The Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update: Things You Need To Know
The city of Thousand Oaks is conducting a comprehensive review of its General Plan. The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) was formed in 2019 to help with this review and to offer advice for future City actions relating to the General Plan. I’m honored to serve on the GPAC and hope to share what I know from my experience in city governance to guide our recommendations.
There is a lot to consider here, so it’s in our collective interest to be well informed about what is in front of us and our full array of options. There is a natural inclination to make choices simple, but if we’re not careful, quick decisions could lead to negative consequences that are unanticipated and unintended.
I’ll first provide my recommended path forward and then go into more details about them in several sections below. So, here’s my recommendation.
All changes — both in theory and in practice — should be in line with what the people of Thousand Oaks value for their city. Among those key values:
Open space should be protected.
Existing neighborhoods should be preserved.
Building heights should be low in profile.
The pace of growth should be measured.
Our fiscal approach should remain sound, especially when supporting needed infrastructure.
A public vote should be held on any significant changes to our General Plan.
Note that these values do not preclude:
Creative options for mixtures of land use
Proposals for higher densities to provide more affordable housing
Interesting opportunities for future public transportation
We should review comprehensively, which we’ve done, and apply surgically with care and deliberation. Given the full array of topics we are considering:
The Council should focus only on the changes that are needed now.
This means approving a subset of the changes offered by any of one of the GPAC alternatives.
Any additional changes should be phased to future time windows where we can better manage their impacts.
Each of the GPAC alternatives propose options for different areas of the city including:
Rancho Conejo area of Newbury Park
The Oaks Mall/Janss Marketplace area
The central Thousand Oaks Boulevard area near the Civic Arts Plaza
The Westlake area near the Promenade and Auto Mall
Various village centers throughout the city near existing residential neighborhoods
My specific recommendation:
Modify the General Plan to allow for mixtures of uses in the Oaks Mall / Janss Marketplace area, and develop a specific plan to enact the objective development standards for the area.
Limit the scope and number of residential units allowed for any plan changes to what’s needed to accommodate our city’s Housing Element update, which is 2,615 units with an appropriate buffer of 10–15%.
Building heights for these areas should be limited, with average building heights limited to 35’, and, to the greatest degree possible, objective standards for breaking up building mass and height of a proposed project.
No further changes should be made to the General Plan or zoning densities at this time. Any additional changes over and above this limited scope should be considered “significant”, enabling voters to “have the power to vote yes or no when significant changes to the General Plan are proposed.” [1]
While demonstrating the need to do our fair share to address the State’s housing crisis, we should be prepared to defend the city’s development standards, which help preserve our quality of life, if challenged.
In consultation with the Planning Commission, the City Council should establish a long-term approach and standard cycle for considering General Plan changes.
Such an approach can be used to evaluate alternatives, informed by GPAC research and briefing books, for the need, nature, scope, and pacing of future General Plan changes, including the manner of addressing future RHNA allocations.
Establish a plan for evaluating future changes (if needed or desired) starting in 2025. This will (1) give city leaders and the community more time to assess the impacts of any additional changes, (2) provide for further lead time before the next Housing Element update eight years from now, and (3) allow the State-imposed restrictions on local control measures to expire, giving us greater tools to manage these potential impacts.
The Council should initiate a study to evaluate the true capacity of city infrastructure to support any further proposed development, including but not limited to the capacity of roadways for handling traffic, wastewater treatment plants, and public transportation.
Develop policy proposals for a long-term funding approach to pay for increased infrastructure costs as any future phases are considered.
Key Sections
Before we start evaluating proposals, saying that we like this part and don’t like that part, we should understand that actual decisions before us:
What changes are needed or desired?
What is the full array of our options?
Only then will we have context into which components of the alternatives we do and don’t like, or if choosing any of them is needed at all.
Throughout this process, there are a number of issues to consider. Taken as a whole, these issues can be confusing to many who don’t have the background or have the time to dig deep into their nuances. It’s important to discuss the issues in detail, since the nuances matter, and I’ll do my best to clarify what I know, or at least think I know.
These sections include:
What’s important to the people of Thousand Oaks?
Why are we making changes?
What’s the best way to make changes?
Important city planning points, including (1) the term “buildout”, (2) The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, also referred to as SB 330, and (3) Measure E
The actual alternatives proposed to the GPAC and their components.
Let’s get started.
Part I: What’s important to the people of Thousand Oaks?
Before making any changes to our General Plan, it’s good to re-ask ourselves the questions of what’s important to us as a community. When these questions were first asked of the earliest residents after the city’s incorporation in 1964, their answers were encapsulated as goals for the development of their new city.
Originally approved in 1970, the very first goal of the Thousand Oaks General Plan was as follows: “To enhance and preserve the spaciousness and attractiveness of the Conejo Valley in accommodating future growth.” [2]
Open space preservation is probably the most important defining quality of Thousand Oaks life. The 1970 General Plan declared that the “basic form of the Planning Area would consist of open space surrounding the developed parts of the community” [3] and this concept was later revised, stating that “[a] ring of natural open space will be created around the City… separating the City from adjoining communities.”[4]
Ever since the passage of Measure A in 1980,[5] Thousand Oaks has been a “slow growth” city,[6] meaning that the community has reached a consensus that the pace of city development should be controlled.
Vigorous civic discussion occurred in the mid-1990s about the preservation of parks and open space lands and handling the pace of development as the city approached its planned growth limit or buildout.
In order “to reflect (the) current state of (the) City”,[7] upon recommendation of the Planning Commission,[8] the Council unanimously removed the phrase “in accommodating future growth” so that the first goal now reads: “To enhance and preserve the spaciousness and attractiveness of the Conejo Valley.” [9] [10]
Further policies have been established requiring the involvement of voters when certain General Plan changes are proposed. These include requiring voter approval when parks and open space are designated for other purposes,[11] when our city’s urban boundary is extended, [12] or when significant changes to residential and commercial areas are proposed.[13]
City leaders long ago established various regulations to putting the General Plan into practice:
The City limited building heights to lower profile buildings because residents wanted a city where the cityscape was dominated by the surrounding beauty of the valley hillsides. Heights are generally limited in residential zones to 25’ and commercial zones to 35’.[14]
The City required the undergrounding of electrical utilities to remove visual blight of utility poles.[15]
The City controlled hillside development since “development of the hillside areas will definitely affect the visual and environmental character of the community” and the City wanted to “preserve the natural terrain, quality environment, and aesthetic character of the City while encouraging creative, innovative, and safe residential development with a variety of housing types.” [16]
The City strictly restricted ridgeline development with the goal of “promoting a rural sense of openness, protecting natural and visual assets of the community…, promoting a less urban feeling and maintaining the identity of this community.”[17]
The City limited the size of signs to “reinforc[e] the character of the Conejo Valley in its natural setting as adopted in the General Plan.”[18]
Because we value them and the natural beauty they provide, the City requires that property owners “maintain all oak tree(s) located thereon in a state of good health” [19] and obtain a permit before any “removal, cutting, or encroachment.” [20]
The oak tree is our city’s namesake; the voters chose the name “Thousand Oaks” over the organizers’ preferred name of “Conejo” when incorporating the city.[21]
It’s important to recognize that the city we live in today didn’t just happen; it came about as the result of forward-looking decisions by past City Councils and the public.
The General Plan and its implementation by city leaders, past and present, has given us the remarkable city we have today, demonstrating our collective desire to preserve the quality of life for the residents of Thousand Oaks; it is something we should not take for granted. We certainly can change it, but in my opinion, we should not break it.
If we collect our common perspectives for our city, I believe the following best capture those beliefs for and desires for Thousand Oaks:
Our policies maintain a vibrant community of people living in harmony with the natural environment and supporting a strong economic base.
We are a welcoming and engaged community, supporting each other in our collective efforts to enhance our quality of life.
We preserve natural buffers between the City and other suburban communities.
We protect natural hillsides and open spaces from development.
We live amidst the community forest and a sense of spaciousness, preserving our ability to observe the surrounding natural vistas.
In my mind, any changes should be judged against these collective values. I believe they are still important today.
Part II: Why are we making changes?
There are a few items of note when discussing the “why” behind these changes. Some are relevant, while others can be a little misleading if taken out of context.
One driver for a comprehensive General Plan update is that no such comprehensive update has been undertaken since the plan’s original adoption in 1970. This may be true, but it doesn’t mean that city leaders were derelict in keeping the General Plan fresh in meeting the needs of our community.
In fact, I’d argue they were quite diligent in their decision making to keep the General Plan highly aligned with community values. Just because something is old doesn’t mean that it needs overhauling with a comprehensive manner. The question is not whether it’s old; the question is whether it serves its purpose.
Given that, I caution about what we consider the term “comprehensive” to represent for this update. Being comprehensive should entail our review of the results associated with any changes, such as effects on land use, open space, circulation, noise, scenic highways, safety, the community forest, public buildings, and other important plan elements.
While the review should be comprehensive, any update need not include comprehensive changes.
An additional “why” comes from short term requirements from Sacramento. Every eight years, cities must update the Housing Element of their General Plan, which also means they need to demonstrate that they can accommodate their regional housing need assessment, or RHNA, allocations.
As I’ll discuss a little later, I do think we need to make changes to meet these allocations. Otherwise, Sacramento will get aggressive, and we may have to fight a costly lawsuit, only to lose; the State has already sued cities like Huntington Beach[22] to compel them to meet housing needs. The consequences of making no changes could be high for our city.
That said, if the “why” is predominately driven by concerns that “Sacramento is making us build” or “we have to meet our RHNA numbers” or “we have to update our Housing Element”, then we are allowing short-term, external factors dominate the “why” for our actions. It doesn’t mean that we ignore these factors; it just means we should understand — for ourselves — why these changes are the ones we want.
If we look back upon the decisions made by our city leaders to create and implement the plan to date, I think we can all be happy with the vision and the outcomes. We may disagree on some items here and there, but the big picture was painted and brought into real life.
Our goal should be that our decisions today are viewed fifty years hence with the same sense of admiration.
Said differently, do we know our “why”, and will we stay true to that “why”?
For me, the following are the constraints within which we should judge the scope and timing of such changes:
The vision of our long-standing General Plan and our city leaders’ collective actions to uphold the Plan have created the exceptional city we have today. The operative mantra regarding any changes should be: Change it, but don’t break it.
Since our General Plan and its implementation have been so successful, any changes should be made only to the extent we feel they are necessary to maintain what is important to us.
Any changes should be made to benefit our long-term interests, and we should not be overly responsive to short-term pressures.
More specifically, here’s what should be part of any update to our development policies:
To keep the vitality of our city aligned with what is important to us as a community, we must appreciate “that the community will evolve over time and that change is inevitable.” [23]
To remain vibrant, we must be open to change. The keys are always to evaluate the need for change, the nature of the change, the scale of the change, and the pace at which such changes occur; all are critical.
There are real economic changes occurring that do require openness to change.
The economic viability of large retail shopping centers and movie theater complexes are at risk due to online retail companies such as Amazon and streaming entertainment services such as Netflix.
The effects of COVID-19 on the economy have accelerated these changes.
Creative approaches to ensuring the viability of such areas are of critical importance to the vibrance of the city.
The biotechnology sector is a unique opportunity to keep Thousand Oaks a center of global innovation
The window for supporting a burgeoning biotech industry, whose higher-paying jobs in turn support broader economic activity in the city, is limited, so a window of opportunity should be recognized for any prioritized action.
There is a need to identify limited residential density increases for our mandatory Housing Element update.
These increases should be in areas that make sense from a long-term city planning perspective.
Any changes should be limited in scope to meet the requirements of the Housing Element update.
Open space should be protected. No changes should be made to existing parks and open space lands or the voters’ role in protecting them.
Building heights should be low in profile, avoiding taller structures and ensuring that scenic vistas and natural surroundings are what dominate our cityscape. Height standards for zoning should include specific requirements that mitigates imposing building mass and height on streetscapes including variation of height elements and use of sky exposure planes to step back vertical building mass from street frontage.
The city’s mix of housing is a little underindexed in multifamily housing. Some creative approaches to adding a bit more multifamily housing can achieve long-term goals for the city. Given our collective goals, the modifiers “a little” and “a bit” are stressed here.
While it’s important to understand what is included in any changes, there is much to consider in how we make these changes.
Before we get there, there are a few important planning terms that know about. Let’s discuss that next.
Part III: Important city planning points
Buildout
There are a couple of terms that are important to understand in our discussion. The first term is “buildout”, which reflects the target number of residential units that result from our development policies.
These come in two flavors — each of which, if not careful, can be easily confused with the other, so it’s important in the update that they are not conflated.
The first — “theoretical buildout” — is the maximum number of residential units that could be built according to our General Plan if all parcels were zoned to their maximum density.
The second — which I’ll call “realistic buildout” — is the number of residential units that could be built according to all of our development policies; this includes our General Plan, as well as the standards from our zoning ordinances and specific plans.
This buildout target, which lower than the theoretical buildout number, represents our true residential capacity. It is also the buildout that city leaders and residents have historically discussed when making development decisions regarding our General Plan and our city infrastructure.
Estimates made in the late 1990s for our city’s residential capacity were targeted at 47,600 residential units.[24] Based on today’s 48,000 residential units[25] and a previous residential capacity of about 1,600 units at our last Housing Element update[26], the realistic buildout for Thousand Oaks is close to 50,000 residential units. Using the average number of residents per unit for Thousand Oaks of 2.73,[27] our current target population for the city is about 136,500.
An important lesson on matching infrastructure needs with projected city development comes from the City’s upgrade of the Hill Canyon wastewater treatment plant.
In 1997, the Council approved a $71.4 million upgrade to the plant, partly resulting from a study that clarified that the facility without the upgrade “will serve a maximum of 124,000 people, not Thousand Oaks’ entire population of 135,000 people at build-out.”[28]
The lesson: If the infrastructure capacity doesn’t match the city’s projected buildout, costs to the City and its taxpayers could be quite expensive to bring them into balance.
For our update, we need to focus on the realistic buildout number, since it’s the one that matters when it comes to real impacts on our quality of life and the infrastructure we pay for to maintain that quality of life.
Any focus on the theoretical buildout number is of lesser importance. One can keep the theoretical buildout number the same while significantly increasing the realistic buildout number, leading to greater than anticipated impacts and increased future infrastructure costs. The city’s residential capacity is the realistic buildout number: at this point in time, around 50,000 units.
No realistic public discussions have occurred indicating that our city infrastructure can handle a residential capacity equal to a theoretical buildout number, which is 60% higher than the realistic buildout number. This is why it’s very important that we do not use the two buildout terms interchangeably.
The Housing Element update and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
As referenced previously, State law requires that cities update the Housing Element of their General Plan every eight years, which also means they need to demonstrate that they can accommodate their regional housing need assessment, or RHNA, allocations. These updates to the city’s Housing Element are scheduled for completion this year.
In each cycle, the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development makes a determination of regional housing needs. In the past, the numbers for Thousand Oaks have been reasonable. For example, the last update was 2013; our RHNA allocation was 255 units, and the City demonstrated that we had parcels throughout the city accommodating 1,638 units.[29]
However, for the current cycle, the six counties comprising the Southern California region must identify land that can accommodate housing for over 1,340,000 additional residential units over the next eight years,[30] and our city’s share of this allocation is now 2,615 units.[31] That’s certainly a lot for Thousand Oaks, but for reference, Irvine has to find over 23,000 units;[32] they have twice the population but need to find nearly 10 times the units.
This means that changes in our development policies are likely needed to identify parcels that can support these regional housing needs.
This is the minimum change we need to make now since doing nothing could mean State action to compel the city into compliance. However, any changes over and above this are choices of which we should exercise care.
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, also referred to as SB 330
To address the identified housing crisis, the State Legislature enacted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, codified as Government Code Section 66300, which states that local governments for the next four years cannot enact changes to any “development policy, standard, or condition”[33] that has the effect of reducing residential capacity; give-and-take changes can be made as long as the full suite of changes results in “no net loss in residential capacity”.[34]
The Housing Crisis Act also requires that cities enforce objective design standards for development plans,[35] meaning that evaluations must “involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official”. [36] This means that the City cannot use subjective criteria such as aesthetics or neighborhood compatibility as the reasons for approval or denial of a development permit, unless those aspects are specifically spelled out and are “uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion…” [37]
There are important items of notes here:
This is a risky time for cities to make sweeping changes to development policies.
Significant changes bring brand new policies, where we have little experience in knowing how well they will work or how they should be applied to meet these same community needs.
Under the current State mandates, applications that meet the specific criteria must be approved under these standards, and until January 1, 2025, our city’s hands are tied on reversing, undoing, or mitigating the effects of incompatible development.
Put more plainly: If we make a mistake, we have a four-year window where city leaders have limited tools to address that mistake.
As discussed previously, residential density means realistic buildout, since this refers to the full application of our development policies — the General Plan, zoning, specific plans, and other development regulations.
These are the baselines from which we should base our decisions.
It does not mean the theoretical buildout numbers ascertained from our General Plan alone.
An example clarifies this difference. Let’s assume that 10 acres of land in the city are designated on our General Plan as Medium Density Residential, which currently allows for a range of 4.6 to 15 units per acre. Applied zoning regulations must be consistent with the General Plan, so let’s further assume that the zoning for these 10 acres is established at 10 units per acre.
The residential capacity of these 10 acres is 100 units — 10 units per acre * 10 acres, not a theoretical buildout number of 150 units. I believe that, under the Housing Crisis Act, we must preserve the 100 units of residential capacity.
Further, if we kept the General Plan designation the same (maximum of 15 units/acre), yet we reduced the zoning from 10 units/acre to 5 units/acre, we would likely run afoul of the Housing Crisis Act; we will have reduced our residential capacity to 50 units, even though we never changed the General Plan. The theoretical buildout number is the same, but our residential capacity is reduced.
Additionally, our city infrastructure has been designed to support our true residential capacity, so any increases that would seek to tap into the General Plan maximums, leading us closer to theoretical buildout, would stress our city infrastructure beyond its anticipated use.
This leads us to a discussion of Measure E.
Measure E
In 1996, the voters approved Measure E, requiring voter approval for any changes that would result in “maximum number of residential dwelling units” [38] on the General Plan. One of the primary rationales for Measure E was ensuring that the city’s infrastructure remains in balance with foreseeable development needs. The following specifies the purpose of the measure:
Based on the City’s present build out under [the] General Plan, the City Council finds the City of Thousand Oaks is at a point where the ultimate and foreseeable residential and commercial development in the City’s Planning Area can be accurately predicted. The City’s infrastructure and public facilities were or have been designed based on the development projections in the City’s General Plan, as in effect on November 5, 1996. These public facilities can accommodate that planned and foreseeable development. However, any increase in the residential density ranges or in commercial acreage over those presently shown in the Land Use Element of the General Plan will alter the character of the City and place an unacceptable burden on the City’s topography and infrastructure. [39] [40]
At the time Measure E was proposed, the population of Thousand Oaks was projected to be 135,000 at buildout,[41] translating to a little less than 50,000 residential units. The references in Measure E that “[t]he City’s infrastructure and public facilities were or have been designed based on the development projections in the City’s General Plan, as in effect on November 5, 1996”[42] were publicly discussed with that understanding in mind.
There has never been, at the time or since, a serious public discussion that our current city infrastructure could handle 81,000 residential units, a number identified as the theoretical buildout number for the General plan.
The difference between a theoretical buildout number — 81,000 units — and the realistic buildout number — around 50,000 units — is stark, and decisions that don’t recognize this difference carry significant consequences for the city’s future.
Additionally, any sudden and sizable increases in residential development without voter approval would run counter to the stated intent of Measure E per the measure’s ballot argument that voters “should have the power to vote yes or no when significant changes to the General Plan are proposed.” [43]
With this background, let’s discuss the prudence of acting without need for haste.
Part IV: What’s the best approach to make changes?
As highlighted above, when change is proposed, we must evaluate the need for change, the nature of the change, the scale of the change, and the pace at which such changes occur.
We’ve discussed the need for change: State requirements for updating our Housing Element, and economic changes from biotech, large retail shopping centers, and movie theater complexes.
We’ve discussed the nature of the change: increasing residential units available in the city, primarily in more affordable, multifamily housing.
We’ve discussed the scale of the change: limited to the extent that changes address the need for change, but anything more could pose greater risks than rewards (which we’ll discuss below). Additionally, any changes must preserve existing residential neighborhoods and protect existing parks and open space.
What is left is the pace of change. I believe that the pace should be measured due to various factors at play in Thousand Oaks:
Thousand Oaks is historically a slow growth city, so the community does not have a strong appetite for abrupt change. Any needed change should be well planned and its execution tempered.
The residents of Thousand Oaks are already highly satisfied with their quality of life, so significant change is likely not what most residents are looking for.
In the most recent community attitude survey conducted by the City, “[n]early all residents in 2020 (94%) of respondents shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in Thousand Oaks, with 54% reporting it is excellent and 40% stating it is good.”[44]
The Housing Crisis Act places the community’s hands behind its collective back in addressing any impacts associated with these changes.
This is a risky time for cities to make sweeping changes to development policies.
Changes should be made to give our current and future city leaders the greatest possible set of tools and opportunities to make needed decisions.
Voters demanded that they approve significant changes through approval of Measure E. Honoring that understanding is in the best interest of community harmony.
Part V: Before we act
I feel that a good case can be made where the City, if it wanted, could actually reduce density on the General Plan, as long as the appropriate changes to the General Plan, zoning, and specific plans do not result in a reduction in our realistic buildout number — our true residential capacity.
As an example, if our residential capacity were currently 50,000 and we needed to identify 2,600 units for our RHNA allocations, changes resulting in a residential capacity of 52,600 units would meet the State mandates. Similarly, since the theoretical buildout number is not our true residential capacity and a number that does not represent the capacity supported by our city infrastructure, our General Plan theoretical buildout could be reduced from 81,000 to 65,000, staying true to the Housing Crisis Act; our true residential capacity will have actually increased.
In this update process, there must be serious discussion about the infrastructure support for any General Plan changes. I believe there is a disconnect between the theoretical (and unrealistic) buildout numbers versus the realistic buildout numbers that our current infrastructure supports.
Because of this confusion, there are real scenarios where development policy changes keep the theoretical buildout number the same (meaning no required vote under Measure E), yet the realignment of that theoretical buildout unlocks much more residential density, increasing our realistic buildout number significantly and placing our existing city infrastructure under stress, all with four years of being limited in handling any impacts.
Such a scenario, while technically staying within the letter of Measure E, would undermine the spirit of the measure itself, overloading our city’s infrastructure and done without a vote of the people, something I don’t think anyone contemplated then or now.
We should evaluate any changes as to how they would increase the realistic buildout of our city, and thus the actual impacts on our city infrastructure, regardless of the theoretical buildout accounting. We ignore this aspect to our great and costly peril.
My assessment: The city is a phenomenal place to live. Regarding our General Plan, change it, but don’t break it.
Part VI: The GPAC Alternatives
One important note is that the GPAC membership did not see nor evaluate any of the alternatives under consideration until a few days before they were made available to the public. The GPAC members are digesting the proposed alternatives along with city residents.
Upon reviewing the GPAC alternatives, from my assessment, understanding the city’s development history:
Any of the three proposed alternatives would represent the most significant proposed expansion of development in the city’s history after the original 1970 General Plan.
For comparison, Thousand Oaks currently has 48,081 residential units[25], and our realistic buildout number is about 50,000 units.
Much of the focus of the alternatives is to identify areas for mixed use. There is very little mixed use in the city currently, so the alternatives focus new residential units into these areas, proposing additional units to our existing housing inventory.
Based on the alternatives, the number of mixed-use acres designated at various residential densities and the min-max ranges for these designations, the alternatives would seek to add between 15,000–26,000 additional residential units.[45]
It’s important to note that there are decisions we must make (updating our Housing Element and addressing the RHNA numbers — 2,615 units), but beyond that, they are truly choices for us as a city.
These are only proposals, and ones that are available only because we chose to look at the citywide proposals comprehensively. However, we do not need to feel that our choices are limited to the three far-reaching alternatives in their entirety — we can take components of any or all of them, and make changes are we feel are best for us as a city.
What are our choices?
Alternative #1
Alternative #2
Alternative #3
Any subcomponents of the alternatives, including Rancho Conejo, Moorpark Blvd/East TO Blvd (Oaks Mall/Janss Marketplace), Downtown and TO Blvd, Westlake and East End, Village Centers
Revisions to any or all of these alternatives and/or subcomponents
Other alternatives
No change at all
There are some very interesting elements to each of the proposals, and after assessing the need, nature, scope, and pace of change, it’s worth evaluating some of the benefits of each to understand what priorities make the most sense.
In the proposals, much focus is placed on the 92% of total acreage that “will maintain the same general character as it has today”;[45a] however, 47.7% of that acreage is parks and open space lands,[46] which no one intends to disturb as they are protected under city ordinances.[47]
While limited in overall acreage, the proposed impacts on the other 8% will come in increasing traffic, noise, and the needs for enhanced city services such as wastewater treatment, utilities, road and transportation maintenance, police and fire protection, libraries, and city administration. These come in the form of taxes and fees, of which we all pay, so we will feel the impacts, even if the open space or residential properties in close proximity to us are unaffected.
We should ensure we understand the full range of consequences to our decisions and not move hastily into larger than needed changes.
While my primary concerns have been expressed about the overall scale and pace of change, there are some interesting elements to consider for each of the proposals. Here are my thoughts.
Rancho Conejo
The timeframe for supporting a burgeoning biotech industry, whose higher-paying jobs in turn support broader economic activity in the city, is limited, so a window of opportunity should be recognized for any prioritized action.
The unique timing of such revisions could be important based on acute economic forces. Revising the plan in Rancho Conejo earlier could mean fostering the biotech economy when the window is open.
These compelling economic interests support changes north of the 101 freeway. The arguments for making changes south of the 101 freeway are less compelling.
Moorpark Blvd / Oaks Mall / Janss Marketplace
Retail and entertainment industries are being changed significantly by digital shopping and electronic delivery of quality content.
Amazon and Netflix have established themselves as disruptors in these industries, placing the commercial viability of shopping malls and movie theaters at risk. Additionally, COVID accelerated these changes.
Without changes, the viability of the Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace could be at risk, and the City may be forced to make reactive decisions to maintain the vibrancy of this area.
To me, this area is the most natural “downtown” area in Thousand Oaks.
As its first act of expansion, in November 1964, the Council annexed the land comprising Janss Marketplace, then known as the Conejo Village Shopping Center.[48]
The site of the city’s first city hall — 401 Hillcrest — a city landmark,[49] and now home to the National Park Service — is located in this area.
Lands on the east side of the Oaks Mall were identified decades ago for the proposed civic arts center.
The Thousand Oaks Street Fair has been held in this area for the past three decades.
The area is most logical, since this it has long existed as the city’s center — an already vibrant commercial area, able to handle such proposed changes better than other areas.
It doesn’t mean we can’t have two downtown-like cores in the future.
For these reasons, I believe this area is worthy of the highest consideration for proposed General Plan changes.
Downtown and T.O. Blvd Area
This area is less compelling to me, since it’s an area the community has been trying to foster change in for decades, spending many tens of millions of public dollars to do so thus far.
Some of the history of the past 40 years includes:
In 1984, when asked if the City should “spend public monies to build a Cultural Center”; voters rejected the measure by a 62–38 margin.[50]
In the same year, proponents of a public arts center posed a companion question, asking whether they’d support such a center if the land were “donated without cost to the City”, that “only existing or project redevelopment funds pay for the construction costs”, and a private endowment is established to “offset any potential operating shortfalls”; this question passed 61–39.[51]
In 1986, the voters rejected a measure to support spending $22.3 million in redevelopment funds for the construction of an 1,800 seat main theater, 299-seat theater, 15,000 square foot museum, classrooms/workshops, and high school satellite feeder theaters on regional school sites, as well as the location of the center either at city-owned Los Robles Driving Range or donated land at the Oaks Mall, and a funding plan for operations. [52]
Despite these public votes, city leaders pressed ahead with different plans, using eminent domain to acquire the current Civic Arts Plaza property (the old Jungleland site), spending time and resources on years of litigation, settling on a purchase price $17.9 million for the land.[53]
The City and its redevelopment agency eventually spent $63 million to build the Civic Arts Plaza and government center itself with plans that never materialized for a science center on the property. [54]
The Council entered into an agreement with Caruso Affiliated to lease the 7.5 acres to the east of the Civic Arts Plaza for the Lakes project, negotiating a deal granting free rent for 55 years with four 10-year lease extensions. [55] [56] [57] To continue the economic viability of the project, the plans were revised to add options for a cinema and parking structure,[58] reduce parking space requirements,[59] and more recently allowing for residential units on the site.[60]
There is an element of perceived sunk costs to the development of this area — so much time and money has been invested that it’s not clear how much more must be done to ensure the previous time and money wasn’t wasted.
For these reasons, this area of the city is less compelling and should be lower on the priority list.
Westlake and East End
This area is probably the least compelling, since the needs for city vibrancy are less acute than in the Rancho Conejo, and Moorpark Blvd/Oaks Mall/Janss Marketplace areas.
Village Centers
These might be interesting places for mixed housing, but there are no truly compelling reasons for unlocking residential development at this time.
Enhanced Public Transportation
Different core areas provide real opportunities for realistic public transportation options, supporting mobility from Rancho Conejo to Moorpark Blvd and down Thousand Oaks Blvd to Westlake and back.
=======================
[1] Argument in Favor of Measure “E”, Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet, County of Ventura, City of Thousand Oaks, General Election, November 5, 1996.
[2] Resolution 70–380, Thousand Oaks City Council, approved December 17, 1970, and amended December 22, 1970.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Resolution 94–218, Thousand Oaks City Council, approved October 11, 1994.
[5] Minutes of Thousand Oaks City Council, April 15, 1980.
[6] Malnic, Eric, “Slow-Growth Candidates Prevail,” Los Angeles Times, April 10, 1980.
[7] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, March 27, 1996.
[8] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission, May 13, 1996.
[9] Resolution 96–158, Thousand Oaks City Council, approved July 23, 1996.
[10] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, July 2, 1996.
[11] Ordinance 1265-NS, City of Thousand Oaks, adopted June 18, 1996.
[12] Ordinance 1328-NS, City of Thousand Oaks, taking effect December 4, 1998.
[13] Ordinance 1280-NS, City of Thousand Oaks, taking effect December 13, 1996.
[14] Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Section 9–4.2501.
[15] Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Section 9–3.1012.
[16] Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Section 9–4.3100.
[17] Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Section 9–4.3500.
[18] Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Section 9–4.2301.
[19] Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Section 9–4.4203.
[20] Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Section 9–4.4204.
[21] “Thousand Oaks Group Battles to Save Name”, Los Angeles Times, February 19, 1964.
[22] Bollag, Sophia, “Gavin Newsom takes wealthy Southern California city to court over its lack of housing,” Sacramento Bee, January 25, 2019.
[23] Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update, Land Use Alternatives Briefing Book, p. 12.
[24] Kelley, Daryl, and Miguel Bustillo, “The Growth Factor — Thousand Oaks All Part of the Plan,” Los Angeles Times, January 5, 1997.
[25] General Plan Advisory Committee Presentation, Meeting #3, November 14, 2019, p. 13.
[26] Housing Element of the Thousand Oaks General Plan, approved September 10, 2013, p. 48.
[27] Ibid, p. 9.
[28] Bustillo, Miguel, “City Oks Upgrade of Waste-Water Treatment Plant,” Los Angeles Times, September 4, 1997.
[29] Housing Element of the Thousand Oaks General Plan, approved September 10, 2013.
[30] Regional Housing Needs Assessment, Southern California Association of Governments, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/rhna-draft-allocations-090320-updated.pdf.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] California Government Code Sec. 66300(b).
[34] California Government Code Sec. 66300(i)(1).
[35] California Government Code Sec. 66300(b)(1)©.
[36] California Government Code Sec. 66300(a)(7).
[37] California Government Code Sec. 66300(b)(1)©.
[38] Resolution 96–126, Thousand Oaks City Council, effective December 3, 1996, upon approval by the voters.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Section 9–2.203(a).
[41] Memorandum from Andrew P. Fox, Mayor, to the City Council, “Subject: Growth Control”, April 22, 1996.
[42] Resolution 96–126, Thousand Oaks City Council, effective December 3, 1996, upon approval by the voters.
[43] Argument in Favor of Measure “E”, Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet, County of Ventura, City of Thousand Oaks, General Election, November 5, 1996.
[44] Community Opinion Survey: Summary Research Report, prepared for the City of Thousand Oaks, June 16, 2020. p. 4.
[45] Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update, Land Use Alternatives Briefing Book, p. 56.
[45a] Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update, Land Use Alternatives Briefing Book, p. 29.
[46] Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update, Land Use Alternatives Briefing Book, p. 56.
[47] Thousand Oaks Municipal Code, Section 9–2.204.
[48] Resolution 64–19, City of Thousand Oaks, approved November 17, 1964.
[49] CHB Resolution 1, City of Thousand Oaks Cultural Heritage Board, approved May 6, 1997.
[50] Resolution 84–297, Thousand Oaks City Council, November 20, 1984.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Resolution 86–26, Thousand Oaks City Council, February 11, 1986.
[53] Pascual, Psyche, “New Council Member at Odds With Colleagues”, Los Angeles Times, December 6, 1990.
[54] Pascual, Psyche, “New Council Member at Odds With Colleagues”, Los Angeles Times, December 6, 1990.
[55] Resolution 2000–159, Thousand Oaks City Council, July 25, 2000.
[56] RDA Resolution 216, Thousand Oaks Redevelopment Agency, July 25, 2000.
[57] Disposition & Development Agreement between the Thousand Oaks Redevelopment Agency and T.O. Civic Arts LLC, Attachment №5, Section 3.02.
[58] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, July 23, 2002.
[59] Minutes of the Thousand Oaks City Council, October 21, 2003.
[60] Meeting of the Thousand Oaks City Council, February 9, 2021.
