'
+,
#*$$
% / $ %2/9$ /(0$ $ *%9 $ / *
$**% /%/%/% %* 2, ((%% % *%$**%**0 L * (2((* *
% % (=%$%
' +,
)$
2/((9*220 /)$
2% (%%)&%*% %%
6%$//(2 %$* 9 %%0 $% * *(*%
%(%&*/
'+,
A/ ((%* /(($* 1J$%%%0$ %
1$J%22% /%% Q1* */J 1%
0
$%2(($*(
'
+,
?$ *9 - *90 *9 *( 0% ( 0%$#% 02% %
$ %
'
+,
&220 /2/((/
/(% 1%
% %% % %$
((%2
(%*%0/ 90%1L%
0% * ($% % (1
%
% %% ($%/2220 / 0 (%9%0/1%
% %22$ /
/$ /0% %02(%*% 0%% F
%0
9!?( ( / %(%0%
% 2
0%
#*9,(
9
!96
0+
7 %
>/1%
0/%2% /$%
$
%/%
%22$
!D
2%$%%* 21%
% %22$
/ % %0
'+,
,&@!?$$
% 2%*%2$%
// (%
(%
*%$
%
'
&,
1%
% %
0// % 220 /%%//(%2% ((%#/% 2*
(%
% % %%,$**%% % %J%
$*(%$%2* $ $ ($ *%2* /9 /%
'&,
+%$%/( ($
%22$$C0 #
3,2
*$ ($&*/
#22$%002 %$%/ 0 % ((%$/*%
/
%$%22$$/ %(%2*$**% D*/ %%
' &,
A /$ %% 8$ %0%:$*0
% $ / %(0
8%(9$ %2%9%$:22$%/$*$(*%
'&,
6(%
% % * $*/%% $**% %(%02% % $%& %% ((
%% / 1% %%/2%$0% /%
1$ % ((/0$%6!
%
/$$%$%633#%$%
( /
2$*%$%% %%
'&,
)$
2220 /& *0%$/(%/%% $ 0
'
+,
Item No. 11A
&220 /2$ 9%
(( $ % )
%0/
!092
% (/$$0( %2* /& /222$
%
%
%
090/*
'
+,
?%$%9$0 9$
/0/A* )% 2((%%
% %0
%0/%%
%
,
% % %(2
!0#22
/ %/
% (
' +,
1$ %22$$/ %9/
/22$%2/(
/9(*%$%/*(%
$**$ ($%
9$%%/
% 8%(%/
:9 / %
(%*%0/ $ // *;$ $%2$%920// %;0$ /
!
D9%0/ 8 %:0/((92*(% %% ;
$ $(%
%%
'
+,
!((%%
$%%*( $ %*7 $ %02% 0 % $ %$% 1 (
% B$%%
(*% %$%*%
%%% *%
2
%
<((%1
*$ (*%
% 07
%$ *%
$%2%0/ 5%$%
$$2%
0(
%*0$7% % $%
$* ((%%- %
% $%9
/ $ %%
%2(*%
'
+,
#($2$%%*%*% $
/% $%9
$ %%/%$ /D// %
0%
%
%
% (*%2((%9
(*%2/ %2*-$%/%* ( +( / %(*%
% %% %% *% 2 %9/($ 2 *%/ % &//
((% (0*9 % */( $/ 9%/%0 %%% 22 / *
% /%22$%& % $
2 %% *
$%
* *
%
22$%2/((%%- %7% =/9 *%/ % *% %$
0/%
% (/ ( 0((
% (%%
'+,
&220 /%%%$%/2* 12
J%%%$%(/
(#5%=5**%
'+,
&220 /% ($
'+,
A /9%22$9 $
' +,
A* A/ ($ 2/2* $ /2/ %2*% 5>B# $
0% ( $23/$ *
/($$ % % 6!
0(%2%
(0$ $%7* % (%2$ $ %%
'
+,
E ((%9%22$9 * 9(*%9$*%$ /92
'+,
1%
SJ /%((%%%C %
(/
%%J 0/1% J%
%00//%00%%1%J 2 1J*$$% (2$% =1% *
((%2%$% %$ $ /) &/ 0 $ % 1
/ %
'+,
2( ($% $%( /%0**L% %0/
% % L%
%$ %0/( ($ 22$
/ %*9*$
%
*
'+,
1/**/%!0/+0$ $ 2/
'
+,
?=/
%0%
%%/%*
/$%F/%
%$%% 0/%
%2%/%/%*(*%2% $22
'+,
72(
/
'
&,
22$%(0%
'&,
)$
2 /*% 2/(2 9
$ 0/ 0% D+
+%$ 7 %$* %% 5%9(%22% L%*%% % 0//%$ /90%
%
%91L%
90$ % D;(%
'
&,
.%%/%$
9 %% /%%/$/ %0
%=9$ G 2*2
/% *(-$(%2 % 0
(
0 %%%2$&/* /
% %$ /(
//*
$%22$ ((/2 ?G/ ( ($2* /%
*
%*
!
% $**%%
' &,
Item No. 11A
22$
!% 02
1J%
%/%
*0$ %
*$ %22$
'
&,
F K5%% 0
'
&,
#*
'T? /$*;((%%$% %0*$**%
($*%T% % %20 (
;((%% %(%%(
$**%#((%$%$% ((%2 *0 % ( 2% 0 $**%
0$ $ %% $ *
'
&,
A*
' &,
.9 *%*% 2% % % (0*,% % %% % % 8 ( 9 %
%$% % *:
'
&,
+ 9 * 9220 /9$*
'+,
22$1 % *%%22$/ % % %$C %%*/(/2 $%
'
+,
&220 /9$**%%%% %
% -($/ * 9*%$
$**%
% %%((%%2/
%
'
+,
D/
%
/%%/2% $%0/
!D
' +,
*$ %22$$ =
' +,
&//((%% $
2 $ 2 9 ($% (%% %*%% 2
/1% %-( %$ % $2 )$
2220 / ($2 /((
/ $ %20/
%$% % /% ((($ $/ ( 2*0//220(C$%
!
(/(($$ %0 %
* $ %5/ %
!
D
2(/
!D
% (%*% 0 %
C %2% $ $/ %*%
(%/)$
2 %/**$2$%
%0G%% ((%%
/
/ */( $!% %
% %/2$% 0
C$%%61,DIL
' +,
&/29% (%%9
'
+,
)
$ %A /9 ((%9)%5**% ((%
' +,
22$.
% $%
'
+,
7J%
%
!
D%0$*
U% V6(%*% 0
7 / %22$%
'+,
)
$*220 /;
$%$$*/*
$*220
/%0$(*% ?$ *;+0$% % % +0$
%;5$**0 %
/G%% (( %G%%%( ($%6
%%2(( /% 0
' +,
F 7% %1;.F#2%# % ( 9
/% $*(/
'
+,
1 (% %% $% % % *1%J *% % ((% *$ 2#
52
%0 *0%2
% 0%
% /
(*%7 % ((%%%$ % / %(% ;J%* 0/$ / K
!
2 %2% .+9%
00 %% %$
%%
'+,
A* !$
/
22$ *%2
$* /***%
' +,
&220 /40$/$ %
% ( ($4( /0
$ *% 6%
/
!
%0$*$2% $
%
'
+,
?$ *9 $$*$% *
'
+,
% /% %
* ((%
%/(%*% % / 0 1 (% %% 2*-
% % -*(2% $$*($6+F $22$ % *9
*
%
% / % / 0 2
'+,
Item No. 11A
1 '
*$ $/ %;*C%22$(0*$
/6(% *
% % $%
$$B2($%$ !((%% '+ % */ ($ !
%% % L%00%#% % K+ $%
'
+,
1$ %22$9$/ $ *%9//((% 9220%%I/2*
'
+,
&220 / *(%%
'+,
A /;A /A /
/ %2202/2* % >% * //
0$ %%$ %
2* % %
$(%%%*% ( 0
'+,
&220 /
0$*$
$*(%$
2
;$ % /9$(
%
/% 9($;%
*$*((2*/
!
%
$%*($%$0 9% C0*
%9 %
!% /
'
+,
A /
% % (% 7%* /
((
$
%2*2 $ *%
'
+,
0// % 220 /2% /%*/$( 2*
$ %$%9 /
( 9%$L%22% %!2%G/
%%2$ %$22*$ %/%0 % % 0 $
%//%C %/%09
/%%2%*%/% 2*92%0$ % $(
/2%*C0% $C0 % $ $0% $**%% %% /
( *% /% %
00%$$%
&%9
% % $% % %/
2* $ *2
%*%/% C %00%22%%
* %2*$%
*( 02
/(% %/% % 2* % %
% /
(
/% %%
*%
90% /%(%/ -( (%*%%($ F* */2* (%*% ($% 2% % -%% %/ (9 % */1 % % % 2/$ "
2* 00% * %0%% (2 (%%/ **
$ *% 9%
% *20/* % *%
*% %% 2%*
% (%% 2* 22$% % % 1% % 0// % $ /
$%%*
%( 02/((% (2% 2* 2%% ($% A/% 0%%9 % %$ %% %//20/%%/0
$ 92%90% %
/22%
$ $$
%/%/% $ % 0 %% $
($**%*$ %/9 ((
%
% 5%2
!
$%%%
'
+,
22$$/ %2
*C %% 5%/%%/*($%+ /%*
/$22$%&%% % *( 0%/ ((/B %%
'+,
!(*%9%* / 0 %%/% * %($ G=/%%
*$ 9 * % 2%9*%/% $(%$2 =
'
+,
!2 %$% L%2% $%/
% % % ((/
$ %2$
%7 %
D
!D
/ %*
( $=;%
%%
L%% / %
%/
%0%(($%2% / %
!
D&6
(( ($6! / 0/ ,%% $%*%%
' +,
22$$/ %9/
/22$%2/(
/9(*%$%/*(%$**$
($%
9$%%/
% 8%(%/
:9 / %(%*%
0/ $ // *;$ $%2$%920// %;0$ /
!D9
(*% %$ % %%
% %%/9%0/ 8 %:0/ ((
' +,
5 %2 /2 <((
/
( 0%$J%22% %
'+,
$/#$ *%9*/(/
% (%$%
'
+,
1*( 0%/%
% %$)$
2/9 /((% %/
0/
%
*$ % 6%/ %% / %26%/ /2/0(2
'+,
2(0$ ($
'+,
!(*%$
/ + /2
22$B - %/$%
0/ %20/*0/ *
' +,
Item No. 11A
5/ %$
2(
/2$$ 0%% %% ((/+)&60%%K#%( %/%2%(/% G %9% 5%J / %2 %
% %%%% / %
/ %$$%$$ 0%
'
+,
&220 /2
*$*2* %
$ /7 /2
%$ 92 % ( 9% %22% %% 9% (( 00 %$ 9
% %
% $**%0%$%22%
% /%
'+,
/% *
/$ 2%
/2* */
%*
0$
*%%$
2$
%
%0 2%J
-( %(
((0
' +,
!
D;1
% * /($ ;(%*
%*0%2
' +,
22$9%22$9%22$
% %% * %% %2% / % #%(% %%( &0 9
$ % *C%%% F
2% % 2
!
%$%$ %*$ %22$%2
79
9
%*$ $**$ ($
8
* 9(% % 9 $% % %$ ":&220 /
(0*90%2/ %
% ** % % %
$
%/%(
'&,
E ((%0/ %$**$% !((%% %%%
(%
*$**% *
%D/G%%%% $%
'
+,
# %/2A /9$
2%%*%9% /2((%% / 9$*$ (*%(/* 9$%$/*%9%*$ 22$ /9//((%9
%
9 %%%9(% %-9 2($ 1$(%2-0$%(/* %$/% (% $%% %% % /
%9$/ /2$%*%2 /
'
+,
1J %% * %22$%%* / $$($0/ / !D
% /% %0($ %2C %*1J % % 0/ ($ %( % *0%% * %0 %/%% %
E(/% * %( $ %% //(*% (%
(
!
2$%%
'
+,
?$% 2 *0 9220 /%%% 92 %% /% '5(% *($%
*
22$0%*%
'+,
0/ %*($ /%%%0%0$%$ % $%/*%%%/
% $%=
% ($%/%
'+,
+(% %12
/(%*%$*(- %00%
22
$ /
%/
'+,
,220 /0%%0%/
!%%
' +,
& %91*%$/0 $ /
%
/
2*$% (/%
%
'
+,
1$ / * % / %5&2%
!
'
&,
F 2%9$ %2/ %-( 9%/ %% /% (% 2/ %
'+,
$ %0(%, %2% $ % % 09/% 9
% %$
%
'+,
)$
2220 /(%
'
+,
?(/
% *%/%
'
+,
A/ $ %2$
2220 /%22$
'+,
7
/ * 9% 0$*0%%/2 02% -% /%2 *
1 %
!
% $ $2
%/0/((%, /9*$% / 8;(- 9;% $*(- 9
/ % /:%00%9
'+,
Item No. 11A
!(*%9%22$ ($A$ %9
!D
8 $ % *
%/%% / %
:9
(( (/% / / 0 0$ * $/ %9 %$%2%8
9 9* :9%*%0/ (*%%
!D9( 0/*2*/((
% % % % %
% 9 *$%%-
*
%
!
J%0( %/%(
%( $0%
!9 %0$
%U)(J V / %/$*912
% %
/(
% 0%2%
'&,
22$$/ %7 (($ -$% $/$($%2* 22$
/ % % $
* +
/ 0$*/$ // *
8#% '0%%(0$% (%%
% $% $% 22* %
% 0
% $ 9:3*(%$**$ ($%
9%
(*%
%%=*2% ($ 9 $ % E;,%((% $ / %
!
D 0/2$ &% / 9(*% %2$9% / %(*% 00/((2% =2% % +
/%22$ J%
/5
( %$ % $(*% %2
8#%($%%/%
% K+%*K:6
0// %;0$
/
!D9
(*% %$ % %%
% %%/
7
F1! *(*% *%
0%AD
% U2
%
9*-; $ %$%VA
0%/0%2* 0%
!
%
% # 2/0/% % 02*
!D9A$ %9,(
?%
*%J 8
$$ 20*$% $ % B#9%% 0%2$%9% (%$ % *% RR,%; %9 / %*-; 0/ % %% *;$ $%2$%95%5$ 02/ / ; %(*%%% -( 2$% % 87* $ %9;-
/:3/H7%B ;$%$%/
%% 1% $(/%/ %%%
$(/!22$% % % %% *3$/526%+% 2
29 ($0 (% 5 %%;/ % %$*(%0)3;00 2-% &%(
(0$($ 9$ /
%2% %
%2%
%0%%2/
%% %$/% 2 0
%0%%
'
&,
1J%
%% %,$
05 %0(1%(%*% 1%J
(((%$%2(C$%
% %
'+,
22$ /%%/
7 %* / //(!((% % %0$ 7L%
%.//
#
*
*$ / %/ %/
7 *%22$
/%* /( 7 /%
2/ (
*$ /$7
/%/*%
#$ %*9
% %0
'
+,
22$$%
B %/%22$(%% $$0%
'
+,
2%(2*( *%0/% (%*0 /2 /
%(/*
$ *02%% *C%2 %
'
+,
22$%(0$% (%%9 /9 ($ /0 $(%
'
&,
? %/( %(0=6%*% !D *C %;
%
%$**$$5%0/ / % %( 2 /
5**%%**=%22$$/ %*%$$(%0 2 $%% $%
'+,
5%$$L 2/
% * %0%
%
! % 9(%$%
/%*5$ % (%%% %% / % $%( %%
%*%2% $%7
%(0*%*(*% %
7 %
%//%$*2*"
($(%*% %2$ /%C0 /% * %% -%%% $5% * 0$*/(0*
!
*$ *%%% %02$ %
'
+,
+0$22$/9(5>B# (9($% %%( %% ((
' +,
5 / '
22$9%22$9%22$9+
/9(
/9(
/J%%
!0$*$/ %
!/5%#% '#
/
% ( 0/%
( *%
2$
%22$%0(
!0
' +,
%22$$/ %9/
/22$%2/(
/9(*%$%/*(%$**$
($%
9$%%/
% 8%(%/
:9 / %(%*%
0/ $ // *;$ $%2$%95%5$ 2/( % % -( 9($ODA O%( % % %% %% 2*C%2$ 9% *G %0* /( 920// %;0$ /
!D9
(*%
%$ % %%
% %%/9%*%0/ 0/0% !D
'+,
Item No. 11A
* 5*%$ /22$%/$**%
% 2 ;
% / ($
2((
% (% %$%%
*(( (/% $
% (% 1
(
$ % %02% -%2
'
&,
1 / 2/ 0/%%*%%*(% %/ 2$$*%%
' +,
6%/ G%< /$**% 9 % *%2% 0* *
*%; /$ 2/2* (2
' &,
22$ %04%*$ (*%
% %$ /
%9/H2 %$%
'
+,
&//$%&//*/( $
/%0/%*%$**%6/ %29( $% / %/9U($%V2((% + *0 $*6
*(*%0//((%% +% %$(/(*%% %
!5$&% +=
'&,
D$/$**%$
2 %//
%
%0/2%0
2 %$%!?00$ $0$$($ $ /$**
' +,
&220 $ 2% /%%22 %
' +,
3$$ /!(#($!$
/)*%0/(*%9 ($
( ($7 *(%0/ % % 0$$(02 %%0/*9
2% %0;((
'+,
A* %% 00(
)$
2 %*/ %
'
+,
,
/%*$$ 0%//% 9%C %(//0* $**%
'
+,
7-($/$$$
2 /9 / * 9$
%/%(0$
% %%
% %
%/ 0 5%0/ *220 / (%2% %90% /% $%J ($% $ $$
' &,
!$%22%
%
*%C0((%% % %
(/ % 2 %(%*%(0 % % @ %22$% /
((%%
2% $%% %$00%(( 2*9 % %$2%%/9 *((%*% % %
2 //(2 %% 2*
%0% * (
%
'
&,
&220 /;5%22$ 8(/(%*%9$%$$:$=G( % 0220 /8(%*%*%;2*:0 ($89 % E,%
:4
(%$%( ($;G/%*% 2( ($2%(*%
'
&,
220 /$*$(*%;2$ / C0
2$
% (%%;;*%% *
/% $**%2$ 2
((%
'+,
)$
2(*%;%0/*/2*%% $%% (
%02%$%(*%
'+,
72*%/%$/2 0 9 /)/5
7%
($ % / 6/%%/2 ( 2 !
*5%
%$% 0/&BL )%((0%% 2% $ %%
9 %L
% ($
/#%(/220 %226 / %
%$% 9%
0
'
+,
F 9%*A!&2 $%2*A!&9 2($2/((% /%9 / %% $ 2((
/ *%9
'
+,
(%$%2( ($9(%$%2
% 9((%( $$ /
%
((%% '*(
9(%$%2$*%2%(% 9 %90%%%22$ 2
' &,
!((%9%22$9(%/
% ((&/%$ /
0 (2
'&,
A* 9220 /9$
/9
' &,
6
22$+0$ 2%
' +,
22$#2%A/ *($
'+,
Item No. 11A
1 '/
/ * 9/
%
% *( U-V/#%
B0$
00%
'+,
(%%9/2 %$%9$%2 %$%9220 /9 %0%9C0
'
+,
1 '3-( / %//2* /% 2**/%% F
%$ /8
: %0$2/%$%
$ %22$
3-(0/ 8*%( %%-% :
5 %$%*(*%(C$% 2%$ 8):% ($/
0 %* 29
$ /%%/%8
< $ 22):$ *C%22$
0$$% D
) / K!((%% '*( (
$%%$%% E(( ($9%0* / ((/ $% %% -( 2%0
D2%/
((%% %
% $**%
%$*%/%
% ((%**0$9
2$ /*% % %2%%/
( %/
$**%9
0/% %0-*()&?* %%% $**%9 0$*0 % 1*%% $%% $**%
*%
*
$**% %/* ((%2( $ % )& ?* 0*0$ % $/%$%K
'+,
? %% *KK%0%
'+,
220 / *(%% 30% 0 2220 /
?(*%&/$% %L $ %% /( ($2
220 / 0*
'
+,
!(#($9!((%9E(/
!
2*0/!$
9$/ %9
A
22$
'
+,
!$
/
22$ 0,(
)/(
%7
22*( $=&2%(*% % % %$$%F %$
7
%$ /
0
2% (*%
2)
J
((/3% / % %$ /
%J %* 1%
2%
0%%(% %22*( * 0%%2
7
% &*/%
*C%2
%
2$
' +,
*((K,*+( % ((/
*$ /%$*A*
0//
! C %0$*/% >K
'
&,
&
2 $**%2% 2%9 (%/%$ / % .82%
.:$
%
( 2 %% *$%
/2 *9%*0 9
0 5 /
0% .2$% % % %$%%(/% (2(% 2%$ /
% % (% $%$%$ 0%% $
%$ / F%%92 $% %
%.2%
.*(*%%
$%*(*% 2 2%
'
&,
/ 9
0// 9 $( $ 90/9% L 0 %% /% 9 * $% /%%/% 9
% $%
'&,
F
%22$ $ /2$%% ( % 9$% %/%
#*$* 9 $ % 2%9 *%0$ /&% / *C /=91%
/ ( %(
%0/2% $**%
'&,
22$9%22$*%22$&220 /
' &,
#2%9
(/
%9$/%22$
'
&,
// %0$*/!/5%KL%0$**$ L%0$*
*
3$K
'
&,
! % %20$$ 2%1*0
/(($ %%/%%$ %
%% 0
1*/!% /% %$$ /% %
0%(% *
% ($/0
%*
((*
2% *&% (%
$0%*
% %$%$9
%
9%*
%0 0
(% &% *C 2* % %2 %%/ %/1*/ 0 $ *% /2$% %%/ %/9*
/%/ %/%%/ %1 %/
*/ % /% 2%
*
% /2$% 2%
9C/90
9
/ 0 % /
'&,
Item No. 11A
!
0%*2% %(* 9%$9 %*(%
%$ %/% *($ 2 2$$%2/ ($ 12% *91
*% = % 2%%--%2%/ * %/%22% %%
5>B# %((/ %%
1
((% $ %(%
(% $ $
22$ %0K
'
&,
0%2%
12%*((
12%*(( 9%
J%
02% +(
% /%%% %%/0 / %
7A 9$ 2 10 % % %%/%22$ %% % *%$0$ *((12 *%
0*( 0%2(
/9 *(
% %%1
% %% (%
1J%$22 0%
% J %/ U$%U 1%%* 2C% ( ($ 9% G%
($% 2*%% $**%( % 2
'
&,
#%///%%%$%/((9*%
0%% / (%2% $%
'
&,
A /$*$(*% *%0% 0// %$ /A / 0$* $ /220+(% %
0 $/22% %
*%
2 *0 L 0($02/$(%0/0-2 %292 % $ 90/$
$%% KB$$(%0K)
%% $$ 2
%AD
/
5%
%
%A*/
0 % %$ ( % / $ %
%22 2$%% $(/% %0 %2)&% #F>
' &,
D 0 %%( /% 0% 2 !
%
%((% / $**$=% $/ $*%2*9 $9/9).D
9%$)%
!
0 /-*(2
%&*$ % 2
'
+,
! %2((
<0%% *%2/(( /
/% %
/ %%/ * %
(/((7 % !/%( %
0**(% ((% %2% *. %%
'+,
&220 /
#%/%
//
% $(
% / $ %
% /9%( % */9(% % /2 *
' +,
? * ((9$ / %9(%*%22$/ %
'
+,
1 '+ 2* %%/22$ %$ / ((%% -( 2$%J 00$ $%!((%%'&/ //% $%J %
$% /
% / %29
;(*-; (C$% % % %%% $%J $ *$ $%
'
+,
% 90/9%22$9% %
'
+,
1%
$*$/
%
$ /-(
' +,
1%
% %% * ((%/
/ $ /%% $%1%*
%2
2
1*%
% *
'+,
*%0 /2* *
$**% 0/0%
*$ 2$ 220 (%%/(%*% 0% %
* /2* *9
% A!&
( ($
0%%$022$%
%0( ($2 /2* *
(% % = 0/%
(% %(
'
+,
A* * %0% $5**%%$ 0((%%%
(% *
' +,
6$%(*%2(
&%%$% *,$ %%
* KKK
'+,
)/((%/
%
% 5%A* 9*%$%(( 0$*/* 0
*( 0%#*$$ * ((/ $% * %%% % ((/ **% ($2% 0 %%
*;* $00%%%=#$*%2$/0/ % % %02
!
'
+,
&220%F*
%22% $$*$*$ 22$% %*/ 1$/**%2-$*(%
'
+,
22$$/ %
92
9 2$ %% )*%% $
5%/
%
/
/ * ((%% /*% %
%/0///
(%/ $ % %% * $ % * 27%
% /% * %*%
' +,
Item No. 11A
(%-(0
!
%
0
% 2* $*%
* %0( %*
!
%*%
$**%
$ 022* 0
'+,
&220 /% %*% % (2$ 2* $*$/( % % % 2//%
'
+,
B02$%9%22$9 2( ($ 9%2$ (*% %2 (*%& % *$/(*%*%* 9($% 2 (*%2$**$ % 9$%=$**$ % $% %$$/ %$%*%*%$**
'+,
1 "5* $
'
+,
!$
/*
/%
%
' +,
% /2/2* /((% 0*0%
%
% *2*2$ 2% %*
'
+,
1$ / * $*+ 2* %%/*%% $(*%/ % 9
$ / %9/%
*(% )&9#F9% 2(% 2% %%
'
&,
-( % 9$**$ %$ % %2
'
&,
*$ %22$$*%
' &,
!$
/90% ((%$**$(*%
#
/
% %%
0$
'
&,
!((%% %
(
!0%29$ 2
$
% $%%*2
/
(% 5 /
(/ / % /%$% $**$(*% %*** /% / * ((%
'&,
#%%2$/ %9
!% %
(% 5%2*0$*/
% #F>%*
2 (
9 *
9*;* $9; %(%*%0/ 9%22$ A
9% 5% *%%22$%2 *
%0&BL 9
$
$
% *
' &,
E((%% % (/2% 2 % % % %%
/2 % ($% 2*% F#%%($F% % (%
% 2
/% * % %% $%%*
'&,
A /($ 2209(%$ 9$ / * 9$*% $ /
$
$%%$ 2 / %
*/02
$ %(%=% *
'&,
22$9$
2220 /90 %(* 9$
/$ $%50 (0
**- (*%9 $(%/9 $$2$ $ 9 *$ %2- %/ %
'
&,
22$$
/# 22L (%*%0/%%(%$%$%) /22/%
*%$ # 22L 0/%(
' +,
/%(* ((% % $ / % % *
(0*% %
%
%
7%*$ %22$
%
'&,
220 /
' +,
.
% ($2 /8/2* ($%:
'
+,
62%=%2/ ($% %2 (% 2 $$ % * 9C0 9 $%9%%*%9 $ 7 %2 %2 (%/
' +,
&220 /&
/% % *
'+,
8
:?% /$ %
$
%% ( %$#*9*9 %0 *220(% * %0*0%% / /((%8:7
/90
/9
* % %2 %$% % *(*%%$%22$$/ %
'&,
,%/2*%* ( $ G%
( 20*% %%%$%
* H ( % $%($%F$ /220 /2* /% % ($
*%; %(%*%
'&,
!((%
' &,
Item No. 11A
)$
20$2/%0
**(%$**$0/ ($ 7
%% ( % %
((%2* /((%0/% * &
*U&*/V/0 %0/$**$C0 %6%%*% *220 / % /((&2* J% %*%2 %%C % %
' +,
22$!((%
' +,
! %9 2( ($9%22$$/ %
' &,
%22$9 /9
'
&,
5% %'% $% 0$*/* $% % % % $%%
% 2$%% %
'+,
5 %2 / % / ,% * $00%%$$**% $* %%
G*% 7 /
(%*% 0/0%
'+,
. *C$$9 * 9%22$%*- (*% $ */ %9
$ $*9/%2%2
%
'+,
& $$ %12% %
!
$$ % 0
% $**%1
2% % * $ /9 1*% % %/
*//
(/ $ 2% $**%
' +,
+0$% % %0*(
'
+,
$
/%*$ %22$
' +,
A /2
$*2*5$2/
/ *; ((%
'
+,
7(%0$0 ( 9 ($2*$(%% K ! /%2
0 % % $%&220 / % /2* %00%
'
+,
)$
2220 /,%$2$**% % 9%% 9( 9
$
'
&,
22$92 9 2%
'&,
5(%(% % / %/2% ((% $**%E(/ *%
2D/($%0%$*%$ /022((%C(B // % %% 2**0(%
(*% !$*/% $ / (
L%*-$(% *
% 2*% *
'&,
&220 / +%$%2( ($+/,-2B A*
'&,
6
%
$**/% / ($9( %;
009
$ % (
$ 1
%
%
% /
'&,
7* %(% % $%$(
% % *($%2/0$*%$% %(
7* %(
%0$** /9$*9$$%7* % $%=220 % /0 / %2C$%%$**$ 0*%/% &B $ /+%$%*0 0%-/(%( /
$ //2(0$(
/-$(%%% %$%
(/2(0$% %
'
&,
E (%/- %/2 %$%
'
&,
%/
%9 %
%22$9*(0$% (%%%* 2=9 $%% *
'&,
*%2% 9%*,-$% /* %2% C0 %
$
%
/ &$%,-$
*$
; 9
*
/% %R
;R 9% (%% %R *% & % % *% /2**((%%*21J% %$ 5&?3FB))IKA
$
% "%J %2* % %K
'&,
6*%%*% (% 2
'&,
Item No. 11A
)$
2220 /
$**% /%%//2* $L%22%* %% %($% - %/9//((%12 !$L%%%$%/((/
2* %% 9%
!
* $
$%%/%
22
//((%% % / %$ /
L%02!$% L/
!
L%0 0$**%%9
$%
1L*%
2$%
220 /((%% 22% %%%$%/((2* %%
'
&,
* ((% $ $% 9 /;%$*
$ /2% $%
2$*% %%/ %-$%0$ % %$% %*(*%($ % %-$0%% % %% $8/9 2* ( :&220 / %2$ 2*2* % 2 / (/
C0
% //*/( $% % %/$/%/% 2 5**$%$$ /
E*%0/ 0$%% %%*
% $%@ ,
%($% ((/$% *(% %2% 3G%9% * % **(% ($ &%90/2 ($ $%
8/9)
:
' &,
22$%
/($
'+,
&220 /9G%2 %$%(% % $ /%22$
'
+,
**%%
/ % % %6* / % /2* *
'
+,
% / $%
/($ $**%9% %2 9 *
%%%
9% 9*9
!%/%% #F>7* % %% - %/ 9(%$%
%-(/$%= %(%//%% % 0 0% $% 9 %%
'
+,
7% 2(0$% %7$%2*% ! ,9@ ,%
7 %
A/ #$ H0$
%2*% @ ,(,(
?%% I,5&H0$
'+,
&220 /
% %2
/ * % * %0
'+,
,//
% % ($2$
% %*% % GG%2% %
'+,
+(%9$**%*% %
9 2%9 $%2 2
(
'
+,
A /;!((%% %( */ ($ / !
A$ %D
'
+,
6$% ((%/
% ;5,&
! /%K,2% %K
22$ $ /;
0%%% %% %$$%0
(% K1$ $* * 42 %
$/=$$%%/0 4(% 0*( = *$ 2%* % %%*%40$/ /
% ( /% ($$ $%2% $C4
' +,
&220 /?%
;
*
+$ 2% % /%
%%$2%/ % ((0* .? %% (2%(*& ( %2,#%%, %%/ % 0/ %/ % 1%J C %% )
'
+,
$%L
% *%%($
$ % %/ % $$**% 9% * ((*022$%( $0$% % * $ 22$%9
% % ( % $% % ((%%%*% ($(%*(%$% 2 % %
'
+,
A/% 2 %$%% ((%% $**%6*' %9$$/902* %
*(%%9$*( %2$% 4 22$%
%
%
%%%*% $$(0% 4
(//0$0%
(/220 /*%/( ($
'
+,
1 '&220 /!((%%'3- %/ ($%02208*%;2*: / 1 '%22$!((%%')$%$**$ 22% *U0U0*%; (*%C$% %**=%22$
!D
'+,
A /220%62$ %@0 $ % /6%$ $($%
'
+,
&220 /9% (%%/(/C0 0D/% / %2 %%/$ 0%%2/(%%$% 2220 /$/*%;2* /A / % % 2202% ((
!
% (**=$**%/
(*%%=%2% %A* $ $ $ %( % G%222 % / 2% $$*$ %%
'
+,
!((%% %'$0%/ %9$*=/
'+,
5
/%22$1%L *$
% %L 0% %2
'+,
Item No. 11A
* $(/% 2*)&9
/9/((/%%/%($
%
/$ % *%*(*%%
9// %
'+,
)$
2220 /
'
+,
,*%22$
% $/ % 22$ ,( ($ 0%(2 / 0
'
+,
!((%% '$%%0/%($% 2*9(%0 9 $%9 % 2 %1 '%/ 220 /2/% 9
2$9
(%
020 %22$1L%
%%$ 0*
$**%
'+,
% %
L//%$
((%
$%
L%0( 0A/
0/ % %0$
%
% /9/%2
% % $%00%
*
% *
%*=
'
+,
% (%%
'+,
,(0$$% * 220% %/% $ %$% % , ((%% 2((%$%(%$(%0/ % % %
,
*%/((%%
%
$*%
$
% % (%((
'&,
(/0 $%9*%/( ($9*
/$%*22 09%22$
8$)? (2:9* ((%(*%2$0 9 %( %/
*0 % % *
'
&,
* /
'&,
,%/G%22%- %/0%%
'
+,
%/ O220O /;*/9(%*% % % %/ ((%
/%%; $;%( % $22 /
% $**%% %% /
(9*2% *
% %
2$
% ;
$**
%;% /9/% % ((% & 9 (/
2*O**((O *0 %% ;*/ 2*
%
* O.$O
$%0 % / %% $**% ;(%$ % 2*E*% %&% / % 5%$%*$ % (%((%9% * %0%
%% % %$0=
'
+,
&%%% %
((-($/A* >%$ %*% % 0% % #$ D*%/ D%%$**%
% //2 %$%B; ((%
$ )%2* &220 /1%
% %% /( %%
$*$$$$% 0%
% $ 2$
/
% $**%
(% %( $ % 2%
'
+,
)$
2220&6
$* /
'
&,
1*
0%% ( 0(*%2
!D1 *
% #5$% % % 0% 2*0 / ; 9*%; (*% %
9
% % %$/ %12% %% *% / 2% / % $% 0$*
/$
% %*$ %22$G%(
/2% $ 0 % %
0/$%*(%12% $%(*%2
%D
/5*( -*(
2% $%L (///(
/9. (
(
/ $0$0
G% %0/ 06
L2$%/( % 8* %C
:
%% / % %(%2%
& 9(*%
% 0/ / % C %2
%
0$
%
2% *% / &9% $0 7 %
9
0/
((0% - % 92%/%
* /G%22
' +,
(%%2
*C 5 %2((%% $ %*
'+,
3%A /220%%%%$%((
% 4% 5&0
/ %$*%% %*
% %%$%%(%0 % %%$%0% % % /220%(0*7 %$92 (($ %%
' +,
)
$* /9 * 1%
% 5%$$*% 0, %
($2$9
$* /$$ *% * %1$ 1 0 $% % 9%
0/ $*
((%
'
+,
+*% *2% )&?* E(((%%- *%% %-
'+,
Item No. 11A
A /9/ 2
!D8% ( %%H/% D %
0
'+,
1$*(%0#%%*% 9 ($/
% 9% * 92$*%%
5%00/#%%/ % #*%* $#$ DB % 0%
'&,
A /($
(//2* %)$
2
0%
!D!
*
$$ $
2%/
'
&,
2$
'
&,
7*$ 0%%0
2 %$%%$%
*//2$%22$
!
O(O$**%
0%%(/$ %L 22$%0% %$% 2 8(0
% (%2*
9 $ ;%;% $
% % %%
$% :9 ($2$ 2*
*/ %%
%% %%
22$%%
% %$20 F %$9/%%/2** 672#% + $ D$ $ %> 9
9?( 00
%22$/ %*>
0(20
( % 7 %2 % 2$%% %
2$ /2
9 % %%/% 0
2 $ %6
0+
/ %0 %
$%2/%
%;; $2
$ / 2
*(-%
((2 % 1L*2$ / 0
0% % $/8$%
5( /% % %0
2 %$%(% / 2 % 9G%229 ( 9%%*%
(%9$02%(%9 % : * 2
% *;$%(/%% F %$9$%/ * %% % 0
( % 8!?$%%/2 %%
/%22$9*$
* 9
$% %% /9-(
9%$:
0%2$% % /%
0 % 7%(2((9%$ 9
% % 0(/
2%
L % %0
$;$% %$%L 6&
'+,
,%/%-0 8:% ((%% / $*% #
%
((%% 2%-0 0 % 4$0
'
+,
A /$ % ) %$%
'
+,
*$ %22$&%$% %$ #
0/9*
$ 1
(*% 2$ %%(
2% $*2*)&%
!
'
+,
22$ %* /8%
* (%*% :
'+,
5 *%$0 %%
/)$
/ *(% /
$(* 9%22$
$$ 9*%2* %$2%% 0
'+,
A* 9%*$ /
%
'+,
6
%
9$**$
!D
' +,
1$ %22$9 * 9$ % 0/2* * (%*% 6% (( 0%% 0%2$%2
!
D, %2
!D91 A$ %!2
*0// %$$ % 2%-( 2% *(*%2% 5$&% += KKK
'
&,
, %
(% ?* %
'
&,
;&220A /2
/$ 2* ;B 2(0$% % %*;D%%(/C0
'&,
A* 9$
2220 /9$ /%22$$/ %
'
&,
0// % 1 % #%%252*( /$/%% 5% $
02$%$*(
%
'&,
&220 /9$*%$ /9 * 5 //=/ / %$%
$ (220 /$ %$%$ * $//% %*?$/(%$ ($$*%$ /
'
&,
$
/
% 0/ / ($ 2//((%%8 %/9%$: %
% !
,((%
' &,
+ /% 0% 2$%
'
&,
1$ /%22$ %/%
% $ /0%2% $ D
% 2/*%; /(*%% ((%*% % $ % 2/ $**$(*%% $%(((%% 2((%
$$
'
+,
Item No. 11A
,220 /9; * % % $
((% $ 9
( %2
%
% /% /($9 ( 9(%*% 9%$
'&,
%22$/ % %
/%*%$ /%
'
&,
50%%$
9
(/(
% %$ /
// % $%*%% 1$
$*>0%%
2
'&,
/
% /2 * ((% ) &/ #%D09
%
% (% * 7 0%2( 2$% 90%%
0/ //*%0($% 2%70 % (
($ /$%90% $%9% %$% 2 7(%2
% 5
%(C$%2
%&
$L%($
% 9
%$ %
* $0
$
((%52
%$ %"
'&,
% %*0 $$%(($% 2$% $
2(0$%
G % *
'&,
+%/.$**%7 % ((%%%0% -*(2%/ %
%
%% ((
%
' +,
$**%2 % %%%%%$%$%/% %/% % , / %/
%%*% ((/ %$% 2
( %
2 2* $$//%
! %
!0%%
%(
* 2*%
L 9 2
/($%$//%
'
+,
(% $%(0$% % %*6 % *%%9% ;
,;F*%%+%22$2
'+,
&220 /2/2* 9 * % 2 * %2 %%*%2%(*
' +,
Item No. 11A
7 % 2
!
" $0%
$**%
% % 2%
&
'
#
(('
E(% * 2%/% 9$%/% #%%F95C> 9! A%9
3%$
'
+,
E(% *$ % * % %KK
' +,
1
% % $$% (=0$* 02 %
!
1%
0
/%% *$**%% ((% % $$/% % $/((% %82% $ 9%* 9%$:1 % *0
% /(C$% (C$% % %
(
!
D;($
%AD
/
' +,
#0&*%;/%(($ %(0*; /#%(O2*O
$
/ % 0( $*(%+*%%$ *9( ( / / %/ ($2$ (*% F*$% % % *
*$(% %-(
%(0* %
% (($ % *
L%
%%
'+,
&((
%
9*0
$$
%($ 9 ( %$%/ %29
/0
'
+,
1
%
!
$%%0/%($22* % $ E( (
% $%% 2$
(% 2$ 2/% % 9 5%%/
(/* % (%%1%
2
$%%$% %22$
%
% %
0/
'+,
+ $% *%
%* ( ,%$%(
'
&,
1
0//2*% 02% %
0/$
%$
'&,
2 *
%%
% *%*($%(
' &,
1%%% A((5%
$
22%
$%$%$$(% 2$$%*
$ *2
!1 % 2$ % 2*9 ($$ &%%*(%/% %% $%0 / *% 22$%
%
/ %$(% 2 %%*C
7J%
$ /% ;%/ 0 % %
0$** ,
2
! */ 09*%;$%$%=9
% / 2(%$(% ((%
2 (%/=% !$%=
0%%$%% 0$ 2% 2*
2 $/% 0%2220 /9$ 2$*9-$%$$ 0
*$92$% 9-$%$$ 0$%9;(2%/=%$**% //*% ((%95?+((%% 2/% % 22/ 2
% % 9$ / %* 2%%(%*=% 2 / (% $ % * 2%8/
$/$(//%%/
% $ ":,$%%
2$ / 0 $ % %/ 0 // % / 0 % % %
%#5/F-*(9
%$ % 2* %/
%(%$(%U%/%* V!$ ((%0 $ /=0%J (% %/$
2((%%%$%%
% ( 9
$%%9 (
!2%
020%%*
J %
F%22
9 9*%% %
(% *
22%B%*%
> (% 2%2 %$%2% !2%*
' &,
3$/$ %0% (%%>0($$%% #2 $
$%$
'&,
. % $**% % %J%20*/$ $ 2*%2 %%4 ,2 /
/ % 41$ /* %G0%%
9 ($0
&0% J ?4!%2;%( %/
% 4,**(( %% ;%
C %$ 4!%* 4,(
/$ //(% 4, $(
/% 4
?0% %22$$$ 9% %(
' &,
Item No. 11A
L
%
!$%%0$**0
29%0$**( %2;;
2-*(9*$
(%2*
/2* 2% %%%% %
%2// %/ %$ 9 %$ % % $%%* 82-*(92
%%
2*#(% A$ %%% !
,:
'
&,
6!
%*
% 7A 9#%,$ %(
$*0/4 %( %( %(
/0%2(
'
&,
,C0 0/0/
'
+,
D/0%/0$
%*9
(
%
% % %/% *2/
%
'+,
1
% 29(%$**%% % %/ %0$ % (1
% 0 $**%/( ($ % % %%/%
$
%
%1
% % $ $ $**% 0
%/% 92$
22% $% (2
% %**% /%2% /
'
+,
#%% *9J%0*
'
+,
E(* %% /% *0%$% * *%220 /(% 4%* $ % ((% *
%%% $/ %0%% $/*% % (0$ $ %$%
'+,
!
$ 2* $22%
9
$ (2-$
(*% %$%
( ($ % / %% $%
% *%
% /9 * ($
% @ , *2% *(%
6+
$0(( $%
'+,
3$/0%$ //$*( %$%/
!
9
*- 2(%*% 9$ 9%
* / * 3$/ %% *
3$/ %2/$ %%
'
+,
?*G%($2&*% 0%2 /
'+,
E(/( ($
'
+,
E(% 02%
%9 $ $%9$%% 9(
'+,
*% **%$$(%/2$%22$
'
+,
1 %% AB.3$ /90%*-2( /( ($220 / 2* $ %%/%
'
+,
D
1
* %
0 * *
'
+,
5%%(%$**%2 %2$ *C0 / ((
' +,
7
09**(( ( 9 29 * $%9
(% 000KKK
'
&,
!
02% * $**% 7L % 2( ($ 0 % 9 2%9%$12% * $%0$
;% 8% 9%$:9 0%1F *% / %/
'&,
&(%%(%
!
E(% ( ($K
'&,
1
2%
% *0%
%
% % $2$/( ($
$ /%22$$/ %
'
&,
#/ %*%$ %%2 %$%%,%$**%*%%% ( ($& * (((
'
&,
@ %
%
9
% C %2
*(*% %
%
9
$
/1L%
%% % 2
$ % /;% %L %/
'
&,
& 292*29% /$**%1J
% % $%%%$%*%(*( %
, %/$**% (
!5.%+
& %% $%
%**%0 % $ %/
'&,
,$
%
0%
% *220 /((%% 9*$% $ (($$8$0%:*%
' &,
*%% ( ($$ $$ 2$ 2( % $$ % 8 %:E($/*%% % ((% 2$*%$%
'&,
Item No. 11A
$ /$$
%
$
% 0%5%/
% 2% %
? /
% (
(
' &,
9$ %9; *
/
' &,
&0 %% %% (/9* % * $ % 0 $**% ) %22$2( 0) -( /
' &,
0/$**%
% $ %
$29%
(% 2% 2 %
$% 52% B#
'
&,
1%
0$% % -(%$//%22*7% % %9
%(2 /90 $%9
(/% 2%2( ($8
/90
/9
$**%2*:$$(%
'
&,
1
% *$**%% 22* %/%%/%
'
+,
&* $**%
% *%$1J
!
%%% %
0%
' +,
&(($%2% % 9(
90
(% 90
9(*%2% (
#($
'+,
+ ( ($
'
+,
& $ %
/ ( 0K
'
+,
1L
% *%$%$**%
((2/ C%*%/% %$
0 (0$ ($
' +,
,-*/( $ 9/9$% / %2/(( % % % / &$%L
%
L0% 0%%% (%; $
'+,
1J
% $%% %J * %% % 1%J 0%2$%%J 2% %20 90% %%
0%*% *1% %0*
$$ 0((%((
'
+,
5 L%$ %% %%2%2*0/* $ /$ % $*
'
+,
&$**%% %(%$% ( ($(
90$ % % 2% %
% &$**%% %0% /(($22%!% % 22% *% 2%
% $8/ %% 2
9%
!D9*0 :
'+,
% %%2/0(9 /2$% 2*% 90/ 92 %$%% %( *%
'
&,
1J
%
!
/
%*/($2 %2%
1J
% %
0$*($% %$ %J 2$**%$/ $0 % 0/0 1J
%0
$*/$$(%/9% %2$ /$%% % %
$
% $**%
%
%%C%9/
%
'&,
&0%
%
$?%% 0022% $%5%%*%0/ / %+% */=%2 /9$$%$*-2 9/ *9
% %(($2
%2% % *0 %8(
% / :
' &,
1
!
% %
0$0%
*%/% ( ($
/ 0 2% % $*%
% /%%*%/ %2
%2**(( (
! $%%((% /
C00
80%$ 9%$:1J%0
%0
0*$**%%
(% ( %
($% 2
!7%((%//%
%
$**%
%
0 %0% /%*#$
$ 9%$
'&,
#)!7/
% 9%=% ( ($9%
/(%*%$**$
0/ 99
$**% *$C %
'&,
1
(% $**%% % $ *0$ %&$**%% % % ( ( ($0%$ %J
$%*
*2220 /&
$**%% % J%2/%%L %% %$ 0%2%L $%=
'
+,
Item No. 11A
1L
% *%% %9*$%% !((%% 2/(/C0 9 /% %/(($22, %% ((%5%( ($ ((%% 2
/C/
'
+,
9(*22% /0 $%/% $ %* , /
*% ((%$(/*
' +,
D%%%22$/ %%*/*2 /
22%% 9*(%
%% ; $ $(%
%% %/$%((( %%2 * %
2% $ 2 9$% ((%//2* $ % %/(
$ $ 9$%*(*% // $ 9$% ((%2% $%9$80%% $(:2
$%%*
( ($(%9*%
0/ ($ (*%,
% %%% $$% (=*
220% % 2* ($
* %($% 1%%(%%
7 %
($%$
% %2* %*%
'
+,
E(( ($ %$%9
(*(/( $ /9
%%% $%
(*%
'
+,
&$**%
/%
/% / %0%&$**%
9
/&*-2 /%( % %
9/G%
2 %0
((%/1$ $$ %( ($ 9*-*=$$ %%( $%
$*(/((%% $*% &$**% $ % %%
%2 (
/%*2$9 $;$*$*% %0%
'+,
(%J
$*9($2*/
0$*/2$%%$%$**%2
/2* % %
%
'+,
,$
' +,
.9/%
/9 2%9$$%$%!%* %(
'
+,
#*%
;% 2 ($9% 9(%2(
/9// 0 $
'+,
*$**%
/ %
1%J /%($%C %%
% 12%J%
0
9J%2-%
'+,
1L%
%% 2( ($1L%
%
%
0/ 1L%
%
% % ((% %/
% 10 (
;;*(
0
21%
%%$ ((%1 *$ $ / $
9* %2%1 ((%1% ((%%
2*% 5%5$$*(
%
//0% *02 %00% %% /2% /
((0% $%= %( %*** 2
%*5%5$**0
2*% 0/(%*%$ **
%
( 1% ((%% -*(% % / % %$%((
'+,
#*%*%/
%
'
+,
1=
!
0%
%
1
/
/(0%%J
% %(%0(
% *%0/
22$%2$%
/%
/ 0
'+,
#%%
%
'
&,
7*% 29%%$**%% % % (($%*(%222/
'
&,
#*%(*%
'&,
!
92% 2%9$ *%+ %%$%2 / G%/9 / G% $ 9 / G%% 9 / G% ((/ / G%/ %
/ %$%
8 *%5#%:2*
!5&+%
!
,
'
&,
F9%9 *%( 9$ %*% 2( ($% %
/
% 7%
%%(
' &,
&0%2 2$%% %2$
(/% %2
!
/$%
$**%5%0/2$ ( ($
'
&,
E(( ($
'
&,
& 2
!
$**%
% % / *0 9 29$
$**%
'
&,
Item No. 11A
.$(/22(
'
&,
,$**%.%%
/ 0
'
+,
#2$**%22* ((%#$ $ ((%2$% (%
2$%= ?0%2$12 %$%
'
+,
&
%
9*$($
%A9
(/% ?*
' +,
,%$$%/ % 9*/(
' +,
&/2$%% % ((%%0% /*/( $ % *$ 0%%
% (%%9
% ((%$((%% $%((%8 9 :)
$/ %
!D
' +,
&/2$**%&($
/ $$ 2(($
% ((
0 2
'
+,
, %9$$*$( ($ % % 2
%
' +,
5%%
% 5%/
%
$
0/*%22$
'
+,
E(%%
% Q *
'+,
1
0%%$90%1 (% G%9* % 2 %$% % $%9 $$(%/2% $% 9%$
' +,
& 2$**%% % *C %*% % / 2=
'
+,
,* % %% $% % *$ % *K1 %%9
1
%%
$%% % 1
!
D1J%
%%0 %$
%22$
/% / %
7 %/%% / %
A$ %9
!D
%
/%%/$/ %1%J $ %-($%((%%9* %2
%2
%
, 0 0
9%2%
91%22%$%2
%J
%
((%J%/$%%
!
D( KE(0/
/ %
%I
% 2$% % %% *C%2 %
%%%/
% ;
*%%
%%% *%
%% *% %($2, %2 $*
%/%
2*$%K
'+,
5%
% % *%
2,2*%%*%
0
/9
9%$2
0(%*% 22$0/ 020/ F- *
%
%
' +,
&220 /2/2* 92 % ( %$ %
/
(5%
% 2 %$ 0% % % 2(% % 9
% *(% //%%$ /
'
+,
#29$**% (%9 %%$/ %
'
+,
&($
/ 0 % ($%
2$22909$$*
/$ 1
%/%($*
'+,
1
% 0%%2
% / % $%6% %/G% %%/ % A$ %9 0%
A$*(% F
0% %/$
% 2 // % 2%
0
;%
$
2/2% % 1
% % $%$$
( $0%% % (*%
% % $%1
% % $%
$$% %
% %
C0 $ 1
% $%%$
*0%% ((2
% %
($
%;0
'
+,
,220 /9 9 ( $*( %(% % * 9
* %9/% $ 9/$**%%*%
'
+,
,$ % *0%
%
0$**%(/%
!D
% *-
(C$% &* 0G% % (%% %*% % $%% %% %
$
02/%
;& ((%% % %2%$$(%((2 $% 0$
/ ;, ( % %
0F% 2$**%
'+,
! *0$'
:&220 /9:$0 (*%9:/ % (%%
!, %+9
/%$*%9$%- %$*7 %
%% 2%
! //%%$*98220 /:4% $
%
%%$0 4%/%%% C09% /
0
% (%% %*
'
+,
Item No. 11A
,$ /*/( $
'
+,
$**%1
% % 2% 2*% % 2
$$*$2* /% 0%%% &($29%%9
($2$ %2 27 *2% 20/0$
2 $% 5%
*$ %0/%225%D%% %
/2
% / 92
L% % 2$%/%2/%* /2*
9
%/
/%C% *%
0
$%0% %%92% L% % ((%%%G-($2% 2
$% %/% 2%9
0$ %/$ L $ 92% (% % % % 0%2 /% 0//($%229 %*
%
0%%($
'
+,
7
% %!
,*(
/#%
%
/
% 6 / 0/% %
0$
2*% ?% *(
( 0G %%
'+,
59 2
% ($ %% (% %$$ 0%/2$* 3$/ *(% %% % %2$
'
+,
, 2
0% *% %*(%
% *
;
(%
0%2 *($**%1%L % / %
0$
% 9%$
D%9%L *%%L 0%7%6!
0/ %% 2 1%
*
% $(2
!0%L / A/ (// %
% % L%
(
0/%0
' +,
1
% *;%* ( 9%9$9 /%
(
/9
(20/ 90/ %;0$
20/ 9/( %9( ($
% 9%=$**$0/ % % ,!?3$**$0/ !. +
4% %
((* %
' +,
#2((%$%
'+,
,%% *;%
2
*
/
!
0($%
((%0 6%% % /% 0(%%%$% %%
'
+,
1J
% %
/
%
% %
J%**%00$
09
%9$ %%/*C%
'+,
*(0$ ($
'+,
& %0$**%% % %(
% (%2( ($/
5(
' +,
,(
9*%(/9*( ($( %6!*0/ 9 %
$**$22$ $% % ?;(( 0- %/0/ 2%(% 9
% /%2$2%9% %$$ $%( ($, % *(%%96!0/ % /
'
+,
1 % @ ,
%($0/(( %% %@ >/ >/9
0%(
9$ % 2(-9%(-2(- * ;;% / % .%$ / % %% +%2% >/$ % 222$$2% %
%$ & * %= /%$$**% % ( $$ / 9
% 2*
% /$ 79 9
;%
%
% %C%
0%2% / 0
@ >/ 0%2/
*%9 /%(*%%$%*/ % F% (0$
% (%%90 %( $ % *+ %% %12(($%% * $%0% 2% @ 2*%% %/ % 2
!
90%1
($%2G %2% /9$**$ ($,( $% %0% 0 % 2
% %((%
(2% 2%
'+,
D % *(% ($ %
C ,($ 2%%*%0%
2*2%,$ 2*% % &1J*
%0%
' +,
1
% /*/( $,% / %
' +,
B2%%9 (%22% 91C % % ((%90%$%9$// % %22$
0$( ($(
;2
$
(% %%%
'&,
!( ($ 9%0%
(0$%%0
%$% / G%
$ 0
(2
'
+,
Item No. 11A
& ((9
0$$**%9( %// 9
% /*$2$%% 9
*% 9 %/*(*%0
'
+,
1J* (/% %% *2% %$$ *$$ 0%% 2%1% 0
*%
%*
% ($1%J $% 2 ($ %
% 1%
0$2*
(%/
!D/%*
% $%
*($% G1% *
22
!
* *(%%% 0/$%
%
(%*% % %
A
** /(
% "
'
+,
?%% G$**%$%
% $$ %% * $9( ($9/ $
'+,
,%% *%
20%22 %*;($ 2( H * %/%
0/( ((-(%
'+,
7%
$ 2%$ /$ / % /2*$%$ %% (%%91 %
C %%
%
'+,
)
% %
>$ %
% 0/(2 % %
%0
(%$%%$ %
' +,
1
% $**%
L
0%L
0%
!
% 01%
0$%00%
9 (9%% % /%
!
%
% %-($1
% % $%*0 L *0 L
L/
0 L)/0
0$*$ 2% $**%
'
+,
, %2((8/ 92% 9% $% :
'
&,
1
% $**%% %*% % ( ($( (*$;
( %% % % /$ 1
% *%
*
$ % %2202% ((
%
'+,
1L
%*%% %/%2
%1
%% %*
!G ($A
9
/% %/%(2%$ /$$ 9
'+,
1
% ( ($ *(,0$$ 92 % % %
%%8% 0
$ /%
%>%+
/%
)9
$ *
2/ :
'
+,
A(2/% / %
'
+,
&$**% 0( ($
% / % /$/*%; ($
8 /00 :
$ ( %0$$2
% *(0$
% (%%/ ($ % / %% $%& $%% % 220$% $%%
'+,
9$$ 09*2%%%% (%%80 99$$/:
'+,
12&F-81
J /5%5$:&&*9,$53/ !D
((%
9( % %
;1 ( %($(%$/ %*12
% $% % ($%1 %$$ / 1 $%% %
(
% 2*
%
(20/ 9 *;/ 0 9 9
% 9
9%%%22$$
'&,
1
% %0$**%% % % *;$ $%1%
* %% *(*%%2 $$ 2(0$% (%%9*%2 $ %$%9/ %;%% $(/?/%( *22(*%9
!(#($
00
%
/9G %*%D$$%
2
$$$%%0%
% %
0$(
22
2 0%%
0*0$$ (0$ !$%9% / %J * %% %22 $%22$ 9
((% ( 0/
% (%$%
%
0*
($ %C0% % (2*/% 9*H((0 $/ %% 9
$%% -$%(0$ $ 0
'
&,
E(/( ($
/
% %((%9$/ %9%*$
'+,
)% *% (%925!$(%9* 9%($% 0/ % % /0
*/2 9% 0/*%
1%L % % 9
%
(3 %%$
%#%$
%% //(1%
'
+,
&0$( ($ $**% ($
'
+,
Item No. 11A
$ ( *$*2%%%%%
0/2% %$$(%
% % $$%%/% **0 2% $ *02$**$% $**$ $% * %-$
'
+,
,%( ($2
/
/90/0 $% /
0 $(%9/(0$% (%%$/0 /(%
'
&,
!% %2% % $(% %2% % /.+.90%29 *
$*/K
'+,
)*%/
% ?%% $2
%
!
% &*%% %52
(00$%%0/ %
% %
*%
%
$%$%%( 2*((% &%92 %( L%% %*%
/
% 9
!
022%% % 00 2) &/ 9 % % *
%% %
!
%
( %2* L%%%
0%% #F>)
% ((%% *L%%% ((%
'
+,
!2%
' +,
E(% $%(J%0(
!D+%$%(%% 8!
:,/% % (
% %
J%0$*!/5%1J0 $
91 (% %
' +,
1 1
%
!
% % (
%%$* %' *;
%* ( 9%9$9 /% (
/9
(20/ 9
0/ %;0$
9( ($
% 1
%%$%%0 $%2*%
$/ %% %$% %/
1
% $%% % %$2*%
% % 2% %* 9% ( 2/( $*(* $%$$ **0 !.+
4% %
((* %
'+,
1
%
!
%-*(2 %0%9* ( 8 %
5+?(%% (
/% :
%$%*%9/
% &220 /2
$*7(/
% % % % $**%% ($% % E(//0% (
% /9
(/
!
/$
'
&,
>0%0 $**%9G% /2($(% 9 22$%220 /2 %;
9 0 ,%( ($ ( A/ ;G% $
&% 9% %$ (% 22/
' &,
7L%$*
'
+,
&/%2/ %2% % % 2D%%% //*%% / %% $**%/+% (
% $/ %
'&,
&2*9$**%%$2% %& % / 0 % %$ 2% %% %2% %%3/0$ ( % 2% 2 %
* % 0($ %
/
/(9
$*/
% 9$/
(0$% % /2*(
% *
%*%% 2%2
%%
% /%2((%% % L% *%0//
' +,
7
0%
9/9 ( %$%9%$ $*( 9((/0 90
%%
' +,
$**%
% % 2( ($ *%
,0
22
%
2 %*
'+,
D%%(0$% (%%
'
+,
5%/%%
% 9
% 2% %$*%/;(%%
'
+,
1J
% 0 0 $%9C$%%
0 ((/ %$%
%
(%*% %(2 ( 9
0(0 %*% %( ( 2
%
2*
5* %%%75%
' &,
&0%9-$%/
%
$22;$ %% 90 9%%8% %/
/:/ %2 $&220 /2% %$ % O1$L%*%
0$ 1%*
/ 0%1
/% $ % O
'
&,
&$%%2% U *%
V2/% %*
! ($122%(*%
!D9(
(*% 2%22$7J%
%
!D%
>%D% #F>)
%%% 22% D%$ *%;
(*%)
0%%
% %%($
'
&,
Item No. 11A
1
% $**%% %*0$ $0% %%22* ;;% ((9% $*9% / %$
9% % (%%* 1L
%
$% %
( 2($% %1$/%%
% %/(
/1L
$**%
% %2 % %($%22 C0 $*$((%% %% % % %22(% %% *$
'+,
& 29($29%0%$**%% %%%$% *2* 0 %%
$%5% 0$$%%% *C$% 0(0$% %8 :
'+,
F%%% $%.% /(0$ ($ % %%%;0 9 $%(
6I5&
$%&%3$%$%0%% 0$*(-,*% %$*0% (%
'
+,
, 9*($ 09
(//9*% / 2
%
'
+,
& 29G%90%2$**%)% 2( ($(%$% #*%2%(%12 0
6
0+
0 $%F% 322$%(%*%
0/
% (%2(
/#%(2 %$%2 %
' &,
1L%% 2
%$*(
% $*( (2
!90%
% /%%/ %
9 (2
//2
, % %%$% %0
% / %2$%2***%*($%
%% 2$**%% % %9
% 2 ( 0%0%
/ 0 % $$% ( 0%%% $%% 21% *9%* %0 ($%
'&,
1%
0$2*$ 2%
% *
9(
92/2$**% 2%
($2
' &,
)/ % 5%/ 0
90%
% /%*( ( %9
%0%%/% 5%L ($O2O2 %
' +,
59 29
($**%
'+,
,%
1J0 90%1
!%0 29
2*$**%9
*/%C %$ /((90%(%
% %
%/%
'+,
.2 %$%9G%(0$% %9220 /9 *%$%92 29(
(%$%( ($9$$%%)&7 %5%*((0$% %(%
'
+,
I/2* /% 0%22%
!
,$%%
02% % %
(% *($%$%)&?* //*% $**%) %22$$% %%
2
,( ($*(
%( $ % /$%2 %5%$/%9*0$/% $% $ 9 ((%/*/%2*
!
% (%%%% %0
-*(910% % $**%
$$*%/% *0$22$ 9
*0$%9*0$( $*% % 9 /%2 $%
$%0% ( %9*09220
'+,
6$
/9*%/(
( ($
'+,
,220 /92
O0/ ( 9& D22% 9 *% (
'
+,
1L%
9D%1 (% %1L*// %2%
'
+,
7
/
% ($%
*(
% % %2($
#%D0#) !0 (6% 2
%
2 %%0 9
%
$ %*2
/
!3-(
(
/ %$%$
0",0
!D"
' +,
6/
% !2*( #%( *0 % % %$%%%% 3*%% *
% ((/% 2% / (%% *
KKKKK
'
&,
A/ ($%/2 $ 8.9
.%
:$**$% % / %%
$**%A* $*(*% 0///
0*%2*$% 1$
% %2*%$ /0*$$*( %0 /$(%22$ $**%
E*%$%
0$0%/% % 2$ 2*/% A*(%2*6
0+
%% $%A*( ?
'
&,
+$23G%90/#2%? ($%2% 3% % $**%
'&,
Item No. 11A
1L%
%%
!
0$*
% #F>9
% ;
9(
( 9* /( $
!
2$**%9%
0/%%% /( 0%
(%% %
, % 2%* % 9
/
/( %/ %
/%
2* 7 0(/
$
'&,
1
!
%
% 9-$(%% %*$ %22$
$%(2%
0
%
;((%//%9
(% 0
((/% %* %% 0
00%G;%( % -( & 2%%
)
%% 1L%%
* %(* 1
(
)
%-%%A*(%
' &,
#* *%
2E
/((
/60//
% 60/
%
)
%22$
'
&,
E(%
% &%$
90%9
$L%/0$
E(( ($L%0
($2(K
'
&,
1
% $**%% % $$%9 29 % % $%
% $*/
'&,
1
(% %
$%$%$/%*%*
2** *2
F
9%
!
$%/%0/*%% -( 2%
((/ % *%1
*%
(
!
*9 290%29
2
'
&,
,
0/ 9%(($ I$ % % 0%2 6
((% $(/!W>%! (2$% 12 %*
/ %2$$0 *(%%% 5%
'
&,
&
%
% %$% 0% $**%$% %C % %/
'
&,
1
0
%
%
($ 9220 /8
/
- :*(0
(% %$/2* %-(
' &,
&$**%$%%% 0%9 %92 $*/%* ( 2
&*$L *%
%0
%
$*
'
+,
,$%% 2
9
%
;
&0%%/ % $% %
J%$ %(*
'+,
D / / %
'+,
&0$0%
( ($ /
' +,
E(%G%2*%9 * 9 %$ 9*(% (
0
(
'
+,
>%%$ /2*
&*0%
%
$90%% $%%2%
$%J 00$ $%% %
'
+,
%2
'
+,
,%$ $*( 9( $/
' +,
( % 0022% /%*% (
9/ $ 9% 2(
($
(% %2% ((%
( 0
'+,
1
% * /2* * % %
!
/
/ % %%
% / $ 9/ ***% $ & (//
% / % %$ $%%2% 5%F-*(% /*C (
0
% 5%L ( 22$& % 0/2 * /$/%% *C
% /(0$6%C %(
/*%2$% 0%(
/% 2
% 9
/9
% % *$/% $ *
'
+,
59 %0/,%(% % %/ %%%
' +,
Item No. 11A
D
%$
% / %$%.2 % /2(%$%/22#%D/* 6
0
/
,
/= (% *02(/ *$ (
%(% %$% %% *%%/ % D $$5% 5* ;
;
D * $$2 % (
%
*C ( BJ%
% %
0/
%*%
% %I/$%/**0 ;%
0%
+%((% %%
$ ( -($*
(% %%%0*(2 #($%* * % % 3/ 2
K
'+,
5*%$ /*2$% #
/2% %$%F%%&$% $%$ *% %* 5$%2*$ %(% %$ %&$%
*%2 92;((% 2* 9($ % (((%2; %%
(%/ #
5; %$%
0
'
+,
1
%%
(% /% *90%*
*220 /2% 2
2* 4(( % %$ (/22 %% 0/ %0/ 0%
K
'
+,
!( ($9(
+ /%
%(*%9 /,*H((
%% 0 E(% *%
2
' +,
& %/*2$%/%$ $%22* #% 52&0% %
$
0 %0,G(
(/ 2%
/$ ) (*%2 /2* * D%% $ % %*$** $$$*(%#
3&,0 $$*%0%%((
2% /0*
%
'+,
0
0$**%
% 0$22 % %% 8(
9(%
%% 9$%:%/%
% / 0
! (%% /20/%
2 %* % (0
0
0$**%% B%#%% 1%
%* $$/$**%*=/
% /%(/90% *( %
(%=% -$(%$*$((%% 2$$%$$$9 % $%0
%%
2 2$$/(%
'
+,
1
% $%% % % (( %2% #F4 %% 8
(
$
2 $%$ %*2* :9( ($ %$%9(% / %% BG$ %$%9(/% % $%22$$/ %6%0/ 9 *0 %2 ( %
'+,
+2091
% 0 %((%( ($$%% $$ 0%%*% *((%7
'
+,
#%D0 %*%
' +,
1
% $%%*0$*G(/ 5% %
%
0 %
$% /%
*$ $**$% *0 $% (
/2*
'
+,
!% % *0 %
!
2% ( $ +*%( ($9
% /9/ ($2$*%2$*9// 9%$
'
&,
&($$**%2-%*$ ((9* %*$*2* * % /((
2%%0%%/
((%%
'
&,
#%% * *%
' &,
1
%%0% * 290%2$%1
'
&,
& 20%$%
'&,
,(%/2;$ % 9%$*0%/0 */9( 9$/
0%&$% %*% % %$$%% % 5%*% 3-( 25% A$*(-% %$%&%$%2 *9
; % 9
; %9%
%(%*% 2//(
' &,
+%%*$ % #*$**%%
0
% / %$*(
/
0
/ 2($
((%($
( %%
((%% % 2% $**%%% $* * *%
/22
'&,
Item No. 11A
1
($% %(%= % 2% % 9* ($ % $
/% 82* *
% 9(%$**% ($ 9
0/ 0 9%$:9
$**%% %$/ *%$$ 8130/ / ( %$ 9%$:
'&,
&($
% $/9 / 2209$**% (% 2 % ) 2$ **
/(*%9%%%% $ 9$//
% (%% $/2 2
'
&,
52*$
%%
' +,
7 %
E33+
A351
I
1#6!7
'&,
!(#($ % %$%
220 /
2/((%
'
+,
&$**%
% $%(% 2((9
% 2$9$%9/9/9%$
%
' +,
A 0%
%
,C0((%%
'+,
!% %$ % % 9(%$%2 $ 9% 0%%9 2/( 0%
% $ (7% 20
(% % %/%
$%& *$ /
* *% % *$**%$ 2/8 %$2% ((/*K:
'&,
&0 %2*;%$**%
% *( 2%$%
% *
(
% %0%% %0/ % % % % $2(%*% /
'&,
) ((9( ( ($
' &,
&($
% % 0 %0$2*%;/%$**%/
7
(%=0 ((/$%; % %(($ C0 % $ $*
' +,
&% %%2( ($%22$*%/%
' &,
&$**%% % %$ //%% %* % 2% %
%%/-*(2(9*(% *(% 9 $9%$9%$%9 ( % (9$$%*
'+,
,%( ($F*(% % )*%* /( % $ 0 8(/9%%%9%$:% 0*0
'+,
$%
(/*%$9$
2 %0%2 % 9*
=
%( *$%$
% ( 2 % ,$%%
%%*%%0 ((L%/%)&>%
'+,
1
% $
%
9
$**%% % (%%%%
80
90 $%22$:
' +,
A/ $$%0
/(%
% -$%2G%(0$% %
'
+,
2*2 2
' +,
12% /1
% % *%/2% * 1%J %)&K1%J ( %% C %
'
+,
,$*$% $ %F$;(,8 ($%$:(0$% %3 % %/*%$%($
'
+,
&/
/$*
% C0
2$ /0$, //
!
D ($%!
,+* /5%A
'
&,
E( #
?!6.K
'&,
,**(( % ) $ %% A /2 22 $ 322$%% (%%A/% (%2$ $ %%&($% % ( /% % $**%
'&,
,-;B D,&220A /#%/+ %2!(#($
'&,
1
% *
0%%/%((%*$%0
/ 7
*$$ % %
2
% 0%
$L%0
% $
/0
/
%%2
'&,
&$%
((2
9
($ %$*%/% C0
-($
% %$02%(%
'
&,
Item No. 11A
&*U/;$**%V2% %2% B%#%%
'
&,
($29*
'&,
5C&
/
$
% *((%% K)%J
(*% %
B61
3#
&
3#%,-$
'&,
6*%%*% (% 2
'&,
1
% /9 *;080% *:
%
1
% *
2* 2* 0$
/ / $$*$ %% /% / %% $**%
'
&,
% % -%2
$ 9
%%%$%/2* %% $**%
%
*220 /(% G%C0 90% %%%%% 2 %$%2 $ (0$ ($ 8/9(
9
!D90 9%$:
/* 2%
$**%% (0$ ($ '% 5$&% +=9A$ %5%2% &% 95C5
+
9%
!
)0
5%#5%9%*2
B(
(2%
($ % %2
($
(
(% $**%0%1%* 2(/9
% G% %00$/ % % 5*(%% #F> $**%
5*9>%!-9
!
% *;%
2
9(%9%% 0$2( ( ($9 / % %
%$% 2$**$
% % $**%
% O *;%
$ *O 0$*
8/9 %%$ 2
!D0%
0/,(
:
0;/%2$%
' &,
A /($
*/2* $22%
!D(2
*(*%
'+,
&($% %2
*K7 % ($%0% /%
% % %C
$**%$0%%0/%2%22* &($% % ( %% % 22
'
+,
#2*0
,
0$%
'
+,
59 29
0/9
/9%-(/$%=
% $92* 9$% $ 9
(
9% 9#&F3
I9 %%(2% %(0*
'
+,
,%A% $ H /2% $A* ((%
*
%
(
2
$ 9 929($9H%
'+,
1
% 0%$**%2/((0 2*% %
$**/2(/
2( ($ 2
/
/% / %
'+,
1
(%$ $ /$ %$%$%*% % /
(*%%*
%M;
J
'+,
#2%9$ ($( $% $ ,%$ /%5>B# $
'
+,
3-( %;0 ( 3 $ (% !D1$/%
% 2
!D8-%
%($$ %,(
'
+,
&0% 22 $*/%2% #F>;0%2 ;($4%
*$$%
' +,
&$**%% %*0$ % ).D
% 9 $ 0% %(% %% /2 %
%$ %%$ ,2* 2$&0*/ %% %( C0 2% $**%5D3%%*%+ *&%
'
+,
$% 0$/=0 *%%
%
90%
% %220 /
81
%$$*( % :*2
%
9
$ 1
/& 91 (% %% 6!
$% *%% % 0$
9
%
'
+,
1
% % *U *%
V92$**%%* ( 9
/
/%
( 0% 220 /((%% 1%
0
2%0/ *
0 %$**%% % %
%% 5%%J 2%&9
9
%(%2$($%$ ((%%(0$ $
% %
'+,
I/9* 9 / %$
2$* 9((
/ !(
($(%$%D%%(0$% %
'
+,
Item No. 11A
&$**%
% 2($% % $%/% /($&$**%% %(%= % %
;0/2 % $/% % %
02%2*220
/
'
+,
$;
0 9%;2;%
9*%29
0/
0/ =
'+,
1
% % % *$**%
% *220 /2*$ 1
% %22$%%$
% $*
'+,
% %
% ( ($9
/ % 9$%% $%/ $ %%%$%2* 12?$2% %*$% * %252% $ % *
(% %*
% %$ $
0$
$ *
0%
% % %2% $%I
L%%%$%*% 0 %/I ($ % ((% $*$0
'+,
>0%
!
D,$ $*0$
'
+,
?$%22$
'
+,
.%0%*%%
%$*2*$$* %$ 3 $$ %% $% %22
'+,
7 % $**%% % 2% 2%7 %1L% % % %%%
$ /%0($ %2% $*9G%0*$**% L
0
'
+,
1
% % (%%% 2*
!7 /%0
%
$%90%% %/ ' /
8% %%
0
:9(%$%8/9$00%
0
$ :0
$%% / 2 $(
% $%$/*%%($
%*0
% 0
8$%$ 2;(
:% (%%
G /
$%0
(
/;0
$ // %%
0*
4 5( / 0
L *9% 2
*%
%
% & 91
% $%9
9*%;0
;% 8
% 0* 9C*( 9%$:
( ($
%*
2*C0-($2*%0
9%
*
% % *( %2
G %
% %
0%0
% & %$% % 9*%0
*%%
O 0(% (9O0%1* % %(/ %
/
0
/9% %*%2% % (
22
'+,
&$% (( (%$(%/$%% % $ 22D % /*% $
% * //0%
% %% %2$$(%$
($%2% $ % $**%
! %/9/ ($%22%
'&,
%0% 0% (% 0%2( ($* % %* %99 ($
'
&,
1%L /%$%1L
%%**$
% 0%% * %% /%%/
'&,
5%/%0% 29 *=/$%%
'
+,
&%=
!
D
% O
%
O2((%/% /
0 2% % %*%(
% 2 2*!( ($% % %(%$% , %((% * /(% $/9*0$9 (
'
+,
7
!
0$ % 9% 292*;2$**% % /%
$ 9$%((%% 9 $ 0 7
% % % /
*%02 $ (2% $ % 2%
'
+,
1
% 0%
%
'
&,
1
% $%% %$ % % / = ($0
%
% $% 0(% ( % 0%2$* *
((%
' +,
& %%$ /2*
%
- % ( 0
'+,
% $$*$
% /C0 $$ 0%*> $ J% %/%
' +,
1%C %
%
'
+,
#2 %$%5&+(%//(0$6%/ %
'+,
Item No. 11A
?* $ 00%2/ ($0%$(% *- %(((% 3$/ 0 /
%
%AD
/
$
$*% $**%2
/ 922 %%*%/2%,$*(*%((%%1$(%2 * % %
% % $%%)&
'+,
,$ % * > * %0$2%( ($$ $% %/
'&,
!D *- 9%
$%? %% 90 9 ( 9 /.%2 *2 % 9/ %(* (
% 0,
% %%
$ $0
A /(% % 0E(G%2 $ %$%
'
&,
,$ *
%$%$ *%% ( %2
%$$ % G
% %
% 5&&G$% %2% G29% % /* % %* %%% $4
$ %0(
/4 / 2 4(*0(*% (
/ 2$ 2$/ 9 * %% ( 08 G2 0:4
;(%/ %%/ % % / %/ %/;; ($%&*/;;%$ *%/ %(%4G%$ // %% 22$%$ $ 40
*(*% %0%$%
( 20
*%%2$ 24
*($$%%-(,%(% 8( ( *( %&*%
:%$
% $ %2/%)&%>%#D9 ($2/$**% 4 %% $ %$%% %*
2* %(;* %/8(
/$;$%:%
( %;
$% %%; $( 4,B5A$ %%%(%/%$%* % / %% $%9/
% ( 0$;(*%8/ %$:%$% 0 %; 22$%
'+,
1*((0$% (%%400 2%-4$%*% (%0$$ (% 2*$ *
(% $ 0
( %
% $0
'
+,
,/((5
'
+,
A
% $ 2/0/ 9
(% *%%( C %
%1%
$ ((% 9%-
2% $22 2% $%
% *%6!
3W+&6#1!69A!)!76#
!?IDB1)16.#
'
+,
1J
% (% ((/$% 0 /
!D)90%%*%%
%22$ %%7J% %
%% %$$**%*$ J%
%% *
%%%$% %% 5%
( %
'+,
5C>$
* %%9
0%% %0/ % $**%%/% 1
$*(%/( &/A 90%2 %/% % !
D;5$
5%&; % 5C>>/% %% % %/% 9 %2 $*(%/(
% %
%*(% G%22
'+,
& %
'+,
29*2$**%9*( ($
' +,
1%L $%
%
1 %*%22$8/ :A /$%%9*% (%*%
!
D
0
2
9 %(/%22$
'
&,
;,
0%%% O2O22*0 $**%;&220 /;?%( ($ *$ ( 0;&%%$%* / 0
'&,
(*%/
!D9220 /9$% 2%9
'
&,
1
% *0%% %%$/9( ( /=%2$%= (
% %
%*$ /0/% %% !%
9*%% %% GK
'&,
,%
% ((*/% $
'
&,
+%2 /2$* ,%( 2! , %8(%*% 90 9%:
,* % %
' &,
#
%
% 0(
/($ 9 / 0/ 9
'
&,
,((%% 2((%%$%(0$($ % % % (% % $$ % $/
($%
'
+,
7 ((
%
/
/ $ 22%
'&,
1
%% %0*(2 % /% /($
'
&,
&220/**=/*%( /(*% K
'&,
Item No. 11A
1L* % 2
% $**%
0 ((2$**%$*%
%%
0%
2 / $$$%%* *1L% % ((/
% %$% ((%1
5,&
! %/%0%* *7 $
$**%/-%% 6
0+
090%%
0$% %* *
% 6%#*
'&,
*( % $($
(($
%$%% %%0
(%% %*0 *- ((%% /$((
%$
%$%
A3?31#&)!
!F7!?EA3?3
A&
633#
!D3!63
'&,
#%%0
' +,
&$**%
$*/2%%$%%2* $%/ &$**%% %
2 %$%%(%$%% *%0 % %$//%*% %
'
+,
+ ( ($ 9*/9*$%% (%%9 ((
/2*/ 0 /(
9*$%%
'+,
,2
/$**%
% *((%% 2% %%*%
' +,
Item No. 11A
7 % //"#$%
&
' #
(('
!
&)
,
#
#
#
#
!
B
;
;
;
;
Item No. 11A
7 %0 % $0 0$
/"#$%% %((
&
' #
(('
%? (% '
+%/
' &,
6%&*$9#( 93(
'&,
'
-
(
)+
.
)%&*)
&/)
&
&/)
-
0
1
-
(
)2
2
0
)
%
0
'(
()*"+
!
7 %86%A ($:
D$
&2$&*$
&
6%&*$&
6%
6%A
!% +$2$1
,3 %6% &2$
A ($9)%9#( !/
,%$
,3% $%
!% 8( ($2:
Item No. 11A
% %
9
L%C/0$
'+,
@
5$ ,-$
'
&,
%*%%
'
+,
%
' &,
5$ @(
'&,
+ $
'
+,
&*$
'
+,
3;&*$
'+,
A*
'
+,
3(
' +,
% /%52
'+,
Item No. 11A
7 % /"
&
' #
(('
!
&)
#
$
'
+,
,H,
'
+,
0
3/
% #4
"
'(
()*"+
!
,
F*
6;0
!% 8( ($2:
Item No. 11A
D2% 9
% %% 5%
0//%
($ 2(%/% .+"
&
' #
(('
!
&)
5
!
I
6
Item No. 11A
A
0%% "#$%% %((
&
' #
(('
%? (% '
6-%
'
&,
6-%((
'
+,
1#/
* /
6"
6"
7
8
4
6
6"
)
/
7
8
6 //
"
7
8
6 //
"3
/
(
(
# *#/
'(
()*"+
!
3;*2*5%
5%
%%
.+0% %5%%
5% $*8F$0
9
%%91 %/*:
.+5**%7
(
.+5**%F*
6
((
7;2;*%
!% 8( ($2:
Item No. 11A
E)*%
'
+,
&&B7
'
+,
&$
' +,
$%$
'
&,
#$,
'
&,
%D
/5
'
+,
6
((%$
'
+,
F
'&,
&$((
%%$$%
'+,
&$K
'+,
3*2*2
'+,
!2*/ % %
%
2
%
%%
'+,
F$0
2G %
'+,
+ $/
'+,
%AD
/1 %/*
' +,
%A
'
+,
&/ 0*% 2*%%
' +,
#
% /( %%D/H#2%
'
+,
7
' +,
7
*$*%
'
+,
,2% 0
'
&,
$
22*%/
'
+,
&$
'+,
6
$
'
+,
%%22$*
% *
%0
' &,
%$#%
' +,
./ $ 0%%
%
!
' +,
./6
'
+,
&%$% >5#%8:
'+,
!%$
' +,
TT
3#
TT
' +,
6
((%$
'
&,
#%% >5#%
'&,
%$
'
&,
6
((
' &,
>%5%#%
'
&,
./6
'
+,
./ // %
'+,
./
'
+,
F$0
' +,
1*/*%*(
'
+,
Item No. 11A
./
2
'+,
7
'
+,
>5#%%$
'
+,
>%5%#%!
'
+,
!
'
+,
>%5%#%
'&,
*% &$
'
&,
./
'&,
6/ 0
' &,
F$0
%$>5#
'&,
>5#%
'
+,
!
)0
'
+,
'&,
)0 %%$2/ % (
%#$ 2*
$ 1%%
'
+,
&%$ % ((
'+,
% 2 $
' +,
6-%
0 %
'+,
,%$%$% *
(%$
% *(
'
+,
5%*(
'
+,
&$
'
+,
1L%
1 %
'+,
F
%0
'+,
&$
'+,
&$
'+,
!
>
'
&,
&5!?6
'&,
5C>5 *025**$3;6
%%
' +,
0 %
'&,
6-%$*
'+,
Item No. 11A
12
%$%2$% (% 2%
!
(C$%9( (*
&
'
#
(('
1/X*22$*
'
+,
C
X/*$*
'
+,
$
/ %X/*$*
'+,
/ $X* $*
'
+,
0* X $*
' &,
0
X %*$*
'&,
2
X*$*$*
'&,
* (X/*$*
'&,
=$$X=%
'+,
%%X %*$*
'
+,
(%$
/X$$*
'
+,
$ %X-$*%
'+,
0C0/X/*$*
'+,
(2/%X=%
'
+,
00/
0/X/*$*
' +,
* X/*$*
'+,
C0 X$*
'+,
%% X$*
'
+,
*(X$*
'+,
X$*
' +,
$/X$*$*
'
+,
2
X $*
'&,
&0*$/ X $*
'&,
0
2X$
' &,
0 X/*$*
'&,
,0X* $*
' &,
&0X/*$*
'
&,
6
X/*$*
'
+,
E*
X/*$*
'+,
,//
$
X %*$*
'
+,
C00/X %*$*
'+,
%
%%X/*$*
'
+,
6*2X$*
'+,
$*$%%
X%
$*
'+,
Item No. 11A
( X/*$*
'
&,
,%%$ %X/*$*
' &,
/
X$*
' &,
* =
X/*$*
'
+,
( %0
X/*$*
'+,
50
X/*$*
'
+,
,( X$*
'
+,
C* /X/*$*
'+,
C0 X* $*
' +,
C$
X/*$*
'+,
$* $X/*$*
'+,
)($X$*
'
+,
#*(
* X/*$*
'
+,
X/*$*
'
+,
) &
X $*
'
+,
/ */$X/*$*
'
&,
2-
/X%
$*
'
&,
$*
2%X=%
' &,
,2X$*
'&,
*CX/*$*
'
&,
%X% % $*
'
+,
D/*X/*$*
' +,
/%%%X%
$*
' +,
20X$*
'+,
C
X/*$*
'+,
0
(% X/*$*
'
+,
C% %
X $*
'
+,
% YX $*
' +,
%222X/*$*
'+,
X/*$*
'+,
$($X $*
'+,
$%X/*$*
'
+,
C2
X/*$*
'+,
$ $%%
X%
%
'+,
E2%= *X/*$*
'
+,
*
X $*
' +,
( %X/*$*
'+,
C*(/%%X*$*
'+,
/=$$X $*
'
+,
CXC / $*
'+,
5*
X*$(
'
+,
Item No. 11A
% /X/*$*
' +,
0*X/*$*
' +,
)*$/X $*
' +,
$ %2X/*$*
'+,
% X/*$*
'+,
C*CX/*$*
'+,
0 *(X/*$*
'+,
,% 0
/X 0$/0%
'&,
@%
X/*$*
'+,
0%%X/*$*
'
+,
2*X=%
'
+,
%*X$%
'
&,
$(*X/*$*
'+,
/Y=$$X $*
'
+,
=X %*$*
' &,
Y0X %*$*
' &,
*/ %
X/*$*
' +,
% *2
%
X/*$*
'
+,
X C?3$*
' +,
$0$
X*$$ $
'+,
A$
/X/*$*
' &,
@($ X/*$*
'
&,
X $*
'
+,
% *X/*$*
'&,
0Y
X %*$*
'+,
@D
X $*
' +,
C *% X%=
$*
' +,
0% ( X$*
'
+,
X $*
' +,
?!D#+&X&!)5!,
'
+,
%*$%X%
/
' +,
,/%
X/*$*
'
+,
X=%
'&,
/
%
X/*$*
'
&,
C
(
X/*$*
'
&,
$ X/*$*
'
&,
*
%$ $
X$*
'
&,
% / $0 X/*$*
'&,
(% ( %X $*
' &,
) X*$$*
'
&,
% X/*$*
'
+,
Item No. 11A
00X $*
'
+,
* X/*$*
'
+,
)G%X/*$*
' +,
%
X/*$*
'
+,
?$$ $ X/*$*
' +,
5*%
X $*
' +,
X/*$*
'+,
=((=X(%*$*
'+,
$ $ ((X %*$*
'
+,
$ X/*$*
'
+,
*$/X/*$*
' +,
%X/*$*
'
+,
%
X/*$*
'
+,
/ /X%
$*
'
&,
3 0X$*
' &,
(0$C X/*$*
' &,
/ X$*
'
+,
$
((X/*$*
'
+,
I Y
X*$*
'
&,
#
X/*$*
'
+,
+$ X$*
' +,
5/ *X/*$*
'
+,
(/X/*$*
'+,
$*/X$*
'
+,
%
%X/*$*
'
+,
C(=$X/*$*
'
+,
%%/X%/$*
'
+,
$%%
X $*
' +,
. $%X $*
' &,
,$ /*CX/*$*
' &,
X/*$*
' &,
/0*X$*
'+,
$
X $*
'
+,
)G%X/*$*
'+,
* *2X/*$*
' +,
(2/%X=%
'+,
E2%% X$*
'+,
@2*X $*
'
+,
C 0
X$ $*
' +,
$ ((X$$*
' +,
0
*X$*
'+,
Item No. 11A
C0 X/*$*
'+,
@($ X/*$*
'+,
**
X/*$*
'
+,
%2*X$*
'+,
%%% ( X/*$*
'+,
/ */ X/*$*
'
+,
***X/*$*
'+,
&$ %
X/*$*
'
&,
%* 0X/*$*
'+,
X*$$$*
'
+,
YX* $*
'+,
X* $*
'
+,
*C*$
X%
$*
'+,
%
X/*$*
'&,
X$%
'+,
2 X/*$*
'
+,
5
X %*$*
' +,
(C0 X $*
'
&,
( X/*$*
'&,
2%$ ( X %*$*
'
&,
0X$*
'&,
%
/X(($*($*
'+,
*
X $*
'&,
0X$*
' +,
%C
X %*$*
'&,
2X
*0$
$*
'
&,
C 0/X/*$*
'+,
=***X $*
'+,
? /X $*
'
+,
Item No. 11A
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Summary | May 2020
The City of Thousand Oaks conducted an online community survey for the General Plan Update, TO2045, from February 28,2020 – May 4, 2020. The purpose of this survey was to confirm and prioritize feedback from the community on their values, issues facing the City, and vision for the future initially collected through a diverse engagement program held in Fall 2019.
In this survey, which was created with Metroquest, an online platform, community members were asked to prioritize top strengths and challenges in Thousand Oaks and map where future growth and change (e.g., housing, entertainment, open space) should be located in the city. The survey collected 461 responses. The following is a description of the survey questions and summary of responses collected.
The survey consisted of 5 pages or screens:
x Welcome
x Strengths & Values
x Issues & Challenges
x Map Exercise
x Wrap Up
Item No. 11A
The strengths and values screen included a list of eight community reported strengths and values. Participants were asked to rank their top four out of eight community strengths and values from the list. Results below indicate that parks and open space was the highest prioritized community strength/value, followed by safe and welcoming community, quality education, and suburban character. The Updated Score column considers both the number of votes and average ranking.
Strengths & Values Ranking
Average Votes Updated Score (inverse rank
position x number of votes)
1. Parks & open space 2.21 307 2,464
2. Safe & welcoming 2.26 278 1,953
3. Quality education 2.41 229 1,380
4. Suburban character 2.47 145 730
5. Economic vitality 2.51 202 808
6. Facilities & services 2.86 166 498
7. Engaged community 2.89 119 238
8. Arts & culture 2.93 97 97
Note: Lower average ranking indicates a higher prioritized theme. (1-4 with 1 being the highest rank and 4 being the lowest)
In addition to the list of eight Strengths and Values, participants were able to “suggest another” community strength and value. These results are in Appendix Table 5.
Item No. 11A
The issues and challenges screen listed eight community reported issues and challenges facing Thousand Oaks. This screen prompted participants to rank their top four out of eight issues and challenges from the list provided. Results below indicate that becoming “the Valley” was the top prioritized concern, followed by housing challenges, traffic congestion, public safety, and lack of mobility options. The Updated Score column in Table 2 considers both the number of votes and average ranking.
Issues & Challenges Ranking
Average Votes
Updated Score
(inverse rank position x
number of votes)
1. Becoming "the Valley" 1.98 214 1712
2. Housing challenges 2.09 226 1582
3. Traffic congestion 2.31 202 1212
4. Public safety 2.46 193 965
5. Lack of mobility options 2.67 117 468
6. Vacant retail 2.80 206 618
7. Economic stagnation 2.86 172 344
8. Few gathering places 2.89 146 146
Note: Lower average ranking indicates a higher prioritized theme. (1-4 with 1 being the highest rank and 4 being the lowest)
In addition to the list provided, participants were able to “suggest another” issues and challenge. These results are listed in Appendix Table 6.
Item No. 11A
The mapping exercise consisted of an interactive aerial map of Thousand Oaks with some of the community’s most valued areas in color: single family residential homes (shown in yellow), and parks and open space (shown in green). Through the first phase of community engagement, feedback indicated a strong desire for no targeted or significant change to these areas. The areas of Thousand Oaks that remain visible on this map could be considered for moderate change over the next 20-30 years to evolve and meet the changing priorities, new State regulations and market and economic forces within the City.
On this screen participants were invited to place icons on the map to show where they want to see future growth in Thousand Oaks. Options included mixed use, townhomes, multifamily housing, parks and open space, entertainment, and office/R&D. Participants could place as many icons on the map as they like and anywhere within the interactive screen.
Category Number of Markers on Map
Mixed Use 561
Multifamily 402
Parks/Open Space 290
Townhomes 287
Entertainment 197
Office/R&D 97
Item No. 11A
Table 3 shows that mixed use was the most popular icon with 561 markers and multifamily was the second most popular with 402 markers. Analysis of the mapping responses indicate that respondents wanted to see mixed use throughout the City, but most notably around The Oaks and Janss Malls, Thousand Oaks Boulevard, and the Rancho Conejo industrial area. Respondents also wanted to see multifamily paralleling the 101 Freeway corridor to the north and south, most notably on or near Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
Participants were able to provide additional comments on the mapping experience, these results are in Appendix Table 7.
The graphics below illustrate the Where Does Growth Go? exercise results through density maps that report the number of icons placed in an area. Colored circles displayed with a number indicate the count of that icon within the immediate area. Across all maps, red circles represent the highest concentration of icons (100+ icons), yellow circles represent a moderate concentration (10-99 icons) and blue circles represent a low concentration of icons (3-9 icons).
Overall, these maps indicate a general desire for future changes - growth or redevelopment-to be channeled along the 101 corridor, Thousand Oaks Boulevard, near the Rancho Conejo industrial area, and other major existing centers of activity like the Oaks and Janss Malls, and neighborhood shopping centers.
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
The final screen asked participants a series of optional demographics questions and offered a forum for other thoughts or comments. Results are summarized below. Results to other thoughts or comments are in Appendix Table 8.
Do you live and/or work in Thousand Oaks? Results Percentage of Respondents
Both live and work 182 48%
Live 178 47%
Work 15 4%
Neither 1 0%
Total 376 100%
How long have you lived in Thousand Oaks? Results Percentage of Respondents
30+ years 124 33%
21-30 years 87 23%
11-20 years 78 21%
Item No. 11A
2-5 years 34 9%
6-10 years 28 8%
1 year or less 12 3%
Don’t live in Thousand Oaks 9 2%
Total 372 100%
What is your age range? Results Percentage of
Respondents
45-64 years 157 42%
65 or older 93 25%
35-44 49 13%
25-34 43 12%
Under 18 15 4%
18-24 13 4%
Total 370 100%
What best describes your background? Results Percentage of Respondents
White (not Hispanic) 280 77%
Multiracial/Two or more Ethnicities 27 7%
Hispanic Latino or Spanish Origin 22 6%
Asian 20 6%
Middle Eastern or North African 8 2%
Black/African American 5 1%
Native American or Alaska Native 1 0%
Total 363 100%
Item No. 11A
Open-ended comments from the survey are listed below. In some instances, Personal Identifiable Information (PII) or inappropriate language has been redacted.
Participant Comments
Keep the mountain tops woody. Do not allow building on the mountains.
So, where are my suggestions? Cancelled?
With all of the crazy busy schedules that people have they NEED the open space to visit so that they can get REVITALIZED.
In such a crazy busy world people NEED open space to visit to get REVITALIZED.
We have beautiful hiking everywhere and lovely parks for kids and gatherings. We really need a dedicated bike trail in our city. It’s not safe for families to ride with children in bike lanes on busy streets. We need to encourage walking and rising bikes to city events and concerts in the park, etc.
Simi Valley make a bike path, why can’t we?
We have the best trail system and parks hands down. Let’s grow it. Work more on other trail systems to get the wildwood people out of their yards complaining about parking. Maybe develop the lang ranch trails to make them easier to navigate. For inexperienced hikers they can be confusing. We need more wildwoods. I love our playgrounds! Plant more Trees in the existing and new parks for shade.
There is growing need in our community for more permanent Pickleball courts. Please work together with CRPD and CVUSD to meet this need.
Our parks are something to proud of. Thankfully the city clarified where homeless can sleep and kept our parks clean and safe for residents.
Most importantly less density and less traffic, it’s getting bad now....Also view of our mountains and green spaces. Concern that this will disappear like what the present building at former Lupe’s site is doing. I do not want to see more building such as this along TO Blvd! A jewel in the Conejo Valley's crown. Maintain for beauty, enjoyment and recreation.
We do not need more parks, simply maintain existing parks. Privately created parks would be preferable to public parks.
incorporate non-incorporated acreage to stimulatr balance between housing and open space. We have waisted resources by excluding controlled resourses from areas of influence still outside city boundrrys.
Incorporate non-incorporated acreage to stimulate balance between housing and open space. We have waisted resources by excluding county controlled resourses from areas of influence still outside city boundrrys.
Safe Bike and Walking paths to decrease use of automobiles.
I love our arks and open space. It is why we live here
I love our parks and open space. It is why we live here Please don't change anything Item No. 11A
I do not want any open space developed at all, this is why we have lived here for so long, no new developments!
Maintain trails well and keep parks in good condition.
Sustainability
Affordable Housing
A dynamic Downtown with small town feel through the Thousand Oaks Blvd corridor. Also public transportation up and down TO BLVD.
Environmental protection
Sustainability - environmentally, financially and health related.
Sustainable energy
Food Sovereignty as a resilient community permaculture artwork Resilience
Environmentally Conscious
Trees, protection for mature trees and more tree planting Green Community Leadership, helmed by PII REDACTED, T.O. Senior Environmental Analyst & PII REDACTED T.O. Sustainability Division Manager
Affordable Housing
please make the boulevard a lively inviting area for business, young people and area workforce! NO MORE 4G or 5G
More services for Seniors
What is your source! Where does love T.O. come from?
Responsable leadership
Less traffic congestion
No buildings above 3 stories on Thousand Oaks Blvd
Housing availability & Affordability
increased density
Semi rural character
Semi rural character
Flowing streets with little traffic
Semi rural character
Save all remaining oak trees
Protect semi rural character
Maintain equestrian zoning, neighborhoods, trails and rights to ride through neighborhoods Ridge line protection
Scenic roads with ridge line views
Low profile architecture
Setbacks from streets larger than building height
Green space and native plants, including oak trees in all zoning areas Flowing uncontested streets
Minimum growth
Semi rural character
Semi rural character
Protecting oaks
Item No. 11A
Traffic flow is pleasant
Semi-rural
Care for trees - protection of trees
2 and 3 story buildings
keep Los Robles as a golf course
Limit new housing units, let people vote.
Semi-rural
Semi-rural
Care for trees - protection of trees
2 and 3 story buildings
Sports and recreation
High Quality Infrastructure
Protect our schools, parks, public areas and residential areas from small cell radiation.
Building soccer volley courts - like the paddle ball courts at Rancho. Contact me. We can b first city in world to start a new firm of soccer for ALL ages!! Do this before i die as only i can make this happen. PII REDACTED
Have enjoyed going to shows at Civic Arts Plaza over the years.
Food Sovereignty as Art
Continue to improve arts and culture including Library services - amazing.
Regardless of one's age, easy access and close proximity to a variety of educational opportunities through local schools, colleges universities, and the Conejo Recreation & Parks District, as well as to arts and cultural events at our Civic Arts Auditorium is much appreciated and greatly enriches life for all of our community members in Thousand Oaks.
We have an abundance of art and culture here. It is really sufficient Please DO NOT spend millions (or even hundreds) on changing what we have now. No need for another road and the other items in the "Plan" that you already spent too much money on.
Parks and Open Space are part of our culture - it's not only live music.
Especially in support of our high-quality Library services.
The residents of T.O. should be allowed to vote on any changes to the CAP. Changes should not be mandated by a small minority of special interests.
There is more to making a community that is arts friendly than the CAP. That’s a paid concert and event venue. We need to expand parks and recreation. Their free concert in the park series draws so many people. We need more events like that one. We need more music and art.
Why is everything about the CAP. Yes, people attend concerts and events there but it costs money that many people can’t afford. Why don’t we expand what you consider the arts beyond that building? I know there is a plan to reimagine the CAP and make it the town center, but the arts should be more diversified. We don’t even have an arts and culture section on our city website last time I checked. Not everything is about the CAP.
I do not agree with "especially the Civic Arts Plaza"
not especially the CAP
Employers who offer Living Wages
We have allowed the county to control the property taxes of our non-incorporated areas within the influence of the city of Thousand Oaks with the result of the loss of revenue due. This is because the county refuses to pursue delinquencies.
The need to provide efficient traffic flow has depressed the City's opportunity to the detriment of finacial growth
Item No. 11A
Needs to appreciate the limits of retirement income for many.
We have allowed the county to control the property taxes of our non-incorporated areas within the influence of the city of Thousand Oaks with the result of the loss of revenue due. This is because the county refuses to pursue delinquencies
City government must save and not spend. Rainy days come and must be prepared for.
I am currently looking for cities that are as small as TO was 30 years ago. TO will attract a younger more urban demographic as the city grows larger.
I like it the way it is. I do not approve of a "downtown" or high rise buildings along T.O. Blvd. or the proposed change in front of the Arts Plaza. That is not what we moved here for. Honor the plan previously voted on and stop adding new or changing old residential building codes Limit the growth of new housing, which crowds all our streets and infrastructure.
I like it the way it is. I do not approve of a "downtown" or high rise buildings along T.O. Blvd. or the proposed change in front of the Arts Plaza. That is not what we moved here for doesn't have to be single family
We like it in Thousand Oaks with a maximum building height of 2 stories. If it isn't enough, though. Anyone who cannot find housing, looks somewhere else. Do NOT OVERBUILD TO ACCOMMODATE builders.
Thousand Oaks is such a great community and it should be protected from becoming a San Fernando Valley.
Our city founders did such a good job on our original General Plan and I believe we need to be VERY CAREFUL in making ANY CHANGES and avoiding becoming the San Fernando Valley.
I know we desperately need affordable housing but our general plan has been modified so many times, there’s nowhere else to build. The only solution is higher density housing. The proposed KMart plan would be horrific at that already crowded intersection. I don’t know the answer but we all moved here with young kids for a reason.
No mixed use residential and commercial, please.
T.O. is a bedroom community and that is one of the major factors that attract residents that don't want a lot of commercial development.
The number one issue for me is traffic and over crowding Creating more buildings allocations by taking from my 1/2 acre lot. That is not what we voted for.
We have grown too populous in my opinion.
would like to add at least one or 2 more options. Well all of them really Facilities and services dovetail with engaged community.
Local government should be committed to keeping government out of the lives of residents.
Serving the needs of all -economic status -residents
But what are you doing to keep seniors engaged?
It should be more welcoming to the substantial population of senior citizens We appreciate and encourage continued publication of the Acorn.
I feel very safe here but am concerned about the proposed higher density residential buildngs under consideration. More people, more potential policing problems which would require a larger investment in security
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update must preserve and strengthen the following qualities:
*Semi-rural, small-town, family-friendly atmosphere, where we frequently run into friends and neighbors while out in town.
Item No. 11A
*A feeling of always being among friends because the scale of our community is already big enough to provide for our needs while remaining small enough that everyone knows everyone.
It is the semi-rural, small-town, family-friendly atmosphere, where one routinely encounters friends and neighbors while out and about ... at small-scale gatherings ... that gives Thousand Oaks its tight-knit intimacy and welcoming demeanor. One always feels like one is among friends here because there are few places/activities where large, overwhelming, impersonal crowds of strangers congregate together.
Emphasis on safety over welcoming
City government seems to say a "walking downtown" is what people want. Actually, people want their own homes with great schools in a safe community. We want to raise families and enjoy friends. We need to avoid big projects at trying to "make community". This only results in expensive projects that benefit the few at the expense of all.
Please don't make it so easy for homeless people to live in our parks.
We need to build our city and focus on a town center. That includes more dining and walking and shops. Make rents affordable for small businesses to thrive.
We need a town center with music and farmers markets. Maybe close the street to allow for pedestrian and bike traffic for specific events. We are all stuck in our cars. It would be nice to have a connected community.
We need a town canter with music and farmers markets. Maybe close the street to allow for pedestrian and bike traffic for specific events. We are all stuck in our cars. It would be nice to have a connected community.
I'm not sure why "welcoming" is paired with the idea of "safety." Take it off.
Police and Sheriff protection is paramount. Undercover policing of drug dealers (I know the parent of a drug dealer) will be expedient. PII REDACTED
Keep education, teachers, students in a high priority. We cannot maintain Democracy with out an educated electorate. Don't allow the drug dealers (with no education, no skills to make a living) to continue to infiltrate Thousand Oaks. Deport drug dealers.
I am concerned about the city's effort to promote CLU and this colleges influence on city officials.
I think the education our city offers could use some improvement.
Promote public schools that support the values of all parents. When something is controversial, recognize the basic values everyone can live with. Defend the values of our parents.
City can only support effort for quality education with certain expectations.
The need to take the economic strain off the backs of our educators by community events to support their efforts is one of the many ways to enhance an already model of teacher dedication.
Needs to help preserve facilities to allow seniors to age in place, and keep the promises made for low income housing and senior mobile home parks
Not over building. Not spending money recklessly. Such as hiring an outside company to see if we can get better waste prices. Give all the residents that money to pay for waste management. What happened to keep it local when my water bill goes to an LA firm. we are so fortunate to have the Goebel Center and our wonderful libraries. Great job there Recycling facilities and auto charging stations.
It is time for TO to evolve from it's suburban-only roots and embrace density. We need more than just 2,500 new units per SCAG. We need to embrace density, particularly within two miles of the civic center area. Let's create a real downtown with housing at 6 to 8 stories.
What are we doing to prevent overpopulation?
Item No. 11A
The entire list compelling which made it hard to select 4 items. Fordgive me but I would add "education and art & culture: given the opportunity. TO embodies all the qualities listed here I'm surprised that sustainability is not on the list
the dedication to open space in Thousand Oaks is so important and what sets T.O. apart! Participant Comments
Senior isolation
Sustainability
Sustainability and fire protection emergency preparation Environmental sustainability
too expensive
Excessive development
Religious influence in local government affairs
Lack of funding for public schools
Mixed-use housing
Homeless
Over development
Corruption and greed driving city officials
Over development
Corruption, greed, suspicious relationships with property owners and developers driving city officials
Over development
Corruption, greed, suspicious relationships with property owners and developers driving city officials
Loosing the unique character of TO and just becoming part of a packed mega city that stretches to Tijuana
Rigged surveys that have people rank developers values
No More 4G or 5G towers
Cellphone Towers are making us Sick!
Homeless and drug users gathering nightly at Starbucks on Rancho Rd & TO Blvd.
Homeless and drug users now sleeping in the parks during the day. Using the library & park bathrooms to bath, etc. It smells like a stinky port-a-potty inside these restrooms.
Drug users scouting out homes to break into to steal items to get their next "fix".
Public Transportation
How do we get the T.O. Police department to check with radar equipment in NP Borchard Rd driving fron Dos Vientos. Cars cross intersections over 60MPH. Please notify the Chief of TO.
More shade trees for walking T.O. blvd
More shade trees for walking T.O. blvd
Keep building heights low
Item No. 11A
Stop building on steep slopes
Run a cable car, or some sort of transport along T.O. BLvd Loss and downgrading of building codes that define our special character and make the City lovely to live in.
Addressing homeless situation in a humane manner!!!!
Progressive Political Agendas
Shorten repaving maintenance cycle on at least the main boulevards and roads. TO Blvd looks terrible, Lynn Rd looks great!
300+ Homeless people need services
City is unattractive to post graduates
I hope our community is more prepared to house seniors with pets during wildfire evacuations.
Too many seniors sleeping in their cars with their pets last time. Water shortage is another natural disaster we are going to confront if we don't start banning fracking and saving our precious H2O, using more graywater in new housing projects for landscaping and preparing for the water shortages to come. Are we ready?
A definite Safety Issue!!
My home is at PII REDACTED Avenida de Las Flores and the sidewalk to the EAST of my home, is in NEED of REPAIR. It has needed a good sidewalk replacement, not just a BANDAID. I am 86 Years young, and have lived here for 46 years. I have seen members of the T.O. gym classes, on their runs, trip over the approximately 4" high separation of the SLABS. PLEASE, HAVE THAT SECTION REPLACED. Thank You, PII REDACTED
I know too many seniors who slept in their vehicles with their pets during wild fires. we need to remedy that and make sure there are pet friendly evacuation centers next fire season.
What are we doing to prevent environmental crisis?
The Homeless pose a safety hazard to our community.
Ventura County's average annual temperature INCREASED by 2.6 degrees Celsius from 1895 to 2018 … representing the LARGEST temperature increase for any county in the entire United States, according to an analysis of NOAA temperature data published in the Washington Post in a report on extreme Climate Change. The associated risks of temperature rise, drought, water scarcity, Climate Change, wildfires, and air pollution from land development, traffic, and fossil fuel use and proliferation are urgent concerns that have the very real potential to make Thousand Oaks an undesirable and even perilous place to live. It is essential that the General Plan include comprehensive and effective strategies to protect our natural environment, build resilience, and minimize the above-noted adverse impacts. The General Plan is our best opportunity to secure our city's long-term prospects, health, safety and future economic vitality by implementing a Circular Economic Plan NOW that incorporates aggressive strategies requiring clean, fossil-free, renewable-energy-powered electricity, transportation, and homes/buildings, along with measures to lower our city's temperature (including stringent protection of existing heritage oaks, native trees and natural spaces, together with a mass planting of additional native trees); to preserve, protect and enhance our clean water resources, our safety, and our quality of life.
Fires and evacuation is a real problem. When asked, I have heard PII REDACTED say that evacuation is the fire departments problem. His response is extremely disturbing. Planning has everything to do with evacuation and natural disasters. If TO is over crowded our streets will not flow. We only have the 101, TO Blvd and Hillcrest to pass through town. People will be trapped, worse than they were last fire season.
Too many homeless people.
Item No. 11A
Homelessness, which primarily includes addicts and mentally ill individuals is a serious safety problem. This is not a housing problem. It's a substance abuse and treatment problem.
The T.O.P.D. is to be commended for their commitment to keeping our public areas safe for residents to enjoy.
Crime is at an all time high in our area. More population will bring more crime. Instead of putting money into your grand scheme for a downtown, perhaps funding our police department so we can have more officers on the streets would help to reduce the crime.
No scooters and see comment on the Valley re homelessness TO is relatively safe and I want it to stay that way.
This is the result of reactive planning. First rule of any project is expect the worse and be prepared. The options for this issue are unlimited. Just do it! Given the high turnover in restaurants and other retail store, clearly more have been built than can be sustained. We need a plan to encourage diverse businesses to support the employment and retail needs of Thousand Oaks and avoid pockets that look like a collage of chaos.
Tax incentives will help small business storefronts
Yet you are planning to build more???
What can you expect when greedy developers put up unwanted commercial space that generate un-ending rents instead of homes that could help families buy a place to live.
We're in good shape on most of items.
Too expensive
Why do you think building more retail "multi use" is going to solve this problem? Blvd property owners are raising their rents to a point in which small businesses cannot afford to carry on. It's as if they are holding the city hostage with their empty store fronts. I'd rather have empty store fronts than more TO Blvd multi use massage parlors.
The KMart vacancy is an eyesore but the proposed apts are worse. What happened to height restrictions?
Scrap the "Plan" or idea to make TO boulevard into something it will never benefit from.
The KMart vacancy is an eyesore ut the proposed apts are worse too many expty offices and retail while we keep building Vacant retail is an example of malinvestment. When times are good, there is too much development which is only exposed after the artificial growth corrects. If interest rates rise to normal levels, a ghost town emerges.
These present opportunities for affordable housing
Thousand Oaks has become home to a glut of vacant commercial space and over-priced retail stores. STOP over-developing and over-building our town to create more of the latter, and instead renovate and repurpose the former.
Thousand Oaks has become home to a glut of vacant commercial space and over-priced retail stores. STOP over-developing and over-building our town to create more of the latter, and instead renovate and repurpose the former.
Fix the residents roads. Get rid of the big empty buses! Stop pretending that we are a big important city.
I am strongly opposed to the proposed buildout of our Civic Arts Center, to the narrowing of Thousand Oaks Blvd (our town’s main street), and to all of the other over-development which is currently and relentlessly being approved on Thousand Oaks Blvd. and other major arteries throughout our community.
Item No. 11A
An accelerating pattern of over-building has resulted in growing traffic and congestion on all of our major streets and freeways. This unwanted, unnecessary development is not simply a source of commuter frustration; it is also creating significant health and safety issues as it contributes to additional toxic emissions, harmful air quality, and an increasingly dangerous situation during ever-more frequent wildfire disaster evacuation events.
T.O. Boulevard is already congested at peak periods. Likely to only get worse.
The more building that is allowed, the higher our population density. This needs to stop! Otherwise, the appeal of our city is diminished and potentially eliminated Lynn Rd. is full when the 23 is slow. Lower Speed on Lynn Rd.
We are becoming th valley
A huge daily challenge only to be made worse by the impending new housing proposed for T.O.
Blvd. _Plus cutting out a ltraffic lane to improve the Lakes area is a crazy idea which would only make it worse. Please reconsider this plan
If I think traffic is a problem I’m hesitant to say because then the politicians will put us on a “road diet”. There’s too many office buildings in westlake that add to the traffic congestion.
Don’t add more buses or bus lanes like the Valley and LA! I adamantly oppose the proposed buildout of our Civic Arts Center, and the over-development which is steadily being approved on Thousand Oaks Blvd. (I also oppose the narrowing of that main artery.) and other main thoroughfares throughout our community. All of our major streets and freeways are experiencing a tremendous growth in traffic (and in the case of the former, parking) congestion. This pattern of unwanted overbuilding is not simply a source of commuter frustration; it is also creating significant health and safety issues as it contributes to additional toxic emissions, harmful air quality, and an increasingly dangerous situation during increasingly frequent wildfire disaster evacuation events.
With single family use zoning and huge parking minimums, traffic is inevitable. We built our cities such that we rely on our cars too much, so obvioulsy there's going to be traffic! The city needs to look at ways to reduce traffic without compromising growth especially in housing. We need to look at areas that can be rezoned to denser mixed use development with lowered parking minimums. Especially in areas ripe for redevelopment like the T.O. Blvd corridor and in "sprawling" commercial/retial areas like the T.O. & Janns Mall. In these areas, options for walking and biking needs to be proposed. On the whole, the city needs to look towards old streetcar suburbs for inspiration. Maybe in the long long term, far flung single family neighborhoods can be connected with streetcars along Lynn, Borchard, Moorpark, and Erbs to T.O.'s new denser downtown areas!
With single family use zoning and huge parking minimums comes traffic. The city needs to look at areas that can be rezoned to denser mixed use development eapecially along the T.O. Blvd corridor, and in "sprawling" commercial/retail areas like the T.O. & Janss Mall. And in these areas, promote pedestrianism and biking. Maybe look at old streetcar suburbs for inspiration.
More of the traffic lights in the City need to be timed or made "smart". At too many of them, you sit and wait even though no traffic is coming from the opposite direction. On the main streets, boulevards, need to be timed so if you do the speed limit, you will not hit red lights. Also, the new left turn on flashing yellow arrow lights are great - need to be installed on more interections Traffic signals should be synchronized where possible.
Traffic signals should be synchronized where possible. The flashing yellow turn signal is an improvement that needs to be expanded.
Item No. 11A
Traffic signals should be synchronized where possible. The flashing yellow turn signal is an improvement that needs to be expanded. The plan to narrow T.O. blvd. from Carlson's to the CAP is dangerous and ill-conceived.
I've watched traffic gradually increasing for decades. Too many people in a confined "no growth" area. Encouraging more people to move into the Conejo Valley is not an answer.
Thousand Oaks traffic has grown exponentially in the past 21 years that I have lived here.
Narrowing T.O. Blvd. so you can have "your" downtown and adding huge apartment complexes will create even more problems. Most apartment buildings allow for one car. Most families have 2 or more. Do the math! We do not have the infrastructure to support these projects. Narrowing areas of T.O. Blvd. will only serve to move the traffic into residential areas. Building more apartments will add to the congestion.
Thousand Oaks traffic has grown exponentially in the past 21 years that I have lived here.
Narrowing T.O. Blvd. so you can have "your" downtown and adding huge apartment complexes will create even more problems. Most apartment buildings allow for one car. Most families have 2 or more. Do the math! We do not have the infrastructure to support these projects. Narrowing areas of T.O. Blvd. will only serve to move the traffic into residential areas. Building more apartments will add to the congestion. Residents of Thousand Oaks moved here because we want suburban life. Young people I have talked with say they will leave T.O. regardless so that they can experience life. They plan to come back to suburbia later on to raise their children.
Thousand Oaks traffic has grown exponentially in the past 21 years that I have lived here.
Narrowing T.O. Blvd. so you can have "your" downtown and huge apartment complexes will create even more problems. Most apartment buildings allow for one car. Most families have 2 or more. Do the math!
It comes with growth, but can be managed by timed lights and better planned entrances and exits The roads and freeways are too congested too often during the day. More roads is not the answer.
Rather, plan for only a given population limit match by the same number of jobs. Develop this city for a set size. Slow growth is a slow failure. Be a wonderful place to live now and in the future.
This excuse has prevented economic growth long enough. If we allow the penny wise dollar stupid philosophy to continue limiting our need for a prosperous but controlled growth, we will continue down the path of see, hear and do nothing.
T.O. is notorious for being hard on businesses, unless of course the project is being built by one of the top members of the Adhoc committee for specific Thousand Oaks Blvd. plans. Indeed they were able to build a brewery without parking and then use funds from the city to build a cross to support their project. Interesting?
It seems that this committee and the city council are working hard to implement their plans before the TO2045 general plan is put in place.
Look around you. Amgen is downsizing at a huge rate. They have moved their manufacturing to other business friendly states. So has Dole. Biotech is has moved to other areas and there is no assurance that Westlake Biopartners will be able to create a biotech "hub" in Thousand Oaks. If they want it so badly, let them build it in Westlake!
Look around you. Amgen is downsizing at a huge rate. They have moved their manufacturing to other business friendly states. So has Dole. Other biotech like Baxter has also moved. There is no assurance that Westlake Biopartners will be able to create a biotech "hub" in Thousand Oaks.
Spending City money on your grand plan for a downtown taking away money that supports our public services!
Item No. 11A
We do not have economic stagnation. This is a myth. Many wealthy people have moved here but everyone shouldn't expect to be rich. The city employees benefits should be questioned and fees (quimby and other)should not longer be waived for developers. If blvd property owners kept their rents affordable they wouldn't have so many empty units.
Amgen may not stay if there is no housing appealing to younger adults.
We must provide town home development not just apartments. need m ore low cost
More help like HUD/CDBG to help seniors age in place.
We've go lots of land. All we need is an economy to support its development. Shall we stimulate production of products for the coming age to meet this challenge? We do lack affordable housing, but that’s not the reason for homelessness. Drug and alcohol addiction and mental illness are the prime reason for people deciding to live in their cars or tents.
Changing density and total construction restrictions preiously voted on should not be disregarded. When we vote we think that will be the rule. It appears to not be the case here Affordable housing is the only housing the City Council needs to approve; the City has exceeded the # of high end homes and failed to provide affordable housing in comparable numbers. The City is obligated to build the 250 affordable housing units with the money received from Dos Vientos developers -as approved.
Changing density and total construction restrictions preiously voted on should not be disregarded. When we vote we think that will be the rule No suburban spread.
Than stop spending money on businesses and building expensive housing! Get as city council that cares for the people and not businesses that will help them out.
Make all new housing sustainable
Housing is a global challenge right now especially in cities. The issue will not be solved by Thousand Oaks. It has more to do with growing economic disparities than city planning. It's sad to see city officials talk about low income housing while what they approve (and waive fees and rules for) are all expensive housing. I'd would like to see some low income housing. Look at what the city approves as opposed to what they claim.
Rentals are out of control. Even new apartment pricing is out of control. Young kids and working people can’t afford to live here. So we build new apartments and charge $1700 for a one bedroom? Who can afford that. Condos behind a strip mall start at $590K? A condo. Housing is expensive and exclusive here now. It wasn’t like that before. It’s all about making money and who cares if the people that work here can afford to live here. That’s a bad way to think.
There’s no place left to build. So now we are looking at high density housing. A one bedroom apartment averages around $1700 here. Housing costs are sky high. Our college grads can’t afford to live here.
There is no where to put new single family housing. We must look at rezoning and densification along T.O. blvd corridor and large retail/commercial areas (T.O. Mall & Janns Mall) to expand the citiy's housing stock. Look at New Urbanist solutions for infill housing.
The high cost of housing in T.O. is simply due to the fact that it is nice to live here. Building a bunch of apartments will only degrade the quality of life for residents and line the pockets of developers.
There is nowhere to put new single family housing. The Conejo Valley was built out with Dos Vientos being the last place to put single family housing. We must look at rezoning and Item No. 11A
densification along the T.O. blvd corridor and large retial/commercial areas (T.O. Mall and Janss Mall) to expand the city's housing stock. Look at New Urbanist solutions for infill housing.
Way to expensive.
This is a poor option that will not bring homelessness to an end. It will only more put money in the hands of developers and landlords. It will not create more affordable housing options. It will bring a denser population to our community and along with it more crime and traffic. We do not want to be a City. We want Thousand Oaks to maintain it's suburban lifestyle. I find it interesting that the folks that live on the Westlake side of our community are so eager to build in Thousand Oaks. To PII REDACTED and other members of the city council, why not in your neighborhood? There is no "housing shortage." 40,000 people are leaving California every year. The biggest housing challenge is price. Creative financing alternatives should be explored to make expensive homes more accessible to new buyers.
This is a poor option that will not bring homelessness to an end. It will only more put money in the hands of developers and landlords. It will not create more affordable housing options. It will bring a denser population to our community and along with it more crime and traffic. We do not want to be a City. We want Thousand Oaks to maintain it's suburban lifestyle.
The real estate market will correct. Any development now when real estate is overvalued will be exposed as malinvestment in the future.
This is a poor option that will not bring homelessness to an end. It will only more put money in the hands of developers and landlords. It will not create more affordable housing options. It will bring a denser population to our community and along with it more crime and traffic. We do not want to be a City. We want Thousand Oaks to maintain it's suburban lifestyle.
Young people I have talked with say they will leave T.O. regardless so that they can experience life. They plan to come back to suburbia later on to raise their children.
I also find it interesting that the city is so eager to build in Thousand Oaks and leave the Westlake area of T.O. alone. To PII REDACTED and other members of the city council, why not in your neighborhood?
More bars and breweries are not the answer. Perhaps hosting affordable events that feature concerts and other things young people enjoy would help.
More bars and breweries are not the answer. You only need to look at Ventura Main Street to see what happens. Crime and homeless people everywhere. Restaurants, shops, cafes and pubs have to hire their own security to maintain safety. How will a Thousand Oaks "downtown" be different?
Need more Pickleball courts at our parks.
The lack of a clar downtown is a problem. Places like the Collection in Oxnard area a start but they are very artificial in nature. What we need is a place like downtown Ventura or downtown Pasadena. Both are places where you not only can shop and eat and hangout, but ALSO live and work! Consolidate retail, commercial, and residential in walkable developments and create a downtown!
The lack of a clear downtown is a problem. Places like the Collection in Oxnard are a start but they are artificial in nature. What we need is a place like downtown Ventura or downtown pasadena.
Both are places where you not only can shop and eat, BUT ALSO live and work! Consolidate retail, commercial, and residential in walkable developments and create a downtown! With real density comes vitality and placemaking. OMG...too much traffic on TO Boulevard? Nonsense. Let's plan for something great and think of public transit beyond just the bus.
Item No. 11A
We need to support more local business like Oak and Iron, Tarantula Hill, Five07. Gathering places for college kids and young people. We want to draw community out into the city to meet each other. We want a vibrant small town feel. We need to treasure the small town vibe and enhance it with small town places to service every citizen.
We need to incentivize growth with more local business like Tarantula Hill, Five07, Oak and Iron, Etc. We need places to gather and meet each other.
This is completely ridiculous. Our city is full of gathering places! People gather constantly at their chosen places, schools, trails, malls, churches, parks, clubs. We do not need a "designated gathering place."
I'd like more gathering places for people to socialize, but not bars or wine tasting venues.
Bring back options for gathering in the spaces we have (i.e. mall) with bowling, etc.
Bring back skating rinks, bowling alleys, and more pickleball courts Places like Stonehouse and the Brewery are dream spaces. Need more.
Forget our empty buses. We need trolleys 50c from the Oaks Mall to Westlake and from Janss Mall to CLU and back.
Not at all worried about gathering places or vacant retail.
People can walk, take the bus and ride bikes if they like. My family does. It's a choice. Spending millions to get people to walk is crazy. Residents drive their high school kids a quarter mile to school, sit in line for 15 min to give them front door service, they drive through Starbucks and into their garage. Your sidewalks are not going to change their mindset.
If Simi Valley can Make a dedicated bike path so can we. It’s not safe to ride on our streets.
Especially for families. It would be nice to have a weekend shuttle, better bike paths and ways to get around town.
We need to encourage biking. We need to encourage walking. We need a city shuttle to get people out of their cars. We need to build the Blvd to include outdoor cafes and small local retail stores.
Think State Street. I know our city isn’t set up like SB with more connected streets and traffic flow, but we could offer so many more opportunities to engage our communities by having other ways to get them Out of their cars and into the heart of our town. We need to build the BLVD.
Bicycle safety needs to be incorporated into any future road changes. The Norwegian grade is a prime example where the opportunity to make safety improvements was wasted.
Bikes and sidewalks are not the issue here! This city does not support a reduction in automobiles because you want to narrow streets to reduce traffic in certain areas. If you narrow the street in front of The Lakes and Civics Arts Center, traffic will move to other areas and bring more congestion to residential streets. Build a public transportation system that is affordable, clean and safe.
It is already becoming "the Valley". Look around you. We came here because we like our quiet suburban life. We do not want slum apartments and more failing retail shops and bars.
I do not want to include the last two on my list of 4 items that you chose. Lack of views due to high buildings and loss of oak trees are my third and fourth!!! It is already becoming "the Valley". Look around you. We came here because we like our quiet suburban life. We do not want slum apartments and more failing retail shops and bars. Safety is also a part of this. The more dense the population, the more crime you will have! Build a few shelters so we can keep the homeless off the streets for the safety of all; have them ready at all times so we can enforce anti street camping laws and never let encampments start.
Homelessness is a mental health, addiction, and broken windows crisis, not a housing crisis.
Item No. 11A
Measures were passed to limit the buildup of Thousand Oaks. The city government reinterpreted the common understanding and bypassed the voters. Please, return to the common understanding of the growth limits the people passed. Develop Thousand Oaks within these limits. Stop high density growth, keep Thousand Oaks the place that drew us here in the first place.
Improvements can be made without physical growth.
So Far So good. Minimizing developments used to be the hallmark of our City ... too its downfall.
Planning for the worst is always better than trying to fix it after the worse has occured; Don’t let our beautiful area become another Valley
Under the current suburban planning and zoning model, becoming sprawled out like "the Valley" is inevitable. Look at New Urbanist policies to expand and promote denser walkable neighborhoods to combat this. Aksi, look at the city of Pasadena. A wealthy city smaller in population AND area than T.O., but with a dense vibrant and beautiful downtown. Some of the buildings in downtown Pasadena are also 10-12 stories tall! Not bad for a city smaller than T.O.! Pasadena is a city that exemplifies that density isn't scary or something to be vilified. Lets be like Pasadena, not like Van Nuys, because we're more like Van Nuys than you think! This is and always has been a racist dogwhistle.
Under the current suburban planning and zoning model, becoming sprawled out like "the Valley" is inevitable. Look at New Urbanist policies to expand housing and promote pedestrianism to combat this. Also, look at the city of Pasadena. A wealthy city smaller in population and area than T.O., but with a dense vibrant and beautiful downtown. Some of the buildings in downtown Pasadena are also 10-12 stories tall! Pasadena is a city that exemplifies that density isn't scary or something to be vilified.
We moved here to get away from the valley. No more strip malls. No more yogurt places and massage parlors. It’s ridiculous.
There are many different "looks" in the valley. The point is we don't want a lot of development, tall buildings that block the views and more traffic.
How many yogurt shops and massage parlors will we allow? The valley has become a mess. It’s a slow progression and I dont think we should go that direction. We need to support locally owned business and restaurants and places to go up and down the boulevard. It’s a family town and even though my kids are grown, young families need places to shop and dine and bike and play. The more people and franchises we have, the closer we get to the mess to the south of us. We need art and music and events. Not more people and strip malls.
With the new rules re high rise buildings T.O Blvd. will look like the Valley. Not what we voted for previously
It concerns me when I see new building proposals like the one for the empty Kmart sight that are much denser and larger than our city plan had allowed for. The idea for low income housing in that space in commendable but it doesn't have to be outside of our "plan" for the city.
I do not want new development inching into our non developed areas of greenery or open spaces, we need to keep without any high rises
Stop catering to business and support the residents.
We shouldn't sacrifice the character of the area with high-rise apartments or the "housing/shopping" combinations seen in the valley or Oxnard.
Item No. 11A
Participants Responses
Would proposed that the area this golfcourse occupies can be converted to a large public park for sport and recreation facilities for all ages. Connecting it with pedestrian bridges to the office/residential/retail/mixed use development across the freeway would allow for excellent connectivity.
Work/live
Work with property owners here to provide MU and Entertainment options. It's completely wasted space.
With a little open space within this mall area, some place to sit down and relax outside might be a good idea.
Where is there space? Increases housing with limited services.
Where is there space is WL?
NP would be desireable for townhomes.
What's proposed is too dense. 30 DU/Ac max, not more.
west on TO Blvd/NP industrial
We need to keep and expand our open spaces, so we do not become like the valley, where land is bought for development.
We need to focus on keeping our open space as well as not putting buildings in every small open plot of land to keep the TO Naturefeeling!
We need more affordable places to live and not taking up our open space We need affordable housing, I’d prefer if most of the development happened around Thousand Oaks Blvd and Hillcrest
We don't need more mansions
We can add this entertainment area by the neighborhood so it’s accessible.
Unneeded parking is here. Add housing. Close to retail - might improvemall use; close to freeway - impacts traffic minimally.
Townhouses/condos for younger professionals wanting to purchase a home Townhomes, but preserve Carlson's!
Townhomes on edge of hill to replace parking lot on new Lowe's development, lined with fire resistant plants
Townhomes and shops
townhomes
townhomes
Townhome development
town homes, retail, entertainment
TO Blvd is becoming too much business and looking ugly, it should be updated to look nice and clean or turned into a park
This space behind Albertson's is small from what housing it could contain, and the Maurice/Reino intersection already has traffic issues with the lack of a light and the current residents in the area. Make this a park.
This open mall space isn’t being used properly, it needs some catch to draw people in Item No. 11A
This neighborhood needs more housing that can accommodate average workers who may have jobs in the area. This could help lower traffic congestion by reducing the number of people driving into the neighborhood to work.
This neighborhood is wastefully low density. Tiny units, with far too much roadway in it. It should be turned into high density housing. It's right next to 3 grocery stores (Vons, Sprouts and Gelsons) and many restaurants, and quite close to the freeway. The high density housing here wouldn't take away from the character of the single family neighborhoods further south on Westlake Blvd, and the city would see higher tax revenue as a result of increasing density here.
This map is too small
This is close to freeway to support mix-use housing.
This entire area next to the hotel is not conducive to its current commercial zoning and could be used for housing.
This area is large enough that, if redeveloped correctly, can act as a downtown of sorts and ergo, a hub of arts and entertainment.
This area is large enough that, if redeveloped correctly, can act as a downtown of sorts and ergo, a hub of arts and entertainment.
i.e. bars, clubs, restaurants, theater/performance venues, ballroom & convention facilities. Art and entertainment at all scales!
This area is large enough that, if redeveloped correctly, can act as a downtown of sorts and ergo, a hub of arts and entertainment.
i.e. bars, clubs, restaurants, theater/performance venues, ballroom & convention facilities. Art and entertainment at all scales!
This area has limited access. Maybe R-E.
these parcels need density in order to pay for undergrounding of overhead power systems these parcels need density in order to pay for undergrounding of overhead power systems There used to be a drive-in theatre where Kohls is -- great spot for an entertainment complex -- or a bowling alley.....or something for families & young adults....
There should be mixed use zoning all along Thousand Oaks Blvd. The whole street.
There should be mixed use zoning all along Thousand Oaks Blvd. The whole street.
There is a lot of empty lots near rancho conejo and the businesses nearby. These lots just sit there with nothing to do
There are several vacant lots across TO -- build townhomes on those lots.....
Theater
The rock and dirt space is such an eyesore for the Thousand Oaks boulevard. This space can be utilized for entertainment.
The retial/commerical area between T.O. blvd corridor across the freeway to the Agoura Rd. corridor, starting from the Hampshire exit down south to the county line, is also a perfect area for denser development without disturbing the surrounding residential neighborhoods. This area is perfect for creating a downtown similar in size density, scope and building height, to Downtown Ventura or Downtown Pasadena
NOTICE HOW MUCH SURFACE AREA IS WASTED ON EMPTY PARKING! THIS IS INEFFICIENT AND UNACCEPTABLE!!!! REDUCE PARKING MINIMUMS!!!
Item No. 11A
Consider connecting this area to surrounding neighborhoods with bike paths and a streetcar to the T.O./Janss Mall Moorpark Corridor areas.
The Oaks Mall and open unused store fronts need to have creative uses before more is built.
The large area encompassing the T.O. Mall, Janss Mall, and the Moorpark retail/commercial corridor (also extending down Hillcrest and T.O. blvd to the 23 freeway) are perfect for denser development without disturbing the surrounding residential neighborhoods. This area is perfect for creating a downtown similar in size density, scope and building height, to Downtown Ventura or Downtown Pasadena.
NOTICE HOW MUCH SURFACE AREA IS WASTED ON EMPTY PARKING! THIS IS INEFFICIENT AND UNACCEPTABLE!!!! REDUCE PARKING MINIMUMS!!!
Consider connecting this area to surrounding neighborhoods with bike paths and a streetcar to the T.O. Automall, Townsend Corridor areas.
The entire valley benefits from parks. Nice job of it so far.
The entire corridor of T.O. blvd from the 23 freeway to Hampshire Rd. is perfect for redevelopment
TCAC affordable
TCAC affordable
TCAC affordable
TCAC Affordable
TCAC Affordable
TCAC affordable
Supportive student housing.
Student housing
Sports Park
Some store, lots of apartments.
Small units above retail
Small market for students
Restaurant for faculty and students to go.
Small entertainment district with upscale restaurants and retail shopping, similar to Downtown Ventura
Skyway for human powered vehicles to transit grade
Single story dwellings with guest houses
Shopping center as well as shopping center across the street has many turnover. Mix-use housing might support this area.
Several 4-story office buildings near Target centered around a few restaurants revitalize failed restaurants district by adding housing above revitalize failed restaurants district by adding housing above revitalize failed restaurants district by adding housing above Retail/commercial + TCAC affordable
Retail/ commercial + TCAC affordable
Retail, professional and high-density residential along TO Blvd.
Retail, apartments
Item No. 11A
Retail and dining with open spaces for community members to gather and meet. Many other communities in SoCal have these already and I *thought* TO was considering something similar....our community needs a place to congregate, eat and shop with shade and open spaces.
The dated storefronts on TO Blvd are embarrassing eyesores.
Retail + TCAC affordable
resturant
Restaurants, etc.
Restaurant, live music, walkable dinning and entertainment option s central parking and then trolley or other public trans up and down TO BLVD
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, TOWN HOMES
residential over retail-things of interest to 25-45 year old work force residential and commercial
residential and commercial here would be GREAT!
residential and commercial
residential and commercial
Resident/commercial. Moderate density
Replace the long vacant retail
Replace homes with townhomes that front onto Moorpark Road.
Replace homes with townhomes that front onto Moorpark Road.
Replace homes with townhomes that front onto Moorpark Road.
Replace homes with townhomes that front onto Moorpark Road.
Replace homes with townhomes that front onto Moorpark Road.
Replace homes with townhomes that front onto Moorpark Road.
Replace homes with townhomes that front onto Moorpark Road.
Protect the oak trees.
Protect and fence the oaks.
professional office
Preserve any oak trees in this area!
Please, please keep our open space and trails well kept and safe for everyone. places for teens
Perfect place for a park.
passive
park!
park
park
park
park
park
park
park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Item No. 11A
Park
Park
Park
Outdoor market area/designated and welcoming farmers market area. We have great produce in the area plus a population that wants to buy locally grown fresh products but the atmosphere for the farmers market is horrible.
Outdoor gym
Outdoor gym
Opportunities for a true town center at the corner of TO Blvd and Moorpark Rd, and the Oaks Mall Open space near the mall
Open Space
open space
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Open space
Open space
Open areas surrounding Rancho Conejo for general housing and townhomes.
Office or medical
office only
Office / Residential
Office / Residential
Oak and Sycamore groves
Nothing can survive economically here. So convert it into office space.
NO MORE GROWTH! THIS CITY IS TOO CROWDED AS IT IS! Can't we just be TO, and not the valley???
No more development. Protect the remaining oak trees. Surround the trees with fencing.
No greater height limit than 2 stories.
nice park for the many apts on Conejo School Rd
Newbury Park Town Center, complete with a mixed-use shopping district that draws people into the street from any apartments nearby
Newbury Park industrial complex
New downtown and all along TO Blvd from Hampshire to Moorpark Rds new "downtown"
Need to preserve our open space. Please stop over building! need multi-family in NP also
need more multi-family on major roads/close to transit options Need more housing to support university staff and students.
Need more housing to support university staff and students.
Need more housing to support university staff and students.
Need more housing to support university staff and students.
Need green space near freeway to not turn into Valley.
Near TO Blvd/1010 corridor
Item No. 11A
Near the freeway
Nature trails
native landscape open space
native landscape open space
native landscape open space
native landscape open space
native landscape open space
native landscape open space
native landscape open space
native landscape open space
native landscape open space
native landscape open space
native landscape open space
native landscape open space
native landscape open space
Multi-family apartments on current parking lots near Target Movie theaters & Restaurants
Movie theater in downtown TO
More walkable retail on the Blvd
more trails
More social places for young adults
More places for people to live
More mixed-use on East Thousand Oaks Blvd
More mixed use to activate the street, enhance the streetscape and bring vitality to T.O. Blvd. is needed.
Mom and pop stores with apartment above
Mixed-use buildings to replace current office park along Teller Rd, old offices and businesses go into denser office park by Target
mixed-use
Mixed use projects along TO Blvd to help TO make a "downtown" with affordable options for first time homebuyers.
mixed use
mixed use
medical/commercial office
Maybe more sport areas nearby? Tennis courts are almost always full at Borchard Manufacturing or repair shops
Malls are outdated. Use these for mixed-use housing.
Mall is losing businesses. Rebuild as Mixed Use--apartments, condos, and retail.
Make Kmart property something beautiful without creating mass congestion and misery.
Make it a park!
Make better use of existing retail space.
maintiain hiking and biking trails
Maintain Wildwood Park
Maintain open space and provide acreage needed to keep the RAMS in TO/NBP lots of mixed-use on TOB
Item No. 11A
Los Angeles Quality Live Theatre, Concerts and museums
Left wild - no more growth in Newbury Park. Enough is enough Leave this floodplain undeveloped as it floods regularly Leave open space between T O and all surrounding towns. T O too dense already Large malls are outdated. Try mixed use housing here.
Large apartments
Kmart lot as a park
Keepountains as mountains. NO development on the mountains.
Keep undeveloped
Keep the pumpkin patch/Christmas tree lot as a park
keep the play fields
Keep the hills native
keep the hills native
Keep mountains from any development
Keep grassy field instead of plowing it over and turning it into retail keep golf course or open space
K Mart site/TO Blvd
Janss marketplace is underutilized. A horizontal mixed use land use plan could be an opportunity for housing close to jobs.
Janss mall would be a great place to have multiple types of entertainment. Comedy club, bowling, escape room, wine tasting, another brewery.
Janns Mall should be redeveloped into a walkable mixed use complex with retail, small offices/work studios, and homes.
Inexpensive. Not huge. No more businesses
IMT rendering looks good, but need designated subsidized units Important to make it attractive for new businesses to come to TO. Patronize our local restaurants; no more chain, fast food places, it ruins our city landscape.
I'm not sure where it should go but I would like to see open space and parks preserved.
I'm not sure exactly where this should be placed, but I think Thousand Oaks needs more industrial / R&D space. I own a business in town that will need a 5,000-6,000 SQFT industrial space in the next two years. At this point, it seems very unlikely that I will be able to buy such a facility in town due to a lack of supply, forcing the company to move to a neighboring community like Camarillo, which isn't optimal.
If we need more housing and apartments, please place them by the freeways similar to the Avalon Oak Creek in Agoura Hills, or repurpose vacant retail spaces. Trying to fit them into spaces surrounded by single-family homes impacts the suburban character already built in to the single-family area and also adds substantial traffic.
If we add a bunch of office/R&D buildings by a residential area it will be easier for people to get to work. They might even be able to walk.
I would like the trail going up the hill at the end of Lone Oak to remain open space, and be cleared to keep it passable. I live on Lone Oak.
I want to see mixed-use buildings on TO Blvd.
I want to see entertainment options on TO Blvd. And I want it to be walkable.
I know the K mart site is being considered for mixed use. Please keep it limited to 3 stories with a 35 ft setback. The new mixed use being put in at the old Lupe's site is a visual disaster.
Item No. 11A
I just like the ideas of affordable living nearby Thousand Oaks Blvd, there are a lot of cute places to eat and shop their, I would spend more time walking around if I lived closer Housing support for CLU EXPANSION and housing for students and support. housing and retail/restaurants
Hotel, town-square, community gathering place, etc
hotel / commercial
Homes that can be purchased by families instead of rented. homes
HOMES
HOMES
HOMES
Home retail entertainment
High Density Student Housing.
heritage oak tree-focused park
Height limit no greater than 2 stories.
Hampshire Rd should go all the way through to Hillcrest.
Green belts and a small park in the middle of a new development Good for the old KMart site
Full support for mix of housing, entertainment, food & beverage, retail.
Fresh healthy take-out restaurant, coffee shop, cafes -- the kinds of places where high school kids could hang out, local residents could get fresh food, CLU students could study... we need more of this kind of thing near CLU, and the retail/vacant lot spaces on the east side of Moorpark at Flores could be a nice option, possibly including nice apartments above the cafe spaces. Or else further north on Moorpark
for children and teen sporting practices
food, beverage, retail, housing
Fence and protect the oak trees.
farm worker housing
farm worker housing
Fab lab maker space enterprise incubator
Extend Willow Lane through to Rancho Road.
Everything east of Thousand Oaks Blvd leading up to the city limits should be dense townhomes Equestrian facility
Entertainment options nearby (movie theater, arcade)
Entertainment District for NP area and Western TO
Enhance the employment opportunities for high tech/high education supported by housing duplexes
Downtown core AND Newbury Park. NP is getting to be a suburb of a suburb. Is that okay? Downtown area
downtown
donate this land to the Elks lodge so we can help more people in our community with a beautiful lodge
Does it have to be sooo big. The concept is great, but everyone wants $$$ to be first consideration.
Item No. 11A
develop youth and adult sports complex with supporting commercial and hotel use at the east side of the parcel. Add single family homes in the west end of the parcel to complete low density residential neighborhood. Invest with VCWPD to resolve channel capacity issues and eliminate stormwater overflow problem.
DEVELOP IT NOW
creek connection
Create a park.
Create a linear creek park like what they have in Downtown San Luis Obispo.
Create a linear creek park like what they have in Downtown San Luis Obispo.
Create a linear creek park like what they have in Downtown San Luis Obispo.
Convert this block into high density student housing .
Convert this block into high density student housing .
Convert this block into high density student housing .
Convert the golf course into a new neighborhood that contains a mix of residential types. Extend Greenmeadow Dr through to Moorpark Road.
Convert the golf course into a new neighborhood that contains a mix of residential types. Extend Greenmeadow Dr through to Moorpark Road.
Convert Sinclair Building into a mixed use and then add Multi-Family behind it on top of the parking area.
Continue to develop MU properties here as well as redesign the street. Should be more narrow, yes - more narrow, to encourage a downtown/walkable feel. Many cities have successfully done this without it becoming over developed like the valley.
Continue to add mixed-use projects on Thousand Oaks Blvd.
Continue open space and park development
Consider extending Mixed Use/Townhome area around the hill along McCloud Ave. and St Charles Dr.
Conejo school should become a food hall with multiple vendors (think Oxbow market in Napa) with ample bike parking. This is a great hub for cyclists and hikers: they use our trails, so why not coax them to spend money within the city
Conejo Grade property for office and R&D.
Condos, apts, duplexes
Condos and apartments, at the end of Rancho Conejo Rd
Complete ring of open space
complete ring of open space
commercial/medical office
commercial and residential
commercial and residential
commercial and residential
commercial and residential
Commercial and high density residential all along the boulevard Commercial / Residential
Commercial / Office / Residential
Commercial / Office / Residential
Com'l and hi-density res along blvd
Coml and hi density res along blvd
Item No. 11A
cluster of 5-10 story office buildings on Hillcrest before 23 Clean up this long vacant eyesore.
center pedestrian walkway
Casual restaurant/coffee shop
Carpool car lot was supposed to be in Newbury Park. You now use the NP land (Rancho Rd) as a place to sell RVs on the weekends. Wasted space.
Carden has been a great neighbor. Do not turn this into housing. It was also meant to be a school site. I’m sad that it’s not a public school but, a private school is better than a continuation high school or day care. This is a neighborhood.
can accomadate ordinary people like teachers and cops and firemen. Individual homes are way too pricey for average incomes
Business below with residential above, within the 35’ height limit.
Bowling alley, laser tag,
Bowling alley for all ages
Both Multi-Family & Mixed-Use development is suitable for this location Both malls should expand to mixed use affordable one bedroom units similar to the newly approved project in simi.
Better layout for restaurants
Area surrounding Rancho Conejo for general housing and townhomes.
Apartments/townhouses
Apartments/Condominiums with large setback-distance from the 101 Freeway Apartments, studios and 1-2 bedrooms.
Apartments, Condominiums, Retail
Apartments, Condominiums
Apartments, condominiums
Apartments for students
Apartments for students
Apartments affordable
Apartments above commercial
Apartments
Apartments
Apartments
apartments
Apartments
Apartment
anything
Another option for dining, retail and office space.....it's nicely places away from TO, so traffic is less of a concern
Another museum, perhaps for kids.
An area this large (As proposed in the adjacent mixed use tag) can accommodate medium sized 10 to 12 story office buildings without imposing shadows or impacting sightlines. See Pasadena as an example!
An area this large (As proposed in the adjacent mixed use tag) can accommodate medium sized 10 to 12 story office buildings without imposing shadows or impacting sightlines. See Pasadena as an example!
Item No. 11A
An area this large (As proposed in the adjacent mixed use tag) can accommodate medium sized 10 to 12 story condo/apartment buildings without imposing shadows or impacting sightlines. See Pasadena as an example!
An area this large (As proposed in the adjacent mixed use tag) can accommodate medium sized 10 to 12 story condo/apartment buildings without imposing shadows or impacting sightlines. See Pasadena as an example!
Amgen has so much wasted space, but we do not want more houses, eye sores, no tall building, & most importantly want to protect our wildlife that we’ve already moved too far into & they have died b/c of our building & killed when crossing roads- no more building, ppl can live in Fillmore, Camarillo & all the surrounding communities,just like Beverly Hills & belaire do not add addition footage for “new affordable housing” we should not either... our taxes are too much for you to take the only thing away from us that we like. Ppl are too spoiled to demand us build for them Already setup for this type of occupancies. Need to improve high speed WiFi and infrastructure to support startups and entrepreneurial incubator.
along T.O. Blvd
Along and close to the main "downtown" area and along TO Blvd corridor After the fire ststion is relocated turn this into a neihborhood park. affordable: mobile homes. senior complexes, condos
Affordable starter homes for small families!!
Affordable income housing.
Affordable Housing units by the Civic Arts Center, so all the service workers can live near where they work
Affordable housing is more important than a golf course. The infrastructure for homes was put in the ground below this site.
affordable housing for young professionals
Affordable housing and mixed use, shops, apartments and condos.
Affordable housing and mixed use, shops, apartments and condos.
Affordable housing - Pinecrest was a missed opportunity to address issue.
Affordable Housing
Affordable Housing
Affordable housing
Affordable Housing
Affordable Housing
affordable Housing
affordable apartments
affordable apartments
affordable apartments
affordable apartments
affordable
add residential to enliven retail and food services
add parking structures in place of surface parking
add parking structures and office in place of surface parking Add more. It's okay.
Add mixed use housing at the Janss Marketplace area. It's walkable and there's vacant space that could be converted to housing.
Item No. 11A
add lower density townhomes and add commercial next to Kohls to finish retail center Ad some Mixed-Use near city council member's homes.
A new park in this open area
A movie theater.
A city of our size would benefit from entertainment for adults and children that is affordable. 7-11 with reduced hours and no alcohol or tobacco sales. 6 to 8 stories (same building mass as city hall
4 to 6 stories
2-3 story apartments along thousand oaks blvd on top of a thin but long commercial shopping district
2 & 3 bedrooms
Multi-family affordable housing
The comments below are reported verbatim and loosely categorized.
Development/Economy
City fees and development hurdles are too aggressive in TO Redevelopment is the future of housing and retail in Thousand Oaks.
Do not overbuild. We could use modernization, but no super tall buildings, especially along TO Blvd and the like. Freeway congestion needs help.
Minimize fees for ADU permits to provide affordable living space.
Give our sleepy community a walkable and liveable downtown :) excessive high residential and commercial rents causing an exodus of quality people and businesses to leave
Do not grow.
I am glad the City is doing something to make Thousand Oaks and the neighbor cities grow. Our community is changing and we need to so same.
We don’t need more development. Keep T O as it is. Don’t let it become Encino or Santa Ana! Don’t let T O become the Valley! Keep it as is! No more development of open space. No increase in density, please,
Don’t let T O become the Valley! Keep it as is! No more development of open space. No increase in density, please!
My husband and I are homeowners in Thousand Oaks and would like a walkable downtown with more mixed use developments. Northern Thousand Oaks near CLU could use some development as well.
Thousand Oaks is beautiful community. Although I understand the need for more affordable housing, it needs to be very thoughtful and with traffic problems in mind. Buildings need to be limited in height and with ample open space. Oak trees need complete protection from destruction and encroachment.
Build a better Thousand Oaks not a bigger Thousand Oaks.
Item No. 11A
The Lupe's buildings are so, so ugly. It breaks my heart to remember how many great times we had there and to see the huge structures that replaced it.
The huge Lupe's buildings are very ugly.
When oh when will mixed use buildings be built around the Downtown Core? It's been 9 years since the Specific Plan was voted on and still nothing has been done to get more density into TO to provide more customers to the retail on the boulevard.
Please look to New Urbanism or Strongtowns as a guide for Post-Suburban redevelopment.
In order to continue to thrive into the latter half of the 21st Century, Thousand Oaks must prioritize smart growth, affordability, and a thriving job core.
Stop cramming more people into such a small place. There are other communities that can handle the growth. TO should not.
This is my home town, and I think sensible density + a sense of place is required. TCAC designated affordable density at town center, keep the hills native and restore the streams, design projects that look like they belong here. PROTECT ALL QUERCUS LOBATA. No design that takes out these irreplaceable trees should even be considered.
Please don't over build and develop in Thousand Oaks. I came here because it felt like country and I want it to stay that way.
I am very concerned with the approval of high rise multiuse buildings. These provide for more commercial stores, however we have many empty commercial stores. Why do we need more. Tall buildings along TO blvd looks like the SF Valley! Not good!! Stop investing so much in the auto mall. Let the dealers shoulder the costs. Don't allow the Governor to pressure TO into steering off course. We're doing fine. Encourage the Sheriff's to enforce local laws more strictly, especially regarding homeless "activities" like drinking, urinating, camping, etc... Stop hiring expensive consultants to tell you things, which our own talented city employees can tell you...
Items in the current master plan that should not be changed: building height, sidehill/ridgeline development, zoning changes by vote of the people (increase housing density).
Utilize the traffic lane(s) on US Hiway 101 as through lanes, not just for exit/entrance. If planned widening of Hiway 101, should be trafic lanes, not HOV.
The map for drag and drop is difficult to understand. No buildings more than 3 stories high.
We just moved back to TO after being away for 13 years. Feels very different, SF Valley (ish), several main roads like TO Blvd, Gainsborough, others, look cosmetically terrible. Even a coat of something like HA5 to darken and even out the look of these roads would help A Lot if there is no interest in actual repaving.
Side 4 asks where to put growth. This valley is growing beyond its natural capacity. Renew existing areas is fine but growth is not. The goal should be to improve life without adding more people. Growth should happen in other less dense areas.
We need a major market midtown. Mixed use and affordable housing within walking distance of food, services, and social gatherning areas
One of the concerns we have is the abundance of fast food places here. Enough. Let's attract good quality, family run restaurants to come here and help them stay by patronizing them.
Mixed Use building will aid senior citizens, who can live adjacent to the services they need.
We DO NOT need more growth or housing. Time for the city to sue the state for forcing this on us.
FOIA the towns of Newsom, Pelosi, Feinstein, Waters and find out how many low income housing Item No. 11A
units they are going to build. If none, that should be the norm for the rest of the state.
Also, NO special exemptions for building more than 3 stories high.
PLEASE, let's NOT become the valley!!!
Please limit development. It will cause a lot of crime. Thousand oaks is great the way it is.
Moorpark Ave between Janss and Thousand Oaks Blvd could definitely use some curb appeal as it is a street frequently used by many for shopping.
No buildings higher than 2 stories on TO Blvd. Lupe building is way to massive and tall.
Downtown is the Janss market place to my way of thi.king The proposal to have low-income housing on the old K-Mart lot and low-income housing where the Timber School is would be great, but the Timber School should be declared an historical landmark.
We have lots of vacant spaces that can be converted to meet the needs with more housing and more entertainment. The City should ensure developers fit the feel of Thousand Oaks rather than turn us into the Valley or Oxnard with their high-rises just so they make a profit.
I always hated the chain restaurants and live interesting places to eat and drink, sorry some of the places are shutting down. Always wished we could have had a more cohesive center of town . Not a fan of Thousand Oaks Blvd mishmash. Love Thousand Oaks
We don’t want to become Temecula, but our schools and our economy will suffer if we become an old, dilapidated community that refuses to modernize. We can grow and welcome younger families with a community master plan that welcomes thoughtful growth.
Too much development. Listen to the people NOT the developers.
Housing
More affordable townhomes in the $300-450K range near downtown TO would help bring students and new families back to TO.
I think housing on TO Blvd is a bad idea! Traffic congestion on the Boulevard is so bad, I try my hardest never to drive there. Housing will only make it worse! It will never be a "Pedestrian" street, because for the most part, the businesses are too far apart.
We need to increase housing desperately!
There are too many people in Thousand Oaks now. We do not need additional housing.
Need to plan for both short term and long term housing issues. Business community, Bio Tech community needs to be part of the solution to housing and invest directly into developing housing.
Everyone needs to invest into the solution. Government and affordable housing developers need the support of investors to develop all types of housing. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to give our input.
Honestly it seems like the city just wants to cater to the "upper income" residents. The city needs to make sure that it's policies allow ALL residents to live in the city and participate in the local economy.
City Council is going in the right direction of starting to move forward on development in opportunity areas. Mixed use will be key in solving the housing crisis and affording people who work here a place to live. Turn that Home Depot lot into HOUSING TODAY! I grew up in Thousand Oaks and still work here but I can no longer afford to live here. Control of rental rates would be awesome.
Affordable housing is the greatest need for teachers, first responders, retail salespersons, retail workers, hospitality workers, fast food workers, etc.
Item No. 11A
Hoping for thoughtful consideration of our increasing senior population. Mixed-age/income house important as would be building in a system such as neighborhood councils for more cohesion among those living in single-family housing.
I believe TO is about the optimum size. I would like to see more affordable housing so that younger families could settle here
I realize the City needs additional housing. I'm concerned the new housing will not adhere to the standards we've used in the past, and lead to the City looking like the Valley. We need to keep the 3 story height limit, adequate setbacks, and mitigate traffic issues.
We need additional new homes to be built that are not reasonably priced / not townhomes.
New Multi-family and Mixed use land uses should be near public transportation. But not too close to freeways for health reasons.
Keep the open space
Low income housing is NOT welcome here; if I can't live in Lake Sherwood then why are you imposing low income housing in an area where we DON'T want it? Everyone has to do their time to save to get what they want.
The wrong people are making design decisions the rest of us have to look at. The new housing project next to the fwy at Wendy looks like it belongs in Canoga Park. Seems conforming has no lost all value building of the civic center as it conforms to nothing anywhere. The new projects approved recently really cheapen the look and feel of our neighborhoods. I think it tragic and it concerns me about the new projects being proposed for neighborhoods.
If we don’t build more affordable housing I don’t know when I’ll ever be able to live here after I graduate college.
Please stop building apartment complexes!! I don’t want Thousand Oaks to become like the San Fernando Valley or Los Angeles. More people packed into our communities will resume in higher crime and traffic.
I know the city has a gun to its head with regards to building more low income housing, but we are max build out to our original General plan. This is ridiculous to think we have to overbuild our community to supplement low cost housing. I know it's a slippery slope as to having enough low income housing for our workers, but maybe we can find a way to buy out all of the older apartments throughout the Conejo Valley and turn them over to Many Mansions to supervise them.
We could use more mixed use housing
Increase granny flats to provide more Sr./youth housing opportunities I know you will see a lot of NIMBY responses - and I understand the fear of development.
However, it will be the city's demise if we don't start making this town more affordable for the people who work here. Moreso, the people who grow up here very rarely can come back because it's out of their price range. More than anyone we should be welcoming back people who grew up to love Thousand Oaks. This will ensure our future.
Affordable housing!!! Or at least renovated buildings that are worth what we pay!! Community character
I think we should think about keeping the character of our community. We don't want unbearable traffic or crowded spaces. It's so sad that every vacant lot is being plowed over. Please read "Last Child in the Woods" by Richard Louv. Parks, vacant lots,and space for nature in the midst of our city (not just designated open Space) is so important. It makes me sad that money and greed are driving decisions about our city.
Item No. 11A
Don't turn Thousand Oaks into the SF Valley. We moved here for the wide open spaces and small community atmosphere
Continue to resist the packaging of people onto each other with high rise structures and housing.
We don’t want to be like LA or San Francisco or the Valley. That is why many of us move here and support this community.
We moved here to get away from Hollywood and LA, not to bring it with us. Growth is necessary, but TO seems to have done a good job of managing it. Scooters are now a scourge elsewhere, they are not an auto substitute and do not mitigate traffic, so they must be prevented. And homelessness is a mental health, addiction, and broken windows crisis, NOT a housing crisis; there is plenty of help for the temporarily unhoused and they are not the problem, the chronically homeless who find community in encampments are the problem, both for health and safety. Have some temporary nighttime shelters around and never stop enforcing laws and they will not congregate here. Your open space preservation is also key. Finally, traffic congestion can be controlled with proper signals and timing and better planned entrance and exits to avoid backups, it works if your traffic department is creative.
We recently moved here (2 years ago or so) for the great schools, weather, air quality, calm life, and open space. We hope those qualities can be maintained. We don't believe growth should be a priority, the current population density is excellent. Not too sleepy, not too busy. While I understand the desire to have affordable housing, not every area / town / city can be affordable.
When you have an excellent combination of features, like Thousand Oaks does, it’s naturally expensive. It's a privilege to live in Thousand Oaks, not a right. There are many affordable communities within 20 minutes that can serve those who require more affordable housing.
Imagine people asking that Malibu make it affordable for them to live there. Not every city can be affordable. To become affordable, it seems we'd have to grow the town substantially, thereby destroying what makes the place attractive and unique.
We need to attract young families back to the area with better “walkable” areas, better jobs, and more affordable housing
Don’t ruin TO. Stop the mixed use on the boulevard. People will buy the units and rent them out leaving tenants who don’t care about the community. I saw this happen to the community from where I came from.
I love Thousand Oaks and I want to see it thrive! I want to see it become a place for young families again, as it was when I grew up here.
PLEASE: No more expansion! No more traffic! Too many people already! Please stop all of this adding more housing and businesses. The traffic is awful and we are losing the whole feeling of a small town, which is why we moved here in 1996.
Please slow the growth.
Please don't reduce our open space.
We DO NOT care about a downtown Thousand Oaks!
Focus on quality of life, and environmental sustainability, avoid additional development of any kind, including m/f residential.
Keep Thousand Oaks nice! Less density. More open space. More oak trees. Better roads. Better parking. Don’t become the valley! Keep TO blvd free from traffic. Lots of parking! You control the future.
Sustainability, Environment, Climate, Trees
Item No. 11A
keep T.O. clean and green moving forward with sustainability and long term goals so this is still a desirable place for generations to come. We have much to be proud of, and much work to do to keep the best parts of Thousand Oaks in tact as we evolve and grow The time will cone when you will have to something with all that open space Keep TO beautiful
Our open space is locked in and cannot be lost. We are in a new economic reality with very little development fees and our share of property taxes is very low.
Do not cut down existing oak trees
It is the responsibility of the General Plan, and those designing it, to protect the health of our children and the safety and prosperity of our community by taking all measures necessary to ensure that strategies are implemented to safeguard our air, water and the climate which sustains us BEFORE irreparable damage is done to these most basic necessities for life and quality of life.
To that end, I urge you to appoint a qualified scientist with expertise in greenhouse gas reduction and climate resiliency to the General Plan Advisory Committee...which, by the way, should have been selected by the residents of this community, rather than being hand-picked by city officials and influential persons with potential conflicts of interest and/or business before the city.
1) It is the responsibility of the General Plan, and those designing it, to protect the health of our children and the safety and prosperity of our community by taking all measures necessary to ensure that strategies are implemented to safeguard our air, water, natural surroundings, and the climate which sustains us BEFORE irreparable damage is done to these most basic necessities for life and quality of life.
To that end, I urge you to appoint a qualified scientist with expertise in greenhouse gas reduction and climate resiliency to the General Plan Advisory Committee...which should have been selected by the residents of this community, not hand-picked by city officials and influential persons with potential conflicts of interest and/or business before the city. 2) The map embedded in the Online Survey for placing the icons for Open Space, Mixed Use, Condos/Townhomes, Retail, etc., onto the areas of our town where we prefer they be located, does not identify street names … which makes this a futile exercise in frustration. If you want participants to actually be able to make and communicate informed choices, you have to give us adequate tools to verify exactly where we are placing our icons, rather than expecting us to rely on vague approximations of where they are going.
Please include environmental sustainability plan
I'd like to see the city develop projects that move residents and companies away from dependence on fossil fuels. We're already experiencing the effects of climate change--drought and fires. We must reduce emissions. More electric car chargers for apartments and retail, solar panels on commercial buildings, housing construction that uses only electrical utilities and solar powered.
Please put sustainability, environmental consideration, recycling, air quality, etc., in priority. please move thousand oaks to clean energy...a green community. An example of what can be done when we move forward with the future in mind. This pandemic has shown us clearly, the effect we have on the air and water on our planet. It's starts in communities. Let's make sure we are as green and clean as we can.
Transportation
Item No. 11A
I would really appreciate better bike infrastructure. Some intersections (and parts of Moorpark Road or T.O. Blvd where cars are coming out of driveways and not looking OR big stormsewer gullies force you out into traffic, as on Moorpark southbound from Flores -- or where Lynn Rd narrows) are death traps for bikes. We need much better protected bike lanes and sometimes also bike traffic signals that allow bikes to cross in protected fashion, as well as many more miles of dedicated bike paths! Trying to go for recreational rides on roads is not for the faint of heart, and I'd love to be able to appreciate the year-round bike weather without feeling like I'm at risk of traffic death at any moment. I'm an experienced and confident bicyclist, and if I'm feeling frustrated trying to get around by bike, you can bet many others aren't even trying Need separate bike lanes from road!
I would love to see dedicated bike lanes, not lanes on the side of the road. There are no places families can ride bikes together as an activity except the short one near the soccer fields. I would like to see them criss crossing the whole city so people can also use them for commuting.
Re-evaluate Traffic Lights at 101 Wendy Off Ramp. Very dangerous with cross traffic and glare.
Especially, speeding cars.
There is too much traffic in the city. Our boulevard is already so congested. We don't need more housing on the boulevard!
I don't like the traffic and the increase housing that promotes more congestion.
We NEED convenient, affordable, public transportation both in city and to Los Angeles and Ventura
Traffic speeds on Lynn Rd are too fast.
Safety
Police and/or Sheriff should do undercover drug busting work. If not already doing it.
Police and/or Sheriff should do undercover drug busting work. If not already doing it. I am a retired Los Angeles Unified public high school retiree.
Need to address the homeless issue
Would love a vibrant downtown with spaces for children and families and cafes.
And I would like the city to better monitor vagrants, loitering, homeless tents.
Thank you!
Safety of residents is a priority and getting the community atmosphere back, slow down and appreciating what we have.
Supporting firefighters and efforts to prevent wildfires is most important to me.
I have written a letter regarding a Safety Issue.
Wireless
Hire a different wireless consultant - there is definitely a conflict of interest here which will affect us all as time goes on. Other communities ARE better protected and more assertive in attempting to prevent the coming number of small cell antennas. You could do more, but you, as a city, are doing less, because of our wireless advisor. This will have an extremely negative effect on all of as in a short amount of time. My comments will fall on deaf ears, I know, since the city has a fear of lawsuits for not approving just about all of the applications they new antennas they receive, but, you will see, as time goes on, the number of incidents of unexplained physical conditions will increase so greatly due to your lack of action.
No 5g please- especially in schools- and yes the city does have the power to make these decisions so please stop scapegoating and actually protect your citizens that pay an obscene amount of money to live here
Item No. 11A
The City is not listening to its Health Professionals when discussing Safety Issues like 4G / 5G sites Other or MultipleCategories
Call me about building soccer volley courts. Lynn Oaks park would work.
Thank You!! Thousand Oaks leadership is the BEST!!
Love being a part of our City!
Religion must not be a part of our government or schools. We are being inundated by loud mouth people who want everyone to believe as they do
Timeline is ridiculously long. See Playa Vista in west LA for aggressive timeline that gets people truly interested.
While I no longer live in Thousand Oaks, I do currently own a home in Thousand Oaks.
Get it done already. Our city outdated.
I'm sorry to see city officials use false narratives to promote their development agenda. I have watched Council members lie to the public claiming new housing laws force this change. Anyone who’s really paying attention knows that these housing laws have not passed. The corruption is gross. The influence from Blvd property owners, developers, CLU and Los Robles Hospital is disturbing. Thousand Oaks has made it pretty far; for years officials and residents have worked together for common values. This is why our community is so attractive. Please don’t throw it away. Please don’t let the influence of these greedy people destroy what we have protected for so long.
It's sad that the city plans on spending $20 million at the Civic Arts Plaza. Other areas to spend that money. I won't be supporting that CAP!
Folks, this a new general plan. Let's not be satisfied with just an update of the original. Let Thousand Oaks evolve beyond it's past.
Increase resident engagement by allowing voting on any substantial change to public property.
I think TO should remain a predominantly upper middle class single family city. That's why I moved here.
Love what you're doing! Keep up the great work!
Even though there is plenty of money in this area, I don't see a reason why every time some study is needed on a issue, the payment to consultants is way overpriced. Just because the money is there, doesn't mean the city should use it as if there is a bottomless pit in the bucket. We all worked hard for our money, from the millionaire to the middle class and it's hard to see our money used in such a frivolous manner. You don't have to buy the highest priced shoes to get good value! Make all city financial transactions advertised for the public to view. To include salaries and financial reports of elected officials
Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts. Our beautifully planned city is a dream. Of course we want to keep it that way. Engaging the community openly might help to calm people down. Just read NextDoor and you see some angry folks. And good folks as well thank goodness.
Please read my comments and take them seriously. Do not trash our community into becoming the valley by building more for ppl who cannot afford the town... they don’t do it in Beverly Hills, & it will ruin the value of why we all live here & pay taxes here If u don’t get businesses back up and running soon, all of planning effort and cost will be a waste do whatever you want..the valley is already here and I won't be Get a city council that responds to residents. Not one that appears to be doing business that is to their benefit and not the local residents!
Item No. 11A
Hyperloop and air taxi ports massive victory gardening and watershed level permaculture designing. Permatrail.org
Keeps TO THE WAY IT IS!
I think there should be a thousand oaks sign, like they do in other tourist countries for example Toronto, so the teenagers can go and take pictures.
open up a dispensary.
Please Re-Open Thousand Oaks !
Do not turn TO into “SF Valley”
I am reminded that the percentage of young people that came to the initial meeting for the TO2045 general plan was less than 1% compared to the older generation of people who settled this community. The consulting group thought everyone there came because they heard about it on social media when, in fact, most read about it in the Acorn. It may be true that this is not a community that supports young people. It is suburban life that we built here and we want to keep it this way. The young people I have spoken to have told me that they will leave T.O. regardless of the building of urban areas because they want to experience life outside of T.O. But they also said that they plan to come back to our quiet suburban area later on to raise their own children. Perhaps you should be listening more than talking about your grand plans! The city of Thousand Oaks has established guidelines for our community. Building codes, Oak tree codes etc. I want the city to stick to the guidelines and codes they have established and not waive them to allow builders to have the upper hand in our city. We don't need massive four story apartment buildings. We need all of our remaining Oak trees.
With the spread of Covid-19 as well as other possible community spread diseases (typhus, etc), please reconsider housing options for the homeless near parks, schools, and SFR neighborhoods.
Most of the homeless are drug addicts who don't want to abide by rules in order to live in permanent housing or shelter that is offered 'cuz they'd rather get high.
Fix the traffic flow and traffic lights!! Get rid of more left turn arrows! NO building over 3 story.
Stop cutting down oak trees.
Lessen the wealth disparity. Less mansions, more modest single family homes and town homes.
Less new development, more revitalizing and filling in old buildings. Start thinking about young families - we want affordability and safety and to not become the valley. But first, stop building mansions and claiming there is no space for affordable housing (see the new homes on Kanan road at Westlake)!!!
Survey
It was impossible for me to get my bearings in the Map Markers part of the survey so I chose not to participate in that one. Next time, provide a map with street names on it.
Good job on the survey
Thanks for the survey.
The survey is bogus. You are only including what Rami & Assoc decides to include instead of allowing the public to express their views.
I did not understand the map markers question, could be just me but wanted to mention it.
Good luck with this, if you need an intern let me know! The Map Markers was poorly designed to place markers...
The map to indicate your desire for growth type and location is extremely difficult to decipher.
There are no street names. This took me an exhorbitant amount of time to locate where on the Item No. 11A
map my house is let alone other areas that I think have room for development. I doubt you'll get useful information from respondents as a result.
I input many comments but they did not seem to register. I felt like it was a waste of my time.
Only one of all the ones I answered acknowledged receipt even after I entered it more than once.
Felt like you didn't like my responses so ignored them
Thank you for the opportunity to participate
The Map was hard to use without street names. I did not understand the color codes on the map.
I am Dutch/Spanish what does that fall under? Always confusing to me.
This was very easy to use, so it's a very effective format.
The survey was difficult to understand.
Technically I work from home for companies all over but especially LA so hopefully my answer works but wanted to mention just in case
Sorry, but I did not understand the goal of the map
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Analysis and Summary of Findings | April 2021
This report presents a summary of findings and comparison of results from a community survey on land use alternatives for the City of Thousand Oaks’ General Plan Update, TO2045. The survey, which is the third online survey completed as part of the TO2045 General Plan Update process, was conducted from February 2 to March 15, 2021.
The survey collected feedback on three specific land use alternatives that were summarized in the alternatives “Briefing Book.” A copy of the full Briefing Book and unedited comments is available on TOaks2045.org. This Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings was prepared by Raimi + Associates, the lead consultant for the Thousand Oaks General Plan update.
In 2019, the City Council initiated a process to update the Thousand Oaks General Plan, the first comprehensive update since the City prepared its original General Plan in 1970.
A General Plan serves as the “blueprint” for the City and directs all decisions related to land use and the physical form of the City. Thus, the updated General Plan, will play a critical role in shaping the future of Thousand Oaks for the next 25 years and beyond.
The three land use alternatives were developed after a robust community engagement effort that involved many conversations with the public and the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) between Fall 2019 and Spring 2020. The land use alternatives and the content of the Briefing Book were presented at a joint GPAC meeting and community workshop on February 2, 2021. Over 250 people attended this workshop.
The Briefing Book provides a summary of the three land use alternatives. The land use alternatives survey asked targeted questions about key land use decisions to gauge public interest and support for various concepts, including the general location of different land uses, development intensity, and building form and character.
The results of the land use alternatives survey provide direction for the consultant team preparing a preferred land use alternative for the General Plan Update. The Preferred Land Use Alternative will be presented to the community and Planning Commission in April 2021 for further review and input, and to the City Council in May 2021. Ultimately, Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
City Council will provide direction and endorsement on a preferred land use alternative and General Plan Land Use Map, which identifies the allowed land use and development intensity on every parcel in the City.
The survey was conducted through SurveyMonkey, a large and reputable web-based survey platform. The survey settings were configured to only allow one survey to be completed from a single device (i.e., laptop, smartphone, tablet).
Maps and images were included in the survey to assist respondents with their selections and included detailed instructions, referencing the land use alternatives Briefing Book on multiple occasions. The instructions to the survey asked respondents to review the Briefing Book prior to taking the survey.
The survey was available in English and Spanish and was circulated in printed format to those without computer access. Approximately 2,500 flyers were distributed throughout the City to various organizations.
The survey included 33 questions seeking input on citywide land use policy, future allowed land uses in specific areas of the City, and demographic questions. The following is a summary of the number and type of each question.
x Sixteen survey questions (2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25) were single selection multiple-choice, with respondents limited to one land use alternative or policy answer for a single response. For each of these questions, the survey included a “none of the above” option with space for participants to describe an idea that was different then the multiple-choice options. Respondents who did not select “none of the above” were not given the option of writing a comment on the question. Across single selection multiple-choice responses with write-in space, “none of the above” was selected 15% or less of the time. The majority of write-in comments that accompanied a “none of the above” response expressed the respondents’ opposition to any changes in Thousand Oaks or in that particular area. Thus, the responses represent a small portion of total responses and are not given more weight than other responses to the same question.
x Six of the survey questions (#9, 14, 18, 24, 26, and 28) were open-ended and asked participants to leave additional comments for the specific land use area.
The vast majority of respondents (81%) skipped questions 14, 18, 24, and 28.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
While 65% of respondents provided responses to question 9. For the full report of comments, please visit TOaks2045.org.
x One single-selection multiple choice question (#1) was repeated at the end of the survey (#27). This question asked respondents to select their preferred alternative. A “none of the above” option was provided but additional comments (“specify your ideas”) was not included. This question aimed to gauge survey respondent’s reactions to the alternatives at the beginning of the survey, and again after answering specific questions about key features of the alternatives. x Two of the 21 multiple-choice questions (#10 and 12) included visual preference, where respondents ranked their level of support for each building type presented in an image.
x Six of the survey questions (#29, 30, 31, 32, and 33) where multiple choice demographics questions. This information was used to better understand which groups took the survey.
x One of the survey questions (#2) asked participants to select all responses that apply.
As is typical for online surveys, some survey respondents skipped some questions. This results in individual survey questions having a different number of responses (sample size, or (n=), for each survey question). Each chart in this report identifies the number of responses to the corresponding question.
This survey was conducted with a non-randomized sample (often called a convenience sample) of people who live, work, or spend time in Thousand Oaks. The convenience sample method (as opposed to a random, “statistically valid” survey) was intentionally used for multiple reasons.
First, using a non-random sample for a survey is commonly used to understand the perspectives and preferences of group of people (“population”), especially related to topics that are time-sensitive and/or not gathered through existing population surveys.
Data from non-random samples can show the range of views and preferences within a population and be used as a reference point for decision making.
Second, the General Plan Team (Raimi + Associates and City staff) wanted to make sure that the entire population (and not just a sub-group of residents) had the opportunity to participate in providing comments on the land use alternatives. Using a statistically valid survey would leave out many residents who have been engaged in the General Plan update since 2019. The General Plan Team wanted to make sure that all interested residents, business owners, and property owners could participate in the survey.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Third, the complexity of the material did not lend itself to a statistically valid survey.
Taking the survey required that participants understand the nuances of different land use designations and alternative arrangements of land uses. These were explained in detail in the Briefing Book and at the virtual meeting on February 2nd, 2021. The General Plan Team felt that it was not feasible for this complex material to be communicated effectively over the phone (e.g., via random digit dial) with respondents who were unfamiliar with the highly specific content.
Finally, the alternatives are not a “vote” on the direction; it is information that will help the decision-makers decide on a preferred alternative. Ultimately, the Planning Commission can recommend, and the City Council can approve, any direction they feel is best for the City, even if it is at odds with the results of the survey.
The primary limitation of data gathered through a non-randomized sample is that the findings cannot be assumed to reflect the opinions of the entire population. While the data from non-random samples is often considered “non-generalizable” the following factors indicate that the data from this land use alternatives survey is reliable and provides an accurate “temperature” of current public opinion in the Thousand Oaks community. First, there was a very large number of respondents to the survey thus increasing reliability. Second, the demographic information is very close to the citywide population. While some groups are underrepresented in the survey in terms of total percentage (namely Hispanic/Latino residents and youth), the overall numbers of respondents are generally very high. Finally, the respondents represented a wide geographic distribution which indicates that no one sub-area of determining the overall direction of the City.
Despite the confidence, random samples (like all data) also have limitations. The primary limitation is that participants who opt-in may not reflect the general population because certain types of people are more likely to not respond. This being said, the overall high sample size mitigates the limitations presented by the nonrandom sample survey.
The General Plan Team utilized print, online, and in-person outreach methods to raise awareness for the survey as well as to answer questions from members of the public.
Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic no in-person meetings were held.
These methods and events are listed below, for a detailed breakdown of the organizations, campaigns, and materials, visit TOaks2045.org.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
x 2,500 Hard copy flyers and 200 surveys distributed.
x Hard copies of survey and briefing book were hand delivered by request. x Four 2-hour office hours sessions.
x One virtual public workshop.
x Virtual presentation to 28 separate community organizations, non-profit organizations, businesses and businessowners, citizen committees, Homeowners Associations, student organizations, residents, and other stakeholders. x Eight email campaigns with information on how to participate and direct links to the survey.
x Paid advertisements in a local newspaper.
x Social media posts on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram x Direct emails to dozens of separate community organizations, charities, assisted living centers, and service providers.
In addition to formal outreach conducted by the General Plan Team, members of the community raised awareness for the survey through letters, email campaigns, and word-of-mouth. The Team is aware of three such print or email campaigns, although it is possible other similar efforts existed. Copies of these materials are included in Attachment A.
Data from five versions of the survey—online in English and Spanish, hard-copy in English and Spanish, and a secondary online version for adults in the same household that requested an additional access link (only 2 requests were received)—were combined prior to analysis. The survey generated a total of 2,127 responses, 10 of which were completed in Spanish, and 25 of which were submitted as hard copies.
The General Plan Team reviewed the individual response data received from the Land Use Alternatives Survey via SurveyMonkey for potential duplicates or irregularities. Two potential irregularities were identified. The first was identical IP addresses. The second was multiple responses that had similar results.
This analysis identified 413 instances where one IP Address was associated with more than one survey response. Survey responses by IP Address are highlighted below:
x 2127 total survey responses.
x 1896 surveys were submitted from unique IP Addresses.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
x 413 surveys originated from non-unique IP Addresses with 2-12 responses per IP Address.
o 152 IP Addresses submitted 2 responses each (304 responses) o 24 IP Addresses submitted 3 responses each (72 responses) o 3 IP Addresses submitted 4 responses each (12 responses) o 1 IP Address submitted 6 responses
o 1 IP Address submitted 7 responses
o 1 IP Address submitted 12 responses
As illustrated above, most of the non-unique IP Addresses submitted 2 or 3 responses.
This could be explained by a couple, roommates, or parents and child in the same household completing the survey or by multiple employees of a business using the same IP address. The multiple responses (4 or more) can be explained by people in the same business or household using the same IP address taking the survey. As a cautious approach to reporting the results, the survey responses were reported in two ways. First with all responses and the second by removing every survey response that originated from a non-unique IP address. The results of both methods are presented below. The two methods resulted in slight variations in responses but did not change the overall direction of any survey question or the overall results.
The second issue is that there were multiple responses with similar written comments. particularly with Question 9, which was an open-ended question about additional ideas for the Rancho Conejo area. One property, a 30-plus acre vacant parcel, received a large number of comments either in support of increased development potential or opposed to any change in land use designation. As was mentioned above, it is not uncommon for coordinated survey responses among groups to occur during a non-randomized survey.
Organizations often encourage their members to respond in a particular manner which they feel is most beneficial for their organization’s goals and or members. The General Plan Team is aware of at least three such efforts, with one effort opposing any change in land use and another supporting a change in land use. These types of coordinated efforts are not a basis for invalidating a survey of this nature or multiple responses with similar phrasing.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Prior to this analysis, the raw unfiltered responses were shared publicly. As a conservative comparison, this report contains a summary of multiple-choice questions from the Land Use Alternatives Survey by comparing the complete data set results (2,127) to the data set with the 413 duplicate IP addresses removed (1714 surveys). As this report shows, the two methods of analysis have minimal impacts on the outcome of each survey question.
This report compares both the complete data set (2,127 surveys) and the single-IP address data set (1,714 surveys). Because the differences between the data sets is minimal, the key takeaways and summary of open-ended responses throughout this report reference the complete dataset.
This report contains a high-level analysis of comments and open-ended responses associated with multiple-choice or open-ended questions. In general, these comments were a fraction of the overall survey responses, and sentiments of those multiple-choice responses were captured through the multiple-choice option, “none of the above.” For a full list of the raw comments associated with this survey, visit TOaks2045.org.
Survey respondents were primarily Thousand Oaks residents, and either lived only or both lived and worked in the community (97%). The majority of survey respondents have lived in the City for 11 or more years (76%).
The survey sample skews slightly older than citywide age ranges, with majority (61%) of survey respondents age 45 years or older1
.
Majority of survey respondents identify as White, not Hispanic or Latino (78%), with 22% of respondents identifying as Multi-Racial or not White. These results contain slightly higher percentages of respondents who identify as White, when compared to citywide race and ethnicity estimates2
.
1 U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). American Community Survey 2017 5-year Estimates 2 Ibid.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
The survey had good representation from the 4 primary zip codes in Thousand Oaks, with the Newbury Park neighborhood zip code having the greatest share (33%) of the survey population.
Below is high-level direction received from the Land Use Alternatives survey. x Overall support for the vision and themes presented in the land use alternatives including multifamily and mixed-use throughout the areas of change with a very limited number of respondents opposing mixed use development and increases in intensity.
x Support for the concepts of transferring residential density from established single family neighborhoods built at lower densities to underutilized commercial areas including Thousand Oaks Boulevard, the Oaks Mall, and commercial and vacant properties in Rancho Conejo.
x Support higher densities up to 45 du/ac if building heights and setbacks are generally the same.
x Interest in adding mixed use and multi-family housing in declining commercial areas.
x Support higher density mixed-use near Downtown.
x Support stand-alone multifamily residential along Thousand Oaks Boulevard. x Desire to maintain and expand employment focuses in the Rancho Conejo employment area, Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Via Merida (across from Westlake High School), and the Townsgate and Hampshire employment area south of the 101 Freeway.
x Desire to keep Moorpark Road (between Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Wilbur Road) largely commercial.
x Support for 3-5 story residential and mixed-use buildings and walkable retail in The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. However, the direction for Janss Marketplace is not entirely clear since Janss was listed in the Moorpark Road question that indicated strong support for keeping the corridor commercial. It may be that respondents are accepting of mixed-use development at the Janss Marketplace if it maintains a commercial focus and if the remainder of the corridor is commercial.
x Support for mixed use development and flexible land uses on the “Borchard” property in Rancho Conejo. This 30+ acre vacant parcel generated significant Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
interested (see question 9) but the vast majority of people who wrote a comment about this parcel (74%) supported mixed use development. x Desire to keep village centers commercial rather than allowing the areas to transition to include vertical or horizontal mixed-use development. x Strong support for Alternatives 1 and 3 with much less support for Alternative 2. x Only 17% of respondents did not support any of the alternatives or supported the existing General Plan. This means that there was very strong support to have a new land use vision for the areas of change and much more limited support to keep the existing land use pattern with no changes.
The key findings and themes above will influence the Preferred Land Use Alternative, which will be available for public review and feedback in April 2021 before it is presented to Thousand Oaks City Council for review, revision, and endorsement.
The survey included 4 citywide questions to gauge initial reactions to the three land use alternatives and specific approaches that would apply to all Changes Areas. x The vast majority of respondents supported one of the three alternatives, with 40% supporting Alternative 1 and 29% supporting Alternative 3. A small percentage (19%) did not support any of the alternatives. x The vast majority of participants indicate a high level of support for mixed-use and multifamily development in the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard Area (77%), and the Rancho Conejo Area (73%). Other geographic areas received significantly less support.
x Two-thirds (66%) of respondents strongly agree with the approach of transferring excess residential density from single family neighborhoods to the Change Areas identified in the Land Use Alternatives.
x 70% of respondents supported allowing residential densities of up to 45 dwelling units per acre when building heights and setbacks remain generally the same (50- foot-tall buildings).
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Based on what you have seen so far, which alternative best matches your vision for the future of the City?
39%
6%
29%
7%
20%
40%
6%
29%
6%
19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Not sure yet
None of the
above
Question 1
Complete Data Single IP Data
Answer Choices Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP responses
Alternative 1 40% 829 39% 650
Alternative 2 6% 124 6% 94
Alternative 3 29% 615 29% 490
Not sure yet 6% 125 7% 112
None of the above 19% 401 20% 340
Answered 2094 1686
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
During the community engagement process, some participants recommended mixed use, providing for different types of housing to be built in the Areas of Change.
Select all areas where housing or mixed-use should be added.
Answer Choices Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP
responses
Rancho Conejo Area 73% 1539 71% 1201
Moorpark Rd and East Thousand Oaks Blvd Area 18% 374 17% 295 Downtown and Thousand Oaks Blvd Area 77% 1609 76% 1285
Westlake and East End Area 15% 308 14% 242
Village Centers 11% 223 10% 166
No preference 2% 35 2% 32
None of the above (please specify your ideas) 12% 254 13% 220 Answered 2099 1689
*Respondents could select more than one option, so percentages do not equal 100%. 73%
18%
77%
15%
11%
2%
12%
71%
17%
76%
14%
10%
2%
13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Rancho Conejo Area
Moorpark Rd and East
Thousand Oaks Blvd Area
Downtown and Thousand
Oaks Blvd Area
Westlake and East End Area
Village Centers
No preference
None of the above (please
specify your ideas)
Question 2
Complete Data Single IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Approximately 12% of total respondents (254 respondents) answered, "None of the above" on question 2. Of respondents who answered, “None of the above,” approximately three quarters expressed concern over increased development, new housing, or expressed opposition to mixed-use. However, this represents only 9% of total survey respondents. These comments included the following themes:
x Do not agree with any of the options.
x No mixed use, new housing, or changes to Thousand Oaks. x Fear of becoming the San Fernando Valley.
x Fear of increased traffic and/or strain to existing infrastructure. x Maintain low-density, semi-rural feel with open spaces and views. x No need for additional commercial space in Thousand Oaks.
Approximately 2% of total respondents selected “None of the above” for this question but expressed support for mixed-use development in the comments or included suggestions for locations. These comments included the following themes:
x Supportive of mixed-use in all areas listed.
x Supportive of additional housing.
x Supportive of mixed-use with additional restrictions like lower densities and heights.
x Supportive of converting underutilized commercial or industrial space to mixeduse like at The Oaks Mall, former K-Mart site (on Hampshire Road), Janss Marketplace, Rancho Conejo (north of the 101), Townsgate and Hampshire Road, Downtown, and/or village centers.
Other comments received included:
x Distribute housing throughout the city at lower densities. x Supportive of new housing, but not mixed-use or new commercial.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
The existing General Plan allows density up to 15 units per acre (townhomes, triplexes, small multifamily buildings) for areas designed as Medium Density Residential. However much of the existing Medium Density Residential areas are established neighborhoods at a lower density. Do you agree with the approach of protecting the character of single-family residential areas and transferring the remaining capacity to the Areas of Change?
67%
18%
5%
4%
7%
66%
19%
5%
3%
7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Question 3
Complete Data Single IP Data
Answer Choices Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP responses
Strongly agree 66% 1391 67% 1124
Agree 19% 389 18% 302
Neither agree nor disagree 5% 100 5% 81
Disagree 3% 73 4% 64
Strongly disagree 7% 141 7% 114
Answered 2094 1685
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Increasing residential density allows for smaller and potentially more affordable units within the same building envelope. Would you support increasing the maximum density of multifamily residential development from 30 units per acre to 45 units per acre within the Areas of Change if the building height and setbacks generally remained the same?
Answer Choices
Complete
Data
Responses
Dataset limited
to single-IP
responses
No, keep as it as a maximum of 30 units per acre 21% 438 22% 378 Yes, allow densities of up to 45 units per acre 70% 1482 69% 1166 No preference 1% 17 1% 14
None of the above (please specify your ideas) 8% 171 8% 141 Answered 2108 1699
22%
69%
1%
8%
21%
70%
1%
8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
No, keep as it as a
maximum of 30 units
per acre
Yes, allow densities of
up to 45 units per acre
No preference
None of the above
(please specify your
ideas)
Question 4
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Question 4 had 171 individual comments (8% of total survey responses) by respondents who answered, "None of the above.” Only 6% of total survey respondents selected “None of the above” and expressed opposition to higher density development. These comments included the following themes:
x Keep densities the same or decrease below 30 units per acre. x None of the options, slow growth, no changes, and/or no new people. x Maintain the existing character of Thousand Oaks.
x Increase setbacks on multifamily development.
x Opposed to anything other than single family residential homes. x Concerns over traffic associated with new development. x Opposed to new affordable housing.
Approximately 1% of total survey respondents selected “None of the above” for this question but expressed support for higher density development. These comments included the following themes:
x Allow densities up to 60 units per acre.
x Supportive of increased heights in limited locations. x Allow increased densities but maintain 3-story height limit. x Supportive of increased densities if infrastructure and transportation needs are met.
Other comments received included:
x Increase stock of multifamily for sale units and/or more affordable housing options.
x Repurpose vacant commercial and industrial buildings.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
The survey included 5 questions about the Rancho Conejo Area to test specific land use approaches and gauge direction for this Change Area.
x The majority of respondents (70%) expressed an interest in an even balance between higher and lower intensity industrial uses in the Rancho Conejo Area. x Respondents did not provide a clear direction on whether mixed-use development should be integrated in with the employment uses in Rancho Conejo along Lawrence Drive (43%) or not at all (38%).
x A majority of respondents (57%) strongly agreed with increasing residential density up to 45 du/ac in the Rancho Conejo area as a method infill development. x Respondents were mixed on the best alternative for the area with 39% supporting Alternative 1 and 32% supporting Alternative 3. Only 15% selected “None at all” meaning that there was strong support for the alternative land use concepts for this geographic area.
x Question 9, the open-ended question asking for other ideas about the Rancho Conejo area, generated the most written responses in the survey. A large number mentioned the 30-plus acre parcel located along Highway 101 known by multiple names including the “Alice” or “Borchard” property. Of the written responses, the majority (80%) supported mixed use or multi-family housing on this property while a smaller percentage opposed development and/or land use change.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Rancho Conejo has traditionally been a job center. There is an opportunity to provide additional job opportunities here by allowing higher intensity industrial development. The alternatives have different combinations of Industrial Low (focusing on office parks and distribution uses with an FAR of up to 1.0) and Industrial Flex (focusing more on office and R&D uses with an FAR of up to 2.0).
Which approach do you prefer?
Answer Choices Complete
Data
Responses
Dataset limited
to single-IP
responses
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.
70% 1438 69% 1151
More Industrial Flex than Industrial Low (Alt 2 or
Alt 3). (Note: Alt 3 has slightly more Industrial Flex
than Alt 2). This provides more jobs overall and a
greater concentration of office and R&D jobs,
including in the biotech sector.
16% 339 16% 266
No preference. 4% 87 4% 73
None of the above (please specify your ideas) 10% 201 10% 174 Answered 2065 1664
69%
16%
4%
10%
70%
16%
4%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Even balance between
Industrial Low and
Industrial Flex (Alt 1)
More Industrial Flex
(Alt 2 or 3)
No preference
None of the above
Question 5
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Question 5 had 201 individual comments (representing only 10% of total responses) by respondents who answered, "None of the above." Of respondents who answered “None of the above” to the question, the majority were opposed to new or increased development. However, this represents only 8% of total survey responses whereas over 86% supported one of the options or had no preference. These comments included the following themes:
x Leave it as it is, no change.
x Do not change land use on the “Borchard” property.
x Protect open space.
x Concern of traffic implications of new development.
x Opposed to new development because of existing vacant buildings. 1% of total respondents selected “None of the above” but expressed support for industrial or industrial flex, or mixed-use development. These comments included the following themes:
x Desire for more mixed-use.
x Interested in an industrial mix of uses, but limit heights. x Supportive of industrial low uses.
x Supportive of more residential focus.
Other comments received included:
x Supportive of additional jobs and housing at different locations or intensities Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
During the community engagement process, some participants suggested adding opportunities for mixed-use and multifamily residential development near the businesses in Rancho Conejo. To what extent should mixed-use development be integrated with industrial and commercial uses in Rancho Conejo? Answer Choices Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited
to single-IP
responses
By creating a mixed-use neighborhood on land
currently designated as industrial, such as along
Lawrence Drive (Alternative 1).
43% 891 42% 704
On the western edge of Rancho Conejo on land
designated as commercial, such as along Camino
Dos Rios (Alternative 2).
9% 186 9% 154
Not at all. Keep Rancho Conejo for employment
only. (Alternative 3)
38% 776 38% 637
No preference 4% 81 4% 63
None of the above (please specify your ideas) 6% 131 6% 106 Answered 2065 1664
42%
9%
38%
4%
6%
43%
9%
38%
4%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Neighborhoods along Lawrence
Dr (Alt 1)
Western edge of Rancho
Conejo, currently commercial
(Alt 2)
Not at all (Alt 3)
No preference
None of the above
Question 6
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Question 6 had 131 individual comments (6% of total survey responses) by respondents who answered, "None of the above.” Of these, approximately two-thirds expressed opposition to mixed-use development. However, this represents only 4% of total survey respondents. These comments included the following themes:
x No mixed-use, no changes, leave as it is.
x No development on the “Borchard” property.
x Concern of traffic implications of new development.
Approximately 1% of total survey respondents selected “None of the above” but expressed support for mixed-use development. These comments included the following themes:
x In favor of mixed-use development.
x Support mixed-use with limited height.
x Support mixed-use in specific locations.
Other comments received included:
x Support for multifamily residential, but not mixed-use. x Supportive of a combination of alternative 1 and 2.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
How much do you agree with this statement: The General Plan should allow mixeduse 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. 56%
15%
5%
7%
17%
57%
17%
5%
7%
16%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor
disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Question 7
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Answer Choices Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited
to single-IP
responses
Strongly agree 57% 1153 56% 926
Agree 17% 341 15% 252
Neither agree nor disagree 5% 96 5% 77
Disagree 7% 138 7% 119
Strongly disagree 16% 337 17% 289
Answered 2065 1663
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Which alternative best matches your vision for the future of Rancho Conejo? Answer Choices
Complete Data
Responses
Dataset
limited to
single-IP
responses
Alternative 1 39% 803 38% 628
Alternative 2 9% 176 9% 146
Alternative 3 32% 658 32% 530
No preference 6% 114 6% 92
None of the above (please specify your ideas) 15% 303 16% 259 Answered 2054 1655
38%
9%
32%
6%
16%
39%
9%
32%
6%
15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
No preference
None of the above
(please specify your
ideas)
Question 8
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Question 8 had 303 individual comments (15% of total responses) by respondents who answered, "None of the above." Of those who responded “None of the above” to this question, the majority were opposed to mixed-use, new, or increased development.
However, this represents only 11% of survey respondents. These comments included the following themes:
x Leave it as it is, no changes, no development.
x Opposed to mixed-use development and multi-story buildings. x No changes to the “Borchard” property.
Approximately 1% of total survey respondents selected “None of the above” but expressed support for mixed-use development. These comments included the following themes:
x Support for mixed-use and new development with limited heights. x Allow higher densities and increase production of housing.
Other comments received included:
x Support of a combination of alternatives.
x Provide flexibility for the area.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
What other comments do you have about the Rancho Conejo area? Question 9 received the most open-ended comments of the entire survey as approximately two-thirds of respondents (1,387 respondents) included a comment in this question. The majority of the comments were about the “Borchard” property.
Of those who responded to Question 9, 80% were supportive of land use changes in this area including a combination of the alternatives, mixed-use development, and new housing. Of the total responses to this question, the majority (74%) specifically indicated supporting mixed-use development and multi-family housing on the “Borchard” property. These comments include the following themes:
x Supportive of a combination of the 3 alternatives, and built-in flexibility. x Supportive of mixed-use or multifamily development at the “Borchard” property. x Allow higher density residential and more affordable housing options. x Supportive of industrial and other types of job-producing uses.
Approximately 13% of respondents who completed question 9, were opposed to land use changes, changes to the “Borchard” property, or new development. This means that over five times as many respondents indicated support for mixed use development on this property compared to respondents who wanted no change in land use. These comments include the following themes:
x No more housing.
x No development at the “Borchard” property.
x Concern of future traffic that may arise with new development. x Higher density will bring more crime.
x Leave this area alone, no changes.
Other comments received included:
x Prioritize climate change mitigation.
x Need more affordable housing citywide.
x Need more entertainment spaces, green spaces, and parks. x Concerned about infrastructure, traffic impacts, and flooding in this area.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
The survey included 5 questions about the Moorpark Road and West Thousand Oaks Boulevard Area.
x A high percentage (70%) of respondents preferred keeping a segment of Moorpark Road largely commercial, as opposed to introducing mixed-use development.
x Visual preference survey results show strong support for allowing a diversity of uses and development intensities in The Oak Mall, Janss Marketplace, and on Thousand Oaks Boulevard between Moorpark Road and Hodencamp Road. By a greater than 3:1 ratio, respondents said they wanted to see residential and mixeduse buildings of between 3 and 5 stories (support was between 68% and 78%) whereas less than 1 in 5 respondents (at most 19%) said they did not want these uses or intensities. (Note: the direction for Janss Marketplace is not entire clear since the Janss Marketplace was listed in the Moorpark Road question that indicated strong support for keeping the corridor commercial. It may be that respondents are accepting of mixed-use development on the Janss Marketplace if it maintains a commercial focus and if the remainder of the corridor is commercial).
x Overall, 42% of respondents preferred Alternative 1 for the Moorpark Road and West Thousand Oaks Boulevard Area followed by Alternative 3. Only 12% of respondents (slightly more than 1 in 10 respondents) said that they did not want any of the alternatives.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Please identify your reaction to each of the six images above for new development at Janss Marketplace and The Oaks Mall.
Image 1 Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP responses
Love it 20% 404 17% 272
Like it 48% 975 50% 809
Neutral 6% 117 6% 92
Don’t love it, but would accept it 7% 146 8% 133
No way 19% 376 20% 323
Answered 2018 1629
17%
50%
6%
8%
20%
20%
48%
6%
7%
19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Love it
Like it
Neutral
Don’t love it, but would accept
it
No way
Image 1
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Image 2 Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP responses
Love it 14% 282 11% 184
Like it 61% 1215 62% 1003
Neutral 6% 117 6% 95
Don’t love it, but would accept it 5% 108 6% 94
No way 14% 286 15% 244
Answered 2008 1620
Image 3 Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP responses
Love it 19% 384 16% 258
Like it 53% 1067 55% 888
16%
55%
3%
5%
21%
19%
53%
3%
5%
19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Love it
Like it
Neutral
Don’t love it, but would accept
it
No way
Image 3
Complete Data Single-IP Data
11%
62%
6%
6%
15%
14%
61%
6%
5%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Love it
Like it
Neutral
Don’t love it, but would accept
it
No way
Image 2
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Neutral 3% 65 3% 51
Don’t love it, but would accept it 5% 103 5% 88
No way 19% 388 21% 334
Answered 2007 1619
Image 4 Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP responses
Love it 30% 603 27% 434
Like it 57% 1149 61% 989
Neutral 4% 74 3% 47
Don’t love it, but would accept it 4% 82 4% 71
No way 5% 110 6% 92
Answered 2018 1633
27%
61%
3%
4%
6%
30%
57%
4%
4%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Love it
Like it
Neutral
Don’t love it, but would accept
it
No way
Image 4
Complete Data Single-IP Data
11%
52%
9%
9%
20%
13%
50%
10%
8%
19%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Love it
Like it
Neutral
Don’t love it, but would accept
it
No way
Image 5
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Image 5 Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP responses
Love it 13% 252 11% 174
Like it 50% 1003 52% 846
Neutral 10% 205 9% 145
Don’t love it, but would accept it 8% 168 9% 138
No way 19% 373 20% 317
Answered 2001 1620
Image 6 Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP responses
Love it 16% 321 14% 221
Like it 44% 862 45% 726
Neutral 4% 73 3% 48
Don’t love it, but would accept it 5% 95 4% 71
No way 33% 656 34% 558
Answered 2007 1624
14%
45%
3%
4%
34%
16%
44%
4%
5%
33%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Love it
Like it
Neutral
Don’t love it, but would accept
it
No way
Image 6
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Moorpark Road between Thousand Oaks Boulevard and just north of Wilbur Road is currently a mix of retail and commercial uses. This area includes Janss Marketplace.
Which best matches your vision for the area?
Answer Choices Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited
to single-IP
responses
Keep mostly commercial (retail and service)
uses
70% 1434 70% 1165
Allow a portion to be mixed-use (with
multifamily housing)
16% 318 15% 249
Allow the entire area to be developed with
mixed-use
10% 211 10% 167
No preference 1% 20 1% 18
None of the above (please specify your ideas) 3% 69 3% 55 Answered 2052 1654
70%
15%
10%
1%
3%
70%
16%
10%
1%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Keep mostly commercial
Allow a portion to be mixeduse (with multifamily
housing)
Allow the entire area to be
developed with mixed-use
No preference
None of the above (please
specify your ideas)
Question 11
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Question 11 had 69 individual comments (3% of survey responses) who answered, "None of the above." Of those who responded to question 11, two thirds (representing only 2% total survey respondents) were opposed to mixed-use, new, or increased development on Moorpark Road between Thousand Oaks Boulevard and just north of Wilbur Road.
This indicates strong support for one or a combination of the land use alternatives.
These comments included the following themes:
x No mixed-use or multifamily, keep commercial only uses. x Do not support any proposed changes, leave as it is.
x Fear of traffic and overcrowding associated with new development.
Less than 1% of total survey respondents selected “None of the above” and expressed support for mixed-use development on Moorpark Road between Thousand Oaks Boulevard and just north of Wilbur Road. These comments included the following themes:
x Support for new mixed-use development with limited heights and standalone residential
x Support mostly commercial with some mixed use.
Other comments received included:
x Keep open space, allow for new parks, trees, and green space. x Maintain 3-story height limits.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
The area of Thousand Oaks Boulevard between Moorpark Road and Hodencamp Road was identified in the public process as an area for mixed-use development and multifamily housing. This area could support more intense land uses because it is removed from single family neighborhoods, is located near goods and services, has excellent freeway access and benefits from recent development activity (the residential project at 299 Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Tarantula Hill Brewing Company). For the three images above, please identify your reaction for potential new development in this area:
Image 1 Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP responses
Love it 22% 456 19% 309
Like it 48% 980 50% 817
Neutral 6% 113 6% 100
Don’t love it, but would accept it 6% 131 7% 113
No way 18% 360 19% 305
Answered 2040 1644
19%
50%
6%
7%
19%
22%
48%
6%
6%
18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Love it
Like it
Neutral
Don’t love it, but would accept it
No way
Image 1
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Image 2 Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP responses
Love it 18% 360 13% 219
Like it 55% 1125 58% 952
Neutral 4% 78 4% 65
Don’t love it, but would accept it 5% 107 6% 91
No way 18% 372 19% 316
Answered 2042 1643
Image 3 Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP responses
Love it 27% 552 23% 375
Like it 51% 1043 54% 889
Neutral 4% 91 5% 80
Don’t love it, but would accept it 7% 134 7% 115
No way 11% 221 11% 185
Answered 2041 1644
13%
58%
4%
6%
19%
18%
55%
4%
5%
18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Love it
Like it
Neutral
Don’t love it, but would accept it
No way
Image 2
Complete Data Single-IP Data
23%
54%
5%
7%
11%
27%
51%
4%
7%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Love it
Like it
Neutral
Don’t love it, but would accept it
No way
Image 3
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Overall, which alternative best matches your vision for the future of the Moorpark Road and West Thousand Oaks Boulevard area?
Answer Choices
Complete Data
Responses
Dataset
limited to
single-IP
responses
Alternative 1 42% 853 41% 677
Alternative 2 9% 177 9% 145
Alternative 3 32% 649 32% 520
No preference 6% 112 6% 97
None of the above (please specify your ideas) 12% 247 12% 204 Answered 2038 1643
41%
9%
32%
6%
12%
42%
9%
32%
6%
12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
No preference
None of the above (please
specify your ideas)
Question 12
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Question 13 had 247 individual comments (12% of survey responses) who answered, "None of the above." Of those who responded to the question, approximately two thirds (8% of total survey responses) were opposed to mixed-use, new, or increased development in the Moorpark Road and West Thousand Oaks Boulevard area. These comments included the following themes:
x No changes, no growth, leave as it is.
x Do not support the proposed changes, no mixed-use.
x To tall buildings on Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
x Concern over traffic implications of future development. x Concern new development or mixed-use will make Thousand Oaks look like the San Fernando Valley.
Less than 1% of total survey respondents selected “None of the above” but expressed support for multi-family residential or mixed-use development in this area. These comments included the following themes:
x Supportive of higher density mixed-use and taller buildings at The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace.
x Support standalone residential.
x Supportive of mixed-use in limited locations.
Other comments received included:
x Support a combination of the alternatives.
x Maintain 3-story height limit.
x More open spaces and parks.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
What other comments do you have about the Moorpark Road and West Thousand Oaks Boulevard area?
Question 14 had 417 open-ended responses regarding the Moorpark Road and West Thousand Oaks Boulevard area.
A total of 33% of respondents to question 14 indicated that they had no additional comments on this area while 35% of responses to question 14 (approximately 145 total responses or 7% of the total surveys) were opposed to any changes in land use in this area. These comments include the following themes:
x No change leave as it is.
x Concern of potential traffic new development may bring. x Do not add more development, clean up existing developments. x Keep building heights low.
Approximately 17% of respondents to question 14 were supportive of changes in land use and mobility including mixed-use development, affordable housing, and improvements to connectivity. These comments included the following themes:
x Support high density development, mixed-use and taller buildings. x Support taller buildings at The Oaks Mall and Janss Marketplace. x Increase affordable housing options.
x Provide more bike lanes and walking paths.
Other comments included the following themes:
x Address homelessness.
x Add more amenities for families.
x Provide more green space and parks.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
The survey included 4 questions about the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard Area.
x Respondents strongly support allowing mixed use development at higher intensities in the Downtown area. Nearly half (45%) support doubling the density and increasing the height to 5 stories and 60 units per acre while one-third (32%) support increasing the densities to 45 units per acre and 4 stories. Less than one in four respondents said they wanted to keep the same intensity of 30 units per acre (17%) or not allow mixed use at all (6%).
x Nearly three quarters (745) support allowing stand-alone residential buildings (without commercial uses) in limited locations along Thousand Oaks Boulevard whereas only 15% opposed this.
x Respondents had the most support for Alternative 1 (43%) followed by Alternative 3 (31%). Barely over one in 10 respondents (12%) did not support any of the alternatives. These results show strong support for changing the character of Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
The Downtown area has been a focus of planning activity in recent years.
Suggestions were made during the community engagement process to allow increased densities (above 30 units per acre and 3 stories) to support additional retail and commercial activity. Which of the following best describes your perspective?
Answer Choices Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited
to single-IP
responses
Increase density of parcels in the Downtown to
Mixed-Use High (up to 5 stories and 60 units per
acre). This could allow more development activity
in this area and support additional restaurants,
entertainment, and shopping.
45% 913 40% 652
Increase density of parcels to Mixed-Use Medium
(up to 4 stories and 45 units per acre). This could
allow more development activity than existing but
not as much as Mixed-Use High.
32% 654 36% 586
Maintain existing land use designation in the
General Plan of Mixed-Use Low. This could make
redevelopment more challenging and many
17% 339 18% 297
40%
36%
18%
1%
6%
45%
32%
17%
1%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Mixed-Use High (up to 5
stories, 60 du/ac)
Mixed-Use Medium (up to 4
stories, 45 du/ac)
Maintain Mixed-Use Low
No preference
None of the above
Question 15
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
parcels may remain unchanged over the next 20
years.
No preference 1% 18 1% 17
None of the above (please specify your ideas) 6% 121 6% 96 Answered 2045 1648
Question 15 had 121 individual comments (6% of total survey responses) by respondents who answered, "None of the above." Of those who answered, “None of the above,” the majority were opposed to any change in land use or height in Downtown. However, this only represents 5% of the total respondents to this question representing strong support for the alternatives. The comments opposing development in the area included the following themes:
x Stop building, do not increase heights.
x Maintain existing land uses.
x Leave it alone, there are not enough resources for these changes.
Approximately one in six respondents who selected “None of the above” expressed support for increased density, with height limitations in Downtown. These comments included the following themes:
x Support 4-stories developments at mixed-use medium or medium-high. x Support development but maintain 3-story height limit.
Other comments received included:
x More residential, not more retail.
x Add more parks.
x No comment.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
One strategy to incentivize residential development involves reducing the amount of commercial uses and providing opportunities for additional stand-alone multifamily development. Should the City allow multifamily residential buildings without a requirement for commercial uses in limited locations along Thousand Oaks Boulevard?
72%
16%
6%
5%
74%
15%
5%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Yes
No
No preference
None of the above
(please specify your
ideas)
Question 16
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Answer Choices Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited
to single-IP
responses
Yes 74% 1507 72% 1191
No 15% 317 16% 269
No preference 5% 106 6% 94
None of the above (please specify your ideas) 5% 110 5% 89 Answered 2040 1643
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Question 16 had 110 individual comments (5% of responses) by respondents who answered, "None of the above." Of responses to the question, just over half (representing only 3% of total survey responses) were opposed to new development, mixed-use, standalone residential, or any changes on Thousand Oaks Boulevard. These comments included the following themes:
x No development or put development elsewhere.
x Do not like the proposed vision, no changes.
x Do not support multifamily housing.
x Concern over traffic implications of future development. x Concern over resource limitations with potential new residents. x Limit growth and development
Other respondents selected “None of the above” but expressed support for multi-family residential or mixed-use development along Thousand Oaks Boulevard. These comments included the following themes:
x Require mixed-use, no standalone residential.
x Support multi-family development with building height limits. x Supportive of standalone residential in limited locations Other comments received included:
x Not supportive of affordable housing options.
x Unsure of the implications of standalone residential on the Boulevard.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Overall, which alternative best matches your vision for the future of the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard area?
42%
9%
31%
5%
13%
43%
9%
31%
5%
12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
No preference
None of the above
(please specify your
ideas)
Question 17
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Answer Choices Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited
to single-IP
responses
Alternative 1 43% 862 42% 681
Alternative 2 9% 186 9% 146
Alternative 3 31% 622 31% 503
No preference 5% 104 5% 88
None of the above (please specify your ideas) 12% 253 13% 213 Answered 2027 1631
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Question 17 had 253 individual comments (12% of survey responses) by respondents who answered, "None of the above." Of respondents who selected “None of the above” to the question 17, approximately two-thirds were opposed to changes in land use or height in the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard area. However, this represents only 8% of the total survey respondents as the vast majority selected one of the three alternatives.
These comments include the following themes:
x No changes, to mixed-use or multi-story residential.
x Leave it alone.
x Too much traffic congestion, no new development.
Approximately 2% of respondents selected “None of the above” and mentioned a desire for lower height limits or residential densities in the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard area. These comments included the following themes:
x Flexibility, one size does not fit all, different densities in specific locations. x Support neighborhood low to medium
x Maintain height limits.
Other comments received included:
x Desire for parks and open space and to maintain mountain views. x Support a combination of the alternatives.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
What other comments do you have about the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard area?
Question 18 had 420 open-ended responses representing about 20% of people who took the survey. The comments were generally divided between those who desire limited change in the Downtown and those who wanted a mixed-use district with housing, retail, employment and entertainment. Themes from those who wanted limited change included the following:
x Concern over traffic congestion on Thousand Oaks Boulevard. x Maintain 3-story height limit.
x No mixed-use in this area.
x No changes, no development.
Themes from those who wanted a Downtown included the following:
x Support mixed-use in this area.
x Desire for pedestrian amenities like wide sidewalks, plazas, bike lanes, and green areas.
x Desire for lively walkable downtown environment.
x Support for denser development and taller buildings in this area.
Please see the detailed report for individual responses.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
The survey included 6 questions covering the Westlake and East End Area. x Respondents showed strong support for maintaining and expanding jobs and commercial uses in the Townsgate area. Two thirds of respondents supported maintaining the existing mix of employment uses (24%) or expanding the diversity of industrial uses (43%).
x Respondents showed support for maintaining a large employment and commercial area on the east end of Thousand Oaks Boulevard or allowing limited mixed use while also expanding employment opportunities. x Approximately two-thirds of respondents supported adding mixed-use development at the intersection of Thousand Oaks Boulevard but there was not consensus on where the mixed use should be focused.
x The vast majority of respondents (73%) supported maintaining the Westlake Plaza and Center as commercial, opposed to introducing mixed-use development. x Alternative 3 was the preferred direction (43%) followed by spilt between Alternatives 1 and 2 (20% each).
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
The employment district near Hampshire Road and Townsgate Road presents an opportunity to transform either into a mixed-use (residential and office) area or strengthen its role as an employment hub on the east side of the city. What best matches your vision for this area?
Answer Choices Complete
Data
Responses
Dataset
limited to
single-IP
responses
Maintain current mix of industrial, office park and
commercial uses (Alternative 1)
24% 478 26% 422
Add the potential for residential development on the
south side of Townsgate Road while maintaining the
current pattern of industrial uses along Highway 101
(Alternative 2)
27% 554 31% 501
Expand the employment focus of the area by adding
Industrial Flex (at up to 2.0 FAR) along Highway 101
(Alternative 3)
43% 866 37% 614
No preference 2% 42 2% 32
None of the above (please specify your ideas) 4% 91 4% 69 Answered 2031 1638
26%
31%
37%
2%
4%
24%
27%
43%
2%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Maintain current mix (Alt 1)
Add residential on south sie of Townsgate Rd,
but keep industrial along Hwy 101 (Alt 2)
Expand employment along Hwy 101 (Alt 3)
No preference
None of the above
Question 19
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Question 19 had 91 individual comments (4% of survey responses) by respondents who answered, "None of the above." Of responses to the question, three quarters (representing only 3% of total survey respondents) were opposed to new development, mixed-use, or more industrial uses in the employment district near Hampshire Road and Townsgate Road. These comments included the following themes:
x No changes leave it as it is.
x No mixed-use, commercial only.
x No standalone residential, and no multi-story buildings. x Do not expand commercial, office or industrial in this area. x No high density in this area.
x Concern over traffic congestion new development could cause.
Approximately one quarter of those who answered, “None of the above” (representing about 1% of total respondents) expressed support for multi-family residential, mixeduse development, or industrial flex in the employment district near Hampshire Road and Townsgate Road. These comments included the following themes:
x Support mixed use, multifamily, and industrial flex.
x Support new development with height limits.
Other comments received included:
x Support a combination of alternatives.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
The Westlake Plaza and Center (on the corner of Westlake Boulevard and Agoura Road) is a vibrant retail area. However, this shopping district has the potential to become a mixed-use activity center that maintains its mix of retail and restaurants but allows multifamily housing. What best matches your vision for this area? Answer Choices Complete
Data
Responses
Dataset
limited to
single-IP
responses
Maintain as a commercial-only area (Alternative 3) 73% 1487 73% 1199 Allow for Mixed-Use Low at up to 30 units per acre
(Alternative 2)
14% 290 15% 241
Allow for Mixed-Use at up to 45 units per acre
(Alternative 1)
7% 147 7% 111
No preference 2% 32 2% 29
None of the above (please specify your ideas) 4% 80 4% 64 Answered 2036 1644
73%
15%
7%
2%
4%
73%
14%
7%
2%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Maintain as a commercial-only area
(Alternative 3)
Allow for Mixed-Use Low at up to 30 units
per acre (Alternative 2)
Allow for Mixed-Use at up to 45 units per
acre (Alternative 1)
No preference
None of the above (please specify your
ideas)
Question 20
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Question 20 had 80 individual comments (4% of survey responses) by respondents who answered, "None of the above." Of respondents who answered question 20 with “None of the above” approximately half (representing only 2% of total survey respondents) expressed a desire for no change despite the multiple-choice option that suggested maintaining current conditions. These comments included the following themes:
x No changes leave it as it is.
x No mixed-use.
x Concern over traffic congestion new development could bring.
Approximately 1% of total survey respondents selected “None of the above” but expressed support for mixed-use development or a combination of the alternatives.
These comments included the following themes:
x Support mixed-use with height limits.
x Combination of the 3 alternatives.
Other comments received included:
x Prioritize open spaces and parks.
x Do not visit this area often, or do not know this area well.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Should the area at the intersection of Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Westlake Boulevard maintain its current focus as a retail and shopping area or should the area be allowed to add mixed-use development?
Answer Choices Complete
Data
Responses
Dataset limited
to single-IP
responses
Maintain commercial-only uses similar to the
existing General Plan (Alternative 2)
30% 600 33% 539
Allow a limited amount of mixed-use (Alternative 1) 35% 718 34% 551 Add mixed-use development on all four corners of
the intersection (Alternative 3)
30% 603 28% 459
No preference 1% 26 1% 22
None of the above (please specify your idea) 4% 84 4% 66 Answered 2031 1637
33%
34%
28%
1%
4%
30%
35%
30%
1%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Maintain commercial-only uses similar to
the existing General Plan (Alternative 2)
Allow a limited amount of mixed-use
(Alternative 1)
Add mixed-use development on all four
corners of the intersection (Alternative 3)
No preference
None of the above (please specify your idea)
Question 21
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Question 21 had 84 individual comments (4% of responses) by respondents who answered, "None of the above." Of respondents who answered “None of the above” to question 21, the majority were opposed to change in land use or future development.
However, this only represents 3% of total respondents. These comments include the following themes:
x No mixed-use development, no additional housing.
x No changes leave it as it is.
x Not enough resources for new development.
x Concern about traffic congestion future development may bring.
Approximately 1% of total respondents selected “None of the above” and expressed support for mixed-use development or a combination of the alternatives. These comments included the following themes:
x Support limited mixed-use.
x Allow multifamily or mixed use if height limits are maintained.
Other comments received included:
x Add parks, trails, and open space.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
The east side of the city along Thousand Oaks Boulevard (south of Westlake High School) currently contains low density office and commercial uses. This area has the potential to expand the number and diversity of jobs and to provide an employment anchor on the east side of the city. What best describes your vision for this area? Answer Choices Complete
Data
Responses
Dataset
limited to
single-IP
responses
Expand the potential for jobs but also allow residential or mixed-use development on a portion of the area
(Alternative 1)
26% 525 27% 450
Focus on commercial uses that includes a mix of retail, entertainment and office uses (Alternative 2)
22% 453 25% 412
Focus on creating a denser employment district (with
the Industrial Flex land use designation) (Alternative
3)
42% 864 37% 612
No preference 3% 54 3% 50
None of the above (please specify your ideas) 7% 139 7% 117 Answered 2035 1641
27%
25%
37%
3%
7%
26%
22%
42%
3%
7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Expand jobs, but allow residential or
mixed-use (Alt 1)
Focus on commercial (Alt 2)
Focus on employment (Alt 3)
No preference
None of the above
Question 22
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Question 22 had 139 individual comments by respondents who answered, "None of the above" representing 7% of total responses. Of respondents who answered “None of the above” to question 21, the majority were opposed to changes in land use or any future development on the east side of the city along Thousand Oaks Boulevard (south of Westlake High School), but this only represents 5% of total survey responses. These comments include the following themes:
x No changes to this area, leave it alone.
x Too much traffic here already, no new development.
x Maintain low intensity office and commercial.
x No new housing.
Approximately 1% of total survey respondents selected “None of the above” but expressed support for mixed-use development, higher intensity industrial, or a combination of the alternatives. These comments included the following themes:
x Support higher density residential with height limits. x Support a combination of alternatives.
x Increase residential as much as possible.
x Support higher intensity industrial.
Other comments received included:
x Add parks, trails, and open space.
x Improve infrastructure first.
x No preference or no comment.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Overall, which alternative best matches your vision for the future of the Westlake and East End area?
22%
23%
38%
7%
10%
20%
20%
43%
6%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
No preference
None of the above (please specify your
ideas)
Question 23
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Answer Choices Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited
to single-IP
responses
Alternative 1 20% 404 22% 352
Alternative 2 20% 407 23% 370
Alternative 3 43% 871 38% 620
No preference 6% 128 7% 114
None of the above (please specify your ideas) 10% 210 10% 170 Answered 2020 1626
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Question 23 had 210 individual comments (10% of responses) by respondents who answered, "None of the above." Of respondents who answered “None of the above” to question 21, approximately half (representing 5% of total respondents) were opposed to changes or the addition of mixed-use in the Westlake and East End area. These comments include the following themes:
x No changes to this area, keep as is.
x No high-density residential or mixed-use development. x No new people living in Thousand Oaks, it is too crowded.
Approximately 3% of total respondents selected “None of the above” and expressed support for mixed-use development, more residential, or a combination of the alternatives. These comments included the following themes:
x Support standalone residential in this area.
x Increase the amount of higher density residential.
x A combination of the alternatives.
x Support mixed-use or standalone residential but maintain height limits.
Other comments received included:
x More open space, parks, and trails.
x Fill vacant buildings.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
What other comments do you have about the Westlake and East End area? Question 24 had 327 open-ended responses regarding the Westlake and East End Area, representing approximately 15% of total respondents to the survey. Of those who responded to the question, 42% of respondents indicated that they had no additional comments for this area. Of those who responded to question 24, approximately one quarter (24%) were opposed to changes in land use or future development. These comments include the following themes:
x No changes keep it as it is.
x Concerns over traffic implications of new development. x Support mixed-use and new residential development.
x Maintain 3-story building height limit.
x No mixed-use development in this area.
x Maintain as commercial.
Approximately 21% of respondents to question 24 expressed support for change in land use or intensity in the Westlake and East End Area. These comments included the following themes:
x Support horizontal mixed-use.
x More potential for changes in land use in this area than others. x Reimagine the Baxter area.
x Create a more walkable environment.
x Support a combination of alternatives with affordable housing.
Other comments included the following themes:
x Provide plenty of parking.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
The survey included 2 questions regarding village centers. x The majority of survey respondents (58%) preferred for all village centers to remain commercial, as opposed to introducing mixed-use development.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
During the engagement process, many residents recommended that the commercial shopping centers around the City allow mixed-use development to create “village centers” within walking distance of existing residential neighborhoods. What best describes your vision for commercial shopping centers throughout the City? Answer Choices Complete
Data
Responses
Dataset
limited to
single-IP
responses
Keep all areas as commercial and do not allow
residential uses in the shopping centers (Alternative 2) 58% 1181 58% 946
Allow all commercial shopping centers to add
residential development at up to 30 units per acre
(Alternative 3)
10% 204 10% 162
Only allow some of the shopping centers to be
converted to mixed-use with residential uses
(Alternative 1)
26% 531 27% 436
No preference 1% 16 1% 14
None of the above (please specify your ideas) 5% 101 5% 82 Answered 2033 1640
58%
10%
27%
1%
5%
58%
10%
26%
1%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Keep all areas as commercial (Alt 2)
Allow all commercial centers to add
residential (Alt 3)
Only allow some shopping centers to
have mixed-use (Alt 1)
No preference
None of the above
Question 25
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Question 25 had 101 individual comments (5% of total responses) by respondents who answered, "None of the above." Of respondents who answered “None of the above” to question 25, approximately two-thirds (representing only 3% of total respondents) expressed a desire for no change despite the multiple-choice option (alternative 1) that maintained commercial uses. These comments included the following themes:
x No changes.
x No mixed-use development.
x Concerns over future traffic cause by new development. x Support new residential and mixed-use with height limits.
Approximately 1% of total respondents selected “None of the above” but expressed support for mixed-use development, more residential, or a combination of the alternatives. These comments included the following themes:
x Allow shopping centers to convert to mixed use.
x Support land use changes but need to address parking. x Support development if building heights are kept to 3-4 stories.
Other comments received included:
x Include outdoor community gathering spaces.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
What other comments do you have about Village Centers?
Question 26 had 351 open-ended responses (16% of total respondents) regarding Village Centers. Approximately 40% of respondents to this question indicated that they had no additional comments for this area. Approximately 29% of total respondents were opposed to changes in land use or the village center concepts. These comments include the following themes:
x Maintain as commercial, no one will walk in Thousand Oaks. x Opposed to residential in village centers because of traffic impacts. x No high density, no changes.
Approximately 25% of respondents to question 26 expressed support for change in land use or intensity in village center areas. These comments included the following themes:
x Love the village center concept.
x Support all residential components in village centers. x Supportive of mixed-use in village centers if height limits are maintained.
Other comments included the following themes:
x Integrate trees and green space.
x Prioritize safety and street lighting.
x Need affordable housing in Thousand Oaks.
Please see the detailed report for individual comments.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
The survey included 2 concluding questions.
x There was strong support for one of the three alternatives with a preference for Alternative 1 (37%) followed by Alternative 3 (28%).
x Only one in ten respondents (11%) supported maintaining the existing General Plan and only 6% supported none of the alternatives. This means that over four fifths of respondents indicated support for changing the pattern of development in the Areas of Change.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Now that you have reviewed all the detailed alternatives, what alternative best matches your vision for the future of the City?
Answer Choices Complete
Data
Responses
Dataset
limited to
single-IP
responses
Alternative 1 37% 756 37% 599
Alternative 2 5% 102 5% 83
Alternative 3 28% 572 27% 446
A combination of alternatives 12% 257 13% 217
Existing General Plan (even if it does not allow the
City to meet its obligations under State housing laws)
11% 215 11% 187
None of the above 6% 126 6% 103
Answered 2028 1635
37%
5%
27%
13%
11%
6%
37%
5%
28%
12%
11%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
A combination of alternatives
Existing General Plan (even if it does not
allow the City to meet its obligations…
None of the above
Question 27
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
What suggestions do you have to modify your preferred alternative so that it matches your vision for the future of Thousand Oaks?
Approximately 25% of all survey respondents (535 people) provided open-ended comments on question 28 regarding their preferred alternatives. Of these, 24% of respondents indicated that they had no additional comments on the alternatives.
Approximately 43% of responses to question 28, representing only 11% of survey respondents, were not supportive of changes in land use and did not specify modifications to the alternatives presented. These comments include the following themes:
x Keep Thousand Oaks the same - no new housing, people, cars, or buildings. x Push back on state mandates.
x Only meet state mandates.
x Slow growth.
x Do not support high density development on the “Borchard” property. x Fearful of traffic impacts, and strain on resources.
Approximately 25% (135 respondents) to question 28 expressed support for changes in land use and presented ideas for modifying the alternatives to best meet their vision. x Support mixed-use and higher density development in specific locations. x Need more affordable housing options citywide.
x Need more mixed-use in areas throughout the city, supportive of village center concept.
x Combination of the 3 alternatives.
x Support changes in land use but maintain 3-story building height limit. x Allow more stand-alone residential development in specific locations. x Pursue changes at the Oaks Mall, Janss Marketplace, former K-Mart site, or Downtown.
x Need pockets of higher density mixed-use or residential.
Other comments:
x Reuse vacant buildings for mixed-use or residential purposes. x Manage traffic impacts.
x Protect open space and promote parks and trees.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
x Plan for senior citizen needs.
x Create a sense of place and promote common gathering places, especially outdoors.
x Build-in flexibility within the General Plan land uses. x Consider sustainability and climate through the General Plan. x Address transportation concerns through public transit, bike lanes and wide sidewalks.
x Ensure plenty of parking.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Do you live and/or work in Thousand Oaks?
Answer Choices Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP responses
Live 60% 1211 61% 994
Work 2% 38 2% 31
Both live and work 37% 757 36% 592
Neither 1% 18 1% 17
Answered 2024 1634
61%
2%
36%
1%
60%
2%
37%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Live
Work
Both live and work
Neither
Question 29
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
How long have you lived in Thousand Oaks?
Answer Choices Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP
responses
1 year or less 0% 8 0% 7
2-5 years 6% 128 6% 100
6-10 years 15% 300 14% 232
11-20 years 30% 615 31% 499
21-30 years 20% 396 20% 327
31+ years 26% 534 26% 430
I don't live in Thousand Oaks 2% 39 2% 34
Answered 2020 1629
0%
6%
14%
31%
20%
26%
2%
0%
6%
15%
30%
20%
26%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
1 year or less
2-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
21-30 years
31+ years
I don't live in Thousand
Oaks
Question 30
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
What is your age range?
Answer Choices Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP responses
Under 18 0% 2 0% 1
18-24 3% 56 3% 44
25-34 17% 341 16% 261
35-44 19% 378 19% 306
45-54 21% 424 21 334
55-64 21% 409 21 331
65+ 19% 382 20 325
Answered 1992 1602
0%
3%
16%
19%
21%
21%
20%
0%
3%
17%
19%
21%
21%
19%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
Question 31
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
How do you identify?
Answer Choices Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP responses
White (not Hispanic or Latino) 78% 1519 78% 1224
Black or African American 1% 13 1% 12
Asian or Asian American 5% 99 5% 76
Native American or Alaska Native 0% 6 0% 5
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0% 4 0% 4
Middle Eastern or North African 0% 9 0% 7
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish 9% 177 9% 144
Multiracial (two or more ethnicities) 6% 118 6% 95
Answered 1945 1567
78%
1%
5%
0%
0%
0%
9%
6%
78%
1%
5%
0%
0%
0%
9%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
White (not Hispanic or Latino)
Black or African American
Asian or Asian American
Native American or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Middle Eastern or North African
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish
Multiracial (two or more
ethnicities)
Question 32
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
What is your zip code?
Answer Choices Complete Data
Responses
Dataset limited to
single-IP responses
91320 33% 666 34% 546
91360 25% 505 24% 388
91361 17% 341 17% 283
91362 23% 457 23% 3687
Other 1% 12 1% 10
I don't live in Thousand Oaks 1% 29 2% 25
Answered 2010 1620
34%
24%
17%
23%
1%
2%
33%
25%
17%
23%
1%
1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
91320
91360
91361
91362
Other
I don't live in Thousand Oaks
Question 33
Complete Data Single-IP Data
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Analysis and Summary of Findings
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
Item No. 11A
!
"
#$
$#
%&'( )*) (+,
'+
"'+ "'" -
./010/)1))+
'
$ -
./010/2 *
Item No. 11A
!
"
#$
$#
%&'( )*) (+,
'+
"'+ "'" -
./010/)1))+
'
$ -
./010/2 *
3456754
89:5;9
<6==5>
8?6@A54
B
.
C
"
#
DE
&
F$
G
/.
H
(
(
"I
&
#
$
H
J
B
G
G
K
L
M5:7
A>
" ( I
N
" ( #
$
O9P545Q
A>
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
Thousand Oaks General Plan Update
Summary Results | May 2021
The City of Thousand Oaks conducted its fourth online community survey for the General Plan Update, TO2045, from April 16 – May 12, 2021. The City sought feedback on the preferred land use map, which identifies the proposed land use designations for the comprehensive update to the Thousand Oaks General Plan.
The preferred land use map was developed following an extensive public engagement process on three land use alternatives. The engagement process included a detailed survey with over 2,100 responses, a public workshop, four hour-long office hour sessions, two meetings with the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and a Planning Commission workshop. The City received thousand of comments on the alternatives from individuals and organizations in the City. Based on the extensive public comments, City staff and the consultant team prepared the preferred land use map for public review and comment.
On April 16, the City released the preferred and use map and a memo that detailed the background and rationale for the proposed direction, a summary of key themes from the nearly two-year long community engagement process, and description of how the City developed the map. At this time, the City also released an online survey (using the online platform, SurveyMonkey) to gauge the public’s agreement with the direction proposed for the overall land use map and specific geographic areas within the City. Given the significant time constraints due to State mandates of completing the required Housing Element, the survey included only 16 multiple choice questions, 5 of which were about the demographics of the responder. There were no “open ended” questions that allowed the responder to provide additional information about their thoughts on the preferred land use map.
The survey was divided into seven sections – six for different geographic areas of the city and the seventh on demographics.
x Citywide
x Rancho Conejo Area
x Moorpark Rd and West Thousand Oaks Blvd Area
x Downtown and Thousand Oaks Blvd Area
x Westlake and East End Area
x Village Centers
x Demographics
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
Each of the geographic sections had one to three questions. Many of the multiple-choice answers were designed as a Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree). This was intended to efficiently measure the overall reaction to key components of the preferred land use map. The five demographic questions asked about the responder’s relationship to the city, age, race/ethnicity and zip code. The survey was available in both English and Spanish and was also circulated in printed format to those without computer access.
The following are the high-level take-aways from the survey. x A total of 2,726 responses were collected.
x All survey responses were conducted online and in English. x The majority of survey respondents (65-68%) skipped most of the questions regarding the proposed direction in the preferred land use map (Questions 1 and 3-11). For those who responded to Questions 1 and 3-11, more selected “disagree” or “strongly disagree” than “strongly agree” or “agree.” Note that it is highly unusual for the vast majority of survey respondents to skip many questions in a short, multiple-choice survey. Consequently, the survey results do not provide clear direction on the community’s preferences for these locations, except for one question.
x Question 2, which asked about the vacant “Borchard” property, had a 97% response rate among survey takers. For this question, a significant majority (68%) of respondents identified mixed use across the entire site compared to 24% who preferred a single-family land use designation across the entire parcel.
Only 5% preferred a combination of mixed use and residential and only 3% skipped the question. Based on the response rate, we concluded that the majority of respondents took the survey to provide their opinion on the future of the Borchard property. Assuming that this is the case, there was a clear preference for mixed use across the entire parcel.
x The majority (96%) of respondents answered the demographic questions (12-17). x The majority of respondents live (55%) or live and work (40%) in Thousand Oaks. x The respondents have lived in the City for a long time: 42% between 11 and 20 years and 43% for greater than 20 years.
x Survey respondents were mostly older with 40% of respondents older than 55 and 51% between the ages of 35 and 55.
x The majority of respondents (63%) identified as White and 18% identified as Hispanic/Latino. While this survey did not have any completed responses in Spanish, it had a higher rate of respondents who identify as Hispanic or Latino compared to the previous land use alternatives survey.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
x More than half of residents (57%) were from zip code 91320. This is a much higher percentage than the previous land use alternatives survey which had a more even geographic distribution across the city.
The survey results from each question are presented in the charts and tables on the following pages.
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The preferred land use alternative is generally consistent with my vision for the future of Thousand Oaks.
2% 3% 3%
7%
19%
65%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Skipped (no response)
Question 1 Responses
Answer Choices Responses
Strongly agree 58 2%
Agree 90 3%
Neutral 78 3%
Disagree 200 7%
Strongly disagree 529 19%
Skipped (no response) 1771 65%
Total 2726 100%
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
Public comments and the survey results indicate support for designating the vacant 37-acre property, south of Highway 101 and west of Borchard Drive, to allow mixeduse development, and also support for retaining the existing single-family residential designation. Which of the following best reflects your vision for the future of the property?
68%
24%
5% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Mixed-use development Single family residential Split designation Skipped Question 2 Responses
Answer Choices Responses
Designate the property for mixed-use development 1860 68% Retain the existing single-family residential designation 646 24% Designate a portion of the property as mixed-use and a portion as residential, as reflected in the preferred land use alternative 135 5% Skipped (no response) 85 3%
Total 2726 100%
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The preferred land use alternative is generally consistent with my vision for the future of the Rancho Conejo area south of Highway 101.
2% 3% 3% 5%
20%
67%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Skipped (no response)
Question 3 Responses
Answer Choices Responses
Strongly agree 51 2%
Agree 80 3%
Neutral 75 3%
Disagree 143 5%
Strongly disagree 544 20%
Skipped (no response) 1,833 67%
Total 2726 100%
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
Public comments and the survey results indicate support for mixed-use development in the Rancho Conejo area north of Highway 101. However, preferences varied on which properties should be designated for mixed-use. Do you agree with the locations of the mixed-use designations in the preferred land use alternative for this area?
9%
3%
19%
68%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Yes, agree No, different properties Don't agree with mixeduse in this areaSkipped Question 4 Responses
Answer Choices Responses
Yes, I agree with the locations 251 9%
No, I think mixed-use development should be located on different properties in this area 93 3%
I do not agree with mixed-use development in this area 528 19% Skipped (no response) 1,854 68%
Total 2726 100%
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The preferred land use alternative is generally consistent with my vision for the future of the Rancho Conejo area north of Highway 101.
2% 5% 3% 6%
17%
67%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Skipped (no response)
Question 5 Responses
Answer Choices Responses
Strongly agree 45 2%
Agree 123 5%
Neutral 91 3%
Disagree 155 6%
Strongly disagree 472 17%
Skipped (no response) 1840 67%
Total 2726 100%
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
Public comments and the survey results indicate support for designating The Oaks, Janss Marketplace, and/or surrounding properties to allow for mixed-use development. What is your opinion of the amount of land designated for mixed-use development in the preferred land use alternative for this area? 8%
3%
10% 11%
68%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Too much mixed-use Not enough mixeduseRight amount of
mixed-use
Don’t support mixeduse in this areaSkipped
Question 6 Responses
Answer Choices Responses
There’s too much mixed-use 206 8%
There’s not enough mixed-use 89 3%
There’s the right amount of mixed-use 268 10%
I do not support mixed-use in this area 313 11%
Skipped (no response) 1,850 68%
Total 2726 100%
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The preferred land use alternative is generally consistent with my vision for the future of the Moorpark Road and West Thousand Oaks Boulevard area.
2% 5% 5% 6%
13%
68%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Skipped (no response)
Question 7 Responses
Answer Choices Responses
Strongly agree 61 2%
Agree 149 5%
Neutral 132 5%
Disagree 172 6%
Strongly disagree 364 13%
Skipped (no response) 1,848 68%
Total 2726 100%
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
Public comments and the survey results indicate support for densities higher than 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) in the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard area. The preferred land use alternative provides a combination of Mixed-Use Low (>20 - 30 du/ac) and Mixed-Use Medium (>30 – 45 du/ac) land use designations. Do you agree with the amount of area designated for Mixed-Use Medium in the preferred land use alternative for this area?
6% 3%
11% 11%
68%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Yes, I agree No, there’s not
enough Mixed-Use
Medium (>30-45
du/ac)
No, there’s too much
Mixed-use Medium
(>30-45 du/ac)
I do not support
mixed-use
development in this
area
Skipped (no
response)
Question 8 Responses
Answer Choices Responses
Yes, I agree 177 6%
No, there’s not enough Mixed-Use Medium (>30-45 du/ac) 78 3% No, there’s too much Mixed-use Medium (>30-45 du/ac) 301 11% I do not support mixed-use development in this area 313 11% Skipped (no response) 1,857 68%
Total 2726 100%
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The preferred land use alternative is generally consistent with my vision for the future of the Downtown and Thousand Oaks Boulevard area.
2% 4% 4% 7%
15%
68%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Skipped (no response)
Question 9 Responses
Answer Choices Responses
Strongly agree 50 2%
Agree 122 4%
Neutral 114 4%
Disagree 186 7%
Strongly disagree 398 15%
Skipped (no response) 1,856 68%
Total 2726 100%
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
Public comments and the survey results indicate support for designating properties in the Westlake and East End Area to allow for mixed-use development. What is your opinion of the amount of land designated for mixed-use development in the preferred land use alternative for this area?
5% 4%
9%
1%
12%
68%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Too much mixeduseNot enough
mixed-use
Right amount of
mixed-use at
appropriate
locations
Right amount of
mixed-use but
prefer other
locations in this
area
Do not support
mixed-use in this
area
Skipped (no
response)
Question 10 Responses
Answer Choices Responses
There’s too much mixed-use 148 5%
There’s not enough mixed-use 107 4%
There’s the right amount of mixed-use at appropriate locations 249 9% There’s the right amount of mixed-use but I would prefer other locations in this area 38
1%
I do not support mixed-use development in this area 321 12% Skipped (no response) 1,863 68%
Total 2726 100%
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The preferred land use alternative is generally consistent with my vision for the future of the Village Centers.
2% 5% 5% 5%
15%
68%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Skipped (no response)
Question 9 Responses
Answer Choices Responses
Strongly agree 57 2%
Agree 146 5%
Neutral 141 5%
Disagree 127 5%
Strongly disagree 403 15%
Skipped (no response) 1,852 68%
Total 2726 100%
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
Do you live and/or work in Thousand Oaks?
55%
1%
40%
1%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Live Work Both live and work Neither Skipped
Question 12 Responses
Answer Choices Responses
Live 1,488 55%
Work 30 1%
Both live and work 1,081 40%
Neither 18 1%
Skipped (no response) 109 4%
Answered 2726 100%
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
How long have you lived in Thousand Oaks?
0.40%
3%
7%
42%
17%
26%
1%
4%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
Less than 1
year
1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years 21-30 years 31+ years I don't live in Thousand
Oaks
Skipped
Question 12 Responses
Answer Choices Responses
Less than 1 year 12 <1%
1-5 years 72 3%
6-10 years 198 7%
11-20 years 1,132 42%
21-30 years 459 17%
31+ years 715 26%
I don't live in Thousand Oaks 33 1%
Skipped (no response) 105 4%
Answered 2726 100%
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
What is your age range?
0.30% 2% 3%
24%
27%
20% 20%
4%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Skipped
Question 14 Responses
Answer Choices Responses
Under 18 7 <1%
18-24 46 2%
25-34 69 3%
35-44 656 24%
45-54 734 27%
55-64 553 20%
65+ 542 20%
Skipped (no response) 119 4%
Answered 2,726 100%
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
How do you identify?
Answer Choices Responses
White (not Hispanic or Latino) 1,713 63%
Black or African American 18 1%
Asian or Asian American 35 1%
Native American or Alaska Native 7 <1%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 5 <1%
Middle Eastern or North African 15 1%
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish 490 18%
Multiracial (two or more ethnicities) 271 10%
Skipped (no response) 172 6%
Answered 2,726 100%
63%
1% 1% 0% 0% 1%
18%
10%
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
White (not
Hispanic or
Latino)
Black or
African
American
Asian or
Asian
American
Native
American
or Alaska
Native
Native
Hawaiian or
Pacific
Islander
Middle
Eastern or
North
African
Hispanic,
Latino, or
Spanish
Multiracial
(two or
more
ethnicities)
Skipped
Question 15 Responses
Item No. 11A
TO2045 Survey Summary
What is your zip code?
57%
20%
10% 8%
0.30% 1%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
91320 91360 91361 91362 Other I don't live in
Thousand Oaks
Skipped
Question 14 Responses
Answer Choices Responses
91320 1,548 57%
91360 551 20%
91361 261 10%
91362 218 8%
Other 9 <1%
I don't live in Thousand Oaks 26 1%
Skipped (no response) 113 4%
Answered 2726 100%
Item No. 11A