Anonymous Mommy
  • Blog
  • About
  • Community
    • Safe Passage TOY DRIVE
    • Upcoming Events
    • Get Involved
    • Register to Vote
    • Conejo Community Outreach
    • CAN-tree 2020
    • Safe Passage Playground
    • Relay For Life
    • Why I got Involved >
      • Art Gallery
  • Testimonials
    • The Real
  • Contact
  • COVID-19
Picture

Subscribe

* indicates required

Let's talk about land, yo.

4/20/2021

0 Comments

 
In case you missed it ... the City of Thousand Oaks is updating its General Plan. You're wondering why you should care. Another city thing, another thing you don't have time for, right?

What is the General Plan, you ask?


"The General Plan is the planning and policy document that guides development, enhancement, and conservation in Thousand Oaks. Its purpose is to establish the community’s vision for how it will evolve in the years to come and to put tools in place to implement that vision. The General Plan lays out specific goals and policies that set the stage for future social, economic, and physical development of the City in support of the vision. As such, the General Plan is often referred to as the “blueprint” for the future of the community. California law requires every city and county to adopt a General Plan."

Part of that process includes LAND PLANNING, and that's what I want to talk about today.

Queue the NIMBYs!

Queue everyone that says they're "slow growth" because they know it sounds more reasonable than "no growth," which is what many of them truly are at heart.

Folks, we HAVE to increase more housing. And not just housing, affordable housing. And, not just housing, but desirable places to live ... desirable places for businesses to choose to set roots in our economy. Not only is that my opinion, but ... the State mandates it so (or at least mandates that land be designated to support more housing ... after all, a city doesn't pitch to developers ... developers pitch to the city):

The recent RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) allocation for the City of Thousand Oaks calls for the citing of roughly 2,600 additional housing units. This RHNA cycle runs from 2021 to 2029 and requires that these units be sited within the Housing Element of our General Plan, which is currently under review. There is no requirement this number of units be built, but the law requires the land be designated to allow for a minimum of this number, encompassing all housing levels.


And so, to this end ... the city began a robust outreach effort using consultants to draw up three "alternative maps" for review from constituents. Each map tackled suggestions related to these areas:

• Citywide
• Rancho Conejo Area
• Moorpark Rd and West Thousand Oaks Blvd Area
• Downtown and Thousand Oaks Blvd Area
• Westlake and East End Area
• Village Centers

There were 2,127 survey responses, 6,000 individuals comments (survey takers were allowed to offer additional comments after each survey question.)

As it relates to the Rancho Conejo area, which is the area I'm focusing on today ... here is a quick recap of the responses that came in.

First ... it's important to note that the results indicated overall favor for Alternative Map #1 at 40% and Alternative Map #3 at 29%.

​And, specific to Rancho Conejo, 39% felt Alt #1 fit their vision of this area, while 32% felt Alt #3 fit their vision of this area. 

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

Some other quick takeaways from the survey responses:

1. Rancho Conejo Area (73%) and Downtown and T.O. Blvd Area (77%) percentages related to survey takers who indicated housing and mixed-use should be added to these areas.

2. 70% in favor of increasing density from 30 to 45 units per acre for multifamily residential developments (which paves path for addition of more affordable units)

3. 
43% supported creating a mixed-use neighborhood on land currently designated as industrial versus 38% who responded to keep it strictly industrial.

4. 74% strongly agreed or agreed to this statement: The General Plan should allow mixed use development of up to 4 stories and 45 units per acre in Rancho Conejo if it reduces the amount of housing that is needed elsewhere in the City.

5. 70% also supported this selection for Rancho Conejo: An even balance between Industrial Low and Industrial Flex (Alt 1). This has fewer overall jobs and more jobs that are in the light manufacturing and distribution sectors.

Picture

The Greater Conejo Valley Chamber of Commerce also weighed in on its support for mixed-use development in the Rancho Conejo area.

Picture

What is Mixed-Use Medium?


Picture

So, after compiling all of the survey results, the city's consultants prepared a new alternative map to review.

​Related to Rancho Conejo, it concluded this from the previous survey, and indicates that this approach is used in the new map alternative.


Picture

Now ... here's the issue with the the proposed options in the NEW SURVEY, which looks like the screenshot below if you haven't taken the survey yet:

Picture

First up ... Bubble #1: "Designate the property for mixed-use development"

... great - this is MY choice and will be my choice when I select it ... but it's not specific ... designate for low, medium or high  mixed-use development is a pretty important detail, don't you think? At best this need to be zoned for either medium or high. Why are we leaving this detail out?


Bubble #2 "Retain existing single-family residential designation" ...  the survey conclusion states that there's support to keep as single-family residential designation, but neither Map #1 or #3 key features (which were voted for by survey takers really backs this).

Bubble #3 "Designate a portion of the property as mixed-use and a portion as residential, as reflected in the preferred land use alternative." -- WHY? The new land alternative is creating this "split" option which would be a mix of low-density housing combined with low-density mixed use .... this is not what the survey results indicated survey takers favored. Why are we talking about low-density split options here?

This area has MAJOR POTENTIAL to be a huge sales tax revenue generator for our city. The developer (Moradian ... not an "out-of-towner" but one of our neighbors ... someone who has grown up here, lives here and values this city) has plans to turn this 37-acre property (which it can be argued has incorrectly been characterized as "wetlands" despite not meeting criteria for that designation based on a letter from the 
United States Army Corps of Engineers which states that the parcel does not qualify as a wetland under the corps’ definition) to create a REAL community on this property. A combination of shops, wellness centers/gyms, outdoor picnic/concert/entertainment area, beer gardens, restaurants, inclusion of low-income and affordable housing units, parks and walk trails that connect, a trolley system, etc.

Talk about revitalizing and reinvigorating and bringing much needed housing and entertainment to our neck of the woods. Talk about fostering community. That's what smart development can look like.


******

NOW, 805Resistance also caught wind of this, and some other takeaways from the new proposed alternative map, writing:

"There is confusion about the general plan and it is frustrating that the areas that have most potential for building affordable housing such as Rancho Conejo project, Kmart and Pumpkin Patch are given low density while the people who have already developed the Promenade and The Oaks were given High Density for mixed use which means they will profit most from doing least. In fact- they do not have to build any housing and can just build their shopping centers up.

In addition, the Rancho Project was singled out as a specific project while so many other lots were lumped together (AM note: which many may not realize happened in this latest round). This feels suspicious. The fear is that Rancho is being used as a scapegoat to give people one area to reject while the other developers slide into permission.

Review the survey and on question 2 support the Rancho Project for mixed use, which has the potential for a fresh build that is promised to include affordable housing and neighborhood enrichment."

****


Anyway, just wanted to share my thoughts before you take the NEW SURVEY.

ACTION ITEMS:

1) Take the survey above ... you can review the proposed map and reasoning HERE. 

2) If this is important to you, and I hope it is, please attend the GPAC community workshop meeting on Wednesday, April 21, from 6-8 p.m. You can register to attend the virtual workshop, HERE.

3) 
TO Planning Commission will consider recommendation of the General Plan preferred land use alternative to the City Council at their next meeting on 4/26 at 6 p.m.

Submit written comments by email to communitydevelopment@toaks.org or to speak at the meeting  by no later than 10:00 a.m. on 4/26.


0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Anonymous Mommy

    Archives

    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    October 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015

    Categories

    All
    Anythingbutbrunch
    Babyblues
    Breastfeeding
    Chadandbecky
    Community
    Huggiesgate
    Mallwalking
    Momgroups
    Momthoughts
    Nursing
    Ramblings
    Theplaydestination

    RSS Feed

Anonymous Mommy

Home
About
Blog
Contact 
© COPYRIGHT 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Photos used under Creative Commons from elliemcc11, PersonalCreations.com, wocintechchat.com, Jonathan Meddings, Yachichurova, fveronesi1, jiposhy, osde8info, ultrakml, 401k Limits, Rosmarie Voegtli, Khanelle Prod' Medias, miguelb, HHA124L, mikecogh, quinn.anya, SharonLeePhotography, ultrakml, plastigffantastig88, timsackton, osseous, ultrakml, M. Pratter, Prestonbot, mcashpatel, Khanelle Prod' Medias, James St. John, stevendepolo, Francisco Anzola
  • Blog
  • About
  • Community
    • Safe Passage TOY DRIVE
    • Upcoming Events
    • Get Involved
    • Register to Vote
    • Conejo Community Outreach
    • CAN-tree 2020
    • Safe Passage Playground
    • Relay For Life
    • Why I got Involved >
      • Art Gallery
  • Testimonials
    • The Real
  • Contact
  • COVID-19