May 2025
City of Thousand Oaks
Comprehensive Zoning Code Update
Assessment & Recommendations Memo
Prepared for:
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Prepared by:
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc.
983 Osos Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
ATTACHMENT #1
This page intentionally left blank.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | i Contents
Introduction ..........................................................................................................3 Project Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3 What Are Zoning Codes? ................................ ................................ .............................. 4 Why Update the Zoning Code? ................................ ................................ ..................... 5 Purpose of the Assessment and Recommendations Memo ................................ ....... 5
1. Summary of Findings and Recommendations .........................................8 Key Findings and Recommendations ................................ ................................ .......... 8
2. General Plan Policy Review ...................................................................... 14 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 14 Policy Consistency Analysis ................................ ................................ ...................... 14 Land Use Designations Analysis ................................ ................................ ............... 17 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 17
3. General Zoning Analysis ........................................................................... 19 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 19 Code Organization and Structure ................................ ................................ ............... 19 Land Uses and Development Standards ................................ ................................ ... 23 Administration and Procedures ................................ ................................ ................. 25
4. Legal Consistency Review ........................................................................ 28 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 28 Findings and Recommendations ................................ ................................ ............... 28
5. Specific Plan Evaluation ............................................................................ 30 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 30 Summary of Specific Plans ................................ ................................ ......................... 30 Approach ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 32 Findings and Recommendations ................................ ................................ ............... 32
6. Objective Design Standards Review ........................................................ 37 Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | ii Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 37 Existing Regulatory Framework ................................ ................................ ................. 37 Findings and Recommendations ................................ ................................ ............... 52
7. Sign Code Analysis .................................................................................... 55 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 55 Legal Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 55 General Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 56
Attachments
Attachment 1: Sign Code Focus Groups Summary
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 3 Introduction
Project Overview
The City of Thousand Oaks (City) recently adopted the 2045 General Plan and revised 6th Cycle Housing Element (December 2023). These updated policy documents create an opportunity and an obligation to update the City’s Zoning Code to revise development standards to reflect the adopted land use policy and align with best practices in development and zoning regulation . The City’s existing Zoning Code was developed at the time of the City’s incorporation in 1970 and has not undergone a comprehensive update since. The implementation of the updated General Plan requires alignment with the City’s Zoning Code and Zoning Map. To initiate implementing the new and modern General Plan and the Housing Element, the City adopted a Mixed -Use Zone and associated development standards in March 2024; however, a detailed and thorough implementation of the land use policy is warranted. The objectives of the Zoning Code Update (Project) are to:
• Reevaluate, modernize, and update the existing zones to align with the City’s respective General Plan land use designations and incorporate best practices for ease of use and consistent application;
• Update the Zoning Map to accurately reflect the updated zoning districts and ensure consistency with the General Plan;
• Simplify and integrate regulations from the City's 18 existing specific plans into the updated Zoning Code where appropriate;
• Review and enhance the Objective Design Standards for residential and mixed -use projects to ensure they align with State requirements and City goals; • Update the Sign Code to address new sign technologies, ensure legal compliance with recent Supreme Court decisions (Reed v. Town of Gilbert), and modernize sign regulations; • Develop standards for specific uses requiring special consideration (e.g., accessory dwelling units, home occupations, live/work units, temporary uses, wireless communication facilities); • Update administration and permit procedures to streamline the approval process, especially for residential projects, in alignment with State law;
• Update citywide standards including affordable housing incentives/density bonus provisions, landscaping, off-street parking, outdoor lighting, and walls/fences; • Incorporate user -friendly formatting including tables, matri ces, graphics , and improved organizational structure to enhance readability and ease of use; • Establish a structured and systematic framework that can accommodate future updates efficiently; and
• Ensure legal consistency with current State and Federal laws, particularly regarding housing and telecommunications.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 4 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 What Are Zoning Codes?
While the General Plan sets forth a wide -ranging and long -term vision for the City, the Zoning Code establishes specific standards for how individual properties can be used consistent with the General Plan’s vision. Zoning codes are the body of rules and regulations that control what is built on the ground, as well as what uses occupy buildings and sites. They determine the form and character of development, such as the size and height of buildings, and also include provisions to ensure that new development and land uses will fit into existing neighborhoods by establishing the rules for being a “good neighbor.” What Zoning Codes Can Do. Zoning codes implement the community goals expressed in a General Plan and other long-term policy documents. Zoning codes typically include the following:
• Use Regulations. Zoning codes specify which land uses are permitted, prohibited, or are permitted, subject to specified standards or limitations. In this way, zoning codes determine the appropriate mix of compatible uses.
• Development and Design Standards. Zoning codes reflect the desired physical character of the community by providing development standards that control the height and bulk of buildings, placement on a lot, and landscaping and open space requirements. Zoning codes can also provide objective (non-discretionary) design requirements for certain development components including building facades or frontages, building massing and articulation, and building form standards. • Performance and Operational Standards. Zoning codes often include standards that control the “performance” or operation of uses to ensure land use compatibility between new and existing neighborhoods or uses. Standards typically address items such as noise, light, glare, and hours of operation.
• Review Procedures. Zoning codes identify the amount of review required for project approval and the level of discretion, including the public notification methods, required hearings, and designated hearing bodies and decision makers.
What Zoning Codes Cannot Do. There are things that zoning cannot do since it is limited in some respects by State law and legal precedent. However, issues not addressed in zoning are sometimes addressed by other planning tools, such as specific plans. Zoning codes typically will not do the following:
• Regulate Free Market. Zoning codes cannot control the free market. For example, it cannot determine the exact mix of tenants in a private development , determine which specific company develops in a specific location, or require a certain type of project to be built on a vacant lot. It can, however, create opportunities in the real estate market by removing barriers and offering incentives for desirable uses.
• Establish Land Use Policy. Zoning codes are a tool for implementing land use policy, not setting it. As such, zoning codes are not the appropriate means for planning analysis or detailed study.
Zoning codes take direction from the General Plan.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 5 Why Update the Zoning Code?
The City’s Zoning Code (Code), Chapter 4 of Title 9 (Planning and Zoning) of the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code (TOMC), was adopted in 1970 and has never been comprehensively updated. While it has been amended numerous times to comply with State laws, revise standards, or update language, the existing Code does not align with the City’s current goals or priorities. Furthermore, with the recent adoption of the 2045 General Plan, the City must evaluate the Code to ensure full consistency with adopted policy as well as any changes to State law.
The General Plan represents the City’s policy direction regarding community values, ideals, and aspirations to govern a shared environment through 2045. It provides a vision for the future, establishes a framework for how the City should grow and change over the next two decades, and addresses all aspects of development including land use, open space preservation, and sustainability among other topics. The Land Use Element (LUE) more specifically emphasizes and addresses community priorities regarding housing diversity, open space buffers, complete communities, walkable development patterns, family -friendly residential neighborhoods, high-quality public facilities, land uses to support a strong job base, opportunities to develop the downtown core, mixed-use development, and shopping centers and underutilized retail areas.
The challenge now is to evaluate the City’s ability to achieve its stated vision and get the type of development it wants with the existing regulatory framework. The Code should clearly and effectively communicate and implement the LUE policies from the General Plan.
Purpose of the Assessment and Recommendations Memo
The City hired Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) to prepare amendments to the City’s Zoning Code to achieve the Project objectives. This Assessment and Recommendations Memo (Memo) is the first step in the process and documents the findings from a multifaced review of the City’s current Zoning Code and other relevant documents. The topics covered in this Memo are based on co nversations with City staff, LWC assessment and analysis of General Plan goals and policies, as well as best practices based on LWC’s experience updating ordinances to implement General Plans for cities and towns throughout the county.
The assessment and recommendations review covers the following topics:
• General Plan Policy Review
• General Zoning Analysis
• Legal Consistency Review
• Specific Plan Evaluation
• Objective Design Standards Review
• Sign Code Analysis
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 6 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 How to Use this Document
This Memo is organized into two components: 1) the Main Body of the document, comprised of the Introduction and Sections 1 through 7, and 2) detailed technical analyses provided in the attachments.
The Main Body of the document summarizes the key findings (by topic area) of a comprehensive technical analysis of the City’s current regulations, followed by initial recommendations to update and modify the Zoning Code to address the identified findings. Notes from Focus Group meetings held on the Sign Code are provided in Attachment 1.
The Main Body of the memo covers the following topics:
Section 1 – Key Findings and Recommendations. This section provides a comprehensive list, in table format, that summarizes the key findings and recommendations identified in Sections 2 through 7.
Section 2 – General Plan Policy Review. This section summarizes the policy context for the Zoning Ordinance Update, including the 204 5 General Plan. It describes inconsistencies between the Zoning Code and the General Plan (particularly those related to land use and housing).
Section 3 – General Zoning Analysis. This section analyzes the City’s existing Zoning Code and documents recommendations with respect to Code Organization and Structure; Land Use and Development Standards; and Administration and Procedures.
Section 4 – Legal Consistency Analysis. This section examines the Code alignment with State and federal laws.
Section 5 – Specific Plan Evaluation . This section describes the City’s existing Specific Plans, outlines the methodology and analysis, and documents the findings and recommendations for integration of select Specific Plan regulations into the Zoning Code.
Section 6 – Objective Design Standards Revie w. This section documents the City’s existing regulations, design guidelines, and policies for multi-family residential and mixed-use development throughout the City, and recommendations to improve objective standards in the Zoning Code.
Section 7 – Sign Code Analysis. This section examines the City's existing sign regulations , including an analysis of legal compliance issues and general sign regulations, and documents findings and recommendations.
Attachment 1 – Sign Code Focus Groups Summary. This report documents feedback from two focus group meetings conducted with sign industry professionals and business community stakeholders in February 2025. Feedback is organized into key themes.
Next Steps
Following discussion with City staff and agreement to the issues identified in this Memo, LWC will present these findings and recommendations at a series of public events to receive feedback , including a public workshop in May 2025 and study sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council in June 2025.
Then, LWC will prepare an Annotated Table of Contents documenting Code sections and articles with areas Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 7 of recommended change and an improved structure and organization of the Zoning Code. Utilizing input from the community, Planning Commission, and City Council, this Memo, and the Annotated Table of Contents, the Project Team will begin preparing the amendments to the Zoning Code.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 8 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025
1. Summary of Findings and
Recommendations
Key Findings and Recommendations
Based on the findings from the analysis, a comprehensive update and modernization of the City's Zoning Code is recommended. The recommendations outlined in this Memo ensure the updated Code will align with the City's vision of maintaining its suburban, family-friendly character while supporting diverse housing types, vibrant mixed-use areas, and economic resilience. Table 1, below, summarizes the key findings and recommendations identified in this Memo ; however, this table is not exhaustive. Detailed findings are documented in the attachments, as outlined in the sections below. Additional issues, opportunities for improvement, and amendment recommendations may be identified by staff, the Consultant Team, and during community engagement activities throughout the Project.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 9 Table 1: Key Findings and Recommendations
Topic/Section Findings Recommendations
General Plan
Policy
Consistency
Lack of Consistency between General Plan Policies and Zoning Code:
The existing Code does not implement General Plan policy direction in several policy topic areas, including the following:
• Reuse of existing buildings, including entitlement constraints, and the redevelopment of large sites
• Connectivity between different land uses and neighborhoods • Design review standards to address compatibility of uses and hillside development
• Zones which fully implement Mixed-Use, Industrial, and Commercial land use designations
• Housing types which support a diverse range of sizes, configurations, and household needs
• Parking requirements which allow for reduction in car spaces while requiring space for electric vehicle charging and bicycles • Site design standards for mixed-use and commercial areas which support compatibility, walkability, gathering space, and safety; citywide standards for native landscaping and noise
• Land use policies related to drive-through facilities, farmers’ markets, community gardens, tobacco/alcohol retailers, and high- value/employment-supporting uses in Industrial Zones
Implement General Plan policies through the addition of new zones, revision of existing zones, and comprehensive review of both zone-specific and citywide standards, including:
• Flexible standards that accommodate reuse of existing buildings • Connectivity requirements that prioritize pedestrian and other non-vehicular access
• Streamline the entitlement processes by allowing more non-discretionary and Director-level approvals
• Revised parking standards to reflect City sustainability and economic development goals
• Landscaping requirements which prioritize native species and oak trees • Modernized land use categories which support the City’s vision while ensuring appropriate transitions between uses
Land Use
Designations
Missing Zones: The Code lacks a full set or range of zones to fully implement all General Plan land use designations, particularly Neighborhood Medium 1, Neighborhood Medium 2, and Industrial Flex designations.
Create new zones which implement medium-density Residential designations and the Industrial Flex designation.
Vision for Commercial and Industrial. The City’s Commercial land use designations now emphasize building scale and context rather than strict separation of uses. The City’s Industrial land use designations now encourage uses which are high-value, employment-generating, and flexible.
Reorganize and consolidate Commercial Zones to emphasize scale (e.g., height/intensity) rather than use, with certain exceptions. Combine existing Industrial Zones (M-1 and M-2), and revise height standards.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 10 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 Table 1: Key Findings and Recommendations
Topic/Section Findings Recommendations
Zoning Code
Code
Organization and
Structure
Organization Not User-friendly: The Code’s organization is inconsistent and problematic, with critical information like zone purpose statements and development standards either missing or scattered across different articles.
Inadequate cross-referencing creates barriers for use and access for anyone not extensively familiar with the Code.
Inflexible and Inconsistent Numbering: The Code's numbering approach does not accommodate future amendments, separating related standards and creating confusing navigation pathways. Subsection hierarchy and the labelling of tables are often omitted or inconsistently applied.
Group Related Articles. Reorganize the Code by introducing a new level which arranges similar Articles into logical groupings – such as a Division titled “Zone Regulations.”
Consolidate Regulations by Zone or Citywide. Zone-specific requirements should be located in a single Article. Supplemental regulations, or regulations applicable to many zones, should be grouped together – such as under a Division titled “Citywide Standards.”
Poor Visual Formatting: The Code lacks effective visual formatting techniques like consistent indentation, bold/italic text treatments, or other visual cues to differentiate between hierarchy levels, making complex regulations particularly difficult to interpret.
Improve Code Legibility. Replace long paragraphs or lists with consolidated tables and add new or improved graphics/diagrams to illustrate development regulations. Standardize formatting for headings, subsections, etc.
Land Use and
Development
Standards
Overly Specific and Disorganized Use Regulations. The Code’s approach to regulating uses does not follow best practices related to permitting, entitlements, and use categories. The existing structure and overly specific uses require frequent staff consultation and interpretation which may stifle beneficial economic development and innovation.
Reorganize and Simplify the Land Use Framework. Replace the current entitlement-focused land use matrices with a user-friendly format that clearly indicates whether uses are permitted by right, conditionally allowed, or prohibited. Consolidate overly specific uses into broader, more flexible categories.
Streamline Approval Processes. Establish a tiered approach to project review where lower-impact and no-impact uses are approved administratively and those with potentially adverse impacts require discretionary review.
Lack of Key Site Design Standards. The lack of comprehensive standards for site design elements (including CPTED principles) which address lighting, landscaping, and pedestrian amenities does not follow best practices for public safety or effective urban design
Improve Site Design Standards. Integrate CPTED principles and other contemporary design approaches into a cohesive set of objective design standards that promote safety, connectivity, aesthetics, and functionality while providing clear guidance to applicants.
Constraints to Housing Diversity. Many Residential Zones do not enable a diversity of housing types or essential services needed to serve all income levels and households.
Expand Housing Opportunities. Update Residential Zone standards to allow a greater diversity of housing types, particularly “missing-middle,” medium density products, and residential service options, balancing community concerns with a vision for more welcoming, walkable neighborhoods.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 11 Table 1: Key Findings and Recommendations
Topic/Section Findings Recommendations
Ineffective Standards for Specific Uses. Supplemental performance, design, or operational standards for specific uses vary significantly in comprehensiveness and relevance to current development practices.
Modernize Supplemental Use-Specific Standards. Create comprehensive, objective standards for certain uses that are consistent across all zones, updating outdated regulations and adding new standards.
Administration
and Procedures
Unclear Procedures. Existing administrative and entitlement procedures are difficult to locate, disorganized, and incomplete. Information regarding application requirements, the purpose of applications, hearing and noticing requirements, who the appropriate Review Authority is, and thresholds for permit types are often unclear, conflicting, incomplete, or missing.
Reorganize and Restructure Administration and Procedures. Reorganize procedures in a logical and more user-friendly fashion and consolidate all Code administration, planning permits, and related procedures in one division or article of the code. Provide information in table format with clearly defined permit types, designated review authority, thresholds for applicability, and noticing and hearing requirements. Utilize complete cross-references to avoid repetition of information.
Parallel and Consistent Permit Contents. To ensure all relevant information for each permit and approval type is provided, create a section for each approval type and follows a consistent subsection structure.
Overly Complex Ministerial Review. The Community Development Director’s ostensibly ministerial review authority is typically subject to noticing requirements and public hearings.
Simplify and Update Ministerial Application Review Processes. Clearly delineate ministerial versus discretionary permit types to comply with State law.
Procedures Do Not Offer Ministerial Relief. There is no current process which allows for ministerial modification to existing Zoning Code standards.
The term “minor modification” is used in the Zoning Code to refer to both changes to approved projects and to minor deviations from the Zoning Code, without codified procedures for Director interpretations or determinations.
Develop Processes for Permits/Actions Consistent with Best Practices.
Develop clear processes, permits, and fees for Director interpretations or determinations, special use permits, special event permits, zoning clearances, and major modifications to existing approvals using the structure identified above. Update processes/regulations for time extensions and temporary use permits consistent with best practices (e.g., for allowed durations, film permits, temporary events).
Procedures for Special Uses. There is no consolidated section in the Code that specifically applies to Special Use Permits, a permit type which is frequently required for relatively common activities and creates multiple layers of review through overlapping regulations between base zoning, specific plans, and overlay zones.
Unclear Post-Decision Procedures. The code needs refinement for clarify for actions following initial approval of permits, including time limits, extensions, and modifications to approved permits. The Code also does not provide a clear process.
Codify Appropriate Policies and Procedures that are outside of the Code.
Codify the Planning Commission’s ability to modify development permits.
Legal
Consistency
The Code is inconsistent with several State (and some federal) laws related to the following topics:
• Specific uses, including cottage food operations, family child care homes, wireless service facilities, colocation facilities, and reproductive health clinics.
Amend the Code to Comply with State and Federal Law. Amendments should address where certain uses are permitted, allow certain uses without discretionary approval, and establish specific procedures which comply with State and federal law related to certain residential developments, wireless communication facilities, parking requirements, and the Sign Code.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 12 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 Table 1: Key Findings and Recommendations
Topic/Section Findings Recommendations
• Parking regulations, including off-street parking requirements for projects within ½ mile of a major transit stop, residential projects with a minimum 20 percent affordable units (or fewer than 20 units), and shared parking agreements in mixed-use developments. • Sign regulations, recent legal precedent, including Reed v. Town of Gilbert Supreme Court decision, clarified sign ordinances must be structured in a way that regulates signs based on objective factors such as size, location, and duration, and not distinctions that depend on the message conveyed.
Specific Plans
Seven Specific Plans Built Out and Eligible for Consolidation.
Consolidating Specific Plans is an effective strategy for modernizing and streamlining land use regulations in the City. Of the City’s 18 Specific Plans, 10 were analyzed in depth due to their age, buildout status, and complexity.
Of the 10, seven were found to be entirely or almost entirely built out with uses compatible with General Plan policies.
Repeal and Rezone Eligible Specific Plans. The following Specific Plans should be repealed and their parcels rezoned to align with appropriate existing zones
• SP 01 Wildwood, SP04 Westlake North Ranch, SP07 Rancho Conejo, SP08/09 Dis Vientos, SP15 Ranco Conejo Industrial Park, SP18 Kimber Reino
Maintain SP03 Lang Ranch and SP19 Ranch Potrero. However, the mixed- use areas in Lang Ranch should be rezoned to align with the General Plan.
Objective Design
Standards
Opportunities to Address Key Policy Direction. General Plan policy direction on design focuses on a clearly defined urban pattern of development and open space; sensitive transitions from low-density residential uses to higher-intensity and non-residential uses; high-quality design with a focus on sustainability measures; economic vibrancy on key corridors and central areas; and an overall walkability, bike accessibility and connectivity. While the Code addresses some of these topics, additional standards are needed to fully implement the policy direction.
Consolidate and simplify existing standards, including updating the Objective Design Standards article (currently Article 22) as the one place where citywide building design standards are found, leaving in articles 9, 10, 10.5 and 31 only the design standards that should apply exclusively to that district.
Overlap and Repetition of Design Standards. The existing regulatory framework of standards are located across several sources (i.e., multiple Articles in the Zoning Code, four Specific Plans, the Precise Plan of Design Guidelines), leading to redundancy and contradiction among design standards.
Leave recent Specific Plans in place. Specific Plans for areas that are not fully built out or that remain relevant to new development in the area should remain as-is. However, as part of the Code Update process, the planning team will pull from them any standards that have been particularly useful and helpful, and incorporate them as appropriate into the revised Objective Design Standards article.
Revise or remove the PPD Guidelines. As part of a broader update of the administrative procedures and permitting processes, the PPD Guidelines should be removed entirely, or revised to remove standards for multi-family and mixed- use development. However, the planning team will pull from them any standards Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 13 Table 1: Key Findings and Recommendations
Topic/Section Findings Recommendations
or guidelines that have been particularly useful and helpful, and incorporate them as appropriate into the revised Objective Design Standards article.
Standards Need Local Calibration. Analysis of recent projects reveals that many standards do not support the projects that developers find feasible and that the community finds desirable. Specifically, the “closed menu” of building types in Article 22 does not provide the flexibility needed to accommodate the characteristics of the sites and permitted development intensity.
Reflect existing patterns of built form. The Objective Design Standards article should be revised to remove the “menus” of building types and frontages, to better reflect the typical forms found in local patterns and development and to offer the flexibility that designers desire.
Reflect specific community input. The Objective Design Standards must reflect the community’s preferences and desires revealed through the project’s ongoing community outreach efforts.
Lack of Clarity and Difficult to Understand. Analysis of development and design standards in the Code found that the existing regulatory framework for design standards is comprised of a lack of illustrations and diagrams to explain the standards and intent; a lack of cross references to aid applicants in understanding which standards apply to a multi-family or residential mixed- project, and an ambiguity in what are, and where to find, standards (“shalls”) vs. guidelines (“shoulds”).
Remove all subjectivity. The updated Objective Design Standards article will be written to be objective in nature, exclusively.
Add definitions as needed. Where the updated Objective Design Standards article introduced new terms into the Code, those terms should be defined in the Definitions section of the Code.
Illustrate for clarity and ease of use. The Objective Design Standards article should include ample diagrams and figures to help explain the standards and their intent.
Sign Code
Purpose-Driven Sign Classifications. The City’s current sign ordinance includes several classifications that distinguish signs based on their purpose or the type of message conveyed (e.g., campaign related signage) which are no longer in alignment with constitutional requirements per legal precedent, including Reed v. Town of Gilbert decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Remove content-based signs and revise for purpose driven classifications and update the code to apply uniform standards across all sign types.
Absent or Inconsistent Sign Regulations. The Sign Code lacks clear standards. Also absent are standards for signs in Mixed-Use Zones, general regulations that clearly apply to signs citywide, and definitions for key sign characteristics.
Update and clarify general location restrictions, standards for illumination, rules of measurement, illustrated graphics, and more.
Outdated Sign Types. Modern sign technologies are not reflected in the Code, and sign-specific standards do not accommodate modern sign design.
Common sign types are entirely absent.
Modernize sign types and adapt sign-specific standards to embrace current best practices and user-friendliness.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 14 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025
2. General Plan Policy Review
Introduction
This section summarizes the technical analyses that document Code inconsistencies related to the General Plan and Housing Element. This analysis considers the effectiveness of the existing regulations and regulatory structure to meet City goals; identifies items or topics to be addressed through the Code update; summarizes key inconsistencies between the Code and the General Plan, and notes relevant key policies related to the Code Update.
The City’s 2045 General Plan, adopted in December 2023, is a comprehensive document that articulates the community’s long-term vision and establishes policies to guide future development and governance. It serves as a framework for decision -making, ensuring that City actions and development regulations align with the community’s development goals and objectives . The plan was developed through extensive community input, including workshops, meetings, surveys, and other outreach activities.
The 2045 General Plan includes seven State -mandated elements (Land Use; Mobility; Safety; Parks and Open Space; Noise; Conservation; and Housing) as well as three which address topics of local importance (Arts and Culture; Governance; and Community Facilities and Services).
Policy Consistency Analysis
The General Plan consistency assessment identifies the relevant goals and policies of the 2045 General Plan and whether or not the Code is consistent with the policy direction. Consistency is qualitatively based on the adequacy of Code provisions given the policy direction.
Based on this assessment, several key findings relevant to the Zoning Code update were identified (see Table 2).
Table 2: General Plan Policy Consistency
Finding Relevant Policies
Reuse
Code standards allow limited modifications to nonconforming buildings but lack provisions to facilitate adaptive reuse as envisioned. Additional standards for parking relief, change of use flexibility, and design standards may be necessary to promote adaptive reuse that reinforces community design and pedestrian orientation.
LU-1.9, LU-6.10, LU-
20.2 Connectivity
There are only limited external connectivity requirements for residential and mixed-use developments, and none which apply to commercial developments. Standards should address pedestrian, bike, and transit access to ensure integration with adjacent land uses, especially existing residential neighborhoods.
LU-2.6, LU-5.5, LU-
7.3, LU-16.6, LU-18.3
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 15 Table 2: General Plan Policy Consistency
Finding Relevant Policies
Design Review
Design review criteria are not compatible with existing neighborhoods and architectural styles. LU-2.4, LU-8.4
Design standards for hillside development are dispersed both within the Code (HPH Zone and PR Overlay) and in uncodified policy resolutions related to grading and the PPD process as well as standards located in other Titles (including Title 7).
C-1.3
Zones
The Mixed-Use (MU) Zone does not:
• Allow building heights up to 75 feet if not subject to a specific plan (unless previously allowed under prior zone height standards, e.g. in C-4).
LU-15.9, LU-16.2,
No zone implements the Industrial Flex land use designation, which allows buildings up to 75 feet. LU-17.5
Existing zones do not effectively implement the Commercial land use designations with regard to allowed uses (hotels, restaurants, commercial entertainment, and other modern, visitor-serving uses).
LU-7.5, LU-19.1
Entitlements
The entitlement process constrains the redevelopment and adaptive reuse of existing buildings due to a lack of clear standards and procedures. LU-1.8 Housing Types
Though the Code’s objective design standards establish standards for building types (e.g., triplex, courtyard housing), building types allowed in many single- and two-family zones remain limited, even when near amenities and services. Additionally, several development standards (i.e., minimum lot area and lot width) for base districts are designed around lower density single-family homes and do not accommodate a variety of middle and higher density product types, reducing the feasibility of diverse housing types.
LU-1.2, LU-3.1, LU-
3.2, LU-3.4, LU-3.5,
LU-4.5
Parking
There is no procedure to reduce parking requirements for new projects on a project-by- project basis. LU-3.7
Citywide and zone-specific parking area design standards do not ensure pedestrian access to buildings along street frontages. LU-9.3
Parking requirements do not address electric vehicle charging infrastructure and bicycle parking in new developments. M-3.5, M-5.3
Parking requirements do not align with the City’s goals to support economic growth, environmental sustainability, and new housing opportunities in high-resource areas.
M-4.7, Housing
Element Program 17
Site Design
Site design standards for mixed-use and commercial areas do not:
• Require transitions in building height, massing, and character for new buildings immediately adjacent to single-family residential areas.
LU-1.6, LU-5.3, LU-
5.4, LU-7.4, LU-7.6,
LU-8.3, LU-8.7, LU-
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 16 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 Table 2: General Plan Policy Consistency
Finding Relevant Policies
• Require buildings and building entrances to be oriented toward the public right- of-way.
• Facilitate the clustering of density, shared access, and the reuse/reconfiguration of existing structures.
• Promote the inclusion of public and quasi-public gathering spaces for projects above a certain size.
• Implement Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles related to pedestrian-scaled lighting, nighttime security, and other measures.
8.8, LU-9.5, LU-9.6,
LU-15.6
Site design standards for industrial areas do not require transitions in building height, massing, and character for new buildings immediately adjacent to single-family residential areas.
LU-1.6
Standards for large site redevelopment do not discourage “outparcels” or include connection and block requirements. LU-5.8, LU-15.7
Citywide site design standards do not address increasing the amount of native, drought- tolerant, and water-efficient landscaping or minimizing impervious materials.
LU-1.10, CFS-4.3,
CFS-4.6
Comprehensive performance standards related to noise are absent. Existing standards do not require design features which shield residents from noise exceeding normally acceptable ranges.
N-1.2
Land Uses
The Code does not restrict drive-through facilities in the Mixed-Use Zone or discourage them Citywide. LU-5.7, LU-12.9
Certified farmers’ markets and community gardens are not defined or appropriately allowed. LU-12-.1
Distance and spacing requirements specific to retail businesses which sell tobacco or alcohol products are absent. LU-12.1, LU-12.2
Zones which implement the Industrial Low/Flex land use designations do not:
• Discourage (or consider prohibiting) logistics and warehousing uses. • Allow uses which align with the goal to high-value and employment uses. • Allow small retail, restaurants, day care, and other service uses that directly serve employees.
• Define warehouse/distribution uses and define thresholds. • Allow business incubator, R&D, and coworking spaces.
LU-6.5, LU-6.6, LU-
6.9, LU-17.3, LU-
19.2, LU-19.3
Pedestrian-oriented land uses and community supportive services are not encouraged in or near residential neighborhoods to reduce driving. M-3.6
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 17 Land Use Designations Analysis
The intent, purpose, and allowable uses for each proposed General Plan land use designation were reviewed against the standards of the existing Code to determine whether the designation could be implemented with an existing zone, or if a new zone or amendments are needed. Based on this assessment, the following key findings were noted.
• Residential zones lack purpose and intent statements, making it challenging to determine alignment with underlying land use policy.
• The General Plan allows parks, schools, and other public facilities in all residential land use designations.
• There are no existing zones that adequately implement the Neighborhood Medium 1 and Neighborhood Medium 2 land use designations.
• There is no existing zone to adequately implement the Neighborhood Low Medium land use designation. Although the Two -Family Residential (R -2) Zone most closely implements this land use designation, the allowed uses and lot size standards are not consistent. • The Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone allows commercial uses under certain circumstances, whereas the Neighborhood High land use designation generally does not. • The new General Plan commercial land use designations emphasize scale and context more than separation of land uses.
• The existing Industrial Zones (Industrial Park (M -1) and Light Manufacturing (M -2)) could be combined since there is not much differentiation between them. Unique use considerations would need to be addressed, for example the treatment of auto body and painting uses. There is no existing zone that adequately implements the Industrial Flex land use designation. Heights in Industrial Zones must be revised to match the height allowed by the underlying land use designation.
• Overall lack of consistency in implementing City vision and expectations.
Recommendations
Based on the consistency assessment, key recommendations needed to implement the City's General Plan policy direction include:
• Create new zones which implement the middle density ( e.g., Neighborhood Medium 1 and 2 and Neighborhood Low Medium) Residential land use designations. • Reorganize and consolidate existing Commercial Zones to not differentiate by use so much as by scale (e.g., height and intensity), with certain exceptions (automotive uses, hotels/motels, big box stores, etc.). Revise heights in Commercial Zones to match the height allowed by the underlying land use designation.
• Create flexible standards that accommodate reuse of existing buildings Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 18 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 • Establish connectivity requirements that prioritize pedestrian and other non-vehicular access; • Revise objective design standards to address adjacencies and neighborhood context • Streamline the entitlement processes by allowing more non -discretionary and Director -level approvals;
• Revise parking standards to reflect City goals
• Enhance landscaping requirements to prioritize native species and oak trees • Modernize land use categories to support the City's vision while ensuring appropriate transitions between uses.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 19
3. General Zoning Analysis
Introduction
This section analyzes the City’s existing Zoning Code and documents any deficiencies and recommendations with respect to the following topic areas:
Code Organization and Structure addresses the Code’s structure and hierarchy, navigability, and overall ease-of use.
Land Use and Development Standards provides an analysis of the allowed land uses and use related requirements, as well as development standards for topics not addressed elsewhere in this Memo (e.g., this section does not address objective design standards , which are discussed in Section 6).
Administration and Procedures analyzes the permit and approval procedures of the Code.
Code Organization and Structure
Overview
The ability to use and navigate a zoning code is vital to its effectiveness. Zoning codes must provide an understandable organization, appropriate cross -references, consolidated tables, clear graphics and illustrations, and an objective, straightforward fo rmat (hard copy and /or online) to be understood by the community and efficiently administered by staff.
The existing Thousand Oaks Zoning Code is codified as Chapter 4 (Zoning) , located in Title 9 (Planning and Zoning) of the Municipal Code. Chapter 4 contains 44 Articles that address a wide range of regulatory topics, covering broad policies (e.g., permitted uses in Residential and Commercial Zones), development procedures (e.g., Design Review and Variances), and more specialized regulations (e.g., urban lots splits and oak tree preservation). Each Article is further divided into Sections and Subsections. The Code’s overall hierarchy is as follows:
Title > Chapter > Article > Section
For a complete list of the Articles, see Table 3.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 20 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025
Table 3: Zoning Code Articles
Article Number and Title
1. Title, Purpose and Interpretation 23. Sign Regulations
2. Definitions 24. Off-Street Parking
3. Establishment and Designation of Zones 25. Height, Yard, Area, and Building Conditions and Exceptions
4. Rural-Agricultural Zones (R-A) 26. Community Park and Recreational Facilities
5. Rural-Exclusive Zones (R-E) 27. Nonconforming Buildings and Uses
6. Single-Family Estate Zones (R-O) 28. Variances and Permits
7. Single-Family Residential Zones (R-1) 29. Amendments
8. Two-Family Residential Zones (R-2) 30. Enforcement, Violations and Penalties
9. Residential Planned Development Zones (R-P-D) 31. Hillside Planned Development Zones (H-P-D)
10. Multiple-Family Residential Zones (R-3) 32. Public, Quasi-Public, and Institutional Lands and Facilities Zone (P-L)
10.5 Mixed-Use (MU) and Mixed-Use Overlay (MUOZ)
Zones 33. Height Limit Overlay Zone (H)
11. Commercial Office Zones (C-O) 34. Historic Landmark Overlay Zone (HL)
12. Neighborhood Shopping Center Zones (C-1) 35. Protected Ridgeline Overlay Zone Regulations (PR)
13. Highway and Arterial Business Zones (C-2) 36. Open Space Zone (OS)
14. Community Shopping Center Zones (C-3) 37. Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit Housing Developments
15. Regional Shopping Center Zones (C-4) 38. Special Use Permit for Rental of Dwelling
16. Industrial Park Zones (M-1) 39. Highway and Arterial Business/Auto Mall Zone (C-2/AM)
17. Light Manufacturing Zones (M-2) 40. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Standards for New Development
18. Design Review: Requirements and Procedure 41. Temporary Uses
19. Condominium Conversions, Mobile Home Park
Subdivisions and Mobile Home Park Changes of Use 42. Oak Tree Preservation and Protection
20. Mobile Home Park Development Zones 43. Landmark Tree Preservation and Protection
21. Uses Allowed by Zone 44. Wireless Communications Facilities
22. Objective Design Standards for Residential
Development 45. Accessory Dwelling Units
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 21 Each Section in Chapter 4, such as Section 9-4.101 (Title), is structured as follows:
• The first digit refers to Municipal Code Title 9 (Planning and Zoning), followed by a dash (-) • The second digit refers to Chapter 4 (Zoning), followed by a period (.) • The third digit refers to the Article (e.g., Article 1 (Title, Purpose and Interpretation)). • The subsequent digits refer to the Section (e.g., 01 (Title)). Section numbers increase sequentially and restart at 01 for each new Article.
The sequential numbering of Articles and Sections is consistent throughout the entirety of Chapter 4.
Within each Section, the Code utilizes a series of subsection levels which generally follows the hierarchy shown below:
(a) > (1) > (i) > (aa)
However, this subsection numbering scheme is not followed consistently (see Findings below).
As codes evolve over time, they can become cumbersome or fragmented, with cross -referencing gaps or outdated formatting that hinder usability. Understanding the current structure is essential for identifying opportunities to improve clarity, consistency, and navigability.
This foundational understanding will guide the comprehensive update of the Zoning Code, ensuring it reflects modern planning practices, legal requirements, and the evolving needs of Thousand Oaks.
Findings
While the Thousand Oaks Zoning Code benefits from consistent, sequential numbering of Articles and Sections, its organization lacks structure and formatting.
1. Structure. For example, Articles 4 through 17 each establish individual zones, but the Section structure and content within these articles is inconsistent. Some zones include purpose statements and others do not. The “permitted uses” sections in these articles often refer readers to Article 21 (Uses Allowed by Zone), and development standards are spread across multiple articles which makes it difficult for users to quickly identify what standards apply within a particular zone .
2. Numbering. The Code’s approach to numbering does not leave space for future amendments, leading new content to be added at the end of the Chapter. For example, Articles 31 through 36 establish additional zones, but are separated from Articles 4 through 17. Meanwhile, Sections which have been repealed but “reserved” appear in the middle of many Articles, providing long lists of past ordinance history without new regulations or references to the location to where the information is located. At the subsection level, the hierarchy is not consistent.
3. Formatting. Though a handful of Sections differentiate subsections through text indentation, more often than not indentation is missing. Combined with a lack of bolding or italicizing to differentiate different levels in the subsection hierarchy, as well as the numbering issues previously mentioned, the relationship and hierarchy between different “layers” of regulations can become particularly illegible in complex sections.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 22 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 Recommendations
1. Group Related Articles by Division. To enhance usability, the Code should be reorganized to group related content together. A new level in the Code’s structure – such as Division – can be added to organize the Articles into logical groups intended to make the Code easier to navigate.
2. Consolidate Applicable Regulations for Each Zone. To reduce excessive cross-referencing the permitted uses, development standards, and relevant zone-specific requirements for each zone should be located in a single Article to provide a complete, self-contained overview. Supplemental regulations, or regulations that are applicable to many zones, may be located in other Articles with proper cross referencing.
Standards that are applicable to multiple zones – such as Articles 22 (Objective Design Standards), parking requirements, and landscaping standards – should be grouped under their own Division (for example, “Citywide Standards”), and be properly cross-referenced. This will help ensure that users understand which general standards apply alongside zone-specific regulations.
3. Improve Code Legibility. Finally, improving the visual layout of the Code will contribute significantly to its usability. Introducing consolidated tables to replace long paragraphs or lists of text, additional and clearer graphics and diagrams to explain and illustrate development standards, and standardized formatting for headings and subheadings will make the Code easier to navigate both in hard copy and online. This reorganization and improved visual structure will enhance accessibility for both city sta ff and the broader community, fostering more efficient administration and better public understanding.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 23
Sample Code page infographic illustrating code organization best practices, including clear headings, font variation, tables, cross-references, and illustrations.
Land Uses and Development Standards
Overview
Use regulations detail the type of uses that are allowed, the review process, and specific limitations that apply to a particular activity or use, while development standards govern the physical form, placement, and design of buildings and site improvements. Together, these components form the regulatory framework that shapes the City's built environment.
The City's approach to regulating uses and development standards is primarily contained in Article 21 (Uses Allowed by Zone) and Article 25 (Height, Yard, Area, and Building Conditions), but extends across many of the other 45 Code articles, in addition to regulations located in resolutions and ordinances.
The following findings identify key issues with the current regulatory framework, accompanied by recommended strategies to address the deficiencies. (See other Sections for additional findings and recommendations for land uses and development standards related to consistency with the General Plan and State laws, as there is overlap between topics and opportunities for improvement .)
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 24 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 Findings
1. Overly Specific and Disorganized Use Regulations. The Code's approach to regulating uses is fundamentally problematic in two key ways: (1) Article 21's matrices are organized around entitlement types rather than allowances, making it difficult for users to determine if a use is permitted or not; and (2) with over 230 highly -specific land uses listed across multiple tables, the Code is not flexible to accommodate new and emerging hybrid uses and also adds unnecessary complexity for Code users.
2. Lack of Key Site Design Standards. The lack of comprehensive standards for site design elements, including CPTED principles, lighting, landscaping, and pedestrian amenities , does not follow best practices for public safety or effective urban design , nor does it offer the City the appropriate tools to enforce and align with General Plan policies.
3. Constraints to Housing Diversity. The Code's restrictions on housing types in many Residential Zones (especially R-A, R-E, R-1) and special entitlement requirements for higher-intensity housing limit the potential for a diversity of housing types needed to serve all income levels and households.
Additional constraints like distance requirements for residential care facilities further hinder needed community housing support service uses. Additionally, as noted previously, the height and density standards of the existing zones is inconsistent with the General Plan and limits attainment of the housing goals.
4. Ineffective Standards for Specific Uses. Supplemental performance, design, or operational standards for specific uses vary significantly . Many uses identified by the City as priorities for revision have outdated or a lack of standards, such as animal keeping and drive-through facilities.
Furthermore, contemporary uses (such as mixed retail/manufacturing and on -site alcoholic beverage production) lack specific standards.
5. Regulations Outside the Code. Several sets of regulations have been adopted by resolution (i.e., Model Neighborhood Areas such as Royal Oaks and architectural design guidelines). The location of these regulations outside the Municipal Code and Zoning Chapter increases the difficulty in understanding the variety of standards applicable to a given parcel.
Recommendations
1. Reorganize and Simplify the Land Use Framework. Replace the current entitlement -focused land use matrices with a user -friendly format that clearly indicates whether uses are permitted by right, conditionally allowed, or prohibited, and consolidate the 230+ specific uses into broader, more flexible categories with clear definitions that can accommodate emerging, and hybrid uses.
2. Streamline Approval Processes. Establish a tiered approach to project review where lower - impact and no-impact uses are approved administratively and for uses with potentially adverse impacts on the surrounding area if not regulated require discretionary review.
3. Expand Housing Opportunities. Update Residential Zone standards to allow a greater diversity of housing types, particularly “missing-middle,” medium density products, and residential service options. Review and revise any height, distance separation, or other form requirements for residential service uses, such as care facilities, to balance community concerns with the need for these essential services.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 25
4. Modernize Use-Specific Standards. Create comprehensive, objective standards for specific uses that are consistent across all zones, updating outdated regulations and adding new standards for uses like animal keeping, and drive-through facilities.
5. Improve Site Design Standards. Integrate CPTED principles and other contemporary design approaches into a cohesive set of objective design standards that promote safety, connectivity, aesthetics, and functionality while providing clear guidance to applicants.
6. Integrate Uncodified Standards into Code. Through either direct integration (e.g., new zones , overlays, or amendments to existing zones) or clearer cross -references, regulations located outside the Code should be incorporated to convey the full scope of applicable regulations, reducing the need for Code users to track down separate documents or frequently consult with City staff.
Administration and Procedures
Overview
Code administration and permit and entitlement procedures are codified in various places within the TOMC, including the following seven articles in the Code:
• Article 18. Design Review: Requirements and Procedure • Article 28. Variances and Permits
• Article 29. Amendments
• Article 30. Enforcement, Violations, and Penalties
• Article 41. Temporary Uses
• Article 42. Oak Tree Preservation and Protection
• Article 43: Landmark Tree Preservation and Protection Public hearing and noticing requirements are codified at Title 9, Chapter 12 (Public Hearing and Environmental Review Notice Requirements).
Findings
1. Procedures are Difficult to Understand. The City’s existing administrative and entitlement procedures are difficult to locate , disorganized and are , incomplete . Information regarding application requirements, the purpose of applications, hearing and noticing requirements, who the appropriate Review Authority is, and thresholds for permit types are often unclear, incomplete, or missing.
2. Complex Ministerial Review. The Community Development Director (Director) has the authority to ministerially approve several permits (including development permits, residential planned development permits for certain smaller residential projects, certain Precise Plan of Design or Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 26 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 Special Use Permits, and minor modifications to approved permits) which means that the Director may use only fixed standards or objective measurements to either approve or deny an application, involving no personal judgment or discretion. However, these ministerial permit types are typically subject to noticing requirements which conflicts with state law.
3. Conflicting Applicability Thresholds and Review Authorities . The code’s layout, format, and cross-references within the document can present challenges for uses trying to navigate it. One area where this becomes difficult is understanding the thresholds for when certain permits apply, and which review bodies are involved. For example, it’s often unclear which permit type is needed, what exemptions apply, or whether additional related approvals are required. In some industries, applicants may only realize th ey need approval when they see another section of the code. For residential projects, applicants might have to look at several sections to figure out the right permit path and review process, sometimes only discovering later that additional research, heari ngs, or review bodies are involved.
4. Criteria for Decision Makers Lacks Criteria. Many of the permits and application types lack clear approval criteria or approval findings, which can cause uncertainty for applicants in terms of predicting whether their application is likely to be approved.
5. Procedures Do Not Offer Ministerial Relief. The Code lacks a process to allow for a ministerial modification to existing Zoning Code standards. Under Section 9-4.2805 (Administrative Actions), the Director may grant minor modifications of a limited subset of certain development standards; however, this action requires noticing, can require a public hearing upon request, and is subject to appeal, therefore, not ministerial.
6. Procedures for Special Uses. There is no consolidated section in the Zoning Code that specifically applies to Special Use Permits. This would set forth the purpose, applicability, findings, conditions of approval for the permit.
Additionally, Special use permits are reviewed and approved either by the Director, or in some cases (e.g., in the M-1 and M-2 Zones within 400 feet of residentially zoned property), the Planning Commission. There is a lack of consistency regarding who the appropriate Review Authority is for special use permits.
7. Unclear Post-Decision Procedures. The code is unclear and missing certain procedures for actions following initial approval of permits, including time limits, extensions, and modifications to approved permits.
8. Deficiencies in Enforcement Provisions. While Article 30 declares that violations of permits or conditions constitute violations of the Code and are a public nuisance, it lacks a clear, detailed process for revocation of permits when violations occur. Additionally, while Section 9-4.3007 allows for stop orders, the Code doesn't clearly outline a progressive enforcement approach with administrative remedies before court action.
Recommendations
1. Reorganize and Restructure Administration and Procedures. Reorganize procedures in a logical and more user -friendly fashion and consolidate all Code administration, planning permits, and related procedures in one division or article of the code . Provide information in table format Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 27 with clearly defined permit types, cross -references, applicable review authority, and noticing and hearing requirements.
2. Parallel and Consistent Permit Contents. To ensure all relevant information for each permit and approval type is provided, create a section for each approval type and follows a consistent subsection structure. For example:
A. Purpose
B. Applicability
C. Application Requirements
D. Review Authority
E. Approval Procedures
F. Findings
G. Decision; Appeals; Expiration, Extensions, and Revisions
3. Simplify and Update Ministerial Application Review Processes. Delineate ministerial versus discretionary permit types , so that neither public noticing, public hearings, nor appeals apply to ministerial applications. Also, create objective criteria for design review of housing developments (including the precise plan of design) consistent with SB 330.
4. Develop Processes for Permits /Actions Consistent with Best Practices . Develop clear processes, permits, and fees for Director interpretations/determinations, special use permits, special event permits, zoning clearances, modifications to development standards, and major modifications to existing approvals using the structure identified above . Update processes/regulations for time extensions and temporary use permits consistent with best practices (e.g., for allowed durations, film permits, temporary events).
5. Codify Appropriate Policies and Procedures that are outside of the Code. Codify the Planning Commission’s ability to modify development permits. For instance, this could be through a discretionary minor modification process (or equivalent) with clear amounts or limits.
6. Establish Clear Enforcement and Revocation Procedures. Develop a comprehensive enforcement framework that clearly outlines a progressive enforcement approach, including establishing enforcement authority, procedures for revocation, timelines for notification of violation, and enforcement options:
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 28 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025
4. Legal Consistency Review
Introduction
LWC reviewed the City's Zo ning Code for compliance with relevant State and federal requirements (effective as of February 2025). This section summarizes the findings of this analysis and identifies sections in the existing Code that are out of compliance with applicable laws. This analysis offers a high -level diagnosis of legal compliance issues explicitly as they relate to the e xisting Zoning Code and may not be comprehensive or indicative of every potential inconsistency throughout the Code given the evolving nature of State and federal law. The City will continue to build upon previous efforts to evaluate State and federal law as it evolves and impacts the Zoning Code during the comprehensive update process outlined in this Project.
Findings and Recommendations
The following list summarizes the major findings from the legal consistency analysis and recommended amendments to the Zoning Code to ensure compliance with both State and federal law. Findings and recommendations are grouped, as in nearly all cases the recommended strategy follows directly from the identified inconsistency.
Accessory to Residential Uses
• Food cooperatives (equivalent to State-regulated “cottage food operations”) are currently limited to only single -family dwellings, but must be allowed in any residential dwelling or zone allowing residential uses.
• Small and large family day care (equivalent to State -regulated “family child care homes”) are not currently allowed by-right in the Mixed-Use Zone, which allows residential uses. State law prohibits cities from requiring such uses licensed by the State, regardless of size, from having to obtain a land use/zoning permit and/or business license. Small and large family day care must be allowed in any residential dwelling or zone allowing residential use. Additionally, the similarly -named day nurseries (child care centers) should be removed, as these are listed as separate use requiring a special use permit, administrative (SUPA).
Housing
• The Code lacks specific standards addressing the reconstruction, restoration, or rebuilding of a legal, nonconforming multifamily dwelling that is involuntarily damaged or destroyed by fire or another catastrophic event . Such standards should be established and include a two -year timeframe for building permit application, references to relevant State codes, and circumstances where reconstruction may be prohibited.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 29 • Several State laws allow qualifying residential development in zones where commercial/office, retail, or parking are principally permitted us es. Regulations should be established allowing such residential uses in Commercial Zones, pursuant to the limitations of AB 2011 and SB 6 (as amended by AB 2243).
Parking
• Revise off-street parking requirements for residential, commercial, or other development project s within ½ mile of a major transit stop (unless certain findings are made) and ensure no parking requirements apply to residential projects with a minimum of 20% affordable units or fewer than 20 units.1
• Revise conditions/findings for shared parking agreements in mixed-use developments.
Telecommunications Facilities
• Federal law restricts the authority of local governments in regulating the placement, construction, and modification of wireless service facilities and the processing of “eligible facilities requests” which modify existing facilities. The Code must establish “presumptively reasonable periods” of review for action on collocation (90 days) and other eligible facilities requests (150 days). • State law also specifically addresses colocation facilities, requiring them to be a permitted use because they are located on an already -approved wireless facility. The Code should d efine and establish standards for collocation facilities and permit them without a discretionary permit.
Other
• State law now requires ministerial approval of a permit for a community clinic that provides reproductive health services in zones where office, retail, parking, or health care is a permitted use.
The Code must establish a use type (or revise an existing use type) to implement this requirement. • The Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert established new “ objective criteria ” standards for sign regulations which the City’s Article 23 (Sign Regulations) have yet to address.
The Project include a comprehensive review and update to the City’s sign regulations to ensure compliance with this decision.
1 There are no major transit stops in the City. The Public Resources Code Section 21064.3 defines major transit stop as an existing rail station, a ferry terminal served by bus or rail, and an intersection of two or more bus routes with service every 20 minutes or less during peak hours.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 30 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025
5. Specific Plan Evaluation
Introduction
As part of LWC’s comprehensive review of the City’s zoning regulations and development standards, the City's 18 adopted Specific Plans were evaluated to determine their continued relevancy and whether these plans may be refined, deleted, or implemented elsewhere in the Zoning Code. This sectio n lists all active Specific Plans, describes the methodology used to determine which were eligible for consolidation, and the findings and recommendations from a detailed analysis of those analyzed.
Summary of Specific Plans
The City has 18 adopted Specific Plans, a Downtown Master Plan, and one specific plan in progress. Each Specific Plan guides development in the City of Thousand Oaks consistent with the City’s long -term vision and needs. The 2045 General Plan aligns with the policies an d ongoing development occurring under several of the City’s existing Plans, including the Downtown Core Master Plan and the Civic Arts Specific Plan, and identifies opportunities for new specific plans to ensure coordinated development and/or redevelopment of priority sites such as the Oaks Mall and the Janss Marketplace. The City’s Specific Plans, in order of adoption, are named as follows and shown in the map below. • SP01 Wildwood (adopted 1967, last amended 1981)
• SP03 Lang Ranch (adopted 1968, last amended 1998)
• SP04 Westlake North Ranch (adopted 1972, last amended 2008) • SP07 Rancho Conejo (adopted 1983, last amended 2015)
• SP08/09 Dos Vientos (adopted 1989, last amended 2009) • SP11 Civic Arts Plaza (adopted 1989, last amended 2021) • SP13 Academy Business Park (adopted 1996, last amended 2011) • SP15 Rancho Conejo Industrial Park (adopted 1992, last amended 2012) • SP16 Amgen Center (adopted 1994, last amended 2016)
• SP17 401 W Hillcrest (adopted 1997)
• SP18 Kimber Reino (also known as South Reino) (adopted 1999) • SP19 Rancho Potrero (adopted 2010)
• SP20 Thousand Oaks Boulevard (adopted 2011, last amended 2022) • SP21 Timber School Site (adopted 2021)
• SP22 Thousand Oaks Ranch (adopted 2022)
• SP23 The Oaks (adopted 2022)
• SP24 Latigo Hillcrest (adopted 2023)
• SP25 Janss Marketplace (in progress)
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 31 *Note: Specific Plans are numbered consecutively, even if prior plans were repealed and/or started but never adopted. (e.g., Specific Plan 5 and 6)
Map of the City’s existing Specific Plans, including the percentage of the City’s land area they cover.
The first Specific Plan was adopted in 1967, just three years after the City incorporated in 1964. The most recent Plan, Latigo Hillcrest, was adopted in 2023. Additionally, the Janss Marketplace Specific Plan is underway. Many of the Plans have been amended several times over the years to align with evolving land use policy and legal requirements, redistribute and recalculate deve lopment capacity, and address plan area specific conditions and project proposals.
Each Specific Plan covers different combinations of land uses (e.g., residential, commercial, office) and as such maintains different project goals and includes various unique policies and regulatory tools to achieve the plan goals. The first Specific Plans primarily focused on developing vacant properties, targeting large - scale residential subdivisions with significant infrastructure improvements and open space components.
The Plans mostly included policy and guidance related to number of allowed residenti al units and associated infrastructure, with developments utilizing Residential Planned Development (RPD) and customized zoning determined during the Tentative Tract Map or RPD - Permit for regulation. These early plans prioritized growing the City post -incorporation, but were otherwise pretty limited in scope. The more recent plans focus more on commercial corridors (Thousand Oaks Boulevard) and mixed-use development
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 32 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 (Thousand Oaks Ranch, The Oaks, and Latigo Hillcrest), and include area-specific development and design regulations.
Approach
As part of the Project, the City is looking for opportunities to streamline, simplify, and consolidate development regulations, including regulations which may be embedded within adopted Specific Plans.
Ten of the 18 adopted Specific Plans were selected for further study based on the following criteria:
• Age of the Specific Plan (i.e., is the plan old or outdated) • Buildout status, (i.e., is the Plan Area mostly built out, with roads and infrastructure completed) • Complexity of underlying policy and/or regulation (i.e., is there a potential to regulate development with an existing or new zone)
When analyzing the Specific Plans, it is assumed that, when in conflict, the 2045 General Plan land use policy supersedes the land use criteria in the Specific Plan.
Findings and Recommendations
Table summarizes the findings and recommendations for the 10 Specific Plans that were studied. Overall, seven are likely candidates to be repealed and replaced with the standards and provisions of the updated Zoning Code. In these circumstances, the existing zoning would remain in place (defaulting to the General Plan and RPD for density and development standards) and/or one or more properties would be rezoned to a different zone in the Zoning Code which most closely aligns with the new General Plan land use designation.
Given the complexity and the level of detail within the plan, two plans are recommended to remain intact.
In a few instances, individual properties may be recommended to be removed from the Specific Plan itself and rezoned according to the most appropriate zone given the General Plan land use designation. This would require a Specific Plan amendment to remove the property from the Specific Plan boundary, while not altering the other components of the Specific Plan.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 33 Table 4: Specific Plan Findings and Recommendations
Specific Plan Description Findings Recommendation
SP01
Wildwood
Wildwood Specific Plan envisions single-
family low-density development and
integrated open space on land annexed
from Ventura County.
SP1 is entirely built out with residential, parks, and open space.
• Amendments to the original SP modified allowed density and unit counts across the project area.
• SP1 contains no development regulations, but establishes maximum residential unit counts per sub-area.
• Development standards (lot sizes, heights, setbacks)
determined by RPD standards in the TOMC and per
approved TTM, RPD permits, and PPD permits issued.
• It is unclear in staff reports if RPD permits included waivers of RPD and/or PPD standards.
Repeal Specific Plan
• Maintain existing zoning (e.g. RPD, OS, etc.) for
residential areas. Residential density will be
determined based on General Plan. Residential
development regulations as determined by RPD
Zone in TOMC.
• Modify RPD zone to allow flexibility in height and
setbacks based on existing built conditions
• Rezone all "Existing Parks, Golf Courses, Open
Space" land use areas to the OS Zone.
• Maintain PL and OS zoning.
SP03 Lang
Ranch
Lang Ranch Specific Plan accommodates
a range of single-family low density
development, with some limited
commercial and office areas.
SP3 is entirely built out with residential, parks, open space, and commercial
• Amendments to the original SP to modify densities were contentious and resulted in a Stipulated Judgement to
control remaining development capacity within the Plan
Area.
• SP3 relies on RPD zone standards but establishes
maximum residential unit counts per sub-area.
• Some development parameters (e.g., setbacks, heights, etc.) are provided in the Stipulated Judgement as well as subsequent amendments.
• Development standards (lot sizes, heights, setbacks)
determined by RPD standards in the TOMC and per
approved TTM, RPD permits, and PPD permits issued.
• Waivers to RPD and PPD requirements were approved.
• There is a commercial shopping center within SP3 that has been included in the HE sites inventory and has been
identified as MU in the GP.
Maintain Specific Plan
Consider rezoning General Plan mixed-use areas with
new Mixed Use Zone and removing from Specific Plan
area.
SP04 Westlake
North Ranch
Westlake North Ranch Specific Plan
proposes a variety of residential and
associated commercial development on
undeveloped land in the City.
SP4 is entirely built out with residential, parks, schools, open space, and commercial
• Amendments to the original SP modified allowed density and unit counts across the project area, as well as
modifications to allowed uses.
Repeal Specific Plan
• Maintain existing zoning (e.g. RPD, RE, etc.) for
residential areas. Residential density will be
determined based on General Plan. Residential
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 34 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 Table 4: Specific Plan Findings and Recommendations
Specific Plan Description Findings Recommendation
• SP4 contains no development regulations, but establishes maximum residential unit counts per sub-area.
• Development standards (lot sizes, heights, setbacks)
determined by RPD standards in the TOMC and per
approved TTM, RPD permits, and PPD permits issued.
• Some RPD permits and TTM included conditions of
approval regarding site design and development standards (e.g., height limits). It is unclear in staff reports if RPD permits included waivers of RPD and/or PPD standards.
development regulations as determined by RPD
Zone in TOMC.
• Modify RPD zone to allow flexibility in height and
setbacks based on existing built conditions
• Rezone all "Existing Parks, Golf Courses, Open
Space" and any other non-residential land use
areas (e.g., Commercial Town, Institutional) to the
appropriate zone based on the General Plan land
use designation.
SP07 Rancho
Conejo
Rancho Conejo Specific Plan envisions
development on two planning units to
accommodate residential, commercial,
and industrial development and open
space.
SP 7 is mostly built out, with one remaining project under entitlement.
• Amendments addressed changes of land use designations throughout plan area.
• No development regulations provided within the SP.
• All non-residential planning areas within SP7 are regulated by existing City Zones (M-1, PL, and OS).
• Residential areas controlled by RPD 0.76U -SP zone and approved RPD permit(s). Densities per land use (low,
med, high res) are provided in the SP.
• Development standards (lot sizes, heights, setbacks)
determined by RPD standards in the TOMC and per
approved TTM, RPD permits, and PPD permits issued.
• There are limitations to affordable housing units in
apartment areas.
• There are some plan area specific conditions provided within Amendment 7, for plan unit "U" (M-1 zone), Urban Edge Areas, and more. Some contingent upon review of
TTM and RPDP.
Repeal Specific Plan
• Maintain existing zoning (e.g., RPD) for residential
areas. Residential density will be determined
based on General Plan. Residential development
regulations as determined by RPD Zone in TOMC.
• Modify RPD zone to allow flexibility in height and
setbacks based on existing built conditions
• Rezone all "Existing Parks, Golf Courses, Open
Space" and any other non-residential land use
areas (e.g., Industrial, Institutional) to the
appropriate zone based on the General Plan land
use designation.
SP08/09 Dos
Vientos
Dos Vientos Specific Plan includes a
variety low, medium, and high-density
residential development with associated
commercial and open space designated
areas.
SP08/09 is entirely built out with residential, parks, and open space.
• Amendments to the original SP modified allowed density and unit counts across the project area and rezoned and reclassified land to open space and parks consistent with City policy updates.
Repeal Specific Plan
• Maintain existing zoning (e.g., RPD) for residential
areas. Residential density will be determined
based on General Plan. Residential development
regulations as determined by RPD Zone in TOMC.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 35 Table 4: Specific Plan Findings and Recommendations
Specific Plan Description Findings Recommendation
• The SP contains no development regulations, but
establishes maximum residential unit counts per Plan Unit sub-area.
• Development standards (lot sizes, heights, setbacks)
determined by RPD standards in the TOMC and per
approved TTM, RPD permits, and PPD permits issued.
It is unclear in staff reports if RPD permits included waivers of RPD and/or PPD standards.
• Modify RPD zone to allow flexibility in height and
setbacks based on existing built conditions
• Rezone all "Existing Parks, Golf Courses, Open
Space" and any other non-residential land use
areas (e.g., Institutional) to the appropriate zone
based on the General Plan land use designation.
• Maintain OS/OS-PR limitations from Amendment
5, approved in 2009
SP15 Rancho
Conejo
Industrial Park
The Rancho Conejo Industrial Park
Specific Plan provides specific
development standards for industrial
properties on property annexed by the
City.
SP15 is built out with GP LUD as industrial, institutional, mixed use, and open space.
• The SP contains development and use regulations, which have been integrated into the TOMC as Appendix A.
These development regulations no longer conform to the
land use policy established in the General Plan for
Industrial Low and Industrial Flex.
• SP15 does not accommodate mixed-use development, as
identified in the GP.
• All original development agreements have expired.
Repeal Specific Plan
• Rezone all parcels to the appropriate zone based
on the General Plan land use designation.
• Repeal Title 9, Appendix A.
SP17 401 W
Hillcrest
The 401 W Hillcrest Specific Plan
encourages residential, commercial, and
mixed use development.
SP17 is mostly built out.
• SP contains development standards and use regulations for each of the three planning units.
• Residential development shall be subject to the applicable provisions of the Residential Planned Development (RPD) zone. SP also refers to TOMC standards in place at time of entitlement.
Maintain Specific Plan
SP18 Kimber
Reino
The Kimber Reino Specific Plan focuses
on commercial development that is
compatible with adjacent residential uses.
SP18 is built out with commercial uses.
• The SP provides zoning modifications for the entirety of the SP area (0.5-acre site).
• The GP designates the property for commercial
neighborhood, and has C-1 Zoning.
• SP18 does not detail infrastructure or any major
improvements.
Repeal Specific Plan
Rezone all parcels to the appropriate zone based on
the General Plan land use designation.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 36 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 Table 4: Specific Plan Findings and Recommendations
Specific Plan Description Findings Recommendation
SP19 Ranch
Potrero
The Ranch Potrero Specific Plan
preserves natural open space in the plan
area.
SP19 preserves the natural open space of the plan area. • The SP includes direction on long term use, management, and operations of public open space.
• Includes particular standards for each of the 10 subareas. • The majority of the property (306acres) is held in trust for City and Conejo Rec Park District. Other 20 acres owned by COSCA.
Maintain Specific Plan
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 37
6. Objective Design Standards Review
Introduction
This section documents the City’s existing regulations, design guidelines, and policies for multi -family residential and mixed-use development throughout the City. Together with staff and community input, the analysis and recommendations will inform the amendmen ts to objective design standards that will be incorporated into the updated Zoning Ordinance. This section includes:
Existing Regulatory Framework includes General Plan policies relevant to the development of objective design standards for multifamily and mixed-use development, basic development standards for zones that support multi-family and mixed -use development, and all design standards applicable to mu lti-family and mixed-use development.
Key Findings and Recommendations summarizes the findings from the analysis and recommended approach to ensuring a clear set of objective design standards for multi-family and mixed-use development throughout Thousand Oaks.
Existing Regulatory Framework
This section provides an overview of the City’s existing regulatory framework, including the 2045 General Plan, relevant development standards from the City of Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, and Specific Plans that include design guidelines and/or standards for multi-family residential and mixed -use development.
Included are General Plan policies, Code regulations, and design guidelines and/or standards related to multi-family residential and mixed-use development.
2045 General Plan
As noted in Section 2 (General Plan Policy Review ), General Plan 2045 is the long -term framework for the City’s physical form and development. The General Plan consists of policies that govern and guide City actions on which development regulations and decisions are based. This section documents existing guiding principles and policies related to the design of residential and mixed-use development. Any updates to the City’s Objective Design Standards will help implement these goals and policies. (For more information about the General Plan as it pertains to the Project, see Section 2 (General Plan Policy Review).
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element guides the location, form, pattern, and character of new development in the City.
Citywide Urban Structure and Pattern of Development
• Goal LU-1: Create a land use pattern of development that preserves existing neighborhoods while providing opportunities for targeted infill projects in strategic locations to enhance the quality of life, preserve the natural environment, and ensure the long-term fiscal viability of Thousand Oaks.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 38 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 o 1.1 Overall City structure. Establish a clearly defined urban pattern of development and open space by:
▪ Incentivizing and streamlining infill multi-family development. ▪ Redeveloping large shopping malls, including The Oaks shopping mall and Janss Marketplace, into walkable, mixed -use places that include multi -family residential, hotels, entertainment and retail uses.
▪ Redeveloping strip commercial shopping centers into walkable, mixed -use centers with housing, retail, and public meeting and gathering spaces. Discouraging the development of drive-through facilities and building designs for single use occupancy within mix ed-use areas.
▪ Incentivizing and streamlining infill residential at mixed-use designations, including adding residential development on existing parking lots and underutilized portions of the site. o 1.5 Mixed-use development. Allow mixed -use developments, consistent with the General Plan land use map, to support a healthy jobs/housing balance, promote walkability, and increase economic vibrancy.
o 1.6 Non-residential transitions. Require transitions in building height, massing, and character for new buildings in mixed use, commercial, and industrial areas that are immediately adjacent to single-family residential areas. These transitions may include a combination of vegetation, berms, building setbacks, upper story setbacks, and a decrease in building height.
Residential Neighborhoods
• Goal LU-2: Preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods throughout the City. o 2.3 Sustainable residences. Encourage sustainable building practices during new construction or when buildings are substantially renovated. o 2.5 Sustainable residential landscaping. Encourage property owners to use sustainable and climate-appropriate landscaping by incorporating natural materials and native vegetation and trees to enhance the urban forest and provide shade and habitat for fauna. • Goal LU -4: Support the creation of safe, affordable, and sanitary housing for all ages, income levels, and abilities.”
o 4.3 Barriers and buffers. Require design features such as site and building orientation, trees or other landscaped barriers, artificial barriers, ventilation and filtration, construction, and operational practices to reduce air quality impacts to new residential development from high - volume roadways.
Mixed-Use Areas
• Goal LU-5: Enhance quality of life, enable active modes of transportation, and provide housing opportunities with vibrant mixed-use areas.
o 5.2 Active ground floor uses. Encourage active ground floor uses, such as retail, restaurants, and other commercial uses in new development projects that have a potential for significant pedestrian activity.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 39 o 5.3 Pedestrian-oriented design. Orient new buildings towards the primary public right-of-way and require new projects to construct sidewalks designed to accommodate street amenities and landscaping in front of the project. Encourage new project designs with the primary building entrance facing the front, instead of behind the building or from a side street. o 5.4 Residential infill within commercial shopping centers. Encourage infill residential development on underutilized parking lots in mixed-use areas while also maintaining the site’s retail and commercial activity. Support the following activities, when necessary, to facilitate residential development:
▪ Subdivision of the parking area to create developable parcels. ▪ Clustering of density on underutilized portions of the site and/or parking area. ▪ Shared access to existing structures to allow existing uses to remain while the parking areas are being redeveloped or reconfigured.
▪ Addition to or reconfiguration of the existing structures. o 5.5 Land use integration. Provide infrastructure connectivity between mixed -use developments and surrounding land uses, including streets, pedestrian trails, bikeways, park lands, commercial retail, and employment uses.
o 5.6 Shared and flexible parking. Provide measures that allow shared parking between properties and uses with different peak parking demands and flexibility in meeting parking requirements for changes of use in existing structures. o 5.8 Comprehensive site design. Require mixed -use development to be comprehensively planned. Discourage “outparcels” for specific commercial uses or other subdivision of sites into smaller parcels that would restrict the redevelopment of the area for housing in the future.
Community Design and Public Realm
• Goal LU-8: Support high-quality and visually interesting design and construction of all buildings throughout the City.
o 8.1 Quality design and materials. Require simple, urban building forms made with permanent, high-quality materials and architectural detailing. o 8.2 Building entrances. Use visual and physical features within a building’s design and entries to emphasize the building entrance and connection to public spaces. o 8.3 Public gathering spaces. Encourage public and quasi -public gathering spaces within development that support community activities.
o 8.5 Iconic design. Encourage iconic and memorable building designs, particularly on larger properties and those visible from major thoroughfares, including Highway 101. o 8.7 Crime prevention strategies. Implement Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, that include site design, mixtures of uses, lighting, nighttime security and other measures.
o 8.8 Design of mixed-use, commercial, office and industrial areas. Design areas to be more urban in character by amending the zoning regulations, including but not limited to the following:
▪ Buildings sited near front lot lines by establishing maximum setbacks Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 40 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 ▪ A high percentage of lot coverage
▪ Building facades with transparency (e.g., windows) and an active street frontage ▪ Parking and loading areas located behind or on the side of buildings ▪ Wide sidewalks with landscaping
▪ New street connections to create more walkable blocks • Goal LU -9: Design public streets and other spaces for pedestrians and that foster interaction, activity, and safety.
o 9.5 Lighting. Require that all new streetlights along sidewalks and other pedestrian rights of way in commercial, multi -family, and mixed -use areas to be pedestrian-scaled and provide adequate visibility and security.
o 9.6 Public plazas. Encourage new development to incorporate public plazas, seating, and gathering places.
Sustainable Buildings
• Goal LU-11: Power existing and new buildings with clean energy. o 11.7 Electrical Vehicle charging stations in new development. Require EV ready receptacles sufficient to support users in new development.
The Oaks
• Goal LU-15: Repurpose The Oaks mall into a mixed-use center combining housing, entertainment, visitor serving uses, retail, and other uses in a walkable neighborhood. o 15.5 New walkable residential. Encourage new residential development to be designed in a walkable format. Prohibit the construction of isolated and/or gated communities and connect new to existing development with paths.
o 15.6 Public gathering space. Provide publicly accessible gathering spaces such as small parks and plazas to serve residents of new multi-family developments.
Rancho Conejo North and South
• Goal LU-18: Diversify land uses along Highway 101 Corridor in Rancho Conejo South o 18.3 Mixed-use community on Hillcrest Drive. Develop a mixed-use community on Hillcrest Drive that supports workforce housing for the Rancho Conejo industrial area and the following:
▪ Improve connectivity to adjacent transportation modes, including Park - N-Ride facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
▪ Provide transitional uses, design features, and setbacks from the existing neighborhood to the east.
Mixed-Use Village Centers
• Goal LU-20: Develop thriving, walkable Village Centers that support the daily needs of residents within the vicinity.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 41 o 20.2 Multi-family housing. Encourage the addition of multi -family housing at the Mixed -Use Village Centers at the Moorpark Road and Janss Road intersection, and Erbes Road and Avenida de Los Arboles intersection. The addition of multi-family housing can be facilitated by allowing the redevelopment of portions of the site, adding residential to existing parking lots, or adaptive reuse of existing buildings.
o 20.3 Gathering spaces. Introduce new public gathering places in Village Centers such as plazas or courtyards.
Mobility Element
The Mobility Element aims to enhance transportation options and improve mobility through increased access and connectivity and efficient management of existing infrastructure.
Community Health
• Goal M-3: Create and maintain a transportation system that improves community health. o 3.5 Mixed -use development. Require development of mixed -use to include multimodal improvements, such as convenient bicycle parking and storage facilities, electric vehicle charging stations, and vehicle share programs for reduced parking.
Conservation Element
The Conservation Element aims to guide new development and facilitate conservation and protection of natural resources in the City.
Scenic Resources and Landforms
• Goal C-1: Conserve Thousand Oaks’ physical setting and natural scenic resources. o 1.3 Update standards and guidelines. Update and consolidate existing Design Guidelines to include standards for hillside development and the preservation of special scenic resources that prohibit development that impact ridgelines, steep slopes and other natural land features.
Zoning Code Regulations – Development Standards
Development standards for zones that support multi-family residential development in the Zoning Code are summarized in Table below.
Table 5: Development Standards for Districts Supporting Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Development District
R-3, Multiple-Family
Residential
(Articles 10 and 25)
RPD, Residential Planned
Development
(Articles 9 and 25)
HPD, Hillside
Planned
Development
(Article 31)
MU/MUOZ,
Mixed-
Use/Mixed-Use
Overlay Zones
(Article 10.5)
Lot Area
7,000 sf
1,000 sf/du (43.56 du/ac)
5,000 sf – –
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 42 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 Table 5: Development Standards for Districts Supporting Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Development District
R-3, Multiple-Family
Residential
(Articles 10 and 25)
RPD, Residential Planned
Development
(Articles 9 and 25)
HPD, Hillside
Planned
Development
(Article 31)
MU/MUOZ,
Mixed-
Use/Mixed-Use
Overlay Zones
(Article 10.5)
Density 30 du/ac –
Max. 7 du/ac
Average slope of site:
10-14.9%: 2.0 du/ac
15-19.9%: 1.6 du/ac
20-24.9%: 1.2 du/ac
25-29.9%: 0.8 du/ac
30-34.9%: 0.4 du/ac
20-30 du/ac
FAR – – –
Residential: 50-
100%
Non-residential:
Max. 100%
Lot
Coverage –
Low density (0 to 4.5 units per
net acre): 40%
Medium density (4.5 to 15
units per net acre): 30%
High density (15 to 30 units
per net acre): 35%
– 80%
Height
35 ft; 45 ft if the project
includes 20% or more
affordable housing units in the
very and low-income
categories and if the portion
exceeding 35 ft covers no
more than 40% of the building
footprint.
35 ft; 45 ft if the project
includes 20% or more
affordable housing units in the
very and low-income
categories and if the portion
exceeding 35 ft covers no
more than 40% of the building
footprint.
–
20-50 ft
Max. height
within 50 ft of
residential zone
or exclusively
residential use:
25 ft (30 ft from
property line)
45 ft (30 ft to 50
ft from property
line)
50 ft (>50 ft
from property
line) 1
Setback,
Front
20 ft; the part of any structure
that exceeds a height of 25 ft
shall be set back from the
property line an additional 5 ft
for each 10 ft in height, or
portion thereof, by which such
part of any structure exceeds
25 ft.
20 ft, plus 5 ft for each 10 ft in
height, or portion thereof, by
which such structure exceeds
25 ft if adjacent to a primary or
secondary highway.
May be reduced to 15 ft except
where adjacent to primary or
secondary highways and
provided the structures are
staggered by 10 ft or more.
– 15-30 ft 2
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 43 Table 5: Development Standards for Districts Supporting Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Development District
R-3, Multiple-Family
Residential
(Articles 10 and 25)
RPD, Residential Planned
Development
(Articles 9 and 25)
HPD, Hillside
Planned
Development
(Article 31)
MU/MUOZ,
Mixed-
Use/Mixed-Use
Overlay Zones
(Article 10.5)
Setback,
Side
For multiple dwellings, 8 ft; 2-
story walls with windows: 10 ft
to a line midway between such
walls
15 ft; 20 ft when adjacent to a
primary or secondary highway,
plus 5 ft for each 10 ft in
height, or portion thereof, by
which such structure exceeds
25 ft.
15 ft 20 ft from a
residential zone
Setback,
Rear 20 ft
Specified as part of the
residential planned
development permit where
deemed necessary by the
Commission.
Specified as part of the
residential planned
development permit
where deemed
necessary by the
Commission.
20 ft from a
residential zone
Open
Space –
Low density (0 to 4.5 units per
net acre): 40%
Medium density (4.5 to 15
units per net acre): 45%
High density (15 to 30 units
per net acre): 35% 3
Average slope of site:
0.0-14.9%: 32.5%
15.0-17.4%: 40.0%
17.5-19.9%: 47.5%
20.0-22.4%: 55.0%
22.5-24.9%: 62.5%
25.0-27.4%: 70.0%
27.5-29.9%: 77.5%
30.0-32.4%: 85.0%
32.5-34.9%: 92.5%
Over 35.0%: 100%
(except minimum
grading for dwelling
and driveway areas)
–
Parking –
Studio and 1 bedroom: 1
covered space/unit
2 bedroom: 1.5 covered
spaces/unit
3+ bedroom: 2 covered
spaces/unit
Guest: 0.5 space/unit
Studio: 1 covered
space and 0.5 open
space per unit
1 bedroom: 1 covered
space and 1 open
space per unit
2 bedroom: 1.5
covered spaces and 1
open space per unit
3 bedroom: 2 covered
spaces and 1.5 open
spaces per unit
4+ bedroom: 2 covered
spaces and 2 open
spaces per unit
Studio and 1
bedroom: 1
space/unit
2 bedroom: 1.5
spaces/unit
3+ bedroom: 2
spaces/unit
Guest: 0.5
space/unit
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 44 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 Table 5: Development Standards for Districts Supporting Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Development District
R-3, Multiple-Family
Residential
(Articles 10 and 25)
RPD, Residential Planned
Development
(Articles 9 and 25)
HPD, Hillside
Planned
Development
(Article 31)
MU/MUOZ,
Mixed-
Use/Mixed-Use
Overlay Zones
(Article 10.5)
Notes:
1 Listed height standards apply except where the previous allowed height for that lot exceeds the standards of the Mixed-Use Zone.
This includes sites in the Height Limit Overlay Zone (H) or the former C-4 Zone noted in Sec. 9-4.307. 2 Setbacks to be measured from the back of the curb. The maximum setback shall be 30 feet from the back of the curb, except that up to 40% of the lot frontage may be occupied by public courtyards, plazas, recessed entries, or driveways. 3 In the RPD zone, open space consists of all greenbelts, private yards, and open areas which are not less than fifteen (15’) feet in dimension and are not located in the setback area adjacent to frontage streets that are public rights-of-way.
Zoning Code Regulations – Design Standards
This section summarizes design standards established in the City of Thousand Oaks Municipal Code and applicable to zones that support multi-family residential and mixed-use development in Thousand Oaks.
Article 10 – R-3 Zone
Section 9-4.1004 – Residential planned development permits • Landscaping
o Landscape trees shall be selected and planted in such a manner as to minimize root damage to parking lot hardscape. All trees planted shall be from the planting pallets contained within the Forestry Master Plan unless another species is approved by the Community Development Director. Trees known to have shallow or evasive roots shall not be planted within parking lot areas. Tree species should be chosen to maximize canopy coverage of parking lot areas. Trees shall be provided with a minimum four (4’) foot b y six (6’) foot planting hole (six (6’) feet by six (6’) feet preferred) or the largest planting area possible within any landscape design. In addition, deep root watering methods shall be designed and incorporated to supply water for parking lot trees and root guards shall be placed behind any curb in the vicinity of the planted tree(s). o Plant material of a drought-tolerant nature shall be used to the greatest extent possible in any parking area landscape design and planting.
Article 9 – RPD Zone
Section 9-4.904(c) – Open parking areas, driveways, and parking lots • Driveway Design
o Driveway and vehicular access ways shall have thirty-six (36') feet of pavement width when:
▪ The design indicates that parallel parking may occur which is permitted on one side of the driveway only;
▪ A hazardous type of construction is allowed;
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 45 ▪ Access drives are longer than one hundred fifty (150') feet, or structures are three (3) stories or more in height and are located on both sides of the drive; and ▪ It is a main access route through the proposed development, which route either directly or indirectly services the entire project.
o Driveways and vehicular access ways may have thirty (30’) feet of pavement width when:
▪ The design indicates that perpendicular parking will not allow parallel parking, and structures are not over two (2) stories in height on both sides of the access drives; ▪ Structures are not more than two (2) stories in height and have tuck-under parking on one side of the access drive and a carport or open parking on the opposite side. All parking shall be perpendicular parking; and
▪ Access driveways are not more than one hundred fifty (150') feet in length, and structures are not more than three (3) stories in height.
o Driveways and vehicular access ways may have twenty-five (25’) feet of pavement width when the driveways are used strictly for vehicle parking, and the driveway is not used for direct access to any structure within the project. All parking shall be perpendicular. • Landscaping
o Five (5%) percent of any open parking and driveway areas containing parking spaces for at least ten (10) vehicles, and not more than twenty-one (21) vehicles, shall be landscaped. Ten (10%) percent of any open parking and driveway areas containing more than twenty -one (21) parking spaces shall be landscaped. Such landscaped areas shall be distributed through the entire parking area as required by the Community Development Director. All such required landscaped areas shall be computed on the basis of the total amount of parking and driveway areas provided (except spaces provided for enclosed vehicle storage areas). o Landscape trees shall be selected and planted in such a manner as to minimize root damage to parking lot hardscape. All trees planted shall be from the planting pallets contained within the Forestry Master Plan unless another species is approved by the Community Development Director. Trees known to have shallow or invasive roots shall not be planted within parking lot areas. Tree species should be chosen to maximize canopy coverage of parking lot areas. Trees shall be provided with a minimum four (4’) foot by six (6’) foot planting hole (six (6’) feet by six (6’) feet preferred) or the largest planting area possible within any landscape design. In addition, deep root watering methods shall be designed and incorporated to supply water for parking lot trees and root guards shall be placed behind any curb in the vicinity of the planted tree(s). o No approved landscaping shall be removed or tree pruned of live tissue in any parking lot area without the written authorization of the Community Development Department upon the submittal of a tree pruning proposal by a certified arborist or landscape architect. Topping of trees or pruning to reduce canopy coverage within parking lots is prohibited. o Plant material of a drought tolerant nature shall be used to the greatest extent possible in any parking area landscape design and planting.
o Approved landscaping shall be permanently maintained in accordance with Section1 -6.01(e) of this Code. Any redesign or alteration of an existing project landscaping shall be subject to approval of the Community Development Department and shall be accomplished through the Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 46 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 filing of a Landscape Plan Check application, provided such alteration is consistent with all City codes, policies, and project entitlement conditions.
Section 9-4.904(g) – General standards
• Screening
o Trash Areas Screening. For townhouse and apartment projects, adequate trash areas shall be provided and enclosed by a six (6’) foot high decorative block or slumpstone wall in locations approved by the Community Development Director. Adequate solid gates and vehicular access to such areas shall be provided. This may be waived where individual pick -up service to the units is provided.
o Equipment Screening. All surface-mounted mechanical equipment, including transformers, terminal boxes, or meter cabinets, shall be screened by landscaping and/or treated to match the materials and colors of the surrounding buildings.
Article 31 – HPD Zone
Section 9-4.3108 – Development standards
• Building design. Building design and architectural features shall be compatible with the specific parcel to be developed and with the purposes and policies set forth in this article. Lot sizes, building types, height limits, and setbacks shall be flexible in order to achieve this end; however, safety considerations shall be of foremost concern.
Article 10.5 – MU and MUOZ Zones
Section 9-4.1052 – Development standards
• Site Design
o Building separation: Minimum 20 feet
• Building Massing
o Third floor setback: Minimum 10 feet average from first floor street building facade • Ground Floor Height
o Ground floor plate height: Minimum 14 feet
• Façade Design
o Ground floor transparency
▪ Minimum 65% for commercial or mixed-use
▪ Minimum 45% for ground floor residential
• Window Design
o Display window height: Minimum 4 feet
o Height from adjacent grade to bottom of display window: Maximum 3.5 feet • Parking Design
o Vehicular access
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 47 ▪ Lots less than 100 feet wide: Maximum 1 access point
▪ Lots over 100 feet wide: Maximum 2 access points
o Location: Side and rear yards only
o Parking and driveway landscaping: Minimum 10%
• Open Space
o Public exterior space for commercial and mixed-use projects: Minimum 3% of area of building footprint.
Article 22 – Objective Design Standards for Residential Development Article 22 establishes objective design standards for all development that includes the new construction of at least two or more residential units, across all zones. The standards were created as review criteria for projects that are required by State law to be eligible for approval through a ministerial process. Article 22 design standards include the following topics:
• (a) Street and pedestrian connectivity: Street access, alleys, pedestrian access, parking access. • (b) Site development standards: Minimum number of separate buildings on large sites. • (c) Building orientation and unit entries: Main entrance orientation, balconies, covered entrance areas.
• (d) Parking location and configuration: Location and design of off-street parking. • (e) Building types and design. Location, configuration, parking, open space, and/or elevation design for the following building types:
o Front yard house
o Duplex, triplex, quadplex
o Villa
o Bungalow court
o Rowhouse
o Side court housing
o Courtyard housing
o Stacked dwelling
o Mixed-use block
o Affordable units in all of the above building types
• (f) Frontage types. Dimensional standards for the following frontage types:
o Porch
o Stoop
o Terrace
o Shopfront
o Forecourt
o Gallery
o Arcade
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 48 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 • (g) Building massing and articulation. Building length, façade articulation, primary entrance features, exterior building walls, variety in roof form/height, building façade design, vertical articulation, and building materials.
• (h) Façade transparency and limitation on blank walls. Minimum fenestration and window design.
• (j) Private and common open space and multi-family projects. Required area and amenities. • (k) Accessor structures, site and building elements. Fencing, refuse areas, equipment screening, storage, design of accessory structures.
Precise Plan of Design (PPD) Guidelines
Resolution 2023 -061, the Precise Plan of Design Guidelines for Construction and Development of Residential, Industrial, and Institutional Projects establishes criteria for approval of a Precise Plan of Design Permit. The issue of a PPD permit is a discretionary action and is based on a finding of consistency with the PPD guidelines. (For more information regarding PPD permits and the City’s approval process, see Section 3 (General Zoning Analysis)). The guidelines include the following:
Neighborhood compatibility figures in the PPD Guidelines • (A) Architectural Design Review Guidelines for New Residential Development. Neighborhood Compatibility and Hillside Development. Scale and mass of new dwellings and additions, consistency with neighborhood design elements, privacy, protection of public viewsheds, outdoor lighting, consistency with neighborhoods patterns of landscape design. • (B) Specific Design Considerations for Single -Family Detached New Tract Developments Only. This section is not relevant to multi-family and residential mixed-use design standards. • (C) Multi-Family Residential.
o Townhouse or rowhouse development: required variation of design o All multi -family projects: materials, colors, details, landscaping, accessory building design, refuse areas, screening, shingles.
• (D) Industrial Building Considerations. This section is not relevant to multi-family and residential mixed-use design standards.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 49 • (E) Cultural Institutional Governmental and Other Building Design Considerations. This section is not relevant to multi-family and residential mixed-use design standards. • (F) Design. Roof form, building elevation design, landscaping, building and roof proportions, energy conservation, consistency of detail across elevations, outdoor lighting, refuse areas, screening.
• (G) Building Materials. Building and roof materials and color palette, prohibited materials and colors, and related guidelines.
• (H) Discouraged Design Elements. Lack of articulation, lack of screening, incompatible design, and poor quality materials.
Specific Plans
This section documents the four Specific Plans in the City that support multi-family residential and/or mixed- use development and the design guidelines and standards established in each Specific Plan. (For more information regarding Specific Plans, see Section 5 (Specific Plan Evaluation)).
SP-20: Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan
Adopted in 2011 and last amended in 2022, the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan aims to create an economically viable and pedestrian friendly mixed -use corridor at the core of the City. The Specific Plan area covers approximately 342 acres along Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
Section 4.C (Development Standards, pages 52 -78) includes standards for elements of building design such as building massing, fences and walls, screening, and landscaping. Also included are three additional sets of special design standards and guidelines for the following types of development:
• a. Development adjacent to Thousand Oaks Boulevard . Topics include building massing, roof design, window design, and architectural elements.
• b. Development adjacent to residential development. This section addresses outdoor lighting. • c. Mixed-use development. Topics include architectural design, façade articulation, compatibility with adjacent uses, open space design, equipment screening, and outdoor lighting.
Section 4.D (Supplemental Design Guidelines, pages 76 -94) contains design guidelines that supplement the City of Thousand Oaks Architectural Design Review Guidelines (Resolution No. 2005 -11) for Commercial Projects and apply to all properties within the Specific Plan area. The following design topics are addressed in this section:
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 50 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025
Ground floor transparency standards in the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan • 1. Building form. Topics addressed include entrance design, storefront design, window design, balconies, pedestrian linkages, and building materials. • 2. Public space. This section addresses location, design, amenities, lighting, and landscaping of publicly accessible open spaces.
• 3. Pedestrian connections to Thousand Oaks Boulevard . This section addresses the design, amenities, and lighting of pedestrian connections.
• 4. Public art. This section includes guidelines for public art in publicly accessible spaces. • 5. Design guidelines for standalone multi -family residential development. Topics addressed include site planning, building form and massing, façade articulation, architectural materials, windows and doors, entry design, roof forms, garages and ancillary structures, and utilities.
SP-22: Thousand Oaks Ranch Specific Plan
Adopted in 2022, the Thousand Oaks Ranch Specific Plan area is located on the north and east side of Foothill Drive and the west side of Hampshire Road in the southeast portion of the City. The 10.97 -acre Specific Plan area is the site of a redevelopment project consisting of mixed -use apartment buildings, townhomes, retail, recreation facilities, and open space.
Section 4.2 (pages 4 -2 – 4-7) of the Specific Plan includes architectural design guidelines and standards for the following elements of multi-family residential and mixed-use development:
• Multi-family. Included are standards and guidelines for building orientation and placement, building massing and scale, design of primary entrances, façade articulation, colors and materials, and landscaping.
• Development adjacent to residential development . Included are standards and guidelines for building orientation and placement, storefront design, façade articulation, colors and materials, screening, plazas, and landscaping.
SP-23: The Oaks Specific Plan
Adopted in 2022, The Oaks Specific Plan guides the design quality and character of The Oaks, a 42.9-acre development within two planning areas. Planning Area 1 is the site of the Gateway, an 8.8 -acre development comprised of multi-family residential and mixed-use buildings, and Planning Area 2 is a 34.1-
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 51 acre industrial park. Both areas are in the southeast portion of the City, north of the US 101 freeway, between the exits on Westlake Boulevard and Lindero Canyon Road. Design standards applicable to multi- family and mixed-use projects are listed below.
• Site Planning Design Guidelines (Section 5.2, pages V-2 – V-4) includes standards for building placement, loading and service areas, and parking lots and garages. • Architectural Design Guidelines (Section 5.3, pages V -5 – V-7) includes standards for building orientation and placement, building massing and scale, primary entrances, façade articulation, and colors and materials.
• Landscape and Open Space Design Guidelines (Section 5.4 , pages V -13 – V-22) includes standards for paving, walls and fences, site furnishings, and planting.
Perspective rendering from The Oaks Specific Plan
SP-24: Latigo Hillcrest Specific Plan
Adopted in 2023, the Latigo Hillcrest Specific Plan supports an 8.2-acre mixed-use development located at the southeast intersection of Hillcrest Drive and Rancho Conejo Boulevard in the southwest portion of the City. The project consists of five multi -family residential buildings and one mixed -use complex supported by commercial space, recreation amenities, gathering areas, and associated parking.
Chapter 4, Design Guidelines and Standards, includes guidelines and standards for the following topics:
• Mixed-use. Included are standards for building orientation and placement, building massing and scale, storefront design, mixed-use and commercial entry design, façade articulation, plaza design, colors and materials, and screening.
• Multi-family residential. Included are standards for building orientation and placement, building massing and scale, entry design, façade articulation, roof and height variation, colors and materials, open space design, and recreation areas and amenities.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 52 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 • Landscape and open space. Included are standards for landscaping in parking areas and design of common open space.
Façade articulation in the Latigo Hillcrest Specific Plan In addition, Chapter 5, Development Regulations, Section 5.4.1 Tiered Setbacks and Step-backs from West Hillcrest Drive (page 5-12) establishes upper-story step-backs along all property lines for a parcel located on Hillcrest Drive.
Findings and Recommendations
Citywide objective design standards for multi-family and mixed-use development will implement the General Plan, learn from existing standards and project, be clear and easy to use, and will avoid ambiguities with other applicable policies and regulations. Following are key findings from the analysis above and the recommended approach for crafting successful citywide objective design standards.
Findings
Opportunity to Address Key Policy Direction. The General Plan policy direction on design focuses on a clearly defined urban pattern of development and open space; sensitive transitions from low -density residential uses to higher -intensity and non -residential uses; high -quality design with a focus on sustainability measures; economic vibrancy on key corridors and central areas; and an overall walkability, bike accessibility and connectivity. While the Code addresses some of these topics, additional standards are needed to fully implement the policy direction. For more information on General Plan policy alignment, see the General Plan Policy Review section.
Overlap and Repetition of Design Standards. The existing regulatory framework of standards are located across several sources, leading to redundancy. Articles for each zone that supports multi -family and/or residential mixed use (articles 9, 10, 10.5 and 31) establish the basic development standards (density, height, setback, required open space, parking, etc.); however, these articles also regulate some elements that are typically considered elements of building design. This includes standards for landscaping (Section 9-4.1004), screening (Section 9 -4.904(g)), driveway design (Section 9 -4.904(c), and building massing above the ground floor, façade design, and architectural features (sections 9-4.3108 and 9-4.1052).
In addition to the articles for each zone, Article 22 establishes standards for a full range of building and site design elements, some of which address the same topics as the standards in articles 9, 10, 10.5 and 31.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 53 While the standards may not contradict, the overlap is likely to create difficulties in interpreting and applying the standards.
The four specific plans that provide design and development criteria for multifamily and/or residential mixed- use address many of the same design standards as the Code. Outside of the Zoning Code, the PPD Guidelines establish standards for many of the same elements as the Code. These include specific standards for building materials and colors, roof forms, architectural detail, lighting, careening and refuse areas. While these standards apply to all multi -family and mixed-use development seeking a PPD permi t, the City’s expectations for all projects, whether processed ministerially or through a discretionary review, should be aligned.
Standards To Be Updated. The “closed menu” of building types in Article 22 do not provide the flexibility needed to accommodate the characteristics of the sites and allowed development intensity. Other standards that should be removed or revised include but are not limited to:
• Limits on building length
• Limits on location and dimensions of common open spaces • Requirements on the location, orientation and design of ground floor residential units • Window design and materials
Lack of Clarity. The analysis in the Zoning Code Regulations – Development Standards and Zoning Code Regulations – Design Standards sections also found that the existing regulatory framework for design standards lacks illustrations and diagrams to explain the standards and intent; lacks cross references to aid applicants in understanding which standards apply to a multi -family or residential mixed -project, and is ambiguous regarding what are, and where to find, standards (“shalls”) vs. guidelines (“shoulds”). (For additional analysis of structure and ease of use, see the Code Organization and Structure section) Recommendations
The updated Code should do the following:
• Consolidate and simplify existing standards. This includes updating the Objective Design Standards article (currently Article 22) as the one place where citywide building design standards are found, leaving in articles 9, 10, 10.5 and 31 only the design standards that should apply exclusively to that district. (For additional analysis of structure and ease of use, see Section 3, Code Organization and Structure)
• Leave recent Specific Plans in place. Specific Plans for areas that are not fully built out or that remain relevant to new development in the area should remain as -is. However, as part of the Code Update process, the planning team will incorporate any standards that have been particularly useful and helpful into the revised Objective Design Standards article. (For more information regarding Specific Plans, see Section 5 (Specific Plan Evaluation))
• Revise or repeal Guidelines. As part of a broader update of the administrative procedures and permitting processes, the PPD (Resolution No. 2006 -108) and Architecture Guidelines should be revised to remove standards for multi-family and mixed-use development (single-family and commercial guidelines can remain) The standards or guidelines that have been particularly useful and helpful, will be incorporated, as appropriate, into the revised Objective Design Standards article.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 54 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 • Remove all subjectivity. Ensure any new or updated provisions within the Objective Design Standards article are written to be objective in nature, as required by state law. • Add definitions as needed . Where the updated Objective Design Standards article introduced new terms into the Code, those terms should be defined in the Definitions section of the Code. • Reflect existing patterns of built form. The Objective Design Standards article should be revised to remove the “menus” of building types and frontages, to better reflect the typical forms found in local patterns and development and to offer flexibility.
• Reflect specific community input. The Objective Design Standards must reflect the community’s preferences and desires revealed through the project’s ongoing community outreach efforts. • Illustrate for clarity and ease of use . The Objective Design Standards article should include ample diagrams and figures to help explain the standards and their intent.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 55
7. Sign Code Analysis
Introduction
The City’s existing sign regulations are found in Article 23 of Title 9, Chapter 4 (Zoning) and in Articles 1 and 2 of Title 8, Chapter 9 (Signs) of the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code. Article 23 (i.e., the Sign Code) identifies the permits necessary for sign approval and includes sign standards. Sign height, area, and other standards are regulated differently based on sign type and zone (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial).
Freeway signs (Article 1) are regulated in Title 8, Chapter 9 (Signs) . These regulations are outside of the scope of the Zoning Code Update, and while they will not be updated as part of this effort, they were reviewed during this analysis.
Sign permits, which are required for all signs and advertising displays, are approved by the Community Development Director under Section 9-4.2309(s). Sign seals (i.e., signs seal programs) are required for every sign regulated by the Sign Code and for all changes in copy and/or sign facia in accordance with Section 9-4.2312 and Section 9-4.2302. Special use permits, intended to allow signs that do not comply with the requirements of the Sign Code, are reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission or the Community Development Director under Section 9-4.2310.
Supplemental sign guidelines are included in the Architectural Design Review Guidelines (Resolution No. 2005-11), a standalone document separate from the Zoning Code , and in Resolution No. 91 -172, which establishes guidelines for development within the corridors of the Route 101 and Route 23 freeways. Both, along with Title 8, Chapter 9 (Signs) were reviewed as part of this analysis.
As part of the effort to update the City’s sign regulations, focus group meetings were held in February 2025 to gather feedback from signs industry professionals and stakeholders in the business community. A summary of these focus groups is included as Attachment 1 (Sign Code Focus Group Summary Report).
Legal Review
Legal Analysis and Findings
For many years, and especially since the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert (No. 135 S.CT.2218, 2015) decided in June 2015, U.S. Courts have affirmed that sign regulations must be “content-neutral.” To be content -neutral, sign regulations must be based on “time, place, and manner” restrictions, rather than by making distinctions based on the message the sign conveys. “Time, place, and manner” restrictions, as the name suggests, limit the length of time, the manner, and place or location of a sign. As an example, well -written sign regulations may include a limitation on the length of time portable or temporary signs may be displayed; restrictions on the total area, maximum height, or illumination of a sign; and where the sign may be placed ( e.g., so as not to encroach within public right- of-way, zone-by-zone regulation) all regardless of sign content. Some existing sign regulations already align with content neutrality by protecting commercial and noncommercial sign messages equally (i.e., sign Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 56 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 regulations do not favor commercial or noncommercial messages over the other) and allowing message substitution without additional approval or permitting.
A content-based sign regulation, on the other hand, includes standards specific to the message that is conveyed on the sign (i.e., the sign needs to be read to understand what standards will apply to it). The City has a variety of content-based sign regulations
Legal Recommendations
As a general recommendation, it is important that all content-based sign types and regulations be removed from the Sign Code. The recommended changes will be written to ensure enforceability and to meet legal requirements.
Sign types identified as content-based are recommended to be converted to content-neutral sign types. For examples of content-based sign types in the Sign Code and how they could be converted into content - neutral sign types, see the following table.
Table 6: Potential Content-Neutral Sign Types to Replace Content-Based Sign Types Sign Code Content-Based Sign Type Sign Class Potential Content-Neutral Sign Type(s) Business Directory Sign Permanent Directory Sign
Model Home Sign Portable/Temporary Yard Sign, A-Frame Sign Real Estate Sign Portable/Temporary Yard Sign, A-Frame Sign Religious Facility Directional Sign Permanent Directional Sign Subdivision Directional Sign Permanent Directional Sign Temporary Political Sign Portable/Temporary Yard Sign
Recommended r evisions to the Sign Code made for content -neutrality would coincide with the existing statements in Section 9 -4.2301(b) (Message Neutrality) and the recently adopted Section 9 -4.2301(c) (Message Substitution Policy) that both aim to keep up with changes in constitutional case law. The recommended legal revisions would improve the content neutrality and strengthen the enforceability and lawfulness of the Sign Code.
General Review
General Analysis and Findings
The clarity, organization, simplicity, and modernity of the Sign Code was analyzed to identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement. Organization of the Sign Code by zone allows identification of what and where sign types are allowed. A dditionally, clear section names allow for easy navigation. However, the Sign Code lacks certain standards, such as standards for signs in mixed -use zones. It also lacks a clear section that addresses general regulations that apply to all signs citywide, which leads to regulations that are inconsistent throughout the Sign Code.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 City of Thousand Oaks | 57 The Sign Code does not reflect modern technologies (e.g., neon, LED illumination), creating challenges with conforming with the Sign Code. Also, some sign -specific standards (e.g., height, area) do not accommodate modern sign practices or are not aligned w ith the needs of the business or property owner (e.g., allowed size of monument signs may be too small). Additionally, establish a process to streamline monument signs.
Some common sign types are not reflected in the Sign Code (e.g., awning sign, feather banner signs). In addition, some signs regulations apply based on too broad and/or vague sign characteristics (e.g., regulations for an advertising sign, regulations for an animated sign). Furthermore, the Sign Code lacks definitions for many sign types and associated graphics.
The Sign Code does not include clear applicability language, and the existing Section 9-4.2301 (Purpose and Intent) is in need of clarification. Lastly, the Sign Code also lacks rules for sign measurements.
General Recommendations
The sign regulations can be improved by implementing recommendations that aim to achieve a clearer, easier-to-use, modern, streamlined, and simpler Sign Code that is appropriate for the needs and desires of Thousand Oaks. In addition to the content-based issues described previously, the Sign Code can improve by applying the following recommendations:
• Clarify the purpose, intent, and applicability of the Sign Code. • Include a separate sign severability clause.
• Include provisions that apply to all signs, including general location restrictions, standards for illumination (e.g., neon, LED), design, and more.
• Clarify and include rules of measurement for signs (e.g., measuring ascending and descending letters, sign height).
• Include a list of signs exempt from the Sign Code citywide (e.g., governmental signs, historic identification signs) and prohibited signs (e.g., animated signs). • Include simple and clearly illustrated graphics to illustrate each sign type.
• Improve organization for showing what signs are allowed in what zones (e.g., table, clear list format) and clarify allowed sign area (i.e., size).
• Remove incongruous terms from sign types (e.g .,
advertising display’ should not be referred to as a sign type because it is not a sign type).
• Format the standards (i.e., sign area, height, placement, illumination, etc.) for specific sign types in a simple table format for ease of use.
• Update and modernize the sign definitions.
Public Review Draft Assessment and Recommendations Memo
City of Thousand Oaks | 58 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update | May 2025 • Clarify what sign types are allowed in each zoning district (e.g., signs on residential property, commercial property).
• Include cross references in the Sign Code to Article 1 of Title 8, Chapter 9 (Signs) of the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code.
• Integrate, where appropriate and compliant with content -neutrality, standards of Resolution No. 2005-11 and Resolution No. 91-172 into the Sign Code and update where appropriate ( e.g., to ensure objectivity, eliminate conflicts, clarify number of signs allowed, update standards for logos and product advertising, etc.).
• Remove sign definition from Article 23 and group sign definitions in a subsection of a Chapter-wide definitions section, similar to separate definition subsections for uses and general terms. • Consider modifying sign -specific standards (e.g., height, area, length of display, etc.) and review authorities for various signs as appropriate.
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. | City of Thousand Oaks | Sign Code Focus Groups | Page 1 Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. (LWC) is preparing a Comprehensive Zoning Code Update for the City of Thousand Oaks. The Update will implement the community-driven 2040 General Plan and includes a thorough technical analysis of Article 23 (Sign Regulations) . A strong collaborative effort between stakeholders, community members, and decision-makers is essential to the Code update, and as one of several community outreach events, LWC conducted focus group discussions with a specific focus on sign regulations . The focus groups were intended to:
1) Identify the community’s highest priority issues related to the Sign Code; 2) Better understand local challenges, practices, and key opportunities for improvement with regard to new sign formats/technologies/trends, the clarity and illustration of standards, and flexibility to address real - world conditions; and
3) Ensure the Sign Code is updated in a transparent manner that considers the community’s voice early in the process.
LWC conducted two small focus group meetings, one engaging professionals in the sign industry and the other engaging stakeholders in the local and regional business community . Both focus group meetings were conducted February 24, 2025 at Thousand Oaks City Hall. Participant familiarity with the Sign Code ranged from not very familiar to intimate familiarity with the Sign Code. Participants were involved with sign related activities all over the city.
Meetings were scheduled for 90 minutes and both sessions lasted the full allotted time. The focus group discussions were free- flowing conversations, guided and aided by four City- approved general questions developed by LWC. Both focus groups began with a brief: 1) introduction to the project, 2) description of the purpose of the focus groups meetings , 3) assurance of confidentiality, and 4) and overview of role of the consultant.
FOCUS GROUP INPUT SUMMARY
Summaries of the responses related to each topic are included below.
What is Working Well
Participants listed the following positive attributes of the Sign Code:
• Banner signs are well-regulated.
• Feather signs should continue to be prohibited.
• No major failures (rogue signs, bad signs, etc.) as a result of the Sign Code. • Sign area allowances are generally sufficient.
• City staff has been somewhat flexible in allowing some changes to sign regulations (i.e., outdated regulations).
Challenges and Barriers
Participants listed challenges and barriers and asked for clarity in the Sign Code as follows:
• Overall, the Sign Code is too complicated, inefficient, and sometimes too strict. • The Sign Code is not navigable or intuitive.
Attachment 1: Sign Code Focus Groups
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS ZONING CODE UPDATE
Sign Code Focus Groups – March 2025
INTRODUCTION
Summary
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS ZONING CODE UPDATE
Sign Code Focus Groups – March 2025
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. | City of Thousand Oaks | Sign Code Focus Groups | Page 2 • The definition and regulation of logo types and logo elements are not always clear, and the limitation on l
ogo sizes and colors needs to be addressed. Several companies have a logo as part of their business name, what is classified as a registered trademark. • Filing for an exception to the Sign Code (variance) is a lengthy and expensive process. • The City’s off-site/portable sign program is overly complicated. • A
dministration of the Sign Code is inefficient and sometimes unevenly applied to applicants, especially over time. There is inconsistent interpretation of the Sign Code. • It is challenging to find solutions that are cost-effective for applicants, satisfy City standards, and can ac
commodate desired architecture and structure (e.g., steel that cannot be drilled, double pocket walls).
• Monument sign lettering size requirements are challenging to follow in shopping centers with multiple t
enants who change over time.
• O
lder sign programs sometimes conflict with new sign practices or updated Sign Code standards (and newer buildings/architecture). Sign programs in place in many areas are a hinderance and may discourage development and new tenants.
• S
ign fees are very high.
• There is confusion regarding terminology and classification of sign types, how many signs of each t
ype are allowed. For example, some directional signs are considered monument signs, which nec
essitates Planning Commission review and additional permits (i.e., because it is an additional sign, despite not being for advertising).
• Highway facing sign regulations need to be clarified, especially with respect to proximity of th e bui
lding to the highway and whether or not there is a frontage road, as this determines sign siz e r
estrictions.
• Sign placement requirements and setbacks do not align with pedestrian scale development in ‘walkable’ areas.
• There is no process for murals
Recommendations and Priorities
Participants made recommendations and noted priorities as follows:
• Nearby communities of Moorpark, Simi Valley, and Oxnard have sign codes that are easier to use. • Tables, matrices, and illustrations would be helpful in the Sign Code. • Rules of measurement for signs (e.g., sign area, copy area) are needed. Ascending and descending letters should be addressed in rules of measurement. Tower and other non-copy area elements of a s
ign should be taken into consideration with respect to letter size. • Need for improved administrative process for signs.
• All standards should be objective, not subjectively referring to sign or development character. • The City should consider increasing the allowed size of monument signs to accommodate larger - scale development coming into Thousand Oaks.
o Monument sign lettering size requirements should be increased, perhaps based on the number of tenants in the shopping center.
o The Sign Code should allow for “common sense scaling” for larger commercial developments.
• The Architectural Design Review Guidelines need to be integrated into the Sign Code.
Attachment 1: Sign Code Focus Groups Summary
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS ZONING CODE UPDATE
Sign Code Focus Groups – March 2025
Lisa Wise Consulting, Inc. | City of Thousand Oaks | Sign Code Focus Groups | Page 3 • Backer panels (i.e., integrative backer panels, sign outline) are currently not allowed by planners, but they are visible throughout the City. Backer panels should be addressed and included in the Sign C
ode they may be properly addressed in the future.
• Developers want creative freedom for signs and flexibility to create art. Adding elements of desi gn s
hould be allowed to prevent every sign from being uniform. Desire to write flexibility and creativity into the Code objectively.
• The Sign Code needs flexibility to incorporate new sign technology as it becomes industry standard and to override outdated standards.
o Method of illumination has changed over time; the Code should clarify that LED illumination is required for all signage.
o Only interior neon should be prohibited. Exposed neon should be allowed as an artistic feature when consistent with nearby signage. Faux neon (i.e., rope LED) could be used. Th e
S
ign Code should allow a path to consider open bulbs.
• The Sign Code should allow for outdated requirements of older sign programs to be overridden (e.g., older sign programs may say that neon lighting is required; but LED lighting should be allowed a nd r
equired instead).
• Lumens (i.e., brightness) should not be regulated in the Sign Code. Measuring brightness is impractical leads to misguided regulation and enforcement since there is no industry standard for brightness (different manufacturers appear differently). Regulating sign color temperature is OK, but requirements should be a range not a single number.
• The Sign Code should encourage diversity in signage.
o The Sign Code could prescribe, encourage, or recommend sign features such as columns, arches, and more
.
o R
egulating fonts and colors is seen as strict or too strict. Ability to use all colors and company fonts is important to applicants.
• Projecting/blade signs should be introduced into the Code. Old Town Pasadena is a good example of good blade signage. The City should consider that the limit on the number of signs per business could impede the use of a blade sign (i.e., because applicants may prefer to use their one allow ed
s
ign for a larger sign type).
• The Sign Code should prohibit leasing and real estate signs from becoming permanent fixtures (i.e., size and time should be limited, no current vacancies should mean your sign has to be taken down in an a
ppropriate amount of time).
• The City should consider applying regulations differently to certain geographical areas (e.g., Thousand Oaks Boulevard).
o The speed limit of passing cars should be considered when drafting sign size regulations. o Areas with reduced setback regulations should have increase building signage allowance a nd
dec
reased monument sign allowances (against the street).
Other
• The style of signage found in The Oaks and some local projects by Caruso are positive examples for signs; however, several of these do not comply with the City’s Sign Code. • D
esign elements of signs should be left up to property owners and tenants. Overall, businesses should have flexibility for the development and design of signs. • The City should invest in establishing identifiable signage for the beautification and demarcation of the Thousand Oaks Boulevard Specific Plan Area.
Attachment 1: Sign Code Focus Groups Summary
cdd:660-21/kr/H:COMMON/City Council/CC Agenda Items/2025/08262025/Zoning Code Update/Attachment #1 Assessment and Recommendations Memo.docx/pz [FILE ID: MCA 2025-70001]