►
Description
Livestream of the joint General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting #15 and Community Workshop for the Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan update.
To speak or participate in the polling questions, please join the meeting here: www.toaks2045.org
If you have comments or questions after the meeting has ended, please contact the Project team at toaks2045.org/comment. Please note comments/chats in YouTube will not be accepted as public participation or recorded in the meeting notes.
C
B
So
we
do
have
a
interpretation
available
this
evening,
so
everyone
down
on
your
control
bar
should
have
an
interpretation
or
translation
button
there.
So
if
you
can
set
it
to
the
appropriate
language,
either
english
or
spanish
as
appropriate,
just
if
you
leave
it
on
sometimes
it
creates
some
audio
issues
where
you
may
not
be
able
to
hear
everything.
So
please.
C
B
C
B
C
C
B
C
Hey
all
right
good
evening,
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
14th
15th
gpac
meeting
that
we've
had
I've.
I
lose
track
after
12..
We're
glad
you're
all
here
this
evening.
It
is
tonight,
is
a
combined
gpac
meeting
and
community
workshop
and,
as
you
all
know,
this
is
an
extremely
important
meeting
where
we
are
reviewing
the
preferred
alternative
and
taking
comments
on
it.
I
would
like
to
to
start
the
meeting
and
just
to
reiterate
an
announcement
that
there
is
interpretation
into
spanish.
C
If
you
are
wanting
to
have
interpretation,
please
go
to
the
interpretation
button
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen
and
click
spanish
and
everyone
else
should
go
to
the
bottom
and
click
english.
If
you
wanna
you're
in
english,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
start
sharing
my
screen
and
we
can
jump
into
the
meeting
this
evening.
C
C
If
you
can't
that's
okay,
too,
and
it
is
optional
for
the
public
about
whether
you
want
to
have
your
video
on
or
not
for
for
gpac
members
during
our
discussion,
if
you
would
like
and
for
the
community
during
the
the
just
some
of
this
is
the
community
discussion
portion.
If
you
would
like
to
ask
a
question
or
make
a
comment,
please
use
the
raise
hand
feature.
C
Want
to
quickly
go
over
our
agenda
this
evening.
We
are
here
because
we
are
going
to
review
the
preferred
alternative
and
provide
some
updates
on
the
survey
results
that
we
heard
last
time.
But,
most
importantly,
what
we
are
going
to
do
this
evening
is
to
have
a
discussion
with
both
the
gpac
and
the
community,
so
everyone
is
going
to
be
involved
at
some
point
tonight
on
the
preferred
land
use
alternative.
C
What
we
really
would
like
to
do
is
to
make
sure
that
everyone
has
a
voice
in
the
process
and
that
everyone's
questions
are
answered
and
that
the
that
we're
getting
really
good
feedback
on
the
preferred
alternative.
So
we're
going
to
start
tonight
with
an
overview
of
the
preferred
alternative
of
the
preferred
land
use
alternative
and
then
we're
going
to
move
into
breakout
groups,
we're
going
to
have
one
breakout
group
for
the
gpac
and
then
we're
going
to
have
breakout
groups
for
the
public
so
that
you
all
have
an
opportunity
to
provide
comments.
C
I
will
repeat
this
later,
but
I
will
say
it
now
that
if
you
are
a
member
of
the
public,
I'm
not
a
member
of
the
gpac,
and
you
want
to
listen
to
the
gpa
conversation
as
opposed
to
participating
in
a
breakout
group.
That
is
fine
as
well.
We
can
make
sure
that
you
are
listening
to
the
gpac
discussion
after
the
breakout
groups.
C
So
the
opportunities
for
providing
feedback
on
the
preferred
alternative
are
as
follows.
Tonight,
what
we'd
like
you
to
do
is
to
listen
to
what
we
are
presenting
this
evening
in
the
in
terms
of
what
is
in
the
preferred
alternative
and
then
to
ask
questions
and
then
in
the
breakout
group
to
provide
comments
after
we
want
you
to
review
the
preferred
land
use
map
and
the
memo
and
then
to
complete
the
online
survey.
C
As
a
reminder
for
where
we
are
in
the
update
process,
we
are
at
the
stage
of
policy
development
and
plan
alternatives,
and
we
are
moving
to
the
council
providing
direction
on
a
preferred
alternative
next
month
in
may
and
from
there
we're
going
to
move
into
plan
development
and
then
review
an
adoption.
A
point
to
note
here,
as
this
shows,
we
still
have
a
lot
to
do
in
our
work
on
the
project.
C
I'm
going
to
start
with
a
review
of
the
process
of
how
we
got
to
the
preferred
land
use
alternative.
I
would
assume
at
this
point
that
most
folks
have
been
involved
and
know
what
is
going
on.
So
I'm
going
to
try
and
keep
this
relatively
short,
and
we
can
answer
any
questions
during
our
small
group
discussion
as
needed.
C
We
then
asked
the
question
both
in
the
gpac
meeting,
as
well
as
through
an
online
survey
about
where
change
should
happen
in
the
city.
So,
assuming
that
you
know,
cities
grow
and
evolve
over
time,
and
so
we
need
to
find
out.
Where
are
the
areas
where
that
evolution
should
happen?
And
this
led
to
a
map
that
we
call
the
areas
of
change
map.
C
The
areas
of
change
map
is
reflected
here,
and
this
is
the
map
that
we've
generally
been
working
with
to
just
allow
us
to
dive
deeper
and
to
ask
the
question,
which
is:
how
could
these
areas
evolve
over
time?
And
even
should
they
evolve
over
time,
so
the
areas
that
we
identified,
there's
essentially
four
main
areas
of
change,
rancho,
canejo,
north
park,
road
and
and
east
and
and
west
thousand
oaks,
boulevard,
downtown
and
thousand
oaks
boulevard
and
then
west
lake
and
east
end.
C
As
we
said
when
we
worked
on
this-
and
we
presented
this
previously,
we
didn't
we
never
expected
that
any
one
of
these
alternatives
would
become
the
preferred
alternative.
And
in
fact,
what
we
said
was
that
we
were
going
to
present
these
as
concepts
and
then
take
pieces
that
the
community
liked
from
each
of
them
to
present
that
and
to
provide
that
preferred
direction
for
the
general
plan,
and
that
is
in
fact,
what
happened
all
of
the
land
use.
Alternatives
had
commonalities.
C
So
there
was
a
series
of
sort
of
givens
that
we
had
for
the
land
use
alternatives,
and
the
first
is
that
there
was
no
decrease
or
increase
in
residential
capacity
without
going
into
too
much
detail.
Measure
e
limits
us
to
not
increasing
the
total
residential
capacity
in
the
city
and
state
law.
Sb
330
limits
us
to
not
decrease
the
overall
capacity
of
the
city.
So
essentially,
our
target
is
a
number
of
about
81
000
housing
units,
not
that
any
of
us
expect
that
we
are
ever
going
to
achieve
that
in
thousand
oaks.
C
But
that's
the
number
that
we
have
to
have
a
number
that
has
been
around
since
1970
when
the
general
plan
was
first
developed.
The
second
is
that
all
of
the
alternatives
try
to
match
the
land
use
designations
in
the
existing
neighborhoods
to
the
existing
development.
That's
on
the
ground
now
and
then
the
third
is
that
some
of
that
unbuilt
capacity
from
the
residential
areas
would
move
over
to
the
areas
of
change
again.
A
lot
of
this
is
happening.
C
A
lot
of
this
mathematics
is
happening
because
of
this
tension
between
measure
e
and
sb
330,
where
we
can't
increase
or
decrease
the
residential
capacity.
So
if
we're
going
to
allow
for
some
multi-family
and
mixed-use
development,
where
it
isn't
allowed
right
now,
we
have
to
we
have
to
move
that
from
somewhere,
and
so
we
identified
some
potential
locations
where
that
could
come
from,
and
one
of
those
areas
is
that
there
is
a
land
use
designation
in
the
general
plan.
C
C
The
draft
alternative,
the
the
land
use
alternatives
were
released
in
february
2nd,
and
that
was
where
that
was
two
meetings
ago
for
the
gpac,
and
it
was
also
a
joint
gpac
meeting
and
community
workshop
in
the
time
between
february
2nd
and
march
15th.
We
had
that
workshop
on
february,
2nd
and
over
250
people
attended.
C
C
Overall,
the
survey
had
over
2100
responses.
21
27,
the
majority
of
those
were,
were
completed
in
english,
but
there
were
some
completed
in
spanish.
Only
the
survey
was
open
from
february
2nd
to
march
15th
and,
as
you
know,
we
extended
the
deadline
in
order
to
increase
participation
in
the
survey.
There
were
33
questions
in
the
survey.
C
There
were
16
questions
that
were
essentially
multiple
choice,
but
with
some
space
for
comments,
and
then
there
were
five
demographic
questions
at
the
end
of
the
survey,
it's
important
to
note
that
we
we
compiled
the
results
for
all
of
the
surveys
and
that,
but
not
all
of
the
respondents
answered
every
question
so
some
of
the
questions
people
skipped
because
they
didn't
want
to
answer
them
and
that's
very
common
in
an
opt-in
survey
such
as
this.
It's
also
important
to
note
that
this
is
not
a
statistically
valid
survey.
C
This
was
an
opt-in
survey
because
we
wanted
to
give
every
member
in
the
community
an
opportunity
to
participate
in
what,
in
the
survey
the
survey
demographics
showed
a
wide
diversity
of
of
city
residents
who
participated,
97
of
the
respondents
either
live
or
both
live
and
work
in
the
city
more
than
75
have
been
in
in
the
city
for
11
years
or
more.
So
that
means
that
a
lot
of
folks
are
long-time
residents
and
certainly
very
established
in
the
community.
C
C
All
of
the
details
of
the
survey
were
presented.
The
survey
results
were
presented
at
the
last
meeting
in
march
to
dive
a
little
deeper
on
some
of
the
survey
demographics.
We
we
look
at
the
demographics
to
understand
how
well
the
community
is
represented
by
the
survey
that
was
done
so
on
the
left.
You
see
the
age
comparison.
C
You
see
the
ages
of
the
survey.
Respondents,
the
age
brackets
and
on
the
right
are
the
city-wide
age
ranges
based
on
u.s
census
data
and,
as
you
can
see
in
the
survey,
the
under
18
is
very
much
underrepresented
in
the
survey
less
than
one
percent
in
the
in
the
actual
survey
but
25
in
terms
of
the
residents
of
the
city.
This
is
not
a
surprising
result.
Most
people
who
are
in
high
school
and
younger
don't
take
surveys
or
participate
in
the
process.
C
But
when
you
look
through
the
other
categories,
particularly
in
the
25
to
34
and
higher,
you
know
what
you
see
is
essentially
a
pretty
pretty
close
parallel
for
an
opt-in
survey.
Again,
it's
not
statistically
valid
between
who
took
the
survey
and
the
city-wide
age
ranges
there
was.
There
were
questions
at
the
planning
commission
meeting
about
whether
the
survey
was
rigged
and
whether
people
could
take
the
survey,
lots
and
lots
and
lots
of
times
and
how
that
might
impact
the
results.
C
Because
of
that
we
actually,
our
team
spent
quite
a
bit
of
time
going
through
the
survey
responsive
responses,
and
this
gets
a
little
bit
technical.
But
when
every
person
took
the
survey
their
ip
address
internet
protocol
address
is
registered
in
surveymonkey,
which
is
the
survey
tool
that
we
use
the
online
survey
tool
that
we
use
and
if
you
took
it
from
on
your
device,
you
could
only
take
it
once
on
your
device.
C
So
you
you
can't
just
go
someone
couldn't
go
on
and
just
take
it
multiple
multiple
multiple
times,
and
we
did
that
because
we
wanted
to
limit
the
number
of
people
because
we
didn't
want
people
to
take
it
multiple
times.
However,
multiple
people
could
actually
take
the
survey
on
different
devices
from
the
same
ip
address,
so
we
had
to
look
and
track
different
ip
addresses
to
see
if
there
was
anything
going
on
in
the
survey
that
might
have
led
to
people
that
could
have
pointed
to
someone
on
kind
of
gaming.
C
The
system
and
what
we
found
is
that
out
of
the
2127
surveys,
413
of
those
were
associated
with
more
than
one
ip
address.
So
of
that
413
304
of
those
responses
were
associated
with
where
there
were
two
responses
associated
with
an
ip
address.
24
there
were
72
responses
or
24
ip
addresses
that
you
know
each
ip
address
had
three
and
then
three
ip
addresses
that
had
four
responses
and
then
three
ip
addresses
that
had
a
total
of
25
responses.
C
One
ip
address
had
six
one
at
seven
and
one
had
12.,
and
so
it's
very
easy.
If
you
have
a
couple
in
a
house
and
they
each
have
their
own
device,
they
would
actually
show
up
with
the
same
ip
address.
So
if
there
were
two
people
with
two
devices
in
a
house
and
they
took
the
survey,
we
think
that
could
relate
to
why
there
are
152
ip
addresses
with
two
responses
each.
C
So
what
we
did
just
to
make
sure
that
the
survey
was
accurate
is
that
we
did
a
comparison-
and
we
just
released
the
survey
report
with
this,
where
we're
showing
the
details
of
this
comparison.
But
we
analyzed
all
of
the
results
of
the
survey
with
both
the
full
data
set
of
the
2127
surveys.
And
then
we
did
a
sensitivity,
analysis
where
we
took
out
everything
where
that
had
more
than
one
ip
address,
and
that
was
1714
1700
surveys,
and
what
we
found
is
that
the
majority
of
the
results.
C
In
fact,
all
the
results
were
really
in
a
one
to
two
percent
difference
between
the
two
data
sets.
What
this
tells
us
is
that
the
survey
the
responses
were
were
were
valid,
that
we
have
a
lot
of
confidence
in
the
results
of
the
survey
because-
and
this
was
really
important
because
we
use
the
survey
results
to
really
guide
the
direction
that
we
were
proposing
in
the
preferred
alternative.
C
C
One
was
when
there
was
a
category
and
a
risk,
an
option
called
none
of
the
above
to
a
multiple
choice
question.
So,
as
you
remember
from
the
survey
we
had,
we
asked
people,
for
example,
which
alternative
they
preferred
one,
two
or
three,
and
then
we
gave
the
option
of,
and
if
you
click
to
none
of
the
above,
you
could
write
a
response
about
why
you
selected
none
of
the
above.
C
So
this
means
that
the
majority
of
people
supported
the
direction,
one
of
the
options
that
was
presented
but
where
there
were
comments
in
there,
so
in
the
15
to
19
or
less
than
15
to
19
about
75
of
those
comments
that
were
in
there
were
were
expressing
some
form
of
opposition
to
what
was
presented
in
the
alternatives.
But
again
this
is
a
really
small
percentage
of
the
total.
So
the
majority
of
people
selected
one
of
the
alternatives,
overwhelming
number
of
people
selected.
C
One
of
the
alternatives
there
were
also
open-ended
questions
where
we
just
said
what
are
your
additional
thoughts
on
this
area,
and
these
were
more
balanced
between
positive
and
negative
responses,
and
most
of
the
respondents
skipped
the
open-ended
question
so
about
15
to
25
percent
of
people
answered
these
open-ended
questions.
The
only
exception
to
this
was
question.
C
Okay,
so,
let's
move
into
the
preferred
alternative
again
the
preferred.
The
reason
I
went
into
that
is
because
the
preferred
alternative
is
based
a
lot
on
the
survey
that
was
done
and
there
were
questions
raised
by
some
members
of
the
community
about
whether
the
survey
should
even
be
used
at
all
and
again
in.
In
our
opinion,
we
did
the
data
analysis
and
we
believe
for
an
opt-in
survey.
It
is
a
good
source
of
data.
C
It's
also
important
to
note
that,
ultimately,
it
is
up
to
the
planning,
commission
and
the
city
council
to
make
the
decision
that
they
feel
comfortable
with
whether
that
is
in
line
with
the
survey
or
not.
It
really
is
up
to
the
planning,
commission
and
council
how
they
want
to
move
forward.
What
our
job
was
for
this
process
was
to
be
true
to
the
engagement
process,
to
accurately
reflect
what
we're
hearing
from
the
community
in
all
forms
of
engagement
and
then
present
that
information
to
the
decision
makers
in
order
to
make
a
decision.
C
C
C
The
preferred
alt,
the
pref,
the
proposed
land
use
designations
are
shown
here
and
on
the
next
slide,
and
I
just
want
to
point
out
a
couple
of
things
in
the
preferred
alternative.
The
designations
haven't
changed
so
that
the
density
and
intensity
and
the
height
is
the
same
as
what
we
presented
previously.
C
C
C
Again,
all
of
this
is
done
because
measure
recaps
the
amount
of
development,
the
total
development
capacity
in
the
city.
So
these
are
the
commercial
designations.
There
are
still
three
commercial
designations,
varying
in
intensity
and
two
industrial
designations,
and
then,
of
course,
we
have
institutional
and
then
parks
golf
courses
in
open
space
which
account
for
over
45
of
the
total
land
area
in
the
city.
C
This
map
shows
the
preferred
the
preferred
land
use
alternative.
The
white
areas
that
you
see
here
on
the
screen
are
county
islands,
so
there
are
no
designations
in
those
areas
and
the
red
represents
the
red
line
represents
the
sphere
of
influence
and
the
dotted
black
line
represents
the
city
limits.
C
The
preferred
alternative
is
based
on
the
on
the
guiding
principles
that
were
developed
in
the
process
and
the
guiding
principles
and
throughout
the
process,
there
was
very
much
a
strong
desire
to
preserve
parks
and
open
space
and
to
preserve
and
maintain
the
character
of
the
residential
neighborhoods
and
not
allow
too
much
development
in
the
city,
because
the
people
who
are
here
now
really
love
the
way
it
is
now
and
that
the
development
that
that
should
occur
should
occur
in
in
in
limited
locations
in
focused
locations
throughout
the
city.
There
is
also.
C
The
preferred
alternative
allows
mixed-use
development
in
strategic
locations,
and
I
will
highlight
those
locations
later
and,
as
I
mentioned
previously,
the
preferred
alternative
remain
maintains
the
measure
e
cap,
so
the
residential
capacity
is
unchanged
in
the
preferred
alternative
compared
to
what
it
is.
Today,
I'm
going
to
walk
through
each
of
the
specific
areas
with
what
the
survey
results
were
and
then
what
that
led
us
to
with
the
preferred
alternative.
C
So
in
rancho
canejo,
the
majority
of
respondents
supported
and
even
balance
between
lower
and
higher
intensity
industrial
uses.
There
were
different
ideas.
We
asked
a
question
about
mixed
use
and
we
showed
different
options
for
where
mixed
use
could
go
in
the
rancho
canejo
area
and
there
were
different.
C
This
is
the
map
for
the
rancho
canejo
area,
of
the
preferred
alternative,
the
I'm
going
to
start
in
the
northern
side
and
what
the
light
gray
is
industrial
low
and
the
dark
gray
is
industrial
flex.
So
what
we
tried
to
do
was
to
have
a
balance
between
industrial,
low
and
industrial
flex.
It's
really
important
for
the
city
that
this
area
really
remain
a
job
center.
It's
a
very
strong
job
center.
It's
part
of
the
driver
of
the
local
economy
and
businesses
that
are
there
want
to
expand
what
we
did
to
supplement.
C
This
was
because
there
was
a
desire
for
mixed
use
was
that
we
added
mixed
use
just
north
of
101,
and
you
see
this
in
the
dark
purple
and
the
light
purple.
The
light
purple
is
mixed
use,
low
and
the
darker
purple
is
the
excuse
medium.
So
we
provided
an
opportunity
for
some
mixed-use
development
north
of
the
freeway.
C
C
Other
objectives
from
the
city
can
be
achieved.
We
did
a
visual
preference
survey
where
we
showed
different
images,
if
you'll
remember
and
for
for
the
oaks
mall
and
jan's
marketplace
68
to
75
of
the
people
of
the
respondents
to
the
survey
supported
three
to
five
story:
residential
and
mixed-use
buildings.
In
those
areas
we
also
looked
at
a
portion
of
thousand
oaks
boulevard
of
west
thousand
oaks
boulevard
and
showed
visual
and
showed
images
as
well
and
70
to
78
percent
supported
through
the
five-story
mixtures
are
multi-family
in
that
area.
C
The
open-ended
question
here
was
question:
14
20
of
people
added
a
comment.
A
third
of
the
people
who
added
the
comments
said.
I
have
no
more
comments.
A
third
opposed,
any
change
in
this
area
overall
and
then
a
third
either
supported
mixed
use
or
had
other
suggestions
for
how
development
would
go
and
again,
you
know
rest
assured
there
were.
There
were
again
six
thousand
comments
and
our
team
read
every
single
comment,
and
so
we
tried
to
do
our
best
to
categorize
those
as
best
we
could
in
the
process.
Here.
C
C
C
We
maintained
along
the
along
part
of
the
101
freeway
and
then
the
moore
park,
road
exit
here
we
maintained
commercial
uses.
The
dark
red
that
you
see
here
is
the
is
the
commercial,
regional
and
that's
for
higher
intensity
commercial
uses
and
that
could
accommodate
hotels.
There
are
already
at
least
one
hotel
in
this
area
and
then
along
thousand
oaks
boulevard
you'll
see
two
designations.
C
One
to
the
east
is
mixed
use
low,
and
this
area
is
the
same
designation
as
what
is
in
the
current
thousand
oaks
boulevard
specific
plan
and
then
there's
the
mixed-use
medium
area,
which
already
has
quite
a
bit
of
development
interest
in
this
area.
This
is
where
the
299
thousand
oaks
boulevard
project
is
going
in,
and
so
this
area
is
mixed
use,
medium,
which
is
up
to
45
dwelling
units
per
acre.
C
It's
also
important
to
note
here
that
that
some
of
the
designation
from
the
thousand
oaks
boulevard
specific
plan
was
changed
from
mixed
use
to
commercial,
and
you
see
this
along
the
101
freeway
east
of
moore
park
road.
This
area
was
designated
or
is
currently
designated
as
mixed
use
low.
Given
the
proximity
to
the
freeway,
we
were
proposing
that
this
might
be
a
better
area
to
maintain
commercial
uses
and
not
to
add
mixed-use
development
which
would
allow
residential.
C
For
the
downtown
and
thousand
oaks
boulevard
area,
there
was
overall
support
for
mixed
use
and
residential
development
in
this
area
and
the
and
support
for
densities
of
greater
than
30
units,
an
acre,
in
fact,
more
than
75
percent
of
people
who
responded
said
that
they'd
be
willing
to
allow
development
of
either
45
units
an
acre
or
60
units
an
acre
for,
and
that
that
is
just
for
the
downtown
area,
the
the
45
to
60.,
but
overall
for
thousand
oaks
boulevard.
There
is
support
for
mixed-use
development.
C
One
of
the
questions
that
we
asked
early
on
in
the
survey
for
the
city-wide
questions
was:
what
areas
do
you
think
there
should
be
residential
development
and
the
area
that
got
the
most
votes?
Is
the
downtown
and
thousand
oaks
boulevard
area.
So
again,
there
was
strong
support
in
the
survey
for
this
more
than
three
quarters
of
the
respondents
said
that
this
is
an
area
for
residential
development,
but
there
was
also
support
for
allowing
some
standalone
residential
buildings
along
thousand
oaks
boulevard.
In
other
words,
don't
require
that
every
building
have
retail
space.
C
Allow
there
to
be
just
some
multi-family
buildings
in
select
locations.
In
order
to
spark
development
and
allow
for
more
multi-family
housing
in
the
area,
20
of
respondents
added
a
question
or
added
a
comment
to
question
18.
This
was
the
open-ended
question
and
in
this
in
the
responses,
the
the
open-ended
comments
were
divided
between
those
who
wanted
to
see
limited
change
in
this
area
and
those
who
wanted
to
have
a
mixed-use
district
with
housing,
retail,
employment
and
entertainment
uses.
C
For
the
for
the,
this
is
the
map
of
the
downtown
and
thousand
oaks
boulevard
area,
and
it
it
tracks
relatively
closely
with
the
thousand
oaks
boulevard
specific
plan,
with
a
couple
of
changes,
the
changes
and-
and
so
what
you
see
here
in
the
dark
purple
is
the
downtown
area.
The
blue
is
the
civic
arts
plaza
where
we
all
wish.
We
could
be
this
evening
having
a
meeting,
but
this
is
the
dark.
C
These
are
areas
where
we
expected
that
there
would
not
be
any
that
these
are
that
these
areas
could
remain
commercial
over
the
time
horizon
of
the
general
plan.
They
are
currently
mixed
use
right
now
in
the
thousand
oaks
boulevard
specific
plan,
but
we're
proposing
that
they
be
moved
to
commercial
neighborhood
either
because
they
have
existing
commercial
uses
on
them.
You
know,
for
example,
just
just
west
of
kaneho
school
road
and
north
of
thousand
oaks.
C
C
One
more
note
to
point
here:
apologies
that
surrounding
the
thousand
oaks
boulevard
corridor
is
a
lot
of
our
residential
neighborhoods,
and
these
are
some
of
the
the
neighborhoods
in
the
city
that
have
multi-family
housing
and
what
we
tried
to
do
in
this
area
is
generally
match
the
land
use
designation.
That
is
there
today
in
these
areas
or
or
for
the
single
family
areas
that
already
built
match.
What's
on
the
ground
right
now
and
not
allow
higher
intensity
development
in
those
single
family
areas
for
the
west
lake
and
east
end.
C
What
we
heard
from
the
survey
is
that
there
is
a
desire
to
expand
the
employment
district
near
hampshire,
road
and
the
townsgate
road
area
to
expand
employment
uses
along
thousand
oaks
boulevard
on
the
east.
End
of
the
city
and
and
south
of
the
high
school
there
was
a
very
strong
direction
to
maintain
commercial
only
uses
and
not
mixed
use.
At
the
west
lake
plaza
and
center,
there
was
support
for
adding
mixed-use
development
along
thousand
oaks,
boulevard
and
west
and
the
westlake
boulevard
intersection.
C
D
C
The
alternatives
where
that
would
be
so
we
proposed
an
idea
and
certainly
want
comments
on
that,
and
then
there
was
also
a
desire
to
keep
the
area
on
thousand
oaks
boulevard
west
of
west
lake
boulevard.
Apologies
for
the
direction
here,
I'll
show
you
on
the
map,
but
to
keep
that
as
commercial
and
that's
essentially
the
area
that
has
the
auto
dealers
and
across
the
street
from
the
auto
dealers.
C
For
for
this
area,
question
number
23
was
an
open-ended
question
for
additional
ideas,
and
only
15
percent
of
people
responded
to
open-ended
questions
about
two-thirds.
Three-Quarters
of
those
were
not
wanting
any
change
in
this
area
and
then
the
other
responses
was
a
balance
between
other
ideas
and
ideas
for
mixed-use
development.
C
This
is
the
map
of
the
west
lake
and
it
will
propose
land
use
designations
in
the
west
lake
and
east
end
area.
I'm
going
to
start
out
by
on
the
site
here
in
the
sort
of
on
the
west
side,
which
is
the
kmart
site
and
across
the
street.
This
area
is
designated
as
mixed
use
low.
We
know
that
there's
a
development
concept
for
the
former
kmart
site,
but
we
also
think
that
the
area
could
be
enhanced
by
allowing
a
sort
of
a
mirror
project
across
the
street.
C
You
see
the
auto
mall,
which
and
all
of
the
alternatives
had
the
designation
of
commercial
neighborhood,
which
maintains
the
commercial
uses
and
allows
the
the
auto
dealers
to
continue
across
the
street
from
that
and
all
on.
The
north
side
of
thousand
oaks
boulevard
is,
is
our
commercial
uses,
and
that
was
a.
C
For
the
village
centers,
these
are
the
seven
commercial
centers
located
throughout
the
city.
We
asked
a
question
about
whether
they
should
all
remain
commercial,
whether
they
should
all
be
allowed
to
have
mixed
use
or
whether
there
should
be
a
combination,
and
there
was
general
support
for
maintaining
commercial
uses
within
the
village
centers.
C
This
shows
the
mix
and
the
the
number
the
the
acres
of
each
of
the
uses
in
the
preferred
alternative.
I
wanna
again
highlight
two
things
that
you'll
see
the
asterisks
on
neighborhood,
low
and
neighborhood
mediums,
and
these
are
designations
that
probably
need
to
be
further
calibrated
within
the
sub,
the
subcategories
to
reflect
the
current
densities.
C
What's
going
to
be
mixed
use
and
what's
going
to
remain
commercial,
and
that
is
going
to
have
an
impact
on
the
total
numbers.
And
so
our
process
is
to
figure
out
what's
going
on,
first
with
the
areas
of
change
and
then
then
the
designations
will
be
tweaked
slightly
in
the
in
the
residential
neighborhoods.
C
C
C
C
Here
in
the
map
and
starting
on
the
the
east
side
of
the
city,
you
have
the
mixed-use
parcels
mixed
use
located
at
the
or
proposed
at
the
intersection
of
thousand
oaks
boulevard
and
west
lake
moving
over
the
kmart
site
and
across
the
street,
which
I
believe
is
in
southern
california.
Edison
area
which
may
not,
you
know,
may
not
change
in
the
future.
And
then
you
have
the
oaks.
Sorry,
not
the
the
lakes,
the
oaks,
the
lakes
parking
lot
and
the
lakes
which
currently
doesn't
allow,
I
believe,
doesn't
allow
residential.
C
The
other
point
to
note
is
that
you
see
the
dark
purple
here
on
the
west
side
of
thousand
oaks
boulevard,
as
well
as
in
the
downtown
here,
and
those
are
areas
where
this
proposed
increase
from
30
units,
an
acre
to
45
units,
an
acre
maximum
and
an
additional
eight
feet
of
height
in
order
to
accommodate
the
extra
intensity
in
that
area.
And
so
ultimately,
that's
what
the
plan
boils
down
to
and
the
changes
is
this
area
where
currently,
there
isn't
mixed
use,
where
we're
proposing
to
add
mix
use
development.
C
The
next
steps
in
the
process
before
we
get
into
our
our
breakout
groups
and
our
discussions
is
to
to
we
have
a
preferred
land
use.
Alternative
survey.
That's
open
through
may
12th
we're
going
to
receive
comments
and
direction
from
the
planning
commission
on
april
26th.
This
feedback
will
be
compiled
and
presented.
The
recommended
changes
to
the
city
council
on
may
18th
and
then
we'll
receive
direction
from
the
city
council
on
may
25th,
so
we're
moving
and
we're
moving
through
the
alternatives
here.
C
C
C
What
we
would
like
you
to
do
in
the
groups
is
to
discuss
each
area,
ask
questions
and
then
discuss
each
area
and
what
we'd
love
feedback
on,
of
course,
anything
that
you
want
to
tell
us.
But
really
what
did
you
like
about
the
preferred
alternative
overall
and
for
each
area?
And
then
what
changes
do
you
think
still
need
to
be
made?
C
C
C
B
C
C
And
again,
what
we
just
a
reminder:
what
we
would.
What
we
would
like
is
that
those
who
are
choosing
to
stay
in
the
deepak
room,
it's
going
to
be
for
the
gpac
discussion
and
you'll
be
you'll,
be
listening
in
and
the
the
rest
of
folks
in
the
breakout
rooms
will
will
participate
and
give
comments
and
feedback.
A
B
C
B
C
A
large
number
of
you
wanted
to
stay
in
the
g-pack.
Everyone
who's
in
the
public
is
going
to
get
moved
to
a
room,
and
then,
once
you
are
in
that
room,
you
can
exit
back
to
the
back
to
us
here
with
the
apologies
for
that
we're
even
a
year
into
this.
We're
still
working
on
the
technology,
not
quite
perfect.
B
C
C
Also,
okay,
I
think
we
should
we
should
get
going
here.
So
we
have.
We
have
about
45
minutes
and
and
again
for
the
gpac
members.
What
what
I
would
like
to
have
us
do
is
to
first
we
can
maybe
do
questions
for
a
little
while
and
then
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
go
through
just
overall
what
your,
what
your
reaction
to
the
preferred
alternative
is.
We
can
go
area,
you
know,
area
by
area,
first
city
wide
and
then
area
by
area.
C
B
There
you
are,
I
think,
I
think
we
did
a
a
lot
of
work
and
looked
at
a
lot
of
different
things,
and
I
know
your
the
answer
is
probably
going
to
be
that
this
comes
later,
but
I
think
there's
an
important
piece.
That's
missing
that
I
think
we
need
to
do
revolved
around
the
plans
and
that's
schools
and
the
impact
to
the
schools,
I
think
is-
is
significant
and
important.
B
So
I
I
think
people's
positions
may
change
if
they
realize
that
you
know
the
the
if
additional
residences
in
one
particular
area
town
over
another
are,
you
know,
have
the
potential
to
change
or
redraw
the
school
district
boundary
lines,
meaning
that
if
you
live
in
this
residence,
your
this
is
your
elementary
school
that
your
child
will
go
to
so,
for
example,
development
on
the
side
of
a
thousand
oaks
nearest
west
lake.
So
the
district,
the
school
district
has
two
schools
there.
B
So
I
think
that's
something
that
really
has
to
be
considered
and
no
matter
where
it
is
on
the
boulevard.
It's
going
to
impact
where
children
who
move
into
any
of
these
residences
are
going
to
go
to
school,
which
is
going
to
impact
traffic
which
is
going
to
impact
the
overall
formation
of
the
the
district
and
how
enrollment
goes
across
the
school
district.
So
I
I
think,
that's
something
that
that
we
need
to
look
at,
because
I
think
that
has
some
significant
effect
on.
C
Great-
and
you
know
I
think
you-
you
answered
your
own
question-
we
you
know
right
now,
it's
concepts
and
there's
a
little
bit
of
catch
22
with
all
of
this.
So
you
know
we
don't
have
the
answer
to
that
right
now,
because
we
don't
know
overall-
and
we
also,
you
know,
don't
know
what
the
makeup
will
be.
So
there's
there
is
a
catch
22,
but
not
not
that
your
point
is
invalid,
but
it
you
know
we
need
to.
We
need
to
think
about
character
as
well.
C
Yeah,
so
the
essentially
what
what
we
started,
I
think
understanding
was
that
there
were
a
mix
of
ideas
about
what
the
existing
those
existing
commercial
shopping.
Centers
could
be
in
the
future,
and
I
think
when
some
people
were
talking
about
village
centers,
they
were
talking
about
adding
mixed-use
development
or
adding
residential
development.
And
then
I
think
other
people
were
talking
about
just
having
a
different
kind
of
format
that
felt
more
like
a
main
street
that
still
is
just
commercial
uses,
but
not
adding
residential
to
those
areas.
C
And
so
so
that
was
what
I
said
was
that
the
land
use
would
still
remain
and
is
proposed
to
remain
commercial,
but
that
we
can
have
policies
to
encourage
revitalization
of
those
so
that
it's
not
necessarily
a
big
parking
lot
with.
You
know
with
retail
uses,
but
it
may
be
more
of
like
a
nice
walkable
main
street
area
that
is
more
conducive
to
community
interaction
and
hanging
out.
C
Yeah
laura,
you
just
said
it
would
be
looked
at
through
a
general
plan.
Amendment
process-
and
you
know
I
have
to
say
thousand
oaks-
is
unique
in
that
that
measurey
caps,
the
ability
to
it,
makes
it
more
difficult
to
have
the
ability
to
make
changes
like
that
in
the
future.
But
you
know
typically
in
a
community
that
doesn't
have
a
growth
total
growth
cap
like
measure
e,
does
it
would
just
go
through
a
general
plan
amendment
process?
C
A
I'm
not
muted,
okay.
Thank
you
very
supportive
of
the
alternative
land
use.
I
think
it's
going
to
be
beautiful
and
exciting,
but
moving
forward.
You
know
people
listen
to
details,
and
I
know
that
this
is
a
big
picture
concept
right
now,
but
my
my
recommendation
would
be
that
when,
when
you
make
the
presentation
to
the
planning
commission
to
the
city
council
or
if
we
do
any
more,
if
you
do
any
more
surveys,
you
need
to
remind
people.
I
would
think
that
the
all
the
new
buildings
are
certainly
going
to
be
energy
efficient.
A
All
the
new
buildings
are
certainly
going
to
make
extensive
use
of
solar
energy
and
obviously
the
new
residential
units
are
going
to
have
varied
utilities.
There
won't
be
like
I
have
in
my
backyard
power
poles
and,
along
with
energy
efficient.
All
these
new
areas
are
going
to
be
beautiful
because
they're
going
to
have
green
space,
we
talk
about.
A
We
need.
We
need
to
address
that
verbally
as
well
as
in
any
more
written
materials
that
go
out,
and
I
think
you
know
those
of
us
on
the
gpac
who
have
been
meeting
for
two
years
now.
Now,
we've
heard
a
lot
of
speakers
and-
and
we
get
that
we
know
this
is
going.
We
know
that
this
is
going
to
be
attended
to,
but
I
think
in
talking
to
other.
A
C
A
A
I've
talked
to
I
I
feel
like
it
would
be
a
missed
opportunity
to
not
include
the
option
for
mixed
use
and
some
housing
in
at
least
sort
of
the
course
set
of
village
centers
that
we're
in
alternative
one,
for
I
think
that
meets
a
variety
of
intersecting
interests
of
the
city
in
terms
of
economic
neighborhoods.
That
appeal
to
you
know
the
young,
millennial
and
gen
z,
tech
workers,
we're
trying
to
create
a
biotech
hub
here.
A
The
neighborhood
feel
the
walkability,
the
critical
mass
of
people
living
close
by
who
can
walk
and
support
the
local
businesses.
We
hope
will
be
in
those
village
centers,
I'm
sort
of
envisioning
european
high
streets
within
neighborhoods
kind
of
thing.
With
you
know,
I've
talked
about
how
I
have
this
vision
of
being
able
to
walk
to
my
local
village
center.
A
Have
an
outdoor
dinner
at
a
locally
owned
cafe
and
catch
a
shuttle
to
the
civic
arts
plaza
and
then
back
and
have
a
drink
at
a
locally
owned
wine
bar
in
that
same
village
center
and
then
it'll
be
thriving
and
attended.
You
know
bustling
with
people
of
all
different
ages
and
income
levels,
there's
the
equity
issue
of
having
that
diversity
of
housing
and
that's
affordable
and
different
kinds
of
places
for
people
to
live
and
for
seniors
or
empty
nesters,
which
I
will
be
in
just
a
few
years.
Who
can
stay
in
the
neighborhood?
A
You
know
how
do
we
sort
of
revitalize
those
in
addition
reduces
driving
overall,
if
we're
not
all
trying
to
drive
to
tarantula
hill,
all
the
time
or
stone
house
all
the
time
and
fight
for
parking
there,
less
housing
along
the
freeway
and
the
environmental
considerations
there
if
we
put
housing
a
little
bit
throughout
other
spots
in
the
city,
so
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
I
just
really
feel
like
the
village.
Centers
represent
some
significant
opportunity
for
us.
C
Great,
thank
you
yeah.
We
know
we
appreciate
that
comment
and
know
that
there
are.
There
are
a
large
number
of
people
who
feel
passionate
about
that.
So
we
tried
to
follow
the
survey,
but
you
know
certainly
that's
a
comment
that
can
move
up
to
planning,
commissioning
council
the
ultimate
decision
makers
with
that.
Okay,
next
fred.
B
B
B
C
Well
again,
the
the
whole
parcel
is
large,
and
so
we
divided
the
parcel.
So
what
we
did
was
the
areas
adjacent
to
the
single
family.
Neighborhood
maintain
a
residential
designation
to
allow
for
a
transition,
and
then
the
area
along
orchard
and
the
freeway
would
be
mixed
use
low,
which
is
50
feet.
The
story
there
and
the
residential
is,
you
know
with.
C
B
B
B
B
I
mean
during
our
conversation,
I
I
didn't
know
he's
going
to
propose
this,
but
I
mean
educate
me,
but
he
had
his
own
ideas
as
far
as
development
of
that
property
and
to
in
short,
you
know,
I
was
willing
to
listen
and
it
turned
out
that
he
had
a
mixture
of
commercial
and
residential
which
seemed
overall
just
real
quickly
to
be
a
win-win.
In
my
particular
mind
that
answered
questions
of
congestion,
traffic,
wise
enjoyment
of
the
community,
addressing
housing,
also
for
people
who
might
be
working
the
biotech.
B
You
know
amgen
in
that
area
and
it
seemed
to
be
a
feasible
idea.
And
but
I
I
asked
him,
has
this
gone
out
and
he
said
you
know
he's
talked
to
certain
people,
but
I
said
why
don't
you
just
let
the
public
know
so,
especially
the
residents
of
that
local
area,
so
that
they
can
be
informed
of
what
some
ideas
are
and
I'm
hoping
that
he's
going
to
be
attending
this
meeting
tonight
so
that
maybe
he
can,
in
short,
just
make
everybody
the
local
citizen
reaware.
B
Yeah,
I
just
had
a
quick
question.
I
know
you
partially
addressed
this
in
the
main
presentation,
but
I
was
curious
how
the
sort
of
looking
at
this
map
here,
the
three
main
areas
of
mixed-use
medium,
were
determined.
Why
of
all
the
mixed
use
areas?
Those
three
specific
areas-
city
hall,
tarantula
hill
and
the
one
parcel
in
rancho
canejo-
were
chosen,
be
the
medium
density
regions
as
opposed
to
all
the
other
ones
being
low.
C
C
The
the
area
around
the
civic
arts
plaza
has
always
been
envisioned
as
a
higher
intensity
area
as
the
downtown,
and
so
that
was
sort
of
a
logical
area
to
to
have
the
mixed
use
medium
to
allow
for
some
more
intense
uses,
the
area
around
the
the
on
the
west
side
of
thousand
oaks
boulevard,
where
299
is
in
tarantula
hill.
The
reason
that
that
area
was
identified
is
because
you're
already
seeing
us
kind
of
some
energy
in
that
area.
C
That
jennifer
was
talking
about
with
the
village
centers
I
mean
that
could
be
kind
of
like
a
new
village
center
different
than
the
shopping
areas,
but
you
know
an
entertainment
village
center
for
a
certain
lifestyle,
and
so
that's
why
that
area
was
was
selected.
And
then
the
area
in
in
rancho
canejo
was
selected
because
of
the
proximity
sort
of
the
adjacency
to
the
commercial
uses,
and
we
thought
that
that
might
be
a
good
area
to
almost
create
another
node
and
encourage
development.
A
higher
intensity
note
there.
C
There
was
certainly
the
possibility
of
and
it
was
presented
in
the
alternatives
of
you
know
of
jan's
marketplace
and
the
oaks
mall.
Those
areas
are
very
large
and
and
you
we
didn't
want
to
put
too
much
density
in
those
areas,
and
so
you
know
those.
We
expect
that
those
areas
would
have
a
mix
of
uses
because
they're
bigger
parcels,
a
bigger
mix
of
uses,
and
so
that
you
could
have
some
higher
intensity
and
lower
intensity
areas
kind
of
spread
throughout
those
parcels,
which
is
why
those
areas
weren't
selected
for
that.
C
And
just
to
also
say
you
know,
there's
no,
you
know
this
was
our
our
best
attempt
based
on
what
we
heard
from
the
community,
and
so
you
know
again
we
would
love
comments
on
whether
that
decision
was
correct.
Based
on
the
comments
we've
heard
so
far,
and
then,
if
you
have
other
suggestions
that
we
can
certainly
you
know
push
those
up
to
planning,
commissioning
council
all
right
next
chase.
D
D
I'm
not
sure
if
additional,
adding
additional
single
family
tracks
should
even
be
an
option,
because
there
are
so
many
of
them
already
in
the
city
and
moving
forward.
I'm
not
sure
it
is
sustainable
to
do
that
because
of
reasons
of
affordability
and
for
traffic,
because
if
you
create
you
know
more
single-family
neighborhoods
I
mean
that's,
definitely
going
to
create
more
traffic
and
I
think
we're
thinking
about
you
know
places
that
are
like
the
last
areas
of
vacant
land
in
the
city.
You
know
places
that
have
never
been
built
on.
D
C
E
Thanks
and
I'm
again,
I
think
probably
gonna
come
from
a
historical
perspective
of
where,
where
we've
kind
of
come
from
from
the
city
and,
in
my
view,
and
being
part
of
some
of
these
city
decisions,
as
well
as
bringing
some
additional
information
for
context
of
thinking
about
the
plan
in
general,
my
main
concern
is
about
the
scope
of
of
the
change.
I
think
it
is.
E
E
E
These
sacramento
has
severely
limited
them,
so
making
very
large
sweeping
changes
now
could
have
some
potentially
detrimental
effects
and
are
there
ways
that
we
can
take
a
a
significant
step
forward
addressing
the
things
we
need
to
now,
taking
the
information
that
the
gpac
is
has
created
and
using
that
as
a
time
phased
ability
to
move
into
that?
If
that's
where
the
community
wants
to
go,
it
gives
people
more
time
to
adjust
to
those
changes
and
gives
the
council
more
flexibility
of
being
able
to
handle
them
one.
One
additional
comment,
I
think
is,
is
also
important.
E
It
just
leads
to
the
increases
in
the
property
values
going
up
and
then,
when
people
buy
or
rent
into
them,
they
just
become
market
rate
and
become
more
expensive.
So
it's
I
I
feel
as
a
comprehensive
policy
for
the
city.
They
really
need
to
think
of
that
by
the
way.
If
anybody
knows,
we
may
think
that
we've
never
had
rent
control
in
this
city
we
have
1980
to
1987.
E
C
Nick,
thank
you.
You
know,
I
think
you
are.
You
are
spot
on
with
the
you.
You
need
to
think
comprehensively
about
these
policies
and
it's
not
just
about
the
land
use.
So
I
I
I
couldn't
agree
more
with
that
and-
and
we
know
that
in
a
lot
of
I'll
just
say
that
for
the
group
then
a
lot
of
the
smaller
conversations
we
had
which
make.
I
don't
think
you
were
part
of
the
idea
of
a
really
strong,
inclusionary
housing
ordinance
actually
came
up
quite
a
bit.
C
B
C
F
Great
thanks
so
mick
is
always
a
tough
act
to
follow.
I
feel
dumber
every
time
I
have
to
follow
him,
so
mick
always
has
great
information.
So
thank
you
for
sharing,
so
I
wanted
to
focus
on
some
comments
that
I
had
about
the
kind
of
the
mixed
use
designations
and
focused
around
kind
of
the
oaks
mall
and
the
jans
marketplace
area.
F
I
think
there's
some
inconsistency
and
I
don't
think
it
was
it
was
intentional-
was
more
in
the
drafting
that
the
misused
designations,
low,
medium
and
high
all
have
kind
of
different
allowed
uses
and
an
example
of
that
is
mixed.
Use.
Low
has
allows
retail
and
restaurants
where
mixed-use
medium
does
not,
and
then
mixed
use
high
has
hotel
where
the
others
don't.
F
F
I
think
in
in
the
mixed
use
definition.
So
if
I
urge
the
city
to
look
at
those
loud
uses
and
combine
them,
it
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
have
necessarily
different
uses
for
different
densities
when
a
retail
or
restaurant
could
be
in
all
the
different
uses.
So
that's
my
comment
on
that.
I
think
mixed
use.
You
know,
I
noticed
that
the
oaks
mall
and
jans,
which
I
think
are
a
great
area
to
talk
about
mixed-use
development.
F
I
think
the
mixed-use
low
designation
is-
is
insufficient
to
accommodate
the
flexibility
needed
for
you
know,
future
evolution
of
these
shopping
centers,
the
oaks
mall's
got
a
more
traditional
configuration,
but
jans
in
particular
is
a
little
bit
unique
where
you
know
there's
retail
up
front
and
then
you
know
you
have
the
internal
part,
there's
a
parking
structure
and
there's
retail
spaces
kind
of
in
the
back.
I
think
we'd
be
better
served
to
have
more
of
a
mix.
Use
medium.
I
think
mixed-use
high
was
terminated.
F
I
think
there's
areas
of
jan's
marketplace
and
potentially
the
oaks
that
mixed-use
high
could
be
used
in
certain
portions
of
the
property
and
for
certain
uses
like
hotel.
As
an
example,
I
think
mixed-use
medium
is
probably
a
better
designation
for
these
properties.
Given
you
know
what
may
need
to
take
place,
you
know
these
properties
are
surrounded
by
commercial
streets,
not
a
lot
of
not
a
lot
of
residential
they're
on
the
freeway.
F
I
think
one
concern
map
that
you
mentioned
earlier,
which
is
obviously
correct,
is
that
these
properties
are
very
large.
So
if
you
give
a
global
designation,
you
can
actually
convert
the
entire
property
to
residential.
You
have
too
many
units
and
that
would
go
against
measure
e.
However,
what
about
an
idea
of
creating
maybe
kind
of
a
specific
you
know
designation
for
these
two
properties,
whereby
the
units
are
capped,
where
at
least
there's
portions
of
the
property
that
can
be
redeveloped,
where
maybe
there's
retail
up
front
and
then
because
we
then
jans
is
an
example.
F
We
have
a
parking
structure
that
can
accommodate
a
lot
more.
You
know
for
the
parking,
so
there
won't
be
as
much
traffic.
So
I
think
that's
something
to
consider.
I
think
the
mixed
use
medium
height,
maybe
58
feet,
maybe
a
little
bit
low.
Maybe
it
goes
to
60,
but
maybe
there's
some
areas
of
the
shopping
centers
that
the
oaks
and
jans
that
can
be
redesignated
for
certain
uses
for
certain
heights.
I
think
that'll
be
important
going
forward,
as
obviously
retail
is
changing.
So
that's
my
comment
there.
So.
C
Darren,
can
I
just
ask
a
clarifying
question
on
that,
just
to
make
sure
I
understand
what
you
were
saying,
so
you
know
the
the
kind
of
allowed
uses
in
the
description
you
know.
I
agree
with
you
on
that.
I
think
we
we
all
as
a
team,
know
that
we
have
clean
up
to
do
with
that.
So
I
think
you
you
hit
the
nail
on
the
head
there
for
the
the
flexibility.
C
Are
you
essentially
saying
sort
of
allow
more
flexibility
in
height
and
where
the
mass
is
throughout
the
parcel,
while
keeping
the
amount
of
the
number
of
units
you
know,
maybe
in
the
on
the
lower
side
or
the
number
of
units
is
the
mixed
use
low?
What
it
would
accommodate,
but
allow
for
some
flexibility
and
height
is
that
I
think
that.
F
Yeah
matt,
I
think
that's
right,
I
think
jans
and
the
oaks
are
always
going
to
have
a
commercial
aspect
to
them.
You
know
there's
leases
and
there's
we
want
to
have
a
theater.
We
want
to
have
ulta
and
petco,
and
you
know
all
those
uses
up
front,
but
I
think
there
are
certain
areas
of
jans
in
particular
like
the
old
marshall
space.
F
G
Good
evening,
matt
just
great
job
again
by
you
and
your
in
your
team
for
handling
how
this
civic
engagement
process
has
gone
just
so
impressed
and
and
and
impressed
well
with
my
my
teammates
here
on
the
on
the
committee,
some
great
comments
and
questions,
I
actually
have
a
few
questions
and
then
some
observations.
Based
on
what
I
heard
some
of
my
fellow
committee
members,
you
mentioned,
there
has
not
been
clear
direction
for
the
council
on
on
where
these
land
uses
are.
G
One
of
the
questions
I
had
is
coming
from
the
benefit
of
some
experience
council,
some
years
back,
if
I
recall,
identified
some
opportunity
sites,
and
so
I
was
just
wondering
if
those
were
incorporated
into-
I
have
the
list
here
but,
and
some
of
them
are
on
your
map-
I
was
just
it.
Council
was
pretty
clear
that
they
saw
those
opportunity
sites
as
clearly
areas
for
this
exact
conversation
with
respect
to
mixed
use
and
some
higher
densities.
C
Well,
you
know
thanks
andy
yeah,
you
know
we
we,
that
was
the
cosmonaut
study
that
you
were
referring
to,
but
yeah
you
know
we
did.
We
did
look
at
that.
That
was
part
of
the
formation
process
of
how
we
got
to
where
we
were
to
identify
some
of
those
opportunity
sites.
But
you
know
we
didn't,
then
we
then
moved
into
the
public
process
here
where
we
asked
the
community
what
they
wanted
and
sort
of
this
is
where
we
ended
up
with
that.
C
Okay,
okay,
you
know
I
I
I
didn't
mean
to
imply
that
the
council
hasn't
given
clear
direction.
I
think
the
council
will
need
to
give
us
direction.
Ultimately,
they
have
certainly
provided
some
input,
but
as
we
started
this
process-
and
I
believe
you
were
on
the
council
with
at
this
time-
you
know
it's-
we
want
it
to
be
a
community-led
process
to
lead
up
to
the
council
to
then
make
that
decision.
So
that's
the
way
we're
we're
approaching
this.
G
Okay,
what
I
would
say
is,
I
think,
now
it's
at
some
point
that
those
sites
ought
to
be
looked
at.
Many
of
them
are
actually
on
your
list.
I
think
you've
identified
some
of
them,
but
the
kmart
site,
the
nazarbeakian
site,
the
oaks
mall.
What
wasn't
on
the
list
was
the
jans
mall.
I
certainly
would
add
that
and
then
the
the
certainly
the
orchard
property.
I
think
you
recognize
you
references
the
alice
property
and
then
I
would
add
a
couple
that
aren't
on
the
map.
G
I
I'm
I'm
aware
that
the
ymca
property
at
the
north
end
of
moorpark
road
is
they're,
looking
to
sell
that
property
and
relocate
the
ymca.
I
think
that
has
some
opportunities
there
for
some
type
of
of
mixed
use
or
some
type
of
housing,
and
then
I
don't,
I
don't
think
the
I
don't
think
the
caruso
property
was
on
that
list,
but
that's
already
been
looked
at
by
council.
G
The
other
question
I
had
is
you
reference
working,
I'm
gonna
work
my
way:
kind
of
from
east
to
west.
If
it's
okay
from
your
map,
starting
with
the
westlake
boulevard
area,
you
identified
both
sides
of
westlake
boulevard
for
mixed
use
and
one
of
the
challenges
that
I
think
would
do
it
doing
this
map
is
kind
of
looking
at
just
parcels
is,
of
course
those
are
well-developed
commercial
centers.
G
You
got
the
prominent
on
one
side
and
then
you
got
the
bed
bath
neon
on
the
other
side.
The
reality
is
neither
of
those
parcels
is
going
to
have
any
housing
they're
not
going
to
knock
those
buildings
down
and
put
in
any
kind
of
housing.
So
my
question
is:
is
the
the
the
reality
of
the
property
kind
of
the
ground
zero?
What's
really
existing?
G
C
Yeah
well
so
you
know,
I
think,
actually
I
might
want
to
turn
it
back
to
you.
I
mean,
if
you
know,
I
think
this
is
part
of
that
recommendation
side,
which
is,
if
you
think
that
that
those
are
not
the
appropriate
places,
but
yet
housing
should
be
located
on
the
east
side
of
the
city
or
mixed
use.
Where
should
it
go.
G
No,
you
know
what
I
I'm
glad
you
did
because
again,
I'm
at
a
good
point
too
council's
already
taken
action
on
the
property
on
the
on
the
east
side
of
westlake
boulevard.
The
I
believe
it's
called
one
baxter,
it's
a
large
parcel.
I
can
certainly
see
why
there
would
be
concern
about
a
general
plan
designation
that
would
allow
for
more
units
than
they're
looking
for
I
I
would
encourage,
maybe
develop
another
general
plan
designation
for
those
large
parcels,
because
the
good
thing
about
this
is
we
have
an
open
palette.
G
The
city
can
do
whatever
they
want
to
do,
but
that's
a
clearly
an
underutilized
parcel
again
they're
not
knocking
down
that
office
building.
So
I
think
you
do
have
to
look
at
the
kind
of
what's
really
on
the
ground
and
and
where
council
has
already
taken
something
given
some
direction.
So
one
of
my
recommendations
would
be
was:
is
that
that
property
there
that
one
baxter
probably
ought
to
be
slated
for
some
type
of
you
know
some
type
of
housing
load
low
medium.
G
However,
you
want
to
put
it
in
there,
but
realistically
they're
not
going
to
be
able
to
develop
and
that
that's
an
opportunity
for
a
village
site
again,
if
we're
going
to
look
at
what's
really
on
the
ground,
that's
an
opportunity
directly
next
to
the
promenade,
and
that's
got
some
exciting
opportunities
for
housing,
for
some
employment
from
in
some
industrial
and
and
really
some
synergy
with.
What's
next
to
prominence,
so
that's
that's
the
one!
That's
the
one
piece
moving
to
the
moving
to
the
west.
G
I
think
you
already
did
a
good
job
of
dressing
theo,
teal
boulevard.
I
would
say
this
that
I
try
to
stay
as
pure
to
the
specific
plan,
as
you
can,
council
and
the
community
have
put
years
decades
into
the
boulevard
and
once
again,
I'm
going
to
say
the
same
thing
that
I
said
in
the
earlier
meetings.
The
reality
is:
there's
only
a
few
parcels
that
actually
can
that
are
going
to
be
developed
on
thousands
of
one
of
them's
as
a
beacon.
They
are
not
gonna.
G
You
know
bring
in
the
wrecking
ball
and
knock
down
a
bunch
of
properties
to
build
residential.
It's
not
cost
effective.
It's
not
going
to
happen
so,
but
in
fairness
to
the
property
owners
on
the
boulevard
that
we're
told
that
we're
going
to
have
a
specific
plan,
I
would
try
to
stay
as
pure
as
you
can.
You
know
to
that,
so
that
that
would
be
a
recommendation.
G
G
So
I
would
recommend
again,
I
think
some
of
the
other
speakers
talked
about
give
those
areas,
some
max
flexibility
and
maybe
even
the
medium
density,
because
again
they're
not
going
to
develop
that
whole
site,
and
so
it's
already
been
identified.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
support
in
the
committee
for
some
mix
there.
G
I
would
give
those
opportunity
sites
the
max
flexibility
and
then
let
council
and
the
planning
commission
do
the
normal
process
work
its
way
through
as
these
as
these
proposals
come
through
and
then
finally,
the
portrait
road
site.
A
couple
of
folks
have
mentioned
that
council's
looked
at
this.
For
since
back
when
I
first
started
my
council,
it's
one
of
the
few
undeveloped
sites.
G
I
can
tell
everyone
that
I
know
there
was
an
interest
in
in
continuing
that
residential
those
folks
that
live
there
now
they're,
not
interested
in
having
single
family
dwellings
built
behind
them,
they're
going
to
want
a
buffer,
that's
what
they
want.
They
do
not
want
houses
behind
them.
I
understand
where
they,
the
thought
process
is
they're
going
to
want
to
buffer
and
so
and
it's
a
very
large
piece
of
property.
I
I
again
I
would
get
maximum
flexibility
that
property
make
it
low
mixed
use,
medium
mixed
use
whatever,
but
maximum
flexibility.
G
So
you
can
put
some
lakes.
I
know
fred
looked
at
a
plan,
some
some
buffer,
some
open
space,
something
that
actually
complements
newberry
park.
That
newberry
park's
been
asking
for
a
long
time.
We've
looked
over
the
years
and
a
lot
of
different
uses
there
and
they
were
absolute
mixed
uses,
and
you
know
one
thing
I
would
say
adamantly
is
single-family.
Dueling
is
the
last
thing
you
want
to
put
in
that
property.
G
G
That
are
never
never
going
to
be
used
bump
some
of
those
over
to
the
other
side,
and
if
you
need
to
give
it
a
new
general
plan
destination
to
to
limit
the
the
perceived
number
of
units.
Well,
then,
think
about
that.
But
all
in
all,
really
really
good
job
really
really
good
job.
Congratulate
your
team.
Thank
you.
C
So,
nick
and
karen
before
you
go
I'd
like
to
do
two
things,
one
is
when
we
all
come
back
together
when
the
the
public
comes
back.
What
we're
going
to
do
is
we're
going
to
have
the
facilitators
from
those
groups
give
a
brief
report
out
of
what
those
groups
talked
about,
because
I
think
it's
important.
It
was
important
for
two
things:
one
it's
important
for
the
public
to
have
a
chance
for
them
to
express
their
ideas
and
too.
C
I
think
it's
important
for
you
to
hear
some
of
the
high-level
direction
that
they
are
giving
so
that
it
can
help
your
thinking.
The
second
is,
you
know
where
the
comments
you
all
are
saying
tonight
are
really.
You
know
great
insightful
comments.
I
really
appreciate
them.
I
think
what
we
would
like
to
try
and
get
at
this
evening
and
and
we'll
do
a
round
robin
after
this
is
sort
of
go
around
to
each
of
you
and
and
give
a
sense
of
you
know.
C
Is
this
generally
the
right
direction
and
it
you
know
this?
Is
you
think
it's
great
as
is
or-
and
I
know
that
most
of
you
aren't
in
that
category,
but
you
know,
is
it
really
good
and
you
you
think
there
should
be
some
tweaks
to
it
or
you
know,
do
you
see
major
changes
to
it
and
if
so,
what
are
those
changes?
C
So
far,
so
I
think
you
know
again,
so
we
can
try
and
give
the
council
some
direction
of
where
the
where
the
g
pack
is
with
the
overall
direction
of
the
g-pack
and
what
you're
thinking
we
don't
have
to
get
everyone
agreeing
on
everything,
because
there
may
be
differences
of
opinion.
But
I
think
if
we
can
try
and
get
to
that,
that
would
be
great
so.
C
We're
not
going
to
do
that
until
everyone
comes
back
and
then
nick
before
before
you
go,
you
know,
I
see
you
still
have
your
hand
so
rory
you
wanted
to
speak
and
then
is
there
anyone
else
on
the
gpac
who
hasn't
had
a
chance
to
say
anything
who
would
like
to
say
something?
I
think
we'll
do
that
first
and
then
go
to
the
folks
who
have
already
said
something:
okay,
thanks
for
the
thumbs
up
nick
rory
go
ahead.
D
Yes,
I
think
I
I
would
join
the
groundswell
and
wishing
the
village
centers
could
be
incorporated.
I
think
that's
that's
a
really
low
tech
and
and
would
be
actually
very
welcome.
I'm
surprised
they
that
the
surveys
didn't
support
that
and
also
I'm
a
little
a
little
confused
about
rancho
canelo.
So
is
there
no
mixed
use
within
the
industrial
park
only
around
the
edges.
C
There
is
that's
a
good
question
and
I
the
problem
is
I'm
trying
to
remember
what
the
current
land
uses
are:
the
proposed
land
uses.
I
know
that
and
michael
maybe
you
can
help
me
out
with
this,
so
I
know
that
there
are
areas
that
are
designated
as
commercial
uses
that
we
flipped
over
to
mixed
use.
Michael,
were
there
any
blocks
that
that
were
are
currently
industrial,
that
we
flipped
over
to
mixed
use
and
and
again
to
also
say
that
the
the
mixed
use
would
actually
allow
those
jobs
and
office
uses.
C
Rancho,
were
there
any
sorry,
I
did
that
to
you.
You
looked
like
you
were
paying
attention,
but
you
were
looking
at
your
screen.
That's
the
problem
with
zoom.
Are
there
any
parcels
or
blocks
in
rancho
canejo
that
are
currently
designated
as
industrial
employment
that
we're
proposing,
as
as
mixed
use?
Right
now,.
B
There
are
the
two
properties
that
face
lawrence
drive,
I'm
actually
not
positive.
Mark
probably
knows
I
don't
know
off
the
top
of
my
head.
What
the
actual
land
use
designation
is,
but
I
know
that
there
are
industrial
uses
and
buildings
on
those
properties,
so
those
have
a
proposed
mixed-use,
medium
designation
and
not
necessarily
that
I
know
we
know
that
there
are
some
successful
businesses
on
those
properties.
So
that's
another
situation.
B
You
know
where
we're
not
expecting
that
kind
of
change
to
happen
overnight
and
are
not
advocating
that
those
buildings
be
torn
down
or
anything
like
that.
It's
just
looking
looking
to
the
future
and
looking
at
that
as
a
possible
opportunity
in
the
years
to
come,
but
I
believe
those
are
the
only
ones
in
rancho
canelo.
The
other
ones
are
currently
commercial.
Have
the
commercial
designation.
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you
matt
first,
I
just
wanted
to
say
it's
great
to
see
everybody
again
and
I
really
respect
the
work
that
gpac
has
done.
It's
been
great
and,
as
you
know,
I've
rejoined
the
the
gpac.
The
general
plan
update
team,
so
be
working
on
this
for
a
little
bit,
yeah
yeah
in
in
the
ranch
canelo
area.
The
two
parcels
on
both
sides
of
lawrence
michael,
is
correct.
B
Those
are
industrial
today
proposed
to
be
medium
density,
mixed
use
as
part
of
this
preferred
concept,
and
then
the
two
lavender
areas
to
the
west
of
that
are
the
existing
commercial
areas
at
the
right.
I
call
it
the
ross
property
on
the
east
side
and
the
denny's
property
on
the
west
side
of
hillcrest
there.
So
those
are
the
existing
and
proposed
languages.
C
D
C
B
F
C
B
So
I'll
try
to
fasten
this
for
short
on
time,
based
off
the
view,
I've
talked
to
the
two
big
wish
list
items
among
the
younger
millennials.
The
20-somethings
that
I
spoke
to
that
are
not
reflected
on
the
current
plan.
Were
the
walkable
village
centers
like
we're
talking
about
before,
even
if
they
actually
have
housing
just
to
more
focus
on
walkability
instead
of
seas
of
parking
lots
and
then
number
two
was
the
revitalization
and
redevelopment
at
jans.
They
were
really
excited
about
the
potential
for
more
development,
more
housing
there.
C
C
We
really
appreciate
all
of
the
comments.
What
we'd
like
to
do
for
the
rest
of
the
time-
and
we
have
you
know
half
an
hour,
but
you
know
if
we
need
to,
we
maybe
could
go
a
little
longer,
but
we
want
to
respect
everyone's
time.
Is
we'd
like
to
just
get
brief
brief
feedback
from
the
breakout
groups
to
hear
what
each
of
the
groups
said
so
that
the
gpac
can
then
have
that
in
mind
as
they
as
they
give
some
recommendations
who
who
wants
to
go?
First?
A
A
Lower
building
heights
things
of
that
nature,
I
think
there
was
consensus
from
the
group
and
again
not
that
it
was
needed
that
there
was
a
desire
to
see
or
an
interest
in
residential
within
village.
Centers
folks
were
very
supportive
of
flexibility
for
retail
areas,
like
the
oak
small
see-
and
I
think
those
were
the
main
highlights
folks
from
our
group-
are
going
to
email
comments
because
we
did
not
get
through
all
of
the
areas
but
yeah
thanks.
D
Right,
so
our
group
actually
spent
almost
all
of
our
time
talking
about
the
rancho
canejo
sub
area.
There
was
some
desire
for
the
group
to
stay
focused
on
the
area
that
most
of
them
were
concerned
with,
for
the
most
part,
and
some
said
they
didn't
feel
comfortable
about
offering
comments
about
areas
that
they
didn't
know
well
or
they
didn't
live
in.
D
There
was
also
there
were
also
several
questions
and
comments
about
the
need
and
the
desire
to
see
more
affordable
housing
in
the
city,
and
some
disappointment
expressed
that
the
village
centers
were
now
all
commercial.
The
densities
for
at
the
mall
was
lower
than
then
it
could
have
been,
and
all
and
finally,
that,
on
the
budget,
property
is
a
potential,
a
vacant
site
with
a
lot
of
potential
for
housing
and
good
and
should
have
have
higher
higher
density.
D
A
I
think
you
have
yeah,
there
was
a
lot
of.
I
think
you
got
it
all.
We
didn't
get
to
all
of
the
the
different
areas,
but,
as
simran
said,
people
were
not
comfortable
reporting
out
on
areas
that
there
don't
live
in
or
not
familiar
with.
So
there
was
a
lot
of
focus
on
that
area.
There
were
a
couple
of
comments
about
bring,
maybe
reevaluating
and
bringing
the
village
centers
back
into
consideration.
B
B
You
know
there
was
some
concerns
just
about
the
overall
process,
and
you
know
the
level
of
involvement,
but
the
primary
focus
there
is
that
they
looked
at.
One
person
was
in
particular
focused
on
the
rancho
canao
and
the
newberry
area,
and
also
focused
on
the
tob.
So
we
kind
of
we
did
were
able
to
cover
the
entire
city.
B
Also,
some
of
the
other
changes
was
the
seventh-day
adventist
site,
and
you
know
questions
as
to
why
that
arose
to
be
industrial,
and
it
should
be
a
residential
designation
and
also
they
wanted
to
somehow
provide
an
approach
for
better
access.
So
there's
less
traffic
in
the
area
looking
at
the
moore
park,
road
and
the
west
thousand
oaks
boulevard
area
and
I'll
just
combine
that
with
the
downtown
and
thousand
oaks
boulevard
area,
because
the
resounding
comment
that
we
received
was
that
the
entirety
of
the
thousand
oaks
boulevard
specific
plan
should
be
treated
equally.
B
The
participant
was
suggesting
that
it
should
all
be
mixed
use
medium,
so
that
all
property
owners
that
have
been
part
of
that
business
improvement
district
and
have
been
paying
into
that
have
an
equal
opportunity
to
develop
their
sites
and
so
and
knowing
that
they
all
won't
be
developed.
Though,
in
the
future
they
and
that
those
property
owners
should
have
the
same
level
of
flexibility,
that
sites
such
as
the
jans
mall
and
the
oaks
mall
should
have
as
well.
B
Generally,
in
terms
of
the
west
lake
and
east
end,
they
concur
with
that.
The
only
thing
I
will
wrap
up
with
is
the
village
centers
they've.
They
did
like
the
concept
of
the
village
centers.
There
wasn't
really
a
specific
discussion
as
far
as
introducing
residential
or
mixed
use.
The
one
comment
that
we
did
say
is
that
if
we
are
going
to
add
mixed
use,
that
parking
should
be
addressed
adequately
for
the
village
center,
so
that
would
wrap
it
up.
C
B
B
C
Okay,
great
well,
thank
you
all
it's.
It
sounds
like
the
conversations
in
the
groups
actually
were
were
parallel
in
some
ways
to
the
conversations
that
that
the
gpac
had
in
our
group.
So
what
I
would
like
to
to
propose
that
we
do
is
for
each
gpac
member
to
to
speak
in
turn
and
spend
you
know
30.
Well,
let
me
just
say
I'm
hearing
a
lot
of
commonalities.
I'm
hearing
that
the
village
centers
really
need
to
come
back.
C
I'm
hearing
the
desire
for
for
flexibility
in
some
of
the
larger
parcels
that
that's
needed
to
allow
flexibility,
but
also
allow
some
sort
of
capping
of
development
in
those
areas
so
that
they're
not
over
developed
and
that
that
you
know
generally,
the
the
you
know.
Generally,
the
the
preferred
alternative
is
going
in
the
right
direction,
but
needs
some
tweaking
in
order
to
make
it
in
order
to
make
it
even
better.
B
B
There
have
been
a
few
participants
who
have
suggested
flexibility
at
the
oaks
mall
and
jan's
marketplace,
and
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
that
those
areas
which
are
proposed
for
mixed
use,
low
do
allow
for
horizontal
mixed
use,
doesn't
have
to
be
all
vertical.
You
could
have
commercial
on
the
front
side
next
to
moorpark
and
have
residential
in
the
back,
for
instance,
so
the
the
mixed-use
land
use
category
in
and
of
itself
provides
some
flexibility.
B
There's
been
some
talk
about
the
orchard
road
property
and
that
quote-unquote
buffer
between
the
existing
neighborhood
in
the
proposed
mixed
use.
The
the
existing
neighborhood
is
is
low
density.
It's
maximum
4.5
units
and
the
intervening
buffer
so
to
speak,
is
6
to
10
units.
So
it's
a
little
bit
more
dense,
not
true
single-family
detached
as
we
traditionally
know
it
and
then.
B
Finally,
just
my
last
comment:
I
just
want
to
emphasize
that
what
we
are
talking
about
tonight
is
really
important,
as
as
we
all
recognize,
but
what
it
really
is
also
is
a
preferred
concept
that
if
city
council
endorses
it
that
basically
they're
saying
that
this
will
then
go
out
for
environmental
analysis
and
then
final
review
by
the
planning,
commission
and
city
council
after
the
sql
analysis.
So
while
this
is
important,
certainly
there
will
be
some
a
lot
of
analysis
and
some
tweaking
as
we
go
forward.
C
C
Anyone
who
wants
to
start
again
what
we
want
to
try
and
do
is
get
a
sense
of
your
individual
direction
and
individual
ideas
that
we
can
then
sort
of
put
together
and
not
only
individual
but
based
on
what
you've
heard
for
other
people
say
and
what
you
agree
with.
So
is
there
anyone
who
wants
to
to
start
the
you
know
start
and
and
go
through
what
your
thoughts
are,
and
I
do
what
would
like
everyone
to
to
speak
here
so
fred,
I'm
gonna.
C
B
Thank
you
matt.
You
can
hear
me
correct
all
right
just
to
make
it
quick.
I
think
the
overall
plan
right
now,
the
preferred
plan,
I
think,
is
reasonable,
since
a
lot
of
it
goes
through
the
thousand
oaks
boulevard
corridor.
You
know
where
you're
not
affecting
you
know
most
of
most
of
the
land
in
in
the
city
and
in
most
of
the
areas
that
have
already
been
discussed
that
are
key.
I
think
it's
fine.
B
B
That
was
a
big
concern
of
his
and
the
way
he
constructed
his
plan.
It
seemed
to
be,
as
I
said,
before,
a
win-win
for
both
the
residents
and
the
business
and
the
community
and
addressing
traffic
congestion
and
the
enjoyment
of
the
local
residents
in
that
mixed
use
environment
there.
So
thank
you
very
much.
That's
it.
B
D
D
You
know
had
really
strict
parking
requirements
and
you
know
sort
of
overbuilt
parking
and
I
see
places
like
the
oaks
and
the
jans
marketplace,
and
they
do
have
a
lot
of
parking
and
that
they
could
conceivably
in
the
future
use
some
of
those
areas
convert
them
to
to
housing,
because,
as
retail
sort
of
the
retail
bubble
burst,
I
mean
you
know,
they're
not
gonna
have
they
may
not
have
tenants
to
fill
those
spaces
and
in
turn,
that's
gonna,
equal,
less
need
for
parking.
So
I
think
that
would
be.
D
C
D
F
Man,
thanks
yeah.
I
agree
with
jason
what
you're
saying
the
general
plan
is
definitely
going
in
the
right
direction
regarding
land
use.
I
think,
as
I
mentioned,
we
just
need
to
get
the
allowed
uses
and
the
mixed
use
to
be
combined,
allow
for
hotel
and
then
at
the
oaks
and
jans
which
I
had
mentioned.
F
I
think
we
need
a
little
more
flexibility
on
height
and
density,
but
in
certain
limits
in
certain
areas
of
those
properties,
because
they're
so
large,
I
think
they
can
be
limited
but
allow
for
some
uses
and
some
more
flexibility,
given
the
changing
retail
character
and
the
different
configurations
of
those
centers,
but
in
general,
definitely
going
the
right
direction.
I
agree
with
andy
related
to
the
mixed
use:
designations
on
westlake,
at
the
caruso
property
and
across
the
street.
Those
are
those
properties
are
going
to
be
the
same.
F
A
A
D
Thanks
I
first
I
want
to
thank
the
staff
and
consultants.
I
think
you
guys
have
really
done
a
yeoman's
job
and
putting
all
of
this
together
and
taking
such
care
to
outreach
and
hear
from
as
much
of
the
community
as
as
possible.
So
I
really
do
appreciate
the
efforts
and
I
think,
you've
put
together
some
something
for
us
all
to
consider
and
generally
I'm
supportive
of
the
preferred
alternative.
D
D
One
thing
I
would
like
to
also
note
is:
I'm
not
particularly
comfortable
increasing
heights
or
density
over.
What's
what's
been
proposed
in
this
preferred
alternative,
but
other
than
that
again,
I
think
you've
done
an
excellent
job
and
I
think
we
are
really
moving
forward
to
something
that
the
community
can
be
proud
of
and
and
have
as
a
balanced
approach
that
preserves
what
this
community
has
built
over
the
course
of
its
history.
While
looking
forward
for
future
generations.
A
I'll
be
quick
you
heard
from
me
before,
like
laura,
I
feel
I
would
be
remiss
if
I
did
not
acknowledge
the
herculean
efforts
of
the
staff
and
consultant
in
integrating
and
synthesizing
all
of
this
input
over
these
many
many
months
years.
At
this
point,
so
thank
you
all
for
all
of
the
guidance
and
facilitation.
A
I
also
feel
like
the
alternative
is
by
and
large,
in
the
correct
direction.
Yeah.
You
all
know
that
I
certainly
would
like
the
mixed
use
of
the
village
centers
to
be
incorporated
and
considered,
and
I
hear
what
a
lot
of
my
fellow
committee
members
are
saying
about
making
sure
there's
sufficient
flexibility
for
the
oaks
and
jams
in
particular,
and
if
we're
going
to
have
additional
density,
that's
probably
the
place
to
do
it,
sort
of
a
town
center
idea.
There
would
be
interesting.
E
Thanks
again,
I
I
may
come
with
a
slightly
counter
view
of
of
some
of
this.
I
I
do
think,
there's
really
a
lot
of
really
interesting
and
very
forward-looking
things
in
here.
So
I
definitely
think
there
are
phenomenal
resources
for
us
to
think
about
how
the
the
city
can
develop.
I
am
I
do
have
caution
about
the
scope
and
the
size
of
the
proposed
changes.
I
think
they're
out
of
historical
character
with
with
the
city
as
it
has
come
to
date.
There
are
needs
for
change.
E
There
are
things
that
we
have
to
do
to
meet
with
state
law,
and
there
are
economic
changes
that
I
think
that
we
have
to
address
and
should
look
at
one.
I
think
if
we
were
to
prioritize
I'm
in
favor
of
of
changes
at
the
oaks
and
jams
marketplace.
I
think
that
the
economics
of
shopping
malls
with
amazon
delivering
to
the
home
and
movie
theaters
with
broadband
and
quality
delivery
to
the
home,
I
think
changed.
E
The
economics
of
that
covet
has
accelerated
that
and
I
think
that
we
could
be
in
a
position
of
being
reactive
if
we
don't
think
proactively
about
those
areas
of
change.
I
also
think
that
thousand
oaks
being
a
global
biotech
hub,
there's
a
window
of
opportunity
to
support
the
rancho
canada
area
north
of
the
101,
to
make
sure
that
we
can
support
that
from
an
economic
viability.
Point
of
view
historically
and
I
still
would
argue
moving
forward.
E
The
residents
of
thousand
oaks
have
wanted
buildings
to
be
low
in
profile
because
they
did
not
want
the
cityscape
dominated
by
buildings.
They
wanted
the
majestic
and
pristine
hillsides
to
be
what
dominate
our
cityscape
and
that's
a
result
of
forward-looking
development
policies.
That's
been
put
together
by
our
general
plan
and
the
city
leaders
past
and
present,
and
the
public
I'd
want
to
make
sure
that
we
continue
to
honor
that
going
forward.
B
From
nick
to
nick
all
right,
I've
talked
plenty
but
I'll
say
looks
like
it's
going
the
right
direction,
supportive
of
the
the
looking
at
the
malls
again
and
the
town
center
stuff.
The
main
feedback
I
hear
over
and
over
walkable
bikeable,
accessible
by
transit,
just
having
destinations
that
are
not
dominated
by
cars,
is
all
I
keep
hearing
about.
When
I
go
talk
to
people
so,
but
overall
right
direction,.
G
Thanks
man,
so
just
briefly,
I
want
to
piggyback
mix
brought
up
a
couple
of
points
with
respect
to
size
and
scope,
and
I
think
that
complements
what
I
was
commenting
on
earlier.
There's
a
there's.
You
know,
I
don't
know
about
thousands,
but
there's
many
many
parcels
that
are
identified
in
this
plan
that
already
have
buildings
on
them
and
they're,
well-established
businesses.
I
use
the
promenade
as
a
classic
example.
That's
been
designated
for
several
hundred
homes.
G
G
The
second
thing
is,
I
do
think
that
this
process
has
done
and
adhered
to,
the
principles
that
mick
was
talking
about.
It
does
maintain
all
the
existing
neighborhoods
without
impact
it
does
maintain
and
protect
the
hillsides,
the
open
space,
the
view
sheds
it
it
does
those
things
it
does
kind
of
focus
on
the
job
sectors
and
the
economy
of
it.
So
I
think
the
big
30
000
foot
view
it's
done
a
good
job,
but
I
think
there
is
room
for
tweaks
and
some
of
them
I've
commented
on.
G
I
do
think
along
the
thousand
oaks,
the
one-on-one
free
a
quarter.
There
ought
to
be
in
this
plan
as
much
flexibility
with
reason.
You
know
nobody's
interested
in
buildings
that
are
under
feet,
high
to
give
the
council
an
opportunity
to
actually
surgically
put
in
some
excuse
where
it
makes
sense.
It
clearly,
as
others
have
said,
it
needs
to
be
looked
at
at
the
oaks
mall
and
the
jans
mall
along
the
boulevard
in
certain
places
and
then
out
on
the
borchard
property.
G
The
and
again,
I'm
gonna
just
throw
out
for
consideration
on
some
of
these
larger
parcels
that
are
20,
30
40
acres.
Be
open
to
a
different
general
plan
designation
if
you're
concerned
about
you
know
with
the
sb
335,
maybe
think
about
a
general
plan
designation
of
10
units
per
acre
of
every
parcel
over.
G
I
don't
know
20
acres,
so
you're,
so
it
really
lowers
these
large
numbers
that
people
are
concerned
about,
but
it
also
gives
the
property
owner
the
flexibility
to
do
some
interesting
things
and
that's
exactly
what
would
happen
at
boardroom
road.
You
know
again,
I'm
gonna
say
it
again.
I
understand
the
need
for
the
low
density,
but
if
you
talk
to
those
folks
and
ask
them
that
they're
already
living
there,
do
you
want
a
house
just
like
yours,
directly
behind
you
or
would
you
like
a
buffer
and
green
belt?
G
I
can
guarantee
what
their
answer
is
going
to
be
and
the
only
way
to
get
that
is
to
give
these
property
owners
the
flexibility
to
move
the
density
around
and
and
do
some
interesting
things
on
these
larger
parcels.
So
and
again,
I'm
going
to
say
those
opportunity
sites
that
the
council
talked
about
need
to
be
focused
on
they've
been
studied.
They
are,
they
are
primed
for
this
type
of
use,
and
those
should
be
the
first
tier
if
you
will,
of
what
we
look
at
in
terms
of
community
benefit
and
areas
of
interest.
C
D
Yes,
thank
you
matt
and
really
really
good
job.
I'm
generally
supportive
of
this
preferred
alternative,
and
my
fellow
committee
members
have
all
pointed
out
the
need
for
flexibility
and
some
tweaks,
like
with
the
the
two
big
shopping
centers
and,
of
course,
I'm
really
hoping
we
can
revisit
the
idea
of
including
the
village
centers.
D
C
C
Well,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Everyone
for
volunteering
before
you
were
all
untold,
so
we're
we're
at
8
30,
and
you
know
I'd
like
to
just
see.
I
want
to
respect
everyone's
time
this
evening,
but
you
know
if
there's
anyone
from
the
public
who
wants
to
just
say
something
to
the
group,
maybe
in
in
20
seconds
or
so
30
seconds,
because
it's
a
public
meeting,
we
don't
have
official.
C
You
know
it's
not
official
public
comment
period,
but
if
anyone
does
want
to
kind
of
share
a
thought
and
please
try
and
keep
it
really
short
since
it
is
late.
That
would
be
great.
Let's
see,
and
I
will,
if
you
go
on
too
long,
I
will
I
may
swipe
please
so
yes,
thomas,
why
don't
you
go?
First,
we
have
a
few
others,
but
go
ahead
since
you
chimed
in
thomas.
Do
you
wanna.
B
A
A
To
showcase
the
great
opportunities
that
we
have
on
the
other
side
of
the
freeway
in
a
place
where
everyone
can
gather,
I
think
that's
what
they
want.
I
also
know
the
residents
in
that
neighborhood,
I'm
very
close
to
them,
and
they
don't
want
something
right
up
against
them.
They
want
a
buffer,
they
want
something.
So
I'm
asking
the
committee
to
recommend
a
mixed-use
plan.
Thank.
E
Good
evening
matt
and
gpac
committee
members,
sean
moranian,
lifelong
resident
of
thousand
oaks
homegrown,
and
it's
a
pleasure
to
be
here
before
you
there's
a
lot
of
discussion
this
evening
about
the
opportunity
site
in
the
rancho
canada
area
that
my
family
has
owned
for
43
years,
and
we
have
considered
this
every
single
year
for
the
last
43
years
and
to
create
a
place
where
the
entire
area
around
newbury
park
could
be
proud
of.
That
part
of
town
does
not
have
any
place
for
gathering.
B
Not
everybody
can
see
this,
but
this
is
a
concept
we
put
forward
and
if
you
can
see
the
areas
in
the
green,
that
is,
that
beautiful
area
of
open
space
and
a
ring
and
a
buffer
that
everyone's
talking
about
filled
in
with
other
type
of
incredible
amenities
like
a
beer
garden
and
a
lake
and
trails
and
open
space
and
a
place
where
people
can
gather
and
walk
with
their
kids
and
walk
their
dogs.
And
it
has
some
hospitality
in
it
and
it
checks
not
just
one
of
the
boxes,
but
I
believe
several
of
the
boxes.
B
We're
very
excited
about
it.
But
in
order
to
do
something
like
that,
we
really
really
encourage
and
support
the
notion
that
we
can
have
some
flexibility
on
the
site.
As
you
heard
from
a
lot
of
the
other
gpac
members.
It's
really
not
about
density
for
us,
but
in
order
to
create
a
real
immersive
sense
of
place,
we
do
need
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
and
I.
E
A
A
I
own
moms
of
canelo
valley
as
well,
and
I
know
that
there
are
so
many
young
families
here
that
are
looking
for
something
to
do.
Looking
for
a
place
to
go,
newbury
park
doesn't
have
a
downtown,
and
the
thought
of
having
that
directly
behind
my
house
within
walking
distance
sounds
incredible.
So
I
think
that
this
will
really
help
our
community
to
come
together,
and
I
really
feel
like
the
people
that
are
in
this
meeting.
A
A
A
We
would
love
to,
as
a
chamber,
see
some
more
medium
density
built
into
this
plan
and
also
even
the
consideration
of
some
of
the
high
density
coming
back
in
the
appropriate
areas
and
also
andy
fox's
comments
about
really
looking
at
sites
that
have
feasibility
for
being
developed
within
this
timeline
that
we're
looking
at
of
the
next
25
years.
So
really
appreciate
all
the
dialogue
tonight
and
appreciate
you
considering
the
recommendations.
C
A
I
would
like
to
remind
the
committee
that
at
the
special
meeting
of
the
casa
kaneho
map,
which
some
of
you
attended,
the
neighborhood
of
casa
canejo
is
largely
opposed
to
major
development
going
into
the
alice
property.
Contrary
to
what
some
folks
think,
I'd
like
to
encourage
you
to
refresh
your
minds
about
that,
we
do
have
flood
control
issues
related
to
that
property
with
the
high
water
table,
and
we
also
have
a
lot
of
waterfowl
in
that
area.
A
So
we
would
like
to
see
something
much
much
softer
be
there
and
not
that
we
do
also
have
spaces
with
the
shopping,
centers
and
orchard
on
the
other
side
of
orchard
that
are
much
more
amenable
to
putting
in
entertainment,
including
the
shopping
and
some
of
the
things
that
are
envisioned
for
those
properties.
If
some
of
those
things
are
readapted
plus
there's
a
lot
of
newberry
road
that
can
be
utilized
in
that
same
way,.
F
B
About
the
the
newberry
park,
sean
rodin's
project,
I'm,
I
think
I'm
one
of
the
people
that
he's
he
showed
the
his
ideas
to
and-
and
you
know
what
fred
said
earlier,
you
know
he
is
he's
a
lifelong
resident.
He
does
care
about
this
community.
You
know
it's
it's
interesting
hearing.
You
know
everybody
talking
inside
all
the
all
the
concerns
with
whatever
and
he
he's
he's
really
taking
into
consideration
all
that
stuff,
I
think,
is
awesome
and
and
then
also
as
well.
B
You
know,
we've
been
you
know
during
the
process
of
our
project,
we've
been
trying
to
find
a
way
to
to
maybe
open
some
kind
of
a
tap
out
tap
room
to
you
know
something
that
would
be
closer
to
the
people
from
amgen,
and
this
would
be
a
great
opportunity
for
us
to
get
something
over
there.
It's
obviously
super
close
to.
F
B
Let's
see
andrew,
thank
you
very
much
matt
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
and
to
the
to
the
fellow
committee
members
I
just.
I
mainly
wanted
just
to
echo
some
of
the
points
that
have
been
made.
I
believe
you
know
andy
fox
raised
some
great
points
and
I
would
share
those
and
in
the
map,
considerations
specifically
with
the
newbury
park,
property
sean
maraudian's
property.
B
I'm
encouraged
looking
at
his
just
map
that
he
held
up
to
the
group
to
see
a
green
belt
there.
I
think,
if
many
of
the
many
of
the
concerns
raised
about
flood
and
water,
I
think
could
naturally
be
addressed
from
planning
perspective
by
using
turning
it
into
a
green
belt
area
versus
you
know
versus
that
kind
of
split
zoning.
That's
on
the
on
the
property!
Now
I
think
maximizing
the
flexibility
of
the
unit.
You
know
the
possibility
moving
it
all
to
the
mixed
use,
I
think,
is
the
right
move.
B
Finally,
just
one
other
quick
point:
I
just
wanted
to
encourage,
as
you
take
a
look
at
the
map,
to
look
at
the
jans
marketplace
and
thousand
oaks
thousand
oaks
mall,
possibly
look
at
an
increase
in
density
there
to
a
medium
mixed
use.
I
think
that's
again.
I've
advocated
for
this
is
the
most
logical
place
to
put
mixed
use
in
the
city
because
of
the
setbacks,
parking
traffic
and
access
to
the
101.
C
B
C
B
B
C
C
It's
there's
approximately
15
questions,
trying
to
understand
a
little
bit
more
detail
about
the
preferred,
alternative
and
preferred
direction
the
survey
closes
may
12th.
So
please
encourage
all
of
your
friends
to
take
the
survey.
The
next
is
that
there
are
a
series
of
upcoming
events.
Just
to
let
you
know
about
on
next
week
on
the
26th.
Is
the
planning
commission
meeting
to
talk
about
the
preferred
alternative?
C
This
is
really
to
move
the
housing
element
forward
and
we
know
that,
based
on
this,
there
may
be
some
tweaks
moving
forward.
After
this,
we
are
trying
to
get
as
close
as
we
can
to
the
preferred
the
preferred
direction
at
this
time.
The
other
comment
I
want
to
make
is
that
the
land
use
plan
is
not
the
entire
plan
and
that
a
lot
of
the
things
that
that
karen
brought
up
in
terms
of
green
space
and
quality
of
life
need
to
be
part
of
the
plan
as
well,
and
it
is.
C
It
is
very
difficult
to
talk
about
a
topic
like
this,
that
people
are
so
passionate
about
and
all
the
other
topics
at
the
same
time.
So
we
we
try
to
do
them
somewhat
sequentially,
but
you
know
clearly
when
we
do
that
we
miss
the
big
picture,
sometimes
and
as
karen
very
astutely
pointed
out-
and
so
we
do
have
six
months
after
this
of
talking
and
preparing
some
of
the
other
topics
about
sustainability
and
open
space
and
parks
and
public
services
and
schools
right
so
their
will
and
transportation.
C
C
Sometimes
conversations
can
get
contentious
and-
and
I
really
appreciate
the
respect
that
you
all
have
for
each
other
and
recognizing
that
there
are
differences
of
opinion
and
having
been
able
to
have
a
discourse
and
a
dialogue
around
those
differences
is,
is
really
special
and,
as
someone
who
is,
you
know,
working
working
all
across
the
state.
You
know
this
is
rare.
C
This
is
unique
and
you
really
have
something
special
in
the
community
itself
in
the
physical
form,
as
well
as
who
you
are
as
people
and
how
you
treat
each
other,
and
you
know
again.
I
just
want
to
kind
of.
Thank
you
all.
I
thank
you
all
for
for
doing
this,
so
I
think
we
we
are
at
the
close
of
our
of
our
time
this
evening.
We
are
gonna
need
to
end
here.
C
I'd
like
to
again
thank
everyone,
encourage
people
to
come
to
the
planning
commission
meeting
and
to
the
city
council
meeting
and
again
keep
the
dialogue
going
with
this.
We
hear
that
there's
a
good
direction,
but
we
also
hear
that
there
are
certainly
some
tweaks
that
need
to
happen.
This
preferred
plan.
So
with
that,
I
wanted
to
thank
everyone
and
just
say
good
night.