rather than a mixed use designation. Finally, all the “village centers” around the City would allow a mix use development.
Designates many existing retails areas with commercial land use designations (Commercial Regional, Commercial Town, Commercial Neighborhood) at Westlake Village, in part of The Oaks Mall, in the retail/commercial area east of Rancho Conejo and at the intersection of Highway 101 at Ventu Park Road.
+
+
ALTERNATIVE 3 KEY FEATURES
561 560
562
563 564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 216 Printed 03/24/2021 #560
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 1:20pm [Comment ID: 1774] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
If you build up too much around the Oaks Mall and Janss Mall, traffic will be so bad that people will begin to use residential streets to avoid the traffic on the main streets.
Causing other issues. I do this now to avoid Moorpark St traffic from the fwy up to Janss Rd. It's horrible. And getting over the freeway at Lynn Road, I have to get through 4 signals to go less than a mile. It's ridiculous! #561
Posted by Tracy B on 03/15/2021 at 2:58pm [Comment ID: 1801] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Isn't this a wetland or, if not, a water collection basin? It floods everytime there is a major rainstorm.
#562
Posted by Gary L on 02/19/2021 at 7:21pm [Comment ID: 820] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 15, Disagree: -3
The intersection of T.O. and Westlake is bad as it is. Two major thoroughfares with high school traffic. Let's not forget what this was like prior to Covid, an increase in density to this area would be ill advised.
Reply by Wes M. on 03/01/2021 at 7:34pm [Comment ID: 1235] - Link Agree: 9, Disagree: -1
I agree with Gary. This is already a heavily impacted traffic area and adding any more to the daily vehicle count would be a bad idea.
#563
Posted by Susan K Soy on 02/21/2021 at 3:25pm [Comment ID: 902] - Link Agree: 11, Disagree: -2
Lots of people will be working remotely from home, even those living in Village Centers.
Great Broadband access should be incorporated into the plan. #564
Posted by Betsy Connolly on 02/19/2021 at 6:21pm [Comment ID: 816] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 8, Disagree: -7
Yes on Village Center residences. This would make each part of the city more livable.
We need plazas and seating outside coffee shops and cafes. Those businesses need customers from the neighborhood. Walkable and bikeable village centers would be a great addition.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 217 Printed 03/24/2021 Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 7:39pm [Comment ID: 1855] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Agreed, we can have a more people-centric, walkable, connected Thousand Oaks by creating distinctive Neighborhood Town Squares on the Janss & Oaks Mall sites, in the Rancho Conejo employment hub, and in each "village center".
Here's how: *IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. * REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each neighborhood "center". * BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with trees, plants, gardens and parkland. * BUILD housing that's "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. * POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. * JOIN each Town Square to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. * CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. * LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs.
#565
Posted by Cynthia Futvoye on 02/22/2021 at 4:23pm [Comment ID: 927] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 8, Disagree: -1
This land should stay open. Traffic is already a challenge in this area with the commercial area across the way. We don't need mixed use in this area. We already have plenty of parks and wide streets. We have plenty of shops across the way instead of in our way. This is not the valley. Why mixed use? Why not just leave it alone or add some single family homes?
#566
Posted by Doug Chabot on 02/07/2021 at 6:48pm [Comment ID: 629] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 10, Disagree: -7
Any implementation of "high density", or "medium density" housing must include provisions for high capacity and medium capacity roads and intersections. This town's transportation capacity is well below the current population needs.
Reply by Betsy Connolly on 02/19/2021 at 6:18pm [Comment ID: 815] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: -9
Presently, much of the traffic is people who live outside the city coming in for work. If there was housing people who work here could afford, there would be less traffic, not more.
Reply by Tim on 02/23/2021 at 6:27pm [Comment ID: 1010] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: -2
Complete fallacy. So L.A. has less traffic than T.O. because they have TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 218 Printed 03/24/2021 more jobs and more places to live? Let's think that through Betsy...
Reply by Albert on 03/14/2021 at 6:41pm [Comment ID: 1643] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
Yes, Tim is correct. In addition to people who live in other areas and work here, there are people like me who live here and work in another city. If someone lives in Agoura Hills, for example, and gets a job in Thousand Oaks, they are not necessarily going move. Southern California has a huge population of commuters and nothing in this plan will change that.
Reply by Gordon Clint on 03/15/2021 at 12:36pm [Comment ID:
1749] - Link
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Many people are only commuting because they can't afford to live here. That is why our plan needs to offer places where housing can be built that will be affordable.
Reply by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 3:56pm [Comment ID: 1823] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
We already have very wide, well-designed roads - we just don't use them well.
Single-occupancy vehicles, which is to say cars containing one person, are extremely inefficient uses of road space. Even so, we are well below the designed capacity of our roads. We should reconfigure the space to prioritize safe, efficient movement of buses, people on bikes, and people walking in order to shift people to these more space-efficient, safer, and cleaner travel modes. #567
Posted by john on 02/03/2021 at 11:39am [Comment ID: 602] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 6, Disagree: -9
Do not put residential units at city centers
#568
Posted by Doug Chabot on 02/07/2021 at 6:45pm [Comment ID: 628] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 16, Disagree: -5
The claim of focus on Jobs is without merit. Housing does not equate to jobs other than the one time good deal for construction contractors. #569
Posted by Jennifer Lobenhofer on 03/14/2021 at 1:34pm [Comment ID: 1621] - Link Type: Suggestion
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 219 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
The Village Centers are a very attractive component. They are a crucial way to meet many of the goals of achieving a more walkable, "15-minute" city, where each neighborhood has its own center and sense of place.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 7:36pm [Comment ID: 1853] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
So agree. We can have a more people-centric, walkable, connected Thousand Oaks by creating distinctive Neighborhood Town Squares on the Janss & Oaks Mall sites, in the Rancho Conejo employment hub, and in each "village center".
Here's how: *IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in each neighborhood. * REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in each neighborhood "center". * BEAUTIFY and green each Town Square with trees, plants, gardens and parkland. * BUILD housing that's "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance of each Town Square. * POWER each Town Square with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. * JOIN each Town Square to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. * CONNECT every Town Square and major attraction citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. * LINK Thousand Oaks to nearby regional cities through strategically located intercity transit hubs.
#570
Posted by Jaki Kackert on 02/27/2021 at 8:37pm [Comment ID: 1216] - Link Agree: 11, Disagree: -2
This is the worst possible place to add density. Have any of you driven around Westlake and TO during school hours? The lights are poorly timed, traffic is terrible and there are no alternative ways to navigate around that area. How will you accommodate infrastructure to make it better? This area is really the worst idea! #571
Posted by Anne Marquart on 02/22/2021 at 11:43pm [Comment ID: 957] - Link Agree: 11, Disagree: -2
High Density mixed use should be dropped from the plans all together. None of these intersections can support the increase in traffic.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 220 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 40
ALTERNATIVE 3: CHANGE AREAS ONLY
City Limits
Sphere of In uence
County Islands
Areas of Change
Parks, Golf Courses, And Open Space
Utilities and Flood Control
MIXED-USE
Mixed-Use Low
(>20 to 30 du/acre, 0.25 FAR)
Mixed-Use Medium
(>30 to 45 du/acre, 0.5 FAR)
Mixed-Use High
(>45 to 60 du/acre, 1.0 FAR)
Industrial Low (1.0 FAR)
Industrial Flex (2.0 FAR)
Institutional
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Commercial Neighborhood (0.5 FAR)
Commercial Town (1.0 FAR)
Commercial Regional (2.0 FAR)
Land Use Designations
RESIDENTIAL
Neighborhood Rural (0 to 1.0 du/acre)
Neighborhood Very Low (>1 to 2 du/acre)
Neighborhood Low (>2 to 6 du/acre)
Neighborhood Low Medium (>6 to 10 du/acre)
Neighborhood Medium (>10 to 20 du/acre)
Neighborhood Medium-High (>20 to 30 du/acre)
Neighborhood High (>30 to 45 du/acre)
Mobile Home Exclusive
Moorpark Fwy
Moorpark Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks Blvd
W Hillcrest Dr
W Hillcrest Dr
W Olsen Rd
W Janss Rd
Pederson Rd
Kanan Rd
E Olsen Rd
E Avenida De Los Arboles
Lynn Rd
Lynn Rd
Erbes Rd
Lynn Rd
Borchard Rd
Via Las Brisas
Borchard Rd
Lynn Rd
E Hillcrest Dr
E Hillcrest Dr
S Westlake Blvd
N Westlake Blvd
N Westlake Blvd
S Westlake Blvd
W Aven idaDe Los Arboles
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584 585
586
587
588
589
590
591 592
593
594
595
596
597 598
599
600
601
602
603 604
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 221 Printed 03/24/2021 #572
Posted by Noah Tillipman on 02/02/2021 at 11:28pm [Comment ID: 594] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: -7
This area once again, should be considered for high density housing.
Reply by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:43pm [Comment ID: 1348] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
THIS IS ALREADY A HEAVILY UTILIZED COMMERCIAL CENTER. THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THIS DESIGNATION TO MIXED USE. IT WOULD CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.
#573
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:44pm [Comment ID: 1349] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
THIS AREA HAS ALREADY BEEN "GREEN-LIGHTED" TO EXPLORE MIXED USE AND CHANGE THE DESIGNATION. THIS HAS TO BE FACTORED INTO THE PLAN SOMEHOW. COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO IT. HOWEVER THE COUNCIL CLEARLY INDICATED THEIR FAVORITISM FOR THIS DEVELOPER, AND THUS IT NEEDS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN. AS IT WILL MOST LIKELY MOVE FORWARD.
#574
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:41pm [Comment ID: 1345] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
THIS WOULD BE THE MOST PREFERABLE PLACE IN THIS INTERSECTION FOR MIXED USE LOW DENSITY HOUSING. #575
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:50pm [Comment ID: 1350] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -2
LOW - LOW DENSITY TOWN HOMES AND CONDOS COULD BE A GOOD FIT FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT STATE REQUIREMENTS COULD BE REVERSED IN THE FUTURE.
#576
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:42pm [Comment ID: 1346] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
THIS IS ALREADY A HEAVILY UTILIZED COMMERCIAL CENTER. THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THIS DESIGNATION TO MIXED USE. IT WOULD CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.
NO.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 222 Printed 03/24/2021 #577
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:40pm [Comment ID: 1344] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
THIS IS ALREADY A HEAVILY UTILIZED COMMERCIAL CENTER. THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THIS DESIGNATION TO MIXED USE. IT WOULD CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.
#578
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:42pm [Comment ID: 1347] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
THIS IS ALREADY A HEAVILY UTILIZED COMMERCIAL CENTER. THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THIS DESIGNATION TO MIXED USE. IT WOULD CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.
#579
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 6:02pm [Comment ID: 1376] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
ARE THESE DEVELOPMENTS UNDER-IMPROVED?
#580
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:37pm [Comment ID: 1343] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
THIS IS ALREADY A HEAVILY UTILIZED COMMERCIAL AREA. THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THIS DESIGNATION TO MIXED USE. IT WOULD CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.
#581
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:25pm [Comment ID: 1338] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
THIS SHOULD EXTREMELY LOW DENSITY. HOMES, TOWN-HOMES, CONDOS. NOTHING MORE THAN THREE STORIES. THIS IS ALREADY A VERY HEAVILY UTILIZED PORTION OF THE CITY, VIA FREEWAY ACCESSES. IT CANNOT HANDLE MUCH MORE IN TERMS OF DENSITY. REALLY IT SHOULD BE JUST HOMES OR A COMMERCE CENTER. #582
Posted by Kyle T Thorsen on 02/26/2021 at 1:24pm [Comment ID: 1190] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
High Density Neighborhood zoning could continue along this entire block.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 223 Printed 03/24/2021 #583
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:29pm [Comment ID: 1339] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
THIS IS ALREADY A HEAVILY UTILIZED COMMERCIAL CENTER. THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THIS DESIGNATION TO MIXED USE. IT WOULD CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.
#584
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 6:15pm [Comment ID: 1379] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
THE AREA BETWEEN THE 23FWY AND WESTLAKE BLVD AND HILLCREST AND THOUSAND OAKS BLVD IS ALREADY EXTREMELY DENSE. IT SHOULD NOT BE THE DENSITY DUMPING GROUND FOR THE CITY. TAKE A LOOK AT THE BUILDINGS "NESTLED" IN BETWEEN THESE STREETS, ESPECIALLY BETWEEN THE 23 FWY AND OLD CONEJO SCHOOL ROAD AS YOU TRANSITION FROM THE 101 FWY NORTH TO THE 23 FWY NORTH. IT LOOKS LIKE AN ENTIRE CITY AS IT IS!!!! #585
Posted by Kyle T Thorsen on 02/26/2021 at 1:25pm [Comment ID: 1191] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
This could be high density neighborhood.
#586
Posted by garry star on 03/14/2021 at 1:47am [Comment ID: 1617] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
i hate this software. this da_n comment form keeps popping up and covering the map #587
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 6:01pm [Comment ID: 1375] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
WHAT ABOUT THIS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BEING RE-DESIGNATED FOR MIXED USE? #588
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:52pm [Comment ID: 1351] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
WOULD RATHER SEE FLAT OUT HOMES/TOWN-HOMES/CONDOS VERSUS MIXED USE. EITHER KEEP A SPACE COMMERCIAL OR USE IT FOR RESIDENTIAL. #589
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:30pm [Comment ID: 1341] - Link Type: Suggestion
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 224 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
THIS IS ALREADY A HEAVILY UTILIZED COMMERCIAL CENTER. THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THIS DESIGNATION TO MIXED USE. IT WOULD CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.
#590
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:30pm [Comment ID: 1340] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
THIS IS ALREADY A HEAVILY UTILIZED COMMERCIAL CENTER. THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THIS DESIGNATION TO MIXED USE. IT WOULD CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.
#591
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:31pm [Comment ID: 1342] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
THIS IS ALREADY A HEAVILY UTILIZED COMMERCIAL CENTER. THERE IS NO NEED TO CHANGE THIS DESIGNATION TO MIXED USE. IT WOULD CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES.
#592
Posted by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 1:12am [Comment ID: 1701] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
If it is possible, this should be developed as a mixed-use Village Center and linked directly to the CLU campus.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 7:58pm [Comment ID: 1857] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Neighborhoods that lack established commercial centers can also have more people-centric, walkable, connected communities by creating distinctive Town Squares: *IDENTIFY an existing, conveniently-located commercial "center" in the neighborhood. * REVITALIZE existing vacant spaces around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square) in the neighborhood "center". * BEAUTIFY and green the Town Square with trees, plants, gardens and parkland. * BUILD housing that's "affordable by design" within walking/cycling distance. * POWER it with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy. * JOIN it to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. * CONNECT it to major attractions citywide ... including CLU (and even Moorpark College) through an all-electic public-transit system. #593
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 6:06pm [Comment ID: 1377] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
THIS PART OF THE BOULEVARD CANNOT HANDLE THIS DENSITY.
#594
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 225 Printed 03/24/2021 Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 3:53pm [Comment ID: 1352] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
NOTHING OVER THREE STORIES.
Reply by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 3:58pm [Comment ID: 1826] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Why? What objective purpose does a three story height limit serve? Reply by Kim on 03/16/2021 at 12:28am [Comment ID: 1885] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Aesthetics. Retaining the feel and look of the community as much as possible. Over the past several months, we have heard references to not becoming Sherman Oaks. This is what those people are talking about. Tall buildings obstruct views and change the character and ambience of the community. To some of us, that is an objective purpose. When we have something great, why do we want to pave it over and block the views? I realize we have housing mandates from the state, but there are some locations better suited to higher buildings, such as Rancho Conejo which has been an industrial area for many years. #595
Posted by Kathy Nouam on 03/15/2021 at 5:42pm [Comment ID: 1842] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This seems like a very big "industrial" area that would be adjacent to residential. The area is currently office and commercial - to broad brush it with industrial doesn't make sense. #596
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 1:24pm [Comment ID: 1775] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
In Dos Vientos, that commercial park has never been successful for businesses for some reason. Making into mixed use but with limited height for the homes right there could be a possibility. The only other issue is the immense traffic that floods Lynn Road already from Dos Vientos. The traffic noise, accidents, and speeding is insane. It has increased by 10 fold over the past 15 yrs. Lynn Road cannot handle any more traffic from Dos Vientos community. How would you deal with the added traffic created from adding more housing back there? #597
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 6:10pm [Comment ID: 1378] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
IF THERE IS ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CONVERT SOME AMGEN REAL ESTATE TO RESIDENTIAL, THAT SHOULD BE A PRIORITY. NEED TO DISTRIBUTE MORE UNITS OFF OF THOUSAND OAKS BOULEVARD. ALSO, REALISTICALLY, NEED TO SEE SOME UNIT NUMBERS IN PLACE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT NUMBERS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN EACH OF THESE LOCATIONS. IN OTHER WORDS, HOW WE ARE GETTING TO THE 35K-38K ADDITIONAL UNITS. #598
Posted by CB on 02/24/2021 at 3:25pm [Comment ID: 1094] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: -1
I liked the housing/mixed-use here to cut down on commuter traffic and related environmental impacts.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 226 Printed 03/24/2021 #599
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:59pm [Comment ID: 1374] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -3
THIS WOULD HELP DISTRIBUTE SOME OF THE DENSITY FROM T.O. BLVD. #600
Posted by Robin Berman on 03/16/2021 at 2:49am [Comment ID: 1922] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
There is a lack of higher density housing on this side of the city. #601
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:55pm [Comment ID: 1373] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -2
GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME MIXED USE. NOTHING MORE THAN TWO STORIES. DISBURSES DENSITY. IF WE ARE REQUIRED BY THE STATE TO PLAN FOR THIS INCREASE IN UNITS THIS WOULD HELP TAKE SOME UNITS OFF OF TO BLVD.
#602
Posted by Michael Mostats on 02/21/2021 at 6:04pm [Comment ID: 907] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: -2
This proposal would also destroy rather than preserve the integrity of the single family home community that circumvents the surrounding area for miles. This parcel is best left for commercial use as the location abuts a shopping center and would lead to significant traffic and congestion which is not only detrimental to the safety and well being of the adjoining residents but also to the property values of existing single family homes. In summary this proposal represents a lazy and un-resourceful approach by the city for addressing future housing needs while also preserving the quality of life and continuity of Thousand Oaks and Newbury Park for the residents that currently live here. #603
Posted by Sarah on 03/08/2021 at 5:53pm [Comment ID: 1372] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -2
YES, GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR MIXED USE AND DISPERSES DENSITY. #604
Posted by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 1:17am [Comment ID: 1702] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
Multiple good restaurants have failed at this location, I believe because it is isolated and there is not a critical mass of people around it to serve the businesses in this otherwise very nice small shopping center. Making it mixed use and also adding more residential density within walking distance might help make it a more viable location for restaurants and other businesses.
Reply by Rose Ann H Witt on 03/15/2021 at 7:49pm [Comment ID: 1856] - Link Type: Suggestion
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 227 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Those restaurants might have a better chance, if you make your shopping center into an attractive gathering place by greening it with with trees, plants and gardens situated around a central, outdoor, public-gathering space (Town Square). Power it with with clean, inexhaustible, solar-generated, electric energy to charge electric bikes, and then Join it to its neighborhood via a network of dedicated walking and cycling paths. And connect it to other Town Squares and major attractions citywide through an all-electic public-transit system. All those people coming and going could support your restaurant.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 228 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 41
RANCHO CONEJO AREA
MIXED-USE
Mixed-Use Low
(>20 to 30 du/acre, 0.25 FAR)
Mixed-Use Medium
(>30 to 45 du/acre, 0.5 FAR)
Mixed-Use High
AR)
orhood (0.5 FAR)
.0 FAR)
al (2.0 FAR)
RESIDENTIAL
Neighborhood Rural (0 to 1.0 du/acre)
Neighborhood Very Low (>1 to 2 du/acre)
Neighborhood Low (>2 to 6 du/acre)
Neighborhood Low Medium (>6 to 10 du/acre)
Ventura Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Thousand O
W Hillcrest Dr
W Hillcrest Dr
W Janss Rd
Lynn Rd
Lynn Rd
Lynn Rd
Borchard Rd
W Aven idaDe Los Arboles
ALTERNATIVE 1
KEY FEATURES
• Allows a mix of job producing uses that are
split between Industrial Low and Industrial Flex
designations.
• Creates a high-density mixed-use district adjacent to Rancho Conejo west of Lawrence Drive to integrate a
walkable, mixed residential and retail neighborhood
with the employment uses.
• Creates a mixed-use node south of Highway 101 and
east of Borchard Road.
• Maintains primarily commercial uses at freeway exits at Wendy Drive, Borchard Road, and Ventu Park Road.
1 2
1 2
3A
3 3B
4 4
605
606
607
608
609
610
611 612
613
614
615
616
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 229 Printed 03/24/2021 #605
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 1:27pm [Comment ID: 1776] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Newbury Park residents DO NOT WANT MORE RETAIL in our community. You put Lowes across from Home Depot. You should have put Lowes at the old Kmart site. No more retail in Newbury Park. We are not the S.F. Valley. Please listen to us and stop adding retail atrocities to our beautiful Newbury Park. #606
Posted by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 4:00pm [Comment ID: 1827] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I love the character of this kind of architecture. Santa Barbara has higher density and good community character because of development like this. #607
Posted by Doug Spondello on 03/13/2021 at 1:44pm [Comment ID: 1570] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
proposed land uses must consider the established adjacent single-family neighborhoods. design standards should provide for an appropriate transition of height and building forms. This gets challenging with the narrow strips but deserves some consideration of the existing neighborhood character
#608
Posted by Albert on 03/14/2021 at 6:52pm [Comment ID: 1646] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Thousand Oaks needs to evaluate any proposal for develop in terms of the ways that the new structures connect to surrounding areas. The city is full of little pockets of buildings that are all isolated from one another. There is never thought given to creating a larger network of shopping, services, and housing areas that can be easily traversed by foot or bicycle. For example, crossing Moorpark Road on foot to get from Best Buy over to the Janss Mall is ridiculously difficult. No one does it: they drive instead. That is why we have too much traffic and excessive automobile air pollution: is isn't this nonsense about people working in T.O. and living in nearby cities.
Reply by Robin Berman on 03/16/2021 at 2:50am [Comment ID: 1923] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Agree. There isn't even enough safe pedestrian sidewalks into the main entrance of The Oaks mall.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 230 Printed 03/24/2021 #609
Posted by Barbara on 02/18/2021 at 8:12pm [Comment ID: 769] - Link Agree: 8, Disagree: -4
Have you seen all the empty commercial spaces at the shopping center across from Target? Most every business is gone except for Petsmart. Why do we need more businesses built back there when you can't keep what you had? We like that the area doesn't attract more people, walking, etc. We feel safer living away from the hub of the city.
Reply by Jorge Luciani on 02/19/2021 at 11:52am [Comment ID: 776] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 7, Disagree: -5
I think one of the the reason why the shopping center behind Target is empty is because there are no neighborhoods close by that generate traffic. So, by having a mixed use area right behind it that is walkable and livable creates a small center.That area is totally dull at the moment. Just my thoughts.
Reply by Phil Clark on 03/15/2021 at 12:23am [Comment ID: 1692] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Your thoughts are right. Perfect space for some moderate density housing
Reply by Ronald Block on 03/15/2021 at 3:17pm [Comment ID: 1808] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I agree with the developed use of this ross/petsmart area although the traffic fix will take some thinking.
#610
Posted by karen wilburn on 02/27/2021 at 5:52pm [Comment ID: 1208] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
This is the only area in which I can envision change south of the 101. It's a 13 acre lot behind Kohl's. The proposal is for multi family units at a max height of 35' similar to the condos across the street from the lot.
#611
Posted by karen wilburn on 02/27/2021 at 5:49pm [Comment ID: 1207] - Link Agree: 7, Disagree: -3
This area is currently at the centers with Baskin Robbins & the Library. It is also completely surrounded by single family homes. You cannot seriously consider putting 4 story mixed used bldgs here.
Reply by Bob Tokin on 03/15/2021 at 7:38pm [Comment ID: 1854] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 231 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree! It will also impact traffic negatively.
#612
Posted by Cynthia Futvoye on 02/22/2021 at 4:25pm [Comment ID: 928] - Link Agree: 13, Disagree: -2
If you build tall it looks like the valley, you cannot see our beautiful neighborhoods and you just blocked our view of the horizon. WE ARE NOT THE VALLEY. Go green means having green space. We do not need more shops. That is not the future.
Retail is dead.
#613
Posted by karen wilburn on 02/05/2021 at 12:38pm [Comment ID: 612] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 19, Disagree: -5
You cannot put multi story mixed use buildings in this area. It is an island completely surrounded by 1 & 2 story single family homes & will destroy the surrounding neighborhoods. The other proposed change areas are all on major corridors, or in current retail/comml areas & are more appropriate for mixed housing. This area needs to remain as currently zoned or at the very most changed to no more than Neighborhood Low-Medium or Medium.
Reply by Lorna Maxwell on 03/13/2021 at 11:27am [Comment ID: 1569] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: -1
I agree! Multistory, mixed use buildings will destroy the integrity of the area. This is not the appropriate spot for such units at all.
#614
Posted by Phil Clark on 03/15/2021 at 12:22am [Comment ID: 1691] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Need to find a bike and pedestrian safe crossing for 101 #615
Posted by Jim Clemens on 03/15/2021 at 2:49pm [Comment ID: 1797] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
This comment applies to all 3 alternatives for Rancho Conejo south of the 101 freeway - Feedback and suggestions.
1. The area is single and 2 story homes.
2. Access from Wendy Dr, Michael Dr and Alice are all 1 lane in each direction.
3. Wendy Dr (one lane in each direction) is already busy.
4. Michael Dr (one lane in each direction) is already busy with Sequoia middle school, Soccer and baseball games, school events, Boys and Girls club, and residents, so TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 232 Printed 03/24/2021 adding more traffic and cars in the area is going to be a problem.
5. South of the 101 freeway, Wendy and Borchard are already busy commuter streets.
6. The area north of the 101 freeway has :
a. a number of streets with 2 lanes in each direction already b. A lot of vacate space for expanding the already mixed use Businesses, manufacturing, office space, ...
Some existing residential
c. Access to multiple nearby shopping areas
d. I think there is some existing new by public transportation e. Access to open space
f. less work to make the north area into having more
multi-purpose spaces
g. less work and impact to make the north side of the 101 into the new life style desired and the conveniences of multi-purpose spaces
#616
Posted by Ronald Block on 03/15/2021 at 3:16pm [Comment ID: 1807] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
the current 101W exit at Wendy currently backs up at busy times going in all directions.
The 'do not turn on red; is ignored and the impact of greater use will lead to more accidents without doubt.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 233 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 42
KEY FEATURES
• Expands job producing uses by designating more
area as employment uses and expanding the amount
of Industrial Flex uses (which allow higher intensity
buildings at up to 2.0 FAR).
• Creates a significant amount of mixed-use development adjacent to Rancho Conejo on either side of Highway
101. This alternative has the greatest amount of mixeduse development compared to the other alternatives. • Maintains retail, service, and commercial uses at the intersection of Ventu Park Drive and Highway 101.
RANCHO CONEJO AREA
MIXED-USE
Mixed-Use Low
(>20 to 30 du/acre, 0.25 FAR)
Mixed-Use Medium
(>30 to 45 du/acre, 0.5 FAR)
Mixed-Use High
AR)
orhood (0.5 FAR)
.0 FAR)
al (2.0 FAR)
RESIDENTIAL
Neighborhood Rural (0 to 1.0 du/acre)
Neighborhood Very Low (>1 to 2 du/acre)
Neighborhood Low (>2 to 6 du/acre)
Neighborhood Low Medium (>6 to 10 du/acre)
Ventura Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Thousand O
W Hillcrest Dr
W Hillcrest Dr
W Janss Rd
Lynn Rd
Lynn Rd
Lynn Rd
Borchard Rd
W Aven idaDe Los Arboles
ALTERNATIVE 2
1 2
3 4
1 2
3 4
617
618 619
620
621
622
623
625 624
626
627
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 234 Printed 03/24/2021 #617
Posted by Kendall Lousen (“Kenny”) on 03/15/2021 at 11:31pm [Comment ID: 1877] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
To ensure safety of the public, pilots, and aircraft traversing NBVC and the City of Thousand Oaks, recommend limiting potential glint and glare effects and implementing viable land use policies that are compatible with FAA navigable airspace and imaginary surfaces and implementing compatible land uses designations and densities to foster Senate Bill 1462 and Senate Bill 1468.
#618
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 1:31pm [Comment ID: 1778] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Again, the Rancho Conejo area is beautiful, so far, because of it's views of the mountains and open rolling green hills. You have so many commercial buildings that are empty, No more additional building is required. Do something to make use of the existing empty buildings we have already. If the landlords won't budge on rents/leases, then do something about that instead. Don't add more commercial building to NOT solve the problem.
#619
Posted by karen wilburn on 02/27/2021 at 6:03pm [Comment ID: 1211] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: -1
There should not be mixed use south of the 101. It is a single family residential area.
Also Wendy & Borchard Rd were already heavily impacted when Dos Vientos was built. #620
Posted by karen wilburn on 02/27/2021 at 6:02pm [Comment ID: 1210] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
On alternatives 2 & 3 you are proposing mixed use housing south of the 101 freeway over an area of 80 acres of land. (these are the areas in light purple) The entire surrounding neighborhoods are single family homes. These proposals result in a "theoretical build out" of over 2,400 dwelling units & 4 story buildings in this area. This is not appropriate in what is currently strictly a residential area with light comml/retail. #621
Posted by Albert on 03/14/2021 at 6:54pm [Comment ID: 1648] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I do not agree that we need to "produce jobs." This sounds like growth for growth's sake.
#622
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 235 Printed 03/24/2021 Posted by Cynthia Futvoye on 02/22/2021 at 4:46pm [Comment ID: 930] - Link Agree: 8, Disagree: -1
I noticed that a two story is proposed for the industrial area, yet a four+ story right in front of my house south 101. That's backward thinking. All in all, these plans don't fit our style of living. fix the problems we have: existing empty buildings and stores = wasted space - use it for more housing. Use that. Plant more trees on the hills to help the environment and fire control. Transportation needs help too. #623
Posted by Kendall Lousen (“Kenny”) on 03/15/2021 at 11:25pm [Comment ID: 1874] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
The proposed land uses and the developable densities for certain land use designation types could lead to incompatible land use developments or introduce new vertical obstructions that can create conflicts for aviation operations; more so, if the vertical development is on a slope, which can penetrate the imaginary surfaces heights and slopes and is incompatible with military training operations conducted at NBVC. #624
Posted by Justin Link on 02/16/2021 at 9:25pm [Comment ID: 724] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 5, Disagree: -1
This area has historically been un-developable due to environmental constraints (seasonal wetlands) and drainage issues.
Reply by karen wilburn on 02/27/2021 at 5:55pm [Comment ID: 1209] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
My understanding is this is not protected wetland area. I think the reason the developer hasn't been able to build is because of the investment required to make the land suitable for building. At the current zoning level of a max of 4.5 homes per acre it's not profitable. However if this is changed to 45 units per acre it may be possible to make it work, so we could end up with 4 story bldgs in this single family neighborhood, with almost no street access to a new development. #625
Posted by karen wilburn on 02/05/2021 at 12:41pm [Comment ID: 613] - Link Agree: 12, Disagree: -2
You cannot put multi story mixed use buildings in this area. It is an island completely surrounded by 1 & 2 story single family homes & will destroy the surrounding neighborhoods. The other proposed change areas are all on major corridors, or in current retail/comml areas & are more appropriate for mixed housing. This area needs to remain as currently zoned or at the very most changed to no more than Neighborhood Low-Medium or Medium.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 236 Printed 03/24/2021 #626
Posted by Phil Clark on 03/15/2021 at 12:24am [Comment ID: 1693] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Need to find a safe bike and pedestrian crossing for 101 #627
Posted by David Munowitch on 03/15/2021 at 8:32pm [Comment ID: 1859] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This slipper or wetlands area is surrounded by 1 and 2 story homes. I want it to stay that way, but if it needs to go to multiple story mixed-use buildings, I think these new building should be set to a max of 2 stories within 75 yards from the closest current house and the new mixed-use buildings can go up to 3 stories max in the middle. 3 and 4 story mixed-use buildings can go across the freeway where there are no current 1 and 2 story homes.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 237 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 43
RANCHO CONEJO AREA
KEY FEATURES
• Allows significantly more jobs than the other
alternatives by a keeping the area north of Highway
101 as Industrial Flex, Industrial Low and a mix of
commercial uses. No mixed-use development is
identified north of Highway 101.
• Expands the potential for mixed-use south of Highway
101 by creating a mixed-use node at low and medium
intensities east and west of Borchard Road. This
alternative has the most mixed-use south of Highway
101 compared to other alternatives.
• Maintains commercial uses at the Highway 101/Ventu
Park Road intersection but at lower intensity compared
to other alternatives.
MIXED-USE
Mixed-Use Low
(>20 to 30 du/acre, 0.25 FAR)
Mixed-Use Medium
(>30 to 45 du/acre, 0.5 FAR)
Mixed-Use High
AR)
orhood (0.5 FAR)
.0 FAR)
al (2.0 FAR)
RESIDENTIAL
Neighborhood Rural (0 to 1.0 du/acre)
Neighborhood Very Low (>1 to 2 du/acre)
Neighborhood Low (>2 to 6 du/acre)
Neighborhood Low Medium (>6 to 10 du/acre)
Ventura Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Thousand O
W Hillcrest Dr
W Hillcrest Dr
W Janss Rd
Lynn Rd
Lynn Rd
Lynn Rd
Borchard Rd
W Aven idaDe Los Arboles
ALTERNATIVE 3
1 2
3 4
1 2
3 4
5 5
628
629 630
631
632
634 633
635
636
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 238 Printed 03/24/2021 #628
Posted by Heather on 02/03/2021 at 3:24am [Comment ID: 598] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
It’s really just about money !!
If I wanted to live in LA I would.
99% of this community does not want the flash or traffic that’s why the live here.
Reply by k on 02/03/2021 at 12:32pm [Comment ID: 603] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -2
Agree!
Reply by Betsy on 03/14/2021 at 6:18pm [Comment ID: 1638] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I love this look. The large common areas allow easy strolling and window shopping. We can have a walkable, bikeable city where there is enough density to support public transportation and protected bike and walking paths. #629
Posted by kristen toscano on 02/11/2021 at 6:32pm [Comment ID: 645] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 2, Disagree: -2
I am very concerned about the height of several proposed buildings in any and all alternatives. I see some that look like 5 stories high!! This would ruin the nature of Thousand Oaks. Not only is it an eyesore but the added strain on infrastructure like water, and sewer would be a burden. Not to even mention the additional traffic and parking problems that would be added ... all of which would severely compromise our way of life.
If we wanted to live in a city we could easily find a place elsewhere. We like the more rural feeling here. Why are you continually trying to change it? Reply by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 4:02pm [Comment ID: 1828] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
Thousand Oaks has nearly 130,000 residents and sprawls over miles. Adding 5 story buildings in a few places is not likely the change the overall character of the city, and not going to block views from more than a handful of angles. #630
Posted by Ms. Hale on 02/25/2021 at 9:28pm [Comment ID: 1173] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
I am worried this will turn the area into Santa Monica! High density, mixed use - creates too much traffic/congestion for the two lane roads to handle and the surrounding TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 239 Printed 03/24/2021 residential neighborhoods to deal with the overflow. In addition, locals go elsewhere to shop, because it is a pain to shop locally - parking, traffic, no more quick shopping errands, etc. Plus, high density is aesthetically very unappealing. It invites the crime element too. It is unsafer for pedestrians to walk and/or kids to ride their bikes due to more cars being on the road. I suggest lower density for this area with a current T.O., California vibe to the plan and overall design. Finally, I think, all of the commercial office properties should be re-examined too, due to more white-collar workers will have the opportunity and will continue to work from home in the future. #631
Posted by Denis Dux on 03/05/2021 at 9:16pm [Comment ID: 1289] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This is Hilarious..... Put this building on a flood plane. #632
Posted by Denis Dux on 02/06/2021 at 9:25pm [Comment ID: 623] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
This whole review is so confusing. how can regular people give this any approval? The height of these buildings is ridiculous, where is Measure E requirement that we get to vote. Here is the S.F valley coming to Conejo Valley.
#633
Posted by Cynthia Futvoye on 02/22/2021 at 4:34pm [Comment ID: 929] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: -1
The people who designed this do not live here. #4 does not support the principles you laid out. This is going to attract crime, homeless encampments, traffic, less outdoor living. If you are going to destroy our green space, can you build something we can use like a place for the family to have fun such as food trucks at a park which also offers a lake atmosphere.
#634
Posted by Robin Berman on 03/16/2021 at 2:53am [Comment ID: 1924] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Increase allowable housing density here. Why no condos? Townhouses? #635
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 1:32pm [Comment ID: 1779] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Add mixed use back inside the industrial park here. Do not add more of anything closer to the freeway. Amgen has been permitted by the City to do way too much TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 240 Printed 03/24/2021 building out already, and without the consideration of the NP residents. #636
Posted by karen wilburn on 02/05/2021 at 12:43pm [Comment ID: 614] - Link Agree: 11, Disagree: -4
You cannot put multi story mixed use buildings in this area. It is an island completely surrounded by 1 & 2 story single family homes & will destroy the surrounding neighborhoods. The other proposed change areas are all on major corridors, or in current retail/comml areas & are more appropriate for mixed housing. This area needs to remain as currently zoned or at the very most changed to no more than Neighborhood Low-Medium or Medium.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 241 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 44
MOORPARK RD. & WEST T.O. BLVD. AREA
KEY FEATURES
• Identifies three mixed-use neighborhoods: 1) at the
Oaks Mall (Mixed-Use High); 2) at Janss Marketplace
(Mixed-Use Low); and 3) near the intersection of
Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Boardwalk Road
(Mixed-Use Medium)
• Maintains commercial uses along the majority of
Moorpark Road (except for Janss Marketplace).
• Maintains Commercial Regional uses between The
Oaks Mall and Moorpark south of Hillcrest. This
would allow hotels, retail and office uses to support
the mixed-use development in the surrounding
areas.
• Maintains office, retail, and commercial uses along
Highway 101 south of Thousand Oaks Boulevard and
north of Hillcrest.
MIXED-USE
Mixed-Use Low
(>20 to 30 du/acre, 0.25 FAR)
Mixed-Use Medium
(>30 to 45 du/acre, 0.5 FAR)
Mixed-Use High
(>45 to 60 du/acre, 1.0 FAR)
Moorpark Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks Blvd
W Hillcrest Dr
W Janss Rd
Lynn Rd
Erbes Rd
E Hillcrest Dr
E Hillcrest Dr
S Westlake Blvd
N Westlake Blvd
N
S Westlake Blvd
ALTERNATIVE 1
1 2
3 4
1 2 3
4 637
638
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 242 Printed 03/24/2021 #637
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 1:37pm [Comment ID: 1780] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Again, you have empty retail spaces that can be filled. You have retail strip malls that haven't been updated since 1990 (across from Burlington). You have the retail mall at Janss/Moorpark that has too much parking lot and could put move fast food places there with shaded joint eating areas in between along the Moorpark rd area. Don't build more strip malls, mixed or otherwise.
#638
Posted by kk on 02/05/2021 at 5:37pm [Comment ID: 619] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: -3
How can you put any high density residential in any of these areas and maintain any kind of traffic flow? It's already a mess. Assuming everyone is going to live and work in the same area, even with mixed use facilities, is not realistic.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 243 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 45
KEY FEATURES
• Strong focus on mixed-use development throughout
this area compared to other alternatives.
• Allows mixed-use development at The Oaks Mall
(Mixed-Use Low), at Janss Marketplace (Mixed-Use
Medium), along Moorpark Road, Hillcrest Drive,
and Thousand Oaks Boulevard (Mixed-Use Low).
Compared to the other alternatives, there is more
Mixed-Use Low and less Mixed-Use Medium and
High compared to the other alternatives.
• Maintains a relatively small amount of commercially
designated land compared to Alternatives 2 and 3.
The commercial land is focused in 3 areas: 1) east of
Moorpark Road and South of Hillcrest adjacent to
Highway 101; 2) north of Hillcrest Drive and east of
Wilbur Road; along Moorpark Road north of Wilbur
Road.
ALTERNATIVE 2
MOORPARK RD. & WEST T.O. BLVD. AREA
MIXED-USE
Mixed-Use Low
(>20 to 30 du/acre, 0.25 FAR)
Mixed-Use Medium
(>30 to 45 du/acre, 0.5 FAR)
Mixed-Use High
(>45 to 60 du/acre, 1.0 FAR)
Moorpark Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks Blvd
W Hillcrest Dr
W Janss Rd
Lynn Rd
Erbes Rd
E Hillcrest Dr
E Hillcrest Dr
S Westlake Blvd
N Westlake Blvd
N W
S Westlake Blvd
1 2
3 4
1 2
3 4
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 244 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 46
KEY FEATURES
• Focuses mixed-use development along Thousand
Oaks Boulevard and Moorpark Road with two MixedUse High nodes at Janss Marketplace and along Thousand Oaks Boulevard near the intersection with
Boardwalk Road.
• Creates an employment-focused area (designated
at Industrial Low) along Hillcrest Drive and Wilbur
Roads.
• Maintains commercial uses at The Oaks Mall but
allows a mix of residential uses (single-family,
townhomes, and small multifamily buildings) on the
west side of the mall.
• Allows for increased multifamily residential densities (at Residential Medium) compared to Alternatives
1 and 2 in the area bounded by Wilbur Road,
Hodencamp Road, and Hillcrest Drive.
MIXED-USE
Mixed-Use Low
(>20 to 30 du/acre, 0.25 FAR)
Mixed-Use Medium
(>30 to 45 du/acre, 0.5 FAR)
Mixed-Use High
(>45 to 60 du/acre, 1.0 FAR)
Moorpark Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Ventura Fwy
Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks Blvd
W Hillcrest Dr
W Janss Rd
Lynn Rd
Erbes Rd
E Hillcrest Dr
E Hillcrest Dr
S Westlake Blvd
N Westlake Blvd
N W
S Westlake Blvd
ALTERNATIVE 3
MOORPARK RD. & WEST T.O. BLVD. AREA
1 2
3 4
1 2
3 4
5 5
639
640
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 245 Printed 03/24/2021 #639
Posted by Darren Bovard on 03/04/2021 at 5:01pm [Comment ID: 1272] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -2
Janss Marketplace needs the ability to adapt and change to the new retail environment.
The center has an antiquated layout and there are portions of the center that could be converted to hotel, residential, mixed use, etc. I think giving Janss only 1 land use designation would fall short of the flexibility it requires. The 3 land use designations I see working or Mixed Use High, Mixed Use Medium and Commercial Regional. If only one can be chosen it would have to be Mixed Use High to allow for the most flexibility. #640
Posted by Jan Leo on 03/05/2021 at 2:13pm [Comment ID: 1279] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
The car traffic in this area is becoming heavy as we have lost a lane due to the bike lane. not a good idea to add more residential when streets can not be widened.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 246 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 47
DOWNTOWN AND T.O. BLVD. AREA
KEY FEATURES
• Focuses activity on the Downtown area by allowing
a limited amount of Mixed-Use High (buildings up
to 5-6 stories with up to 60 units per acre) between
Conejo School Road and Erbes Road.
• Maintains Mixed-Use Low for the majority of
Thousand Oaks Boulevard. This is the same use and
intensity as is currently allowed in the Thousand
Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan.
• Maintains commercial uses on the Toyota Dealership
on Thousand Oaks Boulevard east of Conejo School
Road.
• Generally maintains the residential land use
designations in the neighborhoods north and south of
Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
• Maintains neighborhood-focused commercial uses
at Rancho Road. This is a change from the Thousand
Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan.
Moorpar
Ventura Fwy
Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks Blvd
Kanan Rd
E Hillcrest Dr
E Hillcrest Dr
S Westlake Blvd
N Westlake Blvd
S Westlake Blvd
ALTERNATIVE 1
1 2
3 4
1 2
3 4
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
651 650
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 247 Printed 03/24/2021 #641
Posted by Youth Commission on 02/17/2021 at 8:35pm [Comment ID: 731] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Outdoor gathering spaces for all groups to meet and to not be judged by their background. Also, more coffee shops.
#642
Posted by Youth Commission on 02/17/2021 at 8:36pm [Comment ID: 733] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
A variety of affordable housing types.
#643
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 1:41pm [Comment ID: 1781] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
What? 5-6 stories high units???? We do not want to be the S.F. Valley!!!!!! I'm sorry, but as I am reading more and more of your plans, I am getting very angry. You keep this up and you will have people moving out of this community and losing tax dollars.
You already have an issue with keeping businesses here, be it small or large. Building more is not the answer. Common sense in making better use of what you already have is the answer. Begin there.
#644
Posted by Anne Marquart on 02/22/2021 at 11:16pm [Comment ID: 950] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
This retail area backs directly to a residential neighborhood. Currently views from backyards and at the end of the street are of trees and skies and mountains. Any change in zoning should retain the current building heights of 1 story from the DIY Center all the way to the Ralphs.
#645
Posted by Karen maloney on 02/18/2021 at 11:53am [Comment ID: 757] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
This area is currently one storie businesses near the car wash and the new assisted living, (Dusenburg). There is also a roundabout here and a fire station. This area development should be commercial or or med density residential never higher than two stories. This is a busy road as is.
#646
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 248 Printed 03/24/2021 Posted by Jane Lovitts on 02/09/2021 at 5:08pm [Comment ID: 639] - Link Agree: 13, Disagree: -3
What happened to maximum 2 storey buildings? I for one am not in favor of making this town a mini San Fernando Valley!
#647
Posted by Karen Chima on 03/14/2021 at 3:45pm [Comment ID: 1628] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Based on the light purple color, this is mixed-use low along TO Blvd whereas Alt 2 & Alt 3 are mixed use Medium. I'm confused because that is not what it says under Key Features.
#648
Posted by vanessa p on 02/23/2021 at 5:42am [Comment ID: 974] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 6, Disagree: 0
no mixed use. We have enough empty spots elsewhere in the city for more residential. #649
Posted by Jan Leo on 03/05/2021 at 2:16pm [Comment ID: 1281] - Link Agree: 8, Disagree: -2
What happened to the cities low profile buildings. No one wants multi story apartments and townhomes in our rural city. Learn something from San Fernando valley which is overcrowded and an eyesore.
#650
Posted by Michele on 02/16/2021 at 6:41pm [Comment ID: 719] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 11, Disagree: -2
I am against any building up, in Downtown T.O.. It seems the focus should be how do we, SAVE and PRESERVE this stretch of small business and shops while keeping its charm. Ventura has closed Main Street to cars in order to help their small business owners and it is working. There is renewed foot traffic because of a smart decision. I think preservation is more important in some of these unique little towns. #651
Posted by Jaki Kackert on 02/27/2021 at 8:39pm [Comment ID: 1217] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: -1
Nothing over 3 stories!
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 249 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 48
KEY FEATURES
• Focuses new development on Thousand Oaks
Boulevard by increasing the land use designation
to Mixed-Use Medium. This results in more
development potential along Thousand Oaks
Boulevard than Alternative 1. In this alternative,
the Toyota Dealership would allow mixed-use
development.
• Generally maintains the residential land use
designations in the neighborhoods north and south of
Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
• Maintains neighborhood-focused commercial uses
at Rancho Road. This is a change from the Thousand
Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan.
DOWNTOWN AND T.O. BLVD. AREA
Moorpar
Ventura Fwy
Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks Blvd
Kanan Rd
E Hillcrest Dr
E Hillcrest Dr
S Westlake Blvd
N Westlake Blvd
S Westlake Blvd
ALTERNATIVE 2
1 2
3 4
1 2
3 4
652
653
654
655
656
657 658
659
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 250 Printed 03/24/2021 #652
Posted by Youth Commission on 02/17/2021 at 8:56pm [Comment ID: 744] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
More parking options in downtown area.
#653
Posted by Youth Commission on 02/17/2021 at 8:41pm [Comment ID: 736] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
More outdoor activities because we will have to stay outdoors after COVID most likely. #654
Posted by Youth Commission on 02/17/2021 at 8:40pm [Comment ID: 735] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Shorter buildings with open spaces for gathering in between. #655
Posted by Mary Anne Van Zuyle on 03/11/2021 at 11:20pm [Comment ID: 1509] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I hope there are spaces like this in EVERY neighborhood. This is why I like the Village Centers concept.
#656
Posted by Anne Marquart on 02/22/2021 at 11:17pm [Comment ID: 951] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
This retail area backs directly to residential backyards - any zoning change should not change the view homeowners currently have out the back of their homes - which is trees and sky.
#657
Posted by Justin Link on 02/16/2021 at 9:27pm [Comment ID: 725] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
Mixed-use development should be accompanied by mid-sized retail to serve residents. #658
Posted by Youth Commission on 02/17/2021 at 8:46pm [Comment ID: 740] - Link TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 251 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I would prefer Alternative 2 with options for outdoor spaces for people to gather. This Alternative has more mixed-use medium land uses spread out. #659
Posted by Youth Commission on 02/17/2021 at 8:56pm [Comment ID: 743] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Please make sure solar panels are included on all rooftops and let's go beyond what the State mandates for sustainable buildings and environmental practices.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 252 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 49
KEY FEATURES
• Maintains strong focus on mixed-use development.
• Remains similar to Alternative 2 in that most parcels fronting Thousand Oaks Boulevard are Mixed-Use
Medium, which is an increase in intensity compared
to the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan.
• Converts some parcels to commercial only uses.
These are the Toyota Dealership and the parcels
fronting Duesenberg. This is a change from the
Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan.
• Generally maintains the residential land use
designations in the neighborhoods north and south of
Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
• Maintains neighborhood-focused commercial uses
at Rancho Road. This is a change from the Thousand
Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan.
DOWNTOWN AND T.O. BLVD. AREA
Moorpar
Ventura Fwy
Thousand Oaks Blvd
Thousand Oaks Blvd
Kanan Rd
E Hillcrest Dr
E Hillcrest Dr
S Westlake Blvd
N Westlake Blvd
S Westlake Blvd
ALTERNATIVE 3
1 2
3 4
1 2
3 4 660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 253 Printed 03/24/2021 #660
Posted by Youth Commission on 02/17/2021 at 8:59pm [Comment ID: 745] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Offer a variety of housing types to avoid gentrification. #661
Posted by Youth Commission on 02/17/2021 at 8:45pm [Comment ID: 739] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
Repurpose unused areas for fundraisers like food truck night. #662
Posted by Youth Commission on 02/17/2021 at 8:43pm [Comment ID: 737] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Repurpose unused areas for smaller gatherings (seasonal events). #663
Posted by Mary Anne Van Zuyle on 03/15/2021 at 10:21pm [Comment ID: 1864] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Is this Santa Barbara? This is such a great street for walking! I want that here in Thousand Oaks.
#664
Posted by Jan Leo on 03/05/2021 at 2:28pm [Comment ID: 1283] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
Should not be congesting TO Blvd with high rise housing. The lanes will not support more traffic.
#665
Posted by Kyle Thorsen on 02/03/2021 at 5:23pm [Comment ID: 607] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -5
This seems like another area where High density makes sense. #666
Posted by Kyle Thorsen on 02/03/2021 at 5:14pm [Comment ID: 605] - Link Type: Suggestion
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 254 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 2, Disagree: -5
I have a couple parcels on this block between chiquita and los Feliz I would like to see this zoned High density instead of Medium-High. It's walking distance to the lakes and City Hall. In alternative 3 you have the north on that block already zoned high. #667
Posted by Karen maloney on 02/18/2021 at 11:59am [Comment ID: 759] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
This is a heritage section of Thousand Oaks, the image is small town valley charm, it should remain commercial facing T.O. Blvd, one storie, maybe behind a small apartment of 40 units, one storie.
#668
Posted by Karen maloney on 02/18/2021 at 11:58am [Comment ID: 758] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
This is a heritage section of Thousand Oaks, the image is small town valley charm, it should remain commercial facing T.O. Blvd, one storie, maybe behind a small apartment of 40 units, one storie.
#669
Posted by Kyle Thorsen on 02/03/2021 at 5:22pm [Comment ID: 606] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: -2
It would be nice to see all these properties on Erbs zoned High density as well instead of medium high since they are on a main street and waking distance to the Blvd. In general making more of these smaller lots with older housing high density would be an incentive and allow developers to build more projects and get more properties reassessed. This will help the city to bring in more tax revenue and allow a more robust and broad housing market where a competitive rental market can flourish.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 255 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 50
WESTLAKE AND EAST END AREA
KEY FEATURES
• Focuses on creating mixed-use nodes in several
locations while also creating an expanded
employment center.
• Creates mixed-use nodes at the intersection of
Westlake Boulevard and Thousand Oaks Boulevard (in
the Promenade at Westlake), on the “Kmart” parcel
and at Westlake Plaza and Center.
• Maintains strong employment focus in the
Townsgate employment district.
• Expands employment opportunities in industrial
area at the east end of Thousand Oaks Boulevard by
increasing the land use designation to Industrial Flex
to allow office and R&D uses at up to 2.0 FAR.
• Maintains commercial uses along Highway 101 in
the Auto Mall and the Townsgate commercial area
adjacent to Westlake Plaza.
• Maintains Auto Mall as a commercial use.
Ventura Fwy
Thousand Oaks Blvd
E Hillcrest Dr
S Westlake Blvd
N Westlak
S Westlake Blvd
ALTERNATIVE 1
1 2
3 4A
4B
1 2
3 4
670
671
672
674673
675
676
677 678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 256 Printed 03/24/2021 #670
Posted by Karen Maloney on 02/10/2021 at 4:37pm [Comment ID: 641] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Will this alternative increase noise pollution, obscure the views of the mountains for Westlake Hills neighborhood, increase traffic, smog, put a strain on our neighborhood park, decrease our home values and turn an attractive intersection into a busy unattractive, congested urban area? Will we have to drive further to get groceries as the plaza will be converted to a high rise?
#671
Posted by Robin Berman on 03/16/2021 at 2:57am [Comment ID: 1925] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
The area by westlake high school is already very congested with traffic. This needs to be taken into consideration.
#672
Posted by Anne on 02/22/2021 at 11:46pm [Comment ID: 958] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: -1
The Kmart location is a good spot for residential but it can not support high density because the underpass at Hampshire and the 101 is very cramped and dangerous as is.
Reply by Wes M on 03/01/2021 at 8:29pm [Comment ID: 1236] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
Agreed, this is a great location for Multi Family or dense residential. #673
Posted by Tony Avila on 03/10/2021 at 3:15pm [Comment ID: 1412] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
These areas are excellent for residential use. The site is close proximity to major freeways, business and schools.
#674
Posted by Zaya S. Younan on 03/10/2021 at 3:35pm [Comment ID: 1413] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: -4
Younan Properties has been a business owner in Thousand Oaks for the past 20 years. Not only do we work, but we also live in Thousand Oaks so we know what the needs of the area ultimately are. We would support high-density residential TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 257 Printed 03/24/2021 development because the area needs it. We should welcome such investments as it will benefit our town.
#675
Posted by Andrew Kuo on 03/04/2021 at 7:37pm [Comment ID: 1273] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
These areas are underdeveloped and underutilized, and are prime opportunity sites for new housing:
1) Excess infill land that would not displace current businesses 2) Proximate to major businesses and amenities/services 3) Shifts proposed new housing away from congested TO Blvd 4) Can augment the employment focus of this area to provide much needed housing for employees
#676
Posted by Jan Leo on 03/05/2021 at 2:25pm [Comment ID: 1282] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: 0
Old K-Mart site good for low profile residential. What about the freeway there? Needs to be resolved.
Reply by Phil Clark on 03/15/2021 at 12:34am [Comment ID: 1695] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
The 101 solution should also provide a safe way for bikes and pedestrians to cross from S to N of 101, accessing TO Blvd businesses. #677
Posted by William Younan on 03/10/2021 at 4:00pm [Comment ID: 1414] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: -3
I have lived in Westlake Village for 17 years and went to school at Oaks Christian. This area desperately needs affordable housing. I know a lot of younger people who work in the Westlake/Thousand Oaks area and they are forced to live in Woodland Hills or even further and commute to work every day since they can't afford to live in the area.
This has resulted in them quitting their jobs and working closer to where they work. I am not worried about the additional traffic being brought in at all and think this would be an amazing project! The city has to start thinking about the affordable housing crisis and do its part in offering a solution.
#678
Posted by Noah Tillipman on 02/02/2021 at 11:29pm [Comment ID: 595] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 7, Disagree: -5
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 258 Printed 03/24/2021 Should be high density housing
#679
Posted by Margaret Mohler on 02/19/2021 at 5:45pm [Comment ID: 809] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: -1
Unlike the other mall sites along the 101 corridor the Kmart site has a bottle neck getting on and off the freeway. I like housing there but low rise or mixed use low rise to avoid expensive traffic modifications.
#680
Posted by Andy on 02/12/2021 at 8:09pm [Comment ID: 650] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 4, Disagree: -12
All of these options for Westlake would be a welcome change. Very much like the idea of adding residential to the large retail centers. Parking would be the only concern. #681
Posted by Elizabeth Brown on 02/16/2021 at 4:37pm [Comment ID: 701] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 6, Disagree: 0
Does this include maintaining the current sized AutoMall sign? The community was very adamant that this NOT be allowed to become "Jumbotron" style signage. #682
Posted by Jaki Kackert on 02/27/2021 at 8:45pm [Comment ID: 1219] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: -1
Oh, and don't even get me started on the cluster that was created at the Wendy exit when the Lowe's center went in. Whoever created that traffic flow should be fired. #683
Posted by Karen Maloney on 02/16/2021 at 2:19pm [Comment ID: 697] - Link Agree: 14, Disagree: -3
This is a commercial area at a commercial intersection, the neighborhood behind the plaza is quiet and has an elementary school at its center. The park is well utilized by the surrounding neighborhoods. It is actually perfect, well planned, and one of the first planned neighborhoods in Thousand Oaks. Bordered with condos, townhomes, trailer parks, low income housing, and high density buildings on Hillcrest and Dusenburg.
The mix here works as is! And should keep it as is, no additional high density housing no additional buildings taller than two stories.
#684
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 259 Printed 03/24/2021 Posted by Jaki Kackert on 02/27/2021 at 8:44pm [Comment ID: 1218] - Link Agree: 9, Disagree: 0
Again, no plans about infrastructure development. And the track record for city planning is poor at best. Look at the terrible planning and negotiating at the Lakes, the parking at the Promenade especially when it was first built, the inability to do anything with the Kmart site, and every new commercial development that's been constructed even when our existing ones are struggling to maintain capacity.
#685
Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:47pm [Comment ID: 680] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
I didn't see anything about residential/mixed use across the street from Lake Sherwood area. There are huge properties and that area could use some expansion TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 260 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 51
KEY FEATURES
• Focuses on expanding a diversity of commercial
throughout the area while supporting more mixeduse development south of Highway 101. • Converts the Townsgate employment district into a
mixed-use area to allow residential and retail uses.
The vision is to create mixed-use village centers
(residential above retail) on the Kmart site and
Westlake Plaza and Center with a mix of residential
and office uses along Townsgate.
• Allows mixed-use at higher intensities on the north
side of Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
• Focuses a diversity of commercial uses along
Highway 101. This alternative maintains the current
uses but allows select intensification on Commercial
Regional designated areas.
• Maintains Auto Mall as a commercial use.
ALTERNATIVE 2
WESTLAKE AND EAST END AREA
Ventura Fwy
Thousand Oaks Blvd
E Hillcrest Dr
S Westlake Blvd
N Westlak
S Westlake Blvd
1 2
3 4
1 2
3 4
686
687
688
689
690
691
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 261 Printed 03/24/2021 #686
Posted by Steve Schiedermayer on 02/23/2021 at 5:16pm [Comment ID: 995] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
The K Mart site circus is a disaster. #1 eyesore on east end of town. An unfortunate example of what happens when the City Council no-growth folks and the deluge of regulations and requirements grinds something to a halt. Keep it low height and get this site built out.
Reply by William Younan on 03/10/2021 at 4:05pm [Comment ID: 1415] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I think the city's reluctance to improve the area has been a huge issue. Every city needs growth and development. Let's develop old and unused sites to create beautiful amenities for residents or create additional housing to bring more residents in. The city must adapt and grow.
#687
Posted by Suzanne Luce on 02/19/2021 at 2:19pm [Comment ID: 783] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I ask that we please consider the "neighborhood" that encompasses the north and south of Conejo School Rd (to the school), areas on foothill and willow between Conejo School Rd and Hampshire, as well as Hampshire at Townsgate. This area's kids attend Conejo Elementary and the residents use access points at Conejo School Rd/TO Blvd as well as Hampshire/101 including Hillcrest to Erbs to access other areas of the city. It is an overwhelmed area as far as traffic--one important thing to consider--but also it is important that this area is considered as a comprehensive neighborhood, even though the 101 separates it. It was once one area until it was divided by the 101 and so it should still be considered as a complete area or neighborhood and planned for in this way, not split and divided in directions.
#688
Posted by Mary Anne Van Zuyle on 03/15/2021 at 10:28pm [Comment ID: 1866] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
The KMart site is a relatively large site immediately available for redevelopment. I favor mixed use and a requirement for a substantial number of affordable and workforce housing.
#689
Posted by Elizabeth Brown on 02/16/2021 at 4:40pm [Comment ID: 702] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
This area (near the old Kmart site) is already a high traffic intersection. I'm concerned about adding retail and residential units here ... though pleased that there is TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 262 Printed 03/24/2021 consideration for doing something with the Kmart site - it's such an eyesore. #690
Posted by Karen Maloney on 02/16/2021 at 2:21pm [Comment ID: 698] - Link Agree: 10, Disagree: -1
This is a commercial area at a commercial intersection, the neighborhood behind the plaza is quiet and has an elementary school at its center. The park is well utilized by the surrounding neighborhoods. It is actually perfect, well planned, and one of the first planned neighborhoods in Thousand Oaks. Bordered with condos, townhomes, trailer parks, low income housing, and high density buildings on Hillcrest and Dusenburg. The mix here works as is! And should keep it as is, no additional high density housing no additional buildings taller than two stories.
#691
Posted by Mary Anne Van Zuyle on 03/15/2021 at 10:26pm [Comment ID: 1865] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I think this whole corridor would be great for mixed use. It would join the K-Mart site with the Westlake Plaza. And it is in my backyard! I love it.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 263 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 52
WESTLAKE AND EAST END AREA
KEY FEATURES
• Strengthens employment uses on the east side of the
city by expanding Industrial Low, Industrial Flex, and
commercial uses.
• Focuses mixed-use development along Thousand
Oaks Boulevard and at the Kmart site. The alternative
allows higher intensity mixed-use (up to 45 units per
acre) except for the Promenade at Westlake Village,
which would allow Mixed-Use High to create a
vibrant mixed-use node.
• Maintains Auto Mall as a commercial use.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Ventura Fwy
Thousand Oaks Blvd
E Hillcrest Dr
S Westlake Blvd
N Westlak
S Westlake Blvd
1 2
3 4
1 2
3 4
692
693
694
695
696
697 698
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 264 Printed 03/24/2021 #692
Posted by Suzanne Luce on 02/19/2021 at 2:10pm [Comment ID: 780] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
I've heard it come up in meetings that retail and cinema industries are changing, and even more quickly with covid...are we looking at how the auto industry will change as well? Could a burden be relieved for the auto dealers if the need for space is reduced, yet the market and sales at the auto mall overall remains just as strong. This could free up some space for housing. Or at least should be considered as the area is planned for. I suggest a closer look at this industry for the coming 5-10 or more years and how both the dealers and city can benefit, without losing any sales tax revenue.
Reply by Steve Schiedermayer on 02/23/2021 at 5:19pm [Comment ID: 997] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
Suzanne makes several good points. I'd just differ on the need to maintain the tax revenue at all costs. So what if the City has to shrink some in size, they'd adjust. Kinda like many businesses have had to when their revenues were cut off over the last year
#693
Posted by Anne Marquart on 02/22/2021 at 11:22pm [Comment ID: 953] - Link Agree: 11, Disagree: -3
Westlake High School is here and already has extensive traffic issues in the morning and afternoon. To add medium to high density housing here would create additional traffic. Before rezoning I would like to know how the city plans to deal with the current traffic issues here during week day mornings.
#694
Posted by Anne on 02/22/2021 at 11:50pm [Comment ID: 959] - Link Agree: 11, Disagree: -1
I hear again and again residents are not interested in high density housing. You can create a much more "vibrant" feel but avoiding high density and the traffic that comes with it. It will also impede and the views around our entire town. #695
Posted by Andrew Kuo on 03/04/2021 at 7:41pm [Comment ID: 1274] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
With the pre-screen approval of a potential housing project at the Baxter office site, there are opportunities to add additional housing sites here, and create a strong node of housing to support the area's employer base. Traffic is a valid concern, which is why it is important to provide housing proximate to businesses and reduce trip counts.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 265 Printed 03/24/2021 #696
Posted by Elizabeth Brown on 02/16/2021 at 4:41pm [Comment ID: 703] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 15, Disagree: -1
Again, concerns about adding 'higher intensity mixed use' units at this area which already has congested traffic issues.
#697
Posted by Kenneth Brown on 02/28/2021 at 11:10pm [Comment ID: 1228] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
There seems to be a shortage of employee parking at most all shopping centers. what happened to an employee garage for business owners with some type of transportation (like a tram) available for employees to park off premises and safely get to the store in the shopping center that they work. This would create more room for customers #698
Posted by Kenneth Brown on 02/28/2021 at 11:19pm [Comment ID: 1229] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
There are certain commercial buildings that blanket their building with signs. You can see them close coming up to Conejo Valley Road close to the Toyota dealerships.
This is an eyesore for the City. Why don't you do something about this? It has been years that the City enforces sign controls in this area which reflects on the attractiveness of the City for customers. If you are serious about making Thousand Oaks Blvd. more attractive for shoppers focus on the look of the existing retail operators. By not taking any effective action you are encouraging other retailers to compete for the attention of customers in a manner that is so unattractive. Why would developers want to enhance the City when you cannot control what is already there.
People like Rick Caruso are rare and he has already set the bar. More developers would come in if they thought the attractiveness of the retail centers had some uniformity. If you want an example look at the Downtown Pasadena Redevelopment zone who converted older unattractive buildings to an attractive shopping corridor.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 266 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 53
VILLAGE CENTERS COMPARISON
ALTERNATIVE 1
In Alternative 1 “Village Centers” have a
mix of Mixed-Use Low and Commercial
Neighborhood. This would allow some areas
to add residential uses while others would
remain commercial.
• Village Centers located at Janss and
Moorpark, Arboles and Moorpark, and
Reino consist of both Mixed-Use Low and
Commercial Neighborhood
• Village centers located at Las Brisas and
Via Rio, and Reino and Borchard consist
of only Commercial Neighborhood
• The Lindero and Kanan village center
consists of Residential Neighborhood
Medium only
• The Arboles and Erbes village centers
consists of Mixed-Use low only
ALTERNATIVE 2
Village Centers only allow commercial uses; no residential uses would be allowed. All Village Centers will be designated as Commercial Neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVE 3
All Village Centers would be designated as Mixed-Use Low. This would allow these areas to incorporate residential development in the future.
The village centers are neighborhood commercial centers that offer a mix of daily goods and services for residents, employees, and visitors to easily access. These centers are smaller and more walkable than other commercial centers and are typically located in or near residential neighborhoods. 3 REINO AND KIMBER
2 REINO AND BORCHARD
1 LAS BRISAS AND VIA RIO 4 JANSS AND MOORPARK
5 ARBOLES AND MOORPARK
6 ARBOLES AND ERBES
7 KANAN AND LINDERO
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 700 699
701
702
703
704
705
707 706
708
709
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 267 Printed 03/24/2021 #699
Posted by J Francis on 03/13/2021 at 3:36pm [Comment ID: 1574] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I support possibility of residential mixed-use for all three scenarios. Using some of the shopping center space for low height residential (such as three stories max) would be a good use of retail space that is vacant. And in many cases these areas have more infrastructure (roads, signals, etc) which could support the residential additions; and support more walkable lifestyle (walk to the grocery store, for example).
#700
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/20/2021 at 2:07am [Comment ID: 862] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
On some level it makes sense that small business owners could live near or above their business. These areas are small and not so easy to imagine apartments. #701
Posted by Helen Cox on 03/15/2021 at 6:43pm [Comment ID: 1845] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I like this idea. Provides good flexibility for the future. #702
Posted by Cynthia Wildman on 02/19/2021 at 2:07pm [Comment ID: 778] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: -1
Why is The Village at Paraiso (in Dos Vientos) being proposed to rezone to mixed use inall 3 options? It's a small shopping center and you're considering putting apartments there too? This is located directly next to an ELEMENTARY school. The LAST thing we need is more traffic! Please clarify exactly what these plans would be. The residents live here because of our quiet, safe neighborhood. Do NOT add apartments!
Reply by Betsy on 03/12/2021 at 10:57am [Comment ID: 1525] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -2
The small shopping center has always struggled. Once Dos Vientos residents are in their cars, they drive out of their neighborhood for dining and shopping. Having more people living close to the village would improve the vitality of the center.
#703
Posted by Phil Clark on 03/15/2021 at 12:40am [Comment ID: 1696] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Great place for village center. Make bike path connections so riders can come from Lang Ranch - through Sapwi - and from W of R23 and safely access this village center separate from cars. #704
Posted by Kenneth Brown on 02/28/2021 at 11:31pm [Comment ID: 1230] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Do you think multiple low rise parking garages might be a good idea? You could have energy efficient vehicles that picked up employees (pass required) that an employee could call and get picked up in TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 268 Printed 03/24/2021 a timely manner to get to their ride after work.
Reply by Betsy on 03/14/2021 at 6:28pm [Comment ID: 1639] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
I like the idea of parking behind the retail / businesses. That way non drivers are closer to the street. If we allowed greater density, there would be the critical mass needed for public transportation in some spots. The rise of ride apps shows that many prefer not to use their own cars if viable options are provided. #705
Posted by Anne on 02/22/2021 at 11:51pm [Comment ID: 960] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Focus more attention on under utilized interchanges like the one at Sunset Hills and the 23. There is too much focus on all the 101 interchanges that don't have the room to make lane additions and traffic flow improvements.
#706
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 1:48pm [Comment ID: 1782] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
You insist on adding commercial sites like the one you added across from Albertsons on Reino Rd. I have someone that works at the dental office there and says that most of the time that building is empty. The strip mall where Trader Joes is on Reino is finally full. But the mall itself needs updating and the parking lot hasn't been redone in way too many years. So you allow an unmaintained strip mall to exist and then will build more retail buildings. That will eventually create more empty spaces that don't produce any revenue and create a bad and unhealthy business atmosphere in this NP area? This makes sense to you? Not in our community....
#707
Posted by Eric Trembly on 02/11/2021 at 3:32am [Comment ID: 644] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 12, Disagree: -4
Go back and review the many city hall meeting of 2018/2019 involving this lot. The community has spoken ad nauseum about this particular parcel of land. We do not want residential housing here. The lot should remain commercial with a design that emphasizes social gathering for the surrounding residents who would like to have better access to entertainment and recreational opportunities. All village centers should remain commercial as they have always been intended to serve the specific neighborhoods to which they were built for.
Reply by Betsy on 03/12/2021 at 11:00am [Comment ID: 1526] - Link Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
the shopping centers are dying. Creating housing that is walkable will revitalize the shopping center. Otherwise it is going to stagger along with high profit margin smoke shops and liquor stores while residents have to drive further for better shopping and dining. #708
Posted by Denise Derenthal on 02/13/2021 at 2:28pm [Comment ID: 653] - Link Agree: 6, Disagree: 0
The alternatives for the development of the lot at Maurice and Reino are horrendous. The people have spoken, many times and quite vocally at meetings, that our desire for the neighborhood to be continued as per existing housing. Those alternatives are not the solution in an area like this. The best option for that use is to continue the look of Brighton Lane which is directly across from it. The traffic is already awful. Please don't add to it.
#709
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 269 Printed 03/24/2021 Posted by Denis Dux on 03/06/2021 at 8:23pm [Comment ID: 1290] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
The Cohen property of 3 stories of neighbor medium use next to Albertson's is not compatible with housing around this area. Housing like next door Brighton Lane would work, or keep it as Commercial like it was designed for
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 270 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 54
The maps below show the existing General Plan, and the three citywide land use alternatives combining the areas of change, village centers and the areas of stability.
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 1
ALTERNATIVE 2 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
ALTERNATIVE 3
Erbes Rd
E Olsen Rd
Borchard Rd W Hillcrest Dr
W Lynn Rd
N Westlake Bl
S Westlake Bl
N Lynn Rd
E Kanan R d
N Moorpark Rd
E Janss Rd
E Thousand Oaks Bl
S Reino Rd
E Avenida De Los Arboles
E H illcrest Dr
La Granada Dr
Rancho Conejo Bl
Wendy Dr
Sunset Hil ls Bl
Hampshire Rd
Old C onejo Rd
Via Las Brisas
W Olsen Rd
N Reino Rd
W Potrero Rd
Potrero Rd
Moorpark Rd
Lindero Canyon Rd
E Potrero Rd
Thousand Oaks Bl
Westlake Bl
W Janss Rd
W Wilbur Rd
Agoura Rd
Rancho Dos Vientos
S Ventu Park Rd
Lynn Rd
¤£101
£¤101
¤£101
¤£101
23 UV
UV23
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
City of
Westlake
Village
City of
Simi Valley
City of
Camarillo
°
City of
Agoura Hills
Raimi + Associates 2019 | Data Source: City of Thousand Oaks, County of Ventura, County of Los Angeles Unincorporated Counties Land
City Limits
City Sphere
Major Roads
Freeways
School Adjacent Cities
Existing Park, Golf, Open Space
Proposed Park and Recreational AreaCommercial
Commercial/Residential
High Density Residential Mobile Home Exclusive
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Industrial Low
Industrial Flex
Institutional
Existing Parks, Golf Courses, Open Space
Neighborhood Low
Neighborhood Low-Medium
Neighborhood Medium
Neighborhood Medium-High
Neighborhood High
Mobile Home Exclusive
LAND USE ALTERNATIVES DESIGNATIONS
Mixed-Use Low
Mixed-Use Medium
Mixed-Use High
Commercial Neighborhood
Commercial Town
Commercial Regional
Utilities and Flood Control
Neighborhood Very Low
Neighborhood Rural
Residentially Developable Land
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mobile Home Exclusive
Commercial/Residential
Commercial
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
Industrial
Institutional
School
Existing Park, Golf Course, Open Space
Proposed Park and Recreation Area
Undevelopable Land
Very Low Density Residential
Reserve Residential
710
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 271 Printed 03/24/2021 #710
Posted by Rob Patterson on 02/04/2021 at 11:54am [Comment ID: 609] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
The color coding system on this map is incredibly difficult to discern. The medium, medium/high, and High density are shown by different shades of the same color. It is almost impossible to tell what density the existing Conejo Valley High School area will be. It looks like every alternative is the same though, which means it isn’t an alternative. Our backyards border this property, it is of great concern that this is going to impact our neighborhood in a very negative way.
Reply by Betsy on 03/14/2021 at 6:31pm [Comment ID: 1641] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
try clicking on the globe icon on the upper left. Those maps provide overlays that you can add that I think might help answer your questions.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 272 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 55
ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON
The following charts illustrate different metrics or measurements for the three land use alternatives from an urban design modeling software tool, called UrbanFootprint.
These outputs allow us to compare and contrast future land use decisions and their environmental and health impacts as well as effect on quality of life in the community.
Four scenarios are presented. The current General Plan is the baseline against which the three land use alternatives are measured. The metrics evaluate full build-out (100% maximum development across all parcels in the city) for all four scenarios. The realistic amount of development expected in the next 25 years will be significantly less than full build-out (see discussion of growth projections on Page 16).
The following metrics are evaluated:
Housing units: All four scenarios allow the number of housing units as established by Measure E.
Jobs: All three alternatives provide additional capacity for new jobs in the city, with the highest number of jobs projected in Alternative 3.
The other metrics are:
• Access to Retail
• Access to Transit
• Walking/Biking Travel Mode Share
• Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Household
• Daily Vehicle Trips Per Household
• Household Annual GHG Emissions
The three alternatives perform similarly across these metrics and generally improve conditions compared to the current General Plan by increasing walkability and bikeability, decreasing car dependence, and reducing GHG emissions. The three alternatives propose mixed use near existing goods, services, jobs, and transit which result in lowered annual vehicle miles traveled, reduced daily vehicle trips, and increased mode split of walking and cycling.
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS
1970 General
Plan
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
ANNUAL VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
PER HOUSEHOLD
1970 General
Plan
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
-15%
-17%
-15%
WALKING/BIKING TRAVEL MODE SHARE
1970 General
Plan
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
+14%
+13%
+15%
TOTAL JOBS
1970 General
Plan
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
+68%
+69%
+91%
DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS PER HOUSEHOLD
1970 General
Plan
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
-17%
-19%
-19%
ACCESS TO TRANSIT WITHIN 5 MINUTES WALK
1970 General
Plan
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
+42%
+48%
+42%
ACCESS TO RETAIL WITHIN 5 MINUTE WALK
1970 General
Plan
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
+21%
+26%
+23%
HOUSEHOLD ANNUAL GHG EMISSIONS
(Vehicle emissions, building energy, and water energy per household)
1970 General
Plan
Alt 1
Alt 2
Alt 3
-12%
-13%
-12%
711
712
713
716 715 714 717
718
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 273 Printed 03/24/2021 #711
Posted by Cindy on 03/15/2021 at 4:45pm [Comment ID: 1837] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: 0
I've noticed lots of developments in our city that are segregated housing and group homes for seniors. I would much rather see community and integrated housing that supports our seniors, those aging towards disabilities and those of us with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Evidence, especially from COVID-19 has shown how these segregated housing and group home settings are deadly, not equitable, and the residents and their caregivers are often forgotten about because they are not adequately integrated with their community.
I'd like to put a provision or policy in the General Plan to mitigate this type of housing development. The vision of TO for the future is affordable and multi-generational where family can care for one another, afford to live in the same area, and our parents/grandparents can age in place with interdependent support. #712
Posted by kk on 02/05/2021 at 5:44pm [Comment ID: 620] - Link Agree: 12, Disagree: -1
Cycling and walking are generally done for exercise, not as a mode of transportation. You can't assume less car traffic based on any of these alternatives.
Reply by Betsy on 03/14/2021 at 6:40pm [Comment ID: 1642] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
The growth of Uber and Lyft along with electric scooters suggest strong interest that younger folks have in leaving their cars behind. Even though I am older, I love visiting more walkable cities with usable public transportation. If we build it, they will come.
Reply by Doug Baker on 03/16/2021 at 12:30am [Comment ID: 1887] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Cycling and walking are preferred means of transportation and their use is depressed because of the single-use zoning which spreads residential, commercial, and industrial areas apart. #713
Posted by Kat Selm on 02/19/2021 at 1:30am [Comment ID: 773] - Link Agree: 9, Disagree: 0
If the realistic growth is significantly less than why does the general plan have to accommodate for full buildout? #714
Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:58pm [Comment ID: 683] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 11, Disagree: -2
In 2021, the Very Low/Low income is at 41% required, Middle Income at 36% and Above Middle at 40%.
In 2045, Very Low/Low is now taking 50% of dwellings, Middle income only 20%, and Above Middle at 30%.
These goals/strategies alone if enacted at these new revised percentages will lower the overall quality of life for residents of Thousand Oaks and bring more crime to the area. You are squeezing out the middle class which is what Thousand Oaks is made of. The overall plan needs another pass to correct these ratios. #715
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 274 Printed 03/24/2021 Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:54pm [Comment ID: 682] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 1, Disagree: -2
Please provide research on crime statistics related to mixed use properties that already exist, crime statistics of very low (section 8) residential living. Show research on how Section 8 housing residents effect other areas related to crime. Ventura has many buildings that can be used for comparisons.
Reply by Steve Schiedermayer on 02/23/2021 at 5:26pm [Comment ID: 999] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: -2
Tim - I asked a similar question early on, which I think is a key, but completely ignored point. The Planning folks don't want anything about crime and housing density to be a consideration. Indiana University Study - "There seems to be something about (high-density residential) units that is associated with all types of serious violent crime, even controlling for the other factors in the model," the authors write. "Apparently, high-density housing units promote serious violent crime." Also Neighborhood Scout shows where higher and lower levels of crime currently exist in TO #716
Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:51pm [Comment ID: 681] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -2
The traffic is already congested as you get to Hampshire and head north on 101, and on the 23 fwy. Initial planning of development (Land Use Case #4 (new one :) should be on East end of community and south of the 101. The old KMart building is where other apartments already exists; across from Lake Sherwood, and near Westlake High School (old commercial buildings. This would negate more traffic in the heart of the city and provide for common sense growth in areas vacant or needing of rehabilitation. #717
Posted by John Kurfess on 02/09/2021 at 6:58pm [Comment ID: 640] - Link Type: Question
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
(1) Which alternative ends up with the greatest amount of land area covered with buildings higher than 4 stories? (2) Does allocating as much space as Alternative 3 does to industrial uses in Rancho Conejo force the building of housing in the remaining area, which results in this housing having to be multi story? #718
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/20/2021 at 2:19am [Comment ID: 863] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Walking and cycling, and may I add public transit are designed into a community. If I put jobs in one place and homes far away then you either drive or go without a job. Sort of like health care and voting.
One way to limit use is to separate the locations by insurmountable distance. This is old school stuff. You get the community you design. Things happen not by chance but by design. It just matters who sets up the rules.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 275 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 56
PROPOSED LAND USE LAND AREA
(IN ACRES)
% OF TOTAL
LAND AREA
RESIDENTIAL
Neighborhood Rural 2,564 8.2%
Neighborhood Very Low 2,037 6.5%
Neighborhood Low 6,636 21.1%
Neighborhood Low Medium 809 2.6%
Neighborhood Medium 395 1.3%
Neighborhood Medium High 240 0.8%
Neighborhood High - 0.0%
Mobile Home Park 116 0.4%
12,798 40.7%
MIXED USE
Mixed Low 387 1.2%
Mixed Medium 192 0.6%
Mixed High 73 0.2%
653 2.1%
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Commercial Neighborhood 337 1.1%
Commercial Town 175 0.6%
Commercial Regional 174 0.6%
Industrial Low 434 1.4%
Industrial Flex 442 1.4%
1,561 5.0%
OTHER
Institutional 1,169 3.7%
Utilities & Flood Control 263 0.8%
Open Space, Golf Courses, Parks
and Water
14,975 47.7%
16,408 52.2%
Total 31,420 100.0%
CITYWIDE LAND USE TOTALS
PROPOSED LAND USE LAND AREA
(IN ACRES)
% OF TOTAL
LAND AREA
RESIDENTIAL
Neighborhood Rural 2,564 8.2%
Neighborhood Very Low 2,037 6.5%
Neighborhood Low 6,643 21.1%
Neighborhood Low Medium 776 2.5%
Neighborhood Medium 425 1.4%
Neighborhood Medium High 226 0.7%
Neighborhood High 2 0.0%
Mobile Home Park 116 0.4%
12,789 40.7%
MIXED USE
Mixed Low 454 1.4%
Mixed Medium 267 0.8%
Mixed High - 0.0%
720 2.3%
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Commercial Neighborhood 360 1.1%
Commercial Town 163 0.5%
Commercial Regional 239 0.8%
Industrial Low 354 1.1%
Industrial Flex 426 1.4%
1,542 4.9%
OTHER
Institutional 1,144 3.6%
Utilities & Flood Control 249 0.8%
Open Space, Golf Courses, Parks
and Water
14,975 47.7%
16,369 52.1%
Total 31,420 100.0%
PROPOSED LAND USE LAND AREA
(IN ACRES)
% OF TOTAL
LAND AREA
RESIDENTIAL
Neighborhood Rural 2,564 8.2%
Neighborhood Very Low 2,037 6.5%
Neighborhood Low 6,628 21.1%
Neighborhood Low Medium 780 2.5%
Neighborhood Medium 389 1.2%
Neighborhood Medium High 224 0.7%
Neighborhood High 63 0.2%
Mobile Home Park 116 0.4%
12,801 40.7%
MIXED USE
Mixed Low 333 1.1%
Mixed Medium 153 0.5%
Mixed High 103 0.3%
588 1.9%
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Commercial Neighborhood 261 0.8%
Commercial Town 129 0.4%
Commercial Regional 192 0.6%
Industrial Low 391 1.2%
Industrial Flex 664 2.1%
1,638 5.2%
OTHER
Institutional 1,169 3.7%
Utilities & Flood Control 249 0.8%
Open Space, Golf Courses, Parks
and Water
14,975 47.7%
16,394 52.2%
Total 31,420 100.0%
ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3
Note: An additional 4,067 acres are in public and private streets and freeways. County Islands and the Sphere of Influence land are not included in these totals. 719
720
721
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 276 Printed 03/24/2021 #719
Posted by mary reyburn on 02/26/2021 at 2:00pm [Comment ID: 1192] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
I can't read Alternative 3 because the copy is cut off at first column with numbers. #720
Posted by Jef Kurfess on 02/25/2021 at 4:10pm [Comment ID: 1162] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
I find this data highly misleading. Options 1, 2 and 3 leave large portions of our area out of consideration for doing anything. These areas should be excluded. We aren't talking about doing anything with these areas. We ARE talking about the areas along TO Blvd and out by Rancho Conejo. The acreage at issue should be the only focus. Every percent on here should use the area we are talking about as the denominator of the fraction used for computing the percentage, not the "total land area".
To be even more helpful, each of the land use categories should also be expressed as the maximum number of stories it can be and a table provided that shows e.g. Option 1 has 10% 6 stories or more, 30% 4-5 stories, 50% 2-3 stories, and 10% one story.
#721
Posted by Debbie Williams on 03/15/2021 at 1:50pm [Comment ID: 1784] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Not to be rude, but honestly what am I to make of these maps. What are they suppose to be telling me. I can't even tell what areas are what on these maps.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 277 Printed 03/24/2021 City of Thousand Oaks Land Use Alternatives 57
THANK YOU FOR REVIEWING THE LAND USE
ALTERNATIVES BRIEFING BOOK!
Please use the link provided here or on the website - TOaks2045.org - to respond to a survey about the land use alternatives. We appreciate your feedback.
722
723
724
725
726
727
729728
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 278 Printed 03/24/2021 #722
Posted by Cindy on 03/15/2021 at 4:37pm [Comment ID: 1836] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
THANKS to all for your contributions of time, energy and thoughtfulness. There has clearly been lots of work put into this important project! #723
Posted by Amy K Leicht on 02/24/2021 at 5:25pm [Comment ID: 1114] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
While considering the future of our city we should look at the fact that we are surrounded by "Open Space" full of fire fuel rich with invasive weeds like mustard grass. As beautiful as it is in the Spring it dries out and becomes fire fuel in the Fall/Winter. Our fire season is becoming longer due to climate change. The rain is coming later and later and the dried brush from the Spring is ready to burn during the Santa Ana wind events through December. We should be doing more brush clearing in our surrounding hills to help limit/reduce the amount of flying embers that will inevitably land in our yards and on our houses. COSCA manages the City land and should be held accountable for keeping up to date with the growth of our city. The brush clearing requirements set by the Ventura Fire Hazard Reduction Program haven't been updated since the 1990's. We are considered a WUI (wildland urban interface) city and we need to take steps to prevent another Woolsey fire or worse. https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/fire-brush-clearance #724
Posted by Diana Merville on 02/23/2021 at 11:43pm [Comment ID: 1011] - Link Agree: 13, Disagree: -3
We moved out of the San Fernando Valley to Thousand Oaks 21 years ago specifically to live in a lower density community with more of a rural feel. This proposed General Plan revision would sadly transform Thousand Oaks into a mirror image of the high density landscape that we escaped from. What a travesty! This isn’t progress. This is commercialization rearing it’s ugly head and destroying the simple family “country” community feel that we moved here for. Shame on you, City Council!
#725
Posted by Mary A Reyburn on 03/10/2021 at 5:00pm [Comment ID: 1416] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
The survey monkey will not allow me to express my comments and select the items I agree with. I Started the process and got as far as question 9 and it won't let me go further. Is this a glitch or is it deliberate so that you can not record my comments? Reply by AM Winic on 03/15/2021 at 11:51pm [Comment ID: 1881] - Link TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 279 Printed 03/24/2021 Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
We can only HOPE they are going to LISTEN to our comments. We're taking the time to leave comments. I hope they actually incorporate what we, taxpayers, are asserting.
#726
Posted by Susan Meraz on 02/19/2021 at 3:08pm [Comment ID: 789] - Link Agree: 5, Disagree: 0
I agree with planned increased residential on T.O. Blvd. High density buildings need to be blended into the landscape. I am concerned with parking, ingress and egress. T.O.
Blvd is already heavily traveIed. New residents comings and goings will have to be coordinated with traffic lights and current traffic flow. I am especially concerned with the Kmart plan where parking per unit is planned for one and a half. If two people are living in a one bedroom, where is the second driver going to park? This would be a deal breaker for me. Every unit at this complex deserves two parking spots. Why are all of the developers building "Luxury" apartment buildings? That translates to luxury pricing.
Where are the middle income buildings? The developers can agree to set aside units for low income, but what about those who have adequate income? Not everyone is a professional with a three digit income, especially those young people you believe want to move into these new luxury places. The market will be over saturated with these new mixed use places. They will have to compete with each other for tenants. It will take two incomes to afford living there. Back to the necessity of two parking spots for each unit.
Reply by Paulette krishnan on 02/23/2021 at 5:09pm [Comment ID: 993] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
We moved here 2 years ago to this amazing rural suburbia to get out of the over populated/crowded Silicon Valley. Hopeful that the plan gets revised to a significant lower amount of units.
#727
Posted by PB on 02/16/2021 at 5:34pm [Comment ID: 718] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 5, Disagree: 0
The presentation is very thorough. However, it may be difficult for non-tech people to navigate and share their opinions. Seems there needs to be more transparency in a forum that everyone can participate in. Thank you.
#728
Posted by Edward Carloni on 02/25/2021 at 5:28pm [Comment ID: 1165] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
My preference would be for alternative 2, although I wouldn't object to either of the two other alternatives.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 280 Printed 03/24/2021 #729
Posted by Jim and Linda Peddie on 02/23/2021 at 1:38pm [Comment ID: 977] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
We were carefully considering our answers to the survey and timed out!! Do you really want our input? Then give us the time to do a good job! #730
Posted by Monica on 02/24/2021 at 5:30pm [Comment ID: 1119] - Link Agree: 8, Disagree: 0
The 3 lane 101 freeway can not handle any growth. Please do not expand our city without expanding the freeway and roads. Does anyone remember trying to get on the 101 during the woolsey fire? The roads were parking lots. It took 3 hours to go 2 miles.
Reply by Jackson on 03/15/2021 at 1:25am [Comment ID: 1703] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 2, Disagree: -1
Unfortunately expanding freeways only leads to a phenomenon called induced demand and doesn't actually reduce traffic. If denser development is accompanied by improvements in city streets that get more people walking, biking, and taking the bus then that should help alleviate local traffic somewhat, and CalTrans will have to figure out that regional traffic needs a different solution besides widening the freeways.
Reply by AM Winic on 03/15/2021 at 11:49pm [Comment ID: 1880] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: -1
We moved here to get AWAY from all that foot traffic AND car traffic- it is so frustrating that you even THINK is remotely appropriate for Thousand Oaks. We have worked hard to be here and want to REMAIN here. There is no NEED for more people here!!! I do not want this to look like Santa Monica- I moved AWAY from there becuase I did not want to have a car accident with a teen on a scooter coming out of no where. Santa Monica favors the pedestrian, not the car driver. Please, just leave well enough alone!! Something you8 CAN do, is work on CLEANING the city. There is TRASH alongside the interchange from the 101 to 23 in all directions.
And you want to bring more PEOPLE???
#731
Posted by Brenda Bevilacqua on 03/13/2021 at 2:01pm [Comment ID: 1571] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: -1
I’m so sad what is happening to our beautiful community. Looking out at the landscape, seeing views of our hills and open land will now be obstructed by multi-level buildings? This city has grown so much since the 1970’s when I moved here. Our land has been gobbled up and now you want to take the sky! This lovely city is slowly TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 281 Printed 03/24/2021 transforming into being the valley and NOT living in the valley is why people live here! #732
Posted by Robert Curtis Higbee on 02/20/2021 at 2:35am [Comment ID: 864] - Link Agree: 3, Disagree: 0
The answer to Luxury question above is that they are far more profitable. A basic dwelling constructed is very near the cost of a luxury dwelling. This was the "con' in Santa Monica so many years ago. You take your basic apartment building worth so many dollars as it stands. Evict every one for renovations and convert to Luxury units.
Now sell building for many times the original price it was worth. Big money all around.
See ya' later for the poor folk.
#733
Posted by Victor Kamhi on 02/24/2021 at 4:56pm [Comment ID: 1111] - Link Agree: 4, Disagree: 0
I would like to package the alternatives differently, alt 1 for one area, alt 3 for another. the presentation you have gives you no flexibility.
#734
Posted by Scott Collins on 03/15/2021 at 1:34am [Comment ID: 1706] - Link Agree: 1, Disagree: 0
Were implications for open space utilization taken into consideration during the development of these plans? The current Open Space per capita ratio will be reduced, potentially drastically. Could parking at open space access points become fee-based? Will open space users require a use permit to cut down on congestion and, simultaneously, pay for upkeep, maintenance, and extra restorative measures that may be needed due to higher use and impact? Management of open space should be factored in to the planning process.
#735
Posted by Karen Chima on 03/14/2021 at 3:56pm [Comment ID: 1629] - Link Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Thank you for your hard work in putting this presentation together so that we may participate in the future of our city.
#736
Posted by Richard Miner on 02/07/2021 at 3:15am [Comment ID: 625] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 26, Disagree: -4
We do not want Apartments. We moved here because its mainly single family houses.
No one who has invested in their Home want what you are proposing.
TO GPU Briefing Book Layout_2221_Konveio_re.pdf Page 282 Printed 03/24/2021 Reply by Barbara on 02/18/2021 at 8:36pm [Comment ID: 770] - Link Agree: 16, Disagree: -3
I agree 100%, none of these plans make any homeowner here happy. I moved from Hollywood 15 years ago to get away from a big city, looks like if any of this happens, I may have to move again.
Reply by Jan Leo on 03/05/2021 at 2:37pm [Comment ID: 1284] - Link Agree: 11, Disagree: 0
I agree we moved here to get away from high rise density. The majority of people who live here want single family residences. the streets and freeways can not accomodate over building.
#737
Posted by Tim McCarthy on 02/15/2021 at 9:59pm [Comment ID: 684] - Link Type: Suggestion
Agree: 0, Disagree: 0
Overall - I think the presentation was very good and informative. Just need to add a couple of measurements to validate your assumptions.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input/feedback.