Hey,
hey, hey.
Hey,
hey,
hey.
Heat.
Hey,
hey, hey.
Heat. Heat.
Yeah,
I
feel
Heat. Heat.
Uh, good evening. At this time, I'd like
to call to order the Planning Commission
meeting of January 12th, 2026. For
viewers watching at home, some members
of the public may be participating via
video conference or teleconference.
Please stand and join me in the pledge
of
>> allegiance
to the flag
nation.
» Will the secretary please call the role?
>> Commissioner bus
» Commissioner bus
>> present.
» present.
>> Commissioner Lansen is absent.
» Commissioner Lansen is absent.
Commissioner McMahon
>> here,
» here,
>> Vice Chair Kettlehut
» Vice Chair Kettlehut
>> here,
» here,
>> Chair Ferris
» Chair Ferris
>> here. Uh, tonight we have with us Deputy
» here. Uh, tonight we have with us Deputy
Community Development Director Fabola Za
Meliker. Are there any written comments,
announcements, or continuences at this
time?
Yes, we had a supplemental packet that
has been distributed to the commission
and posted um containing information
related to item number 78, the 400143
Hillrest development agreement.
I did not. Do you want us to bring some
go make some? I have an extra. Does
somebody need
two extras?
Extras.
Okay, thank you. Pardon the uh the
pause. Uh now's the time for public
comments. At this time, any person may
address the commission regarding a city
planning matter that is not on the
evening's agenda. Should the commission
wish to discuss an issue raised by a
member of the public, the issue will be
referred to staff for scheduling a
future on a future agenda. Anyone who
would like to speak under public
comments must fill out a speaker card in
chambers or click request to speak on
the agenda to receive instructions
before the public comments portion of
the agenda is called. Speaker remarks
shall be addressed to the commission as
a whole, not to any individual
commissioner or staff member, unless
otherwise provided by the commission.
Speakers are limited to five minutes.
The screen will show you the remaining
time you have. Uh, do we have any public
comments?
>> No.
» No.
>> No. All right. Let's go to the consent
» No. All right. Let's go to the consent
calendar. Next, we have the consent
calendar for the minutes of November
17th, 2026 planning commission meeting.
Uh, do we have any fellow commissioners
have any comments or a motion to approve
the consent calendar?
I'll make the motion to approve.
>> Excellent. Uh, any comments?
» Excellent. Uh, any comments?
If not, uh, can we prepare for a vote?
>> Commissioner Bus,
» Commissioner Bus,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Commissioner Tyler Kettle Hut,
» Commissioner Tyler Kettle Hut,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Commissioner McMahon,
» Commissioner McMahon,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Chair Ferris,
» Chair Ferris,
>> uh, abstain as I was not at the at the
» uh, abstain as I was not at the at the
meeting of interest.
>> Motion carries 30 uh 31 with
» Motion carries 30 uh 31 with
Commissioner I'm sorry, Chair Ferris
abstaining.
>> Abstain. Yes. Excellent. All right.
» Abstain. Yes. Excellent. All right.
Thank you. Uh now we'll open the hearing
case 7A. Will the clerk please open the
public hearing?
>> Hearing having been advertised as
» Hearing having been advertised as
required by law is hereby open to
consider agenda item 7A to consider a
finding that the proposed disposition of
city-owned property to the KJO
Recreation and Park District of the
following parcels. APN's 525- 0- 053-115
525- 0- 0
53-175
525- 0- 053-195
060-
085 525- Z-60-
095 525-
060-115
525-
0- 060-125
and 525-
0- 060-1 through5 is consistent with the
Thousand Oaks 2045 general plan pursuant
to government code section 65402
and to consider a recommendation to
council for adoption of an ordinance
approving development agreement
DHGR-2025-7004
establishing the city's agreement not to
change the existing zoning and general
land designations of the property
without the owner's consent for 30 years
from the date of execution and find that
the project's categorically exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act
pursuant to sections 15061B3
common sense exemption 15312 surplus
government property sales and 15325
transfers of ownership of interest of
land located at 40143
West Hill Press Drive assessor's parcels
numbers as previously stated The
applicant is the city of Thousand Oaks.
>> Excellent. Thank you very much. Uh,
» Excellent. Thank you very much. Uh,
presenting on behalf of staff, senior
planner, Justine Kendall.
>> Good evening, Chair Ferris, uh, planning
» Good evening, Chair Ferris, uh, planning
commissioners, and members of the
public.
Uh, tonight we are here to, uh, present
a request from the city related to the
sale of land to the KJO Recreation and
Parks District. I am joined by city
staff from the community development
department, city attorney's office, and
city manager's office who are available
to answer any questions the commission
may have.
Uh, as Lori just uh read, the request
before you this evening is I'll
summarize uh to find that the project is
categorically exempt from SQA uh to find
that the proposed disposition of the
city-owned property within specific plan
17 to uh the KJO Recreation and Park
District or CRPD uh is consistent with
the Thousand Oaks 2045 general plan and
to recommend that the city council adopt
an ordinance approving uh the
development agreement.
Provided on your screen is a vicinity
map of the area, the specific plan 17
area and the subject properties um
depicting the subject site generally
with a red asterisk.
The map shown now on your screen
provides a closer aerial view of the
area with the subject properties
depicted within the red lines. Uh the
subject properties are again zoned
specific plan 17 with a portion of uh
one of the properties noted it with a
purple star also zoned with the mixeduse
overlay zone. Uh those are existing
zoning designations to be clear.
All properties uh subject to the
potential sale and development agreement
uh are more commonly referred to as 401
and 403 West Hillrest Drive are
designated as being within that specific
plan number 17 uh which was adopted in
1997.
Approximately half of the SP7 area has
undergone site improvements primarily
within a 35 acre section of the site
that includes development currently
occupied by CRPD for its headquarters.
uh and the Hillcrest Center for the
Arts. The other 27 of the acres of the
site consist of uh a hill within the
northerly and easterly portions of the
specific plan area uh just shown which
is more commonly known as fireworks
hill.
The land use designations that you see
on your screen here. Again, just being
clear, uh are the existing designations.
Um during the negotiation for the sale
of the subject properties, CRPD
requested that the existing zoning
regulations and land use designations
just described uh be preserved in their
current state. Um, as such, development
agreement uh 2045 20257004
is proposed to create a binding contract
that the city will maintain uh those
existing general plan land use
designations and zoning designations as
currently adopted and just described for
30 years. Should any changes to the land
use or zoning designations be proposed
the um by the property owner or with the
consent of the property owner, the city
would consider the proposed project in
accordance with the procedures required
by state law and the Thousand Oaks
Municipal Code. No physical development
or change of use is proposed as part of
the subject request. There is no
physical changes again proposed as part
of tonight's request.
Government code section 65402
requires that any real property
disposition be reviewed by the planning
commission to confirm that the location
purpose and extent of the property
disposition is consistent with the
general plan. Staff has compared this
proposal to transfer property with the
overarching general plan goals and
policies and in this case uh more
specifically the governance land use
chapter and the parks and open space
chapters. Uh on this slide are a list of
uh abbreviated description of the
general plan 2045 goals and policies
that demonstrate conformance with the
proposed disposition and transfer of the
subject properties. The full text of
these goals and policies can be seen in
tonight's staff report or in the
Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045
accessible at the city website
to os045.org.
And so, uh, staff recommendation tonight
is to again find that the project is
categorically exempt from SQA, uh, to
find that the proposed disposition of
city-owned property to CRPD um, of the
subject properties within specific plan
17 is consistent with the general plan
and to recommend that the city council
um, adopt an ordinance an ordinance
approving the development agreement.
Just want to note for the record as well
that the resolution um to be provided
for signature will include the image
shown here as uh the exhibit A mentioned
on page one of that document.
That concludes our presentation. Staff
is available for any questions.
>> Okay. Uh thank you. Uh first question I
» Okay. Uh thank you. Uh first question I
would have is there any exparte
communications to disclose?
No. Um, are there any questions or
comments of staff from commissioners?
» Commissioner McMahon?
>> Yes. I I understand that this is
» Yes. I I understand that this is
actually a purchase from CRPD and I was
uh curious about the amount that they
are paying for the land.
» Thank you, Commissioner. Uh, the total
amount of sales is 30.4 million.
>> Okay. And it's also my understanding
» Okay. And it's also my understanding
that that is going to be put in a pot
for the new downtown plans. Is that
correct?
>> That'll be set aside in reserve
» That'll be set aside in reserve
earmarked for the downtown. Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> Any comments from other commissioners?
» Any comments from other commissioners?
Vice Chair Tyler Kettle Hut.
>> I have a question. Can you explain to me
» I have a question. Can you explain to me
exempt surplus land? As I was going
through the packet, I didn't really
understand. And I know that it was
designated as that, but I want to
understand how that process took place.
I know city council approved it.
>> Thank you, commissioner. Uh, assistant
» Thank you, commissioner. Uh, assistant
city attorney can handle that as well.
>> Sure. So, under state law, before a city
» Sure. So, under state law, before a city
can dispose of property, um, it needs to
offer up the property to other agencies
and affordable housing providers. um
unless there are certain exceptions that
apply. And for purposes of the
discussion this evening, there's an
exemption for uh agency to agency
transfers. Um so because it's exempt as
an agencyto agency transfer, uh you
don't need to go through the pretty
extensive process of making the property
available to other agencies and
affordable housing providers.
>> Okay. So it's basically a it's a
» Okay. So it's basically a it's a
disposition thing.
Correct. It's a box that the city needs
to check before it can it can dispose of
property. Yes.
>> Okay. And is that is that does that
» Okay. And is that is that does that
negate a SQA challenge? Is I know it was
listed as one of the three categories
for for negate basically saying that it
was not considered a SQA project but
does it automatically negate the the
exempt surplus automatically ne negate
the squa challenge? So they're they're
separate things, but you will note that
one of the SQUA exemptions is for a
transfer of surplus property,
>> right?
» right?
>> So that's a little different than the
» So that's a little different than the
surplus lands act, but that that is a a
basis for a SQA exemption, a categorical
exemption.
>> Okay. Okay.
» Any other questions? Yep. Please go
ahead.
So kind of in that same vein in terms of
dealing kind of with with sequest stuff,
I want to know were what if any
preservation alter alternatives or
preservation measures like a
preservation easement have been
considered due to the building's
landmark status?
» I'm sorry, could you repeat that
question?
Basically, I'm just trying to find out
was anything in in the discussions that
you guys had. Were there any discussions
about because this this has been
landmarked by the city twice? I I guess
the the buildings have been landmarked
as well as some of the the periphery of
trees. I think I think um did any of
that were were any of those measures
considered? Have you considered any kind
of because of the landmark status? And I
realize that there's no development
that's being proposed. I get that. I get
that. But in terms of down the road, I
mean, is there anything that is being
done to preserve, you know, like a
preservation easement or something like
that with respect to the landmark
status? Were any of those things part of
your discussions?
No, there's because there's no
development of any kind uh or changes to
uh the regulatory framework for these
properties of any kind proposed um that
is not part of what we're has been
discussed. Should anything uh related to
changing either the regulatory framework
or the uses allowed or physical
development within this property area be
proposed? um any any impacts to, you
know, landmark status or or anything
else would be reviewed, you know, as
required at that time.
Oh, I was just going to add that that if
there was any discussion about altering
a landmark, there's additional
provisions in the municipal code that
would require an additional certificate
of appropriateness that would be
approved um by the city for any any
changes.
» Any other questions? No. any I did want
to follow up a little bit on the the
aspect of the landmark status. So, and
especially as it relates to what we have
in front of us, which is general plan
consistency finding. Um, so we did talk
about it. Can we confirm that the 41
Hill Crest building is in fact
identified as a city landmark uh by the
cultural heritage board is in our
general plan as a city landmark. Is that
correct?
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Okay. Um and in our conservation element
» Okay. Um and in our conservation element
there's actually a goal and uh policy
uh goal C11 is to protect historical and
cultural culturally significant
resources which contribute to the
community's sense of identity. Policy
11.7 has talked about re resource
stakeholder engagement. Decisions
pertaining to the disposition of
archaeological, paleial,
paleontological,
historical and cultural resources shall
be made in concert with recognized
public agencies, groups or individuals
having jurisdiction, expertise or
interest in these matters. And my
question is is that wouldn't it be
especially given that we are asking
about a disposition of historical
resources
should not we fi make a finding that
such disposition is in fact consistent
with this policy of the general plan.
» Yeah. So what's being asked of of the
planning commission tonight is is
twofold, right? One is to evaluate
the proposed development agreement and
make a recommendation to the city
council on that. The second item, which
I think is what you're getting at, is is
that the planning commission is asked to
make a finding that the project is
consistent with the general plan. Um and
what is in the proposed resolution are
several uh policies and goals of the
general plan to identify that yes this
project is consistent with that. Um I
agree with you that that what you just
mentioned is you know does also make it
consistent with the general plan. Um I
don't believe that it would be that
we're required to include another goal
in there. I mean, I think the proposed
resolution has enough in it to establish
that that um that the project is
consistent. I if uh and I understand
that that viewpoint, the one thing I
would want to make sure of is what can
we do at the commission level to ensure
that there is an overt recognition that
there is a city landmark on this
property because when people go back to
these these sort of you know resolutions
and understandings of what was there if
it's not there the people later on don't
know that it's there and I think it's
just critical that we highlight that
especially given that it is designated
ated in our general plan as a city
landmark. My question would be what what
can we do to highlight highlight that as
part of it? If not change the the
findings or resolutions to do that. So,
uh as we're going along and gaining more
testimony, I would like to see what what
is possible.
Okay. Any other questions of the
commission staff? Okay. Great. Let's uh
now we will go to public comments. We
actually do have two public speakers.
Um, each speaker will get five minutes.
Uh, and if you could state your name and
city residence. Uh, first will be Marsha
Boy
followed by William Maple.
You could come down.
Uh, generally we need to have you on the
mic so that we're able to have it on the
broadcast.
Is is it possible? Do we have a wireless
mic? Is there something that we could
potentially accommodate?
» Right.
>> Hi.
» Hi.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> I'm Marcy Boy. I live over in Oaknull
» I'm Marcy Boy. I live over in Oaknull
and I didn't know anything about this
project until we received a letter a
couple weeks ago. Um, so I came here
tonight because I was curious at what
was going on. I'm very impressed with
what I found out. I do have a couple of
questions. One is are my taxes involved?
We're going from
from the recreation which is ours to the
city which is ours. How does that
transfer $30 million?
I don't under I just don't understand
the the is it a bond that you give to
each other or what do you do?
» Staff can probably answer that at some
point after the comments.
» No, nobody knows how to handle the
money.
>> We'll answer your questions at the end.
» We'll answer your questions at the end.
>> I'm sorry. We'll answer all your
» I'm sorry. We'll answer all your
questions at the after your comments are
concluded.
>> Oh, okay. Um,
» Oh, okay. Um,
and it's hard for me to tell what the
pictures are up there. I'm assuming that
they want to buy the open space and
their own property. They're not
interested in all the commercial stuff
that's over there off Wilbur. Okay.
Because that was a confusion. Thank you.
I'm very impressed. Hi.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Uh, next is William Maple.
William Maple, resident, uh, Newberry
Park. Good evening, planners and
commissioners.
Uh, before you tonight is is does
history matter?
And you sure wouldn't think so if you
look at our um city's website. They've
taken down all the list of our
landmarks. You won't find that on there
anymore and you won't hear it in the
appraisal discussion or much that's
coming before you right now. You know,
history doesn't seem to be part of it.
Landmark is rarely mentioned in any of
the documents. It won't specify what
area is a landmark. Um
you also if you wanted to attend a
public cultural heritage board meeting,
one hasn't happened in 20 years. We
don't have public hearings and that
should have happened before tonight
about this building.
Um,
that's kind of a dereliction of duty.
Why am I here? I have an amazing view of
Fireworks Hill and uh the Civic Arts
Plaza from my front yard. Uh, the old
city hall. I used to mow my lawn and
look at this strange building. Didn't
know what it was. Went over there and
found it abandoned. I mean, there were
trees through the windows, uh, ramps for
skateboarding, burnt, uh, bonfires in
the middle, beer and couches and
everything. I made a, uh, professional
video at the time and, uh, brought it in
and presented it right here on this
board probably 29 years ago. It took two
years to fight to make it a landmark.
And we're fighting city hall to preserve
the first built city hall. not a not a
fun process by any means, but uh the
city uh residents won and they preserved
it. And um it's it's something important
to be able to compare where we were and
what we thought was important to where
we are now and what we're funding and
how we're funding it. So that that
building was a million dollars. It was
paid for right off, you know, as it it
was done. And CRPD paid half of that. So
it's it's a amazing tale that a lot of
people and you don't see it you know
explained on on the building there. Um I
developed museum exhibits within
landmark buildings throughout the
country for 40 plus years working
through National Park Service Bureau of
Land Management. Lots and lots of laws
and regulations of what I can do where
and how in these buildings. So I have a
sense of what what you should be doing.
And I've also served on the cultural
heritage board for the county where they
really take their meetings serious. They
they they know their staff, you know,
they they they love their community and
they fight to preserve what separates
them from the strip of 101 that's
generic. You know, it it what what makes
Kane Cano Valley um unique and they're
proactive before something's in jeopardy
and and about to be torn down or or in
neglect. they act they have meetings and
they they proactively list what what's
important and we go out and research it
using the criteria of the uh squa to
evaluate that. So what are um landmarks?
um it's not just something old 50 years
old is kind of a benchmark but also did
any significant events happen at that
site you know was it a unique structure
uh did any personality or person of the
community uh do something there building
met all of that criteria was a unanimous
yes vote to make it a landmark and um
there are many in the ad hoc committee
they're adver ad adversarial they they
want the money for that site right? You
know, they want to develop this place
with that money. And so, we're repeating
history in in a way. Um,
the landmark has namesake trees on it
and other elements. There there are two
P trees that were dedicated at the time.
One died because the building was
neglected. It was supposed to be, you
know, taken care of while it was
abandoned. And, uh, I would argue that
that was abandoned for demolition by
neglect. you know that you get an
estimate, you find out, wow, it's going
to cost more to fix this building than
to just outright level it and sell it.
And uh thankfully they didn't go that
way. Um
with all that said, I believe the
selling of this landmark to our park and
recck department is an amazing idea. It
takes off so many wonderful bits of
criteria, serves the public. Um, it's
it's a a unique foundational moment
where everyone wins. Um, but I argue
with the price tag, you know, if the
land was donated, and it was by the
Jance family for free, why would you
charge for it? You know, that's that's
if I gave my son, you know, a car I
worked on for 50 years and he he sold
it, you know, it was it was a gift, you
know, it's just crazy. And that you're
selling it to another community entity
that's serving us. They also donated
half the funds to build it. So I I
really argue that the the 30 million is
way overpriced. And I I would please
consider
having a a cultural heritage board
meeting for the public before any more
decisions are made and charging a lot
less for that property. Thank you.
>> Uh Mr. Maple, actually if you you could
» Uh Mr. Maple, actually if you you could
say I did have some additional questions
for you. So first of all, I'm just going
to say you you and I we've talked over
the years. I just want to thank you for
your service in this especially in this
particular area of of really preserving
the history of the city and and how
you've been involved in it. So you were
describing kind of the the effort to
preserve 401 Hillrest as a city landmark
and the culture heritage board
resolution described some of the
specific area elements that were
important. I'm just going to read them
off. Can you opine maybe a little bit
about what them after I read them off
here? It says that the designation
historical landmark status shall apply
to the exterior walls, facades, and
architectural style of the existing
civic center buildings. Modification of
the interior of the two buildings are
appropriate as long as the modifications
do not affect the architectural style of
the civic center. And future
modifications in additions to the
exterior of the civic center buildings
are appropriate as long as they're
architecturally compatible, thereby
preserving the design integrity of the
original structures. Can you opine as to
why th those particular things were
called out for this particular building?
>> I I'm a
» I I'm a
preservation snob. You know, it's like
rebuilding a car, you know, historic
car. You put the proper parts on it. You
do that. I would have had a fit about
the elevators. You know, there's a lot
of ways to grandfather how that's done
rather than break the horizontal line.
That was so critical to the design.
designed had parking on the roof so that
70% of the open space could be viewed,
could be left that way because that's
how it was a metaphor for how they saw
this community being developed. What you
do inside wasn't all that unique, you
know, and and Lord, thank you that it
was a concrete building. You couldn't
destroy it more than what it was in in
the years and years that it was
abandoned. Um, one of the P trees died
and unfortunately that gentleman did
die. One of them is preserved. It's
still standing today. I would like to
see better plaques up there. The woman
who was uh I'm sorry, not knowing her
name right off hand, who was
instrumental in naming the city Thousand
Oaks, her trees up there, you know, um
the events that happened, you know, what
what was it the decisions made, all of
the people who stood like tonight in
that room, you know, shaping what our
community would look like, where we'd go
from here, took place in that council
chambers. It should be preserved to so
you can compare and contrast. This is
what we thought was important for this
this community. How we saw open space,
how we saw development compared to the
density and the money that's spent at
this site. You know, you don't know your
that this is odd if you don't look at
what we were. And and that's what I'm
hoping to preserve. And the open space
around it, I would argue, is
instrumental to why it was chosen. now
54 different architectural
um
competition boards that fill the entire
uh gym at the the Thousand Oak City
Hall, you know, and Yale, Harvard
Architect, you know, we're were looking
through all these and pick this unique
design of the environmental movement of
that time. This is the only one around
here. Think of all of Ventura County or
even Southern California. How many
buildings can you name that are similar
to that? Maybe the GTE building. I don't
know what it is now, you know, Baxter,
but you know, they probably stole that
design and made movies within that, too.
So, uh, preserving the outside, but I
think just as important as our community
finds all our open space critical, I
think all the land around that,
especially the viewshed of looking at
the community because the windows were
out here when you were serving behind
that board, you would look out at the
community and and anticipate how would
my vote impact what I'm seeing outside
there. And that was part of the design
element.
Sorry, running off.
>> No, thank you. Uh, is there any other
» No, thank you. Uh, is there any other
questions? Vice Chair Tyler C.
>> Just a just a quick question. So, as I
» Just a just a quick question. So, as I
understand, as you've described it,
landmark status isn't just for
architecturally significant properties.
It also relates to the cultural
resources. Is that correct?
>> It does, but it depends on who your
» It does, but it depends on who your
board is. Unfortunately, our city
council is our cultural heritage board
and their training and expertise on
civic, you know, SQUA preservation
standards is is not uh top of the line.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> Thanks. Any other question?
» Thanks. Any other question?
>> No. Thank you. Uh and we do have from
» No. Thank you. Uh and we do have from
the park district uh Jim Fredel uh for
questions only. Is there any questions
that you had? I was wondering if if
you'd be willing to come up. I did have
a quick question. Just name name of city
of residence if you're okay with
>> Yeah. Hi, I'm Jim Fredel. I'm the
» Yeah. Hi, I'm Jim Fredel. I'm the
general manager of the Cano Reck and
Park District. Awesome.
>> And actually having heard some comments,
» And actually having heard some comments,
I wouldn't mind making a few of my own
after your questions or what?
>> Well, I I think the main question is
» Well, I I think the main question is
just we we've had a a significant
discussion about the building itself
being a city landmark and and such and
some of the additional restrictions that
might be on it if if there is ever a
time in which the park district would
want to see or make any modifications.
Are you do you you recognize that and
that's a one of the things I mean are
you aware of that I guess that's
>> yeah yeah we're aware of the city having
» yeah yeah we're aware of the city having
considered and and made a designation
about the historical status of the
structure we're aware of that
>> okay
» okay
>> um in fact one of the things I was going
» um in fact one of the things I was going
to share is that
>> yeah please do
» yeah please do
>> part of our responsibility and job in
» part of our responsibility and job in
the community is um you know parks wreck
and open space that's our primary
mission but in that mission we now are
the stewards of the McCrae ranch which
has the oldest structure in all of
Thousand Oaks. Um, actually Crowley
House is the oldest structure in all of
Thousand Oaks. That's ours, too. That's
a 1910 McCrae Ranch has a 1925 building.
And then the stage coach in, of course,
our Cano Valley Historic Society is in
our building there at the stage coach
in. So, that's part of our DNA is
protecting and preserving our history,
our local heritage, and our um, you
know, historical assets. Uh when it
comes to 40143, I can tell you that the
price tag will prohibit us from
considering any kind of improvements or
modifications for many, many, many years
to come. So you don't have to be worried
that we might have some designs on
changing anything. Um because it is a
big lift for us, but we're prepared to
make that and we're happy to do that
because of
how important this whole property is to
the future of the city from the park and
wreck perspective. And what I do want to
share is as we look at the areas of
opportunity as the city referred to them
throughout the general plan process, we
know there is going to be a lot more
multifamily mixeduse housing in areas
that it wasn't originally considered
when the city thought of the city. You
know, we we separated land uses and I
think mixed use is actually the way to
go. It's how a lot of communities are.
But now that we are going there, we need
to provide park land space in close
geographic proximity to where people
will live. So the 60 acres that make up
um the hill are are really important to
us and more importantly to all the
residents existing there, but all of the
literally thousands of units that could
be built right next to there in a short
half a mile walking distance to the to
the property. So that was our thinking
not what might we do to change the
buildings. In fact, you know, again, we
don't have the money to change the
buildings, but we want to stay there
just how it is and how we've been there
for for the last u 25 years with the
license with the city. But looking just
as we're thinking and of course I have a
board to respond to and we're going to
go ask the whole community what they
think, but we have some ideas of just
basically activating the old National
Park Service 401 building um with very
comparable similar community use.
probably some reservable big community
meeting rooms. Um we might move some of
our wreck units into that building that
that are too cramped in other locations,
but we don't see any notable physical
changes and frankly don't have any. But
I want to say one of the things and the
reason you're getting a DA in front of
you is because
we are going to have to borrow money.
There's a cash and financing and it's
it's all spelled out in a staff report
that we're doing for our board. So, it's
online now at our website,
but um I I I mentioned because uh
somebody had brought up the tax
question. So, we're two totally separate
entities, City of Thousand Oaks and
CRPD. We have we our income is primarily
6 cents of the property tax dollar you
pay. So, think about your home and how
much you're paying in property taxes. We
get about 6 cents of that property tax
dollar and we do the park system that we
do. But one of the other things we get
are developer fees when the developers
build. So we get about $12,800
a unit for every unit that's built. So
if you imagine 2,000 units happening
between the oaks and the Jans
marketplace, you got $24 million right
there. That helps pay for the loan that
we have on the property and the
improvements to the park space that we
can imagine. If you haven't been to the
top of Fireworks Hill, walk up there
right now. If you're listening to my
voice, go check out the top of Fireworks
Hill if you've never done it. The view
is just bonkers. It is spectacular. And
in the current plans, the the the the
current um specific plan 17, the general
plan, it has been envisioned for a park
up there. So, yeah, we probably aren't
going to be driving cars up to the top
of the hill, but there are improvements
that can make it more people friendly up
top. and um and pathways to get there,
that kind of thing. And that's our
business, park and wreck improvements.
And so that is the change we do want to
make on the hill. And that'll go through
a permit process and that kind of thing
and a public input process. But we're
really we're really stoked. No taxes.
You're taxes aren't changing. We're not
we're not um asking for a revenue
measure um or anything like that. So we
have saved up over the years for certain
capital acquisitions. And so that is
part of the pot of the money and the
other will be so it's about 15 of cash
that we have saved up for pro for this
very thing property acquisition and and
improvement and the other uh will come
uh you know we'll get it immediately
from some sort of you know loan of some
kind but we hope that as projects do get
approved nearby the oaks Jance that kind
of thing that we'll be able to allocate
some of those developer fees toward
toward that and pay off that loan
faster. I think I touched on everything
I I heard and wanted to talk about, but
um happy to answer any other questions
as well. And and and because I might not
get another chance, I really wanted to
thank staff um OBAR and the team in the
city manager's office of course and the
planning staff, everybody that's been
involved, um city attorney's office. Um
it's it's really great to work with
partners like the city of Thousand Oaks.
If I had to say, you know, the city is
kind of really going for the future with
the downtown master plan. They're
working towards our future, right? And
we're kind of respecting and preserving
the past. I think that those two things
are really important together. And I I
just think all of this at the end of the
day will be looked at as a win-winwin,
especially 20 years from now when the
loans have been paid off and it's there.
It'll be a stretch for the first few
years here for us, but um you know what
the city is going to do here, um there's
some park-like amenities going in that
we wouldn't ever be able to afford or do
that they're planning on doing, which
we're really excited about. So that to
the extent some of our money is
allocated to that kind of thing. Great.
>> Yeah. Thanks. I was going to say you
» Yeah. Thanks. I was going to say you
probably got more than five minutes.
That's a sneaky way to get uh get more
of it. No, no, no. Sorry. I just went
for it.
>> It's actually But but it was perfect.
» It's actually But but it was perfect.
Honestly, this is a great discussion and
glad to hear uh your points of view
about what they're doing. I'm assuming
then you've I mean you're not the
applicant or anything like that, but I'm
assuming the terms under which all of
this is happening through the DA and and
the resolution are probably in line with
what the park district is is.
>> Yes. Yeah. We've had a chance to
» Yes. Yeah. We've had a chance to
literally negotiate it. The development
agreement is actually a vehicle only to
be used if things don't go according to
plan, right? Like we're using it almost
in the opposite way a developer would
use it. Developer does, hey, I got this
plan. I want to build something. Ours is
if everything goes wrong and we have to
do a financial bailout and literally
sell, you know, sell the farm. That's
the farm we're selling, right?
>> I I want to be really clear like that. I
» I I want to be really clear like that. I
don't want the discussion we've got here
isn't to get in the way of anything that
has been done there, but we have
recognized there is a city landmark. if
the staff is able to come up with
language just to heighten the
recognition of it that does not get in
the way of that. Is that is that
something
>> I I mean I don't know that I'd want to
» I I mean I don't know that I'd want to
add any additional limitations or
restrictions, but we're aware of the
ones that are there and it has landmark
status. I I believe that's what it's
called by the city's landmark status and
so we're very comfortable with it. But I
I don't have authority to and not it's
not something negotiated or anything. We
we but we do understand there's a
historical nature to it and I've talked
to you know Mr. Maple over the years. We
we get it and I've stood in his front
yard too and it's a magnificent view of
the hill.
>> Okay, perfect. Thank you. Are there any
» Okay, perfect. Thank you. Are there any
questions for you?
>> Commissioner bus.
» Commissioner bus.
>> Um I'm not sure Jim or staff uh can
» Um I'm not sure Jim or staff uh can
someone speak to how the property was
valued like how we came up with the
>> Do you want to do it?
» Do you want to do it?
I did an appraisal.
So,
>> so yes, uh Mr. Fredo's correct. We we
» so yes, uh Mr. Fredo's correct. We we
both agencies independently conducted
their own appraisals. Uh myself and our
finance director, Dam Boscarino, met
with Mr. Mooney, Mr. Fredel, uh back in
October. We compared notes uh and where
we landed was essentially kind of the
the fair market value uh that was
assigned by both appraisals.
>> Had a vin diagram and there was there
» Had a vin diagram and there was there
was a place where we both met. So it it
made actually it ended up being pretty
easy that way.
>> And do you have any idea if the property
» And do you have any idea if the property
were to be put I mean you said fair
market value. So you're saying that
you're confident that that property
would sell to a developer for 30
million.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Under the existing land use
» Under the existing land use
designations. Correct.
I just um one way we've looked at it
just because I as residents I think you
guys have a lot of interest and as
planning commissioners you have a ton of
interest in in the economics of all of
it as well and one of the way we viewed
it is we definitely were looking to add
uh square footage for community indoor
community center space and we've been
researching it and it's it's a it's a
it's a thousand bucks a foot to build
new construction
you know, government level quality
buildings. So, we're getting 55,000
square feet here. I don't want to say we
got a good deal, but I feel like we got
a good deal, a fair deal.
Okay, any other questions, comments?
Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Um, and
that is it for uh for the public
comments. Uh, we now go back to staff
for follow-up comments.
Uh I think Mr. Predel really said
everything that um I was going to cover.
I would just like to, you know,
re-emphasize that um any proposal for
anything in the future would have to go
through the proper procedures to get
that um certificate of appropriateness
if any changes were to be proposed to
the facade or any of the other um
protected or designated elements of the
site. um and of course be reviewed for
conformance with SQA and consistency
with the general plan which again as you
um noted um calls out this area as a
landmark. So just want to reemphasize
that all of those protections that are
in place today remain in place and are
completely unchanged from whatever the
procedure is now would remain the same.
>> Any questions of staff?
I just want to is there any any ideas
from staff about somehow identifying in
the even in the resolution to at least
heighten the fact that there is a city
landmark on here? I I'm I'm not going to
press so much on it, but I do look at
this policy and when it says decisions
pertaining to the disposition of
historical resources
shall be made in concert with these and
we're not recognizing that as a policy
that we are
agreeing to say this disposition is
consistent with.
Is there any way we can at least
recognize in the resolution that we are
providing to council?
kind I'm just I'm just kind of surprised
we're not willing to state it.
>> Yes, Commissioner Fran. I think it's
» Yes, Commissioner Fran. I think it's
been made clear that all the parties
know this and it's in our general plan
as a landmark
piece of property and I think that
having it in the general plan as a
landmark property
is plenty in my personal opinion.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um just as a counter
» Okay. Thank you. Um just as a counter
it's in the it it's in the general plan.
We have a policy with respect to
disposition of historical resources.
We are the body required to find general
plan consistency and we're just saying
words and not putting it into our
official actions. So that's that's the
reason why I'm bringing it up as a point
of comment.
Any questions? Still still from still
from uh city from from staff.
Okay.
Uh let me just double check.
Do we have any This is the city is is
the applicant. There's no rebuttal in
this particular case, right? Okay. Um
if not, any final questions of staff,
then uh we'll close the public hearing
and entertain discussion and enter a
motion.
Commissioner McMahon.
>> Okay. Uh let's see. I um I move that we
» Okay. Uh let's see. I um I move that we
find that the project is categorically
exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to section 15061
B3 common sense exception. Section 15312
surplus government property sales. on
section 15325 transfers of ownership of
interest of land. Find that the proposed
disposition of city-owned property to
the Cano Recreation and Park District of
the following parcels. APN's 525-053-115
525-53-175
053-195
525-
060-85
525-
Z-60-
095
20 525-
- 060-115
525-
060-125
and 525-
060-135
is consistent with the Thousand Oaks
2045 general plan pursuant to government
code section number 65402
and number three recommend that the city
council adopt an ordinance for proving
developmental agreement DAGR-2025
5-70004
establishing the city's agreement not to
not change the existing zoning and
general plan designations of the
property without owner's consent for 30
years from the date of execution.
» Well done.
>> That was the longest one I've ever read.
» That was the longest one I've ever read.
>> I I don't think you beat the secretary,
» I I don't think you beat the secretary,
though. I mean, I think that she she
does a a an amazing job. Uh, any
comments on the motion? Vice Chair Tyler
Kat,
>> I I appreciate what what Jim had said
» I I appreciate what what Jim had said
about the fact that that preservation is
in your DNA and and for me coming in, I
did have some of those concerns, some of
the landmark status concerns for sure.
Um, I do like that that that CRPD has
been talking to Mr. Maple, who is
basically our city historian,
DevTo, city historian, and and kind of
the keeper of the wisdom and and I
appreciate that you guys see that and
that that's something and based on what
what staff has told us tonight and what
the city attorney's office has indicated
to us in terms of that, you know, that
that landmark status is there. I I was
concerned, Mick, that that we didn't
have that really called out, but I do
feel comfortable that it is called out
enough in the general plan and that you
guys understand that that that's
something that you you you care for and
and we get it that you know, some of
this is going to have to be sold, but
you you know, my biggest concern was
that property itself was was the
building itself. And so, for that
reason, I'll support the motion.
>> Thank you. Any other comments?
» Thank you. Any other comments?
Commissioner Bus,
>> I just want to clarify the intention is
» I just want to clarify the intention is
not to sell any of the property unless
fiscally that's that's like the last
resort like sell the farm like you said.
So because I know one of the concerns
had been because we do have to have so
much development is having the open
spaces. So that's not on the table
legitimately, right?
>> Uh hold on. If we if we entertain this
» Uh hold on. If we if we entertain this
will uh Mr. Fedel will have to open up
the public hearing again.
>> Okay. Um, well then
» Okay. Um, well then
>> do do you want do you do you want to
» do do you want do you do you want to
comment
>> based on uh Commissioner uh Hut's
» based on uh Commissioner uh Hut's
comments. Um
>> I think I misspoke. I didn't mean I
» I think I misspoke. I didn't mean I
didn't mean sell. I mean develop. I
meant develop. So yeah, I misspoke.
>> Okay. That's just what I wanted to
» Okay. That's just what I wanted to
clarify.
>> Okay. All right.
» Okay. All right.
>> Okay. Um
» Okay. Um
Mr. City attorney.
>> Yeah. I have two things. I mean you're
» Yeah. I have two things. I mean you're
correct. if we if we want to solicit
additional input from the public that
we'd have to reopen the public hearing.
I mean, what I will say is that the
intent of the deal is is for the parks
district to continue using the property
as they've been doing and for there not
to be additional development. Is that
the
>> That's my understanding. I just want to
» That's my understanding. I just want to
clarify that cuz um
anyone watching if it's thought that
there may be development in the near
future then that kind of is different
than what I understood it to be. So I
understand what you state know to be the
the case.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Uh thank you. Uh uh I I would I would
» Uh thank you. Uh uh I I would I would
still like to ask my fellow
commissioners if they would be willing
to entertain an slight amendment to the
motion in the resolution which would
only add the the following phrase and
recognizes that city landmark number 10
Hillrest Center is on the property.
Doesn't change the findings. It doesn't
change which elements of the general
plan were identifying it to be
consistent with. It is merely a phrase
which calls out that it is on the
property which our general plan states
it does should have no effect on this
and I would ask to amend specifically I
would move to amend the motion to
include let me let me just ask first
would you be willing to include it? If
not, I would ask the commission to vote
on it.
>> Um, before I I do that, I want to have
» Um, before I I do that, I want to have
it the opinion from our city attorney.
This is the
property is specifically defined.
and it would be in
this part here.
Just add it.
>> Yeah. Right in here.
» Yeah. Right in here.
As the proposed sale preserves blah blah
blah project is consistent with exactly
the same elements that's been described
by
changes nothing of the other other
» Yeah. I mean, again, I I don't think
it's necessary to include that language
in there, but I mean, I don't think that
there's anything prohibiting you from
adding that language in there.
>> Do you you don't believe it also change
» Do you you don't believe it also change
the effect of of the resolution?
That's what I'm trying to do is not to
affect it, just to call out something
that is in the general plan. We're just
stating it.
>> So, I guess I'm So, I mean, what's the
» So, I guess I'm So, I mean, what's the
what is the purpose of adding it then?
because it would be in the resolution.
Okay.
I mean I again I don't I mean you can
add the language in there. I mean it's
your resolution. You can add it. I mean
I don't
I mean I wouldn't say that it doesn't do
anything to the resolution unless you're
adding the language. But
>> again
I I don't I don't understand the the
purpose of it. But you can add it in
there.
Okay. For me, the purpose is there's
nothing in the current resolution that
states the fact that there is a city
landmark on this property. This would at
least recognize overtly that there is
one,
>> right?
» right?
>> But there is a I mean, there is a
» But there is a I mean, there is a
resolution from the city that identifies
it as a landmark. So, I mean, it's
>> right, but we had to go and find it.
» right, but we had to go and find it.
It's in 1997. It's in city records. This
would highlight very clearly in the
disposition agreement that or the in the
disposition decision the city council
will make that the planning commission
recognizes that there is a city landmark
on the property.
I mean sure it'll be in the in the
resolution regarding the the finding of
consistency with the general plan.
>> Right. That's what
» Right. That's what
>> I'm sorry. Say that again.
» I'm sorry. Say that again.
You want to add that language into the
resolution
as it as it applies to the finding of
consistency with the general plan,
>> right? But the lang the phrase itself
» right? But the lang the phrase itself
has no effect except to state that it is
is recognizes that it's a city landmark.
It doesn't change the elements through
which staff has recommended that it's
consistent with the general plan.
You've highlighted the governance and
land use elements.
>> Yeah. No, I agree with that. I mean, I I
» Yeah. No, I agree with that. I mean, I I
don't think it changes the the fact that
it's consistent with the general plan.
>> So, that would that would be my my
» So, that would that would be my my
request is to have that changed so that
it is stated and when someone reads it,
they they know that we we recognize that
» I'm feeling that this is a win-win. Park
and Recreck Department was on the same
page with our city staff. They worked
really hard together to draft this revol
resolution.
And who are we to add something to it
that doesn't change it? I I'm going to
not um change my motion. And if you guys
want to vote on that, that's fine.
>> Okay. Then I then I would like to amend
» Okay. Then I then I would like to amend
Oh. Vice Chair Tyler Kat.
>> Okay, I'm I'm not putting my lawyer hat
» Okay, I'm I'm not putting my lawyer hat
on here and I could be completely off
base on this um because I did a little
bit of research. This this was a
relatively complicated issue I thought
today because I did a lot of research. I
think maybe by adding that language we
say that it's inoc innocuous. Maybe it
avoids a sequence. So, when we're
talking about future development,
development down the road, maybe it
avoids a sequence challenge because, and
I'm going to read I'm going to read
this. I'm not going to I'm not going to
adlib this. Because the proposed
acquisition is a discretionary action
that could result in irreversible
impacts. Squa requires that the city
evaluate the building's historic
resource status and consider feasible
preservation alternatives prior to
approval. So again, perhaps what we're
doing is we're just kind of cutting it
off it its knees down the road for a SQA
challenge because we have considered its
historic status as we sit here today
with language that's relatively
innocuous. That was a tortured way of
getting to that.
>> Yeah, I don't think that this resolution
» Yeah, I don't think that this resolution
is going to have any impact on any kind
of SQA evaluation.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> I mean it's I mean it's going to have no
» I mean it's I mean it's going to have no
impact on any challenge.
I would still support the language.
>> Thank you. Um gi given that I'm going to
» Thank you. Um gi given that I'm going to
ask that I move to amend the motion such
that section two
of the resolution
which starts with the paragraph as the
proposed sale.
uh to have that have that read as the
proposed sale preserves the existing
land use designations of open space
commercial and mixed use.
Here's the additional language and
recognizes that city landmark number 10
Hillrest Center is on the property.
That's the amended language. The project
is consistent with the goals and
policies described within the
governance, land use, and parks and open
space elements of the general plan.
These include the following and the
following thing would be so that that
additional phrasing is the only
additional language.
>> Would you mind repeating that please?
» Would you mind repeating that please?
>> Uh, sure. So motion would be to amend
» Uh, sure. So motion would be to amend
the the the resolution in the motion
>> such that uh the second paragraph of
» such that uh the second paragraph of
section two reads
as the proposed sale preserves the
existing land use designations of open
space commercial and mixed use and
recognizes that city landmark number 10
Hillrest Center is on the property.
The project is consistent with the goals
and policies described within the
governance, land use, and parks and open
space elements of the general plan.
These include the following. That's the
way it would read. Um, and that's the
only the only change. Is there any uh
comments on the amended motion? No.
Uh, if not, let's uh have a vote on the
amendment.
» So, just point of clarification. So the
the vote is to
add the amendment to the existing
motion. Correct. In the resolution, the
PC resolution. So whether to add that
language into the existing motion that's
on the table. That's correct.
» Commissioner Bus.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Commissioner Tyler Kettle Hut.
» Commissioner Tyler Kettle Hut.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Commissioner McMahon.
» Commissioner McMahon.
You've talked me into it. Yes,
>> Chair Ferris.
» Chair Ferris.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> The amendment passes 40. Commissioner
» The amendment passes 40. Commissioner
Lansen absent.
>> Thank you. And I I want to thank my
» Thank you. And I I want to thank my
fellow commissioners for entertaining
the discussion. Uh let us now go and
discuss the amended motion. Uh are there
any any last comments?
U I will just say I I'm I I think Mr.
Maple ended up uh mentioning this right.
This really is, you've mentioned it's a
win-win. I do think it is something to
where this is public land donated to the
city uh for public use. It is continued
its public use through this disposition.
It will continue its public use. Um and
it is an amazing element of our our city
and one that uh has historic meaning to
it as well as continuing community
involvement as as you know, Fireworks
Hill. uh and and really something in the
center of it. I I I'm very happy to
support the motion and I'm very again
thankful for the opportunity to
recognize these important historic
elements that the city has where I mean
what where are we now is 60 how many
years 62 coming up on and you know
getting to a point where it's a century
like we've been around for a while you
know and I think it's nice that we're
able to to do this and share it within
our uh our U sisterly government
agencies to be able to keep this uh
preserved. So, any final questions or
comments? Commissioner Bus.
>> Um I agree with everything that's been
» Um I agree with everything that's been
said. Another thing that hasn't been
touched on is that there's plays that go
on at this center. You know, there's a
art shows. So maintaining that as a
space for that as well, which I know
CRPD will do and has been doing um is is
great for me because and the community
because culturally, you know, to have
where our children can put on these
plays that are actually quite well done.
I recommend going and seeing one. The
writing's pretty funny for the age
group. But yeah, so I'm very pleased
that uh for the next 30 years at least,
we hopefully will maintain this space.
And I know that the the park setting
will be maintained as well as trails
because I know CRPD is big on that. So
very happy that the city and CRPD were
able to come to this. So
>> final final options.
» final final options.
Let's go for a vote.
>> Commissioner Bus,
» Commissioner Bus,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Commissioner Tyler Kettlehhat,
» Commissioner Tyler Kettlehhat,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Commissioner McMahon,
» Commissioner McMahon,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Chair Ferris,
» Chair Ferris,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Motion carries 40. Commissioner Lson
» Motion carries 40. Commissioner Lson
absent.
>> All right. Thank you. Uh there's no
» All right. Thank you. Uh there's no
appeal period on this since it's going
to the city council.
Um thank you all. Uh let's now go to we
don't have any department reports this
evening. Um now's the time for
commission comments and or any AB 1234
reports. Are there any comments from
fellow commissioners?
No. Uh Miss Eliah Melicker, are there
any follow-up items, announcements, or
upcoming issues?
>> Uh yes. Tomorrow evening, uh, city
» Uh yes. Tomorrow evening, uh, city
council will consider 40143
Hillrest, uh,
disposition and transfer of city- owned
property that you just considered right
now. a letter of public convenience or
necessity from Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control for the sale of alcohol
for consumption of site for one for a
site at 2150 East Thousand Oaks
Boulevard. January 27th, city council
will have two department reports from
us. There will be a community
development department update and an
initiation of a height overlay zone
change and concurrent processing of
entitlement to accommodate a
contemplated rock climbing facility at
145 West Hillrest Drive.
And on the consent calendar, there will
be the first amendment to CSG consulting
contract for environmental services for
the downtown project.
Uh upcoming planning commission items.
We have on January 26, there will be two
public hearings.
One to allow for the operation of a
religious assembly use within an
existing industrial building and the
alternating use of parking facilities
located in the M1 industrial park zone
and SP15 Ranchoko Industrial Park area.
and one for an update to the accessory
dwelling units and junior accessory
dwelling units ordinance um as the state
keeps changing the regulations. And
that's all I have.
>> Thank you and thank you all. We'll now
» Thank you and thank you all. We'll now
adjourn to the next meeting January 26,
2026 at 6 PM. Thank you.