[16:57] I mean, at this time, I'd like to call to order the planning commission meeting of January 12, 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.

[17:28] Will the secretary please call the roll? Commissioner Buss? President? Commissioner Lenson is absent. Commissioner McMahon? Here. Vice Chair Kettlehead? Here. Chair Ferris? Here. Tonight, we have with us Deputy Community Development Director Fabiola Saleh Malikar.

[17:46] Are there any written comments, announcements, or continuances at this time?

[17:51] Yes, we had a supplemental packet that has been distributed to the commission and

[17:56] posted containing information related to item number 7-8, the 401-403 Hillcrest development agreement.

[18:06] We

[18:47] have two extras.

[19:16] Thank you.

[19:18] Pardon the pause.

[19:20] Now's the time for public comments.

[19:22] At this time, any person may address the commission regarding the city planning matter that is not on the evening's agenda.

[19:28] Should the commission wish to discuss an issue raised by a member of the public, the issue will be referred to staff for scheduling on a future agenda.

[19:35] 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.

[19:45] Speakers remarks shall be addressed to the commission as a whole, not to any individual commissioner or staff member.

[19:51] Unless otherwise provided by the commission's speakers are limited to five minutes, the screen will show you the remaining time you have.

[19:57] Do we have any public comments?

[19:59] No.

[20:00] No. All right, let's go to the consent calendar.

[20:02] Next we have the consent calendar for the minutes of November 17, 2026 planning commission meeting.

[20:07] Do we have any fellow commissioners, have any comments or a motion to approve the consent calendar?

[20:14] I'll make the motion to approve.

[20:19] If not, can we prepare for a vote?

[20:22] Commissioner Buss.

[20:24] Yes.

[20:24] Commissioner Tyler Kettlehead.

[20:26] Yes.

[20:27] Commissioner McMahon.

[20:28] Yes.

[20:28] Chair Ferris.

[20:29] Abstain as I was not at the meeting of interest.

[20:32] Motion carries 3031 with commissioner.

[20:37] I'm sorry, Chair Ferris, abstaining.

[20:39] Abstain.

[20:40] Yes.

[20:40] Excellent.

[20:41] All right. Thank you. Now we'll open the hearing, case 7a. Will the clerk please open the public hearing?

[20:48] Hearing having been advertised as required by laws hereby open to consider agenda item 7a to consider

[20:53] a finding that the proposed disposition of city-owned property to the Kineho recreation and park district

[20:59] of the following parcels APNs 525-0-0-053-115525-0-0-0-0-0-3-195-25-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-6-0-0-85525-0-0-0-0-0-0-6-0-0-95

[21:28] 525-0-060-115-525-0-0-0-025 and 525-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-1-1 through 5 is consistent with the 1045 general plan

[21:43] pursuant to government code section 6542 and to consider a recommendation to counsel for adoption of an ordinance

[21:50] are proving development agreement D-A-G-R-2025-70004 establishing.

[21:57] The city's agreement not to change the existing zoning and general plan 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 yet pursuant to sections 1-5-061-B3 commonsense exception, 1-5-3-1-2 surplus government property sales and 1-5-3-2-5 transfers.

[22:19] of ownership of interest of land located at 401403,

[22:25] West Hill Press Drive,

[22:26] assessor's parcels numbers as previously stated,

[22:30] the applicant is the city of thousand notes.

[22:33] Excellent, thank you very much.

[22:36] Presenting on behalf of staff,

[22:37] senior planner, just in Kendall.

[22:40] Good evening, Chair Ferris, planning commissioners

[22:44] and members of the public.

[22:46] Tonight, we are here to present a request from the city related to the sale of land to the

[22:52] Kineho Recreation and Parks District. I am joined by city staff from the Community Development

[22:56] Department, City Attorney's Office, and City Manager's Office, who are available to answer any

[23:00] questions the commission may have.

[23:05] As Laurie just read the request before you this evening is summarized

[23:10] to find that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, to find that the proposed disposition

[23:16] of the city-owned property within specific plan 17 to the Canadian Recreation and Park District or CRPD is consistent with the Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan and to recommend that the city council adopt an ordinance approving the development agreement.

[23:35] Provided on your screen is a vicinity map of the area, the specific plan 17 area, and the subject properties

[23:43] depicting the subject site generally with red asterisks.

[23:51] The map shown now on your screen provides a closer aerial view of the area with the subject properties

[23:57] depicted within the red lines. The subject properties are again zoned specific plan 17

[24:03] with a portion of one of the properties noted with a purple star also zoned with the mixed

[24:10] use overlay zone. Those are existing zoning designations to be clear.

[24:18] All properties subject

[24:20] to the potential sale and development agreement are commonly referred to as 401 and 403 West

[24:26] Hill Crest Drive are designated as being within that specific plan at number 17, which was

[24:34] Approximately half of the SP-17 area has undergone site improvements, primarily within a 35-acre section of the site that includes development currently occupied by CRPD for its headquarters and the Hillcrest Center for the Arts.

[24:49] The other 27 of the acres of the site consist of a hill within the northerly and easily portions of the specific plan area just shown, which is more commonly known as fireworks hill.

[25:01] The land use designations that you see on your screen here, again just being clear, are

[25:08] the existing designations.

[25:13] During the negotiation for the sale of the subject properties CRPD requested that the

[25:18] existing zoning regulations and land use designations just described be preserved in their current

[25:25] state.

[25:27] As such, development agreement 2025-70004 is proposed to create a binding contract that the city will maintain those existing general planned land use designations and zoning designations as currently adopted and just described for 30 years.

[25:47] Should any changes to the land use or zoning designations be proposed 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.

[26:03] No physical development or change of use is proposed as part of the subject request.

[26:09] There is no physical changes, again proposed as part of tonight's request.

[26:14] The

[26:17] 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, more specifically the governance land use chapter and the parks and open space chapters.

[26:45] On this slide are a list of abbreviated description of the general plan 2045 goals and policies that demonstrate conformance with the proposed disposition and transfer of the subject properties.

[26:56] The full text of these goals and policies can be seen in tonight's staff report or in the Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045.

[27:03] accessible at the City website, t-o-a-k-s-t-0-4-5.org.

[27:16] And so, staff recommendation tonight is to, again, find that the project is categorically

[27:21] exempt from CEQA, to find that the proposed disposition of city-owned property to CRPD of

[27:30] the subject properties within specific plans 17 is consistent with the general plan, and

[27:35] to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the development agreement.

[27:44] I just want to note for the record as well that the resolution to be provided for signature

[27:49] will include the image shown here as the exhibit A mentioned on page one of that document.

[27:59] That concludes our presentation, staff, is available for any questions.

[28:14] Yes,

[28:20] I understand that this is actually a purchase from CRPD and I was curious about the amount that they are paying for the land.

[28:29] Thank

[28:34] you, Commissioner.

[28:34] The total amount of sales is $30.4 million.

[28:38] Okay, and it's also my understanding that that is going to be put in a pot for the new downtown plants.

[28:46] Is that correct?

[28:46] That'll be set aside and reserved earmarked for the downtown.

[28:49] Correct.

[28:50] Okay, thank you.

[28:52] Any comments from other commissioners?

[28:55] I have a question.

[28:58] And can you explain to me exempt surplus land?

[29:02] As I was going through the packet, I didn't really understand, I know that it was designated as that, but I want to understand how that process took place.

[29:10] I know City Council approved it.

[29:14] Thank you, Commissioner.

[29:16] Assistant City Attorney can handle that as well.

[29:19] Sure, so under state law, before a city can dispose of property, it needs to offer up the property to other agencies.

[29:29] agencies and affordable housing providers, unless there are certain exceptions that apply.

[29:36] And for purposes of the discussion this evening, there's an exemption for agency to agency

[29:42] transfers.

[29:44] So because it's exempt as an agency to agency transfer, you don't need to go through the

[29:51] pretty extensive process of making the property available to other agencies and affordable housing

[29:57] providers.

[29:58] Okay so it's basically

[30:00] It's a disposition thing. Correct. It's a box that the city needs to check before it can dispose of property, yes. Okay. And is that? Is that? Does that negate a sequel challenge? I know it was listed as one of the three categories or for negate, basically saying that it was not considered a sequel project, but does it automatically negate the exempt surplus automatically negate the sequel challenge?

[30:25] So there are separate things, but you will note that one of the sequa exemptions is for a transfer of surplus property.

[30:35] So that's a little different than the surplus lands act, but that is a basis for a sequa exemption, a category of exemption.

[30:43] Okay, okay.

[30:47] Any other questions?

[30:49] Yeah, please go ahead.

[30:51] So, kind of in that same vein in terms of dealing kind of with the sequestive, I want to know, what if any preservation alternatives or

[31:00] preservation measures like a preservation easement have been considered due to the building's landmark status?

[31:12] I'm sorry, could you repeat that question?

[31:15] Basically, I'm just trying to find out, was anything in the discussions that you guys had?

[31:20] Were there any discussions about because this has been landmarked by the city twice?

[31:24] I guess the buildings have been landmarked as well as some of the periphery of trees, I think.

[31:32] Did any of those measures consider, have you considered any kind of because of landmark status?

[31:39] And I realize that there's no development that's being proposed.

[31:42] I get that.

[31:44] But in terms of down the road, I mean, is there anything that is being done to preserve a preservation

[31:51] easement or something like that with respect to the landmark status?

[31:54] Were any of those things part of your discussions?

[32:01] No, because there's no development of any kind or changes to the regulatory framework

[32:09] for these properties of any kind proposed, that is not part of what was the husband discussed.

[32:16] Should anything related to changing either the regulatory framework or the uses allowed

[32:22] about or physical development within this property area be proposed.

[32:27] Any impacts to landmark status or anything else would be reviewed as required at that time.

[32:40] I was just going to add that if there was any discussion about altering a landmark,

[32:46] there's additional provisions in the municipal code that would require an additional certificate of appropriateness.

[32:52] That would be approved by the city for any changes.

[33:00] Any other questions?

[33:01] Nope, any?

[33:03] I did want to follow up a little bit on the aspect of the landmark status.

[33:07] So, and especially as it relates to what we have in front of us, which is general plan consistency finding.

[33:13] So, we did talk about it, can we confirm that the 401 Hillcrest building is in fact identified as a city landmark?

[33:21] by the Cultural Heritage Board is in our general plan as a city landmark.

[33:26] Is that correct?

[33:28] Yes.

[33:29] Okay.

[33:31] And in our conservation element, there's actually a goal and policy.

[33:39] Goal C-11 is to protect historical and culturally significant resources which contribute to the community sense of identity.

[33:47] Policy 11.7 is talked about resource stakeholder engagement, decisions pertaining to the disposition

[33:55] of archeological, paleontagial, paleontological, historical and cultural resources shall

[34:02] be made in concert with recognized public agencies, groups or individuals having

[34:06] jurisdiction, expertise or interest in these matters.

[34:09] And my question is, is that, wouldn't it be, especially given that we are asking about

[34:14] that disposition of historical resources should not we make a finding that such disposition is in fact consistent with this policy of the general plan.

[34:31] Yes, so what's being asked of the planning commission tonight is twofold, right?

[34:37] One is to evaluate the proposed development agreement and make a recommendation to the city council on that.

[34:44] The second item, which I think is what you're getting at, is that the Planning Commission is asked to make a finding that the project is consistent with the general plan.

[34:55] And what is in the proposed resolution are several policies and goals of the general plan to identify that yes, this project is consistent with that.

[35:06] I agree with you that what you just mentioned is, does also make it consistent with the general plan.

[35:16] I don't believe that it would be that were required to include another goal in there.

[35:22] I think the proposed resolution has enough in it to establish that the project is consistent.

[35:32] If I understand that view point, 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 over recognition that there is a city landmark on this property?

[35:47] Because when people go back to 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.

[35:57] And I think it's just critical that we highlight that, especially given that it is designated

[36:02] in our general plan as a City Landmark.

[36:04] My question would be, what can we do to highlight that as part of it, if not change the findings

[36:11] or resolutions to do that.

[36:13] So as we're going along and gaining more testimony, I would like to see what is possible.

[36:20] Any other questions of the commission, staff?

[36:25] Okay.

[36:26] Great.

[36:26] Let's now we will go to public comments, we actually do have two public speakers, each speaker will get five minutes, and if you could state your name and city residents, first will be Marsha Boy,

[36:45] Well, by William Able, you could come down.

[36:53] Generally, we need to have you on the mic so that we're able to have it on the broadcast.

[37:01] Is it possible do we have a wireless mic?

[37:04] Is there something that we could potentially accommodate?

[37:23] Thank you.

[37:24] I'm Mercy Boy, I live over an open all, and I didn't know anything about this project until we received a letter a couple of weeks ago.

[37:30] So I came here tonight because I was curious at what was going on.

[37:35] I'm very impressed with what I found out.

[37:38] I do have a couple of questions.

[37:40] One is, are my taxes involved?

[37:42] We're going from the recreation, which is ours, to the city, which is ours.

[37:50] How does that transfer $30 million?

[37:53] dollars. I don't understand though. Is it a bond that you give to each other or what do you do?

[38:05] Staff can probably answer that at some point after the comments.

[38:12] Nobody knows how to handle the money. We'll answer your questions at the end.

[38:17] We'll answer all your questions at the after your comments are concluded.

[38:20] Okay, and it's hard for me to tell what the pictures are up there.

[38:27] I'm assuming that they want to buy the open space and their own property.

[38:33] They're not interested in all the commercial stuff that's over there off Wilmer.

[38:37] Okay, because that was a confusion.

[38:39] Thank you, I'm very impressed.

[38:41] I thank you.

[38:44] Next is William Maple.

[38:54] William April, resident, Newbury Park, Good evening planners, Inc. missioners, before you

[39:03] tonight, does history matter? And you sure wouldn't think so if you look at our city's

[39:11] website, they've taken down all the list of our landmarks. You won't find that on there

[39:15] anymore. And you won't hear it in the appraisal discussion or much that's coming before you

[39:21] right now. You know, history doesn't seem to be part of it. Landmark is rarely mentioned

[39:25] in any of the documents. It won't specify what area is a landmark.

[39:33] You also, if you wanted to attend a public cultural heritage board meeting, one hasn't

[39:39] happened in 20 years. We don't have public hearings. And that should have happened before

[39:45] tonight about this building.

[39:50] That's kind of a dereliction of duty. Why am I here? I have

[39:56] an amazing view of Fireworks Hill and the Civic Arts Plaza for my front yard. The old

[40:02] city hall, I used to mow my lawn and look at this strange building, didn't know what it was,

[40:07] went over there and found it abandoned. I mean, there were trees through the windows, ramps for

[40:14] middle beer and couches and everything. I made a professional video at the time and

[40:21] brought it in and presented it right here on this board. Probably 29 years ago it took two

[40:26] years to fight to make it a landmark. We're fighting City Hall to preserve the first built city all.

[40:34] Not a fun process by any means, but the city residents won and they preserved it and it's something

[40:41] important to be able to compare where we were and what we thought was important to where

[40:47] we are now and what we're funding and how we're funding it.

[40:51] So that building was a million dollars.

[40:53] It was paid for right off, you know, as it was done and CRPD paid half of that.

[40:59] So it's amazing to tell that a lot of people and you don't see it, you know, explained

[41:03] on the building there.

[41:06] I developed museum exhibits within landmark buildings throughout the country for 40 plus years working through national park service, bureau land management, lots and lots of laws and regulations of what I can do where and how in these buildings.

[41:22] So I have a sense of what you should be doing and I have also served on the cultural heritage

[41:28] board for the county where they really take their meeting serious.

[41:32] They know their staff, you know, they love their community and they fight to preserve what

[41:38] separates them from the strip of 101 that's generic, you know, what makes Canadian, a Canadian

[41:47] of Alley unique, and they're proactive.

[41:50] Before something's in jeopardy

[41:52] and about to be torn down or in neglect, they act.

[41:56] They have meetings and they proactively list

[41:58] what's important and we go out and research it.

[42:01] Using the criteria of the SQL to evaluate that.

[42:06] So what are landmarks?

[42:09] It's not just something old.

[42:11] 50 years old is kind of a benchmark,

[42:12] Mark, but also did any significant events happen at that site?

[42:19] You know, was it a unique structure?

[42:21] Did any personality or person of the community do something there?

[42:26] This building met all of that criteria.

[42:28] It was a unanimous yes vote to make it a landmark.

[42:31] And there are many in the ad hoc committee that adverts cereal.

[42:36] They want the money with that site.

[42:39] You know, they want to develop this place with that money.

[42:42] And so we're repeating history in a way.

[42:47] The landmark has namesake trees on it and other elements.

[42:51] There are two POW trees that were dedicated at the time.

[42:54] One died because the building was neglected.

[42:57] It was supposed to be taken care of while it was abandoned.

[43:00] And I would argue that that was abandoned for demolition by neglect.

[43:05] That you get an estimate you find out while it's going to cost more to fix this building than to just outright level it.

[43:12] and sell it, and thankfully they didn't go that way.

[43:17] With all that said, I believe the selling of this landmark to our park and wreck department

[43:24] is an amazing idea.

[43:25] It takes off so many wonderful bits of criteria, serves the public.

[43:31] It's a unique foundational moment where everyone wins, but I argue with a price tag.

[43:37] you know, if the land was donated and it was by the Jantz family for free, why would you charge

[43:44] for it? You know, that's if I gave my son, you know, a car I worked on for 50 years and he

[43:50] sold it. You know, it was a gift, you know, it's just crazy in that you're selling it to another

[43:57] community entity that's serving us. They also donated half the funds to build it. So I really argue

[44:04] the $30 million is way overpriced today, I would please consider having a cultural heritage board meeting for the public before any more decisions are made and charging a lot less for that property, thank you.

[44:20] Mr. Maple, actually, if you could say I did have some additional questions for you, so first of all, I'm just going to say you and I, we've talked over the years, I just want thank you for your service.

[44:32] especially in this particular area of really preserving the history of the city and how you've been involved in it.

[44:38] So you were describing kind of the effort to preserve 401 Hillcrest as a city landmark and

[44:43] the Culture Heritage Board resolution described some of the specific elements that were important.

[44:50] I'm just going to read them off.

[44:51] Can you opine maybe a little bit about what then after I read them off here?

[44:55] It just says that the designation historical landmark status shall apply to the exterior.

[45:00] Superior walls, facades an 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 addition to the exterior of the civic center buildings are appropriate as long as they are architecturally compatible there by preserving the design integrity of the original structures. Can you open us a why those particular things were called out for this particular building?

[45:29] And I may preservation snob, you know, it's like rebuilding a car, you know, a historic car.

[45:37] You put the proper parts on it.

[45:38] You do that.

[45:39] I would have had a fit about the elevators, you know.

[45:42] There's a lot of ways, a grandfather, how that's done rather than break the horizontal line.

[45:47] It was so critical to the design.

[45:50] The design had parking on the roof so that 70% of the open space could be viewed, could be

[45:55] left that way because that's how it was a metaphor for how they saw this community being developed.

[46:01] What you do inside wasn't all that unique, and Lord, thank you that it was a concrete building.

[46:07] You couldn't destroy it more than what it was in the years and years that it was abandoned.

[46:13] One of the POW trees died and unfortunately that gentleman did die.

[46:18] One of them is preserved and still standing today.

[46:20] I would like to see better plaques up there.

[46:22] The woman who was, I'm sorry, not knowing her name right off hand, was instrumental in naming the city thousand oaks her trees up there, you know, the events that happened, you know, what, what was it?

[46:34] 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.

[46:45] It should be preserved so that you can compare and contrast.

[46:49] This is what we thought was important for this community, how we saw open space, how

[46:54] we saw development compared to the density and the money that's spent at this site.

[47:00] You know, you don't know that this is odd if you don't look at what we were and that's

[47:07] what I'm hoping to preserve.

[47:08] And the open space around it, I would argue, is instrumental to why it was chosen out

[47:14] 54 different architectural competition boards that fill the entire gym at the Thousand Oak City Hall.

[47:24] You know, and Yale Harvard architect, you know, we're looking through all these and pick this unique design of the environmental movement of that time.

[47:33] This is the only one around here. Think of all Ventura County or even Southern California. How many buildings can you name that are similar to that?

[47:40] Maybe the GT building, I don't know what it is now, you know, backster, but, you know, they probably stole that design and made movies within that, too.

[47:49] So preserving the outside, but I think just as important as our community finds all our open space critical.

[47:56] I think all the land around that, especially the view shed of looking at the community because the windows were out here.

[48:02] When you were serving behind that board, you would look at the community and anticipate how would my vote

[48:10] to impact what I'm seeing outside there.

[48:12] And that was part of the design element, sorry, run off.

[48:17] No, thank you.

[48:18] Is there any other questions?

[48:20] Vice Chair, Tyler.

[48:21] Just a quick question.

[48:22] So as I understand, as you've described it, landmark status isn't just for

[48:27] architecturally significant properties.

[48:28] It also relates to the cultural resources, is that correct?

[48:32] It does, but it depends on who your board is.

[48:35] Unfortunately, our city council is our cultural heritage board.

[48:39] And their training and expertise on CEQA preservation standards is not top of the line.

[48:48] Okay, thank you.

[48:49] Thanks, any other question?

[48:51] No, thank you.

[48:53] And we do have from the Park District, Jim Friedle, for questions only, does there are any questions

[49:00] that you had?

[49:01] I was wondering if you'd be willing to come up, I did have a quick question.

[49:05] You just name a city residence if you're okay.

[49:07] Yeah, hi, I'm Jim Friedle. I'm the general manager of the Canadian Reckon Park District and actually having heard some

[49:14] Comments I wouldn't mind making a few of my own after your questions or well

[49:18] I think the main question is just we've had a significant discussion about the building itself being a city landmark and and such and some of the additional

[49:26] Restrictions that might be on it if if there's ever a time in which the park district would want to see or make any modification

[49:33] Are you do you recognize that and that's a one of the things?

[49:36] I mean, are you aware of that?

[49:38] I guess I see.

[49:38] Yeah, we're aware of the city having considered and made a designation about the historical status

[49:45] of the structure.

[49:46] We're aware of that.

[49:47] Okay.

[49:49] In fact, one of the things I was going to share is that part of our responsibility and

[49:53] job in the community is, you know, parks, rec, and open space.

[49:57] That's our primary mission.

[49:58] But in that mission, we now are the stewards of the McCray Ranch, which has the oldest structure

[50:05] in all of Thousand Oaks, actually Crowley House is the oldest structure in all of Thousand Oaks.

[50:10] That's ours too.

[50:11] That's 1910 McCray Ranch has a 1925 building.

[50:15] And then the Stagecoach Inn, of course, our Canoe Valley Historic Society is in our building there at the Stagecoach Inn.

[50:21] So that's part of our DNA is protecting and preserving our history, our local heritage, and our historical assets.

[50:31] That's when it comes to 401403, 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 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

[51:01] As we look at the areas of opportunity as the city

[51:06] referred to them throughout the general pran process, we know there is going to be a lot more multi-family mixed-use housing

[51:12] in areas that it wasn't originally considered when the city thought of the city.

[51:19] You know, we separated land uses and I think mixed use is actually the way to go.

[51:23] It's how a lot of communities are, but now that we are going there, we need to provide park land space

[51:28] in close geographic proximity to where people will live.

[51:32] So the 68ers that make up the hill are really important to us,

[51:39] and more importantly to all the residents existing there,

[51:42] but all of the literally thousands of units that could be built right next to

[51:47] there in a short half a mile walking distance to the property.

[51:51] So that was our thinking not what might we do to change the buildings.

[51:55] In fact, again, we don't have the money to change

[51:58] change the buildings, but we want to stay there just how it is and how we've been there for the last 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 with very comparable similar community use probably some reservable big community meeting rooms.

[52:25] Because we might move some of our recunits into that building that are too cramped in other locations but we don't see any notable physical changes and frankly don't have any.

[52:38] 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.

[52:46] There's a cash and financing and it's all spelled out in a staff report that we're doing for our board.

[52:51] So it's online now at our website, but I mentioned, because somebody had brought up the tax question, so we're two totally separate entities, city of 1000 Oaks and CRPD, we have, our income is primarily six 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 six cents of that property tax dollar.

[53:17] And we do the park system that we do.

[53:21] But one of the other things we get are developer fees when the developers build.

[53:26] So we get about $12,800 a unit for every unit that's built.

[53:31] So if you imagine 2,000 units happening between the Oaks and the Jansk Marketplace.

[53:37] You got $24 million right there.

[53:39] That helps pay for the loan that we have on the property.

[53:44] and the improvements to the park space that we can imagine.

[53:49] If you haven't been to the top of fireworks hill, walk up there right now.

[53:52] If you're listening to my voice, go check out the top of fireworks hill if you've never done it.

[53:56] The view is just bonkers, it is spectacular.

[54:00] And in the current plans, the current specific plan 17, the general plan,

[54:07] it has been envisioned for a park up there.

[54:10] So yeah, we probably aren't going to be driving cars up to the top of the hill,

[54:13] but there are improvements that can make it more people-friendly up top and pathways to get there that kind of thing, and that's our business, park and

[54:22] rec 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 in a

[54:28] public input process. But we're really stoked, no taxes, your taxes aren't changing, we're not asking for a revenue measure, or anything like that.

[54:39] 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 this very thing, property acquisition and improvement, and the other will come, you know, we'll get it immediately from some sort of, you know, loan of some kind.

[55:03] But we hope that as projects do get approved nearby, the oak's chance, that kind of thing that will be able to allocate some of those developer fees toward that and pay off that loan faster.

[55:16] I think I touched on everything I heard and wanted to talk about, but happy to answer any other questions as well.

[55:22] And because I might not get another chance, I really wanted to thank staff.

[55:27] Akbar and the team and the city manager's office, of course, and the planning staff, everybody that has been involved, City Attorney's Office, it's really great to work with partners like the City of Thousand Oaks, and 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?

[55:49] And we're kind of respecting and preserving the past.

[55:52] I think that those two things are really important together and I just think all of this at the end of the day will be looked at as a win-win-win-win, 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

[56:08] you know, what the city is going to do here, there's some park like amenities going in that we wouldn't ever be able to afford to do that they're planning on doing, which we're really excited about, so to the extent some of our money is allocated to that kind of thing, great.

[56:23] Yeah, thanks.

[56:24] I was going to say, you probably got more than five minutes.

[56:27] That's the sneaky way to get more of it.

[56:30] No, no, no, no.

[56:31] I just want to work with it.

[56:32] It's actually, but it's perfect.

[56:33] Honestly, this is a great discussion.

[56:35] I'm glad to hear your points of view about what to do.

[56:39] I'm assuming that you've, I mean, you're not the applicant

[56:42] or anything like that, but I'm assuming the terms under which

[56:45] all of this is happening through the DA and the resolution

[56:47] are probably in line with what the park district is.

[56:51] Yes, yes, yeah, we've had a chance to literally negotiate it the development agreement is actually a vehicle

[56:57] 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

[57:03] Developer does hey, I got this plan. I want to build some Mars is if everything goes wrong

[57:08] And we have to do a financial bailout and literally sell you know sell the farm

[57:13] That's the farm we're selling

[57:15] I don't know what would be really clear like, I don't want the discussion we've got here isn't to get in the way of anything that we've done there, but we have recognize there is a city landmark if the staff is able to come up with language just to heighten the recognition of it, but does not get in the way of that, is that, is that something 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 believe that was called by the city's landmark status and so we're very comfortable with it.

[57:45] But I don't have authority to, and it's not something negotiated or anything.

[57:50] What we do understand, there's a historical nature to it, and I've talked to Mr.

[57:55] Maple over the years, we get it, and I've stood in his front yard too, and it's a magnificent view of the health.

[58:01] Okay, perfect, thank you.

[58:03] Are there any questions, Secretary, Commissioner Buss?

[58:06] I'm not sure, Jim or staff, can someone speak to how the property was valued?

[58:13] like how we came up with the-

[58:15] Do you want to do it?

[58:18] I didn't appraisal.

[58:22] So yes, Mr. Friedle's correct, we both agencies independently conducted their own appraisals.

[58:28] Myself and our finance director, Jamie Boscarino, met with Mr. Mooney, Mr. Friedle back in October.

[58:33] We compared notes and where we landed was essentially kind of the fair market value that was assigned by both appraisals.

[58:41] I had a Venn diagram and there was a place where we both met so it made actually it ended up being pretty easy that way.

[58:49] And do you have any idea if the property were to be put, and you said fair market value so you're saying that you're confident that that property was sell to a developer for 30 million.

[59:01] Correct.

[59:02] Under the existing land use designations, correct?

[59:05] I

[59:08] just, 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 the economics of all of it as well and one of the way we viewed it is we definitely were looking to add square footage for community indoor community center space and we've been researching it and it's a, it's a, it's a thousand bucks a foot to build new construction.

[59:36] in government level quality buildings.

[59:40] So we're getting 55,000 square feet here.

[59:44] I don't want to say we got a good deal, but I feel like we got a good deal, a fair deal.

[59:52] Any other questions, comments?

[59:55] Thanks so much, appreciate it.

[59:58] And that is it.

[1:00:00] For the public comments, we now go back to staff for follow-up comments.

[1:00:11] I think Mr. Prudle really said everything that I was going to cover. I would just like to re-emphasize that any proposal for anything in the future would have to go through the proper procedures to get that certificate of appropriateness if any changes were to be proposed to the façade or any of the other protected or designated elements of the site.

[1:00:33] And, of course, be reviewed for conformance with CEQA and consistency with the general plan,

[1:00:38] which again, as you noted, calls out this area as a landmark, so just want to re-emphasize

[1:00:46] that all of those protections that are in place today remain in place and are completely unchanged

[1:00:51] from whatever the procedure is now would remain the same.

[1:00:56] Any questions of staff?

[1:01:01] I just want to, is there any ideas from staff about somehow identifying in the youth and in the resolution to at least heighten the fact that there is a city landmark on here?

[1:01:13] 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,

[1:01:23] shall be made in concert with these and we're not recognizing that as a policy that we are

[1:01:31] agreeing to say this disposition is consistent with.

[1:01:35] Is there any way we can at least recognize in the resolution that we are providing to

[1:01:40] council?

[1:01:45] I'm just kind of surprised we're not willing to state it.

[1:01:50] Yes, commissioner

[1:01:51] 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.

[1:02:03] And I think that having it in the general plan as a landmark property is plenty in my personal opinion.

[1:02:13] Okay. Thank you. Just as a counter, it's in the general plan.

[1:02:19] We have a policy with respect to disposition of historical resources.

[1:02:23] We are the body required to find general plan consistency and we're just saying words

[1:02:30] and not putting it into our official actions.

[1:02:33] So that's the reason why I'm bringing it up as a point of comment.

[1:02:38] Any questions?

[1:02:40] Still from city from from staff just

[1:02:49] double check.

[1:02:52] Do we have any this is the city is the applicant?

[1:02:55] There's no rebuttal in this particular case, right?

[1:02:58] Okay, if not, any final questions of staff, then we'll close the public hearing and

[1:03:06] entertain discussion in a remotion.

[1:03:16] Commissioner McMahon.

[1:03:17] Okay, let's see, I move that we find that the project is categorically exempt from the California

[1:03:27] Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061B3, Common Sense Exception, Section 15312,

[1:03:38] surplus government property sales, and Section 15325 transfers of ownership of interest of land.

[1:03:46] Find that the proposed disposition of city and property to the Canal Recreation and Park District of the following parcels

[1:03:53] APN 525-0-053-115-525-0-053-175

[1:04:04] 525-0-053-195

[1:04:08] 525-0-060-085

[1:04:13] 525-0-0-060-095

[1:04:20] 525-0-0-0-0-0-0-115, 525-0-0-0-0-0-125, and 525-0-0-0-0-0-135 is consistent with a thousand

[1:04:37] oaks to 2045 general plan pursuant to government code section number 6542, and number three

[1:04:44] We recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance for proving developmental agreement

[1:04:49] DAGR-2025-7004, establishing the city's agreement not to not change the existing zoning

[1:04:59] and general plan designations of the property without owners consent for 30 years from the

[1:05:05] date of execution.

[1:05:08] Well done.

[1:05:10] That was the longest one I've ever read.

[1:05:13] I don't think you beat the secretary, though.

[1:05:15] I mean, I think that she does an amazing job.

[1:05:20] Any comments on the motion?

[1:05:23] I sure, Tyler Kedollet.

[1:05:25] I appreciate what Jim had said about the fact that preservation is in your DNA.

[1:05:31] And for me coming in, I did have some of those concerns, some of the landmark status concerns, for sure.

[1:05:36] I do like the CRPD has been talking to Mr. Maple, who is basically our city historian,

[1:05:45] de Vecto's city historian, and kind of the keeper of the wisdom.

[1:05:50] And I appreciate that you guys see that and that that's something.

[1:05:53] And based on what staff has told us tonight and what the city attorney's office has indicated to us in terms of

[1:06:03] that that landmark status is there.

[1:06:05] I was concerned, Mick, that we didn't have that really called out.

[1:06:10] But I do feel comfortable that it is called out enough in the general plan,

[1:06:14] and that you guys understand that that's something that you care for.

[1:06:18] And we get it, that some of this is going to have to be sold.

[1:06:22] But my biggest concern was that property itself, was the building itself.

[1:06:28] And so for that reason, I'll support the motion.

[1:06:31] Thank you, any other comments?

[1:06:33] Commissioner Buss?

[1:06:34] I just want to clarify, the intention is not to sell any of the property, unless viscally that's like the last resort, like sell the farm like you said.

[1:06:44] So, because I know one of the concerns had been because we do have to have so much development is having the open spaces.

[1:06:50] So that's not on the table legitimate, if you're right.

[1:06:57] If we entertain this, we'll, Mr. Friedle, let's open up to public hearing again.

[1:07:02] Okay.

[1:07:03] Well then.

[1:07:04] Do you want to, do you want me to comment?

[1:07:06] I just based on Commissioner Bill, that's comments.

[1:07:11] I think I misspoke.

[1:07:12] I didn't mean, I didn't mean sell, I mean develop, I mean develop.

[1:07:16] So yeah, I misspoke.

[1:07:17] Okay.

[1:07:17] That's just why I want to clarify.

[1:07:20] Okay.

[1:07:21] All right.

[1:07:26] Okay, Mr. City Attorney, I have two things, I mean you're correct, if we weren't a solicit

[1:07:32] additional input from the public that we have to reopen the public hearing, what I will

[1:07:37] say is that the intent of the deal is for the parts district to continue using the property

[1:07:44] as they've been doing and for there not to be additional development.

[1:07:50] I just want to clarify that because anyone watching, if it's thought that there may be

[1:07:58] development in the near future, that kind of is different than what I understood it

[1:08:05] to be.

[1:08:05] So I understand what you stated in order to be the case.

[1:08:13] Thank you.

[1:08:14] I would still like to ask my fellow commissioners if they would be willing to entertain

[1:08:22] and slight amendment to the motion, in the resolution, which would only add the following phrase,

[1:08:31] and recognizes that City Landmark No. 10 Hill Crest Center is on the property.

[1:08:37] Doesn't change the findings, it doesn't change which elements of the general plan we're identifying it to be consistent with.

[1:08:44] It is merely a phrase which calls out that, it is on the property, which our general plan states it does,

[1:08:51] should have no effect on this, and I would ask to amend specifically or move to amend the motion to include let me just ask first would you be willing to include it if not I would ask the commission to vote on it before I I do that I want to have the opinion for more city attorney.

[1:09:14] This

[1:09:21] is the

[1:09:43] property, it's specifically defined here and

[1:09:58] it would be in this part here.

[1:10:16] Just add it.

[1:10:18] Yeah, right in here.

[1:10:20] Has the proposed sale preserves the plot plot of this project is consistent with exactly the same element that's been described by us.

[1:10:38] Change is nothing of the other other element.

[1:10:53] I mean, again, 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.

[1:11:03] You don't believe it or else it changed the effect of the resolution.

[1:11:08] That's what I'm trying to do is not to affect it just to call out something that is in the general plan or just stating it.

[1:11:16] So what is the purpose of adding it then?

[1:11:21] Because it would be in the resolution.

[1:11:26] Okay.

[1:11:27] I mean, again, I don't...

[1:11:30] I mean, you can add the language in there.

[1:11:32] I mean, it's your resolution you can add it.

[1:11:34] I mean, I don't...

[1:11:36] I wouldn't say that it doesn't do anything to the resolution.

[1:11:39] I see you're adding the language.

[1:11:40] But, again,

[1:11:45] I don't understand the purpose of it,

[1:11:48] but you can add it in there.

[1:11:51] Okay, for me, the purpose is there's nothing in the current resolution that

[1:11:55] states the fact that there is a city landmark on this property.

[1:11:58] This was at least recognized overtly that there is one, right.

[1:12:02] So there is a there is a resolution from the city that identifies it as a landmark.

[1:12:07] So I mean, it's right, but we had to go and find it.

[1:12:10] It's in 1997.

[1:12:11] It's in city records.

[1:12:13] This would highlight very clearly in the disposition agreement that are in the

[1:12:18] a disposition decision the City Council will make, that the Planning Commission recognizes that there is a city plan mark on the property.

[1:12:28] I'm sure it'll be in the resolution regarding the finding and the consistency with the general plan.

[1:12:37] Right, that's a question.

[1:12:38] Those are say that again.

[1:12:40] You want to add that language into the resolution as it applies to the finding of consistency with the general plan.

[1:12:47] Right, but the phrase itself has no effect except to state that it is recognized as that it's a city landmark.

[1:12:54] It doesn't change the elements through which staff has recommended that it's consistent with the general plan.

[1:13:02] You've highlighted the governance and the land use elements.

[1:13:06] You know, I agree with that.

[1:13:07] I mean, I don't think it changes the fact that it's consistent with the general plan.

[1:13:12] So that would be my request is to have that changed so that it is stated and when someone reads that they know that we recognize that.

[1:13:28] I'm feeling that this is a win-win park and rec department was on the same page with our city staff.

[1:13:37] They worked really hard together to draft this resolution, and who are we to add something to it that doesn't change it?

[1:13:50] I'm going to not change my motion, and if you guys want to vote on that, that's fine.

[1:13:57] Okay, then I would like to amend, if I should try to look at it a little bit.

[1:14:04] Okay, I'm not putting my lawyer hat on here and I could be completely off based on this because I did a little bit of research.

[1:14:10] This was a relatively complicated issue I thought today because I did a lot of research.

[1:14:16] I think maybe by adding that language we say that it's innocuous.

[1:14:20] Maybe it avoids a sequence challenge, so when we're talking about future development, development down the road.

[1:14:25] So maybe it avoids a secret challenge because, and I'm going to read this, I'm not going to, I'm not going to add lib this, because the proposed acquisition is a discretionary action that could result in irreversible impacts.

[1:14:39] Secret requires that the city evaluate the building's historic resource status and consider feasible preservation alternatives prior to approval.

[1:14:47] So, again, perhaps what we're doing is we're just kind of cutting it off its knees down the road for a sequel challenge because we have considered its historic status as we sit here today with languages.

[1:15:00] Relatively innocuous. That was a tortured way of getting to that. Yeah, I don't think that this resolution is going to have any impact on any kind of sequel evaluation. I mean, it's, I mean, that's going to have no impact on any challenges. I would still support the language.

[1:15:20] Thank you. Given that, I'm going to ask that I move to amend the motion such that section two of the resolution.

[1:15:31] which starts with the paragraph as the proposed sale to have that read.

[1:15:42] As the proposed sale preserves the existing land used designations of open space, commercial and mixed use.

[1:15:50] Here's the additional language and recognizes that city landmark number 10, Hillcrest Center, is on the property.

[1:15:59] That's the amended language.

[1:16:01] The project is consistent with the goals and policies described within the governance, land use, and parts and open space elements of the general plan.

[1:16:09] These include the following and the following thing would be so that that additional phrasing is the only additional language.

[1:16:17] Would you mind repeating that please?

[1:16:18] So motion would be to amend the resolution in the motion such that the second paragraph section 2 reads as the proposed sale preserves the existing land used designations of open space, commercial and mixed use and recognizes that City landmark number 10 Hillcrest Center is on the property.

[1:16:46] 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.

[1:16:55] These include the following.

[1:16:57] That's the way it would read.

[1:16:59] And that's the only change.

[1:17:02] Is there any comments on the amended motion?

[1:17:07] If not, let's have a vote on the amendment.

[1:17:09] So

[1:17:13] just point of clarification.

[1:17:14] So the vote is to add the amendment to the existing motion.

[1:17:21] Correct.

[1:17:22] In the resolution, the PC resolution, so whether to add that language into the existing motion, that's on the table.

[1:17:29] That's correct.

[1:17:35] Commissioner Bess.

[1:17:37] Yes.

[1:17:39] Commissioner Tyler Kettlehead.

[1:17:40] Yes.

[1:17:42] Commissioner McMahon.

[1:17:44] You've talked to me into it.

[1:17:46] Yes.

[1:17:47] Chair Ferris.

[1:17:48] Yes.

[1:17:49] The amendment passes 40, Commissioner Ladson absent.

[1:17:54] Thank you.

[1:17:54] And I want to thank my fellow commissioners for entertaining the discussion.

[1:17:59] Let us now go and discuss the amended motion.

[1:18:02] Are there any last comments?

[1:18:07] I will just say, I think Mr. Maple ended up mentioning this right.

[1:18:12] This really is, you've mentioned as a win-win, I do think it is something to wear since public land donated to the city for public use.

[1:18:21] It is continuous public use through this disposition.

[1:18:25] It will continue its public use, and it is an amazing element of our city and one that has historic meaning to it as well as continuing community involvement as, you know, firework till.

[1:18:42] and really something in the center of it.

[1:18:45] 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.

[1:18:54] Where, I mean, 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.

[1:19:06] I think it's nice that we were able to do this and share it within our sisterly government agencies to be able to keep this preserved.

[1:19:19] So any final questions or comments?

[1:19:22] Commissioner Bus?

[1:19:24] I agree with everything that's been said.

[1:19:27] Another thing that hasn't been touched on is that there's plays that go on at this center.

[1:19:31] You know, there's a lot of art shows maintaining that as a space for that as well, which I know CRPD will do and has been doing 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.

[1:19:48] I recommend going and seeing when the writing's pretty funny for the age group, but yeah, so I'm very pleased that for the next 30 years at least we hopefully will maintain this space.

[1:19:59] And I know that the park setting will be maintained as well as trails because I know CRPD is big on that

[1:20:05] So I'm very happy that the city and CRPD were able to come to this

[1:20:12] Final final options

[1:20:15] Let's go for a vote

[1:20:18] Commissioner buzz. Yes, Commissioner Tyler Kettlehen. Yes, Commissioner McMahon. Yes chair fairs. Yes

[1:20:26] Motion carries 40 Commissioner Lenson absent. All right. Thank you. There's no appeal period on this instance

[1:20:32] it's going to the City Council, thank you all.

[1:20:37] Let's now go to, we don't have any department reports this evening.

[1:20:41] Now's the time for commission comments and or any AB 1234 reports.

[1:20:46] Are there any comments from fellow commissioners?

[1:20:50] No, Miss Alia, Meliker, are there any follow-up items and announcements for upcoming issues?

[1:20:56] Yes, tomorrow evening, City Council will consider 401-403 Hillcrest, dispossession and

[1:21:07] transfer of city owned property that you just consider it right now, letter of public

[1:21:12] convenience or necessity from Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for the sale of alcohol

[1:21:17] the whole for consumption.

[1:21:19] Offsite for R1 for a site at 2150 is $1,000 full of R.

[1:21:25] In January 27th, City Council, we have two department reports from us.

[1:21:31] There will be a community development department update and an initiation of a height overlay zone change in concurrent processing of entitlement to accommodate a contemplated climbing facility at 145 West Hillcrest Drive.

[1:21:46] And on the consent calendar, there will be the first amendment to CSG consultant contract for

[1:21:54] environmental services for the downtown project.

[1:21:58] Upcoming planning commission items, we have in January 26, there will be two public hearings.

[1:22:05] Want to allow for the operation of eight religious assembly use within an existing industrial building.

[1:22:11] and alternating use of parking facilities located in the M1 industrial park zone and SB 15 run Choconejo industrial park area.

[1:22:23] And one for an update to the accessory dwelling units and junior access accessory dwelling units ordinance as the state keeps changing the regulations.

[1:22:35] And that's all I have.

[1:22:38] Thank you and thank you all now adjourned to the next meeting January 26th, 26th, 26th, 6pm. Thank you.

Planning Commission Meeting - January 12, 2026

Transcript