Attachment 2 Exhibit A Final Program EIR including MMRP — Thousand Oaks City Council, December 5, 2023

2045 General Plan Update
Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2022060087
prepared by
City of Thousand Oaks
Community Development
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, California 91362
Contact: Iain Holt, AICP, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
706 South Hill Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90014

November 2023

EXHIBIT A

November 2023

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Table of Contents

Final Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Final EIR Contents ........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Draft EIR Public Review Process ...................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 EIR Certification Process and Project Approval .............................................................. 1-2 2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR .................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Comment Letters and Responses ................................................................................... 2-2 3 Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR ................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR................................................................................................ 3-1 4 Recirculation Not Warranted ...................................................................................................... 4-1 5 References .................................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 5-1 Appendices
Revised Appendix D Transportation Memo and Data
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

This page intentionally left blank.

Introduction

Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Introduction

1.1 Final EIR Contents
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Thousand Oaks (City) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed City of Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update (collectively referred to in this Final EIR as the “General Plan Update,” “TO2045,” “2045 General Plan,” “project” or “proposed project”).

Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15132, the City of Thousand Oaks, as the lead agency, is required to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who have reviewed the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses to respond to comments raising significant environmental issues. This document together with the Draft EIR (incorporated by reference) comprise the Final EIR for TO2045. This Final EIR includes individual responses to each comment letter received during the public review period for the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), the written responses describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised.

The City has provided a good faith effort to respond to all significant environmental issues raised by the comments. The Final EIR also includes minor clarifications, corrections, or revisions to the Draft EIR suggested by certain comments. The Final EIR includes the following contents:
 Section 1: Introduction
 Section 2: Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
 Section 3: Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR
 Section 4: Recirculation Not Warranted
 Section 5: References

1.2 Draft EIR Public Review Process
Pursuant to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies with jurisdiction over a proposed project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.

The City of Thousand Oaks filed a notice of completion (NOC) with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to begin the 45-day public review period (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21161), which began on August 11, 2023, and ended on September 25, 2023. The Draft EIR was made available on the City’s website.
1 In addition, the Draft EIR was made available for review at the City’s Planning Division Public Counter at 2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard and at both City libraries. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was published on August 11, 2023. As a result of these notification efforts, the City received 43 written comments on the content of the Draft EIR. Section 2, “Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR,” identifies these commenting parties, their respective comments, and provides responses to these comments. None of the comments received, or the responses provided, constitute “significant new information” by CEQA standards (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5).

1 The Draft EIR for the project is available here: https://www.toaks2045.org/ City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

1-2

1.3 EIR Certification Process and Project Approval
Before adopting the 2045 General Plan, the lead agency is required to certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency.

Upon certification of an EIR, the lead agency makes a decision on the project analyzed in the EIR. A lead agency may: (a) disapprove a project because of its significant environmental effects; (b) require changes to a project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or (c) approve a project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).

In approving a project, for each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead or responsible agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: (a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; (b) changes to the project are within another agency's jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or (c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15364, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account, economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.

While the information in the EIR does not constrain the City’s ultimate decision under its land use authority, the City must respond to each significant effect and mitigation measure identified in the EIR as required by CEQA by making findings supporting its decision. If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision and explains why the project’s benefits outweigh the significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093).

When an agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[d]).

City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Res ponses to Comments on the Draft EIR
This section includes responses to comments received during public circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the City of Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update. The comment letters included herein were submitted to the City of Thousand Oaks by public agencies, organizations, and individuals. The City prepared these responses to written comments received to address the environmental concerns raised by the commenters and to indicate where and how the DEIR addresses pertinent environmental issues. The DEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period that began on August 11, 2023 and ended on September 25, 2023.

The City of Thousand Oaks received 43 comment letters on the DEIR. The commenters and the page number on which each commenter’s letter appear are listed below.

Letter No. Commenter Page No.

A.1 Vent ura County Public Works Roads and Transportation Department 2-3 A
.2 City of Westlake Village 2-6
A.3 Ventura County Transportation Commission 2-11
A.4 County of Ventura Resource Management Agency Environmental Health Division
2-15
A.5 Conejo Recreation & Park District 2-19
A.6 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 2-21
A.7 California Department of Transportation District 7 2-30 P.1 Lynn Burdick 2-36
P.2 Luke Salzarulo 2-38
P.3 Craig Lawson & Co. LLC 2-40
P.4 Karen Wilburn 2-43
P.5 Tony Scott 2-45
P.6 William Maple 2-47
P.7 Cohen Land Use Law 2-53
P.8 Kathy Naoum 2-56
P.9 Sayde Christ 2-59
P.10 Matthew Lee 2-61
P.11 John Stoeckly, Vice President of Development At Macerich 2-63 P.12 Sanford D. Sigal on behalf of Thousand Oaks Marketplace L.P. 2-69 P.13 Wendy Zimmerman 2-80
P.14 Carol Inglis 2-85
P.15 Denise Derenthal 2-87
P.16 Fred Kershaw 2-89
P.17 Gerry Liberman 2-91
P.18 Harry Koplan 2-93
P.19 Heather Mandap 2-95
P.20 William Taylor 2-97
P.21 Kerri Yim 2-99
2-1
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter No. Commenter Page No.

P.22 Kr ista Harasymowycz 2-101
P.23 Laura Livingston 2-103
P.24 [email protected] 2-105
P.25 Rick Ginsburg 2-107
P.26 Rodney Love 2-109
P.27 Russell Mullin 2-111
P.28 Scott Horn 2-113
P.29 Sherry Adkins 2-117
P.30 Linda K 2-119
P.31 Terri and James Childs 2-121
P.32 Tom Chapple 2-123
P.33 Vissy Wright 2-125
P.34 Willaim Terry 2-127
P.35 Sharon Zack 2-129
P.36 Reza Bonachea Mohamadzadeh, on behalf of Regional Council of Carpenters 2-131

2.1 Comment Letters and Responses
Written responses to each comment letter received on the DEIR are provided in this section. All letters received on the DEIR are provided in their entirety. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response A.1-1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment Letter A.1). Comments that start with “A” indicate that the commenter represents a public agency; comments that start with “P” indicate that the commenter is an individual or represents a non-governmental organization. Prior to responding to each individual comment, the substance of each comment is summarized above the response in italics.

Changes made to the text of the DEIR are p
rovided in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the DEIR,
including corrected information, data, or added details. Where a comment results in a change to the DEIR text, a notation is made in the response indicating that the text is revised. Within the Minor Revisions to the DEIR, changes in text are signified by strikeouts (strikeouts) where text is removed and by underlined font (underlined font) where text is added.

Following public review of an EIR, lead agencies are directed to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the DEIR and prepare a written response” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a)). Some of the comments that were received on the DEIR did not address specific environmental issues or effects associated with the project or the adequacy of the analysis contained in the DEIR. No additional analysis or response is required for these types of comments. All comments, however, will be noted and made available to applicable decision-makers as they consider the project.
2-2

ROADS & TRANSPORTATION

MEMORANDUM

DATE: September 1, 2023

TO: RMA – Planning Division
Attention: Anthony Ciuffetelli

FROM: Roads and Transportation Department

SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DOCUMENT
PROJECT NO.: RMA 22-015-1
Lead Agency: City of Thousand Oaks, Community Development City of Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update

Pursuant to your request, Ventura County Public Works Agency-Roads and Transportation (VCPW-RT) has reviewed the subject Draft EIR and feels that it is within our responsibility to provide comments.

VCPW-RT is in receipt of comments by residents of the Newbury Park area of unincorporated Ventura County regarding data shown in the subject document. More specifically, the table in Appendix A entitled, “Thousand Oaks GPU – Daily Roadway Segment Volumes, Speeds, Lanes, Vehicle Mix, and Day Mix” shows that the proposed ADT on Wendy “Road” from 101 to Borchard Drive will only increase by 10 ADT with proposed General Plan buildout. Firstly, this segment of Wendy “Drive” should be included with the rest of the Wendy Drive segments shown later in the table. Secondly the 10 ADT increase would appear to be an anomaly in the data especially given the potential impacts from the development of APN 662-0-010-03 (located on the south side of the 101 Freeway at the easterly terminus of Denise Street and Alice Drive) even with the inclusion of the anticipated requirement of a secondary access to the site.

While we understand that the environmental impacts from the traffic generated by a potential project on this site will likely be the subject of a future EIR, VCPW-RT respectfully requests the opportunity to comment on the project’s initial traffic studies since Unincorporated County streets could be adversely impacted.

Letter A.1
1 2
3 4
2-3
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter A.1
COMMENTER: Ventura County Public Works Roads and Transportation Department DATE: September 1, 2023
Response A.1-1
The commenter states that the Ventura County Public Works Agency-Roads and Transportation Department (VCPW-RT) has reviewed the subject DEIR and feels that it is within their responsibility to provide comments.

The City thanks VCPW-RT for their comments and concurs that it is within their responsibility, as a public agency, to provide input on the project.

Response A.1-2
The commenter explains that they have received comments from residents of Newbury Park regarding traffic data in the DEIR. The commenter states that the table in Appendix A entitled, “Thousand Oaks GPU – Daily Roadway Segment Volumes, Speeds, Lanes, Vehicle Mix, and Day Mix” shows that the proposed average daily trips (ADT) on Wendy “Road” from 101 to Borchard Drive will only increase by 10 ADT with proposed General Plan buildout. The commenter states that this segment of Wendy Drive should be included with the rest of the Wendy Drive segments shown later in the table.

The City first clarifies that the table the commenter is referring to can be found in Appendix D. The City has updated the table in Appendix D to include all segments of Wendy Drive together. The revision would not result in a different impact conclusion than was already included in the DEIR. The updated table is included in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the DEIR. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.1-3
The commenter expresses an opinion that the 10 ADT increase included in the table in Appendix A entitled, “Thousand Oaks GPU – Daily Roadway Segment Volumes, Speeds, Lanes, Vehicle Mix, and Day Mix” is an anomaly in the data given the potential impacts from development of APN 662-0- 010-03 even with the inclusion of the anticipated requirement of a secondary access to the site.

The City emphasizes that analysis of TO2045 in the DEIR is programmatic and includes assumptions about development patterns given the lack of specific site plans; the traffic study, including ADT data included in Appendix D, is likewise programmatic and not based on specific development plans.

The traffic consultant for TO2045, Iteris, confirmed that the land use from the estimated potential development of APN 662-0-010-03 was incorporated in the Ventura County Transportation Model’s (VCTM) future year scenario. The referenced growth in ADT volume at this specific location is a function of estimated loading of traffic (i.e., vehicle traffic generated) within the VCTM. The VCTM is a regional model, comprised of Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ), which generate person trips based on land use inputs. TAZs include centroid connectors, which serve as the loading points for land use onto the street network. These centroid connector locations and quantities are generally not consistent with detailed site plan design of future development projects within those TAZs, since project-level details such as that are not yet known. Thus, where traffic in the model loads onto the network may be different than where driveways are ultimately built. When the 2-4
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
development of APN 662-0-010-03 undergoes the City’s site plan review process, the driveway access points will be better defined. Thus, at that time, a focused traffic analysis and environmental study would be performed for that development, which will incorporate detailed design assumptions such as driveway access points.

No revisions to the DEIR are required in response to
this comment.

Response A.1-4
The commenter states that they understand the environmental impacts from the traffic generated by a potential project on this site would be subject of a future EIR. The commenter requests the opportunity to comment on the project’s initial traffic studies given County streets may be impacted.

VCPW-RT is correct that future development facilitated by the project in proximity to the segments discussed above may be subject to further environmental review, potentially including an EIR. The project’s traffic study is currently available for review and is attached to the DEIR as Appendix D.

When a development proposal for APN 662-0-01-03 is submitted to the City, any available traffic study would be available for review by VCPW-RT. While future environmental studies would analyze how traffic impacts environmental issues like air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, or noise, project impacts related to congestion and roadway maintenance is not an environmental issue under CEQA.

No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.
2-5

RAY PEARL
Mayor

NED E DAVIS
Mayor Pro Tem

KELLY HONIG
Councilmember
SUSAN McSWEENEY
Councilmember

BRAD HALPERN
Councilmember

31200 Oak Crest Drive • Westlake Village • CA • 91361 • (818) 706-1613 • FAX (818) 706-1391 • wlv.org

September 15, 2023

Iain Holt
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks

via email to [email protected]

Re: Comments on Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 Draft Environmental Impact Report

Dear Mr. Holt:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 (“General Plan”). As you know, the City of Westlake Village (“City”) shares a border with Thousand Oaks. The City is concerned about how the environmental impacts from future growth and development anticipated by the General Plan would affect Westlake Village.

Transportation

The DEIR explains that the Ventura County Transportation Model (VCTM) was used to conduct the traffic analysis. It is not clear from the discussion in the DEIR or Appendix D whether the VCTM incorporates or considers traffic data from Los Angeles County. As noted in the DEIR, OPR’s Technical Advisory on transportation impacts “recommends analyzing VMT outcomes over which the plan may substantively affect travel patterns, including beyond the boundary of the plan or jurisdiction’s geography.” Since Thousand Oaks shares a boundary and interconnected street network with Los Angeles County, the transportation model used for the analysis should account for neighboring areas of Los Angeles County, specifically Westlake Village. The analysis should clarify whether Los Angeles County is included in the VCTM and if not, an explanation as to how OPR’s geographic guidance was incorporated into the traffic analysis.

Given the significant and unavoidable transportation impacts identified (Impact TRA-2 and Cumulative Transportation Impact), the City emphasizes the importance of Mitigation Letter A.2
1 2
3 2-6
Iain Holt, Senior Planner Page 2 of 2
September 15, 2023

Measure TRA-1 to require development project applicants to implement project-level VMT reduction strategies. The City expects Thousand Oaks to diligently and consistently implement this mitigation measure, especially for higher intensity development anticipated in proximity to the Westlake Village boundary.

Wildfire

The DEIR concludes that the General Plan would have no impact related to impairing an emergency evacuation plan (Impact W-1). However, this conclusion is not supported by any analysis of how the new residential and non-residential development anticipated by the General Plan would impact evacuation routes and times. The discussion defers this analysis through General Plan Implementation Action S-A.7., which calls for evaluating “evacuation route capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios as part of the next update to the Hazard Mitigation Plan.”

The City is concerned about how new residential and non-residential development in Thousand Oaks would prolong evacuation times or otherwise adversely impact the evacuation process. Since Westlake Village shares an interconnected street network with Thousand Oaks, any such impacts on evacuation efforts in Thousand Oaks are likely to also impact evacuations in Westlake Village.

As also noted in the City’s comment letter on the General Plan, the DEIR should include a comprehensive quantitative evacuation analysis to determine how evacuation times and routes may be impacted by new development. Such analysis should consider both daytime evacuations when additional non-residential development may impact evacuation times, as well as nighttime evacuations when additional residential development may impact evacuation times.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Please contact Planning Director Michael Forbes at [email protected] or (818) 706-1613 should you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Rob de Geus
City Manager
3 cont.
4 5
2-7
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter A.2
COMMENTER: Rob de Geus, City Manager of Westlake Village DATE: September 15, 2023
Response A.2-1
The commenter thanks the City for the opportunity to provide comments on the DEIR. The commenter states that the City of Westlake shares a border with Thousand Oaks and that the City of Westlake is concerned about how the environmental impacts from future growth and development anticipated by the General Plan would affect Westlake.

The City thanks Westlake for sharing their concerns about potential environmental impacts resulting from the project. The City has responded to such concerns in Responses A.2-2 through A.2-5 and is available to discuss these further upon request.

Response A.2-2
The commenter states that it is not clear from the discussion in the DEIR or Appendix D whether the Ventura County Transportation Model (VCTM) used to conduct the traffic analysis in the DEIR incorporates or considers traffic data from Los Angeles County. The commenter cites California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory on Transportation Impacts and states that since Thousand Oaks shares a boundary with Los Angeles County, the transportation model used for the analysis should account for neighboring areas of Los Angeles County, specifically Westlake Village. The commenter states that the DEIR analysis should clarify whether Los Angeles County is included in the VCTM and if not, an explanation as to how OPR’s geographic guidance was incorporated into the traffic analysis.

The VCTM is built off the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional model, thus includes the circulation network and land use assumptions for the six-county SCAG region, which includes Los Angeles County. Therefore, the land use and circulation network assumptions for the Los Angeles County region (including Westlake Village) are included within the VCTM. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.2-3
The commenter emphasizes the importance of Mitigation Measure TRA-1 and states that they expect the City of Thousand Oaks to diligently and consistently implement this mitigation measure, especially for high density development anticipated in proximity to the Westlake Village boundary.

The City will implement Mitigation Measure TRA-1 for all development facilitated by the project, prior to adoption of Citywide VMT Analysis Guidelines. Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would be implemented for high density development, and all other discretionary residential or employment land use projects. Regarding high density development, the City notes that higher density development generally leads to a lower VMT per capita (Ventura County Transportation Commission 2023; California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2018). Further, VMT reduction strategies listed under Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would be most effective for higher density development, as multi-modal transportation options, such as transit, biking, or walking are most viable in a high density environment. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-8
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response A.2-4
The commenter states an opinion that the conclusion in the DEIR that the General Plan would have no impact related to impairing an emergency evacuation plan is not supported by any analysis of how the anticipated development would impact evacuation routes and times and is deferred through Implementation Action S-A.7. The commenter expresses concern about how new residential and non-residential development in Thousand Oaks would prolong evacuation times or otherwise adversely impact the evacuation process. The commenter states that since Westlake Village shares an interconnected street network with Thousand Oaks, impacts on evacuation efforts in Thousand Oaks are likely to also impact evacuations in Westlake Village.

The impact conclusion under Impact W-1 regarding emergency response and evacuation is less than significant, rather than no impact as stated by the commenter. The City understands that development facilitated by the project would increase the population and jobs in Thousand Oaks, and thus may increase congestion during an evacuation event. However, the City disagrees with the characterization of deferment of analysis; updating the Hazard Mitigation Plan is a process that occurs every five years, and is outside of the scope of the General Plan Update. Other policies listed under Impact W-1, including Policies 5.2, 5.13, and 5.14 specifically address ensuring evacuation and emergency response capacity to the extent feasible when new development is considered. With implementation of the policies listed in Impact W-1, in addition to Implementation Action S-A.7, and given the programmatic nature of the analysis in the DEIR, the evacuation analysis is not deferred but rather analyzed in the DEIR.

Cumulative evacuation impacts from the project on the surrounding area, such as Westlake Village, are discussed in Section 4.13.4, Cumulative Impacts, in the DEIR. As noted therein, the cumulative impact through Ventura County related to wildfire risks is potentially significant. However, given that the project would adhere to State, regional, and local fire protection policies and requirements (as discussed in Section 4.13.2, Regulatory Setting), that wildfire policies in TO2045 would be implemented, and that development would be focused in urbanized areas of the city away from wildfire fuels, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the potentially significant cumulative impact. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.2-5
The commenter states that the DEIR should contain a comprehensive quantitative evacuation analysis to determine how evacuation times and routes may be impacted by new development. The commenter emphasizes that this analysis should consider both daytime and nighttime evacuations.

A quantitative analysis of evacuation times would be misleading at this stage of the planning process. As laid out numerous times in the DEIR, TO2045 is a policy document that does not include specific development entitlements, but rather serves to guide future development in the City through 2045. As a policy document, TO2045 underwent a programmatic environmental analysis, which describes and assesses policy-level commitments, not specific development proposals. When specific development proposals are presented to the City, evacuation and emergency response would be evaluated in conjunction with Ventura County Fire Department. When environmental review under CEQA is required for future discretionary projects, the City would consider the State Attorney General’s CEQA Guidance for evaluating wildfire risk, including an evacuation modeling and analysis (State of California Office of the Attorney General 2022). Quantitative evacuation modeling requires inclusion of many variables not currently available and thus would be speculative to include at the programmatic level of planning, such as time of day, location of the fire, weather 2-9
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
conditions, and proposed new development intensity, without which open up a multitude of evacuation scenarios that cannot possibly all be feasibly evaluated in the DEIR for TO2045. Until future development plans are proposed, the City does not consider quantitative evacuation analysis necessary. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-10
Letter A.3
1 2
3 4
2-11
5 2-12
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter A.3
COMMENTER: Amanda Fagan, Director of Planning and Sustainability, Ventura County Transportation Commission
DATE: September 15, 2023
Response A.3-1
The commenter thanks the city for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR.

The City thanks Ventura County Transportation Commission for submitting their comments on the project.

Response A.3-2
The commenter requests revision to page 4.11-8 of the DEIR to reflect that Metrolink provides rail service seven days a week.

The City accepts this revision from the commentor. The revision would not result in a different impact conclusion than was already included in the DEIR. The correction is reflected below and in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the DEIR.

Section 4.11, Transportation, page 4.11-8:

Metrolink
Metrolink is operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority on behalf of the five c
ounties in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan region. Metrolink offers commuter rail service from East Ventura to Downtown Los Angeles, Monday through Saturday seven days per week via the Ventura County Line.

Response A.3-3
The commenter encourages the Ventura County Regional Bicycle Wayfinding Plan to be added to the discussion on page 4.11-12 of the DEIR.

The City accepts the commenter’s suggestions to include the Ventura County Regional Bicycle Wayfinding Plan, considering that active transportation, such as biking, is central to development goals in TO2045. The revision would not result in a different impact conclusion than was already included in the DEIR. The addition is reflected below and in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the DEIR.

No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Section 4.11, Transportation, page 4.11-12:

Ventura County Regional Bicycle Wayfinding Plan
The Ventura County Regional Bikeway Wayfinding Plan was prepared for VCTC in April 2017 to plan proposed bicycle routes in the County and provide guidance for sign design (VCTC 2017). The Regional Bikeway Wayfinding Plan identifies and prioritizes regional routes, as well as provides a toolkit for wayfinding sign programming, placement, and implementation. 2-13
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response A.3-4
The commenter states that implementation of the recommended policies included on page 4.11-13 of the DEIR does not reduce VMT below the 15 percent threshold and results in potentially significant impacts. The commenter recommends that the city review the Ventura County Vehicle Miles Traveled Adaptive Mitigation Program to consider VMT reduction strategies to mitigate this potentially significant impact.

The City acknowledges this comment, and the DEIR includes a significant and unavoidable VMT impact with the inclusion of feasible mitigation. The City will review and consider relevant mitigation strategies in the Adaptive Mitigation Program that may be implemented for specific development projects facilitated by TO2045. The list of VMT reduction strategies found within Mitigation Measure TRA-1 are not all-inclusive; the language of the measure leaves the possibility open for additional mitigation strategies, such as those included in the Adaptive Mitigation Program, to be implemented for specific development projects. No revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.3-5
The commenter requests that references to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) included in Section 4.11.2c and 4.11.3b of the DEIR acknowledge that the 2013 CTP was referenced.

The City accepts the commenter’s request to specify which CTP was referenced throughout Section

4.11, Transportation, of the DEIR. The City clarifies that the 2013 CTP was referenced instead of the 2023 CTP, because the 2023 CTP was adopted after the Notice of Preparation for the DEIR, which was published in June 2022. The clarification of the 2013 CTP is reflected below and in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the DEIR. The clarification would not result in a different impact conclusion than was already included in the DEIR. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Section 4.11, Transportation, page 4.11-12:

VCTC Comprehensive Transportation Plan
The VCTC 2013 Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is a transportation vision for Ventura County that identifies ways of achieving this vision within constrained resources. The CTP is a long- ran
ge policy document, built from community-b
ased, local priorities, and community-e
xpressed
need to enhance regional connections. It is aimed at ensuring mobility and enhancing the quality of life for all Ventura County residents. The CTP provides a framework for future community -b
ased
planning and collaboration and inform Ventura County’s long range transportation decisions.

2-14
c0uNrY fuENruRA

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
CHARTES R. GENKEL
Environ mental Health Director
September 20,2022
City of Thousand Oaks, Community Development Department, Planning Division ATTN: lain Holt, Senior Planner, AICP
2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Gity of Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update, Environmental Document Review - Notice of Availability Draft Environmental lmpact Report Ventura County Environmental Health Division (Division) staff reviewed the Draft Environmental lmpact Report. The Division provides the following comments:

4.14.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upset and Accident Conditions

1. Consider including the Ventura County Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Emergency Response Hazmat Team as part of the emergency response contact for hazardous materials response.

2. Consider identifying the Ventura County CUPA by name as the agency that regulates facilities that store hazardous materials and/or hazardous wastes at or above the reportable threshold in Ventura County. Compliance with the requirement for business owners to create ahazardous materials business plan is also regulated by the Division's CUPA. "Ventura County Division of Environmental Health programs" is currently identified as the agency.

Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, Disposal

3. Consider noting that all facilities in Ventura County that generate hazardous waste, except those in the city of Oxnard, are required to obtain a hazardous waste producer's permit from the Ventura County CUPA'
SH G:\Admin\TECH SERVICES\FINALED Lefters\Land Use\SR0021249 ODR 22-015-1 Thousand Oaks General Plan921 2O23.docx

Page 1 ends

HALL OF ADMINISTRATION #1730
805-654-2813 . FAX 805-654-2480 . 800 South Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009 . vcrma.org 1 Letter A.4
2 3
2-15
I*
I
lnformation regarding the hazardous materials/waste regulation and the Ventura County CUPA,
including program descriptions and contact information, is available at the following website:
https ://vcrma. o rq/e n/cu pa
lf you have any questions, please contact me at (805) 654-2830 or [email protected].

Roxy , R.E.H.S
Land Use Section
Environmental Health Division
G:\Admin\TECH SERVTCES\FINALED Letters\Land Use\SR0021249 ODR 22-015-1 Thousand Oaks General Plan921 2023.docx Page 2 3 cont.
2-16
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter A.4
COMMENTER: Roxy Cabral, R.E.H.S., Land Use Section of the Environmental Health Division of the County of Ventura Resource Management Agency
DATE: September 15, 2023
Response A.4-1
The commenter states that Ventura County Environmental Health Division Staff have reviewed the DEIR.

The City thanks the Ventura County Environmental Health Division staff for submitting their comments on the project.

Response A.4-2
The commenter recommends including the Ventura County Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Emergency Response Hazmat Team in the discussion of emergency response contacts for hazardous materials response. The commenter recommends adding a reference to CUPA, not the Ventura County Division of Environmental Health programs, as the agency that regulates facilities that store hazardous materials and/or hazardous wastes and which regulates business owner’s creation of a hazardous materials business plan.

The City accepts the commenter’s suggestion to add County resources that safeguard against upset and accident conditions that may result in the release of hazardous materials. The addition of Ventura County CUPA to the analysis would not result in a different impact conclusion than was already identified in the DEIR. The addition is reflected below and in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the DEIR. Ventura County CUPA is also added to the EIR as the agency that regulates facilities that store hazardous materials above reportable thresholds in the County. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Section 4.14, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, page 4.14-9 and 4.14-10:

Upset and Accident Conditions
As described under the Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, and Disposal d iscussion, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous material would be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Materials Management Act, CCR Title 22, and Title 49 of the CFR. Additionally, t The City’s Public Works Department, Emergency Management Division has protocols to remedy the accidental release of hazardous materials, as set forth in the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (City of Thousand Oaks 2020). Additionally, the Ventura County Certified Unified Program Agency Emergency Response HazMat Team would serve as an emergency response contact for hazardous materials release. These regulatory safeguards minimize exposure of the public and environment to a potential release of hazardous materials.

Future development facilitated by the proposed project could include industrial uses that potentially se
ll, use, store, transport, or release substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Businesses that handle certain chemicals over threshold quantities are required to abide by the Ventura County Division of Environmental Health, Certified Unified Program Agency, and programs, such as preparation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). The HMBP consists of basic information 2-17
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials, and emergency response and training plans (CalEPA 2023). Hazardous materials must be reported in a HMBP if they are handled in quantities equal or greater than 55 gallons of a liquid, 200 standard cubic feet of a compressed gas, or 500 pounds of a solid. Mandatory reporting in HMBPs would reduce potential hazards to workers and the general public near industrial development from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Response A.4-3
The commenter recommends including discussion of the requirement that all facilities in Ventura County that generate hazardous waste, except those in the city of Oxnard, are required to obtain a hazardous waste producer's permit from the Ventura County CUPA.

The City accepts the commenter’s suggestion to add Ventura County CUPA to the hazardous waste discussion. The addition of Ventura County CUPA to the analysis would not result in a different impact conclusion than was already included in the DEIR. The addition is reflected below and in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the DEIR. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Section 4.14, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, page 4.14-9:

Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, and Disposal
Development facilitated by the proposed project could involve the use of potentially hazardous materials, such as vehicle fuels and fluids, which could be released, should a spill or peak occur.

Typically, small fuel or oil spills would have a less-than-significant impact on public health.

Furthermore, contractors of individual development projects would be required to implement standard construction BMPs for the use or handling of such materials to avoid or reduce the potential for such conditions to occur. Any transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be carried out in accordance with applicable requirements and local, State, and federal regulations regarding the handling of potentially hazardous materials. These include obtaining a hazardous waste producer’s permit from Ventura County Certified Unified Program Agency when required, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Materials Management Act, and CCR Title 22. Hazardous materials transported on highways, such as SR 23 and US 101, would be subject to Caltrans requirements, as described in Title 49 of the CFR. Furthermore, the proposed project’s Safety Element would implement the following policy intended to ensure the safe transportation of hazardous materials:

2-18
1 Letter A.5
2 2-19
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter A.5
COMMENTER: James Friedl, General Manager Conejo Recreation and Park District DATE: September 22, 2023
Response A.5-1
The commenter states that the District agrees with the statements in Section 4.10.3 of the DEIR that the proposed plan would generate an increase of population which would incrementally increase demand for parks. The commenter states the District follows the National Recreation and Park Association’s standard of providing 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons (5 acres for neighborhood, playfield, and community parks, and 5 acres for the district wide parks).The commenter states the District does not include regional parks in the park acreage totals used to determine the ratio of parkland to residents, as they are more akin to natural open space.

The City acknowledges the District’s methodology for calculating their ratio of parkland to residents.

No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.5-2
The commenter states that the DEIR should be amended to have the second sentence under Impact PS-3 to read: “The planning area contains approximately 903.4 acres of neighborhood, playfield, community, and districtwide parks providing an existing park service ratio of approximately 6.6 acres per 1,000 residents and is 3.4 acres/ 1,000 population short of the National Recreation & Park Association standard of 10 acres of developed parkland/1,000 residents.” This developed parkland deficiency is mollified by the significant acreage of undeveloped/ natural regional parks and open spaces and the multi-use trails associated with those areas.

As mentioned under Response A.5-1, the City understands that the District does not include regional park acreage when determining their ratio of parkland to residents. However, the City, as lead agency for the project, does not have an adopted methodology to determine the parkland to residents ratio. Threshold 2 on page 4.10-15 explicitly asks whether the project would increase the use of regional parks such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. As such, the City considers regional park acreage when analyzing impacts to public services and recreation. Therefore, the City does not consider a change to the Planning Area park acreage necessary. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-20

VENTURA COUNTY

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
Memorandum

TO: Iain Holt, Senior Planner, City of Thousand Oaks

DATE: September 25, 2023

FROM: Nicole Collazo, Air Quality Specialist, VCAPCD Planning Division

SUBJECT: Comments for the City of Thousand Oaks Draft 2045 General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (RMA 22-015-1)

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) staff has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 2045 General Plan Update (GPU), which will set forth the City of Thousand Oaks’ (City) vision of its developmental future and express the goals, policies, and implementation programs as it pertains to land use, health and safety, housing, and resource conservation. The Project location encompasses the City of Thousand Oaks city limits.

The Lead Agency for the project is the City of Thousand Oaks.

General Comments

APCD submits the following comments regarding the project’s DEIR.

Item 1- Page 4.2-9, last paragraph. The GPU should reference the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) instead of the 2016 AQMP. The 2022 AQMP was adopted by the Air Pollution Control Board on December 13, 2022.

Item 2- Page 4.2-11, first paragraph. The current ROC limit of non -flat coatings is 50 g/L, not 150 g/L as the DEIR states, as amended in APCD Rule 74.2, Architectural Coatings , on July 2020. In addition, we recommend adding Rule 62.7, Asbestos- Demolition & Renovation , for proposed demolitions, and Rule 51, Nuisance, for all projects approved through the City, as this is a complaint-driven rule that mirrors the California H&S Code Section §41700.

Item 3- Page 4.2-12, Impact AQ -1. The impact determination should be changed to Significant And Unavoidable, as the AQMP consistency analysis contained in the DEIR determined the 2045 TO GPU would exceed the projected population forecast for the City of Thousand Oaks, as found in the Ventura County 2022 AQMP (145,139 vs. 144,700). The DEIR goes on to state the project would not be inconsistent with the AQMP because it does not “substantially exceed the most recently adopted AQMP population forecasts” (DEIR, Page 4.2 -12). The Ventura Count y Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (AQAG) clearly state that “Any General Plan Amendment that will result in population growth above that forecasted in the most recently adopted AQMP is inconsistent with the AQMP. It will therefore have a significant cumu lative adverse air quality 1 2
3 4
Letter A.6
2-21
impact.” (AQAG, Page 4-2). It does not have a condition on the degree of the population forecast exceedance. Therefore, the project will conflict with or obstruct implementation of Ventura County’s goal to meet its 2015 state and federal ambient air quality standards for ozone, as outlined in the EPA -approved State Implementation Plan and AQMP. The AQAG recommends several mitigation measures for this determination (AQAG, Page 4 -6) the City could choose , including, but not limited to:

1) project revision to eliminate inconsistency,
2) adopting a residential building permit allocation program to pace population growth in such a way as to ensure forecasts are not exceed, such as through smaller incremental forecasts. T he City of Ojai has adopted a similar program,
3) denying the project, or
4) project approval only if lead agency determines and issues a statement of overriding considerations.

Item 4 - Page 4.2 -13, first paragraph. Please also add Rule 62.7, Asbestos-Demolition & Renovation, to the rules listed for required compliance of city projects with APCD’s jurisdiction.

Item 5- Page 4.2-14, Policy 4.3. This item pertains to the DGPU, not the DEIR. While Policy 4.3 states that the design features listed are a requirement, proposed Action C-10.10.6 includes these design features as conditional only if mitigation in CEQA is required, not as a design feature.

Item 6- Page 4.2-14, Policy 10.3. This item pertains to the DGPU, not the DEIR. Some of the “non-mobile pollution sources” listed in this goal are not non -mobile. For example, landscape equipment and construction equipment are both considered mobile pollution sources. Consider changing the heading to “non-vehicular” or something similar if that was the intention, to capture reductions from sources other than on -road vehicles (cars, trucks, etc.). This is also stated in

Page 4 ends

Item 7- Page 4.2-14, Action C -A.12. This item pertains to the DGPU, not the DEIR. We recommend adding to the action “ …and recom mendations from the APCD”, as we routinely review development projects in the City which include recommendations that may not necessarily be found in the AQAG, last amended in 2003.

Item 8- Page 4.2-15, Operational Project Emissions. The section conclude s that operational air emissions would be less than significant due to a decrease in “per capita air quality emissions”.

This is incorrect as it is based on a VMT per capita analysis that is not an adopted methodology for determining the regional air quality impact of a project. The appropriate method is to quantify the project’s expected mobile, energy, and area emissions using the air emissions model CalEEMod. Appendix B appears to have this model with expected project operational emissions estimated at 880 lbs./day of ROC and 315 lbs./day of NOx, over the adopted significance threshold of 25 lbs./day for either ozone-precursor pollutant. This information does not appear to be in the Air Quality section of the DEIR. Please update the Operation subsection of Impact AQ- 2 section to include the total estimated project emission s, with references to the CalEEMod appendix and table containing modeled amounts, which would have a significant impact and 4 cont.
5 6
7 8
9 10
2-22
cumulatively considerable net increase of the ozone criteria pollutant, and the Cumulative Impact Section on Pages 4.2-19 and -20. Note- the determination for Impact AQ-2 would not change as it was determined to be significant and unavoidable due to the construction emissions.

Item 9- Appendix B. The CalEEMod model report does not display the expected fleet mix input for operational year 2045 selected. Please also include the fleet mix in the discussion and what percentage of the fleet mix was electric vehicles, as the DEIR states in Page 4.2 -15 that alternative fuel vehicles would reduce the average per vehicle -mile emissions. In addition, the model should inc orporate traffic information from Appendix D, Transportation Memo and Traffic Data , such as expected VMTs for project buildout , to be consistent with the Transportation impact section of the DEIR and for project-specific information to estimate air emissions to the greatest accuracy possible.

Item 10- Page 4.2-17, second paragraph. The DEIR states “VCAPCD does not define health risk thresholds” and goes on to cite SBCAPCD’s guidelines. The VC AQAG contains a section dedicated to toxic air contaminants (TACs) in Section 6.5 with APCD recommending “ lead agencies conduct TAC risk assessments in accordance with the CAPCOA Risk Assessment Guidelines, as supplemented by the District’s supplemental guidelines.” (AQAG, Page 6-7-6-8), which include the thresholds of greater than 10 in a million for cancer r isk and greater than 1 for the non-cancer risk. Please correct this statement.

Thank you for the opp ortunity to comment on the DEIR. Should you have any questions, you may contact me at [email protected].

10 cont.
11 12
2-23
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter A.6
COMMENTER: Nicole Collazo, Air Quality Specialist Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) Planning Division
DATE: September 25, 2023
Response A.6-1
The commenter states that VCAPCD staff have reviewed the DEIR and states that the project location encompasses the City of Thousand Oaks and the lead agency is the City of Thousand Oaks.

The City thanks the VCAPCD staff for submitting their comments on the project.

Response A.6-2
The commenter recommends the DEIR be amended on page 4.2-9 to reference the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).

The City accepts the commenter’s suggestion since the 2022 AQMP was referenced and used in the analysis throughout the rest of the DEIR. The revision is reflected below and in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the DEIR. The revision would not result in a different impact conclusion than was already included in the DEIR. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Section 4.2, Air Quality, page 4.2-9:

California State Implementation Plan
The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, plans, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The CAA Amendments dictate that states containing areas violating the NAAQS revise their SIPs to include extra control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP includes strategies and control measures to attain the NAAQS by deadlines established by the CAA. The USEPA has the responsibility to review all SIPs to determine if they conform to the requirements of the CAA.

State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and o
ther agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB then forwards SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The 2022 2016 Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is the SIP for Ventura County. The AQMP accommodates growth by projecting the growth in emissions based on different indicators.

For example, population forecasts adopted by SCAG are used to forecast population-related emissions. Through the planning process, emissions growth is offset by basin-wide controls on stationary, area, and transportation sources of air pollution.

Response A.6-3
The commenter recommends the DEIR be amended on page 4.2-11 to reflect the current ROC limit of non-flat coating as 50 g/L, not 150 g/L as currently stated in the DEIR. The commenter also recommends that Rule 67.2 Asbestos- Demolition & Renovation and Rule 51 Nuisance be added.

The City accepts the commenter’s suggestion and addition of other rules. The revision is reflected below and in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the DEIR. The revision would not result in a different 2-24
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
impact conclusion than was already included in the DEIR. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Section 4.2, Air Quality, page 4.2-11:

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
The VCAPCD prepares AQMPs for meeting federal and State air quality standards (the most recent of which is the 2022 AQMP) and develops rules and regulations and permitting requirements. The VCAPCD provides the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, with detailed guidance on how to evaluate and mitigate a project’s air quality (AQ) impacts. According to the VCAPCD Guidelines, in addition to the assessment of criteria pollutants, the lead agency should consider San Joaquin Valley Fever factors that are applicable to any proposed projects. Based on these or other factors, if a lead agency determines that a project may create a significant Valley Fever impact, the VCAPCD recommends that the lead agency consider the Valley Fever mitigation measures listed in the VCAPCD Guidelines to minimize fugitive dust, as well as minimizing worker exposure. The VCAPCD Guidelines provides the following list of measures to be considered if the lead agency determines a project site poses a risk of San Joaquin Valley Fever:

Restrict employment to persons with positive coccidioidin skin tests (since those with positive tests can be considered immune to reinfection)
Hire crews from local populations where possible, since it is more likely that they have been previously exposed to the fungus and are therefore immune Require crews to use respirators during project clearing, grading, and excavation operations in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations Require that the cabs of grading and construction equipment be air-conditioned Require crews to work upwind from excavation sites
Pave construction roads
Where acceptable to the fire department, control weed growth by mowing instead of discing, thereby leaving the ground undisturbed and with a mulch covering The VCAPCD implements rules and regulations for emissions that may be generated by various uses and activities. The rules and regulations detail pollution-reduction measures that must be implemented during construction and operation of projects. Relevant rules and regulations to the project include:
 R
ule 51 (Nuisance). This rule states that a person shall not discharge air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.
 Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust). This rule requires fugitive dust generators, including construction and demolition projects, to implement control measures limiting the amount of dust from vehicle track-out, earth moving, bulk material handling, and truck hauling activities. The rule would apply during construction and operational activities. Therefore, the mitigation measures described in VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines should be applied to all projects related dust-generating operations and activities:
2-25
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
 Control techniques for fugitive dust generally involve watering, chemical dust control agents for soil stabilization, scheduling of activities, and vehicle speed control.  Scheduling activities during periods of low-wind speed will also reduce fugitive dust emissions. Additionally, vehicle speed control can reduce fugitive dust emissions from unpaved roads and areas at construction sites by up to 60 percent, assuming compliance with a 15 miles per hour on-site speed limit.
 R ule 62.7 (Asbestos – Demolition and Renovation). This rule applies to demolition and renovation operations and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing material. The rule contains notification requirements, emission control requirements and training and licensing requirements.
 Rule 74.2 (Architectural Coatings). This rule sets limits on the VOC content of architectural coatings. Non-flat coatings are limited to 50 150 grams per liter of VOC content; flat coatings are limited to 150 grams per liter of VOC content, and traffic marking coatings are limited to 150 grams per liter of VOC content.

Response A.6-4
The commenter requests that impact determination for Impact AQ-1 on page 4.2-12 of the DEIR be changed to significant and unavoidable because the AQMP consistency analysis contained in the DEIR determined the 2045 TO GPU would exceed the projected population forecast for the City of Thousand Oaks, as found in the Ventura County 2022 AQMP. The commenter states that The Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (AQAG) clearly state that “Any General Plan Amendment that will result in population growth above that forecasted in the most recently adopted AQMP is inconsistent with the AQMP. It will therefore have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact”.

The City does not agree with the commenter’s opinion that the impact conclusion for Impact AQ-1 should be changed to significant and unavoidable for operational impacts for several reasons. The City, as lead agency for the project under CEQA, has the authority to set their own specific thresholds of significance. Thousand Oaks has not adopted the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines, nor do they provide thresholds for programmatic planning documents; but the thresholds used for analysis of the project are derived and informed by VCAPCD’s guidelines.

While population estimated after implementation of TO2045 in 2045 is 439 residents greater than population estimates included in the 2022 AQMP, the City does not consider such a small exceedance to constitute a significant and unavoidable impact. TO2045 analyzes a buildout scenario wherein an ambitious amount of growth occurs in the City and the resulting population estimate for 2045 is not guaranteed to occur. Even so, the population estimates in the 2022 AQMP are based upon SCAG population projections, which will be updated in concert with other local planning efforts (e.g. TO2045) and State housing law (e.g. Regional Housing Needs Allocation). Therefore, it is circular to assume a significant air quality impact because a planning document intended to guide growth exceeds a population forecast in another planning document that is based on projections in the former (i.e., population forecasts in the AQMP are based on those from SCAG). No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.
2-26
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response A.6-5
The commenter recommends that the city choose from the following mitigation measures to mitigate the significant and unavoidable impact for Impact AQ-1 as discussed in the previous comment (comment A.6-4):
1) project revision to eliminate inconsistency,
2) adopting a residential building permit allocation program to pace population growth in such a way as to ensure forecasts are not exceed, such as through smaller incremental forecasts. 3) denying the project, or
4) project approval only if lead agency determines and issues a statement of overriding considerations.

Please refer to Response A.6-4; the City is not modifying the impact conclusion and does not require mitigation to support the less than significant conclusion. Additionally, the mitigation presented by the commenter directly conflicts with project objectives by preventing growth (e.g., create a diversity of housing types and affordability levels) and cannot be feasibly integrated into the DEIR.

No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.6-6
The commenter requests that Rule 67.2 Asbestos- Demolition & Renovation be added to the discussion of rules listed for required compliance in the first paragraph on page 4.2-13 of the DEIR.

The City accepts the commenter’s suggestion. The revision is reflected below and in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the DEIR. The revision would not result in a different impact conclusion than was already included in the DEIR. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Section 4.2, Air Quality, page 4.2-13:

Construction
Future development and mobility improvements associated with the project would involve construction activities that could result in air pollutant emissions. Specifically, construction activities such as demolition, grading, construction worker travel, delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris, and fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment would generate pollutant emissions. These construction activities would create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants, particularly during site preparation and grading. The extent of daily emissions, particularly ROGs and NO
X emissions generated by construction equipment, would
depend on the quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation for each project. The extent of PM

2.5 and PM10 emissions would depend on the following factors: 1) the amount of disturbed soils, 2) the length of disturbance time, 3) whether existing structures are demolished, 4) whether excavation is involved, and 5) whether transporting excavated materials off-site is necessary. Dust emissions can lead to both nuisance and health impacts. Projects within the VCAPCD would be required to comply with standard regulations that have the effect of reducing air quality emissions, such as compliance with VCAPCD Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 62.7 (Asbestos – Demolition and Renovation) and Rule 74.2 (Architectural Coatings).
2-27
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response A.6-7
The commenter states there is a discrepancy between that Policy 4.3 of the draft General Plan Update which states that the design features listed are a requirement and Action C-10.10.6 which states that the design features are conditional only if mitigation in CEQA is required, not as a design feature.

As the commenter noted, this comment pertains to the General Plan itself and not the DEIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.6-8
The commenter states that some of the “non mobile pollution sources” listed in goal 10.3 of the Draft Geneal Plan Update as included on page 4.2-14 of the DEIR are not non-mobile.

As the commenter noted, this comment pertains to the General Plan itself and not the DEIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.6-9
The commenter states that some of the “non mobile pollution sources” listed in goal 10.3 of the Draft Geneal Plan Update as included on page 4.2-14 of the DEIR are not non-mobile. The commenter suggests changing the heading to “non-vehicular” to capture reductions from sources other than on road vehicles.

As the commenter noted, this comment pertains to the General Plan itself and not the DEIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.6-10
The commenter states that the less than significant impact determination related to operational project emissions included on page 4.2-15 of the DEIR is incorrect because it is based on VMT per capita analysis that is not an adopted methodology for determining the regional air quality impact of a project. The commenter states that the appropriate method is to quantify the project’s expected mobile, energy, and area emissions using the air emissions model CalEEMod. The commenter requests that the Operation subsection of Impact AQ-2 be amended to include the total estimated project emissions, with references to the CalEEMod appendix and table containing modeled amounts. The commenter states this would have a significant impact and cumulatively considerable net increase of ozone and the cumulative impacts section on pages 4.2-19 and 4.2-20 should be amended accordingly as well.

The City disagrees with the commenter’s characterization of the air quality methodology as incorrect. VCAPCD does not provide guidance for programmatic analysis, as is necessary for planning documents like TO2045. The modeling included in Appendix B is not intended to inform the impact conclusion for Impact AQ-2 but was included in the DEIR for greenhouse gas emissions modeling, which was referenced in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for informational purposes only. Not only do VCAPCD’s guidelines not address programmatic analysis, but they were adopted in 2003 and are outdated. The City referenced guidance from other air districts with more recent guidelines, which include methodology to base air quality impacts on metrics like VMT, such as that included in the DEIR. Overall, a 25 pound per day threshold is not appropriate for a programmatic analysis that encourages development over a multi-decade planning period and does not contain specific development proposals. When specific development proposals are considered 2-28
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
by the City, and if discretionary approval is required, the City may require air quality analysis that utilizes VCAPCD’s project level threshold. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.6-11
The commenter states that the CalEEMod model report does not display the expected fleet mix input for operational year 2045 selected. The commenter requests that the discussion of the CalEEMod model report be amended to include the expected fleet mix for operational year 2045 and what percentage of the fleet mix was electric vehicles. The commenter also recommends that the CalEEMod model incorporate traffic information from Appendix D.

As noted under Response A.6-10, the modeling included in Appendix B was not used to inform analysis of air quality impacts in Section 4.2, Air Quality. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.6-12
The commenter request that page 4.2-17 of the DEIR be amended to correct the statement states that “VCAPCD does not define health risk thresholds”. The commenter states that the VC AQAG contains a section dedicated to toxic air contaminants (TACs) in Section 6.5 with APCD recommending “lead agencies conduct TAC risk assessments in accordance with the CAPCOA Risk Assessment Guidelines, as supplemented by the District’s supplemental guidelines.”(AQAG, Page 6- 7-6-8),which include the thresholds of greater than 10 in a million for cancer risk and greater than 1 for the non-cancer risk and requests that this information be added to page 4.2-17.

The City accepts the commenter’s revision, which does not change the DEIR’s impact conclusion.

The revision is reflected below and in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the DEIR. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Section 4.2, Air Quality, page 4.2-17:

According to the OEHHA, construction of individual projects lasting longer than 2 m onths could
potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and therefore could result in potentially significant health risk impacts. CARB suggests sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of a freeway could be exposed to similar TAC concentrations as receptors within 1,000 feet of a freeway (CARB 2017). Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, construction of a project within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor could expose receptors to TAC concentrations. In addition, individual residential development projects larger than single-family residences, ADUs, or duplexes can result in potentially significant health risk impacts when Tier 4 construction equipment, which results in substantially lower TAC emissions than older construction equipment, is not utilized. As a result, certain development projects could exceed health risk thresholds if they are located close to sensitive receptors, involve an extended construction duration, and do not utilize Tier 4 or newer construction equipment. VCAPCD recommends that lead agencies conduct TAC assessments in accordance with the CAPCOA Risk Assessment Guidelines, which does not define health risk thresholds; however, adjacent air districts such as the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District uses an increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in a million and an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute) as a threshold. Therefore, this construction impact would be potentially significant and implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would be required.
2-29

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7
100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 269-1124
FAX (213) 897-1337
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life

September 25, 2023

Iain Holt, Senior Planner, AICP
Community Development Department, Planning Division
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362

RE: 2045 General Plan Update
SCH # 2022060087
Vic. LA-101, LA-23. Citywide
GTS # VEN-2022-00554-DEIR

Dear Iain Holt:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced environmental document.

Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update is a comprehensive update to the City’s existing Gen eral Plan which was originally prepared in 1970. The proposed project consists of updates to the Thousand Oaks General Plan, including the Land Use and Element, Mobility Element, Parks and Open Space Element, Conservation Element, Community Facilities and Services Element, Arts and Culture Element, Safety Element, Noise Element, Governance Element, and Implementation Actions to mobilize and execute the goals and policies included in the General Plan. The General Plan Update could lead to an additional 7,871 new housing units and 11,845 new jobs in the City.

The proposed project’s impact on the 2045 citywide VMT per service population falls short of achieving a minimum 15% reduction from the existing levels. Consequently, the proposed project does not align with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (B), resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.

Despite a 7.7% decrease in VMT rates anticipated with the proposed project’s implementation compared to the current conditions, Thousand Oak’s VMT per service population is projected to reach 28.68 in 2045. This figure exceeds the threshold of 26.42, which corresponds to a 15% reduction from the existing VMT per service population of

31.08. The Mobility Element of the proposed project includes policies and implementation actions that specifically focus on VMT reduction programs:

1 2
3 Letter A.7
2-30
Iain Holt
September 25, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

• Policy 6.1 Decrease vehicle trips . Prioritize transportation and development investments and strategies that reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips. • Policy 6.2 Decrease vehicle miles traveled . Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle and other micro-mobility transportation means, and transit enhancements. Encourage infill, mixed -use, and other land use development that locates resources and services near residents’ homes.
• Policy 6.3 Emissions reduction. Support and encourage the adoption of low- and zero-emission vehicles, clean vehicle technologie s, charging infrastructure and services to reduce GHG emissions from vehicles.
• Policy 6.4 Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Promote and incentivize the use of TDM strategies for employers and expand options for emission reductions from commuting thr ough means such as vehicle sharing, alternative fuel vehicle support, and telecommuting.
• Implementation Action M-A.7 VMT-based transportation analysis policy and VMT mitigations for environmental review. Adopt and implement the City’s Vehicles Miles Trave led (VMT) Analysis Guidelines, which defines VMT -based thresholds of significance for transportation impacts in environmental review and identifies TDM-based mitigations.

Before the City officially adopts VMT analysis Guidelines as outlined in Implementa tion Action M -A.7 of the proposed project, interim measures are in place . For projects exceeding the City’s recommended VMT threshold, determined through project -specific VMT analysis, the City will require project applicants to implement VMT reduction strategies. These strategies will be designed to reduce VMT from existing land uses, where feasible and from new discretionary residential or employment land use projects.

The focus of these programs and project-specific mitigation will center on VMT reduction strategies that enhance travel options and promote shared rides through private vehicles, public transit, biking, or walking. These strategies may include, but not limited to:

1. Provision of bus stop improvements or on-site mobility hubs

2. Pedestrian improvements, on -site or off -site, to connect to nearby transit stops, services, schools, shops, etc.

3. Bicycle programs, including bike purchase incentives, storage, maintenance programs, and on-site education program

4. Enhancements to the citywide bicycle network

5. Parking reductions and/or fees set at levels sufficient to incentivize transit, active transportation, or shared modes

6. Cash allowances, passes, or other public transit subsidies and purchase incentives

7. Providing enhanced, frequent bus service

8. Implementation of shuttle service

Following the City’s adoption of VMT Analysis Guidelines, individual projects shall be evaluated and mitigated in accordance with the procedures outlined in the VMT Analysis Guidelines.
3 cont.
2-31
Iain Holt
September 25, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

After Mitigation Measure TRA -1 for the General Plan, the i ndividual projects may not consistently meet adopted VMT Analysis Guidelines or effectively mitigate VMT to stay below thresholds. Therefore, the project’s impacts related to VMT would be significant and unavoidable. We would recommend the City to consider the following policy/measures for all future projects:

1. A post-development VMT analysis to validate and justify Project VMT and future VMT threshold setting should be prepared. Additional mitigation measures should be implemented when the post -development VMT analysis discloses any traffic significant impact. This analysis, which may include interviews with and surveys of project occupants, will provide new traffic data to help validate the City’s VMT traffic model results.

The collected data can include, among other things, where the trips are coming from, when the trips are taking place, what transportation mode is used, and why those transportation modes were selected. This survey data would be useful 1) to validate existing VMT threshold, 2) to assist in setting future VMT threshold, and 3) to identify suitable TDM to apply as minimization or mitigation measures for the future. These measures could be implemented in the event the post-development VMT analysis discloses any significant traffic impacts.

2. VMT Fee Program for all development within the City boundary in which the program has the potential to address transportation funding challenges, promote sustainability, and offer more flexible and equitable approaches to financing and managing transportation systems. Alternatively, the City may consider a new concept of VMT mitigation banks and exchanges. You may learn this new concept from the following link.

https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system- information/documents/research-notes/task3886-rns-5-21- a11y.pdf#:~:text=A%20well%20developed%2C%20carefully%20structured%20V MT%20mitigation%20bank,pay%20for%20VMT%20reductions%20elsewhere%2 0in%20the%20region.

3. For future projects any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials that require the use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways will need a Caltrans transportation permit. Any large-size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods.

3 cont.
2-32
Iain Holt
September 25, 2023

Page 4 of 4 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Alan Lin the project coordinator at (213) 269-1124 and refer to GTS # VEN-2022-00554-DEIR.

Sincerely,

MIYA EDMONSON
LDR/CEQA Branch Chief

email: State Clearinghouse
5 cont.
2-33
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter A.7
COMMENTER: Miya Edmonson, LDR/CEQA Branch Chief California Department of Transportation District 7
DATE: September 25, 2023
Response A.7-1
The commenter thanks the city for being included in the environmental review process for the DEIR.

The commenter summarizes the proposed plan including the fact that it could lead to an additional 7,871 new housing units and 11,845 new jobs in the City of Thousand Oaks.

The City thanks Caltrans staff for submitting their comments on the project.

Response A.7-2
The commenter summarizes Impact TRA-2 and states that the proposed impact on the 2045 citywide VMT per service population does not achieve a minimum 15 percent reduction from existing levels.

The commenter states that despite the 7.7 percent decrease in VMT rates anticipated with the project’s implementation, Thousand Oaks’ VMT per service population is expected to reach 28.68 in 2045 which exceeds the threshold of 26.42 which corresponds to a 15 percent reduction from the existing VMT. The commenter states this means the project does not align with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (B), and therefore results in a significant and unavoidable impact.

The City concurs the commenter’s summary of VMT findings in the DEIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response A.7-3
The commenter summarizes the policies included in the Mobility Element of the proposed project and interim measures in place requiring project-specific VMT analyses and the requirement that project applicants implement VMT reduction strategies. The commenter expresses the opinion that after implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1, the individual projects may not consistently meet adopted VMT Analysis Guidelines or effectively mitigate VMT to stay below thresholds. The commenter recommends the addition of the following policies/measures for all future projects:

Alternatively, the City may consider a new concept of VMT mitigation banks and exchanges.

Final Environmental Impact Report
The City will consider these provided policies and measures for future projects facilitated by the General Plan Update that require discretionary approval by the City. The list of VMT reduction strategies found within Mitigation Measure TRA-1 are not all-inclusive; the language of the measure leaves the possibility open for additional mitigation strategies, such as those noted measures 1 and 2 by the commenter, to be implemented for specific development projects. The City notes that measure 3 regarding transportation of heavy construction equipment or materials on State highways is not relevant for VMT impacts. Caltrans regulations and permit would be considered when specific development projects undergo City review. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

2-35
Residential Equity Building - General Plan Comment
Lynn Burdick <[email protected]>
Thu 8/17/2023 12:46 PM
To:General Plan <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
My name is Lynn Burdick. I have lived at 324 Los Padres Dr, Thousand Oaks, CA 91361 since 1997. I can be reached at 805-402-4733 or [email protected].

I want to ask that the General Plan include percentages of achieving residential equity building development, not just the numbers. I see 7,871 units of which 486 are single family units, 6,725 are multifamily units, and 660 are ADUs. In my estimation the 6,725 and 660 are going to be 100% rentals.

Therefore, only 6% of new residential development will be equity building residential units. This is way, way too low to be able to attract families to come and build their lives in the City. The target should be upwards of 50% of equity building residential units. Keep in mind that only the developers and landlords benefit if 94% of new housing development is rentals. Developers and landlords are businesses, not homeowners who care about the city they live in.

Thank you,
Lynn Burdick
Letter P.1
1 2
2-36
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.1
COMMENTER: Lynn Burdick
DATE: August 17, 2023
Response P.1-1
The commenter states they have lived in Thousand Oaks since 1997 and provides their contact information.

The City thanks the commenter for their interest in TO2045.

Response P.1-2
The commenter requests that the General Plan include percentages of achieving residential equity building development rather than just numbers. The commenter states an opinion that the 6.752 multifamily units and 660 ADUs included in the general plan will be rentals and therefore only six percent of new residential development will be equity building residential units. The commenter expresses an opinion that this percentage should be closer to 50 percent to attract families to build their lives in Thousand Oaks.

The commenter’s assertion that multifamily units are only available for rent and not purchase is unsubstantiated. Furthermore, this comment pertains to the General Plan itself, and is not related to environmental analysis in the DEIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-37
Draft General Plan EIR Comments
Luke Salzarulo <[email protected]>
Fri 8/18/2023 5:23 PM
To:General Plan <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Luke Salzarulo, Kelley Ranch homeowner. I oppose the draft rezoning of the drive in theatre parcel on Kelley. Instead of cramming units and hotels on the old school site and the old drive in theatre, would you please consider the feedback that was gathered in the community survey and input process? We want more parks and we want open space. The original intent of the mixed use zoning was for community gatherings. Let’s put in a natural park or wild area there. The local neighborhood would love to be able to access that space to gather, walk, play, and enjoy the beautiful eucalyptus trees. I’m certain that AMC would love to write off this property and let it go to the city. The taxes and liability alone would be enough to get them to dump it. No chance of a theatre coming back there.

It stinks that the state is trying to pressure the city to put in more dense units… but nobody here (outside of developers and special interest groups that don’t live here) want higher density. That’s why we live here and raise our children here.

Thanks for taking time to read this. Appreciate any help you can offer in keeping with the rural and open feel of our little city.

Less development, more parks, more trees.

Thank you!
Sent from my iPhone
Letter P.2
1 2
2-38
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.2
COMMENTER: Luke Salzarulo
DATE: August 18, 2023
Response P.2-1
The commenter states that they own a home in Kelley Ranch and oppose the draft rezoning of the drive-in theater parcel on Kelley. The commenter asks the city to consider the feedback given through the community survey and input process and states that the community wants more parks and open space in the area.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the rezoning of the drive-in theater parcel.

This comment does not pertain to the environmental analysis in the DEIR. Additionally, while the parcel in question will have a new land use designation under TO2045, it is not being rezoned at this time. The commenter can refer to Section 4.10, Public Services and Recreation, for an analysis of the project’s impact on parks and open space. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.2-2
The commenter expresses opposition to the state’s pressure to put more dense units in and states an opinion that nobody in the city other than developers and special interest groups that don’t live in the city want higher density. The commenter emphasizes the need for less development and more parks and trees to maintain the rural and open feel of the city.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to housing. This comment does not pertain to the environmental analysis in the DEIR.

No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.
2-39

3221 Hutchison Avenue, Suite D, Los Angeles, CA 90034 ◆ Phone (310) 838-2400 ◆ FAX (310) 838-2424

September 1, 2023

Mr. Iain Holt, AICP, Senior Planner Sent via e-mail to: [email protected] City of Thousand Oaks Planning Division
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362

RE: Thousand Oaks 2045 (“TO2045”) General Plan Update
Notice of Availability for Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)

Dear Mr. Holt:

On behalf of GJS, LLC (“GJS”), owner of the commercial property at 550 N. Moorpark Road (southeast corner of Moorpark and Wilbur Roads in the Moorpark Road/Janss Marketplace sub - area) in the City of Thousand Oaks (“City”) since 2005, we appreciate this opportunity to comment on the TO2045 Draft EIR. Currently occupied by a bank, the existing building on GJS’ property recently sat vacant for a five-year period. This long vacancy period reflects a citywide trend where commercial properties at prime locations (such as the Moorpark Road/Janss Marketplace sub-area) remain vacant or underutilized. These vacancies are due to evolving economic conditions and rigid zoning regulations that make it very challenging to attract new tenants (especially the current lack of mixed-use zoning options and high vehicular parking requirements).

GJS supports the Mixed-Use land use designation proposed for their property , as well as TO2045 Goal LU -16, which envisions a mixed -use, walkable future for Moorpark Road, between Thousand Oaks Boulevar d and Wilbur Road . GJS also supports TO2045 Land Use Policies 16.1 through 16.4, which propose a future Specific Plan overlay to implement this vision for this Moorpark Road segment, along with building heights up to 75 feet, pedestrian -oriented streetscape improvements, and reduced setback and parking requirements. This Moorpark Road segment is the perfect location for mixed-use development because it is a designated Transit Route (Draft EIR Figure 4.11 -3) adjacent to multi -family neighborhoods and within walking distance of offices and major retail destinations, including Janss Marketplace, The Oaks, and Village at Moorpark. The Mixed-Use designation and Specific Plan effort would help achieve TO2045 and associated Climate & Environmental Action Plan (“CEAP”) goals to provide more housing opportunities in a manner that complements the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood, and to reduce climate change impacts and improve quality of life by contributing to a more walkable neighborhood where residents can live, work, shop, and play.

GJS shares the City’s goal to create a vibrant new vision for under-performing commercial areas. In addition to using mixed-use development as a revitalization tool, GJS urges the City to reevaluate and reduce vehicular parking requirement s as zoning regulations are updated.

GJS supports TO2045 Land Use Policies 3.7, 5.6, and 16.4 and Draft EIR Mitigation Measure TRA- 1, all of which focus on allowing vehicular parking reductions, while also promoting alternative modes of transportation. GJS urges the City to go one step further and update Zoning Code policies to “right-size” vehicular parking regulations, especially throughout the increasingly walkable Moorpark Road/Janss Marketplace sub -area and Transit Route . Current City parking requirements exceed actual parking demand for many uses and are higher than what other cities require for these same Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
Land Use Consultants
Letter P.3
1 2
3 2-40
2 uses. This is particularly true for restaurants and medical offices , which were the types of community-serving businesses that show ed interest in GJS’ property during its five -year vacancy period, but ultimately passed because high parking requirements could not be achieved .

Reevaluating and reducing vehicular parking requirements to align with actual demand would help revitalize commercial corridors by allowing underutilized properties to be repositioned for new uses.

Doing this in conjunction with transportation demand management strategies that encourage alternative modes of transportation would also support TO2045 and CEAP goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and enhance quality of life.

As you advance with this important TO2045 initiative, we appreciate the consideration you are giving to feedback from commercial property owners who play a critical role in contributing to the Thousand Oaks economy and revitalizing the City’s commercial corridors . If you have any questions, please contact me at [email protected] or (310) 838-2400 x110.

Sincerely,

Shane Stuart Swerdlow, Vice President
Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
3 cont.
2-41
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.3
COMMENTER: Shane Stuart Swerdlow, Vice President Craig Lawson & Co. LLC DATE: September 1, 2023
Response P.3-1
The commenter states they are writing this comment letter on behalf of GJS, LLC. Which owns the commercial property at 550 N. Moorpark Road in Thousand Oaks. The commenter states that the existing building on GJS’s property is a bank, but previously it was vacant for five years. The commenter expresses an opinion that this vacancy reflects a citywide trend where commercial properties at prime locations remain vacant and underutilized due to economic conditions and rigid zoning regulations which make it difficult to attract new tenants.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opinion regarding vacancy trends in the city. This comment does not relate to the analysis in the DEIR. No revisions are necessary.

Response P.3-2
The commenter expresses support for the mixed-land use designation proposed for their property and for Goal LU-16 and Land Use policies 16.1 through 16.4 included in the TO2045 General Plan which envisions a mixed-use walkable future for Moorpark Road. The commenter states an opinion that their property is the perfect location for mixed-use development and that the mixed-use designation and specific plan effort would help to achieve TO2045 and associated Climate and Environmental Action Plan (CEAP) goals.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s support of the land use policies in TO2045 and mixed-use land designations. This comment does not relate to the analysis in the DEIR. No revisions are necessary.

Response P.3-3
The commenter requests that the city reevaluate and reduce vehicular parking requirements as zoning regulations are updated. The commenter expresses support for TO2045 Land Use Policies 3.7, 5.6, and 16.4 and DEIR Mitigation Measure TRA-1 and request that the city build on these to update Zoning Code policies to “right-size” vehicular parking regulations. The commenter expresses the opinion that current city parking requirements exceed actual parking demands and states they have had potential tenants pass on their property in the past due to high parking requirements. The commenter expresses the opinion that reducing parking requirements while encouraging alternative modes of transportation would support TO2045 and CEAP goals.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s request for a reevaluation of parking requirements in zoning regulations, support for land use policies in the General Plan, and support of Mitigation Measure TRA-1. This comment does not relate to the analysis in the DEIR. No revisions are necessary.
2-42
Comments on EIR report
karen wilburn <[email protected]>
Sat 9/2/2023 3:00 PM
To:General Plan <[email protected]>
Cc:Bob Engler <[email protected]>;David Newman <[email protected]>;Kevin McNamee <[email protected]>;Al Adam <[email protected]>;Mikey T aylor <MT [email protected]>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Iain,
I would like to address the following for the dra EIR. The comments below are on page 46 of the dra. The residents of Newbury Park have expressed concern about traﬃc volumes in the area around the Borchard parcel should the land use be changed. We’ve pointed out the property has limited access points which travel though two land single family roads which cannot be widened. In addi on I’ve recently discovered that Thousand Oaks’ “objecve standards” prohibit cul-de-sacs, dead ends or street barriers in new developments, so it’s possible when a plan is submi ed the city may be unable to require a design which will prevent the parcel from being a shortcut from Borchard to Wendy meaning that traﬃc will be forced onto these two lane roads. Residents have also expressed concern resulng from evacuaons during the 2018 ﬁres.

I just came across this 2019 AP arcle which analyzed the evacuaon problems of the Paradise ﬁre which resulted in so many deaths. It lists Newbury Park including Dos Vientos in the worst 1% of high risk ﬁre zones in the state of populaon to evacuaon routes, yet the EIR seems to dismiss this. I understand this EIR is not a project EIR but it seems simplisc to brush this aside just because the GP has policies to address emergency access, especially when the major roads throughout Newbury Park are already built out and most cannot be widened. I ask that this be more speciﬁcally addressed in the ﬁnal EIR. It doesn’t have to be Borchard speciﬁc.

hps://apnews.com/arcle/california-wildﬁres-evacuaons-redding-ca-state-wire- 6f621c1c54734d0b95d374556c2cf5c0?
campaign_id=49&emc=edit_ca_20210929&instance_id=41569&nl=california-today&regi

Respecully,

Karen Wilburn
213-216-1937

Letter P.4
1 2
2-43
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.4
COMMENTER: Karen Wilburn
DATE: September 9, 2023
Response P.4-1
The commenter states that the residents of Newbury Park have expressed concern about potential traffic volumes around the Borchard parcel as a result of the proposed project. The commenter states the Borchard parcel has limited access points and that development under the proposed project could force traffic onto two lane roads which cannot be widened.

Under TO2045, the vacant Borchard parcel would be designated for Mixed-Use, which could increase traffic volumes. While traffic volume data was used to inform the noise analysis of TO2045 in Section 4.7, Noise, traffic volumes and resulting congestion are not environmental issues analyzed under CEQA. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.4-2
The commenter states that residents have expressed concern over evacuations on the two-lane roads near the Borchard parcel during the 2018 fires. The commenter cites a 2019 article analyzing evacuation problems of the Paradise Fire which lists Newbury Park as the worst one percent of high fire risk zones in the state regarding evacuation routes. The commenter expresses an opinion that the DEIR dismisses this and requests this issue be specifically addressed in the DEIR.

Wildfire evacuation is addressed in Section 4.13, Wildfire, under Impact W-1 in the DEIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.
2-44
Draft General Plan EIR Comments
tony scott <[email protected]>
Fri 9/8/2023 12:48 PM
To:General Plan <[email protected]>
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good afternoon, and thank you for taking my comment.

Question. As our city continues to expand, are there any provisions or further discussion on (noise control) due to the extra vehicles 🚗 that will be high impact to the communities. Such as restrictions on modifications on performance pipes, mufflers for cars or motorcycles 🏍 ???
Which are extremely loud when it’s peaceful when sleeping.

Anthony Scott (residence)
Sent from my iPhone
Letter P.5
1 2-45
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.5
COMMENTER: Tony Scott
DATE: September 8, 2023
Response P.5-1
The commenter asks whether there will be further discussion on noise due to extra vehicles added to the city as the city expands. The commenter specifically asks if there will be restrictions on modifications to performance pipes, and mufflers for cars or motorcycles.

Traffic noise that may result from development facilitated by TO2045 is discussed in Section 4.7, Noise, under Impact NOI-1. Traffic noise impacts were found to be less than significant, except on select roadways (see Mitigation Measure NOI-2) for which traffic noise was found to be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation. Furthermore, regulations regarding vehicle modifications that may increase traffic noise are outside of the purview of the General Plan Update. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.
2-46
William Maple 9/13/23 T.O. EIR Comments of 1 4
2045 General Plan Update
Environmental Impact Report
August 2023

CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Pg. 2-15
Goal C-11: Protect historical and culturally signiﬁcant resources, which contribute to the community's sense of identity
. Who and how are resources established? Years ago
the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board would provide expertise, evaluations and recommendations. Today our City Council does not meet publicly as our Cultural Heritage Board to pro-actively evaluate cultural/historic assets, at risk elements or nominate point of interest or landmark status. A clear mechanism for this preservation role and process has been absent since it was removed from the County.

The attached City of Thousand Oaks Ordinance creating a Cultural Heritage Board form 1980, presents the community with a document highlighting the value placed and tool to ensure the preservation of our unique cultural heritage.

It states: “The purpose of this ordinance is to promote the economic and general welfar
e of th City of Thousand Oak by preserving and protecting____items having special historical or aesthetic character of interest…” My hope is that this General Plan will refer to, and incorporate the goals of our early leaders. Reestablishing an informed, focused and dedicated Cultural Heritage Board would also be a fruitful recommendation.

See attached pdf titled: T.O. Cultural Heritage Brd.pdf

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.4.1 SETTING
C. EXISTING RESOURCES
Timber School House and Timber School Auditorium
Constructed in 1924 and 1948, respectively, the Timber School House and Timber School Auditorium buildings are part of the current Conejo Valley High School campus.

The 1924 Timber School building was designed in the Mission Revival architectural style by Roy C. Wilson, the ﬁrst licensed architect in Ventura County. It is the oldest original school and public building in the Conejo V
alley. The Timber School House and
Timber School Auditorium were designated as historic landmarks by the Thousand Oaks Cultural Heritage Board in 2004 (City of Thousand Oaks 2023). (Timber Schoolhouse and adjacent Auditorium are both a combined Ventura County Landmark #166) and should be noted as such in this document) See: VENTURA COUNTY HISTORICAL LANDMARKS & POINTS OF INTEREST listing; thir
d addition, May 2016, pages: 50-51
https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/programs/chb/Points_of_Interest.pdf Letter P.6
1 2
2-47
William Maple 9/13/23 T.O. EIR Comments of 2 4
[#166] Timber School House and Auditorium Built 1924 and 1948 Designated July 13, 2004.
1872 Newbury Road, Newbury Park, CA
The original two-room Timber School was built ca 1924 by Adolph Schroeder and designed by Roy C Wilson, ar
chitect, and it is the second school building to occupy this site. There is a later classroom which was added to the east side in 1955, and to the west is the auditorium structure added in 1948. The School is a simple one- story structure built in the Mission Revival style topped by a low gable roof that is capped by a small octagonal cupola that also served as a working bell tower. The Timber School Auditorium was added to the west side of the schoolhouse in 1948.

The auditorium was also designed by Roy C. Wilson, providing a link both aesthetically and historically to the earlier 1924 building.

4.4.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
PG 4.4-9
a. Methodology and Signiﬁcance Thresholds Methodology
The assessment of potential impacts to historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources were informed based on a review of readily available information from the City’s Public Information Oﬃce website. In addition, this assessment includes a summary of the City’
s consultation eﬀorts pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18. As a pr
ogrammatic document, this Program EIR presents a citywide assessment of the proposed project. Because the Program EIR is a long-term document intended to guide actions for many years into the future, this analysis relies on program-level and qualitative evaluation.

NOTE: I have been a resident of the Conejo Valley and have noticed a lack of pro- active evaluation of historic assets and a minimal eﬀort to document existing elements that may be signiﬁcant or at-risk. The listing of Historic Landmarks on the City’s website should be r
eviewed by local historians and third-party professional researchers for accuracy.
“Readily available” information is extremely limited, so I suggest a survey be created to evaluate elements within the Conejo older than 45 years to determine cultural and historical relevancy proactively. If our community is truly interested in historic conservation, such a survey would create the groundwork for future preservation eﬀorts. Rather than debate multiple development proposals, pursue expensive legal challenges and generated a multitude cultural heritage r eviews—a overview survey, by
professionals recognized by their historic evaluation credentials, could eliminate decades of debate and potential historic loss.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
PG 4.4-10
2 cont.
3 4
2-48
William Maple 9/13/23 T.O. EIR Comments of 3 4
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the signiﬁcance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Impact CUL-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT

WOULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE ADVERSE CHANGES TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

As discussed in Section 4.4.1, Setting, ther
e are 14 resources listed in either the NRHP ,
CRHR, or designated locally as a landmark or point of interest.

Why have we limited this scope to only 14 listed resources?” The are potential cultural r
esources like the Eichler District that could easily be considered points of interest to the City, State, County and Nation. We could substantially reduce CEQA debates and loss of potential cultural assets by looking beyond this narrow 14 item list. The proposed project would guide the general distribution, location, and extent of the various land uses in Thousand Oaks. Currently, there are no development plans included in the proposed project which would substantially alter a historical resource; however, the proposed project could facilitate development on parcels containing buildings that meet the age threshold for potential historical resources, pursuant to CEQA. The proposed project could also facilitate development near historical resources, which could potentially alter the historic context of the resources. The proposed project’s Conservation Element includes the following policies which would minimize impacts to historical resources within Thousand Oaks:

• Policy 11.1: Cultural Resource Identiﬁcation and Recognition. Identify and, as appr
opriate, recognize signiﬁcant cultural resources by identifying signiﬁcant cultural r
esources with landmark designation plaques, directional signage, self-guided tours, programs, and events.

PG 4.4-11

These policies would help reduce impacts to (existing and potential) historical resources (and districts); however, they do not require formal historical resource evaluations or the consideration of measures to reduce potential impacts to historical resources. As such, development facilitated by the proposed project could result in substantial alterations to historical resources. This would be a potentially signiﬁcant impact to historical r
esources, and implementation of mitigation measures is required. (A Conejo Valley Historic Survey as suggested above would avoid much of the “potentially signiﬁcant impacts,” since a developer would know beforehand the status and situation as any given pr
operty)
Mitigation Measures
PG 4.4-11
4 cont.
5 2-49
William Maple 9/13/23 T.O. EIR Comments of 4 4
CUL-1 Historical Resources
Prior to project approval, the project applicant shall submit a report to the City that identiﬁes any historical age features (i.e., structures over 45 years of age) proposed to be alter
ed or demolished. If historical-age features are present, the applicant shall submit a historical resources evaluation to the City prepared in areas that contains buildings, structures, objects, sites, landscape/site plans, or other features that are 45 years of age or older, by a qualiﬁed architectural historian or historian Rather than each project applicant handpick their own evaluative entity, I believe the implementation of an overall Conejo Valley Historic Survey would result in a more open and informative evaluation. Rather than a whack-a-mole approach to cultural and historical evaluation—an established and balanced survey would inform residents, developers and staﬀ, to status and nature of any site over 45 years. Unfortunately the curr
ent listing of the Conejo’s Historical Resources has been an amalgamation of information gathered over the years from sometimes unvetted or possibly self-interest resources that may be outdated. A professional third-party contribution would signiﬁcantly increase the value and accuracy of any resource list evaluation. Future generations could depend on this r
esource documentation as source of pride in the
unique qualities and heritage of their community.
5 cont.
2-50
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.6
COMMENTER: William Maple
DATE: September 13, 2023
Response P.6-1
The commenter asks how resources included in Goal C-11 of the proposed General Plan update are established. The commenter expresses concern that a cultural heritage board does not currently meet publicly to evaluate cultural/historic assets.

This comment pertains to the substance of a General Plan goal and does not pertain to the environmental analysis of historic and cultural resources found in Section 4.3, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.6-2
The commenter states that Timber Schoolhouse and the adjacent auditorium are a combined Ventura County Landmark (#166) and should be noted as such in the existing resources section of the DEIR.

The City thanks the commenter for the additional detail provided regarding the Timber Schoolhouse and Auditorium. While valuable information, this level of detail is not relevant to the analysis in the DEIR since no changes to either structure are proposed under the project. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.6-3
The commenter expresses concern over the cultural resources analysis included on page 4.4-9 of the DEIR. Specifically, the commenter states the opinion that “readily available” information about the cultural resources in the city posted on the City’s Public Information Office website is extremely limited. The comment suggests that a survey be created to evaluate elements within the Conejo Valley that are older than 45 years to determine cultural and historical relevancy proactively.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s concern over the lack of a proactive historic asset evaluation and the commenter’s suggestion to conduct a survey of historic assets. Such a survey is outside of the scope of the General Plan and subsequent analysis in the DEIR. However, as included under Mitigation Measure CUL-1, project applicants may be required to submit a historic resources evaluation when historical age features (i.e., features over 45 years of age with potential historic significance) are involved. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.6-4
The commenter expresses concern over the cultural resources analysis included on page 4.4-10 of the DEIR. Specifically, the commenter questions why the scope of the analysis is limited to 14 listed resources. The commenter suggests there are other resources in the area that should be considered such as the Eichler District.

As pointed out by the commenter, the DEIR acknowledges that TO2045 could potentially alter the historic context of historic resources. While only 14 resources are listed in Section 4.4.1, Mitigation 2-51
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Measure CUL-1 would ensure that specific development proposals would include a historic resource evaluation, when applicable. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.6-5
The commenter expresses concern over the cultural resources analysis included on page 4.4-11 of the DEIR. Specifically, the commenter reiterates the need for the survey they recommend in comment P.6-3 and expresses the opinion that such a survey would avoid potentially significant impacts to historical resources. The commenter expresses the opinion that an overall Conejo Valley Historic Survey should be done in lieu of individual project level surveys required by Mitigation Measure CUL-1 as included in the DEIR.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s suggestion regarding a Conejo Valley Historic Survey.

Please refer to Response P.6-3. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-52

1534 N. Moorpark Road, #337
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
Main: 805.292.1622
Fax: 805.292.9662
www.cohenlanduselaw.com

‘

September 15, 2023
Sent Via Email: [email protected]

Iain Holt, Senior Planner, AICP
Community Development Department
Planning Division
2100 thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362

Re: General Plan Update/Draft EIR/Comment Letter

Dear Mr. Holt:

The current draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) states that there are other properties in the City, without naming them, that would be appropriate multi-family residential sites. This is to request that such properties be identified in the Alternatives Section. The comprehensive DEIR relates to the General Plan Update as the "project" and does not evaluate impacts and mitigation measures for the identified multi-family properties on the proposed amended Land Use exhibits.

As it may be implied that the environmental evaluations apply to the identified properties in the DEIR without specific details of application so, too, they should also apply to the currently unidentified properties that the City Council approves for adding to the Land Use Map as residentially qualified.

Among such unnamed properties the Council could consider are the Kohl's Shopping Center and its abutting undeveloped acreage on Newbury Road at Kelly Drive, the Seventh-Day Adventist undeveloped property northerly of the regional shopping center known as The Village at Newbury Park, the Cohan Family Albertsons Market shopping center and adjacent undeveloped lot on Reino Road at Maurice Drive and others. The foregoing is offered as appropriate examples.

It is offered that adding this information and a staff generated list of applicable properties to the Alternatives Section of the DEIR in progress would not delay State Housing Department approval of the City's Housing Element nor the General Plan Update in process and would provide an expedited and expanded inventory of properties for RHNA consideration.

Charles W. Cohen
Direct Dial: 805.630.5478
Email: [email protected]
Letter P.7
1 3
4 2
2-53
Ian Holt

Page 2 ends

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the well drafted DEIR and look forward to participating in further discussion of our City’s future planning effort.

Respectfully submitted,

ss//Chuck Cohen

Charles W. Cohen
Cohen Land Use Law LLP

cc: Andrew Powers, City Manager
Kelvin Parker, Community Development Director

4 cont.
2-54
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.7
COMMENTER: Charles W. Cohen, Cohen Land Use Law LLP
DATE: September 15, 2023
Response P.7-1
The commenter requests that other properties in the city appropriate for multi-family residential sites as indicated in the DEIR be explicitly identified in the alternatives section of the DEIR.

The commenter did not identify where in the DEIR it is stated that there are other properties in the City that would be appropriate multi-family residential sites. Land uses analyzed in the DEIR are informed by TO2045 and the selection process does not pertain to the environmental analysis in the DEIR. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.7-2
The commenter requests that the DEIR evaluate impacts and mitigation measures for the identified multi-family properties on the proposed amended land use exhibits. The commenter states these evaluations should also apply to the currently unidentified properties referenced in comment P.7-1.

The City emphasizes that analysis of TO2045 in the DEIR is programmatic (i.e., describes and assesses policy-level commitments, not specific development proposals) and includes assumptions about development patterns given the lack of specific site plans. Mitigation measures found within the DEIR would apply to all development facilitated by the General Plan in the city. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.7-3
The commenter suggests that the city consider the Kohl’s shopping center and its abutting undeveloped acreage on Newbury Road at Kelley drive, the Seventh-Day Adventist undeveloped property northerly of the regional shopping center known as The Village at Newbury Park, and the Cohan Family Albertsons Market shopping center on Reino Road at Maurice Drive to be included in the proposed project as sites that would be appropriate for multi-family residential sites.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s suggestions for potential sites that could accommodate multi-family residential units. This comment does not pertain to environmental analysis in the DEIR.

No revisions are necessary.

Response P.7-4
The commenter states that adding the aforementioned information and a staff generated list of applicable properties to the alternatives section of the DEIR would not delay State Housing Department approval of the City’s housing element nor the General Plan update and would provide an expedited and expanded inventory of properties for RHNA consideration.

The City thanks the commenter for their interest in the project. The timeline for adoption of City planning documents, such as TO2045 or Housing Element, is not relevant to environmental analysis of TO2045. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.
2-55
1 Hannah Bireschi
From: Kathy Naoum <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 4:18 PM
To: General Plan
Subject: General Plan Update EIR Comment
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

September 22, 2023
Dear Mr. Holt,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Thousand Oaks General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report.

My comments focus on Section 4.11 Transportation and Appendix D.

The proposed mitigation measures will reduce future VMT from a significant and unavoidable impact to less than considerable impact. Appendix D lists out the goals, which as part of the General Plan Mobility Element, would reduce VMT to a less then considerable impact. Below is Goal M-1 from Appendix D:

It is my understanding that the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) will be updated on as required basis. If, and when the 2019 ATP and 2021 LRSP are updated, then based on the existing Plans’ inclusion in the Goals/Mitigation Measures of the GPU EIR any recommendation/projects currently included in the 2019 ATP and/or 2021 LRSP cannot be removed or deleted. An updated ATP and/or LRSP can only add bicycle and pedestrian projects.

The EIR should be VERY clear that existing projects included in the plan CAN NOT be deleted in future updates of the ATP or LRSP.

Figure 4.11-2 Bicycle Network in the Planning Area
The map should be revised to make clear what is existing and what is proposed for bike lane striping Thousand Oaks Boulevard between Moorpark Road and the east City limit. A Class II bike lane is currently striped on the southside of Thousand Oaks Boulevard east of Lakeview Canyon Road to the east City limit. The balance of Thousand Oaks Boulevard is Class III with Sharrows in some sections. The 2019 ATP and 2021 LRSP includes a Class II bike lane on all of Thousand Oaks Boulevard. As shown on the section of Figure 4.11-2 below, it’s very confusing what is existing and what is proposed for Thousand Oaks Boulevard.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Letter P.8
1 2
3 2-56
2 Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Naoum
1617 York Place, TO 91362
3 cont.
2-57
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.8
COMMENTER: Kathy Naoum
DATE: September 22, 2023
Response P.8-1
The commenter thanks the city for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR.

The City thanks for the commenter for their interest in the project. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.8-2
The commenter expresses concern over the inclusion of the 2019 Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and 2021 Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) in the goals of the proposed General Plan update used as mitigation for the significant and unavoidable transportation impacts discussed in the DEIR. The commenter suggests the EIR be very clear that existing projects included in the plan cannot be deleted in future updates of the ATP or LRSP.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s concern regarding the ATP and LRSP. Revisions to the ATP and LRSP are a separate planning effort from TO2045 and are outside of the scope of the DEIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.8-3
The commenter suggests that Figure 4.11-2 in the DEIR be edited to make it more clear what bike lanes are existing and what bike lanes are proposed on Thousand Oaks Boulevard between Moorpark Road and the east city limit.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s confusion about Figure 4.11-2. The DEIR provides an overview of bicycle facilities in the city, but, as no specific bicycle infrastructure plans are proposed as part of the project, a high-level overview is appropriate. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-58
Form Submission - Comment Form
Squarespace <[email protected]>
Sat 9/23/2023 10:59 AM
To:General Plan <[email protected]>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Sent via form submission from T oaks2045
Name: Sayde Christ
Email: [email protected]
Message: Hello, I am writing to ask that there be no land use change at the Borchard Parcel. I’ve lived in Casa Conejo, Newbury Park my entire life, an NPHS class of 2012 graduate. My dad grew up in NP as well, NPHS class of 1987. While most of my friends ventured out to bigger cities or other states come graduation, I chose to stay in little NP, excited for the day that my kids get to grow up as part of the NPGS, NPPB, Walnut, Sequoia, and NPHS families. I strongly feel that the change of the Borchard Parcel would negatively impact what Newbury Park is. There’s such a thing as growing too fast, especially for a small town built around a main road that runs one lane in each direction. If those reading this haven’t spent much time in NP over the years, you should know that the traffic between the top of the grade and Ventu Park exit has substantially grown worse over the years. You can’t get on this section of the freeway anymore without immediately sitting in standstill traffic - merging onto the freeway at Wendy before the forced exit to Borchard can be a nightmare. I can’t imagine adding an entire community of homes that will cause accidents, added traffic, and/or rerouted traffic through the side streets and surrounding neighborhoods to avoid what will surely become an impossible merge. It has been reported by numerous individuals that the owner of this land has taken part in deceptive and downright unethical methods to getting his way - placing false signs on said land and buying alcohol for barely-legal kids to sway their opinions being just a couple. This land owner clearly doesn’t understand or value what a slow, suburb life means to those of us who are second and third generations Newbury Park families and is only out to make a buck, whatever the cost. Please do not clear the pathway to change NP for the worse, because those of us who grew up here and are building our lives here will have to leave.

Manage Submissions
Does this submission look like spam? Report it here.

Letter P.9
1 2
3 2-59
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.9
COMMENTER: Sayde Christ
DATE: September 23, 2023
Response P.9-1
The commenter requests there be no land use change at the Borchard parcel. The commenter states they have lived in Casja Conejo, Newbury Park their whole life.

Response P.9-2
The commenter expresses an opinion that the change of the Borchard parcel would negatively impact Newbury Park. Specifically, the commenter expresses concern over traffic in the area currently, and the added traffic that would come with the proposed change to the Borchard parcel.

Traffic congestion and delay (as measured by the traditional level of service methodology) is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA, but conflicts with policies governing the circulation system (including bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and roadways), VMT, emergency access, and safety hazards are discussed in detail in the DEIR. Future development proposals may include traffic analysis. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.9-3
The commenter states that numerous individuals have reported that the owner of the Borchard parcel has been deceptive and unethical by placing false signs on the land and buying alcohol for barely-legal kids to sway their opinions on this topic.

The property owner’s moral character is not relevant to environmental analysis under CEQA. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.
2-60
1 From: Matthew Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2023 8:43 PM
To: General Plan
Subject: Draft EIR
[You don't oŌen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟﬁcaƟon ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,

AŌer reviewing the DraŌ EIR it is clear that the ideas and thinking of this plan beneﬁt everyone but the residents of Thousand Oaks. The data that has been collected doesn’t include how out of sync the road infrastructure is to handle more cars. Take for example the mind numbing transiƟon of the 23 to the 101. How many more accidents have occurred? Reviewing the plan now is taking about bring more traﬃc to an already busy street borchard. Have you seen how many cars are lined up in the morning or aŌernoon? The signals are beyond awful for anyone that lives close. Now there’s a thought to create a bridge by borchard? I mean where are the 5 extra lanes that are needed just to handle the current traﬃc now?

It’s in my best interest to oﬀer the suggesƟon of rethinking this enƟre plan and talk to residents that this impacts. This is far from the Thousand Oaks that I was raised in, and now my kids will have to see the consequences of this decision.

Please put your thinking caps on and ﬁgure out other ways to keep residents happy and safe.

Sincerely,
MaƩhew Lee
Resident of T.O. for the past 35 years.

Letter P.10
1 2
2-61
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.10
COMMENTER: Matthew Lee
DATE: September 23, 2023
Response P.10-1
The commenter expresses an opinion that the project would not benefit residents of Thousand Oaks due to traffic considerations.

Traffic congestion and delay (as measured by the traditional level of service methodology) is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA, but conflicts with policies governing the circulation system (including bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and roadways), VMT, emergency access, and safety hazards are discussed in the DEIR. Future development proposals may include traffic analysis. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.10-1
The commenter expresses an opinion that the plan itself needs to be rethought.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the General Plan. This comment does not pertain to the environmental analysis found within the DEIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-62

Page 1 ends

SEPTEMBER 25, 2023

Iain Holt, Senior Planner
City of Thousand Oaks
Community Development
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, California 91362
Email: [email protected]

Re: Comments on the EIR for the Public Draft General Plan Update 2045

Dear Mr. Holt:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft 2045 General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Macerich supports the City’s effort to update its General Plan and the stated goal of the draft General Plan Update to develop a business-friendly streamlining of the entitlement process. We offer these comments to provide suggestions on how the City could improve streamlining of the CEQA process for individual projects consistent with the requirements and goals of various statutes and CEQA Guidelines. We also ask that the City consider our comments on the Draft General Plan Update in its analysis in the EIR and the other matters addressed in this letter.

For air quality, noise and traffic mitigation measures identified below that are included as General Plan Update policies, we suggest that the City retain flexibility by incorporating these as CEQA mitigation rather than including the mitigation details as policy items in the General Plan Update. Including these as CEQA mitigation measures will achieve the City’s goals of reducing environmental impacts to the extent feasible and will allow for flexibility and substitution of equivalent mitigation in the future. Retention of these as mitigation measures will also facilitate CEQA compliant streamlining for individual projects by allowing General Plan consistent projects to tier or otherwise rely upon the analysis and mitigation measures in this EIR in future CEQA analysis consistent with applicable law. Given the 20 year time frame of the General Plan and the State’s emphasis on the expedient development of housing to address existing housing deficits, this type of flexibility is especially encouraged. Incorporating these measures into the General Plan as policies has several disadvantages. For example, some of the identified policies are imposed without allowance for feasibility or available technology and may not be feasible or achievable for a particular site. Imposition of those measures as General Plan policies could inadvertently restrict development the City would like to encourage for a site or require a General Plan amendment even where equivalent mitigation is available or where the mitigation specified in the General Plan policy is infeasible for the site. Further, as technology changes, some of the impacts identified in the EIR (i.e., Air Quality Impacts from cars and trucks or Letter P.11
1 2
3 2-63

Page 2 ends

construction equipment) may lessen and the mitigation required in the General Plan policy may not be required.

Air Quality. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (Draft EIR at p. 4.2-18) incorporates Conservation Policy 10.7 in the draft General Plan Update as a CEQA mitigation measure. As described in the EIR, Conservation Policy 10.7 requires certain projects to prepare a construction health risk assessment. We could not locate this policy in the draft General Plan Update, where the last listed policy for air quality is Conservation Policy 10.6, and it appears that the Draft EIR is proposing that the General Plan Update add this policy. For the reasons specified above, we request that the requirements of Conservation Policy 10.7 in the General Plan Update be removed as a land use policy, be addressed exclusively as mitigation measure AQ-1 and, to focus on environmental impacts, be modified to read in its entirety as follows:

“Require new development that is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, will take longer than 2 months, or does not utilize construction equipment that is USEPA Tier 4, fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter, or uses alternative fuel, to prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to identify potential health risk impacts. If the results of the HRA indicate a significant impact, the HRA assessment shall recommend specific mitigation measures to be implemented that will reduce potential exposure to toxic air contaminants to the extent feasible.”

Similarly, General Plan Conservation Policy 10.6 imposes a requirement for an HRA for sensitive receptors that does not take into account feasibility of mitigation or establish any significance criteria. For the reasons specified above, we request that the requirements of Conservation Policy 10.6 in the General Plan Update be removed from the General Plan and made a mitigation measure in the EIR and be modified to include thresholds of significance, feasibility limits on implementation of mitigation, and provide a specific list of cost effective, feasible, and effective mitigation measures to choose from that may be used by projects to mitigate any significant impacts.

Noise. Mitigation measure NOI-2 (Draft EIR at p. 4.7-32) implements Vehicle Noise Reduction Measures by requiring the City to fund a fair share mitigation program based on a Traffic Noise Mitigation Study and specifies that the mitigation measures may include but not be limited to sound barrier walls and special roadway paving. While this measure specifies a city- wide noise assessment, it specifically identifies two roadway segments as having significant impacts and requires the City to establish a fair share program to address impacts. It is not clear if the proposal would impose fair share obligations only on new impacts, as permitted by law, or to seek to resolve existing deficits, which is not permissible. For example, at Moorpark Road between Hillcrest Drive and Thousand Oaks Boulevard, the impact being mitigated is an imperceptible increase while the existing condition exceeds City standards. Any mitigation should be specifically tailored to only assess fees for new impacts. In addition, while the Draft EIR concludes that operational traffic noise is significant and unavoidable in specified locations, 3 cont.
4 5
6 7
2-64

Page 3 ends

it also acknowledges (at pp. 4.7-31-32) that the cost versus benefit ratio of sound barriers and special asphalt materials may make these mitigation measures unreasonable or infeasible as they may be cost prohibitive at certain locations or infeasible due to limited effectiveness of alternative asphalt materials. We respectfully request that NOI-2 be modified to tailor the fair share program as indicated above and to address feasibility and include this assessment of effectiveness, long term viability and cost benefit ratio in the mitigation recommended by the Traffic Noise Reduction Study required by NOI-2. To streamline the CEQA process for individual projects, we also request that the EIR specify the analysis and suite of cost effective, feasible, and effective mitigation measures to choose from that may be used by projects in the interim until the Traffic Noise Reduction Study recommendations are adopted.

VMT Analysis. With respect to Impact TRA-2, the Draft EIR finds a significant and unavoidable impact for VMT pending adoption of City VMT Guidelines. To reach this significance conclusion, the Draft EIR uses a threshold of 15 percent lower per capita and per employee VMT than existing regional development consistent with the OPR Technical Advisory. The Draft EIR (at pp. 4.11-14-17) acknowledges that the City currently conducts VMT analysis on a case by case basis and plans to do so until VMT guidelines are adopted as specified in General Plan Action M- A.7. To facilitate CEQA streamlining before the City adopts its VMT guidance, we respectfully request that since the City determined VMT impacts for the draft General Plan Update to be significant and unavoidable, the City retain the fifteen percent lower per capita and employee threshold standard for individual projects until the City adopts its VMT guidance. In addition, we request that the City provide a list of potential mitigation measures to select as applicable to individual projects for VMT reductions.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments and concerns.

Sincerely,

Jon Stoeckly
Vice President, Development

7 cont.
8 9
2-65
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.11
COMMENTER: Jon Stoeckly, Vice President of Development, Macerich DATE: September 25, 2023
Response P.11-1
The commenter thanks the city for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. The commenter expresses support for the update to the General Plan and the goal to develop a business-friendly streamlining of the entitlement process. The commenter states that their comments are intended to provide suggestions on how the city could improve the streamlining of the CEQA process for individual projects in the future.

The City thanks the commenter’s for their interest in the project. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.11-2
The commenter suggests the city incorporate mitigation measures identified as general plan policies for air quality, noise, and traffic into CEQA mitigation measures rather than policies in the General Plan in order to allow for flexibility and substitution of equivalent mitigation in the future. The commenter states that retention of these as mitigation measures will also facilitate CEQA compliant streamlining for individual projects by allowing General Plan consistent projects to tier or otherwise rely upon the analysis and mitigation measures in this EIR in future CEQA analysis consistent with applicable law.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opinion that mitigation measures not be adopted as policies, but as standalone mitigation measures. When future development projects are streamlined by analyzing them for General Plan consistency, consistency with policies would also be required.

Therefore, whether a mitigation measure is integrated into TO2045 as a policy or included in the DEIR, it would be implemented for a project that is facilitated by the General Plan. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.11-3
The commenter expresses the opinion that incorporating mitigation for air quality, noise and traffic into General Plan policies would be disadvantageous because it could restrict development the City would like to encourage or require a General Plan amendment even where equivalent mitigation is available or where the mitigation specified in the General Plan policy is infeasible for the site. The commenter also states the opinion that over time technology may lessen some of the significant impacts discussed in the DEIR and mitigation may no longer be required.

As described above under Response P.11-2, inclusion of mitigation measures as General Plan policies would have no functional difference for projects facilitated by TO2045. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.11-4
The commenter recommends that Conservation Policy 10.7 which is proposed as part of mitigation measure AQ-1 on page 4.2-18 of the DEIR be removed as a land use policy and addressed exclusively as mitigation measure AQ-1. The commenter recommends mitigation measure AQ-1 be amended. 2-66
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
The City confirms that Policy 10.7 would be added to the General Plan upon implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and is not currently in the draft General Plan Update. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 was revised (see Response P.12-3) to provide greater flexibility. No further revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.11-5
The commenter expresses the opinion that General Plan Conservation Policy 10.6 imposes a requirement for an HRA for sensitive receptors that does not take into account feasibility of mitigation or establish any significance criteria. The commenter requests that this policy be removed from the general plan and made a mitigation measure in the DEIR. The commenter also requests it be modified to include thresholds of significance, feasibility limits on implementation of mitigation, and to include a specific list of cost effective, feasible, and effective mitigation measures to choose from that may be used by projects to mitigate any significant impacts.

Please refer to Response P.11-2 regarding inclusion of mitigation as a policy. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.11-6
The commenter asks whether the fair share mitigation program included in mitigation measure NOI-2 would impose fair share obligations only on new impacts or to seek to resolve existing deficits. The commenter states that it is not permissible for this program to resolve existing deficits.

The commenter recommends that any mitigation be specifically tailored to only assess fees for new impacts.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would apply only to new impacts on the environment. Environmental impacts under CEQA are based on the difference between existing conditions and proposed changes. Development facilitated by TO2045 that would introduce traffic noise impacts above the thresholds included in the DEIR would be subject to implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2.

As the commenter suggests, the fair share program would not be utilized to resolve existing deficits, but only apply for a net increase of any new impacts. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.11-7
The commenter requests that mitigation measure NOI-2 be modified to tailor the fair share program to address feasibility and include an assessment of effectiveness, long term viability and cost benefit ratio in the mitigation recommended by the Traffic Noise Reduction Study required by mitigation measure NOI-2. The commenter also requests that the DEIR specify the analysis and suite of cost effective, feasible, and effective mitigation measures to choose from that may be used by projects in the interim until the Traffic Noise Reduction Study recommendations are adopted.

The two noise reduction measures included under Mitigation Measure NOI-2 are examples, but would not be required. Site specific measures would be developed when development proposals are submitted and a Traffic Noise Mitigation Study is prepared, if necessary. The applicant, in conjunction with the City, would identify feasible traffic noise mitigation measures. Please also refer to Response P.12-4 for further information. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-67
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response P.11-8
The commenter requests that the DEIR specify the analysis and suite of cost effective, feasible, and effective mitigation measures to choose from that may be used by projects in the interim until the Traffic Noise Reduction Study recommendations are adopted.

Please refer to response P.11-7. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.11-9
The commenter requests that the city retain the fifteen percent lower per capita and employee threshold standard for individual projects until the City adopts its VMT guidance. The commenter also requests the city to provide a list of potential mitigation measures to select as applicable to individual projects for VMT reductions.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s request for retention of the 15 percent below existing conditions VMT threshold and a list of potential mitigation measures. Until Implementation Action M-A.7 is implemented, and as discussed in Section 4.11, Transportation, on page 4.11-13, the 15 percent threshold “may not necessarily be utilized by the City as lead agency for future projects.

Lead agencies have the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4). The City anticipates to adopt and implement VMT Analysis Guidelines after adopting TO2045 in compliance with Implementation Action M-A.7, discussed above. Therefore, the 15 percent lower per capita and per employee VMT than existing regional development threshold used to analyze VMT of the proposed project in accordance with the OPR Technical Advisory may not necessarily be used for future projects in Thousand Oaks. As lead agency, the City may choose to adopt a lower threshold than OPR’s recommended threshold due to its geographical location relative to employment opportunities, topography, and other considerations. Until Implementation Action M-A.7 is implemented, the City may continue to apply VMT significance thresholds on a case-by-case basis per the City’s interim administrative policy on VMT Analysis for CEQA Compliance.” No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.
2-68

5178583.3 1

Thousand Oaks Marketplace, L.P.
9440 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Beverly Hills, CA 90210

September 25, 2023

Iain Holt, Senior Planner
City of Thousand Oaks
Community Development
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, California 91362
Email: [email protected]

RE: City of Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report

Dear Mr. Holt:

Thousand Oaks Marketplace, L.P. is the owner of Janss Marketplace, a community shopping and entertainment destination located at the intersection of Moorpark Road and Hillcrest Drive. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the City of Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (the “Draft EIR”).

One of the objectives of the proposed Thousand Oaks 2045 General Plan Update (the “General Plan Update”) is to revitalize Janss Marketplace as a higher-density, mixed-use area that would include new residential uses with a density of 20 to 30 dwelling units per acre. Pursuant to proposed Implementation Action LU-A.7, the City of Thousand Oaks (“City”) would “[c]oordinate with property owners of key opportunity sites,” including the Moorpark Road/Janss Marketplace sub-area, “to prepare Specific Plan or Master Plan efforts” to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan Update. We support the goals and objectives of the General Plan Update and look forward to working with the City on the development of a Specific Plan for the Janss Marketplace site.

The Draft EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects of the General Plan Update and identifies various mitigation measures that are intended to avoid or reduce these potential effects.

Although the mitigation measures generally concern actions that would be taken by the City, many of these measures would apparently be applied to development projects as part of the City’s approval process for such projects in the future and would presumably be incorporated into any Specific Plans for opportunity sites such as the Janss Marketplace. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City consider the following comments regarding certain mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR.

Letter P.12
1 2
3 2-69

5178583.3 2

Mitigation Measure AQ-1

Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is intended to address construction- and operational-related air emissions generated by individual development projects carried out under the General Plan Update, which could potentially result in adverse impacts to local air quality. Mitigation Measure AQ-1, as proposed in the Draft EIR, provides as follows:

AQ-1: Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy that Requires Construction HRA

To reduce impacts of substantial pollutant concentrations on sensitive receptors, the City shall adopt the following General Plan policy in the Conservation Element to be implemented as part of the project approval process:

 Policy 10.7: Require new development that is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, will take longer than 2 months, or does not utilize construction equipment that is USEPA Tier 4, fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter, or uses alternative fuel to prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to identify potential health risk impacts. Based on the results of the HRA, the City shall require mitigation measures as necessary, to reduce potential exposure to toxic air contaminants.

As proposed in the Draft EIR, Policy 10.7 would effectively require that a HRA be prepared for any development project that is (1) within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, (2) will take longer than 2 months, or (3) does not utilize certain construction equipment that meets specified criteria.

Because the proposed policy uses the disjunctive “or,” any development project with a construction duration of longer than 2 months would require a HRA, including projects that are not within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors and utilize only construction equipment that meets the specified criteria. Since the construction duration for virtually any development project would exceed 2 months, the proposed policy would effectively require a HRA for every new development project.

Based on our discussions with qualified air quality experts, it is our understanding that a HRA is typically required only where a source of air toxics is being placed near (e.g., within 1,000 feet of) residential uses or other sensitive receptors. Absent such proximity, a HRA is generally not necessary. Moreover, we are informed that a HRA is typically not necessary for exposures less than 5 months in duration.

Accordingly, we recommend that the first sentence of proposed Policy 10.7 be revised as follows:

Policy 10.7: Require new development that is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, will take longer than 2 5 months, or and does not utilize construction equipment that is USEPA Tier 4, fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter, or uses alternative fuel to prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to identify potential health risk impacts.
3 cont.
2-70

5178583.3 3

Mitigation Measure NOI-2

Mitigation Measure NOI-2 is intended “to minimize roadway vehicle noise impacts on roadways that would generate significant traffic noise increases, which include Moorpark Road between Hillcrest Drive and Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Hillcrest Drive between Lynn Road and Moorpark Road.” (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-31.) Mitigation Measure NOI-2, as proposed in the Draft EIR, provides as follows:

NOI-2: Implement Roadway Vehicle Noise Reduction Measures

The City shall implement a developer fair share mitigation program to fund the following measures for projects operated on the following roadway segments in the city: Moorpark Road between Hillcrest Drive and Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Hillcrest Drive between Lynn Road and Moorpark Road.

 Sound Barrier Walls. Construct sound barriers (e.g., walls or solid fences) along impacted roadways where there are no driveways that would break continuity and along the residential portions or other sensitive receiver locations of such roadways. The sound barriers would be continuous from grade to top, with no cracks or gaps, and have a minimum surface density of four pounds per square foot and a minimum height of six feet, as measured from the base elevation; and/or

 Special Roadway Paving. Install “quiet pavement” roadway improvements, such as rubberized asphalt or open-grade asphalt concrete overlays along impacted roadway segments where sound barriers are determined not to be feasible.

The proposed “fair share” mitigation program is not adequately described. Among other things, it’s unclear how the required “fair share” contribution would be determined.

Furthermore, we have serious concerns regarding the concept of installing “sound barrier walls” along roadways that traverse commercial and mixed-use areas. Among other things, sound walls would conflict with the goal of enhancing the “walkability” of such roadways and could have a negative economic impact on businesses in the area due to decreased visibility. In addition, sound walls could have secondary environmental 6 4
2-71

5178583.3 4

impacts that have not been evaluated, including potential impacts on aesthetics and public safety.

The Draft EIR acknowledges that “the costs versus benefits ratio” of sound barrier walls “in relation to the number of benefitted households may not be reasonable in all cases.” [Draft EIR, p. 4.7-31 (emphasis added).] Similarly, regarding the concept of installing special roadway paving, the Draft EIR states as follows:

Although the amount of noise reduction from rubberized/special asphalt materials would be sufficient to avoid the predicted noise increase due to roadway vehicles in some cases, the potential up-front and ongoing maintenance costs are such that the cost versus benefits ratio may not be reasonable. In addition, the study found that noise levels increased over time due to pavement raveling, with the chance of noise level increases being higher after a 10-year period. [Draft EIR, p. 4.7-31 (emphasis added).]

Ultimately, the Draft EIR concedes that “it is not known whether implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would be feasible and reasonable in all cases to mitigate operational traffic noise levels to less than significant, and this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.” (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-31.)

In summary, there are significant questions regarding the efficacy and feasibility of proposed Mitigation Measure NOI-2. We also question the wisdom of committing to a “fair share” program that has yet to be developed for the purpose of funding improvements that have not been fully vetted from a cost-benefit standpoint and may be contrary to established City policy. Furthermore, as noted in the Draft EIR, the potential noise impact will be “significant and unavoidable” whether or not this measure is adopted. For these reasons, we strongly urge the City to refrain from adopting this proposed mitigation measure.

Mitigation Measure PAL-1

Mitigation Measure PAL-1 is intended to address potential impacts to paleontological resources that may result from individual development projects carried out under the General Plan Update. Mitigation Measure PAL-1, as proposed in the Draft EIR, provides in relevant part as follows:

PAL-1: Retention of Qualified Professional Paleontologist

Prior to submittal of a discretionary development application in areas underlain by high or undetermined sensitivity geologic units . . . the City shall require a Qualified Professional Paleontologist [as defined by the SVP (2010)] to be retained by the project applicant to determine the project’s potential to significantly impact paleontological resources according to SVP (2010) standards.

If necessary, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall recommend mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a 5 cont.
6 7
2-72

5178583.3 5

less-than-significant level. These measures may include, but not be limited to, implementation of a Worker Environmental Awareness Program, on-site paleontological monitoring, and fossil salvage, if applicable. The City shall review and approve the Qualified Professional Paleontologist’s findings and recommendation. All recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans prior to issuance of a grading permit.

As proposed, this measure would require the retention of a qualified paleontologist and the assessment of potential impacts on paleontological resources “prior to submittal of a discretionary development application …” (emphasis added). In our view, requiring a assessment of potential impacts on paleontological resources before an application is even filed puts the cart before the horse and is simply unworkable. Rather, this assessment, if required, should take place only as part of the City’s review of a project’s potential impacts on the environment under CEQA – which is conducted after an application for a discretionary approval is filed.

Accordingly, we recommend that the first sentence of this proposed mitigation measure be revise as follows:

“Prior to submittal As part of the City’s review of the potential environmental effects of a discretionary development application in areas underlain by high or undetermined sensitivity geologic units . . . the City shall require a Qualified Professional Paleontologist ….”

Mitigation Measure TRA-1

Implementation Action M-A.7 of the General Plan Update calls for the City to adopt and implement the City’s Vehicles Miles Traveled (“VMT”) Analysis Guidelines, which will define VMT-based thresholds of significance for transportation impacts in environmental review and identify TDM-based mitigations. However, because such guidelines and mitigations have yet to be adopted or implemented, the Draft EIR proposes Mitigation Measure TRA-1, which provides as follows:

TRA-1: Achieve VMT Reductions for Development Projects

In the interim, prior to the City adopting VMT Analysis Guidelines included as Implementation Action M-A.7 of the proposed project, for individual projects that exceed the City’s recommended threshold below the VMT average based on project-specific VMT analysis, the City shall require the project applicant to implement project-level VMT reduction strategies. The City shall design strategies for the proposed project to reduce VMT from existing land uses, where feasible, and from new discretionary residential or employment land use projects.

The design of programs and project-specific mitigation shall focus on VMT reduction strategies that increase travel choices and improve the comfort and convenience of sharing rides in private vehicles, using public transit, biking, or 7 cont.
8 2-73

5178583.3 6

walking. VMT reduction strategies may include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Provision of bus stop improveme nts or on-site mobility hubs

2. Pedestrian improvements, on-site or off-site, to connect to nearby transit stops, services, schools, shops, etc.

3. Bicycle programs, including bike purchase incentives, storage, maintenance programs, and on-site education program

4. Enhancements to the citywide bicycle network

5. Parking reductions and/or fees set at levels sufficient to incentivize transit, active transportation, or shared modes

6. Cash allowances, passes, or other public transit subsidies and purchase incentives

7. Providing enhanced, frequent bus service

8. Implementation of shuttle service

Following the City’s adoption of VMT Analysis Guidelines, individual projects shall be evaluated and mitigated in accordance with the procedures outlined in the VMT Analysis Guidelines.

In effect, this mitigation measure would establish an interim procedure that would require the City to engage in ad hoc decision-making concerning VMT reduction strategies on a project-by-project basis, without the benefit of the research and analysis that would go into the development of the City’s actual VMT Analysis Guidelines. Moreover, the stated threshold for triggering the proposed VMT analysis under this interim measure (i.e., “individual projects that exceed the City’s recommended threshold below the VMT average based on project-specific VMT analysis”) is unclear. Among other things, the City’s “recommended threshold below the VMT average” is not specified. Moreover, the effect of any particular VMT reduction strategy on the VMT calculation for any particular development project is not specified, which could lead to arbitrary and/or inconsistent decision-making.

Implementation of this interim measure would create uncertainty regarding the VMT analysis and required reduction strategies for a proposed development project, and could have the unintended consequence of delaying the development and adoption of the City’s actual VMT Analysis Guidelines. The City should refrain from adopting Mitigation Measure TRA-1, and should instead focus its efforts and resources on developing and adopting VMT Analysis Guidelines as required by proposed Implementation Action M- A.7.

Conclusion

Overall, the Draft EIR appears to adequately describe the potential environmental effects of the General Plan Update and measures to avoid or reduce such effects. However, we urge the City to consider revisions to certain proposed mitigation measures and to refrain from adopting other measures, as discussed above.
8 cont.
9 2-74
9 cont.
2-75
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.12
COMMENTER: Sanford D. Sigal on behalf of Thousand Oaks Marketplace L.P.

DATE: September 25, 2023
Response P.12-1
The commenter states that Thousand Oaks Marketplace L.P. is the owner of Janss Marketplace located at the intersection of Moorpark Road and Hillcrest Drive. The commenter expresses appreciation for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR.

The City thanks the commenter for their interest in the project. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.12-2
The commenter expresses support for the goals and objectives of the General Plan update and looks forward to working with the city on the development of a Specific Plan for the Janss Marketplace site.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s support for TO2045. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.12-3
The commenter states that as proposed in the DEIR Policy 10.7 would require an HRA to be prepared for any development project that is (1) within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, (2) will take longer than 2 months, or (3) does not utilize certain construction equipment that meets specified criteria. The commenter states that this means an HRA would be required for every new development project because virtually any development project would exceed two months. The commenter states that based on their discussions with qualified air quality experts, an HRA is typically required only where a source of air toxics is being placed near (e.g., within 1,000 feet of) residential uses or other sensitive receptors. Absent such proximity, an HRA is generally not necessary. The commenter also explains that they have been informed that an HRA is typically not necessary for exposures less than 5 months in duration. Based on this, the commenter recommends that the first sentence of proposed Policy 10.7 be revised as follows:
“Policy 10.7: Require new development that is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, will take longer than 5 months, and does not utilize construction equipment that is USEPA Tier 4, fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter, or uses alternative fuel to prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to identify potential health risk impacts.” The City acknowledges that the use of disjunctive language, such as “or” is inappropriate for Mitigation Measure AQ-1, and would apply to almost all development proposals. However, the claim that an HRA is not typically necessary for exposures less than 5 months in duration is unsubstantiated. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is edited so that a construction HRA is required only when all three conditions in the proposed new Policy 10.7 are met. The revision is reflected in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the DEIR. The revision would not result in a different impact conclusion than was already included in the DEIR. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.
2-76
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Section 4.2, Air Quality, page 4.2-18:

AQ-1 Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy that Requires Construction HRA
To reduce impacts of substantial pollutant concentrations on sensitive receptors, the City shall adopt the following General Plan policy in the Conservation Element to be implemented as part of the project approval process:
 P olicy 10.7: Require new development that is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, will take longer than 2 months, and or does not utilize construction equipment that is USEPA Tier 4, fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter, or uses alternative fuel to prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to identify potential health risk impacts. Based on the results of the HRA, the City shall require mitigation measures as necessary, to reduce potential exposure to toxic air contaminants.

Response P.12-4
The commenter expresses the opinion that the fair share program included in mitigation measure NOI-2 is not adequately described and it is unclear how the fair share contribution would be determined.

The fair share mitigation program will be developed by the City at a later date. While there is an absence of robust details around determining and describing fair share contributions, that level of detail is not necessary at this stage of planning nor lessens the enforceability of Mitigation Measure NOI-2. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. For further information on fair share contributions, see Response P.11-7.

Response P.12-5
The commenter expresses concern about installing sound barrier walls along roadways that traverse commercial and mixed-use areas. The commenter expresses the opinion that installing these would conflict with the goal of enhancing the walkability of these roadways and could have a negative economic impact on businesses in the area due to decreased visibility and that the soundwalls could have secondary environmental impacts. The commenter calls attention to the statements made on page 4.7-31 of the DEIR which indicate that implementation of mitigation measure NOI-2 may not be reasonable in all cases.

Sound barrier walls are listed as a traffic noise reduction measure that may be included in a fair share mitigation program, but are not a requirement. Specific traffic noise reduction measures need not adhere to the two examples provided in Mitigation Measure NOI-2 and project-specific measures may be proposed when a Traffic Noise Reduction Study is prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant. At this stage in planning, it is unknown what specific measures would be feasible at a specific project site; therefore, the DEIR includes a significant and unavoidable impact.

No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.12-6
The commenter urges the city to refrain from adopting Mitigation Measure NOI-2 due to concerns over its efficacy and feasibility and because the impacts to noise would remain significant and unavoidable even with its implementation.
2-77
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to Mitigation Measure NOI-2. Please refer to Responses P.12-4 and P.12-5. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.12-7
The commenter expresses concern over the fact that mitigation measure PAL-1 would require the retention of a qualified paleontologist and the assessment of potential impacts on paleontological resources prior to submittal of a discretionary development application. The commenter expresses the opinion that this is unworkable and recommends that the first sentence of mitigation measure PAL-1 be revised as follows:
“As part of the City’s review of the potential environmental effects of a discretionary development application in areas underlain by high or undetermined sensitivity geologic units .. . the City shall require a Qualified Professional Paleontologist ….”
The City acknowledges that preparation of a paleontological resources assessment may not always be advisable prior to submittal of an application. Therefore, the City agrees with a revision of Mitigation Measure PAL-1 to allow for greater flexibility of the timing of submittal of a paleontological resources assessment. The revision is reflected in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the DEIR. The revision would not result in a different impact conclusion than was already included in the DEIR. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Section 4.8, Paleontological Resources, page 4.8-11:

PAL-1 Retention of Qualified Professional Paleontologist Prior to approval s
ubmittalof a discretionary development application in areas underlain by high or undetermined sensitivity geologic units (i.e., Quaternary older alluvium, Monterey Formation, Lower Monterey Formation, Sandstone of Lindero Canyon, Conglomerate of Lindero Canyon, Upper Topanga Formation, sandstone, Upper Topanga Formation, clay shale and siltstone, Upper Topanga Formation, sandstone, Upper Topanga Formation, clay shale and siltstone, Conejo Volcanics, basaltic sandstone and siltstone, Lower Topanga Formation, sandstone, Lower Topanga Formation, clay shale, Sespe Formation, Llajas Formation, sandstone, Llajas Formation, claystone and siltstone, Santa Susana Formation, sandstone, Santa Susana Formation, claystone and siltstone, Santa Susana Formation, Simi Conglomerate Member, Chatsworth Formation, sandstone, Chatsworth Formation, clay shale), the City shall require a Qualified Professional Paleontologist [as defined by the SVP (2010)] to be retained by the project applicant to determine the project’s potential to significantly impact paleontological resources according to SVP (2010) standards. If necessary, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall recommend mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level. These measures may include, but not be limited to, implementation of a Worker Environmental Awareness Program, on-site paleontological monitoring, and fossil salvage, if applicable. The City shall review and approve the Qualified Professional Paleontologist’s findings and recommendation. All recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans prior to issuance of a grading permit.

Response P.12-8
The commenter expresses concern over mitigation measure TRA-1. The commenter states the opinion that the threshold for triggering the proposed VMT analysis under the interim measure included in mitigation measure TRA-1 is unclear. The commenter expresses concern that the effect 2-78
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
of any particular VMT reduction strategy on the VMT calculation for any particular development project is not specified, which they believe could lead to arbitrary and/or inconsistent decision- making. The commenter expresses the opinion that implementation of this interim measure would create uncertainty regarding the VMT analysis and required reduction strategies for a proposed development project, and could have the unintended consequence of delaying the development and adoption of the City’s actual VMT Analysis Guidelines. The commenter requests that the city refrain from adopting mitigation measure TRA-1 and recommends that the city instead focus on developing and adopting VMT Analysis Guidelines as required by proposed Implementation Action M-A.7.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to Mitigation Measure TRA-1. The VMT Analysis Guidelines will be developed by the City at a later date. While there is an absence of robust details around determining VMT thresholds and effectiveness of specific mitigation strategies, that level of detail is not necessary at this stage of planning nor lessens the enforceability of Mitigation Measure TRA-1. Please refer to Response P.11-9 for further discussion of VMT analysis. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.12-9
The commenter expresses overall satisfaction with the DEIR, however they urge the city to consider their proposed revisions and to refrain from adopting mitigation measures as described in their comments above.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to previously referenced mitigation measures.

Please refers to Responses P.12-3 through P.12-8. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-79
1 From: Wendy Zimmerman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 4:52 PM
To: General Plan
Subject: EIR Comments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Iain Holt, Senior Planner
City of Thousand Oaks
Community Development
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, California 91362
Email: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Holt,

The City of Thousand Oaks planning process has been flawed and inaccurate since the beginning of the updating of the general plan process to cover up to 2045. Much of it is your fault because of your obvious bias against the people of Newbury Park and misrepresentations including calling Newbury Park "Rancho Conejo." The EIR report continues to reflect your flawed thinking and planning, ignorance of Newbury Park's land and people, and your desire to make Newbury Park the "sacrificial lamb" so to speak in order to protect other parts of Thousand Oaks from having to adapt to change, growth, and share the burdens of meeting State of California requirements. The dumping is not only unfair, it is unconscionable and impractical.

In your transportation section you have segments related to Wendy Drive that do not connect. Wendy Drive and Reino Roads are PARALLEL, they do not intersect at any point.

Wendy Dr to Reino Rd 15,970 18,200 45 4 96.75% 0.78% 1.48% 78.6% 12.6% 8.7%

Further, if the Borchard parcel is developed with over 1,000 housing units plus commercial in mixed use, the numbers attributed to additional VMT are absurd. Surely you have one of the most idiotic typos in thinking that such a development will only generate an extra 10 trips impacting COUNTY streets like Wendy Drive through Casa Conejo, and Alice Drive. Even adding at least 2 more zeros to this absurdly low number won't fix the problem.

The streets of Casa Conejo are old, narrow, and were not ever designed to be an access point for a large development with potentially thousands more residents. Our streets You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Letter P.13
1 2
3 4
2-80
2 work hard enough serving the current population of Casa Conejo and Fox Meadows. We already have very long waits to turn onto Wendy Drive. The streets do not meet State requirements for projects such as the one TO is threatening to approve through upzoning the land for massive development. They already flood when it rains hard. They would be impassible during storms if development water is channeled onto them because it can't be absorbed and held by land designated for flood control and covered by a Ventura County easement. These communities will suffer from traffic overload preventing them from having safe access to and from their homes, increase speeding, trash, noise and air pollution by people speeding through these quiet, long established neighborhoods of single family homes. Streets like Bella, Alice, Shirley, Denise and more were not designed to be thoroughfares. Further, many residents now can ONLY get to and from their homes via Wendy Drive.

The trash dumped by the Casa Linda apartments (only 24 units in two stories on the Casa Conejo border is a regular eyesore with unhealthy dumping of food containers, old furniture, clothing, and worse on the parkways belong to Casa Conejo homes on Bella.

The thought of having so much more garbage and overload on more streets makes me ill.

Thousand Oaks does not have the right to abuse County Streets and expect County residents to shoulder the additional wear and tear such development would cause in addition to their loss of privacy and blocking of views by multi-story buildings.

There are good reasons to keep development on the Borchard possible to a minimum that will help the land continue to do its job as a flood control basin. Many home owners along the arroyo pay extra flood insurance. If protections are lost, their homes may become uninsurable. This land provides important wildlife habitat for frogs, birds, and many more creatures. Pollutants would also kill off birds, plants, reptiles, fish and other wildlife that depends on the arroyo waters for life and sustenance.

Thousand Oaks has inadequate public transportation. CA law mandates public transportation be more effective to serve additional residents who will be provided with less parking. TO's limited 8-5 Monday - Friday thinking is outdated and ineffectual. It does not meet modern needs for night time transit for both evening workers and residents. It does not link to other transit systems except for very limited hours. TO wastes money and resources on empty buses going to places that are not in demand and don't run at times when they could be better utilized.

We are losing wildlife habitat at an alarming rate. A few new trees cannot do the same job as long established trees to provide habitat for wild life, shade for people, and natural air purification. Climate change is real and we are experiencing more of it than most. The large industrial expansion in Newbury Park does NOT provide adequate landscaping to mitigate the heat. This growth is forcing wildlife into smaller areas and making it more difficult even for people to access and enjoy the Conejo Canyons and other open space systems.

4 cont.
5 6
7 8
9 2-81
3 Time for the City to consider and to protect all of its existing residents--humans, animals, birds, reptiles, insects, plants and all living things. Current growth and intensified development plans do not do this.

Go back to the drawing board. Fix the errors. Be fair and considerate of all the residents and neighbors of TO. Better is possible.

Wendy Zimmerman
Newbury Park

10 2-82
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.13
COMMENTER: Wendy Zimmerman
DATE: September 25, 2023
Response P.13-1
The commenter expresses the opinion that the Thousand Oaks planning process is flawed and inaccurate. The commenter expresses an opinion that the city is biased against the people of Newbury Park.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opinion. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.13-2
The commenter states that the transportation section of the DEIR indicates that Wendy Drive and Reino Road connect when they are actually parallel roads that do not intersect.

Please refer to Responses A.1-2 and A.1-3 regarding traffic data found in Appendix D related to Wendy Drive. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.13-3
The commenter expresses an opinion that if the Borchard parcel is developed with over 1,000 housing units in addition to commercial uses, the additional VMT numbers included in the DEIR are incorrect.

Please refer to Responses A.1-2 and A.1-3 regarding traffic data found in Appendix D related to ADT and Wendy Drive. Further, no specific development projects are proposed under TO2045. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.13-4
The commenter states that the streets of Casa Conejo are old and narrow. The commenter expresses concerns over traffic, trash, noise, air pollution and flooding on the streets of Casa Conejo with implementation of the proposed project.

Congestion and delay (as measured by the traditional level of service methodology) are no longer environmental topics considered under CEQA. Flooding is addressed in Section 4.14.5, Hydrology and Water Quality, in Section 4.14, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, noise pollution is addressed in Section 4.7, Noise, and air pollution is addressed in Section 4.2, Air Quality. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.13-5
The commenter expresses concern over trash currently produced and left on the street by the Casa Linda apartments and over the trash future development could produce.

This comment does not pertain to environmental analysis in the DEIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.
2-83
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response P.13-6
The commenter expresses the opinion that the city does not have the right to abuse county streets and expect county residents to shoulder the additional wear and tear caused by additional future development, in addition to loss of privacy and views.

Roadway maintenance and loss of privacy are not environmental issues under CEQA. Views are discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and impacts were found to be less than significant. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.13-7
The commenter expresses concern over pollutants, flooding and wildlife habitat on the Borchard parcel.

As discussed under Impact BIO-2 in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, impacts of TO2045 on riparian habitat and wetlands would be less than significant. Further, as shown on Figure 4.3-2, the Borchard parcel does not contain wetlands as inventoried on the National Wetlands Inventory (2023).

Flooding is addressed in Section 4.14.5, Hydrology and Water Quality, where impacts were found to be less than significant. Impacts to special-status species and plants are discussed under Impact BIO-1 in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, and found to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.13-8
The commenter expresses the opinion that the city does not have adequate public transportation to support development facilitated by the proposed project. The commenter expresses the opinion that the city’s 8-5 Monday- Friday schedule for public transportation is outdated and ineffectual.

Public transit frequency and routes are not environmental issues analyzed under CEQA. However, the project’s consistency with programs, plans, ordinance, or policies addressing transit facilities is discussed under Impact TRA-1; impacts were found to be less than significant. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.13-9
The commenter expresses concern over loss of wildlife species, loss of trees, climate change, and rising temperatures in Newbury Park. The commenter states that the industrial expansion in Newbury Park does not provide adequate landscaping.

Please refer to Response P.13-7. Climate change is addressed in regards to greenhouse gas emissions in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Landscaping plans are not available at this stage in planning nor is ornamental landscaping a required topic under CEQA. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.13-10
The commenter expresses the opinion that current growth and intensified development do not protect all of the city’s existing residents, including people, animals, and all living things.

Please refer to Response P.13-7. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-84
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Carol Inglis Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 4:21 PM To: General Plan Subject: Borchard & Michael

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

No changing the zoning and land use for the Borchard parcel.

Leave the wetlands alone.

Thank you,

Carol Inglis
Letter P.14
1 2-85
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.14
COMMENTER: Carol Inglis
DATE: September 25, 2023
Response P.14-1
The commenter expresses opposition to changing the zoning and land use for the Borchard parcel.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the zoning and land use change. While the parcel in question will have a new land use designation under TO2045, it is not being rezoned at this time. This comment pertains to features of TO2045 itself, not the environmental analysis found within the DEIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-86
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Denise Derenthal Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2023 1:26 PM To: General Plan Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

To Whom It May Concern,

Very bad idea to put a bridge over the creek onto Michael Drive. You can't live in Newbury Park if this seems like a good plan.

Sincerely,
Denise Derenthal
Letter P.15
1 2-87
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.15
COMMENTER: Denise Derenthal
DATE: September 23, 2023
Response P.15-1
The commenter expresses opposition to putting a bridge over the creek into Michael Drive.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to a bridge. This comment does not pertain to the environmental analysis found within the DEIR, nor is a bridge over the creek onto Michael Drive a project feature found in Section 2, Project Description. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-88
From: Fred <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 1:34 PM To: General Plan Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

[You don't oen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

My name is Fred Kershaw, I’m a Newbury Park resident. I oppose the the development of the Borchard ﬂood plain area in Newbury Park. This area already has too much traﬃc congeson and it’s a ﬂood plain! No more traﬃc!!
Fred Kershaw

Sent from my iPhone
Letter P.16
1 2-89
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.16
COMMENTER: Fred Kershaw
DATE: September 24, 2023
Response P.16-1
The commenter states they are a Newbury Park resident and that they oppose the development of the Borchard plain area. The commenter expresses concerns over existing high traffic volumes and the fact that the site is in a flood plain.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the land use change. Traffic congestion and delay (as measured by the traditional level of service methodology) is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA. As discussed under Impact BIO-2 in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, impacts of TO2045 on riparian habitat and wetlands would be less than significant.

Further, as shown on Figure 4.3-2, the Borchard parcel does not contain wetlands as inventoried on the National Wetlands Inventory (2023). Please refer to the discussion in Section 4.14.5, Hydrology and Water Quality, in Section 4.14, Effects Found Not To Be Significant. Impacts to flooding were discussed and found to be less than significant. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-90
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: p.pamger
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 3:23 PM To: General Plan Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Just a quick comment on the area parcel of concern in Newbury Park, Borchard parcel, I worked for the phone comp6, GTE back in the day, was a cable splicer out of Newbury Park yard. We used to work in a manhole in the area being discussed, we had to use a 4" pump running the whole me when working in the manhole located smack dab in the middle of that area! You may not see the water there now, but this manhole is full of water all the me.

Gerry Lieberman

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Letter P.17
1 2-91
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.17
COMMENTER: Gerry Lieberman
DATE: September 25, 2023
Response P.17-1
The commenter states they used to work for a phone company that utilized the manhole near the Borchard parcel. The commenter explains they had to use a 4” pump the entire time they were working in the manhole and that the manhole is full of water all the time.

This comment does not pertain to the environmental analysis found within the DEIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

2-92
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: HARRY KOPLAN Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 4:39 PM To: General Plan Subject: no land use change at borchard parcel

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

no land use change at borchard parcel

harry koplan

Letter P.18
1 2-93
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.18
COMMENTER: Harry Koplan
DATE: September 24, 2023
Response P.18-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed land use change on the Borchard parcel.

2-94
From: Heather Mandap Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 1:24 PM To: General Plan Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I live in Casa Conejo. The traﬃc is already diﬃcult on Borchard and Wendy. Adding 2 businesses to Wendy oﬀramp is just going to make it worse. Adding a bridge near Borchard is going to be awful. The freeway traﬃc is so bad both ways on the freeway.

Please don't change the land use and make traﬃc horriﬁc. We moved from the valley to a beauful home community. Don't make our part of town like the valley.

I beg you, please preserve what we have.

Heather
Letter P.19
1 2-95
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.19
COMMENTER: Heather Mandap
DATE: September 24, 2023
Response P.19-1
The commenter states they are a Casa Conejo resident and that there is high traffic on Borchard and Wendy in the area. The commenter expresses concern over increased traffic as a result of adding a bridge near Borchard. The commenter requests that the city do not change the land use on the Borchard parcel and urges the city to preserve the area as it is.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the land use change. Please refer to Response P.10-1 regarding traffic. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-96
From: Keith Taylor <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 10:59 AM To: General Plan Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

[You don't oen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

The Borchard parcel should remain as designated previously—single family homes.

William Taylor
Letter P.20
1 2-97
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.20
COMMENTER: William Taylor
DATE: September 25, 2023
Response P.20-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the change in land use designation for the Borchard Parcel and recommends that it remains designated for single-family homes.

2-98
From: Kerri Yim <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 2:31 PM To: General Plan Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

[You don't oen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Holt,

I’m reading there will be a bridge built over Michael drive near Baskin Robbins that will impact Borchard Road traﬃc and nearby home owners negavely, if the city changes the land use on the Borchard parcel.

Please reconsider this.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Kerri Yim
Letter P.21
1 2-99
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.21
COMMENTER: Kerri Yim
DATE: September 25, 2023
Response P.21-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the installation of a bridge over Michael Drive and the proposed change to land use on the Borchard parcel.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the land use change. Please refer to Response P.15-1 regarding a bridge. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-100
From: Krista Harasymowycz Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 7:35 AM To: General Plan Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

[You don't oen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I wanted to comment to voice my vote against the proposed Borchard wetlands bridge and housing community.

The two schools in that neighborhood are already very diﬃcult to get in and out of and all this proposed traﬃc will make people drive more aggressively and possibly endanger the children who walk to school and/or walk from the street/library to Earths Magnet School.

Thank you,
Krista Harasymowycz

Sent from my iPhone
Letter P.22
1 2-101
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.22
COMMENTER: Krista Harasymowycz
DATE: September 24, 2023
Response P.22-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the installation of the bridge and housing community proposed on the Borchard parcel. The commenter expresses concern over existing traffic levels and increased traffic as a result of the proposed project.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the land use change. Please refer to Responses P.15-1 and P.16-1, regarding a bridge and traffic. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-102
From: Laur a Livingston <[email protected]>
Sent: M
onday, September 25, 2023 7:06 AM
To:

General Plan
Subject:

Dra General Plan EIR Comments
[
You don't oen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon ]
CA
UTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

T
o Ian Holt,
please do NOT alter the land use at the Borchard parcel. Far too much traﬃc now at all nearby roads and intersecons. Between Amgen, Amazon, UPS and all the other big companies down Rancho Conejo/ Lawrence and 2 major schools on the other side of the freeway, it’s become dangerous and degrades our environment. Adding to that just increases the nightmare.

Thanks for your aenon,
Laura Livingston in the Running Springs tract, Newbury Park Se
nt from my iPad
Letter P.23
1 2-103
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.23
COMMENTER: Laura Livingston
DATE: September 25, 2023
Response P.23-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed land use change on the Borchard parcel. The commenter expresses concern about existing traffic levels and increased traffic as a result of the proposed project.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the land use change. Please refer to Response P.10-1 regarding traffic. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-104
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: olvrkth
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 2:22 PM To: General Plan Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

No land use change at Borchard parcel!

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Letter P.24
1 2-105
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.24
COMMENTER: [email protected]
DATE: September 25, 2023
Response P.24-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed land use change on the Borchard parcel.

2-106
From: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 4:30 PM To: General Plan Subject: No land use change at Borchard parcel

[You don't oen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

An: Iain Holt, Senior City Planner.

I’m a proponent of no growth and less congeson. I want to keep the area from expanding into a huge congested locaon. I’m against any change in land use for the Borchard Parcel.

Sent from my iPhone
Letter P.25
1 2-107
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.25
COMMENTER: Rick Ginsburg
DATE: September 24, 2023
Response P.25-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed land use change on the Borchard parcel. The commenter states they are a proponent of no growth and less congestion.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the land use change. This comment pertains to features of TO2045 itself, not the environmental analysis found within the DEIR. Further, please refer to Response P.10-1 regarding traffic. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-108
From: Rodney Love Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2023 10:42 AM To: General Plan Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

[You don't oen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

My comment:

NO LAND USE CHANGE AT THE BORCHARD PARCEL !
Letter P.26
1 2-109
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.26
COMMENTER: Rodney Love
DATE: September 23, 2023
Response P.26-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed land use change on the Borchard parcel.

2-110
From: Russ Mullin <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 6:39 AM To: General Plan Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

[You don't oen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi There,
Please, no changes to land use at the Borchard parcel, formerly known as Borchard wetlands.

Ive live in NP 41 years and it’s changing for the worse. Homeless populaon is geng worse. I cannot let my kids go to the park alone (park oﬀ Michael/borchard) because the homeless hang out there.

Shelter will make it worse.

Now the development where the old connuaon HS was on Kelly and now the development of the Borchard wetland parcel will only bring more people, more traﬃc, more problems.

Please stop developing NP .

Thanks,
-Russell

Letter P.27
1 2-111
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.27
COMMENTER: Russell Mullin
DATE: September 25, 2023
Response P.27-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed land use change on the Borchard parcel. The commenter states they have lived in Newbury Park for 41 years and they express concern over the increase in homeless people in Newbury Park. The commenter states the opinion that the additional development of the old continuation high school site and the Borchard parcel would bring more people, traffic, and problems. The commenter asks the city to stop developing Newbury Park.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the land use change, and general growth in Newbury Park. Please refer to Response P.16-1 regarding traffic. Additionally, increases to the unhoused community is not considered an environmental impact under CEQA. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.
2-112
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
From: R Sco Horn Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 2:41 PM To: General Plan Cc: Mikey Taylor; David Newman; Bob Engler Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments Aachments: DEIR comments.pdf

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Ian Holt,
City of T.O. Planning Dept.

Have reviewed the IER for the General plan and have many Q’s and comments.

Q’s Speciﬁcally about the land use change at Borchard Wetland parcel.

This is land use change at the Borchard Wetlands parcel is so wrong for so many diﬀerent reasons-

This land use change will forever change the character of Newbury Park for the worse.

1. Traﬃc. The EIR seams too be wrong on the number of vehicle trips added by the proposed development between the Wendy/101 and Borchard Rd.

It can’t be just 10 trips per day more. There will be thousands more each day. Why is this?

VC Traﬃc took noce and submied this document asking what’s up. So What do you say to this?

Why are you not doing a traﬃc study before you approve this?

How do you respond too this memo?

2. NP - from Wendy Dr. At the 101 to Dos Vents is in the top 1% worst ﬁre evacuaon roads in the state.

The evacuaon plans are not included in the EIR but new State laws requires that cies can’t make new homes where there ﬁre evacuaons danger increases in those top threat zones.

What do you say about pung a 1,ooo new apts. between the people of NP and their evacuaon routes?

3. You are changing the character of the neighborhood. The city said it would not do this, yet this will change us in NP from all single family homes around the parcel to a 1000 apts. in mul story buildings.

Letter P.28
1 2
3 4
2-113
Why are you going against a suede objecve of the council?

4. Why does the GP updated housing element not show the Borchard parcel in it like the GP it is updang?

5. Why are you moving forward with the land use change when Ventura County has an easement over the parcel to handle all storm water run-oﬀ for ﬂoods up to and including a 100 year storms?

Shouldn’t the easement be addressed before the land use change? Yes it must be addressed 1st! Surrounding neighborhoods ﬂood when we get heavy rain. This will make it much worse.

6. Air polluon: VC air polluon district has not weighed in in any way that I can see. What does VCAPD have to say?

Regards,

Sco

R. Scott Horn
Photography & Video
++++++++++++++++
3309 William Drive
Newbury Park, CA 91320
(805) 498-4960
[email protected]

4 cont.
5 6
7 2-114
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.28
COMMENTER: R. Scott Horn
DATE: September 25, 2023
Response P.28-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed land use change on the Borchard parcel.

Response P.28-2
The commenter expresses concern over the traffic analysis in the DEIR. Specifically, the commenter expresses the opinion that there would be an addition of over ten trips per day due to the proposed development on the Borchard parcel. The commenter states that the Ventura County Traffic Commission submitted a comment about this as well and asks what the city says to this. The commenter asks why the city is not completing a traffic study before approving this project.

Please refer to Responses A.1-2 and A.1-3 regarding traffic volumes. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.28-3
The commenter states that from Wendy Drive at the 101 to Dos Vientos is in the top ten percent worst fire evacuation roads in the state. The commenter expresses concern over evacuation routes after the new development is built.

Please refer to Response A.2-4 and A.2-5 regarding wildfire evacuation. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.28-4
The commenter expresses the opinion that the proposed project would change the character of the neighborhood.

Neighborhood character is not relevant to environmental analysis under CEQA for urbanized areas.

Since the City is urbanized, aesthetic impacts (see Section 4.1, Aesthetics) are analyzed for consistency with zoning regulations. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.28-5
The commenter asks why the Borchard parcel is not included in the General Plan housing element.

This comment pertains to the General Plan itself and not to environmental analysis in the DEIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.28-6
The commenter asks why the city is proposing land use changes on the Borchard parcel when Ventura County has an easement over the parcel to handle all stormwater runoff for floods 2-115
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
including for 100 year storms. The commenter states that the easement must be addressed before the land use change. The commenter expresses concern over flooding in the neighborhoods surrounding the Borchard parcel.

Please refer to the discussion in Section 4.14.5, Hydrology and Water Quality, in Section 4.14, Effects Found Not To Be Significant. Impacts to stormwater runoff and flooding were discussed and found to be less than significant. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.28-7
The commenter states they did not see any comment from VCAPCD and asks what they have to say about the proposed project.

VCAPCD submitted a comment letter, which was addressed under Letter A.6. No further revisions to the DEIR are necessary.
2-116
From: Sherry Adkins Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 9:56 AM To: General Plan Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

No land use change at Borchard parcel.

Care about the people who live here and have been responsible cizens for decades.

Sent from my iPad
Letter P.29
1 2-117
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.29
COMMENTER: Sherry Adkins
DATE: September 26, 2023
Response P.29-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed land use change on the Borchard parcel.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the land use change. This comment pertains to features of TO2045 itself, not the environmental analysis found within the DEIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.
2-118
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: sonnyboy215 Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 4:11 PM To: General Plan Subject: No land use change at borchard parcel

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please DO NOT build on the borchard wetlands at the 101 and Borchard Rd. I live in the neighborhood next to it. I am elderly, and have many medical problems, our neighborhood is full of elderly and young families, this will totally destroy our way of life. It’s already hard enough to get out of our neighborhood with traﬃc/congeson from the two schools, Sequoia, and Earths, especially earths on Michael, where I am. It is dangerous for the residents and the children to have that much congeson in the area which would be compounded with, ﬁrst the construcon, and then more people and cars, shoppers and residents. I hear that there will be a bridge built access to this project and put more traﬃc at Michael, where I live. I ask you to please review how congested the freeway is now in Newberry Park. If this project goes through, congeson will be greatly increased, it already looks like the 405 at certain mes of the day. I can’t imagine what it will be like to bombard our neighborhood with high density residenal and commercial business. Not to menon the noise factor, crime and people from out of the area coming through our neighborhood, at all hours.

I can’t sleep at night just thinking that our City leaders would put our quiet lile neighborhood in jeopardy.

Thank you for your consideraon.

Linda K

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Letter P.30
1 2-119
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.30
COMMENTER: Linda K.

DATE: September 24, 2023
Response P.30-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed land use change on the Borchard parcel. The commenter expresses concern over existing traffic congestion and the additional traffic, noise, crime, and people coming from out of the area as a result of the proposed project.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the land use change. Please refer to Responses P.15-1 and P.16-1 regarding traffic. Noise is discussed in Section 4.7, Noise. Crime is not an environmental impact under CEQA and police services are analyzed in Section 4.10, Public Services and Recreation. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

2-120
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: T Childs
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2023 11:46 PM To: General Plan Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please, NO land use change at the Borchard Parcel!

We have been residents of Newbury Park for 21 years, and we love our Suntree neighborhood. The proposed changes to the Borchard Parcel are terrible and we fully oppose their implementaon.

Sincerely,
Terri and James Childs
3416 Crestwood Ct
Newbury Park, CA 91320
Letter P.31
1 2-121
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.31
COMMENTER: Terri and James Childs
DATE: September 24, 2023
Response P.31-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed land use change on the Borchard parcel.

2-122
From: Thomas Chapple Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 7:35 AM To: General Plan Cc: Erin Chapple Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

[You don't oen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,

Being a home owner, and registered voter, on Michael Drive in Newbury Park for the last 25 years, I ask that no changes occur to the zoning on the property known as the Borchard Wet Lands.

The impact of traﬃc and other eﬀects associated with these changes, in the areas surrounding this land, would impact these neighborhoods tremendously and make our quality of life horrible. Not to menon the loss in property value and beauty that we so enjoy in this area.

I urge no changes be made to the area known as the Borchard Wet Lands!!

Home owner in Casa Conejo,

Tom Chapple

Sent from my iPhone
Letter P.32
1 2-123
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.32
COMMENTER: Tom Chapple
DATE: September 25, 2023
Response P.32-1
The commenter states they are a homeowner in Newbury Park and expresses opposition to the proposed land use change on the Borchard parcel. The commenter expresses concern over increased traffic and loss of property value and beauty in the area.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s opposition to the land use change. Please refer to Response P.16-1 regarding traffic. Property value is not an environmental issue under CEQA. Beauty, such as scenic views, are addressed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

2-124
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Vissy Kobari-wright Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2023 4:58 PM To: General Plan Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,

I am wring as a longme resident of Newbury Park, to plead for no land-use change at the Borchard Parcel. Please do not ruin our gem of a city for money.

Regards,
Vissy Wright
Sent from my iPhone
Letter P.33
1 2-125
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.33
COMMENTER: Vissy Wright
DATE: September 23, 2023
Response P.33-1
The commenter states they are a resident of Newbury Park and expresses opposition to the proposed land use change on the Borchard parcel.

2-126
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: William Terry Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2023 4:44 PM To: General Plan Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

NO LAND USE CHANGE AT THE BORCHARD PARCEL

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get
Outlook for Android
Letter P.34
1 2-127
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.34
COMMENTER: William Terry
DATE: September 23, 2023
Response P.34-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed land use change on the Borchard parcel.

2-128
From: Sharon Zack Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 3:26 PM To: General Plan Subject: Dra General Plan EIR Comments

[You don't oen get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at hps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenﬁcaon ]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

No land use change at Borchard wetlands

Sent from my iPhone
Letter P.35
1 2-129
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.35
COMMENTER: Sharon Zack
DATE: September 25, 2023
Response P.35-1
The commenter expresses opposition to the proposed land use change on the Borchard parcel.

2-130
Letter P.36
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
Mitchell M. Tsai
Law Firm

VIA E-MAIL
September 11, 2023
Carlos Contreras, Senior Planner
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Blvd.

Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Thousand Oaks General Plan 2045 Draft Environmental Impact Report (2019-70760-GPA. 2022-70558-EIRR Agenda Item 8.

Dear Carlos Contreras,
On behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Carpenters” or “SWMSRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments for the City of Thousand Oaks‘(“City”) September 11, 2023, Planning Commission meeting for an Overview of General Plan 2045 Draft Environmental Impact Report (2019-70760-GPA, 2022-70558-EIR)(“GP”).

The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing over 90,000 union carpenters in 10 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.

Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the GP’s environmental impacts.

The Southwest Carpenters expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the GP, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this GP. Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Bocal Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199- 1203; see also Galante l ^inejards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.
1 2-131
City of Thousand Oaks -General Plan 2045 DEIR
September 11, 2023

Page 2 of 8 ends

The Southwest Carpenters incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the GP. See Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).

Moreover, the Southwest Carpenters requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the GP issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq ), and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”) (Gov. Code, §§ 65000-65010).

California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and California Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

I. THE CITY SHOULD INCORPORATE LANGUAGE THAT

REQUIRE THE USE OF A LOCAL WORKFORCE TO BENEFIT
THE COMMUNITY’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND

ENVIRONMENT
The City should incorporate language into the proposed GP requiring residential, commercial and mixed-use developments within the GP area to be built using local workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program approved by the State of California, have at least as many hours of on-the- job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state-approved apprenticeship training program, or who are registered apprentices in a state-approved apprenticeship training program.

Community benefits such as local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the GP. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of projects within the GP area can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the 1 cont.
2 3
2-132
City of Thousand Oaks -General Plan 2045 DEIR
September 11, 2023

Page 3 of 8 ends

reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.

Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L|abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1
Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program” can result in air pollutant reductions.2 Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.

As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would 1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https:/ /laborcenter.berkelev.edu/ wp-content/uploads /2020/09 /Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 -Warehouse Indirect Source Rule - Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 -Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http:/ /www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board /2021 /2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 cont.
2-133
City of Thousand Oaks -General Plan 2045 DEIR
September 11, 2023

Page 4 of 8 ends

include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.3
Moreover, local hire mandates and skill-training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must match those held by local residents.4 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. Cervero and Duncan note that:

In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing. The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.

Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, otherwise known as Assembly Bill No. 2011 (“AB2011”). AB2011 amended the Planning and Zoning Law to allow ministerial, by-right approval for projects being built alongside commercial corridors that meet affordability and labor requirements.

The City should consider utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate greenhouse gas, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts.
3 California Planning Roundtable (2008) DeconstructingJobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https:/ /cproundtable.org/static/media /uploads /publications /cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
4 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http:/ /reconnectingamerica.org/assets /Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.
3 cont.
2-134
City of Thousand Oaks -General Plan 2045 DEIR
September 11, 2023

Page 5 of 8 ends

II. THE CITY SHOULD INCORPORATE LANGUAGE IMPOSING

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
TO PREVENT COMMUNITY SPREAD OF COVID-19 AND OTHER
INFECTIOUS DISEASES INTO THE GP.

Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID-

19.5 Southwest Carpenters recommend that the City adopt additional requirements to mitigate public health risks from various residential, commercial and mixed-use development construction activities. Southwest Carpenters requests that the City require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on residential, commercial and mixed-use developments within the GP area.

In particular, based upon Southwest Carpenters’experience with safe construction site work practices, Southwest Carpenters recommends that the City require that while construction activities are being conducted within the GP area (“Project Site”):

Construction Site Design:
The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points.
Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open. The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details
regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening.
A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening.
5 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT

CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at https:/ /www.sccgov.org/sites / covidl9/Pages/press-release-06T2-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx. 4 2-135
City of Thousand Oaks -General Plan 2045 DEIR
September 11, 2023

Page 6 of 8 ends

The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social distancing position for when you approach the screening area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details.

There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing you through temperature screening.

Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site.

Testing Procedures:

The temperature screening being used are non-contact
devices.

Temperature readings will not be recorded.

Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.

Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before
temperature screening.

Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be
refused access to the Project Site.

Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate
[ZONE 2]
After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors.

If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading.
4 cont.
2-136
City of Thousand Oaks -General Plan 2045 DEIR
September 11, 2023

Page 7 of 8 ends

If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A.

Planning
Require the development of an Infectious Disease
Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic
infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10
people including all-hands meetings and all-hands lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that
meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of
Public Health or applicable local public health agencies.6 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The City should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.

Southwest Carpenters has also developed a rigorous Infection Control Risk Assessment (“ICRA”) training program to ensure it delivers a workforce that understands how to identify and control infection risks by implementing protocols to 6 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https:/7www.cpwr.com /sites /default/files /NABTU CPWR Standards COVID-19.pdf:Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https:/ /dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-safety/docs /pw guidelines-construction-sites.pdf. 4 cont.
5 2-137
City of Thousand Oaks -General Plan 2045 DEIR
September 11, 2023

Page 8 of 8 ends

protect themselves and all others during renovation and construction projects in healthcare environments.7
ICRA protocols are intended to contain pathogens, control airflow, and protect patients during the construction, maintenance and renovation of healthcare facilities.

ICRA protocols prevent cross contamination, minimizing the risk of secondary infections in patients at hospital facilities.

The City should incorporate language requiring the residential developments related to the GP be built using a workforce trained in ICRA protocols.

Sincerely,
Reza Bonachea Mohamadzadeh
Attorneys for Southwest Mountain States
Regional Council of Carpenters
Attached:

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). 7 For details concerning Southwest Carpenters’s ICRA training program, see https:/ /icrahealthcare.com /.
5 cont.
2-138

EXHIBIT A
2-139
Technical Consultation,Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the EnvironmentSWAPE
2656 29th Street,Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann(5> swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld,PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld(5> swape.com
March 8,2021
Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino,Suite 104
Pasadena,CA 91101
Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise ("SWAPE") is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently,reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts.

Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model ("CalEEMod") is a "statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies,land use planners,and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects."1CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment;on-road mobile equipment associated with workers,vendors,and hauling;fugitive dust associated with grading,demolition, truck loading,and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads;and architectural coating activities;and paving.2
The number,length,and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3 1"California Emissions Estimator Model." CAPCOA,2017,available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 "California Emissions Estimator Model." CAPCOA,2017,available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 "CalEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqrnd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4. p. 34. 1 2-140
Specifically,the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled ("VMT") associated with construction. Then,utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors,CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust,evaporative,and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically,in order to calculate VMT,CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below):
"VMTd =I(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length ,) n Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled."5
Furthermore,to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips,CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below):

EmiSSionSpollutant - VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:

Emissionspoiiutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFmnning,poiiutam = emission factor for running emissions."6 Thus,there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT,as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words,when the trip length is increased,the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus,vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length,by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.

Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed,the number,length,and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations,it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information,such as land use type,meteorological data,total lot acreage,project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known,the user can change the default values and input project- specific values,but the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the 4 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod." CAPCOA,October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod." CAPCOA,October 2017,available at: http://www.aamd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod." CAPCOA,October 2017,available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6. p. 15. 7 "CalEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aamd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1,9. 2 2-141
number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25,with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore,the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos,light duty truck class 1and light duty truck class 2,respectively."10 Finally,the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are:
"[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings" (emphasis added).12 Thus,the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Rural (miles)

16.8 Urban (miles)

10.8 Air Basin
Great Basin Valleys
Lake County
Lake Tahoe
Mojave Desert
Mountain Counties
North Central Coast
North Coast
Northeast Plateau
Sacramento Valley
Salton Sea
San Diego
San Francisco Bay Area
San Joaquin Valley
South Central Coast
South Coast

16.8 10.8

12.317.1

16.8 10.8

14.6 11

16.8 10.8

10.8 10.8

16.8 10.8

19.8 14.7
Average
Minimum
Maximum
Range

16.47 11.17

10.80 10.80

19.80 14.70

9.00 3.90
9 "CalEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqrnd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01 user-39-s-guide2016-3-2 15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4. p. 34. 10 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod." CAPCOA,October 2017, available at:
http://www.aamd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6. p. 15. 11 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6. p. 14. 12 "Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aamd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02 appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 "Appendix D Default Data Tables." CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05 appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 -D-86. 3 2-142
As demonstrated above,default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles,with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore,default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles,with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus,while default worker trip lengths vary by location,default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths,we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site,as well as the project location.

Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan ("Project") located in the City of Claremont ("City"). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units,100,000-SF of retail space,45,000-SF of office space,as well as a 50-room hotel,on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result,the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project's construction-related GHG emissions,we prepared an updated model,reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented,the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C).

Local Hire Provision Net Change
Without Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT C02e)
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CChe/year)
3,623
120.77
With Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT C02e)
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT C02e/year)
% Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions
3,024
100.80
17%
As demonstrated above,by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths,the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly,any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions,though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions,though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described,the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project's urbanization level and location.
14 "Appendix D Default Data Tables." CAPCOA, October 2017,available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05 appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4. p. D-85. 4 2-143
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future;thus,we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised,under similar circumstances,by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty,expressed or implied,is made as to the scope of work,work methodologies and protocols,site conditions,analytical testing results,and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work,and may contain informational gaps,inconsistencies,or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann,P.G.,C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld,Ph.D.
5 2-144
Attachment A
Rural H-W
(miles)
Urban H-W
(miles)Location Type Location Name
Air Basin
Air Basin
Air Basin
Air Basin
Air Basin
Air Basin
Air Basin
Air Basin
Air Basin
Air Basin
Air Basin
Air Basin
Air Basin
Air Basin
Air Basin
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Great Basin
Lake County
Lake Tahoe
Mojave Desert
Mountain
North Central
North Coast
Northeast
Sacramento
Salton Sea
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
South Central
South Coast
Amador County
Antelope Valley
Bay Area AQMD
Butte County
Calaveras
Colusa County
El Dorado
Feather River
Glenn County
Great Basin
Imperial County
Kern County
Lake County
Lassen County
Mariposa
Mendocino
Modoc County
Mojave Desert
Monterey Bay
North Coast
Northern Sierra
Northern
Placer County
Sacramento

16.8 10.8

17.1 12.3

16.8 10.8

14.6 11

16.8 10.8

10.8 10.8

16.8 10.8

19.8 14.7

16.8 10.8

10.8 10.8

12.54 12.54

16.8 10.8

10.2 7.3

16.8 10.8

16.8 10.8
15 10
2-145
San Diego
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Shasta County
Siskiyou County
South Coast
Tehama County
Tuolumne
Ventura County
Yolo/Solano
Alameda
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado-Lake
El Dorado-
Fresno
Glenn
Humboldt
Imperial
Inyo
Kern-Mojave
Kern-San
Kings
Lake
Lassen
Los Angeles-
Los Angeles-
Madera
Marin
Mariposa
Mendocino-
Mendocino-
Mendocino-
Mendocino-
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey
Napa

16.8 10.8Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
Air District
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County

16.8 10.8
13 13

8.3 8.3

16.8 10.8

19.8 14.7

16.8 10.8

16.8 10.8
15 10

10.8 10.8

16.8 10.8

12.54 12.54

16.8 10.8

10.8 10.8

16.8 10.8

10.2 7.3

16.8 10.8

19.8 14.7

16.8 10.8

10.8 10.8

16.8 10.8

10.8 10.8
2-146
Nevada
Orange
Placer-Lake
Placer-Mountain
Placer-
Plumas
Riverside-
Riverside-
Riverside-Salton
Riverside-South
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino-
San Bernardino-
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Santa Barbara-
Santa Barbara-
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta
Sierra
Siskiyou
Solano-
Solano-San
Sonoma-North
Sonoma-San
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity
Tulare
Tuolumne
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba
Statewide
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
County
Statewide

16.8 10.8

19.8 14.7

16.8 10.8

19.8 14.7

14.6 11

19.8 14.7
15 10

16.8 10.8

19.8 14.7

16.8 10.8

10.8 10.8

16.8 10.8
13 13

10.8 10.8

8.3 8.3

10.8 10.8

16.8 10.8

16.8 10.8
15 10

16.8 10.8

10.8 10.8

16.8 10.8

16.8 10.8
15 10

16.8 10.8

16.8 10.8
2-147
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Rural (miles)

16.8 Urban (miles)

16.8 10.8

17.1 12.3

16.8 10.8

14.6 11

16.8 10.8

10.8 10.8

16.8 10.8

19.8 14.7

16.47 10.80

19.80 11.17

10.80 14.70

9.00 3.90
2-148
Attachment B
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

I I I I
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 +High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 1000sqft 0.8336.00 36,000.00 0 +Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
+Quality Restaurant 1000sqft8.00 0.18 8,000.00 0
+Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 +Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 l- V
Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 33 Climate Zone 9 Operational Year 2028
Utility Company Southern California Edison
C02 Intensity
(Ib/MWhr)
CH4 Intensity
(Ib/MWhr)
N20 Intensity
(Ib/MWhr)
702.44 0.029 0.006

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
2-149
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 44 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PM Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.

Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.

Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.

Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.

Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tbIFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tbIFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
V
tbIFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
V
tbIFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
h
tbIVehicleTrips ST TR 7.16 6.17
V
tbIVehicleTrips ST TR 6.39 3.87
I-tbIVehicleTrips ST TR 2.46 1.39
V
tbIVehicleTrips ST TR 158.37 79.82
I-tbIVehicleTrips ST TR 8.19 3.75
I-tbIVehicleTrips ST TR 94.36 63.99
V
tbIVehicleTrips ST TR 49.97 10.74
tbIVehicleTrips SU TR 6.07 6.16
V
tbIVehicleTrips SU TR 5.86 4.18
V
tbIVehicleTrips SU TR 1.05 0.69
4 tbIVehicleTrips SU TR 131.84 78.27
2-150
2-151
2-152
2-153
2-154
2-155
2-156
2-157
2-158
2-159
2-160
2-161
2-162
2-163
2-164
2-165
2-166
2-167
2-168
2-169
2-170
2-171
2-172
2-173
2-174
2-175
2-176
2-177
2-178
2-179
2-180
2-181
2-182
2-183
2-184
2-185
2-186
2-187
2-188
2-189
2-190
2-191
2-192
2-193
2-194
2-195
2-196
2-197
2-198
2-199
2-200
2-201
2-202
2-203
2-204
2-205
2-206
2-207
2-208
2-209
2-210
2-211
2-212
2-213
2-214
2-215
2-216
2-217
2-218
2-219
2-220
2-221
2-222
2-223
2-224
2-225
2-226
2-227
2-228
2-229
2-230
2-231
2-232
2-233
2-234
2-235
2-236
2-237
2-238
2-239
2-240
2-241
2-242
2-243
2-244
2-245
2-246
2-247
2-248
2-249
2-250
2-251
2-252
2-253
2-254
2-255
2-256
2-257
2-258
2-259
2-260
2-261
2-262
2-263
2-264
2-265
2-266
2-267
2-268
2-269
2-270
2-271
2-272
2-273
2-274
2-275
2-276
2-277
2-278
2-279
2-280
2-281
2-282
2-283
2-284
2-285
2-286
2-287
2-288
2-289
2-290
2-291
2-292
2-293
2-294
2-295
2-296
2-297
2-298
2-299
2-300
2-301
2-302
2-303
2-304
2-305
2-306
2-307
2-308
2-309
2-310
2-311
2-312
2-313
2-314
2-315
2-316
2-317
2-318
2-319
2-320
2-321
2-322
2-323
2-324
2-325
2-326
2-327
2-328
2-329
2-330
2-331
2-332
2-333
2-334
2-335
2-336
2-337
2-338
2-339
2-340
2-341
2-342
2-343
2-344
2-345
2-346
2-347
2-348
2-349
2-350
2-351
2-352
2-353
2-354
2-355
2-356
2-357
2-358
2-359
2-360
2-361
2-362
2-363
2-364
2-365
2-366
2-367
2-368
2-369
2-370
2-371
2-372
2-373
2-374
2-375
2-376
2-377
2-378
2-379
2-380
2-381
2-382
2-383
2-384
2-385
2-386
2-387
2-388
2-389
2-390
2-391
2-392
2-393
2-394
2-395
2-396
2-397
2-398
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter P.36
COMMENTER: Reza Bonachea Mohamadzadeh on behalf of Regional Council of Carpenters DATE: September 11, 2023
Response P.36-1
The commenter states they are commenting on behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters. The commenter explains that the Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing over 90,000 union carpenters in 10 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. The commenter indicates that individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the proposed project’s environmental impacts.

The City thanks the commenter for their interest in the project. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.36-2
The commenter request that the City provide notices issued under CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning law related to the proposed project by mail to the Regional Council of Carpenters.

The commenters will be notified of updates regarding the Final EIR. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.36-3
The commenter recommends that the city incorporate language into the proposed project that requires the use of a local workforce. The commenter states this will lead to sustainable economic development in the area and reduce environmental impacts associated with GHG emissions, air quality, and VMT.

Implementation of the requirement to use a local skilled and trained workforce is beyond the scope of the DEIR since labor and employment is not a required topic under CEQA. Nonetheless, the commenter’s recommendations are noted for review and consideration by the City’s decision- makers. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.36-4
The commenter recommends that the city incorporate language imposing training requirements for construction activities to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases. The commenter recommends a series of measures requested to be incorporated into the proposed project.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s concern regarding infectious diseases. This comment does not pertain to environmental analysis under CEQA. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary.

Response P.36-5
The commenter recommends that the City develop an Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan. The commenter states that the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters 2-399
City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
International Training Fund has developed a COVID-19 Training Certificate. The commenter recommends that the City require all construction workers to undergo this training certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities associated with the proposed project. The commenter also states that the Southwest Carpenters have developed an Infection Control Risk Assessment (ICRA) which they recommend be required as part of the workforce training for contractor working on development under the proposed project.

The City acknowledges the commenter’s concern regarding infectious diseases. This comment does not pertain to environmental analysis under CEQA. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-400
Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report 3-1
Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR
This chapter presents specific text changes made to the Draft EIR since its publication and public review. The changes are presented in the order in which they appear in the original Draft EIR and are identified by the Draft EIR page number. Text deletions are shown in strikethrough, and text additions are shown in underline. The information contained within this chapter clarifies and expands on information in the Draft EIR and does not constitute “significant new information” requiring recirculation, as further described in Section 4, Recirculation Not Warranted.

3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR
Project Description
The goals of the Safety Element listed in the Project Description were updated to reflect changes made to the Safety Element.

Goal S-1: Minimize Mitigate the risk of loss of life, injury, damage to property, and economic and social dislocation resulting from fault rupture and seismically induced ground shaking.

Goal S-2: Minimize Mitigate loss, injury, damage, and economic and social dislocations resulting from soil landslide, debris flow, soil expansion, and settlement.

Goal S-3: Minimize Mitigate loss, injury, damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from soil hazards.

Goal S-4: Minimize Mitigate loss of life, injury, property damage, and economic and social dislocations resulting from inundation by dam failure or floods.

These revisions ensure the Safety Element goals listed in the Project Description match the language of the Safety Element. No environmental impacts would change as a result of this revision.

Air Quality
Regulatory setting information was updated for accuracy and completeness on pages 4.2-9 and

4.2-11.

The 2022 2016 Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is the SIP for Ventura City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

3-2
County. The AQMP accommodates growth by projecting the growth in emissions based on different indicators. For example, population forecasts adopted by SCAG are used to forecast population-related emissions. Through the planning process, emissions growth is offset by basin-wide controls on stationary, area, and transportation sources of air pollution.

According to the VCAPCD Guidelines, in addition to the assessment of criteria pollutants, the lead agency should consider San Joaquin Valley Fever factors that are applicable to any proposed projects. Based on these or other factors, if a lead agency determines that a project may create a significant Valley Fever impact, the VCAPCD recommends that the lead agency consider the Valley Fever mitigation measures listed in the VCAPCD Guidelines to minimize fugitive dust, as well as minimizing worker exposure. The VCAPCD Guidelines provides the following list of measures to be considered if the lead agency determines a project site poses a risk of San Joaquin Valley Fever:

Restrict employment to persons with positive coccidioidin skin tests (since those with positive tests can be considered immune to reinfection)
Hire crews from local populations where possible, since it is more likely that they have been previously exposed to the fungus and are therefore immune Require crews to use respirators during project clearing, grading, and excavation operations in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations Require that the cabs of grading and construction equipment be air-conditioned Require crews to work upwind from excavation sites
Pave construction roads
Where acceptable to the fire department, control weed growth by mowing instead of discing, thereby leaving the ground undisturbed and with a mulch covering The VCAPCD implements rules and regulations for emissions that may be generated by various uses and activities. The rules and regulations detail pollution-reduction measures that must be implemented during construction and operation of projects. Relevant rules and regulations to the project include:
 Rule 51 (Nuisance). This rule states that a person shall not discharge air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public or which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.
 Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust). This rule requires fugitive dust generators, including construction and demolition projects, to implement control measures limiting the amount of dust from vehicle track-out, earth moving, bulk material handling, and truck hauling activities. The rule would apply during construction and operational activities. Therefore, the mitigation measures described in VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines should be applied to all projects related dust-generating operations and activities:

Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report 3-3
 Control techniques for fugitive dust generally involve watering, chemical dust control agents for soil stabilization, scheduling of activities, and vehicle speed control.  Scheduling activities during periods of low-wind speed will also reduce fugitive dust emissions. Additionally, vehicle speed control can reduce fugitive dust emissions from unpaved roads and areas at construction sites by up to 60 percent, assuming compliance with a 15 miles per hour on-site speed limit.  Rule 62.7 (Asbestos – Demolition and Renovation). This rule applies to demolition and renovation operations and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing material. The rule contains notification requirements, emission control requirements and training and licensing requirements.
 Rule 74.2 (Architectural Coatings). This rule sets limits on the VOC content of architectural coatings. Non-flat coatings are limited to 50 150 grams per liter of VOC content; flat coatings are limited to 150 grams per liter of VOC content, and traffic marking coatings are limited to 150 grams per liter of VOC content.

These revisions add more accurate and complete information to the air quality setting. No environmental impacts would change as a result of this revision. These additions are further reflected within the analysis itself on page 4.2-13:

Construction
Future development and mobility improvements associated with the project would involve construction activities that could result in air pollutant emissions. Specifically, construction activities such as demolition, grading, construction worker travel, delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris, and fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment would generate pollutant emissions. These construction activities would create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants, particularly during site preparation and grading. The extent of daily emissions, particularly ROGs and NO X emissions generated by
construction equipment, would depend on the quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation for each project. The extent of PM

2.5 and PM10 emissions would depend on the
following factors: 1) the amount of disturbed soils, 2) the length of disturbance time, 3) whether existing structures are demolished, 4) whether excavation is involved, and 5) whether transporting excavated materials off-site is necessary. Dust emissions can lead to both nuisance and health impacts. Projects within the VCAPCD would be required to comply with standard regulations that have the effect of reducing air quality emissions, such as compliance with VCAPCD Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 62.7 (Asbestos – Demolition and Renovation) and Rule

74.2 (Architectural Coatings).

This addition to the analysis does not alter the impact conclusion.

An additional clarification was made on page 4.2-17 regarding agency recommendations:

3-4
than single-family residences, ADUs, or duplexes can result in potentially significant health risk impacts when Tier 4 construction equipment, which results in substantially lower TAC emissions than older construction equipment, is not utilized. As a result, certain development projects could exceed health risk thresholds if they are located close to sensitive receptors, involve an extended construction duration, and do not utilize Tier 4 or newer construction equipment.

VCAPCD recommends that lead agencies conduct TAC assessments in accordance with the CAPCOA Risk Assessment Guidelines, which does not define health risk thresholds; however, adjacent air districts such as the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District uses an increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in a million and an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute) as a threshold. Therefore, this construction impact would be potentially significant and implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would be required.

This added methodology is the same as utilized in the analysis in the DEIR and does not change the potentially significant impact conclusion.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1 on page 4.2-18 was modified to use disjunctive language instead of conjunctive language.

AQ-1 Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy that Requires Construction HRA
To reduce impacts of substantial pollutant concentrations on sensitive receptors, the City shall adopt the following General Plan policy in the Conservation Element to be implemented as part of the project approval process:
 Policy 10.7: Require new development that is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, will take longer than 2 months, and or does not utilize construction equipment that is USEPA Tier 4, fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter, or uses alternative fuel to prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to identify potential health risk impacts. Based on the results of the HRA, the City shall require mitigation measures as necessary, to reduce potential exposure to toxic air contaminants.

This modification does not change the impact conclusion of Impact AQ-3. No environmental impacts would change as a result of this revision.

Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2 have been revised on pages 4.4-11 and 4.4-13, respectively.

CUL-1 Historical Resources
If determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff Prior to project approval, the project applicant shall submit a report to the City that identifies any historical age features (i.e., structures over 45 years of age) proposed to be altered or demolished. If historical-age features are present, the applicant shall submit a historical resources evaluation to the City prepared in areas that contains buildings, structures, objects, sites, landscape/site plans, or other features that are 45 years of age or older, by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural History or History (36 CFR Part 61). The evaluation shall be carried out in accordance with the guidelines and best practices meeting the State Office of Historic Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report 3-5
Preservation guidelines (NPS 2023b). All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

CUL-2 Archaeological Resources Assessment
For Prior to project approval of a project that involves ground-disturbance activities (that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing, grubbing, tree removal, and grading) and if determined necessary based on preliminary review conducted by City staff, the project applicant shall submit to the City an Archaeological Resources Assessment prepared by a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in either Prehistoric or Historic Archaeology. Assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System records search at the South Central Coast Information Center and a Sacred Lands File Search from the NAHC. The records searches shall characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated in and around the development site. A qualified professional shall conduct a Phase I pedestrian survey for those projects that include undeveloped areas to locate any surface cultural materials.

This revision to Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2 specifies the trigger and timing for implementation. No environmental impacts would change as a result of this revision.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mitigation Measure GHG-2 has been revised on page 4.5-24 to accurately reflect ongoing City planning efforts (i.e., the Climate and Environmental Action Plan [CEAP]).

GHG-2 Adopt Thousand Oaks CEAP to Meet the State’s 2030 and 2045 GHG Emissions Goals
The City shall draft and adopt the Thousand Oaks qualified CEAP by the end of 2024 to outline how Thousand Oaks will meet the State’s 2030 goal of 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels and 2045 goal of carbon neutrality. Implementation measures in the updated qualified CEAP to achieve the 2030 and 2045 goals may include, but are not limited to, the following:
 D evelop and adopt Zero Net Emissions requirements for new and remodeled residential and non-residential development
 Develop and adopt a building electrification ordinance for existing and/or proposed structures
 Expand charging infrastructure and parking for EVs
 Implement carbon sequestration by expanding the urban forest and supporting regional open space protection
 Implement policies and measures included in the California 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan, such as mobile source strategies for increasing clean transit options and zero- emissions vehicles by providing EV charging stations
This revision to Mitigation Measure GHG-2 clarifies the language to be consistent with the City’s CEAP. No environmental impacts would change as a result of this revision.

City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

3-6
Paleontological Resources
Mitigation Measure PAL-1 has been revised on page 4.8-11 to alter the timing of implementation of the measure.

PAL-1 Retention of Qualified Professional Paleontologist Prior to approval submittal of a discretionary development application in areas underlain by high or undetermined sensitivity geologic units (i.e., Quaternary older alluvium, Monterey Formation, Lower Monterey Formation, Sandstone of Lindero Canyon, Conglomerate of Lindero Canyon, Upper Topanga Formation, sandstone, Upper Topanga Formation, clay shale and siltstone, Upper Topanga Formation, sandstone, Upper Topanga Formation, clay shale and siltstone, Conejo Volcanics, basaltic sandstone and siltstone, Lower Topanga Formation, sandstone, Lower Topanga Formation, clay shale, Sespe Formation, Llajas Formation, sandstone, Llajas Formation, claystone and siltstone, Santa Susana Formation, sandstone, Santa Susana Formation, claystone and siltstone, Santa Susana Formation, Simi Conglomerate Member, Chatsworth Formation, sandstone, Chatsworth Formation, clay shale), the City shall require a Qualified Professional Paleontologist [as defined by the SVP (2010)] to be retained by the project applicant to determine the project’s potential to significantly impact paleontological resources according to SVP (2010) standards. If necessary, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall recommend mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level. These measures may include, but not be limited to, implementation of a Worker Environmental Awareness Program, on-site paleontological monitoring, and fossil salvage, if applicable. The City shall review and approve the Qualified Professional Paleontologist’s findings and recommendation. All recommendations shall be incorporated into the project plans prior to issuance of a grading permit.

This revision to Mitigation Measure PAL-1 specifies the timing for implementation. No environmental impacts would change as a result of this revision.

Transportation
The environmental (page 4.11-8) and regulatory setting (page 4.11-12) in Section 4.11, Transportation, have been revised:

Metrolink
Metrolink is operated by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority on behalf of the five counties in the greater Los Angeles metropolitan region. Metrolink offers commuter rail service from East Ventura to Downtown Los Angeles, Monday through Saturday seven days per week via the Ventura County Line.

The Regional Bikeway Wayfinding Plan identifies and prioritizes regional routes, as well as provides a toolkit for wayfinding sign programming, placement, and implementation.

Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report 3-7
VCTC Comprehensive Transportation Plan
The VCTC 2013 Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is a transportation vision for Ventura County that identifies ways of achieving this vision within constrained resources. The CTP is a long-ran
ge policy document, built from community-b
ased, local priorities, and community-
e
xpressed need to enhance regional connections. It is aimed at ensuring mobility and enhancing the quality of life for all Ventura County residents. The CTP provides a framework for future community
-b
ased planning and collaboration and inform Ventura County’s long range transportation decisions.

These revisions add more accurate information to the transportation setting. No environmental impacts would change as a result of this revision.

Safety Element Policy 5.13 on Page 4.11-21 was updated based on changes to the Safety Element.

Emergency Access
Safety Element policies and implementation actions would reduce impacts to emergency access and include:
 Policy 5.2: Road widths and clearances. Ensure that new development has appropriate road widths and clearances in accordance with:
▫ Standards specified in the City of Thousand Oaks Road Standards and construction specifications in effect at the time of construction.
▫ Any other standard and specific conditions required by State and County Fire Codes and VCFPD in the permit application.
 Policy5.13 5.14: Ingress and egress points. Whenever feasible, require the construction of multiple ingress and egress points for new development projects in high fire hazard severity zones Fire Hazard Severity Zones. For example, each neighborhood/subdivision should have at least two emergency evacuation ingress and egress points. See Figure 10.79.

These revisions reflect updated policy language in the Safety Element. No environmental impacts would change as a result of this revisi
on.

Wildfire
Figure 4.13-2 on Page 4.13-7 in the environmental setting has been revised to reflect revisions made to the Safety Element. The revised figure is shown below. No environmental impacts would change as a result of this revision.

City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

3-8

Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report 3-9
The Wildfire impact analyses W-1, W-2, and W-3 on pages 4.13-15 through 4.13-18 and 4.13-20, have been revised to reflect updated language in the Safety Element.

Impact W-1
TO2045’s Safety Element includes the following proposed goals, policies, and associated implementation actions to ensure safe and efficient evacuation and emergency response:
 Policy 5.2: Road widths and clearances. Ensure that new development has appropriate road widths and clearances in accordance with:
 Standards specified in the City of Thousand Oaks Road Standards and construction specifications in effect at the time of construction.
 Any other standard and specific conditions required by State and County Fire Codes and VCFPD in the permit application.
 Policy 5.9: Public outreach and education. Educate residents on fire hazard reduction strategies to employ on their properties and nearby evacuation routes. Prioritize outreach to the most vulnerable populations such as older adults and individuals with chronic health conditions.
 Policy5.12 5.13: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Follow all guidelines in the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan MJHMP and other applicable County, State, and Federal fire mitigation policies.
 P olicy5.13 5.14: Ingress and egress points. Whenever feasible, require the construction of multiple ingress and egress points for new development projects in high fire hazard severity zones Fire Hazard Severity Zones. For example, each neighborhood/subdivision should have at least two emergency evacuation ingress and egress points. See Figure 10.79.  Policy5.18 5.27: Evacuation operations planning. Continue to assess and update the City’s Emergency Operations plan to improve evacuation operations and planning for the community, with a focus on areas with inadequate access/evacuation routes, identified in Figure 10.9. This includes developing minimum standards for evacuation of residential areas in VHFHSZs.

Impact W-2
However, TO2045’s Safety Element includes the following goals, policies, and associated implementation actions in order to minimize potential wildfire risks:
 Goal S-5: Provide necessary prevention services to reduce loss and damage due to wildfire.  Policy 5.3: Defensive Defensible spaces. Establish defensive defensible spaces in the urban/wildland urban interface (WUI) to protect against wildfire. Defensive spaces shall:
 Establish and maintain a 100-foot defensible perimeter or other measures in compliance with state and local codes around each habitable structure along the urban wildland WUI interface.
 Provide for the removal of annual fuels within the defensive defensible perimeter.  Provide any fire suppression resource from any agency the opportunity to successfully protect structures and other valuable properties during a wildfire threat.

City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

3-10
 Create an ember resistant zone within 5 feet of structures by using extra fuel reduction measures within 5 and 10 feet of the structure, pursuant to AB 3074.  Protect watershed areas from exposure to structure fires in the urban/wildland WUI interface areas.
 Policy 5.4: Public facilities and utilities in high fire zones. Discourage the location of new public facilities and above-ground utilities in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. When unavoidable, special precautions should be taken to minimize potential fire impacts to public facilities.
 Policy 5.5: Science-based fuel management. Work with the Ventura County Fire Protection District, the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency, and other agencies, as appropriate, to implement science-based fuel management programs and post fire recovery plans that conserve wildlife habitat while protecting public safety.  Policy 5.6: Fire safe development standards. Continue to update and require fire safe design into development standards for new development in SRAs or VHFHSZs that meet or exceed the statewide minimums in the SRA Fire Safe Regulations. Fire safe development codes shall include Continue to develop stringent initial site design standards, landscape design standards, on-going maintenance standards, and mitigation measures into individual developments to reduce the potential damage and destruction due to fire.  P olicy 5.8 : Wildfire resilience. Continue to meet all current standards and best practices for wildfire planning in accordance with local regulations and State guidance.  Policy 5.10 5.11: Development fire safety compliance. Ensure that all new development in SRAs or VHFHSZs complies with fire safety requirements for construction in, including the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones most current version of the California Building Codes, California Fire Code, and Fire Safe Regulations for fuel modification around homes and subdivisions.
 Policy 5.11 5.12: Fire management best practices. Require that developments located in wildland urban interface areas incorporate measures to reduce the threat of wildfires, accounting for any increased risk related to climate change. Clearly delineate fuel modification areas on grading plans.

Impact W-3
TO2045 includes policies described in Impact W-2 which would ensure new development would minimize fire risk through adherence to defensive space requirements, development standards, fire management best practices, and wildfire resilience standards. TO2045’s Safety Element includes the following policy related to fuel breaks:
 Policy 5.15: Long-term fuel reduction. Continue to establish and maintain community fire breaks and fuel modification/reduction zones, including public and private road clearance.

Implement the Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, the VCFPD Unit Strategic Fire Plan, and the Ventura County Community Wildfire Protection Plan by requiring long term maintenance of fuel reduction projects; including but not limited to, a roadside fuel reduction plan, defensible space clearances (including fuel beaks) around structures, subdivision, and other development in the VHFHSZ.

These changes reflect updates to the policy language within the Safety Element. No environmental impacts would change as a result of this revision.

Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report 3-11
Effects Found Not To Be Significant
The analysis of hazards and hazardous materials has been revised in Section 4.14, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, on pages 4.14-9 and 4.14-10:

Upset and Accident Conditions
As described under the Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, and Disposal discussion, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous material would be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Materials Management Act, CCR Title 22, and Title 49 of the CFR. Additionally, t The City’s Public Works Department, Emergency Management Division has protocols to remedy the accidental release of hazardous materials, as set forth in the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (City of Thousand Oaks 2020). Additionally, the Ventura County Certified Unified Program Agency Emergency Response HazMat Team would serve as an emergency response contact for hazardous materials release. These regulatory safeguards minimize exposure of the public and environment to a potential release of hazardous materials.

Future development facilitated by the proposed project could include industrial uses that p
otentially sell, use, store, transport, or release substantial quantities of hazardous materials.

Businesses that handle certain chemicals over threshold quantities are required to abide by the Ventura County Division of Environmental Health, Certified Unified Program Agency, and programs, such as preparation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). The HMBP consists of basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials, and emergency response and training plans (CalEPA 2023). Hazardous materials must be reported in a HMBP if they are handled in quantities equal or greater than 55 gallons of a liquid, 200 standard cubic feet of a compressed gas, or 500 pounds of a solid. Mandatory reporting in HMBPs would reduce potential hazards to workers and the general public near industrial development from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Typically, small fuel or oil spills would have a less-than-significant impact on public health.

City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

3-12
These revisions add more accurate information to the hazards and hazardous materials analysis. No environmental impacts would change as a result of this revision.

Appendix D
Page D-2 and Page D-3 of the Thousand Oaks GPU – Daily Roadway Segment Volumes, Speeds, Lanes, Vehicle Mix, and Day Mix table were revised to list all Wendy Drive segments together. The revised Appendix D is attached to the Final EIR, whereby all Wendy Drive segments are listed on Page D-3. This revision has no impact on environmental analysis.

Recirculation Not Warranted

Final Environmental Impact Report 4-1
Recirculation Not Warranted
As presented in Chapter 3, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR, minor revisions to the Draft EIR would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The Minor Revisions (Chapter 3) identifies textual modifications to the Final EIR.

The revised text serves to amplify, correct, supplement or clarify, information in the public review Draft EIR. It does not substantively affect the level of impact, nor the conclusions presented.

Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted.

CEQA requires recirculation of a Draft EIR only when “significant new information” is added to a Draft EIR after public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR has occurred but before the EIR is certified (Public Resources Code Section 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5). Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)).

The relevant portions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 (items a, b and e) read as follows:
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. 3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. (e) A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.

The revisions to the Draft EIR in Section 4.2, Air Quality, add regulatory information and clarify regulatory guidance and recommendations in the impact analysis. Further revisions to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 replaces an “or” statement with an “and” statement. Recirculation is not required where new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes minor modifications in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)). Revisions to Section 4.2, Air Quality, clarify and City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

4-2
amplify the regulatory environment and clarifies Mitigation Measure AQ-1; they would not result in any secondary or otherwise undisclosed effect.

The revisions to Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, refine and clarify Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2. These revisions would strengthen the mitigation measures themselves and the ability of the City to implement and enforce Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 by better specifying when implementation would be required. Recirculation is not required where new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes minor modifications in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)). Revisions to Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, clarify and amplify the standards established by these measures and they would not result in any secondary or otherwise undisclosed effect.

The revisions to Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, refine and clarify Mitigation Measures GHG-2. These revisions would ensure that the City’s CEAP is accurately described and characterized.

Recirculation is not required where new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes minor modifications in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)). Revisions to Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, clarify the standards established by this measure and they would not result in any secondary or otherwise undisclosed effect.

The revision to Section 4.8 Paleontological Resources, refines and clarifies Mitigation Measures PAL-

1. The revisions would strengthen the mitigation measure itself and the ability of the City to implement and enforce Mitigation Measure PAL-1 by better specifying when implementation would be required. Recirculation is not required where new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes minor modifications in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)). Revisions to Section 4.8, Paleontological Resources, clarify and amplify the standards established by this measure and they would not result in any secondary or otherwise undisclosed effect.

The revisions to the Draft EIR in Section 4.11, Transportation, correct environmental setting information and add relevant regulatory information. Recirculation is not required where new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes minor modifications in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)). Revisions to Section 4.11, Transportation, clarify and amplify the existing setting and regulatory environment, which does not result in any secondary or otherwise undisclosed effect.

The revisions to the Draft EIR in Section 4.14, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, add relevant regulatory information. Recirculation is not required where new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes minor modifications in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)). Revisions to Section 4.14, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, clarify and amplify the regulatory environment, which does not result in any secondary or otherwise undisclosed effect.

The revisions to the Draft EIR in Appendix D, correct a clerical error. Recirculation is not required where new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes minor modifications in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)). Revisions to Appendix D clarify the existing setting, which does not result in any secondary or otherwise undisclosed effect.

The revisions to Safety Element policy language were reflected in the Draft EIR in Section 2, Project Description, Section 4.11, Transportation, and Section 4.13, Wildfire, in addition to the updated Figure 4.13-2. Safety Element revisions were based upon consultation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. These revisions were carried over to the Draft EIR for consistency. Recirculation is not required where new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes minor modifications in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b)). Revisions Recirculation Not Warranted

Final Environmental Impact Report 4-3
to Safety Element policies in the aforementioned sections clarify the regulatory environment, which does not result in any secondary or otherwise undisclosed effect.

The new information and revised wording of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, CUL-1, CUL-2, and PAL-1 added to this Final EIR would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, nor a new significant environmental impact that would result from the revised mitigation.

Finally, additional information provided in this Final EIR does not present a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed in the EIR that the City has declined to adopt and that would lessen an environmental impact.

The information added to this Final EIR supplements, clarifies, amplifies, and corrects information in the Draft EIR. The City has reviewed the information in the Minor Revisions and has determined that it does not change any of the basic findings or conclusions of the EIR, does not constitute “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, and does not require recirculation of the Draft EIR. This decision is supported by substantial evidence provided in this EIR.

City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

4-4

This page intentionally left blank.

References

Final Environmental Impact Report 5-1
5 References

5.1 Bibliography
Response to Comments
Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluation Transportation Impacts in CEQA. April 2018. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf (accessed October 2023).

Ventura Council of Governments and Ventura County Transportation Commission. 2023. Ventura County CEQA Vehicle Miles Traveled Adaptive Mitigation Program. May 12, 2023. https://www.goventura.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Ventura-County-AMP-Final- Report_Approved-by-VCTC-05.12.2023.pdf (accessed October 2023).

Office of the Attorney General. 2022. Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR
Ventura County Transportation Commission. 2017. Ventura County Regional Bikeway Wayfinding Plan. April 2017. https://www.goventura.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/VCTC_Bicycle_Wayfinding__Plan_April_2017_FINAL.pdf (accessed October 2023).

City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

5-2

This page intentionally left blank.

Revised Appendix D
Transportation Memo and Data

DRAFT MEMORANDUM

To: City of Thousand Oaks From: Iteris, Inc.

Date: August 8, 2023

RE: Thousand Oaks General Plan Update – Draft CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis

INTRODUCTION
This memorandum describes the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation impact analysis for the City of Thousand Oaks General Plan Update (GPU). The evaluation is consistent with CEQA Guidelines effective December 28, 2018. The General Plan Update’s impacts are evaluated per Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form of the current CEQA guidelines, which assesses projects by the four criteria listed below:

T‐1 Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

T‐2 Would the project conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

T‐3 Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

T‐4 Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

PROJECT SETTING
Thousand Oaks is served by a system of streets and paths that enable connections within the City and to the regional transportation system. The facilities are classified by their function with different characteristics and accommodations for modes of travel and access to adjacent land use. The system supports multiple modes of travel and contains network elements that support vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel.

The local pedestrian network is a sidewalk system along the roadway network, greenbelts, and trails with sidewalk crossings at intersections. The City’s Road Design and Construction Standards require sidewalk for all roadway cross sections with a five‐foot minimum sidewalk with no buffer area (monolithic) and four‐foot minimum sidewalk if a buffer is present (detached).

The local bicycle network in Thousand Oaks is composed of a combination of facilities on roadways, sidewalks, and off‐street paths. A defined bikeway network describes the hierarchy of bicycle‐specific infrastructure. The recommended bicycle network is based on the Thousand Oaks Active Transportation 2 Plan (ATP). Many of the proposed improvements are Class II bicycle lanes sited on principal arterials such as Janss Road and secondary/minor arterials such as Hillcrest Drive.

Lastly, the City is served by multiple transit operators along its roadway network and at the City Transportation Center. Transit services provide reliable and efficient travel to social services, healthcare facilities, and key job centers.

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
For impact criteria T‐1, T‐3, and T‐4, a qualitative assessment was prepared, through review of the General Plan Update goals and policies (and comparing against relevant plans as appropriate) to determine if any potential significant impacts would occur as a result of the Project.

For impact criteria T‐2, a technical analysis was performed using the Ventura County Transportation Model (VCTM), a computerized travel demand model maintained by the Ventura County Transportation Commission. Iteris utilized the VCTM to generate the VMT statistics. This land‐use based model, which is a subarea model of the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) travel demand model, is consistent with the 2016 SCAG RTP/SCS travel‐demand model assumptions and inputs. The model consists of a 2016 base year scenario and 2040 future year scenario. The VCTM consists of a detailed traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure in the City of Thousand Oaks, including 110 TAZ’s within the City.

For the impact criteria T‐2 analysis, all VMT for trips beginning or ending in the City were accounted for, consistent with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. While other methodologies measure only the amount of VMT traveling
on streets within the City, or only half the distance of trips from outside of the City (as in SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Target analysis), the General Plan Update analyzes the full extent of vehicle travel from the Project.

For the purposes of the analysis, the VCTM 2040 scenario is used to represent the General Plan buildout year of 2045. This is a conservative approach, as a review of SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS and 2020 RTP/SCS shows a reduction in population and employment forecasts in Ventura County in SCAG’s buildout year 2045 versus 2040.

In order to determine the GPU project’s potential level of impact, a new VCTM scenario was prepared, incorporating the 2045 land use projections (within the City of Thousand Oaks) of the General Plan Update. For land use plans which include both residential and employment uses, the appropriate analysis metric is VMT per service population, where service population is defined as the number of residents plus the number of jobs. Table 1 summarizes the General Plan Update’s proposed net changes in land use, which were incorporated into the TAZ’s based on the location of change areas.

3 Table 1: Proposed General Plan Update Net Land Use Changes Land Use Type Existing
(2016)
Proposed Land Use Plan
(2045) Net Change
Residential
Residential Units 47,182 units 55,049 units +7,867 units Non‐Residential
Employment 69,755 jobs 81,623 jobs +11,868 jobs

As shown, the GPU’s anticipated change in dwelling units and employment over the 2045 estimated buildout is:

 Addition of 7,867 residential units; and
 Addition of 11,868 jobs.

IMPACT ANALYSIS
This section presents the CEQA impact evaluation for each of the four criteria.

T‐1 Impact Evaluation
The General Plan Update project’s planned transportation networks, goals and policies provide consistency related to regional active transportation plans, transit plans, and other mobility infrastructure; specifically the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and Ventura County Transportation Commission Comprehensive Transportation Plan.

SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
Thousand Oaks is a member of the SCAG Regional Council, the decision‐making body of the SCAG Joint Powers Authority under California state law, established as an association of local governments and agencies that voluntarily convene as a forum to address regional issues. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and under state law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments. The SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), Connect SoCal is a long‐range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. The Connect SoCal RTP/SCS is a planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding. In addition, Connect SoCal 2024 will identify a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements, 4 preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, and support our vital goods movement industry.

The RTP/SCS is updated every four years and it is anticipated that the City will work with SCAG to update the RTP/SCS to be consistent with the City’s General Plan. The General Plan includes strategies to focus development (areas of change) in the City’s commercial core, which allows multiple land uses to work together, to reduce vehicle trip lengths. The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2016 Mobile Source Strategy recognizes that coordinated regional planning can improve California’s land use patterns and transportation policy in a way that reduces transportation related emissions by reducing growth in VMT.

Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) Comprehensive Transportation Plan The VCTC Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is a transportation vision for Ventura County and identify ways of achieving this vision within constrained resources. The CTP is a long‐range policy document, built from community‐based, local priorities and community‐expressed need to enhance regional connections. It is aimed at ensuring mobility and enhancing the quality of life for all Ventura County residents. The CTP provides a framework for future community‐based planning and collaboration and inform Ventura County’s long range transportation decisions. The City’s General Plan Update is consistent with the CTP Shared Vision of the Future1 of the transportation system:
 Preserving Quality of Life
 A Connected and Integrated Transportation System
 Convenient and Accessible Options
 Inclusive of All Community Members and Needs
 Safe
 Balances All Interests
 Built from a Sustainable Plan
The following relevant goals and policies, as part of the General Plan Mobility Element, would support consistency with these plans:
 Access and Connectivity
Goal M‐1: Create and maintain a transportation system that is safe for travelers of all ages and abilities regardless of mode
o Policy M‐1.1: Safety. Use the Local Road Safety Plan to ensure a systemic safety approach to proactively mitigate conflict and address gaps in the system.

Goal M‐2: Create and maintain a public transit system that is equitable, affordable, efficient, and accessible to all people in Thousand Oaks
o Policy M‐2.7: Regional Programs. Support regional congestion management and air quality programs.
 Managed Infrastructure Improvements Goal M‐4: Create a transportation system that will accommodate future growth that provides modes for all

1https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file‐
attachments/dpeir_connectsocal_appendix02_planprojectlist.pdf?1606004008 5 o Policy M‐4.11: Regional Collaboration. Collaborate with VCTC, SCAG and Caltrans to obtain planning grants and update the Capital Improvement Plan, Local Road Safety Plan, Active Transportation Plan or other transportation planning efforts.

The General Plan Update is consistent with programs, plans, ordinances and policies addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, making the impact less‐ than‐significant and no further mitigation would be required.

T‐2 Impact Evaluation
Under criteria T‐2, the proposed General Plan Update’s effects on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) are evaluated, as described in the following sub‐sections.

VMT Impact Analysis
The City currently evaluates VMT impacts of individual development projects on a case‐by‐case basis (in terms of thresholds of significance). Therefore, as part of the Implementation Plan, an action was included to address this. Action M‐A.7 states the following:

 VMT‐based transportation analysis policy & VMT mitigations for environmental review – Adopt and implement the City’s VMT Analysis Guidelines, which defines VMT‐based thresholds of significance for transportation impacts in environmental review and identified TDM‐based mitigations.

The thresholds of significance, for use in this analysis, are defined as:

 The project would result in a significant impact if the project conditions (i.e., the General Plan Update conditions) average daily citywide VMT per service population exceeds 15% below the existing conditions average daily citywide VMT per service population.

While a 15 percent threshold is used in this Program EIR to analyze VMT impacts of the proposed project, this threshold may not be utilized by the City as lead agency for future projects. Lead agencies have the discretion to choose the
most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(4). Therefore, the 15 percent lower per capita and per employee VMT than existing regional development threshold used to analyze VMT of the proposed project in accordance with the OPR Technical Advisory may not necessarily be used for future projects in Thousand Oaks. As lead agency, the City may choose to adopt a lower threshold than OPR’s recommended threshold due to geographical considerations. Until Implementation Action M‐A.7 is implemented, the City may continue to apply VMT significance thresholds on a case‐by‐case basis.

Applying the described
land use projections, citywide VMT outputs were developed using the VCTM. Table 2 summarizes the daily citywide VMT per service population for the existing and future year 2045 with General Plan Update scenarios. Detailed VMT calculations are provided in Appendix A.

6 Table 2: Citywide VMT Summary
Scenario
Total Home‐
based Daily
VMT
Total Work‐
based Daily
VMT
“Other”‐
based VMT*
Total Daily
VMT Residents Employees
Service
Populatio
n
VMT /
Service
Population
Existing (2016) 2,056,268 1,578,635 2,703,632 6,338,536 134,171 69,755 203,926 31.08 Future Year 2045
With GPU 2,637,386 1,601,761 2,518,876 6,758,023 154,031 81,623 235,654 28.68 * "Other" trips include school, university, shopping, social/recreational, and other non‐home and non‐work related trip ends.

As shown in Table 2, the future year 2045 with General Plan Update citywide VMT per service population is forecast to be 28.68, while the existing (2016) citywide VMT per service population is currently 31.08.

As such, 15% below existing citywide VMT per service population is 26.42. Therefore, the future year 2045 with General Plan Update citywide VMT per service population (28.68) is forecast exceed the threshold.

Thus, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

Goals and Policies Affecting VMT Reduction
The following relevant goals and policies, as part of the General Plan Mobility Element, would have an effect
on reducing VMT:

 Access and Connectivity
Goal M‐1: Create and maintain a transportation system that is safe for travelers of all ages and abilities regardless of mode
o Policy M‐1.5: Active Transportation. Reaffirm and implement the Active Transportation Plan, designed to provide guidance for non‐motorized travel, infrastructure improvements that make multimodal transportation safer, provides connectivity, and safety thresholds for roadways that balance motorized and non‐motorized transportation.

Goal M‐2: Create and maintain a public transit system that is equitable, affordable, efficient, and accessible to all people in Thousand Oaks
o Policy M‐2.1: Mobility Barriers. Prioritize investments that reduce first/last‐mile barriers to transit stops and encourage alternative transportation options for activities of daily living.
o Policy M‐2.2: Access to services. Provide safe and comfortable connections for walking and biking from residential areas to schools, parks, grocery stores, employment centers, transit stops, and essential services citywide.
o Policy M‐2.3: Transit service coverage. Work with Thousand Oaks Transit and regional transit providers to provide reliable and quality transit services to social services, healthcare facilities, and major employment areas.
o Policy M‐2.4: Transit service frequency. Increase the frequency of service along existing transit routes.
7  Community Health
Goal M‐3: Create and maintain a transportation system that improves community health. o Policy M‐3.1: Active travel facilities. Prioritize active transportation investments that provide a means for physical activity, and improve access to Thousand Oaks’ parks, trails, equestrian facilities, open space, and recreational areas. o Policy M‐3.2: Neighborhood streets. Create neighborhood streets that unify neighborhoods, reduce vehicle speeds, reduce barriers for people walking, biking, and riding transit, and provide connectivity to arterials. Extend stubbed‐end streets through future developments, where appropriate, to provide necessary circulation within a developing area and for adequate internal circulation within and between neighborhoods.
o Policy M‐3.5: Mixed‐use development. Require development of mixed‐use to include multimodal improvements, such as convenient bicycle parking and storage facilities, EV charging stations, and vehicle share programs for reduced parking. o Policy M‐3.6: Trip reduction. Implement pedestrian‐oriented land uses that reduce vehicle miles travelled through providing community supportive services such as healthy food, childcare, and access to other daily services.

 Managed Infrastructure Improvements
Goal M‐4: Create a transportation system that will accommodate future growth that provides for all modes.
o Policy M‐4.6: Micro‐mobility support. Expand mobility for first and last‐mile transportation needs in addition to providing access to local university students.

Goal M‐5: Create and maintain a transportation system that fosters vibrant commercial centers and economic resiliency.
o Policy M‐5.1: Public rights of way. Construct wider sidewalks on streets in a manner that improves public safety and pedestrian access to commercial areas. o Policy M‐5.3: Bicycle parking. Expand the availability of secure and convenient bicycle parking at key destinations.
o Policy M‐5.6: Multimodal improvements. Multimodal improvements should focus on enhancing access to Thousand Oaks Boulevard, Moorpark Road, and other major arterials.

 Sustainability
Goal M‐6: Create and maintain a transportation system that reduces impacts to the environment while leveraging sustainability innovations.
o Policy M‐6.1: Decrease vehicle trips. Prioritize transportation and development investments and strategies that reduce single‐occupancy vehicle trips. o Policy M‐6.2: Decrease vehicle miles. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle and other micro‐ mobility transportation means, and transit enhancements. Encourage infill, mixed‐use, and other land use development that locates resources and services near to residents’ homes.
o Policy M‐6.4: Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Promote and incentivize the 8 use of TDM strategies for employers and expand options for emission reductions from commuting through means such as vehicle sharing, alternative fuel vehicle support, and telecommuting.

T‐3 Impact Evaluation
The objective of the General Plan is to ensure future development and transportation facilities would improve connectivity and linkages throughout the City. Any proposed roadway improvements included in the General Plan will be designed to City and State engineering design standards to meet sight distance requirements, including visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists. The General Plan does not propose any incompatible uses that would increase hazards. As a result, the General Plan will have a beneficial impact on geometric design features and incompatible uses. In addition, the following relevant goal and policies, as part of the General Plan’s Mobility Element, would have a positive effect on geometric design:

 Access and Connectivity
Goal M‐1: Create and maintain a transportation system that is safe for travelers of all ages and abilities regardless of mode.
o Policy M‐1.1: Safety. Use the Local Road Safety Plan to ensure a systemic safety approach to proactively mitigate conflict and address gaps in the system. o Policy M‐1.2: Roadway Design. Design and maintain the public right‐of‐way through a complete streets approach that facilitates safe, comfortable, and efficient travel for all travelers on the roadway.
o Policy M‐1.3: Intersection Design. Prioritize mobility and safety for non‐motorized modes in all intersection designs.

 Community Health
Goal M‐3: Create and maintain a transportation system that improves community health. o Policy M‐3.5: Mixed‐use development. Require development of mixed‐use to include multimodal improvements, such as convenient bicycle parking and storage facilities, EV charging stations, and vehicle share programs for reduced parking.

Based on the goals and policies of the General Plan, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment. Thus, this impact is considered less than significant.

T‐4 Impact Evaluation
The General Plan Update does not include elements that would impede emergency vehicle access. Public roadways and buildings would conform to City and County Fire Department standards for access. In addition, the following relevant goal and policy, as part of the General Plan, would have a positive effect on emergency access:

 Access and Connectivity
Goal M‐1: Create and maintain a transportation system that is safe for travelers of all ages and abilities regardless of mode.
o Policy M‐1.2: Roadway Design. Design and maintain the public right‐of‐way through a 9 complete streets approach that facilitates safe, comfortable, and efficient travel for all travelers on the roadway.

Thus, this impact is considered less than significant.

10 APPENDIX A – VMT Calculations

Thousand Oaks GPU
CEQA Transportation
Appendix A
Detailed VMT Outputs
ID Purpose Productions Attractions
1 Home ‐based Work 1,062,410      1,367,170
2 Home ‐based School 31,574            61,212
3 Home ‐based University 7,811              217,178
4 Home ‐based Shopping 178,464          211,863
5 Home ‐based Social‐Recreational 350,904         429,298 6 Home ‐based Serve Passenger 82,310            157,232 7 Home ‐based Other 342,795          527,904
8 Work ‐Based Other 211,466          157,483
9 Other Based Other 491,679          449,784              2,703,632          <‐ Other‐based total 2,759,413     3,579,123           6,338,536          <‐ Total VMT 203,926 <‐ Service Population
ID Purpose Productions Attractions
1 Home ‐based Work 1,585,207      1,364,253
2 Home ‐based School 49,368            57,209
3 Home ‐based University 9,331              184,415
4 Home ‐based Shopping 187,493          214,947
5 Home ‐based Social‐Recreational 350,782         410,449 6 Home ‐based Serve Passenger 98,205            141,750 7 Home ‐based Other 357,000          520,119
8 Work ‐Based Other 237,508          129,373
9 Other Based Other 460,358          400,256              2,518,876          <‐ Other‐based total 3,335,252     3,422,771           6,758,023          <‐ Total VMT 235,654 <‐ Service Population
Total Employees 69,755
Total Home‐based VMT/Capita 15.33
Thousand Oaks
Total VMT
Total Home‐based VMT 2,056,268
Total Work‐based VMT 1,578,635
2016 (Base)
Total Work‐based VMT/Employee 22.63
Total VMT/Service Population 31.08
Total Population 134,171
2040 With GPU Project
Thousand Oaks
Total VMT/Service Population 28.68
Total Employees 81,623
Total Home‐based VMT/Capita 17.12
Total Work‐based VMT/Employee 19.62
Total VMT
Total Home‐based VMT 2,637,386
Total Work‐based VMT 1,601,761
Total Population 154,031
Traffic Data

Environmental Impact Report

D
-
1 Thousand Oaks GPU
-

Daily Roadway Segment Volumes, Speeds, Lanes, Vehicle Mix, and Day Mix

Roadway

Location

Existing ADT

(from counts)

Preliminary Post
-
processed

Future Year with GPU Daily Volume

Posted

Speed Limit

Number

of Lanes

Vehicle Mix %

Day Mix %

Autos

Medium
Trucks

Heavy
Trucks

Daytime

(7am
-
7pm)

Evening

(7pm
-
10pm)

Nightime

(10pm
-
7am)

1 Moorpark Rd

Santa Rosa Rd to Olsen Rd

13,490

15,100

45 2

100.00%

0.00%

80.6%

12.9%

6.5%

2 Olsen Rd to Avenida de Los Arboles

14,970

17,000

45 4

99.52%

0.11%

0.14%

80.6%

12.9%

6.5%

3 Avenida de Los Arboles to Avenida de Las Flores

17,470

19,900

45 4

99.52%

0.11%

0.12%

80.6%

12.9%

6.5%

4 Avenida de Las Flores to Janss Rd

23,530

27,000

45 4

99.15%

0.19%

0.33%

80.6%

12.9%

6.5%

5 Janss Rd to Wilbur Rd

25,865

30,800

45 4

98.92%

0.32%

0.39%

80.6%

12.9%

6.5%

6 Wilbur Rd to Hillcrest Dr

17,220

19,700

35 5

97.88%

0.54%

0.97%

80.6%

12.9%

6.5%

7 Hillcrest Dr to Thousand Oaks Blvd

27,190

35,200

35 5

97.56%

0.54%

1.26%

80.6%

12.9%

6.5%

8 Thousand Oaks Blvd to US
-
101

30,900

35,800

35 5

97.35%

0.57%

1.43%

80.6%

12.9%

6.5%

9 South of US
-
101

17,990

20,500

40 4

99.32%

0.23%

0.15%

80.6%

12.9%

6.5%

10 Olsen Rd

North City Boundary to
SR
-
23 24,690

26,600

50 4

99.05%

0.25%

0.33%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

11 SR
-
23 to Erbes Rd

23,980

29,100

50 4

99.42%

0.14%

0.13%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

12 Erbes Rd to Sunset Hills Blvd

17,770

21,600

50 4

99.48%

0.13%

0.10%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

13 Sunset Hills Blvd to
Moorpark Rd

24,170

28,200

50 4

99.16%

0.20%

0.25%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

14 Moorpark Rd to Avenida De Los Arboles

16,800

18,900

50 4

99.45%

0.13%

0.15%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

15 Lynn Rd

Janss Rd to Camino Dos Rios

26,030

27,800

45 4

99.08%

0.24%

0.30%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

16 Camino Dos Rios to Hillcrest Dr

34,380

37,000

45 4

98.82%

0.32%

0.40%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

17 Hillcrest Dr to US
-
101

28,990

31,500

45 4

97.65%

0.54%

1.15%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

18 US
-
101 to Ventu Park Rd

15,750

17,400

50 4

98.04%

0.37%

1.04%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

19 Ventu Park Rd to Wendy Dr

17,693

19,300

50 4

97.70%

0.41%

1.29%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

20 Wendy Dr to Reino Rd

12,950

13,500

50 4

97.38%

0.47%

1.52%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

21 Reino Rd to Via Las Brisas

12,860

13,900

50 4

97.98%

0.38%

1.10%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

22 Via Las Brisas to Rancho Dos Vientos

–

50 4

98.20%

0.34%

1.06%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

23 Erbes Rd

Sunset Hills Blvd to Pederson Rd

13,020

15,800

45 4

99.54%

0.11%

0.13%

84.9%

10.3%

4.8%

24 Pederson Rd to Avenida De Los Arboles

20,680

24,900

45 4

99.50%

0.11%

0.14%

84.9%

10.3%

4.8%

25 Avenida de Los Arboles to Avenida de Las Flores

16,380

18,900

45 4

99.38%

0.15%

0.10%

84.9%

10.3%

4.8%

26 Avenida de Las Flores to Janss Rd

17,410

22,100

45 4

99.61%

0.11%

0.05%

84.9%

10.3%

4.8%

27 Janss Rd to Hillcrest

15,420

19,800

45 2

98.80%

0.39%

0.23%

84.9%

10.3%

4.8%

28 Hillcrest Dr to Thousand Oaks Blvd

8,720

10,600

40 2

99.11%

0.24%

0.27%

84.9%

10.3%

4.8%

29 Westlake Blvd

Avenida De Los Arboles to Kanan Rd

22,310

25,200

50 4

98.70%

0.31%

0.42%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

30 Kanan Rd to Hillcrest Dr

16,670

17,700

50 4

98.25%

0.37%

0.81%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

31 Hillcrest Dr to Thousand Oaks Blvd

23,030

23,200

50 6

95.94%

0.89%

2.12%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

32 Thousand Oaks Blvd to US
-
101

32,860

34,700

50 6

96.86%

0.77%

1.51%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

33 US
-
101 to Agoura Rd

20,070

21,500

40 6

92.46%

1.04%

2.84%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

34 Agoura Rd to Triunfo Cyn Rd

21,360

22,900

40 6

93.68%

0.91%

2.34%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

35 Triunfo Cyn Rd to Potrero Rd

14,930

16,000

40 4

93.51%

0.91%

2.38%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

36 Potrero Rd to South City Boundary

–

35 2

92.74%

0.99%

2.65%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

City of Thousand Oaks

2045
General Plan Update

D
-
2 No

Roadway

Location

Existing ADT

(from counts)

Preliminary Post
-
processed

Future Year with GPU Daily Volume

Posted

Speed Limit

Number

of Lanes

Vehicle Mix %

Day Mix %

Autos

Medium
Trucks

Heavy
Trucks

Daytime

(7am
-
7pm)

Evening

(7pm
-
10pm)

Nightime

(10pm
-
7am)

37 Kanan Rd

Westlake Blvd to East City
Boundary

10,986

13,700

45 4

98.99%

0.26%

0.23%

83.3%

10.8%

5.9%

38 Hampshire Rd

Thousand Oaks Blvd to US
-
101

11,950

12,000

35 5

98.31%

0.43%

0.72%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

39 US
-
101 to Westlake Blvd

11,950

14,800

45 6

99.43%

0.19%

0.08%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

40 Agoura Rd

Westlake Blvd to East City Boundary

18,280

21,600

45 4

98.55%

0.33%

0.43%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

41 Triunfo Cyn Rd

Westlake Blvd to East City Boundary

8,320

9,200

45 4

98.77%

0.26%

0.32%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

42 Ventu Park Rd

Rancho Conejo Blvd to
Hillcrest Dr

19,630

20,900

40 4

94.94%

1.20%

2.53%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

43 Hillcrest Dr to US
-
101

22,260

24,300

40 5

92.98%

1.26%

4.28%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

44 US
-
101 to Lynn Rd

5,480

7,100

40 4

98.58%

0.40%

0.42%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

4501

Rancho Conejo Blvd

Ventu Park Rd to Amgen Center Dr

10,456

13,800

40 4

95.20%

1.11%

2.68%

80.2%

7.7%

12.1%

4502

Amgen Center Dr to Hillcrest Dr

10,456

12,800

40 6

95.02%

1.10%

2.87%

80.2%

7.7%

12.1%

46 Hillcrest Dr to US
-
101

26,010

27,800

40 6

96.74%

0.69%

1.78%

80.2%

7.7%

12.1%

47 Borchard Rd

US
-
101 to Wendy Dr

22,552

27,600

45 4

98.01%

0.44%

0.94%

78.6%

12.6%

8.7%

48 Wendy Dr to Reino Rd

15,970

18,200

45 4

96.75%

0.78%

1.48%

78.6%

12.6%

8.7%

4901

Reino Rd to Via Las Brisas (eastern half)

12,480

14,100

45 4

96.20%

0.94%

1.70%

78.6%

12.6%

8.7%

4902

Reino Rd to Via Las Brisas (western half)

12,480

12,800

45 4

41.73%

15.28%

26.81%

78.6%

12.6%

8.7%

50 Reino Rd

Old Conejo Rd to Borchard Rd

12,480

14,200

40 4

99.35%

0.19%

0.10%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

5101

Borchard Rd to Maurice Dr

10,690

11,800

45 2

99.26%

0.16%

0.20%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

5102

Maurice Dr to Lynn Rd

10,690

11,500

45 2

99.40%

0.14%

0.15%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

53 Janss Rd

Lynn Rd to Moorpark Rd

7,460

8,100

35 4

98.55%

0.28%

0.69%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

54 Moorpark Rd to SR
-
23 19,180

21,300

40 4

98.33%

0.37%

0.78%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

55 SR
-
23 to Erbes Rd

15,630

17,200

40 4

99.33%

0.21%

0.15%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

56 Hillcrest Dr

Camino Dos Rios to Rancho Conejo Blvd

13,480

16,000

45 2

98.16%

0.71%

0.34%

84.3%

10.3%

5.4%

57 Rancho Conejo Blvd to Ventu Park Rd

20,560

24,300

45 4

97.97%

0.71%

0.52%

84.3%

10.3%

5.4%

58 Ventu Park Rd to Lynn Rd

22,880

27,100

45 4

97.08%

0.91%

0.99%

84.3%

10.3%

5.4%

59 Lynn Rd to Moorpark Rd

23,180

28,900

45 6

97.81%

0.63%

0.86%

84.3%

10.3%

5.4%

60 Moorpark Rd to SR
-
23 13,090

14,900

45 4

98.06%

0.55%

0.74%

84.3%

10.3%

5.4%

61 SR
-
23 to Rancho Rd

–

40 4

98.14%

0.54%

0.66%

84.3%

10.3%

5.4%

62 Rancho Rd to Erbes Rd

12,430

15,500

40 4

98.05%

0.68%

0.49%

84.3%

10.3%

5.4%

63 Erbes Rd to Conejo School Rd

17,530

20,200

45 4

98.29%

0.58%

0.43%

84.3%

10.3%

5.4%

64 Conejo School Rd to Westlake Blvd

–

45 4

98.06%

0.67%

0.51%

84.3%

10.3%

5.4%

Traffic Data

Environmental Impact Report

D
-
3 No

Roadway

Location

Existing ADT

(from counts)

Preliminary Post
-
processed

Future Year with GPU Daily Volume

Posted

Speed Limit

Number

of Lanes

Vehicle Mix %

Day Mix %

Autos

Medium
Trucks

Heavy
Trucks

Daytime

(7am
-
7pm)

Evening

(7pm
-
10pm)

Nightime

(10pm
-
7am)

65 Thousand Oaks Blvd

Moorpark Rd to Hodencamp Rd

14,810

17,800

35 4

98.85%

0.40%

0.26%

83.0%

9.9%

7.0%

66 Hodencamp Rd to SR
-
23 18,640

22,300

35 4

98.95%

0.37%

0.24%

83.0%

9.9%

7.0%

67 SR
-
23 to Rancho Rd

22,990

27,500

35 4

98.28%

0.45%

0.72%

83.0%

9.9%

7.0%

68 Rancho Rd to Erbes Rd

26,580

31,600

35 4

98.96%

0.33%

0.25%

83.0%

9.9%

7.0%

69 Erbes Rd to Conejo School Rd

21,090

26,800

35 4

98.88%

0.33%

83.0%

9.9%

7.0%

70 Conejo School Rd to Hampshire Rd

19,710

22,100

35 4

98.81%

0.33%

0.38%

83.0%

9.9%

7.0%

71 Hampshire Rd to Westlake Blvd

23,742

28,600

35 4

99.01%

0.34%

0.27%

83.0%

9.9%

7.0%

72 Erbes Rd

Olsen Rd to SR
-
23 7,290

8,900

45 2

99.36%

0.14%

0.13%

84.9%

10.3%

4.8%

73 SR
-
23 to Sunset Hills Blvd

6,390

7,200

45 2

98.46%

0.33%

0.54%

84.9%

10.3%

4.8%

74 Sunset Hills Blvd

Olsen Rd to SR
-
23 6,060

6,400

50 4

97.61%

0.49%

1.04%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

75 SR
-
23 to Erbes Rd

9,610

11,500

50 4

99.37%

0.13%

0.23%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

76 East of Erbes Rd

2,890

–

40 2

99.37%

0.13%

0.23%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

77 Avenida de los Arboles

Olsen Rd to Moorpark Rd

12,740

14,300

35 2

98.72%

0.32%

0.46%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

78 Moorpark Rd to SR
-
23 12,270

14,800

35 2

98.20%

0.41%

0.73%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

79 SR
-
23 to Erbes Rd

20,370

21,200

45 6

98.28%

0.41%

0.58%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

80 Erbes Rd to Westlake Blvd

23,240

26,100

45 6

98.78%

0.31%

0.34%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

81 Avenida de las Flores

Lynn Rd to Moorpark Rd

6,100

6,700

35 2

99.50%

0.12%

0.05%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

82 Moorpark Rd to SR
-
23 7,650

9,200

35 2

99.47%

0.15%

0.07%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

83 SR
-
23 to Erbes Rd

8,630

10,700

40 2

99.52%

0.13%

0.06%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

84 La Granada

East of Erbes Rd

3,950

4,600

35 2

100.00%

0.00%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

85 Gainsborough Rd

Lynn Rd to Moorpark Rd

4,990

6,000

35 2

98.49%

0.42%

0.41%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

86 East of Moorpark Rd

3,930

4,800

35 2

98.47%

0.50%

0.34%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

87 Wilbur Rd

Hillcrest Dr to Moorpark Rd

9,700

12,300

35 4

99.22%

0.27%

0.20%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

88 Moorpark Rd to Hodencamp Rd

8,370

10,400

35 2

98.74%

0.48%

0.23%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

89 Triunfo Cyn Rd

North of Westlake Blvd

3,260

3,400

35 2

99.61%

0.10%

0.08%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

90 Wendy Dr

Borchard Rd to Lynn Rd

3,330

3,900

40 2

98.89%

0.31%

0.28%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

91 Lynn Rd to Portrero Rd

3,460

4,100

40 2

98.03%

0.58%

0.52%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

52 US
-
101 to Borchard Rd

12,190

12,200

35 2

97.91%

0.59%

0.78%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

92 Lynn Rd

Avenida de Los Arboles to Avenida de Las Flores

23,210

25,400

45 4

99.16%

0.21%

0.27%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

93 Avenida de Las
Flores to Janss Rd

22,990

25,900

45 4

99.13%

0.21%

0.29%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

94 Thousand Oaks Blvd

Westlake Blvd to East City Boundary

20,830

20,900

40 4

98.10%

0.62%

0.61%

83.0%

9.9%

7.0%

95 SR
-
23 North of US
-
101

80,000

81,800

65 6

95.47%

0.88%

2.32%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

96 US
-
101

West of SR
-
23 170,000

179,200

65 8

88.90%

1.51%

7.40%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

97 East of SR
-
23 171,000

180,100

65 10

89.32%

1.37%

7.16%

82.0%

11.0%

7.0%

City of Thousand Oaks

2045
General Plan Update

D
-
4 This page intentionally left blank.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final Environmental Impact Report 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). This mitigation monitoring and reporting program is intended to track and ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during the project implementation phase. For each mitigation measure recommended in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), specifications are made herein that identify the action required, the monitoring that must occur, and the agency or department responsible for oversight.

City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

2 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Air Quality
AQ-1. Adopt and Implement a New General Plan Policy that Requires Construction HRA To reduce impacts of substantial pollutant
concentrations on sensitive receptors, the City shall
adopt the following General Plan policy in the
Conservation Element to be implemented as part of
the project approval process:
 Policy 10.7: Require new development that is
within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, will take
longer than 2 months, and does not utilize
construction equipment that is USEPA Tier 4, fitted
with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter, and uses
alternative fuel to prepare a construction health
risk assessment (HRA) to identify potential health
risk impacts. Based on the results of the HRA, the
City shall require mitigation measures as
necessary, to reduce potential exposure to toxic air
contaminants.

The City shall adopt Policy 10.7 into the
Conservation Element.

As part of the General
Plan approval process.

Once City of
Thousand
Oaks
Community
Development
Department

AQ-2: Conduct Operational HRA.

Prior to permit approval for warehousing or
commercial land uses that would generate at least 100
diesel trucks per day or 40 or more trucks with diesel- powered transport refrigeration units per day, the
applicant shall submit an operational HRA or submit
proof that an HRA is not required in accordance with
health risk thresholds of an increased cancer risk of
greater than 10.0 in a million and an increased non-
cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute) to the City for review and approval. If required by the City, the operational HRA shall be prepared in
accordance with the OEHHA and mitigated to below
the health risk thresholds. Typical measures to reduce
risk impacts may include, but are not limited to:
 Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control
Measures idling restrictions, as feasible
 Electrifying warehousing docks
 Truck Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable trailer spaces
 Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles
 Restricting off-site truck travel through the
creation of truck routes
The operational HRA shall be provided to the City for
review and concurrence prior to project approval.

The City shall review and approve an
operational HRA or proof that an HRA is not
required.

Once City of
Thousand
Oaks
Community
Development
Department

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final Environmental Impact Report 3
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Conduct Pre-construction Bird Surveys and Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures For construction activities initiated during the bird
nesting season February 15 through September 15 (as
early as January 1 for raptors), involving removal of
vegetation, abandoned structures, man-made features,
or other nesting bird habitat, a pre-construction
nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 5
days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and
vegetation removal. The nesting bird pre-construction
survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include an
area on and around the construction site at a distance
determined by a qualified biologist, including staging
and storage areas. The minimum survey radii
surrounding the work area shall be 500 feet. The
survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the Thousand Oaks region. If construction
lapses for 5 days or longer, the qualified biologist shall conduct another focused survey before project
activities are reinitiated. If nests are found, an
avoidance buffer shall be determined by the biologist
dependent upon the species, the proposed work
activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside the site. The qualified biologist shall
observe the active nest to establish a behavioral
baseline of the adults and nestlings, if present. The
qualified biologist shall monitor the active nests, while construction activities are happening to detect signs of disturbance and behavioral change as a result of
construction impacts, such as noise, vibration, odors,
or worker/equipment motion. If signs of disturbance
and behavioral changes are observed, the qualified
biologist shall stop all construction work causing those changes and until a larger avoidance buffer is
established or until it is determined that the nesting
period is completed. The buffer shall be demarcated by
the biologist with bright orange construction fencing,
flagging, construction lathe, or other means to
demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel
shall be notified of the buffer zone as a “Nesting Bird Area” and to avoid entering the buffer zone until a
biologist determines that the nest is no longer active.

No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within the
The City shall verify that the pre-
construction nesting bird survey is included
in site plans and shall review the report
summarizing the pre-construction nesting
bird surveys completed for projects where
construction activities would be initiated
during the bird nesting season February 15
through September 15 (as early as January
1 for raptors.

Prior to initiation of
ground disturbance
and vegetation
removal.

Once City of
Thousand
Oaks
Community
Development
Department

City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

4 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
buffer until the biologist has confirmed that
breeding/nesting is completed and the young have
fledged the nest. A report summarizing the pre-
construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be included on project site plans and submitted to the City prior to the commencement of
construction activities.

BIO-2: Special Status Bat Species Habitat Assessment Survey and Emergence Survey(s).

For future projects where trees, abandoned structures,
or other habitat for roosting bats is present and
construction activities may occur during seasonal
periods of bat activity, construction activities shall
occur outside the maternity season from April 1
through August 31, as feasible. Should construction
timing not allow for it, a special-status bat habitat
assessment survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist no more than 5 days prior to any construction activities during the bat maternity season. The survey
will document any evidence of special-status bat
species that may occur in proposed work areas through
direct observation (e.g., roosting bats) and/or sign
(e.g., bat guano). If no observance and/or sign of
special-status bats are detected during these surveys,
then construction-related activities may proceed. If
observance or sign of special-status bat species are
detected during the survey, and construction activities occur during the bat maternity season (April 1 through
August 31), special-status bat species emergence
survey(s) will be conducted.

Emergence surveys will be conducted in areas of
suitable bat habitat (e.g., near buildings or trees)
during the bat maternity season to document any
special-status bat species emerging from features
identified during the habitat assessment survey.

Generally, the emergence survey(s) will be conducted
approximately one hour prior to sunset and last a
minimum of two hours after sunset; however, the
timing will be determined by the qualified biologist.

Passive acoustic monitoring equipment will be utilized
during the emergence surveys to determine identify
bats to the species level. In the event multiple features were identified in the habitat assessment in which bats may occur, at the discretion of the qualified biologist, either multiple emergency surveys may be necessary
The City shall verify that special status bat
species habitat assessment surveys and
emergence surveys are conducted for
future projects where trees, abandoned
structures, or other habitat for roosting
bats is present and construction activities
may occur during seasonal periods of bat
activity.

The City shall ensure that USFWS and/or
CDFW has provided consultation and
approval for bat mitigation and/or
management plans created for sites where
special-status bat species are documented
and the roost site cannot be avoided by the
project.

Prior to
commencement of
construction.

Once

Once
City of
Thousand
Oaks
Community
Development
Department

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final Environmental Impact Report 5
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
or additional acoustic equipment may need to be set
up in order to capture the acoustics of bats as they
emerge at dusk.

Roosting sites documented within or adjacent to a
project site during the maternity season shall be
avoided. Specifically, the qualified biologist will
determine an appropriate buffer around the roost site
where construction shall be avoided. The buffer
typically ranges in size, between 100 to 300 feet
around the roost site, depending on potential resulting project impacts and surrounding terrain. For example,
if a project will result in high noise decibels and the roost site is exposed without surrounding trees or hills, the buffer may be increased to reduce disturbances to
the roosting bats during breeding activities. Buffer
distances may also be at the discretion of the USFWS
and/or CDFW if special-status bat species are present
in the maternity roost.

Should special-status bat species be documented
within a project site, and the roost site cannot be
avoided by the project, a bat mitigation and/or
management plan shall be developed for roost
relocation. Mitigation and management plans will
require consultation with and approval from the
USFWS and/or CDFW prior to the commencement of
construction.

BIO-3: Conduct Pre-construction Crotch’s Bumblebee Surveys and Implement Avoidance Measures For construction activities located in vacant or
undeveloped areas containing open grasslands,
shrublands, or chaparral, a habitat assessment for
Crotch’s bumblebee shall be performed by a qualified
biologist knowledgeable and experienced with Crotch’s
bumblebee and the habitat in which they occur. If the
biologist determines that suitable habitat for Crotch’s bumblebee is present, a focused survey shall be
performed during the species’ active flight period for
Crotch’s bumblebee and peak blooming period of
nectar and pollen sources (May 1 through July 31). The
Crotch’s bumblebee survey shall be conducted on foot
and shall encompass the entirety of a project site and
focus on areas that allow for the highest probability of detection, such as high abundance nectar or pollen
sources and rodent burrows that may be used for
breeding and nesting. If Crotch’s bumblebee is
The City shall review a report summarizing
the results of the habitat assessment and
focused survey for Crotch’s Bumblebee.

The City shall ensure that CDFW has
provided consultation in the event Crotch’s
bumblebee was observed within a project
site and an Incidental Take Permit, in
accordance with the California Endangered
Species Act, may be required.

Prior to the
commencement of
construction activities.

Prior to the initiation
of any ground
disturbance on site.

Once

Once
City of
Thousand
Oaks
Community
Development
Department

City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

6 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
determined to be present, the project proponent shall
map the locations of the observed bumblebee, areas of
abundant nectar or pollen sources, and any active
nesting sites. A report summarizing the results of the
habitat assessment and focused survey (if required)
shall be prepared by the qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of
construction activities. Further, consultation with the CDFW will be necessary in the event Crotch’s
bumblebee was observed within a project site and an
Incidental Take Permit, in accordance with the
California Endangered Species Act, may be required
prior to initiating any ground disturbance on the site.

Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Historical Resources
If determined necessary based on preliminary review
conducted by City staff, the project applicant shall
submit a report to the City that identifies any historical age features (i.e., structures over 45 years of age)
proposed to be altered or demolished. If historical-age features are present, the applicant shall submit a
historical resources evaluation to the City prepared in areas that contains buildings, structures, objects, sites, landscape/site plans, or other features that are 45
years of age or older, by a qualified architectural
historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in
Architectural History or History (36 CFR Part 61). The
evaluation shall be carried out in accordance with the
guidelines and best practices meeting the State Office
of Historic Preservation guidelines (NPS 2023b). All
evaluated properties shall be documented on
Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms.

The report shall be submitted to the City for review
and approval.

If historical resources are identified through the survey and evaluation, efforts shall be made by the applicant
to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or
alteration of the resource is consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatments of Historic Properties. The applicant shall
submit a report to the City that identifies and specifies the treatment of character-defining features and
construction activities, and demonstrates how the
The City shall review and approve the
historical resources evaluation report,
including any site-specific mitigation
measures required, submitted by the
applicant that identifies any historical age
features (i.e., structures over 45 years of
age) proposed to be altered or demolished.

Prior to issuance of
any permits for
demolition or
alteration of the
historical resource.

Once City of
Thousand
Oaks
Community
Development
Department

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final Environmental Impact Report 7
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties and avoids the substantial adverse change in the
significance of the historical resource as defined by
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). The report shall
be prepared by an architectural historian or historical architect meeting the Professional Qualifications
Standards as defined by 36 CFR Part 61 and provided to
the City for review and concurrence prior to project
approval.

If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties and or avoidance is not possible,
appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be
established and undertaken. Mitigation measures may
include documentation of the historical resource in the form of a Historic American Building Survey report. The report shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering
Documentation and shall generally follow the Historic
American Building Survey Level III requirements,
including digital photographic recordation, detailed
historic narrative report, and compilation of historic
research. The documentation shall be completed by a
qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Professional Qualifications Standards as defined by 36 CFR Part 61 and submitted to the City prior to
issuance of any permits for demolition or alteration of the historical resource.

CUL-2: Archaeological Resources Assessment
For a project that involves ground-disturbance
activities (that may include, but are not limited to,
pavement removal, potholing, grubbing, tree removal,
and grading) and if determined necessary based on
preliminary review conducted by City staff, the project applicant shall submit to the City an Archaeological
Resources Assessment prepared by a qualified
archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in either
Prehistoric or Historic Archaeology. Assessments shall
include a California Historical Resources Information
System records search at the South Central Coast
Information Center and a Sacred Lands File Search
The City shall review the archeological
resources assessment and confirm they
include a California Historical Resources
Information System records search and
search of the Sacred Lands File. The city
shall verify Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III
evaluations are included in the
archeological resources assessment, when
necessary.

Prior to project
approval.

Once City of
Thousand
Oaks
Community
Development
Department

City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

8 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
from the NAHC. The records searches shall characterize
the results of previous cultural resource surveys and
disclose any cultural resources that have been
recorded and/or evaluated in and around the
development site. A qualified professional shall
conduct a Phase I pedestrian survey for those projects
that include undeveloped areas to locate any surface
cultural materials.

If the Phase I archaeological survey identifies resources that may be affected, the applicant shall also conduct
Phase II testing and evaluation. If resources are
determined significant or unique through Phase II
testing and site avoidance is not possible, the qualified professional shall identify appropriate site-specific
mitigation measures in the Phase II evaluation. These
measures may include, but would not be limited to, a
Phase III data recovery program, avoidance, or other
appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified
archaeologist. If significant archaeological resources
cannot be avoided, impacts may be reduced to a less-
than-significant level by filling on top of the sites rather than cutting into the cultural deposits. Alternatively, and/or in addition, a data collection program may be
warranted, including mapping the location of artifacts, surface collection of artifacts, or excavation of the
cultural deposit, to characterize the nature of the
buried portions of sites. Curation of the excavated
artifacts or samples would occur as specified by the
archaeologist. The City shall review and approve the
Archaeological Resources Assessment prior to project
approval.

CUL-3: Unanticipated Discoveries
For projects whose Phase I archaeological survey
identifies archaeological resources that may be
affected, the applicant shall retain a qualified cultural resource specialist to monitor construction activities
that involve ground-disturbing activities greater than
12 inches in depth and occur within 60 feet of a
potentially significant cultural resource. If
archaeological resources are encountered during
ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate
area shall halt and an archaeologist meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology shall be contacted
The City shall verify that a qualified cultural
resource specialist is retained on project
sites whose Phase I archaeological survey
identifies archaeological resources that
may be affected. The city shall review
periodic reports of the findings and
subsequent evaluations conducted.

During Construction. Ongoing City of
Thousand
Oaks
Community
Development
Department

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final Environmental Impact Report 9
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the
evaluation may require preparation of a treatment
plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant pursuant to the
CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional
work, such as excavating the cultural deposit to fully
characterize its extent and collecting and curating
artifacts may be warranted to mitigate any significant
impacts to cultural resources. If archaeological
resources of Native American origin are identified
during construction, a qualified archaeologist shall
consult with the City to begin Native American
consultation procedures, which are outlined in
Mitigation Measure CUL-4. Periodic reports of the find
and subsequent evaluations shall be submitted to the
City during construction.

CUL-4: Suspend Work Around Tribal Cultural Resources Identified During Construction In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during ground disturbance during
construction of a project implemented under TO2045,
all earth-disturbing work in the vicinity of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an
archaeologist has evaluated the nature and
significance of the find as a cultural resource and an
appropriate local Native American representative is
consulted. If the City, in consultation with local Native Americans, determines that the resource is a tribal
cultural resource and, thus, significant under CEQA, a
mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in
accordance with State guidelines and in consultation
with local Native American group(s). The mitigation
plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if
avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in
coordination with the appropriate local Native
American tribal representative and, if applicable, a
qualified archaeologist. Examples of appropriate
mitigation for tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and
integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the
resource, or heritage recovery.

The City shall verify that earth disturbing
work in the vicinity of any cultural
resources of Native American origin finds
on the project site is suspended or
redirected until an archaeologist has
evaluated the find. The city shall consult
with local Native American Tribes to
determine the nature of the find and shall
confirm a mitigation plan is prepared and
implemented if the find id a tribal cultural
resource.

During construction. Periodically City of
Thousand
Oaks
Community
Development
Department

City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

10 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG-1: Adopt and Implement a CEQA GHG Emissions Threshold The City shall adopt CEQA GHG Emissions thresholds of
significance by the end of 2024 that is consistent with the CEAP for use in future CEQA GHG emissions
analyses through 2030. In addition, upon completion of
future CEAP updates and as necessary, the City shall
update the CEQA GHG emissions threshold of
significance to be consistent with each CEAP update.

The City shall adopt CEQA GHG Emissions
thresholds of significance consistent with
the CEAP for use in future CEQA GHG
emissions analyses through 2030.

By the end of 2024 Once City of
Thousand
Oaks City
Council

GHG-2: Adopt Thousand Oaks CEAP to Meet the State’s 2030 GHG Emissions Goals The City shall draft and adopt the Thousand Oaks CEAP
by the end of 2024 to outline how Thousand Oaks will
meet the State’s 2030 goal of 40 percent below 1990
emissions levels and 2045 goal of carbon neutrality.

Implementation measures in the CEAP to achieve the
2030 and 2045 goals may include, but are not limited
to, the following:
 Develop and adopt a building electrification
ordinance for existing and/or proposed structures
 Expand charging infrastructure and parking for EVs
 Implement carbon sequestration by expanding the
urban forest and/or supporting regional open
space protection
 Implement policies and measures included in the
California 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan, such
as mobile source strategies for increasing clean
transit options and zero-emissions vehicles by
providing EV charging stations
The City shall draft and adopt the Thousand
Oaks qualified CEAP.

By the end of 2024 Once City of
Thousand
Oaks City
Council

Noise
NOI-1: Conduct Construction Noise Analysis
Revise proposed TO2045 Policy N-3.2 to include the
following:

All stationary construction equipment shall be placed
so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest sensitive receivers.

Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-
up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of
the alarm in response to ambient noise levels.

Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors
and similar power tools and to power any temporary
The City shall revise proposed TO2045
Policy N-3.2.

As part pf the General
Plan approval process.

Once City of
Thousand
Oaks
Community
Development
Department

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final Environmental Impact Report 11
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker
facilities, where feasible.

Erect temporary noise barriers, where feasible, when
construction noise is predicted to exceed the City’s
construction standards or when the anticipated
construction duration is greater than is typical (e.g., 2 years) and adjacent to sensitive receptors. Temporary
noise barriers shall be constructed with solid materials (e.g., wood) with a density of at least 1.5 pounds per
square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of
the barrier. If a sound blanket is used, barriers shall be constructed with solid material with a density of at
least 1 pound per square foot with no gaps from the
ground to the top of the barrier and be lined on the
construction side with acoustical blanket, curtain or
equivalent absorptive material rated STC 32 or higher.

NOI-2: Implement Roadway Vehicle Noise Reduction Measures The City shall implement a developer fair share
mitigation program to fund the following measures for
projects operated on the following roadway segments
in the city: Moorpark Road between Hillcrest Drive and
Thousand Oaks Boulevard and Hillcrest Drive between
Lynn Road and Moorpark Road.

The City shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to prepare a Traffic Noise Reduction Study that specifies, at a minimum, the specific locations, extent, height of sound walls, and other design details such as “quiet
pavement” to reduce traffic noise impacts at impacted
roadways throughout the city. The study shall also
include an estimated cost of improvement along each
impacted roadway segment to inform the developer
fair share mitigation program. Traffic noise reduction
measures may include, but are not limited to:
 Sound Barrier Walls. Construct sound barriers
(e.g., walls or solid fences) along impacted
roadways where there are no driveways that
would break continuity and along the residential
portions or other sensitive receiver locations of
such roadways. The sound barriers would be
continuous from grade to top, with no cracks or
gaps, and have a minimum surface density of four
pounds per square foot and a minimum height of
six feet, as measured from the base elevation;
and/or
The City shall implement a developer fair
share mitigation program.

The City shall retain a qualified acoustical
consultant to prepare a Traffic Noise
Reduction Study
Prior to approval of
development projects
on the identified
segments
Once

City of
Thousand
Oaks
Community
Development
Department

City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

12 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
 Special Roadway Paving. Install “quiet pavement”
roadway improvements, such as rubberized
asphalt or open-grade asphalt concrete overlays
along impacted roadway segments where sound
barriers are determined not to be feasible.

NOI-3: Construction Vibration Control Plan
Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project that includes the following, the project applicant shall
prepare a groundborne noise and vibration analysis to
assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration
impacts related to these construction activities:

Pile driving within:
 135 feet of fragile structures such as historical
resources
 100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry
buildings (e.g., most residential buildings)
 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no
plaster)
 A vibratory roller within:
 40 feet of fragile historical resources
 25 feet of any other structure
 A dozer or other large earthmoving equipment
within:
 20 feet for a fragile historical structure
 15 feet of any other structure
The noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by
a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or
engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed FTA
architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 in/sec PPV
for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3
in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If
vibration levels would exceed this threshold,
alternative uses, such as drilling piles as opposed to
pile driving, static rollers as opposed to vibratory
rollers, and lower horsepower earthmoving
equipment, shall be used. If necessary, construction
vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure FTA
vibration thresholds are not exceeded.

The City shall verify that a groundborne
noise and vibration analysis is prepared
when applicable.

The City shall verify that vibration
monitoring is conducted if necessary.

Prior to issuance of a
building permit.

Once City of
Thousand
Oaks
Community
Development
Department

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final Environmental Impact Report 13
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Paleontological Resources
PAL-1: Retention of Qualified Professional Paleontologist Prior to approval of a discretionary development
application in areas underlain by high or undetermined
sensitivity geologic units (i.e., Quaternary older
alluvium, Monterey Formation, Lower Monterey
Formation, Sandstone of Lindero Canyon,
Conglomerate of Lindero Canyon, Upper Topanga
Formation, sandstone, Upper Topanga Formation, clay
shale and siltstone, Upper Topanga Formation,
sandstone, Upper Topanga Formation, clay shale and
siltstone, Conejo Volcanics, basaltic sandstone and
siltstone, Lower Topanga Formation, sandstone, Lower
Topanga Formation, clay shale, Sespe Formation, Llajas
Formation, sandstone, Llajas Formation, claystone and
siltstone, Santa Susana Formation, sandstone, Santa
Susana Formation, claystone and siltstone, Santa
Susana Formation, Simi Conglomerate Member,
Chatsworth Formation, sandstone, Chatsworth
Formation, clay shale), the City shall require a Qualified Professional Paleontologist [as defined by the SVP
(2010)] to be retained by the project applicant to
determine the project’s potential to significantly
impact paleontological resources according to SVP
(2010) standards. If necessary, the Qualified
Professional Paleontologist shall recommend
mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to
paleontological resources to a less-than-significant
level. These measures may include, but not be limited
to, implementation of a Worker Environmental
Awareness Program, on-site paleontological
monitoring, and fossil salvage, if applicable. The City shall review and approve the Qualified Professional
Paleontologist’s findings and recommendation. All
recommendations shall be incorporated into the
project plans prior to issuance of a grading permit.

The City shall verify that a Qualified
Professional Paleontologist [as defined by
the SVP (2010)] is retained by the project
applicant to determine the project’s
potential to significantly impact
paleontological resources.

The City shall verify and approve the
Qualified Professional Paleontologist’s
findings and recommendation and verify
that all recommendations are incorporated
into the project plans.

Prior to submittal of a
discretionary
development
application.

Prior to issuance of a
grading permit
Once

Once
City of
Thousand
Oaks
Community
Development
Department

City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

14 Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Transportation
TRA-1: Achieve VMT Reductions for Development Projects
In the interim, prior to the City adopting VMT Analysis Guidelines included as Implementation Action M-A.7 of
the proposed project, for individual projects that
exceed the City’s recommended threshold below the
VMT average based on project-specific VMT analysis,
the City shall require the project applicant to
implement project-level VMT reduction strategies. The
City shall design strategies for the proposed project to reduce VMT from existing land uses, where feasible,
and from new discretionary residential or employment
land use projects. The design of programs and project-
specific mitigation shall focus on VMT reduction
strategies that increase travel choices and improve the comfort and convenience of sharing rides in private
vehicles, using public transit, biking, or walking. VMT reduction strategies may include, but are not limited
to, the following:

1. Provision of bus stop improvements or on-site
mobility hubs

2. Pedestrian improvements, on-site or off-site, to
connect to nearby transit stops, services, schools,
shops, etc.

3. Bicycle programs, including bike purchase
incentives, storage, maintenance programs, and
on-site education program

4. Enhancements to the citywide bicycle network

5. Parking reductions and/or fees set at levels
sufficient to incentivize transit, active
transportation, or shared modes

6. Cash allowances, passes, or other public transit
subsidies and purchase incentives

7. Providing enhanced, frequent bus service

8. Implementation of shuttle service
Following the City’s adoption of VMT Analysis
Guidelines, individual projects shall be evaluated and
mitigated in accordance with the procedures outlined
in the VMT Analysis Guidelines.

Prior to the City adopting VMT Analysis
Guidelines the city shall verify that projects
that exceed the City’s recommended
threshold below the VMT average based on
project-specific VMT analysis have
implemented project-level VTM reduction
strategies.

Prior to project
approval.

Once City of
Thousand
Oaks
Community
Development
Department

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final Environmental Impact Report 15
Mitigation Measure/
Implementation Program Action Required Timing
Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance
Verification
Comments
Utilities and Service Systems
UTIL-1: Provision of a Will Serve Letter
As part of the City’s development review process for
individual projects, prior to an individual project’s
approval, the City shall require the project applicant to provide a Will-Serve letter from the water provider
that would serve the proposed development that
demonstrates the water provider has determined
adequate water supplies exist to serve the proposed
development. The project applicant shall provide the
Will-Serve letter as an attachment to the development
applicant submitted to the City for review and
approval. The City shall not approve a development
application without submission of a Will-Serve letter
.

The City shall verify the provision of a will
serve letter from the water provider that
would serve the proposed development
that demonstrates the water provider has
determined adequate water supplies exist
to serve the proposed development.

Prior to project
approval.

Once City of
Thousand
Oaks
Community
Development
Department

City of Thousand Oaks
2045 General Plan Update

16 This page intentionally left blank.

Thousand Oaks City CouncilDecember 5, 2023

Thousand Oaks City Council
December 5, 2023