[2:02] Hey,
[2:18] hey, hey.
[8:12] Hey,
[8:18] hey,
[8:21] hey.
[8:24] Heat.
[11:43] Hey,
[11:45] hey, hey.
[13:30] Heat. Heat.
[15:39] Yeah,
[15:55] I
[16:01] feel
[16:16] Heat. Heat.
[16:56] Uh, good evening. At this time, I'd like
[16:58] to call to order the Planning Commission
[16:59] meeting of January 12th, 2026. For
[17:02] viewers watching at home, some members
[17:03] of the public may be participating via
[17:05] video conference or teleconference.
[17:07] Please stand and join me in the pledge
[17:09] of
[17:09] >> allegiance
[17:14] to the flag
[17:20] nation.
[17:28] » Will the secretary please call the role?
[17:31] >> Commissioner bus
[17:33] » Commissioner bus
[17:33] >> present.
[17:33] » present.
[17:33] >> Commissioner Lansen is absent.
[17:35] » Commissioner Lansen is absent.
[17:35] Commissioner McMahon
[17:36] >> here,
[17:37] » here,
[17:37] >> Vice Chair Kettlehut
[17:38] » Vice Chair Kettlehut
[17:38] >> here,
[17:39] » here,
[17:39] >> Chair Ferris
[17:40] » Chair Ferris
[17:40] >> here. Uh, tonight we have with us Deputy
[17:43] » here. Uh, tonight we have with us Deputy
[17:43] Community Development Director Fabola Za
[17:45] Meliker. Are there any written comments,
[17:47] announcements, or continuences at this
[17:49] time?
[17:51] Yes, we had a supplemental packet that
[17:54] has been distributed to the commission
[17:56] and posted um containing information
[17:58] related to item number 78, the 400143
[18:04] Hillrest development agreement.
[18:37] I did not. Do you want us to bring some
[18:40] go make some? I have an extra. Does
[18:43] somebody need
[18:47] two extras?
[18:56] Extras.
[19:16] Okay, thank you. Pardon the uh the
[19:19] pause. Uh now's the time for public
[19:21] comments. At this time, any person may
[19:24] address the commission regarding a city
[19:25] planning matter that is not on the
[19:27] evening's agenda. Should the commission
[19:29] wish to discuss an issue raised by a
[19:30] member of the public, the issue will be
[19:32] referred to staff for scheduling a
[19:33] future on a future agenda. Anyone who
[19:36] would like to speak under public
[19:37] comments must fill out a speaker card in
[19:39] chambers or click request to speak on
[19:41] the agenda to receive instructions
[19:43] before the public comments portion of
[19:44] the agenda is called. Speaker remarks
[19:46] shall be addressed to the commission as
[19:48] a whole, not to any individual
[19:49] commissioner or staff member, unless
[19:51] otherwise provided by the commission.
[19:53] Speakers are limited to five minutes.
[19:54] The screen will show you the remaining
[19:57] time you have. Uh, do we have any public
[19:59] comments?
[19:59] >> No.
[20:00] » No.
[20:00] >> No. All right. Let's go to the consent
[20:02] » No. All right. Let's go to the consent
[20:02] calendar. Next, we have the consent
[20:03] calendar for the minutes of November
[20:05] 17th, 2026 planning commission meeting.
[20:07] Uh, do we have any fellow commissioners
[20:09] have any comments or a motion to approve
[20:10] the consent calendar?
[20:14] I'll make the motion to approve.
[20:16] >> Excellent. Uh, any comments?
[20:19] » Excellent. Uh, any comments?
[20:19] If not, uh, can we prepare for a vote?
[20:22] >> Commissioner Bus,
[20:24] » Commissioner Bus,
[20:24] >> yes.
[20:24] » yes.
[20:24] >> Commissioner Tyler Kettle Hut,
[20:26] » Commissioner Tyler Kettle Hut,
[20:26] >> yes.
[20:27] » yes.
[20:27] >> Commissioner McMahon,
[20:28] » Commissioner McMahon,
[20:28] >> yes.
[20:28] » yes.
[20:28] >> Chair Ferris,
[20:29] » Chair Ferris,
[20:29] >> uh, abstain as I was not at the at the
[20:31] » uh, abstain as I was not at the at the
[20:31] meeting of interest.
[20:33] >> Motion carries 30 uh 31 with
[20:36] » Motion carries 30 uh 31 with
[20:36] Commissioner I'm sorry, Chair Ferris
[20:38] abstaining.
[20:39] >> Abstain. Yes. Excellent. All right.
[20:41] » Abstain. Yes. Excellent. All right.
[20:41] Thank you. Uh now we'll open the hearing
[20:44] case 7A. Will the clerk please open the
[20:46] public hearing?
[20:48] >> Hearing having been advertised as
[20:49] » Hearing having been advertised as
[20:49] required by law is hereby open to
[20:51] consider agenda item 7A to consider a
[20:54] finding that the proposed disposition of
[20:55] city-owned property to the KJO
[20:58] Recreation and Park District of the
[20:59] following parcels. APN's 525- 0- 053-115
[21:07] 525- 0- 0
[21:10] 53-175
[21:12] 525- 0- 053-195
[21:19] 060-
[21:20] 085 525- Z-60-
[21:27] 095 525-
[21:30] 060-115
[21:32] 525-
[21:34] 0- 060-125
[21:36] and 525-
[21:38] 0- 060-1 through5 is consistent with the
[21:41] Thousand Oaks 2045 general plan pursuant
[21:44] to government code section 65402
[21:47] and to consider a recommendation to
[21:49] council for adoption of an ordinance
[21:50] approving development agreement
[21:52] DHGR-2025-7004
[21:56] establishing the city's agreement not to
[21:58] change the existing zoning and general
[22:00] land designations of the property
[22:01] without the owner's consent for 30 years
[22:04] from the date of execution and find that
[22:05] the project's categorically exempt from
[22:07] the California Environmental Quality Act
[22:09] pursuant to sections 15061B3
[22:12] common sense exemption 15312 surplus
[22:15] government property sales and 15325
[22:19] transfers of ownership of interest of
[22:22] land located at 40143
[22:25] West Hill Press Drive assessor's parcels
[22:27] numbers as previously stated The
[22:30] applicant is the city of Thousand Oaks.
[22:34] >> Excellent. Thank you very much. Uh,
[22:36] » Excellent. Thank you very much. Uh,
[22:36] presenting on behalf of staff, senior
[22:38] planner, Justine Kendall.
[22:41] >> Good evening, Chair Ferris, uh, planning
[22:43] » Good evening, Chair Ferris, uh, planning
[22:43] commissioners, and members of the
[22:44] public.
[22:46] Uh, tonight we are here to, uh, present
[22:48] a request from the city related to the
[22:50] sale of land to the KJO Recreation and
[22:53] Parks District. I am joined by city
[22:55] staff from the community development
[22:56] department, city attorney's office, and
[22:58] city manager's office who are available
[23:00] to answer any questions the commission
[23:01] may have.
[23:05] Uh, as Lori just uh read, the request
[23:08] before you this evening is I'll
[23:10] summarize uh to find that the project is
[23:12] categorically exempt from SQA uh to find
[23:15] that the proposed disposition of the
[23:17] city-owned property within specific plan
[23:19] 17 to uh the KJO Recreation and Park
[23:22] District or CRPD uh is consistent with
[23:25] the Thousand Oaks 2045 general plan and
[23:28] to recommend that the city council adopt
[23:30] an ordinance approving uh the
[23:32] development agreement.
[23:36] Provided on your screen is a vicinity
[23:38] map of the area, the specific plan 17
[23:41] area and the subject properties um
[23:43] depicting the subject site generally
[23:45] with a red asterisk.
[23:51] The map shown now on your screen
[23:53] provides a closer aerial view of the
[23:55] area with the subject properties
[23:57] depicted within the red lines. Uh the
[24:00] subject properties are again zoned
[24:02] specific plan 17 with a portion of uh
[24:05] one of the properties noted it with a
[24:08] purple star also zoned with the mixeduse
[24:10] overlay zone. Uh those are existing
[24:13] zoning designations to be clear.
[24:18] All properties uh subject to the
[24:20] potential sale and development agreement
[24:22] uh are more commonly referred to as 401
[24:25] and 403 West Hillrest Drive are
[24:27] designated as being within that specific
[24:29] plan number 17 uh which was adopted in
[24:32] 1997.
[24:34] Approximately half of the SP7 area has
[24:37] undergone site improvements primarily
[24:39] within a 35 acre section of the site
[24:41] that includes development currently
[24:43] occupied by CRPD for its headquarters.
[24:46] uh and the Hillcrest Center for the
[24:48] Arts. The other 27 of the acres of the
[24:51] site consist of uh a hill within the
[24:54] northerly and easterly portions of the
[24:56] specific plan area uh just shown which
[24:59] is more commonly known as fireworks
[25:01] hill.
[25:03] The land use designations that you see
[25:05] on your screen here. Again, just being
[25:07] clear, uh are the existing designations.
[25:12] Um during the negotiation for the sale
[25:15] of the subject properties, CRPD
[25:17] requested that the existing zoning
[25:19] regulations and land use designations
[25:22] just described uh be preserved in their
[25:24] current state. Um, as such, development
[25:28] agreement uh 2045 20257004
[25:34] is proposed to create a binding contract
[25:36] that the city will maintain uh those
[25:39] existing general plan land use
[25:40] designations and zoning designations as
[25:44] currently adopted and just described for
[25:46] 30 years. Should any changes to the land
[25:49] use or zoning designations be proposed
[25:51] the um by the property owner or with the
[25:54] consent of the property owner, the city
[25:56] would consider the proposed project in
[25:58] accordance with the procedures required
[26:00] by state law and the Thousand Oaks
[26:02] Municipal Code. No physical development
[26:05] or change of use is proposed as part of
[26:08] the subject request. There is no
[26:11] physical changes again proposed as part
[26:13] of tonight's request.
[26:17] Government code section 65402
[26:20] requires that any real property
[26:22] disposition be reviewed by the planning
[26:24] commission to confirm that the location
[26:27] purpose and extent of the property
[26:29] disposition is consistent with the
[26:31] general plan. Staff has compared this
[26:33] proposal to transfer property with the
[26:36] overarching general plan goals and
[26:37] policies and in this case uh more
[26:40] specifically the governance land use
[26:41] chapter and the parks and open space
[26:43] chapters. Uh on this slide are a list of
[26:47] uh abbreviated description of the
[26:49] general plan 2045 goals and policies
[26:51] that demonstrate conformance with the
[26:53] proposed disposition and transfer of the
[26:55] subject properties. The full text of
[26:57] these goals and policies can be seen in
[26:59] tonight's staff report or in the
[27:01] Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045
[27:04] accessible at the city website
[27:06] to os045.org.
[27:16] And so, uh, staff recommendation tonight
[27:18] is to again find that the project is
[27:20] categorically exempt from SQA, uh, to
[27:24] find that the proposed disposition of
[27:26] city-owned property to CRPD um, of the
[27:30] subject properties within specific plan
[27:32] 17 is consistent with the general plan
[27:35] and to recommend that the city council
[27:38] um, adopt an ordinance an ordinance
[27:40] approving the development agreement.
[27:44] Just want to note for the record as well
[27:46] that the resolution um to be provided
[27:48] for signature will include the image
[27:51] shown here as uh the exhibit A mentioned
[27:54] on page one of that document.
[28:00] That concludes our presentation. Staff
[28:01] is available for any questions.
[28:05] >> Okay. Uh thank you. Uh first question I
[28:07] » Okay. Uh thank you. Uh first question I
[28:07] would have is there any exparte
[28:09] communications to disclose?
[28:12] No. Um, are there any questions or
[28:14] comments of staff from commissioners?
[28:18] » Commissioner McMahon?
[28:20] >> Yes. I I understand that this is
[28:22] » Yes. I I understand that this is
[28:22] actually a purchase from CRPD and I was
[28:26] uh curious about the amount that they
[28:28] are paying for the land.
[28:33] » Thank you, Commissioner. Uh, the total
[28:35] amount of sales is 30.4 million.
[28:38] >> Okay. And it's also my understanding
[28:40] » Okay. And it's also my understanding
[28:40] that that is going to be put in a pot
[28:43] for the new downtown plans. Is that
[28:46] correct?
[28:46] >> That'll be set aside in reserve
[28:48] » That'll be set aside in reserve
[28:48] earmarked for the downtown. Correct.
[28:50] >> Okay. Thank you.
[28:53] » Okay. Thank you.
[28:53] >> Any comments from other commissioners?
[28:55] » Any comments from other commissioners?
[28:55] Vice Chair Tyler Kettle Hut.
[28:58] >> I have a question. Can you explain to me
[29:00] » I have a question. Can you explain to me
[29:00] exempt surplus land? As I was going
[29:03] through the packet, I didn't really
[29:04] understand. And I know that it was
[29:05] designated as that, but I want to
[29:07] understand how that process took place.
[29:10] I know city council approved it.
[29:14] >> Thank you, commissioner. Uh, assistant
[29:16] » Thank you, commissioner. Uh, assistant
[29:16] city attorney can handle that as well.
[29:19] >> Sure. So, under state law, before a city
[29:23] » Sure. So, under state law, before a city
[29:23] can dispose of property, um, it needs to
[29:26] offer up the property to other agencies
[29:30] and affordable housing providers. um
[29:33] unless there are certain exceptions that
[29:35] apply. And for purposes of the
[29:38] discussion this evening, there's an
[29:39] exemption for uh agency to agency
[29:42] transfers. Um so because it's exempt as
[29:47] an agencyto agency transfer, uh you
[29:50] don't need to go through the pretty
[29:52] extensive process of making the property
[29:54] available to other agencies and
[29:56] affordable housing providers.
[29:58] >> Okay. So it's basically a it's a
[30:00] » Okay. So it's basically a it's a
[30:00] disposition thing.
[30:02] Correct. It's a box that the city needs
[30:04] to check before it can it can dispose of
[30:07] property. Yes.
[30:08] >> Okay. And is that is that does that
[30:10] » Okay. And is that is that does that
[30:10] negate a SQA challenge? Is I know it was
[30:12] listed as one of the three categories
[30:15] for for negate basically saying that it
[30:18] was not considered a SQA project but
[30:20] does it automatically negate the the
[30:22] exempt surplus automatically ne negate
[30:24] the squa challenge? So they're they're
[30:27] separate things, but you will note that
[30:29] one of the SQUA exemptions is for a
[30:34] transfer of surplus property,
[30:35] >> right?
[30:36] » right?
[30:36] >> So that's a little different than the
[30:37] » So that's a little different than the
[30:37] surplus lands act, but that that is a a
[30:40] basis for a SQA exemption, a categorical
[30:42] exemption.
[30:43] >> Okay. Okay.
[30:47] » Any other questions? Yep. Please go
[30:50] ahead.
[30:51] So kind of in that same vein in terms of
[30:53] dealing kind of with with sequest stuff,
[30:55] I want to know were what if any
[30:57] preservation alter alternatives or
[31:00] preservation measures like a
[31:02] preservation easement have been
[31:04] considered due to the building's
[31:05] landmark status?
[31:12] » I'm sorry, could you repeat that
[31:14] question?
[31:15] Basically, I'm just trying to find out
[31:17] was anything in in the discussions that
[31:19] you guys had. Were there any discussions
[31:21] about because this this has been
[31:23] landmarked by the city twice? I I guess
[31:25] the the buildings have been landmarked
[31:27] as well as some of the the periphery of
[31:29] trees. I think I think um did any of
[31:33] that were were any of those measures
[31:35] considered? Have you considered any kind
[31:38] of because of the landmark status? And I
[31:40] realize that there's no development
[31:41] that's being proposed. I get that. I get
[31:43] that. But in terms of down the road, I
[31:46] mean, is there anything that is being
[31:48] done to preserve, you know, like a
[31:51] preservation easement or something like
[31:52] that with respect to the landmark
[31:53] status? Were any of those things part of
[31:56] your discussions?
[32:02] No, there's because there's no
[32:04] development of any kind uh or changes to
[32:07] uh the regulatory framework for these
[32:09] properties of any kind proposed um that
[32:13] is not part of what we're has been
[32:15] discussed. Should anything uh related to
[32:19] changing either the regulatory framework
[32:21] or the uses allowed or physical
[32:23] development within this property area be
[32:26] proposed? um any any impacts to, you
[32:30] know, landmark status or or anything
[32:32] else would be reviewed, you know, as
[32:34] required at that time.
[32:40] Oh, I was just going to add that that if
[32:43] there was any discussion about altering
[32:46] a landmark, there's additional
[32:47] provisions in the municipal code that
[32:49] would require an additional certificate
[32:52] of appropriateness that would be
[32:54] approved um by the city for any any
[32:57] changes.
[33:00] » Any other questions? No. any I did want
[33:04] to follow up a little bit on the the
[33:05] aspect of the landmark status. So, and
[33:08] especially as it relates to what we have
[33:10] in front of us, which is general plan
[33:12] consistency finding. Um, so we did talk
[33:15] about it. Can we confirm that the 41
[33:17] Hill Crest building is in fact
[33:20] identified as a city landmark uh by the
[33:23] cultural heritage board is in our
[33:24] general plan as a city landmark. Is that
[33:27] correct?
[33:29] >> Yes.
[33:29] » Yes.
[33:29] >> Okay. Um and in our conservation element
[33:34] » Okay. Um and in our conservation element
[33:34] there's actually a goal and uh policy
[33:39] uh goal C11 is to protect historical and
[33:42] cultural culturally significant
[33:44] resources which contribute to the
[33:45] community's sense of identity. Policy
[33:48] 11.7 has talked about re resource
[33:50] stakeholder engagement. Decisions
[33:53] pertaining to the disposition of
[33:55] archaeological, paleial,
[33:57] paleontological,
[34:00] historical and cultural resources shall
[34:02] be made in concert with recognized
[34:04] public agencies, groups or individuals
[34:05] having jurisdiction, expertise or
[34:08] interest in these matters. And my
[34:10] question is is that wouldn't it be
[34:12] especially given that we are asking
[34:14] about a disposition of historical
[34:16] resources
[34:18] should not we fi make a finding that
[34:21] such disposition is in fact consistent
[34:23] with this policy of the general plan.
[34:31] » Yeah. So what's being asked of of the
[34:34] planning commission tonight is is
[34:36] twofold, right? One is to evaluate
[34:40] the proposed development agreement and
[34:42] make a recommendation to the city
[34:43] council on that. The second item, which
[34:46] I think is what you're getting at, is is
[34:48] that the planning commission is asked to
[34:50] make a finding that the project is
[34:52] consistent with the general plan. Um and
[34:55] what is in the proposed resolution are
[34:59] several uh policies and goals of the
[35:02] general plan to identify that yes this
[35:05] project is consistent with that. Um I
[35:07] agree with you that that what you just
[35:10] mentioned is you know does also make it
[35:14] consistent with the general plan. Um I
[35:16] don't believe that it would be that
[35:18] we're required to include another goal
[35:21] in there. I mean, I think the proposed
[35:23] resolution has enough in it to establish
[35:28] that that um that the project is
[35:31] consistent. I if uh and I understand
[35:34] that that viewpoint, the one thing I
[35:36] would want to make sure of is what can
[35:38] we do at the commission level to ensure
[35:41] that there is an overt recognition that
[35:44] there is a city landmark on this
[35:46] property because when people go back to
[35:48] these these sort of you know resolutions
[35:51] and understandings of what was there if
[35:54] it's not there the people later on don't
[35:56] know that it's there and I think it's
[35:58] just critical that we highlight that
[36:00] especially given that it is designated
[36:01] ated in our general plan as a city
[36:03] landmark. My question would be what what
[36:06] can we do to highlight highlight that as
[36:09] part of it? If not change the the
[36:11] findings or resolutions to do that. So,
[36:13] uh as we're going along and gaining more
[36:15] testimony, I would like to see what what
[36:17] is possible.
[36:20] Okay. Any other questions of the
[36:23] commission staff? Okay. Great. Let's uh
[36:28] now we will go to public comments. We
[36:31] actually do have two public speakers.
[36:34] Um, each speaker will get five minutes.
[36:38] Uh, and if you could state your name and
[36:40] city residence. Uh, first will be Marsha
[36:44] Boy
[36:45] followed by William Maple.
[36:48] You could come down.
[36:53] Uh, generally we need to have you on the
[36:55] mic so that we're able to have it on the
[36:58] broadcast.
[37:01] Is is it possible? Do we have a wireless
[37:03] mic? Is there something that we could
[37:06] potentially accommodate?
[37:22] » Right.
[37:23] >> Hi.
[37:23] » Hi.
[37:23] >> Thank you.
[37:24] » Thank you.
[37:24] >> I'm Marcy Boy. I live over in Oaknull
[37:26] » I'm Marcy Boy. I live over in Oaknull
[37:26] and I didn't know anything about this
[37:27] project until we received a letter a
[37:29] couple weeks ago. Um, so I came here
[37:32] tonight because I was curious at what
[37:34] was going on. I'm very impressed with
[37:36] what I found out. I do have a couple of
[37:39] questions. One is are my taxes involved?
[37:42] We're going from
[37:45] from the recreation which is ours to the
[37:48] city which is ours. How does that
[37:51] transfer $30 million?
[37:55] I don't under I just don't understand
[37:56] the the is it a bond that you give to
[38:00] each other or what do you do?
[38:05] » Staff can probably answer that at some
[38:07] point after the comments.
[38:12] » No, nobody knows how to handle the
[38:14] money.
[38:15] >> We'll answer your questions at the end.
[38:17] » We'll answer your questions at the end.
[38:17] >> I'm sorry. We'll answer all your
[38:18] » I'm sorry. We'll answer all your
[38:18] questions at the after your comments are
[38:20] concluded.
[38:20] >> Oh, okay. Um,
[38:23] » Oh, okay. Um,
[38:23] and it's hard for me to tell what the
[38:25] pictures are up there. I'm assuming that
[38:29] they want to buy the open space and
[38:32] their own property. They're not
[38:34] interested in all the commercial stuff
[38:35] that's over there off Wilbur. Okay.
[38:38] Because that was a confusion. Thank you.
[38:40] I'm very impressed. Hi.
[38:42] >> Thank you.
[38:44] » Thank you.
[38:44] >> Uh, next is William Maple.
[38:54] William Maple, resident, uh, Newberry
[38:56] Park. Good evening, planners and
[39:00] commissioners.
[39:02] Uh, before you tonight is is does
[39:04] history matter?
[39:06] And you sure wouldn't think so if you
[39:08] look at our um city's website. They've
[39:12] taken down all the list of our
[39:14] landmarks. You won't find that on there
[39:16] anymore and you won't hear it in the
[39:18] appraisal discussion or much that's
[39:20] coming before you right now. You know,
[39:22] history doesn't seem to be part of it.
[39:24] Landmark is rarely mentioned in any of
[39:26] the documents. It won't specify what
[39:29] area is a landmark. Um
[39:33] you also if you wanted to attend a
[39:35] public cultural heritage board meeting,
[39:38] one hasn't happened in 20 years. We
[39:41] don't have public hearings and that
[39:44] should have happened before tonight
[39:46] about this building.
[39:48] Um,
[39:50] that's kind of a dereliction of duty.
[39:54] Why am I here? I have an amazing view of
[39:57] Fireworks Hill and uh the Civic Arts
[40:00] Plaza from my front yard. Uh, the old
[40:02] city hall. I used to mow my lawn and
[40:04] look at this strange building. Didn't
[40:05] know what it was. Went over there and
[40:07] found it abandoned. I mean, there were
[40:09] trees through the windows, uh, ramps for
[40:12] skateboarding, burnt, uh, bonfires in
[40:14] the middle, beer and couches and
[40:16] everything. I made a, uh, professional
[40:19] video at the time and, uh, brought it in
[40:21] and presented it right here on this
[40:23] board probably 29 years ago. It took two
[40:26] years to fight to make it a landmark.
[40:29] And we're fighting city hall to preserve
[40:32] the first built city hall. not a not a
[40:34] fun process by any means, but uh the
[40:36] city uh residents won and they preserved
[40:39] it. And um it's it's something important
[40:42] to be able to compare where we were and
[40:45] what we thought was important to where
[40:47] we are now and what we're funding and
[40:50] how we're funding it. So that that
[40:52] building was a million dollars. It was
[40:53] paid for right off, you know, as it it
[40:55] was done. And CRPD paid half of that. So
[40:59] it's it's a amazing tale that a lot of
[41:01] people and you don't see it you know
[41:03] explained on on the building there. Um I
[41:06] developed museum exhibits within
[41:09] landmark buildings throughout the
[41:10] country for 40 plus years working
[41:13] through National Park Service Bureau of
[41:15] Land Management. Lots and lots of laws
[41:17] and regulations of what I can do where
[41:20] and how in these buildings. So I have a
[41:22] sense of what what you should be doing.
[41:26] And I've also served on the cultural
[41:28] heritage board for the county where they
[41:30] really take their meetings serious. They
[41:32] they they know their staff, you know,
[41:34] they they they love their community and
[41:36] they fight to preserve what separates
[41:39] them from the strip of 101 that's
[41:43] generic. You know, it it what what makes
[41:46] Kane Cano Valley um unique and they're
[41:49] proactive before something's in jeopardy
[41:52] and and about to be torn down or or in
[41:54] neglect. they act they have meetings and
[41:57] they they proactively list what what's
[41:59] important and we go out and research it
[42:01] using the criteria of the uh squa to
[42:05] evaluate that. So what are um landmarks?
[42:09] um it's not just something old 50 years
[42:11] old is kind of a benchmark but also did
[42:15] any significant events happen at that
[42:18] site you know was it a unique structure
[42:21] uh did any personality or person of the
[42:23] community uh do something there building
[42:27] met all of that criteria was a unanimous
[42:29] yes vote to make it a landmark and um
[42:32] there are many in the ad hoc committee
[42:34] they're adver ad adversarial they they
[42:36] want the money for that site right? You
[42:39] know, they want to develop this place
[42:41] with that money. And so, we're repeating
[42:43] history in in a way. Um,
[42:47] the landmark has namesake trees on it
[42:50] and other elements. There there are two
[42:51] P trees that were dedicated at the time.
[42:54] One died because the building was
[42:56] neglected. It was supposed to be, you
[42:58] know, taken care of while it was
[42:59] abandoned. And, uh, I would argue that
[43:02] that was abandoned for demolition by
[43:04] neglect. you know that you get an
[43:06] estimate, you find out, wow, it's going
[43:08] to cost more to fix this building than
[43:10] to just outright level it and sell it.
[43:13] And uh thankfully they didn't go that
[43:15] way. Um
[43:17] with all that said, I believe the
[43:20] selling of this landmark to our park and
[43:23] recck department is an amazing idea. It
[43:26] takes off so many wonderful bits of
[43:28] criteria, serves the public. Um, it's
[43:31] it's a a unique foundational moment
[43:33] where everyone wins. Um, but I argue
[43:36] with the price tag, you know, if the
[43:39] land was donated, and it was by the
[43:41] Jance family for free, why would you
[43:44] charge for it? You know, that's that's
[43:46] if I gave my son, you know, a car I
[43:48] worked on for 50 years and he he sold
[43:50] it, you know, it was it was a gift, you
[43:53] know, it's just crazy. And that you're
[43:55] selling it to another community entity
[43:58] that's serving us. They also donated
[44:01] half the funds to build it. So I I
[44:04] really argue that the the 30 million is
[44:06] way overpriced. And I I would please
[44:09] consider
[44:10] having a a cultural heritage board
[44:13] meeting for the public before any more
[44:15] decisions are made and charging a lot
[44:18] less for that property. Thank you.
[44:20] >> Uh Mr. Maple, actually if you you could
[44:22] » Uh Mr. Maple, actually if you you could
[44:22] say I did have some additional questions
[44:24] for you. So first of all, I'm just going
[44:27] to say you you and I we've talked over
[44:28] the years. I just want to thank you for
[44:30] your service in this especially in this
[44:33] particular area of of really preserving
[44:35] the history of the city and and how
[44:37] you've been involved in it. So you were
[44:38] describing kind of the the effort to
[44:40] preserve 401 Hillrest as a city landmark
[44:43] and the culture heritage board
[44:44] resolution described some of the
[44:46] specific area elements that were
[44:49] important. I'm just going to read them
[44:50] off. Can you opine maybe a little bit
[44:52] about what them after I read them off
[44:55] here? It says that the designation
[44:57] historical landmark status shall apply
[44:59] to the exterior walls, facades, and
[45:01] architectural style of the existing
[45:03] civic center buildings. Modification of
[45:05] the interior of the two buildings are
[45:08] appropriate as long as the modifications
[45:09] do not affect the architectural style of
[45:11] the civic center. And future
[45:13] modifications in additions to the
[45:15] exterior of the civic center buildings
[45:18] are appropriate as long as they're
[45:19] architecturally compatible, thereby
[45:21] preserving the design integrity of the
[45:22] original structures. Can you opine as to
[45:24] why th those particular things were
[45:28] called out for this particular building?
[45:30] >> I I'm a
[45:32] » I I'm a
[45:32] preservation snob. You know, it's like
[45:34] rebuilding a car, you know, historic
[45:37] car. You put the proper parts on it. You
[45:39] do that. I would have had a fit about
[45:41] the elevators. You know, there's a lot
[45:43] of ways to grandfather how that's done
[45:45] rather than break the horizontal line.
[45:47] That was so critical to the design.
[45:50] designed had parking on the roof so that
[45:52] 70% of the open space could be viewed,
[45:55] could be left that way because that's
[45:57] how it was a metaphor for how they saw
[45:59] this community being developed. What you
[46:01] do inside wasn't all that unique, you
[46:04] know, and and Lord, thank you that it
[46:06] was a concrete building. You couldn't
[46:07] destroy it more than what it was in in
[46:10] the years and years that it was
[46:11] abandoned. Um, one of the P trees died
[46:15] and unfortunately that gentleman did
[46:17] die. One of them is preserved. It's
[46:19] still standing today. I would like to
[46:21] see better plaques up there. The woman
[46:23] who was uh I'm sorry, not knowing her
[46:25] name right off hand, who was
[46:26] instrumental in naming the city Thousand
[46:28] Oaks, her trees up there, you know, um
[46:31] the events that happened, you know, what
[46:33] what was it the decisions made, all of
[46:36] the people who stood like tonight in
[46:38] that room, you know, shaping what our
[46:41] community would look like, where we'd go
[46:43] from here, took place in that council
[46:45] chambers. It should be preserved to so
[46:47] you can compare and contrast. This is
[46:50] what we thought was important for this
[46:52] this community. How we saw open space,
[46:54] how we saw development compared to the
[46:56] density and the money that's spent at
[46:59] this site. You know, you don't know your
[47:01] that this is odd if you don't look at
[47:05] what we were. And and that's what I'm
[47:08] hoping to preserve. And the open space
[47:09] around it, I would argue, is
[47:11] instrumental to why it was chosen. now
[47:14] 54 different architectural
[47:16] um
[47:18] competition boards that fill the entire
[47:21] uh gym at the the Thousand Oak City
[47:23] Hall, you know, and Yale, Harvard
[47:25] Architect, you know, we're were looking
[47:27] through all these and pick this unique
[47:30] design of the environmental movement of
[47:32] that time. This is the only one around
[47:34] here. Think of all of Ventura County or
[47:36] even Southern California. How many
[47:38] buildings can you name that are similar
[47:40] to that? Maybe the GTE building. I don't
[47:42] know what it is now, you know, Baxter,
[47:44] but you know, they probably stole that
[47:46] design and made movies within that, too.
[47:49] So, uh, preserving the outside, but I
[47:51] think just as important as our community
[47:53] finds all our open space critical, I
[47:56] think all the land around that,
[47:57] especially the viewshed of looking at
[47:59] the community because the windows were
[48:02] out here when you were serving behind
[48:04] that board, you would look out at the
[48:06] community and and anticipate how would
[48:09] my vote impact what I'm seeing outside
[48:12] there. And that was part of the design
[48:14] element.
[48:16] Sorry, running off.
[48:17] >> No, thank you. Uh, is there any other
[48:18] » No, thank you. Uh, is there any other
[48:18] questions? Vice Chair Tyler C.
[48:21] >> Just a just a quick question. So, as I
[48:23] » Just a just a quick question. So, as I
[48:23] understand, as you've described it,
[48:25] landmark status isn't just for
[48:27] architecturally significant properties.
[48:29] It also relates to the cultural
[48:30] resources. Is that correct?
[48:32] >> It does, but it depends on who your
[48:34] » It does, but it depends on who your
[48:34] board is. Unfortunately, our city
[48:37] council is our cultural heritage board
[48:39] and their training and expertise on
[48:42] civic, you know, SQUA preservation
[48:45] standards is is not uh top of the line.
[48:48] >> Okay. Thank you.
[48:49] » Okay. Thank you.
[48:50] >> Thanks. Any other question?
[48:51] » Thanks. Any other question?
[48:51] >> No. Thank you. Uh and we do have from
[48:54] » No. Thank you. Uh and we do have from
[48:54] the park district uh Jim Fredel uh for
[48:58] questions only. Is there any questions
[49:00] that you had? I was wondering if if
[49:02] you'd be willing to come up. I did have
[49:04] a quick question. Just name name of city
[49:06] of residence if you're okay with
[49:07] >> Yeah. Hi, I'm Jim Fredel. I'm the
[49:09] » Yeah. Hi, I'm Jim Fredel. I'm the
[49:09] general manager of the Cano Reck and
[49:11] Park District. Awesome.
[49:12] >> And actually having heard some comments,
[49:15] » And actually having heard some comments,
[49:15] I wouldn't mind making a few of my own
[49:17] after your questions or what?
[49:18] >> Well, I I think the main question is
[49:19] » Well, I I think the main question is
[49:19] just we we've had a a significant
[49:21] discussion about the building itself
[49:23] being a city landmark and and such and
[49:25] some of the additional restrictions that
[49:27] might be on it if if there is ever a
[49:29] time in which the park district would
[49:31] want to see or make any modifications.
[49:33] Are you do you you recognize that and
[49:35] that's a one of the things I mean are
[49:37] you aware of that I guess that's
[49:38] >> yeah yeah we're aware of the city having
[49:41] » yeah yeah we're aware of the city having
[49:41] considered and and made a designation
[49:43] about the historical status of the
[49:46] structure we're aware of that
[49:47] >> okay
[49:48] » okay
[49:48] >> um in fact one of the things I was going
[49:50] » um in fact one of the things I was going
[49:50] to share is that
[49:51] >> yeah please do
[49:52] » yeah please do
[49:52] >> part of our responsibility and job in
[49:54] » part of our responsibility and job in
[49:54] the community is um you know parks wreck
[49:56] and open space that's our primary
[49:58] mission but in that mission we now are
[50:01] the stewards of the McCrae ranch which
[50:04] has the oldest structure in all of
[50:06] Thousand Oaks. Um, actually Crowley
[50:08] House is the oldest structure in all of
[50:10] Thousand Oaks. That's ours, too. That's
[50:12] a 1910 McCrae Ranch has a 1925 building.
[50:15] And then the stage coach in, of course,
[50:17] our Cano Valley Historic Society is in
[50:19] our building there at the stage coach
[50:21] in. So, that's part of our DNA is
[50:24] protecting and preserving our history,
[50:27] our local heritage, and our um, you
[50:30] know, historical assets. Uh when it
[50:33] comes to 40143, I can tell you that the
[50:35] price tag will prohibit us from
[50:37] considering any kind of improvements or
[50:38] modifications for many, many, many years
[50:40] to come. So you don't have to be worried
[50:42] that we might have some designs on
[50:44] changing anything. Um because it is a
[50:47] big lift for us, but we're prepared to
[50:49] make that and we're happy to do that
[50:50] because of
[50:52] how important this whole property is to
[50:55] the future of the city from the park and
[50:58] wreck perspective. And what I do want to
[51:00] share is as we look at the areas of
[51:04] opportunity as the city referred to them
[51:07] throughout the general plan process, we
[51:09] know there is going to be a lot more
[51:11] multifamily mixeduse housing in areas
[51:14] that it wasn't originally considered
[51:16] when the city thought of the city. You
[51:19] know, we we separated land uses and I
[51:21] think mixed use is actually the way to
[51:22] go. It's how a lot of communities are.
[51:25] But now that we are going there, we need
[51:26] to provide park land space in close
[51:29] geographic proximity to where people
[51:31] will live. So the 60 acres that make up
[51:36] um the hill are are really important to
[51:39] us and more importantly to all the
[51:41] residents existing there, but all of the
[51:44] literally thousands of units that could
[51:46] be built right next to there in a short
[51:48] half a mile walking distance to the to
[51:50] the property. So that was our thinking
[51:53] not what might we do to change the
[51:55] buildings. In fact, you know, again, we
[51:57] don't have the money to change the
[51:58] buildings, but we want to stay there
[52:00] just how it is and how we've been there
[52:01] for for the last u 25 years with the
[52:04] license with the city. But looking just
[52:06] as we're thinking and of course I have a
[52:08] board to respond to and we're going to
[52:10] go ask the whole community what they
[52:11] think, but we have some ideas of just
[52:13] basically activating the old National
[52:16] Park Service 401 building um with very
[52:20] comparable similar community use.
[52:22] probably some reservable big community
[52:24] meeting rooms. Um we might move some of
[52:27] our wreck units into that building that
[52:28] that are too cramped in other locations,
[52:31] but we don't see any notable physical
[52:35] changes and frankly don't have any. But
[52:38] I want to say one of the things and the
[52:40] reason you're getting a DA in front of
[52:42] you is because
[52:44] we are going to have to borrow money.
[52:46] There's a cash and financing and it's
[52:48] it's all spelled out in a staff report
[52:50] that we're doing for our board. So, it's
[52:52] online now at our website,
[52:54] but um I I I mentioned because uh
[52:58] somebody had brought up the tax
[52:59] question. So, we're two totally separate
[53:02] entities, City of Thousand Oaks and
[53:04] CRPD. We have we our income is primarily
[53:08] 6 cents of the property tax dollar you
[53:10] pay. So, think about your home and how
[53:12] much you're paying in property taxes. We
[53:14] get about 6 cents of that property tax
[53:17] dollar and we do the park system that we
[53:20] do. But one of the other things we get
[53:22] are developer fees when the developers
[53:25] build. So we get about $12,800
[53:28] a unit for every unit that's built. So
[53:32] if you imagine 2,000 units happening
[53:35] between the oaks and the Jans
[53:36] marketplace, you got $24 million right
[53:39] there. That helps pay for the loan that
[53:42] we have on the property and the
[53:45] improvements to the park space that we
[53:48] can imagine. If you haven't been to the
[53:50] top of Fireworks Hill, walk up there
[53:52] right now. If you're listening to my
[53:53] voice, go check out the top of Fireworks
[53:55] Hill if you've never done it. The view
[53:57] is just bonkers. It is spectacular. And
[54:00] in the current plans, the the the the
[54:04] current um specific plan 17, the general
[54:07] plan, it has been envisioned for a park
[54:09] up there. So, yeah, we probably aren't
[54:11] going to be driving cars up to the top
[54:13] of the hill, but there are improvements
[54:14] that can make it more people friendly up
[54:17] top. and um and pathways to get there,
[54:20] that kind of thing. And that's our
[54:21] business, park and wreck improvements.
[54:23] And so that is the change we do want to
[54:25] make on the hill. And that'll go through
[54:27] a permit process and that kind of thing
[54:28] and a public input process. But we're
[54:30] really we're really stoked. No taxes.
[54:33] You're taxes aren't changing. We're not
[54:35] we're not um asking for a revenue
[54:37] measure um or anything like that. So we
[54:41] have saved up over the years for certain
[54:43] capital acquisitions. And so that is
[54:45] part of the pot of the money and the
[54:47] other will be so it's about 15 of cash
[54:49] that we have saved up for pro for this
[54:51] very thing property acquisition and and
[54:54] improvement and the other uh will come
[54:57] uh you know we'll get it immediately
[55:00] from some sort of you know loan of some
[55:03] kind but we hope that as projects do get
[55:07] approved nearby the oaks Jance that kind
[55:10] of thing that we'll be able to allocate
[55:11] some of those developer fees toward
[55:13] toward that and pay off that loan
[55:15] faster. I think I touched on everything
[55:17] I I heard and wanted to talk about, but
[55:20] um happy to answer any other questions
[55:22] as well. And and and because I might not
[55:24] get another chance, I really wanted to
[55:26] thank staff um OBAR and the team in the
[55:29] city manager's office of course and the
[55:30] planning staff, everybody that's been
[55:32] involved, um city attorney's office. Um
[55:35] it's it's really great to work with
[55:37] partners like the city of Thousand Oaks.
[55:39] If I had to say, you know, the city is
[55:43] kind of really going for the future with
[55:45] the downtown master plan. They're
[55:47] working towards our future, right? And
[55:49] we're kind of respecting and preserving
[55:52] the past. I think that those two things
[55:54] are really important together. And I I
[55:57] just think all of this at the end of the
[55:58] day will be looked at as a win-winwin,
[56:00] especially 20 years from now when the
[56:02] loans have been paid off and it's there.
[56:04] It'll be a stretch for the first few
[56:06] years here for us, but um you know what
[56:09] the city is going to do here, um there's
[56:11] some park-like amenities going in that
[56:13] we wouldn't ever be able to afford or do
[56:15] that they're planning on doing, which
[56:16] we're really excited about. So that to
[56:18] the extent some of our money is
[56:20] allocated to that kind of thing. Great.
[56:23] >> Yeah. Thanks. I was going to say you
[56:26] » Yeah. Thanks. I was going to say you
[56:26] probably got more than five minutes.
[56:27] That's a sneaky way to get uh get more
[56:30] of it. No, no, no. Sorry. I just went
[56:31] for it.
[56:32] >> It's actually But but it was perfect.
[56:33] » It's actually But but it was perfect.
[56:33] Honestly, this is a great discussion and
[56:35] glad to hear uh your points of view
[56:38] about what they're doing. I'm assuming
[56:39] then you've I mean you're not the
[56:42] applicant or anything like that, but I'm
[56:43] assuming the terms under which all of
[56:45] this is happening through the DA and and
[56:47] the resolution are probably in line with
[56:49] what the park district is is.
[56:52] >> Yes. Yeah. We've had a chance to
[56:53] » Yes. Yeah. We've had a chance to
[56:53] literally negotiate it. The development
[56:55] agreement is actually a vehicle only to
[56:58] be used if things don't go according to
[57:00] plan, right? Like we're using it almost
[57:01] in the opposite way a developer would
[57:03] use it. Developer does, hey, I got this
[57:05] plan. I want to build something. Ours is
[57:07] if everything goes wrong and we have to
[57:09] do a financial bailout and literally
[57:11] sell, you know, sell the farm. That's
[57:14] the farm we're selling, right?
[57:15] >> I I want to be really clear like that. I
[57:18] » I I want to be really clear like that. I
[57:18] don't want the discussion we've got here
[57:20] isn't to get in the way of anything that
[57:22] has been done there, but we have
[57:23] recognized there is a city landmark. if
[57:25] the staff is able to come up with
[57:27] language just to heighten the
[57:28] recognition of it that does not get in
[57:30] the way of that. Is that is that
[57:32] something
[57:32] >> I I mean I don't know that I'd want to
[57:34] » I I mean I don't know that I'd want to
[57:34] add any additional limitations or
[57:36] restrictions, but we're aware of the
[57:37] ones that are there and it has landmark
[57:39] status. I I believe that's what it's
[57:40] called by the city's landmark status and
[57:42] so we're very comfortable with it. But I
[57:46] I don't have authority to and not it's
[57:48] not something negotiated or anything. We
[57:50] we but we do understand there's a
[57:52] historical nature to it and I've talked
[57:54] to you know Mr. Maple over the years. We
[57:56] we get it and I've stood in his front
[57:58] yard too and it's a magnificent view of
[57:59] the hill.
[58:01] >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. Are there any
[58:03] » Okay, perfect. Thank you. Are there any
[58:03] questions for you?
[58:05] >> Commissioner bus.
[58:06] » Commissioner bus.
[58:06] >> Um I'm not sure Jim or staff uh can
[58:09] » Um I'm not sure Jim or staff uh can
[58:09] someone speak to how the property was
[58:12] valued like how we came up with the
[58:15] >> Do you want to do it?
[58:18] » Do you want to do it?
[58:18] I did an appraisal.
[58:22] So,
[58:22] >> so yes, uh Mr. Fredo's correct. We we
[58:24] » so yes, uh Mr. Fredo's correct. We we
[58:24] both agencies independently conducted
[58:26] their own appraisals. Uh myself and our
[58:29] finance director, Dam Boscarino, met
[58:30] with Mr. Mooney, Mr. Fredel, uh back in
[58:32] October. We compared notes uh and where
[58:35] we landed was essentially kind of the
[58:37] the fair market value uh that was
[58:40] assigned by both appraisals.
[58:41] >> Had a vin diagram and there was there
[58:43] » Had a vin diagram and there was there
[58:43] was a place where we both met. So it it
[58:46] made actually it ended up being pretty
[58:47] easy that way.
[58:50] >> And do you have any idea if the property
[58:52] » And do you have any idea if the property
[58:52] were to be put I mean you said fair
[58:54] market value. So you're saying that
[58:56] you're confident that that property
[58:58] would sell to a developer for 30
[59:00] million.
[59:01] >> Correct.
[59:02] » Correct.
[59:02] >> Okay.
[59:02] » Okay.
[59:02] >> Under the existing land use
[59:04] » Under the existing land use
[59:04] designations. Correct.
[59:08] I just um one way we've looked at it
[59:10] just because I as residents I think you
[59:13] guys have a lot of interest and as
[59:15] planning commissioners you have a ton of
[59:16] interest in in the economics of all of
[59:18] it as well and one of the way we viewed
[59:21] it is we definitely were looking to add
[59:25] uh square footage for community indoor
[59:27] community center space and we've been
[59:29] researching it and it's it's a it's a
[59:31] it's a thousand bucks a foot to build
[59:35] new construction
[59:37] you know, government level quality
[59:39] buildings. So, we're getting 55,000
[59:43] square feet here. I don't want to say we
[59:45] got a good deal, but I feel like we got
[59:47] a good deal, a fair deal.
[59:51] Okay, any other questions, comments?
[59:55] Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Um, and
[59:58] that is it for uh for the public
[1:00:02] comments. Uh, we now go back to staff
[1:00:04] for follow-up comments.
[1:00:10] Uh I think Mr. Predel really said
[1:00:12] everything that um I was going to cover.
[1:00:15] I would just like to, you know,
[1:00:16] re-emphasize that um any proposal for
[1:00:19] anything in the future would have to go
[1:00:22] through the proper procedures to get
[1:00:23] that um certificate of appropriateness
[1:00:26] if any changes were to be proposed to
[1:00:28] the facade or any of the other um
[1:00:30] protected or designated elements of the
[1:00:32] site. um and of course be reviewed for
[1:00:36] conformance with SQA and consistency
[1:00:38] with the general plan which again as you
[1:00:40] um noted um calls out this area as a
[1:00:44] landmark. So just want to reemphasize
[1:00:46] that all of those protections that are
[1:00:48] in place today remain in place and are
[1:00:50] completely unchanged from whatever the
[1:00:52] procedure is now would remain the same.
[1:00:57] >> Any questions of staff?
[1:01:01] I just want to is there any any ideas
[1:01:05] from staff about somehow identifying in
[1:01:07] the even in the resolution to at least
[1:01:10] heighten the fact that there is a city
[1:01:12] landmark on here? I I'm I'm not going to
[1:01:14] press so much on it, but I do look at
[1:01:16] this policy and when it says decisions
[1:01:18] pertaining to the disposition of
[1:01:21] historical resources
[1:01:24] shall be made in concert with these and
[1:01:26] we're not recognizing that as a policy
[1:01:29] that we are
[1:01:31] agreeing to say this disposition is
[1:01:33] consistent with.
[1:01:36] Is there any way we can at least
[1:01:37] recognize in the resolution that we are
[1:01:39] providing to council?
[1:01:44] kind I'm just I'm just kind of surprised
[1:01:46] we're not willing to state it.
[1:01:50] >> Yes, Commissioner Fran. I think it's
[1:01:53] » Yes, Commissioner Fran. I think it's
[1:01:53] been made clear that all the parties
[1:01:56] know this and it's in our general plan
[1:01:59] as a landmark
[1:02:01] piece of property and I think that
[1:02:05] having it in the general plan as a
[1:02:08] landmark property
[1:02:10] is plenty in my personal opinion.
[1:02:13] >> Okay. Thank you. Um just as a counter
[1:02:16] » Okay. Thank you. Um just as a counter
[1:02:16] it's in the it it's in the general plan.
[1:02:19] We have a policy with respect to
[1:02:20] disposition of historical resources.
[1:02:23] We are the body required to find general
[1:02:26] plan consistency and we're just saying
[1:02:29] words and not putting it into our
[1:02:31] official actions. So that's that's the
[1:02:34] reason why I'm bringing it up as a point
[1:02:36] of comment.
[1:02:38] Any questions? Still still from still
[1:02:41] from uh city from from staff.
[1:02:45] Okay.
[1:02:48] Uh let me just double check.
[1:02:52] Do we have any This is the city is is
[1:02:54] the applicant. There's no rebuttal in
[1:02:56] this particular case, right? Okay. Um
[1:03:00] if not, any final questions of staff,
[1:03:04] then uh we'll close the public hearing
[1:03:05] and entertain discussion and enter a
[1:03:07] motion.
[1:03:16] Commissioner McMahon.
[1:03:18] >> Okay. Uh let's see. I um I move that we
[1:03:22] » Okay. Uh let's see. I um I move that we
[1:03:22] find that the project is categorically
[1:03:24] exempt from the California Environmental
[1:03:28] Quality Act pursuant to section 15061
[1:03:33] B3 common sense exception. Section 15312
[1:03:38] surplus government property sales. on
[1:03:41] section 15325 transfers of ownership of
[1:03:45] interest of land. Find that the proposed
[1:03:47] disposition of city-owned property to
[1:03:49] the Cano Recreation and Park District of
[1:03:52] the following parcels. APN's 525-053-115
[1:03:59] 525-53-175
[1:04:06] 053-195
[1:04:08] 525-
[1:04:11] 060-85
[1:04:14] 525-
[1:04:16] Z-60-
[1:04:19] 095
[1:04:21] 20 525-
[1:04:23] - 060-115
[1:04:26] 525-
[1:04:28] 060-125
[1:04:30] and 525-
[1:04:33] 060-135
[1:04:35] is consistent with the Thousand Oaks
[1:04:37] 2045 general plan pursuant to government
[1:04:40] code section number 65402
[1:04:43] and number three recommend that the city
[1:04:46] council adopt an ordinance for proving
[1:04:48] developmental agreement DAGR-2025
[1:04:52] 5-70004
[1:04:54] establishing the city's agreement not to
[1:04:57] not change the existing zoning and
[1:04:59] general plan designations of the
[1:05:01] property without owner's consent for 30
[1:05:04] years from the date of execution.
[1:05:09] » Well done.
[1:05:10] >> That was the longest one I've ever read.
[1:05:13] » That was the longest one I've ever read.
[1:05:14] >> I I don't think you beat the secretary,
[1:05:15] » I I don't think you beat the secretary,
[1:05:15] though. I mean, I think that she she
[1:05:17] does a a an amazing job. Uh, any
[1:05:21] comments on the motion? Vice Chair Tyler
[1:05:24] Kat,
[1:05:25] >> I I appreciate what what Jim had said
[1:05:28] » I I appreciate what what Jim had said
[1:05:28] about the fact that that preservation is
[1:05:30] in your DNA and and for me coming in, I
[1:05:33] did have some of those concerns, some of
[1:05:35] the landmark status concerns for sure.
[1:05:37] Um, I do like that that that CRPD has
[1:05:40] been talking to Mr. Maple, who is
[1:05:42] basically our city historian,
[1:05:45] DevTo, city historian, and and kind of
[1:05:48] the keeper of the wisdom and and I
[1:05:51] appreciate that you guys see that and
[1:05:52] that that's something and based on what
[1:05:56] what staff has told us tonight and what
[1:05:58] the city attorney's office has indicated
[1:06:00] to us in terms of that, you know, that
[1:06:04] that landmark status is there. I I was
[1:06:06] concerned, Mick, that that we didn't
[1:06:08] have that really called out, but I do
[1:06:10] feel comfortable that it is called out
[1:06:13] enough in the general plan and that you
[1:06:14] guys understand that that that's
[1:06:16] something that you you you care for and
[1:06:18] and we get it that you know, some of
[1:06:20] this is going to have to be sold, but
[1:06:23] you you know, my biggest concern was
[1:06:25] that property itself was was the
[1:06:27] building itself. And so, for that
[1:06:28] reason, I'll support the motion.
[1:06:31] >> Thank you. Any other comments?
[1:06:34] » Thank you. Any other comments?
[1:06:34] Commissioner Bus,
[1:06:34] >> I just want to clarify the intention is
[1:06:37] » I just want to clarify the intention is
[1:06:37] not to sell any of the property unless
[1:06:40] fiscally that's that's like the last
[1:06:42] resort like sell the farm like you said.
[1:06:44] So because I know one of the concerns
[1:06:46] had been because we do have to have so
[1:06:48] much development is having the open
[1:06:50] spaces. So that's not on the table
[1:06:53] legitimately, right?
[1:06:56] >> Uh hold on. If we if we entertain this
[1:06:59] » Uh hold on. If we if we entertain this
[1:06:59] will uh Mr. Fedel will have to open up
[1:07:01] the public hearing again.
[1:07:02] >> Okay. Um, well then
[1:07:04] » Okay. Um, well then
[1:07:04] >> do do you want do you do you want to
[1:07:06] » do do you want do you do you want to
[1:07:06] comment
[1:07:06] >> based on uh Commissioner uh Hut's
[1:07:09] » based on uh Commissioner uh Hut's
[1:07:09] comments. Um
[1:07:11] >> I think I misspoke. I didn't mean I
[1:07:13] » I think I misspoke. I didn't mean I
[1:07:13] didn't mean sell. I mean develop. I
[1:07:15] meant develop. So yeah, I misspoke.
[1:07:17] >> Okay. That's just what I wanted to
[1:07:18] » Okay. That's just what I wanted to
[1:07:18] clarify.
[1:07:21] >> Okay. All right.
[1:07:23] » Okay. All right.
[1:07:23] >> Okay. Um
[1:07:27] » Okay. Um
[1:07:27] Mr. City attorney.
[1:07:28] >> Yeah. I have two things. I mean you're
[1:07:30] » Yeah. I have two things. I mean you're
[1:07:30] correct. if we if we want to solicit
[1:07:32] additional input from the public that
[1:07:34] we'd have to reopen the public hearing.
[1:07:37] I mean, what I will say is that the
[1:07:39] intent of the deal is is for the parks
[1:07:42] district to continue using the property
[1:07:45] as they've been doing and for there not
[1:07:47] to be additional development. Is that
[1:07:49] the
[1:07:50] >> That's my understanding. I just want to
[1:07:52] » That's my understanding. I just want to
[1:07:52] clarify that cuz um
[1:07:55] anyone watching if it's thought that
[1:07:57] there may be development in the near
[1:07:59] future then that kind of is different
[1:08:03] than what I understood it to be. So I
[1:08:06] understand what you state know to be the
[1:08:08] the case.
[1:08:11] >> Okay.
[1:08:13] » Okay.
[1:08:13] >> Uh thank you. Uh uh I I would I would
[1:08:17] » Uh thank you. Uh uh I I would I would
[1:08:17] still like to ask my fellow
[1:08:19] commissioners if they would be willing
[1:08:21] to entertain an slight amendment to the
[1:08:24] motion in the resolution which would
[1:08:27] only add the the following phrase and
[1:08:31] recognizes that city landmark number 10
[1:08:34] Hillrest Center is on the property.
[1:08:37] Doesn't change the findings. It doesn't
[1:08:39] change which elements of the general
[1:08:41] plan were identifying it to be
[1:08:43] consistent with. It is merely a phrase
[1:08:46] which calls out that it is on the
[1:08:48] property which our general plan states
[1:08:50] it does should have no effect on this
[1:08:53] and I would ask to amend specifically I
[1:08:58] would move to amend the motion to
[1:09:01] include let me let me just ask first
[1:09:04] would you be willing to include it? If
[1:09:06] not, I would ask the commission to vote
[1:09:08] on it.
[1:09:09] >> Um, before I I do that, I want to have
[1:09:12] » Um, before I I do that, I want to have
[1:09:12] it the opinion from our city attorney.
[1:09:20] This is the
[1:09:44] property is specifically defined.
[1:09:58] and it would be in
[1:10:00] this part here.
[1:10:16] Just add it.
[1:10:18] >> Yeah. Right in here.
[1:10:21] » Yeah. Right in here.
[1:10:21] As the proposed sale preserves blah blah
[1:10:23] blah project is consistent with exactly
[1:10:26] the same elements that's been described
[1:10:28] by
[1:10:38] changes nothing of the other other
[1:10:53] » Yeah. I mean, again, I I don't think
[1:10:55] it's necessary to include that language
[1:10:57] in there, but I mean, I don't think that
[1:10:59] there's anything prohibiting you from
[1:11:01] adding that language in there.
[1:11:03] >> Do you you don't believe it also change
[1:11:05] » Do you you don't believe it also change
[1:11:05] the effect of of the resolution?
[1:11:08] That's what I'm trying to do is not to
[1:11:10] affect it, just to call out something
[1:11:12] that is in the general plan. We're just
[1:11:14] stating it.
[1:11:15] >> So, I guess I'm So, I mean, what's the
[1:11:18] » So, I guess I'm So, I mean, what's the
[1:11:18] what is the purpose of adding it then?
[1:11:21] because it would be in the resolution.
[1:11:26] Okay.
[1:11:28] I mean I again I don't I mean you can
[1:11:31] add the language in there. I mean it's
[1:11:33] your resolution. You can add it. I mean
[1:11:34] I don't
[1:11:36] I mean I wouldn't say that it doesn't do
[1:11:38] anything to the resolution unless you're
[1:11:40] adding the language. But
[1:11:42] >> again
[1:11:45] I I don't I don't understand the the
[1:11:47] purpose of it. But you can add it in
[1:11:49] there.
[1:11:51] Okay. For me, the purpose is there's
[1:11:53] nothing in the current resolution that
[1:11:55] states the fact that there is a city
[1:11:56] landmark on this property. This would at
[1:11:59] least recognize overtly that there is
[1:12:01] one,
[1:12:01] >> right?
[1:12:02] » right?
[1:12:02] >> But there is a I mean, there is a
[1:12:04] » But there is a I mean, there is a
[1:12:04] resolution from the city that identifies
[1:12:06] it as a landmark. So, I mean, it's
[1:12:08] >> right, but we had to go and find it.
[1:12:10] » right, but we had to go and find it.
[1:12:10] It's in 1997. It's in city records. This
[1:12:13] would highlight very clearly in the
[1:12:15] disposition agreement that or the in the
[1:12:18] disposition decision the city council
[1:12:19] will make that the planning commission
[1:12:22] recognizes that there is a city landmark
[1:12:25] on the property.
[1:12:28] I mean sure it'll be in the in the
[1:12:30] resolution regarding the the finding of
[1:12:34] consistency with the general plan.
[1:12:37] >> Right. That's what
[1:12:38] » Right. That's what
[1:12:38] >> I'm sorry. Say that again.
[1:12:40] » I'm sorry. Say that again.
[1:12:40] You want to add that language into the
[1:12:42] resolution
[1:12:43] as it as it applies to the finding of
[1:12:45] consistency with the general plan,
[1:12:47] >> right? But the lang the phrase itself
[1:12:49] » right? But the lang the phrase itself
[1:12:49] has no effect except to state that it is
[1:12:52] is recognizes that it's a city landmark.
[1:12:54] It doesn't change the elements through
[1:12:56] which staff has recommended that it's
[1:12:58] consistent with the general plan.
[1:13:02] You've highlighted the governance and
[1:13:03] land use elements.
[1:13:06] >> Yeah. No, I agree with that. I mean, I I
[1:13:08] » Yeah. No, I agree with that. I mean, I I
[1:13:08] don't think it changes the the fact that
[1:13:10] it's consistent with the general plan.
[1:13:12] >> So, that would that would be my my
[1:13:15] » So, that would that would be my my
[1:13:15] request is to have that changed so that
[1:13:18] it is stated and when someone reads it,
[1:13:21] they they know that we we recognize that
[1:13:28] » I'm feeling that this is a win-win. Park
[1:13:33] and Recreck Department was on the same
[1:13:36] page with our city staff. They worked
[1:13:38] really hard together to draft this revol
[1:13:41] resolution.
[1:13:42] And who are we to add something to it
[1:13:46] that doesn't change it? I I'm going to
[1:13:51] not um change my motion. And if you guys
[1:13:56] want to vote on that, that's fine.
[1:13:57] >> Okay. Then I then I would like to amend
[1:14:01] » Okay. Then I then I would like to amend
[1:14:01] Oh. Vice Chair Tyler Kat.
[1:14:04] >> Okay, I'm I'm not putting my lawyer hat
[1:14:06] » Okay, I'm I'm not putting my lawyer hat
[1:14:06] on here and I could be completely off
[1:14:08] base on this um because I did a little
[1:14:10] bit of research. This this was a
[1:14:12] relatively complicated issue I thought
[1:14:14] today because I did a lot of research. I
[1:14:16] think maybe by adding that language we
[1:14:18] say that it's inoc innocuous. Maybe it
[1:14:21] avoids a sequence. So, when we're
[1:14:23] talking about future development,
[1:14:24] development down the road, maybe it
[1:14:26] avoids a sequence challenge because, and
[1:14:30] I'm going to read I'm going to read
[1:14:31] this. I'm not going to I'm not going to
[1:14:32] adlib this. Because the proposed
[1:14:34] acquisition is a discretionary action
[1:14:37] that could result in irreversible
[1:14:38] impacts. Squa requires that the city
[1:14:40] evaluate the building's historic
[1:14:42] resource status and consider feasible
[1:14:45] preservation alternatives prior to
[1:14:46] approval. So again, perhaps what we're
[1:14:51] doing is we're just kind of cutting it
[1:14:52] off it its knees down the road for a SQA
[1:14:55] challenge because we have considered its
[1:14:57] historic status as we sit here today
[1:14:59] with language that's relatively
[1:15:00] innocuous. That was a tortured way of
[1:15:03] getting to that.
[1:15:06] >> Yeah, I don't think that this resolution
[1:15:08] » Yeah, I don't think that this resolution
[1:15:08] is going to have any impact on any kind
[1:15:10] of SQA evaluation.
[1:15:12] >> Okay.
[1:15:12] » Okay.
[1:15:12] >> I mean it's I mean it's going to have no
[1:15:14] » I mean it's I mean it's going to have no
[1:15:14] impact on any challenge.
[1:15:16] I would still support the language.
[1:15:20] >> Thank you. Um gi given that I'm going to
[1:15:23] » Thank you. Um gi given that I'm going to
[1:15:23] ask that I move to amend the motion such
[1:15:26] that section two
[1:15:29] of the resolution
[1:15:33] which starts with the paragraph as the
[1:15:37] proposed sale.
[1:15:39] uh to have that have that read as the
[1:15:42] proposed sale preserves the existing
[1:15:45] land use designations of open space
[1:15:47] commercial and mixed use.
[1:15:50] Here's the additional language and
[1:15:52] recognizes that city landmark number 10
[1:15:55] Hillrest Center is on the property.
[1:16:00] That's the amended language. The project
[1:16:02] is consistent with the goals and
[1:16:03] policies described within the
[1:16:05] governance, land use, and parks and open
[1:16:07] space elements of the general plan.
[1:16:09] These include the following and the
[1:16:12] following thing would be so that that
[1:16:14] additional phrasing is the only
[1:16:16] additional language.
[1:16:17] >> Would you mind repeating that please?
[1:16:19] » Would you mind repeating that please?
[1:16:19] >> Uh, sure. So motion would be to amend
[1:16:22] » Uh, sure. So motion would be to amend
[1:16:22] the the the resolution in the motion
[1:16:25] >> such that uh the second paragraph of
[1:16:27] » such that uh the second paragraph of
[1:16:28] section two reads
[1:16:31] as the proposed sale preserves the
[1:16:33] existing land use designations of open
[1:16:36] space commercial and mixed use and
[1:16:40] recognizes that city landmark number 10
[1:16:43] Hillrest Center is on the property.
[1:16:47] The project is consistent with the goals
[1:16:49] and policies described within the
[1:16:51] governance, land use, and parks and open
[1:16:53] space elements of the general plan.
[1:16:55] These include the following. That's the
[1:16:58] way it would read. Um, and that's the
[1:17:00] only the only change. Is there any uh
[1:17:03] comments on the amended motion? No.
[1:17:06] Uh, if not, let's uh have a vote on the
[1:17:09] amendment.
[1:17:12] » So, just point of clarification. So the
[1:17:14] the vote is to
[1:17:19] add the amendment to the existing
[1:17:21] motion. Correct. In the resolution, the
[1:17:24] PC resolution. So whether to add that
[1:17:26] language into the existing motion that's
[1:17:28] on the table. That's correct.
[1:17:35] » Commissioner Bus.
[1:17:37] >> Yes.
[1:17:39] » Yes.
[1:17:39] >> Commissioner Tyler Kettle Hut.
[1:17:41] » Commissioner Tyler Kettle Hut.
[1:17:41] >> Yes.
[1:17:42] » Yes.
[1:17:42] >> Commissioner McMahon.
[1:17:44] » Commissioner McMahon.
[1:17:44] You've talked me into it. Yes,
[1:17:47] >> Chair Ferris.
[1:17:48] » Chair Ferris.
[1:17:48] >> Yes.
[1:17:50] » Yes.
[1:17:50] >> The amendment passes 40. Commissioner
[1:17:52] » The amendment passes 40. Commissioner
[1:17:52] Lansen absent.
[1:17:54] >> Thank you. And I I want to thank my
[1:17:56] » Thank you. And I I want to thank my
[1:17:56] fellow commissioners for entertaining
[1:17:58] the discussion. Uh let us now go and
[1:18:00] discuss the amended motion. Uh are there
[1:18:03] any any last comments?
[1:18:07] U I will just say I I'm I I think Mr.
[1:18:10] Maple ended up uh mentioning this right.
[1:18:13] This really is, you've mentioned it's a
[1:18:15] win-win. I do think it is something to
[1:18:17] where this is public land donated to the
[1:18:19] city uh for public use. It is continued
[1:18:22] its public use through this disposition.
[1:18:24] It will continue its public use. Um and
[1:18:29] it is an amazing element of our our city
[1:18:32] and one that uh has historic meaning to
[1:18:37] it as well as continuing community
[1:18:39] involvement as as you know, Fireworks
[1:18:41] Hill. uh and and really something in the
[1:18:44] center of it. I I I'm very happy to
[1:18:46] support the motion and I'm very again
[1:18:48] thankful for the opportunity to
[1:18:50] recognize these important historic
[1:18:53] elements that the city has where I mean
[1:18:56] what where are we now is 60 how many
[1:18:59] years 62 coming up on and you know
[1:19:04] getting to a point where it's a century
[1:19:05] like we've been around for a while you
[1:19:07] know and I think it's nice that we're
[1:19:10] able to to do this and share it within
[1:19:12] our uh our U sisterly government
[1:19:16] agencies to be able to keep this uh
[1:19:18] preserved. So, any final questions or
[1:19:21] comments? Commissioner Bus.
[1:19:24] >> Um I agree with everything that's been
[1:19:26] » Um I agree with everything that's been
[1:19:26] said. Another thing that hasn't been
[1:19:28] touched on is that there's plays that go
[1:19:30] on at this center. You know, there's a
[1:19:32] art shows. So maintaining that as a
[1:19:35] space for that as well, which I know
[1:19:37] CRPD will do and has been doing um is is
[1:19:40] great for me because and the community
[1:19:43] because culturally, you know, to have
[1:19:45] where our children can put on these
[1:19:46] plays that are actually quite well done.
[1:19:48] I recommend going and seeing one. The
[1:19:50] writing's pretty funny for the age
[1:19:52] group. But yeah, so I'm very pleased
[1:19:54] that uh for the next 30 years at least,
[1:19:57] we hopefully will maintain this space.
[1:19:59] And I know that the the park setting
[1:20:01] will be maintained as well as trails
[1:20:03] because I know CRPD is big on that. So
[1:20:06] very happy that the city and CRPD were
[1:20:09] able to come to this. So
[1:20:12] >> final final options.
[1:20:15] » final final options.
[1:20:15] Let's go for a vote.
[1:20:18] >> Commissioner Bus,
[1:20:19] » Commissioner Bus,
[1:20:20] >> yes.
[1:20:20] » yes.
[1:20:20] >> Commissioner Tyler Kettlehhat,
[1:20:21] » Commissioner Tyler Kettlehhat,
[1:20:22] >> yes.
[1:20:22] » yes.
[1:20:22] >> Commissioner McMahon,
[1:20:23] » Commissioner McMahon,
[1:20:23] >> yes.
[1:20:24] » yes.
[1:20:24] >> Chair Ferris,
[1:20:25] » Chair Ferris,
[1:20:25] >> yes.
[1:20:26] » yes.
[1:20:26] >> Motion carries 40. Commissioner Lson
[1:20:29] » Motion carries 40. Commissioner Lson
[1:20:29] absent.
[1:20:29] >> All right. Thank you. Uh there's no
[1:20:31] » All right. Thank you. Uh there's no
[1:20:31] appeal period on this since it's going
[1:20:33] to the city council.
[1:20:35] Um thank you all. Uh let's now go to we
[1:20:39] don't have any department reports this
[1:20:41] evening. Um now's the time for
[1:20:42] commission comments and or any AB 1234
[1:20:45] reports. Are there any comments from
[1:20:47] fellow commissioners?
[1:20:50] No. Uh Miss Eliah Melicker, are there
[1:20:53] any follow-up items, announcements, or
[1:20:54] upcoming issues?
[1:20:56] >> Uh yes. Tomorrow evening, uh, city
[1:21:00] » Uh yes. Tomorrow evening, uh, city
[1:21:00] council will consider 40143
[1:21:03] Hillrest, uh,
[1:21:06] disposition and transfer of city- owned
[1:21:08] property that you just considered right
[1:21:10] now. a letter of public convenience or
[1:21:13] necessity from Department of Alcoholic
[1:21:15] Beverage Control for the sale of alcohol
[1:21:18] for consumption of site for one for a
[1:21:22] site at 2150 East Thousand Oaks
[1:21:25] Boulevard. January 27th, city council
[1:21:28] will have two department reports from
[1:21:30] us. There will be a community
[1:21:32] development department update and an
[1:21:35] initiation of a height overlay zone
[1:21:37] change and concurrent processing of
[1:21:40] entitlement to accommodate a
[1:21:42] contemplated rock climbing facility at
[1:21:44] 145 West Hillrest Drive.
[1:21:48] And on the consent calendar, there will
[1:21:50] be the first amendment to CSG consulting
[1:21:53] contract for environmental services for
[1:21:55] the downtown project.
[1:21:58] Uh upcoming planning commission items.
[1:22:00] We have on January 26, there will be two
[1:22:03] public hearings.
[1:22:05] One to allow for the operation of a
[1:22:07] religious assembly use within an
[1:22:09] existing industrial building and the
[1:22:12] alternating use of parking facilities
[1:22:14] located in the M1 industrial park zone
[1:22:18] and SP15 Ranchoko Industrial Park area.
[1:22:23] and one for an update to the accessory
[1:22:26] dwelling units and junior accessory
[1:22:30] dwelling units ordinance um as the state
[1:22:33] keeps changing the regulations. And
[1:22:35] that's all I have.
[1:22:38] >> Thank you and thank you all. We'll now
[1:22:41] » Thank you and thank you all. We'll now
[1:22:41] adjourn to the next meeting January 26,
[1:22:43] 2026 at 6 PM. Thank you.